Hate literature placed in my hotel room by the Gideons....what should I do?

The BBQ Pit
241

I think I should point out that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans also says that gays dsereve to die. And before you tell me that he is not speaking of homosexuality, read the complete context from Romans 1:26 to Romans 1:32. You will see that he is clearly saying that gays are “filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit. . . .
Finally, in verse 32, he says that gays deserve to die.”

I believe it has been accurately noted that while Mein Kampf contains many hate-filled references to Jews, it actually contains fewer actual demands for their physical extermination (only one possible indirect reference) than the Bible contains recommendations to kill gays or approvals of homosexual extermination (Sodom and Gomorah, Leviticus, Roman 1:26-32).

Yet, knowing that the thinking in Hitler’s book led to the Holocaust, how many of us would blame a Jewish hotel guest who was ofended by a copy of * Mein Kampf * being placed in every hotel room?

But if a gay person similarly objects to the presence of a book that approves of killing him at several places in the text, he is a Troll, a Chickenshit crybaby, etc. His OP is moved from Great Debates to another board. But when the moderator of that other board notices that a lot of posters want to verbally abuse me, it is conveniently moved to the Pit so that all can have at him.

242

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
You really think that a significant number of hotel goers pick up the GB, read Lev. 18:22 and think “Well, dayum! Never thought about it before, but now I’ve read all that stuff about uncleanness, I’m darned if I don’t gotta go out and bash me some faggot!”? Indeed, do you think one fewer queer-beating would happen if every single Gideon Bible was disappeared overnight?
[/QUOTE]

Well, Malacandra, I think we both agree that the presence of the Bible in hotel rooms is not likely to lead to immediate attacks on gays.

And I believe you will agree with me that if the Nazi Party of America donated English versions of Mein Kampf to a hotel who put them in every room, it is unlikely that hotel guests would read the book and immediately go out and attack Jews. Do you agree on that point as well?

You see, I never said that people reading the Gideon Bible would immediately go out and attack gay people. You are attacking a straw man of your own construction.

243

Westboro Baptist Church AND Hitler?
All you needed was some gubmint conspiracy allusion in there and you’d have had the nutbar hat trick.
And it’s “Anno Domini.” Get it right. :smiley:

244

And now he’s comparing the bible to Mein Kampf and the Gideons to Nazis. Also, the SDMB is apparently homophobic. Fuckin’ a…

I think your transition into self-parody is complete, Valteron.

245

[QUOTE=Valteron]
I think I should point out that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans also says that gays dsereve to die. And before you tell me that he is not speaking of homosexuality, read the complete context from Romans 1:26 to Romans 1:32. You will see that he is clearly saying that gays are “filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit. . . .
Finally, in verse 32, he says that gays deserve to die.”
[/quote]

If you read the complete context, you’ll see that he was talking about idolotors, not homosexuals.

246

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

And it’s “Anno Domini.” Get it right. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

If ya don’t believe in a “dominus” ya don’t believe he has an “annus” although many a religious “anus” delights in imposing his unproven and unprovable view that his “dominus” exists in every nook and cranny of our society.

Besides, since even Chrisitians admit that the birth of Jesus of Nazareth (whoever he really was) occurred around 4 B.C.E. (there was a mistake in the calculations of the monk Dionysius; look it up) you would have to explain why the first four years of Jesus’ life are not “Years of our Lord”. Was he naughty? Did he refuse to be toilet trained?

Since it makes sense for the whole world to use the same calendar and year-counting system, and since the Gregorian is as close as we have to a universally-accepted system, (I know, the Muslims, Jews etc. have their own counting system, but the Gregorian is still the most universal) I, as part of the vast majority of humans who are NOT Christians, am willing to use a year-numbering system originally based on the absurd notion that the birth of Jesus was the central point in human history.

But since the ground-zero year of the system is not even in reality the year Jesus was born (if he existed at all) I will be damned if I will allow you to impose your religious myths on the rest of us. It is C.E (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era). You will see it used in more and more history books, especially as the number of atheists continues to grow in the world.

By the way, a recent poll showed that well over 20 per cent of Canadians now no longer believe in God, and only about 72% do (the rest were undecided). In some countries of Europe, such as the Czech Republic, atheists are estimated to be a majority!

247

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
If you read the complete context, you’ll see that he was talking about idolotors, not homosexuals.
[/QUOTE]

If you are asking me to back up to Romans 1:22, (I am using the RSE) it is true that Paul mentions those who had “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images”, but then he goes on to say that these people turn gay, and then that they turn to every other sort of crime and finally that such people deserve to die.

I think you are splitting hairs. It is a pretty murderous and homophobic reference no matter how you plead contextual mitigation.

For example, a gay-bashing conservative would have very little trouble saying that verse 22 is a reference to people turning to gay porn (images of men) and then turning gay and then becoming criminals.

248

[QUOTE=Valteron]
By the way, a recent poll showed that well over 20 per cent of Canadians now no longer believe in God, and only about 72% do
[/QUOTE]

I like how your language contradicts the numbers, as if you’re proving something major here. “well over 20%” vs. “only about” 72%. That would still leave believers as an overwhelming majority, outnumbering Athiests 3.6 to 1. Which of course, complete demonstrates your point about changing the calendar system. :rolleyes:

249

[QUOTE=neutron star]
And now he’s comparing the bible to Mein Kampf and the Gideons to Nazis. Also, the SDMB is apparently homophobic. Fuckin’ a…

I think your transition into self-parody is complete, Valteron.
[/QUOTE]

The Bible contains several clear commands recommending or relating the extermination of homosexuals.

Mein Kampf, while it contains enormous amounts of anti-semitic material, makes only one specific allusion to extermination, and that is a reference in the last chapter in which Hitler says that “the sacrifice of millions at the front” would not have been necessary if “twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas.” As many historians have pointed out, this reference, as horrible and inhuman as it is, is not, a blanket assertion that all Jews should be killed.

So you are right in saying that the two are not comparable.

In some senses they are comparable.

Mein Kampf is being reprinted in certain Islamic societies as we speak. As we speak, the Bible is being used by conservative legislators, Anglican Churchmen opposed to same-sex unions, and religious homophobes of every stripe to back their position and oppose the rights of gay people.

But if a Jewish OP protested at finding a copy of Mein Kampf in his hotel room drawer, I wonder how quickly his thread would be transfered to the Pit so everybody could dump on him with impunity?

250

[QUOTE=Chimera]
I like how your language contradicts the numbers, as if you’re proving something major here. “well over 20%” vs. “only about” 72%. That would still leave believers as an overwhelming majority, outnumbering Athiests 3.6 to 1. Which of course, complete demonstrates your point about changing the calendar system. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

I use “well over” to underscore the fact that the number of atheists has grown and that they are now a large and significant minority that has been steadily growing over the past few decades.

Furthermore, even if believers ARE still a majority, what right do they have to impose their belief in a secular matter such as a calendar meant to be used by all citizens of our country?

251

[QUOTE=Valteron]
If you are asking me to back up to Romans 1:22, (I am using the RSE) it is true that Paul mentions those who had “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images”, but then he goes on to say that these people turn gay, and then that they turn to every other sort of crime and finally that such people deserve to die.

I think you are splitting hairs. It is a pretty murderous and homophobic reference no matter how you plead contextual mitigation.

For example, a gay-bashing conservative would have very little trouble saying that verse 22 is a reference to people turning to gay porn (images of men) and then turning gay and then becoming criminals.
[/QUOTE]

Gay bashers don’t need the Bible to be gay bashers, especially since the Bible actually provides them with very little ammunition.

This is the passage from Romans (ASV)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 1:19because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 1:20For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 1:21because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 1:22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.1:24Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 1:25for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 1:26For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 1:27and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 1:28And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 1:29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 1:30backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 1:31without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 1:32who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.
(redding mine)
The issue in Paul’s mind is idolotry and refusing to worship the God whose existence (in Paul’s mind) is obvious and manifest everywhere. He lists sexually hedonistic behavior (and the words translated as “against nature,” para phusin are probably better translated as “uncharacteristic”) as a consequence of idolotry. The laundry list of sins from 29-31 is all stuff that Paul believes results from idolotry, not homosexuality. The passage is still nuts in its own way, but the anger is not directed at homosexuals or homosexuality as an orientation. Sexual orientation was not even recognized or understood at the time.

252

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The passage is still nuts in its own way, but the anger is not directed at homosexuals or homosexuality as an orientation. Sexual orientation was not even recognized or understood at the time.
[/QUOTE]

Here is another passage that is really nuts in its own way. “The sacrifice of millions at the front” would not have been necessary if “twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas.” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, final Chapter)

You may have noted that Holocaust deniers make a big deal out of the fact that nobody has ever found an order from Hitler ordereding the complete extermination of all Jews. This is probably because there never was such an order. As several historians of the Third Reich, especially Ian Kershaw whose two-volume set on Hitler I am currently reading, makes clear, Hitler did not actually order many of the things that were done under him in so many words. He set the general tone and then it was up to others to “work towards the Fuhrer”, in other words, to come up with actual programs that matched the philosophy.

Which is precisely what Christians have done and are doing to gays even as we speak, using passages like the one we are discussing.

It seems to me perfectly natural that I should object to such a book being in my hotel room that I have paid for. Why I am being heaped with abuse for thinking so is beyond me.

253

[QUOTE= Valteron]
It seems to me perfectly natural that I should object to such a book being in my hotel room that I have paid for. Why I am being heaped with abuse for thinking so is beyond me.
[/QUOTE]

You’re not.

You’re being heaped with disagreement as to why its such a crying big deal.

The abuse you’re getting (and it’s mostly derision, really) is for your batshit-insane drama-queen attitude, your inability to see the points others are trying to make, your comparison of the Bible to Mein Kampf, and really, for the fact that you’re going so far out of your way to be offended that you’d need a GPS to find your way back to whatever brave, lonesome little brain cell dreamed up the OP.

Whatever problem you have likely has a Latin name and is no doubt medicatable. Please look into that.
Oh, and it’s still “Anno Domini.”

254

[QUOTE=Valteron]

It seems to me perfectly natural that I should object to such a book being in my hotel room that I have paid for. Why I am being heaped with abuse for thinking so is beyond me.
[/QUOTE]

Because you’re being a whiny bitch* about something completely stupid that has no actual bearing on your life (the presence of the Bible in a drawer in your hotel room). For someone who dislikes Jesus so much, you’re doing your damnedest to emulate him by crawling up on a cross.

*I used the term “whiny bitch” not because you’re gay, but because you’re being, well, a whiny bitch. I clarify this because you took umbrage at the term sweetheart being applied to a gay spoue. Sweetheart is a common term used to refer to married couples, why this should be different because you’re gay is beyond me, but apparently, in your mind, it is.

255

[QUOTE=Valteron]
It seems to me perfectly natural that I should object to such a book being in my hotel room that I have paid for. Why I am being heaped with abuse for thinking so is beyond me.
[/QUOTE]

This is a fucking joke, you realize, right? What do you honestly expect? Have you never been in a hotel before? They all have Gideon Bibles in them. You phrase the OP in such a clever way as if the sole purpose of the Bible is devoted to hate-speech towards gays. The bible condones a lot of different behaviors that we accept today. If you don’t like it, then ask for your money back and go to a new hotel. Or ask to go to a hotel where there isn’t one.

It’s such a ridiculous fucking premise. You know that it is very common for there to be Bibles in a hotel room. What are you suggesting that we do? Should we outlaw the practice? Should we ban the Bible? I think you know the answer to that question. I’m not even religious (agnostic really). What the hell are you suggesting be done to accommodate your needs? You have no realistic expectations to make, you’re simply here to compare the Bible to hate speech because you don’t like what it says. There is a thing called the First Amendment. We don’t have hate speech laws in the US, so you have no legal right to complain. It could be a 25 page screed by the hotel owner about why he hates gays in particular and you’d have no legal recourse.

So to answer your original question, “What should you do?”

You should ask to be placed in another room without “hate speech” or simply go to another hotel that doesn’t have Bibles in their rooms. Be prepared for a lot of eye-rolling. But it’s a free country. The owners can put whatever materials they want in them, and you are free to not use and not pay their services.

Oh, and for the record. Count me as an agnostic who uses AD and BC. I think that using BCE and CE is obtuse and childish. It’s okay to realize that damn near all of our cultural heritage in the Western world comes from Christianity. We don’t have to reject everything.

256

I would also like to reiterate that you are allowed to ask that the Bible be removed, call ahead of time and ask that there be no Bible in your room or even throw the bible in the trash. Take it outside and find a dumpster even. The Gideons intend for the Bibles to be gifts to the guests, not to be property of the hotel. If you don’t want the gift, and you find it unacceptable to leave it, unseen, in a drawer, then call the desk and ask them to come and get it. Take it down to the desk yourself. Throw it in the wastebasket, or take it ouside and find a trashcan or a dumpster, so you don’t even have to abide its presence in the room at all. All of that is fine, and I can sure you, the hotel won’t care. Another thing I can assure you of is that the hotels intend no hostility whatever to gay guests, atheists, Muslims, whatever by letting the Gideons put Bibles in the rooms. Like I said. People expect them now. They would get many more complaints if they stopped than if they didn’t. That’s business.

From now on, when you call to make a resrevation, just tell them that you don’t want a a Bible in the room. It’s no skin off their dicks. They’ll make sure that housekeeping takes it out of the drawer before you check in.

257

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
Oh, and for the record. Count me as an agnostic who uses AD and BC. I think that using BCE and CE is obtuse and childish. It’s okay to realize that damn near all of our cultural heritage in the Western world comes from Christianity. We don’t have to reject everything.
[/QUOTE]

The “common era” convention is not intended as a “rejection of Christianity” (don’t be ridiculous). Leaving aside the fact that it removes a cultural and religious bias, it recognizes the fact that BC are AD are historically incorrect indices.

258

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The “common era” convention is not intended as a “rejection of Christianity” (don’t be ridiculous). Leaving aside the fact that it removes a cultural and religious bias, it recognizes the fact that BC are AD are historically incorrect indices.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think I’m being ridiculous. Lots of people use it as a way to reject Christianity. Why do you think Valteron took up the practice? We already have BC and AD which essentially have no religious meaning anymore. This is similar to the way in which we still have days of the week named after pagan gods, or August and July named after Roman emperors. They are simply meaningless labels that don’t need to be changed. And that’s all BC and BCE does. It just gives them a new label. It’s still indexed to the fictitious year of the birth of Christ. It’s simply window dressing. If you want to make something that isn’t biased culturally, then change the index year to something more neutral. But if you still have the index year around the time that Jesus was meant to be born you’re really only covering up the issue. if BCE and CE become the de facto standard then I’ll gladly use it. Giving the two eras different names doesn’t really change much IMO.

259

Just a reference to a site that compiles several sources giving reason to question Herod’s 4 B.C. death & lean to a 1 B.C./A.D. 1 death…

http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/steiner/herod.html

260

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
You phrase the OP in such a clever way as if the sole purpose of the Bible is devoted to hate-speech towards gays. The bible condones a lot of different behaviors that we accept today. If you don’t like it, then ask for your money back and go to a new hotel. Or ask to go to a hotel where there isn’t one.

[/QUOTE]

Did you mean “condemns”? Are you aware that “condone” means “to approve of”? Because otherwise your sentence does not make sense in the context of the rest of your paragraph.