| [ |
mood |
| |
 determined |
] |
The Bible Is Hate Literature
The world is fast becoming too tolerant for the Bible. Dubbed as "hate speech," certain verses have been ruled by Canadian judges as promoting hatred and ridicule. Bill C-250 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Hate propaganda)), whose inadequate language fails to protect religious messages, was passed into law 28 April 2004. As at least one man has already been charged for hate when expressing an opinion based on a religious text, religious persons who condemn homosexual behaviour for moral reasons are troubled by this latest legislation. Below are relevant documents (quoted, linked) and comments.
Owens V. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) QB02511
"[7] The bumper sticker in the advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, on the left side of the sticker. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle of the sticker, with a symbol on the right side of the sticker. The symbol on the right side was comprised of two males holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top. The Board noted, citing the Court of Appeal in Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Bell (1994), 120 Sask. R. 122, that the red slash and circle is "the universal symbol for forbidden, not allowed or not wanted." The Bible passages read as follows: ( Read more... )
'[9] The use of the circle and the slash combined with the passages of the Bible herein make the meaning of the advertisement unmistakable. It is clear that the advertisement is intended to make the group depicted appear to be inferior or not wanted at best. [Emphasis mine] When combined with the Biblical quotations, the advertisement may result in a much stronger meaning. It is obvious that certain of the Biblical quotations suggest more dire consequences and there can be no question that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule. [Emphasis mine]
[...]
'[21] When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace. [Emphasis mine] In other words, the Biblical passage which suggest that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred."
As much as some intend to explain away the relevance of this ruling to Bill C-250, the fact remains that this case and others set a clear precedent that some presentations of Biblical passages will be determined hate propaganda. Justice J. Barclay in his above opinion attempts to reason that it is the Biblical references combined with the circle and slash that make Owens' advertisement hate. But in light of the message of the Bible verses compared to the message of the circle and slash, the advertised bumper sticker was indeed correct in equating the two, and it is precisely accurate to suggest that if the circle and slash is hate, it is the message of the Bible being ruled as hateful.
So while the language of Bill C-250 supposedly protects one "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text," the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan has already penalized a man for doing exactly that.
This is not an isolated incident. Scott Brockie, the owner of Imaging Excellence, Inc., was fined $5,000 assessed by the province's human rights commission for refusing to serve a homosexual advocacy group because of his personal morals. The BC Supreme Court ruled on 3 February 2004 to uphold the right of the BC College of Teachers to suspend Christian high school teacher and student counsellor Chris Kempling for one month, without pay, for writing letters criticizing homosexuality to a newspaper editor during the summer holidays. Others have similarly met with consequences because they "expressed.. an opinion based on a belief in a religious text."
Bruce Clemenger, head of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada's Centre for Faith and Public Life, reiterated Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's concerns, saying, "What they are saying is, that if you willfully promote hatred, you can use this defense, but no one in good faith would promote hatred. So that 'good faith' clause almost eliminates the defense."
As Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition in Calgary, Alberta, pointed out, since "hate" and "hate propaganda" remain undefined, "I would have no way of knowing I'm conducting a criminal act until I'm charged with it, because there is no clarity in the law."
It is inarguably clear that because Bill C-250 failed to define "hate," "hate propaganda," or "in good faith," religious persons are not protected from pre-existing legal precedent and this amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada makes them liable to suffer fines or jail time up to five years for expressing their beliefs.
Plainly, tolerance has its limits. The question remains: How long before pastors are removed from the pulpit and put in jail for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality?
|
contemplative