I have heard through several sources that Canadian officials may be viewing in the near future the Bible as hate literature.

Sources:

Christian Radio Station News Broadcast (WCHR, Williamsport, Md)just yesterday at 5pm eastern time.
Hal Linsey's Show (comes on TNN 8:30 eastern time) has discussed this, specifically last Wednesday night 10/8/2003.
My husband has brought it to my attention from this show and literature he has read.

Since we have some Canadian residents can I ask if this is correct or is it taken out of context?

By Juli4 on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:25 am:

Christainity is the only religion that can be discriminated against. IF someone said somethinglike that about islam you would be called all kinds of things, but the bible and all it represents can be stomped out and hated.

By Ginny~moderator on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:38 am:

Juli - did you ever hear of anti-Semitism, or the Holocaust. That is, if you want examples of religions other than Christianty which experience discrimination.

I checked the Hal Lindsey website. My guess is that this whole thing stems from protests made by various anti-defamation organizations about the Mel Gibson movie about the life of Jesus. I have not seen the film nor any advances of it. However, I have read criticisms which say that the way in which the events immediately preceding the crucifixion are presented raise up again the old (and false) image that the Jews (i.e., Jewish people) were responsible for the condemnation and crucifixion.
However, since Marg doesn't give us any idea of why Hal Lindsey is saying such a thing or any way to check this, I can only say - where is the evidence that such things are being contemplated, who are the officials, and just what is it these unnamed officials are saying.

It is difficult at best to have a reasoned discussion about religion. It is even more difficult when false or unproved charges such as those supposedly made by Hal Lindsey are the basis of the discussion. And, Juli, you make it even more difficult when you make such a baseless and erroneous charge that Christianity is the only religion that can be discriminated against.

By Familyman on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:40 am:

I'm not sure what you were trying to say Juli4, but all religions can and have been descriminated against and currently are today. I don't think the problem is with the bible per-se, but with the common interpretations out there. People use the book to preach hate against homosexuals and bi-racial marriages all the time. They also use it to promote a wide hatred of other religions, especially Islam (in this country anyway)
I personally don't feel that those interpretions are what the book is about and feel that christianity in general would benefit from a reduction in preaching hate.
The bible doesn't hate people, people hate people.

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 11:02 am:

Hal stated that Canada looks down on the Bible because of its beliefs against (i.e.) homosexuality. To be honest, it is right along the lines of what Seth stated (you stated it very well Seth).

As Christians we are not supposed to hate people, we are supposed to hate the sin itself.

If this is true with Canada, Hal gave an example that in years to come, people with Bibles will have committed a crime, like some other countries. Because of the religious persecution and this country being so close to the US can you see the US going this way at some point of time?

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 11:05 am:

Now, I should state Hal is not the only place I heard this. So if this is a religious rumor, it is a huge one. It has been in magazines (first place dh saw it), then on Hal's show, now on the news. I have no relatives in Canada to see if this is actually happening...

By Juli4 on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 11:14 am:

Yes the Bible does have standards of living that are not popular and whether you agree with it or not does not really matter. People may have used the bible to preach against bi racial marriage but no scripture i've found says that it is wrong. And the passage aften used is taken out of context and wrong. Like any other religion you have extreme people with the wrong motives and attitudes and misinterpretations that mis represent what the Bible is about but all that aside to claim that it is hate literature and possibly (wich is the direction this is going) ban it and try to censor it is inconsistent with the freedom of speech the ammendment talks about. Any other group that speaks out for or aginst something seems to be accepted or at least tolerated but the Bible and christianity seems not to be. That is my point. We (christians) are expected to accept and tolerate anything and everything and to say that anything is wrong is "hateful" . But why are people not as accepting whether you agree or not of the Bible. It just seems hyporcrtical. You don't hear that the Koran is hate literature when it supports violence. Although majority of islamics do not believe that all non converts should be killed. But it is inconsistent. and why all of a sudden is saying something is wrong all of a sudden mean that those people who disagree are hated by anyone. Becuase a lot of Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong does in no way mean they hate homosexuals. IT simly means that they think they are wrong just as people who disagree think that christians are wrong but to disagree does not equal hate. And to preach against something does necessarily preach hate. So I am saying that with all the literature out there why in the world is the Bible or anything that it represents targeted seemingly more than anything else. I hope I made more sense.

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 11:15 am:

OF THE LAND 'Bible as hate speech' bill passes Sponsor: 'It's been a good week for equality in Canada'

Posted: September 18, 2003 9:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Canada's House of Commons passed a controversial bill yesterday opposed by religious believers and free-speech advocates who say it will criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

The bill, passed 141-110, adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

"It's been a good week for equality in Canada," said the bill's sponsor, Svend Robinson, an openly homosexual member of Parliament.

The vote came just a day after MPs narrowly defeated a nonbinding motion reaffirming marriage is between a man and woman only.

As WorldNetDaily reported, opponents fear if Robinson's bill becomes law, the Bible will be deemed "hate literature" under the criminal code in certain instances, as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references to verses about homosexuality.

"I was not surprised it passed, because we have a morally bankrupt government which cannot see past its bizarre liberal ideology," Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, told WorldNetDaily.

The bill now goes to the Senate, which usually rubber stamps the House's legislation. Rushfeldt said he hopes the Senate will at least debate the issue and bring up "inherent dangers" in the bill not discussed in the House, but thinks that is not likely.

The legislation then is signed into law by the governor general, who represents the queen.

Robinson insisted an amendment protects religious expression, but opponents note recent court cases in which judges have favored homosexual rights when they clash with the rights of religious believers.

Some members of Parliament called it a "dangerous" law that muzzles free speech, including Liberal Party member John McKay, who dubbed it a "chill bill."

"Anybody who has views on homosexuality that differ from Svend Robinson's will be exposed rather dramatically to the joys of the Criminal Code," he said, according to the Edmonton Sun.

Rushfeldt contends one of the law's dangers is the term "sexual orientation" is not defined. He noted the American Psychiatric Association lists 24 behaviors under "sexual orientation." They include polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia.

"So if in fact the term does include pedophilia, the law protects it [from 'hate speech']," he said.

Robinson said fears that freedom of speech and religion will suffer are "a mask for homophobia for people who don't want to be honest about the real reason why they don't want to include sexual orientation in the law," according to the Toronto Globe and Mail.

He said he regularly receives hateful e-mails, the Toronto paper said, and his Burnaby, B.C., office was trashed in 1988 when he became Canada's first openly homosexual member of Parliament.

Related stories:

'Bible as hate speech' bill nearing vote

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 11:16 am:

ok, I called several places to find info on this and they told me to pull up this article...

By Juli4 on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 11:34 am:

That is really scary especialy if it includes pedophilia. And it is snuffing out freedom of speech and religion. It sometimes takes a while but I would not be surprised if the u.s. follows suit eventually

By Familyman on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 12:44 pm:

Seems to me that you can still say that you don't like or agree with something. You cannot go around saying that someone should be killed because of it. Keeps anybody from preaching hate (whether religious preaching or otherwise) toward homosexuals. Sounds like a good idea to me.

By Laurazee on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 01:13 pm:

Bill C-250 is news to me, I'm sorry to say, but a quick scan of the various Canadian news sites indicates that it stems from or is related to an ad placed by Christian corrections officer in a Saskatoon, Canada, newspaper that condemned homosexuality (via a graphic showing two male figures holding hands in a circle with a slash through it) and quoted 4 verses from the bible. He was fined by the province's human rights tribunal.

Another Canadian news site, the very staid and proper Globe and Mail, reports on Bill C-250 and the reasons behind the bill here: http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030917.whate0917_2/BNStory.

An excerpt is:

---

Quote:

The Canadian Alliance and many church groups say they fear that extending hate-crime protection for gays could criminalize religious texts, including the Bible, that condemn homosexuality.

Not so, said Liberal MP Derek Lee. He pushed for a change to the bill that unanimously passed in the Commons three months ago. The amended bill exempts from the hate crime section anyone expressing an anti-gay belief based on a religious text.

That change removed a handy excuse for those who would unjustly refuse equal protections to homosexuals, Mr. Robinson said.

"What this bill is about, fundamentally, is sending a message to the gay bashers. It's about sending a message to those who promote hatred and violence and death of gay men like Aaron Webster who was beaten to death with a baseball bat in Vancouver," Mr. Robinson said.

---

By Juli4 on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 02:07 pm:

Well as many people would be offended by that article and it doesn't seem to have been a smart move it still should not be against the law to voice an opposing opinion to anything. If the law only prohibits violence or encouraging violence then it is not an issue to me, but if it opposes and make illegal voicing an opinion then it is wrong. As far as I have read it prohibits preachers preaching that it is wrong and it prohibits using certain scriptures. It should be illegal to encourage or prmote violence against any group of people, but to say something is wrong or to openly not agree with it does not promote hate or violence. Why silence one side of the issue?

By Ginny~moderator on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 02:23 pm:

Juli, PLEASE READ again the text that Laurazee quoted. You say "as far as I have read it prohibits preachaers preaching that it is wrong". It specifically, and I quote from Laurazee's post: exempts from the hate crime section anyone expressing an anti-gay belief based on a religious text.

Seems to me your hypothetical preacher would be OK, since s/he is basing the preaching on religious beliefs.

Marg, thank you for your careful homework and the time you spent on it. It is very helpful to have facts to read and respond to.

By Laurazee on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 03:36 pm:

That's how I read it, too, Ginny. The Canadian Criminal Code was amended and expressly protects religious freedom in subsection 319(3), which states:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)...(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

There is an additional protection in that no criminal proceeding under sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code may be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. This will prevent frivolous or trivial prosecutions.

The bible, as well as those who preach it and quote it, are protected from the Hate Crimes bill C-250 by sections 318 and 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

Thus, I suspect this thread is moot and this issue or debate is not really an issue. Under the Canadian Criminal Code, the bible cannot be considered hate literature.

By Laurazee on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 03:55 pm:

FYI, link to actual text and an overview of Canada's Criminal Code (specific to this debate):

Actual Text of the Canadian Criminal Code from the Department of Justice, Canada: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html

A Good (Plain Language) Overview: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

By the way, this was an interesting topic for me. As a Canadian, I can't say I've ever looked up the Canadian Criminal Code online, but this topic encouraged me to do so. Now I know where to find it!

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 04:07 pm:

I was just curious since we have some Canadian residents and how it affects them...

By Laurazee on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 04:13 pm:

Well, the weird thing is that I didn't hear much about it. Maybe it was not covered heavily on the mainstream news channels (I watch a lot of news), so I was curious, myself.

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 04:13 pm:

Wait a second Laura, does Section 318 and 319 actually use the word Bible, or do just state "express opinion of religious belief"? I couldn't find it just skimmed over, will review. If not, this is a big gaping whole left for lawyers to pick apart.

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 04:20 pm:

Can't find the word "Bible" being protected under those laws. I find this criminal code very wide open. Say, Billy Graham was doing a Canadian broadcast reading the Bible and parts about homosexuality. He is not debating, he is reading, no opinion, just the Bible. Isn't this against the law from those criminal codes, this is what I am getting at... Very confused and I feel this is way too wide open, and I feel those preaching it are not protected, especially if they are reading from certain sections of the Bible

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 04:26 pm:

See I guess each of us individually sees this differently, if a preacher is preaching about some sinful subject, it can be turned around that he is directing it to the people as a subject and they could see it as a hate crime directed at them. If a preacher states from the Bible it is a sin to live together, everyone living together finds that offensive. I could go on and on...

By Laurazee on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 04:33 pm:

Does not use the word "bible" specifically, as far as I saw. But the next section (320) of the code clarifies that "hate propaganda" is anything that would be an offense under Section 319. So the bible, being a religious text, is exempt from this, at least to my reading.

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 04:46 pm:

Boy, this is difficult but I can see it coming to different interpretations by different groups. If I were a homosexual, I could see it as hate literature, I didn't mean to put it so blankly but just think about it...

By Laurazee on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 04:47 pm:

Using the example of Billy Graham doing a Canadian broadcast and reading the Bible, Billy is, under the Canadian Criminal Code 319 (b) expressing a religious subject, as well as possibly (c) believing what he says to be true. So he cannot be prosecuted under the Canadian criminal code. Since he can't be prosecuted, his material is safe (the bible).

Yes, it's wide open, but I think it's in the bible's favor. Sounds like Billy would have to be doing a whole lot more than just reading or preaching from the bible. That in itself is not indictable. However, if Billy were also to put up signs, post disturbing images, make explicit non-biblical statements, these things might count under the code. But not the biblical references.

That's just my opinion, though.

By Juli4 on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 04:51 pm:

Then what is the issue. Is the Bible being considered Hate literature or not? If it is not and they are making a law just to protect homosexuals from violence then why are we discussing it. But if they are deeming the Bible as hate literature and trying to cnesor it then we have a huge issue. So I am confused as to what is going on. I've read articles on it that portray it different that what Laura posted. And how is the man that published the article prmoting violence or hate at all. He is expressing his view on the subject wich is allowed. But then we are talking about Canada and I am not totally sure what their constituin says.

By Laurazee on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 04:59 pm:

That's my point. The bible cannot be considered hate literature. The man in the example I used above who published biblical quotations also published an image alongside the quotations (e.g. the universal nullification symbol of a circle with a diagonal line through it over two men). Also, in that example, the man was fined under Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, not the Canadian Criminal Code.

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 05:08 pm:

Remember who set this criminal code into affect (a homosexual). I do not hate homosexuals, I am using this as an example to show a point of non-christian homosexuals(I didn't know how else to state this also), you have to see it from their point of view.

By Ginny~moderator on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 06:29 pm:

Marg, you don't have to see it from the viewpoint of "non-christian homosexuals". I know a lot of devout Christian homosexuals who would be offended by those who use scripture as a means of whipping up hatred against homosexuals or any group. Personally, as a fairly devout Christian, I think it is very unChristian to hate anyone or to use religion as a reason to hate or persecute anyone.

Juli, I suggest you read the posts in this thread again. It is clear that the Canadian law which is being considered specifically exempts those who speak from religious motivation, including the Bible. Therefore, there is no danger of the Bible being considered hate literature, no matter what Hal Linsey says.

This is another case of a person who wants to be perceived as a religious leader making false statements in order to whip people into a frenzy of phone calls and letters to their elected representatives and to gain more listeners (and, presumably, contributing to his organization and his personal gain. (Politicians do it too, sadly.)

It doesn't help when people, without doing any research or fact checking, make erroneous statements intended to put Christians (statements usually meaning Protestant Christians) in the role of a persecuted minority in the U.S. and Canada.

By Marg on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 08:40 pm:

I guess I see it differently because we have non-Christian homosexual friends, and they tend to put down the Bible for this sake.

By Juli4 on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 09:34 pm:

I have read more on the bill and it does not necessarily call the Bible hate literature. From what I can tell they included sexual orientation to be protected against hate crimes and that is not a bad thing at all. Everyone should be protected from hate crimes. It seems that the Christian community is afraid that it will go farther and they will define hate speech and start discriminating against the Bible, but the law itself does not say anything about that. So I am not sure what the fuss is about. Now if they do start to discriminate and call openly disagreeing and such as a hate crime then we will have problems, but as of yet I see nothing to get excited about. We will just wait and see how this law is interpreted. From what I can see the man who published teh article was not promoting hate and should not be a cause for such a law. So I am finished with this for now.

By Marcia on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:32 pm:

I'm from Ontario, and I've never heard of this until today. I can't even see where the discussion comes from, because it seems so clear to me. Hate crimes against anyone are illegal, plain and simple.
If the bible was to become hate literature in Canada, half of our schools would have to close. We have the choice of sending our kids to public or Catholic school, and both are free. We have 4 Catholic schools in our small town of about 24,000, and those kids use the bible all the time. My kids go to public school, and bibles are being handed out to those who want one, next week. I highly doubt this would be happening if there was any question of it being hate literature.