Posted on 05/09/2005 1:08:42 PM PDT by d-back
A federal court in New York last month dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the Bible contains passages that are defamatory toward members of certain nationalities or ethnic groups. The court summed up the plaintiffs' claims as follows:
"[P]laintiffs claim to be persons who are "injured and/or libeled and/or defamed and/or slandered and/or embarrassed, and/or humiliated and/or degraded and/or abused, and/or discriminated against" by the Holy Bible. The complaint lists eight passages from Scripture, specifically from the Book of Genesis, which are purportedly "false and libelous against plaintiffs herein since according to the 'Holy Bible' plaintiffs herein should not have existed, and/or had they existed they must have been creatures of an ego-maniac, liar and cruel and monstrous mass murderer known as the LORD God of the 'Holy Bible." ' The complaint further avers that the passages from the Bible state that plaintiffs "must have been deprived of intelligence, reason, reasonability, and freedom of choice."
As a remedy for the purported harm caused by the Holy Bible's content, the pro se plaintiffs are asking this Court to declare that the Holy Bible "contains a mixture of fact and fiction ." (Cmplt., 4) Plaintiffs are also asking this Court to issue an injunction against ABS (as well as "any other publisher of said book," (Cmplt., 4)), compelling ABS to place a warning in each copy of the Holy Bible which states: "This Book-the Holy Bible-contains a mixture of facts and fiction and that the publisher is not responsible for any inference that a reader may have drawn therefrom ."
Truong v. American Bible Society, No. 04 Civ. 5043, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2005).
[Commentary by the posting source:] What really appears to have guided the court's assessment of the merits is a reluctance to pass on the truth of falsehood of biblical passages. The First Amendment's free exercise and non-establishment clauses preclude a civil court from delving into questions of religious doctrine. See Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 603 (1979). However, in principle, the mere fact that a defamatory statement is contained within a religious text does not mean that a civil court may not hear and decide the defamation claim according to "neutral principles of law". See id. A plaintiff ought to have the opportunity to offer evidence that "the things that you're liable to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so", at least insofar as secular truth is concerned.
Nevertheless, it is understandable, if unfortunate, that a court would decline the invitation to adjudicate such a claim. No judge, particularly in the current political environment, wants to be in the position of rendering a decision that says the Bible is false. Tom DeLay and his minions would scream bloody murder.
Heaven forbid they get around to "communist Manifesto:"
"The ideas in this book have killed over a hundred million people."
Sitting here scratching my head.
>>warning stickers in their books
PARENTAL ADVISORY: EXPLICIT SCRIPTURE
I wonder if there were micus curiae briefs filed by the International Perizzite Union and the Jebusite Anti-Defamation League.
"I WANT THE TRUTH"
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!"
Have I missed something? Is defamation of "members of certain nationalities or ethnic groups" now actionable at common law? I know Europe and Canada have taken these so-called "hate speech" measures much farther, but I hope that the plaintiffs here were just making up legal principles out of whole cloth rather than relying on some actual statute or precedent.
Maybe the judge ought to compare the passages in the Bible with passages from the Koran.
Speaking as a representative of the Amalekite Defense League, we're very upset at the ruling of the court.
Really?
Even if we were to conclude that all the external killing in history done by Jews or Christians over the past 5000 years was inspired by the Bible rather than ethnic hatred, I don't think we could get to ten million.
The Communist Manifesto, however . . .
Ping.
Indeed, the Sodomites are one such maligned group.
What a joke.
Dr. K, any comments?
If someone ever mentions something like this again I believe those in charge should simply play a corny old laugh-track, loudly, to show disdain for something so utterly far-off from reality.
The founding fathers quoted the Bible all the time, and considered it to be wonderful for guidance. This litigant needs to move, or he needs to study history, then apologize.
None, hopefully. But this is same mentality that leads to evolution theory warning stickers being put onto science textbooks. Same idea, different topic.
The warning on a science book was that evolution was "a theory, not established fact".
That got struck down although it remains the truth.
Religion is taken on faith (although some historical facts can be confirmed). Some have a problem with the faith of others. Some have a problem with theories being pressed as absolute fact (which changes when hoaxes like piltdown man are exposed).
Can we put a sticker on science texts that Global Warming is a pseudoscience as well? We are only a few decades from the warnings of a looming ice age.
WARNING: Contents are living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword...
"Place your hand on the....uhmmm......."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.