CANADIAN court agrees that BIBLE is HATE LITERATURE

CWNews.com ^ | 2-11-2003 | staff

[Notwithstanding]

In a ruling given virtually no media coverage, the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan, ruled that a man who placed references to Bible verses on homosexuality into a newspaper ad was guilty of inciting hatred. The December 11, 2002 decision was in response to an appeal of a 2001 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (HRC) ruling which ordered both the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay CAN$1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the Saskatoon newspaper quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality.

The purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says no to homosexual behavior. 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. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side. The symbol was comprised of two males holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top.

Justice J. Barclay rejected the appeal ruling: "In my view, the Board was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule. When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace. In other words, the Biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred."

Janet Epp Buckingham, Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, told LifeSite: "The ruling that a verse from the Bible can be considered to expose homosexuals to hatred shows the danger for Scripture if Bill C-250 passes." Bill C-250, proposed by homosexual activist MP Svend Robinson, would see "sexual orientation" added to hate crime law as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

[Steve_Seattle]

Someone should send this to Hannity or O'Reilly. Despite the fact that O'Reilly sometimes sides with gays, I don't think he would on this one.

[SkyRat]

thx

[yendu bwam]

It isn't for man to judge repentance because we are not privy to what is in a person's heart.

You are mostly correct, Luis G. Only God can judge when a man is truly repentant. But there are cases where one confronts a truly evil and admittedly unrepetant person - like a person who tells you he wants to axe-murder as many people as he can find and proceeds to do so. True evil of this nature must be fought.

[Gophack]

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is the somewhat trite saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Homosexuality is wrong and an abhorrent act and should not be promoted in any way, especially among our children who do not have the maturity to discern some things. If they see a teacher they like who "comes out" as gay, they don't see what's wrond with being gay because they don't fully understand homosexuality, AIDS, or God's Word.

However, we must not harbor hate in our hearts for sinners. We are ALL sinners, and ALL of us are not worthy of the kingdom of God, but thanks be to God, in His mercy He sent His only son Jesus Christ to die for our sins and bring us to everlasting life.

Homosexuals are children of God whether they acknowledge it or not. They can repent and be forgiven just like anyone. It is our responsibility as Christians to show them the errors of their ways, and urge them to stop and repent and follow Jesus. We must love them, we are called to love them, but we do not have to accept their behavior and are, in fact, called to rebuke their sins.

The head of Act-Up -- one of the real villians in the pro-gay movement -- died of AIDS. Before he died, he repented of his sins and accepted Jesus and was Baptized. Do I believe he is going to Heaven? Yes, if he was sincere in his repentance, he will go to Heaven (though as a priest joked on the radio, he'll be the last one out of purgatory). But the Truth is ALL can go to Heaven.

Anyway, regarding the article, while I don't think the guy should have been fined (Canada is awful), I wouldn't have supported him running the ad as it was described because it doesn't sound like a very Christian thing to do. Perhaps highlighting that homosexuality is wrong, but Jesus is for all and they can repent and turn from their evil ways, then provide a phone number for them to get help. THAT would be a Christian thing to do, IMHO.

God bless.

[yendu bwam]

Liberals love to call anyone who disagrees with them 'haters' and 'bigots.' When I, for very good reasons, don't want homosexual men to take my sons out on Boy Scout overnight campouts in my absence, I'm called both. The thing is, it's not working anymore. I've never hated anyone in my life. Most people are learning to reject the shrill intolerance of the left.

[yendu bwam]

Hey Gophack,

A beautiful, truthful and Christian post (#64). Thanks for summing things up so well.

Best,

y.b.

[yendu bwam]

Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?

Revealing God's will regarding sexuality to those who abuse it is life-saving. Just think, Luis Gonzalez - if people followed Christian sexual morality, we would not have several million abortions every year in this country, there would be no AIDs crisis (and millions of dead homosexual men would be alive today), either here or anywhere else, 65 million Americans would not be walking STDs, no child would be born out of wedlock, we would not have millions of marriages destroyed by adultery, etc. etc. God's plan for sex is a good one! We're the dummies for not believing God.

[Gophack]

Most people are learning to reject the shrill intolerance of the left.

I agree. That's why when someone does something like run the ad that seems hateful (even if they think they are doing it in love), it hurts our cause. Fortunately, Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and will be around for 2,000 more ... or however long it takes for the Second Coming.

God bless!

[yendu bwam]

It isn't about taking people's freedoms away, it's about instigating violence.

Give me a break, Luis. Every day, the liberal Hollywood scumbags fill our TVs with violent acts against women, against children, violence for pleasure's sake, casual violence (just look at James Bond, or Star Wars, or Indiana Jones), etc. etc. In much of Hollywood fare, Germans are the bad guys and are killed, Arabs are the bad guys and are killed, Chinese are the bad guys and are killed, etc. etc. And people don't go out and kill these people. Being able to be free to state to others what the Bible does say is not instigating violence. Millions upon millions of Americans and Canadians are perfectly aware of what Leviticus says about homosexuality (primarily due to homosexual groups themselves), and they don't go out and kill. When you take away the right to quote the Bible, you take away a fundamental freedom. Canadians are far, far less free than we Americans are. Their government is slipping into liberal fascist tyranny. Soon, Canadians will have to have government permission to speak their true thoughts.

[yendu bwam]

I agree. That's why when someone does something like run the ad that seems hateful (even if they think they are doing it in love), it hurts our cause. Fortunately, Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and will be around for 2,000 more ... or however long it takes for the Second Coming.

Hey Gophack - The message could certainly have been delivered in a more loving way! God bless also!

[TLBSHOW]

lol

[yendu bwam]

It won't be long before Luis Gonzalez, FR's own religious defender of alternative lifestyles, shows up to defend this judge.

You are a prophet, Sangamon Kid!

[Luis Gonzalez]

We're not talking about abortions here, please stick to the topic.

We are also not talking about movies, or TV, we're talking about reality, not fiction.

And you give me a break, violence in movies has been around since movies have been around. Or did you not watch cowboy moves as a child?

STD's existed long before AIDS.

What we are talking about here is not what the Bible says, but the editorial comment made with the billboard.

I am a Christian, and I find it offensive.

Call me if and when those very same verses are posted WITHOUT the editorial commentary, and let me know whether the billboard was struck down or not.

And it doesn't matter whether millions and millions know what the passages are supposed to mean, it's the one individual who may be driven to violence based on the message.

No one is taking anyone's right to quote the Bible here, that's a strawman argument from you, the issue is the human touch to the Godly message that the Court took umbrage with.

[yendu bwam]

The message belongs in the pulpit, once he took his message to the secular world, he became subject to secular laws. "...to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."

What Christ was saying, Luis, is that God's laws stand apart from secular laws. Secular laws allow you to kill your baby as it comes out of the birth canal. God's laws do not. Secular laws allow you to go and have anal intercourse with 10 men in a bathhouse. God's laws do not. Secular laws allow you to ignore the Sabbath. God's laws do not. Secular laws allow you to trash your parents. God's laws do not. Secular laws allow you to leave an injured party on the road. God's laws do not. Etc. etc. etc. THIS issue, whether a man has the right to state in public what the Bible says, has to do with political tyranny. That is something different.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Thank you.

Great post.

There's enough hate in this world without introducing more of it in the name of Jesus.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You keep missing the point, and you're doing it purposedly.

The issue is not the part of the ad which quoted the Bible, the issue was the very human commentary attached to it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And for a Christian, you are quite a hypocrite.

To infer that I have defended any "alternative lifestyle" here is not only a lie, but not very Christian-like.

Isn't lying a sin? Or is that part of what you believe to be freedom of speech?

Now, a true Christian (which is what you claim to be) would either show my defense of alternative lifestyles on this thread, or apologize.

Then again, you could decide NOT to apologize once you figured out that there's a vast difference between being critical of the tactics taken by this Church (which is what I've done), and condoning homosexual behavior (which is what you falsely accuse me of---false witness? shame on you!), but that wouldn't be very Christian, would it?

[Sangamon Kid]

Luis Gonzalez Part 1:
Luis: Sorry kid,...I'll bitch-slap you into nothingness.
Luis: ...like your a$$hole buddy Todd...

And then Luis Gonzalez Part 2:
Luis: ...I am a Christian, and I find it offensive.
Luis: ...You have become that which you accuse Islam of being....Hateful, intolerant, and ignorant.

Luis, my dear brother, I think it is safe to say that you need to work on your delivery a little bit...just a suggestion.

[planter]

The issue is not the part of the ad which quoted the Bible, the issue was the very human commentary attached to it.

You're saying that it's the circle with the line through it that constitutes as hate , not the bible verse(s)?

[yendu bwam]

And for a Christian, you are quite a hypocrite. To infer that I have defended any "alternative lifestyle" here is not only a lie, but not very Christian-like.

Hold it, Luis. I didn't imply (not infer) that! I was just noting that someone else predicted you'd show up on this forum, and you did!