49
Liberals move to take control of House committees now that they've secured majority (www.nationalobserver.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 6 months ago (4 children)

If you're arguing and inciting for someone to be put to death on the basis of their sexual orientation ("3 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.") then yes, that's hate speech regardless of it being the bible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago*

    I was raised Christian and poured 1000% of my undiagnosed autism into studying the bible. The bible doesn't have hate speech. It's these christo-fascist idiots that have hate in their hearts.

    Jesus was crystal fucking clear that none of those ancient Jewish laws were valid going forward. We are to love everyone as ourselves.

    The hate speech is what people say before and after they cite the bible. Case and point; the parts of the bible that are 'anti-gay' are actually deliberate mistranslations.

    You literally have to change / misrepresent the bible for it to support hate.

    So yea this objection by conservatives is baseless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them

    To be fair, in studying this issue I have avoided the Old Testament and levitical law because as you know its been superceded by the coming of Jesus and the New Testament so I honestly forgot that verse existed.

    The New Testament doesnt advocate death, it does however make clear its position:

    Romans 1:26-27 (NIV): "...Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "...Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [arsenokoitai] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NIV): "...The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers..."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I appreciate that you might have gone past the old testament, however it is still part of the book and would otherwise be considered safe speech protected from hate laws.

    I'm sure you can agree that someone advocating murder of gay people should not be considered 'protected speech' solely because its written in the bible. And if we have to start picking and choosing which sections of the bible are protected and are not, that seems like a far more subjective line than 'hate speech that can be backed up by the words of a holy book is still hate speech'.

    The bar for hate speech in this country is way higher than most people seem to think it is. You need to be advocating for genocide, publicly inciting hatred likely to break the peace (ie a pastor preaching that its the responsibility of the congregation to murder gay people), or inciting hatred (again, private conversations are not included, but a pastor preaching 'you should scorn, despise, and hate gay people' would be).

    Currently the 'its a religious belief' covers you from hate speech, but I dont think it should. If you're preaching those, you're not emulating or encouraging your congregation to emulate the works and teachings of Jesus.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    You're right. I take some consolation in reading the Bill's definition of hate: "The Bill would create a definition of “hatred” for two of the existing hate propaganda offences in section 319 (publicly inciting hatred where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace and wilfully promoting hatred), the new hate propaganda offence and for the new hate crime offence. The definition would specify that “hatred” involves detestation or vilification and does not mean disdain or dislike. The Bill further specifies that the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. This would codify decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent