This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Canada's Supreme Court upholds the "reasonable" limit to freedom of religion

#1the_hedonistPosted 3/6/2013 6:25:58 PM
http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/tgc/canadian-supreme-court-ruling-has-implications-for-christian-witness

There are many things to be said here and I'll leave it up to y'all to bring up some of the implications. One interesting application of the court's opinion is that they should outlaw the publication of the Bible on such grounds.
---
"Why should I gain from His reward? I cannot give an answer.
But this I know with all my heart - His wounds have paid my ransom."
#2the_hedonist(Topic Creator)Posted 3/6/2013 6:28:45 PM
Although I do not know if it would be to ban the publication or the distribution of Bibles. The ban in this case was on distribution of flyers.
---
"Why should I gain from His reward? I cannot give an answer.
But this I know with all my heart - His wounds have paid my ransom."
#3OrangeWizardPosted 3/6/2013 6:37:51 PM
So Jehovah's Witnesses are probably fine, then, but that's up to the people who determine what is or what is not hate speech.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#4Hustle KongPosted 3/6/2013 6:39:12 PM
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=2SmoBvg-etU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D2SmoBvg-etU
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#5Moorish_IdolPosted 3/6/2013 7:55:20 PM(edited)
This isn't so much a limit on religion as it is a limit on hate speech. It's saying that religion (or any other construct) can't be used as a scapegoat for hate speech, basically. The whole "gays are evil but I am citing the Bible so therefore I am not being hateful" routine.

Definitely a good thing. Things like this in America would silence people like the WBC, for instance.

Edit:
As far as the Bible having limits on printing, I think that's a misunderstanding of the ruling. Nobody is forcing someone to read the Bible. Other forms of hate speech, such as distributing flyers to houses or standing outside of buildings and preaching hate, are quite different in that people could be exposed to it against their will. I think it's the latter that the ruling is aiming to stop.
#6mercurydudePosted 3/6/2013 8:45:55 PM
The flyers in question are trying to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, including doing so by making the false claim (one of many) that homosexual men are three times more likely to molest children. I couldn't care less if someone goes around telling people that homosexuality is an abomination... that's just one of the many things that the Bible says that I tend to laugh at.

But when these people go out there and tell ignorant people that gays want to rape/corrupt their children, that's crossing the line. That's the kind of stuff that those American evangelists used to stoke the fires of homophobia in Uganda, which eventually led to the proposition of the Kill the Gays bill (which is STILL being taken into consideration, I might add). Portraying gays as pedophiles would actually be condemned by the Bible due to that whole not bearing false witness thing. As far as I'm concerned, this is nothing but the bullies playing the victim.

Btw, thanks to one of the commenters on there, here's a link to the flyers that the case is concerned with. They're quite nasty:

http://imgur.com/a/kFHna
---
"I am going to light a fire in Paradise and pour water on Hell, so that both veils completely vanish." - Rabia Al-'Adawiyya
#7linkkhalid89Posted 3/6/2013 9:26:37 PM
No one has quoted Voltaire yet?
#8SilviiroPosted 3/6/2013 9:56:17 PM
"In a castle of Westphalia, belonging to the Baron of Thunder-ten-Tronckh, lived a youth, whom nature had endowed with the most gentle manners." -- Voltaire
---
"I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." -- Ecclesiastes 1:14
#9kozlo100Posted 3/7/2013 12:11:38 PM
The article directly linked is over-reactionary and unnecessarily inflammatory, and does Christianity a disservice in so doing.

The thing of it is that all laws of this kind have what is sometimes called the Reasonable Person standard, or something like it, built in. In this case, when evaluating a particular bit of content, the question is asked: Would a reasonable person find this content to be hate speech?

Consequently, in order to raise concern that this puts a damper on religious speech, and even the bible itself, one necessarily implies that a reasonable person would look at it and see hate. In other words, you are saying that you know normal everyday people find what you have to say offensive and hateful, but you want to say it anyway. This is not a thing that I think Christians want to say regarding their faith and their scripture.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#10the_hedonist(Topic Creator)Posted 3/7/2013 4:29:26 PM
Note: after having seen the flyers, I agree that these flyers classify as hate speech and should be banned. However, I am still going to disagree with some of y'all.

Moorish_Idol posted...
This isn't so much a limit on religion as it is a limit on hate speech. It's saying that religion (or any other construct) can't be used as a scapegoat for hate speech, basically. The whole "gays are evil but I am citing the Bible so therefore I am not being hateful" routine.


You can limit hate speech and limit the freedom of religion at the same time. According to the article, the ruling explicitly states that the country's ban on hate speech "is a reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

kozlo100 posted...
The article directly linked is over-reactionary and unnecessarily inflammatory, and does Christianity a disservice in so doing.

The thing of it is that all laws of this kind have what is sometimes called the Reasonable Person standard, or something like it, built in. In this case, when evaluating a particular bit of content, the question is asked: Would a reasonable person find this content to be hate speech?

Consequently, in order to raise concern that this puts a damper on religious speech, and even the bible itself, one necessarily implies that a reasonable person would look at it and see hate. In other words, you are saying that you know normal everyday people find what you have to say offensive and hateful, but you want to say it anyway. This is not a thing that I think Christians want to say regarding their faith and their scripture.


One is not saying that a reasonable person would look at the Bible and see hate. One is simply saying that the Supreme Court of Canada would look at it and see hate. The ruling states:

"If expression targeting certain sexual behaviour is framed in such a way as to expose persons of an identifiable sexual orientation to what is objectively viewed as detestation and vilification, it cannot be said that such speech only targets the behaviour. It quite clearly targets the vulnerable group."

Detestation is the key word here. The NIV translation of the Bible explicitly calls homosexual behavior "detestable" in Lev. 18:22. A typical Christian understanding is quite opposite to the Court's ruling: the Court said that targeting a behavior is targeting a group. The Christian will typically make a distinction; you have often heard the phrase, "hate the sin, love the sinner."

I think the point here is not that the Bible is hateful or constitutes hate speech, but we're just gonna "keep on hatin'" anyways. I think the point is that the understanding of what hate speech is has just been broadened in Canada to exclude the Bible from being communicated fully in public. And we simply disagree that hate speech should be that broad.

Now, I do not know the complexities of hate speech law nor do I know anything about Canada's legal system, but I do not think it is an overreaction to assume that this ruling has the potential of future ramification for those who disagree with homosexual behavior. I doubt this will have any ramifications for the pulpit or for Christian publication, as those seem to be private enough to protect, but are there not possiblities of other implications?

Perhaps it was a bit much to call the censorship "draconian," but I do believe that it this is slightly troubling. How far can this be taken? E.g., to carry out the ruling to its logical conclusion, the public reading of Scripture should be banned altogether.
---
"Why should I gain from His reward? I cannot give an answer.
But this I know with all my heart - His wounds have paid my ransom."