no longer appropriate to read parts of the Bible aloud in public

[pholmes38]

Be interesting to see if anything comes from this that has been proposed here in UK

(albeit the man accused in the case lacked a lot of tact)

 

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/heritage-and-retro/heritage/fears-raised-about-freedom-of-expression-as-prosecutors-say-it-is-no-longer-appropriate-to-quote-parts-of-the-bible-in-public-3932439

 

[Pabo]

That might put some comedians out of a job.

[cricket246]

The scriptures do say that people would hire some to have their ears tickled... It's part of the cancel culture. They don't want to hear anything they disagree with... I wonder if this will effect our reading certain scriptures at the doors?

[New World Explorer]

Bit of background from the article: 

 

It took place on the streets of Swindon two years ago.

Mr Dunn was charged with using "threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

 

It was alleged he shouted that the women would "burn in hell" and called one of them a "devil woman".

Mr Dunn denied this, though his lawyers at the Christian Legal Centre said he acknowledged telling them: “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God”.

Advertisement

Hide Ad

 

According to Mr Dunn's lawyers, the case against him was discontinued during this week because the complainants could not be reached.

While pressing their case against him though, the CPS made the following argument, in writing, to the court:

"Whether a statement of Christian belief or not, the court is being asked to consider whether the language has the potential to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

"This document is not the forum for religious debate, but the bible contains other material recognising slavery (Exodus 21:7), the death sentence (Exodus 35:2 and Leviticus 24:16) and cannibalism (Deuteronomy 28:27).

Advertisement

Hide Ad

 

"There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public."

(News Letter’s emphasis)

The lobby group Christian Concern, which works in tandem with the Christian Legal Centre, issued statements about this case to the press in the past week, but there has been virtually no media coverage of it, despite its potentially far-reaching implications.

[Michał]

I guess it’s all about how and why it’s stated in public. Satan cited the scriptures and it wasn’t okay. 
 

Anyway, it may seem that some secular authorities may want to put all religions into one basket. 

[Shawnster]

6 hours ago, New World Explorer said:

Deuteronomy 28:27

Um, no?  

 

(Deuteronomy 28:27) 27 “Jehovah will strike you with the boils of Egypt, piles, eczema, and skin lesions, from which you cannot be healed.

https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=nwt&srctype=wol&bible=5028027&srcid=share

 

Apparently the author needs a better copy editor or fact checker.  

 

6 hours ago, New World Explorer said:

"There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public."

 

Well, yes, there are portions of the Bible that, if taken out of context or used to harass people, do come across as hateful and offensive.  It's called tact and most of Christendom's fundamental loudmouths lack it. 

 

The same is true in regards any law or constitution, though.  If I start shouting portions of the US Constitution at the wrong place or wrong time then I'm causing harassment and a disturbance.  That's not the Constitution's fault, though.