Now We Have Witnessed The Censoring Of The Bible, Can We Now Expect To See Some Censorship Of The Koran?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/street-preacher-quoting-from-the-bible-fined-for-calling-homosexuality-an-abomination-10141768.html

[Gromit]

Putting people to death is not permissable in this country, so anyone inciting such a thing is breaking the law of the land.

It would be a very strange planet if we tried to live it according to the bizarre nonsense in the Old Testament.

[Marshwarble]

I think anyone who goes around saying "My brother Esau is a smooth man" at least 30 times in a High St is probably a loony anyway.

[icecreamicecream]

Oh,no,AOG.We cant have the "Mein Kampf" of the Islamic world be censored.

[mikey4444]

As I understand it AOG, he was convicted under section five of the Public Order Act, which bans an individual from “using threatening (or abusive) words or behaviour",

Nobody is "censoring" the Bible. The Judge said Overd “knew full well the power of words to hurt” and claimed he could have used other less offensive parts of the Bible to quote from on the issue of homosexuality.

The Judge was in court and you and I weren't......isn't he the best person to make a judgement here ?

[Baldric]

///Fears have been raised that the ruling amounts to a ban on certain offensive sections of the Bible and undermines free speech.
Libby Towell, a spokeswoman for the Christian Legal Centre, who represented Overd, said: “The judge is effectively censoring the Bible and saying that certain verses aren't fit for public consumption.”///

Have to wonder if Mikey actually read the Link!

[TheChair]

'Libby Towell, a spokeswoman for the Christian Legal Centre, who represented Overd, said: “The judge is effectively censoring the Bible and saying that certain verses aren't fit for public consumption.”'

Well, she would say that. But of course the judges didn't say that they weren't fit for public consumption, just not fit for hectoring people with. And let's face it, the bible, like most religious texts is full of ridiculous (and in many cases, self contradictory) rants, that would be banned if they were published in any other work.

[RATTER15]

He deserved to fined, recital from the Bible does not make anything right, its a homophobic remark, no matter where it came from.

[mikey4444]

Ratter...the voice of common sense !

[whiskeryron]

// 'Libby Towell, a spokeswoman for the Christian Legal Centre, who represented Overd, said: “The judge is effectively censoring the Bible and saying that certain verses aren't fit for public consumption.”' //

could someone please explain what a Libby Towell is >

[askyourgran]

Sounds like someone with a beard and Jesus sandals whiskyron.

So if we have to have our bible censored, which parts of the Koran are going to get the chop?

Recital from the Bible is what Christianity is all about, and there are still people who feel that Homosexuality is wrong. Although the street-preacher must have a death wish quoting that text in a public place.

[retrocop]

Bit rich being judged by a Muslim Pakistani Judge in a predominantly white Christian country about what has been quoted in the street from the Christian book of Fairy Tales.What if the defendant was quoting from the Koran book of Fairy Tales about their view on homosexuality.You know we throw them gays off the top of buildings cos that is what the holy prophet dictates insullah and that is the right thing top do innit?
Rather ironic that the British defendant should be put in front of a Muslim judge in Britain.

[saxy_jag]

Preaching of any part of any religion should be banned on the high street.

[douglas9401]

Ron, it was an essential bathroom accessory back in the days of bra burning wimmin, used to mop the fevered brow of the crusader.

[icecreamicecream]

So is the Koran,but try burning a Koran outside a mosque against burning a bible outside a Christian church or chapel,Outside a mosque yu woulbe killed instantly,outside a Christian place of worship they would look at you and then wander away shaking their heads.

[sp1814]

We are not witnessing the censoring of the Bible though.

That's an interpretation of the story, but isn't actually the story.

[naomi24]

SP, if the judge objected to the man reading a verse from the bible that deems homosexuality an abomination he is censoring the bible because that's precisely what the bible says - no 'interpretation' necessary. What do you think the story actually is?

[sp1814]

naomi24

No he isn't.

The BBFC can censor a film, in that it will not give a certificate to a film without certain cuts.

That film is effectively censored.

The Bible is uncensored. You can still pick up a copy of it tomorrow at Waterstones and all the passages will be there.

The Bible remains uncensored in the same way that the Koran is uncensored.

What the judge has (rightly) done is determine that the content of some passages are inappropriate for public address.

As an analogy - would you be happy for someone to stand on a box in the middle of a shopping centre reading out the more 'fruity' passages of '50 Shades of Grey'?

If people want to read about how homosexuality is an abomination, let them do it in their synagogues, churches and mosques, but not in public.

If gay people are thrown out of pubs and off buses for kissing, because some people find it offensive, then preachers need to mindful of the way that they too can cause upset with readings from religious tracts.

[naomi24]

Nice try, SP, but by decreeing that certain passages from the bible are not to be read in public this judge has, in effect, censored it.

In answer to your question, no I wouldn’t be happy for someone to stand on a box in the middle of a shopping centre reading out the more 'fruity' passages of '50 Shades of Grey' - no more than I am happy for someone to stand in the middle of a shopping centre and read passages from the bible.

You didn’t answer my question. What do you think the story actually is?

[vetuste_ennemi]

"If gay people are thrown out of pubs and off buses for kissing, because some people find it offensive, then preachers need to mindful of the way thrat they too can cause upset with readings from religious tracts."
Thrown out of pubs, then, for kissing versus fined for quoting the Leviticus in public. An interesting contrast
SP, are you:
1. For one and against the other (if so, which one "for")?
2. For both?
3. Against both?