um... those publishers are just reprinting copies of one of the most popular books in the world they're doing it because making/selling bibles is incredibly popular
this guy, has no legal grounding and would not succeed in any kind of suit. There are many books that express many different types of opinions about homosexuals. if this guy isn't christian, then he must think the bible is a very complex and very convincing way to be a part of something that isn't so.... and so the bible wouldn't be true, correct? and since the authors are all dead and even if they were alive they were just [in the eyes of the law] publishing their opinions.
if he's saying the bible inspires hate crimes toward homosexuals, then he needs to sue the people who take action and perform the hate crimes. if law were completely objective, and people did exclude church from state, this would be like blaming violent actions of teenagers on the video games they play.
am i totally off here? if so, please explain.
so the conclusion, then, is that the purveyors of religion and religious texts are not responsible for the content therein, or for the people who do illegal things based on the content of their work?
I don't agree with the personal stress issue of this case, but there is certainly something to be said for interpersonal stress. Bigger picture, there are cases of extreme violence.
Originally posted by inimalist
so the conclusion, then, is that the purveyors of religion and religious texts are not responsible for the content therein, or for the people who do illegal things based on the content of their work?I don't agree with the personal stress issue of this case, but there is certainly something to be said for interpersonal stress. Bigger picture, there are cases of extreme violence.
I thought you were all about the personal freedom?
And in this case they're not responsible for the content, the publishers say they do not own the translations.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought you were all about the personal freedom?
indeed. and when we live in my anarchist Utopia, people can peddle all the hate they want. Until then, big brother says you can't publish hate speech.
I'm not saying I think that particular part of the Bible is hate speech, but most responses have been pretty dismissive of the concept, which is, that the people who run a religion might be responsible for the content of their faith, and actions such content produces.
Nazi speech which promotes people killing Jews is illegal. People kill gays based, by their own admissions, on what the bible says.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And in this case they're not responsible for the content, the publishers say they do not own the translations.
fair enough, if thats how the law works.
He's suing for the translation. It [originally] said one thing, they changed it to something else, the change is what he's offended by.It's a stupid lawsuit overall, but the gay-guy is correct in this manner.
Other bibles editions have changed Leviticus from 'man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman' to the blanket term 'homosexuality is a sin', which is completely different, as it includes lesbians, which where not initially condemned in Leviticus.
On a side note, since when are publishers not responsible for what they publish?
Originally posted by Robtard
Other bibles editions have changed Leviticus from 'man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman' to the blanket term 'homosexuality is a sin', which is completely different, as it includes lesbians, which where not initially condemned in Leviticus.
Which I find awesome. I always wondered why God doesn't make a stipulation on teh weeemonz, but only on the men. hmm
All newer translations include women, but, from KJV on back, it doesn't mention women. This further proves the point that the Mormons are right about religions doing what they want with the bible. It's NOT to be interpretted directly, especially when you have idiots who keep changing meanings.