• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Ian McKellen Admits to Ripping Pages from The Bible

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
52
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟129,090.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Well, I don't agree with his actions but I'll defend his right to take those actions.
Ringo

Since when do we have the right to vandalize that which does not belong to us?

Aren't Gideon Bibles, the ones generally found in hotel rooms, free for the taking? In which case it would not be criminal damage to a hotel room, it would be damage to one's own property.

He's leaving them there, apparently, which impacts the next user.

I don't know, ask him? Maybe he wanted to make a point to other people about the specific section he tore out?

I don't see how whether he left it or not makes a difference if it is a Gideon's bible - I can consent to leave my property wherever I like. If they Bible's are free to be taken, and it is in his hotel, he can claim ownership of the Bible and then do what he likes with it, which includes ripping pages out and then leaving it in the hotel room.

This would be "okay" if those bibles that had pages torn out were being replaced before someone else checked in. As it is, if Mr. McKellen is not taking ownership of the bibles, they do not belong to him and he is then defacing someone else's bible.

It's vandalism, plain and simple. It could be the Koran sitting there on the nightstand and I'd say the same thing...although if it was the Koran the whole world would be outraged that he was tearing it up.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 24, 2008
2,702
168
✟26,242.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
This would be "okay" if those bibles that had pages torn out were being replaced before someone else checked in. As it is, if Mr. McKellen is not taking ownership of the bibles, they do not belong to him and he is then defacing someone else's bible.

It's vandalism, plain and simple. It could be the Koran sitting there on the nightstand and I'd say the same thing...although if it was the Koran the whole world would be outraged that he was tearing it up.

If a book comes into my possession, I am free to do with it what I like and leave it where I like.

The Gideon bibles are free to whoever wants them. McKellen took his free copy, he did with it as he liked, which included ripping out sections, and he left it where he wanted, which just happened to be the same place he got it. I don't see how you can argue that the fact he chose to leave the book behind doesn't mean he never claimed ownership of it and was therefore not within his rights to do what he liked with it.

And the Koran line was both unnecessary and false, and you should know that. A small part of the world would probably be outraged, most people wouldn't care. Just like in this case, a small part, including yourself, seem to be outraged, and most people don't care at all.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,297
1,213
62
✟65,122.00
Faith
Christian
<snip>

He doesn’t hesitate to confirm rumors that he tears the pages of Leviticus 18:22 out of copies of The Bible in his hotel rooms either. (The chapter deals with a number of sexual activities that are considered to be abominable, including homosexuality.)

“I do, absolutely. I'm not proudly defacing the book,” he says, “But it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible.”

<snip>


Ian McKellen Admits to Ripping Pages from The Bible - Popcast |

I found this really revealing. Why would he tear out the pages? It seems he's rebelling against what he knows deep in his heart is true.

Personally I've never been a big fan of his, and this blatant blasphemy will likely impact whether I support him financially by watching his movies in the future.

What exactly do you think he knows in his heart? That homosexuals, like him, and like me, should be stoned to death, in accordance to God's law?

To me, ripping out Leviticus is an act of defiance, but in my opinion, it is an act of defiance against the current disgusting state of certain brands of Christianity today that enjoy cherry picking verses like Leviticus 20:13, Imply that "I can't kill you, but it is in accordance with God that I should, because you deserve it," and think that is in ANY WAY the message of Christ.

Christ could have stoned the woman caught in adultery. He was without sin. He could have cast the first stone. Frankly, God could have just killed all of us, rather than send his son to save us, to teach us how to forgive one another, to sacrifice for one another, to act as servants for one another, to edify one another, and to love one another, and by doing so, love God. As Christ said, as you do so to the least of these, you have done also unto me. As you have denied the least of these, so have you denied me.

What has happened to Christianity, where God sent his son, not to condemn the world, but to save it, and yet, Christians will accept that redemption, not because they earned it, because God has mercy upon us, and then turn around, quote Leviticus, a book which most Christians do not keep, save for 2 verses that supposedly deal with homosexuality, and then hold homosexuals to those verses, and do not hold themselves to the same book, and then condemn them, call us abominations, have personally told me on different occasions out the of the hearts of different Christians in different places and cities that God hates me, and that I deserve to be killed?

That, I believe, is what Sir McKellen is "ripping out" - the terrible hatred that has rooted in the hearts of so many Christians, daring to claim that homosexuals deserve death because of the lack of love and the murder in their hearts.

He says, "It's a choice between ripping out that page and throwing the whole bible away," he is implying that he doesn't want to throw out the Bible or Christianity completely. He just has an issue with those who quote Leviticus, an archaic book that people rarely read, often know little about, have often not even looked at the translation, the 1000s of web pages discussing the translation, what it means, what it means in context, who was being spoken to, who was speaking and why, and use it simply to condemn others.

That, in my opinion, is a far greater sacrilege than ripping a page from a book. Telling people they deserve to die because of Leviticus is a sacrilege. I
worked for a crisis line in the 80s, and a young 16 year old boy told his priest that he was gay. The priest told the boy that it would be better that he be dead than gay, so the boy called the line because he wanted sometimes to say goodbye to before he killed himself. That is a sacrilege. It is a sacrilege to claim that AIDS is God's punishment, and show no compassion. It is a sacrilege to claim that homosexuality is one of the "tenets of the religion," which it isn't. It is a sacrilege to start thread after thread about homosexuality, and ignore the majority of heterosexuals that have premarital sex, sing about it on the radio, brag about it openly, and imply that heterosexuals are somehow the models of morality.

I don't deserve salvation, but I have it. I am not going to spit on the cross by telling others that "Jesus loves me," but not them. I am not going to spit on the cross, boasting about my salvation like it was a personal achievement, but humble myself before anyone, knowing that I don't deserve it, and it is offered anyway, that love is offered and constant whether I am on the path or whether I stumble. I admit that I sin daily because I am imperfect, and that is why I need God, so I would never demand perfection of another, tying burdens upon them that I refuse to carry myself.

The God I serve is one of love and encouragement, of hope and redemption for a world that often thinks themselves unworthy of love, often, not even loving themselves, and so, unable to love their neighbor as themselves. I serve a God who is not my Genie who helps me win a basketball game or helps me find a parking spot, but one who is the Master of my life, and it is I who do the serving, I who ask what I can do for Him. And I acknowledge that God, while my Master, showers me with blessings nonetheless, because he is Good, and Merciful, and Kind. He blesses me more than I am even aware of, and so I simply offer thanksgiving, even for blessings that elude my consciousness.

I serve a God who has forgiven me, so I forgive others even before they ask, as a thanks to God, and to demonstrate what God can really do in one's life. I constantly pray for love, for God's pure love, so that I can put it in action, and show it to others, give it to others, and give it first, without asking anything in return except that they accept it, because that is what God has done for me

And I serve a God whose whole crux of his message was to love my neighbor as myself, and in doing so, love God with my whole heart, soul, and mind. I do not tear out the Gospel, and hold up Leviticus with stones in my hand, and look to Christ, as if he is going to give me a thumbs up to kill another, because that is not what Christ did. To those who sinned, he said, "Neither do I condemn you." He did not condemn. He did not judge. He did not shame them. The woman accused of adultery was LITERALLY saved - her life spared, her sins forgiven, gently told to go, and to not sin again.

And that love changed people. It made the woman of ill repute cry tears of joy, and wash Jesus feet with her tears and wipe them with her hair, so thankful, humbling herself so deeply before him.

Simon, by contrast, looked at the woman in scorn, and even judged Jesus, thinking that no son of God would allow such a woman to approach him.

The Pharisees wouldn't even acknowledge or look at the "sinners." Jesus ate with them, got to know them, loved them. He loved them as people, saw them as children of God, not "sinners", because we are all sinners, and because of that, because probably for the first time in their lives, they heard and understood that God loved them, cared for them deeply, and loved them right now, as they were, rather than needing to change, do "earn" the love, as the Pharisees probably told them, they changed. Zaccheus changed. Jesus inspired them. People were drawn to him - crowds of people, being freed by Christ, instead of burdened by the Law and the Pharisees who didn't keep the Laws they gave others. They made people suffer to show their love to God, because it gave them power. They humbled others and enjoyed positions of power, and were honored before men, thought to be holy, but Christ turned the power structure upside down, the first being last, the last, first, those thinking they deserved a place of honor being asked to move down to make way for those who humbled themselves before God, and were given places of honor.

He was a threat. So, they killed him.

That is the God I honor. That is the God I love and worship. That is the God that, if I can forgive, know is much, much more forgiving than I am. If I can have hope that all people return to God, because I want that for God, I want that for me, and I want that for all people, and know that deep down, that is all anyone really wants - to be truly and purely loved, and happy, I am sure that it is put there by a God who desires it far more than I can even imagine. If, through speaking in tongues so much recently, has led me to spend long hours praying for God's love to grant others, acknowledging my loves limitations, it is thanks to the Holy Spirit's intercession, and my only part in it was submission to God's will.

It is my prayer that Christianity will either die and by reborn anew, or that it will be healed from the anger, bitterness, divisiveness, judgement of who is and isn't a Christian, who is and isn't worthy of Christ's love, and rather, understand that our goal is unity of mankind through love, which comes from God above. It is my prayer that the issue of homosexuality be seriously studied and examined and prayed for in private conversation with God, in a time where one listens even more than they speak, and really understand God's view of this, especially those that speak of it so frequently. It is my prayer that the Christian body submit to God, to admit our humanity and imperfection, admit to God in prayer privately that we may be wrong, and I personally often am, and ask God to help us see the Light much clearer, to help us put aside our egos, our need to be right, to help us embrace humility, in order to help us listen to Him, and not our own prejudices, our own hatred, our own selfishness, our own insecurity, that we may let go of such things, and walk a little closer to Him, step a little closer to perfection, as God is perfect.

I often lose faith in Christianity. I often come here and leave disheartened, frustrated, angry, but most often, depressed. It has nothing to do with "what I probably know in my heart to be true." It is that I often feel that my service to God is to speak to the "saved," to wake them up, to show them how they have strayed from the path. I have been here, and argued with Christians, asking that we stop being catty and just try to act a bit more civil, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, with a response of, "Why should I???"

Because Christ commanded it.

I have pointed out that all men will know that you are Christ's disciple by the love you have for one another. Unfortunately, most people think Christian is synonymous with condemnation, angry, spiteful, deceitful, and condemning others to hell. The Christian poster snapped, "What do I care what some nonChristian thinks?"

What should you think about what Christ said at the Last Supper to his disciples????

So, I lose hope. I don't know what happened to the love. I have had someone quote Romans 9:12 as a command to hate (in the name of God.)
I lose faith in humanity, and I even lose faith in myself to make any difference, seeing the same arguments over and over.

But I have faith in God, and through God, all things are possible.

That is the God whom I serve.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
52
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟129,090.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
If a book comes into my possession, I am free to do with it what I like and leave it where I like.

The Gideon bibles are free to whoever wants them. McKellen took his free copy, he did with it as he liked, which included ripping out sections, and he left it where he wanted, which just happened to be the same place he got it. I don't see how you can argue that the fact he chose to leave the book behind doesn't mean he never claimed ownership of it and was therefore not within his rights to do what he liked with it.

And the Koran line was both unnecessary and false, and you should know that. A small part of the world would probably be outraged, most people wouldn't care. Just like in this case, a small part, including yourself, seem to be outraged, and most people don't care at all.

You think I'm outraged?

Heh. Hardly. This is merely a blip on my radar.

In terms of the Koran, let's talk about Stanislav Shmulevich

Pace University student who dumped Qurans in toilet gets community service

This guy was gonna go to jail for a hate crime because he flushed korans down the toilet.

Remember gitmo? Remember how many people were up in arms because of Newsweek's story about the koran being abused there?

This is what I'm talking about. A man openly admits to defacing a bible and people yawn. But if had been the koran...it would've caused the nation to be in uproar.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 24, 2008
2,702
168
✟26,242.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
You think I'm outraged?

Heh. Hardly. This is merely a blip on my radar.

In terms of the Koran, let's talk about Stanislav Shmulevich

Pace University student who dumped Qurans in toilet gets community service

This guy was gonna go to jail for a hate crime because he flushed korans down the toilet.

Remember gitmo? Remember how many people were up in arms because of Newsweek's story about the koran being abused there?

This is what I'm talking about. A man openly admits to defacing a bible and people yawn. But if had been the koran...it would've caused the nation to be in uproar.

I think there are some contextual differences here - you don't think the abuse of a religious text belonging to prisoners in gaol designed to house people accused of religious-based terrorism might be somewhat more inflammatory than one random guy ripping pages out of Gideon Bibles he happens to find? I'm not surprised the former caused more "uproar" than the latter. Are you? The mistreatement of accused, but not convicted, "criminals" is a serious matter, particularly when the legal reasoning behind their (overly long by any measure) detention without charge is questionable.

That being said, I think you will find that in all the cases that you brought up it was a far way from the "nation being in uproar" - in all the cases you cited, and in this one, a small number care/cared, the vast majority didn't/don't. The guy that got community service seems pretty harshly dealt with, but I don't know if we get the full context of what happened in the newspaper articles - they mention a disagreement with Muslim students, but they aren't very clear on the nature of that - that context would no doubt impact on the consequences. Even then, I can find little, if any, coverage, from sources ranging from Michelle Malkin to Daily Kos, that thinks he was treated fairly - so is that the "nation in uproar"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skaloop
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟91,870.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
If a book comes into my possession, I am free to do with it what I like and leave it where I like.

The Gideon bibles are free to whoever wants them. McKellen took his free copy, he did with it as he liked, which included ripping out sections, and he left it where he wanted, which just happened to be the same place he got it. I don't see how you can argue that the fact he chose to leave the book behind doesn't mean he never claimed ownership of it and was therefore not within his rights to do what he liked with it.

Clearly, this is a matter of debate. Most people do not regard Gideon Bibles as their own personal property, but as on loan for the time they are in the hotel, the same as the other property in the room.

The question is, does the Gideon Bible have the status of a bar of soap; to be used by one person and then discarded, or does it have the status of a reference or guide book in the room; able to be used and even taken from the room during the stay, on the understanding that it is then to be left for the next occupant.

I would say that the majority of people would regard it as on loan, not as becoming the property of the person occupying the room on a temporary basis.

Therefore, the defacing is not lawful.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,297
1,213
62
✟65,122.00
Faith
Christian
And what is Ian really doing that is really going to do any real harm to someone wanting to read the bible, and understand its basic message in the Gospel?

As the U.S. Congress prepares to finally pass hate crimes legislation that includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, a bloody and gruesome example of why such hate crimes protections are needed is coming out of New York. Over the weekend, two men beat and mauled 49-year-old Jack Price near his home in Queens, New York. They left him for dead, crushing his lungs, breaking his jaw, and lacerating his spleen. His condition was so bad that when he was finally rushed to a hospital, he had to be put into a medically-induced coma so that doctors could treat him.
Disturbing. Brutal. Bigoted. Disgusting. And beyond these terms, what's another scary part? Friends of the perpetrators are saying that the hate crime was justified because of the book of Leviticus.
One of the friends gave an interview to WABC News in New York, and the commentary is repulsive.
"I don't want no man blowing me a kiss either. I mean things happen," said Marcel Gelmi, a friend of one of the attackers. "I've been beat up like that too, but you don't see me on the news and my family crying and this and that. Wounds heal."
Somehow I highly doubt that Gelmi has been beat up to the point where he had to be placed in a medically-induced coma so that doctors could save his life. Gelmi also showed the TV reporters a tattoo he has on his arm, from the book of Leviticus.
"Leviticus. You should not lay with a man as one does with a woman. It's an abomination."

Of course, if Gelmi actually bothered to open his bible instead of just tattooing religious right soundbytes onto his arm, he'd find that the real abomination is interpreting a biblical verse as license to violently assault people because of their sexual orientation. I don't seem to recall anything in the Bible where God blesses the beating, the lacerating of one's spleen, the breaking of one's jaw, or the crushing of one's lungs simply because one is gay.
Queens District Attorney Richard Brown summed up this beating pretty damn well: "This is probably the most vicious and brutal incident that I've seen, captured as it was on videotape."
If these two men are guilty -- and all indications, including video that captured the horrific assault, seem to suggest that they will be -- they deserve to be held accountable for their actions. And if there was ever a reason to make sure that expanded hate crimes laws find their way to President Obama IMMEDIATELY, this is it.

Blog | Gay Rights | Change.org

If someone can actually use Leviticus to beat someone into a coma, don't we have a MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM on our hands besides homosexuality, when someone who believes they are Christian, has Leviticus quoted, and here's the implication that God condones a Christian to murder or beat into a coma someone who is gay, and NOT to love your neighbor as yourself?

But let's run in circles about gay men who love each other, posing no threat to the pubic, or cry foul about Ian taring a page out of a Gideon Bible that probably no one actually reads in a hotel, and ignore what preaching Leviticus and the death penalty results in. Throw up you hands and say, "well, that was just one guy," and claim no responsibility, no part in it. However, don't think that it escapes God. Don't think it escapes judgement day. And this is one of a number of incidences. In License to Kill, the murderer of a gay man also quoted Leviticus, and caught and jailed, said in the interview that he feels no remorse, and was simply doing God's will, and feels justified.

I used to sing the song as a child, "and they'll know we are Christians by our love." That is NOT what we are known for. Not by a long shot.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 24, 2008
2,702
168
✟26,242.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Clearly, this is a matter of debate. Most people do not regard Gideon Bibles as their own personal property, but as on loan for the time they are in the hotel, the same as the other property in the room.

The question is, does the Gideon Bible have the status of a bar of soap; to be used by one person and then discarded, or does it have the status of a reference or guide book in the room; able to be used and even taken from the room during the stay, on the understanding that it is then to be left for the next occupant.

I would say that the majority of people would regard it as on loan, not as becoming the property of the person occupying the room on a temporary basis.

Therefore, the defacing is not lawful.

You seem to think that what you think the majority of people would think (assumption #1) constitutes some sort of legal precedent (assumption #2). I think you are wrong in the first assumption, and therefore doubly wrong on the second.

Is it considered stealing to take a Gideon Bible?

The answer to that is no. In fact, that is what the Gideon people want you to do. That is why they distribute them - so people can take them!

So, a person is free to take it, correct?

And if a person is free to take it, it becomes their possession, correct?

And if something is a person's possession, they are free to do what they like with it (within reason - you probably won't get away with doing something that endangers any other people, for example), correct?

It isn't illegal to vandalise your own property and discard it (unless in discarding it you are violating any waste disposal laws, I guess).
 
Upvote 0

MoonLancer

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Aug 10, 2007
5,765
166
✟29,524.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You do realize you are opening yourself up to attacks by people who will say Christians have historically destroyed copies of other holy books because they knew deep in their heart the book was true, right?

hmmm your right, and i will say this.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
52
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟129,090.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
You seem to think that what you think the majority of people would think (assumption #1) constitutes some sort of legal precedent (assumption #2). I think you are wrong in the first assumption, and therefore doubly wrong on the second.

Is it considered stealing to take a Gideon Bible?

The answer to that is no. In fact, that is what the Gideon people want you to do. That is why they distribute them - so people can take them!

That's rather twisting the purpose of the gideon bible. It is to get a bible in the hands of those who otherwise might not have contact with it. Obviously, Mr. McKellen can get his hands on a bible if he knows enough of it to tear out the parts he doesn't agree with.

So, a person is free to take it, correct?

And if a person is free to take it, it becomes their possession, correct?

And if something is a person's possession, they are free to do what they like with it (within reason - you probably won't get away with doing something that endangers any other people, for example), correct?

It isn't illegal to vandalise your own property and discard it (unless in discarding it you are violating any waste disposal laws, I guess).

Let's look at this from a financial standpoint. Mr. McKellen takes a bible he has no need for, defaces it, and leaves it for the next person. Had McKellen not defaced it, it would be intact for the next person, someone who might actually appreciate it for what it is. However, since McKellen has defaced it, it now has to be discarded and replaced, or somehow fixed. Either way, that costs money. Gideons rely on the charity of other people.

So perhaps while McKellen's actions may be legal, they certainly are not charitable and it certainly doesn't make his point resonate. It just shows that perhaps some gays are petty enough that they feel they need to destroy what they disagree with, which is ironic when you truly consider it.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 24, 2008
2,702
168
✟26,242.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Let's look at this from a financial standpoint. Mr. McKellen takes a bible he has no need for, defaces it, and leaves it for the next person. Had McKellen not defaced it, it would be intact for the next person, someone who might actually appreciate it for what it is. However, since McKellen has defaced it, it now has to be discarded and replaced, or somehow fixed. Either way, that costs money. Gideons rely on the charity of other people.

So perhaps while McKellen's actions may be legal, they certainly are not charitable and it certainly doesn't make his point resonate. It just shows that perhaps some gays are petty enough that they feel they need to destroy what they disagree with, which is ironic when you truly consider it.

I see that we are now beyond the moral/ethical standpoint, beyond the legal standpoint and now on the economic/charitable... I'm sure we will find that he has done something wrong eventually, yeah, just got to keep moving those goal posts! :thumbsup:

McKellen had a use for the Bible - to make a point about its teachings. It wasn't the purpose that the Gideon people imagined it being used for, but once it was McKellen's Bible he could use it as he sees fit. Whether you approve of that use is largely irrelevant as, I think we do agree on this, it is his property and he can do with it as he likes.

His point does seem to have resonated. We are here talking about it, aren't we? A Bible without a few pages of Leviticus isn't completely useless. Actually, I'd say it was probably an improvement for the next person to read it - they can stop worrying about eating lobster, wearing clothes made from multiple fiber types, owning slaves from neighboring nations, or trimming their beards etc. ;)

Was it a petty act? Depends on your viewpoint, but in the greater scheme of things ripping out a few pages of a Bible can probably be defined as a petty act.

Look, we got him! He wasn't immoral or unethical or criminal. He was petty.

Crucify him!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebekka
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
52
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟129,090.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
oh, i'm not moving the goalposts. I think what he did was wrong. I find the defense of his actions interesting...and....I find the double standard appalling. It's okay for someone to destroy the bible, but not the koran. If someone destroys the koran, they can be committed of a hate crime. (and this also highlights why I disagree with hate crimes in general.)

Really doesn't make much sense if you actually stop to think about it.
 
Upvote 0

Supernaut

What did they aim for when they missed your heart?
Jun 12, 2009
3,460
282
Sacramento, CA
✟27,439.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I see that we are now beyond the moral/ethical standpoint, beyond the legal standpoint and now on the economic/charitable... I'm sure we will find that he has done something wrong eventually, yeah, just got to keep moving those goal posts! :thumbsup:

McKellen had a use for the Bible - to make a point about its teachings. It wasn't the purpose that the Gideon people imagined it being used for, but once it was McKellen's Bible he could use it as he sees fit. Whether you approve of that use is largely irrelevant as, I think we do agree on this, it is his property and he can do with it as he likes.

His point does seem to have resonated. We are here talking about it, aren't we? A Bible without a few pages of Leviticus isn't completely useless. Actually, I'd say it was probably an improvement for the next person to read it - they can stop worrying about eating lobster, wearing clothes made from multiple fiber types, owning slaves from neighboring nations, or trimming their beards etc. ;)

Was it a petty act? Depends on your viewpoint, but in the greater scheme of things ripping out a few pages of a Bible can probably be defined as a petty act.

Look, we got him! He wasn't immoral or unethical or criminal. He was petty.

Crucify him!


Amen brother! I got the spikes and the beams!!:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
Aug 24, 2008
2,702
168
✟26,242.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
oh, i'm not moving the goalposts. I think what he did was wrong. I find the defense of his actions interesting...and....I find the double standard appalling. It's okay for someone to destroy the bible, but not the koran. If someone destroys the koran, they can be committed of a hate crime. (and this also highlights why I disagree with hate crimes in general.)

Really doesn't make much sense if you actually stop to think about it.

You are moving the goalposts. You think it is wrong because it is your religion's holy book and don't like the idea that someone should be allowed to do anything bad to it, but you know that isn't really much weight, so you and other posters have been trying to prove that he was wrong based on a number of different criteria that would be acceptable to all, not just Christians, switching the definition (moral/legal/economic/charitable) after each former attempt was proven to be inadequate.

I'm not sure why you have such a persecution complex. You provided one analogous example of someone being tried for a hate crime for damaging a Koran (and as far as I can see the original charge of vandalism was justified, but not the escalation). I don't see how from this single incident you have extrapolated a broad and widely accepted double standard. As I have said before, loud minorities should not be confused for consensus. I don't think anyone in this thread has uttered anything even close to resembling the opinion which you think makes no sense. As I pointed out earlier, I could find nothing but denigration of the decision, be it from sources on the right or on the left.

The Guantanamo example was quite a different case. The problem was not so much that Korans were damaged, it was that the Korans had been given to Muslims who had been arrested and held without charge indefinitely in an off-shore facility and then, if their illegal captivity wasn't enough, and were then destroyed/defaced/sullied in a manner which was representative of the broader issue of the mistreatment of these individuals. If the shoe was on the other foot, if there was a gaol in Afghanistan where Americans were being held indefinitely, were provided with Bibles which were then defaced by their captors in such a way, there would naturally be outrage. The outrage was not so much the damage to the book, it was the way in which damaging the book was used as a means to an end of humiliation and offense.

It is fine for anyone to destroy a Koran or a Bible or any other book, if it is their legal possession and the manner of destroying it does not infringe any public safety laws. If people want to do it, they can. If people want to pile up books and burn them all, they can. You don't have to like it, but you have no right to stop it. If you do do it, or if you burn a flag, or any other legal, symbolic gesture of destruction, you should expect people to have a reaction that isn't always favourable (though really, that is the point of doing it - to get a reaction, to get attention).
 
Upvote 0

Zebra1552

Urban Nomad. Literally.
Nov 2, 2007
14,461
820
Freezing, America
✟41,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
What a pointless tirade... Seriously, there are starving kids in Africa, Americans lost in their own culture, and prisoners who need hope, and you're sitting here discussing how one celebrity is being a jerk? Why?
 
Upvote 0

Supernaut

What did they aim for when they missed your heart?
Jun 12, 2009
3,460
282
Sacramento, CA
✟27,439.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What a pointless tirade... Seriously, there are starving kids in Africa, Americans lost in their own culture, and prisoners who need hope, and you're sitting here discussing how one celebrity is being a jerk? Why?

FYI: You're here too. What should you be doing?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 24, 2008
2,702
168
✟26,242.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
What a pointless tirade... Seriously, there are starving kids in Africa, Americans lost in their own culture, and prisoners who need hope, and you're sitting here discussing how one celebrity is being a jerk? Why?

What a pointless comment about a pointless tirade. Shouldn't you be off curing cancer and building houses for orphans in poverty striken Africa?

You do have a point though - why someones freedom to do with their own property what they will requires such analysis is puzzling to me.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
52
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟129,090.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I don't have a persecution complex. I just stop and take off my rose colored glasses every now and then and realize that many groups calling for equality don't want equality at all, they want to be MORE than that. This is one of those cases.

McKellen can tear the pages out of the bible all he wants for all I care. As has been pointed out, tearing out the pages doesn't change the fact that they're still there. The words don't simply disappear because someone rips a page out. All he's doing is showing how intolerant and bigoted he is. He doesn't "like" something so he's going to destroy it. How...mature...of him.

And yes, I've maintained this about book burnings as well, so please don't start talking about churches who have burned books over the years.

I've already maintained that I'd be just as disgruntled over this if it was the koran, and I mean that. Heck, he could be tearing up the hotel phone book and I'd probably be a bit ticked over it. He's being destructive for the heck of it and he almost gleefully admits it. Most of the people I know got over this back in 6th or 7th grade after they TPd someone's house. Seems he just never got out of that phase.

I still believe that the bible did not belong to him, as he was not taking it in the spirit that the Gideons are looking for, nor was it really for the purpose that the Gideons put the bibles in the hotels for in the first place. So I do believe that he was being malicious and destroying property that didn't belong to him. So no, I have not changed the goalposts. I've just pointed out multiple scenarios as to how this was poor thinking on McKellen's part.
 
Upvote 0