Is it appropriate to read the Bible out loud in public?

[HondurasKeiser]

I will repeat the government’s own words:

"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."

At question here is if the Bible in its entirety can be read in public or not. The government’s position is that it can’t be.

To put that in context, if I start shouting at you that you are going to hell, in front of other people, making a scene, that can be considered offensive even if I quote phrases from Scripture while doing so.

And no, nobody was "reading the Bible in its entirety". He was taking phrases out of context, using them as invectives, harassing someone. This wasn't a Bible reading.

Suppose a Muslim were to do this to you or your children. Wouldn't you find that offensive? Even if they used phrases taken from the Quran?

So that should be illegal? It should be illegal to be offensive? Never mind the fact that you take as true the assertion that he was "making a scene, and shouting about going to Hell."

[Josh]

I will repeat the government’s own words:

"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."

At question here is if the Bible in its entirety can be read in public or not. The government’s position is that it can’t be.

To put that in context, if I start shouting at you that you are going to hell, in front of other people, making a scene, that can be considered offensive even if I quote phrases from Scripture while doing so.

And no, nobody was "reading the Bible in its entirety". He was taking phrases out of context, using them as invectives, harassing someone. This wasn't a Bible reading.

Suppose a Muslim were to do this to you or your children. Wouldn't you find that offensive? Even if they used phrases taken from the Quran?

No, the context is the government listing specific Bible passages as being illegal to read in public and grounds for prosecution.

If they wanted to simply prosecute him for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, they could have done so, and without listing chapter and verse that are, somehow, “no longer appropriate in modern society”.

[MaxPC]

No, the context is the government listing specific Bible passages as being illegal to read in public and grounds for prosecution.

If they wanted to simply prosecute him for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, they could have done so, and without listing chapter and verse that are, somehow, “no longer appropriate in modern society”.

Indeed. Well spotted. As I mentioned, it is an attempted thin wedge to persecution of Bible believers.

[Bootstrap]

No, the context is the government listing specific Bible passages as being illegal to read in public and grounds for prosecution.

Please provide evidence for that claim. It doesn't seem to be true.

[steve-in-kville]

Of all things that one can do in public, I see this being pretty low on the list of inappropriate actions.

[MaxPC]

Of all things that one can do in public, I see this being pretty low on the list of inappropriate actions.

Indeed. If “being offensive” was truly illegal, then the entire planet would be incarcerated.

[Josh]

No, the context is the government listing specific Bible passages as being illegal to read in public and grounds for prosecution.

Please provide evidence for that claim. It doesn't seem to be true.

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

"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).

"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."

[temporal1]

No, the context is the government listing specific Bible passages as being illegal to read in public and grounds for prosecution.

Please provide evidence for that claim. It doesn't seem to be true.

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

"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).

"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."

Josh, you are so patient.
Not only citing this quote in your “mysterious” OP, it was quoted at least twice on P.1.
Repeat, repeat, repeat. i’ll add bold+Italics, maybe that’ll help. Hopefully HUGE font size won’t be required.

“Fears raised about freedom of expression as prosecutors say ​​​​​​​it is ‘no longer appropriate’ to quote parts of the Bible in public” ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
“A statement by the UK's main prosecution service that it is "no longer appropriate" to read parts of the Bible aloud in public has been dubbed "ill-judged" and "concerning".”

(^^OP linked report headline.)

No, the context is the government listing specific Bible passages as being illegal to read in public and grounds for prosecution.

If they wanted to simply prosecute him for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, they could have done so, and without listing chapter and verse that are, somehow, “no longer appropriate in modern society”.

This could have been done easily+efficiently. A non-issue.

[MaxPC]

Please provide evidence for that claim. It doesn't seem to be true.

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

"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).

"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."

Josh, you are so patient.
Not only citing this quote in your “mysterious” OP, it was quoted at least twice on P.1.
Repeat, repeat, repeat. i’ll add bold+Italics, maybe that’ll help. Hopefully HUGE font size won’t be required.

Josh gets a triple gold star from me for his patience. There are times I think some like to keep the attention on themselves when they know they are losing an argument.

[Bootstrap]

Of all things that one can do in public, I see this being pretty low on the list of inappropriate actions.

And FWIW, the case was dismissed.

All in all, the only reason we are discussing this is that we are discussing it.