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

[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.

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).

Thanks - now I know what you are thinking of. I really do read this differently than you do. This guy was pointing to people and saying they are going to hell, in front of a crowd. The CPS called that harassment. Let's try some of the verses mentioned here - suppose I said this to you on MN:

The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured.

Would that be appropriate? I imagine someone who kept doing that would be banned from MN. Or suppose you mentioned doing something on Sunday here on MN, and someone responded, persistently, by saying things like this, encouraging others to "out" the other person:

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.

Or suppose someone here on MN kept referring to the Exodus 21:7 passage and mentioning your daughter and suggesting she should be sold into slavery. Would that be appropriate?

"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."

Particularly when used as a club to harass someone else who doesn't want to be harassed. Which seems to be what happened here.

[temporal1]

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.

i admire what i believe to be Josh’s consistent intent to PROVOKE thought in Christians, esp about what is believed, how to live in faith. To not be totally blind, deaf, dumb, as the world presses evermore for erosion of Truth.

The dripping water faucet. One vote at a time. Abortion here. Child mutilation there. Redefine marriage.
The plaintiff cry, “Who is it hurting?!” - “Just this one thing.” .. ..



The Grand Canyon is the “simple” result of eons of simple water currents. “Nothing to see here.”

boot:
Particularly when used as a club to harass someone else who doesn't want to be harassed. Which seems to be what happened here.

you’re conflating “what is the Christian thing to do?” “what would i do?” with, “what is legal?”
as Josh pointed out above, this matter could have been decided quickly+easily with existing law, without mention of scriptures, which then opens doors to general censoring of scriptures - overkill.

[Bootstrap]

i admire what i believe to be Josh’s consistent intent to PROVOKE thought in Christians, esp about what is believed, how to live in faith.

I really wish that were the emphasis. For the most part, we simply don't talk much about how we, as Christians, live out our faith in this world, how we should be salt and light, what we are called to as the Kingdom of God. Conversations that ask that don't go anywhere.

You see that emphasized in the New Testament, in the Martyrs Mirror, in places where Christians face true persecution. There may be a day that we in the West do face true persecution. I don't see that now. If that day comes, I hope we can be good to each other as members of the Kingdom of God.

If we want to provoke thought among Christians, maybe we should start here: how did Jesus speak with sinners? How did Jesus and the apostles approach living in a dark and broken world that did not understand them? How did they speak of true suffering and persecution? How can we be more like them?

If we want to be salt and light in public, that's where we start.

[Josh]

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.

The case was dismissed because the government was unable to locate the original complainants to appear for trial.

But that’s not the subject I wanted to talk about. The subject is that the government is adopting a position of the Bible being inappropriate to read in public.

[Josh]

i admire what i believe to be Josh’s consistent intent to PROVOKE thought in Christians, esp about what is believed, how to live in faith.

I really wish that were the emphasis. For the most part, we simply don't talk much about how we, as Christians, live out our faith in this world, how we should be salt and light, what we are called to as the Kingdom of God. Conversations that ask that don't go anywhere.

You see that emphasized in the New Testament, in the Martyrs Mirror, in places where Christians face true persecution. There may be a day that we in the West do face true persecution. I don't see that now. If that day comes, I hope we can be good to each other as members of the Kingdom of God.

If we want to provoke thought among Christians, maybe we should start here: how did Jesus speak with sinners? How did Jesus and the apostles approach living in a dark and broken world that did not understand them? How did they speak of true suffering and persecution? How can we be more like them?

If we want to be salt and light in public, that's where we start.

Much of what Jesus said in the NT was simply reading or reciting scripture. That’s why I think speaking the scriptures publicly is important.

[Ken]

I don't think this case is fundamentally about the Bible. It is about harassment.

The question is whether it is a crime to verbally harass someone in public. It is either legal or illegal to do so in the UK. I have no idea what the specific laws say about verbal harassment in the UK. But that is actually the question here.

If it is illegal to verbally harass someone in public then it really doesn't matter from where the words originate. Legally speaking, the Bible isn't some specially protected form of speech that is different from any other speech. And in any even, if the reporting is correct, this street preacher wasn't actually quoting from the bible anyway. He was paraphrasing and adding his own particular spin and language.

Just because you happen to be quoting from the Bible (or paraphrasing it) doesn't provide an exemption from prohibitions on harassment. If he was accusing them of something entirely different and non-Biblical, such as "destroying the earth by driving an SUV" that might also be considered harassment or it might not. The original source of the words, or the original source of the sentiment doesn't really make any difference.

If, on the other hand, this was a case about someone standing in public preaching from the Bible and someone next to him doing a public speech about some other topic like environmentalism or the war in Ukraine and it was the person speaking about the Bible who was silenced but not the others, then it would be content and discriminatory treatment of the Bible compared to other forms of speech.

[Josh]

Then why did the prosecution say some Bible verses are not appropriate to speak in public?

[temporal1]

Page 2:

Josh wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:24 am
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]

The case was dismissed because the government was unable to locate the original complainants to appear for trial.

But that’s not the subject I wanted to talk about. The subject is that the government is adopting a position of the Bible being inappropriate to read in public.

Indeed, this attempt to silence Bible reading, while unsuccessful this time, is a bellwether. They will keep trying to undermine faith in the public square. It has been attempted in the past and will be attempted again, make no mistake.

[Josh]

The case was dismissed because the government was unable to locate the original complainants to appear for trial.

But that’s not the subject I wanted to talk about. The subject is that the government is adopting a position of the Bible being inappropriate to read in public.

Indeed, this attempt to silence Bible reading, while unsuccessful this time, is a bellwether. They will keep trying to undermine faith in the public square. It has been attempted in the past and will be attempted again, make no mistake.

And it comes on the heels of a new law in the UK prohibiting praying the rosary anywhere near abortion clinics.

I can’t think of something less violent or less harassing than silently praying the rosary.