Thanks to a lurker’s tip (I had no idea i had those) who has now effectively de-lurked himself, I received one of the best news bits of the new millennium! Thank you mystery informant! Hehe. He linked to these guys as well.
Bible drawn into Hong Kong sex publication row
Wed May 16, 5:48 AM ET
HONG KONG (Reuters) – More than 800 Hong Kong residents have called on authorities to reclassify the Bible as “indecent” due to its sexual and violent content, following an uproar over a sex column in a university student journal.
A spokesperson for Hong Kong’s Television and Entertainment Licensing authority (TELA) said it had received 838 complaints about the Bible by noon on Wednesday.
The complaints follow the launch of an anonymous Web site — www.truthbible.net — which said the holy book “made one tremble” given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest.
The Web site said the Bible’s sexual content “far exceeds” that of a recent sex column published in the Chinese University’s “Student Press” magazine, which had asked readers whether they’d ever fantasised about incest or bestiality.
That column was later deemed “indecent” by the Obscene Articles Tribunal, sparking a storm of debate about social morality and freedom of speech. Student editors of the journal defended it, saying open sexual debate was a basic right.
If the Bible is similarly classified as “indecent” by authorities, only those over 18 could buy the holy book and it would need to be sealed in a wrapper with a statutory warning notice.
TELA said it was still undecided on whether the Bible had violated Hong Kong’s obscene and indecent articles laws.
But a local protestant minister shrugged off this possibility.
“If there is rape mentioned in the Bible, it doesn’t mean it encourages those activities,” said Reverend Wu Chi-wai. “It’s just common sense … I don’t think that criticism will have strong support from the public,” he added.
Whether or not the bible promotes rape, incest and other gruesome things is moot. The mere presence of those acts in the literature show that there are parts of the book that are meant for *clears throat* mature audiences only.
VICTORY! 
Greetings to the following people! Atheist Seeker, Carlo, Bojit, Euri, Fredda, Helga, Jaywalker, Joyfulchicken, Kevin, Martin, Michael, Micketymoc, Oboids, Philippine Atheists, Pinoy Atheist, Romeo, Shari, Thysz and Tony.
Bookmark at:
StumbleUpon | Digg | Del.icio.us | Dzone | Newsvine | Spurl | Simpy | Furl | Reddit | Yahoo! MyWeb
Viewed 3430 times by 1045 viewers
Interestingly, that idea has been active ever since I've learned about Atheism, ie when I read "The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read" (basically a Freethinker book), but it's only recently that the idea of the Bible being appropriate for mature audiences only has reached the surface mind of humanity. In any case, if some people won't agree to censoring the Bible, maybe people can start the clear mature-only verses in public so that they'll get the clear message.
Told ya you'd love it. I hope this brightened up your day, dude.
Does this makes me a "deepthroat" of sorts?
Benj,
What is your stand when it comes to broadsheets like the Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippione Star?
Hahaha. Oh, the irony of it all.
a theist's comment: it just shows how "complete" the Bible is— in order to distinguish the good, you need to show the bad. although, incest was allowed in the early times. i don't exactly know the reason why it isn't today. maybe because we have a lot of people already in this world that you don't need to make babies with your relatives. lol. it again leads us to the overpopulation issue.
MABUHAY ANG FAMILY PLANNING! lol.
Intriguing!
So basically, if you do don't have kids with your relative it's not that bad? Hehe. Aside from the overpopulation issue, a lot of birth defects may arise from such a umm "union".
Michael: Oops, my bad! You weren't in my roll call (but you're in my blog roll)! I've added your name already. hehe
OMG. I recall during my first year in PCU, when our Bible and Values prof exclaimed that we should buy a Bible from their store, I couldn't help but respond.
"Why do we have to buy it? Ain't they free?"
Of course not, and she didn't explain further.
I commented too about this issue before in our Laws of Mass Media… about the ecclesiastical issues in our class. Why some literary works of lesser 'gravity' were censored by the regulatory boards in the United States while the Bible, a widely read book, has lots of it? And then I was toppled with spamming points from my God-fearing classmates. I mean, 'kids a decade younger than me will be oriented on how to make love with your sister', seeding, and all. to think that we traditionally refrain to orient young people about sex.
Nevertheless, the Bible was written with good intentions. With no actual malice, my law prof pointed out
. Besides, if kids wouldn't know about sex even if they read one, why adults tell them? Wala lang. 
Benj,
Admittedly, that was a very short post so you could have missed it and so I shall lengthen this one.
Again, what is your stand on broadsheet newspapers like the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star, and others?
If you get hold of encyclopedias now, there could be articles on the turmoil in Indonesia in 1998. There are stories about the rape of ethnic Chinese Indonesians in those articles.
So what is your stand on encyclopedias?
And also you typed and struck out the word VICTORY at the end of your article. Would care to indulge as to its significance?
The bible is literature and it will be subject to every possible restriction that a state can put on a piece of literature.
The publishers already know that some content of the paper may not be appropriate for younger readers. That's why a lot of them have made a separate "Kid's section" for parents to give for their kids.
It's a fair assessment that daily broadsheets are mostly read and bought by adults. And the same goes for the bible. I'm quite sure that most people who buy the bible are already above the age of minority.
As for encyclopedia (which is already in plural form), they are meant to be reference materials (i.e. not non-fiction/fictional works of literature). Yes, even the dictionary has the words incest, rape and what have you. And for one, kids don't pick up to read encyclopedia to read it from cover to cover (I'm the only one I know who did that) so those information will not be exposed to the children unless made as a required reading assignment.
For some reason you keep on asking nit-picky questions that border on the obvious. It's a victory for the secular movement. It's seen as a humorous news bit so loosen up. Jeez.
–
That being said, regardless of how I feel about the daily paper and the encyclopedia, it still remains that there is content in the bible that is not meant for a young audience. Again, regardless.
True, newspapers and encyclopedias do contain factual accounts of violence and perversion. But the Bible is way more disturbing because it tells us that violent and perverse acts are perfectly acceptable as long as God sanctions them.
Then again, I first read the Bible from cover to cover when I was 11, and I think I turned out normal… more or less
Yes they do. I did that too.
Yay! We turned out OK, right?! Right?!
So reading the encyclopedia as a kid turns you into an atheist? Yay!
There might be some truth to that.
Imho, most atheists are people who weren't brought up to believe in a god early on. That meant that those kids who picked up the encyclopedia were already building biases for empiricism, free thought and other less-than-esoteric topics.
Benj,
You mean literature like "Le Morte D Arthur" about King Arthur being bred of a rape and then tricked into incest to breed Mordred? We wrote a summary of that book back in High School so our government saw nothing wrong about that though I certainly don't know about the Chinese authorities.
You're right about "encyclopedia". Darn that search engine. It showed the word with an s – http://www.libraryspot.com/encyclopedias.htm
But now I realize you're right.
And you may also be right about kids not picking up to read the encyclopedia from cover to cover but then how many Christian kids pick up the bible to read it from cover to cover too even if they are recommended to? (Joyfulchicken makes 1. But I've never read the Bible cover to cover though I've read the Book of Knowledge and Encyclopedia Internationale cover to cover so you, JoyfulChicken and I make 3 on reading the Encyclopedia. And I'm OK too.)
But are you claiming that if Elementary and High Schools students are assigned to write about Indonesia; they won't be getting to read about the crises there a decade ago?
They might just be asked to report on the kind of Presidential government Indonesia has as compared to ours and they might already be exposed to more than just that.
But I'm not contesting that certain parts of the Bible are not for a young audience.
And though you are putting the issue of kids in your reply; your title connotes age before turning 18 for such restriction.
So how does things work in U.P.?
When a student below 18 asks a copy of a newspaper in a U.P. library; does the librarian or clerk give only the “Kid’s section�
How about you? Do you want to give only the “Kid’s section†to a 17 year student?
Other than that you probably consider the Bible as a piece of literature with a religious tone, do you have other objections to people less than 18 in reading parts of the Bible other than those parts for a mature audience?
Before this, the Obscene Articles Tribunal labelled a sex column published in the Chinese University's
“Student Press†magazine as indecent which sparked a storm of debate about social morality and freedom of speech. Student editors of the journal defended it, saying open sexual debate was a basic right.
Since you regard this Bible issue as a sort of victory and since you are a student of U.P.; are you in fact applauding too that the Student editors in Hong Kong failed to establish that their article was along their basic right?