Bible heads for Hong Kong's top shelf

Residents demand X-rating for 'indecent' tome

By Lester Haines, 18th May 2007

Ensure Ease of Recovery with Asigra’s Agentless Software

Updated The Bible may be reclassified as "indecent" in Hong Kong due to its "sexual and violent content", Reuters reports.

That's if the 800 or so residents who've demanded it be restricted to over-18s get their way, following an unholy rumpus over a sex column recently published in the Chinese University's Student Press magazine which asked readers "whether they'd ever fantasised about incest or bestiality".

Cue a bit of a kerfuffle and the rapid appearance of www.truthbible.net which said that while musings on brother-on-sister and animal bothering were a bit much, the content of the Bible's fun-filled pages "far exceeds" the Student Press shocker.

The Student Press column was subsequently judged "indecent" by the Obscene Articles Tribunal, and readers of www.truthbible.net bombarded the Television and Entertainment Licensing authority (TELA) with demands that God's handbook receive similar censure.

TELA has said it's "still undecided on whether the Bible had violated Hong Kong's obscene and indecent articles laws".

Local protestant minister Reverend Wu Chi-wai says not. He offered: "If there is rape mentioned in the Bible, it doesn't mean it encourages those activities. It's just common sense...I don't think that criticism will have strong support from the public." ®

Update

TELA last night (Sunday) spared the Bible elevation to the top shelf, ruling the book had "not violated standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable members of the community".

The statement noted: "The Bible is a religious text which is part of civilisation. It has been passed from generation to generation."

Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery

COMMENTS

House Rules Send Corrections

All Reader Comments (37)

Latest Comments

Posted Tuesday 22nd May 2007 15:08 GMT

Anonymous Coward

Title

Bible 2.0, interesting that the New Testament does not "remove" "flaws" but is complimentary allowing an new way to live, rather than retrospectively negating the old way. That the first, addressed an way of living for an particular people until the time, in preparedness, for an new way of living for all peoples in the next book,. Incidentally, the new way of living is also in the previous book, and stated (Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul, and love your neighbour as yourself.) and also before that book, and as the desirable way to live the old way of living. So, the new way is actually the basis for living the old way too. Things are not removed, but simply act 2, with things from act 1 still current in reference to general morality.

It should be pointed out, that novels make an better read than records, and the Old and New testaments are actually an collection of trusted books on different things and times. Interpreting history as wrong, is rather like straining at nats and swallowing camels, as opinions tend to override what little evidence is left (and logic).

Posted Monday 21st May 2007 14:35 GMT

Anonymous Coward

book reviews

Hey, can't we just drop the "book" (Bible) reviews and focus on the fact that those who make decisions in HK decided that this _should_not_ be_ a top shelf book.

Until all religions are banned worldwide we're just going to have to learn to live with this kind of governmental intervention (i.e. do nothing in this case).

Posted Monday 21st May 2007 14:32 GMT

Anonymous Coward

New for Old

I thought that the "Bible Brigade" had seen the error of their ways and fixed the "Old" version with an upgrade... Bible 2.0 - New Testament!

This updated version has allowed for a number of the old flaws to be removed, allowing the user of Bible 2.0 to sleep easy at night in the comforting fact that their religious teachings does not have numerous references to rape, murder, destroying cities and keeping the gold for "God's Treasury", et el.

And most rational people call Scientology madness; I think the same would be levelled at Christianisationism (George Bush Jr, 2005) if not for the masterstroke that is Bible 2.0.