The Bible Should Be Banned

So many worthwhile books have been banned over the years. The Grapes of Wrath was banned especially in California because it was partially set there and made the residents look bad. Thomas Paine's Rights of Man was banned in the UK and Paine was charged with treason for supporting the French Revolution. It was also banned in Tsarist Russia. Uncle Tom's Cabin was banned in the southern US during the Civil War, then in Russia. (full list here)

The following list of great books have all been challenged somewhere in the US in the 1990's: Nineteen-Eighty-Four (1984), the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, The Catcher in the Rye, Brave New World, Cat's Cradle, Catch-22, The Handmaid's Tale, Harry Potter (series), James and the Giant Peach, Lord of the Flies, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Slaughterhouse-Five. (see full list here)

Different books are banned for different reasons. Many due to their political nature or implications that threaten the current government, many others for obscenity or for being objectionable in one way or another.

Well, I have a couple of books that should be banned. How about the bible and the quran for inciting violence against homosexuals, women, and anyone who doesn't believe the given book, for inciting hate, for glorifying murder, rape and incest. You get the point. It's immoral, unjust, violent and hateful.

Recently, a man stoned another man who he thought might be gay because the bible told him to.
It was at the hospital where Seidman met and befriended Thomas, according to neighbors. The young man and Seidman were often seen together grocery shopping and going to church.

Seidman was 70 and he made Thomas, 28, the executor and sole beneficiary of his will.

"I killed a man," Thomas allegedly told the witness. He then described how he placed batteries and rocks in a sock, and hit Seidman in the head at least 10 times. Thomas then returned to Seidman's apartment several days later and called police, saying he had discovered the body, according to court documents.

When police interviewed Thomas on Wednesday he said Seidman had been making advances toward him over a period of time. Thomas said he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned in certain situations.

The bible really does say to kill homosexuals in Leviticus 20:13:

  • New International Version: “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

  • New Living Translation: “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

  • English Standard Version: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

  • New American Standard Bible: If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

  • GOD’S WORD® Translation: When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die.

  • King James Bible: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

  • American King James Version: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.

  • American Standard Version: And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

  • Douay-​Rheims Bible: If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.

  • English Revised Version: And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

  • Webster’s Bible Translation: If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

  • World English Bible: “‘If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

  • Young’s Literal Translation: And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

See also Romans 1:26-32.

There's so much more in the bible that is murderous and despicable. If any book should be banned, it should be this one. And the quran should be banned as well, which I admit I haven't read as much as I have the bible, but what I have read is pretty hateful.

Of course, I don't really believe in banning books. I don't think information should be censored. Maybe the bible and the quran should just have warning labels on them. And they should definitely be in the fiction section!


  1. The reality of banning any book is that you create a following just from that.

  2. The basic problem with banning books is that you burn one, many others are up for the same;HOWEVER, when a singular book inspires not love and goodness, but hate, war,killing-you name it, I think we need to take a second look.Most 'banned books' receive that status because we have become a nation/world of very "touchy" people,or because its politically expedient for a certain interest group.
    Again, when one single book inspires continual, historical, ongoing destructiveness, mainly due to ignorance, it needs to be burned/banned.When Bush declared war, I took every bible in my home (even the teeny ones) and I put them in the fire outdoors...enough!
    If there really was a Jesus, his words were perverted by the many who re-interpreted them;hence, we have a very watered down, conflict filled scripture.Constantine and Helena saw to it carefully that THEIR brand of Christianity prevailed-rules,doctrine,craziness, and they had people fine-tune it to whatever needs were immediate.
    What kind of people listen to Thomas Aquinas, who said that those who don't embrace Christianity should be killed? Thomas More said he was pleased with the smell of heretics' burning flesh.Now let me get this right...if I don't think the way THEY do, I'm a heretic and get burned at the stake? Ok, got it.
    The unfortunate thing is that the bulk of believers want comfort, and Bill Maher reminds us that too often their "faith" costs far more than they know.
    When I ask myself what has caused more hate, prejudice, wars, bloodshed and killing, I can only point to the bible! It needs to go!

  3. Actually I think more people need to be exposed to the real messages in these books, not just the watered down version you get in Sunday School. I think irreligiousity would increase when people find out what kind of a "guy" God really is.

  4. Yes, you're right, Shelley. I don't think banning books is a good thing. I was just trying to make a point.

  5. I couldn't agree more, Gerald. That's part of what helped me see religion for what it is. I've heard other atheists tell similar deconversion stories as well.

  6. Interesting Marianne. I think Shelley has a point though. If you ban a book, it causes people to seek it out and turn it into a bigger thing.
    Perhaps banning isn't the solution, but education? Sigh, maybe not. I wish it were that easy. :|

  7. I read a (Dutch, old) Children's Bible when I was 7 or 8 or so and it was far more violent (and thus interesting) than the Grimm's Fairy Tales watered down for children. It really mostly came down to cutting out the boring parts and making the whole more readable, though I might be overlaying later knowledge of when I read the actual Bible.

    Of course e.g. Deutoronomy is simultaneously the most vile and the most boring part of the Torah/Old Testament, so in that sense what I'm saying might be mostly a difference in interpretation.

    I later read the real Grimm's Fairy Tales and those were quite a bit more, um, interesting.

  8. Maybe banning it is a good idea, then, if you want to get the message out there. If more people read it, curious about why it is banned, then they will see what it has to say for itself. Of course, if you do try to ban it, Christians will use that as an example of how they are oppressed and evidence that end times are near.

    Frans, I remember reading some of those Grimm Fairy Tales, too, and being surprised by what they contained. It is strange that we have now relegated them to the realm of children's stories, given their actual content. The Disney versions are not very faithful to the originals, and have helped people come to some warped ideas about what a fairy tale is.

  9. I happened to come across your blog post and found it interesting. I can certainly see where you're coming from, based on the quotes you've written.

    I'm of the belief that God loves everyone, including gay people. I'm also of the belief that Christians are to also love gay people.

    Jesus was asked the question, "What is the greatest commandment?", to which he replied "love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength", and he added the second greatest commandment "love your neighbor as yourself".

    The definition of love that is being used is the one you often hear recited at Christian weddings:

    "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude. Love is not self seeking, not easily angered, and keeps no record of wrong. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes , always perseveres. Love never fails."

    I recently started trying to live my life using these two commandments (and using the definition of love as listed above) and what I have found is that my view of people has completely changed.

    The verse about loving my wife the way Christ loves the church is also making me become a man who puts his wife before himself - caring for her needs before his own.

    I'm also teaching my children to love others using these principles as well, and have noticed a difference in their lives as well.

    I guess what I'm getting at is that if the Bible were to have been banned, I would have never have learned this, and in doing so I would have missed the point on what it is I'm supposed to do with my life.

    Now I know that I am to love my neighbours - to the point of giving up my own life for their benefit, just like Jesus did - even if they're gay.

    Take care,


  10. Thanks, Jason. Well, I'm glad you've been able to glean a positive message out of the bible. There are a few in there. The thing is, good ethics and morals predate christianity, and can be found elsewhere, without the hate and murder. For instance, I am a Humanist and I have the same sort of prescription for living, sans the supernatural.
    As I've said, I don't believe the bible should be banned any more than any other book. It should be taught along with other ancient literature. Does it have a few good nuggets in it? Yes. Has it had a huge impact in the world? Yes. But, is it the best way to find morals, ethics and a good recipe for life? No. That can be gotten through other means that don't spend most of their time being murderously hateful.

  11. mohammad married a 6yr old, but being a great prophet he didnt rape her until her ripe old age of nine. Read the quaran if you can stomache it.

  12. I can appreciate your view on the Bible being murderous and hateful. I'm curious of a few different things - your view of Jesus, for one, and secondly, what you use as a guide for your ethics that you mentioned predate Christianity.

    Please know that I am being sincere with what I am asking. Being an electronic form of communication you will not have the benefit of tone or reflection in my voice nor my facial expressions to help prove that point. I'm certainly not looking for a particular response from you so that I can set up for some sort of attack, but rather I would like to understand more of what you have said in your reply to my comment.

    I for one have not heard the message of "love your enemies", and certainly not love your enemies to the point where I am willing to sacrifice my life to ensure that I carry out that love.

    What also challenges me is that not only did Jesus talk about this love in this manner, but he also practiced it by sacrificing his own life, and while experiencing the physical pain forgave those who we causing it.

    Even without he spiritual side of things I can't help but think that the whole point of Jesus' ministry was to love others.