Racist passages: There are few passages in the Bible which are openly racist. Two exceptions are:

She pleaded with Jesus to cure her daughter who she believed was possessed by a demon. He first ignored her, but then explained that he was sent only to bring the Gospel to the Jews, not to the Gentiles such as she. Jesus replied to the desperate mother that it was not right for him "to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." i.e. it is not appropriate to take the Gospel, which was intended only for the Jews, and offer it to Gentiles as well -- here described as sub-humans, as dogs. Jesus was an observant Jew. In the 1^st century CE such Jews often referred to Gentiles contemptuously as "dogs." It could be argued that Jesus' remark was racist. However, the country of Canaan no longer exists. So it would be difficult to make the case that the passage constitutes hate literature today. Besides, Jesus appears to have later changed his mind, and decided that the Gospel should not be restricted to Jews but was for all humans. In Matthew 28:19-20, frequently called "The Great Commission,"  he is quoted as saying: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." This would seem to contradict his earlier comments to the woman that the Gospel was only for Jews.

Sexist passages: There are many sexist passages in the Bible -- most notably in Hebrew Scriptures. Prior to the ministry of Jesus, the Bible often describes women as inferior to men, as sexual predators, as an item of property, and as deceitful and untrustworthy. They could be sold permanently into slavery; the enslavement of men was temporary. Non-virgin brides -- but not non-virgin grooms -- were stoned to death. Some women who were raped and who did not cry out would also be executed. However oppressive these passages were to women one can argue that they are not hate literature. They are simply historical documents recording the culture of Israel in ancient times. Most of the public have rejected these Bible passages as being worthless in today's society. At least in Western countries, women have now been given rights almost equal to men. There are a few exceptions, such as:

But generally, Western society has abandoned the moral code of the Hebrew Scriptures with regards to women's rights and freedoms. As the Western Jewish Bulletin stated in a 2003-JAN editorial: the "Bible [is] not hate literature....Because there are some aspects of the Bible that are not taken literally in this day." ₄ Of course, Christian Reconstructionists might extract certain biblical passages which oppress women and advocate that they be applied in the 21st century. Some conservative Christians might teach that God's will never changes, and that the anti-female passages from the Hebrew Scriptures remain valid today. But this would only convert the original Bible quotations into modern-day hate literature. The Bible is simply a historical document reflecting the laws and customs of the time.

Passages teaching religious intolerance: In biblical times, cultures in the Middle East followed a great diversity of religious belief systems. Almost all were polytheistic in nature. With the exception of a brief flirtation with monotheism in Egypt, ancient Israel was the only country which worshipped a single God. The Bible taught that the ancient Hebrews must isolate themselves from other religions and follow only Yahweh (a.k.a. Jehovah). Some ancient Hebrew males who took wives of other cultures were killed. Sometimes they escaped with their lives, but their marriages were declared null and void. Hebrews who recommended that their fellow citizens worship other Gods were to be killed. Similarly in the Christian Scriptures, many authors promoted Christianity as an exclusive religion. Its followers had the duty to proselytize and convert Jews and Gentiles to Christianity. But they were to keep themselves free of contamination from followers of other religions. In 1 Corinthians 10:20, Paul goes so far as to say that when the Gentiles worship their Gods, they worship demons.

The biblical passages which exhibit hatred and rejection of other religions are accurate portrayals of the beliefs of the time. However, Western society has generally abandoned the moral code of the Hebrew Scriptures with regards to religious freedom and tolerance. We have legislation which prohibits oppression of people on the basis of their religion.

There are websites on the Internet which promote special privileges for Christians and/or promote the restriction of human rights for religious minorities. Some might quote the Bible. But this would only convert the original Bible quotations into modern-day hate literature. The Bible itself is a historical document reflecting the laws and customs of the time. Biblical passages may sometimes be incorporated into modern-day hate literature; but they are not hate literature themselves.

Homophobic passages: (The term "homophobic" has many meanings. We use it here in the most common sense of wishing to oppress gays and lesbians, and opposing the granting of equal rights to homosexuals). There are six classical "clobber" passages in the Bible which condemn certain homosexual acts. However, theologians cannot agree on their precise meaning:

Same-gender sexual behavior was a crime punishable by death In biblical times. This was quite easy to understand if one considers the culture of the time:

Again, these passages merely reflect the cultures during biblical times. Some people might create anti-homosexual literature which incorporates quotations from the Bible. But this might only convert the original Bible quotations into modern-day hate literature. The passages are not hate literature themselves.

It is worth noting that prior to 2003-JUN-26, thirteen states in the U.S. had laws criminalizing same-gender sexual activity. Before that date, it might be argued that literature which advocated the restriction of gay and lesbian rights or which promoted hatred of homosexuals might not be considered hate literature. After all, the activity was criminal.