"John Piper" by lausannemovement / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

YouTube Takes Down Audiobook Claiming God Is Using Coronavirus to Punish Gay Sex

May 18, 2020

By Beth Stoneburner

It took only a few weeks for preacher John Piper to write a book called Coronavirus and Christ, in which he claims “some people will be infected with the coronavirus as a specific judgment from God because of their sinful attitudes and actions.”

It was a not-so-thinly veiled attack against LGBTQ people because Piper, as usual, is referring to homosexual acts (among other things) as if they caused the pandemic. The two things are not related. Coronavirus is not a sexually transmitted disease. Piper is lying. The virus is affecting devout Christians along with millions of others.

It took YouTube about the same amount of time to remove it from their platform. The audiobook was uploaded on April 8, but it came down weeks later for violating “community standards.”

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

6 comments on “YouTube Takes Down Audiobook Claiming God Is Using Coronavirus to Punish Gay Sex

  • As much as I abhor lunatics like this, he should still be able to write, express, and publish his garbage without censorship. The only absolutism should be for the defense of free speech. Report abuse

  • @Dave 137

    The only absolutism should be for the defense of free speech.

    I agree. However, if I owned YouTube or any other publicly- or privately-accessible forum, I would claim the right to determine how it is utilized. It is up to the users to decide if they want to agree to my terms.

      Report abuse

  • Dave #137

    Your freedom of speech only confers a right to express what you think without being persecuted by the state for doing so.

    It doesn’t confer an obligation on anyone else to provide you with a platform. Report abuse

  • Marco:

    Read my comment again. I didn’t say private platforms can’t censor. Instead I said that even lunatics should not be censored: which is a general statement.

    While platforms can and should decide for themselves, those citizens or communities or mobs who whine about content of any kind typically are never happy to stop with a single platform. They want content, be it in book, film, or musical form, to be barred entirely from all publication. And it’s that kind of sentiment that I equally abhor. Report abuse

  • Ok, Dave, so before I go on, let me check I’ve understood your position correctly:

    You accept that YouTube was within its rights to decide not to make this audiobook available on its platform, but still think it was wrong to actually do so because its commitment to free speech should be absolute?

    Have I got that right?

      Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.