I have an article linked below. This topic comes up once in a while in the courts in various forms. So far they have been through out, but bringing the topic to court is acceptable under the law. I was wondering how people felt about this issue. Is it legally possible to ban the bible in the United States? I know that in the US books can be censored.
Books in the United States can be censored? That’s news to me. Do you have a citation for that?
As far as the suit, who cares. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but that doesn’t mean the suit will be fruitful. Remember the Nebraska Senator a few months back who named God himself in a suit filed due to natural disasters? Tell me, how did that one work out?
He may not have any hope of winning, but the publisher still has to pay for their own defense. A few more like this and some publishers may be less willing to print copies of the Scriptures.
Assuming a judge even hears the case to begin with, which I’m highly skeptical of.
I’ll find the credibility of any judge suspect who takes such a case seriously.
As an aside, I do find this to be further evidence of the American sue-happy culture which is eating us from inside.
The burden of proof always rests on the plaintiff to show how he personally is being injured by this, and to what extent.
This is yet another example of why we need a loser-pays system. The suits cost us all with higher insurance premiums and lesser access to the courts with real complaints.
I agree that something needs to be done to deter frivolous suits which ultimately hurt consumer and tax payer alike, but I don’t think a loser-pay system is the answer. This will indeed deter frivolous suits to an extent, but it will also have the unintended consequence of deterring genuine suits based on financial strata. I would like to know that I have legal recourse regardless of my socioeconomic situation. Poor people have a tough time finding representation as is without adding a riskier gamble.
Some organizations have sprung up in response to the threat of groups like the ACLU running around and recruiting the one “offended” parent in a whole school in order to press for change through threat of suit. You might also note that where these organizations, on the side of faith, get involved, they usually win. In some cases they have offered to assume the full legal costs in defending against a suit, giving small school districts the chance to make decisions without having to feel under the thumb of huge financial loss as a possible consequence. It is amazing that when the ACLU has to pick on someone their own size, they are very rarely successful. That ought to give us all some hope.
Concerning the suit in question, we are not protected from speech that makes us feel bad. Many gay agenda publications have printed some pretty erroneous and horrible conclusions about religious faiths; that is their opinion, and we are not protected from those by law, even if they change what religions really teach in order to lend credence to their vicious claims.
Likewise, a publisher is not going to fall because someone doesn’t like the way they translated something. This is nothing more than an attempt to get publicity for the notion that religions are unjustly persecuting gays. You know how that goes… if you say it often enough…
I still don’t understand this irrational hatred for the ACLU by so many Christians in the United States all because the ACLU has stopped individual Christians as well as Christian organizations from using the government as their private soapbox.
The ACLU stands up for the constitutional rights of all Americans, and yes, including Christians. aclufightsforchristians.com/
I respect your opinion on loser-pays, but I disagree. In the area where I live, law firms advertise constantly as they troll for tort clients. A bar to the bar does not exist here for anyone. I suspect that is fairly representative of the rest of the country.
A few years back, I was sitting at a traffic light when the son of a well-known business owner rear-ended a car, pushing it into mine pretty hard. I had a slight concussion, but was otherwise unharmed.
The following Monday, I received five calls from law firms offering to represent me on a contingency basis. If I were the type to litigate something like that, I could have gone to court with no money of mine at risk. I had my choice of a number of firms.
The publisher of Bibles who may be sued has choices, none of them good. He has to go to court to defend himself, no matter the merits. If he wins or if the case is dismissed, he still pays a pretty hefty legal bill. If he ignores the suit, a default judgement goes in favor of the plaintiff.
If we could come up with another answer that would dissuade people from running to the courts with ridiculous suits, I would think we would be better served.
This homosexual, with the Law suit will get knowhere with this. Unless there is a very liberal judge(like a Ginsberg) that heres the case ,the case will be thrown out immediately. He is either mad because of prop 8 , or mad because he is claiming to be a Christian yet knows that the Bible has many verses against homosexuality,and since the Bible is Gods word he is in a bit of a conflict.he has probably convinced himself that it is a book of fairytales and not Gods word . It is probably hard for him to want to be a Christian knowing that the Bible says being a homosexual is wrong.
This is where I come from in regards to seeing this suit. Even if the judge throws out the case, there are often legal costs of having a lawyer available on call, making a statement to the judge, missing work or publishing delays due to damaging court cases. These all add up to hefty costs whereas the party beginning the law suit can start off with a much lower cost. Attrition is very powerful. I do hope that there could be more protection, especially financially for those attacked by unfounded law suits.
As for the earlier poster referring to the senator suing God. The reason he file the lawsuit was not because of God or the issue at hand. It was a mockery of how there are so many Americans who tend to sue irregardless of the damage this causes and the viability of these lawsuits.
First of all, thinking that the ACLU is not on the side of Christianity is not hatred, and it is offensive for you to cast that stone. The ACLU does not stand up for the rights of Christians, but they have done it when it is incidental to their own causes, which is something quite different. Using the link you provided, go there and click on the item “ACLU defends Christians protesting gay rights in Florida,” and I call your attention to page 2, paragraph 3.
That paragraph describes the real concern of the ACLU - their members also marched in the St. Pete’s Pride event and were used to handing out pamphlets about their support of this gay-pride event (for fund raising purposes). The local authorities were mandating separate “zones” for protesters, either for or against. The ACLU was concerned that their own fund raising efforts would be thwarted by this measure, and that their members might be arrested if they handed out a flier while marching in the parade.
So, yes, they used the cover of standing up for the rights of Christians to protest it, but it was ONLY because it served their own interest. If it didn’t, they would not have defended any Christian’s rights because obviously they, as an organization, believe in the same cause as the parade’s organizers.
So don’t be fooled by how they cast themselves. They stand firmly on the side opposite religious beliefs, which they believe have no place in public society. Well that’s their twisted opinion. I prefer to view history as it factually happened, not as they imagine it. The man who’s handwriting is what you see when you view our Constitution, that is, the fellow who put pen to paper and actually wrote it, was the same man who was the most active participant in the Constitutional convention. He spoke on the convention floor 173 times, more than any other man present. One would imagine, if anyone, he would have a pretty solid idea of what the Constitution “meant.”
He published two books about his experiences, and in each book he said this:
“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals. Therefore, education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God.”
You think you’re getting that from the ACLU?
The ACLU has tried, succeeded in some cases, as casting the content of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists as something it never was. They employ the statement “wall of separation between church and state” to mean Jefferson thought there should be a wall separating them. The Danbury Baptists were concerned because the right to freedom of religion was given (by men) in the 1st Amendment, and they felt it should be stated as an inalienable right. They believed that if people understood the right to be given by men and not by God, men someday might feel they had the right to take it away. Anyone who reads Jefferson’s letter of reply can clearly see Jefferson is NOT saying there should be a wall, but that there IS a wall preventing men from ever interfering with that right. What was that wall? The FAITH of everyone in government at the time. Jefferson (nor any other Founding Father) never imagined a day when those in government positions didn’t have a strong foundational faith.
But what has happened since that changed? There is no more “wall” as imagined by Jefferson, and men surely have been trying to diminish this right “they” gave. The Danbury Baptists had it exactly right.
And if you want to address the idea of hatred, what does it say about a group who goes around the country picking on isolated groups of Boy Scouts, getting them kicked out of public buildings because they don’t accept the fact that Boy Scouts don’t think it is in their best interests to have gay Scout Masters? Who suffers from the ACLU’s efforts here, other than a bunch of young kids who didn’t do anything to the ACLU.
I don’t hate them, I pray for them. I think they are nothing more, really, than a legal arm of progressive thought.
Thank you for explaining so clearly some of the misunderstandings about where Christians and ALCU interact.
Personally for me, I can only see what the Church teaches as proper to follow. If other groups have some of these teachings in some ways, great for them but do not get caught up in anything else that conflicts with the Church because Christ founded this Church and that is the basis of the creation of the world. If truth cannot be found there, then it cannot be found anywhere.
Sad to say, the biblical title of Sodomites, which was given to these debased sinners by God, is seldom used by those who cry out against this terrible wickedness. They usually use the term–
- Homosexual–This is like calling a drunkard an alcoholic; or calling a thief a cleptomaniac. The sharp words of God are ". . . quick, and powerful and sharper than any twoedged sword. "
When preachers, and others who oppose this vile sin, use the term “homosexual” they are only giving a partial definition of what a Sodomite is!
- Gays- This is their choice title of this day. This, like the other, only gives a partial definition of what a Sodomite is, and the sharp edge of the Word of God is gone.
According to Webster, “gay” means: “loose; licentious.” The Sodomites far surpass that in their vileness.
Our text does not say there were homosexuals in the land or gays in the land. It says there were Sodomites in the land!
A Sodomite woman is not a lesbian nor is a Sodomite man a gay. They are Sodomites! Call them what they are by using the title of infainy given them by the Lord. Don’t let the Sodomites choose their title. God has already named them!
Call them Sodomites whether they like it or not.
They will never be convicted of their vile sins without the Word of God.
III. THE BOLDNESS OF THE SODOMITES–
“The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.” Isaiah 3:9
- Marches-They no longer sneak around in hiding like roaches and rats. They now march down the main streets of cities and towns carrying signs, declaring their sin as Sodom!
This does not reveal advances made by the Humanist Sodomite liberation movements. It simply reveals how low-down the morals in this nation have plunged.
When Sodomites start marching down main street it is like a house infested with roaches, where no effort is made to control or eliminate them!
Here is the disgraceful report of some Sodomite marches June 26, 1983:
I’m not even sure that the government could hear this case in court. The Judiciary has to be careful when a lawsuit blatantly deals with religion, lest they fall into error with the first amendment.
@Gay man sueing: OH for the love of! :banghead: