Starting a Long Race

Man Sues Bible Publishers over Verses on Homosexuality
A Michigan man is suing Zondervan Publishing and Thomas Nelson Publishing, claiming biblical references to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and $10 million from Thomas Nelson, The Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press reported. He is representing himself in both claims.
Fowler claims the Bible has made him an outcast and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."
"As frivolous as this case may sound, it's an indicator of where the homosexual agenda is headed," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "Ten years from now, this type of case won't be humorous at all; we'll see organizations like the ACLU dedicating resources to them because such 'language' will no longer be considered protected speech.
"Sweden, Canada and the U.K. are already prosecuting religious speech as 'hate' speech, as it relates to the biblical view of homosexuality."
Man Sues Bible Publishers over Verses on Homosexuality 9 July 2008 Focus on the Family Action, INC http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000007787.cfm


Laugh if you want to, but it's there in print. The beginning of a greater hate speech movement. What's going to happen if the courts eventually rule that the Bible publishers must take out all hateful references to homosexuality? They've already changed all references from "brothers" to "brothers and sisters," which, although a harmless change in itself, has set a precedent for more Biblical alterings based on gender and sexual tolerance.

I don't personally believe that changing the Bible is going to be a major problem in the near future. But the increased pressure on Christians to be "tolerant" of non-Biblical worldviews is already sinking in. The question is, where do WE draw the line? Where does being true to our beliefs end and being tolerant begin? Is proposing a federal marriage amendment really in the best interest of Christians?

The Prohibition amendment of 1919 set a precedent for regulating behaviors. Although the writers and supporters had overall good intentions and intended to rid the nation of a true sin--- drunkenness--- they lay the foundations for behavior modifying amendments to follow. While I personally strongly support the notion of marriage existing only between one man and one woman, I cannot support the federal marriage amendment. Should accountability lie with the government or with God? In addition, setting a federal marriage amendment would only open the door for it to be overturned when the power shifted. What was a conservative attempt at providing Biblical binding to the nation could become the liberal banner of tolerance.

During the Prohibition era, it was only the law-abiding citizens who refrained from achohol. Black markets thrived. Prohibition was later repealed in 1933 and the nation went right on drinking--- legally now, but there was very little change in the nation's behavior. It only became easier for the drunkards to obtain their beers and liquors.

Setting a federal ban on homosexuality would allow that same ban to be eventually repealed. And what would happen in the meantime? Morally, the ban would be ideal. But politically, it's dangerous. What could they eventually pass against our beliefs? Could an overturn of a marriage amendment become the beginning of hate speech crime?

So even when you're reading cases like the one cited above, remember that cases like that are becoming a fast issue. Take your positions carefully. And don't back down from them.
Steph