Bible Publishing Companies sued for anti-gay References

[Mako]

The case is built around that those two publishing companies changed the verse to include the term homosexual to essentially dumb it down. I don't personally see a much different way of interpreting...

6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

it's still really weak semantics basing one's case upon including homosexual. No explicit instruction is given there to commit violent or hateful acts against the groups mentioned, only that they will not inherit the new kingdom. Only thing in 1 Corinthians I could imagine that could be categorized as endorsement of some form of discrimination is...

5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Taking in only this one book, the logic simply doesn't hold. If he attempted to extend further into other books it opens ups worlds of contradicting verses open for interpretation. Examples for the one I cited, jesus instructs quite clearly to seek out sinners, where the one I cited states to disassociate oneself with them.

No matter how you slice it, this guy is going to lose, badly.

[Factus_Dimentio]

As a gay man, the bible's attitude towards homosexuality pisses me off.

As a rational human being, this lawsuit pisses me off even more.

I hate frivolous lawsuits. This man has no right to sue bible publishing companies for printing a text that has been printed this way for far longer than he has been alive. Even if he could pass this off as a legitimate suit, there are a ton of other books that should be on the chopping block along with the bible. The bible is not "solely responsible" for peoples' feelings on homosexuals. If anything, the feelings of intolerant homophobes probably wrote those phrases into the bible in the first place.

I haven't heard anything this ridiculous since the McDonalds' suit...

[diapermingus]

Originally Posted by Factus_Dimentio

As a gay man, the bible's attitude towards homosexuality pisses me off.

As a rational human being, this lawsuit pisses me off even more.

I hate frivolous lawsuits. This man has no right to sue bible publishing companies for printing a text that has been printed this way for far longer than he has been alive. Even if he could pass this off as a legitimate suit, there are a ton of other books that should be on the chopping block along with the bible. The bible is not "solely responsible" for peoples' feelings on homosexuals. If anything, the feelings of intolerant homophobes probably wrote those phrases into the bible in the first place.

I haven't heard anything this ridiculous since the McDonalds' suit...

His being personally offended has nothing to do with it. He has no right to be offended because a book said hateful things about a group he belonged to. Unless the book provoked a fight or led to a 'clear and present danger', or was libellous or slanderous of him as an individual, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. I dislike anti-gay rhetoric as much as the next irate liberal, but freedom of the press is as close as we have to an inalienable right. The fact that a book leads people to dislike someone is unfortunate, but doesn't mean the government can apply a preliminary injunction against printing said book. And no way a court will ban the Bible. Why do idiots have to make the rest of us look bad?

I agree that some religious attitudes towards homosexuality are bizarre and inhumane, but that doesn't mean people have no right to hold them. We have every right to decide not to associate with them, or to try to convince them otherwise. Welcome to the big leagues. Step up and defend your view.

And long live J.S. Mill.

[chevre]

Wheee frivolous lawsuits. It'll be laughed out of court, if it's even a true story. This is what's wrong with this country. Someone is always getting his/her panties in a knot over something silly and suing everyone for millions.

In the end, freedom of speech/religion will win (I hope). If not, there's something seriously wrong.

[Factus_Dimentio]

Originally Posted by diapermingus

His being personally offended has nothing to do with it. He has no right to be offended because a book said hateful things about a group he belonged to. Unless the book provoked a fight or led to a 'clear and present danger', or was libellous or slanderous of him as an individual, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. I dislike anti-gay rhetoric as much as the next irate liberal, but freedom of the press is as close as we have to an inalienable right. The fact that a book leads people to dislike someone is unfortunate, but doesn't mean the government can apply a preliminary injunction against printing said book. And no way a court will ban the Bible. Why do idiots have to make the rest of us look bad?

I agree that some religious attitudes towards homosexuality are bizarre and inhumane, but that doesn't mean people have no right to hold them. We have every right to decide not to associate with them, or to try to convince them otherwise. Welcome to the big leagues. Step up and defend your view.

And long live J.S. Mill.

I couldn't agree more. This lawsuit is goes against every principle of freedom of speech, and, as you said, it is not libelous in the slightest, which was the point I was trying to illustrate in the first place. I'm not exactly sure whether you were quoting me to disagree or to affirm. Would you mind clarifying so we don't reach a misunderstanding? I think we share the same view, and my post may have been misinterpreted as supporting the plaintiff, when in fact I agree with what you've stated above.

[kite]

what this guy did was probably more helpful to the bible publisher than anything. now people will want to see exactly what this guy was upset over, buy a copy, and use it to teach or learn about hateful acts. so in essence he helped them so much more than they could have hoped for.

[FalloutFox]

Originally Posted by anonymous

If you ask me, can't we all just find peace gosh all I hear if people fighting.
Is there love in this world?

nope.

[Darkfinn]

Now what the hell? Someone is sueing b/c a religious document offended him?

Okay... who publishes the qu'ran? I want some dough b/c apparently in there somewhere it tells them all to have a heyday killing Americans.

Seriously... this is a load of bullshyte... I hope the case gets laughed out of court.

[diapermingus]

Originally Posted by Factus_Dimentio

I couldn't agree more. This lawsuit is goes against every principle of freedom of speech, and, as you said, it is not libelous in the slightest, which was the point I was trying to illustrate in the first place. I'm not exactly sure whether you were quoting me to disagree or to affirm. Would you mind clarifying so we don't reach a misunderstanding? I think we share the same view, and my post may have been misinterpreted as supporting the plaintiff, when in fact I agree with what you've stated above.

No worries, I think we're in broad agreement on this. I was affirming and (I might be flattering myself here) partially extending your line of thought.

Long live the Constitution!

[Factus_Dimentio]

Originally Posted by kite

what this guy did was probably more helpful to the bible publisher than anything. now people will want to see exactly what this guy was upset over, buy a copy, and use it to teach or learn about hateful acts. so in essence he helped them so much more than they could have hoped for.

That sir, is exactly right. A phrase that comes to mind here is "what you resist, persists." It applies to this in that, as you said, people's attentions are being drawn directly to the very thing this man is attempting to fight against. What's worse is that, while his intentions are good, he is extremely misguided, and will probably do more harm than good, unfortunate as that may be.