Bible Publishing Companies sued for anti-gay References

Status
Not open for further replies.

Samaki

Contributor
Messages
457
Role
shimbir http://www.gaiaonline.com/profiles/?u=13185550

A Michigan man is seeking $70 million from two Christian publishers for emotional distress and mental instability he received during the past 20 years from versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, a gay man, claims his constitutional rights were infringed upon by Zondervan Publishing Co. and Thomas Nelson Publishing, both of which, he claims, deliberately caused homosexuals to suffer by misinterpretation of the Bible.

Fowler, 39, is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson.

According to a USA Today report, Fowler’s two separate suits against the publishers claim the intent of the Bible revisions that refer to homosexuals as sinners reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion.

Fowler says the deliberate changes made to first Corinthians, chapter six, verse nine caused him "or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."

Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, claims the publishers are misinterpreting the Bible by specifically using the word homosexuals, which made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of demoralization, chaos and bewilderment.

“These are opinions based on the publishers and they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life," he tells a local NBC TV station affiliate in Grand Rapids.

Fowler admits that every Bible printed is a translation that can be interpreted in many ways, but he says specifically using the word “homosexual” is not a translation but a change.

Fowler says Zondervan Bibles published in the ‘80s used the word homosexuals among a list of those who are “wicked' or unrighteous and won't inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

Zondervan, for its part, issued a statement to the Grand Rapids press stating it does not translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations it publishes

“We rely on the scholarly judgment of the highly respected and credible translation committees behind each translation and never alter the text of the translations we are licensed to publish,” the statement reads.

“We only publish credible translations produced by credible Biblical scholars.”

U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr., who will hear Fowler’s case against Thomas Nelson, says the court “has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of [Fowler’s] claims."


Newsmax.com - Bible Publishers Sued for Anti-Gay References
Someone on Gaia posted this and I thought it was interesting. I really hope that the guy wins!!!!!
 

kite

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,936
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Carer
the bible never uses the word homosexual so this reprint was trying to target another group yet it does sound a bit like gold digging. why did it cause him hardship now and why can't he use a different book?
 
Messages
1,113
Role
Other
So why didn't this guy sue 20 years ago when the Bibles were published?

This case needs to, like most cases of people suing, be thrown out of court.
 

satyrical

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,165
Role
Other
This is ridiculous, and will only fuel the Religious Right in claiming that gays are out to ban the Bible and destroy Christianity.

Just ridiculous...
 

ballucanb

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,992
Role
Private
You watch this someone is going to give this guy a couple million dollars to go away, I wish I tought about it first.
 
Messages
2,147
Role
Diaper Lover
I hope it fails horribly in a ball of flames.

The level of suage (not sewage) is over 9000 in our glorious country.

If he wins, the new version of the Bible will have to be refered to as the fail-ass version.

Before anyone thinks I hate gays, which would be ironic, as my straightness is not >9000% homosexuality isn't a sin.
 

Neonite

Tinyflower Bouquet // 🌂🌸🌼💮🌙
Est. Contributor
Messages
721
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little, Other
All this is going to do is give uber-conservatives (Note the uber) more reasons to scream that the evil evil gayz are trying to undermine religion and destroy the nuclear family as we know it. And then the world, too. >.>

But hey, you can't blame the guy for wanting something like that to be translated right.
 

Chillhouse

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,000
Role
Diaper Lover, Carer
Dear Samaki, I am pressing charges for the emotional and mental anguish your post has caused me, a straight man. Your post has damaged my mental stability and my emotional quotient has been diminished. The posting of that article has affected me in many negative ways, and I have lost sleep and developed insomnia over it. My back has begun to ache again, and I attribute this to the negative effects caused by your post. You will have to pay for my health costs and also pay for my dire emotional damages.I am seeking a settlement of 500 million dollars. I feel this is enough to help me on the road to recovery.

Sincerly,
Prometheus
P.S. I have a multi-million dollar team of lawyers. Do your worse.
 
M

Mako

Guest
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

Contributor
Messages
7
Role
Diaper Lover, Other
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...
 

Mingus

Est. Contributor
Messages
492
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
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

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,434
Role
Diaper Lover
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

Contributor
Messages
7
Role
Diaper Lover, Other
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

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,936
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Carer
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.
 

Darkfinn

Banned
Messages
3,676
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent,
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.
 

Mingus

Est. Contributor
Messages
492
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
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

Contributor
Messages
7
Role
Diaper Lover, Other
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top