Lawsuit against Zondervan

According to WoodTV 8 in Grand Rapids, MI:

Christian publisher Zondervan is facing a $60 million federal lawsuit filed by a man who claims he and other homosexuals have suffered based on what the suit claims is a misinterpretation of the Bible.

The lawsuit centers on the translation of arsenokoitai in First Corinthians 6:9. Bradley Fowler, the man bringing the lawsuit, says “Zondervan Bibles published in 1982 and 1987 use the word homosexuals among a list of those who are "wicked" or "unrighteous" and won't inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

Fowler wants and apology and $60 million for his “emotional duress and mental instability.”

According to A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich (a standard Greek lexicon) “arsenokoites” (arsenokoitai is a plural form) is “a male who practices homosexuality.”

Paul may have coined this word from two words that appear together in Leviticus 20:13 of the Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which was popular in Paul’s time). It says, “Whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both committed abomination, let them die the death, they are guilty.”

From a scholarly perspective, Mr. Fowler’s complaint is groundless. From a First Amendment perspective the lawsuit should be groundless as well. It is not only disturbing that Zondervan has to defend itself against such a frivolous lawsuit, but it should be a concern to all Americans who believe in freedom that Mr. Fowler wants the government, i.e. the courts, to rule on what is acceptable in a Bible translation. (Hat tip: Mitch H.)

Freedom of speech and churches

Churches have passively given up their freedom of speech and freedom of religion when it comes to addressing the pressing political issues of our time.

I certainly don't think pastor's should turn their worship services into political forums, but pastor's should not have to be afraid of having his church taxed simply because he opposes a candidate who is fighting against Christian values. I, therefore, completely support this "Pulpit Initiative" from the Alliance Defence Fund:

Historically, churches have emphatically, and with great passion, spoken Scriptural truth from the pulpit about government and culture. Historians have stated that America owes its independence in great degree to the moral force of the pulpit. Pastors have proclaimed Scriptural truth throughout history on great moral issues such as slavery, women’s suffrage, child labor and prostitution. Pastors have also spoken from the pulpit with great frequency for and against various candidates for government office.

All that changed in 1954 with the passage of the “Johnson amendment” which restricted the right of churches and pastors to speak Scriptural truth about candidates for office. The Johnson amendment was proposed by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson, and it changed the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit churches and other non-profit organizations from supporting or opposing a candidate for office. After the Johnson amendment passed, churches faceda choice of either continuing their tradition of speaking out or silencing themselves in order to retain their church’s tax exemption. The Internal Revenue Service, in conjunction with radical organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have used the Johnson amendment to create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear for any church that dares to speak Scriptural truth about candidates for office or issues.

It is time for the intimidation and threats to end. Churches and pastors have a constitutional right to speak freely and truthfully from the pulpit – even on candidates and voting – without fearing loss of their tax exemption.We are seeking pastors to stand with us and once again reclaim their constitutional right to speak the Truth.

Learn more about how you can stand with us.

Pastor Stephen Boissoin responds

Yesterday I posted on Pastor Steve Boissoin and his trouble with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Pastor Boissoin responded to my post and has convinced me that he does not in any way advocate violence against gays and that he has been railroaded by this Canadian Human Rights Commission which is a serious threat to freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Canada. Pastor Boissoin, I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding you and the reports about you, and for adding to your anxiety with my post.

I've posted Pastor Boissoin's initial response below but you can read all of his responses by referring to yesterday's post. Pastor Boissoin wrote:

Friend,You have your facts totally wrong and you obviously haven't researched the story and due to such are guilty of the same type of irresponsibilty you accuse me of.Here is some information to consider.

1. The boy that was assaulted never went to the police.

2. There was no investigation and I never even heard a peep about the supposed assault from the police who I was involved with on almost a daily basis. I heard about it, like everyone else when it was in the newspaper over two weeks later.

3. The Publisher of the Red Deer Advocate informed me that the boy came to them about the story.

Think about this for a minute, while a heated gay debate is going on in my community a gay teen goes to the paper and claims he was beaten for being gay. He claims he is fearful but still allows the newspaper to publish his story (he provides no witnesses) and he does NOT go to the police. Think: he is ok with his story and his picture being in the paper, admittedly afraid but will not go to the police. There is simply no way to verify if this is even a valid story. This teen did not appear at the hearing as a witness...he did not ask a representative to appear on his behalf...he did not forward a written statement yet the complainant against me was allowed to use this unsubstantiated story as 'evidence.'

At the hearing there was a witness for the complainant, while a participant on a employability skills grant at our facility, she THOUGHT she heard me say that I knew who did it and speculated that I allowed them to continue participating in our program. Before God Almighty, this was absolutely false. I have never known who did it nor am I sure it ever happened.

The facts:1. I did not EVER know who committed the supposed assault and still do not know today. Nor do the police as my understanding is there was no ivestigation.

2. The witness may have overheard me guessing because afterall we were a at-risk
youth ministry and troubled street teens attended.

3. I was part of the inception of the RCMP's Restorative Justice. To accuse me of such a thing is absolutely ridiculous. Colleagues that know me laugh is disbelief.

4. I had a very good reputation with my community's social care organizations, Probation Officers, the Police (even judges), lawyers and was a voluteer for the RCMP. Most important, I had very good relationships with teens, gay or straight and every single one of them that knows me, knows that I would protect them from harm, regardless of their sexual orientation. Here is what the gay teens and young adults that I worked with think of me http://www.stephenboissoin.com/custom.html

5. I gave my life saving to at-risk youth outreach. I have performed teen memorial services and had over 25 teens live with me...gay and straight. I gave my whole heart to youth work. This accusation is pure garbage. Friend, don't just throw something up on your BLOG for the sake of appearing to be in the know about current events. You are way off on this one. The Human Rights Commission hearing was a farce and things that were accepted by them would suffer a different result in a real court of
law.....which is exactly where we are taking this.I encourage you to read the information on the following link
http://www.stephenboissoin.com/defamation.htmlI submit this to you with the hope
that you will be honourable and care for the TRUTH.Stephen Boissoinhttp://www.stephenboissoin.com

Minnesota churches harrassed

In a move that can only be described as guilty until proven innnocent:

"Officials in Ramsey County, Minnesota have sent letters to more than 800 churches and related entities there demanding various documents to justify the tax-exempt status of the ministries" (OneNewsNow).

Congress needs to put a stop to this harrassment of churches. Under the first amendment, churches should be able to preach pretty much whatever they want short of calling for violence or the overthrough of the governement. They should even be able to support Barack Obama without having their tax exempt status challenged! The Fair Tax would put an end to this harrassment.

Where is the ACLU when you need them?

ENDA

I just received this e-mail from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council:

FRC and pro-family Americans face a grave and immediate challenge-and we need your help now to defend our faith, families, and freedom.

Led by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Senate liberals are poised to renew their push for passage of a bill that will turn the federal government into a weapon to beat churches and employers into accepting homosexual behavior as normal-even good.

Under the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the government will no longer be a neutral observer. Instead, it will become a tool that homosexual activists will use-at taxpayer expense-to torment employers and co-workers who object to their lifestyle.

Please act now! Ted Kennedy and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) could
bring up ENDA for a Senate vote soon!

If ENDA becomes law, the victims of its government-sponsored harassment churches, religious schools, and private employers-will have to choose . . . . .either abandon their religious convictions or face financial ruin defending themselves.

Some states already are tormenting private employers on behalf of homosexuals!
New Mexico authorities fined a wedding photographer nearly $7,000 because she
remained faithful to her Christian values rather than photograph a lesbian's
"commitment ceremony!"

Kodak fired a loyal 21-year employee who objected to pro-homosexual indoctrination and refused to attend "diversity" re-education.

Sandia National Laboratories forced Christian workers to remove Bible verses and Photos of their traditional families so that homosexual employees wouldn't be offended.

ENDA would create a federal version of these policies-and a national nightmare that would force people of faith to abandon their values . . . or face harsh discipline!

Your support for FRC now will help our respected, influential experts expose the
dangers of such legislation on Capitol Hill. ENDA has been stopped before. It must be
stopped now.

Click here to contact your congressperson.

UPDATE: I just sent the following e-mail to my U.S. Senator:

Please oppose the ENDA bill unless it is revised to provide total exemption for all religious organizations (schools, churches, synagogues, mission organizations, religious social service organizations etc).

The very limited protection for churches and schools in the current bill does not protect Freedom of Religion.

Freedom of speech attacked on campus

Yesterday I received a newsletter entitled “Silencing Faith on Campus” which said:

Five years ago, Emily Brooker enrolled at Missouri State University (MSU) to study social work. For her, college was a time of spiritual growth and testing that climaxed during her last semester, when her professors ordered Emily’s class to become “lobbyists” for homosexual behavior by writing letters to the Missouri legislature, encouraging lawmakers to recognize adoption by same-sex couples. Emily respectfully asked for an alternative assignment, explaining to her professor that this one ran counter to her deep religious beliefs. The request was not well received. Her professor filed a ‘level 3’ grievance against Emily—the stiffest charge a faculty member can make against a student.”

“To answer the grievance, Emily was required to appear alone—no parents, no lawyer—before a department ‘ethics’ committee.”

The committee apparently had the authority to not only fail her in the class, but to keep her from graduating. Fortunately, the Alliance Defense Fund stepped and put a stop to it.

The newsletter also listed other examples of blatant anti-Christian attacks in our publically funded universities: “At Savannah State, members of a Christian club were put on suspension for washing each other’s feet during a worship service—school officials called that ‘hazing’ and harassment.” [Isn’t it interesting how some state colleges are using tax payer money to fund Muslim footwashing facilities, but when Christians do it, its is “hazing.”]

“At the University of Wisconsin—Superior, administrators denied InterVarsity Christian Felloswhip…access to campus facilities after accusing the members of violating the school ‘anti-discrimination’ policy by not allowing non-Christians to serve in leadership positions.” [Hmmm, I wonder if the brilliant administrators at the U. of Wisconsin required Muslim groups to have Christian leaders or for Atheist groups to have Muslim leaders, or for Democratic groups to have Republican leaders! How stupid—or hateful—can some people get?]

“At the University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, university officials forbade RAs…to lead a Bible study—even with just one other person—in their own dorm room. (Beer parties were permitted.)”

The newsletter said that “In at least 230 public universities across the country, institutional policies are in effect that can sharply curtail Christian activity and limit the spread of the Gospel."

It is amazing that university officials, who undoubtedly think of themselves as tolerant and liberal-minded, can be so intolerant, hateful, and un-liberal. It is also amazing that we have such full-blown assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion going on in state-run institutions, and yet the major media outlets are totally asleep at the switch.

Fortunately, Alliance Defense Fund is helping to fight such university fascism. If you give to charity, the Alliance Defense Fund is a worthy organization.

Forget freedom of religion in Canada

An e-mail from the Family Research Council reports:

"As Ontario's Christian Horizons ministry knows all too well, standing up for your religious beliefs has its price. Last week, the organization was fined $23,000 by Canada's Human Rights Tribunal for asking employees to sign onto a "morality statement" which included a promise not to engage in homosexual relationships. Connie Heintz, a Horizons employee, agreed to the statement, only to reveal later that she was a lesbian. Heintz filed a complaint with the Tribunal claiming that she was "subjected to a poisoned work environment and threatened with the loss of her job." In response, officials ordered the organization to pay Heintz two years' wages, cease all applicant screenings, develop an "anti-discrimination" policy, and send all employees to a "human rights training program." It sounds unfair, yet this is the same rationale that's fueling the U.S. employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) debate. ENDA would mandate employer tolerance of all forms of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promotion, and many Christian-oriented businesses (such as bookstores and radio stations) may not be protected by the bill's limited religious exemption."

Barack Obama is a strong ENDA supporter.

Gay pride trumps Constitution

According to WorldNetDaily: “At issue is the arrest of several Christians at a "gay pride" event in Wisner Park in Elmira in 2007. Julian and Gloria Raven and several others entered the park to pray silently for the participants of the event celebrating homosexual behavior.”

Apparently in Elmira, NY, political correctness even trumps the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of religion! You can expect much more of this if Obama gets his way with hate crimes legislation.

UCC church under investigation

This morning FoxNews reported that the IRS is investigating a United Church of Christ for tax code violations because the church invited Barack Obama to speak in their church last year.

IRS interference in churches really needs to stop! As long as churches are not preaching violence (and I've never heard of one that did) the government needs to keep their hands off—even if those churches want to support (shudder) Barack Obama!

This is a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It amazes me that those on the Left who come unglued when the government wants to wire tape terrorists, are so silent when the government investigates churches simply for supporting a political candidate!

Americans United threatening churches

Another e-mail from the American Family Association:

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation
of Church and State, has asked that the Internal Revenue Service investigate the
American Family Association. Lynn says that AFA has violated IRS rules by
distributing a voters guide.

For years, Rev. Lynn and his Americans United, along with groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, have used threats to silence Christians in an attempt to take away their First Amendment rights. The tragedy is that he has been successful in silencing thousands of ministers.

Let me make one thing clear to Rev. Lynn and his cohorts. We have no intention of bowing down to his threatening demands. Rev. Lynn is mistaken if he thinks his threat will scare this minister from exercising his First Amendment rights.

Lynn has also included a threat to churches. Trying to scare ministers from exercising their rights, Lynn said: "Any church that distributes these biased guides is risking its tax exemption and casting aside its integrity."

The AFA Voters Guide was developed by three constitutional lawyers and reviewed by three more constitutional lawyers following Rev. Lynn's threat. All agreed that the voters guide is perfectly legal.

The Alliance Defense Fund has offered to represent (free of charge) churches or organizations which distribute the voter's guide and encounter opposition from either Lynn or the IRS.

Take Action!

Show Rev. Lynn that his threats don't scare you by printing and distributing the AFA Voter's Guide.
http://www.afa.net/pdfs/08vg.pdf

Click on the link above and find out what is so scandalously illegal that Lynn would contact the IRS and threaten to sue churches over. Then print and pass them out to your friends.

The IRS, the Church and politics

My understanding may be inaccurate here, so I invite correction if I’m wrong. As I understand it, in the past, the IRS has threatened churches with removal of their tax exempt status if churches support particular candidates from the pulpit. Whether that is true or not, I know that many pastors are afraid of supporting particular candidates from the pulpit for just this reason.

If churches are in danger of loosing their tax exempt status for supporting a presidential candidate, why are so many churches allowing candidates--Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, etc.-- or their representatives (like Bill Clinton) to openly campaign from the pulpits of so many churches?

I think churches need to be very, very careful about endorsing a particular candidate or political party, but on the other hand, I think they also need to stop being so intimidated by the IRS and start preaching on the important political social issues of our day when those issues are directly addressed in the Bible.

I also think that unless a church is preaching violent overthrow of the government (I've never heard of a church doing that), the IRS needs to be prohibited by law from interfering in what is preached from the pulpit.

Mitt Romney and ENDA

According to One New Now, “On Meet the Press, Romney told host Tim Russert that although he originally said he would sponsor ENDA at the federal level, he changed his stance because the "policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level" (See also Christian Newswire).

ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is, in reality, a religious discrimination act. It could force Christian schools and colleges, Christian camps, Christian charities, Christian missions, and in some cases, possibly even large Christian churches, to hire people who actively, unrepentantly, engage in homosexual sex.

ENDA may force people of faith to violate their conscience, violate the law, or shut down the organizations they operate (cf. the Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts). ENDA is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) threats to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion in the history of the United States.

I wonder if those who support ENDA would also support bills requiring Christian organizations to hire those who pose nude for magazines, work as strippers, regularly get drunk, or have sex outside of marriage?

Don’t get me wrong. Most churches and Christian organizations would happily and rightfully consider for employment those who had engaged in such practices if they have turned from their sin to Christ. But forcing Christian organizations to hire those who continue to practice behaviors that their religion considers to be egregious sin should be viewed as an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion.

Mitt Romney’s endorsement of this Act, even if only at a state level, is serious enough that I hope it causes many to withdraw their support from him in the primaries.

Democracy and freedom

President Bush's efforts to spread Democracy are misguided. He should be pushing to spread basic human rights, like freedom of speech, religion, etc., regardless of the form of government. The Maldives, for example, is a democracy and yet "The Maldivian constitutional assembly has passed an amendment stating that “none, except Muslims can be Maldivian citizens” (Dhimmi Watch). This will strip the citizenship away from Chritians and others who are currently Maldivian citizens. Even democracies can trample on or deny basic human rights.

Discrimination at Target

Debbie Schlussel just wrote a post about how Target bends over backwards to accommodate the religious beliefs of their Muslim employee’s, but that they recently fired a Christian employee for exercising his religious beliefs.

I think Target should be able to fire, or refuse to hire Muslim or Christian employees who will not or cannot do the job, but to accommodate Muslims while refusing to accommodate Christians, smacks of anti-Christian bigotry. Unfortunately, this anti-Christian discrimination seems to be a growing trend.

For example, while organizations like the ACLU have expended millions enforcing their flawed view of church-state separation, they seem to be turning a blind eye when it comes to the public funding of Islam, for example, at Savannah State or the University of Michigan.

While radical gay-lesbian advocates want to institute hate crimes laws to silence any opposition to their agenda, they apparently have no problem with the sick, anti-Christian “hate-speech” displayed in events like the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco.

While anti-Christian groups won their battle to keep Christian prayer out of public schools, they seem remarkably silent now that some schools are allowing Muslim prayer in public school.

While a Christian student was threatened with disciplinary action just for reading her Bible during lunch time, other schools in Oregon, Ohio, and California appear to be actively promoting Islam.

While the American Library Association screams bloody murder about any attempt by a misguided Christian to remove a book from a library, the ALA turns a blind eye when a librarian nearly looses his job for recommending a Christian book or when a teachers are forbidden to tell students about a Christian book located in their in the library!

It almost seems that in the eyes of the Left, hate speech and discrimination are terrible sins, unless committed against Christians.

The right to leave Islam

Ex-Muslims in Britain are fighting for the right to leave Islam and choose their own religion without threats of bodily harm or even death (LGF, TimesOnline).

This is one cause that ALL Americans, both Left and Right, should be able to suport.

Censoring religion in prisons

"We are afraid to affirm the value of our own civilization. We are afraid to say that Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam isn't, and so have to make these outlandish gestures to appease the god of multiculturalism and relativism." So says Robert Spencer regarding the Bureau of Prisons' new policy of purging thousands of religous books from the libraries of our prisons (DhimmiWatch).

If the prison policy is to reject books that incite violence, it is undoubtedly only one religion that is usually affected. So rather than risking charges of discriminating against this one religion, the Bureau of Prisons has decided to discriminate againat all relgions. They are creating a small list of approved religious books that can be in prison libraries. All the rest--thousands of books--are being discarded.

Is this even constitutional? The ACLU will defend the "rights" of people to have child pornography and the American Library Association will fight against any effort to keep pornography away from children in public libraries, but will they fight to allow prisoners to have religious books? I'm not going to hold my breath.

I agree fully with Robert Spencer's assessment.

Foot washing at Savannah State

While some state universities are spending your tax dollars to finance Muslim foot washing basins, Savannah State University actually expelled a Christian group for evangelism and foot washing! The group was washing the feet of new members, following example set by Jesus when he washed the feet of his disciples.

The university said that for this group to share their faith was "harassment" and that foot washing "endangers or is likely to endanger the physical health of a student, regardless of the student's willingness to participate in such activity" (OneNewsNow).

Unbelievable!

Islam and freedom of religion

According to a recent report in Mission Insider, from Christian Aid Mission:

In contrast to its Middle Eastern neighbors, Jordan has traditionally maintained
considerable tolerance toward minority groups. Millions of refugees seek
sanctuary within its borders.

While Islam is the official state religion, as 95 percent of Jordan's population is Muslim, the constitution provides for freedom of religion.

Although proselytizing of Muslims is technically illegal, Christians living in Jordan have faced relatively little persecution, even while actively, tactfully and discreetly sharing the gospel. Until recently, that is.

Local Muslim leaders, influenced by Islamic radicals, have begun to force changes within the country. Although the federal government is resisting, radicals are working to implement Sharia law.

Some believers from other Arabic countries have received letters from Islamic radicals demanding they quit their Christian ministries and resign from their jobs. If they refuse, they risk being arrested. Several have been handcuffed and escorted to a plane or boat. They are typically deported without money or a chance to say goodbye to their families.

What are radical Muslims are so afraid of? Is their religion so intellectually weak that it has to be protected from challenge by force of law and even violence?

Lesbian intolerance in NJ

The “Camp Meeting Association” (a Methodist organization of Ocean Grove, New Jersey) owns property with a pavilion by the ocean. Occasionally they rent the pavilion for marriages but they have a policy against same-sex unions.

New Jersey recognizes same-sex civil unions so a lesbian couple applied to use the facility for their ceremony and they were turned down. They have now filed a formal complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (Star-Ledger) claiming that their civil rights have been violated.

Welcome to the brave new world of same-sex unions. Although there are thousands of miles of ocean front, and thousands of places to have a civil union ceremony, this lesbian couple, demonstrating total intolerance for an organization's religious convictions, will not be happy until they can get this one facility.

If this were a public facility it would be different, but private organizations, whether Christian, Muslim, atheist, gay, etc., should be able to choose who can use their facilities--and so should the Camp Meeting Association, not just because their pavilion is private property, but because freedom of religion is at stake.

But like the gay activist groups in Massachusetts that forced the closure of a Catholic adoption agency, it is apparently not enough for some homosexuals to have legalized same-sex unions. They want to force people, by law, to recognize and accommodate their sexual lifestyle even if doing so violates an organization’s religious convictions.

One of the most significant political issues with same-sex unions is not so much the legal union itself, it is the fact that the more same-sex unions become official public policy, the more gay rights groups will seek to coerce religious colleges, schools, camps, charities and even churches to violate their religious convictions by force of law. Freedom of religion is at stake and gay rights groups are doing absolutely nothing to alleviate this concern by standing up for religious liberty.

Access to Birth Control Act

On June 6 a bill, called the Access to Birth Control Act, was introduced in the Senate (S. 1555) and House of Representatives (H.R. 2596). This Act would force pharmacies to provide any FDA approved contraceptive that a customer requests, even if the pharmacy has to place it on order and even if providing such contraceptives would violate the owners' religious convictions.

Pharmacies that fail to comply can be fined $5,000 per day up to a half a million dollars! With the exception of one “Rino” all the sponsors and co-sponsors of this Act are Democrats (Hillary Clinton is one of the co-sponsors).

Toss out freedom of Religion. Forget free enterprise. Ignore the fact that the customers can take their business elsewhere. These Leftist Democrats want a society in which government specifies what products private business owners must sell and can compel these owners--under penalty of law--to violate their own personal religious convictions.

This is not the America our founding fathers envisioned. It is more like something Stalin or Hitler might have envisioned.