It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zondervan faces $60M federal lawsuit over Bible, homosexuality

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Back to the issue of the law sue again,

I have read the entire link to the case and it seems that the Christian publisher Zondervan indeed targeted the word homosexual as derogatory when they started to publish their version of the scripts back in 1982 and 87.

From the link,

Fowler 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..

Now this was indeed an alteration of the original text, But, the publisher did this during the 80s and later bibles do not contain such change and the added homosexual word, this will make a an issue that it was targeting a part of the population the homosexual population.

Now, Fowler claims pain and suffering for the last 20 years as his pastor used the modified bible in his congregation causing stress to him.

This is kind of too late to bring a law sue and a complain, while he can have a court case on the issue of charging words in published bible for the intention of targeting a specific group of people and cause hate crimes, he waited too long

Either way after waiting 20 years the court can take it or just dismiss it depending how good Fowler's lawyer present the case.



[edit on 9-7-2008 by marg6043]


He didnt target anyone he exchanged words NOT MEANINGS and not translations. Marge if I were to go wioth your argument, you can write of all of the texts because ALL of them are not the words from the original texts but a rose is a rose by any other name and homosexual sin is sexual sin but the reason for making it more specific is the gay community DEMANDED IT by constantly but deceptively saying God is not talking about gays sex when he most certainly is.

They bring this attention upon themselves by questioning it and challenging it as if to say if my particular brand of beer isn't mentioned than he isn't talking about Coors drinking drunks because it doesn't say coors in the scripture. I mean I feel I should'nt even have to explain this to you marge,, c'mon I know you know what I am saying and I sympathize with your stand on equal rights but this guy really hasn't made the texts have any altered meaning. May have changed queer for gay is technically all he did. The problem is THIS guy thinks he has an angle for a law suit predicated on his civil rights being violated as the victim of a hate crime.

This guy that changed the word lives in a country where he can write a book saying I hate gay people and I WILL fight to the death he gets to keep that right the same as anyone saying all Christians are evil.

I may not like it and he may be acting like a jerk but Ill be damned if people's sensitivities get so asinine we relinquish our freedom of speech inlieu of hurting someones witto feewings

- Con

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Conspiriology]




posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
This is the problem with keeping archaic attempts at understanding the world around, such as religion.

The more we learn, the less the religious texts make any sense at all to us... and hence, the problems that arise don't make sense either.


The bible has been re-written so many times in the past to suit the changes in science, customs, and sociology... through these re-writes, it barely even resembles the original.
So why are the religious so touchy about re-writing the bible once again? Why not just simply omit the negative parts about homosexuality? I mean, it's not like the current bible has any credibility any more... the original might have, but the current one has been re-written too many times to be recognizable any more.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
This is the problem with keeping archaic attempts at understanding the world around, such as religion.

The more we learn, the less the religious texts make any sense at all to us... and hence, the problems that arise don't make sense either.


The bible has been re-written so many times in the past to suit the changes in science, customs, and sociology... through these re-writes, it barely even resembles the original.
So why are the religious so touchy about re-writing the bible once again? Why not just simply omit the negative parts about homosexuality? I mean, it's not like the current bible has any credibility any more... the original might have, but the current one has been re-written too many times to be recognizable any more.



Oh hell why not just take out the part about not commiting murder to because people that wanna to kill other people guilt free can because of your "reasoned rational logical idea"

sheesh

- Con



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


After reading and re reading the link of the case and taking into consideration the hate laws and how it can be applied to this case, I can only say now that it will depend upon how good Fowler's lawyer is in this matter in order to win this case that actually is too old right now as the bibles with the "offensive word" as per Fowler complain were published in the 80s.

It will be interesting to see how the court will look at this case and under what grievance will be filed under, Hate crime, or personal and emotional stress.

The later Fowler will not stand a chance of wining.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043




Yeah but that shouldn't be the reason their is no case. It should be because it is just plane silly and it sets a precedent where anyone who sees an offensive word and gets their feelings hurt would now have a case law decision for the right to sue. (if this went that far)

This would give the phrase "politically correct" a whole new meaning.

- Con




[edit on 9-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Oh hell why not just take out the part about not commiting murder to because people that wanna to kill other people guilt free can because of your "reasoned rational logical idea"

sheesh

- Con


Um... Did you just compare homosexuals to murderers?!

That's pretty SICK!



I implied we should re-write it to match the present day.
I'm sorry... but is murder part of your typical day?

If you don't like re-writing the bible, lets revoke those other re-writes too... lets declare women to be soul-less and not really people at all, all over again.
Of course we're not going to do that.
Common sense. Unfortunately, religion hasn't been notorious for that.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Oh hell why not just take out the part about not commiting murder to because people that wanna to kill other people guilt free can because of your "reasoned rational logical idea"

sheesh

- Con


Um... Did you just compare homosexuals to murderers?!

You're SICK!


Now remember in my first posts marge I predicted this kind of equivocation switching as them taking what the bible says to mean what I am saying? Johnsky and his manipulative childish cheap shot at that very example just proved my point

tsk tsk tsk

- Con



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Actually I agree, because then people could be able to research on anything that has been published 10,20, 30 and so years ago to make a case upon pain and suffering.

That is why Fowler will probably get a case against the publisher if he can bring the hate crime issue, but hate crime have a problem they protect freedom of speech.


The core of the ADL legal approach is a "penalty-enhancement" concept. In a landmark decision issued in June 1993, the United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of Wisconsin's penalty-enhancement hate crimes statute, which was based on the ADL model. Expressions of hate protected by the First Amendment's free speech clause are not criminalized


www.adl.org...



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Oh, you're a laugh riot you are.


I point out that you just posted homosexuals and murderers in the same light, and I get called a child.

Meh, suits me, I wouldn't mind losing a few years off this aging carcass.



The point remains though, that you just placed homosexuals and murderers in the same light.

Do you believe homosexuals should be locked up, tried, and sentenced for homosexuality in the same manor that murderers are locked up and tried for murder?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Actually I agree, because then people could be able to research on anything that has been published 10,20, 30 and so years ago to make a case upon pain and suffering.

That is why Fowler will probably get a case against the publisher if he can bring the hate crime issue, but hate crime have a problem they protect freedom of speech.


The core of the ADL legal approach is a "penalty-enhancement" concept. In a landmark decision issued in June 1993, the United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of Wisconsin's penalty-enhancement hate crimes statute, which was based on the ADL model. Expressions of hate protected by the First Amendment's free speech clause are not criminalized


www.adl.org...



Yeah ther ya go! nice find on the external. This guy is doing the same thing Johnsky tried in the post above LOL

either that or he REALLY DOES have a problem reading.

- Con



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Oh, you're a laugh riot you are.


I point out that you just posted homosexuals and murderers in the same light, and I get called a child.

Meh, suits me, I wouldn't mind losing a few years off this aging carcass.



The point remains though, that you just placed homosexuals and murderers in the same light.

Do you believe homosexuals should be locked up, tried, and sentenced for homosexuality in the same manor that murderers are locked up and tried for murder?


Johnsky READ MY POST SON and point out the contextual connection in lockstep of this alleged comparison.

Can you! '

Nope. You are nothing but a manipulative instigator a child with a temper

If you have a question as to what I may have wanted my post to convey, trust me I would have NO problem saying it just like this "All Gays are murderes" So rather than ask which you did (why Ill never know) you don't wait for an answer you just go ahead an hallucinate a post making a statment with a meaning I never made.

Grow up amateur

- Con



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
This is the problem with keeping archaic attempts at understanding the world around, such as religion.

The more we learn, the less the religious texts make any sense at all to us... and hence, the problems that arise don't make sense either.


The bible has been re-written so many times in the past to suit the changes in science, customs, and sociology... through these re-writes, it barely even resembles the original.
So why are the religious so touchy about re-writing the bible once again? Why not just simply omit the negative parts about homosexuality? I mean, it's not like the current bible has any credibility any more... the original might have, but the current one has been re-written too many times to be recognizable any more.


This is what I said:



Oh hell why not just take out the part about not commiting murder to because people that wanna to kill other people guilt free can because of your "reasoned rational logical idea"


This is what YOU would have us believe I said:


Oh hell why not just take out the part about not commiting murder too because homosexuals that wanna to kill other people guilt free can because of your "reasoned rational logical idea"


Pretty easy to see what my point was Johnsky but incase you still haven't been able to wrap your mind around it.

When you said just take the offensive word out I am saying if you do that for gays than whats to stop liars for wanting the word lie taken out because liars feel convicted hence they are offended too. Just choose your favorite vice in the bible and remove it is where you idea would go and it is no longer the Gods word it is nothing but omissions made by the very sinners the book teaches forgiveness and a path to spiritual victory over them.

- Con







[edit on 9-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

[Originally posted by Conspiriology

Nope. You are nothing but a manipulative instigator a child with a temper

If you have a question as to what I may have wanted my post to convey, trust me I would have NO problem saying it just like this "All Gays are murderes" So rather than ask which you did (why Ill never know) you don't wait for an answer you just go ahead an hallucinate a post making a statment with a meaning I never made.

Grow up amateur

- Con


Grow up... grow up?

Let me tell you something about my growing up, son.

Had a friend back in early high school (long time ago). Kyle was one of the greatest people I've ever known. The difference with him though was he was a homosexual. Does that make him less human? Absolutely not.

However, down the road, there was a Christian school. A few of the guys at that school had taken it upon themselves to give him problems for it.
Often quoting the bible to justify their actions, they would get into scuffles with him.

I had heard these boys talk in a very similar manor to you. Often arguing against homosexuals, and then, almost in the same breath, pitting them along side some of the worst parts of the bible.
When asked about it, they simply said "I said no such thing pal".

I knew their hatred toward Kyle was growing, I knew it couldn't end up too well. I got in a fight back then with them myself a few times for standing up for him.

Then the night came when Kyle left us.
Those bible pushing boys met up with Kyle. Chased him into the local park, and proceeded to beat on him. Once Kyle was on the ground, these lads didn't stop, they continued to give him the boot.

Why? Because their bible taught that Kyle was lesser than them for being a homosexual, that, combined with their hatred for gays, they felt they were fully justified in treating Kyle as less than human.

Kyle's spleen ruptured from the boots to his midsection.
He died in hospital the next day. I, sadly, wasn't able to get the news of it in time to see him before he died.

I felt sure that this horrible act would be punished to the fullest extent.

Apparently, I was wrong. These lads were moved to another city for their protection, and managed to get away with some minor time in Juvenile Detention.


Let me remind you kid,
That bible you are holding so dear, has justified to those boys that they can MURDER homosexuals.

Talk like yours, declaring Homosexuals in the same topic as Murderers is an obvious and deliberate attempt to raise anger toward Homosexuals.
Those boys used that mode of speech all the time when trying to tell people about "the faggot down the road".

It's a deliberate attempt to knock homosexuals, and I'm not having it... NOT AGAIN.


You can take that bible of yours and shove it kid.
I've lived long enough to know that the book you hold so dear to has done nothing but cause problems and justify people being killed.
You may think it teaches you values and morals, all it ends up doing is getting people killed.


You clearly haven't lived long enough to see anyone use your bible in such a way... but I have witnessed dozens of disgusting acts like this in the past.

And ALL of them wouldn't have been possible if people like you hadn't gone about Willie nilly declaring This That and the Other to be Sins.

So yeah, please, if you want to call me a child, would you be so kind as to help me get back to that point? To get back the things in my childhood YOUR RELIGION has so arrogantly taken from me?


And I know you're going to say "but that wasn't me"... can it kid, I've heard it all. I'm tired of hearing people say "but they weren't true Christians"... more often than not, they too have done some pretty disgusting things, all in the name of their fairytale imaginary friend.


Yes, you pitted homosexuals along side murderers.
I stated we should edit the bible again to remove the "Homosexuality = sin" part... and you retorted with a sarcastic - why don't we do the same for murderers.

Right there, you've just made the comparison of forgiving gays being as bad as forgiving murderers.


It was after that event that I took up a cause to defend homosexuals.

It's thought patterns like yours, backed by the bible, that has caused this event, and MANY others like it.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by blueorder
 


Back to the basis, the word homosexual is not part of the original scripts and to use it in a manner that is offensive and possible to cause hate crimes is a valid issue for a law sue.

Taking into consideration that this is done to the bible.

It merit a law sue to the company involved in what can be call a hate crime.

Hate Crimes Laws

www.adl.org...



[edit on 9-7-2008 by marg6043]


So, can I sue all of you who hate Christians? Or, does the law only apply when you agree with it?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Let me tell you something about my growing up, son.


Not interested in your sordid dysfunctional child hood or the Bible Bullys's that took your lunch money at school and stole your bike.

Whining about your childhood stolen away from you by a damn Book.

Get Over IT Nancy, the book you blame and the hatred you have for it and the people like you who have read it and for some reason THEY NEVER KILL ANYONE! Ya think those that while you blame it on the Bible, Ill bet you blame the song helter skelter for making charles manson want to kill abigail folger and jay sebring?

Yeah unless you are old enough to be a Viet Nam Veteran I doubt you look anything more than a boy.

If you can't make the nexus between the word comparison and borrowing from your own example then GET a DICTIONARY



Talk like yours, declaring Homosexuals in the same topic as Murderers is an obvious and deliberate attempt to raise anger toward Homosexuals.
Those boys used that mode of speech all the time when trying to tell people about "the faggot down the road".


Like I said SHOW ME WHERE I DECLARED THEM AS ANYTHING?

You cant and is why you didn't in your statement, SEE BELOW:


Talk like yours, declaring Homosexuals in the same topic as Murderers


In the same topic? OH NOOOOO

So what! is that against the TC? and where is the comparison Johnsky?
you said "delaring them "IN" the same topic but didn't say "declared them "AS" anything at all, no comparison!

Ya know why?

you couldn't find it because I NEVER MADE ONE

so shut up and quit lying

You have now insisted I have said something I never said and if you are going to post in a thread regarding the Bible and homosexual sin then get a GD grip or get out.

You don't know a damn thing about that book for if you did you would know how many sins it takes to go to hell.

It takes ONE

Now if murder is a sin and homosexual sex is a sin do you know what difference it makes to God?

NONE!

The results are the same and the wages of sin is death so

where is the comparison?

If you want to get all indignant because the GOD in the Bible compares them NOT but judges them the same and BOTH, get the same punishment. So your argument isn't with me Julie, it is with GOD

take it up with him. I could care less about your gay "friend"

- Con






[edit on 9-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


johnsky, I think you're personalizing this issue too much. The people who murdered your friend were idiots regardless of their religion. People with that sort of mentality will find reasons to subjugate others no matter the circumstances. What I'm saying is that even if they lived in an environment totally free of bibles, they would still be bullies and still be hurting someone.

There have been lots of psychos who claim to be following the parts of different religious texts that suit them. That doesn't mean that the texts themselves have zero merit whatsoever. Just because some idiot starts a war citing the Constitution as validation, should we throw the baby out with the bathwater and ditch the Constitution? Of course not.

As for the lawsuit, of course it will get thrown out. It's totally frivolous and groundless. People translate and retranslate texts constantly. The plaintiff should be mad at his family and not some publisher.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Do me a good favor and take your time and read the entire link to the OP and the two pages of posts.

Better yet, because you linked me directly just read all my post and then we may have a good issue to discuss.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I was not aware that Zondervan engaged in any translation. I thought they just printed Bibles. NIV, KJV etc. Am I mistaken? I had the NIV audio bible. Even so, this is a ridiculous lawsuit and speaks to just how far this country has fallen.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sc2099
reply to post by johnsky
 


johnsky, I think you're personalizing this issue too much. The people who murdered your friend were idiots regardless of their religion. People with that sort of mentality will find reasons to subjugate others no matter the circumstances. What I'm saying is that even if they lived in an environment totally free of bibles, they would still be bullies and still be hurting someone.

There have been lots of psychos who claim to be following the parts of different religious texts that suit them. That doesn't mean that the texts themselves have zero merit whatsoever. Just because some idiot starts a war citing the Constitution as validation, should we throw the baby out with the bathwater and ditch the Constitution? Of course not.

As for the lawsuit, of course it will get thrown out. It's totally frivolous and groundless. People translate and retranslate texts constantly. The plaintiff should be mad at his family and not some publisher.



No he does this BS in every thread like this, if you talk about homsexual sex they will bring up sodom and gomorah saying it was rape they were doing not gay sex, the very MOMENT you use the word rape, He will go off like a wingnut as he did here mocking up some embellished melodramatic hissy fit saying "YOU are comparing homosexuals to rapists!"

I mean it's text book stuff he and his clique pull in threads like this.

- Con



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Actually, I see the problem as being we live in an everthing-is-ok society. That our culture is totally discounting what God has said displeases Him is the real issue. We've adopted a politically correct view of all things and God and the Bible is NOT politically correct. Jesus wasn't politically correct and he asked that those who would follow him be politically incorrect as well. Is it sin? Call it sin but at the same time realize that YOU are a sinner too and God has forgiven you.

Speak the truth with Love. But the love required isn't popular any more. People would rather vent.

Adding some stuff...

Now, is "Homosexual" in the Bible? No. However, the wording used leaves little to the imagination regarding what is being discussed. The point is that we've been told to be proud of ourselves regardless of the sin that we commit after all it isn't our fault, it's someone elses fault.
That's going to be a flimsy excuse come judgement...

[edit on 9-7-2008 by WarBow]




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join