Gay Man Sues Bible Publishers
Posted: July 10, 2008 - 11:00 am ET

(New York City) A gay Michigan man is suing two Bible publishers over the inclusion of passages that call homosexuality sinful.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, filed separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Tennessee-based publisher Zondervan and Michigan-based Thomas Nelson Publishing.

Fowler, who is representing himself, said that the Biblical references have made him an outcast from his family and have contributed to physical discomfort, "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."

The lawsuits also blames the publishers for causing "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."

Fowler had attempted to get the court to appoint an attorney to represent him in the suits. His motion was denied by U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr.

"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," Cook said in a written decision on the application. He did not, however, dismiss the case.

Fowler is seeing punitive damages of $60 million from Zondervan and $10 million from Thomas Nelson.

The lawsuit is being closely watched by Christian conservatives.

"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."

On the surface, this seems like a complete and totally absurd case.

But it does bring up serious considerations about Biblical references. It's common knowledge that many many Biblical scholars have stated that the (granted, very few) passages in the Bible about homosexuality are distortions and misinterpretations of the originals. Could religious organizations who have almost made a living on anti-gay programs and research have the gumption and balls to actually admit that they were wrong if it were proven that the passages - passages which have done EXACTLY what the plaintiff in this case professes - were wrongly interpreted? Could they back down and ask forgiveness?

On the other hand - are Bible publishers liable for other portions and sections of the Bible which may be proven not factual? i.e. Noah's Flood, Jonah and the Whale, parting of the Red Sea, etc? Does a Holy Book have to be factually accurate to be in the public domain?

Though this story is about a gay man, I can see that it would be just as relevant to somebody who had been ostracized for being divorced, etc., which is condemned in the Bible.

__________________
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
...Christian Nestell Bovee

It's commmon knowledge that the Biblical Scholars who interpret the Bible in such a way as to twist it into meaning something totally different than what it says are wrong, worng and wnorg.

The guy doesn't have a case and I hope the publishing companies counter-sue for legal fees for having to defend such a blatantly frivolous lawsuit. Additionally, this opens the door for for court ordered censorship and puts the gov't in DIRECT violation of the 1st Amendment.

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

A. That's not even remotely true. Though your refusal to admit that you might actually be dead f'ing wrong was addressed in my original post anyway.

B. That's not a proven, which is why I brought it up.

__________________
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
...Christian Nestell Bovee

I know.
I mean, who are these guys running around thinking that the bible is okay with "woman's equality"?
The bible EXPLICITLY states the role of the woman...

1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

I mean, women teachers? Bible forbids it!
They're supposed to be barefoot and pregnant. Anybody who says otherwise is "twisting its meaning"...
< end sarcasm >

Have women even been bitchy and pissed off about it enough to sue in a court of law though? Sounds rather ignorant to me to complain about a book you don't have to read.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Homosexuality is looked down on in Iran where I doubt there are many bibles.
And according to our late (banned not dead) friend NPR, the Russians don't tolerated them well.
So suing over bible passages is absurd.

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

I don't think that legally or politically it is a good decision but intellectually it's an interesting and relevant argument to make.

__________________

I'll agree that it is intellectually engaging to think about and discuss it in the abstract. I actually kind of agree with the guy intellectually. But when it comes to the legal aspect, faithful_servant is right in that it does put the courts right on the path to first amendment violations if they rule in favor of this loon.

Not on the court's time and the taxpayer's dime...

I don't like it when the courts are used in a "let's see how this plays out" game...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

1) I have read it.
2) Women don't need to sue, cause modern day Christianity doesn't have a mainstay force that still pushes that antiquated misogynistic bullcrap.
If you had pastors rallying from the pulpit about how Eve made Adam go astray and dozens of other misogynistic messages, I wouldn't be surprised if you would see that...