Comments on: Homosexual Lawsuit against the Bible

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:58:06 +0000

Thanks John

But the fact there may be some frivolous lawsuits does not mean no serious ones exist. And with the passage of hate crimes legislation and so on, things will only get worse.

And thanks, but I do think before I write.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: John Anthony Castro

John Anthony Castro — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:00:57 +0000

If you were to look at the case dockets, you would be astounded at some of the outrageous lawsuits currently making their way through the judicial system.

But do not be fooled. Most of these cases are deemed frivilous and dismissed as quickly as they were filed.

In addition, it is the Civil Legal System that makes this country so great. To know that you have recourse against those who *actually* cause you harm is a great thing that very few countries offer.

You will always have the nutjobs that file lawsuits that are completely outlandish, but don’t write an article about it until there is an actual disposition on the case.

Because if not, you just stur the people’s emotions and accomplish nothing except disdain for the American Civil System, which is not the culprit.

Think before writing.

John Anthony Castro

By: Jonathan Sarfati

Jonathan Sarfati — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:03:49 +0000

Roger, the link should work now; it was most likely a temporary glitch on the Townhall site.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

By: Roger Marks

Roger Marks — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:18:24 +0000

Jonathan, I opened up the link you gave but can’t find any reference to the article you referred to.
Roger Marks

By: Jonathan Sarfati

Jonathan Sarfati — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:37:26 +0000

Wimpy churchian groups are wilfully ignorant of the fact that persecution of Christians has long been on the Homonazi agenda. Mike Adams provides another example of the Gay-stapo in action. Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

By: david skinner

david skinner — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:34:06 +0000

The whole palette of emotions – love, hate, anger, peace, fear, joy, desolation – that are displayed in human nature are all necessary for our survival, like the notes on a piano, all are equally essential. For a government to eliminate feelings of antipathy or hatred in order to produce a dehumanised society that runs like a well-oiled piece of machinery, sounds ominously like the film “Clockwork Orange,” where the behaviour of its citizens can be controlled by drugs or brain surgery. This is surely pure evolutionary humanism.

The homosexual lobby have arrogantly set themselves up as the power and authority to dictate to Christians which parts of the Bible are acceptable and which parts are not. With the subtlety of Satan, they also appeal to a totally bogus etiquette: It sounds so much more refined and less confrontational to say intemperate in place of offensive and to say temperate instead of inoffensive. When, in good old Blighty (what used to be fondly known as Britain) Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall and Maria Eagle, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Justice (and twin sister of the lesbian Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Angela Eagle), demanded that only temperate religious expressions be allowed with regard to talking about homosexuality and that intemperate religious expressions might become a criminal offence, carrying a maximum of seven years in prison, ….they were appealing to our need for balance and civilised behaviour. For them to use the word offensive would be too strong, too emotive, too confrontational – intemperate even. It is an attempt to take control of the moral high ground, when in fact the behaviour of homosexuals is anything but temperate, balanced or civilised. We must beware of this verbal sleight of hand.

David Skinner, UK

By: Roger Marks

Roger Marks — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:16:08 +0000

I wonder if I can go to court and sue for the right to ignore everything that Bradley Fowler says?
Roger Marks

By: Richard Coonan

Richard Coonan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:19:18 +0000

The origin of this “litigation mania” is a perversion of the American Declaration of Independence. The original version speaks of “unalienable rights” and the “pursuit of happiness”. Today’s perversion says that there is an “unalienable right to happiness”. Therefore what makes me unhappy is an attack on my rights (regardless of anyone else”s rights) and must be fought out in a court of law. Unfortunately the politicians and courts have allowed this perversion to spread and prosper instead of exposing it as the lie that it is. Thus we have the most ridiculous cases being allowed to proceed and clog the judicial system and cause immense damage with the payouts way outside reason.
What is needed is a brave person/persons who will take this error on and make it history.
Richard Coonan

By: Mark Rabich

Mark Rabich — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:27:54 +0000

This is actually quite funny. Doesn’t even the attempted application of this lawsuit undermine those who say they are Christians and claim the Bible says nothing against homosexual behaviour? It seems those who oppose God can only fall over each other in their darkness.
Mark Rabich

By: M.E. Huffmaster

M.E. Huffmaster — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:05:10 +0000

Bill, as I sat here reading your treatise and the replies, the following thought occurred to me. Isn’t the very concept of tolerance wrapped around the idea of it going both ways? Apparently Fowler is so busy being offended he doesn’t have time to think about what tolerance really means. Or for that matter, no time to consider America’s 1st Amendment right to free speech.

BTW, I find it highly offensive that any litigator would be willing to tie up our already overloaded legal system by taking such ridiculous cases. Being laughed out of the courtroom would be an appropriately offensive punishment for such people, don’t you think?

M.E. Huffmaster