California Banning the Bible
What does everyone think of the bill in California that would ultimately ban the Bible in that state?
Comments
-
@reformed said:
What does everyone think of the bill in California that would ultimately ban the Bible in that state?What is the news source? Is this fake news? CM
-
No, not fake news. Here is the actual Bill and it has already passed the general assembly http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943
The bill is aimed at the sale of goods that would encourage sexual identity change therapy. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would ban the sale of Bibles because of passages like Romans 1.
-
"sexual identity change therapy" is defined as? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
"sexual identity change therapy" is defined as? CMIt boils down to you can't try to get someone out of the LGBT lifestyle.
-
Is this what preaching the Gospel is doing and is all about? Take a second look. CM
-
Yes, we are to proclaim truth and you should point out sin and encourage people to leave sin. But even if that isn't the goal, the Bible would be banned for sale by this bill due to the contents of the Word.
-
Is this what preaching the Gospel is doing and is all about? Take a second look. CM
Yes, we are to proclaim truth and you should point out sin and encourage people to leave sin.
Consider the charge and challenge to Christ's Disciples:
Matthew 24:14 -- “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (KJV)
We're to preach the gospel as a "witness". It's the Spirit that convicts and converts. People change because of their encounter with Jesus. Let's us be "Living Epistles written and read of all men".
But even if that isn't the goal, the Bible would be banned for sale by this bill due to the contents of the Word.
Specifically, what lines of the Calif Law are you referring cause you to conclude the Bibles will be banned? If you're right, then all Spirit-filled Preachers and Bible-believing Churches should be banned too. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Is this what preaching the Gospel is doing and is all about? Take a second look. CM
Yes, we are to proclaim truth and you should point out sin and encourage people to leave sin.
Consider the charge and challenge to Christ's Disciples:
Matthew 24:14 -- “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (KJV)
We're to preach the gospel as a "witness". It's the Spirit that convicts and converts. People change because of their encounter with Jesus. Let's us be "Living Epistles written and read of all men".
But even if that isn't the goal, the Bible would be banned for sale by this bill due to the contents of the Word.
Specifically, what lines of the Calif Law are you referring cause you to conclude the Bibles will be banned? If you're right, then all Spirit-filled Preachers and Bible-believing Churches should be banned too. CM
You cannot sale any goods that would encourage sexual orientation change. Romans 1 puts the Bible in that category as well as any other verse that calls homosexuality a sin. And it would ban preachers from preaching against homosexaulity at a conference were people pay a fee or any book that talks about homosexuality being a sin. That's the whole point of the bill.
-
@reformed said:
You cannot sale any goods that would encourage sexual orientation change. Romans 1 puts the Bible in that category as well as any other verse that calls homosexuality a sin. And it would ban preachers from preaching against homosexaulity at a conference were people pay a fee or any book that talks about homosexuality being a sin. That's the whole point of the bill.The text of the legislation pertaining to efforts to change persons' sexual orientations reads, in part:
"1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices [of which sexual orientation changes is one] undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:>
Clearly, what's banned in the proposed law are business transactions - not books - whose purpose is to change a person's sexual orientation. That is, the law would ban therapists from such practices, but it would not ban any book whose content some interpret to advocate for changes in sexual orientation.
In my view, reformed, there is no logical extension - let alone, any actual language - of the bill's provisions that would ever ban the Bible.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
In my view, reformed, there is no logical extension - let alone, any actual language - of the bill's provisions that would ever ban the Bible.
Thanks, Bill, for your take on this bill. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You cannot sale any goods that would encourage sexual orientation change. Romans 1 puts the Bible in that category as well as any other verse that calls homosexuality a sin. And it would ban preachers from preaching against homosexaulity at a conference were people pay a fee or any book that talks about homosexuality being a sin. That's the whole point of the bill.The text of the legislation pertaining to efforts to change persons' sexual orientations reads, in part:
"1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices [of which sexual orientation changes is one] undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:>
Clearly, what's banned in the proposed law are business transactions - not books - whose purpose is to change a person's sexual orientation. That is, the law would ban therapists from such practices, but it would not ban any book whose content some interpret to advocate for changes in sexual orientation.
In my view, reformed, there is no logical extension - let alone, any actual language - of the bill's provisions that would ever ban the Bible.
From the link of the bill itself:
This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual. The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.
It talks about the sale of goods, and books fall under the definition.
-
@reformed said:
From the link of the bill itself:This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual. The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.
It talks about the sale of goods, and books fall under the definition.
Again I note that the language of the bill clearly refers to the actions of people engaged in transactions, and NOT to the resources those people rely to inform, inspire, or command their conduct. The law would ban...
"...unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction."
The Bible does not and cannot undertake any act or practice; only people who read and respond to it can. Hence, the law does not and cannot apply to the Bible.
Reformed, where in the law do you find support for the view that it would ban the resources, as well as the acts and practices, of people involved in transactions?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
From the link of the bill itself:This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual. The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.
It talks about the sale of goods, and books fall under the definition.
Again I note that the language of the bill clearly refers to the actions of people engaged in transactions, and NOT to the resources those people rely to inform, inspire, or command their conduct. The law would ban...
"...unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction."
The Bible does not and cannot undertake any act or practice; only people who read and respond to it can. Hence, the law does not and cannot apply to the Bible.
Reformed, where in the law do you find support for the view that it would ban the resources, as well as the acts and practices, of people involved in transactions?
The Bible is the living word of God, it condemns homosexual behavior and aims to take people out of that lifestyle. That is banned by the law.
-
@reformed said:
The Bible is the living word of God, it condemns homosexual behavior and aims to take people out of that lifestyle. That is banned by the law.What's banned by the law are "...unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction." The Bible is not a method of competition, an act, or a practice. Neither is the Bible a person who engages in transactions. The Bible is a resource - a book - used by people. That's why I asked you before, and now ask again: Where in the law do you find support for the view that it would ban the resources, as well as the acts and practices, of people involved in transactions? (I would be most helped were you to quote section(s) of the law which you believe report a ban on the resources people use.)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
The Bible is the living word of God, it condemns homosexual behavior and aims to take people out of that lifestyle. That is banned by the law.What's banned by the law are "...unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction." The Bible is not a method of competition, an act, or a practice. Neither is the Bible a person who engages in transactions. The Bible is a resource - a book - used by people. That's why I asked you before, and now ask again: Where in the law do you find support for the view that it would ban the resources, as well as the acts and practices, of people involved in transactions? (I would be most helped were you to quote section(s) of the law which you believe report a ban on the resources people use.)
I'm not saying the bill itself spells out the Bible specifically, what I am saying is that taken to its logical conclusion, that would be the end result.
-
I wonder if it would be helpful to review the path, to and the experience, of conversion.
Let's not read into what is not. Bible banning happened in the past and maybe again in the future, but this is not the time. CM
PS. If you really think Bibles are being banned, start memorizing great portions of it.
-
@C_M_ said:
I wonder if it would be helpful to review the path, to and the experience, of conversion.Let's not read into what is not. Bible banning happened in the past and maybe again in the future, but this is not the time. CM
PS. If you really think Bibles are being banned, start memorizing great portions of it.
I'd rather be proactive than reactive and I will sound the alarm.
-
@Bill_Coley @C_M_ Here is an article that answers the question on how this bill would ban the sale of Bibles:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/california-bill-threatens-christian-books-and-booksellers/
-
@reformed said:
I'd rather be proactive than reactive and I will sound the alarm.
Notwithstanding, start memorizing great portions of the Bible.
This is truly proactive. Encourage others to do likewise. It wouldn't go to waste. Happy learning! CM -
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley @C_M_ Here is an article that answers the question on how this bill would ban the sale of Bibles:https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/california-bill-threatens-christian-books-and-booksellers/
In this partisan age, misinformation is sadly plentiful, reformed. Case in point, the National Review article to which you provided a link:
- The law DOES NOT ban goods and services, as the article contends. The law bans...
"The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer."
The Bible is NOT a "method or competition" or a "practice undertaken" to sell or lease goods and services to consumer. It's a resource. As I have asserted in multiple posts in this thread, the law does NOT ban resources. I again invite you to quote passages from the bill that lead, in your view logically, to the banning of resources. I contend there are no such passages.
- The article includes two off-target scenarios aimed, I assume, at raising the temperature of readers' reactions: 1) Sexually active gay people seeking counseling help to move toward celibacy would be banned, it argues. But the law specifically excludes from coverage...
"...psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation."
Helping a gay person move toward celibacy - a change of the person's own choosing - is not a pursuit of a change of his or her sexual orientation, and would certainly be excluded from the ban..
- 2) The other off-target scenario included in the article is the suggestion that the bill would muzzle or severely limit parental input into the choices of a child experiencing gender-confusion. But the law applies to business transactions executed by people selling goods and services, not to parent-child relationships. Nothing in law changes parent influence or involvement in such decisions.
The Bible is a resource, not a businessperson. The church's teachings - protected by the First Amendment - are not goods and services sold or leased in the sense governed by the law. The law does not, will not, could not ban the Bible or churches from teaching as they chose regarding sexual orientation.
Now if a church offered for-fee sexual orientation change classes, that could well be another matter. But neither the Bible nor or church teachings are affected by the California law. The National Review could do a LOT better in its research, but in these partisan times, such an outcome is not a sure thing.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley @C_M_ Here is an article that answers the question on how this bill would ban the sale of Bibles:https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/california-bill-threatens-christian-books-and-booksellers/
In this partisan age, misinformation is sadly plentiful, reformed. Case in point, the National Review article to which you provided a link:
- The law DOES NOT ban goods and services, as the article contends. The law bans...
Yes it does if you read further.
"The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer."
The Bible is NOT a "method or competition" or a "practice undertaken" to sell or lease goods and services to consumer. It's a resource. As I have asserted in multiple posts in this thread, the law does NOT ban resources. I again invite you to quote passages from the bill that lead, in your view logically, to the banning of resources. I contend there are no such passages.
But the sale of it is, that is why it would not fit. Of course the Bible itself is not being banned, but the sale of it would necessarily be banned under this law.
The article includes two off-target scenarios aimed, I assume, at raising the temperature of readers' reactions: 1) Sexually active gay people seeking counseling help to move toward celibacy would be banned, it argues. But the law specifically excludes from coverage...
"...psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation."
Helping a gay person move toward celibacy - a change of the person's own choosing - is not a pursuit of a change of his or her sexual orientation, and would certainly be excluded from the ban..
2) The other off-target scenario included in the article is the suggestion that the bill would muzzle or severely limit parental input into the choices of a child experiencing gender-confusion. But the law applies to business transactions executed by people selling goods and services, not to parent-child relationships. Nothing in law changes parent influence or involvement in such decisions.
The Bible is a resource, not a businessperson. The church's teachings - protected by the First Amendment - are not goods and services sold or leased in the sense governed by the law. The law does not, will not, could not ban the Bible or churches from teaching as they chose regarding sexual orientation.
Now if a church offered for-fee sexual orientation change classes, that could well be another matter. But neither the Bible nor or church teachings are affected by the California law. The National Review could do a LOT better in its research, but in these partisan times, such an outcome is not a sure thing.
I think the attorney probably knows better about the legal language of the law than us lay people. Are you an attorney?
-
@reformed said:
But the sale of it (the Bible) is, that is why it would not fit. Of course the Bible itself is not being banned, but the sale of it would necessarily be banned under this law.In my view, the language of the bill does not support your conclusion, reformed. One tell is that in your posts, you make claims about the bill, but you never quote from the bill. Please quote from the bill the section(s) which in your view "necessarily" would ban the sale of the Bible.
I think the attorney probably knows better about the legal language of the law than us lay people. Are you an attorney?
I'm not an attorney, but I know how to read, to think critically, and to apply common sense. Neither of the scenarios the article's author provides withstand basic-level scrutiny, as I showed in my previous post.
Rather than limiting your response to an inquiry about my qualifications, perhaps you could comment on the substance of the arguments I made - either or both of them. For example, given the law as quoted in my posts (and as you read it yourself) do you believe it would ban a person from seeking counseling for assistance in a move toward celibacy (NOT toward a change in his or her sexual orientation)? If so, which provision(s) of the law would result in that ban?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
But the sale of it (the Bible) is, that is why it would not fit. Of course the Bible itself is not being banned, but the sale of it would necessarily be banned under this law.In my view, the language of the bill does not support your conclusion, reformed. One tell is that in your posts, you make claims about the bill, but you never quote from the bill. Please quote from the bill the section(s) which in your view "necessarily" would ban the sale of the Bible.
I think the attorney probably knows better about the legal language of the law than us lay people. Are you an attorney?
I'm not an attorney, but I know how to read, to think critically, and to apply common sense. Neither of the scenarios the article's author provides withstand basic-level scrutiny, as I showed in my previous post.
Rather than limiting your response to an inquiry about my qualifications, perhaps you could comment on the substance of the arguments I made - either or both of them. For example, given the law as quoted in my posts (and as you read it yourself) do you believe it would ban a person from seeking counseling for assistance in a move toward celibacy (NOT toward a change in his or her sexual orientation)? If so, which provision(s) of the law would result in that ban?
No, but it would prohibit a faith based counselor telling them that homosexuality is a sin.
-
@reformed said:
No, but it would prohibit a faith based counselor telling them that homosexuality is a sin.This is a different issue from the one that prompted my involvement in this thread - namely, your claim that the California law would "ultimately ban the Bible in that state." In a previous post, I suggested that for-fee services of Christian counselors would raise different issues...
"Now if a church offered for-fee sexual orientation change classes, that could well be another matter. But neither the Bible nor or church teachings are affected by the California law."
I don't think a faith-based counselor's expression of an opinion about the sinfulness of homosexuality, on its own, would violate the proposed law, but for-fee counseling settings would likely introduce other issues.
But as for your claim that the law would ban the sale of the Bible, due to the continuing absence of supporting citations from the law, despite my several requests, I contend that you have not made your case.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
No, but it would prohibit a faith based counselor telling them that homosexuality is a sin.This is a different issue from the one that prompted my involvement in this thread - namely, your claim that the California law would "ultimately ban the Bible in that state." In a previous post, I suggested that for-fee services of Christian counselors would raise different issues...
"Now if a church offered for-fee sexual orientation change classes, that could well be another matter. But neither the Bible nor or church teachings are affected by the California law."
I don't think a faith-based counselor's expression of an opinion about the sinfulness of homosexuality, on its own, would violate the proposed law, but for-fee counseling settings would likely introduce other issues.
A counselor telling someone the truth introduces issues? Not sure how.
But as for your claim that the law would ban the sale of the Bible, due to the continuing absence of supporting citations from the law, despite my several requests, I contend that you have not made your case.
The article I submitted to you cited the law and how it would do exactly what I claimed. And that comes from someone far more qualified than you or I to speak on the topic. If you would like to bury your head in the sand and ignore the implications that is your right, I however, will not.
-
@reformed said:
A counselor telling someone the truth introduces issues? Not sure how.As I posted previously, a faith-based counselor's expression of opinion about the sinfulness of homosexuality would not likely cause issues, but fee-based counseling settings might. Fee-based settings would likely be business operations - perhaps state licensed business operations. In those settings - though I don't KNOW this to be true - the California law might apply.
The article I submitted to you cited the law and how it would do exactly what I claimed. And that comes from someone far more qualified than you or I to speak on the topic. If you would like to bury your head in the sand and ignore the implications that is your right, I however, will not.
No head-burying or implication ignoring on my part, reformed. While you've questioned my credentials and speculated as to the location of my head, I've quoted both the law in question and the article to which you linked, and drawn clear, common sense conclusions from the text of each, conclusions to none of which you have responded in any substantive way.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
A counselor telling someone the truth introduces issues? Not sure how.As I posted previously, a faith-based counselor's expression of opinion about the sinfulness of homosexuality would not likely cause issues, but fee-based counseling settings might. Fee-based settings would likely be business operations - perhaps state licensed business operations. In those settings - though I don't KNOW this to be true - the California law might apply.
The article I submitted to you cited the law and how it would do exactly what I claimed. And that comes from someone far more qualified than you or I to speak on the topic. If you would like to bury your head in the sand and ignore the implications that is your right, I however, will not.
No head-burying or implication ignoring on my part, reformed. While you've questioned my credentials and speculated as to the location of my head, I've quoted both the law in question and the article to which you linked, and drawn clear, common sense conclusions from the text of each, conclusions to none of which you have responded in any substantive way.
You did not adequately refute the article in my opinion. No further response is needed, the article stands on its own from the words of an actual attorney.
-
@reformed said:
You did not adequately refute the article in my opinion. No further response is needed, the article stands on its own from the words of an actual attorney.In two posts, reformed, you have referred to the National Review's article's author as an attorney. According to the brief bio at the bottom of the article, David French is "a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom." Nothing in those words, nothing in the article itself, reports that French is an attorney. On what basis do you claim that he is?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You did not adequately refute the article in my opinion. No further response is needed, the article stands on its own from the words of an actual attorney.In two posts, reformed, you have referred to the National Review's article's author as an attorney. According to the brief bio at the bottom of the article, David French is "a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom." Nothing in those words, nothing in the article itself, reports that French is an attorney. On what basis do you claim that he is?
Hey Bill, thanks for the question. My basis for the claim is from his FULL bio on National Review's website. The link is found at: https://www.nationalreview.com/author/david-french/ but you have to click "Read More"
When you click that, you will find the following:
French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, an attorney (concentrating his practice in constitutional law and the law of armed conflict), and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, the past president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and a former lecturer at Cornell Law School. He has served as a senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom.
Last time I checked Harvard and Cornell were pretty prestigious law schools....
-
@reformed said:
French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, an attorney (concentrating his practice in constitutional law and the law of armed conflict), and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, the past president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and a former lecturer at Cornell Law School. He has served as a senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom.Last time I checked Harvard and Cornell were pretty prestigious law schools....
Thanks for the additional link.
It's odd to me that National Review chose not to reference the author's legal background in its bio at the base of an article that has legal overtones.
The fact that French is an attorney, of course, does not necessarily mean he's reading the California law correctly. In fact, as the quotations I've offered in our exchange have demonstrated, he very clearly is not reading the law correctly. Whether he's an attorney is not germane to whether the law bans the sale of resources such as the Bible, as you and French contend, or rather "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken" by people, as I and the law itself contend. The Bible is not and will never be a method of competition or a deceptive act or practice undertaken by people.
Whether French is an attorney or not, the law says what it says, reformed. And what it says does not support your conclusions about it. If you're convinced it does, don't tell me French is an attorney or that I'm hiding my head in the sand. Quote from the law. As my high school chemistry teacher told us repeatedly, show your work.
p.s. And then there's the not-so-little matter of the First Amendment, an obstruction any effort to ban Bible sales would never be able to circumvent.
