California One Step Closer To Banning Bible Sales?

SUMMARY FROM VARIOUS NEWS ARTICLES

When you think about the censorship and outright banning of books and opinions, do you imagine the United States of America?

Or, more likely, does that kind of suppression strike you more as the tactics of communists or fascists that America has frequently fought against?

If Democrats lawmakers in California get their way, that west coast state may be one step closer to being unrecognizable as part of the United States. A bill currently pending in the legislature would essentially ban the sale of books that include traditional Christian views on marriage and sexuality.

Shockingly, the proposed law could even be construed to make it illegal to sell Bibles, since they include verses that the far left finds unacceptable.

“Assembly Bill 2943 would make it an ‘unlawful business practice’ to engage in ‘a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer’ that advertise, offer to engage in, or do engage in ‘sexual orientation change efforts with an individual,'” explained National Review.

This would almost certainly include traditional Christian counseling services and books.

“The bill then defines ‘sexual orientation change efforts’ as ‘any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex,” continued National Review (emphasis added).

“Efforts to change behaviors” is where the real problem is. After all, almost all counseling and even common psychiatric care are intended to “change behaviors” in various ways.

If you think about it, that’s the entire reason people seek help in the first place: They want to stop drinking or becoming angry or, yes, having troubling thoughts about their sexuality.

It’s also worth pointing out that the bill as written would apply to people who are trying to change their own behavior. This would mean that if a person was struggling with same-sex behavior or sexual identity and they themselves wanted to change, it would be illegal for them to buy any book meant to help them with this.

The problem here isn’t limited to Christian books. Bizarrely, the bill appears to put almost any counseling or psychiatric service in the cross-hairs.

For example, let’s say a man has the paraphilia of crossdressing or transvestism. For whatever reason, the person has become addicted to wearing women’s clothes and has found that showing up to work in high heels and a dress has a negative impact on his life.

Setting aside any personal judgment about this lifestyle choice (how liberal of us), suppose he voluntarily seeks counseling to get a handle on this problem. Maybe he just wants to stop being addicted to cross-dressing in public.

It’s his own choice. Yet counselors or books intended to help him would be illegal because they’re “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions,” in the words of the proposed law.

You might consider that example silly, but this concern is rather serious: If passed, it could only be a matter of time before the law’s extremely vague wording is used against traditional Christian teachings in the Bible.

Take Romans 1:26-27, for instance. This verse calls out homosexuality as “shameful” and encourages Christians to not act in this way.

Then there are 1 Peter 1:15-17, Romans 6:1, and Ephesians 4:22-24, all of which direct followers of Christianity to abstain from homosexuality even if they have those desires.

You don’t even have to particularly agree with the Bible verses mentioned here to see the problem. Efforts like the proposed bill represent dangerous slippery slopes that would use the legislature to attack traditional beliefs, and even mainstream views that happen to be at odds with the far-left agenda.

If nothing else, it’s an affront to the free exchange of ideas — yes, even ones that someone might dislike — and a censorship of speech.

“No one doubts that (Christianity’s) teachings on sexual morality are increasingly unpopular,” summarized National Review. “But they remain constitutionally protected, and no state legislature should be permitted to ban a ‘good’ (such as a book) or a ‘service’ (like counseling) that makes these arguments and provides them to willing, consenting consumers.”

It’s amazing that the same liberals who bemoan “government in the bedroom” eagerly jump at the chance to give the same government control over sexual and moral topics the moment it helps their cause.
«1

Comments

  • This is part of Satan's attack on God. It is very puzzling that some leaders find it an infringement on the rights of others when Christians refuse to do certain things because their consciences prohibit them, but when taking away the rights of believers in God, it is not a denial of rights.

    I believe Satan has so clouded the minds of some people that they have stopped discerning right from wrong.

    These are signs pointing to the very soon return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
  • California Assembly Bill 2943 makes no mention of religion, the Bible, or any religious text at all. I'm guessing this is coming from a website or "news" source that has decided to read it's own interpretation into the proposed law. The bill's intent is to protect gay rights. I guess that's always enough to spin it into something as unholy as hell itself.
  • Didn't the Nazi's ban books too? And the Liberals profess an undying message of tolerance. Best thing is to head out in a Canoe, go fishing, provide for the family and disconnect from this Internet.
  • @OceanDot

    The proposed bill isn't what this post portrays it to be, my friend. Try not to get to absorbed by it.
  • Gay rights vs Christian rights. It boils down to Satan vs God.
  • Let me guess who banned and burned books that they disagreed with?

    image
  • This bill will be used by Liberals to ban books that are in disagreement with their lifestyle. See the left will use Christianity to back up their plays and argument but when its all said and done they will turn around and attack Christianity. Liberalism is a mental disease.
  • @TruthisThat

    The bill is not anti-Christian. There is no reference to religion in the bill at all. Where are you guys getting this Anti-Christian stuff from? The law REQUIRES that all are treated equal. US Law is what the government enforces.

    @PawnStar

    blah, blah, blah.. From a lawman too ignorant or too zealously blinded to read the law and realize he's responding to a dog whistle. Bark, my friend... bark. You need a leash, don't you? Or would a muzzle be more appropriate?
  • @PawnStar

    Repeated use of slurs and generalizations are signs of what... ? Yes, you guessed it my friend, a small brain. Here's your sign- wear it proudly with your pointed dunce cap.

    @All

    Conservatives, mostly just PawnStar, actually, is suffering from a Mental Disorder. He displays signs of high aggressiveness and interpersonal hostility as we can all witness, clearly displayed in his posts. This condition is called Psychoticism. According to his own sources that makes him a LIBERAL.
  • “Efforts to change behaviors”..nuff said.

    And again Liberalism is a mental disease.
  • "Liberalism is a mental disease.... "

    I am not, by definition, a "liberal" per se as I believe in fiscal conservative notions AND social liberal ones. Technically speaking, it makes me a libertarian. Please tell me what my disease is so I can begin to search for a cure.
  • You have stated many times in this forum that you are a liberal. Seek help my friend.
  • I am a social liberal but that's only half the story. Typical of you to lock on to something less-than the whole story and run with it. Considering your normal rhetoric, I would be surprised if you actually replied with an informed view.
  • What social liberal? Is that like half a liberal half a libertarian?
  • LOL... You're joking right? Wait... Are you serious?

    I'm not going to explain this to you, my friend. At some point you have to accept that your knowledge is your responsibility. Pick up book, basically.
  • Couple of comments ago you said you were a libertarian now a social democRAT. You know who was also a Social democRAT? Hitler/Nazi. Liberalism is a mental disease.
  • Still not going to explain it to you.
  • @PawnStar

    LOL. You actually got that backwards. Hitler was NOT a social liberal. Mind you, I don't think it would be fair to categorize him as a social conservative either, but he was NOT about tolerance.

    Pick up a book, for crying out loud.

    Now go arrest someone. :-)
  • Nazi=National Socialists Germans Workers Party.

    "We are Socialists, We are Enemies of today's Capitalistic Society"
    -Adolf Hitler, 1927

    "The ultimate goal of Liberalism, Is Communism"
    -Vladimir Lenin

    And yes, Hitler was a Socialist. He admitted it in his biography, Mein Kampf (My struggle). He was a liberal Socialist democRAT, like you!
  • Hitler was a Fascist and his openly declared enemy was socialist Russia.
  • Word of the day: Fascism.

    I know no one likes reading into the actual facts but the National Socialism, or Nazi, Party of WWII Germany was actually a fascist regime.
  • Both Nazis and Bolshevism stem from the roots of Socialism. Communism and Socialism are interchangeable. I wonder what interchangeable mean?

    Only difference between the two is how they achieve their goal. But one thing resonate in both system and that is the need of the mass come first before the individual. Both system had command economy, nationalized healthcare, strong Central (dictator) power, free press don't exist, the state is the religion.

    Liberals/democRATs will claim both system are different but according to Karl Marx the man who came up with Socialism/communism both are one and the same.

  • Reason for social democRAT Hitler declaring his Bolshevism his enemy is 2 thing. Race& lebensraum. He hated the Slavic race and he wanted to expand German territory. He stated in his book that the Slavic race is a mongrel race and need to be eradicated and to find his lebensraum he pointed towards Russia has the new lands Germany must conquer.
  • Your quotes regarding Hitler are funny and, no, I'm not going to explain why. PICK UP A BOOK.

    Explain to me again. How is the black/white/grey analogy to absolutism race baiting? I'd really like to hear you dig yourself out of that shiny piece of ignorance. I'm going to need popcorn for this. It should be entertaining.
  • Be proud Hitler was also a Social democRAT like you. I've read Hitler's book and so should you. Dear adolf was a Socialist, a liberal Socialist. Just like you.
  • @PawnStar

    Another black and white reference. Go ahead, call it race baiting again. Let's have another laugh at that.
  • Socialism never works friend. Sad part is how can a micronesian like you be a Social democRAT like Hitler. The Army we served in fought that Socialist democRAT Hitler and his party and you and the Liberals have embraced that which past soldiers vanquished.
  • @PawnStar

    How can you be so ignorant when it comes to political affiliations and their makeup? There TWO sides to the coin. Fiscal ideology and Social Ideology... and, NO, Hitler DOES NOT fit the accepted definition of a Social Liberal (there is no such thing as a social Democrat).

    For crying out loud... pick up a book and educate yourself, my friend. Your extreme ignorance to even the most common concepts is just mind boggling.
  • Come on dude Hitler was a Socialist liberal democRAT. He hated brown people like us for and here you are carrying around the same flag of political affiliation he did.I Weep for the culture and today's youth.
  • I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm dumbfounded, really.
Sign In or Register to comment.