The California book ban

[Perd Hapley]

I know the reporting on things like this can be overblown, but this does look worrisome. I would have linked to a more mainstream news source, but I don't see much reporting on this from more objective outlets.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/04/15/california-assembly-bill-2943-is-a-direct-assault-on-free-speech-truth-about-same-sex-attraction/

To sell any materials or offer any counseling for a fee that present homosexual practice and transgender identity as wrong or a sin, including all commentaries on the Bible and theological or exegetical treatments that affirm the biblical position on these matters (perhaps even the Bible itself) is to incur criminal sanctions in the state of California.

What kind of books and articles (whether in print or online) can be banned? Books by me, Robert P. George, Ryan Anderson, Sherif Girgis, Tony Esolen, Nancy Pearcey, Maggie Gallagher, R. R. Reno, Andrew Comiskey, Jennifer Roback Morse, Denise Shick, Denny Burk, Edith M. Humphrey, Rosaria Butterfield, Michael L Brown, Anne Paulk, Karen Swallow Prior, Andrew Walker, and anyone else that anywhere suggest the value of a “change of behaviors or gender expressions” away from homosexual practice and transgenderism. Any books or articles that indicate that the Bible and the church have a role in encouraging people not to engage in such behavior or self-identification can be banned.

Any counselor that suggests to clients that homosexual practice or transgender identification is in any way wrong or unhealthy, irrespective of whether they offer “orientation change” services will become a criminal in the eyes of the state.

No one in the state of California could teach a course at an institution where tuition is paid that in any way challenged LGBTQ ideology, nor could students be required or recommended to purchase books that challenged such.

No church, Christian bookstore, or internet site could be a conduit for the sale of any literature that challenges homosexual practice or transgender identity. Amazon could not sell to California residents any such literature.

I'm hoping it's not as bad as portrayed, or that Brown might veto it.


If David French's reading is correct, it actually criminalizes normal views on gender and sexuality in a way that California doesn't criminalize racial hatred, or Holocaust-denial, or any other kind of speech.

https://ricochet.com/podcast/ordered-liberty/worse-than-racist/

[grampster]

Well, if that's accurate, I wouldn't be surprised.  I've been wondering how banks and financial institutions can refuse to do business with legal companies that make or sell firearms.  If a baker is criminalized or at least required to pay fines, or ordered to do business, or close his business because he doesn't want to participate in behavior he finds to be against his religious views, how can a bank refuse to do business with gun makers/sellers?

[Perd Hapley]

Moar:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/29591/california-democrats-seek-ban-books-speech-violate-ben-shapiro

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/california-progressives-launch-another-attack-on-free-speech/

[makattak]

Reading the bill, it seems their characterization is correct.

As with most legal gobbledygook, it has a lot of extraneous points about other sales, but these are pretty clear:

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.

They then include a long statement about the psychiatry guild saying that homosexuality is not a mental illness (political pressure works!) and that people shouldn't be treated to change "sexual orientation or gender identity."

Lastly, this is from their list of things that are now illegal:

(28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

Sounds like Mr. French has it understood correctly.

[Perd Hapley]

Reading the bill, it seems their characterization is correct.

As with most legal gobbledygook, it has a lot of extraneous points about other sales, but these are pretty clear:
They then include a long statement about the psychiatry guild saying that homosexuality is not a mental illness (political pressure works!) and that people shouldn't be treated to change "sexual orientation or gender identity."

Lastly, this is from their list of things that are now illegal:

Sounds like Mr. French has it understood correctly.

I am so shocked to see that California Democrats want to outlaw speech, even when it's intended to help people that have asked for help. Shocked.

https://medium.com/s/state-of-the-future/the-great-lesson-of-california-in-americas-new-civil-war-e52e2861f30

[zxcvbob]

The prophet Bob Hope, when California legalized homosexuality, said he was leaving before they make it compulsory.

I was about to ask why they didn't go all-in and outlaw the Bible itself, then reread it and saw that they mentioned maybe it does.

[Brad Johnson]

This brought back a question I have...

Body dysmorphic disorder is considered a legitimate psychological condition according to DSM-IV. Why is gender dysmorphia not treated similarly? Both conditions are based in the perception that some part of your nature-born self is not as it should be and must be corrected medically, either through pharma or surgical means. I genuinely don't see how a distinction can be made.

Brad

[Perd Hapley]

This brought back a question I have...

Body dysmorphic disorder is considered a legitimate psychological condition according to DSM-IV. Why is gender dysmorphia not treated similarly? Both conditions are based in the perception that some part of your nature-born self is not as it should be and must be corrected medically, either through pharma or surgical means. I genuinely don't see how a distinction can be made.

Brad

WHY ARE YOU A HATEY MCHATERFACE HATER?!! MY FRIENDS AND I WILL SCREAM AT YOU UNTIL YOU APOLOGIZE FOR TERRORIZING MY FEELS!!

[zxcvbob]

The Bee nails it again:  http://babylonbee.com/news/californian-arrested-for-concealed-carrying-bible-without-permit/

[Hawkmoon]

The Bee nails it again:  http://babylonbee.com/news/californian-arrested-for-concealed-carrying-bible-without-permit/

I'm glad I'm not in California. The daughter of a friend has just enlisted in the Army. She'll be leaving for Basic Training in June. They're a more religious family than I am (God only knows why they tolerate me -- probably hoping to convert me but, since I'm already a Christian, that's sort of an exercise in futility), so I thought I'd give her a pocket Bible (correction -- New Testament) to take with her. I would give the one I had in Basic and throughout my enlistment, but I can't find it. And mine is (or was, if I can't find it) a King James Version, and their church uses the New International Version. So I ordered this for her:

I hope I get to make the presentation before they institute mandatory background checks on private transfers of Bibles.

[zxcvbob]

I'm glad I'm not in California. The daughter of a friend has just enlisted in the Army. She'll be leaving for Basic Training in June. They're a more religious family than I am (God only knows why they tolerate me -- probably hoping to convert me but, since I'm already a Christian, that's sort of an exercise in futility), so I thought I'd give her a pocket Bible (correction -- New Testament) to take with her. I would give the one I had in Basic and throughout my enlistment, but I can't find it. And mine is (or was, if I can't find it) a King James Version, and their church uses the New International Version. So I ordered this for her:

I hope I get to make the presentation before they institute mandatory background checks on private transfers of Bibles.

Is that a new NIV?  The new version is not nearly as good as the 1980-something edition.  It's still not bad, but the use of "they" as a singular pronoun is kinda jarring to me to see in print.

I like NKJV.  I just wish they had used to best currently-available manuscripts instead of the ones used for the 1611 King James (the Textus Receptus?).

[Perd Hapley]

"This book is known to the state of California to be all religiousy about sex."

I guess now the Bible printing houses will have to publish California-legal bibles [sic]. 

[Hawkmoon]

Is that a new NIV? 

Yes. Not my first (or even second) choice, but that's what their church uses so I wanted to give her one that's compatible with what the rest of the family is reading.

The two pocket New Testaments I have but can't find are KJV and RSV. I have full Bibles around in several other versions (as well as those two, of course), but those are the only two pocket editions.

[zxcvbob]

I don't know much about the California legislative process.  I think they have referendums, which can be crazy, and you have nutty representatives in every house submitting stupid bills; they rely on the senate to stop the really awful stuff that accidentally passes in the house. This one seems to have been approved by the judiciary committee, and by a wide margin.  So it will get a floor vote and has a good chance of passing (then perhaps killed by the senate)

I assume they know it will get struck down by the courts but they don't care.  It will cost someone real money to bring a lawsuit, and California can waste other people's money (the taxpayers') to defend it.

[T.O.M.]

I don't know much about the California legislative process.  I think they have referendums, which can be crazy, and you have nutty representatives in every house submitting stupid bills; they rely on the senate to stop the really awful stuff that accidentally passes in the house. This one seems to have been approved by the judiciary committee, and by a wide margin.  So it will get a floor vote and has a good chance of passing (then perhaps killed by the senate)

I assume they know it will get struck down by the courts but they don't care.  It will cost someone real money to bring a lawsuit, and California can waste other people's money (the taxpayers') to defend it.

I swear, lately it seems as if legislators don't care if the laws they pass will withstand judicial scrutiny or not.  It's like they pass it with the deliberate thought "well, it will be good law for a while at least."

Actually, on further thought, it's more like they pass it with the deliberate thought "well, it will be declared unconstitutional, but passing it will pander to the voters I'm trying to get votes from, and I'll put out ads that blame the judge for reversing it, saying he's a white male, and a constitutional conservative, etc."

[dogmush]

When you view the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome by your agenda, a law being unconstitutional is a feature, not a bug.

[Perd Hapley]

I swear, lately it seems as if legislators don't care if the laws they pass will withstand judicial scrutiny or not.  It's like they pass it with the deliberate thought "well, it will be good law for a while at least."

Actually, on further thought, it's more like they pass it with the deliberate thought "well, it will be declared unconstitutional, but passing it will pander to the voters I'm trying to get votes from, and I'll put out ads that blame the judge for reversing it, saying he's a white male, and a constitutional conservative, etc."

Yup.

[Pb]

I swear, lately it seems as if legislators don't care if the laws they pass will withstand judicial scrutiny or not.  It's like they pass it with the deliberate thought "well, it will be good law for a while at least."

Actually, on further thought, it's more like they pass it with the deliberate thought "well, it will be declared unconstitutional, but passing it will pander to the voters I'm trying to get votes from, and I'll put out ads that blame the judge for reversing it, saying he's a white male, and a constitutional conservative, etc."

Once the left appoints enough judges, these laws will pass judicial scrutiny.  The USA is very rare in the western world in not having "hate speech" laws. 

The demographic that supports free speech the most is old people.  The ones that abhor it the most are... young people.

[makattak]

Once the left appoints enough judges, these laws will pass judicial scrutiny.  The USA is very rare in the western world in not having "hate speech" laws.  

The demographic that supports free speech the most is old people.  The ones that abhor it the most are... young people.

Thankfully, as those old people die, a lot of those young people will become old people... and start supporting free speech.


At least, that's my hope: that these children will grow up, someday. (It takes longer since the government seems intent on keeping them immature by withholding responsibility.)

[Perd Hapley]

Once the left appoints enough judges, these laws will pass judicial scrutiny.  The USA is very rare in the western world in not having "hate speech" laws. 

The demographic that supports free speech the most is old people.  The ones that abhor it the most are... young people.

Yup. Scary.

[Pb]

Is that a new NIV?  The new version is not nearly as good as the 1980-something edition.  It's still not bad, but the use of "they" as a singular pronoun is kinda jarring to me to see in print.

I like NKJV.  I just wish they had used to best currently-available manuscripts instead of the ones used for the 1611 King James (the Textus Receptus?).

It is my understanding that the newer NIV bibles have started re-writing the Bible to make it gender neutral.  Eliminating the word "father" from the Bible, and replacing it with parent, replacing "men" with people etc.   

[dogmush]

Once the left appoints enough judges, these laws will pass judicial scrutiny.  The USA is very rare in the western world in not having "hate speech" laws. 

The demographic that supports free speech the most is old people.  The ones that abhor it the most are... young people.

Then it will be up to the middlish old people to take those folks, and judges, and say some version of: "Hey, you know how you guys like all that Che stuff, and his style?  Ima need you to stand over by that wall....."


Seriously:  More and more the Free Speech vs. Ideologues demonstrations are coming to blows.  The other side IS willing to use violence, up to beating people in the street to shut down the free expression and rights of those they disagree with.  They are eager to use proxies for that violence, especially if they can drape it in the color of law.  EAGER. 

So eventually, if we want freedoms, we are going to have to return violence. Or give up freedoms.

As to the left using Judges and laws to render their tyranny legal, I offer you a cliche quote to ponder:

how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

[Perd Hapley]

Hawkmoon, if you can find your KJV, I'd give that to her. I think she'll survive the difference in version, and will appreciate the personal nature of the gift. And I think people need to read different translations, anyhow.

It is my understanding that the newer NIV bibles have started re-writing the Bible to make it gender neutral.  Eliminating the word "father" from the Bible, and replacing it with parent, replacing "men" with people etc.  

I might be wrong, but I don't think the updated NIV is quite as bad as some of us thought it was going to be. But I don't follow the NIV issues that closely, since I like to use more literal translations (NASB, KJV, etc). I must admit, though, the thought-for-thought translation advocates do have a point. Post-modern readers being simple critters, they don't understand that "men" often means "humans" or "people." Or that "brothers" isn't always meant to exclude women. So, if you want to actually communicate the Bible's message to men people like this, you have to do a little extra translating. You have to provide the meaning, at the expense of the words.

I think some versions have found a serviceable middle ground on this by going gender-neutral in some places, such as when Paul closes his letter to the Ephesians with "Peace be to the brethren." I doubt anyone would say that Paul intended to wish peace only to the men in Ephesus, and not the women. But then, when you have passages that talk about "sons," there can be implications of inheritance that wouldn't apply to daughters (just the way the law worked in that place and time). So, for those passages, you leave the gender-specific language where it is.

But I don't really advocate thought-for-thought translation, as a general rule. Word-for-word is best.

[Scout26]

Two words:  Warsaw Ghetto. 


Figure 90%+ percent of the people in the Ghetto were willing to get into the rail cars, without resistance.   Less then 10% actually fought back.  Imagine if that number had been higher.

[HankB]

It is my understanding that the newer NIV bibles have started re-writing the Bible to make it gender neutral.  Eliminating the word "father" from the Bible, and replacing it with parent, replacing "men" with people etc.   

Editing the Almighty seems to be something else to answer for when they finally meet their maker . . .