I recently wrote on these pages that there were two legal victories for Christians and other religious believers. Those decisions were issued the day after the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision. However, a few days after those victories, we are reminded as regular readers of Mere Comments know, that the only group in the United States whose rights can regularly be oppressed and harassed are Christian believers. A Constitution might not always seem to say what it does say. As we learned from Supreme Court Chief Injustice John Roberts last week, what might seem a clear meaning of the constitutional text to us might not always be. You might think that you have a constitutional right to share your faith with others. You might even think you can distribute a Bible to your neighbors, or you could even reasonably think that you have a constitutional right to go into public venues to share your faith and distribute a Bible. But alas, in today’s America, it takes persistence and good lawyering to exercise one’s fundamental constitutional rights.
Brian Johnson is an evangelical Christian believer from Wisconsin. He distributes Bibles at the Twin Cities Sodomy Pride Festival in Minnesota. He has distributed Bibles at the annual event since 1995 (kudos to him!). The Twin Cities Sodomy Pride Festival is a big deal: an estimated 300,000 merrymakers come to celebrate their sexuality at this event, and so it is a strategic opportunity for Christian witness. Mr. Johnson had no problem with the event organizers until 2009. In 2009, the event organizers refused to rent him a booth after the organizers heard his views on homosexuality (it took that long?). However, this was not a problem for the intrepid Mr. Johnson and his family, who have been described as “anti-gay.” They were going to walk through the event distributing Bibles wearing yellow t-shirts that said something quite radical: “Free Bibles.” However, upon doing so, the organizers said that Mr. Johnson and his family were not welcome, and a police officer allegedly told Mr. Johnson that the park was “private property” that day, and Mr. Johnson was arrested when he didn’t leave. Of course, the charges were dropped as a public park is never “private property,” even when homosexual, lesbian, bisexuals and transgendered revelers are present.
Sodomy Pride organizers then sued the Park Board in 2010, seeking an injunction requiring that the Park Board prohibit Mr. Johnson from returning to the event. U.S. District Judge John Tunehim ruled that a broad restriction based on the content of Mr. Johnson’s speech would violate his rights under the First Amendment, and so Mr. Johnson returned to distribute Bibles.
For the current year’s events, the Park Board and event organizers negotiated an arrangement where the Park Board planned to set up booths in the park, but outside of the actual event area. Mr. Johnson sued arguing that this arrangement infringes his constitutional rights. However, in a 41-page opinion issued last Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, appointed by President Clinton, denied Mr. Johnson’s request for an injunction that would force the Park Board to allow him access to the festival grounds saying that his constitutional challenge was unlikely to succeed. Really? In his opinion, Judge Davis noted that “free expression in a public forum is a core liberty that must be guarded with vigilance.” Indeed it is, Judge Davis! But within several days of Judge Davis’s ruling, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary injunction that allowed Mr. Johnson full access to the park for this coming Sunday. He was represented by Jonathan Scruggs of the Alliance Defense Fund of Memphis. Further, Mr. Scruggs said the appeal will be argued in federal court to determine whether Mr. Johnson has access to future Sodomy Pride Festivals. Mr. Scruggs stated, “We think it is a good sign that the Eighth Circuit ruled so quickly and, we believe correctly, and upheld a fundamental First Amendment right to distribute literature in a public park.” Mr. Scruggs noted that while the Park Board argued that its plan would improve crowd control in the congested park, but “[n]o court has ever banned literature distribution in a public park in the name of congestion.”
One of the event organizers, Dot Belstler, said candidly, “[Mr. Johnson] has said his goal is to get everyone to know Jesus [and] he is allowed to do that. [But] it’s really kind of a nuisance.” Yes, Ms. Belstler, free speech can be unpleasant. As we know, the truth can set you free, but first, it will make you very angry.
Even if no one ever takes a Bible from Mr. Johnson, he is reminding all of us the important lesson that St. Paul taught to Timothy in II Timothy 4:2: “Preach the word; be ready to do this whether or not the time is convenient. Refute, warn, and encourage with the utmost patience when you teach.” Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for this important reminder. May God continue to bless your efforts!











It makes you think that sooner or later, someone will make the connection that Christians are a nuisance and the lions in the zoo are hungry.
I wonder if the event organizers realize that they are guilty of hate speech and bullying…or is it acceptable because they are the sexual deviates?
The Supreme Court recently decided that the members of Westboro Baptist are immune from torts due to infliction of emotional distress when they stand near funerals and gleefully hold up signs announcing your deceased son or daughter is under the wrath of God, getting their skin burned off their bones in a literal Lake of Fire. Thus, I’m not overly concerned about First Amendment rights in this nation. Freedom of speech is an almost absolute and unlimited right here, and any infringements on that
right will eventually be overturned.
I’ve seen several gay pride parades, and without exception, there have been a band of Christian protesters nearby with signs such as “G.ot A.ids Y.et?” and other charming slogans. I’d say freedom of speech is alive and well.
I might remind you that civility goes a long way without having to resort to the courts at all. Lakeview Catholic Church in Chicago requested that the Gay Pride parade be rerouted so as not to “interfere” with Mass, and the organizers obliged (though it still didn’t prevent Cardinal George from comparing them to the KKK).
Regarding Pastor Brian Johnson, the parade organizers paid a sum of $36,000 for use of the park, and the pastor had access to all people going in and out of the rented space. Apparently, that wasn’t sufficient for him, preferring unfettered access at all times.
So fine, really. Let him walk around freely so that he can interrupt a peaceful gathering and give them the “good news” of how they’re all going to fry.
Please, dispense with the persecution complex, though. You’ve got it entirely backwards.
James,
The man is passing out Bibles. What do you and they have against the Word of God? Obviously, it is powerful enough to make you afraid to let it in a “peaceful gathering.”
Also, you always bring extreme examples to the table in order to label others’ actions extreme. Passing out Bibles is not the same as touting the kind of slogans you have pointed out. Then again, I have come to expect these kind of tactics from you and the folks you represent.
James, if you truly believe that the Bible’s message to sinners is that “they’re all going to fry,” you display a complete lack of understanding of what Jesus came to do for us. This fellow is not handing out Bibles to condemn people, but to save them. Do you think a person throwing life rings to people who are drowning is trying to drive them under the water?
I have to say that I find these references to “Sodomy Pride” to be reactionary, immature, unloving, and antithetical to Christian teaching. It’s … ugly. Relationships are not defined by their sexual aspects alone. They include companionship, commitment, and affection. Sex is only one aspect of such a relationship. Why focus only on that? I have gay friends who say that they are deeply in love with one another but no longer have sex. This may be true of many older couples, straight or gay. If my husband and I were to attend a “Straight Pride” event, would anyone stoop to call it something crude and ugly that refers only to the sexual nature of straight relationships? I would be very disappointed if my 10yo were to be that limited. It’s disappointing to find hate, contempt, and ridicule in a blog that claims to be Christian. Oppose homosexuality by all means, if you believe it to be wrong, but you lose credibility and ethos when you behave like a thoughtless middle school bully. Worse, you become a negative advertisement for Christianity that drives seekers away. Who would want to identify with such behavior?
I wonder how many children are the result of homosexual sex…
Calling it ‘sodomy pride’ is more honest than the misnomer of ‘gay pride.’
It is stunning to me that James equates the activities of the Westboro Church protestors with Mr. Johnson’s act of distributing Bibles. And while James claims that he sees no limitation on free speech, it is because he merely recites (parrots?) the popular talking points of the men and women, and institutions of influence in our society: President Obama, Vice President Biden, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and many of the other federal and state governmental leaders, all of the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and the universities. When James says things that are popular, as he does here, of course, it is never a free speech problem for him, or for those who hold similar points of view. But the right of free speech is intended to protect minority points of view. Fundamentally, what are the 300,000 participants at the homosexual festival afraid of? Does Mr. Johnson’s presence make them feel “uncomfortable?” Are they really afraid of the presence of one man and a few members of his family peacefully distributing the Bible? It seems to me that this doesn’t augur well for our nation’s future that hundreds of thousands of homosexuals will now be in the active-duty military protecting us from terrorists if they are afraid of Mr. Johnson. But then again, perhaps those opposing the actions of Mr. Johnson know, as Hebrews 4:12 teaches us, that “the Word of God is active and sharper than any two-edged sword.” As Mr. Avramovich said in his blog, the truth shall make you free, but first it will make you very angry. The homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons don’t like to be confronted by their sin. But then we are all that way, whatever the sins are that plague and enslave us, isn’t that true, James?
Meggie, the definition of sodomy in the Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary is “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex.” What definition would you prefer to use for sodomy? Since you seem quite knowledgeable about the sexual practices of your friends, do you find that the definition above is inaccurate? Perhaps you might want to change the definition. Perhaps I can suggest the following change that you might like more: “sodomy: the act of not welcoming or being friendly to visiting angels.” Moreover, given your extensive knowledge, have you known or heard of any homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and/or transgendered persons who have ever engaged in those activities described above in the MW definition? Even assuming that heterosexual persons engage in those activities, it doesn’t change the definition, does it? The only difference that I see is that heterosexuals do not flaunt their activities publicly or make it an important point as to why they should be in the military or on television, or even to be a professor or dean. So, it seems that what Mr. Avramovich is suggesting is a proper choice of wording because sodomy, as he used it, is exactly what it is. You might not like it and even find the use of Sodomy Pride jarring, but what many in society know, as BCody says, it is really the term “gay pride” that is offensive and a complete misnomer. Or perhaps just hearing that also makes you feel “uncomfortable” or “bullied?”
I have never heard of a “straight pride” event. I hope that there is one coming near me. Imagine how much fun the children can have! Or for that matter, we can even have a “Monogamy Pride Parade” or a “Couples Married 30 Years or More Who Have Been Faithful Parade.” Yes, those might be short parades, and revealing of who isn’t there marching, but that is still REALLY worth celebrating!
Gay activists are fortunate to be in the US enjoying their constitutional rights, and not in Russia, where police have broken up attempts to hold two gay rights rallies in St. Petersburg, which this spring adopted a law against spreading “homosexual propaganda.” Three rally organizers were arrested Saturday at a park in Russia’s second city, and five others were detained at a later rally attempt near the landmark Smolny complex, Russian news agencies reported. Only six people showed up for the second rally, and the three arrested at the first attempt were the only participants. St. Petersburg passed a law in February calling for fines of up to 500,000 rubles ($15,000) for spreading “homosexual propaganda.” I find that quite interesting. Don’t you?
Janet, perhaps in Obama’s second term, he can sign an Executive Order calling for fines of $15,000 for spreading “anti-homosexual propaganda.” I think he would try if he could get away with it. Time will tell.
Frank writes: “The homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons don’t like to be confronted by their sin. But then we are all that way, whatever the sins are that plague and enslave us, isn’t that true, James?”
If I believed homosexuality in all instances to be sinful, maybe it would bother me, but I don’t believe that any more than I believe that beating one’s slaves is condoned by God (despite Exodus 21:20-21) , that gathering wood on the Sabbath sufficiently incurs His wrath to merit death by stoning (Numbers 15:32-36) or that getting divorced necessarily means one is committing adultery (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, Luke 16:18). On the other hand, I DO challenge myself frequently to ensure I’m living up to the values I profess to believe in, so maybe it wouldn’t bother me.
As I’ve stated here numerous times, Frank, I’m a fervent supporter of free speech, even in its more extreme forms (examples of which I pointed out merely to underline that there are precious few limits on speech in America).
As such, I don’t think it should be a crime to be a nuisance.
Janet writes: “Gay activists are fortunate to be in the US enjoying their constitutional rights, and not in Russia”
Indeed. Take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP9I04MFgDw
I hope you don’t find physically assaulting and bloodying gays and their supporters a sign of moral and intellectual enlightenment. I don’t.
At least in Russia it is better than what might have happened to the MEP and Right Said Fred singer in Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or other Moslem countries. Why do I say that? The police took the protestors away for their protection. Europeans and others can try this in Moscow, but why don’t they do this in Iran? Could it just be that in Iran, everyone would have disappeared never to be heard from again. No, James, it is not enlightened, but I can promise you that if they could get away with it, there would be many LGBT activists in Minnesota who would LOVE to do violence, and attack and beat up Mr. Johnson and his family. I believe that some of the LGBTs would even be willing to kill him and would do so gladly because they are so consumed by their passions and evil desires.
James, you do not believe that homosexuality is a sin? Because the Bible says it is, as is all sexual conduct outside of marriage. And you say that homosexuality is the same as gathering wood on the Sabbath? It seems most readers of Touchstone or some at least consider the biblical admonition about sexual conduct outside of marriage to be dispositive of this matter. So you should do what you think best, but you might want to remember that you (and those who think as you do) are responsible for your thinking as well as your actions. I think that most Touchstone (and Salvo) readers are seeking to develop a Christian worldview, which is quite different from what the world’s worldview. But of course, the views of Christ and the Bible will never be reconciliable to the views of the world. Just as some say abortion is murder, and others say it is just removing tissue from a woman, some will say that LGBT conduct, and the flaunting of it, is something to be done with great pride, but others say it is shameful. Obviously those two point of view can never be reconciled. We had this happen in the US before over slavery, and it ended in a Civil War. I hope it doesn’t happen this way again over abortion and homosexual sodomy. I, for one, prayed for the success of Mr. Johnson’s witness today in Minnesota, but ultimately we must leave the results to God.
Lori writes, “What definition would you prefer to use for sodomy? ”
Lori, I don’t dispute the accuracy of the definition. What I object to is referring to lovers in terms only of the type of sex that they have. It objectifies, devalues, degrades, and disrespects the people involved. If someone were to refer to a straight couple as, for example, “Missionary-Position-ites” or some other lewd, crude, cruel, immature, and frankly bullying description of what they imagine goes on in that couple’s bedroom, I would regard the speaker as very much lacking in respect for the couple’s privacy and humanity. He would obviously be trying to humiliate and ridicule the couple. As I’ve mentioned, I know a gay couple who have told me that they don’t have sex anymore, but they do have a close and loving relationship. They would like to get married and they are certainly gay, but they can’t accurately be described as “Sodomites”. I would not like James or anyone else who ventures into this forum to think that all Christians are so narrowly obsessed with sexual behavior that they overlook the wider context of a loving relationship. I would not want anyone to think this contemptuous treatment of people is typical of Christians. I feel it’s important for people like James not to feel marginalized or derided. I don’t believe it is truly Christian to treat others in such an unloving way. I hope to take just a little hurt away from James in writing this.
Meggie is a typical example of a follower of the precepts of Saul Alinsky in debate. First, she engages in persistent and pervasive pattern of name-calling to Mr. Avramovich in her posts: “reactionary, immature, unloving, antithetical to Christian teaching (who made Meggie the ultimate arbiter of Christian teaching and moral practice? What is the depth of her theological training to be able to opine so lucidly and conclusively on such matters?), ugly, thoughtless middle-school bully, and a negative advertisement for Christianity that drives seekers away.” Then in her second post, she continues to expand her list of Mr. Avramovich’s feckless attributes when he “objectifies, devalues, degrades, and disrespects the people involved,” implies that his characterization of Sodomy Pride is “lewd, crude, cruel, immature, and frankly bullying,” that he is “narrowly obsessed with sexual behavior,” and shows “contemptuous treatment,” while making others feel “marginalized or derided.” Obviously, she has only forgotten to include the terms homophobic, insensitive and outrageous in her assessment. It seems that this laundry list of attacks is solely to avoid any discussion on the level of ideas. Clearly, she cannot argue thoughtfully about why Mr. Johnson cannot distribute Bibles at the festival, either at a legal or moral level, because there are no good reasons to restrict Bible distributions by Mr. Johnson. And please note how Meggie doesn’t respond to any of Lori’s serious thoughts, comments, or questions. Sorry, Meggie, we are on to you and people like you, because you are the real name-calling bully. And I bet you even support unrestricted abortion rights for women. Just guessing.
Ah, the old claim: “You have to be tolerant of my intolerance!” Sorry, Bill. Referring to gays as “Sodomites” is definitely “homophobic, insensitive, and outrageous”, along with everything else I said about it. It’s akin to using the N-word for African Americans — a slur that would have prompted me to respond with virtually identical language. If one wishes to bully a particular group, hate speech is protected in this country and you have a right to do so, but don’t expect others to stand by and remain silent. I would hope this is especially true on a Christian forum. It’s more important to stand up for the marginalized than it is to defer to bullies.
Meggie,
Calling a homosexual a sodomite is not the same as calling an African-American the “n” word and you know it. Now, if you want to engage in the real conversation please do, otherwise stay out of the way…the rest of us are over your schtick.
I disagree. A term intended to be pejorative is just as offensive, unkind, and bigoted when applied to skin color as when applied to sexual orientation.
Meggie,
You are the one who claims the need for tolerance. The burden is on you. We are perfectly within our right to be intolerant of homosexual behavior.
I was too hopeful for you to be “tolerant” of our beliefs, I guess…
Oh, by the way, skin color and sexual orientation are in fact different.
Thank you, Meggie…that is very sweet of you, but it is sadly true that many homosexual men at least do define themselves in how they copulate, even going back to the bathhouse days. They do want to be free to express their sexuality. And of course, many LGBT refer to heterosexuals as “breeders” and even more pejorative terms, but I think that most straight people pay no attention or find it actually amusing. To be mocked by homosexuals or any other person for a straight person’s sexuality, sexual preferences or manner of procreation is akin to being called ugly by a frog.
Meggie, don’t confuse African Americans and bad names used for them with calling homosexuals based on what you know full well they really do. (See Lori above.) Sodomy and the “n” word are just not the same, and you saying that they are shows you don’t know what you are talking about. One is a disparaging term used for an immutable condition, and the other is calling out one’s deeds and actions. Or perhaps you might like to name bank robbers or drug dealers “puppies” so as not to be offensive to them. Sodomy is what LGBT do, and that is the proper term as you acknowledged in your earlier post. Thank you
First of all, there are two “James”es here. Meggie’s initial reply was directed to me I believe.
Mrs Walker writes: “Sodomy is what LGBT do”
It’s also what heterosexuals engage in based on the definition of sodomy in common law throughout US history. Maybe not YOU specifically, but many. Do you refer to heterosexuals who engage in oral copulation “sodomites”? I’m guessing not.
James,
Am I correct in assuming that you are offended that we call homosexuals ‘sodomites’ because it does not correctly define them? If so, you would prefer the term ‘gay’?! Statistically speaking a large percentage of homosexuals die at an early age from diseases that are severely life altering and you say they are ‘gay.’ That is calling someone who is sad “happy.” It will not solve their problem, even if they feel better. It is the same reason that women who don’t like the inconvenience of a pregnancy also don’t like that abortion is called murder. It’s murder even if it is not called murder.
Further, homosexuals will never be able to be called “husband and wife.” It is not my fault that this is so angering to them. It is their fault for not BEHAVING like a husband and wife do (well, it is an impossibility). Rather, they BEHAVE like those who have exchanged the NATURAL use for their own lusts. I am sure I read that somewhere…Hence, they are known by their behavior because we have no better way to define them!
James Michael, if hetersexuals are engaging in sodomy, then obviously, they would be “sodomites.” Why should a married couple be ashamed of what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Why would you even care? The difference is that the heterosexual, married couple may do it and it is their secret. Instead homosexuals seek to impose your lifestyle on the overwhelming majority of others who are not, and then expect us to applaud you for the way you choose to have sex. This series of posts has been very helpful to me in showing the depth and depravity of so many who mock the Christian faith and the Bible. And as for twisting the Scriptures, be careful, James Michael, God will not hold you or any one else harmless for lying about what the Scripture teach. If the Scriptures teaching offend you, then see Isaiah’s warning to people like you in Isaiah 5:20. People who justify sin are not a new phenomenon in our world.
Leonid writes: “Obviously those two point of view can never be reconciled. We had this happen in the US before over slavery, and it ended in a Civil War. ”
It did. On the one hand, you had Christians like Thornton Stringfellow, Richard Furman and the entire Southern Baptist Convention acknowledging the moral legitimacy given to human slavery throughout Scripture and its use as a “God-ordained institution”. On the other hand, you had the abolitionists who, while having precious few passages to condemn the practice, appealed to the “deeper values” of Scripture.
Who are you suggesting was in the wrong, exactly?
It’s becoming clear to me that “religious freedom” for the fundamentalist really means having immunity from any harm done to one’s fellow creatures. Enslave them, take away their homes, their jobs and intrude upon their most intimate of life decisions …. so long as you wrap it in the garb of “religious freedom”, it’s protected not only from legal repercussions but even from criticism.
Quite brilliant, I must say.
James Michael, so you are saying that passing out a Bible in a park is equivalent to supporting slavery? Hmmm…trying to understand that profound observation. And that is your best argument?
Larry asks: “James Michael, so you are saying that passing out a Bible in a park is equivalent to supporting slavery?”
Not at all. As I said, I’m a strong supporter of the First Amendment, even for the most obnoxious and extreme (so long as you’re not directly threatening anyone). I am siding with Pastor Johnson, even though the parade organizers paid for the use of the park in question.
We were discussing morality as revealed in Scripture. Let’s keep up, shall we?
James,
I have yet to hear a good argument from your side. You may want to seek somewhere else to “clang your cymbals.” We can see through your proof-texting. Thanks for your time.
Proof-texting? Your problem isn’t with me. It’s with Richard Furman and the entire Southern Baptist Convention who declared slavery a God-ordained institution.
Pastor John MacArthur to this day apparently agrees with them (go look it up at Grace To You).
All of these men knew Scripture forward and backwards. What are your credentials, exactly?
Here again, you make an illogical statement…you talk about slavery while the subject is the sodomy pride parade and their infringement on the freedom of someone to pass out Bibles. Let’s keep up, shall we?
Hey Meggie and James Michael…did you see this example of the sweet, loving and lovely homosexual activists? Jane Pitt, mother of actor Brad Pitt, has been scared into silence by the hate-filled, vulgar and even violent reaction to her public assertion that Barack Obama is “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.” What did Mrs. Pitt say that wasn’t true? What vile, hateful people! Oh wait, perhaps that is insensitive and homophobic of me to criticize LGBT activists. Sorry Meggie and James Michael, I guess that I was confused for a moment. I used to think that I had seen that before….starting long ago in Genesis 19!
Hatred is hatred. It is unattractive whether it occurs on the left or the right of the political spectrum, and whether it occurs in Russia, the U.S., or the Middle East. I assume you are not suggesting that two wrongs make a right.
Since I’m being accused of “not knowing the Bible”, “proof-texting” and “lying about Scripture”, I’ll let one of the founders of the SBC do the talking:
Richard Furman: Exposition of the Views of the Baptists Relative to the Coloured Population…
Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it, for a moment, in the Christian Church. If they had done so on a principle of accommodation, in cases where the masters remained heathen, to avoid offences and civil commotion; yet, surely, where both master and servant were Christian, as in the case before us, they would have enforced the law of Christ, and required, that the master should liberate his slave in the first instance. But, instead of this, they let the relationship remain untouched, as being lawful and right, and insist on the relative duties.
The result of this inquiry and reasoning, on the subject of slavery, brings us, sir, if I mistake not, very regularly to the following conclusions:—That the holding of slaves is justifiable by the doctrine and example contained in Holy writ; and is, therefore consistent with Christian uprightness, both in sentiment and conduct. That, all things considered, the Citizens of America have in general obtained the African slaves, which they possess, on principles, which can be justified; though much cruelty has indeed been exercised towards them by many, who have been concerned in the slave-trade, and by others who have held them here, as slaves in their service; for which the authors of this cruelty are accountable. That slavery, when tempered with humanity and justice, is a state of tolerable happiness; equal, if not superior, to that which many poor enjoy in countries reputed free.
Exodus 21:20-21 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.”
Emphasis mine.
James Michael to Larry:
We were discussing morality as revealed in Scripture. Let’s keep up, shall we?
:::Snapping my fingers in the air, Girl!::::