More on the Supreme Court’s new libel decision

I agree with Deborah Gyapong, who wonders if it “grants license to bash Christians”:

I fear though that anyone who wants to protect their children from information that opposes their traditional religious beliefs and moral strictures concerning chastity de facto a bigot and intolerant.

(…)

Interesting, the word tolerance has, for the empty container/living tree crowd, morphed into meaning “agreement,” and “acceptance.” Thus when I read between the lines of this Rafe Mair decision, if you do not wholeheartedly accept and approve of the gay lifestyle and same-sex marriage, you are a bigot who at least tacitly approves of violence against gays and lesbians, or at least a “reasonable person” might arrive at that conclusion. Well, that’s because anti-Christian prejudice is so widespread, so fashionable. At least some of the justices agreed this was defamatory against Simpson.

And God forbid that you use any “Onward Christian soldiers” sort of language.

I don’t know of a Christian today who literally interprets the warfare imagery in the Bible. It is an internal, spiritual battle, and in no way a call to physical arms. In fact, St. Paul himself says we do not war against flesh and blood, a fact that seems to escape non-Christians who tend to be biblically illiterate.