2. Race and sexual practice are very different in their relation to the SBC interpretation of the bible. The SBC interpretation of biblical references on a) marriage, and b) proper sexual practice *guarantees* that they will oppose anything the SCOTUS rules in this area.

As for the rest of Marston's comments, it is not really that much of a stretch to think of churches being denied tax exempt status for not *hiring* homosexuals, which is quite different from *ordaining* women as pastors. And given the nature of our litigious society, I can see someone deciding to take such a case to court. How would the Supreme Court rule in such a case? I *hope* I know how they would rule, but who knows. When does the court say that the interests of society for "diversity" override in some instances the separation of church and state guaranteed by the first amendment? They can do it for the 14th, why not the 1st?

As for the seige mentality, can you blame them? Conservative Christians *are* losing ground in the culture (and I'm a conservative Christian, so I think I can make a balanced judgment here). Witness the use of the term "fundamentalist" by Marston (most true fundamentalists would shudder if you called the SBC by the term). Witness the abandonment of social conservatism by the Republican party (putting aside the largely symbolic partial birth abortion ban). Further, look at the liberalized theology of much of mainline American Christianity, the postmodern moral relativism that pervades popular culture, the labels people use to describe such people (homophobes, intolerant, bigots, simpletons and worse). As the secular sphere grows larger, the sphere for a life-encompassing religious experience grows smaller.

It doesn't take a PhD in psychology to figure out why such a seige mentality exists.

It should also be noted that the litigation goes both ways. Last week, according to Law.com, an Assembly of God minister sued New Orleans because of its domestic partner benefits law. (The "seige mentality" that I discussed also goes both ways, but that's another story.) And if you look at things like the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which passed Congress by an overwhelming margin and which requires localities to justify their land use regs when they burden religious institutions, it seems to me that the direction in the political culture, at least, has been swinging in favor of protecting religion.

Plus, the only remedy for fear of the federal courts is to study them. There are doctrinal constraints even if there is a lot of wiggle room. The idea of "diversity" is pretty narrowly defined to the school admissions context, as far as I understand it.

And the Bob Jones thing wasn't a lawsuit brought by people who didn't like their policy; it was BJU's challenge of an IRS ruling.

---