It may not be an explicit part of the Republican Platform, but it’s not that big a leap, either. Unlike rants against Harry Potter, killing people who engage in gay sex is a commandment of God Almighty, in the same Mosaic Law that contains the commandments not to kill or steal. Every Republican candidate on stage would have raised his hand if a mod has asked them whether they favor posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses and schools, so at best, they would be hypocrites if they didn’t favor posting the “kill the gays” law, too.
At least he accurately depicts what the bible actually says. As I read recently “following the so called moral values of the bible will land you in prison or get you executed in any civilized country”.
Look up Harold Camping, the famous “end of the world, return of Jesus guy”. Those 2 idiots could be brothers.
And for his abortion rant: Numbers 5:11-31not only justifies abortion but requires the direct intervention of god to perform it.
Note: The word thigh is not proper translation from the ancient Hebrew text. It is referring to the abdomen or belly, not the leg.
And don’t get me going on homosexuality and all the superstition and nonsense regarding sex from the bible. It’s too much to go into. But a tid-bit for those of you that don’t know: According to the bible the fallen angels had sex with human women and that’s why the flood happened. True story. True story it’s in the bible that is.
Bible thumping fundamentalists swear their freedom is under fire. I throw the bullshit flag. The only thing under fire is their ability to force their views on everyone else
Eh. Look, those two books say a lot of crazy shit. Americans in general agree slavery is unacceptable, beards can be trimmed, shellfish can be eaten, etc.
It’s legal to cheat on your spouse. It’s legal to have other gods before the Christian one. It’s legal to work on Sunday. Coveting is a personal issue and the other commandments are law cause they make good social sense.
Let’s not over do it here. I understand when politicians say crazy things to avoid offending the base, so ‘evolution is still just a theory’ or ‘the science is out on global warming’ doesn’t bother me like crazy shit said for no reason. Carson’s Joseph’s Pyramid Grain House is nuts because there is not reason to say it, defend it, then stand by it as sound judgement. No one is on his side and he looks like a fool. It is not even political foolishness.
Sure we can. Because it is massively stupid to make that assumption.
Read somewhere on the interwebs: “How long till they find this guy in a cheap motel, greased up, with a mouth full of bear cock, and a traffic cone up his ass?”
I laid my case out above. If it’s so stupid, poke holes in the thesis. Should be fun to watch you flail. It usually is as everyone who has ever seen you flail would possibly admit.
Because you just saying something is stupid fails the sniff test almost always.
Camping didn’t advocate killing anyone. He was actually quite mild, for a lunatic Biblical literalist. He was always careful to keep his Biblical Q&A program free from partisan politics.
He was as nutty as a Payday bar, but he actually was a bit of a gentleman.
It’s a terrible platform. It’s even worse than their health care platform, don’t get sick, and if you do, die quickly.
I agree, but please. We gays don’t want that scum on our team either.
I’m forever fascinated by the US electoral system and the fringe loonies that get a platform. Because such a candidate would NEVER see the light of day in Australia (and I suspect Europe as well).
I guess that is to be blamed on the two-party system (Dems and Reps) that you have, so all potential candidates need to be aligned to one or the other party in order to get a shit’s-chance of being nominated. So you get all the freaks and the waaaaay-out-there folk standing alongside the relatively normal folk…is that right?
In Aus, anybody whose beliefs or opinions are too far outside the mainstream end up starting their own political parties because they’re shunned by the Libs, Labor or Greens (the three predominant political parties at the current time). We’ve had the Rev Fred Nile, Pauline Hanson and others over the years who are a bit too weird to be embraced by the major political parties. However, I’ve never seen any of them call for the killing of gay folk nor any other extreme actions TBH.
So for a political player to be able to spew the shit as explained in the OP, I’m just aghast!
:eek:
As a far-left social liberal who 100% supports gay rights…
This has to be in the top half of the list of dumbest things I’ve ever read.
And John Stamos, your “hyperbole should be expected” thing is quite frankly bullshit. I struggle to think of any good reason to create a tabloid-tier thread title, which is exactly what you did. I felt like I was reading the National Inquirer. :rolleyes:
Honestly, though, I don’t think the other option, that they’re pandering to people who believe gays should be killed for political and personal power, is any better, especially since that implies that those people have great voting influence in the Republican party.
Even (especially?) if they have no intent of doing what those voters want.
You also concede at least some of your claims are hyperbole.
When then-Senator Obama was criticized for Rev. Wrights’ sermons, I pointed out how foolish it was to hold someone responsible for the views espoused by a pastor’s sermon where he was an attendee (and I pointed out how foolish it was to simultaneously claim that Obama was a secret Muslim and yet under the influential spell of his Christian pastor).
I mention my previous stance to rebut any suggestion that my current stance is a result of partisan bias: namely, that it is foolish to hold attendees at a rally or event responsible for what someone says on stage, when they have even less of a connection to the speaker than Obama had to his pastor!
I am not sure how much of the above you accept, and how much you reject, since I’m not sure I’m clear on the point at which your argument departs the factual and enters the hyperbolic.
But couldn’t you argue a difference between a politician attending a religious service where the pastor happens to speak politically, and a politician attending a specifically political event?
Other than the difference between sitting in an audience versus being listed on the bill, specifically introduced, and handed a mike to speak, your comparison is a good one.
Perhaps you can remind everyone what Barack Obama’s reaction was. Hint - it was to categorically reject the position taken by Wright and to give a pretty compelling speech on the subject.
So, your OP title is a lie. Good for you for putting your hyper-partisan douchebaggery aside for a moment to acknowledge that.
So, are we talking crucifixion of gays here, or is this Swanson the kind of pussy-wimp liberal bleeding-heart who would settle for stoning?
If you like killing whole classes of people, I guess what I said was dumb to you.
Wow, harsh, I’m sure when they read this statement their feelings are going to be very very hurt. You should be ashamed of yourself.
As someone who enjoys killing whole classes of peoples I’m going to have to agree that your statement was dumb.
I don’t hold Teddy Boor responsible for what that guy said, I hold him responsible for what he said. Or, more to the point, perhaps, what he didn’t say. He pretends that he didn’t know anything about it, didn’t hear it, and then clumsily tries to make the issue about his support for “religious liberty”. Anybody here buy that shit?
And some of you guys are trying to make the argument about whether or not the OP’s title for the thread was hyperbole? That’s the urgent issue here? Doper, please!