It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leader of "National Religious Liberties Conference" Calls for Execution of LGBT Folks

page: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: NthOther
I advocate this being accomplished through deliberation, not murder.

Wanting religion to go away is not the same as wanting people that hold religious beliefs to go away. Here in the USA some 70+ percent of atheists were once Christian. I want what ever occurred for that to happen, to happen even more.


I find it fascinating that social groups always feel conversion is the answer. What you suggest is, in essence, exactly the same behavior behind the "Christian mission" to convert the world. It is a tendency that us humans have indulged in for thousands of years.

Its problematic to assign the best attributes of an individual as the premise for which social group should have dominance. It also suggests that the issues the world faces are contained in a single social group rather than an intrinsic part of all of our cultural story. It perpetuates the core issue; that ones own social group holds no responsibility for any social problems and that all blame lies in a generalized opposition.

Perhaps the issue runs deeper than any single ideology and stems more from how we all interact socially. Of course, that would require everyone to agree on just one, singular item in a society where differing opinions are marginalized to the greatest degree possible. But, if we could embrace cooperation over perceived ideological superiority, we may actually take the first step towards a better world.




posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I want to make it clear again that I'm not referencing the entire Christian religion in my post.

Also, I am not talking about all Christians, en masse.

What I am talking about is a very specific group of politically active "Christians" in the US.

In the interest of fact-based understanding, I took Bone75's comments to heart (after another cup of coffee and some placid staring out the window) and went back and listened again to the videos.

In the first linked video, right at the beginning Mr. Swanson says "both the Old and New Testaments speak to the matter with unbelievable clarity."

He then lists Romans 1, 1 Corinthians Chapter 6, 1 Timothy Chapter 4 (?) and "of course" Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20 as his sources or references that provide the "highest clarity" as he waves his arms somewhat wildly above his head for what he's arguing .. i.e. "the matter" or "the sin of homosexuality."

He then calls out explicitly that in Romans Chapter 1 Paul says that this particular sin (homosexuality) is "worthy of death."

Now, some may not be that familiar with the Bible or with those who use the Bible to condemn homosexuals. I unfortunately am intimately familiar with the verses having heard them from family, preachers, pastors, and many (but not all) of the Christians I have known.

I am also, sadly, very familiar with Swanson's rhetoric, and I know exactly what he's referring to:



Romans 1 : 26 -27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

(... and of course we then leave out the exhaustive litany of other sins that every one commits or has committed or is committing (in the case of Mr. Swanson) ... in order to get to ... )

Romans 1 : 32

32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Leviticus 20: 13*

13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.



I knew what Reverend Swanson was referring to directly and used that knowledge in my OP; now I've added that evidence here for everyone.

*Leviticus ch. 18 and 20 are a long list of sexual crimes (Chapter 18 and 20) that require execution (Chapter 20).
edit on 15Sat, 07 Nov 2015 15:47:43 -060015p0320151166 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam
That sounds great on the surface, and indeed, all humans have some flaws in common. But the problem is, some ideologies ARE flawed to the detriment of a society that values freedom of expression and equality. So when one of those ideologies wants to deprive a demographic of society their freedom and equal rights, it becomes a problem with the ideology. Not just a human failing.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Though there is to me some confusion on where he is calling for the execution of homosexuals, I think it is a safe inference on your part that he probably wishes it should happen. For what it is worth, I also think you did a good job of not painting an entire religion, nor an entire half of the political spectrum, as sharing his views.

Good thread.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

Though there is to me some confusion on where he is calling for the execution of homosexuals, I think it is a safe inference on your part that he probably wishes it should happen. For what it is worth, I also think you did a good job of not painting an entire religion, nor an entire half of the political spectrum, as sharing his views.

Good thread.


Thanks LesMisanthrope. That actually means a lot to me. I've added the Bible verses Swanson was referring to explicitly for greater clarity.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I’ve argued and debated with religious literalists for years and their all the same…Christian or Muslim or Jew the ones who are literalist fundamentalists are very potentially dangerous and as narrow minded as they come and basically brainwashed out of common sense


What they don’t understand is that God does change.

Indeed these very scriptures and pre-modern cultures they want to lionize justify SLAVERY!

So if we are to accept pre-modern paradigms and pre-modern scriptures as guides then we can justifiably still have slaves in our homes!


But we don’t accept those pre-modern ways and scriptures that still have ancient barbaric (back then acceptable) laws and ways, therefore God does change with cultural developments.


Of course common sense and logic has to be the guide to a great degree since no one is saying we should abrogate all the ancient laws such as the ones that make sense in the 10 commandments such as prohibitions against murder and theft.

But if we were to follow all these tenets literally then by the same Bible we can stone our children in the back yard after supper on Sunday for being disobedient.

edit on 7-11-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Btw, the MSM( particularly the GOP mainstream) better call these GOP candidates to account for being there with this dangerous bigot



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

The point is that the ideologies themselves adopt human behavior inherently, in all of its degrees. We rarely recognize it when it comes from our own group, giving the illusion that it doesn't exist. Or, if it does exist, it isnt relevant.

Some social groups are more blatant than others, which is obvious enough it should go without saying.. That said, the individuals involved rarely recognize they may be part of the problem. This becomes further cemented when an opposing group does take it to extremes.

Do you feel your ideology is mistaken or faulty? Of course not.. The reasonable person leaves the possibility open, but then can frequently interact in a way that is contrary.

There is no reason a Christian and.. lets say, someone who is gay, are incapable of working together towards common goals. Its not complicated, but how we interact defines the relationships. The ideologies themselves are driven by a cultural story that we all share. When I mention a belief in God, there are plenty of social groups that equate that with inferiority and in need of conversion based solely on personal archetypes. When I claim Atheism, the same behaviour follows.

Furthermore, I do not believe our ideologies exist outside of the human experience. Though I am quite interested in memetic theory, I am unconvinced that information itself is sentient in that respect.

It doesn't really matter though. We will all continue just as we have for millennia, exchanging alpha ideology with alpha ideology while never examining our own behavior in the mix. All the while claiming other social groups are the problem, and that our own will lead to progress.

I stand by it being a human problem, and just as all such things, there will be degrees of severity. I have yet to see a group that is immune, and have yet to see one that doesn't act as if they are.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I wonder if the Right Wing Christians think they are going to win many votes with this hate filled rhetoric.

www.youtube.com...


All conservatives need to answer how they feel about this hateful, violent agenda.

If the Right wing wants to energize moderate voters to their cause....this isn't the way to do it.


edit on 7-11-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
That's nothing new, they have been doing that since long ago. I am going to LMAO if it is made illegal to preach hate in churches LOL.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Foderalover
That's nothing new, they have been doing that since long ago. I am going to LMAO if it is made illegal to preach hate in churches LOL.


No reason to (not to mention unconstitutional to) forbid any sort of preaching that is not outright incitement to violence or endangerment of others and even that is a fine line. The Constitution is clear on this point. (Free Exercise of Religion)

However, the second any coercive rhetoric (and by this I mean that which is trying to force religious controls onto other Americans) leaves the church and spreads into the public square, the streets, and most certainly the government ... the same Constitution protects on the other side of the equation. (No Establishment)






edit on 19Sat, 07 Nov 2015 19:06:18 -060015p0720151166 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam


What you suggest is, in essence, exactly the same behavior behind the "Christian mission" to convert the world.

Correct, and I won't deny it. I've said it myself.

It's straightforward to me. Religious people think religion is a positive force in the world and so they make it a mission to convert people to their faith. Some see it as something detrimental to societies and feel a moral duty to humanity to oppose it with equal fervor. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction. It's to be expected. Again, i'm not advocating anything that would qualify as coercion with threats or violence. Hell, I don't even support us knocking on theist's front doors..



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
If that's what he calls for then he is wrong, he should resign and fade away, and seek forgiveness from God for the spitefulness and hate in his heart.

Calling death on anyone is not found in the teachings of Christ.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
If that's what he calls for then he is wrong, he should resign and fade away, and seek forgiveness from God for the spitefulness and hate in his heart.

Calling death on anyone is not found in the teachings of Christ.


Thank you Teikiatsu!

I've provided links above to some of his other commentary. He means what he says.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
You know as I was re-reading Romans 1 today in providing additional documentation on Swanson's speech, I came to realize that in a way, there's a bit more of a conundrum in the religious freedom/public accommodation conflict than I had previously understood.

Now, whether Paul was talking about actual homosexuals in Romans 1 is not the question I want to raise here. There is a whole litany of "sins" in verses 28-31. Then, in verse 32, we get the punchline:



32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Now, if you were to read just that last phrase "but also approve of those who practice them" outside the context of, well, everything else there, I can see where some Christians feel that they have to absolutely shun anything which could be seen as "approving of those who practice them."

I have always thought (even when I was a Christian myself) that this interpretation is badly mistaken, because in the context of what Paul was saying here, he's actually decrying the cultures that did not honor the Hebrew God YHVH (remember, Paul was trained as a Pharisee) and their practices. In other words (remember, this was written to the Church in ROME) he's warning against the new Christians being caught up (again) in any of the worship or rituals of the other gods and goddesses (and there were plenty in Rome of the 1st century) ... and I think that even more strongly now that I'm not bound up in trying to justify what the Bible says as absolute truth.

Paul was talking about those that practice the list of sins and "approve of those who practice them" ... he wasn't talking to the Christian believers. There's no reason for them to be frightened that they're going to be "participating in sin" by interacting with others.

I just wanted to acknowledge that. I'm really not trying to derail my own thread, LOL.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: GD21D
Ya gotta love the calls for theocracy by religious fundamentalism.

Here's a question....

If homosexuality is punishable by death, who carries out these executions? The state? The church? Or just anyone who witnesses the offense?


I think the church carries out the executions. This is a good question because it would be illegal for the state to carry out executions based on church doctrine. But I think the best thing to do is for the church to stay out of other people's business.
edit on 07pmSat, 07 Nov 2015 21:21:27 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: GD21D
Ya gotta love the calls for theocracy by religious fundamentalism.

Here's a question....

If homosexuality is punishable by death, who carries out these executions? The state? The church? Or just anyone who witnesses the offense?


I think the church carries out the executions. This is a good question because it would be illegal for the state to carry out executions based on church doctrine. But I think the best thing to do is for the church to stay out of other people's business.


I think you may be assuming that our Constitution would still be in place.

In the case of a Christian Theocracy, I think that detail would have been taken care of.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I should also add that if Malcolm X would have criticized the Christian Right.




edit on 7-11-2015 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think it would be the church also, at least I think that the catholic church had quite a bit of power in the past with dealing with such things. witch burning were carried out mainly be the church I do believe.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think it would be the church also, at least I think that the catholic church had quite a bit of power in the past with dealing with such things. witch burning were carried out mainly be the church I do believe.



I don't disagree.


But in any case, I don't see our Constitution surviving intact.




top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join