NC pastor calls for death of ‘Queers & Homosexuals’ in sermon

[Jay0173]

Video: NC pastor calls for death of ‘Queers & Homosexuals’ in sermon | Pam's House Blend

(Video included)

This is just sick!

Your thoughts?

 

[Crystal Onix]

He seems to forget several key things:
The First Amendment protects Americans from being subject to his fanatical rantings against our will.
The Sixth Commandment clearly states in no uncertain terms, "thou shalt not kill".
The Bible is not inerrant, as clearly demonstrated by the contradiction between the 6th & 8th Commandments and the glorification of the slaughter of at least thousands of soldiers and civilians alike and the capture of their land and property not so long after the dictation of the Ten Commandments.

On the other hand, The First Amendment also guarantees this idiot the right to share his opinions with the world, even if they are complete garbage.

 

[Jay0173]

On the other hand, The First Amendment also guarantees this idiot the right to share his opinions with the world, even if they are complete garbage.

For sure the First Amendment gives him the right to share his opinions, but does the First Amendment also give him the right to incite to commit mass murder? There's a big difference between stating an opinion, and encouraging the death of others, as this pastor did.

 

[Dorothy LaRouge]

On the other hand, The First Amendment also guarantees this idiot the right to share his opinions with the world, even if they are complete garbage.

For sure the First Amendment gives him the right to share his opinions, but does the First Amendment also give him the right to incite to commit mass murder?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, yes.

 

[DerMißingno]

On the other hand, The First Amendment also guarantees this idiot the right to share his opinions with the world, even if they are complete garbage.

For sure the First Amendment gives him the right to share his opinions, but does the First Amendment also give him the right to incite to commit mass murder?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, yes.

Then why is Charles Manson in jail? He never killed anyone himself, he just incited people to commit murder.

 

[Dorothy LaRouge]

On the other hand, The First Amendment also guarantees this idiot the right to share his opinions with the world, even if they are complete garbage.

For sure the First Amendment gives him the right to share his opinions, but does the First Amendment also give him the right to incite to commit mass murder?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, yes.

Then why is Charles Manson in jail? He never killed anyone himself, he just incited people to commit murder.

A) People actually followed through on Manson's orders.

B) Manson actively conspired to commit murder. He didn't just spout rhetoric.

 

[Jay0173]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, yes.

So, if I was an American citizen, it would be alright for me to gather a group of people together in one room, discuss, and encourage that group to commit acts of violence against others? Is this what you are saying?

I do know that the law does permit reasonable restrictions to a person's free speech rights, such as not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. So I find it highly unlikely that the constitution allows a person or group of people to incite others to do violence against a class of people.

Allow me to bring to your attention an audio clip from 1978 when this same pastor said:

"We're living in a day when it saddens my heart to think homosexuals can go around, bless God, and get the applause of a lot of people, lesbians and all the rest of it. Forty years ago they would've hung, bless God, from a white oak tree! Wouldn't they? Amen."

Here's a link to the audio clip:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ree-article-1.1083079?localLinksEnabled=false

Contrary to your assertion, this is not mere rhetoric, this is plain and out incitement. I have no doubt this pastor would welcome back the days where gays were hunted down, tortured, and hung. I know in Canada, he would be facing serious criminal charges right now, and more than likely would be in jail. As I said. Opinions are one thing, but when you begin inciting violence, you cross a line that should not be crossed in civilized society.

 

[Crystal Onix]

Charles Manson was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, which seems pretty obvious to me why starting with "telling the Family they might have to show blacks how to start 'Helter Skelter'". (Paragraph 2 of the section titled "Crowe shooting")

While I hold no love for Worley or his opinions, to my knowledge, neither he nor his followers have killed anyone yet and his rhetoric may toe the line between opinion and conspiracy to commit murder without blatantly going over, depending on who you ask.

Further complicating the issue is precedent set by the handling of Byron Williams, one of Glen Beck's followers who intended to set off a revolution via a bomb plot, and Glen Beck's apparent lack of legal culpability for his follower's actions despite the inflammatory nature of Beck's show.

Hopefully, the government is keeping a close eye on Worley and his followers in order to prevent them from actually doing anything, but apparently this is a more complex matter in the United States than it is in Canada.

 

[Shinobu]

The current interpretation of the first amendment is that speech designed to incite imminent lawless action is not protected. Advocacy of violence not likely to incite imminent lawless action is protected. This person's speech likely is considered free speech. It appears that Jay and I disagree over whether this is designed to incite imminent lawless action.

 

[Vhazhiphor]

The way I saw it, he didn't incite violence. He presented a hypothetical. He didn't say "we should all go and kill them", he said "I found a way to get rid of them, but it'll never fly". And keep in mind that he did so to a congregation of like-minded people.

In any case, this particular incident is inciting eugenics, not murder. "Lock them up and keep them fed until they die out on their own."

I'd like to make a small aside here and state an opinion I have of the news media. To me, news should be presented as fact - this and that happened, in such and which way. I find it offensive that reporters and anchors always state their opinion on the news, in an obvious attempt to influence public opinion. I say this because not only is the article's title "Calls for the death of" misleading, and so is the body of the article: "recently told his congregation that his solution to dealing with lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender people is to send them to concentration camps to starve to death." The man said no such thing. The news outlet is clearly trying to draw a comparison to Hitler, and anybody that doesn't actually see the video will go away with the wrong idea.

Not that what he actually said is any better, mind you. Yes, he is bigoted. No, I don't agree with what he says. But he still has the right to say it.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

*ahem*

*rasberries*

That is all.

 

[Caitlin]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, yes.

Actually, according to my criminal justice and US History/Politics courses I took in high school (I know, not a major source of amazingness), the first amendment's protection only goes as far as hate speech. Once you start saying physical harm should come to people, your first amendment rights no longer apply.

The beauty (and the ugly side) of the constitution is that it was worded in such a way that you could easily interpret and misinterpret it for your goals. As far as I'm aware, a majority of congressional leaders have been interpreting it as I said above since the civil rights movement.

Either this guy is going to run and hide with his tail between his legs and issue an "apology", or he's going to be arrested.

 

[Jay0173]

Either this guy is going to run and hide with his tail between his legs and issue an "apology", or he's going to be arrested.

He does not seem to me the apologizing type, especially since this isn't the first time he's advocated for the death of gays and lesbians.

 

[Zekurom]

He does not seem to me the apologizing type, especially since this isn't the first time he's advocated for the death of gays and lesbians.

Imagine he becomes a martyr. Then shit would really hit the fan.

 

[Jay0173]

He does not seem to me the apologizing type, especially since this isn't the first time he's advocated for the death of gays and lesbians.

Imagine he becomes a martyr. Then shit would really hit the fan.

As far as I know, US society hasn't regressed to that type of behaviour yet. So I think it's safe to say him becoming a martyr for anything would be a very remote possibility.

 

[Fig]

The way I saw it, he didn't incite violence. He presented a hypothetical. He didn't say "we should all go and kill them", he said "I found a way to get rid of them, but it'll never fly". And keep in mind that he did so to a congregation of like-minded people.

In any case, this particular incident is inciting eugenics, not murder. "Lock them up and keep them fed until they die out on their own."

I'd like to make a small aside here and state an opinion I have of the news media. To me, news should be presented as fact - this and that happened, in such and which way. I find it offensive that reporters and anchors always state their opinion on the news, in an obvious attempt to influence public opinion. I say this because not only is the article's title "Calls for the death of" misleading, and so is the body of the article: "recently told his congregation that his solution to dealing with lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender people is to send them to concentration camps to starve to death." The man said no such thing. The news outlet is clearly trying to draw a comparison to Hitler, and anybody that doesn't actually see the video will go away with the wrong idea.

Not that what he actually said is any better, mind you. Yes, he is bigoted. No, I don't agree with what he says. But he still has the right to say it.

The government cannot punish him, for that would be against free speech.

People, society and the media, however, have every right to tar and feather him over that opinion. To destroy his reputation; to expose him as the genocidal maniac he is (and make no mistake: locking people in camp so they (lack of) breed themselves out of existence is VERY much genocide by any definition of the term).

Free speech only protect you from the government. Not from other people ALSO exercising their right of free speech to destroy you (so long as they don't deliberately spread factually false information about you).

 

[Vhazhiphor]

The government cannot punish him, for that would be against free speech.

People, society and the media, however, have every right to tar and feather him over that opinion. To destroy his reputation; to expose him as the genocidal maniac he is (and make no mistake: locking people in camp so they (lack of) breed themselves out of existence is VERY much genocide by any definition of the term).

Free speech only protect you from the government. Not from other people ALSO exercising their right of free speech to destroy you (so long as they don't deliberately spread factually false information about you).

Naturally. I thought it was implied that if the bigot can hate who he wants to and say so, everyone else can hate him and say so, as well. My posts tend to be long enough as they are, so I decided against going into detail.

What I'm trying to say is that as hateful and wrong as his views are to (I hope) all of us here, taking, as the linked article did, that video and changing the message from a hypothetical genocide to a direct call to arms; changing his "we keep them fed" to "let's starve them to death" is very much deliberately spreading false information. Unless there's some other video out there I haven't seen, but I didn't see anything more than the one in that linked article.

I know that it might seem like I'm trying to defend him, but I'm not. Although it's a precarious stance to take, I'll hold with Voltaire and say he has the right to his opinion and his views, and to express them. As long as he doesn't actually send out his congregation to kill groups of people he sees as "living in sin", in the end it's nothing more than hot air.

I would give an example, but I don't want to accidentally end up offending anyone. That's not at all what I'm about. Let's just say it's my personal "philosophy" that in the interest of true equality, if you persecute someone for their beliefs, no matter how wrong those beliefs might be, you're falling into a double standard.

 

[Bittersweet]

Am I the only one here who thinks an enclosure/self contained settlement for LGBT people would be a good idea? ... I mean, if I lived in one, it'd be a lot easier for me to gauge whether it's safe to flirt with a guy or not without fearing he's straight or homophobic. I mean... I'd look out the window each morning at all the men in town and think "Woo! OPTIONS!"

.... jokes aside, this is pretty hateful stuff.
It really disturbs me that this stuff can still be said in 2012.

 

[Master Mew]

Am I the only one here who thinks an enclosure/self contained settlement for LGBT people would be a good idea? ... I mean, if I lived in one, it'd be a lot easier for me to gauge whether it's safe to flirt with a guy or not without fearing he's straight or homophobic. I mean... I'd look out the window each morning at all the men in town and think "Woo! OPTIONS!"

ROFL

It really disturbs me that this stuff can still be said in 2012.

"When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don't like?" - Bill Maher

It really disturbs me that there are people in 2012 who still think it should be illegal to express an unpopular opinion.

Look, I think I speak for everyone here when I say that this nobody "pastor" (I'm a theology student and I've never heard of him - seriously, *yawn* not even newsworthy; and can we stop giving these bigots all this free press?) is expressing an abhorrable, twisted, disturbing opinion - but what about other opinions that "disturb" us? Who gets to decide which unpopular opinions are that of the next Hitler, or the next Charles Darwin?

When people make shocking, even disturbing, statements, they generate healthy discussions (like this one) - the answer to bad speech is more speech, not less. We have nothing to fear from hearing opinions contrary to our own, and as long as this psycho's congregation isn't forcefully restrained in their pews and compelled to listen to this man's moronic rantings, and he isn't actually stirring up violence, I see no need for legal action to be taken.

I, for one, am glad that in America it is legal to be a moron with inflammatory opinions (you all know I would have been locked up a long time ago otherwise).

 

[Bittersweet]

[/I]
It really disturbs me that there are people in 2012 who still think it should be illegal to express an unpopular opinion.

Look, I think I speak for everyone here when I say that this nobody "pastor" (I'm a theology student and I've never heard of him - seriously, *yawn* not even newsworthy; and can we stop giving these bigots all this free press?) is expressing an abhorrable, twisted, disturbing opinion - but what about other opinions that "disturb" us? Who gets to decide which unpopular opinions are that of the next Hitler, or the next Charles Darwin?

When people make shocking, even disturbing, statements, they generate healthy discussions (like this one) - the answer to bad speech is more speech, not less. We have nothing to fear from hearing opinions contrary to our own, and as long as this psycho's congregation isn't forcefully restrained in their pews and compelled to listen to this man's moronic rantings, and he isn't actually stirring up violence, I see no need for legal action to be taken.

I, for one, am glad that in America it is legal to be a moron with inflammatory opinions (you all know I would have been locked up a long time ago otherwise).

Uh, no.
An opinion based on complete ignorance should be treated as such.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

If someone is hateful and ignorant, their opinion on the relevant subject should be treated as less trustworthy.
If someone is educated and tolerant, their opinion on the relevant subject should be treated as more trustworthy.
This pastor is obviously completely ignorant about homosexuals and homosexuality in general; he knows nothing about what science says causes it, or anything about it's real life consequences; he clearly considers homosexuals to not be as good as the rest of the normal people.
He's a pastor; we should be asking him about Heaven and stuff, the stuff he knows.

We shouldn't be listening to him when taking advice or trying to gain knowledge about homosexuality.
That would be like taking advice on atomic physics from a chef.

The truth and a lie are not sort of the same thing. When the emperor looks naked, the emperor is naked; someone who is of the 'opinion' that he might be wearing clothes is wrong.