Came across this one: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/21/11795747-mississippi-pastor-lawmaker-denies-endorsing-the-killing-of-gays?lite and it makes me wonder about something.
If someone says they’re against killing people – but they quote a biblical verse that says someone needs to die, which thing do you believe? I get that the devoutly religious, God-fearing people of this country are against homosexuality in any form and, as they are wont to do, will quote Leviticus 20:13 in a heartbeat. Now, if they really believe in this – and they must; otherwise, why bother to haul it out at every turn in this – then how can they say that they’d never endorse killing someone behind it?
But, ya see, we’re just not talking about a Southern minister – this guy’s a politician, too, so maybe some double-talking is just a matter of course? His saying he believes in the sanctity of life – but quoting Leviticus – well, does it send a mixed message… and is this the minister talking or the politician railing against the president’s statement about gay marriage? I’d tend to lean more toward the minister talking since he said the only opinion that matters is God’s.
The other thing that struck me about this is that all over the country – and for quite some time – God is being taken out of places where He used to reside, like court rooms, schools, and other such places; the removal of the Ten Commandments from a southern state office building got a lot a press some time ago. So, ain’t it just funny that something like this comes along… and detractors invoke the Word of God when, in a court of law, you can’t even swear to God that you’re telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
It seems to me that when the states are doing things to remove any religious overtones, um, they don’t get to bring any to the party just because they don’t like something that someone had to say about it… or do they?
The man says that the president’s statement is poor social policy; it seems to me ignoring what is a rather large and no longer hidden segment of our population and using the current morality to say that they don’t have the same rights as everyone else in the country could be construed as poor social policy as well – and doing this doesn’t help politicians at the voting places.
Gays can say, with justification, that they get to do what other Americans get to do, like work and pay taxes (and vote) out the ass but when it comes to their pursuit of happiness, nope, can’t do that, uh-uh, bible says you can’t and in those ancient times, you and your partner would both be put to death. Not too hard to see why the gay population might have something to say about that.
And, really, if he didn’t want people to know how he really felt about this, um, putting on his Facebook page was the wrong thing to do; then again, people are forever putting shit on their Facebook page that’s better left off of their computers so that he did this doesn’t surprise me a whole lot. Maybe he wanted to take advantage of the surge in social networking (even though Facebook’s newly minted public stock is tanking big time) but, hmm, maybe he didn’t quite understand how that works; if he did, then he would have known that with the way people get linked together, someone was going to see what he said… and raise hell about it.
What, did he really think that he could use that particular quote and it not be seen as him endorsing death for homosexuals? He’d been better off quoting Leviticus 18:22 – kinda says the same thing without the fatal overtones and, for this context, is probably more PC…
Bet he didn’t think it would get him so much national attention, either – and, apparently, the wrong kind of attention…