A series of videos of Baptist pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona have gone viral as he talks about the solution of AIDS being the exterminations of all homosexuals and bisexual citizens. He explained that AIDS could be solved by Christmas with a simple holocaust for homosexuals. The videos are below.
Anderson takes off on this sermon to recognize “AIDS Awareness Day.” That led to his sermon entitled “AIDS: The Judgement of God” where he explains that Leviticus 20:13 compels the faithful to kill gay, lesbians, and bisexuals. He explains that, in his reading of the section, “I actually discovered the cure for AIDS.” Here is the thrust of his solution:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
Anderson added
“And that, my friend, is the cure for AIDS. It was right there in the Bible all along — and they’re out spending billions of dollars in research and testing. It’s curable — right there. Because if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.”
What is chilling that Anderson refers to how many kids are in the audience as he spews this hateful sermon, including teaching them that “all homos are pedophiles” and screaming “No homos will ever be allowed in this church as long as I am pastor here.”
Anderson previously attracted attention by explaining why women have to be entirely silent in church. Not even an amen:
If your stomach can take it, here is the full sermon:
@ Dust Bunny Queen. . . perfectly spoken!
DBQ,
Exactly! Well said. 🙂
Paul,
Apparently it takes a fundamentalist mindset to recognize one when you see it.
Is it possible to be a Conservative who believes in God, gay marriage, immigration and carry a gun?
Sure it is. I am a Conservative leaning more Libertarian.
I believe in God…..not so much in organized religion.
I do not care if gay people want to get married….as long as they aren’t forcing people who have religious objections to the idea to participate in their marriage.
I believe in LEGAL immigration. Controlled and orderly immigration. Most of us are the result of immigration by our immediate or more remote ancestors.
I certainly own and use guns. For hunting and recreation and protection.
I believe in a small lean Federal Government that sticks to the powers in the Constitution and in States rights and in more Local governance. Government from the bottom up, not the top down.
Lower taxes and a less complicated tax code where everyone pays SOME income taxes. If the government were to get out of trying to control everything, it wouldn’t need so much money or waste so much tax money.
When I was visiting Ferguson I asked about this Rev. Al Sharpton guy and what a so called “pastor” was in America. I pursued this in New Orleans too. Someone clue me in a bit better. From what I gather it is this: A pastor gets a flock of sheep. He puts them in the pasture and once a week he has them gather at the meadow in a church or otherwise and fleeces the flock. The pay up in order to be told things that give fear and then sooth the fear.
If anyone can chimne in on this topic I wouild appreciate it. We dont have religion back on Remulak Planet.
I agree with Darren Smith, stop the control and let us all just live our lives. I had a battle with lung cancer 3 years ago and I don’t smoke. When you get a call that says you have cancer, you feel completely helpless. Only 14% survival rate and so far I’ve beat it. I had my latest annual check yesterday and got a clean bill of health from my lung doctor. This kind of reality changes your heart and your mind on life and I’m still young. My children had not even graduated from high school and now are in college. I want to live a healthy long quality of life like anyone, and hopefully long enough to see grandchildren. The ACA didn’t give me the warm fuzzies on thoughts of a long life.
I have friends (2 couples) whom are gay and have been together for over 10 years. That’s hard to ignore. But who are we to keep people who love each other from getting married. I realize that Christians don’t believe in it, but who are we to judge. Why condemn them to the privacy of their homes or “closets” and not partake in societal celebrations because they are scared of being judged. They stay to themselves except for a few people who know and that’s sad. The marriage thing is just a change in law, it has nothing to do with accepting or condemnation of that union, and we all should just let them be who they are and that is free. Free to be themselves and include them in society by acceptance, and without judgement.
Not all Conservatives are anti-gay or anti-immigration, most are just law abiding citizens whom believe the Constitution is the law of our land and practice it as such. I believe in God. I not only own about a dozen different types of hand guns, rifles and shot guns, I know how to shoot them all and have my CHL.
I was raised a Democrat and very active in the party as I grew up. However, I started to see two messages from my party that I recognized as ambiguous or hypocritical and decided it wasn’t for me. What saddens me the most is how much more aggressive and controlling the message of Democrats have evolved into. My quality of life was great in the 90’s during Clinton and Bush. Now I’m searching for it and hopefully will find it again. Is it possible to be a Conservative who believes in God, gay marriage, immigration and carry a gun?
Christians don’t let preachers spout crap from their pulpits, it’s called the First Amendment and no one can control what a preacher preaches. If people choose to listen or not, it’s their prerogative. People have to come around to it on their own, forcing it, isn’t going to help anyone’s cause. However, the Constitution is off limits and that is why I support Professor Turley.
I’m good with that. Not I good.
I sounded like Tarzan there for a moment.
Max:
I don’t believe it’s discriminatory to screen out high risk blood donors. IV drug users, people who have unprotected casual sex, and gay men are all statistically high risk for contracting HIV.
As I’ve explained earlier, you are absolutely correct that all blood products are tested for HIV, among other things. However, an infected sample will only test positive if there is a sufficient level of antibodies that meet the assay’s threshold. In other words, someone could be recently infected, and go give blood as a means to get tested (which is shockingly common), and that blood would pass because he, or she, had not mounted a sufficiently high antibody response yet to trigger a positive assay.
Some infected products are going to get through. This is why there are additional safety measures, such as screening out high risk donors. And, you’re right, irresponsible people can just lie on the form, especially when they’re using a blood donation to get an HIV test without having to ask for it at a center.
I grieve that the gay community is so hard hit by the scourge of HIV. And, you are right, that the rise of unsafe sex practices and IV drug use has contributed to its spread in the heterosexual community, too. That is why donors are questioned about drug use and heterosexual practices, too.
I want gay men to live happy, healthy, fulfilled lives. It is a biological fact that STDs are spread with the most efficiency through gay sex. True, they also spread through heterosexual sex, but the micro tears in the former create the most risk. (Unfortunately, when straight people think HIV is just a “gay disease” they engage in unsafe practices which also put them at risk.) Statistically, more men than women seek out casual sex with multiple partners, although that is unfortunately on the rise with women. This is due, among other things, to societal pressures which judge women far more harshly than men for having a long sexual history. So when you put two willing guys together without those social mores . . . you have a recipe for higher risk behavior with a higher number of partners. I really wish the gay community would create more social pressures against serial, meaningless, unprotected encounters. That kind of life is not healthy mentally or physically for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Why do I wish so strongly that the gay community would embrace safer and more fulfilling behavior? Because I worked briefly on a clinical trial for an investigational new drug cocktail for HIV patients. It was the most depressing work I’ve ever done. I would read through case study after case study. The patient would be described as healthy, and very hopeful, at the start of the study. 10 months later, he had crashed and died. That length of time varied, but inevitably, they almost all died. And reading about how they suffered before they died in a clinically detached summary literally brought me to tears. I read through hundreds of people’s deaths, wishing so much they had made it. It was very moving, and heartbreaking.
I rather like the gay community, if you can generalize that much. I’ve gone to the parades in Hollywood, (I believe my favorite was a Halloween parade where I saw a Queen crowned.) Been dancing at gay clubs, etc. I’ve seen guys in emotional turmoil over realizing all they have is a string of meaningless encounters. And, yes, straight men can have a self destructive history, too.
Nothing changes the fact that if the gay community wants to get serious about the battle against HIV and other STDs, they have to make real changes from within in regards to casual sex. The same holds true for everyone, because although the rate is much lower, it is still there. Almost every infection is a preventable tragedy.
I realize it can be annoying for outsiders to be judgmental, but I hope you realize my opinions come from a desire to beat this disease permanently.
Speaking of this topic, what do you think the unintended consequence will be for providing 26 forms of free birth control to all women, instead of free condoms? How hard do you think it will be for women to get men to practice safe sex when they know, with certainty, that she has access to 26 kinds of free birth control? What will this do to the STD rate in heterosexual couples?
The ONLY time religion should become political is IF the religion is TAXED FIRST!
@ Max-1
Well, that IS the law. A 501-c-3 organization can lose its tax exempt status for certain political actions. I good with that.
However, as abhorrent and disgusting as the words from this pastor are, do they actually rise to being political speech? Under the definition in the law? After all this is a law blog, so we should consider that.
As to the taxation part. Are you really OK with what this pastor is saying if it was taxed? Not ok if tax exempt but ok if taxed. That makes no sense.
Under the First Amendment protection, people have the right to make speech and print things that others find awful, uncomfortable, insulting etc etc etc. The old I don’t agree with your speech but protect your right to say it concept. Freedom of speech is for everyone not just some people or only for people you agree with.
As I stated before there are limits to the freedom of speech as well. One being to incite people to kill or do actual physical harm to others. Perhaps pastor Anderson’s speech could be construed that way?
I don’t know if this is still an applicable statute but it does seem to be relevant her and in the Ferguson step father riot case.
According to 18 USCS § 2102 “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.”
Max-1 – “Say, if you can be born “straight” why can’t I be born gay?”
I believe this is the first amendment of the gay agenda. That is to convince the public that it isn’t a choice, when it is. Once this is in place the rest of the agenda can be implemented and anyone who challenges the rest of the agenda can then be demonized for hating the newly formed “Victim”. The fact is, we all choose a lot of things every day. I choose not to steal, murder, rape, do drug, etc… From an evolutionary stand point homosexuality never made sense. Spiritually, God gives us all challenges in life and free will to do bad things but we hopefully make the right choices.
But as Darren points out, why the need to force others to agree with you? I could really care less about how others live unless it affects me or they are pushing their agenda on others.
Paul, SPLC is not a hate group themselves, again you are woefully misinformed. But I am beginning to understand how you think. Preconceived notions supplant real world knowledge in those who don’t do their homework or research.
Inga – I am very well informed on that hate site SPLC. The fact that you think it is not shows you keep reading the wrong sites.
No you aren’t Paul. That you consider it a hate site speaks to that fact you are sorely misinformed… Once again. Reading only right wing publications ensured that not even ONE of you knew who Scott Lively is.
Inga – even the government has backed away from the SPLC. They have an agenda and they have listed groups that have nothing to do with hate but don’t fit their agenda. And, Inga, I am always far better informed than you are.
Sheesh Paul, you couldn’t look it up? It’s called Godwin’s Law. And the kooky pastor invoked it first. YOU STILL haven’t watched any of the videos have you? I hope you’re taking you anti hypertensives Paul, you’re off your game.
Inga – it only counts on blogs, not video. Geez!!! And I rarely watch the videos because I respond from the emails and they don’t appear there.
Olly:
“The message is that God has inflicted this world with all kinds of things that frustrate us so that we can strive to become better Christians and enjoy eternity without frustration.”
Patience and resistance to frustration are not my forte. Let me tell you, this blog has been a challenge at times, filled with lessons on patience that I clearly still need to learn.
“everyone on here who is attacking gay people ”
No one here is attacking gay people.
But thanks for the homily all the same.
In the UK, the SJWs were successful at relaxing the donor rules in 2011, but at the price of public confidence in blood safety.
“Does a society have the right to expect a maximally safe blood supply if that society is not willing to reciprocate by donating in adequate quantity? A host of data suggests that in the very near future with our current strategies we may not be able to satisfy the need for blood, in significant part because we are failing to recruit new blood donors from the vast majority of people who choose not to donate blood even though they would be eligible by current standards. The alternative to new donor recruitment would be to relax current eligibility criteria, which may impact upon safety by allowing some permanently deferred populations to donate blood at the potential risk of jeopardizing the safety of blood. To a degree, that is what the recent decision in the UK to allow non-practicing MSM to donate blood is doing. However, we predict that this specific decision will not have (tangible) adverse effects on blood safety, although there may be some changes in perceived safety. That rule change should be seen as a political move, a half-hearted political nod to MSM, probably partly in response to student unions’ threats to boycott blood donor drives in universities unless “discrimination” of MSM by blood services is discontinued. On its own, the change will likely only be consequential for blood supply or blood safety in that it avoids the threatened student boycott and prevents the loss of those coveted donors. At the same time, though, it may adversely affect the public’s perception of blood safety. Only if we can motivate new volunteers to become donors can we avert the impending public loss of faith in blood products, and meet the ever-increasing need for these products.”
Source
In a 2012 Canadian study of blood donation-related viral infections, the risk of getting HIV was 1 per 8 million donations, Hepatitis C was 1 per 6.7 million donations, and HBV 1 per 1.7 million donations.
There were 5 cases of HIV gotten from donated blood.
People opposing the current blood donation safety regimen need data, not polemics, before demanding change to the current system.
“Yet this also applies to newly infected heterosexuals too, who give blood. So, why maintain the ban against “gay blood”?”
1. Risk reduction in blood donation is (and must be) population based.
2. Gay men have higher HIV risks because of the nature of gay sex, and have higher HIV rates.
3. HIV antibodies may not rise to detectable levels in the early weeks of infection, so screening is not 100% reliable..
4. Prudent risk reduction therefore advises against the use of blood with the highest HIV rate (140x that of hetero men), gay men.
5. The efficacy of this approach is continuously determined by follow-up studies of HIV infection rates arising from infected blood donations.
Keeping the blood supply safe is social justice.
@rafflaw
“…compare the deaths due to AIDS to the number killed by guns in this country.”
So, are you saying that both homosexuality and gun-possession should be criminalized?
happypappies
Sometimes I am. Another confession. Good thing I have a job that keeps me employed into the late night… Or maybe that’s the cause, not so much the cure.
I often wonder why some cannot leave others alone. There is so much to address in one’s own life that I cannot see why it is necessary to try to control others. It doesn’t make any sense why anyone would want to add all that responsibility to their own lives.
So much strife and injustice could be removed from society if people just went home, chilled out with a nice port wine or a baseball game, and simply enjoyed life. It ain’t hard.
To everyone on here who is attacking gay people that is a Christian, aren’t you supposed to let Jesus judge and let anyone who has not sinned cast the first stone? When Jesus returns he will not come to seek the righteous ones and those who are angry have every right to be as the excessive pompousness on the site is sickening. Remember, I am only speaking to so called Christians who are told to love one another.
Karen
“So if a donor is infected, but has not mounted a high enough level of antibodies in defense, that blood donation would go through.”
= = =
Yet this also applies to newly infected heterosexuals too, who give blood. So, why maintain the ban against “gay blood”?
Funny story here Karen, and anyone who reads this because I’ve never mentioned this but… I’ve been abstinent for over 15 years.
Now, tell me, why is my “gay blood” not good enough?
Max-1 are you an insomniac 🙂 I am going to bed because I have to take two of my pappies “papillons” to get their teeth cleaned at 7:00 A.M. and while I enjoy the razor honed edge of your mind, I have to cut it short 🙂 so, good night. Cute tweet btw