It often seems that when the world is grieving some terrible tragedy, there are some religious extremists who will celebrate the loss. Stepping immediately into that role was Sacramento pastor Roger Jimenez of the California-based Verity Baptist Church who praised Omar Mateen’s murder of gays and lamented that he did not “finish” the job. It appears however that Jimenez will have to find another place to peddle his religious-based hate. Harsch Investment Properties has decided not to renew the church’s lease and wants Jimenez out by next March.
In his sermon at the church, Jimenez told his congregation:
“People say, ‘Well, aren’t you sad that 50 sodomites died?’ Here’s the problem with that, it’s like the equivalent of asking me, ‘Well, aren’t you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today?’ No, I think that’s great. I think that helps society. I think that Orlando, Florida is a little safer tonight.”
He also said that “If we lived in a righteous government, they should round them all up and put them up against a firing wall, and blow their brains out.”
He continued to double down on this remarks despite protests:
“As far as the Bible is concerned, they crossed a line. The sin they performed is worthy of death,” he said. “I realize our society doesn’t take that, but that’s what the bible says. If someone does something that’s worthy of death and they end up dying, I’m not gonna mourn them. . . . Absolutely I think they are safer now because of these deaths, and the reason I think that is because I believe all of these homosexuals are pedophiles, and the Bible–see our culture and our society puts them in these categories–gay, lesbian, whatever, but that’s not found in scripture. And I understand the world does not want to accept that, that’s fine. I’m saying as a Christian, the Bible puts people in two categories: normal/natural, unnatural.”
The video was originally posted on YouTube but the company removed it for violating the company’s policy on hate speech. I once again have qualms about the censoring of such postings. I think it is important for people to hear such hateful sermons and to understand the intense prejudice against gays and lesbians.
What do you think?
KC:
People without faith can be nationalistic madmen. But there is no “unholy book” from which they receive orders. They’re just madman, and don’t reflect any form of humanism (on which positive fables are based, mind you).
Conversely, there’s plenty of explicit direction in all three sets of monotheistic scriptures that support horrendous behavior and bigotry.
More than a slight difference. But I welcome your subsequent twisting nevertheless.
All these good christians. Follow the verses you like, ignore the ones you don’t.
Know that God surely believes the very same things you do.
Promote bigotry, preach murder, praise holy hate. Just as Jesus intended.
The debates! Don’t miss the Bluster and Screech Show! It’s a lot of BS.
Mr. Groen they already have banned Christians from entering the US in favor of Islamics.
The State Department Turns Its Back on Syrian… By Nina Shea
“Over the past five years of Syria’s civil war, the United States has admitted a grand total of 53 Syrian Christian refugees, a lone Yazidi, and fewer than ten Druze, Bahá’ís, and Zoroastrians combined.
That so few of the Syrian refugees coming here are non-Muslim minorities is due to American reliance on a United Nations refugee-resettlement program that disproportionately excludes them. Past absolute totals of Syrian refugees to the U.S. under this program were small, but as the Obama administration now ramps up refugee quotas by tens of thousands, it would be unconscionable to continue with a process that has consistently forsaken some of the most defenseless and egregiously persecuted of those fleeing Syria. The gross under representation of the non-Muslim communities in the numbers of Syrian refugees into the U.S. is reflected year after year in the….”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426419/state-department-turns-its-back-syrian-christians-and-other-non-muslim-refugees-nina
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426419/state-department-turns-its-back-syrian-christians-and-other-non-muslim-refugees-nina.
Personally I rather admire the Kurds. Has nothing to do with it. Apparently it’s a 1984 version of who is more equal than others and in this case the current administration is not in favor of mine. No explanation is offered but clearly it’s an Orwellian call
I doubt this will make the debate approved lists but I really wonder if we had two Socialist candidates and one Constitutional candidate how such questions might be answered. Clearly the current bunch is not against genocide as long as it’s not their Orwells who are affected.
Note my computer is having an internal war on spelling defence or defense. But I use US, Canadian, British and Australian dictionaries. Along with those of 15 or 20 other languages.
michael….I misinterpreted your 12:16 PM comment that you were a firm believer that that civilians shouldn’t have the power to send troops to war.
I thought you were making a constitutional argument, and that you were trying to make the case that the Constitution denies “civilians” that power.
From your subsequent comments, it seems to be an “extra-constitutional” argument.
The Constitution was designed to prevent the kind of scenario you mention where the military tells the President he has to go.
So far, that part of it (President as Commander-in Chief) has held for over 225 years.
MacArthur may have held different beliefs in Korea, but Truman ultimately sacked him.
His authority to do so under the Constitution was not seriously challenged, as far I know.
MacArthur had supporters for his recommendations to use nukes, etc., but he was generally viewed as overstepping his authority in publically lambasting Truman’s conduct of the war, as well as trying to initiate negotiations with the Chinese on his own.
The military does require an oath defending the Constitution, as well as the other part of the oath to obey the President and superior officers.
I don’t know when you originally took that oath……but did you view all aspects of that oath as binding?
I view civilians as ultimately responsibile for where we are sent. So far they have done a miserable job. Soldiers tend to err on the side of no war. Especially real veterans. Civilians and the people they send to Congress and to the Oval Office in order one two three are inherently disinterested unless it lines their pocket books. Come to think of it they screwed that up too. However I don’t believe in uncontrolled application of the oath of office.
In my old unit we spent hours studying the situation and that oath. When Carter was in office there were enough ready to make that move, many got out, the miitary became hamstrung. Ships couldn’t sail, Planes couldn’t fly and divisions became regiments. Drugs had taken over the barracks in some cases. And soldiers couldn’t feed their families.Obama is no friend of the military and some of the same situations repeat themselves today.
The end result of what started as impromptu discussions ended up with. Yes we will follow the oath but sine there is a Constitution our oath is paramount. There won’t always be Carters and LBJ’s in office. That’s debateable. But the planning was also done. Not just any unit we dealt with such situations as our bread and butter missions. Our successors today still do so. with one exception. one change. Do we have or not have a viable Constitution? I think not.
The search then becomes way to defuse the situation and it isn’t by giving in to a foreign doctrine.
As to all aspects YES with good reason BUT we were also taught that no single person was exempt by virtue of anything from being corrupt and such people no matter how oval their office could be found unacceptable as enemies domestic. We’re talking up coming not out going.
We”re not going to get answers from these useless debates unless their is a catalyst and some interest. By trying to start that little job and see it through I believe we can accomplish the job at hand and make a change.Or at least set things up for a change to occur. If it stays the same …..all bets are off.
I’ll remark again it would at this point, today, be couched as a legal, required, counter revolution. Besides at my age no worries there.
Former Governor Janet Napolitano stated we veterans and the standing military were the biggest danger the government faced. Not the people, not the country, the government. She spoke the truth. Obama said he wanted to build up DOHS to be as big and as powerful as the military. Why? He can’t really control the military who for the most part believe their oath of office and see him as one who obviously doesn’t. Many police and other LEA are former military and many are strong Constitutionalists. I’m guessing 24 hour to 48 hours over a weekend.
Better…much better we get some semblance of representation and that can be done in part by the assistance of a few percent of the voting population in stating or even temporarily joining the Libertarians and then encouraging them to widen the debate. I’m not a Lib either by the way. I just see a good tool to use. My little slogan is no need to change vowels. Ballots need not become bullets. This country gave three gifts to the world. One the idea that common people can govern themselves. Declaration and Constitution Two they could help their neighbors without taking them over. (Monroe Doctrine) Three people could change governments without rancor and peacefully. And a fourth we have done so well with this one. Everyone gets a voice and a seat at the table.
Objectively speaking it’s completely possible spread the idea into the right ears So? I have cast the first stones and am watching ripples.