Black bishop not backing down
Hurling the "hate speech" accusation at his traditional Christian views didn't work
The Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Virginia says that he is a Christian and has no reason to apologize for his history of hate speech against LGBT people, liberals and abortion providers.
It was only after African-American minister E.W. Jackson won the nomination at the Virginia Republican Party Convention last week that many became aware of his history of saying gay people were “perverted” and “sick people psychologically.”
“Homosexuality is a horrible sin, it poisons culture, it destroys families, it destroys societies; it brings the judgment of God unlike very few things that we can think of,” he said last year.
He has also called Democrats “slave masters” and compared Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan.”
“Liberalism and their ideas have done more to kill black folks whom they claim so much to love than the Ku Klux Klan, lynching and slavery and Jim Crow ever did, now that’s a fact,” Jackson said in a 2012 interview.
On Tuesday, Jackson told reporters that he had no intention of apologizing.
“I say the things that I say because I’m a Christian, not because I hate anybody, but because I have religious values that matter to me,” Jackson told reporters during a campaign event in Fredericksburg, according to The Washington Post. “Attacking me because I hold to those principles is attacking every church-going person, every family that’s living a traditional family life, everybody who believes that we all deserve the right to live.”
“So I don’t have anything to rephrase or apologize for. I would just say people should not paint me as one-dimensional.”
Source
29 comments:
Can I get an "Amen!"
Finally, someone who stands by his convictions and does not apologize at the drop of a hat.
You are free to disagree with him and not vote for him, but he is just as free to hold his own beliefs that may not mesh with yours.
That is the beauty of Freedom in America!
Typical right wing Christotard
I don't think Jesus went around saying such judgmental things - quite the opposite. It seems that just saying one is a "Christian" is a cover for any kind of bigoted speech, and it's ironic coming from a person whose ancestors and ethnic community have suffered from the same kind of prejudice and scape-goating for all society's ills as this Pharisee and others like him now aim at homosexuals.
"Political correctness is a far greater threat to our freedom and liberty than is terrorism..."
""Political correctness is a far greater threat to our freedom and liberty than is terrorism...""
BULLSHIT!!
re: 2:27,
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
— Jesus, Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
— Jesus, Matthew 10:34
“For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
— Jesus, Matthew 5:20
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
— Jesus, Matthew 23:27–28
Not to mention that most of what we know about Hell comes straight from His teachings. Answers to Skeptics' Top Ten Questions and Objections Regarding Hell
"I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?"
— Penn Jillette
Mr. Jackson isn't saying these things out of hate; he's saying them out of love. When there is approaching danger, the loving thing to do is to do what you can to protect someone from that danger. I'm thrilled to see that he considers warning people of the truth more important than being wishy-washy "nice".
"he's saying them out of love."
LOL
I see you are back to quoting your fairy tales.
The sum total of a libs intellect: "I'm rubber, you're glue.........." Rather pathetic really.
Brian: thumbs-up.
Luke: Spot on, as usual.
2:27 AM: in claiming one is a Christian as a cover for bigoted speech you reveal your own bigotry. The label you apply to Mr. Jackson confirms your status as a bigot - in this instance one who holds to a conviction that anyone who disagrees with liberal philosophy is evil.
Luke, your quotes of Jesus were spot on. You didn't mention God's judgement of Sodom and Gamorrah where these cities were incinerated because of their sinfulness. The specific sin mentioned was homosexuality.
3:39,
True, I didn't. I just wanted to throw out a quick sample to make the point. Jesus' mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is one I considered, but decided against due to time constraints. But what He said is interesting:
“And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”
— Matthew 11:23–24
Yeah - the whole cities of Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed because some wanted to rape some male angels, yet Lot offered his daughters to be raped in their place, and then he later had sex with these daughters under the influence of alcohol, yet the Bible said he was the only righteous man in the city. Hhm so much for biblical morality!
So of course you equate homosexuality with rape and rape of girls as less sinful, and that it's okay for God to kill hundreds and thousands for the sins of a minority. This is the morality of the Bible. However, it's all mythical stories anyway.
3:23 Is someone a bigot for pointing out the bigotry of others? Can a bigot never be criticized? Then 3:23 is a bigot also for calling someone else a bigot!
All Luke's quotes are open to endless interpretion, and have been for centuries. You can interpret scripture and the recorded words of Jesus in any way you like, and put any spin on them you like, and people do so all the time, including our resident quote-miner, and those he quote-mines.
"It's done" is not the same thing as "it's right to do".
Words mean things. Grammar has rules.
Or where you talking about your favorite ice cream?
Correction: Or were you talking about your favorite ice cream? I just can't tell since your words are open to endless interpretation.
What straw-man or red-herring about ice-cream is slippery Luke on about now? Who said "It's done"?
Resorting to the "grammar criticism" as Luke does (at 2:09) is usually a sign of failing to come up with a proper and rational response to the actual arguments under discussion, but lacking the grace to be honest or at least preserve some dignity by keeping silent!
2:21: Who said "It's done"?
2:04: …open to endless interpretion, and have been for centuries.
As in "it's done all the time".
Nice of you and 3:00 to demonstrate how "endless interpretation" works. You clearly can't handle what's actually written, preferring to just make up whatever you want.
What do the Bible and Harry Potter Series have in common? Both are works of fiction. The Bible belongs in the Science Fiction / Fantasy section of the book store.
Luke is the master of pretzel logic.
Luke, please get back on your meds. Please.
I thought we were using your "endless interpretation" rules for reading?
Luke has been called out on "endless interpretation", and is using his usual diversionary tactics. Nobody made the grammar error he has been playing on, and the rest he's been using as a "red herring". He can't answer the question that Scripture has been open to interpretation almost since it was compiled as the Bible, and which has even led to wars and mass-killing. But Luke implies he has the correct understanding - well he would as he's the classic Pharisee (smug in his religion).
If the Bible had the actual words of God, or even divinely inspired ones for humans to record, then why would it be so ambiguous and open to so much "interpretation" (NB the so-called "Luke"), and then resulting in so much controversy, inevitably leading on to violent conflict and terrible civil strife? One might wonder if Satan had composed the Bible as "he" could not have had a better result in sowing confusion and suffering among human-kind!
The psychology of religion is now well understood, but maybe not by the deeply religious (for obvious reasons!).
Yep, still using "endless interpretation" to defend their assertion of "endless interpretation". Nice bit of circularism going on there.
Keep going guys (guy?). You're doing a great job of making atheism look absolutely silly.
So Luke is still "endlessly" trying to evade addressing the original point about "endless interpretation" re Scripture. And plainly the reason is of course that he can't!!
Luke @ 11:06 thinks anyone who dares to disagree or question him must be an atheist. So much he thinks he has the only correct view of theism and even of Christianity. What an arrogant b** he is! (The original Luke would disown him.)
Post a Comment