Oklahoma Tea Party Candidate Doesn’t ‘Have A Problem With’ Stoning Gays to Death

Scott Esk, a tea party Republican, is running for the Oklahoma state House. In addition to fancying himself a libertarian, a position that’s all about preserving and exercising unfettered individual liberty, Esk also believes gay people should be stoned to death, per Leviticus 20:13.

And, no, it wasn’t based on a gotcha! question, nor is this a misinterpretation of a vague, off-handed remark. He really said he’s “we would be totally in the right” to stone gay people. In a Facebook chat, Esk wrote the following comments:

I think we would be totally in the right to do it.

That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.

I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it.

Well, at least he won’t author a law. So, there’s that.

I know what was done in the Old Testament and what was done back then was what’s just. … And I do stand for Biblical morality.

Granted, he has the courage of his convictions when so many others are afraid to say it out loud. Someone should ask him whether he supports slavery, as sanctioned in Leviticus.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. –Leviticus 25:44-45

By way of a recap, here are 76 other things Leviticus forbids. We hope Esk has been following all of it to the letter otherwise, you know, a stoning might be in order. Esk should especially worry about item #60.

1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)
3. Eating fat (3:17)
4. Eating blood (3:17)
5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)
6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)
7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2)
8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4)
9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)
10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)
11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)
12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)
14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9)
15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (11:4-7)
16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8)
17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)
18. Eating – or touching the carcass of – eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)
19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27)
21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)
23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)
26. Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)
27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)
28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)
31. Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)
32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)
33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)
34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (18:17)
35. Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
37. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)
38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)
39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)
40. Having sex with an animal (18:23)
41. Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)
42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)
43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
44. Stealing (19:11)
45. Lying (19:11)
46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)
47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)
48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (19:13)
49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)
51. Spreading slander (19:16)
52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)
53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)
57. Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)
58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
59. Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)
60. Trimming your beard (19:27)
61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
62. Getting tattoos (19:28)
63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)
64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)
65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
66. Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34)
67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)
68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)
69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)
70. Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)
71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)
72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)
74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)
75. Selling land permanently (25:23)
76. Selling an Israelite as a slave (25:42)

Like Us On Facebook!

More on the Banter:

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

President Obama held his last press conference of the year today, and you'd never know he just got t[Read more...]
This Healthy Dog Will Die If a Dead Woman Gets Her Last Wish
MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

The Huffington Post tried to "redefine beauty" at least a half-dozen times in 2014, but the effort i[Read more...]
North Korea Officially Named in Sony Hack as Hackers Gloat Over Victory (Updated)
Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

USA Today, and now Fox News, are trying to make the case that President Obama pulled a switcheroo, c[Read more...]
  • Treading_Water

    I just wish someone had asked him if he also supported stoning disobedient children to death, stoning a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night, or stoning a woman to death for getting raped in the city (presumably, getting raped in the country is forgivable because her protests would go unheard).

    The other night Bill Maher was interviewing Ralph Reed. In the interview, he asked Reed about some of the other proscribed punishments in the Old Testament, and Reed said that Jesus’s teachings superseded the OT and that we could ignore some of the teachings that no longer made sense. I just want to know which parts of the Bible are the inviolate word of god, and which parts are just the maundering of old, repressed men that we can safely ignore.

    ETA. If we are allowed to just follow the teachings of Jesus, then why all the hatred against teh gays? Jesus had much more to say about social justice and tolerance, much more to say about the evils of the greedy money people, than he ever had to say against teh gay.

  • Peter O’Leary

    Funny thing I just noticed on reading that list. It forbids having sex like a man “as one does with a woman”. Now I don’t know what the kinky Scott Esk gets up to in the bedroom with his wife but I do not indulge in sodomy with my wife so I am not sure as to how this is being considered a ban on homosexual behavior. Of course sodomy may be all the rage in the inbred fundamentalist tea party, who knows.
    However I suspect that Scotty is being selctive in his application of Leviticus as I am pretty certain he is going to have broken some of the other rule son that list. Also the list seems to condone paedaphilia provided it is not with your own children.
    Really frightening that in the USA in the 21st century that people are still quoting this nonsense never mind that other, even dumber people are voting for them. The fundamentalist radicals of Afganistan and Syria are starting to look more and more like the people of bible belt USA every day.

  • Glaisne

    I believe in stoning tea partiers. I think we would be totally in the right to do it. I never would author legislation to put tea partiers to death, but I don’t have a problem with it.

  • POTRZBE

    Put me down for unkempt hair. Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?

    • chichiplus

      That’s exactly what I was thinking. The humidity here is not helping me keep it “kempt”

  • Jason E

    Now that’s a list!

  • Socialist Cubone

    “I don’t have a problem with it”
    What does that even mean? Would he vote for it if someone else authored it, or would he just not vote to repeal it if it were already law?

    Even delusional psychopaths still talk like goddamn politicians.

  • iBaconi

    Now here we go… A shitheaded idiot who lives up to the liberal tripe being spouted about the Tea Party. Just when you think you’re moving forward, someone sticks their asshole in your eye!

    • David L.

      By “liberal tripe” do you mean directly quoting these clowns? Seems to me like the Tea Party doesn’t need to much spouting about to implode into the freakshow that it is.

      • iBaconi

        Yes, the very liberal tripe I was referring to. Now I won’t have to watch MSNBC. Thanks!!

        • David L.

          Please show me empiric evidence of an intellectually-sound, non-reactionary, non-backwards-ass, non-resentful, non-bigoted, non-authoritarian-leaning, non-self-congralutary Tea Partier. You can’t.

          And please don’t answer with “me”. Because then you definitely wouldn’t, by any stretch imaginable, be a Tea Partier.

          • iBaconi

            You’ve made it impossible to name a politician, yet Sarah Palin springs to mind.

            The principal beliefs of the Tea Party movement: (1) eliminate excess taxation, deficit spending, and the national debt; (2) protect the free market; (3) abide by the Constitution; (4) promote civic responsibility; (5) reduce overall size of government; (6) believe in the people; (7) avoid political pitfalls; and (8) maintain local independence.

            8 reason statists and democrats HATE the Tea Party. Which of the 8 offends you?

          • http://cendax.wordpress.com/ Norbrook

            Sarah Palin, seriously? The winner of the Iquitarod? The woman who (socialist) handed out money in her state to earn her (then) high favorability rating, the one who left the town of Wasilla deeply in debt after her time as mayor, then as the governor who pushed through a crooked crony deal to fund (with government money) a business deal that’s now bankrupt and left the taxpayers on the hook? That Sarah Palin?

            Or maybe you mean the drooling idiot who stands on stage and winks at the camera a lot, trying to string words together in a barrage of meaningless verbiage in the hopes that it’ll make her seem “thoughtful.” Oh, wait, they’re the same person.

          • iBaconi

            Yep! The Sarah Palin Commie-libs call stupid, as her “stupid” predictions come about.

            Ya gotta love commie-libs, they put on a magnificent performance! One of the principle practical examples of egoteneoism (along with Mormons, Catholics, Global warming advocates, and racists, that I’m addressing in the book… Watch for it, “Ego-teneo-ism,” publication in early 2015. It’s brilliant!

            Which brings us back to the question, “Which of the 8 offends you.” No… I’m not expecting a logical answer, you’re a liberal after all. Twood be like expecting the sun to change directions. Nevertheless, it’s always exemplary.

          • JozefAL

            If you’re going to pretend to use Early Modern English, at least have the courtesy of spelling it correctly.

            It’s not “Twood” you piece of Limburger. It’s ” ‘Twould.” It’s a contraction of “It would.”

          • iBaconi

            I’m aware of this, my B.A. was English, focused on linguistics, including old, middle, and early modern English. Times throughout which, by the wayside, spelling was not so much an issue as was what is said. A variety of spellings of any word may be used, necessitating reading the written form out loud because the sounding was intent of the writing. This is where I picked up a habit of playing with the language, I’m surprised you caught it but not that you missed its symbolic significance (wood neither would nor wouldn’t, nor would human expectation affect the suns direction), what is not surprising is the reaction to it. Rather than addressing the discussion, fling an insult at what is seen as a weakness… But there ya go. The pleasure of debating hate filled commie-libs is in watching the show.

          • xServer

            “commie-libs” – really? What are you so afraid of?

          • iBaconi

            The liberal application of government. I don’t like too much salt on my corn on the cob, but I fear too much government on my life.

          • Lady Willpower

            That baby is gonna be flying off the shelves, mark my words.

          • David L.

            Not really that surprising, stemming as it does from the author of this genius insight:

            Obama is currently under more scrutiny than any previous administration.

            The IRS targets Obama’s enemies, Benghazi, Watching the AP, Rosengate, Holder perjury, Fast and Furious, Pigford scandal, GSA, violation of the Hatch Act, Solyndra, Lisa Jackson, Black Panther voter intimidation, War without Congressional approval, Biden’s incredible stupidity, bypassing Congress in various ways, sexual assaults on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards, State department employment of prostitutes while on official trips, nepotism has become an open and widespread practice at the Department of Energy, state dinner security breaches, judicial appointment controversies, drone attacks, Mayward District murders, Guantanimo Bay, Memogate, PRISM, and the list goes on and on…

            Since the American media has evolved into a statist propaganda mill, none of the stories are clearly and fully told. The only certainty seen in the most corrupt administration in history, yes even more corrupt than Bill Clinton which is not an easy task, is that nothing will come of it. Barrack Hussein Obama will not be impeached. The statist empire (left AND right) combined with the ironic reverse racism which has done more damage to black America than the KKK, the American Nazi Party and the League of the South combined, provide the insurance that America’s first black President can do no wrong. In fact, as anyone who pays even the most minimal attention to the media reporting of all the above controversies and more, Barrack Hussein Obama is barely aware of their existence, and he hasn’t the foggiest notion as to how any of them came to be. Just like Clinton, he learns of them only after having read about them in the paper. This level of ignorance alone should be cause for impeachment.

            What. A. Joke.

          • JozefAL

            Up-voted for the “Iquitarod” portmanteau. Never heard that one before.

          • David L.

            All of them offend me in their sloganesque simplicity and propagandesque use of manipulative and euphemistic wording. I’ll tell you the real core beliefs of the Tea Party:

            “1. America is a White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant Nation. Anyone who isn’t a member of that group is taking advantage of a skewed communistic system that unfairly benefits so-called minorities and clearly hurts decent white people.

            2. Anyone who embraces Science and rejects the Word of God is wrong, a sinner and will suffer for the rest of eternity in unimaginable agony.

            3. The Establishment Clause means that government cannot infringe upon Christian churches’ doctrine, but clearly does not preclude a Christian-doctrine-based legal system or public sanctioning of the Founding Father’s religion (Founding Fathers whose whole corpus of writings we’ll otherwise ignore because 18th-Century-English is too hard read).

            4. Every single citizen should own as many guns as he can afford, preferably as lethal as possible, they should all be easily accesible (and with a minimum age of 5 for their purchase); all citizens must carry them at all times in any place of the country they desire. Gawd-given right, after all. Nobody trumps gun-totin’, AR-15-blessin’ Gawd .

            5. Immigrants need to be expelled or imprisoned, since they take the away all of us Real Americans’™ jobs; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik&feature=kp

            6. Any reform which mean more people have acces to their basic human law of modern and accessible health care is paramount to hardcore collectivism. Poor people should be left to die without care, because we are selfish sociopaths who couldn’t care less about our neighbours (hypocritical Bible-thumping nonwithstanding).

            7. Anything resembling a developed-nation’s social program is bad (except my Medicare, Social Security, local Police Dpt. (when they’re fighting off brown people), Fire Dpt, etc.)

            8. The president is a black liberal-leaning centrist. Which means he is the biggest EVIL humanity has ever encountered.

            God Bless America.”

            FTFY

          • iBaconi

            Thank goodness we have Tea-Party experts here to rewrite Tea-Party documents with the appropriate liberal slant (hate), so that the rest of us ignorant slobs can understand the level of bias and hatred we are up against… Commie-lib philosophy is a wonder and a marvel… I’d forgotten about the pRESIDENT being black. Tis indeed a particular nastiness, in view of what he’s done in the world of “civil rights”… I hear it every day from racists who visit my business establishment (in the midst of Mormon territory), “See? Elect a fuckin’ nigger and look whatcha get!”

            Would that our first black President could have been freedom/responsibility oriented, Allen West, Walter Williams, Condi Rice, Alan Keyes… Hell, 50 Cent even, rather than this golfing, commie-lib, anti-colonialist, Muslim, freedom/responsibility hating fuel to the fire of racism The oBama! The racist fire was already fading, but The oBama has fueled the flames… far from the worst thing he’s done, in his battle against against American values, but noteworthy none-the-less…

            Thanks democrats!

          • David L.

            Allen West and Alan Keys aren’t freedom/responsibility oriented… they should be psych-ward-oriented, if anything. If one of those two reactionary nutjobs were President, the world would blow up about ten minutes after taking office. Lord, save us from that evil.

          • JozefAL

            It’s funny how NONE of those 8 “principal beliefs” caused any great deal of problem until Jan 20, 2009. I mean, it’s so funny how Dubya’s MASSIVE explosion of the deficit because of the unjustified invasion of Iraq for FIVE YEARS didn’t have even the most hawkish of deficit hawks to complain, much less hold rallies against government spending. And when Dubya dismissed the Constitution as little more than a “piece of paper,” where were the nascent teabaggers and their howls of outraged defense of that document? And when Dubya EXPANDED the government (via Dept of Homeland Security as well as the military spending related to the previously mentioned Iraq fiasco), where were these nascent teabaggers?

            And please explain “political pitfalls.” Wouldn’t calls to shut down the government because Obama would only agree to half of the GOP and teabagger demands be pretty much the definition of a “political pitfall?”

            Go blow your BS somewhere else.

          • dbtheonly

            Jozef,

            They’re buzz words & fuzz words.

            It’s how they’d play out which is the key.-

          • iBaconi

            Holding up a Republicrat statist, (Bush) is rather beside the point. What the Tea Party and true conservative Americans are up against is statism. The glaring flaw in Esk’s comments is his willingness to take the ultimate step, stoning faggots? Give me a fucking break, he illustrates the reasoning behind Americas writing religion out of the Constitution, thankfully, which was done to avoid this very type of absurdity. He is an embarrassment to all intelligent members of the Tea Party.

            Personally I’m a libertarian, something along the lines of classical liberalism, which modern liberals have turned into a statist mind control game. The Democrat party has fought against freedom/responsibility from it’s beginning. Fighting against freedom for black America during the Civil War, returning black America to slavery during LBJ’s (“we’ll have those niggers voting democrat for 200 years”) “Great Society.” Socrates warned against democracy, the politic of mediocrity, over two thousand years ago, and we’re seeing his wisdom born out in the US, principally by a party appropriately bearing the name “democrat.” Unfortunately our only hope at the moment is in the Republican party, the Tea Party wing of which seems to have the most hope of modifying the statist participation of the Republicrats. The oBama is the most tremendous “political pitfall” I can imagine. The Bushes indeed dug the hole into which we’re being pushed.

          • Jezzer

            Sarah Palin? Not so much gasping here as giving you the mother of all side-eyes.

          • Aaron Litz

            The government exists to protect the weak from the strong and the poor from the rich. Without it, life would be like 4th grade recess with whatever bully who wants taking your lunch money because there is no one to stop him. The rich could exploit the poor at will without regulation (even more than they already do.)

          • xServer

            “Government” isn’t some evil entity – it is our elected leadership as defined by population. You want smaller government? Show me – have your leadership rezone their districts to fall within another and reduce the “headcount” in House of Rep.

          • iBaconi

            Sorry, xServer, you’re wrong. Government IS some evil entity. This is why our founders wrote the Constitution, to protect us from it…

          • David L.

            So they created a novel form of government by writing a Constitution establishing the Basic Laws for such a government with the purpose of protecting us from the same government they created and derived power from? The founders who also were presidents, secretaries of State, senators, generals and congressmen? They were the government.

            Apart from your ‘ideology’ not making the tiniest ounce of sense, you should really head over to a Public Library in your area and comb through the U.S. History section. Might be that you learn something.

          • iBaconi

            I can’t say it’s disappointing that a commie-lib finds not the least bit of sense in my ideology… I suppose it’s something like child molesters not understanding my ideology on pedophilia. Fortunately, there is nothing in the “U.S. History” section of a public library which would contain the tainted version of history a modern liberal mind would appreciate. If you fail to recognize the motivation our founding fathers (I know, I know, you see them as racist, sexist, homophobes…) had in the founding of America, which was escaping from a tyrannical, aristocracy and founding a country in which responsible persons could enjoy freedom. Developing a government which could be prevented from achieving the same type of power from which they were escaping. The founders did become the government, a CONTROLLED government, a representative REPUBLIC… While you, David L. may love and appreciate the statist world, and living with a government cock up your ass, I prefer freedom/responsibility… I know… I know… that’s not fair… You’d rather cut my legs off and make me your “equal.”

            Thanks, but no thanks…

    • That River Gal

      Yeah, there are typically more than one per day. Imagine that!

    • D_C_Wilson

      Unlike all of the other shitheaded idiots in the tea party who spout the same tripe?

  • reggid

    Godamnit, I was fine until I got to the part about offering sacrifices to Molek. That’s always my downfall.

    • dbtheonly

      I dunno reggid, a bunch of them look pretty good. Not cheating your neighbor, not keeping silent when you know of wrongs being done, & a bunch of sexual contacts one shouldn’t have.

      • Christopher Foxx

        Uh, I don’t see where anyone said everything in the Bible is bad, db.

      • David L.

        Well, the one about the sexual contacts one should not have with a man if one himself is a man doesn’t look that good to a lot of people, db; some would even say it’s the cause and justification for more than a little suffering and death in the last 2,500 years.

        Leviticus is a great way for a particular caste to consolidate its power and privileges over an increasingly urban society. Most of the book is a priestly code for performing rituals, something which makes rabbis indispensable in every phase of a person’s life. A recurring theme is the segregationist and ethnic nationalist position that Israel is separated of all other societies because of their special relationship to God, and Leviticus introduces a discourse that revolves around the concept of purification, a common pillar of many, if not most, religions. Rituals are anthropologically fascinating, but can also be a means of codifying barbaric traditions into sacred law, which is then tough to reform because of its very inherent holiness and supposedly divine origin (although they can be reformed, as modern mainstream Judaism [and Christianity] shows, since it’s far less literal in its interpretation of Leviticus).

        Let’s keep in mind that for almost 30% of the laws and prohibitions Bob lists, the unequivocally prescribed penalty is death by stoning (plus a few where it’s a little ambigous/unclear if the sentence should be exile or execution) and the majority of those concern sexual contacts one shouldn’t have. One would presume that a deity which creates human reproductive organs and sexual drives shared by all meiosis-replicating animals wouldn’t be so quick to order a painful death for anybody having unorthodox sexytimes. Makes you think what the (by far) main obsession was for the religious scholars making the whole stuff up. Apart from blasphemy (which would be an intolerable dissenting force against their theocratic social order), there’s also the heinous sin of necromancy (specifically, being “masters of ghosts” and “gaining information from the dead”), ventriloquism, breaking the Sabbath or consensual sex between a betrothed woman and a man who ‘takes’ her virginity; all of which merit death.

        And most important of all, the fact of the matter is that Leviticus was written over a period of over two hundred years during the Persian Period (538-332 BCE) derived from oral tradition, which consequently means it contains a lot of clear contradictions. Specifically, twenty-six of them. Ironically and paradoxically, no matter how good a hypothetically perfect Jew or Christian you strive to be, you’ll end up infuriating your Creator.

        • dbtheonly

          David,

          You took my snark seriously, but for the record, I was speaking of 25-37 inclusive & 40 & 63.

          More seriously we can debate why the Jews condemned homosexuality while the contemporary Greeks & Persians considered it societal norms. And how that throws a monkey-wrench into the whole “gay gene” argument. Math & Mendelian Descent doesn’t allow for 10% of the current population to be gay while essentially everyone in Classical Greece was no straighter than Bi.

          “Ironically and paradoxically, no matter how good a hypothetically
          perfect Jew or Christian you strive to be, you’ll end up infuriating
          your Creator.”

          Which, I was taught, was the ultimate point of Jesus, atonement, repentance, & forgiveness.

          • David L.

            Don’t worry db, I could see that it was tongue-in-cheek, but it was a good excuse to rant about Leviticus for a bit. I agree that incest, bestiality (because of animal’s rights, not divine morals), and procuring of one’s daughter aren’t the best lifestyle choices, although mixing them with cosmetic and dietary impositions is quite baffling. More to the point, there is not a single passage in the whole 66 books of the Bible that says “Thou shall not own another person.” Slavery is the ultimate affront to human dignity and in my opinion, much worse than boning your sister-in-law or eating bacon.

            I can’t bring much to a “gay gene” debate because, as I understand it, it’s a very controversial question in scientific circles and I’m no geneticist, but bisexuality in Ancient Greece is certainly a fascinating topic. My hunch is that Freud’s Innate Bisexuality theory has some truth in it, although I got to confess I have yet to stumble upon my own supposedly latent bisexuality, so I’m still a bit skeptical on that front. Ultimately, there’s no scientific consensus as of yet, so I guess we’ll have to wait for more data to come in.

            And atonement and forgiveness are completely dependent on each specific theological sect (Catholics and Calvinists have very different views on that matter, for example). In the end, if you say “I’m sorry that I raped that little child,” and sincerely believe, all will be forgiven. Good thing we don’t use that method as the basis for our judicial system.

          • dbtheonly

            Sorry to be so late responding.

            The New Testament book of Philemon states categorically that a Christian should not own another Christian. You may well respond that it really doesn’t cover ALL people at that rate & I’ll agree but point out that 21st Century views of slavery are not attributable to those of the 1st Century and 1st Century slavery was neither as brutal nor as immutable as the race slavery of the more modern era.

            “In the end, if you say “I’m sorry that I raped that little child,” and sincerely believe, all will be forgiven. Good thing we don’t use that method as the basis for our judicial system.”

            Now we’re into the question of crime & punishment. Why and how do we punish? I’ll argue that the point of all punishment is to get the Perpetrator to that point of true repentance. Assume an all-knowing God who, dependably, will visit vengeance on those feigning repentance. I doubt any other punishment system could do as well.

          • David L.

            No prob, db,

            of course we see History through the lens of our time. Slavery was an extended and common practice then, justified by the social superstructure and by sacred texts like the Pentateuch.

            The thing about Philemon is the same as in rule number 76 in Bob’s list: the members of the religious group are “protected” from being slaves because, as God’s Chosen People, they can only be slaves to God. Christians applied the same principle, when ironically, many of the first followers of Jeshua were Roman-owned slaves and assorted marginalized persons (before the ruling classes decided it was in to be a Christian). In any case, it does seem striking that in a text that purports to be the infallible, supreme code of conduct and Law as dictated by God, neither rape nor slavery — which are such a huge offense against our modern sensibilities (and rightly so) — are deemed immoral. In fact, both are routinely condoned. So that is a huge blow to the Holy Bible’s credibility as a source for our present morality, even if 27 of the books in it (40%) have traces of humanist and collectivist (apart from nationalistic and revolutionary) thought, jumbled with pretty unremarakable oriental philosophy and symbology. Now that I think of it, Revelations doesn’t count as an example of moral law but rather consists in the psychedelic ramblings of an imaginative early psychonaut. So make that 26 books. And somehow, basically almost all Christian sects derived from the Roman Church have the New Testament coupled with the Old, so if God’s word is really True, all of these instances I’ve mentioned of immorality (or plain evil) in the Bible are every bit as sacred as the NT. Literally so.

            And lastly, the problem with “true repentance” is that it can never be sincere in the face of blackmail. You either repent or go to Hell. Not much wiggle room for free will here: you’re compelled to repent by external forces, and atonement has always been about self-punishment (from fasting to flagellating). But why take those repenters at face value if you know that their sole reason for action is the fear of vengeance from the All-Knower?

            Hope you had a nice weekend!

          • dbtheonly

            Thanks David, Busy weekend.

            I see your point on Philemon; but the “point” of Christianity is to spread the Word & bring all to Christ; making everyone the protected class.

            I’d always assumed rape was condemned under the strictures against doing violence. Not mentioned? I’ll crack out Cruden’s Concordance.

            I don’t see the true repentance as much as blackmail but rather an infallible lie detector. The whole field seems an exercise in bringing amorphous concepts to the physical world.

          • Best_Reviews

            That is heavily disputed that Onesimus was Philemon’s runaway slave and not his estranged blood brother.

          • Best_Reviews

            Why not 25-38? i think i would be more upset to learn that my spouse sacrificed our kids to Molek the Beheader, than about sex during menstruation. Can always take a shower and wash the sheets after the later, but if Junior got sacrificed … no refund policy will help.

      • Peter O’Leary

        Checked your clothes lately? Not mixing abny fabrics are we. Not plannng on ever buying or selling any land? have you always and without fail stood in the presence of the elderly?
        You can’t cherry pick the list which is exactly what the fundamentalists do. It is all or nothing.

    • Aaron Litz

      That Moloch, he’s a tricky bastard.

  • http://dadorq.tumblr.com/ Da Dorq

    Yeah, all those verses are cool and all, but what does the Bible say? Well, they can’t be expected to follow ALL the commandments so God gave them the ability to mix and match what commands they’ll obey, kind of like Garanimals for God.

  • D_C_Wilson

    In addition to fancying himself a libertarian, a position that’s all about preserving and exercising unfettered individual liberty,

    Yes, he’s a libertarian who is in favor of Old Testament-style authoritarianism. Just once, I want one of these assholes to admit that what they really support is zero taxes (for them) and the unfettered right to be bigot.

    • xServer

      Perfectly said.