SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The evening after the massacre at Orlando's Pulse nightclub, a California pastor took the opportunity to preach that "God said: When you find a sodomite, put them to death.'" A video of the sermon was uploaded by the church, then deleted "for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech." A copy of the video uploaded by someone else, describing the sermon as "despicable," was allowed to remain.
coverage:
- Sacramento Bee
- CBS (about sermon)
- New York Daily News
- Washington Post
further information:
Facebook page for Verity Baptist Church
(archived copy)
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
No self-made man ever did such a good job that some woman didn't
want to make some alterations.
-- Kim Hubbard
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Wednesday June 15 2016, @10:04AM
Here is another perfect example of someone in a position of power using their imaginary "god" to try and push their own views. Yep just, use you imaginary sky fairy to pull any arbitrary rule you want out of your arse. And the drooling morons out there will happily believe this idiot.
Well, I've got a message for this blathering retard: Anyone who teaches children to ignore the scientific realities of the universe in favor of religious make-believe is the equivalent of a mental child molester and should be locked up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:01PM
As opposed to a company using their position of power to play-up a marketing coup.
And the drooling morons out there will happily believe this is about "hate speech".
(Score: 5, Informative) by SomeGuy on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:48PM
Yes, yes. Or as opposed to major media companies twisting facts to further their political agendas and rake in advertising dollars.
But unfortunately companies, and media are quite real. It is possible to perform scientific experiments on them to prove they exist.
On a side note, you may notice that the media is taking every opportunity to label the shooter as an Islamic terrorist. While pedantically he succeeded at becoming a terrorist and made statements about Islamic stuff, it seems he was not related to any such organization and there is a good chance that was all just an excuse for cover his own instabilities and inadequacies. Of course, even that is just based on the spoon-fed media information. But the agenda here is that we must increase spending on security and surveillance while ignoring mental health and social programs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:17PM
In a way, the shooter has been an absolute gift.
EVERYBODY can hang their personal agenda on the corpses. From the right's fearmongering about terrorism to everything from homophobia to gun control.
I'm in frequent contact with some Nation of Islam members, and even they were spinning this as a false flag so that blacks could be persecuted even more. Amazing!
And of course if you worship an Abrahamic god, you are no doubt in some way responsible.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:25PM
and there is a good chance that was all just an excuse for cover his own instabilities and inadequacies
None of that matters in the ongoing propaganda war.
For example if a white cop shoots a black suspect, stuff automatically hits the fan racially. Private life or special situations don't matter, in the bigger propaganda war its just another white cop shooting another black kid.
I mean it matters in a certain abstract sense why an individual did something, especially to the individuals involved.
But for 99% of the population its just an anecdote in the propaganda war and from that point of view all that matters is the demographics. For the zillionth time, attacker is Moslem, victim is gay, and there's endless hand wringing about how to not stand up to protect the inevitable future victims, if we pretend there's no problem maybe it won't happen again, etc.
In the progressive pecking order Moslems rank higher than gays, like it or not. Personally, if I had to have one, I'd rather have the gays, but to say I'm not progressive would be an understatement so that doesn't matter.
But, unfortunately, the problem will happen until its fixed, as is the case with most problems. Either Moslem extremism has to go, or the gays have to go, or we can watch bodies stack up. There is no 4th alternative. There are various debatable alternatives for "Moslem extremism has to go" or maybe even "the gays have to go". Its not binary of course, and we could get rid of both.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:35PM
"Position of power?" Does said pastor have the ability to order the police to shoot gays on sight, and have them obey that order? Or do you really mean, the pastor's a guy who can say words, and that equals "power?"
Me, when I hear about people like this I think that person is a terrible pastor because they've completely missed the central message of Christ, which is love, and the central responsibility of a Christian, which is to bear that love to the world. People who hearken to a message like the pastor's are also missing the central point of Christianity; they want to appropriate the power of Christ and use it as a club to beat on other people.
It's an equal mistake to tar all Christians with the same brush. While it's true that Christ has been used as a club, the people who did so would have used any convenient excuse to do so. If the narrative had been on the virtues of canteloupes, the same actions would have been undertaken in the name of canteloupes. Do you hold Stalin's crimes up as equal proof of the folly and abomination of atheism? If not, why not? Is it because you firmly believe in Non-God? Do you hold up China's failure as an atheist nation to positively intervene in the world, to feed the hungry and mediate between warring parties and give billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid to build infrastructure, educate, and ameliorate poverty in the 3rd world as evidence that atheism is no positive force in the world? If not, why not? Is it because you choose to believe in the evil of faith and the virtue of science's failure to disprove its theories (remember: in science there is no "proof", only "failure to disprove")?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:10PM
No, not as much power as some. You are thinking too direct. He doesn't have to "order" anyone to do anything. Perhaps there are some police officers in the group of people that he preaches this stuff to. Or friends/family of police officers. Some of them hear and believe what he said. These people then slowly spread this belief indirectly through their actions.
And then years down the road, some cop may pull his trigger way too soon because someone threating him also happened to be gay.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:17PM
Yeah, but how is that different from you or me? I say something strongly felt, clearly worded in my graduate seminar and sometime later that triggers somebody who was in the room to do something awful?
If speech is a crime, if thought is a crime, then let's cut our tongues out, suture our lips shut, chop off our hands, and lobotomize ourselves so can never again have such power to influence others.
I abhor racism. I despise hate speech. The mindset that begets them is timid, curdled in sloth, and a pure projection of total self-hatred. But it is far more dangerous and damaging to censor it outright. The proper response, the only response, is to answer with vigor and the bright heat of reasoned scorn.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday June 16 2016, @02:45AM
I abhor racism. I despise hate speech. The mindset that begets them is timid, curdled in sloth, and a pure projection of total self-hatred. But it is far more dangerous and damaging to censor it outright. The proper response, the only response, is to answer with vigor and the bright heat of reasoned scorn.
But if they want to engage in the hate speech in my living room one proper response is for me to deny them access. And if they want to engage in the hate speech in a seminar I'm putting on one proper response is for me to not sign them up with the other speakers I am engaging. I have that right because they don't have the right to engage in their speech at my expense. Freedom of speech is grounded in freedom of the press. Today a "press" is very very affordable indeed and any bigot who wants to can obtain a cheap "press" and engage in whatever speech they desire. Certainly some people want to have a free for all uncensored discussion, but other people want to be left alone according to whatever standards they choose even if others don't feel those standards are consistent or advisable.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday June 15 2016, @03:16PM
Do you hold up China's failure as an atheist nation to positively intervene in the world, to feed the hungry and mediate between warring parties and give billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid to build infrastructure, educate, and ameliorate poverty in the 3rd world
This is just dumb. China *is* 3rd-world, and has been for a long time. 30 years ago they were a backwater mostly, and not a manufacturing powerhouse. Their country was full of abject poverty. Now they have a huge and growing middle class. They've done a lot in ameliorating poverty in their own country and building an enormous amount of infrastructure there.
I thought (Protestant at least) Christians were all about self-help.... China has done a pretty remarkable job of helping itself out of being a poverty-stricken 3rd-world backwater in a fairly short time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:22PM
No, China is not a 3rd world country. Technically it was 2nd world [wikipedia.org], aka "Socialist." Today they have the second largest GDP in the world. You don't think they could afford to help others in the actual 3rd world if they wanted to? Countries like Germany and Japan do, and their economies are smaller than China's.
Everyone helps themselves. The merest tribe in the Amazonian rainforest will help its own. But Christians have always emphasized helping others (whether they always do that or not is a different question entirely). China helps no one but itself.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 15 2016, @04:31PM
I'm so tired of this "yeah butbutbut atheists did evil shit too!" meme. Pisses me off and I'm not even an atheist. Atheism is not a belief; it's a lack of one. MOST atheists, from what I've seen, are also some form of humanist, though I've run into plenty of Randroids and even a few complete nihilists among them.
People like Stalin, if you ask me, actually had secular religions (cults of personality). Remember Stalin had seminary training; this is why his speeches sounded a bit religious. What Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and any religious demagogue all have in common is that they knew how to energize and work a crowd, to put them into a suggestive state and rewrite some of their social programming.
And the key point here is that these people did not do what they did in the name of atheism; indeed, they had an almost religious belief in ways history "must" play out (see dialectic materialism, etc). Whereas our shooter here very obviously did what he did in the name of Islam; specifically, what Islam says about gay people, which seems to have included him.
Do you see the difference? Atheism was a tool in the kit of people like Stalin, at most; religion is the central thesis in how Omar Mateen and his Christian counterparts acted.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:14PM
Please note that I'm not bashing atheists or atheism. But if a person is going to tar every member of a religion because of the actions of some members of a religion, then isn't it fair to do that for atheism, too?
I agree with your characterization of Stalin, Mao, and other despots who were atheists. But that's parsing atheism and saying, well, but those guys were the bad atheists; all atheists are not bad. To me that sounds like saying, well, but those muslims/christians/jews were bad muslims/christians/jews, but they don't speak for all the rest. If it's fair to draw that distinction for atheism, then why is it not fair to do the same for people who believe in a god of some kind?
I believe that you're right, that atheism was a tool in the kit of people like Stalin, but that same is true of people who use religion (pick your flavor) as a tool in their kit to beat up on others, which is what I'm saying. People who mean to do evil to others will use anything to help them do it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @06:46PM
But that's parsing atheism and saying, well, but those guys were the bad atheists; all atheists are not bad.
No, it's saying that all those countries didn't commit those horrible acts in the name of atheism. There just isn't much there, because it's simply the absence of a particular belief. On the other hand, religions make countless claims and it's easy to control people by saying they should do X, Y, and Z in the name of the religion, all while backing it up with selective quotes from some supposed holy book.
Of course not all atheists are bad. Not all Christians, Muslims, etc. are bad either. Pretty much everyone realizes this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 15 2016, @07:08PM
AC below you nailed it. There is nothing in atheism, qua atheism, that leads someone to do this kind of thing. Whereas there is a hell of a lot in Islam and Christianity that leads its followers to do everything from casual discrimination to genocide.
It's not like the-conspicuous-lack-of-God is ordering atheists to kill people for not being atheists. But Yahweh cultists have invented some very creative and drawn-out forms of torturous death for people who don't believe in Yahweh, or who do things the scripture supposedly Yahweh-breathed says deserve death, cf. Leviticus 20:13 I believe.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @10:15PM
Well, how do you define atheism? I've seen it expressed in many different flavors. Some interpret it as humanism, others as a straightforward, "I don't believe in god." Others reject the judeo-christian values that Western civilization is built on. Other varieties of atheists called communists have definitely killed people of faith for having faith. Nietzsche was a prominent atheist philosopher whose ideas exercised a strong influence upon the Nazis, who definitely killed lots of people of faith.
Ahh, but *that* atheism is the bad atheism. *My* atheism is the good atheism, right? Yes, exactly.
There are passages in the Old Testament of the Bible, the Koran, and other holy books that are disturbing. The New Testament and Christians rather focus on the teachings of Christ therein. Christ never preached torture and death for people who didn't believe in him. I don't have a definitive list at hand, but in my experience most Christians who use Christ as a club typically reference passages in the Old Testament, which contains nothing about Christ. The Yahweh cultists are responsible for that part of the Bible, so perhaps questions about what they're about are better directed to them. Christ himself preached a message of love and inclusion.
What values does atheism preach? Does it extol the virtue of clipping coupons before going to the market? Does it condemn killing others unless you're sure you can get away with it? Or does it pick and choose the positive set within judeo-christian values inherited in Western civilization and recommend you live your life according to those? Or does it have no value system at all, because that would be too religion-like? If you're assembling the set of moral principles for yourself that feel right to you, then congratulations you're doing exactly what the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and every other person of faith I've ever known also do. Occasionally you get the poindexters who try to live by the literal word of those faiths, and mostly everyone else avoids them as inflexible, insufferable dicks.
Personally, I'm a Christian and believe in God because my set of life experiences has proven to me that there is a higher power at work. For most of my life I did not believe that. As a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, I can still certainly understand the atheist perspective. I can understand it as a rejection of god, and also as a "I simply don't care" variety, too. Everybody's on their own journey through existence. Be happy, and please be kind to everyone else along the way.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:33AM
Your experiences show a higher power. So do mine. The difference is, I know enough of comparative religion, church history, apologetics, COUNTER-apologetics, and theology to know that that higher power is not the Abrahamic God.
The criteria for being God held by the Abrahamic religions are internally contradictory ANYWAY, not to mention contradictory to observable reality, and even if they weren't, the very collection of books that are our ONLY record of Yahweh, the Abrahamic God, explicitly disconfirms that he has those properties necessary to BE God. I really think you've fallen victim to sloppy thinking here, not least because the entire central thesis of Christianity is insane. If this Yahweh fellow exists, he's some kind of evil spirit, demon, maybe even an evil alien, but definitely not God.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:02PM
There's no need to be insulting. You have particular issues with the judeo-christian god. OK, that's fine by me. The passages in the Bible that appall you appall me too, most likely.
For example, I find it particularly ironic that a people who practiced widespread genocide against those who occupied Judea before them should complain so loudly when the same sort of widespread genocide was practiced on them, especially when since they have regained that general swath of territory they have reverted to type and have resume genocide against others.
But there is an ethos to Christianity that appeals to me. It makes provision for those who are not Christian, even those who are not Christian and don't want to be Christian. I can't really name any other faith or philosophy that makes provision for people outside the fold. If you're a Jew, you'll go to the mat for a fellow Jew, but god forbid you should be a gentile. Likewise Islam. If you're a muslim, you're bound seven ways to Sunday to provide for them; everyone else, put to the sword. Atheists, it's kind of every man for himself.
The difference is that belief systems that limit their esteem and charity to those within the belief system beget tribes, but those that extend those to everyone regardless of religion or tribe, beget civilization and progress.
If you're an atheist enjoying a life of atheism in a Western society, then it is exactly because you are embedded within a larger Christian ethos that enables such things. You would have scant luck trying the same in Saudi Arabia or Israel. There, you would be dead, in prison, or if you're really lucky, you'd have rocks thrown at you.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:12PM
Of course you believe your God is going to throw everyone who doesn't kiss his ineffable ass into Hell where they'll scream and broil and writhe and roast and weep and crackle and sizzle for alllllllll eternity, and you're fine with that, aren't'cha?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 16 2016, @08:01PM
Me? No, not at all. If you want to project that kind of sectarian hatred onto me, go ahead. But that's all about you and your resentments and has nothing to do with me at all.
In real life my set of friends includes atheists, jews, muslims, buddhists, druse, hindus, and even a zoroastrian. I have no problem with that. In fact i relish their insights into worldviews radically different from what i grew up with.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 16 2016, @08:16PM
I'm litmus-testing you, spaz. So, you don't believe in your religion's vision of Hell; good, because most of the early church fathers didn't either, and I'd argue the inability of Latin to well and truly convey the difference between the concepts Koine Greek glosses with kolasis, timoria, aionios, and aidios was behind a lot of that.
That said, how do you justify going against the grain on such a fundamental matter of doctrine for your religion? Understand that if you are wrong, your religion says YOU will go to Hell, and there is no escape and no mercy.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:03PM
Atheism is not a belief; it's a lack of one.
Wouldn't that be agnostic? An atheist claims there is no god. This statement cannot be proven, for the simple fact that "god" is not well defined. As soon as you prove something doesn't exist, believers can amend their definition of "god" in order to keep it possible.
Since the statement can't be proven, atheists *believe* that there is no god, while agnostics would not claim any knowledge on that topic and therefore do not believe in any god.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:30PM
Sooooort of. I usually express this as a dual-axis statement: atheism/theism on the X axis as a belief claim, and gnosticism/agnosticism on the Y axis as a knowledge claim. So that gives us gnostic and agnostic theists, and gnostic and agnostic atheists. Most atheists are agnostic atheists; I suspect there are very few who are epistemilogically arrogant enough to claim perfect knowledge that there is nothing, anywhere, in any way shape or form that matches any definition of God, though it is perfectly reasonable to express gnostic atheism about *specific* God-concepts.
I would technically be an agnostic theist, though this is only because deism, pantheism, panpsychism, etc. all get lumped into the "theist" half of the coordinate plane here.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:07PM
I was with you right up till "but but but Stalin!"
Staling being an asshole an an atheist does not make your god right or likely to exist.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:35PM
Well there is no atheist equivalent to the Pope. Stalin, being a charismatic figure pushing an ideology that espouses, among other things, atheism, was a handy, somewhat suitable analog.
If it's fair to pan all Christians because of what past Popes have done, as was done, then why is it not fair to pan all atheists for the misdeeds of others in the name of atheism? But if Stalin doesn't work for you as an example of that, then how about Mao and his Red Guards, who burned, blasted, and destroyed countless, priceless works of religious art?
But note that I am not arguing that Stalin (or some other prominent atheist you might prefer) was bad, that therefore atheism is bad. I'm not. I'm saying don't do that to Christians/Muslims/Jews/whatever, either.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Sunday June 19 2016, @12:02AM
Ahh, you are using it as an analogy. That makes sense.
But Stalin wasn't the "leader of atheism" where the pope is the leader of at least a large faction of Christianity, so that makes it kind of a false dichotomy.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh