Perkins, Huckabee Display Boycott Hypocrisy »« Schlichter: Democrats Will Go Full Atheist Soon

Barber’s Site Features Christian Reconstructionist

Is there any limit to how extreme Matt Barber’s new site BarbWire can get? Apparently not. They’ve got a genuine Christian Reconstructionist, Lee Duigon, writing for them now. And he thinks Christians who aren’t anti-gay enough — and to a Reconstructionist, I assume that means Christians who don’t think they should be stoned to death — are “servants of Satan.”

Actually, there are a number of key moral issues in which God’s Word is clear and unambiguous–such as murder, adultery, homosexual acting-out, denial of Christ, and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, to name a few. There is no verse in the Bible that endorses, justifies, defends, or promotes any of these behaviors. It’s not a matter of my opinion or interpretation. God has condemned these behaviors, and no two ways about it.

Being a servant of Satan involves more than just sinning. After all, we are all sinners; otherwise, we wouldn’t need a Savior. It’s like the difference between an ordinary homosexual, a sinner like the rest of us, and a flatline Protestant minister who performs same-sex parodies of marriage in his church. The latter is a servant of Satan. And in this day and age, we’ve raised up a bumper crop of them.

I don’t see why that should be hard to understand, except to those who don’t want to understand–maybe because a lot of their heroes are servants of Satan. Margaret Sanger, Richard Dawkins, Alfred Kinsey, the current occupier of the White House, Mikey Weinstein – we could spend a whole day listing them.

I’m starting to get irritated that my friend Mikey Weinstein gets all the good insults. I mean, come on, I deserve to be called a servant of Satan too. Of course, that means fascists like Duigon would like to kill me with big rocks. But if I’m living my life in such a way as to piss off Christian Reconstructionists, I know I’m doing something right.

Comments

  1. Kevin Kehres says

    I am again reminded how much I miss Carl Sagan as I go to hunt for “A Demon Haunted World” as an antidote to this unhinged nonsense.

  2. says

    If alternate universes exist there is no doubt one where the Reconstructionist creeps conquered the US some time ago. I imagine the death toll under their rule is probably approaching the tens of millions by this point. What would be really interesting to see would be which of the Reconstructionists themselves have been executed for believing or doing the wrong things.

  3. brucegee1962 says

    Jesus explicitly said that divorced people who remarry are guilty of adultery. He never said anything about homosexuality, but he did highlight that remarriage=adultery in his biggest speech. I really want to ask these people why they don’t start pushing anti-remarriage bills as their highest priority, and get around to anti-gay bills once they succeed there. We’ll wait right here while they work on that, ok? Take your time.

  4. rabbitscribe says

    “… murder, adultery, homosexual acting-out, denial of Christ, and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost…”

    The proscription against murder is incredibly ambiguous: it’s clear we shouldn’t kill someone, except under the innumerable circumstances when we are commanded to, such our kids when they’re being brats. Adultery is similar: we are clearly and universally forbidden from doing the nasty with other people’s spouses. But to be sure, Nathan told David that David’s bazillion wives and concubines were a blessing from God. The proscription against “denial of Christ” is not sufficiently clear to have been adopted by Rabbis, who have some passing acquaintance with scripture. “Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost” is mentioned exactly once, and no one can agree on what it even means. It’s one of the most contentious verses in the Bible because it refers to sins being forgiven on Earth but also in Heaven- see “Purgatory.”

    Yes, there are a handful of passages that forbid “homosexual acting-out.” Only one addresses lesbianism; the remainder specifically address men. Joshua, son of Joseph, is silent on the matter. Everything the Bible has to say on the matter could be read out loud in maybe thirty seconds. Care to try that trick with passages about ignoring the needs of the poor, or even worsening their plight? Hell, if we’re judging by sheer volume, God’s conservatively twenty times more pissed over gluttony than buttsex. Gravy on your stuffing, Pastor?

  5. coffeehound says

    There is no verse in the Bible that endorses, justifies, defends, or promotes any of these behaviors

    Murder, are you kidding me? Swaths of verses exist justifying and promoting murder on a scale unimagineable to most of us…..but it’s the good kind of murder, so that’s o.k.

  6. Michael Heath says

    Larry writes:

    Servants of Satan

    A great name for a outlaw MC club if I ever heard one.

    Well I’d prefer Pirates with Satan. No servant bullshit for me.

  7. Michael Heath says

    Seth, thanks for the link. That’s the first time I ever heard anything out of Peter LaBarbera’s mouth with which I agreed. Namely:

    “The idea that you can’t have an open debate on homosexuality on a college campus and some speech code is brought in, to kick people off … seems to me to be pretty undemocratic,” LaBarbera said.

  8. Michael Heath says

    Lee Duigon states:

    I don’t see why that should be hard to understand, except to those who don’t want to understand–maybe because a lot of their heroes are servants of Satan. Margaret Sanger, Richard Dawkins, Alfred Kinsey, the current occupier of the White House, Mikey Weinstein – we could spend a whole day listing them.[Heath bolded text]

    I continue my bemusement at modern day bigots and racists. I.e., conservative Christian racists and bigots who pose as if they aren’t bigots and racists, many of whom deny their behavior even to themselves.

    The current crew is an enormous improvement over past bigots given our increasingly liberal enlightened and non-Christian culture. We increasingly keep them reigned in far more now than in the past and even influence them on the limits to which they go. Today’s ilk couldn’t imagine participating at a lynching or torturing a gay person, but the religion-fueled ignorance, fear, and hatred that spurs all this behavior? It’s still there, it’s just checked better than ever.

  9. rabbitscribe says

    #4 Bruce: “Jesus explicitly said that divorced people who remarry are guilty of adultery.”

    Funny you should bring that up in the context of Biblical ambiguity:

    “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9; NASB)

    Well, thanks for making that abundantly clear, Big J! We’ll just leave it to the discretion of the husband to determine if any thought, word, or deed on the part of his wife justifies divorce on the grounds of “immorality.” What could be fairer than that? And of course there’s the non-trivial issue of unpacking the previous verse,

    “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

    Wait, what? Sometimes people are such bastards that God’s painted into a corner and has to make concessions, so we can’t trust Mosaic Law to reveal real morality? And then Joshua, son of Joseph, strolls along and says, “That Law, revealed from on high, that says nothing trumps it? Well, my word trumps it.” Yeah, clear as a pristine mountain stream and steady as a rock, the Bible. No ambiguity there…

  10. skinnercitycyclist says

    If alternate universes exist there is no doubt one where the Reconstructionist creeps conquered the US some time ago.

    It’s the alternate universe where Spock has a beard…

  11. says

    If I was a dishonest chiropractor I would get a pair (or more) of shills and place them as far apart as possible in the front row of whatever church, hall or arena one of these asshole is appearing in and, once they make an idiotic comment like this dipshit is making, do the ambiguity tango. The subsequent whipping of their squashes would cause a fair number of the CBTB*’s to experience a mild but incurable case of whiplash.

    I’d be handing out my card at the door, offering a huge discount from the unquoted price.

    Did I mention that my card would have a little fish in each of the uppwe corner? The one in the left upper corner would be upside down with a little “x” for an eye and it’s tongue hanging our of its mouth and a forked tail. The one in the other corner would be right side up with great big, expressive puppy eyes a nice smile and a cross for a tail. Nice subliminal messages, those

    Oh, yeah; and a motto:

    “Curing, in HIS name, since 19XX”

    @Michael Heath:

    “Well I’d prefer Pirates with Satan. No servant bullshit for me.”

    There’s a book; “God Is My Co-Pilot; Satan’s My Bitch”–coming out soon under the new Chick Tracts division of Regnery Publishing.

    “It’s the alternate universe where Spock has a beard…”

    …and gets positively verklempt when Jim Kirk or “Bones” McCoy goes off on him.

    * Credulous Boob Troo Bleevers

  12. David C Brayton says

    In one odd respect, I like the Reconstructionists because they actually read the Bible and take its commandments at face value and to their logical conclusions.

    One thing I learned in college is that your philosophical assumptions are very important. If you don’t like the result, you need to reevaluate your assumptions.

    Unfortunately, Duigan either likes the result or is unwilling to reevaluate his assumption that the Bible is the literal word of a God that is a psychotic mass murderer. Could be a bit of both.

  13. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Is there any limit to how extreme Matt Barber’s new site BarbWire can get?

    (In other entirely related questions..)

    Hey, how deep is a bottomless hole?

    ..he thinks Christians who aren’t anti-gay enough — and to a Reconstructionist, I assume that means Christians who don’t think they should be stoned to death — are “servants of Satan.”

    N’ hey who would Jesus* stone? He had his chance and y’all remember what he, umm, didn’t do? Christians?Anyone?

    * Not the Puerto Rican one and not the nice kind o’gettin’ stoned.

  14. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @1.Kevin Kehres

    I am again reminded how much I miss Carl Sagan as I go to hunt for “A Demon Haunted World” as an antidote to this unhinged nonsense.

    Fuck yeah. The world could do with a metric square fucktonne more Carl Sagan’s and a lot fewer homophobic ideology blinded bigots. A-fucken-men.

    If ever there was someone we should have cloned umpteen zillion tyimes it woulda been the Carl Sagan.

    (If y’know cloning actually made actual copies of the original person which, nah, but anyhow.)

  15. D. C. Sessions says

    “The idea that you can’t have an open debate on homosexuality on a college campus and some speech code is brought in, to kick people off … seems to me to be pretty undemocratic,” LaBarbera said.

    He forgot that he wasn’t in a First Amendment Zone.

  16. Synfandel says

    Michael Heath @12 wrote:

    Seth, thanks for the link. That’s the first time I ever heard anything out of Peter LaBarbera’s mouth with which I agreed. Namely:

    “The idea that you can’t have an open debate on homosexuality on a college campus and some speech code is brought in, to kick people off … seems to me to be pretty undemocratic,” LaBarbera said.

    Yes, it is undemocratic, because it’s a university, not a democracy. Mr. LaBarbera was a trespasser with no legitimate business on campus. He was not attending an organized debate. He was contravening the university’s code of behaviour, established for the safety and comfort of the university’s students, faculty, and employees. He refused to leave when asked. He was arrested and removed. Now that he has shown that he can’t behave himself, he likely won’t be allowed back on campus if and when a proper debate is organized.

  17. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    Michael Heath:

    Seth, thanks for the link. That’s the first time I ever heard anything out of Peter LaBarbera’s mouth with which I agreed. Namely:

    “The idea that you can’t have an open debate on homosexuality on a college campus and some speech code is brought in, to kick people off … seems to me to be pretty undemocratic,” LaBarbera said.

    What he really means is “If gays have free speech on campus, then surely I should. Of course, I’d prefer that gays NOT have free speech, while I STILL should…”

  18. corwyn says

    After all, we are all sinners; otherwise, we wouldn’t need a Savior.

    I love this logic. If there was a single person, in all of time, that wasn’t a sinner, then Yahweh wouldn’t have sent himself to ‘save’ the rest of us? Only *universal* sinning is worth bothering to redeem?

  19. chrisdevries says

    Synfandel is right – the university has to follow its own rules and dipshit there was violating them and refusing to leave when asked.

    On the larger point, here in Canada we have (very slightly) less reverence for freeze peach and no First Amendment equivalent. Willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group is a crime in the Criminal Code of Canada, but there are both truth defenses (if the statement is true) and religious defenses (if the statement was made in accordance with a religious belief or belief in a religious text). Promoting genocide, even in the absence of an immediate incitement to violence however, is banned regardless of the reasons. So LaBarbera was not in contravention of Canadian law.

    HOWEVER, he WAS in contravention of a Saskatchewan law which bans speech “likely to expose” an identifiable group to hatred. The constitutionality of this law was upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as a year ago and it is similar to other laws in the Western provinces. He has not been charged with this crime (yet) but he clearly committed it.

    I used to think the American way was better – the whole point of free speech is that it is either free for everyone, even those who say things we disagree with, or at risk when *we* say something other people disagree with (because we have shut down the free speech of others and thus nobody is really safe from being censored). But I have, perhaps, gained some insight over the last few years, and now think that laws that bar people from willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group (without any religious exemption) on anything but private property owned by the hatred-promoters or individuals who invited them to promote hatred on their own property are a good way to protect free speech while preventing the widespread dissemination of hate.

Leave a Reply