He’s largely libertarian, except he likes stoning

A Republican candidate for state representative in Oklahoma is a piquant combination of libertarian and biblical fan of stoning people to death.

The GOP candidate responded to a post on Pope Francis saying “who am I to judge?” on homosexuality by posting numerous Old Testament quotations prescribing capital punishment for LGBT people.

Another commenter asked, “So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?”

“I think we would be totally in the right to do it,” Esk said. “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.”

Esk, who boasted of his “computer skills” and “good physical shape” to other Ron Paul supporters, said he became active in politics because he was tired of “collectivists stealing our freedoms constantly!!!”

“I believe that rights come from God – not from government – and that it should be limited, its taxes and spending should be low, its regulations few, and its protection of our liberties constant,” said Eck, who also calls for jury trials in divorce cases.

Well it’s the combination that so many are fond of, isn’t it – the combination of “taxation is theft!!1” and “gay is worthy of death!!1”. Total “liberty” for me and total punitive subjugation for everyone I don’t like. Money and sadism – what’s not to like?



  1. jimmyfromchicago says

    …said Eck, who also calls for jury trials in divorce cases.

    Wait, …What?!?!

  2. Blanche Quizno says

    Funny he says that “rights come from God”- there isn’t a single verse anywhere to be found in the Bible that states that human beings have any fundamental rights at all! The Bible is also, from cover to cover, pro-slavery.

    So where does he get off, thinking he has any sort of “rights” in the first place? According to the Bible, he doesn’t. AND he is supposed to obey the government, no matter what – this is a consistent theme throughout the Christian scriptures.

    Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.” (Romans 13:1-7).

    “Remind your people to obey the government and its officers, and always to be obedient and ready for any honest work.” (Titus 3:1)

    Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right” (1 Peter 1:13-14).

    “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way” (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

    “Honor everyone. Love your brothers and sisters in the faith. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Slaves, place yourselves under the authority of your owners and show them complete respect. Obey not only those owners who are good and kind, but also those who are unfair.” (1 Peter 2:17-18)

    “An evil man seeketh only rebellion:” (Proverbs 17:11)

    I don’t know where this Eck guy gets off, but he’s clearly disobeying God – HIS God – here.

    How can he support a passage from the Bible that advocates punishment for others, but ignore the passages that likewise advocate punishment for what he himself is doing right here and now?? Oh, that’s right – he’s a Christian. They’re just like that. They’ll tell you the Jewish scripture laws are still in force, even as they say Jesus exempted them from having to follow any of those. What a bunch of self-righteous blowhards.

  3. resident_alien says

    @) jimmyfromchicago :Of course you need jury trials for divorces! I mean, what if the wife just wants to divorce her owner, uh, I meant husband for no reason at all? He is deprived of his inalienable right to an available female body! What about the meeeenz?

  4. katkinkate says

    He’s not libertarian, he’s authoritarian. He’s the authority and everyone else has to follow his rule.

  5. Blanche Quizno says

    I’m sure it’s a great gig if you can guarantee that YOU’re the one in charge. Otherwise, not so much….

  6. Al Dente says

    Esk wants the libertarian ideals (the ebil gummint to leave him alone, low or no taxes, nobody telling him what to do, etc.) to apply to him. However he wants to dictate how other people should behave, especially if he finds certain behaviors to be offensive. “It’s good to be the king!”

  7. Ed says

    So we’re allowed to stone him if he’s ever taken the Lord’s name in vain or disrespected his parents?

    It’s also funny as well as scary what a contradictory mish-mash his worldview is. God as the source of rights is based on the Enlightenment era concept of God. Do whatever the Bible says is not.

    I realize many Enlightenment figures hypocriticlly retained their favorite currently acceptble barbaric ideas and practices, but they didn’t go out of their way to revive ones that had died out.

  8. Omar Puhleez says

    ‘”I believe that rights come from God – not from government – and that it should be limited, its taxes and spending should be low, its regulations few, and its protection of our liberties constant,’ said Eck, who also calls for jury trials in divorce cases.”

    As a Bible-thumping fundamentalist, I have a few problems with Eck’s slack, non-scriptural attitude here. Apparently, anything goes with this man. In the biblical Holy Land, there was no such thing as ‘liberties’, nor obligation of the Roman or Judaean state to ‘constantly’ protect them. He should remember that Christ said “render unto Caesar… [etc]”

    And jury trials in divorce cases!!! There weren’t no juries neither!. Christ himself never faced a jury trial. He got dragged up in front of the Governor, and never at any stage offered a procedural objection: “Sorry, Pontius, but I don’t recognise your authority. I think that this court should have an impartial judge and a jury of twelve good men and true.”

    Didn’t happen. And divorce! The Bible is down on that like a ton of bricks; OT and NT. And rightly so! Eck should blow the dust off his copy (if he can find it) and study it a bit more. “Bible Verses About Divorce: Divorce is mentioned several times in the Old and New Testament, as God hates divorce, and there are very few exceptions where divorce is allowed in Scripture.”


  9. aziraphale says

    As I recall, Ayn Rand (surely the prototype libertarian) was strongly against the death penalty for any crime except murder.

  10. Lonely Panda, e.s.l. says


    …said Eck, who also calls for jury trials in divorce cases.

    Wait, …What?!?!

    Not only a jury trial, but a jury of divorcees so we can decide if it’s legitimate divorce. From Esk’s website:

    I’m also for jury divorce trials, so that those who have felt the pain of divorce can judge as to the legitimacy of a divorce request, and terms of divorce. It’s time we got back to having compassion for the most egregiously mistreated victims of divorce, the children of the marriage, who often are coached to have little regard for the parent that does not have custody of them.

    He mentions the children being victims of divorce, but he seems to see himself as victimized as well. Also from his website:

    Frivolous divorce raised its ugly head in the Esk home, and I am still trying to reconcile with Pam, considering that to be our only option from my understanding of the Bible on marriage and divorce. From my experience with the ‘family’ courts, I am dedicated to saving Oklahoma children from the chaos and misery of frivolous divorce, and am wholeheartedly against no-fault divorce.

    I live in Oklahoma only a few districts away from Mr. Esk and am embarrassed almost every time Oklahoma politics appears in the national news. I was somewhat consoled to see that Mr. Esk placed a very distant third in the election last June 24th (he was running in a Republican primary race). Amazingly it’s still possible to be too conservative in this very conservative state.

  11. Al Dente says

    Lonely Panda, e.s.l. @10

    Apparently Esk didn’t want to be divorced and/or wanted custody of the kids but the judge ruled in his ex-wife’s favor. So if he could have another trial with the rules changed more in his favor then he might still be married or the kids might still be his property.

  12. Ed says

    Just reading a few lines of his philosophy, I understand very well why his wife wanted out! I suppose he had total respect for her absolute libertarian freedom except when he decided that God had granted him an exception (probably several times a day).

    Similarly, I scrupulously obey laws against drunk driving and speeding except in cases like say I’m over the limit and realize that my favorite TV show is about to come on. The bartender unreasonably won’t put it on the bar’s TV and I figure God wouldn’t want me to miss it. Silly cops and judges don’t understand . [Actually I always wait an hour for every drink except the first one before driving because I lack the luxury of narcissistic supernatural justifications]

  13. Lonely Panda, e.s.l. says

    Well, his wife had the freedom to not sign the marriage contract. More from Esk:

    In business contracts, both parties are held to their part of the contract unless they mutually agree to scrap it. Why are we allowing for the treachery of the whim in marriages, which are much more important unions than business partnerships? I also don’t buy into the notion that it’s unfair to make somebody stay in a marriage he’s unhappy with. Making it exceedingly difficult to end a marriage just because, is a great way to show how important the vows that the couple took at the outset were

    So you see, divorce is the government needlessly interfering in a private contract, allowing one party to unfairly escape their obligations for services due the other party.

    Personally, I am happier that I have a spouse that stays with me out of choice rather than obligation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *