Popescu is running for some political office (the article doesn’t say what), and he recently gave a talk at a high school where he frankly stated his views.
“A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed,” he said. “My whole reason for running is the Bible and the Bible couldn’t be more clear on that point.”
I get the impression that this guy doesn’t have a chance of winning his election, but still — it’s likely that saying homosexuals are evil will cost you fewer votes than saying you don’t believe in any gods, at least in this country. That always seemed backwards, to me.
this makes me ill
He has been found guitly of beating his elderly mother in the past, he’s a real sweetheart snd fine fine example of christian love.
How Christian of him
Does that mean that we can stone him if he has ever eaten lobser, shrimp, clams, or oysters?
Please?
I know I’m making an assumption, but it seems to me that this sort of thing is much more rare in Canada than it is here in the US. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Yes, Popescu never polls more than a fraction of 1 per cent. He just uses elections as a soap box for his extreme views, which are (needless to say) derived from the bible.
Actually, it does – it says he’s running as ‘an independent federal candidate’ – that is, he’s running for Parliament in the Canadian federal election.
I actually thought that was sarcasm… I’m kinda shocked someone would say that in public… frightening
Unfortunately, we have our fair share of religious kooks up here, too.
I actually have family from Sudbury. There’s a very large Eastern European community there, and, consequently, there *used to* be a very large orthodox community. From what I hear, there is a growing a number of crazy-ass fundamentalist churches now. Maybe it’s the cold climate and the isolation. Might also explain Alaska.
I’ll never understand why some people place such importance on what consenting adults do behind closed doors (okay, not always, but you get what I mean), and want to kill them for it. I mean, what the hell? Even at my most Young Republican phase I never paid it any mind. Worry about your own genitalia, and leave everyone else’s out of it. Unless, of course, you’re, y’know, arranging something, y’know…
I have no problem with this…as long as he promotes this as valid too:
(This is C&P from a letter someone sent to Dr. Laura. My apologies to the unknown author)
“A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed,” – David Popescu
But should they be allowed to get married first? Why can’t politicians ever answer the question?
Nick Gotts
Married: Executed…
Tomayto: Tomahto…
Unfortunately, they’re investigating this guy for a “hate crime” according to the article. I’m with Hitchens on this one, it’s not worth curtailing first amendment rights to put this douchebag in his place.
As a former resident of Sudbury, I was very pleased by the comments posted after the article. Made me appreciate that most Northerners are pretty accepting and laid-back.
Heck, when it’s -40º you don’t let ANYBODY stay outside!
Oh duh, it’s Canada, nevermind :P
Why can’t politicians give clear and concise answers to the specific question asked?
As a Canadian, I’m doubly embarrassed. First that this fuckwit thinks people should be executed for no other reason than they rub tingly bits in a way he doesn’t approve of. Secondly, that the RCMP are investigating this as a hate crime, and that our Star Chamber, er Human Rights Commission, may come down on him.
Popescu is pathetic and batshit insane, in my opinion. But his comment was about public policy in the abstract – if elected, he’d press for capital punishment for a particular activity.
I happen to be against the death penalty for any reason (in large part because of some spectacular cases of wrongful convictions we’ve had on this side of the border.)But that doesn’t mean I think advocates of capital punishment should be tried for hate crimes (I can picture a convicted murder bringing a hate crime case against someone who’s asking for him to be put to death…)
The best thing to do with people like Popescu is to let’em have enough free speech rope that they hang themselves, so to speak.
The Reality-Based Dave:
Or owls. Or geckos or cormorants or ravens! Or poly/linen blends! They are an abomination unto God! Unclean! Unclean! (Leviticus never fails to bring home the laughs).
As far as Mr. Popescu goes, he’s treading a fine line between 1st amendment protected speech and actionable hate speech, should any gay bashing occur in his vicinity (depending on the jurisdiction, natch).
It’s violent lunacy like this that makes me rethink my 100% support for pure free speech and opposition to hate speech laws here in the U.S.A. This guy would be in jail in some countries, and it’s hard for me not to think of that as a net plus.
[Oops! Reading comprehension fail: it’s Canada, whose “hate speech” laws I find quite objectionable. Still, my previous point about my occasional wavering on the issue stands (more or less)]
Cliche Alert
I’ll bet Pospecu has a wide stance which would explain his preoccupation with teh butt seks to the exclusion of any of the other laws in Leviticus.
Some comedian made an appropriate football analogy:” If he goes to prison, he may go in a tight end but he’ll come out a wide reciever.” Oh, the irony of it all…
I think he’s a monster and he deserves a boot to the ass. I also say that his kind should not exist. HOWEVER… I give him a cookie for being honest. So many politicians are dishonest and hides what they really think or try to twist it around in a weird sentence. Direct. Says what’s on his mind. Does not hide his ugly, selfish, murderous self.
Let’s face it folks… he’s VERY christian. It’s in the book.
Note to US Americans. We don’t have a 1st amendment up here, we have the charter of rights and freedoms.
That said, I think the hate crime thing is a joke – he’s not “inciting” hate, just stating an opinion. As vile as it is, I think he’s within his rights to freedom of expression. Yes, unfortunately Canada has wackos too.
The human rights tribunals in Canada are mortifying. While there are cases that legitimately get brought in front of them, for the most part they’re an easy way to cast blame on people who disagree with you. Disgusting.
(PS: Oh yea, he said that in a highschool. I guess it’s good for kids to realize there are sick fuckers in the world I guess. Though I hope the principal of that school is eating his socks for inviting that guy now.)
You’ve never heard of Fred Phelps?
Anyone read this guy’s wikipedia article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._David_Popescu
“Popescu was charged with assault against his elderly mother in 2003, after a family member reported seeing a large bruise on her arm.[7] Testifying at a bail court hearing, Popescu said that he had given his mother a “small swat and a light shake” to get her attention when she was not paying attention to him. He expressed remorse for his action, but argued that it was not serious and did not constitute assault. He also testified that he had been violent toward his mother in the past, but that this abuse had ended more than 25 years earlier. Under cross examination from the assistant crown attorney, Popescu said that he had lived with his mother for his entire life, and became her primary caregiver after his father’s death in 1969. He added that he had not worked in the community since 1972, and that he considered looking after his mother to be his full-time job.[8]”
I’m not too bothered about this. Fringe loonies of all colours exist in all countries, and as long as they remain on the fringe, what’s the problem? Sure, they could keep quiet, but then we wouldn’t know to avoid them.
And this guy in particular is great for us atheists.
A Christian unambiguously advocating something out of Hitler’s play-book, and using the Bible as justification. Gooooooaaaaal!
People like Palin worry me more, because they could actually have a negative effect on society. Popescu, not so much.
He really is a Canadian Fred Phelps!
Well at least he is honest and forthright, if he wins his election, it with the knowledge that people actually voted for him knowing what crazy beliefs he has. I that case, who would be worse, him, or the people who would put him in power understanding exactly what kind of guy he is?
Sapphic Sister Cities, who knew?
This man could use some gay sex in his life. It might loosen him up a little bit.
John Best and this freak would make good drinking buddies.
Jared @#26:
Hmm, maybe he should form a punk group and name it “Eddie Puss & the Mo Fo’s.
JStein@#31:
Boom chicka Wah waaaah
Had to look this guy up (obviously). He’s clearly a case for care in the community, why on earth would a school consider him an appropriate speaker?
I prefer a person speaking their mind so that I may know who is dangerous. It beats not being sure and finding too late what the person thinks.
I’m surprised no one has pointed this out: showing disrespect for one’s parents is a capital offense. Surely even just shaking one’s mother a little bit because she’s not paying attention is disrespectful, yes?
Ummm… of course I meant a *biblical* capital offense.
Loons like this guy really do stand at the very edge of free speech. I personally think it is a contradiction to criminalize threats of violence against a specific individual but not those against a group when it is this kind of general threat that can be more dangerous because every individual in that community is potentially under threat from whatever wackjob(s) that decides to take up the cause. A perfect example of this was the suppression of the civil rights movement by the KKK in the south. The leaders of the Klan did not need to issue orders to their followers to kill activists because all that was needed was to incite their anger with there manipulative rhetoric and the underlings would act on it on their own. This allows the leaders to get what they want while keeping their hands clean. The damage is only limited by the extent of the prejudice against the community in question and the willingness of law enforcement to intervene on their behalf. I personally applaud the local police for investigating this guy. He crossed the line of what a civil society should tolerate and needs to be stopped.
“(I)t’s likely that saying homosexuals are evil will cost you fewer votes than saying you don’t believe in any gods, at least in this country.”
You know, doc, you’ll never get elected to public office in this country if you keep talking rationally like that.
@#35:
They invited him because he is one of the candidates running for Member of Parliament (MP) for the riding of Sudbury. Note that he is running as an independent and got only 54 votes last time around, out of 73,000 eligible voters (46, 000 voted). The poor principle just invited everyone who was running (i.e. the 4 major parties plus him and another fringe candidate).
“My whole reason for running is the Bible and the Bible couldn’t be more clear on that point.”
What, this nutjob thinks the feckin’ bible talks about him going jogging?
In theatres OCT 3rd. Why can’t they show it in cinemas as normal?
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous/trailer_medium.html
Also, re #14 – How many times must we go over this? Aside from it being Canada, the point still needs to be made. 1st ammendment has never protected criminal behavious. It does not protect libel and it certainly does not protect incitement to murder as I think this man’s statement is.
principal not principle obviously… I should really proofread stuff
This wingnut has a right to say that us gays should be killed but up in Canada he will now probably be dragged in front of a Human Rights Council and have to go to court to defend his freedom of speech. Im so glad Im not Canadian.
Speaking as a gay man, I think that mouth-breathing morons like Popescu should be executed. These people add NOTHING to our society and are in large part responsible for the lack of progress in this country.
Popescu and his lot have had 2000 YEARS to make the world a better place, and they BLEW it. They need to step aside, sit down and shut the hell up. Frankly, a real Christian would NEVER call for the execution of anyone, let alone an entire class of people. Popescu must belong to the Frank Phelps school of thought: Jesus and the New Testament don’t mean anything; God is still pissed off about stuff that happened 4000 years ago.
Sheesh!
He was at the high school as part of an all local candidates’ debate. The man is a nutter, and is known to have abused his elderly mother, and has been described as a ‘creepy guy’. I liked that in the comments following the article, a high school student who was present expressed his determinedly non-violent anger, then noted with satisfaction that the gift given (to each candidate in appreciation of their participation) Popescu was in a pink bag.
I doubt Popescu will even be charged with hate speech, once the RCMP have investigated, because of the freedom of religion laws and the fact that he cited the damn Bible as his rationale.
The person most likely to suffer directly from this is the school principal, who is being castigated for letting him participate in the first place, given his known extreme views.
Would it be a hate crime to set Popescu on fire? Just curious…
Be aware of hate speech laws, because if implented, they will be used against you all in order to keep all your mouths closed.
BTW, Leviticus defend execution for man-to-man sexual relationships. However, the modern Christian right does not speak of homosexual relationships and have assumed the theory of sexual orientation (supported on Plato but unsupported in the Bible). E. g. Leviticus don’t care about lesbianism.
Fortunately, Pete Stark will probably go on handily winning his congressional district in Alameda County, California, until he decides to retire. He’s stated his non-theism — but is the highest-level elected official to have done so.
They’re such feebs!
EV – Assuming your daughter isn’t a daughter of a king, she wouldn’t be worth 200 foreskins. If she is an everyday damsel then she would be worth a homer of barley. Hosea 3:2.
So far as the man beating up his elderly mother, while the old testament says honor thy father and mother, Jesus trumps that in the new testament with – If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26 Cuffing mom around looks pretty much like a requirement. But remember – gawd is love!
Here is his American counterpart:
http://www.nicolayforstatesenate.com
She also advocates for the “elimination” of homosexuals in here book “We the People – Taking America Back”
Or indeed fundamentalist Islamic. It’s pretty clear he hasn’t seen one of those hundreds of videos of young Iranian boys, waving goodbye to their crying parents, before they’re hanged from a crane with barbed wire, and their lifeless corpses paraded through local towns, simply because of their sexuality.
I don’t get it? Why are all these Christians so hell bent on creating another Abrahamic Theocratic State? There are already 3 (The Vatican, Israel and Iran). I suggest if he’s such a big fan, he move to one of those, instead of trying to corrupt otherwise rational societies.
Jello @ 39
“He crossed the line of what a civil society should tolerate and needs to be stopped.”
Where exactly is that line? Who decides where this line is to be drawn?
Everyone should be entitled to their own opinion and the right to express no matter how fucked up it is. If I were to start promoting hatred against Nazis, would I be investigated by the police? Doubtful. That is an extreme example and I’m sure most people would agree that I shouldn’t. But what about an example that’s not so extreme? We must be careful going down this slippery slope. The only way to handle it is to have no line. That way we will never wake up one day and find our own opinions outlawed.
Canadian hate laws have the potential to promote the very things they purport to control by assuming “we” are always on the moral high ground. They are also a loophole special interest groups use to gain immunity from criticism. Let this idiot, and everyone like him, speak their minds. Then we know who to watch out for. Smothering him with the free publicity of a high-profile trial isn’t going to help.
Oh god damn it shit.
Of course she’d have to be from SC.
I swear we aren’t all dumb rednecks down here.
Any ink is too much ink for this Popescu guy.
I know so. The Redhead’s parents moved to SC when the FIL switched careers and became a high school teacher. He grow up in the upper midwest. His next door neighbor though…
I wonder if he’s wearing cotton blend underwear, cause he’ll definitely need to be stoned to death for that.
I’ve always been a little confused about the Leviticus/Homosexual connection. That only talks about man lying with man, right? I don’t see anything about woman lying with woman. Have I missed something, or does the idea that a little woman-on-woman action turns some men on date back a really long way?
PZed, this isn’t “this country.” Sudbury is in Canada. I guess that Canada has its share of wackaloons too!
As far as OT law goes, the fundies that I’ve had the displeasure of debating will typically say that they are not bound by “Jew Law,” that the NT is a new covenant that makes anything in the OT they don’t feel like following null and void. Pointing out the obvious – why an all powerful and perfect god needs to have a do-over on the whole covenant thing – sort of falls on deaf ears. Plus, as far as teh gay sexers go, there’s enough in the NT for fundagelicals to justify their homophobic bigotry.
So there’s really no point in trying to play gotcha with them – when you really really really want to believe something, you will – and hang the evidence.
I think you got it in one.
*blinks*
My apologies dearest Patricia, I had to think about what this was in reference to for a moment. I doubt the local Mohel could rustle up more than a dozen foreskins anyway, but there is plenty of cheese!(Woooh, badda bang! Badda b- …, ahem) *ewwww*.
I seem to recall that the book of Romans has a little opinion on teh gay but I’m too lazy to look it up.
Yeah, the N.T only trumps O.T. when it is convenient for the spouters. There are many contradictions within the O.T.; add the N.T. and you’ve got scriptural salad.
Bible literalists can rationalize each and every one of them, logic be damned. The human mind is an amazingly frightening thing.
I’d call this one free speech because it’s clear that Popescu wants the laws to change so that homosexuals might be legally executed. It’s apparently very important that it be legal, so that the country itself can show its obedience to God. While that of course doesn’t exactly promote an attitude of tolerance, it’s not the same as if he stated “I think homosexuals should be lynched.” That’s an explicit call for violence, and murder.
I think it’s funny when they say that the Bible “couldn’t be more clear” on any point. The people citing Leviticus are canceled out by people citing some other passage where Jesus says something about love — which are then trumped by folks pointing out how Jesus wanted the old laws kept, to be slapped down by others insisting that of course Jesus was ushering in an entirely new way of looking at things, and so on.
Seemingly, the Bible could have been more clear. Special revelation is so subjective. It would have been ever so much more useful if, instead of some inspiring a holy text, or sending down some natural disaster which could be interpreted to mean anything (including a natural disaster), God could just have stuck a giant foot down from the clouds every now and then to squash the particular offender, and no ambiguity about it.
He could have squashed this guy, for instance, right after he made this sweet little statement. ‘And there was much rejoicing…’
Ted H:
The issue was about phallic superiority, manliness and the act of penetration, with the “seed spilling” issue bringing up the rear, so to speak. The Hebrews who created their monotheistic deity were xenophobes of the first order, with homophobia was sort of close to the top of the list.
Speaking of which, their “God” seemed to hold some pretty specific views about the “natural order” of everything which just happened to coincide with those tribal leaders’ views. Coincidence?
Semen was the essence of life and could not be wasted on anything but the female love tunnel, yet women rated as chattel. “Vessels” is how they are referred to in texts. If they chose to indulge in a little Sapphic love, no problem as long as they submitted to their husband when he wanted some nookie and never complained about baring his children. Men were made in the male God’s image and women were an afterthought in Yaweh’s plan but they were okay so long as they weren’t on their period. eeeewwwww.
*thought* How can a single unique being be sexed? What would be the purpose of having a twig and berries arrangement if there wasn’t a Mrs. God?
The concept of exclusively homosexual behavior was rare even in societies that had little problem with man on man love or to be more correct, mature man on young man love. However, most men in those societies who preferred to be a receiver-only faced public derision – just as the most effete men are teased even in gay communities today.
Christians adopted the Hebrews’ intolerance for the male mutual gratification; actually any sex beyond marital procreative sex was considered impure for the new JLC ( Jesus Lover Cult). Obsession with sin and shame is the gift the Christianists have brought the western world. Wasn’t that marvelous of them?
P.S.
And yeah, I’m sure the Hebrew men got off on a little girl on girl action.
So what’s the over/under on this guy getting caught in a gay love scandal?
Whatever it is, I got a dollar on “under”.
What about Deuteronomy 23:1: No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
(God does not like you if your genitals have been injured, otherwise we’d obviously have too many emasculated men overrunning our churches – too close to homosexuality. Who says God isn’t consistent!)
Hey, Alex….we’re glad you aren’t Canadian, too. People here also conflate hate crime laws with Human Rights Tribunals, which have nothing to do with crimes. If the worst he said was what was reported, it won’t go any further. If someone complains, it gets investigated. Something wrong with that?
The best part about this is that the guy got booed by the students. Good work
@ 55 Bad Albert
As always the people must decide where that line is drawn and how clear it should be. That being said my opinion in that regard is this. The democratically elected government of a civil society has the responsibility of protecting the expression of an individual while ensuring that said expression does not place another individuals well being in danger. I think the current situation places persecuted groups and the general public in danger because it allow the public promoters of violent persecution plausible deniability with regard to the crimes their sympathizers commit. It is similar to the strategy that organized crime bosses use to escape prosecution for there crimes in that they can play the roll of respectable citizen while they benefit from the crimes of those under there command.
Now there are some problems with my argument. Trying to establish a cause and effect relationship between a nut that tells people that homosexuals should be killed and the actions of another nut that may have heard his message and decided to act on it is nearly impossible. So trying to tie his words to any particular act of violence is untenable as a means for prosecution. The justification for criminalizing speech that openly promotes violent behavior towards a group rests on looking at historical precedent and acknowledging that such speech had demonstrated itself to be very effective in inspiring violent behavior in the minds of some of those who hear it. I am essentially using the shouting fire in a crowded theater argument while acknowledging that the effects of extremist sentiment expressed in public are not immediately or even always obeyed. But they are obeyed none the less.
I draw the line here. Saying you hate gays or Nazis or blogers for whatever silly reason you can come up with is fine. Promoting violent behavior against a particular group even in a general sense should be considered an incitement to violence and a threat to the public wellbeing. I’m just tired of these sleaze balls spewing there crap in the public forum and then hiding behind free speech when some other sleaze ball decides to act on it and I’d love to see them put on a shorter leash.
This and other wackaloons of similar stripe had better watch his/their hate-spewing mouth parts.
We (i.e., the U.S., and inevitably Canada, also) are heading into what are euphemistically called “trying times”, which has always put a strain upon the bonds of civil social relations that normally prevent different groups from, for instance, butchering each other over perceived threat to their “interests”…of which mere existence has to be counted as basic as bedrock. Call it your “national/group/personal security interest”.
Here in the U.S., we have (very rashly) abandoned the civilized approach to such matters and adopted the “Bush Doctrine” of preventive agression as the basic model for protection of our “national security interest”, and as the suffering of the population increases and the unequal distribution of such suffering erodes fundamental social norms, we must expect the Bush Doctrine to “trickle down” to the group, as well as the personal, level of interest in basic survival.
In short, threats of the sort this asshat is making are more and more likely to provoke a preventive counter response, as trust in the social fabric is eroded by the breakdown of institutions and/or their capture by predatory elements in society (c.f. Iraqi militia groups, death-squads in Central America, thugs-for-hire like Blackwater, etc.)
I am not Canadian, and I am not recommending, but I am predicting that eliminationism of the sort this fool is toying with, will automatically invoke a response of counter-eliminationism from the targets of his particular hate du jour, and the structures which normally hold this stuff in check, are under stress now, will be under more stress quite soon…and playing with matches in a dark closet full of old clothes and newspaper is a reliable way to get burned up.
–AManOfConstantZorro
These fundamentalists are even less consistent than the moderates who at least admit they don’t take the Bible literally. What would this guy, I wonder, say to the fact that the Bible also says that the world is flat, Pi is exactly 3 and that disobedient children should be stoned?
E.V:
I understand it’s all about the male dominated society, but the Bible takes particular offense to all male homosexual activity, while totally ignoring female homosexual activity. Greek society was big on Man/Boy (or Mature man, younger man), but most males also had wives on the side. Even that kind of relationship is not probably not condoned by the bible, depending on how you interpret the whole ‘lie with’ thing. My understanding is that there was little penetration in those Greek relationships.
I guess my point is that when the Fundies condemn homosexuality for biblical reasons, they should only refer to male homosexuality, when I have no doubt they mean it for both male/male and female/female. It makes me wonder if they have ever been called on it.
What most people do not know about dear twisted David is that what brought him to the bible worshiping he does. David hard strong heart felt emotions for a young lady in the office of the mining company he worked for. She turned him down flat, which lead to his feeling very down and depressed. Looking to the lord for answers he believed God was punishing him for “Lustful” thoughts. He then committed himself to the study of the bible.
Those are David’s own words.
Come on. Please! Israel isn’t a theocracy. Try Saudi Arabia for a better match.
I, for one, would not feeeeel so all aloooone…
(but it’s time for my bootheels to be wanderin’)
Popescu has run for office before, and according to Wikipedia he came in dead last every time. According to poster at rabble.ca, when he ran for mayor of Sudbury he wanted to turn Science North into a Bible College.
Allegedly the Greeks and Romans did it “intercrurally”, between the legs. I don’t know where this knowledge comes from, however.
Patricia: foreskin fetish much?
E.V.: making smegma jokes should be a capital offense.
DM: I thought the Romans had no problem with male-male penetration — as long as you were the penetrator. Latin has two different words for “catcher” and “pitcher” I believe — and catchers were the only ones considered “gay”, as in Latin American countries today. They were “femalish”, which was a serious mistake in the machista culture of the Romans and Roman derived societies.
Ted H.@#74.
Sorry, my writing has been choppy. In a nutshell: the concepts of sexuality are much different in our modern world.
As for most fundies and many Catholics – all sex is bad unless a married couple is trying to have babies.
Whether they call you “whore” “trollop” “faggot” “queer” “dyke” or “lesbo” is immaterial. They hate you and want you changed or dead. Notice there is no male equivalent for “whore”. Boys will be boys… as long as they don’t do other boys.
[quote]”A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed,” – David Popescu
But should they be allowed to get married first? Why can’t politicians ever answer the question?[/quote]
If he answered the question, he wouldn’t be a politician.
Jesus forgives all… except blasphemy against the holy spirit and sodomy. Gay atheists must piss off God to no end.
disobedient children should be stoned
I wonder if Popescu started lobbing rocks at the booing adolescents…
Also, he seems to be a little too clean-shaven to be acceptable in the eyes of teh Lawd.
Sorry about posting again so soon- I had to poke around teh tubez for sourcing.
What about Deuteronomy 23:1: No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
(God does not like you if your genitals have been injured, otherwise we’d obviously have too many emasculated men overrunning our churches – too close to homosexuality. Who says God isn’t consistent!)
This could very well be due to the fact that some “mystery cults” in the eastern Mediterranean featured eunuch priests.
http://www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/A/Atys.html
@#54 Flameduck Why are all these Christians so hell bent on creating another Abrahamic Theocratic State? There are already 3 (The Vatican, Saudi Arabia, and Iran).
There, I fixed it for you.
Wow, then the Catholic Church has a lot of explaining to do to justify their production lines of castrati.
This is interesting. If you look at our laws on advocating genocide, you can get up to five years for advocating genocide against an “identifiable group”. However, “identifiable group” doesn’t seem to include sexual orientation. I remember Svend Robinson (probably the best MP Canada has had in a while) tried to get it included, but it would have made an exception for religious based hatred. I don’t remember if it passed or not, and sadly if it wasn’t for that exception it would have never had a chance of going anywhere at all.
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.318.html
But on the plus side, we don’t have to worry about him getting elected. Canada will elect a Communist again before we elect this nutbar. Besides, we should be focusing on the bigger picture. How many of our MPs (including the Prime Minister) voted against same-sex marriage? Or look at Tom Lukiwski, the sitting MP for Regina-Lumsden who taped himself making homophobic remarks. Or the MP who blamed crime on immigrants.
Advocating genocide is a serious crime, and there are some racist gangs up here that are into some pretty nasty shit (random, race-based beatings, and a guy who is now permanently blind because he got caught in the crossfire over some Aryan Guard turf war) and every effort should be made to thwart them. I would be very worried if we stood by and let them do their thing because it starts with hate speech, then it goes to hate rallies, then it goes to racial violence.
I wonder whether Romanians tend to be particularly anti-gay or something. I’ve a couple of others who seems to have a bizarre hatred for gay people. I wonder whether he was born in Canada.
He lives in Sudbury Ontario where I reside and we just know this nut bar religiot is going to come out of the woodwork. BTW he’s running for Federal office…kinda like being a Senator.
In Caesar’s Gallic War, from memory, I read that Caesar thought the Gauls and Celts loved each other more than they did their women. He described some of the activities. As to the women, he said they were all promiscuous and bragged openly about having sex with only the finest men.
When the priests of Cybele brought the black stone of the mother goddess to Rome, said Romans were horrified to learn the priests castrated themselves and dressed like women. Odd to find out the Romans could be shocked by anything. The series ‘Rome’ actually did quite well in the religious department.
Based on a literal interpretation, I’m guessing that if you were emasculated by other means such as ripping or biting, you were kosher and could enter the assembly.
Thom @ 14: “Unfortunately, they’re investigating this guy for a “hate crime” according to the article. I’m with Hitchens on this one, it’s not worth curtailing first amendment rights to put this douchebag in his place.”
Well if this were in the US and the first amendment applied, it might still not merit 1st amendment protections. Free speech still has limits. The quintessential example is yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater because that speech places others clearly in danger. His speech is borderline by that measure.
If I say: “Hey, lets go kill some immigrants and people of color” that’s definitely out. If I say: “Immigrants and people of color should be put to death” that is more iffy but it does depend on the context whether it is reasonably protected speech.
In this case its a person running for public office who is espousing the view that I should be executed. If some drunk redneck says that in a bar, its a different (yet still quite as scary) story. However, in this case, you could argue that even were the first amendment pertinent his speech may not be protected anyway. It is *quite* plausible that he make this speech in public and attract several people who motivated by him decide to take the law into their own hands and murder an LGBT person. That’s inciting and is not free speech.
Steve8282, #2
So he’s blatantly violated the commandment to honor his mother and father. Since Canada has no officially established cities of sanctuary that means his life is forfeit anywhere in the provinces. :)
E.V., #88
However, Jesus did say that even those who are castrated for the Lord’s sake still labor on His behalf. So all a fellow has to do is say he had it done for God and it’s all good.
E.V,
It’s Ok, I also had to jumble a response just before running out the door.
Yes, I agree that concepts of sexuality have changed in the modern world. The biblical view of sexuality, at least the old testament view of homosexuality is different from the views of other ancient societies. Even the Greek Gods were swingers: Zeus desired Ganymedes for his beauty. I’ve been searching through some of my books, (I still like to research with dead trees over the Intrawebs if I can) to find some more specifics of Greek/Roman/Egyptian sexuality, but so far nothing more specific.
Given the influence the bible had on Western society, it seems natural that the more biblical views of sexuality would prevail. I guess my question is why the bible has such a different view, and given the male homosexuality in other cultures, why specifically males and not females?
Wow, he makes Phelps look moderate…well, only in the sense that Phelps doesn’t call for violence. Actually, I think there’s something the Phelps clan isn’t telling us….
E.V. – Sorry, I had to go to the kitchen and make some macaroni & cheese for the grouch. You know the kind with 1/2 a pound of Tillamook cheese, 1/2 a pint of whole milk, and a full stick of real butter, baked until it’s bubbly? Now he’s a happy hubby. Except he always commits the unforgivable sin of yowling for ketchup! *snort*
Anyway – sorry for the weird left field answer. I asked my best pal if I give weird points of view – she about wet her pants laughing.
My X-pastor told me a homer of barley equals 15 bushels. That would make quite a bit of beer!
#95 – Alan Kellogg – Have a look at my post at #52. If the guy says he’s beating up mom because he hates her for Jesus, he’s good to go.
In Caesar’s Gallic War, from memory, I read that Caesar thought the Gauls and Celts loved each other more than they did their women. He described some of the activities. As to the women, he said they were all promiscuous and bragged openly about having sex with only the finest men.
According to Suetonius’ Twelve Caesars , Caesar was quite the swinger as a youth. Suetonius described him as “Every woman’s husband, and every man’s wife.”
He had nothing on Tiberius, whose depravities in his dotage on the island of Capri were infamous. Just Google “Tiberius” and “minnows”, and steel yourself for stuff that would make Reverend Alamo look like a prude.
It always amazes me that people who advocate the biblical punishment for homosexuality don’t realize it’s cheek-by-jowl with the one calling for crushing insolent children to death. My point of view is, it has to be a package deal: both laws or none. And since every child is insolent sooner or later, that should bring parents, at least, to their senses. Try that on the bible-thumpers!
Kinda OT, but how many of you Americans knew we Canadians were in the middle of a general election?
Update: The offending candidate has been banned from future school events by the school board (the Rainbow District School Board}. I guess that’s better than the Heap o’ Slag School Board. Sudbury sits on a big nickel mine and before they built the Big Stack to spread the pollution around, the land was desolate and bare of vegetation for miles around. The astronauts in training came up to Sudbury to get a taste for moon landscapes.
The nice thing is that the students rejected his message and so did most of the commenters on the news articles, except for a few who said it was a religious opinion so maybe he could be excused.
Monado – I don’t know what country you are in, but here in Fundie Land, Amerika, the fundies don’t read the bible. They have no idea what it actually says. They only listen to the parts their pastor points out to them on Sunday.
If you actually stood up in Sarah Palins hypocrite, tongues speaking church, and demanded that her daughter be taken out and stoned to death, as the bible says, you would be lucky to get out of the place alive.
“Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from you.” Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Contrast the actual biblical law to the scenes of the preggers daughter, and guilty young man at the convention.
And so far as the child goes – it’s a bastard and shall not be allowed into the kingdom of heaven unto the 10th generation. Tough luck baby!
No you didn’t. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, ruled by the Saud family. That they happen to use Islam as a tool to control their docile masses, does not make it a theocracy. Israel is about 60 years overdue on their formal constitution, largely due to religious opposition against a document holding more power than “the word of God”, many of it’s laws (such as no civil unions, and no public transportation on the Sabbath) are clearly religious in nature, and it even uses the Star of David, as an element in it’s national flag. Nice try though.
It’s quite unfortunate but it seem that more and more religious nuts are getting a public platform here in Canada. Here in Quebec there is a pentecostal and a catholic fundamentalist running for the Conservative party. Luckily most people in Quebec are deeply secular and there is little to no chance of them being elected as deputies.
Hmm… For an ostensible christian, he seems a bit fuzzy on the first commandment.
-jcr
This Popescu is crazy. He lives with his mother, lives on her pensioner income, he assaulted her, got sentenced for that, and he broke the law by visiting her alone while he was not allowed. His sister pressed charges.
Well there you go, looks like there is a loophole for everything.
wrpd;
(sorry about the smegma joke. I usually detest scat humor, but sometimes the joke is just too easy)
Patricia:
I appreciate the off-the -wall nature of some of your posts. I got your foreskin/bushell/homer(*snort*)/etc gist of your jibe. Misogyny and patriarchy is the biblical name of the game.
At least he’s honest. The save marriage crowd always pretends that it’s not homophobia that is their motivation. But deep down they really just do want gays to cease to exist. When presented honestly, as in this case, overwhelmingly people recoil. But when couched in the “family values” BS moderate, somewhat sensible people will agree without really questioning.
BTW one of the Ohioans that was behind their marriage amendment was pro-death penalty for gay people too. Not that our “news” media exposed that.
I’m glad that here in Canada the general response to Popescu’s remarks has been roundingly negative. The media has lambasted him quite well. Hateful views of this nature should receive this kind of response. I’m all for democracy and support his right to freely espouse his view but it warms my heart to know that the vast majority of fellow Canadians stronly disagree with his crap.
I would that say Popescu has balls for putting himself out there like that but he’s a fundamentalist. It’s not even close to the same thing.
BTW, CENTER FOR INQUIRY COMMUNITY IN CALGARY INAUGURAL EVENT IS ON TONIGHT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY IN CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA. From my understanding, the event runs from 5-8 pm (though I’ll be a touch late as I’m working til 5). It’s in the Escalus Room which is on the second floor of the MacEwan Student center. If there are any other Calgarians here, hope to see you and pass the word on.
Here’s the link:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/calgary
It seems to me that lot of people in Sudbury area need a refresher in; history of British Law and Criminal Code of Canada.
http://www.prismnet.com/gibbonsb/articles.html
The Articles of War – 1749
Article 2
Penalty of profane Swearing, &c
All Flag Officers, and all Persons in or belonging to his Majesty’s Ships or Vessels of War, being guilty of profane Oaths, Cursings, Execrations, Drunkeness, Uncleanness, or other scandalous Actions, in Derogation of God’s Honour, and Corruption of good Manners, shall incur such Punishment as a Court-martial shall think fit to impose, and as the Nature and Degree of their Offence shall deserve.
Article 29
Buggery
If any Person in the Fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable Sin of Buggery or Sodomy with Man or Beast, he shall be punished with Death by the sentence of a Court-martial.
http://www.canadalegal.com/gosite.asp?s=92
Criminal Code of Canada
Anal intercourse
159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
Idem
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 159; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3.
Bestiality
160. (1) Every person who commits bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Compelling the commission of bestiality
(2) Every person who compels another to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Bestiality in presence of or by child
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), every person who, in the presence of a person under the age of 16 years, commits bestiality or who incites a person under the age of 16 years to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 160; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3; 2008, c. 6, s. 54.
Didn’t Dan Savage have a running commentary on guys like this? I’m afraid I haven’t kept up with his bloggings, since I can’t find a way to get only his posts from the Slog feed.
“You shall know that they are Christians by their [insert horrid action].” Or was that only related to the “Every child needs a mother and a father” meme?
Sexual deviants that are so quick to condemn David Popescu for quoting Bible do not want the rest of us to know what are the consequences of homosexual rape.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=8b51ebd6-164d-4537-bffb-277c88f8c4d0
===Rape of boys in Afghanistan sparks inquiry===
Canadian soldiers say Forces ignored complaints about Afghan police, troops
David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, October 04, 2008
The Canadian Forces will launch a board of inquiry to look into allegations that soldiers’ complaints about Afghan troops and police raping boys were ignored by the military leadership.
Military police have also launched an investigation into the same incidents.
The issue surfaced in the summer after media reports detailed soldiers’ concerns about sexual abuse of boys at the hands of Afghan personnel.
In June, the Toronto Star reported that in late 2006 a Canadian soldier had heard an Afghan soldier raping a young boy at one of the outposts near Kandahar. The soldier later saw the injuries the boy sustained, including seeing his lower intestines falling out of his body, a sign of trauma from anal rape.
The soldier, who now suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome, originally described the assault to a closed-door meeting of a parliamentary committee on national defence in May.
In addition, military chaplain Jean Johns came forward to complain that Canadian soldiers were ordered by their commanding officers in Afghanistan to ignore such incidents of sexual assault. That information was based on claims made to the chaplain by soldiers. Other military chaplains have said they too heard similar complaints from Canadian troops.
As well, soldiers have reported that at Forward Operating Base Wilson in Afghanistan, it was common for Afghan police to pay boys for sex.
In response, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said in the Commons that he had told senior military leaders that soldiers should report any allegation of unlawful activity they see.
In July, Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk confirmed that a board of inquiry would be convened into the allegations. The military is now ready to proceed, according to the Defence Department.
“We expect the Board of Inquiry to be convened in the coming days,” a department official wrote in an e-mail.
“The government takes allegations of sexual abuse, even those not directly involving our troops, very seriously,” the official wrote in the e-mail. “An investigation is underway to establish the facts surrounding these allegations.”
The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service also started an investigation in July 2008 into the allegations. The Defence Department declined to release further details, citing a concern that could compromise the investigation.
That investigation was prompted by a complaint in the spring from NDP defence critic Dawn Black, who had been approached by a soldier upset by the sexual abuse of boys at the hands of Afghan officers. The soldier told Ms. Black he and his fellow troops were under strict orders not to intervene.
“What I was told was this was a Thursday-night ritual and they weren’t to do anything about it,” Ms. Black said yesterday. “I outlined what I was told and asked (the Defence Department) for an investigation.”
Ms. Black said she was disappointed it had taken months before the Defence Department acted on her complaint.
In July, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the United Nations special representative for children and armed conflict, said Afghanistan had to do more to end the practice of young boys being sexually abused by warlords, government officials and military personnel. The practice is called bacha bazi, which means “boy play.”
What I found was nobody talks about it; everyone says ‘Well, you know, it’s been there for 1,000 years so why do we want to raise this now?'” Ms. Coomaraswamy told reporters after a visit to Afghanistan. “That seems to be the general attitude among everyone, but somebody has to raise it and it has to be dealt with.”
Ms. Coomaraswamy said the Afghan government needs to start prosecuting those responsible for such abuses. Afghan police say they have tried to deal with the situation.
“We talk about sexual violence against girls and women, which is also terrible, but this hidden issue of sexual violence against boys should also be dealt with seriously,” Ms. Coomaraswamy added.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
karol:
You are the worst kind of insipid troll. No one here disputes that rape, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is wrong and should be punishable by law. Forcing sexual congress with anyone is ethically wrong. Dictating which tab can go into which slot in consenting adults is not for deluded moralist idiots, like you, to dictate. Kindly go fuck yourself.
karol,
You, like Popescu, are disgusting, perverted filth.
Two words: UK.
Saudi Arabia wins any day of the week and twice on Fridays.
Shock horror!
Off the top of my head, without checking, the following countries have a cross in their flags:
Iceland
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Slovakia
Hungary
Malta
Greece
Switzerland
Except for Malta and to a lesser extent Greece, these are fully secular countries, and about half of them are as godless as France, the Czech Republic, or Estonia.
Karol;
Your cut and paste articles aren’t in dispute. Your reasoning that they somehow support and validate Popescu is ridiculous. Let me introduce you to the phrase non sequitur -“DOES NOT FOLLOW”. You obviously don’t possess the ability to introduce or follow a logical argument.
You and Popescu are wonderful examples of how religion poisons minds. I suggest you seek professional help – you have issues.
Magna Carta? First of all, there has been no historical requirement for the UK to have a constitution. The UK was not granted sovereignty, on the condition they enact a written, secular constitution by October 1948. Secondly, while the UK doesn’t have a constitution as a singular document, in the sense that the USA have, the statutes that make up the UK constitution are written down, even if it is in separate documents. In either case the perceived lack of constitution in the UK, is not due to religious outcry over the laws of men, being above the “laws” of God.
Sure. I’m not saying it doesn’t have religious (sharia) law. I’m saying it’s not a theocracy, because it is ruled by a monarch with absolute power, even above the law. In a truly theocratic state, it would be unacceptable that any man, even a king, is above the law of God. More importantly, to claim that Israel is not a theocratic state, because Saudi Arabia is subjectively worse, is at best a logical fallacy.
Shock horror! The cross did not until recently have Christian symbolism, it is an ancient heraldic element (like the Swastika and the Ankh) which predates Christianity by thousands of years.
Even so, all the flags you mention have more than 50 years of history. The Danish flag for instance (on which all Scandinavian flags are apparently based) dates all the way back to 1219 a time of Crusades, when Denmark was quite a bit more devoutly Christian than they are today (as evidenced by them murdering Estonians in the name of God). Today it symbolizes Nationalism, rather than Christianity and could have been anything (many believe that Mjölnir, the hammer of Thor, carries an equally important cultural symbolism). The cross is an anachronism. The flag of Israel is from 1948 and does not have 800 years of history to excuse it’s religious origins.
Fail.
Nope, heraldic symbols do not predate Christianity, Heraldry started roughly 1000 years ago. The ankh is not a heraldic symbol, it is an Egyptian hieroglyphic character. The cruciform that modern flags (within the last 500 years) appropriated are the Christian based “cross”. Romans and Greeks used abstractions of designs as motifs to represent the State but these were not Heraldic symbols.
The swastika is an ancient sanskrit character which had nothing to do with war nor the representation of a ruler or the ruler’s family.
Well maybe heraldry was the wrong word to use. English is my second language. Maybe a better word would be symbolism?
With significant Egyptian symbolism, which predates Christianity by thousands of years, yet is still quite recognizably a cross.
I was quite sure I said as much. If your main argument for Israel not being a theocratic state, is that many European nations also used religious elements in their national flag during the crusades I’m afraid it’s your argument that fails, as most European nations that took part in said crusades could easily be considered theocracies.
So much like the Christian cross then? Thanks for again pointing out that the Christians do not have a monopoly of using the symbolism of the cross. The Star of David? Not so much.
I never said or implied any such thing.
Again, you are making a leap in logic and design.
A swastica may intersect at 90 degrees but it does not have the same connotations as a cruciform. An “X” has been used as a design element for centuries but all modern flags using a long line bisected by a short line at 90degrees roughly 2/3rds along the long line segment are using it as a christian symbol even if the symbol is vestigial.
You should have been a politician, you spin what wasn’t said or implied.