Pastor Who Works for TN Police Dept. Says Gays Should Be Executed By Police

Lovebug said:

When one misinterprets the teachings without seeking the truth, this might be an answer you come up with.
Now, if you add "judge not or you will be judged", where does that leave...dare I say...all of us?.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty poor interpretation. Jesus was talking about hypocritical judgement, he was not talking about the illegitimacy of civil authorities to make judgement against persons.

Paul writes (linking this again..)
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Government is a minister of god's wrath against evil, that is evil that mankind performs. He affirms in Romans 1 that people who do such things are deserving of death according to god's righteous decree.

There is a long history of barbarity to follow these texts if one doubts the meaning.

you can't judge high and mighty while sitting on a pedestal just as high, and believing you are mighty.
Perhaps, being humble is the answer.

Click to expand...

The government is the Lord's minister though, it needs to punish the evil doer. And woe to those who call good evil.

TrueScotsman said:

ISIS thinking? Tell that to Paul.

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't we be looking to the Koran for our laws?

Elvira said:

Do you really think Jesus would condone such a thing?

Click to expand...

Yes, he would and he does, according to the bible. Except Jesus wants them stoned to death, of course.

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."



And of course, Jesus stated that all the old laws still apply today:

Matthew 5:18:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


So according to the bible, Jesus would agree with stoning gays to death.

JasperL said:

Why shouldn't we be looking to the Koran for our laws?

Click to expand...

I'm an atheist, I am merely demonstrating that it is not out of the bounds of their religious text. It is problematic as is the Qur'an.

JustHanging said:

Yes, he would and he does, according to the bible. Except Jesus wants them stoned to death, of course.

Click to expand...

Where, according to the Bible, does Jesus condone executing homosexuals.

JustHanging said:

Yes, he would and he does, according to the bible. Except Jesus wants them stoned to death, of course.

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Click to expand...

You are quoting Jesus in Leviticus?

TrueScotsman said:

Read the Bible.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

The secular law to the Christian, is god's law, which should punish the evil doer. Homosexuality is evil in the Bible.

I am not a Christian, I am pointing these out to demonstrate that they are just being consistent with their religion.

Click to expand...

The word translated often as “government”, or here “higher power”, is the Greek word Exousia. I believe Plato or Socrates wrote a lot about this word.

It doesn’t mean government.

TrueScotsman said:

I'm an atheist, I am merely demonstrating that it is not out of the bounds of their religious text. It is problematic as is the Qur'an.

Click to expand...

I agree it's not out of bounds. It's what the words on the page do say, and as a private citizen and preacher at a nothing backwater Baptist Church, I don't care even a little what that moron believes. We're not a theocracy, though. You're playing devil's advocate I guess, but the problem with the story in the OP is he's an agent of the government, and it's impossible to believe he'd discharge his duties in an impartial manner when dealing with gays, who he tells us he believes are scum, worthy of death.

Aberration said:

The word translated often as “government”, or here “higher power”, is the Greek word Exousia. I believe Plato or Socrates wrote a lot about this word.

It doesn’t mean government.

Click to expand...

There are two words being used, hyperecho (to be exalted [state]) and exousia. Here are some lexicons which further indicate the appropriate application of this word to civil governing authorities, and it is the only usage of this term appropriate for the context.

37.38 ἐξουσίαd, ας f: one who has the authority to rule or govern—‘an authority, ruler.’ ὅταν δὲ εἰσφέρωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐπὶ … τὰς ἐξουσίας, μὴ μεριμνήσητε ‘when they bring you (to be tried) before … the authorities, do not be worried’ Lk 12:11.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains

⑤ bearer of ruling authority
ⓐ human authorities, officials, government (Dionys. Hal. 8, 44; 11, 32; POxy 261, 15) Lk 12:11 (here and elsewh. in NT w. ἀρχή, as also in Pla.); Ro 13:1, 2, 3 (with 13:1b cp. the express. ‘ancient saying’ [s. Hes., Theogony 96 ἐκ δὲ Διὸς βασιλῆες. On this HFränkel, Dichtung u. Philos. des frühen Griechentums ’62, 111 n. 6] in Artem. 2, 36 p. 135, 24; 2, 69 p. 161, 17 τὸ κρατοῦν δύναμιν ἔχει θεοῦ=the ruling power has its authority from God; Wsd 6:3; Jos., Bell. 2, 140 οὐ δίχα θεοῦ περιγενέσθαι τινὶ τὸ ἄρχειν … ἐξουσίαν); Tit 3:1. For the view that the ἐ. of Ro 13 are spirit powers, as b below, s. OCullmann, Christ and Time (tr. Filson) ’50, 191–210.—On the subj. in gener. s. LGaugusch, D. Staatslehre d. Ap. Pls nach Ro 13: ThGl 5, ’34, 529–50; JUitman, Onder Eig. Vaandel 15, ’40, 102–21; HvCampenhausen, ABertholet Festschr. ’50, 97–113; OCullmann, Zur neuesten Diskussion über die ἐξουσίαι in Rö 13:1: TZ 10, ’54, 321–36, D. Staat im NT ’612 (Eng. tr.: The State in the NT ’56, 93–114); against him AStrobel, ZNW 47, ’56, 67–93.—GCaird, Princip. and Powers ’56; RMorgenthaler TZ 12, ’56, 289–304; CMorrison, The Powers That Be ’60; EBarnikol, Rö 13. Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung der absoluten Obrigkeitsbejahung v. Rö 13:1–7 ’61, 65–133; HSchlier, Principalities and Powers in the NT ’61 (Eng. tr.); MBorg, NTS 19, ’72/73, 205–18. οἱ ἐπʼ ἐξουσίαν ἀχθέντες those who are brought before the authorities Hs 9, 28, 4.
ⓑ of transcendent rulers and functionaries: powers of the spirit world (TestLevi 3:8; TestSol 20:15 B), sg. (w. ἀρχή and δύναμις) 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; Col 2:10. Pl. (w. ἀρχαί as Just., D. 41, 1; cp. Orig., C. Cels. 4, 29, 22) Eph 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:15; (w. ἄγγελοι, δυνάμεις) 1 Pt 3:22. Cp. the v.l. for ἄρχειν Papias (4).


Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 353). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

JasperL said:

I agree it's not out of bounds. It's what the words on the page do say, and as a private citizen and preacher at a nothing backwater Baptist Church, I don't care even a little what that moron believes. We're not a theocracy, though. You're playing devil's advocate I guess, but the problem with the story in the OP is he's an agent of the government, and it's impossible to believe he'd discharge his duties in an impartial manner when dealing with gays, who he tells us he believes are scum, worthy of death.

Click to expand...

I'm saying the only solution is to undermine this kind of belief in the Bible, there are forms of Christianity compatible with a secular government which isn't operated like a theocratic tool.

ecofarm said:

And I think it goes for any cop and any off duty actions or words. The department has no obligation to suffer defamation at the hands of an employee.

Those that would excuse bigotry when it's off duty are trying to support that bigotry being in the police force. They're trying to bring that bigotry to the face of the police for their own bigoted agenda.

Click to expand...

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The force can sue a current employee in a defamation civil tort proceeding. He keeps his free speech rights, and his job, and they get access to the same civil tort remedy any one else with a defamation case has. If they can prove some serious damages, they can take his retirement and his home, and his savings eventually. Employees occasionally engage in legal causes of action against current employers while staying legally employed. This would just be the reverse.

I suspect this isn't a successful defamation case.

btthegreat said:

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The force can sue a current employee in a defamation civil tort proceeding. He keeps his free speech rights, and his job, and they get access to the same civil tort remedy any one else with a defamation case has. If they can prove some serious damages, they can take his retirement and his home, and his savings eventually. Employees occasionally engage in legal causes of action against current employers while staying legally employed. This would just be the reverse.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with that course of action. Institutions, organizations, business and such are not slaves to the employees. The employees don't decide what off duty or after hours behavior is acceptable.

Also, being fired from a government job is not a free speech issue. Only prosecution is.

ecofarm said:

I'm fine with that course of action. Institutions, organizations, business and such are not slaves to the employees. The employees don't decide what off duty or after hours behavior is acceptable.

Also, being fired from a government job is not a free speech issue. Only prosecution is.

Click to expand...

It depends on what you are being fired for, but mostly it depends on what your CONTRACT says. I am nervous about the amount of power you hand over to employers, who are not willing to pay for it. In my opinion, what happens off the clock, off the premises, and out of uniform should normally be treated as private time, outside the purview of the employer. Not much point in clocking out and going home, if you are still under the thumb of your boss. I want to attend a pro-life rally , or wear an Obama button, or sing the praises of Julian Assange on my Facebook page or get soused at a bar on Friday, or plan my orgy without worrying about what my boss might do when he finds out. My personal behavior has to be acceptable to me, and my wife, or family. My professional behavior has to be acceptable to my employer. I know that I as an employer keep a strict rule about separating the two. I don't want a say in the private affairs of my staff. If someone complains to me, I just tell them I mind my own business, as long as it stays away from my business.


I do agree that some government jobs such as cops, or teachers, require a tighter standard.

btthegreat said:

It depends on what you are being fired for, but mostly it depends on what your CONTRACT says. I am nervous about the amount of power you hand over to employers, who are not willing to pay for it. In my opinion, what happens off the clock, off the premises, and out of uniform should normally be treated as private time, outside the purview of the employer. Not much point in clocking out and going home, if you are still under the thumb of your boss. I want to attend a pro-life rally , or wear an Obama button, or sing the praises of Julian Assange on my Facebook page or get soused at a bar on Friday without worrying about what my boss might do when he finds out.


I do agree that some government jobs such as cops, or teachers, require a tighter standard.

Click to expand...

I think any overt bigotry is grounds for dismissal.

And it doesn't matter what someone is fired for. Free speech is against prosecution, not a guaranteed job for life.

ecofarm said:

I think any overt bigotry is grounds for dismissal.

And it doesn't matter what someone is fired for. Free speech is against prosecution, not a guaranteed job for life.

Click to expand...

Oh it matters me. We have already established that congress can limit terminations based on the speech or conduct off the clock. That's why you can't fire an employee for advocating for a closed shop union off the clock. Its a simple matter to extend such protections to other forms of political or economic rights speech. I don't support such legislation as long as America as a society draws firm boundaries on efforts to squash private conduct by employers.


Now I am a gay man. I have worked with many an anti-gay coworker in my time. They had the' ADam and Eve, not Steve' bumper sticker, or they said what they want about banning same sex marriage, during lunchbreak (as do I), and I work by their side to accomplish the goals of my boss. I am a big boy. I can handle it. Besides I have marched in gay pride parade, without asking my boss what he thought so I don't want or expect my boss to fire bigots, or homophobes unless they make it uncomfortable during work hours. I'd rather have them beside me than an incompetent lazy ass oaf .

I guess you'd say I am in favor of the KKK keeping their 'day jobs' so I can keep mine. Besides, If they are fired, they just have more time to plan their next march.

btthegreat said:

Oh it matters me. We have already established that congress can limit terminations based on the speech or conduct off the clock. That's why you can't fire an employee for advocating for a closed shop union off the clock. Its a simple matter to extend such protections to other forms of political or economic rights speech. I don't support such legislation as long as America as a society draws firm boundaries on efforts to squash private conduct by employers.

Click to expand...

Nothing to do with free speech. Firing never has anything to do with free speech. Free speech protects only from prosecution in court.

Any speech provisions are contractual.

Now I am a gay man. I have worked with many an anti-gay coworker in my time. They had the' ADam and Eve, not Steve' bumper sticker, or they said what they want about banning same sex marriage, during lunchbreak (as do I), and I work by their side to accomplish the goals of my boss. I am a big boy. I can handle it. Besides I have marched in gay pride parade, without asking my boss what he thought so I don't want or expect my boss to fire bigots, or homophobes unless they make it uncomfortable during work hours. I'd rather have them beside me than an incompetent lazy ass oaf .

Click to expand...

None of that is overtly bigoted.

ecofarm said:

Nothing to do with free speech. Firing never has anything to do with free speech. Free speech protects only from prosecution in court. No. You are conflating the first amendment protections against governmental action against the exercise of free speech, with a broader concept of 'free speech'. Just because the only threat you are concerned with against free speech, is consistent with government action limits covered by the amendment, does not mean my concerns can't be broader. I am very concerned with the power of employers to punish and intimidate workers for what they say city council session, or where they march, or what they write about anything from a minimum wage hike , to increased oversight over business, to zoning ordinances than may be on the ballot. the reason I don't support protective legislation, is because most employers prefer to look the other way, and people in the community expect them to. But we have more and more off the clock behavior covered in employment contracts as 'morals' clauses and they are now boilerplate in some hourly worker contracts as opposed to salaried managers. I don't like them.




None of that is overtly bigoted.

Click to expand...

I don't care how you define 'overtly bigoted', I do care that your 'definition' is not interesting to employers at all. they get to decide what offends their corporate sense of values and fire anyone who's behavior might embarrass them. That means my walk in the gay pride parade, can get my ass fired. My Sanders for President lawn sign can threaten my mortgage payments.


Nope. Let the Neo Nazi march away and scream insults at gays or minorities. I will still work by his side next Monday, thanks. I want him to feel safe from economic reprisals, so I can protest without my family being at risk. I don't want to work in a place that fires him for his off the clock views.

btthegreat said:

I don't care how you define 'overtly bigoted', I do care that your 'definition' is not interesting to employers at all. they get to decide what offends their corporate sense of values and fire anyone who's behavior might embarrass them.

Click to expand...

There's no "broader concept". That's BS. Free speech protects against prosecution - period.

Employers know what overt bigotry is and they fire people for it. Nothing wrong with that.

The 1st Amendment does not limit its application to only government prosecution, and SCOTUS has widened the application to private employment which would make it absurd to not apply it to government employment. Especially when the Amendments are specifically about limiting government action.

Aberration said:

The 1st Amendment does not limit its application to only government prosecution, and SCOTUS has widened the application to private employment which would make it absurd to not apply it to government employment. Especially when the Amendments are specifically about limiting government action.

Click to expand...

Let's see your citation for privately owned or any business being responsible to uphold free speech.

You think this forum is obligated to uphold free speech?

btthegreat said:

I want him to feel safe from economic reprisals, so I can protest without my family being at risk. I don't want to work in a place that fires him for his off the clock views.

Click to expand...

You want nazis safe from economic reprisal. You're sure you're not a nazi?

Accepting nazis does not keep anyone safe. It encourages them and increases the danger.

Lastly, non bigoted demonstrations have nothing to fear from taking action against nazis. Pretending that your non bigoted events are in danger because employers reject nazis is absurd.

ecofarm said:

There's no "broader concept". That's BS. Free speech protects against prosecution - period.

Employers know what overt bigotry is and they fire people for it. Nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

If you think the only power that can intimidate and bully enough people into silence to stop us from gaining broad access to political and social reform ideas, is a govt entity, you are foolish. If you think that such intimidation can't have a very chilling impact on how free we may feel to protest, to speak out, to mobilize you are even more foolish. Religions and corporations can have that kind of power over our access. The constitution says absolutely nothing about those possible threats to our access to ideas. It only speaks about govt as such a threat. We have a social and cultural duty to do our own due diligence, to protect our access from systemic efforts to silence specific ideas and movements. You don't have any 'overt bigotry' standard in any law or statute, let alone a definition. You picked this language out of thin air. What are you going to do when people are being fired for their expression of ideas that are not 'overtly bigoted'? when it is just as legal to fire me for being an advocate for marriage equality or legalized pot, or Donald Trump' reelection? Nothing? Well I hope you get pissed and I hope you make it clear to that employer, that they are playing a dangerous and offensive game. It should make them nervous to fire people for what they say or do off hours and off the property and out of uniform, and you should be making them nervous, so we don't need a law trying to micromanage this.

Otherwise we might as well call our employers the new morality police in our lives.

btthegreat said:

If you think the only power that can intimidate and bully enough people into silence to stop us from gaining broad access to political and social reform ideas, is a govt entity, you are foolish. If you think that such intimidation can't have a very chilling impact on how free we may feel to protest, to speak out, to mobilize you are even more foolish. Religions and corporations can have that kind of power over our access. The constitution says absolutely nothing about those possible threats to our access to ideas. It only speaks about govt as such a threat. We have a social and cultural duty to do our own due diligence, to protect our access from systemic efforts to silence specific ideas and movements. You don't have any 'overt bigotry' standard in any law or statute, let alone a definition. You picked this language out of thin air. What are you going to do when people are being fired for their expression of ideas that are not 'overtly bigoted'? when it is just as legal to fire me for being an advocate for marriage equality or legalized pot, or Donald Trump' reelection?

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with firing nazis. Doing so does not endanger non bigoted protests.

You have a lot of nazi apologism for a gay guy. I wouldn't work with a nazi and I wouldn't accept one in a workplace, and I'm white hetero cis. All nazis should be fired.

ecofarm said:

There's nothing wrong with firing nazis. Doing so does not endanger non bigoted protests.

You have a lot of nazi apologism for a gay guy. I wouldn't work with a nazi and I wouldn't accept on in a workplace, and I'm white hetero cis.

Click to expand...

I am fine with all sorts of social forms of retribution for unpopular or offensive speech. push them out of the Lions club, refuse to let them in your tennis tournament. Treat them like scum in the grocery store, refuse to sit next to them in church, call them out for their bigoted offensive ideas all you want. I expected and dealt those consequences when marched for gay rights back in the eighties. But I did NOT expect to be fired as long as I acted professional at work. I did not expect to have my paycheck threatened and my family to worry about medical bills or grocery money because I was labeled immoral or a sodomite.

If this neo Nazi is not imposing his beliefs on you at work, what business is it of yours whether you are working beside one or not? if you don't have to hear him talk about it at work, and you don't see him treating any blacks or jews around you differently, why can't you leave your baggage at the door and he leave his baggage at the door and get the work done? Its up to the employer to set the ground rules at the work place to ensure you both feel comfortable , not impose their political or social 'dos and don'ts' beyond the workplace. they tell him to cover up his tatoo, keep his arm band in his locker and keep his hate off their property, so you need not worry overmuch, but they don't tell him what he has to cover, what he gets to wear or say after he goes home because its not their job to make you feel comfortable and free from Nazism.


Anything they can do to force a neo Nazi to conform, they can do to force a socialist or a libertarian, or a gay activist

btthegreat said:

I am fine with all sorts of social forms of retribution for unpopular or offensive speech. push them out of the Lions club, refuse to let them in your tennis tournament. Treat them like scum in the grocery store, refuse to sit next to them in church, call them out for their bigoted offensive ideas all you want. I expected and dealt those consequences when marched for gay rights back in the eighties. But I did NOT expect to be fired as long as I acted professional at work. I did not expect to have my paycheck threatened and my family to worry about medical bills or grocery money because I was labeled immoral or a sodomite.

If this neo Nazi is not imposing his beliefs on you at work, what business is it of yours whether you are working beside one or not? if you don't have to hear him talk about it at work, and you don't see him treating any blacks or jews around you differently, why can't you leave your baggage at the door and he leave his baggage at the door and get the work done? Its up to the employer to set the ground rules at the work place to ensure you both feel comfortable , not impose their political or social 'dos and don'ts' beyond the workplace. they tell him to cover up his tatoo, keep his arm band in his locker and keep his hate off their property, so you need not worry overmuch, but they don't tell him what he has to cover, what he gets to wear or say after he goes home because its not their job to make you feel comfortable and free from Nazism.

Click to expand...

That's nazi apologism. I don't believe you're gay.