Klingenschmitt: Can’t Quote the Bible in Church Anymore

Gordon Klingenschmitt continues to prove that he is either a liar or delusional with this long video explaining the “homosexual agenda.” He quotes from the hate crimes law saying that the constitution does not protect speech that conspires to commit violence (true) and then says, “Is it possible to even quote the Bible in church anymore? No it’s not.” Hey, whatever keeps the money flowing in. Lying is perfectly acceptable as long as it does that.


"I wouldn't, since Dom's comments are of insufficient interest to go to the work of ..."

Trump, Jerusalem and Dispensational Premillenialism
"I have no need to explain Dom's comment. For the most part, I observe it ..."

Trump, Jerusalem and Dispensational Premillenialism
"You don't get to make demands of anyone. If you wish to deal with Dom, ..."

Trump, Jerusalem and Dispensational Premillenialism
"Thank you. An attempted insult by a troll can only be treated as a compliment."

Trump, Jerusalem and Dispensational Premillenialism

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=153100784 michaelbrew

    I suppose if he honestly believes that quoting the bible at church incites violence, he may have a reasonable point, and one many antitheists can get behind.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    He does realize he’s admitting that biblical speech “conspires to create violence”, right?

  • Trebuchet

    Thinking out loud…is hate speech from the pulpit actually protected? Shouldn’t be, i’d think.

  • schism

    He does realize he’s admitting that biblical speech “conspires to create violence”, right?

    Yeah, but it’s violence against people he doesn’t like, so it’s okay.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Hey, remember all those times in the New Testament when Jesus incited his followers to go out and beat up queers?

  • raven

    He quotes from the hate crimes law saying that the constitution does not protect speech that conspires to commit violence (true)..

    Hate Crime laws always make the fundies uneasy and they oppose them.

    They know their religion is based on hate.

    No hate = No fundie xianity.

  • grumpyoldfart

    At the 5’44” mark did he really mean to disparage his flock when he implied that they were ready to commit acts of violence as soon as the preacher gave them the go-ahead?

    “Next time somebody does go out and commit an act of violence and they tie that back to a pastor’s sermon; the pastor’s going to jail.”

  • raven

    Using hate as an organizing and motivating principle is just tribalism.

    It’s very old. And hate is one of the major themes of that tribal document known as the bible.

    Hate the Canaanites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Greeks, Romans, Philistines, Samaritans and, at the end, hate the Jews especially the Pharisees. What goes around, comes around.

  • matty1

    I wonder what services are like at his church? Do they have paramedics on hand to deal with the injuries when he incites violence, are weapons provided or do they just smack each other with hymn books?

  • Chiroptera

    So “inciting violence” can be added to the list of special privileges (like health care workers not doing their jobs, or employers not obeying labor laws) that Christians get to retain under the guise of “freedom of religion”?

  • matty1

    @3 Hate speech is too broad a category to be useful do you mean.

    -Directly inciting violence

    -Encouraging people to really dislike others

    -Using insults to make your dislike really clear

    -Wishing bad luck on people e.g ‘God will strike you down’

    I would be very wary of criminalising any but the first of these since a ban on ‘speech that makes people feel hatred’ could be used to criminalise disagreement.

  • exdrone

    Ending the use of the bible as a reference in church could only improve the institution.

  • uzza

    What became of the case last January where a high school pulled a kid’s editorial from the school paper when he quoted Leviticus about killing gays? Liberty Council stepped in to defend the kid’s right to quote the bible, and then crickets …

  • raven

    What became of the case last January where a high school pulled a kid’s editorial from the school paper when he quoted Leviticus about killing gays?

    The school declared the high school kid a Disobedient Child and stoned him to death like it says to do in Deuteronomy. Who says the bible isn’t full of wisdom?

    Liberty Council was powerless to act because it was in the bible and part of biblical law.

    (Well, in theory under xian biblical Sharia law, they could.)

  • John Pieret

    Klingenschmitt goes on (starting at about 4:50) about the 6th Circuit Court of appeals case, Glenn v. Holder, and, naturally, lies about it.

    You can find it here:


    Klingenschmitt says that the court held that Christians can be punished for their speech and that pastors probably shouldn’t be quoting the Bible and that, the next time someone commits an act of violence and it is tied to a sermon, the pastor will go to jail.

    Here’s what the court actually said:

    The enacted statute also includes six uncodified “Rules of Construction.”2 Hate Crimes Act § 4710(1)-(6). These Rules provide generally that the Hate Crimes Act “applies to violent acts,” § 4710(2); that the Act should not be construed to infringe, allow prosecution solely for, diminish, or prohibit constitutionally protected speech or conduct, § 4710(3)-(6); … The Act thus prohibits violent acts; it does not prohibit constitutionally protected speech or conduct.

    Plaintiffs say they want no more than to “publicly denounce homosexuality” and “spread God’s Word” based on their interpretation of the Bible, without engaging in unprotected forms of expression such as “fighting words,”

    “true threats,” or “advocacy [that] is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” …

    The Act does not prohibit Plaintiffs’ proposed course of speech. “[T]he term ‘bodily injury’ . . . does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim,” 18 U.S.C. § 249(c)(1), and the legislative history shows that the term “violent acts” (not defined in the Act itself) is not intended to include “violent thoughts,” “expressions of hatred toward any group,” or “the lawful expression of one’s deeply held religious or personal beliefs.”

    Which probably explains why Plaintiffs can’t quite pinpoint what it is they want to say that could subject them to prosecution under the Hate Crimes Act. They try, for example, when they hypothesize that they might be subject to enforcement actions for quoting Biblical references to homosexuality, but even there only one such quotation contains any suggestion of “bodily injury.” That’s Leviticus 20:13—“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Whatever meaning Plaintiffs attribute to this passage, they have not alleged any intention to do more than merely quote it. About that, the Hate Crimes Act has nothing to say.

    The decision goes on at length in that vein.

    Apparently, to Klingenschmitt, being a “man of God” entails being a lying sack of shit. And maybe that’s why the act worries him because he really does intend his flock to go out and kill gays

  • caseloweraz

    I haven’t watched the 28:31 video, but I get the impression that Gordon K. is feeling constrained these days. Does this mean he’s stopped using those imprecatory prayers?

  • matty1

    I get the impression that Gordon K. is feeling constrained these days. Does this mean he’s stopped using those imprecatory prayers?

    No it means I’ve started.

    O great Loki, Cthulu and Spaghetti Monster constrain Gordon Klingenschmitt, may he limit his public statement and reduce his advocacy.

    In Buddha’s name


  • sqlrob

    Hey, remember all those times in the New Testament when Jesus incited his followers to go out and beat up queers

    Matthew 10:34.

    Peace loving hippie my ass.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    sqlrob “Matthew 10:34. Peace loving hippie my ass.”

    sqlrob, shorter Matt 10:

    Matt 10 ~ “You’re expecting me, the Messiah, to bring peace and prosperity to you in this world. This I won’t do. That’s what heaven is for, stupid. What I can promise you, my Apostles, is that shit’s goin’ down, but carry my word, and be all meek and like a dove and don’t be a sucker, and the Father will speak through you. Go in to towns and heal some sick. When they kick you, kick you down or kick you out of their towns, kick the dust off your feet, knowing that when they set themselves against you, they set themselves against my father. Long story short, they’re deeply, deeply fucked. Peace, out!”

    And it came to pass that He did drop the mic. And there was silence on the stage, and the crowd was hushed. And, yea, then did Run-DMC come on and seeing this the crowd did lose its shit, and on that night there was a party over here, and a party over there, and a party over here, and a party everywhere. And many hands were put in the air and waved about without a care, and hands were also put up, and hands were put up, and the crowd was heard to shout “Hell yeah!”.

  • ah58

    You know I’d bet he’d have no problem arresting a Muslim cleric who advocated violence from the pulpit, especially if one of his followers committed a violent act. Put the shoe on the other foot, however, and suddenly they’re violating his rights.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    ah58 “Put the shoe on the other foot, however, and suddenly they’re violating his rights.”

    The in-group has rights. Out-groups get privileges. We can preach. We permit you to preach.

  • Childermass

    If a church is not quoting Bible verses, then I suspect it might have something to do with those verses being embarrassing. I sure never heard about she-bears eating kids who make fun of bald prophets in the years which I attended Southern Baptist Sunday School followed by the sermon.

    But as someone who believes in Church/State separation, I dare say the only time the government has any business of any content of what a preacher says would be:

    1) Preacher lies about someone and the person lied about sues over it.

    2) Preach asks to congregation to so something that is a major felony: “I think we should kill Fred”, etc.

    3) Church asks that donations be tax exempt and does not comply with the rules against political endorsement (which apply to both religious and non-religious groups).

  • uzza

    They always seem to froth over imaginary scenarios while at the same time ignore real events that could support their argument. The Shawana HS case was an actual example of a Christian that was censured for quoting the bible. Granted it was only the school authorities instead of the Feds but it would give Klingenschmidt at least a misshapen, rubbery a leg to stand on. Slippery slope and all that.

    In defending that Christian, I think they would have to argue either that the bible is not hate speech even though it advocates murder, or, that it is hate speech but (agreeing with Glenn Vs Holder) it’s ok to cite it as long as one doesn’t advocate actually doing what it says to do. A tough choice.

  • andrew3112

    just before I looked at the paycheck which had said $4466, I be certain that my cousin was actualie bringing home money part time on there computar.. there mums best friend haz done this less than twentey months and recently paid the morgage on there villa and purchased Mini Cooper. go to, BAM21.COM

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730511544 billdaniels

    Why is he still calling himself “Chaplain”? He’s also still repeating the lie that he got in trouble for daring to pray in Jeebus’ name.

    He looks like he is exerting most of his energy just trying not to drool.

  • John Phillips, FCD

    I’m sorry, but each time I heard the phrase Dr Chaps repeated, the twelve year old in me started giggling thinking of YMCA.

  • Hatchetfish

    andrew3112 gives me an idea. Perhaps a good way to stop them is running a spellcheck/grammar check, but not offering suggestions. Just holding comments until they pass the checks. I doubt more than 1/10 of these spammers could pull it off.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    For Klingstoshitt, being a lying, fucking sociopathic asshole would be an upgrade.


    Building on your splendid idea. If the resident physical science people could get together with the webmavens and googlefugurus who are devoted acolytes of His Eminence Brayton (may his name be blessed!) they could develop a deathray e-mail thingie which could smoke the boxes of people/bots like andrew3112 whenever their spamliciousness is detected–in fact I think it could be extended to include ennyone who misspells words, uses, like, bad grammar and shit, profanity or puts prepositions at the ends of sentences instead of the middle which is what they are for, also too. Whu’s wit me on this?

  • http://www.facebook.com/kemibe kevinbeck

    This guy would be a fucking pig even if he didn’t lie like he was getting paid to do it…whoops, never mind that last part.

    Do you think people like this feel the slightest pangs of remorse when the realization that their entire professional lives, and much of their personal ones, are reliant on their own and others’ blind bigotry and raucous ignorance for sustenance? Seriously, even if I could make good coin doing it, if I woke up every morning realizing that the most important task before me was going on TV to explain why an entire class of people needs to be treated like utter shit and denied both dignity and rights, all for the high crime of not wanting to couple with members of the opposite sex?

    Since I’m not a fan of violence, I’ll have to hope this talking pile of shit drops dead of a coronary or is run down by the phallic vehicle driven by Ace and Gary, the “Ambiguously Gay Duo” created by Robert Smigel for SNL many years ago.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “Since I’m not a fan of violence,”

    Me, I’d settle for a lightning bolt from a blind, uncaring universe.