Reconstructionist Supports Blasphemy Laws

Joel McDurmon is a Christian Reconstructionist. That means he supports making the Mosaic law from the Old Testament the civil and criminal law of the United States (and every country). Christian Sharia law, in other words. And of course, he supports punishing those who engage in “blasphemy.”

When man sets a higher legal standard for speech against man than he does for speech against God, He explicitly rejects God as King and sets himself in the place of God. Legalized blasphemy represents treason to God. It also represents treason to any country founded upon that God…

Atheists and humanists begin with man and wish to derive “hate speech” from that standard. This devolves into a state where individuals, culture, law, and art can curse and mock all religion, virtue, sexuality, and all transcendent standards, and seek legal protection for such acts. Thus, homosexuality, for example, which incarnates a gross perversion of the sex act—indeed the ultimate mockery of it—seeks legal protection from even criticism. Even to decry homosexuality as a perversion is to practice “hate speech” according to such a worldview, and in some so-called liberal democracies that boast of so-called “free speech,” a preacher who even reads the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual perversion publicly can find himself in jail.

Mankind, you see, cannot escape “blasphemy” laws: the question is of who determines what constitutes blasphemy.

Meanwhile, to highlight a degenerate society’s social hypocrisy, the standard interpersonal curses themselves pertain to sexuality: listen to any rap radio station and you will drown in a deluge of racial slurs interspersed with epithets of maternal incest, while any given foul-mouth on the street finds his readiest curse in willing a forcible sex act upon his annoyer: “f— you.” Humanism wishes legally to protect its perversions while in practice admitting them to be perverse, employing them as curses.

When society displays such characteristics, it reveals the depth of its rebellion against the Creator. The proper way to protect name, reputation, and human rights in general, is not to profane God and exalt man, but just the opposite. Unless men first revere God and honor an ultimate allegiance to the divine origin of mankind, and protect these beliefs by legal consequence, they shall denigrate everything glorious that man can be, and then protect their perversions and obscenity by recourse to legal force (as we have begun to see now).

Gotta love the generalizations. I’m an atheist and a humanist and I staunchly oppose hate speech laws. But he quotes an unnamed audience member from a debate in South Africa who advocated hate speech laws, so now all atheists and humanists must support them. As for the rest, this is simply Christian fascism.

"And please do find actual libertarians calling for the execution of a President or anyone ..."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."
"I would say that I'm pro-capitalism in the same way that I'm pro-fire. As someone ..."

Hannity Shows the Usual Right Wing ..."
"Right...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/..."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."
"Yes, impeachment for actual crimes. Being BWP is not a crime."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Crimson Clupeidae

    So they’re cheering on Saudi Arabia right now, I suspect.

  • eric

    Atheists and humanists begin with man

    Well, we begin with “we the people.”

  • http://Reallyawakeguy.blogspot.com somnus

    He used a lot of words to say “I don’t understand how free speech works, but it sure scares me!”

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Joel McDurmon is a Christian Reconstructionist. That means he supports making the Mosaic law from the Old Testament the civil and criminal law of the United States (and every country).

    Hmmm. Jesus H. Christ differed from his Papa’s laws as spelled out in the OT. Divorce is one such example of a clear difference.

    Mankind, you see, cannot escape “blasphemy” laws: the question is of who determines what constitutes blasphemy.

    No problem, we can get God to clarify that for us. McDurmon should get busy serving a subpoena to God so that he can be deposed on the topic soon.

  • matty1

    While I too oppose hate speech laws all ‘offensive’ material is not the equal. There is a difference between a cartoon that Mr X doesn’t want published because he will be upset by seeing it and a cartoon that Mr X doesn’t want published because Mr Y might see it and be motivated to hate Mr X.

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

    The proper way to protect name, reputation, and human rights in general, is not to profane God and exalt man, but just the opposite.

    Exalt God and profane Man?

  • Kevin Kehres

    Child pornography would no longer be illegal. Nor child abuse of any form. In fact, stoning of rebellious children could begin in earnest. It’s about time — there are some seriously asshole kids in my neighborhood who a due for a stoning.

    And the Mormons could finally get a little slack cut their way for the polygamy. In fact, I’d like me a concubine or two myself.

    And maybe this will solve the immigration problem; because we can just make slaves of them.

  • cptdoom

    Legalized blasphemy represents treason to God. It also represents treason to any country founded upon that God…

    Well, that clears up America’s founding, then, because the very First Amendment to the Constitution explicitly allows for blasphemy. In fact, the very allowance for different versions of Christianity also allows for blasphemy, as Christian denominations have very different views on what a valid bible is.

  • Francisco Bacopa

    The Old Testament law I am most interested in following is the one that says I can own a Canadian. I choose Geddy Lee. He will teach me the secrets of YYZ and La Villa Strangiato. However, I would probably be arrested form blasphemy fairly quickly and reconstructionists would probably kill Geddy rather than deport him because they don’t want to believe that atheists with a strong Jewish cultural identity even exist.

    This is just an example of how dominionists, reconstructionists , and conservative Catholics should be considered enemies of freedom. Donohue defended the Paris attacks. Robertson and Falwell blamed America for 9/11 because our values were not similar enough to the values of those who attacked us.

  • lordshipmayhem

    I find Christian fascism to be the original version, the Muslim kind to be a clone wrapped in a different Abrahamic religion. Hitler was Catholic and remained a church-goer through much of the 20’s and 30’s, as was Francisco Franco in Spain and . In fact, the Hitler regime depended on good Catholics and Lutherans to work their death camps.

    Look at the old SS oath, created November 9, 1935 (from Facebook):

    “What is your oath ?” – “I vow to you, Adolf Hitler, as Führer and chancellor of the German Reich loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to the leaders that you set for me, absolute allegiance until death. So help me God !”

    “So you believe in a God ?” – “Yes, I believe in a Lord God.”

    “What do you think about a man who does not believe in a God ?” – “I think he is arrogant, megalomaniacal and stupid; he is not one of us.”

  • anubisprime

    From “blasphemy” tis but a hop, skip, and jump, to burnin’ those uppity bitches at the stake and claiming witchcraft is the real enemy…

    Oh and after the witch screaming stops, throw on the conflagration a few choice atheists to keep the entertainment going…tis only logical!

    And there you have a perfect xtian evening out for all the family!

  • congenital cynic

    All of his bullshit presupposes there is a god. So, since I believe that there is no god or gods, his manifesto is, in my opinion, a steaming pile of excrement. And since he can’t prove to me that there is a god, his opinion is no better than mine. From my point of view, he can go stick his head up his ass for all I care.

    I’m not, nor have I ever been a violent person, but if I ever encountered one of these Christian thugs on the field of battle (and it’s not impossible that there will be one someday in the US) I’d not hesitate to strangle him with his own entrails. These people have no humanity. They have allegiance to an interpretation of a book, and a very inconsistent book at that. There are a lot of things wrong with the world, but religion is in the top three on the list.

  • dingojack

    The Florentines tried this some time ago — it didn’t end well for the wing-nut.

    😉 Dingo

  • Pianoman, Church of the Golden Retriever

    “…a preacher who even reads the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual perversion publicly can find himself in jail.”

    oh, please, please, please give me a single example of that happening in North America. Boy, would our jails be even more full if quoting scripture was illegal.

  • k_machine

    “in some so-called liberal democracies that boast of so-called “free speech,” a preacher who even reads the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual perversion publicly can find himself in jail.”

    The Ake Green case in Sweden is the only one I know of, and he was freed on appeal.

  • eric

    Reconstructionist Supports Blasphemy Laws

    In other news, dog bites man and tea party representative criticizes Obama!

  • abb3w

    I’d counterargue that the courts are not setting a higher legal standard for speech against man than he does for speech against God, but that in fact are using one that is similar and endorsed by the Bible — in Judges 6. If God has a problem with any manner of defamation or blasphemy, He can come to file suit in court Himself.

    If he can’t be bothered to show up Himself, then it’s clearly not enough of a controversy to be worth any of the courts’ time.

  • criticaldragon1177

    #1. Crimson Clupeidae,

    “So they’re cheering on Saudi Arabia right now, I suspect.”

    They would be except Saudi Arabia, is an Muslim theocracy, not a Christian theocracy. They only approve when people of their faith oppress other people in the name of their faith.