Manning Goes on Wiles Radio Show; Hilarity Ensues

When James David Manning, the Harlem preacher who thinks gays should be stoned and that Starbucks flavors their coffee with semen, goes on the radio with Rick Wiles, the guy who is leaving the United States before God destroys it because of gay marriage, you know you’re in for a treat.

Yesterday, notorious “Stone Homos” pastor James David Manning appeared on “Trunews” for a “discussion about Barack Obama’s satanic assault on America’s morality.”

Not only did Manning spend time criticizing President Obama, but he also castigated the Supreme Court, arguing that “the Devil himself has written this opinion” on marriage equality.

He also told host Rick Wiles that “perhaps [Justice] Kennedy and many of those who are on the Supreme Court have had sodomite relations themselves” and were being blackmailed by their secret gay lovers: “They have got to support this sodomy, they’ve got to say it or otherwise they get exposed.”

Must be all that Starbucks coffee they drink.

Manning said people don’t realize that the court’s ruling on same-sex marriage will lead to the fall of America: “Fifty years from now people will look back at this period and say, ‘My God from Zion, how could a nation have fallen, how could the mighty have fallen so quickly and so far and so low?’”

“If there’s anybody still alive in the United States of America 50 years from now,” Wiles added.

Nope. 50 years from now we’ll look back on this the same way we now look back on the Civil Rights battles of the 50s and 60s. We’ll be baffled and appalled that anyone ever thought it was okay to deny equal rights to people just because they’re gay. And Wiles and Manning will be seen as the KKK and George Wallace.

"So, in October he was a moron (IQ 51-70), and in November he is down ..."

Report: McMaster Called Trump a Childish ..."
"Denmark was the first one IIRC, and they're still doing just fine."

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."
"You've been saying that for a year, now. Your original point may be valid. But ..."

Report: McMaster Called Trump a Childish ..."
"And...God hasn't destroyed any other country where gays can get married. In fact, most of ..."

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • llewelly

    Let us hope there is no resulting “lost cause” myth, and no terrible movies, like Gone With The Wind

  • John Pieret

    Only [cough] God knows how that density of stupidity in such close proximity did not result in a stupidity black hole sucking in the entire Earth.

  • D. C. Sessions

    50 years from now we’ll look back on this the same way we now look back on the Civil Rights battles of the 50s and 60s. We’ll be baffled and appalled that anyone ever thought it was okay to deny equal rights to people just because they’re gay.

    You may be right about how “we” will see gender identity issues, but comparing to racial issues isn’t nearly so hopeful as you make it out to be — please see Ferguson, Charlotte, etc. where is manifestly is “okay to deny equal rights to people just because they’re” brown. Certainly the way “we now look back on the Civil Rights battles of the 50s and 60s” depends a very great deal on who “we” are — with some seeing them as progress to be proud of and many other seeing them as a loss of the Real USA®.

  • colnago80

    Re llewelly @ #1

    Apparently, you are in a rather small minority in considering Gone with the Wind a terrible movie. It racks up an 8.2 at IMDB and 93% at Rotten Tomatoes. I would agree that it is much too pro-Confederate for my taste and is historically inaccurate, but that doesn’t make it a terrible movie, at least as an entertainment point of view.

  • Larry

    john @2

    That would have happened already during the GOP “debates” of 2012. On several occasions.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Yesterday, notorious“Stone Homos” pastor James David Manning…

    Stone Homos, my favorite gay Stone Roses cover band!

  • Nick Gotts

    50 years from now we’ll look back on this the same way we now look back on the Civil Rights battles of the 50s and 60s.

    What, you mean we’ll be fooling ourselves that the equal marriage decision meant the struggle for LGBT rights was won? :-p

    The SC decision is a huge blow against the religious right, largely because they’ve insisted on making it so. But it’s not a fatal blow, and the existence of a powerful proto-Christofascist party is a standing danger to what remains of democracy in the USA (in the wake of Citizens United, the Patriot Act, universal surveillance…). So, I hope we’ll be in a position to make such judgements, but there seems to me a real danger the USA will succumb either to fascism or to serious internal violence in the next few decades. Or even in the next few years: what happens if one of the more irrational of the Republican Presidential candidates wins nomination and election, alongside Republican majorities in both houses, and a demographically unsurprising couple of vacancies on the Supreme Court?

  • John Pieret

    Some more of the wit and wisdom of James David Manning:

    The Confederates Were Biblically and Constitutionally Right About Slavery:

    http://atlah.org/2015/07/15/the-confederates-were-biblically-and-constitutionally-right-about-slavery

    People become gay because of “sodomite demons” and merely being in the same restaurant with someone with such a demon can result in your becoming gay!

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anti-gay-pastor-warns-contracting-sodomite-demon-restaurants-dates

    I wonder who helps this guy get dressed in the morning and leads him to his “church”?

  • eric

    50 years from now we’ll look back on this the same way we now look back on the Civil Rights battles of the 50s and 60s.

    With one big difference; the internet has recorded everything this time around. The vast majority of people who opposed integration could quietly give that position up and claim they never had it. Only media figures really got indelibly recorded as supporting it. For gay rights, the coverage is much wider. The part of me that enjoys schaudenfreude thinks this is a very good thing; we should absolutely not allow today’s bigots to whitewash their pasts in the future. But the more doveish side of me wonders whether some amount of social amnesia might not be a good thing. From a pragmatic perspective, I’d rather a person in 2020 vocally support gay rights, than stay silent about it merely out of a desire not to be viewed as weak/inconsistent. Yes, the ideal thing for such a person to do is to admit their past errors and say they’ve changed their mind. But not all of us act in such an ideal way. For the people who feel their pride/self-image is at stake, I’d rather they send the right message to future kids even if doing so requires that the rest of us don’t bring up that that person used to send the wrong message.

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

    He’s got a point. How much will you Liberal Tyrants enjoy your so-called “gay” so-called “marriages” when we’re all dead thanks to those very so-called “gay” so-called “marriages”?

  • eric

    what happens if one of the more irrational of the Republican Presidential candidates wins nomination and election, alongside Republican majorities in both houses, and a demographically unsurprising couple of vacancies on the Supreme Court?

    The Supreme Court scenario is an outside possibility, but IMO rolling back gay rights via Congress is not. With the current approval rating for SSM being 60% (and climbing), even GOP congresscritters will not lift a hand against it. That’s a sure path to not being reelected. Instead, I expect this issue will be like social security; they’ll talk the big talk about cutting benefits in order to establish their conservative cred on the campaign circuit, but they won’t ever actually pass legislation doing that.

  • colnago80

    Re eric @ #11

    They won’t need to pass legislation in Congress if a Fascist goat fuckking piece of filth like Scott Walker should make it to the White House and get the opportunity to replace Ginsburg on the SCOTUS.

  • http://www.facebook.com/using.reason usingreason

    “If there’s anybody still alive in the United States of America 50 years from now,” Wiles added.

    And I’m done, I can’t wrap my brain around how deluded one would have to be for that to be a serious statement. This is why I tend to think that these people are just spouting nonsense to get paid; it can’t possibly be serious?

  • Synfandel

    Anyone know what, exactly, is the lethal radius of a gay marriage?

  • theguy

    “He also told host Rick Wiles that ‘perhaps [Justice] Kennedy and many of those who are on the Supreme Court have had sodomite relations themselves’ and were being blackmailed by their secret gay lovers: ‘They have got to support this sodomy, they’ve got to say it or otherwise they get exposed.’”

    And so what if they do get “exposed?” Gay sex is legal now, and nobody’s going to get removed from the Supreme Court because they turned out to be gay.

    Fundamentalism’s a helluva drug.

  • xuuths

    Well, Manning was right about one thing. I was totally straight until I went to a restaurant, and this strikingly attractive, muscled hunk walked to my table and asked me what I wanted for lunch. How could heterosexuality possibly withstand such a strong homosexual attack? I didn’t have a chance. Seriously, I didn’t have a chance with that hot guy.

  • caseloweraz

    He also told host Rick Wiles that “perhaps [Justice] Kennedy and many of those who are on the Supreme Court have had sodomite relations themselves” and were being blackmailed by their secret gay lovers: “They have got to support this sodomy, they’ve got to say it or otherwise they get exposed.”

    If this were a real thing, and not just a product of Manning’s fervid imagination, you would think the conservative justices would be as susceptible to infection as the liberals. In that case there would be few if any SCOTUS decisions that go against liberals. (Presumably the demons would be smart enough not to raise suspicions by enforcing unanimity too often.)

  • caseloweraz

    Synfandel: Anyone know what, exactly, is the lethal radius of a gay marriage?

    Theory propounded at the time of the discovery of the gayon, the particle that mediates gay-gay interactions, said that it was proportional to ambient temperature. Thus it would have been a serious problem in states like Alabama, since most marriages occur during the summer. The lethal range could have been as much as 500 feet (152.4 m).

    Fortunately, the Large Hadron Collider went on line in 2008. It transmuted the gayons into something less interactive than neutrinos, and heterosexual humans were safe. Praise EU!

  • abb3w

    Judge Roy Moore might be remembered as this era’s Wallace; these bozos won’t even fare that well.

  • carpenterman

    For people who claim to hate “sodomy”, they sure talk about a lot. Seriously, I’ve never met a gay person as obsessed with gay sex as anti-gay activists. One might ask, “What’s the fascination, guys? Any ‘urges’ we should know about, hmmm?”

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    John Pieret @ 8

    I wonder who helps this guy get dressed in the morning and leads him to his “church”?

    I’d like to know who reminds him to breathe 16 times per minute.

  • Nick Gotts

    eric@11,

    Sorry – I wasn’t clear. I agree Equal Marriage is pretty much irreversible, short of an actual Dominionist seizure of power. I meant that the religious right will not go away just because they lost on this issue – they will fairly quickly refocus on abortion, the evils of Islam and atheism, welfare, climate denialism… whatever they think will gain them traction. But because of how homophobia relates to the whole religious right ideology of gender, it’s very hard for them to leave the marriage equality issue alone – so bring it up at every opportunity, and watch them lose their rag, like Michael Egnor* 😉

    *aka the Dukedog7. He pretends it’s about the constitutional outrage of the SC decision, but the true “what gays do in bed is icky” motivation shines through!

  • caseloweraz

    I should have thought a little longer about that #18. Rather than trying to correct it, I’ll just apologize for the unintended meaning of a flawed attempt at humor.