Bigot Jeremy Walters, some Republican douche running for office, outed himself on facebook (as a bigot, not a homosexual… yet):
When the Bible says homosexuals should be “put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” the blood is really AIDS. Or so says Jeremy Walters, Republican legislative hopeful, in a series of posts on his Facebook.
Waters is running in House District 67 against state Rep. Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, the second highest ranking Democrat in the Iowa House.
From Walters’ Facebook:
“The Holy Bible says if your ‘GAY’ homosexual they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. This tells me a lot so should we kill them NO. They Need to ask God to forgive them of their sins and mean it turn away from it. They also need to know that when it says that their blood shall be upon them that tells me it is AIDS. That how I feel.”
“homosexual “GAY” is not of God!!!!!!”
He issued an apology, which sounds very heartfelt:
I am not against people having a gay lifestyle, and the statements made on Facebook have been taken the wrong way. The statement regarding gay homosexuality was not meant to be offensive and I deeply appologize.
As far as the quote from Bible; I was replying to someone elses post. It should have been posted as a comment on their page, not my Facebook wall. I appologize for the mistake and if this statement offened anyone. Both postings have been removed and these comments do not pertain to my campaign or the Republican Party of Iowa. My passion is to listen and learn from the people so I can represent them at the statehouse. Everyone makes mistakes, please forgive me.
Yeah, it wasn’t meant to be offensive. We just took it the wrong way. Sure Jeremy.
He’s not against people having a gay lifestyle, he just thinks they offend his God need to repent. Makes complete sense.
If it wants to be forgiven, he should say his remarks were WRONG, not that they were taken wrong. He hasn’t changed his mind, he’s just trying to manage the fallout.
What’s with the “GAY” homosexual, is there a non-gay homosexual or a gay non-homosexual?
He’s just pointing out that homos are totally gay.
What if they’re not happy homosexuals?
ROFL lMAO
Gay homosexuals are the worst of all.
Because they’re so damned happy all the time!
Maybe he has nothing against unhappy homosexuals?
I’ve got nothing against gays or homosexuals. It’s those fags I hate.
Walter’s writing style (assuming the quote was posted verbatim) is also disturbing.
He strings together a statement with a question and a one-word response without proper punctuation… This tells me a lot so should we kill them NO”
The sentence that follows has unnecessary capitalization “Needs”, and also seems to be missing a word or two and perhaps some additional punctuation… “They Need to ask God to forgive them of their sins and mean it turn away from it.”
And finally, more missing punctuation and possible failure to use the proper contraction for That is (meaning the word “is” is completely not there…) “They also need to know that when it says that their blood shall be upon them that tells me it is AIDS. That how I feel.”
But, hey, What do I know? I’m just a “GAY” Homosexual!
Never vote for anyone who doesn’t know ‘you’re’ from ‘your’
It sounds dickish, but it would actually be a major issue for me, because people who misuse words (their/there/they’re; led/lead; etc.) are usually people who haven’t done much reading. You can be an excellent speaker and not give away the fact that you’re an incompetent writer, so politicians who have good editors and ghost-writers can hide.
I’m not comfortable with electing people who have spent so little time reading (or have spent time reading but have horrible retention problems). My only exception would be for cases where someone is unable to read due to blindness or a different medical condition and therefore had people reading aloud for them during their education.
I agree completely.
If bigotry alone isn’t enough to bar him from public office, I’d expect a House candidate to be able to write articulately. Even on facebook.
As someone who pays attention to writing, I noticed that his apology was ever so much more well-written and polished. GOP ghost writer?
“gay homosexuality”
Brought to you by the department of redundancy department.
Yet another religious bigot. Can’t say I’m surprised.
Oh yes. There is always an excuse for this.
So, what else is new? It would seem that every republican thinks gays should be stoned to death. Do they also happen to think that people with tattoos or shrimp eaters should also be put to death by stoning? Hate mongering, Neo-nazi assholes……every one of them. So they’re brain dead…..who actually listens to them?
“The Holy Bible says if your ‘GAY’ homosexual…”
What about my ‘GAY’ homosexual. I don’t have a ‘GAY’ homosexual.
I have a GAY homosexual friend – does he count as ‘mine’?
Hollywood Squares:
Q. Who stays pregnant for a longer period of time, your wife or your
elephant?
A. Paul Lynde: Who told you about my elephant?
A House of Representatives filled with the likes of this guy, Michele Bachmann, Ted Poe and Joe Wilson will do wonders for the progress and prosperity of our nation. It won’t take long under their enlightened leadership before our Heavenly Father looks upon us with favor and showers us with His blessings from on High. Then the heathen gay homosexual masses will know that He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Praise Jesus!
/puke
Dude will undoubtedly be caught in a homosexual “mistake” someday. Either that, or he’ll go completely “celibate” and join the priesthood.
Wanker.
Gay people shouldn’t get aids=(
Aids is an extremely painful and fatal disease. Victims of aids have to take lots of expensive, side-effect laden medicine, and they also cannot have any more sex with the people they love.
I don’t think he meant to wish aids on gay people, but still, I wouldn’t vote for him because I don’t think he is very nice=(
[consolidating fb comment...]
Why are lesbians the least likely to get AIDS, then??? Because god likes a little girl on girl action… he’s all about threesomes!
:P
Bingo.
YES!
Lol, win :)
Thank you LRA,
For making my day.
Once more with insights
you fly to new heights.
Thank you for that. =)
Actually, research shows that homophobes are, unlike “live and let live” types, turned on by homosexual erotica.
Bingo again!
I’d like references for that research – I’ve always suspected the ones who shout loudest about how ‘disgusting’ homosexual sex is, have leanings that way themselves.
I’d just like to point out, that the AIDS virus didn’t first come to light until late 1970′s – early 1980′s, and it’s still a mystery as to how HIV -1 originated from SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus).
I would like to know his reasoning for interpreting ‘blood shall be upon them’ as the AIDS virus.
It takes narrow mindedness to come to such a conclusion, and I feel that it is this focus and uneducated accusations that cause so much trouble. Oh, and not to mention Religion in the first place.
Can we say that AIDS was not killing people before the 1970s?
If that is the case, why did god wait so long to bring about the punishment?
He was away on another mission. Only checks back every couple of thousand years.
“The earliest known positive identification of the HIV virus comes from the Congo in 1959 and 1960 though genetic studies indicate that it passed into the human population from chimpanzees around fifty years earlier.”
–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS#History
Poor guy can’t even spell or use proper punctuation.
The AIDS argument assumes that there is a human like “God” overseeing things and suddenly deciding to punish a group of humans for bad behavior. It’s silly. We can point out instances where a tornado nearly wipes out a whole church of Christians or an army relying on one “God’ or another gets totally slaughtered. What about cancer? Does it not kill gays and non-gays alike? If you’re going to say AIDS is a punishment then you’re gonna have to tell me why your mom died of lung cancer.
If you’re going to say AIDS is a punishment then you’re gonna have to tell me why your mom died of lung cancer.
Holy shit, I am so quoting that on my Facebook. That is so hard-hitting but yet correct it’s unbelievable. Wow. xD
I ran a word search on the entire bible. Not a single reference to “gay homosexual” or even “gay”. What a surprise, he’s making up stories again.
do some more research. the bible is cleary, black and white, against gays.
Disagree. I did an undergrad paper on this very topic, and came to the conclusion that the Bible in fact says nothing coherent about the morality of homosexuality at all. The most you can say definitively is that the Biblical text would have us consider homosexual acts to be ritually unclean. Beyond that, every reference to homosexual acts being supposedly punished or excoriated has a plausible alternative explanation and/or purpose.
What about the story of Lot? It says that the villagers of the town wanted to lay with the guests of Lot, and he offered up his daughters instead (which was very hospitable of him…)
???
It has been suggested that Sodom was destroyed because its people were inhospitable to strangers (a *really* big deal in the Ancient world). The mark of Lot’s (comparative) righteousness was his gestures of hospitality, giving shelter to the strangers and offering his daughters in their stead. Modern readers tend to focus on the fact that the angels appeared as men (thus making the men of Sodom, er, sodomites), but it is quite possible (probable, even) that the genders involved were far less relevant to ancient readers than the hospitality angle.
To bolster this reading, there is a parallel story in Judges 19:18-30, where like in Sodom, a guy is traveling and takes shelter with a stranger, and then a roving rape gang knocks on the door and demands the guy come out. The host says no, because he is a guest (he says that part explicitly) and offers his concubine (and his daughter) instead. Unlike the Sodom story, they reluctantly accept the offer of the concubine and rape her to death. In response to the crime, the traveler rallies the kingdoms of Israel (in a particularly macabre and messy way) to destroy the city. This indicates that the crime of the townspeople was inhospitality, not homosexuality, since it is an act of heterosexual rape and murder that provokes the response.
And anyone who says the Bible is family-friendly should be read aloud that passage from Judges. Seriously.
“And anyone who says the Bible is family-friendly should be read aloud that passage from Judges.”
You’re just not interpreting it right …
I read a passage in bible study this morning(I’m 17 and still a closet atheist). To summarize:
There was this badass king who was named David. He’s the same motherfucker who killed Goliath, supposedly. Anyways, he was up on his roof and he saw some chick named Bathsheba(I shit you not, that’s her fucking name) taking a bath. He was like all like “DAAAAAAAAMN NIGGA, GIMME SUMMA DAT ASS” So, being king, he went over and fucked her. Problem is, she got pregnant, and abortions weren’t invented yet. So he got her husband, who happened to be one of his generals, and was all like “hey dude, you’ve been killing brown people hard for a long time, so why don’t you come home and fuck your wife?” hoping to blame her baby bump on him.
Problem is, he refused. So then David put him on a suicide mission and his whole squad-group thingy was killed. Problem solved.
But God, being the killjoy he always is, sent some faggot to say “hey man, God knows what you did and he’s gonna fuck you up big time.” Understandable. God kills “evil” people at random all the time. The thing that made me pissed was, God was all like “hey nigga, I’m gonna give your wives to your neighbors and let them have them”.
That’s what it says. Obviously not that terminology, but that’s what he supposedly did. He gave David’s wives to other people as punishment.He also did some shit to David, but the thing is, HE GAVE HIS FUCKING WIVES AWAY TO OTHER MEN AND BASICALLY HAD THEM RAPED. That sounds like something a gangbanger would do. That shit is fucked up. Anyway, I just thought I share a fucked up part of the bible with you guys. I have to spend time in church every sunday, so I might as well make the most of it by finding fucked up parts of the bible.
I think Elemenope is right, at least for the most part. Re: the Lot story, I think it’s more about rape than not showing hospitality, though. I don’t think “lack of hospitality” states it strongly enough. The homosexual part of this particular story isn’t the focus at all though, I agree.
I would say this is absolutely correct for the Old Testament. I would venture to say that Rob Gagnon is the leading Bible scholar on the conservative side, and I think he makes a convincing argument that at least 1-2 New Testament passages have all types of homosexual sex in view (http://www.robgagnon.net/). However, I don’t rule out some of the alternative readings that Elemenope hinted at.
“isagree. I did an undergrad paper on this very topic, and came to the conclusion that the Bible in fact says nothing coherent about the morality of homosexuality at all. ”
Leviticus 18:22 (NIV)
22 “ ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Interpret away………..
The word translated as “detestable” in that passage is to’ebah, which literally means “ritually unclean”.
to’ebah is often translated as “abomination”. Thanks google. Do tell how the bible says “nothing coherent about the morality of homosexuality at all”
It’s the same category of abomination as shaving the sides of ones beard, or wearing mixed fibres, which pretty much every Christian I’ve ever met thinks were ritual matters, rather than moral matters.
eh “abomination”, “unclean” blah, blah, blah. It’s the “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman” that you need to work on.
Keep in mind that the word chosen for translation is heavily influenced by the cultural and social values and expectations of the translator. Much like many Christians being certain that the fruit in the garden of Eden was an apple, though the text indicates no particular fruit. People read their expectations into the text, and translators are no different in this regard.
eh “abomination”, “unclean” blah, blah, blah. It’s the “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman” that you need to work on.
Well, no, the translation of that word is very important. And as wintermute pointed out, most of the regulations described in parallel to the one you quote are likewise of non-moral matters, mostly dealing with ritual cleanliness. Since Ancient Hebrew writing exhibits highly parallel structure, it would be odd indeed if the Biblical authors meant for this regulation to be understood in a different light than the others.
“it would be odd indeed if the Biblical authors meant for this regulation to be understood in a different light than the others.”
So in essence what are you saying? That it is unclean to have gay sex when performing rituals? This “regulation” is only for certain times? You are starting to remind me of Clinton when he said – it depends on what the meaning of the word is – is.
As far as “shaving the sides of ones beard, or wearing mixed fibres, which pretty much every Christian I’ve ever met thinks were ritual matters, rather than moral matters.” We must keep in mind that the bible is the absolute word of God himself. If you think for one second that God would change his mind on matters such as eating shellfish or throwing your baby against a rock, well then you are implying God makes mistakes. That is utter nonsense!
We must keep in mind that the bible is the absolute word of God himself. If you think for one second that God would change his mind on matters such as eating shellfish or throwing your baby against a rock, well then you are implying God makes mistakes. That is utter nonsense!
I see what you did there.
“…you are implying God makes mistakes. That is utter nonsense!”
The story of Noah’s Ark starts off with God expressing regret at ever having made mankind. God himself is admitting he made a mistake. Then he floods the earth because that’s the only way he can think of to destroy all sin. Well, we all know that didn’t quite work. God was mistaken again. Personally, I think it would’ve made more sense to just destroy Satan, but what do I know?
“God himself is admitting he made a mistake.”
Sorry but an omnipotent being that knows ALL, past, present, and future could NOT possibly make a mistake. You sir are WRONG!
Except, VidLord, that the idea that Gawd is all-knowing is recent, afaik. It wasn’t there when the actual Bible was written; it’s obvious when you see how pissed off God was about other gods – not because they didn’t exist, but because they were taking attention from him.
I can’t tell if VidLord is serious or is just taking the piss.
From a very literal translation, men can have sex so as long as they do not lie side-by-side in a bed.
How is that for an interpretation. I don’t know anyone that sleeps in a doggy style position with their partner, so everyone is in the clear.
@VidLord: You forgot about people with tattoos who eat rabbits/shrimp/pork and have had sex before marriage. Let’s face it, the list is endless. I wonder if the tables had been turned, would the Jews have justified a holocaust against those who didn’t obey their laws? Just a thought.
Probably not, because they have never held their laws (with, seven exceptions, the so-called Noahide Laws) to apply to anyone but themselves. And the Noahide laws are (from an ancient social point of view) common sense stuff; don’t screw with YHWH, don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery or incest, don’t make fun of YHWH, don’t vivisect animals (!), and a requirement for there to be a regular system of justice (i.e. courts). And even these rules just guarantee gentile righteousness, and do not give license for punitive action against violators under most circumstances.
Michael, as far as Jewish customs are concerned I highly suggest you visit the wailing wall. Watch a person crying to a rock.
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7308/wailingwallow.jpg
Elemenope: you gonna reply to my last post or no? The “So in essence what are you saying?” post. I like debating with you – primarily because you are smart. You are wrong but still, you are smart.
I assumed you were kidding because of the 2nd paragraph. If you weren’t, let’s dig into it.
So in essence what are you saying? That it is unclean to have gay sex when performing rituals? This “regulation” is only for certain times? You are starting to remind me of Clinton when he said – it depends on what the meaning of the word is – is.
In essence what I am saying is that the regulation is placed alongside other regulations that pretty much every reader of the bible agrees are context sensitive; sensitive to the time and place and situation in which they are handed down, and affected by changing circumstances. FWIW, the rabbinical authorities through the ages (pretty much the go-to guys when figuring out how to interpret the OT) agree with this basic principle that while God may not change, human society and circumstance certainly does, and applying rules in those changing circumstances requires a flexibility of interpretation.
Also, besides some extremely overzealous (and overenthusiastic) fundamentalists, nobody believes, nor is it ever indicated in the Bible to be so, that the Bible is *literally* (i.e. word-for-word) transcribed by God and thus as immutable as He is thought to be. Even if it were, an accomodationalist reading can plausibly yield a God-written script that is less perfect than the God that authored it. Otherwise, translation and interpretation of the Bible (important features of language) would be impossible.
Sorry but an omnipotent being that knows ALL, past, present, and future could NOT possibly make a mistake.
This is not necessarily so. An omni-omni deity can still be trapped by a Buridan’s Ass problem (where perfect information does not help with the resulting choice between two or more equally desirable outcomes).
Elemenope: you didn’t answer my question though. When is it wrong to have gay sex?
When it is wrong to wear clothes of two different fibers, or plant crops of two different types side by side.
I’m just guessing.
To follow up re: my original point, my point was that the Bible is incoherent on the issue; i.e. it does not directly give reliable advice/rules for when these things might apply. Using the Bible alone, your question is not answerable.
Hence all the rabbinical scholarship and disputation throughout the ages. If there were a straightforward answer to the question people wouldn’t have been arguing about it for three thousand years.
What a fucking douchbag.
The bibble also says we shall kill everyone working on the sabbath. Is this prick out gunning down cops on Sundays? If not, WHY NOT??
Asswipe, extraordinaire!!!!!!
Because the Sabbath is Saturday, of course.
I’ve given up wondering why anyone would vote for people who are so obviously stupid. I just assume our corporate overlords have purchased another useful idiot.
As we’d say in Australia – what an arsehole.
So, once again, a person makes the Bible, which he believes to be inerrant, mean what he purports to want it to mean. Reason tells me that people weren’t significantly different when the Bible was written, or when the first myths started being told from generation to generation millenia earlier. Whatever is in the Bible, it’s certainly not what it started out as, and I think we can be sure that any reader today will not see the meaning the original storytellers had in mind.
Every day amazes me anew with observations of people who discuss the mythology as if it was anything more than that. If it helped, I’d make it my life mission to travel the globe and slap people to sense.
Damn, if it were that easy.
5 bucks on this guy being busted at a freeway rest stop polishing a truckers pole in 6 months.
Heh heh, used to be if a guy made pro-gay remarks he’d be pegged as a closet-case himself. NOW, a guy is pegged as a closet case when he makes anti-gay remarks. Gotta love progress (and of course the media, for revealing all these religious and political hypocrites).