Following on from Vorjacks post asking “where does the Republican Party find them?”, let’s say another hello to Charlie Fuqua, Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives (he claims his name is pronounced pronounced “Foo-kway”, by the way). Vorjack talked about him in his post, but I think this guy is nuts enough to deserve a post all of his own.
Charlie has been getting a little flak lately for his book, God’s Law, in which he embraces some of the usual right-wing drivel about how very Baptist the founding fathers apparently all acted – Because in amongst the dogma, Fuqua said a couple of things which are a little bit [GODWIN'S LAW DETECTED].
Specifically, he talks about a “solution the the Muslim problem”. Oh boy. This man really never studied any 20th century history, did he? His “solution”, as it turns out, would be to expel every Muslim from the United States of America.
But that particular view is not why Fuqua is attracting ire, even from within his own party. No, that would be down to an even more cringe-worthy passage o’ nastiness:
“The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:
This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture [sic] provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.”
You read that right. This guy (who’s a vocal anti-abortion campaigner, by the way) thinks that parents should have the right to decide to put their children to death for being “rebellious”. This is my own opinion, but I doubt I’m the only one who mentally substituted “rebellious” with “different” – gay, atheist, transgender, liberal.
If you ever want to see a Christian Taliban, look no further than Charlie Fuqua. I was going to wrote some more, but honestly I’m in danger of getting all ranty, so I’m going to end this here.