America is making its decision whether to officially consider God immoral.
God, and anyone who believes God’s following statement is moral, is “so rabidly hateful that they come across more as dark satire than as serious bigots”, and “savagely anti-gay”, we learn from Slate:
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.
Do you consider God immoral? That’s pretty extreme, isn’t it? Hadn’t we Christians all better distance ourselves from Oklahoma state house candidate, Tea Party favorite, Scott Esk, for having the audacity to agree with God, to wit:
“I think we would be totally in the right to do it....That [stoning gay people to death] goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss...I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it....That was done in the Old Testament under a law that came directly from God and in that time there it was totally just. It came directly from God. I have no plans to reinstitute that in Oklahoma law. I do have some very huge moral misgivings about those kinds of sins....I know what was done in the Old Testament and what was done back then was what’s just. … And I do stand for Biblical morality.
Setting aside the serious possibility that Slate did not quote Esk accurately, or in context, but assuming Slate considered Esk’s actual statements damning enough, let’s analyze what makes Esk’s concurrence with God so outrageous. Please check all of the following statements which you believe constitute a hate crime:
 We would be totally right to do what God said we should do.
 Ignoring as a nation what God considers worthy of death is very remiss.
 Execution of homosexuals was a law that came directly from God, and in that time and place, it was totally just.
 I have huge moral misgivings about the kinds of sins which God considers worthy of death.
 What was done in obedience to God is what is just, and I stand for Biblical morality.
The only clarification I would add to Esk’s remarks, before adopting them as my own, is that the Biblical reason execution (stoning is not specified in the Bible) was appropriate then, but not necessarily now, is given in Jesus’ lesson on the woman caught in adultery: jurors who have committed the exact same crimes as the accused are not qualified to pass judgment against the accused. In American law we call this principle “jury nullification”, where we find that such jurors aren’t even willing to pass judgment against the accused. See my article.
Let me add survey questions of my own:
 Fornication isn’t the delight you thought.
 A man who doesn’t even care about his own health is not going to care more about the health of another, when lies are more likely to secure for him what he believes is “pleasure”.
 If I even describe what passes for sex among sodomites, so you can understand how unbelievably unsanitary they are, people become furious; not with them for what they do, but with me for sreminding people of what they do! Indeed, Ephesians 5:12 “For it is disgusting even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” (KJV, CEV)
 “Eat da poo poo” is a Ugandan pastor’s description of sodomite practices. It is not “intense Ugandan hate speech” as the description of the post claims; Truth is not “hate”. It is not the “funniest video ever” as another post of it claims.
 Truth is never “hate”. God’s commandments are never “hate”.
Slate concludes, concerning Esk, “Rather than chastising him for his seemingly extremist views, we should be thanking him for saying what so many of his political associates are likely thinking.”
Would that it were so! “Conservatives take lead in marriage fight”, exulted the Washington Blade, “celebrating 45 years as America’s gay news source”.
...conservatives have taken the leadership role in achieving marriage equality and have achieved the most important success so far as they are the most willing and most able to take the case to the Supreme Court. (Commenting on the California court’s overturning of Prop 8 which banned sodomite marriage; the judge was appointed by Reagan, and the lawyer was Solicitor General under Bush.)
Denmark led the “civil unions” wave back in 1989, and now Danish courts have forced all churches to provide sodomite weddings. “The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.”
America’s choice is between the laws of Heaven or of Hell, not points in between. It is America’s choice between the two extremes that determines our direction.
Sodomites don’t just want the same “rights” that Christians have. They want every Christian knee to bow to Satan, by the raw power of tyranny. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religious Expression is a Christian value, found in the Bible by the Pilgrims of 1620. It is not to be found among hard core, whistle blowing sodomites.
...the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition. The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced. ...Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage....To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.
Barack Obama said, in 2008, that his Christian beliefs made him oppose gay marriage. Yet liberals worship him, while driving out Brenden Eich from his own company – Mozilla, mother of the Firefox web browser – for contributing, in the same year, to Proposition 8 in California which banned the same gay marriage which Obama opposed. Krauthammer observes:
Yet under the new dispensation, this [statement of Obama] is outright bigotry. By that logic, the man whom the left so ecstatically carried to the White House in 2008 was equally a bigot. The whole thing is so stupid as to be unworthy of exegesis. There is no logic. What’s at play is sheer ideological prejudice — and the enforcement of the new totalitarian norm that declares, unilaterally, certain issues to be closed.
The slate article similarly forecloses discussion. It doesn’t dispute anything Esk said. It quotes Esk, and then calls him names for saying those things, without specifying a single thing Esk said that was inaccurate. This is not discourse: it is bullying. It intimidates Bible believers, making readers choose between the approval of Slate or of God, as if saying “Don’t think I am writing about you in order to generate a conversation with you. When you stand by those particular Bible verses, the conversation is over. I don’t care about any of your evidence of miracles, or of fulfilled prophecies, or of Jesus’ resurrection, all aimed at proving your God is real. That is irrelevant to me. And don’t think your God is going to deliver you from my withering insults. My pen has scattered the ashes of the careers of stronger men than you, and their God did not save them. Stand with God, and you’re going down. You ain’t gittin no trial. You gonna pay. And the cost is going to be just as high as I can make it, and you already know your local newspaper will side with me, and all your Christian friends will back away from you.”
Reminds me of 2 Kings 18 and 19, where Rabshakeh threatened Hezekiah, warning him not to trust God. I like how that turned out. Oops, will Slate add to its charges against me, that I like how that turned out?
The choice between sodomy and monogamous heterosexual lifetime marriage is the choice between civilization and primitive tyranny. Dennis Prager explains from his article, “Why Judaism rejected homosexuality”:
...throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society. Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is utterly wild. Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men sexually. …When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world....It is not overstated to say that the Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism, and later carried forward by Christianity. The revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.
David Kupelian concludes:
In “Democracy in America,” published in 1835, Tocqueville described with admiration and astonishment what he observed during his travels here:
“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other … Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.”
If America’s unique magic was combining “the notions of Christianity and of liberty” to produce the greatest nation in history, today’s libertarian-conservatives seem to have lost sight of half of that winning combination – the God part – vainly imagining that freedom alone is the answer