North Carolina pastor calls for death of gays

[Baneblade]

Source

A North Carolina pastor is calling for the extermination of all gays and lesbians by locking them off behind an electrified fence and waiting for them to die.

Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., made the suggestion during a May 13 sermon, according to a video posted Monday on YouTube.

“I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers,” he says.

“Build a great, big, large fence — 150- or 100-mile long — put all the lesbians in there . . . do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out.

“Feed ’em, and you know what?” Worley continues. “In a few years they’ll die. Do you know why? They can’t reproduce.”

Worley made the comments after admonishing President Obama for recently saying he agrees with same-sex marriage.

Earlier this month, North Carolina approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Worley added that he won’t vote for “a baby killer and a homosexual lover.”

“It makes me pukin’ sick to think about — I don’t even know whether y’all can say this in the pulpit or not — can you imagine kissing some man?” Worley says.

According to the Providence Road Baptist Church’s website, Worley has served as pastor there since 1976.

The church did not immediately respond to an email and phone call from the Daily News.

Catawba Valley Citizens Against Hate (CVCAH), the group that posted the clip to YouTube, plans to protest Worley and the church on Sunday, May 27.

“To hear this kind of hate being preached, this kind of intolerance, it hurt me, and I’m not even part of the LGBT community,” activist Laura Tipton, who organized the protest, told The News.

Tipton, who lives in nearby Hickory, N.C., says she called the church and spoke to Worley after learning about the video.

“He invited us to come down, and even let us know what time the sermon starts,” she said, adding that Worley might be “trying to prove a point that he has nothing to hide.”

Tipton stresses that the protest is not anti-Christian.

“This is not a protest against faith or religion,” she said. “I believe we will have Christians at this protest. This is against a man who has the power to mold minds and influence opinions . . . and this is the message you’re sending?”

The protest comes at a time when gay rights are a hot topic in North Carolina. Earlier this month, a pastor in Fayetteville suggested parents beat their children if they display homosexual tendencies.

“Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch,” Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church said in a sermon.

Harris later backtracked and said he doesn’t actually advocate abuse, although “effeminate behavior is ungodly,” he told The Fayetteville Observer.

What is it with Baptists lately? Not enough hate in their Cheerios?

[Figment]

If I say this sounds like:

"It's 'n aezheist, communnist, black, Un'on babykillin' conspihrazzee againsht teh South to make us all gay, y'hear? Y'all better be voatin' againsht gay miirriiuge!!11!!twelve"

Would I be far off? Or did I get the accent wrong? :x

[ItsTheSheppy]

What I think we're seeing here, with the sudden in-your-face nature of hardline religiosity in this country, especially when it comes to the homophobic stuff, is the terminal insecurity of the religious establishment. The ranks of the nonreligious (not to be confused with atheists; these are just people who claim to have no religion) have been swelling so fast that one writer, whose name escapes me, declared the nonreligious as 'the fastest-growing religion in America'.

The gentle-jesus-meek-and-mild moderates tend not to care, but for those to whom this stuff is the nectar of life, that is very scary. More and more, people are realizing that the dogmatically religious, who have more or less controlled society since time immemorial, are assailable. The religious establishment is realizing how tenuous their grip is and they are fighting back in the mad, backed-into-a-corner flailing you see here.

Hardline religion is Tony Montana, standing on the balcony screaming "I'm the king! you can't kill me! I'm the best!" even as bullets tear him apart.

They don't really have any other recourse. There's no real solid evidence they can provide that a) their god claims are legit, or b) that there is, in fact, anything wrong with homosexuals. So they just start swinging for the fences, because they don't seem to have much hope in winning the long game; the zeitgeist is leaving them behind and damned if they won't cause a ruckus while they still have a chance to be relevant.

In my opinion, the best recourse to stuff like that is bemused silence. They need to understand that statements like that simply have no place in this world. He should garner the same attention he would if he were declaring ******* to be a menace because they put hexes on people, or demanding that people suspect old ladies who live alone with a lot of cats to be practitioners of witchcraft. It's just mad babbling from a bygone era, and deserves only crickets and nervous, distant coughs as answer.

[Geist]

Couldn't care less. There are millions of idiots who talk about shit like this, putting it in the news just perpetuates the cycle of hate.

"Oh look, some old racist KKK homophobic pastor in some town no ones ever heard of is talking about putting all the gays in concentration camps. Let's take that guy seriously and blame all religious belief for this type of behaviour."

Disclaimer: Not directed at anyone here.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Geist

Couldn't care less. There are millions of idiots who talk about shit like this, putting it in the news just perpetuates the cycle of hate.

"Oh look, some old racist KKK homophobic pastor in some town no ones ever heard of is talking about putting all the gays in concentration camps. Let's take that guy seriously and blame all religious belief for this type of behaviour."

Disclaimer: Not directed at anyone here.

In a way, all religious belief is responsible for this kind of behavior. Moderate, kind, smiling-faced religions are the foundation upon which guys like him build his Monuments to Hate.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Geist

Couldn't care less. There are millions of idiots who talk about shit like this, putting it in the news just perpetuates the cycle of hate.

"Oh look, some old racist KKK homophobic pastor in some town no ones ever heard of is talking about putting all the gays in concentration camps. Let's take that guy seriously and blame all religious belief for this type of behaviour."

Disclaimer: Not directed at anyone here.

No, not calling it out only lets it fester and grow. When people say racist and homophobic things, call them out, let them know it is not OK to be a complete arsehole.

It being on the news is the best thing to happen in this case, let the light of society shine on this cockroach and see him scuttle off in shame.

[Geist]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

In a way, all religious belief is responsible for this kind of behavior. Moderate, kind, smiling-faced religions are the foundation upon which guys like him build his Monuments to Hate.

So your saying if this guy did not have religion as a "foundation" for his "Monuments to Hate", he would a well-adjusted member of society?

Originally Posted by elfailo

We've got a conflict in Iran on the horizon, the Euro zone is at the brink of disintegration, there's a famine in Somalia, internet privileges are being torn apart by media conglomerates, and we're spending time debating the significance of a delusional old religious imbecile that nobody in the real world has ever heard about?

Just because it's in some newspaper it isn't worth debating. Everything concerning religion has already been covered to some extent in the other thread, which now has more pages than the Bible itself due to PukeNukem. Dismantling religion is a boring an unchallenging exercise. It's time for something different.

This, debating religion is like untying the world's largest not. It's boring, it takes ages, and in the end you didn't really accomplish anything whatsoever.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by elfailo

We've got a conflict in Iran on the horizon, the Euro zone is at the brink of disintegration, there's a famine in Somalia, internet privileges are being torn apart by media conglomerates, and we're spending time debating the significance of a delusional old religious imbecile that nobody in the real world has ever heard about?

Just because it's in some newspaper it isn't worth debating. Everything concerning religion has already been covered to some extent in the other thread, which now has more pages than the Bible itself due to PukeNukem. Dismantling religion is a boring an unchallenging exercise. It's time for something different.

"You're talking about X when Y is happening you fools!"
Why do people keep seeing this as a clever thing to say? Its a moronic catch all argument designed to censor anything the poster does not like.

Don't like people having conversations about stuff you have no interest in? Go catch a flight to Somalia and bring a hoe.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Geist

So your saying if this guy did not have religion as a "foundation" for his "Monuments to Hate", he would a well-adjusted member of society?

Hey guys, I'm back, just went to get some water.

...

Hey wait a second. Who put this man-shaped pile of straw in my seat? Rude. *kick*

What I'm saying is that people like him have an audience because the 'harmless' religious moderates give him a stage and an unassailable legitimacy. You can call him crazy all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that he is being biblically accurate, and for as long as the bible is given any kind of authority in our society, we will have guys like him to look forward to.

Now the problem, from a practical standpoint, aren't guys like him. Oh, no. It's the people sitting in the pews, listening to him, and quietly nodding their heads. And then those people go out and vote. And the constitution gets amended to criminalize homosexuals.

And where do religious moderates come in? Well, if you try to attack that guy's credibility; I mean, really attack it, at the root, you have to go at the credibility of the bible, because that's where he's getting it from. And then you're in a world of hurt, because all those smiling, gentle moderates will suddenly stop being quite as supportive of you as you might have originally thought.

[p0intman]

DISCLAIMER: Some of what I've said below is extreme in its own right, I invoke the names of incredibly bad groups to make a point. You can switch any of the examples out for quite a number of other examples that have appeared throughout history around the world, I do NOT mean to suggest that any religion is currently akin to the two prominently named below, only that they aren't doing any favors for their perception. If you are inable to handle these examples, there is nothing I can do for you. Many examples can be cited throughout history from scientists being persecuted by the catholic church in the 15-1600s to the persecution of other groups throughout the last couple of centuries.

Interestingly, this kind of bigotry makes the argument of the larger anti-gay movement less and less relevant. This pastor is actually hurting his own cause in the same way that the KKK and Nazi's hurt their cause for segregation years ago. It ended up working against them, historically and its the same kind of thing here.

Its kind of interesting to watch history repeat itself, if you understand what it is that you're actually looking at.

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Hey guys, I'm back, just went to get some water.

...

Hey wait a second. Who put this man-shaped pile of straw in my seat? Rude. *kick*

What I'm saying is that people like him have an audience because the 'harmless' religious moderates give him a stage and an unassailable legitimacy. You can call him crazy all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that he is being biblically accurate, and for as long as the bible is given any kind of authority in our society, we will have guys like him to look forward to.

Now the problem, from a practical standpoint, aren't guys like him. Oh, no. It's the people sitting in the pews, listening to him, and quietly nodding their heads. And then those people go out and vote. And the constitution gets amended to criminalize homosexuals.

And where do religious moderates come in? Well, if you try to attack that guy's credibility; I mean, really attack it, at the root, you have to go at the credibility of the bible, because that's where he's getting it from. And then you're in a world of hurt, because all those smiling, gentle moderates will suddenly stop being quite as supportive of you as you might have originally thought.

Being accurate to the bible in this case is actually marginalizing the religious argument to the point of being irrelevant. Its extremism in the same way that the KKK or Nazi's or any other group are extremists, and it never helps their cause. It only provides another argument against them to whatever movement they oppose, be it equal marriage rights, or civil rights activists in the past or the jewish community in WW2. This is rooted in basic human psychology, because now Gay people have one more person to hold up as being a bigot that just wants to hurt them all. Meanwhile, he has done exactly nothing except give everyone else another reason to agree with gay people, because the view is that they are being persecuted by religious extremists in the same way other groups have been persecuted in the past.

If religious people wanted to do serious harm to the gay movement, they'd simply not pay attention and not give people reasons to agree with them. They can't, however, because too many are filled with fear and hate, and don't know what else to do with that energy.

If religious extremists continue, they will in turn be persecuted in the same way the KKK or Nazi's were after the civil rights movement and world war two. Its sad, because the foundation of any religion is exactly the opposite of what they are facing being looked at as. The larger community of religious types however, are too filled with hate and fear, and they will bring the rest of it crashing down.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Stop trying to provoke an argument with me Vash, I'm obviously not trying to censor anyone, I'm trying to point out that it's a waste of your damn time.

Debating religion is intellectually unsatisfying. If you want to keep doing it be my guest, but you're going to end up looking like just as much of a broken record as the people you think you're 'countering'.

And coming into a thread, declaring to everyone in it that you are superior to everyone (that's how you and everyone who pulls that argument comes off) and that they are wasting their time talking about the topic isn't spoiling for a fight?

You're just a troll.

[Red Beard]

Originally Posted by Vash02

And coming into a thread, declaring to everyone in it that you are superior to everyone (that's how you and everyone who pulls that argument comes off) and that they are wasting their time talking about the topic isn't spoiling for a fight?

You're just a troll.

You can't find a thread he's not trolling in right now.

[Red Beard]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Trust me, if I want to let you know that I feel superior, you will know it. Just ask Hansime.

The reason I post here is because there actually have been some interesting things happening, not because I'm a troll - which I am, but if I really wanted to troll you, I'd suggest that the only reason people keep bringing up the lowest of the lowest examples of religious stupidity, is because it's an easy way to make yourself feel smarter than you actually are.

If everyone keeps playing the same tune then this section will die out pretty quickly. I'm challenging you to come up with something better.

My problem with you is not your content; it's your unconditional and persistent disrespect for anyone who disagrees with you. I'd be relieved to be proven wrong on that impression. Until then; don't be holding your breath on that challenge.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Just ask Hansime.

Either that has to do with:

1. The AA vs aircav debate where certain aircav users think I was going to nerf them (instead of balance them better with nerfs (Wasp/Wall Tower AA) and buffs (lock on time Sparrow, slightly better Flaklet) to different forms of AA and remove one form of AA (driver BFR AA) and replace it by another (two crew AA heavy tank) and suggesting a pilot suit that was more in line with Standard inventory size). And still being butthurt over that.

OR.

2. It has to do with a thread where some VS were bragging about resecuring back and forth by ping-ponging with a concentrated force of aircavs against a significantly larger, but spread out and pinned down by 15 min CC timers populace of people (trying to hold bases on two opposing sides of the continent and within a base having to hold outside (defend AMS from a group of Reavers/Mossies and Expert Hackers) and inside (CC and or base entrances and spawns)). Meaning that their opposition, unlike them, had fewer to hold the CC than they made it sound (for 15 mins), especially with the sorry state the game is in. While they just needed to get 15 seconds alone with the CC each time with (as I complimented them on) an individual better and as a group more organised bunch of people.

Meanwhile they were pretending to take on 70% pop at once, rather than just the fraction of the split pop that was present at each base and along the route to the CC, where it was insisted they took on 70% at once... I mean, clearly all those 70% of pop was concentrated next to both CCs at once...

I was supposedly "downplaying the achievement", I belief they said... to "safe face" (even though I had not played for three months and had not actually been there and pointed out that attacking the other side of the continent is even with an overal larger pop hard to defend, especially against an aircav unit and the state the game was in...), rather than analysing what actually happened and correcting some people making a rather inaccurate claim... I never said it wasn't a fine achievement, just not as special as they made it sound.



Still, I find it funny he's still a bit butthurt over it. He does have quite the ego though (obvious enough from his responses here) and that's fine IMO, as long as you're being realistic and fair.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by elfailo

I'd be pathologically disagreeing with you if I actually held any grudges. I'd be way more snide and personal. I only brought it up because you know that my narcissism would be way more obvious if I actually wanted to show it.

True true. Then again you did imply that you did a couple weeks ago.


Still, neither of us are as narcissistic as PlanetSide's Belgians!