Man Stoned to Death in PA for Homosexuality
Ironically, the Bible provides the most common justification for anti-gay bigotry. There's not much there, a couple lines in Leviticus mainly, a couple of vague statements here and there, but a cool thing about the Bible is that you can almost always find something in it to back you up. And of course Leviticus is full of rules that Christians ignore. Like, here's a guy with a tattoo quoting an anti-gay passage from the book of Leviticus:
even though Leviticus 19:28 says "'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves." It's easy, you just pick the parts you like.
Here's another example of intelligent spirituality, a story from Pennsylvania:
At least our local nuts just make up lies and stuff, so far I have not heard of any instances of them actually killing somebody.
even though Leviticus 19:28 says "'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves." It's easy, you just pick the parts you like.
Here's another example of intelligent spirituality, a story from Pennsylvania:
A 28-year-old Upper Darby man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death when the man made homosexual advances toward him, authorities say.
John Joe Thomas, 28, of Sunshine Road in Upper Darby, spent almost every day with 70-year-old Murray Seidman at Seidman’s Lansdowne home, police say. Days before Seidman’s body was found on Jan. 12, Thomas allegedly beat Seidman to death with a sock full of rocks.
Thomas told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman’s life, according to court documents.
Police say that Thomas struck Seidman in the head about 10 times with the sock of rocks. Thomas left Seidman dead in his apartment, and then threw his bloody clothing and the bloody sock in a dumpster, according to authorities. Man, 70, Stoned to Death for Homosexuality: Police
At least our local nuts just make up lies and stuff, so far I have not heard of any instances of them actually killing somebody.
posted by JimK at 4:32 PM
31 Comments:
President Obama’s budget plan would produce deficits of $9.5 trillion over the next decade, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday – more than $2 trillion higher than White House estimates.
In its annual re-calculation of the president’s budget, the CBO concluded that Obama’s policies would cause the portion of the national debt held by outside investors to double during that period, rising to $20.8 trillion, or 87 percent of the nation’s annual economic output.
The CBO said interest payments would more than quadruple by 2021 under the president’s policies, from $214 billion this year to more than $900 billion a year by the start of the next decade.
Spending would be well above it's historical average by 2021 under the president’s policies, with government outlays at more than 24 percent of GDP.
White House budget director Jacob J. Lew used a blog post to explain the difference in deficit estimates, noting that CBO failed to credit the administration with paying for a significant transportation initiative and a pay-increase for doctors who see Medicare patients because the administration did not say how those programs would be paid for. Moreover, Lew said, the CBO used different assumptions about the economy.
“There is large uncertainty in economic projections and differences of opinion when it comes to assessing individual policies,” Lew wrote. “But regardless of our differences, CBO confirms what we already know: current deficits are unacceptably high, and if we stay on our current course and do nothing, the fiscal situation will hurt our recovery and hamstring future growth.”
Republicans pounced on the CBO report, using it to again criticize Obama’s budget proposal.
“The Congressional Budget Office’s report exposes the widening gulf between the President’s rhetoric and his budget’s reality. Simply put, the President’s budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much - and it continues to heap an unsustainable burden of debt on American families, today and in the future,” said House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who has pledged to “chart a path to real security” in the budget he will unveil next month.
Meanwhile, the CBO had bad news on the expansion of health insurance coverage that is the cornerstone of Obama’s health overhaul will be nearly $100 billion more expensive than expected, the CBO said.
Well, Jim, if you're going to start choosing random murder motives from crazy people, we could compile a list of people for you who have been killed for being male, female, short, tall, black, white, nice, mean. We'll find people who were killed because they wore the right shoes or the wrong shoes or who carried a purple purse or a yellow purse. Rapists prefer women with ponytails, by the way.
Rolling my eyes.
When crazy murderers accurately cite literal passages of scripture (in this case Leviticus 20:13) as justification for their crimes, it is a cause for concern. Unless one believes that the murderer was justified in his action, he or she is forced to examine his or her beliefs regarding citing the Bible as the unerring word of God.
the Bible in inerrant but Leviticus 20 isn't the only chapter
here's how Jesus reacted when approached about carrying out OT passages on stoning as a punishment for sexual immorality:
"At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”"
so, if you ask, WWJD, there's your answer
Anon,
I see your point, from a New Testament perspective. Execution of an adulterer is now off limits, but the adulterer should no long commit adultery. In other words, a Christian is not required to follow the all the requirements of Leviticus. Is your view that this change applies only to the punishments, not any of the crimes?
What, if anything, is Jesus reported to have said in the Gospels about either male or female homosexuality?
"In other words, a Christian is not required to follow the all the requirements of Leviticus. Is your view that this change applies only to the punishments, not any of the crimes?"
We couldn't do such a subject justice with e-mail blasts, David.
But the short answer is that Christians aren't obligated to follow the law. Instead, they want to please God and have been forgiven because of their re;lationship with him. Here's Galatians 5:1-5:
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."
"What, if anything, is Jesus reported to have said in the Gospels about either male or female homosexuality?"
To my knowledge, nothing.
There is a passage in Acts 8:26-end about Philip's encounter with a eunuch that doesn't seem to be judgmental in any way.
dropped comment alert
I'm another Anon. Jesus was clear that marriage is between a man and a woman:
5“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,b 8and the two will become one flesh.’c So they are no longer two, but one. Mark 10
original anon agrees with other anon that Jesus did mention the correct definition of marriage
How does an endorsement of opposite sex marriage (which I would certainly endorse, as well, FWIW) connote an opposition to same sex marriage?
"How does an endorsement of opposite sex marriage (which I would certainly endorse, as well, FWIW) connote an opposition to same sex marriage?"
Because it steals the term that names it.
To give you an example, what if we decided to change the definition of David Fishback to include large rats.
See how someone might consider that to be opposition to David Fishback?
Anon,
Thank you for the clarification. Your illustration may be instructive, reflecting an animus toward gay people. Do you view them as rats?
I try to avoid facile historical analogies, but I would note that German governmental propaganda in the 1930s portrayed the Jews as rats.
Would you like to revise your response?
I'm the other Anon and I'll revise the response.
I submit that if we changed the meaning of "David Fishback" to include "sweet puppies," this most definitely and without any doubt has nothing to do with "David Fishback" and completely changes the meaning of "David Fishback."
This PA killer is a "rat" who used his religion as an excuse to kill a man he befriended who did not believe as he does. Here's more news about John Joe Thomas and his heinous crime.
"Thomas told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that gays should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made sexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman’s life, according to court documents.
Police say that Thomas struck Seidman in the head about 10 times with the sock of rocks. Thomas left Seidman dead in his apartment, and then threw his bloody clothing and the bloody sock in a dumpster, according to authorities.
Though the relationship is still unknown, Thomas was the sole executor of Seidman's will and knew how much money was in Seidman's bank accounts, police say.
Thomas told police that he returned to Seidman’s apartment several days later on Jan. 12 to make it appear like he just discovered the body.
When police arrived, they found Thomas crying in the hallway of the apartment building saying, “I’m not going down there again. There is too much blood.”"
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-70-Stoned-to-Death-for-Homosexuality-Police-118243719.html
"According to the court documents, Thomas called police Seidman's apartment on Jan. 12 and they found Thomas sitting in the hallway crying: "I'm not going down there again, there is too much blood."
Police found Seidman in his apartment face down. The medical examiner later ruled Seidman died as a result of blunt force trauma at least five days before being discovered.
Neighbors described Seidman as a friendly soul who liked to eat out, watch movies, and bowl. He worked in the laundry of Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital for 40 years until he retired. Hospital officials said he was well liked by his coworkers and a "landmark" at the institution.
It was at the hospital where Seidman met and befriended Thomas, according to neighbors. The young man and Seidman were often seen together grocery shopping and going to church.
Lansdowne police Chief Daniel Kortan said the break in the investigation came when Thomas allegedly told a witness he beat an older man to death.
"I killed a man," Thomas allegedly told the witness. He then described how he placed batteries and rocks in a sock, and hit Seidman in the head at least 10 times. Thomas then returned to Seidman's apartment several days later and called police, saying he had discovered the body, according to court documents.
When police interviewed Thomas on Wednesday he said Seidman had been making advances toward him over a period of time. Thomas said he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned in certain situations."
http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-18/news/29142081_1_stoning-death-court-documents-police
In "certain situations?" What I read in the Old Testament is
"18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
So the "certain situations" are but one situation, namely when "a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman" and in that situation "both...must be put to death."
Thomas apparently skipped that "both" part and another section in the Old Testament as well, the one that says "Thou shalt not kill."
Thomas reminds me of another "rat" Scott Roeder who killed Dr. Tiller and Taliban "rats". All of these "rats" believe they must kill on behalf of their God.
It's obvious that the killer wanted the guy's money and just picked any excuse out of a hat.
Did he "just pick any excuse out of a hat" when he selected which tattoos to place on his body or when he claimed "he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman’s life"?
yep - look at the bethesda killer
they're nuts -- any excuse will do
Let's get back to the main point. In essence,the Anonomi limit the concept of marriage in the way they wish to limit it. If it is "natural law," then were the patriarch who had many wives outside the definition of marriage? Were the LDS outside the definition of marriage prior to Utah statehood (the price of which was for LDS to renounce polygamy)?
The fundamental point is that in a free society we may fashion our legal arrangements to fit the needs of that society. To say we should not, with respect to marriage, is not based on any a priori concept that restricts that freedom, but rather on a conclusion that the rights and responsibilities of marriage should not be extended to same sex couples. The argument that, well this would not be real marriage is, to use a legal term, an ipse dixit argument: It is so because I say it is so.
Can the Anonomi present an argument that is not so tautological?
"Thank you for the clarification. Your illustration may be instructive, reflecting an animus toward gay people. Do you view them as rats?"
no, I don't
I view them as human beings with some problems, which are not qualitatively different from the problems every other human being has- just different
"I try to avoid facile historical analogies, but I would note that German governmental propaganda in the 1930s portrayed the Jews as rats."
I don't use Nazism as a benchmark in any way. Otherwise, I wouldn't listen to Wagner, eat sauerbratten or root for my country in the Olympics.
btw, I went down to the Holocaust museum recently and saw the exhibit on Nazi propaganda
it was creepy
there was this one film that the Nazis made to show how much fun Jewish children were having at the camps
"Would you like to revise your response?"
not really
although, it might have been wiser to try the angle the other anon used, my point was simply that changing a definition destroys an old one
not having a word that refers to a committed and exclusive heterosexual relationship is a loss for such relationships
that's true, regardless of the demagoguery of the gay agenda
now, if I truly wanted to insult you, my post would say this:
"To give you an example, what if we decided to change the definition of David Fishback to include nice guys?
See how someone might consider that to be opposition to Davidfishbackery?"
btw, again, one of the TTFers did make a good point above (at least, I think this was their point):
if we're going to be legalistic about it, this victim didn't violate Leviticus because he only made an advance- he didn't actually lie with another man
"Let's get back to the main point."
OK
"In essence,the Anonomi limit the concept of marriage in the way they wish to limit it."
it's the current definition
we're not twitching our nose hoping to magically change it
that's what marriage is now
we don't want to "limit", except in the sense that definition are, basically limitations
the truth is that your side is the aggressor, wanting to expand a concept
"If it is "natural law," then were the patriarch who had many wives outside the definition of marriage?"
when we discussed natural rights, it was in response to you saying gays should have the same marital rights as heterosexuals do
you were conflating natural and legal rights to appeal to the ignorant
"The fundamental point is that in a free society we may fashion our legal arrangements to fit the needs of that society."
I agree with that. But you keep arguing that the basis for gay "marriage" is individual rights, not the greater good of society.
"To say we should not, with respect to marriage, is not based on any a priori concept that restricts that freedom, but rather on a conclusion that the rights and responsibilities of marriage should not be extended to same sex couples."
we're not just talking about the same rights and responsibilities, we're talking about identity
even when gays have been given these and called a civil union, they still claim a right to be called "married"
the purpose is to have government endorse the idea that there is no difference between hetrosexual and homosexual relationships
"The argument that, well this would not be real marriage is, to use a legal term, an ipse dixit argument: It is so because I say it is so."
you're wrong about that, just ask Mr Mxyzptlk
it is so because the Creator of marriage says so
"Can the Anonomi present an argument that is not so tautological?"
sure we can
marriage, as it is currently defined, benefits society
or did you want to change the definition of "society" too?
it's not hard to win an argument if you can get everyone to accept that you have the right to change the definition of words at will
""The fundamental point is that in a free society we may fashion our legal arrangements to fit the needs of that society."
I agree with that. But you keep arguing that the basis for gay "marriage" is individual rights, not the greater good of society."
So tell us how you think denying gays the right to wed, which results in keeping most gays single and unattached, does something beneficial for the greater good of society.
it preserves and preferences the heterosexual nature of marriage
marriage, as it is currently known, is good for society
our society can already barely afford to make ends meet without loading up the additional costs of providing benefits to encourage deviant relationships
Anon,
Thank you for enlightening us as to the basis for your position. You believe that society will be better off if gay people are kept on the margins because that will strengthen heterosexual marriage.
Unless you think that giving equal rights to gay couples will make straight people gay -- an absurd proposition -- your logic makes no sense.
gay people don't have to be on the margins
they can be right in the center
but gay relationships are not the equivalent of marriage
homosexuality doesn't deserve the same legal status as marriage
I don't know that elevating homosexuality to a preferenced status will cause people to become gay but removing the distinctive status of marriage may have an effect, especially stealing its name away
"Thank you for enlightening us as to the basis for your position."
never made any secret of my consistently held position
nice little rhetorical device though
gay people don't have to be on the margins
they can be right in the center
but gay relationships are not the equivalent of marriage
homosexuality doesn't deserve the same legal status as marriage
I don't know that elevating homosexuality to a preferenced status will cause people to become gay but removing the distinctive status of marriage may have an effect, especially stealing its name away
"Thank you for enlightening us as to the basis for your position."
never made any secret of my consistently held position
nice little rhetorical device though
Neither heterosexuality nor "homosexuality" seeks the "same legal status legal status as marriage" because a sexual orientation is not a contract between two people.
Nice try to disguise your animus toward gays, but it still shows through.
oh, OK, try this:
homosexual relationships don't deserve the same legal status as marriage
saying something is different is not necessarily animus
although, while I don't have a viscerally negative reaction against homosexuality, I do believe it violates the intentions of the Creator so I'm not objective toward it
but, that's not the case with everyone
some simply believe marriage benefits society without any religious element to their reasoning
and I agree with them too
"saying something is different is not necessarily animus"
That's true, but you didn't say homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage were "different."
You said "homosexual relationships don't deserve the same legal status as marriage"
Saying one couple doesn't deserve what another couple deserves demonstrates animus. Your admission of your inability to be objective about homosexuality because of your religious beliefs demonstrates animus too.
I believe marriage benefits society and that allowing gays to marry each other will benefit society even more. So glad you agree.
"our society can already barely afford to make ends meet without loading up the additional costs of providing benefits to encourage deviant relationships"
So you must support the marriage tax to pay "the additional costs of providing benefits to encourage" marriage.
Here's some deviant behavior for you, and a way to help stop it.
"Thembi (name changed) was pulled from a taxi near her home, beaten and raped by a man who crowed that he was ‘curing’ her of her lesbianism.
Thembi is not alone -- this vicious crime is recurrent in South Africa, where lesbians live in terror of attack. But no one has ever been convicted of 'corrective rape'. Amazingly, from a tiny Cape Town safehouse a few brave activists are risking their lives to ensure that this heinous practice is stopped and their massive campaign has forced the government into talks.
If we shine a light on this horror from all corners of the world -- and enough of us join in we can escalate the pressure, and help make sure these talks lead to concrete and urgent action. Let’s call on President Zuma and the Minister of Justice to publicly condemn ‘corrective rape’, criminalise hate crimes, and ensure immediate enforcement, public education and protection for survivors. Sign the petition now and share it with everyone -- when we reach one million signers we’ll deliver it to the South African government with unmissable and hard hitting actions.
808,330 have signed the petition. Help us get to 1,000,000. Sign here."
"Saying one couple doesn't deserve what another couple deserves demonstrates animus."
no, it doesn't
it is simply saying there is a different basis for the relationship
David -- Do you consider ex-gays to be rats?
Post a Comment
<< Home