Thread: NC pastor calls for death of ‘Queers & Homosexuals’ in sermon

Video: NC pastor calls for death of ‘Queers & Homosexuals’ in sermon | Pam's House Blend

(Video included)

This is just sick!

Your thoughts?

He seems to forget several key things:
The First Amendment protects Americans from being subject to his fanatical rantings against our will.
The Sixth Commandment clearly states in no uncertain terms, "thou shalt not kill".
The Bible is not inerrant, as clearly demonstrated by the contradiction between the 6th & 8th Commandments and the glorification of the slaughter of at least thousands of soldiers and civilians alike and the capture of their land and property not so long after the dictation of the Ten Commandments.

On the other hand, The First Amendment also guarantees this idiot the right to share his opinions with the world, even if they are complete garbage.

Originally Posted by Iron Defense

On the other hand, The First Amendment also guarantees this idiot the right to share his opinions with the world, even if they are complete garbage.

For sure the First Amendment gives him the right to share his opinions, but does the First Amendment also give him the right to incite to commit mass murder? There's a big difference between stating an opinion, and encouraging the death of others, as this pastor did.

Originally Posted by Jay0173

Originally Posted by Iron Defense

On the other hand, The First Amendment also guarantees this idiot the right to share his opinions with the world, even if they are complete garbage.

For sure the First Amendment gives him the right to share his opinions, but does the First Amendment also give him the right to incite to commit mass murder?

Originally Posted by The first Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, yes.

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Originally Posted by Jay0173

Originally Posted by Iron Defense

On the other hand, The First Amendment also guarantees this idiot the right to share his opinions with the world, even if they are complete garbage.

For sure the First Amendment gives him the right to share his opinions, but does the First Amendment also give him the right to incite to commit mass murder?

Originally Posted by The first Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, yes.

Then why is Charles Manson in jail? He never killed anyone himself, he just incited people to commit murder.

Originally Posted by PkmnYellow

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Originally Posted by Jay0173

Originally Posted by Iron Defense

On the other hand, The First Amendment also guarantees this idiot the right to share his opinions with the world, even if they are complete garbage.

For sure the First Amendment gives him the right to share his opinions, but does the First Amendment also give him the right to incite to commit mass murder?

Originally Posted by The first Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, yes.

Then why is Charles Manson in jail? He never killed anyone himself, he just incited people to commit murder.

A) People actually followed through on Manson's orders.

B) Manson actively conspired to commit murder. He didn't just spout rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Originally Posted by The first Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, yes.

So, if I was an American citizen, it would be alright for me to gather a group of people together in one room, discuss, and encourage that group to commit acts of violence against others? Is this what you are saying?

I do know that the law does permit reasonable restrictions to a person's free speech rights, such as not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. So I find it highly unlikely that the constitution allows a person or group of people to incite others to do violence against a class of people.

Allow me to bring to your attention an audio clip from 1978 when this same pastor said:

"We're living in a day when it saddens my heart to think homosexuals can go around, bless God, and get the applause of a lot of people, lesbians and all the rest of it. Forty years ago they would've hung, bless God, from a white oak tree! Wouldn't they? Amen."

Here's a link to the audio clip:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-bashing-north-carolina-pastor-charles-worley-forty-years-gays-hung-oak-tree-article-1.1083079?localLinksEnabled=false

Contrary to your assertion, this is not mere rhetoric, this is plain and out incitement. I have no doubt this pastor would welcome back the days where gays were hunted down, tortured, and hung. I know in Canada, he would be facing serious criminal charges right now, and more than likely would be in jail. As I said. Opinions are one thing, but when you begin inciting violence, you cross a line that should not be crossed in civilized society.

Charles Manson was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, which seems pretty obvious to me why starting with "telling the Family they might have to show blacks how to start 'Helter Skelter'". (Paragraph 2 of the section titled "Crowe shooting")

While I hold no love for Worley or his opinions, to my knowledge, neither he nor his followers have killed anyone yet and his rhetoric may toe the line between opinion and conspiracy to commit murder without blatantly going over, depending on who you ask.

Further complicating the issue is precedent set by the handling of Byron Williams, one of Glen Beck's followers who intended to set off a revolution via a bomb plot, and Glen Beck's apparent lack of legal culpability for his follower's actions despite the inflammatory nature of Beck's show.

Hopefully, the government is keeping a close eye on Worley and his followers in order to prevent them from actually doing anything, but apparently this is a more complex matter in the United States than it is in Canada.

The current interpretation of the first amendment is that speech designed to incite imminent lawless action is not protected. Advocacy of violence not likely to incite imminent lawless action is protected. This person's speech likely is considered free speech. It appears that Jay and I disagree over whether this is designed to incite imminent lawless action.

The way I saw it, he didn't incite violence. He presented a hypothetical. He didn't say "we should all go and kill them", he said "I found a way to get rid of them, but it'll never fly". And keep in mind that he did so to a congregation of like-minded people.

In any case, this particular incident is inciting eugenics, not murder. "Lock them up and keep them fed until they die out on their own."

I'd like to make a small aside here and state an opinion I have of the news media. To me, news should be presented as fact - this and that happened, in such and which way. I find it offensive that reporters and anchors always state their opinion on the news, in an obvious attempt to influence public opinion. I say this because not only is the article's title "Calls for the death of" misleading, and so is the body of the article: "recently told his congregation that his solution to dealing with lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender people is to send them to concentration camps to starve to death." The man said no such thing. The news outlet is clearly trying to draw a comparison to Hitler, and anybody that doesn't actually see the video will go away with the wrong idea.

Not that what he actually said is any better, mind you. Yes, he is bigoted. No, I don't agree with what he says. But he still has the right to say it.

*ahem*

*rasberries*

That is all.

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Originally Posted by The first Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, yes.

Actually, according to my criminal justice and US History/Politics courses I took in high school (I know, not a major source of amazingness), the first amendment's protection only goes as far as hate speech. Once you start saying physical harm should come to people, your first amendment rights no longer apply.

The beauty (and the ugly side) of the constitution is that it was worded in such a way that you could easily interpret and misinterpret it for your goals. As far as I'm aware, a majority of congressional leaders have been interpreting it as I said above since the civil rights movement.

Either this guy is going to run and hide with his tail between his legs and issue an "apology", or he's going to be arrested.

Originally Posted by Caitlin

Either this guy is going to run and hide with his tail between his legs and issue an "apology", or he's going to be arrested.

He does not seem to me the apologizing type, especially since this isn't the first time he's advocated for the death of gays and lesbians.

Originally Posted by Jay0173

He does not seem to me the apologizing type, especially since this isn't the first time he's advocated for the death of gays and lesbians.

Imagine he becomes a martyr. Then shit would really hit the fan.

Originally Posted by Smuglord

Originally Posted by Jay0173

He does not seem to me the apologizing type, especially since this isn't the first time he's advocated for the death of gays and lesbians.

Imagine he becomes a martyr. Then shit would really hit the fan.

As far as I know, US society hasn't regressed to that type of behaviour yet. So I think it's safe to say him becoming a martyr for anything would be a very remote possibility.