NC pastor thinks gov should kill the lgbt
EvanKeel
Posts: 1,903 Member
This isn't so much a rant about "how dare he say such things" because I think most rational people, even those who strongly don't approve of homosexuality, don't believe they should systematically put to death. I'm know some people feel that way, but I don't think they're the statistical majority. If CNN is to be trusted, though, this NC Pastor Worley believe the lgbt community should be rounded up and done away with. Apparently he's graduated from internment camps and has moved onto executions.
If I had to guess, I think this pastor is just being inflammatory for the sake of getting himself some exposure. The core of the discussion I'd like to see is that even though he's stated that he wouldn't lift a finger against the lgbt community, and he's sure the government won't, just how responsible is he if some emotionally fragile, mentally ill person hears that as a call to action?
Things like that do happen. If an incident does happen that seems linked to his message in the future, I'm not sure how much moral and ethical responsibility he can avoid there.
Thoughts?
If I had to guess, I think this pastor is just being inflammatory for the sake of getting himself some exposure. The core of the discussion I'd like to see is that even though he's stated that he wouldn't lift a finger against the lgbt community, and he's sure the government won't, just how responsible is he if some emotionally fragile, mentally ill person hears that as a call to action?
Things like that do happen. If an incident does happen that seems linked to his message in the future, I'm not sure how much moral and ethical responsibility he can avoid there.
Thoughts?
0
Replies
-
My thoughts are some people need a high five.................in the face..................with a chair.
or some people need to disappear...........and be found later.................rolled up in a rug in a densely wooded forest.0 -
The comments are despicable. Obv.
To address your specific question, yes, I think there could be some responsibility if someone does "hear the call to action."
An example of this would be Charlie Manson. He never actually carried out the murders, but he will spend his life in jail because he influenced those girls to murder all those people.
But I think it would depend on the interaction between this pastor and the person who actually carried out the crime.
I'd imagine that if it were a member of his congregation, they (prosecutors) would be able to tie together his comments and the person's actions pretty easily, and show the influence. But if it were someone unrelated, an "outsider" that simply heard his message on CNN or the internet, and then they went and killed someone, it would be much much harder to tie those together and place legal responsibility on this guy.0 -
The comments are despicable. Obv.
To address your specific question, yes, I think there could be some responsibility if someone does "hear the call to action."
An example of this would be Charlie Manson. He never actually carried out the murders, but he will spend his life in jail because he influenced those girls to murder all those people.
But I think it would depend on the interaction between this pastor and the person who actually carried out the crime.
I'd imagine that if it were a member of his congregation, they (prosecutors) would be able to tie together his comments and the person's actions pretty easily, and show the influence. But if it were someone unrelated, an "outsider" that simply heard his message on CNN or the internet, and then they went and killed someone, it would be much much harder to tie those together and place legal responsibility on this guy.
Interesting, I don't see much distinction between some random person using the internet and a member of his congregation, at least for this purpose. If it's proved that his words were the motivating force, then I'm not sure the medium or distance between the start and finish matters where the message is concerned.0 -
I think there is a HUGE difference between, "gays should be destroyed" and "go to the store, get a gun, and then wait outside a planned parenthood center until you see a woman and then shoot her in the head."
I think free speech should be protected as much as possible. Its restriction should be limited to only the most severe cases.0 -
I think there is a HUGE difference between, "gays should be destroyed" and "go to the store, get a gun, and then wait outside a planned parenthood center until you see a woman and then shoot her in the head."
I think free speech should be protected as much as possible. Its restriction should be limited to only the most severe cases.
I guess I'd like to hear more about your feelings on the restrictions to free speech with regard to incitement to violence, and what would qualify for that.0 -
Ice T had a song called Cop Killer. Everyone gasped in horror at the shocking lyrics. However, no prosecutor tried to go after Ice T, and I'm sure LOTS of cops have been murdered since that came out.
The difference is the level of power and control the speaker has over the person who actually commits the crime.
Adults are, in most legal settings, responsible for their own behaviors. Just because someone suggests a really bad idea, doesn't necessarily transfer liability onto the speaker. The hearer is still in charge of deciding whether they will carry out the suggestion.
If someone was a member of his congregation, and he makes the assertion that you better do this, or else you're going to hell, then I can see how that is a different level of influence, and may create a situation where the liability might be shared. But you'd have to be able to prove he had an uncanny level of influence over that person.0 -
Free speech is only free when it doesn't infringe upon other people's rights. It's quite arguable for someone to take his call to action to heart and go out and kill someone. BUT, I'm not convinced that he has personally infringed upon anyone's rights just yet. I will say though, one thing that I really enjoyed about the video was how quite his congregation was. Even when people cheered, it was clearly not the majority that did so. Hopefully no one will take his words to heart. But until someone dies, he's done nothing illegal. You can't get charged with inciting violence unless actual violence occurs. While he should be reprimanded, I think we all hope it never gets to the point of violence- even if it does mean he'd actually get what he deserved. We cannot give up our constitutional rights to free speech just to deal with a single lunatic. It sets a dangerous precedent.0
-
If it's proved that his words were the motivating force...
A very slippery slope. A radio host (with a much larger audience than this pastor) once said:
“You know, these women, somebody really needs to go repossess their ovaries. Really, truly, they have no right to them. They are fabulous, little organs and they have absolutely no right to be estrogen-bearing beings. Okay? Just cut ‘em off, let ‘em go through the hot flashes, let ‘em just sit there and complain about hormone therapy, okay? Just take the ovaries and get it over with. Because they don’t deserve to have estrogen. They really don’t. It’s a privilege.”
If I were to attack one of the women she was referring to and cut out her ovaries and said that I was motivated by this radio host, should she then bear personal responsibility?0 -
Ice T had a song called Cop Killer. Everyone gasped in horror at the shocking lyrics. However, no prosecutor tried to go after Ice T, and I'm sure LOTS of cops have been murdered since that came out.
The difference is the level of power and control the speaker has over the person who actually commits the crime.
Adults are, in most legal settings, responsible for their own behaviors. Just because someone suggests a really bad idea, doesn't necessarily transfer liability onto the speaker. The hearer is still in charge of deciding whether they will carry out the suggestion.
If someone was a member of his congregation, and he makes the assertion that you better do this, or else you're going to hell, then I can see how that is a different level of influence, and may create a situation where the liability might be shared. But you'd have to be able to prove he had an uncanny level of influence over that person.
I think the comparison to song lyrics gets a little complicated because to me there's a difference between preaching and artistic expression. Religious leaders are often valued specifically for their council and their words on how to live. While artists may influence people, I don't it's recognized as their primary role even if it does happen. In short, the authority of a pastor, and the authority of Ice T are not the same.0 -
If it's proved that his words were the motivating force...
A very slippery slope. A radio host (with a much larger audience than this pastor) once said:
“You know, these women, somebody really needs to go repossess their ovaries. Really, truly, they have no right to them. They are fabulous, little organs and they have absolutely no right to be estrogen-bearing beings. Okay? Just cut ‘em off, let ‘em go through the hot flashes, let ‘em just sit there and complain about hormone therapy, okay? Just take the ovaries and get it over with. Because they don’t deserve to have estrogen. They really don’t. It’s a privilege.”
If I were to attack one of the women she was referring to and cut out her ovaries and said that I was motivated by this radio host, should she then bear personal responsibility?
I think it's a possibility yes. I don't actually know how the law works here, but I think it would be important to look at the body of work and see if this type of misogyny was a repeated theme for host. If it was, I think it's noteworthy. In much the same way that this pastor is building a body of work that signals what he thinks should happen to gay people.0 -
Ice T had a song called Cop Killer. Everyone gasped in horror at the shocking lyrics. However, no prosecutor tried to go after Ice T, and I'm sure LOTS of cops have been murdered since that came out.
The difference is the level of power and control the speaker has over the person who actually commits the crime.
Adults are, in most legal settings, responsible for their own behaviors. Just because someone suggests a really bad idea, doesn't necessarily transfer liability onto the speaker. The hearer is still in charge of deciding whether they will carry out the suggestion.
If someone was a member of his congregation, and he makes the assertion that you better do this, or else you're going to hell, then I can see how that is a different level of influence, and may create a situation where the liability might be shared. But you'd have to be able to prove he had an uncanny level of influence over that person.
Most people who were outrage over the song cop killer never listened to the song (it was sort of catchy). It is apparent in the beginning of the song that he is talking about corrupt police officers or "pigs", and was written in a time when the Rodney King just got the tar beat out of him by the LAPD and cop on black violence was pretty rough. Funny thing is, no one get's upset when Marley shot the sherrif, especially if covered by a white band. Often song lyrics are only dangerous to people depending on who sang them. Most old people view rap as degrading and violent towards women, but never seemed to mind Tom Jones stabbing Delilah to death over an affair, because he sang it in that big baritone Welsh voice.
As far as this ****head pastor, he's probably now on a watch list and if anything does happen, one way or another his head will end up on a figuartive pike.0 -
If he's preaching this at his church and a member of that congregation takes his word as "an order from God", then I would hope he would be held responsible in some way.If I had to guess, I think this pastor is just being inflammatory for the sake of getting himself some exposure. The core of the discussion I'd like to see is that even though he's stated that he wouldn't lift a finger against the lgbt community, and he's sure the government won't, just how responsible is he if some emotionally fragile, mentally ill person hears that as a call to action?
Things like that do happen. If an incident does happen that seems linked to his message in the future, I'm not sure how much moral and ethical responsibility he can avoid there. Thoughts?
I respect freedom of speech, but I have no respect for hate speech. I do not think church officials of any denomination should be protected against repsonsiblity of hate speech.0 -
First off, I listen to Copkiller on a regular basis. Great during a workout.
And like some others I am completely opposed to censorship in nearly all it's forms. 99.999% of the time I weigh in on "let the people speak". No matter how awful what they have to say is. I like it personally. That's how I know what *kitten* to avoid.
He has the right, he's free to exercise it.
BY THE SAME TOKEN good, decent people are free to stand outside that clown's church and say whatever vile things they would like to him and all of the people attending his church and supporting him. You know the people who stand outside and protest Planned Parenthood? It should look exactly like that. Picket signs with pedophile priests. Gay dudes making out with each other in S&M gear. People spraying lube at anyone who tries to go in to the church.
It's time the rest of us adopted the tactics of the enemy. I don't think they'd last a week.0 -
Hey, now. Why you gotta pick on Catholics???? This dude is from another denomination!Picket signs with pedophile priests.
0 -
Actually, I would rather see a group of Christians picket him and use God's words to show him what he's doing is wrong. He'd probably get a kick out of all the other stuff because that's what he's going for. I'd like to see his congregation get up and walk out, leaving his church bankrupt. I'd like to see him held responsible if any of his members acted on his instructions.It's time the rest of us adopted the tactics of the enemy. I don't think they'd last a week.0 -
Hey, now. Why you gotta pick on Catholics???? This dude is from another denomination! wink
Oh but Patti I didn't say Catholics! I kept it open. That's what you first thought... :bigsmile:
Actually, I would rather see a group of Christians picket him and use God's words to show him what he's doing is wrong. He'd probably get a kick out of all the other stuff because that's what he's going for. I'd like to see his congregation get up and walk out, leaving his church bankrupt. I'd like to see him held responsible if any of his members acted on his instructions.It's time the rest of us adopted the tactics of the enemy. I don't think they'd last a week.
That'd be good too.0 -
Hey, now. Why you gotta pick on Catholics???? This dude is from another denomination! wink
You said "priests". I'm pretty sure you weren't referring to Anglicans!Oh but Patti I didn't say Catholics! I kept it open.0 -
Here is an example of the people that listen to him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXDKnL4xGE&feature=player_embedded
That explains everything......you can't fix stupid.....0 -
I don't know.. I think the whole "free speech" thing goes too far in America. Some things are so malicious and hateful.. why should people have to listen to them? I don't think this pastor should be getting any attention from the media.0
-
I don't know.. I think the whole "free speech" thing goes too far in America. Some things are so malicious and hateful.. why should people have to listen to them? I don't think this pastor should be getting any attention from the media.
Free Speech is one of the principles this country was founded on. In America, we do not reserve the right to not be offended. If someone says something that's messed up... well, that's their choice. Unless it actually infringes on my rights, or the rights of another, they cannot be stopped. That's a very important right. Without it, the government would have the control to dictate acceptable speech. They should not have that level of control. If we had a legal right not to be offended, then this guy could be arrested. But everything is offensive to somebody. So you can't make laws like that.0 -
I don't know.. I think the whole "free speech" thing goes too far in America. Some things are so malicious and hateful.. why should people have to listen to them? I don't think this pastor should be getting any attention from the media.
Free Speech is one of the principles this country was founded on. In America, we do not reserve the right to not be offended. If someone says something that's messed up... well, that's their choice. Unless it actually infringes on my rights, or the rights of another, they cannot be stopped. That's a very important right. Without it, the government would have the control to dictate acceptable speech. They should not have that level of control. If we had a legal right not to be offended, then this guy could be arrested. But everything is offensive to somebody. So you can't make laws like that.
Yet in America, it's ok for the WBC to protest funerals. Huh.0 -
Yet in America, it's ok for the WBC to protest funerals. Huh.
Yes it does. I don't like it, but freedom can be a hard pill to swallow.0 -
I don't know.. I think the whole "free speech" thing goes too far in America. Some things are so malicious and hateful.. why should people have to listen to them? I don't think this pastor should be getting any attention from the media.
Free Speech is one of the principles this country was founded on. In America, we do not reserve the right to not be offended. If someone says something that's messed up... well, that's their choice. Unless it actually infringes on my rights, or the rights of another, they cannot be stopped. That's a very important right. Without it, the government would have the control to dictate acceptable speech. They should not have that level of control. If we had a legal right not to be offended, then this guy could be arrested. But everything is offensive to somebody. So you can't make laws like that.
Yet in America, it's ok for the WBC to protest funerals. Huh.
Exactly. It offends the hell out of me, but I don't reserve the right to *not* be offended. They aren't infringing upon anyone's rights. I hate the *kitten*, but I'll defend their right to say whatever they want to say. They are protected by our Constitution.0 -
Is this much different from the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on George Zimmerman's head? Obviously, both are innocent parties, until proven guilty that is..0
-
Is this much different from the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on George Zimmerman's head? Obviously, both are innocent parties, until proven guilty that is..
or like Spike Lee Tweeting an address (which turned out not even to be Zimmerman's address) and telling people to "feel free to reach out and touch someone"
(VERY)Bad judgment, but if someone really did it, I doubt Spike Lee would be the one held accountable.0 -
Is this much different from the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on George Zimmerman's head? Obviously, both are innocent parties, until proven guilty that is..
Absolutely not. THAT is quite different. That's a call to action. There's motive and intent to harm there and it's all very illegal. Yes speech is protected. But speech that involves "I'll pay you to kill this guy" is a crime.
But I hate the New Black Panthers being used as an example of anything. They are to race relations what the Westboro Baptists are to religion. Just a complete fringe group that serves only as an example of insanity, nothing more.0 -
Is this much different from the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on George Zimmerman's head? Obviously, both are innocent parties, until proven guilty that is..
It's pretty different. There's a difference between a non-specific "all gays deserve to die" and a specific "I will give you X dollars for killing this specific man." One is hate-mongering gay-bashing. The other is a specific call to action to end a specific person's life. In other words, one is being a *kitten* jerk-wad. The other is inciting a specific act of violence.
It's that specificity that differentiates the two.0 -
Is this much different from the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on George Zimmerman's head? Obviously, both are innocent parties, until proven guilty that is..
It's pretty different. There's a difference between a non-specific "all gays deserve to die" and a specific "I will give you X dollars for killing this specific man." One is hate-mongering gay-bashing. The other is a specific call to action to end a specific person's life. In other words, one is being a *kitten* jerk-wad. The other is inciting a specific act of violence.
It's that specificity that differentiates the two.
But it's still motivated by a specific group. In one case it's about race, the other group sexual orientation.0 -
Is this much different from the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on George Zimmerman's head? Obviously, both are innocent parties, until proven guilty that is..
It's pretty different. There's a difference between a non-specific "all gays deserve to die" and a specific "I will give you X dollars for killing this specific man." One is hate-mongering gay-bashing. The other is a specific call to action to end a specific person's life. In other words, one is being a *kitten* jerk-wad. The other is inciting a specific act of violence.
It's that specificity that differentiates the two.
But it's still motivated by a specific group. In one case it's about race, the other group sexual orientation.
Sort of. I wouldn't argue that the New Black Panther Party has a bounty on his head because he's Hispanic. It's because he committed a potentially (no trial yet, I'll try to remain unbiased) racially motivated crime. In other words, the hit isn't about HIS race, it's about his actions.
That group is mobilized against a specific person. The other is really just A person. A single person who said these things. Sure, he's a pastor with a room full of parishioners but again, he did not use specifics. He didn't say "so and so is gay, go kill him." He gave a non-specific call to action. It's the specificity that matters. Do you think we should jail all the lunatics on street corners saying that certain groups of people need to die? A man once said "Kill all the Julias" on the bus (he has Schizophrenia). Should we arrest him too? People say things. Until they say *specific* things, inciting specific crimes, they really haven't done anything illegal.0 -
Yeah I think there's a difference between saying
"That group of people should probably be killed by the government, but i wont' be the one doing it."
and
"We think that guy right there is a bigot and needs to die. Not only that, but we'll encourage people to do it by offering them money."
Explicitly offering an incentive for a specific act of violence is not protected under free speech. I would even say generally stating "We should put bounties on the heads of people who meet this fairly narrow descriptor" is walking a very thin line.0
This discussion has been closed.