Swaggart Would Kill Gays, Tell God They Died

How far out is the far religious right? Jimmy Swaggart is how far out. Video here (Windows Media).

Transcript:

“I get amazed, I can’t look at it about 10 second, at these politicians dancing around this, dancing around this, I’m trying to find a correct name for it, this utter absolute asinine
idiotic stupidity of men marrying men.”

(shouts from crowd)

“I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry.”

(shouts, applause)

“And I’m gonna be blunt and plain, if he ever looks at me like that I’m going to kill him and tell God he died.”

(laughter, applause)

“In case anybody doesn’t know God calls it an abomination. It’s an abomination! It’s an abomination!”

(applause)

“These ridiculous, utterly absurd district attorneys and judges and state congress and ‘well, we don’t know’… they ought to have to marry a pig and live with them forever.”

(laughter)

“I’m not knocking the poor homosexual, I’m not, they need salvation like anyone else… I’m knocking our pitiful pathetic lawmakers.”

“And I thank God that President Bush has stated,”

(applause)

“we need a Constitutional Amendment that states that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

(applause)

“Alright.”

Thanks Ethan.

Music: Laura Nyro :: Stoned Soul Picnic

13 Replies to “Swaggart Would Kill Gays, Tell God They Died”

  1. “It’s time for the Christian Right to meet the Right Christians.” — the Rev. Al Sharpton

  2. “And I’m gonna be blunt and plain, if he ever looks at me like that I’m going to kill him and tell God he died.”

    Of course, if it were a female, Swaggart would probably offer her money and inquire about whether she would allow her underage daughter to have sex with him.

    http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jimmy-swaggart/

    And please don’t read this next bit wrong, I firmly believe that what happens between two consenting adults is no one’s business but their own. But I do not agree with legislating morality, be it pro or con gay marriage. It’s a very slippery slope, and one we should not tread.

    And also I believe that the judges who are creating law from the bench are a threat to representative democracy. Laws should be made by the people’s elected legislative representatives. Not from the bench.

    That having been said, I say again that the Christian Right is neither Christian nor right.

  3. Reverend, do you really want the government telling you who you can and cannot marry in your church?

    This is not a question of morality or of what is or is not an abomination. It is a question of limited government, seperation of church and state (both to protect the church and the state), liberty, and the principle that government will only act to limit our rights when it has a tangible, compelling reason to do so.

  4. I just read about the FCC fine of $500,000 (largest fine to date) against CBS for the Jackson Superbowl thing. How does one find out where the Swaggart show aired so that we can file a complaint to the FCC?

  5. Pingback: Turnspit Daily
  6. Pingback: Turnspit Daily
  7. Mneptok, I fully agree with your reluctance to see legislation mess about with morality. But I don’t think that’s what happens when the rights of two people to marry is upheld as being non-illegal. I also don’t think seeing the judiciary knock down a legislative-branch law as unconstitutional is the same thing as seeing them enact new laws.

    More concisely, I don’t think the Massachusetts ruling enforces a particular moral code as law as much as I think it attempts to extract and delete an older, obsolesced moral code from what’s on the books.

  8. But I don’t think that’s what happens when the rights of two people to marry is upheld as being non-illegal.

    Well, it’s not. But what I said was:

    And also I believe that the judges who are creating law from the bench..

    Creating law and upholding law are two entirely different concepts, and are the exact reason we have a judiciary and a legislative body. They uphold and create, respectively.

    I never mentioned Massachusetts. MA had a law banning gay marriage that was found to be unconstitutional by the MA Supreme Court in mid-November 2003. This is what a court is for. They ruled on an existing law, but did not set any new law. They asked the legislature to find a solution within 180 days.

    This is not what has been happening elsewhere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.