• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

“In Sharia court you are supposed to kill the man. But the government has refused. That’s why they started throwing stones and bottles.”

Feb 9, 2014 8:39 am By Robert Spencer

sub-bull-nigeria-master675

One would think that stories like this, which make it so abundantly clear that gays face persecution and death under Sharia, would lead gay groups in the United States to support anti-Sharia laws. But they don’t, of course, preferring instead to side with the oppressor. When Pamela Geller and I ran a series of ads in San Francisco calling attention to Sharia mistreatment of gays, not only did gay groups not support us, but the San Francisco City Council actually condemned the ad (the first time they have such a thing) and gay activist Chris Stedman wrote articles denouncing and smearing us.

These gay activists will not, for all that, be spared the whip and the stone when the Sharia they have aided and abetted finally comes to them.

“Wielding Whip and a Hard New Law, Nigeria Tries to ‘Sanitize’ Itself of Gays,” by Adam Nossiter for the New York Times, February 8:

BAUCHI, Nigeria — The young man cried out as he was being whipped on the courtroom bench. The bailiff’s leather whip struck him 20 times, and when it was over, the man’s side and back were covered with bruises.

Still, the large crowd outside was disappointed, the judge recalled: The penalty for gay sex under local Islamic law is death by stoning.

“He is supposed to be killed,” the judge, Nuhu Idris Mohammed, said, praising his own leniency on judgment day last month at the Shariah court here. The bailiff demonstrated the technique he used: whip at shoulder level, then forcefully down.

The mood is unforgiving in this north Nigeria metropolis, where nine others accused of being gay by the Islamic police are behind the central prison’s high walls. Stones and bottles rained down on them outside the court two weeks ago, residents and officials said; some in the mob even wanted to set the courtroom ablaze, witnesses said.

Since Nigeria’s president, Goodluck Jonathan, signed a harsh law criminalizing homosexuality throughout the country last month, arrests of gay people have multiplied, advocates have been forced to go underground, some people fearful of the law have sought asylum overseas and news media demands for a crackdown have flourished.

Gay sex has been illegal in Nigeria since British colonial rule, but convictions were rare in the south and only occasional in the mostly Muslim north. The new law bans same-sex marriage and goes significantly further, prescribing 10 years in prison for those who “directly or indirectly” make a “public show” of same-sex relationships. It also punishes anyone who participates in gay clubs and organizations, or who simply supports them, leading to broad international criticism of the sweep of the law….

Homosexuality is illegal in 38 of 54 African countries, according to Amnesty International, and carries the death penalty in Mauritania, Sudan and Somalia, as well as Shariah-governed northern Nigeria. Recently Uganda’s president declined to sign a bill that carried a life sentence for gays, though he called them sick. In Senegal, where the press regularly “outs” gays, same-sex relations carry a penalty of five years.

Rights advocates say they have recorded arrests in multiple Nigerian states, but the country’s north has experienced the toughest crackdown. Mr. Jonathan’s national ban has redoubled the zeal against gay people here and elsewhere, according to officials and residents in Bauchi, where Shariah law prevails and green-uniformed Hisbah, or Islamic police officers, search for what is considered immoral under Islam.…

Officials here in Bauchi say they want to root out, imprison and punish gays. Local lawyers are reluctant to represent them. Bail was refused to the gay people already jailed because it was “in the best interests of the accused,” said the chief prosecutor, Dawood Mohammed. In the streets, furious citizens say they are ready to take the law into their own hands to combat homosexuality.

Officials are also inflamed. “It is detestable,” said Mohammed Tata, a senior official with the Shariah Commission here, which controls the Hisbah. He added: “This thing is an abomination.”…

The prisoners’ only local support comes from two gay activists who slip into and out of the area, not daring to stay overnight. “They started crying when they saw us, begging us to take them out of this place,” said one of the activists, Tahir, 26, after returning from the prison, where he and his friend Bala, 29, had taken the men food. The two activists feared being prosecuted themselves, so they said they were relatives of the prisoners to try to avoid suspicion….

At a downtown restaurant in Bauchi, under suspicious glances from other patrons, Bala said, “Let us leave this place.” Hurriedly concluding the interview, the two left for a town farther south and not under Shariah law. “We are not safe here,” Bala said.

His words were borne out by the mood on the street. “God has not allowed this thing; we are not animals,” said Umar Inuwa Obi, 32, a student who said he was in the mob that hurled stones and bottles at the court and the prison van transporting the gay suspects two weeks ago.

“In Shariah court you are supposed to kill the man,” Mr. Obi said, adding that he favored this judgment. “But the government has refused. That’s why they started throwing stones and bottles.”

Frightened, the judge retreated to his chambers, the van forced its way through the crowd and gunshots were fired to disperse it.

“People are out to kill,” said Abdullahi Yalwa, a sociologist who teaches at a Bauchi college.

“The stones increased,” said Musa Kandi, a lawyer who briefly represented one of the men on his bail application. “They wanted to have those people, so they could kill them.”

Civil authorities here, handed the case by the Hisbah, say the suspects have been charged with a very serious crime. “They had been meeting among themselves, which is quite prohibited — religiously prohibited, socially unacceptable and morally wrong,” said Mr. Mohammed, the chief prosecutor.

In the prison, the men are separated from other prisoners, not for their protection, but “so that they should not indoctrinate the other inmates,” said Mr. Mohammed’s deputy, Dayyabu Ayuba, who is handling the case….

For gay Nigerians, the risks of coming out could not be higher. “In the north, you will be killed,” Tahir said. “You will bring total shame to your family.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: homosexuals, Nigeria, Sharia Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Secondtonone says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 8:55 am

    Now this is one Sharia law I wholly support.

    • southeuropean says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 9:29 am

      I do not agree with you. Every has a right to sexual freedom. The trouble is that the trend with the homosexuals is to make a social wonder out of them with allowed marriage and children adopting. For that…I believe the question of peoples sex.orientatiton should remain an intimate choice with not much fuze about it…maybe with a citizen marriage as a individual wish, but no children adoptions.

    • Bradamante says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 9:30 am

      You think that people should be murdered for the “crime” of having a genetic variant that makes them attracted to their own sex. Even though they’re doing nothing to harm straight people. Why stop there? Why don’t we also burn left-handed people — they’re obviously possessed by Satan. Redheads, too — that hair color can’t be right. And crosseyed people — you can tell by looking at them that they’re evil.

      In any case, this website is about standing up to the evil and depravity of jihad, not applauding the slaughter until it’s our turn to be the victims.

      • Allan L says

        Feb 9, 2014 at 6:49 pm

        Well said.

      • Guy Macher says

        Feb 11, 2014 at 8:07 am

        Please offer proof that homosexuality is genetic.

    • Semeru says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 9:43 am

      You an obnoxious creep

      • JimJFox says

        Feb 9, 2014 at 12:31 pm

        Seconded

      • Jimbo says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 9:50 am

        Thirded.

    • Aldeano says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 9:57 am

      Of course you do, you’re a pathological sociopath.

      • JimJFox says

        Feb 9, 2014 at 12:31 pm

        Seconded

    • CogitoErgoSum says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 11:51 am

      Maybe the question about homosexuality is not about whether it is right or wrong of itself but about whether it is right or wrong for one person to force either himself or his way of thinking upon another person. I can’t find anywhere in the New Testament any direct words spoken by Jesus specifically addressing homosexuality. I don’t think He ever made a point of it….and He could have. Why not? Personally, I don’t see that’s it’s any of my business what a person does in private if it does not harm me or anyone else. I don’t like collard greens but it doesn’t bother me if anyone else eats them. It’s only when they try to force them down my throat that I would say any crime is being committed. I would ask that you prove to me what harm has been done by an action before I will agree to thinking that that action is wrong and deserving of any type of punishment.

    • cochise says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 12:11 pm

      jump into the 21st century captain backward. gayness is not a choice, it’s a natural phenomon. you belong in pre-medieval society.

      • Salah says

        Feb 9, 2014 at 12:31 pm

        “gayness is not a choice, it’s a natural phenomon.”

        No, it’s not.

        “Sodomy is a cancer upon humanity and if not kept aggressively in check will CONSUME and DESTROY whatever culture deludes itself into believing that it is harmless.”

        Read it all here:
        http://www.barnhardt.biz/2013/05/16/homosexuality-psychological-origins-part-1/

        • Defcon 4 says

          Feb 9, 2014 at 1:03 pm

          Oh wow, a “moderate” musl0fascist supporting the persecution and murder of the LGBT community, who would’ve thought that could happen.

        • eib says

          Feb 9, 2014 at 4:06 pm

          Profane worship and the abandonment of God is a far greater danger to the soul than sodomy.

        • Allan L says

          Feb 9, 2014 at 6:51 pm

          OMG. Are you ever a Neanderthal. Of course you probably had a fine Islamic science education, where you learned how to build a fire with just sticks.

    • JimJFox says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 12:29 pm

      Are you gay? Do you have any gay children…. relatives…. friends….workmates?

    • mortimer says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 2:29 pm

      no victim no crime

    • gravenimage says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 3:12 pm

      Secondtonone wrote:

      Now this is one Sharia law I wholly support.
      …………………………

      Really? You want the Islamic Police roaming the streets randomly accusing victims of being gay; of that accusation being “confirmed” in courts that have no rules of evidence; and you want mobs in the street ready to slaughter any victims who are not judicially murdered by the courts?

      In other words, you want all the oppressive savagery and bloody barbarism of Islam.

      In that case, what are you doing here at Jihad Watch?

    • eib says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 4:05 pm

      On religious and humanitarian grounds, I do not support the death penalty for gay people or their conduct.
      Choose life, the Bible commands us.
      Jesus Christ shows the way to life and to eternal life.
      He never commanded that the gay or the outsider, the marginal or the frightened, should be killed.
      He never even commanded that the unbeliever should be killed.
      Jesus Christ was the Son of God, not a Medieval warlord.

      • Mike says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 5:06 am

        Jesus Christ IS the Son of God, not was!

    • Secondtonone says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 9:41 pm

      Well at least I know now that no less than half you bunch of dim wits support the split lickers and corn holers. I don’t give a damn what you say IT just damn sure ain’t right and I dare anyone to prove it’s natural for a man to bang another man………YUCK……..THAT’S JUST SICK!! And I guess the half of you that support this stupid shit get your jollies off watching two split lickers going at it.

      • RodSerling says

        Feb 9, 2014 at 11:45 pm

        Secondtonone,

        You are not making sense. You suggest that, because some people don’t want to kill gays and lesbians like you do, therefore they “get their jollies” watching homosexual sex acts? Even if this were true, and there were no other reason why anyone would want to stop you from killing gays and lesbians, that still doesn’t justify your argument that gays and lesbians must be put to death. That is, it is irrelevant.

        Whether you or anyone else finds some action, including a sexual practice, to be “yucky” does not justify killing those who engage in that practice. Should we start killing people who are deemed guilty of “yuckiness”?

        Two considerations, at least, in casting a moral judgement on some action, (1) free informed consent, and (2) harm.

        1. If two adults of sound mind, and of the same sex, who happen to be sexually attracted to each other, and who know each other well enough to trust each other, freely decide to have sex with each other in their own free time, with no coercion, what is wrong with that?

        2. If there is no harm in the act, what is wrong with it?

        • RodSerling says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 12:00 am

          …and (3) Proportionality. Even if we did all agree that homosexuality (which meets the criteria of 1 and 2 above) was wrong–and that has not been demonstrated–is it so wrong, so terrible, as to justify the death penalty? Is it enough to justify any legal punishment at all? Is it even enough to justify non-legal, mere social punishments, such as shunning, verbal reprimands, etc.?

          You ought to be able to explain in a sensible and reasonable manner how the punishment is justified. If you can’t do that, then maybe you ought to give this one some more thought before pulling the trigger, so to speak.

        • Semeru says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 1:14 am

          Rod

          On this one I agree with u 1001% 😉

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 6:20 pm

          Excellent posts, Rod.

        • Secondtonone says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 11:16 pm

          Watch a lot of porn do you Rod?

      • CogitoErgoSum says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 1:26 am

        Secondtonone, when you say YUCK do you get what I am saying about collard greens? Why do some people like collard greens while others find them disgusting? Maybe it’s a matter of taste….and there’s no accounting for taste. Or maybe it’s a matter of chromosomes. What about hermaphrodites? Is it their fault they are born that way? Could it be that some homosexuals are born with a natural attraction for members of their own sex but that others commit homosexual acts simply because they like doing so? I think it’s a complicated matter with uncountable shades of gray and is something I would prefer to leave under the jurisdjiction of God…..and God alone.

        • CogitoErgoSum says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 11:06 am

          Another thing…….even if the Old Testament does require the death sentence for those who commit homosexual acts, I think it should be interpreted in conjunction with the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. I believe that Christ took upon Himself the sins of the world when He was nailed to the cross. The shedding of His blood has satisfied the requirements in the Old Testament for the shedding of blood for sin. Christ died for us so that we should not be condemned to the same punishment. With His death a new covenant was instituted between God and man in which love and forgiveness of sins now take precedence over the old laws. No one is condemned for sin except those who choose to remain unrepentant. This is the new covenant which was sealed in Christ’s blood……and no one has the right to annul it…..and I would say that includes Muhammad.

      • Defcon 4 says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 3:23 am

        Are you expressing some latency issues?

      • Jimbo says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 9:54 am

        Seems as if you’re second to just about everybody.

      • Secondtonone says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 2:13 pm

        Well, I’ve proven my point, this subject is always a firestorm among the politically correct jerks. So all you liberal jokers sit back on your PC ass and condemn me when I’m only saying what you are thinking you bunch of hypocrites.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 6:30 pm

          On another thread, “Secondtonone” also expressed his approval of Muslims stoning “adulterers” to death—presumably he is also fine with the frequent slaughter of incest and rape victims.

          Seems that “Secondtonone” agrees with *a lot* of Islamic barbarism.

          Which begs the question: what is he doing here on Jihad Watch?

  2. Sam says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 10:21 am

    Gay rights activists will protest this cruel and brutal behaviors against gays in Muslim countries after they eliminate all the injustices they face in the “intolerant” USA. That also will not be in my lifetime.

    • eib says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 4:07 pm

      Like the feminists.
      What a great excuse for allowing massive bloodshed.

  3. Softly Bob says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 10:29 am

    Meanwhile the West focuses on Sochi and Putin’s anti-gay policies.

    • Jay Boo says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 1:15 pm

      Just Imagine if Putin was a Muslim.
      What would Obama say and do?

  4. Troy S says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Someday you will be sorry.

  5. Mohammad says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 11:58 am

    I emailed CAIR awhile back asking them if homosexuality is punishable by death, why did their prophet engage in homosexual acts. I also asked why many men of muslim faith have young boy mistresses on the side. I have yet to get a response sadly.

    • Jay Boo says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 1:34 pm

      Aisha supposedly lost her hair as a child and just loved to play with the girls.
      This (short haired ‘girl’) was Muhammad’s most favorite.
      Short haired Aisha we are told ‘grew her hair back’
      Short haired Aisha just loved to play with the girls.
      Despite a long marriage to Muhammad Aisha not bear any of Muhammad’s children?

      WHAT GOES ON BEHIND THE ISLAMIC VEIL
      Why did Aisha not bear any of Muhammad’s children?

      When Muhammad said to Aisha, “Hey, babe,
      Take a walk on the wild side?”
      Baby child Aisha plucked her eyebrows on the way,
      Shaved her legs and then he was a she
      In the backroom she was everybody’s darling,
      and Muhammad sang, “Hey, babe,
      Take a walk on the wild side?”
      And the Muslim men go,
      Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo

      • Jay Boo says

        Feb 9, 2014 at 3:48 pm

        Surprisingly the published “Take a Walk on the Wild Side” song by Lou Reed doesn’t mention these above verses.
        A CAIR representative must have picked out all the verses that make Islam look bad.

  6. Champ says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    sharia law is evil and incompatible with human rights.

  7. Salah says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    “In the streets, furious citizens say they are ready to take the law into their own hands to combat homosexuality.”

    Dear furious citizens, READ YOUR BOOKS!
    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2012/10/was-muhammad-gay.html

    • Jay Boo says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 1:38 pm

      Salah,
      Please check my reply to Muhammad’s good comment to make sure in is historically correct

      • Salah says

        Feb 9, 2014 at 3:16 pm

        Indeed, it is correct.
        As for your question:
        ” Why did Aisha not bear any of Muhammad’s children?”

        Here’s my answer:
        Because he was sexually impotent.
        http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/01/prophetess-of-islam.html

        • Jay Boo says

          Feb 9, 2014 at 3:24 pm

          Thanks Salah,
          Even if Aisha were a ‘she’ which I doubt, this would have been of no use to camel urine drinker Muhammad for having offspring.

  8. RCCA says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    “One would think that stories like this, which make it so abundantly clear that gays face persecution and death under Sharia, would lead gay groups in the United States to support anti-Sharia laws. But they don’t, of course, preferring instead to side with the oppressor.” I don’t know if you are trying to be insulting or are simply displaying your contempt for LGBT, which is hardly the way to gain allies.

    First of all, who you are referring to as “the oppressor?” Gay activists have been devoting themselves to eliminating discrimination and inequality of rights here in the United States. That has yet to be accomplished. One can hardly expect activists to focus on changing what is happening in places that are intransigently anti-gay like the Muslim world.

    Secondly, I don’t know that the ads in SF were specifically aimed at educating people about the need for anti-Sharia legislation. The intention was more towards exposing Islamic intolerance and hatred of gays. That rubbed people the wrong way, not because they are OK with Islamic intolerance but because SF prides itself on being a place where people have evolved beyond all that hatred and bigotry. The tolerance of people in SF may be an illusion based on a false premise, that coexistence with Islam is possible, but people didn’t want their illusions shattered.

    • Defcon 4 says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 1:08 pm

      The “tolerance of people in SF” isn’t for Christians or Jews, it’s for islam0nazis. Maybe they should move to an islamic state and taste what real persecution is like, rather than spewing their hatred of Christians and Jews while praising islam0nazis. No one is forced to like you because you’re from the LGBT community, that’s called freedom.

      • RCCA says

        Feb 9, 2014 at 1:33 pm

        As a matter of fact there are many gays who have been persecuted by traditional Christian/Jewish families and feel attacked by organized religion. The greater the abuse the greater the antipathy towards religion. But there are also many churches and synagogues where gays are accepted, and many gays who are deeply spiritual so there is definitely a mix of attitudes towards religions in the gay world, just like the heterosexual world.
        Regarding freedom, I’ve always believed that freedom in this country was based on the belief in a loving G-d who created everyone with the equal right to pursue their own lives. You are free to do as you choose as long as you are not causing harm. That’s the freedom envisioned by the founders, which uplifts people. Hatred is never an uplifting emotion.

        • Defcon 4 says

          Feb 9, 2014 at 4:51 pm

          There’s a big difference between feeling “attacked by organized religion” and being murdered by muslimes for being gay, or Christian, or Jewish, or Hindu, or Baha’i, or Sikh, or Zoroastrian, or Buddhist or atheist.
          But if there are people who don’t like someone for being gay, bi-gender, transsexual isn’t that their right?
          I’ve been persecuted by gays for being straight, is that right?

  9. Gary Fouse says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    Interesting reader thread. Let’s get back to basics. Whatever one thinks about homosexuality from a moral point of view, it is not illegal in our country and nobody should condone killing gays or lashing them for that matter. Sharia law clearly punishes homosexual acts by death, and that is a practice that must be never be allowed here. Gay groups should condemn the practice worldwide and should be involved when groups like the Syrian American Council bring in speakers to the US like Muhammad Rateb Alnabulsi, who just concluded a US speaking tour. He has advocated for the killing of gays and Israeli civilians. Yet his speaking appearances were not met with any protests. Why not?

    • Wellington says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 2:39 pm

      Well said, Gary Fouse.

    • RCCA says

      Feb 9, 2014 at 3:34 pm

      Good point, Gary. Maybe AFDI dropped the ball on this one? I was not aware of http://youtu.be/I8BatZ2oIxU or Muhammad Rateb Al Nabulsi’s fund raising tour until today.
      Missed opportunity to bring public attention to this issue.

  10. gravenimage says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    “In Sharia court you are supposed to kill the man. But the government has refused. That’s why they started throwing stones and bottles.”
    …………………………………..

    This is Shari’ah in a nutshell: just an accusation is generally enough to determine “guilt”—Shari’ah courts are not true courts in the sense they are in the civilized world.

    And secondly, that on the rare occasions that a Shari’ah court *does* find someone innocent of being homosexual, or committing blasphemy, or committing adultery, that the Ummah can take the matter into their own hands and kill the victim themselves.

    This is, in fact, a central part of Islamic law—that if the state isn’t carrying sufficiently enforcing Shari’ah, that it is incumbent on every individual Muslim to do so.

    More:

    “Wielding Whip and a Hard New Law, Nigeria Tries to ‘Sanitize’ Itself of Gays”
    …………………………………..

    And it is well to remind ourselves of the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller about Nazi Germany:

    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist.

    “Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    “Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.

    “Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    It doesn’t matter if you are gay or even like gay people—these pious Muslims also want to “sanitize” themselves of Christians, atheists, artists, and anyone concerned with freedom.

    More:

    The mood is unforgiving in this north Nigeria metropolis, where nine others accused of being gay by the Islamic police are behind the central prison’s high walls…
    …………………………………..

    And what does it take to be accused of being gay in northern Nigeria? Given the false accusations for “blasphemy” and “committing adultery” and “burning the Qur’an” and “insulting Muhammed”, I would guess that very little “proof” is needed.

    More:

    Since Nigeria’s president, Goodluck Jonathan, signed a harsh law criminalizing homosexuality throughout the country last month, arrests of gay people have multiplied, advocates have been forced to go underground, some people fearful of the law have sought asylum overseas and news media demands for a crackdown have flourished.
    …………………………………..

    More appeasement from Goodluck Jonathan—all this does is result in more Muslim savagery.

    More:

    Homosexuality is illegal in 38 of 54 African countries, according to Amnesty International, and carries the death penalty in Mauritania, Sudan and Somalia, as well as Shariah-governed northern Nigeria…
    …………………………………..

    Muslim countries all.

    More:

    “God has not allowed this thing; we are not animals,” said Umar Inuwa Obi, 32, a student who said he was in the mob that hurled stones and bottles at the court and the prison van transporting the gay suspects two weeks ago.
    …………………………………..

    “We are not animals”—but apparently stoning police vans and threatening to butcher people in the streets if they are not judicially murdered is perfectly civilized…sarc/off

    • Semeru says

      Feb 10, 2014 at 12:49 am

      More appeasement from Goodluck Jonathan—all this does is result in more Muslim savagery.

      Trying to truthbend again.

      Prove that Goodluck is appeasing to moslem savagery, and not following Leviticus

      18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

      20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

      • Defcon 4 says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 3:26 am

        Look who’s lying now. It’s muslimes who are murdering gays in Nigeria, not Christians.

        • Semeru says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 4:25 am

          And where have I stated that Xtians are murdering gays

        • Defcon 4 says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 11:34 am

          So you admit muslimes are the ones killing gays in Nigeria? Big of you to do so.

      • gravenimage says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 7:13 pm

        Semeru wrote:

        More appeasement from Goodluck Jonathan—all this does is result in more Muslim savagery.

        Trying to truthbend again.

        Prove that Goodluck is appeasing to moslem savagery, and not following Leviticus…
        ……………………………..

        This is ludicrous—It is not Christians who are arresting and prosecuting gays, nor is it Christians who are out in the streets trying to lynch the victims.

        The idea that Muslims were poised to persecute gays, but that this law has absolutely nothing to do with that fact strains credulity, to put it mildly.

        Two gay activists in the Muslim north fled to the south after the law was passed. Why would they do that, it they were just as likely to be targeted by those following the model of Leviticus as by Muslims under Shari’ah?

        • Semeru says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 8:34 pm

          Goodluck doesn,t need to appease to moslems on this issue, when he can find justification in the bible.

          If he was appeasing then he would have included the death penalty.

          If Uganda (85% Xtain) can pass Anti-Homosexuality Bill (often called the “Kill the Gays bill” in the media due to the originally proposed death penalty clauses)because it is homosexuality is un-Xtain and un-African,
          then it is most likely that Goodluck was doing the same.

  11. Allan L says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if a white gay man was arrested in Nigeria and brought to trial for being gay, gay groups here in the West would be screaming to high heaven to have him released. But because they are black gay men, well, let them rot. Who cares right?

  12. Hans Erling Jensen says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    Gays are like feminists – they love all the Islamic things, and they don’t understand who’s gonna kill them first!

    Amen

  13. JessieJames says

    Feb 9, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    Sorry folks, I’m gonna’ have to go with God on this one; if anyone disagrees, their aurgument is not with me, it’s with God. Thank you…..

    Leviticus 18:22 ESV

    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV
    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    Romans 1:26-28 ESV

    For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

    • CogitoErgoSum says

      Feb 10, 2014 at 12:08 am

      Jessie, I won’t disagree with you on your quotes from the Bible but could you point out for me where it says homosexuals should be killed for their acts? Not all sins are crimes and not all crimes deserve the death penalty. I admit adultery was one but Jesus said the first stone should be cast by the one without sin. He did not say the one who had never committed adultery……but the one who had never sinned. I won’t argue with you about whether or not homosexuality is a sin either…but should it be classified as a capital offense? I’m thinking it’s something that should be a matter that’s solely between God and the one offending God.

      • CogitoErgoSum says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm

        Jessie, see the addition I made to my comment to Secondtonone, above. It also applies here. I must say I’m not too fond of this new format for comments; it can become confusing as the list of comments grows longer. I think it might be better if the newest comments were to appear either at the very beginning or at the very end…or if there were some way to sort the comments.

    • RodSerling says

      Feb 10, 2014 at 12:47 am

      Jesse,

      “Sorry folks, I’m gonna’ have to go with God on this one;”

      To be clear, “this one,” i.e., the topic of this thread, concerns the killing of homosexuals. Are you saying then that you “agree with God” that the penalty for engaging in homosexual acts should include the death penalty?

      I ask that, because you quoted Leviticus, which prescribes the death penalty for those who engage in homosexual acts.

      Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

      “…if anyone disagrees, their aurgument is not with me, it’s with God. Thank you.”

      That looks like an attempt to absolve yourself of responsibility of defending your own position.

      You also quote Romans. The passage goes on past verse 28, listing various sins in addition to homosexual acts, and states (in verse 32) “…they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

      In your view, in that passage, does “such things” deserving of death include the homosexual acts listed earlier?

    • Jan says

      Feb 10, 2014 at 7:57 am

      You quote from the Old Testament, and also from Corinthians, and Romans, in the New Testament.

      I have read both, but cannot find any statement by **Christ himself**, that homosexuals are evil, and deserve to be put to death.

      And given that he specifically defended the woman taken in adultery, from stoning, it seems more likely he would have done the same for some poor gay chap, or chapess, than said, yeah, go ahead, stone ’em, they’re an abomination.

      I find the attitude of some Christians on this point, somewhat odd. Do you really think some men and women wilfully **choose** to be attracted towards their own sex ? Many homosexuals have suffered agonies about their sexuality; ‘coming out’ to families and friends, and often being excoriated for it, persecuted both legally and by heterosexuals, etc.

      I find it difficult to believe that someone would voluntarily **choose** to suffer in this way. Far more likely, to my mind, that homosexuality is genetically predisposed. If that is the case, your God is punishing them for something **He** engineered, and in which they have no choice ! Seems grossly unjust, to me !

      What about those people who ”swing both ways” ? Should they be pariahs also ? Is death a fitting punishment for what they do ?

      What about the many well documented cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom ? Should we kill gay monkeys, horses, birds, etc ?

      If God really thinks homosexuality is such an abomination, why did He create homosexuals ?

      • Wellington says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 1:49 pm

        Hi, Jan. Hope you’re doing well. As for your query why God would create homosexuals if homosexual activity is an abomination in God’s eyes, the Roman Catholic response to this would be that God puts people through many trials to test them, homosexuality being one such trial. Under RC dogma, it is not a sin to BE a homosexual but it is a sin to ACT upon one’s homosexual inclinations. Actually, Christianity in general is quite strict about sexual activity. The only such activity condoned is heterosexual sex within the confines of marriage. That’s it. Even masturbation is sinful.

        I also would comment to the effect that I find it amusing when some Christians think that Jesus would be OK with homosexual activity. Frankly, I find this wishful thinking of the highest order. Jesus condemned adultery, fornication and, in general, immoral acts. It is ludicrious, I would argue, to think that Jesus would be OK with two men doing the Big Nasty as long as they loved each other. Jesus was steeped in Jewish tradition and law and was, quite arguably, very prudish about sex. I think this is in keeping with the contention put forward by many, for instance Michael Grant, that Jesus never really intended his message for everyone but really only for fellow Jews, and that it was St. Paul and others who turned Jesus into some kind of universal savior after his death (which actually represented to Jesus that he erred in thinking that the Kingdom of God was not imminent but had already begun). In any case, based on my readings of the Old and New Testment, there is no way, unless you let words mean whatever you want them to mean, that homosexual activity is something that one can engage in and still be a devout Jew or Christian.

        • Jan says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 7:51 pm

          Hi, Wellington, I’m very well, thanks, and hope you are also.

          Like you, I’m not a Christian, although also, like you, I admire Christian and Judaic ethics ( on the whole).

          I agree with you that I don’t think Christ would have been **OK** with homosexual activity; but since He saved the adulteress from stoning, I rather think He would have done the same for a gay person. ”Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is a comment that I think a lot of Christians would do well to take on board rather more than they seem to do.

          In any case, I think a civilised society should never punish by law an activity that doesn’t harm others, and doesn’t force those not similarly inclined to engage in it.

          By the way, have you managed to sort out your problems in commenting, because I haven’t. I tried to get a new account, but the email that’s supposed to give me a new password doesn’t; it merely directs me to some advert which is totally useless, and does nothing, so I’m stuck with commenting using name and email address, which means my comments are in a queue to be moderated.

          If anyone else has managed to solve this problem, please tell me how you did it !

        • voegelinian says

          Feb 11, 2014 at 2:54 pm

          The episode of Jesus and the Samaritan woman in chapter 4 of John’s Gospel is illuminating in regards to Wellington’s misunderstandings.

          Before we get to that, his rather glib dismissal of Paul (and this would also have to include Acts of the Apostles, which many scholars believe was written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke, since that document also broadens the message of Jesus to the ecumene (the world) at large) is not merely a dismissal of Paul but of centuries of Patristic Christianity which formed the nucleus and bedrock of Western Civilization, built upon the learned conviction (with centuries of study, prayer, dialogues and debates) that Paul’s exegesis is indissolubly part of the Gospel (by the way, Muslims hate Paul, no doubt because they intuit how central he is to the explication of the Christ of which their theological culture is explicitly and brazenly and literally Anti-Christ).

          Now to John chapter 4: While Jesus of course was against fornication, note his interaction with the Samaritan woman, who in her time has had five husbands one after the other, and currently, as Jesus knows and tells her, she’s shacking up with some guy (4:18). Jesus doesn’t yell at her, doesn’t curse her, doesn’t call for her punishment. He simply tells her what she has done and what she is doing, and tells her what she really needs to fill the hole inside her for which she is seeking other means to fill:

          If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. (4:10)

          Secondly, being Samaritan, the woman is not a Jew, yet Jesus proffers the Gospel to her:

          Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. (4:9)

          A little later, she is still thinking in limited terms, and Jesus has to correct her. She says:

          Our [Samaritan] fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

          Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

          Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

          But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. (4:20-23)

          And not only did he reveal himself to her for her salvation, the writer of John explains this had wider implications:

          The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ

          …

          And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

          So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.

          And many more believed because of his own word; And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. (4:28-29; 39-42).

          Jesus preaching the Gospel to the Samaritan woman (= revealing himself to her as her salvation) is clearly contextualized by the writer of John as the incipient universalization of the Gospel to the world.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 11, 2014 at 7:14 pm

          Hello again, Jan. Yes, this Jesus character, lost in the mists of time, would have, based on what we know about him, definitely forgiven a homosexual for engaging in homosexual activity but, as with Mary Magdalene, it would have come with the condition that such a person sin no more. I don’t want to offend Christians, whom I look upon as major allies in the fight against Islamic supremacist designs, but the Jesus of the New Testament was EXTREMELY strict about sex. Most sexual inclinations were verboten for the guy and that’s because he, like St. Paul later on, saw sex as a kind of “cruel necessity,” something to be watched over with great attendance and little, if any, allowance for pure fun.

          Interesting and instructive how much of so many religions revolve around the regulation, and often condemnation, of sexual activity. I mean look at Mary, the mother of Jesus. According to Christianity she bore Jesus even though a virgin. Yes, having the Savior born by ordinary means would “sully” him, now woudln’t it? I’ve often wondered, assuming for argument’s sake that Christians are correct about the Virgin Mary giving birth to Christ, what Christ’s chromosomal make-up would have been, considering that we mere humans get 23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 from the father. Why doesn’t anyone else bring such a topic up? But I digress.

          As for the format, yes, I’m still with you. I long for the old one, though I concede that being signed in rather permanently is a positive compared to the old system, but I’d still opt for the old one. Hope you’re doing well during this brutal winter we’re having. Take care, my friend.

      • JessieJames says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 1:55 pm

        God didn’t “create” homosexuals, you were not born with this disease, it’s a matter of choice.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 2:40 pm

          There is no solid medical or scientific evidence that is conclusive that homosexuality is a matter of choice. In fact, recent research tends to show the opposite. I’m not even sure that the nature/nurture dichotomy is valid. Personally speaking, I have long suspected that it is not an either/or, that it is actually a combination of nature and nurture. In any case, I recited Roman Catholic doctrine on this issue. I understand that certain Christian sects assert otherwise.

        • JessieJames says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 2:57 pm

          Dear Well, I don’t need scientific or medical evidence. All I need is the afore-mentioned verses in the new testement. I ask you if homosexuallity is a stinch in God’s nostrils why would he create someone with the disease? Now that makes about as much sense as “nature and nurture”. If you do not believe in God’s word, I can understand your position.

    • JessieJames says

      Feb 10, 2014 at 2:09 pm

      Like I said folks, your aurgument is not with me, it’s with God. And to clear things up……When Christ died for our sins it made the law of the old testement null and void, I only included the verse in Lev. because I wanted to include all of what the Holy Bible says about the subject. Futhermore, I do not, repeat NOT, hate homosexuals, they have a disease of the mind, inflicted by Satan, all of you (at least those who are non homosexual) that I’m right on this and I’m only saying what you are thinking. So I ask you which is worse; PC and allowing this type of behaviour to exist and go unchecked as though it were completly normal or Sharia law? If I do not at least try to explain to someone with this disease that they are against God at is is not natural then have I sinned as well?

      • Wellington says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 5:35 pm

        Just curious here, Jessie James. You referred to homosexuality as a disease. OK, for argument’s sake, let’s assume it is. Now, lying and stealing are wrong too, so why would God create a pathological liar or a kleptomanic, both of whom are looked upon by virtually all mental health specialists as individuals possessed of compulsions which are beyond the will of a person to control?

        • JessieJames says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 10:48 pm

          Oh Wellington, you still don’t get it do you? God did not create liars and thiefs no more than he created homosexuals. My pastor delivered a sermon a few Sundays ago and in it he said “we were born in sin, not that we are sinners as an infant, we are not, but at the age of accountability, and no one knows what the age of accountability is for sure, it could vary between individuals, but at some point in our lives we know what the difference is between good and bad. And we……WE…..chose to do good or evil. The old saying “the devil made me do it”…….ain’t so…..Satan may have put the idea in your head but you are the one who chose to do it. Now back to the subject, homosexuality is a disease of the mind inflicted by Satan and it can only be cleansed by the blood of Christ. Meaning a person has to reach out to God and admit his sins and ask forgivness. We all sin every day, I’m not perfect, just forgiven.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 11, 2014 at 12:31 am

          I think certain characteristics, Jessie James, exist from birth or (what amounts to very much the same thing) from early childhood. Some of these characteristics are almost universally looked upon as a positive, for instance natural leadership ability. Some are looked upon as negatives by all sensible people, for instance pathological lying, and some are debated respecting whether they’re a positive or negative, for instance homosexuality.

          Not all human behavior can be simplistically reduced to matters of choice by an individual. Biochemical composition and heredity play roles, as do other factors like the way one is brought up in their first five or six years of life. Reducing human characteristics, drives and inclinations to mere will power and Satanic influences is a soft option.

        • JessieJames says

          Feb 11, 2014 at 11:36 am

          Looks as though you have the last word Well, as there is no reply after your comment.
          Anyway, I agree with you to a certain extend; those born into a poverty situation vs a child born to lets say a movie star or recording star. The one born in poverty, like in the slums, could very easily pick up some bad habits very early in age and not realize he/she was doing wrong but then again I look at Paris Hilton and Sonny & Cher’s beautiful little girl who is now a ugly boy and wonder what went wrong with that? A child’s environment will say a lot about who & what that child will become when he/she grows up, but it all still boils down to a matter of choice.

      • gravenimage says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 8:18 pm

        Jessie James wrote:

        …all of you (at least those who are non homosexual) that I’m right on this and I’m only saying what you are thinking…
        ………………………………..

        Well, I’m not homosexual—my husband and I just celebrated our twenty-fifth anniversary last November.

        But if you believe that every heterosexual here is really thinking that what they’d like is to have Mohammedans rampaging through the streets lynching those accused of being gay by the Islamic police, I think you’re pretty far off base, starting with Robert Spencer himself.

        • JessieJames says

          Feb 10, 2014 at 10:59 pm

          Dear Graven, I think you have me mixed up with Secondtonone; I never said “Mohammedans rampaging through the streets lynching those accused of being gay by the Islamic police”. What I did say was I do not….NOT……hate homosexuals. They have a disease of the mind. I do not hate any one with cancer which is a dissease of the body. God loves the homosexual just as much as he does you and me. Enough to die for you and me…….and the homosexual. How much do you think it pains him to look at the homosexual and say…..”I died and shed my blood for you and this his how you thank me by going against what is natural, what God intended. Depart from me you workers of iniquity I do not know you.

          Psalm 6:8
          Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the LORD hath heard the voice of my weeping.

          Matthew 7:23
          And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 11, 2014 at 12:38 pm

          JessieJames wrote:

          Dear Graven, I think you have me mixed up with Secondtonone; I never said “Mohammedans rampaging through the streets lynching those accused of being gay by the Islamic police”.
          …………………………………………

          Jessie, I did not mean to imply that I was directly quoting you here. But that is indeed what this story is about—not whether one personally condones homosexuality or not, but whether one opposes the savagery of Shari’ah.

          A year or so ago there was a story covered here at Jihad Watch from Iraq where kids who identified with “Emo” music were accused of “being gay” and were pulled out of high school classes by authorities and stoned to death with concrete blocks.

          I consider this horrifying—I also imagine that there is a good chance that many of the victims were heterosexual.

          Just as pious Muslims identify any woman not immured in Hijab as a “whore”, they often consider any person who is “sensitive” or “artistic” or who favors Western fashion to be gay—whatever their actual orientation.

          More:

          What I did say was I do not….NOT……hate homosexuals…
          …………………………………………

          I’m glad to see that you agree with Champ’s words here.

          I believe the main issue here is that we stand against the barbarism of Shari’ah law—after all, being a devout Christian you are a target just as are Jews, and unveiled women, and gay people.

        • RodSerling says

          Feb 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm

          Graven,

          “I believe the main issue here is that we stand against the barbarism of Shari’ah law”

          Indeed it is. Unfortunately, JesseJames appears to favour sharia law on this particular issue at least, though he has carefully avoided giving a clear and unambiguous affirmation of that.

          He quoted Leviticus favourably on homosexuality, indicating that those are his views. He has studiously avoided answering my request for clarification regarding whether he thinks Leviticus, for example, which contains the death penalty for homosexuality, is from God and therefore something with which he agrees.

      • RodSerling says

        Feb 11, 2014 at 3:03 pm

        JesseJames,

        “And to clear things up……When Christ died for our sins it made the law of the old testement null and void, I only included the verse in Lev. because I wanted to include all of what the Holy Bible says about the subject.”

        That doesn’t clear things up, because you still quoted from Lev. (why, if it’s null and void?), and you also quoted from a passage from Romans (New Testament) which suggests homosexual acts are among the sins worthy of death. In addition, in that same very comment, you suggest sharia punishment is preferable to allowing homosexual acts (see below).

        “Futhermore, I do not, repeat NOT, hate homosexuals, they have a disease of the mind, inflicted by Satan, all of you (at least those who are non homosexual) that I’m right on this and I’m only saying what you are thinking.”

        1. Whether you “hate” homosexuals is not the question. At least, it’s not my question. One can still support a punishment, even a harsh punishment, without necessarily hating the person punished.

        2. The position that homosexuality is not a mental illness inflicted by Satan is, I suspect, the majority position of most heterosexuals today in the modern West. To add to Gravenimage’s anecdote, I too am a heterosexual, and this in no way leads me to think that homosexuality is an illness or inflicted by Satan. The idea that one must be a homosexual to think homosexuality is not an illness (let alone one inflicted by Satan) is absurd.

        “So I ask you which is worse; PC and allowing this type of behaviour to exist and go unchecked as though it were completly normal or Sharia law?”

        You are suggesting that sharia (punishing homosexuals) is better than “allowing [homosexual behaviour] to exist and go unchecked”. And that is, again, why I suspect you support harsh legal punishments, possibly including the death penalty, for those who engage in homosexual acts.

  14. loach says

    Feb 10, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    I cant get over all the homophobic comments on here, with friends like this who need enemies . In Russia gay man and women are being murdered and tortured . While in Iran and every other Muslim country they are being killed . Even in west . There is no point if fighting Sharia law only to take the human rights off gay people . If u wont to go back to the old testament then stone women as will !

  15. voegelinian says

    Feb 10, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    The topic discussed in comments (the same topic as the article, for once!) revolves around the question of translating morality into law. Obviously, virtually all societies translate morality into law. It is some species of logical fallacy to hinge the topic on whether morality should be translated into law, when the topic is actually whether one particular issue of morality should be translated into a given body of law that already has copious translations of morality into law, with its attendant and unremarkable legal punishments.

    Closely related to this clarification is that subset of laws dealing with capital crimes. Even if some society has evolved to the point of eliminating the category of capital crime, it still punishes certain crimes in ways that would seem wrong, even at times horribly wrong, when society, or certain portions of society, has or have evolved to the point of no longer deeming those deeds to be criminal. Thus, even the seemingly shocking nature of the punishment discussed here is not outré can be, and has been above, indulged in fallacious terms.

    In addition, there are some issues of morality that seem more clear-cut when we contemplate the problem of their translation into law, and others seem to blur the lines (and it does no good for certain factions, whether arrayed on one side == the side of the Politically Correct Angels — or on the other — the side of the Christian Angels (figuratively speaking, for those anti-Catholic Literalists)). Abortion is one such issue whose blurring in this regard is rather profound. Homosexuality is another that is only somewhat blurry — yet still blurry enough to warrant an intelligent discussion free of PC reflexes. For, it is a red herring to appeal to Privacy, since the issue of homosexuality has cultural dimensions (particularly in a society where mass media, school education, and arts & entertainment tend to be heavily biased in favor of an agenda-driven promotion of one side of this issue), and those dimensions in turn have social effects.

    The issue then turns on the question: Should this particular somewhat blurry issue, Homosexuality, be adjudicated sociopolitically wholly in terms of public persuasion in the marketplace of ideas, or should those terms be augmented by some degree of translation into law? (And we must not forget that the aforementioned cultural bias weighted in favor of our already predominant PC attempts, in many ways, such a translation into law — to favor their agenda-driven promotion of homosexuality).

    I favor adjudication of this issue wholly in terms of public persuasion in the marketplace of ideas, as long as the side that promotes homosexuality be legally prevented from attempting to translate their competing morality into law (for why should our society favor an unfair unilateral advantage to one side of this Discussion?), and as long as our sociopolitical Conversation proves capable of proceeding maturely, rather than as a gaggle of politically correct airheads on The View, reinforcing the PC Norm with their childishly bratty fascism.

  16. Champ says

    Feb 10, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    Jesus condemns sin but loves the sinner …

    Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins and God’s wrath *if* we receive Christ as our personal Savior.

    Notice that Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but condemned the sin and instructed her to go and sin no more once everyone who was prepared to stone her–walked away. Essentially Jesus saved her life by posing the question: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” — John 8:7

    As to whether or not someone is born a homosexual–I think not. There are passages from both the old and new testament which make it perfectly clear that homosexuality is a sin. And all sin is a choice, and the wages of sin is death (more on that later at the end of my comment).

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “What does the Bible say about homosexuality?”

    “Homosexuality is cleared condemned in the Bible”

    http://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So whether there are genetic mutations that contribute to some people’s homosexual tendencies may be debated, and it’s certainly not a proven fact. But as to it being God’s purpose, intent, or design? No – He did not create them that way. He created only male and female.

    “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” — Genesis 1:26-27

    And I think that since God finds homosexuality detestable, then it stands to reason and would be safe to assume that God does not create people in a manner that he finds detestable.

    OK so why didn’t Jesus explicitly state that homosexuality is a sin? Some may ask, “Hey I find nothing *written in red* where Jesus speaks out against homosexuality!”

    One of the most common arguments made in support of homosexuality is that Jesus Christ did not explicitly condemn the practice. Supposedly, since Jesus never stated specifically: “Homosexuality is a sin,” then His failure to denounce the lifestyle can be interpreted to mean that He approved of it. This reasoning is riddled with error.

    For instance, where does Jesus explicitly state that bestiality is wrong? Where in the new testament does Jesus state that polygamy is wrong? Where are the “words in red” that specifically condemn pedophilia?

    The idea that silence from Jesus on a subject means He approved of or condoned the practice is ridiculous and cannot be substantiated …

    And Jesus did, in fact, speak against homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus condemned the sins of adultery, sexual immorality and fornication. These terms describe any type of sexual intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by God. Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as a morally permissible marriage when Jesus stated:

    “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” — Matthew 19:4-6

    Regarding whether or not Jesus condemns stoning–no He does not!

    The old testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest’s daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman’s virginity at the time of marriage.

    But it must be emphasized that, according to the new testament, we as Christians are no longer under the harsh old testament law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus’ message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life.

    And I’ll end with some more food for thought concerning this complex issue …

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “What does it mean that the wages of sin is death?”

    Answer here:

    http://www.gotquestions.org/the-wages-of-sin-is-death.html

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Lastly, if we die in our sins and without Christ, then Jesus is clear that you are condemned to hell. In fact, Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven, and this surprises many people. But that’s a whole other topic that I won’t elaborate on here.

    • Champ says

      Feb 10, 2014 at 5:21 pm

      I wrote:

      “Regarding whether or not Jesus condemns stoning–no He does not!”

      Major Oops!! …of course Jesus condemns stoning.

      I meant to write:

      Regarding whether or not Jesus *approves* of stoning–no He does not!

      Sorry!

    • CogitoErgoSum says

      Feb 10, 2014 at 6:16 pm

      Champ, I usually find myself in agreement with most of your comments and I agree with most of what you say in this particular comment. However, I wonder about the part concerning God creating us in His own image. Does that mean God is both male and female or does it mean He has both male and female characteristics….or what ? Also, God may have created Adam and Eve physically perfect but obviously not everybody born into this world is physically perfect. Birth defects do exist. Some people are born without eyes or arms or legs….some may be born with extra arms, legs or eyes, etc. Why is it not possible that some may be born appearing to be male but have the brain of a female, or vice versa? It’s been said that everyone has his/her own cross to bear; I think some crosses or heavier than others….much heavier. Altogether, homosexuality is most certainly a complex topic that raises numerous other questions but I’m going to let it go for now. I won’t say any more at this time and I don’t request that you reply unless you want to….so as far as I’m concerned you may have the last word if you wish. Be assured I do enjoy reading your comments though and I appreciate the challenge they provide for me to re-examine my way of thinking. Best regards.

      • Champ says

        Feb 10, 2014 at 7:48 pm

        Hi CogitoErgoSum,

        You’ve raised 2 very good questions …

        1) “However, I wonder about the part concerning God creating us in His own image. Does that mean God is both male and female or does it mean He has both male and female characteristics….or what ?”

        In response to your question I would like to refer you to “Got Questions”; and I’ll answer your question in two parts: Is God male or female? ..and, Why did God use Adam’s rid to create Eve?

        They provide answers that correspond with my Christian beliefs , and they answer great questions like yours is such a thorough and succinct manner; so perhaps their answer addresses your query, as well:

        Part 1 …

        Question: “Is God male or female?”

        Answer: In examining Scripture, two facts become clear. First, God is a Spirit and does not possess human characteristics or limitations. Second, all the evidence contained in Scripture agrees that God revealed Himself to mankind in a male form. To begin, God’s true nature needs to be understood. God is a Person, obviously, because God exhibits all the characteristics of personhood: God has a mind, a will, an intellect, and emotions. God communicates and He has relationships, and God’s personal actions are evidenced throughout Scripture.

        More here:

        http://www.gotquestions.org/God-male-female.html

        Part 2 …

        Question: “Why did God use Adam’s rib to create Eve?”

        Answer: Genesis 2:18-24 tells the well-known account of how God created the first woman, Eve, by removing part of Adam’s body and fashioning it into the woman. Many Bible scholars have translated the passages to indicate that God used Adam’s rib to create woman instead of making her from the dirt of the land, as He did for Adam. The question also arises as to why God created woman out of Adam’s rib as He did, when He apparently had formed male and female animals individually.

        God used part of the male to form the female to show that they were actually the same created being, two halves of a whole. The female was not created as a separate being, second to the male. She was formed as part of the initial man, in order to be a “helpmate” for the male. Eve was brought into being to strengthen and powerfully help the male, but she was made from the same “stuff,” and she was every bit as perfect a creation as man and every bit as patterned after God’s image and likeness.

        The word translated “helpmate” is not synonymous with assistant, servant, minion or subordinate. The Hebrew phrase, azer k’negdo in all other instances in the Bible refers to powerful and extensive aid and support. In most cases, the phrase was used to depict dominant military forces or armed men. Other Scriptures, including Deuteronomy 33:7, 29 and Exodus 18:4, use the same phrase to discuss the potent interventions and deliverances of God Himself. Woman, therefore, was created as a complement to man, as an integral part of man, and as a powerful and influential companion for man, on an equal footing with him.

        More here:

        http://www.gotquestions.org/Adams-rib.html

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Your question is great, but there’s not an easy or simple answer, which is why I’ve chosen a two-part answer. But really—this only skims the surface in addressing your query; since the answer is so complex and deserves much more time and research to fully appreciate.

        And then your second question was this …

        2) “Also, God may have created Adam and Eve physically perfect but obviously not everybody born into this world is physically perfect. Birth defects do exist. Some people are born without eyes or arms or legs….some may be born with extra arms, legs or eyes, etc. Why is it not possible that some may be born appearing to be male but have the brain of a female, or vice versa?”

        Another great question, and again I think that “Got Questions” answers it very succinctly, and I also happen to agree with it:

        Question: “Why does God allow birth defects?”

        Answer here:

        http://www.gotquestions.org/birth-defects.html

        Take care!

    • JessieJames says

      Feb 10, 2014 at 11:07 pm

      THANK YOU CHAMP……..thank you very much. You just said what I tried to say but I tried to say it in a more condensed version. At least I know there is one here who understands that homosexuality is wrong and it goes against the word of God. God bless you Champ whom ever and where ever you are.

      • Champ says

        Feb 11, 2014 at 12:12 am

        You’re welcome, JessieJames …take care, my friend.

  17. Champ says

    Feb 10, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    “marclouis” or Jihad Watch staff: the edit feature is a must!

    With this new format including the edit feature should be easy to add to WordPress.

    Please add it …Thank you!

  18. dumbledoresarmy says

    Feb 10, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    From the article:

    “Gay sex has been illegal in Nigeria since British colonial rule, but convictions were rare in the south and only occasional in the mostly Muslim north”

    (And why “rare in the south”? – the thing that defines the south, is that it was and still is overwhelmingly *non-Muslim*, whether pagan in the early colonial times or, today, Christian. It seems that although the Christians condemn homosexual activity as immoral, they were and are much less likely to “tell tales” on any specific neighbour or kinsman, than the Muslims were and are. The warning “judge not lest ye be judged” acts as a brake on any rush to judgement among Christians.)

    Again:

    “At a downtown restaurant in Bauchi, under suspicious glances from other patrons, Bala said, “Let us leave this place.” Hurriedly concluding the interview, the two left for **a town farther south and not under Shariah law** {my emphasis – dda}. “We are not safe here,” Bala said.”

    Farther south and not under Shariah law. Farther south – where there are a lot fewer Muslims.

    Again:
    ‘For gay Nigerians, the risks of coming out could not be higher. “In the north, you will be killed,” Tahir said.’

    In the north, you will be killed. That is: in the *north*, where the majority are Muslims, and Muslims rule, and the sharia has been regionally imposed. But not, by implication, in the south, where most people are Christians or animists, and the sharia is *not* recognised and applied.

    My advice to those gay Nigerians from the north who happen to be of Muslim background, and are now fleeing southward, to where it is safer: please bear this one major fact in mind. That is: the south is *only* safer for you, as a gay person, because it is overwhelmingly *non-Muslim*; because the writ of sharia does not run there, yet. Therefore: if you flee to the south…**you MUST leave Islam behind you**. **Apostasise**.

    And then: join the police force or the army and prepare, at all costs, to defend those sharia-free non-Muslim southern states against the Jihad that will come, that *is* coming.

  19. Semeru says

    Feb 10, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    In reply to Defcon who said

    So you admit muslimes are the ones killing gays in Nigeria? Big of you to do so.

    Actually I would not go as far as to say moslems are killing gays in Nigeria, because as of yet I can find any reports

    All I manage to find is this rather disturbing video, it is very difficult as to distinguish who the savages are. There are one or two people wearing what appears to be moslem garb, yet there are no chant of akbar allah.

    There are other reports that the savages are Yoruba, so they could be either Xtain or moslem, and the victims could be robbers.

  20. Semeru says

    Feb 10, 2014 at 9:25 pm

    Catholic bishops back Nigeria’s anti-gay law

    Nigeria has banned same-sex marriage; the country’s Catholic bishops have applauded the government for doing so. One would expect nothing less – Church teaching is 100 per cent against gay marriage.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100258048/catholic-bishops-back-nigerias-anti-gay-law-uk-pro-life-leader-applauds-them/

  21. RodSerling says

    Feb 11, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Re JesseJames:

    For the record, JesseJames made a comment that strongly implied that he supports the death penalty, or other harsh penalties, such as those used and cited in the above article, for those tried and judged guilty of homosexual acts. He quoted favourably from Leviticus, a book which apparently prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts. Because there is always an issue of interpretation, I asked him for clarification of his position, but he avoided my question. Instead, he engaged in detailed conversation with other commenters, all the while avoiding this most basic, relevant, and important issue of clarification.

    Does JesseJames, or does he not, support the death penalty or other harsh punishments for those tired and judged guilty of homosexual acts?

    • RodSerling says

      Feb 11, 2014 at 2:12 pm

      typo: “tired” => tried

    • JessieJames says

      Feb 12, 2014 at 1:26 am

      Rod you are so full of your bloviating self. Give it a rest.

    • JessieJames says

      Feb 12, 2014 at 1:29 am

      FOR THE RECORD Rod click on edit drop down to “find on this page” type in “jessie” and read all my comments on the subject …….you bloviating idiot.

      • RodSerling says

        Feb 12, 2014 at 2:18 am

        JessieJames,

        I made a straight-up request for you to clarify your response. You went on and on and refused to answer. You have still not answered the question. Instead you resort to name-calling.

        If that’s the person you are, then let the record show it.

        • JessieJames says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 8:22 am

          and further more, I do not need to justify any thing I say to you or anyone else here at JW!

        • RodSerling says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 12:23 pm

          Heh, well, it seems like you have mixed feelings about that. You just spent how many hundreds of words in the above thread attempting to justify your remarks to other commenters?

          This is the internet. It is an open comment section. This is Jihadwatch. We oppose sharia, human rights violations, murder, etc. If you post a comment in which you appear to support sharia, murder, and violation of human rights, you will probably be taken to task, at minimum.

      • RodSerling says

        Feb 12, 2014 at 3:03 am

        …and to illustrate just how easy answering my question would be, here’s how it could have went, if JessieJames were an honest and forthright person:

        >>Possible exchange #1

        Rod: So, Jessie, do you support the death penalty, or any punishment at all, for those who engage in homosexual acts?

        Jessie: No. No punishments.

        >>Possible exchange #2

        Rod: [same question as above]

        Jessie: Yes. I think they should be put to death.

        >>Possible exchange #3

        Rod [same question as above]

        Jessie: Yes, but not the death penalty. I think they should receive corporal punishment (as in the article above), and jail time.

        >>Most likely exchange, given the track record in the above thread:

        Rod: [same question as above]

        Jessie: [blah blah blah blah….not answering the question]

        Rod: You’re not answering my question.

        Jessie: You’re an idiot! Get over yourself! You are bloviating! [Etc.]

        Rod: Uhm, but you seem to be supporting murdering homosexuals.

        Jessie: Murder schmurder. That’s not important! Get over yourself! You’re an idiot possessed by Satan! Read everything I’ve ever written on the subject! [Etc.]

        • JessieJames says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 8:16 am

          At least you spelled my name right this time. I know why you are so pissed, because you are so full of the devil you can’t see your stupid nose on your face. Everytime someone quotes scripture it sets you on fire because you know God’s word is final and undisputable. You got a serious problem my friend and it’s not with me, it’s with God, and you really need to get yourself right. NO ONE is watching this thread any longer but you, because you are so vain and ignorant. You think you are the only one on this planet that’s right, but I got news for you; you’re a long way pal. It’s impossible to give swimming lessons to a fish and it’s impossible to teach a rock to roll, it’s also impossible to teach an idiot like you about the word of God. At least until you kick the devil out of your life so you can open your eyes to the truth. And one more log for the fire; you KNOW God’s word will stand regardless of the pitiful arguments you make to the contrary. I’m done here.

        • Semeru says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 10:19 am

          I am still watching

        • RodSerling says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 1:42 pm

          JessieJames,

          “At least you spelled my name right this time.”

          It was a honest typographical oversight. Relax. Get some perspective.

          “I know why you are so pissed, because you are so full of the devil you can’t see your stupid nose on your face.”

          I’m not so much angry, as I am amazed (though not surprised) that there are people such as you here who present themselves as being on our side in opposing sharia, but who support some of the harshest, most unjust, sadistic punishments, to the point of supporting murder. In supporting sharia, you are betraying the modern West, betraying the people in Nigeria and other places who are persecuted under these laws and customs. You are undermining our opposition to sharia.

          “Everytime someone quotes scripture it sets you on fire because you know God’s word is final and undisputable.”

          1. No it doesn’t “set me on fire”–though I suspect you would like to set me on fire. Many of the quotes from scripture that some Christians post are so boring and irrelevant to the interests of this site, and the topic of the article, and my own concerns viz. human rights and justice, etc., that I skim past nearly all of them. But when you selectively quote scripture in such a way as to suggest that you support the death penalty for homosexual acts, that is relevant here, does capture my interest, and I may respond in some cases when I see those kinds of comments.

          2. Obviously, what you deem to be “God’s word” is disputable. Some of your fellow Christians are disputing it with you, above. It appears that you are picking and choosing parts of the scriptures to support your own views, and even those parts are disputed by others.

          “You got a serious problem my friend and it’s not with me, it’s with God, and you really need to get yourself right.”

          No, I have a serious problem with people who think their God tells them to murder people, violate human rights, etc. I especially have a problem with people who act on those commands, or who support those who act on those commands. But nice try, trying to deflect all of this off into irrelevancies and imaginary problems.

          “NO ONE is watching this thread any longer but you, because you are so vain and ignorant.”

          Well, there is at least one who’s following it (thanks Semeru!), and possibly more. As these threads are archived, others will probably see it. I personally am exploring exactly how you will respond to a request for clarification, in light of your previous alarming statement of agreement with the above-mentioned sharia punishments for homosexuality. I think your evasiveness and deflection (e.g., attempting to adjust the subject to personal insults against me) is at least educational. You can’t provide substantive support, won’t cooperate in a discussion where stating your position clearly is required, and so on.

          “You think you are the only one on this planet that’s right, but I got news for you; you’re a long way pal.”

          I’m not sure that I’m right about everything or perhaps even most things, but I am sure I’m right that people, freely consenting adults, should not be killed or punished for simply engaging in homosexual acts. I am sure that killing people for that reason is murder, a major criminal offense. I am sure that killing homosexuals, or punishing them harshly, is an aspect of sharia which Jihadwatch opposes.

          “It’s impossible to give swimming lessons to a fish and it’s impossible to teach a rock to roll, it’s also impossible to teach an idiot like you about the word of God.”

          I didn’t ask you to teach me about the word of God, nor would I ask you that. I asked you to clarify the issue of your apparent support for murder of homosexuals (or other harsh sharia-consistent punishments).

          “At least until you kick the devil out of your life so you can open your eyes to the truth. And one more log for the fire; you KNOW God’s word will stand regardless of the pitiful arguments you make to the contrary.”

          Again, more baseless presumptions and accusations against me personally. One might be led to forget that this exchange is on the topic of your apparent support for sharia including the murder of homosexuals, or of other harsh punishments against them. But that won’t be forgotten as long as I’m responding here and as long as I comment here on this site.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 1:44 pm

          I’m still watching this thread, Jessie.

          With respect, I believe Rod Serling asks a valid question—*do* you believe that Shari’ah penalties are appropriate for homosexuality? As you note, you do not have to state your position, but I imagine you’d like to make yourself clear here.

          For instance, I consider prostitution and drugs to be very harmful for any society. But Islamic states like Iran regularly execute drug addicts and prostitutes (or those just accused of prostitution).

          I unreservedly condemn this Shari’ah barbarism, despite my concerns about prostitution and drug use. Can you do the same with regard to the victims here?

        • Champ says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 3:39 pm

          Graven, I think that JessieJames made his position perfectly clear when he responded positively to my comment; and in a prior comment on this thread you stated that you were glad to see that he agreed with me:

          “I’m glad to see that you agree with Champ’s words here.”

          I obviously think that stoning is barbaric, and that it isn’t something Jesus would do, and Jessie in turn agreed with me; which means he has addressed this issue quite clearly.

          Some here have grossly misunderstood JessieJames, and I rather surprised that you are one of them.

        • Champ says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 3:45 pm

          More to the point …

          Some here have grossly mischaracterized JessieJames.

          In my opinion he does NOT agreed with stoning. C’mon you guys stop it.

        • RodSerling says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 6:38 pm

          Champ is obfuscating the issue and is attempting to cover for JessieJames, without critically examining the latter’s comments in light of my repeated requests for clarification.

          As I pointed out, it would be very easy and quick for JessieJames to clear this up, show my suspicions to be incorrect, and put many of us at ease. But he won’t do it. Why not?

          JessieJames apparently agreed with Champ’s words in saying he doesn’t hate homosexuals. As I pointed out, he can “not hate” homosexuals, while also still holding the belief that they should be punished. (And those who invoke “hate the sin, not the sinner” should understand this basic point).

          The issue of punishment, raised by his comments above, is precisely what he has been avoiding clarifying in his responses all along. Initially, he cited at least two parts of the Bible, one in the OT and one in the NT, which in their larger contexts indicate that those who commit homosexual acts are worthy of death. Subsequently, he has implied that he prefers sharia over allowing the homosexual behaviour to continue unchecked. I pointed out all of this and he does not deny any of it, instead resorting to irrelevancies such as personal insults.

        • Champ says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 7:32 pm

          I am not obfuscating anything. I’m simply sick and tired of Rod’s gross unfairness towards JessieJames …

          JessieJames instructed Rod to read all of his comments–as I have done–and I conclude that JessieJames does NOT agree with stoning as punishment. This is quite obvious to me, and even Gravenimage acknowledged this from JessieJames, too.

          JessieJames is not answering Rod’s question directly because the answer is right under Rod’s nose–if he’ll take the time to do as Jessie suggested and read all of him comments on this thread. Perhaps Rod is too lazy, I don’t know.

        • Champ says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 7:37 pm

          …and read all of his comments, not “him”.

        • Semeru says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 9:07 pm

          Rod

          I do not think that JJ is being supportive of sharia, what he has done is exposed that Xtianity is not all lovely dovey. Xtians are so brave to use the Old Testament to attack homosexuality, yet cringe at the thought of using the Old Testament to tackle islam.

          Xtians, they love to talk about how loving, dutiful and compassionate they are, they show this towards mohamedans, but not to the Gays.

          It is sickening so many Xtians now a days claim that the Old Testament is defunct. This is just another bullshit scapegoat that Xtians use to ignore the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by their god. Yet it is these atrocious and bizarre laws is what is needed to win this war against islam.

          We do not need pussyfooting, with the likes of Apostle Paul

          3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

          Paul uses the image of a military war with words like “weapons,” “fight,” “demolish,” and “strongholds.” But these verses have nothing to do with fighting people with sharp swords in a physical war. Instead, the verses communicate mental and spiritual warfare, in key words such as “arguments,” “pretension,” “knowledge,” and “thought.”

          When the mohamedan says Strike terror into the hearts and smite the head of disbelievers the Xtains should counter this STIKE GREATER TERROR INT THE HEARTS OF MOSLEMS, to only pray for the victims is suicidal

        • Secondtonone says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 11:52 pm

          Yea, and I’m still watching too, damn this is better than the Sunday comics. JJ the bible thumper vs Roddy the queer lover. How many homo porn movies you got Roddy? I can just see you now sittin’ there fappin’ while watching two lesbo’s go down on each other. And JJ doesn’t answer you because he doesn’t have the balls, well I do, I’m thankful for AIDS! God’s way of thinning out the queers. No, I’m not a member of the Westboro Baptist either but I been thinkin’ about joining. And I already stated my position in the very first comment!

        • RodSerling says

          Feb 13, 2014 at 4:20 pm

          Semeru,

          “I do not think that JJ is being supportive of sharia, what he has done is exposed that Xtianity is not all lovely dovey.”

          There are many indications that JessieJames is supporting sharia on this issue, including his follow-up statement to the effect that, at least on this issue, he prefers sharia over allowing this homosexual behaviour [which he is absolutely certain is sick, evil, Satanic] to go “unchecked.” Also, there are at least a few others who responded to JJ’s initial post as though they understood it to be supportive of harsh punishments including death for homosexual acts. At no time does he ever reject legal punishments for homosexuals.

    • JessieJames says

      Feb 12, 2014 at 1:33 am

      and it J E S S I E not jesse!

  22. Wellington says

    Feb 11, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    voegelinian: My misunderstandings? How condescending. Consider, if you will, if you can, that there are logical, historical, textual alternatives to the “received wisdom” of the orthodox (small “o”) Christian interpretation of Christian scriptures. Try Thomas Jefferson and Michael Grant for starters—-if you can, if you dare. Or is your mind already so made up that no such alternatives need even be considered by you? Your turn.

  23. Champ says

    Feb 12, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    The irony …

    Some of you are throwing stones (figuratively speaking) at JessieJames, when it’s clear to see that he does NOT approve of stoning anyone, and he has made his position as clear as day.

    Besides, stoning is not a new testament directive, and it certainly isn’t something that Jesus would approve of; nor has stoning ever been practiced among Christians then, or even now.

    C’mon, muslims engage in this sort of barbaric practice, so please stay focused on who the real enemy is: islam and company.

    Take care.

    • RodSerling says

      Feb 12, 2014 at 6:57 pm

      Again, for the record, I have asked JessieJames pointedly and repeatedly to clarify his position on what he believes the punishment, if any, should be for homosexuality. He has consistently, repeatedly avoided answering this request. Nowhere in this discussion does JessieJames disavow the punishments for homosexuals, either from the Bible or from sharia. He has even implied that he prefers sharia over allowing homosexual behaviour to continue “unchecked.”

      As I said before, JessieJames, if he wanted to, could straighten this all out very quickly, but he will not do so. Why not?

      • Champ says

        Feb 12, 2014 at 7:49 pm

        Why not?

        Because the answer to your question is already here in black and white. Take his advice and the time to READ HIS COMMENTS.

        • Champ says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 8:01 pm

          ps …

          And don’t start making gross assumptions about me now, Rod, just because I’m defending JessieJames. My experience with you is that you have a tendency to do that.

          He DID answer your question, so get off of your lazy ass and read his comments, for crying out loud.

          This is what you “do”, Rod, harp on issues that are really none issues. You really need to stop this nonsense.

          I’m done.

          Enjoy having the final word here …

        • Champ says

          Feb 12, 2014 at 8:31 pm

          To quote you …

          “For the record” this is a *non issue* since JessieJames DID answer your question–not directly–but in his response to me. The answer is right there–hello! I for one am completely satisfied with JessieJames answer to your query, and if you aren’t, then that’s your problem.

          Again, stop being lazy and read his comments. I just think your pissed that he’s ignoring you, nothing more. Which is your issue, not his.

          Okay I’ve stated everything I need to …now I’m off to enjoy a lovely dinner and evening out with my sweetie-pie!

    • gravenimage says

      Feb 13, 2014 at 10:25 am

      Champ wrote:

      Some here have grossly mischaracterized JessieJames.

      In my opinion he does NOT agreed with stoning. C’mon you guys stop it.
      ……………………………..

      Hi Champ—I hope you’re right. But I’m afraid Jessie really hasn’t made his position all that clear, and now creeps like “Secondtonone” assume they have an ally here.

      As Jessie noted, he doesn’t *have to* clarify his position, but I hope he decides to.

      Hope you’re doing well.

      • Champ says

        Feb 13, 2014 at 12:12 pm

        Graven wrote:

        “But I’m afraid Jessie really hasn’t made his position all that clear, and now creeps like “Secondtonone” assume they have an ally here.”

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        I completely disagree with you. As I see it, JessieJames made his position abundantly clear in his response to me, and earlier you even acknowledged this fact. I am obviously against stoning, and Jessie agreed with me.

        As an aside: Rod is under the impression that Jessie was merely agreeing with me about not hating homosexuals, but Rod didn’t read my comments very well. Yes, it’s true, I do not hate homosexuals, but I made *no* mention of this in my comment. I primarily addressed the issue of stoning, so it’s obvious that Jessie was agreeing with me on that particular.

        Jessie is a great ally, and should be treated as such, and rightfully given the benefit of a doubt here–especially since he DID in fact answer Rod’s question quite clearly. I am wholly satisfied with where Jessie stands on this issue.

        As to the creep finding an ally, whatever do you mean?! He referred to JessieJames as a “bible thumper”, so he hardly considers him, or anyone here, an ally. The creep is a creep, and will always be a creep. Period. And his creepy replies have NOTHING to do with Jessie or anyone else, for that matter.

        Remember, “Secondtonone” made the first creepy comment on this thread:

        “Now this is one Sharia law I wholly support.”

        So he’s being a creep from the get-go, and all by his lonesome, too. Please don’t make this somehow Jessie’s fault.

        Hope you’re doing well.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 13, 2014 at 11:57 pm

          Thanks for the reply, Champ—I hope you’re right.

          And I certainly agree with you about “Secondtonone” being a creep—he’s said some very ugly things on other threads, as well.

          And yes, I’m finally over that nasty case of the flu and am doing fine.

  24. RodSerling says

    Feb 13, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    I had already read everything posted by JessieJames and Champ on this issue. I read it all before JessieJames told me to read it. That was merely a stalling tactic on the part of JessieJames, I suspect. Champ is lying when she claims I hadn’t read it. Nowhere does JessieJames deny agreeing with the punishments, including death, for those who commit homosexual acts.

    Again, I have repeatedly asked JessieJames for clarification. To each of those requests he has responded with distractions, deflections, insults, claims that I am possessed by Satan, etc. He could easily show my suspicions to be false, reassure others that he doesn’t support punishments for those who commit homosexual acts. So easy! He has not done so. Why not?

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • curious george on Israel At A Crossroads?
  • Crusades Were Right on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • William Garrison on The Fantasy Islam of Rice University’s Craig Considine (Part 3)
  • Vladimir on Islamic Republic of Iran: Turkey’s Erdogan champions Islam only as a tool to further his own interests
  • John on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.