Senate Republicans propose bill to balance LGBT protections, religious freedom

[chipbennett]

Okay, on one side we have a presidential candidate calling people "bitter clingers." On the other, three presidential candidates appearing at an event that closed with the host declaring that we should hold off on the death penalty for gays, just until they have time to repent.

Just out of curiosity: did any of those presidential candidates even speak on that topic - much less, agree with, condone, or otherwise recognize the personal opinion of the host? Or is this simply one of the most absurd, egregious examples of guilt-by-association ever attempted?

I'm looking through several sources, and can't find a transcript for the event actually attended by the candidates. What did the host say at that event? Where is the transcript?

I did find this transcript, when Cruz was being interviewed by Jake Tapper, prior to the event:

CNN.com - Transcripts

TAPPER: Quickly, if you could, you are speaking at a conference this weekend, the National Religious Liberties Conference in Des Moines. It's organized by a guy named Kevin Swanson. You have been very outspoken about what you deem liberal intolerance of Christians.

But Kevin Swanson has said some very inflammatory things about gays and lesbians. He believes Christians should hold up signs at gay weddings holding up the Leviticus verse, instructing the faithful the put gays to death because what they do is an abomination.

I don't hold you responsible for what other people say, but, given your concern about liberal intolerance, are you not in some ways endorsing conservative intolerance?

CRUZ: Listen, I don't know what this gentleman has said and what he hasn't said.

I know that, when it comes to religious liberty, this is a passion of mine that has been a passion of mine for decades, and that I have been fighting for religious liberty for everyone, fighting for religious liberty for Christians, for Jews, for Muslims, for every one of us to practice our faith.

And in the last six-and-a-half years, under the Obama administration, we have seen an assault on religious liberty from the federal government. You know, a couple months ago, I hosted a rally for religious liberty in Iowa. We had 2,500 people come out. It was the single biggest political event in the state of Iowa this year.

And we had nine heroes, people who had stood up for their faith, who just told their stories. And it was powerful. You can go and watch those stories on our Web site, TedCruz.org. And, you know, the amazing thing is -- I mean, listen, many in the media diminish threats on religious liberty. They say they're not real. What I tried to do in that event was withdraw myself and have the focus be on them, telling their stories.

So, in what way does Cruz agree with, condone, endorse, or in any other way identify himself with the views of Kevin Swanson?

 

[Lowe0]

Well, if you don't mind watching a few minutes of Maddow, see for yourself (8:15 to 11:30):
Three Republican candidates speak at anti-gay pastor's rally | MSNBC

 

[chipbennett]

Well, if you don't mind watching a few minutes of Maddow, see for yourself (8:15 to 11:30):
Three Republican candidates speak at anti-gay pastor's rally | MSNBC

Okay, I watched.

1. It wasn't an "anti-gay" conference. It was a religious liberties conference.
2. There is no evidence that any of the candidates were present when Swanson was making his remarks, or even heard what he said
3. Swanson quoted some verses from the Bible. He never said "kill the gays."
4. In fact, he said that executing gays was not the role of government.
5. Further, Swanson said that "killing the gays" should not be of concern to Christians, who should instead focus on winning souls

Teapot, meet tempest.

 

[cobber]

Okay, I watched.

1. It wasn't an "anti-gay" conference. It was a religious liberties conference.
2. There is no evidence that any of the candidates were present when Swanson was making his remarks, or even heard what he said
3. Swanson quoted some verses from the Bible. He never said "kill the gays."
4. In fact, he said that executing gays was not the role of government.
5. Further, Swanson said that "killing the gays" should not be of concern to Christians, who should instead focus on winning souls

Teapot, meet tempest.

Stop with the fact privilege already!! A narrative is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[Lowe0]

Okay, I watched.

1. It wasn't an "anti-gay" conference. It was a religious liberties conference.
2. There is no evidence that any of the candidates were present when Swanson was making his remarks, or even heard what he said
3. Swanson quoted some verses from the Bible. He never said "kill the gays."
4. In fact, he said that executing gays was not the role of government.
5. Further, Swanson said that "killing the gays" should not be of concern to Christians, who should instead focus on winning souls

Teapot, meet tempest.

Lol, what do you think he intends to do with the souls that he doesn't win?

 

[chipbennett]

Lol, what do you think he intends to do with the souls that he doesn't win?

What I think doesn't matter. What is at issue is what he actually said - and more importantly, what the candidates may have heard (or not heard) him say, and somehow agree with/condone/associate with.

 

[Lowe0]

What I think doesn't matter. What is at issue is what he actually said - and more importantly, what the candidates may have heard (or not heard) him say, and somehow agree with/condone/associate with.

What he said was no, because they should be given time to repent. What happens when that time is up? As someone who the Bible also says should be put to death (and more importantly, that my wife should also be put to death), I'm rather interested in the answer.

And since Cruz was interviewed about Swanson's views before the conference, he had plenty of time to look them up and decide whether he stood with Swanson. He chose to do just that.

 

[indiucky]

As someone who the Bible also says should be put to death (and more importantly, that my wife should also be put to death), I'm rather interested in the answer.

Your bible "says" things to you? Dude that's not the Book...It's probably just a neighbor freaking you out with a baby monitor....I would just put it away where you can't hear it anymore...

There are enough Biblephobes in the world as it is...If word gets out that a Bible is talking and threatening people with death we may have a repeat of the Christaphobia that gripped Northern Indiana earlier this year where folks were threatening to burn down a pizza joint over someone not making a pizza for them....

Hate is not a family value...I know because I saw it on a bumper sticker one time right next to a rainbow...

Good Luck and be safe...

 

[chipbennett]

What he said was no, because they should be given time to repent.

No, that's not actually what he said. You're welcome to provide (or type up) a transcript, if you think you can prove otherwise.

What happens when that time is up? As someone who the Bible also says should be put to death (and more importantly, that my wife should also be put to death), I'm rather interested in the answer.

I'm not interested in debating the finer points of his doctrine - especially since I don't agree with much of his doctrine, and don't care to be his advocate. The Bible says that everyone is a sinner, and that the wages of sin is death. So, that death sentence applies to all of us. That's why Jesus paid that death sentence, for all (homosexual sinners included with the rest of us sinners), on the cross.

Nowhere in the Bible are we instructed to clutch our pearls over homosexuality or any other specific expression of sin. So, I have no use for Swanson's entire tirade about homosexuality. I have no use for any of his anti-homosexual shtick, because the Bible instructs us to love one another, and to be the love of Christ to those without Christ.

 

[jamil]

Google "kevin swanson gays death penalty" and choose whatever source you find reputable.

In addition to what chipbenennet said, it was very difficult to find a source that wasn't rightwingwatch.com or referenced rightwingwatch.com for their article. So I guess that we're talking about guilt by association. Didn't you guys go ape**** when the right tried to associate Obama with Rev. Wright? Why is it acceptable for your side but not acceptable for the right?

Has it occurred to you that your opposition to "the right" point of view is ideological rather than objective?

Lol, what do you think he intends to do with the souls that he doesn't win?

This whole little exercise you had me do was because you wanted to assert that this little "kevin swanson" thing is every bit as divisive as President Obama's bitter clinger remarks. C'mon dude, who the **** has even heard of Kevin Swanson? I had to google the ****er just to see who the hell he is (not that I wouldn't take your word for it, but, you know, track record and all).

So this obscure prick has a meeting with 3 of the "religious" republican candidates, a meeting that almost no one except the [STRIKE]professional victim's club[/STRIKE] left wing media has even heard about, and this compares with the POTUS and his regular, habitual ridicule and derision? Hell, I bet MSNBC cackling about it had more impact on division than the actual event!

The division that our nation has seen after Obama's inauguration is way more due to the things I've identified than the things you've identified. You've failed to prove me wrong.

 

[Lowe0]

No, that's not actually what he said. You're welcome to provide (or type up) a transcript, if you think you can prove otherwise.



I'm not interested in debating the finer points of his doctrine - especially since I don't agree with much of his doctrine, and don't care to be his advocate. The Bible says that everyone is a sinner, and that the wages of sin is death. So, that death sentence applies to all of us. That's why Jesus paid that death sentence, for all (homosexual sinners included with the rest of us sinners), on the cross.

Nowhere in the Bible are we instructed to clutch our pearls over homosexuality or any other specific expression of sin. So, I have no use for Swanson's entire tirade about homosexuality. I have no use for any of his anti-homosexual shtick, because the Bible instructs us to love one another, and to be the love of Christ to those without Christ.

God's idea of love is an eternity of suffering for those even a little bit unsure whether he exists or not. You'll excuse me for taking his followers' love at the same face value.

 

[jamil]

God's idea of love is an eternity of suffering for those even a little bit unsure whether he exists or not. You'll excuse me for taking his followers' love at the same face value.

well, belief is for the believer, so...

 

[Lowe0]

well, belief is for the believer, so...

As is the Republican Party, for the time being.

 

[jamil]

As is the Republican Party, for the time being.

Perhaps you're talking about evangelicals. Not a majority of the party. I'm not a Republican and not a believer. But with Web out of it there isn't a candidate on the Dem side I could ever think to vote for. Anyway, the Republican party does not belong to Evangelicals but they represent a large enough proportion republican candidates need to have them on board.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Lol, what do you think he intends to do with the souls that he doesn't win?

The ". . . souls that he doesn't win. . ." are on their own, the most Christians are called to do is _try_ to win them. This puts Christians squarely in opposition to radical Islamic extremists who think it only proper to crucify or cut the heads off "infidels."

 

[Blackhawk2001]

God's idea of love is an eternity of suffering for those even a little bit unsure whether he exists or not. You'll excuse me for taking his followers' love at the same face value.

That's an interesting take on Christians' beliefs. Did you pick that up from reading the Bible or is it something you overheard your friends say?

 

[jamil]

That's an interesting take on Christians' beliefs. Did you pick that up from reading the Bible or is it something you overheard your friends say?

Rachel Maddow?

 

[Dolton916]

Can someone explain why my right to believe and practice my religion is less important than their sexual orientation?

They shouldn't have to support my lifestyle, and I shouldn't have to support their lifestyle...

 

[Lowe0]

That's an interesting take on Christians' beliefs. Did you pick that up from reading the Bible or is it something you overheard your friends say?

Neither. It's just simple math. If there is a God and I'm a non-believer at that time, then I'm condemned to suffer for eternity. Correct? No matter who one was or what they did, the sum of their suffering over an infinite timespan is exactly the same: infinite. The unbeliever, Jared Fogle, and the Paris attackers get exactly the same punishment.

 

[jamil]

Well this thread has taken a different tack.