NationStates Jolt Archive

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Christian evangelist Jimmy Swaggart apologized Wednesday for saying in a televised worship service that he would kill any gay man who looked at him romantically.

A complaint was filed with a Canadian broadcasting group and Swaggart said his Baton Rouge-based Jimmy Swaggart Ministries has received complaints from gay groups over the remarks made on the Sept. 12 telecast.

In the broadcast, Swaggart was discussing his opposition to gay marriage when he said "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry."

"And I'm going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that, I'm going to kill him and tell God he died," Swaggart says, to laughter and applause from the congregation.

On Wednesday, Swaggart said he's jokingly used the expression "killing someone and telling God he died" thousands of times, about all sorts of people. He said the expression is figurative, and not meant to harm.

"It's a humorous statement that doesn't mean anything. You can't lie to God — it's ridiculous," Swaggart told The Associated Press. "If it's an insult, I certainly didn't think it was, but if they are offended, then I certainly offer an apology."

One complaint was sent to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, a self-regulating industry group that enforces broadcast standards, after a Toronto television station broadcast the service, said Ann Mainville-Neeson, the group's executive director.

Audio recordings of the Sept. 12 statements have circulated on gay-themed Web sites.

Gay rights advocates have said comments such as Swaggart's encourage violent hate crimes. Cheryl Jacques, head of the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, which represents homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered people, said she wanted Swaggart to add to his apology by preaching that all Americans should be treated equally.

"Apologies don't discourage violence — action does. We hope that he takes action," Jacques said. "His language only encourages an environment where hate crimes occur."

Swaggart was a popular television evangelist during the 1980s until a 1987 sex scandal involving a prostitute that he met in a seedy New Orleans motel. Swaggart never confessed to anything more than an unspecified sin. A few years later, he was stopped by police while driving in California with a suspected prostitute in his car.

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1095869949303890.xml&storylist=louisiana#continue

Now that's very Christian-like, isn't it? :rolleyes:

heres what we should do. bomb televangelist buildings

He's such a good moral man. :rolleyes:

Does this mean we can kill him for being an evangelist? :)

poor God

It never ceases to amaze me that those who consider themselves so moral and Christian would listen to those who are obviously anything but.

What amazes me is that he is worried about someone looking at him and finding him attractive. Hell, they don't even have to hit on him for him to be bothered. WTF?

Swaggart's a hypocritical heretic. It's really quite sad that any Christians take him and his ilk seriously.

Swaggart's a hypocritical heretic. It's really quite sad that any Christians take him and his ilk seriously.
It seems here that the people most likely to take him seriously are those against him. Really, complaining about what some blowhard wants to screech about is a complete waste of time. Further, if such remarks are seriosuly damaging, then aren't the "gay-themed Web sites" circulating this recording at fault as well? Shouldn't they also apologize?
I am fully against killing gay people, however. Shooting them in the knees seems to be more than sufficient under most circumstances.
Haha, just a bit of hateful violent humor there, but after my "friend" signed me to get gay porn in my email, I think I have earned the right.

"I'm going to kill him and tell God he died,

So you are going to lie to your Lord, Hmmm?

This pretty much sums up the evangelical movement in one statement. Were I any form of Christian I would distance myself from this man as soon and as far as possible. After all God doesn't seem to be to accurate with the smiting.

jimmy swaggart still has a tv show?!
who knew
i thought his whoremongering did him in 10 years ago
some people just have no taste in evangelical preachers

Maybe televangelists are a closely guarded conservative Christian joke. They make it seem like they listen to them, but they actually are laughing their heads off at us because we're stupid enough to think that someone so moronis could exist.

That seems more logical than what we think televangelists are.

That pompous ass..with such an attitude, why would ANYONE want to marry him, male or female?

I'd fuck him! But only to see the look on his face. *donkey punch*
I forget who it was, but someone on the forum pointed this out a while ago: Ever notice that evangelist is an anagram for "evil's agent?"

here's a very nice article on this topic, from a buddy of mine:

Jimmy Swaggart thinks gay marriage is “utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity” and vows that “if one [homosexual] ever looks at me like that, I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.” In response, Prof. Eugene Volokh makes this strange suggestion:

"[I]t seems to me that decent Christians ought to condemn this defender of murder, who publicly says that he'd violate the Ten Commandments when someone "looks at [him]" the wrong way, while purporting to preach God's word and lead Christian congregations. Tell us, at least, that this supposed Christian -- who was once one of the nation's leading evangelists, until he was tripped up by another of the Commandments -- doesn't speak for you."

Contrary to the Professor’s suggestion, good Christians should embrace Swaggart. Volokh is dead wrong to suggest that Swaggart is advocating the violation of any Commandment, that he was ever “tripped up” by another, or that he is somehow guilty of hypocrisy. There’s nothing “purported” about Jimmy’s preaching at all: it is God’s word.

First, killing a homosexual doesn’t violate any of the Commandments. The Sixth Commandment prohibits only murder, not all killing. Slaughtering homosexuals is not only permitted, but required: under Leviticus 20:13, gays must be put to death. And Jesus’ arrival didn’t change anything. God still thinks fags deserve death (Romans 1:24-32), and they aren’t going to Heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Second, Swaggart’s encounter with a prostitute wasn’t contrary to anything in the Decalogue. Although the Seventh Commandment forbids “adultery,” that term has limited application. Leviticus 20:10-22 lists the penalties for various forms of extramarital activity, ranging from death for sleeping with one’s neighbors wife and childlessness for bedding one’s aunt or sister-in-law. But there’s nothing wrong with screwing a whore, so long as you don’t marry her (Leviticus 21:7). If you're single, though, it's cheaper to just rape a virgin (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) -- unless her dad finds out, in which case you'll have to pay him 50 shekels and you'll be forced to marry her. Makes sure that she's proves she's a virgin, though; if she can't, you and your friends get to stone her (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

Rather than mock Swaggart’s faith, Volokh should endorse his cause. It would be consistent with the Professor’s Religious Equality Amendment, and as he’s said, "there's nothing at all illegitimate about people making up their own minds about which laws to enact based on their own unprovable religious moral beliefs, or on their own unprovable secular moral beliefs.”

I forget who it was, but someone on the forum pointed this out a while ago: Ever notice that evangelist is an anagram for "evil's agent?"
That would be George Carlin.

It seems here that the people most likely to take him seriously are those against him. Really, complaining about what some blowhard wants to screech about is a complete waste of time. Further, if such remarks are seriosuly damaging, then aren't the "gay-themed Web sites" circulating this recording at fault as well? Shouldn't they also apologize?
I am fully against killing gay people, however. Shooting them in the knees seems to be more than sufficient under most circumstances.
Haha, just a bit of hateful violent humor there, but after my "friend" signed me to get gay porn in my email, I think I have earned the right.

Gay themed websites circulate recordings like that to illustrate their cause. It's a double edged sword of course. While they're playing off the fact that their demographic will be outraged by it, those who aren't in their intended viewing audience might be outraged that he even had to apologize.

And dear god, if looking at gay porn has scarred you for life, or at least enough to give you an excuse to make violent jokes, you obviously have lived a wonderfully sheltered life. Go, search the internet, there's much worse stuff out there.

Now that's very Christian-like, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Absolutely NOT.

What NEEDS to happen is that more moderate Christian need to openly disavow this hateful sort of thing, and not simply shake their heads in silence.

Even if a person disagrees with homosexuality, that is NO excuse for condoning violence because if their words do incite someone to a hate crime they are in my eyes an accessory to that crime. And it is even worse for someone who claims the name of God to say that--it is a form of blasphemy in my opinion.

I would lay down my own life to prevent the kind of killing Swaggart espoused...and at risk of sounding arrogant, I think such an act would be by far the much more Christian one.

First, killing a homosexual doesn’t violate any of the Commandments. The Sixth Commandment prohibits only murder, not all killing. Slaughtering homosexuals is not only permitted, but required: under Leviticus 20:13, gays must be put to death. And Jesus’ arrival didn’t change anything. God still thinks fags deserve death (Romans 1:24-32), and they aren’t going to Heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

One might possibly note the difference between lawful and unlawful killing. Murder is unlawful. Swaggart advocates unlawful killing, i.e., killing someone without any just cause. The only time it is lawful to kill homosexuals is if they have been caught in the deed and if they are condemned to death by the laws of the governing authority, at which point the governing authority alone has the right to kill them. That would be the principle to be derived from the Bible as a whole (including, for example, Rom. 13). Personally, as a Christian, I see no need to execute homosexuals, though I certainly balk at the thought of the government outrightly expressing approval.

Second, Swaggart’s encounter with a prostitute wasn’t contrary to anything in the Decalogue. Although the Seventh Commandment forbids “adultery,” that term has limited application. Leviticus 20:10-22 lists the penalties for various forms of extramarital activity, ranging from death for sleeping with one’s neighbors wife and childlessness for bedding one’s aunt or sister-in-law. But there’s nothing wrong with screwing a whore, so long as you don’t marry her (Leviticus 21:7).

"They shall not take a woman who is profaned by harlotry" is what the relevant portion of the verse reads. How that allows for the commission of adultery with prostitutes is beyond me. Furthermore, one could easily go to the New Testament where committed monogamy is clearly the expected norm, and indulging in prostitutes clearly condemned (I Cor. 6 & 7 in particular).

If you're single, though, it's cheaper to just rape a virgin (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) -- unless her dad finds out, in which case you'll have to pay him 50 shekels and you'll be forced to marry her.

You might consider that in that culture, a raped woman would be utterly unmarriageable, and to remain unmarried was quite unacceptable. It was a mercy to force the rapist to care for his victim for the rest of his life. We, on the other hand, are in a culture that doesn't consider singleness an absolute horror (mind you, largely BECAUSE of Christian influence), and so such a law would be entirely unnecessary and the rapist could be punished far more harshly without endangering the future welfare of his victim.

Makes sure that she's proves she's a virgin, though; if she can't, you and your friends get to stone her (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

Obviously, this would be useless if one had raped the girl. But the previous verses are being ignored. Read Deut. 22:13--19. Remember also that her not being a virgin prior to marriage is evidence of adultery, which was punishable by death, so the law is perfectly consistent in this matter.

In short, to read the Bible in a strictly literal sense and only in decontextualized snippets does no justice to the Book and can only be distortion.

Does anyone here believe that Swaggart is truly sorry for having said what he said? Honestly?

first of all, let me preface this by saying that i did NOT write the original article that i supplied, so my comments here are my own and NOT those of the author. i just want to make clear the distinction between me and the original author, 'cause i don't want to be plagerizing :).

One might possibly note the difference between lawful and unlawful killing. Murder is unlawful. Swaggart advocates unlawful killing, i.e., killing someone without any just cause. The only time it is lawful to kill homosexuals is if they have been caught in the deed and if they are condemned to death by the laws of the governing authority, at which point the governing authority alone has the right to kill them. That would be the principle to be derived from the Bible as a whole (including, for example, Rom. 13). Personally, as a Christian, I see no need to execute homosexuals, though I certainly balk at the thought of the government outrightly expressing approval.

doesn't the Word of God trump the laws of Man? if God is the ultimate moral authority, and if the way you can tell a human law is "bad" is that it conflicts with the morals you carry, then wouldn't God's word in this case indicate that our murder laws are "bad" laws? God says we should kill homosexuals, that they are evil, and that killing them is justified, so who are we to put mere human laws above the judgment of the supreme moral authority?


"They shall not take a woman who is profaned by harlotry" is what the relevant portion of the verse reads. How that allows for the commission of adultery with prostitutes is beyond me. Furthermore, one could easily go to the New Testament where committed monogamy is clearly the expected norm, and indulging in prostitutes clearly condemned (I Cor. 6 & 7 in particular).

i don't know about the passages you referenced, but for all i know you are totally right.


You might consider that in that culture, a raped woman would be utterly unmarriageable, and to remain unmarried was quite unacceptable. It was a mercy to force the rapist to care for his victim for the rest of his life. We, on the other hand, are in a culture that doesn't consider singleness an absolute horror (mind you, largely BECAUSE of Christian influence), and so such a law would be entirely unnecessary and the rapist could be punished far more harshly without endangering the future welfare of his victim.

wait, so are you saying that God's will USED to be that we murder rape victims, but that when human culture changed God changed the fabric of moral reality to correspond to our developing cultures? or was it never Gods will that we murder rape victims, and humans just made that up? if humans made up that part, then how are we to trust any of the Bible? maybe they just made up the part about gay being wrong...man, maybe they just made up the part about Jesus rising from the dead! if the Bible isn't a trustworthy source, then what's the point of using it as a moral compass? for all we know, everything God said was turned upside-down by the human authors, and the Bible represents exactly the opposite of what God really wants us to do!


Obviously, this would be useless if one had raped the girl. But the previous verses are being ignored. Read Deut. 22:13--19. Remember also that her not being a virgin prior to marriage is evidence of adultery, which was punishable by death, so the law is perfectly consistent in this matter.

see above. personally, i won't worship any God who EVER condones murdering a rape victim, no matter what the time context, and i would never worship a God that allows His Word to be used as justification for such acts; any just God would have used his magic powers to fix the Bible, and to make clear that such murder is unacceptable...i mean, if he's willing to flood the planet to get rid of evil, is it so much to ask that he actually participate in the editorial process when it comes to humanity's book of What God Wants?

having such passages in the Bible also shows what a cruel and sadistic fellow the Christian God is; He demands that we be moral according to His laws, but then allows His holy book to give orders that directly contradict those moral laws. He allows human flaws to corrupt the only text that tells us how we should be behaving, and then gets pissed if we don't figure out (on our own) which parts of that book to follow and which to ignore. that's like creating us as sick and then ordering us to be well, but giving us only the mangled and poorly translated words of a 2000-years-dead doctor to help us find the cure. very twisted of him.

In short, to read the Bible in a strictly literal sense and only in decontextualized snippets does no justice to the Book and can only be distortion.
i disagree. i think the silly, murderous, self-contradictory snippets are perfect examples of why the Bible is not a good guide for anybody, ever. my life is too important for me to throw it away following one badly-constructed source; i only wish more people had the self respect to find a more consistent and rational way to guide themselves through life.

EDIT: Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to give a thorough reply.

doesn't the Word of God trump the laws of Man? if God is the ultimate moral authority, and if the way you can tell a human law is "bad" is that it conflicts with the morals you carry, then wouldn't God's word in this case indicate that our murder laws are "bad" laws? God says we should kill homosexuals, that they are evil, and that killing them is justified, so who are we to put mere human laws above the judgment of the supreme moral authority?

First of all, God says that all men are evil and worthy of death---which, by the way, is why we all ultimately die. That already tempers (or at least should temper!) the Christian's approach to civil law. Believers have certain duties to God, and those duties do not include usurpation of civil authority, i.e., vigilantism. Only civil authorities have the right to enforce civil law, including the legal punishment of evildoers. The only time we are allowed to disobey civil law and authority is when it directly prohibits us from fulfilling our duties to God, as would be the case if we were prohibited from praying, or from partaking of the Lord's Supper, or from practicing baptism, etc.

Ancient Israel was a far different society from modern America. In fact, ancient Israel was governed by tribal elders and Levitical priests, theocratic judges who received direct revelation from God, and, later, theocratic kings. There was no distinction between church law and civil law, because the state was within the church. This is far from the case in modern America, or, indeed, in most any part of the world. The church cannot enforce its laws on those outside of the church (just as Israel did not enforce its laws in Egypt). The church can and may influence the state to adopt laws punishing evil (just as Israel was frequently commanded by God to destroy Israel's enemies), but church law is not equated with civil law. Furthermore, since the establishment of the New Covenant in Christ, we understand that the church is never again to be equated with an earthly kingdom, and that the weapons of the church are not physical but spiritual.

Furthermore, one could easily go to the New Testament where committed monogamy is clearly the expected norm, and indulging in prostitutes clearly condemned (I Cor. 6 & 7 in particular).

i don't know about the passages you referenced, but for all i know you are totally right.

You can easily look them up on Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com).

You might consider that in that culture, a raped woman would be utterly unmarriageable, and to remain unmarried was quite unacceptable. It was a mercy to force the rapist to care for his victim for the rest of his life. We, on the other hand, are in a culture that doesn't consider singleness an absolute horror (mind you, largely BECAUSE of Christian influence), and so such a law would be entirely unnecessary and the rapist could be punished far more harshly without endangering the future welfare of his victim.

wait, so are you saying that God's will USED to be that we murder rape victims,

No, and I have no earthly idea where you get that from. The rapist was to be forced to marry his victim and never allowed to divorce her. By this means, she (and any children that might result from the rape) would be taken care of for the rest of her life. If the victim was a married woman, however, the rapist was given no quarter, because his victim's future welfare was already secure and he would not be needed to ensure it.

but that when human culture changed God changed the fabric of moral reality to correspond to our developing cultures? or was it never Gods will that we murder rape victims, and humans just made that up? if humans made up that part, then how are we to trust any of the Bible?

God did not change the fabric of moral reality, but by His Law He did change the fabric of ancient Israelite society---and much for the better, though you'll probably disagree.

maybe they just made up the part about gay being wrong...man, maybe they just made up the part about Jesus rising from the dead! if the Bible isn't a trustworthy source, then what's the point of using it as a moral compass? for all we know, everything God said was turned upside-down by the human authors, and the Bible represents exactly the opposite of what God really wants us to do!

So believe(d) the Gnostics, at least regarding the Old Testament.

Obviously, this would be useless if one had raped the girl. But the previous verses are being ignored. Read Deut. 22:13--19. Remember also that her not being a virgin prior to marriage is evidence of adultery, which was punishable by death, so the law is perfectly consistent in this matter.

see above. personally, i won't worship any God who EVER condones murdering a rape victim, no matter what the time context,

And again, I have no earthly idea where you get that from. It should be obvious, given that a rapist was to marry and never divorce his victim, that the test for the bride's virginity does not apply in that case, and she would by no means be put to death.

and i would never worship a God that allows His Word to be used as justification for such acts; any just God would have used his magic powers to fix the Bible, and to make clear that such murder is unacceptable...i mean, if he's willing to flood the planet to get rid of evil, is it so much to ask that he actually participate in the editorial process when it comes to humanity's book of What God Wants?

It is quite clear from the Bible that such murder is unacceptable, but that's never stopped people from being the sinners they are. But why don't you go ahead and take this logical pattern to its conclusion? There cannot be a "just" God if evil exists in the world, right? Wrong. In the same way that you cannot be called "unjust" or held responsible for the whacko who twists your words and justifies murder by doing it in your name, God cannot be called "unjust" or held responsible for the multitudinous whackos who twist His Word and who justify murder by doing it in His name.

Now, you might mention that God's "magical" powers (actually, they are the antithesis to magic, which always ultimately relies on something or someone else) make His situation qualitatively different---that He ought to stop all evil and suffering, since it is within His power to do so. Indeed, God is currently in the process of bringing about the end of evil and sin, and He has been since even before the Fall. You may think that He takes too long, or perhaps that He should never have allowed the Fall in the first place. However, there is no greater good (nor any greater evil, certainly) than the eradication of evil and the redemption of a corrupted creation. And how can evil be eradicated if it never existed, or how can creation be redeemed if it was never corrupted? Lack of some kind of conflict would ruin any story; the best and most meaningful stories are those in which evil threatens destruction, but is defeated by good. God, being All-Wise, certainly knew well ahead of time what the best and most meaningful possible created existence could be, and I believe He created it. By His sovereign will, He decided to allow evil to enter into His creation. But most everyone ignores the culmination of history and the defeat of evil which is yet to come, and focuses instead on the present miseries as though these were the end of it.

having such passages in the Bible also shows what a cruel and sadistic fellow the Christian God is; He demands that we be moral according to His laws, but then allows His holy book to give orders that directly contradict those moral laws.

Frankly, I think you've shown yourself dismally ignorant of what in fact the Bible does say (and, for that matter, what basic Christianity is), and would request that you quit speaking of it as though you did know.

He allows human flaws to corrupt the only text that tells us how we should be behaving, and then gets pissed if we don't figure out (on our own) which parts of that book to follow and which to ignore. that's like creating us as sick and then ordering us to be well, but giving us only the mangled and poorly translated words of a 2000-years-dead doctor to help us find the cure. very twisted of him.

How men grasp to blame God for their own failings! No, the text is not corrupted: man's heart is. And because the Bible tells him so and reveals that the responsibility for this corruption lies within man, man is forever desparately seeking to discredit that divine revelation and its Originator.

In short, to read the Bible in a strictly literal sense and only in decontextualized snippets does no justice to the Book and can only be distortion.

i disagree. i think the silly, murderous, self-contradictory snippets are perfect examples of why the Bible is not a good guide for anybody, ever. my life is too important for me to throw it away following one badly-constructed source; i only wish more people had the self respect to find a more consistent and rational way to guide themselves through life.

Show me ANY book that stands to rational scrutiny when it is interpreted in a strictly literal sense from decontextualized snippets by someone whose only agenda is to use the book in conformity to his pre- and misconceptions. Both fanatical fundamentalists like Swaggart, and eager anti-fundamentalists like your friend, do that to the Bible. It is disrespectful and dishonest and does no justice to the Book.