…and this is a 
David Popescu, all around sweet guy
Category: Politics
Posted on: October 3, 2008 1:40 PM, by PZ Myers
Popescu is running for some political office (the article doesn't say what), and he recently gave a talk at a high school where he frankly stated his views.
"A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed," he said. "My whole reason for running is the Bible and the Bible couldn't be more clear on that point."
I get the impression that this guy doesn't have a chance of winning his election, but still — it's likely that saying homosexuals are evil will cost you fewer votes than saying you don't believe in any gods, at least in this country. That always seemed backwards, to me.
Comments
Posted by: the petey | October 3, 2008 1:44 PM
this makes me ill
Posted by: steve8282 | October 3, 2008 1:46 PM
He has been found guitly of beating his elderly mother in the past, he's a real sweetheart snd fine fine example of christian love.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 3, 2008 1:46 PM
How Christian of him
Posted by: The Reality-Based Dave | October 3, 2008 1:48 PM
Does that mean that we can stone him if he has ever eaten lobser, shrimp, clams, or oysters?
Please?
Posted by: Brad D. | October 3, 2008 1:48 PM
I know I'm making an assumption, but it seems to me that this sort of thing is much more rare in Canada than it is here in the US. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | October 3, 2008 1:48 PM
Yes, Popescu never polls more than a fraction of 1 per cent. He just uses elections as a soap box for his extreme views, which are (needless to say) derived from the bible.
Posted by: oakfed | October 3, 2008 1:49 PM
Actually, it does - it says he's running as 'an independent federal candidate' - that is, he's running for Parliament in the Canadian federal election.
Posted by: Snitzels | October 3, 2008 1:50 PM
I actually thought that was sarcasm... I'm kinda shocked someone would say that in public... frightening
Posted by: philosoraptor | October 3, 2008 1:51 PM
Unfortunately, we have our fair share of religious kooks up here, too.
I actually have family from Sudbury. There's a very large Eastern European community there, and, consequently, there *used to* be a very large orthodox community. From what I hear, there is a growing a number of crazy-ass fundamentalist churches now. Maybe it's the cold climate and the isolation. Might also explain Alaska.
Posted by: Ranson | October 3, 2008 1:51 PM
I'll never understand why some people place such importance on what consenting adults do behind closed doors (okay, not always, but you get what I mean), and want to kill them for it. I mean, what the hell? Even at my most Young Republican phase I never paid it any mind. Worry about your own genitalia, and leave everyone else's out of it. Unless, of course, you're, y'know, arranging something, y'know...
Posted by: E.V. | October 3, 2008 1:52 PM
I have no problem with this...as long as he promotes this as valid too:(This is C&P from a letter someone sent to Dr. Laura. My apologies to the unknown author)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 3, 2008 1:53 PM
"A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed," - David Popescu
But should they be allowed to get married first? Why can't politicians ever answer the question?
Posted by: The Petey | October 3, 2008 2:01 PM
Nick Gotts
Married: Executed...
Tomayto: Tomahto...
Posted by: Thom Denick | October 3, 2008 2:04 PM
Unfortunately, they're investigating this guy for a "hate crime" according to the article. I'm with Hitchens on this one, it's not worth curtailing first amendment rights to put this douchebag in his place.
Posted by: Chris | October 3, 2008 2:05 PM
As a former resident of Sudbury, I was very pleased by the comments posted after the article. Made me appreciate that most Northerners are pretty accepting and laid-back.
Heck, when it's -40º you don't let ANYBODY stay outside!
Posted by: Thom Denick | October 3, 2008 2:06 PM
Oh duh, it's Canada, nevermind :P
Posted by: Jared | October 3, 2008 2:06 PM
Why can't politicians give clear and concise answers to the specific question asked?
Posted by: Philip T. | October 3, 2008 2:06 PM
As a Canadian, I'm doubly embarrassed. First that this fuckwit thinks people should be executed for no other reason than they rub tingly bits in a way he doesn't approve of. Secondly, that the RCMP are investigating this as a hate crime, and that our Star Chamber, er Human Rights Commission, may come down on him.
Popescu is pathetic and batshit insane, in my opinion. But his comment was about public policy in the abstract - if elected, he'd press for capital punishment for a particular activity.
I happen to be against the death penalty for any reason (in large part because of some spectacular cases of wrongful convictions we've had on this side of the border.)But that doesn't mean I think advocates of capital punishment should be tried for hate crimes (I can picture a convicted murder bringing a hate crime case against someone who's asking for him to be put to death...)
The best thing to do with people like Popescu is to let'em have enough free speech rope that they hang themselves, so to speak.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 2:07 PM
The Reality-Based Dave:
Or owls. Or geckos or cormorants or ravens! Or poly/linen blends! They are an abomination unto God! Unclean! Unclean! (Leviticus never fails to bring home the laughs).
As far as Mr. Popescu goes, he's treading a fine line between 1st amendment protected speech and actionable hate speech, should any gay bashing occur in his vicinity (depending on the jurisdiction, natch).
It's violent lunacy like this that makes me rethink my 100% support for pure free speech and opposition to hate speech laws here in the U.S.A. This guy would be in jail in some countries, and it's hard for me not to think of that as a net plus.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 2:10 PM
[Oops! Reading comprehension fail: it's Canada, whose "hate speech" laws I find quite objectionable. Still, my previous point about my occasional wavering on the issue stands (more or less)]
Posted by: E.V. | October 3, 2008 2:12 PM
Cliche Alert
I'll bet Pospecu has a wide stance which would explain his preoccupation with teh butt seks to the exclusion of any of the other laws in Leviticus.
Some comedian made an appropriate football analogy:" If he goes to prison, he may go in a tight end but he'll come out a wide reciever." Oh, the irony of it all...
Posted by: Michelle | October 3, 2008 2:12 PM
I think he's a monster and he deserves a boot to the ass. I also say that his kind should not exist. HOWEVER... I give him a cookie for being honest. So many politicians are dishonest and hides what they really think or try to twist it around in a weird sentence. Direct. Says what's on his mind. Does not hide his ugly, selfish, murderous self.
Let's face it folks... he's VERY christian. It's in the book.
Posted by: Epinephrine | October 3, 2008 2:15 PM
Note to US Americans. We don't have a 1st amendment up here, we have the charter of rights and freedoms.
That said, I think the hate crime thing is a joke - he's not "inciting" hate, just stating an opinion. As vile as it is, I think he's within his rights to freedom of expression. Yes, unfortunately Canada has wackos too.
The human rights tribunals in Canada are mortifying. While there are cases that legitimately get brought in front of them, for the most part they're an easy way to cast blame on people who disagree with you. Disgusting.
Posted by: Michelle | October 3, 2008 2:16 PM
(PS: Oh yea, he said that in a highschool. I guess it's good for kids to realize there are sick fuckers in the world I guess. Though I hope the principal of that school is eating his socks for inviting that guy now.)
Posted by: tsg | October 3, 2008 2:20 PM
You've never heard of Fred Phelps?
Posted by: Jared | October 3, 2008 2:22 PM
Anyone read this guy's wikipedia article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._David_Popescu
"Popescu was charged with assault against his elderly mother in 2003, after a family member reported seeing a large bruise on her arm.[7] Testifying at a bail court hearing, Popescu said that he had given his mother a "small swat and a light shake" to get her attention when she was not paying attention to him. He expressed remorse for his action, but argued that it was not serious and did not constitute assault. He also testified that he had been violent toward his mother in the past, but that this abuse had ended more than 25 years earlier. Under cross examination from the assistant crown attorney, Popescu said that he had lived with his mother for his entire life, and became her primary caregiver after his father's death in 1969. He added that he had not worked in the community since 1972, and that he considered looking after his mother to be his full-time job.[8]"
Posted by: MH | October 3, 2008 2:22 PM
I'm not too bothered about this. Fringe loonies of all colours exist in all countries, and as long as they remain on the fringe, what's the problem? Sure, they could keep quiet, but then we wouldn't know to avoid them.
And this guy in particular is great for us atheists.
A Christian unambiguously advocating something out of Hitler's play-book, and using the Bible as justification. Gooooooaaaaal!
People like Palin worry me more, because they could actually have a negative effect on society. Popescu, not so much.
Posted by: MH | October 3, 2008 2:27 PM
He really is a Canadian Fred Phelps!
Posted by: BMcP | October 3, 2008 2:31 PM
Well at least he is honest and forthright, if he wins his election, it with the knowledge that people actually voted for him knowing what crazy beliefs he has. I that case, who would be worse, him, or the people who would put him in power understanding exactly what kind of guy he is?
Posted by: E.V. | October 3, 2008 2:32 PM
Sapphic Sister Cities, who knew?
Posted by: JStein | October 3, 2008 2:36 PM
This man could use some gay sex in his life. It might loosen him up a little bit.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 3, 2008 2:37 PM
John Best and this freak would make good drinking buddies.
Posted by: E.V. | October 3, 2008 2:38 PM
Jared @#26:
Hmm, maybe he should form a punk group and name it "Eddie Puss & the Mo Fo's.
Posted by: E.V. | October 3, 2008 2:41 PM
JStein@#31:
Boom chicka Wah waaaah
Posted by: Don | October 3, 2008 2:43 PM
Had to look this guy up (obviously). He's clearly a case for care in the community, why on earth would a school consider him an appropriate speaker?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 3, 2008 2:46 PM
I prefer a person speaking their mind so that I may know who is dangerous. It beats not being sure and finding too late what the person thinks.
Posted by: kermit | October 3, 2008 2:49 PM
I'm surprised no one has pointed this out: showing disrespect for one's parents is a capital offense. Surely even just shaking one's mother a little bit because she's not paying attention is disrespectful, yes?
Posted by: kermit | October 3, 2008 2:50 PM
Ummm... of course I meant a *biblical* capital offense.
Posted by: Jello | October 3, 2008 2:51 PM
Loons like this guy really do stand at the very edge of free speech. I personally think it is a contradiction to criminalize threats of violence against a specific individual but not those against a group when it is this kind of general threat that can be more dangerous because every individual in that community is potentially under threat from whatever wackjob(s) that decides to take up the cause. A perfect example of this was the suppression of the civil rights movement by the KKK in the south. The leaders of the Klan did not need to issue orders to their followers to kill activists because all that was needed was to incite their anger with there manipulative rhetoric and the underlings would act on it on their own. This allows the leaders to get what they want while keeping their hands clean. The damage is only limited by the extent of the prejudice against the community in question and the willingness of law enforcement to intervene on their behalf. I personally applaud the local police for investigating this guy. He crossed the line of what a civil society should tolerate and needs to be stopped.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | October 3, 2008 2:52 PM
"(I)t's likely that saying homosexuals are evil will cost you fewer votes than saying you don't believe in any gods, at least in this country."
You know, doc, you'll never get elected to public office in this country if you keep talking rationally like that.
Posted by: DH | October 3, 2008 2:53 PM
@#35:
They invited him because he is one of the candidates running for Member of Parliament (MP) for the riding of Sudbury. Note that he is running as an independent and got only 54 votes last time around, out of 73,000 eligible voters (46, 000 voted). The poor principle just invited everyone who was running (i.e. the 4 major parties plus him and another fringe candidate).
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 3, 2008 2:58 PM
"My whole reason for running is the Bible and the Bible couldn't be more clear on that point."
What, this nutjob thinks the feckin' bible talks about him going jogging?
Posted by: eddie | October 3, 2008 2:58 PM
In theatres OCT 3rd. Why can't they show it in cinemas as normal?
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous/trailer_medium.html
Also, re #14 - How many times must we go over this? Aside from it being Canada, the point still needs to be made. 1st ammendment has never protected criminal behavious. It does not protect libel and it certainly does not protect incitement to murder as I think this man's statement is.
Posted by: DH | October 3, 2008 3:09 PM
principal not principle obviously... I should really proofread stuff
Posted by: Alex | October 3, 2008 3:09 PM
This wingnut has a right to say that us gays should be killed but up in Canada he will now probably be dragged in front of a Human Rights Council and have to go to court to defend his freedom of speech. Im so glad Im not Canadian.
Posted by: Jonathon | October 3, 2008 3:11 PM
Speaking as a gay man, I think that mouth-breathing morons like Popescu should be executed. These people add NOTHING to our society and are in large part responsible for the lack of progress in this country.
Popescu and his lot have had 2000 YEARS to make the world a better place, and they BLEW it. They need to step aside, sit down and shut the hell up. Frankly, a real Christian would NEVER call for the execution of anyone, let alone an entire class of people. Popescu must belong to the Frank Phelps school of thought: Jesus and the New Testament don't mean anything; God is still pissed off about stuff that happened 4000 years ago.
Sheesh!
Posted by: Bee | October 3, 2008 3:14 PM
He was at the high school as part of an all local candidates' debate. The man is a nutter, and is known to have abused his elderly mother, and has been described as a 'creepy guy'. I liked that in the comments following the article, a high school student who was present expressed his determinedly non-violent anger, then noted with satisfaction that the gift given (to each candidate in appreciation of their participation) Popescu was in a pink bag.
I doubt Popescu will even be charged with hate speech, once the RCMP have investigated, because of the freedom of religion laws and the fact that he cited the damn Bible as his rationale.
The person most likely to suffer directly from this is the school principal, who is being castigated for letting him participate in the first place, given his known extreme views.
Posted by: Lau | October 3, 2008 3:15 PM
Would it be a hate crime to set Popescu on fire? Just curious...
Posted by: Didac | October 3, 2008 3:20 PM
Be aware of hate speech laws, because if implented, they will be used against you all in order to keep all your mouths closed.
BTW, Leviticus defend execution for man-to-man sexual relationships. However, the modern Christian right does not speak of homosexual relationships and have assumed the theory of sexual orientation (supported on Plato but unsupported in the Bible). E. g. Leviticus don't care about lesbianism.
Posted by: Mary | October 3, 2008 3:21 PM
Fortunately, Pete Stark will probably go on handily winning his congressional district in Alameda County, California, until he decides to retire. He's stated his non-theism -- but is the highest-level elected official to have done so.
Posted by: Sarcastro | October 3, 2008 3:24 PM
They're such feebs!
Posted by: Patricia | October 3, 2008 3:25 PM
EV - Assuming your daughter isn't a daughter of a king, she wouldn't be worth 200 foreskins. If she is an everyday damsel then she would be worth a homer of barley. Hosea 3:2.
So far as the man beating up his elderly mother, while the old testament says honor thy father and mother, Jesus trumps that in the new testament with - If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26 Cuffing mom around looks pretty much like a requirement. But remember - gawd is love!
Posted by: senecasam | October 3, 2008 3:25 PM
Here is his American counterpart:
www.nicolayforstatesenate.com
She also advocates for the "elimination" of homosexuals in here book "We the People - Taking America Back"
Posted by: FlameDuck | October 3, 2008 3:27 PM
Or indeed fundamentalist Islamic. It's pretty clear he hasn't seen one of those hundreds of videos of young Iranian boys, waving goodbye to their crying parents, before they're hanged from a crane with barbed wire, and their lifeless corpses paraded through local towns, simply because of their sexuality.I don't get it? Why are all these Christians so hell bent on creating another Abrahamic Theocratic State? There are already 3 (The Vatican, Israel and Iran). I suggest if he's such a big fan, he move to one of those, instead of trying to corrupt otherwise rational societies.
Posted by: Bad Albert | October 3, 2008 3:35 PM
Jello @ 39
"He crossed the line of what a civil society should tolerate and needs to be stopped."
Where exactly is that line? Who decides where this line is to be drawn?
Everyone should be entitled to their own opinion and the right to express no matter how fucked up it is. If I were to start promoting hatred against Nazis, would I be investigated by the police? Doubtful. That is an extreme example and I'm sure most people would agree that I shouldn't. But what about an example that's not so extreme? We must be careful going down this slippery slope. The only way to handle it is to have no line. That way we will never wake up one day and find our own opinions outlawed.
Canadian hate laws have the potential to promote the very things they purport to control by assuming "we" are always on the moral high ground. They are also a loophole special interest groups use to gain immunity from criticism. Let this idiot, and everyone like him, speak their minds. Then we know who to watch out for. Smothering him with the free publicity of a high-profile trial isn't going to help.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 3, 2008 3:35 PM
Oh god damn it shit.
Of course she'd have to be from SC.
I swear we aren't all dumb rednecks down here.
Posted by: S. Courtright | October 3, 2008 3:37 PM
Any ink is too much ink for this Popescu guy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 3, 2008 3:45 PM
I know so. The Redhead's parents moved to SC when the FIL switched careers and became a high school teacher. He grow up in the upper midwest. His next door neighbor though...
Posted by: qedpro | October 3, 2008 3:45 PM
I wonder if he's wearing cotton blend underwear, cause he'll definitely need to be stoned to death for that.
Posted by: Ted H. | October 3, 2008 3:48 PM
I've always been a little confused about the Leviticus/Homosexual connection. That only talks about man lying with man, right? I don't see anything about woman lying with woman. Have I missed something, or does the idea that a little woman-on-woman action turns some men on date back a really long way?
Posted by: Qwerty | October 3, 2008 3:51 PM
PZed, this isn't "this country." Sudbury is in Canada. I guess that Canada has its share of wackaloons too!
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | October 3, 2008 3:54 PM
As far as OT law goes, the fundies that I've had the displeasure of debating will typically say that they are not bound by "Jew Law," that the NT is a new covenant that makes anything in the OT they don't feel like following null and void. Pointing out the obvious - why an all powerful and perfect god needs to have a do-over on the whole covenant thing - sort of falls on deaf ears. Plus, as far as teh gay sexers go, there's enough in the NT for fundagelicals to justify their homophobic bigotry.
So there's really no point in trying to play gotcha with them - when you really really really want to believe something, you will - and hang the evidence.
Posted by: tsg | October 3, 2008 3:55 PM
I think you got it in one.
Posted by: E.V. | October 3, 2008 3:56 PM
*blinks*My apologies dearest Patricia, I had to think about what this was in reference to for a moment. I doubt the local Mohel could rustle up more than a dozen foreskins anyway, but there is plenty of cheese!(Woooh, badda bang! Badda b- ..., ahem) *ewwww*.
I seem to recall that the book of Romans has a little opinion on teh gay but I'm too lazy to look it up.
Yeah, the N.T only trumps O.T. when it is convenient for the spouters. There are many contradictions within the O.T.; add the N.T. and you've got scriptural salad.
Bible literalists can rationalize each and every one of them, logic be damned. The human mind is an amazingly frightening thing.
Posted by: Sastra | October 3, 2008 4:17 PM
I'd call this one free speech because it's clear that Popescu wants the laws to change so that homosexuals might be legally executed. It's apparently very important that it be legal, so that the country itself can show its obedience to God. While that of course doesn't exactly promote an attitude of tolerance, it's not the same as if he stated "I think homosexuals should be lynched." That's an explicit call for violence, and murder.
I think it's funny when they say that the Bible "couldn't be more clear" on any point. The people citing Leviticus are canceled out by people citing some other passage where Jesus says something about love -- which are then trumped by folks pointing out how Jesus wanted the old laws kept, to be slapped down by others insisting that of course Jesus was ushering in an entirely new way of looking at things, and so on.
Seemingly, the Bible could have been more clear. Special revelation is so subjective. It would have been ever so much more useful if, instead of some inspiring a holy text, or sending down some natural disaster which could be interpreted to mean anything (including a natural disaster), God could just have stuck a giant foot down from the clouds every now and then to squash the particular offender, and no ambiguity about it.
He could have squashed this guy, for instance, right after he made this sweet little statement. 'And there was much rejoicing...'
Posted by: E.V. | October 3, 2008 4:37 PM
Ted H:
The issue was about phallic superiority, manliness and the act of penetration, with the "seed spilling" issue bringing up the rear, so to speak. The Hebrews who created their monotheistic deity were xenophobes of the first order, with homophobia was sort of close to the top of the list.
Speaking of which, their "God" seemed to hold some pretty specific views about the "natural order" of everything which just happened to coincide with those tribal leaders' views. Coincidence?
Semen was the essence of life and could not be wasted on anything but the female love tunnel, yet women rated as chattel. "Vessels" is how they are referred to in texts. If they chose to indulge in a little Sapphic love, no problem as long as they submitted to their husband when he wanted some nookie and never complained about baring his children. Men were made in the male God's image and women were an afterthought in Yaweh's plan but they were okay so long as they weren't on their period. eeeewwwww.
*thought* How can a single unique being be sexed? What would be the purpose of having a twig and berries arrangement if there wasn't a Mrs. God?
The concept of exclusively homosexual behavior was rare even in societies that had little problem with man on man love or to be more correct, mature man on young man love. However, most men in those societies who preferred to be a receiver-only faced public derision - just as the most effete men are teased even in gay communities today.
Christians adopted the Hebrews' intolerance for the male mutual gratification; actually any sex beyond marital procreative sex was considered impure for the new JLC ( Jesus Lover Cult). Obsession with sin and shame is the gift the Christianists have brought the western world. Wasn't that marvelous of them?
Posted by: E.V. | October 3, 2008 4:39 PM
P.S.
And yeah, I'm sure the Hebrew men got off on a little girl on girl action.
Posted by: tsg | October 3, 2008 4:41 PM
So what's the over/under on this guy getting caught in a gay love scandal?
Whatever it is, I got a dollar on "under".
Posted by: dave | October 3, 2008 4:44 PM
What about Deuteronomy 23:1: No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
(God does not like you if your genitals have been injured, otherwise we'd obviously have too many emasculated men overrunning our churches - too close to homosexuality. Who says God isn't consistent!)
Posted by: BAllanJ | October 3, 2008 4:48 PM
Hey, Alex....we're glad you aren't Canadian, too. People here also conflate hate crime laws with Human Rights Tribunals, which have nothing to do with crimes. If the worst he said was what was reported, it won't go any further. If someone complains, it gets investigated. Something wrong with that?
The best part about this is that the guy got booed by the students. Good work
Posted by: Jello | October 3, 2008 4:58 PM
@ 55 Bad Albert
As always the people must decide where that line is drawn and how clear it should be. That being said my opinion in that regard is this. The democratically elected government of a civil society has the responsibility of protecting the expression of an individual while ensuring that said expression does not place another individuals well being in danger. I think the current situation places persecuted groups and the general public in danger because it allow the public promoters of violent persecution plausible deniability with regard to the crimes their sympathizers commit. It is similar to the strategy that organized crime bosses use to escape prosecution for there crimes in that they can play the roll of respectable citizen while they benefit from the crimes of those under there command.
Now there are some problems with my argument. Trying to establish a cause and effect relationship between a nut that tells people that homosexuals should be killed and the actions of another nut that may have heard his message and decided to act on it is nearly impossible. So trying to tie his words to any particular act of violence is untenable as a means for prosecution. The justification for criminalizing speech that openly promotes violent behavior towards a group rests on looking at historical precedent and acknowledging that such speech had demonstrated itself to be very effective in inspiring violent behavior in the minds of some of those who hear it. I am essentially using the shouting fire in a crowded theater argument while acknowledging that the effects of extremist sentiment expressed in public are not immediately or even always obeyed. But they are obeyed none the less.
I draw the line here. Saying you hate gays or Nazis or blogers for whatever silly reason you can come up with is fine. Promoting violent behavior against a particular group even in a general sense should be considered an incitement to violence and a threat to the public wellbeing. I'm just tired of these sleaze balls spewing there crap in the public forum and then hiding behind free speech when some other sleaze ball decides to act on it and I'd love to see them put on a shorter leash.
Posted by: amocz | October 3, 2008 4:59 PM
This and other wackaloons of similar stripe had better watch his/their hate-spewing mouth parts.
We (i.e., the U.S., and inevitably Canada, also) are heading into what are euphemistically called "trying times", which has always put a strain upon the bonds of civil social relations that normally prevent different groups from, for instance, butchering each other over perceived threat to their "interests"...of which mere existence has to be counted as basic as bedrock. Call it your "national/group/personal security interest".
Here in the U.S., we have (very rashly) abandoned the civilized approach to such matters and adopted the "Bush Doctrine" of preventive agression as the basic model for protection of our "national security interest", and as the suffering of the population increases and the unequal distribution of such suffering erodes fundamental social norms, we must expect the Bush Doctrine to "trickle down" to the group, as well as the personal, level of interest in basic survival.
In short, threats of the sort this asshat is making are more and more likely to provoke a preventive counter response, as trust in the social fabric is eroded by the breakdown of institutions and/or their capture by predatory elements in society (c.f. Iraqi militia groups, death-squads in Central America, thugs-for-hire like Blackwater, etc.)
I am not Canadian, and I am not recommending, but I am predicting that eliminationism of the sort this fool is toying with, will automatically invoke a response of counter-eliminationism from the targets of his particular hate du jour, and the structures which normally hold this stuff in check, are under stress now, will be under more stress quite soon...and playing with matches in a dark closet full of old clothes and newspaper is a reliable way to get burned up.
--AManOfConstantZorro
Posted by: Nova | October 3, 2008 5:16 PM
These fundamentalists are even less consistent than the moderates who at least admit they don't take the Bible literally. What would this guy, I wonder, say to the fact that the Bible also says that the world is flat, Pi is exactly 3 and that disobedient children should be stoned?
Posted by: Ted H. | October 3, 2008 5:23 PM
E.V:
I understand it's all about the male dominated society, but the Bible takes particular offense to all male homosexual activity, while totally ignoring female homosexual activity. Greek society was big on Man/Boy (or Mature man, younger man), but most males also had wives on the side. Even that kind of relationship is not probably not condoned by the bible, depending on how you interpret the whole 'lie with' thing. My understanding is that there was little penetration in those Greek relationships.
I guess my point is that when the Fundies condemn homosexuality for biblical reasons, they should only refer to male homosexuality, when I have no doubt they mean it for both male/male and female/female. It makes me wonder if they have ever been called on it.
Posted by: John | October 3, 2008 5:31 PM
What most people do not know about dear twisted David is that what brought him to the bible worshiping he does. David hard strong heart felt emotions for a young lady in the office of the mining company he worked for. She turned him down flat, which lead to his feeling very down and depressed. Looking to the lord for answers he believed God was punishing him for "Lustful" thoughts. He then committed himself to the study of the bible.
Those are David's own words.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 3, 2008 5:56 PM
Come on. Please! Israel isn't a theocracy. Try Saudi Arabia for a better match.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 3, 2008 6:05 PM
I, for one, would not feeeeel so all aloooone... (but it's time for my bootheels to be wanderin')Posted by: Jason Spaceman | October 3, 2008 6:08 PM
Popescu has run for office before, and according to Wikipedia he came in dead last every time. According to poster at rabble.ca, when he ran for mayor of Sudbury he wanted to turn Science North into a Bible College.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 3, 2008 6:11 PM
Allegedly the Greeks and Romans did it "intercrurally", between the legs. I don't know where this knowledge comes from, however.
Posted by: wrpd | October 3, 2008 6:47 PM
Patricia: foreskin fetish much?
E.V.: making smegma jokes should be a capital offense.
Posted by: frog | October 3, 2008 7:14 PM
DM: I thought the Romans had no problem with male-male penetration -- as long as you were the penetrator. Latin has two different words for "catcher" and "pitcher" I believe -- and catchers were the only ones considered "gay", as in Latin American countries today. They were "femalish", which was a serious mistake in the machista culture of the Romans and Roman derived societies.
Posted by: E.V. | October 3, 2008 7:22 PM
Ted H.@#74.
Sorry, my writing has been choppy. In a nutshell: the concepts of sexuality are much different in our modern world.
As for most fundies and many Catholics - all sex is bad unless a married couple is trying to have babies.
Whether they call you "whore" "trollop" "faggot" "queer" "dyke" or "lesbo" is immaterial. They hate you and want you changed or dead. Notice there is no male equivalent for "whore". Boys will be boys... as long as they don't do other boys.
Posted by: bluescat48 | October 3, 2008 7:35 PM
[quote]"A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed," - David Popescu
But should they be allowed to get married first? Why can't politicians ever answer the question?[/quote]
If he answered the question, he wouldn't be a politician.
Posted by: Kel | October 3, 2008 7:55 PM
Jesus forgives all... except blasphemy against the holy spirit and sodomy. Gay atheists must piss off God to no end.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | October 3, 2008 8:05 PM
disobedient children should be stoned
I wonder if Popescu started lobbing rocks at the booing adolescents...
Also, he seems to be a little too clean-shaven to be acceptable in the eyes of teh Lawd.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | October 3, 2008 8:13 PM
Sorry about posting again so soon- I had to poke around teh tubez for sourcing.
What about Deuteronomy 23:1: No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
(God does not like you if your genitals have been injured, otherwise we'd obviously have too many emasculated men overrunning our churches - too close to homosexuality. Who says God isn't consistent!)
This could very well be due to the fact that some "mystery cults" in the eastern Mediterranean featured eunuch priests.
http://www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/A/Atys.html
Posted by: BMcP | October 3, 2008 8:20 PM
@#54 Flameduck Why are all these Christians so hell bent on creating another Abrahamic Theocratic State? There are already 3 (The Vatican, Saudi Arabia, and Iran).
There, I fixed it for you.
Posted by: E.V. | October 3, 2008 8:21 PM
Wow, then the Catholic Church has a lot of explaining t