Is Ted Cruz OK with Executing Gays? Are Republican Voters?

Would you vote for a candidate for President that welcomes the endorsement of someone who openly advocates for the execution of homosexuals?  We're not simply talking about some candidate who merely opposes same-sex marriage but someone who was present when the killing of homosexuals was urged and then immediately afterwards accepted the endorsement of the person doing the urging and never protested or mentioned or admonished them for promoting the execution of gays.  Would you, under any circumstance, vote for this candidate?  You may get the opportunity.

The gay-execution advocate is Pastor (what a shock!) Kevin Swanson and you can hear his advocacy of gay executions here ( https://generationswithvision.com/broadcast/bob-jones-iii-apologizes-for-leviticus-20-application/ ) where he chastises Bob Jones III of the infamous Bob Jones University for apologizing last year for advocating executions of gays 35 years ago.

The candidate is Ted Cruz, and at an event in November 2015 accepted Pastor Swanson's endorsement shortly after Swanson railed against gays and thought that their execution was just because, well, God wants them executed and God is just!  That pretty much settles it.  Go to http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruzs-campaign-insists-hes-not-gay-basher-he-has-no-problem-embracing-those-who-are )

From RightWingWatch.org:  "From his radio program we learn that "As far as I know," Swanson said, "the Apostle Paul has not backtracked on Romans 1, in which he refers to the unnatural relation between males and males, females and females, and says such who does these things are worthy of death ... I'm going to be the last guy who stands up and says whatever Paul was saying when he said they're worthy of death, whatever Moses is saying in Leviticus 20:13 as communicated to God's people as the very law God, from the lips of God himself, I'm going to be the last person to say, well, God's law is unjust. And if anybody wants to say that, I'm going to be standing about 40 feet away, whatever the diameter of lightening is."

Later in that same broadcast, Swanson took issue with those who get outraged at the prospect of the government putting people to death for homosexuality, saying that it is no big deal when compared to the prospect of gay people spending eternity in Hell.

"When people focus on the civil penalty for the sin of homosexuality," he said, "they're diverting attention from the real issue, and that is the judgment of God upon that behavior ... Capital punishment? Execution at the hands of the state? Big deal! Big deal! That's nothing. That's nothing. In comparison with the judgment of God, the judgment of the civil courts, of the human courts, as compared to the judgement of Almighty God? No comparison!""

25% or more of Republicans prefer Ted Cruz as their first choice; 35% or more prefer Donald Trump, who has re-tweeted openly racist fraudulent libel against African Americans, painted Mexican undocumented immigrants with a broad brush as rapists and killers, insulted women, both generally and specifically for their appearances, wants to ban Muslims from entering the country based on nothing more than their religious beliefs, and has mocked a disabled person's disability. Oh, did we mention he was the leader of the Obama birther movement?

So 60% of the Republican Party either seeks to nominate someone who happily accepts without reservation the endorsement s of a would be gay executioner or someone who has basically viciously insulted pretty much every group aside from white non-Hispanic Christian males and has trouble drawing rational conclusions based on the evidence!

The problem, it would seem to me is not simply the candidates - it's the general public who seem to prefer viciousness, dogmatism and thoughtlessness instead of empathy, reason and thoughtfulness.  Correct me if I am wrong but there seems to be a strong correlation between anger, irrationality and ideological fervor.

What to do?  Although the media is reluctant to draw attention to the danger of religious dogma, the rational among us most continue to point out the danger inherent in all ideology, religious or secular and the threat that dogmatic political leaders pose to our country.

The Pope's Silence: Fundamentalists Running Wild

You know, I really wish that it wasn't necessary to write stuff like this. It is not a pleasant task to dwell on how immoral the world's largest religious denomination's hierarchy is, while at the same time noticing that other denominations and religions are, well, even worse!

Here's how the Catholic News Agency described a recent meeting of Pope Benedict and Ugandan Bishops at the Vatican in early March 2010: "Pope Benedict XVI met with the bishops of Uganda this morning in the Vatican on the occasion of their “ad Limina” visit to the Holy See. He urged them to be strong in renewing evangelization in the east African country and resisting "the seduction of a materialistic culture of individualism.'"

By "materialistic" culture, the Pope does NOT actually mean money or a possession-centered culture; as we all can see, the religious love money as much or more than the rest of us. How much money does the Vatican have, anyway? What the Pope actually means by a materialistic culture is one that is reality-based and not supernaturalism-based.

Great advice, huh? Who needs reality? Who needs a morality based on whether a behavior makes the world a better place? Not the Pope, apparently. He thinks we should just obey him since he has the direct line to God, like so many others.

And no, this is not the specific point of this little article. There is quite a miserable thing going on right now in Uganda that the Pope made no mention of in his meeting with the Ugandans.

From the AFP: Hundreds of anti-AIDS campaigners on Monday urged Ugandan lawmakers to reject a proposed anti-gay law calling for tough penalties against homosexuality, including the death penalty.

Around 400 activists presented parliament speaker Edward Ssekandi with a petition, criticising the bill as a violation of Uganda's constitution... But the parliament speaker said the bill had to undergo the due process...

The bill, which has sparked widespread international condemnation, would criminalise public discussion of homosexuality and could penalise an individual who knowingly rents property to a homosexual. It also calls for the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality", in cases of rape of a minor by a person of the same sex, or where one partner carries the virus that can cause AIDS (Ed.'s note: The law does not equally apply to heterosexuals). Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda, punishable by life imprisonment in some instances.

So while the bill to seriously criminalize homosexuality is working its way through the Ugandan government, the Pope chose to say nothing about it during his visit with the Ugandan Bishops.

Why?

Could it be that the Pope thought that opposing the law might somehow lose the Church some followers in Uganda or lessen the Church's influence with the government? We know from past actions that he is not afraid to interfere with the legislative process in various counties. In the past he's called gay parenting "child abuse." He opposes efforts to legalize gay marriage around the world. He's not usually reticent on such important matters.

Actually, the reason does not matter. What matters is that the Pope had a chance to do something good in the "materialistic" real world but chose instead to only address irrelevant spiritual concerns.

And here is the kicker: The Pope's crime is only silence; by speaking out, he might actually have helped some poor soul.

Other religious denominations however, such as fundamentalist Protestants and Muslims, are actually promoting the law that could imprison or kill gays. They are not fringe believers; they are in the Ugandan mainstream politically and are supported by a number of American Christian fundamentalist preachers and politicians too. While the American supporters are not directly promoting the "kill the gays" law, they are also not denouncing and disowning their protege's from Uganda.

Once upon a time, the US supported religious fanatics in Afghanistan who opposed the USSR. That turned out badly. Now we are supporting Christian fanatics in Uganda and the ugliness has already begun.

We never learn.

The Pope's silence is bad; and that's religion's best face on the subject. What a disgrace.