Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


WWJD? Why, kill the fag and lie to God about it, or pay hush money to an ex-lover. Either one, i guess.
September 19, 2004 7:17 AM   Subscribe

What Jesus Would Do? "...And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." Jimmy Swaggart (no stranger to scandal and improper behavior in the past) is at it again, this time regarding marriage and gays. Maybe he should stay away from Paul Crouch, Trinity Broadcasting Network's head, currently embroiled in a gay sex scandal. Was Jesus this hypocritical and violent?
posted by amberglow (54 comments total)

 
Well first he said porn and prostitution was bad and then he was caught jacking off in front of a prostitute, now he says gay sex is bad . . . . .hmmm. I wonder what his fantasies are.
posted by caddis at 7:29 AM on September 19, 2004


It has gotten to the point where I'm not even surprised anymore. Thou Shall not Kill anyone who you don't like. Swaggart needs to get into touch with that guy (I forget) who advocates killing doctors who perform abortions, because they, hmm, "kill babies." With logic like that, who can argue!?
posted by plemeljr at 7:47 AM on September 19, 2004


I don't see anything wrong with the logic. The assumptions, yes. The logic, no.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:05 AM on September 19, 2004


Whacko evangelist dosen't like gays.

Consider the source and move on.
posted by jonmc at 8:11 AM on September 19, 2004


More specifically, he ought to get in touch with Oklahoma Senate candidate Tom Coburn, a doctor who has performed abortions, who says doctors who perform abortions should be put to death by the state.
posted by aaronetc at 8:19 AM on September 19, 2004


EB:

Kill someone to prevent killing, because killing is wrong. The flaw should seem pretty evident.

A similar proposition:

I'm going to steal your car to prevent you from using your car to steal anything, because stealing is wrong.

So, you can preemptively perform any crime, as long as you use the prevention of a possible future crime as justification.

Awesome.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:23 AM on September 19, 2004


Well, Ynoxas, since you've admitted you're going to steal my car, I will have to shoot you.

*shoots*

What a senseless waste of human life.
posted by jonmc at 8:30 AM on September 19, 2004


In "The Eyes of Tammy Faye" (a pretty great, albeit campy movie) they deal quite explicitly with Swaggart's alleged homosexual tendencies. It's one of the arguments Jerry Falwell made to oust Swaggart from his empire. Interesting how those who want to kill you may really want to get in your pants. How romantic...
posted by adrober at 8:46 AM on September 19, 2004


"Consider the source and move on."

I guess you'd like that before someone points out that the slack jawed constituency that he and Bush are playing to is the real problem here.


Edited video

Note the Bush reference and the cheering.
If there are any voters still on the fence out there, please remember that George Bush will appoint judges that will cater to the most backwards, hateful scum in this country.
I'll say it - a vote for Bush is an endorsement of what was said in this clip.
Move-on needs to use this clip in an ad. No commentary, no titles.
posted by 2sheets at 9:44 AM on September 19, 2004


I can only imagine this man is mentally ill in some way. And as a side note, judging by his apparent lack of fitness he’s probably physically very ill as well.

I had a different issue with the logic: I have never seen a man I’d like to marry – this shows that it is asinine, idiotic and stupid behavior. That doesn’t really follow.
posted by ed\26h at 9:51 AM on September 19, 2004


At the very least, the press should ask Bush about this - do you welcome Swaggart's endorsement or no?

Please note that this is not just garden-variety right-wing homophobia, but a "Man of God" promising, rhetorically or not, to needlessly kill someone and then lie to God about it. I understand that Swaggart may just think it's a colorful figure of speech, but since I doubt that he even believes in the literal reality of a just God, his proposing this should be taken in all sincerity as an expression of the utmost extreme, psychotic, hate-filled arrogance.
posted by soyjoy at 9:53 AM on September 19, 2004


Oh - and apparently, it's an "A-bomb nation". Bollocks.
posted by ed\26h at 9:55 AM on September 19, 2004


By the way, my sister's position on gay sex is that it's unambiguous that it's a sin...but so are a whole bunch of other things such as adultery which her fellow evangelical Christian conservatives are not making as big a deal of. In her opinion, there's a disproportionate emphasis placed on it by many to the point that it's an obsession and defintely it gets in the way of many issues she thinks have greater priority.

Needless to say, however, she's a bit of a maverick in her community for this view. But I just want to point out that there's a position in there somewhere between "it's not a sin" and Swaggert's hateful ravings.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:05 AM on September 19, 2004


When Bush and the RNC use the phrase "defend marriage" to stand in for "outlawing gay marriage," they create a climate of fear and obfuscation that makes Swaggart's declaration seem not far from the mainstream. After all, if the people you're talking about are so enormous a threat to the institution of marriage that you have to pass a Constitutional amendment against them, why wouldn't a good old boy take matters into his own armed hands?
posted by digaman at 10:26 AM on September 19, 2004


By the sounds of his laboured breathing, ol' Jimmy ain't long for this earth. It'll be good riddance to bad rubbish soon.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:39 AM on September 19, 2004


Fish: Yes that’s basically what I wanted to say earlier. So, unequivocally: I, also, will be really glad when this man dies.
posted by ed\26h at 10:43 AM on September 19, 2004


So...if he does have homosexual tendencies, and he looks at himself in the mirror...then by his reasoning, does he have to commit suicide? Hmm.
posted by ChrisTN at 10:51 AM on September 19, 2004


I guess you'd like that before someone points out that the slack jawed constituency that he and Bush are playing to is the real problem here.

Yeah, because I'm actually an operative for the coporate-fundy conspiracy. You got me. I surrender.

Swaggart's got zero cribility with anybody who's IQ is higher than a houseplant. You figured his opinions were gonna be any different from this kind of crap? Anyone who needs Swaggart's opinion on issue already has thier mind made up. That's what I meant by "consider the source."
posted by jonmc at 10:59 AM on September 19, 2004


>Was Jesus this hypocritical and violent?

Well, he was a rouge rabbi who went against the torah with his revisions, not to mention his claim of being the son of the hebrew god. On top of that there's the famous violent attack outside the temple and in one of the gospels he kills a mustard tree out of anger.

But death threats for "looking at me the wrong way" are well beyond losing one's temper. The historical jesus must be rolling in his grave.
posted by skallas at 11:57 AM on September 19, 2004


I don't know if this is true or not, but I have heard the rumor that Swaggart was molested when he was young. To me, if so, that would explain a lot.

Also, some of you may not know this-he's Jerry Lee Lewis' cousin.
posted by konolia at 11:57 AM on September 19, 2004


It would explain that he wants to kill any gay guy that looks at him funny? wtf? is that what passes for Christian behavior nowadays?
posted by amberglow at 12:02 PM on September 19, 2004


At least Swaggart wasn't the cousin Jerry Lee Lewis married (or was he?)
posted by page404 at 12:43 PM on September 19, 2004


Maybe he just wishes he were the cousin Jerry Lee Lewis married. It's a sad story, really. All that unrequited lust.
posted by Hildegarde at 1:06 PM on September 19, 2004


Is a rouge rabbi anything like a lipstick lesbian?
posted by Guy Smiley at 1:43 PM on September 19, 2004


I'm with jonmc.

"Fanatic Says Fanatical Thing, Totally in Keeping With His Well-Established Fanatical Worldview. Film (or MeFi thread) at 11."
posted by dhoyt at 2:20 PM on September 19, 2004


You know, if any single one of Swaggart's followers does a thing to any gay person in this country as a result of this, i hope you guys will rethink your quick dismissals. It's not so easy for many of us to simply dismiss stuff like this, knowing how many people listen, and give money to, him and folks like him. Just because you're not the one being targeted doesn't mean it's nothing.
posted by amberglow at 2:38 PM on September 19, 2004


On top of that there's the famous violent attack outside the temple and in one of the gospels he kills a mustard tree out of anger.

Actually, I think that was a fig tree. Not that it matters...except to the fig tree. ::sniff:: WHY, JESUS, WHY???

Also, some of you may not know this-he's Jerry Lee Lewis' cousin.

What? Well...goodness gracious, great balls o' fire.

amberglow: I'm with you. Can I come over tonight so you can protect me? ;-)
posted by ChrisTN at 2:42 PM on September 19, 2004


Amberglow, I agree. He may be a buffoon, but there are a lot of idiots who get taken in by his Jerry Lee like presentation. Certainly, if any of his followers commits any acts of violence the victim should sue not just the perpetrator but Jimmy.
posted by caddis at 2:43 PM on September 19, 2004


Also, some of you may not know this-he's Jerry Lee Lewis' cousin.

And Jimmy's the perverted cousin in that family. Which is sayin' something.

Mickey Gilley is a cousin as well.
posted by jonmc at 2:46 PM on September 19, 2004


>if any single one of Swaggart's followers does a thing to any gay person in this country as a result of this

I've wondered why churches aren't liable for the hate they teach. Yes, not all churches are swaggart-level nuttiness, but there is an issue of liability that doesn't get talked about.

Say I start a "teen satanists" organization. I preach all this stuff about the devil, fate, etc and one kid goes out and kills some guy. How many people out there would make me at least partially liable? Lots I'd suppose.

Now a catholic kills an abortion doctor. A mentally ill person kills someone becauses he sees the devil in them. An evangelical beats up some gay kid. Why isn't the church guilty of hate speech and liable for damages? Sounds like they should be. In the case of the mentally ill guy, its still their duty not to take advantage of the ill.

Someday there will be a lawsuit which changes all this and you can't hide behind religion when spewing hate speech. Its the same as inciting violence. Not sure if its a criminal offense, but in civil court the church should be liable.
posted by skallas at 3:42 PM on September 19, 2004


I've wondered why churches aren't liable for the hate they teach. Yes, not all churches are swaggart-level nuttiness, but there is an issue of liability that doesn't get talked about.

They managed to make something like that stick in that case in Portland when the skinheads killed an Ethiopian man. It was political speech rather than religious but they managed to bamkrupt Tom Metzger.

But there are First Amendment issues. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, but for instance how's the hypothetical situation here different from someone shooting a police officer and claiming that Body Count's "Cop Killer," made him do it?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think either a sermon or a song can make someone do something that isn't in them already. But I am worried about setting dangerous precedents.
posted by jonmc at 3:54 PM on September 19, 2004


Swaggart's got zero cribility with anybody who's IQ is higher than a houseplant.

Nonetheless Swaggart has plenty of credibility with people who've proven their willingness to take action on instruction. In this America, having an IQ higher than a houseplant is not a requirement for, say, gun or other weapon ownership.
posted by billsaysthis at 4:00 PM on September 19, 2004


I don't disagree, billsaysthis, but I also realize that the use of legal precedents all depends on who's hands they are in. Once we start holding speech responsible for actions that it may or may not directly inspire, we start down a slippery slope. And I value everybody's right to say whatever they want too much to start down it.
posted by jonmc at 4:05 PM on September 19, 2004


Whenever I see some awful polemic like this, what fascinates me isn't the polemicist. It's the audience. Jimmy Swaggart says he wants to kill a gay man who "looks at him like that" and the crowd cheers him on, shouts enthusiastically. It's not the one wacko that's the problem, it's the multitude of wacko sheep who mindlessly follow him.

This is why the Throw the Jew down the Well Ali G sketch is so funny.
posted by Nelson at 4:18 PM on September 19, 2004


I've wondered why churches aren't liable for the hate they teach.

I'm not a lawyer, but I know that there's a rather high standard to meet to convict someone of inciting violence. You can't just have generalized hate speech: you need to have what amounts to specific instructions to commit a specific act of violence. Anything less is protected by the first amendment.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:51 PM on September 19, 2004


What's interesting to me as a respectful agnostic is the inherent blasphemy. One would think that lying to God, or even joking about such a naive and inferior God, would be risky in those circles.

Comments like this used to bother me a lot more than they do now. They usually come out of the mouths of those who really have very little to worry about, e.g.



I' mean really. The only thing this one has to worry about is some old trick going public.

Oh yes, and eternal damnation for being such a nasty hypocrite, lyer and brut :-)
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:27 PM on September 19, 2004


I've never wanted to follow a preacher, and if one tried to make me, I'd kill him, and not worry about it, because there is no God.
posted by Slagman at 5:29 PM on September 19, 2004


Once we start holding speech responsible for actions that it may or may not directly inspire, we start down a slippery slope.

That says bushels about your opinion of your legal system.

Myself, in Canada, I believe we're capable of drawing a rational line in the sand, and that our Supreme Court judges will be able to differentiate between speech responsible for inciting violence against others, and speech that would not incite violence.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:19 PM on September 19, 2004


OK, show where that line is, without being politically partisan.
posted by jonmc at 6:36 PM on September 19, 2004


I've never wanted to follow a preacher, and if one tried to make me, I'd kill him, and not worry about it, because there is no God.

There is a judicial system, however.
posted by Evstar at 6:49 PM on September 19, 2004


One would think that lying to God, or even joking about such a naive and inferior God, would be risky in those circles.

I think the implication is that God will look the other way when the act is carried out by such a righteous and simply awesome dude as Jimmy.
posted by 2sheets at 7:34 PM on September 19, 2004


Yeah, I was wondering where the "I'll kill a man and lie to God about it" came in. He actually said he'd kill a man and brag to God about it.
posted by kindall at 7:40 PM on September 19, 2004


kindall, unless you have a better source for the quote, my understanding is that Swaggart said, "if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." The clear implication, though again it may derive from some figure of speech, is that Swaggart is going to actively kill someone and then, winkingly, deny his own agency in doing so to God. You could make a case, I guess, for "tell God he died" implying that he's merely informing God of something God was otherwise unaware of, but I don't see how that's any less blasphemous, and I also think it takes a lot more willful naivete to interpret the quote that way.
posted by soyjoy at 8:08 PM on September 19, 2004


Also, some of you may not know this-he's Jerry Lee Lewis' cousin.

And Jimmy's the perverted cousin in that family. Which is sayin' something.

Mickey Gilley is a cousin as well.


it's little richard they all truly fear...
posted by quonsar at 10:00 PM on September 19, 2004


re: the church and the percieved notion that JC was anti-homosexual. I can't see any evidence of this at all. I'm no bible scholar, but my limited knowledge of the new testament goes something like this ...

1. JC states that there are things in the old testament that are wrong, and the true path to god is through him.

2. JC hangs out with prostitutes and preaches forgiveness.

3. JC never really mentions homosexuality, because, and this is my interpretation, there's NOTHING WRONG with it.

And don't give me that Corinthians 6:9 bollocks. You can shove that right up your arsenokoites.
posted by seanyboy at 4:38 AM on September 20, 2004


The thing I think I'll hate most about hell is all the christians.
posted by hoborg at 9:02 AM on September 20, 2004


if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died

Funny how it's always the most unattractive men who say this sort of thing. Jimmy, lad, you have to pay people to be with you. Hell hath no fury like a closeted homosexual who can't even give it away.
posted by orange swan at 9:13 AM on September 20, 2004


if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." The clear implication, though again it may derive from some figure of speech, is that Swaggart is going to actively kill someone and then, winkingly, deny his own agency in doing so to God.

I took it as him promising to say, "Hey, God, I've got another dead fag for you to chalk up." Just a little help to make sure God didn't miss that sparrow falling. I never would have read it as "denying his agency." That's not even close to the kind of guy Swaggart is. Why would he lie to God about something he's proud of?
posted by kindall at 9:22 AM on September 20, 2004


Would Swaggart really think God would be pleased by another dead fag? I don't buy it. Nor do that whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" crowd, unless they're all full of shit.
posted by amberglow at 10:40 AM on September 20, 2004


Look at it this way -- sinners go to Hell, and Swaggart wants to do his bit to help the murdered homosexual get there faster.

Don't try to analyze it using logic; it won't get you anywhere.
posted by kindall at 9:32 PM on September 20, 2004


Look, it's a hateful and ridiculous figure of speech, or promise, or threat, or whatever it is, no matter which way you slice it, so yeah, there's little point in advocating one interpretation over another. But that said, I can't find an interpretation that would fall under the heading "non-blasphemous," and certainly not one that's anywhere near "Christian."
posted by soyjoy at 9:42 PM on September 20, 2004


Swaggart is one of the nation's biggest pricks.

Little wonder he's afraid of attracting homosexual men.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:42 AM on September 21, 2004


Even Fred Phelps doesn't say he's going to murder us.
posted by amberglow at 10:24 AM on September 21, 2004


I took the quote the way kindall did, and I don't think I'm "willfully naive".
posted by jpoulos at 6:59 AM on September 22, 2004


« Older From LGW to ORD...   |   Sleeping with the president is... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments