Democrat for Senate: Kill practicing 'gays'

World Net Daily ^ | March 7, 2006

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Democrat for Senate: Kill practicing 'gays'

Candidate says incumbent Republican not advocating biblical values enough

---

Posted: March 7, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Merrill Keiser

A Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio wants to make homosexual behavior a capital crime punishable by the death penalty.

Merrill Keiser Jr. is a trucker with no political experience, but he hopes to beat fellow Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown in the May primary. The winner will try to unseat Republican incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine, assuming he wins the GOP primary.

"Just like we have laws against murder, we have laws against stealing, we have laws against taking drugs – we should have laws against immoral conduct," Keiser told WTOL-TV in Toledo.

Keiser, 61, says he's running as a Democrat because that's how he was registered the last time he voted.

The trucker, who hails from Fremont, Ohio, says there needs to be more adherence to biblical values in government, business and education – something he claims DeWine is not promoting.

"I believe that the United States has been moved in a Godless direction by the courts," he told the Sandusky Register. "To get good men on the court, we need good senators."

Some of Keiser's other positions include defense of the Second Amendment, securing U.S. borders, lower taxes to stimulate the economy, support of Israel and prayer in public schools.

Keiser told the Register the United States should make conversion to Christianity part of the war on terror to teach Muslims the error of their choice in religion.

The candidate also decries evolution, saying it is contrary to the Declaration of Independence.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

No, like Satan you are able to quote scripture, but you do it so as to corrupt the faith as opposed to adherence to it. Satan cannot be deduced to a being who "thinks he's special," and such an observation is poorly drawn, but he is the father of lies & deceit, a murderer, a slanderer, and as quoted in Paradise Lost - he'd rather reign in hell than serve in hell. The idea that you'd accuse me of being satanic while you're railing against the law, which you clearly have no understanding of, puts you on the side of Satan. Not I!

[Mr. Brightside]

If you have the Bible on your side, why do you need a man-made law to allow you to kill homosexuals?

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

I'm not endorsing the mass murder of children, I'm in a pit full of vipers - and I'm in no position to make the blind see and the deaf hear.

[Billthedrill]

Do you advocate the death penalty for homosexual conduct? Please don't quote scripture at me, just say "yes" or "no".

[Joe 6-pack]

"A Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio wants to make homosexual behavior a capital crime punishable by the death penalty."

I don't see why this surprises anyone...This is just another democrat advocating that government be put in charge of something the gays are perfectly capable of doing for themselves.

[freedom9]

Judgment is mine and mine alone, dude. See that mountain? That's purgatory. Start climbing. See you in a few centuries

The judgement was already set concerning sodomites. Time to enact it again and cleanse the earth

[Neoliberalnot]

You call this guy nuts, while homosexuals/pederasts/transgenders/bisexuals are normalized. Who is the nut? This guy or the followers of Jacko?

[Luis Gonzalez]

31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Kill people who work on Sundays?

You're in favor of that as well I gather.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Christ said, "...'many are called but few are chosen." The problem is that the world is full of sin and you have no understanding of the Law. It is therefore pointless for me to answer that question - perhaps you should try a reading of the Book of Revelation.

[Mr. Brightside]

Kill people who work on Sundays?

We're going to need a lot of bodybags!

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

I don't believe he's trying to enrage conservatives and I think it is just foolish to leap to such a conclusion.

[jveritas]

If you want to kill homosexuals then you need to be reported to the Police and I am serious about it. Now surrender and say that you are not going to do so. We do not need crazy people on FR so please go somewhere else.

[Awestruck]

Of course this is all assuming this guy is legit. Ever hear of someone making outrageous statements just to make their 15 minutes last a little longer? Some people are attention junkies...

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

One more time - here is YOUR ANSWER:

First, the person in view is a not a small child but a grown "son." The Hebrew term for "son" (ben) employed here is indefinite. It is sometimes used of children of both sexes (Ex. 21:5) but most often of the male offspring of parents, and that is clearly the sense in this text. Of itself, the word "son" does not give any indication of age. It can refer to a child or a young man (cf. 1 Sam. 4:4; 19:1; 1 Kg. 1:33); age must be determined from the context. In this case, the son in view is not a child, for the sins brought forth in testimony to show his contumacious manner are gluttony and drunkenness (v. 20), hardly the sins of the average 6 or 10 year old! The case also indicates that the parents have tried to restrain their son, but all their efforts have failed (vv. 18, 20); specifying that he is physically beyond their control. Furthermore, the parents bring their son to the magistrates to judge the matter (v. 19); hence, the son would have opportunity to speak on his own behalf. All of this indicates that the "son" in question is no mere child, but, rather, a young man at least in his middle teens or older. As Wright observes, "The law is not talking about naughty children but about seriously delinquent young adults."

Second, the problems associated with this son are severe. This is not the case of a child who has failed to do his chores, spoke back to his parents, or even committed a serious act of disobedience, but of a son of dissolute character who is in full rebellion to the authority of his parent--she holds them and their word in contempt. Thetext says that the son is "stubborn" and "rebellious" (vv. 18, 20). Both of these descriptive terms are active participles, thus indicating habitual action. The son does not display a stubborn streak now and then, or act rebelliously from time to time, but is continuously stubborn and rebellious. The word "stubborn" refers to one who is obstinate in his resistance to authority. It is used in the Old Testament of a wild, untamed heifer (Hos. 4:16); of a immoral woman who has cast off restraint and indulges in lust (Pr. 7:11); and of Israel as a stubborn people who will not submit to God's authority (Ps. 78:8; Is. 1:23). The word "rebellious" means, literally, to strike or lash, and is used of those who contend against authority and refuse to heed their words. The "rebellious" individual lashes out in contempt against those who have authority over him verbally, and perhaps even physically. In light of this, it is important to note that the law of the covenant prescribes death for anyone who strikes his parents (Ex. 21:15) or curses his parents (Ex. 21:17). There is, therefore, reason to suppose that the son in this case law has broken the law of the covenant in one or both of these ways. The parents also describe the character of their son as being a "glutton" and a "drunkard." These sins are put forth as examples of a life lived without restraint.

In the case of such rebellion and riotous living, and after all attempts at discipline and control have failed, the parents are to bring their son before the magistrates for judgment. If the magistrates concur in the parents' estimate of the situation, they are to order the men of the city to stone the rebel with stones so that he dies (vv. 20-21). The purpose to be served in the execution of the rebellious son is to "put evil away from among you" and that all will "hear and fear" (v. 21).

Therefore, the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not about stoning disobedient children. The Bible does not instructs parents to use stoning in dealing with the rebellious nature and disobedience of their children, but to use the rod and reproof (Pr. 29:15). Children are to be trained from a young age by consistent and loving discipline so that the foolishness that is bound up in them can be driven out (Pr. 22:15), and they will learn to honor and obey their parents and all those whom God has placed in authority over them. The case law in discussion does not apply to young children during the formative years, but applies, instead, to a grown son (and by extension to a daughter as well) who, for whatever reason, has rebelled against the authority of his parents and will not profit from any of their discipline nor obey their voice in any thing. It is a case of habitual contempt of parental authority characterized by a young adult living a life without moral restraint who lashes out verbally and/or physically against his mother and father. It is a case where the evil character of the son is apparently set, and there is no reasonable hope of his ever changing.

The kind of rebellion against parental authority described in this case law is called "evil" (v. 21). It is evil because it holds both God and his law (i.e., the command to honor parents) in derision. It is evil because it threatens the very existence of the family, and therefore, of society itself. It is evil because it signals the rejection of all God-ordained authority and leads to civil and ecclesiastical disorder. God considers it such a dangerous evil that it must be extinguished by death at the hands of the civil magistrate.

Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realize that in such a case as described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, "death" is inescapable. Contempt of parental authority, if left unchecked, is the death of the family, law, and order. The question then is: Who or what should die? The rebel, or family and society? Furthermore, the life of a rebel inevitably leads to the grave (sheol; cf.Pr. 30:17); he will die an early death, and probably take others with him. Finally, God himself declares that even if such a rebel against parental authority escapes the judgment of man, his curse is upon that man and he shall be cut off (Dt. 27:16; Pr. 30:17). Therefore, the execution of the rebel in view is just, merciful, and preventive. Just, in that the transgressor deserves to die; merciful, in that his quick death prevents the destruction of the family, society, and others; preventive, in that it strikes fear in the heart of other would-be rebels and restrains them from taking a similar ruinous course.

Properly understood, it displays the wisdom and mercy of God in restraining wickedness so that the righteous might flourish in peace. It is those who reject this case law that should be embarrassed, for they have cast reproach on God and his law, cast aside the testimony of Christ,5 and have substituted their own imaginations (Jer. 7:24) for the blessed word of God.

[Heartofsong83]

If this guy wins the nomination, could a left-wing Independent come up the middle on a three-way split, since he/she'd get the liberal vote (which is not the majority in Ohio by any means, but it is more than 33%)?

[Luis Gonzalez]

First, we take out the entire AFC.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

It takes a special kind of Fool to misled people about what the Bible says - see post 94 and go to Sunday School.

[Northeastern_Realist]

I approve only if Peyton Manning gets the axe first.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Right here and right now, you live under secular laws, and you can, and WILL be prosecuted for advocating murder.

Wchich is what you are doing.

I guess God will forgive you for doing so, by U.S. Courts will not.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

To assume, in this context, that Jesus suddenly starts rejecting the moral regulations of torah is a little short of astonishing, especially in view of how the section begins ("Think not that I have come to abolish the law. . . . Whosoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments . . ."-vv. 17-18).