People who quote scripture to justify their ignorance never cease to amaze me. Written within the Bible are so many rules Christians are supposed to follow that it’s literally impossible to follow every single one.
But out of all these rules, religious fanatics seem to focus on homosexuality more than anything. Heck, they damn near obsess over it.
Which brings us to Republican Scott Esk, who’s running for the Oklahoma state House. Esk told someone on his Facebook account that it would be “totally in the right” to stone homosexuals to death because the Bible says it’s acceptable.
MooreDaily.com found several posts on Esk’s Facebook dated back to June 2013 where Esk posted about when Pope Francis’ said of homosexuals,”Who am I to judge gay people?”
Esk wrote on his Facebook: “Men were commanded to put guilty parties to death who were guilty of certain acts, like homosexuality.”
That’s when someone comment on his post asking, “So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?”
“I think we would be totally in the right to do it,” Esk replied. “That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”
When a reporter for MooreDaily pressed Esk on whether or not he would support a measure in Oklahoma to stone homosexuals to death, Esk responded by saying he wouldn’t comment on conversations that were made in private.
In other words, yes he would support a law that stoned homosexuals to death. Because you don’t refuse to answer that question if the answer is “no,” and a public Facebook wall does not qualify as a “private conversation.”
So, does that then mean Esk finds it acceptable to stone women to death as well? You know, since the Bible also allows for that. The Bible also has stories of incest, does that mean he finds that acceptable?
He would have to if his basis for determining whether or not something is “totally in the right” is based on scripture written in the Bible.
It’s absolutely absurd.
While I find it ignorant enough that so many of these religious radicals judge homosexuals the way that they do, it’s inexcusable and reprehensible that Esk essentially threw his support behind hypothetical legislation that would allow for the stoning of gays.
Because like I said, if his answer were “no” to the question he was asked about whether or not he would support a hypothetical law that would allow homosexuals to be stoned, he answers that reporter’s question. He wouldn’t have given the cop-out answer of “I don’t discuss private conversations.”
If the people of Oklahoma end up electing this guy, they should be absolutely ashamed and embarrassed of themselves.