Quantcast
Connect with us

Evangelical activist calls for Bill Maher to be flogged or hanged over Noah ‘blasphemy’

Published

on

SEE ALSO: Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles to students

An evangelical activist laments that no one will defend God’s honor against the blithe blasphemy of an atheist talk show host, reported Right Wing Watch, and he spent a few minutes on Wikipedia to bolster his call for severe punishment.

Tristan Emmanuel, a Canadian evangelist, published a column Friday morning on the anti-LGBT website BarbWire asking, “Does Bill Maher deserve a whipping for slandering God?”

ADVERTISEMENT

Emmanuel quoted a couple of recent remarks by Maher, who referred to God as “a psychotic mass murderer” for flooding the earth to punish sinners in the biblical Book of Genesis and suggested the Almighty was even more of a “dick” than famously disagreeable actor Russell Crowe.

The evangelical activist said Maher is known for his anti-religious views, but Emmanuel said “this time he’s gone too far.”

“He may have protection under the First Amendment to say whatever slanderous thing that comes out of his toilet bowl brain, but that does not mean Christians should turn the other cheek,” Emmanuel said.

He agreed with the Psalms 14 passage that questioned the character of anyone who would believe in his heart there was no God, suggesting Maher and outspoken atheists Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens had much in common with the Devil.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I don’t know Maher. And I have no reason to hate him,” Emmanuel said. “But I do know God. And Maher’s public vilification of God is the most offensive and slanderous thing I have ever heard. Frankly, if a Christian doesn’t have a gut wrenching reaction about this, I’ve really got to question him.”

He said Christians should “unanimously” condemn Maher and compared today’s believers unfavorably with their ancestors.

“Back then Maher would have faced stiff penalties for his slanderous crimes against God and country,” Emmanuel said. “And the reasons were clear: slander the ultimate authority of a nation — God — and you ridicule the very foundation of its laws, values, public institutions and leadership.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Then Emmanuel asks why it’s acceptable to “slander and profane” God but not President Barack Obama.

“I, for one, don’t believe in his presidency, like Maher doesn’t believe in God,” Emmanuel said. “And, I also think Obama is immoral, perhaps even a lunatic???”

He goes on to approvingly list a bunch of laws from colonial Massachusetts that prescribed harsh corporal punishments for blasphemy, as listed on Wikipedia.

ADVERTISEMENT

“’If any person shall presume willfully to blaspheme the holy Name of God, Father, Son, or Holy Ghost; either by denying, cursing or reproaching the true God; his Creation or Government of the World: or by denying, cursing, or reproaching the holy Word of God,’” he quoted, “’everyone so offending shall be punished by imprisonment, not exceeding six months, and until they find sureties for good behaviours; by sitting in pillory; by whipping; boaring thorow the tongue, with a red hot iron; or sitting upon the gallows with a rope about their neck; at the discretion of the court.’”

Emmanuel lamented that the 1952 Burstyn v. Wilson case, also listed in the same Wikipedia entry, prohibited laws against blasphemy.

“America is hanging on by a thin thread of longsuffering divine justice,” Emmanuel warned. “The pugnacious degenerate Bill Maher may think blasphemy is a laughing matter. The nation of America may think it can hide behind the First Amendment. And Christians may falsely think they are demonstrating Christlike love by remaining quiet in the face of profligate profanity.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“But mark my word, a day of reckoning is coming,” he continued. “If we are unwilling to hold blasphemers accountable, the almighty judge of the world will.”

If you prefer to listen to Emmanuel read the column out loud, he’s posted it online:

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

The Kurds have already rejected Trump’s ceasefire deal: Fox News reporter

Published

on

The military alliance defending ethnic Kurds in northern Syria has already rejected a purported "ceasefire" agreement being touted by President Donald Trump.

According to Fox News foreign correspondent Trey Yingst, the Syrian Democratic Forces are "rejecting the ceasefire" because it "achieves Turkey’s original goal of moving Kurds from the border and having them give up heavy weapons."

Yingst went on to say that Trump's deal with the Turkish government would essentially force the Kurds to give up territory that has for years been their home.

Not surprising that the SDF is rejecting the ceasefire.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Turkey quickly undermines Trump as he boasts about his deal-making: ‘This is not a ceasefire’

Published

on

According to Turkey, President Donald Trump's so-called ceasefire in Syria isn't actually a ceasefire.

"Turkish FM Çavu?o?lu just now: 'We will suspend the Peace Spring operation for 120 hours for the PKK/YPG to withdraw. This is not a ceasefire,'" tweeted Turkey correspondent for The Economist.

https://twitter.com/p_zalewski/status/1184894093639475201

According to Vice President Mike Pence, the ceasefire will take place for just five days. It's unclear what will happen after those five days are up.

CNN's Matt Hoye noted the Turkish foreign minister's comments came around the same time that Trump was praising the deal.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

EU and Britain just struck a Brexit deal — here’s what’s in it

Published

on

"Fair and reasonable." That's how both Britain's Boris Johnson and the EU describe the new draft Brexit deal reached Thursday after days of intense haggling.

Here's what's in the accord -- and what each side gave up to get there.

- Northern Ireland -

Arrangements for the UK province of Northern Ireland were the trickiest part of the new deal, and the core of what has changed since last year's withdrawal agreement, which was rejected by British MPs.

The new protocol stipulates that Northern Ireland remains in Britain's customs territory, but in practice there would be a sort of customs border between the province and the mainland.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image