Priest Who Wants Gays Killed: I’m Hiding After Death Threats by LGBTQ+ Activists

[phands]

Well...boo-fucking-hoo, you disgusting true-xtian pile of dung....

You may remember the priest who burned a rainbow flag after saying gay people should be put to death, and that he was then removed as head of his church. Now, he says he’s been driven into hiding thanks to “homosexualists” who have threatened him.


In his first interview since the controversial flag burning, Rev. Paul Kalchik said he has been sent off the grid not by his own hateful actions but by the evil gay people who want him dead. I mean, do they even know what it feels like for someone to say they hope you are put to death?! (Wait…)


Additionally, the priest says he went into hiding out of fear of being “arrested” on the orders of the Cardinal who warned him not to carry out the burning. But he also told a friendly “reporter” that he was fearing for his life after receiving death threats, and that he had no knowledge of his removal from the Church.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...iding-after-death-threats-by-lgbtq-activists/

 

[Lion IRC]

I find it hard to believe that the Tolerance Uber Alles LGBTQ brigade would ever make death threats.

 

[RavenSky]

I find it hard to believe that the Tolerance Uber Alles LGBTQ brigade would ever make death threats.

So you don't believe the priest's claims either? Very good!

 

[Lion IRC]

No I don't.
I don't understand religious types who are ashamed of their own beliefs.
If you say it - OWN IT

 

[fast]

Has the line become so thin that the difference is completely blurred?

Voicing one's opinion on what should be done (and perhaps violently so) to homosexuals may very well instill anger, but in context, can we even garner who it is that is called on to act? As far as I can tell, it might merely be that he thinks God Himself should exact such punishment. Can we tell if he's advocating state-sanctioned killings for select homosexuals? If what he is doing is a genuine lawless threat, it seems to pale in comparison to the emotionally driven "I will kill you's" he's getting in exchange for the espousal of his views.

I truly don't want to appear to be speaking in his defense, yet how else must it unfortunately appear in order to communicate the distinction between "you sinners should all be put to death" and the apparent emotionally driven backlash of "oh yeah; that's what you think?; okay then; how's this? we're going to kill you".

I am not soaking in any message that he is going to kill homosexuals. It seems that he is voicing what he believes should be done; that seems to be a far cry different than what he's getting in return which are genuine threats--probably blown out of proportion too, but that's not the issue nor pertinent to my question.

I grasp the sentiment; I can't say it's lost on me. If you walk into a bar and start talking crap about a man's girlfriend, tempers could flare and get out of control quick-like. After the calm is over, the distinction between talking smack is vastly different than actual blows to the skull. So, in that light, I'm not disregarding actual threats as a probable comeback, but I don't see (based on what I've read in this thread) that his views are on even par with actual threats.

Suppose the following scenario:

Homosexuals that do not modify their behavior and restrain themselves from expressing sexual or romantic desires for or towards members of the same sex shall not receive any aid or assistance from either volunteers or professionals to aid them in suicide prevention. In other words, just as our justice system can require health care professions to report occurances of gunshot victims and provide for punishment in failing to do so, what I'm supposing is an instance where one is voicing the opinion to have state-sanctioned consequences to anyone who aids a homosexual who expresses the desire to take his own life.

A tit for tat response would not be threats on his life. It's mighty twisted (regardless of how twisted any of this is) to consider an actual death threat commensurate with what's being advocated --in either the situation in the OP or the scenario offered for consideration.

 

[Bomb#20]

... So, in that light, I'm not disregarding actual threats as a probable comeback, but I don't see (based on what I've read in this thread) that his views are on even par with actual threats.
...
A tit for tat response would not be threats on his life. It's mighty twisted (regardless of how twisted any of this is) to consider an actual death threat commensurate with what's being advocated --in either the situation in the OP or the scenario offered for consideration.

You seem to be suggesting that it would take the guy making personal death threats against gays to justify gays' personal death threats against him -- i.e., you're appealing to some sort of eye-for-an-eye, Full Metal Alchemist "law of equivalent exchange" morality. To go all extralegal execution on a guy who didn't advocate extralegal execution is certainly an unnecessary escalation.

On the other hand, this wasn't a man who was advocating execution of murderers, getting death threats from murderers and from murderers' friends and families. Kalchik was advocating execution of people who have sex with consenting partners he disapproves of. That is itself a bit of an escalation, don't you think? I mean, a tit-for-tat response punishment for gay sex would be something like Kalchik threatening to seduce a gay man's sister, and thereby totally revolt him with the sort of human sludge (from the gay man's perspective) that the gay man would then have to visualize his sister getting it on with.

So if we're applying a tit-for-tat standard, why shouldn't the "LGBTQ brigade" respond to Kalchik's unnecessary escalation of the stakes with a commensurate unnecessary escalation of their own?

 

[Worldtraveller]

... So, in that light, I'm not disregarding actual threats as a probable comeback, but I don't see (based on what I've read in this thread) that his views are on even par with actual threats.
...
A tit for tat response would not be threats on his life. It's mighty twisted (regardless of how twisted any of this is) to consider an actual death threat commensurate with what's being advocated --in either the situation in the OP or the scenario offered for consideration.

You seem to be suggesting that it would take the guy making personal death threats against gays to justify gays' personal death threats against him -- i.e., you're appealing to some sort of eye-for-an-eye, Full Metal Alchemist "law of equivalent exchange" morality. To go all extralegal execution on a guy who didn't advocate extralegal execution is certainly an unnecessary escalation.

On the other hand, this wasn't a man who was advocating execution of murderers, getting death threats from murderers and from murderers' friends and families. Kalchik was advocating execution of people who have sex with consenting partners he disapproves of. That is itself a bit of an escalation, don't you think? I mean, a tit-for-tat response punishment for gay sex would be something like Kalchik threatening to seduce a gay man's sister, and thereby totally revolt him with the sort of human sludge (from the gay man's perspective) that the gay man would then have to visualize his sister getting it on with.

So if we're applying a tit-for-tat standard, why shouldn't the "LGBTQ brigade" respond to Kalchik's unnecessary escalation of the stakes with a commensurate unnecessary escalation of their own?

There's a couple things going on here.

1) Stochastic terrorism is a real thing with potential real consequences. As such, the priest's actions have the potential to cause much more, widespread harm.
2) The reactions are specific, and targeted at this one individual. While still illegal, I think the priest is getting a good taste of what he's been dishing out, and I really don't feel a lick of pity for him.

 

[Keith&Co.]

2) The reactions are specific, and targeted at this one individual.

I'd be curious to see these targeted death threats, actually.
There's a kid down the block who will poke his sister for five minutes straight, just trying to get a reaction from her. When she's had enough and slaps his hand away, he screams that she has assaulted him.

I would wonder if someone told Kalchik something like 'Your god wants gays dead, my god wants self-important, hateful, moronic bigots to suffer fatal diarrhea.' Then he shouts, "I've been receiving death threats!"