Larry Kilgore; Republican.

[KeilanS]

And could someone explain to me why we should support execution of adulterers when Jesus himself stopped this? ("If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

But if we treated every criminal this way, no one would ever be punished for anything.

I don't really understand what you mean Kat, could you explain? If everyone was killed or flogged for crimes they would certainly occur less often, but they would still happen.

I do approve of harsher punishments .I think murder should be jail for life (or better yet, find some way that these people can live in a prison of sorts but where they can do something to help society, like a work camp), rape/adultery should be a fairly long sentence. As for pornography, fornication, sexually suggestive dress and swearing. I would love to see small fines for offences like these, but it probably won't happen, and I suspect that would still get police abusing it. (My example again, the police man gets turned down for a date, then fines her because the only reason he wanted to date her was because she was dressing suggestively).

[kat8585]

And could someone explain to me why we should support execution of adulterers when Jesus himself stopped this? ("If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

But if we treated every criminal this way, no one would ever be punished for anything.

I don't really understand what you mean Kat, could you explain? If everyone was killed or flogged for crimes they would certainly occur less often, but they would still happen.

If no one could prosecute a criminal unless they were without sin, no one would be able to prosecute anyone.

[KeilanS]

And could someone explain to me why we should support execution of adulterers when Jesus himself stopped this? ("If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

But if we treated every criminal this way, no one would ever be punished for anything.

I don't really understand what you mean Kat, could you explain? If everyone was killed or flogged for crimes they would certainly occur less often, but they would still happen.

If no one could prosecute a criminal unless they were without sin, no one would be able to prosecute anyone.

That's true, although that makes me wonder, what was Jesus telling us when he did that?

[georgesbluegirl]

America was not DESIGNED to be under Levitical law. Certainly many of our legal practices are rooted in Western, Judeo-Christian values, but we are also in large part a product of the Enlightenment. My point in saying this is not to argue the "America is a Christian nation!" thing again. Yes, some of our founding fathers were devout Christians, but others were deists and unitarians. The point is that America was not set up to be a theocracy. The way that Kilgore proposes running the country is not in line with the fundamental principles of how our government is supposed to work.

Advocating setting up a government like this is essentially advocating changing the fundamentals of American government. If one wanted to have a country based on Biblical law, one would have to found a new nation.

[rtwo]

And could someone explain to me why we should support execution of adulterers when Jesus himself stopped this? ("If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

But if we treated every criminal this way, no one would ever be punished for anything.

I don't really understand what you mean Kat, could you explain? If everyone was killed or flogged for crimes they would certainly occur less often, but they would still happen.

I do approve of harsher punishments .I think murder should be jail for life (or better yet, find some way that these people can live in a prison of sorts but where they can do something to help society, like a work camp), rape/adultery should be a fairly long sentence. As for pornography, fornication, sexually suggestive dress and swearing. I would love to see small fines for offences like these, but it probably won't happen, and I suspect that would still get police abusing it. (My example again, the police man gets turned down for a date, then fines her because the only reason he wanted to date her was because she was dressing suggestively).

Though I favor the death penalty in certain situations, I can't fathom a place where such things as pornography, fornication, swearing and sexually suggestive dress are punished on a governmental level. I'm saying this knowing that a true theocracy will never happen again until Christ's return -- so an attempt to run a nation as though it were one is folly. You just can't criminally prosecute somebody for adultery or fornication (though I -am- in favor of eliminating no-fault divorce and allowing for -civil- penalties for such things).

As for the way someone dresses or "swearing" -- these things are so subjective that you just shouldn't legislate on them. While I'm no fan of public nudity, and think that to some extent a concession has to be made for families who don't want their children subjected to it, the idea of what's "Suggestive" or even what's "profane" is either based upon current social mores or (usually) personal preferences. For example, some people think wearing a skirt more than one-half inch above the knee is "suggestive" while somebody else has no problem with it. Who gets to draw the line.

For some people, "Crap" is just as bad as any of the "big seven", and in certain circumstances, some of those are considered mild to inconsequential. So, again, who gets to decide?

I say this, because, Kelian, of your assertion that you would love to see penalties for these things. But what would these penalties be based upon? What you, personally, find offensive? Or would there be a consensus? Further, what do you suppose would happen to a society (run by man, since we have to work within the field we're given) in which we begin to outlaw certain thought-expressions?

Read "1984". Twice. And don't look for the common things that people (wrongly) say the book's about, like the idea of being "watched"... the whole "big brother is watching you" idea comes to fruition and is made more dangerous not because of surveillence, but because of the ideology that goes with it. The idea that we can make a more perfect world by monitoring and penalizing the ways in which people express themselves.

RE: KILGORE

This, ultimately, is the problem I have with Kilgore. From a political perspective, you can't start penalizing people for not following your religious guidelines. Start doing that, we might as well move to Saudi Arabia, or Iran.

From a Christian perspective, forcing someone to live your way seldom produces converts. And converts is the business Christians are in. We're not here to make a better world for Christians, and we're not here to turn the world into a shallow characature of God's Kingdom. We're here to fill God's Kingdom with as many souls as we are able. We're here to praise and worship Him. Lead people to God's Spirit through Christ -- the Spirit will take care of the moral issue.

God's not particularly interested in people living out His values if they aren't His people... they go to the same hell, whether they're atheists forced to live as Christians or atheists doing whatever they want. The difference is, if you don't try to impose your own will on people, they tend to be more open to what you have to say.

While there are issues with which I agree with Kilgore, and some conclusions he reaches, which I think would be good for this country as a whole, he is way, way off-base on the whole, for the reasons stated above. I'm shocked at the people he counts as endorsers (for example, I've talked at length with Cal Zastrow (and, I believe, picketed with him), though many years ago (and, being who he is, I doubt he'd remember the encounter) ... and I can't believe he'd have read Kilgore's complete "issues' statement and come away with an endorsement. That said, an endorsement for Kilgore, based completely on what's listed on his website, is neither the truly "Christian" thing, nor is it right for any state in this Union.

[angelawittman]

Angela, I have many questions, perhaps more than posting here would be able to satisfy. Would there be a better way to contact you, perhaps an email address I could contact you at? I also know of a rather published writer, who has been published several times in Rochester Literary Magazine (Rochester=Harvard) who may be interested in writing an article. It will be great to hear your response.

Dear Burning Ember,

You can email me at: info@larrykilgore.com. Please know that I do not work on the LORD's Day, so I may not be able to get back with you until Monday.

To be quite honest, I am also a published writer and have edited several Christian news websites. I presently edit www.ChristianLibertyParty.com which plans to endorse Larry Kilgore for US Senate of Texas, so before I agree to any interviews, I want to know if the author has a liberal bias. Thank you.

[angelawittman]

What revulses (sic) me is the ignorant attitude of some on this board. Here you have godly man, Mr. Kilgore, living according to the Gospel, NOT the Levitical code, working within the established political system to bring, not salvation, but a godly sense of law and order to the state. Besides, Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it, so G-d's righteous Law is still in effect, anyway. Anybody that would have a problem with that, would have a problem with G-d almighty. Maybe that's why they don't like Mr. Kilgore.

Angela, don't be put off of the "secular progressives" and liberals who haunt Worthy.

As for me, I'd pay real money to see standardized education chucked and health care made a personal responsibility once again. Now, I doubt I would vote for Mr. Kilgore for other reasons, but those are political reasons, not faith ones.

Dear Marnie,

Thank you for your encouraging words. Mr. Kilgore does live according to the Gospel, and I hope my involvement with his campaign will help make this wider known. His reputation is exemplary in Christian circles, and he has a beautiful family who respects and supports him as a Christian husband, father and political candidate.

[angelawittman]

I've gotta' say, Kilgore has the right enemies.

Praise the LORD! Thank you, Leonard!

[angelawittman]

Angela, I have a question. If Texas were to secede, what would it do about all the illegal immigration that is destroying it now?

Dear Kat,

This is taken from his FAQ page at the Elect Larry Kilgore campaign blog:

Illegal immigration will not be a problem once Texas is allowed by the US Empire to do the following:

1. Eliminate tax funded healthcare, education, housing & food programs. When the free money is gone the freeloaders leave.

2. Minimum of five lashes, $3,000 fine & deportation for intruders. If the fine is not paid immediately, involuntary servitude will be required.

Texans enjoy having visitors and foreign workers. We will treat guests with the same hospitality and justice as our citizens.

http://electlarrykilgore.blogspot.com/2007...-questions.html

[Scarletprayers]

Some people think that Larry Kilgore is a great candidate for Governator of Texas. I mean why wouldn't he be? Some would say he is the ideal Christian candidate.

Strictly in favour of an eye for an eye, there. If someone murders, they will be killed. Or commits adultery, for that matter.

But don't worry! Once public floggings are instituted for Fornication, Sexually suggest dress, vulgar language, or posession of pornography, Texas will be much more safe.

Not only that, but "Indentured Servitude" is ok, if you stole and can't pay the person back.

And once Texas secedes from the US, cuts all funding to health and human services, the prison system, and public education, The Republic of Texas will flourish.

/endshock

But really, let all the prisoners go, halt standardized education and cut all funding for healthcare?

I'm hoping everyone here is just as revulsed as I am. If anybody does agree with what he says, then I'd be glad to understand why. Especially those last bits.

What revulses (sic) me is the ignorant attitude of some on this board. Here you have godly man, Mr. Kilgore, living according to the Gospel, NOT the Levitical code, working within the established political system to bring, not salvation, but a godly sense of law and order to the state. Besides, Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it, so G-d's righteous Law is still in effect, anyway. Anybody that would have a problem with that, would have a problem with G-d almighty. Maybe that's why they don't like Mr. Kilgore.

Angela, don't be put off of the "secular progressives" and liberals who haunt Worthy.

As for me, I'd pay real money to see standardized education chucked and health care made a personal responsibility once again. Now, I doubt I would vote for Mr. Kilgore for other reasons, but those are political reasons, not faith ones.

No Marnie, I don't have a problem with GODS laws, I have a problem with men trying to force them on others, it never works because no matter how Godly a man may be, he is still a man with a fallen nature living in a fallen world. The only way we will all live under Gods order is when Jesus returns and is in charge of it. It may be a clich