The Tea Party is the repository of politically rejected and popularly defunct philosophies. Few have showcased this as well as the fork-tongued Scott Esk who lacks the backbone and fortitude to defend the oppressed. Instead, the surely soon-to-be-defunct candidate seems to think that the stoning of gays is permissible – a view that even the Bible, which Esk claims to find his basis in, rejects.
In a series of Facebook posts, Scott expressed that the Old Testament guides his hand. Scott finds that both homosexuals should be stoned and that men are fit to judge such a thing.
Scott Esk: “Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
Scott Esk: “Romans 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
Scott Esk: “Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
Scott Esk: “Adam asked about fitness to judge others. That right was given in verses like Lev 20:13. Men were commanded to put guilty parties to death who were guilty of certain acts, like homosexuality. Laws to put people to death who were guilty of such practices have been in existence in various countries in Jesus’ time and afterwards, too. If men wink at such perversions, God may have no choice than to judge such nations with calamities.”
Esk was also asked directly about the stoning of homosexuals.
Scott Esk: “I think we would be totally in the right to do it [stone homosexuals]. 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.”
These are some of the cherry picked verses Scott chose to support his stance. But before you go and think that Esk must have misspoke and give him the benefit of the doubt, know that the publication that discovered the comments verified the politician’s stance.
Scott Esk: “That was done in the Old Testament under a law that came directly from God and in that time there it was totally just. It came directly from God. I have no plans to reinstitute that in Oklahoma law. I do have some very huge moral misgivings about those kinds of sins.”
And then, once pushed on the subject:
Scott Esk: “I know what was done in the Old Testament and what was done back then was what’s just. … And I do stand for Biblical morality.”
Biblical morality. Well, how about the stance Jesus Christ took toward both the right of men to judge and stoning. Remember the stories in John, Esk?
In John 5, Christ was accused of having violated the Sabbath, one of the offenses that, in the Old Testament, was punishable by death (Exodus 31:14). When confronted, Christ said that all judgments were given over to him and not to men. And in John 8, Christ is brought a woman caught committing adultery. An offense again punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10). To which Christ, in one of the more famous lines from the Bible, responded, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her [the accused adulterer].”
Scott Esk is wrong. He’s wrong in his own principles. Hopefully this is enough to keep him from winning a seat. Nevermind the hideous views he has toward all sorts of other issues like divorce, environmental protection, women’s health, and immigration.
Joshua is a writer and researcher with Ring of Fire. You can follow him on Twitter @Joshual33.