Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Brenda Dickson: I Made Myself ... | Rudy Giuliani Loses New York »

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Watchmen on the Walls: The Video

posted by on October 24 at 12:15 PM

The tenacious Eli Sanders chats up the equally tenacious Ken Hutcherson at last weekend’s Watchmen on the Walls conference in Lynnwood. Enjoy.

RSS icon Comments

1

Guy doesn't know the definition of "rhetoric".

Posted by pox | October 24, 2007 12:19 PM
2

"Constitutional law brah."

Posted by Best line | October 24, 2007 12:19 PM
3

This is a combination of Alexyss Tylor and a Christopher Guest movie.

Posted by Nick | October 24, 2007 12:23 PM
4

"We want to win God's battle." Some god, that one, that needs an ignorant putz like him to win its battles.

Posted by pox | October 24, 2007 12:26 PM
5

...and Ted Haggard, a little bit. Cross your fingers!

Posted by Nick | October 24, 2007 12:26 PM
6

I love you, Eli. I don't know how you stood there, staring at that fucking cocky smile and holier-than-now attitude.

"We're asking for the right of Christians to have the freedom to push laws exactly the way the secular community has to push laws."

Brilliant. Next time you interview him, interview him with a plank of wood with googley eyes on it.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 24, 2007 12:28 PM
7

What the fuck is UP with that choad? Too many linebackers to the head, I'm guessing...

Posted by ls | October 24, 2007 12:32 PM
8

Because Gay-Americans just want to be left alone, we're being walked on at the Federal and State level. Seems that more Gay-Washingtonians submit blog comments than they do submit action on the street. Hutcherson and his Students (Taliban) (Student is "Talib" in Arabic) are more than happy to spend money and time to hold a conference in Lynnwood. Gay-Washingtonians won't spend time or money to keep a Community Center open 5 days a week 8 hours a day. Is it any wonder the Christo-Taliban sets the agenda and Gay-Americans simple react. We don't have the numbers, supporters, nor will to be pro-active. Maybe things aren't as bad as we would like to think they are?

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | October 24, 2007 12:32 PM
9

What is an extremist homosexual?

Posted by Carollani | October 24, 2007 12:37 PM
10

@9

Good question. What is Ken's definition of rhetoric? How many gay men have beat Latvians to death during a protest and/or hate crime? How many gays attack straight people out of hate? How many licks does it take for an extremist homosexual to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop? Links, Ken, facts, please.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 24, 2007 12:42 PM
11

Impressive interview Eli!

Posted by smiles | October 24, 2007 12:45 PM
12

He doesn't feel threatened, he just wants to win. Like a sport. Or an optional war. The highest conservative value is to win at all costs, and if you can be extra clever gaming the system or twisting the facts, all the better.

Posted by pox | October 24, 2007 12:54 PM
13

He says he was not afraid but he had two security goons with him the whole time. Wonder what they were there for.

Posted by jamesb | October 24, 2007 1:05 PM
14

@13

Myocardial infarction watch?

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 24, 2007 1:08 PM
15

What God said? Puh-leeze.....

The same as invoking what our Founding Fathers meant, intended, stood for. Everytime I hear drivel (like Madison could even conceive of an AK-47 rifle!!) offered as an excuse for this, that or the other 21st century concept, I'm thinking their heads must have been the size of 100-pound pumpkins, gifted with prescience and IQs around 500. Not to mention FFI - Founding Father infallibility. Not unlike God.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | October 24, 2007 1:12 PM
16

Oh Eli, you get me all hot.

Posted by Amelia | October 24, 2007 1:25 PM
17

Following @12's logic, the highest liberal value is to lose at no cost.

Posted by Dan's savage | October 24, 2007 1:33 PM
18

17: Hee!

Posted by pox | October 24, 2007 1:49 PM
19

@ 17, uh, what logic would that be?

(*crickets*)

Thank you, that's what I thought.

Posted by try studying logic before you throw that word around | October 24, 2007 1:54 PM
20

"The Constitution is based on biblical truths."

"We never asked for a theocracy."

Hey Rev, Dr, special Envoy Hutch, how is a Constitution based on biblical truths anything other than a theocracy?

Posted by SDA in SEA | October 24, 2007 2:13 PM
21

Ken's eyes are shifting a lot. That is a classic sign of someone trying to be deceptive... Just saying.

Posted by Just Me | October 24, 2007 2:58 PM
22

20: How quaint, trying to use logic and reasoning against a group interested only in winning at all costs. When victory is all that matters, making sure that you do so in a coherent, logical matter is irrelevant.

Posted by Annon | October 24, 2007 3:04 PM
23

Oh dear. I wish we could've seen the look on Eli's face, how could your expressions remain completely neutral for that?!? Way to avoid the questions by deciding you are going to interview the interviewer, Ken.

Posted by C. | October 24, 2007 3:49 PM
24

The definition of a homosexual extremist is the same for any other extremist...

The way I think of it is this.

Regardless of beliefs....anyone who threatens someones life with violence etc would be an extremist.

If I am a Christian and I threaten your life because you do something I dont agree with then I am messed up and wrong...and should be delt with by the authorities.

Now...I bet some people from the homosexual community have sent hateful emails and even death threats to Ken and his family.

I absolutely dont agree with that. Can any homosexual post the death threat Ken sent to them? I think not.

Just my .02

Posted by Truth | October 24, 2007 4:05 PM
25

Trying to argue logically with the leader of people who dispute empirical science, hear voices in their head when they "pray," and believe in the infallibility of beliefs based simply on the mantra "'cause the Bible tells me so" is a bit of a fool's errand--though it's an admirable attempt.

Posted by andy niable | October 24, 2007 4:14 PM
26

#9: I think it's a gay that snowboards, like Dan.

Posted by Dougsf | October 24, 2007 5:50 PM
27

In its way, a very revealing interview - despite the classic PR dodges (answering the question you want to answer instead of the one you were asked, and asking questions to derail a line of questioning).

The fact remains that Hutch is a terrible liar.

FACT: Hutch is a self confessed biblical literalist.
FACT: In Leviticus 20:13 the bible says "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 blood is upon them."

Err, let's go back to the part where he was talking about violence and said "That is not what the bible teach” and “We are saying stand up for biblical truth…” Isn’t the literalist interpretation of the bible – “the biblical truth” as Hutch calls it - that gay men must be put to death? If he really is a biblical literalist, he has to be for all of it.

What about Leviticus 22:11 “But if a priest buys a slave as his property with his money, that one may eat of it, and those who are born in his house may eat of his food” and Exodus 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do”. Buying slaves and selling family members as slaves are both biblical truths, but it I don’t hear him proclaiming that or advocating a return to the abhorrent practice of slavery.

What I do see is cherry-picking of convenient “biblical truths” to support his political and personal agenda.

When Hutch says “You can’t find anywhere in any one of our speeches where we are haters or pushers of violence” he is literally telling the truth – it isn’t in their speeches - but it is clearly spelled out in the bible which all their speeches point to as the font of truth.

Whatever he is, he can’t be a biblical literalist and non-violent at the same time. And if he wants to claim he is not encouraging or inciting violence, maybe he should stop saying “It’s a war” whenever he trying to whip up opposition to any civil rights advance we make.

~GC
P.s. I like the part about needing to be there because of the "bad press" as though he wasn't already speaking at the event and one of the reasons for the event getting “bad press” in the first place.

Posted by The Gay Curmudgeon | October 24, 2007 6:52 PM
28

@8
Taliban comes from Persian/Farsi, the language they speak in Afghanistan (where the taliban is from).

Posted by Megan W | October 24, 2007 8:48 PM
29

# 27

Those verses from the old testament you are quoting are taken out of context.

According to the bible before Jesus came to set men free of the old testament law there were things done and or carried out that are no longer done today. For instance in the old testament God fearing people sacrificed live animals to atone for their sins. After Jesus ushered in the new covenant the sacrificing of animals was no longer necessary for the atonement of sins since Jesus became the sacraficial lamb for all men.

Bottom line: many of the practices in the old testament are not applicable today, so it is easy to take those verses out of context because you dont understand the way the bible was written and the history of events.

So to conclude that Hutch is a "hater" and wishes to kill homosexuals is really quite a stretch of the imagination.

Posted by truth | October 24, 2007 11:15 PM
30

@29 Okay, but before Jesus, you did have to sacrifice animals to appease your sky god? Yeah, that does make sense now that I think about it...

Posted by Eric Grandy | October 25, 2007 2:17 AM
31

#30

You are correct LOL

Nowhere in the Bible (new or old testament) does it say that God makes sense to man, In fact the bible says that Gods ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9) which you have just proven yourself.

Posted by truth | October 25, 2007 8:19 AM
32

@29 - You commented that:

Those verses from the old testament you are quoting are taken out of context.

I can certainly make the same argument about Leviticus given that it is actually the “Holiness Code” for priests and not the general population, and the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was ultimately about hospitality and the treatment of foreigners and not about homosexuality at all. But the arguments of biblical literalists are not open to the kind of intellectual flexibility you are proposing. In fact any attempt to engage on these kinds of intellectual explorations with biblical literalists are doomed because they focus only on the literal meaning of the bible – specifically the very useful Old Testament. If they didn’t, Christ’s behavior and teaching in the New Testament would bring them quite undone.

Bottom line: many of the practices in the old testament are not applicable today, so it is easy to take those verses out of context because you dont understand the way the bible was written and the history of events.

So to conclude that Hutch is a "hater" and wishes to kill homosexuals is really quite a stretch of the imagination.

I’m not contending that Hutch is violent or a “hater” of LGBT people at all. I am contending that he isn’t a biblical literalist at all, just a man with an anti-gay agenda hiding behind the protective shield of bogus biblical literalism.

I’m saying he’s a self-serving fake, not that he’s violent.

And can you tell me why it is just the punishment that is changed by Christ’s life and sacrifice in the New Testament. Why doesn’t Christ’s message of expansive love and understanding for everyone change even the idea that Gay couples should be looked on as sinful as it did with the poor, the diseased, and the unclean?

~GC

Posted by The Gay Curmudgeon | October 25, 2007 10:45 AM
33

@ 32 - are you REALLY interested in knowing or just interested in arguing? If you're actually open to understanding then it's worthwhile to continue to discuss. Also, you speak of Jesus "expansive love" and I would contend that you don't come close to understanding that Jesus was about a lot more than just love and if you spend some time in the Scriptures, I pray that you will see that.

Posted by mighty dr | October 25, 2007 11:18 AM
34

@32

Thanks for clarifying on some of your points. You make it clear that you believe Ken to be a "biblical literalist". What do you mean by that exactly?

If Ken were a biblical literalist then the press would have a hayday covering all the goat sacrifices he was conducting at his house :P

Also to expand on #33...

Whos to say that God doesnt love homosexuals and straight people alike? Infact all people? You see...we think of love as understanding...acceptance...kindness...and other feel good/treat your neighbor well type things. And I do believe many of these things are incorporated into Gods love for us.

But to God, loveing someone could also mean discipline...justice...and possibly other hard to swallow pills. I love my kids...but I need to discipline em every now and then to help them grow. Is discipline always fun? no...is it always fair? no...is it always done in love? no...but it should be.

God's love, discipline, and justice are always perfect. No I dont understand it all, and I'll have some questions for GOd when I see him someday you can be sure of that. It goes back to the scripture I pointed out earlier:

Isaiah 55:8-9

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Posted by truth | October 25, 2007 12:11 PM
35

Fact: God doesn't exist. Stop playing with imaginary friends already. Act like an adult.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 25, 2007 12:16 PM
36

Wow Mr Poe, you better be right ;)

Posted by truth | October 25, 2007 3:49 PM
37

And "truth," you'd better hope that Thor, Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster can look past your failure to worship or believe in them.

Posted by Superfurry Animal | October 25, 2007 5:40 PM
38

@33 Thanks, I already have a pretty good handle on the scriptures, I'm just trying to determine if you do.

And your contention is in error. I have a decent knowledge of the bible and theology for an admitted apostate.

That makes me agnostic, not ignorant.

@34 There is a respectable body of theological opinion that says the idea of hell, the ultimate punishment, is unlikely to be true given that God is infinitely loving and forgiving. Purgatory already got the boot, who says Hell and the whole concept of a punitive God isn't next? Still, man seems pretty keen to anticipate and mete out God's judgment in the absence of God's handy omniscience.

Surely it isn't the role of people to pass judgment or impose punishment on others in God's stead. I don't see any group called Weavers on the Walls castigating fiber mixers, or Wavers on the Walls handing out righteous judgment to shellfish eaters on God's behalf. Why is that?

Biblical literalism is "the adherence to the explicit and literal sense of the Bible. In its purest form such a belief would deny the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible, however the phrase "biblical literalist" is often a term used (sometimes pejoratively) to refer to those who subscribe to biblical inerrancy."

There are some appalling things in the bible and if you were to read it from cover to cover I don't think your conviction of God's "perfect justice" would remain unshaken. And if there really is something called "God's Perfect Justice" man has no place in its administration.

Any way you slice it, Hutch's cherry-picking in the garden of biblical literalism is rank and self-serving.

~GC

Posted by The Gay Curmudgeon | October 25, 2007 5:53 PM
39

#38

"There are some appalling things in the bible and if you were to read it from cover to cover I don't think your conviction of God's "perfect justice" would remain unshaken. And if there really is something called "God's Perfect Justice" man has no place in its administration."

Well I must agree with you that man has definitely messed things up. I also agree with you that man has no business playing God and handing out judgment when that job is God's.

I have read the bible cover to cover, and there are things in there that I question, things I don’t understand. But if I could figure out God then who would I be? Well I am not...I am just a mere man. By the same token we are similar and you will never be able to "figure out" God and his ways.

God gives us the bible so we can learn about Him, and try to get to know Him better while we have this short time on earth.

Consider this purely logical argument:

There are many religions all throughout history and active today. Whatever you subscribe to...weather that be science, Christianity, Hinduism, Agnosticism, Paganism etc etc...you find that man has a desire to know what his life is all about, where it came from, where it’s going etc.

I think that desire was built into man at creation (this is of course my personal belief). Out of all religions and other belief systems it is only with Christianity that Jesus came down to earth as God in the form of a man. He claimed he was God, he died on a cross and he was resurrected. No other religion claims to have a living God, No other religion claims to have a heaven and a hell, I think you would agree Christianity is quite unique among religious philosophies.

Jesus claimed that (John 14:6) "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". Wow, that is a bold claim. The bible also describes hell as a place completely cut off from the presence of God...a place of fire and eternal damnation. A bad place in other words. Whereas heaven is a wonderful place in the presence of God.

The bible claims that the only way to get to heaven is to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross and be born again into the eternal family of God.

Well...that’s a tall tale...that's friggin preposterous right?

I submit to you this:

Would you agree that we all must die someday? (I will assume yes)

Would you agree that whatever happens to us when we die will be the same for everyone regardless of personal opinion or beliefs? (I assume your answer is yes to this as well)

Would you agree that I might be right about Jesus and his claims? Think about it...might there be a .0000000000000000000001% chance that Jesus was telling the truth? (I think most people would agree since no one knows for sure).

Therefore:

Wouldn't it be well worth your time to really investigate Christianity even above all other religions? The consequences of getting the answer wrong about Jesus are eternally devastating.

Seriously...if I die and Buddha was right and I come back as a plant or a goat or whatever...so what...we'll all be goats or plants in the next life...we'll have a pasture party etc etc...

If were wrong about Jesus...and he turns out to be right...then its eternity in hell.

I might not like you...you might not like me, but I don’t want that fate to befall even my worst enemy.

Sorry this is so long. Peace everyone, and please consider seriously the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do care...or I wouldn’t have spent my time writing this.


Posted by truth | October 26, 2007 12:05 AM
40

@20 A constitution based on biblical truths does not equal theocracy even if it was true.

It simply means that some morality is taken from the Bible. It doesn't mean it's an instrument to enforce the entire Bible. Keyword here is "based on" as in the "based on a true story" tag you see in movies.

@38
Nice to see some of the more rational religious people here.
And yeah there's plenty living Gods in Hinduism. And though there is no actual eternal punishment, the cycle of rebirth as a different form is considered 'lesser' than the 'moksha' or being one with God and liberated from the cycle. So there's a kind of heaven in Hinduism also. I'm sure all religions have this in some form or other so you can't really say Christianity is the only one with heaven and hell.
Want to talk uniqueness? There's no religious ritual and an explicit rule conversions into Hinduism. So basically converting to Hinduism is not encouraged in the book AND in practise today. However if someone wants to consider himself Hindu then he is quite free to do so. I'd say this is the single coolest thing about Hinduism. Also unique among religions :)

Also I take issue with this part of your post.
"Would you agree that I might be right about Jesus and his claims? Think about it...might there be a .0000000000000000000001% chance that Jesus was telling the truth? (I think most people would agree since no one knows for sure)."

Yeah, but what about the 10^-23 chance that Allah, the Hindu gods or any one of the hundreds of other religions that you've never heard of are real? Do you really want to take the chance that you might have chosen the wrong religion and everything you're doing is just pissing off the real God more?

"Wouldn't it be well worth your time to really investigate Christianity even above all other religions?"
When you understand why you don't believe all other religions, you will understand why I don't believe yours. Christianity is on par with the rest of religions.


"Seriously...if I die and Buddha was right and I come back as a plant or a goat or whatever...so what...we'll all be goats or plants in the next life"

Nice, I like how you use the more judgmental part of your philosophy to use fear to convince people. Granted that's your right, just look out if Islam is the true religion. You're in a hell of a lot of trouble then. Perhaps you should study that one then? No? I wonder why...

Still nice to see a person actually open to debate though, "truth".

Posted by truth redux | October 26, 2007 1:24 AM
41

Full disclosure: I'm an atheist.

Posted by truth redux | October 26, 2007 1:26 AM
42

@40

Yeah...you got me on a couple points :P I really haven’t studied in depth all other religions. Why? Partly because of my upbringing but also I guess none of them have really caused me any alarm...or provoked me to deep thought about the subject.

If I piss off Allah what are my consequences? Heck I don’t know. I do know that Allah is the same God as I have...the God of Abraham and the God of the Jews. Unfortunately, like the Jews in some ways Muslims that worship Allah do not believe in the Godship and claims of Jesus Christ. As my post above reveals "no one comes to the father but through me". In the old testament (before Jesus) people could only get right with God through the sacrifices of live animals. That must have been strange to live in those times....imagine that.

After Jesus, we no longer sacrifice animals...Jesus himself became the sacrifice and it makes sense then that "no one comes to the father" except through Jesus.

So the burning question that must be answered is who is this Jesus? He was a lunatic, a liar, or the son of the living God.

Jesus changed eeeeeverything! Jews won’t accept him as their king...they are still waiting for the king to come conquer! Muslims worship God and think they are pleasing to God but without Jesus they can’t please God either.

It all boils down to Jesus...and I chose to not take my chances with him. I guess I am willing to take my chances with all the other religions.

I do think for everyone the question of life, death, where'd we come from...where are we going should be a priority for them to explore. This life is so very short, we have brains with the capacity to even think and discuss like this...coincidence? I don’t think so...I think it is for a reason.

If I came here and encouraged just one of you to seriously drop your guard a bit and explore that question for yourself then I'm thankful for that. You probably don’t care but I'll pray for you all.

Nite!

Posted by truth | October 26, 2007 2:14 AM
43

This is bloody weird.

@39 thinks I’m not religious and need saving and @40 seems to think I am religious, rational, and therefore an anomaly.

I was raised Catholic and last time I checked that was a Christian religion –so I’ve pretty much seen all the memos. At one time I considered becoming a priest. I am at best an agnostic, and tending more and more towards atheism as I watch the actions of the world’s dominant religions. @39, give it up.

I have no problem with the idea of any god, I just don’t trust or believe in the men and women who claim to represent him. The Hutchersons of the world do such a piss-poor job of it, they actually make a more air-tight case for evil. Or, much worse for you, a case for a completely disinterested and random universe with no gods at all.

Despite this, I do what many other people do - live a good life and be kind to people. I do it because it’s the right thing to do, and that’s how I want to be treated, not because I’m fearful of retribution or anticipating rapture.

Like you, one day I will die and all that I was will be gone and our names will be lost in the current of time.

And I think I’m okay with that.

I’m not okay with people like Hutcherson and Lively who claim to know the heart of God, but manage to do real objective evil.

~GC

Posted by The Gay Curmudgeon | October 27, 2007 5:31 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).