Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Saturday, April 25, 2009

O They Will Know We Are Christians...

Posted by on Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM

...by our murder-for-hire plots.

A Baltimore pastor who worked with developmentally disabled people was charged Friday with befriending a blind and disabled man in his care, then paying a hit man $50,000 in church funds for an execution so he could collect life insurance money.

Police say Kevin Jerome Pushia, 32, who worked for four months as an operations manager for the Arc of Baltimore before abruptly quitting in January, confessed to plotting to kill Lemuel Wallace. Pushia told police he persuaded Wallace and "numerous" other mentally challenged individuals to list him as a beneficiary on insurance policies.

 

Comments (26) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I blame gay marriage.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on April 25, 2009 at 9:36 AM
2
The guy is a former youth pastor, too!
Posted by Willendorf on April 25, 2009 at 9:55 AM
3
Every person in America should be forced to read Elmer Gantry or at least watch the movie before they are actually allowed to enter a church, temple, synagogue, or mosque.
Posted by yucca flower on April 25, 2009 at 9:58 AM
4
Hey Dan -

Did you say anything about Prop 8 or boycotts or Alan Stock to your captive audience at Cinemark theaters all over the country (but specifically in CA) that paid to see you perform during This American Life- Live earlier this week?

You could have used the boycott busting appearance to do deliver a message while you earned a paycheck...since the CEO of Cinemark was a contributor to the Yes on 8 campaign...but maybe you don't feel a conflict about helping Alan Stock make more money to help him fund more anti-gay, constitutional right stripping campaigns.

Did you say anything about the unfortunate pairing of This American Life and Cinemark theaters...to anyone...on air or off?
Posted by patrick on April 25, 2009 at 9:58 AM
5
I like the title of these posts...the full quote is "and they shall know we are Christians by our love for one another." So, really, you're right, those violating this statement are in fact, NOT Christians, whatever they might call themselves.
Posted by Joshua on April 25, 2009 at 10:06 AM
6
omg, these guys were fucking crazy:

"A terse notation in Pushia's planning calendar for Feb. 5, the day after Wallace was found dead in a Leakin Park bathroom stall from multiple gunshot wounds to the head and back, reads: "L.W. project completed," police said."

*patrick: get a blog
Posted by ariel on April 25, 2009 at 10:46 AM
7

A good preacher should have these properties and virtues; first, to teach systematically; secondly, he should have a ready wit; thirdly, he should be eloquent; fourthly, he should have a good voice; fifthly, a good memory; sixthly, he should know where to make an end; seventhly, he should be sure of his doctrine; eighthly, he should venture and engage body and blood, wealth and honour, in the word; ninthly, he should suffer himself to be mocked and jeered of every one.

http://wmson.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/ma…
Posted by 95 Tears on April 25, 2009 at 10:47 AM
8
I am so very sorry.
Posted by kim in portland on April 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM
9
Sick sociopathic fucker. I really hope he doesn't get out of prison in eight or ten years on "good behavior," because somebody who would do something this cold and calculating isn't going to be reformed.

I also hope that folks who read this get the real point - that Christianity and morality (or, yes, any religion and morality) are not related to one another in any real way. I especially hope this message sinks in with people who are both moral and Christian, because I know you're out there; when they day comes in which your moral compass and your religion conflict, as, say, during a vote on civil rights for homosexuals, choose morality, okay?

Don't write this off as "Well, he wasn't a REAL Christian." We nonbelievers have been pointing out for a long time now that there are good atheists and bad Christians. There are also good Christians and bad atheists, and I think that the wild, completely uncorrelated nature of the distribution would make the point pretty clear - you have both (a)morality AND a (non)religion. They aren't synonymous, nor do they even generally go together. Get them both right.
Posted by balderdash on April 25, 2009 at 12:00 PM
10
Yet they never cease telling others what to do. See, we mostly grew up in "good Christian homes" so we have first hand knowledge of the hypocrisy that is Chritianity, whereas the opposite is not true.
Posted by Vince on April 25, 2009 at 1:27 PM
11
So the bastard convinces numerous people to make him a beneficiary and doesn't even have the decency to be patient.
Posted by keshmeshi on April 25, 2009 at 1:39 PM
12
Thanks Balderdash and Vince,

There are some of us, who do not find a conflict between what the Bible says and morality. We are the ones who strive to follow it instructions and apply it to our own lives. To deny civil rights to our neighbors goes against our intructions to love our neighbors as ourselves. It has been my experience that morality and religion are not dependent upon each other, although the two can work together. In the end we have to be able to live with ourselves, and give answer to our conscience, to have peace.
Posted by kim in portland on April 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM
13
Ironically, he wasn't a legal beneficiary, which the insurance companies would challenge for any significant amount (i.e. over $10k). To be a legal beneficiary, one has to be either related or married. He never would have seen the money, even if he got away with the hit.

(Which brings one back to the topic of gay marriage: some companies respect civil unions. Some do not. And some change their mind depending on how much they suddenly have to pony.)
Posted by Uriel-238 on April 25, 2009 at 2:32 PM
14
@4
Dan is a whore.
He would suck the CEO of Cinemark's dick for a buck.
Maybe for three bits.
Posted by Dan makes Obama look like a pillar of courage on April 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM
15
Dan is right.
All religion is bad.
All pastors are corrupt.
All of them.

I knew a black lady who could work but collected welfare instead.
All black ladies are lazy welfare queens.
All of them.

I know a black guy who had fathered 4 children by 4 different women.
He wasn't married to any of them.
Didn't support any of his kids.
I knew the guy.
All black guys are lazy manwhores.

Did I mention the guy also held up a gas station when he was 18?
And he slapped several of the women around when he was drunk.
All black guys are violent criminals, too.
Everyone of them.
None of them are any good.
Especially the ones over in Africa.

You can read about them on slog every day.
Shooting people in the buttocks and laughing about it and manwhoring around.

Every lazy criminal worthless black.
Every last one of them.

I knew this guy.
Posted by you learn after awhile on April 25, 2009 at 3:06 PM
16
@4
patrick,
I admire your persistence on this issue.
But you're not going to get an answer from Dan.

When Dan called for a boycott after Prop 8 he wasn't meaning anything that would cost him or cause him any discomfort, no siree.

That is for others.

Dan doesn't mind boycotting Mormons, for example. They were, after all, a whopping 1% of the electorate in California. (Of course, he called for a boycott of Utah, that will really teach California a lesson!
He noticeably didn't call for a boycott of blacks, however; even though he ranted on for months about how they voted 73% against gay marriage and were ungrateful civil rights traitors.
A boycott of Mormons is pretty painless for Dan:
He's probably never even been to Utah so he won't have to change his ski plans;
SLOG is full of rabidly Mormophobic haters so calling for a boycott works great with the locals; the equivalent of George Wallace standing in the doorway of an Alabama school hissing 'nigger!'.
And if the only people hurt by a gay boycott of Utah are gay service employees in Salt Lake and Park City, well, hey- it's for the good of the cause!-after all.
The cause, of course, being putting and keeping Dan in some spotlight.
And maybe most important, Mormons don't have an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson who might try to embarrass Dan; or an OJ Simpson who might try to kick his ass; so a boycott of Mormons seems a pretty safe bet compared to blacks.

As for Cinemark, you answered your own question.
Dan isn't going to jeopardize a paycheck.
Not for the cause.
Posted by CaliHomo on April 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM
17
Hey CaliHomo (and #14 and even #6)...

Thanks for at least responding to my comment. No one said a peep earlier this week. I wrote to This American Life about their partnership with Cinemark and haven't heard from them. I posted a diary at Pam's House Blend that didn't attract any attention.

I also wrote to Mike Signorile to ask him what he thinks about Savage's boycott busting. But then again, Signorile was just as "shocked" as Savage was (6 months later) to hear that the No on 8 campaign ignored a letter Obama wrote announcing his opposition to the amendment in California even though the story was in the New York Times...Savage is a newspaper editor, after all, and that story somehow didn't make it to his paper.

There is a line that homos like these won't cross. I guess they know how to talk about having integrity but stopped acting ethically long ago.
Posted by patrick on April 25, 2009 at 8:17 PM
18
@4: how was he supposed to know that the CEO of Cinemark contributed to no on 8?
Posted by guy on April 25, 2009 at 10:37 PM
19
Hi all,

Boycotts should be a bit porous--by design. Trying to hold airtight picketlines is what began the corruption of the unions, creating an us-them, confrontational mentality and leading directly to physical violence.

Anyone who doesn't know where Dan stands on this issue is just out of the loop. He's done so much already, he's got a life-time pass on every boycott from here on.

Best all,

New Left Conservative # 1

Posted by New Left Conservative # 1 on April 25, 2009 at 10:54 PM
20
Porous? Is that what Dan meant when he said:

"In the wake of Prop 8 millions of gays and lesbians all over the country have decided that we're no longer going to play by the old rules. We're not going to let people kick our teeth down our throats and then run and hide behind "Nothing personal-just my private religious beliefs!" That game's over."

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

And that was written in response to the reaction over a $1500 contribution to Prop 8. The CEO of Cinemark gave 6 times that much money and it didn't stop Dan from eating his words. I guess his paycheck even got in the way of him asking TAL about the dilemma.

So much for not letting people kick our teeth down our throats...and running and hiding.

Are you hiding, Dan?
Posted by patrick on April 25, 2009 at 11:10 PM
21
@19
"Anyone who doesn't know where Dan stands on this issue is just out of the loop.

Everyone knows where Dan stands-

Dan stands for
DAN fucking SAVAGE!
Posted by screw you and yours! love, Dan on April 26, 2009 at 6:11 AM
22
19

The difference is that Dan doesn't have his hand in Richard Raddon's wallet. (nice link @20)
Raddon doesn't realize a few bucks thrown Dan's way might have saved his job.
Is that porous enough for you?
Posted by $ituational ethi¢s are $o ea$y on¢e you learn the rule$ on April 26, 2009 at 6:18 AM
23
Did you read this great post on Slog?:

"Homosexual Rights Blogger Gets Rich Whoring For Prop 8 Supporter"

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Posted by hypocrisy will make your ass leak, Dan on April 26, 2009 at 6:23 AM
24
@20
It all depends on how much Dan is making while you are getting you teeth kicked down your throat.
Posted by It all depends, don't you see? on April 26, 2009 at 6:28 AM
25
yall know that muslims and jews do a bunch of stupid bullshit too, right? some equal time please - and I hate christians!
Posted by christians are not the only assholes on April 26, 2009 at 9:20 AM
26
#18 - Dan would know about the CEO of Cinemark because he wrote about the boycotts (at least once) and the research that was going in to discovering who helped fund the Yes on 8 campaign.

This attention getting campaign (http://www.nomilkforcinemark.com/) that started in November helped attracted attention from some of Dan's favorite blogs: Towelroad, AmericaBlog and Joe.My.God. He and/or his staff borrow from those blogs and refer to them regularly.

At the very least, if he somehow never heard of the No Milk for Cinemark campaign, I posted comments on his posts last Sunday and Monday that included links to all of this information as well as a link from TAL showing a long, long list of Cinemark theaters in California that are participating in the broadcast of the event.

He knew in time to say something - either here or to the TAL people to get clarification - or at least to raise hell about the position he was put in by performing and being paid...and drawing a sell out crowd in San Francisco.

Dan was pretty emphatic about the boycotts and the backlash...why does he not have a problem with his boycott busting participation?

He sure had a problem with NPR when they were not being fair and transparent with their coverage:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Posted by p on April 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy