Oh my, it has hit the fan.
Phil Robertson ignited a firestorm of criticism that engulfed him following a GQ interview in which he spoke about his views on what he believes is immorality. That interview has resulted in his Robertson’s suspension from the show “Duck Dynasty.” A sample of what he said:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
They take their religion seriously:
And then, of course, there is their faith, which plays no small role here. During the family’s initial negotiations about the show with A&E, Jase told me, “the three no-compromises were faith, betrayal of family members, and duck season.” That refusal to betray their faith or one another has been a staple of every media article about the Robertson family. It’s their elevator pitch, and it has made them into ideal Christian icons: beloved for staking out a bit of holy ground within the mostly secular, often downright sinful, pop culture of America.
And they’re not shy about it
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”
The interviewer pushed on and asked Phil what he considered sinful and opened Pandora’s box:
What, in your mind, is sinful?
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Then he added something important and germane:
“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
Hang on to that.
The reactions were swift. Robertson was suspended from his show by the A&E network, something of such apparent import that even the NY Times took note. And here we’ll being to examine how this event is being framed:
Mr. Robertson, who travels the country preaching, graphically denounced gay sex in the magazine and called it a sin.
They made it sound as though Robertson singled out homosexuality as a sin. He didn’t.
There was outrage, complete with misrepresentation. From Eric Sasson at the WSJ:
After an interview appeared in GQ in which he equated homosexuality to bestiality, used a quote from Corinthians which likened gays to “drunkards” and “prostitutes,” and questioned the “logic” of gay sexual practices, Phil Robertson has been suspended indefinitely from A&E’s hit show, “Duck Dynasty.”
Other than Phil being suspended, none of that is true. There was soul searching:
I’m reminded of something Bill Maher said during the height of the Paula Deen controversy: “Do we always have to make people go away?” I think the question applies in this situation, too.
Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them? One of the biggest pop culture icons of today just took center stage to “educate” us about sexuality. I see this as an opportunity to further the discussion, to challenge his limited understanding of human desire, to engage with him and his rather sizeable audience—most of whom, by the way, probably share his views—and to rise above the endless sea of tweet-hate to help move our LGBT conversations to where they need to go.
GK Chesterton said that bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” If he is right—and he usually is—then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.
But that was only the beginning. Duck Dynasty is the most popular program in cable history and golly do people feel strongly about it. Duck Dynasty fans took to the interweb quickly. A “Boycott A&E” page was set up on Facebook and it has generated 750,000 “likes” as of last count.
The hits were coming so fast that the administrator of the page was suspended for 12 hours. Among the comments:
“I am going to buy a duck call from Duck Commander. I have never owned a gun or gone hunting in my life,” Watson L. Clark stated.
Teddy NeSmith said: “I stand for the U.S. Constitution and the 1st. Amendment, Phil can say anything he wishes about his religion.”
At least one sponsor is standing behind Phil Robertson.
The statement of Robertson’s hiatus released by A&E said this:
“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”
OK, that’s fine, but let’s have a look at some of the suggestions A&E has offered to the Robertson’s. Following alleged complaints about references to God and guns Phil told A&E:
“God and guns are part of our everyday lives [and] to remove either of them from the show is unacceptable.”
According to a post 93.1 The Wolf put in their Facebook page, Phil also said: “If we can’t pray to God on the show, then we will not do the show.”
In April Robertson said that on the one hand A&E bleeped out words to make it appear the Robertson’s were using vulgarities when none was being used and on the other hand wanted them to stop referring to Jesus.
Here is the interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_0XS1vaX-M
Robertson hinted at why the editors wanted to delete references to Jesus:
“So I said, ‘Why would you cut out ‘In Jesus’ name?’ They said, ‘Well those editors are probably doing that. They just think that they don’t want to offend some of the Muslims or something.”
It would be illuminating to know who was offended, especially if it turned out to be Muslims who were offended as they share much with Phil Robertson. Islam’s view on homosexuality:
Islamic Shari’ah law is extracted from both the Qur’an and Muhammad’s Sunnah (found in the Hadith and Sira). Islamic jurisprudence are expansion of the laws contained within them by Islamic jurists. Therefore, they are seen as the laws of Allah. You need only look to the rulings under Shari’ah to see the accepted mainstream interpretation of Islam and its commandments to its followers. Homosexuality under this law, is not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God.
In the case of homosexuality, how it is dealt with differs between the four mainline schools of Sunni jurisprudence today, but what they all agree upon is that homosexuality is worthy of a severe penalty.
“When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes.”
“Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.” (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)
And just for completeness:
As Salaamu Alaikum! (The peace of God be with you!)
Homosexuality is wrong, a sin, in Islam. Of that there really can be no dispute. See the excellent articles already on-line cited at the end of this article for the citations from the Qur’an. The point of this article is to try to put this into some reasonable perspective.
Sex outside of marriage is forbidden. It does not matter whether it is fornication, adultery, bestiality, pedophilia or homosexuality. Many homosexuals claim they were born that way, they can’t help being homosexual. The truth is that man has an urge for sexual gratification. As rationalizing (more than rational) beings, people will always try to find a justification for any activity which they find enjoyable. As to the claim by some homosexuals that it is genetic, this has been decisively disproven. Studies have shown that children of homosexuals are no more likely to be homosexual than any other children. If it were hereditary, many more of them would be homosexual. In our society, homosexuality frequently seems to result from a failed male role model, a father who is abusive or grossly negligent. Bestiality and pedophilia are certainly natural as well. Every society has men who use children sexually. Everywhere sheep or goats are kept, they are used for sex. So the argument that homosexuality is natural or inborn has little persuasive power for Muslims.
Fornication, adultery, bestiality, pedophilia and homosexuality you say?
So let’s recap. A&E suspended Phil Robertson for his voicing his religious belief that homosexuality is illogical and against his religion and A&E is a strong supporter of the LGBT community and A&E wanted to eliminate references to Jesus as that offends Muslims whose religion believes homosexuality is wrong and illogical.
Makes perfect sense.
A&E has discovered touching the third rail of contemporary culture can have some shocking consequences and right now Duck Dynasty is that third rail.
You have to love it. It’ll be really interesting to see what happens next.
UPDATE
I forgot to include this. There are some at A&E who are not bothered by Robertson’s opinion:
An openly gay couple on A&E’s “Storage Wars: New York” is NOT offended by the homophobic comments made by fellow A&E’er and “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson — telling TMZ, they just feel bad for him … because man ass beats vagina any day of the week. Chris Morelli and Tad Eaton tell us, “We could give a s**t what he thinks … [man ass] is tighter.”
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
The intolerance of the Gay community is appalling!! What happened to the America where you can freely express your views??
I think more Americans then we realize are growing very tired of the Political Correctness game the Liberals have started…
The Gay and Lesbian “community” cannot ‘force’ (straight) people into “believing” or “agreeing” that their lifestyles are “normal” and therefore “justified” in everyone’s eyes (including God’s). Ain’t gonna happen…
In my opinion, Phil Robertson said a lot of things and pointed out a lot of ‘sins’ but I did not find anything “vile” or loathsome in his thoughts on homosexuals….or other sexual orientations…or Jesus or God or the fact they actually have a close family unit….a traditional family… The family that prays together stays together…
Homosexuals will have sex in a public restroom, bath house or just about anywhere…with just about anyone…and these are the same people who now say they have a market on what is ‘vile’ and not ‘vile’ spoken or other wise ?? They are kidding right?
They (LGBT) are people who ‘force’ their opinion onto others for ‘justification’ and when they do not get the result they want… like true liberals they attack… really despicable…and tiresome…
Homosexuality has become a protected class, don’t you dare say anything that the deviant class doesn’t like. You see what happens, but I see a change coming, just hope it gains speed. Ducks stand tall for their LORD and their way of life and I say I’m with them what ever it takes.
Yet, put a crucifix in a jar of urine, and that’s not only perfectly acceptable “speech,” it’s art.
Wow. Just wow. There are people who point out that the Greek of Paul’s day had no word for “homosexual” and that he was talking about “rent boys” not getting to heaven. There are those who go out of their way to say gay people are going to hell because of that passage (and take maybe a little too much joy in thinking and saying that). Then there are people like Phil Robertson, who thumps that Bible because Jesus turned his life around. No surprise that he would consider homosexual acts a sin, and no surprise that that keeps some people from paying attention to what he said about respecting other people instead of condemning them. Respect them all, and let God sort them out … Ha! Gotta love it!
And what a shock that a heterosexual man wouldn’t see the point in (one kind of) sex with a man! Accustomed as I am to the gay thought police ’round these parts, part of me wonders if some of the outrage stems from the fact that Phil Robertson just isn’t impressed with the thought of it. What, something gay that isn’t fabulous? I note he didn’t act all grossed out, he just said he doesn’t see the point when (from his point of view) sex with a woman offers so much more.
Phil Robertson apparently can keep his head when all about him are losing theirs … and that makes him a man, my son! 🙂
Read more: The ‘Duck Dynasty’ Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil’s | TIME.com
To say that homosexuality is wrong is to be consistent with Christian teachings. It’s not a ‘judgment’ For the Pope to ignore it or be accused of Judging is a little disingenuous. It is the Pope’s ‘job’ to say what is consistent with Christian belief, ignoring it is the same as ignoring ‘any’ sin against God.
IstandwithPhil.com petition.
I will follow Duck Dynasty to their new network.
A&E can go to h_ll!
At the crux I think this has gone viral to take the heat off obamacare and the new budget bill, both of which are bad legislation. This is the new shiny object for the media.
To me Phil, like any American, is entitled to his opinion.
So its a “religious belief” that a vagina is more desirable than a man’s anus? Gee, that sounds like a personal opinion to me. But apparently if you follow up any personal opinion, no matter how insulting and bigoted, with some shallow nod to religion, that makes it perfectly fine. “Religious”, in fact. Just about any terrible thing that’s been done or said since the dawn of time has been justified in religious terms. This is the same brand of logic the Westboro Baptist Church uses. They’re just expressing their “religious beliefs”. Should we put them up on a pedestal too? I personally could care less what this guy thinks or says, but reflexively rallying around his comments like they have important religious significance, rather than being the rambling incoherence of a silly old bigot, is the height of lunacy.
As for A&E, they made a business decision. They have a brand that extends far beyond Duck Dynasty they have to protect. So are we now telling A&E how they can and can’t run their business because it offends your “religious” sensibilities? What happened to the free market?
@Tom:
He said that was his opinion:
His religious beliefs were summed up like this:
I have no idea why GLAAD is upset, he pretty much called everyone out. He didn’t just compare homosexuals with bestiality, he also compared adulterers as well. And Jesus said:
That takes care of just about every straight guy I know.
True, and viewers get to make a decision as well. That is basically what this boils down to; A&E is going to make their decision, the Robertson family is going to make their decision, and viewers are going to do the same.
Phil Robertson made a statement concerning his beliefs based on a question asked of him. There was no hate in the statement.
You have to admit it’s pretty funny that the left is jumping all over his beliefs though. The same left that invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia in 2007. Not that they speak ill of homosexuals in Iran, they just kill them.
@Aqua:
I don’t think “the Left”, as in every person who is left of center, is responsible for the President of Iran speaking at Columbia. But let’s take the issue at hand and compare the general reactions. The Left is taking issue with his comments because they are insulting to homosexuals. That is the reason in a nutshell. This isn’t a dry religious take on whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It’s puerile mockery of his take on the private habits of homosexuality, basically “ew, icky!”. Quite a long way from the Pope’s “Who am I to judge?” The Right, meanwhile, is – in typically Zimmermanesque fashion – hyperventilating about political correctness and trying to create another impeachable martyr to Liberalism. To that end, the content of the comments themselves or the man’s character are apparently irreverent. Even more insane is painting this as a 1st Amendment issue. If he worked in a retail store or a professional office environment and said these things, no one would bat an eye if his employer disciplined him.
@Tom:
The left is upset because he thinks the private habits of homosexuality are icky? Really?
I agree with the Pope on this. However:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/world/europe/pope-francis-gay-priests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
No Christian should judge others and Phil Robertson said as much later on.
So what that he finds the private habits of homosexuality icky. I find large women walking around in yoga pants icky. And if I walked around in yoga pants, there would be people (a vast majority of people) that would find it just as icky.
@Tom:
He didn’t say them on his show. He said them in an interview by a magazine that has nothing to do with the show. He did not call for persecuting those afflicted with homosexual urges, and he commented on heterosexual sins as well. Equating Phil with the WBC is typical leftist agitprop with no basis in reality.
Certainly A&E has the right to fire him, and the majority of Americans who agree with Phil have the right to boycott A&E for their decision.
The inconsistency of the alleged science-loving left in supporting full throat the evolutionary xead end of homosexual behavior makes no sense.
@Aqua:
In your search for the PC Boogeyman, I think you’re missing the point. GLAAD and others sympathetic to their cause speak out because these type of things have real world effects, i.e. some gay kid getting his a*s pummeled after school. Just like he has a right to voice his opinion on the topic, they have a right to push back. Apparently this person is some kind of celebrity, so it’s fair to assume he has fans, and those fans might be predisposed to his opinions. So when he mocks gays and makes it sound like their acts are disgusting, and let’s not forget wrong per the Bible, there are people out there who will listen. For all the talk of the “gay agenda” we are not very far removed from a time when anyone could discriminate against a gay person with impunity. Actually, that time is today in some states, where anti-gay criminal laws remain on the books. The guy may have no intention of provoking people toward bullying or worse, but you know what they say about unintended consequences.
@Pete:
Maybe the left supports gays in their struggle against discrimination for a simpler reason, because it’s the nice thing, the decent thing – dare I say the right thing? – to do.
@Tom:
Most if not all of his fans are already predisposed to his opinions. And homosexuality is wrong per the Bible. So are half a trillion other things. Including:
Leviticus 19:27 reads “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.”
Leviticus 19:19 reads, “You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.”
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 reads “If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.”
The Bible is full of stuff we can’t do, including the Top 10. Then Jesus came along and through His grace we no longer have to cut the hand off a woman that grabs a guys junk to save her husband in a fight. Jesus told us to fix our own faults before we go seeking the faults of others. He told us that if we were without sin we could cast the first stone, yet there is no one. It’s doesn’t mean we can point out things that are wrong, it just means we have no room to judge. And for the record, finding something icky isn’t judgmental, it’s just a reaction.
Phil Robertson isn’t trying to provoke bullying. And unintended consequences? The left needs to pick up their stones and go home on that one. No one on the left is free of that sin.
@Tom:
An “opinion” supported by 97-98% of nature. And pleeeeze, don’t come back with some b/s story about penquins.
Ah, the ever reliable liberal catch words “BIGOT!!! RACIST!!! HOMOPHOBE!!!” No one is more intolerant than those demanding tolerance.
Well, since we know that you are speaking of not just the “religious” but Christianity, I dare you to go on some Muslim website and rail on the terrible things done by Muslims in the name of their religion. Be sure to give your full name when you do it.
Kooks, without a doubt. Perhaps you can list the number and names of those other religious groups that support Phelps and his bunch of miserable whackos?
The Democrats would if it was politically expedient.
,
Then why even comment on it? Obviously you do care, or we would not be subjected to your comments about it.
Again, “BIGOT!!! RACIST!!! HOMOPHOBE!!!”
Got anything else beside pejoratives?
http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/18/gay-storage-wars-chris-morelli-tad-eaton-sex-duck-dynasty/#ixzz2o2ZhSPTt
It seems, since those two were not fired for doing the same thing Phil Robertson did, which is give an outside interview, A & E is wanting to “protect” its brand.
Do you see any petitions demanding that A & E fire their two queer Storage Wars stars?
And [could be considered] insulting to drunkards, adulterers, and every other group he listed. But only those who demand that we accept their behavior as normal (the whole demand for tolerance went out the window a long time ago and now the demand is for acceptance as normal) are the ones showing just how intolerant they are.
@Aqua:
There is a way that a respectful, humble and caring person frames his religious beliefs regarding the actions of another. I pointed out the Pope’s comment as an example, while being fully aware of the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality. That’s someone who did not cast a stone when offered an opportunity in an interview. And there is the language of the bully, the language of mockery and stigmatization, the language of someone disparaging a group of people because he finds them repellent. I feel that Robertson’s comments are much more in line with the latter than the former. Just my opinion, of course, as you see it differently.
I should also add that Roberston made comments about blacks that are much more off the range than his comments about gays, which you rightly point out are in line with the way many people currently think.
@Tom:
You mean like the events at Freddie’s Fashion Mart? Why are you not screaming for MSNBC to fire Al Sharpton?
@Tom:
Yeah, his comments about being raised “white trash” along side of blacks was really “racist”, wasn’t it? Perhaps you are not aware that many whites, in pre-CRA America, lived in squalor that was as bad, if not worse, than their black counterparts. Or do you, in your stupidity, think that the term “share cropper” only applied to blacks?
@Tom:
I’ve pointed out my views on this. I’m in no position to judge the sins of others; God knows I have a rap sheet in Heaven 50 miles long. The libertarian in me says government has no role in marriage as long as the religious freedoms of others remain in place.
Even so, I have no problems with what Phil Robertson said. He didn’t single out just homosexuals, he called out just about every single one of us. Yes, his personal opinion about private homosexual habits may have been a bit crass, but it isn’t anything almost every straight guy in the world doesn’t think already.
GLAAD has done themselves and their community much more harm by coming out against this the way they did. The backlash is huge and is going to become even larger if Duck Dynasty is pulled from production. What GLAAD did is no different than what religious zealots do when they call for shows to be cancelled because they find something distasteful. Change the channel!
If GLAAD and the left had come out and said we find his remarks to be bigoted and distasteful, that would have been the end of it. Anyone that watched the show that felt the same would probably quit watching the show.
The point is that tolerance is a two way street and the liberal left fails to recognize this fact.
@Tom: 11
If I understand that statement and question, if the issue of priests exercising their freedom to commit homosexual acts within the structure of the Church were brought to the Pope to decide, right or wrong? He would choose ‘no decision’ I’m not a judge? Kiss the Catholic Church goodbye if that were to happen. Catholics look to the Pope for guidance, not a ‘no decision’, no opinion Pope.
@Aqua: 12 Aqua, you said:
I’m not sure what that means, exactly? ‘no Christian should judge others.’ So the Pope is the supreme guide for Catholics on earth, but he can’t have or express an opinion on whether something is ‘right or wrong’. So if the question comes up, “So if a priest wants to engage in homosexuality, hey, who am I to say it’s not okay, go right ahead, I’m not a judge” So does that then mean that the Church has no opinion, it’s up to each individual to decide? What about killing someone (though I don’t equate that with homosexuality) is that okay? I’m not a judge. Okay for your wife to have an affair, I’m not a judge. Stating an opinion, which is what Phil did, is not wrong, it is just an opinion. If the Pope has no opinion of whether there should be any guidelines for Catholics, then what purpose does he serve? Gays apparently think homosexuality is ok, does that mean they are free to exercise their desires based on their opinion and Christians are not? Freedom of Speech means that if someone wants to say he doesn’t think homosexuality is right, he can say it and if someone wants to say he thinks homosexuality is ok, he can say it. In the case of Duck Dynasty, they should consult the words in the contract and if AE has the right to void the contract if they don’t like what Phil says about homosexuality then, fine. If they do not have the right, then they have to honor it. No judging, just opinion.
@Tom:
Tom are you saying that only the actions of persons that don’t like homosexuality have unintended consequences or does a homosexual seducing or having relations with non-homosexuals have unintended consequences also? Does the pendulum swing both ways?
Homosexuals have been losing on many fronts lately.
Their ”studies” supposedly proving they parent as effectively as heterosexual couples have been debunked.
Their GLAAD statement in this Duck Dynasty regard refers to ”loving and committed” non-heterosexual couples when studies show that type of pairing for gays is a rarity.
They used to claim to be around 10% of the population, now we know they are fewer than 3% of it.
Their leading men keep killing themselves via drugs.
HIV/AIDS is on the rise among them.
So, they try to ”kill the messenger” when Phil quotes a Bible verse they don’t like.
Odd that more often Muslims in the USA and the West are trying to bring Sharia (with its death penalty for homosexuals) to the whole world.
Only a few Muslim countries actually kill homosexuals…..Obama’s buddies in Iran do, as do Hamas in Gaza, the Saudis, Egypt under Obama’s buddy, Morsi, some parts of Afghanistan, etc.
But homosexuality is getting the death penalty in many other Islamic places, even UK, unofficially.
Men are thrown off buildings, they are beaten to death, they are stoned to death, shot, forced into ”suicide operations.” (There is ONE approved reason for anal sex. Getting one’s orifice large to hold explosives in a suicide operation.)
A few years ago a socialist nick-named ”Red” Ken Livingstone was mayor of London.
He wanted a march against Western involvement in Iraq in London.
Peacenics, many of them openly gay, tried to march along side London’s Muslims.
Heh.
They were beaten and threatened with death.
When the push came to the shove, Leftist Red Ken sided with the Islamists and dis-invited the gay peacenics for the march from that year on.
Gays should take a lesson.
But they are too wrapped up in their own pleasure-seeking to pay attention.
PS, Ahmadinejad got a huge unplanned laugh line at Columbia U., when he said there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Those who laughed, had they been in Iran at the time, would have been in a world of hurt.
@Redteam:
It was referenced inasmuch as it relates to what is in a person’s heart and their relationship with God. As for the Pope, I am Catholic and the Pope has the authority (within the Church) to stand in judgement. As for everyone else, I leave you with Matthew 7: 1-5, the words of Jesus:
@Aqua:
But Pope Francis denies that is his role. I don’t agree with him, I think it is about 95% of his role.
A quote from your quote:
But the Pope said he is not the judge, Phil was stating an opinion, not a judgment.
If I say that in my opinion, it is wrong to be a homosexual, what plank does that put in my eye? It implies that there is always a larger ‘wrong’ than that which the person that is stating an opinion on. Maybe so, but that doesn’t change the opinion.
@Redteam:
Yet he already has in some respects. He has come down hard on pedophile priests and he stripped a Bishop of his fancy house. He has stood in judgement in some respects. When asked about gay priests getting into Heaven, he said who am I to judge. But if a gay priest was in a relationship, he would have the priest defrocked.
When Jesus came upon a group of people preparing to stone a prostitute, He told them that he who is without sin, cast the first stone. While Jesus could certainly have been that person, he did not cast a stone. He said go and sin no more.
Agreed and I even said as much in an earlier quote. You’re being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
@Aqua:
And what do you take from that? Do you think that no matter the action of another, we have no right to judge them? Do you think that, as a society, we do not have the right to determine what is acceptable behavior in our society, and what is unacceptable behavior?
Christ said:
“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
What does that mean to you? That we have no right to judge others for any action? Or does it mean that the same process by which we judge others for their actions, will also be the same process for which we are judged for the same actions?
When Christ told the crowd to not throw stones at the prostitute, what do you think the chances were that he knew that there were men in that crowd that had sought the services of the prostitute, being just as sinful as she? He did not say that the prostitute had not sinned, but that those who were without sin could throw the first stone.
@retire05:
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t believe He was speaking in regards to societal guidelines and acceptable behavior. It is my understanding that He was talking about our personal lives. As in who am I to judge the sins of another? I’ll use homosexuality as an example. The Bible says it is wrong, but the Bible also says a lot of other things are wrong as well. So who are we to judge the sins of one group over the sins of another?
I wasn’t there. I did say that Jesus told the prostitute to go and sin no more.
@Tom:
So we should expect the left to stand against islam for actually killing people afflicted with homosexual urges, right? Instead of only attacking someone following his Christian belief that acting on any kind of immoral sexual behavior is a sin.
(Crickets…..)
Tom
“Nice”, via etymonline.com
http://etymonline.com/?term=nice
late 13c., “foolish, stupid, senseless,” from Old French nice (12c.) “careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish,” from Latin nescius “ignorant, unaware,” literally “not-knowing,” from ne- “not” (see un-) + stem of scire “to know”
To be “nice” means to “pretend you know nothing”.
Jesus wasn’t “nice”. Phil Robertson isn’t either. Good on him.
@Aqua:
Not trying to be. It just strikes me as strange that the Pope is trying too hard to be ‘politically’ correct. As we both know, it is his place to be judgmental, whether he is a ‘judge’ or not. If he did not judge, when a pedophile priest came before him, he would be forced to say, ‘he who is without sin, cast the first stone’, go and sin no more. no more? What does that imply? But, if he can’t ‘judge’ the rightness or wrongness of being a pedophile priest, how can he remove him?. Answer, he judges him and removes him, but then is hypocritical and says he can’t ‘judge’ him. He should say what his flock expects of him.
@Aqua:
Fair enough. I have less of a problem with the man’s comments than with predictable Right wing victim complex. Say what you want about GLAAD, but their constituency actually have real reason to worry about being real victims. I’ve noticed that American conservatives enjoy donning the mantle of victimhood at every opportunity, but its always weightless because the threat is an illusion. Unless, of course, all those victims of Trayvon Martin from last year want to step forward and show us their scars.
@retire05:
I’ve often labelled you predictable, but in one respect you are truly surprising, and that’s in your truly bizarre and frightening interpretations of scripture and Church doctrine.
@Aqua:
Do you think that Jesus made a separation between our personal responsibility to live according to His laws and our societal responsibility to live according to His laws? Can you really remove the individual from the societal?
Perhaps, if you become a hermit and live in a cave away from all other members of the human race.
Every society sets societal norms. By doing so, we “judge” others.
Christ never said that beating your wife is a sin, yet we put people in jail, and try them for abuse of women. Did Christ ever say that having sex with a child was wrong? No, but because we understand that we are to protect children, we, as a society, make it illegal, and judge those who commit pedophilia.
And what was the subject of her sin?
@Tom:
And what do you find “truly bizarre and frightening” in my interpretations?
@Pete:
The introduction of an irrelevant strawman into a debate: the hallmark of a strong argument. I’m sure gays are grateful to conservatives for not quite wanting to outright kill them. That’s very generous.
@Taqiyyologist:
Well, I feel foolish . Thank you for the etymology lesson.
@Redteam:
I don’t know where everyone is getting this “Pope Francis is politically correct” stuff. He was asked a question and he answered it. This is the whole story:
@Tom:
I don’t know anyone that is screaming victimhood on the right as far as this is concerned. As I said earlier, you were right that A&E made a business decision. The Robertson’s will do likewise and the viewers of A&E will do the same depending on the outcome.
Now, if you want to say there isn’t a war on Christianity, I think that would require a whole new thread.
@retire05:
Oy, I’ll try one more time. Since this post originated with a response to an interview question concerning homosexuality, I’ll use it as an example….again.
Now, you may be free of sin, I have no idea. I on the other hand am not. For me to judge homosexuals as sinful while I struggle with my own sins, would be self righteous. In that regard, judge not or you will be judged applies the way Jesus intended. Since adultery is a sin, and since Jesus said if you lust for a woman in your heart you have committed adultery, I’m certainly guilty. I’m also guilty at times of pride, envy, wrath (usually in traffic) and a whole list of other sins. With that list, who am I to judge the sins of others?
I’m not saying I couldn’t sit on a jury and evaluate the evidence of a murder case and make a decision. Jesus didn’t tell us to toss our critical thinking out the window.
@Aqua:
I think you are a bit confused. Would you not be judging the sins of another if you were to be seated on a jury to determine the guilt of another’s sin of murder? Would you not have to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused had committed the sin of murder? Would you not be making a judgment on the actions of the accused? Or can you, in your mind, separate crime from sin? If so, explain.
I think you better dig out your Bible. It was not prostitution that the woman was accused of.
I also think that you misunderstand Christ’s words. He said we will be judged, as we judge others. In our system, you will be judged in a murder trial just as you would judge another. That is called equality under the law.
And what does Dan Savage, the hero of the radical queer movement, have to say about Sarah Palin, a Christian woman?
So I am anxiously waiting for all you liberals to denounce Dan Savage and demand that he no longer be given a platform on MSNBC or any other media outlet.
Thank you Phil Robertson for speaking the truth. Me and Phil are going to go around Louisiana and lynch all the queers.
“Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality”
When gays have birthdays, they don’t mention everything they don’t want but say positively what they do want.
Likewise, Jesus didn’t negatively list every sexual variation He knew mankind would invent, but positively stated that marriage involves only a man and a woman!
Google or Yahoo “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up,” “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up,” and “USA – from Puritans to Impure-itans.”
Personally, I have no issues with the duck boys 1 way or the other. As far as the gay comments, I couldn’t care less.
It is however, hard to give Phil Robertson a pass on claiming that African Americans were perfectly content during the Jim Crow era, happy to be picking cotton, singing along, and then came welfare and promptly ruined their world. Robertson validates this because he worked side by side with them, hoed cotton with them, and witnessed their respect for the white man.
It’s hard to imagine that Robertson could make such a statement as he grew up in Louisiana, the heart of racial tension at a time of Rosa Parks, MLK, a dominant KKK, whippings, cross burnings, white owners raping black women at will, church bombings, 391 lynchings from 1882 and 1968, and where do I stop? Racism and such atrocities didn’t exist because Robertson didn’t see it “in his eyes”.
And maybe Robertson didn’t see it which ignorance can be forgiven. It’s possible I suppose that black workers were so oppressed that they dared not speak of ill will or resentment in front of a white person but rather show appreciation and respect as anything less could result in whippings or death or being burned out or a daughter raped or whatever retaliation so chosen by the owner.
So in fairness, I can’t speak for Mr. Robertson’s understanding of of the situation he lived in. There is however a need for a retraction from Phil Robertson. Not only is it a door he should have never opened but he left too much unanswered. He seems to hint at a suggestion of a need to “return to the good ole days” which is a rather disturbing concept. And somewhere in his statements suggests that government was never needed in the per-Civil Rights era, that such intrusion interfered with the happy lifestyle African Americans enjoyed, that bringing them out of the Jim Crow era has burdened them.
This ironically comes at a time when just last week, the RNC praised Rosa Parks for eradicating racism which brought prompt condemnation and the RNC immediately corrected. Robertson needs to step up, just as the RNC did, and admit his ignorance, assuming he spoke out of ignorance.
@retire05:
And that goes to the heart of your ignorance of the issue in general. Have Sarah Palins been the victims of systematic discrimination and violence throughout history? Does disparaging and stigmatizing Sarah Palin carry a potential cost for countless other Sarah Palins?
@retire05:
No, why don’t you explain since you obviously have all the answers.
The woman was accused of adultery. Since the man she committed adultery with was not accused as well, it is widely speculated that the woman was a prostitute.