December 19, 2013

Was Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson fired after likening homosexuality to bestiality?

Drudge's main headline is "ROASTED 'DUCK' LEADER FIRED AFTER GAY RANT," which links to The Hollywood Reporter story "'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks/The news comes after the reality star compared being gay to bestiality, drawing ire from LGBT groups including GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign."

First, is he fired? The whole next season is already filmed, so viewers will get all they want of Phil Robertson. But the network A&E has a corporate interest in distancing itself from him and appeasing the critics. If the show does well, he'll be back for the next season, and the controversy itself can be integrated into whatever new "reality" scenes they film. It's more PR. Everybody wins, including Phil, who isn't really being punished. These attacks work for him in that we see him standing by his religious beliefs even as he is attacked unfairly.

And the attacks are unfair. He didn't compare "being gay to bestiality." He put homosexual conduct — not the status of being gay — into a category of sins that included "sleeping around with this woman and that woman" as well as bestiality. We don't see the heterosexual men who enjoy multiple sex partners getting hotheaded over Phil Robertson. Why not? They're not organized to make political demands at the moment, but they haven't had to fight for the right to fornicate recently. So those who are organized and in the middle of a movement are taking Robertson's bait (or answering his duck call or whatever). It's "anti-gay." The "bestiality" business is forefronted.

This is the political game of the moment.

259 comments:

1 – 200 of 259   Newer›   Newest»
MadisonMan said...

I conflate Phil and Pat in all these posts.

Just once I'd like to see someone stand up to the whiners. This would have been a good case to do it, because IMO he's being railroaded.

TMink said...

Phil stated Biblical Christianity with eloquence and accuracy. It is offensive to many, Christ himself said that. The brouhaha is from people who have poor reading comprehension skills or liars eager to silence this point of view.

Trey

Brando said...

I don’t like any restraint on free speech (even if it’s private, non-governmental) but this is really no different than if a cable channel suspended a host for making unpatriotic statements. The channel has to answer to advertisers and the viewing public, and anything said or done that reflects on them will be punished accordingly. If A&E is more worried that Robertson’s comments will cause viewers to boycott or lose sponsors, then it is their right and their business decision to suspend. This is comparable to the Dixie Chicks making their comments about Bush, and radio stations taking them off their playlists.

Of course, it would be nice if instead of boycotting and threats, people used such occasions instead to openly discuss why their offended and their points of contention. It’s not healthy to have everyone afraid for their livelihoods every time they expound on some controversial subject.

TosaGuy said...

Phil Robertson did not use his words as weapons aimed to destroy and denigrate, unlike asshats like Martin Bashir and Alec Baldwin.

A@E is free to do what they want and get all the publicity they desire, but the outside forces calling for Robertson's head are fascistic in their feigned outrage.

SGT Ted said...

He was fired because the Stalinist tendencies of the Gay Left activist mob.

Seeing Red said...

The editors were already busted for editing their prayers.


EDH said...

Yea, and all that insinuation about gay marriage ushering in "plural marriage" next was just crazy talk.

One Man, One Woman. Or More.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/17/should-plural-marriage-be-legal

azaniamindset said...

"into a category of sins that included "sleeping around with this woman and that woman" as well as bestiality. "


Exactly. How stupid are the thought police?

This whole things is beyond ridiculous if it wasnt so "chilling". Phil Robertson has already said that he was getting off the show, so now Discovery takes the opportunity to claim he cant quit, they "indefinitely hiatused" him?


It hard to be cynical enough for this society. "Tolerance" and "Open Minded" were only marketing campaigns to be set aside like have a Coke and a Smile when the the campaign had ended. The gays now hold the levers of power, so quoting Corinthians in a magazine article unrelated to your tv show is now a firing offense.

Remember when "chilling effect" was a thing? I wonder what the google ngram for that looks like now- I doubt there is any longer any sympathy for those being chilled.

Lyle said...

Alec Baldwin calls them faggots and there isn't half the hoopla.

Haha.

PB Reader said...

As same-sex marriage is now being held up as bright, clean and pure, will bigamy get the same status?

PB Reader said...

As same-sex marriage is now being held up as bright, clean and pure, will bigamy get the same status?

garage mahal said...

Robertson has a bright career ahead of him at Fox.

Larry J said...

I believe anyone has the right to personally boycott anything for whatever reason. No one should be forced to support something that offends them. One of the most famous cases was the Montgomery Bus Boycotts back in the early civil rights era. The bus company tried to go to court to force an end to the boycott, in effect arguing that blacks didn't have the right to disagree with being forced to sit in the back of the bus. The courts rejected the suit.

At the same time, I believe no one has the right to try and get someone fired just because they said something disagreeable. You couldn't pay me to watch a Sean Penn movie but I don't try to keep him from making movies. He can be as big an asshole as he wishes and I'll choose to spend my money elsewhere.

There's also the one-sidedness of the whole thing that I dislike. The other side is prefectly free to say anything that I might find terribly offensive but I'm expected to walk on eggshells lest I offend them. Screw that. It's time to "punch back twice as hard."

Larry J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FleetUSA said...

The Lib, LGBT, etc groups are always quick to jump on a fresh victim. They sit by their Twitter, Facebook, etc. accounts salivating for another crucifixion - never once realizing eventually their free speech ox might get gored someday too.

Strelnikov said...

Well,he did commit the unforgivable sin of being an unabashed heterosexual - so he has to be punished.

RecChief said...

I read a story, can't remembe where, that basically said Phil knew exactly what he was doing, knew what the repercussions would be. The writer's position was that Phil was tired of the show, tired of the producers trying to get them to swear, tired of the producers trying to elicit "redneck talk".

Interesting how the champions of diversity stop at diversity of thought.

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brando said...

"Alec Baldwin calls them faggots and there isn't half the hoopla."

Really? How did you miss that?

Baldwin actually lost his job--Robertson I doubt will lose even a dime over this (and likely will have improved ratings). That's obviously because the Duck Dynasts are a big moneymaker for their channel, and Baldwin simply wasn't.

Also, of course, Baldwin made several nasty anti-gay slurs, while Robertson's opinions may have been wrongheaded to some, but were hardly rude or nasty. Apples and oranges!

garage mahal said...

The other side is prefectly free to say anything that I might find terribly offensive but I'm expected to walk on eggshells lest I offend them.

Ask Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir.

traditionalguy said...

The Gay spokesman on cable make it clear that "hate speech" is illegal in public.

Ergo: Christian speech is illegal in public.

Lyle said...

Brando,

There was a lot more quiet from certain quarters when Baldwin was calling gays faggots.

Yeah, he got let go eventually, but not immediately. And after calling them faggots.

Haha.

CatherineM said...

Remember when libs would say, "I disagree with what he says, but I would fight to defend his right to say it."?

How about how left leaning Hollywood still upset about the "black list" against communists? They said it was wrong that people weren't getting work because of their beliefs.

Why are people so blind to see that firing someone because of their religious beliefs or opinions is the same thing?

Larry J said...

Brando said...
"Alec Baldwin calls them faggots and there isn't half the hoopla."

Really? How did you miss that?

Baldwin actually lost his job--Robertson I doubt will lose even a dime over this (and likely will have improved ratings). That's obviously because the Duck Dynasts are a big moneymaker for their channel, and Baldwin simply wasn't.


From what I saw, Baldwin didn't start his gig at MSNBC until after making those comments. His show was cancelled sometime later but that likely was due to poor ratings.

harrogate said...

"And the attacks are unfair. He didn't compare 'being gay to bestiality.' He put homosexual conduct — not the status of being gay — into a category of sins that included 'sleeping around with this woman and that woman' as well as bestiality."

How does bestiality belong in the same "category" as these other things?

Brando said...

"There was a lot more quiet from certain quarters when Baldwin was calling gays faggots."

He did have his hypocritical defenders--as Polanski did because his rape wasn't "rape rape" (a phenomenon similar to "murder murder"). But I remember a lot of ink and pixels over that one, and with good reason.

betamax3000 said...

Phil Robertson and Pajama Boy in the Same News Cycle. Yin Always Wants More Yang.

MayBee said...

I went to a GLAAD event, and the cross-dressing host of the show told me she had to take out of her monologue any jokes about gays.
That's how humorless GLAAD is. People should feel more free to push against them.

I loved when someone on the other thread compared Robertson to the oh-so-celebrated new pope.

Also, on a related note, how much should non- religious people care if someone thinks they are sinning?

iowan2 said...

The A&E statement said that Phil's views were not the views of the Duck Dynasty Show.

That is exactly what the rub is though.

The Duck Dynasty Show is 100% about the core values (Views) of the Roberyson family.

Thats the rub.

How do the PC crowd square the circle, of these men attracting such a huge following without toeing the PC line?

betamax3000 said...

Pajama Boy Does NOT Watch Duck Dynasty, Not Even Ironically.

Revenant said...

Robertson has a bright career ahead of him at Fox.

He's 67 years old, rich, and president of a successful company. I rather doubt he spends a lot of time worrying about his entertainment industry career. :)

Pookie Number 2 said...

How does bestiality belong in the same "category" as these other things?

The Bible describes them all as sins.

(You don't have to agree that the Bible is an authoritative source, of course.)

jacksonjay said...


How does bestiality belong in the same "category" as these other things?

The discussion yesterday was about the desireable place for the pee-pee! Sooooooooo ????

It ain't about logic, it's about desireable!

Matthew Sablan said...

"How does bestiality belong in the same "category" as these other things?"

-- Is this a serious question? If so, I suggest you go take a Religion 101 class at a local college, in addition to covering the very basic definition of "sin," you might even get to learn about other, non-Christian religions.

Levi Starks said...

Phil was "fired" for making inconvenient statements concerning the design characteristics of the human body.

garage mahal said...

He's 67 years old, rich, and president of a successful company

Yea he'll be fine. Just experiencing a free market bump in the road.

Paddy O said...

This whole story brings up an interesting power dynamic that shows up in a lot of places.

The key issue in discrimination issues is one of power. The powerful person uses their bias to bypass or undermine the person without power.

The whole Civil Rights movement, liberation movement, etc. were based on the non-powerful using their collective means to address the people in power and bring change.

However, this is a very different situation now. The people in charge are often both the "discriminated class" and the people in power. Instead of actual issues of abuse of power the conversation shifts to vague (and thus never addressable) issues of "whiteness" or "heteronormativity". Terms that people who actual have power and authority can use to maintain both their victim status while having every indication of power and influence.

Revenant said...

How does bestiality belong in the same "category" as these other things?

Hint: he was discussing sin. All of those things are sins according to the Judeo-Christian god as presented in the Bible.

Pretty straightforward, really. Anything other than heterosexual sex is off limits according to the Judeo-Christian god.

Polygamy's ok, though. The ban on polygamy is a cultural thing; the Bible doesn't require it.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

I don't know if Mathew is being serious with his "are you serious?" question, but the advice to go to a college for one Religion 101 course is terrible advice.

Instead, read the Bible.

The Holy Bible.

Then, read what others have thought about it. Listen. Talk. Listen.

Do not pay some jackoff college money for something they can't deliver like enlightenment or understanding, even if they weren't nasty bigots to begin with, which many of them are.

harrogate said...

Matthew, it was a halfway serious question. Sure, the Bible describes these three things as sins, as well as a shit-ton of other things, which Phil the Duck acknowledges.

And I am deeply grateful to Pookie for allowing that I don't have to take the Bible (or other religious dogma) as authoritative. Whew!

So yes, OF COURSE he "compared" same-sex sex to bestiality. Why the shock that there are lots of people across ideological spectra who find this comparison disgusting?

Revenant said...

Yea he'll be fine. Just experiencing a free market bump in the road.

A&E is in a tough situation. Duck Dynasty is a huge cash cow for them, but it is culturally *very* conservative. That makes it a lousy fit with the rest of their lineup and with their original target audience.

I suspect they envisioned it as another "let's make fun of the rednecks" show with a left-leaning coastal audience, but it ended up picking up a lot of red-state fans.

Ann's prediction strikes me as correct. They'll "fire" him, air the taped episodes, and then bring him back once the hysteria dies down. Assuming he feels like coming back, of course; they could just take the show to another network, I imagine.

Matthew Sablan said...

Harrogate: Because it is deliberately being deaf to it. Get this, homosexuality is being grouped as a sin. That means it is the same as ANY sin: Anger, gluttony, theft, swearing -- all the same. All sin.

The category being equivalenced is that it is a sin. Not the degree; not the ickiness of it, nothing besides the fact that it is a sin.

If I said the Unabomber and my mother are both humans, you would not assume that I'm creating a MORAL equivalency beyond that which I stated. The deliberate obtuseness regarding religious philosophy is insulting and off-putting to those of us who want to have a serious discussion to find some way to bridge the gap between hardline religious positions and a more tolerant political stance.

All you're doing is poking the other side in the eye when you know perfectly well what they mean, as you've demonstrated.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Most academics are frauds like Ward Churchill. They spout leftist bullshit tearing apart the fabric of the country and then bitch about the rich while living high on the hog themselves.

Churchill was a victim of a racist country as most of his peers did the same shit he did and they aren't sucking hind tit.

I would blame gays but that would contain evidence that I fear the gays, and I am afraid of stating that in public as I know the gays are bullies and smell fear. My fear smells greater than a prehistoric community defecation area for giant beast animals, hence my concern is rational.

Deirdre Mundy said...

It's part of a coordinated campaign to make Christianity beyond the pale. Why? Because if being Christian makes one automatically a bigot on par with the KKK, then religious objects to promoting gay marriage, contraception, and abortion are just pure bigotry.

So the state can force people to violate their beliefs or face jail time.

Of course, the movers and shakers behind these things are usually not people who were raised atheist or agnostic-- they tend to be much more live and let live about religious belief.

It's usually people raised in a church who lapsed as adults, and who are grievously offended that Grandma is still praying for their conversion, even if she only does it when they're not around.

It's the toddler's scream of 'no,no, NO!" They think that if they scream loud enough, they can force reality to change to suit their whims. But really? They just feel guilty at some level, and they think that attacking other people will make them feel better. Anger is an opiate.

MayBee said...

So yes, OF COURSE he "compared" same-sex sex to bestiality. Why the shock that there are lots of people across ideological spectra who find this comparison disgusting?
----------

Do you find his comparison of it to heterosexual promiscuity disgusting?

Do you believe in sin?

Deirdre Mundy said...

Religious OBJECTIONS. I should not type on an empty stomach!

betamax3000 said...

What if Modern Science Genetically Engineered a Pig to Look Exactly Like a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model? Same Sexy Shape, Same Lustrous Skin, Same SuperModel Vagina? Bestiality Doesn't Sound So Bad Now, Does It?

Tom Gallagher said...

Why do the PC police condemn Robertson yet ignore the violence and cultural blechh promoted by the movie, video game, and recording industry?

betamax3000 said...

My Kate Upton Pig: I Don't Know Whether to Sleep with Her or Make Pork Chops.

Moose said...

So - Dan Savage and Phil Robertson cage match. Wait - Dan might like that too much...

Stephen A. Meigs said...

Thomas Jefferson compared sodomy with bestiality, and decided, at least in the political reality of his day, that sodomy was more worthy of punishment. See his footnote on sodomy, pages 124,125. Apparently he thought sodomy more worthy of castration than of death, though for bestiality he thought universal derision would suffice as punishment. I can see his point. Bestiality is stupid and without any selfish advantage to anyone participating, whereas sodomy could be of selfish advantage to the sodomizer.

harrogate said...

Matthew, you wrote:

"If I said the Unabomber and my mother are both humans, you would not assume that I'm creating a MORAL equivalency beyond that which I stated."

To point out that yor mother and the Unabomber are both humans is not engage the question of morality at all. It is to state a basic fact. Here's what Phil said:

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. 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.”

You are insulted by "deliberate obtuseness" but you cannot see why people would be insulted by, would find outrageous, the the above pretense at a logical progression. That's odd.

Revenant said...

So yes, OF COURSE he "compared" same-sex sex to bestiality.

The news article states that he was fired for comparing "being gay" to bestiality. That claim appears to be a lie.

The hysterics over him "comparing" homosexual sex to bestiality are pretty pathetic. The "comparison" consisted entirely of noting that the Christian god considers both to be sins.

It is like if someone asked me what I considered crimes and I said "things like rape, murder, and theft", and then women's rights activists shat themselves inside-out with rage that I had trivialized rape by "comparing" it to simple theft. :)

heyboom said...

Noticed the contrast between the way Fox News reported it (he was suspended for homosexual comments) to MSNBC (he was suspended for anti-gay comments.

Got to drive the narrative.

MayBee said...

But he included something actually celebrated in our culture- something he himself did- on that list of sins.

harrogate said...

MayBee,

Let me help you out here. It is disgusting to compare sex between human beings to bestiality.

jacksonjay said...


I love DaddyDuck, but not sure if he survives this!

Paula CornPone was scorned and banished in June. She was hot-shit and I don't really see her making a comeback!

Dog the Bounty Hunter survived the n-word controversy, but he was banished for a year by A&E! So maybe teacher is right and DaddyDuck will return.

Thorley Winston said...

A&E is in a tough situation. Duck Dynasty is a huge cash cow for them, but it is culturally *very* conservative. That makes it a lousy fit with the rest of their lineup and with their original target audience.

I haven’t watched a lot of A&E original programming but after I got into Duck Dynasty, I started watching Shipping Wars and Storage Wars and before that I used to watch Dog the Bounty Hunter. Admittedly that may be a fraction of A&E’s original programming but they all seemed to be shows about people doing interesting jobs of a blue collar variety which seem to resonate with a similar audience.

Revenant said...

Why do the PC police condemn Robertson yet ignore the violence and cultural blechh promoted by the movie, video game, and recording industry?

Can we just agree that the world would be a better place if the folks who have hysterics over *any* of the above all choked to death on their own feces? :)

harrogate said...

Revenant, you observe that:

"The hysterics over him 'comparing' homosexual sex to bestiality are pretty pathetic. The 'comparison' consisted entirely of noting that the Christian god considers both to be sins."

Why "note" this, I wonder. Why choose those. Why throw bestiality in there at all.

Your rape/theft example is well played, but I wonder if you would say with conviction that one 'blurs out into the other' as though through a series of logical moves.

O, the slippery slope of it all! First theft, then sleeping with more than one woman, then rape and finally bestiality and as the final sin, pulling for the Yankees!

moistwilly said...

The new fifth rail of politics, or maybe 6th, given racism

Birkel said...

I look forward to Phil Robertson's lawsuit over religious discrimination in employment. Quite obviously he would win the lawsuit.

Religion is a protected category.
His statements reflect religious doctrine.
He suffered an adverse employment decision.

Q.E.D.

And if harrogate or garage mahal is reading this and can't make sense of "the law" then they can just substitute another protected class wherever religion comes into the conversation to see why a court would have little problem siding with Phil Robertson.

Revenant said...

Let me help you out here. It is disgusting to compare sex between human beings to bestiality.

Complain to God, not A&E.

harrogate said...

"Complain to God, not A&E."

Heh. fortunately I feel compelled to complain to neither. Note that just because I find Phil the Duck's commends absurd, does not mean I thought he should be suspended for them. And fwiw I agree with those who say or suggest that this is all potential a ratings boom for DD anyways; if he wants to come back, he will, as soon as it is time to start taping again. Remarkable coincidence, that.

But whatever. Nobody is entitled to air time.

Revenant said...

Why "note" this, I wonder. Why choose those. Why throw bestiality in there at all.

Why NOT "throw" bestiality in there?

I wonder if you would say with conviction that one 'blurs out into the other' as though through a series of logical moves.

There is no need for special logical moves. Bestiality, gay sex, and adultery are all mortal sins -- stuff you'll go to hell for. You don't go to Extra Specially Bad hell for boinking a goat instead of another dude.

I'm an atheist and even I know this stuff. People really need to read more.

heyboom said...

Man harrogate, you are usually so clear thinking on issues, but I don't understand why you're being so obtuse about this. By your logic, he also compared adultery and fornication to bestiality, so it would seem odd that he was actually trying to make that comparison.

Had he only used the bestiality comparison, you would have a valid point.

MayBee said...

.MayBee,

Let me help you out here. It is disgusting to compare sex between human beings to bestiality.



So you also dont like it that he compared promiscuity to bestiality, but just haven't mentioned that so far?

These are sins we are talking about, so that's the comparison. He isn't equating acts.

By the way..... is it so disgusting to compare? Aren't there a lot of mild jokes about shepherds and their sheep and dogs and peanut butter?

Pookie Number 2 said...

Why the shock that there are lots of people across ideological spectra who find this comparison disgusting?

No-one is shocked to discover that there are many, many mindless drones incapable of thinking about things differently from sitcom writers.

But the fact that these folks' ignorance precludes them from understanding the cultural risks stemming from their uninformed and knee-jerk hostility to religion hardly means that the risks don't exist.

Donald Douglas said...

Nice comment thread.

I got you linked up, Althouse: "'All these people wake up every morning and go to work where they spend the entire day laboring to destroy morality in America...'"

Michael said...

"If the show does well"

IF? It's the biggest hit on regular cable. They're putting him on ice to cool the controversy, but he's not going anywhere, and their audience isn't either. And I wouldn't count on much of an apology, because I'm pretty sure they'll all quit before he sells his idea of Jesus out.

harrogate said...

Revenant, the only people needing to read more are those who cannot seem to understand that the categorization is absurd to many (one hopes even most) people in the US, and that the absurdity is hardly attenuated by saying "but I got it from the Bible"

garage mahal said...

Speaking of sinning: If Phil Robertson truly believed everything in the Bible, wouldn't he give away his millions to the poor?

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

One thing I'll note is that the Bible does not consider gradiations of sin. Stealing a Snickers bar from the gas station is just as bad as mass murder.

You can be all offended that I "equated" petty theft and mass murder, but it is standard Christian Theology.

The flip side of that means that treating, say, homosexual sex as some sort of extra special super sin in a vastly different category than my own sin is anti-Christian.

Birkel said...

Garage mahal:

Employment discrimination is wrong. True or false?

And you'll please point to the passage in the Bible that says a person must give up all money. Thanks in advance.

Scott said...

Phil Robertson wasn't fired because he violated some moral code that the A&E Network has adopted. He was fired because he was bad for business. If they thought that the Robertson family's values were incongruent with A&E's values, they would have cancelled the whole show.

But right now Duck Dynasty is the hottest property on all television, both cable and broadcast. They don't want to kill the golden goose, they just want to surgically remove what they think is a carbuncle. They had better hope that they're not mistakenly giving the goose a hysterectomy.

MayBee said...

understand that the categorization is absurd to many (one hopes even most) people in the US, and that the absurdity is hardly attenuated by saying "but I got it from the Bible"

But that's just it.

Of you don't care about the Bible, why care when he says what the Bible considers a sin?

I eat meat, unabashedly, even though my yogi friends think it is wrong- the equivalent of a sin. But their condemnation doesn't affect me, because I don't believe in the same rules/religion they do.

Birches said...

So silly, harrogate.

Bestiality is disgusting, so we can't compare it to homosexuality because it's offensive. Got it. Just making sure I can keep up with what's acceptable by society and what's still frowned upon.

And who's the one using moral equivalency? Certainly not the Duck Dynasty guy! He's still lumping sex before marriage in with the other two (one still offensive to society, one not).

I will also add that his tie in to bestiality doesn't surprise me much. If we use the way back machine, it appears Catholic priests were most concerned with their young male parishioners "interfering with themselves" and "interfering with God's animals to satisfy carnal desires" back when most lived around those animals. I guess Phil should have thrown masturbation in their too just for good measure.

garage mahal said...

Luke 14:33
Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money.

Matthew 19:21-24
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Acts 2:44-45
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

Michael said...

GM. "Speaking of sinning: If Phil Robertson truly believed everything in the Bible, wouldn't he give away his millions to the poor?"

Of course. Pithy and demonstrative of a deep understanding of "the Bible".


Blown F X said...

I think A&E is going to regret their decision to fire Phil Robertson. As a measure of public reaction, over at the Hollywood Reporter, which did a story on this, there are over 18,000 comments (the biggest comment number I have ever seen on any site about any subject) and, in a poll asking readers whether they like or dislike Phil's remarks about gays, the likes are over 30,000 and the dislikes are 147.
This is big time pushback.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Some interesting Phil Robertson facts and contrasts:

Phil Robertson has two college degrees, a B.A. and a Masters from Lousianna Tech.

Bitchtits Mahal barely graduated high school.

Phil Robertson has a successful life and marriage of 40 years.

Bitchtits Mahal's wife left him.

Facts are fun.

garage mahal said...

Employment discrimination is wrong. True or false?

True. Employers regulating outside-work political speech (as law allows them to) is real/troubling.

Humperdink said...

Just a little separation of the sheep and goats here. The wide gate and the narrow gate. Prophecy is a wonderful thing.

I have to laugh when the latest shock jock/TV show is labelled controversial for it's sexual content. There is nothing occurring today that hasn't happened for thousands of years. Only the method of delivery has changed. And the result is the same - despair.

Michael said...

GM. "Speaking of sinning: If Phil Robertson truly believed everything in the Bible, wouldn't he give away his millions to the poor?"

Of course. Pithy and demonstrative of a deep understanding of "the Bible".


Christy said...

Didn't A&E try to get them to back off the prayer at the end of each episode? Because Phil always asks the blessing is this another way to stop the prayers? Yeah, I don't think so either, but the argument is still good.

Smart savvy guys are the Robertsons, I'm interested in seeing how this plays out.

Michael K said...

"Why "note" this, I wonder. Why choose those. Why throw bestiality in there at all."

Ye, there is no excuse. It will be at least 25 years before the bestiality case goes to the Supreme Court. Well, maybe not so long. These things accelerate.

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

Speaking of sinning: If Phil Robertson truly believed everything in the Bible, wouldn't he give away his millions to the poor?

No. The parable of the talents speaks against that line of thinking. One should use the resources one has (skills, abilities, and, yes, money) and put them to use to increase them.

The rich young ruler who Jesus told to give all his possessions to the poor was given this instruction as a rebuke to his lie to have been Godly in all things. That individual loved his money more than God and Jesus threw it in his face.

Maybe Phil loves his money more than God, I don't know him from Adam, but what little I've heard of his history doesn't much support that proposition.

harrogate said...

Birches,

I didn't say you couldn't make the comparison. I am simply making a negative judgment call on the comparison, and noting that in this, I am hardly alone.


Everyone shouting how the Bible does not differentiate "gradations of sin": of course you are right. I never meant to dispute --and I am pretty sure that I didn't accidentally dispute--that this is indeed an aspect of the Bible.

MayBee said...

I don't watch Duck Dynasty.
I dint watch Paula Deen.
I didn't watch Martin Bashir or Alec Baldwin.

But I want to stop this version of America where we have to try to destroy people we disagree with. Where we have to be outraged anew every day at things that don't really affect us.

This isn't healthy, people.

Humperdink said...

Phil chose the narrow gate.

Michael said...

The main thing is that we can watch Miley Cyrus finger herself on TV and simulate sex poorly. Oh, and listen to rap "artists" rhyme motherfucker with any other word in their other hundred word vocuabularies.

And it is exactly the same thing to state your views outside of work as it is to state them on air on your own program. And calling someone a cocksucking fag is exactly as offensive as saying, hold on here, homosexuality is a sin. Same.

Drago said...

Garage provides another demonstration of his now ancient high school level reading comprehension of the Bible.

Surprising?

Hardly.

Garage actually thinks his Bible passages "proves" his point.

It is not possible to penetrate such a fortress of studied and proud ignorance nor is it worth the attempt.

RecChief said...

@Garage
Thank you for those bible verses, I will send them to Soros, Gates, Reid, Clinton, Clinton, and most of Hollywood.

Birkel said...

Garage mahal:
You didn't understand those verses and that's ok. Also, one of the quotes is a mis-translation based on a modern "needle" which didn't exist 2000 years ago.

Also, you are wrong about "political speech" because that is not a protected class. Religion is a protected class.

You are a goof.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Also, if he is trying to follow the Bible, he probably IS giving to charity, but not making a big deal about it.

Especially if he's more the 'personal charity' type, where instead of giving to big organizations, he just helps people out when he can. I mean, plenty of people will fill up the gas tank for that family begging at the gas station because they can't afford to buy enough to get home. But that sort of thing doesn't (And shouldn't) make headlines.

Dr Weevil said...

Shorter harrogate:

Like most people, I find sex with animals revolting, therefore it is. (It's obviously not all people, because people are arrested for it now and then.)

Unlike most people, including many who've tried it, I don't find anal sex revolting or distasteful, at least in theory, therefore it isn't.

Sounds totally subjective to me.

So what's the magic number? If 60% (as a guess) find anal sex disgusting, that's not enough for them to be allowed to even criticize it, but if 97% find bestiality disgusting, then it's officially disgusting, depraved, contemptible, and rightly illegal? What's the cutoff? 70? 80? 90? 95?

What if there's a nation or state or city or religious community in which 95% find anal sex disgusting or at least immoral? Are they allowed to disapprove?

Humperdink said...

Garage if you meander down to NW Pa on a Thursday evening, stop by our Bible study. We cover this stuff.

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

Luke 14:33
Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.


Everything? So they should walk around naked? Taken out of context it conflates the spiritual and the physical realms.

Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money.


Notice it says "serve" not "have". There are lots of people who have little money, yet still "serve" it. There are also many that have lots of it, but don't serve it.

Matthew 19:21-24
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."


The rich young ruler I've already addressed. The "camel" side of the verse is that it is not just difficult but impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Of course, it is also impossible for anyone to enter the kingdom of God except through Christ. The rich have a greater temptation to choose money over Christ, that is true. But that, again, goes to how you view your money, not whether you actually have any.

Acts 2:44-45
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.


Since we've already covered the error of selling literally everything, I won't rehash it.
But yes, one should be charitible. Any evidence that Phil hasn't been charitible with his wealth? Given his willingness to be so forward with his faith I would be sorely disappointed to find out he is not Tithing as he should.

Alex B. said...

they haven't had to fight for the right to fornicate recently

Neither have gay men. Fornicate means having sex out of wedlock. Gay men have definitively not been fighting that "right".

William said...

I've noticed that all bestialists are painted with the same broad brush. Even the most docile retriever objects to sexual contact with humans, but sheep seem to welcome human contact.

Michael K said...

All this foforaw means is that homosexuality has very recently gained protected class status and, as long as they vote Democrat, they will be able to ban anyone who objects. I think it is mildly amusing. I have never seen the show, don't watch A&E, or much television once football season is over, and could care less about gay marriage, the latest fad.

It is an epiphenomenon of the AIDS epidemic and, if the AIDS virus becomes an insignificant problem one day, will fade away as the fad it is.

Aaron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birches said...

harrogate,

He didn't make the comparison in a vacuum; he made the comparison in the context of sin, along with other comparisons. You cannot divorce his meaning of sin from the comparison just because you (and others) find it distasteful.

That is why it is silly. Maybee is right. If you don't believe in sin, why care what DD guy says about sin?

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

I never meant to dispute --and I am pretty sure that I didn't accidentally dispute--that this is indeed an aspect of the Bible.

Then what is all the shock and outrage about? (I'm not talking about you personally.) It's like being shocked and outraged to find geeks at a SciFi convention. It's kind of a defining characteristic.

For a religion with a salvation path, it seems rather advantageous to take an all sin is equal and all people have sinned approach. It removes the "But at least I'm not as bad as those *other* people" from the realm of acceptable behaviors. And those adherents who do it anyway can be smacked down, sorry, "[taught], [rebuked], [corrected] and [trained] in righteousness" by it.

rehajm said...

We got these for everyone's Christmas stocking before the controversy

For the kids we say, but really for the adults after a few egg nogs.

Michael said...

Has any liberal, ever, taken Logic? Even a single semester?

Scott said...

Employers regulating outside-work political speech (as law allows them to) is real/troubling.

@garage: It's highly likely that Phil Robertson is an independent contractor working for a production company that is creating a work-for-hire being sold to A&E. He's on a 1099, he's not an employee. What's more, he's a "creative." The producers can fire his butt for any reason they want. And that's as it should be.

mariner said...

Yea he'll be fine. Just experiencing a free market bump in the road.


That bump in the road is the pile of dough from people buying his calls.

Birches said...

I'm not easily bothered by most of these faux outrages.

There are people I mostly agree with who say stupid things (hello Richard Mourdock) and if they get pushback, I think "well don't be such an idiot next time."

But I am bothered by this incident because at its core it is attacking religious belief, not dumb word choice.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Yu-Ain -- Exactly. A mortal sin is a mortal sin. It kills the grace in your soul and totally cuts you off from God until you repent.

So... it doesn't really matter which mortal sin you commit, you're in big trouble. Heck... If you're Catholic, SKIPPING SUNDAY MASS is a mortal sin. A habitual Mass-skipper is in the same boat at a habitual sodomite, and both habits can be really hard to break!

The difference is, the habitual Mass-skipper usually reacts to being called out with a "You're right. I should get to Mass more often," even if he lacks the follow through. People are more attached to their sexual sins (Adulterers are like this too). They're offended that you call these things sinful because they LIKE them and they FEEL GOOD.

They don't want to admit a need for healing, because what they want is for everyone else to celebrate their sex lives.

(Which, frankly, strikes me as weird. Unless you are my spouse, why should I know ANYTHING about your sex life? As far as I'm concerned, you could just be two really good friends who enjoy walking dogs and cross country skiing. Anything beyond that? Not my business! If your sex life is part of the public sphere.... You're DOING IT WRONG.)

Deirdre Mundy said...

Birches... what I find fascinating about the Mourdock kerfuffle is that his opponent then publicly campaigned on the idea that Mourdock was wrong while claiming to be a pro-life Catholic.

BUT... that means that he was implicitly campaigning on the idea that "There exist some babies who God did not want to exist."

Which is....not in keeping with Catholic theology at all, since God directly creates each and every human soul.

This should have been enough to out Donnelly as a seedy political operative rather than a man of principle, but somehow, it was not.

mccullough said...

Another battle in the culture war. Yawn

Chef Mojo said...

@harrogate:

If I make a list of fruits, am I comparing them? The list includes durian fruit, a vile, disgusting smelling abomination of a fruit. But, it's a fruit. Does it's presence on the list invite comparisons to less offensive fruits or even pleasant fruits? Of course not. I've simply compiled a list of fruits. Now, I didn't define what a "fruit" is. Someone else did that a long time ago. I can't put cabbage on the fruit list, as a result. The parameters have already been set as part of the order of things.

Robertson did the same thing, and it was only judgmental in that what he listed are sins. Sin, by definition, is a bad thing. By his belief system, he is simply stating a list of sins. If there is any invitation to comparison, he is not making it, because he didn't compile the list! He is a believer, and to be a believer, he must believe in sin by the definition of his belief. Those sins are listed for him as part of the source of his belief, which is the Bible. The profession of his belief is not a comparative exercise. That is being done by his critics, much to his advantage, in my opinion.

Birkel said...

Scott:
You are wrong. They can fire for no reason, sure. But protected classes are protected. Whether he is an independent contractor is another matter all together.

An employer cannot fire a person based on racial animus either. Conservatives must fight law fare more diligently!!!

Birches said...

The difference is, the habitual Mass-skipper usually reacts to being called out with a "You're right. I should get to Mass more often," even if he lacks the follow through. People are more attached to their sexual sins (Adulterers are like this too). They're offended that you call these things sinful because they LIKE them and they FEEL GOOD.

Good point. I'm always amused when people leave my Church AFTER they've been caught having an affair. "Well, I never did believe in God and all this crap anyways . . . " You could have left before, then, but you didn't, why?

Archie said...

The bestiality compliant is a dodge. The real concern is that Mr. Robertson was too graphic about the homosexual male's defining act, anal intercourse. When put in the light of day it demonstrates the abnormality and sickness of homosexual behavior. The bestiality beef is a "look a squirrel" dodge to direct attention from the core issue.

Scott said...

@Birkel: Phil Robertson is a rich white male. What protected class does he belong to?

RecChief said...

Since Garage is an apparent Biblical Scholar, I am sure he is familiar with 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 verses 9-10. For those of you who are not, see below:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Wow, that looks strikingly familiar, maybe that wasn't a homophobic rant at all, but a quoting of bible passage.

But too many electrons have been wasted already on the likes of Garage and Harrogate

Dr Weevil said...

The part about "revilers" going to Hell should worry something like half the commenters here.

garage mahal said...

Since we've already covered the error of selling literally everything, I won't rehash it.

You skimmed over that briefly without much of an explanation. What I find fascinating is that the Gospels seem to be suggesting that not only would the poor be fed and clothed, the sick would be healed -- but that the rich and poor would actually be switching places. "The first shall be last and the last shall be first". “Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full, for you shall hunger. Woe to you laughing now, for soon you will mourn”

Revenant said...

Revenant, the only people needing to read more are those who cannot seem to understand that the categorization is absurd to many (one hopes even most) people in the US, and that the absurdity is hardly attenuated by saying "but I got it from the Bible"

Most people in the US are Christians, in case you hadn't noticed.

Birkel said...

Scott:
Phil Robertson was fired for his religious views. Religion is an improper basis for employment decisions.

Always!

Birkel said...

Well, unless religion is a BFOQ.

Inga said...

It's just a distraction from Obamacare and Benghazi, yawn, yawn.

Dixie_Sugarbaker said...

How dare Phil Robertson say he hates gay people! The way he threatens their lives and spits on them when he sees them is appalling. Just disgusting and I am glad A&E is giving these dispicable actions the proper punishment.

Oh wait, he only said he could not understand why a man would be attracted to a man and that the Bible said it was a sin? He said that sin is a problem in this country and listed homosexuality as a sin along with adultery and the sexualization of this country? He quoted the Bible? He says God is love and he loves everybody? He merely expressed his opinion? There is no evidence of him ever harming and threatening to harm anyone?!

Never mind.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Birches-- there's an old Fulton Sheen Joke about that.

A priest goes to his bishop and says "Bishop Smith, I've stopped believing in the Real Presence" The Bishop replies, "So, is she a blonde, a brunette, or a redhead?"

Usually, the doubt follows the sin, as we try to justify our sins. Because we have a perverse attachment to sin, and it's hard to give it up. Because... heck...if sin was EASY to give up, we wouldn't have needed a savior!

harrogate said...

"Most people in the US are Christians, in case you hadn't noticed"


That's a far cry from saying that most people in the US accept and/or feel constrained from disputing everything that is in the Bible, as you know.

RecChief said...

Here's another one for you Garage:
Romans chapter 1 verses 26-32

"26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
"

RecChief said...

And a final one:
Romans 1 v 22

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

B said...

Whoever made this decision at A&E is an imbecile. The Robertsons do not need A&E. A&E needs the Robertsons. A&E's problem is that the entire Robertson family will without question put Phil ahead on any relationship with A&E.

The Robertson's are smart capable people. I would not be at all surprised if before the day is out the family does not release - individually or collectively - statements not just in support of Phil but detailing their agreement with the points he made to call A&E's hand. This will leave A&E in the position of either having to impose the same sanctions on the whole family that they did Phil - basically announce that the show is cancelled after any canned episodes are aired - or back off the sanction on Phil.

Like someone said above, I will be very interested in how this plays out. I do not recall a situation where folks of a conservative stripe with as much exposure, capability, popularity, and support as the Robertsons were in a position of truly not giving a shit about media PC when it comes to articulating their faith and beliefs.

Rusty said...

If ole Phil were Muslim we wouldn't be having this conversation.

B said...

Upon reflection, I retract 'basically announce that the show is cancelled after any canned episodes are aired' in my prior comment in favor of 'basically announce that the show is cancelled immediately' if the rest of the family does a Phil.

cubanbob said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Harrogate: Because it is deliberately being deaf to it. Get this, homosexuality is being grouped as a sin. That means it is the same as ANY sin: Anger, gluttony, theft, swearing -- all the same. All sin."

Replace homosexuality with envy and you have pretty much the left as it is today.

The president pisses on our head and tells us it's raining and most of the country is indifferent. Some guy on cable show makes a comment and thats cause for an uproar. Now thats a sin.

Revenant said...

That's a far cry from saying that most people in the US accept and/or feel constrained from disputing everything that is in the Bible, as you know.

But for your claim to be true, they have to not merely disagree with the Bible but consider it "absurd" that anyone would. What Christian considers it "absurd" to consider something sinful when the Bible repeatedly says it is and never even hints otherwise? Very few.

Only a narrow majority of Americans think homosexuality is morally acceptable. The idea that most Americans find it "absurd" to think otherwise is pretty silly in light of that fact.

YoungHegelian said...

From the CNN article:

The NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E expressing "outrage and deep concern about the recent racist, homophobic, and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson."

"Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street," the letter states.

"And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science. In fact, it's important to note that every single leading medical organization in the country has said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being LGBT -- it's not a choice, and to suggest otherwise is dangerous."


" What he didn't see..." That's right. Robertson didn't see it. Which is exactly what he said. If Robertson is lying, and he's lying about what he claimed happened in front of his face, then prove it. It's really strange that liberals really want to defend the post-Jim Crow world with its 80% illegitimate birth rates, rampant black-on-black murder, and the seeming impossibility of raising up the black underclass, as one of the greatest moral victories of our times, but there you are. Well, hey, the black 10%-ers in the NAACP made out like bandits in the post-civil rights world, so waddya want? Jamal in the 'hood can just go hang, 'cause Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson's gots theres'

"And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science." I'm sorry, WTF? How does a moral judgement have anything to do with science? And there's precious little "science" out there on the nature of homosexuality. If you think there is, please feel free to post your sources.

I have much more trouble with Robertson's Jim Crow claims than his claims on homosexuality, but the furor over both show just how determined the PC left is to enforce the terms of acceptable discourse, reality be damned.

John Cunningham said...

the organized sodomite movement is out to crush free speech and freedom of thought in this country. it is long past time to stand up to these slimy little lavender-shirted stormtroopers.

John Cunningham said...

the organized sodomite movement is out to crush free speech and freedom of thought in this country. it is long past time to stand up to these slimy little lavender-shirted stormtroopers.

Vince said...

Not sure the average Duck Dynasty viewer gives a rat's ass about the LGBT community's opinion about anything.

sunsong said...

I have never watched the show - but I have heard of it :-)

My take on this is that Christians overreach and that is why they are becoming targets. He just didn't need to say that. Christians, it seems to me, don't just want to live their lives in peace - they want everyone to have to live by their values - and that is oppressive. Christians aren't satisfied, it seems to me, to believe that homosexuality is a sin - they want it banned, they want to deny homosexuals their right to marry and in some cases their right to employment or to housing. So, imo, Christians are indeed beyond the pale on this issue. They are working hard to deny liberty instead of graciously, lovingly embracing a true live and let live philosophy.

TMink said...

About the race stuff Phil said, last year American blacks were given a poll that was the same thing that American blacks were given in the 1950s. The modern folks had a more negative view of America than Jim Crow era blacks did.

So score another accuracy point for Phil.

Trey

SJ said...

@harrogate,



Revenant, the only people needing to read more are those who cannot seem to understand that the categorization is absurd to many (one hopes even most) people in the US, and that the absurdity is hardly attenuated by saying "but I got it from the Bible"


I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet...

While most Christians of the Protestant variety are willing to say "I got this from the Bible", that is not the only possible response.*

If I start with these assumptions about human nature and sexuality, then I come to a similar conclusion to that given by Mr. Robertson:

1. Human nature contains a material component and a spiritual component

2. The physical component has many sources of immediate pleasure, among them sexual pleasures

3. God created Humans in such a way that these physical acts that bring pleasure are linked to changes in the spiritual nature
(Whatever you think of mind-body duality, the Christian picture of human nature can't escape from this linkage between physical acts and spiritual effects. This includes many non-sexual components: feasting/fasting, days-of-rest, etc.)

4. The act of sexual intercourse between humans includes a connection on the spiritual level between the participants.
(If you feel a need for a Bible reference, look at Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth, chapter 6.)

5. God has designed sexual intercourse to be healthiest between a male and a female in a long-term, committed relationship.

This leads to conclusions that a person is harming himself in a spiritual manner if he/she engages in sexual intercourse outside of the social covenant of marriage.

If you think this is foolish, it is likely because you don't share these assumptions about human nature and sexual behavior.***

---- footnotes --------------------
*If you need a first hint on why bestiality/incest is often grouped with homosexual behavior, you might want to look at the list of condemned sexual activities in Leviticus chapter 17**.
It's old, and it appears to refer to practices that were standard in the cultures of Canaan before Joshua's Conquest.

**If you want bring up the "law of Moses has been mostly cast aside" argument...Most of the ceremonial-cleanliness rules from Leviticus were relaxed for Christians during the lifetime of the Apostles. But these sexual rules were strengthened.
And Jesus taught a stricter-than-the-Law-of-Moses rule about divorce and adultery. See Matthew 5...this is most of the reason that Christian tradition held to the sexual mores of the Law of Moses.

*** I was about to mention Thomas Aquinas.
His teaching was that various created elements of the body have Divine purpose, and that any action that abrogates this Divine purpose is contrary to God's will and to nature.
This, plus the assumption that semen is purposed by God to attempt procreation, leads to the conclusion that a man putting semen anywhere other than a woman's vaginal-canal/uterus to be in opposition to God's will.

This same logic leads to the conclusion that interfering with causation of pregnancy in heterosexual intercourse is sinful.

Might explain why the Catholic Church teaches that birth control is not in accord with God's will. Though I still can't figure out the exception for sheep-gut condoms, but not latex condoms...

Deirdre Mundy said...

Christians believe that Jesus told them to "Go and Make all nations disciples, baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

So yes..it's actually directly in conflict with their beliefs to sit quietly at home and keep their religion out of the public sphere. Any politician who claims to be Christian and says that his religion does not influence his public life is lying on at least one count.

Christians MUST give public witness, or they're being bad Christians. So banning Christianity from public discourse actually forces them to violate deeply held principles.

You don't have to LIKE what they have to say or act on it, but.... they literally CAN'T just shut up and leave everyone alone and remain true to their religious beliefs.

Sort of like Muslims and Jihad. Except with more talking and soup kitchens and stuff, and fewer Wahabbists blowing themselves up to prove a point.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Christians aren't satisfied, it seems to me, to believe that homosexuality is a sin - they want it banned, they want to deny homosexuals their right to marry and in some cases their right to employment or to housing.

I don't think that reality matches what you perceive.

Deirdre Mundy said...

SJ-- what condom exception? Even coitus interruptus is a no-no, and the 'no contraceptive devices' thing goes back to the Didache.

The big deal in the 60s with the pill was that people were hoping it would get a pass since it wasn't a BARRIER, but a chemical......

They were basically all tangled up in the letter of the law to that point, and sort of missed the spirit of the law.....

Drago said...

sunsong: "Christians, it seems to me, don't just want to live their lives in peace - they want everyone to have to live by their values - and that is oppressive."

Talk about projection.

Michelle Obama: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Sigivald said...

We don't see the heterosexual men who enjoy multiple sex partners getting hotheaded over Phil Robertson. Why not?

Because they're secure in not giving much of a damn what Jesus thinks of their sex lives, I imagine.

Unknown said...

It's been said elsewhere, but if Robertson claimed to be a devout Muslim and quoted the Koran, this would not even have made the news.

heyboom said...

Interesting that all of the usual liberal activist groups are piling on when they were incommunicado during the whole Alec Baldwin kerfuffle. I sincerely doubt any of them actually read and processed the statement from Phil Robertson. It's enough to just hear it out of context from their compatriots to take it as a point of fact.

I would emphasize the point of them processing the statement, something that at least our esteemed host here did. Even as a supporter of the gay rights movement she didn't reflexively condemn without actually trying to understand exactly what he said.

RecChief said...

maybe this will explain where Phil Robertson is coming from, well worth the half hour of your time.

http://www.iamsecond.com/seconds/the-robertsons/

Humperdink said...

sunsong: "Christians, it seems to me, don't just want to live their lives in peace - they want everyone to have to live by their values - and that is oppressive."

As a Bible toting Christian, I don't care how you live. Do what you want. Me oppress you? Hardly.

But I can tell you this much, living in sin only leads to the gutter and despair. I have been there. Thankfully liberated.

heyboom said...

@YoungHegelian

What problem are you having with his Jim Crow statement? Was he not saying that blacks were more determined to live happy and productive lives in spite of the discrimination as opposed to now when many of them are more inclined to assume victim status and claim entitlements without merit?

My father's side of the family is black. They grew up during those times and yet managed to overcome discrimination and have successful careers. Very successful careers, I might add. And not a one of them harbors any ill will about the obstacles they had to overcome in order to do that.

Revenant said...

Christians aren't satisfied, it seems to me, to believe that homosexuality is a sin - they want it banned, they want to deny homosexuals their right to marry and in some cases their right to employment or to housing.

Even if we assume that "rights" to marriage, employment, and housing even exist in the first place, your theory runs in to the uncomfortable fact that the overwhelmingly-Christian United States is oddly devoid of the legal persecution you claim Christians want.

DWPittelli said...

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe"

So now there are gays who presume to tell us that Saint Paul -- a Saint after all, as well as the author of much of the canonical New Testament and the most important spreader of Christianity after Jesus -- wasn't a true Christian.

As an agnostic in favor of gay rights, I believe that one can rationally decide that the Bible is not an infallible guide to morality, but this silly and ahistorical interpretation is ridiculous as well as offensive to orthodox Christians.

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

You skimmed over that briefly without much of an explanation.

The explanation is that he said that to people who were walking around with them and obviously did not make them walk around naked. He, obviously, did not intend that statement to be taken as literal.

The parable of the talents completely destroys the assertion that the faithful must be poor. Heaven forbid that those resources be ceded to the unfaithful. Those who do not seek to increase the things entrusted to them (whether that be skills, money, or something else) will be rebuked and have those resources taken away.

What I find fascinating is that the Gospels seem to be suggesting that not only would the poor be fed and clothed, the sick would be healed

But not necessarily in this world.

-- but that the rich and poor would actually be switching places. "The first shall be last and the last shall be first". “Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full, for you shall hunger. Woe to you laughing now, for soon you will mourn”

Which has much more to do with your relationship to those things than the things themselves. Those who believe their wealth or power make them first will find that's not so much the case.

But let's face it, the reason we know of the good Samaritan is because he was rich enough to not only pay a deposit but also "write a blank check" and be trusted to pay the debt for the victim's care. The character obviously had substantial financial resources. Given that Jesus used this character positively, I doubt He would see him as just "a rich man" and relegate him to "be last". His relationship with money did not put him before the victim.

Again and again throughout Scripture you see the concern about the relationship between a person and money. Another example: it is not Money that is the root of all evil, it is the love of money that is a root of all kinds of evil. It is that craving that causes one to wander from the faith.

What little I know of Mr. Robinson suggests the man does what he thinks is right and doesn't much care if the money comes or not. There's a lot of people out there that will keep their mouths shut for a lot less money than A&E pays him.

YoungHegelian said...

@Heyboom,

What problem are you having with his Jim Crow statement?

I think he should have added a few sentences to the fact that "Whatever I saw around me, I know that life was difficult & nasty for most blacks in the South under Jim Crow, & I'm glad as a Southerner that those days are over, but I saw what I saw, and that's how I remember life in the La. of my boyhood."

I also probably wouldn't let an interviewer bait me into discussing race or sexuality no how no ways, but that's just me.

autothreads said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
autothreads said...

Does anyone think that Rachel Maddow or Ellen Degeneres would lose their tv jobs if they said that they liked vaginas and weren't interested in having anal sex with men?

It matters not what is said, but who says it and who can take advantage.

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

Robertson, at no time, ever said that blacks were better off. He didn't even say they were happier. And even if he did, he certainly didn't say it was because of Jim Crow era laws.

People may want him to have said those things. But he didn't.

Michael K said...

"Christians aren't satisfied, it seems to me, to believe that homosexuality is a sin - they want it banned, they want to deny homosexuals their right to marry and in some cases their right to employment or to housing. So, imo, Christians are indeed beyond the pale on this issue. "

So, I assume you are OK with the actions against Christians in Egypt and Syria. After all, you are equating one person's opinion with the entire belief system of a religion.

I know how well treated homosexuals are in the Muslim world and how badly they are treated in the Christian world so you must be absolutely right.

garage mahal said...

Given that Jesus used this character positively, I doubt He would see him as just "a rich man" and relegate him to "be last"

I think the parable had to do more with illustrating those who knew the law [the Priest and lawyer] and those who actually followed the law in their lifestyle and actions. The Samaritan was the least likely to stop and offer help. [Who is our neighbor?]

Julius Reincarnate said...

I beg to differ, Professor!

It's not a "political game". It's a cultural game, and maybe a marketing game too. It's no different than Catholics objecting to The Last Temptation of Christ or The Da Vinci Code. And after a little time passed, everyone forgot about those disputes. They had no long-lasting, and certainly no political, consequences.

It's not political until the government or the law gets involved. When that happens, society needs to have a Émile Zola or an Edward R. Murrow or a Jake Ehrlich stand up and tell the government to GTFO!

In the meantime, how best to deal with this brave new world? My stance is to leave it alone. Things that are actual political issues-- NSA spying, Obamacare, government transparency and honesty, the inability of government to pay for what it does-- these things might (or might not) have long-lasting consequences. These things might be important. Duck Dynasty is not important. Civically-minded persons should know the difference, and should point it out to others who don't seem to.

sunsong said...

Even if we assume that "rights" to marriage, employment, and housing even exist in the first place, your theory runs in to the uncomfortable fact that the overwhelmingly-Christian United States is oddly devoid of the legal persecution you claim Christians want.

What? I would have expected better from you. Are you claiming that in the whole United States gays can marry the person they love? I mean my gawd, how can you claim otherwise? Do you deny the entire movement to stop gays from gaining this equality of liberty? Do you deny that in well over half the states gays can be fired just because they are gay - not based on their job performance, or kicked out of their housing?

No, Christians are attempting to oppress and that's why, imo, they are legitimate targets. And the more they do the worse it will get, imo. America, in my view, is about freedom and liberty for all - not just for Christians.

sunsong said...

Talk about projection.

Michelle Obama: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."


You know, people who immediately assume without knowing what they are talking about are boring.

I voted for Mitt Romney because I believe he would have worked to improve the economy and also had the skills and understanding to get the job done. Because I oppose the Christianists does not mean I support Obama. My world is not black and white. I have lots of color in my world. The far right and the far left are in some ways mirror images of each other, imo - they want to force everyone to live by their beliefs. But that is not what America stands for, imo

TMink said...

"No, Christians are attempting to oppress"

Speaking our mind and voting our conscience is not oppression. It is freedom. You want us to have less freedom. So who is it that is oppressing?

Trey

tim in vermont said...

"they[Christians] are legitimate targets"

In other words, "we can twist and obtusely misconstrue whatever they say, without remorse or regards for the consequences to the 'target', to further our cause."

sunsong said...

Speaking our mind and voting our conscience is not oppression. It is freedom. You want us to have less freedom. So who is it that is oppressing?

In the tiny little black and white world of adolescents - everything is either/or. Either I am in charge or someone else is. Either I win or you win. The idea of win/win... of liberty for all is lost on those small minds.

When you are working/voting. speaking to deny full rights to a group of fellow citizens - you are attempting to oppress. And you are become a legitimate target, imo. You have heard the phrase 'pick your battles carefully'?

The question 'why on earth would you want to deny gays the right to marry whom they choose' may go right over your head...

YoungHegelian said...

@sunsong,

Are you claiming that in the whole United States gays can marry the person they love?

So, since it's all about who loves who, you're okay with polygamy & against Christians who oppose it? Right?

If you oppose polygamy, just like those oppressive Christians do, please tell us why you think you have the moral right to oppress their freely-bestowed "love".

traditionalguy said...

It is widely reported that Christians are cannibals who practice incest.

Witnesses report that they gather to eat a man's body and drink his blood and call everyone in the room their brothers and sisters.

Compared with such conduct, what's a little kinky sex?

Phil said...

Snort. How dare he have essentially the same opinion on gay sex as that noted homophobe and christofascist, Tenzin Gyatso? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama#cite_note-79

n.n said...

Exactly. His comment was about dysfunctional behaviors, not individuals, of which homosexual behavior is exemplary, but not exclusively representative.

The issue from a societal perspective is the criteria by which we choose to normalize, tolerate, and reject behaviors, not individuals, unless the behavior is inseparable from the individual, and causes irreparable harm to an individual, society, or humanity.

Homosexual behavior, while dysfunctional, is tolerable when practiced by a minority.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Can I just say how refreshing it is that we're having this conversation unmoderated without the crazy or the personal attacks coming out?

n.n said...

The ban on polygamy is a cultural thing; the Bible doesn't require it.

The Torah is a record of revelation and historical accounts.

God created Adam and Eve. What followed in succeeding generations was an outcome of freewill. So, the guidance offered by God is that man and woman should cohabit in exclusive pairs. While God does not proscribe polygamous relationships, he also does not promote it, and the Torah records the pitfalls of polyamorous relationships.

For that matter, other behaviors, notably homosexual, are also not proscribed. They are referred to as abominations. In fact, God bans very few behaviors. His desire is to advise, and his will is realized through natural (i.e. immutable) consequences.

The correlation between God's order, which is both physical and moral, and what we observe, is perfect. Either our ancestors were enlightened or inspired. We reject their wisdom as children rebel against their parents.

Birches said...

Sunsong, the same sex marriage angle is not really relevant to the Duck Dynasty guy --- he didn't express any opinion on that (though I suppose his opinion can be construed). In fact, most of the commenters here have not discussed that issue at all. So really, you're just searching out reasons to "hate on Christians."

With that said, our entire society is built on discriminating against certain groups in order to promote other behavior. I don't find renters railing against the mortgage interest rate deduction. Or post-menopausal siblings railing against marriage laws.

The current ponzi scheme of government requires a larger next generation to produce a tax base to pay the older generation. The tax laws in favor of marriage between people who are capable of reproduction reflect that.

There is also a societal concern for "how" the next generation is raised. I doubt many here in favor of traditional marriage think that the disintegration of the family started with "teh gays." Many probably have negative opinions about how government welfare policies created negative unintended consequence on single parenthood and cohabitation. Which leads back to the Duck Dynasty guy's original point: sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. are all sins and have negative consequences. Controversy over.

Birches said...

I mean if you want to label me a bigot, label me a bigot, but make sure you don't leave out that I'm not just bigoted towards homosexuals, but also anyone who has sex before their married (really, anyone who goes past 2nd base), those who cohabit, those who masturbate, look at pornography. . . if I were Catholic, I'd throw in have oral sex (even if married --- correct me if I'm wrong), use birth control, etc etc.

See, now you've seen my intolerance in all its glory: all sins.

damikesc said...

" What he didn't see..." That's right. Robertson didn't see it. Which is exactly what he said. If Robertson is lying, and he's lying about what he claimed happened in front of his face, then prove it. It's really strange that liberals really want to defend the post-Jim Crow world with its 80% illegitimate birth rates, rampant black-on-black murder, and the seeming impossibility of raising up the black underclass, as one of the greatest moral victories of our times, but there you are. Well, hey, the black 10%-ers in the NAACP made out like bandits in the post-civil rights world, so waddya want? Jamal in the 'hood can just go hang, 'cause Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson's gots theres'

Did they ignore that he was picking cotton next to the blacks in those days?

There is a camaraderie amongst co-workers.

And blacks advanced much more impressively BEFORE the 1960's than they have since. Would any people be better off if their "leaders" constantly reiterated that they have no real chance at success and that the majority only seeks to enslave them?

Christians, it seems to me, don't just want to live their lives in peace - they want everyone to have to live by their values - and that is oppressive.

...except he said, specifically, he wouldn't mistreat anybody who didn't agree with him.

So, Christians are the only group not allowed to express themselves at all.

Christians aren't satisfied, it seems to me, to believe that homosexuality is a sin - they want it banned, they want to deny homosexuals their right to marry and in some cases their right to employment or to housing.

And gays want to force Christians to take their wedding photos and make their wedding cakes.

Note: What I posted ACTUALLY happens. What you did...not so much. Christians don't have a desire to ban gay sex.

Are you claiming that in the whole United States gays can marry the person they love?

Nobody can marry whomever they love unless that person says yes.

Ergo, saying no to a proposal is a violation of rights.

Do you deny that in well over half the states gays can be fired just because they are gay - not based on their job performance, or kicked out of their housing?

Kicked out of housing? Yeah, I dispute that.

Fired? Yeah. In right to work states, one can be fired for being heterosexual as well.

When you are working/voting. speaking to deny full rights to a group of fellow citizens - you are attempting to oppress. And you are become a legitimate target, imo. You have heard the phrase 'pick your battles carefully'?

Gays are FORCING a baker to make wedding cakes for them. FORCING a photographer to cover their weddings.

So, are gays legitimate targets?

Naut Right said...

Phil does not like Yuppies. A&E probably fits the bill. Phil told the GQ interviewer that he knew Duck Dynasty was coming to a close, albeit he did not know when. Phil may have set a trap, knowing the weakness of the people at A&E when, last year they asked him to tone down the Jesus stuff before signing a new contract. Phil said, NO. Also, Phil made his comments on his time, on his property. I can't see there being a contractual code of conduct that would extend that far. So A&E is going to be on the hook for any breach of contract that this causes. Phil, you sly dog, you.

heyboom said...

@YoungHegelian

While I think he was absolutely truthful in that he only saw what was in his little world at the time, I guarantee that the grievance groups out there immediately shut off all channels to their critical thinking at the first sentence, so adding anything at all after that wouldn't have registered one bit.

Quaestor said...

damikesc wrote:
Gays are FORCING a baker to make wedding cakes for them. FORCING a photographer to cover their weddings.

The baker should provide the cake, but accidently flavor it liberally with wasabi. The photographer should cover the wedding, but accidently snap only their shoes.

Titus said...

I really enjoyed this thread.

Thanks everyone!

tits up.

Smilin' Jack said...

He didn't compare "being gay to bestiality."

I got the impression his main objection to gay sex is that it's illogical. I think he'd be OK with bestiality as long as the animal involved was female.

It is widely reported that Christians are cannibals who practice incest.

Witnesses report that they gather to eat a man's body and drink his blood and call everyone in the room their brothers and sisters.


Don't forget that they also worship a pedophile God (Mary was about 14 when Jesus was born.) Truly a disgusting religion.

Sam L. said...

And it's only a rant because someone else wants to call it that.

A&E can do as they wish, within contract law, but I hear this is their most popular show, so many viewers are going to be righteously POed about this.

harrogate said...

Revenant,

There's so much to cherry pick out of the Bible, of course, and out of the Christian doctrine. Early on, joining everyone else in defending the categorization as Biblically grounded, you asked me "why NOT 'throw' them together?"

But I cannot help but wonder if there were other things Phil the Duck had chosen to "throw in there," would he still have the fervent defenses of so many here. Revenant certainly, I would expect, you'd be among his defenders. And maybe even the lion's share of commenters here, I do not know. That's, heh, why I wonder.

For example, say Phil Robertson had made comments about Jews not getting saved and burning in Hell for eternity for not accepting Christ as their personal lord & savior -- would Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz still rush to his defense, claiming free speech (not that "free speech" really applies in this case in the way so many are suggesting, since nobody has a constitutional right to be on television that I know of)?

Inga said...

Of course they would harrogate, I'm pretty sure that is a tenet of their fundamentalist religions.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Actually, the salvation of the Jews thing really depends on your denomination.

Catholics would argue that Jews can be saved. Some Pentecostals say that Catholics are damned. Issues of who is saved and who is not are really inside baseball, and I doubt anyone cares.

Plus, the left isn't so keen on the Jews these days, so I'm guessing no one would have noticed.

The problem is that gays, unlike Jews, are COOL. Embracing their cause is a sign that you're hip, that you're not a backwards backwoods moron, that you're one of the RIGHT people.

So...more of a reaction, because the people who need to be cool must raise a stink to prove they're cool.

Having a hysterical fit over anything that hints at less than total approval for American Gay Culture is the new "wearing 6 Swatches, all different colors."


Deirdre Mundy said...

And talk is cheap, the Swatches weren't, so score!! You can be cool even WITHOUT wealthy parents supporting you!

Birches said...

Moving the goalposts harrogate.

Deidre Murphy is right. There isn't a lot of agreement between denominations on Jews and salvation. But the fundamentalist Christians tell me I'm going to hell all the time. If someone put it in print, I don't think I'd find it offensive.

Birkel said...

Sam L,
A&E cannot enforce a provision of a contract that is against the law. The law bans employment discrimination based on religion.

Therefore, A&E cannot fire (or otherwise cause an adverse employment decision) based on his religious views.

If I were A&E's lawyers, I'd be nervous about my potential liability.

Birches said...

And I'd find it fairly silly if there was a massive call to get one thrown out of their job for it, if it was asked about in a magazine interview.

damikesc said...

Don't forget that they also worship a pedophile God (Mary was about 14 when Jesus was born.) Truly a disgusting religion.

...except pedophilia requires, you know, sexual contact. And Mary was a virgin when she gave birth, so that didn't happen.

Troll better.

For example, say Phil Robertson had made comments about Jews not getting saved and burning in Hell for eternity for not accepting Christ as their personal lord & savior

Can you link to him saying this? It seems out-of-character for him and seeing as how people are butchering his quotes today, I'd like to see them.

Paddy O said...

"Jews not getting saved and burning in Hell for eternity for not accepting Christ as their personal lord & savior..."

This isn't inherently Christian doctrine. There's been and there still is a very wide diversity of thought on this topic within orthodox Christianity. With even some Fundamentalists (as in relating to the actual Fundamentalism movement) talking about a dual covenant, that Jews are saved separately.

If you look at the New Testament you don't find the sort of language you're describing here. Jesus, for instance, points almost exclusively to behavior and how we treat the poor/outcast as connecting to judgment. The key issue for the whole of the NT is where we put our identity, with Christ or not with Christ. Not with Christ leads to establishing being in a non-infinite source, thus cannot be sustained into eternity. So, judgment need not even be some kind of legal determination but rather a way of saying if you don't take the hand, the boat, or the helicopter, you're left to drown.

Again, there's a lot of debate on that. In historic Christianity there's never really been a debate about homosexuality being a sin. Only in the last couple of decades or so does this start appearing.

Homosexuality has always been included as an urge and as an expression that should be resisted. Just like having an affair or pre-marital sex. It's never been seen as an identity, which is the core debate.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Most Liberals do not believe in freedom of speech. Sad, but true. They believe you should be free to say what you want as long as it agrees with their beliefs.

YoungHegelian said...

@Paddy,

Homosexuality has always been included as an urge and as an expression that should be resisted. Just like having an affair or pre-marital sex. It's never been seen as an identity, which is the core debate.

Sometimes, Paddy, you knock one out of the park, and we all realize that the money you blew on Divinity school rather than an MBA was money well spent.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

If you have the audacity to express main stream convention Christian beliefs you are labelled a bigot. Liberals are anti-civil libertarians. Gays should be allowed to express their belief that homosexuality is wonderful and others should be equally free to express their belief that homosexuality is repugnant.

TosaGuy said...

If you read the actual article you will find no hate in Phil Robertson's heart.

You will find a lot of hate in the heart of those dead set on attacking him.

Most people of all persuasions know who they would rather sit down with for Sunday dinner.

Titus said...

Let's welcome New Mexico to fag marriage!

Cruising Troll said...

"Polygamy's ok, though. The ban on polygamy is a cultural thing; the Bible doesn't require it. "

This notion is mistaken. Polygamy is permitted in the Old Testament. The New Testament standard is "one man, one wife." It is not merely a "cultural thing".

BTW, it would be interesting to sort out why Judaism has abandoned polygamy as well, since to the best of my knowledge it is permitted.

Dr Weevil said...

Do we know for a fact that the Duck Dynasty gang are 'fundamentalists'? Louisiana is the southern state where a very large portion of Christians are in fact Roman Catholics. The Catholic Catechism is on-line for anyone to read: see section 1260 for non-Catholics being eligible for salvation, and 2857-59 for Chuch doctrine on homosexuality.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Polygamy never works out so well in the Bible, though. Heck, a lot of the troubles faced by Israel come about because Abraham didn't trust God's promise and took a concubine! Then Jacob's two wives cause him endless headaches! (And gave him sons with names like "Maybe now at last my husband will love me!" ) David's multi-wiving ways cause trouble, as do Solomon's.

Really, you can't see the OT as a ringing endorsement of polygamy, any more than it's a ringing endorsement of kings. (God: OK, OK... you want a king? You can have a king. But you'll be sorry. He'll make you pay taxes and stuff!)

Humperdink said...

I would ask all of you wannabe Bible scholars to read the book, the whole book, before making any pronouncements.

It really makes you looks foolish to pick and choose, buffet style.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

I can say from experience that when arguing against sodomy, frequently sodomizers and their minions will try to humiliate you and try to make you feel as if in some sense you are sodomized-like. In the debate sphere, their goal is to make you angry, since angry people make poor debaters. It's easy to get angry when people make out like you are screwed-up, because that is a typical move of someone who actually wants to sodomize you, and anger is appropriate when there's danger of getting forcibly sodomized, because the momentum of the anger can keep you unkindly disposed after having been violated. Convince people around you that you want to get sodomized (because you be screwed up), and if later you get forcibly sodomized, your forcible sodomizer will more plausibly have the excuse that you wanted it.

The most important thing to appreciate if one wants to defend oneself against sodomy is the distinction between sex and sodomy. Screwed up people who might want to get sodomized are very poor at making distinctions; I shouldn't even be surprised if the chemical effects of sodomy actually make discriminating thought more difficult--that would be such a useful effect for the sodomizer to evolve to have. So a tendency of sodomizers trying to humiliate you to make you mad (or to lessen the punishment from others after they forcibly sodomize you, though of course this is rare) is to make out that you conflate things too much, e.g., sodomy with bestiality. Since, of course, in arguing against sodomy one is likely largely to have argued that there is too much conflation going on (between sex and sodomy), frequently this seems like parroting what you have accused them of doing. One just has to evaluate the situation rationally and decide whether realistically the mockery is to make you mad or to make it safer for them to forcibly sodomize you, and decide to be not mad or mad depending on what seems more likely.

This sort of thing is the true significance of the big lie that was mentioned a few days ago (that Hitler didn't understand and probably not sodomizers either, though they all have the tendency).

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 259   Newer› Newest»