If You Support Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, This is What You’re Really Defending

To all those Christians who are planning to rally behind Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson on “Chick-Phil-A” Day and beyond, let’s remind everybody what exactly you’re supporting so that we have a(nother) record of how truly awful you are.

We already know about Robertson’s homophobia and how he believes it’s on par with bestiality when it comes to sin:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Don’t forget the ignorance-fueled racist comments suggesting that black people were actually happy in the Jim Crow south:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’ — not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

And then there’s that video of him making misogynistic comments about how older women (ages 20 and up) are all gold-diggers and how you should marry underage girls instead since they’re easier to control:

“Look, you wait ‘til they get to be twenty years-old and the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket. You got to marry these girls when they’re about fifteen or sixteen. They’ll pick your ducks.”

There’s also the (actual) Islamophobia, comparing all Muslims to Nazis while also throwing in some anti-Chinese sentiments for good measure:

… What will do the Muslims in? Violations of the law; that’s what’ll do ‘em in. What will do the Chinese in, if they don’t turn to Jesus? One violation… it’s not called the law of sin and death for nothing… they go on to be controlled by the Evil One. That’s why they run jet aircraft into buildings, because they’re under control of the Evil One. That’s why they rob and kidnap and rape and pillage, because they’re under control of the Evil One. That’s why they murder, from the Nazis, to the Shintoists, to the communists to this latest crop! You say ‘Why do they murder?” and “Why do they hate us?! Because all of them, those four groups, 80 years of history, they all want to conquer the world, they all rejected Jesus, and they’re all famous for murder. Nazis, Shintoists, Communists, and the Muhammadists. Every one of them, the same way…

And there’s also the less-offensive-but-still-highly-untrue claim that, late at night, atheists would prefer to meet Bible-thumpers on the road than anybody else:

here comes ten dudes, coming towards you. And they’re all carrying something in their hand. There’s your wife [and your] kids. And you’re thinking, “Oh my goodness, it’s three in the morning. Here comes ten dudes coming toward me. And I’m in a major metropolitan area of the United States of America.” And as they get close enough, and come into the light a little bit, they’re all carrying Bibles. [Late night] Bible study.

Even if you’re an atheist, tell the truth: You would feel better about it. Right? I’m just sayin’.

So I’ve looked at both groups. I’ve looked at the Bible Thumpers, and the ones that carry other things in their hands besides Bibles. Oh, I’ll take the Bible Thumpers every day of the week.

Actually, I’d prefer running into people carrying any books late at night. God Delusion? Koran? Kama Sutra? Whatever. Better a book than the alternatives. The Bible’s got nothing to do with it.

Yes, Robertson has free speech. No one’s denying him the right to say any of these things and, frankly, I’m more than happy to give him enough rope to hang himself with, so let’s hope he keeps giving interviews and opening his mouth. Remember: We have every right to judge him harshly for the beliefs he holds, just as we ought to judge anyone who wants to defend this horrible man. It doesn’t matter that he says we ought to “love” Muslims and black people when those comments are preceded by stereotypes, generalizations, lies, and outright ignorance.

Robertson revels in the fact that he doesn’t know much and he has no desire to learn why he might be wrong. In that sense, he’s not too different from Sarah Palin and Governor Bobby Jindal the other right-wingers coming to his defense.

All this attention thrown on the show has nothing to do with Robertson’s right to free speech. That was never in question. The real argument is how we, as a society, respond to someone who says such untrue, outrageous, harmful, and hurtful things. Do we push back against it or do we laugh because that guy’s just so folksy and real?

We have to push back. And Christians ought to be horrified that their faith is being used by Robertson to defend his statements. They won’t be, though. Instead, Evangelicals everywhere are bending over backwards to throw their support his way.

Don’t forget what they’re really defending.

"Why the [/s]? I'm an evil feminist and do that kind of thing quite a ..."

Matt Walsh, Naturally, Blames Women for ..."
"Please explain why I would tell a Christian couple that hey are a friendly atheist?? ..."

Waitress in SC Receives “Tip” from ..."
""We should mandate classes that teach men how 95% of 1st marriages end in divorce ..."

Matt Walsh, Naturally, Blames Women for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • SeekerLancer

    Why are they even doing this “support Phil Robertson” crap? A&E took him off suspension. They clearly demonstrated the only people watching Duck Dynasty in the first place were the kind of people who like to hear anti-gay bigotry.

    So he can continue to spew his evangelical insanity and people with zero cultural awareness can pat him on the back and make him their personal hero. They do more damage to their own cause than atheists ever could.

  • mandas

    Can I just add a little bit of perspective here.
    This guy is an ignorant redneck hillbilly who lives in a swamp and hunts ducks for a living. Who gives a flying fuck what he thinks or says? And why is anyone surprised that he has ignorant redneck attitudes to just about everything?
    What’s happening in the real world?

  • Kengi

    I thought he was the CEO of a profitable corporation and a cultural media icon who has a lot of influence because of A&E’s large, well funded advertising and promotional support.

  • anniewhoo

    He also has a master’s degree in education.

  • skinnercitycyclist

    “He also has a master’s degree in education.”

    THERE’s prestige and erudition for you.

  • anniewhoo

    He really plays up the “I’m just a simple country bumpkin” act, and yet only 8% of Americans have a master’s degree (quick US census bureau search as of 2012, my apologies if my stats are off). My point was that he has reached a higher level of education than 92% of the US adult population, and yet he attempts to play the part of being just another poor (which he’s not), uneducated (which he’s not) country man.

  • SeekerLancer

    At least 1.5 million other ignorant redneck hillbillies on Facebook apparently.

  • $324578

    He’s a redneck hillbilly with a massive audience and a really big loudspeaker. The true answer to your question is that a TON of people care what he says, no matter how ignorant he is, and that’s the problem.

  • mandas

    Why is it a problem?
    Here is a picture of me caring what ignorant hillbillies have to say:
    —>

  • skeptical_inquirer

    They vote in a way that drags the rest of us down. That’s how we keep getting weird politicians.

  • Nancy Shrew

    Do we seriously have to explain how the media works?

  • $324578

    Allow me to simplify this as much as I can: it’s not about you.

  • onamission5

    Funny thing is, many people grow up rednecks and still manage not to be racist, homophobic, misogynistic fuckwits. Imagine.

  • http://thewritepractice.com/ John Fisher

    Thank you!

  • http://thewritepractice.com/ John Fisher

    ……..unless it’s all an act for the $$$$$$.

  • onamission5

    I find it hard to believe that someone whose social stance is the opposite of what Phil has professed would promote such flagrant bigotry just for the dollars. Not impossible to believe, but difficult. He may only nominally believe what he says, but he stands up and says it, I believe he believes it.

  • http://thewritepractice.com/ John Fisher

    ………And if that’s the case he’s got the right to stand up and say it; but others also have the right to call him out for his bigotry. Which is bloody well happenin’.

  • onamission5

    You’re welcome!
    I get really tired of all the “country folks are too stoopid to know right from wrong or have empathy” horseshit. Because A) no, we’re not and B) racism is not the sole propriety of poor, rural, or southerners, and C) all this deflection onto “hillbillies” and “rednecks” reeks of someone doth protesting too much. It’s classism, and it’s inaccurate to boot. Unless NY’s stop and frisk law was concocted by Louisiana rednecks?
    I’m from the US west, I now live in the south, there really isn’t that much difference except that white southerners know they have a racist history, while white westerners and northerners tend to gloss that shit right over whilst deflecting southward.

    edit switched glass for gloss

  • http://thewritepractice.com/ John Fisher

    Absolutely second everything you say here. I have a friend that spent her college youth in New England, and she tells me she ran into both more racism and more of the “classism” you reference, up there than down here. I’ll keep my native Texas twang and my love of country music, and anyone who judges me negatively on those characteristics is missin’ out. (But that’s just me.)

  • http://thewritepractice.com/ John Fisher

    I read he’s a degreed college graduate. This could be more entrepeneurship than true-believerism. But then again, he may actually believe what he’s bloviatin’, who knows.

  • Kengi

    Those defending Robertson aren’t doing so because they don’t realize all the horrible things he is promoting, they defend him because they agree with the horrible things he is promoting. Robertson has no reasonable concept of decency or shame, nor do his cadre of defenders.

  • Bec

    Exactly. They read his list and all nod their heads in agreement. Most comments I have read in support of Robertson go along the lines of:
    ‘ So what, he can say what he wants and noone should be punished for free speech.’, ‘ So what, he is only exercising his rights, besides, its all true.’ or ‘so what, nothing he said was offensive, gay people will get all upset over nothing and manipulate the liberal left wing media to censor the views of ordinary folk.’
    It blows me away that his comments are not considered offensive. I mean, he could have said instead ‘I am a christian and I believe being gay is a sin according to the Bible.’ and it would not cause a ripple. But Robertson dieliberately chose to put his views out there in the most intolerant manner, using slander and bigotry to whip up his audience. He used that method because that is how homosexuality is talked about in his circles and those of hia viewers and its his career on the line as a redneck ignoramus. His fans just eat up that shit and ask for more.

  • jon

    Surely though there are at least some ignorant followers

  • Kengi

    As far as I can see, they are all ignorant. Do you mean ignorant of his actual views? I see no sign of that. Can you point me to an example?

  • sara

    I think it used to be possible to pretend not to know. We’ll find out for sure if anyone was truly woken up by all this when we see how the ratings go.

  • The Captain

    Now that more of the interview has come out, I need to hand it to A&E, they did an brilliant job of spinning this in their favor and we all fell right into it.

    I think A&E saw that the really offensive thing he said was the comments he made about black people and civil rights, that was the potential show killer. Yes, the comments about gays are bad, but pretty much even many anti-gay right wing christians could potentially look at his comments on black people and say fuck you to this show. But by leaking the anti-gay comments first they buried his race comments under all the internet noise, and most importantly turned him into a right wing christian hero/martyr before anyone could hear about the race stuff. So now by using the gay comments A&E has galvanized support for the show from the anti-gay segment of the country, who now will overlook (or never hear) his race comments.

    So now rather than the national discourse being “holly crap this guy thinks black people where happier under segregation and now all live on welfare” which would have very little support, they turned the dialogue into one of being anti-gay, which sadly does have a lot of support.

    The network PR people basically pulled what I’m convinced will be called and taught in PR classes as a “Chick-Fil-A move”. Christians have now proven their outrage so easy to predict they have become easily manipulatable. Have a star/brand/business that’s about to be in trouble for racist or other socially unacceptable reasons? Make them a temporary martyr publicly, just blame it on the gays and watch christians rally support for your brand while handing you money.

    Well played A&E… well played!

  • Kengi

    Yup, and A&E “punished” Robertson by suspending him from filming for several days during which no filming was scheduled to be done anyway. Despite this completely phony punishment A&E has managed to get praise from several LGBT organizations. Honestly, I don’t understand why there isn’t more outrage against A&E for their complete lack of integrity.

  • SeekerLancer

    As someone with a background in PR I kept thinking the whole time that A&E only did this to spin their fanbase into a frenzy. The amount of Duck Dynasty merchandise they probably sold RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS thanks to this has to be pretty insane. Now the holiday season is over and so is Phil Robertson’s suspension.

    Call me a cynic or a conspiracy theorist but the whole thing was so manufactured.

    I am surprised the media hasn’t glomped onto his racist comments more, considering how quickly they ruined Paula Deen with a lot less. But I guess nobody expects someone like Phil Robertson not to be racist in the first place. That and the gay stuff drowned out all other discussion I guess.

    This also inoculates Phil Robertson in the future, he basically has a free ticket to run his mouth since his fans not only expect it, they want him to. There were no downsides for A&E in all of this. Duck Dynasty fans will continue to scream about the company for it’s phony “persecution” and “violation of rights” because they have no idea how freedom of religion or speech actually works but they’ll continue buying the merchandise and watching the show.

  • http://heartofbirch.blogspot.com/ CarysBirch

    Yes, yes, yes. My views on Robertson completely aside, I can’t decide if I am more annoyed by A&E’s manipulation of the situation, more impressed with their deft handling, or more amused by how many people swallowed it hook line and sinker.

    Mix of all three, really.

  • Malcolm McLean

    You might be right.

    PR can be very sophisticated, and cynical.

  • LesterBallard

    ” which would have very little support”

    Really?

  • Malcolm McLean

    It’s a general rule that spoiling causes resentment. It’s the kids who get showered with toys who kick up a fuss because Santa has brought the wrong brand of mobile phone. Poor kids rejoice at a few modest presents.

    Mr Robertson is right on a lot of issues. Maybe not everything, and he expresses things in a silly exaggerated way which goes down well with Americans.

  • Kengi

    He’s a racist and a bigot, which goes down well with a certain subset of Americans.

    I have no idea what your point is about Robertson being rich and spoiled. Did he also complain about a mobile phone someone gave to him for Christmas? Is that why he resents those less privileged than he is?

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

    he presents himself as a working class, good old swamp dwelling country boy. he is in fact a highly educated yuppie/upper class business executive pretending to be something else. his fans glorify him for all the things about him that are completely faked. like the stupid idiots they are.

  • lucky21

    Okay, something I don’t like about this all is that people here make generalizations and stereotypes about his supporters. Its really elitist and very snobby.

  • Malcolm McLean

    There is an element of pandering to the lowest common denominator.You can basically agree with a lot of the thrust whilst thinking it’s being expressed in a crude, populist way.

  • SeekerLancer

    If Phil Robertson didn’t have a pot to piss in he’d still be the same exact racist Louisiana redneck, it’s just that nobody would care.

    And “goes down well with Americans” is a silly statement. It goes down well with those Americans who would be interested in something like Duck Dynasty in the first place, which isn’t the majority.

  • more compost

    It goes down well with a certain subset of ignorant, intolerant Americans. The worst of Americans.

    A group which you seem proud to call yourself a member of.

  • Malcolm McLean

    I’m not an American at all.

  • more compost

    Yet you seem to be proud to call yourself a member of that group, no matter where you are from.

  • Jachra

    He’s “right” on a lot of issues?
    Are you saying he’s correct on all of these things?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Which issues is he right on? Racism, homophobia, or child sex slavery?

  • Oranje

    Oof. We’re going to need more than a few fire extinguishers to put out that strawman. Because you didn’t just build one, you torched it, too.

  • IDK

    Actually, what Robertson, as hateful as he is, said about the Muslims is mild compared to what Sam Harris wants to do to them.

    Atheists have people to be ashamed of too, like the Patheos blogger who said he felt like “firebombing things” when he saw Oprah Winfreys woo woo comments on spirituality and atheism.

    Just Sayin…

  • http://batman-news.com Anton

    what Robertson, as hateful as he is, said about the Muslims is mild compared to what Sam Harris wants to do to them.

    I read what Harris actually wrote in The End of Faith, which is more than I can say about his scaremongering naysayers. Perhaps you’d like to explain what Harris “wants to do,” so we can see if you understand what he said.

  • XJ5

    Get off it! Sam Harris’s comments on Muslims have long been over-blown and seized upon by Muslims and Liberal Apologist for Islam.

  • The Starship Maxima

    While your post was quite impassioned and full of many good points, I disagree with it.
    Yes, I defend Robertson. Yes, you and many people here will call that objectionable. Yes, there will be 50 downvotes and sharp replies saying “Of course another brainwashed Christian defends indefensible bullshit.” That is your prerogative. But, no, I don’t defend him because I agree with his views.
    I defend him for the same reason I wouldn’t want you suspended or fired even though your site is rife with broad generalizations of religious people, itself a form of bigotry. You are a math teacher, your views and opinions on other subjects are completely irrelevant to your ability to do that job. Phil Robertson is paid to be duck hunter on a tv show. He seems to do that well. His socio-political views aren’t relevant to me.
    I’m black and don’t particularly care that he thinks blacks were happier under Jim Crow, just like I’m not particularly concerned you think all Christians are interested in proselytizing people and fear logic. I know the truth about myself, and it is my opinion on my own being that matters first and last.
    But more than defending Robertson, I oppose thought-policing. You say you have the right to “push back” when someone says things you don’t like. True, you do. But many people label things they don’t want to hear as “harmful” and “wrong”. There was a time saying gays deserved to marry was considered “harmful” and “wrong”.
    But beyond that, I want to make sure your “pushing back” doesn’t exceed what is fair. You don’t have to watch his show, or buy his stuff. You want to organize a boycott, go ahead. I think the line should be drawn at his job being interfered with.
    You, and many others, don’t think so. Well, as you can appreciate, me and those who believe in true free speech have the right to push back against you. And we will.

  • more compost

    He is not paid to be a duck hunter on a TV show. He is paid to be ignorant and intolerant. And he does it very well.

    It was A&E’s choice, and their right, to “interfere” with his job. Of course, it wasn’t interference. It was a publicity stunt. And you seem to have fallen for it.

  • The Starship Maxima

    He is not paid to be a duck hunter on a TV show. He is paid to be ignorant and intolerant. And he does it very well

    That appears to be more an opinion than a conclusive fact.

    It was A&E’s choice, and their right to “interfere” with his job. Of course, that isn’t what happened. This was all a publicity stunt. Too bad you don’t understand that.

    It’s less that I “don’t understand” and more “Unless I actually know what happened in A&E’s offices, I won’t assume one way or the other.”
    And yes, you are absolutely correct, it is A&E right to interfere with his job. Just as it the right of a business in a state that doesn’t offer protections based on sex orientation to fire a gay employee.
    As Hemant said, it is my right to oppose the people and businesses who do that. And I will.

  • more compost

    Tell yourself whatever you want.

    If all he was paid to do was to hunt ducks, the show wouldn’t be nearly as popular. But since the role he plays is ignorant intolerance, lots of people want to watch it. Some because they share that ignorant intolerance, others to mock that ignorant intolerance.

    I am sure it is just a coincidence that all this happened just in time to raise the awareness of this show just before Christmas.

    And what do intolerant businesses have to do with anything I said?

  • Wildcard

    How many of those gay people were public figures with millions of eyes on them and inevitably tied to the company they currently work for? In a very public employers place would you not do the same thing?

    In other words if you the Head Writer or Producer of a sitcom that had Pro-Life message and was sponsored by such an organization. Then it came out that the leading lady had an abortion. You have no option to ignore this other than recasting her character, sure you could ignore it but inevitably you would lose sponsors when you did that for “aiding an immoral person” , you and the workers on the show would be considered hypocrites. I remind you again this is the leading lady, you cannot hide her character or actresses existence from the press and brush the paparazzi off her.

    In the same situation would you okay with possibly losing you show to protect her?

  • Kengi

    Robertson is not simply “paid to be duck hunter on a tv show”. He is the primary character is a semi-reality based television show, and is promoted by A&E as a media icon with their advertising and PR resources. If he becomes a liability, A&E certainly does have the right to punish, or even fire him based upon pushback from their customers.

    To say Robertson, in a pivotal advertising and PR role for A&E, should somehow have a right to employment there and be shielded from corporate censure is very un-libertarian.

  • The Starship Maxima

    A compelling argument. But the problem is, in some parts of the country, simply saying that gays should be able to adopt and marry and get paid the same would offend customers, and a business could fire someone behind that. They have in fact, which is partly why everyone is fighting for ENDA to pass.
    In my view, the work of an employee should be the only consideration. Their personal views are their own.

  • Kengi

    In the United States of America (in case you aren’t familiar with our laws), we decided in the 1960’s that historically discriminated against groups should have special protections from the tyranny of the majority. That allows us to protect some basic rights of minority groups with minimal impact upon the rights of others.

    Gay-bashing employees aren’t part of a historically discriminated against group yet, so aren’t protected.

    Again, Robertson’s job is not duck hunting. It’s as a promotional employee who has been specifically been promoted as a cultural icon. By using the bully pulpit which A&E bought and paid for, Robertson’s public promotion of racism and bigotry is an inseparable part of his iconic image and his promotional value as an employee.

    If he actually were just a duck hunter (or math teacher) for A&E, you might have a point. Your premise, however, falls apart when we look at his actual role within the organization.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Don’t you think you might be overestimating Robertson’s influence? He’s a cartoon hillbilly, nobody is going to stop campaigning for ENDA or ending DOMA based on Robertson’s say so.

  • Kengi

    I haven’t given any estimate of Robertson’s influence. I’ve reiterated his role in the corporation which employs him, which is a promotional role, not a duck hunting role.

    His influence is much more significant than it used to be due to the millions of dollars A&E has spent turning him into a cultural icon. Without such advertising and PR expenditures, we would never have heard of his opinions on these subjects.

    So, at the least, I can state that A&E has spent a great deal of its own resources to increase the influence this particular bigot and racist has. It’s a pity they aren’t going to lose because of that, but, as has been pointed out, that’s because of the effective PR strategy by A&E in dealing with this issue.

    Just because Robertson can’t singlehandedly stop everyone from campaigning for ENDA doesn’t mean he should be ignored or has no influence. Besides, he’s not actually a cartoon hillbilly. That’s just the false persona created by the TV show producers and Robertson himself. That persona is carefully managed to maximize his value as a current cultural icon. You know, his actual job for A&E.

  • The Starship Maxima

    You’ve given me a bit to chew on here.

  • lucky21

    One thing to consider is the news media likes to bite on juicy stuff and not tell the full story on what’s going on. Most that what was dug up seems to be more to it than what was going. In fact the thing about Jim Crow seems to actually him remembering what his experience was. In fact a lot of these things seem to be just one thing I dislike about the media is that its not willing to show the full picture but just bits and pieces to sell stories.

  • Kengi

    Really? You’re going to go with the “He’s not a racist, he just likes to reminisce about how great it was back in the days when racism was rampant, legal and acceptable” defense?

  • luck

    Nope I think its more like how actually maybe there were times when there was relations between poor whites and blacks. Historically poor whites and blacks often formed some friendships with each other.

  • Kengi

    They still do.

    And even if that were true (which you have provided no evidence for), it’s still a racist thing to say.

    To suggest that poor African Americans and white people were all friendlier to each other back when white people could legally prevent African Americans from voting, could kill African Americans with impunity, and could legally discriminate against African Americans in housing, employment, and custom, is still astonishingly racist!

    If you don’t see that, then you would be happier hanging out at the Stormfront forums.

    I’m beginning to think you like Robertson because he closely represents your racist views.

  • lucky21

    The reason why I am defending is because this thing is turning into a sensationalist news circus that seems to only care about bashing instead of telling the full picture. Storm Front is probably the place I would never attend in my life. I would be insulting my ancestors if I did. I am black and I am proud. I actually want to understand what is going on from his viewpoint instead of just jumping to conclusions. Jim Crow was bad but on the other hand there was still opportunity for people to actually form bonds and friendships.

  • Kengi

    Who, but the straw man in your head, ever said that bonds and friendships were never formed in the Jim Crow era? There are still bonds and friendships between POC and whites even in the era since the Civil Rights Act and the partial overturning of the Jim Crow laws.

    Given your support of racism, I’m just suggesting you may be comfortable at Stormfront. In my opinion, your racist support of Robertson is an insult to African Americans. Including your ancestors All I see is a poor attempt to argue “But I can’t be racist since I’m a POC!”

  • lucky21

    And you see things in black and white.

  • Miss_Beara

    It’s as a promotional employee who has been specifically been promoted as a cultural icon.

    This sentence depresses me.

  • lucky21

    What I have a big problem is they are looking things up and taking things out of context and not fully understanding the words behind them. In fact what frustrates me is the fact that they are using bits pieces and not fully comprehending what’s going on. About the blacks during Jim Crow I think that one was blown up and so was the teenage marriage thing. In fact when I look further into these comments brought up I think its just sensationalism on display with no one actually no one wanting to see what’s the full picture. All they want is just to make a sensational story instead of actually reporting the truth. Its the same thing they accuse Fox News of and its shameful.

  • Kengi

    So, since you researched this, what is the “full picture” behind the racist remarks about the Jim Crow era?

  • lucky21

    The full picture is the fact he was talking about what was happening to him in his life. Jim Crow of course was often the rule but often times it didn’t stop blacks and whites from forming bonds. People are too quickly jump up and down saying he wants Jim Crow back.

  • Kengi

    Let’s have a link to a video which demonstrates this. All the videos I’ve checked so far (some of which were pretty long) did not demonstrate this. All I’ve seen have, so far, shown him reminiscing about how much better African Americans were before they had equal treatment under the law from the Civil Rights era. About how access to the same rights available to white people caused them to be unhappy. About how they were not unhappy back when racism was common, legal and acceptable. Back when white people were allowed to hang those uppity black folk when they got out of line and demanded equal treatment under the law.

    So, provide evidence, or go back to Stormfront.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Stormfront??? Kengi that’s a bit uncalled for.

  • Kengi

    Look at your response below defending the racist ideas of Robertson. You even suggested an alternative representation of his ideas which would still be horribly racist, yet you don’t seem to see the inherent racism.

    As I said below, I’m beginning to believe you defend Robertson so staunchly because you agree with his racist views.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Uh, Kengi, TSM is black. Which doesn’t make it, strictly speaking, impossible that they’re motivated by racism against black people (thanks, Chappelle’s Show), but it makes it so improbable as to be safely ignored.

    You seem to be making the error of assuming that your opponents couldn’t be arguing in good faith. Occasionally, people actually do mean what they say and not what that which they say normally signifies. It’s the danger of living in a dog-whistle media ecology.

  • Kengi

    Anyone defending racism is a racist is my book. The “But I can’t be a racist since I’m a POC” is an overused and vacuous argument.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Anyone defending racism is a racist is my book.

    That waters down what racism is, which I think is not just a semantic error but also a practical one. It unreasonably scorches the grounds for lateral argument, since there can be legitimate arguments pursuing an unrelated value or principle that when applied in specific cases happens to support a racist result, that it would be illegitimate to call pursuing those values (and the person so doing) racist. At worst, you could call out a person so doing as being insensitive to the lateral effects their argument may have on race relations, but that is a heck of a distance from racism itself.

    For example, arguments over economics and fiscal policy often revolve around what the ideal social safety net would look like. The poor are disproportionately constituted of people of color in the US, and so people of color are disproportionately impacted by policies that are intended to affect the poor. Are you honestly arguing that any person who proposes an ideal that would give less to poor people is per se racist and that such a person must, perforce, be a racist to make the argument?

  • Kengi

    It depends upon the actual argument being put forth. I didn’t see TSM as inherently racist until she started defending specifically racist arguments. Not generalizations about fiscal policies.

    Yes, it’s possible for people to argue reduction of the social safety nets in America without resorting to racism (though that’s a rare thing to see such an argument that doesn’t eventually descend into racism). When the argument does, in fact, descend into racist viewpoints, (black folk were only friendly before they got all uppity and demanded equal rights), then claiming a person can’t be racist because of their race is not acceptable.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    When the argument does, in fact, descend into racist viewpoints, (black folk were only friendly before they got all uppity and demanded equal rights), then claiming a person can’t be racist because of their race is not acceptable.

    As you indicated elsewhere a goodly bunch of your comment towards TSM was predicated on a mistaken identity of TSM with lucky21. One thing I do quibble on is the last bit, because it is a misinterpretation of my argument to say that people of color can’t be racist. I was arguing, rather, that it is rather unlikely that a person of color would have racist intent against members of the very group with which they identify; extraordinary claims require at least some evidence to overcome the presumption. TSM’s arguments do not come within a country mile of such evidence. TSM’s actual comments were in defense of a parallel value, namely a free and open marketplace for social discussion where employees should not fear retaliation from their employers for expressing personal opinions, which like fiscal policy and the social safety net, is adjacent to issues of race but is analyzed using a rubric of tactics and outcomes orthogonal to a race critical analysis.

    Now, lucky21’s defense of Duck Dynasty Guy’s obviously racist comments as not racist I find to be implausible, perhaps even ridiculously so, but I think that insufficient to then transitively accuse lucky21 of racism. I tend to think that collapsing the categories of social privilege with racism is problematic, because racism insinuates a motivational element that can and usually is entirely absent from exercises of privilege. I don’t know with what racial group lucky21 associates with, but if they are (like me, for example) white, it is much more likely on balance that the arguments they have been producing are a product of unexamined privilege rather than an intent to assert the superiority or inferiority of any particular racial clade. It requires reading into the comments in an uncharitable way to get out of it a racist intent. That’s why the Stormfront comments were, in my opinion, out of line.

  • Kengi

    A person’s racism has to be motivated by something other than the exercise of privilege to identify them as a racist? What kind of BS is that?

    You sound like you are trying to count the number of angels on the head of a pin. A person who promotes racist views because of unexamined privilege is a racist. A person who promoted racist views with the intent to assert their superiority over other races is racist. In fact, how do you know such a person isn’t asserting their superiority just because of unexamined privilege? I guess they wouldn’t be a racist then, right?

    Yes, their motivations are different, but both are racists.

    Feel free to psychoanalyze the roots of lucky’s racism. It doesn’t matter to me, in this particular situation, what the deep psychological motivations for his racism are. A person who espouses, promotes and defends racist viewpoints is a racist by any common definition.

    What, then, do you call a person who promotes racist views like lucky21? A misguided unexamined privilege, but otherwise good intentioned, definitely not racist person? It seems a bit cumbersome. I think I’ll just stick with “racist”.

    Perhaps he can overcome his racism if he eventually does manage to examine his privilege. Until then, I’ll point his racism out.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    If your contact with a person is the sum total of the words they’ve typed over the Internet in one thread, then yeah, you really can’t make the leap from clueless privileged idiot to racist. The principle of charity demands that people be reasonably given the benefit of the doubt as to intent in a forum like this, because our positions are epistemologically impoverished regarding one another to an absurd degree. If lucky21 made a habit of defending racist utterances, such that it were a pattern of behavior, you’d be on stronger grounds making the leap. But one set of interactions regarding one incident is insufficient, under any reasonable rubric of conversation, to tell someone who isn’t asserting racism straight-up (superiority/inferiority of distinctive clades or using racially abusive language) to “go back to Stormfront”.

    Besides, just on a tactical level, it weakens the strength of your argument unnecessarily, because you manage to alienate everyone who might agree with your side on spec but does not agree with your ad hoc judgment that your interlocutor is a racist, making that audience in turn much less receptive to judging your comments using the principle of charity. Charity of interpretation requires reciprocity to be meaningful, and it is not something that ought to be casually tossed away in favor of an easy label to tar a troublesome opponent.

  • Kengi

    You don’t get it. People who make obviously racist statements are, in fact, racist for even that minimum reason of espousing obviously racist views with racist statements.

    They certainly may be even more racist than we know, but that basic minimum standard has already been breached.

    To avoid the handle of racist lucky needs to avoid making racist remarks.

    You seem to want to reserve the word “racist” for only the most egregious views. Sorry, but people can be racist even without promoting cross burning. There are certainly different degrees of racism, but that doesn’t mean the “mildest” forms are not racism.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    I don’t know how else to explain it, but if you think egregiousness or extent is the metric by which I think the word becomes appropriate, you haven’t been reading very carefully. As I said, I thought pretty clearly, the issue is not extremity but intent. There’s a difference between saying things that have racist consequence out of ignorance or privilege and being a racist. Assigning the substantive requires implying intent, because to be a racist requires endorsing a viewpoint that it is in all probability likely the person you seek to assign the term to does not share.

    I think the cavalier usage of labels like “racist” really only achieve one thing, which is the dilution of the potency of the term in its capacity to effectively label what it was originally intended to label. Not every person–not most, even–who calls someone “bitch” is a misogynist, even if using the word “bitch” in a pejorative manner is (arguably) a misogynistic act. That fails to make a crucial distinction that the label does not share with the description; a person, to be called such, must intend to be that thing, because to call a person “misogynist” is to imply that they hate women, not that they accidentally harm women with their careless words.

    Intent may not be magic, but it does certainly matter. To lump in the carelessly harmful with the actually malevolent does several things that one ought to want to avoid, not least in making it more difficult to call out actual malevolence, making it less likely that someone who is careless will be willing to listen to you when you point out the effects of their carelessness, unnecessarily shuts down avenues for discourse, and in general coarsens the discourse. In return, what do you get? I ask this in all seriousness. What is the possible benefit in rushing to label every person who says an unwise thing as being the essence of that thing?

  • Kengi

    I don’t know how else to explain it, but, as you said, intent isn’t magic. To restrict the use of the term “racist” to only those with a malevolent intent is ludicrous. I’m not labeling someone racist just because they said an “unwise” thing. I’m labeling them racist for saying, and promoting, racist views.

    Their intent matters only in how they need to deal with their racism and move forward. No matter the intent, they need to come to the realization they are racists.

    And yes, malevolence is more egregious and extreme than ignorance due to privilege, so it is, indeed, both a matter of intent as well as extent.

    We can easily have different degrees of racism and different associated levels of being racist. It’s not a word which can only be applied to purposely malevolent people. And, at that, to only people we are very sure have such a malevolent intent. That’s just plain bullshit.

    Yes, the word has a negative connotation. Good! When people promote racism they should be called out for doing something negative. A word with a negative connotation is a good fit for that job.

    As for your question, I honestly don’t get what it would even mean to be “the essence” of racist. Is that more angel counting?

    And do you really want to just limit the current usage of a word to the original meaning? Are you really suggesting that we should only use the word “racist” when talking about Nazi theories (the original use of the word)? You remind me of the Christians who pick an arbitrary point in time and want to lock the definition of the word “marriage” to that point.

    As the face of racism changes in our culture so does the use and meaning of the words used to describe it.

    Perhaps I have you wrong. I thought you were just desperately trying to pretend you were never a “real” racist in the past by claiming that word could never been applied to you back when you may have had racists views. Now I think you may just be some sort of language purest. You want to lock the English language down to some specific, non-changing arbitrary point in time.

    Honestly, though, I don’t care why you claim I shouldn’t call racist people racist. Promoting racism is a racist thing to do. People who do racist things are racist. Get over it.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Perhaps I have you wrong. I thought you were just desperately trying to pretend you were never a “real” racist in the past by claiming that word could never been applied to you back when you may have had racists views.

    Where exactly in the fuck is this coming from? Yes, you “have me wrong”. I’m trying, patiently, to explain why your approach isn’t persuasive. I’m not a “language purist” nor do I nurse past wounds of being called a racist. You don’t have to care why I launched my critique of your use of the label. Just don’t act all shocked when people are unpersuaded by you rhetoric and dismiss your blithe usage of such labels as inapt and extreme. Most won’t take the trouble, as I have, to explain why they think you’re wrong; they just passively stop listening, and you might as well be talking to a brick wall for all the good it will do your causes.

    Get over it.

    That attitude seems incredibly familiar, somehow. Dismissing disagreements as things that people just need to “get over” is incredibly obnoxious, and particularly ironic given the context of this conversation. If someone suggested you should simply “get over” Duck Dynasty Idiot’s comments, you’d have a conniption. I get it; combating racism is extremely important to you. Guess what, in your brave efforts to combat racism you went completely off-the-rails and violated principles I find to be important and valuable. I would not ask you to get over how much a violation of your values means to you, and you’re being kind of a jerk for suggesting I should just ignore you running roughshod over things that matter to me.

  • Kengi

    Um, let me rephrase my last response to you.

    I no longer give a flying fuck what you think because I’ve decided to give up arguing with a racist (and misogynist) apologist over his inane ideas about the purity of essence of words.

    Fuck off!

  • bearclover

    Bravo!

  • Kengi

    Further, some of TSM’s posts I was replying to are now (after a page refresh) showing up under the name “lucky21”. Is that a sock puppet or a bug in the Discus system?

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    That’s a common bug in Disqus. When comments are made predicated on the false identity provided by the bug which become wildly inappropriate when the correct identity is revealed, it’s called (or at any rate, I call it) getting Disqus’d.

  • lucky21

    Do you really know what’s going on or are you using alternative interpretation about the guy? I think its the latter because I am defiantly not apart of Stormfront and in fact you wouldn’t catch me dead there at all. Mainly because why would a black woman be on there.

  • Kengi

    I’m using your own alternative interpretation about the guy as well as the common-sense interpretation based upon his statements.

    As for your motivation for racism, you need to look within yourself for that. Perhaps it’s because you were duped by shallow libertarian ideology. Only you can say for sure why you are so staunchly defending both the obvious as well as alternative racist remarks by Robertson.

  • sara

    My concern isn’t so much A&E’s behavior as the people who watch the show and buy the merchandise. While it was obvious to some people that the show was a veneer of silliness covering a deep well of ugly, I was able to understand fans not wanting to see it. Now there is no way of pretending not to know that they are buying toys and bedsheets featuring the face of hate. I have more respect for the woman I argued with the other day because she claimed it was immoral to disagree with him than I do for the people who claim that they disagree with but support his right to speech, while they gobble up his merchandise.

  • SeekerLancer

    You’re missing a very important point here. Hemant is not representing his employer when he posts on his blog. He’s free to have any opinions he wants.

    Phil Robertson was representing A&E in that interview as a trademarked character of their most popular program. Thus the things he say could be damaging to the company.

    Imagine if Hemant went into class and started telling his students to abandon their religion and become atheists. Would you want him fired? I certainly would.

    But he doesn’t do that, and therefore Hemant’s passionate secularism has no effect on his job. Phil Robertson’s opinions however do effect his role as a public figure.

    It’s comparing apples and oranges. And to be fair I ultimately don’t understand why A&E would try to “punish” Phil Robertson myself considering his fans wouldn’t, and didn’t take offense to what he said. The only reason they appeared to do it was to whip up a controversy on purpose for publicity.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Phil Robertson was representing A&E in that interview as a trademarked character of their most popular program. Thus the things he say could be damaging to the company.

    Hm, that’s a good point to consider.

    Imagine if Hemant went into class and started telling his students to abandon their religion and become atheists. Would you want him fired? I certainly would.

    Hemant’s too savvy for such an immature display, but yes, I see your point. Of course, this brings up the question, in this day and age, is someone ever OFF the clock and free to express themselves?

  • sara

    This is where I get uncomfortable. Is he ever off the clock? I would say that in his preaching, he is on his own time, but in the interview he was promoting the show, so it was their time. I remain unconfident in my definitions here.

  • The Starship Maxima

    In this short mini-thread, I’m starting to question my definitions and parameters as well, if still holding to the general principle.

  • lucky21

    Want to hear something about what was said in the video is the fact that its not the whole thing and they just had some parts of it. I think this was really dishonest and really not good journalism. In fact its what they accuse Fox News of doing.

  • onamission5

    You already got schooled on this claim over at LJF. Did nothing sink in?

  • lucky21

    No but its obvious people are just jumping abroad and want to buy into sensationalism.

  • Kengi

    And it’s obvious you are buying into ignorant racism.

  • lucky21

    I am not but I am not buying into sensationalism that seems to be going on in this.

  • Kengi

    You have yet to demonstrate how Robertson’s statements are not racist. It’s not sensationalism when the racism is real.

  • lorimakesquilts

    Celebrities are only off the clock when they are inside, in private. Comes with fame. But I don’t there’s such a distinct line between a celebrity and a “regular” person anymore. There is no privacy today. I don’t mean the NSA (necessarily), just in general. If you’re not holed up in your house will all the blinds drawn, and all your communications devices unpowered then you are subject to being photographed or recorded.

    For Robertson it’s all A&E’s business per contract I expect. For the PR woman from South Africa it’s a pretty clear-cut case of cluelessness making her unsuited for her job. The teacher too is clear-cut — talking about students makes it part of his job. It’s the squishy maybe it’s the employers business, maybe it isn’t, cases that are troublesome to me. I do not want any more of my life being subject to an employer’s whims than is absolutely necessary.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    I agree that is a question about whether you are off the clock, but then there are certain things that you shouldn’t be allowed to say. I do not mean to make it illegal to say such things, but there are certain things you should not say and certain things that should get you fired. Like for example the high school teacher that posted on his facebook account that he was glad that gay kids at other schools had committed suicide. If I found out an employee of mine went off on a racist tirade or sexist tirade I would feel the need to fire that person because that is just not something I feel should ever be said. You can call it thought police, but by not saying anything you are rewarding bigotry and homophobia.

  • sara

    Or the PR woman with the racist tweet about AIDS, proving,if nothing else, that she should be ineligible for any job with Public Relations in the title.

  • The Starship Maxima

    That is a pretty damn good hypothetical. If someone said they were okay with gay kids committing suicide, no amount of libertarian sentiment would persuade me to keep them.
    That is a difficult case in balancing the rights of the individual against the public good.

  • SeekerLancer

    I think it’s a hard question to answer for people who have put themselves out into the public as some kind of media star. Their entire job revolves around image, so any damage done to that image is damage done to their profitability. Although I don’t think he should have to answer to his employer for the things he preaches about, personally.

    But in this particular case I don’t feel like it’s very ambiguous. He was promoting the show, he was clearly on A&E’s time and speaking as A&E’s employee.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Are you media or pr Seeker? I find your insights way deeper than that of someone not in the field.

  • SeekerLancer

    I’m not currently working in the field but my bachelor’s degree was in journalism and PR.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Ah. well, considering the number of pr blunders, maybe you need to return to the field.

  • SeekerLancer

    Well actually I think A&E handled this beautifully. I would love to see how much Duck Dynasty merchandise they sold this Christmas.

    They had a precedent to follow with the support that Chik-Fil-A received during their own debacle. The people offended by Phil Robertson were not a meaningful demographic for the show’s viewership, but the people who would get fired up in support of him were.

    I don’t really see a downside for the company. The season premiere will probably pull spectacular ratings numbers in part because of the short, meaningless suspension that took place while they weren’t even filming.

    If it wasn’t a planned, cynical campaign then it was a lot of good luck on their part. If it was a planned cynical campaign then it was an ingenious success that made Duck Dynasty more popular than ever.

    I mean look at it this way, a few weeks ago I didn’t even care that this show existed, and now I’m here talking about it. I’m not likely to watch it, but now pretty much everyone knows what Duck Dynasty is whether they cared to or not. You couldn’t pay for that kind of advertising if you tried and the best part is, it was free.

  • cyb pauli

    There was a time saying gays deserved to marry was considered “harmful” and “wrong”.

    That time hasn’t ended, clearly. This is the “you must tolerate intolerance or I will take your libruhl card away” argument.

  • The Starship Maxima

    In time, saying gays deserve to marry will be as inconsequential as saying a redhead and a blonde deserve to marry.

  • lucky21

    Right now there are polygamists who want to marry. And now they are using those same arguments.

  • Marie Alexander

    …..aaaaand?

  • lucky21

    Do you really know the downsides of polygamy?

  • Vanadise

    Please tell us about them. So far the only thing I’ve gathered from you is that it takes a lot of work to maintain a polygamous relationship… which is also pretty true for monogamous relationships.

  • Nixie Knox

    The troublesome thing about polygamy isn’t that it’s “unnatural;” there are people who are in polyamorous/open relationships that are able to make it work in a healthy fashion. It’s also not the current legal difficulties; concerns with taxes, parental rights, etc. could certainly be hashed out. It’s that polygamy as most commonly practiced is deeply patriarchal and harmful to women — or, in the case of FLDS, harmful to girls. I don’t see these same groups arguing for the right of a woman to marry multiple men, for example.

  • lucky21

    And people keep justifying why certain practices are right and that people should not be narrow minded. There is really nothing biblical about open relationships. Lets just say is that polygamy even for those who practice takes a lot of work to actually maintain.

  • The Starship Maxima

    This is the “be careful what card you play, because you then give me permission to play the same card” argument.

  • Jeff

    Starship, I do agree with you. We have a constitutionally guaranteed right to be a douchebag. We have a right speak out against douchebags. I don’t watch A&E, so I don’t watch Phil. After his rant, I won’t watch him. I see the point you are making, and I understand it might not be popular, but that is the exact point of our freedoms. We get to make statements that are not popular. However, we should suffer the consequences of those actions.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    The problem is that speech is protected from government intrusion. No one has any rights to speak without consequences, however, which does mean that if you speak on a company’s time and have the potential to make the company look bad, as a private company they have no obligation to keep you around. In other words, no corporation is required to provide you a soapbox to stand on.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    That said, A&E masterfully played everyone for higher ratings. I don’t believe for a second that the corporate leadership was overwhelmed by a moral urge to censure the Duck Dynasty guy, as indicated by their “punishment” amounting to suspending someone for the duration of the vacation they were already on.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Oh yeah. A&E did a fantastic job with the PR/spin/handling on this.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    I support his right to be an asshole, to be a homophobe, to be a bigot, to be a racist, to be a Christian. That doesn’t mean I support him for these character defects.

  • Anymouse

    Hate the sin; love the sinner. 😉

    All snarkiness aside, I completely agree with you. I support his right to believe and say whatever he wants, but that doesn’t mean I support what he believes or says.

  • skyblue

    I think the line should be drawn at his job being interfered with.

    This is tricky though, because doesn’t the employer also want the right to fire an employee who’s hurting business? Let’s say an employee in a customer service job starts asking every customer what their religious beliefs are, and telling them why the employee’s beliefs (or non-beliefs) are superior. Or, what if the employee casually used racial slurs when making small talk with customers?

    People would feel uncomfortable, certainly, and might decide not to return to the business. What’s the employer to do?

  • mdoc

    Where I disagree with you is on your claim that “you think all Christians are interested in proselytizing people and fear logic.” Hermant doesn’t claim either of those things. There are plenty of Christians who don’t care about converting others. I also think that Christians don’t necessarily fear logic, instead they compartmentalize their lives. We all do to one degree or another.

  • Donalbain

    He is paid to sell advertising. That is the function of a TV show. He was acting in his professional capacity when he gave an interview to promote the show on which he appears. During that professional engagement he said some things that the network thought showed them in a bad light. They are well within their moral and legal rights to suspend or fire him if that is their choice.
    Do NOT confuse this with someone being fired for something they do on their own time when they are not representing the company that pays them.

  • Wildcard

    I really think you aught to switch up your tactics. As in don’t use the same argument to try to convince others who weren’t convinced the first time. Not at least without a new way of explaining it.

    His free speech was not violated though. The amendment was not violated, he is not being punished by anybody but his employers. Whether you feel it moral or not has noting to do with his free speech. It is a matter of capitalism, (which I do not always feel is the best way to go but for a TV Show I don’t see a problem with). I’ll use an example of my own.

    Jeff Gerstmann was a professional game reviewer for Gamespot.com. A video game review site which gained a whole lot of money from it’s advertisements for the game Kaine and Lynch. He did not like the game and said as much in his review. So they fired him. Moral? Absolutely not, they do a disservice to the critic profession by letting a company dictate their opinion. But nobody cane and took his stuff, nobody arrested him or slandered him. All they did was took his job away because if they did not they would lose money. It is not a violation of the amendment,

    Is that case not the same as this one? He is a public figure under constant attention just as Mr. Gerstmann was correct? If this is true then neither of their rights are being violated, what the companies are doing could be considered immoral. But it is a matter of private companies and capitalism and not constitutional rights.

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    By supporting Robertson, you are supporting this – http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

    Teenagers are killing themselves because of the abuse heaped on LGBT individuals, and you characterize us objecting to giving a podium for such abuse as ‘thought policing’?

    So much for that whole ‘compassion’ thing.

  • Carmelita Spats

    I am the last person to desire censorship of anyone, no matter how disgusting their views, EXCEPT when it comes glamorizing the SEXUAL ASSAULT of minors. Robertson supports fucking 15-year-old girls and this is so sick that it triggers the gag reflex like a vegan at Taco Bell. Pastor Warren Jeffs went to jail because of his penchant for strapping young girls on a sex altar and raping them in a “marriage ceremony” where the rest of his Christian followers (Yes, MORMONS are Christians) witnessed the assault. Jeffs received a sentence of life in prison plus twenty years, to be served consecutively, and a $10,000 fine for sexual assault of both 12- and 15-year-old girls. Now, I realize that violent rape is not on Yahweh’s list of undesirables since it is condoned by Yahweh-the-Yahoo both in his genocidal wars and as a mechanism for obtaining his disgusting substitutionary atonement wherein he impregnated a teenager with Himself so as to sacrifice Himself to Himself. Unlike Yahweh-the-Yahoo, civilized society does NOT tolerate the sexual assault of minors. I have ZERO empathy for pedophiles and pedophile-wannabes like Robertson.

  • Aleister Gates

    what an asshat

  • Silent Service

    The real shame is that not one of them will actually consider anything that Duck Daddy has said as all that bad. Too damned many of my relatives agree with him 100%,

  • Adam Waltenbaugh

    I am horrified that my faith is being used by Robertson to defend his statements. He represents himself as a Christian, but he doesn’t represent Jesus very well.

  • Kengi

    The Bible is such a large set of conflicting books written over such a long time by so many different people from different cultures, that it can be used to support and defend just about any viewpoint. I can argue, using Biblical resources, that being gay is bad and sinful, and can turn around seconds later and argue, from that same resource, it’s a natural part of society, no different than opposite-sex attraction.

    That’s one of the problems with your faith, and why there are thousands of different denominations and sects of Christianity.

  • jon

    Well most Christians don’t act like Jesus. Oh wait..how Christian of them for being sinners

  • cyb pauli

    What makes your interpretation of Biblical revelation and the life and teachings of Jesus Christ more legitimate than his?

  • gnostic67

    No christian can respresent Jesus because he was JEWISH

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    He was also (allegedly) male. Does that mean that women can’t represent him?

  • TrickQuestion

    I mentioned to my wife yesterday that Christians can’t really be said to follow jesus because they don’t come back form the dead 3 days later.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    If they could consistently pull off their founder’s trick, I would so be Christian. It’s like the world’s nastiest bait-and-switch.

    “The leader of our cult claimed that we would have life after death, life everlasting. He delivered by bringing himself back from the dead after three days.”

    “So, if I join, can I have eternal life and mastery over death, too?”

    “Sure! You will have life everlasting [mumbles] (in Heaven).”

    “What was that last part?”

    “Oh, never you mind. Where were we? Ah yes, life everlasting!”

  • Christians represent Jesus

    This is so ignorant. Christianity didn’t exist at the time of Jesus, it came about after his death. Jews were waiting for their Savior/SonofGod promised by prophecies. After his death, Jews disagreed whether or not Jesus was their foretold Savoir; those who believed he was the Son of God called themselves Christians and created a new religion following Jesus’s teachings as an addition to their Jewish beliefs. Jews today don’t believe Jesus was the foretold Savior and are still waiting. Christianity is the only religion that represents Jesus.

  • skeptical_inquirer

    The problem is that it seems nobody follows his teachings and the people who are horrified by the Duck Dynasty guy seem to have a teeny tiny bullhorn compared to people just lapping it up.

  • onamission5

    I think I have officially run out of words on this subject, so I’ll just say “yes, this.”

  • B.J. Murphy

    The reality of Phil Robertson.

  • Jeff

    You are making a perfect point about Phil and how we, as a society, chose to deal with him. However, you are, if you would forgive the phrase, preaching to the choir, and those who most need to hear “the word” are not listening.

  • jon

    The whole problem with the bigot argument is that declaring something wrong doesn’t necessarily mean one hates the person. You also have to figure out the person’s motive which is not too easy

  • Donalbain

    You are right, saying that someone is full of evil, that they rob and kidnap and rape and pillage, because they’re under control of the Evil One, that isnt a sign you hate someone. I am always saying that about people I love.

  • onamission5

    If you cannot ascribe motives to someone’s words and actions, which are the only means anyone has of communicating, then what criteria do you recommend?

  • A3Kr0n

    The very first time I heard of Duck Dynasty I thought is was bullshit, and my opinion of it has only gotten lower over time. I don’t know what channel it’s on, when it’s on, or if I even get it with my basic cable subscription.

  • Miss_Beara

    The channel that formerly showed cultured television, A&E. A&E went the way of History, TLC, Discovery, Bravo (which used to show OPERA for cryin out loud) and Travel. When I first heard of it I thought it was a joke. I watched about 30 seconds of it. Never ever again. So much garbage on TV and people just love it.

  • Artor

    I killed my TV almost 20 years ago. I haven’t missed it, and I highly recommend it. You can find anything you want on the internet, often without commercials. Fuck A&E, Discovery, History, TLC, MTV, BBQ & WTF.

  • Feral Dog

    Don’t forget Animal Planet.

  • Trickster Goddess

    The first time I heard the name of the show, I thought it was a Disney cartoon series.

    Yesterday I downloaded an episode just to check it out. I haven’t ever really watched a ‘reality’ series before so I don’t know how it compares to the standard format but I found it to be mainly a sitcom without a laugh track.

    For one thing people’s lines often sounded very rehearsed and many scenes were just too pat to have happened serendipitously. When there was a group of people on camera, they generally lined up like they were on stage, most of them facing the camera. The editing of reverse camera wide angles never showed camera 1 in the background, making me suspect there were filming retakes. Also the prank shown in that episode just wouldn’t have worked without the victim’s co-operation.

    So nothing real about it at all. It’s just another scripted show with some improvised lines. Also very boring. But then I generally don’t like sitcoms anyway.

  • cyb pauli

    As far as I can tell, his supporters either agree with him or have an arsenal of excuses why that’s not what he means by those things. You have to remember there is a large population that doesn’t understand what prejudice is; in their minds, if they aren’t actively lynching a black or gay person or raping a woman, everything is cool.

  • Nixie Knox

    “in their minds, if they aren’t actively lynching a black or gay person or raping a woman, everything is cool.”

    So much this.

  • kpax2012

    Meanwhile they go fucking nuts over mild atheist billboard ads and tell us how hateful we are.

  • SeekerLancer

    Because to those people freedom of speech only applies to “Christian values” as stated in their bizzaro world version of the US constitution that they like to refer to but have never read and never actually quote.

  • http://augmentedreality1461.blogspot.com/ Gary Burnaska

    Free Speech is about supporting all speech, even the stuff we do not like. If we don’t protect that then no one will protect the speech people think is favorable. Best way to combat filth like this is with GOOD SPEECH. Get out the word that these views are offensive outdated and outright obsolete.

  • Kengi

    Really? We have to support speech we don’t like? No, I don’t have to throw my support behind every idiotic thing some racist says. I have to tolerate it because the government shouldn’t restrict the free flow of ideas, but I’m under no obligation to support those viewpoints.

  • skeptical_inquirer

    I don’t have to financially support with him. I don’t have to agree with him. I also have the right to counter-protest him if he ever pulled a Westboro Baptist. All the rights he has is not to go to jail or be compelled to be silent by government forces. He’s not guaranteed a gravy train, supported by anybody who disagrees with him.

  • Artor

    In case you hadn’t noticed, that’s what this entire thread is; MORE SPEECH. Free speech is not about supporting all speech, it’s about supporting the right to all speech. I don’t have any obligation to support what the Westboro Baptists say, but I do support their right to say it. And the right of everyone else to criticize them for it. Even the right of some people to cry, “Freeze Peach!!!,” although I will criticize them too for their shallow misunderstanding of simple concepts.

  • Vanadise

    You seem to be mistaken. Free speech is about not facing *legal* repercussions for whatever you say. I’m completely in support of that; I don’t think Robertson should be in jailed or fined for making stupid statements.
    On the other hand, I’m completely fine with people facing societal repercussions for saying stupid, bigoted crap, and that’s exactly what’s happening.

  • Glasofruix

    Well, you are free to enter a bar full of bikers and then proceed to call every one of them “homo” it IS free speech after all, but not the brightest of the ideas one might have…

  • David

    Agree with everything but the “come on Christians, why aren’t you outraged at the use of your faith to defend this idiot?” sentiment. I have seen this position elsewhere, and I just don’t get it. The Bible, in very plain and explicit terms, endorses many of Robertson’s statements that most of us (even many Christians) now find repulsive. So when it comes to which side the Bible supports, who is really on stronger ground? I’ve enjoyed this “news” event because I think it brings the hypocrisy of the “pick-and-choose” religious into focus. I wish the Christians who denounce Robertson (they are simply “picking and choosing” which parts of the Bible to interpret strictly more liberally than Robertson) would consider this. I mean really – how many verses of the Bible have to be modified or overlooked before we finally move on?

  • Ben English

    What does that even mean, though? There are plenty of verses in the Bible that Robertson and his ilk overlook or modify to suit their needs. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that modify or overlook other verses in the Bible. The Bible for Robertson is just a prop used to lend a patina of credibility to what from anyone else would be naked bigotry. But it’s just a prop. If it weren’t his twisted religion it would be some other ideology or dogmatic belief system.

    Christians NEED to be angry that this asshole is using the name of Christ to justify his bigotry, and simply letting the bigots have it, ceding the right to declare What The Bible Says to assholes, doesn’t do Christians, atheists, or anyone else any good. Just look at the civil rights movement, and the gay rights movement–they’ve won their victories not by giving up Christianity to the bigots, but by emphatically taking it and the fake moral high-ground it it provides them back. If you’re largely inundated in the Atheist bubble, you probably don’t see it, but all this rallying around Robertson is a direct result of those people sensing and fearing the impending loss of their hegemony.

  • David

    Oh to be inundated in an atheist bubble. I just spent Xmas with family members giving and receiving Duck Dynasty paraphernalia, and I can count my atheist friends on one hand. My point is that the Christians denouncing Robertson do not have the moral high-ground because the Bible is on their side. They have the moral high-ground because they are denouncing hateful/ignorant positions that we now see and understand to be negative and unfair. To defend their position by citing the Bible is a weakness in my opinion – a weakness that highlights the instabilities/inconsistencies of their own use of the Bible. I certainly acknowledge that lots of civil rights activists cited the Bible to fight the social injustices minorities faced. But I do not acknowledge that they received their moral positions from the Bible. Instead, I believe they read what they believed/felt/knew to be a correct moral position (eg the equality of all races) into the Bible because they lived in a society where, for the most part, the Bible and Christianity were the only option. Christianity/the Bible doesn’t hold quite the same place in our society it did in the civil rights era. For that reason, I would hope that the gay rights movement and whatever comes next could be based on a well-reasoned moral position, not through weak citations to a book that doesn’t really help us.

  • Ben English

    I get that. I’m not saying that we should be using the Bible as the fundamental basis for the moral positions of a secular society, but that when fighting bigotry that waves a Christian flag, you’re more likely to get results encouraging decent-minded Christians to take back that flag than saying “Oh, well, I guess naked bigotry really is a Christian value.”

  • skyblue

    As far as his comments regarding running into Bible thumpers late at night-

    If I found myself, car broken down, stranded in a strange town late at night, and saw a gay bar and a fundamentalist church, you can bet I’d be headed to the gay bar to ask for help.

  • mdoc

    And someone would be at the gay bar.

  • skyblue

    …there could also be some overlap there, some people from the fundamentalist church at the gay bar pretending not to recognize each other.

  • Mike Holton

    Is “pick your ducks” some kind of innuendo?

  • Marie Alexander

    I watched a fuller version of that talk some time ago, it’s not, he seems to be referring to literal ducks (as in like “plucking” ducks)

  • onamission5

    It is not. He is talking about having one’s underaged bride do the tedious, stinking shit work of ripping out a dead duck’s feathers.

  • lucky21

    I think what he was talking about is young marriage between a girl and boy. If you look about his history he probably was hinting at his own marriage. Those kinds of things were common in the old days. Yeah, it is off putting today but something shows that he was joking about it because there was laughter in the video.

  • onamission5

    Again with this whole “the old days” thing. We went through this yesterday. Phil is still quite alive, he is the same age as my parents, his so called old days were the days of civil rights and hippies. He did not grow up an aristocrat during the 1500’s. Shall I post that infographic from the other thread which shows average age of marriage from the mid-1800’s to present?

    Edit: what the hell, it’s a good piece of information, I am going to post it.
    https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/acs/ElliottetalPAA2012presentation.pdf

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    If ignorance awarded a PhD, Phil Robertson would have one.

  • http://thewritepractice.com/ John Fisher

    Maybe. But I’m more of the opinion that he’s cunning; telling a lot of people exactly what he knows they want to hear. Motive: $$$$.

  • skeptical_inquirer

    I think it’s a bit of both. If he believed in the total opposite, he wouldn’t be doing this but he doesn’t mind embellishing for $$$.

  • IDP

    I have to agree. I’ve heard he’s got a master’s degree in education, is a former teacher, and he runs a successful business. Plus there’s those pictures of his family all clean cut and in polo shirts. Makes me think they’re playing up the “dumb southern hick” thing for more money. I mean, I’m a lifelong nerd who married a science teacher, but imagine if I got a reality show contract and suddenly started looking and acting like one of the guys on Big Bang Theory.

  • http://thewritepractice.com/ John Fisher

    Exactly.

  • LesterBallard

    Those who support him know exactly what they’re defending.

  • Deano C

    The more I read about the US, the more I think of the UK 100 years ago. Of all the people I know, only two ever attend church unless its a wedding/christening or funeral. Not one member of my family or extented family believe in a god, and that makes me happy.

  • jman

    As a previous fundamentalist from the Texas panhandle turned atheist, I feel bad for you. You seem to believe that if conservative Christians only knew what they were supporting, they would drop this guy. That’s a nice thought, but sadly these people do actually understand what they are supporting, and are only all the more enthusiastic. I’ve heard my fundamentalist family discuss at the dinner table even in recent years how they thought that “black people” were better of in slavery than on welfare. Yes, they do make the stupid assumption that no whites are also on welfare because they are ignorant and misinformed. All the homophobia and fake Christian persecution is widespread. I know it’s hard to believe, but real people do actually believe this stuff and it’s not uncommon. They’ve been bigots for so long that they can’t even see what they’re doing anymore. They think it’s normal.

  • lucky21

    You turned atheist?

  • lucky21

    So, when did you decide to become an atheist?

  • Nixie Knox

    This is true. People honestly do believe these sorts of things, and truly believe they are correct. l lived in the south for a long time and these opinions were the majority in my area, which was not the backwoods. Now I live in an urban midwestern location and it’s incredibly refreshing to have friends that understand that religiously-motivated ignorance & hatred is destructive. Level of education plays a big role.

  • mdoc

    It is the “just world” problem. People believe that the world is just so if bad things happen to people they rationalize it as their own fault. Basis problem of a certain type of person who also tends to be on the religious right and tends to be authoritarian.

  • All media sucks

    Still beating that dead horse? Welcome to the United States of the Offended.

  • mdoc

    Is there something wrong with finding what he says offensive? And, given that the horse ain’t dead yet I think we still need to do some beating.

  • Pattrsn

    It upsets you when people don’t like bigots, thanks for sharing.

  • Wolverine

    It’s a show about rednecks, so it’s only appropriate for someone in the show to make comments that a redneck would say. Think about it this way: if there were a show about a murderer, it would make sense that he kills people in the show, yet no one would ever complain that this aspect of the show is supporting murder.

  • Pattrsn

    Thanks for making no sense whatsoever, well done.

  • Vanadise

    If the murder was *real* I’m pretty sure a hell of a lot of people would be complaining about it. So by your logic, why is it surprising that people complain about real bigotry?

  • pro opinions, anti crying

    The “misogynistic” bit looked more like a stand up routine, and from what I saw it was pretty funny.

    The “homophobic” bit is the mans personal opinion. He doesn’t like mans anus, he likes women’s vagina, and he thinks every other man should too. (What a crime against humanity right)

    The anti Islam bit (who knew there was a word for that, but there is, and that should say a lot on its own) I’m not even going to research because I don’t care.

    You over sensitive people paying attention to what people say then making an outrage about it, thinking it’s going to fix anything are just making it worse for yourselves. I could care less about this old guy with a huge beard, or his ducks, or his opinions for that matter. But what I LOVE is seeing people throw a fit, get all bent out of shape, and demand reparations because someone stated their opinion. Guess what, get used to it because it will never stop, and you will NEVER get your way by claiming you’ve been wronged. I. Love. This. Shit.

  • skeptical_inquirer

    I wonder if you’re on board the “War Against Christmas Train” or if you happen to think that’s shit.

    Also, I’d say it’s his followers who are making more of a froth about it, comparing him to Rosa Parks of all things.

  • Pattrsn

    Somewhere a straw village is missing its idiot.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    I will readily admit I don’t care. Like, not even a little bit. A dick said dickish things? Well, I never.

    But, that comes in large part from occupying a seat of privilege. I’m a cisgender straight white male; it’s unlikely that I’m going to find any particular comment directed at any of those groups offensive, because I enjoy the invisible defaults in many many ways. The art of my people isn’t called “white art”, it’s called “art”. The movies made by straight directors and writers and producers are not called “straight movies” but “movies”.

    In light of being even dimly aware of that, I think it would be childish and stupid for me to project my position onto others who do not possess the same social defaults. You have to be kind of a complete and utter dick to think, well, “cracker” doesn’t hurt my feelings, so why would “nigger” hurt a Black person’s? It’s the crucial baby step from being privileged to being eliminationist about other perspectives, that other people in the same situations may reasonably feel differently than you do because of the social consequence of their physical traits and upbringing and cultural heritage. That what you find to be amusing may be actually wounding to another. Perhaps a person who has actually experienced being rejected from their family, or physically abused, or subjected to demeaning tirades by their teacher or employer for being gay wouldn’t find a blithe comparison between homosexuality and bestiality a harmless bit of fun.

    So, mostly I found Duck Dynasty Guy’s comments “outrageous” only in their abject ahistorical and illogical stupidity and that he had been furnished such a tall soap box to spread them. I’ll even admit to a tug of very dark humor that some human being actually fucking resorted to a “Hey, you guys–Vaginas!–amirite? [elbow nudge]” as a seriously-meant argument. But I’m not about to go telling someone else who perhaps has a closer home to the target of the jibes that their rather less bemused response is illegitimate. It doesn’t take Herculean efforts at empathy to understand that there is plenty in his comments that could legitimately piss a person off. That you “love this shit” is nice for you, but that isn’t license for you to make fun of people who don’t relish wallowing in shit.

  • CottonBlimp

    Re: Phil’s “seeing a gang late at night” hypothetical; not only is this poorly plagiarized from the execrable Dennis Prager (whom I may be giving too much credit – if he copied that argument from another pseudointellectual, I wouldn’t be surprised) it’s such a ridiculous argument that Hitchens actually references it as an argument for *atheism*, mentioning that just within the letter B he could think of a multitude of nations where gangs of violent criminals roamed the streets, Bibles in hand.

    But surely, even Christians must acknowledge; walking alone at night, they’d be relieved to see the men carrying science textbooks. They ought to be relieved to see the men even carrying gay porn.

  • Tolerance works both ways

    There is also a thing called freedom of religion which wasn’t mentioned. He has wished harm upon no one, nor hated. Yes he’s a Catholic, southern, hick, and not very educated so I think his statements could be formulated btter instead of being so harsh. But honestly none of those things should allow him to lose his job. I don’t understand how the absurd behavior of people such as Miley Cyrus, doing drugs, tweaking on married men, etc, is acceptable but a man explaining his beliefs isn’t. May I quote Ed Sheeran for a moment ‘it’s too cold outside for angels to fly’ society is corrupting our point of view and how we choose to live our lives; people like Phil are suffocated under the influence of society’s rival beliefs. So what that he reads the damn Bible? So what he thinks homosexuality is immoral? Phil isn’t a damn homophobe. Homophobia means a person who has a fear of gays and I doubt Phil cowers in the presence of a gay person. That’s a profoundly ignorant thing for you to say. You may think that Phil is intolerant towards gays, but by calling him a homophobe you are acting ridiculously intolerant towards him and some Christians who also feel it is immoral. This is the most liberal, dramatic, and ignorant post I’ve ever seen.

  • Pattrsn

    You’re right, intolerance of bigotry is the worst kind of intolerance, because err religion or something.

  • Pattrsn

    PS how many sock puppets do you have?

  • Nancy Shrew

    Are you really going to pretend that “homophobia” isn’t the commonly used term to describe discrimination against gay people and fall back on that tired argument that wasn’t correct the first time someone made it?

    Also, the word you are looking for is “twerking”. “Tweaking” is something else entirely. And you must have an incredibly short memory because there was plenty of backlash against Miley Cyrus; some valid criticisms, some not. Not even going to get into why the hell you act as if Robin Thicke had no part in that shitshow.

  • Author of ‘tolerance…’

    Tweaking is autocorrect. I’m fully aware what twerking is and I’m up to date with Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke, I’m a teenager so I’m surrounded by all ‘Hollywood’s latest news’ It’s all quite disgusting to me, the crap going on in the world today. Just sharing my opinion on this- u don’t have to like it

  • Author of ‘tolerance…’

    And I feel that homophobia is an absurd, overused term

  • Artor

    Ah, that explains things. As a teen, there is a lot about the world you haven’t experienced, and a lot of things you haven’t had time to think about. I hope you’ll mature as you get older, and stop being such a willfully ignorant asshole. You may think it looks cool now, but it really doesn’t.

  • Age discrimination

    You’re one of those adults that thinks a teenager can’t have a logical opinion. 18 year olds are teenagers and are aloud to vote. What if the opinion agreed with yours? Looks cool, what the hell, being cool or not is irrelevant.

  • Artor

    Not at all. I used to be a teenager myself, and it wasn’t that long ago in my memory. I recall being terribly sure of myself, and certain I knew all about everything. It was quite a shock when I learned more and realized I knew nearly nothing after all. I’ve known many other teenagers who were quite bright and insightful too, but Mr. Tolerance up there is not one of them. Are you trying to claim that his opinion, as demonstrated through a dozen ranting posts above, is logical? Maybe you need to read through it again, or perhaps wait until you graduate yourself.

    EDIT: Oops, I just realized that “Tolerance works both ways,” and “Author of Tolerance” are two different posters. My comment was directed at “Tolerance works both ways,” but I thought the teenager comment came from him too. My apologies to “Author of Tolerance.”

    EDIT EDIT: I just saw Author’s comment directly below mine. I retract my apology and plead drowsiness. I just got up.

    EDIT EDIT EDIT: Now I’m confused. I re-read the thread, and saw that most of the crap I had attributed to “Tolerance works both ways” came from some jerkwad named “Doni.” WTF? Did that change overnight, or was I just too bleary-eyed before bed too? Maybe I’m just getting too old & decrepit to read clearly anymore.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    This is the most liberal, dramatic, and ignorant post I’ve ever seen.

    If this is true, you need to get out more.

  • indorri

    Oh my various gods, I hope to the universal wave function you never live in a society in which you are a minority targeted by people looking to abuse you, despite the wonders it would do for your perspective.

    It’s almost like we’ve had this damn conversation at least three times in history.

  • http://bottle-imp.com/ Daniel

    The man has a masters degree, so you can’t call him uneducated.

  • doni

    I don’t know what is more sickening, A&E and the main stream media or this garbage article I just wasted my time reading. I will never get my five minutes back. If I had a just one concept that people would read and say hey this guy make some sense, it would be stop worry about what other people’s beliefs are and just worry about your own beliefs. Words are exactly that words and if your offended by my words, well quite frankly that is a bonus for me! I find it to be ridiculous that with all the things in this world that effect our way of life, people are going to let personal beliefs and words effect them to the point that are offended, I call bull spit yep I said it bull spit. There is nothing and I mean nothing anyone can say that will offend me because THEY ARE JUST WORDS and if you spend just one day shadowing me you will find out why. That is my belief system whether I belief in the bible, Koran or am a atheist, which is impossible by the way considering the meaning of actually being atheist. However I do not nor will I judge anyone, simply because I would actually have to have empathy for that person to do so. Believe what you want cause I believe what I want. You don’t have to like me but I command respect and will give the same respect in return regardless of your belief system. So why not write about something that is actually relevant like job creation or alternative fuels or wait a minute how to make your significant other happy!

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Words cut deep. They matter. Also words express ideas that influence policy, which very much matters.

  • doni

    No knives and other sharp objects cut deep. Words don’t matter concepts and ideas do, words merely bring to light those concepts and ideas you should not be offended by my words based on my belief system because they are mine just as I am not offended by the words you say based on your belief system.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Words communicate ideas. Ideas can be incredibly hurtful. People kill for and die for ideas.

    Your words communicate bad ideas. And the hurt those ideas cause can cause physical hurt as well as deep psychological pain- have you never been hurt by words and felt it as a sharp pain in your gut? I have. Have you never seen the physical wounds caused by anorexia, cutting, suicide attempts, beatings … all physical expressions of bad ideas, which are often reinforced by others’ words.

    If someone says that black people were happier under Jim Crow, ze is saying that bigotry and oppression are a good thing for some people. That is an idea that is always harmful and expresses support for absolutely horrific policies. You cannot separate words from ideas, for words are the only medium through which we communicate ideas.

  • doni

    No I have not been hurt by anyone’s words! That would mean that I had empathy for that persons belief system and honestly I only care about my belief system, I respect fully what you are saying but it has no bearing My life nor does it make me want to change what I believe in and that is my whole point. I don’t care whether you agree with me or whether you are offended by what I say it is my belief system and you should respect me for my beliefs just as I respect yours. What you believe in is inconsequential to me I do know that it means everything to you just as my beliefs mean everything to me. The fact that I believe in GOD and that marriage should be between a man and a woman is exactly that my belief, just because I believe this doesn’t mean that all of sudden all men and women that live the “alternative lifestyle” will suddenly believe the same thing I do is ludicrous I get that and I’m not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs but if your offend by those words that is a bonus for me because I don’t care if your offended by my beliefs just as you shouldn’t care if I’m offended by your beliefs. Does that clear things up!!!

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    No, I don’t need to respect your beliefs. If your beliefs are bad, it is my duty and obligation to tell you so and prevent you from harming others due to your beliefs.

    I need to respect your rights as a human being, but I have absolutely no need to respect your wrong ideas.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    The question then becomes, what exactly is due to another person simply in their capacity of being human?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    A difficult question. I generally come down on the side of trying not to hurt them, respecting their bodily autonomy as best I can, and offering to educate but backing off if requested.

    Oh, and also attacking ideas, not people. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pretty good start on how to treat people, I think, and what is owed them simply by being human.

  • doni

    Again there is another bonus! Prove my belief system is bad! Exactly you can’t you can only say that it is not like yours and it is not supposed to be it is my belief system. I command respect and give it just the same, I don’t care if your gay, straight, black, yellow, red, white, believe in god or not I will give you respect in your belief system And Do Not Impose My Belief System On Anyone. It is not your duty or obligation to judge me and last time I check I have not hurt a soul with my belief system and honestly if I have then that means there was something wrong with that person or person’s life already. But I tell you what if it makes you feel better to do so then go right ahead and tell me how bad my belief system is of course I really could care less and all I will see is blah blah blah on the screen. If you don’t get it there is nothing you can say or do that will waiver my beliefs

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    last time I check I have not hurt a soul with my belief system

    How would you know?

    …and honestly if I have then that means there was something wrong with that person or person’s life already.

    So if harm results, it must be the other person’s fault, and couldn’t possibly be yours? How does that make sense?

  • doni

    It’s my whole point! If you could say something to me that offends me to the point that I harm myself then obviously there is something seriously wrong with me. There is nothing I repeat nothing anyone could say to me that would induce me to care about what they said let alone offend me and even worse push me to inflict harm upon myself. So I hold to my belief that there would be something wrong with that person. If your offend by that BONUS!

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    If you could say something to me that offends me to the point that I harm myself then obviously there is something seriously wrong with me.

    Uh, no. Humans pretty much default to being social creatures, create interpersonal relationships, and so are highly attuned to and care about the feelings and opinions of others–at least those of people they care about. A person who strenuously suggests otherwise is, under most circumstances, simply lying to themselves.

    So, are you suggesting you care about nobody? Because if you do, whether you like it or not their words can heal or harm you. It is entirely possible that you are so dead-set against thinking about other points of view to which you are exposed that you could outright dismiss the comments of a random person you run into on the Internet (though given your propensity for asserting loudly, repeatedly, and with exclamation points how much you don’t care, your claim even here of not caring is undermined). Much less believable that you treat all those you know in the really real world in the same fashion.

    If, in the remotest of possibilities that you are as devoid as you claim even of the capacity to value other humans with whom you share space in the really real world, then I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that would indicate something wrong with you, not with the person who has a normal social response by caring what others think about them and say to them.

  • doni

    Now your trying to merge a totally different concept / idea in to this mix. Go back to my posts I do not care about your belief system and if I say something that offends you because it is part of my belief system I do not care. This in no way shape or form means that I don’t care for or about people, I just to care about their belief system I respect it but don’t care about it. I believe in what I believe in and if it offends you I don’t care just as anything you say to me doesn’t offend me. I think it’s pretty simple. You and the others are the ones getting heated over what I am saying , like it is going to change my beliefs and that is exactly what I am talking about with Phil Robertson I respect his beliefs I don’t agree with all of them but like I said I don’t really care what he believes in only what I believe in.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    This in no way shape or form means that I don’t care for or about people, I just to care about their belief system I respect it but don’t care about it.

    Yes, unfortunately it does. You have a warped sense of what “respect” means, if you believe that respecting something can involve not caring about it.

    You and the others are the ones getting heated over what I am saying , like it is going to change my beliefs…

    Heated? Not so much, no. Bemused is closer to the mark. And I can’t well change your beliefs if I don’t even know what they are. You’ve been awfully quiet about the content of your beliefs, except for what can be extrapolated from your comments about not caring but respecting, etc. etc..

    Besides, and this just might blow your mind, but often a communication in a forum like this is not intended to convince the interlocutor, but may in fact be targeting the audience. What makes you assume that, by responding to you, folks are primarily invested in changing your mind? Could it be possible that they don’t care much about your mind but find your comments a convenient spring-board to talk about what they do care about?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    So words can’t hurt you, thus your words can’t hurt anyone else, so why should you care about the words coming out of your mouth? And if someone does get hurt, well, it’s not your fault even though you said the things that hurt people?

    That really doesn’t make any sense. You ignorant buffoon.

  • doni

    And there is another bonus. I fascinates me how people will result to name calling when someone gets offended over someone else’s belief system. This was my whole point, now sit down and think about what this 40 year old married man with two great kids who owns his own business has a great faith in his family and friends oh and has a 4 year degree in business and a minor in philosophy can make no sense. When in actuality his idea was a simple one stop caring about what my belief system is and believe in your own. Stop thinking you can change my mind or make me care about your belief system. After all a belief system is a religion to most people, and before you get offended with that comment look it up first.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Ah, see the name calling was a test. While I do think you are ignorant and clueless, I bet that also hurt you somewhat. You’re quite defensive, anyways. So tell me again how words can’t hurt?

  • doni

    I’m sorry but calling me ignorant and clueless does not hurt or offend me in the least. In order for me to be defensive something has to be offensive and nothing you have said is offensive they are just Words that make you feel better about your belief system and I totally respect you for that. Fact is what I believe in should have no relevance in your life just as your beliefs have no relevance in my life. Bottom line is this if everyone would treat others like they would like to be treated (the golden rule) the world would be a much better place. This rule is the corner stone of my belief system unfortunately not everyone believes this, which stems my point of not caring about anyone’s belief system but my own. Which reflects the golden rule, I don’t what you to care about my belief system just have respect for my beliefs just as I respect yours.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    And yet, somehow, your defensiveness grows with each post. Clearly, our words have impact on you.

  • skeptical_inquirer

    If words don’t matter why so mad about other people speaking and telling them to be quiet? I wonder if you’re telling the Duck Dynasty fans the same thing. For some reason, I seriously doubt you’re treating the other side the same way.

  • doni

    Who said I was mad I would have to care in order to be mad. All I’m saying is that I see a lot of posts degrading someone for their beliefs. So the reality is that your doing exactly what Phil did you just don’t have the backing of A&E or main stream media to back you. That is my whole point why should you care what Phil Robertson believe in? That is a rhetorical question by the way. You should not care about what he says rather put the energy in your own beliefs. Now go back and look at my posts and you will see that I am not disrespectful nor hurtful in my comments I simply don’t care about your belief system I respect it but it doesn’t change my beliefs.

  • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

    Hostile words are frequently indicative of hostile intent, Doni. Verbal abuse often precedes physical abuse.

    And quite frankly, if someone cannot control the small muscles of his mouth, I don’t trust him to control his fist or his trigger finger either.

  • skeptical_inquirer

    So if your parents called you a failure, it’s merely bringing lights to concepts and ideas that you shouldn’t be offended by? If everybody at your office gossiped behind your back and thought you slept with the boss to get a promotion? Even if they never laid a hand on you, it would at least create an unpleasant sensation especially if it was a daily occurrence. Please, at least stop with the words don’t matter nonsense.

  • doni

    My parents calling me failure to be quite Frank is the truth, I have failed in my life but it doesn’t hurt me and it definitely doesn’t change my belief system. I learn from failures somebody saying it to me doesnt offend me. As far as the office situation I could again careless what others in the office think, if I did sleep my way to the top again they would be speaking truth it doesn’t concern me what they think just as I don’t care if one of them slept their way to the top. It is just words and have no bearing on my Belief system because I know what I stand for. For some reason you have misconstrued my point. My point is you should not let anyone interfere with your belief system you should not care about what anyone says about you or your belief system because they are just words, you should be comfortable in your skin and with your beliefs. I know that nothing anyone can say will make me waiver from my beliefs.

  • skeptical_inquirer

    People’s words can whip up a lynch mob after someone. To be willfully naive about this does you no favors both online and in real life.

  • onamission5

    So since everything you just wrote is words, we can ignore it, because words convey no meaning and are not a primary form of communication, words carry no weight, affect nothing.

  • Sensitive

    That’s a dramatic interpretation. I think Doni meant that people are ridiculously sensitive towards things that don’t matter. A southern hick states his beliefs and our entire country is freaking out. We have way more important things to worry about compared to this trivial matter.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Trivial to you.

  • doni

    Apparently You Need To Go Back A Re Read. I said I do not let words offend me because they are just words.

  • onamission5

    Oh no, I understood you fine. Do you know why? Because words convey ideas.

  • doni

    Looks like I just got my bonus!

  • skeptical_inquirer

    You forget that lies repeated over and over become accepted as the truth. People know that control of the media = control of perception. It’s not just this bozo we’re talking about but the whole plate of people like him. People believe not only this guy but creeps like Scott Lively and Pat Robertson.

    Scott Lively and his like preach in Uganda hate and help get laws passed that threaten jail time for people who are gay. Words count. People push back hard because they KNOW that words matter.

  • doni

    Do you honestly think that Phil Robertson or the Plate of others actually care about you or your belief system? That is my point don’t be offended by their belief system. I all comes down to respect for others and that what I mean by what he is saying is nothing but words if let let them offend you or hurt you then the will definitely win because your now worried more about their belief system than your own.

  • skeptical_inquirer

    Of course THEY don’t care, but damn, what part of Scott Lively gets crappy laws passed that actually put people in jail do you not get? Complaining often gets OTHER people involved that can help put a stop to it. It’s like “OH, gee, I don’t get why you complain about people being beaten & having their rights disrespected? Why can’t you just be quiet?”

    I bet that if people talked trash about you or the group you belonged to, you would seriously find being told to be quiet and shrug it off to be quite condescending.

  • onamission5

    Their belief system is harmful to real, existing people, so they have well earned any and all criticism which comes their way.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    Wow, that was privilege-blind. You really have no idea what “respect” actually means, do you? You’ve got this weird idea that it means that no opinion can possibly be challenged, and that’s just objectively wrong, I’m afraid. You do know that anti-gay bigots incite murders and imprisonment for gay people, right? Saying hurtful stuff like that leads to actions–and bigots tend to clump together and take empowerment from each other’s hateful words. If hate speech is not challenged, if these ideas are not scrutinized and exposed for their wrongness and hurtfulness, then those saying these things never learn any better, and yes, they get worse and worse in the vacuum they create among themselves.

    The good news is that you are wrong. No, bigotry will not win–because good and moral people are right there speaking against it every single time they hear it. You remember that saying about “all that’s required for evil to win is for good people to do nothing”? That’s why we hold bigots accountable for hate speech. We do not show them disrespect by challenging their delusions or their cruelties to others. You can do that without showing someone disrespect. I do hope you figure out one day what the terms mean, so you can stop making these sorts of mistakes.

  • skeptical_inquirer

    If words don’t matter then why does it matter if a parent calls their gay child an abomination? If words don’t matter, how can preachers get parents to kick their own child out of their house? So, please go down to a homeless gay youth and tell him that he’s stupid for thinking words matter and see how he takes it.

  • http://bottle-imp.com/ Daniel

    The very fact you’re posting this means you are worried about other peoples’ beliefs beyond your own.

    You’re creating a vicious circle, too. Robertson made statements in objection to a group of peoples’ lifestyles meaning he’s worried about what other people believe. This blog makes a post objecting to Robertson’s beliefs, and you make a long winded reply objecting to their beliefs. Surely you see the absurdity at work here.

  • Mario Strada

    The irony is pretty thick in this post.

    Here is something you may want to use next time you want to make a fool out of yourself:

  • Hypocrites

    I have only two words about this post and these comments
    Bigotry Central ._.

  • diogeneslamp0

    Dick Dynasty pedophile says: “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus.” Then stop acting like one.
    [Tweeted from diogeneslamp0]

  • StandForAmerica

    God called the Homosexual life style an abomination and refused to let it be practiced in the Moses society.
    If you were gay…God demanded that the people stone you to death.
    Let me ask everyone this question…Why would GOD require death for this life style?

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    I dunno. Why would GOD require death for this lifestyle?

  • StandForAmerica

    Because it will corrupt a society and bring down the standards.
    America is a great example of this…along with Sodom and Gomorrah.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Please explain this corruption. Be specific. What standards are lowered because of social approval of homosexuality? Make sure to describe the causal link between the social approval of homosexuality and these lowering standards.

  • StandForAmerica

    It is being taught in school that it’s just an alternative life style…your born that way…Gay Marriage is normal.

    Gay couples can adopt children and teach them their standards but listen to what God said about this issue in Romans 1:18-32…

    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    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.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Did you not understand the question?

  • StandForAmerica

    God explained the corruption very clearly…read over those verses again…Thanks.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Yeah, I read them. They don’t answer the question I posed.

    Pretend just for a moment that I’ve never read the Bible, and nothing would impress me simply because it can be found in a book. I want you to demonstrate using evidence (which Scripture, whatever you may believe about it, is not) and plausible causal hypothesis the likely truth of your proposition. If you can’t, then I will dismiss your claim as an error. If you start quoting scripture like you have Koine Greek logorrhea again, I will dismiss you as not worth the time.

  • MerchantMariner

    It never ceases to amaze me that people can read this turgid bullshit and take its seriously. Or claim it has any literary merit for that matter…

  • MerchantMariner

    Obviously the educational standards have come down in America. You’re living proof of that.

  • indorri

    It’s almost like bestial murderers have to make excuses for their wretchedness by appealing to divine fiat to hide their malice.

  • TeaCupTurtle

    You assume a god said it. You do know that book was written and made up by men right? Men who feared what was different or ‘weird’ to them.

    It doesn’t matter if someone is gay/whatever, you’re not watching them when they’re in their bedrooms.

  • MerchantMariner

    Are you sure about that?

  • TeaCupTurtle

    Sure about what?

  • MerchantMariner

    Are you sure that SFA ISN’T watching them when they’re in their bedrooms?

    How else to explain her morbid fascination with “the Homosexual life style”?

  • TeaCupTurtle

    What does SFA stand for?

    Also, besides this being silly, do you have any evidence that they do?

  • MerchantMariner

    SFA stands for “StandForAmerica” in this context, the poster who we are both responding to.

    I have no evidence for or against. It was a facetious reply to your comment, “It doesn’t matter if someone is gay/whatever, you’re not watching them when they’re in their bedrooms.” I suspect that in many cases, that’s exactly what people like SFA would like to do.

  • ScottG

    Playing “God’s Advocate” on this one:
    1) It could be that in a time where infant mortality was so high, there was a strong social incentive to make sure that you were making babies – same as the “no sex during a period” rule in Leviticus, or the “spilling of seed” abomination elsewhere. In hindsight, we know that the elderly and other people without their own kids are actually beneficial, able to take care of peoples’ children while the parents worked. A gay uncle is a great person to have around, or:
    2) Some scholars think it may have actually been a prohibition against such acts as a conquest of war or symbol of dominance over the subjugated. It wasn’t homosexual LOVE that they were trying to stop, as much as the random raping that happened in war.

    Some of these old rules were a product of their times, and don’t count any more. Sure, bring a stick with you if you go pooping in the woods so you can bury it (that’s in the Bible, too); it’s a good idea! But “don’t mix fibers”? Really?

  • Mario Strada

    Why then aren’t the corpses of disobedient children scattered outside our Churches and our homes? And why don’t we see the mangled remains of adulterous couples outside our courts?
    God hates them just as bad. You douchebag.

  • http://pleonast.com/users/closetatheist Mr. Two

    Actually, the law of Moses only condemned men having sex with men, and men or women having sex with animals. There’s nothing in there about women having sex with women, so that must have been okay until the apostle Paul came along.

  • Miss_Beara

    You are hilarious. That god, what a great god. He is so great and loving that he would demand death to all gays. That god… he, and you, are such jokesters.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Why does god require death for not being a virgin on your wedding night (females only), or for worshiping other gods, or for any of the numerous things God wants the death penalty for?

    Because your god is a sadistic tyrant, that’s why.

  • MerchantMariner

    That’s easy. The people who first imagined god were a bunch of bronze-age redneck fuckwits, rather like this Robertson.

    I must ask, too – what’s “the Moses society”? Was that some sort of ancient gentlemen’s club?

  • StandForAmerica

    God is not a joke…I see no reason to reply to you.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    That must be why you replied. Makes perfect sense.

  • Cake

    StandForMyOwnPuffedUpSelfImportance Translation: You’re wrong. HA! now I’ve got the last post!

  • MerchantMariner

    And yet you did exactly that. Good on yer!

    I didn’t write that god was a joke. I wrote that god was the invention of a bunch of stupefied peasants. Although I have to credit them with one thing – they knew their target audience VERY well.

  • Neko

    How can you be sure GOD issued this prohibition instead of the priestly class?

    Also, didn’t the New Covenant supersede the Mosaic Law?

  • StandForAmerica

    Moses wrote down what God said to him…the New Covenant did not change God’s mind on the issue…instead of stoning them to death he sent Jesus to die for their sins and set them free…he did not die so they could continue that live style…the sad fact is…there will not be one Gay person make it to heaven unless they get forgiven of their sins through Jesus.

  • quasibaka

    Hey you guys ,
    Why are you so bitter ? He was not literally saying the stuff he did.
    It was all allegorical metaphor of a simile.
    Good is god ! Just becoz y’all hate Jesus doesn’t mean you have to violate the free-speech of a innocent persecuted rich white man.
    He is only saying the truth of the lord . Women and blacks are given too much freedom ! The Bible says so .
    Any ‘True Christian’™ will support me . All the haters just need to read the bible.
    Please LOVE don’t HATE .

    /Sarcasm

  • Knp447

    I am curious what Willie’s oldest adopted biracial son thinks of his grandpa obnoxious views??

  • WallofSleep

    My favorite tweet, so far, about this whole side-show:

    “Phil Robertson has 1st amend rights & can say whatever he wants!” – Sarah Palin, waving the scalp of Martin Bashir.

    Wingnuts are terminally clueless.

  • NoMoreDivision

    “The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. ”

    Oh my! How come this nugget didn’t get more attention in the media? It is beyond ignorant to say that blacks are on par with “white trash” people.

  • http://pleonast.com/users/closetatheist Mr. Two

    Yup. What he saw, growing up, was that he was hoeing cotton right alongside African-Americans. He’s claiming that represents equality.

    People do need to know that sharecropping was not a “black only” occupation. As a conversation starter, I used to ask older people in Southeast Texas whether they had ever picked cotton, and they always had a story either about themselves or their parents. Most from that generation are now gone.

    What he’s wrong about is that the blacks were truly equal in society to him. He’s likely being willfully ignorant, because I’d bet they still had “colored only” water fountains when he was a kid, and he had to have seen them. I’d also bet there were no black kids in his school. Whether there were any wealthy or even middle-class white kids, I wouldn’t know how to guess.

    As far as share-cropping, nearly everyone in North Texas picked cotton for somebody else, but the whites were able (like my grandfather) to move to Port Arthur and get a job at a refinery. Once the depression was over, these people moved into the middle class, whereas it was another 20 or so years before black citizens were allowed to work alongside them at the good-paying jobs.

  • dsmith

    A gentile, like Robertson, asked Jesus if he would address her daughter’s illness. Jesus responded, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”This might shock Phil to know that Jesus did not (reportedly) say…I have come to save you from your sins, as is widely believed. Jesus said his mission was only to preach to the Jews, which id directly opposite of Christian doctrine. He went on to rub salt in the wounds of the woman by telling her, “It would not be right to give the childrem (Jews) bread to the dogs (Gentiles!”

    So Phil that’s what Jesus thinks of you, that you’re a dog.

  • b s

    I never really noticed his picture was him blowing a duck call. I always thought he was sucking his thumb and couldn’t figure out why.

  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    I heard a guy on Twitter say (to paraphrase) “This idiot is against gay people loving whoever they want, but he makes a living helping people convince ducks that they want to have sex with them.”

  • iateaynrand

    As someone who once had a pet duck and loved him to death, I can say I hated Phil Robertson before it was the cool thing to do.

  • Nelson

    We atheists really have our worked cut out for us.

    How can we one up this insane man?

  • SJH

    I don’t think that the people who find themselves supporting Mr. Robertson are supporting everything he believes or has ever said. They simply support him for the fact that a small but powerful component of our society has the ability to inhibit our freedoms.
    In my opinion, people like Mr. Robertson are less of a threat to our society then this attempt to take freedoms away.

  • ThinkRationally

    What freedoms is someone attempting to take away? To what are you referring here?

  • Miss_Beara

    The freedom to say bigoted sexist racist crap and not get called out on it I suppose. That is only reserved for the right wingers.

  • SJH

    Your assumptions about people who disagree about homosexuality is bigoted. You hate those people and form your opinions about them based on your irrational emotional response rather than reason.

  • Carmelita Spats

    No. She is right. When your Roman Criminal Church spews bigotry in the form of a twisted and counterfeit “love” and actively seeks to codify their grotesque death cult superstition into public policy, there are no assumptions. Sexuality is NOT about opening your capacious vaginal dimensions to Jeeebus so as to squirt out a massive pile of crotch droppings. I’m NOT a jizz rag for Christ. I have more dignity than that. From your kiddie-fucking, moral-rot-of-a-cult, “(…) the inclination to homosexuality, “though not in itself a sin,” is “objectively disordered” in itself.” This is NO different than when the Book of Mormon states in 2 Nephi 5:21-23:

    “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

    Take care of your child fucking priests before you have the nerve to bray about other people’s CONSENSUAL sex lives.

  • SJH

    You do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches about love and relationships . It is obvious that your hate and your anger and your prejudice form your opinions. Perhaps you should use reason and critical thinking instead.

  • Olive Markus

    Why do you obsess over consensual, adult homosexual sex more than you do over your own priests raping children? I’ve never been given an answer about that one.

    The hatred comes from people like you who propagate lies about homosexual couples and their ability to love and care for others. The evidence is directly contradictory to your beliefs, and yet you continue to spew nonsense about how terrible they are for families, for children, for society. No reasons are given. No evidence is found. But you feel compelled and obligated to restrict them from legally being able to do so anyway.

    More couples than not don’t follow Catholic teachings, and yet there’s not a peep from you about how terrible they are for family. Catholic rhetoric about sex and relationships essentially boils down to saying that Penis-In-Vagina Sex is the only requirement for (and, really, the only thing that would allow) a couple to love and care for children or family.

    Please forgive me if I find that to be nonsense.

  • Miss_Beara

    They are also obsessed with heterosexual sex as well. It is funny how they think non Catholics should follow catholic teachings but would bust a gut if it was another religion.

    I did hear an answer to that question once before. “We are all sinners.” That somehow absolved them from raping children in their eyes.

  • Olive Markus

    Oh, yes! “We are all sinners” is the excuse every single Catholic uses for themselves, but somehow it’s not quite the same when they feel justified in legally stripping others of rights because of a sin.

    They are obsessed with sex. It makes me wonder, if all sins are created equal, why aren’t Catholics trying to restrict the rights of other Catholics who aren’t having strict Penis-In-Vagina-Only-While-Pretending-Jesus-is-Watching-With-No-Contraception Sex? I guarantee that’s most Catholics.

    Why the unhealthy obsession with homosexual sex? :) I have fun speculating.

  • Anna

    I think it’s because they can’t punish them anymore. Not legally, at least. When they could, they did. Witness Ireland, for example. And Catholics were campaigning against birth control and divorce in the U.S. back when those things were controversial. They lost the battle there, so they’ve simply switched their focus to homosexuality and abortion.

  • Anna

    I can’t speak for Carmelita, but I understand it perfectly, and I find it vile. That’s why I speak out against it.

  • SJH

    Perfectly? I don’t even understand it perfectly so you are apparently a step ahead of me.
    Also, the fact that you think it is “vile” tells me that you don’t understand it. To say you disagree and would like it modified is reasonable but “vile”?

  • Anna

    Wait, it’s so difficult to understand that you don’t even fully understand it yourself, yet you follow it to the letter and would never disagree with any of it? How does that work? Shouldn’t you at least understand the church’s rules before deciding to let them dictate your entire life?

    I think I understand it perfectly, or at least as well as you do. I’ve read about it. I’ve had long, drawn-out conversations with several different fundamentalist Catholics about it, going back at least 20 years. So, yes, I believe I do understand what your church teaches about sexuality and relationships.

    And it’s not merely a matter of disagreement. I chose the word “vile” for a reason. I think the way your church treats human sexuality is deeply sick and dysfunctional. I don’t believe there’s anything positive in what your church teaches about relationships. I think the teachings are harmful to people and to society.

  • MerchantMariner

    Reason and critical thinking tells me that an organisation of professional celibates and child molesters has nothing worthwhile to say about love or relationships.

  • MerchantMariner

    Ah, Carmelita, I wish I had your way with words! : )

  • Miss_Beara

    Bigoted, really? You are essentially saying that I have to be tolerant of their intolerance. Their views on gays and women are vile. Please tell me how telling gays that they shouldn’t adopt children because it will harm them and women that they shouldn’t have control over their own bodies is perfectly ok. Those are just two examples. I do not tolerate that and I am glad people are fighting back.

  • SJH

    What you don’t understand is the reasons they disagree with homosexuality. If you did you would not think they are necessarily bigots but that they just have a disagreement but may still love the homosexual. the fact that you assume they are intolerant and hate homosexuals is one that you make based on anger and emotion not on reason. That is bigotry. The act of making assumptions about people out of anger and hate rather then getting to know someone and understanding them and what is in their heart and mind.

  • TCC

    Anyone who puts homosexuality in the same bag as bestiality is a bigot.

  • SJH

    The right to have an opinion about something and state that opinion.

  • ThinkRationally

    I’m not aware that anyone tried to take that right away. If you think people have a right to express opinions and not have those opinions challenged, you are completely wrong. Free speech includes expression of ideas and expression of opposing ideas. Without that, there could be no discourse on anything, and it’s this discourse that we really need to protect.

    Or perhaps you think A&E was taking away some right. Well, nobody has an express right to be on A&E (pretty sure that’s not in the constitution). A&E is a private company, not the government, and they are allowed to protect their image. Last I heard, no government authorities were after Robertson.

    Nobody tried to take away Robertson’s right to have or express his opinion. So, again, what freedoms is someone attempting to take away?

  • SJH

    Mr. Robertson rights are not being taken away by anyone. He does not have a right to work for A&E. I was commenting on the fact that people likeely see this as yet another example where a Christian is finding himself victimized for his beliefs. Right or wrong, they see this as an example of the left forcing their views onto everyone else.

  • ThinkRationally

    I don’t think I’m following you. You specifically stated that someone was trying to take away “the right to have an opinion about something and state that opinion.” Now it’s about the “left” forcing their views onto everyone else. I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, but perhaps I can assume it relates to same-sex marriage and the like. If so, those force nothing on anyone else, they simply allow equality.

    In any event, we seem to agree that this isn’t about freedom of expression or free speech.

  • sandstorm

    Wow…. I’m neither for or against his beliefs and I could care less. What really amazes me is the amount of attention everyone is giving this issue and all the ranting from many that just want something to complain about. Bottom line that although some of his statements are a bit over the top there are some underlying truths to some of the things he is saying. It is so sad that many are taking his works and picking them apart looking for more and more to be angry about and print the finger about. He’s an old man rooted in a different generation… of course his words sound ignorant, racist and bleh bleh bleh… but he’s harmless. It looks to me like all he cares about is fishing, duck hunting, exploding beaver dams and having a nice dinner with his family at the end of the day….. nothing to be scared of there.

  • Mario Strada

    How is he armless when he is one of the major characters of the most popular tv show on cable?

    We have been fighting for decades to advance the cause of equality. There are still young people that feel entitled to take on a “homo” and beat him to death just because of who he is.

    Look at the viper nest a black president uncovered in our country and you think we are giving him too much attention?

    Sure, he is an idiot, but as he has his constitutional right of freedom of speech so do we and we have every right, I would say a duty, to point out the falsehoods, the irrational thinking and the outright hateful values this man holds.

    Just because he end his statements with “I’m just sayin’” it doesn’t make what he is saying any less damaging.

    I think A&E made a grave mistake in handling his remarks. They should have just distanced themselves and ;leave it alone. So in that sense I agree with you. But we, as citizens of this country have every right to tell this man he is wrong. Mostly we have to tell those that may be easily persuaded that what he is preaching is not “down to earth common sense” but rather the same hateful drivel we all grew up with and we have been fighting so hard to cleanse it from our society.

    I actually find it funny that this man would fit so well with the very Muslims he hates so much.

  • Heath Davis Havlick

    What strikes me most out of your whole post is this bit near the end about “untrue, outrageous, harmful, and hurtful things.” Well, he believes they are true and you don’t, so who gets to win? When there aren’t facts to go by, people’s positions become a matter of belief, so it’s a question of whose beliefs will prevail. It doesn’t seem accurate to call beliefs “untrue.” Also, if there are no absolute standards, how can outrage exist? I ask these questions to provoke thought, not to be antagonistic or to defend Phil.

  • Paul B. Lot

    You think his claim that homosexuality and bestiality are equivalent is simply a matter of belief? You think there are no relevant facts we can bring to bear in analysis?

    What about his claim that we should be marrying girls off at 15? Is that a claim about which there are no relevant, objective facts?

  • Heath Davis Havlick

    I think you misunderstand my point. I am in no way defending Phil’s point of view. I am challenging an atheist’s sense of untruth and outrage. Where do they come from? Who decides what is true? As for your assertions, there is no fact that can determine whether homosexuality and bestiality are equivalent. “Equivalent” means equal in value. Who is ascribing the value? And while it is not now widely acceptable in our society–in fact it’s not even legal in most states–to marry under the age of 18, that has not always been the practice in America. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that marrying under 18 was not acceptable. That someone or group of someones ascribed a value judgment, based on a belief, to the standard practice of marrying before the age of 18 and changed it.

  • Paul B. Lot

    Oh, I see.

    Well, where does my sense of outrage come from?

    That’s none of your damn business! I have no obligation or desire to be talked to in your tone of voice, sir.

    The belief in ‘absolute’ values is not coincident with moral action, and your proclaimed search for understanding is overwhelmed by the arrogance of the grammar of your question.

  • Nap

    I don’t agree with a lot of the stuff this man said but doesn’t he have a first amendment right just like the rest of us? They are only opinions after all anyway and most of it reflects on his cultural upbringing of being in the south.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Sure he does. The first amendment restricts the government from retaliating against a person for speaking their mind.

    Is A&E the government?

  • Paul B. Lot

    “Doesn’t he have a first amendment right just like the rest of us?”

    What’s your point? Did you read the same article I did?

    “All this attention thrown on the show has nothing to do with Robertson’s right to free speech. That was never in question.”

    With whom are you arguing?

  • http://tinygrainofrice.wordpress.com/ Kristycat

    Ok, speaking as a Pagan, NO. I see a bunch of guys coming down the street holding Bibles, honestly? That scares me more than guns. Guns I can talk my way out of. Guys with guns will still see me as human. Dudes wielding Bibles see me as some demon-worshipping subhuman that they need to either convert or kill. That is TERRIFYING. The fact that this douchebag does not understand this means that he lacks even an ounce of basic empathy.

  • Ogre Magi