Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson and Race: Blacks Were Happier Before Civil Rights

On issues such as child abuse (sexual and otherwise), rape, domestic violence, and racism, TWW can get very, very touchy.

We believe that things said in public get to be critiqued in public. While many "gospel" conservatives are jumping up and down about A&E's response to Phil Robertson's views on homosexuality, they seem to be quite silent on some other views expressed by Robertson in GQ link.

In the January issue of GQ, the Duck Dynasty star also comments on growing up in a pre-civil-rights-era Louisiana.

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson claims. "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."

He adds, "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."

Yep. They were real happy with substandard schools, different water coolers and swimming pools, lynchings… Yep-real happy… In case you want to see how "happy" they were, please go to this photo on Wikicommons. Warning, it is graphic. They never criticized doggone white people?

Comments

Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson and Race: Blacks Were Happier Before Civil Rights — 562 Comments

  1. Teresa wrote:

    He also equated homosexuals and drunks with terrorists.

    I believe his whole approach to the question was misguided. I do not know him. Maybe he just had a bad day. But, his silence is interesting. If I said something dumb, and I do so regularly as do most people, I would be jumping up and down, trying to correct the impression that I gave.

    Phil will be just fine, no matter what happens. He has made fortune doing the backwoods schtick. He is hardly being persecuted.

  2. Dee, he said homosexuals, drunks, and terrorists are all sinners. What was misguided about that?

    No time today to catch up on the comment stream, but for a much clearer and fairer discussion of the matter please see Dwight McKissic over at SBC Voices.

  3. There’s a 2010 sermon by Phil Robertson floating around which is shocking people. Basically it’s a gloss on Romans 1:26-31. I’m used to it so it’s not that shocking to me, even as I have very mixed emotions about its use to thwack gays and lesbian about the ears. But it’s interesting to see how people just don’t have the biblical literacy they used to.

    That said, some friends of friends got gay married in Utah yesterday, so this is quite the up close and personal issue for me.

  4. @ Gene:
    I agree that we must be careful about misrepresenting the other side. So, in the interests of accuracy, you are making broader statements than An Attorney did, and some of them are wild.

    “Liberals” are not a monolith. Neither are “conservatives”. The Dem/Repub parties are no longer representative of the people, and haven’t been for some time. What has been labeled “conservative” or “liberal” policy was often not so.

    We could more usefully argue about the kinds of gov’t, education, economy, etc we want instead of what we have, but probably not in Deb/Dee’s living room.

  5. @ linda:

    We have. I know exactly what he said. We have been discussing it in depth.

    Putting those things into a grouping like that showed poor taste and left him open to misunderstanding. We say things to make a difference and not to be self indulgent.

    We do know what McKissic said. We have provided the link.We have discussed it here.

    And surely you know that his Reformed African American brothers disagree with him.So I think it is important to give all sides within the Reformed POV.

    http://www.raanetwork.org/duck-dynasty-and-happy-blacks/

    And Phil is doing just fine. He is now worth multimillions of dollars and will be worth far more after this controversy that he could have avoided. But maybe, just maybe, this controversy was what it was all about.

  6. dee wrote:

    But maybe, just maybe, this controversy was what it was all about.

    I think you’re right about this. It all seems rather carefully orchestrated by eagents (PR, etc.) to boost ratings, sales of merchandise, etc.

    Robertson has a shtick going, and he’s making money hand over fist because of it. Controversy is a guaranteed way to promote sales.

  7. Patrice wrote:

    “Liberals” are not a monolith. Neither are “conservatives”. The Dem/Repub parties are no longer representative of the people, and haven’t been for some time. What has been labeled “conservative” or “liberal” policy was often not so.

    Mostly correct on all three, but there are broad themes that hold them together, and generally speaking, my observations are accurate. Take education for instance: Conservatives (Repub or not) are generally for school choice, many even desiring complete school choice. Liberals are rarely for school choice. On the other hand, liberals typically complain that the top richest people have too much and they should pay more in taxes, and the conservatives typically say they should be able to keep what they have.

    But there’s not much difference between Repubs and Dems.

    By the way, conservative and liberal are typically misused. Conservatives want things to stay the same (to conserve). Liberals want things to change. In a real sense, the libertarians are the liberals since they want the most change. Dems and Repubs tend toward conservative, wanting things basically to stay the same as they are.

    We could more usefully argue about the kinds of gov’t, education, economy, etc we want instead of what we have, but probably not in Deb/Dee’s living room.

    Indeed

  8. BD wrote:

    it stands for The Arts and Entertainment Network.

    Although you don’t hear that full name anymore. I suspect that they just go by A&E for everything. And maybe changed their name. When they started it was more “high brow” entertainment. As they discovered there wasn’t much money in that area they gradually moved to where they are now. And changed the emphasis, if not the name itself, to A&E.

  9. @ Gene:
    Um, no. The speaker alone gets to determine his intent, but he is not the sole arbiter of his words’ meaning. If it were otherwise, no one could ever interpret anything. That is what “intent is not magic” means. It is not the listeners job to determine the speakers super secret meaning, but the speakers job to accurately convey it.

  10. @ NC Now: yes, I believe you’re right about the name change. They use A&E for all their branding now; just the initials and ampersand.

  11. NC Now wrote:

    BD wrote:
    it stands for The Arts and Entertainment Network.
    Although you don’t hear that full name anymore. I suspect that they just go by A&E for everything. And maybe changed their name. When they started it was more “high brow” entertainment. As they discovered there wasn’t much money in that area they gradually moved to where they are now. And changed the emphasis, if not the name itself, to A&E.

    If they’re into “reality TV”, then Accident and Emergency may be about right. Nothing boosts ratings like a bit of aggro!

  12. burntnorton wrote:

    The speaker alone gets to determine his intent, but he is not the sole arbiter of his words’ meaning. If it were otherwise, no one could ever interpret anything. That is what “intent is not magic” means. It is not the listeners job to determine the speakers super secret meaning, but the speakers job to accurately convey it.

    So is it possible to misunderstand something? If so, how would you know if someone has misunderstood?

  13. A&E and other pop-media shows including the pop-media-Christian shows jump all over the things that show-biz people say when in reality everyday people say these types of things everyday. Pop-media is just that…..”pop”

    Check out http://www.bubblews.com. Its the latest free-speech site where people says stuff like A&E duck dynasty stuff all the time.

  14. dee wrote:

    @ Scott Shaver:
    I am going to approve this one comment to show why I am not going to approve your other two comments. You are welcome to disagree with us. I have no problem with you calling the two of us names, but I will not let you call other readers names. Scott Shaver wrote:
    Didn’t say they were happy Mr. Perception
    This is not necessary. Jeff T is a decent guy. You could have said the same thing without the snide name calling. However, I do have a question. Do you consider yourself a Christian? Have you been hurt or abused by a church? I tend to give leeway to those outside of the faith or to those who have been wounded.

    This is rich Dee. Probably not a Christian by your definition but thank you for your evangelical concern as well the thoughtful albeit misguided psychological profile. I’m sure you’re readers will find it “spot on” and entertaining. Enjoy your holidays…Merry Christmas. Hope this is not to “personal” to print 🙂

  15. Gene wrote:

    Conservatives wish for people to be able to keep their own money, rather than have it confiscated to give to someone else.

    This libertarian view is nothing more than the politics of selfishness. It plays well to the public until one gets down to the details. Old people want their Social Security and Medicare. Families want Medicare to pay for their parents’ stay in a nursing home. Parents with kids that have special needs want additional services to enable their kids to go to public school. Corporations make billions of dollars but don’t pay any taxes. And on and on. In short, there’s too much “I want mine but somebody else can pay for it.”

  16. Apologies in advance, but this is going to be a longish comment dealing with matters scientific. I won’t be offended if any of my fellow-regulars decide to skip this one, therefore. But I promise it will repay a little patience. If I may, then:

    John wrote:

    There are substances In seminal fluid called, immune regulatory macromolecules that send out signals that are understood by the female body which will then permit a ‘One flesh relationship.’ When deposited elsewhere, like man to man, these signals are not understood but cause sperm to fuse whatever with whatever somatic body cells they encounter. This fusing is what often results in the development of cancer malignancies.

    This comment has caused some discussion here, not surprisingly. John was kind enough to cite the article on which this is drawn. It is by Richard Ablin and Rachel Stein-Werblowsky, and you can find it here:

    http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v75/n2/pdf/icb199725a.pdf

    Now, the beauty of peer-reviewed research is that anyone who is remotely a “peer” of the authors can review it. I’m not an immunologist, or even a biologist, but I am a degree-qualified scientist; I had a thorough training in what is and is not evidence, and in what a given body of information does and does not say.

    There are such things as macromolecules – they are, quite simply, molecules containing a large number of atoms. There are also numerous chemicals, cells, and systems in the body that regulate the immune system – they are known as immunoregulatory. Seminal fluid contains many different macromolecules, and some of them are immunoregulatory. But they are not called immunoregulatory macromolecules (still less, “immune regulatory macromolecules”); that’s a bit like saying “there are vehicles on the freeway called blue cars”. A small point, but it suggested to me that something was slightly amiss with the science here.

    What is most interesting to me is that the main source of this phrase seems to be a series of blog articles that quote from an article by Donald DeMarco, who is an emeritus professor of philosophy. You can read his article here. He may have written another one very similar to it in a different publication, but I haven’t been able to find a working link to it. His article contains the following paragraph:

    Traveling alongside the sperm in the male’s seminal fluid is a mild immunosuppressant. Immunologists refer to it as consisting of “immunoregulatory macromolecules.” This immunosuppressant is a chemical signal to the woman’s body that allows it to recognize the sperm not as a non-self, but as part of its self. It makes possible, despite the immune system’s usual preoccupation with building an airtight defence system, a “two-in-one-flesh” intimacy.

    DeMarco himself refers to Ablin and Stein-Werblowsky’s research and presents the following quote:

    In an article entitled, “Sexual Behaviour and Increased Anal Cancer,” published in Immunology and Cell Biology, authors Richard J. Ablin and Rachel Stein-Werblowsky, report that “anal intercourse is one of the primary factors in the development of cancer.”

    But this is not what Ablin and Stein-Werblowsky said. What they actually said was very different:

    It is further suggested [i.e. by themselves in the body of the paper] that sexual behaviour, that is, anal intercourse, not sexual preference, is one of the primary factors in the development of anal cancer.

    They repeat this point later on, having already noted that there are many other factors in all types of cancer and that:

    An increase in epidermoid anal cancer has been observed in the past 30 years (1959-89). This increase in anal cancer has been noted to be more pronounced in women than men.

    IMHO, it isn’t fair to say that John himself is lying. My guess, based on the similarity in the language, is that John was referring to DeMarco, who himself had done some data-mining and come out with some stuff that, yes, is kind of pseudo medical. In short, DeMarco seems to have gone looking for data that supported his chosen conclusion – good philosophy, perhaps, but bad science.

  17. In an unfortunate failure of proof-reading, my previous comment (in moderation) is missing a (/i) tag, after the word “his” halfway down. This will make sense when my comment is de-moderated…

  18. JeffT wrote:

    This libertarian view is nothing more than the politics of selfishness. It plays well to the public until one gets down to the details. Old people want their Social Security and Medicare. Families want Medicare to pay for their parents’ stay in a nursing home. Parents with kids that have special needs want additional services to enable their kids to go to public school. Corporations make billions of dollars but don’t pay any taxes. And on and on. In short, there’s too much “I want mine but somebody else can pay for it.”

    Jeff, It’s not selfishness. It’s what the Bible calls the right to private property. It’s the basis of the commandment to work and the commandment against stealing. You are not selfish because you own something and think it’s wrong for someone else to take it from you.

    Social security is a giant (and unsustainable) Ponzi scheme. Medicare is public insurance, which as we have seen always, and now especially, is a really bad financial deal, not to mention a bad healthcare scheme. I have less of a problem with using public money to pay for schools and education, although it is fundamentally wrong. Those who have children in school should pay for it. There are a number of ways to make that happen.

    And the idea that corporations make billions but don’t pay taxes is an old canard with several problems. First, corporations don’t pay taxes; people pay taxes. Corporations have no money except what is given to them by people buying their goods and services. And when their taxes go up, then their prices go up, forcing consumers to pay more in order to pay the taxes. So the consumers pay the taxes through purchasing. The company is just a collector, a middle-man.

    Second, when corporations pay taxes, that is money that comes out your retirement and mine, and the retirement of others who are depending on corporate profits to raise stock prices and pay dividends so that they have income in retirement. Most people are invested in the stock market (and if they had stuck it out in 2008 at the crash, within less than two years their net worth would have been above what it was prior to the crash in most cases).

    Third, it fundamentally undermines the notion of private property by insisting that someone can take your private property (in this case money and the stuff that money would otherwise buy) by force and then give it to someone else because they are in “greater need.”

    In the Bible, there were taxes (called tithes) that were used for a variety of purposes including helping the poor. So I am not opposed entirely to it. But there are fundamental economic principles at work that counter everything you say.

    The bottom line is this: As long as someone will do it for me, than I don’t have to do it for myself. And that is, as you say, the politics of selfishness just as much as it is the other way. But it has a really sinister and evil twist to it.

    We should help those in need. We should not create a permanent underclass by allowing permanent dependency. We have seen the results of it, and it doesn’t work. It’s time to try something else. And that makes me a liberal because I want change.

  19. @ Gene:
    Of course it is possible to misunderstand or misinterpret. And if only a few people interpret words in a certain way, it is likely that they are the ones misunderstanding and the speaker did not poorly communicate his intended meaning. By the same token, if a lot of people are interpreting the speakers words in a way he claims not to have intended, the speaker is probably the one who failed to convey his intended meaning. Outliers exist, but in Peterson’s case, I and many others have extensively discussed the history and context that make his words so offensive even if he didn’t intend them to be hurtful. Frankly, I don’t think he innocently stumbled onto the offensive rhetoric given his history of frankly hateful speech regarding homosexuals, but his intent isn’t relevant. His words and his reaction to be called on them is.

    Another recent example of the “you’re reading me wrong” whine can be found in Richard Cohen’s column where he flat out stated that traditional Americans had to suppress the urge to vomit when they saw the NYC mayor-elects interracial family. His words were offensive to liberals, conservatives, minorities, and basically most right thinking people everywhere. He even managed a gratuitous slam on lesbians. He and his editors defense was a mess of nonapology apologies, i”I was only joking,” “you’re not being fair,” and “you just don’t understand my brilliant writing.” Even more galling in his case than Peterson’s, since Cohen is a professional writer and should know better.

  20. JeffT wrote:

    This libertarian view is nothing more than the politics of selfishness.

    Shoot up Libertarianism with enough steroids and you get Objectivism, the philosophy of Utter Selfishness as the Greatest Good.

    It plays well to the public until one gets down to the details. Old people want their Social Security and Medicare.

    Ayn Rand, inventor, cult leader, and object of worship of Objectivism, was collecting Social Security and Medicare during the late stages of her life. She had a Totally Rational and Objectivist justification for it, too.

  21. Could we turn the subject from political views on economic solutions back to the subject at hand? We get in a bunch of trouble on this blog discussing views on the faith. If TWW adds politics to the mess, the Deeebs may as well just shoot ourselves and get the pain over with all at once.

  22. Hey. Objectivism has lots to say about religion. If we go down that path we might get comments up to 800 or so. /snark off

    GDRFC

  23. dee wrote:

    @ Patrice:
    Scott seems to get really personal when he disagrees with anyone. His comments are in permanent moderation. However, he has not responded to anyone since I did not allow two of his comments yesterday.

    At the risk of being “personal” Patrice and IMHO responding to your question: Because I sense the tendency in some people to reinterpret history according to their own religio-political views as opposed to letting the raw data of history speak for itself. Additionally, too much social engineering going on today from the pulpit and many churches as well as that being shoveled to us by secular agencies and authorities.

  24. I see a lot of political stuff here and who’s money goes to whom.

    If one would read “pilgrim church” by Broadbent within the pages there are groups of Christians who lived without need of govt’ assistance just plain old scriptural adherence. Political stuff or religious organization was always the enemy of the battle.

    It is good for people to know TRUE history for sure.

    Seems the comments are diverting far away from the original article here.

  25. burntnorton wrote:

    And if only a few people interpret words in a certain way, it is likely that they are the ones misunderstanding and the speaker did not poorly communicate his intended meaning. By the same token, if a lot of people are interpreting the speakers words in a way he claims not to have intended, the speaker is probably the one who failed to convey his intended meaning.

    Just to wind up my participation here, I think you are exactly right and it makes my point. His intent does not magically make him understood. But hermeneutically, his intent is the only thing that gives his utterance meaning. That’s why we can say, “What do you mean when you say that?” When miscommnication takes places, the fault may well lie (or is it lay) with the communicator, but the whole possibility of misunderstanding means that the author or speaker is the only one who gets to determine what he means. Others can say, “I disagree,” but they can only disagree if the words had meaning according to what the speaker intended. So in meaning, intention is the only thing that matters.

    With Phil and his comments, until we ask him what he meant, we simply don’t know if he was referring only to the people he knew or making a general statement. To say, “He started specifically but then turned general” as someone did, is not evident from the quote. Perhaps there is more context elsewhere or perhaps he clarified. I don’t know. Only he does for sure.

  26. dee wrote:

    Could we turn the subject from political views on economic solutions back to the subject at hand? We get in a bunch of trouble on this blog discussing views on the faith. If TWW adds politics to the mess, the Deeebs may as well just shoot ourselves and get the pain over with all at once.

    But Dee…what I really want to get back to is our persecution of John for his incorporated-into-scripture-rubbish-science-which-is-poorly-quoted-and-factually-untrue-but-somehow-glorifies-God-more-than-actual-truth. How will he continue to be shaped as a disciple without the help of our resistance to his gospel? You are NO fun 😉 Hmmmph, I may have to go out usurping now.

  27. I’d actually like to introduce a new term into this discussion: truthinosity. This is when it doesn’t matter whether something is factually accurate, as long as it serves to back up religious opinions. As here with ‘immune regulatory macromolecules’ whose truthinosity acts to expand our knowledge of what ‘one flesh’ means. I think we may also have to use the term truthinological…

  28. The title of this post is rather misleading. Surely the core of these blogs is related to a deep love truth and for people.

    Nowhere do I see Robertson saying that blacks were happier before civil rights. He was making a comment about life when he was younger on the farm, and compared it to happiness under welfare and entitlements. Having grown up in Southern Africa (both Zambia and South Africa) and working extensively in Africa among the “least of these”, AND having visited some Ghettos here in the US, I can say that it is not unreasonable to say that poor working blacks that grew up with Robertson’s family were happier than single mothers, dealing with the guilt of multiple abortions and trying to raise five children from three fathers, all of whom are absent or in jail, living life where the dehumanizing effect of being totally dependant on government is a reality.

    This is worth talking about!

    The amazing people in Namuwango Slums in Kampala, Uganda, living on pittance, are an amazingly happy people despite their poverty. Like the blacks Robertson was describing, they have many reasons to be unhappy and bitter. But they are hard working poor people who come home at night to a mother and father that love their children and anticipate a better life for them as they work hard to eke out a living.

    Robertson “racism” is being targeted because his beliefs, expressed crassly (fitting his character that has made him so popular), exposed by the bigots from the left, resonate with truths that are timeless and supported by most of the Christians in this country and the rest of the world.

    He said what most Christians have become afraid to say. We are facing a new McCarthyism and because it backfired, so now there is an all out effort to destroy this brother-in-Christ.

    Sadly, it may succeed. The political and social pressure is to completely quash any reasonable discussion. The truth is offensive and the historic response is for those who reject the truth to kill the messenger. Kill the prophets.. kill Jesus… we have heard enough.

    Sad to see Christians join in throwing the stones.

    Robertson is somewhat crass. We expect that. But he is not abusive or cruel. He talks about loving his neighbor as himself. He has not hoodwinked or abused church members or replanted churches leaving abused members stunned and hurt.

    What on earth are we even talking about him for?

    Rob

  29. And it just keeps getting weirder and weirder…

    Here’s some samples from Internet Monk’s comment threads when he mentioned it in his Saturday Ramblings column and How Christmas Helped Me Leave the Culture Wars guest posting:

    The relentless bullying and intimidation by the Race & Gender Police and their endless appetite for sacrificial scapegoats (Phil Robertson, Paula Deen, going way back to John Rocker, Howard Cosell, and hundreds more) is utterly frightening, savage, and Orwellian. And IMHO, “un-Christlike.”

    I like your analysis. What has happened to Robertson makes me think the Thought Police of Orwell’s “1984″ aren’t far off.

    In the same sentence, Phil also lumped in heterosexual fornication with bestiality. Why isn’t the fornication community rising up to demand he be fired for this offense?

    It doesn’t matter. In 50 years it will be as if your point of view never existed. You and the kind of faith you espouse won’t even be a bad dream. Enjoy your extinction. The rest of us certainly will.

    The militants started plotting this at least in the 1980s, in a book called “After The Ball.” Google for it, and you will find information about it.

    You can no longer tolerate homosexuality, as in, disagree with it but “live and let live.”

    Oh no, you must celebrate it and accept it and think it’s awesome. If you do not, you will be harassed online, or fired from your job, or, in the cases of some preachers overseas who preach against it, tossed into jail.

    The following was written by an atheist who doesn’t give a flip about homosexuality, but who is none the less alarmed and turned off, at how anyone who dissents from the official party line of homosexuality being groovy is tarred or harassed (including Christians who have religious reservations about homosexuality)

    Duck Dynasty is how Jewish media people see Christians in general. Discuss.

    Oh, but I forgot, nowadays “racism” is defined as anyone who doesn’t participate in acceptable Groupthink. He MUST be an evil man.

    Of course abortion and gay marriage are only symptoms of the problem. They’re also the only two hills left here on the battlefield. Denmark has now determined that churches can be forced to perform gay weddings. We need to fight the culture war with a lot more intelligence — I doubt America’s Christian leaders have it — or we’ll all be hiding in basements and requiring passwords to get into our secret worship services. Oh sure, there will be legal churches and something called Christianity, and it will be led by people like Katharine Jefferts Schori. People like yourself and Pope Francis may walk away from the culture wars, but the culture wars don’t walk away from you. They’ll still round you up and put you in a camp — first chance they get — and it won’t matter whose “back you’ve got.”
    It’s not about forcing our beliefs on others — it’s about survival.

    Hard to believe such blindness among people who claim to have discernment. If you don’t care about salvaging what can be saved, don’t come crying to me when they pack your family off to a concentration … er … a diversity training center.

    And the greatest irony for ‘Christian’ culture warriors is that they have launched new offensives in a war in which their King and Captain declared Himself victorious about 2,000 years ago.

    Link from a Slacktivist comment thread, to an editorial by SF writer John C Wright. I used to read Wright’s LJ, and this sounds Total Wack for him. Did he lose it when I wasn’t watching? Does the subject of HOMOSEXUALITY(TM) have this Mutant Power to turn people Screaming Crazy by osmosis? Or what?
    http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/12/chik-fil-a-day-for-duck-dynasty-call-your-cable-company/

  30. Dee–in my opinion, you get a much fairer and clearer discussion from Dwight McKissick.

    Fairer because he doesn’t just automatically assume anything. And because if his having been there done that from the other side.

    We white women can say all day long what blacks felt in a pre welfare society. Doesn’t matter.

    But it does when it comes from a black person who was there.

    Just check the media: what you see is that Phil Robertson made racist remarks and gay slurs. In reality he slammed himself as a sinner and when asked what sin is gave a scriptural answer. What if you were doing an interview and someone asked you what you think about child abuse? Would you answer it is a sin? Yes? And then what if that person asked you what is sin? Would you be slurring people if you quoted a scriptural list of sin? More like giving information. Reality is the Bible does say that those persistently holding to a long list of behaviors, one of which is homosexual behavior, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The verse he quoted certainly covered a good bit of what this straight lady had to repent of. Why the furor over ONE group being mentioned for THEIR sin when MANY groups were called out?

    As to the race issue, he did not deny there was bad treatment of black people. He stated he didn’t personally see it. And he commented that both blacks and whites were happier in a pre welfare time.

    The simple truth is that WHAT he said is NOT what is being SAID that he said.

    Let’s look at both parts. Start with the racism. Did it exist back then? Yes. Can you prove he ever saw it? No, not unless you were with him and saw it happen in front of him. Even then, no two people perceive the same happening the same way. You might see racism and he might not see it even if it did indeed happen right in front of him. The other thing to consider is that he was speaking from a point of poverty and hard work in the fields. Most of the shenanigans in that time and place I dare say occurred a bit farther up the economic food chain. When you are at the bottom there is a lot more fraternity.

    So we cannot prove he lied. He did not say the Jim Crow laws were good, or that racism was good. He simply said he did not see it.

    As to the comment re the welfare mentality: even a cursory reading of history tells us that while we are much better off in some ways today, we have lost some important values. Saying that is NOT saying we need to go back to racism. It IS saying that we have lost some things, and only saying that.

    Imagine what a world we could have IF we kept the good of today–the civil rights, the better medical care and communications, etc–AND could recapture the dedication to self support, hard work, joy, and godliness that did exist then despite the evil going on in that time and place.

    It truly puzzles me why some today are quick to assume that anyone who actually speaks the truth clearly stated in God’s Word are unloving, racist, woman hating, homophobic, or whatever the issue of the day is.

    Is it that we indeed live in the time of itching ears? Have we been so brainwashed that the most important thing in life is to be affirmed in whatever we do?

    Or are we once again listening to the old serpent when he asks us if God REALLY said?

  31. Dee: you might find it interesting to read a discussion going on at a Nazarene friendly website called NazNet. Go to general discussions, find the thread about duck dynasty, go to page 3 and read what Cynthia posted.

    Far more extensive Phil Roberston quotes. Think you might find those castigating him don’t have the full story.

    Fair is fair. Let us know what you think after you read it.

  32. Beakerj wrote:

    Hmmmph, I may have to go out usurping now.

    If you would usurp us, I would immediately support you, joining in the takeover. I deeply believe in the freedom of expression. We all talk about truth but truth is sometimes better discovered by a bunch of conflicting ideas coming together.

    As for John, he did not answer questions. He continued the cut and paste nonsense quoting an outdated study that is useless in light of today’s understanding of immunosuppression, etc. Sometimes, it reminds me of the KJVO folks who occasionally crash a party

  33. linda wrote:

    Dee–in my opinion, you get a much fairer and clearer discussion from Dwight McKissick.
    Fairer because he doesn’t just automatically assume anything. And because if his having been there done that from the other side.
    We white women can say all day long what blacks felt in a pre welfare society. Doesn’t matter.

    But the response I gave was from a black Reformed Christian group. I did so because I knew that was your theological perspective.

    I quoted him exactly. I did not put words in his mouth.
    linda wrote:

    Most of the shenanigans in that time and place I dare say occurred a bit farther up the economic food chain. When you are at the bottom there is a lot more fraternity.

    Huh?
    linda wrote:

    So we cannot prove he lied. He did not say the Jim Crow laws were good, or that racism was good. He simply said he did not see it.

    I didn’t say he did.

  34. linda wrote:

    Is it that we indeed live in the time of itching ears? Have we been so brainwashed that the most important thing in life is to be affirmed in whatever we do?

    I have no idea what you are talking about here. Itching ears? Another Christianese expression.Who has itching ears? What are you talking about?

  35. dee wrote:

    linda wrote:
    Is it that we indeed live in the time of itching ears? Have we been so brainwashed that the most important thing in life is to be affirmed in whatever we do?
    I have no idea what you are talking about here. Itching ears? Another Christianese expression.Who has itching ears? What are you talking about?

    I find these kinds of quotes very interesting – they contain such an inherent enormous moral judgement that they shut down the conversation as all who claim to be christians back away going, ‘Oh yes, of course, sinful us…’ & whatever was being said gets condemned with no further thought….It’s well meant, presumably, but sad.

  36. linda wrote:

    So we cannot prove he lied. He did not say the Jim Crow laws were good, or that racism was good. He simply said he did not see it.

    And statements like that cannot go unchallenged. The world of Jim Crow was one of the most despicable times in this country, yet there are many who try to whitewash that time into something idyllic and we cannot let that pass. People need reminding when comments like Robertson’s are made that the reality of that time and place was one of massive underlying evil. I suspect Robertson is looking back through rose-colored glasses, confidently ignored the dark side of that world, or he was just plain blind.

  37. @ Rob Smith: perhaps you need to get up tomspeedmon what the Jim Crow laws were like, and on what life was like for black people in Jim Crow states.

    It’s very much like apartheid in S. Africa and what used to be Rhodesia,but withe the Klan, lynchings and all kinds of intimidation.

    Appearing “happy” around white people was necessary for survival. There was NO freedom of speech for black people, no way to vote, or to use the same water fountain or toilet as white people… I could go on, but better you check it out for yourself.

  38. @ dee: ooh – can I join the party of usurperesses?! Sounds like fun! You bring your chocolate, and i’ll get mine to share. 🙂

  39. Numo,

    I was not born yesterday. I am well aware of the way blacks were treated here in the U.S. I have lived here for 37 years. It was deplorable.

    It does not change anything I said. I loathed the apartheid system and have no desire for that repression to ever exist again. It does not mean that the working poor in that system were never happy people. There are happy people in jail (Paul the apostle sang hymns). Not happy with their circumstances, but happy with life. This tends to happen with godly people (to whom Robertson referred to). They rejoice even in bad circumstances.. and to report that rejoicing does not a bigot make.

    But the apartheid regime kept civil dialog from happening. If you spoke out you were deemed a communist and punished. There was no freedom of speech. This is the main point of what is going on. If you say the truth about homosexuality, you are a bigot and need to be condemned. Any of you agree with the statement “I believe in traditional marriage”? You are not allowed to say that today without a massive backlash trying to silence your free speech. It happened with Dan Cathy of Chick Fil A and will t happen with you as well.

    In this case with Robertson, it did not work, so let’s destroy the man some other way in order to silence him. Let’s condemn and destroy him for having said things he simply did not say.

    That kind of reaction to truth is what kept the apartheid regime alive, and what allowed Jim Crow laws to survive as long as they did.

    Rob

  40. @ Rob Smith: Dan Cathy was giving corporate earnings to anti-gay organizations. Full stop.

    He’s entitled to his beliefs/opinions, but there are a ton of ethical conflicts invo!over re. those corporate donations. Freedom of speech had nothing to do with it, and neither does it have much of anything to do with the remarks Robertson made. He’s under contract to A&E and was using his 15 minutes of “reality”-star fame as a platform for making a lot of callous statements about black people, gay people, the Japanese (see GQ’s website for that), women (ditto) and plenty of other people besides. There’s lots he might have said that would have been constructive; I don’t exactly see that he did.

    Sometimes a person digs themselves into a hole and can’t get out… Meanwhile, the PR and sales generated by this farce are more than A&E ever could have hoped for.

    Duck Dynasty Xmas CDs, anyone? (Yes,they’re selling them…)

  41. @ numo: if Dan Cathy wishes to donate to such organizations as a private individual, he’s free to do so. (Forgot to put that above.) But as CEO of a company, not so much.

  42. numo wrote:

    Duck Dynasty Xmas CDs, anyone? (Yes,they’re selling them…)

    Before Duck Dynasty raised its beard, there was the Jon and Kate Plus Eight Christian Celebrity Autobiographies and Study Bibles in all the Jesus Junk stores (which promptly disappeared from the shelves after the sex scandal and divorce).

  43. dee wrote:

    I have no idea what you are talking about here. Itching ears? Another Christianese expression. Who has itching ears? What are you talking about?

    I think “itching ears” is a Christianese expression for eager to spread gossip and/or wanting to hear only what they want to hear. Considering the way “gossip” has been redefined by the Calvinjugend (My Dear Wormwood…), I think it’s lost a lot of its credibility.

  44. @ Rob Smith: just to be clear, one common mode of “traditional marriage” depicted in the OT is polygamy. Somewhere along the line (prior to the writing of the NT), society changed, but that doesn’t alter the fact that “traditional” does not automatically = monogamy, in reference to the Bible, at least.

    As with any other topic, it helps to be clear about definition (imo, anyway).

    I also agree that people can be happy in the moment, but to assume that the lot of black Southerners was “happy” under Jim Crow is quite a leap! “Separate but equal” was farcical at best, re. basic education, health care – and human rights.

    Did you know that civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks got her start with the NAACP in 1944, via investigation of the vicious gang rape of a young black woman (on her way home from a church prayer meeting when it happened) by 9 white men? The case – and the outcry against the way this woman was treated – spurred on public disapproval for such assaults (all too common) as well as serving as the crucible for the Civil Rights movement.

    Was that poor woman ever “happy” after enduring what she did? I doubt it. It took tremendous courage for *anyone* to speak up against what happened to her, in a time and place where free speech was denied to black people. Everyone involved risked their lives.

    Phil Robertson isn’t exactly in their league, i’m thinking…

    Btw, there’s a very good book on the topic I mentioned by way of example, titled The Dark End of the Street.

  45. As I stated way upthread, one of my problems with Robertson’s statements about gays was the lack of precision. I know far too many people who think that the orientation itself is a sin and not only the act, and they will take Robertson’s comments to be inclusive of more than the act. I can’t tell whether Robertson intended them this way, but that’s what people will hear. And that’s wrong. And yes, I do understand that I probably shouldn’t expect theological precision from a TV personality in a popular magazine interview, but it’s still annoying and unhelpful and did nothing to advance the conversation.

    FWIW, while I do think the word “homophobia” is waaaay overused, I have met Christians to whom the strict definition (fear of homosexuals) definitely applies. And there’s way more of them than there should be. These are (some of) the people I have in mind when I say Robertson’s comments are too nonspecific.

  46. Rob Smith wrote:

    AND having visited some Ghettos here in the US, I can say that it is not unreasonable to say that poor working blacks that grew up with Robertson’s family were happier than single mothers, dealing with the guilt of multiple abortions and trying to raise five children from three fathers, all of whom are absent or in jail, living life where the dehumanizing effect of being totally dependant on government is a reality.

    I *live* (not just visited) in Detroit where there are many fine and happy (in the way you mean) black women. Even though they have it hard. Even though they’ve had little chance in life and none coming up. Even though they are at the bottom of the social pile in every single way.

    Your stereotyping is plain ugly and I don’t know how a person can believe he aligns himself with Christ while making such wretched statements.

    Additionally, the kind of wisdom that causes a person to be happy in the moments of one’s life no matter the circumstances, does not preclude also feeling grief and anger for being at the wrong end of injustice and contempt.

    You write profusely and with righteous certainty, but you have no idea, Rob Smith.

  47. Patrice wrote:

    Your stereotyping is plain ugly and I don’t know how a person can believe he aligns himself with Christ while making such wretched statements.

    Not that hard when Ayn Rand is the Fourth Person of the Trinity…

  48. Patrice wrote:

    Scott Shaver wrote:
    If they were actually happy DESPITE their circumstances I wouldn’t expect bleeding hearts like yours to understand why.
    “And why would you not expect that, Scott?”

    Scott Shaver wrote:

    Because I sense the tendency in some people to reinterpret history according to their own religio-political views as opposed to letting the raw data of history speak for itself.

    So when people don’t let raw data speak for itself, their hearts bleed and they can’t comprehend happiness in adversity?

    If so, in your universe it must be fairly easy to detect bad research. Just call in the scientists and ask them to take off their shirts.

  49. linda wrote:

    We white women can say all day long what blacks felt in a pre welfare society. Doesn’t matter.

    But it does when it comes from a black person who was there.

    Dwight McKissick’s opinion is his own. Other black people look at it differently. For eg, in his post, Dwight chides the NAACP for taking a tack opposite to his.

    People who view another group in stereotype will often look for a person in that group who agrees with their own opinion and use that person to prove that they are correct about their stereotype. You do this in your comment and Phil did it in his interview.

    “The simple truth” is that there are as many opinions in the black community as there are in the white.

  50. @ Rob Smith:A backlash after a stupid comment by a wealthy and powerful businessman is to be expected in a democracy. It is not suppression of speech nor is it persecution!

  51. @ JeffT:
    I agree with you. If we, in the midst of evil, do not see that evil, then what is wrong? The Lutheran church in Germany ignored the reports of the death camps and most could probably say “I didn’t see anything wrong.” The question is “Why?”

  52. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    As I write this, my husband is on his way to the ENT. His ears are itching and he is having trouble hearing out of one ear. If someone has “itching ears” they may need a doctor.

  53. Quick note to readers on this thread

    I know Rob Smith. We will be telling his story here on TWW. He has an incredible ministry but I am not sure how much I can say at the moment. I will say this. He is a decent man and he is not racist. In fact, he serves the poor and people of color in an incredible way. I met him and talked with him for about 3 hours.

    I think he is looking at things from a different POV. The blogging medium is difficult in that we cannot see each others faces. We can’t write a tome because few people will read it.

    He actually wrote me first and expressed his thoughts. He wasn’t sure if he should put it on the blog. i told him to “go for it.” I just want to assure everyone that Rob is a great guy and when you read his story you will see what I mean.

    In this particular instance, you might want to consider this if you believe what I am saying. Imagine that he is sacrificially serving many poor people of color. And then respond with that knowledge under your belt.

  54. Patrice wrote:

    Patrice wrote:
    Scott Shaver wrote:
    If they were actually happy DESPITE their circumstances I wouldn’t expect bleeding hearts like yours to understand why.
    “And why would you not expect that, Scott?”
    Because I sense the tendency in some people to reinterpret history according to their own religio-political views as opposed to letting the raw data of history speak for itself.
    So when people don’t let raw data speak for itself, their hearts bleed and they can’t comprehend happiness in adversity?
    If so, in your universe it must be fairly easy to detect bad research. Just call in the scientists and ask them to take off their shirts.

    @ Patrice:
    Would respond Patrice but have no idea what you mean with this comment. Sounds like you’re calling me a racist. Have been called worse.

  55. @ Scott Shaver:
    You read accusations of “racist” from a literal extrapolation of your own words? Ok.

    What you wrote made no sense on the surface because it was stuffed with innuendo and passive-aggression. Just thought I’d point it out.

  56. @ dee: Am assuming that his comment is open for disagreement/critique, though, right?

    That’s not the same thing as personal attack, after all.

  57. Patrice wrote:

    @ Scott Shaver:
    You read accusations of “racist” from a literal extrapolation of your own words? Ok.
    What you wrote made no sense on the surface because it was stuffed with innuendo and passive-aggression. Just thought I’d point it out.

    Obviously I’m not smart enough to understand the meaning of my own words on this site. Passive aggression as opposed to what?…your overt “aggression”.

    Sell it to whoever’s buying Patrice. No interest here.

  58. Patrice:

    My observation has been that you largely see what you want to see in some of the comments on this thread. I guess it’s a way to keep oneself entertained without having to genuinely interact with folks on the issues.

    Lots of fun… just not real constructive.

    I’ll take a break so another dissenting view can get the treatment.

  59. Patrice–and if you want to find fault with conservative Christians such as Phil, nothing they can possibly say will please you.

    Simple fact is bias is a two way street.

    Did you actually go and read at the other site I mentioned the quotes from Phil?

    Are you aware the Robertson family includes biracial children? Are you aware of the work this man has done for years to foster racial equality?

    Or are the media sound bytes enough?

  60. Scott Shaver wrote:

    Passive aggression as opposed to what?…your overt “aggression”.

    Scott Shaver wrote:

    Lots of fun… just not real constructive.

    Ah, I must be aggressive if you’re passive-aggressive. Got it.

    But yes, I agree there’s no communication happening, so no value in it.

  61. linda wrote:

    Patrice–and if you want to find fault with conservative Christians such as Phil, nothing they can possibly say will please you.

    So if Phil isn’t ok, then no one can be ok? Phil represents the best of conservative Christian conversation?
    linda wrote:

    Are you aware the Robertson family includes biracial children? Are you aware of the work this man has done for years to foster racial equality?

    Yes, I heard that. Adopting can mean a number of things. For eg, my father/mother adopted a bi-racial First Nations child and then treated him as second-class all his life. But the Robertsons may love them as their very own. Do you know how they are treated? Where are they, do you know? They’re not involved in the show.
    linda wrote:

    Or are the media sound bytes enough?

    Phil’s media bytes are a Christian’s words in the media—you say so yourself. And without all the spin that supportive Christians have woven around those words, Phil the Christian millionaire business man has made an unadorned hash of the image of God.

    So now I’ve had my say, Linda. I think you are wrong. You think that I’m not a good Christian for thinking you are wrong. I am glad you are wrong on that too.

  62. @ linda: I think Patrice has a very valid point re. people looking for someone from whatever group is being targeted who will agree with them; also that there is a great diversity of opinion in the black community. People are people, and there’s *always* a broad spectrum of opinion.

    Just because you like what McKissick [sp?] says does *not* mean that his views are representative of the opinions held by many, or most, black Americans on this topic.

    After all, Fox found a black “commentator” who’s been known to claim that slave ships were literally “comfortable” and basically act as a denier of the evils of both the slave trade and slavery itself. They looked hard enough; they found someone to fill the spot. And I’m sure they pay him well.

  63. @ linda: Disagreeing with you or Phil (or whoever) on certain issues doesn’t mean that either Patrice – or I, or whoever – disagree with you or Phil (etc.) on all issues.

    You’re broad-brushing, imo, linda. Very much so.

  64. numo wrote:

    @ dee: ooh – can I join the party of usurperesses?! Sounds like fun! You bring your chocolate, and i’ll get mine to share.

    Oh the more the merrier Numes…we meet under my bed, with chocolate, to plan the uprising…

  65. In other news, the goalless draw at the Emirates Stadium tonight means that Liverpool are top of the league over Christmas.

    I hope this is helpful.

  66. Patrice wrote:

    @ dee:
    I’d be delighted to find that Rob does not believe what he appears to be writing in his comments.

    Perhaps now there can be a careful reading of what I actually did say.

    Let’s not destroy Robertson because he has a point of view, especially when we are analyzing five sentences of his entire life, chosen out of an interview.

    If we do this we doing exactly what we are oppose. The abusive retaliatory actions of church authorities who destroy the voice and character through shunning and finding anything they can to discredit the truth-teller.

    This is the kind of abuse many of us have suffered already at the hands of abusive churches. Try to speak a little truth and wham…. the “destroy his character so that no one will listen to the truth of that he is saying” abuse comes out.

    I believe that the readers of this blog are above that. Especially Numo 🙂

  67. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In other news, the goalless draw at the Emirates Stadium tonight means that Liverpool are top of the league over Christmas.
    I hope this is helpful.

    How wonderful. Yay!

  68. @ Rob Smith:
    Well, Rob Smith, after recommendation by Dee, and after I show a willingness to arrive at a different understanding, I am deeply disappointed to find you merely sending me back to your original wordage with a paternal chiding.

    And not only do you spend your effort in chiding rather than clarification, but also serve a healthy helping of reverse blaming and finish it with an appeal to the readers of this blog to be “above that”. And set on top of it all, a sweet emoticon for our good numo. Ach!

    Your response certainly isn’t meant to change my mind. It is meant to bring shame. Since this makes no sense to me, and indeed, feels manipulative, I will quit my end. Readers find in it what they may.

  69. And with that, I would be grateful to crawl under the bed with the rest of you, if you will have me. I can bring 70% chocolate with sea salt.

  70. @ Rob Smith: Rob, I don’t feel at all comfortable with the way you’ve singled me out.

    Also, as someone who has gone through being kicked out and shunned by an abusive church, I think your analogy is WAY off the mark.

    And it’s a fair bit more than 5 sentences in that interview, fwiw…

  71. @ Rob Smith:

    The problem with people like Furtick is that they are profiting from the church while hiding the facts about their remuneration. And they are living a Fortune 500 CEO life style while alleging that they are serving Jesus, who lived without a home, with limited resources, and served sacrificially. Not only are they covering it up, they also tend to lie about it as well, and Furtick has been caught doing both.

    Further, what happens is the adoration of the man, not the Christ! And that leads people from faith in Christ to faith in Furtick. Then when Furtick fails or falls, what happens to the followers of Furtick.

    The mega church pastor lifestyle is a sin. And it is a sin by not only the pastor, but all of those who enable him in doing it, as well as all of those who follow Furtick instead of Christ, and defend Furtick’s excesses.

  72. And the same goes for anyone who is wealthy and presumes to speak for God. They must be careful, for none of God’s true messengers in the time Christ was on earth were truly wealthy. The money contaminates their witness, because it becomes a barrier to honesty and truth.

  73. @ Rob Smith: personally, I think you’re being pretty hard on Patrice and i’m not happy about that.

    Maybe you could at least re-read what she’s said to you and take you time with the part about the women in her neighborhood? I was/am troubled by the way you characterized low-income black women. The folks i’ve known have been hardworking, dedicated to their families, and more giving than most with far more income. (Not to mention that most were/are serious about church.) You gave a painfully stereotyped example up thread, and the only reason I didn’t address it is that I was busy replying to some of your other statements. It was an oversight on my part.

    Hoping that we can get some things squared away here and start fresh.

    Best,
    n.

  74. numo wrote:

    if Dan Cathy wishes to donate to such organizations as a private individual, he’s free to do so. (Forgot to put that above.) But as CEO of a company, not so much.

    BS.
    He IS a private individual.
    As as CEO he must answer to his shareholders.
    And the company’s customers.
    And they seemed to be quite okay with it.
    So your example falls flat.

  75. @ dee:

    It is usually the people working with the poor who see the real problems and how many of our polices are actually discriminating against them by convincing them they cannot break out of the cycle of poverty. My mom had an urban church ministry for 30 years. We have seen a lot of sadness because of beliefs about themselves reinforced by our government/education system. But we have also seen some break out and come back to take care of their families.

    Growing up in the South it was always a shock to me as a kid to visit the North and see how segregated it was. Huge housing projects in another part of town with very little daily non work interaction between whites and blacks. What happened in the South was horrible and thankfully there were Christians who stood against it. But the irony is that blacks and whites KNEW each other and interacted daily. I grew up in SBC churches that had quite a few African American attending. Sadly that changed after the civil rights movement started listening to the hucksters and politicians who wanted a voting block and forgot Dr. Kings teaching.

    There are way too many who want them where they are and dependent. I am glad Rob commented. I understand it can be intimidating to have that view here. People jump to the conclusion you are a racist if you don’t want the poor or African Americans dependent on government.

    BTW Libertarian does not mean selfish. It means personal responsibility. There are some who need our help and should get it but some don’t because the pie is becoming smaller. Food stamp recipients went up 40% in our city over the last 4 years. There are 6000 people waiting for help with a place to live. Small businesses are closing at an alarming rate. A shrinking tax base because of an economy that is not growing means those who really do need help are not getting it and those receiving help now will see that dwindle. Those who need help will always be better off with a growing tax base of businesses opening and expansion of existing ones.

  76. @ TedS.:

    Bingo
    @ Rob Smith:

    The left is just as legalistic as the right wing they despise but for other reasons. Both want to micromanage us and use thought reform methods to do so. It is hard for them to see they are very similar to the right wing in method of marginalizing those who disagree by calling them racists, selfish, etc.

  77. numo wrote:

    i was replying to Rob.

    Really? That’s a nice way of describing your mean-spirited, political-correctness tinged rant. And your sophomoric put-down, “Ayn Rand is the Fourth Person of the Trinity”? It was an uncalled for, below-the-belt potshot good only for stifling reasoned commentary. Give us all a break.

  78. I believe in free speech and yes phil robertson has the right to his opinion. But i can’t stand the big phony show with the preaching on his part. One is supposed to dress in the best clothes he has during worship service to honor the lord. Not showing up to sunday service in hunting attire and bandana. Disrespectful to say the least.He also stated openly about his sex,drugs, sinful ways. He was a grown man that chose that lifestyle and an educated person at that. I’m sure being from the bible belt, he definately knew better as to what he was doing being wrong. Sin is sin in gods eyes. Homosexuality, drugs, cheating in all ways, etc is doomed to hell unless repentance takes place. I’m glad phil changed his ways but i don’t care for his brand of preaching.

  79. numo wrote:

    Appearing “happy” around white people was necessary for survival.

    Patrice wrote:

    I *live* (not just visited) in Detroit where there are many fine and happy (in the way you mean) black women. Even though they have it hard

    numo wrote:

    Rob, I don’t feel at all comfortable with the way you’ve singled me out.

    Numo, you just made my point. If Robertson’s neighbours had to appear happy for the sake of survival, or if they were happy because even though living in segregated conditions, he reported what you just confirmed.. they appeared happy.

    Patrice, you have done the same. I also know many courageous women, some who contracted HIV/Aids from cheating husbands, then rejected by their community who have shown amazing joy despite almost unbelievable hardship. I have personally rescued some of these women and along with other treated them with dignity and equality – but their happiness and joy often put me to shame. You are not a bigot for pointing out the fine and “happy” women is these sad conditions. So why is Robertson the villain for doing the same thing about the working blacks his poor white family worked alongside?

    Numo… you singled me out too 🙂 That is partly the nature of this type of forum. In fact, you single a lot of people out on many forums, so I do not feel awkward having singled you out.

    I do not expect you or Patrice to suddenly agree with me. But let me say the following….

    I abhor any teaching or lifestyle or society that implies in any way that all men are not created equal. I abhor the doctrine of equal but separate. I teach African audiences that the foundation of a civil society in the recognition that all are created equal in the sight of God. I teach that principle with a passion, and often in tears as I believe that most African believe the lie that they really cannot make it as Africans.

    I am an African and my life is dedicated to playing a role in seeing my fellow Africans healed from the devastating effect of slavery, the negative parts of colonialism and the awfulness of apartheid. I am amazed at the culture of most african communities that are so joyful despite the hardship. There are few characteristics of the african culture that is more amazing.

    I remind you of the point that I was making, however. My Robertson spoke what he believed to be Biblical truth regarding sin. For that he was lambasted, but it didn’t work very well. So now the bigoted thought-police will stop at nothing to point out anything they can to destroy his standing so that he voice becomes irrelevant.

    So the man who has blacks in his own family is accused of being racist.

    We can debate the meaning of my words re happiness all day long, but can you not at least appear to recognise the point I was making?

  80. Alan wrote:

    Deb and Dee, I’ve really liked this site in the past. What you two have done to expose the shenanigans of “pastors” is a valuable service to the Church in my opinion. I know you won’t care what I think, but lately, I see this site jumping the shark. Who cares what a person from a reality show think about anything? I’ve never watched DD. Not even one time. For the record, I don’t even know what Miley Cyrus did that made everyone so made, becuase again, who cares what a person like that does or thinks about anything? You two seem to be opposed to the celebrity pastor sub-culture and that’s why I have always liked this site. But I’m also opposed to the celebrity culture in general. Who cares what Miley Cyrus or the guy from DD thinks about anything?
    For the record though, I’m, bothered that a person can espouse any and all liberal positions and/or political views and they’d never have to worry about being kicked off of their show. But take a position that the elites don’t like and watch out. Since you two are investigative types, you must know of course that there were other quotes of Phil’s from this same conversation that were not picked up by the MSM, becuase they don’t fit with the narrative that’s trying to be told here. But aside from that, I’m more concerned by the propensity of those on the left to try to silence all opposing opinions. That’s the very definition of fascism and it ought to be opposed by all of those who care about freedom and liberty. If this guys is really the evil, vile, despicable person that all of the commenters here have made him out to be, then just let his show fade away into oblivion.

  81. Patrice wrote:

    And with that, I would be grateful to crawl under the bed with the rest of you, if you will have me. I can bring 70% chocolate with sea salt.

    I was hoping you’d say that Patrice…it’s a super kingsize bed, lots of room underneath 🙂

  82. Rob Smith wrote:

    Let’s not destroy Robertson because he has a point of view, especially when we are analyzing five sentences of his entire life, chosen out of an interview.

    I agree. However, with his public fame and lots of money linked to that public fame, he has to be aware that everything he says will be parsed. Especially if he is sitting down for a formal interview with GQ which is not known for its conservative bent.

    There are far better ways to get one’s point across than the way that he did it. In fact, I am considering doing a post in which our readers answer the question that was posed to Robertson: “What do you mean by sin?”

    As for Robertson being destroyed, well….from what I am reading, he is raking in the money and is now wealthy. He is now the face of many conservative Christians. More people signed the petition to put Robertson back on DD than signed the petition to protest child sex abuse in the church. I think he came out just fine in this conflict.

  83. @ Rob Smith: I replied to you. There’s a difference between that and how you referred to me up thread, and I hope you can comprehend the distinction.

    You were, imo, being quite patronizing to Patrice, partly by holding me up as some kind of paragon of civility. I dislike both things and said so.

    That’s *not* the same thing as “singling you out.”

  84. @ dee:

    I am not sure that is possible. Most of your commenters want homosexuality embraced. There is a distinction and I am not sure they can even see it. There is a difference between acceptance and embracing or promoting. So one is a long way from sin on that one.

    What about the blacklisting going on by GLAAD? Why aren’t people concerned about how intolerant they are? This is becoming Orwellian. I went back and read what he said and was shocked at how badly people have overreacted and gone along with the Orwellian censorship thinking.

  85. numo wrote:

    @ TedS.: I wasn’t the one who made that comment, btw.

    Just stop trolling, dude.

    How rude. He has commented here for a while.

  86. Rob Smith wrote:

    Numo… you singled me out too That is partly the nature of this type of forum. In fact, you single a lot of people out on many forums, so I do not feel awkward having singled you out.

    Thought policing

  87. Anon 1 wrote:

    Most of your commenters want homosexuality embraced.

    I would have to disagree with you. if they want it embraced, they would have rejected my series on homosexuality in which I made my viewpoints known on the matter.

  88. @ dee: you are polite and do not make crude or slighting statements about gay people.

    Therein lies one of many difference between you and Phil R.

  89. numo wrote:

    @ Eagle: The KKK has historically claimed that it’s a “Christian” organization. And it’s always had plenty of evangelicals in its ranks.

    It was a Democrat party organization originally.

  90. numo wrote:

    @ Anon 1: indeed it does. I disagreed, that’s all.

    By calling someone a troll? That is not simple disagreement

  91. @ Anon 1:
    Oh geeze, Anon 1. The guy said this to numo over a civil disagreement and then about something she didn’t even say:

    “That’s a nice way of describing your mean-spirited, political-correctness tinged rant. And your sophomoric put-down, “Ayn Rand is the Fourth Person of the Trinity”? It was an uncalled for, below-the-belt potshot good only for stifling reasoned commentary. Give us all a break.”

    It was a venting of spleen over several comments. And now you’re doing a milder version. What’s up with that? The last spate is clearly intended to drive wedges between believers. Why would you try to do that, especially here where we are trying to find a meeting of the minds?

    Maybe it’s just that Christmas is stressful. Perhaps moving to another post will clear the air.

  92. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy: not to mention all the Duggar merch …

    I’ve not seen nor heard of Duggar merch or Kate+ merch. DD stuff I’ve heard of, but not seen. interesting

  93. Trotsky’s daughter reincarnated (that’s me) feels compelled to say “Schastlivogo Rozhdestva!” to you and yours. 😉

  94. Bridget wrote:

    numo wrote:
    @ Headless Unicorn Guy: not to mention all the Duggar merch …

    I’ve not seen nor heard of Duggar merch or Kate+ merch. DD stuff I’ve heard of, but not seen. interesting

    Though morning drive-time radio was reporting that Duck Dynasty merch is flying off the shelves this Xmas. Including Duck Dynasty candles with portraits of the Beards on their sides (to make them official DD), scented with names like “Road Kill” and “Duck Fart”.

    On a lighter note, morning drive-time was using Klezmer-arranged Christmas Carols as bumper music; they were credited to an album titled “Oy to the World”. (Imagine carols done by “Fiddler on the Roof” and you get the idea.)

  95. TedS. wrote:

    numo wrote:

    i was replying to Rob.

    Really? That’s a nice way of describing your mean-spirited, political-correctness tinged rant. And your sophomoric put-down, “Ayn Rand is the Fourth Person of the Trinity”? It was an uncalled for, below-the-belt potshot good only for stifling reasoned commentary. Give us all a break.

    TedS. does comment here quite often, but I thought the above was rude. Numo didn’t even make the Ayn Rand comment. It’s just not helpful to name call and demean others, outright or by inuendo, when commenting IMO.

  96. dee wrote:

    In fact, I am considering doing a post in which our readers answer the question that was posed to Robertson: “What do you mean by sin?”

    I wish you would Dee, it would make for a lively exchange indeed! I think that here at TWW it would be possible without violence and warfare. We are a community of divergent viewpoints much like Al Andalus of old and yet we are able to live with each other in peace, even though our discussions can get quite heated.

  97. I have not read through most posts since I was last here.

    Anon 1 wrote:

    Most of your commenters want homosexuality embraced. There is a distinction and I am not sure they can even see it. There is a difference between acceptance and embracing or promoting. So one is a long way from sin on that one.

    What about the blacklisting going on by GLAAD? Why aren’t people concerned about how intolerant they are? This is becoming Orwellian.

    I share some of your sentiments.

    I do not hate homosexuals but see that the Bible does not give a stamp of approval to homosexuality.

    I dislike the severe tactics used by some homosexual activist groups and their (straight) supporters who tend to demonize opponents or intimidate into silence anyone and everyone who does not completely celebrate homosexuality. (One cannot “tolerate” it, one must celebrate it.)

    Particularly chilling to me are the news stories of Christians who are harassed in America or Britain (they sometimes receive death threats), they get fired from jobs, or tossed into jail for…

    Not allowing unmarried (hetero or homosexual) couples to stay in their bed and breakfasts; for politely declining to make wedding cakes for homosexual marrying couples; preachers who speak in public (and who do so politely, not even in a ‘Fred Phelps, Westboro’ kind of way) against homosexuality.

    (Phelps was originally a Democrat, btw. Try a google search for “fred phelps democrat” for more about that).

    There have been one or two news stories in the past few years about hetero people, who, on their own time, stated a mild disagreement on their private, personal Facebook pages that they do not believe in the legalization of homosexual marriage.

    AS a result, they were reported for these comments to their employers by someone on their Facebook feed, and their employer either did fire them for it, or tried to. (I think one guy who this happened to was a school teacher?)

    This is not a subject I post about much, because it’s so politically incorrect, even on some Christian sites.

    You will be mercilessly flamed on some sites for simply not agreeing with homosexuality, or with the approaches of homosexual groups.
    (Maybe not so much on this particular blog; you might get a minor flogging by some participants) 🙂

    The amount of rancor you will get for publicly saying you don’t dig homosexuality, or aren’t cool with how the “rights” groups behave towards dissenters, is enough to keep me fairly quiet on the topic.

    I’m not too into the homosexuality subject in and of itself too much.

    The thing that disturbs me about it is the chilling effect on freedom of speech, and that people are getting fired, or harassed to an ungodly degree, merely for holding or expressing an opinion on something.

    Remember when that Carrie Prejean beauty contestant was asked for her opinion on homosexual marriage during a show a few years ago, and she gave a polite response saying she does not support the legalization of homosexual marriage? She was flogged online and in media for weeks over it afterwards. That is terribly creepy.

    GLAAD: Lethal Enforcers of the Left’s Tolerance Mob

  98. numo wrote:

    @ Bridget: Oh yeah – start here: http://store.discovery.com/19-kids-and-counting/index.php?v=tlc_shows_18-kids-and-counting

    Good grief! I suppose it does make sense for the promoting channel to promote (all TV shows sell their past episodes and pastors sell their tapes and books, just like TV celebs). I guess I’m just not a shopping junkie and the only advertising I promote on clothes, or anywhere, is the brand name that might be attached . . . never even put a sticker on a bumper, but that’s just me. The problem for me is the pastors (used loosely) who do the same as entertainment celebs.

  99. @ Bridget:

    The History Channel does the same thing.

    First of all, they hardly every show history related programming. How can they call themselves “History Channel” when about less than ten percent of their shows are about history?

    I do enjoy the “American Pickers” show and the Pawn Shop show, and you do get a small dose of history with both, since if, someone brings in say, a World War 2 uniform, the shop Pawn shop owner will give you a brief WW2 lesson.

    But the other shows on History Channel have little to nothing to do with history, such as Ice Road Truckers and all the swamp shows.

    Anyway, they sell a ton of merchandise off those shows. There are bobblehead dolls of the Pawn guys on the History Channel’s online store, and a bunch of other stuff.

    That ancient aliens show on History Channel. I don’t care if I never see another one of those, but they run them non stop around the holidays.

  100. dee wrote:

    I agree. However, with his public fame and lots of money linked to that public fame, he has to be aware that everything he says will be parsed.

    As I was just saying in a post above this one, it’s not just famous and wealthy types being harassed for stating or holding opinions about homosexuality; it’s also “average joe’s” who are being harassed for not agreeing with homosexuality, some even for stating their opinions in a private venue on their own time.

    I have been flamed horribly and very rudely (with profanity and such) by other people on other blogs/sites for merely oh- so- politely and tepidly saying I don’t think the Bible supports homosexuality, and I’m not wealthy or famous.

    There is a climate of intimidation where you can’t just hold a differing opinion on something anymore, or mention that opinion to friends, or on the internet, and mobs will come after you with flaming, or if they know your name, they will try to get you fired.

  101. magnum 300 wrote:

    Sin is sin in gods eyes. Homosexuality, drugs, cheating in all ways, etc is doomed to hell unless repentance takes place. I’m glad phil changed his ways but i don’t care for his brand of preaching.

    He did not mention just homosexuality, though.

    Robertson mentioned greed, idolatry, hetero fornication, and other sins.

    People are over-analyzing his word choice and the order of words because our culture is so hyper- sensitive about homosexuality, and they go looking for offense, even if there is little to none there.

    If you look at the quote carefully, Robertson was actually comparing hetero pre marital sex to bestiality, but I see rabid homosexuality supporters in the media keep inaccurately characterizing his remarks as him comparing homosexuality to bestiality, which is not what he did.

    He simply listed a bunch of behaviors that the Bible names as sinful.

    The Bible says lying, stealing, murder, and fornication are all sins, as well.

    It would be like me saying, “Well, let’s start with lying and go down the list, there’s also stealing, fraud, tax evasion, and then there’s murder, adultery….”

    If you are personally guilty of lying, let’s say, it makes no sense to assume I just automatically or necessarily lumped you in with murderers.

  102. Daisy–excellent, very brave post!

    Amazing how the most sensitive to “their” issue people are often also the snarkiest and meanest.

  103. @ Daisy: If you’re referring to internetmonk.com, I haven’t seen any flaming directed at you, Daisy. Of course, I’ve no doubt that it can/does happen elsewhere, but I think the pushback is to be expected when controversial issues are being discussed – no matter *what* one’s opinion is.

  104. @ Daisy: also, imonk has its share of irascible commenters who are still allowed to post – as with some here, and very much unlike many other “xtian” sites.

    I think that as long as people keep it civil, it’s good to have a diversity of opinion. If all commenters agree with each other, things get boring fast.

    another thing to keep in mind is that some people have a habit of picking fights.

  105. @ numo:

    No, I didn’t really have Intermonk Monk’s site in mind when making those comments (though yes, some of the people there can get teed off if you don’t support homosexuality).

    I was talking about other sites I’ve visited, lurked on, or participated on.

    Many people who support homosexuality on other sites are too sensitive about it, making even polite dialog an impossibility.

    The “secular” sites are especially bad.

    And you’re talking to someone who was incredibly civil about stating her views about it, still got flamed ’til I was burnt to a crisp.

    You get ganged up on, too (especially on the Non Christian sites).

    I’ll be the only (or one of the only) person who does not support homosexuality, being ganged up on by ten or more people at once, all of them wanting a piece, all of them demanding I reply to their arguments.

    It bothers me to see that some Christians who support homosexuality depict Christians who do not as being backwoods, knuckle-dragging, uneducated, hickified, hate filled doofi (plural of doofus?).

    I remember seeing one site by Christians – ones who abandoned stricter, conservative Christianity and who are now more left wing or emergent- who cheered with glee when…
    I can’t recall the exact details, it was something like a judge ordered some Christian bakers to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, or drove them out of business or something – but the now-left/emergent Christians who were discussing the story cheered and thought, “it serves those Christian homosexual haters right, ha ha ha.”

    (A post I made for a magnum 300 is sitting in moderation about four posts above this one.)

  106. @ Daisy: Yeah, the internet is not for the faint of heart, and there are MANY people who thrive on being nasty, no matter their beliefs/ideas.

    which is why I only comment here and at imonk, and, occasionally, at RHE’s blog. I don’t even read comments on most of the news (newspaper, online mags) sites that I browse. it’s not worth the time and aggravation and resulting stress. We all have enough on our plates already, no?

  107. @ Daisy: all that said, some of the most heartless comments I’ve ever seen (including some that have been directed at me) have been made by other xtians – not speaking of anyone here, either.

    It’s as if all the filters shut down when people site at a computer keyboard, because we can’t actually the the people we’re communicating with. We all end up saying things we’d likely never say to another individual in face-to-face convos.

  108. @ Daisy:

    I usually don’t touch homosexual debates with a 10 foot pole for this very reason.

    I also avoid places where many ex-fundy/new atheists gather.

    I’ve been burnt to a crisp over the way I phrased things… IN AGREEMENT with the majority. Why did I say it that what? What did I mean by that? What was I hoping to gain by phrasing it that way?

    It can get pretty hairy.

    I chalk it up to the possibility that those mercilessly drilling me are acting out of raw pain from previous experiences that I could never imagine.
    I also came to the conclusion that, though I have a heart for the deeply wounded, there are some deeply wounded that I need to back away from and pray that others that are more skilled in these areas (homosexuals, new atheists) would enter the conversation.

    My conclusions may be wrong. But they are the ones I have so far until I find better explanations.

  109. @ Mara: I hear you. It’s not for everybody, and I think you’re wise to keep your distance.

    fwiw, I’ve seen – and been the target of – the same kinds of behavior on specialized music sites (jazz in particular). some of the worst flaming – and it was truly horrible – that I’ve seen was on a classical site, back in the day, when the internet was a relatively new thing and heavily populated by computer geeks. A lot of them didn’t really have social skills.

    Things have gotten exponentially better over the past 10+ years, given the flood of ordinary folks who comment and read at all kinds of sites, but there are still large parts of it all that I never, ever approach. Can’t see why anyone would want to, really!

  110. numo wrote:

    when the internet was a relatively new thing and heavily populated by computer geeks

    Remember in the internet’s earliest, days, people would get into PC vs Mac wars? 🙄

    I’m kind of a gamer, or was for a while, and X-box, Playstation and Nintendo fans would clash with each other online and sometimes still do.

    I’ve worked on both PCs and Macs and don’t see a big deal either way with that, and I’ve played on Xboxes, PSs, and Nintendos, and they all seem okay to me.

    Anyway, people can get ruthless on the internet, or very mean.

    I’m not saying I’m agreeing with all the comments or jokes that got these following people into trouble, but it’s kind of alarming to me at how people will gang up on other people over online comments they don’t like.

    Here are some headlines:

    Steve Martin apologizes, offers explanation for ‘unfortunate’ tweet

    ‘Ashamed’: Ex-PR exec Justine Sacco apologizes for AIDS in Africa tweet

    Justine Sacco: Sympathy for This Twitter Devil

  111. @ Daisy: Hah! I was a hardcore DOS fan, and remember the arguing over Windows (often referred to as “Windoze” by the DOS people) and DOS.

    I didn’t even have a decent Windows computer til 1999, when I bought my 1st laptop.

    I still miss DOS sometimes, even though I’ve embraced touchscreen tech and Android and goodness knows what all else.

    but I’ve never had a Apple box – they just cost too blamed much. I do have an ipod, and love it, but I *don’t* use iTunes, because it’s a pain to run on Windows and doesn’t have the options I want for tag editing, music management, etc.

  112. @ Daisy: I’ve never been a gamer, although I got my 1st smartphone in Sept. and have since become totally addicted to Angry Birds! (All versions, though i dislike the Star Wars series – Seasons, Space and Rio are my faves, plus the latest update to the original AB game, “Short Fuse.”)

  113. numo wrote:

    @ Daisy: If you’re referring to internetmonk.com, I haven’t seen any flaming directed at you, Daisy. Of course, I’ve no doubt that it can/does happen elsewhere, but I think the pushback is to be expected when controversial issues are being discussed – no matter *what* one’s opinion is.

    At least Daisy’s allowed to comment. My comments never see the light of day and usually get $hit-canned on sight. It’s almost as if by some loosely-warped-quasi-metaphor Chaplain Mike doesn’t allow Jews into his country club. Oh well as they say, it’s his blog and he can do what he likes, I just fold space and go elsewhere. I am a firm believer in private property rights. How’s that for a liberal like myself who is not in lock-step with other liberals?

  114. @ Anon 1:
    And all of those Democrats would be Republicans now. The reversal took place in the time after the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1960s. And the former conservative Democrats became Republicans, and the national political alignment of the old South, inc. Texas, became R rather than D. And the evangelicals and other groups shifted as well. The SBC was primarily Democrat until the 1960s as well. BTW the resurgence or takeover in the SBC (the choice depends on your political viewpoint) was funded by a major R supporter to the tune of several million dollars as part of a plan to shift the political allegiance of the South to the R party.

  115. @ An Attorney: Please – let’s not get into another political wrangle.

    Dee asked people to avoid it a few days ago, when an argument was starting (check a bit upthread).

  116. Mara wrote:

    I also came to the conclusion that, though I have a heart for the deeply wounded, there are some deeply wounded that I need to back away from and pray that others that are more skilled in these areas

    A hearty “Amen” on that! As much as some of us are good at working with the injured, their crazy-making is sometimes over the top. Some people are so wounded they cannot find True North or even make good decisions, making it doubly frustrating to be friends on any level.

  117. @ numo:
    I was responding to a comment that made a political point that was true years ago and is now not, in fact reversed.

  118. @ numo: From the info. on the vid I just posted –

    During World War I the song was sung on both sides of the trenches, when German, British and French soldiers climbed over the barbwire and joined together in No-Man’s-Land on Christmas Eve. It was the only song all the different nationalities knew, and was sung by all the groups simultaneously in their own language. That exceptional winter night and the remarkable days that followed – when peace reigned on the battlefield of war through a collective belief in Jesus Christ and the celebration of Christmas – later became known as the “Christmas truce” of 1914.

    In a similar way, it was also again sung by enemies – both German and American soldiers during World War II – on Christmas Eve of 1944. This occurred when small groups from the two opposing sides became lost in the winter snow in the midst of the Hurtgen Forest near the German-Belgian border, and were both given shelter in the same cottage by a Christian German woman and her son (represented in the film “Truce in the Forest”, and also retold by the German boy, Fritz Vincken, in 1973). Following the joint celebration of the birth of Christ, the German medic medically treated the wounded American soldier, and after passing Christmas night together, both groups parted ways in peace each to rejoin their own lines the following day.

    Perhaps we can observe our own truce, complete with carol-singing and chocolate…

  119. On a slightly more secular note, here’s Brazilian cavaquinhoM/i> (it’s not a uke!) player Jonatan Francisco playing “Boas festas,” a Brazilian Christmas standard ….

    http://youtu.be/koUdoSqrecY

    Put on your samba shoes, everyone! And if you’re so inclined, Jonatan teaches you how to play it in the second part of the video…

  120. One last carol, from the Philippines – the beautiful stars you see at the beginning are called “parol” (star) and *everyone* in the Philippines hangs them. Most are more elaborate, but I like the paper ones best…

    http://youtu.be/T1nNUOMS14g

  121. Patrice wrote:

    It was a venting of spleen over several comments. And now you’re doing a milder version. What’s up with that? The last spate is clearly intended to drive wedges between believers. Why would you try to do that, especially here where we are trying to find a meeting of the minds?

    Sometimes there isn’t a meeting of the minds. Then what? Lets go back to the issue being discussed. The Duck guy with bad hair and clothes said homosexuality was sin along with a lot of other sins and said we are all sinners. The problem seems to be that some are really upset that others think homosexuality in practice is sin. The way this is handled is Orwellian. Political correctness. People behave in passive aggressive ways that is called out and since most commenters are left leaning then we are mean for “responding”.

    Notice, the Duck guy NEVER said ONE WORD concerning WHAT TO DO about homosexuals. This is key. You would think he said to kill them all in the public square considering the media response and response on this blog to anyone who disagrees with the left religious legalistic Orwellian thinking here.

    A&E knew his views when they hired him. The only problem is he said it out loud. But wait, GLAAD and others here say their views out loud. It is all becoming very one sided. I maintain the left is just as bad as the right when it comes to thought reform, legalism, control of speech, etc. And they think they are more pious because they think they are right thinking. Both sides wear me out. Both sides espouse revisionist history to fit their narrative. When, in fact, history is often more complex and nuanced.

    I don’t do the fake unity deal agreeing with political correctness or stifled speech. The only wedge drawn here is when it is not accepted to agree to disagree. When people are painted as mean because they do not agree with GLAAD blacklisting methods. And that is what this is all about.

    BTW: Just so you know, We (my whole family) spent a weekend in Sept in a mountain chalet with a MARRIED (In Boston) homosexual couple who are not only dear friends but one of them is related to me. We had a blast. So retract the claws please, all my lefty friends. You don’t understand at all. I am all about free speech, freedom of opinion, etc. I cannot stand what is happening to our country with BOTH sides and thought reform.

  122. Personally, I’m more alarmed by him telling people they needed to marry women when they’re only 15 or 16 years old, so they’ll do as they’re told.

    I don’t think he meant the race thing as bad as it sounded.

  123. @ linda:
    WELL SAID linda ! People have no peace without knowing God. The race card has bee *played* and stirred up anger and hatred. Each individual has to chose how they will react.

  124. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy: not to mention all the Duggar merch …

    Just this morning, Mossberg announced a special Duck Dynasty line of shotguns. What makes them Duck Dynasty shotguns is they’re finished overall in the same camo used in the show (instead of the normal walnut and bluing) and have a Duck Dynasty logo on them. Did not say whether they include a strap-on ZZ Top beard with each shotgun.

    Did we go crazy or did everybody else?

  125. Daisy wrote:

    That ancient aliens show on History Channel. I don’t care if I never see another one of those, but they run them non stop around the holidays.

    Do they include “Eyebrow Boy”, the big-name UFOlogist with the squared-off face and wild eyebrows who’s shown up on every UFO show I’ve seen?

    Some friends of mine hoaxed him during an appearance in Tucson years ago; they reported that while he’s able to maintain an air of respectability when the cameras are rolling, offstage he’s a total Conspiracy Theory wack job. Secret alien-technology government bases on the far side of the moon and the like.