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 — 565 Comments

  1. He didn’t say it never happened, he said he never saw it. There is a difference. We have no way of knowing if that’s true or not. Personally I agree with Trevin Wax who called those comments “a sad example of white tunnel-vision.”

  2. in my humble opinion, I affirm Duck Dynasty people’s right to free speech to express their beliefs in any way they see fit without the government throwing them in jail or silencing them in any authoritative way. But I also affirm A&E’s right to fire whomever they want to fire regardless of how stupid the firing may or may not be. These controversies are silly in many ways .

  3. Thank you Wartburg Watch for bringing this to light. I was wondering why people who claim Christ were giving Robertson a pass on this.

  4. @ John A: I quoted him exactly. He started off by saying he never “saw” it. Then he generalized after that. Any person, in this day and age, who continues to pretend that “blacks” were happy pre Civil Rights, is either stupid or worse. His fellow farm workers were really happy with their discrimination in the general society? He is stuck in “la la” land.

  5. Wasn’t Duck Dynasty the darling of Christians because all the beards in the show were Christian(TM)? After the Jon and Kate Plus Eight meltdown, they had to find another set of CHRISTIAN(TM) Reality Show Stars to put on the altar and dance around, and the Duck Dynasty beards drew the short straw.

  6. @ dee:

    People say DUMB things.
    That was just his 15 minutes of “What Was He Thinking?” fame.

  7. dee wrote:

    He started off by saying he never “saw” it. Then he generalized after that.

    I read it in context of his observation. His conclusions are based on what he saw. I disagree with those conclusions as I think most people would.

    When he said

    “Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were THEY happy? THEY were godly; THEY were happy; NO ONE was singing the blues.”

    I take the word THEY and NO ONE to mean the people he personally observed. Certainly he didn’t mean to say every single African American back then was Godly, even those he never met. To me this shows he was not generalizing IMHO. Maybe this is wrong but I will give him the benefit of the doubt until and unless it is clarified.

  8. @ Taunya:
    It is statement like this that lead me to understand why African American leaders say that there is still a racism problem in our country. I am so sorry he said this and somehow tied it into his Christian identity about which he often speaks. I get really ma about stuff like this.

  9. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Wasn’t Duck Dynasty the darling of Christians because all the beards in the show were Christian(TM)? After the Jon and Kate Plus Eight meltdown, they had to find another set of CHRISTIAN(TM) Reality Show Stars to put on the altar and dance around, and the Duck Dynasty beards drew the short straw.

    This is a great comment. They will now be writing books about how to defend the stars. It will become far more important than issues like abuse and plagiarism.

  10. I know his area of Louisiana – racism is still alive and well there. One of my teachers, an African-American man, was from the region and he said he learned not to complain because it was a waste of breath and never accomplished anything. Just because people aren’t complaining about injustices doesn’t mean they are not occurring. It simply means that the victims have no voice and nobody to listen to them. Phil and my dad are from the same generation and had similar life experiences but my father has learned to keep his mouth shut so as not to inflict more pain. I asked him why and he simply said “First do no harm.”

  11. I had heard of the kerfuffle over Robertson’s remarks about homosexuality, but didn’t see/hear about the race comments.

    DD (Duck Dynasty) is not a show I watch. I caught part of it a time or two in the past, and I found it dull.

    I don’t see the appeal and don’t know why it’s so popular. (I don’t mean to knock anyone else on here who likes to watch it, to each his/her own, I’m just saying it’s not my cup of tea.)

    Some Christian news sites do stories or interviews with the D.D. guys almost every day or week. I do not understand the evangelical media’s obsession with people or shows like this, though I do have a theory.

    One of my pet peeves is how Christian media jump on anyone and everyone who claims to be a Christian who also happens to be a TV, sports, singing, or movie star.

    I remember when the Kate lady from “Kate Plus Eight” show was still married to what’s- his- name, Christian show “The 700 Club” interviewed her.

    (They’ve also interviewed the Duggar family and Billy Ray Cyrus, prior to daughter’s Miley’s transformation into a saucy strudel.
    These Christian shows tend to portray all these entertainers as good old fashioned Christians with good old fashioned morals.)

    It’s like evangelicals are so insecure, they want so badly to be perceived as hip and cool by Non Christians, I suspect that’s why they hype these Duck Dynasty/ Kate Plus Eight Christian celebrities as much as they do, without examining what these people really believe beforehand.

    Sometimes, these celebrities are later discovered to have sordid private lives or hold views about Jesus that are at odds with the Bible, or whatever.

    HUG said,

    Wasn’t Duck Dynasty the darling of Christians because all the beards in the show were Christian(TM)?

    Every time I see the Duck Dynasty guys, all I can think of is ZZ Top (rock band from the 1970s/1980s).
    ZZ Top photo

  12. So blacks lived better before the Civil Rights era?!? Whiskey Tango Foxtrott!?! 8-O So Rosa Parks enjoyed being in the back of the bus. Blacks enjoyed drinking and eating at segregated facilities. I guess blacks enjoyed having their future controleld by whites.

    Makes me want to ask…is the Ku Klux Klan a “Gospel Centered” organziation? Did the Klan have a “membership covenant” like many Neo-Cal churches do? Due to how Neo-Cals teach sovereingty I guess it could be stated that every black man that was lynched in the south was done so because God foreordained it. So maybe we should go back to that. Plus I’m waiting for Tim Challies to accuse me of gossip for daring to question how racism in the south was foreordained due to how God’s sovereingty is taught.

  13. @ dee:

    I can deal with racism from those who don’t claim to know Christ, racism is after all nothing but sin, but when those who claim to follow Christ excuse and even embrace it in His name I won’t stay silent. It is sickening to watch so many Christians come to the defense of Robertson because they feel his comments on homosexuality were “biblical” all while ignoring his comments on race. The bible also speaks on issues of discrimination and partiality on ignoring the plight of the those who are not treated fairly. Robertson’s comments on the blacks in the south are very sinful and go against biblical teaching. Why are so many giving him a pass? Could it be that in their minds some sins are acceptable and others are not? And if so is it the bible they are actually following or their own sinful hearts?

  14. dee wrote:

    Why are so many giving him a pass?

    It is for reasons like this that I believe the narrative of Scripture. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We defend our idols, no matter their faults. They are already trying to contextualize his comments as you can see with John A in this thread.

    He is trying to tell us that “happy” blacks Robertson knew must have had no issues with white folks in Louisiana. He only knew the happy and singing blacks of the cotton fields in his area. Good night!

  15. Eagle wrote:

    Blacks enjoyed drinking and eating at segregated facilities. I guess blacks enjoyed having their future controleld by whites.

    John A is telling us that the ones Robertson knew were happy and singing and having no trouble with the white people so John is giving Robertson a pass. *facepalm*

  16. Mandy wrote:

    One of my teachers, an African-American man, was from the region and he said he learned not to complain because it was a waste of breath and never accomplished anything. Just because people aren’t complaining about injustices doesn’t mean they are not occurring. It simply means that the victims have no voice and nobody to listen to them.

    This makes a lot of sense. What I do not understand is men like Robertson, with an ability to gain instant access to information actually believe that black people around him were happy with no problems with the white people.

    In the meantime, many of these guys cry persecution when someone disses their faith. At least they do not face lynchings.

  17. Dee: I think you missed his point. He said, “Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues”. He didn’t say they liked discrimination. He only said that they were godly and that they were happy. It does not logically follow that they necessarily liked their situation, only that the people he knew were happy, presumably because that is a normal state of affairs for one who loves God and knows where his priorities lie. A guy who should know once said, “Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong”. I’m not happy because I’m getting my rear kicked, I’m happy in spite of that because Christ loves me.

  18. dee wrote:

    So, the ones who he observed had no problem with lynchings and being segregated?

    You’d have to ask him dee. I said I do not agree with his conclusions, how much more clear do I have to be for you and your readers? I think this group tends to exaggerate and blow stuff out of proportion and that is what I take issue with. You read more into his comments than I do. The comments he made are disturbing. I said I agree it is an example of white tunnel vision. Please don’t make me out to be a racist or the defender of racism.

  19. @ dee:

    I’m not sure how much he accesses information for learning purposes. He’s an outdoors guy (nothing wrong with this in general) who tends to assess everything through his grid of ‘experience.’ If you have a narrow grid of experiece you can tend to have a narrow view of what others experience. I’m wondering if he ever engaged any of these fellow workers in conversation, interacted with them apart from the fields, or became friends with any of them? Are there any African Americans in the church he attends?

  20. @ John A: You are missing the point. he *ahd* to have known about Klan activity; he had to have seen Jim Crow laws in action;’he *had* to have seen and heard PLENTY of racist comments (and probably made more than a few himself).

    Unless he lived in isolation from the rest of the world, he HAD to have known about the Civil Rights movement and the brutal treatment many of the protesters endured at the hands of so-called “authorities” – and from many who claimed to be “good Christian people.”

    He had to have been living in another universe entirely to have missed all that – unless, of course, he’s just a plain ol’ racist and is practicing “selective remembering.”

  21. How could anyone that lived in that time not know what was going on?

    “Those who not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

    Did you know the US Senate only recently apologized for not voting for an anti-lynching law:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynching_Bill

    We have such a long way to go yet so few public ‘Christian’ preachers preach the Love

  22. @ Mandy:Exactly (racism).

    there should be a LOT of outcry from churches, but [crickets] from a lot of the crowd who got so worked up about MD being accused of plagiarism.

    What hypocrites!

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

  24. John A wrote:

    Please don’t make me out to be a racist or the defender of racism.

    We didn’t and now I remember why I have you on “death by moderation.”

  25. @ Taunya: a lot of people who are not xtians are more upfront about confronting the evils of racism and discrimination and hatred than many people who claim to be “xtians.”

    It’s a question of moral standards and ethics that goes far beyond the bounds of what religion (if any) a person subscribes to.

  26. Bridget wrote:

    I’m wondering if he ever engaged any of these fellow workers in conversation, interacted with them apart from the fields, or became friends with any of them?

    I wonder if he just sang along?

  27. numo wrote:

    Unless he lived in isolation from the rest of the world, he HAD to have known about the Civil Rights movement and the brutal treatment many of the protesters endured at the hands of so-called “authorities” – and from many who claimed to be “good Christian people.”

    Exactly.

  28. @ Daisy:
    I read about Yoder and planned to write post on him. I keep getting sidetracked. This is an important story since it deals with problems in a group we rarely discuss.

  29. JeffT wrote:

    How could anyone that lived in that time not know what was going on?
    “Those who not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

    Well stated.

  30. @ Daisy: I can only applaud the publisher, while hating what Yoder has been doing (to women) for so many years.

    it’s painful that his disciple is moral theology. he’s one of the leading lights in that part of academia and the church (overall; not just Mennonite by any means – his influences is HUGE).

  31. @ numo: btw, I didn’t intend to come across as flippant about racism… these guys are SO protected by their skin color and financial status that they have NO idea how the 99% (of all colors) really lives.

    Their insensitivity is just gut-wrenching.

  32. dee wrote:

    @ John A: I quoted him exactly. He started off by saying he never “saw” it. Then he generalized after that. Any person, in this day and age, who continues to pretend that “blacks” were happy pre Civil Rights, is either stupid or worse. His fellow farm workers were really happy with their discrimination in the general society? He is stuck in “la la” land.

    Before the “love of Christ” compells further criticism of Roberts nuanced social commentary on the general outlook of black pre civil rights….you might want to research some of the historical archives of interviews taken from former slaves. Not that slavery was in any right, or civil rights in any way wrong, but there is marked difference in the way those people viewed the world, their peers, and society than post civil war-civil rights folks.

    If that is the social phenomenon Roberts was commenting on then he has a lot more sense and education than some of the folks posting on here.

  33. numo wrote:

    @ Taunya: a lot of people who are not xtians are more upfront about confronting the evils of racism and discrimination and hatred than many people who claim to be “xtians.”

    It’s a question of moral standards and ethics that goes far beyond the bounds of what religion (if any) a person subscribes to.

    Numo I agree wholeheartedly and it’s a crying shame that many “Christians” are on the wrong side of this issue.

  34. living in the Seattle area for my entire life, I can also say that I never actually *saw* rights abused, but that also doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and I realize this. I know there were (perhaps still are) hotbed places of racial issues still alive (but my own area truly isn’t one of them). All that said, stating someone’s experiences doesn’t make that the default of an entire country’s experiences as a whole. I cannot vilify him for his own experiences and friendships. I also highly doubt he is a racist since he does have a grandson who is of a different race. I don’t know… personally I am tired of where the media is taking us.

  35. Sorry about the photo-bomb here (I’m in a hurry and haven’t read most of the stuff here, so I could be replicating someone else’s comment).

    But of course all people are happier when they’re being oppressed. White Americans were much happier under the English monarchy, when they could enjoy the freedom to pay taxes without bothering their simple heads with all the nasty complexities of government.

    Sigh…

  36. dee wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    I’m wondering if he ever engaged any of these fellow workers in conversation, interacted with them apart from the fields, or became friends with any of them?
    I wonder if he just sang along?

    I’m pretty sure he was probably high or drunk during this time, so it’s likely he didn’t see it. He talks about his past, and it’s not pretty in that regard.

  37. @ numo:
    I agree. Now, when some poor, prevailed upon sales associate wishes me Happy Holidays, I warmly thank them and wish them one as well.

    BTW-one sales associate at Target asked to see my ID since I was buying a bootle of wine. I almost leaped across the conveyor to hug him. Best. Gift. Ever.

  38. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    White Americans were much happier under the English monarchy, when they could enjoy the freedom to pay taxes without bothering their simple heads with all the nasty complexities of government.

    After all, it was only about tea? :)

  39. Take this for what it is worth: my family was barely over the line in East Texas. They were white sharecroppers, living among and working with the blacks of the region.

    What the DD guy said was no different than what I’ve heard out of both black and white mouths repeatedly. Before welfare, before the entitlement mentality, there was a sense of reliance on self, community, and God. People at that social strata were not likely to be involved with the KKK. That was for far richer folks. Mine couldn’t spare the time, the horse, the sheet, or the good firewood.

    He didn’t speak out in favor of hatred or black suppression. He spoke a truth that is inconvenient to say the least: in spite of all the “rights” won at a horrible cost, people are not inherently happier or better today.

    I think, no matter what else he said that is picked on, what is getting some knickers in twists is that he addressed gay sex in two ways that are politically incorrect today: he addressed the mechanics, and the NEW TESTAMENT on it being a sin.

    The gay lobby wants us to see it as civil rights and only prohibited in the OT.

    He popped that bubble.

    Good for him. I respect that a lot more than those trying to rewrite or ignore the Bible in the name of political correctness.

  40. c wrote:

    only that the people he knew were happy, presumably because that is a normal state of affairs for one who loves God and knows where his priorities lie.

    So, all of them were happy because they were deeply committed Christians? This is not going well. It is beginning to sound like a bunch of Doug Wilsons comments in which he theorizes that slavery was a mostly benign institution and we know how that turned out.

    No, they made the best of their despicable lot caused by the sin of white people who were well pleased when the “help” smiled a lot and said “Yes, boss” and sang “Sweet Chariot.” In fact, that movie, The Help, is what this reminded me of.

    This was a naive, poorly thought out comment which should be withdrawn ASAP.

  41. @ linda: I understand about your background (really – we have lots of rural poverty, with mostly white poor folks, up here in the North), but it’s his bigotry and callousness that people are objecting to.

    I’ve said lots upthread; no need to rehash. As for the working poor feeling a “sense of entitlement” – ????!!!

  42. @ linda: Since you are on a roll about the gay thing, let me say something about that. What he said was so raw that the “gospel” boys can’t even print it. Christians are doing such a poor job communicating in this arena that we are losing the war. Thankfully, some Christians, even ones with whom you would approve, are beginning to think through their approach.

    I deeply dislike the pointing fingers outside to the others while we keep quiet on the issues of child sex abuse within our family. Heck, not only quiet but actively promote those who presided over a mess. There are far better ways to communicate the truth instead of the crassness that so called Christians sometimes use.

    I have made my views on the subject quite clear and there is no question that I fall within what you might perceive as an orthodox point of view. But I despise how many Christians are handling this. We deserve to lose the war. Gay Marriage will become the law of the land, like it or not.

    I disliked what the DD patriarch said. It was devoid of love, a word that the Calvinstas despise.

  43. Why do evangelcials have to be so clumsy with racism. Their history with racism is despicable. From the fondation of the Southern Baptists over slavery, to the way many Christians in the south rallied around the Confederacy. Then you had many evangelicals who supported Jim Crow, segregation and opposed desegregation. Many evangelicals opposed what Martin Luther King was trying to do.

    It’s sick…so why do they have to re-visit the past? Is this what it means to be stuck in James Dobson’s 1950 America?

    BTW..did you guys see the discusion of the racial makeup of SGM Louisville? Only 1 black person which shocked many in the south. I’m just waiting for Timmy Challies up in Canada who cowers behind his computer to accuse me of ‘gossip”

    Hey Timmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmy!!!

  44. I am Phil’s age, maybe a little younger. I remember the discrimination in East Texas as a youth….I remember the having to buy at the end of lunch counters, separate bathrooms…..Blacks of that day were “happy” because they were forced to do so to keep their job….yes sir, no sir, whatever you say sir……Phil knows better.

  45. Pingback: AARGH … the last word on Duck Dynasty | Civil Commotion

  46. There are so many good comments here … I could just scream for joy. Dee wrote: “He started off by saying he never ‘saw’ it. Then he generalized after that. Any person, in this day and age, who continues to pretend that ‘blacks’ were happy pre Civil Rights, is either stupid or worse.” I agree entirely.

    I think I’m more angry at his revisionist racial history than I am about his homosexual ignorance. Just because he never “saw” mistreatment does not mean that there was no mistreatment, even in his own backyard. I echo what one commenter wrote with regard to “the blacks,” as Robertson put it, not speaking out, since they figured it was a lost cause to do so. Many gave their own lives when they did speak up.

    Their singing songs — sometimes spirituals, at other times songs of hope, but some of despair — were often a means of coping with the experience of oppression, objectification, and the robbery of their dignity and worth. Ugh. I’m often stupefied by stupidity … today certainly no less than any other day.

  47. Dee, thank you for bringing perspective to this story. I didn’t know much about the saga of DD – We live in in Kentucky and get plenty of contact with that culture, so I have avoided it until now.

    According to me Facebook friends, this is a case of a big, evil, godless network stifling the free speech of a simple, humble fellow believer. And while it remains to be seen whether this was a good business decision for A&E (only time — and ratings — will tell), it does appear that Mr. Robertson has some issues. The main issue isn’t that he reads or preaches or tries to live out his understanding of the Bible, but that he reads the through the lens of southern culture, a lens that warps the past and twists Scripture to justify and rationalize the sins of our fathers.

    I was thinking today about the US Civil War, and how it came on the heels of a series of significant revivals of religion in the US. I’m not a Civel War “buff,” so feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that both sides of the conflict used Scripture to bolster their case. Same Bible, different interpretation. So in a sense, the bloodiest warmin US history was fought over different interpretations.

    Reading the Bible is important. HOW we read it is more important. How Phil reads it might be the real issue.

    And I miss the old A&E that broadcast things that were… I dunno… artistic and entertaining.

  48. JadedOne wrote:

    I’m pretty sure he was probably high or drunk during this time, so it’s likely he didn’t see it. He talks about his past, and it’s not pretty in that regard.

    Best commentary yet! :)

  49. Eagle wrote:

    BTW..did you guys see the discusion of the racial makeup of SGM Louisville? Only 1 black person which shocked many in the south. I’m just waiting for Timmy Challies up in Canada who cowers behind his computer to accuse me of ‘gossip”

    I did not. That is fascinating. If SGMer loyalists are reading this, please feel free to jump in with stats of your own.

  50. K.D. wrote:

    .Blacks of that day were “happy” because they were forced to do so to keep their job….yes sir, no sir, whatever you say sir……Phil knows better.

    Good comment.

  51. Gary wrote:

    it does appear that Mr. Robertson has some issues. The main issue isn’t that he reads or preaches or tries to live out his understanding of the Bible, but that he reads the through the lens of southern culture, a lens that warps the past and twists Scripture to justify and rationalize the sins of our fathers.

    Well stated.
    Gary wrote:

    And I miss the old A&E that broadcast things that were… I dunno… artistic and entertaining.

    You mean guys in bandanas and out of control beards aren’t artistic?

  52. Scott Shaver wrote:

    f that is the social phenomenon Roberts was commenting on then he has a lot more sense and education than some of the folks posting on here.

    Welcome back, Scott. I hope you have a Merry Christmas!

  53. William Birch wrote:

    I think I’m more angry at his revisionist racial history than I am about his homosexual ignorance. Just because he never “saw” mistreatment does not mean that there was no mistreatment, even in his own backyard.

    Good observation. I do not like how he handled the homosexual thing either. Are we trying to win people to our way of thinking or just plain tell them off? It is sad all around.

  54. dee wrote:

    Please don’t make me out to be a racist or the defender of racism.

    We didn’t and now I remember why I have you on “death by moderation.”

    Eagle wrote: “John A is telling us that the ones Robertson knew were happy and singing and having no trouble with the white people so John is giving Robertson a pass. *facepalm*”

    I was accused of giving him a pass. If this is not a suggestion of racism it’s not too far from it. I asked that the group please not accuse me of being racist or of defending racism. I think the comment was valid. So why exactly do you have me on death by moderation?

  55. @ dee:

    Dee they were talking about this at SGM Survivors. Only 1 black person in the video that was shown. I guess one could say the Sovereign Grace is a white’s only club. I’m just waiting for Tim Challies to accuse me of “gossip” :-P

  56. The irony of this site is that dee and many of her readers are just as hypocritical, obstinate, and unreasonable as those they love to criticize. If you can’t see that in yourselves I feel sorry for you. Merry Christmas to everyone at TWW. I will not be back.

  57. The reason people aren’t upset about these comments is that they don’t know about them.

    All I have seen in the news are the quotes about gays. That is why he was suspended, I think. So that is why Christians are upset.

    My overall thoughts about his racial views are – goodness!!! This guy has lived a sheltered life.

    A lifetime ago, a guy like this would have gone to seminary at Southern Seminary and come back preaching the so-called “Social Gospel”, not believing the Bible and marching for Civil Rights etc.

    These statements show how truly limited his exposure and thinking are and ill formed and weak his thoughts are.

    I don’t know how old the guy is, but he must be 70+. I hear a lot of comments from people that age that sound the same. I have older family members who are dedicated New Deal Liberal Democrats, and they say the same thing about blacks. But they are all older, like Robertson.

    Btw, I can’t stand the show. It is so slow and dull. But I am happy for the family and their success.

    I will add that I agree with some of the commenters above that this seems to be based on his experience, and not a general comment about all blacks.

    But I would think it fair that is criticizing the welfare entitlement mentality and what that does to people.

    I am for Civil Rights.

    I do highly question the effectiveness of the Great Society programs, and I tend to believe that they can have a detrimental effect on people – of any race.

    Go to rural America today. I used to handle cases for a large, well known corporation that has stores in rural areas. I used to travel the state into many rural areas.

    My grandmother told me of rural life in the 1900 to 1930 era, when she grew up. Everyone were farmers. Landowners and/or sharecroppers. Finanically, life was tough for everyone. But the rate of crime, drug use, illegitimacy etc. was way down.

    Go to rural America today. A large percentage of people live on Medicaid. Illegitimacy, drug use, lack of education are rampant.

    And this is true among White people as much as it is non-White.

    So I think Robertson’s statement poses an interesting question about the effect of never-ending entitlements and how that affects people. He has just incorrectly focused it on one race.

  58. JadedOne wrote:

    I’m pretty sure he was probably high or drunk during this time, so it’s likely he didn’t see it. He talks about his past, and it’s not pretty in that regard.

    He would have been a child, or at most a teenager, at the time. Check the dates. My guess is that blacks and whites did not mix too much on the job, and this would have been mostly what he was told during his youth.

  59. Also, the bit about evangelicals and race is interesting.

    Evangelicals are going to be less likely to support things like racial quotas and set-asides.

    Non-evangelicals are goin go be more in favor of those.

    In my city, however, if they are going to cross racial lines to attend a church, the African Americans are far more likely to be involved in evangelical churches, than liberal non-evangelical churches.

    I find that liberal, non-evangelical churches talk a really big game. They are usually very affluent. They usually have no true black friends with whom they would spend an evening or a vacation.

    They see blacks as “projects” needing their protection. And they agree with liberal black political goals.

    The evangelicals don’t agree with many of the political goals that are loved in the black community, but they often have true black friends. They go to church together. They hang out together.

    Life sure is complicated.

  60. @ dee:
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that you know better than the folks who were there, who is entitled to be happy and who is not. You appear to suggest that you are qualified to discern the acceptable state of mind of folks whom you have apparently never known or associated with.

    I don’t care if you quote me but you are not entitled to put words in my mouth or speculate about the thoughts and beliefs of others about whom you apparently have no actual knowledge. If Phil Robertson is a racist he needs to repent, racism is a stench in God’s nostrils. The problem is that he never defended racism. Nonetheless, you have seen fit to judge him, or rather you have seen fit to judge what you choose to believe about him.

    Patronizing assumptions and knee-jerk assessments based on racial stereotypes do little to promote the proclamation of truth. An occasional resort to facts, on the other hand, might be useful.

    You will get the last word in this exchange. I accept that, but it doesn’t mean I’m wrong. I was an adult in the South in the early ’60s. I saw racism up close and personal. I despise it – in all its manifestations.

  61. @ Anonymous: Great comment. I believe that slavery ruined the African American family unit. Children and spouses were sold as if family had little value. It broke my heart to spend a night in an old plantation house in which they had the original sales records for their slaves.

    We then demeaned them because of their skin color which also added to their view as second class citizens. Today, I believe we still feel the aftereffects of our institutional sin. The Great Society did not cure the problems but it at least diminished starvation and provided medical care.

    My soon to be son in law (Jan.25) is a dentist who devotes his practice to serving the underserved in our community. I am very proud of him.

    I owe you a very long letter and will try to do it soon.

  62. Anonymous wrote:

    Life sure is complicated.

    So true. That is why it is essential to carefully communicate in areas that involve racial identity.

  63. Matthew Paul Turner had a pretty great article on this subject (http://tinyurl.com/knbp4hg).

    Sorry if it’s been posted already. I’m on my phone and it’s hard to double check. If you haven’t read it though, I think he does an excellent job putting Phil’s comments into perspective.

  64. A few thoughts on all of this:

    1. I can buy into the fact that Robertson was a poor white growing up in Louisiana who worked alongside African Americans in the fields. (Many poor whites were under oppression in the south via disenfranchisement, tenant farming, etc, but certainly not to the oppressive degree as African Americans)..I may even buy into his observation that he saw African Americans as “happy” and not complaining within those fields.

    But to say he NEVER saw any Black person mistreated with his eyes… A little far fetched for me. I guess it all depends on what he considers “mistreated”. I could believe he never saw someone lynched, beaten, etc. But what about all the other aspects of a segregated society? Does he deny that segregation in general is a form of mistreatment?

    The main problem with all of this is the implication—-Based on his statements alone in the interview, he is implying that there was no form of mistreatment for African Americans in a pre-civil rights society. If he wants to clear the air, maybe he could clarify that he knew mistreatment and abuse took place within this segregated society, but he himself never witnessed such things (still a little far fetched for me).

    As far as his homosexual comments:

    Leaving aside his very crude comments–This is what GQ asks him:

    “What, in your mind, is sinful?

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

    Phil had a chance to show that All have fallen short of the Glory of God. That everyone is sinful, everyone struggles, everyone NEEDS Jesus…. but instead he singles out one group. Notice how he says START WITH Homosexual behavior and morph from there?

    Why start there? Does the bible ever really start there? He basically made Homosexuality a SIN among sins. It would have been better if he had quoted scripture FIRST, then allowed GQ to respond to that. However, the way he responded to this question reveals something I think many Christians in America deal with.

    Some never look to pride, lust, selfishness, greed, apathy, refusal to love and serve the broken and “least of these” as sinful. It is so much easier to point our fingers at others, and for Phil, Homosexuality was the launching point.

    I really wish he would have shared his own struggle with sin (Whether past or present) It would have been much more humble and much more of a witness. Instead, another “high profile” Christian is labeled a bigot, and we are one step farther from bearing a good witness of Christ for the nations.

  65. Eagle wrote:

    BTW..did you guys see the discusion of the racial makeup of SGM Louisville? Only 1 black person which shocked many in the south. I’m just waiting for Timmy Challies up in Canada who cowers behind his computer to accuse me of ‘gossip”
    Hey Timmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmy!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oJ8tXeUDP8

  66. c wrote:

    You will get the last word in this exchange. I accept that, but it doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

    Actually, that rarely happens since we allow comments to go on and on. I usually just fade out around bedtime.Secondly, we allow for dissenting opinions, even strong opinions which result in building our list of “What the World is saying about TWW.”

    Who is to say who is right or wrong? This is merely an opinion so I may disagree with you and even think you are wrong but that does not mean you are. I leave that up to One Who Is at a Higher Paygrade.” :) c wrote:

    , you have seen fit to judge him, or rather you have seen fit to judge what you choose to believe about him.

    I just went back and looked at my post. I didn’t “judge” him or call him a racist. I said I deeply disagreed with him which is not a judgement, merely an opinion.
    c wrote:

    An occasional resort to facts, on the other hand, might be useful.

    I did. I posted his words.

    I do not know if he is a racist, naive, or a victim of circumstance. But I do know this. I do not like what he said and how he said it. I wasn’t too impressed with his comments on homosexuality as well. He could have done far, far better and not compromised his beliefs.

    But, never fear. He has made a boatload of money and is doing just fine. It is not like he is going to starve if he is permanently kicked off the show. he could even start a show of his own and I bet he would get lots of sponsors. Rumor has it that Glenn Beck is going to look into a show on his network. Sigh….Glenn Beck. Well, I will not go down that path.

  67. An Attorney wrote:

    Worse than that. Complaining could result in one becoming vulture bait suspended from a tree.

    I know. They needed to put on their happy faces and appease the predominant race in order to not appear “uppity.” “Uppity” could get you killed.

  68. 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.

  69. @ Scott Shaver:
    Most blacks in the South would not have told the truth about their situation, because the truth tellers generally did not live very long. You know, they were considered “uppity n_ _ _ _ rs”. Better to be quiet and go along with the program and stay alive, so one could feed the family.

  70. I have traveled a great deal in the Old South and Texas over the last 60+ years. It is STILL the case that being black makes one a target for law enforcement. It is true in Jerusalem on the Brazos (better known as Waco), and it is true generally across the South. It is a rare black man in the South that does not have an arrest record on some charge, and blacks outnumber whites on death row even though a much smaller portion of the homicide defendants and of the population. White people can claim self-defense, in most jurisdictions, try to find a black person who has successfully claimed self-defense. Etc., etc. It is “keep your mouth shut, boy, or I’ll run you in.” Go read up on Tulia, Texas.

    The Duck Dynasty is not funny, and nothing more than a cover for prejudice in one form or another for a bunch of guys who can no longer get away with expressing it in the old ways.

  71. Scott Shaver wrote:

    you might want to research some of the historical archives of interviews taken from former slaves.

    Like Frederick Douglass’ biography
    Like all the pictures of the whip-scarred backs of former slaves
    Like the auction notices where children were taken from their families and sold
    Like all the slaves escaping via the Underground Railroad
    Like all the slave patrols that were out at night to keep them from escaping
    Etc., etc.

    Yup, slaves were really happy back then, we just don’t understand that today

  72. @ Nancy:
    Phil Robertson? He is currently 67 years old. He was born in 1946, so I guess it depends on what era he is talking about.

  73. Thanks, Dee.

    Don’t worry about owing me any long letters.

    If you, Deb and your husbands would just come visit this way, that would be most fun.

    Surely there is a medical conference you guys can attend here.

  74. JeffT wrote:

    Scott Shaver wrote:
    you might want to research some of the historical archives of interviews taken from former slaves.
    Like Frederick Douglass’ biography
    Like all the pictures of the whip-scarred backs of former slaves
    Like the auction notices where children were taken from their families and sold
    Like all the slaves escaping via the Underground Railroad
    Like all the slave patrols that were out at night to keep them from escaping
    Etc., etc.
    Yup, slaves were really happy back then, we just don’t understand that today

    Didn’t say they were happy Mr. Perception, said they had a different world view and different mindset probably borne of suffering. If they were actually happy DESPITE their circumstances I wouldn’t expect bleeding hearts like yours to understand why.

  75. An Attorney wrote:

    I
    The Duck Dynasty is not funny, and nothing more than a cover for prejudice in one form or another for a bunch of guys who can no longer get away with expressing it in the old ways.

    DD isn’t funny. I do not get it and I was raised in a rural and I still live in a rural environment. Sure they are wealthy, but I’d never want to hunt or fish with the Robertson Family. I kept thinking they would “jump the shark” on their own, but I wonder if in reality Phil knows this will be a way to extend their 15 minutes? There are a large number of backward thinking people in the South who feel the same way they do about gays, blacks, etc….

  76. @ JadedOne:

    Brown v Board of Education was in 1954, and the nation erupted in segregation issues. He would have been nine years old. 1954 was the end of any era in which people did not know what was going on. I was there, and I remember it clearly-it hit the nation like a bombshell. ( I was 20 at the time. Thinking in the nation erupted drastically in 1954.) That era of pre-civil rights America is the era I am talking about. If he is saying thus and such about the pre-civil rights era he has to have heard it from someone or been told it or formed his opinion later in life. He did not have enough age or experience between ages birth and nine to have worked much in the fields, observed the black subculture and formed opinions about anything. That is the era I am talking about. His ideas were prevalent in my childhood, but not so much after 1954. I think he is repeating what he was told by his elders rather than what he “saw” and decided for himself.

  77. Alan wrote:

    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

    Could you elaborate?
    Alan wrote:

    I’m more concerned by the propensity of those on the left to try to silence all opposing opinions.

    But they really can’t. Back in the time of Hitler, Stalin, etc. there was no such thing as blogs that the average nobody (like us) could access. Now, we can and we can counter the status quo. Look, nobody knew Deb and me a few years ago. We have no connections with the inner evangelical circles. We started a blog and threw our ideas out there. Much to our surprise, some people have responded. We are two nobodies who, along with the help of our readers, can challenge others, much to their dismay.
    Alan wrote:

    If this guys is really the evil, vile, despicable person that all of the commenters here have made him out to be,

    Good night! I do not think him evil, vile or despicable. I merely do not like the way he said some things and I think we should reject some of his thoughts. That is the nature of debate. As you see, we allow those types of comments when they are directed at us.

    I know this may seem trite, but I do find the current discussions interesting. Our motto is dissecting current trends. There is no question that DD has found a place in the hearts of the guys over at TGC. I know this might sound self serving but sometimes I like to discuss things that I find interesting even if they are not earth shattering.

    My husband often comes home from work and asks me what is being talked about on the blogs. He says my synopsis of the days events are interesting to him.

    So please hang in there with us. Some things will not be of interest to you. It is like, I hesitate to say this, the O’Reilly Factor. I will often record it and watch only one or two segments. Sometimes I am bored other time incensed and other time fascinated. I would love to take over Jesse Waters’ segment!

  78. Seeker wrote:

    … and we are one step farther from bearing a good witness of Christ for the nations.

    There are so many layers to this mess du jour that one hardly knows where to begin peeling, but I think at the center of it all one finds pride with all of its blind spots and ditches. All of us who strive to follow after Christ struggle to overcome our pride every single day. It’s a relentless battle.

    As the daughter of a man whose life was utterly destroyed by overt and covert racism and discrimination, my pride was more than a little hacked off at what Phil had to say about black people, but what he had to say about gays didn’t upset me quite as much. I’m really struggling with that. I’m remembering what HUG often says about the sins of “the other” being easier to see and condemn than my own. Ouch.

    I’m not sure if Pride American Style(TM), or Pride Southern Style(TM), is any worse than the pride that plagued the apostles, judging by how often Jesus had to correct them – and how often they needed to rebuke each other. They’re lucky they didn’t have the internet in 1st c. Jerusalem! However, I’m sure that the Holy Spirit has used many countless “bad Christians” throughout the ages for God’s glory in spite of themselves, and He will somehow use all of us, too. :-)

    In the meantime, someone pleeease teach Phil the 10 second rule.

    Better yet, give him a Proverbs 17:28 tattoo for Christmas. ;-)

    Grace and peace of the Lord be with you all!

  79. dee wrote:

    He’ll be back. Seneca is living proof that our detractors cannot stay away.

    Like Pathological Furry Haters and Furry Fandom. They can’t seem to exist without always interacting with the object of their hatred. Just like the Furverts(TM) they so HATE HATE HATE, except flipped one-eighty from Total Blind Adoration to Total Blind Hatred.

  80. @ 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.

  81. dee wrote:

    I know. They needed to put on their happy faces and appease the predominant race in order to not appear “uppity.” “Uppity” could get you killed.

    I remember an anecdote about someone who was researching really old newspaper archives in Florida for some unrelated historical research, and came across coverage of a lynching. The headline read “GOOD TIME IS HAD BY ALL AS N*GG*R IS PUT TO DEATH”. That says it all.

  82. Jenny wrote:

    As the daughter of a man whose life was utterly destroyed by overt and covert racism and discrimination, my pride was more than a little hacked off at what Phil had to say about black people, but what he had to say about gays didn’t upset me quite as much. I’m really struggling with that. I’m remembering what HUG often says about the sins of “the other” being easier to see and condemn than my own. Ouch.

    What an incredibly insightful comment. Thank you for sharing it with us.

  83. K.D. wrote:

    DD isn’t funny. I do not get it and I was raised in a rural and I still live in a rural environment.

    It’s so all the Seinfelds in their urban/suburban apartments can laugh at the Reality Freak Show. (And if you watch close, you might even see the Geek bite the head off a chicken!) Jerry Springer for Urban Hipsters.

  84. @ dee:

    If every publisher put warning stickers on books by abusive preachers or questionable ones, there would be quite a few. Mark Driscoll’s books should come with warning stickers. :)

  85. @ Nancy:

    Let me expand on this. After 1954 it is hugely improbable that there was no talk at all of civil rights issues even in rural Louisiana, because the civil rights issues extended from 1955 through late 1960s, I think Wiki says 1968. Therefore, he would have been nine or older during the civil rights times, and I do not think he could possibly have missed that. The only time he could have had his blissful and happy times out in the humid sunshine of the fields would have to have been before that when he was too young to have any reasonable background for evaluating anything–I am not saying that children cannot or do no set tobacco or whatever it is they do in Louisiana. Just to clarify.

  86. This clip does contain the “N” word about three times, but it’s a clip from a Mel Brooks comedy, where the scene is poking fun at the prejudices of the white Western town folk towards their new black sheriff (they’re expecting their sheriff to be a white guy, apparently):

    The New Sheriff scene from Blazing Saddles

  87. Scott Shaver wrote:

    Didn’t say they were happy Mr. Perception, said they had a different world view and different mindset probably borne of suffering. If they were actually happy DESPITE their circumstances I wouldn’t expect bleeding hearts like yours to understand why.

    And your point is?

    It seems you’re trying to relativize slavery and Jim Crow by saying “well, it was different back then” as if that makes it OK. There are truths that are timeless and cannot be excused by the times, racial slavery and dubbing other races as sub-human among them despite the number of people back then who thought otherwise.

    BTW – I’m not insulted by being called a ‘bleeding heart’. In fact, I own a T-shirt that says “Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All”

  88. @ Nancy: with all due respect, he is Southern, and it took a LOT longer for de facto segregation/Jim Crow laws to be eradicated.

    I’m in my late 50s and followed it closely as a kid, watching the nightly news – you know, the Klan bombing of the church in Birmingham, AL where 4 girls attending Sunday School were killed, and many others were injured; the firehoses being turned on peaceful protesters in Birmingham (along with Sherrif Bull Connor’s attack dogs); the murders of Medger Evers and Martin Luther King, Jr. … I could go on and on an on. The 1954 Supreme Court decisoin was the *beginning* of the end, NOT the end of it by any means.

    Oh, and… lunch counter sit ins (people attempting to be served food in the “whites only” section) and lynchings and…

  89. dee wrote:

    This is not necessary. Jeff T is a decent guy. You could have said the same thing without the snide name calling.

    I’ve been called worse. :-)

  90. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: “The Seinfelds”? You mean the middle-aged people whose parents very often faced serious discrimination because they’re Jewish?

    Give me a break, dude. I like you, but sometimes you go too far. One of our next-door neighbors (when I was growing up) told my mom and me about how quickly some gentiles went from being nice to him to calling him a “dirty Jew b*stard”, just in the ordinary course of a working day, or even socializing. He’s one of the nicest guys you could ever meet, and nothing if not honest.

  91. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: I’ve heard more nasty anti-semitic comments than I’d ever care to, from people my own age, back when I was in college and after, to *ever* think “the Seinfelds” haven’t heard it (and then some), too.

  92. @ numo:

    That is precisely in keeping with what I am saying. I am saying that he could not possibly have missed what was going on, as he apparently is claiming to have done. And, BTW, I am also southern and was there (that is: alive during it all) also, and maybe I will be 80 in January, and I don’t believe him.

  93. @ Nancy: Sorry for misreading your comment! yes, he’d have to have lived in a parallel universe during that time to be as ignorant of injustices as he claims.

    I cannot accept any of that for one micro-millisecond’s worth of time!

  94. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy: “The Seinfelds”? You mean the middle-aged people whose parents very often faced serious discrimination because they’re Jewish?

    No, the “Seinfelds” who were so self-centered they carried around their own event horizon, and were always ready with the curled upper lip and Appropriate Ironic Quip. The first time I saw Jerry Seinfeld my exact words were:
    “Who’s that?”
    “Jerry Seinfeld.”
    “He’s supposed to be funny?”

  95. Daisy wrote:

    This clip does contain the “N” word about three times, but it’s a clip from a Mel Brooks comedy, where the scene is poking fun at the prejudices of the white Western town folk towards their new black sheriff (they’re expecting their sheriff to be a white guy, apparently):
    The New Sheriff scene from Blazing Saddles

    “He says the Sherriff is Near!”

  96. Daisy wrote:

    If every publisher put warning stickers on books by abusive preachers or questionable ones, there would be quite a few. Mark Driscoll’s books should come with warning stickers.

    With some of these guys, would you even be able to see the title under all the warning stickers?

  97. Great job, Dee.

    People don’t have a First Amendment right to say what they want. They have a First Amendment right to be free from the government telling them what to say. Big difference. If a reality show star says things the network doesn’t like, out they go. Nothing First Amendment about it, just capitalism at work.

    As for the poor judgment for a person who belongs to Christ trying to justify or downplay the circumstances under Jim Crow, that’s reprehensible. Jesus said he came to lift the burden from the oppressed, not explain it away. http://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/i-hate-the-word-nigger/

  98. @ numo:

    I think you explain things better than I do. Next time will you be my ghost writer? Don’t tell anybody, though.

  99. Nancy wrote:

    @ JadedOne:
    I think he is repeating what he was told by his elders rather than what he “saw” and decided for himself.

    Nancy, I can see that. It’s hard to know what he is talking about age-wise without knowing when it was that all took place in his mind. As a kid (pre-age 14 for my argument’s sake), it’s likely he never saw racism. I don’t know. I was thinking more along the lines of the 60′s and early 70′s when he has admitted to substance abuse issues and being a hateful person. There was high tension during that time.

  100. JadedOne wrote:

    Nancy wrote:
    @ JadedOne:
    I think he is repeating what he was told by his elders rather than what he “saw” and decided for himself.
    Nancy, I can see that. It’s hard to know what he is talking about age-wise without knowing when it was that all took place in his mind. As a kid (pre-age 14 for my argument’s sake), it’s likely he never saw racism.

    I should have said that he never realized what he may have been seeing was “racism” because of not being intune to it.

  101. @ dee:

    Hi Dee, First off, thank you very much for your kind and gracious response to my comments. I really appreciate that and it means a lot to me. Thanks again!

    To answer your question, I read that Phil R said this as well: “However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different than me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

    I’m simply opposed to the practice of trying to silence those with opposing views. It’s why I like this site, because you have essentially called out SGM, TGC, and others for trying to silence their critics. Those guys are trying to silence opposing views and I applaud you for calling them out. But the thing is, we have to stand against that tactic, even when we don’t like what others say.

    I applaud Camille Paglia (social critic who is a lesbian) for calling out GLAAD for their attacks on DD by calling the attacks “utterly facist and Stalinist.” Paglia bemoans that free speech (in this case) has been lost by her own party. Bravo to Paglia for standing up for the principle in the matter.

  102. Speaking of “capitalism at work.” AE is in a difficult position. D.D. is by far and away the most successful cable show ever. It has made a LOT of money for A & E. If they jettison the show, another cable network will probably attempt to pick it up.
    Already the backlash against A & E is already pretty severe. My guess; they’re gonna try and weasel out of this somehow. They don’t want to go against political orthodoxy which dominates our age but they are in the money making business and D.D. has been their cash cow.
    *
    I’ve got my popcorn ready; I’m gonna sit back and enjoy the spectacle.

  103. JadedOne wrote:

    I should have said that he never realized what he may have been seeing was “racism” because of not being intune to it.

    Another example of “A fish don’t know it’s wet”?

  104. Latest update on MSNBC newsfeed headlines:

    Something about “A Christian group” doing a petition to get Phil Robertson back on A&E. No further details, and now that I’m looking for the article I can’t find it on the newsfeed.

  105. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    JadedOne wrote:
    I should have said that he never realized what he may have been seeing was “racism” because of not being intune to it.
    Another example of “A fish don’t know it’s wet”?

    I’m just looking at the times and if he was under the age of 10, some kids just don’t get it. Others do. But by teen years, they ought to know (but I know there are some that still wouldn’t get it, and if he was hitting drugs or alcohol, it probably wasn’t on his radar)

  106. I have not read the great majority of the comments, so excuse me if this question has already been asked. Why in the world would a thinking, rational christian (or non-christian) care the least bit what this man thinks about any subject except duck calls and possibly duck hunting?

  107. @Nick – yes, we are happier now out from the tyranny – except now our own government is the one imposing the taxes!

  108. @Eagle and Dee – I noted that one person too in the video. The irony is that C.J. always preached on integration in the kingdom of God, and CLC always had diverse members.

  109. @ Clay Crouch:

    Why in the world would a thinking, rational christian (or non-christian) care the least bit what this man thinks about any subject except duck calls and possibly duck hunting?

    1. Because (as far as his comments on homosexuality are concerned), both those for and against are using this to get on their soap boxes to pontificate

    and

    2. perhaps (as far as Christian media goes), for a reason I speculated about in my previous post

  110. Clay Crouch wrote:

    Why in the world would a thinking, rational christian (or non-christian) care the least bit what this man thinks about any subject except duck calls and possibly duck hunting?

    Have you been reading the blogs by the Neo-Calvinists. They idolize these guys. I think they replaced Mark Driscoll.The gospel guys think DD guys are cool and as you may know, they think they, themselves, are cool.

  111. I had heard about his comments about homosexuality, but not about these comments. They do sound like products of his culture and age. Sigh…I do often wish that Christians would think about how they say things.

    I am not the one to talk to about racism. Much of my career experience is in D.C., and currently I work in SE DC, which is essentially the hood. I have so loved all the students that I work with and have absorbed so many good aspects of the people and culture that I work in. It has been a very enriching experience to work in a place where I am a minority – not always easy, but enriching.

    This past summer I was in Nebraska for a class, and over dinner asked one of my classmates if Nebraska is diverse at all. She proceeded to tell me that minorities wouldn’t move to her town because too many state troopers live there. I almost jumped across the table at her when she said that. I couldn’t even believe a person would think that way. How much poorer my life would be without people who are different than me. Heck, I regretted seeing the movie The Butler because I kept seeing the faces of my students and friends. It just hurt too much.

  112. Bridget wrote:

    @ dee:
    You’re kidding right? They couldn’t choose better than this?!!

    It’s our society today….lowest common denominator….

  113. Warning: I’ll be speaking frankly about sex in this comment.

    I’ve never watched DD because I hate reality TV, and know basically nothing about it except ducks are involved and people have beards.

    Not going to jump in about the racism thing except to say that I have a middle-aged black friend whose grandmother was a victim of white-on-black rape in GA as late as the 1940s, and she was far from alone. So Robertson probably has a pretty big blind spot here.

    From what I’ve read of his comments about gays, he’s clearly inexperienced in talking about this because he’s using “homosexuality” as a catch-all term. That’s the first thing that has to stop in this discussion among evangelicals. Define your terms. Homosexuality as an orientation? Homosexual sex acts? Same-sex attraction? What? “Homosexuality is a sin” is basically a meaningless statement for someone who’s even scratched the surface of this topic in an honest manner. So his statements, while controversial, really have little or no substance per the actual terms of this debate – which of course are much too detail-oriented and boring for the mass media. It’s like when they reported on The Da Vinci Code as if it actually had any bearing on NT/historical Jesus scholarship.

    What bothered me most was that he felt the need to be crude about the whole thing. This echoes an article D&D reported on before, where someone (maybe at TGC?) praised someone else for giving a graphic description of homosexual anal sex. From where I sit, it appears that increasingly conservatives are retreating to the “gross out” argument. And the only justification for this seems to be that if people “really understood” gay sex, then they wouldn’t approve of gay marriage. This is a REALLY bad move for several reasons.

    1. The general public does understand what anal sex is, as anyone who’s been exposed to crude humor outside evangelical circles knows all too well, and that some gay men engage in it. And yet they continue to, by and large, approve of gay marriage. The fact that some conservatives think the public doesn’t understand anal sex, makes them look like they’re living under a rock.
    2. Not all gay men engage in the aforementioned behavior.
    3. “Gay sex” in general is not limited to the aforementioned behavior. In fact Robertson’s definition excludes lesbian activity entirely. So it’s just flat-out dishonest to point to male-on-male anal sex and say “that is ‘gay sex.’ Look how gross it is.”
    4. Straight people engage in anal sex. In fact there are other people in the evangelical community (and everyone here knows who I’m referring to) PROMOTING straight couples engaging in anal sex. So is it gross or not? Can we at least try to keep our own arguments straight?

    The long and the short of it is, there are much better ways for conservatives to go about this than going lowbrow and trying to gross people out like 12yo boys. If your only argument is essentially “EWWWW!!!”, then don’t blame the public when it concludes you’ve run out of ideas. And I say this as someone who doesn’t agree with the theology behind gay marriage.

    Also, this isn’t even touching the issue of how they frame/define the sin – i.e., whether the problem with gay sex is the gender of the people involved, or the fact that certain organs are not being used in the “natural” way. If they pick the latter option, it should have far-reaching repercussions on their views on straight sex too. But it won’t, because evangelicalism is currently making a killing telling Christian couples how to “spice up” their sex lives.

  114. Eagle wrote:

    Why do evangelcials have to be so clumsy with racism. Their history with racism is despicable. From the fondation of the Southern Baptists over slavery, to the way many Christians in the south rallied around the Confederacy.

    You’re being waaaaaaay too narrow here. The entire history of mankind is rife with racism. The SBC is just an easy target these days.

    My daughter once asked me for an idea on a Black History Month paper for high school. She wanted to do something different. So I pointed her to this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color#Brown_paper_bag_test

    Which I first heard about when watching this TV show:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0582265/synopsis?ref_=tt_ov_pl

    As an aside, the best way for a TV show to fail is for me to start watching it. I really liked that show.

  115. Daisy wrote:

    Christian Publisher: All of Top Theologian’s Books Will Now Have Abuse Disclaime

    Denomination debates how to handle legacy of famed pacifist [John Howard Yoder] who sexually harassed and abused women.

    Thank you for that link, Daisy. That is a publisher who is handling issues well.

  116. As an early boomer, born in 1947, I was aware by age 10 (1957) of the racism, Jim Crow, etc., in the South. It came from the mouth of my youngest aunt, my grandmothers, and many of my cousins. But my mother refused to let them teach us that. We were in S. Arkansas, just across the border from Louisiana. And it was as thick as it could be in the bayou country. My mother said that a Christian who was racist or taught us to disregard or verbally trash people of any race, because of their race was a severe sin and against the teachings of Jesus. She had been raised in a racist culture and had come to the conclusion that it was contrary to the bible to be racist.

    People need to recognize how dangerous it was to be black and to express any disrespect for the “superiority” of whites. It was a quick road to false accusations of things like “looking inappropriately” at a white lady — and that could get one lynched.

    And it continued well into the late 1960s. I had the burden of telling my black college roommate that MLK had been killed. He had not heard and collapsed when he heard it from me. The violence that ensued was a reaction to the murder of a man of peace and non-violence who was willing to confront racism peacefully in the face of violence.

    Any claim by DD people that those downtrodden souls were happy in their lot is low IQ wishful thinking at best and downright willful lying at worst. And the removal from air time is a minimal response to any idiot who says what was said. End of story, and hopefully, end of show.

  117. @ c:

    ” It does not logically follow that they necessarily liked their situation, only that the people he knew were happy, presumably because that is a normal state of affairs for one who loves God and knows where his priorities lie.
    ++++++++++++

    c,

    so, from your statement, you seem to be seeing that regardless of how a person who loves God is mistreated, if they are not happy their priorities are misplaced. Their Christianity or faith are abnormal (meaning substandard?).

    have I understood you correctly?

  118. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: I guess it depends on your sense of humor. One thing that happened a lot on his TV show is that he, Elaine and George were all shown to be shallow and ridiculous and all kinds of other things.

    I’ve never really watched his standup routine, but I do think the show was pretty good. maybe to some extent, it’s an East Coast thing – it is *very* NYC/north Jersey, that’s for certain. If you don’t know the milieu, I can see why it would come across as not so funny.

  119. @ Nancy: For a small fee… ;) (just kidding!) I really did misread your comment + confusing it with another person’s statements. That’s because I was following a friend’s FB discussion (very good at that) on this at the same time.

    So I was certainly kinda scattered!

  120. @ Clay Crouch: He’s a “reality” TV “star.”

    I have to wonder how much of what he said to the interviewer was scripted/directed by his PR firm. “Reality” TV is as scripted as actual “fiction” TV, and likely FAR more heavily edited.

  121. @ Clay Crouch: Oh, forgot to say that DD has a *huge* following; some people can’t get enough of families like his, the Duggars’ – and the Kardashians.

  122. @ Former CLC’er: May I ask which general part of SE? I mean, there are affluent ‘hoods in Anacostia, as well as dirt-poor ones.

    Not sure if you’re aware, but much of Anacostia was rural until well after the end of WWII.

  123. @ numo: Just like Tyson’s Corner was *very* rural until the early 1980s. It had a flashing traffic light at the intersection of Rt. 7 and I forget which other road, and that was it. Great Falls and Manassas were the same, although they didn’t get built up until after the big boom in the T.C. area.

  124. @ Gary:

    “And I miss the old A&E that broadcast things that were… I dunno… artistic and entertaining.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    Hey! do you remember “I Remember WENN”? So very entertaining.

  125. I can understand the comments made. But not excuse them. Instead of an essay a quick trip down my life intersections with this topic.

    Born in 1954.

    Early grade school memories of selecting people for games via “eenie-meenie-minie-mo, catch a N…”

    “They” showed up when I was in the 5th grade. I wasn’t till late high school that I realized that the school system didn’t think any of them had IQ’s about the 50th percentile based on class placements.

    In around the 8th or 9th grade my SBC church had a business meeting. Packed house. The debate was what to do if “they” showed up. Nothing resolved. But it was likely the reason the pastor (who had become a family friend) got asked to leave soon after. He attitude was basically, “why is this an issue?”. BTW none ever showed up at least until after I moved from the area 5 or more years later.

    Around the 10th or 11th grade (70/71) we had a school assembly to discuss the playing of Dixie as our school song. There had been requests(complaints?) to change it. Mainly by some of the black students as best I recall. Now understand my high school had over 1000 people in 4 grades after you tossed in teachers. My dim memories is that a majority (but not overwhelming) of students were OK with the change. Some were adamant that it should not. But what got me was when several of the teachers who were also prominent in my church stood up and said, that the blacks should basically, “get over it”. Their position was they weren’t racist and the song was just a school fight song so there. This was when I really began to understand how the blacks felt.

    We all have blind spots. We really don’t tend to see how subtle and not so subtle privileges impact those who don’t have them.

    As to the “happy” comment. Many people are happy in their moment to moment lives. Their work for the day. Their family. Whatever. That still doesn’t mean they don’t resent not being able to go out to the nice restaurant. Get a car loan are non loan shark rates. Buy a house they can afford but is in the “wrong” neighborhood. Getting pulled over for DWB. Etc…

    There’s a great exchange of dialog between a reporter interviewing someone in the movie “Absence of Malice”.

    Megan Carter: Just… say we were involved.
    Sarah Wylie: That’s true, isn’t it?
    Megan Carter: No. But it’s accurate.

    I think this summarizes the comments by the DD guy who started this current dustup.

  126. @ Hester: You are SO right about rape (white men raping black women)- Rosa Parks got her start in the NAACP by investigating a gang rape in 1944.

    I’ve linked to a book about this; here’s some of the dust jacket copy:

    In this groundbreaking and important book, Danielle McGuire writes about the rape in 1944 of a twenty-four-year-old mother and sharecropper, Recy Taylor, who strolled toward home after an evening of singing and praying at the Rock Hill Holiness Church in Abbeville, Alabama. Seven white men, armed with knives and shotguns, ordered the young woman into their green Chevrolet, raped her, and left her for dead. The president of the local NAACP branch office sent his best investigator and organizer to Abbeville. Her name was Rosa Parks. In taking on this case, Parks launched a movement that ultimately changed the world.

    The author gives us the never-before-told history of how the civil rights movement began; how it was in part started in protest against the ritualistic rape of black women by white men who used economic intimidation, sexual violence, and terror to derail the freedom movement; and how those forces persisted unpunished throughout the Jim Crow era when white men assaulted black women to enforce rules of racial and economic hierarchy. Black women’s protests against sexual assault and interracial rape fueled civil rights campaigns throughout the South that began during World War II and went through to the Black Power movement. The Montgomery bus boycott was the baptism, not the birth, of that struggle.

    These infamous crimes are something that few people are willing to acknowledge even now, and I have no doubts whatsoever that some white boys and men continue to prey on black girls and women in this way. None.

  127. @ Hester: I have a reply to you in moderation; it’s a response (with a link to a book) about pre-Civil Rights era sexual assaults on black women by white men.

    Hope you’ll check back for it; I think it could be useful for you and for others as well.

  128. numo wrote:

    A&E and Bravo are hollow shells of what they were at one time. Sad.

    Add Discovery, Science (really!!!), History, NatGeo, etc… At least some still have some of their “good” stuff on their secondary channel but you have to have a decent cable plan in most places to get those.

  129. @ Hester: Also, I appreciate your numbered points.

    I have a feeling that Robertson likes to shoot off his mouth in a pretty indiscriminate fashion. as a friend of mine said, He *could* have used the interview as a chance to talk about how/why he was able to go from drug addiction and abuse of his family to settling down and building a business. he *could* have talked about a *lot* of things, but instead, he chose to make very ill-advised and tasteless comments about black people, LGBT folks, the Japanese (he calls them “Shintos” in the Esquire piece) and others I”m forgetting at the moment.

    I hate reality TV, too, and have never watched this show – now I will not get within a hundred statute miles of it!

  130. @ numo: Oh, I forgot a BIG on: women.

    His take on straight sex comes down to naming genitalia. That’s it – nothing about what he feels for his wife and/or other women, how he regards women, etc. He sounds like a classic example of the man who’s after one thing and one thing only, even if he really isn’t that way IRL. (But I bet you he thinks women have their place and they should keep to it. I’d bet on it and am certain I would win.)

  131. @ dee: I agree with him that Nazism was/is evil, but the rest of his statements are just… well. I’m gonna say it: bigoted.

    And yes, I think he’s a racist.

  132. @ Seneca:

    For once I agree with you Jimmy. Money never sleeps. A&E will probably hire the best spin-doctors money can buy to smooth this imbroglio over and make it a win-win for both the offender and the offendees. This country runs on investor confidence and they’re not about to let it run out of gas.

  133. I grew up in the south, The deep south.

    Racial segregation was the only thing I had
    ever known until they integrated the schools.

    I remember wondering if they took baths would
    the black come off. If they were just dirty.

    On a choir trip I was assigned to room with
    the only black guy in the choir. My parents
    intervened .. to my embarrassment.

    It was our culture. Blacks over there doing
    their thing whites over there doing theirs.
    I do not remember any lynchings. I did know
    vaguely about the KKK from school and they
    were bad people.

    When my dog treed a possum in the back yard
    my dad made sure it was put in a croker sack
    and delivered to the black family down the road.

    And once he decided to help the black man
    get to town .. and spent the evening before
    putting visqueen on the backseat of our ford
    falcon. I guess so the black cooties would not get on
    the seat.

    You cannot get any more mixed up than that.
    And I knew lots of adults like that.

    Racism is complicated.
    Its not all KKK or Jesse jackson.

    When its the only the you have ever known
    it shapes all of your thinking.
    Even when you want to do good.
    Sometimes you end up looking silly.

    I think many black folks recognized that confusion
    in their white neighbors. And I hope they forgave.

    We are a mess of conflicting drivers, and
    the over simplification of these very human
    expressions results in making things worse.

    I am a product of that world. I am racist in many
    ways that I am not aware of. My black friends
    have taught me that.

    A lot of us struggle with who we are, what we grew
    up with and what we have embraced as followers of
    Christ.

    Sometimes in trying give an account of our confused
    selves we grab at any old bible verse or whatever.
    especially when our way of life is threatened.

    Lets try not make things worse.

  134. As usual, Rod Dreher nails it:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/phil-robertson-diversity-offensensitivity/

    Love this quote:
    “It must be said that one of the most irritating aspects of the New York media environment is how narrow and monocultural it is, while flattering itself that it is cosmopolitan, diverse, and tolerant. You think Phil Robertson is bigoted? I have been around and worked with liberals in Washington and New York and elsewhere whose opinions were so obnoxious and dismissive of those not like themselves that they make the Duck Commander sound like Dick Cavett.”

  135. Okay, so I read the whole GQ article. Robertson said and meant exactly what he said in regards to racism, homosexuality, etc. From reading the article, Robertson is about two things: hunting and preaching. He’s very much about preaching his interpretation of the Bible. Granted, I understand there is editing involved because the author did spend several hours with Robertson and the racism quote is on its own in the article but still very much Robertson’s words.

    Like I said, the impression I got is that Robertson was much about preaching his interpretation. More so than even hunting. Though the hunting comes off by both Robertson and the author as manly man work. Real men hunt and kill things and have guns and drive around without wearing seatbelts get have the safety on on the bow.

    Robertson also knew what he said would cause problems and even says so in tne article, at least that’s my interpretation of his words on the show lasting only a few years. But he is also unrepetent about past behavior even though he talks about repentence. He talks without much consideration of his words and the effect they can have. Yet, I believe and I qualify that it is my personal belief, that he believes can say whatever he wants and get away with it because he is a Christian celebrity.

    On to real life: my dad is the same age as this guy and yet I’ve never heard this garbage coming from his mouth. Now, there was once when he wasn’t PC but I did chalk it up to his age and it was just one word that he never used again. And I consider my parents a little bit hippie. Just certain things, beliefs they’ve had/have.

    Yet my step-grandfather, my mother were and are racist bigots. The step-grandfather is dead. He was also abusive and a very angry individual. My mother, as I posted before, was abusive to me, and reinforced my step-grandfather’s racist beliefs and vice versa. They fed off each other. I just never understood the desire to be racist. I had friends and classmates who were of different ethnic, cultural backgrounds but the color of their skin didn’t matter very much. And bullies can be of any ethnicity/background and they only care about themselves. I just never understood the desire to pick on others, to hurt others because of unchangeable characteristics.

    I still don’t get it but my mother still believes and says hateful things. I just focus on seeing people as people. Labels are only good for canned goods so you don’t mix up the peas and lima beans. I’m also of the mindset that God has the biggest and best box of crayons where has individual crayons that are unique to each one of us so that there is only ever one crayon for ‘Deb’ and ‘Dee’ and so on and so forth.

    And by the way, Nick B., I’m stealing your recipe for apple spice sponge cake for my Secret Santa gift I’m making (which is a recipe book with various and sundry recipes).

  136. @ numo:

    I will check back for the book link. Thanks.

    Yes, I did also notice that about his description of straight sex. It was so reductionist. I’m sure (I hope?) he was trying to be funny, though if he was he failed miserably. I would hope most men are interested in a lot more than just their wife’s vagina. I would find it doubly interesting if, when pressed, Robertson were to acknowledge that straight men are interested in more than genitalia, but couldn’t bring himself to admit that gay men may be interested in more too.

    I didn’t read the rest of the piece so I didn’t see that thing about Shintos. I have a bit of a disturbing story here. My uncle’s second wife is from China and he jokingly referred to her as a “slanty-eyed Chink” in front of her and the whole rest of my family this summer. I could hardly believe what I was hearing but everyone else seemed to think it was funny (par for the course on that side of the family, unfortunately). So yeah, this stuff is definitely still alive and well.

  137. The Robertson family issued a statement:

    “We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.”

    http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement

  138. Daisy wrote:

    HUG said,
    Wasn’t Duck Dynasty the darling of Christians because all the beards in the show were Christian(TM)?
    Every time I see the Duck Dynasty guys, all I can think of is ZZ Top (rock band from the 1970s/1980s).
    ZZ Top photo

    It doesn’t help any that the opening credits are shown over the chorus of “Sharp Dressed Man”…

  139. numo wrote:

    @ numo: (But I bet you he thinks women have their place and they should keep to it. I’d bet on it and am certain I would win.)

    He does. A subtext in many episodes is him trying to teach his granddaughters to hunt, fish, etc. and then complaining when they’d rather play with dolls, etc.

  140. @ dee:
    You’re welcome, Dee. The older I get the more I see that I’ve barely begun to scratch the surface of my own sin nature, and the more willing I am to be transparent about it. Praise God for His love, mercy and grace.

  141. @ Seneca:

    If the Robertson family broke their contract tomorrow – I doubt it would hurt A&E.

    Breaking their contract wouldn’t hurt the Robertson family – between their merchandising of stuff other than duck calls in several stores in the southern US, (like wine, clothing, books, bedding, etc) and on-line; and their speaking engagement fees, they are multi-millionaires, and were long before they signed on the dotted line as entertainers, they will continue to rake in a lot of money with the Duck Commander empire. Because of the show, they went from selling 60 thousand duck calls a year to 600 thousand.

    The family estimated worth is somewhere in the 15 to 20 million dollar range. The family gets 200 thousand dollars per Duck Dynasty episode. (4 seasons – 50 episodes)
    Prior to getting 200 thousand per episode, they were paid around 50 thousand per…

    If the show ends because the Robertson’s break contract, the network picks up another reality show waiting in the wings and they can pay the new reality show entertainers a lot less. It is a reality show with an ensemble cast – suspending daddy isn’t that big a deal script wise, and isn’t going to damage the Robertson brand.

    A&E is one of 7 stations jointly owned by Heart/Disney. Heart revenue (2012) was 9 billion, Disney’s was 42+ billion.

    Dog the Bounty Hunter was a hit show – then Chapman mouthed off and the show was dropped for 3 months, ran a few more years.

    Let’s assume all the outraged Duck Dynasty fans boycott A&E – lets be generous and say 4 mil drop the network from their cable package, complain to, and boycott advertisers…

    There may be some minor regional advertising/retail ripples in the US, but I can’t see how the possible loss of Duck Dynasty is going to affect A&E International, Hearst/Disney or national/international advertisers. So the show has broken rating records – big whoop, ratings are meant to be broken.

    Gurney Productions hired the Robertson brand – red neck bible thumpers, and Phil Robertson behaved like a red neck bible thumper off camera. A&E bought the show. The companies knew what and who they were dealing with. Fans outrage dies down quickly and if there is a Season 5, the ratings will be broken again as they tune in to see if Phil is back. Most of season 4 is in the can, if the Robertson’s decide to keep the show going, this kerfuffle can all be written into the script.

  142. We don’t have Duck Dynasty over here, incidentally, so I’m not familiar with it. I did toy with the idea of looking it up (research is part of my day job to some extent)…

    …but I decided not to bother. ;-)

    I am curious about one thing, though. A&E properly stands for “Accident and Emergency”; it’s the department of a hospital that more or less corresponds to ER.

  143. In other news, it’s 8:15 am in Scotland and it’s just starting to get light. (The downpayment for the endless summer evenings.)

    There’s an impressive pink sunrise to the south-south east, but as we say in Blighty: red sky at night, shepherd’s delight: red sky at morning, shepherd’s warning. And indeed the weather forecast is boggin’ today.

    I hope this is helpful.

  144. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    We get The A&E Network in Canada – it stands for The Arts and Entertainment Network. There is an office in London England, btw. Australia and Latin America have international versions and there will be one in Europe in 2014.

    According to Wikipedia, 86% of US households with televisions receive it.

    The A&E Network started in the mid-1980′s and started targeting it’s current key demographic (18-49) in 2002, moving into reality shows. Does a lot of original programming.

    I suppose Duck Dynasty is popular for A&E viewers in Canada, (don’t know, can’t be bothered to look it up) but probably not for the reasons it is popular in the Southern US. The show went from 2 million US viewers first season to 11 million this season.

    In Canada, we’ve shortened Accident and Emergency to Emergency Dept, or we use the slang, Emerg.

  145. @ jesse: you have insight; hard-won at that. Robertson choose not to. Everyone outside his “mini-me” group is not OK with him – not by a long shot.

    I’m from a rural area in the North, one where there are many people with prejudices like his who are equally willing to just plain tell God and everybody what they think.

    Is it possible for these folks to end up doing an about-face? Yes, but the sad truth is that it’s all too rare.

    I do appreciate that these issues are complex, but Robertson is painfully blunt in telling the world his views of God’s opinions. Problem is, i’mnot exactly convinced that these intense beliefs of his are ones that God could or would ever endorse.

  146. @ Pacbox: you hit the nail on the head re. your comment about him believing he can get away with anything because he’s having his 15 minutes of fame (so-called “fame”; more like infamy).

  147. Let me open another can of worms I have not seen….Phil Robertson and the rest of the Robertson Family is Church of Christ….does the family believe that to get into heaven they have be member of the Church of Christ? I know this is still taught in that church by in this part of Texas.

  148. Alan wrote:

    To answer your question, I read that Phil R said this as well: “However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different than me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
    I’m simply opposed to the practice of trying to silence those with opposing views. It’s why I like this site, because you have essentially called out SGM, TGC, and others for trying to silence their critics. Those guys are trying to silence opposing views and I applaud you for calling them out. But the thing is, we have to stand against that tactic, even when we don’t like what others say.
    I applaud Camille Paglia (social critic who is a lesbian) for calling out GLAAD for their attacks on DD by calling the attacks “utterly facist and Stalinist.” Paglia bemoans that free speech (in this case) has been lost by her own party. Bravo to Paglia for standing up for the principle in the matter.

    Thank you for this sensible comment. I do like what the Duck Commander had to say about sexual morality and faith, relying upon the Word of God. The original post here seemed to miss the forest while focusing on one tree.

  149. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    On American TV it stands for Arts and Entertainment, I think. The idea being a bit more high brow than typical network TV fare, which DD is NOT.

  150. I had several uncles (by marriage to aunts) who lived in the deep South. Two were self-educated with a little help from my mother. Gentleman farmers, cattle raisers, hunters. NOT bigots. Gave generously from their larder to feed poor people of all backgrounds during the interval after the fresh produce ran out and before the next season provided fresh produce. One kept four or five very large chest freezers full of meat and frozen vegetables and regularly depleted the supply by generosity. Also a large shed stocked with home canned vegetables, also regularly depleted. That aunt and uncle had a large “kitchen garden” that provided ten times what they would ever eat, and gave away, canned or froze and then gave away all but the little they ate themselves.

    There is no justification for racism. It is contrary to the gift of grace. And there are many counterexamples to the idiocy that dominated the Old South and is being exposed on DD.

  151. @ jesse:
    Well said! The simple truth is that we humans are complicated and messy. hah

    I’ve also needed teaching by astonishingly gracious black friends.

    But one thing I’ve not done is use God to excuse my messiness. I would not presume because I recognize the huge difference between God and me.

    ISTM that Phil and all those who are shouting support of him are presuming/excusing. That they do it in front of the rest of society is galling to me because they destroy my witness along with theirs.

    Non-Christians are not stupid and they think, properly, that we are arrogant/dumb because we pretend that our messiness is also God’s.

    And/Or they curl their lips at the God we worship because they take us at our word and thus the name of God is “taken in vain”. Dangerous territory.

  152. Alan wrote:

    whose opinions were so obnoxious and dismissive of those not like themselves that they make the Duck Commander sound like Dick Cavett.”

    Funny quote.

  153. Pacbox wrote:

    But he is also unrepetent about past behavior even though he talks about repentence.

    I did read this as well. he has not gone back and asked for forgiveness from someone (did he beat him to a pulp?) When asked about it, he said he just let it go.

    One of these days we are going to do Eagle’s story. Let’s see what he might say to this.It will be convicting.

  154. jesse wrote:

    Sometimes in trying give an account of our confused
    selves we grab at any old bible verse or whatever.
    especially when our way of life is threatened.
    Lets try not make things worse.

    Beautiful comment.

  155. Bene Diction wrote:

    Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” P

    All of us who follow Jesus are supposed to be godly. We fail in the endeavor moment by moment.

    Phil took on the TV world with all of its fame and money. When you walk into that arena, your words will be questioned. Hypocrisy will be exposed and yes, the media is just as hypocritical as Christians which does include me.

    No matter what happens, Phil came out of this just fine.

  156. Mike wrote:

    A subtext in many episodes is him trying to teach his granddaughters to hunt, fish, etc. and then complaining when they’d rather play with dolls, etc.

    I wonder how certain expositors of Biblical manhood feel about that? :)

  157. TW wrote:

    Off topic, but I had to share this link. Thank God that somebody in the neo-calvinist movement finally has done the right thing.
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/gospeldrivenchurch/re-mark-driscoll

    Read this, and have to say I’m really impressed by it. Sure, Wilson still has a couple of half-line snarks against ‘haters’ and blogs, but the general content of that post is so much more than I expected anyone on that side of the fence to say. I’m actually a little disappointed he didn’t allow comments – I’d have left one praising him for taking this stance, which I’m sure is going to result in him copping a fair amount of criticism from Driscol acolytes.

  158. Alan wrote:

    “It must be said that one of the most irritating aspects of the New York media environment is how narrow and monocultural it is, while flattering itself that it is cosmopolitan, diverse, and tolerant. You think Phil Robertson is bigoted? I have been around and worked with liberals in Washington and New York and elsewhere whose opinions were so obnoxious and dismissive of those not like themselves that they make the Duck Commander sound like Dick Cavett.”

    Yes, in every group there are some who uphold ridiculous rules by which they shut all others out.

    By quoting that statement of Dreher, you insinuate that all liberals are those “some”, which Dreher denies, at least until he writes this: “But I don’t want to live in a world in which only the bland or those who validate the prejudices of the cultural elite (against country people, against conservative Evangelicals, against Southerners, etc.) have a place in the public square.” Really? All liberals are bland and prejudiced in these ways?

    Actually, there is little difference between narrow rigid liberals and narrow rigid evangelicals except in the particular set of rules to which they subscribe. They both think they are exceptional and righteous, and they are both wrong.

    To insist on defining other groups by their worst cohorts is to demand that your group be defined by the same. And it is playground argumentation to point fingers at the other group’s worst cohort when one’s own acts out.

    I doubt most of us want to conduct cultural debate in such a manner.

  159. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I am curious about one thing, though. A&E properly stands for “Accident and Emergency”; it’s the department of a hospital that more or less corresponds to ER.

    I did not know that. So A&E is your shorthand for ER or ED?

  160. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    There’s an impressive pink sunrise to the south-south east, but as we say in Blighty: red sky at night, shepherd’s delight: red sky at morning, shepherd’s warning.

    I grew up on the coast in Salem, Massachusetts. We substituted sailor for shepherd.

  161. Patrice wrote:

    Non-Christians are not stupid and they think, properly, that we are arrogant/dumb because we pretend that our messiness is also God’s.

    Well said.

  162. K.D. wrote:

    Phil Robertson and the rest of the Robertson Family is Church of Christ….does the family believe that to get into heaven they have be member of the Church of Christ? I know this is still taught in that church by in this part of Texas.

    Interesting. Let me see if I can find something about this.

  163. @ Janey:
    I have been reading a fair number of blogs associated with TGC, etc that are pontificating on the celeb pastor thing. The question for is this. When they do their conferences, will it still be the some old celeb pastors or will they try to get some unknowns (if they know any?)

  164. RAS in Maine wrote:

    I do like what the Duck Commander had to say about sexual morality and faith, relying upon the Word of God. The original post here seemed to miss the forest while focusing on one tree.

    What do you mean by “relying on the Word of God?” It would seem to me that the Word of God is far deeper than some spout off comment about homosexuality. I have made my views on this subject clear. However, I do not appreciate how some communicate their point of view.

    Let’s see-homsexuals will not go to heaven. Really? Which ones? What about those who struggle? What about those confused and in process? Zero nuance whatsoever.

    Doesn’t the Word of God demand that we pepper what we say with kindness, attempting to reach a lost world with Jesus. If people don’t know Him, how will they know to change their actions? The Word of God says a lot of things and we would do well to remember this.

    Freedom of speech? There is plenty of that. I saw Robert Jeffress on TV exercising his freedom of speech, mouthing off, once again, about the poor persecuted Christians in the US who do not have freedom of speech. I am not sure any of these people would withstand true persecution.

    As for the “tree”, I take racial insensitivity quite seriously. For me, it is far more than a tree and that is why I blog.

  165. dee wrote:

    When they do their conferences, will it still be the some old celeb pastors or will they try to get some unknowns (if they know any?)

    Dee, I wonder if the conference organizers have ever considered that the largest portion of church ministry goes on in small churches. They should ask a bunch of pastors from them to be the speakers so the mega-pastors can sit in the audience and learn how it’s done in the bulk of the kingdom.

  166. Alan wrote:

    I applaud Camille Paglia (social critic who is a lesbian) for calling out GLAAD for their attacks on DD by calling the attacks “utterly facist and Stalinist.” Paglia bemoans that free speech (in this case) has been lost by her own party. Bravo to Paglia for standing up for the principle in the matter.

    I believe in allowing lots of freedom of speech. I do not believe anyone should be made to shut up, no matter their point of view. I would defy John Piper’s view on women and the military and fight to the death to allow people to speak freely!

    However, that does no mean i have to like what people say when they have that freedom. For example, I did not like it when Mark Driscoll implied that Queen Esther was a slut. So, I wrote a dissenting post on the matter.

    I also believe in the freedom of corporate entities to make decisions about what they will, and will not, allow on their shows. Just like TBN can broadcast nut jobs, A&E can decide what they will or will not show.

    But, that doesn’t mean people can’t protest A&E and view alternative shows. See the success of Fox News as an example of that. My understanding is that Glenn Beck has offered DD a spot on his network. I am not a Beck fan but he is making a corporate decision that he will make money and achieve good will for doing so. If he is correct, he will make even more money (but he will say it is based on principle).

    In the end, we put our money where our mouth is. We allow for dissenting opinions on this blog along with some occasional strong language and name calling, so long as it is directed at us!

  167. Tim wrote:

    the largest portion of church ministry goes on in small churches.

    And while we are on the subject, how many big and successful churches have blue collar workers on their elder boards?

  168. dee wrote:

    I did not know that. So A&E is your shorthand for ER or ED?

    Yes. If you’re rushed to hospital in an ambulance, you generally go to A&E (and possibly on to a specialist department depending on what treatment you need). It’s usually called “Casualty” over here, but that’s not its correct name.

    Curiously, my son was the direct cause of my only visit to A&E since moving to Scotland. I’m satisfied he didn’t mean it, as he was only 9 months old and was just trying to crawl towards me. Unfortunately, being relatively inexperienced at parenting in those days I’d got down onto the carpet right next to him. So when he “burst into a crawl”, a flailing little fingernail scratched my eyeball. A nice doctor chappie gave me some local anaesthetic eye drops at Stirling Royal Infirmary. Unfortunately they wore off abruptly on the drive home, so I was back to square one there.

    Wasn’t a bundle of laughs at the time, but it’s funny in retrospect!

  169. Alan wrote:

    I applaud Camille Paglia (social critic who is a lesbian) for calling out GLAAD for their attacks on DD by calling the attacks “utterly facist and Stalinist.” Paglia bemoans that free speech (in this case) has been lost by her own party. Bravo to Paglia for standing up for the principle in the matter.

    Camille Paglia has an original mind and some times she is correct but not here. If she wants to condemn someone in this scenario, it would be A&E because they are the only ones who engaged in more than free speech. GLAAD did only what everyone else did and it is biased to pick out their free speech for criticism.

    But Paglia won’t tackle the stickier issues of A&E because, for all her originality, she avoids most of the moral implications of a society run by profit-making. I wish she’d dig into that with her fine mind.

  170. 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?

  171. I assume that the majority of people who post on here are believers. If you are offended by his remarks on race, stop right now, pray for him and forgive him. Move on. There is no need to try to judge his motives or discern his intentions. However, what he said about homosexuality may be crude but is spot on (except the remark about bestiality). Sometimes I feel this forum jumps the shark and just provides some people an opportunity to vent with vitriol. I grew up in the south (still there) and I know first hand the state of the pre civil rights era. Phil is not a cultured communicator and was simply asked questions and he honestly answered the. I in no way believe he was denying the wide spread indiscretions of the overall atrocities of racial abuse and discrimination.

  172. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    a flailing little fingernail scratched my eyeball. A nice doctor chappie gave me some local anaesthetic eye drops at Stirling Royal Infirmary. Unfortunately they wore off abruptly on the drive home, so I was back to square one there.

    I once did the same thing while blowdrying my hair. My round brush scratched my eyeball. I am a bit of a klutz. Same thing. They gave me the numbing eyedrops in the ED but would not allow me to have any to take home. It was the first time I considered stealing a small bottle from the ED. Imagine how that would have looked in the paper? Local mother arrested for stealing drugs! Not cocaine, etc but numbing eye drops!

  173. @ 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.

  174. Things are getting officially weirder. Morning drive-time radio this morning reported the following:

    1) After suspending The Beard for what he said, A&E announced a Duck Dynasty Xmas Marathon. Unwrap presents, pig out, and watch Duck Dynasty all Xmas Day. “QUAAAACK!”

    2) They’re using a sound bite of “Jeesus wuvs me, This I know, Because the Bible tells me so!” in a little kid’s voice to announce any Duck Dynasty developments. (And for the latest anti-homosexual laws in Uganda.)

  175. John wrote:

    However, what he said about homosexuality may be crude but is spot on (except the remark about bestiality)

    And the terrorism?

  176. John wrote:

    Sometimes I feel this forum jumps the shark and just provides some people an opportunity to vent with vitriol

    Now, talk about jumping the shark…you defend Phil’s right to say what he wishes, even if it is crude. Then, you take to task others who are doing the same thing? Freedom of speech means freedom of speech.

  177. @ dee:
    Ok, thanks. Sometimes I don’t know when people are simply venting spleen (not for public consumption, IMO) and when they believe they are talking rationally.

  178. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I am curious about one thing, though. A&E properly stands for “Accident and Emergency”; it’s the department of a hospital that more or less corresponds to ER.

    Here, A&E stands for the cable channel. Originally “Arts & Entertainment”, it got known as “Arms & Enemies” a couple years ago when they did a LOT of military history shows.

    “Idi Amin and the Shah
    And al-Fatah is quite bizarre;
    I never could get the hang of I-de-o-lo-gy –
    I do the Rock…”
    – Tim Curry, “I do the Rock”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXPCsaO_55o

  179. dee wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And for the latest anti-homosexual laws in Uganda.)

    Ugandan laws are deeply disturbing but I am sure they will be defend by some as biblical-OT style.

    According to a lot of Websites, these particular Ugandan laws were proposed and backed by American CHRISTIAN(TM) Activists and paid for with American CHRISTIAN(TM) money. As well as the Ugandan equivalent of Televangelists and Megapastors. Apparently the Christianese Reconstructionists are taking the Scientology approach; take over and “Clear” a Third World country as a start. Culture War Without End, Amen.

  180. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: that’s 100% correct. Warren Throckmorton, who is quite conservative, is one of the bloggers who has gone all-out to expose the connections to US churches, money, etc. Ugandabis full of American evangelical influence in this and other respects.

    Throckmoton’s blog is now on Patheos – Google will get you there.

  181. John wrote:

    If you are offended by his remarks on race, stop right now, pray for him and forgive him. Move on.

    When a person makes rash and degrading comments about race in front of the nation, we are supposed to pray, forgive, move on, in one fell blow and before we correct the image of God being misrepresented? Even when many of my fellow believers go loud in lockstep behind this mistaken person? You are kidding, right?John wrote:

    Sometimes I feel this forum jumps the shark and just provides some people an opportunity to vent with vitriol.

    So do tell how the comments here are more vitriolic than those supporting this man.John wrote:

    Phil is not a cultured communicator and was simply asked questions and he honestly answered the.

    Yes, it is good for us to all remember our respective contexts. Thus, Phil, too, comes from his subculture and says things his own way, etc. But what does that have to do with his awry beliefs? You make me wonder whether you are actually a liberal, what with your contextual relativism replacing standards lol.

  182. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    these particular Ugandan laws were proposed and backed by American CHRISTIAN(TM) Activists and paid for with American CHRISTIAN(TM) money.

    I know. I have been remiss in not dealing with this issue.

  183. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    According to a lot of Websites, these particular Ugandan laws were proposed and backed by American CHRISTIAN(TM) Activists and paid for with American CHRISTIAN(TM) money.

    To say that these laws honor Christ is a crock. We should be reaching out to teh marginalized, not walling them off. http://wp.me/p2EmLc-Uz

    Cheers,
    Tim

  184. numo wrote:

    @ Clay Crouch: He’s a “reality” TV “star.”

    I have to wonder how much of what he said to the interviewer was scripted/directed by his PR firm. “Reality” TV is as scripted as actual “fiction” TV, and likely FAR more heavily edited.

    Side comment this morning on drive-time radio was “Duck Dynasty’s so scripted these days, you can almost see the Teleprompter.”

    This led to a aide discussion of Honey Boo Boo jumping the shark with “Teleprompter wouldn’t help — I’ve seen one Honey Boo Boo and I don’t think any of them know how to read.”

    Wait…
    High Concept(TM) pitch session coming…
    “Duck Dynasty/Honey Boo Boo Crossover! And let’s make it a MUSICAL!”

  185. I am assuming that it is the l word that repeatedly sends me into mod. Sorry for the fuss. I’ll do it differently.

  186. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy: I guess it depends on your sense of humor. One thing that happened a lot on his TV show is that he, Elaine and George were all shown to be shallow and ridiculous and all kinds of other things.

    I’ve had enough run-ins with “shallow and ridiculous and proud of it” IRL; why would I want to watch a show about them?

    Kind of like someone from a badly dysfunctional family not wanting to watch Married with Children.

  187. dee wrote:

    @ John A:
    So, the ones who he observed had no problem with lynchings and being segregated?

    Could it be they were sordid yo show their fear and unhappiness ?

  188. Clay Crouch wrote:

    Why in the world would a thinking, rational christian (or non-christian) care the least bit what this man thinks about any subject except duck calls and possibly duck hunting?

    Doesn’t matter.
    He’s a CELEBRITY(TM)!
    Like Charlie Sheen! Paris Hilton! Kim Kardashian! Honey Boo Boo! Mark Driscoll! Ed Young! Kevin Swanson! The Botkins!

  189. dee wrote:

    John wrote:
    The commenters on this blog are indeed accorded free speech. I was just pointing out some feelings about many comments that are judgmental of this man and ascribing motives which they cannot do as they cannot see his heart as does God.

    Sometimes I feel this forum jumps the shark and just provides some people an opportunity to vent with vitriol

    Now, talk about jumping the shark…you defend Phil’s right to say what he wishes, even if it is crude. Then, you take to task others who are doing the same thing? Freedom of speech means freedom of speech.

  190. Patrice wrote:

    John wrote:

    hello Patrice, why would you care or even wonder if I am a liberal. With all due respect, I am probably so far to the right than you. I am evangelical, conservative, reformed and committed to biblical inerrancy. Mr. Robertson’s are done. They cannot be taken back. Let’s forgive and move on. We do not have the power or ability to restore God’s image. Men after Adam are not made in the image of God. They are fallen and made in the image of Adam until born again and remade in the image of God by becoming a new creation. remarks are
    If you are offended by his remarks on race, stop right now, pray for him and forgive him. Move on.

    When a person makes rash and degrading comments about race in front of the nation, we are supposed to pray, forgive, move on, in one fell blow and before we correct the image of God being misrepresented? Even when many of my fellow believers go loud in lockstep behind this mistaken person? You are kidding, right?John wrote:

    Sometimes I feel this forum jumps the shark and just provides some people an opportunity to vent with vitriol.

    So do tell how the comments here are more vitriolic than those supporting this man.John wrote:

    Phil is not a cultured communicator and was simply asked questions and he honestly answered the.

    Yes, it is good for us to all remember our respective contexts. Thus, Phil, too, comes from his subculture and says things his own way, etc. But what does that have to do with his awry beliefs? You make me wonder whether you are actually a liberal, what with your contextual relativism replacing standards lol.

  191. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I should clarify: I drove to hospital (I didn’t call an ambulance for a suspected scratched cornea!).

    Totally irrelevant and immaterial, Nick, but why is it considered unethical and immoral in Blighty to precede “Hospital” with “The”? Last weekend, my wife required multiple infusions, so we drove back and forth to THE hospital in car– we didn’t call ambulance.
    Never watched Duck Dynasty, but have watched Swamp People. “You hear noises out in the swamp at night, and you don’t even know what they are, and you don’t WANT to know what they are.” Troy Landry

  192. Taunya wrote:

    Thank you Wartburg Watch for bringing this to light. I was wondering why people who claim Christ were giving Robertson a pass on this.

    For the same reasons they give Doug Wilson (Mark Driscoll BFF) a pass?

  193. Patrice, I do not believe all his remarks are awry. In forty years of ministry I now cringe at some of the things I said from the pulpit which were wrong. I believe what Phil has done and will continue to be used by God and do great things. I know he has used this most fallible person (Me) in spite of my ignorance and shortcomings. His speech may have been crude but he said what many preachers don’t have the conviction and fortitude to say. God uses the foolish things of this world to say. IN no way am I intending to be vulgar but I agree that one man’s affection for another mans bodily disposal is natural. Nor one man for a females is either.

  194. And I love you for it De. I wish you, Deb and all the commenters a very Merry Christmas and a blessed new year!@ dee:

  195. @ TedS.:
    It never ceases to amaze me how people can turn words around to say whatever they want them to say. Wilsons’ words in the area of race have caused much controversy that even some within his tribe (the latest in buzzwords which must be used to show you are really hip) are none too pleased, starting with Thabiti Anyabwile.

  196. John wrote:

    I believe what Phil has done and will continue to be used by God and do great things.

    Out of curiosity, I have heard this phrase used over and over when people screw up. Mark Driscoll will do “great things.” Steven Furtick is doing “great things.”

    What constitutes great things and why is this phrase only used for those with big names? Does having a TV show mean you do great things and the local locksmith who volunteers at the soup kitchen does “small” things?

    This is a serious question-not snark. I have been thinking about this for awhile now.

  197. Jesus said that we will do greater things because of the Holy Spirit. This is what fascinates me. That God has entrusted His message to us most fallible creatures. The vast majority of great deeds are indeed done by people who never will be on the cover of Time magazine or be interviewed by a national publication. Just like the locksmith you cited. Great things are speaking the truth in love, sharing your faith, walking in fellowship with the Lord, leading others to Christ giving graciously to those in need and sharing our resources with others. To some, God gives a more public and influential platform but they are no greater than the faithful pastor or believer who are never known or regarded as famous.

  198. In the interview, Robertson was asked his definition of “sinful behavior.” His response was:

    “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there . . . ”

    I’m wondering why homosexuality is worse “sinful behavior” than murder, incest, genocide, or rape, to name just a few. Why start with homosexuality? Surely he knew he would be asked the hard questions in the environment he entered. Why not have a thoughtful response prepared beforehand?

    I’ll give him some tiny, wee bit of credit though for not whining about the line of questioning as Driscoll did when he was confronted by Mefferd.

  199. Dave A A wrote:

    Totally irrelevant and immaterial, Nick, but why is it considered unethical and immoral in Blighty to precede “Hospital” with “The”?

    It’s not. “I drove to hospital” and “I drove to the hospital” are almost interchangeable. The former is a bit more like “I drove to work” as distinct from “I drove to the office”; it depends on how specific you want to be about your destination.

    I hope this is useful.

    In other news, it’s tea time in Blighty.

  200. dee wrote:

    Out of curiosity, I have heard this phrase used over and over when people screw up. Mark Driscoll will do “great things.”

    Another popular phrase: “Mistakes were made”– Mark Driscoll 12-18-13

  201. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    “I drove to hospital” and “I drove to the hospital” are almost interchangeable.

    The preference based on which side of the pond you’re on. :-)

    “England and America are two countries separated by a common language.”

    George Bernard Shaw

  202. Maybe the Duck Dynasty fellow should take the “We’re ALL sinners” or “We were ALL happy under Jim Crow” approach to deflect criticism.
    Recently NCFIC leader Scott Brown posted a panel discussion about music, in which his BFF Geoff Botkin said nasty (racist?) things about Reformed hip-hop artists. (Personally, I believe Brown did this all to distract attention from Vision Forum, over the deathbed of which he is currently presiding.)
    Later, Brown asked “Please Forgive Me” on his NCFIC site — BUT, in comments, someone asked what he actually thinks of Reformed Rap musicians. His diabolical response:
    ‘Thanks for asking. As you might have noticed, I did not say anything on the panel except to ask the question. I did this because I was not prepared to speak with understanding on the reformed rap landscape. I feel I am only at the beginning of understanding the subject. When I asked the question at the conference I did not understand that there were so many different expressions of rap, and so it is hard for me to even understand what you may mean by “reformed rap.”
    On whether I believe that rappers are “weak willed cowards who bow to the world:” Yes they are and so am I. We are all cowards in facing cultures that oppose the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Yes… but I also include myself. Let me add this. It is not always our personal cowardice that causes our compromises. We may compromise for many different reasons. For example, our cowardice may be as a result of lack of knowledge of scripture. Or, perhaps when we are saved we may sort of be born into cowardice. It could have been that we faithfully followed our spiritual fathers who were cowards at some level. So all cowardice is not exclusively related to being intentionally cowardly. Can we agree on this: It is cowardly not to confront evil in our cultures, but it does not mean that those who do not confront it are always doing it out of some sort of personal self aware cowardice?
    I would like to be clear that the men on the panel have no illusions about how cowardly, and compromising our own “grumpy old reformed,” “white,” mainstream culture is. Each of feels the same way about our own cultures, and we have taken many positions against elements of those cultures.’
    CALL PEOPLE OF OTHER RACES/CULTURES ANY NAME YOU LIKE and then add–AND SO AM I!!!

  203. Would love someone theologically inclined to analyze “Or, perhaps when we are saved we may sort of be born into cowardice” Makes me really want to sort of be “saved”….

  204. .Bridget wrote:

    I’m wondering why homosexuality is worse “sinful behavior” than murder, incest, genocide, or rape, to name just a few. Why start with homosexuality? Surely he knew he would be asked the hard questions in the environment he entered. Why not have a thoughtful response prepared beforehand?

    Maybe that was what he was saying, but I tend to think maybe there is something else going on here.
    He did not say that homosexuality is worse, but he did “start” with homosexuality. I am thinking that perhaps he did do that on purpose, that may have been his thoughtful response prepared beforehand. He may have wanted to seize the opportunity to say what he wanted to say while he had the opportunity. Maybe it was for more impact, since nobody I know would think that murder or incest or genocide or rape were OK (not sin), but there are certainly those who think that homosexual acts are not sin, so maybe he just leaped off the deep end from the get go on purpose. Certainly, if he wanted to go for impact, to use his public platform, as John said, to get it said loud and up front he got that done.

    And now a general comment to each and all–especially the non-southerners among us–something I had to learn the hard way after immigrating to a “more southern” part of the south than I originally came from.

    Do not make the automatic assumption that every rural or southern or whatever redneck or “white trash” or whatever is necessarily slow or stupid. Far from it sometimes. And do not confuse ideas and culture which may be foreign to the observer with low IQ or illiteracy. There may or may not be a correlation in the individual case. I have heard similar opinions over “beverage” at more than one Christmas open house from people who could and did make me look like an incompetent and an idiot in one area or another. Not that that’s so hard to do, of course, but you understand what I am saying

  205. John wrote:

    hello Patrice, why would you care or even wonder if I am a liberal. With all due respect, I am probably so far to the right than you. I am evangelical, conservative, reformed and committed to biblical inerrancy.

    It was a joke, really, because I am a librul who was raised in a conservative Reformed parsonage and does not believe in Biblical inerrancy in the way that is presented these days. I have had those very words thrown at me for raising contextual issues even though, I too, didn’t deny that there were underlying standards that needed to be addressed.

    John wrote:

    We do not have the power or ability to restore God’s image.

    I think we can do much to repair the witness. For eg, we can say, when people take God’s name in vain, that they are wrong to do so, give reasons, and offer a more correct view.

    John wrote:

    Men after Adam are not made in the image of God. They are fallen and made in the image of Adam until born again and remade in the image of God by becoming a new creation.

    I will disagree with this, just so you know where I am coming from, not to start an ongoing argument. I don’t find it logical to say that men after the fall are “made in the image of Adam” rather than God’s, because Adam was made in His image and so they are still in God’s image, even if a step removed.

    I believe that after the fall of Adam/Eve (both genders), humans are still in God’s image but they are broken. This difference of view also shows up when I disagree that no one outside the faith has a basis for ethical behavior. God upholds all that S/He made, and it was made beautifully, and insomuch as non-believers see/welcome what is healthy and growth-promoting in this world, they have a basis for ethics (which we see as God’s).

    To a believer, this only affirms the true greatness of our God and that the world remains all Hers/His. It also reassures us that God indeed has good reasons to still love us all, because there is much that remains of goodness throughout. We are not living in hell, which is the absence of God. And since we are not living in hell, we are free to name whatever/wherever goodness and truth occurs, because it is His/Hers, and worthy of celebration.

  206. Those statements are definitely interesting (not in a good way) and show that not everyone in the US thinks in the same manner. I bet if we heard Phil in a fuller context or sat down and had a conversation with him, we would see an entirely different person than this snippet shows.

    Personally, I think it is funny how many americans assume that just because we are americans, we have the same outlook or experience as every other american. Kinda the same problem noted before with the “wild at heart” book. Although many do, not every man thinks the way the book presents it.

    I am not saying that everyone’s feelings are right, but you gotta have a little grace for someone’s background. Look at all of us….

  207. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    HUG!! I love Married with Children!!! :-P So many good one liners and put downs from that fine series. When you wine and dine on Focus on the Family material what better way to detox by wathcing Al and Peggy Bundy go at each other!!

    My personal favorite episodes

    1. Kelly Bundy being Ms Wennie Tot
    2. Al’s Overdue Library Book
    3. The Neighborhood Peeper and Peggy being jealous that she’s not being peeped
    4. Peggy taking summer school at Polk High with Kelly
    5. Polk High Reunion
    6. Peggy Bundy… Ms. Pattty Bright Cosmetics!

  208. @ John:

    John why do so many people get hung up on gays having anal sex. Why do many people act like only gays are haivng anal sex? Or perfoming sexually perverse things?!? When I lived in Wisconsin I heard an occasional story about how farmers in the rural areas would swap wives for a night. Then you have Mark Driscoll and his comments on anal sex as taught by Mark Driscoll. Is Phil Robertson going to issue a statement condemning Mark Driscoll’s teachings about anal sex? Is anal sex between two married heterosexual people okay>

  209. @numo – Actually I’m in Congress Heights, not too far from the intersection of 295 and South Capitol Street. Not too far from Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling. It’s actually a nice neighborhood. Has its issues, but physically not bad looking.

  210. I do have a confession to make. I had initially avoided watching Duck Dynasty, but this fall, with lots of stress from a difficult class I’m taking, I got into it. For some reason, their interactions make me crack up. I don’t always agree with the perspectives and know some of it is staged, but it has been a nice comic relief. That said, I do think Phil just likes to state his opinion and doesn’t care about the fallout or how he says it. And he is just as prejudiced against yuppies as anyone else.

  211. I don’t ever comment here because I usually have no particular insight, but this whole situation just undeerscores a lot of the thinking and reading I’ve been doing about privilege and oppression in recent years.

    First, context matters. Whatever his intentions or secret heart of heartd, the words he chose were hurtful and hateful. He used exactly the same language used to denigrate, persecute, and demonize gay people, including linking their sin to terrorism and other horrifiv violent crimes, and reducing them to a sex act most of them don’t even engage in, but which holds a huge ick factor for many people. The latter rhetorical trick n particular has long been used to portray gay people npt merely as sinners, but as dirty, diseased “others”. His words on race also repeated rhetoric used to justify slavery and oppression, rhetoric used to argue that black people didn’t want freedom, rights, or relief from poverty until some outside agitators told them they should. Regardless of his intentions, his words were unacceptable and hurtful and he owes an apology.

    Second, I don’t buy that his intentions, particularly with regard to his commenta on homosexuality were so innocent. In 2007, he preached a sermon in Pennsylvania where he called homosexuals heartless, faithless, senseless, and ruthless. This guy has a political and cultural agenda that people are rightly suspicious of.

    Finally, this guy is not some simple country bumpkin. He is a successful businessman and media personality who has made and continues to make a lot of money with his particular schtick. Don’t infantilize or pity him. He either knows what he is doing or should know. If not, he is capable of learning. Again, he owes an apology for his hateful words. If he really wants to do right, he could also try listening to the people who have been hurt by the bigotry he so casually parrots.

  212. Dave A A wrote:

    Totally irrelevant and immaterial, Nick, but why is it considered unethical and immoral in Blighty to precede “Hospital” with “The”? Last weekend, my wife required multiple infusions, so we drove back and forth to THE hospital in car– we didn’t call ambulance.

    You’re probably just razzing Nick with some good natured ribbing right? Even so it’s instructive to remember that here in the states we don’t speak English, we speak American. (tongue in cheek of course)

  213. @ Eagle:

    I’d be careful about criticizing opponents of homosexuality over the anal sex (or whatever sexual act) component, as the some of the earlier homosexual activists themselves sought to squelch mention of homosexual sex acts (including anal sex), as they felt it would damage their cause.

    The earlier homosexual activists felt the term “homosexual” was detrimental to them, because it would cause the public to think of sexual acts between two men, turn them off, and that is why they proposed telling homosexuals to replace the word “homosexual” with the word “gay,” because gay sounds friendlier, bouncier, and non- sexual to heterosexuals who may oppose homosexuality (in their opinion).

    I believe the book written by two homosexual activists, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90′s’, was among one of the first to suggest this strategy.

    There are several sites which discuss that book and the techniques of homosexual activist groups, this is only one:
    The homosexual propaganda campaign in America’s media

    Some homosexual activist groups do in fact strategize and plot how to get their goals met (I refer you again to the “After the Ball” book), and how to shape public opinion, so I find it disingenuous when other homosexuals scoff at the phrase “homosexual agenda.” If not being disingenuous, they are sincerely ignorant of the machinery by the more militant homosexual groups.

  214. @ Dave A A:
    I followed that debacle. I do find it interesting that Voddie Baucham seemed to distance himself from Phillips before the ax fell.

  215. Nancy wrote:

    Do not make the automatic assumption that every rural or southern or whatever redneck or “white trash” or whatever is necessarily slow or stupid. Far from it sometimes. And do not confuse ideas and culture which may be foreign to the observer with low IQ or illiteracy. There may or may not be a correlation in the individual case. I have heard similar opinions over “beverage” at more than one Christmas open house from people who could and did make me look like an incompetent and an idiot in one area or another.

    This is an excellent comment.

  216. Patrice wrote:

    John wrote:
    Men after Adam are not made in the image of God. They are fallen and made in the image of Adam until born again and remade in the image of God by becoming a new creation.
    I will disagree with this, just so you know where I am coming from, not to start an ongoing argument. I don’t find it logical to say that men after the fall are “made in the image of Adam” rather than God’s, because Adam was made in His image and so they are still in God’s image, even if a step removed.
    I believe that after the fall of Adam/Eve (both genders), humans are still in God’s image but they are broken.

    I am with you on this one.

  217. ForgivenMuch wrote:

    Linking the lynching photo with Phil Robertson’s comments is really low of you, Dee.

    If you wouldn’t mind, could you please explain why? I truly do not understand.

  218. burntnorton wrote:

    Finally, this guy is not some simple country bumpkin. He is a successful businessman and media personality who has made and continues to make a lot of money with his particular schtick. Don’t infantilize or pity him. He either knows what he is doing or should know. If not, he is capable of learning. Again, he owes an apology for his hateful words. If he really wants to do right, he could also try listening to the people who have been hurt by the bigotry he so casually parrots.

    I believe that you are making a most important point. Deb and I have discussed this. She is convinced that the controversy will help sell their Christmas CDs as Christians go to war against “the culture.”

    One things is certain, given his comments, I would never defend what he said.

  219. My post right above to Eagle is sitting in moderation the last time I checked.

    burntnorton wrote:

    He used exactly the same language used to denigrate, persecute, and demonize gay people, including linking their sin to terrorism and other horrifiv violent crimes

    I didn’t read his quotes that way.

    Robertson also lumped in hetero fornication among the list of issues he reeled off in one quote, IIRC. I’ll have to google his quote to double check.
    I found it (from New York Daily News):

    “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behaviour and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

    People are choosing to laser focus on the “homosexual” label but are skipping over bestiality (or only choosing to view the bestiality term as being derogatory vis a vis the homosexual term), but he also seems to say in that quote that hetero fornication is sinful as well.

    It’s interesting I don’t see any outrage online or on TV news shows over Robertson apparently pointing out that hetero pre marital or extra marital sexual acts acts are sinful (“sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men”).

    I think folks are over-analyzing the order of words and word choice in those particular quotes.

    That Robertson mentioned homosexuality first in his one quote is probably due to the fact homosexuality has gained wide acceptance in the last ten or so years, and it’s one of the nation’s current hot button topics, especially in regards to the legalization of homosexual marriage.

    Do you know that there are actually people who, in Germany, are petitioning that nation to legalize, or make acceptable with the public, human-animal sex relations? Some of these people call themselves “zoophiles.”

    You can look up this headline on Google for more: “Zoophiles protest against German bestiality ban.” From that page:

    Michael Kiok and his partner Cissy have been in a caring relationship for the past seven years, which would be unremarkable if not for the fact that Cissy is a dog.

    … His [Kiok's] red anorak marked him as a member of ZETA, or Zoophiles Engaging for Tolerance and Enlightenment, a German group lobbying for more acceptance of human-animal relations.

    I’m a hetero celibate, but I freely acknowledge that some heteros participate in behaviors that the Bible does indeed define as sinful, such as bestiality, adultery, incest, or pre- marital sex.

    I did not take Robertson’s comments to mean that all heterosexuals are into bestiality and so forth – so I, as a hetero, did not get offended.

    I didn’t feel as though I was being lumped in with terrorists, practitioners of zoophilia (aka bestiality), etc. I did not get the impression he was saying that all homosexuals are into terrorism or bestiality, either.

    I’m not sure, but in another part of the interview, did he not also paraphrase the verse from the New Testament about liars and drunkards not making it into the kingdom?

    I don’t see a lot of outrage from AA members over that or habitual liars.

    Yes, he did; here’s that quote (as reproduced on blog.zap2it):

    Then he [Robertson] paraphrases Corinthians:
    “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers–they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

    Looks to me as though he’s an equal opportunity sin picker. He’s not focusing on homosexuality.

    “Adulterers” could mean hetero people who cheat on their spouses. He’s got con artists, liars, and the greedy on his list, too. I haven’t as of yet seen anyone upset over him calling out greed, lying, con artistry, or idolatry.

  220. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Dr. Dwight McKissic [black] has written on this statement by Phil as well as his dismissal from A&E.
    http://sbcvoices.com/dwight-mckissic-on-phil-robertsons-comments-on-homosexuality-and-race-by-william-dwight-mckissic-sr/

    In that post, Dwight McKissic writes: “May the Lord bless Phil Robertson! He is being persecuted for righteousness sake. His persecution is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Jesus said that believers would be hated because of His name’s sake. The prophet Isaiah said that the day would come when wrong would be called right and right would be called wrong. Phil Robertson is a classic example of both prophecies being fulfilled….the negative and unwarranted response to his comments is simply orchestrated by “the prince of the power of the air.””

    Thus showing that silliness, like common sense, is no respecter of persons or color. Sheesh.

  221. @ Daisy:
    We scoff at the phrase “homosexual agenda” not because we don’t believe that advocates for gay rights developped strategies and agendas to accomplish their goals, but because the overwhelming majority of people using the phrase use it as a scare tactic and have implicitly or explicitly indicated that the agenda includes plans to convert people to beimg gay, making child molestation legal, and performing sex acts in public. And of course one of the strategies used by gay rights activists is to shift focus away from specific sex acts. Since gay rights opponents’ strategy has long included using those sex acts as a way to denigrate, villify, mock, and isolate gay people. Which is ridiculous, because most gay people don’t engage in anal sex and many straight people do.

  222. Patrice wrote:

    .the negative and unwarranted response to his comments is simply orchestrated by “the prince of the power of the air.”

    The Devil? If we disagree, we are being influenced by the Devil. Oh good night! That is tweet worthy.

  223. @ dee: yep! And his public persona *is* a shtick; he knows it and is winking at his fans when he shoots off his mouth like he did.

  224. burntnorton wrote:

    Which is ridiculous, because most gay people don’t engage in anal sex and many straight people do.

    Well, you just taught me something on the gay side of things.

    Without getting into graphic details, can you point me to some good statistics which discuss the actual methods used, if you get my drift?

    When we started this blog, I had no idea the trajectory some comments would take. :)

  225. Patrice wrote:

    But we are criticized for being vitriolic.

    ROFL! It never ceases to amaze me. These folks can say whatever they want, their apologetics teams launch into action and redefine *what they meant.* Then, when we say “hold on a minute” we are unforgiven, vitriolic, gleeful at the destruction of another person, and so on… banging head on table…

  226. burntnorton wrote:

    Which is ridiculous, because most gay people don’t engage in anal sex and many straight people do.

    Paging Mark Driscoll…
    Paging Manly-Man Mark…

  227. Dave A A wrote:

    Another popular phrase: “Mistakes were made”– Mark Driscoll 12-18-13

    He plagiarized(TM) that one directly from Bill Clinton’s spinmeisters.

    Ever notice that these days mistakes always make themselves? Nobody makes them?

  228. @ dee: gosh, I’ve been saying the same thing in comments here for the past several years.

    you would probably like actor/author/comedian Stephen Fry’s memoir “Moab is My Washpot.” He’s gay, and very articulate – his focus is not sex, but he included a very good several-pages-long segment about common misperceptions re. gay men and sexual activities in this book. Definitely wroth finding, though for far more than that alone. he’s an engaging, witty man and immensely entertaining (and often enlightening as well).

  229. @ dee:
    There’s this study, in which less than 40% of the gay and bisexual men surveyed reported that their last male-male experience involved anal intercourse. And of course virtually no gay women engage in that act, since they aren’t really equipped for it. I’m certainly no expert, being a straight married woman with only a couple of sex partners, and I talk to my gay friends about sex exactly as much as I talk to my straight friends (very little). Still, I’ve read many gay men and spoken to a few who rarely if ever practice that particular act. There are, after all, other ways to get the job done that are safer, easier, and less taboo.

  230. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “The time has come for the establishment of a values based television network that promotes shows like Duck Dynasty and prohibits showmen that preach prosperity.”

    I have heard that the DD folks have cleared $ 15 million on this deal. It may not be prosperity gospel but it is sure prosperous. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

  231. @ Dave A A:

    In other news, the NCFIC appears to have finally stopped distributing Doug Phillips’ lectures for free on its website. I’m shocked it took them this long, I expected them to be scrubbed out of existence weeks ago. Though normally scrubbing IS cowardly, I’m actually glad Brown put his money where his mouth is and removed the resources.

    That whole thing about rap, though, was hard to follow.

  232. dee wrote:

    Patrice wrote:
    .the negative and unwarranted response to his comments is simply orchestrated by “the prince of the power of the air.”
    The Devil? If we disagree, we are being influenced by the Devil. Oh good night! That is tweet worthy.

    New 67th Book of the Bible: The Malleus Maleficarium.

  233. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:
    Another popular phrase: “Mistakes were made”– Mark Driscoll 12-18-13
    He plagiarized(TM) that one directly from Bill Clinton’s spinmeisters.
    Ever notice that these days mistakes always make themselves? Nobody makes them?

    Seriously, with the system MD has, with multiple assistants cranking out enormous stacks of “content” using 3d party researchers who borrow from 4th party sources, MD may have no idea just who made the mistakes! But putting such a system under his personal brand– that’s HIS mistake!

  234. @ Hester:
    I would love to do a followup on how the people who worked for Vision Forum are faring. Also, call this a hunch,I am very interested in seeing how Doug Phillips morphs himself. I think he would make a good ShamWow pitchman.

  235. Hester wrote:

    That whole thing about rap, though, was hard to follow.

    Thinly veiled racism, IMO.
    Then there’s a suthahn gentlmn, who built his (fallen) empire upon the labor of many UNPAID workers. I smell a lawsuit brewing over that one.

  236. Dave A A wrote:

    Then there’s a suthahn gentlmn, who built his (fallen) empire upon the labor of many UNPAID workers. I smell a lawsuit brewing over that one.

    I always found it amusing that said “gentleman” was known for his love of “theme” dressing. It reminded me a bit of the ladies of Dallas.

  237. dee wrote:

    She is convinced that the controversy will help sell their Christmas CDs as Christians go to war against “the culture.”

    As I’ve pointed out earlier. Money never sleeps. Even if it targets only a small niche demographic, it will sniff out a market as sure as bloodhounds will find their quarry.

  238. Study puts HIV rate among gay men at 1 in 5

    By Darryl Fears
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, September 24, 2010
    One in five gay men in the United States has HIV, and almost half of those who carry the virus are unaware that they are infected, according to a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study.

    The study tested more than 8,000 men in 21 cities in 2008, making it the most comprehensive such research by the CDC. It found that young, sexually active gay men and those in minority groups are least likely to know their health status, even as infection rates are climbing among men who have sex with men, while the rates of other at-risk groups – heterosexuals and intravenous drug users – are falling.

  239. It would certainly appear that anal sex is the primary behavior leading to the climbing rates of HIV in males engaging in homosexual behaviors.

  240. Patrice and Dee: Dr. McKissic lived in the South pre-Civil rights. He experienced all that happened in the south during that time period. His sister was beaten almost to death for being black. This is just one of many, many prejudices and horrible mistreatment he and his family endured during that time. He is speaking from personal experience.

  241. Dave A A wrote:

    Thinly veiled racism, IMO.

    They said the same thing about Ragtime, Jazz, Rhythm & Blues, and early Rock & Roll. Some of the denunciations are almost word-for-word identical, with only the name of the new genre of “N*gg*r Music” cut-and-pasted in.

    Then there’s a suthahn gentlmn, who built his (fallen) empire upon the labor of many UNPAID workers. I smell a lawsuit brewing over that one.

    Suthawn gentlmn?
    UNPAID workers?
    As in “Peculiar Institution regarding certain Animate Property”?

  242. dee wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Darn you are smart, HUG! I had to look that one up.

    Curse of being a former Kid Genius; I have this HUGE mental database with at best a highly random search engine.

    As for the Malleus, last year I acquired an underground comix adaptation of it. Email me off-list and I’ll check to see if it’s still available and send you the order/contact info.

  243. burntnorton wrote:

    Still, I’ve read many gay men and spoken to a few who rarely if ever practice that particular act. There are, after all, other ways to get the job done that are safer, easier, and less taboo.

    But (like doggie-style) it does have the Penetrated having to crouch in submission beneath the Penetrator. The Ultimate ANIMAL Forced Dominance Display.

  244. Debbie Kaufman wrote:

    Patrice and Dee: Dr. McKissic lived in the South pre-Civil rights. He experienced all that happened in the south during that time period. His sister was beaten almost to death for being black. This is just one of many, many prejudices and horrible mistreatment he and his family endured during that time. He is speaking from personal experience.

    I cannot imagine what it must have been like for them to go through all that. How awful!

    Perhaps his extreme response comes from those terrible places. (?) Because his analysis isn’t correct. It really isn’t. But I have utmost respect for someone who has gone through far more abuse than I’ve suffered and yet has emerged through the other end more-or-less intact, moving forward, thinking, writing.

  245. Hello Eagle…Just got in and saw your post. I am happy to respond to your excellent questions from my perspective as pastor and believer. people rag on about homosexual behavior and as you said; anal sex. You know that many people say that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Not true. In Matthew 15 he said ‘sexual immorality was wrong. The Greek word is porneus which literally means, ‘anything goes.’ in regards to sex. It was above the doors written on brothels and men’s bathhouses. It includes al manner of sexual immorality including homosexuality. Of course the term, homosexuality was not invented until 1869 so of course Jesus never used it.

    I think the issue lies in the fact that in Romans 1 that this is the pinnacle of idolatry and the ultimate rejection of God. There rejection of the knowledge of God evolved into worshipping the Creation more that the Creator. At this point God delivers them over to their passion and what He Calls, ‘nonsense.’ Homosexuality is like the sin (though forgivable ) that is the crowning achievement of man’s rebellion against God.

    In regard to this anal sex being practiced by both sexes; I know that consenting adults may do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom. But this sexual practice is (in my opinion) most deviant) The male body is not designed for a one flesh relationship and its body cannot process the sperm in the bowel region. Not to mention the great possibilities of infection, abrasion and ruptured organs that can result from traumatic penetration. The male body cannot process this union. The natural function of that part of the body is expulsion, not penetration.

    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.

    Eagle, you and I both know though that everyday people will do what is pleasurable to them regardless of how it affects their mental, emotional and physical condition as well as those around them.

    s.@ Eagle:

  246. http://www.loc.gov/poetry/poetry-of-america/american-identity/marilynnelson-badgerclark.html
    Marilyn Nelson reads Badger Clark’s “A Cowboy’s Prayer”
    Poetry of American Identity: A Collection of Field Recordings by Award-winning Contemporary Poets

    A Cowboy’s Prayer
    (Written for Mother)
    Oh Lord, I’ve never lived where churches
    grow.
    I love creation better as it stood
    That day You finished it so long ago
    And looked upon Your work and called it
    good.
    I know that others find You in the light
    That’s sifted down through tinted window
    panes,
    And yet I seem to feel You near tonight
    In this dim, quiet starlight on the plains.
    I thank You, Lord, that I am placed so well,
    That You have made my freedom so com-
    plete;
    That I’m no slave of whistle, clock or bell,
    Nor weak-eyed prisoner of wall and street.
    Just let me live my life as I’ve begun
    And give me work that’s open to the sky;
    Make me a pardner of the wind and sun,
    And I won’t ask a life that’s soft or high.
    Let me be easy on the man that’s down;
    Let me be square and generous with all.
    I’m careless sometimes, Lord, when I’m in
    town,
    But never let ‘em say I’m mean or small!
    Make me as big and open as the plains,
    As honest as the hawse between my knees,
    Clean as the wind that blows behind the rains,
    Free as the hawk that circles down the
    breeze!
    Forgive me, Lord, if sometimes I forget.
    You know about the reasons that are hid.
    You understand the things that gall and fret;
    You know me better than my mother did.
    Just keep an eye on all that’s done and said
    And right me, sometimes, when I turn
    aside,
    And guide me on the long, dim, trail ahead
    That stretches upward toward the Great
    Divide.

    —Badger Clark

  247. @ BD:

    I made a mistake, an error (I was wrong!) regarding the net worth of the Robertson family. My bad.

    According to Forbes, they are worth about 400 million dollars, largely due to their merchandising. http://tinyurl.com/kbx92yp

  248. @ dee:
    Well, maybe the DD guys will start a Christian TV network with their profits and everyone can be happy.

    CDN: Christian Ducks Network
    “Qwacking the culture wars”
    “Honk if you love Jesus”
    “A Beak-on in the darkness”

    And we can finally stop being sheep and turn into ugly ducklings.

  249. Patrice wrote:

    John wrote:

    hello Patrice. I will just share my biblical perspective on where I am coming from on the ‘image of God,’ issue. Growing up I could not ever get a clear understanding of what was meant by the being made in the image of God. Then I came across a wonderful book by Dr. Dwight Pentecost entitled, Designed To Be Like Him. I require reading of this book in my Spiritual Formation class at the college.

    Now,you say that we are simply one step down and we are broken but reparable. I would not say that we are broken but the image has been totally abolished until Christ remakes us in His image through conversion. In Genesis, chapter 2, three distinct things are spoken about Adam to indeed reflect he was fashioned in God’s image. Notice he was given an assignment to name the animals. Adam used his mind. This indicates God granted him the ability to know and understand God with his mind.

    second he gave him a wife to love: this indicates he had a heart to love God. Thirdly, he tested him on obedience,. Adam truly had free will and the ability tom obey the Lord. These three things are the key.

    1. A mind to know God.
    2. A heart to love God.
    3. A will to obey God.

    It is these three things that indicate what being made in the image of God really is. Adam, upon sinning forfeited these three things in the fall. Since Adam, people born naturally in this world do cannot know God, Love God or obey God until a radical born from above experience. I think one only has to look at Ephesians, chapter 2 to see that we are not born in God’s image but in earnest rebellion.

    Then, look at Genesis 5: 1-2. “Adam was 130 years old when he fathered a son IN HIS LIKENES ACCORDING TO HIS IMAGE.(caps for emphasis, not yelling!) We are all born in the image of fallen Adam.

    “And just as we have borne the image of the man made of dust (Adam), we will also bear the image of the heavenly man.”

    When will we reflect the image of the heavenly man (Christ)? When one is born again. When he is born again he will have the ability to know God. (WE have the mind of Christ. We will then have our hearts remade to love God. ( A new heart of flesh, not stone). And finally, we will have the will to obey God. Thanks be to God we in Christ are remade in the image of God and can be image bearers of Him and His glory,

    “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new Creation. Behold, : old things have passed away, and look. new things have come.” Thanks Patrice for listening. I have enjoyed dialoging with you today.
    hello Patrice, why would you care or even wonder if I am a liberal. With all due respect, I am probably so far to the right than you. I am evangelical, conservative, reformed and committed to biblical inerrancy.

    It was a joke, really, because I am a librul who was raised in a conservative Reformed parsonage and does not believe in Biblical inerrancy in the way that is presented these days. I have had those very words thrown at me for raising contextual issues even though, I too, didn’t deny that there were underlying standards that needed to be addressed.

    John wrote:

    We do not have the power or ability to restore God’s image.

    I think we can do much to repair the witness. For eg, we can say, when people take God’s name in vain, that they are wrong to do so, give reasons, and offer a more correct view.

    John wrote:

    Men after Adam are not made in the image of God. They are fallen and made in the image of Adam until born again and remade in the image of God by becoming a new creation.

    I will disagree with this, just so you know where I am coming from, not to start an ongoing argument. I don’t find it logical to say that men after the fall are “made in the image of Adam” rather than God’s, because Adam was made in His image and so they are still in God’s image, even if a step removed.

    I believe that after the fall of Adam/Eve (both genders), humans are still in God’s image but they are broken. This difference of view also shows up when I disagree that no one outside the faith has a basis for ethical behavior. God upholds all that S/He made, and it was made beautifully, and insomuch as non-believers see/welcome what is healthy and growth-promoting in this world, they have a basis for ethics (which we see as God’s).

    To a believer, this only affirms the true greatness of our God and that the world remains all Hers/His. It also reassures us that God indeed has good reasons to still love us all, because there is much that remains of goodness throughout. We are not living in hell, which is the absence of God. And since we are not living in hell, we are free to name whatever/wherever goodness and truth occurs, because it is His/Hers, and worthy of celebration.

  250. Well, now I know what Duck Dynasty is. :o)

    All I can say is I am glad that Phil guy has the freedom to expound his views. I am glad A&E has the freedom to fire him. I am glad we have the freedom to discuss all views concerning the situation on the internet.

    The thing to watch is when the government gets involved. I fear some would like that.

    I grew up in the South, went to many SBC churches and they were much more integrated in the 60′s/70′s than they are now. My first SS teacher at age 6 was African American but that did not even dawn on me as anything significant until I was much older. It was never an issue or even thought about in those terms. It was normal.

  251. @ Patrice:
    Why can not one be an evangelical and a political liberal? One of the things political liberals want to see done, and work to get done, is to see that widows, orphans, children in general, the disabled, the elderly, etc., have food, medical care, shelter and access to education. Where as political conservatives want to see less money spent on such things and more money in the pockets of the already well off.

  252. @ dee:

    He may not be morphing himself at all if any financial chickens come home to roost on his roof. Personally I’m starting to suspect he may have really cooked his own goose this time.

    @ Dave:

    Didn’t Rushdoony say something about jazz being related to/derived from voodoo at some point? I’ve seen other people do this who aren’t Reconstructionist so it’s hardly exclusive to them. Syncopation = African = pagan. (Except clearly these people have never listened to how syncopated the tunes in the original Genevan psalter are)

    It’s funny because when I mentioned this goofy line of thinking to the black friend I mentioned upthread (also a church musician), her response was basically, “They’re not still going on about THAT, are they?!?!” (rolls eyes)

  253. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    They said the same thing about Ragtime, Jazz, Rhythm & Blues, and early Rock & Roll.

    To be fair, even North of the Mason-Dixon line, Gershwin’s beloved opera Porgy and Bess was not well received when it first premiered in 1935. It was thought to be too ‘colored’ back then. It wasn’t until the late 60s and early 70s that it received its due accolades as one of the most poignantly beautiful operas ever penned, one that is for all people and for all time.

  254. @ Patrice:
    They have gone to their reward, and really sought nothing in this world for the good that they did, except to sit with people, on the porch if the weather was amenable, and rock and talk. BTW, Christmas dinner would see fried chicken, venison, squirrel and/or rabbit, beef, ham, fish (if any caught the day before), and, of course, turkey, sweet and white potatoes, home grown peas, beans, peppers, etc., home made white and corn bread and biscuits, home churned butter, and of course pecan (nuts from on property) and fruit pies and perhaps a pumpkin or squash pie. And 20 or more people to around a very large table. Forgot, sometimes game birds. Never enough eaters to consume it all, so after dinner, plates would be made up and taken out to the “shut ins”.

    BTW, I remember my 80 y.o. grandmother hosting a quilting club meeting to make quilts for the “shut ins” when she was dependent on the grace and mercy of others to get to town for groceries or to see the doctor. Her income was Social Security and money from the eggs she sold.

  255. There is only one uncle or aunt left, the husband of the youngest aunt. They were all witnesses in one way or another to the grace of God, and before they left this world, had come to the idea that racism was a sin, for which they repented and asked forgiveness — it had been the way of their world when they were young. And no pastor or pastor’s family was ever hungry in their area when they were alive, even if it would mean eating peas and cornbread for a meal so they could share the meat.

  256. John wrote:

    I would not say that we are broken but the image has been totally abolished until Christ remakes us in His image through conversion.

    We disagree at our starting places. I feel sad when I try on your viewpoint. When I spend time with the humans around me, I see unique living beauty in the ways God made each. Some parts are fully there, other parts are fuzzy, twisted and/or missing, but I can comprehend the selves of “Susan and Jeff and Gabe and Mary” and there is much beloved about each person. I do not experience believers and non-believers differently—I can perceive each, albeit dimly/partially. And in the same way, some non-believers and believers have understood some of what I am. We can enter into relationship with each other, if we choose and to the extent of our respective brokenness.

    One thing that I have always loved about Kuiperian thought was its emphasis on relationship: I to God, I to others, I to self, I to creation. I see the Fall as a fracturing of these four relationships—not always completely broken everywhere but irrecoverably messed up. The work of Christ (containing within himself the relationship of “I to God” as fully God and fully man) restored our ability to heal these relationships, inasmuch as can be done while still on this earth. To me, this gives the cleanest structure to the two great commandments: love God above all and our neighbors as ourselves.

    I’ve enjoyed the dialogue too, John. May the love of our God go with you and your work.

  257. @ Patrice:
    But A&E has freedom of speech too, as in what their money and facilities will be used to put into the public arena. There freedom of speech allows them to refuse access to their property (money, equipment, studios) to promote something they do not wish to endorse.

    This is not a freedom of speech issue, nor a freedom of religion issue. The DD guys can say what they want subject only to some common law principles, but not on A&E’s nickel unless A&E wants to allow them there.

  258. @ John:
    Wow. Got any citations for that mess of pseudomedical gobbledygook that don’t track back to stufffundiesmakeuptofeelbetter.com, or is it from the same guy who did the research establishing that women on the pill have thousands of dead babies in their uterine lining?

  259. 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.

    I curious John, can you point us to the peer reviewed science publications which show this to a factual and repeatable mechanism?

  260. Patrice wrote: Thank you Patrice!

    John wrote:

    I would not say that we are broken but the image has been totally abolished until Christ remakes us in His image through conversion.

    We disagree at our starting places. I feel sad when I try on your viewpoint. When I spend time with the humans around me, I see unique living beauty in the ways God made each. Some parts are fully there, other parts are fuzzy, twisted and/or missing, but I can comprehend the selves of “Susan and Jeff and Gabe and Mary” and there is much beloved about each person. I do not experience believers and non-believers differently—I can perceive each, albeit dimly/partially. And in the same way, some non-believers and believers have understood some of what I am. We can enter into relationship with each other, if we choose and to the extent of our respective brokenness.

    One thing that I have always loved about Kuiperian thought was its emphasis on relationship: I to God, I to others, I to self, I to creation. I see the Fall as a fracturing of these four relationships—not always completely broken everywhere but irrecoverably messed up. The work of Christ (containing within himself the relationship of “I to God” as fully God and fully man) restored our ability to heal these relationships, inasmuch as can be done while still on this earth. To me, this gives the cleanest structure to the two great commandments: love God above all and our neighbors as ourselves.

    I’ve enjoyed the dialogue too, John. May the love of our God go with you and your work.

  261. An Attorney wrote:

    Where as political conservatives want to see less money spent on such things and more money in the pockets of the already well off.

    That is a totally unfair statement and shows your bias. And a bit silly too, when one looks at the zillions spent for decades yet we still have generations who have not taken advantage of educational/job opportunities. At what point are we guilty of enabling no responsibility? Why hasn’t massive government intervention worked better eradicating generational poverty? I find some of your comments very hateful toward those who do not believe government micromanagement of our lives as essential.

  262. Patrice wrote:

    One thing that I have always loved about Kuiperian thought was its emphasis on relationship: I to God, I to others, I to self, I to creation. I see the Fall as a fracturing of these four relationships—not always completely broken everywhere but irrecoverably messed up. The work of Christ (containing within himself the relationship of “I to God” as fully God and fully man) restored our ability to heal these relationships, inasmuch as can be done while still on this earth. To me, this gives the cleanest structure to the two great commandments: love God above all and our neighbors as ourselves.

    Yes! Christianity is ALL about restoring relationship to God and each other. I fear that in John’s view, our relationship with God is one sided. That cannot be a love relationship.

  263. Okay, even though it’s beside the point, I’ll channel my days in local public health to explain the basic risks of sexual practices. In order of risk, unprotected PIA, unprotected PIV, protected PIA, protected PIC. I admit, I’m not sure where unprotected Cunninglingus or fellatio lie (definitely safer than unprotected PIV or PIA), but reasoning from anatomy and risks, they’re probably safer than protected PIA and may be safer than protected PIV. Manual stimulation of any sort is safer than all of the above.

    PIA is riskier for the recipient because the anal and rectal areas are more likely to tear than the vaginal area. Tearing, and for oral activities, open cuts or sores, greatly increases the spread of infection. Bacteria and viruses in the semen and vaginal fluid are the cause of disease (including the diseases that cause various forms of cancer), not some magical mystery bonding or rejection of the semen. This is also why sex between women has the lowest risk of disease transmission – less tearing and less exposure of the bloodstream to disease vectors.

    I apologize if that was too graphic, but the misinformation and innuendo was too much.

  264. An Attorney wrote:

    But A&E has freedom of speech too, as in what their money and facilities will be used to put into the public arena. There freedom of speech allows them to refuse access to their property (money, equipment, studios) to promote something they do not wish to endorse.

    This is not a freedom of speech issue, nor a freedom of religion issue. The DD guys can say what they want subject only to some common law principles, but not on A&E’s nickel unless A&E wants to allow them there.

    I can only second this because people do not understand what “freedom of speech” encompasses. Freedom of speech only covers government action. Last I checked, A&E is a private company, not a government organ.

  265. Muff Potter wrote:

    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.

    I curious John, can you point us to the peer reviewed science publications which show this to a factual and repeatable mechanism?

    Now that is the most interesting interpretation of “one flesh union” I have ever heard! never mind they started out as “one flesh” human (Adam) in Gen 1 until God “formed” them in Gen 2. I guess the above John interpretation is needed to espouse patriarchy? Heaven forbid God saw them as total equals before the sin of patriarchy became a hermeneutical virtue. :o)

  266. Muff Potter wrote:

    I curious John, can you point us to the peer reviewed science publications which show this to a factual and repeatable mechanism?

    He can’t. The research doesn’t exist. It’s some sort of nonsense dreamed up from the same crowd who called oxytocin a specific bonding hormone.

    I’d just like to point out to people who put forth information like this: if you’re going to lie about something like this, then why on earth should I believe you when you tell me you know the way to eternal life?

  267. I am not sure what you mean that our relationship is one sided. He seeks us out first because we are incapable of seeking Him until he gives us new birth.
    Anon 1 wrote:

    Patrice wrote:

    One thing that I have always loved about Kuiperian thought was its emphasis on relationship: I to God, I to others, I to self, I to creation. I see the Fall as a fracturing of these four relationships—not always completely broken everywhere but irrecoverably messed up. The work of Christ (containing within himself the relationship of “I to God” as fully God and fully man) restored our ability to heal these relationships, inasmuch as can be done while still on this earth. To me, this gives the cleanest structure to the two great commandments: love God above all and our neighbors as ourselves.

    Yes! Christianity is ALL about restoring relationship to God and each other. I fear that in John’s view, our relationship with God is one sided. That cannot be a love relationship.

  268. To Muff Potter: “Sexual Behavior and Increased Anal Cancer” Immunology and cell Biology 75. (1977) 181-183.Anon 1 wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:

    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.

    I curious John, can you point us to the peer reviewed science publications which show this to a factual and repeatable mechanism?

    Now that is the most interesting interpretation of “one flesh union” I have ever heard! never mind they started out as “one flesh” human (Adam) in Gen 1 until God “formed” them in Gen 2. I guess the above John interpretation is needed to espouse patriarchy? Heaven forbid God saw them as total equals before the sin of patriarchy became a hermeneutical virtue. )

  269. To Muff Potter and Southwestern Discomfort,
    Espousing Patriarchy???? I have put forth the documentation. I do not lie or need to. Your absurd statement that I am lying (though free speech) is judgmental, ignorant and asinine.

  270. I have a feeling that John’s statement about cancer being caused by anal sex is an elaboration and/or gross misunderstanding of a *theory* about preeclampsia. To quote from the Wikipedia article on preeclampsia:

    “Another evolutionary hypothesis for vulnerability to preeclampsia is the idea of ensuring pair-bonding between the mother and father and paternal investment in the fetus.[19] Researchers posit the idea that preeclampsia serves as an adaptation for the mother to terminate investment in a fetus that might have an unavailable paternal donor, as determined by repeated semen exposure of the paternal donor to the mother.[19] Various studies have shown that women who frequently had exposure to partners’ semen before conception had a reduced risk of preeclampsia.[19] Also, subsequent pregnancies by the same paternal donor had a reduced risk of preeclampsia while subsequent pregnancies by a different paternal donor had a higher risk of developing preeclampsia.[19]”

    I’d only note that I am my mother’s first child and was a honeymoon baby (born nine months, two weeks after marriage). My mother nearly died from preeclampsia during/after delivery. Given that preeclampsia can often lead to maternal death, I would have to say this theory of a “beneficial” evolutionary reason for preeclampsia doesn’t make sense at all to me. And it says nothing about the alleged cancer link John talked about.

    (The only reason I know about this is because, years ago, I wanted to find out more regarding the circumstances of why my legal name is misspelled on my birth certificate. In short, my mom was barely out of the woods when she gave the information to the registrar, hence, misspelled name.)

  271. John wrote:

    To Muff Potter and Southwestern Discomfort,
    Espousing Patriarchy???? I have put forth the documentation. I do not lie or need to. Your absurd statement that I am lying (though free speech) is judgmental, ignorant and asinine.

    Your documentation is 36 years old. It even predates the identification of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (aka AIDS). Do you have anything newer? Anything?

  272. John, you copied that language herehttp://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0088.html. Literally the ONLY citation is allegedly found in a single article from 1977. It makes no sense and runs counter to what we actually know about the causes of cancer. Seriously, if you’re looking for ways to justify your opposition to homosexuality by equating it with anal sex, there is real valid information out there. This. Isn’t. It.

  273. @ John:
    That is one study that seems a bit isolated and could be dated. Things have changed a lot since that study was printed. I looked for others but was unsuccessful but I am a bit weary.

  274. 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.

    Have you been conferring with Kevin Swanson?

  275. The statement is what is. I can only believe how much more severe the conditions are now since that data was introduced. Most of my data is old. Some of my documentation on Homosexuality actually goes back two thousand years. dee wrote:

    @ John:
    That is one study that seems a bit isolated and could be dated. Things have changed a lot since that study was printed. I looked for others but was unsuccessful but I am a bit weary.

  276. @ dee:
    John wrote:

    I have put forth the documentation

    Could you help me to understand what you believe that the study is saying in the big picture? Secondly, is there any updated study? I can’t seem to find any.

  277. John wrote:

    Some of my documentation on Homosexuality actually goes back two thousand years.

    The Bible teaches morals but it is not a scientific textbook.

  278. burntnorton wrote:

    is it from the same guy who did the research establishing that women on the pill have thousands of dead babies in their uterine lining?

    We call him, affectionately, Kevin “Womb Tomb” Swanson.

  279. De, that is not what I was referring to.dee wrote:

    John wrote:

    Some of my documentation on Homosexuality actually goes back two thousand years.

    The Bible teaches morals but it is not a scientific textbook.

  280. To our readers in this thread

    I am off to bed. Due to the subject matter, lots of comments are ending up in automatic moderation- gays, race, sex, etc. It is the perfect storm for any filter. There isn’t much that I can do about it. So, if your comment ends up in moderation, I promise it is not due to some nefarious reasons. When I get up in the AM, I will approve all that landed there. That is, after some strong java.

  281. @ John:

    John, Some of us are not Calvinistic and do not believe in a determinist god. Some of us have studied it intensely and simply disagree with the filter used for that hermeneutic.

  282. An Attorney wrote:

    Why can not one be an evangelical and a political liberal?

    Well, you and I are both Christian and politically liberal but I’m not sure that evangelicals allow that. :-) Don’t know why it is, really. Sometimes I wonder whether we worship different gods, or different sides of God.

    Of course there are simply basic differences that seem to run along lines of personality: one emphasizes individual responsibility and personal morality while another emphasizes fairness and compassion. It’s not necessarily that one excludes the other; it’s a matter of priorities.

    There’s a difference between the concrete and abstract thinker, too.

    Another division is how people believe the world to be structured: hierarchical or egalitarian. What is power and authority? Maybe this goes back to the kind of god we worship?

    Many evangelicals prioritize markets over people which, IMO is a misapplication of freedom and responsibility, and at bottom, shows a lack of love for others because the market merely structures the flow of money and I think all structures are made for man, not man for structures. What do you think?

  283. “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.”

    So the one flesh union is all about sex. That sounds about right as that is about all we hear about these days from so many pastors. (I still get the creeps thinking about CJ Mahaney’s discussing details of his sex life in public. It gets old, pastors. The entire comp movement has been about sex when you strip away all the flowery talk)

    Problem is John’s “signals” would work in pre marital and adulterous hetero sex, too. And that would NOT be “one flesh union” in your view, would it? I mean, IF it is about sex….

  284. Patrice wrote:

    Another division is how people believe the world to be structured: hierarchical or egalitarian. What is power and authority? Maybe this goes back to the kind of god we worship?

    There is nothing egalitarian about the government micromanaging our lives. That is oligarchy. And that is what is happening because the laws they pass for us do NOT apply to them. That is NOT egalitarian. That is power and authority. The left is just as controlling as the right albeit over different issues. The right calls me Jezebel. The Left calls me greedy and selfish.

  285. This will be my final response. No, the one flesh union is not just about sex. It is a special bonding between a man and a woman regulated by God. This is another example of comments that want to judge a writers intent and lump him all in the same boat. Good night.Anon 1 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.”

    So the one flesh union is all about sex. That sounds about right as that is about all we hear about these days from so many pastors. (I still get the creeps thinking about CJ Mahaney’s discussing details of his sex life in public. It gets old, pastors. The entire comp movement has been about sex when you strip away all the flowery talk)

    Problem is John’s “signals” would work in pre marital and adulterous hetero sex, too. And that would NOT be “one flesh union” in your view, would it? I mean, IF it is about sex….

  286. An Attorney wrote:

    But A&E has freedom of speech too, as in what their money and facilities will be used to put into the public arena. There freedom of speech allows them to refuse access to their property (money, equipment, studios) to promote something they do not wish to endorse.

    I think our businesses are generally so corrupted by the all-consuming concern for profit that it is the only thing which is allowed voice, not the broader concerns of an arts and entertainment organization, as such. So as it is, only profit has the privilege of free speech, and you are correct.

    If Phil is saying these things only outside his job, I’m not sure why they think they can suspend him for saying what he wishes, even if it impinges on their profit, unless it’s in a contract somewhere that their profit should be the workers’ primary concern, 24/7.

    If they had broader established values, A&E would have a better basis on which to reject Phil’s belief system. But if so, I don’t see that they would’ve hired him in the first place, because he’s only ever been himself all along. FWIW

  287. “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.’

    If seminal fluid is not about sex what is it about? If there is another meaning why not write it out here? I am not sure how anyone could read that paragraph and not come away with the understanding that you think one flesh union is about sex.

  288. @ Anon 1:
    Gov’t is egalitarian if it is the arm of the people, as was intended in our Constitution and kept to its limitations as established in the Bill of Rights.

    As our gov’t stands, though, you are correct, it is an oligarchy—a group of people at the top whose only concerns are their own power and acquisition. Our gov’t officials are toadies to the real powers, the transnational corporations and banks that seem to have taken over large parts of the globe. And then there’s an international surveillance industry whose goal seems to drain privacy from everyone everywhere. Which also appears to be about keeping the transnats at the top and the citizenry in their place to be rent-extracted to death.

  289. @ Patrice:
    I think a responsible nation takes care of its poor, disabled, elderly, orphans, etc, and I don’t think that can be managed via religious/community charity. But we are not a responsible nation.

  290. @ An Attorney:
    So why in the world would we not work to put people like them front and center, as representatives to the nature of our God in us, rather than people like Phil, and oh, all the other celebrity Christians on tv, in gov’t, etc, etc? It’s embarrassing!

  291. I grabbed a bite to eat and I almost choked on my food!! So tonight on The Wartburg Watch I learned that women do not have the plumbing to practice anal sex!! Don’t tell Mark Driscoll that!! :-P

    I’m still laughing…of the things I learn!! LOL….

  292. @ Patrice: oh, there are definitely evangelicals who are politically liberal, but they’re deffo not part of the Culture Wars crowd.

  293. Muff Potter wrote:

    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.

    I curious John, can you point us to the peer reviewed science publications which show this to a factual and repeatable mechanism?

    Thanks Muff….I’m beginning to have flashbacks to the ‘wombs full of teeny tiny corpses’ style of Christian medical science. I would love to see the evidence for this one.

  294. dee wrote:

    burntnorton wrote:

    is it from the same guy who did the research establishing that women on the pill have thousands of dead babies in their uterine lining?

    We call him, affectionately, Kevin “Womb Tomb” Swanson.

    Guess who didn’t read down the whole thread? :)

  295. @ numo:

    Yes, and it’s driving Christian speakers, leaders, and celebrities crazy that 6 million Evangelicals voted Democrat last presidential election. The mailing lists I’m on were frothing at the mouth about how those 6 million didn’t have any Christian convictions, and how much they needed training in Christian faith.

  296. @ Anon 1:
    My point was to show how unfair and over the top the caricaturism is related to political convictions vs. religious convictions. Your reaction proves my point. You fell right into the trap. Thanks.

  297. @ John:
    Humans have always sought to understand how we came to exist and what our destiny is, and that impetus resulted in the creation of many religions as humans sought answers. Of course, we, as Christians, believe that the God we believe in is the answer. But to say humans cannot seek God until he calls flies in the face of all of human history.

  298. An Attorney wrote:

    Humans have always sought to understand how we came to exist and what our destiny is, and that impetus resulted in the creation of many religions as humans sought answers….to say humans cannot seek God until he calls flies in the face of all of human history.

    Yeah, I think that John’s insistence of it, underlined by his belief that we are no longer made in the image of God, shows up in his lack of concern about accuracy in biology of human sexual systems.

    He hasn’t thought it necessary to gain knowledge before pontification and hasn’t developed any good tools by which to evaluate research in the field. I suspect this is because he doesn’t understand that God is also deeply involved with all that “out there”, upholding and revealing Him/Her self in all things.

  299. @ numo:
    This is a very dumb question, but what is the definition of “evangelicals”? Who all sits under that umbrella? Or maybe the better question is who doesn’t, besides Catholics?

  300. @ Patrice:
    Patrice, Politically and economically, I am fairly conservative on many issues, libertarian on some, and progressive on others. I firmly believe in the broadest application of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as the 13th and following amendments. I do not like the role that money plays in politics, because I think it demeans the process. I do not like government in the bedroom, in private medical decisions, etc., but also believe that corporations should be regulated to prevent abuse of those not capable of protecting themselves in the economic sphere. (e.g., payday lending abuses, car title loan scams, abusive foreclosure practices). I will believe that corporations are people when their entire board of directors go to prison for the crime committed by the corporation. Until then corporations should not be funding political campaigns, etc.

    OTOH I am not a laborite. I do not believe that unions are necessarily bad, but I do think that their involvement in politics has had adverse effects in the past and that coercive practices should not be allowed. I have not studied specific solutions and will not comment on them.

    I have worked for, in various ways and roles, in order of time, Republicans in a state legislature, a Republican U.S. senator, a moderately conservative Democrat member of the Congress, a Democrat gubernatorial candidate (the R incumbent was a crook), a Republican candidate for local office, etc. I have made small donations to campaigns on both sides of the aisle. When I ran for office as a D, the board of the newspaper asked why, given my positions, I was not running as an R — to which my answer was, the incumbent is an R that was a D until the previous election
    and should have retired instead of changing party, because he was no longer competent, and he had all of the R funding tied up.

    I firmly believe that, because the government is so heavily involved in the economy (and there it no way to avoid that), as a people we have the responsibility to maintain a safety net for those for whom the economy does not provide and who cannot otherwise provide for themselves.

    I believe that the state should stay out of religion but that religious people can be political, and religion can motivate political involvement and choices. But when the church seeks to grant tax deduction or exemption for donations that pay a pastor an enormous salary, that church and pastor have consented to not using those tax deductible funds for political purposes. Give up political speech or give up the tax deductibility.

    So, I am not easily put into any typical political box. With candidates, my preference is for competency and honesty. As long as people are of good will and willing to work together, I believe in divided government. It prevents tyranny. When one side gets too powerful, I tend to favor the other.

    I am an evangelical Christian, and my loyalty is to the person and teachings of Jesus, to my family, and to my country, in that order. I am not loyal to any political party or ideology (other than democracy) and generally not to any human institution.

  301. @ John:
    Getting back to the original issues in the Post, I think this is a perfect example of intent being beside the point. Intent is not magic. It cannot render words less offensive or change their explicit or implicit meaning. No one was judging John’s intent, they were merely analyzing and critiquing the meaning and effects of his words. Quibbling with the interpretation is fine, although if a large number of readers interpret your words in a way that you disagree with it is probably time to rethink how you express yourself, but complaining about your intent/heart/whatever being judged is unfair and inappropriate. It comes off as an attempt to distract from the conversation about the merits of your statement and, when it comes in response to your words being called offensive, to vast yourself and not the party claiming offense as the victim.

    Intent is not magic. Words have meaning and effects derived from the audience’s and the speaker’s history and culture. When you say something that is hurtful to a large number of people, your intent is irrelevant to the hurt you caused. Whining about how you didn’t mean it that way is a rather transparent attempt to wiggle out of responsibility for the hurt you caused.

  302. burntnorton wrote:

    Intent is not magic. Words have meaning and effects derived from the audience’s and the speaker’s history and culture. When you say something that is hurtful to a large number of people, your intent is irrelevant to the hurt you caused. Whining about how you didn’t mean it that way is a rather transparent attempt to wiggle out of responsibility for the hurt you caused.

    Causing “hurt” is not necessarily bad. If I confiscate my teenager’s motorcycle because he is going to get killed with his irresponsible behavior on the road, it may “hurt” but it may also save his life. If I tell a patient that they need to quit smoking cigarettes or they risk death, and if I refuse to be “nice” about it or change the message in any way-so what if it “hurts” to hear that. If my daughter is in love with a bum and drops out of school to hang out with this bum, and I shut off her access to her college money in response to that, and she lives with the consequences, then I have “hurt” her but also perhaps saved her from worse consequences.

    Everybody get on the internet, including but not limited to cdc.gov, and get informed (I am giving people the benefit of the doubt in the assumption that some may not actually be informed) and understand that I believe that trying to be “nice” in the face of what some folks do to themselves is just not an option if “nice” leaves people in their ignorance and self-destructive behavior.

  303. @ An Attorney:
    Thanks. I am more liberal than you, particularly as to the nature/limits of capitalism and the use of (functional rather than complicit) unions, but I voted Dem only twice in 38 yrs. There are deep disagreements on the left end of the spectrum. It is not a behemoth, as many conservatives think. Many are independent, for eg.

    I think our mainstream media has failed its duties, having become an organ of propaganda via corporate and govt’ capture. We do not know the complete story about most political and economic issues and that has made an ineffectual citizenry. Thus we become entrenched against each other rather than against the powers-that-should-not-be, out of ignorance and distress.

    I think the same syndrome is increasing in the church community, plainly seen in the recent treatment of Mefford. It’s also apparent in many Evangelicals’ response to DD and A&E. That’s why people like Deb/Dee are so important—they understand that good reporting is, by nature, adversarial of corruption in power systems and they refuse to be bought. woot

  304. @ Nancy:
    Except the issue isn’t people who point out that anal sex is riskier than other forms of sexual activity, which is a well documented fact. It is people like John making up nonsense or people like Robertson reducing gay people to a particular sex act, saying that sex act is disgusting, amd saying or implying that beimg gay is wrong and/or disgustimg because that sex act is disgusting. And thn there’s linking being gay to terrorism, saying gay people are ruthless and murderous, and otherwise villifying or dehumanizing them.

  305. @ Patrice: not a dumb question at all! I’m not the right person to offer a definition, though -but there are histories of evangelicalism out there; am blanking on titles at the moment.

  306. @ Patrice: Google “evangelicalism definition” and some good links come up fast. I’d post one (What on College’s), but am using phone right now, so…

  307. Anonymous wrote:

    Go to rural America today. A large percentage of people live on Medicaid. Illegitimacy, drug use, lack of education are rampant.
    And this is true among White people as much as it is non-White.

    Sorry. This quote is not true. Are you aware we had a lynching era in the United States. Black people were routinely lynched, murdered, and robbed. Their homes and businesses were set on fire. There was no recourse from the police and often the police openly participated in these acts. This is why the idyllic longing for the past is so one sided and ridiculous. The good old days were only good for some and violence and crime has always been a part of American history.

  308. An Attorney wrote:

    @ John:
    Humans have always sought to understand how we came to exist and what our destiny is, and that impetus resulted in the creation of many religions as humans sought answers. Of course, we, as Christians, believe that the God we believe in is the answer. But to say humans cannot seek God until he calls flies in the face of all of human history.

    burntnorton wrote:

    @ John:
    Getting back to the original issues in the Post, I think this is a perfect example of intent being beside the point. Intent is not magic. It cannot render words less offensive or change their explicit or implicit meaning. No one was judging John’s intent, they were merely analyzing and critiquing the meaning and effects of his words. Quibbling with the interpretation is fine, although if a large number of readers interpret your words in a way that you disagree with it is probably time to rethink how you express yourself, but complaining about your intent/heart/whatever being judged is unfair and inappropriate. It comes off as an attempt to distract from the conversation about the merits of your statement and, when it comes in response to your words being called offensive, to vast yourself and not the party claiming offense as the victim.

    Intent is not magic. Words have meaning and effects derived from the audience’s and the speaker’s history and culture. When you say something that is hurtful to a large number of people, your intent is irrelevant to the hurt you caused. Whining about how you didn’t mean it that way is a rather transparent attempt to wiggle out of responsibility for the hurt you caused.

    I caused no hurt sir. I simply stated what Scripture says. I do know that it is offensive as my Lord said it would be.

  309. You are correct sir to say that people in history have always sought their destiny and the meaning of life and its origins. My basis for my statements are Scriptural and I realize there are many who profess Christ yet do not accept its truth. I am quite familiar with hermeneutics and the method of proper interpretation and I stand by what I said. Men, born in their natural state are incapable of seeking God unless illuminated b the Holy Spirit. Although God has placed eternity in the heart of man and even a knowledge of Himself. Scripture indicates that men have suppressed that knowledge in unrighteousness because their nature cannot acknowledge the truth.

    “There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, all have become useless. There is no one who does what is good what is good…Their is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-12, 18.An Attorney wrote:

    @ John:
    Humans have always sought to understand how we came to exist and what our destiny is, and that impetus resulted in the creation of many religions as humans sought answers. Of course, we, as Christians, believe that the God we believe in is the answer. But to say humans cannot seek God until he calls flies in the face of all of human history.

  310. My statements Anon 1 wrote:

    @ John:

    John, Some of us are not Calvinistic and do not believe in a determinist god. Some of us have studied it intensely and simply disagree with the filter used for that hermeneutic.

    burntnorton wrote:

    @ John:
    Getting back to the original issues in the Post, I think this is a perfect example of intent being beside the point. Intent is not magic. It cannot render words less offensive or change their explicit or implicit meaning. No one was judging John’s intent, they were merely analyzing and critiquing the meaning and effects of his words. Quibbling with the interpretation is fine, although if a large number of readers interpret your words in a way that you disagree with it is probably time to rethink how you express yourself, but complaining about your intent/heart/whatever being judged is unfair and inappropriate. It comes off as an attempt to distract from the conversation about the merits of your statement and, when it comes in response to your words being called offensive, to vast yourself and not the party claiming offense as the victim.

    Intent is not magic. Words have meaning and effects derived from the audience’s and the speaker’s history and culture. When you say something that is hurtful to a large number of people, your intent is irrelevant to the hurt you caused. Whining about how you didn’t mean it that way is a rather transparent attempt to wiggle out of responsibility fo
    Anon 1 wrote:

    @ John:

    John, Some of us are not Calvinistic and do not believe in a determinist god. Some of us have studied it intensely and simply disagree with the filter used for that hermeneutic.

    Sir, I have no knowledge or saying anything on this post involving Calvinism or its tenets.

  311. To Burnt Norton,
    For forty two years there have ben many people who cannot receive my biblical exposition. The words have to fall on the good soil. It is not necessary to re evaluate my message or method. Christ has used me in spite of my fallibility as a human. Let him who has ears to hear understand. People have every right to disagree but I am grateful that my communication skills are not left to themselves and that it is the Holy Spirit that illuminates the truth to people.

  312. John wrote:

    For forty two years there have ben many people who cannot receive my biblical exposition

    This is a warning. I know that you *know* that you are absolutely correct in what you say about Scripture. And, of course, you have the clear illumination of the Holy Spirit. How nice for you.

    But I am getting tired of this conversation. Please stop cutting and pasting your superior view on things. I am getting confused and a bit irritated. Your comments are going into moderation and I am going to be in and out today so things might slow down drastically.

  313. That is fine Dee. I thought this was an open forum where even different views could be shared and discussed, but I see that that is not true. I shall indeed cease any further comments. However, I do wish everyone a truly Happy holiday and a blessed New Year.

  314. burntnorton wrote:

    Intent is not magic. Words have meaning and effects derived from the audience’s and the speaker’s history and culture.

    This is fundamentally incorrect. A word (or words) mean only what an author intends them to mean. It isn’t magic. It is what enables you to say to someone, “That’s not what I meant.” Think about it: Misunderstanding would be impossible unless you can mean something with your words.

    The effects of those words are more complex because it stems both from the audience and the speaker. Until they have commonality, communication will be difficult.

    Robertson may have poorly communicated (and I think he did). I don’t profess to know what he was talking about exactly, but he is the one who gets to determine that. So if you wonder what black folks he was talking about, then we need to ask him. Short of that, it is unfair for anyone else to insist they know is a violation of fundamental hermeneutics. You would not allow anyone to treat your words that way. And we shouldn’t do it to others.

  315. Wait…so is John who’s talking about the image of God the same John who’s talking about anal sex causing cancer?

    And this John/both these Johns are different from John A. who announced he was leaving early on in this thread?

    I think more original handles are needed. There are entirely too many Johns and Marks on this blog. Thankfully the many Jeffs have always put initials after their names. ;-)

    I’m tempted to suggest reading the middle section of Eliot’s The Naming of Cats, only with the word “cat” replaced by “commenter.”

  316. An Attorney wrote:

    One of the things political liberals want to see done, and work to get done, is to see that widows, orphans, children in general, the disabled, the elderly, etc., have food, medical care, shelter and access to education. Where as political conservatives want to see less money spent on such things and more money in the pockets of the already well off.

    This is not entirely accurate on both ends. Liberals routinely work to deny equal opportunity in education by denying school choice (even private schools). If they wanted kids to be educated, they would disband the NEA and insist on results. They would give parents the right to pick their children’s school according to where the parents think that education will best happen. Liberals have increased government dependency which doesn’t actually help people. They have increased regulation that makes it harder for people to have jobs and make a living at those jobs.

    Conservatives wish for people to be able to keep their own money, rather than have it confiscated to give to someone else. And speaking of this, remember the liberal’s bailout plan in the last 5-6 years? You know where most of that money went? To Wall Street.

    The Republicans are scarcely better than the Democrats in this stuff. We need a complete overall, but won’t likely get it any time soon. But let’s be careful about misrepresenting the other side. It won’t be true, even if it gets repeated.

  317. @ dee:
    He also equated homosexuals and drunks with terrorists. Yep, my friendly neighborhood transvestite is exactly the same as someone who blows people’s legs off with a nail bomb.

  318. @ Patrice: no, it really *is* a legit question!

    And Google isn’t exactly the single best way to find things out on topics like this one.

  319. Here is a problem—
    John wrote:

    My basis for my statements are Scriptural and I realize there are many who profess Christ yet do not accept its truth.

    You presume that your interpretation of scripture is truth but that is arrogant. We are not talking here of acceptance of Christ. We are talking about a way of looking at the world. Yours causes you problems as you live on this earth. It shows in how you understand the verses you quoted:
    John wrote:

    “There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, all have become useless. There is no one who does what is good what is good…Their is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-12, 18

    You force a literal truth from this but you can’t do so without denying plain observation. After all, it is patently obvious that not everyone has become useless, and that there are very few who do no good at all for anyone anywhere. And lots of people seek God even if they don’t get to the true one—even in that era people were looking for Him/Her and getting stuck on idols of all sorts.

    God would never require us to choose between Him/Her and observation but your interpretation requires you to have lying eyes.

    I have seen this problem in others, too, and worked from it back into scripture to see what may be the source of it. Now, I’m sure you see my process to be backwards and upsidedown because you believe that all worthy truth is in the Bible and anything outside of it must be fit into your interpretation of it. But this runs you into endless difficulties, not least of which is an inevitable rejection of science because it is based on observation.

    God is so much bigger than you allow. S/He still runs the show and all goodness and truth is His/Hers and can be accepted with gratitude! But you are too insecure to step out with the Holy Spirit to discover those truths, and too confident of your interpretation of scripture to see what else it might be saying. So, obviously I think your approach is upsidedown and backwards.

    But we both accept Christ. See? Many people on this thread are offering you a bigger broader way to approach truth, but you say “no” and shove us away with a little dig about people who profess Christ but don’t accept it.

    So what about that, John? Is that the offense of the gospel, or just plain ole human rudeness?

  320. @ Former CLC’er: gotcha! I know bolling (a bit), but never really have visited your ‘hood.

    btw, i can see why DD would appeal, given what you described re. stress and more. I hate horror stuff, yet i’ve been watching that new adaptation of Dracula that’s on NBC, likely for similar reasons. It’s pretty over the top, though not always intentionally so. at any rate, there are things about it that I actually like – I guess it’s the tv equivalent of junk food. And there are a number of talented people in the cast. the outright vampire stuff is not my cuppa, but Dracula posing as a self-made American millionaire who’s trying to destroy his opponents by buying them out (most are rich industrialists looking to make a killing on oil in the Middle East) is pretty amusing!

  321. @ Patrice: just fyi, Dee’s put his comments in the moderation queue, so I wouldn’t be expecting a reply from him anytime soon…

  322. 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.

  323. 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.

  324. 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.

  325. @ 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.

  326. @ 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.

  327. 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.

  328. 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

  329. 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.

  330. @ 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.

  331. @ 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.

  332. 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!

  333. 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?

  334. 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.

  335. 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 :)

  336. 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.”

  337. 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.

  338. 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…

  339. 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.

  340. @ 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.

  341. 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.

  342. 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.

  343. 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

  344. 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.

  345. 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.

  346. 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.

  347. 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.

  348. 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…

  349. 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

  350. 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/

  351. 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?

  352. 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.

  353. 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

  354. 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.

  355. 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?

  356. 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.

  357. 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.

  358. @ 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.

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

  360. 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

  361. @ 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…)

  362. @ 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.

  363. 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).

  364. 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.

  365. @ 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.

  366. 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.

  367. 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.

  368. 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…

  369. 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.

  370. 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.

  371. @ 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!

  372. @ 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?”

  373. @ 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.

  374. 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.

  375. 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.

  376. @ 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.

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

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

  378. 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.

  379. 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.

  380. 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?

  381. 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.

  382. 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.

  383. @ 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.

  384. @ 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.

  385. 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…

  386. 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.

  387. 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 :)

  388. 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!

  389. @ 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.

  390. 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.

  391. @ 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…

  392. @ 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.

  393. 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.

  394. @ 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.

  395. 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.

  396. @ 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.

  397. @ 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.

  398. 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.

  399. 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.

  400. 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?

  401. 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.

  402. My apologies messed that up

    Just wanted to challenge the liberals never get kicked off for being liberal meme

    Simply not true – remember Olbermann

    As I understand it your television depends upon advertising. Saying something which was pretty clearly racist is going to lose you your advertisers so it’s hardly as surprise that he’s been sacked.

    Merry Christmas

  403. 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 :)

  404. 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.

  405. @ 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.”

  406. @ 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.

  407. 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.

  408. 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

  409. 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.

  410. @ 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.

  411. 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.

  412. numo wrote:

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

    By calling someone a troll? That is not simple disagreement

  413. @ 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.

  414. 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

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

  416. 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.)

  417. 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.

  418. 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.

  419. 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

  420. 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.

  421. @ 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.

  422. 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.

  423. 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.

  424. Daisy–excellent, very brave post!

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

  425. @ 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.

  426. @ 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.

  427. @ 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.)

  428. @ 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?

  429. @ 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.

  430. @ 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.

  431. @ 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!

  432. 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? :roll:

    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

  433. @ 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.

  434. @ 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.”)

  435. 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?

  436. @ 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.

  437. @ 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).

  438. 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.

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

  440. @ 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…

  441. 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…

  442. 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

  443. 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.

  444. 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.

  445. @ 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.

  446. 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?

  447. 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.