Phil Robertson, A&E, and Free Speech

[Greg Long]

You may be right, Greg, but I just don’t think we can judge for certain based on the lack of context and the full quote. Don’t you think it’s reasonable to assume that the reporter (who mocked the Robertsons and their faith throughout the article) might take something out of context?

Also, as to your point about Phil Robertsons and the DD folks being some kind of Christian “spokesmen.” Who is calling them that? They certainly don’t speak for me, and I’m the one defending them on here.

Here is the point that everyone must keep in mind: Phil Robertson was suspended from his job simply for publicly declaring his belief in God’s view of homosexuality. “Well, it’s a TV show, and he’s in the public eye…” Yes, but think of the implications for any other newscaster, sportscaster, etc. And if you think it will stop with TV personalities…

Another point to make. This morning CNN was repeatedly playing a clip from 2010 where Phil was preaching at Berean Bible Church somewhere in Pennsylvania. In the clip he was paraphrasing Romans 1:26-31, but the brief clip made it seem like he was saying homosexuals are murderers and God-haters. (Of course, CNN had no idea he was kind-of quoting the Bible, they thought it was just a “rant.”) Do you understand that we are nearing the time when quoting Romans 1 will be considered hate speech and cause you to lose your job?

Could be he was taken completely out of context. That is why I am not calling Robertson a racist. I was saying though that I do recognize that kind of thinking the article attributes to him. It is a very common kind of thinking in Lousiana.

I’m sure you are correct, Greg, as the article below indicates. It says attitudes like Phil’s are widespread among people of his generation in the south, but also that we should not judge them as “racist” based on such comments (not that you are, I’m talking about people in general) but instead based on their actual actions towards black people.

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

more support for the “fake controversy” theory: New episodes will include Phil

[Andrew K.]

I think we all know that vulgarity was not the reason for the suspension. He expressed a culturally heretical position and is now being punished for it.

That is why we should take notice of this case; it is a harbinger of things to come.

If he had put it in better words, I don’t think he would have been suspended. But no, he had to talk about polygamy, beastiality, body parts, etc. Not helpful. By “standing with DD”, we are tying ourselves to vulgar, insensitive speech. Let him take his time out, and return a wiser man.

I have to wonder about some of your complaints guys. He made an argument from scripture and nature regarding homosexuality. He could have said even more explicit things than the medical terms used. Are we really to the point that we have to whine over the use of medical terms? Is that now filthy speech also?

I don’t watch DD and never will. However, the sissification of reality is everywhere. Whining over the use of anus and vagina just leaves me shaking my head.

It is the only thing being talked about here for the last 24 hours, and it has dominated Drudge for the last two days. Just was on Drudge and caught this link:

http://blogs.cbn.com/beltwaybuzz/archive/2013/12/20/president-obama-watches-duck-dynasty.aspx

?? So when does Obama weigh in?

Yes, I read several of the articles, and I know that his opponents are eager to misconstrue him. That is exactly why he should be gracious in his speech. He wasn’t. He was crass, and he opened wide a door for his opponents. We obviously disagree on that point.

Why were the “likes” not included with the revamped Sharper Iron? Now I will feel more compelled to comment rather than give my hearty click of approval.

[Wayne Wilson]

Why were the “likes” not included with the revamped Sharper Iron? Now I will feel more compelled to comment rather than give my hearty click of approval.

I “like” this post!

Watch this 15 min interview from Piers Morgan, if you can stand it. I appluad Michael Brown’s stand for Christ in this interview on this controversey.

“Like”

I have purposely set back and watched the comments here at SI about this entire embroilment.
I’m amused by how many want to condemn Phil Robertson for his (I went back to the comments above and checked, some of you called them, “crude, crass, vulgar”, comments.
Do you realize how much the church has fallen into the trap of the sodomy lobby? We have accepted their terms, (homosexual, gay, trangendered, bi-sexual, etc.) which is exactly what they wanted.
How many of you have read “The Marketing of Evil” by David Kupelian? How many of you have read the book he quoted extensively from in Chapter 1 “Marketing Blitz” ? He quotes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen from their book, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s”.
Quoting from “After the Ball”

“The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premis of goodthink and badthink in “1984” “to one extent or another, the separability -and manipulability - of the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign”

Now quoting from Kupelian:

“Separability? Manipulability? Allow me to translate this psychological marketing jargon: We can change what people actually think and feel by breaking their current negative associations with our cause and replacing them with positive associations.
Simple case in point: homosexual activists call their movement “gay rights.” This accomplishes two major objective: (1) Use of the word gay rather than homosexual masks the controverrsial sexual behavior involved and accentuates instead a vague but positive-sounding cultural identity—gay, which, after all, once meant “happy”; and (2) describing their battle from the get-go as one over “rights” implies homosexuals are being denied the basic freedoms citizenship that others enjoy.
So merely by using the term gay rights, and persuading politicians and the media to adopt this terminology, activists seeking to transform America have framed the terms of the debate in their favor almost before the contest begins. (And in public relations warfare, he who frames the terms of the debate almost always wins. The abortion rights movement has prevailed in that war precisely because it succeeded, early on, in framing the debate as a question, not of abortion, but of choice. The abortion vanguard correctly anticipated that it would be far easier to defend an abstract, positive-sounding idea like choice than the unrestricted slaughter of unborn babies.)”

I’m not going to quote more of it for the moment. Rather I want to say that what Kirk and Madsen said they were going to do, is exactly where we are at today. The public now accepts sodomy as “just another lifestyle” rather than a devient, perverted, abnormal and unnatural act. Our culture has become desenstitized to what sodomy really entails.
So along comes Phil Robertson, a supposed red-neck, simpleton, and he says the following.

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

They hate him because he accurately described in a few sentences the truth, the reality of what sodomy is all about. And it does not go along with the image they want to portray of themselves. It makes them appear unseemly, unnatural and gross. So they lash out at Phil in hopes of silencing him.
And people here at SI are upset because he spoke truthfully about their unnatural actions.
I don’t get it. I really don’t. Has the church become so PC that we refuse to point out the truth of what sodomy really is?
I’m a farmer. I deal with the results of my livestocks bodily functions every day. It’s part of nature. Using euphamisms and polite language to make it “socially acceptable” is a fools game. It’s male bovine effluvia.
Why fall into the trap that the sodomy lobby has set for us(the church and the culture) by cleaning up their actions and behaviors using language which hides the depravity of their actions?
Why not do like Phil and let your Yes, Yes and your No, No. Quit using the prefered terminology of the sodomy lobby and instead using plain, clear, factual language which points to the evil they do?
Here’s another guy”s take on the point I’m trying to make.
http://theapologeticsgroup.com/history-politics/taking-the-sex-out-of-homosexuality/
I have more thoughts to share, but this one will probably cause a few of you to blow a gasket, so I’ll save the other stuff till later.

Excellent post Tom, couldn’t agree with you more!