Duck Dynasty … and the God Given Right to be Stupid

Duck DynastyJust when the paranoia over the so-called War on Christmas was cooling down, here comes Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty family stirring things up all over again.

By now you know that Phil gave an interview to GQ in which he said some not-so-kind things about gays.  A&E, the network that airs Duck Dynasty – the most popular reality show on television – suspended him, proving what we already know:  that in Hollywood the gay lobby has a lot more clout than the conservative Christian lobby.  However, in that sliver of America between Manhattan and Malibu, it’s the other way around.  And so, the backlash kicked in.  Conservatives — especially conservative Christians — are mad as hell and they’re telling us they’re not going to take it anymore.  They say they’ll boycott A&E if Phil isn’t brought back.  (He will be.  Tens of millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions, are on the line.  Have no fear Duck Dynasty fans: Phil will return.)

All Phil did, many on the right have been telling us, is say what he believed.  That seems to be enough for conservatives.  If you say what you honestly believe then the thought police should back off.  This might be a good time to note that all Martin Bashir did was say what he believes, specifically that Sarah Palin is an idiot and that someone should take a crap and urinate in her mouth.

That was too much even for liberals who normally like Bashir’s far left politics.  He lost his job at the most liberal news network on cable TV.  I don’t recall conservatives telling us that he was being persecuted for nothing more than saying what he honestly believed.

What both sides understood in the Bashir case is that there are limits.  There are lines that no one should cross.  Bashir’s vulgar, vile comments crossed more than a few lines and just about no one was sorry to see him go.  But bashing gays, if your inspiration is the Bible, is something else altogether, at least as far as conservative Christians are concerned.

So now we hear that Phil Robertson’s constitutional free speech rights are being violated.  Sorry.  They’re not.  No one has a right to be on TV.  When Bill O’Reilly asked me what I thought about the brouhaha I said that Phil had every right to say that “gay behavior,” as he put it, might lead to sex with animals.  I said he had every right to paraphrase the Bible and say that gays were in the same group as swindlers and slanderers and drunkards and male prostitutes – which is what Paul told the Corinthians 2000 years ago.

After making clear that Phil could say whatever he wants about gays I added that I had the right to say that Phil is an ignoramus.  I went on to say that A&E could suspend him, fire him, or do absolutely nothing about his remarks.  And for good measure I said that conservative Christians (or anybody else) could watch the show or boycott the show.

And then I added one more thought, the one that was most important to me.  I said that too often liberals reflexively defend trash, like Miley Cyrus – and too often conservatives reflexively defend ignorance.

Just because Phil got his ideas about gays from the Holy Bible doesn’t mean they’re not ugly and mean spirited. But to a lot of conservative Christians the Bible can never be ugly or mean spirited or wrong about anything.  It’s simply impossible.  So I don’t expect my conservative Christian friends to understand when I say that while in many cases religion can make people noble, sometimes it can make people stupid.

I think what Phil Robertson said was just plain ignorant.  How might “gay behavior” lead to having sex with a goat anymore than “straight behavior” would lead to the same thing?  Why is being gay like being a slanderer or a swindler or a drunkard?  Because Paul thought so Christians are supposed to believe this garbage two thousand years later?

I’ve always been honest with you, my readers.  We have disagreed over the years but I’ve always respected you enough not to pander. So let me be honest with you again:  I’m growing more and more weary of the culture war.  I’m growing more and more tired of liberals defending the indefensible and conservatives yelling about double standards because we’re not all circling the wagons for Phil Robertson.  I’m getting sick of both sides.

O’Reilly asked me what I would do with Phil if I had been running A&E.  I said I would have taken him off the show, but only for a while.  I’ve been thinking about that and I’d like to amend my answer.  I would not have suspended Phil Robertson.  I would not have fired him.  Instead, I would  have issued a statement saying that in America everyone should have the right to be an ignoramus once in a while.

 

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Will Swoboda

    I think GQ wanted the interview. Phil strikes me as a guy who can live without an interview. All the parties envolved knew where he stood on certain issues. Why do people today have to agree or be called a bigot, when it comes to homosexuality. I think history and tradition are on Phil’s side. A guy who willingly walked away from a career in the NFL, has a Master’s degree in Education, dresses the way he does and probably hasn’t shaved in about 15 years, is a multimillionaire and has raised a pretty close family isn’t the kind of person who is moved very much because others think he’s some kind of religious nut. Jesus himself didn’t make a whole bunch of friends, as a matter of fact, he was killed for what he said.

  • buckrodgers

    Phil Robertson is entitled to say any thing he wants period and when the white liberal power structure aims to high they end up shooting themselves in the foot, Duck Dynasty is not about politics it’s about money for A&E, and they love money more then GLAD, ask liberals like Bill Mahr who says he wants to pay more in taxes to please his liberal base, then becomes a greedy Republican when he hires the best tax accountant money can buy, or how about Tom Hanks who publicly says he cares about African Americans, then stands idly by when a white man,wearing a black face joins him on stage, while he was hosting a benefit show at his kids all white school, liberals are mostly whites americans who joined the peace and civil rights movement to avoid being sent to Vietnam, they only care about personal power and money, it doesn’t matter whether it’s the white journalist who runs around the country labeling everybody but themselves a bigot, elitist in Hollywood who’s golden rule seems to be DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO, or white politicians who view minorities,especially African Americans as a tool to keep them in power, before President Obama can change America, he has to change the way that Democrats treat minorities, while he gives the left most loyal supporters a seat at the table of power, because how can the President who was a community activist forget the way Harold Washington was treated when he saw first hand white democrats seizing power from the new mayor, with the slogan WE HAVE THE VOTES.

  • sandbeachprofessor

    although I disagree with your comments in this piece, I admire your cogent argument and still am a fan. I don’t have to always agree with you to know you are someone that examines issues and provide sound analysis.

  • buckrodgers

    Every single day another white liberal is running around labeling everybody who disagree with them a bigot, they are no different then any other white supremacist group including the Klu Klu Klan, just because they view themselves as special whites, who earned the right to live their personal lives like a bigot because they alone have saved minorities from being thrown back on the plantation by White and White Hispanics, Phil Robertson has a god giving right to his opinion, period, white liberals might think their the master race, but their nothing more then closet racist, who have been reduced to being President Obama white slaves, who have to bow down and worship their false god.

  • Jim

    Bernie, you said; Duck Dynasty…and the God given right to be stupid. Well, I say that you also proved that you have the God given right to be stupid when you said; I would not take the Bible seriously because it says that the earth is only 2000 yrs. old. Bernie, no where does the Bible say any such thing. You wrote God into your title for the Duck Dynasty article and then turned around and slapped God across the face when you made that false statement about the Word of God.

    • Josh

      Did he says the Earth was only 2,000 years old, or that Paul told Corinthians X and Y 2,000 years ago?

      As to the Earth’s age: I would have to go check for the exact Genesis deets, but there are many Christians who do argue that the Earth is only a few thousand years old (typically varies in range from 2+-10k), and these creationists use Biblical texts as their justification to say, despite what we objectively know, that the Earth is incredibly young.

      I don’t know where Phil comes down on this. I don’t know where any particular believer comes down on it unless they say. But there are many Christians out there, who pride themselves among the world’s righteous for being literalists, claiming that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that all the science in that regard is outright wrong.

      I mean, I doubt I’m telling you anything you don’t know here. This particular group has been trying hard for a long time to have their religion included in science classrooms, even having former President George W. Bush jumping on board with his “teach the controversy” line.

      So your bone to pick might be with fellow believers who are interpreting Biblical texts in a “young Earth” way. Are they slapping God across the face? If so, them’s a lot of slaps!

      • Jim

        Hey Josh,
        I like Bernie and this is the first time I have ever been disappointed in his comments. He said that he wouldn’t take the Bible seriously. He should take it seriously if he calls himself a Christian. What he should not take seriously are those that read their beliefs into the Bible and then teach their beliefs in place of the Word of God. You know. Fill in the blanks. I have never read any where in the Bible where it says or teaches the age of the earth.
        So, yes. I agree that my bone to pick would be with my fellow believers and I would use that bone to straighten out Bernie. Bernie shouldn’t quote what other so called Christians quote but make his own quote directly from the Bible. Not from what people think the Bible says.

        • Sheila Warner

          Bernie does not call himself a Christian. As far as I remember, he is an agnostic.

          • Jim

            Thank you Sheila.

  • Scott Autry

    “Just because Phil got his ideas about gays from the Holy Bible doesn’t mean they’re not ugly and mean spirited. ”

    And that is the heart of the big point you are bypassing.

    This is about a cultural war – and it won’t go away just because you’re tired of hearing about it.

    This is about defining what is and isn’t acceptable to say in American society, and more specifically, it is leading inevitably to labeling parts of the Christian Bible (and especially the Old Testament – thus the sacred texts for practicing Jews as well) “hate speech.”

    I agree this isn’t a Free Speech issue because the government isn’t trying to silence anyone, but I do wonder if it has not already crossed the line in terms of violating Equal Opportunity Laws…?

    That is the heart of the matter: There can be no doubt whatsoever that any Christian or Jew who wanted to could point to parts of their sacred texts to justify negative thoughts on homosexuality…

    And that is what will ultimately come into play as the steady increase in “hate speech” thinking on the left gains influence due to the majority position they hold in key social institutions: Entertainment, education, and the news media.

    I fully expect that if I live forty more years make it into my 80s like my grandparents, I’ll see hate speech laws put on the books, picketing outside of churches, and those liberal institutions gain the upper hand in censoring elements of religions they don’t like – especially Christianity and Judaism.

    There was a time when the ACLU would fight hard for even the most vile, disgusting groups, because the ideals related to freedom were too important. That day has long since gone – as liberalism gained the upper hand in defining socio-politically what is and isn’t acceptable to BELIEVE in our society…

    However tired of the cultural war you might be – you can’t escape the fact it is going on. You can’t deny that the guy from Duck Dynasty (which I don’t like and never watch) can point to places in the Christian and Jewish sacred texts in an effort to justify his words. And you can’t deny that – by saying ending or damaging his career in any industry – you are agreeing that discrimination in the workplace based on religion is just fine with you.

    • Josh

      I cannot stand any laws against free speech, and this is something that affects me personally. In my social circle, these nutso progressive liberals do institute “speech” laws, as well as dress codes, approved vendor lists, etc, at a variety of conferences and gatherings. And they want to extend out from there.

      Their idea of freedom is based only on their idea of social justice, which mandates the suppression of anything they’re against. So I definitely don’t want to see that spread; it turns my stomach.

      However, I think some conservative Christians in America need to realize the irony here. I mean, it’s not as if these particular liberals are waging a war against ultimate freedom. They receive their precedent from the religious, in reality.

      There are still segments in America where Christians have speech banned by way of books and other art, and states with blasphemy laws, segments where alcohol is still banned based on nothing but religion, etc. And more than anything, devout followers of the word have a wide range of things that are banned. The only difference being, of course, that Christians can claim their holy texts are ultimate truth and thus it isn’t the same when they do it vs. liberals. That’s when the republic-or-democracy bit shifts to the latter due to a majority of believers.

      And that comes back to a point Bernie did touch on. What makes one person’s beliefs better or more legitimate than another person’s? If a person truly believes that book X and anti-God phrase #92 must be banned due to their religion, what makes that any more important than another person truly believing that their selected words and phrases need to be banned?

      Progressive liberals are just the latest suppressors of freedom, not the original. And, IMO, conservative Christians would do well to understand that in order to view why the liberals believe they can get away with it. They’re just following precedent, minus the scripture to fall back on.

  • nkqx57a

    “I think what Phil Robertson said was just plain ignorant.” What he said may sound ignorant. But his meaning and understanding of the BIBLE was telling me that like slanderers or swindlers or drunkards; what homosexuals do is a sin.

    “Americans who did in fact want to live and let live but who are now realizing that sitting out the culture wars they didn’t start is not an option.”…never has been an option; just never had a platform to project from, and Mr. Robertson has given us the platform and the opportunity to do good with it.

    Mr. Robertson was expressing his opinion and has every right to do so. What GLAAD and Progressive Liberal are angry about is:

    (1) Not only what Mr. Robertson said, (which the majority of Americas have no problem with); but that the majority knows that what he meant…is true.

    (2) That someone’s rights weren’t being denied them; and that immoral acts are unacceptable to a moral society.

    I am sure that Mr. Robertson would agree with:

    (1) We…”love the sinner, yet hate the sin”…making choices has its consequences. So I lose the business…they go somewhere else.

    (2) “Some people are born gay”. Where is the evidence that people are born GAY? Just saying it does not make it so. Being GAY is a choice…has nothing to do with being born.

    (3) “Live and let live…sounds good to me”; however, Progressive Liberals (GLAAD) will not permit others to live without accepting immoral choices as normal moral choices.

    (4) Progressive Liberals (GLAAD) are caught in a “Catch 22″; if EVIL is GOOD, then GOOD is EVIL. That doesn’t compute very well, does it?

    I do not need GLAAD or anyone to tell me what RIGHT “IS” and what WRONG “IS”. I know the difference between RIGHT and WRONG…because I have a moral conscience, tolerance, and common sense.

    However, for GLAAD and Progressive Liberals there are no such things as RIGHT and WRONG or TACT; it’s ONLY what feels good to them. They have no morals only feelings to guide them.

  • Jonathan T Gilliam

    Bernard Goldberg is Typical Hollywood. When I commented on this 5 days ago, I was so furious that my fingers were burning the screen of my phone.

    It is hard to believe that even with over 1000 negative comments about Mr Goldbergs statements, he came back on Bill O’Reilly’s show simply to talk about someone else’s screw up. I sincerely hope someone at Fox News has the sense to stop using Mr Goldberg’s analysis. Unfortunately that will never happen unless enough people make complaints. I challenge Mr Goldberg to debate me on why comments like his are just as destructive to this country as any other radical. I will put my resume and my wisdom up against Mr Goldberg’s any day!

    Jonathan T Gilliam
    Navy SEAL Officer
    Fmr FBI Special Agent
    Fmr Federal Air Marshal

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      First of all, thanks for your service.

      Secondly, is it honestly your argument that if Bernie says something you don’t like, Fox News should stop using him as an analyst?

      You realize how odd that sounds, don’t you?

    • Sheila Warner

      Thanks for your service! Try not to take it personally when someone goes after a Bible believer. I realize that Mr Goldberg’s adjective of “ignorant/ignoramus” offended you. It’s important to understand that not everyone views the Bible as the word of God. Those who follow texts that are centuries old, be it the Qu’ran or the Bible, come across as not very informed to atheists and agnostics.

      Mr Goldberg is permitted to share his opinion, every bit as much as Robertson is permitted to share his. Both have a bully pulpit: Robertson has his hit tv show, and Mr Goldberg has this website.

      Remember to respond in love as Christ would have us do. Reaching out to engage others does more for the cause of Christ than burning up a keyboard in anger. It’s hard when one perceives himself to be the target of demeaning speech, I know. Just look at what Christ endured. Then, take a deep breath before typing.

    • nkqx57a

      I agree with John Daly…below…

  • Dcb

    Mr. Goldberg you have every right to be ignorant which you are as far as the Bible is concerned.

  • keith webb

    Bernie, you have shown an atypical ignorance of the Bible… even you as a Jewish man should know the ‘Torah’ speaks against Homosexuality in Leviticus… it’s not an option with Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus …whoever you may address Him as … Paul was a Jew and said that it is sin .. not His Opinion but based on the laws of God … and your statement about the Bible being irrelevant because it states the world is 6000 years old is based on what scientific model ?? You of all people should not make factual claims without facts to base them on …. tell me Bernie, If the Bible isn’t the Way, What is Truth ? …may the God of your fathers make Himself real to you in 2014 †††

  • Seven

    Because Paul spoke those words some 2000 years ago makes them void, without relative meaning today? Did science settle it,Therefore it’s settled? When was it settled? When society accepts the fact it’s OK? Seems to me, we just want to pick and choose what is sin, as if we evolve beyond sin. It’s a shame we have become so wise in our own minds.

    • keith webb

      amen and amen

    • Jim

      Seven,It seems that people who think as you do are the ones wise in their own eyes. Why do you say that what Paul spoke 2000 yrs. ago are void today? Everyone that thinks that the word of God is void can even see the truth even when science proves it. A team sent a robotic sub to the bottom of the Red Sea and found hundreds of chariot wheels. Remember, Moses parted the Red Sea and then drowned the Egyptians? What about the discovery the location of Sodom and Gamora where they found the sand melted like glass. Do you want God to apologize for destroying them because of the chosen life styles of that time? The Bible says that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the men that came to visit Lot. Phil Robinson only repeated the Word of God as a warning to all that have ears and eyes. What I say is let’s not waste are time on people that hate God and his word. Let God take care of it. They will burn in their lust now and then forever in Hell!
      Amen!

  • Jesus Freek

    Hello and wow. we are down to this in the 10th round at madison square gardens. tell the 30 years ago we all agreed about being gay. than our brothers, sisters and kids went out and had sex with the same sex. that does not make it right but because of the relationship we need to say well maybe ok..it does not change whether it is right or wrong…the Bible never changes. without Jesus Christ blood non of us would see the face of the Lord God Almighty but because His Blood covers our sin we are forgiven…doesn’t change right and wrong. it is against the will of God for hundreds of centuries are we so special that it is now ok to be gay, prostitutes, sex out of marriage or adultery. NOP Still not ok. don’t split the pie up after it falls on the ground it is all dirty. but Jesus made us clean when we repent.
    Thank you God for making a way to set the captives free. believe me we are not free to sexual sin…it captivates us…i have been there don that got the tee shirt. death to brother and son and many of my firends. i have had sexual sin…it is not comfortable to live in a lie…God gave us the death of His son so we can be set free…freedom isn’t free….Jesus died God got on the cross after being beat up for our sin..thank You God….we still have a chance to be set free….don’t quite before the miracle. my son committed suicide he quit before the miracle….many like him know what i mean…love love love

  • Jim

    Bernie, what you have too understand in all of this is that there is Gods way (the right way) and the Bashir way (which is wrong). Anyone that is a child of God knows that Phil was quoting from The Word of God (The Bible). Yes! God does give a long list of those that will go to hell. Drunkards, adulterers, fornicators, and so on. This includes Those who choose to stay in the gay life style. Jesus in His Word, The Bible said; choose curse or blessing. Choose death or life. In the Gospel of John chapter 14 verse 6, it says; and then Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the LIFE and no one goes onto The Father except by me. So, the Drunkard can choose to be a Drunkard instead of choosing Jesus and by doing so the Drunkard is condemning himself to Hell. Same as the Adulterer, fornicators, Gays and so on. So, for all of you that are mad at Phil for quoting The Word of God, what you are really mad at is God and His Word (The Word Is Jesus. Jesus is The Word). Jesus said; they first hated Me and they will hate you for My name sake! I just wish that Phil would have said that if the gays would turn from their gay life style and truly follow the style of Jesus, all would be forgiven. The reason that God and Phil so hate the gay life style and not the gay themselves is that it is so destructive to all. So, I pray that the gays will turn to Jesus Who is life and I pray that Phil will show more compassion. Phil is just a man. Cut him a break! His quote was right but the approach was not so tactful . First time that I have ever been disappointed in you Bernie!

  • kayakbob

    I find it sort of comical. I have never watched DD. Never had the slightest interest in it. Then Phil went and opened his mouth. I don’t agree with much of what he said (per previous posts here on this subject), but the flap over it raise my curiosity level from about a 1 to a 3 (on a scale of 10).

    Then A&E went all Marion Barry on him, and that drove my curiosity into the solid 4-5 range.

    Then A&E reversed course. Apparently they hadn’t noticed DD was their top money maker. (Something even I, as a casual observer of advertisers knew.) Duh. But by then my curiosity meter was running at 7.

    Thanks A & E.

    • Bkwcomments

      I don’t see it as A&E reversing its course. They suspended him. I’m sure there were talks between the two sides. They brought him back. That’s what happens when one is “suspended” and not fired. But to read probably 90% of the commentary from his supporters, they don’t know the difference between suspension and firing. A lot of them also didn’t understand that when they went out and bought out all the stock of Duck Dynasty merchandise, they were contributing to A&E’s coffers even as they loudly proclaimed their boycott…of A&E. D’oh!

  • Jonathan T Gilliam

    Me Goldbergs inability to keep his insulting opinion about the bible clear of his analysis about what the Duck Dynasty controversy was all about shows that he is just like every other Hollywood liberal that hates Christianity. They like Mr Goldberg can’t hide their hatred and misunderstanding of what the Word if God stands for. He, in my opinion, has isolated himself even more than the likes of A&E because he claimed not to subscribe to the Hollywood mindset. Unfortunate really because he is an intelligen speaker. But as every Godly person knows, knowledge does not equil wisdom. I will be turning the channel if Mr Goldberg is on O’Reilly again.

    Jonathan T Gilliam
    CEO United States Continued Service
    Fmr FBI Special Agent
    Fmr Federal Air Marshal
    Navy SEAL Officer

    • Sheila Warner

      Thanks for your service to our nation.

    • garbo77

      Hi Jonathan!
      You’re right on! Let us keep Mr. Goldberg and others in our prayers! Where there is life there is hope. It’s been amazing to me how people have changed, for the better, by praying for them! God is so loving and merciful! Thanks for your service to our country! Pray for more Godly leaders; we certainly need them!
      God’s Blessings on you and yours!
      Dr. Gary

    • keith webb

      thank you Jonathan for your accurate reply and for your service to our country †††

  • jon

    Even Bernie has a right to be an ignoramus like in this article. Bernie cites what the Apostle Paul sais is garbage. I could say the same thing about Abraham but I will not. Bernie is not a conservative he is a liberal.

  • jon

    Its a reality show folks and is watched because of that and makes a lot of money because of that. Censor it and now it becomes an unreality show and then its over. Just because someone says something on a show does not mean the network condones it. A&E certainly does not cancel Criminal Minds with all its
    violence and murders. A&E has fallen into the political correctness black hole dug by the liberals of America.

  • TechArtists

    Bernie Goldberg demonstrates his god given right to react to distortions about what was said instead of reading the words himself and applying some analysis before reacting. In other words, Bernie demonstrated his God-given right to do something stupid.
    Robertson advocated nothing hateful towards gays, nor did he compare gay sex to bestiality, nor did he judge them. He obviously struggles to understand gayness given his limited life experience with them. He listed gay sex as a biblical sin as well as promiscuity. Small minded activist groups distorted this statement to incite followers and divide Americans. He did not jude them; while he listed gay sex as a sin, in the end he said it was for the almighty to decide [not Phil].
    Bernie is normally a level headed guy with his analysis. Something went wrong here, maybe touched a nerve, or maybe he harbors some bigotry towards these popular rednecks. I’ll chalk it up to a fluke, not the norm for Bernie. Even the best of us does something stupid once in a while.

    • keith webb

      when olives are pressed, you get oil… when oranges are squeezed you get juice… when the heart of man is pressed or touched , you get words and words are all we have to judge a ‘tree’ or man by… he is clearly a troubled man with conflicting views… perceived by many as a conservative person, it is clear now to all , by his own words.

  • Gratefulconservative

    Why didn’t A&E issue a disclaimer, as I have seen so many times before, that A&E does not necessarily agree with the contents of the program?!!! Duh!! And there is no comparison between what Phil said and what Bashir said about Sarah Palin, which was evil intent!!! Duck Dynasty is a breath of fresh air, compared to most of the current programing which is bias and leaning left nonsense!!!!

  • Jack Spratt

    I have just skimmed through the thread of all these comments and it appears that a lot of opinions are being thrown out and then defended and defended again and again by same posters and though appearing civil seem to show a lack of the bottom line- the Bible is the Inspired Word of God and, in my opinion Truth, and in the scope of eternity it is not going to matter if you or Bernie think it is ignorant to believe it- God will ultimately be that Judge of what is on the sin list- and we are all wretched sinners that can only be saved by the grace of God.

    • keith webb

      thank God for the Cross and the Blood †††

  • kidwinona

    Bernie trying to equate the statements from Martin Bashir with Duck’s is another terrible comparison. It could be applied in a general sense referring to say FREEDOM OF SPEECH and that’s it. Bernie more and more you confuse your self by going out of your way to appear fair. I mean, you should not ever be considered for jury duty. Make up your mind, Why try and dissect or react to reactors?

  • virgilrenfroe

    One thing I know is selling or marketing and A&E was stupid here about Duck Dynasty’s customers and so was Cracker barrel. and so are many people trying to report on this situation while being politically correct to the extreme of society.

  • ted

    Enough already. End this never ending tripe. It’s a duck show for heaven’s sake.

  • virgilrenfroe

    Bernie , sometimes ignorance is simply a matter of opinion, whether you agree with Phil or not doesn’t mean he is stupid , in this case those who disagree could even be stupid, the bottom line not to be missed here, is it’s all really about silencing the Christian and or moral view of anyone ,you know that I know that and we are most times afraid to speak the truth about the truth, a dangerous road to be on.
    Virgil Renfroe.

  • mrsbarb

    I only wish that Mr. Duck Dynasty had quoted the Torah, which by the way, Bernie speaks even more violently about the sins which G’d detests. Is G’d being mean spirited? I don’t think so. It is His earth and His creation and He can demand whatever He wants. As far as Phil, his language to communicate a Biblical truth was unfortunate. However, I do agree that he does have the right to be as stupid as he wants and as Americans we can choose not to watch him or any other idiot that has a public forum.

  • Judi

    Phil did not say being gay could lead to goat sex! Did you even read the article?? He was making a list of sins. They asked him what was sinful. He was quoting the Bible. Think you need to issue a correction here and on O’Reilly.

    • Josh

      I realize I’m way late even reading the top bit of this comments section, much less replying to anything, but if you do happen to stumble back across this, I would hope you would take time to answer this question.

      With all the many hundreds of different sins and infractions listed in the Bible, which I assume Phil is privy to, why, then, mention beastiality with homosexuality in any way whatsoever?

      Phil has to know that many religious people who are staunch opponents of same-sex marriages claim that allowing such unions would lead to people marrying animals. That’s well documented and is taken as a mean-spirited slur by the homosexuality community.

      ”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.”

      I mean, cut out “beastiality” and I take the point. He isn’t much on sin. But to include that, right away, makes it seem to some as if he was trying to directly compare the two, caught himself doing it, and then proceeded to fill it out more with typical lustful behavior and not psychotic depravity.

      Maybe Phil didn’t mean to compare the two directly, but it’s not as if his religion is lacking in sins he could have used in place of beastiality. Seems to me he had it coming.

      Maybe he’s just heard the phrase “f*ck a duck” too many times and his mind instantly turns to bonking animals when he thinks of sin. Not sure.

      • Gary Okupante

        After President Obama green lighted Gay in the Armed Forces, he then had the DOD rescinding “Bestiality”, from the UCMJ. Where is the press coverage on that; and Oh Bye the Way; Phil cited a single issue, such as Bestiality; so if Phil equated this topic, it seems that the President and the DNC, already tied the two together.

        • Sheila Warner

          CIte your source.

  • Carl

    Comparing Phil to Martin Bashir only makes sense in the context of their roles in society. Both are talking heads on the boob tube. Both have a right to an opinion, and neither has a guaranteed job. Phil Robertson doesn’t hate gays, he just disagrees with their lifestyle. He didn’t advocate defecating or urinating on them, as Bashir did with Sarah Palin. Bashir showed outward contempt for another human being. I have a feeling if Phil Robertson was on his land in Louisiana and came upon two gay men lost in the woods, he’d take them home, have Miss Kay feed them, and show them back to civilization. Why is it that, when we express an opinion that disagrees with someone or something we automatically get labeled a hateful person. I don’t agree with Phil either. That’s my opinion. But who’s to say my opinion is right, or better, or valid?

    • kidwinona

      Exactly, Bernie is guilty of confusing himself again

    • Josh

      Not that I disagree to a great extent, but there’s this sense floating through the ether that most of us pick up as we get older, and we all begin to realize that certain people take offense at certain things. And, even more, we realize that something innocuous to one person can be poison to another. So it doesn’t seem a leap to take the opinion that Phil dislikes/hates/has disdain for gays.

      When one calls another a sinner, for whose benefit is it? Why, instead of a simple “no comment,” would someone choose to illustrate what they find to be wrong with homosexuality, knowing full well that people are going to be offended?

      I’ve heard the “hate the sin, not the sinner” bit, and that may well be true with Phil in particular, but it’s long been known, even in the woods, that homosexual people are more emotionally fragile than the general populous due to hiding, shame, fighting their biology — and that’s not even touching on the ones who are religious. That’s another ballgame entirely. So why not just “no comment”? It’s the fact he said anything on it that upsets some folks and leads others to believe that he’s bigoted.

      For people who fall back on “But it’s my belief,” that’s no comfort for the people who are actually hurt and made to feel dirty when labeled a sinner. Granted, there’s no right that protects one from being offended, and some are offended by anything. Though we all know the connotation of “sinner” coming from the devoutly religious and what that label implies a sinner is, what a sinner deserves, and what a sinner is going to receive. Particularly homosexuals. So it’s not as if Phil’s comments are innocent; they carry with them the old imagery of the fire, brimstone, suffering, pillars of salt, damnation, etc. And if that’s how the Phils of the world want to carry it, not caring if their beliefs are hurtful to others when aimed directly at them, then those Phils run the risk of receiving backlash, some of which is going to libel those Phils as hatemongers. That’s just how it goes.

      If a person can’t be homosexual without being labeled a sinner by some random TV dude, then the random TV dude can’t get away cleanly by pulling the “religion” card. It’s the ebb and flow of the modern age. If person A can be damned to hell by person B, person B can catch a shtstorm for it.

      Seems okay to me. In the end, I think a point was made clearly by both sides.

      As to the Bashir comparisons: Personally, I would outright fire both men, Phil and Martin, if I were heading up their respective networks. Bashir wouldn’t even have received the old goodbye talk, a severance package, anything. Phil — well, I would have explained that, hey, dude, you oughta know better. Though you may believe it, that doesn’t mean it’s not hurtful when voiced. Annnndd….we’ll see ya later.

      • Seven

        Your argument holds little water. Mr. Robertson called out no particular person. Did he offended? Of course he did. When Jesus was preaching, he offended many. Take the rich young ruler for example. After the young man went his way upset, Jesus taught his followers the danger of riches. Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it would be for a rich person to enter Heaven. With God not impossible,just very difficult.

        • Josh

          I don’t really get what you’re saying there, but okay.

        • Josh

          I read this again after wiping the sleep out of my eyes. What I guess you’re saying here–and, please, correct me if I’m wrong–is that Phil didn’t direct his comments toward anyone in particular, therefore what I’m saying makes no sense.

          If that is the case, then that’s a very odd and quibble-happy way to view the topic.

          It’s like if a guy asked me, “What do you think about conservatives?” and I answered, “Well, they’re idiots.”

          Hey, no one here would take offense. Right? Everyone would understand that I’m not speaking about them. After all, I’m not calling out anyone in particular.

          And if they do take offense, so what. Jesus offended people, and so can I.

          Is that what you’re saying?

          I think I must still be misunderstanding your point. Sorry.

          (And for conservatives who don’t realize it’s just an analogy and that I’m not calling anyone an idiot, insert “liberal” for the same effect. I used “conservative” on the assumption that Seven is a conservative.)

  • buckrodgers

    Nobody seemed to care when Tom Hanks was joined on stage by a whiteman wearing a blackface, when he was doing a benefit show at his kids all white school, their also was no call for diversity when President Obama face an all white press corps when he gave his First Presidential news conference, every single day a white liberal is labeling a White or White Hispanic that doesn’t agree with what they have to say a racist, so what gives them the right to label anybody racist, Phil Robertson has a right to his opinion and if you don’t like what he has to say then don’t listen to him.

    • Susan Daniels

      What is a White Hispanic (other than to make George Zimmerman a racist)? How can people who have never been to Africa call themselves African-Americans? I have never been to Ireland but from now on I am going to identify myself as Irish-American. We should all start identifying with the names of the countries our relatives came from. Won’t that be fun and make a lot of sense?

  • Kevin Hubble

    Bernie, You err in this regard: When you say: “Because Paul thought so Christians are to believe this garbage,,,,,” When Paul wrote these words he was not merely recording his personal views on what he thought might be correct or expedient behavior but, he was giving the Corinthians instructions which had been revealed to him directly through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The reason why homosexuality is placed together with all of those other sins in this passage is because the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to include these sins all together as they are evils of equal significance. Don’t blame Paul; your complaint needs to be taken higher up. One last thing about Paul. In the passage you site, are you OK with the condemnation of the other things on Paul’s list or, is it only the homosexuality that’s bothering you? Because you can’t separate them out but, that’s what the world tries to do. Since you don’t believe that all sins are created equal, could you rate this list for us? Then proceed through the remainder of the Bible and begin inserting sins as you find them into your ranking of evil remembering not to leave out even the slightest evil thought. Are you OK with: “Thou shalt not kill?” How about: “Thou shalt not steal.” Please publish for us a list of the other “garbage” doctrines in a future column.

  • Haaseline

    You lost me here Bern, fact is most Christians believe in the Word.. so to mock it as untruth on O’Reilly is your right. Calling someones belief out in a world of constant contradiction as false..again is you call, and I respect how you believe and think. The need to be right in this country is frightening !! Even make believing as I am accused here…appears to be a better path…than the real truth about our country and moral fiber!!! Not my favorite BG , but again I always respect your opinion!!!

  • Chris

    Bernie…you are no better than the rest, if you insist Phil is an ignoramus. An ignoramus is not likely to have a masters in education. An ignoramus is not likely to have taken a simple duck call and make millions with it. The ignoramus is you, because you and Bill O’Reilly put a spin on an issue, after Bill said it was the no spin zone. Yeah, right.
    You have hinted that homosexuality is something you are born with. That is an ignorant statement, and one promulgated by the uber left wing, and those who want us to believe that there is no choice. Bushwah. I have personally met several people who have given up the homosexual lifestyle, and are now married (to people of the opposite sex), and have families of their own. There is a huge number of people who have done so. Militant homosexuals do not want this to become accepted knowledge. But facts are facts, and so far, there is no proof whatsoever, other than their say so, that you are “born that way.”
    Get off your high horse Bernie, and understand what Phil Robertson was saying. He never intimated that one thing leads to another. That was the spin put out by the militant homosexual community, and by you. Phil said there is right and wrong, and he believes that the Bible pretty well spells it out. You may not understand the beliefs of a born again Christian, but in a nutshell, sin is sin…there is no scale. And Grace is Grace, given freely by God, freeing anyone from sin. Period. From what I understand about my faith, the only unpardonable sin is blasphemy.
    As for homosexual marriage, that is nothing but a slap in the face to God.

  • moronpolitics3

    As a Jew you would think BG would have the common sense to realize he is not expert on the war on Christmas. Personally, I often thought growing up that the problems the Jews had with Hitler were WAY WAY TOO EMPHASIZED in discussions of WW2. Also, in the number of movies made about the era. Anne Frank book was BORING beyond belief. Who CARES about some 12 year olds crush on a boy she has never met. You know she and her family get dragged out of there by the Nazis at the end and, frankly, as I read it I wished I could drop them a note somehow. “Hey, Nazi’s !! Look upstairs in the Kunkledorff;s house!! There’s a creepy kid and her whole family hiding in there. Or put some Gefilte fish on a hook and drag it down the street. Even DOGS won’t eat that crap. Only Jews.”
    OK, Bernard??

  • ronald simon

    What stupid is Bernies beliefs on gay marriges, not robertsons comments, and bernie for your information Phil Robertson was a spot on reading the in the bible.

  • Elaine De Felix

    BG – this article is spot on!!

  • Linda Grace

    In July, Bernard wrote that because felons can get married, we should change the standards for marriage. Felons are felons because of the crimes that they committed in the past, not because of how they live their daily lives. If the standards continue to change, then in-laws, 13-year-old children, and bigamists will be allowed to marry. There have always been marriages like this, but they should not be the norm. Felons can marry, but they cannot vote. I have never even been arrested, so I can vote, and I try to always vote for real conservatives. We must maintain high standards for marriage.

  • Linda Grace

    This discussion led me to do a little more research on Bernard’s beliefs, and I was shocked to find out that back in July he was writing articles supporting gay marriage. That slipped past me somehow, but now that I know about it, I am unsubscribing.The last thing we need is more conservatives letting down their standards at a crucial time like this.

  • bella duparee

    Hi Deborah: You are most gracious in accepting my apology for my rude words to you. I wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and God Bless. Thanks for sharing the Roberstson’s Christmas greeting with me..So true.

  • bella duparee

    @SHEILA.. This sparing back and forth is getting ridiculous and stupid. I leave you with a big thanks for sharing your latest intellectual lecture to me….Your quote!? “those of on here who pointed out” etc. I suggest you take the time to read “LEGAL EAGLES” comments regarding hate and prejudice and his statement that PHIL ROBERTSON IS NOT BEING PAID 2 MILLION + PER YEAR TO PREACH INTOLERANCE TO CHILDREN WHO WATCH THE SHOW… Thanks but no thanks. I don’t need to reference your Westboro (ok?) pictures as I’ve watched all their picketing and signs on National television at funerals of our soldiers. I don’t think they really care about Obama and his signing of the bill. Thanks, but I’m very aware who Rev. Phelps is..I’ve heard him spew his hatred. I’m also aware his daughter is an attorney, are you? Can’t remember her name but not worth remembering. Must not, because you sure would have to have blown your horn on that one as well! I’ve also heard her speak on national television on behalf of her dad’s church! I’m finished. I’m tired of dumb and dumber comments.. Let’s face it, maybe we both need to grow up and stop this ridiculous sparing.. Just go away/ read your book on the “original book of internet etiquette, complain to others who use all caps to make a point! I think you have your priorities mixed up on what is worth discussing and what isn’t. Go away. Take a cruise, join Obama in Hawaill, just go! p.s. FYI..I’m free to say and do what I damned well want so really don’t give a FF to continue debating your “original internet etiquette.

    • Sheila Warner

      All I did was honestly answer your question. You wanted to know why the Westboro folks are happy about dead soldiers. Now you say you know the whole story. Why then did you ask? As you actually are informed, and didn’t need to ask me in the first place, I bid you adieu. For now. Have a great Christmas.

  • KStrett

    First of all comparing the Duck Dynasty comments to Bashir’s comment is absurd. The majority of conservatives were not calling for Bashir to be fired but pointing out the double standard networks have.

    The reactions of both networks demonstrate the double standard. Bashir was allowed to resign. He wasn’t fired. If a conservative said the exact same thing about Hillary Clinton they would have fired immediately and run out of the country and the network would have paid for the plane ticket.

    Right off the bat Bernie has an invalid comparison. Conservatives are not arguing this is a 1st amendment issue but rather an issue of free speech.

    The main issue to this story is freedom of speech and how the left reacts to it.
    There are 9 million reality shows on television and crude things are
    said on the shows that are far worse than what the Duck Dynasty guy said
    in the GQ interview. Why is this an issue now?

    The reason is the group that preaches about tolerance and acceptance will not tolerate any opinion other than their own. Duck Dynasty is wildly
    popular and he expressed sentiments that go against liberal doctrine.The
    thought police assignation squad were sent after the sponsors of the
    show because of this.

    It isn’t that people who watch the show are upset, the gay political movement will not tolerate any dissent. If there is they engineering a fake attack on the advertisers by running phone banks to give the appearance of public outrage.

    It is transparently obvious that GQ went into the interview
    attempting to create controversy. They knew he what his views are about
    homosexuality.

    It is also important to read the full context of his comments instead
    of parroting what the liberal smear campaign is saying. For example:

    “that appeared to equate homosexuality with bestiality and terrorism. ”

    He didn’t equate homosexuality with bestiality and terrorism. In that
    same sentence he also mentioned promiscuous straight people.Yet, for
    some reason this is ignored. The crude comments about body parts seem to be a joke as he finished the statement with something to the effect of “come on guys…”

    It is funny how the exact same standard never applies to anyone of
    the left who says crude or inappropriate things. When they do there
    isn’t a organized assault on their sponsors. Instead the double standard is pointed out.

    • Sheila Warner

      “…the group that preaches about tolerance and acceptance will not tolerate any opinion other than their own.”

      I’d say that statement applies to both sides. The Religious Right is attempting to parlay this tempest in a teapot into an attack on religion. Everyone who is fiercely defending Robertson is intolerant of the idea that being gay is not a sin. The intolerance is flowing in both directions, for sure.

      • Wheels55

        I defend Robertson’s right to say what he thinks and to deal with the consequences. I do not think being gay is a sin (actually not sure, so I just think it isn’t). But Phil Robertson has a right to think that it is a sin and, frankly, GQ asked. If you don’t want to know, don’t ask.
        Bashir is just a hateful jerk. So, the comparison is unfair – to Robertson.

        • Sheila Warner

          I didn’t mention Bashir.

          • Wheels55

            No, you didn’t. I guess I was blending your comment with Bernie’s piece.

      • Deborah G

        Being gay IS a sin. If not against God then against the design of nature.

        • KStrett

          Deborah,
          You need to understand that an entire generation has been indoctrinated to believe gay couples not being allowed to redefine marriage is the equivalent of what Black people went through in the civil rights movement.

          The comparison is absurd but keep this in mind when you make comments on this issue. Heed Peter’s advise and be as wise as serpents.

          The indoctrinated people only hear Christian bigot when you talk like that and much like the majority of liberal issues, gay “right” can and should be defeated using logic and reason.

          “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

          Argue this issue on political terms not religious terms.

          • Deborah G

            Thank you for the help. Somnetimes it is veryt hard to argue that Homosexuality is not normal, I know it isn’t, you know it isn’t and the reality is THEY know it isn’t but they want acceptance anyway. BTW they have no been treated like the poor black people during the pre civil rights era. Sorry No comaprison.Ignored? yes laughed at ? Yes but not hung beatened and burned.

          • KStrett

            1. Men and woman are designed to be attracted to each other.
            2. Homosexuals are not to the opposite sex.
            3. Therefore, homosexuality has to be an abnormality.

            Anyone disagreeing with this argument would either have to disagree with premise #1, #2, or argue the conclusion doesn’t follow.

            The objection they usually offer is because homosexuality does occur in nature, therefore it is not an abnormality.

            This objection is predicated on fallacious reasoning. It is like arguing because blindness occurs in nature it is normal for someone to be blind.

            There is really no coherent objection they can make. What they are left with is forcibly attempting to label an abnormality as normal.

          • Deborah G

            AND after all that they get nasty LOL

          • KStrett

            That is true…… A tirade of insults usually follows

          • Deborah G

            You should see what I have been dealing with. Some old hag of a lesbian telling me I am wrong in the eyes of God because I’m judging them. Honestly they shoot themselves in the foot with their in your face attitude gayess and sin nonwithstanding. talk about a lack of humility. As far as they are conserned my stand for what is right is the reason I am going to hell. Convoluted right?

          • Sheila Warner

            But you are equally in the face of gays. Where is the love and grace of Jesus? I just don’t see it in the very diehard fundamentalist conservatives I am reading on this site.

          • Deborah G

            FYI I am far from a fundamentalist and I was raised with a bunch of boys so I can always give as good as I get

          • Sheila Warner

            Okay, then, point to other bad behavior to justify one’s own bad behavior. Got it.

          • Deborah G

            You obviuosly have no sense of humor either I got it. LOL That was a joke . get over yourself

          • KStrett

            They are using the Dr. Phil self contradictory notion of not judging rather than the Biblical version.

            The Dr Phil version argues not to judge people while judging you and your opinions, which by their own rationale should send them on the express train to hell too.

            Getting sent of hell because you judged someone isn’t biblical either. Believing or not believing in Jesus is what gets you sent to hell or saved.

            Pointing out the Bible states a behavior is sinful isn’t a sin.

          • Deborah G

            Well Jesus is a part f my life every day now. AND I have been the reipient of many gifts and miracles. I’ll stick with that instead of worrying about how a homosexual views my beliefs.

          • KStrett

            I think it is a mistake for Christians to withdraw from cultural issues but need to make their points more logically instead of throwing Bible quotes at people who generally don’t believe.

            Secondly, there is a movement within the church to make homosexuality Biblically acceptable. Activists are using the same game plan they used with the psychiatric profession in the early 1970s. Even if you withdraw they aren’t going to leave the Church alone.

          • Deborah G

            I have been arguing with one of those on here. They are worng . Just because they are a minister doesn’t make them infallable. This nonsense about the Bible accepting homosexuality is just another nail in their coffin. I won’t make the judgement I’ll let God do that. They come from the persepective if God made it it has to be good. My feeling is he made them and gave them free choice to sin or not. They chose TO> Therein lies the problem. I do know f Homosexuals who have resisted the lust and are celibate. They wish they didn’t have the struggle, I feel bad for them. However lust isn’t everything in life except to the sinners.

          • KStrett

            “Just because they are a minister doesn’t make them infallable.”

            That is one trend in the Church that isn’t Biblical and I don’t understand. The NT is full of examples of excoriating people who believe they have a higher status than everyone one else. To argue a pastor or a minister should not be criticized is giving them a higher status.

            If pastor that is a public figure or not writes a book, says something in an interview or a sermon that isn’t biblical every Christian should criticize them.

            After Rob Bell wrote Love Wins, a pastor criticized him but prior to that was lamenting whether or not he should. For some reason most of the church has misapplied Matthew 18:15-17 to mean never publicly criticize another christian.

            Matthew 18:15-17 applies to sinning against other members of the church not church doctrine. Paul didn’t take Peter aside or confront him with two other people when he was siding with the judaizers, he publicly rebuked him.

            “This nonsense about the Bible accepting homosexuality is just another nail in their coffin. I won’t make the judgement I’ll let God do that.”

            The problem is the notion that the Bible gives homosexuality the stamp of approval is coming from within the church.

            The church made a mistake when they started using church to evangelize rather than going out side of the church.

            I read an interview with a pastor who stated he had openly gay church members and he didn’t know what do do if they wanted to be married in the church.

            You have churches letting non believers in and turning a blind eye to biblically sinful behavior coupled with a push from within the church to deconstruct the bible to make homosexuality permissible. This a recipe for disaster.

          • Deborah G

            Good advice. Now I will need your help with that because I am not political to the point where I can argue on that basis well other than Commuism promotes the destructon of social structure throgh the breaking down of sexual morality and religion after they control the healthcare sustem.

          • KStrett

            They use the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause to make the case for discrimination.

            The homosexual activists argument is basically:

            Straight people can get marriage, homosexuals can’t, therefore homosexual couples are being discriminated against.

            What are homosexual activists really asking for?

            The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Are they being denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex because they are gay? No.

            It is incorrect for gay activists are state they are being denied the right to marry. They are being denied the right to redefine marriage.

            Their own argument under the equal protection clause dictates if you change the definition of marriage for one group, all groups have he exact same right.

            Rights apply to everyone not just select groups. If group A is being discriminated against because they can’t change the definition of marriage, so must group B.

            If gay couples are being discriminated against because they can’t change the definition of marriage, so is Charlie Sheen because he wants to marry two strippers.

            Gay marriage proponents are forced into either:

            1. Being hypocritical because they are denying the exact same right to someone else who wants the exact same thing they do.

            or

            2. Admitting their positions dictates the total deconstruction of the institution of marriage and they are fascistically forcing their views on the rest of culture/society.

          • Sheila Warner

            You are aware, aren’t you, of how Russia treats its gay citizens? Do you think Communism promotes homosexuality? You can’t argue what you do not know. Putin, that old KGB thug, uses his government to oppress gays.

          • Deborah G

            That isn’t comminism that is PUTIN. Communism supports gays to bring down a country then kills off the gays.

        • Guest

          Being gay isn’t a sin in the Christian religion. God doesn’t punish a person for being born a certain condition, he punishes conduct. Engaging in homosexual acts is considered a sin in the Christian religion. Using the word “homosexual” to describe a natural status is fairly recent; there used to be no such concept. The word “homosexual” used to refer to the activities involved, including when it is used in the Bible, along with “adulterer” etc., also not words to describe natural born status but practitioners of those various objectionable acts.

      • KStrett

        There are several different issues here. However, your main point is the religious right is guilty of hypocrisy too.

        The religious right does not preach about tolerance and diversity and then turn around and attempt to destroy the people who disagree with them. The accusation of hypocrisy falls flat there.

        To me, the left’s attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with far left doctrine is the main issue of the story.

        1. Liberal watchdog groups monitor conservatives and wait for someone to say something stupid or something they can take out of context.

        2. The offended left wing victim group launches a smear campaign that the media magnifies.

        3. Liberal attack groups go after the parent company and the advertisers in an attempt to get them fired.

        There are no conservative groups that are remotely close to these politically correct assault teams.The hypocrisy charge doesn’t fit here either.

        Finally, there is the Christian hypocrisy point you made. You believe Christians are being intolerant of the idea that being gay isn’t a sin. That would be contingent on what the Bible says about homosexuality.

        Does the bible say homosexuality is a sin. Yes, it does. It also says sex out side of marriage is a sin too. Why isn’t anyone arguing Christians are bigoted against the unwed.

        There is no political movement attacking the church from within attempting to deconstruct the bible to make premarital sex permissible.

        Often times Christians stating something is a sin is misconstrued into legalistic terms. By that I mean, X is a sin, I don’t do X, therefore I am better than you.

        The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18:9-14 illustrates my point.

        “To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

        “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

        In other words, we are all dirt bags. Jesus wasn’t a dirt bag. We are still dirt bags but because of the sacrifice and righteousness of Jesus, those who believe in him are justified in God’s eyes.

        Being justified in God’s eyes is 100% Jesus and 0% human. To exact yourself over other people because you don’t do x,y, or Z isn’t biblical. It is a sinful attitude.

        However, that does not mean I can keep having sex out side of marriage even though the bible says it is a sin or attempt to deconstruct the bible to mean sex out side of marriage is permissible.

        If you don’t hold a Christian world view and don’t believe homosexuality is a sin you are free to do so. In order to show hypocrisy, you would have to show Christian activists groups attempting to get gay shows thrown off the air using the same method the left uses.

        Has this happened before? Probably but not remotely close to the same magnitude the left does it and Christians don’t use the same method.

        • Sheila Warner

          All of this because I said both sides are intolerant of the other’s deeply held but diametrically opposed view? It was really not such a long time ago that a boycott of JC Penney was called for when the company hired Ellen DeGeneres as its spokesperson. Do liberals mount more attempts to get rid of views they don’t like? I’m not so sure. I would have to see if anyone has bothered to do an actual study on it.

          As to the other part of your comment: would to God that churches had been more vocal about adultery and divorce. The reason why the debate over gay marriage even took off is partly due to the fact that the divorce rate among Christians is about the same as among non Christians. I actually do have a Christian worldview, and I am very hard on those who make a commitment to marriage and then cheat on their spouses. That behavior is nothing less than a betrayal and a lie.

          As long as a person is not hurting another person, that person is free to live and love according to personal conscience.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            I’m curious. If you have a Christian worldview, why is your opinion on gay marriage antichrist?

          • Sheila Warner

            I’m off this thread, but your question was posed in a civil manner, so I will answer you. Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality. He said that in the beginning God made male and female and that what God has joined together, no man can separate. He was asked about divorce, so his remarks have to be taken into context. Nowhere in the Gospels is the topic of homosexuality addressed. Only in the epistles. There are rules & customs in the NT that we don’t follow anymore, just as we don’t follow the OT anymore. I happen to believe that sexuality is very complicated, more than the ancients could possibly know about. My job as a Christian is to tell people the good news of salvation, and love my neighbor as myself. I leave the issue of sexuality between God and the person’s conscience.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Do you feel the same about pedophilia? After all, where does Christ specifically condemn it?

          • Sheila Warner

            I said where no one gets hurt. Children can’t give consent. Sex with children is rape. It’s a crime. And, no, Jesus didn’t condemn pedophilia, but he warned us to take care of how we treat children. It’s obvious that children have a special place in God’s heart. Some things are common sense. Crimes hurt people. Love does not.

          • J. O. Polanco

            Given what I recently shared with you regarding porneia, Christ’s view of all extramarital non-cishet conduct is equally obvious.

          • Sheila Warner

            And there lies the rub. Since it is not legal for gay couples to wed in the majority of states, they cannot have sex other than outside of marriage. For those who aren’t in the camp of “gays are sinful”, then it is unfair to put such a rule out there and then deny the couples who want to be married. If there is separation of church and state, civil marriages for gay couples is warranted. Within the churches, that same separation and the First Amendment allows them not to participate.

          • J. Polanco

            The issue isn’t what’s legal or not in the state’s eyes since legal does not mean morally acceptable. It is our Creator who consecrates moral laws for us, not the State.

            As such, if porneia is illegal it is not because it’s been outlawed by any State but because it has been outlawed by divine decree.

          • Sheila Warner

            That is your belief, as it is also Robertson’s. You look at those who do not share your religious view as being not only wrong, but morally wrong.

            For example: in my religion, marriage is not valid if either spouse is not a baptized Christian. That is our religious tenet. The state cannot demand that couples be baptized in order to be married. It would be ridiculous. Under civil law, such couples are legally married and enjoy all the legal benefits thereof. Within my church, the couple would have to be initiated into its beliefs and have their marriage blessed afterwards, in order to partake fully in the sacraments.

            There is a separation between church and state. That’s all that people are trying to say. Your church is free to not recognize certain marriages, gay or straight. But your religious tenets do not impinge on what the government does about marriage. Which religious tenet could the state possibly choose to implement? That is one reason we are seeing gay marriage recognized more and more. It’s a state matter, not a religious matter.

          • J. Polanco

            How is any of this germane to fulfilling God’s express will as recorded in the Bible?

          • Sheila Warner

            Who decides what is God’s express will as recorded in the Bible?

            Different churches have different views on just what God’s express will as recorded in the Bible is with heterosexuals, too, when it comes to marriage. Some allow remarriage, others do not. Some require baptism, others do not. Some require church membership, others do not.

            Who has the final say? If it’s this complicated within religious denominations and traditions, why would it be any less complex at the civil level?

            Are you really not understanding that there are those with religious convictions who disagree with what you personally believe the Bible says? Or do you insist that only your interpretation of the Bible is the “right” one?

            This is why I say you keep repeating yourself. Say it over and over again: God is against gay sexual relations. It’s in the Bible, List your verses. That makes it so for you but not for other believers who are gay affirming. You can believe they are wrong, but you cannot dictate that to them. You believe in judgment, so you believe that people who are gay will go to hell. Go on believing that if you want to. No one is stopping you.

          • J. Polanco

            I don’t follow. Have you ever read the Bible in full? I ask because God Almighty has the final say on all matters pertaining to our worship of Him.

          • Sheila Warner

            Yes. More than once, and more than one version. 66 books in the KJV version, and 73 books in the Catholic Edition.

            God is looking for people to worship him in spirit and in truth. I’ve been on a quest for truth. For some of us who are trying to follow our Savior and love our neighbors as ourselves, figuring out what is true or not isn’t as straightforward as listening to only one view of NT Greek. We are trying to engage other believers who have reached different conclusions than ours.

            We are also grieved that some–SOME–followers of Jesus use some pretty vile rhetoric when discussing the LGBT community. “Perverts”, “communists”, “molestors”, “rapists”, “threats to public safety”, “destroyers of society and families”–these are despicable words, and not very Christlike.

          • J. Polanco

            “Become doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, this one is like a man looking at his own face in a mirror. For he looks at himself, and he goes away and immediately forgets what sort of person he is.

            But the one who peers into the perfect law that belongs to freedom and continues in it has become, not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; and he will be happy in what he does.” -James 1:22-25

            Why make things more complicated than they need to be? Why not just do what God Almighty asks of you?

          • Sheila Warner

            Matthew 22: 36-40 “’Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’”

            I can quote verses, too. It’s stupid.

          • J. Polanco

            Actually, since Christ was paraphrasing Deuteronomy 6:5, which reads, “ואהבת את יהוה אלהיך בכל־לבבך ובכל־נפשך ובכל־מאדך׃,” that is to say, “You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength,” Christ actually taught, “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’” – Matthew 22:37

            Do you do that Sheila? Do you “love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind”?

          • J. Polanco

            You forget too that that the Hellfire doctrine is a perverse mendacity that defames God. As a God of justice and love he would never prescribe infinite punishment for a finite crime no matter how wicked: http://bit.ly/17fVMYm

          • Sheila Warner

            So, do you believe that those who don’t obey God in this life are annihilated when their bodies perish? You do know that most of the Protestants on here have read the 66 book version of their Bibles and believe that those who flat out reject Jesus will be in hell forever, right? In my childhood church, people were condemned to hell whether or not they even ever heard about Jesus–unless you say that sinner’s prayer, then, off to hell with you when you die.

          • J. Polanco

            Do you really think we should be at all concerned with what people say rather than what God Almighty says?

            What did God tell Adam would happen to him after he threw him and Eve out of the Garden of Eden?

          • Sheila Warner

            Again, I’m not converting. I am happy with my religion, you are happy with yours, and Happy New Year, too.

          • J. Polanco

            You lost me. How does this answer my queries?

          • J. Polanco

            How does your happiness with your beliefs is have any bearing on their veridicality or falsity?

            After all, aren’t members of the Order of Nine Angels, for instance, are also very happy with their beliefs?

          • Sheila Warner

            Returned to sender

          • J. Polanco

            “The vulgar modern argument used against religion, and lately against common decency, would be absolutely fatal to any idea of liberty. It is perpetually said that because there are a hundred religions claiming to be true, it is therefore impossible that one of them should really be true.

            The argument would appear on the face of it to be illogical, if anyone nowadays troubled about logic. It would be as reasonable to say that because some people thought the earth was flat, and others (rather less incorrectly) imagined it was round, and because anybody is free to say that it is triangular or hexagonal, or a rhomboid, therefore it has no shape at all; or its shape can never be discovered; and, anyhow, modern science must be wrong in saying it is an oblate spheroid. The world must be some shape, and it must be that shape and no other; and it is not self-evident that nobody can possibly hit on the right one.

            What so obviously applies to the material shape of the world equally applies to the moral shape of the universe. The man who describes it may not be right, but it is no argument against his rightness that a number of other people must be wrong.”

            ― G.K. Chesterton

          • Sheila Warner

            “The man who describes it may not be right, but it is no argument against his rightness that a number of other people must be wrong.”

            “Someone has to be right!” I once cried out in prayer to God. “There are contradictory doctrines within Christianity, but supposedly only ONE Holy Spirit of Truth! Who has gotten it right?”

            Thus I journeyed over years and ended up in the first church, The Roman Catholic Church. And recently, my priest reminded me “we only see through a dark glass on this side”. I was lamenting how my fundamentalist family members criticize my Catholicism even after nearly a decade.

            On the other side, we’ll finally all get it right. It remains our duty to Christ to live out the law of his love to the best of our ability while we are alive. Who knows what’s on the other side of the glass, anyway?

          • J. Polanco

            This is the ONLY true religion. The only one that saves –

            “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”- Luke 4:8

            “Jehovah your God you should fear, and him you should serve.” – Deuteronomy 6:13

            Jesus taught, “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’” – Matthew 22:37

            “You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength.” – Deuteronomy 6:5

          • Sheila Warner

            You’ll never convert me to your beliefs, and we are no longer discussing “on point” issues.

            Happy New Year.

          • J. Polanco

            Are you suggesting I authored the Bible?

          • Sheila Warner

            I’m putting one answer to your three queries. I am not replying to your Biblical quotes any further. You get the last word. You should be happy. Y

          • J. Polanco

            How awful. Is this what you typically do when the Bible teaches you something you disagree with? Cut and run?

          • Sheila Warner

            You would be more accurate to say “is this what you typically do when MY Bible teaches…”. You are a JW, I am a Catholic, and there is no point to talk about our religious tenets any further. You keep on sending me replies when I gave you the last word. Take that last word and be happy that I gave it to you.

          • J. Polanco

            “JEHOVAH

            -The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion (cf. Buxtorf, “Lexicon”, Basle, 1639, col. 2432 sqq.).

            Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. The Concordances of Furst (“Vet. Test. Concordantiae”, Leipzig, 1840) and Mandelkern (“Vet. Test. Concordantiae”, Leipzig, 1896) do not exactly agree as to the number of its occurrences; but in round numbers it is found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with another Divine name. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render the name generally by “Lord” (Kyrios, Dominus), a translation of Adonai — usually substituted for Jehovah in reading.” – Catholic Encyclopedia

          • Sheila Warner

            Proselytizing & baiting….returned.

          • J. Polanco

            Your quarrel is with the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia, not me.

          • Josh

            Starting off with the conclusion that what you believe is right, and all the other billions of people are wrong, is one thing. But to then thrust on everyone else that they’re obviously wrong and it’s clear — well, that’s just above and beyond vanity.

            Every sect in Christianity has their own little variation(s). The original “Bible” itself was a by-committee amalgamation of stories, putting in
            what men thought was good and pertinent and leaving out what men thought wasn’t. And it’s been changed and morphed and translated and completely toyed with, with many creating spin-off religions that still fall under “Christianity.”

            So even leaping and assuming that what’s written in these books is the word of God, directly or inspired, what’s clear is that man has been interpreting and
            reinterpreting these words for thousands of years.

            How amazingly convenient that you few righteous harbingers of truth, knowledge and God’s word woke up in this modern age with the perfect final edit all laid out for you nice and neat on your end table.

            And woe be to those who didn’t.

          • J. Polanco

            “The vulgar modern argument used against religion, and lately against common decency, would be absolutely fatal to any idea of liberty. It is perpetually said that because there are a hundred religions claiming to be true, it is therefore impossible that one of them should really be true.

            The argument would appear on the face of it to be illogical, if anyone nowadays troubled about logic. It would be as reasonable to say that because some people thought the earth was flat, and others (rather less incorrectly) imagined it was round, and because anybody is free to say that it is triangular or hexagonal, or a rhomboid, therefore it has no shape at all; or its shape can never be discovered; and, anyhow, modern science must be wrong in saying it is an oblate spheroid. The world must be some shape, and it must be that shape and no other; and it is not self-evident that nobody can possibly hit on the right one.

            What so obviously applies to the material shape of the world equally applies to the moral shape of the universe. The man who describes it may not be right, but it is no argument against his rightness that a number of other people must be wrong.”

            ― G.K. Chesterton

          • Josh

            “It is perpetually said that because there are a hundred religions
            claiming to be true, it is therefore impossible that one of them should
            really be true.”

            This is, what, the 4th time you’ve printed this, that I’ve counted? Who knows how many more times You’ve used it.

            And even though I have no idea at all how it pertains whatsoever to anything I wrote, I’ll still address it.

            First up, the Earth existing is objective. Its shape can be objectively viewed and measured. Mixing the spiritual with the physical and using “logic” in the same paragraph is a pretty bad fail.

            Bring religions to the table that can be objectively tested and verified, then the two seem more analogous. (But, please, if you’re one of those ‘The Grand Canyon is Noah’s Flood’ folks, let me know so I can bow to you, tell you you’ve won handily, and run away quick, fast in a hurry.)

            “it is therefore impossible that one of them should
            really be true.”

            Who goes around making that argument? I’m not sure. It seems like a gargantuan strawman to me, especially in the context of fixing it with my name in the reply.

            “Improbable” is a better word. For craps and giggles: If there’s only one truth, with 50,000 contenders, 49,999 are wrong. So even assuming that one is truth, odds suggest–basic grade-school math–that any one someone worships is statistically wrong.

            A roll of the dice? Sure. A die with 50,000 sides. But the odds are incredibly overwhelming in the person’s favor picking any random one as wrong. We’re in lotto territory here. And, yes, there are easily that many religions — separate, sects of the “same,” new religions cropping up, etc.

            It then goes into finding evidence for each claim. And let’s not kid ourselves: Each individual one is a definitive, absolute claim of fact. So the burden of proof lies solely on the person claiming their one is truth. If that burden is shifted, avoided and not met, then there is grounds to say that it’s wrong. Definitive proof that it is? Maybe not. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as you’re well aware. Though it becomes a safer bet to dismiss it. On to the next. But, oh, the texts say? Circular. On to the next. A lot of people believe it? Pointless. On to the next, and so on.

            Though that’s the kind of stuff concerning believers and rabid atheists. I have no idea who says that it’s impossible for any one of them to be true from a non-believer’s standpoint. I’ve never heard anyone use that language. “Impossible,” unless used colloquially, isn’t a word often used by–or around–me.

            Again, let’s not kid ourselves on the numbers. Hundreds? Thousands upon thousands. There are religions based around trees, snakes, storms, etc, with each claiming to be truth. The odd thing: Out of all the thousands, you believe them all to be wrong save one. In that sense, there’s very little difference between you and the people supposedly making that “vulgar modern argument.”

            You’re basically making it to the vast majority of people on the planet. So you’re different how?

            Since you believe them all to be wrong, obviously, I wonder what type of language you personally use. Do you say they’re “impossible”? A giant black snake with magical powers deep in the African forest, damning people or blessing them — impossible, improbable, wrong, what?

            Do you get a pass on being a religion denier just because you believe in one, only one, and believe that to be the one true religion? I say no, but it’s rather typical for religious people, at least in my experience, to grant themselves that pass simply because they believe in one. Though, like one who would claim them all “impossible,” the religious person also denies all other 99.999%.

            Anyway. I’ll end where I started. I have no idea how pasting that comment to me goes with anything I wrote. You seem quite proud of it, and I won’t break balls, but it’s confusing me a tad. What’s it got to do with anything?

            Who made the “impossible” argument? It’s a lot of grandstanding on a strawman. Careful, they’re rather flimsy.

            I’m not saying your personal religion is “impossible.” I’m just saying how convenient it must be that you, out of everyone else with able minds on the planet, have the inside track on the one divine truth, while everyone else is wrong.

            Paste that comment again, if you must. But at least have the respect to attempt to explain what reads like a shoo-in for the Biggest Strawman of 2014 award.

          • J. Polanco

            Did you forget you claimed, “to then thrust on everyone else that they’re obviously wrong and it’s clear — well, that’s just above and beyond vanity”?

            That’s why you received the rejoinder you did. That you were already aware of the fallaciousness of your argument but proffered it anyway speaks volumes to the dearth of your noetical integrity.

            Moving right along, indirect evidence is frequently and reliably depended upon to ascertain the reality of the world we live in . As a case in point , it’s long been widely-used to show that our Sun generates power via nuclear fusion , hydrogen is present on it or that the our planet features an iron core . In like manner , creation as well as the reality that not a one of fulfilled Bible predictions has at any time been wrong constitutes unquestionable attestation for the reality of it’s composer , Jehovah God .

            This is, by far the most persuasive logical reason why millions upon millions of rational people today the world over accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God. Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such an illustrious prominence. Considering the fact that it’s literally ** impossible ** for any person to foresee with complete precision what’s sure to occur from one hour to the next, there’s no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin: http://bit.ly/1d0Y82v

          • Josh

            “to then thrust on everyone else that they’re obviously wrong and it’s clear — well, that’s just above and beyond vanity”?

            Maybe you misread that. Though I stand by it. To thrust on everyone else that they’re wrong, and that you’re right, is above and beyond vanity.

            What’s the issue there? I don’t understand this “fallaciousness of your argument” bit. You’re flatly telling every other person in existence who doesn’t believe as you believe that they’re wrong, whether you mean to or not, and I see that as vanity overload. And I’m more than willing to bet that you haven’t even attempted to view what they see as “evidence.”

            Bible predictions/prophecies — where?

            A quick question, after a short preamble. I’ve had these discussions before. More often than not, people who mention Biblical “prophecies” being fulfilled usually refer me to a circular argument of predictions being met within stories. Another I read a lot is Israel becoming a state in a day (or something to that effect; I forget the exact deets). Though isn’t that every nation’s ratification? The “day” of signing.

            Others tell me about their 7 sign predictions deal, and point to things like birds and fish and the like.

            Are these the predictions you’re referring to?

            It all goes into Nostradamus territory, and I just don’t have the stomach for it. Perhaps if I were a member of a competing tribe. But I’m not.

            Though maybe there’s a prophecy that I’m missing that actually happened in the world and isn’t Nostradamus-esque in the pick-and-choose fashion it’s interpreted. I don’t know, nor do I really care, to be honest. Unless it’s new and awe-inspiring, I’ve been down this road before.

            They’re all arguments based on presuppositions which only hold up to other like-minded religious people. For everyone outside of that circle, which is most people, it’s just a headache waiting to happen. No offense. So, if you have something that’s shocking and awe-inspiring and factually based, lay it on me.

            If it’s conversion 101 and the “but you must have faith” interpretation of a “prophecy,” then you can pound on me like Rocky’s beef ribs with the last comment of the exchange.

          • J. Polanco
          • Josh

            Perhaps I’m mistaken, but the very first one I read was basically a “prophecy” that was fulfilled inside of a story.

            If that meets the criteria for you, ah salute.

          • J. Polanco

            How so?

          • Josh

            I’m not sure what you mean by “how so.” If you mean how I feel it’s fulfilled inside of a story, then it seems rather obvious to me. Linking an Abraham prophecy (Bible) to descendants like Moses (Bible) is circular. Then, for “evidence,” some tomb paintings supposedly “confirm” that Egypt used foreigners to make bricks. And to the people looking for prophecies fulfilled, of course these foreigners meet the requirements. Though the strongest evidence there is remains inside of a story — not a historical record.

            Maybe I’m missing something, but the only sources I see cited are the Bible, random snippets of quotes which lack any context, and bullet-point factoids. Where one may expect to find a citation leading to something that’s impartial, peer-reviewed, or at least independent, I only find hyperlinks to Bible verses and extremely abbreviated quoted rhetoric which leads me to suspect quote-mining. If it isn’t, perhaps there’s some solid links I’m overlooking.

            But, as I said, if it meets your criteria, ah salute!

          • J. Polanco

            How was the ‘the very first one you read a “prophecy” that was fulfilled inside of a story’?

          • Josh

            See above. I explained it. And I can’t explain it any better.

          • J. Polanco

            Could you at least try being more specific? Citing the passages in question would be a good start.

          • Josh

            Seriously? The guy who’s linking me these prophecies and who is insisting that there’s only one truth and one right way can’t pick out the prophecies from the description given?

            …..

            This is the first one I read (and since the “fulfillment” section relied almost entirely on the Bible, it’s the only one I read):

            Prophecy 2: “Your [Abraham’s] seed will become an alien resident in a land not theirs, and they will have to serve them . . . But in the fourth generation they will return here.”—Genesis 15:13, 16.

            Fulfillment: Because of a
            famine in Canaan, four generations of Abraham’s descendants lived in
            Egypt, first as aliens but later as slaves assigned to make bricks out
            of clay and straw. Taking into account just one family line—that of
            Abraham’s great-grandson Levi, who moved to Egypt with his aged
            father—the four generations are (1) Levi, (2) his son Kohath, (3) his
            grandson Amram, and (4) his great-grandson Moses. (Exodus 6:16, 18, 20) In the year 1513 B.C.E., Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt.—See the time line below and the box “Precise Timekeeping.”

            What history reveals:

            ● According to James
            K. Hoffmeier, professor of Old Testament and Near Eastern Archaeology,
            both Egyptian writings and archaeological evidence indicate that Semites
            (such as the ancient Hebrews) were allowed to enter Egypt with their
            herds during times of famine. But did the Israelites become slaves
            there, assigned to make bricks?

            ● Although Egyptian records do not specifically mention the Israelites, Egyptian
            tomb paintings and scrolls confirm that the Egyptians used foreigners to
            make bricks out of mud and straw. In harmony with the Bible, Egyptian
            records also show that taskmasters kept written quotas for brick
            production. (Exodus 5:14, 19)
            “Egyptian sources,” says Hoffmeier, “confirm that forced labor was
            imposed on foreigners . . . during the general period when the
            oppression of the Israelites occurred. In sum, the entry of the ancient
            Hebrews into Egypt . . . during famine and their subsequent enslavement
            seems authentic.”

            ….

            So, here’s what I glean. The Bible says the people existed. The professor of the OT learned that, yes, Egypt allowed foreigners in. Therefore, prophecy fulfilled.

            I’ll definitely respond back if there’s anything that tickles my fancy, but if not the stage is all yours, and I wish you a great 2014.

          • J. Polanco

            Thank you. Now, what is your evidence that this prophecy was not fulfilled precisely as predicted?

          • Josh

            Odd request. The burden of proof isn’t on me to prove that it “was not fulfilled precisely as predicted.”

            If it’s going to turn into one of those, where you just take circular logic and things which barely add up to anecdotal evidence as fact, and then look to someone else to definitely disprove those assertions, to an impossible extent (literally), then good luck with all that.

            Am I wrong in my quick review about it? Does it not start with the presupposition that Abraham and his descendants existed, and from there asserts that Egypt accepting foreigners into their land is proof of the prophecy fulfilled because it fits a timeline?

            Imagine if you were being tried for murder and you were convicted with the prosecution using that as proof.

            “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. J. Polanco is a murder, as we’ll prove beyond a reasonable doubt. He exists, and there is an eye witness who claims to have seen someone enter the victim’s residence. Therefore, it was J. Polanco. Without a doubt.”

            “Yeah, but….huh? It coulda been anybody!”

            “The timeline matches. You are alive, are you not? Someone was seen entering the victim’s residence, were they not? Therefore, guilty.”

            What you linked me wasn’t even as solid as that. Yet, now, I’M supposed to provide evidence against it? Yeesh.

            As I’ve said, I’ve been down this road before.

            They’re true? If that’s what you believe, I have no gripe.

            Good on ya.

          • J. Polanco

            It is, however, your burden to present credible evidence justifying your rejection of the historical proof affirming the accurate fulfillment of this particular prophecy. Otherwise your entire argument is but a fallacious argumentum ad lapidem.

          • Josh

            I imagine it feels nice to say, but it’s utter hogwash.

            The claim: The prophecy is fulfilled.

            The evidence: None.

            I mean, there’s not even a drop in the bucket here. And your refusal to address it, rather just shifting the burden, says everything anyone needs to know about your character.

            You’re claiming “historical proof.”

            Show the historical proof.

            Or did you not read my murder charge example?

            You–or they, or anyone else that you’ve shown–have not shown even a small fraction of evidence, much less proof.

            It is painfully obvious that you hold the presupposition that this is true. Thus you feel circular logic and mere happenstance, not to mention the say-so of the word of one professor of the Old Testament, to be ironclad, indisputable truth. But I don’t think you know much about the Egyptians. At all.

            The Ancient Alien theorists try the same thing. So, don’t worry; it’s not exclusive to mainstream religions.

            But, not so fast. The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers. They kept detailed records, even in the forms of receipts for lamps and oil. Their commerce is amazingly documented. Anything that was of import for the time is immortalized, specifically and frequently, in art. Yet no mention of anything other than “foreigners.” Moses never made an impact, huh? Just like all those UFOs hovering around and aliens building the pyramids didn’t either.

            “your rejection of the historical proof affirming the accurate fulfillment of this particular prophecy.”

            Bear false witness much? Careful with that.

          • J. Polanco

            Were you aware that there are literally ** thousands ** of ancient Bible manuscripts – in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine – available today in museums the world over?In fact, no other ancient writings are as well attested to as the Bible’s. When you compare these manuscripts to modern Bibles it’s unmistakable how accurately these render the ancient texts.As such, any fears of tampering or errataare unwarranted.

          • Josh

            Says you. But why, then, do over 30,000 separate sects claim to have the ultimate correct version of worship — from their books and culture to prayers and lives?

            These aren’t questions I typically concern myself with. To each their own on what they believe and worship. But when someone attempts so fervently and unabashedly to tell everyone else what the “truth” is, then it’s worth mentioning that what you’re thrusting on people as the only possible truth is contested–perhaps the most heavily–in religious circles, with everyone from A to Z 9-V2.5 interpreting things differently.

            And, again, how convenient that of 7 billion living today, and all the billions to live before, that you happen to personally know the truth, and it’s everyone else who’s wrong.

            If I felt myself that enlightened of a human, I’d probably be the same. I can’t front.

          • J. Polanco

            “The vulgar modern argument used against religion, and lately against common decency, would be absolutely fatal to any idea of liberty. It is perpetually said that because there are a hundred religions claiming to be true, it is therefore impossible that one of them should really be true.

            The argument would appear on the face of it to be illogical, if anyone nowadays troubled about logic. It would be as reasonable to say that because some people thought the earth was flat, and others (rather less incorrectly) imagined it was round, and because anybody is free to say that it is triangular or hexagonal, or a rhomboid, therefore it has no shape at all; or its shape can never be discovered; and, anyhow, modern science must be wrong in saying it is an oblate spheroid. The world must be some shape, and it must be that shape and no other; and it is not self-evident that nobody can possibly hit on the right one.

            What so obviously applies to the material shape of the world equally applies to the moral shape of the universe. The man who describes it may not be right, but it is no argument against his rightness that a number of other people must be wrong.”

            ― G.K. Chesterton

          • KStrett

            “And there lies the rub. Since it is not legal for gay couples to wed in
            the majority of states, they cannot have sex other than outside of
            marriage.”

            Since the church has never wed gay couples, you would be forced to concede that is a pretty good indication that homosexuality doesn’t have a biblical stamp of approval.

            “For those who aren’t in the camp of “gays are sinful”, then it is unfair
            to put such a rule out there and then deny the couples who want to be
            married.”

            This is a false dichotomy. The other option is redefining marriage isn’t a constitutional right.

            Is it unfair that I am being denied the right to marry three women?

            ” If there is separation of church and state”

            You are conflating two different issues. Does the Bible say homosexuality is a sin is a different subject from do homosexuals have a constitutional right to redefine marriage.

          • Josh

            “Is it unfair that I am being denied the right to marry three women?”

            Yes.

          • KStrett

            I think you missed his point. You are using deconstructionism to change what the bible teaches about homosexually because you don’t like what it says.

            Your argument is essentially:

            Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality, therefore homosexuality is permissible.

            You can you your logic chain to make anything permissible as long as Jesus didn’t say anything about it.

            Jesus didn’t say anything about X, therefore homosexuality is permissible.

          • Sheila Warner

            No, what I am saying is that Jesus is God. If God deems homosexuality as so despicable, why isn’t it addressed until after his ascension? I believe the Spirit guided the apostles as they developed doctrine. I want to be sure of where I stake my beliefs when Bible scholars disagree with what a proper interpretation should actually be. I’m not a Greek scholar myself, and my upbringing was in a fundamentalist church with only one view of the Greek presented. I was never allowed to be exposed to what others believed about the Greek. As I say, I am still wrestling with this.

          • Deborah G

            It was addressed in Leviticus

          • Sheila Warner

            The discussion was centered on the NT texts. Of course anyone involved in talking about whether or not being gay is a sin knows all about Leviticus. But we are sticking to the NT here, as it is the New Covenant, and the Law is not valid for us anymore.

          • KStrett

            ” it is the New Covenant, and the Law is not valid for us anymore.”

            There is a difference between the law and sinful behavior. You argument is the equivalent of saying because of Jesus’ sacrifice for all mankind there is no need to separate two different kinds of food any more and I can have sex out side of marriage all I want.

          • KStrett

            “why isn’t it addressed until after his ascension?”

            Homosexuality was addressed in the OT as an abomination. Paul addressed it as well. You logic on this is flawed:

            Jesus didn’t say anything about X, therefore X is permissible. You cannot use this type of thinking to determine what is biblically permissible.

            If homosexuality was deemed permissible, the Church would have been marrying two men and women for 2000 years.

            Jesus said to even look at a woman with lust in your heart is a sin. That passage alone condemns every man on the planet as a sinner. That doesn’t mean men can embrace the sin instead of turning away from it.

            This would also mean in order for homosexuality to have the Biblical stamp of approval, the church would have to be marrying homosexual couples. hey have never done that. Again:

            1. Jesus made a mistake and forgot to give his stamp of approval on homosexuality. This would be a problem for simultaneously believing in Jesus’ divinity.

            or

            2. The idea that homosexuality isn’t a sin doesn’t come from the Bible but man.

          • KStrett

            “Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality.”

            Paul did and so did the Old Testament.

            It is also pretty clear that Biblically, sex out side of marriage is a sin.

            If Jesus thought homosexuality was permissible, why didn’t the church ever marry two men or two woman?

            Do you believe Jesus was and is God?

            Why would God let a group of people live in sin for 2000 yeas?

          • Sheila Warner

            I completely understand why you believe what you do. But if there are some Christians who don’t believe being gay is a sin, then, in their minds, God didn’t let gays live in sin for 2000 years. They believe that, for two thousand years, God made gays the way they are. Is it an aberration? Yes. But because it involves complex issues of love, loyalty, and family, it is not so cut and dry for some of us. I am still struggling with all of this, but my own experiences in life make me more inclined to see gays in a different light than that in which I was raised.

          • KStrett

            Shelia,
            Christians who believe homosexuality isn’t a sin are not using the Bible to determine this. They are deciding they don’t like the idea first and then using deconstructionism to change what the bible says.

            The equivalent would be a organized group within the church arguing we don’t really know what scripture says about premarital sex. It is really a complex issue, therefore it is bibically permissible to have premarital sex.

            You did not address my point.

            If sex out side of marriage is a sin, homosexuals have been living in sin for 2000 years. The Church has never married two men or two women. You are forced into holding one of two positions

            1. Jesus made a mistake and forgot to give his stamp of approval on homosexuality. This would be a problem for simultaneously believing in Jesus’ divinity.

            or

            2. The idea that homosexuality isn’t a sin doesn’t come from the Bible but man.

          • Sheila Warner

            I completely got what you said. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

          • KStrett

            Shelia,
            I address how and why Christians boycotting something is not the same as what the left does.

            Left wing watchdog groups are literally listening to conservative radios shows and television show looking for something they can use to get people thrown off the air. This is their job.

            When they find something they can use, far left activist start harassing the parent company and the sponsors. They don’t use the sponsors and the only reason they listen or watch the shows is to silence the opposition.

            The amount of calls the parent company and sponsors get scares them into firing the offender. The reality is the outrage isn’t there. It is completely manufactured. The comments the offender made have little to no effect on the parent company or the sponsors.

            What study do you need to see? This is a fact. What happened to Rush Limbaugh when her called the poster girl for the fake war on women a name?

            The left did the same thing. They attacked the sponsors and scared them. After a few of the bowed to the pressure, they realized not advertising on the show hurt them more and they wanted to come back.

            This is not what Christian groups do. They really do shop at JC Penny. They do not use phone banks to give the appearance that more people are outraged. The are not motoring the airways and attempting to get people kicked off the air who disagree with a Christian world view. The times Christian groups have done this pale in comparison to the far left.

            “As to the other part of your comment: would to God that churches had been more vocal about adultery and divorce.”

            This is a red herring.

            “The reason why the debate over gay marriage even took off is partly due
            to the fact that the divorce rate among Christians is about the same as
            among non Christians.”

            This statement is completely false. The reason gay activists’ attempt to redefine marriage took off was because judges legislating from the bench started redefining marriage via judicial fiat.

            “As long as a person is not hurting another person, that person is free to live and love according to personal conscience.”

            I agree with you. That doesn’t mean homosexuals have a constitutional right to redefine marriage. That doesn’t mean activist have a right to attempt to change what the Bible says because they don’t like it.

          • Sheila Warner

            A very cogent reply. You have the last word.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    I note a lot has been said about A&E’s right to fire notwithstanding Robertson’s “right to free speech”. Being an employer, let me just point out how quick any regular employers would be sued for human rights violations if they fired some one for their “religious stance”. Whether Muslim, Jewish, or Jehovah Witness, you are NOT entitled to fire folks for their religious beliefs. And that includes whether or not they “spout them off”. It seems only evangelical Christians have no protection against religious intolerance in this Country.

    • Deborah G

      You are actually correct and no one can make you sign away your rights.and have them hold up in court. I have one of the slickest lawyer team in the NY area he’d wipe the map with that contravt. He has won bigger cases. AND the Robertsons could afford him LOL

    • Josh

      Suing someone is a whole separate universe in itself. It’s one of America’s biggest industries. Suing someone doesn’t say that the business wasn’t “entitled” to fire; it’s saying that some scumbag lawyers, using a twisted legal system, turn everyone into a grievous victim who needs to get pizz-aid out the rear for unfathomable slights they have suffered by being a tad inconvenienced or, Pete forbid, forced to comply to someone else’s standards in a private setting.

      If we’re talking about everyday Bill working at the A&P, every single honest person in existence knows that Bill would have a payday coming if he sued because he was fired for voicing his beliefs. Lawsuits don’t care which religion you worship. All that matters is how cunning and weasel-like the legal team is. But we’re talking about big-wig Phil working for the multi-billion-dollar corporation A+E Networks (which means we’re talking about Disney at the end of the rainbow). Holding them to a standard you want requires the populous winds to blow in that same direction — i.e. the reason A&E fired/suspended/smacked Phil in the first place.

  • SAWB69

    You’re wrong on this one, Bernie, and frankly I’m getting bored with you. There is a cultural war going on, and you can surrender or declare yourself a conscientious objector if you want, but I’ll keep fighting. The leftist haters like GLAAD certainly won’t be giving up.

  • liberty67

    Mr. Goldberg, you need to actually study the Bible before drawing conclusions based on when it was written and what applies and what doesn’t. Maybe you can convince Mr. O’Reilly to co-write a book titled “Killing Paul”. Then you could learn of the Roman and Jewish elitest moral and ethical corruption which directly and indirectly caused their downfall. Direct correlations to our “Modern” era.

  • JoeBlack

    And you Mr. Goldberg, have the God given right to be a moral coward

  • Tony Tassoni

    What you fail to understand about Christians is that we love God and live our lives knowing He is here, yes right here and now, with us in every aspect of our lives. He inspires even these writings. God made it clear early on and then through His Son Jesus Christ that abiding in Him is our pathway to salvation and everlasting life. He is clear on what He expects from us. To give credence to anything on entertainment television such as Duck Dynasty is simply ridiculous. What Phil says has no relavance period. But what matters is how we respond and react to each other. Personally, I believe Phil was speaking his mind in character and being true to himself. God will judge that. All of this does not change the truth of the matter as specified in the Bible and by Jesus Himself. Phil happened to be echoing the teachings of the Bible when he made his statements. Those who criticize him including A&E for believing what he believes have every right to do so… they killed Jesus too, but it will never change the Truth and that my friend is what the opposition is trying to change. I would ask any of them to think for a moment and consider that since God is with them at this very moment have they invited Him to be part of their life, and if so are they listening to Him and His Will for them? If they were listening they would know that Phil was correct with respect to God’s Will for us. Behaving as though God lives in the sky or in the church or not at all in the realm of man is the height of ignorance. God is historic and forever, He is patient and forgiving, He will judge us. Getting it right is of critical importance. Knowing Him and serving Him is the best part of living. So take the guess-work out of whats right and wrong. Ask God ,and then listen and become obedient to Him as He is our Father.

  • bella duparee

    @SHEILA WARNER. Lady, and I use the word “loosely.” I’ve forgotten more than you will ever know and don’t waste your time sending me your “factual” crap. I am well aware of the original convention of all caps but I don’t give a rats ass if you or Tko or anyone doesn’t like them. If you are annoyed, I would suggest you bypass my comments. Obviously you also need to get a life.

    • Sheila Warner

      Finally! An admission of the truth, albeit a bit late in coming. “I am well aware of the original convention of all caps…” You have forgotten more than I will ever know? It seems that you forgot about the original internet rules of etiquette, and facts jogged your memory. Most people like objective factual evidence, but I suppose you are free to only run with the subjective.

      Those of on here who pointed out your all caps gaffe were merely trying to help you make your points with a modicum of credibility. We like debate, and we’d like everyone to be up to speed regarding things like proper decorum. I’m perplexed at your resistance for rules of etiquette when you seem to be very concerned about rules in general (in the Bible, anyway.)

  • bella duparee

    @Tko..Suff your convention. Obviously you haven’t noted other who choose not to abide by the “accepted conventions” and use caps to emphasize, get their point across. So, Ms. Bells suggests when you see my caps that offend you, just move on to the next comment. Get a life..

    • T Ko

      Sorry, Ms. Bells, but you must have me ‘corn-fused’ with someone else. I never told you not to use all caps. As a matter of fact, I never told you not to be rude or ignorant either.

      So, go ahead and knock yourself out.

      BTW, “…Suff your convention.” Hmmm??? I didn’t quite get that one. Nice life???

  • bella duparee

    Well Deborah..Yes, it is ok for Bernie to be “intolerant.” Get the picture. @SHEILA WARNER.. No, I’m not confuse, it is your verbage that is confusing. Your comment: WHAT A PICTURE/here..Maybe you meant “WANT A PICTURE, NOT “WHAT A PICTURE.” Whereby, I didn’t choose to click on y7our “here” as I din’t What a Picture..

    • Sheila Warner

      You don’t really want to start trading in typos with me, do you? Really? Just read your comment to which I am replying I messed up one word. You messed up four words in five lines. By the way, the behavior depicted in the picture is so bad, it could actually be “what a picture!”

      I could see that you were confused. I clarified as much as I could. I can see why someone who doesn’t follow the news closely might not ever have heard of the Westboro bunch. I was trying to explain a very difficult problem, that is, why the Westboro people believe God is happy when soldiers are KIA. Sorry if I cluttered your life with answers to your very reasonable question. Unless you see it, it is hard to describe what Westboro is. I mentioned proper spelling of the church’s name in case anyone wanted to google it for more information.

      Oh, in case you never saw the photo, and for some reason thought I deliberately posted a picture of something else, just go to Google and type in “Westboro Baptist Church”. Select “images” and you will have many photos to peruse.

    • T Ko

      Ms. Bells, you really should get a proofreader to clean up your comments. They don’t look so good. :-(

      “…I’m not confuse…” “… click on y7our …”
      (just a couple of ‘em)

  • bella duparee

    @Tko..I think you have “foot in mouth disease.” You say “NOT PERMITTING SOMEONE TO SPEAK THEIR BELIEF IS INTOLERANT? Well, I spoke what I believe so is there a double standard on your part? Hey, using all caps is not yelling! Using all caps is in hopes of getting the ignoramus’s attention/per Bernie Goldberg regarding Robertson’s opinions. ALSO. I didn’t say God was picketing soldiers funerals. I said the Westborough Church pickets our brave soldiers, who fought and died for our/your freedom at their funerals. If you aren’t aware of Westborough, then you need to read about them and their picketing at our dead soldiers coming home with signs that read GOD HATES SOLDIERS..

    • T Ko

      Did I tell you to not speak?

    • T Ko

      ALL CAPS IS FOR EMPHASIS. IT ALSO INDICATES YELLING! That is an accepted convention within the blog/text community. Sorry about that, Ms. Bella, but it just is.

      • Sheila Warner

        Forget it. She cannot be reasoned with. I sent her a link to an article which explained the all caps thing, but she just doesn’t want factual evidence to ruin her typing.

        • T Ko

          Some folks are like that…yeah they are!

    • T Ko

      I repeat so you ‘here’… I say you no ‘talkee’? No, no, ‘no-ee’.

  • bella duparee

    @SHEILA WARNER. I think you are the one who is confused.

  • bella duparee

    @DEBORAH G. YOU MISSED THE POINT…BERNIE IS NOT “TOLERANT” OF THE “INTOLERANT.” That is why he called Robertson an ignoramus!

    • T Ko

      Ms. Bella, honesty is not intolerance. Religious conviction is not intolerance. Being true to one’s own self is not intolerance.

      Not permitting someone to speak to their beliefs IS intolerant.

      Also, YELLING online in print without due cause IS intolerant.

  • bella duparee

    @Sheila Warner..Sorry, I am confused..You said God loves dead soldiers? Then why do they picket our soldiers funerals that come home from this war?

  • bella duparee

    @pepps. You got it right. Phil Robertson contradicts himself and his belief in God’s word when he quotes scripture and then does the opposite. “Love your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.” His comments were just a tad hypocritical/lies as his verbage definitely speaks of hate for homosexuals. @DON. Beg to differ, Bernie was correct in using the word ignoramus and what Robertson said is excactly what was UNCALLED FOR.

    • Deborah G

      Why is Bernie calling someone an intolorant name right but Phil quoting from the Bible is wrong

      • T Ko

        Perhaps…we all make mistakes…maybe? Just sayin’…

        • Deborah G

          True he is normally well Normal LOL

          • T Ko

            Hey, Bernie’s probably still got a few laps to run, I hope. That doesn’t mean that he’s impervious to the same effects of age–and being human–as we all are.

    • guy who wants to say something

      bella duparee,
      You mention that Phil’s verbage “definitely speaks of hate”
      How is it that you can determine what hate is for another person, just because you didn’t like the way it sounded (like all the other whine babies) does not mean it is hate. Plus if he is true to his word he would treat all the same and love everyone as he does his family. So let me ask the whole world: How can you determine what he thinks or how he treats others if you have never met him or spent a good amount of time with him in that area of the US?
      You all base your thoughts on the partial babble of the media, exactly why we have so many misinformed, misguided, undereducated persons making naïve decisions and then using those for an argument they want to say it fact.
      That’s what is wrong here people, no one can stand to shut their mouth long enough to learn the truth or to know what it is like in that other place or for that other person. So if you are not in a position to know the whole truth and to experience the same things as that other person or type of people, or a place, whatever, then shut the hell up.

    • T Ko

      If you see person headed for cliff (figuratively–look it up), then you warn person. Same with religious people (figuratively).

  • bella duparee

    @Sheila. You have me confused. West Borough Baptist church does not love soldiers. They condemn our soldiers for killing the terrorists, our very enemies and picket their funerals with ugly signs?

    • Sheila Warner
      • T Ko

        Yeah, I don’t know from where she comes…it sounds like someone who is just tryin’ to stir discontent.

        • Sheila Warner

          BTW, Merry Christmas to you!

          • T Ko

            M E R R Y C H R I S T M A S !

      • Sheila Warner

        Okay. I’ll try to be clearer, you’ve seen the signs. They believe that our troops are fighting for America, and that America is now so pro-gay in its policies, that God is punishing America by letting troops get killed on the battlefield. I know it is an amazing train of thought on their part, but that’s why they picket military funerals with those horrible signs. The family of a soldier who was KIA sued the Westboro church for causing them emotional distress. SCOTUS decided in favor of Westboro on the grounds of free speech, and the family had to pay the legal bills of Westboro. The Westboro Baptist members (mostly all family) don’t see our troops as fighting against terrorists but as fighting for a gay affirming America. And, the spelling really is Westboro. Phelps is the pastor. Look it up. You will be shocked if you haven’t heard about this before. I assume you don’t follow the news too much? It was all over the news when the lawsuit was decided.

    • T Ko

      WestBoro not God. Follow God, not WestBoro.

  • Don

    Bernie, I think that it is good for people to actually know what the Bible says about homosexuality and adultery. Also, the ignoramus comment was uncalled for.

    • Sheila Warner

      Ah, you may want to hop on over to the Gay Christian Network on YouTube. They don’t believe that is what the Bible actually says. I used to be one of those who thought being gay was sinful. I was curious to know how gay Christians dealt with passages such as the one Robertson quoted. It’s quite interesting. You might not agree, but it’s worth taking a look at it.

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        In my opinion, wanton promiscuity of ANY kind is sinful.

        • Sheila Warner

          Do you believe all gays are wantonly promiscuous? If you do, that explains quite a bit about what you believe. If not, then I’d like to know where that comment came from.

  • ARJ127

    This may be a reason for conservatives to become as impassioned about the First Amendment as they are about the second. Robertson has the right to express his views – even if they are stupid, ignorant and based on that fairy tale known as the Bible.

    • Sheila Warner

      No one disputes his right. His fans believe somehow that a private corporation is not allowed to sanction an employee for speaking his mind. They don’t understand the difference between the government shutting down speech vs a private company’s sanctions against speech. No one said those folks are rocket scientists, remember.

      • ARJ127

        A&E probably doesn’t want to be blackballed by gay rights advocates. Hence, they have made a decision to effectively deny Robertson’s right to be an idiot in public. A&E should simply publish a disclaimer before each episode to the effect that the thoughts ramblings etc. of any of the individuals in this show are not necessarily representative of A&E’s corporate policies.

  • Bob

    You have the right to be an ignoramus once in a while as well, Bernie. Just as you did with this article.

  • bella duparee

    @DEBORAH G. I truly apologize for my mean spirited, rude comment to you. It was totally unnecessary and I make typo errors myself and been hit with insulting references when obvious a typo and think it is rude and petty. AND THEN I TREAT YOU WITH SUCH DISRESPECT. I hope you will accept my sincere apology. p.s. Don’t know what “dessert” Obama likes but guarantee you he isn’t my dessert du jour.

    • Deborah G

      HHAHA APoloogy happily accepted. We have all gotten a buit hot under the collar here. let’s do what The Robertsaons'; do Put aside the differences and thank God for the Country we love and the family we cherish’ Here is part of their Christmas greeting

      From
      the Duck Commander Family

      Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down
      from the Father of lights with whom there is
      no variation or shadow due to change.—James 1:17

  • Linda Grace

    Phil did use the correct words, but it was still not necessary for him to be that graphic. We are constantly bombarded with bad language and innuendo every day by the media, so it is better to stay on the safe side. Most of the trouble we get into is with our words. Look at how often candidates have hurt their campaigns with their words!

    • Deborah G

      Well it just shows that the divide in this country is great . I hope we Christians can help bridge the gap.

      ” God Bless everyone ”
      Dicken’s A Christmas Carol
      Tiny Tim Not the Bible

  • TheGoodDoctor

    Seems to me that this is neither an issue for A&E to be involved with nor to respond to in any form or fashion: forcing such involvements and responses is one of the wrenches in the toolkits of those who would stir and stir like witches the boiling pot until it foams and roils over the edges, which is what is beginning to happen in this once great land that, even yet, holds more potential for good and the adventures of the future than any other nation. But, then, you too suckered for the ploy, Bernie.

    • legal eagle

      Hate and prejudice is often generational…Roberson is not being paid
      $2 mil+ per year, by A&E, to preach intolerance to kids who watch the show….

      • TheGoodDoctor

        Robertson was not teaching viewers, much less kids, anything: he was responding to a question asked by in interviewer for GQ magazine, which is where the interview appeared. The fact remains, adults in this nation should comprehend and teach the virtues of the freedom of speech, which (among other charms) allows each of us to reveal our genius or commonness or witlessness; instead, too too many folks allow themselves to be drawn into the sewage of bad principles and scandal by the magnification of mere thoughts into billboard shouting matches. Fly straight.

        • legal eagle

          The shouting match you refer to is the result of Fox News’ and a few right wing politicians’ need to create a wedge issue in an effort to keep ratings up.
          This is not a free speech issue. Robertson is free to say whatever he wants. His employer is free to react whatever way they wish. Free speech is not an absolute right under the law. There are many exceptions to free speech, just as there are many exceptions to every constitutional right.

          • floridahank

            Hey all this kind of thing is fun and games. The main result is to get higher ratings and increase the $$$. Don’t take things so seriously.

          • T Ko

            Yep.

          • T Ko

            Reberson, or Robertson, has certainly experienced every known freedom in expressing his views, who could argue with that?

            Now, when it came to a moral issue it appeared to have crossed the line when he ruffled some LGBT community feathers. Imagine that…and A&E’s response. Hmmmm….

          • legal eagle

            A&E has power to draw the line.. Robertson can cross it but it will cost him a lot of $$$…Were you as upset when MSNBC fired Alec Baldwin?

          • T Ko

            And it won’t cost A&E at the same time? If you believe that then you are a fool.

      • T Ko

        No, tolerance of all lifestyles, behaviors, mores is more in keeping with their business plan.

        But Wait! Isn’t it intolerant of A&E to persecute Roberson for his religious views? They seem prejudiced to me.

        • legal eagle

          It’s about business, not social mores…A&E cares about audiences and advertisers. I believe they were sending Robertson a message about making offensive comments…..For the amount of money at stake I will assume he got the message..

          • T Ko

            Agreed, but only with the stipulation that it was what A&E considered to be offensive.

            Do you really think that the #1 cable show today is actually a big draw for the LGBT community? I don’t.

            They profess to be rednecks, they talk like rednecks, they act like rednecks…so they must be Ducks then. That is, rich Ducks.

            But, “They ain’t no kinda’ liberal folk…ya’ can bet on that!”

            And you can take that to the bank, my friend.

          • legal eagle

            I would agree that A&E, like every corporation, has their own rules on what is offensive…and you have the option of watching or not watching…
            Merry Christmas..

          • T Ko

            I certainly agree with you there.

            Merry Christmas to you, as well.

      • Drew Page

        It’s hard to tell from your comments, legal eagle, if you are a prosecutor or a defense attorney.

        • legal eagle

          I don’t deal with criminals….too hard to get paid…LOL

        • Sheila Warner

          Now do you understand why some of us warn about taking le’s bait? You’ll get lost in his circular thinking, for sure.

    • legal eagle

      Last week, Sarah Palin wrote this on Facebook:

      Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

      But as Politico reports, yesterday on Fox News Palin admitted she hasn’t read the GQ profile that led to all the intolerants “hatin’ and taking on” Phil Robertson — you know, the one where he waxes about the evils of Shintoism and homosexuality and describes how Jim Crow didn’t look that bad to him.

      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-never-read-phil-robertsons-infamous-interview-2013-12#ixzz2oVvW1gxL

  • Wheels55

    Bashir is a professional who was truly vile and disgusting. Robertson is just a normal guy who gets asked what he thinks.
    As usual, I say if you don’t like it, don’t listen / watch.
    Do gays really want the Robertson’s to advance their cause? Do they really care?

    • Scott Robinson

      I made plenty of arguments against you besides your terrible, terrible spelling, and yet you simply ignored those and when on to spew your opinions here, where once again you could be uninhibited by logical and polite thought. :)

      • Wheels55

        Calm down Scott. I don’t really care what you think and, therefore, you shouldn’t get your panties in a wad over what I think.
        Merry Christmas!!

        • Scott Robinson

          I need to calm down? But I am so clearly upset, as obvious by my horrible grammar from ranting on my keyboard all day, or that smiley face meant to convey how angry and crazy I am! Also, I don’t wear panties! yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay Kul ‘am wa enta bi-khair!

  • pepps

    thanks Bernie I think you are right,
    Jesus said the greatest commandment is “Love”,
    your neighbor and yourself, this is all inclusive

    • floridahank

      You said, “Jesus said the greatest commandment is “Love your neighbor and yourself…..” You’re not understanding the Scriptures properly.

      You should read the 10 Commandments — “First, Thou shall not have any Gods before me.”
      If you fulfill that one then study the other Commandments before you can tout anything about what Jesus meant “Love is the greatest commandment.”

      I’m sure y ou have no idea what Jesus was saying about that commandment unless you understand the entire Bible.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Since I see used here endlessly the whole context is here Romans chapter 1 vs 21. For even they knew God, they did not honor him as God, or give thanks; but ehy became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22. Professing to be wise they became fools, 23. and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four footed animals and crawling creatures. 24. Therefore God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity, that there bodies might be dishonored among them. 25. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen. 26. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27. And in the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire for one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave then over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper. 29. being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed,evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, they are gossips, 30. slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobediant to parents,31. without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32. and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practise such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practise them. And as Jesus (Yeshua) said repeatedly, it was for just for sinners such as these that he gave his life a ransom. As Romans also says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”. WITHOUT CONTEXT YOU’RE BEING LIED TO.

    • Rustyrambler

      Thank you for the biblical exposition. But I have my own Bible, several in fact, so that I can cross-reference, and translate meanings of obscure and difficult to interpret passages. I’m not a scholar. Nor do I tell others what they should, or should not believe.
      This issue did not just come up out the swamp via Duck Dynasty.
      But is an issue that Americans need to confront. It involves social, political, religious, ethical, moral complexities that can not be resolved using any one of the aforementioned human dynamics. In fact, it may never be resolved to every ones satisfaction. That’s okay; “We see only dimly in the mirror, one day we’ll see clearly”. But not today!

      • Brian Fr Langley

        There were folks on this site making comments on this passage out of context, and others (if you read them) seemed to regard the out of context accusations as accurate.

        • Rustyrambler

          There is a definite drift factor, pretzel logic to a lot of these comments. Trying to focus on constructive criticism and complimentary discussion can be difficult, at best. Bomb throwers, drive-by assassins, Bible thumpers and drifters with various agendas,seem to get off on being disruptive just for the shock value. Boring!

  • Josh

    I had replied to this, but I guess it didn’t clear moderation.

    So instead of retyping all of it on memory, I’ll sum up my reply.

    “ALL Christians believe the Bible as the word of God.”

    There are well over 30,000 different types of Christianity. The only thing that’s common amongst Christians is that Christians don’t really agree on much of anything, hence there being over 30,000 different sects.

    And every fundamentalist from every single one believes that their personal interpretation is the 100% infallible word of God and that everything else, all the other billions upon billions of people, are ignorant and on their way to hell.

    God might not need to compromise, but his followers certainly seem to believe he does. Or else they wouldn’t twist and interpret and reinterpret every quote, quip and decree to suit their individual needs or the cultural winds of influence.

  • DaveW

    Bernie, I admire your courage to be honest despite the criticism you will get from the far right crazies. It is amazing to me that there are still so many Americans on the religious right who will defend ideas from the Bible that are so ridiculous and outrageous. If you lose some of those readers you have lost nobody of importance. The far right are killing the opportunity for moderate conservatives and independents to elect a Republican president.

    • Rustyrambler

      I’ll second that. I’m fed-up with the Rino talk. Almost everyone agrees, the county’s center-right, so a moderate is a good fit. Hang in, Dave.
      We still need reasoned, reflective, rational voices to fight the good fight. I live in the Philippines. After 32 years I’d like to come home. I vote, [nationally], and try to stay engaged, but America does’nt even look like the country I fought to defend. Hopefully, that will start to change with the 2014 elections. “Go Rinos”!

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        Nowadays, I fear many people believe a “moderate” to be someone who doesn’t stand up for principles. We don’t need a “moderate”, we need a conservative-who may be practical at least on some matters, but still conservative nonetheless.

        • Sheila Warner

          Do you think “practical” is different from “conservative?”

          Yes, a moderate is misunderstood. I am a moderate: I listen carefully to multiple points of view, and then I mull them over. I put those views up against my own beliefs to see if/how they can be incorporated into my present way of seeing things. I try to take the best of those varying views and cull what I believe is the best of the bunch. It’s quite a bit of mental work.

          I think being an ideologue would be so much easier, but I find common sense to be lacking in rigid ideology. There are times that I stay with the same mind set, but not always. Compromise is not a dirty word, Sometimes compromise will work and at other times a principle is just too deeply held to yield up even an inch.

        • Rustyrambler

          Right! And in one very brief paragraph you have demonstrated why the “Left” has had the “Right” on the ropes. I’m an independent voter. Every candidate I survey, and/or research, [before I vote], has principles. Obama has principles, Harry”the war is lost”Reid, has principles, etc. ad infinitum. I happen to think they’re wrong, but they’re going to be around for another three years, and then , maybe, Billary moves back into 3k Penn Ave., while people like you are arguing about who is/not conservative enough, or too moderate, whatever. Get a clue, and then get a grip!

    • Deborah G

      What makes you think they are crazies? There YOU Go calling people names . THAt is hate speaach to people.WHo are you to decide that Evangelicals are not important?There are MILLIONS of them between the coasts. What if those Evangelicals actuially do rally their forces and you get a conservative who happens to believe in the Bible too? AND what makes you think the people here are FAR right with a negative connotation as if decent people are something to be mocked? You happen to think the people who believe in the Bible are ridiculous. I happen to think they are entitled to their beliefs and deserve a voice. ONE Show? ONZe freaking show out of all the liberal crap like Jersey shore where musical beds and body narcissism , drinku=ing is considered good viewing well here;’s a clue Evn NON Evangelical Christians are offended and they have ahuge pocket.dismiss them at your own peril. You woke a sleeping giant

    • Sheila Warner

      Americans on the right will go to where their heroes are being maligned. And, some are outright trolls who go to liberal and/or secular sites in order to proselytize. I doubt Bernie will lose readership over this one. His success proves his ability to tap into what Americans are talking about at any given time.

  • bella duparee

    Totally agree with your assessment as is mine.

  • bella duparee

    @DEBORAH G. WoW..you are something else. You believe Obama is “realy” how about really is gay or Bi. You believe quantum “leap.?” How about leap? “minstry.”? If your spelling indicates your intellect, dah..

    • Deborah G

      Ridiculous. When you have no argument you personally attack someone for a typo? HOW utterly insignificant you are.I can fix a typoi I can’t fix your kind of stupid.

  • T Ko

    Deborah’s comment is interesting because I had come to the conclusion that “time” is a man-made convention that has no real purpose for God.

    We measure the distance between events here on earth by using “time”. In the conceptual function of “eternity”, there is no end and, thus, how could there be a “beginning”?

    In explaining the disparities we sometimes encounter when making comparisons of “scientific” data to the written Word of God, it cannot be resolved using the conventions established by man because they are limited. According to the professed beliefs of most Christians, God’s concepts and perspectives are limitless, a discernible difference from the concepts of man.

    The truth is not to be revealed until God determines it to be so.

    • Sheila Warner

      Even our measurement of time is subjective. Light years, lunar & calendar years; and then there are different calendars for different cultures. The Eastern Orthodox calendar is different from the Julian calendar, etc.. Most of what we use is more of a comparison than anything else.

      • T Ko

        Exactly, and that was my point. It is the relative distance between the occurrence of events, and this is a man-made convention–always.

  • Deborah G

    I use the KISS rule Keep it simple LOL I believe that God created earth and science as well. I believe the Bible did nOt have a time clock and a “DAY” could mean a linnenium. Who really knows? I just have the faith that if he didnt want us to have science he wouldn’t have made it. See? Simple. LOL

  • bella duparee

    @TKo..You are funny :)…I love George Clooney..I love his movies. The Ocean 11, etc. for example. He is a wonderful actor and I believe a nice person and I am sure a wonderful son. But one has to call a spade a spade and that is what I did with my humble opinion about George Clooney. Get over it..If you are a homosexual, come out of the closet. AND I don’t give a tinkers damn if he is heterosexual or a homosexual. Regardless/hetero/homo, I think he is discusting with the way he goes through women. This has to be some type of sign that he is emotional unstable one way or the other. But damned smart and laughs all the way to the bank. I can’t say that!

    • T Ko

      Sorry, but I’m a little confused by your comments because you say that he is “discusting” (sic) but you love him. It sounds somewhat like a conflict.

      BTW, not to be overbearing here, but it is ‘disgusting’, i.e., with a “g” instead of a “c”.

      I’m glad that you enjoyed my comment(s), I’ll try to be consistent.

    • Deborah G

      I thnk he is gay and just hasn’t given in to the fact yet. I think he probably thinks it’s better to appear to be straight.JUST like our President who I realy do believe is gay or Bi

      • T Ko

        Clooney is gay?

      • Wayne Cooper

        I am all the way with you on this one on your last sentence! There’s no doubt in my mind about it.

      • JMax

        Obama is gay or Bi? Seriously? Based on what?

        • T Ko

          How about, when it comes to foreign affairs he doesn’t seem to have any balls?

          • JMax

            I have no idea what you are talking about, and I suspect you don’t either. His foreign policy has been pretty successful.

          • T Ko

            His foreign policy has been a disaster, and we are soon to be the laughing stock in this area because of Obama.

          • JMax

            No it hasn’t. It’s been quite successful. What planet do you live on?

          • T Ko

            Spoken like a true Space Cadet. Congratulations, you’re just as far out there.

          • JMax

            No I’m with at least the majority who voted for a second term and with policy experts from prior administrations.

            Like all good little RWNJs you’ve made sweeping generalizations without any specifics.

          • T Ko

            Here’s a sweeping generalization for you, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period.”

            Not only a generalization, but also the Lie of the Year. Also, the platform ticket that achieved passage of the Obamacare legislation. Also, the platform ticket that helped Hussein dupe you and the majority of voters into thinking that this was a good law.

            It doesn’t take a smart voter to vote for the most deceitful candidate. Actually, just the opposite.

            Or is that not specific enough for you?

          • JMax

            Named lie of the year by the same organization that called it partly true a couple of years earlier. It wasn’t 100% accurate but the meaning of it was that there is no such thing as an Obamacare health plan to sign up for. You keep the insurance you have unless the insurance company changes it.

            What is a platform ticket?

            This law is not perfect. But it’s much better than the status quo and much better than any GOP alternative (which doesn’t exist). It can be improved. Let’s do it. Otherwise, single payer, which is what we should have done all along.

            I think Hussein was executed in Iraq.

          • T Ko

            Let me see if I understand you correctly there, dildo-brain.

            A couple of years ago the lie was only a partial lie. Was that because it had not been implemented yet? I.e., it wasn’t a proven lie at the time?

            And…you keep your insurance plan unless the insurance company changes it? Duuuhh….

            We could only wish, but Barack Hussein Obama is still with us. Sorry.

        • Deborah G

          Guees you haven’t been keeping up. There is a lot of evidence including high school friends and college friends as well as the Church he attended . and we’ll never know anything really about this guy for sure

          • JMax

            I read newspapers and web articles and blogs of all sorts, and I watch a lot of TV news including Fox News and I have never ever heard or read any such thing about him. Was his church a gay church or something?

            I’d be happy to look at any of this evidence you care to link to.

            This president is one of the most “investigated” presidents in history. We know a lot about him for sure.

          • Deborah G

            The Reverand Wrights Church made Homosexual men have a wife shosen for them. They had a club called the Down Under club where the gay memebers were taught how to appear straigh. They hooked up gay members with straight women willing to marry them,

          • Sheila Warner

            OMG! I thought the other conspiracy stories were terrible. I don’t believe any of this at all. Period.

          • Deborah G

            That is your choice I do not believe gays are well “GAY” they are the most dysfunctional bunch of confused people who kill themselves at ten time the National average. I know you will say its because of haters like the Chritisans but that is an excuse they are guilt ridden and in my opinion very very pitiful.

          • Sheila Warner

            You said you wouldn’t hang out with gays. It really would do you good to meet the average American gay person. Oh, wait. I’m sure you have met some, albeit unawares. Gays are all over the place, living lives just as any average American does. You can’t tell by looking. It’s sad to be so uninformed.

          • Deborah G

            I know many average Gay AMericans. If they don’t shove their sexuality down my throat I get along with most anyone. I am a Christian and view it as wrong so just how do you connect when the most basic premise is an antithisis of the other?

          • Sheila Warner

            I connect because each human being is created by God, in his image. We can all connect to the humanity in each other. Being friends with a gay person doesn’t make you pro-gay. It can help you to see the humanity in gays, though. But that’s just me. I get it that you are very uncomfortable with gays.

          • Deborah G

            You misunderstand what I am saying,. I just had dinner with an old friend and his sister. he is very gay. We love him a lot, he has made us laugh for the last 25 years. He is a hoot that’s for sure . I just can’t connect to his life in any meaningful way because I just don’t get that persepective.Do I enjoy talking to him sure unless he gets onto his sexcapades.

          • Deborah G

            We know NOTHING about him. That is why he has been the most investigated Preisidents i history. he was NOT forthcoming about his past and never addressed the fact his ss number is from a dead man in Connecticut. I can’t imagine they ran out of usable numbers. Second my own contention is the Birther thing is a red herring the real reason he wanted his records sealed is because of Fraud entering college . IF He was an American he lied to get foreign staus and perks .IF he isn’t an American he defrauded the American people. either way there is dishonesty and fraud involved THAT is the issue so pick one of the above as you feel led.

          • Sheila Warner

            I’m humming the theme from “The Twilight Zone.” Someone forgot to close the door behind him on this forum; invaders from another galaxy have infiltrated…..you can figure out who they are by their outlandish statements.

          • JMax

            These must be the worst investigators of all time if they have found nothing about a man who has history from his birth to today. Sheriff Joe hasn’t found anything. Donald Trump hasn’t found anything. We know more about Obama’s past than we know about W’s drug use or military career.

            The SS number hoax is bullshit: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp

            You are only guessing about college. Actually you’re not. You’re just blathering stuff that other people have made up.

          • Deborah G

            OK let’s go with your asseessment. Obama’s history shows nothing so we can extrapolate from that it is it simply confirms my supsicions he is a Nothing. Thanks for clearing that up for me

          • JMax

            Anybody who can read and operate a browser can refute your bullshit here:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

          • Sheila Warner

            Okay, you see what happens when you try to engage conspiracy nuts? The “Down Under” club? Do you think whoever came up with this nonsense knows a thing about the culture known as being on the “Down Low?” Cut me a break. I think Deborah G is part of an unstable group of people.

          • JMax

            For sure! The “Down Under ” club must be the Australian version of the Mickey Mouse Club.

            Good to see you fighting a good fight, Sheila!

    • Deborah G

      Same as Phl Robertson it’s his choice to believe and be what he is. I could care less if Clooney is gay. I think he is but reality> I just don’t give a rat;s ass what some insignificant Hollywood liberal is.

  • bella duparee

    @TED..YOU TALK ABOUT GEORGE CLOONEY. What a poor comparison. CLOONEY GOES THROUGH HIS RELATIONSHIPS/WOMEN LIKE HE CHANGES HIS SOCKS. In my humbler opinion George Clooney has as much influence on me/my decisions as Hitler..NADA. I truly believe as many others have commented Clooney is a closet homosexual which I have no problem with. But in my opinion he is nothing but a male whore hiding in his closet.

    • T Ko

      Could I assume that you don’t like George Clooney?

    • floridahank

      Clooney is probably the most vain person in Hollyweird. I’m sure he loves himself beyond words and is a user of others, especially empty-headed women who will do anything to get attention by dating Clooney. But whatever comes out of Hollyweird is a joke.

  • bella duparee

    I have to agree to disagree with comment as I definitely agree with Bernie. The way Phil went about preaching what I considered actually a sermon of his hate for homosexuals was discusting. He could have gotten his point across and more than likely accepted by some had he been more selective and not vindictive in his opinions. AND not being agreed with by mannnnnnnny. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PHIL ROBERTSON AND THE WESTBOROUGH BAPTIST CHURCH IS HE MAKES MILLION ON NATIONAL TELEVISION AND CAN SPEW HIS BIBLICAL INTERPREATIONS AND GET PAID $$$$$$$. WESTBOROUGH BAPTIST CHURCH IS RUN BY A NUT CASE FATHER, DAUGHTER, ETC.. A BUNCH OF IGNORANT WITH MAJORITY OF MEMBERS BEING FAMILY.

    • T Ko

      My, my, what kind words you espouse. The ‘true’ you.

    • Deborah G

      WOW not that’s a quantum leapp . No rational person could possibly think Phil would be one of them.

    • Sheila Warner

      Maybe the Westboro folk could talk to DD and borrow their business model to make some $$$. Actually the Westboro people also believe God loves dead soldiers, so they are quite a bit different.

    • AbdullahtheButcher

      Phil isn’t exactly the same as those Westboro freaks. He said that it wasn’t his place to decide on who goes to Heaven or not, that it was up to G*d alone.

  • T Ko

    NOTICE
    Hint, (for all), reply on a new comment line and then you’ll be able to collapse Legal Weasels whole comment column–all at once. That is do not reply directly to his comments. Everyone is free to do as they please.

    Just cleanin’ up the merde.

  • T Ko

    Hey, Ted you’ve just been collapsed. If you don’t get any more responses, then that means that others collapsed you also. It works.

    Oh, BTW, write some really, really long comments…please.

    • Deborah G

      hahaha there are a few more collapses that need to be done. gee this is getting to be fun. COLLAPSE the Liberals Nice new game for under the tree. Thanks for the gift!

  • T Ko

    It appears that the deeper Legal Weasel and community digs into it, the deeper they crawl into merde. Merdique Ted, let’s here from him now.

  • ted

    Freedom of Speech is a right we have or had. “Hate speech” effectively cripples Freedom of Speech, and, if the Progressive’s history is any measure that will be only the first shot at prohibiting speech a president or his political party may dislike. But this has little to do with Phil and Ducks. He said or wrote or was quoted on something he said. He was fired. End of that story until he gets reinstated or gets a new channel. Bernie can say what he wants, since this is his blog and won’t get fired. And that MSNBC dude gets fired after some people rejected the disgusting stuff he said. like with liberals, George Clooney, for example, his politics are ignorant but I like his movies. What he says and the power he has is far more powerful and dangerous than Phil. Go after his crap, or Obama’s lies. None of this Phil stuff is worth discussing, except maybe to reject the entire concept of “hate speech”.
    http://www.periodictablet.com

    • Deborah G

      Who in a free society gets to decide then what is HATE Speech? The thought police? A minstry of fear? Who then OABAMA? Pelosi?

      • T Ko

        Make no mistake, Ted and Weasel are joined at the hip. Just sayin’.

    • Deborah G

      ted my issue with buzz words like “:Hate” speech is just who gets to decide waht that is? IS it anything that disagrees with a liberal agenda? IS it the ugly Westboro babtist church which NO ONE I ever heard of doesn’t think is hateful or is it the evangelicals. Who exactly decides and what are the parameters/ I think that is a slippery slope. While The Westboro babtist church is one of the most vile groups in Amerca there are those who will argue it is the Muslim Imama who advocate killing Americas for Jihad or Louise Farakhan who advocates beheading Homosexuals or Al Sharptn calling for White people to be attacked.Is it ONLY hate speech if it is about gays or liberal ideals?Do Evangelicals NOT get to call the disrespect for them with vitriol hurled at thm by people like other reality show Sea captains etc. This my friend is America and freedom of speech no matter how offensive to some lily livered coward is part of our business as usual culture..

  • legal eagle

    Some more “gems” from that great religious leader Phil Robertson…
    “Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.” — Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-five-jawdropping-moments-from-his-sermons-20131220,0,4783746.story#ixzz2oFy5WW7e

    • sjangers

      Sounds like he’s paraphrasing from the Bible, Eagle. I don’t think these are Robertson original thoughts. It also sounds like he’s got an interesting sense of humor, including about himself, if you take the time to read the other four quotes from the LA Times piece.

      • T Ko

        Hint, sj, reply on a new comment line and then you’ll be able to collapse Legal Weasels whole comment column–all at once.

        Just cleanin’ up the merde.

        • sjangers

          I understand your frustration, T Ko, but I actually kind of enjoy Eagle. I know a lot of what he does here is simply intended to annoy. But occasionally he’ll take the time to engage in some reasonable and intelligent debate. When he does that I think he adds something to our discussion.

          • T Ko

            Be my guest. Over and OUT!

    • T Ko

      And then after that A&E continued their show…unfettered. No LGBT uprising. Hmmm…consistent on the part of A&E? I think not.

      • Sheila Warner

        Consistent on the part of GLAAD? Not there, either. After all, if we chose to, we could have regaled ourselves in the DD marathon. Assuming it went forward. I never heard that it did not. I don’t watch the show. It’s the beards. They make me cringe, wondering if there are bird nests in there! LOL

        • T Ko

          That’s good!

    • Deborah G

      He was quoting the Bible. It says exactly that . Take it up with the Authors not phil

      • legal eagle

        he’s not quoting my bible…

  • T Ko

    If I get this wrong, someone please correct me. Phil said (in response to the question, “What do you view as sin?”) “Well…you start with homosexuality…”

    STOP. What did he mean by “…start…”? Was that a starting point to begin the discussion? Did he mean that ALL sin begins with homosexuality?

    “…and then you ‘morph’ out….”

    STOP: What did he mean by “…’morph’ out….”? Did he mean that homosexuality always leads to other sins. Was he continuing a discussion where he started with a point of reference and wished to expand the ‘scope’ of that description of sin?

    Personally, I believe he began a discussion at a specific reference point and attempted to expand his scope of that descriptive discussion. It is foolish to try and make the argument that homosexuality is the beginning point for all sins, whether of a fleshly nature or not. This is a ‘pettifog’ controversy.

    Also, I believe that Phil regards certain things as sin and that is what he was asked. Condemn Phil for being honest, and then we will all be at risk whether the community we live in is Gay, Straight, Black, White, Politician, etc.

    • legal eagle

      ..”Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.” — Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.

      http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-five-jawdropping-moments-from-his-sermons-20131220,0,4783746.story#ixzz2oFy5WW7e

      • Deborah G

        Glad to hear he thinks like he should and I agree with him wholeheartedly, Thanks for the quote it only served to increase my respect for someone with strength of his convictions. God Bless him .

        • T Ko

          You are being pulled into his ‘web’. Good luck.

          • Deborah G

            nah just a parting shot I am compressing him now LOL>I wish we could simply send him off in a tube like you do a bank deposit at a drive thru window.,

    • Sheila Warner

      Those were my two points. Homosexuality is Ground Zero for sin, and it “morphs” into everything else. Yes, he had the temerity to say how he thinks on all of this. And, A&E had a perfect right to suspend him. That’s really the bottom line. But it sure is fun watching the Fundies come out and play on this issue.

      • T Ko

        I guess I never interpreted the views of those Fundamentalists that I was around as saying that sin begins with homosexuality.

        Does that mean that before you lie, cheat, or steal…you would first have to be homosexual? There may be a link between male prostitutes and homosexuality, but the perversion of all human behavior–starting with homosexuality–is not where I would start. To lust for a woman, i.e., as a man, is anything but homosexual–by definition.

        There is a tremendous difference between the ‘morphing’ of a concept and the ‘morphing’ of a behavior.

        Regardless, it should be A&E’s freedom to operate their business as they see fit–within the limits of government regulations.

        • Sheila Warner

          Oh, so now I see why my comments confused you. I was speaking of what Robertson believes is Ground Zero, not what Fundamentalists believe.

          (Actually, eating the fruit of the tree of life was Ground Zero, for those who believe in a literal garden of Eden. Which Fundies do.)

          I interpreted Robertson as meaning the behavior morphs, not the concept. He really wasn’t all that clear, was he? If someone asks me what I believe are sins, I’d list those that wound the dignity of another human being: theft, fraud, abuse, oppression, etc.. I hope that clears it up for you. Sometimes i am obtuse, and appreciate it that people keep poking at me until I get it right.

          • T Ko

            Ok, I’ll join that discussion.

            The fundamental cause of sin was when Satan rebelled against God. He believed that he was better than God, i.e., more beautiful, worthy, etc., and God cast him from the Kingdom of God, to dwell here on Earth.

            With him came him bag of sins, so to speak, whereby all creatures–particularly Man, who was created in God’s image–would be corrupted through Temptation and eventually rebel against God.

            That bag of ‘goodies’ did not specifically begin with homosexuality. That’s why I do not say that all sin begins with homosexuality.

          • Sheila Warner

            You may enjoy “Jesus Without Baggage” on WordPress. Some very interesting back and forth on all of this, all done with civility.

          • T Ko

            Thanks, I’ll check that out. Civility is good!

  • texexpatriate

    Goldberg is merely trying to curry favor with that group of traitors he pals around with in Washington. Up there they know more than we do out here. MustangWranglerp51 below has it exactly right.

  • joepotato

    And I still don’t give a duck!

  • MustangWranglerp51

    People who get weary of the culture war are part of the problem. They end up whining: “Can’t we just all get along?” instead of taking a stand for what is right. Why is homosexual sex more likely to lead to bestiality than is heterosexual sex? It’s simple. Perversion leads to more perversion.

    • Josh

      Huh?

      Who conducted this study?

      • Donna E Turner

        Only the government needs surveys. Read some stuff about how porn addiction changes your brain. Then think about it. A little reflection could enlighten you to how the whole Judaic Christian morality structure came into being.

        • Josh

          Who said anything about “surveys”? I said “study” — science, not opinion polls.

          And there’s a lot of stuff I think about. But unless there is actual evidence supporting it, then it might as well be….faith. And then there’s the issue of leaping constantly to support the leap; i.e. just assuming that the aforementioned anecdote is true because it supports my presupposition.

          I’m not entirely sure here; maybe not that much of a “thinker,” but that seems to me to be the exact opposite of thinking. “Read some stuff” and “a little reflection.” Read: Check out things that support my beliefs.

          No thanks. I prefer objective data. If there is any of that which points conclusively to homosexuality being a “perversion” and likely to lead to beastiality, I’m all eyes here. And as to the “Judaic Christian morality structure,” I suppose that’s also a pick-and-choose moral code.

        • Sheila Warner

          I believe that the Judeo-Christian set of beliefs started right after Christ’s resurrection and ascension. There was no pornography then. Addiction of any kind can alter brain chemistry. It doesn’t have to be anything related to sex. And, addiction in and of itself isn’t sinful. It’s chemical.

    • Deborah G

      Well said.

    • legal eagle

      You would know this how?

    • Sheila Warner

      Unless it doesn’t.

  • PolkaDot

    Mr. Goldberg,
    Agree with most of what you said. However, there is a huge difference between WHERE it was said. Mr.Robertson used a public interview not related to his employment; Alec Baldwin (also with anti-gay tirade(s) said what he said on his Twitter account, and Mr. Bashir used his program to air his not-so-classy (to say the least) comments. A&E, as you correctly suggested, should have respected Mr. Robertson’s right to be stupid, and so should have MSNBC in the case with Mr. Baldwin. Different story with Mr. Bashir (and my understanding is that he was not even officially fired)

    • Deborah G

      there wqas no anti-gat rant in his GQ interview. That is a figment of someone’s imagination.I think they are in a snit becaus he doesn’t find them attractive LOL

  • Deborah G

    I can’t say what he did or didn’t read or hear. I can only tell you as a kid in the 60’s? I never heard about it. Being a kid I guess I was more intersted in whether the Beatles were coming to America. AND like today most people don’t talk about things like that every day. You do maybe I do now but then? I doubt I was any different than anyone else. I was never taught to hate blacks We didn’t even know much about Homosexuality as to what it really meant. To us it was only as shallow as some guy acting like a girl. No one really thought through the sexual aspects. We were kids I am only a few years younger than Phil. He worked I went to school. THEN college. I heard about race riots then but again it was more of something that happened somewhere else. Typical young people. EVen the war in Viet NAm. That was awful but did we really then understand what these Vets went through at that time? Sports, friends,part time jobs family That was our reality not how a black person suffered because of Jim Crow laws.

    • legal eagle

      Maybe if you had read, or listened, to the news in the 60’s you would have been better informed..

    • T Ko

      Collapse his comment and you can have a better experience in contributing here. Try it…it works!

      • Deborah G

        I jujst did thanks for the help. he’s a moron anyway.

        • T Ko

          You are very welcome. Please pass the information along if you get the opportunity.

  • TransplantedTexan

    As a Christian, I believe that I have an obligation to condemn the sin. I also believe, as a Christian, that I can forgive the sinner since it is ultimately God’s role to pass judgement and not mine.

    • Deborah G

      I honestly don’t even consider what Gays do. This has created an interesting debate , well if you can what the morons do a debate . lol That being said once this conversation is done it will be focusing on a grassroots movement to get the Christians out to vote. I’m on it!

      • T Ko

        I kind of look at it as if God gave us a map and instructions. He left it up to us what path we would follow–but he has already given us the correct answer.

  • Deborah G

    MY 10 year old grandson came home from school one day saying he had been suspended for 3 days because he was told he could not come back until he respected his teacher’s lesson. WHICH BTW was about homosexuality and how they shoudld accept them . My grandosn asked” M’aam? didn’t God say it was wrong for big men to put things where other men poop worng?” She said she wouldn’t tolotate such hate speech. REally? This is how you answer a child. OK So what did we do. First we went down to school to speak with the teacher and asked her if Sodomy was part of the cuuriclum? She said and I QUOTE” “Teaching children what is perfectly normal is the right thing to do so they don’t grow up to be gay haters’ We then asked her if it WASN”T accepted curriculum what gave her the right to teach that to other people’s kids?” Her answer and I QUOTE ” It is MY constitutional right to free speech and my RIGHT as a Lesbian to set the facts straight” Really? Now try and get that person fired

    • Guest

      You and all the other religious Christians and Muslims have to stop worrying about the LGBT agenda. Forget it, they have already won, the courts are on their side and the majority of Americans, (as we can see, with the unfortunate journalist, as well) have lost our spiritual base. It has been a slow erosion of spiritual and moral values, aided by lenient rulings concerning freedoms and relinquishment of responsibility. If such “teaching” is condoned in schools, it is high time to develop schools,faith-based, that will not permit such and close-knit communities that will save our children from such. (Observant Jews already have this for a long time because we,in general, have a separate culture and desired that our children continue in our traditions) I urgently advise my fellow faith-based countrymen to stop worrying about what THEY say and, instead, plan important means to save a remnant here in the USA.

  • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

    You realize, however, that many Christians believe that the Bible is the “inspired” word of God, right?

  • PaleAle

    So is the condemnation of idolatry ignorant as well in today’s “evolved understanding” of sin? Is the condemnation of adultery & fornication an indication of someone stuck in the middle ages? Funny, but Phil quoted a whole list of sins, but the only one that merits condemnation is the bible’s injunction against homosexuality. Go figure.

    • legal eagle

      It’s not what he said, it’s the language used…Robertson has made previous obnoxious and hateful statements about gays…The right wingers defending him are just looking for an issue to defend religious bigotry.

      • Deborah G

        I have never heard these “obnoxious” statements so I assume you are an avid watcher of Duck Dynsaty? If not? here’s my freedom of speech: Shut your stupid uninformed mouth”

        • Scott Robinson

          You really want to be talking about people who are uninformed? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals

        • T Ko

          D, trust me, he wants a response and the worse the better for him.

          Tell one, tell all, put Legal Weasel in the trash and forget about him. Pass the word along.

          TIP: On the upper-right of any comment there is a “-” (dash) which allows you to ‘collapse’ the comment. When you come to a Legal Weasel, Ted, George(something), and several others, then ‘collapse’ the comment.

          You told him to “shut up”…that’s how you do it.

          Also, please copy and paste this info into replies to others that don’t appreciate Legal Weasel. Shut him down.

          • legal eagle

            Make sure anyone who disagrees with morons like you is “shut down”….you need help..

          • T Ko

            Yeah, he’p me, he’p me, please Mr. Weasel…! Doc Weasel? Broker Weasel? Oh heck, just Weasel.

          • T Ko

            I’m gonna give you this last one…WHAT?⁈⁈⁈⁈

        • legal eagle

          Google it….Even you should be figure out how to read Roberston’s previous quotes about gays…

        • Brian Fr Langley

          These comments are a paraphrase of the Biblical book of Romans found in chapter 1. That many Pastors repeat them, there is no doubt. However the context is not about homosexuality. It’s about those who reject God. Homosexuality being one of the consequences of rejecting the true creator (God) and worshipping a false one (oneself, or other idols, money etc.)

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        In other words, Robertson just spoke the truth about how perverted and dysfunctional the LGBT crowd is. You’re just looking for an excuse to exercise your liberal bigotry.

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        What exactly were his “obnoxious and hateful statements about gays”? And by that could you provide me some word for word?

        • T Ko

          He is a committed flak-thrower. Forget about any kind of intelligent conversation.

        • legal eagle

          Go to Google and search “Phil Robertson”…

        • legal eagle

          ..Here you go…

          “Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.” — Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.

          http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-five-jawdropping-moments-from-his-sermons-20131220,0,4783746.story#ixzz2oFy5WW7e

          • Brian Fr Langley

            This is actually the paraphrase of the Biblical book of Romans, written by the way, by a Jewish Rabbi named Saul. On meeting the resurrected Yeshua on the road to Damascus, he converted to the teachings of the risen Yeshua and changed his name to Paul. The full context is not simply about homosexual behavior, it’s about people who reject their own miraculous beings (deny God) and thus become worshippers of their own selves.

          • legal eagle

            I’m not familiar with any New Testament writings….I am familiar with those who use religion to teach hate and bigotry…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            You know Jeremiah Wright?

          • legal eagle

            Wright is certainly an example….Not quite the influential figure that Falwell or Robertson were,,,

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Now legal, you very well know the Torah explicitly condemns homosexuality. You also know, many Rabbi’s would teach today much the way Rabbi Saul taught in the book of Romans. Now it’s your right not to believe what others consider God’s word says, but ascribing it as hate and bigotry is immoral and plain un-American. Worse you deliberately take it out of context, to sow discord, so who is the bigot?

          • legal eagle

            The Torah has many writings. A small percentage of Jews strictly follow the practices and traditions of the Torah. The vast majority of Jews believe in the principles but don’t practice the traditions..
            I ascribe hate and bigotry only to those who use religion as their excuse to espouse hate and bigotry. What message does that send to the children who watch the show? That it’s OK to be homophobic in the name of the lord…What happened to love they neighbor?

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Here’s the thing legal, whether Torah or New Testament, the Bible teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves. What it DOES NOT require is for us to either love, (or refrain from condemning) immoral behavior. In other words, love the sinner, but hate the sin. The only judgement, Evangelical Christians (typically) reference on sinners, is that which occurs in their version of the afterlife. Which if you don’t believe, then it’s in fact irrelevent to your life. But to a believer, a warning about the afterlife is actually a very reasonable expression of love.

          • legal eagle

            Your opinion on the matter is reasonable but this is a very large country with many religious values. I would guess that if the Robertson’s wish to continue their very successful relationship with A&E, they will think before they express views that many find offensive.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I find your lack of support for religious freedom somewhat ironic in view of the kerfuffle GLAAD has made out of Robertson’s Biblical comments? Evangelicals are not only NOT anti-semites, many like myself, are fiercely Zionist. Yet GLAAD (for the most part) along with much of the “new” American left is not only pro-palestinian, their “pro-palestinian” stance, is merely cover for their execrable anti-semetic bigotry. And if A&E and GLAAD find the Bible offensive, they’re in the wrong country. The U.N. still (in fact) recognizes the U.S. as a Christian Nation. (although I suspect not for long)

          • legal eagle

            I see…so GLAAD, is now anti-Semitic? I didn’t know they were a religious organization….
            Most Jews, in America and Israel, view the evangelical right’s support of Israel in a cautious light…
            Israel didn’t see much Christian or Republican support in 1948 or during the 1967 Six Day War…

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Since when do you need religion to be anti-semitic? North Korea sent war planes to “help” their Arab brethren in recent Arab/Israeli wars. China still supports Iran, along with North Korea in building nukes. This for a regime who says the nation of Israel must be excised like a cancer? Since both are committed “Godless” communist regimes, what on earth does religion have to do with their overt anti-semitism? And further how do you explain the fierce anti-semitism of the former “Godless” Soviet Empire? OPEN your eyes, the “new left” are anti Israel, anti Christian and anti semitic. As for viewing evangelicals in a cautious light? The current Prime Minister of Israel is a warm friend of evangelicals. Having said that, caution is called for. Modern liberal Christianity (being left wing liberals) are like most of the left, anti semitic. (they disguise it as anti zionism) As for support in War? How do you think modern Israel came to be? Allied forces wrested Palestine from the Ottomans at a ferocious cost. Eretz Israel, was bought first, by the blood by the worlds english speaking peoples. And english speaking evangelicals were the heart of it. As for Republican support? I’ve never seen them waver.

          • legal eagle

            You appear to believe you are an an authority on anti-Semitism, religion, Israeli politics and history..I’m impressed.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I read a lot of history, particularly modern history. I’m also a big fan of the words “those who don’t learn from the mistakes of history are bound to repeat them”. As for beliefs? Most of my last post are not my personal opinion. (other than liberal anti semitism posing as anti Zionism) they are well known and well documented facts.

          • legal eagle

            I am impressed…I would differ with you on your defense of Robertson but if you feel that one should express prejudice based upon their religious values than you have no problem with the Westboro haters and other similar religious groups..
            Personally, I think religion is a personal issue to be kept personal or between yourself and your spiritual leader.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Well your not famous like he is. He does an interview and gets asked how he feels about things? So why should a red neck character from the back woods south, (who plays an (ultra popular) red neck character from the back woods south), not give an honest answer. And since when did spouting personal Bible beliefs become indefensible in America?

          • Sheila Warner

            But he did defend his personal Bible beliefs, and even doubled down on them. Robertson does not need A&E to give him a public platform to express his views. As a private corporation, they were allowed to suspend him. In the end, it will cost them. It’s up to them now to determine if they want to pay that cost. Robertson gave A&E editorial power over the show. That they would suspend him for his public interview should have been a gimme. Both sides are way too hyped up about this tempest in a tea pot.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I believe you misread me (again) Legal suggested I NOT defend Robertson? I replied “since when did spouting personal Bible beliefs become indefensible in America” This is America, Robertson can spout, and I can defend his right to do it.

          • Sheila Warner

            “since when did spouting personal Bible beliefs become indefensible in America”

            Since never. Is that clear?

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Lets say the Liberty Christian network fired some one who supported gay marriage in oppostion their policy? What do you think would happen to them? Human Rights laws make it illegal to fire folks for expressing constitutionally protected views. If you can fire folks for religious views, then you also don’t have to hire them? So I guess companies who don’t hire Sikhs or Muslims because of their religious views would be okay by you?

          • Sheila Warner

            Robertson was not sanctioned for his religious beliefs. He was sanctioned for how he expressed those beliefs. It’s my understanding that Robertson talks freely about his faith on the show every week. If A&E wanted to punish him based on his religion, they would have done so by now.

            No one can be fired because of a particular religion, but words and conduct can result in a loss of employment. It’s nuanced. It’s a private company which likely has some provision in its contracts with actors, which outline what is or is not accepted at work. We don’t have the entire story when it comes to what is in the DD contract.

          • AbdullahtheButcher

            I’ve heard it said that he may have been paraphrasing the Bible.

          • Sheila Warner

            Actually, he quoted it quite nicely. Not a lot of paraphrasing. The passage is from the last portion of the first chapter of a book in the NT called “Romans.” It was penned as a letter from St Paul to believers in Rome.

        • T Ko

          Ab, I’m gonna’ collapse LE’s comments from here on out. If you want to carry on a conversation with someone, then NEVER respond to him directly.

          I am not responding to him directly by responding to you. Now, I can collapse his responses. Great!

      • T Ko

        Hey genius, did you know there are tons of democrats that support him? Are you indicating a racial divide for some reason?

        Shame on you, Weasel!

    • Donna E Turner

      We are currently faced with a very well-connected political arm of Gay Rights which insists that being gay in no way is harmful to society. We watch as they assault anyone who disagrees with them. AIDS takes lives, and costs a bundle, yet I hear very little about the fact that the CDC says that young men 13 to 24 year old (since when has our society called a 13 year old a man?) are the largest growing population of AIDS sufferers. Now, I seem to recall being hounded by the left and everyone else, to quit smoking. But there is absolutely no acknowledgement by the left that homosexual behavior can be deadly.

      • Sheila Warner

        World wide most of those with HIV are straight. By the way, syphilis can be deadly, too. Returning troops from the Vietnam war brought in a particularly difficult strain into the US. HPV can cause cervical cancer, which is deadly. Sexually transmitted diseases have been among us for thousands of years. Not all deadly diseases are linked to gay activity.

  • Doug Husen

    Bernie, you chose the wrong word to describe Phil Robertson as ‘ignorant’. He earned a masters degree, taught public education and has studied the Bible for over 25 years. Insensitive, perhaps, but not ignorant.

    • Deborah G

      I don’t think he was insenitive. IF you feel sensitive to some one pointing out a sin as stated in the Bible nothing more then what your feeling is Guilt. Period.

      • Doug Husen

        Deborah, I don’t disagree with you. The most loving thing we can do is to share the truth. I think the statements Phil made later in the interview added the ‘sensitivity’, (the idea that he didn’t have any hate in his heart) but those hearing the first statements probably were super tender and felt the sting so badly, they didn’t hear his heart.

        • Deborah G

          Thanks what these liberals do NOT realize is that as Christians we see sin all the time do we hate the person ? Nope we try and show what God’s love could do for them. I personally have had several REAL miracles in my life. I don’t for a minute believe these could even possibly be coincidences. I only can pray they get one. It will change their hearts and lives forever.l First you have to open yourself to the possibility,then open your mind then your heart it is aprocess it doesn’t always come with a manual.

    • Sheila Warner

      A person can be highly educated but still be ignorant of certain facts. I’m sure the hard core Fundamentalists, who refer to people like liberals as “elitists” believe the liberals are ignorant about the Bible. It’s in the eye of the beholder.

      • Doug Husen

        Thanks for the comment Sheila. I think you made my point. Bernie is the one ignorant of the Bible and homosexuality. Phil was not.

        • Sheila Warner

          “It’s in the eye of the beholder.” Hardly a validation of your point. Bernie knows full well what the Bible says. He doesn’t believe it. That makes him a nonbeliever, not ignorant.

  • Hammockbear

    “God given right to be stupid”. “Ignoramus”. Bernie, you stated your opinion. The Fact of this Duck Dynasty Series, is that it has brought God back into thousands of viewers lives. That in itself is to be applauded. Phil spoke his mind in the GQ interview. His words were harsh to many. But he had his Right to Free Speech. Suspending him has backfired on A&E as they treated the situation in a manner that has created an explosive response of Opinions. And now the entire Robertson family has come under attack. We can only pray and hope for the Robertson family to have some Peace during this holiday season. Merry Christmas …

    • Deborah G

      My answering my sister’s question “DO I look fat?” is answered yes honestly but I’ll go for a walk with you.They expect my honesty. I expected Phil’s dpon’t like it? Don’t ask works for the Government why not him?

  • Ms. G

    Bernie, I like your suggestion at the end. Networks used to just disavow comments, and a more pointed blurb might get the point across in eye-catching fashion. Bashir should have lost his job because he was actually advocating that someone bring specific harm to Sarah Palin. The Duck Man is a fundamentalist Christian and perhaps a not well educated or articulate one. Although he was merely stating that he believed his faith taught that his list of sinners would all end up outside the kingdom of heaven, but he was not advocating that someone else specifically send them there. In America’s free marketplace of ideas, you and I put up with his views as we do those of insufferably smug and condescending self-styled “free thinkers”, those of elitist urbanites who cannot understand why the average American does not want to term legally recognized gay partnerships “marriage”, and those of socialists. Those television channels who choose to participate in the marketplace of TV get to respond to the disgruntlement of their viewing customers.

    • Deborah G

      He is neither “uneducated” With a Master’s degree, Taught school and is a minister. He is nNOT a fundamenta;ist he is EVANGELICAL HUGE difference.I think he is extremely articulate because he speaks so plainly no one is ever left with a quastion on his stance on anything. I’m the same way. I always tell people Do NOT ask me a question if you are not ready for the truth.

      • Sheila Warner

        What is the huge difference between an evangelical and a Fundamentalist? Do you know the history of fundamentalism? I was raised as a Fundie. What you likely are speaking of is the difference between main line Protestantism vs Fundamentalism. Either or both could be evangelical in nature. Evangelism is declaring the Gospel. That’s it. The doctrine of the evangelical determines the rest of the labeling.

  • Monte Kline

    Having enjoyed your commentary for years, I was a bit shocked at the unguarded arrogance displayed at calling Phil Robertson an “ignoramus” and tying that to people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, which was not part of the GQ discussion. I am stunned by your dogmatic confidence that the earth is 5 billion years old, though I wonder what makes you so sure. As a Christian Bible teacher for over 40 years and as one with a degree in Earth Science from a secular university, I must say that I don’t know for sure how old the earth is, though it certainly could be only a few thousand years old. You, like many, apparently assume that isotopic dating is unquestionably accurate, though there is no way of proving that. These dating techniques are based on highly unlikely assumptions — steady decay rate and undisturbed samples over billions of years. Really? This is just another “religious” view that I find takes more “faith” to believe than the biblical view. As I shared in a final paper in college (for which I got an A), anything created from nothing by God, as described in Genesis has an “apparent age.” Just as Adam at age zero appeared a mature adult, a rock appearing several billion years old, could have a much more recent origin.

    • Deborah G

      Interesting I just was reading about dinosaurs with my grandchild from Nat Geo magazine. They found a skeleton that they claimed was aMillion or so years old. Now THAT I find hard to believe that it lasted a Million or more years years. I believe God created the earth but I also wonder if the writers of the Bible were accurate for the knowledge they had regarding time AT that time. Always a leap of faith. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. I am not a Biblical scholor, wish I knew more but I believe God set out the plan and we should follow it. Simplistic but it works for me. but I do have faith, lots of it Lol (-:

      • T Ko

        Ya know, I believe that there are many things that we have not figured out yet, and the presence of fossilized dinosaur bones is a hard one.

        That does not mean that God’s knowledge is any less perfect–just because mine is so meager.

        I look forward to the day when so many truths will be revealed to us. We will still be as infants in God’s sight.

  • Florida Jim

    Sometimes The Bible makes us uncomfortable with what it says many choose to misread the parts which are uncomfortable or ignore them. I choose to believe what the Bible says and if that offends those out to destroy America culturally too bad. Watching GLAAD is like watching CAIR both are bigots.

  • JBubs

    Bernie, I am curious. Who in the hell appointed you to be the arbiter of what is noble and what is stupid? Please name your source.

  • keith hart

    Sorry ….. sorry. I just can’t stop staring. Uh.. umm ..yeah. The issue was …… geez, I gotta break this stare. Where did you say these boys are from? Sorry, I’m staring again.

    Whew! These boys are in some deep need of serious personal grooming. What year is it? It’s 2013 — right? Not 1813.

    Soooo, one of these boys said something off-color, not quite right, off topic, on topic — what? It’s got everybody, but everybody in such a rile. One way, the other way, this way, that way. Stop staring now. Where did you say these boys are from?

    Obama drives a stake through the heart of America, then guts her to boot and flies off to Hawaii with the family.

    And this is what has everybody, but everybody in an uproar. Just nail this guy’s 3ss for saying such abhorrent things with such arrogance — quoting God.
    And be done with it.

    Ever been in an insane asylum that’s 3,000 miles by 1,500 miles?

    • T Ko

      K, I just recently sent this to a commenter who didn’t like Legal Weasel. You might not agree with the approach but…you might. Anyway, if you do agree, then just cut below the line and paste to pass along to others. Just a thought.
      _________________________________________________________

      (insert recipient), trust me, he wants a response and the worse the better for him.

      Tell one, tell all, put Legal Weasel in the trash and forget about him. Pass the word along.

      TIP: On the upper-right of any comment there is a “-” (dash) which allows you to ‘collapse’ the comment. When you come to a Legal Weasel, Ted, George(something), and several others, then ‘collapse’ the comment.

      You told him to “shut up”…that’s how you do it.

      Also, please copy and paste this info into replies to others that don’t appreciate Legal Weasel. Shut him down.

      • keith hart

        T, you’re right. I don’t agree with the approach.

        • T Ko

          Well, I respect your opinion. I won’t mention it again.

          • keith hart

            T, Merry Christmas, my friend.

          • T Ko

            And a very Merry Christmas to you as well, Keith.

            I’ve enjoyed spending time here in Blog Land, mainly because of you and just a few others.

            Hopefully, we will see a year on the upswing in 2014–I am certain it will be quite active and very interesting.

  • John H

    “Why is being gay like being a slanderer or a swindler or a drunkard? Because Paul thought so Christians are supposed to believe this garbage two thousand years later?” Bernie, we Christians believe the Bible is the Word of God, not merely the words of men and women. I know you don’t, and that’s your right. It isn’t why one sin is “like being” like another. That’s not the issue. The issue is that it is a sin agains God, as are all sins. And this list that Paul lists isn’t comprehensive. There are many more sins he could have listed. But the bottom line is that “unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13:3, 5).

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      Liberals hate decency, wholesomeness, and accountability.

  • Josh

    Oh, boy. These issues sure are fun! Seeing Fox spin the hell out of it leaves me unable to watch the network too soon after meals.

    It is not a play against Christians. So some people need to relax. First and foremost, Christianity (pick your sect; there’s over 30,000) doesn’t have the sole rights on gays being sinners. They share much in common with Islam on that front. Buddhists, Sikhs and others — also against.

    So turning it into some anti-Christian discrimination is just more of that “It’s OUR country!” vanity from the fundamentalist fringers who legitimately scare the rest of America.

    You can believe what you want. But when you say being gay should be illegal and poorly phrase something that certainly seems to imply homosexuality and beastiality are in the same ballpark, well, religion isn’t going to bail you out. Maybe it will with your neighborhood, your church, or other like-minded people who espouse those same views and fall back on the Bible as their justification all running through the same belt loop. But to the rest of us who inhabit 2013 perpetually in mind, body and spirit and not simply when it suits us, it’s a horrible, nasty, needless thing to say.

    Believe it because it says so in a book? Okay. People have all kinds of beliefs. But if I hire you to work for my company, representing my brand, I’ll fire you faster than you can say a Hail Mary if you publicly offend people. That goes for the schmuck dynasty, Bashir, and anyone else who feels they can say what they want and still receive a paycheck from me. So good on A&E.

    The fact that Christians don’t have special rights doesn’t mean there’s a war against Christians. Say something insulting, risk being fired. “It’s my religion” doesn’t wash in this day and age in America. Perhaps that’s the biggest issue for fundamentalists: No special preference for something they believe to be infallible and universal and entitled to special preference.

    Let me ask a very serious question if anyone is bothering to read this: Without people who disagreed and railed against religious opinion in America, what’s to stop America from going Russia’s route and eventually Iran’s when it comes to punishing homosexuality?

    For the fundamentalist Christians out there, the guys like Phil, being gay would be illegal (maybe worse) without this type of opposition. There’s no doubt of that; religion has proven itself to us all through the ages. Providing that opposition and trying to pry people out of the bronze age is…what? An attack on free speech? Anti-Christian?

    Laughable.

    We share this nation with people from all walks of life. And that Phil wasn’t arrested means he has every right to say whatsoever he damn well pleases. But many people don’t like it, think it’s stupid, and are glad to see capitalism in action here. Ironic for Fox.

    • legal eagle

      Great post…Much too sensible for the right wing haters who read this stuff..

      • T Ko

        Yes, I agree, now would you please go to Saudi Arabia and begin a Gay-Rights movement there? Please?

    • Deborah G

      I’,m jut curious where dd anyone say they thought being gay should be illegal? I say make Illegals illegal that’s as far as I’m goiung LOL

    • Sheila Warner

      I’m not sure why the Fox bashing taking place here. O’Reilly did not agree with Robertson’s condemnation of gays. Both sides of the issue got a full hearing on FNC. Were some conservatives upset at A&E? Yes. Were some liberals upset with Robertson? Yes. Both points of viewed were aired on Fox. Now that’s what i call capitalism. For me personally, Robertson’s words were crass, his defenders were way too hysterical, but I never watched DD, nor do I intend to do so.

      • Josh

        I wasn’t aware that O’Reilly was Fox. I knew he was on Fox, but didn’t know he was the entire network.

        That judge lady, Hannity, and a few other folks I seen there didn’t address what he said so much as they played the “freedom of speech” and “Christians under attack” angles.

        So if pointing out that I saw Fox spin the story constitutes “Fox bashing,” I guess I’m a basher.

        • Sheila Warner

          “That judge lady, Hannity, and a few other folks I seen there didn’t address what he said so much as they played the ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘Christians under attack’ angles.”

          If O’Reilly isn’t the entire Fox network, neither are those you listed. So, how did Fox “spin” the story, then?

          Your list just proves that Fox is fair and balanced..

          • Josh

            Because every time I turned it over on Fox to see about the story, that’s what I saw: Spin. And practically speaking, because many trump one.

            To be clear: “Spin” doesn’t necessarily mean to lie through one’s teeth or anything. So I don’t understand the bashing comment. But whatever. Everybody’s got their limits.

            As to O’Reilly in particular, he’s the spin master this time of year! The “War on Christmas” is the most spun story anyone delivers outside of Obama apologetics, and he delivers it annually.

            Also, I never claimed Fox wasn’t “fair and balanced.” I never really said anything bad at all about them, other than I seen them spin this particular story.

            I think you read something that wasn’t a glowing review of Fox and went into defense mode, mistaking me for some MSNBC water-carrier who hates Fox. To the contrary, Fox is one of the only cable networks I can stomach watching. But they’re notorious for spinning religious-based stories and putting the needle only on faith as the default and treating everything else as an attack against it. O’Reilly certainly isn’t immune from that. Like when Richard Dawkins was on his show — an author, an evolutionary biologist, an ethologist, and a member of the Royal Society. But what does Bill label him in his little on-screen box? “Atheist.” LOL

            Turning this story into an attack against religion, which is what I witnessed ad nauseum on the network, constitutes spin in my book. Is that the story? The Robertsons of the world are under attack from people who want to silence the religious? Hey, if one doesn’t think that’s spinning it, then, like I said, I guess I’m a basher.

            Maybe we have different definitions of “spin.”

          • Sheila Warner

            In your definition of “spin”, all networks do that. You implied that the entire network of Fox presented the story as an assault on religion. It did not. We will agree to disagree.

          • Josh

            I never said all networks didn’t do that. Just because I mentioned Fox (as it was relevant to Bernie’s blog and right-wing Christian apologists, for sure) doesn’t mean I think the rest of ‘em serve it up straight.

            I also said “Fox.” Yeah. And? I suppose it can drift into touchy technicalities and silly semantics, like saying “America voted for Barack Obama” when obviously some Americans didn’t. It’s kinda quibbling squared. But unimportant. The fact remains that’s the network I seen it on.

            No doubt that some on the network didn’t, and that other networks also spun it and spin regularly, but if the criteria is that one must mention every exhaustive detail of a comment as to not be labeled a basher, then I’m sure most would just accept being labeled a basher.

            “Seeing quite a few anchors and guests and hosts on Fox spin the hell out of it leaves me unable to watch the network too soon after meals. Though some on the network are probably fair. I haven’t personally seen any coverage that wasn’t spun yet, but that’s not saying there hasn’t been. And, let’s not forget, all networks spin. MSNBC, CNN, network news, the New York Times and other print publicans. They’re also spinning stories on the reg. So, please, don’t think I’m teeing off on only Fox here. In fact, they’re really fair and balanced, but in my opinion many spun the story to fit a religion-under-attack narrative. Although, ‘spin’ might be too strong for some. So maybe it’s better to say they made Phil Robertson the victim and spun–oops, redirected–the story, as some on even a fair and balanced network may do, in an odd direction of persecution that one may expect to see on a TBN network, not a news network.”

            Any better at all?

            O_o

            That’s exhausting, especially when you consider it still doesn’t please everyone and can still be quibbled with.

            So, hand me my bat, if you’d please. I’ve gots me some more bashing to do.

          • Sheila Warner

            Ha! I’m impressed! Now THAT’S a good counterpoint to my contention that you wanted to bash Fox. Actually, I’ll need to borrow your bat so I can bash in my own head. :-)

    • T Ko

      Hey, aren’t you glad that you live in America? Yeah, in the Muslim country’s homosexuality could get your head served to you on a platter.

      Also, speaking out in defense of it could. Count your blessings.

      • Josh

        Yes. I’m very glad I live in America — a land where secular influence dragged religion against its will into the 21st century; where we, as a society, eventually snuffed out archaic and barbaric religious practices and stood as an example to the modern world that you can have your religion personally without needing to have it pushed on the masses by government.

        I’m very glad we’re not a Muslim country, or even a place like Russia. However, don’t get it twisted. America being different and more civil has absolutely nothing to do with a better interpretation of religion or American religious people being inherently more moral due to some divine touch. It’s because religious dictates meet a lot of opposition here on a grand scale.

        From some of what I read on this board, quite a few would love to see homosexuals put away if they had their druthers. But since we live in America, they don’t. Secular influence is why we’re not Iran, and I’m certainly grateful.

        I never cease to find irony in these discussions, but that’s what keeps me interested.

        • T Ko

          Agreed. And being a Christian is–to me–to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

          My understanding of Jesus’ teachings was tolerance, brotherly love, and above all, adherence to God’s Word.

          It may sound somewhat in conflict as a personal view of what ‘Jesus would have me do’, but I believe that I am instructed to spread the gospel but not stand in judgment over others.

          And we must all decide for ourselves the path we follow.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    Charlie Sheen has jumped into the fray to criticize Phil for being crude!!!! Now that’s a sense of humor! LOLOL

    What’s next? Miley Cyrus is going to criticize Phil for being vulgar???? Larry Flynt??? Liberals are such junk of people…

    • Deborah G

      Amen

    • Sheila Warner

      Liberals are such junk of people…I must suppose that your objection to gays is not based on religion. Or, is it? You make value judgments about the value of others in more ways than one, it seems. I don’t believe God makes junk people.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        Are you the president of the female version of NAMBLA?

        • T Ko

          Hey, tough-nuts…what if I am?

        • Sheila Warner

          LOL Is that the best you can do? A married straight Christian woman challenges your worldview and you fall apart. By the way, gays aren’t the main culprits in pedophilia. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Fall apart because I respond to your liberal trolling?

            So a married straight woman with a perverted mind about sex is claiming to be Christian? That’s rich.

            Most of same-sex abuse and molestation of teenagers are by homosexuals and bisexuals. And liberal publications are never reliable when it comes to issues related to homosexuals – just like you.

          • Sheila Warner

            Still LOL. Calling me a liberal is the funniest thing you’ve said to boot. Talk to the many folks with whom I communicate on other forums around here. I’ve been accused of being a conservative Republican more than I can count, because I have always been against Obamacare. “Most” molestation of teenagers are by homosexuals and bisexuals. I cited my study. Where is yours? Probably World Net Daily. Focus on the Family is a trusted source for sites like WND, and my study shows how the FOTF “research” was flawed. But if you only want to listen to those who echo your own beliefs back at you, that is your choice. I also love it that I have not used ad hominem attacks against you as you so freely have done so with me. The use of such rhetoric completely undermines credibility in debate. I don’t believe you understand the rules of debate, and I personally do not believe that you care to know them. Others have also point this out. Salient, substantive, reasoned points are necessary for robust debate. Name calling is worthy only of children. “Yea? Well you mom wears army boots!” won’t gain you respect. You ought to care, because you seem to want to reshape society. And in this manner, it will not happen.

  • aloyisious

    The people caught you peeping Bernie…you see, the old guy has quirks, but he notes that he will live with them. Bashir is a pervert of leftist qualities who does heinous things to glorify the “progressive” movement, which is in and of itself a mosh pit of many desires. No cigar this time…but we all make mistakes.

  • Rustyrambler

    Bernie, you clearly looked disgusted in the Factor segment; a lot of us are! For me it goes to the Robertson, [Swamp Thing], comment ,” . . . . it morphs out from there”. In Romans 1:, Paul refers to depraved behavior, and says there are people that “have been given over” to all kinds of depravities. I’m a retired seafarer, [and Vietnam vet}, have heard, and used, language that would make Robertson sound like George Will! From some of the news feeds we received at sea, the whole world looked depraved. Or, as Moms Mabley used to say;”People are doin’ things today they ain’t never done before”! That’s not true, but it seems that way to some folks. And many times, folks are at a loss for words to define it. When they do, the words don’t come out right.
    Hopefully, tolerance, reason and reflection will prevail. But, America needs to have this issue, with all its layers, laid bare!! God bless!!!

    • Sheila Warner

      In Romans chapter one, Paul is using one tense, and in chapter two he switches to another tense. Read it here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2013/10/romans-126-27-a-clobber-passage-that-should-lose-its-wallop/

      • Rustyrambler

        Sheila,Paul,like many of us,I believe,was overwhelmed;see v.13. It’s not about v. 26-27;it’s about v.17. Scholars can debate, and intellectualize forever and ever, amen; but; please see for yourself in 1Cor.2:1-5. Lastly,and I hope you’ll forgive me if I sound too preachy,that’s not my intent,sin is anything that is not about faith,Rom.14:22-23. That’s awesome, and, overwhelming! God bless!!

        • Sheila Warner

          Well, I’ll go one step further and say the main Bible passage of Paul we all need to emulate more, myself included, is I Corinthians 13.

    • Deborah G

      To me the words came out JUST RIGHT> Honest and from the heart. I wouldn’t want it any other way wrinlkles and all but then again I’m not feeling guilty for being a homosexual,

      • Rustyrambler

        Me too. My first comment on Facebook was: “Swamp Thing, you make my heart sing”; but, the way I see it, this is an onion-like issue that Americans need to confront!
        Bernie is a “man of letters”, and a raconteur among the best
        in his profession! I think he would rather see things
        expressed in ways that encourage debate, and do not alienate.
        I doubt Bernie’s a homosexual; I know I’m not!!

        • Deborah G

          here”s the thing and I thought about it . First of all it is a REALITY” show. They got what they paid for the REAL Phil Robertson wrinkles and all.unfortunately it wasn’t THEIR reality. IF they wanted a REALITY show about Gays guys then go find 10 gay outdoorsmen with beards that run around in ballet slippers through the fields acting like gay guys.WHo gets to decide what HATE speech is? The Gay guys who called them uneducated ignorant swamp people? OR the Evangelical person who states what he believes in the Bible? You started a reality show with the Robertsons Not the twinkie toes. Deal with it or turn the station to something that appeals to you on the East and West coats Middle America be damned.

          • Rustyrambler

            We got all that. You are talking in circles. Your attempts at humor fail miserably. Because it is a simply complex issue confronting all Americans, it requires crazies left, right and center to keep an open mind, speak clearly, and not fan the flames of discord and hatred.

  • MC

    Anybody find it ironic that the “Black Civic Leaders” are silent about Blacks being happy in the Jim Crow Era singing songs while picking cotton? Are you kidding me!!!! Only reason gay remarks are getting publicity is that it is tied to religion.

    • Sheila Warner

      Only because GLAAD jumped on this first. I have seen black liberals on the telly very upset about the “happy” blacks. They are out there, and they are actually not happy.

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      It’s because America has become a cultural wasteland and affluent middle and upper classes want to be sexual perverts without any criticism.
      Sexuality is everybody’s business unless it’s liberals telling decent people to shut up because we demand ethics.

      • Sheila Warner

        Again with the affluence. You really don’t know many gays, if any, do you? I mean personally. Do you really think all gays are middle or upper class? Really?

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          Again with your stupidity. I was talking about middle and upper classes – they are not all LGBTs.
          do you always have so much trouble reading? Really?

          • Sheila Warner

            Your words: “… affluent middle and upper classes want to be sexual perverts without any criticism. ” How did I misread you? Unless you mean sexual perversion other than being gay. Which, of course, you did not specify, and since we’re talking about gays, the onus on clarification is yours.

    • Deborah G

      No one said segregation and how the blacks were treated is right. Neither did Phil he simply said in :HIS”: experience working with themat the same jobs I might add they were not mistreated that he couldsee any more than he was. Now if that was racist because he didn’t “SEE” something? That is supposssed to be a plug for the KKK? Get real, the man is earthy, he’s kind, he’s a great family figure, he is religious. SO FREAKING WHAT? So we should honor the Charlie Sheen, Martin Baskirs and Miley Cyrus crew instead .? They are normal? Miley Crrus offends me every time she appears. Do I go after her? Nope I just don’t watch her.

      • legal eagle

        Willful ignorance is a wonderful excuse for making moronic statements. Can we assume Robertson never read a newspaper or listened to the news in the 60’s?

        • T Ko

          Yeah, go ahead and assume it. That would be commensurate with your usual intelligence levels.

    • keith hart

      I’m not too thrilled about these scruffy boys still stuck in Jim Crow time. I’m still waiting on “Black civic Leaders” coming out supporting school vouchers.

  • MarioG

    Did Phil say that gay behavior may lead to sex with animals? I thought he just listed the actions he found sinful.

    Bernie is “tired” of the culture war?

    I’m tired of journalists acting like Pinocchio.

    I
    said that Phil had every right to say that “gay behavior,” as he put
    it, might lead to sex with animals. – See more at:
    http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/duck-dynasty-god-given-right-stupid/?utm_source=BernardGoldberg.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=bf2b734e6b-NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c1903183b6-bf2b734e6b-298365809#sthash.Fjx9hfGL.dpuf
    I
    said that Phil had every right to say that “gay behavior,” as he put
    it, might lead to sex with animals. – See more at:
    http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/duck-dynasty-god-given-right-stupid/?utm_source=BernardGoldberg.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=bf2b734e6b-NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c1903183b6-bf2b734e6b-298365809#sthash.Fjx9hfGL.dpuf

    • janelle

      I didn’t read that either. It was just a long list of what he thinks is sinful. I expect better from Goldberg not to add to what a person says. Plus, nothing is said on the good things Robertson said on love everybody. We can’t even listen to others opinions without hating them.

      • Sheila Warner

        I don’t hate Robertson. I do take issue with his contention that homosexuality just “morphs from there” into bestiality.

        • Deborah G

          He didn’t say that he simply said when you start sinning it can go down that path. He also said he loves ALL humanity and think he should and let GOD shake out the rest. Sounds like a man of God to me. Not a jusgemental hater.Quite the opposite.,Then again the Liberals AND Bernie made quantum leaps and twisted the truth.

          • Sheila Warner

            No,actually he said “start with homosexuality.”

          • T Ko

            Translation: here’s a reference point to begin the discussion. Maybe?

          • Sheila Warner

            Right. His personal Ground Zero for sin. He got the question & couldn’t resist answering it. I think I’d have been generic. “The Bible makes statements about sin but I choose to love everybody and share God’s love with them.” That would have been so much better, and nonbelievers might even check out the show out of curiosity (to see if there really are flies or nests in those beards?). Why push people away if they try to engage your on your faith?

          • T Ko

            Good again!

    • Sheila Warner

      Of course Robertson was allowed to say that homosexuality morphs from there into bestiality. But we have a right to say that such a remark is abhorrent, and diminishes gay people as some kind of sex crazed animals.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        Robertson was merely pointing out the obvious: people can normalize any sexual perversity if they want. You’ve just diminished zoophiles to some kind of sex crazed animals. Where is your respect for them? Are you showing them love? Tolerance? Diversity!

        • Sheila Warner

          You know very well that bestiality is the ultimate natural next step on that ever pesky slippery slope argument. We heard it before, from Rick Santorum. It’s actually the gay haters who say gasp! Next thing you know we’ll have people copulating with animals! gasp! Not my argument, but your side’s. So it it your side, when expressing that whole slippery slope thing, that adds zoophiles in with “perversion” such as homosexualty. Of course, again, my issue is consent. No animal can give consent to have sex with a human.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            So you have no problem having sex with a dead animal? Your problem is much more than consent – you have a perverted mind about sex.

          • Sheila Warner

            Hmmmm. No one said the animal was dead. And, I brought up consent, not you, so, no, sex with an animal is animal abuse. Animals cannot consent.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I gave the example of a dead animal. Consent is not an issue once an animal is dead. Which means you’d have sex with a dead dog and think it’s fine.

          • Sheila Warner

            “…sex with an animal is animal abuse. Animals cannot consent.” Of course a dead animal, or any dead creature, cannot give consent. That’s why necrophilia is a crime, too. You can play your semantic word games any way you choose, but since consent is the operative word, here, then we both no that lack of consent in all situations is criminal, so what is your point? Why did Robertson say that homosexuality morphs into bestiality? Why did Rick Santorum say the same thing in his last Senate race? They each got the ridicule they deserve.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            “That’s why necrophilia is a crime, too.”
            ===============
            Laws do distinguish between humans and animals. The crime you are referring to (necrophilia) applies only to conduct between humans. Not animals. You’d be just fine having sex with your dead dog, because that’s not a crime by any necrophilia statute. And it’s OK by your perverted mind.

            Are you going to suggest that everyone who eats a dead animal should be thrown in prison for cannibalism? How about killing an animal so that you can eat it? Is that murder? Something tells me we should throw you in prison for murder and cannibalism. And, let’s not forget, sex with dead dogs!

          • Sheila Warner

            Round and round and round we go. Just love how you keep saying I have sex with dead dogs, a truly vicious comment, but you are a Bible believing Christian, who swears up and down that Robertson was not using hateful language. But, because I really am a Christian, I forgive you for your comments. Again, notice that I did not call you any names, nor accuse you of any sexual perversion. I think I still have the moral high ground here. The more you speak, the more you reveal your own heart, just as Jesus said. “Out of the heart” comes forth all kinds of sin.

            I could report you for an abusive post because you accuse me of murder, but I’m letting that slide too. Merry Christmas. I hope your hyped up and angry heart finds some peace in life.

          • Sheila Warner

            In case you missed the end of the reply, because I accidentally hit the post button too soon:

            I could report you for an abusive post because you accuse me of murder, but I’m letting that slide too. Merry Christmas. I hope your hyped up and angry heart finds some peace in life.

      • MarioG

        Sheila,

        Does homosexuality also lead to mem sleeping with lots of women, which is another sin listed by Phil?

        There is no doubt that Phil could have expressed himself better and did not realize who he was being interviewed by. Celebrities should be very careful in whom they allow to interview them because they will trap them into saying things they will later regret.

        • Deborah G

          No but going down the path of lust does. Lust is NOT love.Homsexuality is the behavior of lust acted upon by an attraction to the same sex, So Lust or sin can lead you down the path to ALL of those perversions.

        • Sheila Warner

          My interpretation was that homosexuality was ground zero for Robertson. And, you are right–he either did not know, or else he did not care about the target audience for GQ.

          • MarioG

            Sheila, if you read the entire interview rather than the excerpts cherry-picked by the liberal media you’d see that homosexuality is not ground zero for Phil – his fundamentalist version of Christianity is. He was answering a question where he was listing what he considered to be sins.

            As a Catholic myself and a supporter of Christians who use Christ as their guige rather than selected excerpts from the Bible, i think he went way over the line in how he phrased his answers. One can disapprove of the gay lifestyle witjout condemning them to hell – that’s going beyond the pale.

          • Sheila Warner

            Not sure where you think I cherry picked. I had been answering some folks about certain phrases, and why I had drawn my conclusions. I read the entire article. He was asked what is sin. The reply was start with homosexuality and morph out from there. Start with. Ground Zero. Of all the sins out there, that was his first thought? I’d say oppressing the vulnerable. Stealing, murder, fraud, etc.. And the morph out from there went right into bestiality, which I also found problematic. Using that manner of speaking really left things open to interpretation. It was as if bestiality was a result of homosexuality, because homosexuality was morphing straight away into more sexual acts. Hardly cherry picking, was I. I read his entire reply to all the questions. Even Robertson’s supporters are admitting he could have used better language.

          • MarioG

            Sheila, what about Phil “going beyond the pale” did you not understand?

            You are right, by leaving himself “up to interpretation” he allowed folks like you to take his list of sins and run with it.

          • Sheila Warner

            I still don’t understand what point you are trying to make with me. Robertson listed sins, not me. Running with them? It seems Robertson is doing the running. I was parsing his phrasing of his list. Overall, I don’t care a whit about his show. If he’s on or not, I won’t ever watch it. I have no skin in the A&E controversy. The bosses are free to hire and fire whomever they choose. They’ll look at their bottom line and either keep the suspension in place, or not. {{shrugging}}

          • MarioG

            That Phil is confused about the fundamental message of Christ enshrined in the Golden Rule and needs to stop trying to represent Christ in front of liberal mouthpieces like GQ.

    • Deborah G

      he didn’t say that he said when you travel down the road of sin things become more and more acceptable. In his own earthy way of course.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        Which is totally true. Just look at the sexuality sewer that is society right now. And they want to tear down bans on age of consent and polygamy next. Obviously the perverts won’t leave animals alone.

  • Linda Grace

    I like the way Bernie has clarified this. The end does not always justify the means. Phil has the right to express his beliefs to GQ or to anyone else, and I agree with him, but he should have used better language.

  • bella duparee

    Let us not split hairs. Goat or no goat sex. We know what Robertson was inferring, don’t we. I missed the happy blacks you speak of in the article I read. Please refresh me.. We certainly our the same page when it comes to homosexuals/gays. I am neither but in my life time I have good friends who are gays and lesbians. Wonderful, kind loving people.. AND ALL ASK? DO YOU THINK I WOULD CHOOSE THIS LIFE STYLE AS IT IS NOT AN EASY ROAD TO TRAVEL. (PARAPHRASING). But true.

    • Thewryobservator

      No, I’m not sure we do. Regarding choice though – I get that bit. It’s a complex issue you can have same sex attraction for reasons you didn’t choose and don’t understand. I also know you don’t have to act on a desire. For instance, you don’t have to act on a physical attraction to another man’s wife though you may have one -just like you don’t have to steal, though you may covet. I also know there are men and woman who were actively homosexual who have left the life. Some are living normal (if there is such a thing) married heterosexual lives – and some are adjusted to celibate lives because they think celibacy trumps sinful behavior -just like some men and woman choose celibacy over fornication because they’ve not found the right person to marry. In short, this is a complex issue. Mr. Goldberg is stating an opinion. I know he and I are differently informed. I can handle that. Still, I think no one helps anyone who enables a sin – even if they feel right in doing so – because they don’t recognize a sin. That – I think, is the human condition.

      The best thing I heard on this was made here: http://www.equip.org/category/broadcasts/ The guy might know something about the issue.

      • janelle

        You are so right but even when gays want to get therapy to learn how to deal with those feelings the militant gays say that is hate. Many therapy places for gays are being shut down. How is that for discriminating against gays from other gays?

      • Deborah G

        I think he jumped to conclusions like most people did but that being said he is in a different position and should have done his research, kept his personal feelings in check before he reported on the issue.

    • Sheila Warner

      You should read the article. Basically Robertson said that blacks were godly and happy and not complaining when he worked beside them in the cotton fields. They didn’t sing the blues. This was pre-entitlement, as he described it. It was before civil rights. He said he never saw a black person treated badly. I guess he was unaware of Jim Crow laws.

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        “He said he never saw a black person treated badly. I guess he was unaware of Jim Crow laws.”

        Maybe he meant that he never saw a african american get beaten or otherwise abused. i think that the blacks he worked besides may have just decided to not let racism get them down.

        • Deborah G

          Maybe that is true but maybe they weren’t as affected as some were. Growing up we had a home in the South. I didn’t see it either. There was a black family that used to have a business taking care of the grounds in the community. They were nice people we had them to dinner a few times, their kids were our friends. we would eat lunch there if their mom had something better[and she usually did] than we liked at home. They were successful, well liked and I sure didn’t see anyone mistreat or disrespect them in any way. So I am a racist too? My family is racist because we spent money in their business? This was the early 60’s right about the same time as Phil was talking about. I didn’t see it either although I’m sure it existed. You can’t hate people for what they DIDN”T see or experience. In fact I just got their Christmas card yesterday from the kids we hung out with.They still look happy and prosperous. We have always stayed in each other’s lives and always stay in touch and visit when we go back. Three years ago we went down and we all went to Disney with the grandkids for the day. Really racist huh?

      • Deborah G

        May be because he didn;t ascribe to them. He does not appear to be a man that is prejudicial or mean. I don’t see the war on gays as they claim there is either and I have gay friends. In Actuality they think Glaad does them more harm than good. They weren’t offended so why should Bernie be.?

        • Sheila Warner

          Your gay friends don’t like GLAAD, therefore Bernie shouldn’t, either, is that what you’re saying? But in the end Bernie gave it to both sides. He said he is weary of the cultural wars. I didn’t see him giving aid and comfort to either side. This was more of “a pox on all your houses” than an endorsement of either side.

        • Sheila Warner

          Here’s Bernie’s exact quote: “I’m growing more and more weary of the culture war. I’m growing more and more tired of liberals defending the indefensible and conservatives yelling about double standards because we’re not all circling the wagons for Phil Robertson. I’m getting sick of both sides.”

          • Deborah G

            Then throw in the towel,go to bed and disintegrate but certainly don’t expect people to pay to listen to you on TV> Become as irrelevant as you can be and stand for nothing. See where the respect for you ends up then.

          • Sheila Warner

            Actually, Bernie is taking a stand. He is a big fan of the arena of open debate. It’s being invaded by those who want to hijack that arena, on both sides. We who love to debate are weary of the slurs being thrown around by both sides.

    • Deborah G

      At some level gays want to be accepted for who they are but they know they are not like the other 95% of people. Big Dilemma. How do you gain acceptance by being Homofascist? No you get accepted by being respectful people. The reality is we all know and interact with gay people. Most of us shun the sexually overt in your face exhibistionists. I think we’d shun the Westboro Babtist Church the same way if we are NORMAL people. My beliefs are mine, phils are phils and gay person’s are theirs. Each has a right to those opinions. If I like the person I don’t have to agree . I DO NOT AGREE with Bernie’s translation and twisting of the Truth here

  • Acu-Vue

    Bernie, For you to waste your time writing about this nonsense; Either this was an extremely slow news week or O’Reilly really pissed you off last night. I’m thinking the latter. Maybe you should try appearing on ‘The Kelly File’ if Bill lets you. You may actually get to finish a sentence. I have been watching ‘The O’Reilly Factor’ for some 11+ years and respect Mr. O’Reilly immensely but never forget that he is just “A Simple, Petty Man” — I personally believe the word ‘petty’ needs to be added to his favorite phrase. As for Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty, if I ever get to a point in my life when I have nothing better to do than watch that crap.——- SHOOT ME!

    • Deborah G

      Pass the gun then because it isn’t crap, It is pretty scick smart and funny IF you take the time to figure out who they characters are and what they think and believe. This is a good family with great family values. They are close knit, caring, respectful of others and Christian and this is where the real rub is. THEY ARE CHRISTIANS> The gays resent religion, Chritianity more than others except maybe Muslim, most shun it because they feel deep rooted anger at God. That doesn’t make him go away and that causes their guilt. Unhappy people usually have a lot of guilt.

      • Sheila Warner

        But when Christians try to point out that they can be both gay and Christian, somehow that offends you, even though those words are spoken from the heart. You can’t have it both ways. Start reading John Shore’s blog–visit the Gay Christian Network on YouTube, look up “Just Because He Breathes”. You will find that there are countless numbers of gays who also are Christian. Pay attention especially to stories of gays who tried to change their orientation, who spent hours crying out to God for deliverance. If God hates homosexuality, and these gays were doing what he wants–repenting–then where was their victory? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit gradually give them strength to overcome, instead of absolutely nothing happening? Does God delight in torturing the repentant who wish to change but cannot? I believe the better answer is that sexuality is on a continuum, and we won’t really understand that until the other side. We’ll be very surprised at who is in and who is out of heaven.

        • Deborah G

          I leave that to God. Just because a gay person THINKS they are normal doesn’t make it so. The fact they are Christians in their minds is between them and God. I don’t have your answer. IF they pray and beg for change and it doesn’t happne them my take is we don’t always get what we pray for and then we have to do it ourselves. NOT judging but maybe they would be better trying to simply not enegage in their sexual behavior. I don’t have the answer to the Gay issue. I don’t hate them I just don’t care to be with them any more than I would hang out with a bunch of partiers, IF a gay person was hurt or injured I’d help them, if they needed food I’d feed them, I will always do the Christian thing but I don’t think simply letting one small group dictate the national conversation is right.

          • Sheila Warner

            I very much understand where you are coming from, and I appreciate your honesty. I have had quite a few gay friends, and they were great fun. I loved hanging out with them. It’s not about the sex, it’s about the orientation. The stories of the gay youth I have read didn’t even involved sexual activity. It was the orientation that caused them so much pain and suffering. I don’t know, the Bible says we are new creatures in Christ, that if we yield ourselves to him, the Holy Spirit will allow us to overcome sin. So, why not orientation? There are gays who see it the way you do, and remain celibate. It is a complex issue.

  • joepotato

    Well Bernie, maybe you think all Christians are ignoramuses … You are welcome to your opinion… You know what they say about opinions, right?
    Opinions are like ___holes. Everyone’s got one and they all stink! As far as the Duck Dynasty show goes… I really don’t give a duck!

  • Thewryobservator

    One thing sure, Bernie says what he thinks, and lets the chips fall where they may. I like that – even when I think differently. I don’t have to guess where he stands, and he makes me think about where I stand. Not to mention, he doesn’t work with an asterisk. I expect that if he happens to change his mind, and articulates that, it will be because he’s changed his mind, not because he was finally revealing where he really stood all along. I understand that people don’t see eye to eye on this issue. I also understand how important it is to respect an honest commentator – one who is willing to consider someone who differs a friend regardless. Mr. Goldberg is that. I’m grateful for his integrity.

    Thanks Bernie – Merry Christmas.

  • LHS

    You’re on the wrong side of this, Bernie. Your liberal roots are showing again. Time for a rinse.

    • Deborah G

      That was my thought exactly he sounded like a NY liberal

  • Sheila Warner

    Whoa! Over 300 comments already? This is a hot topic. I never watch DD, never plan to watch DD, and don’t give a hoot about its future. I’m a Christian who does not believe being gay is a sin. I’ve had many gay friends, and one family member, and I love them all. I also was a nurse in a state prison for several years, and I had transgendered inmates among my patients. I treasure getting to know these people. Sexuality is complex; it covers many spectrums, and there is no “one size fits all” model. To say otherwise is,as Bernie says, ignorant. Those who are so gleefully predicting the wrath of God on gays would do well to actually do some research on human sexuality. I always wonder what these folks think about intersexed (previously called hermaphrodites) people. If gender is determined by our genitalia, then what’s the deal here? I’m with Bernie: as long as a person is not trying to harm me, then that person ought to be free to live according to that person’s conscience. We make way too much of this kind of stuff.

    • JMax

      Thank God! Someone here with some sense and compassion! I’m with you on this one! :-)

    • Thewryobservator

      One size fits all. As a point of reasoning – you could argue there’s an ideal. The spectrum could be degrees of deviation away from that ideal. The point that no one meets the ideal is not the same as no ideal exists. What, after all, is the definition of sin? It’s got something to do, I think, with a deviation from an ideal.

      • Sheila Warner

        Who would decide what is “ideal?: So, you brought sin into this, and I assume you believe God decided the ideal, in His word. Except that lots of people don’t agree with the interpretation of those who condemn gays. Or, even believe the Bible is God’s word. And, i dare say that those I’ve met in my life are perfectly content with their “less than ideal” orientation.

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          It’s not because people disagree on having sex with kids that it makes everyone’s opinion valid. The same with homosexuality, bestiality, etc. Individuals being content with their perverted and dysfunctional minds doesn’t make their mental and ideological problems correct.

          • Sheila Warner

            Children can’t give consent. That’s why there are laws on the books against pedophilia.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Your argument is that people cannot criticize perverts if they are content with their deformed minds. Well, many pedophiles are not complaining about who they are.
            Ergo, stupid argument. LGBTs do enormous harm and violence, non consensual and consensual.

          • Sheila Warner

            It’s the law. Children cannot consent, which is why pedophilia is a crime. Consenting adults are just that–consenting. LGBTs do enormous violence? How does sex between consenting adults do that? Prove that statement. You see same sex attraction as “perverted”, and ignore science, then you claim to have a moral high ground to cast slurs on gays’ characters. But, oh my goodness, let someone have the opinion that it is your side that is misguided, and you scream “religious persecution.” You need to put on big boy pants–or big girl pants–to enter the fray in the arena of public debate. You will be challenged vigorously here.

      • Sheila Warner

        Oh, and just how would you deal with an intersexed baby if you had one? Since God is the author of all life, what was in his mind for that baby?

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          It depends on each case. Sometimes a tentative choice can be made, but keeping in mind that it can change as they grow and show inclination to the other side. That’s why it can be really barbaric to strictly one sex at birth, with surgery.

          • Deborah G

            cxorrect I sure owuldn’t think surgury before they grew into what God intended them to be

          • Sheila Warner

            “Keeping in mind that it can change as they grow.” So why can’t a person with one set of reproductive organs have the opposite orientation? By the way, do you think that it’s possible that an intersexed person would end up as bisexual? All I’m saying is that it is not merly our physical bodies which make up gender and sexuality. Gender is as much in the mind as it is in the physical body.

        • Deborah G

          I would pray until I had the roght answer which he always gioves. Simple. AND Love that child as a gift.

        • Thewryobservator

          Do you assume that life as we find it is a reflection of God’s ideal, or could something be amiss? How that question is answered might influence the approach to that situation should you find yourself in it. How would you deal with it? What do you think was intended there?

          • Sheila Warner

            Romans 8:22 ” We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” All of creation, human and otherwise, are subject to a variety of problems. Crops fail, there are natural disasters, people die. I don’t set myself us as an arbiter as to what is “ideal” in this life. We see through a dark glass. We’ll know on the other side. I’ve heard people with a Down syndrome child state that their child is perfect. I see Down as less than ideal. I have to listen to those who are living with a Down child. Just as I listen to gay Christians. I suppose the ultimate ideal is that no one would be hurt in this life. And, that others would not intentionally inflict hurt. That can’t happen. I await for the final redemption, just like all Christians.

    • Wayne Cooper

      Shelia:

      your opinion means nothing! Like Bernie, you are clearly biblically illiterate for someone that professes to be a Christian. It doesn’t matter whether you believe homosexuality is not a sin. God has already declared that it is and HE has not stuttered! Furthermore, practicing homosexuals and other sexually immoral people ARE NOT going to heaven, and that is not judging, that is a declarative statement:

      ” Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10

      These words by the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul, leave no doubt that unrepentant homosexuals along with the other people engaging in other sinful lifestyles are going to die and go to hell! Period.

      So if you really want to be a “friend” and not a fake friend, then do as the Bible says: “SPEAK THE TRUTH IN LOVE”.

      • Sheila Warner

        Here’s the truth, in love. Many Greek scholars have examined the original language in the NT. Most especially the Romans, I Corinthians, and the I Timothy books. They do not agree with how the Greek has been translated into English. You are claiming that your English translation of the Bible is what God said. Do some research and you will find honest disagreement on the original meanings. I did. Facts are amazing. Of course, when we speak of sin that has not been confessed and forsaken, that is another topic entirely. But we don’t know the state of a person’s heart at the moment of death; only God knows that. I find that Fundies are too quick to assign people to hell. I also find that they are resistant to any voice other than their own church leaders.

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          Which translation do you endorse as the right one?

          • Sheila Warner

            I think you missed my point. I said the translation of the Greek in Romans 1 which reads “homosexual” or “homosexuality” is disputed by Greek scholars. I didn’t say that those scholars put out a version of their own. But if you are interested in a pretty in depth discussion, you can check this out: http://epistle.us/homobible.html

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            One would have to study ancient Greek to debate the issue. The problem I see is: I find it mighty odd that 2000 years passed and these people claim that no one was capable of learning enough Greek for 2000 years! hmmm don’t think so. I am not opposed for people to examine any past or present translation however. I just find it is these people’s fanatical agenda to normalize homosexuality that is driving their “mistranslation” claim – therefore I doubt it’s true.

          • Sheila Warner

            Yes, one would have to study Greek. And culture. I haven’t done either of those in any meaningful way, so I use research to find out what actual Greek scholars have to say on the subject. You might want to do this as well, if you are one who believes you weigh all opposing views before making up your own mind. Start here: http://epistle.us/homobible.html

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            oops it looks like you don’t like to read research!

            Is Arsenokoitai Really that Mysterious?

            http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/

            Concludsion: “Having more closely documented the particular use of the word arsenokoitai and its consistent witness in the NT, we have discovered that homosexual sin in 1Corinthians6:9-10 isn’t as culturally
            relevant as many who support the pro-homosexual agenda to normalize aberrant sexual behavior would have us believe.”

            – C. Wayne Mayhall

          • Sheila Warner

            I actually read that article, and others that agree with the equip.org article. beliefnet.org has a similar take on the interpretation. So, here is another one that I studied:

            http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section01.html

            They anti-gay interpreters of Greek admit that Paul coined a word not seen elsewhere, but they try to read into that word the implication that Paul was really describing any homosexual act. The lionking.org site gives more cultural context. And, let’s face it, the ancient world did not have a clue about many things, such as the equality of all peoples, including women. We still see women being oppressed by fathers and husbands to this day, based on the Bible. I have tons and tons of articles on that. But that is a topic for another day.

            No one knew about orientation in the ancient world. But you’ll need to read it for yourself.

        • Wayne Cooper

          I’ve read the Greek in Romans, 1 Cor. and 1 Tim. And there is simply no wiggle room for you to run to. Homosexuality is a perversion and God will punish all un-repentant homosexuals and other sexually immoral people.

      • Josh

        Count your blessings and soak up that beautiful irony. You’re flaming people using a machine that would have had you murdered as a witch 200 years ago.

        What sorcery is this!?

        • Wayne Cooper

          Josh, I’m flaming the truth!

          • Josh

            Says every religious person of every religion since always.

            Have your truth and be happy. I’m just personally unable to miss the irony of modern-day, science-based technology used to get across points folks were arguing about since the bronze age.

      • Deborah G

        No offense but what makes you think Bernie Goldberg is a Christian? LOL I hate to stereotype but that sounds like a perfetly good Jewish name to me. BTW Jews are generally liberals and I just think Bernie is going back to his Liberal roots. The fact is Jews don’t like being persecuted for obvious reasons and they tend to champion those they think are.In this case gays whether he did his research or not doesn’t take away from ingrained Jewish tendancies. The OLD Testm,ent is geared more towards the Jews so I always wonder why they don’t follow it more.

        • Sheila Warner

          Deborah, read your words out loud. “Jews” this and “Jews” that. You aren’t Jewish so how can you spout off all kinds of things about them? Now I get why Robertson felt so free to say what he did. You all seem to live in an insular world, within a bubble of people who make pronouncements about all manner of people.

          • Deborah G

            Actually you are worng I am 1/2 Jewish and my family consider themselves Jews for Jesus. LOL Bet you didn’t see that one coming. We follow the old testament AND the New testement and we gave our lives to Jesus.

          • Sheila Warner

            You are Messianic Jews, then. I knew some people who were involved in JFJ. I didn’t know they were still around. Have a Merry Christmas. Sorry for the “you aren’t Jewish” line. But you do know that there are Jews who practice according to the most conservative way of viewing the religion, right? The Hassidic Jews? (Hope I spelled that right) There are many types of religious Jews, just as there are many types of practicing Christians.

          • Deborah G

            I just am a Christian My Mom and Dad were Jewsih and Italian. we ate well LOL

          • Sheila Warner

            Are doing the Seven Fishes thing tonight? Hope you have a great holiday. Merry Christmas!

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      I’m a Christian who does not believe being gay is a sin.
      ===============
      You shouldn’t throw the Bible in the garbage bin if you are a Christian!

      • Sheila Warner

        What?

      • Jack Spratt

        God is the Judge and I would trust His Word as being divinely inspired to list out the sins of which it is very plain that homosexuality is in the specifically identified list.

  • Clyde9

    He gave a list of what he believes are sins – he did not say any one of them was the same as any other sin on the list.

  • Bubhawk

    I appreciate your straight shooting Bernie, but you’re a bit flip with your thoughts about Paul’s writings. These are not the rantings of some ancient backwoods preacher–at least not to Christian believers. After all, Paul wrote about half of the New Testament. The top Duck’s problem is that he failed to (or perhaps it wasn’t considered necessary to include) balance Paul’s “controversial” verses with his beautiful writing about love and forgiveness.

    • Rarin Togo

      I disagree. I think these are the “ranting’s of some backwoods Preacher.”

  • Rarin Togo

    Bernie:
    Your column was great. I don’t understand people who quote the Bible. I don’t know who wrote those words but I do know that God didn’t. An all loving God would never be that stupid.
    Phil may be financially savvy but he definitely does not have common sense.

    • garbo77

      Rarin Togo, I will keep you in prayer. You apparently don’t have a clue of all the miracles that God is doing at this time in our world. You won’t get it through the media; but in time you will, God doesn’t lose!
      God Bless! Dr. Gary P.S. Wouldn’t it be wise to start basing your beliefs on something that has something to support it or prove it?

      • Rarin Togo

        I see the miracles that God is doing everyday. Always have. What that has to do with some of the ridiculous writings from 2,000 years ago?…..I have no idea.
        I simply do not believe the bible has anything to do with God. Sorry.

        • Wayne Cooper

          If you don’t believe that the Bible is God’s Word, then what “OBJECTIVE SOURCE OF TRUTH” are you depending on to teach you about the character and ways of God? What objective source of truth did you embrace for spiritual truth and the authority to declare that you are a Christian? Furthermore, how do you learn of Christ if not in the Bible as there is no other book in the world that give us the revelation of Jesus Christ and His redemptive plan of salvation?

          Please don’t be dumb due to your hatred of Christians and the Bible!

          • Deborah G

            Isn’t not believeing in the Bible and calling oneself a Christian an oxymoron?

          • Wayne Cooper

            Definitely!

          • Rarin Togo

            Wayne:
            I never said that I did not have a relationship with God. He reveals himself in many profound ways. Not necessarily through the written word only.

        • garbo77

          Hi Rarin Togo! Wisdom cries out! Base beliefs on something! Just feeling it or believing that things are a certain way doesn’t make it so. I’m not trying to argue, just trying to help. I and others that believe spiritually the way I do see the miracles of God. If you were to have a close family member with a severed spine and in a wheelchair for years and was healed and walking fine, do you not believe God performed that miracle? Those miracles were performed when Jesus walked the earth and are still being performed as God works through His people that are willing to do as God tells them. Nearly all the time, we see that God performs through His people; that is just the way He chooses and it lines up with the word of God our Bible! If you were a member of a church that doesn’t believe or function in allowing God to perform miracles through them, I can understand where it might be difficult to believe as I do. I and others have prayed for others and seen them healed.

          My wife and I served at “Healing Rooms” and have witnessed healing there as we prayed to God for the healing! God heals in church services, in fields or wherever He chooses. One of the main points I feel that I need to make with you is that it lines up with the word of God. Please understand, I’m not just trying to get you and others to understand the way that I understand scriptures, I teach what I live and see being done by God Almighty!

          A short white lady in Mozambique Africa, her husband and others are taking care of 10,000 children. God told them to not refuse one child. It is not uncommon for God to produce food to feed all those children right in front of their eyes. Of course, we don’t hear of these things from our news media because they are evil and function as the devil wants them to function instead of obeying God.

          If you will study the Bible and ask God to show you the truth, He will help you to understand His word is true! And if we study history, we will find out much truth there too. I would love to be able to read Hebrew and Greek and read the Bible the way it was originally written!

          Those filming the Red Sea, where Moses and God’s people crossed, are finding many chariots and horse bones just as the Bible stated. And there has been remains found, on one of the mountains of Ararat, that is the exact measurements of Noah’s Ark ,that is explained in the Bible. God, in His love and mercy, is allowing physical things to be discovered to also prove His word, the Bible true!

          In the first chapter of John, in the Bible, God explains through John, how Jesus, the Word, became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) As we study more in John and other places, in the Bible, we realize that Jesus created everything, to include us and the world. And did it all by instruction of Father God! Jesus was the “Word” prior to coming to earth and being known as Jesus. I encourage you and all the readers to study the Bible, it’s an exciting book of truths and that’s how we learn about our God, His Son, our Savior Jesus and Holy Spirit.

          God’s Blessings on each of you and yours!

          Dr. Gary

          • Rarin Togo

            Thank you for your very thoughtful reply Garbo.

            I did study the Bible for 12 years. I’m not saying that everything that was written in the bible does not have insight or merit. I was referencing one direct quote.

            I won’t even deny that some of it was indeed divinely inspired. However, it was written by men & human error is human error. I won’t even argue that some of it is genuine; just not all of it.

          • garbo77

            Hi Rarin Togo!
            Thanks for your kind comment! One of the problems of writing is that it’s not like sitting down and making eye contact with each other and discussing things.

            When I received your comment, the scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 came to my mind. “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Also, very important scriptures are in Ephesians 4:11-12 “And He Himself (God) gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers (for what”) for the equipping of the saints (why equip us?) for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ;”

            Of course, Mark 16:15-18 tells us what we are to do. And that is to “GO.” Bring others to Christ and disciple and baptize them. And then Jesus tells us what will happen as we go and obey His command. vs. 17-18 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues, they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will no no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

            The speaking with “new tongues” comes from Acts 2:4 where they spoke in other tongues and the nations outside the building heard them speaking in their languages, even though the Galileans inside the house didn’t understand. However, we read in verse 11 that they were “speaking the wonderful works of God.” I think that is why God allowed them to understand. Even then some accused them of being drunk and then Peter stood up and preached to them and 3,000 came to Christ! In 1 Corinthians 14:2 we are told known man understands this heavenly language that they received in Acts 2:4 and we can receive now if we choose to do so.

            Rarin Togo, one of my prayers is that God would change all the translations in all Bibles to exactly the way He wants it to be explained. Even though God did inspire the Bible to be written the way that He wanted, there have been many translations and that might be where the doubt in your mind comes about all of it being true.

            For example, the King James version, which many of the older folks are secure in, uses the word “hell” throughout the old testament and N.T. However, in every instance it is used in the O.T. it does NOT mean fire, but it means “grave.” The Hebrew word is “sheol.” Strong’s Concordance #7585. In the N.T. the meaning of “hell” means three different things: Strong’s Concordance: #86 means Hades or grave. #5020 means “Tartoros” a place in the Abyss for the demons and #1067 means literally “fire” which is called “Gehenna.”

            There are those who think Jesus went to “hell” and suffered after dying on the cross. Acts 2:27 “For You will not leave My soul in “hell, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” Acts 2:31 “he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in “hell,” nor did His flesh see corruption. However, when I look in Strong’s Concordance I see that “hell” here is #86, s defined as “grave.” This passage in my New King James version of “The New Spirit Filled Life Bible” shows the word Hades “grave” instead of the word “hell.” Yet, in other places it uses he word “hell.” I would have thought they would have put the proper word in place of the word “hell,” but they didn’t.

            Another example of a statement being difficult to understand is where Paul told the women to keep quiet in church and didn’t go on to explain. Yet, we know from other statements, in the Bible, God used women much to teach and they did many Godly things.And we now have women of God that are preachers, prophets, etc. At times studying other parts of the Bible can help to sort out statements that appear to be matter of fact, but aren’t as they seem. We also, find clarification at times through studying the history of God’s church. Referring to Paul telling the women to keep quiet in church: we are told that history shows that the women and men sat each in a section by themselves and some of the women were getting up during the service and were speaking across to the men, which was not according to their custom.

            I’m sure we could find other examples. I call these things peripheral and non essential things. What I mean is that they are not important in teaching people to come to Christ and teaching how to function in Christ. Of course, the teaching of Paul can be a problem if we are to decide to let a woman preach or prophesy, etc. Thank God, the plan of salvation, functioning in obedience to God and what is sin, is clear and no problem to follow the Bible in its teachings!

            We must understand that if we don’t accept the Bibles teachings, even though some is difficult to understand, I feel that we are leaving ourselves open to pick and choose what to believe. Believing whatever we want is one of the big problems we have in this age. It is being taught to just do what you feel is right and it will be ok. That is a terrible deception of the devil. Rarin Togo, I’m not saying that you believe that way, but that it is the way many are being led by the devil at this time.

            I feel this is all God is leading me to say at this time. I hope it has been a help to you and others. The only reason that I comment, I pray, is to help others. A word of caution to all, however, study God’s word, our Bible, and seek Him for the truth. Never put you hope in me or any other person!

            God’ Blessings on you all!

            Dr. Gary

          • Sheila Warner

            I share your desire about the combination of all translations to better understand the texts. I am struggling with much of what you discussed. I was raised a Fundamentalist, and the behaviors I saw seemed to me to be in conflict with Jesus’ law of love. I appreciate your post. You seem to have a very tender spirit. Civility when discussing hard issues with those who disagree is so necessary to further dialogue. Thanks for being so polite.

          • garbo77

            Hi Sheila!

            Thanks for your comment. I don’t think I;m familiar with the beliefs of Fundamentalists, unless you could name a denomination as Nazarene, Baptist, etc. Yes, there have been some churches where some of the pastors were more like dictators other than speaking the truth with Love. My wife and I belonged to such a church at one time.

            Paul makes it very clear in 1 Corinthians 13 about performing without Love is useless. As you said, it is so important to show Love as we make comments. Sometimes that can be a challenge. I know when I ministered in county jail, there was face to face contact and I feel that the guys knew that I loved them, but sometimes they weren’t hearing what I was saying. That’s why I like for a person to ask if they question what I’ve said. That way I, or any speaker, has a chance to clarify. I was teaching about Job one Sunday and a fellow asked me if I said that Job was born w/o sin. I haven’t got a clue how he got that out of what I said, but I explained “no we are all born with sin.” That’s so important to understand, because we live in an age where we are being taught “anything goes.” And that’s not scriptural. The Bible tells us that we have all sinned and come short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23). And in Romans 10:9-10 and 1 John 1:9 we are told how to receive salvation.

            You probably know these scriptures. When I write, I write as if writing to the world and pray that the writing will reach everyone God wants it to and it will change their lives as God desires! Sometimes God will show me to stop commenting back to an individual, because it becomes obvious that only prayer will change the person’s beliefs ( in some cases it might be more appropriate to say: change their attitude).

            One of the things that I’ve noticed is that on sites where it is a political subject, for example, there is never any mention of the problem being because of our nation turning it’s face against God! So, I write what God gives to me, again, in hope of getting them to understand we need to put God in charge of all things, trust in Him and obey Him and then our country will get back on track and we can become the spiritual nation that God wants us to be for our sake and an example to the rest of the world. 2 Chronicles 7:14 “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal land.”

            I truly believe that the only thing that will get this country or any country where it needs to be is by earnestly praying!

            God’s Blessings on you and yours and all readers!

            Dr. Gary

          • Sheila Warner

            Dr. Gary–Fundamentalism is not a denomination, it’s a way of interpreting the Bible. It transcends denominations. You can always look it up. I worked at a state prison for 6 years, and I must admit, by the time I left, I was hardly loving. That experience is what made me re-examine how I conduct myself. I appreciate your words. Thanks for your attempts to help those around you. I’ll send up a prayer for you. I believe you are a decent and kind man.

          • garbo77

            Hi Sheila!
            Thanks for your comments to me and to others in trying to help them. I appreciate soooooooo much your prayers! Pray is the initial declaration that changes the world for the things that God wants to be completed in man!
            God Bless! Dr. Gary

    • Wayne Cooper

      You’re quite dumb!

      • Rarin Togo

        I don’t hate Christians or the Bible. I disagreed with one passage. Furthermore, I think many passages are foolish.

    • veeper

      you don’t know who wrote the words…..

      but, you know who didn’t…..

      Huh…….

    • Deborah G

      I think he has a world of common sense and clarity of thought. He speaks his mind plainly and with conviction. I’d be proud to have hhim in my famility. It certainly would make for some colorful conversations!

  • Ron Fritzemeier

    Sigh, Bernie is – I think – smarter than this article would suggest. To compare and equate someone stating what they believe to be a truth (whether you agree or not), with someone stating what they would like to see happen to a person they despise, as though both statements were logically equivalent, “Its just two people stating what they believe,” is nonsensical. Come on Bernie, you can do much better than this – bad boy, Bernie, naughty, don’t do that again … (now where is that rolled up newspaper paddle?)

    • Bob Olden

      Actually, Bernie is really smart. He’s smarter than the Bible, you know. He knows what God is supposed to think about homosexuality. So if you think God inspired Paul to write what he did, you are an ignoramus. Why? Because Bernie said so.

      • joepotato

        That’s some funny Shiite… ;-)

      • Sheila Warner

        No, it’s because our English translations don’t necessarily properly translate what is actually in the Greek. It’s amazing what Biblical Greek scholars have to say on that subject. I know I was surprised. My pastors had some Greek training, but not like these guys.

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          No, it’s because affluent, post-WWII America hates dealing with all their mental problems regarding sexuality and they want to normalize homosexuality, porn, promiscuity, instead of being decent and healthy.

          • Deborah G

            So you are gay right? I have no problem dealing with my sexuality and Im a healthy hetero woman. What is your problem? perhaps we can help you?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            No, I don’t have a homosexuality problem. But I see that you like to fantasize that I do!

          • Sheila Warner

            Affluent post WW II America hates dealing with “all” their “mental problems” regarding sexuality. Why the affluent? Aren’t there middle class and poor gays? Of course there are. Oh, and there are gays all over the world, so it’s not just an American issue. You might be happier living in the Middle East where homosexuality is punishable by execution. I bet there are tons of governments around the world that will make you happy by persecuting gays into oblivion.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Aren’t there middle class and poor gays?
            =====================
            Middle class in the US is affluent -but you’re too obnoxious and clueless to notice it. Why not poor homosexuals and other perverts? Because ideological domination comes from the top – from the interests of the affluent.
            I’m not arguing for homosexuals to be executed – but you’re too stupid to realize that. Good luck next time with your ignorant and bigoted maligning of social conservatives. We know you hate decency.

          • Josh

            Not sure if you realize, but some of the poorest demographics in America have plenty of gay and lesbian people.

            It’s almost as if this biological tick affects around 10% of the human population.

            But that’s just crazy talk.

            Maybe all those gay and lesbian people in the poorest parts of the African American community are just brainwashed by propaganda.

            Or, wait, it could be…

            Nah, never mind. It couldn’t. At least I hope. Well, they are….Okay. I’ll stop there. But, maybe…

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Nothing you said changes this fact: ideological domination comes from the top – from the interests of the affluent. The affluent in the US include the upper and middle classes.

          • Josh

            And?

          • Sheila Warner

            Ideological domination–where did you get that phrase? Did you make it up? And, following your assertion that it is the interests of the affluent who somehow dominate in the country, and, further, that it is the affluent who want sexual perversion without criticism (your words: “affluent middle and upper classes want to be sexual perverts without any criticism.”) I assume you have a natural dislike of the affluent, too? Would you rather see the poor be dominant? What would that look like? Who ought to be the dominant portion of society in your worldview? You?

          • Sheila Warner

            “obnoxious” “clueless” “too stupid” “ignorant” “bigoted” “hate decency”. WOW. You really did run out of salient points. And, of course, you forgot your own thread. I challenged your notion that it was post WW II affluent Americans who somehow are mentally ill when it comes to sexuality. Of course, the first thing I did was challenge you on income, and then you equated affluence with the middle class. So, I suppose you can consider the middle class affluent when compared to other countries, but the middle class is hardly affluent. And, you claimed it was Americans that have this mental issue, and I pointed out that there are gays all over the world. And yes, some of them are really poor. And, yes, there are gays who are poor in America, too. I said you were probably happy that gays in other countries are persecuted and executed. I went too far with the execution line, for sure, but not at all about the persecution bit. You support persecution of gays–you inflict it yourself with your slurs. You pulled no punches slurring me. Slurs are a good way to shut down debate, but they really reveal that the one who is using ad hominem attacks is out of ideas. But I’m curious–wherein lies my bigotry and ignorance? I’ll give you obnoxious because you likely don’t often encounter someone who so strongly disagrees with you in such a rational way. I probably look really mean and scary because of my assertiveness. I might be wrong, but I believe you probably are surrounded in life only with others who are like yourself. Talking points from church seem so good until they are examined closely.

          • Sheila Warner

            Oh, and I am a straight married women with two adult children. And, I am a Christian, though far from a Fundamentalist.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Ah, so a disingenuous, frustrated little “christian”!! The only thing you’re fundamentalist in is in your homosexual agenda. And your love of sex with dead animals – no consent problem, fine for you.

            You’re that troll from Patheos. You’re as christian as Carl Herold and His ‘Domestic Partner’ Charles Dunnavant

          • Sheila Warner

            And your point is…..that you can still sling ad hominem with the best of ‘em. I’m still waiting for the substantive, salient and reasoned debate points from you. I can wait. I’m nothing if not patient. In spite of all of the trash talk, you actually haven’t crossed over the line with me yet. Doesn’t that just make your day?

            You know what ad hominem means, right? You never quite get around to debating that with me.

        • Deborah G

          You would need to read the Bible in the original Aramaic . There is a literal tmodern translation easily obtainable. That is the language of Christ.

          • Sheila Warner

            The OT was written in Hebrew, and the NT was mostly written in Greek. Just because Jesus spoke Aramaic doesn’t make that language the standard written language of the time. So, which modern translation is based on Aramaic? I think there are plenty of good English translations around, and they all say homosexuality; all I’m saying is that some Greek scholars believe that the word as we use it in today’s understanding is not how it was used in Paul’s time.

      • Deborah G

        maybe we should start the Church of Bernie?

  • bella duparee

    Sorry, Robertson didn’t use the word Ignoramus/it was Bernie Goldberg’s opinion.

  • Steven Smith

    Bernie- you suggest you can’t believe all that is written in the Bible…spoken like a true Jew.
    To suggest that someone is an ignoramus because you don’t agree with what they said is wrong.
    You also say no one has a constitutional right to be on T.V., true, but they do have a right not to lose their job because of speaking their opinion if it doesn’t injure anyone….and this didn’t.
    A&E could have released a statement saying Mr. Robertson’s comments represented his opinion not theirs. They also could choose not to renew the show. However, I think they have overstepped in suspending him for speaking his heart. I sincerely hope the Robertson family teaches A&E a lesson and takes their show to another network, one that will respect what they stand for and their right to do so.

    • Sheila Warner

      “…they do have a right not to lose their job because of speaking their opinion if it doesn’t injure anyone….and this didn’t.” Says you. And look at the hue and cry from the evangelicals. They are outraged, running around saying Robertson’s suspension is due to a powerful gay lobby seeking to attack Christianity. Both sides are claiming harm. Those who decry the fact that Robertson “lost his job” didn’t read the entire article. He says himself that he knows the show will end at some point, and he is perfectly fine with that. A&E is not his bread and butter. His business is.

    • legal eagle

      Really? Well go tell your boss next week that he’s an ignorant moron….see if you’re job is protected….

      • Deborah G

        No one should lose their job over a religious belief even a Muslim IF they do the job they were hired to do and do not threaten or harm others because of it. Their freedoms are protected or at least used to be before all this liberal PC that protects every fould, base disgusting behavior BUT NOT Christians.

        • Josh

          Want to work for me? Don’t offend people. It’s that simple. I don’t care that you believe that your religion, one in thousands throughout history, is the one true religion, I’d fire you or anyone else who harmed the business. Falling back on “It’s my religion” does not trump “It’s my company!”

          A&E’s dollars are threatened. Phil’s opinion harms a lot! Boycotts against their products. Advertisers dropping out. A cultural stink on existing merchandise owners and fans.

          If you want job security despite offending people and saying whatever crosses your mind, be a politician.

          If anyone should root for the rights of private enterprise to hire and fire whomsoever they choose for whatever reasons they choose, it’s those on the right.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Falling back on “It’s my religion” does not trump “It’s my company!”
            ==============
            So if any of my liberal employees say something I feel offended with, like “homosexuality, porn, or bestiality are normal,” I should fire them all? Let’s go. We can start by firing all the LGBTs pushing for a homosexuality agenda.

          • Josh

            Yes. It’s your business, fire them!

            If you have employees who are pushing an agenda you don’t agree with, fire them!

            Of course, government’s going to step in. And that’s not the fault of liberals, either; it’s a precedent set long before progressive liberals invaded government.

        • legal eagle

          A religious belief does not have to be stated to others. Think you could go up to your employer and say that he or she is a sinner for having sex out of marriage?
          I have no idea on what “freedoms” you believe are protected but free speech is not absolute…otherwise the government could not prosecute anyone for child pornography…

        • Sheila Warner

          “No one should lose their job over a religious belief even a Muslim…” How charitable of you. EVEN a Muslim, eh? What does that mean?

          • Deborah G

            It mean in this very divided country Muslims are hated and by both sides I was saying that no matter how much any group is dislike by whom they should like any other American have the right to practice their religion.

          • Sheila Warner

            I speak out against those who hate Muslims, also.

      • begbie

        I agree with you this time legal, strange but true! It would be like calling my wife a b*tch. I have the right to say it, but there will be consequences! And I wouldn’t be able to stop the divorce with a case of squashed free speech.

        Yeah, if i walked in and insulted my boss (even if it were true) he would probably fire me. I would do the same thing.

  • bella duparee

    @brendenhorn. I enjoyed your comment very much. I agree that Bernie Goldberg’s comments on O’Reilly and his column were far from hateful. I have to disagree as I found Robertson’s comments to be hateful if you can read between the lines. AND comments of an “IGNORAMUS.” Having sex with goats? Maybe not hateful but that of a sick SOB/not a true Christian. Maybe that went along with his MO in the 60’s. I found Robertson to be contradictive when he speaks of his love for the Lord. When he quotes scripture..Love the Lord, your God with all your heatt and love your neighbor as yourself and then talks about a homosexual humping a goat? Robertson’s comments bring to mind television preacher of God. Anyone remember the good, God fear, judgment Jim Baker who had an affair with his secretary and also did prison time for fraud? Anyone remember the television Evangelist, Jimmy Swaggert, the minister of God who preached against homosexuals, etc. and then was caught frequenting a whore house? Anyone remember the good Rev. Ted Haggard who preached the evil of homosexuals, drugs, etc. and he was caught having sexual encounters with another man? Those who squeal the loudest, cast their hate and judgment to their followers more often than not are the real sinners. Caught with their pants down. Not many, but enough to know they are right behind a pulpit somewhere.

    • Sheila Warner

      You didn’t read the article, did you? No goat was mentioned. That was Bernie paraphrasing. Read the whole thing. Especially the part about happy black people. That one will really get your, um….goat.

  • MarkinIndy

    Bernie, there was no paraphrasing of the Bible. I Corinthians 6:9 says specificialy what Phil quoted.Any reliable translation says the same thing. What Phil said, if ANY were listening, was that ALL of us are sinners, we ALL fall far short of the Glory & Righteousness of the Almighty God. BUT… this same almighty God designed a way – ONE way – for each of us to be able to gain His overwhelming grace & be able to come before His throne on Judgement Day with the assurance of God’s forgiveness & mercy and that we will be welcomed wholly & completely, no matter WHAT we have done in our past, into His Heaven that He has prepared for us since before any of us were even created.
    Thank You, Almighty God, for loving us so much that You have provided this perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, your only Begotten Son, so that any & each of us may experience Your mercy, forgiveness & love, therefore allowing us to be part of Your Eternity that You have planned for all of us. You have been so clear in Your Word – the Bible – that You do not wish that ANY should perish, but that all should come to know Your saving Grace.

    • Sheila Warner

      Unless you are a Calvinist. Then you believe that some human beings are destined to hell by God, who only chooses a select number of people to be “predestined” for salvation. Do you see why Christianity is so hard for folks to accept? And, if I’m not wrong, I believe Bernie is an agnostic. Quoting the Bible is an exercise in futility. And, even if he were not agnostic, he is a Jew, and they don’t see Jesus the way Christians do.

  • steve b

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BASHIR AND ROBERTSON IS THAT BASHIR MADE HIS DESPICABLE COMMENTS ON THE AIR, ON THE SHOW THE NETWORK WAS PAYING HIM FOR. ROBERTSON MADE HIS COMMENTS IN A PRINT INTERVIEW, NOT WHILE HE WAS BEING PAID BY A&E.

    THEY CERTAINLY COULDN’T CLAIM HE VIOLATED ANY MORALS CLAUSE BECAUSE I CAN’T THINK OF ANYTHING MORALLY UNFIT THAT THESE REALITY SHOWS HAVEN’T DONE.

    I WAS A MANAGER FOR AT&T FOR YEARS AND I COULD SAY THINGS AWAY FROM THE JOB, AS A PRIVATE PERSON, THAT WOULD GET ME FIRED IF I SAID THEM ON THE JOB WHILE BEING PAID TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPANY.

    • Sheila Warner

      Why are you shouting? We can hear you just find with lower case letters.

    • legal eagle

      Bet you didn’t make ignorant or racist statements in the media…If you had AT&T would have fired you in a minute..

    • keith hart

      You do know all uppercase is hard on the eyes — right?

      There is nowhere that exists where people should have a safe zone to say such abhorrent things and with such arrogance — quoting God. Without folks coming back at them.

      AT&T — HUH? YOU DO KNOW EVERYONE BUT EVERYONE HATES THE PHONE COMPANY.

      • steve b

        I N YOUR CASE, ALL UPPER CASE LOOKS LIKE IT’S ALSO HARD ON THE BRAIN, SUCH THAT IT IS.

        THE MILLION OR SO PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR THE COMPANY WHEN I STARTED CERTAINLY DIDN’T HATE THE ‘PHONE COMPANY’ – IT PAID US WELL AND CUSTOMERS DID NOT HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THE POOR SOUND QUALITY AND DROPPED CALLS THAT CELL PHONE USERS DO TODAY.

        AS FAR AS THE ABHORRENT THINGS HE SAID – ARE ONLY THE GAYS ALLOWED TO SAY THOSE THINGS ABOUT OTHERS? IT WOULD SEEM SO BASED ON WHAT THE LAME STREAM MEDIA GETS AWAY WITH IN THEIR COMMENTS ON CONSERVATIVES (OF WHICH I AM) AND CHRISTIANS (OF WHICH I AM NOT).

        ASSUMING YOU HAVE A JOB, WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF SOME GROUP OBJECTS TO SOMETHING YOU SAY (IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTIONER, NOT, AS WITH BILL MAHER OR ALEC BALDWIN, IN FITS OF RAGE) AND HAS YOU FIRED? I’D THINK NOT.

        • keith hart

          Whew! You really should stop short of actual convulsions. You be sure to tell me when I’m on your very last raw nerve.

          • steve b

            SO YOU MUST BE ANOTHER OF THOSE IDIOTS WHO BELIEVE TYPING IN CAPS MEANS I AM ANGRY OR OTHERWISE UPSET. BUT IT’S ONLY IDIOTS LIKE YOU, AND YOU ARE PART OF A LARGE CROWD, WHO ARE THE ONES THAT GET UPSET AT THE CAPS.

            I ALWAYS USE CAPS AND YOU WOULD BE AMAZED AT THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHOSE ONLY COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT I WROTE ARE ABOUT THE CAPS. I’D GUESS ABOUT 2/3 ARE MADE UP OF THESE ANTI-CAPS ZOMBIES.

            SO, MORON, IF YOU SEE CAPS, AND THEY ARE SOOOOO HARD TO READ, DON’T READ THEM.

          • Integrity

            Take a deep breath. All caps are almost as obnoxious as you are. Have you ever considered that the point you are trying to make is difficult to read when you use all caps, and therefore mute? It is also considered poor manners which I think you probably know. QED

          • keith hart

            how’s that last raw nerve doin’?

          • Sheila Warner

            It’s been an etiquette issue for decades, that all caps means you are shouting. Look it up.

          • steve b

            IT CERTAINLY HAS NOT BEEN AN ETIQUETTE ISSUE FOR “DECADES” BECAUSE THE POPULAR AND WIDESPREAD USE OF THE INTERNET ONLY GOES BACK 20 YEARS OR SO. LIKE ALL THE OTHER POLITICALLY INCORRECT BULLSHIT NOWADAYS, YOU DECIDE SOMETHING HAS TO BE AND EVERYONE HAS TO COMPLY.

            WELL SCREW YOU AND ALL THE OTHER MORONS WHO FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC. I WAS PROBABLY COMMUNICATING ELECTRONICALLY SINCE LONG BEFORE YOU WERE BORN, SO IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT I LIKE, I WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS. IF YOU DON’T LIKE HOW I WRITE, SCREW YOU AND DON’T READ IT.

          • Sheila Warner

            I was active on the Internet myself in the 1980s. That’s thirty-odd years. That’s “decades”. Even 20 years is “decades”. A decade is 10 years. More than one decade is “decades.” You really need to think through what you say. And, yes, as far back as when my children were merely babies, the internet had etiquette. You really should google “Internet etiquette.” I do have one helpful article for you. It means you will have to be willing to read an objective internet article, though. Are you able to do so? http://email.about.com/od/netiquettetips/qt/Writing-In-All-Caps-Is-Like-Shouting.htm

          • steve b

            I’LL STILL TYPE IN CAPS – DON’T LIKE IT, DON’T READ IT!

          • keith hart

            STEVE b, little bitty b, STUPID AND PROUD OF IT! AND I’LL TELL ANYONE AND EVERYONE —DADGUMMIT.

            I bet he looks like Yosemite Sam.

          • steve b

            NO – BUT I SHOOT LIKE HIM.

          • keith hart

            LOL good one That’s exactly what Yosemite Sam would say. Sorry, I guess I shouldn’t be pokin’ the animals.

            You do seem to have all the presence of a ‘have-a-hearted’ trapped raccoon.

          • steve b

            WELL, SHUCKS, GOOBER, MAYBE YOU SHOULD PUT IN YOUR TEETH, CLIMB OFF YOUR HALF SISTER, LEAVE THE DOUBLE-WIDE AND DRIVE YOUR PICK-UP (WITHOUT THE SHOTGUN IN THE REAR WINDOW OUT INTO THE REAL WORLD WHERE NOT EVERYONE FOLLOWS THE TEXTING WORLD’S SELF-IMPOSED CONVENTIONS. I DO NOT TEXT, SO I DO NOT FOLLOW THEM. AS STATED BEFORE, IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE CAPS, DON’T READ THEM. IT’S NOT AS IF THEY SNEAKED UP ON YOU. AND, IN ADVANCE, THE MIDDLE FINGER TO YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO WRITES ABOUT THE CAPS. I WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANYONE ELSE ON THE CAPS BUSINESS, SO, IF YOU DO, YOU CAN REFER TO THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE.

  • bella duparee

    @ALAN GOLDBERG. YOU REFUSE TO ALLOW BERNIE? CEASE AND DISEST, ETC.? and may I ask just who in the hell you think you are that you can match intellect with Bernie Goldberg? I agree 100% per cent Bernie with what he said on Bill O’Reilly and his column. @JACK.. Phil Robertson is an IGNORAMIS..Actually I think IGNORANUS DESCRIBES ROBERTSON! @BRIAN Fr LANGLEY. Your poem says it all/thanks.

  • veeper

    Maybe obama will issue an executive order that no one is allowed to talk except him.

    No talking…….problem solved.

    it worked in grammar school…….

  • brendan horn

    The great thing about free speech is that not only are we free to speak, we are also free to respond to the speech of others. Bernard can respond to the speech of Robertson and I can respond to the speech of both of them.

    When I respond, I like to respond to the specific words of the one I am responding to. Some of the words of Robertson are silly, but I do not see hatefulness in any of his words. There may be some hateful words that I missed as I am only responding to what is written in this piece. Bashir’s words were hateful so I do not see them as comparable to the words of Robertson. Bashir was hoping for something disgusting to happen to Sarah Palin, whereas Robertson was in essence saying that he disagrees with homosexuality but that he still loves homosexuals. There is absolutely no indication that Robertson wished for something horrible to happen to any homosexuals.

    It is silly for Robertson to suggest that homosexuality would lead to sex with goats, especially without offering any evidence. It is a silly assertion but not a hateful assertion in my opinion.

    Robertson’s words about the preference of a man is unnecessarily graphic but is in essence a fair description of the average heterosexual mindset. Homosexuals, I assume, would disagree with his words. If he were a comedian people would laugh at his words and no one would really complain. Comedians say worse things all the time and people laugh.

    Free speech is protected but paid for speech is not protected so people like Robertson need to be careful what they say if they want to continue to be paid for their speech.

    • JMax

      Free speech is protected from the government, but not from your boss, your neighbors, or your wife.

  • Thewryobservator

    So
    I don’t expect my conservative Christian friends to understand when I
    say that while in many cases religion can make people noble, sometimes
    it can make people stupid. – See more at:
    http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/duck-dynasty-god-given-right-stupid/#sthash.U9nQBTWM.dpuf

    • Sheila Warner

      If Robertson or his manager had vetted GQ properly, then Robertson certainly would have known the target audience of his words. I find it amazing that he seemed not to know–or did he? Just who hit whom in this piece?

      • Thewryobservator

        I spent some time looking at Phil’s comments in context of past statements he’s made. These few were like excerpts from those, excerpts probably lifted out of a context, and reported with a predictable outcome. It might not be a hit piece – but I wouldn’t be surprised. I never saw the show -but I predicted this was coming – because these folks are from the south, and believe in Jesus as expressed in fundamentalist (the bible is literally true) terms. It was inevitable. Someone made a point that A&E probably hoped people would view these folks as ignorant rednecks, but it backfired – people actually identify with them. There’s the rub, I think.

        • Sheila Warner

          Excellent reply. I hadn’t considered that A&E misjudged how people would view the DD family.

          • Deborah G

            11 million view them as “:FAMILY”

        • Josh

          I don’t know. A&E’s reality-based programming seems to cater to middle America. I think A&E misjudged, but not in the way the DD guys would be viewed. I think they wanted to play to the religious contingent in middle America. However, there’s a gargantuan difference between a believer and a fundamentalist.

          Let’s face it: Many American Christians have greatly adapted to the times. Out of the hordes of Biblical sins and laws and judgments, how many do modern Americans actual adhere to? People have found justifications for not adhering to some of the odder ones, like Jesus making them void, they’re only for Jews, they’re not in context, etc.

          And little by little, Christians–real, legitimate Christians who accept Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior–are starting to put the homosexual clause in with the blended fabric and variety garden clauses; i.e. trivial to their core beliefs.

          So being “Christian” in the sense that one believes being gay should be illegal isn’t a widely held tenant in 2013. At least not as wide as the shoulder-shrugging “whatever” attitude.

          I doubt A&E wanted to make a joke out of these guys. But I do think they sharted collectively when they realized Phil was closer to the Phelps’ than the everyday worshiper.

          • Josh

            So, someone can neg-rate this but not reply to it?

            Where’s your convictions at? I thought it was the duty of a believer to defend the word? Where am I wrong here?

            American Christians in the modern age are drastically different from Christians a few hundred years ago. The Bible is most definitely followed completely differently than years past.

            I suppose a thumbs down was a way to silently dispute that?

            Weak.

          • Sheila Warner

            Now you’ve stumbled into the Fundamentalists vs the mainstream Protestants. Welcome to my world. It’s a dreary place.

          • Josh

            Religion is very tricky to navigate through. On the way down to this comment, I counted over half a dozen instances where Christians were flaming other Christians for not being the right type of Christian.

            I’m not vain enough to get into it regularly with fundamentalists. The typical mean-spirited, condescending reply I get amounts to: “You’re ignorant! You need to believe what I believe! I’ll pray for you.”

            And there’s a lot of theories as to where an attitude like that comes from, but suffice it to say that the fringe is the fringe for a good reason. Level-headed, kind religious folks who worship and leave everyone else alone stand as a great example to everyone else, not the dictatorial thumpers whose goal seems to be to mold the world to their personal interpretation. If they could get away with it, I’d expect mass hangings held by the literalist clan.

  • allen goldberg

    Weary or not Bernie, you are completely out of step. And thanks for acknowledging you are. The very comment you make, I am weary of both sides…shows me..you’re done.Libtards and Conservatives are not comparable…If you think so…please cease and desist. The behaviors are diametrically opposed and different. And I refuse to allow you, just because YOU are weary..to lump both side’s together…

    • Sheila Warner

      You don’t listen to many far Right commentators, do you? Or read a variety of forums. Check out the comments over on the Blaze sometime and then come back and tell me that conservatives are not at all like liberals. At times they are even worse. One example–those who believe and perpetuate the lie that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen.

  • dlcamp

    Romans 1:
    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    Bernie, in verse 26 is the word, “vile”. The Bible uses that word in telling us about the antichrist to come and the very profile of the antichrist is matched to the profile, in the Bible, about the sodomite.
    Evil spirits are behind this lifestyle and these people are driven to make others like themselves. Just ask those who know in the military. Homosexual rape is rampant in the military now, according to the latest statistics.
    Make no mistake. There can be no longterm accommodation between the Christian and the sodomite. If you read the entire chapter of Romans, chapter one, you will see it says, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven”, right before the above scriptures are written. This is a last sign that we are given before judgment strikes, just like Sodom and Gomorrah had. Jesus said His coming back to Earth would be like in those days (Luke 17). We are there!

    • Sheila Warner

      You’re quoting the NT to an agnostic Jew. And, please cite the source that gay rape is “rampant” in the military. You can’t throw out accusations without backing them up.

      • dlcamp

        The Pentagon estimated about 13,000 of the 1.2 million men serving in the military suffered sexual assault last year
        http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/18/male-military-rape-survivors-speak-out.html

        More military men than women are sexually abused in the ranks each year, a Pentagon survey shows, highlighting the underreporting of male-on-male assaults.
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-sil/?page=all
        Google is your friend here.

        • Sheila Warner

          The two reports had different numbers, but both show that, statistically, women have a higher percentage of sexual assault. I believe the Washington Times rounded the numbers, so we’ll stick with those. Do the math–the total number of men assaulted is higher, but as a percentage are lower. And, the WT article spoke of some figures being done by “extrapolation.” Nevertheless, male on male rape is absolutely horrific. It should always be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Now, having said all that, what does this have to do with gays? Are you saying that it is gays who are committing the rapes? Did you know that men who are raped are very often gay themselves? Nor does a man have to be gay to rape another man. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if you think it is gay servicemen who are doing the most rapes, I believe you are wrong. Nothing in either article mentioned sexual orientation.

  • maroonfan

    All of this comes down to one thing……the truth !! The majority of Americans believe the Bible because it was inspired by God. The scripture that Phil quoted is in the Bible……and it is the truth !! Most politicians now know that the gay lifestyle is wrong, but they pander to the gays to get their votes. Remember when gays were called queers and were in the closet……they should be ashamed and go back there in my opinion !! In my lifetime I never expected to see gay marriage, and yes, i do believe it will lead to even more liberal actions. Phil can back up what he says. Where do you think the word sodomity came from ?? God destroyed the city of Sodom because of their terrible sins. People need to sit down and read their Bibles !! If people would say what they really believe, the majority of Americans do no believe gay marriage is right !! Quit pandering to gays and other sinful things !! And as far Bushir, he is an idiot !! What he said about Sarah Palin was crude and vulgar. He offered his stupid opinion……..nothing about it is truth !! Phil was telling the truth, and Bashir was being mean and slandered Palin.

    • Sheila Warner

      Don’t you get it that there are millions of Americans that do not believe that the Bible is God’s word? Your firm belief and adamant assertion that it is will get you nowhere. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of Fundamentalists, thank God. Thank God for the Stonewall riots, too. Didn’t the police have better things to do with their time than go after gays, whose behavior hurts no one?

  • Jack

    Bernie because I read the Bible and believe it to be the Word of God does not make me an ignoramus. It would not appear to be a good position for anyone to espouse that it doesn’t matter what the Bible, Jesus or God says.

    • Sheila Warner

      Thanks for phrasing “because I read the Bible & believe it to be the Word of God.” It’s your opinion. Just wondering if you read the whole GQ article. Robertson was very crude, and, on top of that, the passage he quoted says that gays will not inherit the Kingdom of God. He believes that gays are not worthy of the love of God. Some of us believe that they are equally as worthy. If someone espouses a belief about homosexuality being a sinful choice vs gays being born that way, then it shows an ignorance of science. And, being ignorant makes people ignoramuses when they spout off saying their view is actually the right view.

      • Wayne Cooper

        Shelia:

        The “it’s your opinion” is just PC talk and nothing more. The Bible is not an opinion as God doesn’t have opinions, HE has absolute and objective truth! Learn it and embrace it.

        • Sheila Warner

          It’s you who claims that your English translation of the Bible is absolute truth. That is a declarative statement that can be challenged. You do know the rules of debate, right? I’m a Christian, but suppose I was an atheist. My response to your “God doesn’t have opinions HE has absolute and objective truth.” is now–prove it. You cannot. Such a belief is a matter of your personal faith, and your personal interpretation of a sacred text. But, you don’t know about the varying points of view of those who have studied Greek extensively and the culture during Paul’s time. The scholars use cultural context to differentiate between the subtle nuances of what words Paul chose to use when he wrote his epistles. It really is fascinating if you enjoy linguistics, as I do. I can cite sources regarding the Greek. What can you cite as the basis for your declarative statements about your Bible? Oh, just to tweak you a bit–I am a born again, former Fundamentalist now Catholic woman.

  • Lc Goodfellow

    ” Why are so many of today’s followers’
    ” …. educated beyond their intelligences … ” ?
    Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.

    This hateful thing called the “Internet” has spread so much misinformation.
    No, it’s the human factor that hides behind these electric walls.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Iran is an inch from nukes? North Korea is 2 inches from ICBM’s? China challenges U.S. ships on the high sea, and Russia makes U.S. choices in the middle east? How about a verse along the lines “The night before Christmas”
    .
    The night before Christmas they build nuclear arms,
    Hoping and praying to America harms,
    North Korea is testing their missiles with care,
    while Iran is honing their nuclear ware,
    and China is threatening us, on the high seas,
    while Russia now leads our dip-lom-acies,
    but the Nation has now, decided to pause,
    for those who champion, sodomy’s cause,
    If in the end we don’t uphold right,
    It won’t be long, and “too all a good night”.
    .
    A little gloomy but MERRY CHRISTMAS. and Jesus (Yeshua) is the reason for the season.

    • Sheila Warner

      You’re actually conflating homosexual rights with nuclear destruction? Boy, do I feel badly for you.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        ? I thought I was rather clear here? I’m suggesting that western civilization has a lot more to worry about than Mr. Robertson’s comments on preferred genitalia?

        • Sheila Warner

          Sorry that I misunderstood. You are right that there are more important things to consider. But you had all nuclear stuff there, which is a scary way to live. I think, anyway. I’m very concerned about N Korea, China, and Russia. I just don’t dwell on it, because outside of praying for peace, there isn’t much I can do about it. Merry Christmas.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Well for starters, since you have time to write, write your Congressman and Senator, and tell them NOT to ease sanctions on Iran. Remind them the U.N resolutions have been tougher than this American administration. The Ayotollah’s have said they want a bomb, and they’ve said they want Israel “excised like a cancer”, why think they’re kidding? Was Hitler kidding when he broadcast his intentions? Merry Chrismas and write your elected officials. Pray for peace, pray for the peace of Jerusalem, but as a wise sage once said, pray for peace, but be prepared for war. Such is planet earth in the 21st century. PS Not that war is inevitable, those fully prepared for it, are typically immune from it.

          • Sheila Warner

            Iran is not a part of this thread. And, sanctions are the stick in the carrot and stick of diplomacy. I prefer diplomacy to war. Iran cannot be trusted. But, that has nothing to do with the DD controversy.

      • Deborah G

        This is how like you get heard.twisting the truth He didn’t say that he said we live in a dangerous world and what Americans are focused on it petty. Gay rights compared to nuclear proliferation is a bit skewed don’t you think?

        • Sheila Warner

          Already cleared that up with him. I’m not sure human rights are ever “skewed”, but hey, that’s me.

    • Deborah G

      WOW great poem! Says it all God Bless you and yours this Christmas and remember to keep Christ in Christmas too.

  • Thewryobservator

    Some background might be in order…

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=ESV

    How
    might “gay behavior” lead to having sex with a goat anymore than
    “straight behavior” would lead to the same thing? – See more at:
    http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/duck-dynasty-god-given-right-stupid/#sthash.ASr5cmYs.dpuf
    How
    might “gay behavior” lead to having sex with a goat anymore than
    “straight behavior” would lead to the same thing? – See more at:
    http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/duck-dynasty-god-given-right-stupid/#sthash.ASr5cmYs.dpuf
    How
    might “gay behavior” lead to having sex with a goat anymore than
    “straight behavior” would lead to the same thing? – See more at:
    http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/duck-dynasty-god-given-right-stupid/#sthash.ASr5cmYs.dpuf
    How
    might “gay behavior” lead to having sex with a goat anymore than
    “straight behavior” would lead to the same thing? – See more at:
    http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/duck-dynasty-god-given-right-stupid/#sthash.ASr5cmYs.dpuf

  • T Ko

    Bernie, (please don’t say “Uh oh, here it comes”) I agree with you in part and I disagree in part. Since I have the right to confess my ignoraminity up front, I will make that disclosure now.

    Next, my affirmation of concurrence with your business decision, ut dictum est in articulo, is based upon the belief that if you are going to be in business, then you should operate it as a business. A clear separation of the entity’s mores from an employer/partner/associate’s philosophy is easily accomplished with a public statement, to wit, “what you see is what you get, and this is what you want.”

    In departing, Bernie, I will not take up an issue of faith, religion, conscience, or any one of the more than one-thousand heads of judgmental antagony which exist within this arena. My one departure with you here is in the decision to make known your disdain for a very vehement response to cultural war issues.

    Granted, the anxiety can become extremely burdensome at times, especially if you remain invested in the issues being articulated by a variety of individuals whose orientations cover a spectrum of purposes.

    But, Bernie, when you float the question be ready for the answer–you might be surprised. “Period, end of story.”

    • Sheila Warner

      I’m tired of all the shrill in the conversations. I think that is what Bernie objects to, but I can’t read his mind.

      • T Ko

        Bernie says that he is “

  • AbdullahtheButcher

    Apparently, Bernie, you seem to believe that quoting the Bible is being “stupid” and a “ignoramus”. Let me respectfully point out that tolerance goes both ways. And that’s coming from someone who’s pretty much indifferent towards gays per se.

    • T Ko

      Ab, I don’t think that Bernie wants to discuss religion, faith, etc. It is a little confusing that he does bring these issues up for discussion from time to time.

      • Sheila Warner

        This is a really huge issue now because of the numbers of people weighing in on the controversy. It’s news, whether or not we like it.

        • T Ko

          Exactly. Now, if you or I don’t want to listen to the comments and controversy, then we have the freedom to tune it out. The world will revolve another round–even if we don’t keep up with the discussion.

    • Sheila Warner

      It wasn’t just the Bible part, it was the surrounding comments. Just look at the meme at the top of the article. Nothing Biblical there.

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        What comments do you refer to?

        • Sheila Warner

          Look at the meme. Those remarks.

          • AbdullahtheButcher

            Are you referring to Phil’s statement that the blacks he worked alongside were happy?

          • Sheila Warner

            Look. At. The. MEME. If you don’t know what a meme is, ask me. It’s at the top of this page. It’s a picture with words on it. But you should look it up so you can add to your vocabulary.

  • Drew Page

    Phil had a right to say what he thinks. A& E has the right to take whatever action they think appropriate. Both sides should be bound by the terms of any contracts that exist between A& E and the Robertson’s. People who side with Phil have a right to say that as do those who side against his comments. People should be free to voice their opinions in all sorts of ways, verbally, in writing, with their votes, with their wallets and with their channel changer.
    I happen to like the Duck Dynasty program and its cast of characters. That doesn’t mean that I would agree with the personal opinions of each of the characters. I have a lot more in common with the Robertson family than I do with the Gay and Lesbian community, but that does not mean that I have anything against that community. I believe in live and let live. If people don’t like the comments of others and find them hurtful, they are free to walk away and/or tell those making the comments that they don’t agree with them and don’t care for them — and leave it at that.

    • T Ko

      Do you think Bernie is floating the ‘ideas’ espoused in his article in order to find out who will walk from his website because of what he said?

      Way too complicated for my meager brain.

      • Drew Page

        I’m not sure what prompts Bernie to write the things he does. Maybe he’s trying to be “fair and balanced” since he is a constant guest of Bill O’Reilly, but then again, you may be on to something,

  • Wayne Cooper

    Mr. Goldberg:

    You have a deep disdain for the things of God and for His Word, and that is quite scary to me. For you to say, “it doesn’t matter what Paul says, what Jesus says, and what God says,” is disrespectful, rebellious, and outright hateful.

    Now you obviously don’t subscribe to a Biblical/Christian worldview, but it doesn’t matter because whether you believe it or not, you are still very much accountable to the God that created you, and someday when you die, and given that you’re nearly 70 years of age, that will be very soon, you will have to stand before the God of heaven and the ruler of the universe to answer for the hardness of your heart.

    You might think you’re a bad-ass now, but when you stand before God, it will not be that way as the Bible says, “Our God is a Consuming Fire”. I haven’t given up on you and I know that God can change people, and I sincerely hope that you heed the call of God to surrender your life to His Son Jesus Christ. And by the way, while there are “young earth” and “old earth” positions in Christianity among Christians, I can assure you that there is no truth to your false claims that the earth is 4 billion years old! That is as stupid and asinine as it comes!

    Very Sincerely Yours!

    Wayne

    • Sheila Warner

      A little science for you. It seems Bernie was off by only 0.5 billion years. http://www.universetoday.com/75805/how-old-is-the-earth/
      And, remember that just because you believe the Bible is God’s word, that doesn’t mean everyone agrees with you. I just love the arrogance dripping from your words–that Bernie is going to die soon, and that he faces a consuming fire because he doesn’t share your beliefs. I think you’ll be amazed at who ends up with you in the afterlife, if there is one. Facts are not proven by how we feel or what our interpretation of certain sacred texts happen to be.

      • Wayne Cooper

        Shelia:

        And everything that I’ve said to Bernie, goes for you, too!

        • Sheila Warner

          I figured that. Facts are sometimes hard things to face up to.

  • Roadmaster

    After reading only a few posts, it appears some people are making Bernie’s point.

    When you’re making a comment on who is an ignoramus, and who isn’t, it’s probably a good idea to check your spelling, grammar & punctuation.

    That being said: Do you feel like you might be coming down with something, Bernie? There have been some serious cases of East Coast Elitism going around. You know, snotty, stuffy nose (when you look down it), blurred vision, impaired hearing, accompanied with snorting and harrumphing.

    I understand it’s caused by Airs of Pretension and an aversion to Red Necks.

    • T Ko

      LOL. Bernie, please exercise your sense of humor and laugh…it was actually pretty funny.

  • jaketinback

    Bernie needs to go back to basic journalism and start by actually reading and comprehending the GQ article.. I challenge him to find the exact quote where Robertson said that being gay could lead to sex with animals. Not even close. He quoted the Bible when asked what he considered sin. There was no comparison involved. Bernie then went on to basically say that anyone who believes in the Bible is ignorant. You either believe all of the Bible or none of it. If Goldberg claims to be a Christian then I guess I have no problem comparing him to the Pharisees of the Old Testament. And as he stated in his last paragraph I guess everyone has the right to be an ignoramus once in a while as he so aptly proved last night on O’Reilly. Ride off into the sunset Goldberg, you’re irrrelevant.

    • Sheila Warner

      Oh, I don’t know, it was something about the phrase “morph off from there”, and “there” was bestiality. Sounded like a comparison to me. Rick Santorum made the same mistake. You’d think hard core fundies would have learned from that episode. It may very well have cost Santorum his Senate seat. And, Bernie is far from a Christian. Those of you who keep yammering on at him about the Bible ought to know something about him first.

      • JMax

        Exactly! And I’m pretty sure that “morph” is not a direct quote from the Bible.

  • Joe Petrosky Jr.

    Sorry Bernie, the only stupid hear is yours.

    • Sheila Warner

      “Sorry Bernie, the only stupid hear is yours.” Please clarify: what is it that stupid people “hear”, anyway?

  • Deborah G

    I used to repsct Bernie now I see he obviously didn’t do his research or comprehend what Phil actually said. Bernie? you sound like a liberal. You lost my respect. Phil is one of the most kind and loving people on the planet IF he makes your pink pawed hands shake and your sensitive nose to wrinkle because he is direct and earthy? Get over it you are as painty waist as the homosexuals you think he trashed.? Stay in NYC it is rubbing off on you.

    • Sheila Warner

      “Get over it you are as painty waist as the homosexuals you think he trashed.? [sic]” Who paints their waists, again? I must have missed something in this thread.

  • SoulSeekerUSA

    Whats sad is you talk as if he has no right to speak his mind and facts related to the bible. The problem is that the gays and about every other perversion have been given a voice above everyone that actually have morales. It is wrong and disgusting and almost EVERYONE believes this but are afraid to say it because people like you, the self righteous think they have rights to be perverted. Homosexaulity is unnatural and an abomination and yes a sin.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    I really just DON’T GET IT? Telling someone they’re in danger of hell fire is NOT immoral nor unethical? Telling them I’ll cause them pain in the here and now however, is another matter entirely. If you don’t believe the Robertson warning, then how could you possibly be harmed? Hellfire warnings by definition, only effect those who fear their actions may be leading to it. Not believing my own behavior is immoral, also makes me quite immune from those who tell me it may effect they’re personal version of an afterlife. Having read the article in question, I did not see that line being crossed, if all some one does, is threaten you with their own personal version of an afterlife, how on earth does that hurt you?

    • T Ko

      Brian, I think that people are conflating way too many issues in the ‘debate’ that has been stirred.

      My offering on the subject, without going into details is: there is a faith and evangelism issue; there is a free-speech issue; there is a morality issue; and there is definitely a business model/decision issue.

      For most committed believers in Christ, the faith and evangelism issue trumps all and comes first. That is a personal choice…always was, always will be.

      As the business entity, A&E will make some form of a statement on faith and morality, whether they want to or not.

      Phil Robertson–the man–made a choice, and if he remains true to his own heart, then he will have no regrets…as it should be.

      My two-cents worth.

      • Sheila Warner

        Robertson won’t regret it. In the article he says he knows the show will end, and he is okay with that. The problem with believers like me is exactly what you said: “For most committed believers in Christ, the faith and evangelism issue trumps all and comes first.” Just look at the comments here. Christians are coming out of the woodwork and are declaring by fiat that the Bible is God’s word, therefore gays are sinners, are perverted, immoral, disgusting, etc.. It’s that absolutist mindset that is a danger to our nation. We are a secular nation. These are the folks who are working hard to send the same type of people to Congress. We are not a theocracy. If we end up as a nation of fundamentalist principles, we’re doomed. This is why I am being so harsh when I am taking some of these people to task. I was raised in such a family, and I believe it can be harmful.

        • T Ko

          I understand what you are saying completely.

          Tolerance is a good thing. Faith is absolutely imperative. Understanding can bridge many gaps.

          What we can and should all fight for together as one nation is the defense of freedom which allows us all to live as we choose.

    • Josh

      I don’t know about harm it causes people. To each their own on what they can mentally handle. But I don’t buy the soft, innocuous explanations of damning people to hell and saying it’s no big deal.

      I’ll assume here that you don’t have people judging you constantly and telling you that you’re going to suffer pain for all eternity and that you’re not living right.

      Perhaps try hearing all your life that you’re going to be punished and burn and that you’re not worthy, then see how you carry it.

      I’m personally used to it and don’t mind. But I wouldn’t expect everyone to have that same attitude. I’m sure a lot of people threatened with the torture actually believe in it yet can’t help their biology. So that does venture into the cruel and unusual.

      And some would argue that’s why so many people remain so religious in the first place: It’s the threat of eternal torture and unimaginable pain that scares them (harms them) into towing an earthly line.

      How many people, I wonder, would remain religious if not for the gargantuan stick?

      To act as if psychological threats aren’t a big deal reads as apologetics.

  • Jarob54

    I will never fault anyone for speaking their religious convictions. Agree or disagree with their opinion, every American is afforded the right to exercise their free speech and freedom of religious choice. I truly believe Phil Robertson has no hatred in his heart towards anyone. A&E will discover soon enough that there are more in this nation who will side with Phil Robertson than with A&E decision to remove him from the show.

    • Sheila Warner

      i don’t support anyone with religious opinions who voice them, not as opinions, but as absolute truth. It’s one thing for me, for example, to say that I believe Jesus is the Son of God. It’s another for me to say that Jesus is the Son of God and if you don’t believe that, you’re going to hell. Do you see the difference? Of course Robertson didn’t quite say it that way, but it was implied. His followers, on the other hand, are spouting their opinion as absolute truth all over the place. And, scary to consider, it’s these types of people that we see ending up on ballots. We are a secular nation for a reason.

  • bobjr4freedom

    Good article Bernie.

    • Deborah G

      BS article he now sounds like a Liberal.

  • SkyCitizen

    Bernie, a good take. I guess it all started with “Who killed J.R.” and it just got worse from there. Years ago if you didn’t agree with someone you just didn’t associate with them and minded your own business. But no, today the media has to backup a truckload of this dreck and dump it in your living room. I’m not just talking about Duck Dynasty which I don’t need to watch because it lives next door or Martin Bashir who we wouldn’t want to live next door; but rather the incessant state of cultural shock the media promotes so that they too can afford to live in the Hamptons and leave it all behind. And guess who’s left to live in this liberal wonderland? You guessed it, us. If Timothy Leary could speak today he’d probably advise us to turn off, tune out, and disconnect.

    • Sheila Warner

      What a great comment! My condolences on who your neighbor is. It all started with “who killed JR?” made me laugh out loud. I actually believe it was the summer replacement show “Survivor” that opened the floodgates to reality misery on the tube. Makes it so easy to turn it off.

  • Lafango

    I am not stopping anyone from doing anything I consider immoral.

    But I can’t express my opinion about my feelings in the open,

    Where are my first amendment rights.

    • JMax

      Your first amendment rights do not extend beyond government.

    • Sheila Warner

      Tell us how you really feel, just don’t state your feelings as absolute fact, and you’ll get no arguments from me. As to your First Amendment rights? The government is not preventing you from expressing anything. But if you engage in the public arena of ideas and debate, you’d better be prepared to get bruised out there. Some of us believe that the only antidote to bad speech is better speech, so, yea, we’ll reply.

  • T Ko

    What we, as believers, have is God’s Word and Jesus’ message. We do not have the power to forgive–that is God’s mercy.

    As believers, we are compelled to spread the word–carefully. We are not now, nor will we ever be the judge of another.

    • SoulSeekerUSA

      That’s the problem, it says nothing in the bible about carefully. That’s words that passive people like you attach to sentences because they are afraid to offend someone, sounds like a Catholic, Catholics are not Christians and never have been and this is becoming even more apparent everyday.

      • T Ko

        It has to do with being understood correctly–not changing the message of Christ, or the Bible.

        I promise you that I am anything but passive and I don’t care what your judgment of me is–in the least.

        If you thought I was Catholic, I really don’t care, I don’t mind, and you are absolutely, positively wrong.

        • Sheila Warner

          But I am a Catholic. I’ve heard such nonsense all of my life.

          • T Ko

            Just want to be sure and avoid a misunderstanding on my part, was the “nonsense” you mentioned referring to what I said or what SSUA said?

            I didn’t intend to offend you if I did.

          • Integrity

            I think we are in agreement here. It is ok to have strong convictions and to not waiver from them. However, the method that some choose to share their beliefs actually does a disservice to them. I like how some of my 7th Day Adventists friends approach it. They believe other denominations are wrong, but not necessarily going to hell because of their different beliefs. I did not see anything offensive in your comment and doubt that Shelia did either. I think she was simply stating that she was tired of the mean spirited attacks on her faith. QED

          • T Ko

            Thanks, I appreciate that. I was hoping that I didn’t offend her, but I meant what I said in another comment where it is important that when we spread the gospel, we should do it–carefully.

            Someone spoke out against that, but I explained that when we communicate with others–especially regarding something than can be ‘foreign’ to non-believers, then it is essential that we handle our communication in a way that doesn’t turn people away at the outset.

            Now, I have personally dealt with those who are open to hearing the Word, those who are hungry and eager to hear the Word, and those who have determined that the Word or God will not be a part of their lives–no matter what. I do not personally judge any one of these. After all, if I cannot judge myself, then how should I be able to judge someone else.

            I hope I haven’t said too much already, because I mainly wanted to say thank you to you.

          • Integrity

            Not at all. You are most welcome! QED

          • Sheila Warner

            You didn’t offend me at all. I actually agree with you. I didn’t go back far enough in the thread to get the gist of what you said at first.

          • T Ko

            Thanks, Sheila.

            I hope you have a Very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year!

            I have a feeling that we’ll be on here before Jan, though.

          • T Ko

            Sorry, Sheila.

          • Sheila Warner

            You and I are mostly simpatico. I know you meant no harm. There are some anti-Catholics who try to bait me, and I freely admit that I am often too think skinned on the issue. It’s a point of contention within my family, that I converted. They are hard core Fundies, and get togethers are sometimes a bit dicey. I’m hoping that this Christmas won’t be one of walking on eggshells.

          • T Ko

            Sheila, if I could just share this with you.

            My family comes from primarily Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, and other stock. I love them all and would not trade them for the world. They are beautiful people.

            One of the things that I’ve come to appreciate about them is one of the same things that I had a problem with when I was younger–their devoutness to their beliefs.

            It felt like they were intolerant and would not listen to ANYone else. In time some of my personal characteristics changed, and I began to see how their steadfastness had come to look like a boulder in a storm–and I was so thankful for their devotion.

            Now, I remain the same person that I always was, but I’ve traveled across a stormy sea and I am coming nearer to port every day. Those unyielding loved ones are still maintaining the ‘harbor lights’ and we have had some wonderful conversations, and we’ve shared love in ways that just doesn’t happen until you both lose another loved.

            I apologize for getting ‘mushy’ on you here, but I want to encourage you to love your family–as best as you are able to manage. It will not always be able to share it with them.

            God Bless You, Merry Christmas.

          • Sheila Warner

            Believe me, I love my family. I don’t try to change their minds about what they still believe. I admire them for their steadfastness. But my father has a way of ridiculing rather than engaging in loving discussions. At one of our family gatherings, he not only disagreed with the answer to a question posed to me by my brother, but he actually laughed out loud at me while saying how wrong I was. And, yes, I take a dim view of that type of rhetoric. It comes from attending classes on “soul winning”, in which the participant is taught how to decimate the other person’s argument, rather than try to understand the point of view of the one who is “lost.” In “soul winning”, it is all about signing the deal, having that person not leave until you’ve “led” them to pray “the Sinner’s Prayer”, and sign on the dotted line. Literally–sign a card with the date that person got “saved.” It was also a very legalistic type of religion. Lists of “worldly” things to stay away from. I don’t doubt how much my folks are devoted to Jesus, but they sure doubt me. My mom has actually broken down in tears over worry about the state of my soul. You can see why it’s all so dicey.

          • T Ko

            Yes, I can see that yours sounds like it has been the fundamentalist–or a least leaning that direction–way of life in growing up and even now within your family.

            Mine was not as strict an adherence, but some aunts and uncles seemed to be in that direction.

            I understand that, needless to say, the people we are speaking of would laugh at my answer here, but I do not look to any man or woman to be my judge. I do believe that I will one day be judged for my life and what I’ve done, both good and bad. However, there is only one judge and I look to Him for my mercy.

            “Sinner’s Prayer”? Yes very familiar with it. Said it, repeated, and I was baptized. Do I think that will earn salvation for me? Then why did Christ die on the cross for me?

            You mentioned a lot of the key phrases and words, and I am familiar with them. Unfortunately, I am no expert–never will be. Thankfully, though, I had a good education and start in life and I thank my parents and family for much of that.

            If your father is anything like mine, then I suspect that there will either be a softening of some of those hard edges or you will experience a greater capacity for tolerance, particularly when it comes from an honest heart.

            Please pardon me for getting off-base…I don’t usually do that. If you’ll remember, I usually a pretty mean sort of person…kinda’. I just want to wish you good luck and Merry Christmas.

          • Sheila Warner

            Yea, I did use a lot of the Fundie “lingo.” I don’t usually do that with people who haven’t had much contact with the theology. I’ve come to terms that my elderly parents see things differently than I do. They are frail, and I choose to shower them with the love and respect they deserve for raising me to be a decent person. I’ve made mistakes, for sure, but the core of who I am is to love my neighbor as myself. Even those who call me a perverted, murdering, bestiality with a dead dog sinner. Have you been following my back and forth with Allesandra? Whew! It’s like the “Lemon-Lyman” episode on the West Wing tv show. If you didn’t watch it, I apologize. It’s all good here. I have that bubble of joy inside because Christ is near.

          • T Ko

            Sheila, I am very happy to hear about the gratitude you show towards the ones who helped to make you the person you are. I guess that I was trying to say the same about mine.

            I’m sorry about the fracas with Allesandra, but I think I can guess. Ted has been my sparring partner for a while now.

            Just remember to “Hold onto the good, and let go of the bad.” You have the foundation to support that already.

          • Sheila Warner

            No worries. I told her that I forgive her of all the vicious things she’s said. it’s not healthy to hold grudges, and I don’t think she realizes how she comes across.

          • T Ko

            That is definitely the best way to handle it. I wish I followed that advice more often, but I agree with you that forgiveness holds within it a very special healing power.

          • Sheila Warner

            Oh, and you can also see why some of the Fundies on here who claim that i am absolutely not a Christian because I don’t condemn gays really don’t get under my skin so much. I’ve heard it all before.

          • T Ko

            Good for you, I am glad that they don’t have a chance!

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        I thought that to be a Christian one has to believe in Christ’s virgin birth, his being the Son of G*d, the Messiah, his crucifixion, death and subsequent resurrection, and the Triune nature of G*d. I was unaware that Catholics disbelieved any of those notions.

        • T Ko

          No, you are correct, Ab.

      • Sheila Warner

        Catholics aren’t Christians? You sound like my father & his fundamentalist group. I’m a Catholic, and I am, indeed, a Christian. This is how literal Bible thinkers get into trouble. They state their interpretations as fact. Where in the Bible does it mention any denomination? It’s about Jesus, for Christians, not what brick and mortar denomination church we attend. As to how we say things, I believe the Bible says that our words are to be gracious, seasoned with salt. Am I wrong about Colossians 4:6?

    • Sheila Warner

      We who are believers also have to consider our audience. When talking to nonbelievers, quoting the Bible is not a good strategy. If we believe what is in the Bible is God’s word, then we usually think that God tells us things for our own good. That’s where reason comes in. You can articulate your reasoning for what you think without using the Bible as a sledge hammer. At least, that’s how I approach discussions. And, this is my opinion, based on years of debate.

      • T Ko

        Yes, and my inclusion of the term “carefully” had one purpose–to emphasize the need to communicate clearly and avoid misunderstanding.

        • Sheila Warner

          And you were so much more succinct than I. I tip my hat to you.

          • T Ko

            Thanks. I can be rather wordy sometimes…but I’m trying. ☺ (s’posed to be a smiley face)

  • T Ko

    The right of expression is limited by law in very few instances. The right of pursuit is limited to greater degree. Personal opinion is not limited at all.

    Therefore, based on how you feel about something, it is: 1) your right to feel that way; 2) your right to express your opinion–subject to certain limitations; & 3) either a smart idea, a stupid idea, or benign–depending upon how others feel–if you express your opinion–subject to certain limitations, including the threat of disassociation by your employer or partner.

    The non-secular debates belong somewhere else.

    • Sheila Warner

      Oh, I don’t know. Non secular debates are a hoot. It’s when the real “crazies” come out to play.

      • T Ko

        What I meant was that I feel that there is a place for the religious, or non-secular, debates and there is a place for the secular issues.

        It wouldn’t make sense to hold a political rally on Sunday in church. Nor should there be an evangelical crusade held at City Hall. “Render to Caesar….”

        • Sheila Warner

          I knew that’s what you meant. Sometimes I just get too amused by the nutters, that’s all.

          • T Ko

            Well, you are absolutely right…it’s kinda’ like “…they only come out at night….whooooo…”. And then they retreat the next day.

  • JASVN67

    “To thine own self be true.” Unless you’re void of conscience you know right from wrong. You know what moral values are and when you’ve have crossed the line. There is no gray area involved. The day will come, when all will draw their last breath, and it is then will know if the saying,”If it feels right do it” applies.

    • Sheila Warner

      Or not. Assuming there is an afterlife, and assuming that your list of moral values is exclusive.

      • JASVN67

        One would hope that people do not live their lives on assumptions, for our tomorrows are not promised, living life in the moment, brings about the essence of being alive.

  • FuzzyLogic

    Here is my comment: This dopey story has the public on fire, with vitriol being hurled in all directions. Meanwhile, in the world of things that matter, there was (in comparison) hardly a whimper about the 4 dead in Benghazi? (I know … what difference at this point does it make?)

    Heroes killed, White House lies about it and covers it up. No big deal. Born again dude from a TV “reality” show shares his politically incorrect (albeit widely shared) beliefs, and nearly everyone goes berserk. Glad to see we have our priorities straight.

    Friggen pop culture is the real opiate of the masses.

  • T Ko

    Shaazzaaam!!! What in the world did you say, Bernie? You opened a floodgate!

  • D Parri

    Merry Christmas, Bernie.

  • Ken C

    Dr Gary,

    The ‘Word of God?’ If God is an absolute being then his Word would be absolute. Then how can His Word be interptreted in so many different.ways. Christians need to realize that what you might feel is the Word ofGod is not what the guy down the street or around the world does. Only truly ignorant people can believe that Words written over 2000 years ago, captrued years after the events, translated may times, selected by committe, can represent any sort of literal Word of God. Having said this, I am a Cristian with a very strong belief in the message of Jesus

    • Keith

      Umm… why? If the Bible’s been so tampered with, how would know what His message truly was?

      • T Ko

        “…how would know…”? What?

        • Sheila Warner

          Now now, then, you are copying what I’m doing around here. :-)

          • T Ko

            ☺☺

    • LibertysSon

      Actually the Old Testanebt written in Hebrew Has remained unchanged for 3000 years. All engklish versions are translated from the origonal Hebrew.

      The new Testament still exists in the original Aramaic Greek as it was written. All translations that exist are translated from the original Greek.

      • Sheila Warner

        We don’t have the original OT texts. http://www.datingtheoldtestament.com/Texts.htm

        Same with the NT: http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

        And, let’s face it, the true original Law of God was on those stone tablets that got smashed. The Bible is a collection of ancient manuscripts copied over hundreds of years.

        • LibertysSon

          I didn’t say we had the original OT Script , But because Hebrew scribes attached mathmatical formulas to each line of Scripture,we can prove he oldest texts we have are unchanged. A change of one letter would upset the formula grid.The Dead Sea Scrolls verified this as well.

          We do have some 3rd century NT script in Greek and they also prove to match our later Greek Texts.

          What I find interesting is, the NT, that was preserved by the Catholic Church for centuries has much in it that is damagng to Catholic Liturgy. If anyone had a chance to manipulate the NT to make themselves look better the Catholics did. But they didn’t.

          Modern translations are translated only once from Greek to English(or other language) and from Hebrew to English. The Red Herring that multiple translations has diluted or changed meaning is a lie.

          • Sheila Warner

            “All Modern English versions are translated from the original Hebrew.” Sure sounds like you are confident that we have the original Hebrew texts. If I was wrong, I’m sorry. Could you cite your source about the mathematical formula? Do you mean only the OT? There is nothing in the NT that is damaging to Catholic liturgy. Over the course of three years, nearly the entire Bible is read from the pulpit. We have a reading from the OT which is paired with the Gospel fulfillment or further expounding by Christ. We have a reading from an epistle, as well as a responsorial Psalm. Tons of Scripture. I immersed myself in Catholicism for four years, followed by another year of instruction on the Faith. I am confident that Catholicism is equally as Christian as any post-Luther denomination. I find that, as in my own upbringing, the most vocal critics of Catholicism are either those who misinterpret what the Church teaches, or those who have been drawn away by zealous Protestants who confuse Catholics. I was raised a Fundamentalist, Bible-only, faith only Christian. I was fed a steady diet as to why Catholicism is not valid. I know tons of Scripture. When I actually studied it for myself, I discovered that what had been told to me was incorrect. I’ll never convince devout Protestants that the Catholic Church is the true church Christ founded. That’s okay. I get tired of people trying to say the Bible isn’t followed by Catholics, or that Catholics aren’t really Christians. Our hope, as Catholics, is in the risen Christ, who sits at the Father’s right hand and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. Without Christ, there is no salvation.

          • LibertysSon

            I do mean only the OT on the “Original” Texts. Here are a couple of references to the scribes counting words to prevent errors in copying the Torah and older Hebrew Texts. Here are a couple of links that reinforce the concept.

            http://www.kenscustom.com/bible/authen.html

            http://www.hsutx.edu/hsubb/learningobjects/overviewoftheoldtestament/pages/19.html

            I first heard of the scribe count in 1971 while attennding Bible College. I must admit it was an oral lecture by a renowned Bible Scholar and I had no written references to cite.

            My comment about Catholics was not a criticism of my Catholic brothers in Christ , but a comment that the scripture that Jesus was the only mediator between God and Man( 1 Timothy 2:5) remained unchanged throughout the centuries even though it was damaging to the Catholic church. Why? Because it absolutely refuted the Catholic practice of praying to the Saints and /or Mary.

            Of course it was this scripture that led to the Priest, Martin Luther, leaving Catholicism and sparked the Reformation and the Protestant Church.
            The great thing was that the Catholics preserved the NT unchanged for centuries. A real blessing.

            My personal conclusion is this. All man made religion is flawed and has errors in the methods of worship. We see in a mirror darkly as scripture says. I don’t believe in religion, I believe in Faith.

            The important thing is that we Love Jesus and accept his sacrifice for us on the Cross. We are all brothers in Christ. Faith in Jesus our Messiah is the cornerstone of our faiths. Catholics and Protestants are all Brothers & Sisters in Christ. That is my true belief.

            .

          • Sheila Warner

            Re: praying to the saints. It’s really no difference from asking your earthly brothers and sisters on earth to pray for you. As James tells us, the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. As we see in Revelation, the souls under the altar were praying for their persecuted brethren. Hebrews tells us that we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. Jesus tells us he is not the God of the dead but of the living. I believe the saints in heaven pray for us. Not a huge point. I, too, believe we see through a dark glass, and thanks be to God who will one day reveal all. Merry Christmas to you. Thanks for a really nice reply.

    • Sheila Warner

      Nicely stated.

  • GerryT

    Bernie:
    Agree with your take on the Robertson “ignoramus” comment. What is your take on the vile comment made by John Podesta,, a first-class political thug (and ignoramus) who has returned to the house of infamy?

    • T Ko

      Freedom of speech does not mean freedom FROM speech. We can use it and we are subject to it. And people’s feelers get hurt.

    • Sheila Warner

      Political hyperbole, for which he apologized. That issue is now a dead horse. And, a red herring.

  • Keith

    Bernie, you made good and bad points.

    Phil never said homosexuality leads to banging a goat. C’mon now bro. Don’t come off as all enlightened and then vividly prove you’re not.

    You actually believe that freedom of belief and thought take a backseat to state-defined belief — in the public marketplace. Umm… how exactly is that constitutional? Dear God that flirts with fascism. What the hell’s wrong with you??

    And, equating Phil’s remarks to Martin Bashir’s was, honestly, stupid. One was a calm statement of belief, the other was an orgy of hatred. I believe that homosexuality is unnatural (you can find no evolutionary justification for it), but I do not hate the homosexual. At all. But, Martin Bashir clearly hates Sarah Palin. That you are unable to see the difference is surprising. You’re otherwise a pretty smart guy, but not when it comes down to these gay controversies.

    But… you made a solid point in mentioning the Right’s hypocritical stances in the culture war. My side has lacked consistency in some areas and I thank you for making me more mindful of that. Being consistent and fair will only make me a more effective culture warrior.

    • Sheila Warner

      When did Bernie say that private beliefs take a back seat to “state beliefs/” What are state beliefs, anyway? Are you speaking about laws? The First Amendment is the law, but it is aimed at the government “Congress shall make no law…” Private businesses can have policies on speech. It’s only when a government agency seeks to stop free speech that you have a Constitutional problem.

  • chief98110

    This is why you should not answer every question that is asked!

  • Scott

    I think that a discussion on homosexuality is lost because nobody can differentiate between the person themselves and their actions. When Phil talked about homosexuality, he was referring to acts of homosexuality, not the people themselves who commit them. That’s where Christians fall way short of articulating the Bible’s intent on this topic.

  • jim ramsay

    Bernie, your statement that all Christians believe that God, Jesus and the bible claim that the earth is 6,000 years old is simply not true. There are various opinions and positions held by Christians that support both the young earth concept as well as old earth one. However, for you to claim that it doesn’t matter whether the bible, Jesus or God says the earth is 6,000, because it is 41 billion years old is simply arrogant. Were you there when it was created? Who made you sovereign?

    • Keith

      Agreed. I am increasingly of the mind that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. But, I still believe that God created it and that its formation follows the path laid out in Genesis.

      But, Bernie’s clearly not a fan of Biblical Christianity. That’s his right. And, when he spouts ignorance as you pointed out (and as I did below), we call him on it.

  • garbo77

    Hi everyone!
    After reading some of the comments, I can see we are confused about how homosexuality comes about. If we study statistics we will see that some have concluded that people have become homosexual because of being molested, being raised by a single parent and so on.

    When we study families, we will find that some have alcoholics generation after generation or a spouse that commits adultery or one that tries to or does commit suicide or one that feels rejection and insecure and on and on.

    To understand, we must understand how the spirit realm functions. We have God, His Son Jesus and Holy Spirit to guide us and direct us after receiving Jesus as our Savior. God even gives us angels to protect us. On the other side of the coin we have the devil and his evil spirits (demons) which the devil uses to deceive us and tries to keep us separated from God.

    Homosexuality is an evil spirit (demon) just as can be alcoholism, one that hates, one that wants to murder, one that is addicted to drugs, one that wants to cut themselves and on and on. Think about it; these things obviously do not come from God!

    I’ve met and many of you have met people that will tell you that they have wanted to be the opposite sex as far back as they could remember into childhood. Most Christians will probably tell you that no one is born a homosexual. What I feel they mean is that God would cause no one to be born a homosexual. I do feel that it is possible for one to be born a homosexual because there are “generational curses” that are passed down from generation to generation. If the evil spirit of homosexuality was to be passed down to a child, would it not be possible to be born with that demon? Whether prior to birth or after birth a person receives a evil spirit of homosexuality is not the important issue. When an evil spirit is there it needs to be cast out. The first step is to receive Jesus as your Savior and then command the demon to go in the name of Jesus. Colossians 3:17 “Whatever you do in word or deed do it in the name of Jesus and give thanks to God the Father in the name of Jesus.”

    My wife and others have seen this miracle of God in homosexuals, alcoholics, other drug addicts, evil spirits of anger, etc. They are demons and need to be cast out after salvation. Prior to salvation we bind the demons and pray for the person until they receive Jesus as their Savior. If we were to cast out the demons prior to salvation, the demons would come back to that person with seven more wicked than the ones cast out. Luke 11:24.

    Sound crazy? Study God’s Holy word the Bible. When Jesus walked on this earth He cast out many demons and set people free and He is still doing it through Christians that are willing to let God use them and freeing people that are willing to be set free! It’s your choice, God will not force you!

    Think about it; what other than an horribly evil spirit, could deceive anyone so badly that a man would want to be married to another man or a woman to a woman?

    Bottom line: No matter what the sin, we will not enter the kingdom of God unless we repent and receive Jesus as our Savior. How to: Romans 10:9-10 and 1 John 1:9. Remember Christians: Hate the sin but always Love the sinner! 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 tells us of some of the sins that will keep us from entering the kingdom of God!

    God’s Blessings on you and yours! God loves you and so do I!

    Dr. Gary

    • JMax

      Homosexuality is not about “wanting to be the other sex”. It is about romantic and/or physical attraction to a person of the same sex.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        It’s about having such a deformed psychology that they are incapable of having a healthy, wholesome intimate relationship with the opposite sex, as they were born to have, and so they develop a perverted mind towards same sex individuals. Very analogous to pedophiles – and needless to say the categories intersect for some.

        • JMax

          Needless to say the categories of heterosexuals and pedophiles intersect AT LEAST as much.

      • garbo77

        Thanks for your comment, JMax. I probably should have stated “homosexual” to make my point. However, what sex do you think this person, that always wanted to be the opposite sex, would want to marry; still turns out to be homosexuality, doesn’t it? He is still a man wanting to be married to another man. God Bless! Dr. Gary

        • JMax

          I would disagree. I have a business associate who is transgender. She always knew that mentally she was female even though her body said she was male. She was even married as a male to a female.

          She is now a female in every way. Her transition to life as a female had nothing whatsoever to do with who she is or was attracted to. It was about who she knew herself to be. It’s about gender identity, not sexual orientation.

          As to your question, the answer is no. Since she is a female, if she married a man it would not be a homosexual relationship.

          • garbo77

            Give it up JMax. You’ll not convince anyone of this meaningless debate, but God’s blessings on you anyway! Man, what do you think is the cause of transgender and all other perversions. Did you not get anything from my long comment? I’ll be praying for you and the others! Dr. Gary

          • JMax

            Did I get anything from your long comment? Yes. A lot of poppycock.

          • garbo77

            Where do you plan on spending eternity, JMax?. If I’m wrong I have nothing to lose. If you’re wrong you everything to lose. This is serious stuff, JMax; think about it. I hope that you’ll make the right decision. I’ll pray for you. Remember Romans 10:9-10 and 1 John 1:9. God Bless! Dr. Gary

          • JMax

            With Jesus, of course. How about you? Why would I be wrong? Eternal life is very serious. What you wrote above is nothing I take serious.

            I’m good with Romans 10:9-10 and John 1:9. Are you?

          • garbo77

            Hi JMax! Just curious; do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?
            God Bless! Dr. Gary

          • JMax

            It doesn’t concern me whether of not it is a sin. I am not a homosexual so it doesn’t apply to me. Let those for whom it may apply decide if it is a sin or not. It is they for whom it matters. I don’t judge them.

            What is your concern?

          • garbo77

            You answered much! I will continue to pray for you and others! God Bless! Dr. Gary

          • garbo77

            of course it is a homosexual relationship. She is still a male! God Bless! Dr. Gary

          • JMax

            Not anymore. As far as either is concerned, they are in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Neither is attracted to a person of the same sex.

  • Thewryobservator

    This was a firestorm waiting for an event to immolate. Looks like they’ve overplayed just a bit. You don’t have to look far to find context enough to see the reaction as a piece of performance art. “Histrionic” is probably a word that should be dusted off and applied to this occasion.

  • http://theromancatholicvote.com/ catholicvoter

    Hi Bernard!
    I appreciate your respecting your readers and viewers enough to be honest with us. I actually feel like I’m missing something. By no means do I jump to defend someone who has done something wrong, I don’t care who they are. At the same time, this Phil character (I never saw the show), from what I understand, pretty much said homosexual acts are sinful just as other things like swindling, etc. are. How is that offensive? I sometimes dread housework and put it off to goof off (like now) or eat more dessert than I should. This is sloth and gluttony – both sins. I would not be offended if someone said sloth and gluttony are sinful behaviors just as adultery or murder. I’m not saying there are not differences in seriousness – Catholics certainly believe some sins are worse than others, but they are in fact, sinful.
    Blessings to you, Bernie. Whether I agree with you or not, I always enjoy your columns and your appearances on the O’Reilly Factor. I hope 2014 is a great year for you!

  • Brhurdle

    Personally, I think the whole incident is much ado about nothing. I support Mr. Robertson’s right to state anything he feels is appropriate as well as A&E’s right to suspend him since he serves at their pleasure. I would be the first to admit that Mr. Roberson could have stated his position in a less offensive way without so much detail. It seems that Mr.Goldberg didn’t understand the ill advised use of unecessary critical embellishment by Mr. Robertson and repeated the offense by labeling him as an ignoramus – don’t you think that judgement is best left to the individual?

  • Don vS, San Francisco

    Robertson is said to hold a in education. He’s clearly a very bright man who has made a fortune out of a studied redneck persona.

    While i agree with Bernie’s observations regarding ignorance transcending even one’s access to the 1st Amendment, and while I suspect Mr. Robertson has a belief-based aversion to homosexuality, his interview did, in my opinion, exactly what Robertson–and A&E–intended: it heaped publicity fuel on an already hot reality show.

    There’s no bad PR in showbiz.

    Don vS
    San Francisco

    • http://www.charlene.cc/ Charlene

      I was wondering that very same thing. Bet he gets invited back.

  • lemonfemale

    Did Phil actually bash gays as people? He put homosexuality in Paul’s laundry list of sins but what would he do if a guy came up saying “Hi, Phil. I’m Tom and this is my husband Bob.” The part of the interview I will call the Vagina Monologues 2, well -as my husband said- “I agree! Who would want to sleep with a man when you could sleep with a woman?” In other words, Phil is heterosexual as well as a conservative Christian. I don’t know- from the pieces I have read – how he would vote on gay marriage or how he would treat any gay person.
    Mentioning Bashir is a good point but Bashir singled out an individual by name. Had he talked about “Darby’s dose” in the abstract, I don’t think there would have been the uproar. That may be a crucial difference but it’s good Mr. Goldberg brought that up.

  • PaulNepote

    Support the Duck Hunter

    If Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty ever wondered what
    his purpose on earth was, now he knows. This family could change the road we
    have been going down if they will stand firm against anyone who tries to silence
    them and if we who are called by His name will humble ourselves, pray and
    seek the courage to stand for the truth. THEN and only THEN will this land be
    healed. I support Phil 100% and hope the family will realize what a gem they
    have in him and his beliefs. His right to speak is
    guaranteed.

    • garbo77

      Keep speaking it, Bro! God Bless! Dr. Gary

  • Yogi

    Mr. Goldberg, my wife and I watched the show for the first time two weeks ago. She liked it. It did not do much for me but the Christianity content was refreshing. Unfortunately our country is so split into factions that anyone can become a target almost the instant we make any noise about anything. Being a public figure potentiates the feedback. We will stick to our guns(opinions) and may God help us stay the course. Maybe Phil is not such an ignoramus. Maybe he is a Genius. It’s all about the marketing. The selves at Walmart have been cleared out of Duck merchandise. I saw a figure of two hundred million dollars of the family’s 400 million dollar fortune is from merchandising. It doesn’t matter what A&E does at this point. The dynasty should start a duck hunting camp. There are idiots out there that would pay anything they asked to hunt with those boys.

  • Thewryobservator

    I guess the least you can say is he didn’t modify his message, or correct his opinion in order to win a popularity contest, (or an election) then modify it afterward. If that’s the definition of stupid, the country could use more stupid.

  • garbo77

    Hi Mr. Goldberg!
    You speaking of Phil being an ignoramus when he spoke from God’s word the Bible, reminds me of Jesus when, after going through torture for you and me,that we have no word to describe, cried out to Father God, “Father forgive them, they know no what they do!” You have no glue how serious is what you stated! We will pray for God to have mercy on you and He will somehow lead you to receive His Son Jesus as your Savior. Want to know how? Romans 10:9-10 and 1 John 1:9 tells us.

    Thanks for speaking what you believe from both sides. It gives to us, whom believe in Jesus and Father God, a chance to know how to pray for you. And I state that with love, not sarcasm!

    God’s Blessings on you and yours! Dr. Gary

  • SargintRock

    O’really and Bernie, yellow journalism lap dogs for the Establishment Media. They ceased being watchdogs years ago, if ever.
    They mush mouth continually about the culture wars but those in the KNOW saw how Faux dropped Tosh Plumlee’s Bombshell revelations like a hot potato. Out of two hours of insider info on the dirty dealings of the CIA and assorted Pentagon agencies, the real story on the war on Drugs and the Reagan administrations involvement in DEA agent Kiki Camareno’s abduction and grisly murder, they edited everything out but 14 seconds, and then they tried to smear Tosh’s name by implying he was the pilot who flew Carlos Quintera (Cartel scum responsible for the crime) out of country! See and hear the Truth on Coast to Coast radio archives or Tosh’s Facebook page!!
    De Oppresso Liber!!!

    • Archangel1313

      huh?

  • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

    I wonder if Phil knows that a disproportionate share of the people preparing, selling, and consuming pate and duck confit are gay, and that he is on the receiving end of a big pink dollar?

    • Thewryobservator

      Doesn’t pate come primarily from domestic ducks? If so, I’m not sure those are the sorts of ducks that duck calls are made to attract, so I’m not sure how many “pink” dollars he does get. Last time I checked, most sport duck hunters, which would probably be this man’s primary clients, don’t produce duck pate for commercial, let alone individual, consumption. But were that so, you’d have to admit, he chose to make statements that would cost him money – so he’s made a stand for honesty over profit. Even if he’s wrong, that’s shows integrity.

      Regardless -I’ve had a look at his presentation of the biblical truth – he doesn’t single out gays, or exempt himself from the predilection to sin, or the penalty of it. So far as I can see, most folks are misrepresenting his statements – not to mention the issues at hand. I suspect if you check your facts on pate, you’ll find you’re one of those folk. I’m not sure if you’re doing it intentionally. The test of that would be you’re willingness to make a correction once you discover the actual facts.

    • Deborah G

      Do they even make it? I dont think so . He makes his money off REAL men .

  • Donald D.

    And all this time I thought that Duck Dynasty was about University of Oregon Football!

  • Paul Vasek

    Every chance you get, Mr. Goldberg, you attack Christianity. Your issue is with God, not Mr. Robertson.

    • Bruce P. Majors

      Phil Robertson doesn’t speak for all Christians does he?

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        He certainly doesn’t speak for me.

        • Paul Vasek

          He doesn’t speak for me either. He was asked a direct question regarding “sin”. Some of his comments were crass, in my opinion, but that really isn’t what this is about either as many comments from the left are far worse. Even Camille Paglia is questioning the liberals on this one and called it “fascism”.

          • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

            The obvious fact that many or most liberals and media elites and professional gay lobbyists are fascists doesn’t make Phil Robertson right.

          • garbo77

            Speaking the word of God is what makes Phil right!
            God Bless! Dr. Gary

      • garbo77

        Should not speaking the word of God from our Bible be believed and supported by all Christians? Bottom line: we believe the word of God or we don’t! God Bless! Dr. Gary

      • docjake

        No, just the real ones

    • garbo77

      Right on! God Bless! Dr. Gary

    • Deborah G

      Bernie has LOST all respect I once had for him. This is an outrage the way he decided for everyone else. He didn’t read or he can’t comprehend.

  • Bruce P. Majors

    One problem, which perhaps motivates (my fellow gay civil libertarian) Harvey Levin’s Internet posts on this matter, is that the gay lobby, not gays in general, but the gay political class, do have both more power and at least as fascistic inclinations, as conservative American Christians. They will happily regulate churches, families, home schoolers, adoption agencies, the press, even politically incorrect gays, whenever the opportunity arises.

    I also wonder if A&E isn’t doing this in part for publicity. They knew his views long ago, and I don’t know that their contract with him allows them to fire or suspend him for being what he already was or saying things they knew he was saying.

  • Seattle Sam

    Bernien suggesting that someone should crap in Sarah Palin’s mouth is not a “belief”. You really don’t understand the distinction? Really?

    • Bruce P. Majors

      They both used vulgar language and both demonized other people. Bashir was worse perhaps in that he was not just repeating a conventional belief held by many people.

      • Keith

        I disagree. First of all, I read Phil’s statements. Nowhere did I see that homosexuality leads to greater sexual pervasion. Secondly, homosexuality IS sin. Period. (Hence its inclusion with lying, stealing, etc.). That is not “mean-spirited”. You and Bernie may not like the belief, but that doesn’t mean it’s ill-intended. Martin Bashir’s comments were not mere belief. To equate these two is ludicrous.

        • SargintRock

          Well said!

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        I don’t see you complaining about all the terds of homosexuals who use vulgar language in porn! Is that a problem for you? Why do you think so many terds of homosexuals use vulgar language and have a perverted mind about sex?

        • JMax

          How would you know what kind of language homosexuals use in porn? And what relevance could that possibly have here?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            do you have something against vulgar language? Are you saying Phil was vulgar and that’s a problem?

          • JMax

            No and no.

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        Just out of curiosity, did you actually read Phil’s statements? Bashir was worse in saying that someone should use a person’s mouth as a toilet.

      • docjake

        That is disgustingly disingenuous. Bashir wished violence and degradation on Sarah Palin, Robertson did no such thing. Bashir spoke in rage and hate, Robertson did not. Bashir’s belief system lead him to curse Palin and wish her violent assault, Robertson conversation, whether you agree or not served as what he sees as a warning to people involved in a lifestyle that the Bible calls sin, which he fears has temporal and eternal consequences. You may choose to disagree or even disregard his warning but one cannot say that his pronouncements carried the malevolence of the comments of Bashir.

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    I suppose we can put ol’ Phil up on a cross now and stick a spear in him since he’s the new martyr for the Christian Right. Last year, it was the Chick-Fil-A Chicken being branded as the new saint of Christianity for standing up for all that is Holy Matrimony in the eyes of the Church. These folks want to be on the wrong side of history with their public criticism of homosexuality but cry fowl (pardon the pun) when their own bigotry is examined in a public light. Phil’s licking his fingers at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/08/holy-rollin-poultry-on-cross-chick-fil.html

    • LAPhil

      I love how you people who consider yourselves so open-minded on the subject of homosexuality keep using the phrase “on the wrong side of history”. You must either have a crystal ball or presume to be a very astute historical analyst. I’m sure it gives you a lot of comfort to think of yourselves as morally and evolutionarily superior than the rest of us.

      • Keith

        The problem here is that history has never progressed consistently upward for any society. The history of nations shows that societies rise and then fall. This phrase is dopey, at least in this context.

        Publicly applauding homosexual behavior (via gay marriage legalization) will have unintended social consequences. No one here can provide a logical reason for homosexuality’s existence. If you believe we evolved, where does it fit in with the story of our development? It’d be an evolutionary dead end. So, it’s logical to conclude that the behavior is dysfunctional. If it’s dysfunctional, should we as a society be legitimizing it?

        Of course, there’s a way to not legitimize it without bashing the people who live in it. That, sadly, has been the problem, and that has come from my side too often. We need to ameliorate that without compromising what’s right and rational.

        • LAPhil

          That made more sense than just about anything I’ve ever heard on this subject.

    • Bruce P. Majors

      The new Duck-fil-A is offering free shipping for last minute gifts for social conservative gourmands.

      • Archangel1313

        wow,you seem like a reasonable guy bruce

        • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

          I’ve been hitting the duckweed.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I’ve been hitting the duckweed.<<

            No, I'd say you're probably just a little mallardjusted.
            Based on your previous comment, I have to wonder waddle you think up next.

    • Thewryobservator

      If so- who made him the Martyr? Regarding foul – whose bigotry is on parade now that Phil answered a question honestly in an outside venue? I don’t think it’s Phil’s.

  • sjangers

    I think you might have read a little too much into Robertson’s interview, Bernie. None of his remarks in the GQ piece suggest that homosexuality might lead to bestiality, or vice versa. The interviewer asked Robertson about what he views as sinful. He included homosexuality, bestiality and several other behaviors in that category. He didn’t connect any of them; unless, of course, you misconstrued his phrasing to also suggest that homosexual behaviors lead to wanton heterosexual behaviors.

    I can’t speak for all those who are offended by Robertson’s treatment as a result of his interview, but I think many who are complaining about limits on his freedom of speech aren’t literally suggesting that a decision by A&E is an actual violation of his constitutional rights. It’s more a matter of violating the principles on which we base our society.

    Many of us who hear liberals lecturing us on this distinction between government coercion and private coercion against speech in the Robertson case can’t help but recall some of the controversies of previous decades in which conservative groups tried to bring pressure to bear on networks and advertisers for material going over the air (or being published in print) that these groups found offensive. Invariably, there would then be a loud hue and cry from the Left accusing the critics of trying to violate rights (individual, corporate, creative: it was never quite clear) to freedom of speech. It’s rather ironic today to hear those same individuals and their ideological successors trying to defend punishing Robertson for mildly offensive words he uttered as merely an expression of personal opinion.

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      Homosexuality shares with bestiality and pedophilia several characteristics. These are all ways that human being can be deformed regarding sexuality. A person is born with a developmental matrix, including to develop into a
      heterosexual adult that has healthy, adult relationships with the
      opposite sex. However, this matrix is not finished and it will change
      (including being deformed) in a variety of directions. Therefore, the
      mind has a deep plasticity; regarding many characteristics, it’s not
      hard-wired.

      So, a key point is that any person’s mind will develop conscious and
      unconscious mechanisms and dynamics that can deeply affect it later in
      life, which were not present when this individual was born.

      This is why people are not born pedophiles, homosexuals, necrophiles,
      etc. Although there are different levels of choices regarding sexuality
      and one’s behaviors, no one with a particular sexuality dysfunction
      deliberately chooses all of its dynamics – and *especially* not the
      unconscious ones. Since when do you choose what goes on in your
      unconscious? However, this doesn’t mean we are helpless, little
      creatures with no free will.

      So, human beings are born heterosexual, but they aren’t finished as
      infants. That means that a person’s mind will change and develop or
      degenerate in infinite ways. Homosexuality is similar to any other
      psycho-sexual dysfunction – in terms of being a dysfunction. It is not
      inborn, but like other dysfunctions, such a disorder or dysfunction is
      developed over time, due to a set of factors that can vary from
      individual to individual.
      You solve the underlying psychological, cultural, sociological issues
      producing various homosexual dynamics in the mind of such an
      individual, and the person lives as they were born to be: heterosexual.

      • Integrity

        I am not convinced by your unscientific argument. I do not believe most homosexuals choose to be that way. It defies logic. I know of a deeply religious family whose daughter turned out to be gay. I can assure you that they never said anything positive about homosexuality nor condoned it. What factors contributed to her homosexuality? QED

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          My argument is scientific – you are clearly ignorant of science.

          ==================

          “What factors contributed to her homosexuality?”

          What factors indeed? You certainly don’t have the competence or the knowledge to investigate and analyze her profound mental problems regarding sexuality and personal relationships.

          • Integrity

            Your arguments are emotional and merely slanted towards a desired outcome. Never said I did, but it is clear that you don’t either. QED

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            You clearly don’t know that what science is. Given that you only display ignorance about the etiology of homosexuality, you can’t be clear on anything anyone else says. Except to have a knee-jerk emotional response, which you display in every comment.

          • Integrity

            Still waiting for scientific facts. Kind of like constitutional law attorneys, $300.00 an hour will buy whatever opinion you want. Your opinion does not invalidate mine. QED

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            You can read my blog and NARTH for starters. Or you can continue to have your ignorant knee-jerk response.

          • Integrity

            Your emotional views cannot be expressed as a ratio a/b, where a and b are integers and b is non-zero. A blog of like-minded people proves nothing. Isn’t the belief in God based upon faith and not scientific proof? QED.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            You are too afraid to read research and educate yourself. Typical close-minded liberal.
            The only person trying to equate science to God is you. Silly and ignorant.

          • Integrity

            Funny. That is the first time I have ever been called a liberal. LE – are you watching? I actually believe in God, but acknowledge that it is based upon my faith and not science. Actually, I believe science supports the existence of God. I am not emotionally tied to the homosexual agenda. In fact, in my younger days, I was about as anti-homosexual that you good get. I regret being that way. My views have changed now based upon people that I have met and what I have observed and come to learn during my life experiences. I am merely being honest with myself and everyone else. I may very well be wrong, but it is not because I am afraid to learn or am close-minded. Quite the contrary. Maybe you should consider whether you are close-minded or not. I respect your strong convictions, but that does not mean that you are right. Ironically, we probably agree on more issues than we disagree. Just not this one. I have not doubt you are a good person and I have the utmost respect for Christian principles. I fully admit that I don’t know everything and am comfortable with that fact. QED

          • JMax

            Nowhere on your blog did I find any credentials that would offer any sense of credibility in anything you’ve written.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            If you are looking to believe blindly in anything based on credentials, I’m not surprised.

          • JMax

            Are you suggesting that I should blindly believe someone who has none?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Since you blindly believe in anyone who has credentials, what difference would it make? All your beliefs are based on blind ignorance, not knowledge.

          • JMax

            How would you know what my beliefs are based on?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            You stated you needed credentials to believe in anything I wrote about. Have fun your blind beliefs in credentials.

          • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

            Actually you seem to be emphasizing issues of cognitive development and psychology to the exclusion of genetics and neuro endocrinology. So you don’t seem very scientifically inclined or informed.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            On the contrary, no one has ever been able to prove any genetic determination to homosexuality because it simply is not how humans are born or formed. It is how they are deformed, but not formed.

          • Integrity

            Nor the Contrapositive. QED

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Repeating your ignorance of science doesn’t change it.

          • JMax

            Bruce, were you being emotional? I didn’t catch that.

          • JMax

            Do you have any sort of credentials that you could share with us?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Do you believe blindly what anyone says based on their credentials? Did someone with credentials tell you to do that?

          • Integrity

            Alessandra, I think JMax has a valid request since you are claiming to be the subject matter expert. I have looked at your blog briefly, but will explore it more later. However, I will also explore dissenting opinions as well. Got to go because my cat is on my laptop. QED

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I don’t think he has a valid request. In fact, the very idea that you should believe anything I say because of my credentials goes counter to the very principle of scientific inquiry and evaluation of knowledge.
            That is called blind faith in authority. And that’s not what people should have.

            Why do you write QED at the end of every comment?

          • Integrity

            QED is kind of like a call sign for me. It originates from the latin phrase, quod erat demonstrandum, meaning “which had to be demonstrated”. It is commonly used at the end of a mathematical proof. After my QED, it was normal for my college professor to write, “TAMO” which stands for, “Then a miracle occurred.” Liberals like to call me the QED moron. QED

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            It sounds like your college prof was doing a good job! And with a great sense of humor to boot…

          • JMax

            No, but it gives me a sense of whether or not they know what the hell they are talking about, especially when it reeks of nonsense.

        • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

          Tainted communion wine. And really attractive statutes of Mary.

        • Perry

          I have known many Gays and all of them that I have talked to about their Gayness have told me that it is not a choice but that it was all ways how they felt from childhood. I know that I didn’t choose to be straight and I have known lots of men and women who married thinking that it would (cure) them but finally gave in to their desires and came out. Think about it , would any one want to be an outcast if they could without being unhappy in love.

          • Integrity

            I agree. By the way, is there more than one Chuck posting to this forum? QED

          • AbdullahtheButcher

            It’s been said somewhere that about half of gays are gay because they were born that way, and the other half were because they were molested when they were kids. I don’t know if that was true or not, but there may be more than one reason for it.

      • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

        Every piece of that statement is probably factually incorrect.

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          There is no doubt your statement is completely incorrect.

          • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

            Well that was convincing. I suspect people fixated on gay issues are often psychologically disturbed.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Your enormous ignorance is not in any way convincing!

          • JMax

            There certainly is doubt. I doubt it.

        • Keith

          What would be incorrect and why? Are you a medical professional? I ask seriously, not sarcastically.

          • JMax

            Is Alessandra? I was going to ask for a link to some source for all that “stuff”.

        • AbdullahtheButcher

          How do you know? I read somewhere that it was estimated that about half of gay men are homosexual because they were molested when they were children.

      • Josh

        I’ve never seen such a conflation before. Let’s cram a psychological disorder with all paraphilias and shove the lovemap in there and tie it all in with homosexuality being the same. Never mind heterosexuality fits in there identically when all conflated; that’s not the point. We’ll make that one the natural. Not the most prevalent, the default.

        It looks like a rewrite of the abstract from a conversion camp website’s mission statement.

        I would ask for the actual science behind it, but I see the reception doubt has already received.

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          I’ve never seen such a conflation before.
          ==============
          That’s because ignorant people like yourself don’t read, especially science! You don’t want science, you just want junk propaganda telling you anything goes, every nonsense you believe that normalizes any crap in your mind is right, and anyone who has ethics, knowledge, and science is a bigot.

          • Josh

            Then here’s a fabulous opportunity for you to rub it in ignorant people’s faces by showing them the actual science instead of merely saying it’s “science” and calling it a day.

            I mean, just a thought. Don’t strain yourself or anything.

            Simply asking for the proof of your statements causes you to flip out and accuse me of wanting an “anything goes” society and basically being perverse.

            Please, show the science. All you have to do is link it here. Since you insult people personally rather than simply showing proof of your assertions, I’ll have to assume that you’re just spouting nonsense to support a presupposition you already have.

            Calling me ignorant and a pervert doesn’t add any validity to your point. It just makes you look extremely butthurt over being challenged.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I’m just pointing out your reality: you’re ignorant; you don’t know science, and therefore you can’t judge if anything you read is science or not. Sorry, your claims that I have not presented science are hogwash. You wouldn’t know actual science if it hit you in the face.

            I called you a pervert because it seems you are intent on normalizing homosexuality – again, more of your ignorance.
            I’m sorry to disappoint you, but there’s nothing you wrote that’s challenging. If you want to put forth a challenge, do it with something other than false claims.

          • Josh

            Yeah. In reality, I’m ignorant. Maybe I don’t know science. I’m certainly not a scientist. But I do know, as a matter of fact, that stating an opinion without anything whatsoever to back it up is the exact opposite of science.

            Again, you could have posted a simple link rather than writing out two paragraphs of insulting rhetoric.

            But we both know the truth here. You don’t have anything whatsoever to back up your claims. They’re simply opinions, and insulting everyone who asks you to back them us is a way to deflect.

            I will give you an A for effort for even bothering to respond. I suppose the need to insult people who ask a simple question is greater than…. well, never mind. I imagine it is quite blissful and not embarrassing whatsoever. Just like kids aren’t scared of monsters until they find out about monsters.

            So, okay. I’ll be the ignorant one here. Maybe you can get another whackjob to shoot you a thumbs-up for a like-minded opinion that’s based on absolutely nothing and is basically a poor extrapolation from the presupposition that God is real, perfect, doesn’t make mistakes, and thus people can’t be born gay, so there has to be more to it.

            “Science” FTW.

            Thank goodness scientists don’t actually use the type of “science” you use. If they did, we wouldn’t be here typing on computers right now. We’d still be etching stone and sending smoke signals, most likely.

            “…but there’s nothing you wrote that’s challenging.”

            My challenge: Provide your sources for your opinions. Provide the evidence which backs up the many claims you made.

            If that’s not a challenge to you, there’s no reason not to fulfill it. Except, of course, that you can’t.

            It’s all quite simple. For example: If I said, “Homosexuality has more to do with epigenetics and biological attraction, not the stuff you’re babbling on about trying to say it’s a sickness,” I might have a mind to back that up if you asked.

            http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality

            Wow. Took a whole two seconds, and I didn’t even have to insult anyone in the process.

            Though I’m no stranger to this road. Cue the conspiracy theories?

          • Sheila Warner

            I know you were talking to Alessandra, but I found the study to which you linked very interesting. I’m curious about a couple of things. First I all, I have read the reason why scientists still do not believe in a gay gene, is because homosexuality isn’t any more common among identical twins than the general population. Secondly, the article was written two years ago. Do you know if any other studies like this have replicated the results of this one? I’m fascinated with human development. It’s always amazing how far into the genome scientists can dig.

          • Josh

            My biology reading doesn’t typically include epigen. Heritable changes and gene latency and phenotypes and expressions and morphogenesis — it’s way over my head. I keep up mostly with evolutionary biology.

            The linked article is just one I remembered reading after Alessandra’s mega-conflation of every disorder, paraphilia and biological attraction under the sun, for the purposes of taking the long route around the old “gays are pedophiles and perverts” argument.

            And to go a little off topic: I think whoever translated the study to layman’s terms really missed the ball on Darwinian evolution. Homosexuality isn’t necessarily an impediment to natural selection. “Survival of the fittest” deals with groups/species, not necessarily with individuals. So if one were to assume that 10% of any population doesn’t procreate for whatever reasons, that wouldn’t be detrimental to the survival of that species (disease, famine, predators, etc deter procreation at higher rates), thus any gene, epi-mark or other factor which “caused” homosexuality wouldn’t have to be selected against; in the same way genetic diseases which promote or cause sterility aren’t selected against. Species thrive–particularly smarter species–through better adapted genes melding, not so much a higher percentage of any species procreating.

            As that pertains to the study, it seems odd to list that there, as if the Darwinian model of evolution made it unfeasible for homosexuality to be DNA-based. According to the study, it isn’t. But not because natural selection would sort it out in genes. Unfortunately, we have scumbag DNA that doesn’t sort out a wide range of diseases not only impeding individual procreation but also life: heart disease, diabetes, dementia, cancer, and a thousand others.

            My guess as to further studies: The ball is in someone else’s court now. These things usually work slowly and on a challenge basis. Ask the question, hypothesize, build the model, test, analyze, draw a conclusion. Once the conclusion is drawn, even if it’s not earth-shattering, it usually takes someone(s) whose method seeks to disprove the original to double-down and make it more concrete. Then again, some things just aren’t priorities in science, like those poor theoretical physicists in their basements working on M theory.

            Any new science I’m aware of involving homosexuality is bunk “social” science, seeking to find out about relationships and other gibberish like Deepak Chopra’s happy molecules. But I am interested to see what they follow up with.

          • Sheila Warner

            I agree wholeheartedly. Science can, however, make valuable discoveries which can debunk some of the more vicious anti-scientific views on sexuality. It was my interaction with the transgendered, coupled with personal relationships with gay friends and family, that caused me to reject the “it’s in the Bible” argument against homosexuality. It’s always those who live in reality that do the most to defend it. At least, that’s what I think.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Jesus taught, “For from inside, out of the heart of men, come injurious reasonings, sexual immorality (πορνεῖαι) [.] All these wicked things come from within and defile a man.”-Mark 7:21,23 (Bracket mine.)

            Further along we find: “Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν. πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὁ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει.” -1 Corinthians 6:18

            “Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but whoever practices sexual immorality is sinning against his own body.”

            “ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; Μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν Θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9,10

            “Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.”

            Notice that those passages utilise conjugations of the key phrase πορνεία. Precisely what is πορνεία?

            The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
            πορνεία
            Strong’s Number: 4202

            Transliterated Word – Porneia – Phonetic Spelling – por-ni’-ah
            Definition:
            Illicit sexual intercourse –
            1.1 adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

            As you can clearly see, with just a rudimentary comprehension of the Koine Greek concept of πορνεία , it’s clear to understand what exactly is and is not normal human sexual conduct in our Creator’s sight.

          • Sheila Warner

            Neat! You used Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. I have one of those. I have to look up the passage in the KJV, b/c the one I have is tailored to that version of the Protestant Bible. I have read numerous articles which explain the Greek as you have laid it out. There are more of those than the ones I came across in the summer. There is a definite disagreement among scholars as to how to interpret the Greek. Then, there is the matter of the voice St Paul uses. Apparently he switches voices starting at Romans 2. Of course, the book is really a letter to the Romans, and didn’t have verses when written, so context is always tricky for the average lay person like me. I am NOT a Greek scholar by any stretch of the imagination. I have to listen to all sides and try to figure it out. The story of how I changed my views on homosexuality is long, so I won’t go into it here. I appreciate your point of view, filled with substance. Merry Christmas!

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Thank you!

            I myself find it quite fascinating how God Almighty’s perspective on sexual immorality has always been consistent throughout the Scriptures.

            Enjoy the rest of your Tuesday! :)

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Maybe I don’t know science. I’m certainly not a scientist. But I do
            know, as a matter of fact, that stating an opinion without anything
            whatsoever to back it up is the exact opposite of science.
            ==============

            My point is: If you don’t know science, then you can’t know when you are reading science. Isn’t that obvious to you? I suppose not.

            What I wrote is science – but because you don’t know what science is, you go on affirming it’s not science. You’re incapable of understanding that you don’t know what the words science and opinion mean.

            Why didn’t I bother posting links? This is the Internet. Most people’s views about sexuality are not rational and they are not based on science – they are based on ideology and emotion – and that applies to the people who are spouting the “born this way” myth, the homosexual gene or epigenetics myth, and claiming to be “scientific.” Most requests for links to prove something are just trolling, they are best ignored.

            If you want to read more, here’s a page:
            http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/not-born-lgbt/

            You can always read NARTH (narth.com)

            Or you can continue saying science is opinion every time you read science that challenges your beliefs.

          • Josh

            If what you wrote is science, show your references, cite your sources, provide the research, give links to the actual study conducted to reach that conclusion.

            Attempting to act humble and cordial here isn’t doing much. The gibberish you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with science. Taking your time to write out something that reads well enough doesn’t constitute science. Twisting existing science to suit your purposes isn’t science. It’s like creationists rewriting scripture due to geology and biology. They ride on the backs of people who put in the blood, sweat and tears and simply shove their ideas on top of it all, and have the audacity to say it’s science.

            Science is a method. It starts with a question, stretches out to a hypothesis, undergoes testing to prove/disprove the hypothesis, and is then measured, reviewed and ultimately published if the findings show to be accurate. Viola, a theory.

            If what you typed was scientific, then there would be plenty of sources to cite. Even reading your own anti-gay blog that you linked to, I only see links to other articles that offer opinions and question existing studies without conducting their own.

            I suppose I will keep saying what you call “science” is an opinion until I see some actual research that was conducted.

            The developmental matrix has been well studied and documented. That paraphilias aren’t inborn is well studied and documented. That environmental factors play a role in any human’s development is well studied and documented.

            But deciding to piggyback on existing theories to lump homosexuality in with paraphilias is pure opinion to support a presupposition.

            What you’re lacking is objectivity — the most important factor in science.

            All that aside, though: I knew I recognized the rhetoric. Damn if I wasn’t right on the money. A conversion website. LOL!

            In all sincerity, Merry Christmas to you and yours.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I only see links to other articles that offer opinions and question existing studies without conducting their own.
            ==============
            Told you! You are completely predictable. Another fine example that most people base their thinking about sexuality on emotion and ideology, but not science. You, like all trolls on the Internet, ask for sources and then refuse to read them.

            “What you’re lacking is objectivity — the most important factor in science. ”

            You’re repeating your false claim, but you’re incapable of supporting it with any scientific knowledge.

            Since you don’t even know what science is, you can’t know what objectivity is, so you’re still faltering in making a claim that what I wrote isn’t science. But don’t let that stop you. In your irrational mind, the fact that you are *ignorant* about science makes you an *expert* about the science of psychology and everything else – of course. Humor us with your demented notions of your superiority!

            If you ever grow up, you might find out that your refusal to read about knowledge that challenges your dogmas is your biggest intellectual defect in life.

            Hopefully though, you will stay away from science. People who can’t re-evaluate their beliefs like yourself make the dumbest and most corrupt scientists, and we have enough of those!

            Have fun staying stuck with your non-scientific beliefs and opinions. And thinking you know it all with your eugenics propaganda about homosexuality! I love when dumb people think they are extremely knowledgeable and superior in their thinking.

            “Damn if I wasn’t right on the money.”!!! LOL

          • Sheila Warner

            “Science is a method. It starts with a question, stretches out to a hypothesis, undergoes testing to prove/disprove the hypothesis, and is then measured, reviewed and ultimately published if the findings show to be accurate. Viola, a theory”

            That, my dear, is the very definition of the scientific method. Josh knows exactly what true science is. And, he is, like others here, trying to help you out. You spend your time trying to find ways to up the ante with ad hominem attacks.

            Did you ever look up the definition of ad hominem? I believe I suggested it before, and I’ll do so again here.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            The funny thing is, you and Josh are too stupid to acknowledge that plenty of people publish scientific findings when they aren’t accurate. In fact, a lot of the history of published science consists of science that is not only inaccurate, but spectacularly wrong, false, and misleading. And all of that is covered by the term science. You need to be very dumb not to realize this, but that’s you and Josh!

            For example, every single study that has tried to prove a biological root determination for having a homosexuality problem has been shown to be wrong and false upon review. Wrong science is still science.

            “Taking your time to write out something that reads well enough doesn’t constitute science. ”

            And I hadn’t even seen this! LOLOL When he is too stupid to prove with science that anything I have written is wrong, Josh claims it’s not science! Because his *unscientific* ignorance says so!

            Yes, science is a method. And Josh and you are incapable of applying it. And that’s why I’m pointing out how dumb you both are. Not only that, there’s the funny part of being too stupid to discern between doing science and publishing science!

            “But deciding to piggyback on existing theories to lump homosexuality in
            with paraphilias is pure opinion to support a presupposition. ”

            This is an unscientific opinion, Josh’s unscientific opinion. Furthermore, it is exactly “pure opinion to support a presupposition” – his own presupposition. It is his unscientific opinion that Josh uses to support his claim that my claim is wrong. Josh is the perfect example of everything he points out as a problem of lack of scientific basis.

            You are Josh are too stupid to understand that, given that you are both incapable of doing and knowing science, you both fail to use the scientific method to prove any of your claims. Yet you claim that science is the arbiter of truth. As it’s plain to see, you both fail spectacularly to apply the very science you most stupidly claim 1) to know, 2) is the basis for your “superior” unscientific thinking.

            “Did you ever look up the definition of ad hominem?”

            Now, now, don’t be so upset simply because I’m pointing out how stupid you are. Raise your intellectual level (LOL as if that were a possibility) and I wouldn’t need to do so.

          • Josh

            There have been countless scientific experiments and theories and hoaxes that have been proven wrong, and many more to come.

            Maybe that’s a proud platform for you to stand on and beat your chest, but people who are actually familiar with how science works just scratch their heads and say “Yeah, and?”

            After all, what proves science wrong?

            Answer: Better science!

            That’s why science works. It’s exactly why it works. If there’s fault in something, it will be snuffed out by others using better technology, increased understanding and the science method in order to fix it.

            What you’re offering up is nothing but a mere opinion. And the proof is right there in what you write and what you link. It’s opinion after opinion.

            Previous studies on homosexuality–on anything–that were proven wrong were proven wrong by better science.

            You know what has never proved a scientific study of finding wrong? Opinion!

            Not once in history has someone said “That’s wrong” and had their opinion prove it wrong! Someone might say “That’s wrong” and it ends up being wrong, but there’s a method to showing that something is right/wrong, and having an opinion is the first step of many, not the only and final step. Did they even teach science where you went to school? Earth science, biology, chemistry — anything? (I’m guessing home-school, or school back in the 50s/60; not an insult, just my guess.)

            No need to grandstand of some things being wrong. Nothing is proven to an absolute in science. In fact, “proof/prove” is merely colloquial. Gravitational theory isn’t “proven,” even though we don’t float away. Tectonic theory hasn’t been “proven,” even though continental drift is observed and earthquakes occur with incredible frequency. Heliocentrism isn’t “proven,” even though we observe objects orbiting a (somewhat) stationary star. A theory is akin to a physical law, in the sense that it’s an observation — most likely the best observation made per the method. If that observation changes, the theory changes.

            But at least some people take steps to reach their conclusions, even if some end up being disproved with better science. All you’re doing here is using the fact that science doesn’t get everything right all the time as an excuse to shove your bigoted opinions down people’s throats as pure fact.

            You also approach the subject with no objectivity whatsoever. You seem to believe that “science” is a shouting match of opinions, and if you can fit “you’re stupid” or “you’re ignorant” into your replies often enough, then you….win? I’d believe you were a troll if I didn’t know nutter literalist gay-bashers in real life whom all seem to share eerily similar traits with you.

            Don’t get it twisted. I’m not refusing to look at your sources. I looked at a few different posts on that blog and traced the links back a few steps. Not one time did I ever see anything that listed a scientific source: a study, a peer-reviewed organization or journal, or anything of the sort. All I seen were different people offering their opinions.

            Is there more? Serious question. Because that’s all I witnessed on the entire blog and in my Skyrim-like click-through expedition: Opinions which linked to and/or mentioned other opinions as sources. It may as well say “Joe thinks this” while Joe gives a link to “Here’s what Jim says” linking back to “Read what Joe says about it.”

            Maybe this is something that’s par for the course with religious fundamentalists and Biblical literalists. Since it’s mere say-so that etches something in stone, the fringe believes that’s how everything works. Say it’s true, call it science, and attack anyone who challenges it.

            You are quite literally piggybacking your opinion on existing science for legitimacy. That is not an opinion of mine; that is a statement of fact which can be definitively shown by tracing your literature on the subject back to the different things you cite and ultimately conflate.

            It’s absolutely no different from a creationist who uses geology and a formation like the Grand Canyon to “prove” it was caused by a flood. They hijack the science and something that exists, overwrite it with their opinion (always a presupposition), and then still claim it’s science. It’s like I’m talking to an unfiltered version of Eric Hovind, minus the legions of followers with their credit cards ready to go for the next installment of Proof the Earth is 3,000 Years Old. But wait, that’s not all. Order now and receive a free gift: Signs Fulfilled: The End Times are Now.

            You calling me stupid is something I can be proud of.

          • Sheila Warner

            LOL. You think calling me stupid was the reason I mentioned the whole ad hominem thing? You kind of glossed over the whole murderer-sleeps-with-dead-dogs thing, which you repeated often. But, as I said, I forgave you, this whole thread is boring now, as it has been beaten to death. Feel free to have the last word. I don’t need it, and I am moving on from this topic.

          • Josh

            “Eugenics propaganda” — was that aimed at me? Not even sure what that’s referring to. Maybe you meant to type “epigenetics.”

            ….

            I said what you wrote read like it was from a conversion camp website. Then you linked a conversion camp website.

            I’m not superior. Your ilk are just a lot more predictable than you realize. You’re a cult. You give religion and religious people a very bad name. You’re exactly the type of people who held literal witch-hunts and murdered years ago. If it were legal to dispose of homosexuals, you would be foaming at the mouth to watch as your cult leaders carried out the good work. You’re the Phelps’ with a word processor program.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Josh said: You’re exactly the type of people who held literal witch-hunts and murdered years ago.
            ===========
            Funny, because quite often on my blog I highlight an endless number of cases of how people with your ideology are raping, molesting, sexually harassing, and murdering today. LGBTs are doing millions of acts of harm and violence today -mostly with impunity- and have been doing them for as long as they have existed.
            You’re exactly the type of person who’s engaged in witch hunts today, and works very hard at smearing decent people.

            “conversion camp website”
            LOL!! cute trolling – but more of your horsefeathers.

            “”Eugenics propaganda” — was that aimed at me?”
            Yes – it’s OK if it went right over your head.

            “You’re the Phelps’ with a word processor program.”

            You know that recently I asked myself the question of who does more violence and harm in society – is it liberals (and especially LGBTs) or is it the Westboro BC? Here’s an excerpt of the answer:

            The answer is clearly liberals (including LGBTs). In the US alone, there are millions and millions of liberals perpetrating all kinds of violent and non-violent crime in the area of sexuality and relationships– and they all believe that homosexuality is normal. LGBTs in particular compose the group that does the most violence to other LGBTs, and that’s when they are not doing harm and violence to heterosexuals (including children and adolescents).

            The Westboro folks, on the other hand, as far as has been reported, do basically no violence and no crime. Where have you seen a Westboro member sexually harass someone of the same sex? Or commit date rape? Or produce child porn? Nowhere. But you can find plenty of liberals (including LGBTs) who think homosexuality is normal who constantly do all these horrible crimes and many other harmful acts.

            Given this striking difference, which group do liberals consider as good, ideologically normal, middle-of-the-road – that is, non-extremist? The group that contains millions of violent and degenerate individuals, and who share a particular ideology that normalizes homosexuality, among other warped ideas! Very curiously, the group that does no crime or violence is framed and demonized as evil and extremist.

            Interesting, isn’t it?

            http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/who-does-more-violence-in-society-and-is-the-most-extremist-liberals-including-lgbts-or-the-westboro-folks/

          • Josh

            So, basically, the LGBT community is pedophiles and sickos, comprised of all liberals, normalized by all liberals, and are a threat to society. Where on the other hand, the Phelps’ don’t hurt anyone.

            Good to know.

            And, yes, the “eugenics” bit went right over my head. No clue how “eugenics” plays into anything I’ve said ever on this blog. Though working through that twisted maze of misfiring neurons in your skull, where liberals and gay pedophiles are ruining society, and where you instantly gave me my ideology after one innocuous comment above, I imagine I’m a worse-than-Hitler, Obama-loving, communism-revering sicko pervert who’s coming after your freedoms, your children, and who wants to create a master race through selective genetic breeding where your DNA is not wanted. Oh, yeah — and who wants everyone to be a member of the LGBT community.

            I thought your ilk were usually phoning the National Enquirer about UFO sightings or seeing Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich. Slow week?

            If eugenics were to become a reality, rest assured that the well-born of the new world would not be derived from you or the other hateful simpletons. So while I’m far from a eugenicist, I can see it having an upside.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            So, basically, the LGBT community is pedophiles and sickos, comprised of all liberals, normalized by all liberals, and are a threat to society.

            ===============

            You don’t think that liberals sexually harassing, molesting, raping, and spreading STDs are a threat to society? Especially when they commit millions of such acts?

            I guess not. Let’s see, what in your view is a “threat to society”? A person who says that homosexuality is warped.

            With people like you around, it’s no wonder millions of liberals are commiting all kinds of crimes and doing all kinds of harm in society with impunity.

          • Josh

            “You don’t think that liberals sexually harassing, molesting, raping, and
            spreading STDs are a threat to society? Especially when they commit
            millions of such acts?”

            I don’t think being “liberal” has anything to do with anything other than your obvious extreme biases. You are single-handedly the most hateful person I have encountered on this blog, and you’re incredibly proud of it.

            By your standard, which is documented repeatedly here and said clearer and clearer each time, only “liberals” are bad people in the first place.

            If someone sexually harasses, they’re a liberal. If someone molests, they’re a liberal. If someone spreads STDs, they’re a liberal. If someone is lesbian, gay, bi or trans, they’re a liberal. If someone–even a professed right-wing Christian–has a live-and-let-live attitude, they’re a liberal. If someone disagrees with you, they’re a liberal. And liberals are purposefully harming society and trying to ruin the world.

            It’s like you can’t help but conflating everything you have prejudice against into a giant boogeyman. I’ve met people who were raised in religious compounds who weren’t as warped.

            The most prolific normalizer and apologist of molestation on the planet is the Catholic Church. They’re about as liberal as the grass is pink.

            But get those liberals! They’re everywhere. One might even be cutting your meat at the butcher’s or bagging your groceries. Yuck! Imagine that — touching something a gay pedophile pervert liberal has touched. Sure hope it don’t rub off.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            By your standard, which is documented repeatedly here and said clearer
            and clearer each time, only “liberals” are bad people in the first
            place.
            ================

            Never mind that I never said or thought this. Your little witch hunt must go on! Any distortion, and the greater the distortion of what I actually wrote, the better the witch hunt. I mean, if you haven’t any real arguments to what I have written, just distort it all into your crony “h8ter” nonsense. When you say “hateful,” it just means I am exposing how ridiculous your way of thinking is and that this makes you very upset..

          • Josh

            Those exact words? Nah. But semantics won’t help here; that is the inference anyone who isn’t ideologically simpatico yet still bothers to read your hogwash inevitably reaches.

            It’s implied–and often outright stated–all throughout your rhetoric that you despise anyone different, hold the LGBT community as sicko criminals, and lump together everything you find wrong into a ball of misshapen clay and call it “liberal.”

            “You don’t think that liberals sexually harassing, molesting, raping, and
            spreading STDs are a threat to society? Especially when they commit
            millions of such acts?”

            “Funny, because quite often on my blog I highlight an endless number of
            cases of how people with your ideology are raping, molesting, sexually
            harassing, and murdering today. LGBTs are doing millions of acts of harm
            and violence today -mostly with impunity- and have been doing them for
            as long as they have existed.”

            “The answer is clearly liberals (including LGBTs). In the US alone, there
            are millions and millions of liberals perpetrating all kinds of violent
            and non-violent crime in the area of sexuality and relationships– and
            they all believe that homosexuality is normal. LGBTs in particular
            compose the group that does the most violence to other LGBTs, and that’s
            when they are not doing harm and violence to heterosexuals (including
            children and adolescents).”

            “I called you a pervert because it seems you are intent on normalizing homosexuality – again, more of your ignorance.”

            That’s from about only 10 seconds of glancing upward in this particular exchange. A treasure trove of nonsense if one were to search the entire comments section and follow your blog trail.

            LGBT are pedo perverts, liberals are bad people, disagreeing with you makes someone a perverted pedo anything-goes liberal. Liberals are destroying society. If it’s LGBT, it’s liberal, and it’s bad.

            ……

            I call you hateful because not only do you lump gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered people in with pedophiles, but you also flame any and everyone as an ignorant pervert if they so much as ask you for evidence to back those outlandish statements.

            As to being upset: Maybe if it were 1913 and fundamentalists had any semblance of power. As it stands now, you’re part of an ever-shrinking minority of hateful bigots.

            It’s not that the liberals are taking over. It’s that your ilk are dwindling. Save keeping your children locked away in fear, a healthy percentage step out into the real world and see with their own eyes that the crap their elders spouted is nonsense on par with Santa’s coal lumps. Some end up good, decent people who still believe in Jesus and still live righteous lives (see Sheila). Others end up escaping religion’s grasp altogether (me). And then there’s those poor few who are unable to shake the bronze age ramblings of the bigots. Though every generation there’s far fewer of the latter.

            So what do I have to be upset about? My grandchildren will inhabit a better world than I do, and it’s because there will be fewer of you. Following history, fundamentalist influence has been drastically shrinking in modern societies. So, sorry, America isn’t going to become Iran. And I ain’t the least bit mad about people who spout nonsense on the Internet because they want it to be.

            You’re harmless. Angry, bitter, hateful and quite tragic, but completely harmless.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Josh (Guest):
            “It’s implied–and often outright stated–all throughout your rhetoric that you despise anyone different, hold the LGBT community as sicko criminals, and lump together everything you find wrong into a ball of misshapen clay and call it “liberal.” ”

            That’s very nice for a witch hunt. However, the people I despise are the ones who are unethical and doing harm, or who have a variety of other qualities that warrant being despised. And these are the people you admire. Contrary to your nonsense, I don’t despise just anyone who is different in any way. I despise people who are not only different but who who do harm, who promote destructive and harmful ideologies, etc..

            The LGBTPESM “community” is a collection of dysfunctional and perverted individuals. I’ve added Pedophiles, Ephebophiles, and S&Mers – it makes more sense. It’s your mistake not to recognize that homosexuality is deformed and dysfunctional.

            The positions you hold and the agenda you promote can be quite generally called “liberal.” You staunchly endorse a series of positions on sexuality and relationships which is in opposition to the general “social conservative” positions. For Internet talk, using “liberal” and “socon” is just fine.

            “You don’t think that liberals sexually harassing, molesting, raping, and spreading STDs are a threat to society? Especially when they commit millions of such acts?”

            It seems Josh doesn’t like to face how much violence and harm liberals do in society. Why is that? Where are your ethics? Nowhere to be seen.

            “you also flame any and everyone as an ignorant pervert”

            Because your views, attitudes, and possibly behaviors concerning sexuality and relationships are perverted.

            Just like you flame me as hateful, horrible, whatever, when I question your claim to not having perverted views.

            “You’re harmless.”

            Of course I’m harmless. I’m a decent, wonderful, committed person promoting a responsible and wholesome set of views regarding sexuality and relationships. Liberals (including LGBTPESMs), on the other hand, are not only harmless, they are doing tremendous harm and violence in society. While liberals aren’t the only ones, they are the ones whose harm you systematically lie about. Thus the need to specifically focus on the harm that Liberals (including LGBTPESMs) do.

          • Josh

            I suppose I’ll take your word for it that when you typed “eugenics” you really had some point and didn’t simply misread “epigenetics.” I make typos like they’re going out of style, so I can’t bust your chops too hard there.

            However, here’s a typo I can’t let slide:

            “I’m a decent, wonderful, committed person promoting a responsible and
            wholesome set of views regarding sexuality and relationships.”

            Should read: “I’m a decent, wonderful person who should be committed.”

            Better?

            Better.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            In your view, liberals, which include millions of violent and perverted people -doing harm and violence mostly with impunity- are not crazy. And people who are decent, wonderful, committed, and promoting a responsible and wholesome set of views regarding sexuality and relationships are crazy.

            Who should be committed?

          • Sheila Warner

            Being decent includes watching what and how you communicate to people. Decency means respectful discourse, even with people that disagree with you. Inflammatory words are not a good way to engage, and will never be persuasive. If you want to draw people to your religion, you need to be nicer.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            It takes a lot of asininity to think I’m trying to draw anyone to any religion. I’m pointing out what’s wrong with your homosexuality agenda.
            As for the issue of “respectful discourse,” it’s been addressed here:

            Duck Dynasty: Freedom of speech, civil discourse, and reality clashes
            http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/duck-dynasty-freedom-of-speech-civil-discourse-and-reality-clashes/

          • Sheila Warner

            “It takes a lot of asininity to think I’m trying to draw anyone to any religion.”

            I rest my case.

          • Josh

            Some folks are just that grumpy old person on their porch that you can’t say hello to. And don’t ever let the ball go over their fence! No matter how many casseroles the neighborhood brings by, or how many BBQs they’re invited to, they still sit there, fuming over everything, and cuss the dogsh1t out of anyone to even offer a welcoming word.

            We just called those people crazy when I was a kid. Though, now that I’m older, I wonder if they were these nutso fundamentalists who didn’t like the “harlots” in shorts and t-shirts or the fathers who drank or the mothers who played bingo or the kids who smoked?

            Seeing your cordial, measured reply met with hostility and crassness just gave me some serious flashbacks. Now I’m rethinking all those grouches I’ve encountered and I’m wondering if they were passing that old good book judgment on us before saying grace and eating alone.

          • Sheila Warner

            It’s possible. There are some people who are just plan mean all the time, too. Sorry she gave you flashbacks.

          • Sheila Warner

            I meant just plain mean.

          • Josh

            “In your view, liberals, which include millions of violent and perverted
            people -doing harm and violence mostly with impunity- are not crazy.”

            What I initially wanted was for you to keep on giving me my ideology, comment after comment, so I could continue to get a good chuckle in about how wrong you are each time you make an assumption about ME simply because I don’t agree with YOU. But, as it stands, this exchange is tedious to return to time and again.

            I’m not a liberal. I don’t excuse “harm and violence” from anyone. But two things:

            1) Being gay, lesbian, bi or trans isn’t harming anyone or committing violence against anyone. The Bible lists literally hundreds upon hundreds of sins and infractions against God. Yet your blog is an anti-gay smear forum and leaves the other hundreds alone. So your agenda is obvious, and obviously not my agenda, and my not thinking a gay person is a pervert doesn’t make me a pervert, an enabler, an apologist, or anything else other than someone who minds his business and doesn’t feel it’s his place to judge people based on which gender they fiddle with.

            I would say that you should leave that between them and your God, but we both know it’s not about religion in the end. That’s just your justification to hate. Like all those proclaimed “good Christians” who were using that Ham nonsense to hold blacks as lesser-thans and enslave, rape, beat, torture, mutilate and oppress them for centuries. The only difference is that there’s not enough of you anymore to do that. And that’s the real issue.

            2) People who harm and who commit violence don’t necessarily do so BECAUSE they’re liberal or BECAUSE they’re gay.

            Then again, we greatly disagree on “harm,” most likely, and for the “violence” bit, I’m sure you and your hate-haven of a blog love finding someone who committed a crime while LGBT or liberal just so you can shout, “SEE! Told ya so! All the same.”

            Modern nutzoid feminists don’t even stoop so low. They could easily find a wife-beating man and attribute spousal abuse to all men. But not even those hacks feel comfortable making such a conflation. Though when it’s a gay-basher–and, worse, one who clings to religion as their justification–finding someone who has committed a criminal act while being LGBT instantly means it’s because they were LGBT.

            So, to recap: Liberals are harming society; LGBT are sick, twisted and not born that way – they choose it; LGBT are perverts enabled by liberals; LGBT and liberals (as if there’s a difference at this point) are committing harmful, violent acts by the millions with impunity; I’m a liberal pervert who agrees with the liberal pervert enablers; you’re just an honest, decent person promoting wholesome values, not hate.

            Got it.

            If you need it, have it.

          • Sheila Warner

            I had a good laugh, then sighed and gave up. I forgave her for what she said about me. By the time I realized discussion with her is pointless, she had referred to me as a murderer who sleeps with dead dogs. Nice.

          • Sheila Warner

            I appreciate the comment but I’m not righteous. Just a follower of Jesus who is trying to live out the law of unconditional love for each person. Each person has inherent dignity, and I don’t want to do anything that wounds anyone’s dignity. Not every single Christian is like Allessandra.

          • Josh

            The good news is that it’s easy to spot the bad ones of any group. And, of course, it’s ridiculously easy to spot the fanatical religious zealots. Though I’m not on the believer team, my family, many of my friends, and probably most of the people I’ve met throughout my life have been religious — Christians, Jews and Muslims mainly. And while I have met the Alessandras of the world far too often, they make up only the fringe of believers.

            There are undoubtedly many believers who believe that being gay is a sin. Yet they don’t extend their judgment to include calling them criminals, pedophiles, sicko perverts, and claim that they’re harming the world and that they need help.

            The fringe is quite a frightening element in this society. I’m glad they’re dwindling, and I’m definitely glad that it’s not only the non-religious attempting to stave them off.

          • Sheila Warner

            You’re not alone. I, too, have asked for proof of some of the more provocative comments from her. I have been called “obnoxious”, “stupid”, and someone who “hates decency” because I challenged a view. I actually have some sources within the scientific community, as well as within the Christian community, which tend to cast doubt on her ideas. But she seems unable to have an adult conversation. Facts are ignored. I even had her accuse me of misquoting her, even after I quoted her own words back to her. You just can’t win with these types of people. She fascinates me because she’s using some buzz words I never heard of, and I was raised by Fundies. This whole affluent dominance thing. It must be some type of talking points that she has gotten from somewhere. I know I will eventually go check it out for myself. It’s always better to be well armed when you enter the arena of public debate.

          • Josh

            I can see not having sources for an actual opinion. I was in a “debate” with a guy here last month who demanded, in multiple 500-word responses, that I prove my opinion that non-conservatives view the conservative fringe as scary and thus don’t want to put up or vote for a hardline conservative.

            That’s just my opinion. My sources are my experience, yet it wasn’t good enough. They needed to be proven, which is incredibly odd. Still puzzles me.

            But anyway, it’s a lot different if you go and state something as a matter of fact; i.e. homosexuality is like pedophilia, develops as you age, can be cured, etc.

            If it’s qualified with “In my opinion” or “I think,” then okay. I disagree, but to each their own. But I just can’t stop laughing over here at someone who states something as a matter of absolute truth and then insults every single person who asks for evidence of those absolute claims.

            Methinks skoolin were in short supply.

            My pops used to say that stupid people are never quite smart enough to figure out that they’re stupid. And I don’t want to roll in the muck too much, but I think that’s beginning to look more and more like a fact.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      Did he know GQ was a gay magazine? I mean not Details or The Advocate, but still.

  • Nicholas344

    Bernie, you’ve never experienced Christianity. As such you can never appreciate why anyone would like Simone Weil. How could anyone with modern day secular sophistication understand why such a highly regarded brilliant atheist and Marxist admired by Leon Trotsky could die a Christian mystic and become an intellectual influence on Pope Paul VI. How could Albert Camus possibly call Simone the “only great mind of our times.” This would be absurd for you because she never heard of you or O’Reilly.
    You condemn Phil as ignorant and dangerous with the same mindset as used in the Salem Witch trials. You condemn through ignorance which for me is far more dangerous than anything Phil said. You lack the humility to say “I don’t know.”
    You have become one of those who value supporting a convenient lie over those honestly seeking experiential truth. You prefer to rant without any conception of what you lose from this attitude. There but for the grace of God go I.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      Be sure and pray for him.

  • Big Bob

    I think Bernie stepped over the line by opining on Phil’s sanity. The point is simply that Phil has the right to state his opinion. A&E has the right not to endorse it. Nobody forced Phil to have a TV show, and nobody guaranteed him a right to have a show. So feel free to speak your mind. Just don’t do it in someone else’s business.

    As for Sarah Palin, she’s already proven herself to be a hypocritical quitter. And that’s not opinion, it’s fact. Just ask the good folks in Alaska who voted her in for a 4 year term. She bailed on them.

    • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

      No one asked A&E to endorse Phil’s opinion, least of all Phil. He did not express those views on A&E. He expressed them in the context of an entirely separate interview with a magazine. He was asked a question, and he responded.

      Nor did he personally and viciously take the opportunity to attack any individual. His comments were made in the context of his beliefs. And all he really did was to ask a few rhetorical questions.

      The gratuitous attack on Sarah Palin by Martin Bashir, however, was launched by Bashir on MSNBC and for that reason they finally felt compelled to “allow him to leave” because of the intensity of public pressure that was brought to bear as a result of the attack.

      Expressing such loathsome and juvenile views on their station by one of the very commentators they had hired to publicly express views, impliedly suggested that the network was endorsing those views by having allowed him to spit such venom under the umbrella of their media protection.

      Finally, your personal attack on Sarah Palin — calling her a “hypocritical quitter” — was likewise gratuitous, and I might add, inapposite to the context of this discussion. You just couldn’t resist the opportunity to throw a little mud so you did. Just like Martin.

      • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

        Such an old dead riff. When someone asks you to run for a higher office, thinking your nation needs you, leaving some other position is not simply quitting.

        • JMax

          She quit long after the campaign ended.

          • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

            In order to make his “point” Bruceneeded the truth to be what he wanted it to be, not what it was.

    • AbdullahtheButcher

      One: How did Phil speaking his mind “do it in someone else’s business”?

      Two: It’s easy for you to criticize Palin’s decision, because you probably weren’t barraged by a never ending barrage of bogus lawsuits that risked bankrupting you and your family.

    • Jeff Webb

      Did Hillary Clinton finish her second term?

    • Integrity

      I voted for Palin. Actually, Sarah Palin’s resignation was a good thing for the State of Alaska. Her notoriety and the left wing’s infatuation with her was adversely impacting her ability to conduct the State’s business. She and the State of Alaska were subjected to numerous lawsuits that were funded by left wing groups. Since their real intention was the personal destruction of Governor Palin, they had no business inserting themselves into Alaska affairs. Her resignation ended that and now the State of Alaska is better off for it. Some Alaskans agree with your talking points, but many more Alaskans do not. QED

  • Kathie Ampela

    Getting lost in all of this is how bad cable television has become. I put on Duck Dynasty a few months ago to see what the fuss was all about and I found it utterly unwatchable. America has been lost to 27 year old cable TV executives who put programming on the air like “Storage Wars”, “The Dirt”, “Amish Mafia” “Sturgis Raw” and special interest groups like GLAAD who decide for us what’s offensive all for the really low price of $120 a month (and that’s the CHEAPER package)There’s no history on the History Channel and no arts and entertainment on A&E. How about a contest where the viewer can design their own TV show? Doesn’t anybody make FICTIONAL TV anymore, I’d rather watch reruns of soap operas from the 80’s like General Hospital than half the crap on cable TV. Seinfeld’s show about nothing has been taken to a new level of nothingness. Merry Christmas and enjoy the vaccum!

    • Just Sayin’

      Well said! Too many channels create a vacuum into which something must flow. And mostly trash… Agree with you that we pay a lot for the handful of programs we end up watching, including old westerns like Gunsmoke.. No swearing, no double entendres… just a lot of good old killin’ the bad guys and drinkin’ at the Long Branch!

    • LAPhil

      Excellent points, Kathie, I couldn’t agree more. TV really has become so much garbage, particularly with these so-called “reality shows” which are usually anything but. I’ve never watched Duck Dynasty and probably never will because it’s just not my cup of tea. But whatever floats your boat, so to all those who like it I say enjoy it.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      HBO and Showtime are good, though their comedy and drama all have “liberal” biases. You might like Animal Planet.

      • Kathie Ampela

        I think the kind of shows which require real talent like writers, actors, directors, etc are too expensive, reality shows are cheaper to produce all the while the consumer pays high subscription fees. Liberal slant in Hollywood for years by Norman Lear and the like killed off a lot of interest in fictional TV which gave birth to the vast wasteland of Reality TV we see now. My favorite channels right now are Travel Channel and HGTV, I like some Investigation Discovery but even they have become so ridiculously over the top with “Wives with Knives” “Deadly Women” etc.

        • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

          With reality TV you don’t have to worry about a writer’s strike.

  • tomwinfield77

    You say Phil’s views from the Bible are ugly and mean spirited? Bernie, God’s view is that the Bible expresses His truth to us. Phil was asked what he believes about homosexuals in a GQ magazine interview. He answered it peaceably. This was not a rant. Now you call him an ignoramos. You accuse him of gay bashing. (He did seem to go a bit too far.) You object to what the apostle Paul told the Corinthians. Your war, Bernie, is not with Phil but with God, His son, and His New Testament. I pray (in the name of Jesus) that God will work to open your heart to see the only way that He has provided for our salvation–by believing in His son, who died on the cross to pay for our sins. And to see that the Bible contains God’s message to us, preserved down through the ages. It is this Bible that tells us that if we abandon ourselves to a lifestyle of sin, we “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That is not gay bashing. That is the way it will be. We only want homosexuals to know the Truth that God speaks to us from His Bible. Ugly? No. Mean spirited? No. The Truth? Yes.

    • Keith

      Well said, my young padawon.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      I’m getting that a copy of God’s commentary on the Bible for Christmas.

  • thomas1

    Probably showing my colors, but the right to be stupid is not God-given. I do agree with your general assessment, Bernie. O’Reilly believes secularism is destroying this nation. How do you analyze that when Christians are running Washington and Wall Street? Sorry, forgot about Hollywood.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      That whole parable of the talents does seem to argue against a (moral) right to be stupid.

  • jaketinback

    Goldberg is a first class Jack A$$ who is a has been hack.

    • Keith

      His opinion is different from ours, but don’t call him a jackass. Wrong, misguided, absolutely. He’s been wrong on the homosexual issue before. He believes that the first amendment should not apply to the public market place. A dangerous stand for sure. He believes that thinking homosexuality is sin is an indication of stupidity. He’s wrong, but insulting him doesn’t advance anything.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      Is that as bad as bestiality?

  • docjake

    Friday Fright Night The O’Reilly Factor was joined by Bernie Goldberg and Howard Kurtz to tackle the Duck Dynasty controversy. While Howard Kurtz maintained the politically correct pabulum of “I disagree but Phil Robertson has a right to say what he said.” Kurtz also pointed out that people who condemned Martin Bashir 24/7 can’t just turn around and say it’s plain wrong to yank someone off the air for offensive remarks they made. But the cowardly Kurtz failed to recognize the difference between Bashir wishing a pornography of violence on Sarah Palin, while no such pronouncements were made by Phil Robertson who expressed his religious point of view. If Kurtz is too ignorant to see the difference between these two, then perhaps he should be relieved of his duties as a media critic.

    Next up was Bernie Goldberg who has ignited a firestorm by telling O’Reilly and all of us what he really thought of the “right” and “Christians.” Goldberg wasn’t happy with just disagreeing with Phil Robertson’s religious views. No, Goldberg pretended to chide liberals with a spit wad shooter for defending Miley Cyrus, a minor bit-player in entertainment, but at 5:22 in the video he pulled the nuclear trigger on the right and especially Christians who Goldberg says are inanely disposed to “reflexively defend ignorance.”

    Not happy with just insulting 90 million evangelicals in America, Goldberg went on to say that one billion Christians world-wide are following a religion who’s God, Jesus and the Bible are ignorant. Goldberg posited that in his response to the Duck Dynasty issue that “the non-Bible people have a stronger point,”because while he’s able to respect an individual’s religious beliefs, he says “I don’t respect people believing things that are ignorant just because there’s ignorance in the Bible.” In other words, the basis of all Christianity is in the end, ignorance.

    Goldberg then unleashed a tirade against Biblical creation, saying, that Christians are ignorant because they believe that the earth is six thousand years old. Goldberg insisted that the earth is 40 billion years old and if you disagree, you are ignorant.

    Unfortunately for Mr. GoldBerg, science doesn’t agree with him either, which apparently makes them ignorant as well. Estimates range from 40 billion years all the way to 400 billion years of age by evolutionary scientists who have struggled to grapple with the problem that Carbon-14 dating is no more accurate than a blind man guessing the weight of the moon by looking at it. A large body of scientists now question the big bang model and the entire evolutionary concept in favor of a less ignorant “intelligent design” model. That due, in large part, to the fissile record, the laws of confusion caused by the fact physics and quantum mechanics contradict each other; compounded by the little problem created when one simple question is asked, “Where did the mass and energy to set off the big bang come from?”

    Apparently, Goldberg, who is obviously is ignorant in the latest in scientific evolutionary theory, has now decided that Christianity should be abolished because God, Jesus, and the Bible are ignorant and therefore it follows that Christianity is ignorant, and according to Goldberg, ignorance should not be defended.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      I think you are the first person I’ve read who noted that Bashir was (joining Sandra Bernhard – who later apologized, Letterman, Maher, and Margaret Cho, kind of, in) fantasizing about a sexual assault on Palin. While Robertson was just saying what he thought God was going to do in the hereafter.

      Not an irrelevant distinction.

      • JMax

        Bashir was not fantasizing about a sexual assault of Palin. Palin had compared the national debt to slavery. Bashir was suggesting that Palin had no clue about the horrors of slavery and should perhaps experience some of those horrors before making inane comparisons.

        • AbdullahtheButcher

          He basically said that someone should use her mouth as a toilet. That’s a bit more than just “suggesting that Palin had no clue about the horrors of slavery and should perhaps experience some of those horrors before making inane comparisons.” Also, she’s not the only person to make that comparison. The OWS crowd has done the same.

    • Keith

      A few minor problems, from a fellow believer…

      The earth is general accepted as 4.5 billion years old. The entire universe, 13.7 billion. Not 40. Carbon dating’s reputed unreliability is, I believe, lessened when other dating methods are used and similar results found.

      Note also that the order of creation, at least of life, in the Bible, is remarkably similar to evolution’s account: chaos, then land/oceans, plant life, sea life (but birds too), then land animals, then man. I do not believe that’s coincidence.

      Know, my friend, that the original Hebrew for the word “day” has four meanings: 24-hr period, any period within a day, (I forget the third), and any period of time. That last one is rather significant for my purposes here.

      When taking into account God’s incomprehensible vastness, is it so impossible to believe that He took out billions of years to create the universe? The universe is physically large on an unimaginable scale. Why not its age as well?

      But, that was not the point of your post, I know, nor is it of this editorial. Overall, I’d say your post was well-written. Bernie’s off-base here, big time. And it would not be the first time. I do agree with him though, that both sides of this culture war have selective outrage. We who genuinely believe in the 1st amendment need to amend our responses to antiChristian BS in the media. But, the pagan is in control of the western media now (with few outlets having conservative influence) and so we’re taking a lot of hypocritical hits from the same people who cried “If you don’t like it, change the channel” during the 1980s.

      Off topic a tad, I’d love to ask Bernie why it’s ignorant to believe that homosexuality is sin.

  • Just Sayin’

    I don’t mean to sound intellectually superior, because I am not. But I have found this fascination with Duck Dynasty totally ridiculous. It is really a sad statement about our culture and what Americans deem important. And this most recent brouhaha over gay comments by one of the actors is beyond belief as it has taken over the airwaves of talk radio and television, when more important issues are being ignored. Modern technology has provided us with hundreds of cable channels and thus the need to fill the time with something… and is this the best we can get? Sorry, friends, look in the mirror, turn off the TV and read a good book, get a hobby, do volunteer work… America deserves better than this.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      I’ve never actually seen the show, but I’m always amazed at which shows end up being big hits. lol. If people find something that entertains them, though, good for them.

    • floridahank

      My library has thousands of movies — all free of charge and I check out 4-5 at a time for the next few days viewing — some of the most entertaining are those made 10-15 yrs ago. Great stories great acting —
      also have exceptional PBS nature and world culture movies. So why in the world would I pay $$$ for the junk on TV? I also buy good books from our library’s used book dept. Most people are like sheep, follow the lead of not- to- intelligent “leaders” who brainwash the majority with trash and nonsense and get rich doing it. Well, they don’t get any of my $$$.

  • Ted Crawford

    WOW Goldberg with this bit of arrogence, and several from the past, I now understand why they display your picture in The Book of Definitions alongside the term Narcissistic Elitist! I’ve avoided your blog for a few months, believing that perhaps you were simply experiencing some kind of ‘spell’. Clearly that isn’t the case! You truly have an extremely narrow set of principles. Consisting mainly, it appears of:
    1) I’m right
    2) Any who disagree are, ignorant!
    You and Obama should get along perfectly, your ego’s being so similar!

  • RDG

    If I read it right, the Bible only groups homosexuality with the other behaviors mentioned in a list, that is connected only by the common thread of being “sinful”, not by one trait leading or being related to the others in any other way. So, if you believe the Bible literally, I guess you have to believe that gay behavior is a sin. So there are people overreacting to Robertson’s remarks. Some have claimed he equated being gay to being a terrorist. He didn’t. He mentioned a list, much as Paul did, of things he considered to be bad.

    On the other hand, I agree that those claiming that Robertson should not be held to account because we have free speech in America are wrong. Robertson has the right to say what he wants to say and A&E has the right to run their business as they see fit. That is not a violation of free speech. Conservatives need to learn to be consistent. It will give them more credibility.

    • Big Bob

      Amen to that!

    • Keith

      I agree. I believe this is an issue more of Left-wing/pagan bias in our news and entertainment media, not an one of constitutional breaches.

      This being a market-driven issue, people who otherwise watch A&E can decide to watch it still or turn it off.

      As a Christian, their treatment of Phil Robertson offends me, but I agree with you: it is their business right and I’d be hypocritical if I said that they should be legally stopped from doing what they did. We have enough of that coming from the other side.

    • Thewryobservator

      Accountable for what? Saying what he thought, telling the truth about what he thought when asked, and doing so in a venue outside A&E? A&E does have a right to run their business as they see fit and they are doing exactly that, yet I don’t see what that has to do with accountability. It is also true, that people have the right to protest the actions of a business when they take a course of action. No one said, or has done anything wrong -no matter where they reside on the political spectrum. The inconsistency would exists should someone pass a law that says that A&E cannot suspend someone for making remarks it doesn’t like. That is the sort of thing I see progressives doing – and they appear to direct their wrath in one direction, and one direction only. Perhaps they are about their father’s business. One thing that business seems to exclude is diversity of opinion.

      • RDG

        Yes. Accountable for saying what he thought & telling the truth about what he thought. What I said was, “…those claiming Robertson should not be held to account because we have free speech in America are wrong.” My point was that A&E has every right to do whatever they want with regard to somebody in their employ when he makes a public statement with which they take issue. Conservatives are outraged when Bill Maher says something unacceptable to them. They would be delighted if HBO said they don’t want his ilk representing them. A&E has every right to hold Robertson to account for what he says. To some extent, he represents them, or at the very least, is associated with them in a public way. I personally think A&E made a bad call. Bernie’s second suggestion, after he gave it some thought, was, in my opinion, the harshest they should have been. If they had just ignored it, there would have been a tempest in a teapot for a while, then the American people would be on to something else. But A&E has the right to hold him accountable. That is what you get to do when you write the checks.

    • Thewryobservator

      I get it. Good post.

  • brickman

    I usually disagree with some, if not most, of your posts. This one I agree with 98%. The point I will quibble with you is your professed weariness with the culture war. It’s the majority of what you talk and write about. How about refraining from the culture war for 3 months. We can all use the break.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      Lots of people are weary of what they do for a living.

  • Otto

    Bernie – I enjoy reading your books and columns as well as hearing you on O’Reilly because you have the ability to analyze and articulate your position clearly while pointing out the absurd. I believe you missed the mark here, however. Good analysis does not include name calling which is a sign of a weak argument. Phil Robertson is an ignoramus because he quoted scripture? You have the right to your religious beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that Robertson and all other Christians are all ignorant because we have our beliefs. Robertson plainly stated he was not judging anyone and that was a job only for God. He was pointing out (in response to a specific question I might add) the sin as stated in the Bible and not judging the sinner. In Christian doctrine we are all sinners and fall short of the Glory of God, needing His grace in order to reach Heaven. Our part is to try to resist sin and sincerely repent when we don’t. Robertson’s beliefs are not out of the mainstream of Christianity, and I think that is the key to this uproar. As for Martin Bashir, that is a totally different situation. Bashir and other hosts on MSNBC programming routinely disparage conservatives and Christians, and that is just par for the course. If may offend us, and we generally exercise our right not to watch that network; however, we don’t call for suspensions or firings across the board. It was only when he prepared remarks that advocated a vile assault on a particular person that the furor leading to his dismissal began.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Otto, What scripture was Phil quoting when he said that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God?

  • Harry Crook

    And Bernie, so do you!

  • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

    Bernie, you have completely missed the point.

    There is absolutely no equivalency between what Phil Robertson said and what Martin Bashir said.

    None whatsoever!

    Bashir launched his attack on the very network which employs him as a commentator. And he aimed his vile and reprehensible attack at a specific person.

    Robertson did neither. And if you can’t see the difference, then you have lost it.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      A lot of people seem to be missing Bernie’s point regarding the Robertson/Bashir comparison.

      Bernie’s not comparing their comments. He’s comparing people’s DEFENSE of their comments. There are many people who are justifying what Robertson said by saying “he was just saying what he honestly believed.”

      Bernie is merely pointing out how shallow that defense is, because Bashir was “just saying what he honestly believed”, yet no one used that as a defense of what he said.

      • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

        Nuts! What Bernie seems to be trying to do — and I believe unsuccessfully so — is to find a way to chide conservatives for condemning Bashir while at the same time defending Robertson.

        In my comment above, I just pointed out a huge difference between what the two said, and where they said it. But you didn’t address that, John. There was a world of difference.

        Bernie says he is growing “weary” of the culture war, apparently because he doesn’t want to be identified with the arguments of some of those who are on the “same side” of the divide.

        Well, I don’t agree with some of the arguments of many of those with whom I share some values. It has always been that way with me. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to walk away from the values I cherish . . . it just means I’m going to work at promoting those arguments that make sense and which serve to preserve or enhance those values.

        Even Bernie now admits that his initial reaction to what Robertson said was wrong. He initially said he would have suspended him.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          >>What Bernie seems to be trying to do — and I believe unsuccessfully so
          — is to find a way to chide conservatives for condemning Bashir while
          at the same time defending Robertson.

          I disagree. He’s merely pointing out that “he’s just saying what he honestly believes” isn’t always a valid defense of what someone says.

          >>In my comment above, I just pointed out a huge difference between what
          the two said, and where they said it. But you didn’t address that,
          John. There was a world of difference.

          I thought it went without saying. What Bashir said wasn’t the same as what Robertson said. Robertson wasn’t advocating for pooping in homosexuals’ mouths. That was never the comparison being made.

          >> Bernie says he is growing “weary” of the culture war, apparently because he doesn’t want to be identified with the arguments of some of those
          who are on the “same side” of the divide.

          I can’t blame him. I feel that way too at times.

          >>But that doesn’t mean I’m going to walk away from the values I cherish .

          Nor should you.

          >>it just means I’m going to work at promoting those arguments that make sense and which serve to preserve or enhance those values.

          I think that’s a good thing. That’s how I view things as well.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Here’s the irony? Most commentaters (conservatives) I heard on Basir weren’t actually screaming for his resignation. (at least not at first, mobs, who can predict them) What they were saying is that liberal comments got away with being over the top, while conservative comments were pilloried. Most conservatives are quite amenable to free speech, they’re simply against the media party’s double standard.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I agree.

          • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

            Actually, some, like Sean Hannity, say they are almost never for firing people for their opinions. And the Bashirs and Schultzes, the Grubers and Ehmanuels, may actually lose their side votes the more they speak. Which is probably why MSNBC let him go.

          • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

            Where I believe Bernie — and you — really go wrong is in positing an inapt equivalency to the comments of both Bashir and Robertson, and then in stopping right there.

            The fact is, there is an entirely legitimate distinction between the inherent character of the two statements, and a separate distinction which should be noted regarding the manner and locale in which each of those two expressions were made.

            Any comparison between the two expressions is completely ridiculous. And John, you don’t have to agree with what someone says in order to vigorously defend their entitlement to say it, even situations in which there is no real governmental involvement.

            One of Bernie’s statements in the column above, was particularly inapt in that regard:

            “This might be a good time to note that all Martin Bashir did was say what he believes, specifically that Sarah Palin is an idiot and that someone should take a crap and urinate in her mouth.”

            Come on, John! That is not an expression of a “belief” system! That was a highly personal, and hate filled screed intentionally spewed by a vile and nasty commentator, right on air, and on a network which had foolishly hired him to be a commentator.

            Nothing that Phil said was in any way comparable. And he made his statement in a separate forum — during an interview, in response to a question — where no one could legitimately claim that it reflected on the views of A&E.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>Where I believe Bernie — and you — really go wrong is in positing an
            inapt equivalency to the comments of both Bashir and Robertson,

            AGAIN, the equivalency isn’t in the comments they made. The point being made is that those who are defending Phil on the grounds that “he’s just being honest” ought to think about that rationale because they wouldn’t dare use it in other cases.

            I believe (not religiously – but observationally) that Bernie purposely used a vile example like that of Bashir to make the point I described.

            When you were a kid, did your parents ever bust you for giving into peer pressure and doing something you shouldn’t have? Did they say, “If someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you do that too?”

            Obviously, your parents weren’t establishing equivalence between what you actually did and jumping off a cliff. They were criticizing the rationale for what you did.

            Make sense now?

          • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

            No, John Daly it doesn’t make any sense, either now, or when this exchange first began.

            An inapt analogy is an inapt analogy. Hyperbole doesn’t always make a valid point.

            Martin Bashir did not just “say what he believed.” He quite intentionally spewed his particular brand of vile hatred for a particular individual, Sarah Palin, right on the network where he was under contract as a commentator, and he pretty clearly did so for the purpose of reinforcing and fanning the flames of hatred shared by a high percentage of the obviously ignorant viewers of that particular television outlet, and of it’s obviously polemically-driven production team and station management.

            Bashir ultimately felt obliged to issue a half-hearted apology, but only because he realized (or was told) that there was a growing threat to his contractual position at the station.

            In answer to your question, when I was a child, my father did attempt to toss that inapt “jumping off the cliff” analogy at me a few times. But I was usually able to come up with a pretty good response because I rarely did something stupid as a follower — I cooked up my own dumb things to do! So as a result, he would then sometimes say that I was just being a “Philadelphia lawyer” — which seemed to mean that he thought I was just trying to split hairs.

            The point is that I’m not defending Phil just because he was honest and “just said what he believes.” Actually, that seems to have been the foundation of Bernie’s argument, above:

            “I’ve always been honest with you, my readers. We have disagreed over the years but I’ve always respected you enough not to pander. So let me be honest with you again . . .”

            The circumstances under which Phil said what he said were entirely different, and on several key grounds, than those spewed by Martin Bashir when he unleashed his venomous personal attack on Sarah Palin.

            And that made all the difference. People will continue to differ with what Phil said but he seems to be one of those guys who the left will always underestimate in their persistent efforts to personally attack their “enemies.”

    • Ted Crawford

      Saddly, I’m beginning to question if he ever had it, in the first place!

  • wally12

    Bernie: I enjoy most of your comments in your articles and your discussions with O’Reilly. Most of the time I agree with you but not this time. All Phil said was to paraphrase a statement in the bible of some sins. He could have listed many more such as worshiping the true god, lying, cheating, murder. stealing and coveting. Also he did this as an answer to an interview question. Comparing Phil’s remarks with Bashir’s remarks are not even close. Bashir had a definite statement that was also approved as I understand by some editor. It was a plan. Similarily. both Phil and Bashir used statements by different writers. However, Bashir advocated that someone should crap in Palin’s mouth and that proves malice but Phil stated that only god can judge and that his view was to love every sinner since he recognized that man should not. I think you owe Phil an apology.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      You mean the false gods.

      • wally12

        Yes. I believe there are false gods. They may be present as persons or they can be material things. For example money and power. I am not sure where you are going with your comment but to repeat, there is only one true god.

  • dontbslow

    WHAT??

    Goldberg’s statement; “Everybody knows the earth is 41/2 million years old”, was used to support his argument that Robertson was an ignoramus because he believes the Bible as literal. This ironically seemed like the pot calling the kettle black.

    Bernie, you may use the unreliable, yet theoretical supposition of carbon dating to support your opinion, but to criticize Christians because they believe in the authenticity of the bible is inexcusably irrational and demonstrably narrow minded.
    My respect for your journalistic professionalism has been diminished to negligible.

  • toddyo1935

    The first time I noticed how scummy Hollywood is, I saw a slo-mo of the lion in Disney’s Lion King overlooking his realm from a high vantage point. In the wisp of smoke or whatever flashed the subliminal word “Sex.”
    Growing up in Chicago, I’ve always appreciated a little double entendre (sp?) that Bob Hope was a master at. It always leaves room for the innocent to enjoy the humor without being compromised.
    Bernie is always quick with who’s stupid when it comes to other people’s principles. Heard any of the (George Soros funded) arguments against fracking lately?
    I’ll stick with my own view on Bernie’s and Phil’s obsessions:
    http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=toddgv&date=130826

  • William Asbury

    I used to think you were sharp, Bernie. Not any more. Not only did you twist what Phil said, you showed that you don’t understand the argument. God does not hate homosexuals. He hates sin. He hates sin because it destroys people. The great majority of Christians do not hate (or fear) homosexuals. We hate the sin (for the same reason). However, we love the sinner. We want the sinner to find the same forgiveness that we have found. We do not suppose that we are any more innocent than any homosexual as we are all sinners. The Bible is never “ugly”. Only those who reject the clear teaching of scripture could ever make that statement. Those who follow the Bible are not “ignorant” or “stupid”. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” I do not expect you to understand because the Bible says that the “natural” man cannot understand these things. I would, however, expect someone who is supposed to be a critical thinker to avoid such character assassination. Shame on you. I have read the last thing I will read from you, sir.

    • toddyo1935

      Right on – but don’t boycott him – he means well…

  • theFantom

    I think the subtext of the story is being missed. Why is GQ, a magazine for hipsters and metrosexuals, interviewing Robertson? Do they want his views on camouflage for the 2014 fashion season? They wanted a controversial interview with a Fundamentalist–and they succeeded. Another point: Did A & E know or not know in advance about the interview? I tend to think they knew in advance and could have prepared in advance with a statement that Robertson (duh!) speaks for himself and not the network. Does anyone think Robertson is an official spokesman for A & E?

    This is not much ado about nothing; it is much ado about advertising. Check out this excerpt about the upcoming marathon of DD’s past shows coming up during Christmas week:

    . . . DD is pretty much taking over A&E’s Christmas schedule. The network
    will air 4 separate rerun marathons of the show in 4 days (December
    22-25) totaling 35.5 hours of air time.

    December 22 — 5PM-4AM EST
    December 23 — 7PM-4AM EST
    December 24 — 6PM-9PM EST
    December 25 — 3:30PM-4AM EST

    Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/20/a-and-e-duck-dynasty-christmas-marathon-phil-robertson/#ixzz2o8ChLdDn

    We are being had and manipulated.

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      Let’s make the most of it then!

    • JanelleHumbert

      You did a much better assessment of my reaction than I did earlier. Bravo!

  • poptoy1949

    Hang on Bernie, Phil said exactly what the Christian Bible Preaches. Nothing more and nothing else. He never said a thing about hating anyone. My advice to you is that being that you are Jewish and not a Christian do not misinterpret or run Phil in the ground. Leave it alone Bernie.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Where in the Bible does it say that homosexuals won’t inherit the kingdom of God?

      • poptoy1949

        You tell me.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Tell you what? You said that Phil said exactly what the Bible preaches. Since Phil said that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, I’m asking you where in the Bible it says that.

          Can you answer this question?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Why are people whose entire life is based on sinning again and again and making a purpose of it concerned with what the Bible says?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’m not following you, Alessandra. I’m trying to get an answer to my question. Can YOU answer it?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Why should I answer it if you can look it up on google in less than 3 seconds? You don’t want to look it up, you don’t want the answer. You think you have a “gotcha” point to make about Phil and the kingdom of God – what is it?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Don’t worry. Someone else already answered my question without turning it into a game.

          • poptoy1949

            John, Alessandra nailed you on that one. We on the right get hammered by left wing trolls constantly and yes our guard is up. So now…is that clear enough for you?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Oh, your guard is clearly up. That’s pretty obvious.

          • poptoy1949

            Tell me in the Bible where? That’s what can you tell me? Now you answer the question “author”

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Good lord. It wasn’t a test. I was trying to get an answer to a question, and thankfully one person out of the three of you understood that. Thanks again Toddy.

          • poptoy1949

            Oh but I well understood. I was wondering if you understood. It seems you say you do but do you really. Making it sound like we do not know (1 out 0f 3) does not make it so…..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’m officially lost. Oh well.

          • poptoy1949

            Good Reply. Makes you look so much better than us Bible Thumpers don’t it.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Not better. Just less defensive.

          • Iklwa

            Jesus came for the forgiveness of sin…all sins.

            He also said, “…go and sin no more.”

            Just because one is forgiven that does not mean walking in the same path has no consequence. Christians are admonished to be born again into a new spiritual life and to behave and think like Christ.

            We are supposed to reflect His grace for all to see.

            In no place does Christ say that homosexual behavior is acceptable. Just because He didn’t say it, one can not infer that behavior to be acceptable.

            There are a few places in the Bible enumerating sexual perversions as sin.

            Proofs of negatives are cheap ploys to try to win arguments (i.e. prove there are NOT aliens from space).

      • toddyo1935

        1 Corinthian 6:9-11 – but it ain’t just homosexuals – practicing and bragging of all sexual proclivities…

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Thanks Toddy.

  • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

    Watching Duck Dynasty leads to growing a bill.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      Some ducks have blue bills.

      • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

        Yeah, but other than that, ducks are white, says Megyn Kelly.

  • ronrussell

    One man’s igorance is another man’s wisdom. Not trying to complicate the obvious, but rather trivialize the fact that many must think those with opposing ideas with a willingness to express them are some how stupid.

    • Ron Bon Jovi

      Your statement resonated with me ronrussell. When I asked a friend about liberal bias in the media his response was as follows, “You can clearly see the difference when you look at the dipsticks on Fox News where the amount of inbreeding and the apparent lack of post secondary education is so clearly evident.” I for one don’t think it trivial. It’s sad really.

  • Larry blaspheming liberalism

    Being stupid and ignorant is one thing.
    Saying what the Bible says is something else (and remember that Phil admits having been part of the decadent side of culture).

    Saying that someone should defecate in a woman’s mouth is something else altogether.
    As is the laughing about a 20-year-old who got her fame playing someone nice now being famous for public sexuality. (She didn’t make Baba Wawa’s list for just her singing.)

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      Saying that someone should defecate in a woman’s mouth is something else altogether.
      ==================
      That is exactly right. No civilized person would ever think they were equivalent in terms of crudeness and vileness.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    The Evolution of the Gay Mantra…

    1970′s “Live and let live.”

    1980′s “Tolerance! Tolerance!”

    1990′s “Don’t shove your values down my throat!”

    2000′s “We expect you to change your lives to honor our lifestyle; we have no tolerance for your beliefs. We’re going to shove our values down your throat.”

    2010′s “…and if that doesn’t work, we’re going to get the government to bully you into submission.”

    2013 It’s fine if you have beliefs as long as you keep them to yourselves – in other words, you’d better violate your conscience always or else

    2016 Discrimination against all social conservatives is now legal – because they’re just bigots and deserve it

    2017 Hiring any social conservative to a higher education or K-12
    institution is illegal since it violates diversity for gays

    2018 Social conservative businesses must be forced to close down because they are like Jim Crow

    2019 Special ghetto areas implemented where social conservatives
    are allowed to live – they can still tell each other their beliefs since
    we greatly respect freedom of speech as laid out in the 1st Amendment

    2020 – Children of social conservatives must be taken away from
    them because what happens if one develops a homosexuality problem and
    the parents do not think it is normal? Child abuse is unacceptable in
    our progressive and diverse society

    • theFantom

      Brilliant analysis!

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        *blush* ;-)

    • Just Sayin’

      The re-education camps must be in there somewhere… 2017 1/2 under President HRC. (Elections have consequences!)

  • mochalite

    Bernie, one more comment. The Bashir matter is substantively different from the Robertson matter. Bashir called for physical assault of another person.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Bernie wasn’t comparing the comments themselves. He was addressing the point of people defending Phil with the argument that he was “just saying what he honestly believed.” As Bernie pointed out, Bashir was just saying what he honestly believed.

      The point is that the whole “honesty” argument isn’t a viable defense.

      • Charlie

        That’s just crazy. I can point to a hundreds of millions of people who believe to a lesser or greater extent what Phil paraphrased from the Bible. I need you to point out the hundreds of millions (or maybe even the millions, or hundreds, or even tens of people) who believe in and regularly attend the Church of the Defecate and Urinate Down a Woman’s Throat before you are allowed to repeat this weak argument. And by the way, that goes for Bernie and anyone else who thinks there is any way to compare the two.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          I don’t disagree that A LOT of people share Phil’s view. I don’t disagree that very few people agree with Bashir’s remark.

          Again, it’s not the two men’s remarks that are being compared.

          What’s being compared is the “honesty believe” defense.

          I’ve gone into this in far more detail in my comments below. Please check them out if you’re still not following what I’m saying.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    I love how liberals, who are behind and in front of the production of every sleazy,
    crude program on TV, are getting all huffy about “crudeness.” It should go without
    saying—although apparently it does not—that calling homosexuality sinful is smart and ethical.

    if a decent person criticizes a pervert, the pervert says just shut up or you’re fired. Liberals are going to shove their nasty junk of a homosexuality agenda down everyone’s throats and to heck with our most fundamental rights.

    Or we can fight back. Firing from your company every LGBT starts to
    solve the problem.And it stops them from harassing same sex people in
    the workplace.

    • http://Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com/ Bruce P. Majors

      Thanks for exposing your kooky nature for all to see.

      How do you feel about eugenic abortion for gays?

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        Thanks for exposing what a douchebag nature you have! Homosexuals are trying to get abortions? If they have a perverted and twisted mind about having sex with a view to procreation, they should leave procreation to healthy heterosexuals. Then they don’t need to abort their artificially conceived fetuses. And they don’t inflict themselves on innocent children.

  • Jon

    Bernie sounds like the typical east coast snob that has lost touch with 80% of the American people. The true idiot is one that calls someone else an idiot because they choose to honestly answer a question. Bernie no doubt thinks it was a smart move for Peter to deny that he knew Jesus.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Was Martin Bashir not an idiot for stating his honest believe that someone should defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth? I have no problem categorizing Bashir as an idiot, and I don’t feel the least bit idiotic for doing so.

      • wally12

        John: I’ve read many of the comments in this article. Some are sound and others I dismiss. One of your statements leaves me guessing. You seem to be defending the comparison of Bernie and Phil as being similar. They are definitely not. Phil’s comments were to state what the bible says and he clarifies those by stating he would and could not judge. Bashir on the other hand stated some actions by slave owners. However, Bashir took that and agreed with the action that the same thing should happen to Palin. Phil words were forgiving and Bashir were hating. It could not be any clearer to me who was the hater and not just an idiot and who believed in not judging and forgiveness.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Hi Wally. I’ve clarified this a number of times now, but let me re-post one of my responses to someone else from earlier to hopefully answer your question:

          ———

          The equivalency isn’t in the comments they made. The point being made is that those who are defending Phil on the grounds that
          “he’s just being honest” ought to think twice about that rationale because they wouldn’t dare use it in other cases.

          I believe (not religiously – but observationally) that Bernie purposely used a vile example like that of Bashir to make the point I described.

          When you were a kid, did your parents ever bust you for giving into peer pressure and doing something you shouldn’t have? Did they say, “If someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you do that too?”

          Obviously, your parents weren’t establishing equivalence between what
          you actually did and jumping off a cliff. They were criticizing the
          rationale for what you did.

          Make sense now?

          • wally12

            Hi John: Are you the same John Daly that wrote articles for Bernie last year along with Burt Pelosky (S.P. ?)

            If so, I miss reading your those columns. What ever happened to those columns? Now for your explanation to my comments. Sorry, I must be dense. I don’t get the connection. I feel you are reading more into Phil’s and Bernie’s comments that do not register. One, the replies should be equivalent. I think to me and most readers it is important to be as equivalent as possible to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. I believe Phil may have used some of the biblical statements that could have been interpreted incorrectly. However, he did say that those statements from the bible were not to be used to judge and that he would not judge. I believe he was truthful. I have heard many of Bernie’s statements on TV and in his column. I agree with many if not most of them. However, the example he used of attempting to compare Bashir and Phil was not even close. Have a nice day and I hope to read some more of your comments in this column.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Hi Wally.

            I still write a column for this website once a week. Never stopped: http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/author/john-daly/

            I’m not sure I can make myself any clearer than I did in my previous response. Again, he wasn’t comparing what Phil and Bashir said as being the same thing. He was using the Bashir example to discredit the blanket notion that someone’s comments can be rationalized with the explanation: “He was just saying what he really believes.”

            Hope you have a Merry Christmas!

  • Will Starr

    Bill O’Reilly owes Phil Robertson an apology.

    Bill O’Reilly said last night that Phil Robertson’s mistake was condemning homosexuals to hell, pointing out that such judgment belongs only to God who warned us “Judge not, lest ye be judged”

    He should have read further, because Roberston also said this:

    “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” he said, adding, “We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      O’Reilly is a pink boot licker. ‘Nuff said. He owes all of us an apology for pushing to normalize homosexuality and the sooner a SoCon takes his place at Fox, the better it will be.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        He owes you an apology for not agreeing with you?

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          He owes everyone an apology for pushing a harmful sexuality agenda.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            The you owe me an apology for proclaiming to speak on my behalf when you clearly don’t. You’re starting to sound more like a narcissist than a Christian.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Speaking on your behalf??! That’s nuts. I’m speaking on my behalf!!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            You said he owed EVERYONE an apology. I am included in “everyone” and he owes me no apology. So yes, you were trying to speak on my behalf. Stop it.

  • keith hart

    Phil Robertson:
    Let me see if I got this straight, if God says sic ‘em — you sic ‘em.
    You’d rather spend eternity with your God — the old testament God — a guy with a ram’s rod planted firmly up his butt.
    I’d rather spend eternity with my God — Jesus at the Well.

  • Edward Baker

    In that “sliver” between Manhattan and Malibu? Bernie, I’m a fan of yours, but the way you phrased that was pretty close to a dismissal of the VAST land between the shorelines. I feel you’re misreading the mood of the huge silent majority…like those of us offended when “Modern Family” elevated a gay relationship to an in-your-face marriage. Rather than complain, whine, bitch or moan, we simply de-selected the show from our DVR schedule, stopped watching, and moved on.

  • ka