Let Me Explain Freedom of Speech to all the Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty Supporters

1521819_10152108159862489_1472648669_nI’m sure by now most of you have heard about Phil Robertson’s anti-gay rant he went off on during an interview with GQ magazine, and the indefinite suspension by A&E that soon followed.

And wow, this situation has sure showcased how many people just don’t understand what “freedom of speech” means.  So I thought I’d explain it nice and simply to those who wrongfully believe this is some kind of attack on free speech.

You know, since apparently I wasn’t clear enough the first time.  Millions of people seem unable to grasp this simple concept.

Freedom of Speech: The legal means to say almost anything you want.  Meaning that as private citizens, we’re allowed to say nearly anything (with a few exceptions of course) that we want without fear of legal prosecution for it.

Unless I’ve missed something, Mr. Robertson faces no legal ramifications for what he said.  That’s what freedom of speech means.  Freedom of speech does not mean we can say anything we want without ramifications for what we say from our peers or employers.

We’re free to be racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic — pretty much anything we want.  We can be these things, no matter how ignorant, because that’s what the Constitution gives us the right to be.

But that doesn’t mean within a society we won’t face consequences for those “freedoms.”  The suspension of Phil Robertson is not an attack on Robertson’s right to believe how he wants.  It’s a consequence from an employer for him expressing an opinion which A&E feels represents them in a negative light.

When he signed his contract, it almost certainly included a clause that says he’s a representative of A&E and is expected to act accordingly.  All public figures, whether they want to be or not, are representatives of something.  Be it a company, a brand, a sports team or league — it’s the price that comes along with fame.

So, yes, he was free to say what he said — and now he’s paying the consequences for it.

Just ask Alec Baldwin or Martin Bashir, two gentlemen who were fired (well, Bashir “resigned” but it’s clear he was forced to do so) for expressing their “freedom of speech” rights.  Hell, weren’t conservatives calling for Bashir’s firing?  So it’s absolutely hypocritical that they’re outraged by Robertson’s suspension.  Especially considering Bashir only had derogatory words for Sarah Palin whereas Robertson ignorantly bashed tens of millions of homosexuals.

And Alec Baldwin’s show was canceled for anti-LGBT remarks as well.  I didn’t see many conservatives up in arms about that — but clearly it’s all about whose ox is being gored now, isn’t it?

So once again, we are given the freedom of speech to say almost anything we want without legal ramifications for those words.  But that does not mean that there aren’t any ramifications for what we have the freedom to say.

Until Mr. Robertson gets thrown in jail for saying what he said, his supporters need to stop crying about this being an “attack on free speech.”  Because when they do, they obviously prove how ignorant they are about what “freedom of speech” really means.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • tony

    Free speech means government protects people from persecution by their employers for acting on their freedom. It’s called a lawsuit.

    • Antonio Arellano

      Yes your employer cant fire you for your religion

      • Jack Michael Roberts

        He wasn’t fired idiot, suspended is much different and his religion had no basis in the decision? The interpretation of his comments did.

      • Samantha

        His religion had nothing to do with it? He is suspended because he thinks that being homosexual is a sin. I’m pretty sure that has everything to do with his religion

      • Jack Michael Roberts

        Bloody hell are you dumb

      • Samantha


      • Jack Michael Roberts

        His rights weren’t violated, nor was the decision made on his religion, A&E didn’t say we suspended you because you’re a Christian. If you want rights infringement, try the 7 US states that forbid Atheists from holding public office.

      • Agent_J

        Exactly. He was suspended for making statements that, apparently, do not align with A&E’s desires. What beliefs he held was not the issue; what he spoke was.

      • David Folk

        Freedom of speech

      • jh

        You should look up the definition of freedom of speech.

      • Antonio Arellano

        I know that jack in that case i wasnt talking about phil i was just stating a fact. Sorry should have spoke clearly. I dont want to be called an idiot. lol

    • Megan Lee Hughes

      Actually an employer must certainly CAN fire someone for “acting on their freedom” as you say. Its in the same lines as acting in a way contrary to the reputation of the company. I think you need to read the article again. Or the law for that matter.

      • chanctob

        Phil was asked a question by GQ, he answered it honestly, then he was fired because of his religious beliefs.

        Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which
        prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
        or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

        (a) Employer practices

        It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

        (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
        otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
        compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
        such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

      • Paul_in_NJ

        And that’s relevant… how?

    • Michael Dean

      He had a duty to represent the values of A&E, which he failed to do. If a Walmart employee stood in front of the store (while in uniform) and yelled anti-gay remarks, he could be fired in the same way that Phil Robertson was. There is no difference, and this was not attacking his rights. All TV stars have a clause in their contract which allows the network to fire them or cancel their show for anything they do that isn’t up to their standards. Get over it.

    • Jester

      the issue is that when you have a oligarchy that makes the rules and supports the gay agenda you have to support them whether you like or not or you get black balled or fired especially in tinsel town. However it would be wise if the topic of this agenda be avoided at all costs in interviews even politics and religious philosophy and just stick to the business of acting and topics within acting. Nothing more and nothing less… that’s it… It would be best to turn the question on the reporter and have them answer it if it was to be forced and leave it at that. We need to stop putting a magnifying glass on this topic at best and stop provided special provisions and treatment or empowerment. Like anything else… if you leave it alone long enough it will go away….just don’t acknowledge them in this area and treat them as the topic of null and void and carry on about more important topics that can be worked on…

    • jh

      Actually, many people work for companies that clearly state what a person can and can’t do in his off time. For instance, my company will fire me if I say anything derogatory about it or embarrass it in any way, whether in a public forum or on social media. Since I like getting paid every two weeks, I make sure to never mention the company on facebook, nor do I post anything derogatory about any group of people.

  • Antonio Arellano

    I hope you understand that the LGBT comunity is well aware of the bible and what it says. There for it should not be a surprise to anyone what Mr. Phil Robertson said. He does not hide the fact that he is Christian. When A&E hired him they knew exactly what they were getting into if they did not support the bible they shouldn’t have hired him. Phil might not be getting punished by the law and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But what you call gay bashing is just not the case. Again he quoted the bible. Read the interview he goes on saying that he would never promote hate.

    • Jack Michael Roberts

      Apparently you missed the part where he compares homosexuality with beastiality, that’s pretty hateful man.

      • Antonio Arellano

        The bible compares them the same as a sin. Thats what the bible says. Look i know gay people im friends with them i hug them i hang out with them they are in my family. I would never hate on someone because of they way they cose to live thier life. Thats what Christianity is about. We are to love even the ones that the bible calls sinners. In fact the bible teaches that every single person above the age of around 13 has sinned. We are all sinners. We are to love everyone sinners or not like we love our selves

      • Dana

        The Bible doesn’t say anything about age limits on sin. See, that’s the problem with basing your religion on a book that everyone can read. You DON’T read it, but everyone not in your faith does. Oops.

      • Antonio Arellano

        It states of an age when you can cognitively understand what sin is thats why i wrote (around)

      • Michael Nosal

        The age of accountability is a belief that God saves all those who die before reaching the ability to make a decision for or against Christ.

        Thirteen is the most common number given for the age of accountability, based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13.

        However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability.

        Again: NO DIRECT SUPPORT.

        It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a Faith decision for or against Christ.

        So, basically, you made an assumption that is not entirely true, Like defending this turd about blacks being content before the Civil Rights Movement, because we all know that black people would be dying to express their discontent and their treatment to a white man…

      • guest

        One thing you have to realize is, being gay is not a choice! when did you choice to be heterosexual? You spew hugs, kisses and unicorns but you do not understand oneone important aspect of being homosexual. Being gay is not a lifestyle or a choice!

      • Antonio Arellano

        i dont really car if its a choice or not. im not here to say it is one or the other. Im here to tell people who say that christians are haters and just assholes. That they couldnt be more wrong. Christians are about love for all not hate.

      • Megan Lee Hughes

        He didn’t compare it. Read the actual interview on GQ’s website. He was asked what he believed constitutes a sin. Then he listed what he believes are sins. Its unfortunate that the list went from homosexuality to bestiality. Don’t get me wrong, I do not share Mr. Robertson’s beliefs. However, the media is definitely twisting the context of his statements.

      • Dana

        No, they’re really not. Homophobes pull that crap all the time, equating homosexuality with child molestation and bestiality. He has said NOTHING ORIGINAL, that’s what gets me–he was even descriptive about what he thinks of as gay sex. That men are supposed to copulate with vaginas, not anuses. Oh, like no straight man has ever had anal sex with his girlfriend or wife. Interestingly, the homophobes never mention that one. Apparently it’s A-OK with them.

        Quit defending him. He’ll be comfortable for the rest of his life and that’s more than a lot of 60-something-year-olds I’ve known. Meanwhile this country allows employers to fire women for not wearing makeup. I bet you have zero problem with that.

      • Megan Lee Hughes

        Ok. One, he did not equate homosexuality with child molestation or bestiality. He was asked,”what, in your mind, is sinful? ” to which he replied,”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.” CLEARLY just a list that happens to include both Bestiality and homosexuality.

        As far as what he thinks of gay sex, what he said was,”It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” In other words, to HIM, meaning his personal preference, a woman’s vagina is preferable to MAN’s anus. I highlight that he said man’s anus because you brought up a straight man having anal sex with a woman, which is invalid to the discussion because Phil clearly specified.

        Further on this point, he said nothing about “men are supposed to” anything. Again, he was staying his personal preference, with the added sense of expressing that he doesn’t understand how a man could be attracted to a man.

        Something to think about, Dana, while you’re missing this man for expressing his beliefs (because he was asked them I might add), you may be interested to know that he also stressed that:

        “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. 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?”

        And now to respond to your remarks about my person… firstly, I’ll defend whatever I wish, thank you. Secondly, I’m not sure where you get that I would be ok with a company firing a woman for not wearing makeup, but I most certainly am not ok with that, but I thank you for making such an assumption not supported by any facts, much like your entire argument.

      • Michael Nosal

        And as a PAID SPOKESMAN for A&E, he needed to keep his personal beliefs to himself.

        Two words for you: PAULA DEEN

      • Michael Nosal

        By saying that you start with Homosexuality and it morphs out from there, he has implied that homosexuality leads to other sins (like bestiality and adultery)

        But trying to explain that to some of you people is like trying to describe what color sounds like. It is futile and you will argue that you know better than anyone else on what is right and what is wrong.

      • Kim Kelly Gallo

        I have to ask when there is soo much sin out there why is homosexuality the BIG one in many Christians eye? Why not say the pharmaceutical companies that wont make orphan drugs and allow people to die because they wont make money from those drugs? Why not talk about obesity that one sin is running rampant? or is that just not a good policy to run a presidential run on? Seems to me there is much sin out the but for some reason the one that many Christian focus on is homosexual??? that just confuses me when there is soo much murder, rape, child abuse, and so on and so on??? Why focus on one where two people of the same sex are attracted to each other and some time fall in love if that is the ONE sin that you focus on you should really ask yourself why?????

      • Tommy McMahon

        More tolerance from an atheist gay….stfu

      • RettLoe

        “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”

        He likens it to bestiality, he’s not listing more sings. He is alluding to “homosexuality leads to bestiality, and adultery”

      • Kenny Collins

        And he mentioned Divorce within the same list of sins. Do you think he is comparing divorce with beastiality? It was a list of sin according to the Bible. That’s all.

      • Dana

        Homophobes ALWAYS compare homosexuality with bestiality. They always group them together while discussing the former. That this guy happened to mention divorce is a new twist on the method.

      • Jade Baxter

        Always????? not true……..hahaha

      • Michael Nosal

        HAHA, Yes, they do. It is as common as your ignorance and lack of empathy to other people.

      • Leyton Rocks

        Homophobes also tend to be too obsessed with the sex angle of homosexuality like that’s all heterosexual people do… relationships tends to be a little more complex and varied. Which is why we, as a species, tend to be monogamous. Feeling more drawn to the same sex is the only difference. If man/man or woman/woman are happy together. Then I’m happy for them too.

      • Mickstertor

        He also said that black people were perfectly content before civil rights reared its head – and that he should know because he worked along side them. How that is being ignored has me completely baffled.

      • Megan Lee Hughes

        He didn’t say they we’re perfectly content. He said they seemed happier, and the example he had was the people he worked with.

      • Mickstertor

        Well let’s not quibble over the words. Here’s an exact quote, They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’ — not a word!” For him to not acknowledge the lynchings and segregation that went on in his state demonstrates some real ignorance.

      • Megan Lee Hughes

        Lets not quibble over the words!?! REALLY! ?! This entire debacle is over his words! Fact is he didn’t say anything about the lynchings and segregation because he never witnessed it himself. He was speaking specifically about his own experience.

      • Tommy McMahon

        He stated that he didn’t see that as he worked the fields along side the blacks..How do you acknowledge what you don’t see? He was as poor as they were. Maybe your a judgmental asshole….

      • Antonio Arellano

        He didnt say that they were perfectly content. He was asked a question and he gave a personal expirience. He said he didnt witness anything negative actions towards any african american person. That all he knew where Godly happey people.

      • Dana

        He wasn’t looking.

      • Michael Nosal

        And he didn’t really care.

    • Michael Dean

      He says that he doesn’t promote hate, but comparing the homosexual lifestyle to bestiality and calling the men “vagina-less women” is in fact gay bashing. Kind of like if I called every Christian bigot a retard, and then said that I would never insult other people.

      • Megan Lee Hughes

        Do you have a link to where he said “vagina-less women”??

      • Alan

        He didn’t say that. I read the article 3 times today just to see where all these people were getting their “quotes” from. Everything is being take out of context and passed around third hand as fact. It’s being thrown way out of proportion. People only hear what they want to hear and I guarantee that 90% of the people commenting here didn’t read what HE ACTUALLY SAID.

      • Megan Lee Hughes

        I completely agree with you. That’s why I asked him where Phil said that, cause I couldn’t find it lol

      • Michael Nosal

        So because that was not in actual print, you are going to excuse him for his other hate-filled comments?

      • RettLoe

        “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,”

        Direct quote. No “third party” needed. He alludes to homosexuality leading to bestiality, and adultery. There is honestly little more that can even be inferred from that statement, unless of course YOU would like to twist it to suit a more docile person, which in doing so you would be saying he is ignorant and using the english language incorrectly.

      • Jester

        He may not be politically correct in his description of the gay life style however if you say anything that apposes the life style your still considered intolerable…. How far does society have to fall to become like Sodom and Gomorrah or like Rome? History shows how the out come is when a society selects and supports this behavior and conduct…. I guess they should consider themselves lucky ( LGBT) we live in the United States…..If they lived in the middle east…. well its a different picture there….zero tolerance…..you get caught performing the act of sodomy or relations with any man sexually you face the sword or a hanging according the Islamic culture…..I hope we don’t ever adopt the sharia law here in the U.S. ….. because the (LGBT) would have a fight on there hands…. Intolerance…… just don’t live in the middle east….

      • Dana

        Sodom and Gomorrah were already on God’s kill list because they hurt and oppressed the orphan and the widow. Rome fell because they ran out of farmland.

        “But that other kid’s doing it” is the kind of thing a five-year-old would say. You are supposed to be the good guys. Why don’t you try acting like it.

      • Michael Nosal

        And that is what you are failing to understand. He can say whatever he wants, but he must also have to deal with the repercussions of saying it. Is he going to jail? No. He lost his job. Just like when Paula Deen made a racial slur, which, by the Bible’s understanding, she should not have lost her job, either.

        You do understand that basing your ideology on a piece of literature written by monks thousands of years ago and rewritten over and over again and then voicing those ideals while being interviewed as a “sponsor” of a network that has a zero tolerance fro promoting ANY kind of negativity is not a violation of the 1st Amendment, but violating the rules set down by your employer?

        You violate the rules of the company, you get fired.

        Read that sentence again and for as many times as it takes for it to finally sink in.

      • chris

        ancient Egypt and Rome wer the longest lasting civilizations and both were open to gays.
        so to imply places that were pro gay failed is in acuret
        Egypt was around for 3180 years so it wont be for another 1000 years before you can compare which lasts longer

        further you act like that was the only difrance.

    • mojones1

      I am a Christian. The teachings of Jesus Christ do not even mention, much less condemn homosexuals. The Old Testament says a lot of things. Do you eat shellfish and pork? Do you keep slaves? How about plural marriage? Jesus as the son of God trumps anything the Old Testament says by his command to love God with your whole heart and soul and to love your neighbor. Let God worry about judging sinners. We as sinners are not qualified to throw stones.

      • blablabla

        I personally dont care that this dude was fired, im just replying to you. What about when Jesus said that he was not here to abolish the law but to fulfill it? You cant say, after that, that the OT is now bunk. In fact, that would kind of be a sin, wouldn’t it? Since, you know, you’re saying the word of god is bunk.

      • Michael Nosal

        First of all, when referring to God, you spell His name correctly. What mojones is stating is that the OT has parts of it that are considered antiquated and barbaric by today’s standards. The only thing that has not changed, or never should change is that God (not “god”) loves ALL His children and it is up to Him to judge and NOBODY else.

        And remember that the Bible was written by MAN and man tends to impose his own ideals and agenda on others.

        Let’s not forget that most “Christian” holidays were originally pagan ones until MAN decided to highjack it and throw a religious event to convert the “Godless heathens” for their own purpose.

      • blablabla

        first of all i dont give a damn if i write “god” or “God”

        cause im not a Christian, sorry if that offends you (not really). Second of all, how can “God’s” word just be thrown out and be called “antiquated” and “barbaric” If “God” himself (or his son which is himself supposedly) says im not here to abolish the law but to fulfill it? Do we just ignore that, or is the context different? Can you answer that question?

      • Michael Nosal

        Well, since you don’t give a damn, then why bother to open your mouth and spew your nonsense to begin with? You are not a Christian, so it is clear you should keep your nose out of things that do not concern you, yet here you are, troll.

        Secondly, you seem to have confused the fact that the Bible has nothing to do with our government laws regarding free speech.

        Do you eat shellfish? Do you keep slaves? Do you cut your hair? Do you mix fabrics? Do you have any tattoos? Are you married? If so, were you a virgin when you were?

        If you answered “yes”to ANY of the first six and “no” to the last, then you have violated “God’s Law”, as the Bible states.

        And you miss the point (of which I am not surprised about, many idiots like you do). The Bible was NOT written by God, it was written by man, and man tends to impose their own agenda and say that it is the will of God.

        Any true follower of God (of which you are not) knows that there are only ten ‘laws” of which to live by.

        Not one of them mentions homosexuality.

        All others of these alleged “laws” are suspect to interpretation and reevaluation and many times thrown out due to current times and customs.

        And many times people like to pick and choose what laws to ‘enforce’ others to live by to suit their own bigotry and hatred.

        That is hardly what God, or the teachings of His only Son, Jesus Christ are about.

        Telling people that God ‘hates’ a group of people is a direct contradiction of the fact that “God loves all His children”.

        That includes gay people like me, and ignorant fools like you.

        But, as you so proudly pointed out, you could care less, right?

    • shuteme

      The bible is a hateful, bigoted, tome. Have you read it? If you support it you are supporting hate. It’s that simple.

      • Antonio Arellano

        I support God who created everything even you. Who gave you the free will to condemn him. This country was founded by christians with christian value. Did that make them perfect? No. But its by Gods grace that we live in a country were we have freedom. Not like other places around the world. And God is love not hate. anyone who knows God or jesus then they know very well how much he loves you.. and all he wants is for you to love him back. And to love other the way he loves you.

      • Michael Nosal

        This country was not founded by Christians. Right there is the flaw in your logic.


        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
        prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
        speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
        assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


        Hardly the writings of Christian Founders, is it?

        But you probably cherry pick the Constitution as much as you cherry pick the Bible.

      • Antonio Arellano

        Why dont you look up the founding fathers of this country and look up what religion they where.. And if you cherry pick the bible then you would understand that the first amendment is christian writings.

      • Michael Nosal

        The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it.

        They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A
        necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin
        birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

        These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as “the father of the American Revolution.” To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view
        of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

        Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on “biblical principles,” but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians.
        Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said,

        “In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes” (George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371).

        In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote,

        “It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest” (August 6, 1816).

        The Founding Father were not “Christians”, rather they were of different religious beliefs. I never doubted them on their religious views, my statement was made to clarify that this is not a country that was based on Christian views.

        I have proven my case.

        I will not argue that there were members of the Founding Fathers that were Christian. That is not the issue.

        The issue is that this country was founded to be free from religious influence.

        ANY religion and EVERY religion.

        Nice try.

      • Michael Nosal

        The First Amendment mentions religion, not Christianity. Furthermore, it states that government shall not make any law that respects religion.

        Will not respect religion in regards to legislation (laws) means that religion is to be kept out of our government.

        No religion= no Christianity.

        Better to keep quiet and seem the fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

        Or, in layman terms, you only make yourself look more the idiot the more you insist on debating this.

        Is that better than just correcting your grammar?

      • Antonio Arellano

        Im sorry to burst your bubble but this counrty was founded by Puritans. They were the people that we call Pilgrims who came on the big ships that established this country. They where Protestant Christians. They read the KJV of the Bible. I you want more proof just take a trip to our Supreme Court they have the Ten cammandments posted they have statue’s of Moses, King Solomon and many other Biblical Characters. The First Amendment text that you mentioned was very much Christian believes. Christians wanted the freedome to be Christians and not be opressed like they were in England, France, ect. If you deny the fact that this country was and still is a Chirstian country then you deny the very foundation of the God given Rights that this counrty gives to its citizens. As much as you would like to change history you can’t. I hope one day you can give thanks to the Christians who founded and developed this country. Please understand me im in no way asking you nor anyone else to change their religiouse believes but i hope that can be a mutual understanding based on facts of history not religion or oipinion.

      • Michael Nosal

        Nope. The Puritans did not found this country. They were the first to colonize it to escape the religious persecution of Europe. Those are the actual facts of history. The puritans set foot on this land in the 1600’s (1607 in Jamestown, and 1620 in Plymouth), this country was created in 1776. That is over 150 years AFTER the puritans landed on Plymouth.

        Seems it is you that needs to get your facts straight. It is an historical FACT that many of the Founding Fathers, while religious men were not Christians. That was your point that we are a Christian Nation, we are not. It does not say so ANYWHERE in the Constitution “America is a Christian nation”. It says that America is a nation of all religions and will not hold one higher over the other. There is no mention of the Christian God in the Declaration of Independence. Nature’s God and Creator are mention. To which, I quote:

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
        that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        By saying “their Creator”, it is clear that they are not supporting one religion over the other, but people like you fail to see that.

      • Michael Nosal

        God is the one that actually gave shuteme the free will to defy Him if he/she wants to, but shuteme said nothing about God, did he/she?. Shuteme spoke of the Bible, not of God. So spare us this mock indignation.

        The defiance was about an antiquated piece of literature that was written by man; a being that God admits is prone to flaws.

      • Kinneroth

        The first part of article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by John Adams, would say otherwise about the USA being a Christian nation. In fact many of our founding fathers were quoted saying that religion should never have a say in how the government works.

      • Antonio Arellano

        John Adams was a Christian so much so that he wanted to create his own bible like king James.

    • Dana

      It’s not A&E’s job to “support the bible.” By the way, that’s supposed to be capitalized, since it’s the title of a book.

      And yes, the Bible bashes gays. Just because it’s the Bible doesn’t mean anything. Men were also called to commit rape and child molestation in the Old Testament, and to murder women who had sex before marriage. Maybe you better actually read it instead of just listening to your pastor repeat the same tired old dozen New Testament verses out of context over and over all year long. I’ve gone to church too, madam, Baptist church, and I know what they do.

      • Antonio Arellano

        I read the bible. Every day in fact. If u understand the bible then you should know that the new testament explains everything you explained. And yes the bible says that gays are sinner it also says that so are also every other person on this planet. The bible teaches that we are all sinners. The bible also teaches that we sould love everyone like we love our selfs. So in that sence then everything u explained isnt what God would want the people in the old testament to do right?

      • Michael Nosal

        Nothing upsets me more than religious zealots that cannot even display the common knowledge of basic syntax of how certain words are to be spelled.

        Your failure to show respect by capitalizing proper names shows just what kind of person you are.

        Here is a little English lesson for you:

        God (when using a possessive pronoun; Him, His)

        Christ (same thing with possessive pronoun; Him, His)

        Jesus (same thing with possessive pronoun; Him, His)

        Old Testament

        New Testament



        Until you can grasp these simple acts of literary respect, please refrain from commenting about God and all that goes with Him.

      • Antonio Arellano

        Thats all you got commenting about my capitolization and spelling.. Get over your self. Stop the hate.

      • guest

        You spew love, hugs, unicorn and stop the hate. You cant even tell the differnce between constructive critism and hate. Lol

        You are a poor excuse of a human being. (Hate)

      • Michael Nosal

        What I got is the proof that since you cannot even use proper respect in spelling God’s name and other proper names correctly, you are hardly a person to be taken seriously in this matter.

        And if I were to go further:

        It’s “you”, not u

        It’s “ourselves”, not our selfs

        It’s “sense”, not sence.

        That you are ignorant enough to not even notice when spell-check notifies you of your simple errors like grammar and spelling, do you think that anything you have to say should be taken with the slightest shred of credibility?

        I will stop the hate when people like you can stop the ignorance and laziness.

    • 1EdMeadows83

      “But what you call gay bashing is just not the case.” Right!!! and adultery is not adultery and fornication is not fornication. Makes sense when you don’t think about it.

    • Truth

      Equating homosexuality to bestiality is gay bashing.

      • Antonio Arellano

        I agree with you. But why are talking about something that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If you think you are responding to my post or even Mr. Robertson. You are totaly off subject. Read his interview. No where dose it say anything hateful to anyone. It simply states that what it is said in the bible. That every single person you, myself anyone else is a sinner. In that very broad statment it is true everyone is equal in Gods eyes, a sinner. But i hope you understand thats not gay bashing.

  • DJD11

    “…clearly it’s all about who’s ox is being gored now, isn’t it?”

    I love that euphemism.

  • eyesopen

    this is ALL about money. people are really blind to what life is about for most. it is money. im sure he doesnt really care, probably was going to leave anyways. this little trick made a lot of people rich and will make the cast of the show even richer. understand the root of it all and work outwards. everything is about money. life gets easier when you understand the game.

  • Samantha

    Just because he faced no legal consequences does not mean that he deserves all the slander he’s receiving. First of all, Phil was a preacher. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? Did anyone think that he would support homosexuals? If so, you’re sadly mistaken. Second of all, he never compared bestiality to homosexuality. Just because someone says two words in the same sentences does not mean that they are comparing them or grouping them together. He said just as much about homosexuality as he did alcoholism and I don’t see a single alcoholic on these rants. But of course, everything said about the LGBT community is considered hate. Some people are just so ignorant.

    • Jack Michael Roberts

      Yes especially religious people that think their imaginary friend is waiting on them.

    • mojones1

      There are plenty of Christians who support, accept and love homosexuals as our brothers and sisters in Christ. We also support their civil rights as Americans. Do you have any idea how many gay individuals have faced job and housing discrimination, bullying, physical assault and yes, murder by “good Christians”? Every time someone shoots their mouth off about “sinners” and single out homosexuals it emboldens homophobes to continue to engage in their reprehensible behavior. It is hate, thinly veiled by righteous condemnation of a group of people who are just trying to be who they are, and as they were made by their creator. Phil would have been wiser to quote Jesus: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

      • mamabear

        Yes! Thank you!

      • squid

        beautiful, nothing more needs to be said.

    • Runawaygirl83

      Funny that just because he is a preacher that I should expect him to be a bigot. And it is even funnier to me considering I have an aunt who is a Franciscan nun, two cousins who are gay, and yet, everyone loves each other and treats each other with complete respect and dignity. And funny that my aunt does not agree with what this man says. But, you know, hateful Christians forget about the love they preach when they see something “icky.”

    • Michael Nosal

      Not as ignorant as you are, Samantha.

      So people cannot say anything about him? They are just exercising their 1st Amendment right.

      The only difference is is that these people are not representing a company or franchise when they do it.

      And when he said that homosexuality morphs into other sins (like bestiality), he does, in fact, imply that it does.

      It is that word “morph” the is the smoking gun here.

      change or cause to change from one image to another.

      The ‘image’ of homosexuality changes to the ‘image’ of besiality

      And not everything said about the LGBT is considered hate, just the shit that is actually hateful.

      And that comment had to have been the most ignorant thing I have ever seen written.

  • Maggie Valera

    Let’s not forget Paula Deen.

  • Gina McElvain Houston

    Some of the same people that boycotted and pretty much put the Dixie Chicks out of business for their comments are now up in arms that this man is getting fall out for his comments….funny how views change when the shoe is on the other foot.

    • Jack Michael Roberts

      I’ve been mentioning that all day.

    • MamaBear

      I still love the Dixie Chicks (actually more for being blunt about how they felt) and I love the Robertson family as well. I think this idiot has only one valid point, It isn’t an attack on freedom of speech. That is correct. However, People are still outraged (me being one of them because it was one of the few shows I took time to watch). They have good morals and who gives a rats ass what he said about the gays? He never once said he hated them, he simply stated that according to the bible, which is what he strongly believes in, being gay is a SIN! A&E needs to keep them on for the sake of humanity needing some good role models. If we all grow up watching crap like Snooki and JWow or Bad Girls club etc, our world is going to be a very sad place very shortly!

      • Dana

        You don’t have good morals when you use religion as an excuse to be a bigoted asshole against people who have never once harmed a hair on your head.

        I don’t recall God personally giving you the job of treating people like shit just because they break his laws. I thought you Christians were all about ignoring Biblical law since Jesus freed you from all that, which is why you eat pork now.

        And if you think TV stars are supposed to be role models of any sort, you really are a fool.

      • Antonio Arellano

        God dosnt give the right to his followers to treat people like shit. Thats Gods job why do you think america has gone through what it has because we lost God. Or dont you remember the little note on the back of our currency “in God we trust” or that little thing we recited at school “one nation under God” this country needs God again it needs Jesus so God can stop all the hate there is in this country. Thats why God has made it so that the Robertsons dont need A&E any more.. all they need is God.

      • Alpha_Omega

        No,What the country needs is less uneducated people like yourself shoving “God” down everyone’s throat.The fact that you think a phrase printed on currency should be part of someone’s moral compass reflects how morally bankrupt YOU are. It’s also funny that you mention the modified line of “Under God” within the Pledge of Allegiance which was written by Francis Bellamy- a self-proclaimed “Christian Socialist”,the line “Under God” wasn’t even added until 1948…

      • 1EdMeadows83


      • Jim Bean

        No one who thinks Robertson needs punished for saying something is a ‘smart person.’

      • Eddie Aranda

        What would you do if one of your employees started talking to your customers or clients about how he thinks men should be allowed to freely beat their wives. You’d probably see how negatively that reflects on your business, and discipline him in an attempt to change his behavior. Free speech doesn’t exempt a person from adhering to codes of professional conduct.

      • dirtypigs

        Problem is he didn’t say those things on an episode of the show. So he didn’t say those things to his customers. So in theory he didn’t say those things at work so he should not be punished by work.

      • Melissa

        Employees can get fired if they make an ass out of themselves at or outside of work. Quite frankly people are getting fired, suspended, laid off, whatever you want to call it for way more insignificant things than going on a publicly documented rant about homosexuality, the absence of Jim Crow laws, and anybody who doesn’t have Jesus in their live (most of the world). For example, thousands of highly skilled scientists are getting laid off because republicans are cutting funding for research. Thousands of department store employees are losing their jobs because of the implementation of self check-outs. Millions of employees get fired from their jobs every single day for reasons that are completely out of their control. How about you waste your time fighting for something actually important, not some millionaire that got suspended from his side job for being a completely insensitive prick.

      • dirtypigs

        Because people like you choose to make a big deal out of how a person feels or what they say. And its just not sticking up for him its sticking up for the fact that nobody has to agree with or like a persons lifestyle. And the fact that because one person doesn’t like another persons’s lifestyle that it becomes a national event and that person is put down because of what they say about how they feel

      • Eddie Aranda

        I understand your perspective, and while the premise of your argument I think is valid, I disagree with your assertion that he was not addressing his customers, and therefor was not technically “at work”. He may not have said those things on his show, but he was publicly addressing his audience in a professional capacity. It would be a different story if he said those things to a friend or family member during a casual conversation. But he was being interviewed by a major media outlet, and as a public figure, he was absolutely representing his employer. Again, I’m not passing judgement on his beliefs, I’m just saying that he shouldn’t be surprised that the network took disciplinary action.

      • Jim I.

        No, dirtypigs, he *didn’t* say those things “at work,” however, he DID say those things in an interview with GQ magazine that was published for public consumption.
        And we, the public at large, aren’t “punishing Mr. Robertson; at best we’re pointing out the error of his bigotry. That being said, it’s his contract employer that indefinitely suspended him.
        There are still 9 episode in the can. No doubt they’ll be “the most watched of all time.”

      • dirtypigs

        “the public at large” that is were your are wrong if it wasn’t for public opinion and the out cry from these groups I’m they wouldn’t make such a extreme change to one of there top money making show’s. Also a person opinions and beliefs should be thought of as errors.

      • Pey

        I work at a restaurant. When hurricane Sandy came around and we still had to go to work that night my friend who also worked there made a post on Facebook about how the company was crazy for making her drive out there because she could die. She was immediately reprimanded even though she was not at work. Your employer, whoever they may be, can fire you for misrepresenting the company even if you are not on the clock. He’s in show business…he is the product and people will always be watching him and if he becomes not what the company wants representing them at any time..they can fire him. So deal with it and watch a better show.

      • dirtypigs

        I think that is an awful story you just said. Just because happened doesn’t mean its right. That is a prime example of why what we do and say out side of work should have little to do with work as long as we show up and do a good job that is what should matter the most

      • Brendo

        Women could use a little beating sometimes. So could most men.

      • John D

        Why would a customer ask him that? Once again you moronic individuals that only want to hear half the info act like Phil Robertson was standing out in front of Wal-Mart screaming this to the customers. He was asked in a personal interview sitting. You don’t like his opinion, that’s your right, but that doesn’t make someone ignorant because you are intolerant of everything they believe and they are supposed 100% tolerant of all your beliefs.

      • Eddie Aranda

        I didn’t say any of that. You’re putting words in my mouth. I wasn’t passing judgement on the guy, I just think that as a representative of his employer who was publicly addressing his audience in an interview with a major media outlet, he shouldn’t be surprised that the network punished him. And no, it was not a “private” interview. It was a very public interview for a MAJOR media outlet, not a candid conversation with a friend in his living room. He has no legal leg to stand on.

      • TJWatson

        They don’t get it bc they can’t look at this objectively and they have no concept of how business is conducted. From A&E’s perspective, it’s probably a bit less about what he actually said and whether they agree with him or not, and more about the fact that he said ANYTHING that would cause major waves and usher in negative attention to the person representing them, the show, and their brand.

      • magormissabib

        pure bullshit. No one thinks what he said was anything more than his personal sincerely held beliefs. The Sodomites have a chokehold on every aspect of our society and they are so ridden with guilt and shame that they cannot bear even the slightest suggestion that they stop sinning.

      • TJWatson

        Straight people engage in sodomy, and many lesbians and gay men don’t. Again, you’re just generalizing and assuming you know more than you actually do. And “sodomites” (assuming you’re referring to gay people) have no more of a choke hold on society than Christians have had for a LONG time. In gays wanting to be recognized as equal citizens, they have no patience for people treating them poorly, that’s seen as being pushy. Gay people are not ridden with guilt and shame at the suggestion they are “sinning”, if you think that’s where the reaction of standing up for themselves and not taking the BS judgment of Christians stems from (which ushers in a lot of justification in mistreating gay people by Christians and society), you have a very sad brain. Christians get just as bent out of shape when people suggest they are narrow-minded and judgmental.

      • magormissabib

        Nice try but no cigar. In early america homosexuality was a crime and precribed the death penalty ,. the law linked homosexual sodomy and buggery – sex with beasts together. Today the perverts have turned it upside down and those who speak the Gods truth are punished. – a sure sign that judgment is near. Dont say no one warned you.

      • TJWatson

        Well if everything you said isn’t completely calling the kettle black…. You don’t understand business or constitutional rights do you? This article was written for people like you, and you still don’t even get it.

      • chanctob

        your not comparing apples to apples. Phil was expressing his personal beliefs, having nothing to do with A&E or his agreement with them. It also doesn’t give A&E the right to violate his civil rights under the Civil rights act with regard to his agreement with A&E. Read it first.

      • Eddie Aranda

        I think it definitely is apples to apples. He was addressing his audience (the American public) in an on-the-record interview with a major media outlet, and therefor as a public figure, was representing his employer. Again, I’m not saying I disagree or agree with his views, I just don’t think, from a legal perspective, he has any recourse. Freedom of speech protects people from criminal prosecution, it doesn’t absolve them of consequences from private entities.

      • chanctob

        except for that pesky Civil rights act that A&E violated.

      • Eddie Aranda

        Can you elaborate on your argument? I’m not trying to be a prick, I’m just interested in hearing your side.

      • Don

        Can you site a source for your claim of civil rights violations? I have no idea what you’re posting about.

      • TJWatson

        Did you even read the article? Do you understand context and the concept of being objective? Are you too dense to even see the contradiction in your statement? His 1st amendment rights were not violated in any way- the article was still published and he’s not being prosecuted for it. If he was being censored in any way, his statements wouldn’t appear in the article in the first place, and he would be given a court date to answer for some sort of infraction of law. A&E has just as much right as Phil Robertson in expressing their views and taking action in suspending him- do you want to limit their rights as well? He landed that interview because he is popular due to his show, which is on A&E, it doesn’t matter that that publication wasn’t directly tied to A&E- he still represents them while he is affiliated with the network. If an NBA player said the same things he said in a non-sports related publication, they would be able to, but they would most likely be fined and disciplined by the franchise they play for and the NBA because they represent both, as they are the ones who write their checks and employ him.

      • Jim Bean

        Apples/oranges. Beating your wife is, by consensus of our culture, unacceptable. There is no such census in support of homosexuality (as much as some would like to make it appear that there is.)It remains a controversial and awkward situation. “Disciplining’ Phil does nothing to alter his true attitudes towards homosexuality and isn’t that what you really want to accomplish? Or do you just want him to shut up and pretend?

      • StC

        I find it funny how you’re bashing Christianity. A recent study just came out saying less Americans believe in God and follow Christianity and look at our world today. More murder, more greed, more wars. Less people have jobs, Miley Cyrus is a celebrity…. just saying…

      • TJWatson

        Right, and Christians don’t fuel the greed or wars in any kind of way. And when they were the super power in the world, there was way less murder and other sins being committed. In your attempt to defend Christianity, you seem to believe your “#%*@ doesn’t stink”, and in turn are bashing all non-Christians by saying they are to blame for all of the ills of the world, and America more specifically. Pick up a book every once in a while and learn some history.

      • Michael A. Day

        There is a big difference in profession of faith and living in faith. It’s true that most people profess God and Christianity but many of them don’t understand what that even means let alone lives it out. It’s like saying I’m a doctor when I’ve only read what a doctor is but never once had a patient or any hands on experience.

      • magormissabib

        I can shove God down your throat all I want loser.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        What if there is no God? There’s no proof that he/she ever existed.

      • Leyton Rocks

        Your choice of God, like your nationality is most often an accident of birth… and then a slow brain wash… to think the enlightenment was centuries ago. I wonder what they would all think about this obsession with religion so many years later…

      • Michael A. Day

        That’s false, I know plenty of converts of Islamists and Jews and even Buddhists. Christianity is vastly growing at it’s highest rate in china than in any other part of the world, and they get persecuted for having that belief and professing it. The enlightenment was centuries ago and the reason it didn’t effect religion is the same reason it’s been around since the beginning of time. The truth always comes out. No matter how much you try to disprove it or shut your eyes to it or even make it look evil, it will always prevail.

      • Dylan Tiberius Pumpson

        Sorry, it was around since the beginning of time? Remind me again to which beliefs you are referring.

        The ancient Egyptians worshipped a pantheon, so did the Greeks, Romans, and the Norse. Not to mention of course the myriad of spirit-worshipping native tribes scattered across the globe.

        Remind me again how all of this proves the existence of “one true God”?

      • Leyton Rocks

        That’s some claim and an opportune use of the word persecuted … Way to go

      • magormissabib

        do you need a dictionary? when you punish someone for their religion, that is persecution. Sodomites sure are fond of claiming it. the problem is that its not persecution when you are punished for doing evil

      • Leyton Rocks


      • Ray Wickham

        It requires complete ignorance, or incredible apathy, to make that statement. The proof is impossible to avoid, unless you are intentionally deceiving yourself.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        This is your proof? Because you say so I’m supposed to believe in a mysterious super being somewhere in the sky. I’ve been around for a long time, used to try to believe. I was a Steward in a Methodist church, raised by a devout Methodist mother and a well educated father who, I believe, was completely aware that religion is a sham. I, myself, became aware of that fact over a half century ago. There’s no proof. There is NO proof! Organized religion is a racket that is practiced upon scared, ignorant people. There is no proof that God, Heaven, Hell, Satan are more than figments of the imagination of sheeplike humans. I ask you again. give me unadulterated proof that these beings exist and I will sing your god’s praises to the non-existent heaven. Don’t try to tell me that proof is evident without showing me that evidence.

      • TJWatson

        Then why is faith such an integral part of Christianity? Why, when faced with tough questions they can’t answer, do many many Christians say “God is bigger than us, we’re too small to understand, it doesn’t make sense, but you just have to believe it”? A lot of times it’s to avoid contradicting themselves or it’s due to them being resistant to personally having to take a hard look at something that might shake their belief, other times it’s because they simply don’t know. It takes complete ignorance to assume somebody is “intentionally deceiving” themselves simply because they’re asking a question you can’t answer. If there was definite, undeniable proof, more people would believe, and Christians would never need to rely on faith.

      • Michael A. Day

        There’s plenty of proof of existence you can’t start with simply looking at the structure and beauty of the world and go As deep as the our own DNA strands to see signs of a creator. But there is no evidence of there not being one. And just because you can’t see him physically, doesn’t mean that’s evidence, there are many things we can not see and yet believe such as wind.

      • Dylan Tiberius Pumpson

        Well, I’m convinced!

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Ahh Mikey, Mikey. You’ve come up with nothing that men of higher education than yours have tried to convince me with over the years. I think what you’re trying to say is that the human body is proof of god’s existence. That merely proves that man has evolved from primitive life forms billions of years ago. E V O L U T I O N from bacteria through sea creatures that evolved into mammals. Every part of the makeup of animals has come about through trial and error. The faulty parts have disappeared and the parts that work have, themselves. developed into what makes up animals, include mankind,
        that we have today. I’m not going to proselytize you into believing as I do and I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

      • Guest

        Um thats quite a statement to automaticaly assume that I dont have any form of high education. I have plent of education from both sides of this argument. And good of you to understand what I was trying to say in a most basic way for anyone to understand. I can see, though you may have talked with people of high education, you must not have had much of it yourself (at least in the area of science/evolution) as there is no actual scientific proof of evolution. Evolution is known as a theory. A theory is an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. People like to think of this as truth, but the truth of the matter is, the further scientists and archeologists try to prove evolution, the more the more they find evidence to disprove their theories and instead back up the Bible. (In fact many historians and archeologists use the Bible to find historical sights and artifacts to this day). Such as the fact that there is no evolution within any found fossils. Darwin himself said if evolution were true then ther would be thousands of transitions within fossile evidence. And according to Dr. Stephens J. Gould “There are no missing links! The whole chain is missing. The absense of fossil evidence for intermediary stages… has been persistent and a nagging problem for evolution.” Even Lucy was found to nothing more than a Pygmy chimp that is still alive and wandering around in the exact area Lucy was found. And the fact that our bodies such as DNA is known as Irreducibly complex. Meaning that it is so complex that to be anything less than what it is, would make it impossible to even be. Our DNA is nothing like that of chimps, to compare the two is like saying both clouds and watermelon are the same because they are both 95% water. Not to mention the mere chance of even one strand of DNA arranging itself by chance is 1 chance in 10 to the 100,000 power, which scientificaly is determined as a range of impossibility. There is no evidence of us forming out of bacteria from water or even that of sea creatures, thats a bunch of hogwash that has been proven false many years ago along with the chimp theory. You wont find any real educated evolutionist to back you there. But when all is said and done, even if evolution were to be proven true, that doesnt disprove God. I know plenty of evolutionist christians (I myself used to be one of them). Whether God literally created us in 6 days or through evolution isnt made clear in the Bible, the reason for that being is because it doesnt matter how God made us, but that He did.

      • magormissabib

        it will all be perfectly clear to you when you open your eyes in hell.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Oooh Tony! Now you’ve scared me! But I’m afraid you are as wrong as the many other believers have been when they try to convert me.
        First, I won’t have any eyes to open because they will be decomposing with the rest of my body. Second, there is no hell. Jesus freaks and Muslims are the only people who believe there is a hell. Jews don’t and they’ve been around a lot longer than Christians or Muslims. The threat of hell was devised centuries ago to scare primitive people into following the teachings by men who wanted to control the ignorant. Apparently there are still such people around.

      • bartonim

        I think YOU need to brush up on sentence structure and how to use punctuation. How did you make it through high school??

      • MikeIP

        Read a book. That slogan was added to the pledge because some idiot politicians were terrified of the USSR and worried that the US would lose the cold war to the “godless heathen communists.”

      • Eddie Aranda

        The original pledge of allegiance had no reference to God. It was added in response to pressure from Christian interest groups. Interestingly enough, the pledge started as part of a marketing campaign (sort of). Look up the actual history of the pledge. I was surprised by what I found.

      • jayhawk_dreamer

        under god was added to the pledge in the 1950’s to combat the red scare. it was added to currency after the civil war to unite the country again. none of it was done by the founders… only as means to promote an agenda.

      • magormissabib

        I guess you never heard of Phinehas!!!

      • Duck you, too

        I Believe He Was Stating What The Bible States. He Did Say Clearly, “We Love Them”. Has He Ever Hurt A Single “Hair On Their Head”? Don’t Think so.Yet Here You Are Calling Him A Bigoted Asshole, And Assigning The Belief That He Has The God-given Right To Treat People Like Assholes. Far Cry From What He Actually Said. So Now Who Is The Bigoted Asshole?

      • MikeIP

        Still him. And you.

      • You are and so is he. He said:

        “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around”

        then he gets all judgey going into detail focuses on the sins of gays? If he’s so good and moral and Christian why doesn’t he speak ill of more heinous sins?

        BTW he also said: “For the sake of the Gospel, it was worth it… All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.”

        Nazi’s were Christian, so his revisionist history is convenient. It’s also convenient that he ignores the “records as far as murder goes” among groups affiliated with Jesus. Those Jesus worshipping groups also have pretty damn high divorce, domestic abuse/child abuse, extramarital/pre-marital sex, robbery, battery & abortion rates and I’m pretty sure those things are also sins according to Mr Robertson’s bible and yet he conveniently ignores those making spurious and insupportable claims against pretty much everyone who doesn’t hold a Christian religious belief (and, yeah, the Nazi’s were Christian).

      • Jojo M

        The crusades. 11th-13th century. Catholic church took out approximately 5,000,000 people. Just sayin.

      • Azr43l

        Oh gawd, this garbage again…

        The total number of people killed during the 11th to 13th century religious wars was anywhere from 500K to 10M. Record keeping was very poor and nobody really knows. Those totals include both Christians and Muslims killed, not just Muslims.

        Muslim armies conquered vast amounts of Christian lands during the 7th to 10th centuries. Christian armies tried to retake and expand during the 11th-13th centuries. How exactly is one worse than the other? The middle ages was fraught with conflict both secular and non-secular.

        Pick up a history book.

      • magormissabib

        yes Like Christ said you will always have the poor with you , you will also have the ignorant and uneducated with you. and what the heck do the crusads have to do with anything. These pervs are grasping at straw because they cant stand that anyone say sin is sin.

      • tt

        Except it isn’t a sin. Specify any one passage specifically spoken by Jesus and no other, which states that homosexuality is a sin.

      • Zmighty

        Mark 7:21-23
        Jesus uses the term sexual immorality, which is broad in nature…thereby putting the the response on the reader to investigate what “sexual immorality” is in the eyes of God.

      • magormissabib

        Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments , he did not sit down and recite all of them as we know quite well that one of them is “thou shalt NOT lie with mankind as with womankind.

      • james

        When man lie with man and woman with woman, it’s an abomination to the lord.

      • GregBrady

        See that comment alone shows the distortion of your thinking….’slavery isn’t a sin’….and your conclusion is that therefore, it isn’t as bad as homosexuality. Am I the only one who sees the ridiculous argument here? The problem I developed with Christianity after reading the entire Bible OVER AND OVER and spending tens of thousands of hours listening to sermons and messages is the picking and choosing of Bible passages that are still to be obeyed and those that no longer apply to modern day people because Jesus paid the price and we aren’t under old Testament rules. The dudes writing the new testament were just that…dudes who followed a charismatic guy around and were mesmerized by him in the same way idiots followed Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler or who now follow Barack Obama. The apostles message simply went viral and multiplied through transmission from one generation to the next. Doesn’t make it true. Now that I think for myself and analyze everything I hear, I am really free.

      • james

        If God was against it then it was a sin. Slavery was wrong in God’s eyes.

      • GregBrady

        But see, that’s where there are huge inconsistencies. The Bible has explicit instructions on HOW TO TREAT YOUR SLAVE. How could God give instructions about something he disapproved of? Slavery was completely accepted and practiced all through the Middle East, Europe, Africa and all over the world for centuries before the US was even founded. It is one of the oldest institutions of culture. And most of those people claimed some religious belief including Christianity.Here are only two NT passages among several: If God was against it, why didn’t he just say “FREE YOUR SLAVES”? The second quote is particularly telling…instructions to SLAVES to be respectful and work hard. Eph 6:9 ) And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him. (See also Ephesians 6:7-8); (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

      • magormissabib

        that’s a nice strawman you got there. The word of God from beginning to end is the word of Jesus. and it condemns homosexuality thru out. nice try but no cigar.

      • catguy00

        The Bible also condones slavery.

      • magormissabib

        The Bible prescribes the death penalty to slavers and kidnappers. Nice try liar.

        Exo 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

      • james

        Awesome, good job

      • magormissabib

        Morons root thru the scriptures like a pig rooting fro truffles to find things they don’t understand as if they can use it to defend sin. forget it.

      • catguy00

        When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

        When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
        (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

      • magormissabib

        the word is bond servant ,not slave. and get off it. you cant dig thru the scriptures like a pig rooting fro truffles to find was to defend you sin. that wont work. No homos in heaven.

      • james

        The bible could not help what MAN did. God sent Moses in to free the slavery which God Did not like. Just like today, man is going to do what man wants to do even if it is wrong.

      • YippietheHippy

        Number are not the real point. It’s religions vile approach to killing in the name of “your” god.A whole lot of lives taken in the name of these “religions”. How can someone follow this way of life when it’s really a way of “death”?

      • magormissabib

        yikes -the contortions you people do to defend sin.

      • tt

        Not really. On the other hand, the contortions you’re going through to try and defend a drooling-from-the-mouth level of idiocy and ignorance is hilarious.

      • GregBrady

        We aren’t defending sin because sin doesn’t actually exist.

      • magormissabib

        another homo living in a land of rainbows and unicorns. Alll sexual immorality is sin – Aids is the cure.

      • GregBrady

        Actually I’m a heterosexual woman who just likes the Brady Bunch, hence the name GregBrady. I just don’t believe in sin. I do believe in laws against harming other people but just not in a spiritual entity declaring that personal behaviors are bad and subject to eternal hellfire and damnation. Sorry to disappoint you by not being homosexual.And I don’t have AIDS either. LOL… The unicorns and rainbows are actually more in line with the idea of pearly gates, eternal life, and Jesus physically rising from the dead. THAT’S alot closer to mythology than anything I’ve said or believe.

      • magormissabib

        You seem to be laboring under the impression that what you think or say has ANY affect on me or any relevance to anyone but yourself.
        God set the standards and they are the standards by which all mankind will be judged. Like it or not. Homosexuality IS akin to beastiality in that it is a detestable and abominable vice and those who engage in it are worthy of death.

      • TJWatson

        Oh the irony in your first sentence. As if your flimsy beliefs and uneducated understanding of scripture makes you “right” and all others “wrong”. And if homosexuality is just as much a sin just like bestiality, so is your judgment, which you are obviously spewing all over this board- you are the same as a homo and a a person who engages in sex with an animal. Get over yourself and worry about your own life.

      • magormissabib

        [email protected] are liars. any dummy can open the book and read the plain words. Homosexuality is a detestable abominable sin which brought the wrath of God on Sodom.

      • TJWatson

        Any dummy yeah, like yourself? That’s the problem, dummies have interpreted the Bible, and now we’re all expected to live by those interpretations. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about homosexuality. The bible also says no one sin is greater than the other, but you seem to focus on one you personally consider to be more egregious (so who’s playing judge here?), and that gives way to hate speech and slander- which is also equally as sinful according to the bible. No wonder the majority of people who consider themselves Christian are Bible illiterate (results stem from studies conducted within the church as well as secular studies- it’s a fact). Your first statement in your reply isn’t even worth mentioning bc it just shows the state of your intelligence.

      • magormissabib

        lol nice try dummy. but some of us cant fall for your spin cause we actually read the bible. God destroyed Sodom for Sodomy. (strange flesh) duh. Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

      • TJWatson

        Nice try? Spin? Only person here that is spinning anything is you. Cherry picking in fact (and incorrectly doing so, might I add). I went to a Christian university and studied the Bible extensively, I also studied the Bible in a secular university as well. It’s very clear you have a narrow understanding of scripture, it seems what you regurgitate are things you’ve been taught as opposed to things you’ve studied and understood for yourself. Why don’t you read up on that story again. And I love how you conveniently dismissed the rest of what I said bc you’re going to downplay your hypocrisy. You are not a Christian just because you say you are, good luck being one of the many Christians who over-compensate for their lack of knowledge of the Bible and all other things in general by being indignant and hypocritical.

      • magormissabib

        blah blah blah. Duck dude says what the scripture says and the rabid sodomite dogs got it loud and clear or else you wouldnt be here raging and they wouldnt be trying to beat him up and bully him into silence. give it up.

      • TJWatson

        Oh, the “persecuted Christian” rhetoric has reared it’s ugly head into the conversation. You give it a rest, not everybody believes what you do or the way you interpret the Bible, and not everybody believes what the Bible says to be the truth in any interpretation- they should not be expected to live the way you do or believe the things you do. I love when gay people are speaking their truth and beliefs, it’s whining and bullying, and trying to control everybody, yet when Christians whine and bully, and control it’s justified because they’re “right”. The Christian church has long bullied and controlled people and forced them into silence and conformity- if you understand the history of the Church, the world, and this country specifically, you would know it to be true, but I don’t expect you to objectively and sufficiently be educated on what you claim to represent, you have a hard enough time getting past being spoon fed information from your parents and pastor.

      • magormissabib

        yes, attacking a man and trying to fire him or silence him in any way from saying what the bible says is persecution. plain and simple. Look give it up. Homosexualityis roundly condmend in the word of God and some people cant be bullied into silence.

      • TJWatson

        Ah, I forgot, your double set of rules. It’s not persecution when it comes to non-Christians enduring censorship and bullying due to their beliefs at the hands of the church, but it is when it’s the other way around. Got it. And you wonder why people want you to just mind your own business and allow people to exercise their God-given right to free will, you don’t understand the simple concept that not everybody believes what you do- that doesn’t make you right and them wrong, you can’t prove it to be true, that’s why faith is a major component to Christianity. Since many people don’t believe what the Bible says, they shouldn’t have to be held to that standard or forced into believing it. It’s okay if you want to spew your agenda and beliefs, but not if others do. You’re a hypocrite with low brain function. Homosexuality is not roundly-condemned in the Bible, it’s been taught that way by MAN who has pushed MANY agendas, biblical or not. You give it up, not everybody believes what you do, and it’s understandable after seeing your “witness” tactics.

      • magormissabib

        Phil didn’t bully anyone you dipshit. Nor did he try and stop you from exersing your free will !!! They asked him his opinion and when gladd perverts hear it they went after him like a pack of wild dogs. that is why the Bible calles the dogs. face it , God hates [email protected] and all the words int the world will change it. Youre going to hell.

      • TJWatson

        Oh, your narrow view hinders you from being a normal, educated person. It also causes you to think your “sh!t doesn’t stink”. I’m pretty sure your God doesn’t like the way you are representing him right now.

      • magormissabib

        Narrow is the path to life. Your disdain can mean only one thing you are on the wide path to destruction with the sodomites.

      • james

        What world are you in? Why would you think there were no sin? Thanks to Adam and Eve, there is sin. Wake up people. There is sin and it Will send u to hell. I think that’s why your making yourself think there is no sin.

      • Christian

        A lot of people have also been killed because they believed in a higher power and those who didn’t wouldn’t tolerate it. Besides, the worst type of culture is one that doesn’t believe human life has any dignity, aka godless cultures. Those are the real ways of death

      • Ask the 30 thousand Ukrainians about the “progressive” war upon them in the 1930s. The Holodomor was the worst genocide of the last century!

      • Andrew Rapp

        During the Holomodor, the numbers of people that were starved to death equaled the number of Jews killed by the Nazis. Take your 30,000 and multiply it by 250.

      • stltchr

        join the Democrat party and nuke Japan, start WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the American Civil War…questions?

      • frankcallender

        what about the wars of the past ten or so years? was it democrats in charge when they got started?

      • stltchr

        Can you say Jimmie Carter and his Iran policy? Can you say Iran Contra and the Dems going after Reagan?

      • TJ


      • Dakota

        Whoa! First off, pick up a history book. The Democrats did NOT start the Civil War, at least not Democrats as well define them today–the Democrats of that time were actually why we would consider Republican. There was a shift between parties between 1910 and 1970, when ideologies changed and the parky names switched, mostly toward the later portion of this timespan. So, actually, it was what we today call Republicans that started those wars, THANK you, oh so very much. This is coming from a History major.

      • Dakota

        Forgive me for my one typo. I meant to say, “the Democrats of that time are what we today would consider Republican.”

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “The Democrats did NOT start the Civil War, at least not Democrats as well define them today–the Democrats of that time were actually why we would consider Republican. ”

        Such BS.

        “There was a shift between parties between 1910 and 1970, when ideologies changed and the parky names switched, mostly toward the later portion of this timespan. So, actually, it was what we today call Republicans that started those wars, THANK you, oh so very much. This is coming from a History major.”

        Hah hah hah. So please provide some references for us to check your research. History majors smoke dope too? Yeah, we knew that.

      • Baloo Uriza

        The Democrats didn’t want the Dixiecrats and their racist priorities anymore. Seeing this newly available group of voters, the GOP embraced them with open arms, a key moment when the Democrats embraced progess and the Republicans embraced regress.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Hah hah hah. Please provide some references for us to check your research.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        And are you the guy that thinks the New Testament “superseded” Corinthians?

      • Baloo Uriza

        I got it at Chronicles backwards. Either way, the bulk of Christianity revolves around the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul, with the rest of the NT being tertiary at best, and the OT being historical context.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        So basically your attack of Corinthians is completely defeated. Is that what you’re saying?

        Because Corinthians comes after the death of Christ. You’re going to have to show a clear contradiction between Corinthians the the Gospels to make the argument that its teachings should be diminished by them.

      • Baloo Uriza

        No, I’m saying Corinthians is largely irrelevant in Christianity because Christ wasn’t around for it. At least the four gospels is third person. Everything after that has obvious evidence of the “telephone game” phenomenon in effect.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “No, I’m saying Corinthians is largely irrelevant in Christianity because Christ wasn’t around for it”

        He wasn’t “around” for the Gospels either.

        “At least the four gospels is third person. Everything after that has obvious evidence of the “telephone game” phenomenon in effect.”

        So Saul of Tarsus was a heretic liar? Why believe the Gospels then if you don’t believe in the other texts? There’s barely any difference considering that the Gospels assign certain powers to Jesus that would enable him to communicate with subsequent authors.

        It sounds like you reject most of the Gospels as well.

        Or was Jesus a “Palestinian freedom fighter” in your book?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        What is your version of the Gospels? Why does anyone need Christ? There are no sinners because that’s too offensive to think about. It must be something else.

        Don’t you suppose?

      • John Wolforth

        The US nuked Japan to avert massive casualties from a conventional invasion of Japan’s home islands – got a better idea? WWI was started by the Austro-Hungarian empire, with US involvement resulting from Germany’s unprovoked submarine warfare on US vessels. WWII was started by Germany, with US involvement coming after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor; Eisenhower, a Republican, was the first president to send advisers into Vietnam; the Civil War was started by the Confederacy, a combination of both Republicans and Democrats. Answers?

      • magormissabib

        Phil Robertson is not a catholic.

      • scott

        Wow another (just like this article) skewed misrepresentation of the facts ignorant respose

      • HolyMoly

        How is the author’s take on the First Amendment a “skewed misrepresentation”? THAT is the focus of the article, not what Robertson said or did. Perhaps you have a skewed interpretation or skewed reading comprehension skills.

        Robertson still has freedom of speech. He can go stand on any street corner and say whatever he wants to, just like any one of us. He does NOT have the right to a forum on TV, which is privately owned property.

        It’s like this: If, for example, I invited Robertson into my house for supper, he has to abide by my rules. If he says something that goes against my family’s values (such as a bigoted comment), he’s going out the door. It’s my house, my rules. I would not have violated his right to free speech…he can go stand on the curb and say whatever he wants, but not in my house.

        Robertson was in A&E’s house. Their house, their rules. He said things that went against what A&E stands for, and out the door he went.

        He has also had some interviews since his ejection. Seems to me like his freedom of speech is still intact.

      • magormissabib

        the issue is not the first amendment but the discrimination laws/. He was fired for his religious beliefs.

      • HolyMoly

        How long has the show been on now? 2 or 3 seasons? He was openly Christian from day one. It’s not like this is the first time he ever said anything in an official capacity about his religious beliefs, on or off the show. Why not fire him 2 seasons ago, if it’s because he’s a Christian? Why hire him in the first place? Why haven’t other Christian employees at A&E been fired for their religious beliefs?

        He’s also been openly white from day one. You could just as easily suggest that maybe A&E felt he looked a little extra-white today and therefore decided to let him go. This argument has as much credence as the religious one (which is to say none at all).

        He’s also been openly male from day one.

        He’s also a person of western European descent.

        Why aren’t you up in arms about any of that? He was a white, male Christian of European descent, all from the first episode until now. What makes you think it was his religious beliefs that got him fired?

        Once again the victim mentality in full display.

      • Alicia Figueroa

        Are you really so naive as to try to imply that Phil’s faith-based comments regarding Christianity are not what got him fired? I dearly HOPE this goes to court because I guarantee you that it will be a win for him. The Civil Rights Act protects EVERYONE from discrimination regarding their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Just as you would be appalled at someone being fired because they spoke out about being gay & atheist, you should also be appalled that someone was fired when they spoke up about being Christian & straight.

      • Catherine Maio

        But it wasn’t just the religious comments. If you take those comments out of the equation, he still made rather disturbing racist comments which surely violate the conduct clause he must have with A&E as he represents their brand- they do have the right to fire him for that. If I’m working at McDonald’s, say, and when each customer comes up to be served, with their food I tell them black people are sub standard and should be denied any basic rights. Just my opinion, right? I have freedom of speech, right? Wrong. What I’m doing is damaging the McDonald’s brand by making racist statements. I can (and should!) be fired for that, but I can’t be arrested or jailed for making those statements. That is what free speech is- just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should, and there can be social repercussions to your speech that are perfectly legal, like people may stop watching your tv show or stop buying your products, they may also exercise their own free speech rights to speak against you. Works both ways.

      • Alicia Figueroa

        Even A&E has said that they fired him, not for any racist connotations his statements may have had, but for the controversy we are speaking of now. To try and allude otherwise is simply to try and stray from the topic of discussion. If they want to retract their statements and blame a different cause instead, by all means, then he will not have ground to stand on. However, at this point, I don’t see that happening. Additionally, I think that the topic of whether or not he has a right to free speech is moot. He does, and he was given that right, and kept that right intact. The real question here is whether or not his rights were violated under the Civil Rights Act. A&E stated that he was being removed from the show because of his faith-based comments involving homosexuality. The Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against future or punishing current employees based off of their personal religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Because his comments involved both of those things, it is more than a fair argument to say that there is a good probability that those rights could have been broken with A&E’s hasty response to make sure that no one thought they approved of his comments.

      • Catherine Maio

        A&E still has the right to suspend or fire him if it is determined he misrepresented their brand. Perhaps A&E doesn’t want to be represented a fundamentalist christian company? That’s also their right. It would be like me working for a secular organization and signing all my official letters and ending all my official statements with “yours in Christ.” So long as I am contractually joined with that secular company, when I am speaking publicly I have to toe their line. Giving an interview in an international magazine is public speaking. He was not deprived of his right to speak of his beliefs or even his racial statements. As far as I know, this man is not sitting in a jail cell or facing any charges for anything he said, religious or otherwise. A&E does not have to offer him a platform to speak those beliefs.

      • Lina

        Believe it or not, there are quite a few states where you can be fired for being gay..

      • Alicia Figueroa

        That is unfortunate if it is happening, and it doesn’t support what our own country says is the law. Hopefully this issue will shine light on where it isn’t being thoroughly applied for BOTH sides of this controversy.

      • boomergran

        No, he wasn’t. A&E didn’t fire him for his religious beliefs. They fired him for saying things that reflected badly on them, in violation of his contract. He’s still free to practice his religion, and he’s still free to express those views. They just aren’t going to give him the forum to do so any longer.

        Why is that so hard to understand?

      • Alicia Figueroa

        He is allowed to say what he wants because of freedom of speech, and because of the Civil Rights Act, he can’t be discriminated against or punished by his employer because of his beliefs. He was ASKED how he believed in an interview that was given during his personal time and he answered. Should he have lied to spare the feelings of others? Should he have even been concerned that he would lose his job for giving an answer that is based in his FAITH? Don’t try to pretend that he was not let go over his religious beliefs. He gave an answer that was from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Him being fired for this is no less illegal than if I were to fire an employee for telling others they believe in being gay or atheist.

      • boomergran

        Actually, he was asked what is his definition of sin. The appropriate answer is “separation from God.” No one asked him about homosexuality; he chose to say what he said. Why didn’t he say “murder” or “child abuse” or “rape”? Do you think it’s because he approves of those things and only sees homosexuality as a sin? There are so many grievous sins and he selected homosexuality.

        Yes, he should have been concerned about losing his job if his contract stated that could happen. If he was let go over his religious beliefs, why do you suppose they hired him in the first place? Do you think they didn’t know he’s religious?

        You right-wingers will go to any lengths to feel persecuted.

      • Alicia Figueroa

        Why is that the “appropriate” answer? Is it because it appears to be very PC and steps on no toes? Perhaps that is YOUR appropriate answer, but they didn’t ask for your answer, they asked for his. And what makes you so sure we are all right wingers? I choose to associate myself with neither since I don’t believe either party is headed in the right direction. I really don’t see why assumption or name-calling (since you obviously think right-wing has negative connotations) should ever play into a debate. Furthermore, I don’t personally feel persecuted at this time, but that doesn’t mean someday I won’t be for any number of reasons, which is more than enough reason for me to defend his freedom to speak his mind without losing his job.

      • boomergran

        No, dear, it’s because that’s what is taught in seminary. Sin is separation from God.

        And I’m sorry, but if you work for a company you have to abide by their rules. They just can’t make rules saying you can’t be gay or Christian or disabled or any of a number of other things. However, they can make rules about what you can say in public about the company or what you espouse in public or to their customers (provided you’re important enough to have an actual contract). If you don’t think that’s true, then check out the Vice-principal who lost his job at a Catholic school for marrying his partner.

        If you sign a contract, you agree to the terms. The end.

      • Alicia Figueroa

        Please do not bow down to an inclination for starting a rebuttal with condescending endearment. I am not a child, nor should that sort of tone play into a debate when both players use logic, and it simply causes others to lose respect for you.

        I did not say that it was not the seminary’s definition. By your own wording, they asked for HIS definition. This nit-picking matter seems to me so very small when compared with the larger issue at hand that this company would even go to such lengths as to fire him for his statements, which again, I’m sorry, is against the law. It doesn’t matter what contract you sign, it does not matter what your company rules state. They cannot break a federal law (be it the Civil Rights Act or murder) in lieu of their own – if indeed such rules of their own even exist. Perhaps you would care to peruse a copy of his contract or A&E’s handbook to find evidence of such rules so that we could logically discuss this matter further rather than basing the possibility of his wrongdoing on circumspect.

      • C

        The contract you sign does matter. If the language was clearly in there that said that misrepresenting the company constitutes breach of contract, then that is always the case.

        A&E did not can him for being Christian, or even for espousing his beliefs. The canned him because he represented the company in a negative light on a national forum. It’s totally legitimate, and they were well within their rights to do so.

      • Alicia Figueroa

        Just as with many things in this world, I will politely agree to disagree with you since an interpretation on whether or not he should have been protected under the Civil Rights Act is a matter for the courts to determine. Additionally, unless someone can procure a copy of his contract and outline specifically where they would be within their rights to fire him for this, the point of him having a contractual obligation or not is moot. You can assume that there may be something in there to that effect, but you do not know it for a fact. There could be any number of clauses to a statement even implying that he was abandoning his right to protection under the Civil Rights Act, but unless you or I has a copy, we do not know. As far as him misrepresenting the company, he was doing an interview on his own personal time for a magazine where he was representing himself first, Duck Dynasty second, and A&E third. Although I understand that A&E owns the Duck Dynasty brand, I would say that his comments are right in line with what is being pushed, represented & branded as the Duck Dynasty way of life – which is Christianity. I fail to see how this directly affects A&E negatively, since an entire corporation should not be held accountable for the statements of one man. Just as I don’t refer to homosexual people as being unchristian based off of the comments of a few I have met, I would never jump to the conclusion that all of A&E is Christian or believes what the Bible says about homosexuality just because Phil does and told his interviewer so.

      • Alicia Figueroa

        Boomergran, I can see your most recent comment although it appears to be under moderation (I’m not sure why) but I appreciate your apology regarding the condescension. It looks like though, we may have to agree to disagree. I think it is very unfortunate about the vice-principal that was fired. Very unfortunate. I feel that it is a good thing that Phil is so well-known and so well-recognized because it sheds light on the fact that all kinds of people are discriminated against under contractual loop-holes regardless of their protected status under the Civil Rights Act. Had that issue seen a little more light, there is every chance that it would have ended differently with his rights being upheld. In the end, I think that the very thing that is most important to fight for is not that we all agree with one another, but that we do not let corporations, companies, or even our government get away with deciding who the law is for, and who it is not. Today it is him, tomorrow it could be you or me depending on where public opinion goes, who gets voted into office, or what types of CEO the current generation is churning out. As for me, I would rather nip the entire issue in the bud and make sure that I will be protected, even if that means that those I don’t always agree with are protected too.

        As for Martin Bashir, I certainly would stand up for him if it were a case of Civil Rights that were infringed upon. Anytime a person is denied their right to protection under either the Civil Rights Act or their freedom of speech (the second of which is not Phil’s case since he is not in jail), we are all at risk of losing those rights. If we do not all stand up for those who lose their rights or are wronged by the ever-growing power contained privately within corporations, organizations, and the government, then we will be a nation in chains before we have time to realize it. It must be all for one, or it may one day be nothing for all.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “However, they can make rules about what you can say in public about the company or what you espouse in public or to their customers (provided you’re important enough to have an actual contract)”

        You’ve examined the contract in question?

        And even if the contract explicitly exclude his liberty related to his religious expressions about sin, fans can still choose to object to it the consequences he suffers as a result of his statements.

      • boomergran

        As I’ve stated in other posts, no, I haven’t examined his contract. I’m basing my assumption on common business practices.

        And, yes, fans can object; I haven’t said they can’t.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Actually, he was asked what is his definition of sin. The appropriate answer is “separation from God.” No one asked him about homosexuality; he chose to say what he said. ”

        Maybe we can figure out why. Is homosexual sex an act associated with separation from God?

      • boomergran

        I’m sure he – and probably you – think so.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Then it’s understandable why he’d use that as an example.

      • Dakota

        He has not been fired. He has been placed on suspension pending an internal investigation and discussion about how to proceed since he, as a representative of A&E, spoke something in a public interview that went against his contract and A&E’s open and full support of the LGBT community and against their beliefs as a company, of which he is a representative. He has NOT been fired, only suspended from being filmed for the time being. It is the same thing that happens in other places too, even in lower level government positions. He also made racist remarks too, but nobody seems to notice that…

      • Catherine Maio

        Right? I think that’s the larger issue that everyone’s ignoring!! Take religion out of the equation and what he said is still distasteful (though not ilegal) and would certainly violate even the most basic conduct clause in an entertainment contract.

      • JamesMc

        A&E was well aware of his religious views prior to hiring him. They approved the interview. They suspended him because others objected to his religious views. One can not honestly “take religion out of” this equation.

      • Catherine Maio

        My point was that *even if* the religious statements were taken out of the equation, he still said enough distasteful things that I would not want him associated with my brand. In my opinion, the racial statements are more troubling.

      • JamesMc

        His “racial” statements were given a false context. Phil Robertson made no mention of Civil Rights. The context of his quote was in relation to entitlement and welfare programs. What he clearly implied is that “blacks” were happier and more religious prior to wide impact of those programs.

      • Catherine Maio

        Yes, and I find that kind of repugnant.

      • magormissabib

        The policys of SODOM and Gomorrah were also in support of GBTLosers too. God hates America. God hates perverts. sue me.

      • magormissabib

        Phil DOES however have the right to express his sincerely – something you know nothing of- held beliefs without fear of being fired. Its called discrimination.

      • Jonas

        No, he does not. It’s not discrimination to stop paying someone for spewing at the mouth while under coupon tract with you. Like a typical jebus worshipping heretic, you seem to think its discrimination when you can’t shove your opinion down everyone’s throat.

      • magormissabib

        why are you [email protected] so hateful while complaining that anyone who tells you to stop sinning is hateful .

      • Valerie

        Its still intact but let’s be real. A&E knew EXACTLY what they were signing on for when they signed the Robertsons on as did any endorsing company. Its not like its some big secret. In fact, they forthcomingly say that they are bible thumping backwoods simple folk and during negotiations for their contract stated that three things could not be compromised by the show. According to Jase Robertson it was family, faith, and duck season. Seems pretty straightfoward that A&E shouldn’t be shocked by an honest answer to an honest question regardless of its content.

      • You choose

        Mr.Scott you don’t believe that the Bible is the word of God do you so I will just say this.If I live a life the way the Bible teaches and than die too find out that there is nothing than I’ve lost nothing ,but if I live like hell on this earth and than die too find out that Jesus did go to the cross and is the son of God than I’ve lost ever thing. My choice my life.

      • HolyMoly

        Exactly. Nazis WERE Christians. “Gott Mitt Uns” (“God Is With Us”) was a slogan that could be found on the belt buckles of German soldiers.

        American West, circa 1870s. Apache, Nez Perce, Sioux, etc. nearly wiped out.

        The Crusades.

        The Spanish Inquisition, ca. 1400s-late 1700s. First the Jews and Muslims, then the “conversos” and “moriscos” (Jews and Muslims who had converted to Christianity), and then when they were pretty well thinned out, Christians started turning on some of their own.

        The witch hunts in Europe and later in America.

      • magormissabib

        the homos of A+E are more like Nazis than anyone else in this scenario/

      • HolyMoly

        They’re more like capitalists than anyone else in this scenario. Do you mean to suggest that capitalism = Nazism?

      • magormissabib

        its homo- fascism. Gay= oppression.

      • HolyMoly

        You’re the one who seems insatiably obsessed with homosexuality. I think the only oppression (or perhaps suppression) is in your mind.

      • magormissabib

        Oh yeah , this didn’t really happen its all in my mind. LOL

      • HolyMoly

        Admitting it is the first step. Congratulations! Are you agreeing that you’re obsessed, that you think about gay sex more than gays do, or are you admitting that you are suppressing your fears that you might be gay, since you think about it so much? Or both?

      • Sophie Lemus

        That shows what your made of …….

      • Liz

        A true capitalist would not have done what they are doing. They would have known their audience. A&E is nothing more than corporate greedy yuppies.

      • ChiSoxMike

        No, not a capitalistic decision, though capitalism allows them to make the misguided decision they did if that’s what you mean.

        Actually it’s the family acting ‘more like capitalists than anyone’ in this scenario. A&E is acting like dictators working under the guise of capitalism. Think Dominican Republic.

      • magormissabib

        Nazis were Christians!? Yup cause that’s what Jesus told his followers to do: murder jews. please shut up . the fact is that a lot of the Nazis were homosexual. Hitler himself was a male prostitute in Vienna for a few years.

      • HolyMoly

        LOL Hitler was never a male prostitute.

        Was the gay Nazi by any chance Ted Haggard?

      • magormissabib

        rage on, you are still going to hell.

      • boomergran

        As a supposed Christian, you should know you don’t get to make that decision. But you should also know that by presuming to do so, you are putting yourself in the place of God – and God really, really doesn’t like that. You probably ought to start pricing asbestos shrouds.

      • magormissabib

        your problem is with God. No perverts in heaven,

      • james

        Exactly. Lll

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Well, you’ve said something that is true, Tony. There are no perverts in heaven just as there are no perverts in Alley Oop’s Moo. Neither Moo nor heaven exist so there are no perverts in either. Bravo Tony!

      • magormissabib

        remember that when you open your eyes in torment.

      • james

        No actually Tony is right. The bible says We will know each other by their fruits. U can actually know who will be going to hell by the way someone lives, acts. Etc…you? The way ur acting and things ur saying, well, ur probably going to hell. Tony is right in everything he’s saying so far.

      • boomergran

        More right-wing revisionist history. Please, please show us where you got your information.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Google: pink swastika

      • boomergran

        “Pink swastika” has been debunked by real historians time and again, and has never been shown to have any basis in fact.

      • Liz

        I find it hard to believe that their are any “real historians” left in the world. Everything seems to be revisionist.

      • magormissabib

        yes the sodomites want to rewrite history .

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Maybe one in one thousand or even fewer “historians” as presented today can be taken seriously.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “”Pink swastika” has been debunked by real historians time and again, and has never been shown to have any basis in fact.”

        That’s great to know. Can you be more specific please? Otherwise it sounds like a bluff on your part to some people.

      • magormissabib

        I read the Pink Swastika Hitler was a corrophiliac and a male prostitute and a misogynist. That is why he clicked with the homosexual perverts.

      • Whatever

        They may have said they where Christians but truthfully where not…any one can say they are Christian but it is their actions and words that determines if they are or not..and they were not any open minded intelligent person can see that.

      • fred

        Mmmm. So why did the Pope himself bless the German army in 1938? And speaking of Truthful Christians, did we forget the crusades in the name of the bible. Or what about the Spanish Inquisition? Bad Christians as well?! How do you get to decide what is “Truthful ” christian?

      • Christian

        Whoa Fred, check your sources. Pope Pius XII was directly opposed to the Nazis.

      • rightthinker

        The attitude of Nazi party membership to German Catholics ranged from tolerance to near total renunciation. The 1920 Nazi Party Platform promised to support freedom of religions with the caveat: “insofar as they do not jeopardize the state’s existence or conflict with the moral sentiments of the Germanic race”. It further proposed a definition of a “Positive Christianity” which could combat the “Jewish-materialistic spirit”. Shirer wrote that “under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.”The Nazi party had decidedly pagan elements.

      • yayyyy

        Christianity has decidedly pagan elements…

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Some Christians inherited traditions from the Roman Pagans after the Romans adopted Christianity without purging pagan priests and ideas. They tried to be ecumenical because political power for some was apparently more important than purity of doctrine.

      • MAGERD, HER

        Animal sacrifice anyone? Lets see them pull that one today.

      • magormissabib

        poor illiterate scoffing bigoted God hating fool: Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Christians follow Jesus Christ and the Bible. They had little ability to ever gain significant political power. They were rarely on the cutting edge of power deciding government policies until the modern era. And even then, if they’re not following Christ, they’re obviously not representing Christ or Christianity.

      • ChiSoxMike

        They had little ability to gain significant political power? Didn’t decide Government Policies?

        You CAN’T be serious?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        I guess you’re not following along. The popes rarely followed the Bible and are never following the Bible when acting as “vicar.”

        That’s a big clue for you.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        If I commit crime “in the name of atheism,” will you attack atheists for my acts?

      • William Becker

        Evangelical/Fundamentalists Christians would. Oh yea we forgot about the Salem which burnings committed by fundamentalist/bible beliving Protestants (commonly referred to as Evangelicals) but they will dismiss that by saying they aren’t real Christians

      • GregBrady


      • thomas dean

        not biblical. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to murder unbelievers. NO WHERE. Actions of man does not make the Bible incorrect.

      • Matthew R Webb

        Actually, the Bible says to kill people all over in it.

      • William Becker

        Actually the Bible does say to murder unbelievers:

        “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Ex. 22:18 KJV

        “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD, he shall be utterly destroyed.: Ex.22:20 KJV

        “And he (Moses) said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.” Ex. 32:27 KJV

        “A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:27 KJV

        When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, or shew mercy unto them:
        Deuteronomy 7:1-2 KJV

        Must I go on.

      • allweneedislove

        OLD TESTAMENT, and I do believe the NEW TESTAMENT and the teachings of Christ is what makes Christians, well Christians =) God Bless You!

      • William Becker

        So explain, do you believe the whole bible, old and new testament or just the new. Or does God change the rules as he or she goes along. I guess it was alright to commit genocide before Jesus. Or how do we decide what to follow in the Old Testament and what not to follow, who dictates that.

      • allweneedislove

        I personally believe the whole Bible, thank you for asking. That being said today I follow the teachings of the New Testament. In the new testament if you take the time to read it Jesus addresses a lot of the teachings in the old testament. The way he taught, was one of the reasons he was crucified. They did not like what he preached, and how it differed from previous prophets. He preached with Authority given to him from God. and in Matthew they challenge him right away asking what is the most important of commandments where Jesus replied, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and all your mind. Secondly love thy neighbor as yourself.” Love as the most important commandment…yep makes him sound like a bad guy to me! (Hope you noted the sarcasm) LOL. Sorry I love the lord, and it makes me happy to be able to quote such a wonderful verse =). The coming of Christ was a game changer in the Bible, he made it possible for all to come to God, washed away sins, by his wounds we are healed.

      • William Becker

        So Jesus changed the rules. We are no longer mandated to kill unbelievers. But he didn’t change the one about “homosexuality.” Oh by the way lesbianism must be okay because the bible never mentions women laying with woman. Oh yeah and he (Jesus) waited till later to let us eat pork (or did Paul change that one). What I am trying to say without being too sarcastic. I when do evangelical/fundamentalist take the bible literally and when don’t they.

      • allweneedislove

        John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

        8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

        9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

        He says it better than I ever could =)

      • allweneedislove

        Spoiler alert…God is his father 😉

      • GregBrady

        Unfortunately, it’s just a myth.

      • Midnari

        Unfortunately, You’re a dickhead.

        See, I can talk shit to people too.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “…when do evangelical/fundamentalist take the bible literally and when don’t they.”

        When you examine enough context it’s not confusing at all.

      • magormissabib

        shhhh porky. the bible was written for intelligent human beings. not sodomite dogs like you

      • magormissabib

        pitiful ignorant americans.

      • magormissabib

        any begginner knows that the MORAL law stands forever while the ceremonial,dietary and civil laws applied ONLY to Ancient Israel.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Or does God change the rules as he or she goes along.”

        Some rules are universal and others were circumstantial instructions. How complicated is that to understand? If the state of Texas kills a criminal, are you going to pretend that it’s random? Now we’re all at risk of being murdered by the state of Texas? And if not, then you’ll pretend that the rules changed?

        What nonsense is this? Feigned stupidity I hope.

      • Dana Bullock

        Pretty simple. If you tell your dog to guard your house while you are gone, when you return do you still want your Dog to guard your house? You retracting an order doesn’t make you a liar. It simply means you don’t need that order any longer. The bible takes place in a sequence of events, over the span of hundreds of thousands of years. The bible makes mention of dinosaurs even(figure that one out for all the people who support the big bang ). Following that it makes perfect sense that some laws are amended and no longer void. It specifically says in the bible that Jesus is the new Testament and the way to heaven. And to get to heave you follow his example. And the extent of what Jesus said was “love others as you would love yourself, treat even your enemy as you would want to be treated” that’s IT. Repent of sin and attempt to avoid doing the same old things repeatedly . That is a simple charge. Only people find parts of the bible that suit them and harp on about them, such as “no gays” or “kill witches” , those are direct orders from God for a reason. The reason was to purify the bloodline of God’s holy people to create a vessel pure enough to bring forth Christ in this world. That took 14 generations of those harsh, strict laws until one person was holy enough to carry the divine king. But of course you wouldn’t want to hear that, because for one you don’t understand, and don’t want to, and for two, it suits your purpose for God to seem cruel and irrational.

      • Jen

        where does the bible mention dinosaurs?

      • magormissabib

        Good answer but you are casting pearls before swine.

      • magormissabib

        these are the questions of a bible dumb fool who pretends to discuss a book he hasnt read. if you read it you would know that God wiped out the caanaite nations for the extreme wickeness – and the abominations of SODOMY, beastiality and incest.

      • toddklopfer

        Please explain to me when a gay Christian says that he does not need to follow Mosaic Law Christians say that Christ did not come to remove the old law but when someone quotes Old Testament scripture to Christians they say I only follow the New Testament.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “…but when someone quotes Old Testament scripture to Christians they say I only follow the New Testament.”

        Some laws are or were explicitly for the Jews at that time in history. Only following the NT simply means they are not bound by the laws that are circumstantial.

        And furthermore a lot of genius Bible critics pull out specific instructions for a single specific event from the OT and present it as a “law” for all people. Ridiculous.

        Context matters.

      • magormissabib

        We can quote the commandment ‘thous shat not lie wiht mankind as with womankind because it is a law regarding sexual conduct which laws are upheld by Christ.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        There will obviously be overlap in the laws.

      • Guest

        the moral law still stands. It was reiterated in the new testament. The ceremonial law, regarding sacrifices etc and the dietary laws were particular to Ancient israel. When God commanded the Jews to go out and gather manna – that was a specific command for a specific time.

      • toddklopfer

        So when my son disobeys me I am to stone him to death.

      • magormissabib

        where do you get such an idiotic notion. If your Son is a incouragable criminal, rebellious drunkard and glutton Yes. in america he can be tried as an adult and even executed. is that why you mean -pervert.

      • toddklopfer

        Not quite sure how quoting Biblical text makes me a pervert; guess you will have to explain that.
        Let me quote the text to you. “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.”
        I don’t know what America you live in but the death penalty can only be used for the heinous of crimes involving murder or the never used punishment of treason. I am sure the FBI would like to know where you have buried the bodies of your rebellious and stubborn children since you feel death is appropriate. Then we get to see what the death penalty is really for.
        Back to my original question that no one seems to want to answer. Why is it the fundamentalists insist on picking and choosing which biblical scriptures to follow? Now that is a perversion of His word.

      • magormissabib

        check the text agaisnt your comemnt. it doesnt say to stone your son to death is he obeys you. Dont be so sloppy and careless. It says to take him to the elders which means it was all to be carried out by due process. give it up you cant wrest the words to defend sodomites .

      • toddklopfer

        Are you kidding me? I am not defending sodomites. I pointing out the problem with Christian fundamentalism. You want to treat the Bible as a pick and choose game. Yes it says take him to the elders so the community as a collective can stone him to death. Christ has taught us to love one another. He has taught us to turn the other cheek. Again you want to twist His word because it does not fit neatly into your excuse to hate another human being.
        Since you brought up the issue of sodomy I suggest you look up what Greek word for abomination is. It is incorrectly translated. So while sodomy is an against Mosaic law it is not punishable by death but clearly disrespecting your parents is.

      • magormissabib

        So your arguemnt is that we should not penalze criminals cause We are to love our fellow man? . And the word disrespecting your parents is not what the text says I told you once it is LAWLESS, that is CRIMINAL , behavior. And yes. sodomy is prescribed the death penalty.

      • toddklopfer

        You are absolutely amazing. I just reviewed 15 translations of Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Not a single one uses the world lawless. You can capitalize it all you want but that does not make is so. While unruly is the most common translation the other words in place of it do not mean lawless. So is this make up your own translations so that you can justify murdering children.

        Do I believe that a child cursing their parent should be considered a criminal? No. Do I believe that if someone rapes, murders, and steals should have criminal penalty? Of course. Let me add another scripture and see how you can misrepresent God’s word again.

        Leviticus 20:9
        For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

        While reading Leviticus I did miss the last line of that said that men who sleep with men as they would a woman should be put to death. Of course I must say that prior to my celibacy I never slept with a man as I would a woman. Now before you bring up Sodom I want to share with you the only scripture that addresses the sin of Sodom which by the way does not mention homosexuality.

        Ezekiel 16:49–50

        49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

        50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

        Before we go any further let me also education in Hebrew. The Hebrew word toevah which is most commonly translated as abomination means something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. A taboo. So the ancient Jews were forbidden to have sex with the same sex that does not mean God forbid to all.
        While we are at it the understanding of two people of the same sex being in a loving committed relationship was not understood during the ancient times. Sex between men was done when one man was raping another to show power over the man. This often took place during war. In fact the term homosexual was not coined until 1868.
        What the Bible does not address are people with either both sexual organs, no sexual organs or ambiguous sexual organs. It does not address people who have the sexual organ of one sex but the genetic makeup of opposite sex. It does not address people who have a xxy or xyy or xxx chromosomal pattern.
        Your knowledge on language, the Bible, history and science or even the ability to do a simple internet search is greatly lacking. All you want to do is spew hatred that you probably learn by some uneducated pastor on Sunday morning.
        But as I have said repeatedly just like Phil Robertson you have the right to express your ignorance all you want in this country and just like A&E if you represent a company while doing it they have the right to fire you.

      • magormissabib

        Deu 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son,…. It is observed (w) that this law quickly follows, and is subjoined to that which relates to the marriage of a woman taken captive, because often from such marriages wicked and refractory children have sprung, and which they exemplify in the case of Absalom, whose mother they say David took in war and married: the character of such a son follows, and by which it may be known that he is stubborn and rebellious; stubborn in his nature, and rebellious in his actions; behaves contrary to the laws of God, and the instructions of his parents; what he should do, that he does not; and what he should not do, that he does; will not do what is commanded him, and will do what is forbidden him, notwithstanding all counsels, admonitions, and corrections given him:

        which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother; is disobedient to the commands of either of them; see Pro_30:17 and, when they have chastened him, will not hearken to them; when they have reproved him by words, and corrected him with blows; the Jews understand this of scourging or beating by the order of the sanhedrim, after admonition given; it is said (x),”they admonish him before three (a court of judicature consisting of three judges), and they beat him; but it seems rather to respect private corrections of their own by words and stripes, which having no effect, they were to proceed as follows.”

        (w) Moses Kotensis Mitzvot Torah, pr. affirm. 122. Kimchi in 2 Sam. 3. 3. (x) Misn. Sandedrin, c. 8. sect. 4.

      • magormissabib

        what you believe or think is irrelevant. It is what God thinks so yeah. tough luck You dont set the standards Gos set them and by them you will be judged so youd better get them right. No homos in heaven.

      • toddklopfer

        Oh yeah you told me. LOL Jesus Christ made it clear what those standards are.

        Mark 12:29-31
        29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

        As all human beings I fail these each and every day and through the sacrifice of Jesus I will still make it into heaven even though I am not worthy.

        Who is not worthy?

        Matthew 6:5-7

        5 “When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Most certainly, I tell you, they have received their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, enter into your inner room, and having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7 In praying, don’t use vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their much speaking

        I see your type all the time at gay events. Preaching the Word; pushing people further and further away from the Lord. I truly pray that one day that you will see that Christ is about love not anger. That judgment must come from Him and not us. I know that if you succeed at this we will meet in heaven as brother’s in Christ. Peace be with you.

      • chiefpalakiko

        The new testament doesn’t say anything about gays…

      • magormissabib

        duck dude was quoting the NT on homosex. thats the whole reason the rabid dogs from gladd are in a frenzy.

      • MAGERD, HER

        Yeah exactly, so you’re well aware your religion is based on one that used to sacrifice animals right? SAC-RI-FICE AN-I-MALS. Uh what do you think people would think about you today if you tried to sacrifice an animal to a god? I guess if you determined it was a gay you’d have to be running both arms up to catch all the high 5’s in your church. I mean its not like its a person, and you USED to do it right?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Animals are sacrificed to allah by the millions each day.

        Are you vegan?

        “Uh what do you think people would think about you today if you tried to sacrifice an animal to a god?”

        Ever had a Thanksgiving turkey? What do people think of you hypocritically eating one of those?

      • MAGERD, HER

        I assumed you were christian. But the fact muslims are still sacrificing animals well…. THAT just made my holiday 🙂

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “But the fact muslims are still sacrificing animals well…. THAT just made my holiday :)”

        Muslims must emulate and follow all of the original instructions of Mohamed. Including jihad to make Islam supreme as a compulsory religion.

        But that’s OK because at least they’re not Christians or Jews. Right?

        Jews were instructed to “sacrifice” animals in commemoration and as a foreshadowing of the messianic sacrifice that would come. Christians believe that Jesus was that sacrifice pointed to by the Hebrew rituals. Most of them were eaten. Texans call this “BBQ.”

        However, people sacrifice animals by the millions and eat them as well. What difference does it make to you whether they thank their deity? As long as the animals are not abused.

        Check out halal meats and try to be more rational in your criticism.

      • MAGERD, HER

        Because the sacrifice of any animal to any god is some bone-in-nose tribal nomad kind of… wait, hold on, I thought about it again and just changed my mind. It’s actually some ground breaking post doctorate-level einstein thinking that I just cant understand! What about all the other religions that people believed until their death or DIED for? I mean they really BELIEVED just strongly as you believed. Why did they? What makes you right and them wrong? You don’t give your life away for something you don’t believe with your whole heart to be true. So what makes billions of other people fools and you not? Cause there have been hundreds of religions. And I’m guessing you were raised to believe what you do, as I was, so I’ll just leave you with these two quotes to end my reply:

        “Start children off on the way they should go,
        and even when they are old they will not turn from it.”

        ― Proverbs 22:6

        “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

        ― Mark Twain

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Because the sacrifice of any animal to any god is some bone-in-nose tribal nomad kind of… wait, hold on, I thought about it again and just changed my mind. It’s actually some ground breaking post doctorate-level einstein thinking that I just cant understand!”

        False dichotomy.

        “What about all the other religions that people believed until their death or DIED for? I mean they really BELIEVED just strongly as you believed. Why did they? What makes you right and them wrong?”

        You’re going to have to ask them. I don’t believe it’s about blind faith. It’s about evidence.

        “So what makes billions of other people fools and you not?”

        We’ll have to arrange for some time to survey them if you want to know.

        “Cause there have been hundreds of religions. And I’m guessing you were raised to believe what you do, as I was, so I’ll just leave you with these two quotes to end my reply:”

        “Start children off on the way they should go,
        and even when they are old they will not turn from it. ― Proverbs 22:6”

        I can see that you are one of those fools. All of your inferences seem to be wrong.

      • magormissabib

        when you see someone pitting the OT agaisnt the new you know you are talking to a bible dumb person Move on.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        That’s not “murdering unbelievers.” Those are instructions for how to proceed in a specific time and place. They’ve never applied to Christians so that means they haven’t been applicable for at least 2000 years but in reality much longer than that.

        “Must I go on.”

        It’s your life.

      • Lauren Darter

        America’s fucked than, we cast out the Native Americans…

      • james

        Amen. Well said and thank you. Good bless.

      • JMark

        I think the Bible is essentially a fairy tale, and still think your assertions are outright fabrications.

        None of your the verses you cited inform believers to murder unbelievers because they are merely unbelievers.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending anything, but your assertions are a joke.

      • james

        No the bible is not fairy tale. Its real and soon people Will see that it’s true.

      • JMark

        Can’t wait!

        BTW, Happy Holidays to you and yours 🙂

      • MAGERD, HER


      • Dana Bullock

        Old testament laws applied only to God’s chosen people. What you are saying makes it a moot point. The point of many of the strange and specific laws were directed entirely to God’s holy people, who had just left Egypt , the land of false idol worshipping- in other words- many false gods. These very specific rules were in response to the way they had been living and worshipping. Anything sounds harsh when you take it out of context and use it to suit your needs. So called christians do it, and so do atheists, like you just did. There is no conflict or contradiction with the word of God, there is only your misunderstanding and misinterpretation thereof. I’d be happy to clear it up for you though.

      • William Becker

        Then I guess the 10 commandments only applied to the Chosen People. No one has yet made a cogent argument as to the infallibility of the Bible. You need to use logic when you make your arguments. The bible has become whatever the person reading it wants it to be. You can quote nothing in the New Testament to back up your arguments other than what Paul says in his letters about Gentiles not having to become Jews to follow what was then known as the way. If your argument is correct why weren’t the Apostles who knew as Jesus personally aware of this. They required that the first followers of what was then called “The Way” follow the Jewish Laws. I regard myself as a follower of Jesus and will not let any fundamentalist/evangelical tell me any different. I may not have all the answers but God does not require that of me. Jesus said I’m required to love God and Love others, nothing more nothing less. The Bible is a wonderful book but I never seek to twist it to fit my interpretation of what I believe religion to be.

      • Jake

        You should probably check the context of those verses. You are twisting the truth

      • jesustherational

        Nor do the interpretations of man make the bible correct.

      • derp

        There is no “name of atheism” it is a LACK of theological belief.

      • Lauren Darter

        I’m pretty sure that is their point…

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “There is no “name of atheism” it is a LACK of theological belief.”

        I didn’t say “In the name of the god of atheism.” Atheism is *belief* that there is no god.

      • james

        I’m glad I believe in God. I feel for the ones who does not. Is going to be a terrible day when he looks at those who did not believe in him and depart from me, I never knew you. Then those will be thrown in the lake fire and will burn forever and will be in torment forever. Its sad.

      • Midnari

        Now now, don’t tell people they’re going to hell for not believing in God. What about all those people that’s never actually heard of him? What about God’s chosen people, the Jews, who don’t take Jesus as their savior?

        What about all the GOOD people? I personally believe God would take anyone in as long as they have a heart that’s pure (By human possibility) Good people probably go to heaven regardless of belief.

        Just saying. Though, that certainly goes against everything the bible says.

        (Also, stop hurting your case, you can’t just say ‘They’re going to be tormented forever’ They’re freaking atheists, they’ll point and laugh at you. (And I will too.))

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “What about all those people that’s never actually heard of him?”

        If God does exist, you certainly can’t be confident that there is any single person not presented with the facts before they need them.

        “What about God’s chosen people, the Jews, who don’t take Jesus as their savior?”

        They must believe in the Messiah and not reject Jesus. The rest is not clear but it’s merely a theoretical distinction.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Do bad dogs go to hell? I have heard that “all dogs go to heaven.” Does that mean there are no cats? or do all cats go to hell, which is ‘heaven’ for dogs?


      • pureabsolute

        Or it is the understanding that the concept of GOD is meaningless. If you cannot prove its existence or non-existence, you may treat your life as if he doesn’t exist. Aristotle came up with the concept of the Prime Mover, which devolved GOD into the equivalent of the match that set off the big bang. Even with all of that logic behind something outside of our current frame of reference existing, it is reduced to something that is totally and absolutely irrelevant.

        Although I’m sure some people treat their Atheism as an un-examined belief.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Or it is the understanding that the concept of GOD is meaningless.”

        That is also a belief.

        “If you cannot prove its existence or non-existence, you may treat your life as if he doesn’t exist. Aristotle came up with the concept of the Prime Mover, which devolved GOD into the equivalent of the match that set off the big bang. Even with all of that logic behind something outside of our current frame of reference existing, it is reduced to something that is totally and absolutely irrelevant.”

        Your life is finite. If you find that completely irrelevant, some might call that short-sited. But you’re free to believe what you want.

        “Although I’m sure some people treat their Atheism as an un-examined belief.”

        Even if you examine it, it’s still a belief. Atheism is “unbelief” in any theory of god. But that is still a belief…in some alternative theory. And then of course there are blind believer in any of these theories as well but the above author was disputing that atheism involves belief completely. I think that was an attempt to show confidence in his faith.

      • pureabsolute

        You strike me as someone who believes that ‘true does not equal false’ is a belief. No; it is an axiom. The inability to prove one way or the other a fact is not the same as a belief in the opposite of the fact.

        Again, some people do believe in atheism in the same way some people believe in a particular god. But some are much more practical and logical about it.

        As for the ‘your life is finite’ section, not sure who you are arguing against. Is that a strawman?

        “Even if you examine it, it is still a belief” — sure, in the exact sense of “The sky is blue” is a belief even though it is backed by both logic and observation. I’m pretty sure we were arguing about faith, and not relative truth.

        But if that’s what your original statement was about, then my bad, and never mind.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “The inability to prove one way or the other a fact is not the same as a belief in the opposite of the fact.”


        “Again, some people do believe in atheism in the same way some people believe in a particular god. But some are much more practical and logical about it.”

        As soon as you add “faith” or “belief” beyond what you can demonstrate empirically, you’ve obviously got a belief in theory rather than in demonstrable facts. Usually atheists that are not zealous in their assertions are called agnostic. When they add certainty to something they can’t be certain about based on evidence, that clearly requires faith and belief. Confidence that there is no god is different than confidence that there is no convincing evidence about god.

        “”Even if you examine it, it is still a belief” — sure, in the exact sense of “The sky is blue” is a belief even though it is backed by both logic and observation. I’m pretty sure we were arguing about faith, and not relative truth.”

        But there are objective measurements from observation of the sky used to form that belief. Examining a theory is not the same as examining empirical evidence.

        “I’m pretty sure we were arguing about faith, and not relative truth.”

        That was my point.

      • pureabsolute

        Ahh. An empiricist. So anything is possible if you cannot demonstrate that it is impossible. I understand where you are coming from now.

        “Usually atheists that are not zealous in their assertions are called agnostic”. This statement makes no sense. An agnostic would not say he was an atheist. The two are incompatible. I’m an Atheist, because I don’t go around saying that somewhere out there there are pigs flying, and noone has proven me wrong. I judge reality by what I see, what others have seen, and logic. While I would never blindly believe there was no higher power, I would be very surprised if a burning bush started talking to me. This is not “agnosticism”, which instead would be unsure whether the burning bush in the bible coulda happened.

        I’m a rationalist. I think we can move forward from this. Although that was a logical statement; I’m not sure how to translate that to an empirical statement.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Ahh. An empiricist. So anything is possible if you cannot demonstrate that it is impossible. I understand where you are coming from now.”

        Uh, no you don’t.

        “This statement makes no sense.”

        Your reading comprehension needs work.

        “An agnostic would not say he was an atheist.”

        Atheists and agnostics conflate and converse the terms all the time. Don’t take it personally. The whole discussion is about some dude that thinks atheism doesn’t involve any belief.

        “I’m an Atheist, because I don’t go around saying that somewhere out there there are pigs flying, and noone has proven me wrong.”

        That’s fascinating sarcasm, but it’s not necessarily about you personally.

        “I judge reality by what I see, what others have seen, and logic.”

        You’re pretty awesome.

        “While I would never blindly believe there was no higher power, I would be very surprised if a burning bush started talking to me.”

        So you’re also confused about whether you’re an atheist or an agnostic.

        “This is not “agnosticism”, which instead would be unsure whether the burning bush in the bible coulda happened.”

        Dude, there are lots of theists that are skeptical about the burning bush. You’d make an excellent Muslim. You’re agnostic about a higher power, and certain that at least some passages in the Bible are not credible when taken literally. Well then you are not an atheist. You don’t have a theory that there is no god, or at best you admit you are uncertain.

        You either admit you are uncertain or you don’t about the possibility of a transcendent unseen god, higher power or whatever. You’re trying to have it both ways by being condescending towards the Bible but then admitting you’re uncertain about other possibilities. That’s fine.But that makes you agnostic.

        Hopefully you don’t actually believe what your saying about atheism versus agnosticism and you’re just using petty equivocation to “win” an Internet argument.

      • pureabsolute

        > “Ahh. An empiricist. So anything is possible if you cannot demonstrate that it is impossible. I understand where you are coming from now.” Uh, no you don’t.

        Yes I do, and it seems that you don’t feel the need to explain your empiricist statements.

        > “This statement makes no sense.” Your reading comprehension needs work.

        Oooh. Good dig. Seems I have pushed some kind of button that turned you from arguing from empiricist logic to personal attack logic. If I misunderstood something, say it. I don’t suppose rationalists are the only ones who know what an Ad Hominem argument is..

        > “An agnostic would not say he was an atheist.” Atheists and agnostics conflate and converse the terms all the time.

        Once someone understands the definition of agnostic vs atheist in general, if they are an agnostic, they would not say they were atheist, even if they held a healthy dose of skepticism. The same goes for the reverse. I chose this way because the average person who would know the term agnostic would know they weren’t atheist, while if they hadn’t heard the term they might use the word atheist, which most people know.

        > Don’t take it personally.

        I’m not. You need to work on your argument style. Another Ad Hominem attack?

        > The whole discussion is about some dude that thinks atheism doesn’t involve any belief.

        Yes, and my answer to your argument against that is that some people’s Atheism is not based on blind belief, AKA faith.

        > “I’m an Atheist, because I don’t go around saying that somewhere out there there are pigs flying, and noone has proven me wrong.” That’s fascinating sarcasm, but it’s not necessarily about you personally.

        It is called a Metaphore. Pigs Flying represents the concept of GOD. Noone proving me wrong and thus I have to accept the possibility relates to the statement that noone proving that god does not exist does not mean I have to accept the fact that he might exists.

        > “I judge reality by what I see, what others have seen, and logic.” You’re pretty awesome.

        Thank you — I assume your sarcastic response was in no way an inditement of sarcasm in general. Thanks for adding this logical Gem to our conversaion. It helped me see.. What.. That perhaps you don’t understand when someone is describing the difference between a rationalist (albeit a modern one that might not follow one of the three schools fully) and an empiricist?

        > “While I would never blindly believe there was no higher power, I would be very surprised if a burning bush started talking to me.” So you’re also confused about whether you’re an atheist or an agnostic.

        I will not say anything about reading comprehension… But.. Well, I’ll help you here. There is a big difference between saying something might be true, and something is not true, at least within our current knowlege. One refuses to make a judgement. The other makes the judgement, but knows that their world is a logical interpretation of what is going on around them, and either their logic or their observations could be wrong. Shortened: Open minded is not the same as admitting we and our ways of gathering knowlege are fallible.

        > “This is not “agnosticism”, which instead would be unsure whether the burning bush in the bible coulda happened.” Dude, there are lots of theists that are skeptical about the burning bush. You’d make an excellent Muslim.

        Here’s where you need to work on your arguments: “I Don’t believe in the burning bush. Theists are skeptical about a burning bush. Muslims are Theists that are skeptical about the burning bush. Therefore I’m like a Muslim.” –> “Ray Charles is blind. Love is blind. Jesus is love…”

        > You’re agnostic about a higher power


        > and certain that at least some passages in the Bible are not credible when taken literally.

        Nope — I don’t believe they happened. Very different than what you just said.

        > Well then you are not an atheist.

        Since both of your premises were wrong, your conclusion is still unproven.

        > You don’t have a theory that there is no god, or at best you admit you are uncertain.

        I have no reason to believe there is a god, just like I have no reason to believe that there are pigs with wings. What is there to be uncertain about?

        > Hopefully you don’t actually believe what your saying about atheism versus agnosticism and you’re just using petty equivocation to “win” an Internet argument.

        No, I believe what I’m saying. And there is no evidence that I’ve lost the internet argument..

        I’ll help you out some more. You cannot prove a negative. An impiricist cannot understand the concept because any fact that they haven’t observed is a possibility. God is unprovable by design — there is no experiment one can do to prove the existance of GOD, or the non existance. God is about FAITH. I understand that. And since I do, I know that I do not have to look for this GOD, since he is a construct of Human minds. If there *happened* to be a GOD, it would not be one of the ones that Humans believed in — Those are all constructs. And then once we named him and catalogued him, he would no longer be a GOD, but a threat, and we would find his weakness and try to kill him.

        Ahh. Epiricists. Realistic about what they believe, but not about what they don’t believe.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        merriam-webster dot com

        athe·ism noun ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm
        Definition of ATHEISM
        1: archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
        2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
        b : the doctrine that there is no deity

      • pureabsolute

        2a is what we are arguing about. What is your point?

      • objectivefactsmatter


        noun ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-

        : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

        : a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

      • pureabsolute

        Definition 2, while you might have found it in a modern dictionary, is bogus.

      • Stephen Barlow

        If P, then Q. If not P, then not Q? What if P only on M, W & F, then when Q?

        I loved logic classes!!! “if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?” I asked the professor, “Since the forest makes a sound without a tree falling, does that make the question moot?”

      • Stephen Barlow

        I like the 12 step concept of a ‘higher power’. They phase it in their book as “the God of our own understanding”.

        I studied religions for fun, but what wisdom is there in defining spiritual principles and existence in material, corporeal terms?

      • Tell that to Richard Dawkins…

      • Midnari

        Theoretically true but in practice… Not so much.

        When you begin to refer to yourself an atheist, you kind of make your own little ‘Religion’ in a way. A religion that holds without a God of any type. So more a ‘Group’ than a religion, I suppose.

        Though, that’s profiling, there are many atheist who just… you know, don’t care. Which is good. Cause caring tends to start these little hate fueled dances on here.

      • jesustherational

        You don’t understand what atheism is.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        LOL…really now? OK then.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I get your point, but what you really just said is, “If I commit a crime for reasons I don’t believe in…”

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “I get your point, but what you really just said is, “If I commit a crime for reasons I don’t believe in…””

        Yeah, well…uh…no I didn’t.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Yeah ya did! Define ATHEISM, then read “If I commit crime “in the name of atheism,”

        Atheism is rejecting belief that there is a god.[1][2] It is the opposite of theism, which is the belief that at least one god exists. A person who rejects belief in gods is called an atheist.


        SO, by default, you “would be committing a crime in the name of something YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN.”

        Unless you have a different definition OR speak Klingon or Romulan… and English is your second language.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Atheism is the belief that there is go god. Furthermore, many atheists believe strongly that those who disagree with their atheism are destructive, reactionary, etc.

        Atheism; lack of belief in god, but belief instead of other ideas.

        I believe for example that you are an idiot.

      • Stephen Barlow

        That doesn’t change the semantic truth that I proved you wrong about your denial TWICE.

        Care to have a discussion about THAT word used in context with YOUR NAME?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “That doesn’t change the semantic truth that I proved you wrong about your denial TWICE.”

        Please summarize before doing victory laps.

        “Care to have a discussion about THAT word used in context with YOUR NAME?”

        Go for it.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Yawn. Name calling is the last resort of impotent children.

        You also believe you are intelligent, so how can I POSSIBLY award you a shred of credibility when you make ignorant statements?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Off on another tangent.

        When will you try to walk a straight line?

        “That doesn’t change the semantic truth that I proved you wrong about your denial TWICE.”

        Please summarize before doing victory laps.

        “Care to have a discussion about THAT word used in context with YOUR NAME?”

        Go for it.

      • Stephen Barlow


        I can’t have a battle of wits with a brain dead corpse.

        When you have something worth reading, I’ll respond.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Yawn. Name calling is the last resort of impotent children.”

        I guess you’re allowed to speak for yourself in this case.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I didn’t NAME CALL you, I defined your existence.

      • thomas dean

        The pope blessing evil does not make it biblical. In fact the pope is not biblical as a position. He can bless whatever he wants, doesn’t mean its of God. He is just a man.

      • harebell

        The power to bind and loose, conferred on all the apostles jointly and to Peter in particular (Matthew 16:19) is seen in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as authority to absolve sins, to pronounce judgments on doctrine and to make decisions on Church discipline.

        The pope is the church’s rock and “as it is on earth so shall it be in Heaven.” Jesus’s gift to Peter and all subsequent popes by definition mean that his pronouncements on faith are indeed those of god.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Can you see the circular reasoning? The RC church tells you that the RC church as the power to ___.

        “The pope is the church’s rock…”

        Eh, no.

      • harebell

        Well if you are a bible believer you have no choice but to accept that Peter built christ’s church because it says so right in there in Matthew. As all the consequent popes are Peter’s successors in this church that Peter built then they are it’s rock too.
        If you aren’t a follower of christ’s commands then it’s weird that you would call yourself a christian and claim authority from the same book that gave you this specific direction.

        Cafeteria christians are the worst kind of believers, they keep the superstition running for the fundies to abuse.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Well if you are a bible believer you have no choice but to accept that Peter built christ’s church because it says so right in there in Matthew.”

        Peter was one of the original 12 apostles. He was one who did more than most others to establish the church of Christianity. Peter DID NOT establish the Roman Catholic Church.

        “As all the consequent popes are Peter’s successors in this church that Peter built then they are it’s rock too.”

        This is nonsense. I say I’m the pope. Who are you to dispute me? I am a descendant of Peter. You dare defy my authority?

        “If you aren’t a follower of christ’s commands then it’s weird that you would call yourself a christian and claim authority from the same book that gave you this specific direction.”

        Funny you don’t include quotes for that “specific” instruction.

        “Cafeteria christians are the worst kind of believers, they keep the superstition running for the fundies to abuse.”

        Whatever that is supposed to mean. It’s Catholics that made blind faith a requirement. You must believe the Church and its interpretations, Including all of the “Christianized” Paganism.

        I’m not the one spreading superstition. You are.

      • harebell

        I’m not a believer by the way,but even I understand that Peter built the church that became the RC and Eastern Orthodox church. Those who came after him in his religion were his heirs and were of his church.
        Protestants broke with the true church in the West and seem to think that gods word is whatever man says it is at any given time.
        Me I think you are all mad and deserve each other but I’m not going to deny the primacy of RC in the creation of christianity. every one else came as a result of a bunch of folk sulking because they didn’t like what the catholics were doing.

        History, even non-RC history is quite clear on who was responsible and how the christian church was created and it is the RCs.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “I’m not a believer by the way,but even I understand that Peter built the church that became the RC and Eastern Orthodox church.”

        Let’s stipulate that what you’ve said so far is true. How does that support the ideas for popes and integrating Roman Paganism? It doesn’t.

        “Those who came after him in his religion were his heirs and were of his church.”

        The question is not who considered themselves inspired by the legacy of Peter. The question is whether or not the texts justify specific Catholic-only doctrines. Is the RCC entitled to declare itself apostolic merely because they consider themselves follows of Peter?

        “Protestants broke with the true church in the West and seem to think that gods word is whatever man says it is at any given time.”

        The words are recorded. Nobody can dispute that. Whatever you think justifies smearing non-Catholics is silly. The question is whether or not believers have other present-day believers as mediators who can declare themselves to be authorities closer to God than the plebeians. The texts say no. You need to show where the texts authorizes this or you are just as full of BS as anyone else.

        I have just as much justification for declaring myself descended from Peter as the RCC. Therefore they have no authority over me.

        “Me I think you are all mad and deserve each other but I’m not going to deny the primacy of RC in the creation of christianity.”

        Obviously you are unable to read comprehensive accounts of history without understanding the influence of the custodians of the texts.

        “History, even non-RC history is quite clear on who was responsible and how the christian church was created and it is the RCs.”

        It is quite clear, but you’re analysis has failed. I’ll therefore have to see which research inspired your conclusions before I can understand where you went wrong.

      • harebell

        You’re all over the place here. Adopting paganist dates and even paganist concepts such a s the sun-god were not hard because christianity didn’t develop in isolation form other faiths. The Roman Emperor Constantine used the concept of one god to stabilise the empire and added weight to Jesus by insisting that he was god via the concept of the trinity. He also oversaw the expulsion of the heretics (Nestorianism, Arianism etc) because they doubted Jesus’s divinity.
        Any attempt to doubt the authority of the RCs based on this must question the idea of the concept of the trinity. So over to you.

        No, Peter set up the process and those who came after are working in his name. They are following Peter’s design and as Jesus said he was the guy to form his church then that is Jesus’s church. Unless of course you are arguing that those who followed Peter using his instructions were not divinely inspired. Then the question is how can anybody today consider anything carried out after Peter as being valid? The bible was collated post Peter so how is that an authority then? As it was the fathers of the RCC that composed the book. if they weren’t divinely inspired and were too pagan for your taste then the bible is suspect and those recorded words become nothing more than fantasy.
        You are undercutting the validity of the bible and hence the very foundation of your interpretations if you do not accept that those pagan accepting early christians weren’t right.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Adopting paganist dates and even paganist concepts such a s the sun-god were not hard because christianity didn’t develop in isolation form other faiths.”

        I didn’t say it was hard. I implied that it’s extra-Biblical. Nobody has the authority to do that without showing who empowered them to do so.

        If you want to use Star Wars as a modern parable that’s fine but don’t elevate it to the same level as the Biblical texts.

        “The Roman Emperor Constantine used the concept of one god to stabilise the empire and added weight to Jesus by insisting that he was god via the concept of the trinity.”

        That was a political decision. It has nothing to do with me other than as a witness to history, or at least recorded history.

        “He also oversaw the expulsion of the heretics (Nestorianism, Arianism etc) because they doubted Jesus’s divinity.”

        Great. He had rational motives. So what?

        “Any attempt to doubt the authority of the RCs based on this must question the idea of the concept of the trinity. So over to you.”

        How is that? The doctrine of the Trinity is a paradigm. It’s simply a way to understand what the Bible says. You can doubt the paradigm but not the contents of the Bible that inspire it.

        “No, Peter set up the process and those who came after are working in his name.”

        Sure he did. As recorded in the Bible. Right? And Paul was a pope as well? Which one was vicar when both were alive?

        “Unless of course you are arguing that those who followed Peter using his instructions were not divinely inspired.”

        Who are you talking about? Your popes? No, not divinely inspired.

        “Then the question is how can anybody today consider anything carried out after Peter as being valid?”

        Dude, doubting the RCC is not doubting the Biblical record on Peter. OK? You need to put the RCC in the Bible not keep shoehorning its authority based on the circular logic that the RCC claims Peter set the whole RCC thing up.

        “The bible was collated post Peter so how is that an authority then?”

        Collated? Who cares? Anyone can do that. What about hardbound. Who authorized the printing press and hard covers? Does it matter? Those organizing the texts follow the Pentateuch and not anything Peter said that is recorded.

        “As it was the fathers of the RCC that composed the book.”

        I’m authorized to create my own study edition as well as long as I don’t misrepresent myself as an apostle or a prophet.

        “You are undercutting the validity of the bible and hence the very foundation of your interpretations if you do not accept that those pagan accepting early christians weren’t right.”

        No, I’m exposing the fallacies of the RCC and it’s supposed “special” authority.

      • harebell

        You really are your own worst enemy here

        In your answer to the first point you hold the contents of the bible as paramount to any formation of any church.

        Then later on you exclaim

        “Collated? Who cares? Anyone can do that. What about hardbound. Who authorized the printing press and hard covers? Does it matter?”

        The bible was assembled by the early church fathers and they formed the Eastern and Western Churches. The bible is wholly their creation. If you claim it is divine then you cannot dismiss it glibly as you did. If you don’t dismiss it glibly and claim it as authority then the foundation of the RCC and Eastern Orthodox church are surely inline with the wishes of Christ, no matter how repugnant you personally find them.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “The bible was assembled by the early church fathers and they formed the Eastern and Western Churches. ”

        Oh, it was formed was it? Who wrote it?

        “If you claim it is divine then you cannot dismiss it glibly as you did.”

        Dismiss what? Your nonsensical claims? Sure I can.

        “If you don’t dismiss it glibly and claim it as authority then the foundation of the RCC and Eastern Orthodox church are surely inline with the wishes of Christ, no matter how repugnant you personally find them.”

        In line to the extent that they follow the contents of the texts, and not claim authority based on bogus contributions that amount to “being there.”

        And in the other direction to the extent that they falsely authorize themselves to speak as pseudo-Christs – another way of saying that would be “anti-Christ.”

        So I’d be careful if I were you claiming to care about Christ and the CONTENTS of the Bible rather than the cover, format, font or whatever.

      • harebell

        First point
        The bible was collated, the church was formed. The texts that comprised the NT were written anonymously and attributed fraudulently to apostles. As to th OT, who knows who knocked them out?

        Second point
        You claimed the bible as authority for any church, then later on said anyone could assemble one, so it was “Collated? Who cares? Anyone can do that.”
        So in the one instance it is the foundation for any action a church may make and then it’s something anyone could have created,

        Third point
        Who decides what is bogus and what isn’t, you? The pope? Some evangelical preacher who decided that his version of the bible is the “True word?” It’s one of the reasons why N American Christianity is regarded as a joke, anything anyone says is the True word of god is the True word of god.

        Fourth Point

        I personally couldn’t care less about what the superstitious hold dear or claim about their messiah, I’m just concerned when they decide that what they claim is a sound reason for denying citizens their full rights, When the so-called christians of today do this they tend not to be considering anything that the pseudonymous texts claim is what Jesus preached. It appears to be the christians who are more concerned with style rather than substance and US Protestants are the worst at twisting the book to suit their desires.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “First point: The bible was collated, the church was formed. The texts that comprised the NT were written anonymously and attributed fraudulently to apostles. As to th OT, who knows who knocked them out?”

        If that’s true then the RCC is also fraudulent. So why do you care?

        “Second point: You claimed the bible as authority for any church, then later on said anyone could assemble one, so it was “Collated? Who cares? Anyone can do that.”
        So in the one instance it is the foundation for any action a church may make and then it’s something anyone could have created,”

        Anyone is free to do anything they wish with the Bible. Believers care about the content of the authenticated texts. You’re making it way too complicated.

        “Third point: Who decides what is bogus and what isn’t, you? The pope? Some evangelical preacher who decided that his version of the bible is the “True word?” It’s one of the reasons why N American Christianity is regarded as a joke, anything anyone says is the True word of god is the True word of god.”

        Each believer must decide based on evidence and the guidelines included in the Pentateuch.

        “Fourth Point: I personally couldn’t care less about what the superstitious hold dear or claim about their messiah, I’m just concerned when they decide that what they claim is a sound reason for denying citizens their full rights…”

        Nobody has a “right” to demand that everyone in the pubic agrees with your view that X equals Y.

        All citizens are equal before the law according to the US constitution. Some people are not happy about that and apply bizarre reasoning for demanding rights that don’t actually exist.

        “When the so-called christians of today do this they tend not to be considering anything that the pseudonymous texts claim is what Jesus preached. It appears to be the christians who are more concerned with style rather than substance and US Protestants are the worst at twisting the book to suit their desires.”

        You don’t actually know what you’re talking about when it comes to the texts used on the Christian Bible. It’s much easier for you and people you argue with to simply reject them and to admit you don’t care enough to investigate the facts.

      • harebell

        1: I care because many evil actions are justified by pointing to clauses from that book. Not just by the RCC, but also by the many fundamentalists exporting their biblically justified hatred abroad.

        2: What authenticated texts. None have been authenticated as the word of God. All that can be authenticated is roughly when they were written and which came first. As to veracity and authorship who knows. The ten commandments appear twice and are not consistent.

        You’re right though, it’s not complicated and it certainly isn’t divine.

        3: what makes the Pentateuch an authority when nobody knows who wrote it or when?

        4:Or we could rephrase it, “some people don’t like letting others have the same rights they claim as theirs, because of some ew factor.”

        5: You said nothing that countered what I said. Just because I’m not conducting this exchange on your terms doesn’t mean that I haven’t investigated facts. History rather than fundamentalist revisionism is more interesting to me. Anybody who can claim that the RCC isn’t christian shows me that they are one sandwich short of a full picnic. But that’s fundamentalist protestants for you, history is anathema to them.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        You’re just confusing yourself and blaming me for your own confusion.

      • harebell

        No blame and any confusion is because you appear to want to have your cake and eat it.
        You try and deny the importance of the RCC in christianity by citing biblical inerrancy yet deny the bible when it suits.
        It appears the only consistency that matter for the religious is the consistency in interpreting things to suit the very worldly prejudices of some very worldly people.
        God is indeed made in man’s image and not the other way around.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “You try and deny the importance of the RCC in christianity by citing biblical inerrancy yet deny the bible when it suits.”

        Another example of your confusion. Anyone can read what I wrote.

        “It appears the only consistency that matter for the religious is the consistency in interpreting things to suit the very worldly prejudices of some very worldly people.”

        It appears that way to you. Because you’re confused.

      • thomas dean

        You need to study the crusades. The crusades were a response to the invasion of western civ by the moslimes (moors). Unless you want to be living like those in Afghanistan you should thank the crusades everyday. Its about time to start another one. Islam is the largest growing sect on the planet and you are the target.

      • Midnari

        I’m sorry, I just noticed your assholeyness there. Did you just refer to a person by ‘Christian’ rather than their name, or title?

        Well, that’s rather rude of you. Alright, ‘Asshole,’ I’ll refer to you by that from now on since it fits what I conceive of you being.

        You know.

        An asshole.

        Or fucktard. I like Fucktard. It’s got a disgusting ring to it.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Because Mussolini was pinching his Papal balls for Adolf. it was just after Franco allowed the basques to be a live fire range for the German military might @ Guernica.

      • William Becker

        How convienent whenever something bad is done in the name of Christianity you just dismiss it by saying that they weren’t really Christians. Enables to say what you believe is better then what everyone else believes. But they have no problem blaming Islam for the act of a few Muslims.

      • thomas dean

        are you a moron?

      • William Becker

        If that’s what you want me to be then I am

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “But they have no problem blaming Islam for the act of a few Muslims.”

        Islam is blamed when Muslims commit atrocities while explicitly following their texts and emulating their prophet.

        Apply the same standards every every other ideology.

      • John Baker

        Methinks I hear bagpipes…..

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Nazis WERE Christians. “Gott Mitt Uns” (“God Is With Us”) was a slogan that could be found on the belt buckles of German soldiers.”

        Oh, you’re good. That’s an open and shut case right there.

      • DimitryB

        A & E and mainstream media are all a bunch of Heterophobes!

      • magormissabib

        Military analysts US army intelligence today identify homosexuality as an IOH (indicator if hostility). “There are many IOH factors numbering at least a dozen which point to WW III and
        the American Civil War II. Of these, THE BEST IS EVIDENCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY. It remains the position of this letter
        that AMERICA IS HEADED TOWARD THESE TWO CALLAMITOUS EVENTS. It is evident that the hedonistic” –
        (i.e., pleasure-seeker) – “It is evident that the hedonistic homosexuals have not learned the lessons of history.

      • james

        Nazis were not Christians. You have to believe in Jesus and that he died on the cross for our sins and coming back to take his chikdren home. They did believe that. And you cannot be christian and then go out and kill Gods choosen people. If you believed in God, which the jews did then the nazis killed them. If you was a Jew, them you died. Do you know your history.

      • lala

        Please learn your history before speaking. Nazis were a minority branch of neo pagans atheists and/or agnostics in Germany who wanted to rid the country of Jewish AND Christian influence. They were confused zealots who brainwashed to believe they were doing Gods work. That isn’t to say there weren’t Christians in the party because there were, but what you write is false. Hitler states multiple times that Nazism is secular, based on “science.” If anything we should be using this against this neo-liberal mentality of “science is good, god is bad”

      • GregBrady

        The problem with holding up science to god is that science is ONLY based on tangible evidence whereas god is based on nothing but ‘faith in what is unseen’ which is subject to whatever the believer wants it to be. There is NO tangible evidence of a spiritual realm whatsoever. Trust me, I spent more than 10 years worshiping, praying, following, reading, attending, and believing. It’s a bunch of bullshit…at best, it can be a source of mental and emotional comfort to people in times of trouble; at worst, it leads to all the crimes and atrocities already cited in this thread as well as results in a ton of wasted time, money and effort.

      • ChiSoxMike

        Just. Flat. Wrong.

        Pretty much ALL revisionist history.

        Nazis were NOT religious AT ALL. Indeed, Hitler stated REPEATEDLY that his vision of socialism would NOT work with religion. Hell, the entire thing is LEFTIST! That is NOT deniable. So blame it on Christians? Come on.

        American West ignores the FACT that in most instances it was the Indians who were the attackers and the settlers who were forced to defend themselves. It’s ignores the FACT that far more settlers were killed than Indians.

        Please don’t be another fool who just says “the crusades” as if they were a series of unprovoked attacks. OH, BTW, if the ‘Crusades’ were successful…there would have been no 9-11. Christian nations have been attacked in 911 style since ‘Mohammad’ invented the religion. The ‘crusades’ was the Catholic churches attempt to rein them in early. HARDLY the unjustified mass slaughter

        it’s portrayed to be.

      • magormissabib

        Comes now the unsolicited kindness of another extra-Biblical authority named Michael W. Johnson, who was a captain in the
        U.S. Army Military Intelligence. He was also a Senior Middle East Analyst and Iran/Iraq Desk Officer for Forces Command
        Intelligence Center (FORSIC). He was a Tactical Intelligence Staff Officer and the recipient of two Bronze Stars.
        He is an International Relations Specialist holding many scores of copyrights. Additional information may be found in
        Who’s Who in the World. He is what I would classify generally as a military analyst, who studies hours on end, searching through all available information, seeking for the factors that caused past
        wars and battles and violent upheavals of society, so as to intelligently prepare for and/or thwart future wars and strife.
        Dr. Johnson said, for example; to wit: “Throughout the 20th Century, THE RISE AND SPREAD OF HOMOSEXUALITY HAS
        OR EVEN A CIVIL WAR, OR MAJOR REVOLUTION.” The military analysts have a code for such procedure – called IOH
        (“Indicators of Hostility”).
        For example, Dr. Johnson writes: “There are many IOH factors numbering at least a dozen which point to WW III and
        the American Civil War II. Of these, THE BEST IS EVIDENCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY. It remains the position of this letter
        that AMERICA IS HEADED TOWARD THESE TWO CALLAMITOUS EVENTS. It is evident that the hedonistic” –
        (i.e., pleasure-seeker) – “It is evident that the hedonistic homosexuals have not learned the lessons of history.
        Consequently, it is virtually certain that they will be doomed to repeat them.”
        Thus you see, Beloved, this graduate of West Point, U. Sou. Cal. Mas. in Intl. Relations, Mass. Ins. of Tech.
        Doc. Pol. Sci., Harvard, etc. – agrees with WBC: proliferation of sodomites harbingers doom. THIS HOUR.

      • MAGERD, HER

        Don’t you have an animal to be sacrificing or something? Oh wait Jesus “delivered” you from that… But I guess its still ‘part’ of your religion then though huh? so if you reallyyyyy wanted to go show god you loved him you know what you could dooooo0o0oo….

      • Jackie

        Nazis may have claimed to be Christian. Without knowing their hearts, we can’t say for sure they were.
        A Christian is someone who believes without a doubt that Jesus is the Son of God and died for us to save us from our sins.

      • thomas dean

        UH NO. Nazis were LEFTIST SOCIALIST who MURDERED Jews and Christians and sided with the Moslimes over their hatred for Jews. Indians were killing each other long before the white crackers showed up. Every heard of the Aztecs and Incas? They literally ate their enemies. The Spanish Inquisition had NOTHING to do with the Bible and The Crusades were a response to the moslime invasion of western civilization. Catch a clue and drop the common core bullshit.

      • Baloo Uriza

        Socialist in name only. They were quite far to the right and had a lot more in common with the present day Republicans or Italy’s Fascists than anything else.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Socialist in name only. They were quite far to the right and had a lot more in common with the present day Republicans or Italy’s Fascists than anything else.”

        Insane lies. They had nothing in common with today’s conservatives in America. You’re simply repeating slurs you’ve heard time and again in the delusional echo chambers of the left.

        Do you even know what socialism is? Would you like a list of features, policies and doctrines that shows they were one of the most extreme socialist regimes in history in terms of being true to the principals of socialism?

        It’s just shocking anyone can get away with saying something such as this that is so utterly false. That’s like saying the crusades were fomented by “Christian aggression.” But wait, we have history books that claim that too. I wonder how that happens…

      • JMark

        Nazism, also referred to as national socialism, is a far-right doctrine. It was essentially a form of fascism.

        Nearly every member of the Nazi party joined Hitler from the far-right extremist wing of Germany’s political system. In fact, Hitler spoke constantly against communism and democracy–common left-leaning political issues.

        Clearly you don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about–which is ironic given your statements. I love how you just make statements as if everything you type of the Internet is automatically a fact.

        And the Inquisition wasn’t religiously motivated? Are you kidding me?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Nazism, also referred to as national socialism, is a far-right doctrine. It was essentially a form of fascism.”

        According to the left. Because Hitler opposed the Soviets.

        Do you even understand the distinctions between left and right? I don’t think so.

        In any case, the National SOCIALISTS can’t be compared to conservatives in constitutional republics such as the USA for example. To do so is utterly mendacious. And yet it happens all the time from the left.

        Hitler opposed Stalin, a hero of the left. That doesn’t make him right of anything.

        The only thing similar to some “right wing” movements globally is that they were nationalists wanting to conserve the status quo of who was in power in terms of their insane racial theories. IOW they were “conservative” in a racist (time and place) bubble.

        If you could show that American conservatives are about preserving white power, then you could accumulate one point in favor. However, the “white supremacists on the right” smear is also a leftist fabrication.

        Basically you look like an absolute imbecile when you try to compare Nat Socialists of early 20th century Germany to modern conservative movements, particularly in America.

        You come across like a liar or one of the delusional dupes of the unhinged communist liars. Yes, Hitler wanted socialism, not free markets. He simply wanted to use different class theories when organizing his Utopian oligarchy than the international communists like yourself. That doesn’t make him “right wing.” It makes him someone you chose to demonize only because you were indoctrinated to do so.

      • JMark

        “According to the left.
        Because Hitler opposed the Soviets.”

        According to most political scientists and historians, actually. And,
        his “opposition” is just one minor aspect.
        The purpose of my example has far more to do with pointing out the distinction
        with the doctrine as recognized by the person who created—that he hated
        socialism for all socialistic issues that would make something left of the spectrum. Your trying to boil the point into it being
        about his mere opposition is a straw-man argument.

        “In any case, the National SOCIALISTS
        can’t be compared to conservatives in constitutional republics such as the USA
        for example.”

        That’s ANOTHER straw-man argument, as I never made
        the comparison. Don’t put words in my

        It’s ironic that you keep saying I don’t understand
        the distinction, when you try to undermine my points by proffering arguments I
        didn’t make.

        BTW, common aspects of far-right political groups
        includes: authoritarianism, anti-communism, nationalism, superiority as to race
        and/or nationality (and other matters), anti-immigration, anti-minority,
        religious fundamentalism, social hierarchy, social inequality, social
        conservatism, etc., etc.

        Those characteristics are inherently party of
        fascism AND Nazism (period). That’s
        indisputable as a matter of simply history and political science.

        Further, the fact that your present political group
        is merely on the same side of the spectrum means nothing. If you have a problem with it personally,
        feel free to distinguish the political matters at hand, etc., but don’t fabricate
        and/or be ignorant to facts and reality.

        “Basically you look like
        an absolute imbecile when you try to compare Nat Socialists of early 20th
        century Germany to modern conservative movements, particularly in America”

        Now you’re attempting to insult me for
        an argument that I didn’t make??? Wow,
        and I’m the imbecile??? Get a grip, drop
        the childish ad hominems, and try to make a coherent argument that doesn’t
        straw-man everything I say.

        Thanks, and happy holidays 🙂

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “According to most political scientists and historians, actually.”

        And you don’t bother quoting any.

        “And, his “opposition” is just one minor aspect.
        The purpose of my example has far more to do with pointing out the distinction
        with the doctrine as recognized by the person who created—that he hated
        socialism for all socialistic issues that would make something left of the spectrum. Your trying to boil the point into it being
        about his mere opposition is a straw-man argument.”

        It’s a matter of history that the Communist Party in the USA only opposed Hitler when Stalin instructed them too.

        “That’s ANOTHER straw-man argument, as I never made the comparison. Don’t put words in my

        You said: “Nazism, also referred to as national socialism, is a far-right doctrine. It was essentially a form of fascism.”

        Far to the right of what? The “right” in the USA has NEVER been fascist. It’s always been anti-fascist.

        “BTW, common aspects of far-right political groups
        includes: authoritarianism…”

        That’s my point fool, the right in the USA is not authoritarian. In other sovereigns it can be.

        “…anti-communism, nationalism….”

        Correct, because communism is an international movement.

        “superiority as to race…”


        “…and/or nationality (and other matters)”

        Dummy, anyone that wants to preserve their nation can be characterized as a “nationalist” that wants to preserve “superiority” of their nation.


        Anti-criminal, not anti-immigration.


        Wrong. Anti-criminal characterized by communists as anti-immigration.

        “…religious fundamentalism…”

        Statistically true, but this is not fundamental to the politics.

        “social hierarchy, social inequality…”

        Wrong and wrong. American conservatives are pro meritocracy.

        “..social conservatism, etc., etc.”

        Nazis are social conservatives?

      • JMark

        Let’s start with the most important point I made–which you conveniently ignored.
        I never compared Nazis to American conservatives (PERIOD). That, like I said, is a straw-man argument. Nice job addressing the fundamental logical fallacy that you employed, which completely repudiates everything you said…

        Further, I’ve already repeated and re-phrased my original point. You merely ignored it and “doubled down” as to your baseless straw-man argument.

        Seriously, are you even reading what I’m saying??? Or do you just enjoy purposefully misconstruing the arguments of those you seem to disagree with because you’re a troll???

        THE ENTIRE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS TO SUGGEST I MADE AN ARGUMENT THAT I NEVER MADE! That’s the definition of a straw-man argument…Not to mention your childish ad hominems that you continue to lodge–which creates poetic irony considering you continue to either 1) deliberately misconstrue everything I’ve said; or 2) ignorantly misinterpret everything I’ve said.

        Until you decide to actually reread and properly disseminate my original comment, I obviously won’t reply. I will not suffer further misconstruing of my points with your baseless and childish insults. It’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about and only wish to participate in non-constructive arguments with no logical premise.

        Should you actually respond and take into consideration what I ACTUALLY SAID, I might actually respond–but I doubt you’re capable of such constructive arguments at this point given your track record.

        Regardless, happy holidays!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Should you actually respond and take into consideration what I ACTUALLY SAID, I might actually respond…”

        Fine. We’ll go slowly.

        “Nearly every member of the Nazi party joined Hitler from the far-right extremist wing of Germany’s political system. In fact, Hitler spoke constantly against communism and democracy–common left-leaning political issues.”

        Dummy, socialism is on the left. Communism is essentially international socialism. Hitler did not have any interest in INTERNATIONAL socialism or communism unless he was at the center. Basically he was a rival of Stalin’s.

        Hitler was on the left. He was pro-revolution or “transformation” etc. He wanted to overturn the status quo. He was not conservative in any way.

        If they were conservative, Hitler would have joined the “far right” party and worked on preserving their traditional values and the status quo.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Those characteristics are inherently party of
        fascism AND Nazism (period). That’s
        indisputable as a matter of simply history and political science.”

        “Further, the fact that your present political group
        is merely on the same side of the spectrum means nothing.”

        Dummy, it (the “left right” political paradigm) is not even a linear spectrum. It only works cleanly when discussing context, like a specific nation, or even better, which side of the chamber they sit on. The second point is that most of these positions matter a lot more in context.

      • Hitler did NOT “hate socialism” you flipping ignoramus.

        From the Nazis National Socialist Letters: “We are socialists; We are enemies, mortal enemies, of the present-day capitalist economic system…We are resolved to annihilate this system despite everything.”

        Goebbels: “As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.”

        Nazi Party Program: “The party…is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle: COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD”

      • JMark

        Firstly, as I kindly told the other gentleman. Cut the childish ad hominem attacks. Clearly you have bigger issues than interpreting Nazism and its political structures/natures when you start your “argument” by calling someone an “ignoramus.”
        Secondly, you also have a tendency to conveniently ignore everything I said. Do you miss the point of the long conversation you just jumped into the middle of where people, myself included, mentioned how Nazis claimed to stand behind certain principles and constructs (i.e. Christianity), but such tools were merely political in nature??? In other words, they didn’t embrace socialism because it was the reason they said they hated Jews. The same reason they didn’t embrace Christianity because they said it was part of the reason they hated Jews. Those were political disguises used to recruit the masses into buying into Nazism–propaganda, plain and simple.
        Now, unless you ACTUALLY believe, hook, line, and sinker, in Nazi propaganda, please do tell what point you’re trying to make??? Because quoting lies from Goebbels himself, as chief of propaganda, isn’t convincing of anything other than proving MY POINTS. That, and Nazi programs–LOL. Ya, those things should all be taken at face value!!!! SMH

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Do you even know what socialism is?

      • Ask yourself what’s more likely, that the Nazis were so clever that they were sneaky “fake socialists” all along, or that people who called themselves “national socialists” and hated capitalism actually believed they were socialists? Doesn’t it seem far more reasonable that modern leftists are SO terrified of being associated with the Nazis that they have tried to redefine “left” and “right” to their advantage?

        Whether or not you agree that Nazis “were REAL socialists” they thought they were. They were absolutely NOT free market capitalists. I also believe they were not bolshevik/communists. However, they were somewhere in between, and in my estimation that somewhere was close enough to “socialism.”

      • Matthew R Webb

        The Nazis were not Christians. You are too foolish to think that. Maybe the majority of the German people were, but not the Nazi party.

      • Teresa Bechtold

        I would say a lot of the Nazi soldiers were Christian but they were also forced to serve or their families would be tortured or killed. Of course there were some inhuman and mean ones but it is ignorant to generalize. Only God is the judge. Only he really knows their circumstances.

      • rightthinker

        The attitude of Nazi party membership to German Catholics ranged from tolerance to near total renunciation.[39][40] The 1920 Nazi Party Platform promised to support freedom of religions with the caveat: “insofar as they do not jeopardize the state’s existence or conflict with the moral sentiments of the Germanic race”. It further proposed a definition of a “Positive Christianity” which could combat the “Jewish-materialistic spirit”.[18] Shirer wrote that “under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.”[41] The Nazi party had decidedly pagan elements.[42]

      • JMark

        You’re leaving out the fact that, while not technically Christian by the terms of the Bible, Hitler and the Nazis did use Christianity to further there beliefs. They essentially modified the new testament and tossed out the old testament, setting forth that Jesus hated Jews, etc., to garner Christian empathy–among other things.

        In other words, they weren’t actual Christians, but they did use the religion for political purposes.

      • james

        No Nazis were not Christians. Idiot

      • pureabsolute

        Nazis are Christians in the same way that Russia is Communist, right? They just say a few words, and blammo — they represent all of the evil that Christians do? Nope — Nazis were first and formost Socialists using religion as a tool.

        With the Native americans you have more of a point. However, the version of Christianity he’s talking about (Born again) is very different than the bible thumpin kind back then. But they were still Christian, and the exception proves the rule.

        And of course your point about the Inquisition is spot on. But not the point about witch hunts — again, a few perverted power mad men that claim the authority of God doesn’t a Christian make.

      • Richard N. Theis

        While your comment is correct, you’ll find that all warring groups will state that God is on their side, except Muslims, because they feel they are in the right. As long as time and war has existed, God supposedly supported the winner of any altercation. Even before the time of Christianity, warring factions would fight under the banner of one god or another and the winner was proof that their god was stronger. I do not believe that war is ever a justification under God, but purely a belief by man for justifying their actions.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Republican policies against the 99%.

      • Drizzle

        And Jesus does exist in Islam. Geez where did this Duck Dynasty guy get his history and religious education? …oh, probably from the same region of our country that produces the lowest scores on standardized tests.

      • Betsy

        Oh what and where all the sand in your vagina comes from

      • Susie Krause

        “..sand in your vagina..” Why would you even say that to another woman? It’s hateful.

      • Jack Bandit

        I hope you get sand in your vagina

      • GregBrady

        WTF is that supposed to mean? Yes, that is VERY helpful to the discussion! (sarcasm in case you don’t get it)

      • austin

        Is knowledge in an identical religion right for everyone in your mind, do you even know if what you belive is true. You don’t. Personally I don’t belive in religion, it’s corrupt, the god people on earth belive in is non existant. Standardized tests only test for knowledge in subjects that do not grant you Survival or security of survival. You have no room to talk, this duck dynasty guy you talk down to, talks down to you in reality.

      • james

        Wow, I set here and wonder how can there be this many stupid people. Oh and there is a God. How do you think you got here? One day u all will wish you believe in this wonderful man. God is awesome.

      • JMark

        I think you’re awesome…

      • Str8

        There is no god fool. Your faith identifies your stupidity. We all like stories but that story is getting way to old. If we lived by every word it said we would stuck in the dark ages. It’s outdated. It’s a story. Written by people. Hell, we could write a new bible. Let’s add more fallacies and more add more rules about living life.

      • jtbrother

        No Drizzle, they believe that Jesus was just another profit. Not the son of God. So, basically ‘No Jesus’.

      • Kevin Currier


      • james

        Ur stupid. Jesus does not exist any where e is not anted and Islam dont want cause they dont believe in him. Where Did get ur education? If u have one.

      • GregBrady

        James….if you want your comments to be taken at all seriously, I suggest you read what you post and have it make just a tiny bit of sense. This is not even intelligible.

      • magormissabib

        perverts go nuts when you suggest they stop sinning.

      • JesusFirst

        There’s a difference between following a religion and following Christ. Religion is a man made idea and will send people to he’ll because people make up different rules for each of theit religions. Look at WBC , they are a religion but the things they practice isn’t necessarily in the Bible. The world needs to stop looking for Idols and look to Christ himself. HE is the only one who can help this backwards world.
        On a personal level, I feel as though Phil was being discriminated against. It is against the law to deny a job due to beliefs. And that is exactly what happened. He didn’t bash gays, he only told what was in the Bible, and that is what we are called to do as followers of Christ. We are to spread the word to help others get saved and make it to heaven. We love everyone but we don’t have to love the sin and that is exactly what Phil did.

      • l

        excuse me but where in the bible does it say that being gay leads to beasiality and basically whoreness? also he was making racist comments too, why is nobody focusing on that?!

      • Catherine Maio

        Okay- say I agree with you on the gay issue. He also said terrible things about Jim Crow era blacks- that they must have been happy because he never personally witnessed an unhappy black person during that time? I guess he wasn’t looking very hard. That’s not something the A&E brand wants to support, which is their right. This man was not denied his constitutional right to free speech- he is still a free man, not arrested or in jail for anything he said. He is not being denied employment because of his statements. In most television and movie contracts, there is what is called a “Conduct clause,” which means so long as an individual is representing a brand (in this case A&E) they need to comport themselves in a way that will not damage the brand. So yes, if this was my brand and this man made these racist statements only, leaving out the religious/homosexuality is a sin stuff, I would call him on his conduct clause and fire him, as is my right as the owner of a private company with a contract with a private individual.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “He also said terrible things about Jim Crow era blacks- that they must have been happy because he never personally witnessed an unhappy black person during that time?”

        How about quoting the passage in question? Paraphrasing causes lots of problems.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “In most television and movie contracts, there is what is called a “Conduct clause,” which means so long as an individual is representing a brand (in this case A&E) they need to comport themselves in a way that will not damage the brand.”

        People understand that. They also understand that the article didn’t do anything to change the brand image but rather gave radicals quotes to manipulate.

        It seems more likely that it is the network that was trying to change the image beyond what the contract is likely to call for. Adding fake sensor audio tones and objecting to prays to Jesus. The network is trying to please everyone while also being “edgy.”

        Which makes it pretty ironic. But there it is.

      • Christian

        First of all, you can’t follow Christ without the religion He set up. Jesus makes references throughout the Bible about His church. His church is His bride. Reject the church, reject the bride, reject the bridegroom. Also, while Phil is aloud to believe whatever he wants, A&E does have the right to decide if he should be representing them. Catherine Maio describes that perfectly in her comment below.

      • saying “I believe in the Christian bible and think homosexuality is a sin” would be not bashing; Phil went into some odd diatribe about it and then, with his sin it’s not logical comment seemed to imply that those sexual sins he referenced are all that mattered.

        PLUS he said a hell of a lot more than the cracks against gays. The revised history regarding Jim Crow south, conveniently ignored the murderous regimes and rampages by Christians to imply it’s the lack of Jesus/being Christian that makes people murders and, my favorite, indicated he is not morally or ethically responsible to repent or apologize or in any way atone to rectify any wrong done by him before he was born again thereby implying that just accepting Jesus automatically washes away all your sin as if someone else did it. Jesus was a Jewish ideologue so he would have believed and insisted that a sincere attempt to atone and apologize was a requirement for any absolution.

        He is not being denied a job due to his beliefs or religious observance. He is under contract and represents 2 brands, his own and the A&E brand, his comments in the interviews damages the A&E brand. Unless he can show breach of contract on A&Es part, the suspension or even ending the show is not illegal.

        Too many of you who say you follow Christ or say you are good Christians are very quick to use your religion as a weapon against others. If you follow Christ, be like him, lead by example and live in accordance to your beliefs but going on a diatribe against those who do not share your beliefs or live in accordance with them is neither loving the sinner nor is it witnessing for your faith.

      • Duane

        Nazis, were Christians. completely insane, however, they were Christians and believed in god and Jesus.

      • Mike

        Actually the Nazi party was as far from christianity as you can be. Hitler was actually creating his own religion withe the symbol of the Nazi as its symbol as well. You may want to go back and review history yourself before posting another “I know it all” comment. Thank you

      • Paul Ehrlich

        wrong Adolf Hitler was a Christan and used the bible as a tool to enlist many young boys in to his ranks you need to pick up a history book

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Please show me the “history” book that supports your claim.

      • Dakota

        Guess again. They stole that symbol from the Apache Indians–it was a sacred symbol meaning “the four winds” and they Hitler and his men inverted it. He was not trying to create a new religion, only a “purified world.”

      • boomergran

        And what greater injustices were served by Christians than during the Crusades and the Inquisition? It’s feel-good, get-rich, prosperity-gospel Christianity – which is no Christianity at all. And, yes, I am a Christian.

      • Michael Norman

        umm where do you get your statistics human beings as a whole commit sins and you are saying only christians you fucking bigot fags commit sin just like all the other people in this world gay people are the biggest bigots there are

      • you may want to take a reading comprehension class. Nobody said only Christians commit sin. That said, the Christian fundamentalists like are very quick to point out the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye

      • Its not “judgy,” its a biblical quote, nearly word for word. Also, Nazis were anti-religion, they tolerated Christianity to a degree, but their ultimate goal was to create their own religion. If you think that is incorrect show me a picture of any Nazi leader attending a church service.

      • the rank and file Nazis were Christians and they committed murders therefor he is incorrect to say that it’s the lack of Jesus that made the Nazis murderers

      • There was no requirement to be a Christian, the SS had their own religion organized by Himmler and Hitler welcomed anyone that hated the Jewish people. These ranged from cultists to the. More mainstream inclusion of Muslim troops in the Waffen-SS. In fact one of the founding leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood was a close confidant of Hitler and found guilty in absenting of War Crimes in Yugoslavia.

      • macs adams

        the killing fields of the u.s.s.r committed buy jews is another

      • ChiSoxMike

        “Nazi’s were Christian, so his revisionist history is convenient.”

        Um…no. Not even close.

        Hitler HIMSELF stated that Nazism was ‘secular and founded on science’. He repeated this MANY times. Where ANYONE gets the idea it was a religious movement is nothing but the blind belief of propaganda. If ANYTHING it’s a LEFTIST ideology.

        FACT is there were NO professed Christians in the hierarchy of the Nazi party, though there wear MANY atheists, and Hitler did not believe that true socialism and religion of ANY kind could co-exist.

        So let’s try this again…the Nazi’s were ABSOLUTELY NOT ‘Christian’. They WERE, however, left win idealogs.

        Sorry, that’s just FACT.

      • I didn’t say the Nazi ideology was based on Christianity. Robertson said the lack of Jesus was the reason high rate of murders committed by Nazis. The rank & file Nazis were Christian therefor their relationship with Jesus didn’t stop them from participating in the Nazi party or committing heinous acts. Now, if part of Nazi leadership and propaganda was to have those who served/belonged to the Nazi party to reject Jesus, you’d be right in saying I’m wrong but as they were not required or even encouraged to do so it is correct to say Jesus didn’t stop all those Christians from murdering others and it is correct that the lack of Jesus is what turned people into nazis

      • Baloo Uriza

        You really don’t know what you’re talking about if you think totalitarian fascism is a leftist ideal.

      • William Becker

        Another common argument used by Evangelical/Fundamentalists to “prove” their religion is the only true religion. They make the argument that Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Protestantism has the best human rights record, and that most of the human rights abuses in history are perpetuated by other religions

      • William Becker

        Oh yea and the statements about African-Americans. An argument usually used by followers of the “Lost Cause Movement” (Google it). That African-Americans were actually for the most part happy and treated well during Jim Crow and Slavery. I’m not saying that Phil Robertson is a bad, or racist. In fact his experience in the field with African Americans, pre-Jim Crow. Poor whites did work alongside African-Americans, and had very positive personal experiences with African-Americans as a result. Because of his experience I have no doubt that Phil Robertson is not a racist. I believe the argument he used was directed at “entitlements” not at African-Americans.

      • Mattsmom99

        Only one flaw with your theory. The Nazi’s were against the Jews…. and Jewish religion dictates that their “savior” hasn’t come yet. No Jesus either.

      • how is that a flaw in my comment? The Nazi’s were Christian.

      • Nancy LeMasters

        nazi’s were not christian.. christians don’t do or believe in what the nazi’s did.. and Christian’s love the Jewish people Nazi’s didnt.

      • DarkMarishka79 .

        Interesting Since Puritans Founded What would be American Civalization By Murdering off nearly a entire Race of People to steal what Wasn’t theirs . Spread Disease and Hatred . Stole Peoples Lives and Ruined families to have Slaves. Murdered raped Pillaged There way across the Content all While Having “Jesus” How is that Any better than what The Nazi’s Did.

      • james

        Where there is no Jesus, it’s because those people refuse to accept accept him and refuse to let God round. God is not going to stay where e is not wanted. Its up to us. You know like u. You refuse to believe that there is a God. One day u will wish u believed differently. There is a God and its wrong to be gay.

      • H

        Christians aren’t the only offenders of the above-mentioned sins.

      • Marty Smith

        just curious. you sound very knowledgeable. exactly what are the stats on christians that are domestic abusers, child abusers, extra-marital sex offenders, have abortions, robbers,murderers, etc.
        ill give you the divorce rate that one is easy to check.

      • TommyG

        There is no more heinous sin that going against God and against the Nature that God created.

      • koolaid

        the sad thing is; gays always seek to compare their sins with other sins as a reason for justifying why they should be left alone, but nothing Phil says or anyone else, good or bad will exonerate gays from the guilt and judgement on homosexuality

      • Lance Udell

        ^^^ Agreed, I have also been telling the Phil supporters putting up hurtful memes that they too are acting the fools in this.

        More here to divide us peasants I guess, and America’s right and left buy in fully.

      • Joyce L. DeVries

        I am a Christian which meanss I do read my Bible and God speaks to my inner heart when I read it When I pray I am speaking to God just as he is in the chair across the room. Yes I love everyone but believe what is in the Bible is directly from God writen by men inspired by Him. We love everyone and know God does too. We do believe we are equal to everyone else. I am personaly hurt and offended but all the negative comments made about Christians If God calls a lifestyle a sin, we love the person, but hate his lifestyle. Just as we love a cancer patient, but we hate the cancer. Why is it so hard to accept those facts

      • Guest

        When will you open your eyes that being gay is not a lifestyle or a choice? Is being heterosexual a lifestyle or when did you choice to be heterosexual? Being heterosexual is what normal to you . like being gay is what is normal to us. In the end. Your outdated religion makes you blind and out of touch.

        So you can only love me as person as long i denied what make me who I em? Love is unconditional, which you obviously dont understand.

      • DrewTwoFish

        If you believe that bible is inspired by God, that’s cool but not everyone else shares that belief. I agree that Christians shouldn’t be all tarred with the same brush. However, a lot of people who call themselves Christians have focused considerable time hating the sin AND being anything but loving towards the sinner. Do you really think that the average Christian has to endure the crap that has been leveled at gays?

      • HolyMoly

        There are over 700 commandments in the Old Testament (yes, there are more than the two DIFFERENT sets of 10 Commandments — Ex 20 and Ex 34).

        Among those commandments is that a man shall not lay with another man “as he does with a woman” (Lev. 20:13), which is impossible, considering that men don’t have the same plumbing. Grammatically speaking, this particular verse doesn’t condemn homosexuality. Man lays with man “as he does with a man” and lays with woman “as he does with a woman.” But I’m nitpicking here.

        In Leviticus you will find prohibitions for working on the Sabbath (maybe some of us don’t do it, but we might love to go to Golden Corral after church, thus creating the need for others to work so that we can have OUR Sunday dinner). There are prohibitions against eating shellfish and pork (pork roast for Sunday supper anyone? Ham on Thanksgiving and Christmas?). Prohibitions against wearing cloth that contains mixed fabrics (linen and wool, or cotton and polyester today), yet our Sunday suits most definitely contain a mix.

        The point here being that Robertson SELECTIVELY chose one commandment from the Bible while he no doubt is violating a number of others. He’s picking and choosing which commandments best fit his prejudices and ignores those which might inconvenience him. Clinging to that one verse to the exclusion of so many of the others seems to scream “bigotry.”

        And then there’s what Jesus said about hypocrites. He lists a number of examples of hypocrisy (Matt 6). The overall context is quite clear. One example: Find a quiet, private place and pray to God. Don’t make a big thing about doing it in front of others, in order to gain THEIR approval. Don’t do it with an in-your-face attitude, as if to say, “I’m praying. Look how pious I am. Why aren’t YOU praying, hmm?”

        Robertson seems to have been using A&E as a forum where he could show viewers how pious he is and thereby gain their approval — not to mention elevate himself to some sort of hero status. And clearly, it seems to be working. As a “martyr,” he now has much more doting support from those who really should be turning their backs to him.

      • Dav

        Robertson didn’t quote Leviticus, he quotes Corinthians. Christians are not under the OT Jewish Law, but under the new Covenant. NT is very explicit about this.

      • HolyMoly

        So he’s quoting what Paul said. Not what Jesus ever uttered. I give a great deal more credence to the teachings of Jesus than to Paul.

        Many Christians do, however, continue to cite Leviticus 20:13 as justification for their hatred of gays, new covenant notwithstanding.

        Regarding Corinthians, “homosexual” is a common translation in English Bibles, but the original Greek was ambiguous about who exactly Paul was talking about. If he wanted to refer specifically to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word “paiderasste,” which he did not.

      • Barbara

        Just because we do not agree with homosexual behavior, that does not mean we have hatred for gays! I love everyone and pray for everyone. I have gay friends, they keep their sex life where it belongs, behind closed doors. Heterosexual couples should keep their sex life behind closed doors too, I don’t want to know what goes on behind any couples bedroom door, it is none of my business. Stop trying to force people to accept something that they are totally against. If everyone would keep their sex life private there would be less fighting about it.

      • DrewTwoFish

        Private like the wedding ring on your finger, the picture of your family on your desk, the passionate kiss hello at the airport, the hand holding in the park?

      • Roger

        Ok Genius… explain what a wedding ring, a picture, hand holding and a kiss have anything to do, at all, with someone’s private sex life? It seems all of these things are completely legal in public, straight or gay. The sex life is private and should be no one else’s business. Oh and is illegal in public. What is your point? Are you jealous or something?

      • DrewTwoFish

        I’d be happy to explain what I mean but why the snarkiness?

      • ChiSoxMike

        You know why the snarkiness. Don’t pretend you don’t. This issue is a creation to CAUSE such. And it comes from BOTH sides.

        Answer MY questions and we can maybe have an open discussion.

      • ChiSoxMike

        I’m certain I have seen gay folks engage in same without repercussion. Even in states that don’t recognize ‘Gay Marriage’.

        There isn’t a state in the union that will arrest you for getting “married” to someone of the same sex. Some just won’t recognize said marriage. So what?

        Why is there a need to co-opt a RELIGIOUS institution? Many states have recognized “civil unions” for many years. It affords the SAME legal protections. The Governments ONLY role in ‘marriage’ is the legal contract aspect of it.

        So tell me…why do Gays INSIST on co-opting the TERM ‘marriage’ when it’s unquestionably a religious entity?

      • Allison

        If you actually read Robertsons whole interview, you would see that there was no hate. But that portion of the interview isn’t getting attention because the gays, lesbians and such took so much offense to what he said. At the end he clearly states, “but we love em, and we don’t judge em, that’s the Almighty’s job anyways”

        That’s not hate the last time I heckled. He was simply answering the question when asked about his beliefs.

      • ChiSoxMike

        I don’t care which side you fall on…if you don’t ‘like’ this ladies comment, then you are nothing more than a pawn supporting your own ‘side’. This is the most rational, intelligent comment I’ve seen on this matter.

        Being ‘Gay’ doesn’t make you special. I DON’T CARE. Nor should anyone else. Do what you want to do in bed…in PRIVACY…just like I do. Just don’t try to FORCE me to condone YOUR choices by ramrodding it down my throat PUBLICLY. When you do that, you force a confrontation or retreat. For a long time, the public has simply retreated with the attitude ‘go along to get along’…don’t mistake that for ACCEPTANCE. It’s not. It’s TOLERANCE. There is a huge difference.

        There isn’t going to BE acceptance…ever. So unless you want to be forced back into the closet of your own doing, STOP THIS NONSENSE.

        Obama’s signature wasn’t even dry on the repeal of ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ and the Gay “leaders” were demanding a ‘Gay’ version of the newspaper “Stars and Stripes” (military paper). WTF?

      • Amelia

        Well than read 18:22. If all the other versus don’t suit your needs. Mind you Paul spoke what GOD revealed to him and the Holy Spirit guided him. I question, do you give any credence at all to what jesus spoke, he did not utter. Jesus was not passive and neither was Phil. In Matthew 21:12 Jesus was very firm.

      • Dav

        Regarding Jesus’ explicit references to homosexuality, you’re right, there are none. However, there are two points I think are important. 1. It would be quite a stretch while reading of the gospels to conclude that Jesus rejected OT Law and it’s statutes, which included an explicit prohibition of homosexuality.
        2. Jesus condemns sexual immorality, which includes any sex outside of marriage. It’s hard to see how homosexual behavior would find favor with him on either ground, since marriage between two men was unheard of.

        Paul, even if you don’t esteem his letters, isn’t ambiguous. This is a common argument that I just don’t see much merit in. If you don’t like Corinthians, take Romans 1. If you want to argue that he’s only arguing against certain forms of homosexual behavior in those passages, fine. But I really think that it’s a stretch. Why complicate a clear reading unless there’s an agenda? The church’s historical reading and interpretation of Scripture and the context (Corinth was notorious for sexual deviancy) make it impossible for me to see that he’s not condemning homosexual behavior.

        I don’t care one way or another if someone likes Phil Robertson the man. I’ve never once heard him talk about how great or perfect or sinless he is. I don’t have a problem with him professing a standard of morality based on a righteous God. Jesus did that. It’s cool with me long as that condemnation of sin includes a declaration of grace available by faith in Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. That is what Christianity offers. We need to stop pretending there is no standard, and no sin-it cheapens the grace God offers. There is no grace without sin.

        My humble 2 cents worth.

      • ChiSoxMike

        On #1: Not only did Jesus NOT reject OT laws, he explicitly stated they were to be followed. Jesus was a JEW, after all. Never ONCE did Jesus tell anyone to ignore the law.

        On #2: Homosexuality wasn’t an issue in Jesus day. It just wasn’t. I’m pretty sure he didn’t address flying planes into buildings (directly) either, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that his teachings don’t approve of either action. (For the IDIOTS…See what I did? the SAME thing Phil did. I used multiple examples of sin to describe sin without equivocating them. Get it?)

        Here’s what this is all about…the left has NOTHING to hang their hat on. Nothing. They HAVE to go after non-stories like this to keep the news off the IMPORTANT issues.

        You know, ObamaCare complete and utter failure, NSA, Bengazi, fast and furious, etc. etc. Let’s instead focus on the thoughts of some “redneck” who needs to be silenced because he might sway someone to his ‘evil’ way of thinking. Really?

      • Baloo Uriza

        That’s pretty rich, considering Obamacare was the Republican’s idea (the left, and the majority of Americans including many businesses, want single-payer, universal healthcare instead of making the old, broken system mandatory). The NSA, and Fast and Furious? Again, project much? You’re talking about shit that got authorized in the PATRIOT Act, which nobody with half a brain was ever in favor of (but, once again, conservatives loved it). Bengazi? Again, thanks for overextending us in the world fighting wars we didn’t need to fight, because it only put Americans in danger and created belligerents in countries we weren’t even deploying troops (plus, in any diplomatic mission, there’s a good chance you’re gonna get killed on the job anyway, it’s the nature of the work regardless of who’s in charge).

        It’s kind of sad, really. You talk about smaller government and lower spending, but then you look at the policies of Reagan, Bush and Bush, and compare it to the size of US government and the national debt, and those three administrations vastly grew the size of government and it’s intrusiveness into the lives of citizens, and deficit spent $16 trillion, with _literally_ nothing to show for it. What’s important to conservatives? “Let’s hold up a bigoted zealot as the poster boy for civil rights!” Between all that and the biggest do nothing congress ever, if Republicans get elected at this point, it’s simply because the low-information crowd always votes Republican ignorant of the damage they do to this country. People like you.

      • ChiSoxMike

        Again with the claim that Christians ‘hate’ Gays.


        So quit making the claim.

        At least there is nothing Biblical to cause such ‘hatred’. Any professed Christian who DOES ‘hate’ Gays (or anyone else), is being judgmental and violating the basic tenets of their faith while doing so.

        This does NOT describe a majority of ‘Christians’, so quit claiming it does.

        Now..are PEOPLE (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc) judgmental? OF COURSE we are. However, to make the absurd statement that all, or most, Christians ‘hate’ Gays is absurd and completely ignorant.

      • A. C.

        Seems to me, reading the interview, that a reporter asked his personal belief. As a well studied theological life student, I see no Biblical instruction forbidding stating personal belief.

      • HolyMoly

        Matt 6 lists only a few examples of behavior that Jesus found to be hypocritical. They are not the ONLY modes of behavior. He is providing context, and in overall context, he means anything that is done to gain the approval or avoid the disapproval of others; anything that gives yourself a sense of moral superiority over others or is intended to show others as being less than you. Francis of Assisi battled with being regarded as “first among the least” throughout his entire religious life. It’s a difficult row to hoe, for certain, perhaps impossible, but too many people fail to even make an attempt. Humility — that is what Jesus was trying to get across to us.

        I didn’t speak of Matt 6 in reference to his statement of personal belief in the interview (although he was passing judgment, but I wasn’t talking about that either). Throughout his tenure on the show, he takes every opportunity to show his piety. To me that reeks more of self-glorification than anything else. He certainly has benefited from in both in terms of wealth and fame.

      • Phil FAN

        With all your mighty word’s. ..it appears you are a Lawyer, Judge, politician, or some other JERK….and not in touch with the real world or being a loyal fan of God and his word. You make no difference with this comment…..just blowing in the wind.

      • ChiSoxMike

        Problem with this he was NOT passing judgment. In fact, he made it VERY clear that it wasn’t his place to do exactly that. You have to read the ENTIRE interview, not the leftist clips from it that fit the Gay agenda.

        He couldn’t have been more clear that he LOVES everyone, that it’s NOT his place to pass judgment on anyone and that he leaves that to God. All he does is share the WORD of God…and this is VERY important…AS HE SEES IT. That’s it. That’s all he did.

        I’m really confused how ‘showing piety reeks of self-glorification’. Is being pious now viewed so cynically that it morphs into self-glorification?

        Look. The guy is a hick from the sticks who went and got himself an edumacation then returned to his roots and applied what he learned to make more money than most of us ‘smart’ folks could ever dream of; all while never losing where he came from or who he is.

        He’s a rare man, indeed. Regardless of where you come down on this manufactured “controversy”. While I’m no fan of the show, I applaud him for that.

      • ARQ

        NO one is questioning his right to express his beliefs… Just some people’s mistaken impression that he can hide from the fallout behind the 1st Amendment

      • ChiSoxMike

        The problem is that the ‘fallout’ is manufactured. It’s just another instance of force fed political correctness. And this guy in particular was PERFECT to go after….

        Dumb redneck Christian who ‘got lucky’ and hit it big. Of course, that’s not even CLOSE to the truth other than the Christian part, but it fits the lefts stereotype of how they want to portray Christians…backwards thinking idiots who only adhere to a 2500 year old mentality.

        Problem is…NONE of that is true. Not of This guy and not of Christians in general.

        He’s a well educated man with a diverse background who returned to his roots and applied what he learned to help his ENTIRE FAMILY achieve great wealth.

        Anyone who thinks Christians ‘hate’ homosexuals knows absolutely NOTHING about Christianity and needs to shut the hell up about it. Of course they won’t. Their agenda is to destroy Christianity, not to support Gays (sorry Gay folks, you are just the latest pawn in this game)

      • magormissabib

        We don’t need a lengthy session of bible twisting. We know that its quite clear . No sodomites in heaven,

      • HolyMoly

        Then please, by all means, stop twisting the Bible.

      • magormissabib

        its pretty plain words:

        1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (homosexuals)

        1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

      • HolyMoly

        Thank you, Google, for providing verses for this supposed bible expert.

        Once again, read some of my other posts regarding Corinthians.

        I really do feel sorry for you. Hatred can be so tiring and painful. Definitely you should clean up your own personal failings before you go out and pontificate to others.

      • magormissabib

        lol like I need a bible lesson from a reprobate sodomite. No thank you. God has given you up to a depraved mind, uncleanness and vile affections. You cant think straight about anything.
        No way.

      • Noah

        “nor abusers of themselves with mankind,..” are you sure that means homosexuals? I didn’t see where it said man lay with man or woman lay with woman. Really all I saw was that it said nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

      • magormissabib

        abusers of themselves with mankind:



        From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: – abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

      • Michael A. Day

        There are actually only 613 laws in the OT not over 700. And As dav said he didn’t quote Leviticus he quoted Corinthians. And he wasn’t attacking anyone, he was asked what he considered sin and he gave an example (if you don’t want to know then don’t ask) and his statement wasn’t false. The bible clearly states outside of Leviticus that homosexuality is a sin in many areas such as his quote of Corinthians or Jesus’s reference to Genesis in Matthew 19 where God made male and female and for that reason man shall leave mother and father to be with his wife as one. And let man not separate what God has joined together. They asked for his beliefs and he have it with sound reason and with clarification that he does not condemn anyone but only wishes to let them know and he will love them whatever their choice may be.

      • HolyMoly

        I expounded on the verse in Corinthians in another post. Paul was not very clear exactly what he meant, as most English translations incorrectly use the word “homosexual,” when Paul was not very specific what he meant in the original Greek.

        As for Matthew 19, thank you for pointing that one out. There was someone who mentioned the new covenant, and that the old law was, for lack of a better word, trashed.

        I head meant to point out that the NT, the new covenant, quite frequently cites the OT for legal justification as well as prophecy. Thanks for the example.

        So it would seem that whatever scripture Robertson chose to cite, it still boils down to selectivity.

        Hateful people do sometimes commit atrocities with a loving smile on their face, because they actually believe they are doing good. I’m not suggesting that Robertson committed any sort of atrocity, by the way…read into the context.

      • magormissabib

        too funny. homos trying to wrest the word of God to condone sexual deviancy.

      • ARQ

        Thank “God” someone has some sense! I don’t expect Phil would be willing to sell his daughter into sexual slavery, as mentioned in the bible, or marry and impregnate his brother’s wife, should his brother die…Or much of the other stupid crap in the bible, but it’s a great platform from which to condemn gay ppl. All the ignorance and hate in this comment thread makes me fuckin sick! And @tony_capo:disqus, please, just stop talking, Your STUPIDITY is hanging out.

      • magormissabib

        Sodomites cant let things slide off their backs cause the truth of GOD pierces them to the bone. right ARQ!

      • Guest

        Really? Where you find any verse that allows you, a Gentile, to sell your daughter into sexual slavery? Need a clue? You don’t find it anywhere, and if you’d actually read the Bible you’d know that.

      • ChiSoxMike

        Your IGNORANCE is hanging out.

        The Bible doesn’t CONDONE any of the things you blame on it. Indeed, all you are doing is showing how very little you actually KNOW about the Bible.

        First and most important…the Bible doesn’t CONDEMN anyone. No one.

        Second, much of the Old Testament is HISTORY. It tells you what happened over 2000 years ago. The parts that are from God, are clearly spelled out as such. The rest is a ‘sign of the times’ as it were. When one takes the Bible out of context, it’s easy to claim it condones things it clearly does NOT. But, hey, you searched the internet, right?

        The ‘ignorance and hate’ is MOSTLY coming from the left…as is usually the case. Not a single thing Phil said was with malice (hate) nor was it ignorant (HE actually DOES know what the Bible says, unlike yourself…that would make YOU the ignorant one)

        You don’t have to agree with him, but don’t characterize what he said nor what his supporters ACTUALLY believe.

      • KhadijahMuhammad

        “The point here being that Robertson SELECTIVELY chose one commandment
        from the Bible while he no doubt is violating a number of others.”
        Well, everyone is violating some number all the time, and perhaps (despite the 1st Chapter of Romans) Phil would be sympathetic to your argument that he should be avoiding bacon if he’s going to hold those views on homosexuality.

        Personally (and I;m just a Muslim girl who knows a bit about Christian theology) I am forced to point out that the entire Bible (to the Christian) is simply PART of their broad tradition; so, it would take some theohistorical evidence that at some time homosexuality was approved of by the Jews or Christians in order to thread the theological needle you’re trying to thread.

        You don’t agree with their views, you don’t agree with their views. Enough said. There’s no need to try and jump the shark and convince them that 2K years of theololgical tradition is based on a misinterpretation. It’s more likely that the sun doesn’t rise in the morning.

      • ChiSoxMike

        “a Muslim girl who knows a bit about Christian theology”

        “There’s no need to try and jump the shark”


        Yes, because all young Muslim girls are familiar with “Jump the Shark”. AHHHHHHHH

      • KhadijahMuhammad

        As you can see from above, dear reader, the lefties can only respond to reason with snark.
        Thanks for playing.

      • Sheila Nawrot

        You fail to note that the New Testament relieved us from living by “the law” as laid out in the Old Testament. Jesus came to replace the law. So that would seem to negate the scripture in Leviticus, right? Wrong. In 1st Corinthians, John preaches “”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators [Gk: paramours], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [Gk: catamites], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: sodomites] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (I Cor. 6:9-10). Catamites, in Greek means boys who sleep with men. So in the New Testament the law is laid aside but we are still told what sin is.

      • magormissabib

        you waste your time reasoning with reprobates. They are not interested in understandting the word of God- only in twisting it to defend their perversion and to tempt others to live as they do.

      • Secgu76


      • ChiSoxMike

        Um…huh? No…there are no where near 700 COMMANDMENTS in the old Testament. There are 10 and only 10. There were plenty of Jewish LAWS…set by the priests. Don’t confuse those with Commandments, which are directly from God.

        Now, as to your assertion of ‘two sets of commandments” in Exodus 20 and 34 you are quite confused.

        Indeed, the VERY FIRST VERSE in EX 34 is:

        34 The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.

        People who have no desire to understand what is written in scripture, but only seek to find discrepancy with it ALWAYS fail.

      • Just a cook

        DUCK YOU TOO: As a gay man, I can tell you his words hurt me and I know they hurt MANY homosexuals and members of the LGBT community and their supportive friends and family. Forget the hairs on my head, his comments, and those of his supporters hurt. He is a bigoted asshole and you are apparently ignorant. You don’t have to inflict bodily harm to injure someone.

      • sumdude

        How did it hurt you? Every time someone says anything you don’t like or agree with do you get hurt? Grow up! People will always have hatred in their hearts and its something you grow up with, they call it tallerance. Who cares some guy you never met said something you don’t like, does it directly effect you? As in…does it take money out of your pocket? Did your family, friends, loved ones disown you because of what he said? No!! Your just as big of a bigot as he is for spewing hate against someone else you don’t agree with! People need to learn to except people for who they are, and if you don’t agree with their views then don’t be friends with that person, they don’t have to be apart of your life!

      • magormissabib

        Their conscience is already kicking their ass and they cannot stand on their own two feet in a public debate. They want to shout out to the world that they are proud to be gay but cannot defend their position in a reasonable debate about sin so they try to silence the opposition. Too bad cause it wont work. There are always some who will stand up to your bully tactics and seem like gradually more are willing to call sin , sin.

      • Pey

        I’m pretty sure you’re here, throwing a fit, and defending his cruel words because you want to a watch a stupid tv show and your mad that you can’t…

      • StC

        So if someone just calls someone else stupid and it hurts my feelings and the feelings of those around me they should get fired too? What about all the people on this site that are calling Christians bad names? Should they all be fired? Because that probably hurts their feelings? Or is it okay that they make fun of Christians because it fits your narrative? Pretty soon we won’t be able to talk to each other because everything will offend someone. If you don’t like what he said… get over it. Don’t watch the show. If you already don’t watch the show then who cares what he thinks? Are you really offended by someone who you’ll more than likely never talk to or has very little to no impact on your life? He has a different opinion than you. How can you claim to be ‘tolerant’ when you aren’t tolerant of his opinion? It contradicts what you supposedly stand for.

      • Jennifer Hoitt

        It hurts because he has an international soapbox from which to spew his hate. He has a better opportunity to rile up a great many people (are ya payin attention to like, ya know, NOW) and start ugliness. generally speaking, certain groups of people already deal with daily amounts of incredibly hurtful and destructive attitudes being shoved their way. DO NOT NEED ASSISTANCE in that direction. Thanks anyway

      • magormissabib

        if your conscience wasn’t already kicking your butt you would nt be so worried about what other people think. Homos are such pitiful weaklings that they are bondage to the opinions of others.

      • Amelia

        They aren’t weaklings. I don’t agree with the act, but the people have meaning.

      • boomergran

        You, Tony Capo, are expressing exactly the kind of bigoted ignorance that brings about the so-called “War on Christianity.” So when people start bashing Christians, be sure to pat yourself on the back, because YOU are the reason.

      • LeAnne

        Did you really just type those words??? “Homos are pitiful weaklings” Really?

      • magormissabib

        Homos come roaring out of the closet and then if anyone suggest that maybe its not the best way to live they cry foul because any critisim of their degenerate lifestyle may cause them to commit suicide. Yeah Id say that means they are some pitiful weaklings. The fact is you cant stand to hear the truth of God because you are so ashamed of your sin. Well toooo bad.

      • Guest

        the only thing that hurts you is the truth.

      • Rob Dotzler

        You tell her, anonymous “guest”. Way to stand up for your values!

      • Amelia

        He didn’t spew hate though. What you are stating is so close minded it’s almost painful to read what you said. Generally speaking, people are incredibly SELF harming and SELF destructive. You are right. People don’t need assistance with that. You are very welcome 🙂

      • Teresa

        he has freedom of speech and so do the people protesting what he said. The network is making a business decision and Phil loses. Stupid him. Millions of people in this country are probably offended by those dumb remarks and the out dated religious beliefs that common sense and plain human decency should tell you just do not fly anymore.
        Tony Capo, the only person here that God is going to be condemning is you. I doubt she finds your ugly little game amusing.

      • magormissabib

        Hey the homos just keep exposing them selves for the bullies they are. As a Christian we know that we will suffer persecution and can let it roll off our backs. If we were like them we would cry for hate speech laws because we couldn’t take criticism and commit suicide. They cant let it run off their backs cause their guilt is kicking their ass.

      • magormissabib

        wait till you split hell open – talk about hurt. And FYI too damn bad about your little feelings.

      • Susie Krause

        Wow Tony Capo, you can’t back off even a little. In the Lord’s Prayer there is this “…forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us…” That means that whatever your sin is Tony, the forgiveness for you will be equal to the forgiveness you show others.

      • Mike

        Seriously, he read the Bible! i suppose that you want the Bible banned. Look, you are who is being accepted or not. It is your actions to others that people accept or not. I can like you as a person, but you can’t really expect me as a straight person to fully accept what you do in private as kosher. That ain’t going to happen, no matter how progressive you are. That is like asking you love women for the rest of your life exclusively. It’s not the way you are wired. He is not GAY….accept him for who he is. It is a two way street.

      • Bob Sutherby

        I don’t think the Bible should be banned, I think it should be UPDATED.

      • willie

        why do some gays change there mind? just askin.

      • Bob Sutherby

        It’s called being bisexual.

      • Samantha

        You’re confusing homosexuality with bisexuality. There’s a difference. Homosexuals are attracted to the same gender (hence “homo”) and bisexuals are attracted to both genders (hence “bi”).

      • Antonio Arellano

        Im sorry you got hurt. Im not gay myself but who am i to tell you how to live your life if you are living it the way you want to. Thats what the bible teaches and i am a Christian i can tell you that Mr. Robertson was asked a simple question. He was asked what is sin? He gave a breaf explanation. And honestly he could have said it a diff way but im shure the magazine company wrote it in that way to get the attention that it has gotten so in reality we all should be mad at GQMAGAZINE they have edditors they know what the bible states they know that you can cherry pick the bible and it would sound really bad. But anyone who can read can read the bible and read what it teaches. I read it everyday and i know exactly what it reads. Love for all freedom for all.

      • Antonio Arellano

        Just a cook. Im not gay but gess what I love you. I love you simply just because you have the gift of life. Thats what the bible teaches. The Christian community or I is no one to tell you how to live your life if thats the way you chose to live it. The last thing that i want you to think is that every christian hates you. That is not the case and thats not what the bible teaches. Christians are like everyone else not perfect so im so sorry that you were hurt by the comment. I know that phil loves you just as i do.

      • DrewTwoFish

        Phil loves gay people? Yeah, I’m feeling all warm and fuzzy inside after reading this:

        Homosexuals are “ruthless,” “full of murder,” “arrogant” and “liable to invent ways of doing evil.”

        Thanks, Phil! Love you too!

      • Antonio Arellano

        Yes the bible states that homosexuality is a sin. BUT it also teasches that every one nomatter their sexual preferance is also a sinner. Christianity isnt about who is a sinner or not its about the fact that God loved us so much that he gave his son as a sacrifice for our sins so we can go to heaven by believing in jesus’s love for us. You can pick and chose verses to try and prove other wise but the bottom line is that the bible teaches love for all sinners or not.

      • DrewTwoFish

        While it’s clear that you hold to a conservative theology you’re not being a jerk. I appreciate that.
        You may be exhibiting some measure of grace but Phil surely is not.

      • Antonio Arellano

        Im sorry you feel that way. If you feel like im not being a jerk thank im happy for that. I know that Phill could have explained it the way i have explained our faith but i know no one is perfect. And im sure that the reporter writing the story didnt care how he was making Mr. Phill sound. So i know that this is just so we can all sit hear and talk about how much we are all hurt. So im here to say lets stop all the hurt. I hope you have read the Robertson comments about all this. this is all a fabrication on the behalf of GQ MAGAZINE Thanks!

      • magormissabib

        Romans one is talking specifically about homosexuals whom God has given up to a reprobate mind, uncleanness and vile affections. and in my experience that’s EXACTLY how they are.

      • Antonio Arellano

        The bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin yes. BUT it also says that everyone nomatter you sexual preference is also a sinner. Even me. So it teaches equality. It also teaches that we should love one another and not be hateful. So im sorry that you wrote that homosexuals are ruthless and full of murder. I know that me being a christian i will never hate anyone for being a sinner just like me.

      • DrewTwoFish

        I didn’t write that. Phil SAID it.

      • Antonio Arellano

        This is what he said to be correct.

        What, in your mind, is sinful?“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says.

        So in this quote he is listing things the bible says are sins. The writer should have added the fact that im sure phill knows that the bible goes on that same list untill everyone in the hole world is now considered to be sinnful. Sothat just tells me that this hole thing is set up so we can talk about GQ.

      • JammieDodger

        And ignore his nostalgia for Jim Crow….

      • magormissabib

        According to Romans one they are:

        Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

        Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

        Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

        Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

      • Antonio Arellano

        Rom 14:1 Accept other believers who are week in faith, and dont argue with them about what they think is right or wrong

        Rom 14:4 who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? their own master will judge wheather they stand or fall. And with the lord’s , they will stand and recieve his approval.

        Rom 14:13 so let’s stop condemning each other. decide insteade to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall.

        Rom 14:19 So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up.

        What I’m trying to say is that the bible apart from the verses I just mentioned also
        teaches that the church should judge the members of the church but it also tell
        a way to do it properly. The bible teaches that when it comes to unbeliever we
        are not to judge at all.

        So what I’m trying to say is that if we are not to condemn unbelievers. We are suppose
        to bless them. Love conquers all. Even if they will never be Christians, Jesus
        still wants us to love them.

      • magormissabib

        God hates kissy poo Christians like you.

      • Antonio Arellano

        1 Corinthians 13:1-13 NLT

        If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing. Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. Prophecy and speaking in unknown languages and special knowledge will become useless. But love will last forever! Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture! But when the time of perfection comes, these partial things will become useless. When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely. Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love—and the greatest of these is love.

      • magormissabib

        a lot of fluffy talk about love is not a substitute for thruth. NO homos In heaven.

      • magormissabib

        full murder envy deceit etc (see below) they are given over by God to uncleanness, vile affections and a reprobate mind. You love nothing but your lust.

      • magormissabib

        poor poor babies always whining. grow some balls you big baby. truth hurts. too damn bad. stop being a pervert then.

      • JO

        Tony, you are really exhibiting some Christian behavior (sarcasm, in case you missed it). Reading your comments make me cringe. Our job as Christians is to bring people to Christ. I don’t believe your comments (which are full of hate) make anyone want to join you in eternity.

      • magormissabib

        You cant bring anyone to Christ you clown. Phoney Christians like you are the reason America is going to hell in a handbasket You think you need to kiss [email protected] ass to win them over so you compromise the truth. My duty is to tell the truth – whether they or you like ot or not. God decides the outcome .

        Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

      • Amelia

        You also don’t have to take it personally but you do. Like your words are any better, you make gay people look so bright and happy and worth supporting. He didn’t say there is something wrong with you or anyone. He said the act is not right. He also stated it was his opinion.

      • Ben

        Then clearly you need to grow a pair and accept the fact that not everybody agrees with your lifestyle. You say you’re offended that somebody made a statement that is based off of their personal faith that goes against your lifestyle, but in the same breath you make the statement “He is a bigoted asshole and you are apparently ignorant”. Seems a bit one sided, don’t you think? You can spout off at the mouth and insult others, but God forbid anybody says something that goes against the grain of your special-interest group. Fucking hypocrite. Tolerance goes BOTH WAYS.

      • Rob Dotzler

        So, why aren’t you showing any tolerance Ben? Hypocrite, thy name is Ben, perhaps? I don’t hate you or yours Ben, just pointing out the duality of your comments.

      • Mike

        “Cook” I have to say that your comment is not as true as you may think, my son is gay and he posted on this subject that what Phil said does not bother him at all and for all those that it does it just means that you are not comfortable with who you are. I am a christian man and firmly believe in the Bible and stand behind Phil 100%, but I also Love my son too. I don’t have to agree with what he does but I accept who he is. Take a look inside yourself before you speak on something you obviously are not sure of. Just sayin

      • magormissabib

        Face it. Sodomites are in an uproar for someone stating the plain truth Homosexual conduct is a SIN.

      • Peyton

        God isn’t real. Your sins are false. You create your own pain by believing in fairy tales. Please come to the side of reason soon.

      • magormissabib

        Yes sin isn’t real that’s why the Gladd , Glbt and A+E go into such an uproar when they hear the word sin. lol. face it. the truth of God cannot roll off of your back because it pierces you to the heart.

      • Leyton Rocks

        Thank you peyton … A voice of reason

      • Donica

        He is also an alcoholic wife beater. I don’t doubt they eat ham, either. It clearly states that we should NOT be eating pig. You can’t just fucking pick and choose what you want to believe in the bible. All of you bible thumpinng Christians also completely fail to realize that the guy that you follow never said a damn thing about it. You go by old Testament standards or quote the old when I thought the whole idea was the new testament because that’s where the main guy in the Christian faith is.

      • FlamDingo

        Why on Earth would anyone capitalize every single first letter of every single word? Good lord, that is just stupid.

      • Matt Campos

        Agreed. I find Mr. Robertson’s statements to be crass and unfortunate. His lack of eloquence aside, his description of his beliefs hardly qualifies as homophobia or a hate rant. There is a disturbing bias growing in this country in reference to homosexuality, where any statement that is not compliance to the ideal that homosexuality is a moral or natural act is presented as hatred or fear. Failure to agree with another persons lifestyle choice is not automatically bullying. We’d all be better off if we could reinstate the pre-social media value of minding our own business.

      • Can You Hear Me Now?

        I read your comment like the title to a book.

      • JammieDodger

        I see you have no idea what capital letters are for.

      • Andy Davis

        I promise you, capitalizing every word does not make us take you more seriously.

      • kelsey

        did you really just capitalize every word you wrote? wtf

      • Elizabeth Murdock

        Thank you

      • LiberalThinking

        That’s the liberal mind set for you in a nut shell .

      • AndroidProfit

        He insinuated that homosexuality is akin to bestiality!!

      • jadugara

        Rules of grammar… Learn them….

      • Quirkydude Kev

        His “we love them” comments were part of the statement he put out after this whole thing blew up. He was covering his butt. Another thing he did say prior to all of this was ..when talking about gay people…

        “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.”

        Where is that in the Bible??

      • Jim

        Dana was directing her statements to MamaBear, not at Phil. She is calling MamaBear a bigoted asshole. I guess you missed that one there genius!

      • shocked and dismayed

        Geez – you kiss your mama with that disgusting mouth?

      • MattB81

        First, Christian belief is that everyone is meant to spread the word of God, in fact Jews and Muslims have similar beliefs.

        That being said he [Robertson] has never treated anyone like shit, he stated his beliefs while also saying that people are free to do as they will.

        Also you’re showing religious ignorance again in the biblical law vs. the scrolls – and that’s not what Christians believe Jesus died on the cross for.

        Further while I would agree TV stars should not be role models the unfortunate fact is that they are and there are far worse than Phil Robertson – but hey Charlie Sheen is still “Winning” right?

        I thinks it’s great that we want to be upset at what he said, that’s healthy and just.

      • small correction

        small correction. Jews do not proselytize.

      • MattB81

        Well actually, No they don’t to other beliefs but they do within the Jewish community to different segments that don’t follow as strictly to Noahide Law as others. Also in fact in Isreal there is a segment that does seek to convert.

      • Jim Brunet

        thank you, I was about to state the same, that Jews do not “spread the word” or actively seek converts

      • shawn

        Homos are the biggest bullies in America.

      • teresa

        Shall I call you a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance? Beat up by the gay guys are ya? Maybe you should get to a gym.

      • shawn

        not physically, except the big fat bull dykes like yourself

      • incogneto224

        You literally sound like a 12 year old boy talking crap on the playground. I hope you are, because it’s pretty sad otherwise.

      • shawn

        So you respond to me, instead of the comment that provoked my intentionally childish retort. That’s typical. And you spelled incognito incorrectly. Even twelve year old Shawn could have told you that.

      • T

        Because homos aren’t putting up with your religious bullshit anymore, they’re now bullies? Sounds like the Christian Persecution Complex to me.

      • shawn

        I’m not religious. Just an observer. And I have observed that gays are terrorists.

      • TJWatson

        It is a complex. The complex was birthed around the time Christian prayer was taken out of school. Instead recognizing not all people believe what they do and shouldn’t be forced to participate in their practice (bc it’s UnAmerican to do so), they took it as an attack on Christ and His followers. Their inability to think past themselves and put the shoe on the other foot is what drives this BS “persecuted Christians” complex. Christians have not ever had rights withheld from them, in fact Christians have had the upper hand and control since this country was established, it’s just that people who have non-Christian beliefs have stepped up and demanded they don’t live under Christian rule and they don’t like that. Christians in America don’t know what persecution is, and it’s laughable, and quite frankly, this is the reason people have little empathy and understanding for Christians now in this country.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Because homos aren’t putting up with your religious bullshit anymore, they’re now bullies?”

        Sounds like you’re one of them. Not very effectively, but the tendency is to use the law, use whining etc. to cry about their supposed aching rights in order to deny rights of others.

        They, the radical political gays, try to use the government to attack people they fear. They’re dupes of communism who are convinced that they’re now victims of religion. Basically you try to bully people by crying “bully” first and loudest.

      • scott

        Facts please….again another person speaking w/o facts. He NEVER said anything hateful, bigoted, or treated anyone like shit. Know what u are talking about!

      • jayhawk_dreamer

        did you READ the actual article? His history is very off and was construed by some as being hateful to blacks, gays and women. the article above does explain it very well.

      • Antonio Arellano

        90% of the coments on this subject are hateful. So none of you are any better than anyone you claim to be bigoted and hateful. Its reidiculous the things that are being said. Ridiculing people about their sentence structure and stupid shit like that. Half of these people probably havent even read interview. Everyone is entitled to thir own opinion I respect that and my opinion is that everyone needs to stop hating and come together as a community of love and frogivenes. Hating is bad… If you read the interview you will see a man who was not a very good man. (Just like meany people) but through the grace of God he was saved. He was once lost but now he was found By God.

      • magormissabib

        God himself placed an inveterate hatred between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. These reprobates foam and the mouth and gnash their teeth with hatred for God or anyone who dare suggest that sin is sin . God commanded us to hate evil ! Hate is not a sin unless, like these perverts here- you hate good and love evil. Sexual perversion is not love. You don’t love someone you sin with and by doing so bring the wrath of God upon them.

      • Dylan Tiberius Pumpson

        Y’know what? I’m a pretty straight person and I have nothing against homosexuals.

        However, your comments have inspired me to “choose” to be gay.

        I do this for the simple joy of having sex with a man while giving “God” both of my middle fingers.

        I will do so with the expectation that in his infinite power and sight he will strike me down in the act.

        Or, maybe that won’t happen because that has never happened and your entire belief system is an elaborate hoax.

        Finally, to the gentleman above me who wrote, “Ridiculing people about their sentence structure and stupid shit like that.”

        You’re right! It is stupid. But do you notice how much more authoritative and intelligent my words sound because of my proper grammar, syntax, and sentence structure? Not to mention general punctuation and use of the Oxford comma.

        Maybe if the fervently religious want me to take their opinion more seriously (without the use of threats of course, which they seem to rely on to the exclusion of all else) they should take the time to improve their communication skills.

      • guest

        I have to give you a thumbs up! Some of this religious zealots doesn’t understand that being gay is not a choice or a lifestyle!

      • Antonio Arellano

        Jesus ended the hate. He came to fullfill the cammandments with love. Jesus wants us to love non believers who do evil so we may fill them with love. Love conquers all..

      • magormissabib

        2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

        2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

        dosnt sound to loving to me.

      • Antonio Arellano

        are you a Christian?

      • guest

        It seems like, in your perfect utopic world. Unicorn exist. LOL

      • Lance Udell

        Atilla the Hun can be construed as having an “active outdoor lifestyle.”

        Create whatever demons you feel you need to. I do not agree with all of what Phil believes, but I did not hear any hate in any of it.

      • Michael A. Day

        Actually his history isn’t very off. It’s just not detailed. It’s true that the cultures he talks about don’t have Jesus (this is where people say that the nazis were Christian and Islam uses Jesus as a prophet, but this is a misconception because the world seems to think that just because you profess a faith means that they are living that faith. And then the Islamists believe in a whole other kind of Jesus than that of the Christian faith yes they are both the same man but they see him in two very different ways. so his statement is correct there as well) and we don’t know much else about his knowledge of history aside from what the interviewer stated about him avoiding certain topics, which is all hearsay and from the interviewers point of view as he have no quotes or proof to suggest that’s what Phil was doing (people tend to forget that this was an interview and an article not written by Phil but by someone else with different views and opinions than himself). And lastly he never said any hateful things towards blacks, gays, or woman. I don’t recall him saying anything directly at all about blacks or woman. But what he said about gays was that they were sinners and he doesn’t hate them for it he hates the sin but loves the person just as God loves them regardless of their choice. There’s nothing hateful about that, unless you try to twist his words out of context but that’s not his doing, that’s people creating hate for no good reason other than want to justify themselves in everything they do because people hate to be wrong and are to prideful to let anyone have a difference in opinion from them.

      • jayhawk_dreamer

        his history is pretty far off because he said that nazi’s didnt have jesus. but pretty sure they were christian. He also conveniently forgot about other wars which were fought over religion and christianity. according to him, black people were happy in the south, singing and picking cotton (which really reminded me of things I read that were written prior to the civil war) before getting government benefits and what not. And as a woman, I was kinda offended by his portrayal of women as merely a vagina. He has a masters in education, so i would expect a little more from him. He has a right to say it and sound stupid, but yeah, i considered some of it kinda hateful. Maybe he just doesn’t know better. But his freedom of speech wasn’t prohibited. He can say what he want, no matter how dumb and insensitive it was. But the freedom of speech doesn’t give you freedom from consequences. an educated man should know better, but as we know from listening to politicians, they always dont

      • Michael A. Day

        As I previously stated, just because someone claims to be Christian, doesnt make them Christian. There’s a big difference between professed faith and living out faith. Just because they said they were Christians doesnt make them so, The KKK were also professed Christians, but I can tell you they were far from it. Thats like saying I’m a doctor because I read books on how to be one. And when he talked about black people picking cotton, he wasnt giving a historical lesson, he was explaining HIS own perspective of what he saw growing up. His entire point of that was that though they were going through hard times, they were still joyous. It was proof to him that no matter what you’re going through as long as you have Christ you can live in joy. And there was nothing hateful towards woman by saying that they have more going on for him that another man. I honestly dont know how you could possibly manage to take that as hate, at the most its just lust. He never said all they are is vaginas, he was merely pointing out that he likes them and not another mans penis. Hes saying you as a woman are attractive and men are not (according to him). He wasnt being insensitive, he was being truthful. In no way was he directing hate or intolerance towards anyone, or did you just decide to skip over and ignore the parts about him hating only the sin and not the sinner and that he loves everyone and will not judge them regaurdless of their choices because God loves everyone regaurdless of their choices and its only on Him to judge, not men. Where do you see hate in that? i’d really like to know.

      • Lance Udell

        Thank you Scott.

      • Mike Oxbig

        wow, another ugly, pissed off lezbo.. You just stated your opinion.. I’m assuming that you will expect to be fired because of it, right??

      • incogneto224

        Name calling doesn’t really do much for your case other than make you look like a hot tempered person who isn’t able to discuss things without blowing up.

      • Mike Oxbig

        I’m not hot tempered at all.. I’m simply pointing out the obvious.

      • guest

        clearly ignorant statement. have you ever picked up a bible?

      • pissoff

        You clearly know nothing about the Bible or God, during the old testament God killed many of his own people simple because they did not follow his commandments and yes God says speak to those who do not follow my laws. Which means sometime you need to be an asshole, read the old testament, many prophets sent by God were rude with their message simply because his people would not listen otherwise

      • magormissabib

        if having an opinion makes one a bigoted asshole then YOU are the bigoted asshole you brainless hypocritical bimbo.

      • Baloo Uriza

        Having a bigoted opinion makes you a bigoted asshole. Claiming you know God better than God angers God. God loves all his children. If you were Christian, you’d already know that. May God have mercy on your wretched soul.

      • magormissabib

        Yes God loves all his children. But you are not his. you are of your father the devil.

        Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

      • Valerie

        By using hate speech against him (a bigoted asshole) because you disagree with his personal beliefs has just made you a bigot. Hypocrisy at its finest.

        From the Miriam Webster Dictionary:


        noun ˈbi-gət

        : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

      • VL123

        You are clearly clueless about the world.

      • Angela Lent

        Well, that is what a lot of muslims do when they take child brides and beat their wives and children. They degrade women all the time. It is one ma’s opinion. But honestly he should be able to say what he wants if he doesn’t believe in something. I have lots of gay friends and lot conservative Christian friends. This whole thing is the media doing a good job of getting people pissed at each other. My question would be, WHY did GQ ask that question and better yet, why did GQ print it? I see all kinds of hate going on way more so than this guys beliefs. Hate that DOES cause people to hate each other.

      • Bjorn Bergeson

        Christians have also taken child brides, Mormons, (off-shoot of christianity remember), used to practice polygamy, and the wife beating seems to be more universal with patriarchy than anything related to religion. Keep in mind christians used to burn women for little reason. They’ve gotten a bit better in the last hundred years, but still there’s no need to go climbing up on that high horse. Funny too, because after you drop religion and talk about the issue itself you seem to make sense.

      • johnny

        if I may throw in a few items for concideration… anyone remember the tv show “Roseanne” ? how about the talk show “Ellen” ? gays have been around for a long time , n everyone knows it . how many of your “hero’s” are gay ?

        N don’t mess with the Constitution ! that seems to be a convenient crutch for too many crybabies with nothing to do but try to make a mountain out of molehills . get over it , your opinion is not that important . btw , what offends me is the antics of Snooki and Bowwow or even teenmothers ?those seem to be popular shows ! why? I won’t allow those shows on my tv and that’s that ! feel free to beat me up however you feel . call me names , it won’t change a thing. my personal opinions . thanks

      • KhadijahMuhammad

        “I don’t recall God personally giving you the job of treating people like shit just because they break his laws.”
        Please explain how stating his beliefs was “treating people like shit.”

        “Treating people like shit” would be, well, ACTING in a derogatory manner towards them. Phil specifically stated that this is NOT permitted according to his religious beliefs.


      • guest

        So, you meant that he uses he’s religion to be a bigot?

      • KhadijahMuhammad

        Just the opposite. Christian teaching is pretty clear about hating the sin but loving the sinner, although that is a tough fence for people to walk on some times.

      • Roger

        Really? Why don’t you give us the exact quote where he treated them like shit? He quoted what he was taught from his religion, THEN went on to say he loved all of them (thieves, drunks, gays, etc,,, the sinners). Get your facts straight before you spew out a bunch of garbage and make a total fool of yourself. Oh, and know the religion before you talk about it. You obviously know nothing about Christianity.

      • austin

        Your retarded, he took no strive harm gay people, he was asked a question and he responded with his person opinion. At no point did he say on behalf of every one at a&e the gays are going to hell. I don’t recall that. The first amendment doesn’t only allow the right to express your freedom to be gay, it also gives you the right and protection to express your opinion against homosexuality. A&e should catch a law suit for an attack on Phil Robertson’s right to the first amendment.

      • Michael Norman

        do you even know what the meaning of bigot is you fucking idiot you call us bigots without even knowing that when a certain group bash another group or religion they are bigots. so lets break it down ill do it slow for ya. anytime a straight person says there proud to be straight guess what gays come out swinging bashing hate speech and all the whole nine yards so who is the real bigot. you are asshole and alot of people could care less about you being a rump ranger. but the fact is you all put it in the lime light and force your gay pride onto all of America and the world. see your alot like miley cyrus so full of shit but as long as the camera is on you. its poor me poor me.or look how gay you are.you say screw those christians and guess what that makes you a bigot if you gay people would have kept it in the bedroom yall wouldnt here as much as you do now and if you read the bible Sodom and Gomorrah where destroyed for man on man woman on woman sodomy rape. so where do you think our country is headed.. and people are starting to wake up we let you pull your crap all these years while yall push and push more gay agenda on everyone well the awakening is beginning and people are starting to speak out so soon it will very soon it will be corrected just wait and see and christianity has stood its test in time it will survive as for you and your kind well thats another story it will come to an end once people have had enough

      • Cosmotheistic Creativity is my religion. And yet my brothers are being discriminated in Leith. America’s time is up.

      • Sophie Lemus

        Who said he treated people like shit????And we don”t ignore the Bible,some of us try to live by it and stand up the Bible .I can see how you where raised…………

      • bcmugger

        You have good morals for sticking your penis up 100s of mens buttholes though, right?

      • Bjorn Bergeson

        your argument has nothing to do with morality.

      • bcmugger

        Homos lack morals, and you have the nerve to attack ppl that really DO have morals.

      • Bjorn Bergeson

        How do they lack morals? Some of the best people I’ve known have been homosexuals. In the face of adversity and hatred they’ve been kind, open minded and loving members of my community. Meanwhile I’ve seen heterosexual christians be some of the most ugly minded, manipulative and cruel people I’ve had the displeasure of encountering.

      • J Moore

        It’s not an excuse, it’s a belief. you believe its ok for people to be gay, and thats alright because its your right to. its anyone elses right to think its amoral because of their religious beliefs. people dont need to bash one another, just get along. And being someone who obviously isnt a religious person with your comments, how do you know god didnt or did? before you call people ignorant, you should shut your suckhole

      • Read the article in GQ, he quoted directly from the bible, Corinthians to be exact and those beliefs on homosexuality are central tenants of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I do not belong to any of those religions but I am aware of that fact read a book every once in a while instead of relying on apocryphal information..

      • bjeanthejellybean

        You must have read a completely different article than the one Robertson actually participated in. He never said anything bigoted, he didn’t treat them “like shit”.

        I suspect you didn’t read the article at all and are just parroting what the talking heads have told you he did.

      • JamesMc

        They read the special “Mein Kampf” edition of the story. Normal people only read a couple of dozen rather innocuous words. The synopsis being: Older Christian man believes homosexual acts are a sin, yet one should hate the sin and love the sinner.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “They read the special “Mein Kampf” edition of the story. ”

        Where can I find this version? I’ve never heard of it and I’d like to deconstruct it. Thanks.

      • JamesMc

        Don’t know. They’re not telling. I’ve read the goofy article half a dozen times, and it’s clear that they’re not reading the same thing. Yet, when I ask for citations, they clam up. Must be a secret.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Don’t know. They’re not telling. I’ve read the goofy article half a dozen times, and it’s clear that they’re not reading the same thing.”

        What goofy article did you glean your information from?

      • Penny Broffman

        Phil and the Robertsons don’t hate anyone. He had taken into his home drug addicts, alcoholics, transients and all manner of people who were down on their luck even before he was rich. Who among us can say that we have done that?

      • Proudconservative

        I love how if we don’t agree with a lifestyle we are “bigoted assholes”. Being a bigot means treating someone differently which he SPECIFICALLY said he doesn’t do. You can’t control our beliefs and opinions despite Obama’s and your attempts at doing so. In fact, if we are using your “standards” then YOU are a bigoted asshole for not liking Christians!

      • ChiSoxMike

        Who did he ‘treat like shit’?

        Another case of someone flying off the handle without having ANY idea what the context was.

        He actually did quite the OPPOSITE. Try reading the entire transcript instead of listening to the propaganda talking points. He stated quite directly that he LOVES them and that it’s NOT his place to judge. He also didn’t limit his comments to ‘Gays, Terrorists, and bestiality” implying that all of those things are the same as the “offended” folks claim, but he also included DRUNKARDS among his list of ‘sins’…guess what? He himself is an ADMITTED Drunkard! So if he was ‘attacking’ Gays, he was ALSO ‘attacking’ HIMSELF JUST AS MUCH as his point was that sin is sin in the eyes of God, it doesn’t matter what the sin is.

      • maplebob23

        Progressives use Progressivism as an excuse to be bigoted assholes and nobody says squat.

      • allweneedislove

        Not once did he say hate anyone! Matter of fact the Bible repeatedly tells us to love one another, love being the greatest commandment of all! Love the lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. and secondly love thy neighbor as yourself.Just because we have a faith that has moral beliefs that differ from the popular ones of today’s world doesn’t make us bigots or racists, and I pray for you that you might let go of such misguided bitter thoughts and give God a chance to let you experience the love he has for you. Yes, the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, as is stealing and lying and murdering, but it also gives us a path for forgiveness. I mean Apostle Paul was a murderer. I know people will twist my words to fit what they feel is their point, and so let me say this, no I’m not saying being homosexual is same as being a murderer, or a liar, I am saying that we all sin, and fall short of the kingdom of God. None of us are perfect and sin. But we don’t judge as it is not our job, we pray, and keep forth with our moral beliefs. As a Christian I am not going to judge anyone for their sins that just makes me a hypocrite, but that doesn’t mean that I have to justify their sins for the sake of hurting someone’s feelings.

      • rightthinker

        Phil Robertson hasn’t treated anybody disrespectfully. He was asked a question, he answered it and moved on with the interview. The interviewer was very aware of Phil Robertson’s position and wanted controversy to sell magazines. Phil Robertson answered truthfully a question. if you think he should of lied or don’t respect that his opinion is different from yours…who the bigot???

      • Shawn Thomas Lachat

        You are a moron, only the Jewish community believed in not eating animals with hooves, and the man stated he doesn’t think homosexuality is right. He didn’t harm anyone, get over yourself.
        Remind me again how reproduction with homosexuals works? It doesn’t, because men and women have specific sexual organs for each other. If nature thought homosexuality was correct, it would allow gay and lesbians to reproduce naturally like any other couple.

        Feel free to counter this, even if you believe in evolution, why hasn’t evolution allowed gay and lesbians to reproduce naturally with each other? hmmm…….food for thought…..

      • Gregg

        You can’t have it both ways! If a homosexual was fired for his beliefs
        the whole gay community would have a total sht fit and it would be a
        discrimination crime and the would be employer would take a huge hit for
        it, and rightly so. No one should be denied employment for what they
        believe in period. But that applies to Phil too. He believes the
        bible is infallible and that his god talks to him through it. I do not
        have the luxury to buy into all of that myself personally as my father
        is a preacher and I can’t believe the way he does, But I still love him
        and except that he is committed to live his life fallowing that book.
        Phil believes what he reads in the bible as millions have for thousands
        of years and that is their “Right” to believe what they will. Even if
        if conflicts with reality at times. Fact is the bible does have
        contradictions in it and like I said, you can’t have it both ways. In
        judges Jephtha sacrificed his daughter to god. No disappointment to god
        apparently, he excepted the sacrifice. Then we see god intervene when
        Abraham goes to sacrifice Isac like god told him to. What kind of
        manacle god does that anyway? why would I ever believe in a god like
        that, let alone worship him? But this is the country I fought for and I
        believe in and although it is screwed up, you can’t deny a person an
        income, home, or job based on what they say they believe in. That is just as wrong as firing or not hiring someone for who they decide to love and sleep with. And you are the moron if you think homosexual activity doesn’t occur in the animal kingdom. Just go to the zoo for a day

      • Gregg

        You can’t have it both ways! If a homosexual was fired for his beliefs
        the whole gay community would have a total sht fit and it would be a
        discrimination crime and the would be employer would take a huge hit for
        it, and rightly so. No one should be denied employment for what they
        believe in period. But that applies to Phil too. He believes the
        bible is infallible and that his god talks to him through it. I do not
        have the luxury to buy into all of that myself personally as my father
        is a preacher and I can’t believe the way he does, But I still love him
        and except that he is committed to live his life fallowing that book.
        Phil believes what he reads in the bible as millions have for thousands
        of years and that is their “Right” to believe what they will. Even if
        if conflicts with reality at times. Fact is the bible does have
        contradictions in it and like I said, you can’t have it both ways. In
        judges Jephtha sacrificed his daughter to god. No disappointment to god
        apparently, he excepted the sacrifice. Then we see god intervene when
        Abraham goes to sacrifice Isac like god told him to. What kind of
        manacle god does that anyway? why would I ever believe in a god like
        that, let alone worship him? But this is the country I fought for and I
        believe in and although it is screwed up, you can’t deny a person an
        income, home, or job based on what they say they believe in. That is just as wrong as firing or not hiring someone for who they decide to love and sleep with

      • Veronica Dever

        You have good morals when you live what you believe. Phil believes in the Bible. He hates no one and attacked no one. He has treated every person with respect and care. He stated his belief and live his religion. It is about love and compassion, that does not mean he has to agree with your lifestyle to treat you well.

      • rose4all

        I am sorry but I didn’t see that he treated anyone like shit. He just disagreed with the life style. I am divorced and I know God hates divorce. But I live in an imperfect world. And I know that I have a God who still loves me. The bible has just shown me that no matter how hard I try my human ways can not be perfect or with out sin. That is why I need Jesus to save me so I can live with a perfect God in my next life. He has shown me that I am imperfect but made perfect through him.
        I personally find nothing attractive when I look at another woman. So when I think of two woman together it sceeves me out. Does it mean I am judging gay people. No it means it is not for me, That I totally like men and enjoy sex with my husband. Kind of like mustard. I dislike the smell of mustard and will throw up if I eat it. But that is my opinion. Another person eats mustard and likes it. I can give my opinion about it but I am not going judge another about it nor do other people judge me. I am not giving them consequences for their choices. Just as the person explained freedom of speech maybe they need to look up judging. Because what the network did was judge him on his opinion.

      • bob

        I don’t recall being forced to answer a question with a lie.
        why is it that its ok for gays to scream praises about there lifestyle? but we can’t say we don’t approve? what gives them the right to force there beliefs on us?
        these are some facts.
        1 you cannot reproduce homosexually.. fact
        2 people say you see homosexual acts in nature. but you never see a gay chimps holding hands, its more like a violent prison rape scene.
        3 so many people say they don’t believe in god, and that is there right and there problem, but there money says in god we trust and they still want a gift for Christmas!!
        just think about these things, don’t hate someone for who they are!!! be like Phil, hate the act love the person!

      • Kenneth Hicks

        who exactly did the man treat like shit.. I guess now our society has become so indoctrinated with pussys that merely stating a belief that disagrees with someone else is now treating them like shit.and by the way “you Christians” is a bigoted statement. .just thought id let you know since you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word….

      • james

        Ur an idiot and ur stupid. Grow up

      • clocker1

        go back and read your post. you are arguing about someone hurting another and then you call someone a fool. really….read your post.

      • Mark Strange

        You don’t but you have to understand these people, morals don’t come from general reason and goodness. It comes from God. “Jacob have I loved, Easu have I hated” If God doesn’t like it, it’s bad, if he likes it Its good – no matter how terrible it really is. Abrahams willingness to kill his own son was good in the eyes of God. And since God does not talk they read the bible which is “God’s Infallible Word” It might as well be Gods word to these folks.

      • Diddlydee

        Last time I looked, according to the Bible, we are ALL sinners. You’re right that it is not his job to judge anyone. My question is why this man was asked his views on this in the first place. What did the interviewer have in mind when they ‘whacked this hornets nest’, likely knowing full well what the answer was going to be based on watching the show? BTW not all Christians feel the need to judge others in this way. I feel badly for people that cannot tolerate differences in people. But that works for both sides.

      • H

        You didn’t read the bible obviously or making up facts to support your claim

      • Asajjventre

        I think you (and the writer) are making a huge logical leap between his remarks (“I believe homosexuality is a sin”) and being hateful or bigoted. He has (so far as anyone knows) never actually treated anyone in a disrespectful manner as a result of this view point, and thus calling him ignorant or bigoted is a severe over-extension of the meanings of either of those words. Along the same lines, over-eager supporters have used freedom of speech out of ignorance in the same way his deteactors use bigoted, hateful or homophobic.

      • Vicki Thomas

        You obviously know nothng about Christians. Read the bible for the answers and read ALL of what Phil said. The bible states He made woman for man, not man for man, or animal to man, etc. However, we don’t turn our backs on them…we love them as God’s fallen children. Religion is NOT an excuse for good morals, IT is what gives good morals. Phil was not harming anyone, he was merely stating his teachings and beliefs. BTW, tv stars in general are farrrrrrrr from being role models, lol. God Bless.

      • doug

        you had me until you said thought, you just perpetuated hate and judgement hold back riotous one hug someone, you poor thing!

      • Stryder51

        So by your “logic” if somebody disagrees with your stance on something that makes you a “bigoted asshole”. Then by that logic I guess that makes every atheist who speaks out against Christianity a “bigoted asshole”. And fwiw, he never treated ANYBODY like shit. He doesn’t hate gays. Progs are such drama queens.

      • Corrie Nance

        Such a ridiculous statement. The bible is the word of God. God said homosexuality is sin. You people are being bigoted when you attack Christians for their belief. How is it gays have rights but Christians don’t? That is exactly what you people are saying when you chose one over the other. Another thing I always love it when non Christians try to use the bible against Christians . Forget it, you will always lose, because you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the bible, I don’t see any Christian treating anyone badly, I see people like you treating Christians badly. Again, it seems like the democrats can’t make a statement without calling people names.

      • RettLoe

        “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,”

        Hate Speech. Not simply voicing his “good chrisitian values” fucking hate speech.

      • scott

        You are absolutely ignorant on that is saying. He was asked what is sin in his mind so he started w homosexuality then listed other sins, including bestiality, adultery lust and so on. How is that hateful? He even was quoted as saying:
        “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus” also stated the whole family believes if everyone would love each other we would b better of. So again where is the Hate. Know your facts.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “How is that hateful?” It’s hateful because it is hateful/

      • shawn

        Brilliant repartee, Ed.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Thanks. You ought to see me when I have something to say.

      • Mitchell Brown

        He could always have said “its none of your business.” A&E, a company designed to sell product to as many people as possible, has fired someone who they believe (rightly or wrongly) has harmed that mission. They’re number 1 priority is to their investors. I’m going to guess a lot of folks on The Right weren’t too plussed when Alec Baldwin was sacked for offering his personal views for all to see. I’m going to guess no one The Right was very unhappy to see Martin Bashir forced to resign with his comments about Sarah “I Can See Rusha From My Back Yard” Palin. I’m guessing no one on The Right was too mad when Bobby Jindal fired folks in his cabinet when they made public certain personal views.

      • shawn

        what cracks me up is how many homos claim to be Christians, and call the Bible hate speech

      • Don

        Who cares what he said? Probably gay people. Also, his employer. Also, the majority of Americans.

      • Jim Bean

        Not ‘the majority of Americans’ (though it may seem that way since, for some reason, many people are afraid to say what they truly think.)

      • Leyton Rocks

        Amazing claim. Get to know some gay people and stop fretting about not being able to spout hate. They’re like you and me. Learn to love everyone for who they are not what they are

      • Jim Bean

        I have no animosity or bias against gays. I don’t have any against Phil either. I DO have animosity against those seeking to inflict punishment on any one of them. How bout you?

      • Leyton Rocks

        Phil can say what he likes. If his employers don’t like it. That’s his contractual lookout. It’s not a punishment if you breach your employment contract. That’s just doing something wrong. Like overcharging customers or messing up a filing system. And if this news story gives us all a chance to condemn homophobia then more power to our elbow. And maybe one or two less people will see that homophobia is a good thing. Freedom of speech does equal say what you like without any consequences. It just means the police won’t come knocking at your door. We have a responsibility, whether we are in the public eye or not, to each other as individuals. Condoning homophobia simply condemns many men and women to a life where they don’t get to enjoy freedom of movement as gay couples. This isn’t about being offended. It’s about the kind of society you want to live in. We, and his employer, have a right to ignore Phil just as much as he has a right to sit down with a GQ journalist and quote the bible about homosexuality. Maybe even he will think about what it is he said.

      • Joules JP

        well said 🙂

      • shawn

        “Maybe even he will think about what it is he said”. You think he might change his belief system and turn away from Christianity because a reactionary bunch of evolutionary dead ends have bullied the media into deeming it “homophobia” to quote the bible? Not likely.

      • Leyton Rocks

        Brilliant … His Christianity trumps his homophobia … Merry xmas

      • Jim Bean

        Free speech exists for none of us if it means someone will deliberately take action to punish you for something you said. If the FCC had shutdown DQ for REPEATING (when they didn’t have to) what Phil said, then you and I would be whining in harmony.

      • Leyton Rocks

        What if nothing…. that’s just arguing against a situation you don’t like with a hypothetical point. Like if my auntie had a penis she’d be my uncle. The sanctions taken against Phil are an issue for A & E and Phil. Phil is still free to say what he wants, when he wants. He just won’t be doing on a reality tv show. I think all our rights are still in tact. Just a few more people have learnt that homophobia is bad. It’s been a good few days in that sense.

      • Jim Bean

        You’re last line says it all. In you’re mind, they need to be taught a lesson by someone like you so they’ll ‘grow’ and become more nearly perfect like you. When/if you come down from the mount and learn to accept that ‘different’ from you doesn’t mean ‘inferior’ to you, then you can say you have truly grown as an individual. What you are unconsciously exhibiting is the same mental mechanics that causes someone to be a racist. You are also misusing the term ‘Homophobia’ the correct definition of which is, ‘extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people’. Phil demonstrated nothing extreme or irrational. He simply expressed the same attitudes that the vast majority of humans have had towards it throughout history. And the only thing that has changed now is that fewer people are brave enough to be honest about their feelings because they fear the reprisal that you’re salivating to levy upon them. Its always going to be an ‘out side the lines’ behavior as long as the male/female genitalia are constructed the way they are. Doesn’t mean we can’t live together harmoniously – as long as the gays and their guard dogs show the same tolerance for others as they expect for themselves.

      • Leyton Rocks

        I’m not perfect and I’m no ones guard dog. I’ve watched the YouTube clips of Phil. He’s god fuelled. That’s certainly irrational. It also shows hes stuck in his mindset and telling others to feel the same because the bible says so. When I was a teenager I was ignorant to plenty of others. During my formative years I met people that shaped my world view. I take full responsibility for who I am and continue to grow as I come across new thoughts and ideas. Merry Xmas.

      • DH234

        So you don’t like A&E then. They are the ones kicking him off the show. Most likely violated a “legal” contract with the network. I don’t see anything but a business trying to protect themselves from what they see as a situation. The majority of all of us “Americans” could give a crap about this flap.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “who gives a rats ass what he said about the gays?” Well, apparently the company who hired then fired the dolt. dummy!

      • Denise Overfield Gevedon

        A&E hasn’t said ANYTHING about cancelling the show. They just removed Phil from the show. Yes, he is entitled to his opinion, as we all are, BUT when you’re in the public eye and have so many “followers”, especially young, impressionable minds, you need to weigh your words carefully. Everyone is against bullying (as they should be) and this was a form of bullying. If there are no ramifications for what he said, then millions of kids are going to think it’s okay to gay-bash.

      • Anon21

        How is what he said in response to a question in what he believes sinning was, going to lead to gay-bashing? Someone in the public eye still deserves the freedom to say what they want. If you are so worried about “young impressionable minds” there is this thing called parenting. Stop trying to force others to censor themselves because you don’t know what to let your children to watch. Other human beings are not required to teach your children what you want to them to be brain washed with. Bullying? Are you serious how do you construe him asserting his belief in the words of god as bullying?

      • Teresa

        He has freedom of speech…not a guaranteed forum on which to say it. Otherwise where is my A&E show? I will call it “Why women are entitled to the Oval office, the House and the Senate for the next 250 years”. The old biggot can go spew his beliefs on the street corner all he wants, as can you or I.

      • shawn

        He didn’t say that on the A&E show, tough guy. He said it in an interview responding to a question. Are you too busy with your testosterone treatments and penis envy to actually read the article you are commenting on?

      • Denise Overfield Gevedon

        I wasn’t referring to anyone in my household, we don’t watch the show. I was referring to the fact of how many parents like the show because it is “wholesome” and how proud they were of their young children saying grace before meals and praying at bedtime and they attributed that to the children watching duck dynasty and following the example they set. When the parents, themselves, should be the ones setting the examples.
        I raised my child, she’s a mother herself now and my grandchild does not watch any “reality t.v.” or any tv for that matter.
        I did not say he should not have the freedom to say what he wants, just be prepared for the backlash, when you’re in the public eye.
        And yes, with all the talk of bullying nowadays, his comments could be construed as bullying the gay community.

      • Jim Bean

        There are plenty people who find the “Will & Grace” show offense and not fit for young impressionable minds. They react by turning it off at the TV set – not by trying to punish Will or Grace.

      • anonymous annika

        That’s because Will and Grace are fictional characters… and because the show featuring those characters never spouted hatespeech.

      • Leyton Rocks

        That’s such a spurious argument it’s untrue. Offended by the rare fictional programme that normalises homosexuality vs a guy getting sacked for being homophobic are not in the same ball park.

      • Travis

        This is hardly bullying. You can disagree with someone and still be their friend. If that wasn’t the case none would have any relationships. We are called to love the sinner and hate the sin. That is all sin and all sinners because we are all sinners. We are just getting to soft as a nation and are way too easily offended.

      • Leyton Rocks

        The bible can be read many ways and one of them is to say homosexuality is a sin. Yet many progressive christians see whatever tract of text is read this way as just another relic of time long before the 21st and not the rules of engagement for a modern society… It was GQ magazine afterall he was speaking to, not guns and ammo monthly.

      • MikeIP

        If you’re really getting your morals from TV, then it’s not A&E, gay folks, or this Robertson idiot that have the problem. It’s you.

      • Breann Trotter

        Thank you. Exactly. It isn’t an attack on freedom, as you said. It is simply people who what to cause drama and bring attention to themselves. He didn’t say that they should be shunned or ridiculed. He simply stated his beliefs, which is exactly what the gay community would do if they were asked the same question. And then would all the people who believed otherwise throw a fit to get them suspended or what not? No. Because they simply said how THEY want to live, & what THEY believe, just like Phil did. Nothing wrong with that. So if they want to throw a fit when Phil says what he believes, maybe they should have to keep silent on what they believe as well. Seems fair?

      • Actually he said a lot more than “look, I’m a devout Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the bible so it goes without saying that I think homosexuality is a sin” when he went off on the gays. And his assertion that the gays are sinners implying he is not was quite classic. I’m pretty sure the Christian bible says a lot about sin and humans having the audacity to judge others (while making it seem they, themselves, are above sin)
        He also said that there was no racism in the south since no black people complained about racism to him when he was growing up.
        Of course my favorite part of this interview was his I am not morally or ethically responsible for anything I did before I was born again. Yeah we get it, you “good Christians” (which is what you appear to be saying makes him a moral guy) are automatically forgiven and exonerated for beating the crap out of people because you’re “Christian” This is rich from a guy who also said “We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.” I guess everyone else must repent but he’s above that?

      • Leyton Rocks

        There’s a great Emo Phillips segment where he talks about his Christian upbringing. He prayed and prayed for a new bicycle for Xmas and never got one. And then he worked out it didn’t work that way. So he stole one and asked for forgiveness. For me that’s born again religion in a nutshell.

      • Ghastly

        According to the bible, a man wearing long hair is a SIN! How come Robertson gets to pick and choose?

        According to Robertson the freedom riders like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks had it all wrong. African Americans were sooo happy before the civil rights movement.

      • Jim Brunet

        The Dixie Chicks are very talented and I love their music. Period, end of sentence.

      • twackman

        Some people are just not happy if they are not offended.

      • tj

        dont watch

      • HolyMoly

        I love the phrase, “If you don’t like what you see, turn the channel.” That’s exactly why A&E got rid of the guy.

        If people stop watching, advertisers stop paying to place their ads (they want to advertise where they know people are watching). A&E loses money to run the show. They figure out why (in this case Robertson), and get rid of him. Viewers come back, advertising dollars come back.

        Thanks for the advice!

      • ashley

        You really couldn’t have said it better MamaBear

      • Drizzle

        Uh, I believe that was his only point MamaBear… What did you think his other points were?

      • Drizzle

        Oh, and I almost forgot… could you enlighten us all and provide scripture from the Bible where it says being gay is a sin. I’m sure you’ll have to Google it since you are probably only basing that on what you’ve heard from other uninformed people. And when you Google it you will find references to the Bible where people have gone to great lengths to make an argument to support their OWN beliefs that being gay is bad. But isn’t it truly ironic how many staunch opponents of LGBT are actually gay themselves. Challenge me on this one because I would really like to provide you with a list of religious, celebrity, and political figures who have gone on tirades about how being gay is a sin who then have gay encounters themselves.

      • Dan

        MamaBear, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said, but just to be clear, the sin is about the action, not the person. It seems like people want to condemn people for who they are, not what they do. Big difference in my book.

      • quarkyst

        HAHAHA! you took time out of your day to watch Duck Dynasty!? When you could have been doing something else? LOL!

      • Steve

        Who the fuck is Phil Robertson…and furthermore….what the hell is a “Dixie Chick”? baaahahahhahaha

      • Ric Pifer

        Sounds like you need to quit watching MTV!

      • drdanj

        I give a rat’s ass.you do not get to hide bigotry under the guise of religion. If the religion is bigoted then it and it’s followers deserve to be called on it.

      • Tom Bruize

        Um, he said a tad bit more,…

      • KhadijahMuhammad

        “He never once said he hated them, he simply stated that according to the
        bible, which is what he strongly believes in, being gay is a SIN”
        Yes. Somehow, it came as a surprise to them that a practicing Christian actually believes in Christianity. 🙂

      • boomergran

        Everyone conveniently ignores that he also said Blacks were happy under Jim Crow laws. And everyone also ignores that ignorant speech often leads to ignorant actions – sometimes deadly.

        He can say whatever he wants. If A&E thinks you so-called “Christians” make up enough of their viewership, they’ll bring him back. If they don’t bring him back, well, I guess you’re just not that important to them.

      • Secgu76

        Can you show me the exact quote where he says Blacks were happy under Jim Crow laws? Thanks.

      • M

        He answered the question he was asked…the person that wrote this OBVIOUSLY didn’t read the article. It was not an anti-gay RANT. It was a simple answer to a simple question, now the people that spout off equality, understanding and tolerance are not doing that. The question was “What, in your mind, is SIN?” He answered and listed other things…beastiality, drunkenness, etc. he said no sin is worse than any other. And we all have done it. RANT means to rave, ramble, and not stop.

      • Baloo Uriza

        You might want to search YouTube for some of the shit he said as a pastor from the pulpit. Make no mistake, he definitely hates lesbians and gays with a passion so intense that he may be so deep in the closet as to find next year’s Christmas presents.

      • renegadegirl

        how about a world where our children and families have more options for role models than Duck Dynasty or Jersey Shore? How about a world where we read to our children, and nurture their creative spirits during the time we would otherwise be spending watching shows? Why should some heavily edited and/or scripted reality TV show serve as role models for our children?

      • Baloo Uriza

        What you’re suggesting requires effort. This is America.

      • Viperratt

        I think the blowback on the Dixie Chicks was more of where they said it, than what they said. On the Daily Mail even a gay guy posted, “he was asked a question and gave HIS answer. If you didn’t agree with the response that was OK because he still had the right to answer honestly about the question”.

      • macs adams

        you get your morals from a t.v show hmmmm

      • Mattsmom99

        If you want “good role models” BE a good role model! You don’t find role models on TV. Watching these types of shows keeps you indoors and away from experience real life.

      • AndroidProfit

        PRAISE JESUS that we have separation of church and state so that we aren’t required to follow so much of that CRAZY SHIT that is in the big-book-of-fiction.

      • Lauren Darter

        I find it sad that we are relying on t.v. shows to set “good role models” for kids and adults alike. We’re so lazy now we can’t teach our kids to be open-hearted, loving, respectful, caring people? We have to look for a t.v. show that we ‘believe’ will do it?? If that is true, our world is already a very sad place.

      • Cari Kirchhoff

        You have admitted what I haven’t seen anyone else admit and what I feel is the biggest issue for people who are outraged. They (you) are outraged because you won’t be able to watch him on TV anymore.

      • james

        Good post. You are right.

      • Pancreas

        So dont get mad or outrage yourself if i call you a fucking piece of sh…. Cause for me that’s what you are, sorry i forgot the word ignorant as well, now if i loose my job for this i wouldnt give a sh cause i will go out and find a new job, even when all the people i work with will make the same claim you did…..whatch the pink panther, that is a gd good show!

      • mishel

        Sounds like you need to stop watching tv and have real role models instead of characters on tv shows.

      • Karry Arvag

        LOL they are fakes that’s the best role model yet.

      • GL

        Quick question. Did Jesus say “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, or did he say “OK, this girl is an adulteress, and even though I was willing to stand up for her a few minutes ago, have at it, throw all the stones you want”?

      • Beau

        “They have good morals and who gives a rats ass what he said about the gays?”

        I actually get angry with myself for reading this low-brow dribble when I could be doing something more productive like picking fly shit out of pepper. You wouldn’t know “good morals” if good morals bled to death on your front lawn. In the future, remember the old adage “Best to remain silent and be thought a fool rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt”.
        Dan Akroyd summed you up best in his famous 4 line opener on SNL’s Point/Counterpoint c. 1975… “Jane, you ignorant slut!”
        Merry Christmas you animals.

      • Mrblac77

        Did it occur to anyone that gay people are running most of these networks?

      • Dearl

        Either you believe what God’s word says about homosexuality and other sins or you don’t. II Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is inspired by God and Titus 1:2 says God cannot lie. If you believe that God’s word about homosexuality does not apply today then you must also believe that God owes the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah an appoligy. OR, maybe you simply don’t believe the Holy Bible is God’s word. I believe in God and I also believe The Bible is God’s infallable word.

      • Shar Aziz

        Um… he compared gay marriage to marrying your pet. He’s taking it a bit further than “according to my holy book it’s a sin.”

      • Stephen Barlow

        You poor moonshine addled, holly rolled daughter of cousin humpers. Do you think you’ll actually be considered for redemption?

        WHERE in the bible does Jesus say to HATE anyone? Where does it say shun them, to abuse anyone, or deny equality to anyone?

        Doesn’t matter how much you read your Bible, you have to know how to READ AND COMPRENHEND first.

    • Jim Bean

      MOST of the same people who cried foul over what happened to the Chicks are enthusiastically supporting what’s happening to the Ducks.


      The Chicks With Dix Suck and they got what they deserved. Filthy animals.

      • Gina McElvain Houston

        Oh aren’t you a mature one!! Take a look in the mirror and there you will see something filthy….smh

    • Gandhi

      I saw the Dixie Chicks in Toronto in 1999. Their banter the entire show was bashing ‘stupid Americans’ and telling the Canadian audience how much better Canadians were compared to Americans. 4 years later when they go off on GWB (who i DON’T like and NEVER voted for) – and middle America country-radio retaliates, Natalie Maines acts like it was a ‘one time expression of pent-up frustration’ over the Iraq war (a war I protested AGAINST in April and May of ’03). Natalie Maines is full of crap and a pathological liar. Her core audience – the people who gave the Dixie Chicks wide mainstream success – were people she despised and towards whom she had deeply bigoted views. And she articulated those views REGULARLY – well before 2003.

      This is a frame of reference almost nobody has, and that some uninformed and ignorant Dixie Chicks-supporters try to deny when I articulate my first-hand experience being in Toronto in August 1999.

    • lilyofthefields

      There are plenty of hypocrites to go around. Funny you should mention the Dixie Chicks as a basis for your argument when I was thinking of them too – for the opposite reason and if I recall, no one supporting them said there were consequences to their words as opposed to their right to speech. Some of us don’t pick sides and then change our views as it fits us. I think in both cases they said things that were offensive to many and those individuals chose not to support them. A&E has a right as his employer to make that decision, and whether they like it or not, the Dixie Chicks are on the job when they are in concert. There are people who paid to hear them sing and did not want to nor should they have had to listen to their views on anything political. They have every right to do so on the right platform but not while they are under the pretense of “entertaining” especially when said in a country that sent hundreds of their own loved ones to support the United States only to have some idiot group from that country slam the President on their time. Really in poor taste!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Some of the same people that boycotted and pretty much put the Dixie Chicks out of business for their comments are now up in arms that this man is getting fall out for his comments….funny how views change when the shoe is on the other foot.”

      First, people take sides some times. Yes they do. It’s called discernment.

      Second, it’s not the same thing at all. Nobody pushed for the Dixie Chicks to get fired that I know of. And if they did, they were dead wrong to do so. They’re certainly free to disagree and change their own relationship with them. Just as you are free to opt out of watching the duck show, and boycott their sponsors.

    • Dixie Chicks?? Past history. Fame fades away.

    • NickMorris

      Comparing this to Dixie Chicks is like comparing apples to oranges. DId someone fire the Dixie Chicks? No.

      • NickMorris

        Funny how the half that are angry only have read the parts of what he said.

      • Gina McElvain Houston

        First off he has NOT been fired…No, their record label did not fire them….they stated their opinion, just like this guy did and yes, it is just that, an opinion, Because it has to do with the Bible though, the Christians have their panties in a wad that he wasn’t able to state his opinion. Yet, the Dixie Chicks stated their opinion and they went nuts and pretty much put them out of business.

    • ChiSoxMike

      Nonsense red herring straight from the left wing talking points.

      There is no equivocation in the two incidents so trying to tie them together is at best intellectually dishonest, at worst an incredible ignorance on your part.

      The Dixie Chicks attacked a politician on stage. Robertson simply stated his religious beliefs. He didn’t attack anyone. If you think he did, they you have NOT seen the context in which is comments were made. He made it VERY clear that he wasn’t attacking ANYONE, in fact, he stated that he LOVES everyone and will NOT judge anyone. Too bad the people so quick to judge HIM without even knowing the context of the statement.

      BTW, the Dixie Chicks comments were just STUPID…THEIR customer base was the very people they offended. How stupid was that? THAT is what killed the Dixie Chicks…their own stupidity. Not some organized ‘boycott’.

      Duck Dynasty fans (pretty much the same demographic as the Dixie Chicks, BTW) aren’t going to be even slightly ‘offended’ by the comments. They are going to be offended by the response. Another stupid move made by people who don’t understand their own base.

    • jdkchem

      Just like the same jacktards who called Bush hitler are up in arms calling anyone who disagrees with the grate messiah a racist. You turds don’t much like it when what goes around comes back around to you.

    • Gary J Hill

      How do you know they’re the same people. Assumption?

      The Dixie Chicks were not put out of business. They simply lost a large portion of their fan base. Phil Robertson said nothing that his fan base doesn’t support.

      • Gina McElvain Houston

        What happens when you lose a large part of your fan base?? You go out of business….It is the same thing. Period. Not discussing it anymore!

      • Gary J Hill

        Period. I’m not discussing it anymore…..Mommy! Mommy! A mean man is questioning my comments!

        If you alienate your fans you lose business. Keep your mouth shut and you stay on the top of the charts. Are you somehow blaming the fans because they wouldn’t buy Dixie Chicks albums?

        Would you, likewise, blame the consumer if they stopped buying Tyson Foods chickens because they were contaminated with salmonella?

        Think Gina. Think!

      • Gina McElvain Houston

        I said I wasn’t discussing it because obviously you want to argue, (Mommy! Mommy! as an example). I am blaming the same people that are throwing a hissy over this as the same people that boycotted the Dixie Chicks for stating their opinion and using their right to free speech.
        As far as thinking, that is the problem…I was taught to think for myself and not to blindly follow the crowd because everyone else is. So believe me Mr. Hill, you don’t scare me because you are questioning my comments. I just don’t want to argue when I know you are smart enough to understand the comparison but you continue to play dumb and try to get me to argue with you.
        One other thing I want to address with you. I saw your comment that Mr. Robertson was not at work so he couldn’t be held accountable because of that. He is under contract to A&E, when he speaks publicly, he is representing A&E. He was being interviewed by GQ, because he is famous for his show which is on A&E, they don’t just interview any Joe Blow from the swamp. Until he is out from under that contract he represents A&E and until then he can say whatever he wants to who he wants (free speech) but there could possibly be repercussions….as he is now finding out!
        One other thing that might surprise you…what he said in no way surprises me or offends me. Everyone has an opinion, he is entitled to his, just as you are to yours and so on. I am just getting really tired of hearing that his right to freedom of speech is being denied. It most certainly has not been denied!

    • Bert27

      Obviously but it isn’t just conservatives, everyone is a damn hypocrite.

    • Bill Moss

      The same views are here as then but two different situations. Robinson answered a question that was asked of him. He did not bring shame or dishonor to this country he only stated what he knows to be true. The Dixie Chicks on the other hand disrespected this country our leader and our service members. They deserved what they got. I to this day will change the channel if one of their songs comes on the radio.. Bottom line is if you don’t want to know what someone thinks don’t ask.them. As far as the Dixie Chicks they went abroad and slammed our President and our military and gave the USA a black eye. They were not asked they volunteered what they had to say. Only the liberals can’t see the difference. It must have something to do with being so far down in the gene pool. Oh and by the way Merry Christmas everybody and Obama Sucks. Boycott me if you want and I won’t complain. LOL

      • Gina McElvain Houston

        Bill, they stated their “opinion” just as this backwards ass duck guy did….I don’t have the time or the want to, to explain how similar this actually is to someone that obviously won’t get it…

    • Stephen Barlow

      The Dixie Chicks loving peace and hating revenge killings was more honorable than ANYTHING their fans ever did. I stopped listening to country stations who boycotted them and a decade later, they still don’t get My ear.

      That is a LOT for an OTR trucker todo about the people who treated them so grossly unfairly. I also stopped buying Charlie Daniels music after his abuse of respect. I turn him off because I just can’t stand that kind of race hate.

    • Corrie Nance

      Actually Dixie Chicks were talking against our President! Phil Robertson was speaking his biblical beliefs. Two different things completely. The world has always known that the bible says homosexuality is sin. Phil has the right repeat what the bible says. If gays don’t like it they don’t have to listen to him.

  • tony

    So you want protection under the law from their views? What law protects their right to have their views? It’s the same one, the 1st amendment, freedom of religion. An honest judge will conclude that he was practicing his 1st amendment rights, and if you are offended I’m sorry, freedom means tolerating others views, even if you don’t agree with them, no one was harmed,

    • Agent_J

      We tolerate his right to speak it. He does not have the right to continued employment with A&E’s when they disagree with what he said. He also does not have a right to be free from opposition to what he says and spoken reactions to those words. We have the right to actions such as speaking in opposition to those views.

  • Inapsin

    The author and most people on here don’t understand what the 1st amendment means. The statement, “So again, we are given the freedom of speech to say almost anything we want without legal ramifications for those words. ” is incorrect. There are legal ramifications, things like libel, defamation, and slander. What you do have is the right to say anything about the government and face no consequences. So you can say what you want about Obama without ramification. You could also say what you want about your boss, but you will face the consequences of that action.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  • Antonio Arellano

    For every one to know read his interview its 3 pages long. No were does he say i hate gays or compare them. He simply quoted the bible. I dont care about the show im shure phil has enogh money he probably dosn’t care. He got paid 200,000 a show. All i care about is the publics reaction about his quoting of the bible. This a book that has been the most sold book of all time and has been read for thousands of years. Its old news nothing new. Get over the sin thing. If you dont want to know what sin is dont ask dont read.

    • Runawaygirl83

      But that’s just it…. your precious Bible is a BOOK. Written by men. Not by God.

      • Antonio Arellano

        Its okay if you dont know God he still knows you. And he still loves you. <3 I know him and i love him back. 🙂

      • guest

        You sound like a nut case.

      • Antonio Arellano

        Yes i know people who want peace and love are considered a nut case. Lets just tell the girl who twerks on national televition that she is a genius. “Guest” how would you like me to speak. In a hateful way talking crap on gays or anyone else i might want to throw my vomit all over. Well im sorry my religion has taught me to be loving and forgiving. And that makes you believe that im a nut and have unicorns in my make believe world. Please forgive me.

    • joban85

      It’s also been the most stolen book of all time 😉

  • Agent_J

    I’m routinely impressed how so many Christians inability to handle even the slightest criticism or resistance given how much they love to claim that they’re persecuted and that’s such a staple of their beliefs.

  • Richard

    Sometimes exercising Freedom of Speech means that you let the readers out there know just how…um…..not smart, you are. Some of you guys are really deficit in the legal definitions and interpretations of freedom of speech, religion, employment agreements, LGBT issues and equality under the law. AND PLEASE…..stop ending comments with “It’s called __________ “. my teenage daughter does that…but with her mouth agape and her hand on her hip. Gawd! I’m like so sure!

  • William Sommerfeld

    Why is it so hard to let people have an opinion. I have heard some pretty stupid things said by libs. With no consequences. If you want examples I can provide many.

    • joban85

      Please, enlighten us.

      • William Sommerfeld

        Erin Gloria Ryan said that she wished it was Scott walker that died instead of Paul Walker.

      • squid

        not even part of this conversation

      • Guest

        Erin Gloria Ryan said that she wished it was Scott walker that died instead of

    • Landon

      No one is disallowing him from having an opinion. He can think what he wants. However, his employer doesn’t have to provide him a platform from which to voice it.

  • StillHatin

    It’s all about tolerance. He stated he doesn’t judge anyone, and loves all mankind (statements the media has conveniently left out), and that it’s not his place to judge. That’s him being tolerant. The LBGT and GLAAD demanding he lose his job for expressing his beliefs when ASKED about them, that’s them being intolerant (talk about the shoe being on the other foot eh?). I guess they didn’t learn anything from the whole Chik Fil A fiasco did they?

    • mojones1

      A&E suspended him before most people even knew about the article. What Chic Filet fiasco? Are you saying that Chic Filet can have their corporate policies, but A&E can not? How very tolerant of you.

  • David Folk

    it’s still an attack on free speech, even at my job we are not allowed to say how we feel for fear of ramifications from management. They are afraid to be sued by gays for having a antigay workforce. I’m pretty sure when the forefather’s wrote the Freedom of speech in the constituion they didnt plan on employers taking that right away. people have the right to be gay if they chose, I get that. But dont tell me I cant say I dont like it

    • Landon

      You can say you don’t like it as often and as loudly as you like; it’s your constitutional right, but there are justly and reasonably consequences to exercising your rights.

      The first amendment clearly says that CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Employers aren’t mentioned. Speculate all you want about what the authors of the constitution meant, but they were thorough and deliberate with regard to the language used, so the courts will probably go with what they actually wrote rather than what you’re “pretty sure” about.

  • admittruth

    Standing ovation.

    Now, please explain to those same people what “Freedom of Religion” means.

  • Dana

    And yet these conservative mouthbreathers are perfectly OK with the fact that a woman earning much less money than this idiot can be fired for not wearing makeup to work, and she will have no legal recourse whatsoever.

    God forbid women not act as landscape decor at all times. They hate women too. Even this guy–look how long it took him to marry what’s-her-head. It made great publicity, I guess. I give them five years at most.

    I doubt he even knows what to do in the bedroom. These guys typically educate themselves out the wazoo about homosexual bedroom practices, display breathtaking ignorance about heterosexual practices (this guy, like all the others, makes note of male-on-male anal sex and completely overlooks male-on-female), and eventually they’ll be caught in a public bathroom harassing a fifteen-year-old boy. Or some variation on that sad story thereof.

    When they get into Congress they pass laws against “sodomy” and they’re still harassing their male interns.

    It amazes me that these twits go on and on about various biblical verses OUTSIDE OF the Gospels outlining how we should kill gays and gays won’t inherit the Kingdom of God and all that crap, and yet if you read the purported actual words of Christ, he tells us “the kingdom of heaven is within you” (see the Book of John, and you can find it yourself) and that to get into heaven you have to believe in him. If your goal is to be Christlike and not a Bronze Age Hebrew or an Apostle Paul groupie… maybe you should start listening to what Jesus supposedly, actually said.

    In short, your religion DOES NOT depend on you saying hateful things about and doing mean things to LGBT people. You DO NOT forfeit your place in heaven if you leave them the hell alone. You do not get to play gatekeeper to Heaven, deciding who goes in and who doesn’t. And while you’re busy obsessing over every little thing a gay person does, you’re completely missing the sins YOU have committed.

    And I believe Jesus made some remarks in that vein as well, didn’t he? Motes versus beams.

    Guess who’s got the beam.


    I have no sympathy for Robertson at all. NONE.

    • Antonio Arellano

      I feel and love on any one why is wronged nomatter what way. That is what jesus would do and want me to do. The bible doesnt call us sinners to bash on us. It calls us sinners to humble us so that we mights see that we are all the same and we should be kind and patient with one another.

    • Antonio Arellano

      It sounds like to me you have a lot of hate. Well the bible teaches love. And that love concers all. My God bless you and just know jesus loves you. <3 and there are good people who stand up for good things. Even sinners.

    • William Sommerfeld

      So what about all the negative and violent things that have been directed at conservative women. Do those things bother you.

  • Tommy McMahon

    There was nothing hateful said. There was nothing offensive said. He spoke his truth. A&E knew their beliefs going in. He has been tolerant and caring to all people. Libtards can’t pass an opportunity to bash a man that is not in lockstep with the socialist agenda.

  • Anon32

    All he needs to do is apologize and I’d forgive him. It sounds like he was just rambling on and words got away on him. Given his background and lifestyle I can’t say I’m not surprised. He’s offensive. If anyone didn’t realize that while watching the show, then they clearly weren’t paying attention. Just apologize, no big deal and move on. He probably breached his contract with a n e by saying the stuff he said…but I’d put em back on the show and keep America happy and stupid. After all, this is the guy that has his beliefs and political views quoted everywhere.

  • Joan Vanterpool

    funny how he was asked the question and he simply and honestly answered it!!! what the hell!!! that is freedom of speech. why ask the question if people don’t want to hear his beliefs. that makes him a bigot??? I don’t think so. I for one will boycott A&E. I don’t particularly care for his response but that is what he believes and how he feels. that is HIS RIGHT!!! it’s wrong to judge him like you say he’s judging others. look in the mirror people.

  • Dan Mack

    The better way to say this is that he has absolute freedom to express himself as he would. As does everyone who disagrees with him. They are free to boycott his show, disassociate themselves from him, business-wise, or to condemn what he said with their own opinions…for which they, in turn, may be judged and condemned by others, still.

    Your right to speak is protected under the Constitution. That right does not, however, assure you an audience, or that anyone will necessarily agree with what you say.

    That part is on you.

  • Kelly Rose Kelly

    Its not the suspension that bothers us. What bothers us is that gays have forced society to cater to their lifestyle that now when conservatives express their beliefs, their punished for it.

    • squid

      you are so simple. i hope you’re pretty because you bring nothing with your words.

    • cousinbilly13

      I’m Christian, but I do not see gays forcing their lifestyle on us. Really, how could this be so? I have some gay friends in excellent, long-lived, loving, monogamous relationships, I’m heterosexual and happily married and not even remotely interested in being gay. I just don’t understand how people think being gay is a choice or how they are forcing their lifestyles on us. Never once have I felt threatened or bothered by other peoples’ private lives, maybe, at most, complimented when a gay guy thought I was cute. As for A&E and your point about punishment, A&E is not the gay community, nor is the gay community some monolithic voice. So I would refrain from generalizing. Open your mind. That is not anti-Christian. Love is Christian.

  • Brian Cornell

    I totally agree with the fact that Phil Robertson is not being persecuted for exercising his right to free speech. He is instead being persecuted for being a Godly man, for truthfully pointing out that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Because of this I and many others have contacted many of the corporations who advertise on A&E and have told them that we will not purchase any of their products unless they either stop advertising on A&E or that network reinstates Mr. Robertson AND apologies for “suspending” him in the first place. I am also telling my friends and family to do the same. I have no hatred for the homosexuality community but neither will I sit back and watch organizations like GLAAD attack a man for telling the truth or living a moral life. 1.2 million people have already signed a boycott letter to A&E and the petition has only been online for 30 hours. The Christian community has vastly more members than does GLAAD and it is finally time for the silent minority to make their voices heard.

  • Antonio Arellano

    In God we trust & one nation under God. We need that back! we need Jesus because he is the only one who can get us out of the mess we put our selfs in. may God Bless America! Please forgive them they no not what they do.

  • Erin Weldon

    I agree with Mr. Clifton’s clear explanation of freedom of speech. I can’t help but think about all the hateful attacks on President Obama by the same kind of people who are up in arms over this issue. with Mr. Robertson.

  • harold burbank

    this is neither good usa political or legal analysis. robertson was fired for expressing unpopular views on public airwaves. that implicates the 1st amendment. he should sue. he probably would win.

    • Landon

      On what grounds would he win? He certainly has no chance on any constitutional grounds.

      • squid

        he was fired under a very basic american standard. he went against the current popular vote, nothing in american law states this is wrong, in fact, this is american law at it’s best. he wasn’t fired, he’s just not on the show anymore.

  • Leyton Rocks

    Amen to that… your employer is not a force of the law but a reflection of a society it wishes to be part of… and lets not be too surprised that a TV channel wanting to appeal to advertisers by proving it has many, surplus income pairs of eyes watching… homophobic comments will not just result in a loss of gay viewers, but any viewer offended by the remarks… Not the sort of risk a TV channel is likely to make in todays fragmented media… If the Robertson guy and his supporters can’t make that connection then etc etc etc

    • squid

      pretty sure the gay eye isn’t on this show, at least up until this lame moment in time.

      • Leyton Rocks

        LOL and true… nevertheless gay people work for advertising planners and buyers… the lack of media savvy needed to sit down with GQ magazine and spout that kind of rot is mind blowing in 2013. To the right this may seem like we’re all compromised by and pandering to PC gone mad, but as Palin has proved in the wake of this incident and fairly recent Bashir cat calling it’s all about what we like to hear rather than free speech. Palin said: It was wrong of Bashir to speak out about her (something she doesn’t like) and it was anti-free speech to fire the Duck Dynasty guy for being homphobic (freedom of speech).

  • Jim Bean

    They author seems to be driving the point that inflicting deliberate, targeted, and catastrophic consequences on someone for something they said in no way impinges upon, or compromises, the persons ‘right’ to say it. If the consequences aren’t being inflicted to deter him or others from exercising their right to say something, then what ARE they being inflicted for? Seems to me to reek of intellectual dishonesty. When you say someone has a ‘right’ to say something, doesn’t that imply that he won’t be punished or persecuted for it?

    • squid

      freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you’d like, it doesn’t guarantee the publics approval. if you’re at work, as this guy was, you are a representative of you’re employer. you should be careful as how much of yourself you allow out.

      • Jim Bean

        The spirit of ‘freedom of speech’ is that everyone should have the liberty to express a controversial point of view with out fear of any type of punishment. Liberals are trying to circumvent that liberty by inventing punishments and then arguing the punishment didn’t violate any laws.

  • ConsultingTimeLord

    Where were all these free speech advocates ten years ago when they were bulldozing Dixie Chicks albums and yanking their music off the radio? Damn hypocrites.

    • Jack Michael Roberts

      Nah man only conservative regressors have rights man.

      • cousinbilly13

        “Don’t tread on my right to tread all over you.”

    • cousinbilly13

      Amen! Killing good. Loving bad.

  • agentm0m

    Liberals trying to justify their fascist “outrage” under the guise of free speech, proves how little they understand the concept. Let me explain free speech to the self righteous hypocrites on the left. We understand A&E can fire Phil Robertson. We also understand we can boycott A&E for doing so and boycott their sponsors. THAT’S OUR FREE SPEECH RIGHT. Liberals forget WE have a free speech right, too! And that means we don’t have to agree with what A&E is doing and we can express that disagreement by voting to stop watching the show and stop buying from their sponsors. That’s free speech, too! I know that will never have occurred to you on the left. That’s obvious from the one sided view of “free speech” in the article above. It never occurs to liberals conservatives have free speech just as much as liberals do. Welcome to the real First Amendment.

    • BigRedEO

      Our intolerance of AgentMom’s intolerance is infringing on her free speech!! Alert the media!!

  • agentm0m

    And guess what liberals. We still have the right to boycott A&E and their sponsors even if you liberals don’t like the idea or agree with the sentiment. Now I know that’s going to just knock you over with a feather, because it’s never occurred to you. Free speech is still free speech even when YOU don’t agree with it. Welcome to learning a new concept in reality.

    • Jack Michael Roberts

      So what about the way you conservative assholes called for Martin Bashir’s head on a platter? We’re you not infringing his free speech rights? Or is Moose Cunt. Better than us all?

  • Kate Kingery

    Then why in he hell do we even have a constitution ?
    No one, not even our own government
    follows it.
    People think our country is falling apart.
    well , wake up people it has been since day one.

  • Nichole Ruggiero

    AMEN! It is also not a Civil Rights issue since he was not fired, but suspended.

  • louisiana

    Hey dummys.. If there is a LEGAL contract signed by phil for A&E, and Phil is fired from show for freedom of speech, then yes Phil can claim it because it will be Illegal for A&E to break the legal contract and Phil can claim freedom of speech… yall some dummies .. Freedom of Speeh means I can say anything I want.. period…

    • bartonim

      Why don’t you give A&E a call and have them forward you a copy of the contract, legal eagle? After you tidy up your abominable writing skills.

    • Liz May

      You can say anything you want. I don’t think it means you have a right to be paid for it. Ask Bashir or Baldwin about that.

    • Leyton Rocks

      Most employment contracts make you a representative of the company 24/7 in reality. You bad mouth your boss at a dinner party and they get wind of it because a mutual friend was there too. You can get fired for it. It’s just standard employment as I understand it. Read the article above. Freedom speech means the law won’t prosecute you for saying anything you want. And the law are most certainly not involved in this debate. Just a dumb reality TV show, an ill informed star of said show and an embarrassed tv channel realising the kind of dumbness they shine a light on

  • bartonim

    He suggested gay sex is wrong, as in anal penetration, and one article had the numbers on hetero anal sex. It’s pretty common among heteros. I know his bible condemns sodomy, but he seems totally clued out to the fact that it’s not just a gay pastime.

  • Liz May

    It seems as a lot of the commenters have missed the point. Free speech doesn’t mean your employer has to pay you after you have embarrassed them, This duck guy is free to give as many interviews as he wants; no one is muzzling him. The publicity for all this will probably help him out in the long run. I don’t think he actually has a right to his own tv show though.

  • Leyton Rocks

    He didn’t just quote the bible… he did the whole isn’t homo sex icky routine too… “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me,” Robertson told the magazine.


    he said “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.”

    Now where in the bible does it say any of this

    This is just the rants of man who has spent too long in a remote part of the country constructing warped views of the world.

  • Breann Trotter

    This article is ridiculous. Yea I get what freedom of speech is. But saying that he “ignorantly bashed tens of millions of people..” No. I think Phil stated his beliefs in a respectable way. He handled himself like a gentlemen and stated what his opinion was in a way that did not come off as cruel or “ignorant”, as some would say. If you read the entire article, not just take what you want out of context, he quickly follows his statement that he thinks homosexuality is wrong, with a statement about continuing to love them, as well as everyone else. I can think of a few of you who are being “ignorant”, but Phil Robertson is not. If they didn’t want to know what his obvious answer was, maybe they shouldn’t have asked.

    • cousinbilly13

      I’m not sure his word choices were very gentleman like, but I guess we have a low standard of discourse in this country today. That said, no one is saying he doesn’t have a right to express his opinions, and it’s really not that shocking to many of us that he has that opinion, as it’s a pretty common opinion often openly expressed in America. A&E has the right to suspend him too. The point is, many conservatives (go to Fox News) are indeed referencing the First Amendment. That, as the article points out, is ignorant.

    • BigRedEO

      RESPECTABLE??? He compared it to bestiality!! How is that “respectable”?

      • Gary Menten

        No-one is bashing Christians. But let’s say I were starring in a TV show and did an on-air interview in which I did bash Christians. I would probably offend a lot of people and if enough of them called for me to be fired, or for a boycott of my show or the sponsors, I would be fired. Pure and simple. What you say has consequences. Deal with it.

  • Alexis

    Why are so many people on here upset about gay bashing while at the same time bashing Christians? Seems like a bit of hypocrisy.

    • cousinbilly13

      I’m Christian. No one is bashing Christians. False victimhood doesn’t get us anywhere. It just creates hostility, not the goal of Christianity.

    • BigRedEO

      Well, there is a difference. People don’t choose their sexual orientation (regardless of what propaganda tells you), heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise. But ALL religious people CHOOSE their religion.

  • BigRedEO

    Can someone show me the Amendment that says we all have the right to star in a reality TV show?

  • Phil 4 presidential

    first, show me his exact words where he bashed gays. he clearly stated he didnt understand it, explained y vagina more appealing than man’s anus & how we can’t judge, they will face their judgement w their makers. he never said he hated gays. just not understand them. everyone is blowing what was said to what they want it to mean & alas, contravasy.

  • Bonicha Anderson Ennis

    First of all Phil did not bash ten’s of millions of homosexuals, he simply was quoting a scripture from the bible that clearly states that homosexual behavior is wrong in the eyes of GOD.. Not once in the interview did he say that Homosexuals were bad people, nor did he claim to hate them or anyone. He did the just the opposite and stated that he loved God and Loved everyone, even people who are different than him.. He was exercising his right to freedom of religion, and was clearly ask what “HE” considered sin… In response he quoted scripture from the Bible… There can be no LEGAL ramifications for what he said as that would be even more of a violation of his rights, but for him to loose his job for answering a question that was specifically ask connected to his religion in itself IS a violation of his rights ESPECIALLY since his religion is allowed to be a part of the show.. Employers are not allowed by law to discriminate against anyone for their sex, race, or RELIGION.. Furthermore A & E fully knew that Phil and his family are “CHRISTIANS” and again ALLOWED them to express reference to GOD and have prayer in the show, This is clearly a discrimination against Phil concerning “HIS OPINION” about “HIS” religion. If homosexuals have the right to live their lifestyle, and be accepted by society, then Phil has the right to his opinion of their lifestyle and to quote scripture from his bible… I’m Sorry but A & E cannot change what the bible says just because something in it may offend someone, Nobody can do that. Its not right to allow “certain” things in the bible to be acknowledged in the show but then as soon as something is labeled “Offensive” & is quoted the man get’s suspended indefinitely.. Any Preacher or Religious group would be open to lawsuit after lawsuit if the right to express their view of their religion was not protected.. Secondly, Phil did not volunteer this information in the interview to negatively crusade against homosexuals, It never came up till he was ASK… Any Homosexual who took offense to Phil’s remarks must have a internal struggle within themselves to deal with, between them and their GOD or THEIR religion. If they don”t believe in GOD then why take offense to what the bible says, or another persons right to believe.. If they do believe in GOD then they know their lifestyle is wrong and they will face judgement from GOD for their actions.. Either way its still a issue of everyone’s Constitutional Right to believe how they choose & express their beliefs without ramifications. A & E’s mistake is drawing a imaginary line in the sand for the Robertsons, you cannot allow their religion to be a part of the show, and then fire them for answering questions about it.

  • Tired of liberals

    Phil Robertson didnt ignorantly bash anyone. The man is not ignorant about homosexuality or his beliefs. I’m sure when asked his opinion, he didnt care what A & E would think, he simply spoke the truth as he knows it. The truth is that as a christian, you cannot stay true to the word of God and not speak honestly about your beliefs. I’m sure that Phil Robertson will not back down from his beliefs no matter the “ramifications”. So what! taken off his show! Big Deal, he has stood up for his Christian beliefs, thats more important, much more importat! He cant lie, and be politically correct when asked a question like so many politicians and those in the public spotlight do and that makes me like him even more!!

  • Tired of liberals

    One more thing, Phil Robertson is not an ignorant hill billy or red neck like Ive heard others say. He is an educated man and so are all of his boys. They all attended great colleges! They are Christians, and the media or A&E cant change their beliefs!

    • Bonicha Anderson Ennis

      Not to mention A & E acknowledging their beliefs and allowing them to openly reference to it & have prayer on the show.. How can they legally Indefinitely suspend him for answering a question concerning his religion just because it offended some whiny homosexuals???? Can we say Violation of Rights loud enough….

      • Mo Reno

        Sure, you can say “violation of rights” as loud as you want, it doesn’t make you correct.

  • VoiceOfReason

    Not “all” of the Phil Robertson supporters are doing so under the banner of freedom of speech. I am a conservative and I completely agree that it is not a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is one’s ability to say what that want and not fear government retaliation, unless of course you are a Tea Party conservative and the IRS is a governmental function, but that’s neither here not there.

    What’s so offensive is the constant media and pop culture bullying engaged by “progressives” on people for their Christian values or values that they disagree with. If Mr. Robertson has the opposite view and declared that he doesn’t understand why people oppose gay marriage because the bible says to treat everyone equally, he would not have been suspended even though his comments may be offensive to Christians. If he cited the Quran (which holds the same view of homosexuality), the response from the left would have been much more muted, if any at all. Suspension is only “warranted” because he is espousing a Christian view.

    Sure, he is free to say what he wants without fear of government retribution, and suffer any societal consequences for such comments, unless of course he is a Christian baker who says he does not want to sell to homosexuals, then he can be forced by a judge to do so, or if a Christian employer doesn’t want to provide health insurance with birth control, he can be forced to do so by the government against his beliefs, in the name of anti-discrimination.

    Why is all discrimination impermissible in our society except that of Christians and their religious beliefs?

    • BigRedEO

      Simple. Because Christian beliefs do not trump civil rights.

      • VoiceOfReason

        What civil rights are being oppressed by a guy giving an interview to a magazine? None. Anyone who does not agree with Mr. Robertson’s views are free to not watch Duck Dynasty or A&E. Progressives are not tolerant of other viewpoints, and spring into action to bring down anyone who disagrees.

    • BigRedEO

      And there’s one other thing – contrary to what conservative propaganda tells you, people do not choose their sexual orientation, homosexual or heterosexual or otherwise. But, people CHOOSE their religion (should they decide to believe in a religion at all).

      • VoiceOfReason

        This and $3 will get you a cup of coffee. No relevance to the topic at hand.

  • Carmela Wiant

    still no one should be fired for answering a question ever.. if he did not answer the question he would probably get fired for that also..Sad what our world has come to..God bless our wonderful America

  • John

    I agree with everything you said. I also agree that A&E did not know who their customers were on this show. So those customers are about to fire A&E. A&E will survive sure. They’ve likely lost a top rated show though.

  • fighter

    I find it funny that people are judging him because what do you expect from a guy from Louisiana who is considered a hick Christian castmastes and show!? not everyone has the same opinion and he did say he hates the sin but loves the person and doesn’t treat them differently so what’s the problem? grow up people this is America and nothing surprises any more.

  • MattB81

    So by this definition you could then also fire someone for being Jewish, Muslim, Christian or really any religious belief you don’t view as acceptable because the First Amendment ONLY applies to protection from the Government. In fact it applies to all and protection from all.

    That said the Supreme Court has put limitations on that like the limitation that you cannot incite violence (which for the record was not done here).

    That said this is also a matter of Freedom of Religion as he was stating his religious beliefs.

    You may like his beliefs, you may not, but neither he nor anyone else is forcing you to like them if you don’t. On the flip side they are trying to force you NOT to like them. This is an infringement and shows just how intolerant those who claim to be tolerant are.

    Tolerance is acceptance, it has nothing to do with approval or support – however – Liberals often use the word “tolerance” to mean approval.

    I don’t support a lot of things, and I don’t agree with a lot of things but that doesn’t mean I can’t voice my view or that I’m going to force you to view things my way. Simply voicing ones beliefs and opinions is NOT intolerance.

    • kissyface

      an employer has a right to punish someone for making public statements that make the employer look bad. you obviously are clueless

      • MattB81

        Actually they do but only to a limit because there is typically a morality claws in your hiring paperwork – that said this is not a just a matter of freedom of speech but also religion – beliefs the show has been predominately based on from episode 1.

        Without a morality claws they couldn’t, because the morality claws is effectively you waiving that right away.

        With a show based so heavily on their beliefs, do you think there is a waiver to the ability to speak those beliefs in there anywhere?

      • kissyface

        he compared homosexuality to bestiality, reduced the value of women to their orifices, and said African Americans were happier during Jim Crow laws then hid behind his bible. freedom of religion is not freedom to use your bible to make bigoted statements that insult large groups of people

      • MattB81

        Actually he didn’t the spin put that in there – if you read what he said.

        – with regards to homosexuality he never compared it to beasiality, he mentioned both in the same sentence.

        “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”…”He went on to add that he thinks being gay is illogical because, well, “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus.”

        – with regards to African American’s he said:

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

        Does that mean they weren’t – no – He does believe they were Godly and thus happy because he does not view happiness as being one of money or home or belongings but one of a life in lived for God. That’s not saying they were happier, simply that he believes in their life and love of God they were happy. Unfortunately in backwoods places like where he grew up that was much the case, they didn’t have the visibility to the rest of the country as well as other cities. He’s also clearly only speaking to his own experiences not everyone as a whole.

        – Finally he NEVER reduces a woman to their orifices, he said he as a man a vagina is more desirable than a man’s anus. I mean some people may be into and enjoy anal sex, I don’t get the point of it and it’s not something that interests me or in any way seems desirable which is all he is saying there.

        In fact finally his beliefs are not just Christian beliefs, many religions belief homosexuality is a sin including Protestants, Jews, Mormons and Muslims.

        Are his comments offensive and ignorant yes, but you’re following liberal media spin to make it as if he said things he didn’t say.

      • kissyface

        i read the whole interview in GQ yesterday and i stand by my statement

      • MattB81

        I would suggest re-reading it and this time leave out the media spin.

      • kissyface

        unlike you, i have no problems with reading comprehension. he is a misogynistic, racist homophobe and A&E has every right to suspend him. no one is violating his right to free speech. if i said the same things at work, i would expect to be fired

      • MattB81

        So to answer your question, no I’m not clueless. I also don’t agree with what he said or how he said it – but it was his right to say and believe those things.

        To punish him for those beliefs and for voicing those beliefs after knowing those beliefs however is not only constitutionally wrong but it’s also completely two sided.

        Consider A&E has known these were the Robertson’s beliefs since day one, and they’ve built a show to cash in on those beliefs – now they suddenly don’t support them…..

  • Scott

    I agree with you when you say it didn’t violate his “freedom of speech”. He was not legally prosecuted for it. But to call him ignorant for “bashing tens of millions of gays” is wrong. He did not bash them, he stated what the Bible says about it and he believes what the Bible says.
    And A&E may end up paying the consequences for suspending him.

  • jimbo slice

    It’s amazing how much people care about something like this, yet don’t care about so many more important things going on in our country and abroad.

  • Lance Udell

    I have never said this was about free speech, but about the reaction to a loaded question. Meanwhile let’s not offend Muslims who will kill gays with righteous indignation. If A&E mentioned that the opinions of the Robertson family do not necessarily reflect those of A&E I would defend that stance as well. Read all the hate you want into his words, but where I DO NOT agree with them either, I see no hate in him or his words. More divide and conquer, but some will never get over that whole structure of divisions I guess.

  • The ignorants can never imagine the other side of the argument because, well, they’re ignorant. They wouldn’t even imagine considering the other side of the argument because that would mean they were abandoning their conservative principals. Here’s a little piece of wisdom, you can still be conservative and “think”. “Thinking” is good for your brain. So to help any ignorants who many be reading this comment right now: just flip any argument to understand it.. It’s not that hard and it makes you a more civilized and educated person. Good Luck!

  • Kayla

    A couple of qualifiers, I’m an Independent not a partisan and I am not a fan of Martin Bashir or Sarah Palin. I’m also not a DD watcher and frankly could care less about this whole situation. I do agree this is not a freedom of speech issue, but a business decision…..a completely hypocritical one as A&E is still running the DD marathon….money talks and this is a successful show.

    What I found interesting in Mr. Clifton’s article is his statement “Especially considering Bashir only had derogatory words for Sarah Palin whereas Robertson ignorantly bashed tens of millions of homosexuals.” In his opinion, it seems that whether you face consequences of your actions ought to be based on the number of people you “offend” versus the fact that you say something unacceptable. Or is that just his politics coming through? It’s not acceptable to offend a group that you are supportive of, but go ahead and have at a person you find unpalatable. It seems he’s doing the same thing he is blaming the supporters of Phil Robertson of doing.

  • Fedupwithsocialism

    The man expressed his religious views he did go on a rant about people being gay and how horrible gay people are. If liberals are supposed to be about TOLERANCE and FAIRNESS then practice what you preach. There are extreme Christians that take every word in the Bible literally and in their belief that means it is a sin to be gay and although my views on the subject differ from what the church says, there is nothing wrong with him stating that. I just don’t get why many liberals in this country think it is so OK to attack Christian’s beliefs but don’t dare say anything bad about the Muslim or Jewish faith, because that is just wrong, isn’t it supposed to be equality for all? Just because you don’t agree with it does not mean someone should be fired over it. I personally don’t support the Muslim faith which demeans women regularly (why do liberals support that, it goes against everything they stand for), but I would never fire a person for being a Muslim and expressing their beliefs. Wrong is just wrong!

  • not a liberal

    The man expressed his religious views he did not go on a rant about people being gay and how horrible gay people are. If liberals are supposed to be about TOLERANCE and FAIRNESS then practice what you preach. There are extreme Christians that take every word in the Bible literally and in their belief that means it is a sin to be gay and although my views on the subject differ from what the church says, there is nothing wrong with him stating that. I just don’t get why many liberals in this country think it is so OK to attack Christian’s beliefs but don’t dare say anything bad about the Muslim or Jewish faith, because that is just wrong, isn’t it supposed to be equality for all? Just because you don’t agree with it does not mean someone should be fired over it. I personally don’t support the Muslim faith which demeans women regularly (why do liberals support that, it goes against everything they stand for), but I would never fire a person for being a Muslim and expressing their beliefs. Wrong is just wrong!

  • midwestmoderate

    I agree to a point. A&E can do what they want with their own station, it is an entertainment station. But to be fair (and legal for that matter) they have set a precedence. I would like to see if they have treated everyone else with the same judgment. There are many people who have been on A&E shows such as Janeane Garofalo who was a cast member of Criminal Minds who absolutely hates conservatives and said that any woman who votes Republican must have Stockholm Syndrome and that Christians are “Absolutely crazy” and “must have a mental defect” among her many other hateful rants. I don’t see how that is different. I don’t really care what she has to say as I am not a big fan, and I don’t agree with Phil, but they still both have a right to their opinions without one-sided fallout.

  • PJ

    I understand how people may be upset especially A&E but it has always been know that when Phil signed on to the show he has said he will never back down from his religious beliefs. He also stated in the interview that ultimately the wrong or right of it all is between God and that person. So much hate is pouring out onto this man and people ARE NOT seeing the whole story. I have seen quotes saying he is an illiterate, uneducated hillbilly…well that hillbilly has a BA in phys ed and a masters in education. Again as a “retired” reporter I say to people…DO THE RESEARCH. Do not take everything online or in the new at face value. It boils down to $$$$$$$$$$$$

  • Jim Brunet

    one man says someone should shit in a woman’s mouth and another man simply states his religious beliefs without name-calling, insult or swearing and you want to absolve the first and persecute the second? You don’t even see your own hypocrisy in such an overbearing and reactionary comment; “Especially considering Bashir only had derogatory words for Sarah Palin whereas Robertson ignorantly bashed tens of millions of homosexuals.” How very “party line” of you to minimalize Bashir’s disgusting and personally hateful comment while going off on a man simply stating his religious beliefs by quoting the bible. He didn’t “bash” anyone, he disagreed with the lifestyle based on his religious beliefs. I happen to disagree with his beliefs but he has the 1st amendment to fall back on and that I support wholeheartedly. I do see where he’s coming from and I would not use the word hateful. A&E also left out the last part of the statement, as did you, where he mentions the Bible’s tenet of love the sinner, hate the sin. You could not have been more obvious about your dishonesty. There are no levels of free speech, It’s either free speeech, or it isn’t.

    • chris

      my bible says that all pepole named jim are shit eating bastards that are born of men who sleep with pig(your mother was a pig)?
      dose this offended you?
      if i said this while representing a company would you not right a compliant to my boss asking for me to be fired?
      im not attacking you its a group yah its a large group and its for no good reason but wheres the difrance?

      • Jim Brunet

        if you said this to me, I would contact your supervisor about some remedial classes to improve your grammar and spelling, Right after I punched you in the face for insulting my wife and I. The difference is you would be attacking me and mine personally, not as a group. very big difference you knucklehead.

      • Jim Brunet

        you’re an ignorant coward hiding behind a faceless avatar and I’m sure your Mom didn’t raise you to be such a raging fool, you must work very hard at such douchebaggery

  • l

    Everyone knows the question was a complete set up. Lets all get some brains on here. That is how he feels, that is how he perceives the Christian faith. No big deal. He should be able to say what he wants, even though I don’t agree with it. This is the fall out. It is a liberal television station, it is what to be expected from them. Now another station will probably pick up the most popular show on the air!

  • Jason Jasper

    He did not bash anyone! You obviously did NOT read the article. He was asked a question and he responded with his thoughts. He said NOTHING negative. He said clearly that he did not understand and told of scriptures as any preacher would do. He also said it is not for him to judge, and that is GOD’s job. So he is not judging anyone either.

  • dirtypigs

    This article is trying to dodge the real issue which is what liberals usually do. The real issue is At anytime anybody can discriminant and say what ever they want about Middle class straight white males and it’s OK . Because somehow all of us straight white males have this wonder life with no hardship. The issue is people finally have had enough of anybody outside of the mentioned above group crying and expecting extreme actions taking against someone who dare say how they feel. Especially if it is the opposite of how the other people who are not in that group live their life. People are SICK of it if you really want to move forward understand that we are all different and not everyone has to like our lifestyles and they are entitled to express their opinion without extreme actions taken. If we are adult enough to say sorry you feel that way and walk away we would be a much stronger society. Instead we are becoming weak whining little brats who all feel entitled.

    • bluehawk222

      Ahahahahaha middle class straight white males have been running the show forever. Don’t try and say you are the oppressed ones.

      • dirtypigs

        Thank You for proving my point! You really think white middle class men are running the show HA! we are one’s constantly getting it from both ends both the rich and poor take advantage of us. While everyone else cries

  • Nate

    While your article is not wrong, you completely miss the mark. Many of the Robertsons supporters are not upset because it is “an attack on the freedom of speech”, but because A&E seems to apply its morals standards on an inconsistent whim. To many, this appears to be a persecution of a set of religious beliefs.

    A&E, and the other stations it owns, air dozens upon dozens of shows with unsavory characters that do not likely represent A&E’s “moral standards”. Yet those shows aren’t crucified for it. A&E, for instance, owns the history channel. Does that mean that every time they show a special on Hitler, that they are really supporting his anti-Semitic beliefs? Of course it doesn’t. Networks can, and commonly do, portray characters that we may or may not agree with. On the surface, it appears that Phil is being held to a standard that A&E does not uniformly apply to all of its other casting characters. One has to wonder why.

    • chris

      you seam to forget Hitler dose not get a pay check from A&E.
      Robertson dose
      would you support someone that was giving $1000 to Hitler?
      i would hope not
      Robertson like an employe at a company represents that company.
      if an employ goes around being an ass to people it reflect badly on the company thus they fire him. this happens to flight attendants it happens every day.

      but pepole only care when its someone on tv becuse they think that person cares about them

  • RealGetter

    Let’s talk about being ignorant Mr. Clifton. The US constitution guarantees these rights should not be infringed upon. We can go a step farther saying the EEOC also protects religion (among others obviously). The only defense you have is it’s in his contract. Ever heard of arbitration? Just because you’re in a contract doesn’t necessary mean it’s binding. I’m sure he has an ethic clause, but he never did say anything hateful in that interview (as far as if he ever I don’t know I don’t watch the show). I hope A&E will be involved in several lawsuits because of this.

    • bluehawk222

      Try saying what he said at any place of employment. Only employer that would allow it would have to be run by the Klan

      • RealGetter

        What did he say that was so racist? His statement concluded he was no different then anyone. He didn’t say the N word he didn’t call them “boy” or “darkies”. He told his observation in his younger years. Would it be racist of me to tell the story of how I was called a “cracker”, “honky”, and every other name in the book by a black woman because I was in “her” parking spot? You don’t know what racism is today. You can have an honest feud with a black person and you’re automatically labeled a racist just because you don’t agree with the “black man”. Get a clue.

      • bluehawk222

        You can say racist things without using racial slurs genius. Saying black people were better under Jim Crow south is racist

      • RealGetter

        Are you incapable of reading? He never said that. All he said is that he never witnessed the mistreatment of a black person in them times. What’s so damn hard about understanding that?

      • RealGetter

        Where did he say black people was better under Jim Crow? Oh wait, he didn’t. Reread his quote. All he said was that he never saw any mistreatment from his eyes. He never denied if there was any. Stop putting words in people’s mouths. What about his adopted bi-racial grandson Will? Read the facts, stick to the facts. That statement is just as ridiculous as listening to a conspiracy theorist saying the Boston Bombing was a “false flag” operation. Coming from people who were NOT even at the race. I do want to say I appreciate you calling me a genius, even though it’s coming from someone that’s under-educated.

  • bluehawk222

    I don’t know what’s the big surprise here. We all knew what these people believe and we know that the viewers of this program believe the same crap as well. AE was just cashing in on the redneck demographic and now that one of the people on the show actually expressed the ignorant views they clearly believed AE takes action. Don’t be surprised when the patriarch of a devoutly Christian family from the South says something ignorant and hateful. Be surprised when they actually say something insightful

  • RainingHavoc

    I think its completely ridiculous people are posting about this situation blaming Obama or the goverment, even blaming people who support the gay community! Like always, societal groups and government will always be blamed for DECISIONS MADE BY CORPORATIONS. When will we ever take out a corporate decision on the corporation? Personally, I’m glad A & E took them off the air. If someone was on tv saying hateful things about Christians, we’d see how all these people defending now would be on the other side. Something to think about.

  • JJ

    Ignorantly bashed?? Ha. Funny.

  • bluehawk222

    Marginalizes an entire group of people and criticizes them and bashes them then gets in trouble for doing so but ends up trying to play the victim card and says he loves Jesus and why do people hate people that love Jesus. Yep, that’s Conservatism for you.

  • John D

    Not a bad article for a Christian bashing liberal left winger who things just because people don’t have your beliefs they are ignorant. The fact you are so intolerant makes you ignorant. I could care less about Phil Robertson but I can see a cry baby liberal a mile away.

    • BobbyDou812

      Not a bad comment for someone who missed the point of the article. Keep trying. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

      Love in Christ,


  • cory amirault

    wrong free speech means we can say what we want without fear of repercussions free speech has nothing to do with legal protection aside from it BEING a legal protection from repercussions based on what you have said

    • Gandhi

      I disagree. Repercussions from private entities are well within THEIR 1st amendment rights – whether they are a person or a private employer. Which is why Liz Cherokee Warren is so full of crap complaining that small businesses should not have the right to run credit checks on potential deadbeats before hiring them.

      Think about what you are really saying in your rush to defend this Robertson guy, it’s important to be consistent.

  • Kerri Foster

    Seriously? You want to compare Bashir to Robertson? Umm, no. Robertson simply stated his belief by quoting scripture from the bible,which he believes in (and which, by the way, he followed up with saying he himself judges no one and hates no one. But that part is conveniently left out by you idiots.) Bashir, on the other hand, suggested someone should shit in Sarah Palin’s mouth. If that is the same thing to you, then you’re an even bigger idiot than this article suggests, and I have wasted 10 minutes of my life that I’ll never get back by reading it and then responding to it. And for the record, I am not Christian nor do I have any problem with same-sex relationships. But bullshit is bullshit.

  • chanctob

    Allen Clifton, for someone who has a degree, you surprising. “You know, since apparently I wasn’t clear enough the first time. Millions of people seem unable to grasp this simple concept.” People are grasping your concept because you are wrong.
    Here is the concept that you aren’t ‘grasping”. It’s called the Civil rights act. A&E suspending him, or more so, legally, under the civil rights act, they are penalizing him and his ‘compensation”. I’m sure from here, you will be able with your degree to see and understand the Legal concept of it and why A&E doesn’t have a leg to stand on, but, the robertsons have a Substantial case against A&E, as well as Phil himself.
    Before you Guess or assume, as you did a few paragraphs later, making your assumption of, ” When he signed his contract, it almost certainly included a clause that says “…
    You shouldn’t base your opinion in Assumptions, base it in fact the way the rest of us are.
    Read the civil rights act and yes, it absolutely does cover his agreement with A&E. A Contract or agreement can Not supersede any laws, or the laws under the civil rights act. Yes, he is entitled to his opinion and free speech, and his free speech rights are not being infringed upon, however, his compensaton now is. A&E is entitled to their opinion and free speech as well.
    However, A&E can not violate his civil rights, and A&E has violated his civil rights under the Civil rights act. Violated his Civil rights and his contract, employment, agreement, etc, under the civil rights act. So they did in fact or are doing in fact, damaging his compensation. Phil now has grounds to sue for damages for compensation lost while A&E is violating his civil rights, and sue A&E for violating the Civil rights act.
    Just you are a big corporation or network, does not put you above the law and doesn’t entitle you to blatantly violate the Civil rights act. While you stir the pot for your ratings, base it in the law and facts, not guesses and assumptions.
    So he expressed his freedom of speech, no problem, wasn’t thrown in jail. However, A&E violated his civil rights and the civil rights act in penalizing his compensation for his use of his free speech rights. Now do you understand why A&E Is legally responsible for what they did to phil After he exercised his free speech rights. Pay Attention to the Legal aspects of it the next few weeks before you respond.
    You really should think it through before you insult half the country saying, ” they obviously prove how ignorant they are”, while drowning in your own ignorance of your guesses and assumptions.
    Thank you, and have a nice day!

    • Mo Reno

      As a law student, I can honestly say that you have no idea what you are writing about. Cite the Civil Rights Act section that says you can’t be fired for espousing bigotry. I’ll wait.

      • chanctob

        Phil was asked a question by GQ, he answered it honestly, then he was fired because of his religious beliefs.

        Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which
        prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
        or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

        (a) Employer practices

        It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

        (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
        otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
        compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
        such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

      • HolyMoly

        He wasn’t fired for his religion. He was fired for his comments. He would never have been hired in the first place if A&E had an issue with his religion.

        Believe me, Christians are in no danger of being victimized, though I hear endlessly about the war on Christmas, firing some hick from a reality show, etc. But then I keep up with politics, and I see politician after politician somehow insert God into every sentence they utter, Christmas decorations in every shopping mall, Christmas specials on every TV station, lights on everyone’s houses, jam-packed church parking lots, countless evangelical shows, Bibles for sale in every bookstore…I could go on and on.

        (There is, however, a curious infusion of capitalism and consumerism into Christian life. If you want to see something that attacks the values of Christianity, look no further than those who have to work on Sundays or Christian holidays (hospitals are an exception — life-threatening illnesses do not take the holidays off). All the “buy, buy, buy!” sales and all those who push and shove to “own, own, own!” Us Christians are therefore waging war on the true values of our own faith.

        This whole victim mentality — and it goes far deeper than just this Robertson imbroglio — is bunk.

        And no, A&E did not violate the Civil Rights Act. He wasn’t fired for making “Christian” statements (if you really want to call what he said to be truly Christian). When given a forum on TV, he was essentially a spokesman for that station. He HAS to say what they want him to say; he CANNOT say what they don’t want him to say. Period. In this case, the contract DOES supersede all. If he signed it, he willingly agreed not to say certain things, religious or otherwise.

      • chanctob

        You are so far off, i’m not to take the time to correct it all. While you made it all Sound good, there is no legal basis in anything you said. I’d suggest have someone in the legal dept explain the civil rights act to you and how A&E violated it. Phil Will be compensated by A&E, bought out, etc, for their violation. Pay attention to how it plays out in the settlement or the court room the next couple of months. Did you just read back to yourself what you said. “contract DOES supersede all. It does not, and contracts can not supersede the law. I don’t know what legal basis you made that assumption on. You seem to be pretty Bias in your statements. That is why we have courts, to enforce the laws people feel they need to abide by, or more so, for people who just refuse to recognize or accept they are violating the law. Just think if you was right, “contract DOES supersede the law. Just think how much fun Congress would have breaking all the laws of the land saying, hey, holymoly said, a contract DOES supersede the law. lol Like wow. lol
        You have a good day.

      • Mo Reno

        It’s A&E’s property, this show. They have every right to control it. That’s America for you.

        For some reason, let’s call it “being a rich white guy,” he thought that his speech was protected, but didn’t realize that the rest of America has to watch what they say about race and religion and not offend our bosses. Why is Duck Boy exempt from the consequences of his actions, in your humble opinion?

      • HolyMoly

        A&E owns the forum. They control what is said and not said. You sign a contract agreeing to the rules of that forum, you must abide by it. Period. In that sense, yes, he agreed to it, so the contract stands. Their house, their rules.

        He was not fired for subscribing to any certain religion. He has made comments of a religious nature time and again on the show, and he remained on the show. Why now and not 6 months ago, if religion is the cause for his dismissal? Are there no Christians working in the corporate office, working as janitors, cafeteria attendants, camera operators, boom operators (whatever the hell that is)? In a nation where something on the order of 85%-90% of citizens are self-proclaimed Christians, I think it would be far-fetched to assume so. Why aren’t they being fired for their religious beliefs? It’s not his religion any more than theirs. It’s his violation of the forum rules, to which he agreed when he signed the contract.

        Just because what he said is “religious” in nature, does not mean that is the cause of his dismissal. You see the word “religion” in the Civil Rights Act, and incorrectly assume it to mean that a religious person can completely take over and do and say what they wish (lol like wow lol). It’s not my understanding of the law that’s at issue…it’s your reading comprehension skills.

        Would Pat Robertson fire one of his co-hosts if they started talking preaching about Islam or Satanism? You bet he would! Is he firing them for their religious beliefs? Or is he firing them because they made comments that run counter to the rules of HIS forum? Probably both, but on the second question he has legal standing to do so, Civil Rights Act notwithstanding. I personally can’t stand Pat, but I wouldn’t have any issue with his doing so. It’s his house, his rules.

        The question to ask is this: Was what he said in line with the owners of the forum? No. THAT is why he was fired. “Religion” has nothing to do with it.

        You have an even better day!

      • Mo Reno

        So, he can suspended.

  • ashley

    Point of the matter is Phil believes what he wants to believe.and that’s what the bible says. The Says exactly what he recited. It is his religious belief and I am so sick of this country persicuting people for there beliefs. This is just like Paula deen . I am not way racisits nor do hate or dislike someone because of there religious, or sexual prefrance but I do believe the bible and I believe it is a sin for a woman and woman to lie together and a man and a man to lie together. I don’t hate them i have tons of friends who are gay/ bisexual and I love them to death doesn’t mean I have to like what they do and a person shouldn’t be harassed BC of the religion nor should they be scared to talk about the religious beliefs. What happen to america the land of the free. R they going to start telling us what we can and can not believe. Phil had every right to express his religious beliefs it doesn’t mmean people have to agree with what he said but it is still his right to bbelieve what ever he wants to. I mean hell this world is so messed IP u cant even saymerry Christmas e its happy holidays. BC it may offend so.eone. what is this world Coming to.

    • Divdar

      I would amend that what Phil believes are based on his interpretation of the Bible, and that’s fine. Others interpret it differently. That’s fine, too. I would say that these fall under moral beliefs based on religious teachings, not necessarily religious beliefs.

    • guest

      I highly doubt you have “tons of gay friends”.

    • Catherine Maio

      I’ve been saying Merry Christmas all season and have yet to be shunned, snubbed or corrected by anyone. Moving on, I am really surprised that the racist things he said are getting such short shrift in favor of the gay comments. Even if I agreed that A&E shouldn’t take his religious statements regarding homosexuality into account when considering his conduct clause, the racial statements about Jim Crow era blacks would be enough for me not to want him associated with my brand.

  • Joe Day

    The fun part is yet to come: the Robertsons will walk away from the show, mark my words, fans of the show will walk away from A&E, and they’ll be left with nothing but a smoking crater where the most successful show in cable history used to be.

  • Bobbie

    First let me say that I don’t watch the show. But I do know that they could easily put a disclaimer before the show saying that the show does not reflect the the views of A&E and/or its affiliates. He was simply asked a question and answer it truthfully within his own beliefs.

  • Screwtape

    This should be mandatory reading before people can post on facebook today.

  • A. C.

    Well, lets see here, you said he “probably has/had” a contract with a clause for representation. It may have said to their standards. Yet, you dont have this contract, nor did you write or sign the constatution. Supreme court member? not. No matter your self appointed declearation of knowledge, you are not the one making such determination of what is and is not a right. If you were, you would be the Supreme Court. Unless my law education tells me differant, Unless it is spelled out in the contract of a “Reality show” Any person has the right to say whatever they wish. So , you as the so called voice of correctivness, is go back to collage or get on the Supreme Court, untill then when you make an opinion, state it is your opinion not a fact.

    • Mo Reno

      What the hell are you trying to say here? It is nearly unintelligible to this native English-speaker.

      • A. C.

        The authority that wrote this article clearly states that all other people with the right to respond are too stupid to understand the Rights and Responsiblities of Freedom of Speech. It seems to meme, as I clearly stated, he nor anyone else has the “Right” or authority to make such a decleration. As is the Article clearly states that Robertson was asked what his “belief” is. No contract changes that.

      • Mo Reno

        Well, looks like you should be writing to A&E.

  • Lauren

    Who is this guy and what the hell do we care what he has to say anyway? We need to stop paying attention to these ridiculous reality TV starts.

  • Dominic Gaurin

    you are right…it isn’t a 1st amendment right. (well maybe the freedom of religion issue) but it is in violation of the 1964 employment act.

    • cweagans

      [citation needed]

      I think you’re mistaken. It’s very clear that you can fire an employee for what they say, especially if you’re a TV network.

  • Tom

    Why do you think there are so many atheists in the world? Christians believe they must spread the word of God, but they totally bastardize it for their own personal agendas and hang-ups. Believe what I say or burn in hell. I personally don’t give a shit about what he said, after all he’s an authority on duck calls (and beards) and probably little else..he has the right to his opinion. And I was raised Catholic..it’s not anyone’s job to judge anyone else, regardless of what God you do or do not believe in.

    • ashley

      I am a christian and I don’t know any Christians who as u said bastardrizes it for their personal agenda and hang ups. I am not quite sure what you were referring to as to why there are so many atheist in the world. Surly you are not saying it is because christians try to spread the word.

      • Tom

        Christians usually “spread the word” with hate and intolerance..not ALL Christians of course (just look at some of the comments on this article) but it is not my business or yours to tell people that they are sinners..judgement and hate does not guarantee salvation

    • Antonio Arellano

      Well im sorry thats how you expirenced people that shared the word of God with you. But thats not how God wants his word to be spread. May God Bless you and may you feel the love that God wants you to feel.<3

      • Tom

        Thank you Antonio, and I was not bashing all Christians..I know there are a lot of good folks out there who are just looking for a little peace in this ugly world we live in

  • SocialistCafe

    Yay! Someone else who understands ‘Freedom of Speech’! It’s a lonely group.

  • Joey

    Well here’s my freedom of speech: FUCK YOU !!

    • SocialistCafe

      I called the police to have you arrested for that but they hung up.

  • Natalie Miller

    Not that I agree with ole Phil, his comments were juvenile and frankly crude. But, it seems that A&E’s termination of his Phil’s employment seems a bit intolerant. Is it justified to fire someone because they hold different values or beliefs than you do? Most people would say that it is not. In fact, there is an entire school district that is up in arms because a vice principal was ousted for his lifestyle, and they should be pissed. He should not be punished for his beliefs or who he is. Freedom of speech goes both ways though. Just as freely as Phil was to speak this way, so are his supporters…

    I also wonder if people have actually read the article in its entirety. Seems that while he says some juvenile things, in the same breath he says he is not there to judge.

  • Divdar

    Well, not illegal yet. Until we get hate speech laws. In the meantime, we’re surely displaying that it is okay to bully people to get them to do what you want. Hand over lunch money or not talk bad about gay doesn’t really matter. Oh, and wasn’t there a judge who ruled against a cake maker not to long ago?

  • Carlos

    Who really gives a fuck. This show is good to watch and if you don’t like it then change the channel. Every TV comes with a remote if you don’t like what’s on then use your fat ass finger to change the channel. If you don’t like what’s in an article then don’t read it and read something else. It’s not like if he said kill all of them fucking ass pounding animal fucking faggets. He was asked a question and he answered it. Get over it.

  • zjmorgan89

    Freedom of speech also includes the hindrance of speech (Ex. African Americans in fear of speaking up for themselves during the 50’s-60’s. There were no laws preventing them from speaking, it was simply fear of being harmed that kept them silent. This was a violation of the freedom of speech right because they were afraid of the consequences of speaking out. An organization can violate constitutionality, it’s not unique to just laws and the government. I can suppress your freedom of speech by threatening you, that is unconstitutional as well. The blogger here is incorrect. His 1st amendment rights are being violated, as well as the other members of the show because they now will not speak their personal opinions to anyone in fear of being fired. (which is also discrimination of religion.)

  • Barry Rucker

    Phil Robertson did not express and opinion. He quoted the Bible. When ask “What do you consider sin.?”. He quoted 1 Corinthians 6 9:10. Phil is being punished because he is Christian and believes what his Bible says.

  • Billy Bob

    If you were to see the entire interview you would see that he was repeatedly provoked into the specific conversation by the interviewer. He probably should have graciously left the interview without quoting the Bible. I would assume that he knew what the outcome would be which is why it took multiple attempts for him to say anything… Show me where in the Bible that any one sin is better or worse that another….. Just amazing that anyone would not think that the media edited out what they did not want heard and put a spin on what they wanted….

  • Andrew Tiberius Gross

    The statement that he said did NOT bash homosexuality at all! All he said was A. homosexuality is a sin (according to the Bible (along with other sins. So it is not the only sin!)) And B. He said a vagina seems way more appealing than an anus, doesn’t it? At what point in that text do u see any bash towards a people group?!!? It expresses his beliefs and his views. JUST LIKE EVERY LGBT PERSON IS FIGHTING FOR NOWADAYS! So the only thing I got out of this whole fiasco was LGBT cannot accept other people’s LIFE STYLES AND BELIEFS yet they want others to accept their LIFE STYLES AND BELIEFS. That is all.

  • NEW_340

    Did anyone read the article ? Ya that “quacky Duck” should have kept his stupid mouth shut.- I’m sure that A&E has moral clause, that does not afford their employees to make certain statements. Just like Paula D, your can’t say these things, your a public figure , your not an average citizen, your being paid for who you are according to what the networks want.Your being paid millions to do really not much of anything that requires skill. So say what the networks want you to say or get a new job.
    This guys in an insult to mallard’s every where !

  • Larry Nutter

    I am not making this an issue of First Amendment rights. This is an issue of Orwellian, “Newspeak.” There is only a small scripted allowed set of statements about race, sexulaity and other hot button issues. You are allowed to condescendly state, “Some of my best friends are gay.” You are not allowed to make any statement which may cast gay people in a less than stellar manner or you will suffer significant social sanctions. I would equally support anyone who steps outside of the allowed and scripted Orwellian newspeak.

    George Orwell on “Newspeak”: “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”

    • Larry Nutter

      We are all working on smaller intellects, thought processes and creativity, Anything outside of scripted speech will cost you. The positive changes we have made in the world would not have been made if we were always required to think in Orwellian newspeak.

  • dochi

    Once again conservatives have taken control of the debate by making this about “free speech” and ignoring a discussion about his twisted views about blacks and gays. (that should be exposed and ridiculed instead.)

  • You’re right that he hasn’t been legal charged with anything, but what people are referring to is that he is being punished.
    But what most people don’t understand in situations like this, is Freedom of Speech is something that the government gives it’s citizens. A&E is not owned by the government, it is a private company, therefore it can make the rules and policies of what it does in its company.
    I used to own a newspaper and would get the same complaints all the time such as “Why didn’t you post my letter of me calling your paper a piece of garbage?” Well I own the paper so I can print or not print whatever I want.

  • Scottie La Botte

    You have made a wonderful explanation. And we do understand. And we are using that same freedom to tell A&E and others we think they are wrong. And in this case the media has picked up on a conservative point of view. The liberals are unhappy with this and want it out of the media. If this were an Al Sharpton rant or a Jesse Jackson one it would stay in the news for ever. So all the liberals who are upset relax the media favors all of you. Before long one of your savoir will say something that they shouldn’t and be at the top.

    • TJWatson

      So, does this mean you will be sticking up for Mark Zmuda?

      • Scottie La Botte

        Took a bit to figure out who you were talking about. Ok now that said. Phil stated his beliefs and is being condemned. He spoke the truth as he knows and believes. He has that right especially when specifically ask. He is not know for political correctness.Mark Zmuda took a job at a church run school. He knew that their beliefs were not compatible with his life. From what i read he quit. The kids like him and want him back. So if you are asking if I believe that homosexuality is a choice or born that way. I will go born that way. As far as what is right with him/ That is for the school and him to decide.

      • TJWatson

        The Mark Zmuda situation is no different. He signed a contract with the school just like Phil Robertson did with A&E (I’m almost certain there is a clause in his contract that says to stay away from making statements that would be viewed as divisive and cause backlash- he knew what he was getting into). I replied to your comment bc there was a lot of anti-liberal talk, I just wanted to see how you would defend the school and not the individual in that situation as compared to the same situation with Phil Robertson. And just like I anticipated, there’s a lot more of an objective view on the Mark Zmuda story than there is on the Phil Robertson story bc it’s convenient to your viewpoint.

      • Scottie La Botte

        A&E knew how Phil is. Did the school know how Mark is? Phil was ask a question he answered. Do you honestly think Phil cares what A&E does. His fans care is all, just like Mark’s students. Oh and what is my view point since you seem to know better than I do?

      • TJWatson

        Well you haven’t said specifically, but you seem to be defending Phil quite a bit, who is the individual in this situation, yet defending the school in the other situation as opposed to the individual- when they are essentially the same thing. A&E knew how he was, that’s probably why they specifically had language in the contract they both signed that said not to engage in conversation that might result in specific views coming out that will obviously cause waves. He did just that and dove head first into those questions, and they went beyond just biblical views, they were very personal views and judgments. The teacher didn’t even express his views or share his personal life with students or faculty, it was learned months after the marriage by the church and the faculty was forced to force him to resign (he was basically fired, we know how that works).

      • Scottie La Botte

        Well Phil has been re-instated, maybe the students will get Mark re-instated. One difference A&E has no opinion on anything by design, they just suddenly had to be politically correct. The church that owns the school does have a opinion. How ever the people who pay the bills for the school don’t agree. So if the students and parents don’t like the decision of the school then their kids can go someplace else.

  • LawDog

    While you are correct that A&E’s actions do not amount to a constitutional issue, there is, unfortunately, a constitutional issue at play in the broader context of this debate. Some states have passed laws making it essentially illegal to hold the view that homosexual behavior is wrong. So, while no one can get into trouble for calling Phil a bigoted redneck and firing him from his job for his genuine and deeply held religious beliefs, depending on where one lives, one can be prosecuted for having those beliefs.

  • SH1334

    I agree wholeheartedly with the author. A&E is a private business in a capitalist (or at least a quasi capitalist) market, and can hire and fire whoever they feel will help their company. I do have a problem when companies like Chic-fil-et are not allowed to do the same thing. I agree with your point, but see a huge double standard applied based on what is popular to believe politically.

  • Mason Young

    If you hate Gays…hate Gays…don’t stand behind your Bible, spewing passages from a work of Fiction, to satisfy your need to put them down.
    The Bible is the work of Man…it is not the “WORD OF GOD”.
    How ridiculous of anyone to think, that a God, responsible for creating a World, that so many take great pleasure in destroying with their lust for money, would ‘hate’ anything other than the hatred you display for them (gays).
    I’m sure there are clear thinking Christians, that understand, something got lost in the translation of the Bible, and it was perverted into someone’s sick notion of what People should be and do.
    We should have grown past there…right and wrong should be a ‘no- brainer ‘ at this point in our civilization…if you don’t get that w/o the help of a book…it makes you kind of a sociopath.
    The Bible is full of ridiculous notions…it’s a shame people have to focus on a line or two, and cleave to it like it was their own salvation.
    We have an epidemic of ‘obesity’ in this Country…isn’t ‘gluttony’ a sin?
    I know you ‘all’ aren’t faithful to your spouse’s…isn’t that a sin?
    Greed is a plague on the Planet as well…isn’t that a sin?
    it’s a “Once upon a time” book people… evolve for Christ’s sake.
    The World was not created in 7 Days…but a shite-storm was created in a matter of moments over this. Use that thing on your shoulders for more than a decoration, and a portal for your consumption.
    Believe what you want to believe…just live and let live. When you have a contract with a Network…you violate it, you get repercussions.
    If how I live is a sin…I’ll deal with that matter with my maker. In the meantime…get over it. It’s not for you to judge.
    Didn’t the Lord say…Judgement shall be mine alone. or are you just being God-like?

    • LawDog

      Speaking of “once upon a time,” I won’t argue with you about the whole 7 days thing, but, in your estimation, how DID the universe come into being? And then, how did life on Earth come to exist?

      • Mason Young

        I’m not denying the existence of a God. My comment on ‘dealing with that when I meet my maker’ should have clued you in to that…
        I hope there is knowledge of that (creation), at some point in our spiritual journey.
        I don’t fear God…the God I’ve come to know isn’t anything to be afraid of. If People need a scale to measure their actions…that’s their choice. I break none of those 10 commandments…without looking. I know the difference between right and wrong…and hating people for who they sleep with, is more wrong than sleeping with someone of the same sex…
        Gay should be celebrated…we slow down this furiously growing over-population, we pay taxes like everyone else, Children or not, we pay taxes for Schools…and in general, we tend to take great pride in keeping things tidy. Most women know it’s great to have a ‘Gay Friend’ How we express ourselves sexually, is but a minute part of our existence…and really shouldn’t concern anyone…We don’t care what you do in bed. Leave that out of the equation of equality.
        Some, seem to be waiting for a miracle…I for one, am happy existing in one. Just the fact that I live and breathe, and can question and reason, is miracle enough for me.
        I respect the Planet, and do whatever I can to help perpetuate it’s Nature…I am a part of nature…even though the term Human Nature becomes more of an oxymoron everyday…too many feel the need to overwhelm nature, and create unnatural things..chemicals, pesticides, GMO’s…those are the things everyone should pay attention to…Not who someone sleeps with.
        Because who I am, and what I do…is perfectly natural for me…without hating anyone, or diminishing who they are.

  • the darkness

    Its fine for a&e to show clyde on bonnie and clyde get raped in the ass in prison but its not ok for phil to speak his mind when asked a question in a magazine?

  • Some Asian Guy

    Doesn’t matter, Phil doesn’t care so he is not “paying the consequence”. He could give a damn about the TV show or the network that produces it. A&E has much much more to lose if they continue this. The network and Robertson family are already in talks about the future of the show because the rest of the family can’t see a future without him in the show. So yeah good luck on the whole TV ratings chart A&E! 🙂 Happy, Happy, Happy!

  • magormissabib

    [email protected] are hypocritical intolerant bigots. It is discrimination to fire someone for their religious convictions. Contract or no contract A+E should also deal with the ramifications of their actions.

  • frankcallender

    Yeah but u say it in such a arrogant way it will cost u a lot of thumbs ups.

  • lisa

    we’re allowed to say nearly anything (with a few exceptions of course) that we want without fear of legal prosecution for it. This is part of your quote about free speech. Phil did just that. Everyone is allowed to have a different belife than someone else …bottom line if you do not like someone for whatever reason walk away, turn it off, do not buy it. State you feelings but understand you are you own judge and jury not the worlds. I find it interesting that you in a way justify what was said about Sarah Palin “Especially considering Bashir only had derogatory words for Sarah Palin whereas Robertson ignorantly bashed tens of millions of homosexuals. so let me understand to say it about one person is OK…did you ever stop to think that if someone a long time ago had not bashed a gay person maybe gay bashing would not be something we are fighting against everyday. Was Phill correct in what he said NO..HELL NO (my free speech opinon) but if everyone wants to be heard then understand you may not alway like or agree with it. Look what free speech has allowed you to be able to do..share your opinon.

  • frankcallender

    The main point is not what who said ot how he said it…It should be now everyone knows A&E’s stance on the Bible. So if you watch whatever they choose to broadcast you should realise it is aired by a network operating outside of the words of the Bible. So…if you wanna watch shows aired by networks who operate under the Bibles principles…don’t turn on A&E.

  • Steven

    Mr. Roberson’s comparison of homosexuality to beastiality was not free speech that was hate speech, If he wanted to state his beliefs about christianity he is free to do so, but he went to far. Not okay, I would never want to be a part of a religion that he is a representative for.

    • magormissabib

      too bad you cant take the truth Homosexuality and beastiality are BOTH deviant sexual conducts and are an abomination.

      • Steven

        And your reaction isn’t an abomination?

      • magormissabib

        my reaction to sexual deviancy is a normal healthy one: revulsion.

      • Steven

        Let he without sin cast the first stone.

      • magormissabib

        your attempts to counterfeit and corrupt the truth of God FAIL. God said what an abomination is. deal with it.

  • pdub

    Well, I’m glad someone said the contract probably said that Phil Robertson is a representative of A&E and should act accordingly. So, let me bring up a question. Isn’t the President a representative of the American people? And he sure isn’t representing us very well or acting accordingly. So why not take him out of the public view.

  • robertsfan

    The point that people are missing – Phil did NOT bash gays or anyone else! If people would read the article in its entirety, not the snippets that the media is letting out there, they would agree. He said, when asked how he feels about homosexuality, that it is not for him to judge, be he feels it is a sin, along with adultery, etc. I believe he is FREE to express his believes, and I believe that that freedom has been violated, he is being persecuted for his beliefs. So if anyone would like to dispute this, please show me where in the article he bashed anyone!

    • magormissabib

      The homosexuals over reaction is proof that the truth of God pierces them to the heart.

  • Mike

    Thankfully, Phil spoke about and his and most of our normal human response to gay SEX. He didn’t say anything that is different than what most people think about the actual sex act itself. 90% or more of the population is NOT sexually attracted to the same sex. Thank God or none of us would have been born to have this discussion. Most civilized people, including Phil as he stated, has no ill will for gays. It is not their choice and I accept them for who they are 100%, but that does not mean that I have to feel comfortable with the thought of the sex act itself. I am not wired that way. Neither is Phil and truthfully neither are 90% of you.

    Those progressives that say that you are “sick and vile” when you state your feelings are dishonest and cowardly not to allow a person to speak their opinion if they choose a position different than yours.

    • magormissabib

      The sodomites want to shout from the rooftops that they are proud to be gay , yet they cant endure the tiniest criticism. Its only proof that they are not as secure and as confident as they pretend. When someone calls them on their sin ,even in the most benign manner, they cant let it roll off their backs because it pierces them to the heart.

    • sethblink

      If it makes you uncomfortable… don’t think about it. How often do you think about other people having sex with each other? Do you admire doctors and nurses? Have you ever thought about what they do for a living? Some of it, taken out of context, is disgusting.

  • Webster

    Never mind the topic, that’s another debate. Have you ever thought about the tone of your articles? I find myself surprised that a college graduate in P.S. would take such a sarcastic and blatantly biased tone rather than using diplomacy and respect. You actually come off as quite belittling to the reader. Are you assuming your audience is as educated as you? It doesn’t sound like that at all. It’s great that you are stirring the pot, but if you want your movement to gain true influence in society maybe a bit more warmth and respect toward your anticipated readers would go a lot farther. Just a thought.

  • jj

    I would bet that they probably say a whole lot of shit like this in their everyday lives but it never makes it onto the show bacause gues what? Reality TV isn’t reality! It’s mostly scripted and they are put in premeditated scenarios and after all that is shot, there’s ALOT of editng that takes place so what you have in the end is A&E’s polished version of who and what this family is.

  • Average joe

    I agree that he can be held accountable by his employer for what he said. However. isnt he in a reality show? Don’t they speak about their religion on the show? Wasn’t he just being “real” and speaking “real” just like he was paid to do? Also, would you agree with A&E if he was fired for saying that he was gay? I am pro personal rights and this seems a little extreme.

  • Anonymous

    What if instead, he spoke out supporting gay marriage “which A&E feels represents them in a negative light” so they got rid of him? Think about it. Double standards in full effect!!

    • sethblink

      Nope. They would have the right to do that. And viewers would have the right to not watch, just some viewers will boycott now. It’s what happened with Chick-Fil-A. I do agree with you that many people on one side of this argument would be on the opposite side of that one, but that’s what proves it’s not a First Amendment issue. All parties have the legal right to say what they wish (without fear of imprisonment) and all companies have he right to fire whomever they wish, if it puts them in a light they prefer not to be in.

  • fan_of_the_1st

    These protests are actually almost going against first amendment rights. A&E has the right to show what they want on their network. They did not agree with what Mr. Robertson said, so they got rid of him. He is a representative of their company. (Kind of like how Coke and Pepsi workers can’t be seen drinking the opposition’s product) If the protestors would actually come out and say they don’t like that he was canned because they like what he said, I would have no problem with that. But they are hiding behind the 1st amendment.

    This makes me SO mad.

    I fight for Mr. Robertson’s right to say he believes homosexuality is a sin (and to believe it, too).
    I fight for A&E’s right to air what they wish on their network.
    I fight for the protesters’ right to voice their disagreement on something.

    At the very least, admit to what you disagree with. Don’t hide behind a right that has not been infringed upon in the first place. Please?

    • magormissabib

      discrimination on grounds of sincerely held beliefs is against the law.

  • pete biggs

    Do you agree with this statement, having gay sex is an unnatural act. I am not speaking about religion, I am talking about science. A penis does not belong in an anus. Love is love, but the sex itself is whats wrong. Now, straight people have unnatural sex as well. But I am sure occasionally they have some natural sex. Whereas gay people can never have natural sex.

    • sethblink

      Pete, I’m assuming you have a penis, and congratulations, you get to decide where it does and doesn’t go. You get to decide what kind of sex is right and wrong… for you. And as long as the sex you want is okay with the person you are planning to share it with, you’re good. What somebody else does with their penis is their business and they have the same exact rights as you, to decide what they will and won’t do with their penis. As long as the person they are sharing it with is a consentlng adult, it’s good and it’s all “right.” The sex they have may not be natural for you, but that’s okay. That’s called freedom.

  • Bob Sutherby

    To follow quotations from a book, ANY book, instead of following your own feelings, is ludicrous.

  • fan_of_the_1st

    I don’t particularly care what he said. He could’ve said, “I live in a yellow submarine.”, been fired for referencing The Beatles and I still wouldn’t care. I most certainly wouldn’t call the network right-wing nut jobs that hate The Beatles for their liberal views and therefore hate Mr. Robertson. Just like I’m not calling them left-wing athiests now. It’s not a matter of religion. It’s freedom of speech. He made his peace. So did A&E.

    • magormissabib

      A person should not fear punishment for stating an opinion in a civilized land. you people need to get your heads on straight by reversing the roles. Just imagine if he was fired for saying he things SSM should be legal. Sheet would hit the fan.

  • Sanityisabeautifulthing.

    God =Inclusion SMH that anyone thinks they have a clue what God wants while talking about slaves and gays… surely we have more to worry about than what this man thinks. Sadly someone somewhere felt less because of his words, someone felt hurt, and someone needed a family to believe in. This wasn’t it. I have never felt the need to put someone or a group down to feel good about myself. Just sad…

  • DONM

    Tell A&En go on drop DD see how fast some other network picks up this 400 million dollar producing show, plus if christains stand behind DD lets see which group has bigger buying block, guys or christains,,,,, hmmmmm lets see gays add up to around 2% of the population and christains about 65-75%, which do advertisers realy wants……..

  • Toni Matlock Doss

    It’s a consequence from an employer for him expressing an opinion which A&E feels represents them in a negative light…………LMAO A&E knows what this family stands for , why on earth give them a show in the first place, that’s whats so hilarious!!!!! Redundant or whats the word im lookin for, someone help me out here.

  • gina mcelvain

    Boo. Then I call a majority of LGBT community anti-christian. How is it not okay for him to call it a sin. That is his belief. It is a sin.

  • Martin100

    Couldn’t be more wrong and further from the truth. What you say on your own free time should have zero ramifications on your job. The ramifications which is society’s reaction is basically what Jesus said would happen. Paraphrasing, the world will hate you for loving Me. This man is being persecuted for what he said he understands from the Bible, i.e. his beliefs. Being able to express that should have no ramifications to his job or his livelihood whether he gets to keep his job or that he is forcibly removed from it because of what he said in his own free time. That’s free speech. It’s as simple as that but yet everyone wants to try and justify the action as something else. Nobody searches out Islamists for calling everyone else infidels do they? No. But since there’s such a reaction by society these days to coddle special interest groups such as gays he’s being dragged down. What is happening is as close to censorship as you can get.

  • Ryan

    The tone of this piece reeks of a butt-hurt writer. He wrote a second piece either because he didn’t write it well enough the first time or he has some personal issue with the topic. Either way, how he approached readers has turned me away from this site on my first visit.

  • One

    Just because you don’t like what he has to say shouldn’t give you the right to silence him. How is punishing him for expressing his views any different than you being disenfranchised for being gay? I’m sick of the LGBT community and their supporters acting as though they have the only rights that matter. Last time I checked, inclusion and acceptance meant having tolerance for those ideas that vary from yours. Does this definition cease being true for people who hold conservative or conventional values? Hypocrisy is a terrible thing and so is intolerance. Don’t watch his show if he offends you, stop trying to punish him for his views and bully others into silence. Let people feel how they feel if you want the same regard.

  • Danielle Williams

    Ok first of all he was asked a question by the people at GQ and he answered it honestly yes unfiltered but tell me one gay person that filters what the hell they say get the hell over it at least he can not be called a Hippocrate!!! I have plenty of gay friends and not one of them have a filtered mouth they say what they say when they want to say it no matter who it offends! Pot calling the kettle black… IJS Grow the hell up.

  • Amelia

    He’s being persecuted just like the Bible states all of his true followers will be. Phil Robertson is sold out to Jesus. Just as his whole family is, what he did was nothing but answering a question. He was witnessing, now look at you all who have been affected.Why are people so angry if there is nothing wrong with homosexuality? Phil doesn’t have an agenda, however I can tell you GLAAD does. To make homosexuality accepted, but why does it need to me accepted?People should be accepted, however actions should not always be. Murder, stealing, and lying are not acceptable actions. Phil stood up and said the action is in his eyes and GOD’s eyes unacceptable. Read Leviticus 18:22

  • drdanj

    Actually, we do not have freedom of speech. According to SCOTUS, in a case against Eugene Debs (as I recall) they held that freedom of speech means “no prior restraint.” In short that means the government cannot stop you from beginnng to say whay you want but they can disappear you as soon as you start.

  • Valerie

    Actually, part of the negotiations for their contract were that three things are not to be compromised, two of which are his family and his faith the third of which is duck season according to Jase Robertson. In addition, I see nothing homophobic or racist in his statements. He was simply stating an honest answer to an honest question. He was asked what it was like to grow up in Pre-Civil Rights Era Louisiana. He said he didn’t see anyone unhappy, just godly happy people. He was asked what, in his mind, was sinful. He gave an honest answer to his belief system. There was no homophobia. Homophobia is the fear of homosexuals. There is no fear there, only his belief based on his spiritual philosophy. Do I agree with what he said? No. But do I support his family? Yes. They are people just like me. A&E does have the right to suspend him for voicing things that were not aligned to their reputation but lets be realistic here. The Robertson’s have never made secret what kind of people they are. In fact, they say they are bible thumping backwoods folks who are pretty simple. A&E knew that as well as their endorsing company’s so I don’t feel sorry for A&E at all and I still like Phil Robertson and believe that he is over all a good guy. Just because he says something that might not align with popular opinion does not make him evil. In fact his words inadvertently opened up dialogue that has the potential to be productive if it is done in a mature, understanding, loving way. If you truly consider yourself a good person, that is how you will view his words as well. Think about how you would discuss this with him if you were sitting at the family table having a nice dinner with him. Would you scream in his face and call him a racist and a bigot or would you try to understand him and help him understand you? Love liberates.

  • Steve

    So I guess he’s discussion that life down South was good for the blacks is totally acceptable? They were happy and singing in the cotton fields. He did say that, or he was reviewing “Song of the South,” which Disney doesn’t even admit to creating anymore.

  • fat sam

    Yea this show should be gone. Good morals, prayer, all crazy bad things. Spending time with your family? Isn’t that governments and schools job? Killing animals and eating them what is the world coming to! What a devil Phil Roberts is for taking that interview. He should just shut his mouth and not ever say anything.
    Because that would make everything better now wouldn’t it. Get over your selves liberals..

    • Jose

      Hell ya

  • yuchu

    this show was premised on the fact that they were a christian family. the bible speaks against homosexuality. this should be no surprise to A&E nor anyone else.

  • Jose

    We can say ANYTHING we want but all the fucking queer bags cant take it and kick him off the show. If u havent figured it out, a&e is a network run by fags and queers, thats why they kicked him off the show. Because they were hurt by what he said. I think they should grow a pair and deal with it. Black people had to deal with the word nigger and they rappers say that in everyother song

  • mwd

    Do you really think you job should depend on what you say off the job? should google have the power to fire me if vote for anyone other than obama? Slaves might be accountable to thier masters 24/7, but I thought we were free. I want the freedom for my job to not depend on my vote or what do in my own time, so I not be watching A&E. p.s. I dont agree with much of what he said. –mwd

  • mwd

    Do you really think you job should depend on what you say off the job? should your boss have the power to fire you if voted for anyone other than Mitt? Slaves might be accountable to thier masters 24/7, but I thought we were free. I want the freedom for my job to not depend on my vote or what do in my own time, so I not be watching A&E. p.s. I dont agree with much of what he said. –mwd

  • Betsy

    My thought is fuck gays and all homos. They need to die and are a waste of society

  • Dude

    glad should contact God and see if God has changed his mind on what he was thinking when he said the things that Phil Robertson is repeating because it sounds like what is said in the bible is all that he is repeating

  • Dustin Sink

    GREAT ARTICLE! I have been trying to explain this to people about the fact the Constitution is there to limit the control of the government, and not private business, and citizens. This is 5th grade Social Studies people!

  • VL123

    You didn’t see conservatives up in arms about Baldwin? WTF have ya been? Who the hell do you think called Baldwin out on his hypocrisy. What a bullshit article…. but I’d expect that from a site called Forward Progressives. LOL

  • Wayno

    Let me explain Freedom of Speech to Liberals. It’s not always what YOU want us to say.

  • VL123

    This article has no argument except to “correct” people on what First Amendment rights are. Really what we object is the politically correct thought police.

  • danny ritchie

    The guy that wrote this article just showed us all how ignorant he is….

  • Alicia Figueroa

    In this case, you are incorrect, because according to the civil rights act of 1964, his words are safe-guarded and his employer is NOT free to punish him for them. Perhaps you should associate yourself with the law a little better. It is not so much an issue that he will face legal ramifications for what he has said as it is that they have broken the law by affecting his employment status based off his religion, and in this case, sexual preferences. I’m sure you could wikipedia the act quite easily, perhaps you are even all-too-familiar with it since the homosexual community has held it up as a shield for years. What you do not realize is that issues like this are a two-way street. You would not be removed or punished by your employers for this article, so do not assume that it would be just dandy for someone publishing an opposing article to face retaliation from their employers. To assume so and expect so, is quite frankly not only intolerant, but ignorant.

    • SnatchAWig

      This guy is not publicly employed. He works as independently through contracts that he and the producers agree upon. All reality stars do.
      Also he cannot say his religion made him say the things he has said. If he quoted something maybe, but he didn’t. He took his own personal view from his religious text and that is what got him suspended.

      • Alicia Figueroa

        Are you saying that if a builder hires someone under a contract to do plumbing work for them, and it turns out that the person is an atheist homosexual who comes out and speaks at a conference about the importance of atheism or homosexuality that the builder would be within his rights to fire that person? The Civil Rights Act protects EVERYONE, not just the people you happen to personally agree with, regardless of HOW they are hired by a company. And to his credit, he was in fact paraphrasing from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. No, he did not get it ‘spot-on’, but considering that he was more than likely going off of memory, I think he did an excellent job. Additionally, it sounds like you are simply one of many who read his comments out of context, but didn’t read the actual interview or the rest of his comments which stated that he doesn’t judge, and he thinks we should all just get along & love each other.

  • Karma

    Everyone is forgetting the most important thing. Pill didn’t just come out and start outing the gays, he was asked a question and he answered to the best of his knowledge. So once again don’t ask questions you don’t want answered. End of story…

  • Tom Murray

    So when Oprah said all white people should die so racism would end, that was ok? Get your head out of your butt.

  • VL123

    Clearly it’s not Phil Robertson that they have a beef with…it’s really God. And if you’re an atheist, then that’s definitely your problem.

  • lubmykitties

    A&E knew what they were getting. It’s not fair to come back later and change their minds as to what constitutes a “violation” of the contract. Unless it specifically stated they could not mention their religious views or made perfectly clear in implicit terms that it wouldn’t be allowed for him to express his religious view point, then they have no case and the repercussions are breach of contract. It’s the highest rated cable show ever. That should be telling them something…..

  • Jane Peters

    He just said he didn’t agree with perverts way of life. Why is he being lambasted for this?

  • Duane Blythe

    Allen Clifton, you have a right to print this article. This is protected by free speech. Phil Robertson was exercising his freedom of speech, when he did that interview. Now, he faces the media in a attack on him for his beliefs which also are protected in our constitution under freedom of religion. In Phils’ religion, it’s a sin to be homosexual. Although, he was not judging those persons. His comments are now being scrutinized by shady individuals, who’s soul purpose is to try and convince American’s that we must accept and approve of homosexuals, if not we are the ignorant ones for not doing so. It’s the agenda of GLAAD and the LGBT to make our society accepting of their lifestyle. I believe to each their own. I have relatives that our homosexuals, I do not judge them. However, they know my view point on the subject and Phil was only expressing his. If we have to be accepting of your lifestyle then you also must be accepting of our beliefs. It’s the only way we can all live HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY.

  • Joe

    Ppl sound completely ignorant when they talk about God and the bible trying to find or heard of loop holes to make themselves feel better. A&E completely know his beliefs, example when they wanted to do away with the prayer at the end of the shows and he stuck to his beliefs and told them no. A&E should of had a backbone and told the gay rights organization that’s who they are and don’t watch or listen to them. I believe the same as that family and glad he’s getting support. Boo Hoo hurt some feelings get over it. GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU!

  • anonymous

    You really should edit your posts!

  • nonebut Jesus VIew

    This is a “rant”; “I am so sick and tired of the lgbt community forcing their beliefs on us! They all need to be shipped to a deserted island!” Now THAT is a homophobic rant, THAT is discrimination. What Phil said was not a rant or discrimination. He was referring to God’s word. And please, if you’re going to talk about what someone said, please share ALL of what they said, not just partial to suit your “forward thinking” readers. Your article is a prime example of why America does not research on their own – they hear half truths – which remember, is still a WHOLE LIE.

    • SnatchAWig

      “Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions,” Robertson said in the 2010 speech. “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. That’s what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country.”

      I think you should research yourself some more.

      • You know it was really a pair of qweers who murdered Matthew Shephard, right?

  • jamesdickason

    Allen Clifton can kiss my behind and needs to leave the Dallas-Ft Worth area. I don’t have any use for his twist on the freedom of speech or need to hear from him again–

    • Clifton thinks that a rectangle can fit inside of a square. A majority of “progressives” missed some physics classes in school.

  • A casual observer

    I believe a key component to this argument, and you brought it up nicely with Bashir, is the hypocrisy that exhibited by certain segments. and I think that’s what has the other side up in arms.
    A number of months back, Rush Limbaugh calls a girl a slut, and you saw that all over the place. You could not turn on the news without hearing about it, and women were coming out of the wood works to vilify Rush.
    Now a few weeks back, Bashir talks about crapping into a woman’s mouth, and you hear crickets. No segments on the news, no women sticking up for their sister.
    So you can say things that offend some groups and that’s alright, but for others, there’s consequences.

    Yet, what we have here is not a freedom of speech issue. It’s an employer’s right to hire or fire at will. But herein lies the problem. The employer knew about those comments months ago, and about his stance on the issue for years. They had no problem with it. It just become problematic when a group complained. The group has a right to complain. The employer has a right to respond in whatever way they seem fit.

    All in all, it seems like everyone is thin skinned now. Everyone wants to get offended and cry and demand apologies and demand total acceptance of their viewpoint, believing that to be the definition of tolerance.

  • Justanotherbigotisuppose

    Had he said “I am gay” and been fired for that. There would definitely have been legal ramifications.

    • SnatchAWig

      Because in many places you cannot fired for being gay legally. But there is no law protecting your job if you choose to share your opinions publically knowing it might incite your boss to reprimand you.

      • And Creator Craig Cobb has no rights according to you, right? Would you like a White nationalist to move in your neighborhood?

  • I don’t care

    Haha these comments are making me laugh so hard my side aches. Both “sides” of the comments.

  • steph s

    Unless he signed a contract stating he wasn’t allowed to say x y z then terminating him is rediculous aspecially for the fact how much money a & e makes off of the family. Why couldn’t they just release a statement saying they don’t agree with what he said and don’t support his comments. Its funny when blacks or gays speak out thetes never a big deal made but we’re racists its bs if you ask me

    • SnatchAWig

      Did you ever read a history book? Historically white people have been racist and homophobic. There is no historical record showing black people or gay people marginalizing large minorities. Of course white people need to watch what they say because there is a lot of tension based on history.

      • I’m so sorry, missy, but your Race Card has been declined.

      • Cry Me A River, Mrs. Pitts! Clean Up Your People And Community Before Judging Us! How About All The Hoodrat Gangbangers Taking Out Each Other In Record Numbers In Your ‘Hood? You Need To Hear Some Of Bill Cosby’s and Minister Farrakhan’s Words!!

  • Harry Olson

    I must say, being a conservative myself, this article does bring up valid points. Its the same as if you insulted your boss. your legally allowed to say it, but that doesn’t mean you can’t get fired for it. A well written and relatively politically balanced article; nice work.

  • Mike

    Some people need to learn what oppression is. Muslims putting homosexuals to death — that is oppression. The laws that Uganda just passed — that is oppression.

    Opinions and words are not oppression. Not everyone is going to agree with our lifestyle and our choices. That is part of life.

    You can fight for your rights but no one can make everyone like and accept them.

    And as to those bringing up the Dixie Chicks in this….I remember that controversy and I supported the Dixie Chicks right to say what they did. All of their followers said the same thing about the freedom of speech. If you are saying that it is right for Robertson to lose his job and all as consequences of what he said then there was nothing wrong with what happened with the Dixie Chicks.

    As the author of this article said — when you open your mouth and spout off your beliefs or your opinions — often you have to pay the consequences.

  • Stacey E. Kegelman

    A&E is hypocritical as they are having a Duck Dynasty marathon on Dec. 22, Dec. 23, Dec. 24, and Christmas Day, Dec. 25.

    Dec. 22 — 5 p.m. – 4 a.m. EST
    Dec. 23 — 7 p.m. – 4 a.m. EST
    Dec. 24 — 6 p.m – 9 p.m. EST
    Dec. 25 — 3:30 p.m. – 4 a.m. EST
    So it’s all about making money and honestly they knew exactly what they were getting with Robertson so their suspending him over comments he made is all b.s. Honestly, all this “political” correctness is b.s.. When I was a kid, life was a lot better and less complicated than it is now. With reality shows, you get what you get and you don’t get upset so deal with it A&E and move forward. I do not buy into this suspending Robertson over comments he made. This is all for ratings and attention and you’re still moving forward with the marathon so there you go. It is what it is.

    • So – are we going to boycott this, and let A&E know in no uncertain terms why?

      We can also tell them we will be having our own private DD marathons, courtesy of the modern miracle called “torrenting.”

      h ttp s://kickass.to/duck-dynast…

      The above is for informational/educational purposes only. Clicking the link will NOT initiate any kind of download activity.

  • Nthis

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

    (a) Employer practices

    It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

    (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

    • SnatchAWig

      Did I miss something? What’s the point?

      • Yes you missed that fact that the CRA of 1964 makes it illegal to fire or suspend Mr. Robertson for his religious Ideas. A&E is in violation of the CRA of 64 because MR. ROB expressed an opinion inline with his religion.

      • SnatchAWig

        No. Unless he is explicitly saying he is acting as a spokesperson for the church, it’s to be argued he is only speaking his personal viewpoint. He was answering a question and made it clear this was his opinion.

      • lol, BULLSHIT!

      • Opinion or statement based on his religious beliefs. There is NO DIFFERENCE.

        You don’t need to act as a SPOKESMEN – the bible clearly expresses that all followers of Christianity are spokesmen of the church. You don’t need to fit MANs definition of spokesmen. Your logic is flawed.

        His OPINION/STATEMENT IS PROTECTED both on a constitutional front and on a CRA ’64 front. His rights were violated. Plain and simple.

      • Nthis

        Employees of any entity, Phil Robertson with A&E included are not spokesmen for anything. He was an employee who was dismissed over his Christian views. I don’t think you get how the CRA works. Individuals are protected without any special requirements and an opinion, even moreso.

      • Lina

        He didn’t get suspended for his religious views, he got suspended for going against his contract, which tells him how the company would like to be represented

      • THREE issues there….

        First – There is no call in any article to a CONTRACT stipulation that says how he is supposed to represent them. If there is I would love to see it as no article on the net has shown this clause.

        NEXT – Land of the Free? 1st amendment right to free speech and expression? So when does a person have the right on their own time to use those rights? A person cannot be a slave to a network 24/7/365 and never have the right or the time to express their religious views? If your going to claim that every interview and every statement this man gives in his life is under the watchful eye of an a&e contract then the man is nothing but a slave to a corporation and truly has no constitutional protections.

        Lastly – A Contract cannot contain any clause or language that contradicts law. A contract is NULL AND VOID if any of it’s contractual obligations or clauses violate the law in any way.

        So even if he has a contractual obligation to represent a&e in a particular way during a&e interviews, which this was not. THE CRA of 1964 title 7 covers his rights to express his religious opinion, or if you care for the language – make a religious statement inline with his beliefs, and cannot be reeled in as a violation of contractual obligations. Basically you cannot make a contract where you wave your protections under the law. It is unlawful and this is taught in basic high school introduction law classes. SO his suspension, and or termination due to his interview answer would be a violation of the Civil rights act title 7 protections of religion.

        I think people need to stop backing corporate PC contracts and have some common sense. The network new exactly who he was and what his views were. He was well established before a&e took on DD. People need to have the right to express their opinions regardless of how politically incorrect some might feel they are.

        Holding a minority opinion on a topic or a unpopular opinion / or making an unpopular statement that might upset a group of people is you RIGHT… and one should not be punished for it in any way including one that strips them of their Job

        Why don’t we just fire every person who claims to follow a religion in which the religion dictates that gay people are not right with god and will not get into heaven. Because if you follow any religion (Christianity, Judaism or Islam) they all dictate that gay people are NOT RIGHT WITH GOD. So if you are a follower of any of those religions then, without even opinion ones own mouth, are someone who believes in those opinions in line with that religion. So every religious person, according to the gay community is not tolerant and hence should be fired. OR am I going too far here?

      • Lina

        That’s like going up to your boss and telling him that he is an idiot. Do you have the right to? Yes, but you also have to deal with the consequences of what you’ve said, which is probably getting fired. It’s one of those things you know you shouldn’t do. At my university, I could get kicked out for saying I’m gay. Shouldn’t I have to right be able to say that? It’s the same concept.

      • You are not very good at analogy. It is not the same as telling your boss he is an idiot. If you were to tell someone else your boss was an idiot and it got back to him then perhaps the analogy is a bit more inline with what is going on here. But telling someone else your boss is an idiot is not covered under religious protective protective speech. He didn’t outright attack gays, all he did was answer a question using scripture and putting into his own words that he feels gay people will not go to heaven. IT was inline with what the church already dictates. So why are we making national news out of the same message over and over again when someone else of some popularity decides to re-iterate the churches stance on homosexuality?

        Secondly calling your boss an idiot does not protect your job under religious grounds of the CRA T7. Now lets say your boss trips and spills a drink on you and you have no clue who that person was and out of anger you turn and say “are you an idiot, watch were your going” and then after the heat of the moment you release it is your boss. Should you or would you have to deal with the consquencs? Perhaps – depends. If your boss out of spite decides to fire you and was doing something stupid like walking with coffee and not looking where he was going when he spilled that coffee on you and you over reacted in the situation by calling him an idiot. If there were say witnesses there to back up your claim that your boss was at fault for the ACCIDENT and you did verbally over react to the fact you just got coffee spilled all over you and your boss out of spite decides to fire you, perhaps human resources would side with you. There are situations where the consequences for saying something are NOT justified. But all the WHAT IF’s and ANALOGIES here really cannot compare this particular case here. The fact of the matter is, he has had his interview answer taken out of context and they are twisting his beliefes into bigotry.

        Not sure what university you go to, and in what country but in the united states if the university is public (like a state school) then yes you have the right to say you are gay. And no you cannot legally be kicked out and if they did kick you out you would have a hell of a lawsuit.

        Now if that university is a Religious institution, then part of the contract you agree to is to follow the religion. Yes the university might accept non faith students but there is a CODE OF CONDUCT that all student agree to before paying that university to go there., SO if you agreed to go to a faith based university that clearly states that homosexuals and homosexuality is forbidden then you claim to be gay then yes you should be kicked out. There is such a thing as PRIVATE institutions that grounds for membership include following faith based guidelines. Yes the lines can get a bit hazy, such as a faith based institution accepting federal money to accept more non faith based students, while the university might claim they are subject to the same guidelines, the taxpayer federal money might make exceptions for those student and that is where a court would have to decide if the faith based guidelines can be broken by students who are accepted under non faith based programs subsidized by tax payer money. It can be a catch 22.

        Again we are getting off the topic a bit and going too much into what if situations., the fact of the matter is no one can be subservient to a contract for representation 24/7/365 if courts are going to uphold these types of contracts then truly our constitutional protections have been bought out from under us. Second, if you can be terminated for an opinion that is FAITH BASED contract or not – no court can deny that CRA T7 is being trumped here and in that case voids the law and we are back to the comment I made right before this. Our freedoms being bought out..

        So face it. MR. ROBERTSON is getting the proverbial screw here for talking about his faith. The gays are going to try to crucify ANYONE who even nods in the direction that they don’t approve of the lifestyle personally or religiously.

        So gay community.. come after me. I think it is wrong, I don;lt agree with it, I think your not right with GOD. BUT i respect your constitutional rights to be and act the way you do and it is no skin off my back how you live your life. And I am sure you could care less about mine. But your going to try and come after me becuase I speak publicly about my opinion of gay people, yet I don’t come after you for your opinion on those who want to just express their opinions. BACKLASH is coming.. and it is going to be a hell of a slap in the face. Be ready for it gay community.

      • Lina

        You’ve entirely overanalyzed what I’ve said! For the whole ordeal with the boss, one would still say that the freedom of speech protects the person so they can say whatever they want to and not get fired. That’s what American’s always go to, freedom of speech. Freedom comes with responsibility. Either learn to deal with the consequences or don’t use your freedom. Contractually, he knows what he can and can’t say because of the company’s views, much like I know what I am not allowed to do and say because of the contract I signed to a private school. It’s a private company. It’s the same exact concept. And actually my school kind of scammed me. They made me sign the contract after I had paid for my tuition but that’s a whole different story. And honestly, I couldn’t care less as to what your opinions are on being gay and whatnot. It doesn’t effect me in any way. I’m not here to defend gays, I’m here to say that a PRIVATE company can fire someone for going against their contract. Most work places tell you not to talk bad about the company you work for or else you get fired. It’s all what you signed for when you started working there

      • HE did not talk bad about A&E,, He talked about his religious opinion of gay people based on the teaching of his faith. nothing more. HE did not talk bad of a&e, As for what you signed. Companies are getting away with way too much INTERPRETATION of what a person does in his free time. Unless this interview was to represent a&e directly. He has a right to answer a questions honestly, in his opinion and based on his faith and should not have to worry about repercussions of his faith and what his faith dictates as guidelines.

        You shouldn’t care about my opinions of people who follow a different sexual lifestyle. You and everyone else has the RIGHT and the FREEDOM to explore any sexual lifestyle you want, that is the whole point of freedom of expression. But it works both ways, we need groups like GLADD to stop going after people because they don’t agree with the lifestyle and speak out against it in a religious context and publicly. The repercussions for normal people can be financially devastating, but for someone like Phil, he will take his brand elsewhere and continue to make millions and I hope he sues the balls off of A&E and wins. He has the lawyers to do so. I am sure he is getting much legal consultation behind closed doors.

        Going back to your not being able to say what you want stuff. I agree there is a certain set of rules to follow in the workplace but after hours and in ones own personal life should never spill over to work life. Yea there are certain situation that require a company or place of work to examine a situation from outside of work but then again corporations as “ENTITLES” are are recognized legally as individuals via the courts need to act like individuals.

        If your at a bar venting about your boss who you feel is a dick or a bitch and some busy body from your job is there as well (someone you might now know but knows you) and over hears you and goes back to or even calls down the individual you are venting about on your own time, you should not have to face the repercussions of your venting in a way that scarifies your job. People need, again, to learn to mind their own business and stop taking things so far out of context that it effects the financial lifestyle of a person. People need to talk, speak their mind, tell the truth, be upfront and forthcoming. People should not be punished for that when done tastefully. This interview and answer was quite tasteful and was taken out of context by advocate groups and the media.

        It’s a fine line to walk i will agree and there situations that require a closer examination of the circumstances or the context of a conversation before damage control is called in. Also an over reaction of someone or some corporate entity because some advocacy groups gets uppity. People need to grow some balls agains and stand up to groups like GLADD who try to take comments like Mr Robertson’s out of context to fit their agenda. People also need to be smart enough to not buy into the media bias and make their own decisions.

        I made mine already. A&E is 100% wrong here. Phil might have an unpopular statement, or set of comments but he is 100% right to have answered the question the way he did and should have no repercussions from it. It was outright religious in it’s nature and should be protected from any over reaching and broad generalizations from a advocacy group looking to paint the picture differently than it’s original intention and meaning.

        Yea, it;s late I will end here for now..

  • KhadijahMuhammad

    Interesting. This is a “progressive” site, but the above post is 100% Libertarian.

  • gharcourt

    Thanks for this trenchant commentary — personally I find A&E reprehensible for giving these folks a platform in the first place, but, hey, we’ve survived Kim K. and Snooki and whoever else, so we can probably survive Duck Dorks as well. In any case, you’re argument was spot-on, and as for these idiot “free-speechers,” I guess I have the freedom not to listen.

    • Oh! Must be his boyfriend!

      • gharcourt

        there’s some free and pretty meaningless speech. and just whose boyfriend “must” I be?

  • Dane Gunderson

    So if there is nothing wrong w firing a person for political beliefs, what was wrong w the Hollywood blacklist of communists? — Aaron Worthing

  • securepleasantlot

    Why does the gay community need to be labelled “moral”??? So what if someone says it’s a sin? Why does it matter?

    • SnatchAWig

      Ok. Let’s start telling all the little white, Christian children god hates them from ages 5 to adulthood and see how it effects them. It doesn’t matter right?

      • “Affects,” not “effects.”

        Another proud product of America’s Teecherz Yoonyuns, I presume?

        Oh, and what with the gratuitous “white” in your rant? Showing off your racism?

  • Birdman

    Here’s for all the “unbelieving” individuals that CHOOSE to mock GOD and CHRISTIANITY….one day….YOU WILL have to give an account of your life…face to face with your CREATOR–so what will you say then?

    • yestradamous

      “May I go hang out with the Buddhists, please?”

  • Roger

    He was asked a question and he answered it. It wasn’t some anti-gay rant. He was talking about his religion and how he disapproves of the gay lifestyle… AFTER he was questioned about it. Now he facing religious discrimination, religious persecution and the loss of a job. he has been damaged over his religious beliefs. Which, according to federal law, is illegal. It is illegal to discriminate based sex, race, religion, national origin, etc. Get it right and stop trying to distract everyone from the point by focusing on freedom of speech. That’s NOT what this is all about and you KNOW it!

  • Scooterz

    Phil Robertson was asked a question from a reporter.. He answered it and followed it up with scripture… Why is is wrong to answer a question as honestly as you can. And Did you read what he said? There is no hate in that… I don’t get it. He is a Pastor how do you expect him to answer the question he was asked… To me it’s an attack on religion… You can not be a christian and a practicing homosexuality… that is from the Bible. Like it or not it’s there. So what is the real reason you do not like what he said? Is it because he thinks differently then you do? Thats ok isn’t it? Now with this being a socialist, communistic liberal site I know I will get hateful responses so don’t expect a reply I don’t play that game. S. Cooper

    • Lina

      You cannot be a Christian and do a lot of things, but most people do it anyways, so why not call them out on it too? You can’t just pick and choose which part of the bible you follow

  • “Until Mr. Robertson gets thrown in jail for saying what he said,” Funny, isn’t that exactly what “Hate Crime” legislation is all about? What he said would already be a crime in Canada and the UK, just 2 of the countries our American leftists are always falling down in adoration of. And, by the way, Ms. Clifton, there is a world of difference between the opinion voiced by Mr Robertson, and the lurid, hysterical, violent, irrational, irrelevant, and scatological fantasy indulged in by Pigface Bashir.

  • justfortalk

    We’re upset, but we are NOT screaming for LEGAL action against A&E, but for them to don the thinking of the majority over the innately perverse . Once again, it is a display in the public arena/marketplace of outrage over censorship actions. The next step is to make A&E knows by our actions that we will NOT be dictated to about what intuitive norms should broken and what perversion we should accept!

  • jess

    im wondering if you know what ignorant means?

  • Roger

    Oh, and watch for the current Regime to try and slip something past you, while you’re distracted by this Duck Dynasty thing.

  • Trompthar

    Please explain how Phil bashed homosexuals???? He quoted the bible and stated his beliefs. No where did he say he hates gays and they should be stoned or anything like that. He said, “It’s a sin, but we all sin. We can find forgivness in the Lord and we should all love one another as he does.” Where is that bashing anyone?!?!?!?! Lets get the facts straight before you go off and bend the truth as most media does. Please reread the story and what he “actually” said.

  • Michael Strickland

    This article is HYPOcritical. If an employer fires an employee because they find out that they make statements in support of homosexuality, then the employer can get in trouble with the government for “discrimination”, yet A&E will not even get a slap on the hand by the government for this blatant discrimination!

  • Guest

    There is nothing ‘ignorant’ about Phil’s remarks. He’s absolutely correct. Homosexuals are perverts and it’s wrong to humor them. It only prevents them from getting the psychiatric help they so desperately need.

  • JR

    Growing up I was taught sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me. We have become too damn sensitive as a country. On another note, these shows need to proof read and approve any and all questions that will be asked of their representatives if they are going to get shook by answers they might give. I have a lesbian aunt, she couldn’t care less what Phil said. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If you don’t like it then You don’t have to watch it. Don’t take shit away from those of us that have thick skin because your feelings where hurt.

  • Wonkish Rogue

    “Derogratory words” for Sarah Palin. Yeah derogatory in that someone should physically violate her by shitting in her mouth. Whereas Duck Dude said the Bible doesn’t condone homosexuality. Boy how awful. Clearly one of these is far worse than the other.

  • Nikki Sixx

    Go to hell. Phil doesn’t need A&E. A&E needs Phil.

  • Muslims want to kill all gay people. Says so in their laws & holy book. U don’t hear everyone bashing them…matter of fact, dear leader gives gives gives to MB.

  • Wonkish Rogue

    Love the insufferable sneering tone of this piece. It’s like being lectured to by footsie PJ Progressive Boy Man because you’re all too stupid to get that the 1A doesn’t forbid societal consequences for free speech and s/he is here to set you on the path to enlightenment.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Here’s the problem: You protect people who are “pro gay” so you must equally protect those who voice opposition. Equal before the law.

    If someone can be protected from retaliation by promoting a position (via unlawful termination tort claims) on sexuality, say being pro gay marriage you must do the same for the entire spectrum of related views.

    Or agree that someone can be fired for promoting gay marriage.

  • Ward Renick

    This has nothing to do with free speech. What this is, is getting attacked for pointing out the realities of basic anatomy. Guess what? Per basic anatomy, Homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction. And no matter how much Allen Clifton and other “Rainbow Nazi’s” threaten and attack you for pointing out that basic reality, it will never change. 2+2 will never equal 5. Homosexual sex IS comparable to beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, having sex with trees, furniture, etc. as far as sexual behavior is concerned. Your trying to shove your alternate reality down peoples throats is sexual assault. And you are a sexual predator. So what needs to happen is we need to go after you, Allen Clifton? You are a sexual predator. You attack people and trying to ruin lives for pointing out basic, true facts. Who do you work for? How do those who are sexual harassed by your behavior get you fired?

  • mlc

    That is a really good point. I just can’t imagine what it would be like if someone was fired for saying something like “I don’t believe in sin and it is not at all against my beliefs to be gay”…. Do people have the right to fire people for that??

  • visseratt

    Mr. Furley …you evil bastard!!! poor Jack Tripper should have gotten him fired! shut up you bunch of freaking whiners! suck it up!

  • Jesse

    I’m pretty sure that contract Mr. Robertson signed included language similar to this “shall not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, independent Contractor, or any other person because of race, color, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, age, sex or handicap.”

    Notice the part about “religious creed”. It appears to me that Mr Robertson is being discriminated against.

  • Super 88

    “Free speech” that can cost you your career and your reputation really isn’t free. Until they organize boycotts of Bill “ignorant twat” Maher and Lawrence “meat sack” O’Donnell, it is LIBERALS who are being hypocrites.

  • Angie Vallejo

    Mr Clifton, I am sure it is not the legal explanation of freedom of speech as you have defined here that has conservatives up in arms. It is the fact that when this story broke, IMMEDIATELY, there were consequences and backlash for the comments that Phil Robertson said. Could he have been more tactful while stating his beliefs? Maybe. I believe that Phil’s supporters feel that he should be allowed to have his say just as MANY other celebrities have theirs (even if uninformed or just radically opinionated) without the same immediate retribution. Phil Robertson represents the majority of America: a God-believing, humble, hard working person who have not come from money or prestige, but earns it the old fashioned way. He represents those of us Americans who treat each other better (despite who they are) than most of today’s rich politicians who can simply get away with lying, sidestepping and treating constituents as ignorants because of their political money and position. Mr. Robertson speaks a lot of truth, and when liberals and progressives are outraged, it is only because “truth hurts” and they would rather be coddled and given theirway than to do the right thing. May more people in this country be truthful, honest and humble … Even when it hurts. Maybe then our country wouldn’t be going down the tubes morally as it is now.

  • So is Allen Clifton a poofter lover, Frankfurt school alumni and glib liberal? Is he an anti-racist, which really means he’s anti-White? A “progressive” is the same as a degressive or degenerate.

  • Jb

    Your forgetting that he essentially got laid off for his beliefs. If you got fired for answering your boss saying you were muslim, you wouldnt expect that to be justified. They cancelled him because of his beliefs, maybe they should of inforced dont ask dont tell prior to this?

  • Saddened

    Here is the larger problem, with the twisted way you present the “facts” Phil Robertson did not in any way, shape, or form go off on an anti-gay rant. He only answered a question asked of him. The question was related to what he considers a sin. He answered honestly according to his beliefs, which are deeply rooted in the bible. The bible does state that homosexuality is a sin, and that is what he said. He also said (something that GLAAD people conveniently leave out) that he is not one to judge and that he treats everyone the same. He will leave all judgement to the almighty. When it is all boiled down, the GLAAD folks are telling nothing but lies in this situation and making themselves look very bad. Making themselves look like bullies. Making their cause weakened because of their underhanded tactics. The truth is that this individual did nothing more than answer a question asked of him, and answered it honestly. The folks from GLAAD can not say the same thing. They have been nothing but dishonest in this situation and are attacking someone for their opinion, and / or belief. This destroys their credibility in my book. I have many gay and / or lesbian friends, but if you happen to be gay, you do not need to center your life around your sexuality. I don’t, and gay or straight, I do not like anyone who does. GLAAD, to me is no different than Jessie Jackson, or AL Sharpton (two people who have done more to damage the racial problem in America than anyone). GLAAD should be so ashamed of themselves. I would be ashamed to be associated with them.

  • Dan

    He didn’t advocate for people to defecate in gays’ mouths like Bashir did, nor did he scream homophobic slurs at someone the way Alec Baldwin did. He only stated an opinion. He said he doesn’t judge, but that he believes homosexuality is not natural. Yes he was a forward and crude, but I see no hate in his comments. It is a sad day when a peaceful man is condemned for stating an honest opinion.

  • AntiGovMediaObamaBigAgandthe1%

    How Pompus of a title : “Let me explain…..” Mr Clifton writes in this article: “When he signed his contract, it almost certainly included a clause that says he’s a representative of A&E and is expected to act accordingly. All public figures, whether they want to be or not, are representatives of something.” …………..Does this guy really know what is in this “clause”? This is another example of people that just LOVE to argue ( really to use any argument to either spew hatred for those that don’t think like them, or they just NEED to try and look smart in their own eyes) that need to type stuff that really doesn’t matter. NO one knows what “clause” is in the contract, to what degree either party views violation of such clause, nor whether there is even a pre-established penalty for a particular clause. This whole thing can be summed up in ONE good old cliche’ (ready???) : “There’s no such thing as bad publicity”. Yep, any publicity is good publicity in the eyes of mega- conglomerate media moguls, and the army of lawyers they have is most definitely rivaled by the number of PUBLICISTS!! The folks at A&E KNEW for a good while that this family is a family of faith, and right out of the gate, since the show started, they have been foaming at the mouth waiting for every chance to stir up controversy, which does what ? GETS THEM RATINGS!! The whole thing is about money for them. They don’t care about people of faith, they don’t care about gays, they only care about their shareholders. The only thing that matters to them is getting the money wheels to turn faster, while stupid fucking sheep that think they’re intelligent because they watch “news networks” and “reality” shows also foam at the mouths to argue about anything, mainly to try and feel superior to those they argue against. This helps A&E’s goals for cash flow get reached……. If you want to be superior, turn that shit box that you call a flat screen off, get outside, and knock on your neighbors door and get to know them. Maybe that way the people in your “neighbor”hood can be TOGETHER instead of arguing!! ……WOW!!!! Haven’t ranted in a long time like this… look forward to other comments ………

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Does this guy really know what is in this “clause”?”

      This is not a court procedure. This is the court of public opinion. The fans are not bound by any written contract. They respond as they wish.

      • AntiGovMediaObamaBigAgandthe1%

        objective, you must have not read the rest of my comment (its rather long) . I was getting to a point.

  • JRock

    IMHO, if you are called a sinner….so what? Is that hate? I dont think so. Everyone sins. I have pre-marital sex. Jesus died for my sins. He died for all our sins. If it offends you, that i am a Cristian, you are just as much a bigot.

  • Nickel05

    Let me be clear…just because some say this is about Free Speech, it’s not that simple. This has to do with religious persecution. That’s what this is about. And the fact that you compare Phil Robertson with Martin Bashir is very telling of your own bias. You’re in for a rude awakening maam.

  • Robert Ferguson

    Come on people. I love duck dynasty just as much as anyone else. I watch it with my wife and kids and guess what, The comment was uncalled for and I personally don’t want my family growing up with hateful people on television and thinking that you can say what you want with no repercussions. Try going to your boss at work and saying something similar. How about the fact you hate blacks, or women belong in the kitchen. Some bosses would probably go along with it, but intelligent ones wouldn’t put up with it. Your the image of their company and if they want a good image then your going to be out of the picture.

    I honestly don’t believe A&E did anything wrong. and for you people who think they did, then your saying all Gay people shouldn’t watch the show. Do you even realize how many shows A&E have? Yea, smart call morons. Keep Phil in the picture, and loose thousands if not millions of viewers who boycott A&E because they feel that A&E supports the opinions of Phil because no repercussions were taken? The MORONS who feel that this is wrong obviously don’t see the big picture.

  • alice2112

    Its even more alarming that Sarah Palin, who was running for Vice President of the United States, doesn’t understand that this is not a violation of his Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. How does this woman even have a platform anymore? She even quit being governor to be a reality tv star.

  • mrs robinson

    He didn’t say this on tv. He said it in an interview in GQ, not A&E. He said what he believes in, not at all hiding it. Then he was suspended for it? If he said it on-air live on a&e, ok I can see a justification. However their desire to censor him outside their station’s airwaves is wrong, so yes, they are violating his 1st amendment rights.

  • zaggs

    Guess some people have never heard about the Civil Rights Act. Specifically the part where it says: “(a) Employer practices
    It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
    (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;”

    • yestradamous

      Well, these are things that you cannot control. You can’t help where you were born, what color you are etc.
      You have control over thoughts and opinions.
      I’m not sure about religion, however. Some of it is inherited, some of it is chosen. So I don’t know.

  • Selena Johnson Vinson

    well guess what A&E knew his views and opinions as a Christian when they signed on for the show,and yes it is an attack on his freedom of speech,, he was asked a question and gave his on opinion,,,,,and they never even published his full statement on the matter,,,there was no outrage when Obama in 2009 said he bowled a 129 on Jay Leno and Obama said I guess I bowled about as good as a special Olympian can,, his own words, not someone else saying that’s what he said,,, and how about no outrage on Biden when he said in his own words, no one else saying he said it,, he said you can’t work in or go into a 7 eleven store unless you have an Indian accent,,, that is bigotry, and racism

    • Lina

      But Obama and Biden don’t work for a company. It isn’t the fact that he is a Christian, it’s the fact that it goes against the company’s clause, which he should have read before signing it. He could have easily skipped out on the question since he should have known what his contract allowed for him to do, but he didn’t

  • MRGNPRR116

    He didn’t say he hates homosexuals. He said it’s a sin, which it is, and he said he doesn’t understand why homosexual men are drawn to other men (same with homosexual women drawn to other women). And he said it’s illogical…which it is. Put religion to the side for a minute and think of the human bodies as puzzle pieces…two men’s bodies or two women’s bodies don’t “fit” together correctly. A man’s body and a woman’s body fit together-perfectly. Phil Robertson might have been vulgar with the way he said what he thought, but he didn’t say he hates gays. And FYI-to the people saying he didn’t acknowledge other sins besides homosexuality…yes he did. He mentioned them when he talked about being a product of the 60s. Read your stuff again.

  • bcmugger

    Persecution for religion is just as bad as racism. Robertson simply said what was in the bible and he is being presecuted for it by the gay communist mafia.

  • J Moore

    he didnt bash anyone, thats whats an ignorant statement. He stated his religious beliefs and said we should love everyone regardless. The liberal shitbags are just as bad as the conservative shitbags in sensationalizing something. A&E is also hypocritical because of the ungodly amount of money they make off of the Robertsons. A&E dont need them and the Robertsons were self made millionaires before the show.

  • Antihero

    So this is where liberals go to be condescending douche bags. Everybody look! That guy hates blacks and gays. Let’s have a witch hunt and call people names who don’t agree with our narrow minded opinions.

    P.S. – Not conservative. I just view you both as opposite sides of the same coin : )

  • Stupid liberal crap

    Your an idiot like everyone else he called it a sin like murder, lying, adultry. It is all in the bible. He is quoting scripture in his own words. He said its illogical, which it is. In nature animals that would participate in this behavior would in fact die out. 2 females can not procreate and 2 males can not procreate. It takes a male and female egg and sperm. If you don’t have one or the other the species will die out. So sad that people cant express their religious beliefs without having their words taken out of context and twisted by the liberal media. This country has a problem its called moral decay.

    • Lina

      Homosexuality still exists in the animal kingdom. Most animals have been observed to having homosexual activity within their species so you can’t quite say it’s not natural

  • I will allow liberal author Professor Camile Paglia to explain the issue to you, “In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … “To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” she said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960s that has been lost by my own party.”

    “I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility,” Paglia said. “This is not the mark of a true intellectual life. This is why there is no cultural life now in
    the U.S. Why nothing is of interestc coming from the major media in terms of cultural criticism. Why the graduates of the Ivy League with their A, A, A+ grades are complete cultural illiterates, etc. is because they are not being educated in any way to give respect to opposing view points.”

    Does that help you to understand your contribution to the “cultural illiteracy” in this country, Mr. Clifton? Do you comprehend how your self-serving views on Freedom of Speech and Religion are stifling any sort of progress in this country by quashing any view that doesn’t match your own?

    • scb1898

      The article was 100% spot on. Phil is free to say whatever he wants. He just isn’t going to do it while being under contract with A&E.

      • He is still under contract with A&E and if they didn’t include a clause in that contract to cover religious or political commentary they are a bit screwed, as Duck Commander has corporate lawyers, its not like they are messing with some goober whose only achievement in life was being on a reality show.. Ultimately, A&E needs them more than they need A&E as A&E was barely treading water before Duck Dynasty.

      • scb1898

        You’re correct. He is just suspended for the time being.

      • They also failed to take Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into consideration.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Can someone be terminated for being in favor of gay marriage if the employer doesn’t agree with them? Can Chick-fil-a for example fire outspoken individuals that come out in favor of gay marriage?

      • yestradamous

        That’s an interesting question. Supposedly they cannot discriminate against them when hiring. Can they discriminate against them when firing?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Can they discriminate against them when firing?”

        Not legally.

  • Ladyd

    I do not watch his show but have read his comments, and he has every right to say them.I cannot believe the hypocritical people who only want you to have the freedom of speech if what you are saying reflects their opinion.The fact that A&E of all channels suspended him instead of making the statement that they are his opinion and no way reflects the view of the network, like most of the other networks do is no shocker. By the way the constitution does protect us from being unjustly penalized for expressing or opinions. I called be fired for expressing your personal beliefs – unjust.

    But unfortunately those , like the person who wrote the article are to small minded to give some one else the right to have a different opinion then themselves. And by he way I do not hate gays, oppose gay marriage or discriminate against someone because of their personal choices. Everyone has a right to their feelings as long as they do not try to cause physical harm to others.

  • Unknown

    I believe a good argument is healthy for the human brain, reading this comment stream is so interesting. A lot of name-calling though..:(

  • angiedee

    Maybe you should have went to law school, actually studied the Constitution and the case law that has come down for the past 200 years on its interpretation. You criticize people for their ignorance, but you seem just as ignorant.

    • Spot on, he seems completely ignorant of how Title VII of
      the Civil Rights Act of 1964 comes into consideration.

  • YayA&E

    I love the debates over this stuff. Everyone can talk until your blue in the face about your opinions, but you’ll never change “certain” minds on this particular topic.Slowly but surely though, the world is changing for the better when it comes to human rights. It’s only getting better and the extremist right wing conservatives can’t do anything about it. But whine on message boards and think what they say actually holds power with stopping the world from moving forward for the better with human rights. DO continue trying though. Showcase your freedom of speech rights, lol. Not only is it entertaining, it’s good for a laugh. Sincerely, Yay A&E!

    • Those do nothing conservatives have removed about 6 million viewers from A&E’s recent DD marathon, so they can make a felt impact. Lets see how long A&E lasts when they go back to having no audience and dominated by History, H2, Discovery and probably the Smithsonian Channel.

      As for the Robertson’s they still have two other popular hunting shows dating back to the days before DD, that A&E can do fuck all about. So A&E’s loss is the Outdoor Channels gain.

      • Okthn

        6 million?Who are you, the ratings police? You have a ratings monitor do you? In the big US of A, 6 million really isn’t a lot. Sorry to burst your bubble grumpy dude. And if you think A&E is going to suffer, your sadly mistaken.

      • Whatnext

        If anything, it’ll probably increase ratings. Good ole publicity. But just goes to show mentality, so called fans will turn their backs on the rest of the Robertson family to teach A&E a lesson. There will always be a new show that millions of Americans will want to watch.

      • The family has stated that they will not continue without him and as I said they still have their other shows, a large company and a good sized fortune to fall back on.

        There will indeed be a new show, but it won’t be watched on A&E.

      • YayA&E

        Oh wow. You have the ability to see into the future too? along with your ratings monitor. You’re very fortunate. Time will tell, grumpy dude, time will tell.

      • It is already telling, I personally stopped watching A&E when they went to their first batch of reality shows and left out the Arts and Education, just as I did with TLC when they went to reality programming, they don’t even get a spot on my channel list. Why because all they show is garbage with very few exceptions. So, A&E has nothing to hold viewers in their demographic. Any person that watches Duck Dynasty can get the same people and entertainment from the Outdoor channel via Buck Commander and Duck Commander and avoid the storage war ads.

      • YayA&E

        So because you stopped watching, the rest of the world did too? Honestly, I don’t even care. Never watched the show in my life and don’t plan on it. Not into ducks, nor am I into trash television reality shows. But I’m not oblivious to the fact that for every 6 million extremist conservatives there are 6 million extremist liberals ready to counteract anything. And I’m not oblivious to the fact that a great showrunner on A&E could produce the next big hit at any time. Anything is possible and just because you and possibly 6. Million in your mind are shutting the tv off doesn’t mean A&Es world is over. You kinda need to face the fact that not everyone thinks like you and there’s room for everyone to be entertained and there’s also hope for A&E as long as there are millions of million who believe in what they stand for.

      • It has nothing to do with my watching, as I have only seen a few episode in the last year. But the people that do watch every week are not going to hang around to see what A&E messes up next.

        Do your own research, into the tv industry and the television habits or lack thereof amongst extremist liberals. They are not going to line up for their other reality shows on storage unit auctions or series based on Conservative law enforcement characters. Most claim not too even have a TV.

        So spouting opinion and apocryphal declarations will not persuade me to the idea that A&E is going to easily say adios to all of that revenue.

      • Baloo Uriza

        A&E stood for Arts & Entertainment.

      • There is also the matter of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for A&E to deal with.

      • I have the ability to research sources beyond this self-indulgent, gossip hotline and the media’s spoon-fed version of reality; this is how I know what the ratings are. So to elaborate, their recent Christmas Special pulled in 9 million viewers which set the record for viewers of a program on the channel and even without that boost, they are second most watched cable TV show behind “The Walking Dead.” So while 6 million is not a lot compared to a population of 300 million, it is however very significant in the world of television where viewers equal ad revenue.

        This is especially true since I have a hard time envisioning Liberals swinging in to take up the slack by watching “Storage Wars” and re-runs of “Gene Simmons Family Jewels.”

      • Cantbelieveyouthinkthis

        Just so you know…6 million viewers equals the top watched show in cable HISTORY!!! they were over double the second watched show…keeping up with the Kardashawhores with only 2.5 million. They beat out 95% of network channels shows that average 5.2 million. Face it, this is a HUGE mistake for A&E and will cost them dearly.

      • Baloo Uriza

        6 million viewers is still nothing. There’s 314 million people in the US. That makes smoking 10 times more popular than Duck Dynasty in the US. Rape and Alzheimer’s are roughly as popular as Duck Dynasty in the US.

      • Cantbelieveyouthinkthis

        LOL wow you head is really lodged in there tight isn’t it. 321 million people is more like it. close to 1/4 are children not to mention that another 3 mil are incarcerated. 10 mil don’t have T.V. electronics etc. unknown how many poor don’t have even basic cable. divide what is left into 300 different channels per 3 major media types, “cable” “satellite” and “internet” and the numbers start dropping quick per T.V. show. Again though your limited ability to see past your own intelligence limited beliefs makes it impossible for you to understand the complexities of the T.V. ratings system.

    • CableNewsGuy

      “The world is changing for the better when it comes to human rights” WOW! You are for sure a derp of the highest order. Your fudge packing would get you thrown in jail, have you swinging from the end of a rope or beheaded in 70% of the countries that make up our blue marble in the sky.

      • SchoolPaperGirl

        The words you use really show your intelligence level. Maybe you should go live in one of those countries as you may get along better there. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that it’s better today than it was say 50 yrs ago. People are not putting up with ignorance like they used to. Back in the day, it would all get swept under a rug but not today as Mr. Robertson is demonstrating. Back in the day, the preists could do no wrong, and we all know what they were doing hiding behind the cloth. Men were raping and getting away with it while it all got swept under the rug, but it today’s world, people are not putting up with it. It’s still happening but It’s changing and instead of shaming the victims, now the men are starting to be held accountable for their actions. Just like when someone promotes hatred, they are being accountable for their actions. These are just a couple examples of why the world is better today than 50 yrs ago. Still not perfect but getting better. If you must know, I’m a 13 yr old girl and I’m writing a paper on intolerance. I realize I don’t know everything unlike some of you but I’m glad I’m being brought up in todays world as opposed to the one that promotes hatred to groups based on race, gender.

  • LeAnne

    In some of the things he said, he seemed to be trying to speak for God. He in reality has no idea who will get into the Gates Of Heaven and who will not. To say that no person who loves the same sex will be allowed into Heaven is ridiculous.. he has no way of knowing anyone’s relationship with God, but his own. Thou shalt not judge, but he seemed to judge the gay, lesbian and bi-sexual community pretty harshly.

  • David Tamburovic

    Is about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 @ Allen Clifton

  • humored

    So funny that there’s an ad asking x-ians to sign a petition for the Duck guy.

  • In my experience, conservatives know way better than most liberals what freedom of speech actually means, and are much more supportive of private businesses being able to fire employees at will. Maybe you were talking to some really annoying “conservatives” who did not understand this. Sure, whatever, I grant that.

    I think you need to distinguish between actual calls for government to enforce “freedom of speech” in the legal sense, and people merely criticizing cultural norms or norms in certain businesses/circles they happen to disagree with.

    • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 comes into consideration.

      • Baloo Uriza

        He wasn’t fired for any of the protected reasons. He was fired for being an asshole.

      • Religious views, he quoted straight from Corinthians almost word for word. Suspending is one thing but firing him for stating an accepted religious tenant from three major religions is in fact a violation of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      • Baloo Uriza

        Then he isn’t Christian, or he’d know that the old testament there is for historical context, superseded by the New Testament, and specifically the first four books, the Gospel of Jesus. But if he doesn’t understand that and he’s claiming Christian, then he still wasn’t fired for his religion, he wasn’t fired for being an asshole, he was fired for being a stupid asshole.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Holy cow. Where do you think Corinthians is located?

        And the NT does not “supersede” the OT, it follows it.

      • You have been misinformed, even as a Buddhist I know that Corinthians is just as applicable as the rest. The gospels are the alleged teachings of Christ, but they do not supersede the entire old testament and the supposed original words of their God which makes up the foundations of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

      • See, that would be a “legal call” – but it wouldn’t be a “freedom of speech” legal call, it would be a “freedom of religion” legal call. So if the guy who wrote this article means to address conservatives like you who ARE calling for legal action, he’s still getting it wrong- the legal call is based on freedom of religion, not speech. (At least in your case. Maybe not in some other cases, I don’t know.)

        Anyway, I think OP is being a bit sloppy with his article here- conservatives are allowed to say, “I wouldn’t have fired him for saying that,” or “that’s a stupid thing to get fired over” etc- and it doesn’t mean they don’t understand freedom of speech. It just means they disagree with the decision.

      • Both are First Amendment rights of expression so while the OP wasn’t going that route his failure to note its applicability is a flaw in his little spiel.

      • I would agree that there is definitely a possibility of “prejudice against Christians” here that could use exploring legally. Not sure of the details of the case, but I would say it’s certainly a valid point to bring up.

        FYI, I am an atheist and a libertarian and I really do not care one way or another about this strongly. I’m not saying it’s definitely prejudice against Christians- that’s for people who are more informed and/or lawyers to say- just that I wouldn’t immediately dismiss the idea off-hand without a thorough review of the facts.

        I hate this kind of “conservatives always do this, liberals always do that, blah blah” article, I guess. It’s boring. Nuance and honesty is more fun.

      • Baloo Uriza

        So we’re just ignoring that the First Amendment is talking about what the government can and can’t do, and not what private citizens can and can’t do? Glad to know that we’re having a conversation among people who have actually read the amendment.

      • Read the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it explains exactly what companies can and can’t do in regard to religious statements.

      • Baloo Uriza

        I have read it. The argument that he was fired on religious grounds is shaky at best, since his actions don’t line up with the theology he’s claiming.

      • His actual quotes in the interview match up almost word for word with that section in the Book of Corinthians. What we keep seeing as “proof” from the media are simply cherry picked excerpts.

  • bjeanthejellybean

    What Phil Robertson did was NOT the same as what Bashir or Baldwin did…. here’s why. He did not slander anyone he did not call them names or suggest that they should be harmed (or in the case of Bashir, say something very vile should be done to them). He expressed his belief that gays would not go to heaven based on his religious beliefs. While he wasn’t the most eloquent in expressing his views, he certainly didn’t say anything that called for the discrimination of gays.

    He expressed his religious views, after being asked a question…

    And Mr. Clifton, typical of the progressives you resort to insults to get your point across… most people realize that Freedom of Speech pertains to the governments role … however, when people express their religious views they should not be in fear of losing a job because someone else doesn’t share or like those view.

  • Soppy

    Fuck you commie assholes. Understand that shit fucks?

  • Middle wing

    Sorry but this really isn’t about free speech. He gave his opinion about his beliefs. I wish our politicians could be so truthful!

  • morolica

    This is really A&E’s fault and I don’t think it will end that well for them. They knew what they had in Phil when they signed him. In all of them. Everyone who knows anything about the Robertson’s beliefs knows they all believe what Phil said. But for the sake of money A&E went ahead and put them on TV and hoped for the best (for A&E).

    Basically the big LGBT supporting network held their noses and put on a show starring people they knew held anti-LGBT beliefs, all for the love of money. Then when Phil’s interview happens and the LGBT crowd gets all fired up they “indefinitely” suspend him from filming (not fired, indefinitely suspended, like they hope he will recant or something so they can put him back without missing a beat).

    Of course the next season is pretty much in the can and ready to go. So really his suspension will be for the following season. And if the rest of the clan are serious about getting around this they will only have to publicly affirm the same things Phil said. Then A&E will either have to bring Phil back or cancel the show. Either way they lose in the end. Stand their “moral” ground and lose the show to another network (with a different name, of course) or reinstate Phil to keep the show (and the money) and compromise their “morals.”

  • Scotty

    Liberals sure do hate sand in their vaginas

    • archangel

      My thoughts exactly!!!

  • Greg

    Article is correct, this is actually about him not receiving protection under the civil rights act of 1964. states you can not be fired, hired, passed over for promotion etc. Due to race, sex, RELIGION, creed and age.

  • One who sees evil everyday

    Why cant we be friends……Why cant we be friends……. you all are hating on each other for the others opinions……….stop being haters, have your opinion but stop hating. NO ONE IS PERFECT NO ONE.

  • catguy00

    He also thinks that blacks were better off during segregation.

  • Allison

    And you must b

  • LoveGodLoveOthers

    So now stating your beliefs and quoting the Bible is equal to Gay rant? A little overboard. The real shoe on the other foot is HATE. To demand to be tolerated while being intolerant is hateful.

  • Allison

    And you must be dumb for not realizing that duck dynasty has been showcased a a Christian family sense the show started. A&E knew that. So I find it a bit ignorant myself that the network felt the need to suspend someone who they already knew held those beliefs. Also if you don’t wanna know the opinions of a conservative 67 year old man from Louisiana, then don’t ask him. I don’t know why you people expected him to support gays when he’s clearly acknowledged that he is a Christian.

  • frogmouth

    “We’re free to be racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic — pretty much anything we
    want. We can be these things, no matter how ignorant, because that’s
    what the Constitution gives us the right to be.”

    The Constitution and its Amendments do not “give” us rights. The Constitution is a contract that says the government recognizes and guarantees those rights.

  • ChiSoxMike

    Here’s the problem with this ‘ignorant’ column. The Author is very much ignorant on the subject of which he proposes to speak. There is no “hypocrisy”

    Bashir’s comments were an over the top attack on Palin. Vile. Doesn’t matter WHO they were directed at, the fact they were uttered about ANYONE deserved termination. That’s just plain common sense.

    I actually AGREE with much of this article…Robertson was free to voice his opinion…A&E was free to ‘suspend’ him (however unwise the decision may be), Cracker Barrel was free to pull his merchandise from their shelves (brain dead move by that particular company. They alienated THEIR customer base to be politically correct…insane)

    However, you don’t have the first clue when you say this:

    “Bashir only had derogatory words for Sarah Palin whereas Robertson ignorantly bashed tens of millions of homosexuals.”

    FACT, Robertson didn’t ‘bash’ anyone. He gave his opinion on “SIN”. He didn’t COMPARE it to “bestiality and terrorism” as so many on the left claim…those were things he ALSO listed as SINS…along with being a drunkard, BTW (guess what? He himself admits that he WAS one)

    “Tens of millions of homosexuals”? LOL. Why do they care what some “redneck, back woods hick” thinks?

    Finally, the attacks on CHRISTIANITY (which is what he was espousing and is CONSTANTLY under attack) is offensive to BILLIONS of people (not “tens of millions”)

  • Bruce Bellingham

    He is not an employee of A&E. He has a contract to perform. If he acts in a way which violates his contract then he voided his contract. If he feels A&E violated the terms then he can sue for millions. Employees do however have legal free speech rights which must be protected.

  • Proudconservative

    I think you missed the point. Our anger is that the media didn’t cover it the same way they would have had he been a liberal talking about liberal “values”. Yes, A&E can suspend him and we can boycott, etc. and try to force him back. THAT is the free market system we love in America. However, the media crucified him far beyond the few words they said about Bashir and all the liberals who say things publicly. THAT is why we are angry so please, get it right.

  • EqualOpportunityCynic

    It’s also fascinating that these are many of the same people who would fight for the absolute power of corporations, even to the point of giving corporations human rights. If the corporations are all powerful, or at least endowed with the same rights as humans, shouldn’t they have the right to decide whom they want to associate with, never mind hire?

  • MPD1005

    What a dumb ass article.. Like I need some wannabe constitutional scholar the likes of this Clifton dolt giving me his ultra liberal left wing spin on the first amendment?? Really?? I totally disagree with the opinions of Robertson, but I would stand next to him and tell him I support his right to say it.. Then tell him I think his opinion is idiotic.. Dont let either political agenda sway or influence your rights!! If we let this political correctness madness continue, then it will escalate and eventually people WILL be thrown in jail for what they say!!! We need controversy and diversity of thinking in this country.. It is a natural check and balance..

    • Michael Boyle

      @MPD1005, he actually explained it correctly. In fact his explanation is far right conservative and has nothing to do with the political spectrum. Phil has the right to free speech and the govt is not taking it away.

      A&E has the right to free speech and as their agent, Phil does not have the right to harm A&E by expressing opinions that A&E finds harmful or shameful. You can’t walk into your boss’s office, tell him off by cursing at him and then assert your right of free speech to prevent being fired.

      We all have the right to free speech and we are exercising that right when we decide to stop watching his show, boycott his products and stand firm protecting the rights and sensibilities of using our friends and loved ones. When he equated homosexuals with terrorists that God has to straighten out, he included lesbian women that I know who have served in Afghanistan fighting real terrorists, terrorists who judge women and homosexuals with the same disdain. His opinion is the same as the Taliban who actually terrorize women throughout Afghanistan with their beliefs.

      I liked Phil on the show. He was the voice of sober reason among a group of Mayberry RFD buffoons. However, some of us still believe in civility, the cornerstone of which is “keep opinions that offend others to yourself” Those who insist on spouting their hurtful opinions have always been considered assholes. Phil just wrapped himself in that flag.

  • keithsmustache

    Actually the article is wrong on one point. Conservatives were VERY up in arm about Baldwin remark and wanted him fired sooner than it happened. The problem conservatives had was that GLAAD was mostly silent on the issue which felt to them like sheer hypocrisy on their part.

  • Jeremy Barwick

    Since I missed it, I don’t think ANYBODY was saying that they were in fear of prosecution or anything from the government, deported or anything. Everyone is saying freedom of speech and expression because he can say WHATEVER he wants to. Now, if there is backlash from it, then he SHOULD expect it. But what he SHOULDN’T expect is the right winger, tree hugger, rub their head and give them a cookie “so called” journalist to jump on the band wagon and treat him the way “they” are. When this is all said and done, Phil will be back on Duck Dynasty and they will be richer (in every way – not just $) or they will be gone from A&E and they will be richer (in EVERY WAY including the $). They will survive ! They have God in their life and a HUGE fan base. Just like people are saying about Phil, it’s his opinion ! Just like YOU have an opinion. Opinions are like butts holes; everyone has one, and some of them STINK !

  • Skrspr

    You too are also free to state anything you wish, but don’t expect those that disagree with you to rush over to your opinion. Yours is no better than anybody else’s.

  • formydad

    His comments were not anti-gay. Listen to what he says. He said homosexual acts were sin. This is true. Phil loves sinners just wants to show them how to be forgiven.

  • lservia

    So let me get this straight as long as we do and say what we are told we are okay? If freedom of speech, means I can say what I think and feel, there are no ramifications just because someone else is offended, right? Rock on Phil!!! Speak your mind and if it offends someone that is not your problem but theirs. Freedom of speach is speaking what we feel and expressing ourselves. We are not under a dictatorship yet. Thanks! Merry Christmas to all!!!!!!!!!

  • Sematary

    Conservatives only believe in “rights” when the “right” being violated fits their world view, even if a “right” ISN’T being violated, they will be adamant that it is because it is something that fits their world view

    • lala

      Liberals believe in rights and freedoms but with no consequence. Example, they will praise sexual openness and expression but will be too weak to deal with the effects. Knock somebody up…rather than taking care of the child, have an abortion! Taking the easy way out with no sense of personal responsibility

      • Sematary

        No disagreement. You NEED to accept the consequences of your actions

    • Baloo Uriza

      Basically this entire comment stream in a nutsack.

  • IRRight

    Freedom of speech is the First Amendment. However the amendment only applies to laws not being drafted to affect freedom of speech. What should apply to this Duck person is the LIBERTY that this country was founded on and so many have died to protect, the common courtnesy, respect and tolerance we give to those who are different than us to hold their own beliefs without fear of oppression or retribution so long as they do not infringe on others liberties. What is corrrect here is that if you do not agree with the duck persons ideology and do not wish to support it then you do not have to. You do however have to allow him to believe what he wishes. Unfortunateily the media feels the need to enforce their closed minded rigid structure on everyone and exploit any situation they feel they can make a buck from.

    • user1243

      So A&E is within their rights to not support him, right? His liberty ends where theirs begins.

  • John Baker

    “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

    -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

    You were saying….?

    Hitler was born and raised a Catholic. He never renounced that faith.

    • GregBrady

      LOL…this is a great quote and a bit of a shock when you see who said it! I used to be a fundamentalist Christian but the inconsistencies, hypocrisy and absolute irrationality of it have made me return to my non-theist upbringing. Live and let live and keep your nose out of other people’s business as long as they aren’t harming another person. Libertarianism and rational thinking is the only philosophy that makes sense in the real world.

      • GregBrady

        And I’d like to add, that my life became INFINITELY more peaceful when I stopped trying to live according to an unattainable standard and began to see that life is simply random and there is not higher meaning or reason for being here. Honestly, if all Christians would read a few books on evolution (Oh horrors, I brought up the word!) and study other species besides the human animal without the quest for spiritual truth, they MIGHT see that we are a cog in the wheel of science….when we die we are simply gone. No need to try to achieve any afterlife approval! Phew….now I can live my life in a meaningful way. and contrary to religious belief, you do not need God to not turn into a criminal, evil, hateful person that is driven to destroy others. and I’m also not a homosexual in case someone wants to accuse me of that.

      • Dana Bullock

        Except, science refutes all fact that we simply die and perish. Try again.

      • GregBrady

        You’d best explain that statement a little further, Dana. Where does science show otherwise? There absolutely is no tangible evidence of an afterlife. The recent obsession with zombies does not count as science.

      • Dana Bullock

        Einstein for one. Discovery of the “God particle” for two. Energy is never destroyed, simply changing form. And all matter is made up of the same thing, just in different combinations and configurations. This implies that there is an origin -aka starting point, to all things. Evidence is also found in daily life and the modern world. People experience out of body experience, all manner of phenomenon such as ghosts, and demonic possessions, many of which are documented. But I suppose for someone like you- you would just overlook those things as being superstition-simply because it doesn’t “seem” factual to you. A tree falling in a forest halfway across the world doesn’t make it any less real because you can’t see it happening. Experience is a kind of fact too, in fact it’s the most powerful kind of fact.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Naming it ‘the God particle” has nothing to do with the existence of a soul!!!! LMAO!!!!!

        there is not one single documentation of an actual ‘ghost’. There are all sorts of hallucinations. I don’t dispute that they may exist, just like ET life may exist, but running around in the dark with a night vision video cam and yelling “Did you hear that?” PROVES NOTHING!!!!!

        The thing about the tree falling and no one there to hear it make a set of vibrations audible to humans, STILL DOESN’T PROVE it made a sound.

      • Stephen Barlow

        That’s CRAP!!!! Explain HOW science refutes any of that?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Answer Me this one… “if I am not perfect, yet made in the image and likeness of God, HOW can god be perfect?” or, “how can I not be perfect?” Even if I were a gay, child molesting, tax collecting murderer?

      • pureabsolute

        You were trying to use logic? Where was your faith? 😉

      • Stephen Barlow

        Not the only common sense, but I am glad you got ‘SAVED from being born again. LOL Merry Saturnalia! Which is the Roman Pagan Winter Solstice festival hijacked for year end retail clearances…

        Christ was most likely born in April 6 BC, because Herod (the Judean Governor who ordered the execution of all children under 2) DIED in 4 BC. Christ could NOT have been born AFTER the guy who was terrified of a’savior of the Jews’ was too dead to give that order.

        My favorite flaw of Christians… is that Jesus was WHITE!!!! unless he was a shipwrecked Norwegian great great great great grand father of the great great great great grand father of the great great great grandfather of a Viking.

      • Corrie Nance

        Stephen Barlow, no Christian has ever said Jesus is white. I don’t know where you came up with that assumption !

    • So you don’t think a man bent on taking control of his country is capable of using religion to his advantage? It should also be noted that you had to go back to 1922 to find that quote. With that sort of reliance on outdated cherry-picked data, you would be as likely to posit that Josef Stalins training for the priesthood in the Russian Orthodox church as young man, label all of his future deeds as the fault of the Russian Orthodoxy.

      • Shawn Thomas Lachat

        I applaud your replies, but you have to understand that there are people on here who will ignore the facts if they disagree. They could be 100% incorrect, but if they can twist some words around and act like they know what they are talking about. They feel validated

      • Very true, but I feel it is better to present the truth in response even if they ignore it, than to let their inaccurate information stand unchallenged.

      • Stephen Barlow

        hehehehehe TY for the larf!

      • Truth is not lessened by your refusal to accept it.

      • Since your other comment is awaiting moderation I will reply here.
        So your issue is that over 10, 20 or 40 years peoples appearance changes? The people that started out watching their hunting shows are fully aware of what they looked like in the past, and the photos are easily found often on the families own pages. They are also aware of the fact that the company is larger than the old shop seen in West Monroe.

      • Lauren Darter

        You bring up the date as if it matters. How long ago was the bible written? Can we be positive that it was transcribed correctly? We were not there. All of this is second, third, fourth hand knowledge and so on. It’s kind of like playing the telephone game. By the time it gets to you it has changed slightly.

      • james

        The word of God never changes.

      • Lauren Darter

        Yes but the word of man does

      • Stephen Barlow

        The word of God has changed many times in the Bible. He’s a kind of 2 faced, egotistical, power mad bully most of the time, but he frequently (must be when he’s drunk) has bouts of loving kindness in him.

        Like when he let Satan BS him into abusing his most fervent supporter JOB. How cruel a reward to allow his best and most loyal servant to be victimized so thoroughly.

        How benevolently loving and kind to grant him a short reprieve before death.

      • Dana Bullock

        And your word never changes? Truth isn’t something that is set in stone. It’s often times something that changes with circumstance. For instance you saying something that held true yesterday that might not be true today. Your argument is mute and null.

      • one

        God didn’t write the bible

      • Karry Arvag


      • Stephen Barlow

        Nope, people with an agenda to promote their power in a church wrote it for the express purpose of controlling their tribes and converts. Why do you think Leviticus exists at all?

      • Dana Bullock

        Church is evil, because people are sinful. If people could be good, church would be good. Instead of “railing” or “howling” at something you obviously overlook within yourself, how about you realize that fundamentally there is nothing wrong with God’s word. It’s people who distort it to suit their purposes…sort of like you’ve been doing all up and down this comment thread. Fact is God doesn’t need you to believe in or worship Him for him to exist. And as much as you harp on about the bible being a “book of fairy tails” You nor any other scientist can prove God DOESN’T exist. The absence of evidence, is not proof of non existence. Any scientist will tell you that. Thanks for playing though.

      • magormissabib

        Every book magazine , article, newspaper was written by man- it has no bearing on the truthfulness of it. not wit. Men inspired by the Spirit of God wrote the Bible.

      • Stephen Barlow

        GOD had nothing to do with the Bible. God is an atheist. If GOD were a theist, then he would have made Adam build a church in Eden and Abraham would have to have stoned himself for adultery with his wife’s slave. He would have also had to divorce his wife and marry the mother of his first born.

      • Dana Bullock

        Except that only occurs in your secret world of “what ifs”. God never asked for a church, people did. In the bible, God specifically tells the people he just rescued from Egypt that having leaders will cause them ruin and sin. Regardless of how you try to make it, from that point on God decided to forgive,and taught the people of egypt how to wash their sin from them should they go astray. Thus as long as the people of egypt followed God’s methods for washing away sin- they would once again be sinless- thus no requiring of stoning or killing. Sorry, play again.

      • Corrie Nance

        one, Actually God did write the bible using spiritual men.

      • Municipal

        The word of God changes in the fallible hands of the imperfect human. Editing, opinion, abridgments and revisions along with faulty memory can change the words. Plus, man has and continues to use the word of God (whichever religion on you choose) to manipulate others.
        The golden rule makes the most sense.

      • blah

        I am a christian and I am here to tell you that the word has not changed much. Through translation and all that it has changed. However they word of god in the bible that we read is not the whole word of god. I’m having a brain fart right now but one of the kings did take out a lot of chapters. He believed that if it didn’t benefit they way he ruled then it won’t go into the bible. There is a book of mary, a book of ruth, and believe or not a book of jonas.

      • Guy

        See this is where everyone gets the bible skewed, it’s a guideline for a way to live life by example. It is also a tool to get your spirit more intune with his, then you get the true wisdom from him directly, the bible is just like a Haynes Manual for your vehicle, it guides you as you tear down the vehicle and replace the broken part. Now I’m not saying that the bible is not full of truths and prophecies, it did say that we as followers of Christ would face persecution from non believers, I stand 100% with Robert in the belief that he shouldn’t be punished for what was said when I know for a fact if it were the other way around and a homosexual had said his beliefs against a Christian he’d not be questioned or have any consequences from their employer for fear of being slandered for their beliefs

      • Stephen Barlow

        Than god is stupider than I thought!

      • Mason Young

        perhaps…but it certainly has been reinterpreted.
        Word of God…indeed. Written by Men with an agenda.

      • Also, the fact that Hitler was one of the most deceptive political operators in the 20th Century is also worth noting. If he was willing to burn down the Reichstag and blame it on Jewish people how hard do you think he would find it to offer a few false platitudes about religion?

        Regardless, the reason I noted the date was the fact it is relevant, i.e. the Stalin reference. Stalin was once in training to be a priest, but we all know how that worked out, does that mean all of the Soviets were Roman Orthodox….

      • Stephen Barlow

        Ranks right up their with Nixon and Baby Bush.

      • While deceptive, Nixon, Bush, Cheney and Obama lack the megalomaniacal, cold-blooded willingness to slaughter millions simply because they failed to meet a arbitrary standard of genetic perfection that they themselves were not capable of achieving.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Please explain the Iraq invasion and the COMPLETE censorship of Civilian BODY COUNTS…

        BBC reported 110,000 a few years ago.

        Should we include all the deaths caused by the FAILURE to install a FUNCTIONAL government in the Oil Rich nation SINCE the US tail between their legs withdrawl?

      • Still doesn’t add up to genocide.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Such a worthy excuse for such limited murder. WHAT the F*CK is WRONG with you?

      • It was not an excuse; it was a succinct way to dismiss a melodramatic piece of historically faulty hyperbole. The truth of the matter is that while the amount of civilians who have died in Iraq is indeed terrible, it pales in comparison to the genocide of the person being discussed when this came up, Adolph Hitler, it is also miniscule when compare to the genocides committed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kambanda. No do they, for good or bad, outnumber those killed during the fire-bombings and nuclear attacks ordered on civilian populaces by Presidents FDR and Truman during WW II.

        Your comments lack impact because they are obvious instances of personal bias and they also reveal a self-interested disregard for historical perspective.

      • Stephen Barlow

        YOu STILL haven’t explained those body counts? And TY for having a panic button on the issue and bringing up GENOCIDE!

        Is it ONLY genocide when an entire RACE is exstinct? Or does it become genocide when the original intent of the murders are the exstinction of a race?

      • Genocide was the topic all along as we were discussing Hitler when you popped into the discussion, welcome to the discussion.

        You other question is assinine as we have all seen exactly how genocide works over the past 70 years and a key element missing in your conspiracy theory is intent, did Bush and later Obama wage war with the intent of slaughtering civilians , and if so why?

      • How do we know if any belief or religion or history is transcribed accurately? The History Channel nonsense that purports only Christianity is affected by this weakness is at its foundations flawed. Their choice of target is also a bit cowardly as everyone chooses Christianity to take a swing at knowing that they will not retaliate. But they avoid Islam, a group that also believes Jesus existed as he appears in the Koran. Yet every channel avoids taking a poke at them, I wonder why…

      • GregBrady

        That’s why it’s more rational to believe in NO religion!! All of them are simply based on the documentation and passing down of a set of beliefs that people at different periods of history arrived at, often NOT backed by physical evidence. We think that crazy new religions that pop up now are ‘cults’ but if you step back from the bible and look at it OBJECTIVELY without your emotional connection to it, there are MANY things in it that are ludicrous and completely unbelievable. Those of us who have arrived at non-belief don’t defend the Koran or any religious belief system. Islam is just as silly as any of them. And it’s the most dangerous religion to criticize at this time in history because of the violent reaction. But remember, Christianity used to be the same way…people were killed for expressing ANY challenge to it.

      • Dana Bullock

        Actually that’s false. In the beginning days of christianity, they were themselves the ones being put to death for preaching what they believed to be the truth. At the end of the day, your truth of life is fundamentally flawed. Science supports that all matter has to come from somewhere, and never truly is destroyed, only recycled, or reused. There has to be an origin, the word for that origin is called “God” by some. Your understanding of anything deeper than a pencil prick on your finger is overwhelmingly dismal. The majority of the bible is accounts by people. It’s to be expected that there are things that conflict, however the message as a whole- is that a person named Jesus Of Nazareth did in fact live. That’s three of your major talking points shot down right there. Also you wanting to dispute something totally because it is passed down via word of mouth, or in a manner that seems sketchy *to you* doesn’t really make it have any less veracity.

      • GregBrady

        Everything you have said has absolutely no truth in how I arrived at my lack of spiritual belief. Completely utterly wrong. None of the things you put out there as a supposed argument of mine against the belief in the invisible is actually an argument i would make. However believe what you want…the beauty of rationalism is that I don’t care what you believe. The proof that God exists cannot be made scientifically…it comes from feelings and ancient writings. If if makes you secure, joyful and comforted, then that is great. And if science hasn’t figured out yet exactly the origin of the universe, it’s erroneous to then think, well it has to be a completely invisible magic hand up there somewhere in the netherworld who spoke everything into existence. Just because a+b may not equal c, it doesn’t then automatically prove that the answer is d. To claim that invisible things are true requires the burden of proof to be on you, not on me or science to disprove what isn’t evident. There is no physical proof of a God regardless of how you ‘feel’ about it and what a handful of pseudoscientists may claim is ‘evidence’. There is no physical proof that Jesus actually lived, that Jonah actually survived in the body of a whale(whales eat Krill not humans), that Noah fit all the animals on an ark before a great flood (did he also collect every insect and microorganism…millions of living forms scattered all over the world?), that anybody has ever been bodily resurrected, that anyone walked on water unless they had a surf board, that a woman became pregnant without having sex….and on top of that, all these Christian stories have almost identical counterparts in every religion. I’m not going to continue to argue this because it’s pointless to try to change a Christian’s mind. However, I can say I have studied Christianity extensively…I mean DAILY for over 10 years. I have read MANY MANY books on all of this and practiced it in my daily life. And I’ve come to the conclusion that it isn’t a valid philosophy and I cannot believe in something that the natural world indicates is not accurate. I would challenge you to read this book if you have any curiosity about rational thinking. How We Believe: the Search for God in an age of Science by Michael Shermer. Oh, and I’m not angry, impatient, or close minded. On the contrary…I’m much more open minded than I ever was as a Christian.

      • Midnari

        Then your mind has always been rather tight fitting. You’re acting like an ass towards those that just don’t give a shit and enjoy having some type of Christianity in them. I’m… very loose with my Christianity. I prefer science to the Bible. Aka, I put my faith in the lord, not a book.

        For someone that put so much stock in reading over the Religious Text, you didn’t ever think that ‘Maybe’ Some of the stuff written was accurate for small areas? Keeping in mind that people didn’t travel like we do today, that, perhaps, the Great Flood was a large Flood that took out a country… Maybe, oh… Say Turkey?

        The Bible is old, there’s hundreds, maybe thousands, of scriptures that weren’t placed in the bible. There’s various alternate text, like for Genesis.

        I’m definetely not knocking Rationality, or Science, hell- I’ve got not a single problem with Atheists or any type of belief, orientation, race, blah-blah, blah.

        Notice I don’t go for stereotype or name, here? I don’t want to call another human being straight, gay, and so on as a way to describe them. It’s not all that fair, really, to describe someone by their orientation.

        Off topic, though. You’re highly closed-minded. Not because you don’t believe in God, that’s your choice, bud and there’s not a person around that has the right to tell you otherwise. No, you’re closed-minded because you act out towards those that do believe in an unseen power. See, you’re arguing existence with a Christian and that’s just always going to fail because Religious people are a stubborn bunch (I’ve tried to explain evolution and why it’s a fact to my sister many times. Always fails.) You’re treating Christians like idiots, however, stereotyping them and crafting us as something of a…

        Well, fool. Personally, I kind of disagree with that assessment and I’d say it’s prejudiced to the actual definition of the word.

        Let’s take that word and split it, shall way?

        Pre- Judiced.


        Or, by my understanding of the word, To judge someone based off of preconceived notions.

        So, for the love all that is Ho- Scientific and rational, stop being an asshole to people… Same goes with the Christians that might act out towards this dude. His opinions are his own, Science is, by definition, factual (At least on the things proven, not speaking of less proven theories)

        You can argue your points, but don’t judge either person based off their beliefs. Again, I’ll never call a person by the title of their Orientation, belief, or race. There’s a reason for that.

        Now, go on, shape the world my children!

        Oh, and this article… Uh, all I’ve heard was hearsay about what that Duck dude said. I just followed this link from facebook… so… Yeah.

        Really, it depends on what he said, and regardless, Freedom of Speech qualifies for the law, not business. (Though, do keep in mind that had he said the opposite and had been fired there would be legal action against the company. This isn’t opinion, but fact, you can’t fire a man based off his race, belief, or orientation. Nor choose not to serve in a restaurant Civil rights movement and all that good stuff). AND I’M OUT!

      • Stephen Barlow

        You have a very interesting, and refreshing, real understanding of your spirit.

      • Stephen Barlow

        About that disbelief in the invisible? I hope you wash your hands after you poop. Particularly if you buy the cheap TP and bite your nails.

      • Stephen Barlow

        They were put to death for openly disrespecting the government and Emperor of Rome. Christ said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars.”

        They were persecuted for NOT following the word of their Lord.

      • The statement is “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” was in response to a question of paying taxes, which translates to a command to pay your taxes and obey Earthly Authority as related in Romans 13, while at the same time maintaining their faith in God.

        However, the persecution of Christians came about during the reign of Trajan/Decius who at the encouragement of Pliny the Younger issued an edict, that required everyone in the Empire with the exception of Jewish persons, to perform a sacrifice to the Roman gods, witnessed by a Roman magistrate. Failure to do so resulted in arrest, trial and execution; the edict remained a practice of Roman law until the early 300s.

        Even as a non-Christian I can see that by requiring them to renounce their faith and render what they saw as God’s due to the Romans this edict violated the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

      • Stephen Barlow

        “obey Earthly Authority” Thanks for confirming what I already told you.

        Jesus told his disciples to “pray in the secret place of the most high” which is silently, in their minds safety.

        Paul taught that what goes into the mouth does not matter, what comes out does.

        For BOTH reasons, their OPEN DEFIANCE AGAINST the command of their Lord is what got them whacked by lions in the arena. Simply “praying” that “Doing thus and so under Roman Law does NOT change My full faith in Christ” would surely have been understood by god (if he actually wasn’t a figment of all their imaginations).

        NO ONE was ever asked to renounce their faith. They WERE however, expected to act like the conquered people who were suffered to live by the victorious Romans and pay homage to what Romans decree.

        And YES!! Temple dues WERE taxes. just as much as the PPACA refusal Fee ‘is a tax’.

        Think carefully, this is NOT a trick question.

        “Which is more valuable to God, heaps of dead martyrs who died because of stubborn pride? Or… Living apostles ‘spreading the good news’?

      • That is an interesting opinion, but the truth of the matter is that much like the persecution they would later aim at Native Americans the requirement to sacrifice or pray to another deity is by its very description a requirement to renounce other gods. There is no prayer in any religion that excuses someone from an act of worship towards another
        God. The fact that a law required one to do this is inconsequential as it is an unjust law by any definition.

        Christianity specifically would have no tolerance for this, being that it was a derivative of Judaism, which does not tolerate worship of idols or false gods. This is the reason that the Romans excused the Jewish people by requiring them to pay a “Jewish Tax” to avoid the religious laws of Decius and other Emperors. This was not a matter of favor nor was it a humanitarian act on the part of the Roman Emperors; it was a practical matter of their not wanting to worsen unrest in an already volatile region.

        Persecuting a relatively small group of what they perceived to be pacifistic, cultists did not present a threat of negative response from any conquered populace. That is how persecution works, you target people with little to no influence in a society with ridiculous laws as no one cares what happens to that group and they cannot or will not retaliate.

        Basic historical facts will always trump your opinions and/or flawed logic as to why something occurred and repeating yourself ad infinitum will
        not transform them into fact, sorry.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Read your own words. “Let’s TAX them and grant them an exemption from worshipping Roman Gods so we can foment further unrest among those who have an exemption…”

        No wonder I don’t argue with you, you’re doing a fine job all by your self. you don’t get out much do you?

      • Once again that is your interpretation, not what was actually stated. Your idea that you don’t argue is likely based on the same deluded logic that led you to that flawed interpretation.

      • Stephen Barlow

        “This is the reason that the Romans excused the Jewish people by requiring them to pay a “Jewish Tax” to avoid the religious laws of Decius and other Emperors.”

        “it was a practical matter of their not wanting to worsen unrest in an already volatile region.”

        If they were of so little consequence, of no vital threat… then what amusement was persecuting Christians?
        History makes a liar out of you. your own words convict you of it.

      • Society and/or governments select those that they persecute based on a variety of reasons, but lack of power to do anything about the fact is a big consideration, so their being of little consequence would make them a better target for those in charge as you do not persecute the people in the higher tiers of society.

        The Christians being an offshoot of Judaism caused the Romans to consider them an eastern cult. The central tenant of early Christianity, peace or pacifism, was counter to the core of Roman society and its religious system. This becomes problematic for Christians as the Roman Empire had a very clear policy towards foreign-born cults, in that there was a general acceptance for those that furthered or blended with Roman beliefs; however, they annihilated those that they felt challenged the main beliefs of the system.

        The other thing about a group like the Christians for an iniquitous government is that in an environment where they had no real power they made excellent scapegoats to blame for the Pantheon’s displeasure and thus all of the Empires misfortune without the risk of retribution. Sadly, that is how the world operates to this day, find a scapegoat, blame them for your problems, take out your frustrations on that group and make them a rallying point for other extremists. To Hitler it was the fault of Jews that Germany lost WWI, to the KKK and similar groups it is a matter of blaming black people for their own shortcomings/failings.

        I doubt any of this will help you to understand, but it passes the time.

      • Stephen Barlow

        When did Roman Religions become inherently VIOLENT and Aggressive?
        If there was nothing to fear from a small pacifist cult, Why was the War machine of Rome scared shitless enough to murder 3+ Million of them?

        Please read up and plug your Swiss cheese argument.
        Iam tired of correcting you on the same failed points.

        Try Gibbons. His is the most comprehensive Roman history available.

      • I see you are still not grasping the overall concept. As even Edward Gibbons understood that the Christian beliefs undermined Roman Society by teaching there was a better life after death, which he believed fostered apathy to the present for Roman citizens, weakening their desire to sacrifice for the Empire. Additionally, he believed its comparative pacifism hampered the traditional Roman military spirit. While most disagree with his position that Christianity was the cause of Rome’s collapse, it does provide that reason for persecution, which you claim did not exist.

        That said, the fact that you are relying on a 200+ year old history that as archaeological evidence has overtaken it has been broken down and discredited. This includes Gibbons’ revisionist view of the religious persecution of other religions in Rome, which Dr. HA Drake broke down in an article he wrote for the Oxford Journals titled, “Lambs Into Lions: Explaining Early Christian Intolerance.”

        Consequently, you are operating off outdated information of which you only understand a fraction. Therefore, unless you have some sort of stunning proof to drop on the subject, I would recommend you let it go, as I am not susceptible to your tactic of repeated declarations of victory in the face of your obvious errors.

      • Stephen Barlow

        TY again “As even Edward Gibbons understood that the Christian beliefs undermined Roman Society by teaching there was a better life after death, which he believed fostered apathy to the present for Roman citizens, weakening their desire to sacrifice for the Empire”

        Which constitutes the threat to Rome that you claim didn’t exist. They ASKED for persecution and they GOT IT!!!! All they had to do was shut up, [pay the temple taxes as JESUS commanded and go on their merry way.

        But NO!!! They turned all Ted Cruz and Tea Partied their asses into the Coliseum. Much to the amusement of Rome and the pleasure of the wild beasts. “Oh yum!!! They have a christian smorgasbord @ the Coliseum today!!!!, ” said the lion to the tiger.

        Thank you VERY MUCH for proving all My points for Me. I will let you have all the last words you want because it’s a waste of time for Me to continue disproving your claims and pointing out your ignorance when you are doing such a great job of it all by your lonesome.

      • Wishing to co-exist and practice one’s beliefs is not “asking for persecution.” As I stated earlier the Roman policy towards cults and “any” religious movement that did not mesh with their religion or benefit them in some way was annihilated, it has nothing to do with the Roman religion being violent, it is their government which was always aggressive and violent. The core belief system of the Christians was the thing the Roman government disliked, as was the case with any cult that undermined the main Pantheon. Since their very existence was the problem, the only way to appease the Romans was to renounce their religion through the loyalty test, not through tax.

        As for the tax, there would have been no issue had there been an actual temple tax on Christians as there was on the Jewish. The problem that you continually fail to acknowledge in any sort of realistic manner is that they were required to make a sacrifice at a Roman temple, not pay a tax. To have made the sacrifice would have been a direct violation of his teaching to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” As the money and earthly power are the things that Caesars, but their faith and worship belonged to God, theoretically speaking.

        Consider the conversation complete, this argumentum ad nauseam strategy of yours is becoming tiresome. There is no reason to continue as you have not proven any of your positions nor have you disproved my own, you simply make a few obtuse comments, repeat the same out of date nonsense and declare a delusional victory. I can find more interesting and informed people to have discussions with, so believe what you like and have a nice day.

      • Stephen Barlow

        “Wishing to co-exist and practice one’s beliefs is not “asking for persecution.”

        GHEE! That’s all the gay people want! Thesame freedom from persecution your ultrarad Christian conservatives think you deserve.

        So please explain how your hate (however justified) follows Christ’s commandmant to ‘love thy brother as they self?”

        If God molded them gay then how are you loving God by hating them?

        Supporting gayhate speech like the Duck F*ck’s is hate speech as well.

      • First, I would recommend reading the full article over at GQ, to see for yourself what was stated, in full and within proper context, instead of relying on the cherry-picked portions selected by those looking to be offended.

        As part of this, it should be acknowledged that Robertson did remind people that part of their belief system humans are required to love their fellow man here on earth regardless of how they might behave, leaving any judgment/punishment to God. The remainder of Robertson’s statement on homosexuals sans the vulgar bits; was nothing more than the recitation of a core belief that exists within not only the Christian church but also Judaism and Islam. The truth is that one can disapprove of a behavior or lifestyle and still not hate the person, parents for example do not approve of all of their children’s actions but that does not mean they hate them. Whether we agree with them or not people have the right to voice their opinions, even ignorant ones, so long as they do not promote or incite violence, and Robertson’s statements did neither.

        Additionally, what lead you to the stereotypical assumption that I hate homosexuals? This presumption of yours, which holds that anyone who supports Robertson’s right to speak his mind is a homophobe is both telling and ludicrous. Especially, when one realizes that there have been numerous persons within the gay rights community to come out in support of Robertson’s right to voice his opinion, ignorant as it may be. Why would any gay person do that you might ask? Well obviously I cannot speak for the entirety of this group, but perhaps they feel the same as Camile Paglia who voiced the words of Thomas Paine in Robertson’s defense, “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” More plainly stated; any policy enacted to silence your opponent could be used to silence you as well.

        The truth is I supported gay rights even before it was the cool thing to do, within the same provisions that confine straight relationships e.g., the participants are beyond the age of consent and/or of comparable age as well as actually consenting. However, beyond those obvious provisions what people choose to do sexually or who they marry as the case might be is no one else’s business.

        Concerning any commandments whether from Christ or God, they are irrelevant to me as I am not a Christian, so for all I care people can follow the guidance of their last fortune cookie so long as it does not harm anyone. My interest concerning this discussion of Robertson’s statements and religion in general were/are purely academic, I do not concern myself with dogma.

      • Stephen Barlow

        If you are familiar with the Hindu concept of perpetual reincarnation and the endless creation/distruction cycles of the universe, you must have this idea already in your mind.

        Scientifically speaking, the “big bang” is only possible if all the stars were condensed into black holes and then all the black holes were swallowed by a single black hole. Which would not only comply to the conservation of mass, but also explains the source of all matter in this expanding universe as being the same matter that made up the last shrinking universe.

        The ONE failure of the “Single Big Bang Theory” is the question you subliminally asked in your statement:

        “Science supports that all matter has to come from somewhere, and never truly is destroyed, only recycled, or reused. There has to be an origin, the word for that origin is called “God” by some.”

        I posit that there have been multiple big bang / expansion – black hole” universes. Each one feeding the next cycle (this is where Vishnu and Shiva come in) and the next sourcing the following one.

        My question is if the matter is conserved, how does all that energy to transform it disappear? Think of the rain cycle unique to our planet.

        A water molecule evaporates. It’s expansion creates wind energy which transports it, which in turn cools it so it condenses and returns as rain. That rain irrigates a field, or flows pulling the energy of gravity into it so it can erode or transport an object. Which in turn reforms the geography, thus reengineering the environment. Which in turn changes the weather which initiates the evaporation of that molecule again. (From Hindu for Dummies)

        All that energy is expended into forming other forms, which perpetuate the matter cycle. The one part of the “Conservation of Energy” ( a theory that does not exist) that physics can’t use mathematics to explain is POTENTIAL ENERGY. It can be estimated, but not confirmed, because the Conservation of Energy is the real problem of metaphysical thought.

        Oil, stored between rock strata is potential energy, as is the rock itself. Which may lie in wait until the next universal contraction and big bang cycle. Or it can be drilled, refined and used today.

        The question of original origin can never be answered because it is in a house Committee awaiting a floor vote! LOL I find theoretical physics to be as useless as interstellar exploration, except in the creation of the technologies useful for other purposes than spending grant money for a living and proving nothing with machinery that could be better put to use feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.

        Q) Where did I come from?

        A) Why do you need to explain your existence?

        Then of course is the explanation of whether time existed before it was measurable. About the time that the earth SUDDENLY became round, accurate time measurement (to include a 24 hour day regardless of the duration of day/night) became of limited use. Only when longitude was mated with latitude did time become the 4th dimension. It defined itself as “the comsumption of energy to transform matter.”

        But could both matter and energy be transferred BETWEEN dimensions?

        And what invention would be necessary to establish a 5th (and subsequent) dimension?

        If you knew how many free drinks I got @ college hangouts waiting to strum my fender to get laid or blown…

      • Dana Bullock