Chik-Fil-A Day for Duck Dynasty — Call Your Cable Company

Keep in mind that Duck Dynasty is not the highest rated show on A&E. It is not the highest rated cable reality TV show.It is not the highest rated unscripted cable show for this year.

It is the highest rated non-fiction cable show of all cable shows of all time.

But men will not chase lucre when their idols command them, even when they are false idols. The next time someone claims the media glorifies filth and denigrates decency because it merely gives the public what it wants and has no ulterior Leftwing ideology behind, ask him about this example.

You may have heard this story. This is the way the news media reported it:

“Duck Dynasty” dad Phil Robertson has been suspended indefinitely by the A&E Network following his recent comments on homosexuality, the network announced Wednesday night.

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series ‘Duck Dynasty’,” the network said in a statement.

“His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

When is the last time, dear reader, you heard any major media outlet proclaim themselves to be strong supporters and champions of Christ and His Church?

You may have also heard that Mr Robertson likened Homosexuality to Bestiality or Homosexuals to Terrorists. This is a slander and one that is familiar to me, because the orcs leveled the same slander at me. It is a lie without a particle of truth, uttered by those who cannot read the English language, or who do not care to, and who are confident no one will show the judgment and sense needed to look up the actual remarks.

Below the cut are the actual remarks of Mr Robertson.

(He uses the medical terms for the organs of generation when making his comment, so be warned if you find plain talk too salty.)


If you think these guys look unconventional,
come to a Science Fiction Convention some day

“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.”

When the boy-child who wrote the hit piece in GC magazine prodded him with questions about sin, fishing for some word by which the Grand Inquisitor could condemn him, the man answers in words that sound simple and honest to me:

“Everything is blurred in what’s right and wrong. Sin becomes fine. 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.”

“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.”

“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

He is being much kinder in his wording that I would have been. This is more along the lines I would have used:

“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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

Mr Robertson also offended the perpetually offended by making this remark:

“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.”

Ah, but saying Godly people are happy is intolerable for the intellectuals to hear. To say that we sing baffles and confounds them. They do not sing. They listen to music. It is not the same thing.

(My friends among the White Trash have also told me that the Southerners — Democrats to a Man — did not treat them any better than the Negro in those days, so there may have been less friction between the poor Black and the poor White was less than the friction between the Black and the Democrat upper class.)

After word came out that he had been fired by A&E, the patriarch had this to say:

“I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior…”

“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.”

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

In sum, the perpetually offended took offense at a Godfearing man exercising his God-given First Amendment rights by paraphrasing the Bible. He neither misrepresented sacred teaching nor did he say anything to demean anyone. All he did was identify homosexual practice as a sin: this has been a consistent teaching of the Church since Christ, and a consistent teaching of the Bible since Moses; and, despite what you may have heard, all major pagan philosophers and Eastern sages agree, from the Marcus Aurelius to Confucius

At least some commentators are logically self consistent enough to say that all Christians are evil, and any public preaching of what Christ teaches is unforgivable, and must be suppressed and silenced. One Leftheaded fool said plainly what they all think: that the Bible was written by bigots.

Is there any mystery here? The other children of the 60’s who have centered their lives around sex, drugs and rock and roll have also hit rock bottom, and they love it there, and they are busily digging, hoping to break open the roof of hell where their Uncle Screwtape is waiting, showing all the teeth of his ever-hungry mouth in a smile of welcome without the slightest hint of mirth or joy at all.

They hate him because they love sex and drug and rock and roll, but not the normal sex between man and woman, because that is too much like heaven, which they cannot tolerate, no more than trolls can tolerate the sun.

Christians, now is the time. We must no longer allow these bad-tempered hypocritical hysterics and hatemongers to govern our culture. They are cowards, like all bullies, and can easily by shamed into silence.

Christians, tolerate this intolerance no longer.

How did those who indulge in sexually abnormal sins and those who cheer them ever deeper into the mire come to bear the laurels of moral supremacy in our culture, but the saints and martyrs, and men who follow the law of God and know the love of God, be denounced as heretics and condemned as condemned as sinners?

How did we allow these Politically Correct promoters of filth, who egg the homosexuals ever deeper into their sterile lifestyles, with all the conscience of someone who buys free drinks for an alcoholic and lends him the keys to his car, to gain the levers of power and the megaphone of public opinion? The Leftists are genetic defectives who suffer from a lust for power over each and every aspect of your life. They tolerate no dissent.

How did we allow these Thought Police, this band of malignant and morally deformed semi-morons who call themselves moral and mental superiors to ordinary and decent people to become the judges and dictators of what is and is not culturally acceptable?

Who made these bugs into our Jiminy Cricket? Who made them our society’s conscience?

Since they preach the opposite of common sense and common decency, and since their tactics are those of a mob, their tongues those of serpents, and their hearts are empty holes, why in the name of Hell do we listen to them? Who gave them power over us?

Christians, you did.

It is your fault. You did nothing when it was time to act.

The time to act is again. The time is now, this day, this hour.

Call your cable company. Demand them to drop A&E from your cable package. If they say they cannot, give them fifteen days, and change cable providers.

The call A&E. Their number is 212 210 1400.

Caesaridolatry Delenda Est. Political Correctness Must be Destroyed.


  1. Comment by Nate Winchester:

    Spot on, John.

    Of course I don’t have cable but for internet yet one of the things I do stream is DD when it’s on and my folks do have all the discs (we like to watch it, reminds us of our family).

    Ah, but saying Godly people are happy is intolerable for the intellectuals to hear.

    Well… *cough*

    (of course that this is an INTERVIEW and the words of Phil might be edited or something seems to have escaped a lot of people)

    Although by far the worst reaction I saw was the comment that the grandson one of Phil’s boys adopted maybe should be taken from the family.

    The older I get, the more I think the most dangerous words in the english language are “for your own good”.

    • Comment by Pierce O.:

      (of course that this is an INTERVIEW and the words of Phil might be edited or something seems to have escaped a lot of people)

      Aye. If you read the original interview article, that quote is presented without context in a little grey box titled “Phil Remembers Growing up in the South” or somesuch. We don’t get to see the question it was an answer to. We don’t get to see if any follow up questions or statements were made. Much as I admire Mr. Shea, as I read his piece, he seems to be making the same mistake The Atlantic made, which is to assume that anyone who recollects Jim Crow South without being sure to mention the horrible things that went on there is automatically suspect of being a racist.

      • Comment by Nate Winchester:

        to assume that anyone who recollects Jim Crow South without being sure to mention the horrible things that went on there is automatically suspect of being a racist.

        And that’s exactly how ‘they’ – as our host put it – became “our Jiminy Cricket …our society’s conscience”. Every time they make a charge, it is the accused which must defend against it. The accuser never has to make their case or proof of anything.

      • Comment by Nate Winchester:

        Oh look it continues.

        I sure do hope John here apologizes for Jim Crow soon or he’ll be seen as endorsing it! John why are you letting those leftists call us bigots? /endSarcasm

        • Comment by The Ubiquitous:

          Fixed link.

          Mark Shea has a real problem. If anything, the “in my experience” suggests that the original question very well could have included that phrase. In fact, knowing how interviews are conducted, I have no doubt that the original question plausibly could have included an emphasis not to mention Jim Crow.

          This is why interviews, which are recorded, really should be released in situations like this.

  2. Comment by Ephirius:

    What surprised me wasn’t the hatred for the comment by the intolerant tolerance police, but comments like this one from Christians I know:

    Though containing some truth, Phil’s remarks were ignorant & hurtful – he went beyond merely expressing “Christian Values”, but crudely painted homosexual orientation as deviant, even suggesting that gay people should just realize how awesome female anatomy is & be straight – duh! And apparently black people where happy with no complaints during Jim Crow – no racism there!

    I disagreed outright with him, but ultimately his excuse was “there is a difference between homosexual attraction and acting upon the attraction, and only the latter is the sin. Anytime Christians criticize homosexuals they need to explicitly say this, or it hurts homosexuals who don’t act upon their attraction”.

    In the end, he received a four-page rebuttal, but I think he rejected it. The notion of separating an unnatural attraction from its unnatural end seems strange to me. Personally, I think cannibalizing fellow Christians – who, when properly read, have not said anything contrary to reason or revelation – during a time when the Enemy is so active is like aiding and abetting.

    • Comment by Nate Winchester:

      It is aiding and abetting. It’s why I’m not thrilled when I see Protestants and Catholics attack each other because I know the World (and the Enemy) doesn’t see any difference between us.

      We must all learn to hang together, or we’re going to end up hanging separately. Throwing compatriots to the lions in the hopes they’ll be full by the time they reach you is never a winning strategy.

      • Comment by The Ubiquitous:

        Shea doesn’t make it a Protestant-Catholic thing. Mark Shea’s problem is with basically every single public figure and every single popular movement and every single situation. He might believe he makes these moderate comments which are slight corrections, but his writing is too clever and too slick and too glib to be taken that way. In response, when readers call him out on it, he flies off the handle into self-pity and sarcasm so easily he has absolutely zero credibility.

        If he has any regard for his personal salvation, he should quit his blog. He was once told he should quit after one of his apologies — and to his credit he does often apologize — but replied by saying his family needed the Patheos money.

        I don’t know if its possible to talk sense or moderation into him for long. He worries me. Meanwhile, he adds nothing but rancor to anything he writes. (No doubt, if he were to reply to this comment, his first reaction would be to would list several examples of him not adding rancor to anything and prove my comment not absolutely true. His second reaction would be ignoring that it is generally true in regards to any fracas of any size.)

        By the way, I can say this about him because it is also true about me. That’s why I’ve basically quit Facebook and comboxing. He should do the same.

        • Comment by Andrew Brew:

          Ubiquitous, why are you making this all about Mark? I agree that there are certain subjects that send him off the rails, and that he is not dealing well with this one, but if you want to address that, isn’t his blog the place to do it, not John’s?

          • Comment by The Ubiquitous:

            Sorry, posted in the wrong comment thread. A previous nested comment thread was the one that brought up Mark Shea, and I was still replying to that.

          • Comment by Nate Winchester:

            Ubiquitous, why are you making this all about Mark?

            If you mean in the general and not just this instance of missapplied thread nesting, because it’s a prime example of how the cultural position of “conscience” was given over to the left little by little. I don’t always agree with Vox Day, but he was totally right when said:

            First, give them an inch and they will not only take a mile, but will insult you in the process. Second, there is absolutely no reasoning with these people. They are an implacable enemy and no quarter should be shown to them even when they wave the white flag and start talking about negotiating a settled peace.

            Everytime one accepts their accusations without challenge or proof, one keeps the culture heading in the direction Mr. Wright bemoaned at the close of his post.

            I agree that there are certain subjects that send him off the rails, and that he is not dealing well with this one, but if you want to address that, isn’t his blog the place to do it, not John’s?

            His blog would be, if he allowed any serious debate over there. More and more present any serious challenge and you’ll quickly find yourself under the ban hammer unless you’ve been around long enough or sucked up enough to get “credits” to spend. If you really want to have fun, next time he makes a substative post, post a rebuttal to it quoting his own words from a past post (won’t be hard). That was the fastest time I got banned.

    • Comment by Mary:

      The separation is vital, because one is a temptation and the other a sin. All temperaments hold some inclination to sin that is a temptation, but one sins only when one succumbs.

      It is also vital because of the willful confusion by its advocates. Hence the double meaning of the term “homosexuality”, so that they can at once insist that they were born this way, and that they must engage in the activity in question.

      • Comment by Pierce O.:

        The use of the phrase by its advocates also makes it sound like some kind of “special” sin or temptation, even though, in reality, it is no worse than fornication, adultery, onanism, etc. I dislike the use of the term as a label for the same reason, even if it is easier to say than “someone who suffers from frequent, recurring temptations to engage in sexual acts with a member of the same sex”. After all, if I am frequently tempted towards adultery but resist, is it right to call me a “non-practicing adulterer”?

    • Comment by ChevalierdeJohnstone:

      Um, just to be crystal clear, there is a difference between homosexual attraction and acting upon the attraction, and while both are sins, the former is a venial sin and only the latter is a mortal sin, and only because it constitutes sexual intimacy outside of wedlock, exactly as does any other form of fornication. That Christians need to explicitly express this fact is the fault of Christians, for letting a bunch of secular half-wits run away with our culture. The above (less the criticism of Christian laziness) is the teaching of the Church, and it is also what it says in your Bible.

      If this seems strange to you it’s because, I’m so sorry to say this, you are ignorant of certain basic facts of biblical study and Christian doctrine.

      Of course regardless of all this the remarks you quote indeed seem quite foolish, though you don’t give us any context in which to place these remarks. You really ought to provide at least some kind of citation of the gentleman or lady you are quoting, so that we can all examine their remarks to our own satisfaction. Quoting people’s remarks out of context and without attribution is really quite gauche.

      Now if you would like to read the above as indicating that you are a tiresome intellectual midget, a mannerless boor, and an incompetent, I certainly can’t stop you from feeling so, but I hope that you will read my remarks with the same Christian courtesy that you showed those whom you maligned herein. I dare say I might not agree with them at all, but that’s even more reason to show them the proper Christian courtesy they deserve not because of their idiotic ruminations but because of our Lord’s great love for them, and I am sure I mean you just as much courtesy and respect as all that.

  3. Comment by False_Keraptis:

    I’m not impressed at all with Phil Robertson’s behavior, not because it’s bigoted, but because it’s stupidly self-destructive. Didn’t Jesus tell you to be wise as serpents? As a TV star, he should have been savvy enough to know exactly where this kind of talk would get him. If you stick your hand into a crocodile’s mouth, you have no right to complain when it bites you. Robertson has committed blasphemy in the public square, and now he’ll be punished for it.

    You don’t believe in the idols of political correctness, but you admit they exist, and are idols. No society tolerates the desecration of its idols, whether it’s hacking the head off of a statue of Enlil in ancient Sumeria or speaking ill of homosexuality in modern America. What kind of person desecrates his peoples’ idols, even if he thinks they’re false? It’s rude, disruptive, sanctimonious, and above all else, stupid.

    • Comment by mhssu:

      Hrm. What kind of person destroys his people’s idols? Let’s see. Moses. Elijah, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, etc. (pretty much every OT prophet and virtuous king, now that I think about it, in some way or another). Jesus, Paul and the Apostles. I don’t think Phil was exactly the smoothest operator, here, but that doesn’t seem to be good grounds to deny him either admiration or support.

      I think it’s more like refusing to bow down to idols, in any case- Phil was answering as a forthright and honest Christian should, without modifying it to suit depraved sensitivities that would have been offended however he delivered the teaching (which was quite accurate, I thought). In this case, there are many, many more examples: Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego- Jesus, again. The entire early Church, insofar again as they publically disrupted the empire by refusing to sacrifice to the Emperor- heck, the Church period, and everywhere we refuse to compromise the faith. This whole episode might yet turn into a good teaching moment.

      In any event, I find it really hard to believe, in the final reckoning, that God will fault Phil Robertson for being bold and blunt without being uncharitable.

      • Comment by False_Keraptis:

        I thought that, “What kind of person?” question was a bit of a softball even as I was writing it, but I’m still not convinced your prophets and kings were doing the same thing Robertson did. They were trying to bring the Israelites back to their traditional ways, defending the established order of their culture, not attacking it. They were also prophets and kings, people with power and authority who could defy the priests and the mob and get away with it, so it wasn’t quite so suicidal for them.

        I think you’re right that Daniel, or the early Christians who refused to sacrifice to the emperor (I’m sadly too poorly educated to recognize Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but Wikipedia has just informed me) are better analogies. From my perspective, the refusal to sacrifice shows that the early Christians really were a subversive menace and the Romans were right to suppress them. I can still respect that they were willing to accept martyrdom for their defiance though, and they knew that going in. Robertson blundered into this through stupidity, and I expect we’ll see a cringing apology from him before long. If he takes his punishment stoically, and refuses to whine, wheedle, or back down, I’ll respect that, but I still think he should have known better than to get himself into this situation.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          “And I for one welcome our new Politically Correct overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted SF personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.”

          Sir, if I were to ban you from this site for daring to speak an opinion contrary to my own, would you blame me for being unfair to you, or would you blame yourself for not having known better than to get yourself banned? Would you call yourself a stupid blunderer?

          • Comment by John C Wright:

            That was not a rhetorical question. At your convenience, if it please you, I would like a reply.

            • Comment by False_Keraptis:

              Of course I’d be a blunderer if I got myself banned. It would mean I’d badly misjudged you and your likely reaction even after following your journal here for years. I don’t have any financial or professional stake in posting comments here, so I wouldn’t be as bad a blunderer as Robertson was, but I’d still be a blunderer.

              Fortunately for me, I think you’re cut from a different cloth than our politically correct masters. Simple disagreement on most subjects has not been enough for you to ban commenters in the past.

              • Comment by John C Wright:

                Your answer throws green wood on the fire, producing smoke but no light. I did not ask you whether, if I banned you, you would have blundered by misjudging my patience and courtesy. I asked you whether, if I banned you, you would you blame me for being unfair to you, or would you blame yourself for not having known better than to get yourself banned, that is, by offering an unpopular opinion?

                I am mildly annoyed that you answered the question I did not ask, (whether you are a good judge of character) but did not answer the question I asked (whether if I am unfair to you, you take the blame for my unfairness rather than I).

                Please do not exhaust my patience. I am already suffering a grave temptation to ban you. If you can take the time to leave an insulting comment here, you can take the time to defend the comment when asked an honest question.

                • Comment by False_Keraptis:

                  Sure I’d blame you. I’d roll my eyes, and I’d grumble about hypocrisy and unfairness. But I would blame myself also. I know you have absolute power here, and I have no recourse if you ban me; if I want to avoid that, I’d better estimate what you’ll tolerate and not push you beyond that point. If I misjudged that point, I would definitely blame myself as well as you.

                  I’ve seen how you deal with Nazis and their like in your comments section: merciless and immediate banning. They’re not worthy debate opponents or fellow seekers of truth, they’re enemies to be crushed with whatever tool is handy before they can spread their vile, poisonous creed an inch further. You’ll debate with almost anyone, but not them. Fair enough. Like Indiana Jones, you hate those guys. Were I an ardent Nazi, I would be a fool to come here to voice my opinions because the reaction would be predictable, unavoidable, and negative. Our rulers see any negative opinions on homosexuality and homosexual behavior the same way you see Nazism. Expressing those opinions in a public forum is as foolish and pointless as expressing support for Nazism here.

                  • Comment by Tom Simon:

                    Our rulers see any negative opinions on homosexuality and homosexual behavior the same way you see Nazism. Expressing those opinions in a public forum is as foolish and pointless as expressing support for Nazism here.

                    At one time, your rulers saw any negative opinions on monarchy and arbitrary rule in exactly the same light. How foolish and pointless of your Founding Fathers to express such opinions in the public square! They should have submitted to George III like the good little serf that you pride yourself on being.

                    • Comment by False_Keraptis:

                      If I had been around at the time of the American Revolution, I would have been a loyalist, no question. The Founding Fathers were traitors, rebels, and demagogues. But, there’s no arguing with victory – I guess the Mandate of Heaven passed to them somehow.

                      Still, I would point out that the government they created oppresses, controls, and meddles in the lives of its subjects far more than King George ever did, while taking a much larger bite of their earnings than the taxes that sparked the rebellion.

                    • Comment by Tom Simon:

                      The Founding Fathers were traitors, rebels, and demagogues. But, there’s no arguing with victory – I guess the Mandate of Heaven passed to them somehow.

                      How nice to know that you prefer absolute monarchy to constitutional rule. And how instructive to see that you have no idea how a convention of the people can confer legitimacy upon a government; if you did, you wouldn’t dismiss it with a sneer about ‘the Mandate of Heaven’.

                      Still, I would point out that the government they created oppresses, controls, and meddles in the lives of its subjects far more than King George ever did, while taking a much larger bite of their earnings than the taxes that sparked the rebellion.

                      And you believe, as we have already established, that every American should submit silently to whatever that government imposes upon them, so a fortiori they should have submitted to King George. You really are a worm. You’re unfit to live in a free country; well, it’s jolly for you, I suppose, that you won’t have to suffer under that condition much longer. You should be very happy with your new Progressive overlords.

                    • Comment by The Ubiquitous:

                      That’s a little glib, Mr. Simon. I’ve seen folks uncritically accept democracy against monarchy as a model for government without thinking through monarchy. This may be old hat for you — still, let me lay out the case.

                      First: Historically, monarchy was limited for the benefit of his nobles, not for the benefit of the people. People’s constitutions are a relatively recent development.

                      Second: If you believe Chesterton, the old system of kings protected common people from their wealthy lords, because only with a king were the lords reviewable.

                      Third: If the king becomes reviewable, the balance of the monarchy is upset, and the lords rule by the House of Lords. Constitutional monarchy, therefore, was not a development which benefited all people but one which benefited rich people — or so the case goes.

                      There’s something to be said for that insight, because democracy which rules by the vote is often a veiled plutocracy through unveiled demagoguery. Democracy may in fact be undemocratic.

                    • Comment by Tom Simon:

                      True, but not, in this case, relevant. Taking your points as you number them:

                      1. People’s constitutions are indeed a relatively recent development; but not so recent as George III. The principal beef of the American colonists was that the King was trying to create an absolute monarchy in the colonies when the U.K. itself had long been a constitutional monarchy. They considered that an Englishman in Boston or Baltimore ought to have the same right of self-government as an Englishman in London or Liverpool.

                      2. It is true, the central authority of the kings in the Middle Ages was a beneficial counterweight to the dispersed authority of the lords. But there were no lords in the American colonies, and George III claimed the right of absolute personal rule in the style of Charles I.

                      3. It is trivially true that any form of government will tend to benefit the rich more than the poor, because the rich can afford to hire lawyers and lobbyists to manipulate the system and the poor cannot. But in point of fact, the English constitution did not favour the rich per se. It was not the richest men who sat in the House of Lords, but men of noble birth: that is, the descendants of men who had been the chief tenants of the Crown in the days when wealth, land tenure, and military service all flowed from the same source and were mutually convertible. Even in the 17th century, the moneyed interest of the Commons was sharply at odds with the landed interest of the Lords. The hereditary peers were often relatively poor men, compared to the merchant princes of the old cities and the industrial tycoons of the new towns (which often did not even have representation in the Commons). The English Parliamentary system was frankly corrupt from top to bottom, but not in a way that gave men power in proportion to their riches.

                      You conclude, ‘Democracy may in fact be undemocratic.’ This is true enough; but where there are no democratic institutions, it is certain that the state will be undemocratic. And the greater the power of the state, the more perilous the want of democracy will be to the people. False_Keraptis evidently believes that this want is a virtue, or he would not urge citizens to disenfranchise themselves by keeping silent whenever they disagree with their anointed rulers.

                  • Comment by John C Wright:

                    Very well. If you would blame me rather than you if I treated you unfairly, why do you blame Mr Robertson rather than A&E when A&E treats him unfairly? What, if anything, distinguishes the two cases?

                    And you mistake my character. I would gladly debate Nazis. What happened was this: after I mentioned that my father in law, during World War Two, got a Purple Heart while liberating a concentration camp. The soldiers were standing around waiting for a carpenter to come tear down the wall, and the starved prisoners were stranding just on the other side of it, waiting. He started ripping up boards with his hands until his hands were bloody. The two guys says it never happened, because there were no concentration camps, no death camps, no holocaust. So they called my father in law a liar. My father in law, may he rest in peace, is also Jewish.

                    In this particular case, what is driving the furor is that Mr Robertson was ‘set up’ by the character assassin working for GC magazine, who asked him about the sinful nature of the modern world. Mr Robertson replied by paraphrasing 1 Corinthians, our Holy Book, and echoing the teaching of the Christian Church of two thousand years. Then A&E reacted as if he has been preaching Nazism.

                    That is what is at the core of the controversy. That is why your comments are so craven and vile and, oddly enough, stupid. Political Correctness is based on a fundamental lie, which is, anything can be equated to anything else, and that whatever emotional reaction you have toward that anything else is applied to that anything. The fundamental lie is that you can call a dog a duck and then you expect it to quack.

                    In this particular case, the Political Correction Officers have drawn an analogy between what, up until a few years ago, was correctly regarded as a mental disorder, sexual attraction to a person of the same sex, and the Jim Crow laws and slavery which Democrat controlled states imposed on Blacks. They honestly regard the two as interchangeable: an analogy that is absurd the moment one substitutes any other addictive or obsessive or ungoverned personal behavior for deviant sexual behavior, such as, say, drunkenness. The laws against drinking while intoxicated are not the same as laws preventing Coloreds from drinking at White drinking fountains.

                    In speaking against the unnatural absurdity of the Politically Correct make-believe, you have decided to bank on the evil and the irrationality of the public, of A&E, and of us all, and you call it foolish to speak the truth. Who is the more fool, here, sir?

                    Even if Mr Robertson was being Quixotic, it is better to live as a knight, even a mad knight, than live a coward, fearful to speak the truth.

                    • Comment by False_Keraptis:

                      Well, like I said, I would blame both of us if you banned me. I also do put some blame on A&E for this incident, but admittedly much, much less than I put on Robertson, and much less than I’d put on you if you were to ban me.

                      Why? My first and least worthy reason is that if you were unfair to me, then it would be me suffering and not some half-recognized celebrity. I am only human. Even judges and surgeons are not about conflict of interest.

                      Second, and much better, you are also a human being, capable of reason and morality. A&E is a giant soulless bureaucracy that, if my experience in Corporate America is anything to go by, can barely recognize and pursue its own goals, much less act according to any moral code. Blaming a large corporation for anything is only slightly more sensible than blaming a mountain for an avalanche. Corporate personhood is a convenient legal fiction, but that’s all it is.

                      You might say that’s fine, but there are people at A&E who made these decisions and they deserve blame. I would reply that that’s fair, but I would still only blame them a little. Those people have reams and reams of intricate and contradictory corporate policies they’re supposed to follow, and libraries of State and Federal laws beyond those. The subordinates (and everybody is someone’s subordinate, even the CEO supposedly works for the amorphous mass of shareholders and takes orders from their board of directors) are supposed to follow orders from above regardless of their own views. The whole system is set up so that nobody has any clear authority, and therefore nobody has any accountability.

                      Quixotic is an apt adjective for Robertson in this case. Would I use the word to describe a man who challenged a steamroller to a fistfight? Sure, if I were feeling generous – it’s not so different from tilting at windmills. It’s not very bright, either. To be a knight is a noble thing, almost by definition, but for every knight, hundreds of peasants are needed. A society of all knights would be a society of starving men, covered in dueling scars, squabbling over who must eventually give in and plow the fields.

                    • Comment by John C Wright:

                      Are you saying it is stupid to put Christ before money? Are you saying he should have lied in order to stay on a television show?

                      In all fairness, I will not ban you, but only because you do not follow the rules you are proposing: You yourself are being Quixotic, tilting at windmills, by coming here to my site, and proclaiming your doctrine of worldly wisdom and craven cowardice. You have displayed your character to the world. No punishment I can inflict equals that. You expect chivalrous behavior from me, you expect me to treat you as an honest and honorable enemy, while you are in the very middle of saying that chivalry is foolish.

                      Who is more foolish? Mr Robertson and I are at least consistent with ourselves, and trying to be consistent with Christ. You are relying on people like me not living down to the standards you have announced.

                    • Comment by Tom Simon:

                      To be a knight is a noble thing, almost by definition, but for every knight, hundreds of peasants are needed. A society of all knights would be a society of starving men, covered in dueling scars, squabbling over who must eventually give in and plow the fields.

                      There speaks a man who believes that there is no such thing in the world as a free man; that one must be either a master or a slave. In the United States as you have known it in your time, and for centuries before, there have been neither knights nor peasants, and yet it has been the very furthest thing in history from a society of starving men. Does your constipated view of human society have room for such a development? Evidently not.

                      It takes a breathtaking kind of wilful folly to proclaim that the society one actually lives in cannot possibly exist.

        • Comment by Nate Winchester:

          Robertson blundered into this through stupidity, and I expect we’ll see a cringing apology from him before long. If he takes his punishment stoically, and refuses to whine, wheedle, or back down, I’ll respect that, but I still think he should have known better than to get himself into this situation.

          Doesn’t look like he’s going to.

          And if you think a guy with a masters degree who lifted his family out of poverty by building a tool for hunting (and his son lifted them further into millionaire status) is stupid… well you’re like the coyote overestimating his brilliance, and underestimating the rabbit’s.

          • Comment by False_Keraptis:

            I’ve seen the show occasionally, and I’m pretty sure Phil Robertson is a smart man, but smart people do stupid things all the time. That’s why I’m disappointed in him: I think he could have and should have foreseen the consequences of his actions. There’s no point in blaming a stupid man for his stupidity, but a smart man should know better.

            • Comment by A Spectator:

              I think the trouble here is in determining whether the willingness to answer a direct question truthfully despite public scorn for the correct answer is an offense against wisdom or fidelity to courage. Since giving a false answer would be a violation of wisdom in another sense and a violation of justice in any sense, I’d say the courageous move was the most virtuous as the only thing lost was material goods and prestige in the eyes of the deluded (which, honestly, would only calculate into this equation if virtue were a nonissue (e.g. would you like mayo or mustard?) or the calculator were a utilitarian). I know you disagree, but I’d like to know why.

              • Comment by False_Keraptis:

                Well, I’m proud to say that I haven’t been a utilitarian in years, and I do believe that virtue is an issue. It’s not the only issue, though. “Let justice be done though the heavens fall,” is not a sentiment I can agree with. Deception can be the right and even moral choice sometimes; I believe there are such things as a white lie, a noble lie, and taqiyya.

                In Robertson’s case, he wouldn’t have even had to lie to avoid this mess. I agree with Mr. Wright that the GQ interviewer was deliberately acting as a prosecutor, baiting the defendant into making incriminating statements. Robertson could have recognized this and refused to answer. Because this heresy trial cross-examination ostensibly took the form of a friendly interview for an entertainment magazine, he could have easily avoided answering with wit, grace, and decorum. A simple chuckle and an, “I’m not going there, buddy,” would have done the job. Instead, he’s now Goldstein in the latest Two-minutes’ Hate.

                • Comment by Andrew Brew:

                  Your saying, “Let justice be done…” is not a sentiment but a principle.

                  Your recommended course for Mr. Robertson to avoid lying is for him to say, in effect, “You know perfectly well what we Christians believe, but let me now confirm that we are too cowardly to admit to it aloud. Feel free to call us cowards and hypocrites, but don’t think we will ever resist.”

                  Graceful, witty and decorous? I don’t think so.

                • Comment by Christopher:

                  ‘Deception can be the right and even moral choice sometimes’

                  It never can, because Deception in itself is the depravity of Truth. There are a few issues to contemplate, firstly the depravity of the Truth is to place yourself in opposition to God for your own Pride, the Devil is the Father of all Lies. Secondly, the failure to announce Homosexuality as a sin is then damning on Robertson since he has that obligation, as all Christians do, to preach. Thirdly, even the whitest lie damns a man’s reputation, the moral of the boy who cried wolf demonstrates that. Fourthly, your honesty in telling that you can justify lying damns you yourself before the entirety of the comment section, or were you just telling a white lie after all?

                  • Comment by Mary:

                    Except that some forms of deception are explicitly sanctioned — under some circumstances. The Hebrew midwives lied about why they could not kill the baby boys. Rahab lied about hiding the spies. etc.

                    Newman’s Apologia, the second edition based on his revisions, has an appendix dealing nicely with the questions of what deceptions are licit.

                    • Comment by The Ubiquitous:

                      I would be interested in how you know the means that the Hebrew midwives used and the means of Rahab constitutes a moral act. Certainly what they desired was moral, but was lying the only way available? We don’t really know. What we do know is that lying is what they did. There is a lot that can be said about that, and this link I find quick and persuasive.

                      Newman, for his part, is a great deal more careful. He writes about lying from principle only.

                      And again here is this more tangible difficulty in the case of exceptions to the rule of Veracity, that so very little external help is given us in drawing the line, as to when untruths are allowable and when not; whereas that sort of killing which is not murder, is most definitely marked off by legal enactments, so that it cannot possibly be mistaken for such killing as is murder. On the other hand the cases of exemption from the rule of Veracity are left to the private judgment of the individual, and he may easily be led on from acts which are allowable to acts which are not. Now this remark does not apply to such acts as are related in Scripture, as being done by a particular inspiration, for in such cases there is a command. If I had my own way, I would oblige society, that is, its great men, its lawyers, its divines, its literature, publicly to acknowledge as such, those instances of untruth which are not lies, as for instance untruths in war; and then there could be no perplexity to the individual Catholic, for he would not be taking the law into his own hands.

                      Several other things to note:

                      1. Newman’s own position on material lying with justa causa is stricter than some schools. (He summarizes these other schools earlier in the excerpt. Also, through this excerpt, justa causa is a hypothetical category.)

                      2. Newman’s other categories are not lying at all. Evasion, silence, and wordplay are easily distinguishable from a direct, material lie, and are really not at all what we talk of when we say that a man says of what is that it is not or of what is not that it is.

                      3. Newman’s difficulty does not seem to be in the direct lie — “the atmosphere is made of Jello-brand gelatin” — but in the partial truth kind of material lie — “the atmosphere is made of oxygen.”

                      Secondly, But, if I allow of silence, why not of the method of material lying, since half of a truth is often a lie? And, again, if all killing be not murder, nor all taking from another stealing, why must all untruths be lies? …

                      A theologian draws out a system; he does it partly as a scientific speculation: but much more for the sake of others. He is lax for the sake of others, not of himself. His own standard of action is much higher than that which he imposes upon men in general. One special reason why religious men, after drawing out a theory, are unwilling to act upon it themselves, is this: that they practically acknowledge a broad distinction between their reason and their conscience; and that they feel the latter to be the safer guide, though the former may be the clearer, nay even though it be the truer. They would rather be in error with the sanction of their conscience, than be right with the mere judgment of their reason.

                      I only quickly read the excerpt, but that’s what I got out of it.

                      TLDR: Newman does not take a hard line on lying in principle but he does take a hard line as a matter of conscience.

                      Personally, given the relevant parts of the Catechism, I take a Mark Shea line on lying, emphases added.

                      2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: “You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”282

                      2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

                      2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

                      2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

                      2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

                      2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

                    • Comment by Mary:

                      That we are told what they did, and then what they told the Pharoah, shows that the midwives lied, because they don’t match.

                      That we are told that Rahad said, and then what she actually did, also shows that she lied.

                    • Comment by The Ubiquitous:

                      I do appreciate your time, you know, and I would like to talk this out.

                      … was lying the only way available? We don’t really know. What we do know is that lying is what they did.

                      What I mean by this is to ask whether they had any other options, to emphasize that the Bible doesn’t record hypotheticals but realities. Therefore, without explicit rationale from scripture or tradition, our ability to use their method as a good example is limited. What we do recognize as a clearly good example is what they desired to do and their reasons for it, and that seems like it could be the point of God’s praise in those passages. It’s a sort of Charlemagne-kept-his-three-wives-around kind of thing, where it ain’t perfect but it’s enough better that it can be tolerated and the person praised for efforts.

                      Rahab, for example, was a harlot — and yet praised and honored God by protecting the spies of the Hebrews. That she lied to do so, though fundamental to the story, is from the evidence incidental and unrelated to her received praise. In this view, she would be praised from cooperating with God from harlotry to protecting the servants of God. Because there is no contrary evidence for this interpretation, and because it better upholds the rule of veracity, and because it better fleshes with the clear teaching of the catechism, this is the better explanation.

                      Moreover, the link provided in the original comment is helpful.

                • Comment by A Spectator:

                  Because this heresy trial cross-examination ostensibly took the form of a friendly interview for an entertainment magazine, he could have easily avoided answering with wit, grace, and decorum. A simple chuckle and an, “I’m not going there, buddy,” would have done the job. Instead, he’s now Goldstein in the latest Two-minutes’ Hate.

                  Wisdom is ordered to truth, and if it is to be used to evade truth, it ought to be used toward another valid end, goodness or beauty, because to do otherwise would be disordered. Below, the reality of an obligation to this particular truth is mentioned, this coming from the theological virtues (I’d say faith, but charity’s there, too – these things overlap like the Olympic rings). One can only choose against a good for the sake of another perceived good. In this case, I don’t know which good your tactics would serve. He’s already rich, so he doesn’t need the money. There’s already been some good from the public outcry you’d avoid because our side of it is directed toward the hypocrisy of the villainous persecutors who demand a different standard for themselves (imagine for contrast firing a homosexual for making homosexual remarks!). If we woke up collectively to the fact that half of our body politic doesn’t demand equal standards but employs viciously unequal ones for the sake of achieving their unstated and therefore certainly nefarious ends, Mr. Robertson would reach folk-hero status. I just can’t figure out why you consider the status quo preferable. Stagnant liars deserve shaking, not a soft-shoe routine.

        • Comment by mhssu:

          Heheh, Phil? Back down? The tough old boot already issued a statement emphasizing God’s love, but standing behind the morality and refusing to recant. Clearly he only cares insofar as he believes he may have misrepresented the Word. The family’s also said they won’t do the show without him. The Robertsons are pretty darn cool.

          • Comment by John C Wright:

            And, even though I never saw the show, there was no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the family would stick with their patriarch. And yet the Liberals were all filled with puzzlement and wonder as to what the family would do.

            The worldview of the Liberal is based on self-selected communities, such as the sodomite community or the art community. The worldview of the Conservatives is based on natural communities, such as families and clans and neighbors. The only glue of the Liberal is uniformity of opinion, since that is what forms the community: you can kick anyone who does not believe in Communism out of the Communism Club, for example. The glue of the Conservatives requires the toleration of dissent, because you cannot divorce your brother.

            • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

              Oh, my gosh, yes! The hate I hear directed toward poor Senator Lieberman! Just for bad timing (in the eyes of the Democrats)!

            • Comment by Stephen J.:

              “The worldview of the Liberal is based on self-selected communities, such as the sodomite community or the art community. The worldview of the Conservatives is based on natural communities, such as families and clans and neighbors.”

              This may be a somewhat reductionist explanation, but if this is true, does the difference between Liberal and Conservative (or Progressivist vs. Traditionalist, as I prefer it) come down solely to whether one had a happy and loving family growing up or not? It seems to me to stand to reason that the single biggest incentive to prefer self-selected communities to circumstance-selected communities is bad experience with the latter.

              I have sometimes speculated that the reason the argument that children deserve both a mother and a father to have the best chance of growing up happy (in itself a statistical undeniability) is so roundly rejected by queer-family advocates is because so many of those advocates never in fact saw any personal evidence of this themselves — they came from broken or miserable families, or from families that rejected them upon learning of their affinities. So the notion that the traditional nuclear family represents a kid’s best shot for happiness is simply something they cannot buy at all on a gut level, and which angers and offends them to boot.

      • Comment by Rob Corrigan:

        Or Martin Luther King Jr, Abraham Lincoln, etc.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Stupid to speak the truth? By that measure, a slave is wise to accept his chains humbly.

    • Comment by JoeCool:

      Hm, I must have missed the commandment “Thou shalt not preach truth if doing so would offend earthly powers; thou shalt not disrespect false idols, because only rude, disruptive, sanctimonious, and stupid people do that. Instead, thou shalt keep quiet and not proclaim the greatness of God so that thou may keep thy worldly goods and thy life, which are thy greatest assets.”

      Instead, my bible has stupid commandments like “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall not have other gods beside me. You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or serve them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their ancestors’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but showing love down to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

      And “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

      And “Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

      Must be a typo.

      • Comment by Ephirius:

        This is excellent.

        A bit off-topic, but I have noticed that as I grow older, reading God’s pronouncements brings me more and more fear. He does not play around. Such a Holy God as He is, I fear for what His justice will look like on the world that has spat upon Him and His.

  4. Comment by Sean Michael:

    I absolutely agree with Mr. Robertson and Mr. Wright’s comments. I’m sick of how these fanatical liberals are forever trying to suppress the First Amendment rights of people who dare to disagree with them!

    I suggest one small correction to Mr. Wright: I would revise “….from the Marcus Aurelius to Confucius” to “….from Confucius to Marcus Aurelius.” After all, Confucius lived LONG before Marcus Aurelius!

    Sean M. Brooks

  5. Comment by Christopher:

    Mr Wright, Duck Commander produce Duck Calls, perhaps buying their product from them directly may also be effective?

    God Bless.

  6. Comment by sparrow:

    I might quibble with Mr. Robertson’s choice of words, or a few minor points, but he quotes Paul, as a Christian I don’t dare argue with the truth. He’s a rare figure these days: an unfiltered normal person. Most of us soften everything to be pleasant go along/get along people.

  7. Comment by Rolf Andreassen:

    Cheer up! For the sake of your heart, temper, and blood pressure, here’s a news item that may make you feel better: It appears that a judge agrees with you about the contraception mandate.

  8. Comment by joeclark77:

    I wonder if you guys have read Pat Archbold’s theory on “Duck Dynasty” in NCR ( He guesses that the A&E producers intended the show to be a kind of Beverly Hillbillies in real life, where the audience would laugh at the stupid Robertsons and their backward beliefs. They lost control, when they realized that the audience was tuning in to laugh with the Robertsons, and the idea of getting rid of Phil is an attempt to get back at the original intention. But the show makes a lot of money, so it’ll be interesting to see who loves the money more: A&E or the Robertsons.

  9. Ping from They are becoming very bold indeed | Aeoli Pera:

    […] John C. Wright Chik-Fil-A Day for Duck Dynasty — Call Your Cable Company […]

  10. Comment by Montecristo:

    Are Christians persecuted by the politically correct liberal establishment? Oh, yes, they certainly are, and it reveals the stupidity of these people, in addition to their cowardice, that most of them cannot even recognize the nature of what they are doing, in the name of “tolerance,” no less.

    That said, is this phenomenon new or are Christians unique victims of it? No, not at all. People are people. Those inclined to abuse authority will do so, some, despite nominally acknowledging “tolerance” as their pole star, or others who claim to follow a religion that proscribes cruelty and evil done to others on the basis of their disagreements over belief. The problem is power. Nominal Christians are just as susceptible to the corruption of power as any other human beings. Making the issue about Christians vs “pagans, sodomites, idolaters, and atheists” merely spins the issue into a matter of whose ox is being gored. I would suggest that honesty demands more of us.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      There is more here than Christians objecting to being slighted, when we in the past have slighted others. What is at issue here is that Political Correctness rejects not only Christian morality and logic but all morality and logic. It is a system of hypocrisy which thrives by accusing others of hypocrisy — just as you have done here.

      • Comment by Montecristo:

        Tsk, Mr. Wright, let’s not call what’s going on here “slighting.” You’re not making any concessions to me in doing so. I’m not arguing on A&E’s behalf. This is not slighting; it’s persecution, even though it is not as harsh, as yet, as throwing Christians to the lions, and even though it is done by a semi-private agent like the A&E Network acting through voluntary contractual means.

        Furthermore, I am not excusing what is going on with the argument that “everyone does it” and that anyone who objects is a hypocrite. I’m pointing out that you’re wrong about the root error, or sin, if you will. The problem is not that the godless, immoral, or amoral are doing the persecuting but that a power structure exists here that is conducive to persecution. Power makes hypocrites of everyone, including the nineteenth century Protestants who wanted to use the U.S. public school system to De-catholicize the children of Catholic immigrants and ended up having the secularists turn the weapon the Protestants built against them to De-christianize their children. The hypocrisy is not the point. The story is more than one of what goes around comes around. The point is that very few individuals are, and NO human institution is, immune to the corruptions of power. The argument that the problem is merely one of the “Progressives” having a bad moral code implies that someone or some group having the “right” moral code could wield the kind of power the world’s governments typically presume to exercise today and not be corrupted by it. It simply isn’t true, and your Christian Bible itself can’t be clearer on that topic. Merely tossing the Progressives out in favor of some other party would be to exchange one evil for another.

        • Comment by Christopher:

          ‘including the nineteenth century Protestants who wanted to use the U.S. public school system to De-catholicize the children of Catholic immigrants ‘

          Which was Godless, immoral and amoral.

  11. Comment by The Ubiquitous:

    Sorry, posted in the wrong comment thread. A previous nested comment thread was the one that brought up Mark Shea, and I was still replying to that.

  12. Comment by kjwkjw:

    The guy is clearly a racist bigot. But I don’t think he should have lost his TV show.

    Just like I don’t think the Dixie Chicks should have been boycotted by radio stations and listeners when they said they were embarrassed by GWB for pushing the Iraq war on us.

    I’m sure you guys all stood up for them too though. Because they were expressing anger over an ill advised war that ended up being poorly executed, waged under faulty intelligence and costed thousands of human lives.

    It would be pretty ridiculous if you all did boycott the Dixie Chicks for being against an unnecessary war, but were against people who are for boycotting/firing a racist homophobe that thinks black people were happy picking cotton.

    • Comment by The Ubiquitous:

      Slapping him on the back in a friendly way, The Ubiquitous addressed his good friend, kjwkjw. He does it so charmingly that kjwkjw doesn’t even suspect there’s a sign on his back, saying, “Don’t Feed Me.”

    • Comment by Christopher:

      ‘Homophobe’ Fear of Man/Fear of the same. Not applicable so your accusation is slander.

      ‘Racist’, because he met a few blacks that were happy? Or are all blacks during the period meant to be miserable?

    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

      “Clearly a racist bigot”? Just because he thinks that the people he grew up with were happy to provide for their families, growing and picking cotton on their family farms? I can’t imagine you would admit to having a problem with “those people” working hard, owning property, or providing for their families, so the only thing you can claim to be upset with is the “picking cotton”, yes? And the only reason that could be a problem is because you are such a racist that the image of “black people picking cotton” makes you uncomfortable for no reason you can utter, and so any mention of it is “racist”……..

      Alas for you, I know why it makes you uncomfortable. Because you are a Leftist, but not one of the “Top Dogs”. The Democrats/Leftists have never stopped being Racist, more then that, Hating black people. Having lost their war to keep slaves, they formed terrorist groups to kick the Republicans out of the South and Segregate it. Sensible ideas like literacy tests and poll taxes were twisted by the Democrats/KKK to create an unholy parody of democracy. Alas, FDR made such a mess of things we got WWII, which was such a mess that we needed millions of able bodied men, and everyone was paying attention, so the Democrats feeble attempts to keep “blacks” from serving went down in flames. Of course, being Americans, they served with distinction along with everyone else, destroying the Democrats lies about “Segregation is needed! The races can’t work together! It’s for their own good…..”. Not only that, but millions of “black” servicemen came home knowing how to shoot, many, if not most of them, coming home with weapons. The NRA also helped with that, getting guns to those who needed them to fight the Democrat terrorists. The KKK quickly stopped being such fun, and was soon reduced to a membership of just monsters. Stripped of it’s “fish to swim with”, they were easy to find, and their terrorist actions, becoming more and more repulsive, turned enough of the good people against them, reducing the KKK to the sad collection of losers it is today, and returning freedom to the South. With a new found appreciation of that freedom, the South returned to Republican hands (Leading to the bizarre lie that the parties switched during the Civil Rights era)……

      With the Democrats/KKK no longer keeping a vast amount of Americans in chains, there was an explosion of education, happiness, industry, and various other forms of Wealth Creation. The number of black doctors, engineers, lawyers and other professionals was at an all time high. This was the time Thomas Sowell ( grew up, the time Mr. Robertson grew up, and they were good times. The bad times were past us, and everyone (save, of course, the Democrats) was integrating nicely.

      Alas, it was not to be. The Democrats were still the same racist vermin they had always been, and if they could not keep blacks down with shackles and burning crosses, they would do so with “kindness” and vice. The “Great Society”, pushed by LBJ and the other Democrat segregationists (Like Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Sam Ervin) destroyed the black family, the means by which they had survived everything the Democrats had thrown at them, and empowering the thugs that blight every community (Pimps and Gang Leaders were the Voice of the Community! No Social Program will work without their help! (See Tom Wolfe on “Mau mauing the Flak Catchers”). Affirmative Action destroyed black’s self respect, putting their best and brightest into situations before they were ready to deal with them.

      The Democrats are not good at creating (behold the ACA!), but they are quite good at destruction, and their Racist plan to destroy the black community has brought fourth monsters. Illegitimate births at an unspeakable level. The criminal element rules the areas “blacks” live in, giving us an unholy amount of black men in prison, and the murder of those who dare to “act white”. The number of black doctors, lawyers, and other professions have dropped like a rock, and many of the ones who do exist are there because the Democrats control the Educational System and have “Socially Promoted” them, despite their lack of any morals or skills (See Kermit Gosnell Also, they were once acclaimed for their health and vigor, but thanks to the “help” of the Democrats, are being destroyed by Diabetes and Heart Disease and Strokes, and more. But hey, at least they’re not picking cotton!

      But as I said, you are not a “Top Dog” Democrat. You were told that all this would help, and anyone with eyes can see that it’s not helping. Can’t be the Democrats, you guys are perfect. Must be Racism!?!?! Thus the endless “witch hunts”. Once enough “Racists” are found and purged, then, then the Democrat solutions will work! (They have to work! You couldn’t live knowing you and yours had destroyed generations of people because you were racist……..) And it’s why Mr. Robertson has to be destroyed, utterly removed from the public square, because he remembers a time when blacks were happy, were healthy, hard working and productive, and it was a time before Democrats started “helping”…….. Yes, the old story of “The Emperor has no Clothes” once again, but in the real world, the teller of truth gets imprisoned or shot….. You, sir, are in a very bad place, and I will pray for you.

      • Comment by DaveSomething:

        I am curious how you place the blame for WWII at FDR’s feet.

        • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

          Really, of course, the blame rests with Wilson. But certainly FDR has plenty of blame himself. I would place that blame with his incompetence in economics, turning a depression into “The Great Depression”. Hitler, I think we can all agree, got as far as he did because of German’s economic problems, yes? Problems they had because there was no rising American tide to raise all the boats……

          Second, the Democrats having established that we were the World’s policeman with our involvement in WWI, FDR’s very public “peace platform” and loud proclamations about “staying out of foreign wars”, as well has his recognition of the Totalitarian Soviet Union (and courtship of same) gave the go ahead to Hitler and Stalin to carve up Europe, and once that carving up started, his seeming indifference added fuel to the fire.

          As an aside, on of the reasons WWII looms so large is, correctly, the Holocaust. Which was the Final Solution, the other solutions, such as exile, having failed, because the racist F.D.R. would not open our borders to those poor refugees, using the Coast Guard to send them back to die, as we do now with Cuban escapees, and did with Vietnamese boat people, and Soviet defectors. The Democrats are at least consistent in their need to keep people enslaved……

          • Comment by Christopher:

            And of Japan?

            • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

              Japan, our WWI ally? The country we were blockading without anything as gauche as an Declaration of War?

              • Comment by Christopher:

                Just because they were allies does not necessitate standing relations, the same Japanese that allied with the Germans. Japan was expanding over the Pacific and into mainland China with sheer unjust belligerence, the blockade was to exert pressure to which Japan then decided to attack the United States. Blockades are not exactly a sign of indifference, and do not necessitate an Declaration of War.

              • Comment by Christopher:

                Japan’s alliance with the U.S.A during World War I is rather irrelevant given that there will be change over time. After all, they declared war on Russia in 1905, also an alliance of the U.S.A during World War I. As you will know, Japan’s expansion dominated the Pacific and sought to impose itself upon Korea and mainland China, sheer unjust belligerence, and the blockade was to exert pressure which does not necessitate an Declaration of War. Of course, the Japanese in their diabolical act attack the U.S.A, but surely F.D.R. cannot be fully responsible for the conflict in the Pacific?

                • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                  Yes, but we can sometimes see why things change over time. Wilson’s snub of Japan’s Racial Equality Proposal, where he overruled the solid majority in favor of it, can, I think, be seen as a racist act, a refusal to “allow” Japan Great Nation status, despite their large participation in WWI, both in securing the sea lanes, at the request of the British, and their supplying much needed war material to the Allies.

                  “Sheer unjust belligerence”? Maybe in a different world, but in this world, we opened Japan to trade by “Gunboat diplomacy”, yes? And having forced Japan to engage the World, we promptly restarted the Opium Wars, yes? Given the endless news stories of the “Civil Rights Era” we are still getting, you can’t claim that the Opium Wars were “old news” in Japan around WWI……..

                  Ah, “diabolical act attack the U.S.A”? Certainly. But some might think that starving a island nation’s children to death over a foreign policy dispute just might be diabolical as well. Maybe more diabolical. We attacked their children. They attacked our military. The Democrat’s attempt to “send messages”, their refusal to commit to either side, led to disaster, as it so often does.

                  “Fully responsible”? I made no such claim. I said FDR had made a mess of things, which seems obvious to me, just as Carter and Obama both made messes of the Middle East, leading to war. All the elements were there before them, so not “Fully responsible”, but the Democrats do seem to have a genius at providing the sparks that turn “elements” into infernos. Like W’s Arab Spring, which became the Arab firestorms under Obama……..

                • Comment by Mary:

                  “But some might think that starving a island nation’s children to death over a foreign policy dispute just might be diabolical as well.”

                  If it happened, yes. As what happened was that we refused to sell them scrap metal and oil, irrelevant. They didn’t need that to feed their children. They needed it to wage war on China and commit atrocities there. Many against children.

                  • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                    No child went hungry because of the “Energy Crisis”, when the Arabs embargoed our oil? I remember otherwise. As to China, it’s true (And, alas, they were following our lead there as well. We were part of the Opium wars). But would such atrocities have been committed if we had acted again Japan, earlier, in a honest fashion, as opposed to weasel moves like the “volunteer” Flying Tigers, and an embargo “only against scrap metal and oil”? I don’t think so. I note that Republicans don’t seem to get these huge wars, just small “police actions”.

                    • Comment by Mary:

                      There is literally nothing you can do — including do nothing — that can not be the cause of a child’s going hungry. One’s responsibility needs to be a bit more proximate than that.

                      Especially when one knows that the proximate result of selling them scrap metal and oil was the murder of little children, often by torture.

          • Comment by Tom Simon:

            Hitler, I think we can all agree, got as far as he did because of German’s economic problems, yes?

            A difficulty: Hitler became Chancellor of Germany before F.D.R. was sworn in as President of the United States. Once he had the Chancellorship (and the Nazis controlled the Interior Ministry and the police), nothing short of a military coup could have prevented him from seizing absolute power. You can’t very well blame F.D.R. for that; nor for the abject submissiveness of the Appeasers in Britain and France (‘little worms’, Hitler called them). It was a poor lookout for Europe after 1933, no matter who was President across the pond.

            • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

              Or, you know, better economic conditions and solid support for those being threatened by Hitler, both of which, I think, would have gone a long way toward preventing him from seizing absolute power. Remember, one of the factors in Hitler’s rise was his ability to get concessions the West had denied the previous government.

              No, but I can blame him for the abject submissiveness of America, yes? F.D.R. had a much larger say then either Britain or France, it’s just all he was saying was “None of our Business”, until too late.

              • Comment by Tom Simon:

                Or, you know, better economic conditions and solid support for those being threatened by Hitler, both of which, I think, would have gone a long way toward preventing him from seizing absolute power.

                You’re talking about support for other countries threatened by Hitler, yes? Sorry, but by the time that became an issue, Hitler was already absolute dictator of Germany. Such measures, coming after his rise to power was complete, could logically not have prevented his rise to power. Nothing F.D.R. did in 1933 could possibly have prevented the big Nazi electoral victories of 1932. Nothing F.D.R. did in March, 1933, when he was inaugurated as President, could possibly have prevented Hitler from being named Chancellor in January, 1933.

                F.D.R. had a much larger say then either Britain or France, it’s just all he was saying was “None of our Business”, until too late.

                F.D.R. did not have a standing army of half a million men (nor could he have persuaded Congress to fund one), or a common border with Germany across which he could march such an army if he had one. France had both those things, and therefore had a much larger say than the U.S.

                • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                  F.D.R. had a much larger say. England and France had little say, because it was obvious that they were anti-German. America, on the other hand, seemed to choose what side to join in WWI on a whim, and it seems a solid fact that the Germans were winning that conflict (at least holding their own) until the Americans jumped in. You cannot tell me that it was not one of the largest strategic problems facing Hitler in the years leading up to WWII, and in every possible, public way, FDR made it clear that “he will keep us out of War!”….

                  “A standing army of half a million men”? Please. He had a standing army of over 8.5 million in the WPA. To claim that he couldn’t get “Congress to fund one” is to laugh, and the idea that Mr. “Court Packer” didn’t think he could get Congress to do ANYTHING is willful denial. No, he didn’t do it just because he had run on a peace platform, and would risk the World in Flames rather then risk losing an election.

                  • Comment by Tom Simon:

                    F.D.R. had a much larger say. England and France had little say, because it was obvious that they were anti-German.

                    In fact, England was largely pro-German in the early 1930s, and British politicians had been campaigning since the Versailles Treaty to have the most onerous peace terms revoked. The myth of the ‘Carthaginian Peace’ promoted by Maynard Keynes was the received political wisdom of the times.

                    In any case, whether a given country had the reputation of being pro- or anti-German made no difference to Hitler. He counted guns and bullets, not journalists and speeches. From 1933 to 1936, his principal fear was that France would send in troops to overthrow his regime, a thing they had the physical power to do. The United States did not have that power, with or without Roosevelt in the White House.

                    America, on the other hand, seemed to choose what side to join in WWI on a whim, and it seems a solid fact that the Germans were winning that conflict (at least holding their own) until the Americans jumped in.

                    None of which had anything to do with Franklin Roosevelt or his administration. Are you now saying he should have changed U.S. policy in the First World War? Maybe he had a TARDIS.

                    “A standing army of half a million men”? Please. He had a standing army of over 8.5 million in the WPA.

                    Nonsense. The WPA was not an army. It had neither weapons nor military training. The peacetime strength of the U.S. Army in the 1930s was less than 200,000 men, many of whom would not have been available for any expeditionary force. Furthermore, the Navy lacked the amphibious capacity necessary for an invasion of Germany. The idea that eight million men on relief could be transported across the Atlantic and used in a military operation is sheer fantasy. It took three years of total national war effort (1941-44) for the U.S. armed forces to put that many men into active service overseas.

                    To claim that he couldn’t get “Congress to fund one” is to laugh,

                    Prove that he could have done it. Remember, in this context, that the total military budget of the United States, as late as 1939, was less than $400 million per year, after F.D.R. had been pressing for rearmament for several years.

                    No, he didn’t do it just because he had run on a peace platform, and would risk the World in Flames rather then risk losing an election.

                    In other words, he knew he wouldn’t have the support of the voters. Are you seriously arguing that he should have defied Congress and the American people in order to go to war against Germany in 1933? To use your own expression, it is to laugh.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      The Dixie Chicks were boycotted by their fans. That is not what happened here. Here, GLAAD telephones A&E and told the exec to drop the show, which he did instantly, not due to any pressure from fans of the show nor from advertisers. So, not only is this case not like the Dixie Chicks case, it is the opposite.

      I suspect you think he is ‘clearly’ a racist bigot because you allow others to tell you want to think, and these others are not devoted to the truth. Read Mr Robertson’s comments yourself — I have reproduced them above — and come to your own decision. In any case, it is unwise to be so quick to accuse a man you do not know of a thoughtcrime.

  13. Comment by ChevalierdeJohnstone:

    I really only watched the show because of Phil. I won’t even comment on whether or not his comments were at all bigoted, hateful, or derogatory. I just watched a commercial in which a woman in various states of undress poses in a sexually enticing manner for crowds of people (she is not wearing a wedding ring, I might add.) This commercial has no “PG” rating and aired on prime time television. That this blatant objectification of the female body is considered passe for children to watch, but that if Phil Robertson’s remarks offend somebody it is the end of the world, pretty much says everything one needs to know about our secular media culture.

  14. Comment by Bobby Trosclair:

    Huh. After some exec at Crackerbarrel HQ made a decision to pull all the “Duck Dynasty” line of merchandise, the firestorm of protest made saner Crackerbarrel execs realize there are a lot more heterosexual southern duck-hunters eating at Crackerbarrel restaurants than there are homosexual political commissars, and they just did an about-face. I can’t think of another time where a corporation has backed down after initially complying with GLAAD’s dictates. That’s momentous:

  15. Comment by bear545:

    Dear Sir,

    Forgive me for going off topic, but I wished to offer you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, and also my gratitude for your blog. I have always found your writing to be of a high calibre and also thought provoking, even on (and perhaps expecially on) those occasions when you and I are in disagreement. May God Bless you and your abundantly in the coming year.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      My hope is that I can learn not to be disagreeable when I disagree. I became a Christian not because I was a humble man, but because I was dreadfully sick of being a proud one, and seek a cure from the only physician who can cure souls. As for my writing, I will pass your compliment along to the muse who inspires my creative writing, and my daemon who inspires by philosophical. But I do thank you for you kind words. May God bless you and yours with His abundant blessings.

      • Comment by Bruno Moreno:

        I would like to join Mr. Bear in wishing you a merry and holy (for both things go together) Christmas.

        May the contemplation of the eternal Son of God as a baby in a manger make us all humbler. I for one sorely need it.

        Thanks once again for your blog. Greetings from Spain.

  16. Comment by teripittman:

    A racist bigot? Please explain that to me. Phil Robertson said that he preferred sex with women. I seem to recall the gay lobby going on about how they are “born that way”. Do heterosexuals get the same pass for their sexual attraction? Mr Robertson, speaking from personal experience, said that he did not witness blacks blaming whites for their lot in life. He was working in the fields next to them. Now, you might say that they didn’t feel free to express themselves around white men, but I see no way that you can call that a racist statement. I get very tired of people throwing around words like this, when they haven’t even bothered to read what was actually said. If I tell you about my personal interactions with people of other races, it does not follow that I am racist if you disagree with what I saw.

    A&E has tried to prevent Phil from saying “In Jesus name” during the family prayer at mealtime. They put in bogus beeps to make it seem like the family swears. A&E had someone present with Phil during that interview, but they claim the person was not there when the “objectionable” statements were made. The family believes they are trying to censor Phil. This is a pretty good bet, since A&E suspended him, not because lots of people complained, but because GLAAD complained. These are the folks that seem to think they know more about the Bible than Phil does. They suggested he should meet with some gay people. It’s interesting that they aren’t offering to meet with some Christians.

    You will not see the Robertsons cave on this. They don’t need A&E. They could take their show to another network and they have had offers. But A&E will lose the biggest show on tv right now.

  17. Ping from Lightning Round – 2013/12/25 | Free Northerner:

    […] Dynasty folks should do. Related: The pointlessness of the duck fight. Related: Chik-Fil-A Day for Duck Dynasty. Related: The only way to handle a bully is to stand up to them. Related: Is an entertainer being […]

  18. Comment by DGDDavidson:

    Mr. Wright, I found myself drawn into a discussion of a similar topic in another forum and found myself floundering a bit. I wonder if you might be willing to allow me to e-mail you privately to get some advice.

  19. Comment by Earl Wajenberg:

    I am pleased to report that, according to the Reuters post
    here, A&E has caved. They are continuing the show with Phil in his usual role. According to other links, A&E will salve its conscience by airing public service announcements about tolerance. For their part, Phil and his family have merely apologized for using coarse language (which he more or less did in the GQ article anyway).

    Now I can go back to ignoring a show that, while no doubt fine in its way, doesn’t particularly interest me…

  20. Ping from Happy New Year! | Something Fishy:

    […] I am procrastinating my chores under the flimsy excuse of consuming a ration of caffeinated beverage while prowling the internets; currently I am prowling John Wright’s blog, since I have read two of his books recently. I found an interesting comment thread, and a pithy quote which I here extract: […]

  21. Comment by stoneghost28:

    Of course the comments were bigoted, hateful, and homophobic, there is no debating any of that. I’m not interested in silencing people from expressing deranged opinions, it tends to illustrate just how moronic the opinions are when shouted aloud for all the world to hear. Secondly, I’m not a big fan for trying to get individuals fired for saying things, though I think it’s hysterical that individuals that habitually do the same for any and all causes of the right, instantly cry foul when a right winger goes down (briefly) due to the cry’s of members of the left. Quite amusing.

    All this being said, I would not call nor attempt to get him fired because it’s his personal private views, and A&E, and anyone watching the show could probably have intuited what those views were a long time ago, and certainly the show runners knew exactly what kind of individual was involved in the show. There’s tremendous cowardice in cashing all the checks from producing the show, knowing full well the views of the lead on it, only to feign disgust, when those views are made public, so again, I’m not about to mount any campaign to get his show bounced. I hate that when the right does it, and I hate that when the left does, and won’t engage in it.

    However, the defense of the views by so many is beyond disgusting. Arguing that old tripe about the Beautiful South, and how happy African-Americans were when they knew their place? Really. Jim Crow Segregation, inferior facilities, inferior schools, Emmitt Till, a gazillion random lynchings, rage mob murderous riots that sometimes resulted in the mass killing of most blacks in small towns. His ideas in this area are beyond delusional and racist, they are dangerous, revisionist loads of horse manure to camouflage a history that’s as despicable, as it is disgusting (and shared to a lesser degree by the North as well). To be that ignorant, that fully unaware is astounding, but not surprising considering my travels to Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas in recent years.

    As for the homophobic campaign. I’ve already had to cope with favorite authors expressing delusional backwards views like Orson Scott Card, so I’m somewhat inured to it. However it’s still depressing to wrap up the Hermetic Millenia, locate the page, and then read this tripe. I fully understand that the religious faith of Mormons (Card), and some Christians (Wright), justifies outrageous p.o.v.’s about gays and all manner of subjects. It was written by desert people trying to maintain their culture under massive environmental, political, social, and military stresses thousands of years ago, but it is also a book written with all the prejudices, all the ignornance, and all the festering fears of a people that are perpetually at threat. Would we accept their science in the field fo Astronomy? Physics? Geography? Mathematics? History? Of course not. Accepting whole hog their ideas about biology is equally fool hardy, and even worse is the deliberate effort of Christians to obfuscate, and ignore any and all sections of the Bible that contain admonishments, or demands with regards to behavior that all engage in in the former case, and few deliver in the latter, and of course lastly, the bible is littered with innumerable contradictions and even outright fictions that are blatantly obviously, and clear.

    And yet if Jesus were ever to return, apparently he’d have to be dealing with innane fixations on homosexuality (something that’s pretty much present in all of nature, so clearly, and obviously god does not have a problem with it because he/she created the entire world we live in and lived in), and a complete rejection of about 90-95% of his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount etc.

    Hell he didn’t even engage in baptism, not once? I think Jesus would be quite confused with what we are engaged in, and incredibly disappointed. The idea that he’d be condeming communities and people for who and what they are, strikes me as to ignore, and condemn the very foundation of his beliefs.

    It’s also worth noting that this culture that is apparently destroying the country? Well, it’s long since been proven that gay gentrification actually dramatically lowers the crime rate, and boosts the economic health of communities, it’s also worth noting that divorce is much more rare in the non-god fearing South, and it’s also worth noting the higher literacy rates and education rates, so perhaps we should celebrate a culture that’s trying to reduce crime, trying to boost our economic well being, trying to maintain successful marriages, and healthy relationships, and trying to boost education. Maybe that’s an idea?

    Oh and for the record, I think Jesus would do a spit take if he ever heard the phrase, “God Fearing,” he did come after all, to move beyond the days of Mosaic law, and the violent, homicidal, psychotic, and malicious deity as represented (hopefully dishonestly) in the Old Testament/Tanakh. Read the Synoptic Gospels and John and it becomes clear very fast that Jesus and Moses were not bosom buddies, regardless of what he may have said to keep the peace. The views are diametrically opposed and based upon living conditions and environments that were radically different, not surprisingly they aren’t remotely similar, and I find it odd that after reading the words of Jesus, God Fearing would be the first concept you’d hold closest to your bosom. How about God Loving? Isn’t that the point after all?

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      There are only two options in the war between sin and man. Either you side with man, as the Church has done, and warn against sin; or you side with sin, and hate man. Mr Robertson hate sin and loves man. The anonymous commenter here loves sins and hates Man, and evinces the very flaws he denounces, with no sign of shame or self-awareness.

      Of course the comments were bigoted, hateful, and homophobic, there is no debating any of that.

      He then goes on to debate that point for 901 additional words.

      All this shows is that he is unwilling, and perhaps unable, to debate issues, to grant his opponents a hearing, to look at things from pro and con points of view before rendering a verdict. When a man starts his screed by declaring beyond reason, he should not then attempt to reason badly. This betrays either gross hypocrisy or a childish unselfawareness and lack of shame.

      The logical errors are these:

      First, the comment by Mr. Robertson was that he himself had never seen any Blacks in the South in his day expressing hate toward the Whites, and that both they, and the lower class ‘White-Trash’ who were his neighbors did not suffer the convulsions mentioned. He neither affirms nor denies that the Democrat-controlled South suffered institutional racism, or the other enormities mentioned here; he says only they were not universal. So the comments here are a straw man argument.

      Second, the argument that if we do not accept the Biblical account of astronomy, etc., we should not accept the Biblical account of biology simply does not follow logically. One could be true without the other. One could be the belief of the human author of the book and the other the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, etc. The argument that the practice occurs in nature and therefore is moral does not follow: infanticide also occurs in nature, as among cats and pigs. Even if the Biblical teaching against against homosexuality were rejected, the teachings of the Church also rest on independent grounds, including the general moral teaching known by all men in their hearts. That homosexuality is wrong is a maxim of all religions, cultures and philosophies throughout all history, save only here and now, and this is a moral precept based on the nature of emotion and the proper objects of emotion. The comments are irrelevant.

      The theological opinions of men who slander and hate God and His Church need not delay us to refute. Logically if the Bible is to be rejected because it is a mass of error written by ancient bigots, then the Biblical injunction to love one’s neighbors also must be rejected.

      By the same logic you yourself use, sir, if Jesus’ teaching or Moses’ were based upon their living conditions and environments, your own comments are likewise a byproduct of your living conditions and environment. Since (for all I know) my environment here in Houyhnhnmland differs from your own, your comments have no bearing on my life and must be discarded. But if that were true, even the idea that conclusions depend on environment is true only in some and not all environments.

      For your edification, allow me to tell you what I believe about homosexuality, (a matter I regard as trivial compared to the much greater social ills of masturbation, pornography, no fault divorce and other maladjustments of the sexual desires) so that you will no longer have the excuse of unintentional ignorance:

      Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

      The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

      Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

      • Comment by Nate Winchester:

        Read the Synoptic Gospels and John and it becomes clear very fast that Jesus and Moses were not bosom buddies, regardless of what he may have said to keep the peace.

        Is that why Moses refused to show up at Jesus’ transfiguration? Oh wait…

        (I grow so tired of people spouting off on what they think is said/written without at least the humility to admit they need to check the source)

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          What I like is that our friendly neighborhood christophobe thinks he knows the illegitimate motive behind Jesus not repudiating Moses. Good to know that loudmouths have developed the power of retrodeotelepathy, allowing them to read the minds and hidden hearts of divine beings back through time.

          Also, the desire of Jesus to maintain peace with the Jewish authorities of his day — if that was His motive for not denouncing the law of Moses — was not apparent in his other dealings with them, as when he calls them hypocrites, or lashes the temple money changers with a whip, or claims to be divine, or eludes those coming to stone Him, or fails to elude those coming to crucify Him.

          If maintaining peace with the Jewish authorities was His motive, Jesus was strangely unable to fulfill His mission.

          Moderns are Gnostics. The idea that the Old Testament God was evil and the New Testament God benevolent is perhaps the oldest heresy in the history of Christianity.

          • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

            He is also a good example of how the Left, despite being a opposed by most people, keeps getting victories, by refusing to yield even once the battle is over. I mean, he lost this issue, and decisively, and weeks after the fact, here he is, trying to rewrite history (As the Left has done, so many times before)……

    Leave a Reply