Phil Roberston gets Politically Corrected
You might have read by now that Phil Robertson of television's Duck Dynasty show has been suspended for making some politically incorrect statements in an interview with an online magazine. Here's some of what he said:
GQ: What, in your mind, is sinful?
Robertson: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then heparaphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Also: "He opines to GQ about how a vagina should just be “more desirable” to a man than an anus. “That’s just me.”
Reason magazine tells more.
I've read a few comments on the story elsewhere I had to disagree with, all of them referring to Robertson as a bigot. I suggest he's not. At least his comments weren't bigoted.
Some heterosexuals, just as some homosexual people, don't like anal sex. Some find even the thought of it unpleasant, if not disgusting. To say something along that line isn't bigotry, whether a hetero or homosexual says it. It's a matter of personal opinion or sexual taste. Nothing more.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 12:02 PM
29 comments
29 Comments:
Robertson said: "It seems like to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me."
"There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on dudes! But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man."
"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and those men ... they won't inherit the kingdom of God. It's not right."
That's some good shit right there! Yup, a victim of political correctness!
I interpret this as free market Capitalism at work! Fine example if you ask me.
I think most should be frightened when someone is punished for their opinion. I'm not saying A&E doesn't have the right to do what it wants with it's shows, but we should never be glad when personal opinions are suppressed.
No one is taking away his right to speak. People are just deciding they don't want to pay him to spew his garbage. He was practicing free speech and it got him in trouble. He's a big boy and should know we live in a Twitter-fed world.
He'll be welcomed at Fox, where they have low standards.
(BTW, thanks for the blog and allowing me to comment!)
1) Take a look at the twisted headline your Reason Magazine had to write to get their point across.
2) FM, you miss the point as usual. You did not comment on this. "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Beastiality..." Full stop. That IS bigoted and hateful. One of the reasons there is a movement to have our legal system legitimize same-sex relationships by allowing, giving same privileges and even using the term 'marriage' is we as a society are understanding that equality also means respecting two responsible, consenting adults want to love each other how they see fit. Same sex relationships are not polygamous, they are not with minors, they are not with animals.
To change the subject like that is hateful and represents an opinion, which he later attributes to the bible that he feels is righteously superior than his homosexual brothers and sisters in our society. Here is Google's definition of bigoted so we are on the same page. "having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others." I think his opinions are obstinate and he clearly feels they are superior and they result in a prejudice and intolerance of the opinions of others. I think that's pretty clear. It's also pretty clear how you feel based on your little take at the end of your post.
Homosexuality does not equal beastiality nor does it "morph out from there". That is what got him in trouble - not some x rated discussion I would rather have not read about here.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/beck-offers-duck-dynasty-home-blaze-name-diversity
Courtesy right wing watch which specializes on the hateful rhetoric of the right. You and glenn beck agree on this but possibly for different reasons. You should know Glenn is appreciating Libertarianism more and more I think you guyseses main difference is now only in religious matters.
(ExhibitD?)
That IS bigoted and hateful.
That's his opinion, and one shared with probably millions of others. It might be unpopular to you and maybe even most Americans. Popular opinion doesn't need protection. Unpopular opinion does.
Protection from what exactly? Criticism? Welcome to the free market of ideas. Hateful ideas can be called hateful bigoted word can be called bigoted. And if the words or actions impinge on another persons rights then we do need to address issues of equal protection if that's what you are talking about.
Nope. Nobody has said an opinion should be protected from criticism. You're the one suggesting the person's opinion shouldn't even be heard and subject to criticism.
He never infringed on anyone's rights by his opinion. He never actually suggested that. He simply opined that he felt certain behavior was wrong. How can you say there's anything wrong with that, unless you want unpopular opinion squelched?
Very few people like it when you call sin by it's right name.
Ok Fred, it's not protection against criticism in you opinion, then what are you protecting Robertson from then?
Protection from what?
I'm not sure I'm protecting him from anything except accusations of being a bigot.
It's bigotry.
Yes JT. (Hi)
So what about this? " unpopular opinions (need protection)"
I still don't understand this from a Libertarian... protection against what exactly? In this case specifically? I don't see ant tyranny of ideas. He can say whatever he likes. In fact Glenn Beck's right wing crazy town is so successful that he has offered the Ducks a job . Free market place of ideas. Where do we need shining knight Fred's protection?
Political correctness is a sham. It's another example of the right's victimization complex.
(Also, sorry about the flooding, glad you were there)
let me get this straight, you cannot say anything bad about blacks, women, gays or followers of islam but Christians are ok.
let me get this straight, you cannot say anything bad about blacks, women, gays or followers of islam but Christians are ok.
That's pretty much sums it up. I read somewhere else where that past president of Iran was welcomed at a university, despite them hanging homosexuals, yet this guy gets lit up for simply the opinion that he finds homosexualism immoral.
Oh you, poor poor white male Christian victims.
Truth is you can say what you want when you want. You can dance in blackface if you want or wave a confederate flag.
You words or actions may have consequences including being suspended from a for profit show because you may have offended some of their customers. Or you may be the object of ridicule because you can't figure out the inherent contradictions of what you are saying/ doing, but you show be OK with this right? Individual responsibility including what comes out of your mouth before you put your foot in it. I'm really baffled by a libertarian not getting this.
Ducks have another channel now to channel their hatred, Glenn Becks channel for example, or he could come to Fred's blog too I'm sure.
I'm not sure if I missed a liberal defending Amadenajad's take on homosexuals. In fact, you can go to right wing watch from Friday to see how they tear into Uganda for the homophobic law that country just passed.
It's difficult to see this, but what you are really struggling against is the continual ceding of power to woman, other ethnicities and other sexual orientations. It's difficult, especially if one sees oneself as, well, just a little bit more ____, than those others. (Insert you own adjective).
It's all about changing society from a white patriarchy to a mixed non-patriarchy. It's as simple as that. But in the end many people find that idea not only threatening, but wrong. Unfortunately they get in trouble when they try to articulate this.
http://www.elocallawyers.com/infographics/democracy-distilled.html
God loves the gays, but he hates the sin. period. just like he hates murder,stealing. try praying and ask God yourself if the gay thing is OK. he will answer you if you ask him with your whole heart.
"The gays"
Ugh.
The gays are the married like the all of the us the now. Thank God we have the 14thamendment to the Constitution and we are all afforded equal protection under the law.
The way this works is different peoples have different beliefs in superior powers. Your belief system may not be mine which is why the Constitution thankfully forbids the establishment of a religion.
That's why we have a little more tricky deal. Let The Lord sort out the sinners in the next world. While we are here together we can still work together to build a community no matter your race, creed, sex or even sexual preference. None of that should be an issue of discrimination under the law.
It's difficult to sort out the different spheres of life. Within your church, your preacher may say this or that about this group or that group. Out here in society we are all governed by a set of laws. Thankfully we don't each have to be able to communicate with the divine, we just have to read, understand and respect the laws made by man ( and women) and based in and on the Constitution.
Not all of us are down with that, But them are the rules.
the religious right - "gays might as well be beastiality or pedophelia"
electorate - "that's not true"
the religious right - "well then it's a sin"
electorate - "I respect your religion, but we don't share this faith and we are guided by laws created by men and women"
Libertarians - "they have a right to say what they want - speech is a protected right"
media consumers - "fine, but I also have a choice of what I want to watch and I don't like to watch hateful programs"
religious right- "it's not hate, God loves us all, it's the sin"
electorate - "again - we are all equal under the law - sin is a religious concept that is not inherently understood to be a part of the Constitution"
religious right - "yes it actually is - listen to David Barton and Glenn Beck for example"
electorate - *sigh*
John would you support A&E if they fired somebody for being gay?? or for being black or for being Mexican or for being Muslim or for being handicap
THC
That would be illegal I'm pretty sure. They didn't fire him (assuming he's fired, I'm not an infotainment fan) because he is Christian or has Christian beliefs, they fired him because he expressed particularly hateful views of a group of citizens.
Alec Baldwin was just let go for similar reasons and he it's not because he is a Christian. http://t.mediaite.com/mediaite/#!/entry/alec-baldwin-attacks-msnbc-for-firing-him-but-keeping-martin,529562cdb7d8d24162b6ed49
So you think the Bible is hate speach?
Could you highlight the part of his quote that was hateful looks to me like he was just comparing sins and expressing the fact he likes pussy more then ass it wadnt even an a&e interview it would be like if your boss fired you because you told some one it is against your religion to eat pork
THC
8:54 - no I definitely to not think the bible is hate speach. It would be interesting to follow your thought bubble that took you there.
THC - "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, " I've been pretty clear on that.
Also, there apparently there is something about the alrightness of Jim Crow laws which Fred did not repeat but the good folks at right-wing-watch have thought to document.
Fred - I wonder where you are on the same sex marraige debate. A judge allowed Utah of all places to allow same sex marraiges. His reasoning included the following
“protects an individual’s ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government interference.”
The entire legal movement is based in the 14th amendment's "due process" and "equal protection" clauses.
Are you as strong a defender of same-sex marraige as you are a protector of Phil Robertson's right to say what he wants. (still not clear what Phil Robertson needs protection from - this isn't a legal issue for him - just a marketplace issue)
The reason this is so interesting to me is it gets to the heart of your libertarian label. There are some internal conflicts there that you may not be aware of.
I've been outspoken in support of gay marriage. Not only did we have two 'No On Prop 8' signs in our yard back during the campaign. I also distributed signs to neighbors and others.
I also wrote a letter to the editor in opposition to Prop 8.
*non-terrorist fist bump*
Post a Comment
<< Home