Hattip to Dale Price at Dyspeptic Mutterings. I have never watched Duck Dynasty on A&E, and before this week only had the vaguest idea that it is about a family that manufactures duck calls, is rich, rural and devout, with the men looking like a road crew for ZZ Top. It became a mega hit, and this week the patriarch of the family was fired because of comments he made about homosexuality in a magazine interview. Go here to read the interview in GQ. The family has put out this statement:
So far so predictable. We live in a country which lauds freedom of speech in theory, but in practice if you deviate in your public sentiments a fraction of an inch from the PC cant of the day, the forces of love and tolerance will attempt to gut punch you if they can. No more formidable practitioners of that art exists than the gay lobby, the “love” that dare not speak its name now being the “love” that wants to ensure that its critics dare not speak at all.
I am unsurprised that it is feminist lesbian Camille Paglia who on the Laura Ingraham show had the best commentary on this latest eruption of the gay thought police. Paglia, who is an old time liberal who actually cherishes freedom for herself and also for those who disagree with her, has been outraging leftist pieties for decades. Go here to listen to her appearance with Ingraham.
Robertson has been suspended from Duck Dynasty due to comments he made to GQ that have been deemed “anti-gay.” According to Paglia, the culture has become too politically correct.
“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”
Paglia went on to point out that while she is an atheist she respects religion and has been frustrated by the intolerance of gay activists.
“I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility,” Paglia said. “This is not the mark of a true intellectual life. This is why there is no cultural life now in the U.S. Why nothing is of interest coming from the major media in terms of cultural criticism. Why the graduates of the Ivy League with their A, A, A+ grades are complete cultural illiterates, etc. is because they are not being educated in any way to give respect to opposing view points.”
“There is a dialogue going on human civilization, for heaven sakes. It’s not just this monologue coming from fanatics who have displaced the religious beliefs of their parents into a political movement,” she added. “And that is what happened to feminism, and that is what happened to gay activism, a fanaticism.”
Go here to read the rest at The Daily Caller. God did not send us into this Vale of Tears so that we would spend our days with our hands over our mouths, but rather to boldly speak His Truth no matter the cost.
In a bankrupt culture, Duck Dynasty is an example of creativity and initiative. Freedom really burns the obliterators of freedom.
I’m with Phil Robertson.
I especially love it when, at the end of each episode, Phil has the family at supper, and he thanks God for all His blessings and says a grace. He even enunciates (gasp!) the Holy Name of Jesus.
I’m with Phil Robertson. I hope he pulls the Robertson family out of A&E and moves it to a less fascistic venue, maybe the NRA cable network or FOXNEWS.
All she ahs is feint support for free speech. It’s her schtick. It’s her rice bowl. It’s a wind chime in a hurricane. It accomplishes nothing. And, she knows it.
Progressive liberalism is as much a religion as any other. It has been in the nature of the West, according to Oswald Spengler, that any secular offshoots of Christiainty have been just as coercive in their approach. He called it ‘Faustian’.
When will we rise up against the Christophobes who dominate the mainstream media and seek to suppress free speech?
I do not want to be the arbiter of anyone’s sexual conduct since I have had plenty of my own indiscretions requiring the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation. Therefore, I do not want to sit in condemnation of any homosexual or lesbian, and in fact neither did Phil Robertson when he said in the GQ interview:
“We never ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus – whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
I know exactly what I deserve for the sins I have committed. However, just because I am a sinner does not mean that suddenly I must condone – even extol and praise – sin in either myself or others. But in liberal parlance, in order to demonstrate a non-judgmental attitude, one must act to confirm both one’s self and others in sin. That is what will send me to hell quicker than snake snot – to be confirmed in my sin – and that is the condemnation that liberalism reaps upon its own head.
There is no longer any freedom of speech because there is no longer any love for our Lord Jesus Christ. He is Truth, and as He said so long ago, the Truth will set you free. We choose the sanctification of our licentious ways over the Truth because we are addicted to physical pleasure no different than any alcoholic or drug addict in the throes of his self-imposed chemical prison.
Again, I do not want to judge a homosexual because while I am not a homosexual, I am equally not without sin either. I just pray for God’s mercy on me in spite of my failings and inabilities, and for our country, that true freedom will one day be restored.
Phil is an elder of his church and his oldest son (the “beardless one”) is a preacher.
One wonders if their churches this Sunday are going to be standing room only. Maybe even if they’re not your denomination (they are mine) those close enough should try and attend to show solidarity with our fellow soldiers in this fallen world.
If someone’d been fired for crudeness/something conservatives found objectionable, these posts would be about the right of companies to fire people, free market blahblah.
me I just found guys, errr, graphic remarks on the issue kinda amusing
If someone’d been fired for crudeness/something conservatives found objectionable, these posts would be about the right of companies to fire people, free market blahblah.
Companies have a right to fire people, spud. Breaches of manners are a reason. The question is why is it considered a breach of manners to express a negative opinion of homosexuality or the nexus of social relations which surrounds it (most particularly in a culture which celebrates transgression and obnoxious behavior).
It is doubtful that the constituency for the show would be at all bothered by Robertson’s sentiments. This says something about the Creative Class types on the supply side.
“If someone’d been fired for crudeness/something conservatives found objectionable, these posts would be about the right of companies to fire people, free market blahblah.”
You possess a mind reading charism JI? My actual position on firing is that employers, absent a contract, should be able to fire an employee for any or no reason, just as an employee is able to quit at any time. However, firing an individual because he runs afoul of the gay thought police is a poor business decision in this case, as A&E is learning now.
In regard to the free speech issue, the forces of love and tolerance want to make certain that such freedom is purely theoretical unless their pieties are observed.
“me I just found guys, errr, graphic remarks on the issue kinda amusing”
Phil Robertson stated something to the effect that it is normal and correct for a man to prefer a woman’s genitalia vice a man’s orifice of excrement. He is correct, and sadly, to highlight the depravity of the liberal point of view, graphic description is required nowadays.
St. Paul was equally graphic in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 when he said that men who receive penetration from men (malakos) and men who penetrate men (arsenokoites) will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God.
What is crude and objectionable is parading sexual depravity around, sanctifying it, as though it is something to be extolled and praised. I do not care what homosexuals do, so long as they keep it to themselves and not pollute society. I don’t want to be judged, either, and I certainly don’t go around parading my own sins as somehow worthy of laud, honor and glory. I go to Confession and try to amend my behavior. I am not better than a homosexual, nor does Phil Robertson apparently think he is better either. He merely said that if you’re a man, then you should prefer your woman’s body and not a man’s. That is normal, and even if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that is normal because that is ostensibly how your theory of evolution supposedly designed us.
PS, Jesus was crude and offensive to many. He called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. He whipped the money changers out of the temple. He confronted the woman at the well with her fornicating life style. He told another woman begging for her child to be healed of demon possession, “Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” And he told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. To be Christian is to be offensive, because the Truth – Jesus Christ – is the stone upon which many stumble. If Phil Robertson hadn’t given offense, then one may well wonder of he were really Christian. Happily he followed in the Master’s footsteps.
I think you mean “Happily Happily Happily he followed in…” 😉
Don may also want to add John C Wright’s excellent take to the link list:
http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/12/chik-fil-a-day-for-duck-dynasty-call-your-cable-company/
Lol “spud”
What I like about reflexive anti-PC is ppl can wax on about the Thought Police while generally not really defending what was actually said
Free speech means that you do not have to defend the truth of what was said in order to be opposed to the attempts by other to silence the speaker. I agree that this is a hard concept for those who find nothing wrong with the gay thought police to comprehend.
j.l: Why should one be required to provide a 7,000 word point-by-point defense of a man’s words that were twisted by vicious scoundrels to make a trap for imbeciles?
So there’s no circumstances you can think of where people pushing for someone to be fired for comments that would be justified? Doubt you think that.
This doesn’t have to be one of those. It’s just that a lot of anti-PC has become orthodoxy of its own, not based on any truth, but on who’s offended by something, regardless of whether it was offensive or not.
“So there’s no circumstances you can think of where people pushing for someone to be fired for comments that would be justified? Doubt you think that.”
Once again I doubt if you have the charism of mind reading. Employment is a matter between employee and employer, and if an employer takes umbrage at remarks the employer, absent contractual guarantees, can take action.
I have never been much concerned with what people say as long as other people have the freedom to counter their arguments. That is what the gay thought police do not like: that other people have the temerity to state positions they abhor.
“We would be happy to work with our Republican colleagues to protect the free speech rights of employees and individuals from being violated by corporations and bosses. We look forward to seeing their proposals.”
Or people were actually offended by specific comments.
Disagree, but you’re doing plenty of mind reading yourself here
No, fake outrage for the Gay Thought Police is merely a mechanism to bully organizations like A&E to silence their critics, based upon countless examples similar to this. In this case they succeeded in bullying A&E, but the resulting furor I think indicates a critical miscalculation on their part in this instance.
j.i.
If people were offended by Phil Robertson’s comments, then what about another reality show on A&E, Storage Wars?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/12/19/gay-ae-stars-not-suspended-for-expressing-preference-for-man-ass
What if people are offended by that? Will you be consistent there?
I don’t care what people on Storage Wars say…on or off the camera…I don’t watch it.
I personally think the biggest irony in all of this is GLAAD’s statement:
“By taking quick action and removing Robertson from future filming, A&E has sent a strong message that discrimination is neither Christian nor an American value.”
Yet, Phil Robertson expresses his (crass to cityfolk, I’m sure, yet still orthodox) exegesis on sexual morality, based on Corinthians (and certainly just as frank, in the original Greek as Paul Primavera pointed out above), and he loses his job?
I would call that religious discrimination. Of course, there are those who somehow think that “the right to not be offended” (which doesn’t exist) trumps “the right to freely exercise religion” (which explicitly does exist).
I don’t think Phil should pursue any legal action against A&E…but given all of the wrongful termination lawsuits that exist for plenty of other valid/invalid reasons, I’d say it’s at least as plausible. Instead, my hope is that the whole family takes their show as soon as possible to a different network…because all A&E is in it for is the money.
“We would be happy to work with our Republican colleagues to protect the free speech rights of employees and individuals from being violated by corporations and bosses. We look forward to seeing their proposals.”
It’s a deal Kurt, just as soon as Unions stop violating the free speech rights, and right to life, of workers who do not want to belong to Unions.
Putting this guys GLBT remarks to one side, why is NO-ONE horrified by his incredibly racist remarks? You know, the one that said that African-American people were happy being trampled on in the pre-civil rights era? Where he denied that violence towards African-Americans didn’t happen? That Black people were Godly before they were given equal rights?? This guy is evil.
What racist remarks? That of his own life experience? So now personal testimony of your own history is racist?
No, I don’t know where he said any of that. Maybe you should check the actual quote sometime.
Frankly I do not care what he said, because my issue is freedom of speech. However, what he said is clearly not racist:
“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.”
All purely based on his personal observations prior to his conversion to Christianity. However, this is merely a red herring for the Gay Thought Police.
There is the issue of reactionary remarks which are very typical among Christians. I wish we didn’t do that. I wish we kept our mouths shut sometimes. Of course things get taken out of context. But when someone’s reactionary their comments stand out on their own. We don’t need to get like that. It’s an “I’ll give them a piece of my mind” kind of attitude. Even ministers get cocky like that. It’s not good. They’re reacting to our absurd politically correct climate. They get upset and sound off.
Mr. McClarey, thank you for posting Mr. Robertson’s remarks regarding race.
It is also useful to note that the Robertson family has fostered/adopted numerous
children over the years, several of whom are not white.
One would have to be actively looking to manufacture outrage to try to paint
that family as racist. The charge does seem to be a red herring from the
Gay Thought Police.
Using a blanket “free speech” defense is intellectual laziness. If you’re generally against people being sanctioned for saying certain things, regardless of their platform, fine, but acting like people on a certain side aren’t allowed to be offended by anything is just reflexive partisanship. Just because select people get “offended” easy doesn’t mean they never have a point.
furthermore the attempt by conservatives like Governor Jindal to portray this as a simple 1st Amendment issue is silly — conservatives complain about stuff actors say/do on/off-screen all the time, and Jindal himself criticized Miley Cyrus’s gross VMA performance. So OK, we’ve established there’s certain things we don’t want to see/hear on television. This was a print interview, so it’s a little different, but it’s the same basis for complaint.
personally, I don’t think they needed to suspend the guy, he made some crass offhand comments but I mean, part of the appeal of the show apparently is the down-home “folksy” vibe and it’s not surprising that some views might come with that that people find ignorant. I just take issue with the idiotic “PC Thought Police” explanation for everything and the implication that people aren’t allowed to object to what was said.
“There is the issue of reactionary remarks which are very typical among Christians”
watch out, you might be a member of the Gay Thought Police according to the erudite logic of this blog
But you’re right, the reaction to PC has produced certain sentiments that are essentially its mirror image, where as long as what you say pisses off the right group, there can’t ever be anything wrong with it.
“Using a blanket “free speech” defense is intellectual laziness.”
No, it is rather an indication that most leftists no longer treasure free speech.
“but acting like people on a certain side aren’t allowed to be offended by anything”
The Gay Thought Police were not offended by Robertson, they pounced upon him as an opportunity to flex their ideological muscles. This is their constant mode of operation.
“conservatives complain”
There is a difference between reasoned debate and attempting to shut someone up because you despise his message. All part and parcel of the Gay Thought Police’s goal to make any criticism of homosexual sex verboten.
I’m sure some weren’t really offended, however they think negative sentiments expressed about homosexuality should be stigmatized because they don’t see anything wrong with it and want more people to see it that way. You can agree or disagree with the common analogy but the general concept isn’t different from discouraging racist speech in the ’60s and ’70s, and no one calls them the Black Thought Police (people complain about racial PC now but that’s a little different.)
furthermore there is no Great Truth to Power statement that is being suppressed here, just goofy musing about the mechanics of sex, which I’m pretty sure most kids initially thought was gross in general the first time they learned about it
J.I.
The Left (in this case GLAAD) wants to get people fired. They applauded what happened when someone lost their job (more or less) as a result of religious discrimination.
It’s a false equivalence to declare that the Right (anti-PC in your lingua franca) immediately goes to demand that Miley Cyrus’ record label shut her down. I’m sure there were some isolated voices, but certainly no group that could warrant an early morning call with execs like GLAAD did with A&E.
I mean, I actually applaud the intellectual honesty of those like Don Lemon, Camille Paglia, and Andrew Sullivan. All of those individuals are gay and understand that GLAAD’s response is no different than calling an actor a Communist back in the 1950’s.
“I’m sure some weren’t really offended, however they think negative sentiments expressed about homosexuality should be stigmatized because they don’t see anything wrong with it and want more people to see it that way.”
Yep, they want all people who hold to the Christian teaching that homosexual sex is a sin to be regarded as ignorant bigots and forced to shut up. Comparing a sexual perversion to a race is indeed one of the prime tactics of the Gay Thought Police.
“furthermore there is no Great Truth to Power statement”
You are now being deliberately obtuse. The Gays are the great sacred cow in the media, academia, entertainment and the Democrat Party. They wield great power and the activists among them want to drive their opponents from the public square, freedom of speech be hanged.
I think we make a mistake in calling homosexual activity sex. I mean, they can fool around as any couple can fool around. But it’s not really sex that’s occurring. That’s part of the problem in a way. Sexuality is procreative among other things. What happens between two people of the same gender is more like fooling around. It’s important to the cultural debate that we get that right.
And I agree that a larger force has taken the gays captive. They’re using them to advance a progressive agenda. The gays are along for the ride.
Don,
Sorry to provoke such bitterness in you. I know it is a difficult time for conservatives. My best wishes to you and your family at Christmas.
Bad time for conservatives Kurt? ObamaCare is immolating, Obama is in full retreat, and the Republicans are in excellent shape for the 2014 midterms. May we conservatives always have such difficulties!
As for bitterness, I blog for fun. My emotional investment in the back and forth in comboxes is about the same as when I am playing the strategy games I enjoy. To see me truly bitter you would have to observe me arguing in front of a judge who is apparently both deaf and non compos mentis, or on the rare occasions when a client’s fee check has bounced.
At any rate, the merriest of Christmases for you and your family and the happiest of New Years!
“Comparing a sexual perversion to a race is indeed one of the prime tactics of the Gay Thought Police.”
You act like this was just made up out of thin air. If there was no logic to it, no one except the diehards would buy into it. They’re not fully comparable in that they’re two obviously different things but they are comparable in that much of homosexuality is innate, like race is. Of course there’s differences even there — you can’t exactly “hide” what race you are — but it is a commonality. I’m not inclined to believe that people are lying en masse about the sexual attractions they experience. There’s some ambiguities to be sure, but it’s not a made-up thing.
and I agree that the people you’re talking about have deemed these opinions unacceptable…so? Other opinions have been deemed unacceptable/not appropriate in the past, rightly or wrongly. Complaining that this is the case without making an opposing case isn’t exactly going to get you anywhere.
John: I’m not targeting the Right with “anti-PC,” I’m referring to an “enemy of my enemy” mentality among the conservative movement that leads certain bullshit to be excused cuz it offends the right people. It’s done a lot with this issue, but also with race (people get very sensitive if the GOP’s current status as a primarily white party is brought up, even though it’s…true, not that there’s anything wrong with it,) and on the paleoconservative front with Jews.
obviously certain groups exist to get professionally offended. that doesn’t mean certain things can’t actually be offensive. The impression you’d get from some of the right is that the only to be offensive is to make anti-Christian statements. a mentality like that’s just tribal politics, which both sides obviously engage in.
I can’t really compare what Miley C did. To what Phil R said. He told the truth, he was not sinful. He used anatomically correct terms not slang and he told the truth. Today some people just can’t handle the truth.
“He used anatomically correct terms”
lol. Again this proves what exactly? Most kids find the mechanics of sex gross when they first learn about it. I would not say reducing sexual attraction to what goes where is exactly a winning argument.
[…] Easy Steps to Marginalize & Silence Traditional Christians – Shml Ppry Free Speech Isn’t Free – Donald R. McClarey JD, The American Catholic Sanity Amid Duck Dynasty Hysteria: Read This […]
“and I agree that the people you’re talking about have deemed these opinions unacceptable…so?”
.
When people from across the spectrum of thought have a problem with something, that tends to suggest a “consensus”…in this case, that A&E and GLAAD are wrong and therefore statist. A broad agreement implies a correct position, over the contrary one.
.
Beyond that, either you believe in an objective reality (and therefore an absolute right and wrong) or you are a subjectivist/relativist (and therefore don’t). If you are the latter, I think this conversation would be incredibly difficult to carry forward as there’s likely very little common ground upon which to converse. If it’s the former, it’s then a question of to what degree you embrace it…
.
For example: if there’s a God, then it’s impossible that two incompatible things are simultaneously correct…such as, can God love both a sinner AND the sin? Or can God only love the sinner yet NOT the sin? Those cannot both be true.
[…] Easy Steps to Marginalize & Silence Traditional Christians – Shml Ppry Free Speech Isn’t Free – Donald R. McClarey JD, The American Catholic Sanity Amid Duck Dynasty Hysteria: Read This […]
The argument isn’t about relativism, but competing worldviews. In this specific case, one side thinks something is wrong, the other doesn’t and wants to create a general consensus in their favor. Some individuals may take an amoral “do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt others” outlook on life, but that’s not an inherent part of this argument, even if it’s sometimes used as a talking point.
I don’t know what statism has to do with this specifically. Again my point isn’t to argue about the firing, just to say that people shouldn’t be preemptively disqualified from taking issue with certain statements, as if all complaints that can be associated with PC are illegitimate.
“The argument isn’t about relativism, but competing worldviews. ”
.
How is the phrase “competing worldviews” not, at its core, an expression of relativism?
.
Or…if you prefer: how can two competing worldviews both be objectively right at the same time?
They can’t, which is why both sides think the other’s wrong in this case.
So you don’t believe in an absolute/objective reality?
I’m just describing the debate, which isn’t between one side saying something’s wrong and the other saying “maybe it’s right, maybe it’s wrong, who cares,” but one side saying something’s wrong and the other saying it isn’t.
unless I’ve misunderstood you you’re describing something opposed to traditional Christian morality as necessarily relativistic when really…it just means some people believe the opposite of traditional Christian morality, at least on certain issues.
obviously one view’s right and one isn’t, which is why you have such a pitched debate over this issue, because the endgoal is to establish a societal consensus that few people disagree with.
“unless I’ve misunderstood you you’re describing something opposed to traditional Christian morality as necessarily relativistic when really…it just means some people believe the opposite of traditional Christian morality, at least on certain issues.”
.
Well, I’m trying to be charitable. I believe that traditional Christian morality is correct. Anything else, any other morality, by definition, must not be…otherwise, I’m wasting my time (as are a lot of other people). So, I’m not using relativism/subjectivism as a pejorative, but as merely the only other alternative to my position that sounds better than simply “wrong.” So, no, I don’t believe anything opposed to me is “necessarily relativistic”…just, I try to give as much benefit of the doubt as I can….”relativist” sounds better than “wrong”. I speak as a former relativist.
.
Now, do not presume that I believe that I perfectly understand (much less emulate) this objective morality of which I am proposing. There’s a difference between asserting something exists and asserting that one knows everything about it. The second point is what the study of reality (philosophy, theology, etc) is for..and why I am interested in consensus, where it is genuine.
.
But to jump a step ahead: how might I declare that everything has some position, some things better, some things worse, in an objective reality? Why is it that I am effectively saying that, if some people think opposite of me on “some issues”, that they are still wrong?
.
I defer to an article on CS Lewis, discussing Coleridge and channeling Aristotle…if I can remember how to embed quotes properly…this article states it better than I can.
“wrong” is more accurate than “relativistic” though. Relativistic means people thinking that there’s no right and wrong, and accepting a multitude of different belief systems as possibly valid. Obviously that’s not the case here, you just have two diametrically opposed views.