With the transformation of the means of production into collective property the monogamous family ceases to be the economic unit of society. The private household changes to a social industry. The care and educatlon of children become a public matter. Society cares equally well for all children, legal or illegal. This removes the care about the “consequences” which now forms the essential social factor—moral and economic—hindering a girl to surrender unconditionally to the beloved man. Will not this be sufficient cause for a gradual rise of a more unconventional intercourse of the sexes and a more lenient public opinion regarding virgin honor and female shame? And finally, did we not see that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution, though antitheses, are inseparable and poles of the same social condition? Can prostitution disappear without engulfing at the same time monogamy?
Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family
Adrienne Royer at The Federalist, nails it:
The appeal of the show comes from the surprising normalcy and likability of the family. The men might dress like the cast of Easy Rider, hunt almost daily, and make millions in their business, but the show emphasizes the Real America part of their lives rather than only focusing on the cast as developing celebrities. The conflicts on the show emerge from issues average Americans face: helping your parents with their will, teaching your kids to drive, losing weight for your high school reunion, sibling rivalry among brothers, and struggling to find the right Christmas present for your wife. Ask any fan why they love the show, and you’re likely to hear, “The Robertsons remind me of my own family.”
This is the odd thing about current reactions to the show from those who don’t typically watch it. While the Duggars preach and Sarah Palin shoots in the wilds of Alaska, their actions seem calculated to make a political or religious point. By comparison, the Robertson’s Christian faith is just one component of the show. Like many Americans, the lives of the Robertsons revolve around their church, kids’ activities, work and family get-togethers. Because of their honesty about struggles with alcoholism, drugs and overcoming poverty, the Robertsons demonstrate that it is possible to have a close, traditional family unit in modern times without relying on government handouts.
The threat of the Robertsons isn’t in Phil’s politically incorrect comments. The threat is that this family has figured out how right-wing politics and Evangelical Christianity can influence pop culture without being the punch line or the bad guy. While the left has spent decades making conservatives look like idiots and Christians look like bigots, Duck Dynasty reminds average Americans that these views are mainstream. The left is alerted but will those on the right take advantage of what the Robertsons have created?
Go here to read the rest. It is no accident, as the Marxists used to say, that “family” is almost always attacked by the forces of the left. To those who worship the power of the State to reshape stubborn humanity, the family is a retrograde force to be brought to heel and destroyed, neutered or redefined. Weaken the family and call for ever increasing State power to “solve” the problems caused by a weakened family! Brilliant and utterly evil.
THANK You!
🙂
Good reflection on the ongoing attack on Family and the seriousness of it.
This is exactly the definition of the Negro slave family before the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. The Negro slave’s vows of matrimony included the phrase “until sold and moved”, instead of “until death do us part”.
Now death of the marriage gives us divorce.
In addition to their love and concern for each other, another aspect of the Robertson’s is their independence, The Robertson family’s entrepreneurship is the only virtue that will jump-start America’s economy. Only in a tight knit family with support from all members, can success succeed.
“With the transformation of the means of production into collective property the monogamous family ceases to be the economic unit of society.”
This is exactly the definition of the Negro slave family before the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. The Negro slave’s vows of matrimony included the phrase “until sold and moved”, instead of “until death do us part”.
Now death of the marriage gives us divorce.
In addition to their love and concern for each other, another aspect of the Robertson’s is their independence, The Robertson family’s entrepreneurship is the only virtue that will jump-start America’s economy. Only in a tight knit family with support from all members, can success succeed.
Witht th e New Year, I promis to learn how to typee
Hear. It was the innocence and virginity of his children that caused Phil Robertson to seek the Lord.
Thanks Mary.
Starting in 2001 our family fasted from all television programming. When visiting other households “Duck Dynasty” was brought to our attention.
The family prayer at dinner has been a great kick-starter for many families that have neglected this practice.
Thanks for your insights Mary.
Good comment about family prayer before meals. Thank you Philip.
Mary De Voe.
🙂 peaceful holy days be yours.
A wonderful family—one of us–never watched Duck Dynasty —-I would watch it now if it were available—stick to your guns.
One out of three gay kids will attempt suicide. I was one of them (first attempt at age 11). I prayed nightly for years for God to change my orientation. I cannot put into words how damaging this was for me, as year after year, nothing changed. Thankfully, I survived the damage the church did to me. Others are not so lucky. Every time someone points to this man as someone to be commended, known that suffering children are listening. I’m not asking that you change your views. I’m asking that you think before you speak (or write an article like this), and consider how you will be heard by a young person struggling with this. If what you are saying (or writing) will be read as anything but loving (John 13:35), consider being kinder, or keeping it to yourself if you can’t manage that.
It does absolutely no good Jim to pretend that sin is not sin. Lie to yourself all you want, but do not expect others to pretend that sin is not sin. By the way, sexual orientation is a fairly new buzz word among the gay community. The preferred expression used to be sexual preference. Now that is verboten because that implies choice in the matter:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/06/sexual_preference_is_wrong_say_sexual_orientation_instead.html
Of course that is confusing because lesbians usually say they chose to be lesbians:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/30/women-gayrights
Some homosexuals claim to have chosen it:
http://www.queerbychoice.com/
Bi-sexuality is of course the escape clause for all those people who claim to be homosexuals but also have had heterosexual relations.
My own view is that there are all sorts of ways that sexuality can go down fairly bizarre pathways. None of this is new. What is new is the contention that Christians should be prevented from calling sexual sins, sins. Sorry, that is simply not going to happen. That does no one any good, and especially people enmeshed in sexual sins, many of whom are heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage. We will speak the truth as we see fit.
It is perhaps ironic that homosexuals are often victimized. Liars, gossips, swindlers, adulterers and others who practice habitual and rather apparent sin are not singled out. Homosexuality is not permitted in Christianity because God’s creational intent was for marriage. In the New Testament, Christian teaching gives expression to the very important status of the celibate. Jesus spoke highly of eunichs, for example. Both he and St. Paul clearly recognized that people would alwyas exist for whom this was impossible. And so marriage from the creation is upheld. It’s possible because we exist as male and female. The Christian point is that any other arrangemnt really isn’t practicable. But our culture misses this, and that’s because we’re in decline. When the work is done and the foundation laid for a people, they can afford to remove the former strictures that fostered their prosperity. They feel at liberty to bend the rules. Rome did this on its way out. We, too, will return to barbarism becausse we lazily assume our work is done.
I don’t expect to convince anyone that they’re understanding of scripture is wrong. (Although I wonder if you evangelize against people who eat shellfish or get tattoos – and other issues Jesus is silent on – to the same extent as with homosexuality.) My point is only that people should consider how they put things. As for me, given the choice between saying something that could lead to a child’s suicide, I’d err on the side of choosing my words carefully. But that’s just me.
Jim, Christ loves you and died for you. As far as homosexuality goes, it’s a matter of revelation. We knwo the creation story. We know this is God’s world and his creational intent is in view. We are created as free agents. We can and do go our own way and, sadly, that results in our alienation from him. It is becasue of that alienation that Crhist died—he restored us to life, reconciling us to God. That is redemption. If we claim it, we claim that restoration. Heterosexulaity is upheld as normative because it’s a creational matter. St. Paul upheld it. A host of things were abrogated, though that wasn’t.
“(Although I wonder if you evangelize against people who eat shellfish or get tattoos – and other issues Jesus is silent on – to the same extent as with homosexuality.”
Nope, see my Council of Jerusalem post to understand why:
https://the-american-catholic.com/2011/09/01/council-of-jerusalem/
Personally the issue of abortion has always been my main concern. Homosexuality would not even be on my radar scope if it were not for the massive effort to compel Christians to give their stamp of approval to it. From indoctrination in schools in California, to changing the definition of marriage, to suing bakers who do not want to bake cakes for gay weddings, to tossing the Catholic Church out of adoptions, and now to attempting to silence a man on a cable show, there seems to be no aspect of life where Christians are not confronted with the option of either saying that homosexual conduct is right and proper or standing up for their beliefs. This is a battle we did not choose but that is being forced upon us.
Agree with Donald. I have never opposed civic accommodation of homosexual behavior let alone homosexual orientation. But there is a difference between accommodation and normalization, between tolerance and endorsement. The gay rights community will apparently accept nothing less than civic normalization and endorsement. Those of us who will not go that far must are identified as haters and must be vilified and marginalized. I’m too tough-minded to put up with that crap.
Mike, you pull no punches. Of course I agree exactly with what you said. You explained that very well. It’s a matter of degree. In our country the emerging consensus is that all people should view homosexuality as normative and not just a private option that we may agree to disagree on. That’s the problem. It’s a matter that’s infringing on the rights of non-homosexuals, albeit to a very minute degree. Still, some feel the infringment will grow more intense wtih time, and that seems to be the trajectory right now. We feel we’re basically being told that we must acknowledge homosexuality as altogether good. If the gnostic sentiment were correct, homosexuals have something to teach us: be true to yourself just as you are because you are naturally good. You needn’t do a thing. But as Christians we know that’s not true. We are not ourselves. That is why Christ died and resurrected.
Jim: did you actually read what Robertson said? He did not say gays should be persecuted or killed or scorned – only that homosexual acts are wrong – just as hetero adultery or fornication is wrong. Are the egos of homosexuals so fragile that they are going to rush out and kill themselves because a TV personality disagrees with their lifestyle?
I see very little condemnation of the gay lifestyle these days – even though many aspects of that lifestyle are very risky. I had a few gay male friends in DC and every now and then, when they had had a few, they made some allusions to their noctural adventures in clubs and public restrooms. I don’t know – perhaps they were trying to shock me. I remember reading, when AIDS first became big news, that those most at risk were men who had had over 100 sex partners in a year. My jaw dropped. Who were these people? I was told – by a man who was later diagnosed as HIV positive – that that was not at all unusual for gay men. This same man had many good qualities – but I am not going to pretend his rampant promiscuity was one of them.
You worry about the effect Robertson’s words will have on gay teens, but during the past 35 years or so, the biggest killers of gay males have been – other gay males, not Christians.
Like Donald, homosexuality never preoccupied me in the past – but it is nowadays, because gay groups have gone beyond asking for simple tolerance and are now demanding approval and applause. And they are becoming increasingly vicious and intolerant of those who disagree with them. Groups like GLAAD are making people like me, who were once basically unconcerned about what others did in their bedrooms, feel angry toward the gay rights people because tolerance is a one-way street with you.
Sorry, Jim – I’ve seen photos of the “sexy Jesus” contest held by gays in San Francisco. They go out of their way to offend Christians, but screech like scalded cats and scream “victim!” when Robertson criticizes them. Our feelings don’t matter, but yours are so precious that simply having Romans quoted to you makes you suicidal?
Whatever happened to “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?” The new rule is “If you don’t applaud us and celebrate us, shut up because you can’t hurt our feelings. And if you do, we will try to get you fired and ruin your life.”
I know who the bullies are now. Hint: not the Robertson clan.
“Thankfully I survived the damage the Church did to me.”
Jim. To what extent did the “Church” almost kill you? Do you mean how you almost committed suicide because the Church is intolerant of supporting grave sin?
I’m trying to understand.
The idea that homosexual acts are sinful is appalling to homosexuals I would guess, so if you chose to ignore what the church teaches and continue to follow your desires then how do you blame the church for your suicidal thoughts?
Blaming the church is irrational.
Do you feel guilty about unnatural acts?
If so then the church is your safe harbor, not your battlefront.
A well formed conscience is the sail that captures the breath of God and propels us to shoreline where true freedom exists.
Thank God you are alive Jim.
Bless you and peace be with you.
Philip, I was not following my “desires” as an 11-year-old child. I was not suicidal because of any action I had taken. I was suicidal because I believed that because I was gay I was intrinsically worthless.
Donna, please don’t be flippant. I’m not talking about my feelings now, as an adult. The ego of a child is not strong enough to cope with people hating him. Not when he is thinking, “yes they’re right. I am worthless.” I’m not a child anymore. I don’t care if people think I’m evil, and I don’t care if they compare me to murderers and pedophiles. I’m a grown man; I can take it. My concern is for kids who are going through what I did. I take that very seriously. It’s not a joke.
And, as I wrote, I am not asking people to change their religious views. My point is that kindness should be the default for everyone: Christians, straight people, gay people, whoever. Making fun of people for their religion is not my idea of kindness either. I don’t do that, and I don’t condone others doing it. Nor would Jesus. There are kind ways of expressing one’s beliefs, and their are unkind ways.
I really don’t think I’m being a bully for bringing that up.
If you won’t listen to me, listen to Matthew 7.
Jim, you rightly point out the importance of expressing kindness. As far as the homosexual debate goes, I guess I would just point out that homosexuality is unfeasible. Clearly nature is indicative of heterosexuality, and that would seem normative, i think. Don’t you? And so it wouldn’t be hard to understand that God created the world that way—having in mind a purpose, would it? Perhaps we misjudge creation at times when we forget our Creator’s plan. I think it’s a good sign that you’re coming here and reading what’s written. You’re interested in finding answers and I wish you well.
I don’t know the mind of God. I don’t know that God’s plan for the Isralites applies to me…and being a Louisiana boy myself, I love shrimp and crawfish too much to follow Leviticus to the letter. 😉 But as for my relationship with my partner of 11 years, my conscience is clear. I’m grateful for the love in my life, and I don’t let people reduce me to a sex act.
And I’m grateful for the unsung few people who choose to be, like Jesus, kind in an unkind world. I want to be more like them.
“I love shrimp and crawfish too much to follow Leviticus to the letter.”
Didn’t bother reading my post on the Council of Jerusalem that I linked to eh Jim?
“And I’m grateful for the unsung few people who choose to be, like Jesus, kind in an unkind world.”
Then go and sin no more because that was the admonition of Christ. He came into the world Jim to free us from sin, not to allow us to pretend they are not sins. Pal Jesus did not come into the world but the Alpha and the Omega to bring us Eternal Salvation. Christ commanded us to love God and our neighbor and we can do neither if we pretend that our sins are not sins.
Jim,
It is important that we get something straight, You are not going to convince me or the other participants on this thread that your homosexual behavior is not objectively sinful. That said, none of us believes that gives us, or anyone, a warrant to treat you with anything but kindness, let alone reduce our understanding of you to a sex act. While we may judge your actions in the objective sense, we don’t judge you. Each of us is a sinner, and none of us is in the position to assume we are closer to God than you or anyone else. Don is correct in his admonition to go and sin no more, yet each of us carries on in life as a sinner. It is sad that you do not see your relationship with the “love of your life” for what it is, but then again all of us are deluded when it comes to moral self-examination, just in different ways haunted by different appetites.
I hope you have a blessed and merry Christmas.
Amen Mike!
Jim.
Thanks for explaining the circumstances at such a fragile age for what I can only guess is a “feeling” you had that attracted you to the same sex.
The stigma and repulsion thereof from society ( your peers ) is what was hell and my guess is that at times suicide would stop the pain you suffered from an unsympathetic world. Am I getting it?
For many of us that have never had this inclination to same sex attractiveness the understanding of it is difficult at best. What is not difficult to understand is the cruelty of unkind children and adults that wish to be understood first before trying to understand.
For them and for me at times as well, I’d like to apologize.
A great Catholic community http://www.couragerc.net
is working on establishing healthy relationships and understanding.
Again, peace be with you and Merry Christmas.
I was confused when I was 11 years old. Hey, I’m 63 and more aware that I don’t have the answers.
As long as we live, we may come to a better mind and join the blessed endeavor, i.e., seek the faith, grace and forgiveness necessary to attain (through no merit of our own) the gift of eternal life, which Christ by His life, death, and resurrection won for us at such cost.
Merry Christmas!
Amen T Shaw!
Ha Ha God works in mysterious ways!
I would never have found this web page if I had not been revolted by the Left’s reaction to the Duck Dynasty guy’s quotes.
Frankly, I am trying to figure out how to set all my internet whatchacallems to filter and only get news from this page and whatever this page “links” to (or whatever). I am sick and tired of getting politically correct crapola rammed down my throat by ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, etc. I am tired of their lies, their spin, their divisiveness, and yes, their rather obvious attempts to muzzle, if not stamp out, Christians in general and Catholics in particular.
Thanks to all you secular creeps who have taken over the major media! You have succeeded in steering me to the source of truth I have been seeking for quite a while! Consider it your Christmas – er – excuse me – your “Holiday” gift to me!
Jim, I am sorry you took my remarks to be flippant – I was not trying be so. My emotion when typing my comment was more exasperation than anything else. I am sorry about the teasing and unkindness you encountered as a child – I experienced teasing and bullying in grade school for different reasons and believe me, I know it hurts.
You are right to not want to be reduced to a sex act – and yet, isn’t that exactly what the gays of GLAAD and the more exhibitionist members of the gay community do? I don’t want to be reduced to my sex organs either, which is why I am upset with the Sandra Flukes and other left-wing feminists who have reduced “women’s health” to contraception and abortion and tell women like me I somehow don’t count, I’m not really a woman because I don’t think like they do.
At any rate, I agree very much with what Mike Petrik said. And again, I did not mean to be flippant or dismissive of the cruelty you experienced as a child and teen.
Merry Christmas to you, Jim and a Merry Christmas as well to the bloggers here.