All of this boo-hoo-hooing over the fate of Poor Phil [the Millionaire Gay-Hater] Robertson is just over the top. I mean seriously. Now - yes - now, we get to hear how "mean and evil gay people" are not just from the usual sources. No, it's not just Ex-Governor Caribou Barbie, now it's Bambi Barbie Jr. whose just got to set the LGBT meanies in their place.
So quoth the scholarly pen of Don't-Have-The-Sex-pert Single Teen-Mom and High School Drop-out Bristol Palin:
Everyone needs to leave Phil Robertson alone for expressing his beliefs. I think it’s so hypocritical how the LGBT community expects every single flippen person to agree with their life style. This flies in the face of what makes America great – people can have their own beliefs and own opinions and their own ways of life.Generally speaking, the definition of "Homophobic" generally starts with people who refuse to respect and/or recognize the equal human rights of people - simply because they happened to be Gay. There's no "Jump" required, that's the starting position of many on the Right.
Everyone needs to treat others like God would, with love.
It goes both ways.
I hate how the LGBT community says it’s all about “love” and “equality.” However, if you don’t agree with their lifestyle, they spread the most hate. It is so hypocritical it makes my stomach turn. They need to learn how to respect others’ opinions and not just jump to the conclusion that everyone who doesn’t support homosexuality and gay marriage is homophobic.
They take the easy way out every time anyone speaks out about their beliefs on the Bible. If I were Duck Dynasty, I would take my show to another channel.
So much disrespect.
Secondly, it's fine for people to "disagree" with the gay lifestyle - no one is forcing them to participate in it - but the issue here is when people, like Phil, Lie about it and expect not to be called on those Lies, and then expect that on those who do agree with it, don't get to make their own choices based on those Lies. That doesn't fly.
There really seems to be a cognitive malfunction on their part when it's comes to the question of being "Free" to speak. Phil was absolutely free to speak to GQ. He was free to speak to whomever is willing to listen to him. He is Still Free to do Just That. Only A&E isn't willing to listen, or pay him, for a little while.
Exactly when, at what moment, did being able to say - in effect - that "Gays Are Going to Hell" somehow not merit a response? He said being Gay is the same as being a Rapist or participating in Bestiality. Where exactly is the "Love" in that sentiment? That's not a "matter of opinion", besides being patently false, that's saying they are involved in not just immoral but Criminal Behavior. Or better yet, where is the "Love" in suggesting the "Black People were Happier Under Jim Crow"?
The most "Hateful" thing people have done - IS QUOTE PHIL IN DETAIL.
This isn't an issue of "agreeing" with homosexuality or gay marriage, in fact no one is asking Phil to agree with it. No one is asking him to do it himself. But he did far more than just disagree - he's said in the past that "Homosexuals are Killers".
He has a "Right" to say that, but no one has a Right to Respond?
Like Hell they don't.
And didn't we learn from someone else in the Palin family that falsely accusing someone of being responsible for Murder was "Blood Libel"? Yes, I think we did. So how come Phil suddenly gets to do it without anyone objecting?
"Free Speech" - within the legal confines of the First Amendment - does not mean Freedom from Criticism by Private individuals, or freedom from Consequence by Private Institutions. It's a protection from Government Criminalization of Speech short of Direct Defamation, Obscenity and/or Calls for Outright Violence under the Brandenburg Standard. That's is all. That's it. Write it down. Save it in your Bookmarks. It doesn't mean that when any Wingnut Talks Bullshit, no one else gets to talk Shit back at him.
It's not like there's been a shortage of people on the Right rising to Phil's defense. Starting with Bristol's Mom and going on to Geraldo Rivera [who went so far in his defense as to argue that calling someone a "Cocksucking Faggot" isn't really a "Slur"], to Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, Monica Crowley, Martha MacCallum, Mike Slater and Bryan Fischer who all "Stood Up for Phil" in the very first days of this controversy.
Now we have Former Governor and Former Pastor Mike Huckabee declaring that the Phil Robertson's position isn't any different from Barack Obama's circa 2008.
“I think it has come to a point in our culture where political correctness has made it so if you want to take a point of view, it is traditional, it holds to steadfast old fashioned biblical, Christian values — which are also, by the way, the traditional values of Judaism and Islam — somehow you’re supposed to just shut up and keep that to yourself,” Huckabee told host Chris Wallace.Well, Huck, for one thing - that's not Barack Obama's position in 2013. Barack Obama refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, forcing Congressional Republicans to pay for out of their own pockets, which ultimately led to parts of it being struck down. I don't think Phil would do that. Obama Repealed DADT and allowed for the desegregation of the Military. He has been quite vocal in his support for Same-Sex Marriage in the years since 2008, so to sort of wave a magic wand and pretend that things haven't changed for him, and the nation, in the last five years in very near delusional. Furthermore it's not like Barack Obama, even in 2008, EVER suggested that being gay was akin to being a Rapist or engaging in Bestiality. Nor was he was in agreement with anything like this.
“But if you want to advocate for same-sex marriage, we’re supposed to be very tolerant. And I’m tolerant of the people who have a position on that issue contrary to mine,” he continued.
“But I’m not tolerant of the intolerance.”
“What we’ve seen is, there’s a new level of bullying on the part of these militant activist groups, who if anyone says something that holds to the same position that Barack Obama held in 2008, when he was at the Saddleback Church with John McCain, made it clear very clear that he opposed same sex marriage, and he said he did so because he was a Christian and because of his biblical views.”
“If [Obama's] position was OK in 2008,” Huckabee asked, “how come it isn’t OK in 2013,"
"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions,” Robertson said. “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. That’s what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country.”That doesn't exactly sound "Tolerant" to me. It doesn't sound "Loving". THAT Sounds like HATE!
Is Mike Huckabee claiming that the "Traditional Values of Americatm" - Are THAT Hateful?
Furthermore, Phil didn't even bring up "Marriage" in any his rantings that I've seen - and frankly I've seen and heard just about enough already. Barack Obama's 2008 position was in support of "Civil Unions", he just wasn't yet willing to openly support the use of the big "M" word.
Is Mike Huckebee seriously claiming that Phil Robertson Supports Civil-Unions?
Are you kidding me?
Now let me get back to Pint-Size Palin, who isn't exactly making her first foray here into the Same-Sex Marriage fray. Here's what she wrote to President Obama after he said he'd decided to support Same-Sex Marriage because of the influence and advice of his daughters.
While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.So, yeah, there's that. When the President puts out his OPINION on an issue, it's seems Bristol Palin herself did not exactly feel restrained in trying to belittle and embarrass him, instead of addressing the substance of his view - that Human Rights are Human Rights. So exactly why should anyone afford her, or any of those in her position, some greater level of deference, sensitivity or sympathy?
In this situation, it was the other way around. I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger, or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox.
Sometimes dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking. In this case, it would’ve been nice if the President would’ve been an actual leader and helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of Glee.
Particularly when they are supporting the words of a man whose position is far closer to the Russian TV Star who said he'd be happy to Shove all the Gays in the Ovens, than it is to President Obama's former view?
That's Genocide Talk, yet do we hear anyone on the Right - ANYONE - even being willing to admit that such talk is anything but "Hateful"?
When a gay girl is forced to use a Boys Restroom and called a "Pathetic Dyke" do we hear Conservatives Complain and leap to her defense?
When an alleged "Christian" woman working as a camp counselor decides she must Molests Gay Girls to "Show them God's Love" - do Conservatives leap up in outrage?
But brother oh brother do they Whine and Cry when a Multi-Millionare Duck Call Shiller shoots off his mouth and gets kicked off an Semi-Real Reality Show.
If for once, we could see a matching collective outrage at the Inhumanity and Hatred of such actions and words coming from the Right, we might - just might - be able to take theirs claims of support "Free Speech" and opposing "Hate" seriously.
But we don't do we?
If we saw that, we might be willing to believe people like Phil when they claim this:
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”Unfortunately, considering his other comments, the above claim isn't credible, it's not reasonable, it's not rational to say someone is "Full of Evil and Murder" and then say you "Love Them". You kinda don't. Those comments are the very definition of "Not Love". It just doesn't pass the smell test.
And then there's the point that Robertson has misquoted, misunderstood and exaggerated the meaning of his scripture when he stated this:
Then he paraphrases 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.”Some have pointed out that that isn't exactly what the verse, in it's original form, says:
He claimed the verse condemns "homosexual offenders," which is wildly incorrect. That term wasn't even invented until 1869. Other translations say "sodomite." Also wrong. The translation you cite says "men who have sex with men." The original Greek word is arsenokoiti. And it is not AT ALL clear what it means. Some scholars suggest it may refer to pedophiles. But no one knows for sure.This wasn't a term that was in common use at the time, Paul may have actually invented it. From what I can quickly look up from the Christian Research Institute that it may refer to persons who are married who hire and use male and/or femaie child prostitutes. So in context when is says "male prostitutes and arsenokoiti" it means male prostitutes and married men who hire child prostitutes.
So what is the proper contextual meaning of this mysterious Greek word? The convincing argument from history that Paul is putting forth, White says, is a condemnation of the “married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.”8So, it appears that Phil - like many other Hater Christians - actually doesn't even know what he's talking about. I think damn near all of us, Gay or Straight, can get on board with the idea of condemning the use of children as prostitutes, male or female.
In light of this interpretation of the meaning of arsenokoitai, White concludes with an emotional appeal: “Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So…this passage says…nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.”
On top of that, most pedophiles - are not necessarily Gay - even when they victims are mostly male boys. This is an act of violence and forcible rape of a minor, not love, not devotion, not commitment. Yes, that certainly should be condemned - and if Phil had Said That there would be little argument from hardly anyone.
But he didn't.
When you look at this context, and the original meaning of the original words used - it may appear that the Bible - at least the sections written by Paul which refer to arsenkoiti twice - doesn't "Condemn The Gays" at all. People are simply using the Bible as an excuse to justify their own hatred and Fear, which again Bristol, is the exact definition of "Homophobia".
This also makes Phil's claim that "gays are Killers" even more heinous when you think about it. What's he trying to say there anyway, is that a veiled reference blaming gays for Aids or something? Like they cooked it up in their little "gay laboratories?" It's patently crazy.
And of course Phill says people should "Repent", but that is rather hard to swallow when Phil himself isn't Repentant for his own past misdeeds.
During Phil’s darkest days, in the early 1970s, he had to flee the state of Arkansas after he badly beat up a bar owner and the guy’s wife. Kay Robertson persuaded the bar owner not to press charges in exchange for most of the Robertsons’ life savings. (“A hefty price,” he notes in his memoir.) I ask Phil if he ever repented for that, as he wants America to repent—if he ever tracked down the bar owner and his wife to apologize for the assault. He shakes his head.If it's "God's Job" to "sort 'em out later" - why are he going around saying anyone is a "Killer" Now? Again, not credible. Not believable.
“I didn’t dredge anything back up. I just put it behind me.”
As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
This hypocrite is who the Conservatives want to rally around? Fine, have at it. Just don't expect anyone else who isn't religiously or politically deluded to rationally sit back and not respond.
That's just not gonna happen.