Phil Robertson has the right to his religion without condemnation

Sun Times ^ | 12/24/2013 | Mary Mitchell

[NetAddicted]

I haven’t seen “Duck Dynasty.”

But I’m fascinated by the controversy involving one member of the cast who has conservative politicians and the show’s fans in an uproar.

Last week, A&E announced it was suspending Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the reality-TV family, because he made disparaging remarks about gays in an interview with GQ Magazine.

I won’t repeat Robertson’s remarks because they are offensive.

But Robertson pointed to biblical teachings to explain why he believes homosexuality is a sin. He also said he had not personally seen any black people being mistreated in his neck of the woods during the Jim Crow era.

[NetAddicted]

#IstandWithPhilRobertson

[NetAddicted]

Oops! Keep having problems posting. Figure it’s to do with iPads, but the article was titled Faith, not Religion.

[Eagles6]

1. Sarah Palin isn't a politician.

2. Nothing Phil said was offensive unless you believe the word of God is offensive.

[papertyger]

I won’t repeat Robertson’s remarks because they are offensive.

But the activity he was commenting on, isn't?

[papertyger]

2. Nothing Phil said was offensive unless you believe the word of God is offensive.

Please try to keep in mind they are going to try to make the case such antiquated religious beliefs are on par with India's widows being burned at their husband's funeral pyre.

Have an answer ready.

[fidelis]

"I won’t repeat Robertson’s remarks because they are offensive."

Robertson's remarks were only "offensive" in that the language he used was slightly coarse. But the disgusting activity he was describing cannot be described in any other way than offensively-- unless you don't mention it at all, which is what "gays" and their supporters count on. And the fact remains that he didn't say anything that wasn't true or wasn't his own stated opinion based on his experience. To people who object to what he replied when he was asked a straightforward question, I would ask them two questions:

1. What exactly did he say that wasn't true?

2. If you don't like the way he characterized homosexual sex, how would YOU describe it?

[SauronOfMordor]

I won’t repeat Robertson’s remarks because they are offensive."

Words and opinions are not inherently offensive. Some people CHOOSE to be offended, or not.

[T-Bird45]

...the language he used was slightly coarse.

Disagree - Phil used words for human parts that are medically and anatomically correct while making a plain-spoken point about the reality of the homosexual act. This approach made many uncomfortable because they'd rather deny the reality and remain feeling oh so smug and politically correct. That was Phil's "offense" and I'd say he knew exactly where he was going when he made his points since he mostly used the words of the Apostle Paul.

#istandwithphil

[SECURE AMERICA]

I won’t repeat Robertson’s remarks because they are offensive.

Then you really have no clue what this is about. Nothing Robertson said was offensive, beyond the fact that it was a truth that a certain militant minority objects to..
Ther are many truths I personally disagree with but to call them all offensive would be childish...

[Venturer]

I won’t repeat Robertson’s remarks because they are offensive.

.........................................................
They were offensive to those sinners he was speaking of,

To others the remarks were only the truth.

[don-o]

Oops! Keep having problems posting. Figure it’s to do with iPads, but the article was titled Faith, not Religion.

You're on a roll.

We are all Phil Robinson now

[JudyinCanada]

Paraphrasing, Phil said he preferred a woman to a man.

Would that not be expressing his sexual orientation?

Don’t kill the messenger. Their argument is not with Phil, it’s with God. That’s why they got so angry. Someone finally said it, and someone with a huge audience - sin is still sin.

The Gay Mafia has had everyone so afraid to speak their minds about this that they went frothing-at-the-mouth insane when someone dared utter this truth.

[LS]

Never forget that slaveholder senator John C. Calhoun once said that having a Constitutional guaranty of owning slaves wasn't enough, that you had to have a protection against any CRITICISM of slavery---to be able to own them "in security" I think was his phrase.

This is exactly what the homosexuals want---not just to legally practice homosexuality but to be free from criticism of their homosexuality.

[yldstrk]

they are trying to define Christianity as a “white person’s” value system, therefore suspect is what is going on

[Ole Okie]

But the activity he was commenting on, isn't?

Phil specified what he was talking about, didn't he?

Don't notice many of our cowardly left leaning msm taking that on.

[DaveMSmith]

I'm loving this!

A few days ago, HuffPo Religion posted their take on the Daily Mail article from the weekend - it was really skewed.

So, I get on their forum to set the record straight (pun intended),

By last night, they moved the article to their Gay Voices forum - victory!

[sport]

So do I.

[deport]

You’re on a roll.

************

My guess it’s more like ‘operator error’. JMO

[paristexas]

Matthew 5:28
“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29”If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…”

And yet, despite this clear warning, how many of us tear out our eyes, but instead condemn ourselves to hell?

[Old_And_Grumpy]

Right off the bat she calls the Bible offensive.