Skip to main content

So a self-identified fundamentalist bible-thumping redneck, who is also the star of his own reality television show, says out loud, in a very high-profile public fashion, what we already knew he thinks about same-sex relationships. Understandably there is an outcry about this. The network that produces his show responds by suspending him. Hordes of the duck guy's fans lose their minds on social media, enraged that his right to free speech has been violated (even though it hasn't, but that's another article). So here we are. Some of us are saying, "What does it matter what he says? We already knew what he thought." Why shouldn't we just dismiss such ridiculous, ignorant comments, especially when there are so many other urgent matters pressing upon us? What if it's just a publicity stunt, designed to increase ratings? Why dignify such nonsense with a response? Please continue below the fold for the answers to those questions.

So why can't we just dismiss Phil Robertson's (aka the duck guy) comments and how important can they possibly be when compared to the host of pressing and urgent issues we face as a nation and as a planet? There are two very compelling reasons why this deserves our attention. First, while he may be just one man, and a rather cartoonish one at that, the duck guy's beliefs about same sex relationships are representative of what you will hear in almost any Christian church in this country. (Please note I did not say ALL Christian churches; there are a few, such as the Episcopalians, who are inclusive.) Second, because so many Christians are in agreement with him, and because their belief is, in their minds, UNQUESTIONABLE BECAUSE IT IS GOD's WORD, his very public comments are potentially, no, almost certainly, impetus and fuel for a renewed wave of dangerous homophobia not only in this country, but around the globe. And when I say dangerous, I am not exaggerating. Anti-gay hate speech and violence destroys lives and even ends lives, every single day.

I grew up in a Christian church. Despite my parents not being churchgoers, I felt a need to go to church. I'm not sure if it was due to an instinctive desire for an outward expression of innate spirituality, or if it was in response to my earliest church experiences in which I was presented with the gospel and asked to make a choice. Perhaps my parents' lack of religion left a vacuum, a giant internal question mark that seemed to find its answer the first time an adult expressed concern for my soul. At any rate, I do know that upon hearing that I had to make a choice between God's love and eternal damnation, I didn't need much time to think it over. Of course I agreed to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. And all seemed very well following that decision, until the day I sat in church listening to the Pastor describe the horror-story consequences to the unsaved and connected the dots. My parents were not saved. Terror ensued. I went home, no longer imbued with a sense of peace and safety, but filled with terror for my mother and confusion for how this could be. How could it be that my sweet and good mother would have to burn in hell?

All this was going on in the early years of grade school. Somehow I persisted with Christian church into my years as a young mother of three children, but eventually I branched out. I now consider myself a polyfaithist, a blend of Christian, Pagan, and Buddhist, with a little Sikh thrown in. And I don't intend to stop there, not when there are so many religions left to experience. But why am I sharing this here? It's to say that I understand, totally, where the duck guy is coming from and where a whole lot of my fellow American citizens are coming from, including people who are my friends and family, people I love.

And now, 50 years later, I find myself in a bind similar to that of my childhood: people I love are telling me that other people I love are unnatural, abominations, sinners who are going to hell, and Phil Robertson is merely the mouthpiece of millions of American Christians and they are EVERYWHERE. Make no mistake, Christianity is a powerful force in this country. Perhaps it's been slumbering a bit, after all, American Christianity got over divorce. It's accepted, not agonized over anymore. Even though Jesus actually said it's sin to divorce (and never said it's sin to love someone of the same sex), Christians, like everyone else, are getting divorced willy-nilly. Isn't it interesting that Mr. Duck did not include divorced people in his list of abominations? Why is ending straight marriage acceptable and gay marriage, no matter how committed and loving and beneficial to the community, not? But I digress.

In closing on this first of two reasons, what the duck guy says is important because he speaks for a population within our nation that touches many of us, and many of us probably intimately. He has given voice, albeit a coarse one, to the elephant in the room that so many of us encounter when with our Christian friends and family, when we also have LGBTQ friends and family. We don't mention it. We know it's there, but it's too charged, too fraught with emotion to place on the table for discussion. Until someone like the duck guy comes along and all hell, literally, breaks loose.

But what if you were not influenced much by Christianity growing up? What if you don't have many or any Christian friends or family and you are not concerned with what Christians in America think or believe? That brings me to the second reason why I believe it matters when someone like the duck guy advances anti-gay hate speech: the very real danger to the lives, both qualitatively and literally, of the LGBTQ community here in the United States and in countries all over the world.

It is not safe to love someone of your own gender in this world. We are working to make it safe, but we are far, far from that goal. Yesterday the Utah Supreme Court threw out the ban on same-sex marriage, making Utah the 18th state to legalize gay marriage, but in the remaining 32 states the LGBTQ community continues to be denied the rights that straight people so take for granted and they suffer, they lose out, they do without, because they can't not love who they love. ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would make it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ folk in the workplace, languishes in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. In Uganda, MPs have just passed an Anti-Homosexuality bill (aka the "Kill the Gays Bill") that makes loving someone of your own gender a crime punishable by life in prison. The bill also proposes years in prison for anyone who counsels or reaches out to homosexuals, a provision that would ensnare rights groups and others providing services to lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender people. Russia has recently passed odious anti-gay laws that have cast a shadow over the 2014 Sochi Olympics (Obama's response to this is a wonderful example to us all). These facts are just rolling off my recent memory as I type. I don't even have to google for enough examples to make a point. All over the world, including here, people are killed for being gay, lesbian, transgender. And many, especially youth, commit suicide because they are bullied, mercilessly and relentlessly. Some even commit suicide because they are gay growing up in a "devout" Christian family, perhaps their parents are even well known church leaders, and they cannot reconcile their faith with what their very own soul insists is their truth.

So when someone like Mr. Duck comes along and pumps jet fuel onto this steadily burning global fire of anti-gay hate, the danger index soars, the terror alert goes red, and people we love, dear and precious people who've done nothing but love another who happens to be of their same gender, or done nothing but take the steps to assume the gender they know inside to be the right one for them, these very dear people are untenably imperiled, unbearably threatened, unforgivably treated as if they are human garbage.

And that is not okay with me.  

And that is why, when the duck guys of the world speak, we must respond.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Is this Duck diary #62? Or are we at 65 yet? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BOHICA, AlexDrew

    I've lost count.

    Through early morning fog I see visions of the things to be the pains that are withheld for me I realize and I can see...

    by Keith930 on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 06:26:34 AM PST

  •  very well written. (6+ / 0-)

    FWIW, I may be your evil twin: I grew up in a heavily religious (righty evangelical) family, but for as long as I can remember I felt no spiritual need or interest.

    some of my earliest recollections of religion, in fact, are revulsion: I was always creeped out by public expressions of love for Jeebus.  those prayers, dripping with love and sentiment, struck me as even a really little guy as gross.

  •  I think there's a huge difference between (6+ / 0-)

    expressing a religious view as a matter of religion, and advocating that a religious view become the basis for civil law.  The first is something I respect even if I vehemently disagree with the religious views. The second is something that should be called out.

    The First Amendment is the basis for my distinction.  Yes, I know that the First Amendment applies only to government action, but I think the principle expressed in the First Amendment -- that your own religious views are respected but you can't impose them on others through the government or the laws -- is inherent to our society.  And I'm completely fine with people expressing views to A&E that this guy should not be on the air, but I'm also completely fine with people who agree with his religious views saying that they want him on the air. Personally, I generally don't believe in condemning someone's religious views as long as they are not trying to impose those religious views on others.  I DO believe in taking a stand when someone tries to impose their own religious views on others through government or the civil laws.  

    I think sometimes that people would have more success in changing the civil laws of this country if they would demonstrate an attitude of "I respect your right to hold your own religious views, even when I vehemently disagree with them."  Many people in this country see their religious views as a very personal thing, almost inherent in who they are.  That's why, I think, the First Amendment contains the statement of religious protection.  If a movement to change the civil laws is based on an attitude of "your religious views are wrong, and I want to repeatedly and vehemently condemn your religious views," I think it will encounter far, far, more resistance than an attitude of "I respect your right in your own life to hold religious views I vehemently disagree with, as long as you respect my right in my life to live in accordance with MY religious (or non-religious, as the case may be) views, and as long as you respect MY right to make sure that the civil laws do not impose one person's beliefs on the other."

    Sometimes I think people here are too focused on condemning religious views rather than focusing on the fact that, while everyone is entitled to his/her own religious views, everyone must be free to live his/her own life in accordance with his/her own religious (or non-religious) views, without the government imposing someone else's religion on them.  

    All this is by way of saying, as long as the duck guy is expressing his own religious views, I don't care what he says or what he thinks, frankly.  That's his own business.  If I disagree with those religious views, I'm free to use that as a reason not to watch that show (not like I do anyway).  

  •  I think that the attacks on Robertson are (0+ / 0-)

    fundamentally dishonest. What the media were citing as evidence of his bigotry were actually quotes from the Bible.
       There are a couple of issues in play here: First, are Christians allowed to quote the Bible without being fired by their employers?
      Keep in mind that the verses he quoted included homosexuals among a list of sinners who won't get into the Kingdom of Heaven (except through God's grace.)
      (Since I don't think there is a kingdom of Heaven, it's hard for me to get too concerned.)
       If Christians can be fired for expressing their religious views, how about Muslims? Jews? Wiccans? Atheists?
       Now, does believing and saying that particular sinners don't get into Heaven = bigotry, intolerance, etc? 1 Corinthians 6 enumerates fornicators among the folks who don't get into Heaven. Does saying that fornication is wrong make one a bigot, intolerant, etc?
       Do religious people have the right to follow the teachings of their faith as to what is right or wrong?
       Do they have the right to say what they believe is right or wrong ? (As in an interview.)
        It's a lot of fun ginning up the self righteousness and pouncing on the Head Duck, but he was saying pretty much the same thing as what Pope Francis said earlier.
        Are you willing to take on Christianity in general, or just Christians you consider to be rednecks?

    •  Can you please cite where the bible (14+ / 0-)

      mentions anus being icky and vaginas being glorious?

      Religious views are one thing, but he wasn't quoting the bible. He was being an idiot.

      The rest of your comment is equally ludicrous. He has every right to say whatever the fuck he wants, religous or not. He doesn't have the right to keep employment when he offends his employer.

      If I leave work on Tuesday and say to all my co-workers, "Have fun celebrating the birth of a myth and worshipping a fraud," do you think I would suffer no consequences?

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 06:47:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He was quoting 1st Corinthians 6:9 to the end of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        radmul

        the chapter. The GQ interview here: http://www.gq.com/...
        The quote from Corinthians is what got the media into a tizzy.
           As for anus vs. vagina - The vast majority of men agree with him. But de gustibus non est disputandum.
           I'm intrigued that so many so-called progressives are willing to just dismiss workers' rights when it comes to somebody with whom they disagree.
            To answer your question: I would think that you would probably get in trouble for expressing your (anti) religious views in the workplace. But, expressing them to an interviewer on your own time? Freedom of speech is pretty much a joke if your speech is controlled by your employer at all times.
          As to whether or not it's ok to shitcan employees (or contractors) for their religious views - Count the number of conservative Christian employers and the number of conservative Christian interest groups and figure out who is going to get hurt when that starts rolling.

        BTW - 1 Corinthians 6-11: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. http://www.biblegateway.com/...

        •  It happens (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, S F Hippie, Old Sailor

          I can get fired for anything I do publicly. It's in my handbook.

          Do I like it? No. But my employer takes their reputation seriously, and they have fired people for (perfectly legal) things that they've done off the clock.

          As to the rest of your comment, I'm not going to debate the bible with you. I'll just leave a little reminder about where the wealthy stand in the bible and you can get back to me about whether duck dude is being disingenious when he paraphrases it.

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 08:58:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Again, that is a very poor translation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wayoutinthestix, Old Sailor

          of I Corinthians 6:9-11. Sometimes I wonder if my intelligent friends here do not understand that the Bible was not originally written in modern day English. This verse was written by Paul (Saul of Tarsus) in Koine Greek. There is no word in Koine Greek for homosexuality. Paul apparently made up a word (arsenokoites), and we really do NOT know what he meant by it. That some homophobic translators want to just add homosexuals in there does not make it accurate.

          •  True - The ancients didn't consider that someone (0+ / 0-)

            might be homosexual or heterosexual. The KJV translates it as "nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankinde."
              (arsenokoites literally means "man bedding."
              It was activities, not orientation, that they worried about.

               But that really is irrelevant. The Duck guy was quoting the Bible as he understood it. And he didn't hone in on homosexuality per se - it was just one of a number of sins to him.
               You might have more luck convincing people that the Bible is mistranslated rather than trying to marginalize a guy for quoting a Bible verse.

            •  I'm not trying to marginalize the guy, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nespolo

              although he deserves to be. The Bible also states "Judge not, lest ye be judged." If one is going to judge (which we are told not to do), one might want to get the facts correct. And, yes he DID hone in on homosexuality.

              Actually, we do NOT truly know what arsenokoites means. We believe that Paul apparently made up the word from two other words which actually mean man and beds (the second word is plural). However, that does not necessarily give us any clue as to what he meant. Consider out own word "butterfly." Is that butter that flies? Is it a fly made out of butter? It is neither. Arsenokoites is a hapax legomenon; there simply aren't enough references to know what it means.

    •  To your question (5+ / 0-)

      "does believing and saying that particular sinners don't get into heaven = bigotry, intolerance, etc.?"

      When the supposed "sin" is not a choice, but rather something one is born with, then yes, this belief most certainly IS bigotry.

      Seriously, what the hell kind of question is that, unless you believe sexual orientation is a choice?

      •  To be clear, I don't agree with Robertson. But (0+ / 0-)

        he didn't just dream this stuff up.
          Now, first of all, why does anybody care if Head Duck doesn't think you're going to Heaven? Do you think that there really is such a place as Heaven? And, if there were, do you think he would have anything to say about whether you get in or not?

        Compare Head Duck's statements with this, from "Catholic Answers:  "Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner."  http://www.catholic.com/...

        In short, what Robertson was saying was not at all out of the mainstream among religious people.
        If you disagree with the doctrine of most Christian denominations, fine. (So do I.) But that is what you're doing.

        •  I'm aware (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Old Sailor

          that it's disagreeing with doctrine.

          Doesn't change the fact that he's saying people are going to hell specifically for how they were born.

          Also, this argument doesn't really apply when he compares it to bestiality.  Or to his comments about race.

          Both of those things imply, to me, that he's a horrible person.

          •  He didn't "compare" it to bestiality. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radmul

            He gave bestiality, homosexuality, adultery, etc. as examples of sins.
            And, strictly speaking, he didn't say that people were going to hell. He quoted a Biblical list of people who wouldn't "inherit the Kingdom of God."
               His comments about African Americans before the civil rights era were uninformed and stupid, but the big controversy has to do with his attitude toward homosexuality.

            •  He said (0+ / 0-)

              "start with homosexuality and extend out from there" and used the word "morph".  This implies that he thinks that homosexuality leads to these things.

              And I don't care how you want to split hairs about his wording.  Fine, he said they won't "inherit the kingdom of God."

              Doesn't change the fact that he's saying they're sinners because of how they were born.

          •  I completely agree (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BoiseBlue, The Dude 415

            that he is a horrible person. And yet, there are many people who will openly or deviously defend him. That tells me pretty much all I need to know about such people. Such people are obviously incapable of acknowledging that religious belief (especially their favored religious belief) cannot justify bigotry and that no passage in any religious book can justify bigotry. And have you noticed that when people like Robertson do something crassly bigoted like comparing homosexuality to bestiality, there will usually be some apologist to come along and pretend that it isn't a comparison, the bigot was just mentioning bestiality or some other such devious verbage?

            Don't meow, or I'll take your picture.

            by Old Sailor on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 11:31:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it is true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Old Sailor

          that Catholic doctrine is that homosexual sex is a sin. And, yes, I disagree with it because it is WRONG.

      •  For the christian everything is (0+ / 0-)

        a choice based on their position on free will.

        •  Doesn't make them correct. (0+ / 0-)

          All the available evidence shows that sexual orientation is not a choice.

          You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

          •  Of course they are incorrect (0+ / 0-)

            They base their lives on a fairy tale. That doesn't alter their position nor is their any real evidence to support your claim that we are all programmed at birth. the altered brains of a small sample is unconvincing but feel free to link to your proof. I would be interested to see it.

            •  There is no scientific evidence available, (0+ / 0-)

              at least to my knowledge, that sexual orientation is a choice.  I'm surprised that's a controversial statement on this site.

              If you have access to evidence to the contrary, feel free to post it.

    •  uh no... (3+ / 0-)
      What the media were citing as evidence of his bigotry were actually quotes from the Bible.
      If someone quotes the bible which contains all manner of bigoted notions, then puts those notions forward as the absolute truth, then yes that is evidence of his/her bigotry and can be called out as such. Absolutely no different than calling out muslim degredation of women found in their religious views.

      Just because it comes from a book some people revere doesnt make it right or worthy of respect.

      Do religious people have the right to follow the teachings of their faith as to what is right or wrong? Do they have the right to say what they believe is right or wrong ? (As in an interview.)
      Of course they do, noone is preventing this guy from doing just that, he in fact did just that, people still seem to think somebody is infringing on his right to be as big a wack-a-loon fundy religiot as he wants, yet not a single person can point to any right of his that was violated.

      I dare you - point out any right to speak his mind that was infringed.

      The only reason this guy has any soapbox to speak from is because of that show, anytime he speaks he can cause financial harm (or benefit) to the network running the show. We can only theorise what his contract with A&E contains but I suspect you can be assured there are clauses that permit this action.

      Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy.

      by fauxrs on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 08:00:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor
      First, are Christians allowed to quote the Bible without being fired by their employers?
      That's at the employer's discretion in at will states; this is one tenet of libertarian ideology so one would guess that the duck guy would approve if he is ethically consistent.

      Public figures are held to a higher degree of accountability than people like me.  If he says "I think homosexuality is wrong" that's ok IMO (I admit to have not closely followed what he said) but if he, as a public figure of some influence, says "I think homosexuals should be stoned" or some such, that could be seen as inciting hate crimes.  ianal.

      Personally, I think any self respecting gay man would find him icky anyway.

      I do not demand tolerance, I demand equal rights. --Anna Grodzka

      by VeggiElaine on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 08:40:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "...a public figure of some influence..." (0+ / 0-)

        Seriously? Have you ever watched Duck Dynasty? Do you personally know anyone who has watched Duck Dynasty? I know I haven't. He's just a guy who got a gig working on a reality show that has an audience of about 10 million, half of whom are probably watching it to ridicule the characters.
           Had it not been for the reaction to the GQ interview, I would have no idea who this guys is.
           Here's what Duck Guy had to say: “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?”  http://www.gq.com/...

        I have no idea whether he imagines himself to be a libertarian.
        calling him a public figure is stretching the term.

        •  You really don't know anyone who watches this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Old Sailor

          show?  I never have but by the response of my FB and students, I am apparently a minority in this regard.  Even my own husband watches at times apparently and I was oblivious to that fact.  Perhaps I should monitor more what he views, such as I do with the kids. :)

          •  The "nobody watches (so and so)" (0+ / 0-)

            ploy is an old trick. Some time ago (on HuffPo, I think), somebody seriously claimed that "nobody" watched Pat Roberston, and that the networks kept him on the air so they could talk about him.

            Don't meow, or I'll take your picture.

            by Old Sailor on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 11:34:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Clever, how you quote the lovey bit.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Old Sailor

          and leave out all the rancid shit he spewed...what about..

          “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
          or maybe this...
          “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.”
          Yeah, here's what Duck Guy had to say, just that bit you quoted...rolls eyes

          As for him being a public figure, he's the patriarch of the biggest reality-TV hit in the history of cable television. He may not have influence on you, me or anyone we know but that hardly matters, its probably safe to say, like me, you don't know the TV watching habits of more than a hundred people, based on that you want to proclaim he's a nobody?

          Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy.

          by fauxrs on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 12:41:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bible says a vagina is better than an anus? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor, growingMajorityMN

      I missed that part.

      And he didn't just insult gay men, he insulted women and African Americans.

      I don't care if A&E fires him or not. Makes no difference to me at all.

      BTW, they just grew the beards and started with the cammo  a few years back. There are "before" photos of them all over the internets. Golf playing, polo shirt wearing, blond streaks and bermuda shorts. That's who they actually are.

      Actors. And if what this moron said shines a light on the lie of reality tv that's a good thing.

      O great creator of being grant us one more hour to perform our art and perfect our lives. ::: Jim Morrison :::

      by Kevanlove on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 12:15:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  These guys are bigger frauds that you might think (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries, Old Sailor

    I've never watched one second of "Duck Dynasty" since so-called "reality" shows are nothing but scripted bullshit that's as real as pro wrestling, and no more interesting. The fact that it purports to be about authentic backwoods men of the land doesn't make it any more interesting.

    I would never have paid any attention it until one of them opened his piehole and started spouting stuff from his version of the Bible, and the ensuing public relations brouhaha put them into view of the dirty liberal bloggers on the internets.

    And what do you know—the image they present to their adoring fans in the South and rural America is as fake as the show itself.

    http://www.refinedguy.com/...

    I think Jesus would have frowned on frosted tips.

  •  ...great diary... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Old Sailor
    Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

    Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

    by paradise50 on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 08:52:46 AM PST

  •  What is appalling is that our culture is so (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    althea in il, Old Sailor

    shallow that TV dominates it and that TV is so jam packed with idiocy, all the train-wreck and psuedo-reality shows. Then there is the reverence for the opinions of "the common folk" not really meaning common or ordinary, but specifically meaning uneducated and unsophisticated.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sun Dec 22, 2013 at 10:28:18 AM PST

  •  I did see your disclaimer... (0+ / 0-)

    ...however I'm still going to push back a bit on how broadly you paint Christianity.  I would say that now there is a wide swath of Christianity that holds more enlightened views on homosexuality, mostly within mainline Protestantism, but other segments of Christianity have greatly de-emphasized the teachings as well.  Therefore even "almost any Christian church" to use your words is still way too broad at least in my experience.

Click here for the mobile view of the site