I would use that term ‘Christian’ loosely. That title is — let’s talk biblical, here’s the deal, it’s like with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that we worked on in Mississippi and failed in Arizona and other places, here’s a test of what is a true religious freedom, a freedom that’s based on orthodox religious viewpoints. It has to have a track record, it has to come forth from religious orthodoxy.
Note, not only is such a test actually forbidden in the US constitution, but the Founding Fathers who themselves couldn’t qualify stated numerous times the exactly opposite.
By older-than-Tony definitions, he’s not exactly “orthodox” either.., but since he is now defining who gets rights, I guess he can define what orthodoxy is as well.
Since everyone else is issuing an official statement, I might as well too.
I’ve seen the show twice, perhaps. I am not a fan, but I am not non a fan either. I respect the showcase of family values, however, given the scripted feel of the show I am skeptical about the reality behind the reality. Recently, the patriarch of the family, Phil Robertson, participated in an interview with GQ magazine wherein he compared homosexuality to terrorism and said homosexuality leads to bestiality. This has attracted the expected reaction from the Left, the overreaction of A and E, and hypocrisy from the Right. What has attracted little attention is Robertson’s comments on race and how racial submission was godly under Jim Crow-era laws. I do not want to speak to any issue in particular as others have said enough. Rather, I want to speak about the reactions.
The liberals are siding with A and E while lobbing verbal bombs at Phil Robertson. This is expected, of course, but I think it shows an amount of hypocrisy. I believe in tolerance. Further, I believe in the marketplace of ideas. If there is any one place I would like a laissez-faire attitude towards control, it is the marketplace of ideas. Liberals have shown a remarkable ability to live up to the stereotype of thought police often hoisted upon their shoulders by those on the right. In this case, they are no different than the charactertures of them created by the Right Wing talk machine. What Robertson said was asinine. It was vulgar. It was, in my opinion, wrong. However, Robertson is also a product of his time and place. Many of us believe in contextualization of knowledge. Yet, when we encounter knowledge that conflicts with ours, we react strongly against it. If liberals were truly a tolerant group, they would issue statements against Robertson’s comments and urge for dialogue. To oppress the man because of the idea is to invite counter attacks by the Right.
The Right as well is a cesspool of sheer hypocrisy and lunacy. Seminary after Seminary has fired a professor for voicing something different than the party line. Conservatives will hold the firing up as a choice of the institution to protect the (business) interest of the institution. How dare a professor utilize fact to make a decision that conflicts with centuries of wrong belief. How often has a conservative organization attempt to squash the results of scientific studies? Conservatives are apt at witch-hunting because they have done so for centuries. If anyone challenges their ingrained doctrinal suppositions they will root out that person. Yesterday, it was pogroms, burnings, and inquisitions. Today, it is firings and public shamings. Further, conservative organizations, such as the one led by white supremacist Tony Perkins, regularly attempts to silence the gun control lobby and the anti-gay bullying lobby. Why? Because they simply do not like what is said. Conservatives fire people on a regular basis for something that is said or believed.
Society as a whole is hypocritical. We are more concerned with controlling what is said than changing the minds of those who say it. We simply want to control what is said rather than help to progress what is believed. As a Christian, I believe we seek to change the hearts and minds of the other person, and if nothing else, we follow the examine of Diognetus 5. We do not seek to coerce silence. As a Christian, I seek to encourage dialogue. I want Phil Robertson to speak his mind; albeit I wish his mind was changed. But, this is an open door to Phil. Imagine if we were granted a dialogue rather than calling for a boycott. I want to know what others are thinking because it challenges me. I want to be offended because then I know how much further I must go, or sometimes, it causes me to consider how far off track I am. We live in a society where to be offended is treated as a criminal act.
As Americans, we value freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But these freedoms are not natural and nor are they afforded to every person. They are protected by the Government and from the Government. I’ve seen a spate of posts via Facebook and Twitter, even from elected officials, decrying the abridgment of the freedom of speech for Robertson. An educated populace is needed in our form of government. Watching these comments scroll by insures the soon destruction of our Republic because on the whole, it would appear too many Americans are uninformed. A and E as well as Phil Robertson has yet to have their freedom of speech abridged. The Government has not stepped in. To suggest an abridgment has occurred only shows the amount of ignorance, the rather large amount of sheer stupidity, in the accuser.
There is an image going around pulled from a rather ignorant public official comparing Phil Robertson and Miley Cyrus, rather the reactions to them. At no point is the image or the talking points actually true. The reaction to Miley Cyrus was immediate and from all corners. If a laugh was made, it was because of the ridiculousness of it. However, at no point in her performance did she attack one group as vehemently as Robertson did. The contexts are equally different. One was a one-time-a-year performance. The other is an ongoing reality show. One was a single act. The other is a star of the show. The responses, essentially are the same. The consumer will decide not to invest any more money into the offender. I will not, not that I ever did, buy a Miley Cyrus CD or support her. A and E decided not to buy Phil Robertson, or at least for the time being. This is the marketplace of ideas.
Finally, some are accusing Robertson of doing what he did out of hate. I disagree. I do not believe he hates the groups he spoke against. I believer, rather, he loves them as he forthrightly said. People dismiss that part of the statement, but it needs to be repeated.
“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…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 is not the language I grew up with when I grew up preaching the other statements Robertson said. It wasn’t about love or non-judging. It was about hate and judging. It was about condemnation and worse. I do not see this in Robertson’s comments. I believe Robertson believes in Hell as a place of eternal torment God will send some to. Further, I believe Robertson believes the Gospel as he knows it will keep people out of Hell. Both are as real to him as the sun and the moon. In his mind, then, homosexuality is a sin that may send someone to Hell. Thus, he has a charge to speak the truth and warn others not to engage in sin so that they will not end up in Hell. This is not hate. This is love. I believe he is wrong on a few theological issues and his understanding of Romans 1.18–32, but I am not willing to allow that he is hateful. I will rather state his love, admirable, is misdirected and could use some serious theological reconstruction. If you refuse to allow he needs amending in his views but would rather cast him off, you, my friend, are the one in the wrong.
With this statement, I’m pretty sure I’m angered all sides, so I’ll close now. Just remember, watch the way you speak always. If someone voices an opinion completely vile, pray for them and ask them if you could speak with them about their beliefs. Finally, stop overreacting. There are serious issues in the world and not one is really connected to Phil Robertson says or believes.
Or, in other words, things you’ll never see on Fox News.
Among the other things Starnes will do is to suggest that he and other conversabloggers have somehow coerced the Government into this admission. A lot of word-play here on their part, but that is what they do. I’m sure they’ll get Tony Perkins on the air in some form to suggest this may be a rouse or that we have to keep our guard up.
One thing I failed to mention in my post about this yesterday – when you join the military, you give up many basic rights and civil liberties, such as speech, association, and others. It’s part of the role you play, I guess.
So stop wondering why it is labeled a hate group by the SPLC, Nathan.
I can’t figure out how any group, especially one that is biblically based can legitimately be called a “hate group.” If living out the tenets of one’s faith and operating an organization based on those principles is enough to warrant being labeled a hate group then SPLC is going to have to update and increase their list of hate groups to include every Catholic charity, Christian owned business, religious non-profit, and individual citizen living out the beliefs taught in the Bible on homosexuality.
That’s a far leap to make, actually. But, the problem with Nathan and others is that they regularly taking the wrong flying leaps in the wrong direction.
What is the FRC a hate group? Because Tony Perkins is associated with David Duke. They love to issue hate speeches. They love bullying. I mean, the FRC makes it an effort to protect the right for bullies to bully LGBT children. If you need more…
Exactly what biblical principles are they founded on?
“We feel this is a case of gotcha politics,” Mackey told reporters outside of the Republican National Committee’s platform committee discussions. “He has been elected five times in that community in Missouri. They know who Todd Akin is. We know who Todd Akin is. We’ve worked with him up on the Hill. He’s a defender of life. He’s a defender of families and this just a controversy built up, I think, it looks as though, to support his opposition. Claire Mccaskill on the other hand, has supported planned parenthood all these years, which is under investigation for use of funds, for cover up on statuatory rape and I think that Todd Akin is getting a really bad break here.”
Perkins and Mackey declined to comment on the substance of Akin’s controversial charge.
“I don’t know anything about the science or the legal implications of his statement. I do know politics, and I know gotcha politics when I see it,” Mackey added.
Perkins called the controversy an attempt to divert attention form McCaskill. “Claire McCaskill has been supportive of planned parenthood, an organization that has been under investigation for criminal activity,” Perkins said.
“For other Republicans, I have not seen Scott Brown’s statement, but he should be careful because based on some of his statements there may be some call for him to get out of his race,” Perkins added.
Asked what he was referring to, Perkins said that Brown has been “off the reservation on a number of Republican issues, conservative issues.”
These days, you can’t get a sugar high without experiencing a cultural low. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. There’s trouble in candy land. After more than 70 years together, Mike & Ike are calling it quits. The duo is staging a gay divorce as part of a new ad campaign to draw in younger customers. In this society, even candy has an agenda! From Facebook to Tumblr, the fruity pair says, “The rumors are true. We just couldn’t agree on stuff anymore.” Starting this summer, the company will spend $15 million on billboards and TV commercials that poke fun at the breakup. It’s just another subtle example of society chipping away at the value of marriage. And I don’t know what’s more disturbing–that advertisers think divorce appeals to kids or that sexualizing candy will make people buy more. After a year-long build-up, the company will reveal if the couple reconciles. Until then, look for Mike & Ike to have a distinctly liberal flavor.
Where did he get that from? I guess he either conjured it up himself (hiding something Tony? You know, two guys can have a platonic, er, I mean, non-homosexual friendship. Just look at David and Jonathon) or stole it from the funny folks at HuffPo.
The character Mike wrote on Tumblr on Tuesday: “So over it. Instead of all this hassle, now I’m just gonna jam.” Later, he adds, “I can’t wait to share with you all the stuff I have in mind — sick music festivals, dope new songs, a music video.”
I’m afraid for Tony and everyone else who sees the gay boogey man behind every corner, or same-sex friendship.
Days of Rage/Occupy Wall Street — The sixties-style tent city protest, which seemed to fizzle after its September 17 launch, now has momentum and is expanding to cities across the nation, including Washington, D.C. Organizers of the movement (e.g. ACORN, labor unions, and other far-left leaders and groups) have been given new life by the sycophant liberal media, Hollywood celebrities and leading Democrats in Washington, including President Obama. Six arrests were made when one hundred demonstrators conducted an illegal demonstration inside a Senate office building (see Gullible, Who’s Behind it?, Official Website, Senate Building).
May God prevent these radical organizers from stirring revolution and distracting voters from the elections and keeping watch on our elected leaders (Num 16:1-14; Is 1:4-6; Pr 12:11-12; Mt 26:41; Eph 4:28; 1 Tim 6:3-10; Heb 13:5-6).
First, to the lies – ACORN is gone. Labor Unions didn’t organize this, and only later joined the group.
Second, the shear hypocrisy:
Our current TEA Party movement in America takes its inspiration from the Boston Tea Party of 1774. That’s when Americans — demanding their rights as Englishmen, protesting against King George III’s violations of Magna Carta — dumped English tea into the harbor. Our TEA Party activists are right to protest against an all-powerful, all-taxing, all-spending government. (here)
Finally, as my co-author Ken Klukowski and I discuss in our new book, “Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism can Save America,” the Balanced Budget Amendment must have the type of guidelines set forth by Tea Party champion Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. Not only will it require expenditures to equal revenues, spending would be capped at an approximately historical 18 percent of GDP, and all future tax increases would require a two-thirds super-majority vote for approval. (here)
Taxes have frustrated Americans since before the nation’s founding. Recently, the tea party movement has brought renewed attention to how tax rates are hurting families and the companies where they work.
Of course, today’s movement is not new, but rooted in our nation’s founding. And the name–and values–of the first tea party leader might surprise you.
The modern tea party movement began with Rick Santelli’s famous rant on the fl oor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. CNBC carried him live on Feb. 19, 2009, as he protested the Obama administration’s new mortgage bailout plan: “The government is promoting bad behavior. This is America!” He called for another American tea party, and the rest is history. (here – a lie which is continued to be spread)
There appears to be a concerted effort among the political Left and many mainstream media people to demonize and marginalize the expanding citizen-based movement known as the tea party movement. This effort flows from both a fear of what these tea parties represent and a contempt for everyday Americans. But those ordinary citizens are poised to be the ones laughing when it’s all over, when democracy takes its course. (here)
You can go to their site, via Google, and find lots of pro-Tea Party op-eds, but when others get together, well, then, they are dirty, no good commie hippies bent on destroying our Republic!
This is the hypocrisy of the Family Research Council. And why are they afraid of it? I submit to, some of the links below:
If Texas Gov. Rick Perry runs for president, the type of crowd that attends a seven-hour prayer rally in a football stadium would not be disappointed.
Held in the venue where the Houston Texans play, more than 25,000 people here attended “The Response,” an event that was part prayer service, part Christian rock concert, and part marathon pep rally for Jesus Christ.
Ultimately, this is a real problem for American Christianity. One should be able to trust Christian groups to provide accurate information and nuanced analysis. However, on issues relating to sexual orientation, I cannot trust them. For me, this lack of trust spills over to other domains as well, creating a significant problem with credibility. I hope my fellow believers will not defend these claims simply because those making them are Christians.
There are many negative consequences which derive from the myths, overgeneralizations and stereotypes. For instance, I know of a handful of situations where men were kept from their grandchildren or children by other family members because they disclosed same-sex attraction. Even though the men involved had no attraction for children, their families feared them because they experienced homosexual attractions. I know of more than one man who had to defend his right to have custody of his children because he divulged his homosexual attractions to a Christian leader. The families and Christian leaders were driven to fear because of rhetoric from one or more of the groups now on the SPLC list.
Recently, the SPLC has branded the Family Research Council a hate-group, not for their views on homosexuality, but for their messages so delivered. This might not be a dividing line for many, but the SPLC is claiming that the FRC is purposely distorting facts on homosexuality. The author of the above post is correct – it behooves us as Christians to hold each other to a higher standard when we are making any sort of claims.
Now, I have my own issues with the SPLC and their use of ‘hate group’, so don’t get me wrong in thinking that I would automatically support them. I do, however, feel that the labeling of the FRC as such to be a good thing, for several reasons.