I didn't know what "Duck Dynasty" was until just a couple of months ago. I had seen the title around; noticed a story about how the "liberals" find it difficult to understand why the show is popular; then happened across a video on YouTube with the male "stars" of that show just mostly listening to Phil talk about what seemed to be mainstream, Southern, evangelical, "conservative" views on Christianity and whatnot.
Now I see plastered all over the mainstream news, which is decidedly false-liberal, that they are all riled up about what Phil Robertson said in this linked interview on Conde Nast's "GQ" magazine's online version: Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour.
Let me say that the author's foul mouth is what offended me.
If Phil Robertson has been suspended for what's in that interview, then he was suspended for repeating the teachings of Paul, which comes straight out of the canonical New Testament. If Phil has been suspended for that, then he has been discriminated against for his religion, a religion that what forefront in the minds of "We the People of the United States" when we passed the Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment and the "free exercise" clause.
Homosexuals didn't want to be suspended or fired anymore for being homosexual. People gave them more and more leeway until now in many places, it is against the law to discriminate against anyone for what's termed his or her "sexual orientation." However, it painfully appears that in granting those homosexuals what they wanted, it means in the minds of many that Freedom of Religion is to be sacrificed, abolished.
Phil can't quote Paul. All churches that preach Paul will be crucified if they don't stop.
Imagine that. If you want to take up a religion, you may do so provided you are not free to exercise it in the same manner that it was being exercised when the First Amendment became the law of the land.
There are competing ideologies. There are competing arguments. Those opposed to Christianity bring up Old Testament laws allowing slavery. They mention that people claiming to be Christian were slave owners and defended their position by citing verses from the Bible (Old Testament). Well, that's all fine. However, there reaches a point where that sort of approach bumps right into competing positions that aren't dispensable.
Jesus didn't okay slavery, and Abolitionists knew it and said it against those who held slaves while claiming Christianity. It is abundantly clear that no one could follow Jesus and retain slaves.
What we also know is that a man's penis is not for a man's anus and rectum, and that to put the one in the other is a fundamental error, clearly. It is a mistake, a mistake of the mind and body. One doesn't need Jesus or Paul to know it. It's obvious on its face. A penis doesn't belong in another males mouth or hand for masturbation, etc. Males do not belong together sexually. All instances of it are errors, whether in humans or animals (which situations are vastly overblown by homosexual activists for false-propagandistic purposes). It doesn't matter anyway because human beings are not supposed to take their sexual cues from animals.
Anal intercourse is not healthy. The lining of the rectum is not designed for the friction. It rips. The act is a major vector for further disease. Homosexual males in the US are still becoming infected with HIV/AIDS in large numbers even though they know full well about it.
"Safe sex" is not the answer! Homosexual males are hugely promiscuous. It is an inherent part of the disease. The exceptions make the rule.
Many, if not most, homosexuals become so due to sexual abuse in their youth, often at extremely early ages, so early that the youths can't remember not having homosexuality imprinted upon their thoughts when considering other males.
You see, if I'm not to be allowed to say these things, then the US is fascist: a homosexual-fascist state. Freedom of Religion is dead. Freedom of speech is dead. Freedom of the press is dead. Freedom of Christians to assemble to worship quoting Paul openly in opposition to homosexuality is dead. Quoting Jesus concerning Jesus's opposition to fornication and adultery is dead (all homosexual acts in Jesus's time were one or the other and sinful acts, per Jesus). Quoting Jesus that a man leaves his parents to marry a woman, not a male, is dead.
Truth is dead. God is dead.
However, God is not dead, and those who continue to the end pushing against the truth will find that out. They will find out that it is they who are dead.
I look forward to the separation. I wish it were already here.
Phil is right about repentance and that living in accordance with the teachings of Jesus is the solution to all that ails humanity.
I'm not saying that I know that Phil is perfected. I am not saying that I'm perfected.
I'm also sure I disagree with some of Phil's theology, and I don't kill or eat ducks; but I think Phil won't hold that against me.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)