GQ, Phil Robertson and his "Shocking" response.

Before I get started I'd like to thank a few folks/organizations for pulling me out of my silence. I have been avoiding politics and anything PC for a while now and have literally let my blog sort of die out.
Well after the news came out of the “ Duck Commander” Phil Robertson, being “suspended indefinitely” for answering a question that we all know, at least anyone who watches the show would reasonably assume, would be his answer. But before I wade into that mess let me thank the appropriate sources.
Thanks to my wife who first pointed it out to me yesterday. This is my only sincere thanks


Thank you to all the national media for making it go viral. Thank you to AE for making it such a big deal, because with out you most of us wouldn't even know who he is, but a special thanks to GQ magazine for asking such a daring and thought provoking question from a well known conservative Christian of whom, I am sure, you believed would give you anything but blunt and to the point answer.


Now that the preliminaries are over; why is everyone in such an uproar over what he said? What did he say that would really shock anyone? Was it his use of the words, vagina and anus? Was it because he said that he can't understand the appeal? Perhaps it was because he used the dreaded “sin” word? Or was it because he followed suit with a translation of what the book of Romans says? What part of it was so shocking?


First he is a conservative, fundamentalist, Christian. According to what he believes the Bible calls homosexuality a sin in both the OT and the NT. I am not going to write it all out for you because most of you who have even the slightest bit of knowledge of the bible already know this. So if this has been what he has been taught, since he was saved in the 60's, what did you really think his answer would be?
My guess is that someone at GQ wanted to either get some free publicity or they are angered that such a family friendly show, that unabashedly uses the name of Jesus in their prayers, is so popular with literally millions. Not sure it can be said about their magazine.


Second I am hard pressed to believe that it was the words anus or vagina. I heard some say that he was crude in using those words, why? Is that not what they are called? When I speak to my teenagers about sex I use the appropriate terminology so why shouldn’t he? Seems to me that this is less crude then the words some people use to describe body parts.


Thirdly, It can't be because he doesn't understand the appeal. Why should he? He is a straight male. I am a straight male, and though I have family members that are gay and I love them all, I don't understand the appeal. I see men as nothing more that other hairy hominids and I generally don't find them attractive. In the same vein I would also suggest to you that I don't expect a gay man to see what appeal a woman has to me. It is no more in his nature, to be attracted to women, then it is in mine to get warm fuzzies for other men.


As far as him calling it a sin and then listing off some things that the book of Romans says, go look at my first point.


Next I would like to address the idea of “hate speech.”


Let me give you a very point blank explanation of “hate speech.” I started working on a construction crew, back a few years ago when my kids were little, and ,as my custom was, I went by my middle name rather than my than my first. I soon found out that all the guys on this crew were members of the KKK., in Florida, and had come north looking for work. Long story short, when they found out what my real name was I was verbally assaulted. The kindest words used was “sand nigger” because of my Cuban heritage, and I was threatened with bodily harm. Worse yet they destroyed my work and then told the boss ( he was not one of them) that I did sloppy work and was incompetent,as a result I was fired. That is hate.
If they had just left it as comments or expressing their opinion of me, then that would be free speech, but they took it further they didn't just express their hatred they took action and that's the difference.
Last I had heard Mr. Robertson has not threatened anyone he simply gave his OPINION based on his religious views AFTER HE WAS ASKED. Again what did you think he would say?


The last point is the suggestion that he was implying that blacks were more happy under the Jim Crow laws. This is not what he said. He said that he grew up on a farm,as did everyone he knew, and he worked side by side with blacks. He said that the folks he knew seemed to be happy and that they were God fearing loving people. He never said that prejudice never happened or that those laws were good, what he said was that he had never SEEN any of it.
Growing up in Maine I didn't see any of it either. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, It just means I didn't see it. Does that make me a bigot?


The bottom line is this. Phil Robertson said what he believed when he was asked. He has that right. AE has the right to fire or suspend him if he doesn't meet with whatever standards they have set up. GQ has the right to ask such profound questions, but lets stop with all the hysterics over a conservative Christian speaking what he believes to be true when we all know that this would be his answer in the first place.