home
RSS
December 19th, 2013
01:49 PM ET

CNN Exclusive: Family pastor defends 'Duck Dynasty' star

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - While controversy swirled around Phil Robertson Wednesday evening, the "Duck Dynasty" patriarch was at his longtime church, praying for a young woman who suffers from cancer, the TV star's pastor told CNN in an exclusive interview.

"Phil led us in prayer," said Mike Kellett, senior pastor of White's Ferry Road Church of Christ in West Monroe, Louisiana. "There were greater things on our minds than the firestorm of controversy about this article."

Asked how Robertson is taking the fierce criticism of his remarks on homosexuality, Kellett said, "He's very calm, and very confident that if he serves the Lord, God will take care of everything."

Robertson, 67, was suspended by the A&E network on Wednesday after the publication of comments in GQ magazine. Citing the Bible, the outspoken Christian called homosexuality sinful and compared it to bestiality and drunkenness.

Robertson's remarks were a rough paraphrase of the New Testament, in which Paul catalogs a list of vices, including, in many Bible translations, homosexuality. Scholars and pastors disagree, however, about whether Paul's remarks should apply to modern gay and lesbian relationships.

Gay rights groups were outraged, calling Robertson's remarks "homophobic" and "hateful." A&E said it was "disappointed" by the comments, "which are based on his own beliefs and are not reflected in the series 'Duck Dynasty.' "

But Robertson, who looks a bit like an Old Testament prophet,  says conservative Christian beliefs and values have permeated every corner of his life ever he gave up his self-described heathen lifestyle as a honky-tonk operator in the 1970s.

"I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom Savior," Robertson said in a statement on Thursday. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together."

‘Duck Dynasty’ reactions debate: Free speech or bigotry?

Robertson is an elder at White's Ferry Road Church of Christ, a nondenominational church that gathers around 1,200 worshippers on Sunday mornings. That means he offers spiritual counsel, helps teach the faith, hosts Bible studies and offers charity to the poor, Kellett said.

"He has literally helped bring hundreds of people to the Lord," the pastor added.

Robertson's son, Alan, co-pastored White Ferry with Kellet for eight years before joining the cast of "Duck Dynasty."

The show, which A&E says drew nearly 12 million viewers to the premiere of its fourth season in August, is enormously popular among conservative Christians, many of whom defended Robertson on social media Thursday. A online petition called "I Stand With Phil," garnered nearly 10,000 signatures by midday.

Opinion: ‘Duck Dynasty’ suspension doesn’t violate First Amendment

As Robertson's fame has grown, so has the size of his pulpit. He has preached at megachurch Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California. Publishers peddle "The Duck Commander Devotional" and churches clamor for guest appearances by the Robertson family.

“We’re kind of the John the Baptists of the 21st century," Alan Robertson has said. "It’s how you imagine, with the wild hair and the locusts."

Kellett said his church backs Robertson, whose family is nearly royalty in West Monroe, a city of 13,000 in northern Louisiana. "We support the Robertson family, and strongly believe in our Bibles and in Jesus Christ as lord."

The pastor said he agrees with Phil Robertson's comments about homosexuality and is concerned about his critics' treatment of Christianity.

"I think it's unfortunate that when you quote the Bible people get upset about one particular sin that always seems to get a lot of attention," Kellett said. "But sometimes the Bible is going to rub folks the wrong way."

Palin and Jindal weigh in

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Celebrity • Christianity • Culture wars • Discrimination • evangelicals • Faith & Health • Gay marriage • Gay rights • gender issues

soundoff (2,092 Responses)
  1. Bootyfunk

    religion is a poor excuse for prejudice.

    religion has always had a bullet proof vest. say "i'm a christian" and then you can say all sorts of prejudicial comments, about g.ays, women, atheists, etc. well, that era is over. now you're held accountable for what you say, religion or not - if you're prejudiced, then you're prejudiced. you can't say, "but it's okay that i am a bigot because i'm religious." doesn't fly any more.

    you don't have to stop being prejudice - it's a free country - but don't be surprised when you're held accountable for your views. don't be surprised when companies don't want to associate with you because they don't want to be associated with bigotry - it's bad for business. and don't cry about being held accountable. that's like saying, "they're mad at me just because i said a whole group of people are disgusting. it's not fair!" yes, it is fair. it's exactly fair.

    to any christians that disagree, answer this question honestly:
    if your brother or sister came home and said they joined a new religion. it was all about love, but they hated people with blonde hair, thought they were the spawn of the devil. they treated blonde people with disrespect and contempt because they said their religious writings told them to do so.
    would that be okay with you? replace 'blonde' in that example with asian, latino or white - would it be okay now? would you accept it because it's their religious belief? what if you were the group being hated on?

    December 19, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • Russ

      @ bootyfunk: atheism is equally a poor excuse for prejudice & bigotry.

      but while crying "bigot" is sometimes accurate, more often it's a way to dodge the substantive disagreements between us by silencing through shame or censoring. when the shoe is on the other foot, you'd readily point this out. why not equally adhere to that mentality for those with whom you disagree?

      December 19, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        @ bootyfunk: atheism is equally a poor excuse for prejudice & bigotry.
        +++ agreed. that was not displayed here though.

        but while crying "bigot" is sometimes accurate, more often it's a way to dodge the substantive disagreements between us by silencing through shame or censoring
        +++ you must not have been on the receiving end of bigotry very often to say it's usually a dodge. no, it's not usually a dodge. and i'm glad to shame bigots. i'm not telling you to be quiet - on the contrary - i'm telling you to stand up for your beliefs as i do. if you're prejudiced, then say so. but yes, don't be surprised if you when you spew hate you lose friends. YOU are using a typical strategy here - saying complaints about bigotry aren't substantial and that the people complaining are just trying to control the conversation.

        when the shoe is on the other foot, you'd readily point this out. why not equally adhere to that mentality for those with whom you disagree?
        +++ really not sure what you're trying to say here. please restate.

        December 19, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Bootyfunk: on the contrary, the use of "bigot" *on this blog* is most often a dodge. real life interaction may be to the contrary, but considering the context, i figured you'd hear what i was saying.

          to push it further, though (and to get to the broader point): a bigot is someone who is *unfairly* against or hates without knowledge another group, individual, etc. your stance against any who would disagree with your position *without consideration or understanding* of their beliefs equally fits that definition.

          that label often *is* a power play when a discussion over hot topics arises. it takes much more effort to have genuine dialogue on important matters on which one disagrees passionately, but labeling (which often is another form of bigotry) is a cheap side door to real conversation. the easy corrective: go deeper. don't invoke the label out of the box. find out *why* someone disagrees. don't call it "hate" or "ho.mo.ph.obia" just because I disagree with you.

          and lastly, the "shoe on the other foot": when someone calls you intolerant or bigoted for standing for what you believe are human rights, how do you respond – especially if that person has not actually engaged you enough to know your basis for saying such things? that was the analogy. when the roles are reversed, you don't hold to the same principle.

          December 19, 2013 at 9:21 pm |
      • ROO

        @Russ

        Atheism is a rejection of an unsupported belief. You yourself do this to other religions. Atheist do this to yours as well. Yet that position of rejection isn't bigotry. Simply a natural conclusion for those who demand evidence for baseless assertions. For example: One can disagree that one's belief lead them to think the world is less than 6,000 years old. However it isn't "shaming or censoring" to reject that claim. The evidence doesn't support it. It's a claim entirely based on the faith of the individual. I can disagree with that individual's belief and agree with the evidence instead. That individual is still free to claim that belief. But it doesn't mean anyone will take them seriously.

        December 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm |
        • Russ

          @ ROO:
          1) i don't see where the Bible teaches an age for the earth. i'm not a young earth creationist.

          2) atheism equally makes faith-based leaps in its "beliefs." for example, your appeal to naturalism (only what is empirically verifiable is true) is one such leap. not only is naturalism equally a metaphysical leap of faith, but it fails its own criteria (the presupposition – "only what is empirically verifiable is true" is itself NOT empirically verifiable). the foundation is flawed from the outset.

          moreover, existence itself is an evidence that most theists consider rather glaring in the face of those who call for evidence. i'm not just talking about the classic "intelligent design" argument regarding the nature of the cosmos, but *that we exist at all.* it's so bothersome that atheists such as Hawking have attempted to resolve the "something out of nothing" paradox – and yet his best attempt amounted to a faith-based appeal to the mathematical improbabilities within quantum physics & chaos theory. and therein lies the rub: to discount the miraculous (or 'supernatural') as improbable yet ultimately explain one's own existence by the very same basis is self-refuting.

          here's Nietzsche on the same point: "it is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."
          so saying "i'll go with the evidence" fails to admit that you didn't in the first place (your presuppositions).
          it's the pot calling the kettle black.

          December 19, 2013 at 9:34 pm |
        • G to the T

          Atheism doesn't not necessarily equal "naturalism". You confuse a philosophical standpoint with how science functions. If anything in the metaphysical realm were repeatable and consistent, they could be included in science as well. Therefor, it's not a faith based position, it's one that says the evidence in favor of a metaphysical realm is not convincing. No faith required. Even then, an atheist could certainly believe in a metaphysical realm as it is not exclusive to that position.

          December 20, 2013 at 10:28 am |
        • Russ

          @ GT: no, I'm pointing out the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. science purposefully avoids making that leap of faith that many (sounds like you are, too) conflate with science.

          science operates *as if* there was nothing else – purposefully w/o asserting that is the case.
          naturalism *claims* there is nothing else – as a presupposition... without a shred of evidence... and directly contrary to its own presuppositions. but it is a *presupposition* nonetheless. it is a belief, not one *derived* from evidence. it is (by definition) 'supposed in advance.'
          SUM: that's the VERY same thing being criticized here. it IS making a leap of faith – BEFORE the evidence. and as any good scientist knows, that certainly colors ALL the data received after the fact.

          yes, not all atheism is naturalism, but it certainly sounded like ROO was arguing for empirical evidence only (i.e., naturalism).

          and, as far as an atheist believing in a metaphysical realm, that is certainly would press the question of theism (if not be flat out oxymoronic).

          December 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • JustMe

      It isn't bigotry to say I LOVE you as a PERSON – I do not love what you are doing- What is bigoted about that?

      December 19, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        except being g.ay isn't something they're "doing" - it's something they "are". and being g.ay is not evil, so you are in fact attacking the person.

        December 19, 2013 at 6:29 pm |
        • Russ

          @ bootyfunk: making your se.xuality your ident.ity IS yet another metaphysical claim – a leap of faith made without basis.

          why assume that is the core of your being? to claim that is to wear your metaphysics on your sleeve. so don't be so surprised when someone else raises their metaphysical objections.

          it is the central premise in theism that there is *more* to us than just our biology. and note: even biology admits it cannot define 'life'. so on what basis are you defining it? again, your underlying metaphysical claims are showing.

          December 19, 2013 at 9:39 pm |
        • G to the T

          Russ – you wouldn't consider the desire to love and be loved one of the core components of your life? Really?

          December 20, 2013 at 10:35 am |
        • Russ

          @ G to the T: you are talking about the difference between symptoms and root causes. desires help you understand what's important, but they are not what is MOST important.

          but again, it begs the question. assuming desire is all you are fits naturalism – because one has already assumed there is nothing else. we are merely the product of our desires. but that certainly sounds enslaving...

          moreover, the underlying question is "what defines one's ident.ity?" it certainly presses for what is most real.
          for an evolutionist, wouldn't it be survival? in such a case, love is merely a foil for optimization of the gene pool – in which case, then, certainly the answer to your question would be "no, love has nothing to do with identi.ty."

          for a theist, the question is mixed. Islam believes life is about submission. there is one God who primarily relates to his creation through power. long before "love" was created, power was the basis for our relationship with the center of Being. for Trinitarian monotheists like Christians (who believe from all eternity there was community and love in the heart of being), then yes, Love is essential to ident.ity. but not primarily human relationships – only as they were intended in reflection of the Love that is eternal, truth, objective reality, etc.

          again, your question assumes one's metaphysical basis. you seem to be jumping over that when it is the central point of debate.

          December 20, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
      • ROO

        They don't need to be "doing" anything. Behavior and attraction are not the same. If a straight is celibate behavior-wise, are they no longer considered "straight"? That make no sense.

        December 19, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
  2. Carrie

    It's not "hate" speech to quote the Bible. People just want to do what they want to do and they don't care what dis-pleases God. Sad.

    December 19, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Jep

      You are aware that Christianity isn't representative of everyone who believes in God, correct?

      Sad.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
    • ME II

      There is hate in the Bible too.

      December 19, 2013 at 6:13 pm |
    • ROO

      The assertion of god itself is baseless, so the claim has no validity. If one is merely repeating biblical literature....and the literature itself is prejudice and hateful, then there's your answer. It's another story if one says, "here's where god has been measured and proven and how we can confirm what displeases it." But to state something as factual based on a book of errors? Don't have time for it. Until evidence is presented showing where god has been observed and measured, then we are simply dealing with people's own baseless subjective opinion regarding the matter. Let's back claims with evidence first if you want to be taken seriously.

      December 19, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
  3. Pancho

    FFS CNN post the whole damn interview! This is neither a free speech issue nor an issue of bigotry. Why are you adding fuel where there's no fire? You cowards are failing to acknowledge the fact that these men were commenting on the downfall and separation of religious values in the world today. I am not a fan of the show not have I watched a single episode but you would have to be a fool to think these guys, after the life they lived would say or express anything without conviction or history of the things they've lived through. They know that if they say anything they need to think if it's worth saying. And reading the article you can damn sure bet that's an issue they've thought on for a very long while. And by issue I mean the immorality of the world today. Try reporting the news please. Cause celebrity BS is not more important than the issues going on out there today.

    December 19, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
  4. children of Israel

    Praying to Ahayah that the wicked are destroyed, in the name of Yashaya

    December 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
  5. Brian

    Might as well just start quoting The Book of Leviticus.

    December 19, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
  6. WASP

    personally i like how they summed it up in another CNN piece; " his rights weren't violated, A&E just doesn't have to put him on the air."

    i couldn't agree more, if he wants to spew hate for those different than himself..........well he can always open a church and there is his audience of like minded haters.
    see everyones happy. 🙂

    December 19, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Good grief

      Now you're totally off base with that remark. The man is ONLY in his 60's, so the black men he references working with were not slaves . The only thing he said was that HE/his family was considered white trash (aka dirt poor country people), and that back then, he worked for people who employed Blacks and poor whites. From HIS experience, they were happy; he never said othewise.

      My own mother grew up in rural South Carolina, and even in the early 50's, she went barefoot, wore one of her 7 brother's overall's or their boots. SHE picked cotton, etc in the fields with Blacks in her rural community, and they all got along and were happy, because they ALL understood each other. SHE and her family are as WHITE as they come, but they were treated the same way as the blacks in that day and time. The poor whites and the Blacks worked sided by side, but not as slaves.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
  7. fred

    Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

    A+E took exception to only one of many sins that Christ fully atoned for on the Cross. Why do you ignore the rest the article asks?

    December 19, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • quite simply

      because the Bible has been rendered useless now that it can't keep up with current knowledge

      December 19, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      You are right fred, they should have taken exception to The Babble being presented as fact. They should have insisted that all claims be prefaced with "allegedly, according to the piece of crap book with no foundation. . ."

      December 19, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • WASP

      first prove YOUR GOD said those things.
      what you can only use a book written and edited by the church as proof?
      now for what reason would a religious organisation have for writing a book that can say whatever you want it to say?
      hmmmmmmmmmm i wonder.

      here is know, i want my god to ok selling daughters into slavery and offering them as gifts to my neighbors..................
      EXODUS 21:7 "7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed.
      GENESIS 19:8 "9:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes:

      December 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • mozrox

      Why did A+E take exception to only one sin?

      Because they can!

      They're privately held and can choose whatever programming they want. If you don't like it, turn the channel. No one's rights were violated. He can continue to think and say what he wants.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • *!

      Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians has been totally falsely twisted from the Greek to English. It says nothing at all about h*mos*xuality only ancient idolatry.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
      • I'm going to copy and paste everything Jesus had to say about hmosxuality

        .

        December 19, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
        • Russ

          By your thinking, he didn't say anything about pedophilia, either – so do you think it's ok?
          and why ignore everything he *did* say about marriage?

          December 19, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
        • *!

          We have lesbian and g.ay pastors leading churches. I imagine Jesus shows up the same way He does at your church. We preach the same thing, except we welcome all sinners. Not just the heteros#xual sinners.

          Let God strike us with lightning if letting a lesbian feed the homeless in our community offends Him.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
        • Russ

          @ *!
          i never said sinners aren't welcome. i am saying sin is NOT affirmed.
          as happens so often in this discussion, you are conflating the two.

          i need a savior as much as anyone else, but i have to answer to my savior if i go against what he's said – including about what is & is not a sin. the same cross that says "sinners are saved here" says "is sin ok? h.ell, no!"

          December 20, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
      • Russ

        @ *!
        here's a summary piece on why that is simply untrue:
        http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2013/06/05/are-the-new-testament-condemnations-of-hom.os.exuality-simply-references-to-temple-prosti.tution/
        [remove dots in "ho.mo.se.xuality" & prosti.tution]

        and here's the scholarly piece that undergirds it. note well: even those who attempt to refute this position cite Robert Gagnon as a definitive scholar on these issues...
        http://www.robgagnon.net/responsetorogers2.htm

        December 19, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
        • *!

          And I can find scholarly articles and experts that disagree with them.

          Nobody seems to agree on the issue. It seems as though, if you believe the testimony of actual h.mos.xuals and people that love them (parents, pastors, friends) it is not a choice. And they are not trying to harm God or people who follow God.

          This Christian welcomes g.ay and lesbian Christians to my church. They serve and lead and carry out God's will. I can't imagine not letting them serve and help others would be God's will. God bless they g.ays and lesbians.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
        • Russ

          @ *!
          1) the scholarship in question had nothing to do with choice. it was about authorial intent regarding terminology and use in the ancient world. and as i said before, Robert Gagnon is cited by both sides as authoritative... though he notably takes the opposite position from you here.

          2) i never said ho.mo.se.xuality is a choice. honestly, i allow for a spectrum here. but that doesn't dodge the issue. there are many people genetically predisposed to self-destructive things (alcoholism, etc.). as Christians, we see that as an effect of the Fall, not something to be celebrated. being "born that way" does not change the fact that we are born sinful & broken, nor that Jesus came to heal that same brokenness.

          3) it's your hermeneutics that are so troubling here. you keep stressing that you have g.ay pastors, but that tells me their necessary method of interpreting the Bible (to get around the various & thematic statements in Scripture). the bigger problem for you: if that same hermeneutic (way of interpreting) is applied to the rest of the Bible, you lose CORE tenets of the faith (such as who Jesus is, what he taught, what saves, etc.).

          again, that requires being consistent. there certainly are theologically g.ay Christians who want to adhere to the Scriptures faithfully in virtually every other category – but when it comes to those passages, they suddenly take on a radically different method of interpreting the Bible. while i'm thankful they believe the core tenets, it's certainly not a faithful way of reading the Bible (or virtually ANY literature). it jettisons authorial intent in favor of "this is what i want it to say/mean."

          related: practically speaking, what are you going to do when someone comes with a different set of clearly unbiblical behaviors/beliefs and does the same sort of exegetical gymnastics? you will have to allow their dodge or be a hypocrite.

          so, as a result: you lose real community (if you can't be honest, let's not call it truthful OR loving), you lose the real Jesus of the Bible (in favor of one who doesn't call you out), thereby losing the virtual entirety of the faith. but yes, certainly the outward vestiges might still remain the same. you're saying the same words as biblically minded churches, but we mean *radically* different things. and there will be no real life transformation without honesty about sins.

          December 20, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
      • Doris

        Can't say exactly who wrote the Gospels; can't give me the names of any of the alleged 500 witnesses and yet people want to be picky about Paul's words being of any significance today over current scientific knowledge. Unbelievable. .. well actually that's what it is – unbelievable.

        December 19, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Doris:
          1) we can say who wrote the Gospels with relative certainty (huge in comparison with virtually any other ancient text).
          here's a very hopeful comparative overview on ancient texts vs. the NT:
          http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/03/21/an-interview-with-daniel-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts/
          [note well the charts]

          2) we can say who at least 7 or 8 of the 500 witnesses were. but more importantly, Paul's hearers (within 20, if not 15, years of Jesus' death) could have sought them out. in the pax Romana, with the tight knit Hellenized Jewish community, certainly there would fact-checking before giving your life over to such preposterous claims such as a real, historical raising of the dead just 15 years ago. Paul is giving his bibliography – with the full intent that his hearers would have looked into it.

          and notably, with that bibliography, Christianity exploded – without political aid or military might.

          3) science doesn't tell us *why* or *if* something should be that way. it only speaks to the how.
          looking to science to get metaphysical / philosophical answers is naturalism. and – as i've said repeatedly on this blog – science purposefully & carefully avoids doing that (it employs methodological, not philosophical naturalism). to make that leap of faith is to leave science & enter "scientism." at that point, you're doing the very thing you're mocking.

          December 20, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      Hey fred
      If people gave up fornicating there would be no one left to go to either your mythical heaven or hell in a century or so. Please let me fornicate if not just for fun but at least to propagate the species, please, I like it.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
  8. Lor

    Christian Bashing – The only acceptable form of HATE left in America.....

    December 19, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Do you have any examples of christian bashing in the USA?

      December 19, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
      • Elecat

        Internet atheists that spend all day and all week long trolling message boards seeking out Christian posts to insult and mock.

        December 19, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • That old persecution song

      "If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England." –Ben Franklin while in London (from a letter to The London Packet, 3 June 1772)

      December 19, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      Preventing you from forcing others into following your deluded rules is not persecution. Preventing you from making religious laws, is not persecution. Preventing you from injecting your fantasies into public schools, is not persecution. You have churches on every street corner in America. You have 100% representation in government. You have your motto imprinted on every dollar bill and uttered at every baseball game. You are the persecutor, not the persecuted. You confuse "not being in charge" with persecution.

      - SP

      December 19, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • Maddy

      Really? Oh, I think gay bashing reality stars are in vogue right now.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • Fred Evil

      Simple, update your religion to include what we KNOW today, and it changes radically. Maintaining a death-grip on the ignorance of the past does YOU no favors.
      Thank your parents for hamstringing you with your religious ignorance!

      December 19, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Roddy2112

      No, you can bash Nazis, the Klan, And other hate groups too, not just Christians.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
  9. Believer

    Gays were attacked by his vicious words. There was only judgement and intolerance in what he said. He does not practice what he preaches

    December 19, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
  10. Name*jill

    It is most definitely his legal right to express his views. It is also A&E's right not to give him a mega phone to express them. That's what Fox is for.

    December 19, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      amen!

      December 19, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • Fox?

      The network that airs Family Guy and The Simpsons?

      December 19, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • Good grief

      A&E didn't give him a megaphone! This came from an inteview with GQ magazine. IF you watched the show, you would know that he talks about his beliefs, as do the other cast members, very publicly. Not to this level of detail, but they do, and it's NEVER mean spirited.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
  11. Reality Stars are silly people

    I find reality stars seldom realize the one they live in.
    While the multiverse supports us we cannot sustain attraction when opposing thought is made material that's why it's a multiverse.

    December 19, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
  12. Tank

    I to agre with Phil . The Bible is the Word of God. I do not believe that Mr. Robinson dislike a gay person. I know he love the person , but he does not like the sin. The Bible says it is a sin. I believe it is time for God fearing Christians to make a stand . If Phil is not on the show . Then as someone that believes in Christ , I should not watch tv that supports gay rights. I should not do business that support gays. So for myself starting 12/19/2013 . No more A&E Tv in my home . Phil Robinson God Bless you for making a stand for God;s word. Tank

    December 19, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      you even talk like a tank. 🙂

      December 19, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
      • Reality Stars are silly people

        He's just another man expressing his limits. IMO too much GOD and not enough JESUS... you know New Testament "Jesus the socialist" vs Old Testament God ...the destroyer.

        December 19, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • ROO

      @Tank

      -The bible is the words of the writers. No evidence confirm any claims regarding that specific god's existence, and lots of evidence dismissing claims regarding biblical literature. Therefore using the bible as a basis to discriminate against a group of people is baseless. You are free to not support anti-discrimination all you want.....but the rest of us don't have to support hatred coming from people who dismiss evidence and latch onto wishful thinking.

      December 19, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
    • G to the T

      I don't hate Phil, I feel sorry for him. "Hate the belief, not the believer" that's my motto.

      December 20, 2013 at 10:42 am |
  13. My Too Senseworth

    I think this is a Civil Rights issue and I also think A&E should be sued because of it.

    December 19, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • Avocado

      Which right, exactly, has been infringed upon?

      He was allowed his free speech. Just because that speech had consequences does not mean that his rights were impacted.

      In fact, since the show is in post production this is most likely just a big publicity stunt (which is working marvelously... ). Odds are he'll be on the next season when they start filming again – wait and see.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • Fred Evil

      Sued?! For what? Protecting America from religious foolishness?

      December 19, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
  14. Topher

    "When the debate is lost, Slander becomes the tool of the loser" — Socrates.

    December 19, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • Joey

      You mean like comparing gay people to pedophiles and people who have se.x with animals? Right? As I certainly take that to mean you have no argument against gay marriage.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
      • Topher

        I never said any such thing.

        December 19, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
        • Joey

          I didn't say you did as I assumed your comment was meant for Phil Robertson. As in he slandered gay people.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
        • Topher

          If you read what he actually said, he didn't say that either.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Topher, There seem to be mixed reports on what exactly he said, but here is one quote that implies he did say that

          “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers - they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

          December 19, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
        • Joey

          yeah he pretty much did.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          Topher
          When the debate is lost, nobody ever since you adopted the born again delusion has ever lost or even come close to losing a debate with you. Our slander is not because anyone loses, it is what you come here for to be ridiculed day after day.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
        • Joey

          If he mentioned being gay and bestiality in the same sentence then how did he not compare the two?

          December 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
        • Fred Evil

          Actually Topher, he did. Re-read his words if you don't see it.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
        • Topher

          Accidentally posted up top. Sorry ...

          In the story I read, and maybe I need to go back and read it, it seemed what he was saying is that it's a slippery slope. This wasn't OK yesterday. Today it is. Tomorrow it will be bestiality is OK. The day after that pedophilia will be OK ...

          December 19, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          Topher
          Lordy, lordy, Topher, how does your mind work? How can you twist every thing you read? Judge not lest you be judged, turns into well it just means how we should judge. Jesus get some treatment for crickeys sake and your child's sake.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      Topher
      You never won an argument on this blog since you arrived, I for one resort to calling you a fool because it is the truth. The difference is I do not mind being called a loser by a fool of little import. I have been called worse.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
      • ?

        That, and having no shane when caught in a blatant lie...he doubled down ON the lie. I lost respect for him that day.

        December 19, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • Madtown

      "Stupid is as stupid does." – Forrest Gump

      December 19, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

      – Ezekiel 23:20

      December 19, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
      • Charm Quark

        doG
        You wouldn't happen to have her number do you? She sounds like fun.

        December 19, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
  15. Sunshine

    Clearly people know that the family is Christian, right? It's obvious. They pray and have there beliefs like everyone else. Many Christians do go by what is in the bible. I'm catholic and I believe what the bible says even when it comes to gays. I don't hate them though or treat them any differently. If you don't like what a show is showing then plain an simple don't watch it. They have gospel channels and I guarantee you don't have to watch it if you don't want to. There are so many racial things on tv but you don't see them getting in trouble for that yet this man mentions his belief in gays and he gets suspended from the show. It's going to be double sided gays and people who follow the bible.

    December 19, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • Maddy

      Clearly A&E doesn't have to give him a platform to air his views, either.

      December 19, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
  16. Kevin

    Hi, my name is Bob Hitler and I think all the Jews should be deported to the bottom of the sea.

    Wait, why I no has job now?

    December 19, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
  17. Alex

    I'm still trying to figure how how calling something a sin is hateful or bigoted. I've been fairly promiscuous throughout my 20's and I love to throw back more than a few beers; both are sins according to Phil Robertson. And yet, I don't feel that Phil Robertson hates me because of my lifestyle. I don't feel that he is bigoted towards me or "alcoholic-phobic." I'm not defending what he said, personally I think you should be able to sleep with whomever you want, I just don't believe that what he said is hateful.

    December 19, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • sly

      Alex ... some folks would think that saying black slaves enjoyed being slaves is rather mean and hateful.

      It's kinda like saying those New Yorkers jumping off the World Trade Center on 9/11 were just practicing for the upcoming High Dive Championships, and they enjoyed it.

      If I was an announcer and said that on national television after 9/11, I'm guessing some of the Christians on here would have been offended and asked for my removal.

      December 19, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
      • Scott

        So you're comparing the preference to kick back with a brew to the decision of jumping out of the World Trade Center over burning to death? What kind of moron are you?

        December 19, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
        • Free Nuts

          Wow – way to screw up what sly clearly meant.

          December 19, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
        • sly

          uh ... at least I'm not an ignorant white racist tea-billie like you Scott, who thinks that saying blacks enjoyed slavery is like drinking a beer.

          Learn to read before you post ... I would think Moron Scott, that almost everyone on here will think YOU are a moron if you think that all this uproar about Duck is because Alex drinks beer.

          Somehow I think there was a bit more to what the Tea Billie said than what you chose to read.

          December 19, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
      • andrsonevn

        Where did he say that "black slaves enjoyed being slaves?" Phil was born around 1950 and grew up in the 50's and 60's. If I recall correctly slavery was abolished in the 1800s. Now, clearly black people did not have all the rights they have today back in the 50s and 60s, but they were NOT slaves. Plus, you are taking what he said completely out of context. He said that he worked in the fields along side black people–so he was no different than them–and that he never heard them complain about working in the fields. He never said black people enjoyed being slaves. If you can't articulate and argue facts, please shut up.

        December 19, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
        • Good grief

          AMEN! The Blacks the worked in the fields with my mother's family and vice versa would play together, look out for each others children etc. The same way it was in rural LA where Phil lived.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
      • Good grief

        "Alex ... some folks would think that saying black slaves enjoyed being slaves is rather mean and hateful"

        Now you're totally off base. The man is ONLY in his 60's, so the black men he references working with were not slaves . The only thing he said was that HE/his family was considered white trash (aka dirt poor country people), and that back then, he worked for people who employed Blacks and white trash. From HIS experience, they were happy; he never said othewise.

        My own mother grew up in rural South Carolina, and even in the early 50's, she went barefoot, wore one of her 7 brother's overall's or their boots. SHE picked cotton, etc in the fields with other Blacks in her rural community, and they all got along and were happy, because they ALL understood each other.

        December 19, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
        • Alex

          Yeah, not even going to respond to Sly's comment, pretty sure he's just a troll.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Maddy

      The being likened to bestiality may have upset a few gays...but other than that, pfft.
      Actions have consequences. Robertson found that out.

      December 19, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
      • Fred Evil

        And Xtians continue to mill about in confusion as their words are being taken at face value, and they are forced to explain their ridiculous beliefs.

        December 19, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • ROO

      Well....for one, there's have no evidence showing how gay is morally wrong. Sin only has relevance to religious people's perception and since it is based on faith, it has no actual backing other than ones own opinion. If you are dealing with moral actions of one person to another....you are going to have to go further than a baseless claim in a book of literature to show how it's morally wrong. Two, being gay isn't lifestyle, it's an attraction. Attractions aren't behavior. However, equating gays with harmful behavior based on no evidence....IS hateful.

      December 19, 2013 at 7:36 pm |
    • G to the T

      The differnce is you chose to sin and they were born the way they are. They aren't choosing a sinful lifestyle, they have a disposition that the bible (sorta) says is a sin. Should someone be condemned for something they had no control over?

      December 20, 2013 at 10:48 am |
  18. sly

    All Christians are Cursed:

    Sura3 3:64: “Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers – Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. and has prepared for them a Blazing Fire to dwell in forever. No protector will they find, nor savior. That Day their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire. They will say: ‘Woe to us! We should have obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!’ ‘Our Lord! Give them double torment and curse them with a very great Curse!’”

    Hey ... just expressing my opinion. Can I get a TV show now?

    December 19, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
  19. Mike

    Another Jim and Tammy Faye Baker.....Lord Help Us.

    December 19, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
  20. UncleM

    For all those trying to argue the existence of deities, please obey the Ten (Eleven) Commandments of Logic:
    1. Thou shall not attack the person’s character instead of the argument. (Ad Hominem)
    2. Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make it easier to attack. (Straw man fallacy)
    3. Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty generalization)
    4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one its premises is true. (Begging the question)
    5. Thou shall not claim that because an event occurred before it must the cause. (Post Hoc/False cause)
    6. Thou shall not reduce the argument to two possibilities. (False dichotomy)
    7. Thou shall not argue that because of ignorance a claim must be true or false. (Ad ignorantum)
    8. Thou shall not assume that this follows that when there is no logical connection. (Non sequitur)
    9. Thou shall not claim because a premise is popular therefore it must be true. (Bandwagon fallacy)
    10. Thou shall not use a false, untenable, or absurd result to argue that a claim is false. (Reductio ad absurdum)
    11. Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon he who is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)

    December 19, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • UncleM

      Sorry. I know that doesn't leave you with much to work with.

      December 19, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      Hard to do if the adversary is a known liar and coward. Ad hominem, I wonder if debating Bernie Madoff on ethics without bringing up his character would be acceptable.

      December 19, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
      • UncleM

        A liar and a coward may have a valid argument. If Bernie Madoff argues that the world is round, the fact that he is a crook does not make it flat. If the argument is whether Madoff is a crook, using his character is valid to *that* argument.

        December 19, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          True, poorly worded, I should have specified the topic of the debate. On this blog we have a born again creationist fundie, Topher. I am guilty of constant ad hominem attacks, but even if poor conduct I feel justified. You have to read his posts.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
      • Charm Quark

        Uncle M
        I did say debating Bernie on ethics come to think of it, not that the world was flat or round, missed that did you?

        December 19, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
        • UncleM

          Agreed. But it would be an interesting debate. I also agree that calling out religious bigots on their intolerance and ignorance is valid in its own right.

          December 19, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.