duck-dynasty800

Killing the Duck that laid the Golden Egg

The A&E channel seems content to kill the Duck that laid the Golden Egg for them. There’s nothing logical about disciplining Phil Robertson. He’s revived thDuck Dynasty Season 3e network but they don’t seem to care. They’re more concerned with being Politically Correct and siding with 2% of the population as opposed to the majority of the population watching the show.  Like many before them in Hollywood, they make choices that are against their best interest (see Michael Medved’s Hollywood vs. America).

Unlike some commentators (Albert Mohler, Bill O’Reilly, most of the gang at The Five, et al.) I contend that Phil Robertson’s comments were simple, straight, and to the point – just what you want from a backwoods man – and just what you should expect.  They were not rude, crude, or spoken in an inappropriate venue.  The reactions of some of these commentators has not simply been to smack down politically correct speech as an abhorrent Stalinistic tactic of the liberal left, but to agree to a softer form of PC tone. They don’t like the way Phil talked about sex. They wouldn’t have said it that way. Mohler even tries to invoke the apostle Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and Romans as he says Phil’s mild use of medical terminology was “crude” and unnecessary. After all, if Paul didn’t have to use those terms, then Phil shouldn’t either.  Mohler overlooks the fact that we are 2,000 years separated from Paul and that some things need to be said in our day that were not necessary to say in Paul’s day. Even Andrea Tantaros admitted she worries about saying or writing the wrong thing that is going to get her fired. Unwittingly, she admitted to living in a world of softer-toned Political Correctness. And to charge Phil with “crude” language is still this form of PC speech. Phil was not vulgar, he did not use slang or even euphemisms to discuss sexual organs. He used strict medical terminology and yet so many of these people found that offensive! What kind of world do they live in? Apparently one that finds medically terminology to be Politically Incorrect. How, then, are we supposed to talk about sexual organs and sexual behavior?

Most of these people are simply genteel and don’t prefer to discuss sexuality as part of polite chatter. Tantaros openly wished we could just not talk about sex at all – and I wish we could, too, but the homosexual activists and liberal sexual activists see to it every day that it is a topic always in front of us. A number of these good people also demonstrated how they are out of touch with real southerners and backwoods kind of people. They simply don’t quite understand us yet, though they’re on our side. They’re “subdivision kids” as my dad would say, or “yuppies” as Phil would say. But a tip-of-the-hat goes to Laura Ingraham who does understand better than most and tried to correct Bill O’Reilly in his way of thinking. She told him his way of thinking was wrong! And she was right.

The Stalinists of the Politically Correct community won’t tolerate anything other than the party line.  The rabid homosexual activist movement has sought to shut down opposition both secular and religious. There’s no sign it wants to stop, to negotiate, or to dialogue. It simply wants all opposition squashed. I warned my Canadian friends in 2001-2003 that the homosexuals there would not stop with simple marriage rights, they would make it a crime to speak against homosexuality and would eventually try to force the churches to perform homosexual marriages. Don’t expect them to stop evangelizing and proselytizing and agitating. They will not be appeased and they will not quit. Their most vocal and staunch opponent is the Church, therefore, it remains the #1 target – and Phil Robertson is a Church member, thus a target.

I’ve been waiting for something like this to happen. Phil’s comments on abortion were largely passed over by the liberal left. This or something like it was bound to happen because Phil is a Christian and he is an open spokesman for Jesus.  In fact, he initially refused to do the Duck Dynasty show because he was as famous as he wanted to be (and he was already rich). But what convinced him to do the show was that it would be a way for him to preach more – which is what he really wanted out of life at that time.  Any Christian should know that when you speak about sin to a sinful world you can expect backlash.  By the PC Stalinists count, Phil Robertson committed 4 Politically Correct sins. Firstly, he described what takes place during male homosexual intercourse. We’re not supposed to talk about that. Instead we’re to listen to talk the homosexuals activists approve of about “love” and “equality”.  The subject of anal intercourse is too graphic for public dialogue, but we’ll quietly ignore and condone it if we talk about “love” or “equality”.  The homosexual activists can’t stand for the public to be reminded of the deviancy that homosexual intercourse requires. It’s not good for the cause. And for this reason, we need to be reminding people of the perverse nature of homosexuality. To allow it to be cleaned up and normalized in our public dialogue is to shirk the duty of reminding people about the vile nature of sinful acts. They go against the natural and normal functions of the body. Christian speech could be a little more frank than it is and Phil is a good example of that approach.

Secondly, Phil touched on the topic of basic biology 101 – the male/female body design. We are supposed to ignore that, too. We can teach sex ed in school and all of the various liberal perversions of sex in school, but we dare not be reminded that the male and female body are designed for complementary compatibility.  This, too, undermines the liberal cause because it injects basic purpose-driven design into the homosexual dialogue. The homosexual activists would have us pay no attention to basic physiology. They want us to think of “love” and “equality” not “utility” and “design” (much less a Creator who designed us for a certain utility!).  So, while the homosexual activists and the sexual liberals would have us believe that the main purpose of the sexual organs is for recreational entertainment, the fact of the matter is they are designed for the purpose of procreating. But we’re asked to ignore that basic function so that homosexual activists can feel “normal” since sex is all about “fun” and not about spawning new life.

Thirdly, Phil paraphrased the Bible’s teaching on the subject of sin. Like many people, he sees homosexuality as a severe deviance in human behavior. It is 180 degrees out of phase. It requires intercourse in orifices that were not designed for such. It completely violates what Phil considers God’s intention was at mankind’s creation.  So Phil begins there and expands on to other sexual sins (bestiality, fornication and/or adultery) all of which are sins by biblical standards. He further goes on to list other non-sexual sins as well, which is overlooked by most. Additionally, he did not equate homosexuality with bestiality. The biblically ignorant might think so, but both fall under the category of “sexual sins” in the Bible. Furthermore, the list of sins that Phil gave is not one of his own concoction. They’re all biblical sins. So his answer was to list sins that the Bible condemns and promises to punish with hellfire and damnation. These can’t even be properly qualified as “his” opinion as it was God who expressed them first in Scripture and they’ve been Church doctrine ever since.  Phil is siding with God on these matters.  But the homosexual activists can’t allow the Bible into the conversation because it convicts them of their sin and prompts others to recall the Divine morality they so wish to ignore (remember “love” and “equality”?).

The oft-used description of Phil and his family a “fundamentalists” today is also ridiculous. It is the fundamental belief of all of Christianity that homosexuality is a sin (as it is in Islam and Judaism). Their belief is not an odd or new belief. It did not come from some nutty religious leader in some obscure sect. It came directly from the Bible and it has been established Church doctrine for 2,000 years. The doctrine itself is fundamental whether you’re a backwoods Louisianian or a upper Manhattan Roman Catholic.

Fourthly, Phil dared to say that homosexuality was illogical behavior. This is so obvious based on history and biology that it should draw no reaction whatsoever. But the Twilight Zone we live in today tries to tell us that right is wrong, up is down, and that male-male anal intercourse is no different than heterosexual intercourse (remember “love” and “equality” not “sin” or “perversity”).  If a person had an extension cord with two male ends and they were trying to plug the two ends together, we would seriously question their sanity. Yet we are being asked to take two men or two women and declare them normal so they can have sex with each other. Perhaps we should also declare that the double-male extension cord is “normal” so we can use it. Neither makes any sense. Both are highly illogical.

A number of people have criticized Phil for interviewing with GQ,  but Jesus went to where the sinners were and told them what they needed to hear. Phil is a preacher and he’s not one to avoid speaking truth to those who need to hear it. We live in a world where many of the secular and barely-religious people don’t even realize anybody thinks homosexuality is a sin. It’s jolly good for Phil to remind them of it. We do them no service by lightly treating it,  glossing it over, or failing to discuss it from our pulpits. Few preachers get this much national attention. Phil has opened a dialogue that will not soon go away.

Some people (like Mohler) speculated that Phil didn’t sleep well last night. I contend that he did because he doesn’t need the Duck Dynasty TV show or A&E to bring him riches or fame. He had both before the show. He is content with who he is, what he says, and what he does. Reactions that swirl around him might amaze him, but so long as he is at peace with God he is at peace with himself.

Some have called Phil “unchristian” today which is as absurd as is the homosexuality he spoke of. The idea that it is unchristian to speak of sin when asked about what sin is, is simply bizarre. Being more charitable, Albert Mohler wrote, “Phil Robertson would have served the cause of Christ more faithfully if some of those comments had not rushed out.” I completely disagree. We are now having an open and frank discussion about homosexuality that we were not having before. The perverse nature of homosexual acts is being brought to public attention, the homosexual activist community is being exposed for its hateful bigotry, intolerance, and Stalinistic tactics, and the Bible’s teaching on sin is being talked about in places it would not normally have been talked about. Phil spoke of love and forgiveness while his opponents hurled the only hateful and vitriolic speech that has been heard today.  Phil Robertson did the cause of Christ a tremendous service by saying what needs to be said and what needs to be heard in his simple, southern, backwoods style.

2 thoughts on “Killing the Duck that laid the Golden Egg”

  1. Enjoyable read Darris. You certainly hit the nail on the head with respect to biological functionality. I actually had a person tell me, the other day, that arguments of this type are not persuasive, because one can find numerous examples of homosexual behavior, including long term relationships, in the animal kingdom. I quickly reminded him that we can also find a great number of other behaviors in animals that we both agree should never be adopted by Homo Sapiens, such as pedophilia, polygamy, and incest, for whatever that is worth. He must have had to rush away to a meeting or some other prior engagement, as the conversation ended rather quickly.

    1. Yes, it is interesting how people are selective in their thinking. If they can find ONE aspect of a behavior in a non-human species that supports their contention then they feel justified. Never mind those other behaviors that they would find offensive. And it genuinely never occurs to them to think more broadly. The whole idea that a non-human species provides justifiable behavior for humans is a non-sequitur. It certainly ignores the distinction that is made in the Bible between humans and animals. Humans are the highest and greatest creation of God and made in His image. Animals are a lower creation and do not have moral culpability, as humans do.

Leave a Reply