A&E and the Dangers of Political Correctness

I will say at the offset I have never seen Duck Dynasty nor do I plan to.   It doesn't seem like something that I would be all that interested in enough to spend a half hour of my life sitting in front of the television for.  I have heard of the family and seen pictures of him with various people, but I really know very little about the show except it has something to do with duck hunting.

A&E has decided that it goes against their values to employ someone who holds a biblical worldview on sin.  You can disagree with the premise all you like, but it doesn't change what the bible says.  Homosexuality is a sin according to Christian belief.  I fully understand that there are churches out there that ignore that and have no problem with openly gay clergy and will marry same-sex couples.  That still doesn't change what the bible says about it.

Phil Robertson gave an interview with GQ Magazine.  During that interview he was asked a question on his view of homosexuality.  He answered the question coming from a biblical point of view.  He is a person who believes that the bible is the living word of God.  Yes his words may have been crude, but they were not bigoted, nor did he liken homosexuality to having sex with a goat.  He simply gave a list of things that are sinful, he also included having heterosexual sex outside of marriage in his list.

"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."

All he said is that sex outside the confines of  traditional marriage is sinful, which according to the bible, it is.  That shouldn't be up for debate.  Again, you can feel that the bible is outdated, fake, or anything that you may feel about it, but it doesn't change what scripture says.  If you are to follow the bible and its teachings you shouldn't be having sex of any kind outside of traditional marriage.  Once you do that, you are committing a sin.  

Another part of his quote gets left out in almost all of the media coverage:

“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?”

Is it any wonder that this gets left out?  How can you say that he is "hating" on homosexuals if he says he is not judging them?  As a Christian it is part of your duty to spread the word of God.  People will do that in different ways and to different degrees.  But a true Christian never makes statements about someone else's salvation and how God will ultimately judge a person and how they lived their life.  Not only isn't that our job, it way above our pay grade.  

But of course the media coverage is he is a bigot, he is a hater, or he is some crazy right winged nut job.  He isn't allowed to have a biblical worldview and share that openly.  That is something you must keep in the closet and act like it doesn't exist.  Of course the same people who are hitting him hard have no problem with talking about homosexuality in sex ed classes geared to 6 year olds.  That is perfectly acceptable.  But don't tell them the other side of the equation, oh no, you are a hater then.  

If activists for the gay community are as open-minded as they claim to be, they will have a debate on this topic.  But that isn't what happens.  The debate gets shut off by people losing their income or labeled a bigot and a hater.  My gosh even feminist and openly gay Camille Paglia understands what is happening by these fanatics

"utterly fascist & utterly Stalinist"

Having a debate on the legalization of gay marriage is worth having in this country.  But it devolves into name calling and threats.  What does it say about people who say they are only trying to be accepted and have their rights protected by our society when they care none about the rights of those who believe otherwise?  

We have gotten to the point where any talk of religion must be closeted and must be whispered in the confines of your own home.  We have even gotten to the point that sometimes you can't have a bible study in your home without interference, putting up Christmas lights on the outside of your home gets you a letter from your neighbors telling them how offended they are.  

That isn't tolerance folks, that is tyranny.  This is how far we have fallen as a society; a major public university gives classes on the fine art of fellatio and that is deemed a perfectly acceptable use of tax payer funds for "educational" purposes, but a Christian man can't give the biblical view that he tries to live his life by without losing income.  

A&E has every right to end their contract with Mr. Robertson.  They are a private business and they are under no restrictions constitutionally, as this isn't a free speech or free religion issue.  The government isn't interfering.  Just because A&E has the right to end his contract doesn't mean that it should.  So far the sponsors of the show seem to understand what is at stake here and are standing on the right side.  The side that says he has a right to religious liberty and his viewpoints.  

A sad day in America.  A very sad day.  

No, There is No War on Christmas - Video

This is just disgusting.  Why bother to sing this song at all?  I mean really.  Listen to the words, they took out "Christ the Savior" and "Holy Infant", but left "Holy Night".  

They didn't want to "offend" non-Christians, but apparently had no problem offending Christians.  

Christmas is about a birth of baby and that was the son of God.  That is what it is.  There is no way around that.  Christians follow Christ.  

Head meet desk. 

Tribute or Insensitive? Chanel Steps in it With Indian Headress

More politically correct nonsense, now from the fashion world.  Chanel did a show for its pre-fall collection in Texas.  The theme of the collection is south-western with a Native American feel to it.  They had the audacity to use headdresses as part of the finale of the show.

Heaven forbid do something that shows of the beauty of the Native American culture.  Then you are, at best, insensitive and probably racist too.

When you look at the clothes that they were showing you can clearly see a Native American flair to them.  Personally, while I wouldn't wear the pieces with the fringes on them, just not my style, they are quite beautiful and obviously well crafted pieces.  But of course with the hypersensitive culture we live in, the demands for apologies abound.

Chanel has issued a statement:

"Native Americans are an integral part of Texas' rich history and culture and the feather headdress, a symbol of strength and bravery, is one of the most visually stunning examples of creativity and craftsmanship. We deeply apologize if it has been misinterpreted or is seen as offensive as it was really meant to be a tribute to the beauty of craftsmanship."

This constant need that some have to turn everything into a conversation about race really needs to stop.  The word has lost its true meaning at this point.  People should be very concerned about that because when real cases of it come up, people will not take them as seriously as they should.

Take a look at some of the photos and you can see for yourselves that nothing was meant as disrespect to Native American culture.  They were simply doing what fashion houses do at fashion shows, making the outfits over the top.

Quote of the Day - Professor Dan M. Kahann Edition

I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension.

But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party.  All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the paper (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico).  

I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.

Maybe getting out of that liberal bubble once in a while is good thing.  Especially when that bubble includes Yale University.  

About Megyn Kelly and White St. Nick

I just love all this.  I really do.  Megyn Kelly had a panel discussion on blog post that was written by a black woman and her feelings of inadequacies as a child seeing a white Santa Claus.  Her tongue and cheek suggestion was that we now make Santa into a penguin so that no one else is forced to feel bad about themselves as she did as a child.  

This discussion, per the usual, turned into calls of "RAAAAACIST" and of course White Privilege.  I wonder how many actually watched the segment or just read what has been written about it?  

St. Nicholas was white.  St. Nicholas is what Santa Claus is based upon.  That isn't up for debate.  It is history.  He was a historical figure.  The point of the segment was that just because something in history is uncomfortable, is that a good enough reason to change it?  Her answer is no, it isn't.  She is right about that.  

Across human history there are many things that are uncomfortable.  The crusades, slavery, and the holocaust just to name three.  Do we get to change what happened because someone is uncomfortable with the history of it?  I am white of European descent.  I am only one generation away from it in fact.  I am only the third person in my family to be born in this country.  Now, do I get to whitewash the history of European whites that held blacks in slavery just because I don't like the fact that they did it?  No, I don't.  That is our history.  The same way that blacks that come from African decent don't get to whitewash the fact that many blacks on that continent made money on selling their fellow countrymen into bondage.  That is their history.  

I was reading an article not to long ago on the 9/11 museum that will be opening at The World Trade Center.  Some people didn't want the hijackers mentioned at all, they wanted it to be about the victims only.  I say heck no.  We don't get to decide for ourselves what that day was and what it was not.  19 men hijacked planes and killed 3,000 innocent people based solely upon their sick religious views.  That is what happened.  It doesn't matter that some people may be uncomfortable with that pesky little fact.  Muslims have to deal with it.  Saudis have to deal with the fact that the majority of them came from that country.  It isn't up for debate, or at least it shouldn't be.  

She was making no statement on race.  She was talking about why do we, as a culture, want to change historical figures into a narrative that fits a more "modern, feel-good, politically correct" thing?  What right do we have to do that as a society?  It benefits no one to change our history.  

This has played out in bright colors this week with the death of Nelson Mandela.  I can't think of another recent example that showcases what Ms. Kelly was saying.  Upon his death he was either characterized as a saint or the devil.  The truth is he contained elements of both.  His history does contain acts of violence and innocent people being killed due to those acts of violence.  That cannot be left out of the conversation about his life.  But the other side to that coin is that he left the violence behind him once he was out of imprisonment and tried to lead a country out of a government that was based on oppression, racism, and nothing short of tyranny.  Now I don't agree with his socialist views of government, but I didn't live that life in that time.  I am sitting in the cheap seats and it is real easy for me to say what I would and would not have done in his position, living in that country, as a person of color, in that time.  Freedom isn't free.  We say that all the time in this country when it comes to conversations about our troops and America's standing in the world.  I can think of no example of when a country that was under a tyrannical regime working towards more freedom for its citizens that didn't involve bloodshed.  It isn't pretty, but it is reality.  If there is one thing that makes me crazier than anything else, it is when people don't want to deal with the realities at hand.  We don't get to change our history simply because we don't like it.  Unless of course you want to be intellectually dishonest and lazy.  

There was nothing racist about what Megyn Kelly said.  She wasn't saying that black children can't look to Santa Claus the same way white children do.  She wasn't saying that Santa is only for the whites of the world.  She was saying St. Nicholas is a historical figure and nothing in the world is going to change that fact.  Deal with it.  

Photo of the Day - Fake Sign Language Interpreter May have Gotten One Sign Right

You may have heard that the leader of the World Deaf Federation is saying that the man who was signing during the speech given at the Mandela funeral yesterday was a fake.  I think he may have gotten one sign right though.  

Too funny. 

President Obama, The Narcissist, Keeps it Classy at Mandela Funeral

We should all be so proud.  Seriously?  A selfie at a funeral?  That goes for you to Mr. Cameron.  

Inter-racial Dating in Harlem - Video

I thought this was great.  With all the hullaboo about Mandela being the most recent thing showing our core differences in this country, this made me smile.  

H/T - Joseph 

E.W. Jackson on the Passing of Nelson Mandela

Honestly, I think this is one of the best quotes I have heard.  I admit it, I am a fan of Nelson Mandela.  Don't get me wrong, I think that he was wrong about socialism and I do know his history.  But, the one thing you can't get away from once he was in a position of power, he didn't abuse it.  He didn't turn into those despots that are all so common in Africa.  I also ask myself would I have thought differently in the same set circumstances?

I do think the world lost a great man yesterday.  His past wasn't always pretty but in the end he did what he could to bring equality to millions who wouldn't have had it otherwise and he did it through a democratic process.  He grew and matured into a man that was able to accomplish things that seemed impossible decades earlier.  

People will quibble over whether the African National Congress was the best means of bringing justice to South Africa. They may debate whether sanctions were the right way of pressuring for the end of apartheid. One could point out that Nelson Mandela once embraced violence, but I cannot say that I would not have done the same under those conditions. He later came to realize that violence would not bring down apartheid without destroying South Africa.

One can certainly question whether today’s South Africa fulfills the potential it has for freedom and opportunity. However, there is no doubt that Nelson Mandela was exactly the leader South Africa needed – even if he didn’t start out that way. He was courageous through long years of abuse and imprisonment. He was magnanimous and a force for peace and reconciliation when he was released and catapulted to the presidency. Others in his circumstances have become dictators and authoritarian leaders, exacting vengeance on their enemies. He came to be admired even by those who had once opposed him. The world has lost a great man today.

Quote of the Day - Wendy Davis Edition

As governor, I’ll always make investing in our Texas children my first priority

Seriously?  How she can say this with a straight face is beyond me.