published Tuesday, December 24th, 2013

Don’t soft-pedal Phil Robertson — and more letters to the editors

Don’t soft-pedal Phil Robertson

I am confused about David Cook’s position on Phil Robertson’s bigotry. He seems to soft-pedal Robertson’s racist and homophobic comments.

Robertson is like many of the run-of-the-mill letter writers to the Times Free Press. Under the banner of Christianity, they spread hatred for their neighbors, harshly condemn others, and support their prejudices with obscure quotes from Leviticus.

I am no Biblical scholar, but this message is the antithesis of the ministry of Jesus. Bigotry dressed in the vestments of religion is bigotry.

Bigotry is not free speech. Do you have a right to say ignorant things? Yes. Is free speech a license to escape from the consequences of your stated prejudices? No.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. I am sure that Robertson is very sincere and conscientious.

Remember this, David Cook: If it waddles like a bigot, and it quacks like a bigot, it might be a duck.

TERRY STULCE, Ooltewah


Don’t scold our speech

A writer indicated that the “L” in Ooltewah should be pronounced. This is not so unless one wants to appear as a nerd in an NFL huddle.

Around here, we do not say: youse (you); pack (park); cuber (Cuba); God forbid (Oh, no); boid (bird); choip (chirp); howdy, padnah (Hello, there.); nevah (never); Nor’easter (North Easter); etc, etc. And East Ridge is two words.

If you do not like our vernacular, y’all should seek out an area more pleasing to your taste in English.

DUN MONROE, Signal Mountain


Don’t silence Phil Robertson

I saw your article on the controversy raging about “Duck Dynasty” and comments made regarding homosexuality by the patriarch, Phil Robertson, in a magazine interview.

While I support gay rights, I also support freedom of speech and every individual’s right to their own opinion. It seems like things have gotten seriously out of whack in our country lately. Freedom of Speech is only for some folks.

I visited San Francisco last summer and saw men walking down the street with their butt cheeks exposed. While I understand this is freedom of expression, it’s not something I would want my children to be exposed to.

Being America, I guess they have that right. Why does Phil not have the right to his own opinion, rooted in his faith?

In our effort to be politically correct, it seems we are creating double standards. It would be nice to hear some gay advocates make a stand and give voice to the fact that, in this country, whether you agree with it or not, everybody has the right to his or her own opinion.

It just seems like some groups demand things they are not willing to grant to others. Confusing.

TIM ENGEL, Chattanooga

22
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

Mr. Engel, you're missing the point. Free speech is protected from government hinderance. While Phil Robertson has the right to spew his racist and homophobic views, and even to do so in the cloak of the loving Christian God, no one - not you nor I nor the A&E network, is obligated to give him a bully pulpit.

Phil Robertson will continue to stubbornly defend his right to believe what he believes. The government is not stopping him. Therefore, his right to free speech has not been abridged.

December 24, 2013 at 8:20 a.m.
moon4kat said...

somethingorother, Thanks for clarifying that. Many people misunderstand the 1st Amendment right of free speech -- you are quite right that it does not prevent private companies from choosing what is said from their platforms. They have rights, too, including the right to refuse to spread views with which they disagree. The 1st Amendment only prevent the government from controlling speech.

December 24, 2013 at 8:37 a.m.
conservative said...

Well TERRY STULCE Ooltewah, you stated that you were no Biblical scholar.

You certainly got that right!

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? 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. 1Corinthians 6:9-10

Apart from that you referred to Robertson’s “racist and homophobic comments.”

Well, I looked up his comments:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

'Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,' Robertson answered when asked by GQ what exactly he considered sinful, 'bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.

Who could disagree with that?

December 24, 2013 at 9:34 a.m.
riverman said...

Stulcie also said he was confused.He got that right too!

December 24, 2013 at 11:12 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

You're not a biblical scholar either Conservative. You're a "Let me pick and choose the parts of the Bible that fit my political beliefs and ignore the rest of it" kind of guy.

I also find it comical that when someone mentions homosexuality, you and Ken Orr immediately start discussing men's anuses. I think you two may need to come out of the closet soon, too many suppressed feelings for you two to carry on a normal life.

December 24, 2013 at 1:02 p.m.
conservative said...

GaussianInteger:

Fortunately for you I have some spare time so I will help you with your many errors and misunderstandings.

You wrote: “You're not a biblical scholar either Conservative” Didn’t make any claim as to whether I am or not. Your statement is irrelevant to say the least.

You wrote: “You're a "Let me pick and choose the parts of the Bible that fit my political beliefs and ignore the rest of it" kind of guy”

You don’t know my political beliefs. Furthermore, The Scripture passage I cited pertains to the subject I and the false teacher PAMELA RUMANCIK were commenting on. Stated another way my reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 was relevant. And yes I purposely ignored Scripture that had nothing to do with Homosexuality. That should be obvious to any reasonable person. However, I have noticed that you like to make irrelevant comments.

You wrote: “I also find it comical that when someone mentions homosexuality, you and Ken Orr immediately start discussing men's anuses.”

I have never once discussed or used the word “anuses” on my own. You made that lie up. I only quoted someone else who did. However, you used the word “anuses” on your own so you are the one who has brought the word up. Now that IS comical!

You wrote: “I think you two may need to come out of the closet soon, too many suppressed feelings for you two to carry on a normal life.”

Well that is just a personal attack which is all you had all along. My life and behavior IS normal unlike the unnatural and abnormal behavior of the Homosexual.

No need to thank me for giving you this correction. After all, it is more blessed to give than to receive. I’m sure you will agree.

December 24, 2013 at 5:32 p.m.
conservative said...

I should have broken my last comments up into segments so that more would read them.

December 24, 2013 at 5:45 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I should have broken my last comments up into segments so that more would read them.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

(whew) sorry, that just hit a funny bone.

December 24, 2013 at 7:29 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Let me ask you this Conservative. If being attracted to the same sex is "unnatural and abnormal behavior", when did you choose to be attracted to women?

With a name "Conservative" and the stuff you post on a consistent basis, knowing your political beliefs is as easy as if finding it's raining outside by looking out the window.

And the word "homosexual" is not in first Corinthians.

December 24, 2013 at 9:54 p.m.
schizka said...

Conservative said... Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? 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. 1Corinthians 6:9-10

That's not what's written in a 1963-64 version of the Christian Bible. Nowhere in Chapter 6 verse 9-10 is the term "homosexual" even mentioned. So if man has changed the word somewhere along the way, that would mean it is not coming from the word of God? If the words have been changed, it means that someone has tampered with the word of God, which in itself is a sin?

Corinthians, Chapter 6:9-10:

verse 9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (the term effeminate, also refers to being weak), nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

verse 10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

That's a helluva lot of sinners who won't be making it through them dar pearly gates. You being one of them no doubt. :)

Conserves quoting Phil: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus."

Some heterosexuals do engage in anal, as well as oral sex with one another, and there's clergy who will defend the practice as long as it's between a man and his wife or significant other. Of all the people who fornicate the most, people living in the Bible are at the top of the list, especially clergy. ;)

December 25, 2013 at 5:04 p.m.
conservative said...

GaussianInteger:

I wrote:

“My life and behavior IS normal unlike the unnatural and abnormal behavior of the Homosexual.”

You wrote:

“If being attracted to the same sex is "unnatural and abnormal behavior", when did you choose to be attracted to women?”

Why the deliberate difference?

Were you trying to fool someone?

December 26, 2013 at 7:35 a.m.
conservative said...

schizka:

Well let me help you with your errors.

You began with: “That's not what's written in a 1963-64 version of the Christian Bible.”

Strange that you didn’t name that 1963-64 version of the Bible.

Why?

December 26, 2013 at 7:40 a.m.
conservative said...

schizka:

To continue with your “That's not what's written in a 1963-64 version of the Christian Bible.”

Well you used the word “version” so you might have recognized there are many translations of the original Scriptures. Or, you may have just got your info from one of the many Atheist websites that seek to mislead the frail of mind not realizing the meaning or significance of the word “version.”

So I ask, so what?

December 26, 2013 at 8:05 a.m.
conservative said...

GaussianInteger:

You wrote:

“And the word "homosexual" is not in first Corinthians.”

Well it most certainly is. It is right there in the New American Standard translation of the Bible. It is a modern more literal translation and can be read online and purchased where Bibles are sold.

Furthermore other translations use the word Homosexual or words to convey the act as well.

I marvel that you write as though you are familiar with the Bible and yet you do not know this.

December 26, 2013 at 8:10 a.m.
conservative said...

GaussianInteger:

I wrote:

“My life and behavior IS normal unlike the unnatural and abnormal behavior of the Homosexual.”

You wrote:

“If being attracted to the same sex is "unnatural and abnormal behavior", when did you choose to be attracted to women?”

Well since that is a concoction of your mind and not what I wrote you will just have deal with your attraction problems yourself.

God can take those desires and behaviors away from you if you sincerely seek His help and guidance.

Sure judgment awaits you if don’t.

December 26, 2013 at 8:19 a.m.
conservative said...

schizka:

To continue with your “That's not what's written in a 1963-64 version of the Christian Bible.”

So what? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is translated into hundreds of other languages where the word Homosexual is not found. However, and this is very important, their language is used to convey the act of Homosexuality without using the exact word Homosexual.

So, you have either been exploited or you are trying to exploit the ignorance of the others.

December 26, 2013 at 8:44 a.m.
sagoyewatha said...

ATTENTION TO ALL SERIOUS POSTERS: For a continuation of Conservative's pontifications on religion, politics, human sexuality and philosophy do this: enter any public rest-room and push the start button on the hand dryer.

December 26, 2013 at 9:40 a.m.
conservative said...

schizka:

To continue with your “That's not what's written in a 1963-64 version of the Christian Bible.”

You were referring to my posting 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which was:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? 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. 1Corinthians 6:9-10

Now, that was from the NAS, The New American Standard translation, a modern more literal translation. I did fail to type NAS, but it is quite familiar to Bible students. You don’t seem to be aware of the translation.

December 26, 2013 at 9:54 a.m.
conservative said...

schizka:

To continue with your “That's not what's written in a 1963-64 version of the Christian Bible.”

The original inspired Scripture of the New Testament was written in Greek so of course the literal word Homosexual is not found there just as it is not found in the “1963-64 version of the Christian Bible” you referenced.

Are you beginning to get it?

December 26, 2013 at 12:35 p.m.
conservative said...

schizka:

You wrote:

“That's a helluva lot of sinners who won't be making it through them dar pearly gates. You being one of them no doubt. :)”

And “no doubt” you would never judge me or anyone else.

I expect those kinds of personal attacks from Liberals and Atheists. That is all Liberals and Atheists can do since the facts are not on your side. It doesn’t bother me for I am aware of and understand your condition.

December 26, 2013 at 5:07 p.m.
conservative said...

schizka:

You wrote:

“Some heterosexuals do engage in anal, as well as oral sex with one another, and there's clergy who will defend the practice as long as it's between a man and his wife or significant other.”

This will surprise you, God prescribes sex within marriage. It is only sex OUTSIDE of marriage that God condemns:

Hebrews 13:4 KJV Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge .

December 26, 2013 at 6:48 p.m.
conservative said...

schizka:

You wrote:

“Of all the people who fornicate the most, people living in the Bible are at the top of the list, especially clergy. ;)”

I guess you are referring to many false teachers and preachers who practice sex outside of marriage. I certainly agree with you there. Read the letter by PAMELA RUMANCIK a “reverend” in the Godless Universalist false church who is also a practicing Lesbian.

Her letter can be found in the next section.

A good rule to remember concerning the identification of false teachers – “You shall know them by their fruits.”

December 26, 2013 at 7:38 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.