The Difference Between the Martin Bashir and Phil Robertson Cases

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


martin_bashir_-_michael_jackson

Some liberals are calling conservatives hypocrites for advocating the firing of Martin Bashir while denouncing the suspension of Phil Robertson on Duck Dynasty.

Personally I never called for the firing of Martin Bashir. There’s no real point in firing cretins from a cretin network. They’ll just be replaced by more cretins. And it’s more useful to let the cretins discredit themselves and keep their jobs. Bashir embarrassing his equally radical employers was better than becoming a scapegoat to some imaginary standard of journalism that does not exist at MSNBC.

However, it was quite legitimate to call for firing Martin Bashir because…

1. Bashir referred to an actual specific person. He wasn’t saying that conservatives in general should have X done to them. He used a specific woman, who has already been the subject of numerous death threats since she had the temerity to be part of a political campaign running against the greatest man in history.

Robertson was discussing homosexuality in general. Not specific individuals.

2. Bashir’s rant had a violent edge. He was discussing a violent act being inflicted on a woman to teach her what real slavery is. Robertson did not remotely make anything involving a threat or any remote suggestion of violence. He was discussing why he believed homosexuality was wrong.

3. Bashir made his statements on MSNBC. Phil Robertson made his in a magazine. At the time he was doing publicity for Duck Dynasty and there was apparently an A&E handler with him, (which raises the question of whether A&E wanted this whole thing to happen), but he wasn’t appearing in an A&E owned forum.

4. Finally, the obvious, Phil Robertson doesn’t claim to be a journalist. He’s not expected to abide by any professional journalistic standards. Bashir is.

MSNBC wants to be considered a news network. Which means it is legitimately expected that its personalities should abide by some distant echo of appropriate standards. Considering that it employs the likes of Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz, that’s a lost cause, but at the least its personalities should avoid proposing the sort of thing that Bashir proposed.

A&E is not a news network. There is no reason to expect that reality television stars should be bound by any professional codes of conduct. It’s just the opposite.

Suspending a reality show star for offending people is like suspending a baseball player for hitting a home run. It’s his job.

Free speech obviously does not apply to the whims of corporate owners. But popular pressure is legitimate. And it goes both ways. Both to defending people who say controversial things on the air and to calling for them to be fired.

The unfortunate reality with cable is that if you subscribe, you are funding MSNBC through carriage fees even if you never tune in. All cable subscribers are to some degree funding MSNBC and A&E and have the right to offer their opinion on how their money is being used even if they don’t watch them.

  • DogmaelJones1

    A&E, as a nominally private entity, had the discretionary right to suspend the Phil Duck Person (the whole Duck Dynasty clan is repellant to me, and not just because they’re born-again Christian proselytizers, and fortunately, I don’t get A&E) for what he said in GQ, because, nominally, he was also representing A&E. Also, A&E’s suspension of the Duck Person was not an instance of censorship, as everyone seems to think. Only governments can employ force to gag or threaten to gag anyone from saying anything. A&E doesn’t have that power, just a contract that apparently contains clauses or riders that allow it to suspend anyone or even disengage from their programs for whatever reason it wishes. The Duck Person’s remarks in GQ were tacky, crude, crass, and what you’d expect from a guy who poses as a backwoods yahoo posing as a kind of born-again Moses bring the Ten or Twenty Commandments down from the mountain, cussing a blue streak, because those tablets are heavy.

    • Mr. YumYums

      No one anywhere has argued that A&E didn’t have the legal right to suspend Robertson. The legal right of A&E as a private enterprise and employer are not what is at issue. It’s not a debate about legality in any respect. It is a debate about whether we as a culture are going to uphold a norm that protects freedom of speech, because we actually value freedom of speech enough to hold ourselves to higher standard than what the law requires, or whether we are going to be a mediocre society that holds itself to legal bare minimums because what we value above freedom of expression is money.

    • M2000

      Then maybe universities whom have guidelines should fire all the professors whom have a desire to boycott Israel and create tensions for Jewish students that are pro-Israel.

      If that’s the case with Phil Robertson. Oh wait that’d be violating the freedom of speech for Leftist professors, only Leftists can have freedom of speech.

    • CruisingTroll

      Legal contracts do no override employment discrimination law. If it can be proven in court that A&E has taken actions against Robertson based on his religious beliefs as revealed in his public statements, then they are legally liable for violating anti-discrimination laws. Whether or not these laws should exist is not the point, they do currently exist. I would be delighted to see the Robertson family hold the Left to their own standards.

      • DogmaelJones1

        The whole sorry episode reflects the kind of collectivist, politically correct mindset the Left has labored so long to create in this country: one that jumps on the least (in Duck’s instance, a crude, tactless, locker-room) criticism of the character or behavior of another “protected” class, in this instance, gays. It overrides legality and contract law. Employment discrimination law itself violates one’s freedom of association and assembly, but I don’t think A&E will be excoriated over that issue, only over its actions against the crass remarks of a bogus backwoods yahoo.

    • IzzyKiddnya

      Dogmael — FU-GEDDA-BOUT-IT!
      Impeccable logic and common sense carry no weight here…
      These folks “know” what they’ve been taught, or what they’ve heard — and spend the day agreeing with each other. (That’s “proof” in their eyes…)

      You can’t inform anyone who thinks “reality TV” is “real”…
      You’re wasting your time!

  • HenDanK

    Phil Robertson was expressing a basic Christian teaching on sexuality. This uproar is about the Left’s attack on Christianity. If we don’t defend him they have won.

    • notalibfool

      Isn’t it strange how the Left hates Christianity’s views on sexuality but says nothing when the Islamic Republic of Iran hangs people for being gay?

      • planethunter

        And your belief that the left doesn’t call out Islamic homophobia comes from where?

        • notalibfool

          It comes from the obvious fact that they don’t. Not that the truth would matter to you, though.

          • planethunter

            Does it occur to you that you might not be exposed to a lot of dialogue that goes on on the left? Maybe the websites you frequent and the the company you keep doesn’t include a lot of left-oriented commentary, and the left-oriented commentary that you encounter on the websites you visit might be selected to drum up your anger, not to provide a fair view of what people on the left say and believe.

            As a left-leaning individual myself, let me introduce you to one left-leaning person’s view on Islamic homophobia (and worse — murder of gay people in some Islamic countries): It’s morally reprehensible. It’s also morally reprehensible when people kill cartoonists for drawing cartoons. And the treatment of women in some Islamic countries is morally reprehensible.

          • notalibfool

            Sorry if I seemed rude. Most of my exposure to the left and it’s ideas come from the many long years I spent in college as an undergraduate student, employee, and then as a graduate student.

            Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view politely.

          • planethunter

            And thank you for your nice reply.

            A rare pleasant exchange on the internet between people with different political views!

          • ZZ

            The persecution of gays by islam is not a news story. Not at all. You leftwing scum don’t care at all. You only want special privileges, and Your pathetic excuses for defense of the documented atrocities of islam is perfect proof of your perfidy.

            Leftist = scum.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I actually read the websites of the left more than the right. And it rarely appears.

            Ditto for the media.

          • ZZ

            Did it occur to you that the leftwing media blare their idiotic agendas 24/7 on a largely unreceptive public? Lefty opinions aren’t exactly a mystery.

            Not a single leftwing organization or individual is campaigning against the islamic petsecution of gays. NOT A SINGLE ONE. They are too busy persecuting Christians, duck hunters, Jews, etc.

        • just curious

          Sir, can you provide any liberals in print or broadcast who publicly condemn Islam for its stand that homosexuality is (under Sharia law) a capital crime? I have never heard any news media make any statement to that effect.

      • Bruce Israel

        You seem confused. When Iran hangs people for being gay, anyone I hear weighing in on it, Left or Right, denounces it. Tell me, can you point to ONE (just one) reasonable liberal who has stepped up to defend Iran in this situation?

        On the other hand I hear lots of right-wingers endorsing Robertson’s speech on free speech grounds, but who are strangely silent about Bashir’s free speech rights. Why is it that right-wingers (and many on the left too) will support free speech that they agree with, and bash the speech that they disagree with? Hypocrisy is very prevalent in this country.

        • notalibfool

          No Bruce, you are confused. Read my first post again. I said that the left is silent when Iran hangs gays. Did I say that any liberal stepped up and defended this atrocity? No I did not. They are simply ignoring it.

          Like a typical leftist you know your argument is weak, so you attempt to twist my words into something else.

          • Bruce Israel

            Sorry, but when you imply support through silence, I am going to take issue with that.

            But you want to interpret your words literally? OK, let’s. You say here that “the left is silent when Iran hangs gays”. Really? Have you followed Mr Left around constantly when it’s happened so that you know that he’s never said anything? I am pointing out the ridiculousness of your contention, that you assume that the Left is a uniform individual who is silent. In point of fact, the term “the left” can be, and usually is applied to millions of people who may mostly agree on a number of points, and disagree at times.

            As I said in my first message, I have heard people that I would classify as “on the left” denounce those actions, which in my experience gives the lie to your assertion that the left is silent. I’ve seen a number of FB memes pass my screen that express the opinion that it’s unacceptable and hateful. I’ve seen requests for US government actions to stop it, though given the lack of any good relationship between our country and theirs, I’m not sure how much can be done without military intervention (an overreaction to something like this). What I haven’t seen is the only thing that would indicate to me support for your implication that most on the left are not opposed to Iran’s actions, that being actual support for it.

            We could turn it around and you could tell me if “the right” supports the execution of gays in Iran, especially given the right’s views on the acceptability of homosexuality. Though personally I don’t think that it’s homosexuality that’s at issue in these situations, but is actually an issue of human rights, where people are being put to death for actions that didn’t result in anyone’s death, injury or loss.

            In a similar area, do you also contend that the left has been silent in the area of Russia’s treatment of gays? I think that claim is definitely shown to be false, with everything people have said and suggested going into the Olympics.

          • ZZ

            Bruth,

            None of you lefty scum care about the persecution of gays by islam snd Iran. That’s why your persecution of a Christian Duck hunter is in the news. Your priorities are clear to see.

            Who do you think you’re fooling?

          • Bruce Israel

            C’mon ZZ, if you can’t apply even enough intelligence to spell my name correctly, how do you expect to actually make a case on it’s merits?

            As I said before, I have heard people on both side denounce and deplore the goings-on in Iran, and I think it’s a human rights issue, not a political one of left vs right.

          • ZZ

            C’mon Bruth, using anecdotes is fallacious argumentation. Nobody carws whst you supposedly heard at a cocktail party. Let me know when GLAAD. or any other lefty organization begins a campaign against islamic persecution of gays.

            I wont hold my breath waiting. Jerkoff.

        • Alicia Rodriguez

          difference is Bashir is a professional journalist on national news and he targeted a specific persson with a specific act, Robertson who is a reality show actor was merely answering the question he was asked and that was why he thought Homosexuality was wrong….big difference there

          • Bruce Israel

            Alicia, that is certainly a valid point. I do agree with it to an extent and hold professional journalists to a higher level. At the same time, I consider Bashir’s statement to be unacceptably extreme but to be an opinion about one person, and Robertson’s statement to unfairly tar an entire group of people. Bashir’s statement was also in the context of an opinion piece, not news, so it get’s a bit more leeway as a result.

            In any case, they both have the right to express their opinions, and they both have the right to suffer the consequences of such opinions if they are found unacceptable by people. Both ended up offending people both got negative publicity as a result, and both got penalized by the corporations they represented. What could be fairer than that? (Though only one apologized for his comments afterwards).

            Free speech means that people are allowed to express themselves; it doesn’t mean there are no consequences as a result. Especially when there are other parties involved (e.g. the audience and their employers).

          • ZZ

            Bruth, the real difference is that Robertson’s harmless comment infuriated a tiny minority of bigots, and Bashir’s unhinged attack on Palin was cheered on by leftist bigots.

            It’s clear to see how unprincipled and contemptible leftist ideology is. 3=D

          • Rusty Elbows

            I disagree. First of all, journalists don’t simply just report objectively on the news, they are also allowed to express their personal opinions of the news during an ‘OP-ED’ piece or segment. When Bashir said what he did he did so during his ‘CLEAR THE AIR’ segment in which he shares his personal opinion of the news he’d read. That’s totally can completely allowed and journalist use OP-EDs to talk about their own views all the time.

            Robertson isn’t just a ‘reality TV actor’ he’s a multimillionaire star and representative of his show Duck Dynasty on A&E. He wasn’t just harmlessly shooting the breeze in a bar, he was being interviewed because of his show and about his show. Even the title of the article was a play on his show. He also had an A&E representative there with him. The whole interview was taking place because of his employment with A&E and he was acting as a representative of the show and A&E with his GQ interview.

            I also don’t understand how insulting one specific person is worse than insulting millions of people. I actually think it’s worse to insult millions. Especially those you don’t know and who aren’t in the public eye. Both men said potentially insulting things and if one shouldn’t get fired due to freedom of speech neither should the other.

        • ZZ

          GLAAD is not attacking the mullahs of Iran who persecute and murder gays on a daily basis. It is attacking – true to form – a redneck Christian who cited the Bible. GLAAD and every other leftwing advocacy group not only ignores the persecution of gays by islam, but defends that death cult from legitimate criticism.

          You’re right. Hypocrisy is prevelant in this country.

      • nomoretraitors

        Not strange at all. Double standards are in left wing DNA

      • Lanna

        Islam and Russia both condemn gays! None of us should even be listening to the liberal media, or the worldly voices, they do not have the wisdom, or the authority to usurp God’s word or power!

  • UCPhotog

    Robertson wasn’t suspended or fired for what he said. He was suspended because the advertisers – you know, those companies that get their money from us, and who pay A&E and Robertson, didn’t like his comments. Consumers contacted advertisers and BAM – it was done. The consumers decided with their dollars what should happen. And it did. Do I think it should have happened? Not really. Do I care? Again, not really. But this wasn’t a government court. It was the court of public opinion based on who we were going to spend our money with.

    The Left’s attack on Christianity HenDanK? Really? Tell me, since the right is cutting funds to the poor, trying to overturn a LAW to ensure that people have access to affordable health care, and killing off unemployment benefits to people who have lost jobs because of 8 years of Bush… how is that Christian? Didn’t Jesus, the Christ, tell his followers to care for the sick, feed the poor, and house the homeless?

    Stop watching Faux news HenDanK.

    • GSR

      Stop habitual masturbating to your jug-eared, Marxist-Moooslim Boy in Chief. He’s now revealed as the worst president in US history. Deal with it. Start praying for Her Thighness, Cankles Clinton.

      • Chris Bowen

        Based on what standards? Bassed on gallop polls bush’s lowest approval rating was 25%, where as Obama’s is 38%, that is 50% higher.

        • A Z

          The media outside of Fox is cheerleads for Obama whereas they dogged bush (or any Republican).

          Barbara Walters speaks whats on the minds of many liberal journalist when she said that they thought Obama was the messiah. Given that in the ballpark of 85% journalists are liberal, they can carry a lot of water for Obama and the Democrats.

          • Chris Bowen

            you understand that the word Messiah means savior OR liberator of a group of people, not just Jesus right?

          • A Z

            You understand that when people study vocabulary for English class, there are usually more than one definition? You understand that right?

          • Chris Bowen

            I do, do you? You are the one who assumed she was talking about some sort of deity, not me… When you have more then one definition ANY of them can work, you dont need all of them.

          • A Z

            Either definition of religion works for me.

            How about this one? It would fit the Left quite nicely and there is no mention of God.

            “Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.”

            So I would say that Baba Wawa is very religious although not in the conventional sense. Her wiki entry is wrong. She is not Jewish. She should put liberalism, some flavor of socialism, or scientism.

            BTW do you believe in scientism?

            If Baba Wawa means Obama was thought to be the Messiah in the conventional sense she should amend her statement. If she means in the latter sense she should state why? Maybe it was because of the “crease” in his pants?

          • Chris Bowen

            Except messiah the word has nothing to do with religion..Your use of it does… If I saved a bunch of orphans from a burning building I would be their messiah, because I would be their saviour (n: someone who saves something or someone from danger, harm, failure, etc.).. You are the one putting religion on it, not her.

          • A Z

            “Except messiah the word has nothing to do with religion”

            Except that the 1st definition of the word is from the Hebrew and the 1st definition had a religious context. Most people understand both definition and they also understand that definition 1 has a religious context. Did you flunk Sunday school

            Messiah (from M-W)
            1: the expected king and deliverer of the Jews
            2: a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause

            Definition 2 would be the broadening of the definition.

            However definition #1 would be more apt in Baba Wawa’s case (except for the Jewish part). We had The Greek colonnades in Denver during Obama’s acceptance speech. We had the reverb in th audio system when he gave speeches. We also had the halos in pictures and magazine covers not once, not twice, but a multitude of times. We did not have ritual prostration, but the guy in Florida came close.

            “A messiah is a saviour or liberator of a group of people, most commonly in the Abrahamic religions. …

            The translation of the Hebrew word Mašíaḥ as Χριστός (Khristós) in the Greek Septuagin”

          • Chris Bowen

            Except we already agreed that it has more than one definition, and that only one of those definitions have to fit to be able to use the word. The second definition does not broaden the definition it is an ALTERNATE definition.

            you are assuming it would be more apt, since Obama is a leader and his platform was hope and change, how in the world can you make the claim that the definition about a leader and hope would not be the more apt definition. Also most common does not mean always…

            You make a point to assume, then wonder why people look at you funny..

          • A Z

            No, I look at the starry eyes, the tone of voice, etc & deduce that these people are religious whether they stepped foot in a church or synagogue or not.

            Baba Wawa thought Obama was the Messiah and now she is disappointed.

            Maybe the miracle Obama performed was being HIV negative.

          • ZZ

            Obama is not a messiah by any definition. Not unless messiah means “bitch.”

          • ZZ

            Chris Blowing,

            Messiah has nothing to do with religion? Next you’ll claim that leftism has nothing to do with stupidity.

          • ZZ

            Baba Wawa absolutely did describe Obangi as a deity. Until you get her to say otherwise you are just another lying leftwing troll.

          • A Z

            Baba Wawa’s statement shows the mindset and her religious affiliations.

            You can be an atheist and have liberalism as your religion.

            If you can broaden the definition of messiah, you can broaden the definition of religion.

            I see that you are very dogmatic.

          • ZZ

            You realize that it’s insane to call Obama a messiah by any definition of the word, right?

            Cretin.

          • nomoretraitors

            And here I thought we elected a president to uphold the Consitution and faithfully execute the laws of the land, not be a “liberator” for a specific group of people

          • Chris Bowen

            Because somehow they are mutually exclusive?

          • ZZ

            Because there are no Americans in bondage to liberate, you cretin.

          • nomoretraitors

            Yes they are, because the president must ensure equality before the law for ALL people, not just selected groups

          • Chris Bowen

            And if one group is not being treated equally, as is the case for Gays, then he can be a liberator for that group, and uphold the constitution and execute the laws of the land, IE they are not mutually exclusive.

            you guys really make it easy.

        • ZZ

          Based on American standards. Obamahdi has damaged America more than all its enemies combined. And he did it deliberately.

          Yet you still worship him. Loser.

      • planethunter

        Spoken as a true Christian…

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The consumers are the cable subscribers who are forced to fund A&E whether they watch it or not through carriage fees.

      • Chris Bowen

        So you are not able to not pay for cable? There is some sort of socialist movement to ensure that you have TWC or the likes at home? You are not “forced” to do anything.

        • Tom Fitzhugh

          You weren’t forced to become gay, that’s for sure. It was your choice to seek deviancy.

          • A Z

            How do you know he was not forced to become gay? If you look at it from a deterministic viewpoint as opposed to a free will viewpoint, you could argue he had no choice. He would say “Exactly!”. I am not arguing genetics here but psychology and social interaction. You do not have to make an argument for bullying as a contributing factor or main cause. You could argue it is a pathology both individual and social ( in 2 ways).

            Poor Chris never had a chance.

          • A Z

            Chris may or may not be gay. He definitely is not a Christian, but to hear him tell it he has more morals than a Christian.

          • Chris Bowen

            First I am not gay, second, prove it was was a choice.

          • Tom Fitzhugh

            That’s so funny! I smoked you out and it was easy because you’re so dumb. While you inevitably deny being gay (all gays lie), you immediately launch into the gay defense that it wasn’t a choice that you made.

            That’s funny :)

          • Chris Bowen

            Lets see, logical fallacy, ad hominem, Logical fallacy false dilemma, Logical fallacy strawman. I never said it was a choice that I was gay, I said prove it is a choice being gay, as in the general, not the specific. Of course it seems you dont know how to post something logical so I doubt you could prove your own existence.

          • Tom Fitzhugh

            me: “You weren’t forced to become gay, that’s for sure. It was your choice to seek deviancy.”

            gay Chris: “prove it was was a choice.”

            haha, you dope. You contradict your own self. What a dolt.

            **Next you’ll even say that you don’t look gay. Besides, you just troll conservative sites defending gays because that’s your hobby. Sure. Now say something else funny.

          • Chris Bowen

            It is easy to take one phrase, part of an overall grouping of phrases, and use it to imply I said something I did not. That is a classic logical fallacy. When you take it in context it does not mean what you imply it means, but you want to remove that context…

          • Tom Fitzhugh

            I see, Chris. You’ve got yourself some of those books with titles like “How to argue with conservatives” and you repeat the phrases they tell you to repeat ad nauseum, like “logical fallacy”. You have no idea how transparent that is.

            You a member of FFR?

          • Chris Bowen

            No clue what FFR is, but you keep committing fallacies.. I don’t have a book, I have a minor in logic, and a bachelors in Computer Science.. Both teach you what a logical fallacy is, and you keep committing them.

          • Tom Fitzhugh

            Keep telling yourself that, Chris. Also keep telling yourself that you’re not gay. Try to work “logical fallacy” into every sentence, too.

            It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

          • Chris Bowen

            Apparently you are just a troll, so I will treat you like the rest and just ignore. At least AZ tries to make a point, so I will continue to discus things with him.

          • Tom Fitzhugh

            Yes, when you are losing on every point and repeating “logical fallacy” over and over doesn’t work, the best you can do is declare victory and retreat.

          • ZZ

            What are you going to discuss? Your favorite salads to toss? The latest Obama crime to cover up?

          • ZZ

            You have minor in truth and a major in pillow biting.

          • ZZ

            Chris Blowin,

            “Take it in context?” Is that gay code?

          • Tom Fitzhugh

            Cracker Barrel has just announced they are reversing and will return Phil Robertson items to their locations. Another loss for you gay bigots.

          • Chris Bowen

            You assume I care of they do that..It is their right to market any material they want, just like it was A&Es right to suspend him

          • ZZ

            Just like it is Robertson’s and the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC’s right to punish A&E for its rank bigotry. Xoxoxo =)

          • ZZ

            You are obviously gay. Because you’re a leftwing tard you wont admit it.

            You insult all gays by lying. Why are you ashamed of yourself? Conservatives are tolerant. Not that lefties know anything about tolerance.

        • A Z

          Don’t worry Chris a la carte cable is coming and Logo & FSTV will not get as much money from subscription fees.

          Roku (& other services), internet streaming, and HD rabbit ears will ensure that the old business model of bundling will die out.

          About then certain channels’ subscription base will look as healthy as certain CDC statistics.

        • ZZ

          We are not able to choose which cable channels we want – thanks to Obangi and the Dems ignoring the law for free choice that Bush put through. You leftist scum really hate free choice don’t you?

        • ZZ

          Learn what a carriage fee is, tard lick.

    • Tom Fitzhugh

      You’re a lying sack of crap. Obamacare insurance comes with such high deductibles that’s it’s essentially useless. In most states, premiums have risen. You gays are born liars. Stop presuming to say that you know what Christianity is, you lying bigot.

    • Ozzone

      Total BS. Consumers didn’t contact advertisers. A gay activist group, GLAAD, pushed A&E and they caved in.

    • ZZ

      UCTroll,

      A&E put Mr Roberson’s comnents on the air. Only A&E is responsible for what it televises. ALL the dvertisers who patronize Duck Dynasty are sticking by Robertson and warning A&E. to change its idiotic policy – or else.

      Christian charities give more aid to the poor than every government on the Earth combined. And Fox News is the only real news network in the country. The re
      st are all fake news channels. That’s why nobody watches them but the stupid few.

      I know that as a leftist you cannot control your stupitity, but peddle your lies somewhere else. Nobody here is stupid enough to buy them.

    • nomoretraitors

      “trying to overturn a LAW to ensure that people have access to affordable health care”
      Almost 6 million people have lost their coverage due to Obamacare, deductibles and premiums skyrocketing for the rest. Just what universe are you living in? (And if it is the LAW why has Obama unilaterally and unconstitutionally made changes to it?)
      “killing off unemployment benefits to people who have lost jobs because of 8 years of Bush”
      Obama has been in office 5 years, and you’re still blaming Bush?? How juvenile.
      “Didn’t Jesus, the Christ, tell his followers to care for the sick, feed the poor, and house the homeless?”
      He also said He was the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father through him. But I guess you missed that part. And don’t you libs like to tell us how the Bible was written by men and is open to so many different interpretation?

      “Stop watching Faux news”
      Did you think that up all by yourself or did George Soros help you?
      Time to crawl out of the occupy tent and get some fresh air

  • UCPhotog

    @HenDanK – I may be wrong, but it was not Christian teaching that homosexuality is a sin. That was from the book of Leviticus, which is part of the Old Testament, aka Before Jesus the Christ. The New Testament is considered Christian teachings.

    If you are going to comment on Christianity, please do so from the position that you are not an educated Christian. I don’t claim to be all knowing, but just because something is in the Bible does not indicate that it came from Christ.

    • HenDanK

      The Hebrew Bible is very much a part of the Christian canon. That was the Bible Jesus learned from when He went to the Temple in Jeruselem at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41-52).
      In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says: “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
      As to your assertion that the New Testament has no teachings against homosexuality, read Romans 1:24-32. Also 1 Corinthians 6:9

      • Tom Fitzhugh

        UCPhotog is yet another gay bigot who presumes to teach Christians about Christianity.

  • GSR

    Not only was Robertson discussing homosexuality in general, even more, he was discussing SIN in general. He mentioned many other sins. Note to non-Christians: everyone sins, “sinners” are simply those who don’t realize or admit their sins.

    • Bruce Israel

      Do you happen to know if he addressed the sin of judging others?

      • ZZ

        Bruce Idiot,

        He didn’t judge anybody. He described them. Not that judgement is a sin. You would know that if you had read the Bible instead of intellectually deficient leftwing websites thst promote nihilistic atheism. You are a piece of $hit.

        • Mike

          First the discussion on all the FOX shows were about free speech. So the compaisons here are not valid. Bashire was clearly stating an opinion. “A violent edge” is again an absurd compairson. You could go to Youtube and watch the list of FOX “NEWS” equally inflammatory statements. But then they claim victimhood which they so often do. Second ZZ, unless you are able to read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, you have never read the bible. You read an interpretation. If you do not understand the importance of that, my point is if you translated the Constitution of the United States into MODERN Chinese it would lose meaning. Now try that with a book that is arguably more than 2 thousand years old in dialects NOONE speaks or writes. Written by men who heard voices in their heads and claimed it to be the from the creator of the universe.

          • ZZ

            Fox News did not limit debate over the Duck Dad to free speech, no Fox pundit of any ideological type has EVER made comments as vile and unhinged as Bashir did, theologists who HAVE read ancient texts consider the King James Bible to be excellent, and you are a hopeless moron.

        • Bruce Israel

          Aaaah, no reply needed here. Your own words says so much more about you than I could possibly say.

          • ZZ

            Of course. I’m forthright. I do not try to decieve people with attempts at sophistry.

      • marcus demetrius

        Judging sin as sin is not sin. Declaring that one who willfully commits sin repeatedly can not be forgiven, i.e., puts one in the position of Ultimate Judge. We are not entrusted with that weighty responsibility. Read the whole ppg of Matthew 7 and you will find that being discerning is a command. How else will we distinguish the dogs and swine from the rest?

    • PennyJ Thomas

      I’m late to this, but while he was denouncing sin, he mentioned the usual ones. Didn’t bother to mention knocked up single girls/women or divorced people getting remarried. Why? Because those sins are acceptable to Christians. But guess what? They’re still a sin.

      You want to be a Christian, then don’t take the easy way out. He picked an easy target, while their are much larger segments of society that are sinning. But knocked up single women and remarried people (since half of all marriages end in divorce) probably make up a large part of the cafeteria Christian’s audience.

      I doubt that he’s not so much of a Christian, especially w/a handler w/him, that he didn’t realize what a boon it would be to his financial empire to be controversial.

  • GSR

    Ah, can you say “overthinking it”? Geez…….He was simply stating standard Christian doctrine. If that makes you uncomfortable Precious, than don’t be a Christian. But you have no right to not hear other’s give their views.

    • Chris Bowen

      you are right, but you dont have a right to say what you want as a representative of a company without consequences either. You dont get to have that double standard.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Reality show stars don’t represent companies.

        • Chris Bowen

          yes, they do.. The represent the network they work for..

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Their communications director represents the network. The stars are paid performers, not employees.

          • Chris Bowen

            If I pay you to do work for me then you are my employee, contractor at best, but if you are promoting my show then you are representing my company while you are promoting the show.

      • ZZ

        “Reality” shows pay their stars to be real. And then they televise it. Their choice. A&E is responsible for what appears on its channel. Not the Duck dad.

        What part of that do you not understand, douchetard?

        • Chris Bowen

          I understand it just fine, do you? That is why they told him in the beginning he could not do things like that, what part of that do you not understand. He broke their contract, they are fully in their rights.

          • nomoretraitors

            Did he sign a contract saying he could not express his views on homosexuality?

          • ZZ

            Chris Blowin, he did not sign a contract prohibiting him frm doing “things like that,” and A&E decides what it broadcasts.

            With such a fat head you should be able to think a bit more critically.

    • A Z

      Does it make me uncomfortable? No it does not.

      But science and some religions like Christianity, Judaism do seem to comport rather well with science.

  • StopWithLiberalVSConservative

    There have been NUMEROUS times when O’Reilly and Limbaugh have wished or implied harm to come to specific individuals. Now explain to me what the difference is?

    • SailerJerry

      I have never heard Bill O’Reilly comment about hurting someone. I do not listen to Limbaugh.

    • MJUdall

      You’ll have to provide examples if you’re going to make such a statement. Show me where those two called, implied and wished for people to harmed on their show.

  • Bruce Israel

    While I find there to be to be some merit in points 2-4 of this article, I actually think that the first point works the other way. Bashir made a comment about a particular person, based on specific things that she said. Robertson on the other hand made a blanket statement about a whole class of people, not based on any specific acts.

    If I were to say that I considered Pat Robertson to be evil and intolerant, I am offering my opinion of a specific person, which you may or may not agree with. If my claim instead was that all Christians were evil and intolerant, that would seem to fit into the category of hate speech. Hate speech that doesn’t incite violence or prejudicial action should be allowed, but it doesn’t stop it from being hate speech, or from being denounced by people that disagree with it.

    In this case Martin Bashir offered an opinion of Sarah Palin’s intelligence, and while he picked an example action that many would not agree with (I don’t myself), it was an opinion and not hate speech. Robertson’s comment’s considering homosexuals to be on par with bestiality, slanderers and swindlers, is in my opinion hate speech, not legally such (and he hasn’t been arrested for it, nor should he be), but morally so.

    • ZZ

      You leftist scum will say anything to demonize Robertson and defend fellow scum like Bashir.

      Robertson made a comment about judgement day that you dislike. Bashir made vile and violence onciting cpmments about s eoman becausr she is aconsrvative and beautiful. Thst’s why you leftwing scum hate Pslin so much. Because she is intellgent, strong, accomplished, competent and BEAUTIFUL. Everything leftards think they want their women to be but they aren’t. You resent her because her undeniable superiority is a constant reminder of your inferiority.

      You are all sorry @ss weaklings with penis envy for a woman.

      • Mike

        Most of the people I know thing she’s an idiot, who couldn’t finish her job and quit.

        • ZZ

          Your friends are morons. You should hang out with conservatives.

      • Bruce Israel

        Hmmm, in spite of the fact that I haven’t gotten personal or insulted you, or insulted anyone else, you have seen fit to use the terms scum repeatedly, piece of sh*t, idiot, weaklings, etc.

        You feeling a bit sensitive about your manhood or perhaps identify strongly with Phil Robertson, to take an intellectual conversation like this so personally?

        • ZZ

          Yawn………

  • ZZ

    He was referring to legal and public practice of vile acts, not a progression of them from gayness.

    Don’t be stupid.

    • A Z

      “Start with homozexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

      That is not apparent. He might have meant that. He said he bungled the message.

  • fritzidler

    I haven’t seen comments of Martin Bashir’s depth and intelligence since the bathroom walls of my high school. Except, those comments were funnier, and some even came with pictures. So considering that as the standard, it could be reasonable to fire him on grounds of incompetence.

  • Eliza Qwghlm

    why does NBC get a pass for being part of MSNBC? or Microsoft? these corporate welfare queens never seem to take any heat for supporting MSNBC’s socialist tripe.

  • ZZ

    Learn what carriage fees and bundling are, junior.

    The notion that most media outlets are radically leftwing for money is idiotic. The majority of Americans hate leftism, which is why so many periodicals are dying out and Fox News is flourishing while its competitors are floundering.

  • Lanna

    Phil Robertson was not on the set of Duck Dynasty. He was giving an interview and ASKED THE QUESTION TO WHICH HE RESPONDED TRUTHFULLY AND ACCORDING TO HIS CHRISTIAN BELIEFS. The Left, GQ, and Glaad sought to use Robertson to promote and justify their sinful homosexual..abomination of a lifestyle to the majorities who are not living this lifestyle. “Truly Truly I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.” John 8:34. Our choices have consequences far beyong the immediate realm we occupy.

    • IzzyKiddnya

      Mr. Robertson apparently never learned the lesson that politicians and celebrities know by heart…
      Make a public announcement — and you suffer the consequences of the public’s reaction.
      You’d think he’d be old enough to know it…but maybe newspapers and TV don’t reach that far into the backwoods…

      • Lanna

        Izzy, You are a liberal progressive, I have nothing in common with you, and have no reason to ever respond to you..Liars never prosper or win in the end. You have lost this argument and refuse to admit it like a man, as well as the rest of the loosers who are loosing ground in their communist movement! The Robertsons popularity speaks for itself, as well as his Christian beliefs. Yeh, you got the public’s reaction alright….thousands of signings to reinstate Phil…and giving Crackerbarrel a big fat notice, as well as GQ and Glaad….Keep trying…and strike out again…Go on to every subject that You commies want to accomplish and you will get the same response!

        • IzzyKiddnya

          What “argument” did I ;lose? I simply pointed out that celebrities ri8sk backlash when they make egregious statements — which denigrate “certain” groups of people — and that he should not have been surprised when it occurred.
          If he were a “real” entertainer, he would have expected to hear from his sponsor if he became controversal…
          He was lucky enough that his “fans” demanded he be re-featured…
          Please show me where any of those statements constitute an “argument” — or are not in accord with what happened

          I NEVER argue with you, Lana — mainly, because I find it difficult to keep up with the twists and turns of what you say…I crtainly am awa=re that you are “anti” on the subject of “Communism” (whatever you think it is), on homosexuality — and certain Policies of the Federal Government –
          On the other hand, you seem “pro” on others, so I can’t figure you out. In any event, I certainly don’t expect to change your mind…

          I DO, however, think it right to point out when you present your opinions (or opinions you get from some media authority) as “facts”. — or when you contradict yourself in a single post!

          For instance — as you say you “… have no reason to ever respond to you….” IN A POST IN RESPONSE TO MINE! Which is it? You never respond to me — or you always respond to me? Please pick ONE!
          I have difficulty with that kind of non-logic

  • kris

    you people are to be christians, as i read this trash, it is so fill with hate, how dare you all use religion to justify hate, i feel very sorry for you all, my God teaches love. this is just shamefull

    • A Z

      So your take on John 8:11

      Is that people can repeat a sin over and over until they die with no attempt at trying not to do the sin and they get saved?

      Does that work for adultery? Can a person engage in adultery their whole adult life without making any penance whatsoever or trying not to commit the sin and still enter heaven?

      Maybe you should call yourself Christian but a prophet of a new religion.

      You are so smart! Dazzling!

  • PennyJ Thomas

    Actually, as much as Palin connects EVERYTHING to slavery, Martin Bashir was simply informing her that were she a slave, what a slave master could do to her.
    She defended Robertson, without ever reading the article (but hey, not that it wouldn’t change the stupid brunette bimbo from spouting off about it anyway).
    She’s put herself up on some high horse, when she has a daughter who had a child out of wedlock. She apparently is too stupid to read that part of the bible that said her daughter should have been stoned to death. She must have also skipped over then part where it says women are not to have authority over men either. But hey, you ‘good christian’ you. What are facts from a real bible compared to the republican holy book?