Sunday, Dec. 4, 2016    Login | Register        

Robertson case: What is tolerance?

Fitzroy John Willis's picture

In a world of competing truth claims, where society values the notion of inclusivity and tolerance — which sometimes is at odds with religious beliefs in general, and Christianity in particular — it begs the questions, is there a prescriptive paradigm for co-existing as citizens, especially relative to pluralistic contexts? And what about the notion of tolerance?

Nowadays, the word “tolerance” is so widely accepted that it is assumed to be desirable for society as a whole. But if one considers the root of the word “tolerance,” would it shed new light on how the term is to be understood? Should “tolerance” continue to be used in terms of how we ought to live and interrelate with each other?

This conversation is particularly relevant in light of the present “Duck Dynasty” controversy, where Phil Robertson expressed his sincerely held Christian belief opposing the homosexual lifestyle.

And despite expressing that he “would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me [him],” the Robertson family patriarch, as of this week, is still indefinitely suspended from the hit reality show on A&E. Ironically, the A&E executives acted intolerant towards Robertson’s views, claiming that he is intolerant.

Unfortunately, intolerance of Christian views has been around since the days of Jesus and his disciples. But in a culture that is supposedly tolerant, it is quite telling that the media seems to only attack Christian views as being intolerant.

After all, is it only Christians who express the kind of sentiment that Robertson opined? If an alternative view of what is to be “tolerated” in society is so prevalent, why is the secular notion of tolerance so popular in today’s society?

The notion of “tolerance” is rooted in an attempt to provide knowledge that is supposedly reasonable for all. It is a product of modern Western Enlightenment rationale and its agenda of scientific exclusion of non-rational ways of knowing things. Concomitant with this agenda is an attack on faith and the supernatural, in general, and Christianity in particular.

Underlying the notion of “tolerance,” then, is a pretense to neutrality, for it is a stratagem with a definite secular bias. In other words, the self-appointed arbiters of what is “tolerant” really are contestants in disguise. They have their own agenda, which, at its core, is antithetical to the Christian worldview

And though, in the present postmodern culture, the relativistic outlook of some proponents of “tolerance” tolerates non-rational as well as supernatural ways of knowing, still, they reject, or, are intolerant of authoritative traditions such as that of the Bible.

Instead, they accept, and even prescribe, whatever a given community tolerates as normative for how we ought to live and interrelate with each other. Such relativism, however, cannot be a real criterion for what is to be normative in society, because it cannot “objectively” evaluate moral standards of truth from falsehood.

Therefore, one should not accept peer-pressured “tolerance” that rejects traditional understandings of social relationships.

Indeed, as the A&E executives have demonstrated in saying that Robertson’s “personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community,” the “tolerance” movement has its own orthodoxies and intolerances.

Those who continuously emphasize the notion of “tolerance” — even though they are inconsistent in their supposed belief, since all truth claims have imbedded within them a level of intolerance — seem to have the agenda of limiting speech they disagree with in an attempt to “tolerate” the offended.

While it is a noble cause to want to promote a society that is welcoming to people, the Robertson case reveals the underlying tension that exists in society in terms of what is to be tolerated.

As for me, any standard of normativity in society should always involve a holy God, and what is edifying for all.

[Fitzroy John Willis, M.S., M.A., Ph.D., is co-founder and president, The Willis Group, LLC ( He also is Adjunct Professor of Theological Studies, Ohio Christian University.]


G35 Dude's picture

You make excellent points. In my humble opinion the ones that preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant. In this land of the free we each should be allowed to live as we see fit. As for me I too follow a holy God. And I should be allowed to say so. What I should not be allowed to do is to harm anyone else for their beliefs. As long as I treat all with respect my views should not matter to anyone else. The LBGT community uses these tactics to "normalize" their lifestyle. Unless we Christians fight back when being attacked like this we will always be treated like second class citizens. I have never seen Duck Dynasty and rarely watch A&E. I regret that now because I wish I could stop watching and have it make a difference.

NUK_1's picture

A&E pays the Robertson family 200K an episode and that doesn't include the humongous merchandising deals valued at 400mil. A&E contracts with these folks and they have the same "right" to censor/fire/suspend whomever they wish for their views as the paid actors have to express their views whenever and wherever.

Steve Brown and Don Haddix are two local yokels who have never understood the basic fact that there is not such concept anywhere in our Constitution or laws that says "free speech without repercussions."

No one is forcing the Robertson's to be on a pseudo-reality TV show and accept the network's money. They don't like restrictions on what they can or cannot say in public elsewhere.....stop working for the network that pays you for your work.

I see brain-dead people like Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz calling this a "free speech" issue. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the 1st Amendment and those who think it does are completely ignorant of the 1st Amendment and anything to do with free speech. Did the gov't come down on Phil's head? Hell no. The network that pays him to be an actor did. That's not a 1st Amendment issue.

For everyone with a problem on A&e's decision...never watch them, get on social media and bash the hell out of them....that's all good. I could care less personally about the show or A&E for that matter and am sick of being inundated with this BS.

G35 Dude's picture

You are absolutely correct. This is not a 1st amendment issue. It is a social issue. And A&E has every right to dump the Duck Dynasty group. And we have every right to never watch A&E again. Hence my comment re having never watched DD. I also agree with those that think that the media uses these things to distract us from bigger issues like the ongoing failure of Obamacare etc. I think what I was trying to say in my original post was that if we as Christians don't want to be censored by the media etc we will have to fight fire with fire and boycott those that would censor our beliefs and to point out the hypocrisy's of those that pretend to preach tolerance.

NUK_1's picture

Fight fire with fire and take it publicly, just don't call it a 1st Amendment issue.

I understand a lot of people are feeling like their views, faith and lifestyles are being marginalized by mass media and the talking heads. The far-left considers this almost like retribution that is "good" because others have been marginalized(and a lot worse) in the past. Seems like a ton of white liberal guilt out there to go along with parasites like Jesse(who is sticking his hand out today on the whole Duck thing waiting for a pay-off) and Al.

Organizations like GLAAD came of age during a time when fine upstanding Christians delighted in what was known as "f@g bashing". Nobody ever apologized too much for it. Kind of like lynching.

Those original frontline organizations never retooled for different times, and suffer a little mission drift. Such is the case with GLAAD. Guys like Jesse have drifted a little farther than that. Phil Robertson, for his part, and those of the same faith, haven't drifted much since the Stone Age.

I strongly suspect GLAAD's position might be that letting up on the full court presses might result in backsliding towards the days of f@g bashing. And you know, that might be a valid point. Jesse never met a Federal Reserve note he didn't like, but neither have I. And Phil ... well, he's bet the farm on somebody who doesn't bother to show up.

For some excellence insight into that family, read Wesley Pruden's column in todays Wash. Times.

NUK_1's picture

He makes good points about how tone-deaf A&E was and is in regards to the show itself and the characters. What did they think was going to happen? The family already was rich and is not dependent on having a TV show so they can be very unfiltered at times because A&E needs them a ton more than the Robertson's need A&E.

I might check the library for Jim Webb's "Born Fighting" too. Sounds like an interesting read and I have been around a lot of Scots-Irish in my life and sounds like he nails it.

suggarfoot's picture

good old Scot Irish/Norman

"“These are intensely religious people,” writes Mr. Webb. “Indeed they comprise the very heart of the Christian evangelical movement — and yet they are unapologetically and even devilishly hedonistic. They are probably the most anti-authoritarian culture in America, conditioned from birth to resist any pressure from above, and yet they are known as the most intensely patriotic segment of the country as well. They are naturally rebellious, often impossible to control, and yet their strong military tradition produces generation after generation of perhaps the finest soldiers the world has ever seen. They are filled with wanderlust and are ethnically assimilative, but their love of their own heritage can move them to tears when they hear the bagpipes play, and no matter how far they roam, their passion for family travels with them.”

He did nail it!

suggarfoot's picture
G35 Dude's picture

The link to the Pruden column. People that can be bought always assume that everyone can be bought.

is not the same as being tolerated . The presence and rights of minorities and women had been tolerated - but now their presence and 'rights' are 'legal'.

I have always welcomed and encouraged acts of homosexuality, but I am strongly against gay marriage. The income tax deductions granted by gay marriage could contribute to the defunding of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

This is all a publicity stunt. The intellectually stunted man in the swamp has the right to say what he wants and he did. A&E has the right to suspend the intellectually stunted man in the swamp and they did. No way this is a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That has not happened here. All of us who work for someone else can be let go from our job if our employer does not agree with some stupid statement we might make. But here's why I think its the biggest publicity stunt since the Chicken Strip Restaurant "outrage". If A&E was truly offended by the intellectually stunted man in the swamp's words, why was it running a Duck Travesty marathon over the Christmas holidays? Because of ratings and advertising money. And now lets see if the intellectually stunted man in the swamp is truly beholden to his intellectually stunted beliefs. If so, he and the rest of the clan (pun intended) will walk away from A&E and the $400 million juggernaut. HA! Yeah...right. In the end, it's all about the Benjamins! And you can take that to the bank.

Busy Bee's picture

This is nothing more than a manufactured tempest in a teapot. The Duck family is preaching to the choir and managed to stir up their base in support. A&E has acted offended in order to soothe any hurt feelings on the left. Those who would have been offended by Papa Duck's remarks either don't watch anyway, or only "hate watch". And both the Ducks and A&E have received tons of free publicity, and most likely a huge increase in merchandise sales right before Christmas.

NUK_1's picture

and go to another network in a year or so from now. In the meantime, I don't see Wal-Mart(the main endorser for DD and that 400mil in endorsements) dropping them. So, they started rich before the show, got way richer, might have a non-compete for a year after the last show airs that would be easy to get around, and then they go to another network. Pretty easy to tell who is holding the Aces in this hand and who isn't.

A&E made a strategically extremely stupid move to come close to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs for them. They are hardly anything without that show. They could have just said "we totally disavow those comments" but then someone might have asked "why are you running a Duck marathon RIGHT NOW with this allegedly suspended guy?" Like you said, all about the money. IN the end, A&E might even get some more ad bucks despite making a really bad decision that almost backfired on them and may still. If the Ducks hit the market, you'll see plenty of corporate whore networks bidding some huge ducks....err, bucks.

G35 Dude's picture

This "intellectually stunted" man could have bought and sold you 10 times over before the show ever started. LOL

So could Kim Kardashian. But neither of them are exactly mental giants.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

So there, on one hand we have a redneck quoting the bible and presenting his ideas about what makes the most sense for his (or anyone's) views on sexual gratification and on the other hand we have a cable TV network that has to make an effort to pander to the nancy boys (and maybe the girls) who make up 1% of the Duck Dynasty viewers, but possibly 50% of their employees or managers or stockholders. Well no, not stockholders because that's probably what actually happened - the 25 year olds running the network reacted like any 25 year olds running a business - which means badly by suspending Phil and then the common sense people in America whizzed on their silly little fire. Sad little liberals running an actual business. So what happens in the end?

The silly little managers get a call from their not so silly Board of Directors (who were probably at home spending Christmas with their normal - meaning heterosexual marriage and family) and are told to back off and remember that the network is a business and not a playground for their silly little social views. In other words, the adults got back into the game and reminded the little sillies they were hired to run a business.

Here is what the adults made the sillies say tonite when announcing Phil will be back in the game-"But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family … a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about."

Can you imagine the debate over actually having to use the word "pray" in their press release? Must have been run by the Robertson's.

And then the adult heterosexual managers went back to traditional Christmas with their traditional families. The nancy boy managers went back to doing whatever they do on Christmas - or OH, excuse me - the Holiday Season.

Hope it happens again and again and for a long time. And I hope when it happens elsewhere when these actual 1%er gay people stick their heads up and real heterosexual Americans gets to play Whack a Mole again.

Live free or die!

G35 Dude's picture

Are you one of the "intellectually stunted" too? LOL

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Old fashioned, traditional, sometimes conservative, sometimes libertarian, certainly a Christian and just plain old tired of the media and even regular people paying attention to fools.

I have seen with my own eyes how young empowered media types in both radio and TV "manage" things and it is a real eye-opener for those accustomed to more traditional business models. It starts with shock jocks and tasteless stunts and offensive acts towards any minority group they choose and boils down to simple third grade level attention-getting antics. The whole thing is driven by ratings - meaning how many people are listening or watching and what % of everyone is - when a better measure would be how much product did the advertisers sell. But no, that can't be measured for some reason - instead they double talk their way through reach and demographics and age groups and take home awards that their peer group of immature and empty headed producers, directors or actors deems appropriate. Silly - all of it.

I would rather watch a 50 year-old musical by Rogers and Hammerstein that anything at all on TV today. South Pacific remains my favorite and lessons about bigotry and prejudice are presented more articulately there than on anything Duck Dad may have said.

I just don't need to hear it and mostly don't because I control the remote control, so there. I guess you can add "curmudgeon" to those adjectives describing me above.

Live free or die!

G35 Dude's picture

You do of course realize that my remark was meant as sarcasm mostly directly at BTR?

Robert W. Morgan's picture

I don't know why he/she/it used the term intellectually stunted to describe Mr. Roberton or why it was repeated over and over like some third grader learning a new word for one of his body parts, but there it was.

If there was any intellectual failing of any kind in this whole episode, it was from the agenda-driven youngsters at A&E. Hope they make an example out of one of the stunted decision-makers by firing him - hopefully an Asian minority so we don't hear someone chime in about racism.

Live free or die!

Heard the latest from the intellectually stunted man in the swamp? A video has surfaced where he gave advice to a young man in love, which includes that men should marry girls as young as 15.

"Make sure that she can cook a meal," Robertson is heard telling a group in Georgia in the 2009 video. "You need to eat some meals that she cooks, check that out."

According to Robertson, for men to successfully find the right woman, the man should make sure she's young.

"They got to where they getting hard to find, mainly because these boys are waiting 'til they get to be about 20 years old before they marry them," Robertson said. "Look, you wait 'til they get to be 20 years old the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16. They'll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course."

And of course there is his revisionist history about how happy the blacks were pre-civil rights era. Yeah, tell that to the families of those blacks strung up in the trees like decorations.

SPQR's picture

good idea to not underestimate hillbilly/redneck types nor to overestimate the over educated types. It will invariably come back to bite you.

Those quotes are directly from the video. I'm just the messenger. So you approve of the intellectually stunted man in the swamp's marital advice? Which by the way is illegal. Legal marriage age in GA is 16. Or is it his revisionist black history? Please enlighten us....inquiring minds want to know.

SPQR's picture

When Bobby Jindal criticized A&E for Hypocrisy an NPR commentator reported that Jindal was in agreement with Robertson's statements.

Because I have reservations about throwing this guy on the trash heap does not mean I support his views.

I fail to understand how you came to that conclusion unless you're an alter ego of another one that puts words in other peoples mouths

BTW not familiar with said video

Google. It's a wonderful thing.

By the way, I didn't say you agreed with the intellectually stunted man in the swamp....I asked.

G35 Dude's picture

Here is a link to more than just the short clip provided by BTR below. When Mr Robertson gives this advice in his speech he's talking to a 16 year old boy not grown men and people are laughing in the background. I don't think the people there took this part of his speech as anything but humor. He is no doubt an old school bible thumper but that is his right isn't it?

I only know that as a teenager, working in the fields with all black laborers in Eastern NC, I never heard any of them complain about their status in life. Further, when I left home (first college, then army) and returned, I would visit them next after my parents and I remain convinced that they were genuinely as happy to see me as were my parents.
I'm guessing Robertson experienced similar situations growing up in Louisiana.

Friends express love, regardless of color. Of course they were happy to see you - you were their friend. Many, hopefully, experience friendships with fellow Americans. As you have read here, not all express this 'friendship' with Americans or others of a different color. . . . but continually want to denigrate an entire race in their statements. It is this attitude that I disagree with. Thank you for sharing your personal experience with friends.

I'm sure there were blacks that were happy with their status in life pre-civil rights era. And I'm glad that was the case in your situation. And if that was the case with Daddy Duck, then that's good too. However, there were probably more cases where that picture you paint was the exception rather than the rule. And the idea of a black person in the 30's, 40's or 50's standing up against discrimination and other forms of prejudice would have resulted in that person losing their job or worse in some cases. So may not have heard complaints but I suspect it had more to do with the times than anything else.

Their lifestyle did not physically place them in places to experience prejudice--they were always in the company of others who cared for them in a manner they were comfortable with.

[quote]Their lifestyle did not physically place them in places to experience prejudice--they were always in the company of others who cared for them in a manner they were comfortable with.[/quote]

AHG - I know you feel comfortable with your opinion - and i understand and respect that. I was here in the south as a black person in the 50's, 60', and 70's. We were well aware of those who 'protected' us from haters - and there were haters who felt they had the right to express their hate openly. Your 'friends' were comfortable with you - in their place. (And they were respectful of your right to feel comfortable with them in your place) That is the way it was. No black person felt COMFORTABLE being considered a second class citizen in this country - they endured it, often with dignity and non-confrontation - but they are lying if they say they were COMFORTABLE - especially those who came back from the military and had a taste of integration and had to be relegated to the back of the bus when they came home. Things are much, much better - but too many of us still have relatives who hung from the trees down here - that doesn't make one comfortable - and led to the great migration in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Our people got tired of 'leaving' - and so the 'marches; began. A lot of people were not 'comfortable' with the treatment they received in the south and throughout our country in the 60's. . . and many other American citizens joined them. That's history. It took over 200 years to get here - but the progress is more rapid and successful as we all show intolerance for the 'haters'.

I suspect that the vast majority of the Loyalists were quite content with the British monarchy during the Revolutionary War. I too suspect that there were women who were quite content being unable to vote prior to the 19th Amendment. And again, there was certainly a significant portion of the German population that followed a decorated WWI veteran named Adolf Hitler. In all these cases, opposition to the current position was deemed as being too emotional to being downright traitorous. So, it would not be surprising that there may have been minority citizens who were content prior to the civil right movement; or 15 year old girls whose parents deem that it is appropriate to marry. It was less than 500 years ago that Martin Luther was excommunicated because of his views of the Christian Church; less than 250 years ago since the end of the hysteria of witch hunts brought about by the Medieval view of heresy. So, I believe an argument can be made that the current view, the popular view, the majority view, is not necessarily the morally or ethically correct view. Hindsight grants us the ability to see things which we wish we had done differently or not at all. In the absence of hindsight, would it not be more intelligent to practice tolerance and courtesy rather than moral outrage and worse, moral superiority. After all, I seem to recall a story Jewish fellow who was crucified by the ruling government because of his heretical positions.

Mary Kay Bacallao's picture

According to the US Constitution article VI paragraph 3 " religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Apparently there is now a "religious test" for actors. Our founding fathers would be shocked about the nature of this new "religious test" which is really an "anti - religious" test. Jesus himself would not have passed. Matthew 19:4-6.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

I like the Constitution and the Bible and I'm convinced the founding fathers did as well. Let's go through life with the Constitution and the Bible we actually have instead of Constitution and a Bible that we (or a group of liberal sodomites) wish we would have. Seems pretty simple to me.

Live free or die!

Herbert Hoover? Get out of people's personal business (the bedroom) and deal with healthcare, immigration, employment, affordable wages for Americans in this economy. Republicans, Democrats, Congress - it's pretty obvious who you are interested in serving - and it doesn't appear to be the American people. Freedom of speech - freedom not to listen. The duck man speaks for himself. Many disagree with him, some agree. In this country, that is their choice. Now we're to perceive that only liberals practice sodomy? Where is the intelligence in that thought ?

Robert W. Morgan's picture

or the LBGA people. I just want to be left alone. I don't need to have some deviant fool pushing his new and not so improved brand of sex on the rest of us. It is almost true that we have the freedom not to watch or listen, but they are so relentless about pushing their agenda (Exhibit A the Atlanta Journal-Constitution- not to be confused with the U. S. Constitution).

Besides, one way or another taxpayers like us are going to pay for gay marriage, same sex partner's health care insurance, all kinds of other things now that the camel has its snout inside the tent. And this has nothing to do with freedom of speech or any other right. It is about the Democrat Party pandering to all the minority and fringe groups just to get Democrat votes and gain or keep political power. The Dems don't care any more about the gays than they do the blacks - just use them and abuse them.

You of all people should recognize what the foolish liberals did to the traditional black family. Things were bad under slavery, then they got better with the right to work and vote and to own houses and then in typical Democrat overreach, the 1960's (thanks LBJ) came and went and the stats on single mothers, crime, welfare don't look so good. And then they went and did it again in the 1970's (anti-redlining rules for the banks) and the 1990's (Frank/Dodd). All that turmoil with just 12% of the population.

Back to the original thought - liberal sodomites, no not all sodomites are liberal but only liberal sodomites try to use the extreme wing of their favorite political party and then the government to force their views on the rest of us. The conservative or liberterian sodomites are just sodomites that want to be left alone with no government intervention. Just like little old heterosexual me.

Live free or die!

I think you are above name calling, but maybe I'm wrong. Would you like to live in a country where your rights were limited because of your religious beliefs, the color of your eyes, your preference in bed? The world has had persons with alternative sexual preferences since the beginning of time. The prophets tried to 'legislate' against these practices through creeds and doctrines. . . evidently to no avail. Should we have denied Herbert Hoover his contribution to society; Ellen Degeneris; Michael Angelo; or the many other humans who have and will continue to contribute to society because of their sexual orientation or the color of their eyes or the church they attend, etc., etc., etc. I have the freedom to not support or emulate their legal life style. There are Mormons who still have many wives, priests who ?????, etc. I share with my family what I believe is right, and they make their own decisions. Vice President Cheney has his beliefs, but allows his children to live their lives. No need to call other humans names - they're no threat to you and yours.

Darn those foolish liberals - I now have the right to vote in all 50 states; I don't have to put up with that Jim Crow foolishness; and that other stuff that we 'blacks' might have been better off without.

No man should have to publish his heterosexuality - only his wife cares!


Robert W. Morgan's picture

You may mean Edgar Hoover, but what difference does it make at this point --to paraphrase the Hillary person - our next Prez..

To answer your question - yes, I would like my rights limited to those spelled out in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution and even the Bible. Don't you? Or do you need more rights for some reason? I don't want anybody adding in more rights because they have a cause, because it may not be my cause. Special interests are bad.

Live free or die!

Happy New Year everyone!!!!.

[quote] I would like my rights limited to those spelled out in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution and even the Bible. Don't you? Or do you need more rights for some reason? I don't want anybody adding in more rights because they have a cause, because it may not be my cause. Special interests are bad.[/quote]

Voting rights; Civil Rights; Rights of citizenship? These are special interests? Interesting concept. During Jim Crow, my rights were spelled out in The Constitution - it just took some to become a little more tolerant to realize that as a human citizen, those rights were for me and mine also. As long as there are those who think that women, minorities, for some reason should have limited rights - well we're going to have a problem. I understand that possibly women and minorities do not have the same concerns as you do - BUT THEY DO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Now for this sexual preference thingy - only the EDGAR HOOVER'S of our country should be allowed to practice their personal preference? Come on - I think we have bigger problems to solve than the outing of those who have an alternative lifestyle in 2014. Our country is one that practices RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. I try to live by The Bible - but it is my right to interpret it as I see fit - and it is an American citizens right under our Constitution, not to believe in the Bible. Now that will be an interesting conversation for 2014.

Better give up that BBQ, football and shrimp.

NUK_1's picture

Comparing biblical verses to highly-paid actors on a TV show and the BS surrounding it makes me very glad you're going to be leaving the BOE shortly.

Like your BBQ, Mary Kay and Dead DJ? Better check Leviticus 11:7-8... "And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."

Like your shrimp, Mary Kay and Dead DJ? Better check Leviticus 11 9-12....9 “‘Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. 11 And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat; you must regard their carcasses as unclean. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you."

So easy and fun to pick and choose those verses we want to follow and not follow!

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Actually Dr. Leviticus is simply saying pigs and shellfish are unclean. It is sort of like a health warning. And back then, without cleaning and cooking I can see how they might have been a problem.

When he speaks of homosexual activity, he is saying God will strike you dead. Big difference.

Why do you sound so angry all the time? No date for New Year's Eve?

Live free or die!

What time, what do I wear and who's casa? Boiled, baked stuffed, newburgh, chowdah, or salad sandwich? Yummo.

Here's a verse from moelarrycurly 12:31-13..turn the channel if you don't like it all you pansies.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Doesn't sound good, but it is - Lobster Eggs Benedict. Had them on a cruise once - 3 days in a row --great!
Tried to make them once at home- not so great.

Live free or die!

However, if this is the recipe, 'tis too much, too early, for this chef du jour.

Looks delectable, though. Never heard of it till now. Thanks for sharing.

Of course we can never get the taste the same as on the cruise but it sounds so yummy

No...that is not what Dr Leviticus said. Regarding pork, Leviticus 8: "You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." As for shellfish, Leviticus 11: "And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat." So you gonna give up that BBQ and shrimp? Angry? Nah...sitting back laughing at how some Christians twist themselves into pretzels picking and parsing at Bible verses in order to justify a position. And I don't think my wife would appreciate me having a date...unless it was her. Which it will be.


Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content