Armed with a tape recorder, the young Drew Magary, a self-described "milquetoast suburban WASP," went to
Evidently, Magary and the editors of GQ think that today's gentleman needs to be informed about Phil Robertson's views regarding blacks in the Jim-Crow era in the South before the civil-rights era and regarding sin and morality and homosexual sex acts. (Out of consideration of space, I will skip over Phil Robertson's debatable views of the old Jim-Crow era before the civil-rights era.)
As we might expect, the publication of Phil Robertson's views in GQ has served as a predictable prompt to further exchanges of views in our ongoing culture-wars regarding blacks and regarding homosexuality and other issues.
For example, in response to the charge that Phil Robertson is expressing homophobic views, Mike Huckabee, a Bible-thumper himself, has pointed out that Phil's views are "traditional" Christian views, as though this is supposed to put the views beyond debate. However, for centuries, the "traditional" Christian view was that slavery was OK. And for centuries, many Christians were OK with rabid anti-Semitism.
Nevertheless, I agree with Huckabee that Phil Robertson's views about homosexuality represent the basic Christian view historically.
Now, the Roman Catholic bishops in the
Is it possible that the debate prompted by Phil Robertson's views will help undermine his views among other self-described Bible-thumpers -- as the Catholic bishops' campaign against same-sex marriage evidently did among certain Catholics?
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).