"I'm not going to pass judgement on you myself, but here's proof that you'll suffer for all eternity for what you're doing."

The religion's position is hateful in this respect, and must be rejected at all points.

Me neither!

Until The Walking Dead comes back on in February.

+1

I've never watched the show, but I'm glad Phil said what he said. It's time that we stop letting perverts tell us what is normal. What I enjoy doing when I argue with people who are "pro-gay" is to call them ignorant for their views. I've never had anyone actually understand my use of the word because it has been popularly defined to mean my side of the debate. I get responses like "how am I ignorant? I support gay marriage!" or whatever. Opinions on homosexuality and those who practice it aside, I actually find that extremely funny. (and a bit sad)

LOL. no why cancel the show because of that? this world is rather getting soft.

Are you seriously going to suggest that it's hateful to want to keep someone from an eternity of suffering? Phil said he will love you no matter what you do, but he doesn't want to see you suffer. Is it hateful for a church to offer food to the poor? They don't screen them out, you know. They don't find out who is gay or who does drugs or who worships satan and only feed those they deem worthy. You may want to re-think your view of the world if you seriously find it hateful to care about people. (Please remember that condoning everything others do is not required to be loving or tolerant!)

His remarks were neither homophobic or racist

his comments were neither homophobic nor racist.

but they should punish A&E for their christianphobic bigotry, and quit. It will only hurt A&E. Duck Dynasty will survive, and thrive without A&E

It is indeed a noble thing to provide unconditional aid, however you have to admit that it is very backhanded to say "I don't hate you, but you're going to burn." It is *wrong* of the religion to embrace this viewpoint, especially since it is based as it is out of a book of the Jewish bible that has been disregarded by modern Christendom in almost every other respect. Clearly there is a matter of choice in which parts of the bible Christians obey, so it is disingenuous to just say "it is repugnant to God, sorry, it's out of my hands but you're going to burn forever", since there's a lot of stuff that was supposedly an affront to the Lord that nobody bats an eye at.

Christian homophobia is an anachronism. It has nothing to do with the core tenets of the faith and could easily be disregarded without creating any major theological contradictions (arguably the bigger contradiction is the pick-and-choose attitude towards Levitical laws).

Well the title of this article is completely misleading, His comments were not racist or anti-gay.

Talking about his experience working with young black men, I assume in the early 1950's and describing what he say as a fellow employee is not racist. Would you have preferred he lie and say he didn't see black people singing and enjoying their work? Would you have preferred he describe their mood as angry and spiteful to their employer?

As far as the anti-gay comments I think a bit of perspective is needed. Every major religion views the act of homo-sexuality as a sin, I personally don't know why, but for whatever reason they lump it in with the other major no-no's of adultery, cheating, stealing, (things that we all agree are morally wrong), which raises a larger question of if our ancestors for thousand of years were able to determine the above mentioned sins are morally wrong, why do we make the assumption they are wrong about homo-sexuality? Bigger question for a larger debate but anyways, is it anti-gay to say you believe homo-sexuality is a sin? or is it merely offensive? there is a difference.