'It Seems Like, To Me, a Vagina--As a Man--Would Be More Desirable Than a Man's Anus.' -- Phil Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty'
film / tv / lists / guides / news / love / celeb / video / think pieces / staff / podcasts / web culture / politics / dc / snl / netflix / marvel / cbr

'It Seems Like, To Me, a Vagina—As a Man—Would Be More Desirable Than a Man’s Anus.' -- Phil Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty'

By Dustin Rowles | Trade News | December 18, 2013 | Comments ()


Can you call a self-professed “Bible Thumper,” who believes that homosexuality (along with adultery and idolatry) is a sin a homophobe? Or can you excuse a man’s narrow-mindedness because of his religious beliefs? Because that’s the thing with Ducky Dynasty’s Phil Robertson — who, along with the cast of the most popular reality show on television — gave an interview to GQ magazine this month, where they talk about using their show to spread the good word, so to speak.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine.”

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

“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.”

That seems like an indictment of homosexuality, as well as a declaration in one’s religious beliefs. It’s ignorance, but it’s also predicated on the notion that gays, adulterers, and drunkards are interested in inheriting a kingdom of God. Is it hate, or is it religion, or is it both? Phil Robertson is clearly a deeply faithful man, after all, as he suggests when he states that giving up his family’s privacy was worth it for the opportunity to proselytize.

“For the sake of the Gospel, it was worth it… All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.”

Obviously, I don’t believe in the same things that Phil Robertson believes, but I’ve always found it difficult to work up much rage for intolerance informed by conviction, particularly where there are no pieces of legislation or acts of violence attached to that conviction. I’ve seen a few episodes of Duck Dynasty, and I didn’t care for it (it’s painfully scripted) but I couldn’t bring myself to hate it because The Robertsons did seem like good-natured folks blinded to real goodness by archaic, backwards idea of goodness rooted in fundamentalist Christianity.

(Source: GQ)

Get Excited For 'The Fault In Our Stars,' A Twisted, Authentic Take On The Nicholas Sparks Sick-Lit Genre | Who's the More Foolish, the Fool, or the Fool Who Follows Him?: Or, Why the Internet is One Giant Hoax

Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not

  • jollies

    I have relatives in the South. One of them started a discussion on Facebook about Robertson's comments by stating, "someone explain to me how anyone would be surprised by such comments from a redneck with a big beard." The consensus among the group was that the outrage came not from the viewpoint itself, but in the vulgar manner in which it was phrased ("anus," "vagina," etc.). I tried to explain that it was indeed the viewpoint -- the idea that one can chose whether or not to be gay and in equating being gay with being a prostitute or committing beastiality. No, no, they assured me, it was in the way he said what he said. Sigh.

  • e jerry powell


  • NateMan

    And in case no one else has posted it, he got suspended!

  • bastich

    That's just a cover story. He was actually booted for not meeting the "Minimum Beard Length" clause in his contract.

  • Jiffylush

    "Can you call a self-professed “Bible Thumper,” who believes that homosexuality (along with adultery and idolatry) is a sin a homophobe? "

    Yes, yes you can.

  • kiniki

    Well aside from all the rather peculiar rantings he has written there... He has at least one major factual flaw, which is Muslim's regard Jesus as one of the most important prophets.

    If he's going to preach, he at least needs to have some knowledge!

  • e jerry powell

    Just so we're clear about what I mean, a relevant passage on the joys of life in small-town Texas.

  • Limbo

    Of all hardcore fundamentalist Christian opinions out there in the media, this one is perhaps the most harmless of them. This man is clearly a complete moron, which sells his show, and entertains other morons of his calibre. I think it's kind of akin to watching a four year old repeat something their parents have told them to say. I don't think he understands homosexuality (as he clearly stated he doesn't) nor why his opinions might be construed as hateful or bigoted, because in his mind, the concept of sin and the earning of entrance into heaven is undeniable fact. He is quite possibly naïveté personified, so to say. Hey, at least he isn't making any laws. Unless his son gets into office. Isn't he running?

  • ...AAAAANNNNDDDD he's been fired.

    Damn. That was quick.

  • e jerry powell

    And Teabagistan will be in an uproar. I'm sure the servers at Breitbart are already overwhelmed.

    Where do you put that on a resume, anyway? "Fired from a scripted reality show." Reality stars don't even have SAG-AFTRA cards.

    And how do you "write someone out" of reality show episodes? I guess they'll cut him out of the next six episodes and just roll segments of burning videotapes in the cuts.

  • bastich

    Would "mauled and devoured by ducks" be an option?

  • e jerry powell

    We'd probably have to bring Hitchcock back from the dead to shoot something like that.

  • e jerry powell

    Exqueeze me? The Nazis were Christians from the top down, douchefaces...

    I don't know if I can roll my eyes any harder than I just did. Not only religious conviction, but generally ill-informed in terms of history.

    This is why A&E should be destroyed.

  • Aaron Schulz

    Nazis were Atheist, Lutheran, Catholic, and, at least a couple for some reason, Jewish. Its almost like the Nazis were made up of various members of a country that had a wide range of belief structures.

  • Kobie

    It's become a common right-wing/Christian talking point that the Nazis were atheistic. Because what better cudgel with which to bash atheists than a completely false connection to historical monsters.

  • manting

    I am an atheist, a pretty militant one, but the Nazi Party wasnt christian. There were christians in it, but the party sought to supplant religion with nazism, which had evolved into a religion of the state. Thats why they had the Catholic Center Party dismantled under the Reichskonkordat with the Catholic church. Thats why they violated the Reichskonkordat and closed all the catholic schools. HItler knew the power of the schools to indoctrinate the youth of Germany and he wanted to control it. The reason Hitler gave the church for violating the treaty and closing the schools? That the priests were molesting the children. In retrospect he might have gotten that one right.

  • e jerry powell

    Interesting. So political motives are one thing and spirituality ultimately quite another.

  • BLZ Bubb

    Newsflash... inbred hillbilly is a bigot....
    wow...really? why is anyone surprised?

  • Tammy

    I just... man, do dudes like this ALWAYS have to drape their ignorance in the cloak of "Christianity"? It is EXHAUSTING to constantly have to explain that, while I dig that crazy Jesus cat and I do actually embrace the label of "Christian" (for many beautiful reasons that I'm not going into on a pop culture blog), I'm not THAT kind of Christian. Not everyone is THAT kind of Christian, dude.

    Why do anal-sex and bestiality-obsessed whackjobs get to be the poster child for Jesus in the media, anyway? Jesus was too busy hanging out with society's outcasts and feeding the poor and subverting the rule of power to spend much time deliberating what hole your junk ought to be shoved into at sexytime, dude. The Bible's references to homosexuality are few and far between, not at all as black and white as they are portrayed by the shrieking Culture War Harpies, and ZERO of them were attributed to the actual preaching of Jesus himself, so WHY must you use The Big J to excuse your own obsession with other people's buttholes?!?!

    Everytime I hear this kind of thing from a fundamentalist Christian I think, "Why you spend so much time thinking about buttholes?!"
    It's like every day is Butthole Day for these guys...

  • Fletch

    Actually, I think you'll find that gay guys are more obsessed with buttholes than Christians. Just sayin'...

  • Aaron Schulz

    So its safe to assume you are straight at this point, are you obsessed with vaginas? Because I'm straight and i can honestly say I'm not obsessed with them. Should i be? Is that how sexuality works? Am i doing it wrong?

  • Tammy

    I promise you, I spend a lot of time with out-and-proud gay men (and queer-identified persons, and trans folks, and lesbians, and the many variations of bisexuality), and just as many self-identified Fundamentalist Christians. I can't speak for the wider world's experience, by my own experience is gay men do not bring buttsex into conversation nearly as often as the Christians do. Draw from that whatever conclusions you will.

  • e jerry powell
  • Fabius_Maximus

    Only closeted gay Christians are obsessed with buttholes. Or openly gay Christians, for that matter.

    Edit: To add to what Tammy just wrote: It is my understanding that a sizable portion of gay man do not like anal sex and don't engage in it..

  • manting

    You mean like this, only with buttholes?

  • As a professing follower of Jesus and former minister, I continue to find these (all-too-frequent) events appalling. It embarrasses and saddens me when people make such statements in the name of Jesus and the Church. It hurts me more deeply to see those who believe differently finding in these events their reasons to dismiss us outright and mock us for believing.

    I believe it's possible, if one desires to spend the time and effort, to understand Mr. Robertson's statements within the context of his particular political, social, and cultural situation. Perhaps by understanding his beliefs one is able to reflect more deeply on the nature of this Universe in which we find ourselves unwilling passengers and deepen one's own belief system.

    Yes, Christian Fundamentalism takes a large, but not exclusive, role in Mr. Robertson's views. Republican Fundamentalism, Jingoism, Socio-economic mores and other ideologies play their roles as well.

    In 2009, I wrote a blog post on Fundamentalism that, I believe, still provides the best explanation I could muster for such behavior as Mr. Robertson's. My working definition of fundamentalism from that post is:

    Fundamentalism is the holding of a deeply held belief system to the extent that one's beliefs become absolutely exclusive of all other belief systems or points of view, and adherents to opposing belief systems present a clear and present danger to the vitality of one's own belief system.

    I believe this definition applies to all forms of Fundamentalism we see today - Christian or otherwise.

  • Fletch

    He is correct, of course. Is the anus a sexual organ? Or is it the sewer line of the body - the conduit for passing human waste. These are facts. Is it hateful to speak what is fact?

    The dictionary states: "Anus - The opening at the lower end of the digestive tract through which solid waste is excreted". Doesn't sound like it has another function.

    Also a fact is that it is not possible for persons of the same gender to have sex: by this I mean sexual intercourse, or coitus. I know some will come back and say that there are many ways to have sex, but - again - I mean sexual intercourse, of which is required a man and a woman.

    Facts are facts.

  • Ruthie O

    Homophobes are so obsessed with the functions of the anus, but they never consider the clitoris. The clit is also a sexual organ, one beloved by women of all sexual orientations. Why? It can be stimulated by fingers and tongues both male and female. And shower heads. And toys that go buzz. Its entire purpose is to make a woman lose herself in delicious pleasure, and a penis is not required to press that button.

    Facts are facts.

  • manting

    and motorcycles, washing machines, and sometimes even a stiff breeze. Guys too, like these guys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

  • BlackRabbit

    What I learned from this whole conversation: The clitoris is like the light in my fridge-it will go on no matter what's stimulating it to do so.

  • Fletch

    The fact is that the clitoris is designed to be stimulated during sex. That is why it is where it is. Sure, it can be stimulated by a chimp with a banana probably, but that isn't sexual intercourse. Some people get sexual pleasure out of being beaten on the ass with a paddle as well - that doesn't make the ass a sexual organ either. Just because we get pleasure from something doesn't mean it is normal. Hitler purportedly got pleasure from being shit on by his mistress Geli Raubal.

    I can make the light go on and off in my fridge by pressing the button while it is open, but that isn't what it designed for.

  • Ruthie O

    Aw, poor Fletch. The women folk have been lying to you. No, because of where the clit is positioned, it is not actually stimulated during PIV sex. During hetero coitus (which is the least sexy word in the world, btw), hands, toys, or acrobatic positions are required to get that ball rolling.

  • e jerry powell

    Not to mention that, as we just learned on "Masters of Sex," that whole thing about the different female orgasms is total horseshit.

  • Bedewcrock

    Who would downvote this?!?

    Facts are facts, people.

  • Tammy

    To me, the clit serves as excellent evidence that, if you believe in a higher power that had a hand in designing human life, said higher power wasn't limited in imagination to penis-in-vagina, missionary-style sex. Because if Higher Power went to the trouble of designing an organ solely for pleasure but only approved of a sex act that essentially ignores it, Higher Power either has a sick, sick sense of humor, or figured humans would find more efficient ways of getting their rocks off.

  • e jerry powell

    "...or figured humans would find more efficient ways of getting their rocks off."

    As they certainly have, in fact.

    And let's not talk about anal sex as though it were something that was discovered in the mid-twentieth century, anyway. It's been going on for at least as long as people have known that vaginal sex is the number one cause of pregnancy.

  • Fabius_Maximus

    The clitoris is the only organ in the human body with the single purpose to elicit sexual arousal. That makes it the very definition of a sexual organ.

  • Fabius_Maximus

    The anus is a sexual organ, as there are a lot of nerve-endings there. Stimulating it helps with sexual arousal in some people.

    Facts are facts.

  • Jonathan Dohge

    I simply refuse to debate, discuss, agree with, defy, or become panty-knotted over anything that is said by the "star" of a "reality show." These people are Fictional Characters, they live in a wholly fictional world that has exactly ZERO relevance to my daily life or my politics; I would sooner argue the merits of balloon-based honey collection with Winnie-the-Pooh than waste a single breath trying to dehomophobe a wealthy inbred Confuckerate with an ENORMOUS FINANCIAL STAKE IN SAYING SOMETHING CONTROVERSIAL.

  • e jerry powell

    As Andrew Sullivan put it, A&E knew what they were getting, so to backtrack now is falsely ingenuous.

    And as Matt Taibbi put it, even if A&E did know what they were getting, they don't have to take the hit from their advertisers by continuing to associate with the Robertsons.

  • NateMan

    Confuckerate is now my word of the day!

  • Bam Bunting

    Yeah, here's the thing Hitler was very Catholic. So the Nazi's didn't mind them some Jesus.

  • manting

    First Treaty Hitler signed was the Reichsconkordat and paved the way for Hilter's ascension to the position of the furher. The treaty detailed the church forcing the Catholic Center party to disband (which would remove the last political obstacle to Hitler's control of the government) in exchange the church receiving a ten percent tithe from all catholics in Germany directly from their paychecks. It also disbanded all the cathloic youth groups (of which there were many) and in general curtailed the Vaticans control over the cathlolics of Germany. So I wouldnt say he was very catholic, but the church did assist in his grasping power firmly. The Church was also the first people to sign a treaty with mussolini (the Lateran Pact) and they assisted him to power as well.

  • Rob

    And that's why people like the Robertsons just KILL me. It is possible, believe it or not, to have a belief system and not be an asshole. But then people like this come along and ruin it for everyone.

  • VonnegutSlut

    Jesus IS allowed in Islamic doctrine...he's considered a prophet...just not THE savior...

  • Jonathan Dohge

    Correct. Which has always made me wonder why right-wing Republichrists love them The Israel so hard -- "We've got your backs, right up until God scours your heretic souls from the earth!" -- when Judaism doesn't even recognize Christ's prophethood* or divinity. Of course, to be fair, the Jewish God doesn't regularly command His folk to fly airplanes into buildings, but at least just before they asploded those kamikaze dickheads thought, "Allah Is Great, and Jesus only Slightly Less So!"

    * I'm going to pitch this as a TV series to Fox. The Prophet Hood. Twelve Angry Hebrews may be Jerusalem's only hope. Ooo! Did they have meth back then? Put some meth in there and I can SO sell this thing.

  • e jerry powell

    Make sure I'm in the focus group for that pilot. I will bully everyone into liking it.

  • Fabius_Maximus

    A lot of them believe that the Jews will build the second (or is it the third?) temple eventually, which will trigger the Apocalypse.

    Of course, it could set off World War III, because they'd have to demolish the Al-Aqsa mosque first.

  • e jerry powell

    At this point, which architect would they hire to design it? And where's all the contract labor going to come from?

  • BlackRabbit

    It's "The enemy of my enemy" kinda thing with Israel, really.

  • Jonathan Dohge

    Well. Yeah. If you want to bumperstickerize the most complicated socioreligious End of Days geopolitical relationship on the planet, sure. :)

  • BlackRabbit

    Well, duh. It's all about merchandising. :)

  • Fabius_Maximus

    And the overwhelming majority of Nazis were Christians.

    Edit: I should read through the thread before posting...

  • BAM

    I think his candor is refreshing, regardless of how much bigotry is involved. It's not like he believes that they should be destroyed, just that they aren't going to heaven. Just because he doesn't fully grasp the depth of modern personhood, just makes him ignorant, not a threat. He may be fundamentalist, but also pretty harmless and peaceable.

  • "A person's a person no matter how small." - Albert Einstein

  • Mrs. Julien

    Dude, I must tell you, just by the way
    that's not Einstein, that's Seuss, the quote that you say.

  • "What we've got here is a failure to communicate." - Abraham Lincoln

  • Mrs. Julien

    Misquoting in your commentary? "That's a night in the box." - Plutarch

  • manting

    "Paddling the school canoe? You can bet that's a paddling." Principle Skinner

  • bastich

    Wrong! It wasn't Skinner, it was the old guy!
    ...I mean the other old guy.
    ...No, the other other old guy.

    Ah, forget it.

  • manting

    Jasper. If you read the thread we are all misqouting. You should know by now that I know my simpsons.

  • bastich

    Wrong again! My name isn't Jasper!

    ...wait, what?

  • MarTeaNi

    The Nazis still had Jesus. They had a whole "Positive Christian" (actual name) movement, endorsed by the state, that was all about integrating Nazism and Christianity. It rejected all "Jewish written" portions of the Bible (mostly Old Testament, but it's an exercise in cherry picking, obviously) and claimed Jesus was a blond Arayan hero bravely fighting against the Jews. Like pretty much everything about the Nazis, it was repulsive. But they still had Jesus.

  • Mrs. Julien

    Just because they are polite about it, doesn't mean one should put up with intolerance. You don't have to understand to be understanding.

    The Christian extrapolation of "it seems to me like..." should be, "... but it doesn't matter what I prefer. I should treat people they way I would like to be treated."

  • blackheart

    "I should treat people they way I would like to be treated."

    And that, children, is absolutely the truest Christian comment to be uttered in this entire thread.

    Mrs. Julien is a nice lady.

  • e jerry powell

    That's what I've read...

  • Vince

    Islamists? Zero.

    Had to point this out. Jesus is actually a prophet in Islam so yes, Muslims have Jesus.

  • Al Borland's Beard

    He's right. Nobody has ever been killed in the name of Jesus. Not many people know this, but the Crusades were just over how to properly cook a pig.

  • Fletch

    If it weren't for the Crusades, you'd be Islamic by now. The Crusades were a *reaction* to Islamic conquest. Contrary to popular (liberal) belief, Islam is not and was not a peaceful religion. Check out the book, 'Jihad in the West', by Paul Fregosi.

    ' The Islamic Arabs (and later the Moors) occupied a number of the Mediterranean Islands, and invaded Spain and Portugal in 711 CE, and ruled over much of the Iberian peninsula for the next 800 years. France was attacked and invaded, as was Italy, and the European coasts all the way to Ireland and Iceland. The Muslims swept over the Balkans, besieged Vienna, and were intermittent masters of Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary into the 19th century, destroying the Byzantines and conquering Constantinople (turning it into Istanbul). Ambitious and unrelenting, the Muslims also sought to conquer Austria and Russia.'

    Yes, there were atrocities committed in the Crusades on both sides. But they did stop the Islamic invasions.

  • Bedewcrock

    Re: "If it weren't for the Crusades, you'd be Islamic by now."

    Oh my (Judeo-Christian) Lord!!!

  • Fabius_Maximus


    The Reconquista initially wasn't a crusade and was half finished in 1095 already, with the Almohads on the defensive. They never recovered.

    The wars against the Ottomans weren't crusades, either, except for one, which was rather small-scale.

    The crusades itself didn't stop shit. The Seljuks/Ottomans still conquered Byzantium. Later, they weren't even the target anymore until the whole idea ultimately failed and the Europeans were thrown out of the region.

    You also forget that Europeans princes liked to get church officials legitimize their political conquests as crusades. Many of these weren't aimed at Muslims, but at fellow Christians or "heathens". Look at the 4th Crusade, which ended in the sacking of Constantinople, the Hussite wars or the whole mess the Teutonic Order started.

  • Fletch

    The Crusades were largely in response to a cry for help from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos asking for help. They Mulsims had been making advances and conquering left, right and centre. Finally the Pope decided to do something about it. It's history. Look it up.

  • Fabius_Maximus

    I knew that would be your fall-back position, ignoring everything else.

    You are only partially right. The first crusade was a response to that call for help. Unfortunately, there a major problem with that: It came over 10 years too late. The Seljuks had conquered Anatolia in 1071. The call for a crusade came in 1095, which means that the conquerors were already sitting comfortably.

    Also, Jerusalem wasn't part of the Seljuk realms.

    To believe that it was anything but a massive political and financial power play is illusory.

    And of course, all this doesn't help your overblown claim that without the crusades, we'd be Muslims now.

  • blackheart

    You go Fabius-Maximus! Get on with yo bad self.

    You, Fletch, have just been schooled.

    You comin' to Pajiba you better come correct!

  • Fletch

    No I haven't. He is wrong, and I am correct.


    630 Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

    This tax sets the stage for Muhammad's and the later Caliphs' policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

    632—634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.

    633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al—Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616—17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034—35).

    634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al—Walid. An unnamed Muslim remarks: 'The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few.' To this Khalid retorts: 'How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many' (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Ladin quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: '[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists' (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem's; the second mine).

    634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

    635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

    636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

    637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

    638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

    638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

    639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

    641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

    643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

    644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

    644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

    656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

    656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.

    657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

    661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

    661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

    673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

    680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

    691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.

    705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.

    710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

    711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus.

    719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

    732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

    749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

    756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

    762 Foundation of Baghdad

    785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

    789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

    800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

    807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

    809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

    813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

    831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

    850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer

    855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

    837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

    869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

    909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

    928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

    937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

    937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

    960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

    966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem

    969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

    c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

    973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

    1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

    1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)

    1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

    1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

    1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

    1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

    1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

    1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

    1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

    1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

    1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

    1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

    1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

    1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

    1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

    1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

    1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

    1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

    1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

    So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

  • manting

    there were also an excuse for the nobles and the church to get rich, to rid europe of the poor and undesirable, and to keep dueling and feuding down among the nobility.

  • VonnegutSlut

    Blessed are the cheesemakers.

    Not the pig-bakers.

    And I'm from Texas.

  • manting

    and the inquisition was just this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

  • I know places in Texas and Tennessee where cooking a pig improperly is an executable offense.

  • emmalita

    In Texas we care more about how you cook cow than pig.

  • e jerry powell

    Speak for yourself, heretic. :-P



  • emmalita

    You have no idea how much of a heretic I am. I'm a vegetarian!!!!!! I regularly get death threats, but then I remind my father that I am his only child.

    I'm a weird vegetarian. I like cooking meat, I just don't want to eat it.

  • NateMan

    It's one of the few things they get right.

  • NateMan

    Or really the right to cook a pig at all, considering who the Christians were pissy at.

    And everyone knows the right way is slow-cooked over applewood and maple smoke.

  • e jerry powell

    Beg to differ. Deep-fried.

  • NateMan

    Of course it's bigotry. But he's an uneducated podunk, redneck, bible-thumping hillbilly. There's no point in being surprised when a podunk, redneck, bible-thumping hillbilly comes out with views inspired by his religious indoctrination. You'll never stop being shocked.

  • manting

    Uh most of them went to and graduated from college, I just looked it up. This is not ignorance, it is willfully and knowingly choosing to follow his religious beliefs, which are bigoted and archaic.

  • NateMan

    Going to college does not necessarily equal an education or lack of ignorance. It just points it in a different direction.

  • manting

    Id certainly say educated and college degree do hand-in-hand 99% of the time. The exceptions being Liberty University and Oral Roberts. I think going to them makes you less educated.

  • Fletch

    People with those same beliefs founded America. Those beliefs allow you the freedom you enjoy today.

  • blackheart

    Actually Fletch, you are pretty much wrong on that one. Please, check out the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who were quite vocal about their religious and spiritual understandings (notice how I didn't use the word beliefs there, that's a hint). These are the go-to dudes on the subject of the "beliefs which founded America" (your phrase).

    Please provide your findings in a 20-25 page paper with full MLA citation. You have until the end of the semester.

    Wait, what?

    Holy cow I'm still on auto-pilot even though classes have concluded. Education of the masses never ends it seems.

    Bottom line boyo, check out the facts before spouting the Fox dogma.

    Oh, and by the way, Jesus was black and most likely Santa was too.

    You're welcome.

  • bastich

    Hell yeah, Santa was black!

  • Fabius_Maximus

    Is that Snoop? Because if not, it totally should be.

  • manting

    and bomb abortion clinics. Many of the founding fathers (what a loaded title) were non-religous or even atheist. Keep trolling Fletch McTroll - I remember you.

  • Fletch

    Oh, so giving my opinion is "trolling" is it? But that's right, "tolerance" of beliefs is a virtue only required for Conservatives. It's a one-way street.

  • manting

    I save my tolerance for the tolerant. To say its ok to not like someone because of their race, religion, or sexual preference is simply wrong, immoral, and if your religion tells you to do so that your religion is wrong.

  • Fletch

    By the way, "I save my tolerance for the tolerant", practically means that you are only tolerant of those who think the same as you - which is not tolerance at all. The very word "tolerate", means to put up with something that you don't like, eg, "tolerate" this heat, or tolerate your neighbours loud music.

  • Fletch

    Did I say I didn't like gays? I work with one, actually, and consider him a great guy. You are confusing hatred of people with dislike over their actions. If you were a vegetarian, you might consider that my eating meat was wrong and immoral and disagree with me doing it. I'm sure you wouldn't hate me for it though.

    In the same way, i disagree with gay sexual conduct and I think it is unnatural and wrong. That does not mean I hate the person doing it. The Catholic Church, in fact, says that while it disagrees with gay conduct, that homosexuals should not be persecuted.

    "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."


  • manting

    Whats funny is the Church sees no correlation in this statement between the bible/church's view of homosexuality and the treatment of homosexuals by christians. "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every
    sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

  • Fletch

    Really? I don't know any Christians who treat homosexuals badly - from any Church. The thing is, that gays consider anyone merely *disagreeing* with their lifestyle as being bigoted. It's all part of their agenda

blog comments powered by Disqus