CRN recently posted an article entitled “ABC Has One Standard for Homosexuals and a Different Standard for Christians.” In the article, the author informs us that when actor Isaiah Washington made an anti-homosexual slur, he was fired. However, when Dana Jacobson made an anti-Christian remark, he was simply given a one-week vacation. As expected, they are calling for a Christian boycott of Jacobson’s show for his remarks.

There does seem to be a double standard. But I don’ think ABC is the only one that has one. I have one question for the editor at CRN and the American Family Association. Where was the outrage when Isaiah Washington, a self-professing Christian, made such hateful remarks against a group of people? Why did the Christian community not cry out in outrage when someone of our own camp made hateful and ignorant remarks? Or, are we to remain quiet when one of our own makes inappropriate remarks about those we disagree with, but boycott at the first sight of inappropriate remarks against us? Looks like double standards are definately in season this year. Either that, or we are fresh out of mercy and love these days.


It looks like the ODMs have decided to once again act like — well, ODMs. Chris Pajak writes this

I have to say that the author of this post at CRN.(pc)info. may have a point. In fact he could have taken his argument even further. I mean, where was the outcry when Moses wrote this hateful passage? Or where was the righteous indignation when Paul composed his screed in Romans 1? The church hasn’t come very far in the past 2000 years, wouldn’t you say?

So let me get this straight. This ODM equates God forbidding homosexuality in the scriptures with Isaiah Washington saying “I’m not your little faggot like [your partner]” to his co-star and slamming him up against the wall. This is very telling of the way the ODMs view homosexuals. They basically see the scriptures as a free pass to fling hurtful insults and dehumanize anyone who lives an unscriptural life. Why show love when there is so much righteous hate to go around? Looks like this ODM fits in more and more with Christians like this.  You see, we have no problem with homosexuality being a sin.  We have a problem with not loving those who Jesus loves.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Friday, January 25th, 2008 at 12:23 am and is filed under Editor, Ken Silva, Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, What Can You Say?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

24 Comments(+Add)

1   Jordan    
January 25th, 2008 at 7:07 am

I never much understood AFA’s, and the SBC for that matter, fascination with boycotting everything. And I’m SB for that matter. Worldly companies doing wordly things, lead by unbelievers. Why the outrage when the unsaved behave as their nature dictates?
However, I would dare say there wasn’t the uproar against the first person with the homosexuality comment, not due to hypocrisy, though for some it might have been. But more due to the fact that he had already been punished before the second person said their thing, and was delt a much less harsh punishment. I don’t think anyone was supporting the homosexual comment, all it looks like is those folks just want equal punishment for what seems to be an equal offense.

2   RayJr    
January 25th, 2008 at 8:10 am

Dana Jacobson is a woman.

And Nathan, don’t you know God Hates Fags? Come on now, get with the program.

3   Tim Reed, Owosso MI
January 25th, 2008 at 8:49 am

Chris P misses the point completely again in the comments: is a blog that defends the toilet-mouthed pastors who use vulgarity in the pulpit and in their writings, from the critical odm bloggers.

Apparently using PG-13 language is the real outrage while openly despising sinners and physically confronting them is the Biblical thing to do. It’d be almost hilarious if it wasn’t so disgusting. The world is more Godly on this particular issue than the ODMs are, and it demonstrates again that the ODMs are reacting to a us/them dichotomy. Homosexuals are them so they get blasted, no matter what the Bible says. People who use PG-13 language are them, no matter what the Bible says.

You’d think at some point they’d get sick from swallowing those camels.

4   Matt B
January 25th, 2008 at 9:32 am

It was a roast and she was drunk:

” … Jacobson made an absolute fool of herself, swilling vodka from a Belvedere bottle, mumbling along and cursing like a sailor as Mike & Mike rested their heads in their hands in embarrassment.”

The sad thing is that ODMs often say things just as bad while sober.

5   Chris P.    
January 25th, 2008 at 9:47 am

Since you are afraid to comment on my blog. I will say again that you missed the point. Your blatant lies to the contrary, (through the use of selectively editing my post), my point is that you are as hypocritical as what you rail against. Notice also I do not moderate the commenters.
Sorry Reed but you are the one who is disgusting. You are a liar and claim to be a shepherd. Hopped any fences lately?
At least I link to the entire post here, and not take out a sound bite to defend my pov. Oh wait I thought the odm bloggers do that. I’m so confused……. who are the real
pharisees,i.e. hypocrites all?
Where did I defend Isaiah Washington. Where did CRN defend him? Where did I ever say God hates fags? I challenge you to find anything that I have ever written which even implies that. Of course we are the “fundies”, so we can’t point out inconsistent and illogical doctrine and practice.
The point is, the double standard you are utilizing is the same one ABC uses. You defend potty-mouthed christianity, defend Washington then.
When you have no real answer, resort to depicting people as “un-christlike” You are the ones that make me ill.
Does anyone tire of the formulaic bilge that post-modernism spouts as theology?
The real problem is those who believe that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true.
By the standards you profess,Moses, Paul, even Jesus Christ are fundies and unloving one at that.
This blog claims to support a contextual approach, but defines the context at stopping at 99 a.d.

Come on guys 2+2=5;2+2=5;2+2=5
If anyone cares to know what is really being said you may visit my blog and debate the matter there.

6   pastorboy
January 25th, 2008 at 9:49 am

If this were a roast, and I were drunk, would you excuse me for cursing your mother? Or would you pop me in the nose?

And don’t get super spiritual on me, either. You would be angry and rightfully so.

It is sorta like being more concerned about saving the whales vs. saving the babies- Why be concerned for one and not the other? We need to be concerned for both- loving homosexuals (they are people that God sent Christ to die for) and other Christians (they are people who God sent Christ to die for) and for the name of God (he is high and holy, worthy of praise, not of blasphemy)

Isaiah may claim to be a Christian, but with that behavior, he is a hypocrite. And I, for one, will boycott ESPN radio (I don’t listen to it anyway!), but will not call anybody out who doesn’t and call them non-christian.

7   Matt B
January 25th, 2008 at 10:07 am

What happened when one of the discipes used his sword defending Jesus? (Matthew 26:51-52)

Did Paul run around the Roman world, stomping out every naughty thing that every nonbeliever said about Jesus?

8   iggy
January 25th, 2008 at 10:10 am

Chris P,

1. If you are so upset, a thing that might help get people to your blog is a LINK to it… it is easy to do…

2. I have received much “hate” from ODM’s and even been told to “shut up” and “iggy is not saved” … (don’t go to the “iggy let it go..” it is obvious you can’t let things go so please let me save you from your double standard)


Does anyone tire of the formulaic bilge that post-modernism spouts as theology?

I have yet to read this or see it… from the ones I read and listen to… I do hear a lot of modernism from your side of the camp though…


The real problem is those who believe that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true.

I agree so why do you guys keep doing it?


9   Chris L
January 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am

Your blatant lies to the contrary, (through the use of selectively editing my post), my point is that you are as hypocritical as what you rail against.

Chris P – is there a different post you’re talking about? The only one I can find here (or at CR?N) linked to your blog is this one, and Tim quoted it in its entirety. How does Tim selectively edit when he’ve quoted the entire thing?

At least I link to the entire post here, and not take out a sound bite to defend my pov.

Chris – your post IS linked in the article above. I just checked in about 45 minutes ago, and the link has been there at LEAST that long.

As for being on moderation, you were only put there in response to several months’ of drive-by comments that were almost never related to the article they were posted under, and when replied to, never answered. If you’re intending to stay on-topic and engaged, the moderation can change…

Also – since this conversation seems to be happinging in both places, here’s the response I posted over at your blog:


“.Info” comes from the perspective that everything in the Bible was finished by the end of the 1st century, so I guess Lev and Romans, among others, no longer apply.

Chris – c’mon, you know this isn’t true.

In terms of “context”, yes, all of the Bible was written prior to 95 A.D. (or, 70 A.D., depending on how you date Revelation). So, if you want to know the original context, you do have to look at what the people to whom it was first written would have understood it to mean.

None of us have suggested that exegesis stops there.

Rather, once you understand the original context, then you need to determine the cross-cultural message being conveyed, and then apply that cross-cultural message to our own cultural context.

So – EVERYTHING in the Bible is relevant today and all of it applies. You will not find a single CRN.Info writer that believes that homosexual practice is not a sin – based upon Leviticus and Romans, in their original context. It’s pretty clear.

You do the very same thing – I know you do – on some issues. For instance, with men having long hair. You look at the original context (which dealt with idolatry and sexual immorality), and translate it to the culture of the rez. In doing so, you understand that Paul was not prohibiting men having long hair across all cultures, but rather that we should not live/act/dress in ways that suggest we are worshipping other gods or that we are sexually available…

10   Neil    
January 25th, 2008 at 10:20 am

Chris P.,

Since you are afraid to comment on my blog…Your blatant lies to the contrary…Sorry Reed but you are the one who is disgusting. You are a liar…

The tone of this post is not within the “high road” standards that we aspire to on this site. Arguments and strongly held positions are assumed – ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.

This is not addressed to you based on the content of your argument – we have made similar “warnings” to those on “our side.” So don’t bother going there…

In the future, please address all on this site with the common courtesy of a brother or sister in Christ.


11   Phil Miller
January 25th, 2008 at 10:26 am

I guess I’m confused about this whole deal. Don’t the ODM’s regularly tell us that “real” Christians should expect persecution, and that the world is supposed to hate Christ? So when it happens they get their dander up, and demand some sort of justice. It just seems odd to me.

I guess it’s related to the Calvinist view of God – He condemns people for sinning even though He created them knowing they would sin. So literally, people are damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

As far as dealing with drunk people, it seems to me that punching an obviously drunk person in the face for an insult would be kind of lame. I’ve been around plenty of drunk people, and I’ve found it’s just usually best to ignore them. Their shame is their punishment a lot of the time. This woman has to live with her stupid comments, and probably would take them back if she could.

12   Neil    
January 25th, 2008 at 10:37 am

I understand the offense of the “F-Jesus” tirade. And being drunk may explain it, it certainly does not justify it… not that anyone made such a justification.

On the other hand, we should not be surprised when non-believers act like non-believers…

Calling her for the offense to our God is one thing, expecting ABC to respond like we want them to is another.

We live in Post-Christendom.


13   nathan
January 25th, 2008 at 10:42 am

Chris P.

1. If you would have commented here on my blog, I would have responded as such. However, since you found it appropriate to respond to me in a public manner via CRN and your blog, I did the same.

2. Follow this logic:

I questioned this organization as to why they were not outraged when Isaiah Washington, a Christian, yelled inappropriate Gay remarks to a co-star.

You came back and said, why not also be outraged with scripture that condemns homosexuality.

Do you not equate scriptures condemning homosexuality with God bashing? I am not too sure how anyone would not make those conclusions. You were the one that implied Moses, Paul and Jesus Christ were unloving fundies by equating these things.

Where did I defend Isaiah Washington.

never said you did.

Where did CRN defend him?

never said they did. Chris, this has happened several times. You either make statements that logically get you into big trouble, or you are just genuinely mean-hearted towards sinners. I hope the first is the case.

14   iggy
January 25th, 2008 at 10:48 am

This is not addressed to you based on the content of your argument – we have made similar “warnings” to those on “our side.” So don’t bother going there…

For the record… that would be me…. (Hand held up and head bowed in humility)


15   Tim Reed, Owosso MI
January 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am

Chris P,
Your response discredits you more than anything anyone else could ever write.

The fact that so many people think you’re justified in what you wrote is what makes me despair of the church faithfully living the gospel.

16   iggy
January 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am

Anyone else see the irony in CRN using the “f” word?

Even if it is a quote, they seem to like to use the word… without using it… as long as they can condemn someone else using it. (Ephesians 5:12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.)

Also, I have found AFA as not a reliable “source” I have subscribed to them for quite a while and most often their info is off…

One this is that ALL car sales are down… yet they are stating that Ford’s is down because of THEIR boycott… a bit dishonest.

I did some research on some “pictures” on the Gay Olympics site they said were there… and they were not… I had to go about 5 links deep on nonrelated websites before I found similar picture that were in the Australian Marde Gra… and it was even then questionable if the guys pictured were “gay”… (I usually don’t look that hard for “gay” pictures…. LOL! but wonder how hard the AFA had to look for the ones they sent out!)

I has seen them do this over and over as they also ask for donations… (can you say donations driven ministry)


17   Neil    
January 25th, 2008 at 11:16 am


I’m not sure they like using the “F” word.


18   iggy
January 25th, 2008 at 11:19 am

Ken did with Tony Jones… in fact Ken used it about ten times as much as Tony did as Ken condemned him… and in this article they could have stated that it was a very bad profanity…

Instead of living the standard they claim to promote, they use the quote (though edited) which still made me say the word in my head… they made me sin… LOL!


19   Neil    
January 25th, 2008 at 11:21 am

Hmmm… is thinking the word a sin?


20   Joe Martino
January 25th, 2008 at 11:21 am

How is boycotting ESPN radio accomplishing anything? Jacobson isn’t even on the radio. Your boycotting something you already don’t use shows what exactly?

21   Joe Martino
January 25th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Furthermore, who cares if ABC does have a double standard? I mean, these comments show Jacobson’s condition. Do we really think that boycotting something is who Jesus or the early church would have handled it? That’s ridiculous.

22   Phil Miller
January 25th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Hmmm… is thinking the word a sin?

Hmmm…I certainly hope not, or otherwise I’m sinning many times when I visit It’s usually preceded by the words “what the” in my mind…

23   Brendt
January 25th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Hmmm… is thinking the word a sin?

If it is, then I’m … well, you know.

24   iggy
January 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

It is a sin if a man thinks it is to them… and the ODM seem to think it a sin and sin against themselves over and over.

1 Corinthians 8:7
But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.

So if I am one of a weaker conscience and believe that even thinking the word is a sin, I have been defiled by them using the word… even in its veiled form…

Now I do not feel I am defiled… but as far as the ODM’s setting the standard, this seems to be well below the one they set.