Following remarks he made to GQ magazine concerning the Bible and condemning homosexuality, Phil Robertson was recently suspended from the series Duck Dynasty. Do you think his rights to free speech have been violated?
I think the less ppl say words like "anus" and "vagina" in public, the better off they'll be. lol
I think the less they show T&A in public magazines the better.
You mean the Duck Dynasty cast? Im sure most would agree no one wants to see that.
Well, I meant in general, but now that you mention it... EWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!
I've never seen the show, but IF you are correct and "most would agree no one wants to see that." then it will be taken off the air as no one is watching because they don't want to see it. Management is rather attuned to that (as are advertisers), and will not pour money into a show that no one watches.
Didn't you just say those words in public or at least type them?
More vulgar? Really? lol
I fully believe this guy has a right to share his beliefs. I mean, they hired him, fully knowing everything he stood for.
I personally don't like the way he said it. His first remark was ugly. However, as I stated earlier, this group was not hired for their social graces, so why would his network all of a sudden act surprised when he makes a remark like this? B/c they fear losing money. If gay bashing were in style, they would have given him a raise. Let's not pretend the media is about anything else.
I liked his clarification remarks once he took the time to think thru his first comment, but who knows if it is too late. I personally don't care if they lose their jobs, it's just TV, but I do care that the homosexual community knows that God sent His son for them as He did for everyone else. That would have been the msg. worth sharing imo.
It's always entertaining when people take parts out of the bible that reflect their beliefs and then hid behind the bible. You most likely work on Sundays, when the bible says the punishment for that is death. But I guess you don't feel that's a big deal, but homosexuals need to hear that God hates them right?
Where is God's hatred of homosexuals in the Bible? Where is the condemnation of homosexuality as a sin without the condemnation of all kinds of other actions as sinful? Perhaps the bruised feelings of the perpetually offended class would be helped by the application of a little ice.
Do you not remember me posting a page worth of verses that share that it's acceptable, according to the new law, to work on Sundays? I don't like repeating the same old arguments over and over again.
Lastly .... that God hates them? Why would I ever want to post that msg. when I believe the exact opposite? I have also shared that, at length. If you're never going to listen to a word I say, it is pointless to ever try and communicate.
Are you aware that in North America there are no laws against being gay? Yet while you work on Sunday because of secular laws you continue to say that while you don't dislike gays they are sinning if they act on that sin. Why are you not still sinning by working on Sunday? You hold onto whichever laws suite your needs. According to the bible working on Sunday is a sin, but you don't think it's a sin because our new laws. How convenient?
Do you cover the screen with your hand when you see my posts? It's the same as plugging your ears and saying, "I can't hear you!"
Does that mean you are not going continue to say that it's a sin to be gay because we have new laws just as you say it's no longer a sin to work on Sundays because we have new laws?
I missed the verse that said there was a new law having to do with homosexuality.
Like in the bible both homosexuality and working on Sundays are sins. Our current secular laws allow working on Sundays and homosexuality. Although you work on Sunday and no longer think it's a sin because our new laws you still consider homosexuality to be a sin. Why?
Seriously, you don't remember a foot long list of biblical verses that show the new law proclaiming that working on Sundays is acceptable?
What do secular laws have to do with biblical laws?
If you are looking for a sin of mine to compare to homosexuality, I struggle with tons of others, but working on Sunday is not, according to the Bible, one of them.
As I have tried to share *many times, I think we're all the same. I have as many good qualities and sins as your average gay person. You may believe you do not need Jesus, I believe, according to the Bible, that we all do.
Working on Sunday, I could be mistaken but I believe Jesus had the last word on that according to the bible and I believe he said something to the extent that working on Sunday should not be for ones own profit, so you must be doing charity work on Sundays, feeding the poor and such?
Perhaps it's time to clean up your own closet before you point to others then.
Dude, you can't have a serious debate paraphrasing what you think the Bible might possibly say.
I provided actual verses... tons of them.
I already told you I point right at myself as far as my sin own convicting me and my need for Jesus to save me. Until you take your hand off the screen, I'm totally done with this conversation.
Sorry, I haven't seen any verses that say it's okay to work for profit on Sunday.
Of course - man has dominion over all the animals, and it does not specify whether alive or dead. Whether tanned into shoes or a coat or refined into diesel, god has given us the right to use animals as we see fit.
You claimed you can show scripture that says working on Sunday for profit is not a sin?
*You are the one who brought up the "for profit" part.
Your original issue was that a person was not biblically allowed to work on Sunday.
My assertions was that I had proved that point wrong, by using the actual bible, and not just things I thought the bible might say, and I posted them on the last thread we had a similar conversation on.
I have once again stated my belief on the matter. I know you enjoy spending all day trying to find reasons to argue with Believers on any and every possible scenario, but that's not really my thing. Find a new person who does not mind the mindless dance. As I said, Im done with this one.
Reading is a wonderful thing. Some people let their hate and anger blind them to understanding what they read.
Perhaps you can find it for me. Where is the bible does it say it's okay to work for profit on Sundays?
I am now retracting everything I have stated about Mr. Robinson. He not only said negative things about the LGBT community but he also stated that he never saw racism in Louisiana during the pre-Civil Rights era. He indicated that Black people were happy and never confronted him regarding racial discrimination. He was/is living in his own world.
All work is for profit of some kind. Where does it say anything about Sundays at all?
Don't be obtuse. Clearly it's a reference to the sabbath, the day God commanded to be set aside for worship. For Christians, it's Sunday (Friday if you're Muslim, Saturday if you're Jewish). And since Christianity is the religion in question, 'sabbath' is interchangeable with 'Sunday'.
What ever you say mister kettle/ Better turn up the thermostat in the accommodations in your head that I continue to enjoy sans rent. I am sure they will be in use tonight.
I don't know... where does it say anything about homosexuality... you know since the word didn't exist until the late 19th century.
It does address marriage and sexual conduct. A little light reading might help.
LMAO! For you too... If you can't replace "Sunday" for Sabbath then you can't replace random biblical words with "homosexuality"
I have consulted the referee and the rule book, I think you are mistaken about what I cannot do. After all in a relativistic universe who are you to say what can and cannot be done. There are no rules just feelings.
Your right. Gee, I wish I could replace random words in the Bible with other words that didn't exist when it was written... Then quote those passages to deny other people their rights... then get snotty when someone uses the word Sunday to replace Sabbath.
It's also quite amusing to hear him prioritize rules over feelings, yet would probably deny Evolution in a heartbeat because "It doesn't seem like it's possible!"
I never quote the Bible. You must have me confused with someone else. I do quote Richard Feynman, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Francis Bacon and Myself - but I do not offer Bible quotes. I leave that for you scholars.
As for rights, from where does the right to marry flow? From the State? From nature? From (GASP!) God? No one is denied marriage if they meet the criteria for marriage. There is no questionnaire asking whether you are homosexual or not when applying for a marriage license.
lol. It's like a big game of dodgeball for you... he just caught your ball.
He caught my ball? He thinks he's funny because Christians think the Sabbath is on Sunday. He's not worth the effort.
You shouldn't use scripture as an argument if you don't know the scripture. It doesn't benefit you.
(BTW, merry Christmas to you and yours Radman. )
Then why do you use scripture? I asked you to show me where scripture says working on Sunday for profit isn't a sin?
Isn't all work for some kind of profit? There is no New Testament admonition against working on the Sabbath, quite the opposite.
Let me say this one more time for you. I posted a page full of direct quotes for you, straight from the bible stating that the old law, which specified that one should not work on the Sabbath, was replaced by the new law, freeing us from the binds of the old. Do you understand?
May I answer for Radman and others of his ilk, yes they can understand, no they choose not to understand. The choice to understand is where learning begins and some are convinced that they no longer need to learn.
I understand reality just fine and I understand it doesn't contain fairies and goblins. I looked for evidence that God exists and found none.
I don't quote the Bible, but those are citations not quotations.
You must have reading comprehension problems as both of those scriptures talk about Jesus healing on Sunday, but nothing about others working for their own profit.
What is profit? Isn't all work for some kind of gain? The disciples were harvesting grain to eat, isn't that work for a profit? Isn't profit what one uses to fill ones belly?
1 Timothy 5:17-18 ESV
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
1 Corinthians 9:14 ESV
In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
These are verses about Christian laborers being paid for their efforts. I hope it helps.
Ummm. Those scriptures say nothing at all about working on Sundays and are referring to preachers getting paid for their work. Is that what you do for a living?
Im trying not to say anything unkind. I do not understand what you do not understand. All of your questions have been answered. I wonder if this matters to you in the slightest.
It does matter. You have not produced any scripture that states that it's okay to work for financial gain on Sunday. I'm trying to help you not sin and save your soul. I care about you like that. If you show me scripture that states working for financial gain on Sunday is not a sin, I'll apologies.
I really hate that I'm taking part in foolishness, but b/c a part of me worries that you really don't understand, I will spell it out the best I can. I have already pasted a page of verses saying it is now considered legal to work on the Sabbath. However I guess you need something more specific?
1) The old law (EX 35:2, EX 20:10) said that certain laws regarding the Sabbath must be obeyed.
2) God sent Jesus (NT) he states clearly that he has come to replace the old laws and free us from them. He became the fulfillment of the law.
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Rm 10:4
Luke 6:1 ESV
"On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands." As you can see, the verse specifies on purpose that it was the Sabbath. It then states that they worked and profited.
All the verses I posted above stated that biblical servants could/should be paid for their work. As you know, many work on the Sabbath. The new law says that the old law has now been fulfilled... this is a lot of effort in order to explain something to you that I doubt you care about, but it's pretty clear. Again, I hope it helps.
Do you understand what profit means? I've given the definition already. The disciples worked to feed themselves much like cooking dinner, they didn't sell the proceeds of that work for money. Jesus clearly stated that the old laws much be obeyed, he did however attempt to clarify the meaning of the laws. He said that one should obey the commandments to get into heaven. I do understand why this is frustrating for you and I'm sorry about that but I want you to understand what you are doing. The other scripture you posted said nothing of Sundays at all and were pertaining to those who preach.
I will offer you a very detailed explanation from "Let Us Reason Together" ministries. Maybe it will help. Please keep in mind, I do go to church on Sunday morning. I work in the afternoon and evening.
If you are saved “by grace” through faith in Jesus Christ without keeping the Sabbath do you need to keep the Sabbath to be saved? No.
Do you need to keep the Sabbath to be Spiritual or spiritually grow? No.
Jesus kept the Sabbath? True, but for what reason? He was born under the law and kept all the law, if he violated even the smallest point he would have been disqualified to be the Messiah.
Paul kept the Sabbath. True, but for what reason? He and the other apostles did not attend the synagogue to worship on the Sabbath by obligation under the law. The reason - this was the best way to reach their Jewish brethren. So they went into the Jewish synagogues to preach Jesus Christ to the Jews on their Sabbath day (Acts.13:14-43); Paul’s concept of evangelism (1 Cor.9:19-20). Acts 17:2 "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 18:4, 11 "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath."
There is not one place in the New Testament that requires the church to keep the Sabbath AFTER the CROSS when the new covenant of grace was introduced.
Most of those who make an issue of the Sabbath day do not keep the SABBATH laws according to the Bible, they change it. Look at Leviticus 23:32, where the Sabbath is to be kept from SUNSET to SUNSET, or Jeremiah 17:21, do no work: and they are to stay in one place (Neh.10:31; 13:15-22; 28:9-1; Exod. 16:29), stay at home. If traveling, no long walks either, and they are to carry no loads. Jer .17:21-22 no gardening. In other words the Sabbath means to rest not worship.
Furthermore in the Sabbath law requirement according to the Bible is to work 6 days a week, not 5. Do you work for 6 days? Exod. 35:2: “Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.” Exod. 31:15 “Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 'Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death” (also Num. 15:32-36).
To violate the Sabbath meant death. You cannot separate the punishment from the law if you break it. When have you last seen someone stoned for breaking the Sabbath? So they do not keep the law of God as they claim. You cannot have grace replace the punishment and not the law itself. So keeping the Sabbath the wrong way equals not keeping the Sabbath at all. Lets be honest, imperfect law keeping is not proper law keeping. Since when does God say good intentions count in keeping the law! It’s falling short no matter if one has good intentions or not. Obedience to the Law never saved anyone; and obedience to the Sabbath cannot save or preserve a New Testament believer. The fact that so many want to keep the Sabbath shows them to want to be under the Old covenant instead of the New.
The Sabbath was given as a sign between God and the nation of Israel (Exodus 31:13) that he personally brought out of Egypt. The scripture specifically says Deut.5: 3 “The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us.” It began with the Israelites of the exodus out of Egypt. Exod.31:17 'It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever.” Each covenant had a sign (seal) accompany it, this is the seal of the covenant made with Moses, it is part of the Old covenant. We have two main different covenants, the Sabbath was the seal to the Mosaic covenant. The Bible teaches that Jesus took away the first that He might establish the second, meaning they are not the same nor a continuation (Heb. 10:5-9); Paul made it clear “now the righteousness of God is revealed without the aid of the law” (Rom. 3:21-22). The law is not part of the New Covenant, it is about a righteous sinless man, God becoming flesh and dying for our sins.
What is the Old covenant? Let me cite just a few Scriptures:
Exodus 34:27-28: " And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments." the 10 are the old Covenant.
Ex. 31:23 "The Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the TEN COMMANDMENTS." the 10 are the old Covenant.
Deuteronomy 4:13: "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone." ." the 10 are the Old Covenant.
Deuteronomy 9:9- V11 "And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant." the 10 are the Old Covenant.
1 Kings 8:9, 21: 2 Chronicles 6:11: "And there I have set the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord, which He made with the sons of Israel." The Bible teaches that the tablets are the old covenant.
The writer of Hebrews (8:7-8) “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Vs.8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” Heb. 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
Paul describes the Mosaic covenant in 2 Cor.3: 7 He identifies the Ten Commandments with the covenant "done away" in Christ." He calls it a ministry of death, written and engraved on stones. And then explains the ministry of the Spirit for the New Testament believer.
Once the “10 commandments “ are identified as the Mosaic (old covenant) we can understand why it is “done away” we are not obligated to keep it – we can have a better, superior covenant, a NEW COVENANT, one that operates by grace and not law.
Another point that needs to be answered - is the Sabbath a moral law (like the other 9 commandments written on the tablets)? An example of a moral law, is-- you shall not kill- this means there is no day that you are allowed to kill, no exceptions (just for clarification murder is not the same in meaning), killing is wrong on any day of the week. If the law said you cannot kill anyone except for one day then this would no longer be a moral law, but a ceremonial law.
The Sabbath is not meant to be the set day to worship above every other day of the week. It does not say to only worship God on a certain day. The Sabbath is the day of rest, it is a verb meaning "to cease, stop, desist; to rest" (sabbaton means rest). Can you rest on other days? Of course- then its not moral, its ceremonial and it was part of the old covenant that was done away with by Christ whom you are to have faith in.
Jesus never commanded anyone to keep the Sabbath after his resurrection and none of His apostles ever commanded anyone to keep it either. Not once in the New Testament teachings are we told to keep the Sabbath. There is no continuing command for the church to meet for worship on Friday night or Saturday before 6 at night, None. Without any exception, every mention of Sabbath keeping in the book of Acts is connected with Jewish worship on that day, not Church or a Christian keeping of law.
Paul who was once a strict keeper of the law writes in Col. 2:16-17 “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, (this means any Sabbath) which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” If you have Christ you do not need to return to the inferior shadows.
The Bible commands believers to gather together regularly for their corporate worship but the day of the week is strictly optional, it is a personal choosing. It can be Monday, Wednesday or even Sunday. And yes, it can even by Saturday. But it is not restricted to Saturday. By understanding what the difference in the covenants are we can keep from being confused and not become legalistic but grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.
© 2009 No portion of this site is to be copied or used unless kept in its original format- the way it appears. Articles can be reproduced in portions for ones personal use. Any other use is to have the permission of Let Us Reason Ministries first. Thank You.
Look at all those rationalizations. The 10 commandments are only for Hebrews, I liked that one. But if that's the case why do you think homosexuality is still a sin? Wasn't that OT stuff as well? Like I said, you will continue to rationalize what you do. I get that.
Except the part where Jesus tells someone that he must keep the commandments to get into heaven. Oh well, you keep pointing that finger. I'm out of here, got a Christmas party at my Jewish friends to attend. Merry Christmas.
Only I really don't, but you don't seem to understand that either. I am a firm believer that when I point my finger at someone else, I'm pointing it right back at myself. "We all need a savior; we are all the same." Maybe you recall that being my constant assertion.
I bet you could work up quite a thirst healing. Sounds like work to me. What is work? Healing sure fits the bill.
You think healing others at no profit of your own is work. Helping an old lady cross the street is work for you?
What is work? When one serves soup to the poor is one working? Do you approach all work as drudgery? Isn't some work ennobling and uplifting? , Didn't Jesus healing on the Sabbath profit him in some way? Spread the word of His Father or His mission, or bring him closer to the cross(a profit many are still hard pressed to understand, even devout Christians)
I've already given you the definition of profit, do I need to explain to you what work for financial gain is as well? That's what Jesus was talking about in the scripture you posted. Perhaps you need to reread it. Beth will continue to work on Sundays for her financial gain while pointing her finger at the sining homosexuals.
You shouldn't misrepresent ppl, or what they've said.
He seems to be having difficulty with definitions today.
Work for financial gain is not what was prohibited in the Old Testament, it was all work. That is why GE makes some refrigerators with a special control module to shut it off on the Sabbath, so that not even the fridge is working. I suppose there are still barriers to your comprehension. Perhaps you will come to understand, in the fullness of time. ( my new catch phrase for lefties who let their feelings continue to blind them)
Right, and Jesus taught that helping others on Sunday is Okay as it's the good thing to do. Lifting a fork to your mouth is not financially rewarding. Serving others for profit is.
Not difficult to understand at all, well for most at least. Personally I don't care who works on Sundays, but if one uses scripture to point one finger then one should at least follow the scripture. Don't you think?
So Jesus didn't have union workers depending on their daily bread in his auto plant that needed to Sunday overtime pay? Profit appears to feed people, even the poor. Someone has to buy the bread. So working on a Sunday for your financial reward is a sin even when you use your PROFIT(GASP HORRORS!) to buy bread for the poor, or merely to provide a wage to your employees. Damn, we are cold sinning jerks. That is the last time I hand a panhandler on a street corner a farthing on a Sunday.
Oops, almost forgot. Perhaps you will come to understand in the fullness of time.
I think it's silly as well, just as silly as telling others they are sining while driving to work on Sunday, but I didn't make the laws did I?
Are you barred from driving to work on Sunday by any state law? I am not barred from work on Sunday by any law.
Exodus 35:2 - Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
The Sabbath = the day of prayer and worship = Friday for Muslims, Saturday for Jews/Seventh-Day Adventists, Sunday for Christians.
There are some who are barred by law, for example, municipal laws don't allow a lot of residential construction on Sundays.
Blue laws are very strong in some areas, prohibiting opening of almost all stores on Sunday.
Apparently, the municipalities governed by those regulations must have a significant population who find them acceptable. If the majority of citizens found those rules unacceptable wouldn't the democratic process resolve the problem? So where are you barred from driving on Sunday because some notion of religious law that bothers you bars you from driving?
I would go and find each and every one of those again for anyone I thought had a genuine interest in pursuing answers, but b/c your only desire is to watch ppl chase their tails, I will find other things to do with my time. It is the day before Christmas.
If you ever have an actual interest, find that thread where I posted all those verses for you (or if anyone remembers the title, pls post it and I would be happy to google that thread for Radman.)
You could have stopped there, but I think you are funny, too.
It's not his job to educated you?
Apparently, that position went unfilled.
Does one educate another? Having taught, I would say no. I have been around lefties long enough to conclude that we are all, ultimately, responsible for our own learning. Apparently there is no shortage of "Oh Yeah Well So's Your Old Man" available in a forum.
Then you taught ineffectively. I educate on a regular basis.
Do you? I wonder? It is my experience that one who claims to educate others is limiting either themselves or their student(s). I have had students write, read, respond, memorize, synthesize but is that education? Is the coach who leads the athlete to peak condition the one who runs the race? Is the guide through the jungle the one who reveals the significance of a discovery? Is the editor the creator of the novel? When we look down our nose at another we cannot see the sky. Teachers are no greater than any other person. The audiences they command occassionally inflate their notions about their own accomplishments
Yes I really do. You're welcome to come spend a couple days with me if you'd like to see how it's done
I teach everything. But yes, reading is in there.
Teacher heal thy self. Do your students stop after the first four words of a paragraph? Sounds like your work is cut out for you.
Oh I read and understood your philosophical rant. I just thought it was garbage. The offer is still open. If you'd like to learn how to educate, then please feel free to spend a couple days with me. If not, then you couldn't possibly understand.
Taught graduate students, I understand far more than you may feel.
I taught a child who couldn't get air through his vocal chords how to talk, a child who's muscles were too weak to hold him up how to walk, and a child who was was labeled profoundly autistic how to live in a world outside herself. But that graduate student thing sounds tough as well.
So you coached children with physical difficulties to over come those difficulties. But who ran the race, the coach or the athlete?
LMAO! Nope, what they go on to do with what they were taught is quite a bit different than whether they were educated or not.
I didn't "coach" anyone. I educated. I taught.
I'm sorry if you feel you failed at it, but I know I succeeded.
I never failed nor did I say I failed. I have students to this day who tell me how glad they are to have had me for class. I am sorry you are confused about your role. Perhaps someday, in the fullness of time, you will come to understand it.
Good God say it's not so?
So you taught but admit that you educated no one?
Not as others understand how education is purported to work. A student's head is not a bucket into which knowledge is dumped. Education is a complex and lengthy interaction of the individual with reality. I may have guided the willing traveler to a path upon which he may discover knowledge but, educated, no that is the province of the individual not some external force.
Absolutely not! He has not lost any rights granted him by the constitution because some commercially based enterprise does not wish for him to make comments while in their employment. He can talk until the cows come home. But if he wants a job with the producers of the show he will have to watch what he says. Remember homosexuals are consumers too and they can choose who they buy from and what they wish to purchase as well. If they don't like the comments they can also choose to not watch the program or at the very least not buy what the sponsors are selling. Freedom of speech is not guaranteed by the employers nor should it be.
Robertson made the comments during an interview with GQ magazine, and not during the filming of Duck Dynasty.
Do you think it is right that the employer fired him for expressing his opinion on his own time? And if so should Oprah also be fired for making racial comments in her off time?
Hard to fire Oprah as she owns the show.
But in either case, did the comments cause harm to the employer? If so, that employer certainly has the right to terminate their contract with an employee that hurts their business. Employees are paid to increase profits, not cut them.
It does not matter who he said it to or when he said it. He is a reality television star and many people can't or won't distinguish between the two. Who does that hurt? It hurts the commercialization of what he is selling, his persona. If he were a movie actor not connected to a series there probably would be no problem even though I think the producers would not take too kindly to their intellectual property perhaps being negatively affected. In this day and age of polarized thinking one cannot express oneself unless you are somebody like Charlie Sheen or Alec Baldwin who seem to have the publics sympathy no matter what they say or do.
It would seem to be that it would depend on the crowd that the people pander to. For example the band "Green Day" can dedicate an entire album to bashing Bush and it won't hurt them, in fact it might boost their standing because of the crowd they pander to. The Dixie Chicks, however took a big hit for doing the same thing because of a very different crowd they pander to.
But the crowd that follows Duck Dynasty, I would think, wouldn't have as much as an issue with it.
Absolutely right.I don't care for the show and I think it's a ridiculous waste of time to watch this kind of trash.I'm not overly fond of Louisiana rednecks either,but to me it seems pretty straightforward.Let Phil say what he wants to say and then let the producers and sponsors decide yea or nay.Furthermore,if enough people are offended and stop watching the show he'll get voted out by the dollars and cents.Political Correctness is a form of "soft" fascism, and should it turn viral,it will be very difficult to change that particular channel.
Anti-PC (saying he should stay on regardless because 'freedom of speech") is no different or better.
Apparently,aside from being misinformed,you have misunderstood my post. Political Correctness is not a function of the mainstream.It is a function of special interests that are usually seeking to influence the political or moral attitudes of the mainstream.When the mainstream gives in to the pressure of such groups, this often places constitutional freedoms in jeopardy.Furthermore,if you re-read my post you will see that I did not suggest that Phil stay on the air "regardless". Once again; his fate should be decided by the producers,the sponsors,and the viewing public's disaffection.Not by any particular group that may be offended by his behavior.
It's liberal bigotry:
1.bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Liberals are the worst sort of bigots because they simply refuse to tolerate any opinions other than their own, including, as we see, Phil Robertson's opinions. Robertson was asked his opinion as a Christian on homosexuality, and he gave it truthfully. It wasn't hateful at all if we read the entire quote.
BTW, it was an obvious setup on the part of GQ.
...You didn't read what he said, then.
If he said, "I believe it's wrong and I don't like it," then there'd really be no issue. But what he did say was:
“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.”
And if you have a brain in your head, I shouldn't have to explain all the many things that are wrong in that statement.
Pretend that I don't have a brain in my head and explain why you are so intolerable of Robertson expressing his opinion.
He outright states that all homosexuals commit bestiality. And people are trying to defend this degenerate.
That is what I thought. As soon as a reporter starts asking about what someone with Christian convictions defines as sin, the Christian typically quotes passages of the Bible. And at the first opportunity they they jump all over him as soon as issues of homosexuality, fornication, and adultery arise.
Well, you know what they say about people who turn to Christianity:
“Start with worshippin' God and just morph out from there, Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
Sucks being on the receiving end, doesn't it?
But look at the commercial success of the interview.
GQ has been discussed in households where it has never been mentioned before.
It has sold more issues than ever.
A&E has been the topic of discussion for days, something that has NEVER happened.
Walmart is selling out of "Duck Dynasty" merchandise.
A&E ran a "Duck Dynasty" marathon.
People who would never have watched that show or that network are tuning in.
People are openly discussing all kinds of IDEAS stirred up by the controversy, such as, what is the difference between tolerance and acceptance, between recognizing sin and condemning sinners, what constitutes a violation of free speech, etc....
It is likely that the Robertson family will terminate their relationship with A&E and take their show elsewhere costing A&E its most profitable property in a way that the interview never could.
Karma is a bitch
Free speech should be protected but when you use that free speech to hurt others, there may be consequences. I'm sure he wishes he had worded things differently now, at lest I hope he does. I mean, you can use your free speech to state your feelings about something all you want, sure, he could have easily said, 'I don't like or agree with that lifestyle' and then left it at that. No harm done, he is entitled to his opinion and who cares, right? He went overboard when he made the bestiality remark, he did not have to be hurtful, he chose to be. But maybe he said it before he realized the impact it would have? I know I've done things like that before, saying things before realizing how it may affect others and let me tell you, I felt like a jerk because I was being a jerk. But then again, maybe he is a gallzillionaire and just don't give a damn what people think. We don't know.
If you shoot your mouth off, even with free speech and being a Christian millionaire, there is going to be a hub-bub. His religious stance and multi-millionaire status does not make him above reproach nor does it give him the right to use those platforms to be a jerk.
So explain how he "hurt" others? This should prove interesting.
"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.” Phil Robertson
One could imagine that being grouped in or anywhere near with bestiality is inflammatory and hurtful.
Edit: And of course, all gay people just sleep around with anyone, anything and everyone, right? Straight people, no, but gays, you bet, correct? That's not hurtful in any way whatsoever, huh?
Much of this is true, but should what he says outside of his work result in his termination? If so, half of America better get ready to have a jobless Christmas.
No, I don't think he necessarily should've been fired but corporations usually worry about backlash from such shenanigans so they tend to sever ties, damage control, etc. to save their own butt. I'm just not surprised is all.
Yes, the other half of America would know to not piss people off.
They would know not to piss off the people with power, their bosses. If stating your opinion does that, then there seems to be a problem with our freedoms.
Nope, our freedoms are the same as they ever were.
Government can't retaliate. Individuals/private entities can. Sorry, this isn't anything new. It's not personal freedoms disappearing... it's the way it's always been.
You are gravely mistaken here. Private entities cannot fire somebody based on their religion. Do you really want to debate this one?
Yes actually. A private entity cannot hire or fire a person based on them holding a faith, however they can fire them based on actions that harm the entity, regardless of whether those actions were influenced by faith or not.
I'll play WestLaw search engine treasure hunt if you'd like. But I think you understand the difference.
It's a fine line of distinction that puts the burden of proof on the business. Can A&E prove that this statement would result in Mr. Robertson's inability to be filmed or that ratings would decrease? Can A&E prove that companies will pull their paid commercials and that those companies cannot be replaced with others that will pay the same or more? To be clear, Mr. Robertson has not been fired as of yet, and that lends credibility to A&E's case.
A&E did not say that he was fired for these reasons, business reasons. Instead, A&E said, "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”
He is a public figure that represents them. It's not a matter of free speech - no one is arresting him. But a company has every right to distance themselves from an individual that represents them.
A lot of people seem to not understand what "free speech" means. I hear a lot of complaining after people say something outrageous, then expect there to be no consequences for that.
For a private entity - and an entertainment one at that that is represented by these celebrities - it's a business decision. They are not suspending him for being a Christian. They are not even suspending him for not being pro-LGBT. His comments were over the top and offensive, and they don't want those comments speaking for them as a company.
People have the right to be stupid, and so do companies, as illustrated by the foolish actions and position of A&E. They need Duck Dynasty more than the Roberstons need the show. They were successful before A&E came along.
A&E and in fact, the liberals, are now going to learn something about demographics in America. I think it is great that this is transpiring the way it is, as political correctness needs this. Folks are tired of the path this country is on and are finally speaking up about it. I admire the Robertsons for not compromising their principles for money. I have never even watched the show, and now I am sure I am just one of many whose attention they've drawn.
A&E owns a lot of networks including Lifetime and the History Channel. They'll do just find without those bigoted inbreeds.
Define "just fine" and see if the shareholders agree. They are the ones the management is accountable to, since it is their money that pays for the foolish decision A&E made, and the resulting losses.
You may be giddy over the choice, but it's not your portfolio to damage. As for "bigoted", their actions are the very definition of the word, applying perfectly to them and any who agree with their intolerance and superior attitude.
"Those bigoted inbreeds" - just listen to yourself. What do you think "bigoted" means?
A & E is a private enterprise. He is in their employ. They are not the Federal Government. He lost no rights. A & E exercised its right to employ who it chooses, just as viewers are within their rights to no longer watch A & E. Tempest in a teapot.
Yes. He should not have been penalized for stating what millions feel is true. Everybody is entitled to his opinion and I see no reason why any action should be taken
It falls under hate speech, even if it is mild. By itself, it's really no different from saying "being black is an abomination" or "being autistic is an abomination." And I can (hope to) guarantee that you would never defend him if he said either of those.
And to top it all off, I'm biased in this matter, anyway. I despise Duck Dynasty with a passion. It's yet another disgusting waste of space that's destroying brain cells and pop culture. just like Pawn Stars and American Pickers.
It falls under freedom of speech, whether or not you feel it is hateful. I despise seeing people burn the American flag, but hey, it's a free country, right? Just because we may disagree with something somebody says, it doesn't mean we have to squash their freedom of speech. Otherwise, many things could be considered hate speech. Isn't burning our flag a form of hate speech?
Hate speech is not illegal, is it? If it is then that is a clear violation of rights, just as the thought crime called "hate crime." Did you read the interview?
Not being allowed to cause other to hate you with words is a violation of your rights?
Is not being allowed to beat someone over the head with a bat a violation of your rights?
Is there a point there? If someone says something offensive to you is it the responsibility of the State to soothe your poor ruffled feathers?
Doesn't that depend on how much they have harmed me? Have they effected my livelihood? Have they affected my marriage? If someone declares me a pedophile I think it should be up to the state to un-ruffel my feathers.
There are laws about slander and civil courts to determine damages. That is hardly what lefties call "hate speech." The example here is that someone who accepts the New Testament repeats the recognition of sin contained there in and that is labeled hate speech.
Would you feel that if someone declares that blacks should be slaves and are inferior and evil because of what is said in the bible would that not be hateful speech? When people are being hurt because of speech (and people are being demonized here) don't you feel they shouldn't be hiding behind an old book?
That's a good point... does it matter why someone hates someone else? Should all action promoted by someone's faith be accepted, just because it is part of their faith?
If so, why all the drama over 911, they were just practicing their faith.
Who defends the brutal murder of homosexuals, abortion providers, etc? Who blames every Muslim for the brutal murders of homosexuals, women, Jews, Catholic priests, etc...? Don't we consider all these distortions of religion unacceptable? Who maintains that Black slavery is justified by the Old Testament? The tiniest, most extreme, most rejected are the ones who do these things.
They weren't always the "tiniest, most extreme, most rejected" minority. They were at one point the moral majority. They yelled the loudest about change, they gnashed their teeth and claimed that progress was taking their rights. They complained about progress bitterly. Those extremists are the ones that clung to their outdated beliefs long after the world moved on around them.
That's what happening now. And it's happening fast.
Why are you aligning yourself with the most extreme? Why are you not defending those who are persecuted? Rather un-christ like, I must say.
Who is being demonized? Did you read the interview? Slavery has always been one of the abuses to which men have subjected each other and it continues, in many forms. There were those who have distorted the Old Testament to their own vile ends, that is not what is happening here. It isn't a matter of individual interpretation. We have become a society of thin skinned narcissists incapable self examination, excepting criticism and altering the behaviors we enjoy, regardless of how destructive, because we cannot be wrong.
Ahhhhhh, telling a bunch of bible thumping Christians that homosexuals are causing harm and sin is certainly demonizing them. Is that what you are doing? Are you casting the fist stone?
Isn't sin the natural condition of Man? Is it demonizing to acknowledge the fallen condition of humanity? Isn't the first step toward reform or recovery accepting that there is a problem? It is comical when people seek to distort the bible to their own personal desires - "casting the first stone" was an admonition to the crowd that none is free from sin - even heterosexual Christians, the ignored part of this teaching is "go and sin no more" an admonition to the sinner that reform is necessary. What is bible thumping and where can it be found?
No. Sin is an artificial definition of right and wrong, created by a group of men nearly 2,000 years ago that were fighting over what should be printed in the Christian bible. So no, not natural at all, in the same manner that it is incorrect to determine that humanity has "fallen" somehow, from somewhere.
The idea of sin and a fallen human nature are not unique to religion.
Interesting, isn't it a sin to hold an opinion opposite of yours? Isn't that the common belief of every lefty?
Sin doesn't exist.
Tell me, what is the correlation between religion and politics? Why did you call me a lefty? You no nothing of who I vote in my country.
Don't be ridiculous. Sin - doing wrong in the eyes of a god - is a purely religious concept.
"Fallen", in terms of civilization is secular while "fallen" in terms of not following a god's edict so well is again purely a religious concept.
Humanity is flawed and incapable of perfect moral judgement - hence, fallen and sin. I wonder how the Christians inventing sin jibes with the shifting sands of somehow displeasing "a god" to use your terminology. I will never stop laughing at the absurd notion of a perfectible human anything, nature, government, institution, society, etc...what a funny lefty whim.
Bible thumping can be found right in your post. When you think the bible give you rights that harm other. Why do you continue to cast stones? If you feel it's a sin and no harm to you why do you express it?
Sin a condition of Man? What a joke, more nonsense from the bible.
No, it isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination.
It is false, there is no fallen condition of humanity other than the stranglehold religion has on people.
Yes, it is the first step, so we must acknowledge religion is a huge problem.
"We have become a society of thin skinned narcissists incapable self examination, excepting criticism and altering the behaviors we enjoy, regardless of how destructive, because we cannot be wrong."
You are correct, though perhaps not in the manner you intend. The modern Christian is all too often so "right" in their belief of their god and what it wants they are incapable of change. Unable (or unwilling) to accept criticism of or alter the behavior of demanding that all others also believe and live the same lifestyle. Thin skinned to the point of claiming persecution when others object to such treatment even though all it would take to end the "persecution" would be to keep their religion to themselves. Narcissistic beyond reason as the only holders of truth and salvation, forever trying to push it onto anyone around them and forever unwilling (or unable) to objectively examine their own belief system.
Yes, a good description of Mr. Robertson and those that raise a voice of support for his nasty accusations and insinuations.
Nasty? Entertaining word, did you read the interview? An honest response to an interviewers questions is hardly hateful. Where is the force? Is this why another believer in the exact same idea of sin and is feted on the cover of Time Magazine ( hardly the Watch Tower.) How about Advocate Magazine honoring the Pope despite his plain and public opposition to homosexual "marriage"?
Sorry - an honest answer does not insinuate that homosexuality leads to bestiality. Or that the two are connected in any possible manner.
Yet R certainly connected them...
Did you read the interview? The pretense that he claimed homosexuality leads to bestiality strips the reason from the conversation. He equated all kinds of sin, a position held by all informed Christians.
Well, that would depend on what you consider informed Christians. Several denominations have degrees of sin and the Bible has several verses where one sin is referred to as being greater than another.
It couldn't distinguish homosexuality as being equal, greater, or less than any other sin because the word homosexuality didn't exist (in any language) when the bible was written... which is really funny, because it's in there now.
Nor is homosexuality ever referred to as a sin in the Bible... but I digress.
Oh, how classy of you. "He doesn't believe that gay people rape dogs?! He must be a troll!"
For the record, this was his response after his first remark hit the fan, so to speak.
Robertson issued a statement through A&E to Fox411 saying he "centered my life around sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior."
He said his mission now is to "tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together."
"However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."
I think there is confusion over what free speech is. Free speech is not the ability to say whatever you'd like with no consequences. It just means the government won't come after you.
The wonderful thing about freedoms is everyone has them. He had the right to say what he said. A&E had the right to fire him.
I have the right to say he's a homophobic old redneck with barely enough brain cells to keep his beard growing and got exactly what he deserved.
Ain't freedom grand?
"The wonderful thing about freedoms is everyone has them. He had the right to say what he said. A&E had the right to fire him."
I understand what you are saying, but there is a lot of room for abuse here. Where are our resident socialists when you need them? Couldn't those "evil" corporations erroneously terminate employees based on any number of statements that an employee might make in public? For that matter, couldn't the government do the same thing to its employees? When we start advocating the termination of employees based on opinions they expressed OUTSIDE of work, we run the risk of censoring our citizens, violating freedom of speech.
Private businesses should be able hire and fire whomever they want for whatever reason they feel like... Note I said private businesses.
If you're a business on the government teat, you have to play by it's rules.
Free speech, once again, doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want without consequences. That's not free speech.
So you don't think they should have to fill a quota to satisfy gender and racial outcries against inequality?
Yes, most employers are able to fire at will. However, under federal law, it’s illegal to terminate workers because of their age, race, religion, sex, national origin, or a disability IF it does not influence their job performance. Mr. Robertson's comments do not influence his ability to be filmed. Further, Mr. Robertson was very clear that his views on homosexual activity are based on his religion; he articulated this extensively. Thus, this might be construed as a violation of both Mr. Robertson's ability to exercise his freedom of speech and his freedom of religion. One can't terminate an employee, legally, based on the employee's religious convictions.
What's next, we'll fire somebody because they are or aren't Christian?
Nope. Sorry, you have a shallow understanding of the law.
Employers can't fire someone based on their religion, but they can indeed fire someone based on their actions, even if those actions are supposedly excused by their religion.
Say Bob bombs an abortion clinic because of his "religion", yes, he get's fired. Say I am a satanist (protected relgion) working for an animal shelter (because they couldn't discriminate) and I had a facebook page full of pictures of me sacrificing a cat... or hell even me saying that everybody should sacrifice cats...
Yeah, they can fire me. Or are you saying they shouldn't be able to?
Teachers in California who are convicted of child molestation can't be fired. Sometimes they stay on school payrolls for a couple of years. It takes at minimum 2 years to fire a teacher in California, but you say something about religion, administrators and the union will make your life so awful you will resign.
1. Would love links on convicted child molesters still working at schools.
2. Making one's life awful and them resigning is a) their choice and b) a direct consequence of their actions.
In addition, none of this has anything to do with the subject, as he wasn't fired for being a Christian, he was fired for making anti-gay remarks. There's a difference.
If he weren't a Christian he wouldn't have used the bible reference in Corinthians to support his point of view. If he wasn't a Christian he would have just been blown off as a loud mouth.
No, I don't think so. Comparing Beastiality to homosexuality is excessively offensive. It's also a common tactic of any gay-basher. GLAAD would have gone bats**t if Richard Dawkins said it.
In addition, being a homophobe is not required by Christianity. Nor does Christianity make you a homophobe. Lots of people use the Bible to justify hatred, it doesn't make the hatred justifyable. If he would have said that all black people should be slaves and justified it using the Bible (which was done, btw, and is still done by hate groups) would that have been OK?
I personally am offended, as a Christian, by people assuming that he was just following his religion. I don't want my faith to be associated with hatred. So his statements offended me both as a bisexual, and as a Christian. He pulled off offending me as a human being too, so it's a hat trick.
But regardless, It's still not about him being a Christian. It's about him making homophobic statements. A&E loved that the family was Christian. They milked it. They used it in publicity... so I'm going with his views on homosexuality as the cause.
The only bible I know of that cuts homosexuality off the list of sins is the fabulous bible, and most Christians don't own a copy.
He referred to sin in general and began with Homosexuality. Not really a hate speech. Just because it was on the same list as bestiality does not mean that he was comparing the two. Only that all sexual deviance is a sin.
Nobody thought that he was saying adulterers or people who sleep around must be into animal love as well, but they were on the list. and that's exactly what the interviewer asked him. "What is sin?"
Thank God I don't use your definition of Christianity to define my faith... nor your definition of sexual deviance to define my sexuality.
He didn't make homo phobic statements. He said nothing directed at a person or people group.
You may not consider them homophobic, but that's not your call to make for every person on the planet. I considered them homophobic. As I am on of the letters in LGBT, I get to make that call. I get to say that I'm offended. I get to say that the statement was homophobic.
The KKK doesn't get to decide what's racist either.
I understand the laws regarding how to fire somebody. My understanding is far less shallow than you might think. I hold a master's degree in educational leadership, a business degree for principals. I've had plenty of law classes and fully understand the intricacies of hiring and firing employees, both certified and classified. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the law. IN MY OPINION, Mr. Robertson got a raw deal. If he can't express his religious views outside of work, without being fired, then something is wrong. Just because it is legal to fire him, that doesn't make it right. It's a violation of his freedoms, regardless of whether or not the courts agree with my "wisdom" in this matter. Now, I know that you have and will provide some extreme examples that make more sense, but my entire point is that this is a slippery slope. Largely, I find it wrong that somebody can be fired for expressing their beliefs on their own time and away from work.
I believe he has a case; I articulated my position in my last post. You disagree with that position, and that's fine. I'm sure the courts would disagree with my position too. I still disagree.
http://www.krem.com/news/local/Venture- … 91221.html
By the way, administrative leave typically means paid leave. TIRELESSTRAVELER didn't say they continue working in schools. He said, " Sometimes they stay on school payrolls for a couple of years."
If this example doesn't work for you, there are many more.
I see that he was placed on Administrative Leave. It didn't say whether he was being paid or not, but I admit the point.
Now as far as being a violation of his freedom, that still confuses me. No one stopped him from saying anything.
I'm more concerned about the slippery slope of lack of responsibility for one's own actions. I mean yes, say what you like... but be prepared to deal with the consequences.
It is unreasonable to say something that pisses people off, then be confused when they are pissed off. That's like my kid calling me a name and then being confused when I ground him.
In addition, I'm concerned that MORE people don't respect A&E's right to run their business as they see fit. It really is a slippery slope when we start taking hiring and firing choices away from a privately owned company. To be completely honest, if I was told that my business decisions were to be made by a group of people that considered Duck Dynasty quality entertainment, I would move my business to China.
I know that you consider yourself an independent, but don't you find the lines that both sides have drawn a bit interesting? I find it a bit ironic that so many, often from the left, are defending the business's (A&E) right to hire and fire. So many from the right are defending the employee's rights.
A&E has every right to hire and fire "at will," but it, along with every other business in America, can't hire or fire based upon religion, race, sex, or age. That is against the law. The only question is whether or not the courts would consider this to be a violation of his religious freedom. While I doubt Mr. Robertson would win in court, I believe he has a compelling argument.
What about DUCK DYNASTY to be banned from cable? It would simplify the debate about trash TV!
I would love nothing more than to see Duck Dynasty taken off the air, along with Pawn Stars, Ice Road Truckers, American Pickers, Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, Swamp People, Cajun Pawn Stars, Only in America with Larry the Cable Guy, Top Gear, Counting Cars, and so on and so forth...
American Pickers isn't that bad. There's some educational value there.
Maybe a 15 second blurb in the span of its 26-minute runtime. Nowhere near enough to justify its existence on the History Channel.
I want more Ancient Discoveries. I want more Cities of the Underworld. I want more Decoding the Past, The Naked Archaeologist, Engineering an Empire, The Universe, and even the repetitive WWII in HD.
I don't even mind 'Ancient Aliens' on H2 because it touches on so much history. I also like 'Decoded' and 'Clash of the Gods' as well. I want 'Vikings' back ASAP!
Decoded is a pretty interesting show, but so much of it is filler. It could be a half-hour long and you'd not have to cut anything out.
I like the idea of Clash of the Gods, but once again, they pad the hell out of it. While a summary of the myth they're tackling is mandatory for a show like this, they spend way too much time making it like a mini-movie; in the end, they leave only, like, 2 minutes at the very end to establish what the real-life equivalent of the myth could have been, when it should be the other way around--spend 2 minutes summarizing what the myth says and spend the rest of the show researching and investigating what its origins are.
As for Ancient Aliens, it's hard to sit through even for what modicum of historical data they even do use, because they lie (or are just plain misinformed) about a lot of it. Some guy actually spent a lot of time digging into the claims being made on the show and made a 3-hour monstrosity of a film debunking merely a fraction of them.
As far as Vikings goes, I never saw it, so I can't comment much.
And what were you saying about others being intolerant?
I agree with all but Top Gear. I don't mind it...plus Tanner Foust makes me
Now I don't watch the show, but I have heard a little about it.
A bunch of backwoods hillbilly types, known for everything, but their social graces, were put on national TV and eventually they said something that offended a certain majority of America.
Someone alert the media... oh wait.
So there's some kid named honey boo boo, right? Similar kind of circumstances? When she hits 16... are we all gonna act surprised again?
These folks were not hired for their ability to spin things. They were hired because their strengths and weaknesses were easy to manipulate. I guess they'd ridden high long enough. Now it's time to tear the big top down. This is how our world works. Let's not pretend we don't know what goes on behind the curtain. We're all one big mess.
Apparently, support for Phil Robertson is huge, including some of the show's sponsors. This is backfiring on A&E. America is tired of liberals. political correctness, and censorship.
For every one time a conservative says the truth the opposites say "hate" 50 times. Its about standing on principles. When families stick together like the Robertson family the opposites are brutal. When Miley Cyrus or Lindsay Lohan make messes of their lives the opposites spread the news all over and make them big celebrities. The Robertson family doesn't need A&E. If A&E gets rid of Phil it will be the end of the network. It's about time somebody stood up to the opposites.
Tolerance: You agree with us
Diversity: Opinions we agree with
Hate speech: Opinions that we do not like
A&E made a hasty decision that I suspect they will long regret when they knee-jerk fired Phil. The rest of the family, as I immediately predicted, will not go on with the show if Phil is out. So now, A&E has to decide whether they will eat crow and bring Phil back or lose the most popular cable show ever produced.
Merry Christmas, A&E!
Romans 1: 26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
The new liberal 'Christianity' simply ignores that which interferes with what they like.
And the blind fundamentalist Christians keep on preaching Paul's writings, despite the fact he was sent in by the Roman government to tame the Christian movement and fill it with inoffensive pro-Roman doctrine so that it would no longer be a threat to the empire.
Rather, they should be digging furiously to find the Gnostic writings that were actually (supposedly) written by Jesus' disciples. Because, you know, Jesus was kind of a big deal for the Christian movement. His teachings are kinda important to them.
“You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. “You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.
“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.
The old conservative 'Christianity' simply ignores that which interferes with what they like as well, apparently.
I have not weighed in here because the call is so murky to me. Certainly Robertson can express his beliefs, but do those beliefs reflect on his employer? When he is a public figure do they do so? Does his "star" position affect his free speech?
But there is another side to the ethics question here - one that no one seems to have addressed. While a small business owner certainly has the right to operate their business within their own ethical (and legal) position does the management of a corporation have the same right?
Management has a fiduciary duty to the stockholders; to produce the best rate of return for them. They are not there to make morality decisions themselves and apply them to the business owned by others.
History gives us two pretty plain examples of this same basic call (is homosexuality OK?) in Starbucks and Chick-fil-A. Starbucks came down on the positive side and stockholders have lost 6 Billion dollars since then. Chick-fil-A supported the negative, hateful, side of the question and had the best sales day in their history.
Bigotry and hatred are alive and well in the country, with people desiring that the businesses they frequent have the same attitudes they do. Does that business, then, have the ethical right to take a positive stance on a moral issue if experience shows there will be a financial loss to owners?
Or should a CEO guide the business down the path of hate, but also financial gain for the owners he has a duty to support? Where does a corporation's ethics lie here? In a "keep quiet" middle of the road, anything goes position? Or should a corporation take a stand on moral issues and hope it is that of the majority of it's shareholders so management can keep their jobs?
The left demands that corporations decide based on the new moral standards of the left, where Hobby Lobby must pay for the birth control it opposes, and A&E must fire Phil Robertson for opposing the homosexual acceptance agenda.
And the right demands that their bigotry, hatred and religion be reflected in the business model.
So where does the ethics of the CEO lie? Right, left or ignore both for an emphasis on financial gain?
You keep making a lot of great points.
Yes, because birth control is completely relevant to a discussion about anti-homosexual remarks... After all, they need it so often.
Yes, it is totally relevant when WILLSTAR is stating that there is a double standard; a conservative can't get away with saying what a liberal can.
How many of these liberals lost their job or had any kind of sanction for what they said, one or two?
Look at how much it took for Charlie Sheen to say and do before he was fired.
Look at what President Obama said about the Special Olympics.
George Clooney said he was glad that Charlton Heston had Alzheimer's.
Martin Bashir said somebody should sh*t in Sarah Palin's mouth.
How many remarks against gay people did Alec Baldwin have to make before getting any kind of reprimand?
Look at what Joe Biden said about what race you have to be to go to a 7-11.
Piers Morgan said that Tea Partiers are similar to the mobs that supported Adolf Hitler.
Paul Krugman stated Connecticut Senator and former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman should be hung in effigy.
I could keep going here. There are plenty of statements against LGBT, women, different races, etc. If you are a liberal, you get a free pass.
Personally, I don't really care what he thinks about what the Bible says as I have my own views about the Bible, religion and how we should treat others.
What people don't seem to understand is that science is quickly starting to close in on why some people are attracted to others of the same sex. (Hint: It's not a choice)
Here's the deal as I see it: anyone with any knowledge of the show is well aware of the religious views held by the Duck Dynasty family. In truth, it's been a huge selling point for viewers. Now, it's suddenly a problem? A&E may be shooting themselves in the foot by reacting this way. Whether you agree with the man's views or not, he's never made them a secret and A&E has capitalized on it. It will be interesting to watch it play out.
I love ya 'Mo, but saying someone is Christian and saying they are homophobic are two different things. We can't get mad if someone calls us homophobic because we say we are Christian when we say it's A&E's fault that they differentiated.
Oh, I'm not excusing it. I'm simply saying that if A&E didn't see this coming somewhere down the road, they're idiots...who are now trying to backtrack to save their own asses. That's all.
And the DD family isn't just Christian...they're fundy Christians. The kind who say and do this sort of thing as a matter of course. That's all I'm saying.
And you know I love you too!
That's it in a nutshell. They wanted reality TV, so why complain when they actually get reality? Most people do think homosexual acts are a sin.
Reality shows get cancelled all the time. Mainly because they do something a lot of viewers don;t like or are bored by. So I think you assumption about this might be wrong.
"Most people do think homosexual acts are a sin."
That would be untrue for just the US, let alone for the world wide audience of A&E. And even fewer think that their personal religious beliefs needs to apply to everyone else, or that homosexuality can so easily be expanded to such a wide variety of "sins". Robertson is firmly in the minority here.
No,actually most people don't. Not anymore. Sorry, check your polls.
So did I.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/ … -marriage/
From your link even...
The random-sample survey of more than 2,000 Americans asked, "Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?" Forty-four percent said yes ...
You do realize that 44 percent isn't most...right?
LMAO! Did you actually read your supporting article?
"Men and Americans without a college degree were more likely to say homosexuality is sinful"
"Gallup reports 56 percent of Americans consider gay and lesbian relations morally acceptable,"
"Americans who never attend a place of worship strongly leaned negative in their response to the impact of a church teaching homosexual behavior is sinful. Those who never attend a place of worship were most likely to say this teaching would have a negative impact on them visiting or joining the church if they were considering it (72 percent) compared to only 21 percent of those who attend worship services more than once a week."
People in large (44 percent) and small (43 percent) cities were more likely to say a church's teaching against homosexuality would impact their decision negatively than those in suburbs (32 percent) and rural areas (26 percent).
So basically, Your supporting article said that uneducated, indoctrinated men in rural areas were the most likely to be homophobic.
I wouldn't agree with that. I would agree that it's possible that most fans of DD agree with that view, so who is A&E really concerned about offending? The money. That's it.
They are in business to make money (this is reality TV, not Shakespeare in the Park, after all). So that concern seems quite reasonable to me.
The Bible also says the homosexuality is a sin just like prostitution, adultery, polygamy,...
Homophobic: A derogatory term invented by the left to attack anyone who believes homosexuality is a perversion.
The left loves to label their enemies, and anyone who does not agree with them is an enemy.
Yeah, I call people who hate blacks racists too.
Damn me and my labels.
"The Left" A phrase invented by Will to label all people who disagree with him on homosexuality.
Homosexuality or anything else, I do believe.
Gee... I wonder what would happen if he found out we shared the same viewpoint on something else... would that make him "the left" or would it cancel out my "leftedness"? Or would the event trigger a paradox that ripped apart all space and time?
I don't know, but please make it a point to never agree. I don't want to be ripped apart!
I'll try, I'll try.
Is there a list of opinions I should have somewhere that all line up with "left"? Apparently Will has the list, so there must be. Could I get a copy of that?
That would be anything not found on the list from the radical Christian right.
Ah... that's on Fox new's website... right?
Well, that and the Westboro baptist pulpit. Just compile the two into one.
No, it's a compound of the skins of baby seals and baby...babies.
I hope there aren't any wombats reading this...it's getting a little rough for them.
Translation: 'Bigot: A derogatory term invented to attack anyone who believes some type of person is a less than a person.'
I personally don't care if someone wants to marry taxidermy wombat. That's between them and the wombat. Exactly where they would stick their private parts is not something I would spend much time thinking about.
AP bans 'homophobia' term
“It’s just off the mark,” AP deputy standards editor Dave Minthorn told Politico. “It’s ascribing a mental disability to someone and suggests a knowledge that we don’t have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: antigay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case.”
I don't think any of us write for AP. But if you like we can default to "bigotry".
I could do that... would baseless hate based on something that is none of their business work too? It's a little long...
Most using the term have already defaulted to and emulate bigotry.
In any case, the arguments are getting circular, so I bid you a Good Day!
Ah "only in America" as we say. It's a storm in a teacup really.
They make a reality programme featuring rednecks then get upset when they resort to type. Helloooo. This is what happens when ratings, focus groups, and perceived public opinion drive everything. I imagine that the TV company was far less interested in what he said than the opinions of potential advertisers who themselves are worried that people would stop buying their products because of a perceived association with this redneck's comments.
Come on people get a grip. There are those with funny Christian views in opposition to yours, deal with it. Heck anywhere else and the TV company would have seen this as an opportunity to boost ratings. Why not keep the guy in, let him make his controversial comments, he could become a hero/villain at the same time. It could make for entertaining popcorn TV and a few spin-off programmes where D-list celebs interview a studio of wannabes about what they thought of the show.
Very well put and worth the read: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/19/ … d-suicide/
Well-put? It's a childish temper tantrum thrown by someone who not only doesn't understand how the First Amendment and private corporations work, but also thinks that a bunch of rednecks spouting one-liners that weren't even funny 45 years ago while shamelessly plugging overpriced hunting gear is quality television.
Everything about this blog post is a summation of why America is on the bottom tier of education worldwide and practically rubbing elbows with Syria in terms of social progress.
That is by far the most ignorant thing I've heard you say yet.
Syria? Really? Are you sure you want to invoke a country that imprisons people for being suspected of homosexuality, is a wash in blood and tyranny, harasses and imprisons human rights activists and other critics of the government? Are you sure America is rubbing elbows in social progress with a country that routinely tortures it's own people, kills their own children, women, medical personnel, indiscriminately drops shells on their own cities, on and on and on.
If the Religious Right has their way, yes. That's exactly what will happen.
I mean, look at Syria!
The founders of America were so far to the right of you it would make your head spin. And yet they are the very reason that this country so successfully experiences religious freedom and economic prosperity.
People from the left are taught to believe that all inequality in the world stems out of American culture when America has been the the leader in breaking down those barriers.
Gays are told not that this is one of the most inclusive and forgiving societies in the history of the world, but rather home to knuckle-dragging, murdering Neanderthals when in plain sight, across the seas, one and a half billion Muslims routinely hang or stone or crush to death innocent people merely because of their sexual practices.
Yes the people in the southern states used the Bible to justify slavery, but it was from pulpit preaching out of the same Bible in the Northern States that resonated in the people's hearts the idea that slavery was morally wrong.
And when you try to argue against this social weapon of theirs, this Narrative, this lie that they tell again and again, well then, prepare for their counter-attack, which is called Political Correctness the attempt to put the argument out of bounds before it can be had.
They use terms like Hate Speech and Racism. They want to put our arguments and rebuttals out of bounds so that they don’t have to hear them or deal with them. They have to exclude those arguments because if they don’t, those arguments are going to kick their butts and they know it.
To be fair, the only argument the right has against homosexuality is the Bible. We've all read it. Why should the left listen to the same arguments over and over, if they didn't buy it the first time, they're not buying it the second time.
In addition, I'm Christian and can list several reasons that I don't think the Bible really says what you think it does... but I digress. The point being the right hasn't even convinced all Christians.
If you have a case against homosexuality other than the Bible, let's hear it.
And in that vein, how often does the right listen to the left's arguments?
Why do you want me to build some case against Homosexuals? The left wants everybody to believe that conservatives are out to get gays simply because they advocate traditional marriage.
The truth is an even more right wing concept is removing government from the marriage industry all together. But nope, Democrats are the ones who brought government into it in the first place. And for the soul purpose of denying interracial couples the right to marry.
But naaah! Lets not do that! Lets give government more power over our lives. Let's sue the cake making industry, and Chick-fil-a and force our own morals down peoples throats.
It is a reflection of the lefty narrow mindedness to assume that all opposition from conservatives is rooted in the Bible and not in the long history of human society, its institutions and civilization. Many kinds of human action are discouraged throughout human history including but hardly limited to promiscuity and homosexuality. Human social institutions have evolved ( a favorite word among lefties though they seem to discard it when convenient) over thousands of years. Homosexuality has always existed but what institution has evolved to set it in an honored place? It is nothing more than another kind of behavior. Where are the Drug users screaming for the heads of those who recognize drug and alcohol abuse as sinful?
He was replying to me and I'm a moderate. I was sincerely asking for other reasons, yet you get defensive.
So you believe that marriage should be between man and a woman only because of tradition. Which society's tradition? And should all traditions be upheld just because that are traditions?
Do you believe that established activity should remain the same for no other reason than it has been that way for a long time?
So you would be OK with gays getting married in churches but aren't ok with the government recognizing any marriages whatsoever.
So if the government completely removed every benefit given to married individuals, including tax credits, survivors benefits, eliminated family courts (and custody of children) and community property, and hospitals allowed no one to visit a dying patient, health insurance didn't cover anyone but the employee, that would be great to you?
Everyone would have equal rights then and anybody can be claimed to be married if they have gone through a ceremony, that would be ok to you?
Yes, if a church wants to marry homosexuals some people would be offended, and if another church refused to marry homosexuals other people would be offended. Nobody has the right not to be offended, the government doesn't get involved, and the first amendment to the United States constitution remains fully in tact.
Of course government has to be involved in divorce because there are property and custody issues, but what does divorce have to do with marriage? Absolutely nothing.
And why give so much power to hospitals? Are you aware that right now cases are on the rise where hospitals are actually removing custody of children from their own parents because they think they know what is better for the child?
In one case in Utah they actually misdiagnosed a child with cancer on purpose in order to keep government funding for their program. Doesn't this gradual overreaching of government power alarm you just a tad? And you would trade that for a couple of tax breaks? Remember less government equals less taxes.
Yeah, right now my church wants to perform gay weddings, but it's not allowed to because it's illegal in my state. And I'm glad you agree that no one has the right to not be offended, and that A&E had the right to fire someone who embarrassed them.
The problem with thinking divorce has nothing to do with marriage is a definition of a marriage is required to terminate one. If that was the only hangup, would you be fine with that one legal definition of marriage, or should heterorsexual and gay marriages both be referred to as civil unions for that purpose.
I'm confused about the giving the hospitals power remark... the point I was making is they are required to allow spouses and family members to visit. To make it fair, would you be willing to give up the ability to visit your spouse or family member? No legal definition of marriage, no spouse. No requirement to let you visit.
But as far as a smaller, less intrusive g'ment, I'd adore it. We'd probably pick different programs to eliminate though.
Well don't put words in my mouth, I think it was a cowardly move for them to fire him, and I question as to whether or not his rights as a private citizen were violated. All of the fortune 500 companies in America abide by a nondiscrimination law that prevents them from hiring and firing based on race religion etc. And you know that there have been countless law suits against such companies accused of doing that exact thing.
And as far as hospitals go, I would love to see the free market be allowed to dictate to the insurance companies just who gets to visit who. But with more government involvement you will get the exact opposite. One can't possibly dictate to the government or argue against them concerning who gets to see who, but the consumer will always be able to make that fight. In fact I doubt there would even be a fight, because the hospital would be bending over backwards to assure customer satisfaction.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I just don't understand where you're coming from. First you say that the g'ment should be less intrusive, then you say that A&E shouldn't fire him because of those same intrusive laws.
I'm going to ignore the being fired over his religion because we can't seem to agree that there is a difference between a belief and an action.
No, I'm on the fence about it. Of course I'm sure the Robertson family could care less, they have plenty of money. But I can't help but feel the irony when we give people a pass on committing all manner of debauchery in public and on their programming and the very same producers actually have the gall to exert moral superiority over, well, anybody.
I agree about there being all manner of horrible, horrible programming. Things that violate every fiber of my moral being. It pisses me off too when the same people who show those things start running down things I do believe are positive and moral.
Believe it or not, I get it. If for no other reason than I'm a mother and I have to bring up children in all this. The things we may describe as debauchery are probably different in some cases, probably the same in others. But I know what you're feeling and I know why you're angry. I really, really do.
What's the real crappy part of it is most of the people that are wigging out, on both sides, probably share 90 percent of the same viewpoints. It's likely not the same 90 percent between any two people, but in general... you know?
The way it works out is sometimes I'm going to have to deal with crap I don't like, and sometimes I get what I like, which means someone else is dealing with crap they don't like. We could both make lists and compare, but I'm guessing it comes out about even.
Or lets only allow those who practice faith to marry. Lets give the church control who marries, we know that always goes well?
Thank you, Zelkiiro. I can think of no more glowing endorsement of the article. Folks who might not have clicked may now know it is spot on and have a look!
Is it likely that the people who watch Duck Dynasty are the same people who would agree with Robertson's comments? Does the success of the show indicate there are a fair amount of people who would agree with Robertson? Does this entire ordeal really show what's wrong with America and how Christianity has such a negative affect? Did Duck Dynasty lose it's gay audience?
This stuff is great, it openly reveals the problems we have with society and gets people talking about it.
by thomasczech 22 months ago
Phil Robertson is suspended for speaking his mind. What is your opinion on it?Phil is suspended from the Duck Dynasty by A&E. Phil was asked certain questions in an interview, he gave his opinion in a respectful manner. Do you agree with the decision by the network or is free speech taken...
by flacoinohio 4 years ago
If Phil Robertson was inappropriate in sharing his opinion with Drew Magary I could understand the outcry from the GLBT community and the GLAAD organization. I know many gay and lesbian couples who openly discuss the intimate parts of their relationships (sometimes quite loudly I might add)...
by Onusonus 2 days ago
Is it really about date rape? Should this song be banned?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Mr. Robinson only stated his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. I DON'T agree with his views. However, aren't there more pressing issues than the opinion of Mr. Robertson? There are wars, total disregard of the rights of marginalized people, homeless people, unemployed...
by Pankaj Pathak 7 years ago
Do you think the use of animals in sports and entertainment should be banned?
by LailaK 7 years ago
The 2012 presidential election is approaching! Do you think that the new presidential candidates should support or ban abortion for women of all ages? Why?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|