Phil Robertson, suspended by AE
- Thread starter Bayerithe
- Start date
GreenDragonSix
100+ Posts
Does freedom of speech exist anymore, especially when it "offends" a certain minority group or special interest group?
Larry T. Spider
1,000+ Posts
He has a right to lump gays in with drunks and terrorists and A&E has a right to not put it on their shows. If you disagree, then you have a right not to watch. I don't really get the outrage.
D
dillohorn
Guest
Shows us again that everything is upside down.
CedarParkFan
1,000+ Posts
It's not a first amendment free speech issue. It's just a perfect example of a larger culture war and political correctness run amuck. Seems to also symbolize the basic intolerance of those that claim to be the most tolerant. After all, the guy never used derogatory terms nor did he express hatred. Hard to find anything vile about his remarks.
I've only seen a couple of episodes of Duck Dynasty. Frankly, i'm amazed so many find it entertaining and spend so much on the stuff they market.
Obviously A&E spotted gold where I would have overlooked it. Now they are upset that one of these backwoods boys is not living on the finely honed edge of political corectness? Their reaction to mee seems like stepping on a fresh dog turd, rather than ignoring it until it's dried out.
I have a lot more sympathy for Phil Robertson and his unvarnished opinion of the scriptures than I do A&E.
Obviously A&E spotted gold where I would have overlooked it. Now they are upset that one of these backwoods boys is not living on the finely honed edge of political corectness? Their reaction to mee seems like stepping on a fresh dog turd, rather than ignoring it until it's dried out.
I have a lot more sympathy for Phil Robertson and his unvarnished opinion of the scriptures than I do A&E.
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
Congress just adopted a two-year budget deal that's going to decide how about $7 trillion dollars of our money is going to be spent. And what are we talking about? A "reality" television show. Sad.
And I roll my eyes at those making the "free speech" argument. Free speech doesn't mean the right to be free of the consequences of your speech. It means that the government cannot stop you from speaking and cannot discriminate against you based on the content of your speech. (It can impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner in which you speak.) A private entity can. He can say what he wants. They can fire him. The public can be mad at either side, depending on their views. That's freedom.
I agree with Phil Robertson on the merits. I'm never going to be OK with homosexuality or say that it's not morally depraved. However, if I say that in public, I would never expect there not to be consequences. (For one thing, that isn't biblical.) I also would never expect the government to shield me from those consequences.
And I roll my eyes at those making the "free speech" argument. Free speech doesn't mean the right to be free of the consequences of your speech. It means that the government cannot stop you from speaking and cannot discriminate against you based on the content of your speech. (It can impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner in which you speak.) A private entity can. He can say what he wants. They can fire him. The public can be mad at either side, depending on their views. That's freedom.
I agree with Phil Robertson on the merits. I'm never going to be OK with homosexuality or say that it's not morally depraved. However, if I say that in public, I would never expect there not to be consequences. (For one thing, that isn't biblical.) I also would never expect the government to shield me from those consequences.
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
I too am amazed that literally no mention of the budget recently passed.
As for Robertson, he has every right to express his opinions and A&E has every right to suspend or terminate him.
I do believe there is an all out war on Christians. Whether it is terrorists in the Middle East or anti Christians in the US, it is a full assault. The media and public figures like Bill Maher can openly attack Christians with no recourse, but Robertson is attacked for simply stating his religious views.
In the end, Duck Dynasty will profit, A&E will lose money and the American people will remain distracted from real problems. I cannot wait for Honey Boo Boo to express her religious beliefs...
As for Robertson, he has every right to express his opinions and A&E has every right to suspend or terminate him.
I do believe there is an all out war on Christians. Whether it is terrorists in the Middle East or anti Christians in the US, it is a full assault. The media and public figures like Bill Maher can openly attack Christians with no recourse, but Robertson is attacked for simply stating his religious views.
In the end, Duck Dynasty will profit, A&E will lose money and the American people will remain distracted from real problems. I cannot wait for Honey Boo Boo to express her religious beliefs...
mrD
I don't think the term " Free Speech' is restricted to the First Amendment and the government's role.
No doubt some are conflating the two with regards to the Duck guy
But most that I have heard and read just make the point that yes he has the right to say it and yes A&E has the right t suspend him. thank goodness that is true
However learning they already have 9 shows ready for next year and the first they'd need him is March I think A&E
took the smart easy way. They appear to punish him in answer to the LBGT uproar knowing by March it will have gone away.
What I can't understand is how this interview wasn't monitored by someone at A&E .
I don't think the term " Free Speech' is restricted to the First Amendment and the government's role.
No doubt some are conflating the two with regards to the Duck guy
But most that I have heard and read just make the point that yes he has the right to say it and yes A&E has the right t suspend him. thank goodness that is true
However learning they already have 9 shows ready for next year and the first they'd need him is March I think A&E
took the smart easy way. They appear to punish him in answer to the LBGT uproar knowing by March it will have gone away.
What I can't understand is how this interview wasn't monitored by someone at A&E .
FridayNiteLites
500+ Posts
They make good duck calls, and that bier really looks tasty. I love German bier
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
Having lived in Budapest, Prague and Ostrava I probably didn't get into beer as much as I should have. I think Hops causes me some allergies as I do much better with the less bitter beers. So I am somewhat limited to Bock's. Beer gardens are fun though so it was always a tradeoff between the enjoyment and allergies. If you have ever been to the Spanish Steps in Rome or to some of the traditional beer gardens, it is pretty cool singing Bob Marley and Beatles tunes with a bunch of people who speak little english.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I'd probably fall pretty close to where Deez landed on most of this.
To the best of my understanding - scripture's pretty clear on certain things that are specifically stated, and principles that ( i believe) are pretty obviously applied. And then there are the issues which at the time were likely so far out of the realm of mainstream that they weren't worth addressing - and Paul in Ephesians talks about things in the Gentile world that were "shameful to even speak about". So I'd probably answer in this way:
1. Gay sexuality - the actual act is considered sinful, but the tendency/temptation/orientation or whatever you call it is not in and of itself condemned. Paul says "and such were some of you", meaning they at very least stopped doing what they were doing and as a result were no longer under condemnation. We're all tempted by various things, the question is what we do about it.
2. Adultery - Sin. Pretty much a no-brainer there.
3. Promiscuity - Sin. Again - since the scripture labels lasciviousness as sin, and since there's not a lot more lascivious than actually having sex, I'd say that applies.
4. Cross dressing - There's no scripture that i know of but there's principles in the old and New Testament about the distinctiveness of the sexes. I'd have a hard time calling something sinful that's not specifically called sinful in the Bible, and without knowing why a person's doing it and in what context, I'm not sure how I'd respond to that.
5. Transvestite surgery - definitely have to use some transitory properties on this one. It would be hard for me to justify a person who wanted to have sexual relations with someone of their own sex (which would be sinful) and being able to resolve the conflict by having surgery. Surgery may change physiology but it doesn't change a heart that says "I want what I want and not what God wants." But I can only give an opinion on that one - if God has an issue with someone overruling His decision on that person's gender (and i suspect He might), He hasn't said it in so many words that I know of. But then, that's like looking to the scripture to get a specific ruling on phone sex. (That's probably a bad example... trying to think of a better one.)
6. Polygamy - I believe sin - it's hard when looking at the Old Testament and men who had multiple wives - many of which were considered godly men. A couple of things to think about - first, all of those men had their flaws and are written as such. There's indication that God may have winked at those things, and when he talked to David after his sin with Bathsheba, He basically said that He had given David all these blessings - including his wives - and that if it hadn't been enough He would have given more. But it clearly wasn't God's plan, and Jesus goes back to the beginning to establish marriage law, saying a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Elders and deacons were to be the husband of one wife - a necessary distinction in that time.
7. Beastiality - Sin. You can't really go to the law of Moses to simply state that if the law says don't do it, it's inherently sinful. Having said that, I kinda think this one is a no-brainer.
8. Whoring - Sin
9. Child pornography - Sin
10. Public nudity - If you can figure out a way that public nudity isn't lascivious, then I guess you might be able to make an argument. But considering that shame and modesty were clearly compulsions in existence from the beginning, and supported/upheld by God in Gen. 3, I'd have to say that it's at LEAST highly inappropriate.
11.Adult incest - Sin - since Paul said that the man in I Cor. 5 who had married his father's wife was in sin - and a sin that was so repugnant that even the Greeks wouldn't accept it - I have to think brother-sister would call into the same heading.
Just to throw in, I agree this isn't a free speech issue. It's an issue where a small minority is trying to push the concept that a view in line with almost 50 percent of Americans is somehow out of touch and fringe. A&E had no problem exploiting these guys because they're rough around the edges, and that comes off as funny in reality TV. But they want to make sure they're selectively PC. In my mind, don't make a reality show about conservative Christians if you're not going to let them speak freely about their beliefs. If Christianity is really as repulsive and offensive as these people seem to be, then why are they on television? No one's lining up to do a reality show about the Klan or a white separatist group - so if A&E really thought they were following a religion of hate and intolerance, they probably shouldn't have given them a show and made all that money off them.
To the best of my understanding - scripture's pretty clear on certain things that are specifically stated, and principles that ( i believe) are pretty obviously applied. And then there are the issues which at the time were likely so far out of the realm of mainstream that they weren't worth addressing - and Paul in Ephesians talks about things in the Gentile world that were "shameful to even speak about". So I'd probably answer in this way:
1. Gay sexuality - the actual act is considered sinful, but the tendency/temptation/orientation or whatever you call it is not in and of itself condemned. Paul says "and such were some of you", meaning they at very least stopped doing what they were doing and as a result were no longer under condemnation. We're all tempted by various things, the question is what we do about it.
2. Adultery - Sin. Pretty much a no-brainer there.
3. Promiscuity - Sin. Again - since the scripture labels lasciviousness as sin, and since there's not a lot more lascivious than actually having sex, I'd say that applies.
4. Cross dressing - There's no scripture that i know of but there's principles in the old and New Testament about the distinctiveness of the sexes. I'd have a hard time calling something sinful that's not specifically called sinful in the Bible, and without knowing why a person's doing it and in what context, I'm not sure how I'd respond to that.
5. Transvestite surgery - definitely have to use some transitory properties on this one. It would be hard for me to justify a person who wanted to have sexual relations with someone of their own sex (which would be sinful) and being able to resolve the conflict by having surgery. Surgery may change physiology but it doesn't change a heart that says "I want what I want and not what God wants." But I can only give an opinion on that one - if God has an issue with someone overruling His decision on that person's gender (and i suspect He might), He hasn't said it in so many words that I know of. But then, that's like looking to the scripture to get a specific ruling on phone sex. (That's probably a bad example... trying to think of a better one.)
6. Polygamy - I believe sin - it's hard when looking at the Old Testament and men who had multiple wives - many of which were considered godly men. A couple of things to think about - first, all of those men had their flaws and are written as such. There's indication that God may have winked at those things, and when he talked to David after his sin with Bathsheba, He basically said that He had given David all these blessings - including his wives - and that if it hadn't been enough He would have given more. But it clearly wasn't God's plan, and Jesus goes back to the beginning to establish marriage law, saying a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Elders and deacons were to be the husband of one wife - a necessary distinction in that time.
7. Beastiality - Sin. You can't really go to the law of Moses to simply state that if the law says don't do it, it's inherently sinful. Having said that, I kinda think this one is a no-brainer.
8. Whoring - Sin
9. Child pornography - Sin
10. Public nudity - If you can figure out a way that public nudity isn't lascivious, then I guess you might be able to make an argument. But considering that shame and modesty were clearly compulsions in existence from the beginning, and supported/upheld by God in Gen. 3, I'd have to say that it's at LEAST highly inappropriate.
11.Adult incest - Sin - since Paul said that the man in I Cor. 5 who had married his father's wife was in sin - and a sin that was so repugnant that even the Greeks wouldn't accept it - I have to think brother-sister would call into the same heading.
Just to throw in, I agree this isn't a free speech issue. It's an issue where a small minority is trying to push the concept that a view in line with almost 50 percent of Americans is somehow out of touch and fringe. A&E had no problem exploiting these guys because they're rough around the edges, and that comes off as funny in reality TV. But they want to make sure they're selectively PC. In my mind, don't make a reality show about conservative Christians if you're not going to let them speak freely about their beliefs. If Christianity is really as repulsive and offensive as these people seem to be, then why are they on television? No one's lining up to do a reality show about the Klan or a white separatist group - so if A&E really thought they were following a religion of hate and intolerance, they probably shouldn't have given them a show and made all that money off them.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
BTW looking at that post reminds me why I hate posting from my iPad. That looks horrible...
AustinBat
2,500+ Posts
Y'all are going to make a bunch of Ags mad about beastiality thing.
As far as Phil, I won't be a hypocrite. When the Dixie Chicks insulted GWB, they had the right to say what they wanted and people had the right to refuse to buy their CD's or go to their concerts. Free speech, as I understand it, is more about the government restricting your freedom of speech. So you can say anything you want and not be at risk of being jailed, but when private companies and individual citizens take offense at what is said, that is their right, also.
As far as Phil, I won't be a hypocrite. When the Dixie Chicks insulted GWB, they had the right to say what they wanted and people had the right to refuse to buy their CD's or go to their concerts. Free speech, as I understand it, is more about the government restricting your freedom of speech. So you can say anything you want and not be at risk of being jailed, but when private companies and individual citizens take offense at what is said, that is their right, also.
CedarParkFan
1,000+ Posts
That's true Bat. What bothers me is that so many people would find has remarks "vile." He made it a point to say he didn't hate anyone. If stating a belief based upon Biblical principle is considered hate speech we are all in trouble. The gays have joined the ever-growing groups of special interests who are looking for a reason to be offended. Not only do they demand equality, as they should, they now demand that everyone agree with and approve of their lifestyle, regardless of religious or moral grounding. Again, I would love for some offended bed wetter to explain to me exactly what Phil said that was offensive.
I have no desire to enter a man's anus either and I also dont think its natural. Woe is me.
Honestly, the real idiots in all of this are the people at A&E. They created a reality TV show about these people, and now they dont want them to be real. The man was asked questions by a magazine, and he answered them truthfully. Most of the people who watch that show are probably more in agreement with Phil than those that dont, and A&E has made millions because of it.
If they want to trash their cash cow over the star of the show being real, then so be it.
His free speech wasnt violated because he spoke freely and wasnt censored. He has a contract with A&E and they can terminate it if they wish. However, they look stupid for doing in my opinion. They are caving in to a minority group that many people find disgusting for moral reasons.
If he had said he thinks Muslims are going to hell, I dont think A&E should suspend him for that either. Most of his viewers probably would agree with him, and A&E should know that he probably thinks that and he will probably eventually say it.
We are a country of panzies now. Its not like hes an office worker in a company that builds a product, and he has to maintain an orderly workplace environment. Hes the star of the freaking show. Its about him. And they dont want him to be himself. That is what makes this thing a joke.
Honestly, the real idiots in all of this are the people at A&E. They created a reality TV show about these people, and now they dont want them to be real. The man was asked questions by a magazine, and he answered them truthfully. Most of the people who watch that show are probably more in agreement with Phil than those that dont, and A&E has made millions because of it.
If they want to trash their cash cow over the star of the show being real, then so be it.
His free speech wasnt violated because he spoke freely and wasnt censored. He has a contract with A&E and they can terminate it if they wish. However, they look stupid for doing in my opinion. They are caving in to a minority group that many people find disgusting for moral reasons.
If he had said he thinks Muslims are going to hell, I dont think A&E should suspend him for that either. Most of his viewers probably would agree with him, and A&E should know that he probably thinks that and he will probably eventually say it.
We are a country of panzies now. Its not like hes an office worker in a company that builds a product, and he has to maintain an orderly workplace environment. Hes the star of the freaking show. Its about him. And they dont want him to be himself. That is what makes this thing a joke.
Which post was even remotely "homophobic?"
The problem is that homosexuals do not just want to be treated equal, they also want everyone to condone and promote their lifestyle. The expectation is that everyone is supposed to speak positively about a lifestyle even if it conflicts with their religious or social beliefs.
What you do in your bedroom is a personal choice and I could care less. Just do not expect everyone to promote your choices.
The problem is that homosexuals do not just want to be treated equal, they also want everyone to condone and promote their lifestyle. The expectation is that everyone is supposed to speak positively about a lifestyle even if it conflicts with their religious or social beliefs.
What you do in your bedroom is a personal choice and I could care less. Just do not expect everyone to promote your choices.
CedarParkFan
1,000+ Posts
What exactly is your definition of homophobic? You're kidding, right? Good grief. And you wonder why people are sick and tired of political correctness and the pansies that promote it?
CedarParkFan
1,000+ Posts
HOMOPHOBIC: A fairly new and overused term intended to negatively label anyone who dares not buy into, promote, or further the agenda of the homosexual community. Often used in the absence of an otherwise rational argument or position. See also racism, sexual harassment, and xenophobia.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
