Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpeakInSilence
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
But there was no comparison. There was a listing of sins.

A comparision statement in English requires comparative preposition ( greater than, equal to) or similie. What Phil Robertson gave was a listing of things that he considered to be sins ( and it’s a list that any Catholic would agree with)
Click to expand...
I also found it noteworthy that he included drunks in his list of sinners. Phil Robertson is a recovering alcoholic, which he hasn’t been shy about disclosing – so he included his own personal sins in the list of sinful behaviors. (He also has discussed having a sexually immoral past and being caught up in “sex drugs and rock and roll.”)
 
oldcelt said:
Not exactly a loss to American cultural life.
Click to expand...
Why do you say this? What is your objection to Duck Dynasty?

We don’t have cable, so we can’t watch the show. But we know all about it. If we had cable we would probably add it to our rather limited list of shows to watch.

Duck Dynasty is a tribute to American cultural life and opportunity. It tells the story of a family who managed to get rich by creating a niche business. That family just happens to be from the Southern United States, therefore they speak with an accent and have a physical appearance (at least, the men do) that is different than the New York City businessman. Their appearance is compatible with their business of making and selling duck calls.

May all Americans who have a dream go and do likewise!
 
Lost_Sheep said:
The concept of Freedom of Speech, though enumerated in the Constitution, is widely misunderstood by most people. First, Freedom of Speech does not give you right to say anything anywhere any time. Or as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once put it, “Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

While you are free to say what you want and express your opinion, no one is under any obligation to facilitate your speech. You can send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, but no law says the newspaper has to print it. Likewise, Mr. Robertson can express his opinion about gays, but his bosses (A&E) also have a right to shield themselves from what they think could be negative publicity.

The other point about Freedom of Speech is that the government is not allowed to suppress your speech. Private individuals or entities may do whatever they want.
Click to expand...
At this point, the “negative publicity” is actually running high AGAINST A and E.

I’m really hoping that this incident is the catalyst the galvanizes Christians into action, and helps us to stop being silent about the juggernaut of gay rights in this nation. I am so sick of hearing about the sex lives of other people. I really don’t care. It’s between God and them, but if they ask, I would like to have the freedom to say, “I disagree with you” without losing my job, my standing in the community, my neighborhood, my safety, and who knows what else!

I just listened to the Today Show report about President Obama’s ridiculous snub of Pres. Putin and the Olympics over gay rights. One of the commentators stated that this snub of the International Olympic Committee (hardly a “conservative” organization–quite the opposite–does our President always attack his bedfellows?) will affect American competitors adversely in the judged sports. Figure skating is a judged sport, and it breaks my heart that our skaters will not be judged on their skating, but on our President’s foolishness. I’m afraid that our figure skaters will feel heavy pressure to wear “rainbow” pins and other apparel, and make a big deal out of being “gay-friendly.” C’mon, it’s FIGURE SKATING–the sport has been gay-friendly for decades!!! I hope our ISU figure skating judges can ignore President Obama’s foolishness and just do their job and judge the sport fairly. But I fear for our figure skaters.
 
The left and Hollyweird once again prove they are all for diversity and tolerance…just as long as you agree with them.
 
oldcelt said:
Not exactly a loss to American cultural life.
Click to expand...
Have you watched very many episodes?

While it’s not, I admit, a great comedy, it is mildly amusing, without cursing and sexuality.

They are a loving family (although they poke fun at each other constantly).

They respect their elders – including the fathers. As you know, fathers are always depicted negatively in modern-day shows.

At the end of each show, they are shown seated together at the family table, thanking God for their blessings.

I wish far more shows were like theirs.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
What’s interesting is that I found the article online and this is what else Phil had to say:

"We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Read More: gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=2
Click to expand...
Yes, and this part has NOT been reported on any of the news shows I’ve seen thus far.
 
HappyCatholic01 said:
Then I am sure A&E will clarify it. All they have to say is " while we support his Christian beliefs and opposition to homosexuality, we do not approve of the comparisons to beastiality."

Since they are most definitely oppose his beliefs in their entirety and his discussion of Christianity, they won’t do that either.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
Yep. And let’s not forget that, at least according to some information I saw on Facebook a few months ago (so I don’t have the source at hand), they tried to get them to stop doing the prayer at the end. When Phil said if they can’t do the prayer, they won’t do the show, A&E reneged.
 
Spencerian said:
I’ve never watched the show but the beliefs of that family are so strong that they pour into popular media news like this forum.

The Robertson family are *already *millionaires. They haven’t been and will not be intimidated by a network. As others noted, its their viewership, whether they agree or disagree with Robertson, who are angered by the network’s one-sided conclusion on how faith and belief are discussed. It would be one thing if comments on the anatomical incompatibility of homosexuality were said and left at that. But it wasn’t, and that was the 'belief" part that A&E missed.

Paradoxically to the pro-gay advocacy attitudes of networks and culture today, people seem to watch “Duck Dynasty” in part because of that faith dynamic, which shows the people are not only genuine but consistent.

A&E is in a losing fight to censor the show over a type of religious freedom, and the viewers know the network’s error.
Click to expand...
Duck Dynasty is a wildly popular show and can be watched by the whole family. I am sure another network would jump at the chance to pick them up.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
The concept of Freedom of Speech, though enumerated in the Constitution, is widely misunderstood by most people. First, Freedom of Speech does not give you right to say anything anywhere any time. Or as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once put it, “Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

While you are free to say what you want and express your opinion, no one is under any obligation to facilitate your speech. You can send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, but no law says the newspaper has to print it. Likewise, Mr. Robertson can express his opinion about gays, but his bosses (A&E) also have a right to shield themselves from what they think could be negative publicity.

The other point about Freedom of Speech is that the government is not allowed to suppress your speech. Private individuals or entities may do whatever they want.
Click to expand...
Sure, although a government desire to enforce political correctness can lead to “hate speech” laws, loss of government funding for Catholic adoption services. etc. The founders thought freedom of religion and freedom of speech were important enough to enshrine them within the Bill of Rights. The right “not to be offended” isn’t in there, and should’t be given the deference we grant the first two laws when they come into conflict.

In re your point on private vs. public censorship, cable TV in the U.S, is under the regulation of the FCC, so it is not purely a private organization, although I doubt this requires corporations to respect constitutional rights. A&E is within its corporate rights to suppress Mr. Robertson’s freedom of speech (which, although expressed in earthy terms, is in accordance with our Catholic teachings), but in turn, should expect a loss of revenue as the anti-A&E boycott gathers steam. The exec who made the snap decision will probably be quietly eased out of his or her position, and Mr. Robertson will return to the air amid public statements from both sides reiterating their desire not to offend gays. There are a lot more armed heterosexual duck hunters who like wearing camouflage in the U.S. than there are gays.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
The concept of Freedom of Speech, though enumerated in the Constitution, is widely misunderstood by most people. First, Freedom of Speech does not give you right to say anything anywhere any time. Or as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once put it, “Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

While you are free to say what you want and express your opinion, no one is under any obligation to facilitate your speech. You can send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, but no law says the newspaper has to print it. Likewise, Mr. Robertson can express his opinion about gays, but his bosses (A&E) also have a right to shield themselves from what they think could be negative publicity.

The other point about Freedom of Speech is that the government is not allowed to suppress your speech. Private individuals or entities may do whatever they want.
Click to expand...
What you say is true, bit A&E is a for profit enterprise and the show is very popular. I’m sure that if A&E looses the show, they will loose a lot of money.
 
I am not an avid watcher of the show, simply because of time constraints, although I have seen a few of the reruns more than once (the one with Willie trying to lose weight by doing yoga is really funny).

Anyway, I specifically watched a rerun last night, because I wanted to see 1) if Phil was edited out, and 2) to see if A&E placed some sort of disclaimer on the show. (Neither happened.)

I was, however, treated to a KMart commercial with guys in multi-colored boxers making suggestive movements to the tune of “Jingle Bells.” Apparently, that meets A&E’s high standards, and I should not voice my opinion about being offended by it.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
Sure, although a government desire to enforce political correctness can lead to “hate speech” laws, loss of government funding for Catholic adoption services. etc. The founders thought freedom of religion and freedom of speech were important enough to enshrine them within the Bill of Rights. The right “not to be offended” isn’t in there, and should’t be given the deference we grant the first two laws when they come into conflict.

In re your point on private vs. public censorship, cable TV in the U.S, is under the regulation of the FCC, so it is not purely a private organization, although I doubt this requires corporations to respect constitutional rights. A&E is within its corporate rights to suppress Mr. Robertson’s freedom of speech (which, although expressed in earthy terms, is in accordance with our Catholic teachings), but in turn, should expect a loss of revenue as the anti-A&E boycott gathers steam. The exec who made the snap decision will probably be quietly eased out of his or her position, and Mr. Robertson will return to the air amid public statements from both sides reiterating their desire not to offend gays. There are a lot more armed heterosexual duck hunters who like wearing camouflage in the U.S. than there are gays.
Click to expand...
You’re right, in the end money talks and BS walks. A&E has a hit show and it would be silly for them to loose it.
 
And the “world” acts shocked when a conservative Christian calls sin a sin. :rolleyes: If they didn’t want an answer they shouldn’t have asked the question.
 
Kliska said:
And the “world” acts shocked when a conservative Christian calls sin a sin. :rolleyes: If they didn’t want an answer they shouldn’t have asked the question.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you on this one. What kind of an answer did they expect?

How many people of the gay “lifestyle” are watching that show, anyway? It doesn’t seem to fit the demographic; so what do they care?

It doesn’t do anything to dispel the stereotype of gays being overly sensitive crybabies…

:crying:
 
Lost_Sheep said:
The concept of Freedom of Speech, though enumerated in the Constitution, is widely misunderstood by most people. First, Freedom of Speech does not give you right to say anything anywhere any time. Or as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once put it, “Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

While you are free to say what you want and express your opinion, no one is under any obligation to facilitate your speech. You can send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, but no law says the newspaper has to print it. Likewise, Mr. Robertson can express his opinion about gays, but his bosses (A&E) also have a right to shield themselves from what they think could be negative publicity.

The other point about Freedom of Speech is that the government is not allowed to suppress your speech. Private individuals or entities may do whatever they want.
Click to expand...
A&E hired this family, knowing that they were “back-woods Bible thumpers”. They didn’t seem to have a problem with him being interviewed by GQ until he expressed an opinion that GLAAD didn’t like.
 
If I may ask without being lynched: why would a gay person be offended if someone said gay behavior could morph into bestiality if a person’s sexuality is what it is, and if we should tolerate other sexual views, then why would they not just think people who like bestiality are just another strain of sexual preference? Could there be some subconscious tickle in their mind that tells them this is wrong? Could they articulate why outside of an emotional response?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top