Phil & Duck Dynasty- UPDATE: A&E Caves

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Is there already a thread on this?  Gotta be, right?

My opinion is that when the folks at A&E began shooting "Duck Dynasty" I think they thought they were going to film a bunch of backwoods jackasses that their current (at the time) audience could get a laugh out of.

When the show took off, and drew not just a mainstream audience, and not only the largest audience in the history of cable television, but an audience drawn in for all the "wrong" (in their worldview) reasons: 1. An inspirational story of unlikely success that showcases the unique American free-market capitalism; and 2. Normal people- warts and all- who remind us of what's important- and it's not their fame, the money, or their business success (which are rarely showcased on the show) but faith in God, and a traditional family that sticks together through thick and thin. 3. A story of a sinner- an alcohol and drug addled abusive jerk turned around with the help of God, and redeemed by the blood Jesus shed for all of us on the cross- turned saint.

I don't think the A&E people really understand the show's success, and to the extent they do- it terrifies them. It shouldn't, but it does. People that are more comfortable celebrating (at taxpayer's expense) the "art" of Jesus hanging on a cross, and submerged in urine; or who watch the "news" and "commentary" of Martin Bashir suggesting that people urinate or deficate in Sarah Palin's mouth, and who don't wring their hands over the truly crude, vile attacks Christians routinely endure see us as the enemy.

I've always wondered why they see Christians as such a threat?  If we believe in some archaic old book that doesn't matter to anyone but us, and there's no truth to it- why do the words that come out of the mouth of some redneck in a GQ article so shake their foundations (why do they freak out)?

At any rate- it's not about free speech.  A&E is a private enterprise, they can piss away an audience of 14 million for any reason they deem worth it.  It's just amazing to me that they would.  They've exposed their network to a vast audience of people that probably never heard of them before, and they've tapped into an idea whose time has come- a show about real people for whom faith and family overshadows whatever financial success they enjoy.  Why is that so hard for them to stick with?

[swamp]

I think you're over thinking this. 

[jkapp]

I didn't know what you were talking about (I don't get cable news anymore ), so I googled Phil Robertson and found this:

www.sundijo.com/phil-robertson/

Why Are We Really Mad at Phil Robertson?

It has never been a secret that Phil Robertson and the rest of his family love Jesus. It has never been a secret that the leader of this influential, redneck pack, stands by the Word of God.

So why is everyone in shock that he states homosexuality is a sin?

In the last 24 hours, he has been accused of verbally attacking gay people. He’s a bigot. He’s racist. He’s a hater. Really? If he was all of the above, would the GQ reporter have written this?  "He is welcoming and gracious."

As I follower of Jesus Christ, I commend Phil Robertson for not putting aside the values and principles he lives by, which comes directly from the Word of God. Fame has a tendency to change the morals of many people, and I don’t think it’s affected the Robertson clan much. Now, could he be a little more graceful in his approach to speaking truth? Of course. We all could.

One quick observation. Why was it okay for Miley Cyrus to sexually humiliate herself in front of a national audience on television, but it’s not okay for a duck-hunting, beard-growing, redneck to share his thoughts?

Here’s the question I have. Why is everyone really mad?

What’s the root? What stirs up the emotions?

For many Christians, unfortunately, I believe yesterday was used as a platform to condemn those in the homosexual lifestyle, without an ounce of love and grace. I believe it was a poor excuse to stand up for what they believed in because Phil paved the way.

It was a reason to say, “Let’s highlight this particular sin” and run it into the ground. That’s not what Phil Robertson did, nor is it what the Christian community should be doing.

A note for those in the homosexual lifestyle:

Don’t get mad at a man who was set up by a GQ reporter to discuss one of the most controversial subjects in history. Don’t use this as an opportunity to say all Christians hate you. Don’t condemn a guy who believes differently than you believe.

You may not want to compromise what you believe in, but don’t hate followers of Jesus Christ for doing the same.


----I think she seems to sum up the issue well

[billisonboard]

Wow.  Haven't watched the show.  Is that what it was all about.  I thought it was about these guys looking for some tush.

[Tennesseer]

Dec 21, 2013 9:54:06 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I didn't know what you were talking about (I don't get cable news anymore ), so I googled Phil Robertson and found this:

www.sundijo.com/phil-robertson/

Why Are We Really Mad at Phil Robertson?

It has never been a secret that Phil Robertson and the rest of his family love Jesus. It has never been a secret that the leader of this influential, redneck pack, stands by the Word of God.

So why is everyone in shock that he states homosexuality is a sin?

In the last 24 hours, he has been accused of verbally attacking gay people. He’s a bigot. He’s racist. He’s a hater. Really? If he was all of the above, would the GQ reporter have written this?  "He is welcoming and gracious."

As I follower of Jesus Christ, I commend Phil Robertson for not putting aside the values and principles he lives by, which comes directly from the Word of God. Fame has a tendency to change the morals of many people, and I don’t think it’s affected the Robertson clan much. Now, could he be a little more graceful in his approach to speaking truth? Of course. We all could.

One quick observation. Why was it okay for Miley Cyrus to sexually humiliate herself in front of a national audience on television, but it’s not okay for a duck-hunting, beard-growing, redneck to share his thoughts?

Here’s the question I have. Why is everyone really mad?

What’s the root? What stirs up the emotions?

For many Christians, unfortunately, I believe yesterday was used as a platform to condemn those in the homosexual lifestyle, without an ounce of love and grace. I believe it was a poor excuse to stand up for what they believed in because Phil paved the way.

It was a reason to say, “Let’s highlight this particular sin” and run it into the ground. That’s not what Phil Robertson did, nor is it what the Christian community should be doing.

A note for those in the homosexual lifestyle:

Don’t get mad at a man who was set up by a GQ reporter to discuss one of the most controversial subjects in history. Don’t use this as an opportunity to say all Christians hate you. Don’t condemn a guy who believes differently than you believe.

You may not want to compromise what you believe in, but don’t hate followers of Jesus Christ for doing the same.


----I think she seems to sum up the issue well

Everyone knows GQ holds a high capacity magazine weapon to their interviewees' heads.  Don't answer, you are dead.

[Tennesseer]

A&E existed before DD. They will exist after DD.

[jkapp]

Dec 21, 2013 10:16:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Dec 21, 2013 9:54:06 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I didn't know what you were talking about (I don't get cable news anymore ), so I googled Phil Robertson and found this:

www.sundijo.com/phil-robertson/

Why Are We Really Mad at Phil Robertson?

It has never been a secret that Phil Robertson and the rest of his family love Jesus. It has never been a secret that the leader of this influential, redneck pack, stands by the Word of God.

So why is everyone in shock that he states homosexuality is a sin?

In the last 24 hours, he has been accused of verbally attacking gay people. He’s a bigot. He’s racist. He’s a hater. Really? If he was all of the above, would the GQ reporter have written this?  "He is welcoming and gracious."

As I follower of Jesus Christ, I commend Phil Robertson for not putting aside the values and principles he lives by, which comes directly from the Word of God. Fame has a tendency to change the morals of many people, and I don’t think it’s affected the Robertson clan much. Now, could he be a little more graceful in his approach to speaking truth? Of course. We all could.

One quick observation. Why was it okay for Miley Cyrus to sexually humiliate herself in front of a national audience on television, but it’s not okay for a duck-hunting, beard-growing, redneck to share his thoughts?

Here’s the question I have. Why is everyone really mad?

What’s the root? What stirs up the emotions?

For many Christians, unfortunately, I believe yesterday was used as a platform to condemn those in the homosexual lifestyle, without an ounce of love and grace. I believe it was a poor excuse to stand up for what they believed in because Phil paved the way.

It was a reason to say, “Let’s highlight this particular sin” and run it into the ground. That’s not what Phil Robertson did, nor is it what the Christian community should be doing.

A note for those in the homosexual lifestyle:

Don’t get mad at a man who was set up by a GQ reporter to discuss one of the most controversial subjects in history. Don’t use this as an opportunity to say all Christians hate you. Don’t condemn a guy who believes differently than you believe.

You may not want to compromise what you believe in, but don’t hate followers of Jesus Christ for doing the same.


----I think she seems to sum up the issue well

Everyone knows GQ holds a high capacity magazine weapon to their interviewees' heads.  Don't answer, you are dead.

And everyone knows that the issue of gays is the primary concern of GQ readers...

[Tennesseer]

Dec 21, 2013 10:19:28 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Dec 21, 2013 10:16:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Everyone knows GQ holds a high capacity magazine weapon to their interviewees' heads.  Don't answer, you are dead.

And everyone knows that the issue of gays is the primary concern of GQ readers...

I thought ìt was Ron Burgandy?



 

[workpublic]

imho, the militant gay lobby is going to "in your face" their sympathy right out of the public if they don't watch out.  negative publicity cuts both ways. the lying lesbian didn't help the cause.

[AGB]

Dec 21, 2013 10:17:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

A&E existed before DD. They will exist after DD.

They certainly will, as will the Robertson family.

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans - who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."

What lies that "fly in the face of what true Christians believe" did Mr. Robertson spread, what vile and extreme stereotypes did he push? And why does GLAAD get to decide what a "true Christian" believes?

[mtman]

Phil didn't say anything that 50% of the people in America weren't already thinking.

[mmhmm]

Dec 21, 2013 11:47:25 GMT -5 mtman said:

Phil didn't say anything that 50% of the people in America weren't already thinking.

Wrong.

"Gallup finds 64% of Americans saying gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, the highest since it first asked the question more than 30 years ago."

Gallup

[AGB]

Dec 21, 2013 11:56:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Dec 21, 2013 11:47:25 GMT -5 mtman said:

Phil didn't say anything that 50% of the people in America weren't already thinking.

Wrong.

"Gallup finds 64% of Americans saying gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, the highest since it first asked the question more than 30 years ago."

Gallup

I can find something sinful in accordance with my religious believes and still support the idea that it is not up the my government to make decisions about it.

[mtman]

It's good to see that people are pushing back against the blackmail tactics of the extremist org (GLAAD)....People are getting sick and tired of having this gay crap flung in their face.

You the man, Phil....

[mmhmm]

Dec 21, 2013 12:03:33 GMT -5 mtman said:

It's good to see that people are pushing back against the blackmail tactics of the extremist org (GLAAD)....People are getting sick and tired of having this gay crap flung in their face.

You the man, Phil....

If you didn't have your nose all up in their business, they wouldn't be able to hit you in the face, would they?

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2013 12:06:39 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Dec 21, 2013 12:03:33 GMT -5 mtman said:

It's good to see that people are pushing back against the blackmail tactics of the extremist org (GLAAD)....People are getting sick and tired of having this gay crap flung in their face.

You the man, Phil....

If you didn't have your nose all up in their business, they wouldn't be able to hit you in the face, would they?

I don't think Phil was all up in their business. He was asked a question and he answered it. And then got hit in the face.

[AGB]

Dec 21, 2013 12:06:39 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Dec 21, 2013 12:03:33 GMT -5 mtman said:

It's good to see that people are pushing back against the blackmail tactics of the extremist org (GLAAD)....People are getting sick and tired of having this gay crap flung in their face.

You the man, Phil....

If you didn't have your nose all up in their business, they wouldn't be able to hit you in the face, would they?

You mean, like GLAAD feels the need to have their nose up in Mr. Robertson's business?

I thought there was the argument that if other people's actions don't affect you, you should stay out of their business.

[mmhmm]

Dec 21, 2013 12:16:51 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Dec 21, 2013 12:06:39 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If you didn't have your nose all up in their business, they wouldn't be able to hit you in the face, would they?

I don't think Phil was all up in their business. He was asked a question and he answered it. And then got hit in the face.

My post wasn't directed toward Phil.

[mmhmm]

Dec 21, 2013 12:17:44 GMT -5 AGB said:

Dec 21, 2013 12:06:39 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If you didn't have your nose all up in their business, they wouldn't be able to hit you in the face, would they?

You mean, like GLAAD feels the need to have their nose up in Mr. Robertson's business?

I thought there was the argument that if other people's actions don't affect you, you should stay out of their business.

See previous post.

[AGB]

Dec 21, 2013 12:21:25 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Dec 21, 2013 12:17:44 GMT -5 AGB said:

You mean, like GLAAD feels the need to have their nose up in Mr. Robertson's business?

I thought there was the argument that if other people's actions don't affect you, you should stay out of their business.

See previous post.

Sounds like you are saying that the concept of what you said does not apply in general, but only to the one particular poster you replied to.

[frankq]

Dec 21, 2013 11:56:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Dec 21, 2013 11:47:25 GMT -5 mtman said:

Phil didn't say anything that 50% of the people in America weren't already thinking.

Wrong.

"Gallup finds 64% of Americans saying gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, the highest since it first asked the question more than 30 years ago."

Gallup

64% may think it should be legal, but that doesn't mean that 64% agree with it......These special interest groups get a lot of mileage out of our ridiculously politically incorrectness in America. I wonder how far we would get if we proposed running a Heterosexual Pride parade every year or creating a White Entertainment Network for television. What about an organization like the NAACP for whites? How long do you think it would be before we would be branded bigots?

[AGB]

Dec 21, 2013 12:32:49 GMT -5 frankq said:

Dec 21, 2013 11:56:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Wrong.

"Gallup finds 64% of Americans saying gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, the highest since it first asked the question more than 30 years ago."

Gallup

64% may think it should be legal, but that doesn't mean that 64% agree with it......These special interest groups get a lot of mileage out of our ridiculously politically incorrectness in America. I wonder how far we would get if we proposed running a Heterosexual Pride parade every year or creating a White Entertainment Network for television. What about an organization like the NAACP for whites? How long do you think it would be before we would be branded bigots?

Maybe you didn't get them memo, but... we already are.

[mmhmm]

Dec 21, 2013 12:32:49 GMT -5 frankq said:

Dec 21, 2013 11:56:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Wrong.

"Gallup finds 64% of Americans saying gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, the highest since it first asked the question more than 30 years ago."

Gallup

64% may think it should be legal, but that doesn't mean that 64% agree with it......These special interest groups get a lot of mileage out of our ridiculously politically incorrectness in America. I wonder how far we would get if we proposed running a Heterosexual Pride parade every year or creating a White Entertainment Network for television. What about an organization like the NAACP for whites? How long do you think it would be before we would be branded bigots?

If a person doesn't agree with gay or lesbian relations, they shouldn't indulge in gay or lesbian relations.  It's really quite simple.  They shouldn't, however, feel their disagreement is grounds to control what others might do/believe, IMO.

[mtman]

Dec 21, 2013 12:32:49 GMT -5 frankq said:

Dec 21, 2013 11:56:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Wrong.

"Gallup finds 64% of Americans saying gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, the highest since it first asked the question more than 30 years ago."

Gallup

64% may think it should be legal, but that doesn't mean that 64% agree with it......These special interest groups get a lot of mileage out of our ridiculously politically incorrectness in America. I wonder how far we would get if we proposed running a Heterosexual Pride parade every year or creating a White Entertainment Network for television. What about an organization like the NAACP for whites? How long do you think it would be before we would be branded bigots?

Didn't you know.....Only white folk can be racists and bigots

[mmhmm]

Dec 21, 2013 12:35:18 GMT -5 AGB said:

Dec 21, 2013 12:32:49 GMT -5 frankq said:

64% may think it should be legal, but that doesn't mean that 64% agree with it......These special interest groups get a lot of mileage out of our ridiculously politically incorrectness in America. I wonder how far we would get if we proposed running a Heterosexual Pride parade every year or creating a White Entertainment Network for television. What about an organization like the NAACP for whites? How long do you think it would be before we would be branded bigots?

Maybe you didn't get them memo, but... we already are.

People tend to brand others with all sorts of labels.  The sword cuts both ways.

[mmhmm]

Dec 21, 2013 12:36:37 GMT -5 mtman said:

Dec 21, 2013 12:32:49 GMT -5 frankq said:

64% may think it should be legal, but that doesn't mean that 64% agree with it......These special interest groups get a lot of mileage out of our ridiculously politically incorrectness in America. I wonder how far we would get if we proposed running a Heterosexual Pride parade every year or creating a White Entertainment Network for television. What about an organization like the NAACP for whites? How long do you think it would be before we would be branded bigots?

Didn't you know.....Only white folk can be racists and bigots

Nope.  There are racists and bigots of all skin colors.

[Tennesseer]

Dec 21, 2013 12:03:33 GMT -5 mtman said:

It's good to see that people are pushing back against the blackmail tactics of the extremist org (GLAAD)....People are getting sick and tired of having this gay crap flung in their face.

You the man, Phil....

It's good to see that people are pushing back against racist tactics too.....People are getting sick and tired of having this racist crap flung in their face.

[Tennesseer]

Dec 21, 2013 12:17:44 GMT -5 AGB said:

Dec 21, 2013 12:06:39 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If you didn't have your nose all up in their business, they wouldn't be able to hit you in the face, would they?

You mean, like GLAAD feels the need to have their nose up in Mr. Robertson's business?

I thought there was the argument that if other people's actions don't affect you, you should stay out of their business.

Don't forget he pissed off the NAACP too!

[Tennesseer]

Dec 21, 2013 12:32:49 GMT -5 frankq said:

Dec 21, 2013 11:56:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Wrong.

"Gallup finds 64% of Americans saying gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, the highest since it first asked the question more than 30 years ago."

Gallup

64% may think it should be legal, but that doesn't mean that 64% agree with it......These special interest groups get a lot of mileage out of our ridiculously politically incorrectness in America. I wonder how far we would get if we proposed running a Heterosexual Pride parade every year or creating a White Entertainment Network for television. What about an organization like the NAACP for whites? How long do you think it would be before we would be branded bigots?

In 1967, at the time of the Loving v. Virginia SCUTUS decision, less than 20% of the U.S. population thought interracial marriage was okay.

For the most part, Americans have gotten over it.

[Tennesseer]

The school students of today will be the voting citizens of tomorrow.  Time is on these students side and some folks better adjust to it.

"Students at a Seattle-area Catholic high school are hoping to change the church's stance on gay marriage by protesting a vice-principal's forced resignation.

SEATTLE — Students at a Seattle-area Catholic school are gaining national attention for their protest over the forced departure of a gay vice principal.

An online petition started by the senior class president of Eastside Catholic was the third fastest growing U.S. petition on change.org Friday, attracting around 15,000 signatures in one day.

The petition was launched after Vice Principal Mark Zmuda resigned under pressure from school administrators after they learned he had married his same-sex partner.

Related: Judge strikes down Utah's same-sex marriage ban

Bradley Strode said the students want to effect change within the wider Catholic Church, with an ultimate goal of altering the Catholic Church's stance on gay marriage.

"Realistically, what we can do is try to change the way the Catholic Church talks about gay marriage," said Strode, 17, of Bellevue. "I don't think it's right for a man who was such a good administrator to be fired for something that had no effect on his performance."

Strode said an on-campus protest Thursday was treated with respect by school staff. His argument is with the Seattle archdiocese and the broader church.

Strode, who describes himself as a confirmed Catholic who doesn't go to church every Sunday, said he and other young members of his faith have been inspired by Pope Francis' statements that the church should not judge homosexuals or interfere spiritually with the lives of gays and lesbians."

Full story here:  Washington students protest gay vice principal's exit