Evidence for God from Science

http://www.webpronews.com/duck-dynastys ... ty-2013-12

Phil Robertson breaks it to them

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/duck-dynasty ... h-of-gays/

kicked out of his own show

I saw this news last night. My prediction is that if A&E doesn't bring Phil back, the Robertson family will stick by him, and leave A&E for another network, or just drop their show altogether.

I guess its ok to say things about adulterers and swingers, but not Gays.
So much for freedom of expression.

*Scratches head and wonders who said 'Duck' people are...*

*Shrug*

Much cheers to all.

I guess its ok to say things about adulterers and swingers, but not Gays.
So much for freedom of expression.

I doubt the show would have suspended him if he just said he disagreed with homosexuality. But when you compare gay sex to bestiality, or say that being gay is just a gateway to being a horrible person, you've gone from just plainly speaking your beliefs to being blatantly offensive. And sure, he has a right to state his beliefs, no one is questioning that...but if a television station affiliated with his show prefers to no longer associate themselves with his offensive remarks, then that is their right. Like Rick said, if they want to go find another channel to put their show on, then they can do that.

Not to mention, this guy wasn't just suspended for his anti-gay remarks...he made a fool of himself by insinuating that African Americans were better off when they were living under racist laws:

http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-duck ... 21415.html

Ivellious wrote:
Not to mention, this guy wasn't just suspended for his anti-gay remarks...he made a fool of himself by insinuating that African Americans were better off when they were living under racist laws:

That's the part that bugs me. And nobody's making an issue out of this. What Phil said regarding blacks being better off under Jim Crow laws is just plain ignorant to say. It reminds me of what I heard that slaveholders said about slaves being better off as slaves in America, than being free men in Africa. It's an opinion based on Phil's age, and his upbringing as a white man in the south.

Since moving to north florida, I've found this attitude in the older white people I know here, unfortunately.

RickD wrote:It's an opinion based on Phil's age, and his upbringing as a white man in the south.

Well...maybe. What happens when a black African and the news agency that hires him says that things were better under the old regime? In our politically-correct world, It isn't always good to come out and tell it like it is.

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/z ... as-better/

Rhodesia - under white rule - was a net exporter of goods, had a positive balance of payments and a robust economy, all this in spite of being hit with severe sanctions. As independent Zimbabwe, the same country has become an economic basket case: food shortages, typhoid in the water, institutionalized corruption...you name the malady, Zimbabwe has it!

Do you remember the crowd booing at President Jacob Zuma during Mandela's funeral? South Africa is on the same road as Zimbabwe...but if you say that out loud, you are taxed as racist and xenophobe.

Anonymous

I don't know about Phil's racial observations - he's seems naive or ignorant if he thinks that the Jim Crow South was a good experience for most black people. Perhaps he had little contact with people of color. I was 10 in 1967 - I can remember the hostile attitudes, the terrible prejudice, the sinful things of that era. It was horrible. My own dad was, at one time, quite prejudices against black people. But I also experienced prejudice and hatred as a white minority in post-integration school system. By 10th grade, and due to white flight to private schools, whites made up perhaps 35% of my high school. By graduation, perhaps 20%. I was beaten up by a rampaging gang of black kids, regularly threatened, and went through school scared of being attacked. I was about 125 lbs soaking wet (what HAPPENED?!!! ). A lot of those kids had been raised on hate. But I also had black friends that protected me. My goal in high school was not to graduate with honors, but with all my teeth intact. So what I learned is that racial prejudice is a universally human sin, equally common across races - and one of the easiest things that Satan loves to manipulate.

But when you compare gay sex to bestiality, or say that being gay is just a gateway to being a horrible person, you've gone from just plainly speaking your beliefs to being blatantly offensive.

In this portion of his quoted statements, Phil merely paraphrased what the Bible says. And so their real venom and anger is about God's Word - which they view as prejudiced, hateful superstition writings of mere mortals. They hate that the Bible states who is and who isn't going to heaven - and that it doesn't allow for people just living the way they want to without severe eternal consequences. Phil even lumped his own pre-saved, promiscuous self with those who will not inherit heaven. He was just saying what he knew from Scripture, that all people living unrepentant, unbelieving, God/Jesus-dishonoring, disobedient lives, just as his once was, will not go to heaven. He was asked what he thought and he told them.

Ivellious wrote:

I guess its ok to say things about adulterers and swingers, but not Gays.
So much for freedom of expression.

I doubt the show would have suspended him if he just said he disagreed with homosexuality. But when you compare gay sex to bestiality, or say that being gay is just a gateway to being a horrible person, you've gone from just plainly speaking your beliefs to being blatantly offensive. And sure, he has a right to state his beliefs, no one is questioning that...but if a television station affiliated with his show prefers to no longer associate themselves with his offensive remarks, then that is their right. Like Rick said, if they want to go find another channel to put their show on, then they can do that.

Not to mention, this guy wasn't just suspended for his anti-gay remarks...he made a fool of himself by insinuating that African Americans were better off when they were living under racist laws:

http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-duck ... 21415.html

Do you know why I advocate freedom of speech?
Because of people feel they can't say what they really believe in then we don't know what they believe.
Censorship is NEVER a good thing.
True freedom is someone spewing the worse venom possible and YOU having to hear it.
If we don't have that, we don't have freedom of speech.

If we penalize people for an OPINION ( not an act) then what exactly are we doing?

Lets also be very clear that the INITIAL outrage were about his anti-gay comments and nothing else.
Lets be very clear about the HUGE influence that the Gay community has in Hollywood ( and in politics in general).

I actually don't think this is a freedom of speech issue, per se. Robertson had and still has that right. Freedom of speech pertains to governmental interference with expression. But even that isn't absolute, because unless we are going to suggest that public obscenity ought to be tolerated (and some think that is the case), then there have to be some limits. On that, people can argue that Robertson's remarks were not merely offensiev, but obscene. I think they would be wrong in that, but it shows, I think, that the issue is a bit more complicated than people are making it out to be.

But all that is beside the point, because Robertson's firing wasn't a matter of governmental action. It was the decision of a private business to terminate its commercial relationship with an individual because they don't want to be associated with the values that individual espouses. On that, they have every right. Robertson is not entitled to a show on A&E. You can argue that it was a stupid business move on A&E's part. You can argue that A&E has shown themselves to be anti-Christian. Such arguments may be true, but I don't think that the violation-of-free-speech arguments is right at all.

Now, Christians certainly have the right to decide not to watch A&E in protest of their actions and values. And if they do enough of that, A&E may be forced to rethink their policies if they want to stay in business. Just like Robertson is not entitled to a show on A&E, A&E is not entitled to viewers. They can call us whatever names they like. That's all beside the point.

For me, the bottom line is that we need to not frame this as a freedom of speech issue but rather as a cultural issue. What kind of country are we in when a person who professes a sincere and serious allegience to Scripture is demonized by the media? That to me is the real story.

Why I believe that the issue is freedom of speech is this:
If we are punished for expressing an opinion, NOT AN ACTION mind you, but an opinion because it offends, NOT damages or causes loss of life or property, a special interest group, then what OPINIONS are we ALLOWED to express?
If we are NOT allowed to express our opinions then where do we draw the line and, more importantly, WHO draws that line?

And that's fine that you hold that position, Paul. I just don't. I'm okay saying that society as a whole (referring to government) ought to censor some speech. I am fine with an organization censoring its members and preventing them from expressing views they fundamentally disagree with. I am fine with an individual refusing to associate with other individuals or organizations (which is to punish them in some way) that express opinions with which they disagree.

For instance, I'm not going to let a KKK loving racist sit at my dinner table and rant about the virtues of white supremacy. I will less than politely excuse them from my home. As a pastor, I'm not going to allow people to join my church and express their opinion that salvation is by works or that God does not exist or that sin is permissible. As a citizen of the USA, I very much support those laws that forbid the pornography industry from putting up obscene billboards.

Of course, the question does become, "Well where do you draw the line?" But that, I think, is a perfectly legitimate debate to have. Perhaps the line will be drawn in a place I'm not happy with, but I don't think that entails that we erase the line all together. I am not a libertarian. I believe that in order to be a free society we must also be a decent society. At times, I think that decency has to be enforced, too.

And I understand your POV Jac and even agree to some extent.
I just think that IF we are to have true freedom of speech then the very ideal of it is someone spewing off the most vile crap that we dispise the most and us NOT censoring him/her.
We may not LIKE it, but true freedom is not about what we like.
Now, I do agree that some speech is unacceptable BUT what makes MY view more than Tom, **** or Harry's? if THEY find it acceptable?

Its a very tough call to make, truly it is.

Back on subject.
Lets not make this about anything other than what it really seems to be:
A redneck made anti-gay comments and the gay lobby made him pay the price.