So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

as just one example of Firefly's fair and balanced commentary she is trying to sell the idea that the family did not support Phil after they made it clear that they would rather end the show than work without him, and son tweets

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/conservative-fans-unhappy-ae-duck-dynasty-controversy/story?id=21361034

Another: she floats the idea that Phil backtracked when he was in church last sunday saying what he said to GQ all over again.

and so on and so on.


but suckers are born every minute.

Absolutely. An earlier tape of Phil Robertson surfaced being more explicit and no one was left in any doubt what this bigot meant. He went on and on about Gays and bestiality.

I have never watched the show as that is not the type of program that appeal to me. I only heard about "Duck Dynasty" since the scandal hit the fan. MSNBC aired an earlier tape by Robertson demonizing Gays. This was the face of the real man and what he feels. Racism is the DNA of American culture and conspicuously so in the southern states who seemingly are still fighting the Civil War. Many of these states are red states and despise Obama. Robertson knew he had an audience when he spoke his obscene words, he felt comfortable because he knew exactly what his audience wanted him to sound off on. He is a hypocrite, pure and simple. It's nearby impossible for someone as old as he is to be without deep racial prejudice against blacks and also not have strong visceral feelings against Gays because he comes from a world steeped in Bible lore.

leave it to you to label traditional biblical morality obscenity. These fools are supposed to have the decency to remain silent, correct?


your prejudice against and hatred for Christians shines brightly.

This isent the same as christian principals.

because all of those so called Christians who dont agree with you about what God demands are fakes, right? You know the one true God, others dont, according to you.

Conceited much?

Let us see? The Christisan God said love your neighbor as your self. He also said judge not lest you be judged or something close to this. I think he is saying you dont have the right to judge other people. I never said any of the things you stated. Another straw man BS post by you.

let me guess....you are not even a Christian yet you are demanding the right to define what a real Christian is, correct?

Well A & E does, because they are part of the "creative community"--they are the people who employ artists, and writers, and musicians, and actors, and all manner of creative folk, and they are the people who develop TV shows, which most people consider a creative endeavor. They are in the entertainment business. And, as a private corporation, they have the right to want their programming, and those identified with their network, to not express views which are inconsistent with their basic values. And, since they also employ homosexuals, and African Americans, and people who don't believe in Jesus, they certainly have a right to insist on not allowing anyone on their payroll to make offensive statements about people in those groups. And A & E said that staffers at their network were personally offended by what Robertson said.

I don't know who you think comprises the "Duck Dynasty" audience. Only other Louisiana rednecks or evangelical Christians? The show apparently attracts a very wide demographic--some may tune in to laugh at these people, others to laugh with them--because they are mainly shown as a rather goofy oddball group--multi-millionaire rednecks allegedly living "the simple life" in the backwaters of Louisiana--that's the main appeal of this show, the closeness of the family, the humor in their interactions, and the oddness of their chosen lifestyle. Showing them, for less than 30 seconds, saying grace before dinner, which is how each episode of Duck Dynasty ends, was about the amount of religion infused into this show in the 4 episodes of DD I watched during the recent DD marathon. This show is not filled with expressions of piety or any in-your-face religion.

I have a feeling that a good many people in Duck Dynasty's viewing audience, and fan base, were also shocked by the offensive comments made by Phil Robertson, because this is not the sort of thing voiced by anyone on DD. It is contrary to the tone, and sort of values, promoted on DD.

Duck Dynasty is not the only show on A & E's line-up. Their channel attracts all kinds of viewers for various types of programming--so A & E's audience goes way beyond DD. This is the same network that aired Mad Men, also a very popular show, but quite a different kind of show than DD, and one which may have attracted a very different audience. A & E rightly doesn't want to tarnish it's corporate image, or turn off potential viewers, by aligning itself with the kind of bigoted comments that have come out of Phil Robertson's mouth.

If DD hadn't been such a money-maker for the network, Phil would have been gone, no fake suspension, just gone. And if Robertson, and his brood, didn't want to retain their very lucrative relationship with A & E, they would have been the ones protesting the suspension, not right-wing pressure groups like Faith Driven Consumers.

The Robertsons made no stink about this being a "freedom of speech" or "religious freedom" issue, and, for all we know, the clan didn't agree with the patriarch's views, or the way he expressed them either, because they wanted to salvage this show too, they wanted to find a way out of the mess papa had set off. And Phil Robertson did try to backtrack from his offending remarks--he said he really doesn't hate or judge anyone.

Duck Dynasty helps to keep the Robertsons' business empire growing and expanding, because it gives them a platform to maintain their visibility--and it's A & E that owns the Duck Dynasty franchise. If the Robertsons like their paychecks, they'll play by A & E's rules, and refrain from landing them in the middle of unwanted acrimonious controversy in the future.

Maybe it will feature Phil Robertson saying it's not all right to be a bigot.

Y'all don't believe in this ****, ff, it just makes you feel good to
get to repeat the USA propaganda you were fed as kids.

And that extreme religious right is sleeping around with this woman
and that man, this sheep and that cow, this ... .

These USA shows - honey boo boo, doomsday preppers, duck fuckers
and the like are highly enlightening.

"George was subversive". You lot just like to use big words that you
need spell check to get right.

Red neck stupidity from sea to polluted sea.

God help the USA if you define what is a "real American", Sig.

I would bet Hawkeye that they would also love to do the same as President Jefferson did and go completely through the bible editing out those things such as the anti-gay sections to achieve a completely PC bible.

Where in the Bible does it say this about homosexuals?

That's the gospel according to Phil Robertson...his own version, embellished in his own way.

Do you afford Islamic fundamentalists the same pass on bigotry and hatred you seem to feel some Christian fundamentalists deserve? It seems to me you've been pretty vocal in your negative opinions about fundamentalist followers of Islam, who regard their Koran as important to them as Robertson does the Bible he thumps.

sounds like a soundbite from a classic fire and brimstone sermon....what is your point?

Given that you can find support for almost any possible position in the bible and people have been doing so for 2000 years there is no point other then Firefly does not care for Phil non-PC religious positions base on sections of the bible.

We need instead of the King James version an approve GLAAD and women lib version and then we should burn all other versions on a big big bonfire.

No, this isn't classic fire and brimstone rhetoric..

It's a slanderous and offensive diatribe against homosexuals, that reflects "traditional Biblical morality" about as much as the crosses the KKK burned on people's lawns, including the lawns of anyone who did not share their religious affiliation, reflected "traditional Biblical morality".

In terms of accuracy it's in a class with his view that blacks were happier in pre-civil rights Jim Crow Louisiana, picking cotton in the fields, than they are now .

If a Muslim fundamentalist, and reality TV icon, gave a magazine interview, or a speech in a mosque, describing Christian "infidels" in the same way this man describes homosexuals, people, particularly the right-wing religious groups supporting Robertson, and his "religious freedom" would be going wild if the network didn't get rid of that Muslim fundamentalist, and they wouldn't give a damn about his religious freedom.

And you're such an alleged defender of "religious freedom" you didn't even want to see a mosque/community center built in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center site--something, that under their religious freedom, Muslim Americans had every right to do, in peace, without having to put up with any irrational crap or bigotry or Islamophobia about it.

As long as the groups that get slammed fit in with those you agree should get slammed, you're all for defending the "freedom" to do that.

But when Moment-In-Time makes a statement about how those in the Bible Belt, of a certain generation, tend to think, your immediate comeback was


You're pretty fast to label others as bigots too, Hawkeye. What's the matter, you had no defense to what Moment-In Time said, so you accused her of being anti-Christian? Does everyone have to be pro-Christian?

So, it's all right by you for Christians to hate, but just don't criticize them for that, because that's part of their "traditional Biblical morality"? But it's all right to criticize and hate Muslim fundamentalists for the things they say because they're waving the wrong Holy Book in their hands? Is that your garbled thinking? And, of course, you know which religious text is the right one, don't you?

Funny you can't see the prejudice and hatred in Robertson's comments--and just because he's waving a Bible doesn't make his remarks any less prejudiced and hateful, or acceptable. Except you don't seem to have much regard for those folks you call "the fags", so why would what he said even bother you, or even seem hateful to you? And you don't seem too fond of blacks either, so his comments about them wouldn't bother you either.

If you had any interest in freedom of expression, or any real integrity, you'd be applauding all the activists who spoke out condemning Robertson's remarks, because no one should remain silent in response to prejudice and hate, regardless of who is promoting it, and you supposedly advocate speaking out.

I repeat, as long as the groups that get slammed fit in with those you agree should get slammed, you're all for defending the "freedom" to do that.

Your hypocrisy "shines brightly".

he is not talking about lack of need for civil rights laws, he is talking about how back before they took on the victim identity, back when they were working and not expecting to get by on handouts prompted by sympathy, blacks he knew seemed happy. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this observation.

my beef is with A&E, not the gadflys at GLAAD. they should keep yapping if they want to, and I encourage others to ignore them. This group no longer has a useful purpose.

no, but since there are still some of them around the rest of us need to be able to live civilly and peaceably with them.

my problem with fundamentalist muslims is their tendency towards violence, not their spiritual beliefs.