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

@Thomas,

I have not seen all the remarks made in the interview but the few I did see were neither ignorant nor bigoted. They might be said to be indelicate.

Isn't declaring them "ignorant and bigoted" a form of censorship? A tactic to curtail free speech. Isn't the popular demand to reinstate the guy proof that a large number of people don't think his remarks were ignorant and bigoted. It might be proof that being ignorant and bigoted is popular. The fat baldy headed crack snorter and well known piss artist who is running again for mayor must think so. And he's an elected official.

The suspicion arises that those asserting the remarks were ignorant and bigoted have a personal motive.

It is very odd though to be welcoming the reinstatement of a person one has declared ignorant and bigoted to a position of influence and as a role model. His position of influence is the only reason his remarks are worthy of being noticed. Such things as I read can be heard every day of the week in pubs and usually with considerably more style and with more literary exactitude than scientific rigour.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

firefly wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to criticize the tactics of the right-wing Christian groups,
who try to silence those who support homosexual rights, and same-sex marriage, through their intimidations.

Thomas wrote:

Fair point. I would have raised it against you myself a few days ago,
had I been online. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'm sure you
would see this episode as the freedom-of-speech issue that it is.

Suppose it's Christmas 1962. Andy Griffith, having shot season three
of his successful TV show, says in an interview that interracial
marriage and gay sex are just fine, and that any laws criminalizing
them are evil. In response, the John Birch Society pillories all stations
carrying his show and organizes boycotts against their advertizers.
The stations cave in by firing Griffith. The next TV personality will
think twice before endorsing the civil rights of Blacks and gays.
Are you seriously disputing that this would have chilled
free speech --- maybe not as a legal matter but as a practical matter?

Whatever we end up calling it, something similar started to happen
in the Robertson case, and thank goodness it failed. I'm glad that
A&E caved in to the Robertsons and the viewership they bring.
I'm relieved that Phil Robertson's 'indefinite' suspension fizzled after mere weeks.

I see the merit of your reasoning.
As is very ofen the case: u make good sense, Tom.
However, in the service of historical accuracy,
I will point out that the John Birch Society was SINGLE MINDED
in its dedication to the defeat of communism. It rejected
championing ANY other causes. Since the death of communism
on Christmas of 1991, I don t know what (if anything) the JBS has done.

I was not a member of the JBS, tho I admired everyone
who offered opposition to communism.

Thomas wrote:

The fact that his remarks
were ignorant and bigoted doesn't change that.

1. EVERYONE on this planet is ignorant.
If u found a man with 7 Ivy League doctorates and multiple Nobel Prizes
to his credit, it wud still be very ez to reveal that he is ignorant
of many things, and very likely, he 'd readily admit it. Thru out
this solar system and this universe, there are trillions of facts
whereof these ignorants know not (let alone any knowledge
of the relationships between those un-known facts and their consequences).

2. I wonder whether I was BIGOTED
in my impassioned opposition to nazism, communism and all socialism!??
I sure hated Hitler, Stalin and the Kennedys. I resented Truman firing MacArthur.
I had strong feelings! HHHHhhhhhmmmmmm . . . I wonder ?

WHATAYATHINK ????

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

However, in the service of historical accuracy,
I will point out that the John Birch Society was SINGLE MINDED
in its dedication to the defeat of communism.

Maybe that's. On the other hand, an activist on the opposite side informs me that pretty much every left-of-center political cause was communist to the John-Birch society in practice --- starting with flourinated drinking water and going on from environmental protection to legalizing abortion to desegregating motels to, yes, decriminalizing sexual minorities. But I don't have time right now to read up on the matter myself. May I suggest that we not waste time discussing if a piece of alternate history is historically accurate or not?

OmSigDavid wrote:

EVERYONE on this planet is ignorant.

That's why I took no position on whether the person Phil Robertson is ignorant. I deliberately commented about his remarks only.

OmSigDavid wrote:

2. I wonder whether I was BIGOTED
in my impassioned opposition to nazism, communism and all socialism!??
I sure hated Hitler, Stalin and the Kennedys. I resented Truman firing MacArthur.
I had strong feelings! HHHHhhhhhmmmmmm . . . I wonder ?

WHATAYATHINK ????

As applied to Truman, Kennedy, and all socialists, I think your sentiments were bigoted. As applied to Hitler, Stalin, fascism and communism, I think they could be justified a rational response to people who declared war on you and wanted to overthrow America's democratic government. I usually try not to make political discussions personal, but you specifically asked me what I think. This is what I think.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Phil marrying his wife at a young age seems to had work out just fine for his wife and their children.

It didn't when he was well known as an alcoholic who ran around with other women and who abused his wife and children, and even threw them out of their house. His youngest son suffered from depression related to his father's alcoholism and abandonment which he said left "permanent scars" on him.

Quote:

His marriage to wife Kay also suffered, as he admits his better half “was at the end of her rope” with her husband.

“I was always out, partying with my buddies, leaving her alone to raise our three sons,” he wrote. “Kay felt her entire life was in ruins and that she had failed as a wife.”
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/07/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-happy/

Quote:

In a speech to the “Sportsmen’s Ministry” in Georgia in 2009, Robertson — who at age 20 married his underage girlfriend to avoid going to prison for statutory rape — tells an audience that they should look for underage girls who can cook and “know how to pick your ducks” because if they marry adult women “the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket.”

Robertson knows how to mess around with underage girls. His future wife was 14 when she got pregnant by him — he was 20 — and he married her at 16 to keep the state of Louisiana from tossing him into prison for statutory rape.

He later abused his wife and children and went to jail more than once before giving up the bottle, claiming he “found God” and repented. But his conversion in life apparently did not stop him from advising other adult men to prey on young women.
http://www.blueridgemuse.com/node/21547

You really should bother learning something about the man before you say how well things worked out for his wife and children even though he married her at such a young age.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
marriage for a female is 27 this is all too silly to take seriously

Hawkeye for that subset of young women who are giving births as teenagers it would still, on average, be better if they was married then having those children out of wedlock.

Phil marrying his wife at a young age seems to had work out just fine for his wife and their children.

teen preg and teen sex rates have actually been going down, another reason why hyperventilating about young females maybe deciding to choose to hook up with guys in marriage is a hoot.

point of fact, the average age of first marriage for females is actually 29. Ya, let's just say I am not much concerned that old Phil is going to change anything in that reguards.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

If the shoe was on the other foot, I'm sure you would see this episode as the freedom-of-speech issue that it is.

No I don't think I would.

What guarantees any of us the right to this alleged "freedom of speech"--speech that's free from reactions or consequences?

I think that trying to apply that notion to the situation with Robertson is absurd. "Freedom of speech" without consequences, or reactions, doesn't exist.

Suppose Robertson had voiced something like the comments of Charles C. Worley, pastor of the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., who preached on May 13, 2012

Quote:

In the sermon, an animated Worley told the congregation of his independent Baptist church:

“I figured a way out, a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers but I couldn’t get it pass the Congress – build a great big large fence, 50 or a hundred mile long. Put all the lesbians in there, fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. And have that fence electrified so they can’t get out.

“And you know what? In a few years they will die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce. If a man ever has a young'un, praise God he will be the first.”

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/27/11908278-standing-ovation-greets-pastor-charles-worley-who-made-anti-gay-statements?lite

Would you still think a TV network should be obligated to retain Robertson if he had made those same statements and the network found them offensive and contrary to their values? Suppose he made those statements about blacks or interracial couples rather than homosexuals?

All opinions are not going to be welcome. We do "chill" the expression of certain things with our reactions--that's also how a society expresses it's values and disapproval. Phil Robertson has the right to wear a swastika armband on his cami shirt. What sort of reaction to you think that would prompt if he did that?

The only side I'm taking in this situation is the side of the network to make whatever decision they think is in their best interests. I didn't agree with MSNBC's firings of Bashir or Baldwin, and they both had shows I enjoyed watching. I thought MSNBC could have handled the situations with both of them in a much better way.

And I don't think A & E "caved to pressure", and the Robertson family never refused to do the show without Phil--the N.Y. Times article you linked to is not accurate in that regard. The family issued only a vague and ambiguous statement--"We can't imagine doing the show without Phil"--which is hardly the same as refusing to do it--it could simply mean that doing the show without him would seem weird--and Phil never protested the suspension at all. And the petition drive organized by Faith Driven Consumers demanding that A & E reinstate Phil seems to be an effort to "chill" the right of the network to state their own views and opinions, and to make their business decisions based on those. Why would you see it as good that a special interest religious group cowed a network into doing what they wanted, if that's how you see this situation? Would it also have been equally good if G.L.A.D.D. or the N.A.A.C.P. or N.O.W. had been able to cow the network into firing Robertson?

I don't think A & E ever had the slightest intention of doing anything that would jeopardize their Duck Dynasty show. The "suspension" was a sham because the show was on hiatus, and announcing it was a way of pacifying the offended groups while the network bought itself time to figure out a damage control strategy that would allow the show to continue without making themselves look hypocritical in terms of their stated support of the LGBT community. I don't think the petition drive demanding they lift Robertson's suspension influenced their decision at all. They were never going to fire Robertson, or eliminate him from their most popular show. This was about MONEY, and the network's efforts to work out a face-saving solution for themselves, which is why they announced their public service campaign to run announcements promoting tolerance and acceptance. And, for all we know, they may have gotten the Robertsons to agree to be part of that campaign.

And, while I didn't agree with MSNBC's firings of Baldwin and Bashir, I don't question their right to have made such decisions. I'm not going to demand they rehire them. It's their business. If they don't want to give certain people a public platform, because they disagree with them, or their views affect their company's image and interests, that's their right. I wouldn't expect MSNBC to hire Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity either, any more than Fox News would likely hire Rachel Maddow.

So, the only side I'm taking with all these firings--Paula Dean, Martin Bashir, Alec Baldwin, and the situation with Phil Robertson, is the side of the networks--privately owned companies--to make their own decisions for whatever reasons they want to. No one has a right to have their own TV show. It's up to the network to decide who they want to provide with a platform. That's how they exercise their "freedom of speech."

3 Replies

@firefly,

Actually Thomas is right, both the New and Old denounce the act of homosexuality. I can look it up, but it says something like "man lying with men in the way of man lying with women" being an abomination. In the new its mentioned along with other sins such as even lying.

I don't think he should have been suspended for expressing his religious beliefs but I simply don't like the show. I have watched it a time or two because my husband and granddaughter love it, but I think it is a silly show regardless.

1 Reply

@revelette,

Quote:

I don't think he should have been suspended for expressing his religious beliefs

I don't think he was suspended just for sharing his "religious beliefs."

revelette, the fact that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible explains why Robertson, personally, disapproves of it. He's entitled to that dispproval, and to express it. The problem is with the way he expresses it--by stereotyping and vilifying the characters of all homosexuals, by voicing animosity toward an entire group, and by demeaning them as human beings.

Plenty of people do not "approve" of homosexuality or same-sex marriage and their disapproval does not generate the sort of reaction Robertson provoked because they don't veer into hate speech against an entire group, they simply voice their lack of approval.

And Robertson's comments about how much happier blacks seemed to him in Jim Crow Louisiana than they are now, seems to promote the idea that blacks were more content when they were under the subjugation of the white man, and it doesn't surprise me that blacks would be offended and outraged by that sort of opinion.

And his views that adult men should marry 15 year old girls--because it's easier to subordinate girls than 20 year old women--is outrageous to anyone who doesn't think that females should be subordinated, or who feel that it's also important that females at least finish high school, and have some emotional maturity, before they begin having children.

It's not just his view of homosexuality that various groups were reacting to, this man ticks off a lot of people with his comments on a whole range of issues that have little connection to "religious beliefs". And people are free to agree with him, or to disagree with him. But when his employer disagrees with him, and they don't want to be associated with him, they have a right to can him.

On top of everything else, his controversial and divisive opinions are at odds with the entire tone of the Duck Dynasty show, which is carefully constructed as a family "comedy" program, without any controversy, or religious premise at all. So, in that regard, his comments also damage the warm fuzzy image of A & E's highly rated show, which is designed to appeal to a very broad demographic, and to promote positive values of family love. A & E has every reason not to want Robertson to shoot his mouth off in certain ways. It negatively impacts the image of Duck Dynasty--and they don't want to lose viewers for that show.

And the rest of the Robertson family, whose livelihoods also depend on Duck Dynasty, because it provides them with visibility that helps their other business interests to thrive, may really not want him stirring up that sort of controversy either. His sons said they didn't agree with his "coarse" manner of expression in that GQ interview, but it's also significant that they never said they supported his opinions, or shared them. They may well not.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

What guarantees any of us the right to this alleged "freedom of speech"

Nothing. I didn't say anything guarantees it, but it's a good thing nevertheless. Possible reasons for supporting it include common decency, concern for open discourse, and awareness of the historical fact that the argument from unspeakability, "how dare they voice opinions like this!", would have cut against ever decriminalizing gay sex only 50 years ago. I want to live in a society where communities like gays in the 60s can speak up and liberate themselves from unjust laws. The price for having this kind of society is that the Phil Robertsons of America can speak without social intimidation as well. I am willing to pay this price. Apparently you are not.

3 Replies

@firefly,

I really haven't kept up with all to tell the truth. Been going through personal things and felt I didn't need internet debate at the time to add to it. I just kind of vaguely heard the bit about his views on homosexuality. Sure didn't know about the fifteen years old girls and all. I just kind of looked in here and saw the first few post....

On the whole I agree with your post and opinions, however, like Thomas I don't agree with censorship.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

The price for having this kind of society is that the Phil Robertsons of America can speak without social intimidation as well.

Firefly and those who agree with her should be the only ones able to speak out in the public square without fear of one kind of harm or another kind of harm being done to them.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Germaine Greer gave Mother Theresa a blast Dave. Why do you go for easy targets?

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Would you still think a TV network should be obligated to retain Robertson if he had made those same statements and the network found them offensive and contrary to their values?

Networks are only offended by one thing ff--falling ratings.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

The price for having this kind of society is that the Phil Robertsons of America can speak without social intimidation as well. I am willing to pay this price. Apparently you are not.

There have always been opposing voices, to any opinions, and there has always been opposition, and forms of intimidation, used to try to block any sort of significant social change, and it's never shut anyone up. And, certainly, anyone who lived through the civil rights era in this country knows that.

And gays were speaking up 60 years ago, it's just that people didn't pay attention to them, and many remained closeted for protective reasons. The fact that they are now more visible, and vocal, and activist, is what many anti-gay people object to--they see them as "flaunting" their homosexuality or "promoting" it, and those homophobes would be much happier if they shut up and went back in the closet.

I don't think the situation with Robertson has anything to do with "gay rights" I think the man holds a spectrum of views, on various issues, I feel are bigoted, and I find bigotry offensive, no matter which group it's aimed at.

I'm much more concerned about the ability of networks to run their own business, and make their own business decisions, in accord with their own interests and principles. Phil Robertson didn't chose to associate himself with one of the Christian cable networks, he's chosen to be employed by a network whose stance on social issues, and the values they want to promote and identify themselves with, may differ from his, and when his behavior or speech becomes something they don't want to support, they have every right to take them off their airwaves. Newspapers have every right to do the same with their columnists in similar situations.

This isn't about "freedom of speech" it's about private corporations, particularly media enterprises, exercising their independence to run their own businesses their own way, and making their own choices about who they want to promote and supply with a platform. It's about their freedom.

You are overlooking the fact that this isn't really about "freedom of speech"--it's about whether people have a right to have a TV reality show, or any kind of show, on a particular network--a privately owned network--when their network considers them a liability, for any reason. That's really all this is about. The specifics of what Robertson said really don't matter--if the network feels he's a liability to them, for any reason, they should have the right to fire him. I don't see this situation as any different than the situation with Paula Dean and the Food Network, or the situation with Bashir and Baldwin with MSNBC.

To say you want to silence negative responses to Robertson, or negative reactions to A & E, or A & E's own voice in deciding what values they want to promote or not promote, in order to get rid of "social intimation" is exactly contrary to promoting the sort of "freedom' you claim you want to see.

When ABC allowed Ellen DeGeneres' character to "come out" on her "Ellen" comedy series show in 1997, there was plenty of backlash--from advertisers and religious groups--and a good deal of intimidation, including bomb threats, was directed against the network, the producers of the show, DeGeneres, and even against other actors who appeared in the episode, and subsequently found themselves blacklisted for a few years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode

That intimidation didn't stop ABC from doing the episode, which was a huge ratings and critical success, and it didn't stop the next season of the show, which was how the consumers of the network's programing registered their opinions.

You can't eliminate the social pressures or even various forms of intimidation groups may use against a network, or its personalities, as long as those don't cross the line in terms of legality. And I don't want to see them eliminated. People have the right to express themselves, mainly by changing the channel or choosing not to buy the products of advertisers of shows they find offensive.

The first petition I ever signed in my life was to oppose the harassment and persecution of Lenny Bruce--which was a genuine "free speech" issue, because it was the government doing the harassment and persecution. Bruce, a comedian, was continually being arrested for "obscenity", and it was outrageous and appalling.
http://www.gadflyonline.com/archive/MarchApril01/archive-lennybruce.html

I'll strongly defend Robertson's right to freedom of expression, but I'm not going to defend his right to a TV show, or to an absence of consequences for the opinions he voices.

And consumers will register their opinions, about Robertson's remarks, and A & E's decision to continue to employ him, by whether the ratings for Duck Dynasty rise or fall next season.

All of the publicity about this entire business doesn't seem to have gotten many people in this thread to tune in and actually watch Duck Dynasty, so it may not help to boost ratings, and could even damage them. We'll have to wait and see about that. Even fans of Duck Dynasty may have been upset or angered by Robertson's comments, and that might affect whether they want to continue viewing the show.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

what many anti-gay people object to--they see them as "flaunting" their homosexuality or "promoting" it, and those homophobes would be much happier if they shut up and went back in the closet.

being gay is no excuse for being a dick.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

being gay is no excuse for being a dick.

Being heterosexual is no excuse for being a dick either.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I think there are several interesting takes on this particular defense of speech. First, Robertson is getting a great defense, but others are not. No one is defending the Dominics employee I posted about earlier and the same with the Sacco incident. The defense of speech seems very vocal when homophobic comments are made but other speech seems not worth the effort. Second, there is the right of companies to hire and fire employees at will. In the Dominics and Sacco cases, the employee was fired. Once again, no defense, no outrage. Third, the idea of being free from social pressure has got to be very new. Society always has enforced its norms for good or bad. Society is now split on homosexuals. For centuries, homosexuals have been on the very short end of society's tolerance. In most places they still are, but we are now we're starting to see some backlash against people like Robertson. It seems like you are saying it is perfectly fine for them to dish is out but heaven forbid they have to take it. To me, either you condemn the social pressure Robertson and his ilk put on homosexuals as well as the pressure they put on him or you let both go as the cost of free speech.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Suppose Robertson had voiced something like the comments of Charles C. Worley, pastor of the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., who preached on May 13, 2012

No, because that goes beyond expressing an opinion about gay people and advocates the specific action of putting them in a concentration camp, severely depriving them of their liberty (not to mention their dignity= without any process of law, let alone due process. As (I think) I pointed out in the sub-threads about Martin Bashir and Sarah Palin, the suggestion of criminal or unconstitutional actions is where I cross the line.

In particular, I'm perfectly fine with Martin Bashir expressing a negative opinion about Sarah Palin. I'm not fine with him suggesting, even half-jesting as he did, that someone force her mouth open so people can urinate and defecate into it. I'm perfectly fine with Sarah Palin advocating for a hard line on the Second Amendment. I'm not fine with her website putting those bullseyes on her opponents' heads, which probably inspired Gabby Giffords' would-be assassin. By the same token, I'm also fine --- well, fine enough to tolerate --- Phil Robertson's negative opinion about gays. But not with your pastor suggesting that they be detained in a concentration camp. Did I explain clearly enough where my line is?

Firefly wrote:

Phil Robertson has the right to wear a swastika armband on his cami shirt. What sort of reaction to you think that would prompt if he did that?

An outcry from professional liberals, a freedom-of-speech defense from professional conservatives, and higher ratings for the network, for whom there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Firefly wrote:

Why would you see it as good that a special interest religious group cowed a network into doing what they wanted, if that's how you see this situation?

I don't. But I consider it the lesser evil compared to the chilling effect on free speech of firing Phil Robertson.

Firefly wrote:

Would it also have been equally good if G.L.A.D.D. or the N.A.A.C.P. or N.O.W. had been able to cow the network into firing Robertson?

No, because in this case the cowing of the network and the chilling of the speech are both bad. I'm not even conflicted about disapproving of it.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

You are overlooking the fact that this isn't really about "freedom of speech"

I'm not overlooking it, I'm disagreeing with you about this 'fact'. There is a difference, you know.

firefly wrote:

To say you want to silence negative responses to Robertson, or negative reactions to A & E, or A & E's own voice in deciding what values they want to promote or not promote, in order to get rid of "social intimation" is exactly contrary to promoting the sort of "freedom' you claim you want to see.

I don't care about negative responses, I care about actions. Going after someone's source of income for expressing unpopular opinions is an action I disapprove of.

firefly wrote:

When ABC allowed Ellen DeGeneres' character to "come out" on her "Ellen" comedy series show in 1997, there was plenty of backlash--from advertisers and religious groups--and a good deal of intimidation, including bomb threats, was directed against the network, the producers of the show, DeGeneres, and even against other actors who appeared in the episode, and subsequently found themselves blacklisted for a few years.

And that was a really bad thing, was it not?

firefly wrote:

You can't eliminate the social pressures or even various forms of intimidation groups may use against a network, or its personalities, as long as those don't cross the line in terms of legality.

Leaving aside whether this is true, the fact that I can't eliminate something doesn't make it a good thing. I can still detest it and say so, and that's all I'm doing here.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

It seems like you are saying it is perfectly fine for them to dish is out but heaven forbid they have to take it. To me, either you condemn the social pressure Robertson and his ilk put on homosexuals as well as the pressure they put on him [...]

And I will, as soon as Robertson suggests specific actions against homosexuals. (For some more details about my reasoning, refer to my response to Firefly.)

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know