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

nope

not the case here and definitely not the case out in the real world

yup

the Robertsons seem to have settled down for the most part (at least in public) but the members of the Christian right I see online are seething more and more each day

on the upside, they're also continuing to buy more Duck Dynasty logo products, which means more $ for A&E

too bad PBS didn't have the Duck Dynasty franchise - it would have meant the end to begging week for decades

You're very naïve if you think this controversy wasn't about politics and about the social/legislative agendas of polarized groups.

A & E was very much put in the middle of a very long, ongoing, tug of war between the LGBT activists and the Christian right activists to have the media promote a message favorable to their group, so that public opinion and legislation will go in favor of their group.

The Bible has always been the source for the condemnation of homosexuals--and the justification for such condemnation--Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share these views--there is nothing new or controversial about that. About all Robertson did was to express such views in a particularly coarse and offensive manner.

The only reason Robertson's statements kicked up such dust was because of our current political and socio-cultural climate--while this "controversy" was going on, more states moved to legalize same-sex marriage. The LGBT groups want nothing to impede that progress, and the Christian right wants to block it, so both have a vested interest in trying to control the messages the media sends out.

The irony in this situation was that the platform that A & E provides for Robertson on Duck Dynasty is carefully sanitized and edited so it's free of the kind of divisiveness and polarizing opinions he expressed in the GQ interview. A & E really isn't helping him to promote such views, but the visibly he gets from A & E helps him to have the "celebrity" that gets him the publicity for his views. Anyone who tunes into DD expecting to hear controversy, or even promotion of fundamentalist thinking, is going to be very disappointed.

And the reason Robertson even bothered to express his views to GQ--views about homosexuals, and the display of the Ten Commandments, etc. is because both are related to breaking down the wall of separation between church and state, and having his version of religious morality upheld by legislation and promoted by the government. There is no need to ask Robertson how he feels about same-sex marriage, what he said about homosexuals not only answers the question, he made them sound so unsavory, as human beings, it would likely be absurd for him to even consider it as a serious issue, and that's also the message he wants others to hear. And that's the message the LGBT groups responded to. And that's the message the Christian right wants people to hear and to consider acceptable. These groups are essentially PACS, this subject is all about politics. And that's why both G.L.A.A.D. and Faith Driven Consumers went at A & E from opposite directions.

And Robertson's remarks about blacks were clearly political, in addition to being bigoted. When he talks about how much happier they seemed "pre-welfare pre-entitlement" he is talking politics.

And, as if Robertson's politics weren't clear enough, the GQ interviewer pointed out that the large HD TV in his home is always on, tuned to Fox News, with the sound on mute.

You seem to be trying to view this controversy in some sort of vacuum, totally removed from the current socio-cultural context, and legislative-judicial context, that's moving in the direction of legalizing same-sex marriage and equality of rights. But that's what created the controversy, not Robertson's voicing of sentiments that are thousands of years old. And the people who most fiercely hold those Biblical views, and the more literal interpretations of the Bible, very much want to break down the separation of church and state so that secular laws and government will uphold and reflect and promote their brand of Biblical morality. They don't want a secular government.

Oh try telling that to GLAAD and Jackson and the so call management of AE that at first decided to bend over for both of the above!!!!!!!

the reason the dust was kicked was that political pressure groups somewhere along the way decided that they should have the right to regulate which words come out of peoples mouths and keyboards. THAT is the reason why people like me who agree with almost none of Old Phils opinions were none the less on his side here. the pro Phil side was not dominating the debate 10/1 because ten times more people are on the fringe red neck Right than pro gay rights, it was because the Pro Old Phil side included a lot of pro freedom people like me who decided that the rest of the debate was irrelevant here, that a man should not be punished for giving his opinion, especially when it was asked of him.

Agreed

One hundred percents correct.

Plus one for Germiat and minus one for Bill and both said the same thing.

And the pressure groups most active in deciding that were the Christian right. That's why I brought up my experience lobbying against Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority over 30 years ago, because that's when political action by religious groups, against gay rights, among other things, really became an organized movement--in the late 1970's.

And, one of the actions of the Moral Majority, as a pressure group, was "Censorship of media outlets that promote an "anti-family" agenda". It was an attempt to control the sort of messages the media sends out, and to pressure them to conform to the Christian right's idea of "family values".

That was before G.L.A.D.D. was even founded.


That great tradition of blacklisting and boycotting is now carried on by the Christian fundamentalist American Family Association--they've boycotted 100's of TV shows, and advertisers, and corporations, for anything that appears to be "pro-gay".

Old Phil is not "freedom loving". He doesn't want to see homosexuals having the exact same civil rights, including the right to legally marry, that he enjoys.

And you apparently don't want to see corporations, and networks, having the right and "the freedom" to decide who they want to provide with a platform or to have "the freedom" to formulate their own standards and values.

Robertson has every right to his personal opinions. Robertson does not have any right to have a TV show that pays him handsomely. A & E has the right to fire him if they don't want to be associated with his views, or if he jeopardizes their business interests. Networks do those sorts of firings all the time. I may not agree with them, you may not agree with them, but they do have the right, and should have "the freedom" to act in accord with their own interests.

And you seem to have forgotten that you previously admitted you do share Robertson's negative views of both homosexuals and blacks. And I admired your honesty in saying that.

LOL...........

No, it's pretty much just about Robertson's statements regarding gays and blacks. Now, to be sure, some of the controversy has been ginned up by people who definitely have a political axe to grind - people such as you, for instance. I don't deny that. But once you start criticizing Robertson for taking a political position that he never took, your outrage is more about your politics than about his.

That's your view of it.

Mainly because you are choosing to focus on the few comments that got the widest publicity.

As I said before, I actually read the entire GQ interview and that does touch on his politics, and it's one reason the interview mentions the fact that his TV is always on, and always tuned to Fox News.

The man doesn't want homosexuals to be homosexuals, so do you really need him to spell out his political opinions on "gay rights"? I think they are fairly obvious. And his desire to see the Ten Commandments in every courthouse does reflect his opinion, a political opinion, about the separation between church and state--he very clearly does not want that separation. And when he talks about blacks "pre-welfare pre-entitlement" he is definitely expressing a political view, and using the code words of the political right.

If you want to only concretely focus on his specific comments about homosexuals and blacks in GQ, without putting them into the context of the current socio-cultural political climate that made them controversial, go right ahead. But you have no right to decide for me how I want to view the situation.

The only side I have really taken with any of this is the side of A & E. I think they have a right to decide who they want to employ, and to make that decision in accord with what they feel are their best business interests. And I felt the same way about MSNBC when they fired Bashir and Baldwin, both of whom had shows I enjoyed watching, and both of whom I didn't think should have been fired.

Personally, I don't care about Robertson, and I don't watch Duck Dynasty, so no matter what A & E did would have been fine with me.

The only one in this thread who clearly seems to be grinding an axe is BillRM, and his vendetta against G.L.A.A.D, and his insistence on comparing them to the McCarthy era witch-hunters. I've simply pointed out that the Christian right employs the exact same tactics, in trying to influence the messages the media sends out, and they've been doing this since before G.L.A.A.D. ever came into existence.

One of the reasons this became controversial, and attracted so much media hype, was because it provided a high-profile instance of a decades long power struggle between the Christian right and the "liberal media" as represented, in this instance, by A & E.

WHO took WHICH position ?

IF he were going to support gun control,
then he 'd betray his oath to support and defend the Constitution.





David

David I love Firefly comparing not voting for some public office holder or would be public office holder that you happen to disagree with and pressuring a private company to fired someone who public statements you happen to disagree with as the same or a similar thing.

When an if Phil would run for a public office I would have no problem with GLAAD trying to convince the voters that they should not vote for him.

If NRA was trying to get anyone fired in any walk of life for daring to support gun control that would be similar to GAALD trying to restart a blacklist in this nation for anyone stating that the bible happen to consider homosexuality as a sin and I would challenge them for doing so.

To sum up Firefly once more is proving that she is a real piece of work.

That's because those are the comments that caused the controversy. If he hadn't made those comments, we wouldn't be discussing this subject on this forum.


Bully for you. So did I.


Not much.


It's one reason the interviewer mentions it. That's more of a reflection on the interviewer's politics than on Robertson's.


I'd be happy to hear them, since I don't know what they are. More importantly, neither do you. All we know from the GQ interview is that Robertson thinks gays are sinful and will go to hell. On the other hand, you have absolutely no idea whether Robertson wants to deprive gays of civil rights or discriminate against them in any way. If you did, you would have produced those quotations.


The supreme court has said that religious expression in government buildings is acceptable in certain circumstances. In that light, it appears that Robertson is only a few small steps to the right of supreme court precedent in this area. It doesn't follow, therefore, that Robertson wants a merger of church and state, unless you think the supreme court does too.


Oh, don't worry on that account. I know very well how you want to view the situation.

My statement after watching the house un-american activities committee as a young child on TV was that the only thing I could see being un-american was the committee itself.

My father was not happy with that comment..........

If there is a blacklist, Bill, and it is promoted properly it will have an effect on the company it is directed at.

If it only causes a few percent of the population to act upon it there is a loss to the company of a greater percent of profit than the percent of boycotters. Companies are highly geared.

The rights and wrongs of it are neither here nor there. In this battle the gloves are off. Anything not illegal is allowed.

You have boasted of the NRA's power to get people not appointed never mind fired. And the NRA's power is such that media coverage of gun control is very muted. The mere threat is quite sufficient to cow the organs of free speech. The NRA is well aware the media has to give gun control a measure of attention but the method of that attention might not be particularly persuasive or too shocking.

It also mentioned that the TV was on mute. Which it needn't have done just as easily as you redacted it. I assume the interview was carefully scrutinised before publication.

I took it to be a dig at the chain-saw voices on Fox. That he liked the visions but not the noise they made.

Like GLAAD attempt did? Too many people no matter what side of an issue that they might be on will come down hard on anyone trying to get the blacklist system in place once more.

I think that anyone who give any credit to the bible is a fool that however does not mean that I will not do all in my power to block true bible believers from being harm for daring to express their opinions. Including the opinion that I will as a non-believer is going to hell.



LOL I once more have no problem with GLAAD or the NRA trying to get public office holders into power that happen to agree with them or those who disagree with them out of office.

That is not repeat not the same as a blacklist aim at citizens who are not office holders.