A & E Suspends star of Duck Dynasty for his Beliefs ! A civil sane discussion

[thomashenry]

Can we have a Civil discussion in the OV 35 Misc Section on this without getting the boot ?

I am of the Opinion that The matter is grave, and does deserve a strong response. There's a lingering danger, which must not be ignored: the temptation to apologize for a sincerely held belief. If anything, it's time to go on the attack.

I am frequently struck by the irony in atheists' accusation that Christians only believe because we're afraid to face our own mortality. These days, it takes courage to believe -- and the more open you are about your belief, the more courage is required of you. Hearken to C. S. Lewis:


We have made men proud of most vices, but not of cowardice. Whenever we have almost succeeded in doing so, the Enemy permits a war or an earthquake or some other calamity, and at once courage becomes so obviously lovely and important even in human eyes that all our work is undone, and there is still at least one vice of which they feel genuine shame....In peace we can make many of them ignore good and evil entirely; in danger, the issue is forced upon them in a guise to which even we cannot blind them....


This, indeed, is probably one of the Enemy’s motives for creating a dangerous world—a world in which moral issues really come to the point. He sees as well as you do that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty or mercy which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful till it became risky. [C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters]


God forbid a man talk about his beliefs. Since when did being a Christian become controversial? We are a nation that preaches tolerance over and over and yet we don't even know what the word means. We say it to make us feel better about what it is we are looking for which basically is "you need to believe what I do or you are wrong". You're asking a man to overstep the moral boundary that he has created pertaining to his perception of life and religion in the name of tolerance. And that people, is not how that word is defined. Tolerance is when we, as a people, work together in order to keep moving forward as a nation regardless of the beliefs of your neighbor. We need to stop letting the media and the politicians pit us against each other while they sit back and laugh at how easily cohorts we are. I agree with Phil Robertson when he says that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, but they are not to be treated any different. And I am not to be looked down on because I believe in God.

[sy2502]

I am a huge proponent of tolerance, freedom of speech, etc, I think people have every right to have their beliefs, and others have every right to find them stupid, offensive, ignorant, etc.

But freedom of speech only means you can't be criminally prosecuted for what you said. It does NOT mean freedom from consequences of your words. If you call your boss at work names, you can't then complain when you get fired that it was "freedom of speech". The guy was employed by a TV network, and the network has every right to rescind his contract at any time and for any reason. We may or may not agree with that decision or with the reasons behind it, but he wasn't wrong saying what he said, and they weren't wrong for suspending him. That's how I see it.

[acrawlingchaos]

I am a huge proponent of tolerance, freedom of speech, etc, I think people have every right to have their beliefs, and others have every right to find them stupid, offensive, ignorant, etc.

But freedom of speech only means you can't be criminally prosecuted for what you said. It does NOT mean freedom from consequences of your words. If you call your boss at work names, you can't then complain when you get fired that it was "freedom of speech". The guy was employed by a TV network, and the network has every right to rescind his contract at any time and for any reason. We may or may not agree with that decision or with the reasons behind it, but he wasn't wrong saying what he said, and they weren't wrong for suspending him. That's how I see it.

Absolutely.

A&E is not infringing upon any of Phil Robertsons civil liberties. As a highly visible employee of A&E he is held to a certain standard in order to continue that employment. I certainly wouldn't expect to keep my job if I was to make sexist and racist remarks. In fact, I'll bet it would be the quickest way for me to lose my job.

[Wyomann]

He'd be fired for having a giant ass beard in my company. Nuff said.

[mslman71]

Meh, not that I've ever seen the show, but it seems they made good money off of him being the way he is and I guess they figure that won't be the case now. So long as the FCC or whoever is okay with it they are free to show or not show whatever they want for whatever reasons they choose.

[Minotaur]

I am of the Opinion that The matter is grave, and does deserve a strong response.

No it isn't; and no it doesn't. Gay people take up entirely too much room in other people's heads. Maybe that's what crowds out reason:

Once, a long time ago, there was a wise Zen master. People from far and near would seek his counsel and ask for his wisdom. Many would come and ask him to teach them, enlighten them in the way of Zen. He seldom turned any away.

One day an important man, a man used to command and obedience came to visit the master. “I have come today to ask you to teach me about Zen. Open my mind to enlightenment.” The tone of the important man’s voice was one used to getting his own way.

The Zen master smiled and said that they should discuss the matter over a cup of tea. When the tea was served the master poured his visitor a cup. He poured and he poured and the tea rose to the rim and began to spill over the table and finally onto the robes of the wealthy man. Finally the visitor shouted, “Enough. You are spilling the tea all over. Can’t you see the cup is full?”

The master stopped pouring and smiled at his guest. “You are like this tea cup, so full that nothing more can be added. Come back to me when the cup is empty. Come back to me with an empty mind.”

That said, I may not like what someone has to say, and it may make me fume and rage, but in the US we still abide by the First Amendment. Unless of course the words incite a reasonable person to violence or creates a clear and present danger, in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. So there's really no reason for anyone to get their jimmies rustled unless they want their jimmies rustled.

[thomashenry]

I am a huge proponent of tolerance, freedom of speech, etc, I think people have every right to have their beliefs, and others have every right to find them stupid, offensive, ignorant, etc.

But freedom of speech only means you can't be criminally prosecuted for what you said. It does NOT mean freedom from consequences of your words. If you call your boss at work names, you can't then complain when you get fired that it was "freedom of speech". The guy was employed by a TV network, and the network has every right to rescind his contract at any time and for any reason. We may or may not agree with that decision or with the reasons behind it, but he wasn't wrong saying what he said, and they weren't wrong for suspending him. That's how I see it.

Ok so Freedom of Speech, a guaranteed Right, protected by the Constitution of the U.S.! it is not a privilege but a guaranteed right endowed by our creator, is only good insofar as your Politically Correct ?

[acrawlingchaos]

Meh, not that I've ever seen the show, but it seems they made good money off of him being the way he is and I guess they figure that won't be the case now. So long as the FCC or whoever is okay with it they are free to show or not show whatever they want for whatever reasons they choose.

It I owned a highly visible company that relied on personal relations with the general public, I would have axed him when he started comparing homosexuality to bestiality in a National Magazine.

I don't think they are being unreasonable.

[Minotaur]

a guaranteed right endowed by our creator

No, guaranteed by humans.

[mslman71]

Ok so Freedom of Speech, a guaranteed Right, protected by the Constitution of the U.S.! it is not a privilege but a guaranteed right endowed by our creator, is only good insofar as your Politically Correct ?

No, he's free to say whatever he wants, it's just that the private television company isn't obligated to rebroadcast it under the guise of freedom of speech. If I own a channel that broadcasts about muscle cars and one of the heads of my lineup decides to rant against muscle cars and espouse the virtues of the prius or other crapwagon then I'm not going to be all that keen on keeping him or the show.

[mslman71]

It I owned a highly visible company that relied on personal relations with the general public, I would have axed him when he started comparing homosexuality to bestiality in a National Magazine.

Unless you calculate that a big portion of your audience ends up being there for the controversy. Hell, you can make almost as much money pissing people off as you can telling them what they want to hear.

[Marius_Ursus]

The First Amendment says and means a great deal more than that.


In before I hate women because I disagree with you when you are wrong...again.

The 1st Amendment is there to prevent the government from shutting up citizens. Private citizens (for legal purposes, recall Incs are private citizens) are allowed to do whatever they want regarding speech.

Supposedly.

[ricktbaker]

Asking for a civil / sane discussion on a topic like this is a lost cause on the internet. I could always be proven wrong someday, but I've never seen it happen. Topics regarding homosexuality are just one of those hot topics.

My opinion, he might have been ok with his first comments if he stopped there. That sounded more like him just expressing his opinion and might not have caused too much of an uproar. But once he started comparing homosexuality to bestiality, it was game over.

[thomashenry]

No, guaranteed by humans.

Really ? When one reads the founding documents of this nation, let alone the writings of the founders themselves, it’s quite clear that Rights, including those in the Bill Of Rights, predate the government itself. The words: “Endowed by their Creator” should be a glaring indication that they didn’t originate from the government. Obviously The Creator predates the created.

[mslman71]

Asking for a civil / sane discussion on a topic like this is a lost cause on the internet. I could always be proven wrong someday, but I've never seen it happen. Topics regarding homosexuality are just one of those hot topics.

My opinion, he might have been ok with his first comments if he stopped there. That sounded more like him just expressing his opinion and might not have caused too much of an uproar. But once he started comparing homosexuality to bestiality, it was game over.

It's interesting because he didn't actually compare them. If I say that bestiality and homosexuality are characteristics that are and have been exhibited by humans I'm not comparing them, only categorizing them. If I'm not mistaken he said that bestiality and homosexuality were sins, not that they were equivalent or scalable equivalents.

[tomnationwide]

They didn't suspend him for his beliefs. They suspended him because he is under a contract with an employer to behave to a certain standard and he did not. Not only did he not uphold that standard but he reckoned Homosexuality to Bestiality.

Had he just said he's not gay friendly there wouldn't be near the uproar.

But he chose way more than just disagreeing with a lifestyle.

[Minotaur]

Really ? When one reads the founding documents of this nation, let alone the writings of the founders themselves, it’s quite clear that Rights, including those in the Bill Of Rights, predate the government itself. The words: “Endowed by their Creator” should be a glaring indication that they didn’t originate from the government. Obviously The Creator predates the created.

“Endowed by their Creator” is in the Declaration of Independence, which is an essay and letter to King George III. It is in no way American law, nor does it lay down any foundation for American law or government. God or a creator is nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution, and the Constitution is the highest law of the US.

[tomnationwide]

It's interesting because he didn't actually compare them. If I say that bestiality and homosexuality are characteristics that are and have been exhibited by humans I'm not comparing them, only categorizing them. If I'm not mistaken he said that bestiality and homosexuality were sins, not that they were equivalent or scalable equivalents.

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,"

That's the quote. Yes, it's a comparison. When you speak of something and then bring in something else to frame your conversation with reference material then you are comparing.

Had he used a tad more tact then this would have washed away quickly but he totally misspoke.

[ricktbaker]

It's interesting because he didn't actually compare them. If I say that bestiality and homosexuality are characteristics that are and have been exhibited by humans I'm not comparing them, only categorizing them. If I'm not mistaken he said that bestiality and homosexuality were sins, not that they were equivalent or scalable equivalents.

True, I reread what he wrote and he didn't actually compare. However, the vast majority of the headlines are saying that he made the comparison. I guess it's all in how people read what he actually stated.

[mslman71]

“Endowed by their Creator” is in the Declaration of Independence, which is an essay and letter to King George III. It is in no way American law, nor does it lay down any foundation for American law or government. God or a creator is nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution, and the Constitution is the highest law of the US.

Probably not much point on arguing to two different points. One is a matter of law and the other is a matter of principle from which the law is derived. Free speech is not granted by government because it is and was believed that the freedom to speak on matters is intrinsic, endowed by a creator, and therefore cannot be something that is granted by someone or something else.

[drewmigliazzo]

My only thought on this whole thing is: Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

[mslman71]

True, I reread what he wrote and he didn't actually compare. However, the vast majority of the headlines are saying that he made the comparison. I guess it's all in how people read what he actually stated.

It's easy to get pissed off if that's what you're looking to do.

('you' in the generic sense)

[Wyomann]

1st amendment protects him from going to jail for that statement or being prosecuted by the gov. It doesn't mean you can say w/e you want without retribution from your private employer.

[thomashenry]

“Endowed by their Creator” is in the Declaration of Independence, which is an essay and letter to King George III. It is in no way American law, nor does it lay down any foundation for American law or government. God or a creator is nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution, and the Constitution is the highest law of the US.

It is the absolute Bedrock in which everything else flows out of, which came 1st the Chicken or the egg

[sy2502]

Ok so Freedom of Speech, a guaranteed Right, protected by the Constitution of the U.S.! it is not a privilege but a guaranteed right endowed by our creator, is only good insofar as your Politically Correct ?

I think we are disagreeing on what it means to be "protected". Let's start from the wording of the 1st Amendment, shall we?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Ok so Congress can't make laws that infringe on your freedom of speech. But there's no law at work here. The employer isn't following any law when firing the guy. The employer is simply making a choice, quite freely and of his own accord, to fire the guy. Congress is not forcing him to. So the 1st Amendment doesn't seem to be in question here.

As for freedom of speech being a right endowed by the creator, that's great in theory but in practice, rights are arbitrary concepts, and they are granted by societies arbitrarily. But I am sure we'll disagree on that.

[mslman71]

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,"

That's the quote. Yes, it's a comparison. When you speak of something and then bring in something else to frame your conversation with reference material then you are comparing.

No, you aren't. Period. This isn't how language works.

"If I say that bestiality and homosexuality are characteristics that are and have been exhibited by humans I'm not comparing them, only categorizing them."

[justboo2u]

I am unsure about my opinion on this subject, save the comparison to beastiality.
But be certain... he is NOT being 'silenced' because of his 'religion'. He is being 'silenced' because it is in the best interest of the network.

[thomashenry]

It's interesting because he didn't actually compare them. If I say that bestiality and homosexuality are characteristics that are and have been exhibited by humans I'm not comparing them, only categorizing them. If I'm not mistaken he said that bestiality and homosexuality were sins, not that they were equivalent or scalable equivalents.

Thank you

[Minotaur]

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,"

That's the quote. Yes, it's a comparison.

Agreed. He's also invoking that slippery slope. Bestiality and promiscuity have existed since time immemorial, as have infanticide, child marriage, murder, rape and a whole host of other things, yet he chose to make his opinions known on homosexuality and bestiality. So my question remains... "Why are people so fixated on homosexuality?" when there are so many other issues to focus or offer an opinion on.

[ricktbaker]

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,"

That's the quote. Yes, it's a comparison. When you speak of something and then bring in something else to frame your conversation with reference material then you are comparing.

Had he used a tad more tact then this would have washed away quickly but he totally misspoke.

Put into the context of the question he was asked, what he actually considered sinful, it was more a categorization. But it could be easily taken both ways. Once you start lumping homosexuality in with something like bestiality, regardless if it was a comparison or a categorization, the end result isn't going to be good.