It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: The Latest Victim of the PC Police

page: 18
78
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

WilsonWilson
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


It's rubbish to say that there was only one way he could have answered the question. there isnt there are many many way he could have answered the question truthfully and within his beliefs that wouldnt have cause any fuss.
the problem is that he put homosexulaity and beastilaity too close together which allowed it to be picked up and blown out of proportion.
he phrased it badly.


He quoted scripture.

God did the phrasing, Phil believed the Word. It was not Phil's law to define as he freely wishes.

MATT 5:11
“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake (by believing the Word)."

God Bless,




posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan


This is how it happens in the modern media age. Your freedoms are taken away via social pressure. Of course someone who publicly states something should be willing to discuss it or be criticized for it. But what he said wasn't really that bad. He just reiterated some mild religious dogma. And he was fired for it.


No, that's how it has always happened. Social change doesn't come because one day everyone decides to be nice. It comes from mounting pressure within the society for reform. You can't do anything about that. You never had the freedom to be free from social pressure. If you want that you have to leave society or you have to learn to ignore it. While I agree most of this is fake, I would once again say that you have never had the right to say what you want without consequence. The argument you are making is much like if I said "The sky is blue, that sucks, it should be pink". You can't change it, every society has experienced this. It's a fundamental part of what makes human societies work.

People smarter than you and me have written volumes on the subject. I would recommend Foucault's "Society must be defended".
edit on 19-12-2013 by antonia because: opps, wrong letter



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

WilsonWilson

bbracken677

WilsonWilson

Restricted
I find it amazing that he is being skewered for acting and speaking like a real man.

In what way has he acted like a real man?


I dunno...maybe because he didnt lie through his effing teeth and give an "acceptable" answer and instead was actually true to himself and gave his actual opinion?

Perhaps because he didnt effing weenie out on the question like a....weenie...would?

Maybe because he had the intestinal fortitude to speak his mind instead of lying?

I mean, really? WTF?


I dont think he would have had to lie, if he's well known as a old fashioned Christian then i dont think anybody would be that shocked to think he's against the homosexual lifestyle. I dont think his actual comment was as offensive as it's made out to be, as other people have said already.
However if my partner lost his job because he made a comment in public that some poeple found offensive, i wouldnt think he was a real man.
i'd say a real man keeps his job and brings home some money!


I see...so a real man is a sell-out who denies his basic beliefs, denies his religion and is only concerned about "keeping his job"?

To me, the person who lies rather than accept the consequences is far from being a man. A weenie, to put it nicely, is more appropriate.

You do know the guy is rich, right? No one will suffer if the whole tv program is cancelled...you do understand that, right?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

ElohimJD

WilsonWilson
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


It's rubbish to say that there was only one way he could have answered the question. there isnt there are many many way he could have answered the question truthfully and within his beliefs that wouldnt have cause any fuss.
the problem is that he put homosexulaity and beastilaity too close together which allowed it to be picked up and blown out of proportion.
he phrased it badly.


He quoted scripture.

God did the phrasing, Phil believed the Word. It was not Phil's law to define as he freely wishes.

MATT 5:11
“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake (by believing the Word)."

God Bless,


Is this a direct quote from scripture?
"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,”
it doesnt read like a quote from scripture?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


By that logic, you obviously have no issues with the Japanese internment camps in the USA following Pearl Harbor or McCarthy's communist witchhunts... afterall, society demanded these actions be taken.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

burdman30ott6
reply to post by antonia
 


By that logic, you obviously have no issues with the Japanese internment camps in the USA following Pearl Harbor or McCarthy's communist witchhunts... afterall, society demanded these actions be taken.


No, that is a human rights issue. It furthermore violated several amendments of the constitution. Phil getting sacked from A&E violates nothing in the constitution.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
For the past 90 years there's only been one "thought-crime" that would get you fired from most jobs if the bosses got wind of it--anything that might be considered anti-semitism. Now we are seeing "homophobia" added to the list. I wouldn't doubt that soon any reference to"'Police-state" tactics will get the same attention. The slope is getting slippery.
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

bbracken677

WilsonWilson

bbracken677

WilsonWilson

Restricted
I find it amazing that he is being skewered for acting and speaking like a real man.

In what way has he acted like a real man?


I dunno...maybe because he didnt lie through his effing teeth and give an "acceptable" answer and instead was actually true to himself and gave his actual opinion?

Perhaps because he didnt effing weenie out on the question like a....weenie...would?

Maybe because he had the intestinal fortitude to speak his mind instead of lying?

I mean, really? WTF?


I dont think he would have had to lie, if he's well known as a old fashioned Christian then i dont think anybody would be that shocked to think he's against the homosexual lifestyle. I dont think his actual comment was as offensive as it's made out to be, as other people have said already.
However if my partner lost his job because he made a comment in public that some poeple found offensive, i wouldnt think he was a real man.
i'd say a real man keeps his job and brings home some money!


I see...so a real man is a sell-out who denies his basic beliefs, denies his religion and is only concerned about "keeping his job"?

To me, the person who lies rather than accept the consequences is far from being a man. A weenie, to put it nicely, is more appropriate.

You do know the guy is rich, right? No one will suffer if the whole tv program is cancelled...you do understand that, right?


So any man that would bite his lip, or thinks a little bit more carefully about how he phrases something to prevent from losing his job is a weenie.
Well i guess if your rich and dont need to work and can say whatever you then you are a real man.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

antonia

burdman30ott6
reply to post by antonia
 


By that logic, you obviously have no issues with the Japanese internment camps in the USA following Pearl Harbor or McCarthy's communist witchhunts... afterall, society demanded these actions be taken.


No, that is a human rights issue. It furthermore violated several amendments of the constitution. Phil getting sacked from A&E violates nothing in the constitution.


He was removed for exercising his right to free speech under the First Amendment. He wasn't even on A&E when he did it. That's crap.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Oh great, the topic of gay's comes up again. Once again a religious person has to have their "views heard" when I've heard the identical thing said countless times from multiple people. If your wanting your voice heard, then at least bring something new to the table. I get tired of the whole cliched argument that it's against the bible and that it is "weird" or somehow promotes deviant behavior. Though I know he didn't exactly categorize those behaviors into one category.

I find it funny how in a article I was reading regarding this subject. I believe it was in the same interview. He had said that he worked along side black people on farms and out in the fields. And he never once had a racist encounter. They were content with each other. Yet, he is claiming a similar attitude towards gay people? Seems a bit ironic to me don't you think? How can you be happy and content with one group of people, and not with another? He may not hate gay people, but calling them sinners surely isn't giving them a equal playing field in his mind.

And for those saying that this is against freedom of speech, no it is not. He has a show on a network, and if someone conveys an image they don't want, they have every right to take them off the air. It's happened many times to other people on other subjects. It is THEIR network, and they will do it THEIR way. Just like a store owner. A store owner can refuse to serve anyone he wants. It's their money, and it's their property. I'd like you to go into work tomorrow, walk up to your boss/manager, and say the most vile and hurtful things to him that you possibly can. And let me know how that works out for you. Would you complain that you had freedom of speech if he fired you?

Not to mention, a line has to be drawn eventually when it comes to free speech. Take harassment,slander, or defamation of character for example. You can sue someone in court because of it. Just because you have a right to say what you want, doesn't mean that you should. And it doesn't mean you should use your free speech to bash on someones character or their image. Some people end up believing what one of these people claim. That is how a rumor works. And I'm sure if you were in high school you know how out of hand a rumor can get.

Now, I understand people shouldn't be so touchy and reactionary. But in the society we live in, I am not surprised. Every other week a new group of people is brought up. And stirs the pot just a little more. And I get tired of hearing about all of it.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
You have a constitutional right to free speech. You don't have a constitutional right to be on TV. Let's at least keep that issue straight. And the Robertson family obviously sold out long ago.

The annoying thing here is that after filming this guy for four seasons A&E no doubt knew what he was about. The unpalatable parts were just edited out. Now that they're horribly guilty of turning these characters into the next Kardashians and no longer have control of the narrative they're suddenly feigning shock that he made a politically incorrect comment about gays.
edit on 19-12-2013 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Restricted


He was removed for exercising his right to free speech under the First Amendment. He wasn't even on A&E when he did it. That's crap.


No, the first amendment protects you from the government denying you free speech. It doesn't protect you from the consequences of society not liking your speech.

You people can't be serious. You are conflating the imprisonment of Japanese American's with no evidence of wrongdoing with some guy getting fired from his job because he spouts off about gay people?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX
 


You actually make a lot of my points, believe it or not. Yes, the founders may have been Christian - although there seems to be debate on that - but either way, religious freedom is protected in the Constitution and the founders clearly wanted people to be free to choose, practice (or exercise) and express their religious beliefs without interference of the government. So the fact that they were Christian doesn't mean that Christians should get special treatment as far as marriage or (a state institution) or adoption. There shouldn't be laws that allow Christians preferential treatment, when the Constitution protects "equal treatment under the law" and "religious freedom". That's oppression of non-Christians. Making laws that favor Christians oppresses everyone else.

I understand that we're likely to preserve some elements of the old, but we can look at the documents and see that we're not adhering to the original principals of equality and freedom. Just because that's the way we've always done it doesn't make it good or right.

We are trending liberal and I think it's necessary. Sometimes I think Christians feel like their being oppressed because they're not in the favored light so much anymore. They're coming to be more on the same ground with everyone else as far as the government goes. Things are more equal. Just because they think being gay is a sin, it's not necessarily reflected in our laws and that's a good thing.

The reason gay people aren't being oppressed now is because they fought tooth and nail to STOP the oppression.

You said it. "Christians aren't exactly popular anymore." And there's a reason for that. Non-Christians are just tired of the preferential treatment the conservative Christian has historically gotten from the government "because that's the way we've always done it". Christians (and I'm talking the political entity, not individuals) strongly push their agenda with the government and many of our laws on personal reproduction, homosexuality, marriage, recreational choices - these are PERSONAL choices - are what they are because of Christian values that the rest of us may not agree with or share.

So, I honestly think that the reason the white, male Christians are feeling a backlash is because everyone else is just saying, "Enough! Take care of your own life, practice your religion in your church and home and leave me to do the same! I don't need you to make personal decisions for me." That's how I feel, anyway.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

antonia
No, that is a human rights issue. It furthermore violated several amendments of the constitution. Phil getting sacked from A&E violates nothing in the constitution.


'Human rights' have always been defined by societal mores.
2nd.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

WilsonWilson

ElohimJD

WilsonWilson
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


It's rubbish to say that there was only one way he could have answered the question. there isnt there are many many way he could have answered the question truthfully and within his beliefs that wouldnt have cause any fuss.
the problem is that he put homosexulaity and beastilaity too close together which allowed it to be picked up and blown out of proportion.
he phrased it badly.


He quoted scripture.

God did the phrasing, Phil believed the Word. It was not Phil's law to define as he freely wishes.

MATT 5:11
“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake (by believing the Word)."

God Bless,


Is this a direct quote from scripture?
"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,”
it doesnt read like a quote from scripture?


Apparently you didnt read the article. He paraphrased a quote from the bible regarding who would not inherit the kingdom of God and did a pretty good job of it.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

peck420


'Human rights' have always been defined by societal mores.
2nd.


That is true, but the action still violated the constitution.

I still don't see any overarching implications of a guy getting fired from A&E. He can easily get on Fox and still spout his opinion. Homophobia is still widely accepted in the U.S.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

bbracken677

WilsonWilson

ElohimJD

WilsonWilson
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


It's rubbish to say that there was only one way he could have answered the question. there isnt there are many many way he could have answered the question truthfully and within his beliefs that wouldnt have cause any fuss.
the problem is that he put homosexulaity and beastilaity too close together which allowed it to be picked up and blown out of proportion.
he phrased it badly.


He quoted scripture.

God did the phrasing, Phil believed the Word. It was not Phil's law to define as he freely wishes.

MATT 5:11
“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake (by believing the Word)."

God Bless,


Is this a direct quote from scripture?
"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,”
it doesnt read like a quote from scripture?


Apparently you didnt read the article. He paraphrased a quote from the bible regarding who would not inherit the kingdom of God and did a pretty good job of it.

Yes he paraphrased, and he didnt do a good job of it, he made a bad job of it.
thats my whole point.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

burdman30ott6

Lysergic
You always have the right to free speech but usually someone will be offended, when in a position such as this guy, my opinion strictly, his head got too big.


Money seems to always trump values.


Exactly the oposite here. The guy was simply open and honest. If anything, his values are trumping the almighty dollar.


Maybe it is about snubbing Babara.


Phil Robertson skipped Barbara Walters' 'Most Fascinating' interview to go hunting
Fox News ‎- 7 hours ago
Phil Robertson skipped Barbara Walters' 'Most Fascinating' interview to go hunting ... according to his wife Miss Kay, who sat down with Walters in his place. “Tell him I have never been superseded by a duck before,” Walters quipped



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

DelMarvel
...they're suddenly feigning shock that he made a politically incorrect comment about gays.
edit on 19-12-2013 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)


Which is the point: Thought Criminals must be isolated and removed from the societal narrative.

Thanks to whiny tantrum throwing leftists, just that occurred.

Remember, kids: all fascism is leftist. Unity is the Eradication of Dissent.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

antonia
I still don't see any overarching implications of a guy getting fired from A&E. He can easily get on Fox and still spout his opinion. Homophobia is still widely accepted in the U.S.


I am of the same mind as BFT, that this is all staged. I think he is getting exactly what he wanted.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join