Duck Dynasty: Beginning of the End?

Off Topic
122

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
There is so much wrong with the defense of Phil it’s hard to know where to start. I guess firstly A&E can fire him for any reason they choose. Whether he has a case that will hold up in court is up to lawyers who have actually read his contract. I’m sure he could find some Shylock to represent him.(see what I did there?) but there is plenty of precedent for public figures losing jobs b/c they ‘embarrassed’ a network.

Second there is no persecution of Christianity in contemporary America. Claims of “we can’t express our views b/c the [insert group conservatives are ranting against here] will slander us and be intolerant,” over and over and over just sound ridiculous because there is almost nothing easier than being a Christian here.

Third, there is nothing wrong about not tolerating bigoting speaking. Make no mistake, the statements Phil is quoted assaying are at their core hate speech. He is not merely 'expressing his views he espousing a philosophy that wants poeple to not live freely. Homosexuals have and still arereal victims in our society. They have been legally barred from serving in the military, jailed when the status of homosexuality has been discovered, not alowed to visit loved ones in the hospital, beat up, dragged behind vehicles, and they have socially shunned, ridiculed and embarassed simply for being homosexual.

This doesn’t happen to Christians. To defend Phil for upholding this type of status quo is bigotry and hatred against an already intolerated group. He is not only expressing his opinion he is defending indefensible behavior. To uphold that homosexual behavior is a 'sin like besteality, adultry, and the like is to iss saying homosexuals are intolerable in society. Not the theological realm people are trying to thinly veil their intolerance behind but he and those that defend him are supporting the secular and legal bigotry that, sadly, is commonplace in our society. It is in this secular realm that these discussionsn are taking place. They occur in the Supreme Court, on the floor of Congress, in town and city halls across this country, they are not isolated to churches and theological panel discussions. To claim the ‘intolerant liberals’ should defend hatred is to not understand theequality that an inclusive liberal desires.

Finally, if he IS such a good Christian why is he not speaking against Red Lobster or Long John Silvers? Isn’t eating shellfish a sin as equal as all other sins? Does he wear more than one type of cloth at a time? Or is it the case that like all good politicaly motivated Christians he cherry picks which part of the bible to follow? Furthermore, as a Christian, shouldn’t the teachings of Christ guide his speech and actions? Not some random quotes from the Old Testament? Christ never mentioned homosexuality.[/quote]

lol. I love it when people who believe christianity is wrong tell me how to be a christian. It’s kinda like a herterosexual telling a homosexual how to be gay. And I have to say, you are doing it all wrong.[/quote]

Doing what all wrong? I am neither telling someone how to be homosexual nor a christian. I am saying it is wrong to defend homophobic policy behind theological dogma. If conservatives choose to use their religion as the basis of government then that is wrong. Have your theological arguments in church keep them out of the poitical arena. If one chooses to defend only part of God’s word they also choose to be called bad christians. [/quote]

You are exactly telling everyone how to be a “real” Christian. And what a Christian should and shouldn’t do, while seeming to have no real study in or more importably belief in the Bible.

And you don’t realize what it would mean to leave theology at home. The lack of the theological view that homosexual sex is a sin is NOT that homosexual sex isn’t a sin. The lack of that theology is that there is no such thing as sin (good or evil). GLAAD doesn’t lack a theological view on the subject, they just hold the opposite theological view. If theology is wrong to use, you should be telling the same thing to them. Of course if you take that stance (that there is no good or evil) you lose ability to proclaim either view better than the other. Based on what authority are you claiming that Theological legislation is wrong? Who’s standard of wrong?

All moral laws are based on theology. Yours are just based on your own personal ones probably constructed around things like how issues make you feel. There is nothing more wrong about laws based on his theology from the teachings of someone else(though he doesn’t seem to advocate any laws as far as I know) than your theology based on your own personal views and feelings.

123

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
There is so much wrong with the defense of Phil it’s hard to know where to start. I guess firstly A&E can fire him for any reason they choose. Whether he has a case that will hold up in court is up to lawyers who have actually read his contract. I’m sure he could find some Shylock to represent him.(see what I did there?) but there is plenty of precedent for public figures losing jobs b/c they ‘embarrassed’ a network.

Second there is no persecution of Christianity in contemporary America. Claims of “we can’t express our views b/c the [insert group conservatives are ranting against here] will slander us and be intolerant,” over and over and over just sound ridiculous because there is almost nothing easier than being a Christian here.

Third, there is nothing wrong about not tolerating bigoting speaking. Make no mistake, the statements Phil is quoted assaying are at their core hate speech. He is not merely 'expressing his views he espousing a philosophy that wants poeple to not live freely. Homosexuals have and still arereal victims in our society. They have been legally barred from serving in the military, jailed when the status of homosexuality has been discovered, not alowed to visit loved ones in the hospital, beat up, dragged behind vehicles, and they have socially shunned, ridiculed and embarassed simply for being homosexual.

This doesn’t happen to Christians. To defend Phil for upholding this type of status quo is bigotry and hatred against an already intolerated group. He is not only expressing his opinion he is defending indefensible behavior. To uphold that homosexual behavior is a 'sin like besteality, adultry, and the like is to iss saying homosexuals are intolerable in society. Not the theological realm people are trying to thinly veil their intolerance behind but he and those that defend him are supporting the secular and legal bigotry that, sadly, is commonplace in our society. It is in this secular realm that these discussionsn are taking place. They occur in the Supreme Court, on the floor of Congress, in town and city halls across this country, they are not isolated to churches and theological panel discussions. To claim the ‘intolerant liberals’ should defend hatred is to not understand theequality that an inclusive liberal desires.

Finally, if he IS such a good Christian why is he not speaking against Red Lobster or Long John Silvers? Isn’t eating shellfish a sin as equal as all other sins? Does he wear more than one type of cloth at a time? Or is it the case that like all good politicaly motivated Christians he cherry picks which part of the bible to follow? Furthermore, as a Christian, shouldn’t the teachings of Christ guide his speech and actions? Not some random quotes from the Old Testament? Christ never mentioned homosexuality.[/quote]

lol. I love it when people who believe christianity is wrong tell me how to be a christian. It’s kinda like a herterosexual telling a homosexual how to be gay. And I have to say, you are doing it all wrong.[/quote]

Doing what all wrong? I am neither telling someone how to be homosexual nor a christian. I am saying it is wrong to defend homophobic policy behind theological dogma. If conservatives choose to use their religion as the basis of government then that is wrong. Have your theological arguments in church keep them out of the poitical arena. If one chooses to defend only part of God’s word they also choose to be called bad christians. [/quote]

You are exactly telling everyone how to be a “real” Christian. And what a Christian should and shouldn’t do, while seeming to have no real study in or more importably belief in the Bible.

And you don’t realize what it would mean to leave theology at home. The lack of the theological view that homosexual sex is a sin is NOT that homosexual sex isn’t a sin. The lack of that theology is that there is no such thing as sin (good or evil). GLAAD doesn’t lack a theological view on the subject, they just hold the opposite theological view. If theology is wrong to use, you should be telling the same thing to them. Of course if you take that stance (that there is no good or evil) you lose ability to proclaim either view better than the other. Based on what authority are you claiming that Theological legislation is wrong? Who’s standard of wrong?

All moral laws are based on theology. Yours are just based on your own personal ones probably constructed around things like how issues make you feel. There is nothing more wrong about laws based on his theology from the teachings of someone else(though he doesn’t seem to advocate any laws as far as I know) than your theology based on your own personal views and feelings.[/quote]

Damn. Ownage.

124

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sen say wrote:

And this is from an atheist NOT an agnostic. Either believe or don’t.[/quote]

I’ve made this point many times on PWI. Don’t be a pansy ass agnostic. Get off the fence. Shit or get off the pot.

Be a theist or an atheist but enough with this sappy “I just don’t know” bullshit. You do know, you just enjoy the stimulation, I guess, you get when riding the fence.
[/quote]
Maybe I’m wrong, but I didn’t think atheism and agnosticism were mutually exclusive. If you ask if I believe in a God or gods, the answer is no (atheist). But if you ask me whether or not God or gods exist, my answer is I don’t know and I have yet to be convinced that the answer can be known either way (agnostic). I always figured that made me an agnostic atheist.

As for the topic of what Phil said and the tolerance (or lack thereof) of his words, I don’t have anything to say that hasn’t already been stated more clearly than I could state it.

125

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
There is so much wrong with the defense of Phil it’s hard to know where to start. I guess firstly A&E can fire him for any reason they choose. Whether he has a case that will hold up in court is up to lawyers who have actually read his contract. I’m sure he could find some Shylock to represent him.(see what I did there?) but there is plenty of precedent for public figures losing jobs b/c they ‘embarrassed’ a network.

Second there is no persecution of Christianity in contemporary America. Claims of “we can’t express our views b/c the [insert group conservatives are ranting against here] will slander us and be intolerant,” over and over and over just sound ridiculous because there is almost nothing easier than being a Christian here.

Third, there is nothing wrong about not tolerating bigoting speaking. Make no mistake, the statements Phil is quoted assaying are at their core hate speech. He is not merely 'expressing his views he espousing a philosophy that wants poeple to not live freely. Homosexuals have and still arereal victims in our society. They have been legally barred from serving in the military, jailed when the status of homosexuality has been discovered, not alowed to visit loved ones in the hospital, beat up, dragged behind vehicles, and they have socially shunned, ridiculed and embarassed simply for being homosexual.

This doesn’t happen to Christians. To defend Phil for upholding this type of status quo is bigotry and hatred against an already intolerated group. He is not only expressing his opinion he is defending indefensible behavior. To uphold that homosexual behavior is a 'sin like besteality, adultry, and the like is to iss saying homosexuals are intolerable in society. Not the theological realm people are trying to thinly veil their intolerance behind but he and those that defend him are supporting the secular and legal bigotry that, sadly, is commonplace in our society. It is in this secular realm that these discussionsn are taking place. They occur in the Supreme Court, on the floor of Congress, in town and city halls across this country, they are not isolated to churches and theological panel discussions. To claim the ‘intolerant liberals’ should defend hatred is to not understand theequality that an inclusive liberal desires.

Finally, if he IS such a good Christian why is he not speaking against Red Lobster or Long John Silvers? Isn’t eating shellfish a sin as equal as all other sins? Does he wear more than one type of cloth at a time? Or is it the case that like all good politicaly motivated Christians he cherry picks which part of the bible to follow? Furthermore, as a Christian, shouldn’t the teachings of Christ guide his speech and actions? Not some random quotes from the Old Testament? Christ never mentioned homosexuality.[/quote]
How is eating shellfish a sin? Or wearing more than one type of clothing at a time a sin?

126

[quote]stevekweli wrote:
[
How is eating shellfish a sin? Or wearing more than one type of clothing at a time a sin?
[/quote]

127

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
They have been … dragged behind vehicles, [/quote]

Examples please?

128

[quote]sen say wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
They have been … dragged behind vehicles, [/quote]

Examples please?[/quote]

google no work for you?

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20126640,00.html

129

TV shows exist for one purpose to make money for their producers by selling advertisements or subscriptions. It either sells or it doesn’t. “freedom to express your opinion/what about tolerance/ blah blah blah” is irrelevant.

130

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

Finally, if he IS such a good Christian why is he not speaking against Red Lobster or Long John Silvers? Isn’t eating shellfish a sin as equal as all other sins? Does he wear more than one type of cloth at a time? Or is it the case that like all good politicaly motivated Christians he cherry picks which part of the bible to follow? [/quote]

You need some basic theology lessons.

First, there are two basic “covenants” in the Torah (aka “Bible”). The Covenants of Noah and the Covenants of Mt. Sinai.

The Covenants of Noah (aka the “Seven Laws of Noah”) apply to all people. Briefly, this is:

1.The prohibition of Idolatry.
2.The prohibition of Murder.
3.The prohibition of Theft.
4.The prohibition of Sexual immorality (more fully described as homosexuality, adultery, incest etc).
5.The prohibition of Blasphemy.
6.The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
7.The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

The Covenants of Mt. Sinai, which are much long and more specific, apply only to the Jewish people. Christians, by and large, are not Jewish, so the Covenant of Mt. Sinai does not apply to them. (The exception being Messianic Jewish people, who I guess were the original Christians and still exist today in various forms.)

Anyway, the dietary laws (such as the prohibition against eating non-scaled and boned fish) and the covenant against mixed fabrics (which is a consumer-protection law – people were mixing cheaper materials in with good to pass them off as something they were not) are advisory, at most, to non-Jewish people, and thus not applicable to them.

In summary, you are completely out of your depth and should refrain from talking about things that you know nothing about.

131

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]stevekweli wrote:
[
How is eating shellfish a sin? Or wearing more than one type of clothing at a time a sin?
[/quote]

http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway[/quote]

Wrong. See my previous post.

132

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]sen say wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
They have been … dragged behind vehicles, [/quote]

Examples please?[/quote]

google no work for you?

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20126640,00.html[/quote]

Hate to break it to you, but the Matthew Sheppard case was a simple meth deal and robbery gone wrong. The whole “gay hate crime” thing was a fake. In fact, turns out the killer himself was gay.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=1

133

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but the Matthew Sheppard case was a simple meth deal and robbery gone wrong. The whole “gay hate crime” thing was a fake. In fact, turns out the killer himself was gay.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=1[/quote]

Yup.

134

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

Finally, if he IS such a good Christian why is he not speaking against Red Lobster or Long John Silvers? Isn’t eating shellfish a sin as equal as all other sins? Does he wear more than one type of cloth at a time? Or is it the case that like all good politicaly motivated Christians he cherry picks which part of the bible to follow? [/quote]

You need some basic theology lessons.

First, there are two basic “covenants” in the Torah (aka “Bible”). The Covenants of Noah and the Covenants of Mt. Sinai.

The Covenants of Noah (aka the “Seven Laws of Noah”) apply to all people. Briefly, this is:

1.The prohibition of Idolatry.
2.The prohibition of Murder.
3.The prohibition of Theft.
4.The prohibition of Sexual immorality (more fully described as homosexuality, adultery, incest etc).
5.The prohibition of Blasphemy.
6.The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
7.The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

The Covenants of Mt. Sinai, which are much long and more specific, apply only to the Jewish people. Christians, by and large, are not Jewish, so the Covenant of Mt. Sinai does not apply to them. (The exception being Messianic Jewish people, who I guess were the original Christians and still exist today in various forms.)

Anyway, the dietary laws (such as the prohibition against eating non-scaled and boned fish) and the covenant against mixed fabrics (which is a consumer-protection law – people were mixing cheaper materials in with good to pass them off as something they were not) are advisory, at most, to non-Jewish people, and thus not applicable to them.

In summary, you are completely out of your depth and should refrain from talking about things that you know nothing about.[/quote]

Great post.

135

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
There is so much wrong with the defense of Phil it’s hard to know where to start. I guess firstly A&E can fire him for any reason they choose. Whether he has a case that will hold up in court is up to lawyers who have actually read his contract. I’m sure he could find some Shylock to represent him.(see what I did there?) but there is plenty of precedent for public figures losing jobs b/c they ‘embarrassed’ a network.[/quote]

Yes, many public figures have lost jobs for embarrassing networks. That’s perfectly legal and the network’s right to defend their bottom line. However that is different from firing someone for expressing religious view that the network doesn’t like. That is illegal by almost every metric I can think of, and although I am sure Phil doesn’t intend to pursue litigation on the matter–he has said repeatedly he has wanted out of the show prior to this incident–it is STILL illegal. Jewbacca has the pertinent posts on that.

[quote]Third, there is nothing wrong about not tolerating bigoting speaking. Make no mistake, the statements Phil is quoted assaying are at their core hate speech. He is not merely 'expressing his views he espousing a philosophy that wants poeple to not live freely. Homosexuals have and still arereal victims in our society. They have been legally barred from serving in the military, jailed when the status of homosexuality has been discovered, not alowed to visit loved ones in the hospital, beat up, dragged behind vehicles, and they have socially shunned, ridiculed and embarassed simply for being homosexual.
[/quote]

This is the dumbest fucking shit I’ve ever heard in my life. You are out of your damn mind. Phil’s speech is unpopular and politically incorrect. It is NOT hate speech–he is not inciting violence, encouraging mistreatment, or even saying he doesn’t like them as people–read the rest of what he said “We never, ever judge someone on whoÃ??Ã?¢??s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus”. “we just love’em” Clearly referring to how they’re less than human scum /sarcasm.

Just because you don’t like what he says doesn’t make it hate speech. He’s said a lot of dumb crap because he’s not rhetorically equipped to handle the PC life today. If he’s said “my religion teaches that traditional marriage is the way to go” then you’d never hear a peep from anybody–but that’s the SAME MOTHERFUCKING STATEMENT, just all couched in pretty terms instead of spoken bluntly.

And lets move on:

First, gays are not barred from serving in the military, or didn’t you read news articles? Don’t ask don’t tell was first, and that policy has since been done away with.

Second, they have not been fucking jailed in this country and you damn well know that so quit your fucking lying. Russia, China, and other countries are not this country. I know, that’s difficult.

Third, they are not dragged behind vehicles with the State’s, Nation’s and culture’s approval like you wish to imagine–the criminals who beat people up for their sexual orientation or assault them in any way, or God forbid murder them, are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law AS THEY SHOULD BE and thrown in jail where they belong.

Fourth, you will never succeed in getting people everywhere to agree to not make fun of, mock or ridicule any subject or person for any reason–if you COULD, then bullying, cyber bullying, and fights wouldn’t happen at schools any more. Clearly that’s working out well these days. Lol.

Oh and wait, what’s this? A gay CNN anchor says Phil shouldn’t have been fired. Wait, a gay man defending Phil against A/E??? He’s a bigot!!!

quote from the gay anchor: "Listen, I always err on the side of free speech. Just because I’m offended â?? as I said, people can say whatever they want to say. I don’t think people should be fired. I think the marketplace should decide. If people don’t like “Duck Dynasty,” they shouldn’t watch “Duck Dynasty.” "

136

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]sen say wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
They have been … dragged behind vehicles, [/quote]

Examples please?[/quote]

google no work for you?

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20126640,00.html[/quote]

Well, leaving aside the fact that it was most likely a meth deal that went awry as Jewbacca said (Wyoming is disturbingly on the upwards trend for meth houses and distribution, most probably because of the low population density and ease of keeping hidden), that wasn’t really xbowwarrior’s point.

Murders happen to every demographic: white on black, black on white, black on brown, interracial, intraracial, rich, poor, straight, gay, everything. We all know this and a murder is a heinous crime no matter if the victim is gay or straight–xbox was trying to imply that murder of gay people is somehow culturally “ok”; he was saying “look they’re so oppressed they get drug behind vehicles and everybody things nothing of it, just like lynching black people at the turn of the century” only he didn’t come right out and say it, and of course he won’t admit that’s what he was very clearly implying. Because, if he did admit that, everyone would laugh at the absurdity of the statement as they should.

No matter what inequalities exist in this country, that particular one is absurd on the face of it. In fact most of his post is the fullest kind of bullshit.

137

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]sen say wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
They have been … dragged behind vehicles, [/quote]

Examples please?[/quote]

google no work for you?

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20126640,00.html[/quote]

Hate to break it to you, but the Matthew Sheppard case was a simple meth deal and robbery gone wrong. The whole “gay hate crime” thing was a fake. In fact, turns out the killer himself was gay.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=1[/quote]

I don’t know if that is true or not but the article you posted didn’t say it was a botched meth deal and only alluded to some speculation the killer may be bisexual.

139

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

Finally, if he IS such a good Christian why is he not speaking against Red Lobster or Long John Silvers? Isn’t eating shellfish a sin as equal as all other sins? Does he wear more than one type of cloth at a time? Or is it the case that like all good politicaly motivated Christians he cherry picks which part of the bible to follow? [/quote]

You need some basic theology lessons.

First, there are two basic “covenants” in the Torah (aka “Bible”). The Covenants of Noah and the Covenants of Mt. Sinai.

The Covenants of Noah (aka the “Seven Laws of Noah”) apply to all people. Briefly, this is:

1.The prohibition of Idolatry.
2.The prohibition of Murder.
3.The prohibition of Theft.
4.The prohibition of Sexual immorality (more fully described as homosexuality, adultery, incest etc).
5.The prohibition of Blasphemy.
6.The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
7.The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

The Covenants of Mt. Sinai, which are much long and more specific, apply only to the Jewish people. Christians, by and large, are not Jewish, so the Covenant of Mt. Sinai does not apply to them. (The exception being Messianic Jewish people, who I guess were the original Christians and still exist today in various forms.)

Anyway, the dietary laws (such as the prohibition against eating non-scaled and boned fish) and the covenant against mixed fabrics (which is a consumer-protection law – people were mixing cheaper materials in with good to pass them off as something they were not) are advisory, at most, to non-Jewish people, and thus not applicable to them.

In summary, you are completely out of your depth and should refrain from talking about things that you know nothing about.[/quote]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I didn’t have the time nor the energy to explain it to someone. Well put!

140

For what little it’s worth, I e-mailed A&E. I want Phil back!

aefeedback@aenetworks.com