Paglia: Duck Dynasty uproar ‘utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist’

[Zuri]

I live maybe 5 miles from the Robertson's. I do know they are good people and they were well known in this area long before they were on any show.

I was at the grocery store one afternoon and was struggling to pick up a 24 pack of soft drinks to put in the back of my SUV when Phil Robertson walked by and stopped to help me. We talked a few minutes and found we have mutual friends. I thanked him and he continued on into the store. The whole family is like this. Any one of them would give you the shirt off his/her backs. They support local charities and have really been an asset to our community.

The Robertson's Christianity is well known and I have never heard any of them say a bad word about anyone. They are loved here.

I am not extremely religious nor of the same faith they are. I really wish this whole thing had not happened and feel that when you are nationally known, you need to leave religion out of it. I do agree with free speech, though. He had a right to say what was on his mind.

IDK, but I am not the only one around town that feels Phil Robertson was more or less set up by the interviewer. I believe the interviewer already knew what his stance on the subject was and wanted him to say it so it could be printed.

As I stated, I do not agree with Phil Robertson's view but I will defend his right to say it until I keel over!

:moo:

:goodpost:

 

[Tawny]

I was under the impression that freedom of speech had to do with citizens being about to speak up/out about the government without being silenced. idk jmo I don't think it means that people can say what ever or whatnot. jmo idk

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.

Precisely. The First Amendment is designed to protect The People from an oppressive government, not to give us free reign to be mean to each other and then claim persecution when others call us on our s*$( :scared:

That said, he wasn't censored, nor is he being persecuted. He's fully free to go about his life how he did before, no one is impeding his pursuit of happiness. Do some people now think he's a raging homophobic a-hole. Absolutely.

A&E on the other hand is being dragged through the ringer for exercising their OWN rights to not employ someone who made inflammatory/controversial statements. My assumption is that he may have violated some sort of policy or agreement that he had made with them. I have no way of knowing for sure at this time, but the fact remains, they did nothing illegal in firing him.

It's basically the American public sticking their nose into an employee/employer dispute/situation as if we have any rights to decide what either party does.

 

[Sherp]

I doubt that happens because A&E is 50% owned by Disney/ABC...very pro gay and Robertson' words were offensive not only to gays but also to blacks.

It's my opinion that few of the estimated 3% gay population or 12% black population are among the 14 million viewers who do watch. I have no doubt that the show will be picked up by another channel. Perhaps, a channel that I could view the show as I boycott A&E and have done so for 3 years.

 

[Zuri]

I personally do not share in Phil Robertson's views. I believe in tolerance. Phil was certainly entitled to state his opinion and it is simply that, his opinion. Why should his viewpoint be any less valid than mine? Phil Robertson does not strike me as a sophisticated, wily, manipulative man. He strikes me as a man who loves his family and God.

I think it is unfair to persecute him for his statements in GQ. I am not going to hold him to a higher standard just because he is on a hit reality show. He stated HIS perception and interpretation of the Bible and views. He appears to practice what he preaches. IMO that is a far cry from some of those that call themselves "good Christians" that fill the pews every Sunday only to be hypocritical the other 6 days of the week.

My views may be more liberal than some, including those of my own Southern conservative mother. I don't judge her any more than I think Phil Robertson should be judged. If you don't like what he believes in, don't read the article. Don't watch his show. The vilifying needs to stop. JMV

 

[Tawny]

It's my opinion that few of the estimated 3% gay population or 12% black population are among the 14 million viewers who do watch. I have no doubt that the show will be picked up by another channel. Perhaps, a channel that I could view the show as I boycott A&E and have done so for 3 years.

Why have you boycotted them for 3 years? (I'm just being nosy :floorlaugh

 

[Tawny]

The vilifying needs to stop. JMV

RSBM I absolutely agree there. The vilifying of him and the network as well. There is no reason for the extreme outrage on either end.

 

[Tulessa]

Me too!I dont understand how you can be christian and judge like that defeats the purpose to me. there are those who say well God has already judged and I am just following his word (really did he tell you that over coffee?)

I share my coffee every morning with God. Don't you?

Family statement.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/12/20/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-ae-family-statement

 

[Gardenlady]

How is it "intolerance" to not support views one deems hateful?

Examples - is it intolerant to call the views of, say, neo-nazis hateful?

Is it intolerant to call the Westboro Baptist church hateful?

Is it intolerant to call the opinions of the KKK hateful?

I'm having difficulty understanding how it is "intolerant" to refuse to speak against certain views that a person finds bigoted or hateful. Those who say that people who objected to Robertson's views are being intolerant: where is the line drawn? Or is there a line at all? I mean, should we just silently accept everyone's views, no matter how hateful or bigoted we think it is, and never utter a word in objection or argument?

 

[Elley Mae]

This is funny to me.

On "The Daily Show," Stewart began by admitting he doesn't watch "Duck Dynasty."

“I assumed it was a show in which ducks re-enact the show 'Dynasty' ... which, by the way, would have a huge gay following," he joked.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jon-stewart-stephen-colbert-poke-fun-at-duck-dynasty-controversy/

 

[Elley Mae]

In some sense, when Robertson compares gays to terrorists, he's doing his job, too. So I'm sympathetic to the idea that A&E shouldn't suspend him for this. But if they shouldn't suspend him, it's because it's acceptable for Robertson to say unacceptable things, not because his remarks were acceptable.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business...ertson_duck_dynasty_and_the_two_americas.html

 

[PaperDoll]

IMO I think A&E is discriminating against Phil for his belief, which he has a right to have. Phil isn't God, nor a person that holds any kind of authority, he is simply a person on a TV show. I do not agree with A & E for letting him go because of his own personal beliefs. He is going by what the Bible says because he has a right to believe in it. So if people have an issue with Phil's belief, then they should take it up with God. AMEN! :scared::twocents:

 

[animlzrule]

Doesn't it seem odd that those who shout, "Be tolerant! Intolerance is bad!" are horribly intolerant to anyone who does not share their views? Kind of like a big, honking oxymoron.

I think the bigger question is why would anyone want to defend bigots and racists? Since when should we be "tolerating" bigotry and racism????? I am adamantly intolerant of bigots and racists. Are we going to "tolerate" pedophiles? Terrorists? Nazis? After all, there are those who participate and share in those views. I hardly think that if anyone condemned pedophiles, terrorists or nazis, there would be a clamor for tolerating them and their ilk. One tolerates one's nosy aunt at a family dinner, or tolerates loud music at a party. No one should be tolerating people that promote ignorance, racism and bigotry, whether or not they use religion as an excuse. There is NO excuse.

 

[Gardenlady]

No ones rights were violated. He was free to speak, and was not silenced. he is still free to express his bigoted views to anyone who will listen.

We are not guaranteed a right to a reality TV show. Nor are we guaranteed the right to say whatever we want with absolutely zero responses, objections, or repercussions.

 

[Montjoy]

This was not about his beliefs, which he has likely had most of his life. It's about his public statements in a mainstream magazine. He's a public figure, and his image is a big part of his value on the program. What's more, it affects the rest of the program.

This is not a free speech issue at all, nor is it about opinions or beliefs as much as it is about doing your job.

 

[JDSamIam]

All Phil did is voice HIS opinion of what HE considers sinful:

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“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,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

HIS OPINION. But also goes on to say:

"As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2o49EDB2C

Why does the MSM and the liberal crybabies not read THE ENTIRE interview??

BTW, I totally agree with Phil, and watch his You Tube sermons often. All of this in my opinion is panties in a wad for NO REASON. GROW UP AMERICA, and quit crying when someone hurts your precious wittle feewings. I hate this PC, everyone gets a trophy, culture.

JD

 

[Elley Mae]

this is NOT a religious debate, so please don't take it out of text. I believe any one has the right to live the way they want to live. We only have one judge. As far as the meat goes?
Do not eat any detestable thing...you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. The pig is also unclean...Anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat; for you it is unclean. "Deuteronomy 14:3, 7-8, 10 (Dt 14:3-21; also Lev 11)

This is an Old Testament rule, probably done for reasons of food safety at the time....but of course still observed by many. Jesus said in the New Testament that no food was unclean; that nothing going into your body could make you unclean.

Romans 13, 14 and 15.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

The old testament is basically used for references. We are now living under the New testament.

< Proud Hillbilly.

bbm
If I am not mistaken the old testament is the jewish Torah, or Tanakh.
The first 5 books of Moses.

 

[Elley Mae]

I think the bigger question is why would anyone want to defend bigots and racists? Since when should we be "tolerating" bigotry and racism????? I am adamantly intolerant of bigots and racists. Are we going to "tolerate" pedophiles? Terrorists? Nazis? After all, there are those who participate and share in those views. I hardly think that if anyone condemned pedophiles, terrorists or nazis, there would be a clamor for tolerating them and their ilk. One tolerates one's nosy aunt at a family dinner, or tolerates loud music at a party. No one should be tolerating people that promote ignorance, racism and bigotry, whether or not they use religion as an excuse. There is NO excuse.

bbm, I must have missed it, could you show me what he said that is racist.

 

[Gardenlady]

Same interview in GQ, was quoted up thread. Also excerpted in the column I linked.

Basically, he thinks black people were happier and better off under Jim Crow.

 

[Tulessa]

bbm
If I am not mistaken the old testament is the jewish Torah, or Tanakh.
The first 5 books of Moses.

You are NOT mistaken.

 

[animlzrule]

bbm, I must have missed it, could you show me what he said that is racist.

He claims blacks were better off without civil rights and that giving them civil rights resulted in welfare and "entitlement". You can read it for yourself if you read the whole GQ article. His ignorance and inability to understand historical context is astonishing.