Do you think that supporting freedom of belief requires us to support giving this one person a soapbox that's beyond the reach of most people?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Duck Dynasty star indefinitely suspended for anti-gay remarks - right move or PC run amok?
- Thread starter MysticSang'ha
- Start date
Do you think that supporting freedom of belief requires us to support giving this one person a soapbox that's beyond the reach of most people?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
They do support Phil's freedom to believe such things.
They just don't support Phil working as an employee for them while expressing those beliefs.
When you're working for a company, there are always certain rules how you present the company to the public. The company wants to keep a certain profile to its customers, and employees are on a regular bases contractually obligated to support that profile. This is more common than people think.
I know someone really high up in Disney. She can't even do an interview in a news story. She can't have good or bad views or ideas or beliefs expressed publicly at all. Nothing. She'll be fired on the spot. That's the contract, at least for her position.
However, she can express anything she wants about belief and ideas when it's not public.
Not sure what you mean by that. I would think, though, that if a belief does not have evidence of being physically dangerous towards someone, and you hold the belief of freedom of belief and respecting all people (again, aside from those that would create physical harming) then Phil would logically be supported in this case.
Is that really fair though? I always found these same people to be against the military standard of "don't ask, don't tell" which is very similar to this case. Or those boyscouts that got kicked out because of their sexuality?
The only difference is the difference between belief and sexuality; both are not a choice.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
O'Connor refers to Robertson's views as "outdated and ignorant", understanding fully that he attributes his viewpoint to biblical teachings.
Margary would have been more credible to me if he had canned the patronization, which, was evident when he first described the ride and the fly on Robertson's beard. His attitude as a writer screams "I'm better than these people."
These are merely my own perceptions of what I'm reading.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
The don't ask, don't tell was a military standard, which means, not a private, but public/state/government business.
Boyscouts, yeah, it's tricky.
The issue here is what "speech" really is about.
Phil spoke out against homosexuals. It's considered "fighting words", instilling hate and discord.
The boyscouts kicked people out for their homosexuality. They never spoke anything. They just were something. And in most cases (if not all) homosexuality is not a choice. Being kicked out for being gay, black, jew, atheist, etc. Is not considered a matter of free speech but a matter of freedom of just being who you are.
Phil spoke out against one of those groups that are protected. If he had said the same thing about black (african-american to be PC), or jews, or ... then this wouldn't be difficult to differentiate.
True. But those who were homosexual, did they speak out about it? Was that the reason they were kicked out? I don't remember.
But I do understand what you're saying. Religious belief is protected and shouldn't be a cause for being fired.
The thing though is that A&E knew that his religious views a long time ago. Also they knew about the family's religious views. A&E has been trying to downplay it, but it's been there all the time. So if A&E suspended him because of his religious views, why didn't they do so from the beginning and all of them? So A&E's decision here isn't about the religion he believes in but his decision to speak out about it, and also speaking out in particular about his religious views against a minority that is protected. He didn't choose his beliefs, but he chose to pick that topic to speak about. Some things don't have to be taken into public, especially not hate speech.
Do you support my freedom of belief?
Do you think it's unfair that I don't have a TV show?
His position is physically harmful and doesn't respect all people, but regardless, it's not as if A&E can't get rid of him unless he does something truly heinous. If his image doesn't match what they want to put forward or if his ratings go down, that's reason enough to drop him.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
The only hypocrisy I can see in this story is that Phil is attacking gays by quoting a verse from the Bible that also included greedy people. Rich people are supposed to have a harder time to be accepted by God. Give what you have to the poor is something rich Christians tend to overlook and dismiss. He should give his money away, or he should shut up about gays. He's judging without seeing that he's just as much at fault.
So... you disagree with what one writer implied about the Bible and you dislike another writer's tone... but how does this add up to either of them being hypocrites?
I support your freedom of belief, I wouldn't discourage you to have a show that would call out homophobic beliefs. That doesn't prevent me in any case to express my own opinion that it would be absurd as well.
He's not going to physically harm anyone just because he believes that, he even said he's a lover not a hater Phil Robertson Breaks Silence on Anti-Gay Remarks; Duck Dynasty Star Will Not Give or Back Off | E! Online
Nobody can respect all people, at least that's how it seems. It would be disrespect of people who do not believe homosexuals are morally good. I can understand why people would be against homophobic violence, but being homophobic beliefs in general is another sign of intolerance, especially hypocritical if coming from the same people who claim they are all tolerant.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights
and he was trying to be nice... I wonder why blacks they didn't say doggone white people.:sarcastic
and he was trying to be nice... I wonder why blacks they didn't say doggone white people.:sarcastic
And "revilers". It's also not too far from the verse that says it's shameful for a man to have long hair.
The other hypocrisy I've seen is from some of Robertson's defenders: the ones who argue that him getting suspended "violated his constitutional rights" even though I remember back when the same people argued that people shouldn't be allowed to say "happy holidays" and who gloated when the Dixie Chicks got banned from many radio stations.
According to Robertson and his ilk, as long as blacks knew their place, everything was fine.
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
Ducks, Jesus, and filthy beards.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Possibly. But it is at the same level of "fighting words" to be against his beliefs.
In the same way, belief is not a choice. Keeping it silent or being open about it is a choice, sure. Why should anyone have to keep quiet about themselves, though? It would enrage these same very people that are against Phil's appearance, as much as it would enrage me, if a homosexual was allow in a group as long as he didn't publicly profess it. To me, sexuality nor beliefs should have to be kept quiet. If someone is a certain way, and are strong about that way, then they should have all the right in the world to be open about it.
This does not mean, though, that a person should go to a church and yell "God doesn't exist!". The churches are a grounds where people that believe in God will visit, they are private for practitioners of whatever religion they may adhere to; TV channels are not. TV channels are meant to be public, regardless of beliefs. If they wish not to be associated with somebody's beliefs, they have every right not to be. While I agree they have the right to, I can and will point out that it is no better than bigotry that can appear in homophobic beliefs. It is no more justified than those businesses that fire people because they are an atheist.
Of course - I'd hold the same opinion: That's his opinion. If he's racist in his own head, if he's homophobic in his own head, even if he believes that I were the devil - that's his opinion. As long as it remains in his head, there should be no problem.
Depends on what you mean by speaking out about it. I'm sure that gay couples would love to have pictures of them and their loved ones hanging up in their offices, or to talk about something that relates to their same-sex lover. That would be considered being open to some people. It is just as unjust to make a gay stop talking about anything related to their sex life as it is to make a homophobic stop talking about their beliefs. No matter how annoying either one gets, they have every right to talk about it.
I would probably say that A&E is justified if Phil was constantly ranting about it, or trying to push his beliefs on other people. But here he just spoke his own beliefs and he hasn't expressed it to the point where he becomes a homophobic junky.
Thanks for the understanding.
That's true, it's not about the religious beliefs itself, it's about being open about those beliefs.
I want to make a scenario here; If an atheist is to be fired because often times he will post big rants against God on Facebook, is that justified?
As far as I understand from this article, Phil's beliefs were not relevant to A&E or the show.
iamsharky789
Member
fantôme profane;3605406 said:
Agreed
Yes and no. You are right about many people but there were other kinds of people as well.
Poor farmer bought slave or two to survive. They worked side by side all day long in the field and sat at the same table come supper time. His kids respected what the slaves said and minded them because you respected your elders period.
Many farmers gave them their freedom after a certain length of time and were endentured workers themselves when they first came to America.
Many slave owners left title to their farm as well as their freedom when they passed on to their slaves.
After emancipation, many slaves stayed on as well.
Yes slavery was wrong but conditions varied from terrible to respectful depending on the owner.
It was a dark time in history for sure, but like I said, conditions varied from farm to farm.
Lets fast forward to today. Many employees don't make enough money to buy what slave owners gave to their help back in the day.
100 years from now, today might not be looked upon as progressive as we think we are.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
And no one is stopping Phil from having those views and publicly expressing them. He's just not allowed to work for A&E who has a policy of not being anti-gay. If A&E was forced to allow him to continue, they're essentially forced to allow gay hatred to be proclaimed through their channel.
So only "gays are evil" is allowed to yell in public media? But not in private media? I'm not sure how you see a difference there and then compare being homosexual on the same level as expressing hate for homosexuals.
Most churches are considered public too. I hope they're not considered cults for special invites only.
Yeah. The line is very thin between many of these issues. I never said it was an easy thing.
And Phil isn't fired. He's still getting paid. Basically it's a forced paid vacation. He's lucky!
Right. And I'm not going to argue against that.
He's been upset over A&E bleeping out "In the name of Jesus" and other religious phrases. I saw somewhere that he consider himself to be a spiritual warrior in battle for the good. He's the good guy, in his mind, warring for God. Lovely.
I took some philosophy classes in the past, and you know, it's not easy to separate many of these issues. It's a moving line depending on cultural views and values.
I think there's been cases like that, but they're not blown up in media as much. It's not as news worthy. Media likes highlight persecution of Christians right now.
Besides, it's not always that things like these happens. I'm sure there are other Christian fundamentalists expressing homophobic views without any "penalties". This is just one case that got traction in the news.
Right. I don't think it was. A&E didn't care if he was Christian, so that wasn't the reason. It was only the homophobic views being expressed. They just don't want to condone that kind of views or be associated with it. Think of the viewers they would lose. Basically, any gay would boycott A&E for being anti-gay. I don't think they wanted to lose the viewers.
