• 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?

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
It is and I don't really buy the "oh, it's a cultural thing" either. His unabated ignorance of the horrors that African-Americans went through is sicking.

It's only a "cultural thing" in that there's still a lot of racism in the South, him being a good example of that.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I know there is a lot of racism in the South. i would also say that it's more prevalent in rural America. They seem to be content with this fact.

There's a lot of racism here in Ohio, too. I've gotten racism from both blacks and whites here. It doesn't help that my mom's side of the family is white trash and I lived with them for about a decade. Ugh.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
From Forbes...

The bearded family has been a mega hit in the latest round of reality TV, following the recent trend of "Honey Boo-boo" style of the boonies stereotype family. But in the DD patriarch's latest interview with GQ magazine, he offered his personal opinions about homosexuality that has struck a nerve and drew a clear line down Americana's culture wars again. Freedom of speech to compare homosexuality to bestiality? Or hate speech?

Here is the quote from GQ as highlighted in the Forbes link above:



Why is this an issue? One reason is because big business is determining whether or not to drop Duck Dynasty from it's branding of items they're wishing to sell in all their box stores, a $400 million empire and partnership.

That's not chump change. As stated in the linked article, too, banking on personalities is a risk.

Is this the free market at work? Are conservative Christian perspectives on marriage and homosexuality being silenced? Do the remarks qualify as hate speech and should be censored?

Did A&E make the right decision to suspend Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson indefinitely?

Funny how as I read Duck's comments, nothing is being said about his comments about "blacks being happy under Jim Crow." It appears the value of discussion about homosexuality and Duck's comments superceded the other horrendous remarks he made about the "Godless Japanese" etc

I heard on MSNBC that he apparently said that black people were better off before civil rights, too. :/

Hence me wondering why a lot of people in the media focused on his comments about homosexuals and less concerned about the fact that he believed blacks where he lived were happy about being under Jim Crow.
 
Last edited:

Slapstick

Active Member
It seems this story keeps getting better and better. Now Charlie Sheen speaks out against Phil. It has went from the backwoods to slums of Hollywood.

"I came up with a PERFECT holiday idea! Denise and Phil Robertson should get married! then he can practice the Bestiality he hates! c :) — Charlie Sheen (@charliesheen) December 23, 2013 "
Phil Speaks! Charlie Sheen Rants! Networks Scramble! 7 Biggest New Developments In 'Duck Dynasty' Drama | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV

I don't entirely understand the comment, but is this somehow suppose to be insulting. Maybe someone better educated than me in twitter talk can explain this comment.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
It seems this story keeps getting better and better. Now Charlie Sheen speaks out against Phil. It has went from the backwoods to slums of Hollywood.

"I came up with a PERFECT holiday idea! Denise and Phil Robertson should get married! then he can practice the Bestiality he hates! c :) — Charlie Sheen (@charliesheen) December 23, 2013 "
Phil Speaks! Charlie Sheen Rants! Networks Scramble! 7 Biggest New Developments In 'Duck Dynasty' Drama | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV

I don't entirely understand the comment, but is this somehow suppose to be insulting. Maybe someone better educated than me in twitter talk can explain this comment.

He's saying his ex-wife is a *****.
 

Awoon

Well-Known Member
It seems this story keeps getting better and better. Now Charlie Sheen speaks out against Phil. It has went from the backwoods to slums of Hollywood.

"I came up with a PERFECT holiday idea! Denise and Phil Robertson should get married! then he can practice the Bestiality he hates! c :) — Charlie Sheen (@charliesheen) December 23, 2013 "
Phil Speaks! Charlie Sheen Rants! Networks Scramble! 7 Biggest New Developments In 'Duck Dynasty' Drama | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV

I don't entirely understand the comment, but is this somehow suppose to be insulting. Maybe someone better educated than me in twitter talk can explain this comment.


Charlie talking about his ex-wife?
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
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?

It's hypocritical, in my opinion to highlight the negate views and commentary of a person, when you yourself, hold comparable, negate views.

O'Connor takes that jab at his faith, as if it's acceptable to do so. I find it hypocritical. Not that I'm defending Robertson. I'm simply irritated by this projection - that it's okay to take jabs at people through commentary, as if they are less intelligent and inferior and to call their views outdated and ignorant.

I don't find Robertson's views to be any worse (particularly since they're pretty well known) than the jabs that O'Connor and Margary have taken.

Ugly is ugly. Robertson is obviously being held accountable for airing his opinion. I take no issue criticizing O'Connor and Margary.
 
Last edited:

Uberpod

Active Member
To me, there is no obvious hypocrisy of A&E specifically. But, there are some people who would feel comfortable claiming that they support freedom, yet at the same time they do not support Phil's freedom to believe such things.
You cannot support freedom by ignoring efforts against freedom. Freedom must have limits. For freedom to exist there must be boundary and domain between individuals. Efforts to subbort the freedoms of others within their own domain needs to be called out as such or the cause for freedom in general is diminished.
 
Last edited:

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
You cannot support freedom by ignoring efforts against freedom. Freedom must have limits. For freedom to exist there must be boundary and domain between individuals. Efforts to subbort the freedoms of others within their own domain need to be called out as such or the cause for freedom in general is diminished.

This is the key....For many Americans who support this guy, they keep screaming "Free Speech" but the fact remains, "all speech isn't free."
 
Top