Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Did A&E do the right thing in suspending Duck Dynasty star?

By Howard B. Owens
Jeff Allen

What exactly did Phil say that came as a surprise to A&E? There are volumes of video messages online that Phil has preached in churches in years past. His beliefs have been consistent and unwavering. A&E remains the network of wholesome, "non-offensive by anyones standards" shows like Rodeo Girls and Gene Simmons Family Jewels. Many other A&E shows are saturated with innuendo and sexual references because sex sells. The hypocrisy of the network is laughable. The Robertsons should pull A&E's biggest cash cow and walk.

Dec 20, 2013, 10:35am Permalink
Sam Tambe Jr.

I agree with Jeff. The question posed to Phil was "loaded" to begin with. I have said it before and will say it again..As a Christian I am called to love everyone regardless of their religious beliefs, their sexual persuasions or sins according to Christ. I am not to judge a person but I DO NOT have to AGREE with their lifestyles or sins. I have my own sins to worry about which I have to ask God for help with overcoming every day.

Dec 20, 2013, 10:55am Permalink
Eric [Rick] von kramer

I think this said it well, " If you don't want to know what a 67 year old redneck from the swamps of louisiana thinks,,,,,,,,,, Don't ask him!" I don't see them suspending any one from "Family Guy"for their #^@!. Reality tv insults our intelligence , but we still watch it. Anyone ever wonder, When the survival guy is dying in the jungle from stavation, the camera man doesn't share his candy bar? Or how can anyone be as dumb as Todd Hoffman on gold rush, and still be alive? Did you ever notice on American Pickers, that no matter where they dig,,,, nothing is ever dusty? Ever notice on Storage Wars that Barry NEVER gets a good unit? I always wondered why someone didn't help those girls roll the alligators into the boat, or why the girl on swamp loggers wears a bikini to work. Now we have Rodeo girls,, and Your Screwed Dude!! Along with Girl Hoggers. Now i don't personally watch any of these shows, but this is what i've heard!

Dec 20, 2013, 12:41pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

"Family Guy," aside from being satire, is on the Comedy Channel. In another thread, someone alluded to the recent Miley Cyrus flap as demonstrating a double-standard. Her VMA performance was on MTV. A&E obviously has a more limited range of tolerance for potentially offensive behavior than either MTV or Comedy Central. It was only a few weeks ago that A&E gave the Duck brothers a warning to tone down religious remarks that might polarize the audience.

Once reputable channels: Discovery, A&E, TLC, Bio and History have devolved since the 1980s/90s when they first showed up on cable and eventually satellite services. They swapped target audiences (TLC was mostly educational programming aimed at school children) and their quality standards. Instead of straight documentary work; they went to showing POV and docu-drama. Even National Geographic has lowered its standards.

Where once we had overviews of digs at former Mayan cities... We now see angels, aliens, curses and vampires released from Mayan tombs. The production is also staged to fit around commercial breaks, inflating 15 minutes worth of material into a one-hour program with 25 minutes of ad time, 10 minutes of dramatic recreation and 10 minutes of reiteration. Bible Secrets. The truth behind Hitler's bunker. Ark of covenant buried in Sandusky Ohio. Mary Todd Lincoln was a vampire. Aliens built the Washington monument. Anaconda I have loved and known. Schlock.

Dec 20, 2013, 2:22pm Permalink
Bea McManis

C.M., you are right on the mark. I had Biography; History; TLC; Discovery; and A&E as clients when the content attracted people to their forums who were well informed and interested in conducting lively discussions. I don't remember the last time I chose A&E as I surf the channels. One of the last series I did work on was the original showing of Planet Earth. Shortly after that the programming took a nose dive.

Dec 20, 2013, 4:24pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

A&E is dumb. Their only goal should be advertising dollars. Having the biggest show on cable gets you those dollars. Doing anything to upset that cash cow is stupid. This should be about money, not a persons politics and religion.

No company should bend to the wills of a vocal minority. A&E should have grown a pair and told them to get lost.

Dec 20, 2013, 11:01pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Free will - the man exercised his right to free speech. The network from what I can see, neither ordered him to do that interview nor did they prohibit it. He gave his perception and beliefs without any roadblocks.
The network has a right to protect their brand (no different than Howard;s right to protect THIS brand). The comments did not refleoct the views of the network (or the sponsors). The network exercised their right to suspend him.
In this case, they both acted within their rights.

The network, in this case is the creator of wealth. It stems from the advertising dollar. The network pays the production company for their product - in this case Duck Dynasty. While the show is popular, there is always another on the shelf that will capture the public's attention. Unless the sponsors are withdrawing their advertising dollars, the network can justify their decision.

Note: I'm not passing judgement on the comments. He did have the right to express his opinions. But, I do realize that the network has the right to protect their brand, regardless of how I feel about the low caliber of their programming.

Dec 21, 2013, 12:13am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

I remember Schlock.....wasnt that the show where Leonard Nimoy did a few Sherlock Holmes stories?

"That would be highly illogical.... Mr Watson."

Dec 21, 2013, 7:16am Permalink
kevin kretschmer

Unless something drastic happens, along the lines of video or audio popping up of Phil Robertson attending a Klan Rally, which is pretty unlikely based on how the family has lived a fairly principled life, the two biggest losers in this will be A & E and GLAAD. A & E got themselves into a predicament with this show. Their original intent was to have a Reality Show about a bunch of Southern Hicks like "Honey Boo Boo" or "Bayou Billionaires" or "Porter Ridge", something where people on either coast could watch and laugh at a family of unsophisticated buffoons. Lo and behold, Middle America fell in love with the Robertson Family, it started making a ton of money for A & E, and they had a problem on their hands.

Attempts by A & E to mold the family into something they weren't; asking them to drop references to their faith, adding "bleeps" to make it sound like they were swearing, etc., were opposed by the family. This GQ article was part of the media push by A & E for their brand and they had a pretty good idea what the result would be; "See we told you they were hillbillies! What a bunch of backward thinkers!" They simply weren't prepared for the backlash of people tired of being told by Liberal Elites what is best for them. I find it highly unlikely that Phil Robertson is going to read some prepared statement, written for him by an A & E Publicist, asking for contrition or that the family will not stand by him and simply walk away from the show. They were highly successful business owners and multi-millionaires well before before A & E came along and have never really cared about having "15 minutes of fame".

Much like their efforts to bully "Chick-Fil-A" that failed, the leadership at GLAAD is finding out the sponsors that are associated with the Robertson Family have no intention of pulling their advertising dollars due to threats of a boycott. Just the opposite is happening, again. You'd think they would have learned this lesson already.

Dec 21, 2013, 9:42am Permalink
Debbie Pugliese

Lets do a hypothetical here..

All you heteros out there, lets say that homosexuality was the norm. Could you change your feelings for your present spouse because certain members of society tell you its wrong? As a man could you sleep with a man, as a woman could you sleep with a woman because people tell you that is how you should feel?

Now lets take Mr. Roberston's quote using my hypothetical..

“Start with heterosexual 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 heterosexual 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.”

How would that make YOU feel as a hetero knowing that this man puts you in the same box as terrorists and those who practice bestiality? How would that make YOU feel knowing just because you love your spouse in the minds of bigots mean you will be sleeping with your dog, or your sheep or what have you? How would YOU feel that sees you just for loving your spouse in the same light as the Tsarnev brothers? Tell me you wouldnt be offended and I will call you a LIAR. If the man would have said I dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle and as a man i just love my vagina and not anus and stopped there fine. But he went on to be OFFENSIVE.

People go on and on about PC this and PC that. How about saying what you feel with a FILTER! Why does your right to say what you want trump other people's feelings? What happened to human decency? You can say whatever you want but to be hurtful and hateful and not expect there to be backlash and expect gay people to just sit back and let people continually disrespect them and link them to bestiality and pedophilia....Ridiculous.

Dec 21, 2013, 10:42am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Since the left is now backing A&E using the argument that a private business has the right to protect it's brand, they would most certainly back the Colorado cake bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding right? After all it is about the freedom for the bakery to protect it's brand despite any negative consequences it might have to endure from the public. Double standard. The left is not satisfied with tolerance, they want everyone to embrace lifestyle choices even if it conflicts with long held beliefs. Whether or not you find Phil Robertsons comments offensive or not, he is entitled to hold them, voice them, and accept the consequences for them. I hope that the family exercises their right to hold A&E accountable for their actions and pull the plug on DD and better yet take it to a competing network.

Dec 21, 2013, 11:12am Permalink
Debbie Pugliese

I could care less what A&E has on their channel...i have a remote. A&E is going to do whatever makes them money, whether that is take them off or leave them on. Phil did an interview in July where he stated he wasnt going to be on the show much longer and it would go on without him. So i dont think he cares either way. It seems to me his sons pushed him into it by telling him he could spread his word just so they could make a quick buck. That is for his family to deal with how they sold out their father. I could care less.

Regarding the bakery, I dont think its right for them to be sued and I believe that is the ACLU pushing that crap. Do i believe a hospital or doctor or a gas station in the middle of nowhere should be allowed to deny a gay service..Nope.

How is telling someone you obviously wanna boink my dog if you are gay showing tolerance? Tolerance is NOT embracing...its not vilifying. Wonder how many Christian teens have killed themselves because society has told them they are a piece of crap for who they are.

Dec 21, 2013, 11:24am Permalink
Bea McManis

A BA in Phys. Ed; a Masters in Educationl; star quarterback at Louisiana Tech, a year ahead of Terry Bradshaw indicates that this man is no backwoods hick. He taught school; became a commercial fisherman; ran a bar; took to alcohol; kicked his wife and children out of the house and turned to a life of crime all before he was 26 (info based on his bio and book) He was saved due to an intervention by his sister; reunited with his family and started a successful business.
Someone with that much business savvy and education knew he was playing to what will be his base if and when he choses to run for office.

Dec 21, 2013, 11:40am Permalink
Debbie Pugliese

Very interesting stuff there Bea.

That kinda reminds me of how Larry the Cable Guy was held up as one of those "True Americans" until it was revealed that his accent was fake and he was from Connecticut, LOL.

Dec 21, 2013, 11:45am Permalink
Mark Brudz

Bea is absolutely correct, A&E has every right t protect their brand just as Robertson had every right to say or believe what he wants. My problem with PC comes when it is dictated by the government, not private business.

In the end, the market place will determine the end result, already, sponsors appear to be behind Robertson, A&E will be faced with the decision to either rescind or ride it out.

The public's view will be determined by the use of the remote control

Dec 21, 2013, 11:48am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

There's an aspect of this where it all comes across as a ginned up controversy.

Robertson is a fake. The show is a fake. A&E really has nothing to lose by suspending Robertson if he was planning to leave the show anyway ... meanwhile, the NSA is still spying on us.

Dec 21, 2013, 12:12pm Permalink
Ed Hartgrove

Actually, Debbie, your post that Daniel Lawrence Whitney (aka Larry the Cable Guy) was from Connecticut appears to be false. According to http://www.biography.com/people/larry-the-cable-guy-491274 , he was born, and raised, on his family's pig farm in Pawnee City, Nebraska.

Also, wikipedia points to Pawnee City, NE as his birthplace ( and his first 16 years amongst us) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_the_Cable_Guy

I don't know where you get your 'facts' from - but you might want to at least double-check before you post such incorrect info - As some of our 'glorious leaders' are finding out, once you start saying (or posting) untruths (aka lies), people might not believe anything you say. But, Hey Debbie, at least you can keep your plan. So, be happy!

Dec 21, 2013, 1:02pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

My comment on the Colorado cake bakery, thats a service business. I believe it's an accepted and standard in service businesses that they have the right to refuse to serve anyone they choose for whatever reason (Of course to accept the consequences to such refusal as well)

As for Phil's statements well like Howard pointed out this is reality TV. Nothing in reality TV is actual reality, it's scripted reality. The Robertson's have enough money to buy their contract out and move to another network. A&E has enough to buy out their side and cut ties with them as well.

The reality is this is all scripted to stir us up for either side of the argument. They will play it out in the media then go back to Business as usual with more viewership because of the controversy. All the while A&E increases sponsorship and advertising dollars.

We are all distracted while real world issues and things go on ignored. This reminds me of a clip I saw today which really hits home on this generation...

http://www.faithit.com/brilliant-comedian-on-certainty-truth/

Especially poignant is his last statement...

"Contrary to the popular bumper sticker it is NOT enough these days to simply Question Authority... You gotta speak with it too."

Dec 21, 2013, 1:03pm Permalink
Debbie Pugliese

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/LgtsWsfPqLU?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/LgtsWsfPqLU?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Excuse me for being wrong...it was his accent thats fake. Good for you to doublecheck, everyone should very with EVERY post.

Oh and "read my lips" I AM keeping my insurance plan.

And whether or not you or anyone else on this site believes what I post is of absolutely no concern to me.

Dec 21, 2013, 1:23pm Permalink
Debbie Pugliese

It is definitely a ginned up controversy.... but Kyle I wouldnt go so far as to claim that the hate and discrimination directed towards gay people is not a "real world issue". It just isnt for YOU. I promise you for gay people it IS a real word issue and not some mere distraction.

Dec 21, 2013, 1:30pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Sorry Debbie.....everyone becomes the subject of hate and discrimination at some point in their lives, be it from age, race, sexual preference or employment, or political affiliation and so on. Its human nature.

There are certain things in the human condition that will never go away. Hate is one of them, as much as Love. Prejudice and discrimination is another. You might as well set your goal to eliminating prostitution and thievery from the world too.

Nowhere did I say that hate and discrimination for homosexuals wasn't a real world problem thats a perception you have of my statement. But let me tell you it's been around as long as Christianity has been. And believe me our generation is a hell of alot more tolerant of it than those that have passed. And your broad brush stroke of saying all Christians hate and persecute gays is as wrong as those certain Christians that preach about exclusion of people that practice homosexuality. Remember that the Bible is also clear in stating that murders and thieves and adulterers and such are just as vile. Yet I dont see certain Christian denominations being as exclusionary to those sinners.

The problem with religion is those who use it to further their own beliefs in what is right and wrong rather than God's. As soon as you open a Bible to find proof that God hates a certain group or type your lost....

Thats why it's so hard to be Christian.

Dec 21, 2013, 4:53pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

I haven't, their blogs, columns, shows, tweets, etc, speak for themselves. Besides, I would hate to try and take Piers Morgans place.

Dec 21, 2013, 5:17pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

You're right Bea, these days no one can simply just answer a question based on their convictions. Since his views are right of center he obviously has an ulterior motive and it must be pandering to the stupid rubes that could be potential voters...that was a stretch.

Dec 21, 2013, 5:29pm Permalink
Eric [Rick] von kramer

Most of you are taking this way too seriously. The more controversy the better the raings. Next week it will blow over, and we can get back to discussing why we say HAPPY HOLIDAYS instead of merry xmas.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, And the NSA will still be spying on us!!!

Dec 21, 2013, 6:52pm Permalink
Debbie Pugliese

Well Jeff no I realized Larry the Cable guy is a persona but I do think I, along with others, thought his accent was real. I seem to remember it being a big deal when someone found either this video above or him on a radio show in CT or somewhere in N. England (which probably is where I got the CT from).

He never was my cup of tea before or after. Neither have a ever watched Duck Dynasty.

I like my "rednecks" to be fun and lighthearted, not preachy and in a competition over how much more patriotic they are than others or how they have a special place reserved in heaven just for them cause they are so righteous.

I am much more a Tickle or a Turtleman fan.

Dec 21, 2013, 7:17pm Permalink
Debbie Pugliese

Well I guess I misinterpreted this comment you made then..

"We are all distracted while real world issues and things go on ignored."

And re this:

"And your broad brush stroke of saying all Christians hate and persecute gays is as wrong as those certain Christians that preach about exclusion of people that practice homosexuality. "

Please point out to me where I spoke about Christians...My comments were about Mr. Robertson and his comments.

"Remember that the Bible is also clear in stating that murders and thieves and adulterers and such are just as vile."

The Bible only matters to those who care what it says. I am agnostic and dont declare to know either way whether there is a creator or not, nor do I care. I try to help people and not harm people. I try to be a good person. If there is a God I believe the life I lead will be enough for me to be in his good graces, and if he is that hateful a being that he shuns me, I dont want to spend my eternity with him anyway. If there is no God, then I didnt waste my life telling people they are sinners and will burn in hell.

I certainly do not need to follow some mysogynistic book written by men to control the masses and use them to THEIR advantage.

Dec 21, 2013, 7:32pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Merry Christmas Eric.....

Debbie the Bible is just a guideline, to understand it you have to look for the truth. I think you may be closer to God than some by helping others and not harming them. The Mysogyny *?(spelling) lies with those who use religion to control people. I've always believed that the Bible has truth in it, but it's writing to me is like using the comparison of an adult (God) telling a 5yr old child a complex concept. It's gonna be imperfect.

As for your addressing this to Christians vs Phil I think if you look at your comments you are using Phil as a representative of all Christians. After all if it's just Phil.... making a comment as a Christian, who the hell cares he's just a person. But the tone and intent of your comments has been to condemn Christians through the actions of Phil. And thats not fair by any standard.

I wish you a Merry Christmas Debbie, agnostic or not you have the idea that I feel as a Christian...God intended for all of us, to treat each other as brothers and sisters. imperfect beings with faults but brothers and sisters nonetheless.

Dec 21, 2013, 8:32pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

A&E is a entertainment media outlet
Robertson is yes, an actor, people Audition for reality shows and believe it or not some segments are scripted.

This is all hype, either for GQ, A&E or Robertson or may be even all three or any combination of them all

We have stop worrying as a whole what people say who have no bearing on our lives, meanwhile, 40 million credit card numbers along with zip codes and CVV numbers were stolen from Target placing many at financial risk. 4 Marines were killed in Sudan, when the VM-22 they were flying was fired upon by rebels as the Marines were flying in to remove US citizens from a war area, a house burned in Oakfield, and a plethora of important events have taken place that were more than the utterance of a not so real life reality show star. On the main page of the Batavian there are several more important issues to discuss.

Dec 21, 2013, 9:14pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Here's the scorecard from all the posts I've read regarding the Robertson censure:

Being Liberal, argues other (than men with men) prohibitions in Leviticus: unkempt hair
Democratic Underground, compared to firing of Bashir
Can this poodle wearing a tin hat…, overview of Robertson clan
DailyKos, reference Stephen Colbert report
Unattributed, personal slam
The Other 98%, video of Phil Robertson sermon
Barak Obama’s Dead Flies (anti-Obama site), compares Miley Cyrus flap to Robertson censure
Other 98%, compares to firing of Bashir
The Tea Party, free speech challenge
Boycott Duck Dynasty, challenges aspects of Phil’s personal life: pedophilia, criminal history, drug use
Ring of Fire Radio, analyzes free speech aspects of A&E action
Cnn.com, news item
Being Liberal, compares to Bashir firing
The Other 98%, analyzes first amendment aspects
Right Wing News, boycott A&E
Think Progress, why the censure is not about free speech
Think Progress, media response
Think Progress, response from National Organization for Marriage
New country 96.3, Phil’s opinion was solicited
Daily Kos, Rush Limbaugh defends Phil
Funny ECards (not a political site), Phil prefers the pink, not the stink
Nbcnews.to, news analysis
102.3 The Max, Phil’s statement pertaining to suspension
Variety.com, news analysis

Dec 22, 2013, 6:41am Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

Mark, I don't often agree with you, but on this you are right on, we have bigger fish to worry about than some silly staged event created
to make money for A&E.
Reality Tv has got to be the absolute most ridiculous waste of time comparable to watching paint dry.

Dec 22, 2013, 10:27am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Cracker Barrel has managed to pull off one of the most confusing corporate actions ever...a "partial stand". They allegedly pulled Duck Dynasty merchandise while keeping Duck Commander stuff on shelves. Franchise employees have reported the anything with Phil's image was pulled. In taking a partial stand (a partial stand is actually no stand at all) they have succeeded in alienating both sides of a debate. Reactions from the conservative community indicate that they may have just sealed their fate with many of their conservative and/or faith based customer base while at the same time by keeping some of the merchandise they have told the LBGT supporting community that they only half-heartedly stand behind them. A very puzzling PR move.

Dec 22, 2013, 10:50am Permalink
kevin kretschmer

"Cracker Barrel" has already admitted their half-hearted attempt to appease GLAAD while not overtly upsetting their own customer demographic base was a mistake in an open letter on their Facebook page today; https://www.facebook.com/CrackerBarrel

I have a difficult time believing this is some sort of marketing ploy by A & E in order to increase market share or generate additional revenues. If it is, it will go down in the annals of advertising as the most convoluted marketing campaign of all time. The day after the story broke they lost over 6 million viewers from the previous week. Advertisers certainly won't be happy about that and if the trend continues, which it very well may, they are going to start demanding a re-working of their ad buy costs. The more likely explanation would be that A & E Executives were trying to force the Robertson family to conform to what A & E originally intended the show to be and it has backfired.

Dec 22, 2013, 3:01pm Permalink
John Stone

We really don't even have to go into anything religious here regarding homosexuality itself. No matter how much you want to deny it, homosexuality is an abomination to the natural world, and that fact really IS incontrovertible: By definition, one who chooses to remain staunchly homosexual for their entire life, is one who commits their own personal genocide... This really IS undeniably true. Even adoption does not negate these facts. The adopted child will have NONE of the genetic material of an homosexual parent...
The ONLY way that the issue of self-genocide can fail to manifest itself, EVERY TIME, is if that person makes a conscious decision to work within the bounds of factual biology. It ONLY works with a male and a female. Try as they might, a guy who attempts to "impregnate" a million other men is going to have a success rate of exactly 0%... no more, no less. Same thing goes for a female... she can attempt to be impregnated by a million other women, but will still fail, 100% of the time, at passing their genetic material to the next generation. Thus, homosexual mammals have exactly ZERO chance at procreating without making a concession to biology.

So, without even going into any of the morality issues, the homosexual must understand that he/she is the embodiment of a procreative failure, and that this has NOTHING to do with ANYONE's opinion of their choices... It's proven 100% of the time through proper scientific method.
(Let's see how THIS one harms "credibility"! lolz!)

Dec 22, 2013, 10:08pm Permalink
John Stone

Now... On the other hand:
Again we find folks putting words in the mouths of others, and motives in another's heart... The man stated what any real Christian would, given the question he was asked. (There was an A&E representative in there with them, FYI, which makes me believe that this was a ploy to finally cause some sort of dust-up as they have desired for three years.)
He did not 'hate' on anyone! He paraphrased his God. The homosexual lobby insists on having it's way, no matter if it impinges upon the rights of others. Phil said he didn't understand the choice that homosexuals have made, and his perspective on why. He then voiced some truth in regards to human nature when it is unconstrained: It ALWAYS escalates. If you don't understand this, you need to learn some more about human nature. (Oh... for those who like nit-picking. This doesn't mean that every homosexual is going to turn to bestiality. It means that people's acceptance of greater sin, in general, increases as 'lesser' sins are made to supposedly be socially 'acceptable'.
Another FYI... as soon as the sexual deviancy proponents felt that they had secured their standings for the most part (vis a vis, legal homosexual 'marriage'), it immediately moved on to bestiality. (True, no matter how much you don't want it to be) The process for 'legalizing' it has already begun it's slow march to "acceptance". Need proof? Easy:

On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.
This is how the next new thing that we are expected to tolerate, begins it's long road to public 'acceptability', no matter how repugnant we believe it to be. As long as there is one deviant out there who wants to do this, he/she will DEMAND that everyone else accept their behaviour. Five or ten years from now, the uber-libs are going to be pointing out how "intolerant" we conservatives are because we "unfairly want to keep a person from "loving" who/what they want"... how can we be so unfair as to keep a person from their "true love"... After that, it will be NAMBLA.
ALL societies decay unless they continually repair the moral fabric of said society. (Pick up a few history books and you will see that this has been happening all along.)
Sorry... I believe that God makes the rules, and is entitled to do so considering what else He has made... If you insist on acting in a manner that violates His standards, expect to have that violation (sin) pointed out to you. (And THIS is when you need to decide if you are going to be honest, or say that my opinion is actually an attack.)
It's all good, tho'. Everyone will have an equal opportunity to represent themselves to the judge. (This is true even if you don't believe in Him, but you have the free will necessary to deny that as long as you can. Just don't be surprised when your demands for your particular form of 'justice' don't work out the way you expect. Until then, I shall continue to express God's love to ALL who sin, and keep trying to help them overcome it! I hate the sin, but love the sinner!)

Dec 22, 2013, 10:31pm Permalink
John Stone

On an aside:
I find it to be illogical that liberals will tell me that I must accept homosexuals, and if I don't, I am "homophobic", and thus am some sort of "monster". In the same breath, they tell me that I must also accept Islam as "peaceful" or I am "Islamophobic".
What brand of irrationality is this? Do they have any idea what is the "required Islamic response" to homosexuality? And I am the monster? Laughable!
(Oh, in case you did not know, their Qur'an states VERY CLEARLY that all homosexuals MUST be executed. This is NOT my opinion. This is their holey books saying it.
One of the most incredibly STUPID things I frequently see is the "coexist" bumper-stickers... Are any of those who sport them aware of the fact that if the crescent at the beginning didn't exist, there really would be no need for that sticker to exist? Your "most heinous bigots, the Christians" don't KILL people we disagree with. We extol virtue and pray for them. GLAAD demands that Phil Robertson (and me, I'm sure) be "re-educated". (How exactly does this get done? Somehow I doubt that they are concerning themselves with maintaining his civil liberties in their contemplation and planning.) Yet no-one wants to take an honest look at the religion of pieces, Islam... Understand that you will eventually be given the choices Muslims give to ALL non-Muslims, and even "weak" Muslims: You will either convert to Islam, or become several inches shorter. If you aren't sure of your decision, they usually give you that time to contemplate it as they... (This might be a good time for you to do a little research of your own... If it doesn't terrify you, you haven't found the truth yet!)

Dec 22, 2013, 11:11pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Let's get our terminology and our missions straight.

"I believe that God makes the rules, and is entitled to do so." God may make the rules in the realm of your religion. God does not write the laws in the United States of America. Law is written by our elected officials at the people's behest (ALEC not withstanding). America is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy. The only reference to religion in the Constitution is in Article VI which prohibits any religious test regarding eligibility for holding office. The Bill of Rights, Amendment One states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"I find it to be illogical that liberals will tell me that I must accept homosexuals..." The issue is not universal acceptance. The mission is to prevent our secular laws from disenfranchising individuals from legal rights based upon sexual preference.

The same goes for differing race, religion, ethnic background or gender. It is recognized that individuals possess personal feelings and attitudes toward others that are not always supportive. How one treats those who differ falls under the rule of law. We can all disagree. We cannot extend our disagreement to the point of infringing on the rights of those we detract from.

In essence, John, you are free to speak against or hold disparaging opinions of others. You are not free to withhold employment, withhold rightful benefits, infringe on voting rights or assault, detain or intimidate those you disagree with. ...And the same goes for those who would unlawfully treat you.

The irony of your whole discourse: you project this notion that Liberals are forcing you to do something against your will, yet you are obliging others to fall in line with the rules of your religion. Countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have state religions. Oddly enough their religion is the one you seem so opposed to. In other posts on this subject you have noted that Islam is more political than religious. Yet you intimate that the United States should align with the rules of God. Don't you see a degree of hypocrisy in your premise?

We live in a nation of varied politics and religion. We are a pluralist society. I regularly come in contact with Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans and atheists. I find it incredibly ignoble, your suggestion that any of my friends or coworkers surrender their belief or disbelief to fit such a narrow vision of a great and diverse country.

Dec 23, 2013, 9:37am Permalink
C. M. Barons

It's time to put the "Duck Dynasty" news in perspective.

Let's start with the numbers. Depending on the pollster, 52 - 62% of Americans support gays' right to marriage. Even in Phil Robertson's home state of Louisiana support for gay-marriage measures 56%. If one bows to rhetorical nuance, change the phrasing to marriage or civil union; the support elevates to 67%. It's safe to say that a majority of Americans consider gays deserving of equal rights.

4% of Americans watched the most-watched episode of "Duck Dynasty."

"Duck Dynasty" is the latest reworking of the theme that made "The Beverly Hillbillies" a hit. Quirky but lovable people welcome millions to laugh at them through the medium of television. In the 1970s there was a show called "All in the Family." The show spawned reams of essays analyzing its popularity and social implications. Ostensibly it was quirky but lovable people viewers enjoyed laughing at.

We can pretend that the Robertson clan offers a template of traditional values. It has the earmarks: gun culture, family, Christian values, free enterprise... It's a TV show about Louisiana hayseeds who look like stand-ins for Z Z Top. Whatever socio-political value is attributed to the show is superimposed over entertainment value. Entertainment value that has escalated since the patriarch of the show became engulfed in controversy.

It brings to mind the former Winston cigarette question: "Do you want good grammar or good taste?" People didn't flock to "Duck Dynasty" because the show heralds a neo-conservative Zeitgeist. The audience wants a good laugh, and the show delivers. In the same way that Winston asserted, 'like' or 'as,' who cares? It's the cigarette; not the grammar that matters. "Duck Dynasty" fans won't be dragged into cultural analysis of the program.

A&E isn't about to look a gift horse in the mouth. They've got a show rising in the Nielsen's, and along comes a GQ article that beckons free publicity. ...So they censure Phil Robertson for making potentially offensive remarks about gays, followers of the Shinto faith and blacks- who hardly light up within the show's audience demographic. A&E comes out looking socially responsible, the current fans are galvanized and lots of strangers to "Duck Dynasty" tune in to see what all the hub-bub is.

...Then the parasites smell blood. Along come the politicians and pundits eager to latch onto the coat tails of a rising star. Un-American. Family Values. Free Speech. Moral Decay. Liberals.

All for a TV show featuring quirky but lovable characters. Phil didn't get played. American TV viewers did.

Dec 23, 2013, 1:36pm Permalink
Ed Hartgrove

Concerning Duck Dynasty: The latest news is that A&E may hold the rest of the family to their contract.

OK. Just wondering, what if the family does continue to show up for filming, but doesn't perform to A&E's 'standards'? Lose the facial expressions that they normally have - speak with New England accents - forget 'scripted' lines (I can hear the director now, "OK, let's try it again. Take 437!!"). I've seen enough about filming to know that sometimes it takes several tries to get exactly what the production company is satisfied with. And, filming 'time' is very expensive. Filming without the 'patriarch' could possibly run into hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of EXTRA dollars per episode. Sooner or later, the Dynasty clan could have A&E BEGGING to be let out of the contract.

Always think OUTSIDE the BOX!!

Dec 27, 2013, 1:24pm Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

Whether or not CM is a spokesperson matters not to me, as what he said sounds about right on the money. Like I commented earlier, reality TV
is such a waste of time, why does anyone care what these " actors" think or do with their lives.

Dec 28, 2013, 12:41pm Permalink

Authentically Local