Now I'll Have to Start Watching Duck Dynasty?

That's it exactly.

Either way, the point that needs to be made here is that this isn't about belief. I could care less what he believes. It does not affect me. But the people getting their panties in a wad over "freedom of speech" don't seem to understand that his television show, by default, represents a broadcasting company. He could have worded what he said much better than what he did, but he chose not to and now he has to pay the consequences of that. Plain and simple. A&E had to make a decision based on what they represent and support as a company and obviously that is not off the cuff anti-gay comments for their viewers to be exposed to.

Whether this is about homosexuality or Jim Crow laws, what this fellow lacked was tact, respect, and tolerance. He can believe what he wants, but A&E doesn't have to support it. Mr. Robertson is still a millionaire and a celebrity, so truthfully, I have zero sympathy. The man was lucky to have a show to begin with.

It's less "that's despicable!" and more "what the hell would motivate you to say something like that?"

It's not about tact either. I've watched the show, and more importantly, I've known people like him. He was asked a question, and he had the balls to answer it. I may not agree with his opinions, but I respect that.

I respect someone answering honestly. I don't respect those who make such controversial statements, knowing the reaction they'll get, and then complaining about the consequences when TSHTF.

I know people like that. Someone asks them a question, and they go with anecdotal stuff...not stuff that they think people want to hear.

A baby bottle brush, an enema or two, and garden hose would do for a thorough cleansing.

Well, they said they were disappointed. I don't blame them. But they're rich enough that I don't think Phil gives a shit what happens to the show.

I know people like that, hell I do it sometimes, but the subject matter is damned delicate. It's like performing brain surgery with a pick-axe.

Was it balls or plain ignorance as to what the consequences would be if he didn't answer it with a certain amount of tact?

I've known people like this as well and I really don't think it was courage that was running through his head as much as it was nothing at all.

Would the people that you know even consider that?

I'd say he just figured he'd tell the truth. Some people don't even consider lying about how they feel in order to spare someone's feelings I guess.

Didn't there used to be some kind of "journalistic ethics"? I understand they're in it for the money, but they've always been in it for the money, and they used to have higher standards of objectivity than they do now.

Consider what?

That they might be pissing people off by answering a question truthfully.

When did entertainment reporting become journalism?

Some of them would, sure. As I said, there's nothing wrong with answering truthfully, after all it's my preferred method of answering questions. There are ways, however, to state the truth without taking shots at people in the process. If it were my point of view, I could say, "I believe homosexuality is a sin," without also adding, "but I never saw any of them complain about the AIDS."

Moreover, there's this.

I absolutely agree the guy has a right to his traditionalist doctrine, and indeed he has a right to talk about it - he didn't advocate any legal sanction against gays. sure he's propagating arguably bad doctrine, but there's a ton of arguably bad doctrine on a variety of subjects out there.

I really don't mind what he said and i think GLAAD wildly over-reacted (or is engaging in a power-play) in response.


BUT

It is indicitive to me of the current sorry state of evangelical christainity that you can, as an interviewer, say to a well-known Evangelical Christian "what do you consider sin?" and the first words out of his motu h are not

"check out the 10 commandments for a start"

or

"all sorts of things that we have pointed to for thousands of years - greed, sloth, envy, and so forth, to say nothing of violence, gossip, hatred, and so forth"

No.

the VERY FIRST WORD out of his mouth - the ONE sin that merited immediate and unequivocal attention, was "homosexuals"

Even if you think it's a sin, is it THAT much more deserving of discussion than any of the others? corruption? stealing? child abuse? Rape? Murder?

"Yeah yeah, we'll get around to that but right now I need to tell you how bad the gays are!"


Don't seem right to me.

Hell, he'll become the darling of the religious right, no doubt make a ton of money off them, and then A&E will bring him back next season. It honestly sounds like a publicity stunt.

2/10 - Trying too hard.

I've got a Bible right here on my bookshelf, just give me the verse.

Exactly. Jesus spoke more on compassion, on abiding love, on kindness, on being trustworthy to others, being honorable to others, and giving of your heart the gifts of the spirit. Not one whit on homosexuality, not one. The modern Evangelical church is straining gnats and swallowing camels.

and the best way to avoid that is to not give your opponents the ammunition.

for example - you know who does NOT get called a hater?

Joel Olsteen.Ask him if homosexuality is a sin, he'll say yes. but does he get painted with the same brush that say, Bryan Fischer does? Nope. and that's not because the gays are asleep at the switch, it's because Osteen SHOWS his christian compassion while Fischer only CLAIMS to have it.

If you present your views in an arrogant, condescending and agressive confrontational manner (as i used to), you will be accused of being hateful, manipulative, or mean. Certainly the christian talking heads do EVERY BIT as much to demonize people like GLAAD as GLAAD does to demonize AFA. Why do you reserve your criticism only for the left?

also, it helps to not make ridiculous and seemingly desperate arguments. For example, on the way home today i was listening to some commentator being interviewed on AFR. and the guy was essentially arguing that if we legalize same-sex marriage, we would be "losing natural marriage" and he waxed on about how a woman was essential to the home and affirming same sex marriage was tantamount to dismissing the importance of the woman to the family (never mind that some same sex couples feature TWO women) - as if - AS IF the minute you say "it's no big deal if two guys get married" then the big majority of men will say "I'm done with women!" and go find a boyfriend.

It's a laughable implication, but the speaker wants to make the claim without acknowledging that the logical implication of his argument is ludicrous. Thoughtful people can see through this and then they ask "if this guys' thinking is so muddled on this point, why should I listen to him about anything else?"

The church has survived great persecutions, and they have god - from their point of view - on their side, but they are in the act of cutting their own throat in their obsession over this one issue.Not because they may be wrong, but because they are compromising the greater witness they are called to offer in the blindness of their obsessive behavior.

That's the first good, solid, rational point against what he said that I've seen here or anywhere else.

Even knowing Joel's point of view on homosexuality, I'm actually quite a fan of his. Here's a good article/interview with Joel:
http://christiannews.net/2013/10/04/joel-osteen-god-absolutely-accepts-homosexuals/

See how he does it? Yes, his view is that being gay is a sin, but he feels that since we're all sinners, we have no place in pushing people down.

I love that, and can respect that. Joel's message is exceedingly positive. He wants to do good in the world. That, too, I can respect. I get the feeling that Joel and I are on the same team, working toward the same goal of helping people, regardless of our religious views.

No, what'd I miss?

Sounds like the same attitude to me. You know what the difference is? Olsteen heads the largest church in the U.S., has 7 million viewers in over 100 countries, per week, and he has 5 NY Times bestsellers to his name.

You know why they don't go after him? Because they can't. They have no leverage on a guy whose reach and whose wealth are absolutely outside the sphere of their influence.

An interesting take on the situation.

True dat. but i don't get the impression Phil himself is complaining. If he remains consistent with the established persona, he'll shrug and say "I was doing fine before there was a TV show, i'll do fine after - and i'll have more time to hunt."

Boom.

Yep. If he shrugs it off, that's fine, too.