SKL Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 I think what really bugs people is the idea that GLAAD gets to decide what is OK to say out loud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 The Bible also says "judge not". But I don't know a single soul that lives up to that one. You missed my point, I think. I'm pointing out that many people don't blab about the causes they support, but that does not mean they aren't doing things privately. To some of us, it feels wrong to shout from the rooftop how much we do for our fellow man. And the Bible supports this feeling. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyThreeSons Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Did you all know that a few weeks ago a Christian ministry "fired" Willie Robertson from speaking at their event, because the ministry found out that the DD crew had just announced a new business collaboration, Duck Commander Wines? I didn't hear any outcry over that decision, and yet it was for essentially the same reason that A&E suspended Phil. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/willie.robertson.duck.dynasty.ceos.appearance.christian.fundraising.event.cancelled.duck.commanders.wine.collaboration/34674.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Did you all know that a few weeks ago a Christian ministry "fired" Willie Robertson from speaking at their event, because the ministry found out that the DD crew had just announced a new business collaboration, Duck Commander Wines? I didn't hear any outcry over that decision, and yet it was for essentially the same reason that A&E suspended Phil. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/willie.robertson.duck.dynasty.ceos.appearance.christian.fundraising.event.cancelled.duck.commanders.wine.collaboration/34674.htm I don't think it was the same reason at all. They did it because they don't want to appear to promote alcohol. It doesn't indicate that some opposing organization made a big public stink and they felt the need to respond to that. Or did I miss that part? As for why we didn't hear any outcry - that church is not one of the organizations whom the media cares to promote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Did you all know that a few weeks ago a Christian ministry "fired" Willie Robertson from speaking at their event, because the ministry found out that the DD crew had just announced a new business collaboration, Duck Commander Wines? I didn't hear any outcry over that decision, and yet it was for essentially the same reason that A&E suspended Phil. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/willie.robertson.duck.dynasty.ceos.appearance.christian.fundraising.event.cancelled.duck.commanders.wine.collaboration/34674.htm Actually, there was discussion of that on facebook, at least on my feed. I think people were fairly supportive of the decision because that particular ministry does teen rehab and didn't want to send mixed messages to their teen clients/patients. The way the press releases were worded, the ministry didn't have a problem with the Robertsons getting into the wine industry per se and there didn't seem to be any animosity on either side about the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 I think what really bugs people is the idea that GLAAD gets to decide what is OK to say out loud. What on earth are you talking about? You are allowed to say whatever you'd like. What GLADD is saying is that they hope people don't THINK this, and here's why. Again, you are absolutely free to disagree, loudly and proudly. Who do you think it stopping you? For many, many, many years there were no gay characters on TV. Or only wink-wink ones like Paul Lynde. That reflected popular cultural views at the time. Now there are LOTS. That new comfort level reflects popular culture right now. GLADD is not the arbiter of anything, it's just that many, many people agree with them on this topic. If you feel like a minority in disliking gay people (generic "you"), that is because you are. It's hard to be a minority. But just because lots of people disagree with you doesn't mean you are not allowed to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 You missed my point, I think. I'm pointing out that many people don't blab about the causes they support, but that does not mean they aren't doing things privately. To some of us, it feels wrong to shout from the rooftop how much we do for our fellow man. And the Bible supports this feeling. That's all. My point was that it's just as important to strive to not to judge as it is to be modest about your good deeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 What on earth are you talking about? You are allowed to say whatever you'd like. What GLADD is saying is that they hope people don't THINK this, and here's why. Again, you are absolutely free to disagree, loudly and proudly. Who do you think it stopping you? For many, many, many years there were no gay characters on TV. Or only wink-wink ones like Paul Lynde. That reflected popular cultural views at the time. Now there are LOTS. That new comfort level reflects popular culture right now. GLADD is not the arbiter of anything, it's just that many, many people agree with them on this topic. If you feel like a minority in disliking gay people (generic "you"), that is because you are. It's hard to be a minority. But just because lots of people disagree with you doesn't mean you are not allowed to speak. I would like to read the statement by that organization that originally sparked the public reaction that led to A&E's suspension of the actor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Huh. I don't know, maybe it is a lifestyle difference. I believe it is more important to DO than to post about it on facebook. Posting about social injustices does not equal taking action against said injustices. I am fully aware that I can do little about what is happening 5,000 miles away, but I can do something to help a child have food over the weekend when he/she is out of school. I do not post all over faacebook about it though. I do not need to be told how awesome I am for doing it. I need no recognition for it. Well, since the DD debacle, I have only seen 3 posts in my facebook on DD (2 on one side, 1 on the other), compared to probably about a hundred related to helping people in need, being socially responsible, or protesting [real] wrongs. Maybe it has something to do with who our friends are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 GLAAD: “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Huh. I don't know, maybe it is a lifestyle difference. I believe it is more important to DO than to post about it on facebook. Posting about social injustices does not equal taking action against said injustices. I am fully aware that I can do little about what is happening 5,000 miles away, but I can do something to help a child have food over the weekend when he/she is out of school. I do not post all over faacebook about it though. I do not need to be told how awesome I am for doing it. I need no recognition for it. Well, a lot of the posts were to recruit for fundraisers and other projects to help those in need. Many were to encourage an attitude that is more outward-thinking than focused on oneself. And some were to inform folks that something awful was happening and people should raise their voices. A few were simply an expression of frustration - don't we all express frustration at times? None of these originated from me. I did respond to some by doing something, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 My point was that it's just as important to strive to not to judge as it is to be modest about your good deeds. Which is not what I was talking about. Somebody asked why they aren't seeing much evidence of Christians caring about "real" issues. I was saying maybe it's because they are being quiet about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 GLAAD: “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families." OK, earlier in this thread, you said: I haven't noticed anyone being bullied into silence over disagreeing with the guy. I really don't have a problem with disagreeing with his opinion. Twisting it into something he didn't actually say does bug me, as does attributing the alleged comments to all Christians / conservatives, but I'm not standing on my roof screaming about it. I just like to point out that that sort of thing creates more problems than it solves. As for the A&E suspension, boycotts, and merchandise being removed from the shelves, it seems people are voting with their pocketbooks one way or the other. Which is fine with me. If you're fine with people voting with their pocketbooks------- isn't that exactly what GLADD is doing? Boycotts happen when people say "we don't like what you're doing, stop or we'll take our business elsewhere". Or are you saying it's OK to boycott but it's not ok to advocate for boycotting? I don't get it. And of course, it's up to A&E to decide if they want to listen or not. They're ALLOWED to stick by the Duck Dynasty guy. That's exactly what happened with Cracker Barrell. They decided to pull products from the shelves because of his anti-gay comments. Then they got a huge barrage of feedback against the decision to pull the products. Would you say that the people who were offended by Cracker Barrell's pulling the good were infringing upon the free speech rights of GLADD? According to Cracker Barrel, they were overwhelmed with phone calls, tweets, Facebook posts, letters, all anti-GLADD. If the response to the Duck Dynasty guy was an attack on free speech, those phone calls were too, I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 I think it is because those who do not want to make a difference and would rather just complain about the problems and play the blame game are louder. Which is not what I was talking about. Somebody asked why they aren't seeing much evidence of Christians caring about "real" issues. I was saying maybe it's because they are being quiet about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyBC Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 He also said that Islam doesn't have Jesus which is wrong (but then again, ignorance about Islam (and almost a desire to perpetuate that in some circles) runs rampant here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam Yes, but if you remove Jesus' deity, then he's no longer the same Jesus, ifykwim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 GLAAD: “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families." I see nothing wrong with that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyThreeSons Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 I don't think it was the same reason at all. They did it because they don't want to appear to promote alcohol. It doesn't indicate that some opposing organization made a big public stink and they felt the need to respond to that. Or did I miss that part? As for why we didn't hear any outcry - that church is not one of the organizations whom the media cares to promote. I wasn't under the impression that A&E's suspension of Phil was in response to a public stink, but rather a pre-emptive response. And what I meant by "the same reason" was that in each case, the organization doing the firing/suspending/cancellation was saying that they were doing it because the person doesn't represent their values. I was trying to make the point that there is hypocrisy in decrying the one action but not the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 Yes, but if you remove Jesus' deity, then he's no longer the same Jesus, ifykwim. Not wanting to turn this into a religious discussion, but I bet there's a lot more similarities than you're aware of (or Phil's aware of)…and y'know, Jesus's deity wasn't decided upon until the 4th century. There were a few different views on that in the first 300 or so years of Christianity. This is a good article from a British publication known as the New Statesman (note: not a Muslim publication). http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/12/jesus-islam-muslims-prophet An excerpt…"Christians, perhaps because they call themselves Christians and believe in Christianity, like to claim ownership of Christ. But the veneration of Jesus by Muslims began during the lifetime of the Prophet of Islam. Perhaps most telling is the story in the classical biographies of Muhammad, who, entering the city of Mecca in triumph in 630AD, proceeded at once to the Kaaba to cleanse the holy shrine of its idols. As he walked around, ordering the destruction of the pictures and statues of the 360 or so pagan deities, he came across a fresco on the wall depicting the Virgin and Child. He is said to have covered it reverently with his cloak and decreed that all other paintings be washed away except that one. Jesus, or Isa, as he is known in Arabic, is deemed by Islam to be a Muslim prophet rather than the Son of God, or God incarnate. He is referred to by name in as many as 25 different verses of the Quran and six times with the title of "Messiah" (or "Christ", depending on which Quranic translation is being used). He is also referred to as the "Messenger" and the "Prophet" but, perhaps above all else, as the "Word" and the "Spirit" of God. No other prophet in the Quran, not even Muhammad, is given this particular honour. In fact, among the 124,000 prophets said to be recognised by Islam - a figure that includes all of the Jewish prophets of the Old Testament - Jesus is considered second only to Muhammad, and is believed to be the precursor to the Prophet of Islam." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 OK, earlier in this thread, you said: I haven't noticed anyone being bullied into silence over disagreeing with the guy. I really don't have a problem with disagreeing with his opinion. Twisting it into something he didn't actually say does bug me, as does attributing the alleged comments to all Christians / conservatives, but I'm not standing on my roof screaming about it. I just like to point out that that sort of thing creates more problems than it solves. As for the A&E suspension, boycotts, and merchandise being removed from the shelves, it seems people are voting with their pocketbooks one way or the other. Which is fine with me. If you're fine with people voting with their pocketbooks------- isn't that exactly what GLADD is doing? Boycotts happen when people say "we don't like what you're doing, stop or we'll take our business elsewhere". Or are you saying it's OK to boycott but it's not ok to advocate for boycotting? I don't get it. And of course, it's up to A&E to decide if they want to listen or not. They're ALLOWED to stick by the Duck Dynasty guy. Did I offend somebody by quoting what GLAAD said? I did so without any commentary. I felt it was helpful for people to see their exact quote, since someone here was trying to make it sound like whatever GLAAD said was much milder. My earlier point was that people don't like the idea that GLAAD gets to decide what is OK to say out loud. After seeing GLAAD's quote, I still believe that is what bothered most people. It seems pretty clear that GLAAD's message was: A&E and the sponsors had better cut ties with this guy or else. A&E heard and obeyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 GLAAD doesn't get to decide squat. They can only voice an opinion and hope enough people agree with them to have that opinion taken seriously. They have exactly the same amount of power in this situation as Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Sean Hannity who are loudly promoting an anti-GLADD backlash. Which is to say: no real power, just the ability to attempt to persuade other through the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 A&E changed their minds based on backlash by conservatives who objected to GLADD's objections. The show is back on. http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/chi-duck-dynasty-reverses-phil-robertsons-suspension-20131227/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 A&E changed their minds based on backlash by conservatives who objected to GLADD's objections. The show is back on. http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/chi-duck-dynasty-reverses-phil-robertsons-suspension-20131227/ This makes me happy, happy, happy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 This makes me happy, happy, happy! And it makes me happy we don't have cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Seems like another video has emerged…quelle surprise. In this, Phil thinks men should marry 15 or 16 year old girls. You can see the video here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531462/You-got-marry-girls-15-16-Duck-Dynasty-star-Phil-Robertson-wades-new-controversy-advises-men-marry-underage-girls-newly-unearthed-video.html "In the 2009 Sportsmen's Ministry talk, Robertson, 67, who began dating his wife when she was 14-years-old, advises his audience, 'You got to marry these girls when they are 15 or 16. They'll pick your ducks' - which is a literal reference to removing dead bird's feathers. Warming to his stereotypical redneck theme, Robertson, who was suspended from the A&E hit for nine days earlier this month for homophobic comments, tells the gathered crowd that in addition to being young, the girls have to know how to cook and carry a Bible - 'That'll save you a lot of trouble down the road.'" ​I wonder if anybody at A&E will have a problem with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Statutory rape, sexism, racism, and homophobia all rolled up in one fake lil camouflaged package! How neat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyBC Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 They say humour doesn't always translate to print. Seems like they might be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 They say humour doesn't always translate to print. Seems like they might be right. If it was a joke, the joke's on him, he married a 16 year old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyThreeSons Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 If it was a joke, the joke's on him, he married a 16 year old. Over 50 years ago, and they are still married. It was not uncommon at all. I have several sisters-in-law who were married at 16 or 17 about that same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Over 50 years ago, and they are still married. It was not uncommon at all. I have several sisters-in-law who were married at 16 or 17 about that same time. I'm not slamming the man's marriage, I am suggesting he was not just being humorous in the video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.