Duck Dynasty

[mystdancer50]

Lets reverse this whole thing. Lets say it was a gay man that had a show on A&E and he did a interview with GQ and in that interview he said strait people were going to hell. And lets say A&E fired said gay man for what he said in the interview.

The left would go nuts, the ACLU and other left wing organizations would have suits filed in the courts, the left wing "president" would be on tv saying how bad A&E is for firing the gay man for speaking his 1st admendment rights. All you would hear on all the networks would be how A&E is a bad bad company for firing the man. we would never hear the end of it.

The thing is, if we reversed the issue, as you say, the man that said that would be speaking truth, would he not? Everyone is going to hell...unless they repent and are saved by Christ.

Now, on a side note, this is part of my favorite quote from the start of this whole thing:

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. -GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz

Apparently, Wilson Cruz has no idea what true Christians believe, because true Christians believe the word of God and what Phil said about homosexuals not entering into the kingdom of heaven is what God's word says.

I think A&E overreacted to something that wasn't even occurring on their channel. He gave an interview at GQ, GQ published it, now A&E had him fired. It's ridiculous. But even more ridiculous is how offensive the truth is to those that are living a lie. It is so offensive that many here will bash someone over the head if they disagree with their fornication or sinful life choices that they are trying to justify in a forum.

I don't watch Duck Dynasty. I have no intention to start. It never interested me. I don't watch A&E. Never interested me, either. But, I still stand by Phil and his proclaiming the truth unashamed.

I do agree, however, that we should all look at the full article, if we haven't, and see everything in context, just as we do with our study of the word.

I will close with this quote:

Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, no one should ever be punished for publicly expressing what they believe. We have rights in this country.

And no one should be pushed around by anyone else because of their opinions. -Darian Rafie, ActRight.com

 

[Dan58]

I still stand by Phil and his proclaiming the truth unashamed.

Me too...... I hope his heavenly reward for speaking the truth will surpass his financial losses here on earth. Of course, I doubt he calculated that severe monetary damages would be the result of quoting 1 Cor 6:9-10?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Me too...... I hope his heavenly reward for speaking the truth will surpass his financial losses here on earth. Of course, I doubt he calculated that severe monetary damages would be the result of quoting 1 Cor 6:9-10?

This is actually a blessing for the whole family. Now they can get away from A&E and go with FOX or Glenn Beck. A&E's the big loser in this escapade.

 

[mystdancer50]

Here's the family's formal response from their Duck Commander website:

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate. We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.

 

[notuptome]

It's not a matter of what is being said but who is saying it. The sodomite can say anything and it is free speech but let a Christian say what the bible says and he or she is condemned.

A sodomite has the right to be a sodomite. God has His right to judge the sodomite. I only ask to be excused from having to listen to the sodomite complain that God is going to judge him. I tire of being asked no demanded to pay for the rights of sodomites to live their perverted lifestyle out in the open where I am offended everyday. If they wish to live that way then go but leave me out. They have rejected Jesus so it's on them now.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[dcontroversal]

Last time I checked the 1st amendment was supposed to guarantee free speech. Seems in America, there are certain topics that override the first amendment.

I agree and say good luck with any kind of rights as a believer that likes/yea is commanded to sound off about why we believe what we believe. If you are true Christian you have no rights anymore in this country. If you condemn the worldly, wicked, contrary lifestyles as described in the Bible then you are a bigot, racial, or a religious fanatic. Yet ALL on the other side of the fence expect us to roll over and take what they have to say and "like it" or get sued or imprisoned for hate speech. WOW!

 

[posthuman]

This is actually a blessing for the whole family. Now they can get away from A&E and go with FOX or Glenn Beck. A&E's the big loser in this escapade.

i'm not sure i would ever say "going with Fox or Glenn Beck" is a blessing
(i barfed a little just typing that)

but in principle i agree with you.

i have no interest in the TV show but Phil had every right to say what he did, i'm glad he did, and A&E being a private employer has every right to can him too, just like the whole family has every right to walk away from A&E altogether, and i personally hope they do.

on the other hand, here's some idolized, rich family a lot of weak Christians are looking up to. i'd be disgusted but not surprised if they turned around and ate crow to keep the show going. i'll be thankful and full of joy if they all stick to their principles and walk away from A&E. they certainly have the star power to carry on without them, and bucking the homosexual agenda may collaterally work in their economic favor.

 

[just-me]

The Duck Dynasty star and former minister paraphrased a bible verse saying that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of God, and A&E booted him off his own show. What a nice Christmas present. There's a downside to being a Christian and saying what we think. Being P.C. has over-run the first amendment. If you say what you believe, you lose your job.. Do you think firing Phil Robertson was the right thing for the network to do?

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Probably been good for him to have quoted Romans chapter 7 and then people could openly rail against God first hand.

John 15:18 (KJV)
[SUP]18 [/SUP]If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

 

[st_sebastian]

Can we be clear that there's more going on in that interview than just talking about gay people?

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

To claim that no one was singing the blues before the civil rights movement is going to raise a couple eyebrows. To claim that people were happy because they didn't complain to a white person about white people is just weird.

Why are we focusing on the anti-gay remarks? Does the guy get a pass on the rest of it because he said some anti-gay things too?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Can we be clear that there's more going on in that interview than just talking about gay people?



To claim that no one was singing the blues before the civil rights movement is going to raise a couple eyebrows. To claim that people were happy because they didn't complain to a white person about white people is just weird.

Why are we focusing on the anti-gay remarks? Does the guy get a pass on the rest of it because he said some anti-gay things too?

It's all a matter of perspective. This guy was speaking from his experience; from what he saw. I once worked with a black guy who said he was happier before integration because there was a strong community spirit where he lived. Integration changed all of that. Are you going to accuse him of racism?

 

[st_sebastian]

Are you going to accuse him of racism?

I was pretty clear in what I'm going to call it - eyebrow-raising and weird. If I'd meant to call him racist, I would. For what it's worth, though, I think he's probably a liar. I'm pretty sure he heard at least one black person complain about his station in his life. Nobody? Everybody was singing and tossing cotton and never complained? Pretty sure that's not the truth.

I'm going to say if he's going to be the public face of a television show, he ought to make his comments about race in Louisiana absolutely unambiguous. Saying things the way he did left a lot of room for interpretation in both directions. You do not want to do that down here, you don't want to do it in public, and you certainly don't want to do it when you're on a TV show.

Now, the article might have been edited poorly or provocatively, but a single "I know that's not the way it was everywhere" would have done him and his career a world of good.

 

[mystdancer50]

Can we be clear that there's more going on in that interview than just talking about gay people?



To claim that no one was singing the blues before the civil rights movement is going to raise a couple eyebrows. To claim that people were happy because they didn't complain to a white person about white people is just weird.

Why are we focusing on the anti-gay remarks? Does the guy get a pass on the rest of it because he said some anti-gay things too?

I honestly don't think he is referring to the pre-civil rights movement regarding Martin Luther King Jr. The true time of slavery was brought to an end during the Civil War, and I don't think he was alive then. I am pretty sure the times he is referring to post civil rights, after the marches on Washington and the King speeches and such...many years down the road...like about 20 or so years ago. I wouldn't know for sure...I plan to look at the full interview later tonight, but I'm just saying.

 

[st_sebastian]

I honestly don't think he is referring to the pre-civil rights movement, because the true time of slavery was brought to an end during the Civil War, and I don't think he was alive then. I am pretty sure the times he is referring to post civil rights. I wouldn't know for sure...I plan to look at the full interview later tonight, but I'm just saying.

I can't tell if you're serious.

The Jim Crow laws continued until the 1960s.

 

[iamsoandso]

lol,,,we all agree that the news,the gov. and Hollywood are "reading to us from a script they rehearsed to lead our minds",,,,,,,"and now all of a sudden we don't",,,,

 

[st_sebastian]

For reference, he's 67. He was born in 1946. He was 18 when the Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed and 19 when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed.

Being in Louisiana, he could not have been more smack-dab in the middle of the Civil Rights era if he had taped himself to King Jr.

 

[just-me]

lol,,,we all agree that the news,the gov. and Hollywood are "reading to us from a script they rehearsed to lead our minds",,,,,,,"and now all of a sudden we don't",,,,

It's been happening for years, about 50 years since the hippie thing, called free love, etc. The government sucked into it, and now we have socialism called liberalism. They are still trying to find themselves singing "under God's heaven the world gonna find way." The falling away is in full swing and a revival will probably not happen. The twin towers made us sober for a short season but it didn't last. I remember as he does, I'm only one year younger than he is. He has a right, as we all have, to speak the truth.


Psalm 2:1-3 (KJV)
[SUP]1 [/SUP]Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
[SUP]2 [/SUP]The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

1 Peter 5:8 (KJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I was pretty clear in what I'm going to call it - eyebrow-raising and weird. If I'd meant to call him racist, I would. For what it's worth, though, I think he's probably a liar. I'm pretty sure he heard at least one black person complain about his station in his life. Nobody? Everybody was singing and tossing cotton and never complained? Pretty sure that's not the truth.

I'm going to say if he's going to be the public face of a television show, he ought to make his comments about race in Louisiana absolutely unambiguous. Saying things the way he did left a lot of room for interpretation in both directions. You do not want to do that down here, you don't want to do it in public, and you certainly don't want to do it when you're on a TV show.

Now, the article might have been edited poorly or provocatively, but a single "I know that's not the way it was everywhere" would have done him and his career a world of good.

What's your agenda or problem that you have to assume this guy was a liar because what he said doesn't fit your worldview? This guy didn't tell me his life was perfect. He said he liked it better because blacks did their thing and whites did theirs.

IMO you are really out of touch with reality to say that this guy's career would have been better if he had cow-towed to liberal totalitarian expectations. First off the guy's wealthy. Second, he has the most popular show in the history of cable. Third, that popularity is only going to increase regardless of what liberals think.

 

[st_sebastian]

What's your agenda or problem that you have to assume this guy was a liar because what he said doesn't fit your worldview?

History. It doesn't fit history. He is very likely lying about what he observed in Louisiana in the Civil Rights era. This is the problem when you say things like "no one" or "never" or "everybody." I've looked back through his other interviews and he likes to throw the word "happy" around a lot - it's a whitewash.

But this thread has been amazing. The guy talks about gays and blacks, and the vast majority focus on the gay thing because the black thing is harder to defend. And being removed from a TV show is being compared to being jailed or sued. And somebody conflates the Civil Rights movement with emancipation! The premise of the thread is misleading (he did far more than paraphrase a single verse)...

And half the people think that the 1st Amendment means something is most certainly does not. I am just in awe.

And to put the cherry on top: you measure the success of his career in money and popularity. Personally, I think his career is better measured by the impact it has on people.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

History. It doesn't fit history. He is very likely lying about what he observed in Louisiana in the Civil Rights era. This is the problem when you say things like "no one" or "never" or "everybody." I've looked back through his other interviews and he likes to throw the word "happy" around a lot - it's a whitewash.

I wasn't talking about the duck guy. You called the guy I knew a liar. Talk about inappropriate comments.

 

[st_sebastian]

I wasn't talking about the duck guy. You called the guy I knew a liar. Talk about inappropriate comments.

I didn't - we're mixing up pronouns. There were two guys in the paragraph I responded to - the question, applied to the latter, was so nonsensical that I assumed you meant the former. But: how do you define racism if you believe it could possibly apply to the situation with the second "guy"?

The word is not a catch-all.