Phil Robertson v. A&E

[Surfah]

The Robertsons are going to be just fine

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rchandise.html

They were more than fine before the deals with WalMart, Under Armour, etc. I am always weary though of Forbes' figures. But given how their faces are on everything that figure isn't surprising.

A&E is the real loser in all of this. I bet they reinstate Phil sooner than later, but I think the damage may already be done and the Robertson's may move on to another network regardless. That is if they choose to keep doing the show. As some of the articles I have read stated they reacted to a small, albeit powerful vocal minority who aren't even part of the target demographic of the show. Most of the show's sponsors and advertisers have already come out and said they're standing by the family. One may admire the principled decision by A&E (if you can call it that) but it's going to hurt them badly.

[cougjunkie]

They were more than fine before the deals with WalMart, Under Armour, etc. I am always weary though of Forbes' figures. But given how their faces are on everything that figure isn't surprising.

A&E is the real loser in all of this. I bet they reinstate Phil sooner than later, but I think the damage may already be done and the Robertson's may move on to another network regardless. That is if they choose to keep doing the show. As some of the articles I have read stated they reacted to a small, albeit powerful vocal minority who aren't even part of the target demographic of the show. Most of the show's sponsors and advertisers have already come out and said they're standing by the family. One may admire the principled decision by A&E (if you can call it that) but it's going to hurt them badly.

Barbara Walters interviewed them on her year end special. Phil wasn't there as it is duck season. She said with the family in front of her that they are worth about $80 million.

[Commando]

One may admire the principled decision by A&E (if you can call it that) but it's going to hurt them badly.

Principled decision, my ass. As someone else mentioned, they are part of a bigger corporate conglomerate and saw this as damage control for one of their valuable assets. Whoops. What they should have done is just issued a statement reminding everybody, without naming names, that the opinions expressed by various characters featured on A&E in channels outside the network are not necessarily the opinions of A&E itself. Done.

[imanihonjin]

I grew up in Utah, but I haven't lived in Utah for nearly a decade....if I visit family out of town and someone asks where are you from, according to you I should answer Utah, right?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Principled decision, my ass. As someone else mentioned, they are part of a bigger corporate conglomerate and saw this as damage control for one of their valuable assets. Whoops. What they should have done is just issued a statement reminding everybody, without naming names, that the opinions expressed by various characters featured on A&E in channels outside the network are not necessarily the opinions of A&E itself. Done.

Yep, that's probably all they needed to do and eventually it would blow over. While I've more or less been ambivalent about the whole gay marriage thing, I don't like the absolute requirement that everyone have the same opinion on something like this. From a religious standpoint, there's a substantial difference between racism and belief that homosexuality is a sin. At least in Christianity (well, Christianity places the New Testament at the top of the hierarchy), racism was not supported by New Testament scripture, deeming homosexuality as sin is.

What I'm not arguing is that this belief system should overrule civil or constitutional rights. I don't they should at all. But I also think it's pretty shitty to shut down all conversation with people that believe homosexuality is a sin. As I said before, it's a widely held religious belief of several different major religions -- at least with Christianity and Islam. We don't seem to shut down people that have adverse and offensive beliefs about Christianity (or religion in general). Is any pressure put on Bill Maher when he's generally being an asshole towards religious people? Putting aside the aspect of this debate that religious types have engaged in trying to stop gays from being married, what's the difference between what Bill Maher says about religious people and what Robertson said about homosexuality being a sin? Can't both be deemed hateful speech?

The problem, of course, is the intersection between religious beliefs and trying to influence government policy. But I think the other side engages in the reverse; namely government has started trying to compel religion to support or engage in something that religion deems sinful. A prime example is the Obama administration trying to force the Catholic church (and Catholic owned entities) to provide health coverage that includes contraception. While religion is trying to prevent gays from getting married, the government is trying to force religions to violate their conscience.

[wuapinmon]

So what....he thinks its a sin and you don't....big deal. I am not sure what throwing a fit about it is going to do other than make people dig in even more.

I am going to enjoy a nice ham on Christmas eve. There are 1.5 billion people on the earth that think I am going to be a sinner for doing so....guess what? I don't care.

Here's a lengthy explanation over why I commented at all on this situation. I think my reaction and condemnation of his words are because as a bearded white Southern Christian man myself he feels like one of my own. I have relatives who talk, dress, think, and even look like him. He isn't some odd fellow on television, remote from my own experience; his fame places him in a position to speak for Southerners to those who view us as a homogeneous whole of blissful provincialism. My facebook has far more supportive posts of his words from Southerners who are my friends than from LDS folks. Stereotypes can be founded in perceptions from without (and sometimes within--for example, nationalism, "pride") that, sadly, play out in times like these as if they were following a script. I cringe at the reinforcement of those stereotypes in the eyes of America due to the words and subsequent rah-rah-ing of Southerners. It sucks to be considered unintelligent, backwards, inbred, uncultured, and racist just because you're from a place.

Additionally, he holds himself up as a Man of God, a preacher, a disciple called to tell the Good News to him that hath ears. But, he's not telling people things that Jesus said. He's espousing the failed couplet of "love the sinner, hate the sin" that is wonderful to say but is seldom, if ever, lived by a people who claim to believe that. We need only look to stories in the news about Mormon bishops going to their wards dressed as homeless men to see that we're not nearly as Christlike as we'd like to believe we are. Or, the recent condemnation by our church of all former racism serves as another example of the failure of this saying to actually be practiced by the faithful. Blacks were restricted from holding the priesthood, not because of something that they did, but for a sin that they putatively committed before they were even born, or that their supposed ancestor Cain had done and the taint was passed on to them. So, while our church scorns the doctrine of Original Sin as Catholic priestcraft, for over 100 years we did the same thing to blacks, hating both the sinner and the sin (which didn't even exist). My Southern culture, similarly, viewed black people as morally depraved, savage, more in need of Jesus than anyone else. They made them sit in balconies if they were Catholic or Episcopal, or made them build their own churches for other congregations. Horrible things were done to a people, sometimes even in the name of religion, to brutalize them into submission and assimilation. If they broke the law or sinned, the punishments and reactions were so severe that many times they paid for their mistakes with their lives rather than a comparative slap on the wrist of someone without the sin of Cain in their DNA. I've rarely known anyone capable of living the love the sinner/hate the sin doctrine in a Christlike way. Our nation's history tracks my personal experience with people championing this ideal, because oppression, brutality, conformity, and submission have followed it. If we look at the same idea applied to homosexuals, the idea of it is noble, but the practice is disappointing.

Rather than be a nation of Christians who worry so much about what other people are doing, I think a better way to follow Christ than to huck rocks and "boldly" stand and declare one's beliefs as so many people in my facebook feed are wont to do right now, is to live the words of Jesus and love one another. If you can master the simple things like loving thy neighbor as thyself, then I think you can start stoning the life decisions of other people, worrying about where and how and with whom they use their penis. Now, I am throwing some rocks myself here, so there's a more than a bit of hypocrisy, but, I'll justify mine by saying that I am fighting for justice and I at least recognize that I am a huge hypocrite because I'm arrogant, gluttonous, wrathful, prideful, lustful, judgmental, and probably prejudiced in some fashion. I don't want to be all of those things, but I am right now; the smilie is proof enough that I am not a Christlike person. I have learned to thwart some of the nastier sins of my youth, but there's a band of demons in my soul, banging a gong, fingers on a switch, just waiting for me to lose my resolve.

Though I know I should turn the other cheek, I bristle when I hear someone, anyone, famous or local, list homosexuality as the first and foremost thing that they think of when they define sinful behavior. If GQ were to ask me what I find sinful, I'd respond, "Gleeful excess, indifference to suffering, selfishness, murder, rape, and abuse." Homosexuality is not even on the list. I don't believe that it's a sin inside of a marriage, but two straight people can currently be wed in any of these United States at will, while our homosexual fellow Americans must hie to a handful of states (the day will come when this is over and done with) to publicly declare their commitment to each and legally bind each other to each other. It's rich to tell gay people that sex outside of marriage is sinful and then decry their right to marry as a calamity that will bring about the wrath of god on this nation. Homosexuals deserve to be able to marry and they deserve that right right now.

So, while I'm not throwing a fit, I will snarl at people who list homosexuality as the first thing that comes to mind when they're asked to define sin, a repugnant view that smacks more of the teachings of Fred Phelps than Jesus of Nazareth. Peace. Out.

[ERCougar]

So, while I'm not throwing a fit, I will snarl at people who list homosexuality as the first thing that comes to mind when they're asked to define sin, a repugnant view that smacks more of the teachings of Fred Phelps than Jesus of Nazareth. Peace. Out.

That's my main problem with his statement, even accepting that some are willing to charitably look way beyond what he's actually saying to pull out some other intended meaning. If someone asks how to define sin, who in the hell answers with "Well, it starts with homosexuality..." WTF? Either you have some serious repressed urges, or you're a freak. I guess I'll go with the latter here, but either way--why is anyone interested in this freak show?

[creekster]

That's my main problem with his statement, even accepting that some are I'm willing to non-charitably look way beyond ignore what he's actually saying to pull out some other intended meaning.

I see what you mean.

[Uncle Ted]

I am starting to think Phil Robertson is a marketing genius... And right before christmas for those last minute shoppers:

'Duck Dynasty' Comments Could Spur Merchandise Sales, Experts Predict

Phil Robertson's anti-gay remarks and suspension could rally consumers to his cause, particularly for faith-driven consumers in the Bible Belt.


Phil Robertson's anti-gay comments and subsequent suspension could wind up boosting sales of Duck Dynasty merchandise and even drive up ratings for an already red-hot show, experts tell The Hollywood Reporter.

Unlike controversies that erupt when a high profile personality is suspended for drug use or domestic violence, Robertson’s is tied to the type of difference in religious values that could rally consumers to his cause. A spokesman for A&E, which airs Duck Dynasty and suspended Robertson indefinitely for his remarks in GQ article, declined to comment for this story. However, a network source confirmed that while the show has a wide national audience, it's especially strong in the southern and southwestern U.S. -- particularly the Bible Belt – where for many viewers' faith can drive shopping habits.

Indeed, Billboard reported Thursday that the album Duck The Halls: A Robertson Family Christmas, which features a prayer by Robertson and a duet with country singer George Strait, sold about 125,000 copies for the week ending Dec. 22. The album is number six on the Billboard 200 chart, and has sold about 575,000 copies to date.

Chris Stone, whose Faith Driven Consumer group nabbed more than 70,000 electronic signatures in support of Robertson within nine hours of its posting, says the group he founded represents consumers whose faith “is a significant enough part of their life to influence their daily (buying) decisions.


“In this case those that like Phil or like Duck Dynasty specifically would be more inclined to engage with the brand because they identify with it,” adds Stone, who is based in Raleigh, N.C.


Stone compares Robertson's comments to the controversy over gay marriage involving Chick-fil-A in August 2012, which led to calls for a boycott – but also packed restaurants, particularly in the chain's home state of Georgia. “There was a tremendous outpouring of support for that brand,” says Stone, adding: “if a brand is aligned with them or compatible with them, they certainly would increase their shopping."
[...]
Stone puts the faith driven group of consumers at 25 percent of the U.S. population or about 46 million people at a minimum. He estimates they have $1.8 trillion in retail buying power.
[...]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/duck-dynasty-comments-could-spur-667104

Maybe I should buy some Walmart and Under Armour stock.

[ERCougar]

I see what you mean.

Case in point.

[clackamascoug]

Waup if we ever meet, I will dress modestly so that those gongs and switches you so valiantly guard in your brain will not be thwarted.

(note to self: Maybe I need to rethink my, a little too tight, onesie temple jumpsuit.)

[LA Ute]

So I guess people here creekster are following in the great tradition of their hero Bill Clinton and arguing that it all depends on your definition of "start". And "morph". And "from".


Oh, and everyone was vegetarian before the flood.

These guys have already had way too much attention.

All I know about what he said is what I saw in wuap's post. If he said what wuap reported, it was a stupid statement. I am intentionally ignoring this story because I ignore reality TV.

[UVACoug]

How did you interpret his definition of sin as: "It starts with homosexuality and morphs out from there"? I guess I can see other interpretations, but certainly you can see wuap's, no? It actually seems the most natural to me, as absurd as the idea is.

EDIT: and yes, I read the article. I'm actually surprised his comment on "blacks and white trash" isn't getting more attention. I don't care what degrees this guy has, he's an idiot.

I think he was just tying his opinion to the conversation. They were talking about what he thinks of homosexuality right before he was asked what he considers a sin. It makes sense that he would cite homosexuality first and then elaborate from there. If you watch the show at all, you know the guy is smart but often chooses strange ways to say things. I understand wuap's reading of it. Wuap's reading is a very literal one. I don't think it is what he meant though.

[UVACoug]

I don't believe that "for starters" makes any difference to my reading of what he said. Sorry, I'm just being honest.

It makes all the difference in the world, to be honest. If someone asks what you think of homosexuals ... and then in the very next question asks what you think is a sin, 99% of the time, the guy is going to start by saying homosexuality is a sin. It was a result of the context. He didn't just pull homosexuality out of thin air. If you don't understand that, you are being anything but honest.

[UVACoug]

That's my main problem with his statement, even accepting that some are willing to charitably look way beyond what he's actually saying to pull out some other intended meaning. If someone asks how to define sin, who in the hell answers with "Well, it starts with homosexuality..." WTF? Either you have some serious repressed urges, or you're a freak. I guess I'll go with the latter here, but either way--why is anyone interested in this freak show?

Someone who just got done talking about homosexuality. This isn't that hard to understand if you actually read the interview.