Phil Robertson v. A&E

[Jeff Lebowski]

I can't believe people are still debating this. It is a stupid tv show. Did you not notice that there was a gay marriage in Utah today? In the grand scheme of things, that is 1000x more significant.

[YOhio]

I can't believe people are still debating this. It is a stupid tv show. Did you not notice that there was a gay marriage in Utah today? In the grand scheme of things, that is 1000x more significant.

And Utah hired a coach fired by Wyoming.

[Jeff Lebowski]

And Utah hired a coach fired by Wyoming.

[Uncle Ted]

Apparently the sheriff runs the town and answers to no one in "Duck Dynasty" land...

In wake of 'Duck Dynasty' star suspension, Sheriff Miller tells A&E they are not welcome

The suspension of “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson by the A&E Network after making controversial remarks in GQ magazine regarding homosexuality has been called a business decision. But now Douglas County Sheriff Phil Miller is making a business decision of his own.


Miller announced on his personal Facebook page Friday night that A&E would no longer be welcomed to film or produce any of its programs or series with the help of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office or its facilities.


"A&E has suspended Phil Robertson for talking about his conservative Christian beliefs," Miller wrote." None of us are without sin and I am not judging anyone. I am sure A&E made what they believe is a good business decision. Many people who disagree with A&E might choose to remain silent and there was a time when I might have done the same, but no longer. In my mind the punishment is unreasonable.


"I know it will not matter to A&E, but it will make me feel better. A&E has produced more than a half dozen programs with the assistance of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office. They will not do any more with my assistance while I am sheriff. It is time for someone other than Hollywood and the news media to stand up for what is right!"

Miller pointed out that if you look closely at what Robertson said, he was saying that he would not judge anyone. In fact, Miller said, Robertson said that he would leave that up to God and only gave his understanding of scripture.
[...]

http://www.douglascountysentinel.com/news/local/article_a2b03444-69ea-11e3-9c03-001a4bcf6878.html

Maybe A&E wasn't paying Miller enough.

[Surfah]

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.

I stopped reading after that silly appeal.

[Jacob]

If all Mr. Robertson had said was this:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Would this be a big deal? Doesn't seem like it.

[VirginiaCougar]

Si getting in on the tweets:

@sisayings: Unfortunately, people who are against homosexuality are not allowed to express our opinions like those who are for it.

Yes, just like the Dixie Chicks....

I don't think Phil should lose his job. It is sad how often people go after people's livelihoods in these situations.

However, I also don't understand how so many self-proclaimed Christians can post on Facebook and in other public settings statements of unfettered support for a statement so crass and un-Christlike. And that has nothing to do with one's views on sin and homosexuality.

I also find much of the support of Phil quite hypocritical as I've seen these same folks burn their Dixie Chicks CDs, try to get public school teachers fired because of something they said, or were birthers back in the day and tried to overturn an election they found ideologically inconvenient.


Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Applejack]

If all Mr. Robertson had said was this:


Would this be a big deal? Doesn't seem like it.

[Uncle Ted]

[...]
According to a recent poll by the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University, 54 percent of Mormons now favor civil unions for same-sex couples, and opposition to any legal recognition has dropped from 69 percent in 2004 — when state voters approved the ban — to 38 percent now.
[...]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/utahs-battle-over-gay-marriage-is-a-sign-of-a-larger-shift/2013/12/23/82d65988-6c00-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html

I am guessing if there was another vote for amendment 3 Utah county would only be 80% in favor of it instead of 82%.

[byu71]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...b8d_story.html

I am guessing if there was another vote for amendment 3 Utah county would only be 80% in favor of it instead of 82%.

I of course could be wrong, but I would bet that within the next 10 years there could have been a majority vote to allow gay marriage. I can also understand that if I felt deeply my rights were being violated I wouldn't be in the mood to be patient.

The advantage of having it come through the electoral process down the road would be less bitterness on either side of the issue.

Although I am not a gay marriage advocate, I am not upset at the prospect of gays marrying in Utah. I could even see myself voting for gays right to marry down the road. However, each time I think of some judge somewhere being able to overturn the vote of the people in a state, it bugs the heck out of me. Three judges or better seven judges I could take, but one guy who very well could be a complete idiot, yes some judges are idiots, overruling the vast majority really bugs me.

[wuapinmon]

I of course could be wrong, but I would bet that within the next 10 years there could have been a majority vote to allow gay marriage. I can also understand that if I felt deeply my rights were being violated I wouldn't be in the mood to be patient.

The advantage of having it come through the electoral process down the road would be less bitterness on either side of the issue.

Although I am not a gay marriage advocate, I am not upset at the prospect of gays marrying in Utah. I could even see myself voting for gays right to marry down the road. However, each time I think of some judge somewhere being able to overturn the vote of the people in a state, it bugs the heck out of me. Three judges or better seven judges I could take, but one guy who very well could be a complete idiot, yes some judges are idiots, overruling the vast majority really bugs me.

I view their overturning decisions as merely enforcing the prior votes the people gave that established rights like the 14th Amendment (ratified by the States) and judicial review of the legislative process and enactments. They are supporting a more important vote for rights by overturning a law that infringes on the laws so sacrosanct that we enshrined them in the Constitution so that the SCOTUS can't overturn them.

[imanihonjin]

I view their overturning decisions as merely enforcing the prior votes the people gave that established rights like the 14th Amendment (ratified by the States) and judicial review of the legislative process and enactments. They are supporting a more important vote for rights by overturning a law that infringes on the laws so sacrosanct that we enshrined them in the Constitution so that the SCOTUS can't overturn them.

So do you believe we should honor the original intent of the Constitution or that Judges should be allowed to create new rights under the constitution. The 14th Amendment which was ratified by the States dealt with race relations and that was the purpose it was passed. There was exactly zero thought regarding sexual orientation when that Amendment was ratified. It is a stretch to claim that the original intent of the Amendment meant to address sexual orientation type matters.

Having said that, the current jurisprudence on the issue, I believe agrees with you. We have gotten past original intent and now allow judges to read into the constitution whatever it is that tickles their fancy. While I don't have a problem with gay marriage being recognized, I do have a problem with the way the judiciary now approaches their role in governance.

[byu71]

I view their overturning decisions as merely enforcing the prior votes the people gave that established rights like the 14th Amendment (ratified by the States) and judicial review of the legislative process and enactments. They are supporting a more important vote for rights by overturning a law that infringes on the laws so sacrosanct that we enshrined them in the Constitution so that the SCOTUS can't overturn them.

As I said I can live with "their" decisions. I have a very hard time with "his/her" decision to overturn it. One person one rule is what I ask, really??? Years ago I may have agreed with you because I had a lot of respect for the Judiciary. Let's say now with more experience I just have respect for the system and no automatic respect for Judges. I only know on a association type basis 5 Judges. Three of them are known cheaters at golf. That may say nothing to you, but it speaks legions to me. This may be a total bull crap bias, but Judges because they are exalted lawyers have a tendency to believe they are smarter than everyone else. They happened to go into law and their buddy decided to sell cars. You only have to look to a couple of lawyers on this board to note how way above their intelligence level they think they are.

We will just have to disagree on this one.

[old_gregg]

While I don't have a problem with gay marriage being recognized, I do have a problem with the way the judiciary now approaches their role in governance.

[imanihonjin]

Care to make an actual argument?