• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

A&E Taking Heat For Suspending 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson

I simply believe that one should have the freedom to express their religious views without punishment. Whether you agree with it or not. I believe this for all religions.

Religious Freedom is what this country was founded on.

You are welcome to disagree with me. I wont' punish you for it :p
 
I went into the drama room at school years ago, and the good little Christian boy who is usually so happy, is sitting by himself in a ball crying, I ask him what's the matter? And he says, it's not fair, it's not fair, you're all going to hell and none of you care.

(He was talking about atheists, which was probably about 90 percent of our school.)
 
The 67-year-old says he doesn't judge others and he wasn't.

No he just questioned the logic in their sexual proclivities.
And doesn't the Bible, the word of God?

I may not have read the entire Bible but I'm pretty sure there's no mention in it about vaginal sex being better than anal sex.

Besides, like all Christians when it comes to this topic, why pick this one single issue to get all fired up about? Why is THIS one the one to speak out against, to hold rallies on and to fight against?

Again, God and The Bible sees all sin as the same. No sin is worse than any other sin except for denying God and His son. And the only punishment for that, unlike what Duck Dynasty guy claims, is not getting into Heaven. All other sins are already forgiven.

So why do we not see ultra-religious assholes like this speaking out against all of the other sins that exist in the world? Not honoring the sabbath, disrespecting one's elders, killing another man, hell why are Christians like him not all up in the face of Catholics over the whole other idols and graven images thing?

Why of all the sins in all of the world that are talked about in The Bible is *this* the one they're the most vocal on?

Oh... because butt sex is kinda icky. That's why.

I simply believe that one should have the freedom to express their religious views without punishment. Whether you agree with it or not. I believe this for all religions.

Congratulations. You DO have that freedom. Because this man is not being punished. Other than by his defacto employers. In which he has no Constitutional Right to be on a reality TV series.

He can say whatever he likes he's free to do that.

People are also free use what he says against him and harm his livelihood for it by not supporting him or those whom he is associated with.

You *really* don't understand the First Amendment, do you?
 
I simply believe that one should have the freedom to express their religious views without punishment. Whether you agree with it or not. I believe this for all religions.

Religious Freedom is what this country was founded on
I agree. This country was founded by great men with moral values. They were true patriots. What Phil Robertson has done is express the traditional Christian view of homosexuality....... decry the sin but love the sinner. It's what every major Christian leader including Jesus Christ himself has taught us.
 
I simply believe that one should have the freedom to express their religious views without punishment. Whether you agree with it or not. I believe this for all religions.

Religious Freedom is what this country was founded on
I agree. This country was founded by great men with moral values. They were true patriots. What Phil Robertson has done is express the traditional Christian view of homosexuality....... decry the sin but love the sinner. It's what every major Christian leader including Jesus Christ himself has taught us.

I saw no "love for the sinner" in what he said. Especially in the "they will not inherit the Kingdom of God" part.

I agree. This country was founded by great men with moral values. They were true patriots.

You realize these "great men" with "moral values" saw it as perfectly okay to use other human beings as farm equipment and to treat women as, at best, second-class citizens, right?
 
Benjamin Franklin was indeed a patriotic and great man and one of the most talented and intelligent people to ever live on American or even world soil.

He also slept with French prostitutes and whored himself around Paris when he was stationed there as America's representative to the French people and government. Other Founding Fathers owned slaves and didn't believe that women and those who didn't own property should have the vote.

I respect and even adore the founders of our nation, but perfect moral beacons they often weren't. Not by a longshot.
 
No he just questioned the logic in their sexual proclivities.
And doesn't the Bible, the word of God?

I may not have read the entire Bible but I'm pretty sure there's no mention in it about vaginal sex being better than anal sex.

?
Phil used the words "vagina" and "anus" but if he wanted to be really explicit, he could have quoted Romans 1:26

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Now, that's language you don't use in polite company!
 
Read Leviticus.

There's a whole bunch of rules, many of which if you transgress, you will be executed, including if you talk shit about your mum and dad.
 
Not to mention the stuff about eating shellfish and women on their menstrual cycles.
 
And doesn't the Bible, the word of God?

I may not have read the entire Bible but I'm pretty sure there's no mention in it about vaginal sex being better than anal sex.

?
Phil used the words "vagina" and "anus" but if he wanted to be really explicit, he could have quoted Romans 1:26

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Now, that's language you don't use in polite company!

I have a friend who works on the Sabbath all the time despite my protests. How long must I wait before I can kill him?
 
I simply believe that one should have the freedom to express their religious views without punishment. Whether you agree with it or not. I believe this for all religions.

Religious Freedom is what this country was founded on
I agree. This country was founded by great men with moral values. They were true patriots. What Phil Robertson has done is express the traditional Christian view of homosexuality....... decry the sin but love the sinner. It's what every major Christian leader including Jesus Christ himself has taught us.

I saw no "love for the sinner" in what he said. Especially in the "they will not inherit the Kingdom of God" part.

I agree. This country was founded by great men with moral values. They were true patriots.
You realize these "great men" with "moral values" saw it as perfectly okay to use other human beings as farm equipment and to treat women as, at best, second-class citizens, right?
As it should have been. I've got no problem what they did.
 
Well, it says God doesn't like it. Doesn't say anything about one being better than the other. Also worth pointing out, as I read this passage in The Bible and continue reading it, it goes on to eventually say, what I have been saying, that God has declared everyone innocent of sin so long as trust in, believe in, and love Jesus Christ.

So, yeah, I think God will be mostly okay with the butt-sex thing.

You realize these "great men" with "moral values" saw it as perfectly okay to use other human beings as farm equipment and to treat women as, at best, second-class citizens, right?
As it should have been. I've got no problem what they did.

 
A fact that is important to keep in mind about his statements, he did not say them on camera.

The statements were made in an interview by a magazine, outside of A&E.

I think being able to express your beliefs like this should be protected. Now, if he had said it on camera, perhaps A&E would have had more merit IMO to do what they did. But, he never said this on camera on the show.
 
Since slavery is being discussed, I just want to state my personal beliefs on that topic. Slavery was an evil thing, a very evil thing that man created. If I was alive during those times, I would never support such a thing. It goes directly against Gods word to enslave other people. In fact Jesus freed the slaves at that time, he was very well known for doing that sort of thing ;)

I can't speak for God, or Jesus, but based on the Bible, Slavery would be something that would not be supported, and could be considered a sin.

I never said our founders were perfect, or even moral. They certainly sinned themselves, as everyone does. I simply stated they founded this country on religious freedom. They were very smart to put in the constitution what they did, and those principals should be protected.
 
A fact that is important to keep in mind about his statements, he did not say them on camera.

The statements were made in an interview by a magazine, outside of A&E.

I think being able to express your beliefs like this should be protected. Now, if he had said it on camera, perhaps A&E would have had more merit IMO to do what they did. But, he never said this on camera on the show.

He said them on a nationally published magazine. A magazine read by people. People who watch TV. People who presumably watch A&E. People who may boycott A&E or its sponsors for supporting a show featuring a man who made negative comments about a group of people that makes up A&E's audience.

Seriously, do something that might make your employer look bad and see how long you keep your job.
 
A fact that is important to keep in mind about his statements, he did not say them on camera.

The statements were made in an interview by a magazine, outside of A&E.

I think being able to express your beliefs like this should be protected. Now, if he had said it on camera, perhaps A&E would have had more merit IMO to do what they did. But, he never said this on camera on the show.

1. His speech is protected. He's not going to jail
2. He said them. Why does it change if he said them on camera or not? Are you suggesting the magazine made them up? If not, why is there a difference between print and camera.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top