Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[freedombecki]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.

There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.

boycott A&E!!!

 

[freedombecki]

By making people who were formerly social outcasts welcome in society. Being gay used to mean you hid in the shadows, didn't let anyone know how you really were, pretended to be something you are not
Now it is the bigots who must hide in the shadows and not tell people how they really are

I kind of like it

Now, you are relegating people of faith to the shadows, dubbing them as the social outcasts; doing the exact same thing you've accused us of doing.

Now, it is you who must defend your intolerance and bigotry, not us.

I kind of like that. Enjoy the spotlight.

Keep up the persecution, and that will be "Christian soldiers," and civil war to reinstate this as a Christian Nation if we have to, sweetie.

 

[Redfish]

Hey, Mac.....how is allowing bigotry to go unchecked going to somehow heal the wounds this country has?

Thanks for asking, although your "unchecked" straw man is incorrect.

We can't heal anything, we can't fix anything, and we can't change hearts and minds until and unless we can communicate. Since I actually do want to heal and fix our problems, I have to be strong enough and confident enough in my positions to allow those who disagree with me to voice theirs.

Then that's our starting point. We keep lines of communication open and we do our best to change hearts and minds with consistency, reason and civility. Over time, many hearts and minds will be changed and hopefully an improved culture will take care of much of the rest. There will always be bigots, on both ends.

Granted, this is heavy lifting compared to simplistic punishment. But for those of us who are more interested in healing than in punitive control and advantage, the heavy lifting is the only way to do it.

.

Hearts and minds are changing. Have you noticed the trend in this country regarding acceptance of homosexuals? Twenty years ago how many people would have even batted an eye at Robertson's comments? Thirty? Forty? Those weren't the good ole days for homosexuals.

The country's views on homosexuality have flipped to the point where businesses don't want to be associated with "the other side" of the issue. That's a GOOD thing.

Voluntary tolerance and acceptance is a good thing, Government forced tolerance and acceptance is a bad thing.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[JoeB131]

I've been thinking hard about this over the past two days or so, and it occurred me that apparently none of those who are complaining that this guy got canned for his anti-gay remarks mysteriously said nothing when Alec Baldwin had a similar experience. Then it occurred to me why Alec Baldwin wasn't a concern for them. They didn't care that he got the same treatment because he didn't believe it "religiously".

Proving yet again that being saved requires one to lose all sense of the ironic.

He wasn't a concern simply because he a nutcase, his slurs the least of our concern, he has mental issues, orogenicman. I know a person with an anger management problem when I see one.

OR that he was rightfully upset when someone invaded his personal space and flashed a camera in face.

Frankly, I admire Baldwin's restraint.

There should be a "It's okay to beat Paparazi law".

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

You know, if gays reacted so violently to the actions of GLAAD, that means your movement isn't as peachy as you're claiming. You insult my intelligence by citing Fox News.

You think I'm hateful? Just examine what GLAAD did to Mr. Robertson. See what gay rights groups have done to Christians across the country who dared speak out for what they believed in. You want your tolerance, you speak out against hatred, vitriol, stereotypes while championing personal liberty; but here you are

A) Showing your intolerance of Christians
B) Voicing your hatred of Christians
C) Spewing invective and issuing pejoratives about Christians
D) Stereotyping Christians as bigots and racists
E) Begrudging them the personal liberty to express a religious opinion
F) Intimidating and bullying Christians who express their religious opinions

If I didn't know better, I'd say you are engaging in Alinskyist tactics to shame people of faith in to silence. How sickening.

Maybe because you guys try to use faith to justify the unjustifiable.

IN 1692, they hung a bunch of people for being Witches in Salem, MA. Now, thinking people today know that this was a travesty because there were no witches. But the people who did it held up their bibles, pointed out the verse, "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live!" and felt justified.

In 1861, a lot of people owned slaves and they were perfectly willing to fight a war to keep owning slaves. Thinking people today know this is a travesty because one human being owning another is wrong. But the people who did it held up their bibles and pointed out the verse where it said, "Slaves, serve your master gladly" and felt justified.

In 2013, a lot of people think it's still okay to discriminate against folks because of their sexual orientation. Thinking people know this is a travesty because sexual orientation isn't a choice and people should be free to live their own lives. But the homophobes hold up t heir bibles and point out that verse Robertson is fond of and feel justified.

Now, in the first two cases, thinking people won the day by not letting the religious get away with it after a certain point. Faith or not, those things are just plain old wrong. Period.

So is homophobia. And calling a guy who uses the bible to rationalize his bigotry because he thinks anal sex is icky is not oppressing him.

Making broad generalizations now is just as bad as when it occurred during the Salem Witch Trials. But oh hey, only you're allowed to make them. How cute.

My burning question to you is: How do Phil Robertson's views oppress you? Apparently hundreds of thousands of homosexuals across America believe they don't, in spite what you think.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.

There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.

boycott A&E!!!

Up until this whole thing came about, I didn't watch A&E to begin with.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, I know.

So tell me how this helps heal wounds. Walk me through it.

.

By making people who were formerly social outcasts welcome in society. Being gay used to mean you hid in the shadows, didn't let anyone know how you really were, pretended to be something you are not
Now it is the bigots who must hide in the shadows and not tell people how they really are

I kind of like it

Now, you are relegating people of faith to the shadows, dubbing them as the social outcasts; doing the exact same thing you've accused us of doing.

Now, it is you who must defend your intolerance and bigotry, not us.

I kind of like that. Enjoy the spotlight.

They are free to worship as they please. No law has been passed banning them. Phil can still make his duck calls

A&E has decided they don't want him around.

Poor Phil was not punished for practicing his religion, he was punished for spouting his hate. Most bigots can't help it

 

[TemplarKormac]

By making people who were formerly social outcasts welcome in society. Being gay used to mean you hid in the shadows, didn't let anyone know how you really were, pretended to be something you are not
Now it is the bigots who must hide in the shadows and not tell people how they really are

I kind of like it

Now, you are relegating people of faith to the shadows, dubbing them as the social outcasts; doing the exact same thing you've accused us of doing.

Now, it is you who must defend your intolerance and bigotry, not us.

I kind of like that. Enjoy the spotlight.

Grow up.

 

[Redfish]

By making people who were formerly social outcasts welcome in society. Being gay used to mean you hid in the shadows, didn't let anyone know how you really were, pretended to be something you are not
Now it is the bigots who must hide in the shadows and not tell people how they really are

I kind of like it

Now, you are relegating people of faith to the shadows, dubbing them as the social outcasts; doing the exact same thing you've accused us of doing.

Now, it is you who must defend your intolerance and bigotry, not us.

I kind of like that. Enjoy the spotlight.

Do you think that a majority cannot be oppressed by a minority? China, N, Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, South Africa--------just to name a few.

and ya know what always happens in time? The majority takes back control-------Did you learn nothing from Nelson Mandela?

 

[rightwinger]

Now, you are relegating people of faith to the shadows, dubbing them as the social outcasts; doing the exact same thing you've accused us of doing.

Now, it is you who must defend your intolerance and bigotry, not us.

I kind of like that. Enjoy the spotlight.

Keep up the persecution, and that will be "Christian soldiers," and civil war to reinstate this as a Christian Nation if we have to, sweetie.

American Taliban

 

[Article 15]

Now, you are relegating people of faith to the shadows, dubbing them as the social outcasts; doing the exact same thing you've accused us of doing.

Now, it is you who must defend your intolerance and bigotry, not us.

I kind of like that. Enjoy the spotlight.

Keep up the persecution, and that will be "Christian soldiers," and civil war to reinstate this as a Christian Nation if we have to, sweetie.

And there you have it, folks.

Wow.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Keep up the persecution, and that will be "Christian soldiers," and civil war to reinstate this as a Christian Nation if we have to, sweetie.

Most Chrstians, the ones who live together outside of marriage, swear, drink, smoke and do other things considered "sins" really want no part of your brand of Christianity....

So, no, not so much.

Here's the real problem. What we have is a guy using the bible to justify his homophobia, because he just can't rest his case on "a vagina is more desirable than an anus", which is really, really what he's upset about.

 

[orogenicman]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.

There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.

boycott A&E!!!

I suspect the show has bit the dust. Good riddance. By the way, businesses cannot have beliefs. Businesses are not people. Recent turn of events? Anti-descrimination laws have been on the books for quite some time now. Those laws bar a company from firing someone for their race or religion, but allow it to fire someone if they have opinions the company doesn’t like. Welcome to the United States of America.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Voluntary tolerance and acceptance is a good thing, Government forced tolerance and acceptance is a bad thing.

Do you understand the difference?

The government isn't forcing anything here.

It's Robertson's employer who wants no part of his bigotry.

 

[orogenicman]

Now, you are relegating people of faith to the shadows, dubbing them as the social outcasts; doing the exact same thing you've accused us of doing.

Now, it is you who must defend your intolerance and bigotry, not us.

I kind of like that. Enjoy the spotlight.

Keep up the persecution, and that will be "Christian soldiers," and civil war to reinstate this as a Christian Nation if we have to, sweetie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By making people who were formerly social outcasts welcome in society. Being gay used to mean you hid in the shadows, didn't let anyone know how you really were, pretended to be something you are not
Now it is the bigots who must hide in the shadows and not tell people how they really are

I kind of like it

Now, you are relegating people of faith to the shadows, dubbing them as the social outcasts; doing the exact same thing you've accused us of doing.

Now, it is you who must defend your intolerance and bigotry, not us.

I kind of like that. Enjoy the spotlight.

They are free to worship as they please. No law has been passed banning them. Phil can still make his duck calls

A&E has decided they don't want him around.

Poor Phil was not punished for practicing his religion, he was punished for spouting his hate. Most bigots can't help it

So you mean to tell me he can do his duck calls but not have an opinion? Calling people haters and bigots does not advance your argument. It only makes you akin to a broken record.

A&E is living to regret this decision, simply because just about everyone who is everyone in America is disagreeing with the concept of political correctness you so highly regard. They may not want him around, but America does. What's one TV network versus the combined might of ordinary Americans?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.

There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.

No one's first amendment right to religion, speech or expression has been infringed by the Congress. You might consider the entire universe of intolerance and prejudice in the private sector, if you were honest, and not one example of one bigot you happen to adore.

The guy can still pray to any god he so chooses and say what he wants about other individuals or groups he pleases, as long as he understands that actions have consequences.

The abject hypocrisy of you and others faux rage is disingenuous and entirely partisan. But you have every right to express your opinion and others have the right to express our opinion that your actions are nothing more than ridiculous hyperbole.

The man can still pray, in private. The man is free to express himself... in private. Out of sight, out of mind. Listen to yourself. You keep speaking of actions and consequences-- but are ignoring the fact that your scorched earth policy regarding regarding religious opinions may have a way of backfiring on you. I'd say it already has to tell you the truth.

The faux outrage comes from you Liberals and homosexuals lamenting the intolerance by other people, namely Christians, displayed towards you; but are the main source of such intolerance. Perhaps it didn't occur to you, but the intolerance doesn't stem so much from the actual lifestyle, but from the abject intolerance of opinions in regards to homosexuality coming from the likes of you. It isn't hyperbole, its reality, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

We don't live in your universe. There is no one set opinion people should follow, in this universe people are allowed to hold whatever opinions they wish without being summarily punished for them.

As I wrote, you can be a ridiculous as you want, that's your right and you seem intent on doing so. I can't speak to what universe you believe you live in, but I live in the United States where we - at least real Americans - believe in freedom and the rule of law. There is a body of contract law that was applied, suspending someone for bringing discredit to a business. Something real conservatives support.

I don't know what universe you live in, but you're not alone. There is a political fringe in our country to which you belong which frames everything by emotion and decides right or wrong not by the action (the rule of law); they judge the action and the actor by emotion and within the dogma they have been instructed to defend. That such creates hypocrisy is inherent in such an ideology, that you are fine with that which makes you less than credible and IMO ridiculous.

 

[Seawytch]

Keep up the persecution, and that will be "Christian soldiers," and civil war to reinstate this as a Christian Nation if we have to, sweetie.

Ooh, look, another one!

 

[Seawytch]

Thanks for asking, although your "unchecked" straw man is incorrect.

We can't heal anything, we can't fix anything, and we can't change hearts and minds until and unless we can communicate. Since I actually do want to heal and fix our problems, I have to be strong enough and confident enough in my positions to allow those who disagree with me to voice theirs.

Then that's our starting point. We keep lines of communication open and we do our best to change hearts and minds with consistency, reason and civility. Over time, many hearts and minds will be changed and hopefully an improved culture will take care of much of the rest. There will always be bigots, on both ends.

Granted, this is heavy lifting compared to simplistic punishment. But for those of us who are more interested in healing than in punitive control and advantage, the heavy lifting is the only way to do it.

.

Hearts and minds are changing. Have you noticed the trend in this country regarding acceptance of homosexuals? Twenty years ago how many people would have even batted an eye at Robertson's comments? Thirty? Forty? Those weren't the good ole days for homosexuals.

The country's views on homosexuality have flipped to the point where businesses don't want to be associated with "the other side" of the issue. That's a GOOD thing.

Voluntary tolerance and acceptance is a good thing, Government forced tolerance and acceptance is a bad thing.

Do you understand the difference?

How is the government involved in the Duck Bigot kerfluffle?

 

[Redfish]

By making people who were formerly social outcasts welcome in society. Being gay used to mean you hid in the shadows, didn't let anyone know how you really were, pretended to be something you are not
Now it is the bigots who must hide in the shadows and not tell people how they really are

I kind of like it

Now, you are relegating people of faith to the shadows, dubbing them as the social outcasts; doing the exact same thing you've accused us of doing.

Now, it is you who must defend your intolerance and bigotry, not us.

I kind of like that. Enjoy the spotlight.

They are free to worship as they please. No law has been passed banning them. Phil can still make his duck calls

A&E has decided they don't want him around.

Poor Phil was not punished for practicing his religion, he was punished for spouting his hate. Most bigots can't help it

Thats what you don't get. Having religious beliefs and expressing them is not bigotry. Bigotry is punishing someone for expressing beliefs different from yours.

Robertson does not want to punish anyone, he will let God be the judge.

But bigots like you think that you have the RIGHT to punish anyone who dares disagree with your Godless, statist, socialistic view of life.