He Said What?
I admit to being a fan of Duck Dynasty although I would be hard pressed to give a rational reason why. I guess it is the fact that I grew up in similar country (swamps) and enjoyed hunting (especially ducks although I was never especially successful at it – one needed $$ to hunt where there were lots of ducks and $$ I did not have).
So, GQ (of all magazines) interviews the Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson, a retired fundamentalist preacher as well as a duck call inventor. And they, along with the A&E cable network pretend to be surprised that he answered most of the questions exactly as one would expect from a fundamentalist preacher. Imagine that.
I don’t happen to agree with Phil about anything concerning religion or tolerance of my fellow man – but – that is not the point of their TV program. Sure, they work a prayer into every episode, usually at the dining table, but I somehow manage to ignore that just like I ignore the myriad times I am subjected to public prayer in my everyday life (part of the price of living in the rural South).
Having said that I don’t agree, I do, however, staunchly defend Phil’s right to say what he said. He was asked his opinion and that is what he gave. I somehow thought our Constitution protected every one of in our right to do exactly that. He did not suggest that any action be taken against the people he disproves of nor is there any evidence that he has ever tried to take such action himself. So, what exactly is the progressive bunch so upset about? Do they somehow imagine that Duck Dynasty is a great hit among gays? We all know better. Indeed, I highly suspect that those gays or progressives that do watch the program make as many detrimental comments about the Robertsons as Phil made about them.
My point in writing this is to bemoan the lack of tolerance that has crept into our culture. On the one hand, we, especially the progressives, make ever so much noise about how diverse our culture is and how noble we are because of said diversity. Then, out the other side of our collective faces, we despise any and every one who does not look like us, talk like us, agree politically with us, etc. In a word, we are a diverse society that hates its very diversity.
Between the welfare state and the politically correct state, we are quickly becoming a has-been nation. Wise up America. If you don’t agree with Phil Robertson (or, with me for that matter), call us a bad name then get on with life.
For sure, a large number of people are openly supporting Phil with petitions to get him returned to the program but all that is doing is opening yet another chasm in our already fractured society.
Think about it. Then think about what this nonsense is doing to our nation!
Troy L Robinson
Exactly Troy. Although I don’t disagree with what Phil said he could have been more elegant in the way he said it. But as you said he only expressed his views making no mention of any remedy or action or even expectation that anyone else should share his views. Here we have free speech. In return for that we extend free speech to others. That’s the only way the 1st amendment works. I never heard of anything in the bill of rights about the right to not be offended. It’s time everybody just plain got over themselves and man (or woman) up. Quit sounding like a bunch of sniveling children in a school yard where everybody is a bully.
BTW good to see you feeling well enough to post. That’s a good sign.
I don’t have any problem with what he said or his right to say it. He is everything I detest and his views are also detestable. But…he has every right to say it and I wish more people who think and talk like he does could make it to national TV to show what us atheists often have to deal with.
I also think AE had every right to suspend or fire him and to cancel his show if they wished. There is nothing about this whole thing that has anything to do with first amendment rights except that some of the so-called conservative spokespeople like Palin, Jindal and others have no clue of what they are speaking about in this regard.
This is simply another example of the obvious problem these people have when they want to use government to dictate individual behavior while at the same time espousing limited government. Crazy that they want to say AE can’t discipline this jerk because of his first amendment right to say what he did as tho companies have to keep paying people that don’t properly represent their company viewpoints.
Larry,
Like Phil Robertson, you have a prefect right to say what you wish. That said, I find the tone of your remarks unnecessarily bitter to the point of being offensive. It it not possible to disagree in a more polite fashion?
Troy
Larry I don’t recall anywhere hearing where Phil Robertson indicated he wanted government to do anything regarding his views. Although it seems your completely comfortable with any number of entities silencing him. With all due respect I think your letting your theophobia (I think I just coined a new term.) get the best of you. A&E doesn’t pay him for personal opinion. They pay him for providing entertainment to their viewers. That happens to include expressing his religion in the show he’s paid for. What hypocrisy to pay him to do it when they make money but penalize him for professing it in the outside world.