Thursday, December 19, 2013

The Duck Dynasty Witchhunt

I'm not a TV fan, but there's a TV show out there I haven't seen on A&E called 'Duck's Dynasty', that, from what I've heard, is a about a family in Louisiana who openly espouses Christianity and what we could call traditional American values on the air.

The show is a huge, off the charts success in the ratings.

Apparently there's a huge controversy now going on because of an interview the family patriarch, 67-year-old Phil Robertson did with GQ magazine.

Let me underline that...the remarks made were not made on the air, but in a magazine interview several weeks ago.

A lot of the interview, of course, concerned the family's Christian beliefs and Phil's own wild past before he became a Christian. As you can imagine, he sees Duck Dynasty as something of a push back against a lot of what constitutes popular culture today.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

When asked what he considered sinful, he replied:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Later in the interview, he made a point of saying that he's not trying to be judgmental, but that these are merely his views as he sees them, saying, " “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

That sentiment on his part didn't change things one iota. His equating homosexuality with sin, just as the Bible he believes in says it is was all it took.

Because of those remarks, he's been indefinitely suspended from the A7E television show.

My friend Terresa Monroe-Hamilton over at The Noisy Room had an excellent take on this:

For telling the truth and stating what he personally believed, A&E put him on indefinite hiatus. They fired him. I would be very surprised if the family did not tell A&E to stuff it. They managed to take THE most popular rated show ever and scuttle it. Phil had told A&E earlier that if they insisted he remove God or guns from his show, they were through [...]

Drudge headlined this whole shameful turn of events on his site this morning with: “Roasted ‘Duck’ – Leader Fired After Gay Rant. The title is misleading as I don’t consider Phil’s statement as a rant, but a confirmation of his beliefs and faith. He has a right according to the First Amendment to state his views. And while A&E has a right to run their channel as they see fit, they obviously care more about the rights of Gays than they do of Christians and they fear the backlash from the LGBT community and their supporters. They don’t give a crap about Constitutional rights and evidently they are willing to throw away millions in revenue to placate a certain segment of society. That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? A&E chose sides with GLAAD, took a stand and walked off a cliff. It’s okay for militant Gays to attack Christians and hunt them down, but when a Christian stands up and says what he believes… well, that’s hate don’t ya know.

She's entirely correct.GLAAD is a far Left group that despises Christians, and was conspicuously noticeable by its absence after Alec Baldwin's anti-gay slurs, which were a whole lot worse than anything Phil Robertson had to say.

Greg over at Rhymes With Right makes the point that firing Phil Robertson is also a blatant violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;"

A&E has made a public announcement to the effect that it has suspended Phil Robertson from his employment on the series Duck Dynasty for having expressed his religious beliefs outside of the workplace. This action certainly "otherwise discrimnate[s] against an individual with respect to his. . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals. . . religion". Will the Obama Administration take action to uphold the civil rights of Phil Robertson in the face of this flagrant and public violation of his rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Or will this be one more example of the administration picking and choosing what laws it enforces based upon whether upholding and enforcing the law benefits those constituencies that support Obama and his political agenda?

Oh,I think we know the answer to that one. There's far too much donor money involved.Would the president and his attorney general be going public and unleashing the Justice Department on A%E if Phil Robertson were a gay man fired for bashing Christianity and extolling the virtues of homosexuality in a private interview ? Would three quarters of the media be going absolutely berserk? I think we know the answer to that one too.

To the people out for Phil Robertson's scalp, this is not a matter of civil rights per se, but a matter of 'our rights trump yours, just because'.

The truth of the matter is that the show and the Robertson family have been 'sitting ducks' for quite some time.They champion everything the Left has been trying to destroy for years - America's traditional culture of Judeo-Christian faith, the Second Amendment, self-reliance, traditional marriage and the nuclear family.

The show's financial success kept the wolves at bay for awhile, but A&E (along with Disney, who owns A&E) have made a business decision to listen to their voices and violate Phil Robertson's First Amendment rights

How that plays out based on the blowback they get from it will be another business decision they'll have to make.


Anonymous said...

because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

Yeah, well bigotry doesn't fall under that umbrella. Besides, companies are absolutely within their rights to fire someone for moral turpitude. In fact, there was a guy about a year ago who taped himself going through a Chick-Fil-A and harassing the employees because of Chick-Fil-A's anti-gay agenda. That guy was promptly fired as part of a morals clause by his company. It's perfectly legal. So this civil rights argument won't work here. And since when do republicans care about civil rights, anyway??

But, more importantly, why would A&E want to be associated with a homophobe? They were playing with fire when they hired these rubes in the first place. This is pure PR. A channel like that doesn't want to be endorsing bigotry, racism, homophobia, and general dull-wittedness.

That's Fox's job.

UCSPanther said...

What we are seeing here in this case, is "Repressive Tolerance", as coined by notorious and little-known Marxist Herbert Marcuse in action.

It basically calls for stifling of debate and free speech in the name of tolerance, and could be considered one of the main pillars of Political Correctness.

Anonymous said...

Too bad he's not a Muslim, then he could advocate murdering gays, genocide for Jews, stoning adulterers, killing apostates, death for blasphemy, & the ''tolerant'' Left would have no problem.

louielouie said...

as my break with the tube occurred mid-way during operation desert storm, i too have not seen DD.
with that said, the people i have spoke with in the store give me the following impression.
a bunch of liberal elitists (redundant) put together this project as a way of making fun of hillbillies/redneks once a week or so, on national television.
when the show became so successful they realized they had a problem on their hands.
did they cash those checks?
but phil robertson interviewed by GQ?
this has set-up written all over it.
they want the show off the air.
the money doesn't figure into it for the non-thinking.
i think the final straw was when their christmas album outsold britney's and lady gagme's albums. there may have been something about phil not doing the baba wawa interview either. that turn down coming on the heels of phil meeting with sarah palin prolly just sent anon over the edge.
i hope.

Nameless Cynic said...

Weird. Everybody is concentrating on the Bearded One's thoughts on gays, but ignoring him talking about the happy black people working the fields, and that he never saw mistreatment of blacks before the civil rights movement came along. Why is it you're ignoring that part of his interview?

But let's not worry about that; I'm curious. What are your thoughts on the Dixie Chicks? I seem to recall you weren't much in favor of them just a few years ago. Why was that?

Rob said...

Hello Cynic,
Welcome aboard.

Here we have someone who said, more or less verbatim in the interview that during his youth he worked alongside black folks in the fields and that they along with everyone else was a lot happier back then. Now, I personally don't see any racism in that comment, and apparently neither do most black people or even the usual pimps in the Racial Grievance Industry.

Or you KNOW we'd be hearing about it ad naseum

So obviously you have other evidence that Phil Robertson is a racist. Please, share this scoop with the rest of us! We need to know!

Now Phil Robertson is also a committed Christian, who said in the interview that in his opinion, G-d wants us to love one another.

Glancing at your profile Cynic, it's really, really obvious that you definitely don't like Christians or indeed the whole religious edifice in general.

Since blatant racism would be against Phil Robertson's beliefs and make him a disgraceful hypocrite, here is your chance to kill two birds with one stone by sharing the secret information you have about his racism, which hasn't surfaced thus far.

Of course if I were a cynic, I might just say you were probably just tossing this out there because you dislike Christians and religion in general, but I'm sure that couldn't be a motivating factor for you.

So I'm eagerly awaiting what you have to share...verifiable facts on Phil Robertson's racism only please, not your interpretation or conjecture. You supply that and I promise I'll post it in a prominent place on this site.

Thanks for dropping by.


Rob said...

Hello Anonymous 7:05 PM,


1) Like Cynic above, you apparently have sources that know exactly what's in Phil Robertson's contract, including a 'moral turpitude' clause! Please share your info...and I'll post it.

Not to be mean, but I doubt you actually know what a clause like that refers to. I've seen what standard moral turpitude clauses actually cover, and trust me when I tell you that none of the comments Phil Robertson made in his interview would even remotely trigger such a thing.

2) because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

Yeah, well bigotry doesn't fall under that umbrella.

Ummm, 'bigotry' or your interpretation of it has nothing to do with First Amendment rights or the free practice clause concerning religion. Otherwise people like Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan would have been in jail along time ago.

3)And since when do republicans care about civil rights, anyway??

Please, I'm not trying to be mean here, but you really don't want to embarrass yourself in situations where you might not be anonymous.

Please read up on which party prevented Civil Rights legislation from being enacted for years, who integrated the Armed Forces and who started affirmative action policies and which party they belonged to, which party has consistently had a greater percentage supporting civil rights legislation, who the first president was who appointed blacks to major, policy making cabinet positions and what party he belonged to (and no, it wasn't Barack Obama), stuff like that.

A&E want to be associated with Duck Synasty because it makes money...which is why they will run the next season that's already been filmed.

They made a business decision based on the feedback they got from various professional grievance mongers.They will undoubtedly make another one based on the feedback they're getting now from the rest of the country.

And don't be surprised that if A&E continues his 'suspension', Phil Robertson sues them and collects.

louielouie said...

anon @ 7:05

That's Fox's job.

al's talking to you.

Anonymous said...

Here we have someone who said, more or less verbatim in the interview that during his youth he worked alongside black folks in the fields and that they along with everyone else was a lot happier back then. Now, I personally don't see any racism in that comment

A redneck in Jim Crow Louisiana doesn't remember black folks ever saying' nuttin' bad about no black people? They don't mind if they can't vote, no sir! Or those colored water fountains! Mr. Duck Dynasty, those are wonderful, can I please sit in the back of the bus?

The fact that you don't see any racism in that comment speaks volumes about you.

Rob said...

Awww, you disappointed me Anonymous.

Here, I thought you were going to provide me with a juicy scoop with actual facts on Phil Robertson's racism and instead of that,the best you can come up with is to accuse me of racism because I actually want to see real proof of your accusation !?!

Without knowing anything about me at all? Wow, would you be in for a surprise if you did!

Oh, and BTW..isn't 'redneck' a pejorative , racist term coming from someone who obviously doesn't consider himself one?

Sorta like the 'n' word from someone who isn't black?

Seriously, you really ought to sit down, take some time and think this stuff out before you suffer any more needless embarrassment. I'm only trying to do you a good turn here.

Rhymes With Right said...

Well, Anonymous 7:05, I think you are way off base. Phil Robertson was fired because of his religion -- the objection was that he quoted (or at least paraphrased) the Bible and stated that it represents his religious faith. Now unless you are going to argue that being a Bible-believing Christian who speaks publicly about his faith constitutes some sort of morally objectionable behavior, the notion that what he said constitutes "moral turpitude" is absurd! Besides, a clause that did forbid such a thing would likely be ruled to be void as contrary to public policy -- just as would any such clause that forbade interracial dating or attending religious services under the theory that such conduct constituted moral turpitude.

Nameless Cynic said...

Golly, Rob. You're reading that a little differently than I am. Yeah, he's saying that black people were happy back then - but he never says anything about anybody ELSE being happy, does he?

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

I guess he missed little things like the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing; race riots in Rochester, NYC, Philly, Jersey City; the entire history of the Ku Klux Klan; whites-only water fountains; the murders of Medgar Evers, Emmett Till or James Chaney; you know, any of those little things that made life so wonderful for blacks back then.

He didn't see any angry blacks until the Civil Rights movement? Then they must not have existed, right?

Yeah, I guess I can believe he was that small-minded, blind and ignorant. (Funny thing, though. The Klan, which spent it's time murdering and castrating blacks for being "uppity," was predominently made up of "white trash," like Phil claimed to be. Just thought I'd mention that...)

But let's get back to you.

"Glancing at your profile" - maybe you should glance a little harder. My sister is an Episcopalian minister. I don't mind religion - I just object to people trying to force their religion on me. It's a subtle difference, but I'm sure you're smart enough to work it out.

I'm not going to try to say that there's a "moral turpitude" clause in his contract. I'm just going to point out that any company is allowed to fire any employee who, acting as the public face of the company, causes bad PR for the company - particularly an entertainment company like A&E. It's part of this thing we call "the free market." Maybe you should look it up.

(By the way, as a private company, A&E can't "violate (his) First Amendment rights" - I mean, you're aware that A&E isn't part of the government, right?)

I am, though, going to ask whether you've ever read any American history. If so, do you know what "Dixiecrats" were? They were the Southern politicians in the Democratic party who opposed equal rights. Funny thing - where do you think all the Dixiecrats went once Civil Rights legislation started getting passed? (I'll give you a hint - look up the record of Strom Thurmond.)

First president with black cabinet members? You probably don't mean FDR's "Federal Council of Negro Affairs," so you probably mean Lyndon Johnson's appointment of Robert C. Weaver to HUD - I mean, after all, it was another 10 years before a Republican (Ford, in this case) had a black Secretary of Transportation.

Rob said...

Why Cynic,
I have to compliment you. Here you are trying to stick up for anonymous when he or she obviously had trouble doing it. And again. no real evidence of Robertson's racism!! And here I was hoping...

I did have to censor your comment, which suggested people google something that I had no opportunity to peruse myself o rcheck out . That could lead to slander, which I don't champion here.In any event, if it was what you said it was, it still represents protected speech under the First Amendment.

Your sister is an Episcopalian minister? From what I hear from a lot of Christians, that's kind of like claiming you're a school principal when you really only preside over a home school, but I would not be so unkind as to agree with that. In any event, we're talking about you. Based on the sites you follow which include a number of pro-atheism and anti-Christian sites, it's hard fo rme to believe thyat your opposition to Christianity is based on 'just not wanting to have religion shoved' at you, but OK.

FYI A&E as a private company can be sued for violating both the First Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You see, it isn't only non-whites and homosexuals who have these rights.

History? Allow me to correct you. The Dixiecrats did not become Republicans for some time, and many of them never did. They didn;t approve of Tom Dewey or Dwight Eisenhower, whom were strongly pro-civil rights. They formed their own party in 1948, and the only DixieCrat who really became a noticeable GOP figure was Strom Thurmond, AFTER he agreed to go along with th eGOP's civil rights platform. Far more of the Dixiecrats like Lester Maddox and Robert Byrd, a KKK Klavern remianed Dems in good standing for the rest of their political careers..

Oh, and that president? The key words were 'in major policy making cabinet positions' not window dressing. That would be George W. Bush, a Republican.