Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?

• OSH

  

  To clarify things, Phil Robertson said this before he really said anything about any other sin:
  

  “We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

  Phil was asked what "sin" was, his response:
  

  "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.”

  So, Phil preached love before he identified what "sin" was -- and Biblical identification, not his own.
  
  He also stated, right after the "sin" identification:
  

  “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?”

  This is how the article is written...so, don't know exactly the timetable of statements, exactly. But, if this is actually how it was said, then Phil speaks of love before he speaks of sin. Now, he did make the "vagina...man's anus..." comment before it all -- but there was no identification with it, just a question in how that can be chosen. But, nowhere does Phil claim that homosexuality will lead to bestiality.
  
  Phil's comments were simply Biblically based, that he believes a sin is a sin, no matter the sin. They will all be punished. But above all, we are supposed to love and he's here to preach the love that we are supposed to have for one another. The same love that the Creator had.
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1555329 wrote:"I don't agree with you" is very much different than "what you are doing is a sin". Sin is something that people have to answer to God for and is something that arguably gets you sent to hell.
  
  "I don't like Arby's" holds a different connotation than "To eat Arby's is a sin".
  
  You don't find it a bit disconcerting that your parents think you're committing a crime against God by having a beer? I'm not saying you should fight them on it in their house or anything but it's not the same thing as them simply not liking it.

  There are many people who don't agree with different things in life.
  
  In the end, who's the one who makes the decision? It's not parents, friends, kids, strangers, or an internet chatterer who decides what one's eternity will be. In the meantime, we can all go on either evangelizing what we believe, or just live life how we think it should be lived.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "You don't find it a bit disconcerting that your parents think you're committing a crime against God by having a beer?"
  
  No, we're that comfortable in our beliefs and actions and aren't insecure.
• I Wear Pants

  OSH;1555338 wrote:There are many people who don't agree with different things in life.
  
  In the end, who's the one who makes the decision? It's not parents, friends, kids, strangers, or an internet chatterer who decides what one's eternity will be. In the meantime, we can all go on either evangelizing what we believe, or just live life how we think it should be lived.

  That would be excellent.
  
  Edit: Excellent assuming how you think life should be lived doesn't harm people.
• I Wear Pants

  Manhattan Buckeye;1555339 wrote:"You don't find it a bit disconcerting that your parents think you're committing a crime against God by having a beer?"
  
  No, we're that comfortable in our beliefs and actions and aren't insecure.

  I have a feeling you think I'm like the guy in the purple/pink here:
  
  [video=youtube;e3h6es6zh1c][/video]
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1555342 wrote:That would be excellent.
  
  Edit: Excellent assuming how you think life should be lived doesn't harm people.

  Correct...but where does this start/stop?
  
  Christianity has a core belief in "making disciples." So how can one "make disciples" without evangelizing?
  
  On the other hand, homosexuals (including, I would assume, you) want to legalize homosexual marriage. So, that means "evangelizing" your belief that homosexual marriage should be legalized. The issue that arises then is that homosexual marriage then defiles the sanctity of marriage that is defined by Christianity (and other organized religions). So, how can the two then get along with contrasting beliefs? Both want to live their lives, but they come at odds when each want to defend their own beliefs. Neither are really "harmed," but each want their side to be defended, considered, and upheld.
• Con_Alma

  Raw Dawgin' it;1555335 wrote:Do i need to explain how the word 'it' works? It takes the place of the noun in the sentence, which is 'Bible'

  Ahhh...that's what I thought. I was hoping you made a mistake and meant for "it" be referencing something else. No you don't have to explain how the word "it" works. Now I can answer your question.
  
  The Bible doesn't accept anything. "It"'s the written word of God. If you meant for "it" to mean God Himself or Christians then there would be a different answer. Hopefully now you can understand why I want you to clarify "it".
• Devils Advocate

  

  Con_Alma;1555356 wrote:Ahhh...that's what I thought. I was hoping you made a mistake and meant for "it" be referencing something else. No you don't have to explain how the word "it" works. Now I can answer your question.
  
  The Bible doesn't accept anything. "It"'s the written word of God. If you meant for "it" to mean God Himself or Christians then there would be a different answer. Hopefully now you can understand why I want you to clarify "it".

  WTF?/
  
  Dis belly hack con_alma's account?
• iclfan2

  

  OSH;1555336 wrote:But, nowhere does Phil claim that homosexuality will lead to bestiality.

  Correct, like I previously mentioned. listing out sins, does not equal a comparison. The show has all the rights in the World to fire him, but it was stupid and they will lose viewership. It really makes no sense. 1% of the U.S. MAYBE would be outraged by what he said and 0% of people who actually give the show ratings care. They dropped the ball on this one and hopefully they pay for it in their pocket books.
• sherm03

  

  iclfan2;1555391 wrote:Correct, like I previously mentioned. listing out sins, does not equal a comparison. The show has all the rights in the World to fire him, but it was stupid and they will lose viewership. It really makes no sense. 1% of the U.S. MAYBE would be outraged by what he said and 0% of people who actually give the show ratings care. They dropped the ball on this one and hopefully they pay for it in their pocket books.

  Maybe the people who watch the show don't care. But it's a NETWORK. There is more on their lineup than just Duck Dynasty. A&E has to protect a brand. And cutting this guy loose and potentially losing DD as a show apparently makes more sense to them financially than risking losing viewership to the rest of their programs. I wouldn't necessarily call their move stupid.
  
  But I would agree that a majority of people would not be "outraged" by what he said. Seems to me the "outrage" is coming from people defending him. While the people who disagree with his views are taking more of the "this is not surprising" stance.
• OSH

  

  sherm03;1555396 wrote:Maybe the people who watch the show don't care. But it's a NETWORK. There is more on their lineup than just Duck Dynasty. A&E has to protect a brand. And cutting this guy loose and potentially losing DD as a show apparently makes more sense to them financially than risking losing viewership to the rest of their programs. I wouldn't necessarily call their move stupid.
  
  But I would agree that a majority of people would not be "outraged" by what he said. Seems to me the "outrage" is coming from people defending him. While the people who disagree with his views are taking more of the "this is not surprising" stance.

  I would venture to say that Duck Dynasty carries their largest tv audience. They may have to protect their brand, but that also comes at a cost. They'll have to figure out some way to recoup what they've done by alienating 14 million viewers (granted, not all of them probably side with Phil).
  
  There also seemed to be a bit of an "outrage" coming from GLAAD, who disagrees with him. They are the ones who started the calls for A&E, advertisers, and sponsors to start pulling their money. Doesn't really come across as a "this is not surprising stance." Yes, this is not surprising from them since they are the ones who started this "we should be outraged" mindset anyway.
  
  I imagine there are a lot of people who feel the same as this: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/19/dear-ae-congratulations-you-just-committed-suicide/
• Pick6

  

  Maybe Duck Dynasty should take their show to another station. I'm sure A&E would love that. Obviously they are probably under contract, though.
• Heretic

  

  sherm03;1555396 wrote:But I would agree that a majority of people would not be "outraged" by what he said. Seems to me the "outrage" is coming from people defending him. While the people who disagree with his views are taking more of the "this is not surprising" stance.

  I prefer to look at the bright side of things. The people who are showing the "outrage" of this sort are the same idiots who usually are exhibiting "outrage" over the lulzy "War on CHRISTmas" myth at this time of year because someone at a store said "Happy Holidays" to them. So at least this is something new that's providing entertainment due to novelty value, as opposed to being the same shit, but a different year.
• I Wear Pants

  sherm03;1555396 wrote:Maybe the people who watch the show don't care. But it's a NETWORK. There is more on their lineup than just Duck Dynasty. A&E has to protect a brand. And cutting this guy loose and potentially losing DD as a show apparently makes more sense to them financially than risking losing viewership to the rest of their programs. I wouldn't necessarily call their move stupid.
  
  But I would agree that a majority of people would not be "outraged" by what he said. Seems to me the "outrage" is coming from people defending him. While the people who disagree with his views are taking more of the "this is not surprising" stance.

  I'd posit that they're most concerned about potentially losing advertisers and sponsors. Perhaps they got some phone calls from advertisers saying their brand can't be on the same network as the show because of these comments or something.
  
  Either way I really doubt they are itching to get rid of this guy or the show since they've been getting such good ratings and selling so much merchandise. If they make that decision they'll likely have a decent business reason for doing so. They like money.
• gut

  Phil has talked about leaving the show before. I doubt the Robertsons really care if he's kicked off or not - they seem pretty smart, I'm sure they understand the decision. Thing is, if you cut Phil out then you cut out he family dinner and prayer - and that they make take exception to.
  
  You can say they don't care about the money and it's not important to them....but $250k an episode is $250k, and the additional sales and merchandising as a result is not lost on them. For a family that might allegedly not want or need the celebrity, they are all over the place these days.
• Heretic

  

  I Wear Pants;1555401 wrote:I'd posit that they're most concerned about potentially losing advertisers and sponsors. Perhaps they got some phone calls from advertisers saying their brand can't be on the same network as the show because of these comments or something.
  
  Either way I really doubt they are itching to get rid of this guy or the show since they've been getting such good ratings and selling so much merchandise. If they make that decision they'll likely have a decent business reason for doing so. They like money.

  Yeah. There's sort of a chain of progression to these things where someone says something deemed controversial by others, so special interest groups go on the warpath, so advertisers decide they want to distance themselves from any controversy because they like money, so the network takes steps to placate people because they also like money and don't want to risk losing those advertisers.
  
  Which all comes back to the concept that if said TV personality hadn't said anything publicly about his views on matters which may be deemed controversial, none of this would have happened. I mean, that's pretty much the sentiment I see people posting here all the time when a left-wing entertainer sounds off on one issue or another, so I'd imagine we're all unanimous in agreeing with me on this.
• thavoice

  gut;1555402 wrote:Phil has talked about leaving the show before. I doubt the Robertsons really care if he's kicked off or not - they seem pretty smart, I'm sure they understand the decision. Thing is, if you cut Phil out then you cut out he family dinner and prayer - and that they make take exception to.
  
  You can say they don't care about the money and it's not important to them....but $250k an episode is $250k, and the additional sales and merchandising as a result is not lost on them. For a family that might allegedly not want or need the celebrity, they are all over the place these days.

  Yeah, he has talked about wanting to leave. He wasnt happy how the show keeps out much of his 'preaching' and at times beeps out a word to make it look like he cussed when he hadnt.
  
  I have seen the show a number of times. I dont make sure I tune in to watch it, but have seen it at times. It is as scripted as any other "reality" show. It is an OK show, not something that ya make sure and watch when it is on like SOA or anything like that.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1555402 wrote:Phil has talked about leaving the show before. I doubt the Robertsons really care if he's kicked off or not - they seem pretty smart, I'm sure they understand the decision. Thing is, if you cut Phil out then you cut out he family dinner and prayer - and that they make take exception to.
  
  You can say they don't care about the money and it's not important to them....but $250k an episode is $250k, and the additional sales and merchandising as a result is not lost on them. For a family that might allegedly not want or need the celebrity, they are all over the place these days.

  It's not going to hurt them that much, their lifestyle won't change or anything probably. But I don't buy the crap about them not wanting money or fame. They do or they'd never sign on to do television shows or allow their faces to be on t-shirts and wine bottles and make up and they wouldn't put out Christmas albums and such.
  
  I doubt they've got hurt feelings or anything and they shouldn't. Dude said his piece and that's fine. And I obviously disagree with what he said but he does seem to be someone who'd be polite to me in person which is a huge step above someone like a Fred Phelps or something. Overall I think this is a great example of our system working. Dude had his chance to speak, he said something controversial, and now everyone deals with the reactions to it positive and negative.
• Devils Advocate

  

  
• se-alum

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:Please show me where the government targets Christians in a way that is worse than saying they fuck animals.

  You keep coming back to this. All you're really saying is you disagree with the guys Christian beliefs. It's been explained why he said that, and he wasn't comparing being gay to bestiality. Simply put, in the eyes of Christians, any sin separates you from God, so in that sense, they are all equal. Don't veil your argument by being incensed that he said homosexuality and bestiality in the same sentence, you simply disagree with that Christian belief.
• queencitybuckeye

  gut;1555402 wrote:Phil has talked about leaving the show before.

  Which may or may not be genuine. Given that this show is scripted down to dialogue, I'm not sure why people are so willing to take such statements on faith. That the head of the family says he'd just as soon not do the show any more adds to the "don't give a crap" appeal that is part and parcel of the whole thing.
• Heretic

  

  queencitybuckeye;1555418 wrote:Which may or may not be genuine. Given that this show is scripted down to dialogue, I'm not sure why people are so willing to take such statements on faith. That the head of the family says he'd just as soon not do the show any more adds to the "don't give a crap" appeal that is part and parcel of the whole thing.

  Ah yes, the good ol' down-home "We don't give two hoots about fame...so we're gonna be on a TV show, become celebrities and shill more merchandise than you can imagine!" line of thought.
  
  Great for marketing your brand, but as honest and genuine as the scripted nature of reality shows in general.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  I think A&E knew that the shelf life on reality shows is pretty short anyways so my guess is they are trying to maximize profits before everyone tunes out and moves on to the next flavor of the month. If that meant cutting someone out to keep the advertisers checks coming in, thats what needed to be done. Anyone who thinks they should leave him on there and to hell with profits and money is an idiot.
• sherm03

  

  OSH;1555398 wrote: There also seemed to be a bit of an "outrage" coming from GLAAD, who disagrees with him. They are the ones who started the calls for A&E, advertisers, and sponsors to start pulling their money. Doesn't really come across as a "this is not surprising stance." Yes, this is not surprising from them since they are the ones who started this "we should be outraged" mindset anyway.

  Is the reaction from GLAAD any different from the reactions of Christian groups that yell out and call for boycotts because of gay spokespeople? It wasn't that long ago that One Million Moms was speaking out saying that nobody should shop at JC Penney because Ellen DeGeneres was a spokesperson.
  
  My comment was around the general public's reaction. There is not much outrage from the general public because it's not surprising that a Christian hillbilly from the south doesn't approve of gay people.
  
  IWP is right, it comes down to advertisement dollars. If a company wants to pull money because the star of a show says something that they don't agree with...they absolutely can do that. And A&E can do what they can to keep that money coming in.
  
  There's consequences to everything you say, even with freedom of speech. What we are seeing right now is the consequences of this dude's decision to state publicly hist stance on a controversial topic.
  
  If he had come out and said abortion is wrong (instead of talking about gay people), the results would likely be the same.
• IggyPride00

  

  There also seemed to be a bit of an "outrage" coming from GLAAD, who disagrees with him. They are the ones who started the calls for A&E, advertisers, and sponsors to start pulling their money. Doesn't really come across as a "this is not surprising stance." Yes, this is not surprising from them since they are the ones who started this "we should be outraged" mindset anyway.

  Gay people actually make up a miniscule part of the population. You would never know it though as they are the kings of outrage. There is a militant gay agenda being pushed on this country and we are all going to like it or participate in it come hell or high water as far as these people are concerned. They are going to force their values on you, by any means necessary.