• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Phil Robertson returns to A&E

disneydude said:
I agree that people have every right to hold opposing views and it does not necessarily rise to the level of defamation. That said....people also have a right to counter those opposing views. What I hear most often is people speaking out and then crying when they have to face the consequences of their speech. Everyone has a right to free speech, what they don't have a right to is the right to be free from the consequences of their speech. That is why I always say, think before you speak. If Rachel were to say something stupid and face advertiser boycotts as a result, well...that's the consequences of her speech.
Click to expand...

We have a real problem today in regard to Free Speech. It is getting to the point that progressive judges are now ruling on hurt feelings as something that violates discrimination laws. We just saw the judge in Colorado rule in favor on the basis of hurt feelings of the gay couple that wanted a wedding cake and the baker refused because it went against his moral conscience to create something to be used in a ceremony his religious beliefs did not support. And this was done in a state that doesn't even recognize gay marriage to be legal. We also have Progressives in Congress proposing new Hate Speech law in the name of politics of sexual orientation.

What you state as being challenged amounts to bullying. That's the way GLAAD operates. This gay organization goes after faith based organizations because of their religious beliefs in traditional marriage calling it defamation. It is why they went after Robertson. Pressuring A&E and the sponsors into reacting. In previous suits that GLAAD has filed and got lucky to get before a judge like the one in Colorado, they are able to silence the speech of others. It's appalling. In the past few years states/judges have shown they are not using the Constitution to be the basis for their laws and rulings and instead have replaced it with "protection from hurt feelings". It has provoked Republicans to offer legislation that would put an end to this type of bullying by insuring people of faith their constitutional rights. I must say how encouraged I was to see GLAAD receive the backlash they did from the public over the whole Duck Dynasty thing. In that I find hope for the future. If a group is going to demand tolerance than they best be practicing it themselves.
 
disneydude said:
Oh I understand quite well. People pick and choose all the time which laws they want to obey and those they don't. History is full of cafeteria selection....Religion is full of instances where people decide yesterday's "abomination" is ok today...but others are not because they don't want them to be quite yet. Its pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like the health insurance law. The administration just picks and chooses which parts of it they would like to enforce based on political expedience. Your comparison between the Obama administration and religious hypocracy is noticed and appreciated. Now if only his supporters could see it we might be able to make some real progress. But they won't as long as it is supporting their current opinion.
 
tech30528 said:
To each their own I supposed. One of the things I'm doing this weekend is testing 4 different custom reloads for 9mm for speed and grouping. Probably not what you would enjoy. But then I wonder how people can stomach shows like Project Runway. Or Survivor for that matter.
Click to expand...

I can't stand any TV show for long. We get it through the Internet, and once I've seen a few episodes of a show: Revenge, Once Upon a Time, Orange new Black, even Soprano and The Wire; I begin to see the repetitiveness of it and quickly get bored.

Self expression is my prefered form of media entertainment. Arguing with people on forums beats watching scripted plots and moving images on a screen.

Outdoors are great. Hiking, biking, running my dogs...I don't shoot much anymore. Not since I move off the farm.
 
disneydude said:
Oh I understand quite well. People pick and choose all the time which laws they want to obey and those they don't. History is full of cafeteria selection....Religion is full of instances where people decide yesterday's "abomination" is ok today...but others are not because they don't want them to be quite yet. Its pretty simple.
Click to expand...

That's grossly ignorant. Christians are bound to follow the moral law only through association with the Spirit, they are not bound by ceremonial law in any way. While Jews (of Christ's time) believed that acts could bring someone fruit of the Spirit and even salvation, Christians believe only in faith. Christians understand that the law does not bring salvation, it never could and it never will. Only through faith can one find God.

That's basically the gospel right there. If you don't understand that, you've got no business discussing the issue. It's like someone totally ignorant trying to discuss any other issue, just sad. The only thing displayed by your rant is ignorance. No one who has studied anything about the Bible is fooled by your clueless blahblah.

And the person who liked that post should know better. That like only displays that some old people are still complete idiots regarding the Bible.
 
Last edited:
tech30528 said:
Misinterpreted text. Typical liberal tactic, if you don't like it strawman it.
Click to expand...

Its not misinterpreted at all. The fact of the matter is, the text is quite clear. Unless of course you are one of those "Cafeteria Christians" that pick and choose what you want to follow and what you don't.
 
disneydude said:
Its not misinterpreted at all. The fact of the matter is, the text is quite clear. Unless of course you are one of those "Cafeteria Christians" that pick and choose what you want to follow and what you don't.
Click to expand...

You are reading it only in your own context and excluding the context of the time and the entire message. Research (TRUE research) has no bias.
 
vesper said:
We have a real problem today in regard to Free Speech. It is getting to the point that progressive judges are now ruling on hurt feelings as something that violates discrimination laws. We just saw the judge in Colorado rule in favor on the basis of hurt feelings of the gay couple that wanted a wedding cake and the baker refused because it went against his moral conscience to create something to be used in a ceremony his religious beliefs did not support. And this was done in a state that doesn't even recognize gay marriage to be legal. We also have Progressives in Congress proposing new Hate Speech law in the name of politics of sexual orientation.

What you state as being challenged amounts to bullying. That's the way GLAAD operates. This gay organization goes after faith based organizations because of their religious beliefs in traditional marriage calling it defamation. It is why they went after Robertson. Pressuring A&E and the sponsors into reacting. In previous suits that GLAAD has filed and got lucky to get before a judge like the one in Colorado, they are able to silence the speech of others. It's appalling. In the past few years states/judges have shown they are not using the Constitution to be the basis for their laws and rulings and instead have replaced it with "protection from hurt feelings". It has provoked Republicans to offer legislation that would put an end to this type of bullying by insuring people of faith their constitutional rights. I must say how encouraged I was to see GLAAD receive the backlash they did from the public over the whole Duck Dynasty thing. In that I find hope for the future. If a group is going to demand tolerance than they best be practicing it themselves.
Click to expand...

Sorry...but if the religious groups would keep religion where is belongs, there would be no need for GLAAD and other groups to fight to restrain them. The problem is..many of the so called "Christian" groups are not content to keep religion in churches. They want to infiltrate their perverted brand of Christianity into the public square in much the same manner that the Pharisees do. They want to stand on the street corners and shout their prayers so that men/women will see them and "hopefully" see what good "Christians" they are. The reality is that these so called "Christians" know very little about the man they profess to worship.
 
vesper said:
We have a real problem today in regard to Free Speech. It is getting to the point that progressive judges are now ruling on hurt feelings as something that violates discrimination laws. We just saw the judge in Colorado rule in favor on the basis of hurt feelings of the gay couple that wanted a wedding cake and the baker refused because it went against his moral conscience to create something to be used in a ceremony his religious beliefs did not support. And this was done in a state that doesn't even recognize gay marriage to be legal. We also have Progressives in Congress proposing new Hate Speech law in the name of politics of sexual orientation.

What you state as being challenged amounts to bullying. That's the way GLAAD operates. This gay organization goes after faith based organizations because of their religious beliefs in traditional marriage calling it defamation. It is why they went after Robertson. Pressuring A&E and the sponsors into reacting. In previous suits that GLAAD has filed and got lucky to get before a judge like the one in Colorado, they are able to silence the speech of others. It's appalling. In the past few years states/judges have shown they are not using the Constitution to be the basis for their laws and rulings and instead have replaced it with "protection from hurt feelings". It has provoked Republicans to offer legislation that would put an end to this type of bullying by insuring people of faith their constitutional rights. I must say how encouraged I was to see GLAAD receive the backlash they did from the public over the whole Duck Dynasty thing. In that I find hope for the future. If a group is going to demand tolerance than they best be practicing it themselves.
Click to expand...

BTW....tolerance does not require one be tolerant of the intolerant. That is just circular reasoning.
 
disneydude said:
BTW....tolerance does not require one be tolerant of the intolerant. That is just circular reasoning.
Click to expand...

Intolerance of anyone is intolerance. Circular and factual.
 
ecofarm said:
That's grossly ignorant. Christians are bound to follow the moral law only through association with the Spirit, they are not bound by ceremonial law in any way. While Jews (of Christ's time) believed that acts could bring someone fruit of the Spirit and even salvation, Christians believe only in faith. Christians understand that the law does not bring salvation, it never could and it never will. Only through faith can one find God.

That's basically the gospel right there. If you don't understand that, you've got no business discussing the issue. It's like someone totally ignorant trying to discuss any other issue, just sad. The only thing displayed by your rant is ignorance. No one who has studied anything about the Bible is fooled by your clueless blahblah.

And the person who liked that post should know better. That like only displays that some old people are still complete idiots regarding the Bible.
Click to expand...

LOL....you simply displayed that you are just another "Cafeteria Christian"....you rather "conveniently" decide that there are parts of the bible that are god's law...and part that...well.....just are important for you to follow.
 
tech30528 said:
You are reading it only in your own context and excluding the context of the time and the entire message. Research (TRUE research) has no bias.
Click to expand...

Oh....I see. So you agree that the bible has to be read in the context of the time. Good thing because "Traditional marriage" would be defined as between a man and his concubine or between a man and his dead brother's wife.
 
disneydude said:
LOL....you simply displayed that you are just another "Cafeteria Christian"....you rather "conveniently" decide that there are parts of the bible that are god's law...and part that...well.....just are important for you to follow.
Click to expand...

I'm an atheist, have been since 8 years old and I'm 42. You continue to display gross ignorance. It's pathetic. Just stop talking about the Bible, you make the rest of us atheists look like blithering morons.
 
Oftencold said:
And Homosexuality is still a sin and perversion in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Funny is it not, that for thousands of years, every so often some bearded prophet or holy man has to remind us of this?
Click to expand...
I am not a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim ... but I think lying is regarded as a sin as well.
To say that he was re-instated when he was not , is a lie.
Beards do not indicate wisdom nor holiness... only a lack of desire to shave.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm an atheist, have been since 8 years old and I'm 42. You continue to display gross ignorance. It's pathetic. Just stop talking about the Bible, you make the rest of us atheists look like blithering morons.
Click to expand...

If you promise not to hold Crüe Cab against us, I promise not to hold Disney Dude against you.
 
X Factor said:
If you promise not to hold Crüe Cab against us, I promise not to hold Disney Dude against you.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the ol' Universal Declaration of Peace and Reason. Who can deny such an overture.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry...but if the religious groups would keep religion where is belongs, there would be no need for GLAAD and other groups to fight to restrain them. The problem is..many of the so called "Christian" groups are not content to keep religion in churches. They want to infiltrate their perverted brand of Christianity into the public square in much the same manner that the Pharisees do. They want to stand on the street corners and shout their prayers so that men/women will see them and "hopefully" see what good "Christians" they are. The reality is that these so called "Christians" know very little about the man they profess to worship.
Click to expand...

What you seem to not grasp is to some their faith is more than a religion, it is a way of life. It is who they are and you are wanting them to hide that in public because you disagree with it. Because you personally disagree with their beliefs is one thing but when you make your own beliefs the measure of what is acceptable in the public square that is altogether something else and our Constitution when followed is to protect people from people like you.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Now we can focus on the important stuff. Who in their right mind would watch that stupid show once the novelty wears off? It's a show that would quickly get old. After one season, I'd be burned out on it. But, hey, people out there can't get enough of Honey Boo Boo, and I couldn't even watch one full episode of that without clicking it off.
Click to expand...

You can't compare the two shows. Honey Boo Boo, I can't stand, I think it is unacceptable, a vile and disgusting show. Not the people, the people are the people, they live how they like, I don't like the exploitation of the little girl, but it isn't my little girl and so long as the money is invested in her future, that is the only positive thing I can see to come out of it. Otherwise it makes them look the way I believe they thought they were going to make the fellas on DD look -- like White Trash. Which I find despicable.

DD on the other hand shows a successful family who love God and country. They pull some silly hijinks but all in all they actually spread a great message, one aside from God, family, and wholesome fun. The message? Don't judge books by there cover. If any of these guys came into suburbia or city they'd be looked upon as trash or trouble. Like bums or bikers. Yet, once you get past all the facial hair and stern looks you'd see they are family men who have good hearts. Like most Bikers actually.

Let me ask you, why do you think it is a "stupid show"? I'm going on the assumption that you've never watched it. No violence? No cussing? No strife? Just a slice of life, lightly scripted reality show which puts out a great message and is actually something positive that comes out of the boobtube. Is that why it's stupid? It isn't hip because there are no homosexuals? Which seem to be the "in thing" now on almost ever friggin program on TV, a cultural desensitization process. It isn't cutting edge because it shows a family who sticks together and works together without the greed and lust for who's getting the biggest slice of the Family Empire? Is it stupid because all the kids show respect to their elders and say "Yes ma'am" or "No, sir"? Instead of you know, the cynical, been there, don't that, the world owes me everything, nihilistic, nihilistic crap and sense of self entitlement that every other show displays our youth? Is that the reason you find this program to be stupid?

Seriously, I'm curious as to your thoughts, or is it that it is stupid because you just don't like them and their beliefs and this is the easiest way to dismiss them?
 
calamity said:
Now we can focus on the important stuff. Who in their right mind would watch that stupid show once the novelty wears off? It's a show that would quickly get old. After one season, I'd be burned out on it. But, hey, people out there can't get enough of Honey Boo Boo, and I couldn't even watch one full episode of that without clicking it off.
Click to expand...


Yep, like the millions of people that have lost their health insurance and can't afford the new policies with 4 thousand dollar deductibles and the millions more unemployed as the Democrats claim that we're in the middle of a "economic recovery".


But still, I hope fringe activist groups take note and finally understand that they're in the minority as they try to force their twisted ideology on the rest of America.
 
Buck Ewer said:
All I know is that captain America directed us to gopthedailydose.com a conservative website that touted that "A&E broke under the pressure and reinstated Phil Robertson back on their hit show, Duck Dynasty." I got the news that although he will still air in the shows already taped there are no plans to tape him in any new shows and he remains suspended, from Huffington Post.
Gopdailydose only gave half the story ... ON PURPOSE.
Click to expand...

Link? I think you're operating on old info. What you describe is how it was when he was suspended. The current season is already in the can, so the suspension was nonsense as described in the other thread.
 
vesper said:
What you seem to not grasp is to some their faith is more than a religion, it is a way of life. It is who they are and you are wanting them to hide that in public because you disagree with it. Because you personally disagree with their beliefs is one thing but when you make your own beliefs the measure of what is acceptable in the public square that is altogether something else and our Constitution when followed is to protect people from people like you.
Click to expand...

And that's fine. People have a right to live their lives as religiously or non-religiously as they choose. However, they are not free to impose those beliefs directly on another. I'm not telling them they have to hide it in public. They can be like the Pharisees all they want. They aren't free,however, to use their religion as a shield to hide behind and then attempt to claim it as a basis to discriminate.
 
disneydude said:
Oh....I see. So you agree that the bible has to be read in the context of the time. Good thing because "Traditional marriage" would be defined as between a man and his concubine or between a man and his dead brother's wife.
Click to expand...

That was what they did back then. There was no welfare system back then. Men "married" their deceased brother's wives to be able to take care of them. It is also where the Mormons started with polygamy.
 
tech30528 said:
That was what they did back then. There was no welfare system back then. Men "married" their deceased brother's wives to be able to take care of them. It is also where the Mormons started with polygamy.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I'm just agreeing that the bible needs to be interpreted with the times. If it wasn't..."traditional marriage" would = a man and his concubine...or a man and his dead brother's wife. Those who claim that the definition of marriage is non-changing are simply refusing to accept the fact that even in the bible, "traditional marriage" had different definitions.
 
disneydude said:
And that's fine. People have a right to live their lives as religiously or non-religiously as they choose. However, they are not free to impose those beliefs directly on another. I'm not telling them they have to hide it in public. They can be like the Pharisees all they want. They aren't free,however, to use their religion as a shield to hide behind and then attempt to claim it as a basis to discriminate.
Click to expand...

If someone is being forced to do something against their very being they do indeed have a right to say no. That is why the re-defining of discrimination to include hurt feelings is on the path to the Supremes and currently legislation proposed to stop it. But as far as Robertson goes, he was asked about his beliefs, and he shared them he wasn't imposing them on anyone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom