There's a saying: You can't teach an old dog new tricks. So how does society expect an old dog from the backwoods of Louisiana to change his perspective of the world, especially one who relies so heavily on the teachings of the Bible?
Recently, the Duck Commander family patriarch, Phil Robertson, was quoted as stating some "off-colour" remarks involving gays and blacks, which has raised such a media hell storm, that the Arts & Entertainment channel (A&E) which broadcasts the Robertson's 'reality' show, Duck Dynasty, to act against Phil Robertson and suspend him from future episodes for an undisclosed period of time. This is hogwash, in my opinion.
First of all, just about ANY comment, when taken out of context, can appear (on the surface) to be belligerent against a whole slough of people of differing faiths and lifestyles. I recall a comment that former Minnesota Governor, Jesse Ventura made a decade or so ago, in Playboy Magazine, where he was quoted saying that "people who need religion as a crutch". In passing, this might be offensive to the entire Christian sect, but if you take the entire comment into consideration, it wasn't offensive at all, which referred to religion as: "a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength". In it's entirety, the former Governor was referring to those in a moment of weakness, use religion as an instrument to gain strength.
The questionable comments made by Mr. Robertson in the January 2014 issue of GQ magazine, have been taken out of context, for the most part. In his comments [Phil] never targeted homosexuals directly, but lumped all kinds of sin (as determined by the Bible) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Included in the comment were the sins of adultery, drunkards, the greedy and idolaters, just to name a few, but isn't it convenient that these facts have been omitted from the controversy?
It's a common misconception that gays and lesbians are too overly sensitive, a trait that they often denied, yet anytime a public figure makes an off-handed remark, HOLY SH!T, the claws come out and there's a rainstorm of tears. It's not often that I would agree with Sarah Palin on anything (if ever), but I DO agree that Phil Robertson's Freedom of Speech is being infringed upon.
Adopted on December 15, 1791, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights in the American Constitution clearly states the Freedom of Religion as well as the Freedom of Speech. These days, 222 years later, you're allowed to practice Freedom of Speech, voicing your opinions, just as long as your opinions conform to those of the masses. It may be because I am Canadian, but this just doesn't sound right to me.
Admittedly, I am not a religious person. I don't believe in God, Jesus, Heaven or Hell, but if they do exist, I'm fairly certain I'm destined for someplace hot. That being said, I don't condemn Robertson for his beliefs. Whatever it takes to be a better person, then I'm all for it. And while I may not fully support all of the comments made in this questionable GQ article, I DO support Phil Robertson's right to say it.
In the end, I doubt the author of the article, Drew Magary, referred to all of his notes from the interview accurately. Thus, creating a more controversial article, selling more magazines and promoting himself into the limelight.
I work with a nice woman who happens to be a lesbian. There are a few bible thumping people who work along side of us who strongly disapprove of her lifestyle "choice" and have voiced their opinions quite loudly. This doesn't bother her though. She knows the truth and is happy being who she is.
In the end, I doubt the author of the article, Drew Magary, referred to all of his notes from the interview accurately. Thus, creating a more controversial article, selling more magazines and promoting himself into the limelight.
I work with a nice woman who happens to be a lesbian. There are a few bible thumping people who work along side of us who strongly disapprove of her lifestyle "choice" and have voiced their opinions quite loudly. This doesn't bother her though. She knows the truth and is happy being who she is.
It's not right for A&E to boot Phil Robertson off the network. For the most part, the show promotes a good, clean and healthy (despite the ratty beards) way of living. They have wholesome values which is prominently conveyed to their viewers each week. Although, Phil dislikes the amount of religion that fails to make it to the air, I'm happy that I don't have to listen to the jargon. If anything, A&E should learn from CBS's Big Brother debacle this past summer, and simply post a warning at the start of every episode absconding themselves of any shared beliefs and/or opinions stated during the program (or the members thereafter).
The rest of the Robertson family are proudly standing by the family head and have clearly stated that they'll walk away from the smash A&E hit if Phil isn't allowed to be a part of the program. I love this show and will miss seeing it every week, but I respect their decision to quit and support it whole-heartedly.
They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks... I honestly believe that this old dog [Phil] doesn't need to be taught any lessons. I DO believe that America simply needs to relax and not be so damned sensitive. Quit being so.... uh... never mind.
They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks... I honestly believe that this old dog [Phil] doesn't need to be taught any lessons. I DO believe that America simply needs to relax and not be so damned sensitive. Quit being so.... uh... never mind.
