The "Duck Dynasty" Scandal Isn't Going Away


phil-robertson

Boy has there been some interesting comments on Hidden Remote about the “Duck Dynasty” scandal. When we first posted about Phil Robertson’s remarks in GQ magazine that eventually resulted in A&E putting him on hiatus, there was no indication of the firestorm it would cause in our comments section. Before we get to the Winners and Losers, let’s take a second to look at the kind of debate this news story is generating.

Ben Lieban…your full of yourself, and feel the hurt of being ridiculed for being gay.

He does not represent A$E in his beliefs. They are his, get over it, and obtain a life.

First of all the name is Liebman, not Lieban. I’d be ok with Libman for all that mop money, but not Lieban. Second of all, I am always full of myself. While I’m not gay, some of my best friends are! But seriously folks. Let’s focus on the second line. Phil Roberston represents A&E in the same way Mickey Mouse represents Disney World. He and his family have become the face of the network. When you appear in “Holiday Greetings” for a television network then it’s safe to say you represent A&E.

How angry are people about “Duck Dynasty”? They’ve switched to ALL CAPS in their comments. Here’s another gem

BEING ON TELEVISION DOESNT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD? ARE YOU LISTENING TO YOURSELVES AS YOU WRITE THIS CRAP? NAME FOR ME, JUST ONE LIBERAL BASED/OWNED PUPPET SHOW THAT DOESNT BASH TRADITIONAL VALUES OR CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES. CERTAINLY NOT THE NEWS MEDIA!

I totally understand the need to feel like a victim. It’s reassuring, and validates paranoia. However it doesn’t take long to find two prominent left leaning pundits who lost their jobs because of inappropriate comments. In the past month MSNBC parted ways with Martin Bashir and Alec Baldwin over their insensitive statements. The reaction by A&E is the same as MSNBC or any network trying to be successful. You want a network to appeal to the widest audience possible. With one comment A&E’s biggest star judged an entire segment of the population. That’s not how you build a network.

The story also exposed the cognitive dissonance in the anger people are feeling about this issue. Check out this colorful comment.

This is first level bullshit. The man said what he believes and personally I think he’s right. I don’t even care for the show but I don’t see a reason for all the backlash and I don’t care what any faggot has to say about it. I don’t hate people for being gay but I certainly don’t agree with the lifestyle. Does that make me a bad person? No, it means I have an opinion, like a human should. Btw supporting gay rights doesn’t make you “cool” or “trendy” so cut that shit out people!

I appreciate the type of viewer who calls gay people “faggot” on one hand, but yet claims to not hate them for being gay. Jesus didn’t come across to me as the type of guy who would use the word “faggot”, but maybe that’s just me. I do agree with this comment about supporting gay rights doesn’t make you “cool” or “trendy”. It makes you normal. No one is asking people of faith to ride on a gay pride float, but today’s media environment had advanced to serve all viewers. Also can anyone explain to me what the “lifestyle” is? Does that mean breathing oxygen, and falling in love with whomever you choose? That’s called life.

Of course not all of the comments were from the Pro “Duck Dynasty” crowd.

You Christians are reprehensible in your double standards, you think that being Christians gives you ‘more rights’ than others, and when someone actually says “NO” to you, you all collectively roll over on your backs and cry “PERSECUTION”

Maybe if Christians practiced TOLERANCE, you’d get TOLERANCE in return.

While I agree in tolerance being the rule, I don’t think it is fair to paint Christianity as being an intolerant group. Not all Christians feel the same way about Homosexuality. Of course don’t take my word for it. Just listen to Pope Francis on the matter.

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality,” he continued. “I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.”

So who do we side with on this issue? Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” or Pope Francis? I’ll leave that up to you.

Let’s end with what might be my favorite comment of the entire article.

I TOTALLY AGREE……WHO CALLS OUT THE GAY MAFIA ON THEIR HATE FOR CHRISTIANITY……

Well consider the Gay Mafia called out right here in the pages of Hidden Remote. You hear me Gay Mafia? No longer will you be able to extort money from high schools who want to put on “West Side Story”. No longer will shopkeepers cower in fear when you deliver new linen shirts for the summer. When you try to buy a used Subaru Forrester we will be there to stop you. We won’t be bullied by the Gay Mafia into dressing better and becoming more accepting of other people. You hear us Don Homo?

In all seriousness, and after this piece I can understand if you don’t think that possible, the right to free speech is still an important part of society, but it’s not a universal right. Think of the old “screaming fire in a crowded theater” exercise. Phil Robertson has the right to think and say anything he wants. It’s what makes this country, and this post so vibrant. But the same rights that extend to Phil also extend to people who want to get him off their radar. I’d prefer for A&E to reinstate Robertson and let the viewers remote controls decide his fate.

Like Hidden Remote on Facebook!

Subscribe to Hidden Remote’s Newsletter for the best TV talk on the Web

Tags: A&E Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson

  • Maegan

    So, what, a person’s not allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours otherwise they’re intolerant? Oh, hi pot, what’s that you were saying about the kettle? Also I highly doubt msnbc parted ways with Alec Baldwin over his “leftist” comments.

  • opc3000

    Now let’s exam your comment, “Phil Robertson represents A&E in the same way Mickey Mouse represents Disney World”.
    You’re comparing a fictional character in Mickey Mouse to a real person in Phil Robertson. Seriously?

    And your article is the dissection of the rantings of the comments on an story that actual journalists have already weighed in on.

    Come on Ben…..

    • Nelani

      ROTFLMAO!!! THAT is the best you can come up with? To rant about a comparison that is, in fact, valid? He did not COMPARE Phil Roberston to Mickey Mouse. He stated that Phil was representing A&E much as Mickey Mouse represents Disneyland. If you are going to try to have a battle of wits with someone, please come armed next time. Just my opinion of course. You know, those things we are all allowed to have? ;) Happy Trolling!

  • opc3000

    Furthermore, what I see as an observer is those that side with the acceptance of homosexuality and equating it to civil rights tend to discriminate against those who would challenge that mantra and bullying all who oppose it. Kind of ironic coming from supporters of the acceptance of homosexuality who stand on the platform of “tolerance” and “anti-bullying”.

    Also, those that oppose tolerance of homosexuality stand on their faith and beliefs while spouting hate. Also ironic, coming from a group that espouse the living word yet do not live by it.

    Guess which side i stand on Ben? I’m not going to fling hatred your way as others on the side of faith and values would but i will stand for my faith and beliefs and no matter how you try to defend homosexuality, everything points to it being unnatural and I would be more than happy to have a discussion on that subject with you Ben. God bless.

    • Robert W Soderstrom

      John 8:7, you should read it; what’s more, you should try to understand it. It tells a nice little story but more importantly it means keep your mouth shut. Throwing stones is really just a metaphor for saying judgmental things that hurt when they’re flung. For example, when you say something stupid like, “…everything points to it being unnatural…” “it” being homosexuality; you are in fact hurling stones. Let’s talk about “unnatural for a moment, are you not aware that homosexual behavior can be found all over the natural world? You know the world I’m talking about don’t you, the one God made? So in point of fact, homosexuality is a very common, very “natural” occurrence. Apparently, God said “Let it be so.” And what about Homosexuality being a sin, the bible doesn’t prescribe any special significance to homosexuality at all. In fact I can think of seven really bad ones and being a homo isn’t among them. I can think of ten commandments and no where in those commandments does it say, “thou shalt not covet thy buddies penis.” So apparently, gluttony, lust, murder, stealing, ignoring the Sabbath and disrespecting ones parents are all worse ways to sin than two women tying the knot. I think you suffer from a little too much righteousness, but I’m sure God loves you anyway.

      • opc3000

        You take John 8:7 out of context as it speaks of Adultery sir but I’ll give you that the underlying point John the Apostle wrote about let he without sin cast the first stone and paralleled by Matthew 7:1-6 is a point well taken. That’s very different from what I wrote in my post above. I pointed out the irony on both sides, never judging, condemning, or condoning the actions of either side. Please quote in my post above, objectively, not subjectively, where I did either of the three.

        To your point about homosexuality being unnatural, you need look no further than Romans 1:21-32. The Gospel of Paul in the Bible was written by Paul (Simon Peter) who God (Jesus) hands the key to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:18-19) giving Paul (one of the 12 disciples, 1st hand witness to the work of Jesus Christ) the authority to carry on the teachings of Christ through what Jesus calls the living word. So although it is not “specifically” addressed as being one of the 10 commandments, or any of the laws of Moses from the testament, it is addressed and backed by the authority of God. Please read Romans as it is an awesome guide on living as well as reinforces the teachings and gospel of Jesus Christ.

        To your point about righteousness, I think it’s very important to define what you think the definition of righteousness is and how Jesus Christ specifically defines what righteousness means in the Gospels of Mark, John, and Matthew means. Those Gospels are fist hand accounts of what Jesus taught. Once you accept the biblical definition of righteousness is, we can move forward in a biblical conversation on homosexuality.

        Lastly I think a better understanding your part of the Old Testament and the New Testament, and how the relevance to your salvation as a modern day Christian (if you chose Christianity as the faith you put stock in for your salvation), there wouldn’t be so much quoting scripture out of context to suit a narrative that’s clearly contradictory in both scripture and nature.

        P.S. I forgot to address homosexuality in the natural world. So there’s no proof that homosexuality it genetically passed on i.e. something beyond our ability to control like, our skin color, eye color, height, weight, or basically the outcome of your individual physiology. In short, please show me proof that there’s a “gay gene” as there is a gene for all traits I mentioned prior. Then we can further discuss homosexuality from the scientific stand point. But I’ll humor you if you can humor me for a moment. Now, science being a construct of man, take science out of the equation (because you clearly want to address the “natural world”) and answer me this; If “nature” decided tomorrow that both genders in the human species were now gay, in nature, how would we carry on the species if nature decides that men are no longer sexually attracted to women and women?

        • Robert W Soderstrom

          I took nothing out of context. As I clearly stated, the importance of that story is in it’s meaning. The particulars of the woman’s sin are irrelevant. When challenged by Jesus the crowd simply dispersed, they did not hang around to give commentary on the validity of their claims or the severity of the woman’s transgressions. They simply shut their mouths and left in peace. This applies directly to your statement about homosexuality. Your comments were nothing more than dressed up condemnations. You’ve made judgments where it is not your place to judge. Again the meaning of the bible is plain. It is not for you to judge, to ridicule, or to speculate. Your job as a Christian is simply to love your neighbor and to mind your business when it comes to the sins of others. Sin is a private matter between God and the sinner. If you are going to write commentary on homosexuality than you must be willing to lay your own sins on the table to be examined with equal intensity.
          Are you as willing to expose yourself as you seem to be willing to expose others?

          Romans 1:21-32 does nothing but demonstrate my own point that God doesn’t assign any special significance to homosexuality. According to this scripture it ranks right up there with gossip. Romans is speaking about humanity in general here when it says, “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error…” “…They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.” I agree homosexuals and disrespectful children are the bane of our time.

          As to your silly point of a “gay gene”, well that’s just laughable. Of course there’s no such thing, just as there is no such thing as a “straight gene”, just the same though
          I still prefer women. There is no such thing as a “blond gene” but I do like me a cute blond. There are no gene’s that dictate my favorite color be blue, but no matter how hard I try I just can’t make myself like pink more. We have no control over the things we desire, that choice is made for us by nature or by God. Now if you want to have a conversation over our ability to control our actions then you might be on to something. But if you do, let’s start by talking about your refusal to stop committing sin in your life. Then we can move on to the homos.

          And lastly, as to my assertion that homosexuality happens
          all over the natural world I recommend this article to start you off. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

          You can close your eyes to these phenomena if you wish but it happens whether you accept it or not. So if it happens in the natural world and God created the natural world than homosexuality can only be described as an act of God. And really, how bad can that be?

          • opc3000

            Simply put the New Testament states:

            Romans 1:18-32:
            18″But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people
            who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19They know the truth about
            God because he has made it obvious to them. 20For ever since the world was
            created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God
            made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and
            divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. 21Yes, they
            knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks.
            And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a
            result, their minds became dark and confused.

            22Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles. 24So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and
            degrading things with each others’ bodies. 25They traded the truth about
            God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created
            instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
            26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women
            turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex
            with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations
            with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things
            with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within
            themselves the penalty they deserved. 28Since they thought it foolish to
            acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let
            them do things that should never be done. 29Their lives became full of
            every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling,
            deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters
            of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.

            30They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too”.

            That’s pretty clear. That’s not me casting judgement on others my brother. That’s the good word. Amen. You’ll be in my prayers my brother.

          • Robert W Soderstrom

            Well done you typed a lot of words and said absolutely nothing. Regurgitating scripture doesn’t prove a thing, nor does it cause me to forget that you completely ignored my criticisms of your rebuttal. At this point I’m sure you realize your argument is beaten and that this debate is over. None the less I do appreciate the opportunity as well as your prayers, however; I’d like to invite you to also pray for clarification on the “meaning” of the Gospel. Good night.

  • Brandon

    This has nothing to with religion and it’s not about the first amendment . Phil signed a contract with A&E, which I guarantee said that they cannot put the channel into a negative light. As most contracts like that it’s basic. When he said what he said A&E considered that to be putting them in jeopardy because A&E is a LGBT friendly company and they could lose sponsors. So they let him go. Now here’s a question.. What if he was starting to be racist (which at one point he was starting to lean that way) or say white people and black people shouldn’t marry? What would’ve happened? He would’ve been fired. Nobody is censoring him. He isn’t arrested. There are consequences to what you say. So lets just call it as it is.. A ol’ timer said something stupid and got fired for it. Simple as that.

  • terry weaver

    I just find it wildly amusing that Christianity calls for tolerance, yet Christians seem to be anything but tolerant and by the same token the gay community has spent generations trying to overcome tolerance and yet when someone says something they don’t agree with, they try to silence them. My take, each side in this issue should just STFU and go back to sleep before we hurt each other.

    • Nelani

      I agree with this!! We all have our own intolerances. My only beef is that Phil Robertson used a public platform (A&E and his duck dynasty fame) to spew them. I am pretty sure A&E has riders in their contracts dealing with defamation, discrimination and harassment, as all companies large or small do. Which means they had every right to fire him. He is still welcome to vent his views out loud, even to my face. I just don’t want it in the national media where kids are blasted with the hate. Possibly gay kids who would feel shame to hear one of their beloved (if ridiculous) TV show heroes spouting them. That is abuse of position, ;)

      • terry weaver

        The only problem is Robertson didn’t say these things on the show. It was an answer to a question posed to him in an interview.

        • Nelani

          But he WAS representing A&E in that interview. As I said, people can shout what they want from the rooftops, but if it puts them in breach of contract then they have to be willing to accept the consequences. We all knew he would be back on the show. The entertainment industry bottom line will always be dollars. Thanks for the intelligent response (being sincere) sooo many trolls on these boards. ;)