Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended from Duck Dynasty

Duck and PalinWhy Phil Robertson Got Suspended from Duck Dynasty

“Good Morning America” anchor Robin Roberts used a Facebook post to acknowledge what friends and co-workers have long known: She is gay.

Excuse me please, but what is this doing on the Front Page of my morning computer? It is very much as if I am supposed to care. Now there in starts even a bigger and often times more bitter go around.

Personally I could care less about a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or which bathroom they would care to use. As a matter of pure unadulterated fact these entire issues are making me rather ill.

More often than not I try and read or gain information on the case that made some people uncomfortable at first, yet in the long term believing that those involved with the boycott came to their senses about their individual liberties. But most importantly it was not about what was contained within the magazines but it was very much about control.

Now and please stay with me here, how is it that one person during an interview mentions his personal feelings about gays and some sort of racial remark, to get the largest special rights organization – GLAAD – among many, many other advocates to the LGBT cause start screaming with hatred how this man has abused their right – somehow.

Ambrosino, a gay writer from Baltimore, was conscientious to point out that when it was first founded in 1985, GLAAD did good work for the gay and lesbian community by holding the media to inclusive standards and aiding in the normalization of gays in our society.

Remind you of Duke Univ?

Remind you of Duke Univ?

Whenever I hear that someone is anti-this or that, I immediately think of the old quip about MADD – are there any mothers for drunk driving? – And ask myself if anyone is really in favor of the particular thing being protested. Think about that.

Founded in 1985 in the wake of the AIDS crisis, GLAAD was formed to protest skewed coverage of LGBT issues and “to put pressure on media organizations to end homophobic reporting.” The original name was an acronym for “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,” and although the organization has recently rebranded itself by deciding that the letters G-L-A-A-D aren’t actually going to stand for anything anymore, their reputation for protesting defamatory speech is well known both within and without the LGBT community.

When a media figure gets suspended for making an offensive statement, the tricky thing often is figuring out which part of it he or she got suspended for.

Star and duck-call mogul Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, for instance, was indefinitely suspended by A&E Wednesday after an interview with GQ Magazine in which he called homosexuality sinful — like, in his words, drunkenness, bestiality, promiscuity, and terrorism — and in specifically anatomical terms saying why he thought being gay was “illogical.” Where is the anger?

But which was the actionable part? Was he suspended for believing that being gay is a sin? For saying it aloud, or for saying it in those unghastly terms?

In TV, writers talk about getting notes from the network to “make the subtext text.” That is, rather than be subtle, or hint at the meaning of a scene or dialogue without saying it in so many words, you need to make it clear so that nobody in your audience misses it. Robertson got in trouble, for once in TV history, for making the subtext text — for being explicit about the conservative Christianity that, when it was subtext, was a selling point for him and for his show.

But for at least part of the huge Duck Dynasty audience, the Robertson’s’ faith is part of the appeal: the fact that they are public, devout Christians with a public platform, even if their faith was mostly background to the zany family antics. They might not be preaching, but if you cared enough you knew: they were keeping it real. And then there was the part of the show’s vibe that was less religious than cultural, but was still connected: that the show was about nostalgia, for the authentic ways, old days, and down-home values.

For tomorrow we will lead with how this particular action of GLAAD influencing A&E to the point that the decision made to put Robertson on “Hiatus” from the show was devised actually prior to GQ actually released the first copy of the interview.

quote_top

About Jon-Paul

Academia, Constitution, Musicianship, all around Caucasian male, straight, and professes Jesus Christ as the Lord of my life. Guitars -- Classical, Acoustic, A/E, Strat, a real bassist at heart, Les Paul Standard bass.
This entry was posted in Political Correctness and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended from Duck Dynasty

  1. The Duck bloke’s comments could be called unChristian in that they are mocking. There is a deliberate refusal to understand, without which there can be no Love.

    You ask us to help you out, so please consider “hate speech”, speech designed to dehumanise outsiders so that they may be victimised more easily. Hate speech is at its worst in the condemnation of the Jews by Nazi Germany- I narrowly avoid Godwin by specifically saying that Duck’s comments do not come in that league- and shades off into mockery of fat people. It could not be made illegal in the US without a constitutional amendment, but in Canada the law balances the harm hate speech may do with the need for free speech. Do look it up, there is a Wikipedia article.

    Duck’s comments are not the best advert for Christianity. We have a high view of sex as a gift from God, which should be better than any worldly view. So, it is better to tell of the gifts and promises of God- whatever is pure, holy, of good report etc think on these things- rather than to mock gay people.

    • Jon-Paul says:

      Clare Flourish:

      Thank you for your response to my article. Although there is a lot of judgmental emphasis placed in your speech patterns, I will say that, that is what makes writing, interviewing, and so forth as interesting as well as sickening as it might be.

      It is noteworthy to add that “You ask us to help you [me]? out” it is at this point where I must assist you with your reading. That comment is added on to every article I write insofar as I (most of the time) enjoy hearing what my readers are thinking. Sort of a pulse on readership; or in the event of misunderstanding something I’ve written then hopefully I can set the record straight.

      I am not altogether certain if we read the same article that appears in Gentleman’s Quarterly Magazine and well-written by Drew Magary. An article where I find very little, if any, “hate speech.” Furthermore, in the article I reference I am at a loss when you spew your belittlement of the USA as well as “rather than mock gay people.”

      This is precisely the thesis of my own article. The way I chose to open it with the reference to Robin Roberts’ sexual conduct publically displayed in the main-stream media and just as I stated with GLAAD indeed losing its prowess as an advocacy group as well as you and several others going after this man — not in what he said mind you — rather in the way you’ve distorted it.

      Thank you,

      jps

      • Jon-Paul says:

        Hello Clare Flourish! It is lovely to hear from you so quickly after our last communiqués; however, as I mentioned it is not our intention to confuse anyone. Therefore, since you are experiencing confusion of my words, let us look at your words first insofar as those words are the vehicles that may have caused some of your confusion.

        I mean this with respect because you have earned respect, from some of your readers. Albeit, that does not give a person license to make assumptions, or try and change direction of an original writing with discourse that is about as lofty and unprepared as your writing was to me.

        I use the words “lofty” insofar as you’re pointing fingers at Mr. Duck, playing the authority of “hate speech” and then introducing Godwin into some issue he clearly doesn’t belong in; begging your pardon, your writing of dehumanization and victimization are simply not in the article you are responding too. Moreover, they come across as a plethora of knowledge; yet, they do the opposite.

        Are you a licensed therapist? The only reason I ask is in the notion of why anyone would convey political viewpoints denouncing the U.S. Constitution in support of Canada’s all whilst informing the author to look it up in Wikipedia!

        And finally – save the best for last – Mr. “Duck’s advert for Christianity.” And your demonstrative attempt at quoting Philippians 4:8… We, as Christians are told never to add to God’s word. This was more in a study for me than anything else; subsequently, I thought it may be an idea for you to see how and what you write may be discerned by others.

        Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:1-2)
        Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)
        The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shall preserve them from this generation forever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

        http://www.openbible.info/topics/adding_to_the_bible

        http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/preserve.asp

        Cheers, jps

        • Jon-Paul says:

          Clare:
          Hello again! I am writing after nearly an entire day at your site to hopefully gain a better understanding of your precepts. And thank you very much! Upon reading the available information, I do have – now- a better comprehension of you. I do have a propensity for those given to making judgmental statements and egotistical remarks. Why do you care about obscure, bearded men who display their misguidance, stupidity, and offensive behavior, who as you alluded to, are really stupid?
          Gosh, after being a guest over at your site, I am still in awe over the contempt and detestation, loathing, disgust, and extreme disliking of this person, as you clearly demonstrate. Cheers!

Comments are closed.