Topic: A different theory on the A&E controversy with the Duck Dynasty Clan

[IronDioPriest]

...Too bad our politicans don't have the fortitiude of a Phil Robertson when the left attacks. They will not defend their beliefs. it's too bad, because if they did, they might find an America who would defend them.

People only go to the wall to defend what they actually possess, or what they find to be of great value.

[Predator Don]

...Too bad our politicans don't have the fortitiude of a Phil Robertson when the left attacks. They will not defend their beliefs. it's too bad, because if they did, they might find an America who would defend them.

People only go to the wall to defend what they actually possess, or what they find to be of great value.

True.... Our politicans are like A&E. The fold at the first sign of another  sicko group complaining. No backbone. Lost their moral compass.

[BigAlSouth]

. . .
What to do? How do we increase the audience? Why, we outrage the Christians, just look how that helped Chic-fil-A.  Any controversy really. Get flyover all riled up over a show that, perhaps 3/4 of them have never watched...but they will for a cause.  So create a cause.

. . .

KC, this was my sister's point of view: This was all contrived to increase ratings. My response was that they were the NUMBER ONE show on cable (12-14 million viewers compared to 600,000 MSNBC). Why on earth would they need to take part in such a charade?

I think the A&E folks felt like they had to do something. After all, the GLAAD PC Storm Troopers were making noise. The exec who fired Phil was hoping that the Robertson family would take the cash and go on with the show. This was a huge miscalculation on the part of A&E, which just goes to show you  that they never understood the Robertsons.

[Pandora]

The eye of Sauron may someday look your way. It could be an errant turn of phrase, a blog comment, a political onslaught, or nothing at all. Should that time come you'll have to stand proud (and very alone) or collapse in a pile of apologies and expedient groveling.

To wit:

"Steve Martin was joking with fans when a (Twitter) follower asked him, “Is this how you spell lasonia?” Martin replied: “It depends. Are you in an African-American neighborhood or at an Italian restaurant?”

Then, the fight started.

He's a *comedian*; comedians make jokes.

[KittenClaws]

. . .
What to do? How do we increase the audience? Why, we outrage the Christians, just look how that helped Chic-fil-A.  Any controversy really. Get flyover all riled up over a show that, perhaps 3/4 of them have never watched...but they will for a cause.  So create a cause.

. . .

KC, this was my sister's point of view: This was all contrived to increase ratings. My response was that they were the NUMBER ONE show on cable (12-14 million viewers compared to 600,000 MSNBC). Why on earth would they need to take part in such a charade?

I think the A&E folks felt like they had to do something. After all, the GLAAD PC Storm Troopers were making noise. The exec who fired Phil was hoping that the Robertson family would take the cash and go on with the show. This was a huge miscalculation on the part of A&E, which just goes to show you  that they never understood the Robertsons.

I am certain that the faith portrayed by the Robertson's is real.  I am also certain that A&E fully intended to exploit that faith in one way or another.

Was Phil Robertson complicit when he agreed to be interviewed by GQ? Come on, it's friggin' GQ!

Is he a defender of the faith, an exploiter of the faith, or both?

Maybe he wants out, but, his family wants to continue.  If the show goes on without him. I have my answer.  Duck Dynasty is money. Money, I've heard it said, is the root of all evil.

[Pandora]

*Love* of money is the root of evil.  It is the misplaced emotional attachment, not the inanimate object, that is the cause of trouble.  And sin.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

Like a good friend, & political activist, of mine says:

"We need to beat gays back into the closet. That's their place. That's where they belong. And that's where they're gonna' go."

These faggots deserve every consequence to the behavior they practice.

[KittenClaws]

*Love* of money is the root of evil.  It is the misplaced emotional attachment, not the inanimate object, that is the cause of trouble.  And sin.

Thanks Pan. You are correct.

My general point is, none of us know the Duck Dynasty stars personally. We only know what we see on television or hear second-hand from someone else who has watched the a television show.

We know what is presented to us. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A & E and the Duck Dynasty folks make money regardless of the controversy or because of the controversy.  Someone is laughing all the way to the bank.

[Pandora]

You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank.  It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.

I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank.  It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.

I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.

I know that Phil and one of his sons serve as Elders in the church, the highest service a Christian man can attain to. It is not bought and rarely appointed. The men have many qualifications to be recognized as such and the fact they are in such office means I have a certain respect for them at the start, unless they SHOW otherwise.  Then add on the top of that the fact that I have seen several of their UNEDITED sermons on the internet. They know the scriptures and they teach them. Phil was not raised to be a Christian and found Christ late, but he raised his sons well. Without real proof of wrong-doing, I will not lightly abandon them, not accept their modern day crucifixion. I too see no harm they have done and much good.

[Weisshaupt]

You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank.  It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.

I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.

I know that Phil and one of his sons serve as Elders in the church, the highest service a Christian man can attain to. It is not bought and rarely appointed. The men have many qualifications to be recognized as such and the fact they are in such office means I have a certain respect for them at the start, unless they SHOW otherwise.  Then add on the top of that the fact that I have seen several of their UNEDITED sermons on the internet. They know the scriptures and they teach them. Phil was not raised to be a Christian and found Christ late, but he raised his sons well. Without real proof of wrong-doing, I will not lightly abandon them, not accept their modern day crucifixion. I too see no harm they have done and much good.

I too, personally couldn't care if the Roberson's are good or evil, exploiting or spreading the faith .  They brought attention to the word. They at least appear to have stood up for us and for the faith, no matter what happened in their hearts. I can assure you that God is perfectly able to make use of the imperfect men that serve him and even the ones that do not, or who sin and fail in the myriad of ways men always do when presented with chances for wealth and power. . The Founders of this nation were all imperfect men as well, and they achieved, with what I firmly believe was God's divine assistance,  a miracle.  As Pan suggested, we don't have access to their hearts - we can only judge them by their actions. I still think the Curmudgeon called it correctly-- and it is not clear which parties are being played and exploited.  Perhaps that ambiguity will be dispelled, but for now, I am willing to bet the Robinson's knew what they were doing from the outset, trusted God to guide them, and will happily let the lucre fall from their hands  if its a choice between their faith and the coin.

[IronDioPriest]

Given how disappointed I've been in some public people in whom I've placed confidence, I think that a bit of cynicism ala KittenClaws is not out of order here. I've jumped to people's defense, only to discover my trust was utterly misplaced.

That said, I'm inclined to give Phil the benefit of the doubt, and I reject the idea that he is colluding with A&E to create ratings. Do I have any reason aside from my gut feeling to justify that? Nope.

I've given public figures the benefit of the doubt before who have let me down, and I've had as much confidence in their character as I have in Phil's.

Bottom line is, we don't know, and yet we're compelled to line up across the culture war battlefield and square-off against the evil Left. I wouldn't suggest it should be otherwise, but when considering the amount of my own credibility I want to put on the line in defense of Phil Robertson, I must remind myself that men disappoint - reliably and consistently. And in light of all that, I defend.

[KittenClaws]

You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank.  It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.

I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.

Can I be that misunderstood? Have I said once I do not wish them well, or that they have harmed anyone? No. I put forth the idea that we could possibly be being manipulated.

Maybe I'm a cynic. I'm just saying, when it fits our world view, we eat the whole hog, instead of spitting out the bones.

[KittenClaws]

Given how disappointed I've been in some public people in whom I've placed confidence, I think that a bit of cynicism ala KittenClaws is not out of order here. I've jumped to people's defense, only to discover my trust was utterly misplaced.

That said, I'm inclined to give Phil the benefit of the doubt, and I reject the idea that he is colluding with A&E to create ratings. Do I have any reason aside from my gut feeling to justify that? Nope.

I've given public figures the benefit of the doubt before who have let me down, and I've had as much confidence in their character as I have in Phil's.

Bottom line is, we don't know, and yet we're compelled to line up across the culture war battlefield and square-off against the evil Left. I wouldn't suggest it should be otherwise, but when considering the amount of my own credibility I want to put on the line in defense of Phil Robertson, I must remind myself that men disappoint - reliably and consistently. And in light of all that, I defend.

Note my earlier disclaimer. I have never watched Duck Dynasty. I knew it existed, I just was not interested.  I knew the stars were Christians, so I thought the shows  popularity was significant and meaningful as a reflection of faith in this country.

Now there is this controversy.  Surely, I must start watching to defend Phil...and not just Phil, but the very Foundation of Christandom!

How many Christians are tuning in to defend Christ, through Phil, by proxy?

Not this one.  I'm still not interested in the show.

I'm happy Phil is defending the faith. Ecstatic. I just don't buy into it. I do not think God needs good ratings on A & E.

Don't get mad at me ok? I'm really not trying to be mean.

[Alphabet Soup]

You expressed my sentiment very well. I don't watch TV so I haven't seen the show. I'm not engaging the left to defend Phil - he's doing a great job of standing up for himself - but I fight evil right along side of him.

[Pandora]

You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank.  It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.

I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.

Can I be that misunderstood? Have I said once I do not wish them well, or that they have harmed anyone? No. I put forth the idea that we could possibly be being manipulated.

No.  Did I write that?  No again.  The only reference I made to your post was about laughing to the bank.

I'm not being manipulated -- I've never watched the show either -- but Soup expresses my point:

I'm not engaging the left to defend Phil - he's doing a great job of standing up for himself - but I fight evil right along side of him.

Maybe I'm a cynic. I'm just saying, when it fits our world view, we eat the whole hog, instead of spitting out the bones.

And I don't believe I have done so.  Regardless of what is in Phil's Robertson's heart, it is his words -- whether he truly believes them or not -- that strike Truth.  That is for what I stand and what I defend, and his right to say them.

Easy, KC; you're among friends, yes? 

[KittenClaws]

You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank.  It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.

I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.

Can I be that misunderstood? Have I said once I do not wish them well, or that they have harmed anyone? No. I put forth the idea that we could possibly be being manipulated.

No.  Did I write that?  No again.  The only reference I made to your post was about laughing to the bank.

I'm not being manipulated -- I've never watched the show either -- but Soup expresses my point:

I'm not engaging the left to defend Phil - he's doing a great job of standing up for himself - but I fight evil right along side of him.

Maybe I'm a cynic. I'm just saying, when it fits our world view, we eat the whole hog, instead of spitting out the bones.

And I don't believe I have done so.  Regardless of what is in Phil's Robertson's heart, it is his words -- whether he truly believes them or not -- that strike Truth.  That is for what I stand and what I defend, and his right to say them.

Easy, KC; you're among friends, yes?

Well, of course I'm among friends! How else could I say what's on my mind?

I'm on Phil's side in general. But not in particular.

I'm a little "black or white" on this issue.  Defending Christianity is important. Defending free speech is as well.  But the focus is not the man or his perceived perfection or imperfection.  Phil may have given Christians a platform, but his show, or himself is not the platform.  The two should not be confused.

[BigAlSouth]

KC, you are spot on with some of your observations. One writer asked the same question: Why would A & E allow Phil to be interviewed by GQ? After all, their audience is the urban, young, progressive crowd. "What good could have come of it?"

The theory is out there that A & E was complicit in the ambush in an attempt to get rid of Phil. That he would finally say something that would cause a great moral outrage; that the Jesus Freak had just gone too far. The plan was to get rid of Phil, and to allow the rest of the family carry on as if nothing had happened.

Somebody miscalculated.

[Libertas]

I used to read a lot, but I cannot remember the last book I read. My wife buries herself with reading.

I highly recommend this one.

http://fearlessnavyseal.com/

The obstacles this man endured to become one of America's fighting elite is truly an amazing story. It's one of those reads that's hard to put down.

I have to get a copy of this!

 

As for DD & A&E, I don't give Hollywood an excess of benefit of intelligence.  Having said that they do have an agenda.  Where agenda meets profits, profits will give way because they'll simply find something else to exploit.  There is no way this arrangement would last forever, and I doubt either party would argue different. A&E cannot end this without getting crap in their face, the DD guys are just too  smart to let a bunch of Hollywood jackasses get the drop on 'em, if A&E thinks they can wriggle out if this without looking like PC stooges they are only fooling themselves.  The Robertson's can roll with whatever comes and not have a single worry one way or the other.  The nice thing being true to your principles and beliefs is never having to remember what they are from moment to moment.  Progressives can't remember half the crap that comes out their mouths...let alone the reasons behind them.