A&E suspended Phil Robertson

[evince]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbi...ty-suspension/



The NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E expressing "outrage and deep concern about the recent racist, homophobic, and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson."

"Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street," the letter states.

"And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science. In fact, it's important to note that every single leading medical organization in the country has said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being LGBT -- it's not a choice, and to suggest otherwise is dangerous."




I think the NAACP knows the history so fuck off super duper

 

[Jarod]

What the hell is your point GARUD? Clear Channel and A&E both had the right to ban/suspend the Ditzie chicks and Robertson. Both the Ditzie Chicks and Robertson had the right to say what they/he did. So what is your point that you so desperately want to make that you keep trying to bring up Clear Channel?

So you are going to continue to avoid the question? I understand, I would want to avoid it if I were in your shoes also.

 

[evince]

super is an expert on nothing

he will tell you he is but its all bullshit and bluster

 

[leaningright]

I know many of you Cons want to confuse and avoid the question, but it was clear... not did you agree Clear Channel had the right, but did you support what they did?

As a conservative I'll answer your question even though I know you're a lawyer and will twist my words.

Clear channel had a right to ban whomever they wanted to.

A&E has a right to suspend whomever they want to.

 

[kiki]

Now I'll address this. I was on my way out the door to my son's school Christmas play when I read it. Yes, Paul (who was formerly Saul) was the author of it. He most likely wrote it between 50 and 60 A.D. As I said, he was formerly called "Saul" and was most definitely a persecutor of Christians. He arrested them and took them to Jerusalem under the authority of the Sanhedrin. On the road to Damascus he had an encounter with Christ, went to the city of Damascus and was told what to do to become a Christian by a disciple named Ananias, after which he obeyed and became a Christian himself. He was a "chosen vessel" to take the gospel message to the Gentiles. When talking about his life years later he described himself as one who was a blasphemer, a persecutor and an insolent man, but he said he did it ignorantly and in unbelief. He was converted to Christianity and changed his life, not unlike Phil Robertson.

He then went on to write at least 13 of the books that make up the New Testament. Here is where you and I will no doubt disagree but I believe Paul, and in fact all the writers of the Bible were divinely inspired and what they wrote was literally from the mind of God. This is a belief held by all of the fundamentalists that I know.

So to your last question, are there adulterers and murderers in heaven? I believe that when those who get to go to heaven go there, that there will be those who have committed adultery and murder and even some who have participated in homosexuality there. But they, like Paul and Phil and any of us, will have repented and been converted. It is the law of God. Let me quote a little further from the same place Phil started from:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NKJV)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

These were Christians Paul was writing to. Notice the past tense...they were unrighteousness, fornicators, etc. But they changed.

So yes I know very well who Paul was.

Jesus was born between 4 B.C.E. and 6 C.E. The first written testimony about Jesus comes from the epistles of Paul, dated between 48 and 50 C.E., some two decades after Jesus's death. None of the gospels, with the exception of Luke, were written by the person after whom they were named. They are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus's words and deeds recorded by people who knew him. How many times do you think his Greek writings have been translated?
Does God speak to you? Is it possible that God speaks to me?
Do you think God spoke to John Newton?
What does Psalm 139 mean to you?
I have many gay friends who have shared with me that their sexual orientation was not a choice. I know mine wasn't because I've never had a nanosecond of questioning my preference for men. I've read many stories about teenagers who have conflicted emotions about their sexual identity; some to the point where they commit suicide. If God created their innermost being, did he make a mistake?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I do, but segregation is a broader term that includes more and so when you objected to the term Jim Crow, I agreed and changed my word. Geesh, you are such a tight wad you jump at any chance to assume someone is saying something you find surprising.

LMAO... Jim Crow laws were all about segregation you dolt. Changing it to segregation does not alter the stupidity of your comments. Not once did Robertson refer to black people being happier under segregation or Jim Crow or anything of that nature. He said those that HE worked with were hard working, happy, God fearing etc...

His only reference at all to blacks being treated as inferior was when he said he was WITH them, because 'white trash' people were treated as inferior as well.

 

[Jarod]

As a conservative I'll answer your question even though I know you're a lawyer and will twist my words.

Clear channel had a right to ban whomever they wanted to.

A&E has a right to suspend whomever they want to.

Weather they had a right to do it or not is not my question.

 

[Damocles]

I have to admit, the guy has not said much that I would find offensive, I disagree with him about sin, and I disagree with him about what he seems to think Christianity is all about... but he seems to have chosen his words very carefully to express things in a non-offensive way.

That's what it seems to me. After reading the article. I don't know about agreeing with him about Christianity, I don't have a particular opinion on that religion really, but the rest of this, we agree.

 

[kiki]

several times, actually......

You are so quick to judge others. Why do you feel the need to be superior?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What the hell is your point GARUD? Clear Channel and A&E both had the right to ban/suspend the Ditzie chicks and Robertson. Both the Ditzie Chicks and Robertson had the right to say what they/he did. So what is your point that you so desperately want to make that you keep trying to bring up Clear Channel?

So you are going to continue to avoid the question? I understand, I would want to avoid it if I were in your shoes also.

Are you truly this retarded Garud? Or are you just going to sit there and lie, despite the fact that is quite clear that I answered the question?

 

[cawacko]

Setting aside racism for a minute, he said "The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash."

Is he equating being black with being trash? He could have left off the white trash part and still made his point. He could have said "I'm with the blacks because we all did the that kind of dirty work together."

I look at his comment as coming from someone who's been ingrained with casual racism all his life. If you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird you'd know what I mean.

You make an excellent observation but I see it more as him saying he was poor doing the lowest form of work and was no better than anyone else. I think we are so used to politicians who can couch things in more palatable ways and he's just kind of raw in how he says it.

Now I know nothing about Phil Robertson. He could be the biggest racist on the planet or he could be the complete opposite. We're all making assumptions (myself included) about him based off this interview and how we interpret the meaning behind his words.

 

[Jarod]

LMAO... Jim Crow laws were all about segregation you dolt. Changing it to segregation does not alter the stupidity of your comments. Not once did Robertson refer to black people being happier under segregation or Jim Crow or anything of that nature. He said those that HE worked with were hard working, happy, God fearing etc...

His only reference at all to blacks being treated as inferior was when he said he was WITH them, because 'white trash' people were treated as inferior as well.

Maybe I am being too technical here, but there was a lot of segregation that was not covered by the Jim Crow laws. I see segregation as covering a larger set of policies relating to segregation than the more narrow issues of the Jim Crow cases.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbi...ty-suspension/



The NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E expressing "outrage and deep concern about the recent racist, homophobic, and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson."

"Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street," the letter states.

"And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science. In fact, it's important to note that every single leading medical organization in the country has said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being LGBT -- it's not a choice, and to suggest otherwise is dangerous."




I think the NAACP knows the history so fuck off super duper

LMAO... so because they LIE about what he said, that someone means he said it. Can't help but notice they, like you, do not quote the man's words that somehow say that.

 

[Damocles]

he is a racist to think black people were happier under Jim Crowe

Where does he say they were "happier"? Sounds like a ton of straw to fight there, evince. Truth doesn't seem to matter when you want to feel angry. Let's see if you can evince for us the sentence where he says they were happier under Jim Crowe.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Maybe I am being too technical here, but there was a lot of segregation that was not covered by the Jim Crow laws. I see segregation as covering a larger set of policies relating to segregation than the more narrow issues of the Jim Crow cases.

Which again is irrelevant. Robertson did not say blacks were happier because of segregation or Jim Crow. He said nothing even remotely close to that absurdity.

 

[Jarod]

That's what it seems to me. After reading the article. I don't know about agreeing with him about Christianity, I don't have a particular opinion on that religion really, but the rest of this, we agree.

One thing I know about you Damocles is that you do have particular opinions about Christianity. I know you are not a Christian, but I also know you grew up in a fundamentalist family and a fundamentalist church. I have read you countless times have particular opinions on Christianity many times. Culturally you are a Christian, even if spiritually you are a Buddhist.

 

[Phantasmal]

Interesting...

So his small experience of "blacks not complaining" in an era where racial segregation, Jim Crow, and the common knowledge that blacks were lower class is tantamount as him getting along fine? I'm also astounded by his usage of referencing himself as "white trash." I assume, like I said before since blacks were perceived inferior, him getting along with them because he too was poor or perceived as second class it's ok.

Again this is why I disagree and condemn him. If blacks were happy the civil rights movement would be pointless and MLK's speech wouldn't exist. Alas this man deserves every criticism.

Even working alongside them, did he invite them home for a meal? Did he befriend them after work?

He was a white man, I seriously doubt they would complain to a white guy about their mistreatment. I wonder if he sat and talked with them during his lunch break?

 

[Damocles]

Cons, please give me an honest answer...

Did you support Clear Channel when they banned the Dixie Chicks?

Have I expressed any concern over the actions of A&E?

 

[Jarod]

Are you truly this retarded Garud? Or are you just going to sit there and lie, despite the fact that is quite clear that I answered the question?

For like the 5th time, I am not asking if you felt Clear Channel had the right to ban the Dixie Chicks.

I am asking if you supported the fact that they did it. Two very different things.

For example. I agree A&E had a right to suspend this silly person, but I wish they had not and feel it was wrong for them to do it EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO... ugh!

 

[kiki]

I also agree with this. I believe that that the left do not want anyone with any popularity saying anything is religiously, biblically or morally black and white. If they do they must be silenced. It is all about building a completely secular society resembling some of those across the pond more than the America of the past. I understand that we have done bad things in this country and things have been far from perfect, but we have most definitely forgotten how to blush.

So if your religious and popular, you'd better not believe the Bible completely or else.

Your belief is stifling and presents you as a close-minded bigot. I'm not saying that you are but to categorize all Democrats as being the same seems to fit the mold.
People have a right to express their opinions, and when they do so publicly, they should not be surprised when others offer a different opinion.
What stands out for me is the greatest gift you can give someone is love.