Phil Robertson "Fired"

[Drtooth]

You can make comments, just realize that there might be consequences. That's the problem with America nowadays. People want to protest and take a stand on something, but then we're all too spoiled to deal with the aftermath, lol.

In any case, I am a little tired of people being fired by some greedy TV network who is terrified of losing ratings. In some countries, you can still be arrested for the crime of speaking. In America, you lose your job, lol. Because of course, the only important thing in this country is making money.

Firing him had ZERO to do with gay rights or tolerance. And everything to do with preserving A&E's cash cow.

Do I like what the guy said? No. But censoring him isn't the answer. That is not tolerance.

Quoted for truth, and might I add how freaking vapid and hypocritical that is. if a celebrity says something racist or homophobic, they're terrible terrible people. But if a politician, commentator, or corrupt televangelist makes the same comments (heck, far, far worse ones) they get book deals, talk shows, and keep getting re-relected on the platform of racism and homophobia. Bret Rhatner says "pfft rehearsal is for [gay slur used by like 80% of people on the internet with the vocabulary of a 6th grader]" and he's a terrible person who should never host the Oscars with Eddie Murphy. Meanwhile, Darth Putin is spreading the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law on his country, and he doesn't even lose the Olympics.

The problem is that people have changed God's word to fit there own lifestyles. There are so many different versions of the Bible that people don't take it as the Holy Word of God. Written through man by God. Jesus main mission on this earth was lost souls. To seek and to save that which was lost. He did not come to this earth to preach issues. He came to die and raise from the dead for our sins. The Bible has a clear outline of what sins are, and if people don't like that then it is between them and God.

I do not want to harp on your beliefs, but that's exactly what I'm saying.

Stop treating the bible like it's some big Lord of the Rings holy text prophecy and take it for what it is. A series of stories and events with lessons on how to make you a better person. This whole "it's written there, don't question it" while ignoring the historical subtext is EXACTLY what is wrong with religion. Footnotes and historical references are not codes of behavior. Biblical scholars have been debating what certain things mean for decades. Why are we ignoring them, who are having a thoughtful and interesting conversation, and just quoting biblical verses out of context like that's spirituality? It isn't.

Leviticus wasn't the word of God. It was ancient law that doesn't apply today thrown in for historical context. Marriage for love didn't exist, it was all like cattle trading. I fail to see why a historical footnote is the major test of faith for Christianity. But hey... it's written there, so...

 

[CensoredAlso]

Quoted for truth, and might I add how freaking vapid and hypocritical that is. if a celebrity says something racist or homophobic, they're terrible terrible people. But if a politician, commentator, or corrupt televangelist makes the same comments (heck, far, far worse ones) they get book deals, talk shows, and keep getting re-relected on the platform of racism and homophobia. Bret Rhatner says "pfft rehearsal is for [gay slur used by like 80% of people on the internet with the vocabulary of a 6th grader]" and he's a terrible person who should never host the Oscars with Eddie Murphy. Meanwhile, Darth Putin is spreading the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law on his country, and he doesn't even lose the Olympics.

It's true. Hollywood has the liberal reputation but in reality they don't really look out for their artists too much.

This whole "it's written there, don't question it" while ignoring the historical subtext is EXACTLY what is wrong with religion.

I completely agree with you. I don't see understanding the Bible's historical context as a problem. Rather it's a privilege to learn about how these people lived, good and bad.

At the same time I can kinda understand why some Christians take the "Bible is always right" approach. They are concerned that some sects might come up with abusive beliefs that directly contradict the Bible.

 

[mr3urious]

It's true. Hollywood has the liberal reputation but in reality they don't really look out for their artists too much.

Hollywood is only liberal when it's safe, fashionable, and profitable enough to be so.

 

[Drtooth]

I completely agree with you. I don't see understanding the Bible's historical context as a problem. Rather it's a privilege to learn about how these people lived, good and bad.

At the same time I can kinda understand why some Christians take the "Bible is always right" approach. They are concerned that some sects might come up with abusive beliefs that directly contradict the Bible.

Definitely. There is truth and wisdom in there, but some of it lies in the subtext and messages of the stories. Essentially, it boils down to there are wise people who want to help others and there are wicked people who want to hurt others. And to the people in between, there's lessons in the lives of both that should guide you on to becoming a better person.

Leviticus was essentially the Brainy Smurf of the Bible. The smarmy little egotistical jerk that kept bothering the other Smurfs with rules that no one liked (in universe) and even Papa Smurf was exasperated by him. So we have some guy running around shouting rules of the land to be a killjoy. And somehow certain parts of Christianity value his word over everyone else in the Bible. And not even the stuff about shellfish and mixed fabric blends. Just the gay thing. You have the entire rest of the Bible, Old and New Testament basically saying that we need to help the less fortunate, love our fellow man, beware of greed and selfishness... and you'd think all the time and energy would go to helping the poor, sick, and miserably hopeless. No. Some guy said one thing in reference to millennial old law and it's face value and THE make or break of the entire religion.

 

[charlietheowl]

In any case, I am a little tired of people being fired by some greedy TV network who is terrified of losing ratings. In some countries, you can still be arrested for the crime of speaking. In America, you lose your job, lol. Because of course, the only important thing in this country is making money.

Employers have the right to terminate someone's employment if they use offensive speech in any way. Phil Robertson is representing A&E by being on the channel, and if he says something that A&E thinks will hurt its "brand", then they have every right to suspend/fire him. Granted, I'm sure A&E knew what he thought before and didn't care as long as it wasn't shown on TV, which is a whole other issue, but you can't run your mouth like that when you represent a larger firm.

 

[D'Snowth]

Have you not paid any attention whatsoever to this thread?

 

[MikaelaMuppet]

Have you not paid any attention whatsoever to this thread?

Sorry about that. I thought somebody would post why he got fired on here instead of the link.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Employers have the right to terminate someone's employment if they use offensive speech in any way. Phil Robertson is representing A&E by being on the channel, and if he says something that A&E thinks will hurt its "brand", then they have every right to suspend/fire him. Granted, I'm sure A&E knew what he thought before and didn't care as long as it wasn't shown on TV, which is a whole other issue, but you can't run your mouth like that when you represent a larger firm.

No, I agree. They had the right and when you represent a conglomerate, you have to expect that this can happen. I'm just saying people are certainly within their right to run their mouth off, as long as they realize it could cost them.

 

[charlietheowl]

No, I agree. They had the right and when you represent a conglomerate, you have to expect that this can happen. I'm just saying people are certainly within their right to run their mouth off, as long as they realize it could cost them.

Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you posted, guess we're on the same page.

 

[Drtooth]

Employers have the right to terminate someone's employment if they use offensive speech in any way. Phil Robertson is representing A&E by being on the channel, and if he says something that A&E thinks will hurt its "brand", then they have every right to suspend/fire him. Granted, I'm sure A&E knew what he thought before and didn't care as long as it wasn't shown on TV, which is a whole other issue, but you can't run your mouth like that when you represent a larger firm.

You mean having a TV show that makes fun of blue collar people didn't hurt the brand already?

I agree to that, but again... we treat celebrities that carry no power or weight who say hateful things like horrible monsters, yet we let politicians that say the same things keep theirs... heck, even gets them re-elected. A&E was expressing their freedom of speech, as were those who were threatening a boycott.

But again, I ask... these guys look like complete stereotypes, act like stereotypes, and generally are stereotypes... why are we shocked they'd say something terribly stereotypical? You may not be able to judge a book by it's cover, but the dust jacket usually gives you the gist of it.