-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How Should christians react to Duck Dynasty and AE news?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Jacob_Elliott
New Member
We'll according to the media most "Christians" disagree with him. I think it's tragic but I don't think this is a hill to die on as it will just give A&E more publicity. There is a day to fight but I don't think it's today.
Now would be a greattime to ahve the 'christian majority" rise up though, and smack back down those in the press/media/culture that haveus running scared, thinking that they in their liberal sicial gospel have 'real christianity!"
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Today may not be the day to fight, and the "hill to die on" shouldn't be a cable TV show.
However, it would be tragic--and I'd argue, sinful--to bury our heads in the sand, not seeing this as the changing winds of war...
The Archangel
However, it would be tragic--and I'd argue, sinful--to bury our heads in the sand, not seeing this as the changing winds of war...
The Archangel
UNfortunately....
....when he signed that big old television contract, he had the clauses like most of us in public service, that we are not to go around spouting off as to our beliefs on things that can be taken as offensive by the public.
As a State of California employee for more than 17 years, I always had the clause hanging over my head that basically limited my speech, and any activity in political activity.
I had to live with it, and while I feel badly for Phil, he had to have known that he had to temper his beliefs when it came to political hot potatoes!
An example, my immediate manager, before I moved up to management in 1991, was handing out rally information for Bill Clinton's appearance in our area of Southern Cali, and someone took offense, turned him to HR, and he was hit with a reprimand and docked a months!
This is the world we live in today. There is no separation of job and freedom of speech, when it comes to certain positions! If I were the Duck family, I'd duck out on A&E and let them lose the revenue their show brought into the network.
They will be just fine, with speaking engagements and preaching jobs. This will probably elevate their status in the minds of the conservative church folks!
....when he signed that big old television contract, he had the clauses like most of us in public service, that we are not to go around spouting off as to our beliefs on things that can be taken as offensive by the public.
As a State of California employee for more than 17 years, I always had the clause hanging over my head that basically limited my speech, and any activity in political activity.
I had to live with it, and while I feel badly for Phil, he had to have known that he had to temper his beliefs when it came to political hot potatoes!
An example, my immediate manager, before I moved up to management in 1991, was handing out rally information for Bill Clinton's appearance in our area of Southern Cali, and someone took offense, turned him to HR, and he was hit with a reprimand and docked a months!
This is the world we live in today. There is no separation of job and freedom of speech, when it comes to certain positions! If I were the Duck family, I'd duck out on A&E and let them lose the revenue their show brought into the network.
They will be just fine, with speaking engagements and preaching jobs. This will probably elevate their status in the minds of the conservative church folks!
I have no idea what his contract says I have not had a chance to read it but I do know that the entire family has always been very vocal and upfront about their beliefs and have never been willing to refrain from sharing.
Bottom line is that this is not necessarily a negative for DD but it is a huge negative for A&E. If they lose DD they will lose a lot of revenue. Glenn Beck has offered to host them. I am sure other stations would love to as well.
Bottom line is that this is not necessarily a negative for DD but it is a huge negative for A&E. If they lose DD they will lose a lot of revenue. Glenn Beck has offered to host them. I am sure other stations would love to as well.
evenifigoalone
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to lie--I'm not sure.
My first inclination was anger--freedom of friggen speech, people! Sheesh. And I do believe we have every right to this freedom of speech. I've gotten into some arguments over that one. Because although my views differ slightly I find it unfair how anyone who does oppose gay marriage is demonized and bullied. That ticks me off.
On the other hand, A&E is not the government and so aren't they free to decide what can and cannot be run on their network? I'm not saying I agree--I think it was stupid and they'll definitely be sorry for it if the family decides to take the entire show off the air. But still.
Think about it this way--if a person from a popular show like that were to come out in support of say, racism...how would you feel? Would you agree with the TV station's action then?
Because after all the secular world views disagreement with homosexuality or opposition of gay marriage as on par with racism. And unless the secular world comes to a belief in Christ, that probably is not going to change. Not saying I agree with it, but that is how they see it.
Or--let's toss it up a little...what about boycotting shows with a person in it that supports gay marriage? Like they just say it once or twice in an interview and it's a good show otherwise, but then a lot of Christians uproar and decide to boycott the show anyway and request that the network take it down? Wouldn't that also go against freedom of speech?
My first inclination was anger--freedom of friggen speech, people! Sheesh. And I do believe we have every right to this freedom of speech. I've gotten into some arguments over that one. Because although my views differ slightly I find it unfair how anyone who does oppose gay marriage is demonized and bullied. That ticks me off.
On the other hand, A&E is not the government and so aren't they free to decide what can and cannot be run on their network? I'm not saying I agree--I think it was stupid and they'll definitely be sorry for it if the family decides to take the entire show off the air. But still.
Think about it this way--if a person from a popular show like that were to come out in support of say, racism...how would you feel? Would you agree with the TV station's action then?
Because after all the secular world views disagreement with homosexuality or opposition of gay marriage as on par with racism. And unless the secular world comes to a belief in Christ, that probably is not going to change. Not saying I agree with it, but that is how they see it.
Or--let's toss it up a little...what about boycotting shows with a person in it that supports gay marriage? Like they just say it once or twice in an interview and it's a good show otherwise, but then a lot of Christians uproar and decide to boycott the show anyway and request that the network take it down? Wouldn't that also go against freedom of speech?
Last edited by a moderator:
Boycotting and protesting are forms of speech.
A & E needs to get over themselves right along with all those people out there who so desire to be offended by what was said. They force their life style(s) onto the rest of us but how dare we take exception to them. This crowd making up Duck Dynasty will hang in no matter what happens to Phil as the money keeps flowing in their direction.
For sure, it's a good thing we have TV Show Producers watching out for and deciding what's best for the rest of us. Yes in deed!
Give me a break....
Perhaps the promoters of Madonna will soon be forth coming with a documentary on morals.
For sure, it's a good thing we have TV Show Producers watching out for and deciding what's best for the rest of us. Yes in deed!
Give me a break....
Perhaps the promoters of Madonna will soon be forth coming with a documentary on morals.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zaac
Well-Known Member
We should keep loving folks and keep preaching the Gospel unabashedly and unashamedly.
I'm disappointed that he's not allowed to express his beliefs without penalty.
But on the other hand, I'd just assume that people who sell alcohol and teach that baptism is required before you can be saved not have a platform to increase their popularity for more people to possibly pursue the false teachings of their church.
shadow0421
New Member
I don't think they can just quit their show. I'm sure that would break their contract but I think the whole family should go public with their views and let A&E suspend the whole family. Then let's see how much money A&E loses. I mean, family is already rich. They really don't need A&E. I sincerely hope Phil doesn't back down and apologize. I seem to see alot of liberal tv stars have no problem talking about political issues but I don't see networks suspending them.
It happens.
MSNBC suspended Alec Baldwin on Friday after a furor stirred by a gay slur that he made in a confrontation with reporters this week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/business/media/msnbc-suspends-baldwin-and-show.html?_r=0
Martin Bashir, the MSNBC host who has come under fire for the controversial remarks he made about Sarah Palin, is "on vacation" and will not host his namesake afternoon program on Monday, POLITICO has learned. Sources at the network said Bashir had been temporarily suspended from the network following graphic remarks he made last month about the former governor from Alaska.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media...hir-on-vacation-after-sarah-palin-178643.html
evenifigoalone
Well-Known Member
So people are allowed to express their opinions if they are against gay marriage, but if they are for it the show should be suspended? (Maybe you wouldn't request that the show be suspended, but that was in the hypothetical situation in my post.)
Boycotting and not watching the show are one thing. That's a right we have--"you have your free speech, but we don't have to like what you say."
But those who wanted to boycott Chic-Fil-A simply for having a CEO who had a negative opinion on gay marriage got slammed by most Christians? And I thought it was dumb myself, and still do--I'm not going to boycott a restaurant over the personal views of it's originator or staff. But those boycotting did have a right to do so if they wanted.
well, having a drink by itself is NOT sinning, nor have I heard them state that one must be water baptized, but have heard them state must place faith and trust in Jesus to get saved!
He is not in the Military, so how can he sign away his constitutional rights to be able to have freedom of religion, and to freely expess those views in public fashion if asked?
A&E has the right to fire him, but also think that they should feel the heat for deciding that way, and this should be a wake up call to the Christians to stand for their rights as Americans! Paul did that with his Roman rights...
You have a right to choose, BUT, you DO NOT have a right to choose the consequences of your choice.
Phil is feeling the effects of his choice - but so will A&E!
We are called to be faithful, not to consider the consequences of being faithful. We all know the general result of being faithful as a Christian - some level of persecution.
A&E does not serve the same God we do, so the consequences of their choice may be a temp. boon, OR a drastic bust, depending on the lesson God proposes to teach.
Phil is feeling the effects of his choice - but so will A&E!
We are called to be faithful, not to consider the consequences of being faithful. We all know the general result of being faithful as a Christian - some level of persecution.
A&E does not serve the same God we do, so the consequences of their choice may be a temp. boon, OR a drastic bust, depending on the lesson God proposes to teach.
I wasn't in the military!
I was employed by the state. I also had similar contracts with the City I worked for when I managed the Summer yout employment programs; when I worked for the Boy Scouts as a Commissioned District Executive; and when I taught as a substitute teacher.
I was forbidden to speak about my religion both at work and after work hours! It kept me from serving as a pastor, but I made good money as these were always grant jobs [accept the BSA] and paid extremely well. Plus, they were not long lasting! The longest grant I worked was three years.
However, my morality clause with the state of California was nearly 17 years, and I was allowed a waiver during the times I preached on weekends, I had to promise to not say anything against the politics or leadership of the state.
It was essentially a gag clause!
raying:
I was employed by the state. I also had similar contracts with the City I worked for when I managed the Summer yout employment programs; when I worked for the Boy Scouts as a Commissioned District Executive; and when I taught as a substitute teacher.
I was forbidden to speak about my religion both at work and after work hours! It kept me from serving as a pastor, but I made good money as these were always grant jobs [accept the BSA] and paid extremely well. Plus, they were not long lasting! The longest grant I worked was three years.
However, my morality clause with the state of California was nearly 17 years, and I was allowed a waiver during the times I preached on weekends, I had to promise to not say anything against the politics or leadership of the state.
It was essentially a gag clause!
raying:Seriously?
Christians should stand with him. If Christians had died on the hill of Feminism, we wouldn't be asking these questions about sodomy.
Esau wanted his pottage, so we get to keep feminism.
Lot wants to be a good neighbor, so we get to keep sodomy. And, like Lot, justified people hand over their whole quiver, when the fruitcakes threaten.
Nothin new, under the Sun.
We should do what I just did and send letters to A&E confronting them about their actions.