But as an employer, the station has the right to decide what they will allow to be seen by advertisers and viewers.
Yes - I think that's what freedom is about
a person or business managing its image. And I'm enough of a free-market supporter that I understand a network caving into political correctness. Political correctness is usually good for business. I support their right to make decisions like that.
Yet - if a business did not wish to have an image that supported same-sex marriage ---- they get attacked by the ACLU ---- which is I feel is a social inconsistency. If it's NOT a social inconsistency - the only reasonable conclusion we might draw is that society is increasingly anti-religion.
I don't think society is anti - religion, I see a trend towards keeping religion as a personal belief and not imposing those beliefs on others, or judging others based upon those beliefs.
[/b]
The BOLDED.....Thank you....religion/belief is an EXTREMELY personal thing.... to attempt to
push your belief onto me/manipulate the message to your advantage is questionable at best.
bailey bud wrote: Yes - I think that's what freedom is about
a person or business managing its image. And I'm enough of a free-market supporter that I understand a network caving into political correctness. Political correctness is usually good for business. I support their right to make decisions like that.
Yet - if a business did not wish to have an image that supported same-sex marriage ---- they get attacked by the ACLU ---- which is I feel is a social inconsistency. If it's NOT a social inconsistency - the only reasonable conclusion we might draw is that society is increasingly anti-religion.
I don't think society is anti - religion, I see a trend towards keeping religion as a personal belief and not imposing those beliefs on others, or judging others based upon those beliefs.
[/b]
The BOLDED.....Thank you....religion/belief is an EXTREMELY personal thing.... to attempt to
push your belief onto me/manipulate the message to your advantage is questionable at best.
Oh please, society is all about pushing your beliefs, manipulating the message to your advantage in order to mold the society into something you agree with. What do you call the (un)Affordable Care Act if not that exact action which you proclaim to be questionable at best? Isn't it religion with the federal government occupying the space which Phil reserves for God? Barbara Walters just recently said that the liberal/progressives viewed Obama as a messiah. How is that different from one who starts to question their faith in God after the lose a loved one tragically? The human race is a faith based race home. The question is are you going to put that faith in God or in your government?
homeagain wrote: The BOLDED.....Thank you....religion/belief is an EXTREMELY personal thing.... to attempt to push your belief onto me/manipulate the message to your advantage is questionable at best.
You mean like this?
homeagain wrote: "Her wounds were too great"......she is on the other side now and perhaps will assist in the healing process of the shooter AND those who remain here on this plane.....her work is just beginning...For Claire....
???
(Disclaimer - I don't agree with Phil's stance, certainly A&E has the right to remove him from the show [although I think it will backfire on them]. I think GLADD overplayed their hand on this incident and I'm glad Phil lives in a country where it is still legal [for now] to publicly state his opinions in print and so forth)
Walter L Newton wrote: 1) Phil has the right to say what he believes
2) A&E has the right to fire him (he probably has a "morals" clause in his contract, standard practice)
3) Osama had arranged the death of thousands of people
4) Christians haven't been in the mass killing business since the Inquisition
5) LJ - are you suggesting that we have Phil killed?
6) LJ is still a hypocritical tool who would probably be fired if she had a job and the nerve to say the things she says here... among her coworkers.
7) At least Phil had the balls to say what he believes it in public
Sums up this situation pretty well including LJ's usual derangement.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
While I agree that Phil has the right to say what he said and A&E also has the right to suspend him, it seems to me that A&E are hypocrites. First, they knew at the outset that this family is deeply religious and should have expected this to be an issue at some point in time. Second, this was documented in a story this morning:
"This is what happened. The whole idea of the show was to parade these nouveau riche Christian hillbillies around so that we could laugh at them. "Look at them," we were supposed to say. "Look how backward they are! Look what they believe! Can you believe they really live this way and believe this stuff? See how they don't fit in? HAHAHA"
Last, they're making money off of this family hand over fist. In the end their greed has overruled their "political correctness". So hypocritical! And now even though they're suspending one of the stars of the show they're still airing the show - doh!
In the end the Robertsons will be just fine. A&E needs the Robertsons a whole lot more than the Robertsons need A&E.
If the public at large paid as much attention to things that really matter (the dwindling economy, the Marxist in the White House, the increasingly militarized police state for example) as they did to a TV show we'd be in a whole lot better shape!
Damn right A&E is being hypocritical... if they were concerned about their tender liberal comrads being offended (not neccessarily their audience), they would cancel the show instead of raking in millions and millions. That must be some kind of sin too... compromising your principles for the almigty dollar?
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
But as an employer, the station has the right to decide what they will allow to be seen by advertisers and viewers.
Yes - I think that's what freedom is about
a person or business managing its image. And I'm enough of a free-market supporter that I understand a network caving into political correctness. Political correctness is usually good for business. I support their right to make decisions like that.
Yet - if a business did not wish to have an image that supported same-sex marriage ---- they get attacked by the ACLU ---- which is I feel is a social inconsistency. If it's NOT a social inconsistency - the only reasonable conclusion we might draw is that society is increasingly anti-religion.
I don't think society is anti - religion, I see a trend towards keeping religion as a personal belief and not imposing those beliefs on others, or judging others based upon those beliefs.
Who is imposing their beliefs, Phil or A&E? I support everyone's right to be offended. I do not support censorship.
homeagain wrote: The BOLDED.....Thank you....religion/belief is an EXTREMELY personal thing.... to attempt to push your belief onto me/manipulate the message to your advantage is questionable at best.
You mean like this?
homeagain wrote: "Her wounds were too great"......she is on the other side now and perhaps will assist in the healing process of the shooter AND those who remain here on this plane.....her work is just beginning...For Claire....
???
(Disclaimer - I don't agree with Phil's stance, certainly A&E has the right to remove him from the show [although I think it will backfire on them]. I think GLADD overplayed their hand on this incident and I'm glad Phil lives in a country where it is still legal [for now] to publicly state his opinions in print and so forth)
Walter, I omitted JMO......(damned, if you do, damned if you don't.....).....you notice I left
the question OPEN (with the word perhaps).....was it a CONDEMNING COMMENT??? Was it
a negative statement? Was it offensive in it's content? I believe those questions are PERTINENT.
JMO
religion/belief is an EXTREMELY personal thing.... to attempt to
push your belief onto me/manipulate the message to your advantage is questionable at best.
In terms of "imposing" ---- you can read the GQ interview that got everyone upset:
The interviewer asked Robertson what he thought was sin ---- and he answered (granted - his answer was sloppily quoted scripture - and he has no understanding of the Islamic view of Christ). I don't see anyone imposing anything ---- I see someone answering a question.
As I said - I understand the network's decision to protect its image
but frankly, I don't see a lot of cause for hysteria from the folks that started this whole snafu.
Finally
In most world faiths - there's supposed to be connection between thought and action.
It would not be Christianity if it was solely a personal belief.
As I said - I understand the network's decision to protect its image
but frankly, I don't see a lot of cause for hysteria from the folks that started this whole snafu.
.
In the interests of protecting their image they could simply have issued a statement that they believe in diversity. Then they could have run a special highlighting Piss Christ and the crucifix covered in excrement.
Instead they made a move in the direction of censorship.
