'Duck Dynasty' star suspended for anti-gay remarks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beowulf said:
Free speech??? If that jerk talked in front of me that way, he'd be in the market for new teeth. Ouchies galore.
Click to expand...
What would responding with violence resolve?

Besides, according to the people who believe the family is just a bunch of rednecks, wouldn't he already be missing most of his teeth? ;)
 
Reba pay a little more attention to what I write. I said some people, not all the people in the group. Also I said that keeping your religion to yourself is more a matter of respect than law. Meaning, it's not the law. But when you push your religion, yes "sharing" your religion is pushing it on people, it's disrespectful to their beliefs. Your beliefs are not more valid or important than theirs. That's the crux of the problem, and why no amount of you, or Steinhauser, saying you "studied" it means you truly understand how it applies to other people. You say you do, but you don't show you do. That problem is very prevalent in America.
 
Reba said:
What would responding with violence resolve?

Besides, according to the people who believe the family is just a bunch of rednecks, wouldn't he already be missing most of his teeth? ;)
Click to expand...

I knew you would say that. ;)
My point is that there is really no such thing as "free speech." There are consequences.
 
ambrosia said:
Reba pay a little more attention to what I write. I said some people, not all the people in the group. Also I said that keeping your religion to yourself is more a matter of respect than law. Meaning, it's not the law. But when you push your religion, yes "sharing" your religion is pushing it on people, it's disrespectful to their beliefs. Your beliefs are not more valid or important than theirs. That's the crux of the problem.
Click to expand...

You are more eloquent than I am. :lol:
:gpost:
 
ambrosia said:
Reba pay a little more attention to what I write. I said some people, not all the people in the group. Also I said that keeping your religion to yourself is more a matter of respect than law. Meaning, it's not the law. But when you push your religion, yes "sharing" your religion is pushing it on people, it's disrespectful to their beliefs. Your beliefs are not more valid or important than theirs. That's the crux of the problem.
Click to expand...
If that's true, then we should equally be allowed to express our beliefs.

In America, people who are not Christians are equally allowed to express their beliefs or non-beliefs, so where's the problem?

Sharing or stating one's beliefs is not pushing. There is no human coercion to believe. Human beings have free will to either believe or not believe. A forced belief is a false belief.
 
Beowulf said:
Free speech??? If that jerk talked in front of me that way, he'd be in the market for new teeth. Ouchies galore.
Click to expand...

If I were to talk to you to your face the way Phil did, I can assure you I wouldn't be in the market for new teeth. I prosecute felonious assaulters.
 
Reba said:
There is no human coercion to believe.
Click to expand...

That is actually incorrect. There is human coercion to force people into belief bondage physically and mentally(through torture and manipulation at times) exists everywhere in the world. If you don't believe that, just take a look at history books or current news articles. Coercion to make people believe a certain way is alive and well: The Inquisition, James Town, 9/11. The lists go on and on and on...

Members of those groups don't have free thought and cannot think for themselves.

I'm curious. I see no requirement for constitutional law classes for a BS Political Science degree. Are those classes taken as electives?

Steinhauer, what is your training in this area as well?

As for myself, I took law classes that required brief creation and precedent research as part of my computer degree. However, even those classes combined with electives such as American Government and Business law, only lightly touch on the subjects of constitutional law(which is much more involved).

Ambrosia has valid points. And, the Duck guy is STILL not charged with a crime.
 
ambrosia said:
Reba pay a little more attention to what I write. I said some people, not all the people in the group. Also I said that keeping your religion to yourself is more a matter of respect than law. Meaning, it's not the law. But when you push your religion, yes "sharing" your religion is pushing it on people, it's disrespectful to their beliefs. Your beliefs are not more valid or important than theirs. That's the crux of the problem, and why no amount of you, or Steinhauser, saying you "studied" it means you truly understand how it applies to other people. You say you do, but you don't show you do. That problem is very prevalent in America.
Click to expand...

you would have been a good sociologist...
 
VacationGuy234 said:
That is actually incorrect. There is human coercion to force people into belief bondage physically and mentally(through torture and manipulation at times) exists everywhere in the world. If you don't believe that, just take a look at history books or current news articles. Coercion to make people believe a certain way is alive and well: The Inquisition, James Town, 9/11. The lists go on and on and on…
Click to expand...
For a person to trust Jesus Christ as Savior there is no way another person can coerce someone to do that. The only "coercion" if you want to call it that, is conviction of the Holy Spirit communicating with that person's spirit. Anyone who tries to force another person to accept Jesus as Savior is acting totally unbiblical. By man trying to use his own means to force salvation proves that he doesn't have faith in God's ways. That is a path to failure.

Members of those groups don't have free thought and cannot think for themselves.
Click to expand...
That certainly wouldn't be God's way. He wants people to come to Him thru their own free will with a clear head.

I'm curious. I see no requirement for constitutional law classes for a BS Political Science degree. Are those classes taken as electives?
Click to expand...
I don't know to which college or time frame you're referring. I don't recall if my Constitution class was an elective or required at that time (1982).

... And, the Duck guy is STILL not charged with a crime.
Click to expand...
No one said he was.
 
Reba, I was raised catholic, but I won't argue your theological points here.

All I can say is the inquisition gave it a pretty good try..

No one said he was.
Click to expand...

Then why is the law or anyone's law background an issue in this post?
 
If anything, the entire issue has to do with conduct clauses in contracts not free speech..

It's pretty simple, and I'll save the legal jargon, you don't hurt the bottom line of the company that feeds you.
 
Beowulf said:
I knew you would say that. ;)
My point is that there is really no such thing as "free speech." There are consequences.
Click to expand...

absolutely, Free speech is a myth

perpetuated by "the american dream" allegory

and
another way of looking at this is, the american dream is compatiable with christiandom want evidence? look at your $1 note...what does it say?

nutters even argue "god" really means , Gold, Oil and Guns! as G.O.D. with dots removed...just to scare and people into submission, and churches are 'used' to bang on 'lores' but laws (but people ARE stupid enough to confuse the two)...
so there... a belief is a form of coerion in which powers that be, uses against people for control...inhere lies the irony,


manufacturing consent by coercion

social relations and ideas. In this manner,A famous sociologist -well he wasn't a formal sociologist, because at the time that term didn't exist, however this political thinker, Antonio Gramsci was imprisoned (and died at age of 46 in jail), he developed a the idea of ideological superstructure that he argued it explains how the "traditional ideas" are used for both maintaining and fracturing relations of the economic base.

Gramsci explored that bourgeois (a Marxist concept but a very useful one) cultural values, and he wrote many pages about how folklore, popular culture are tied to religion, and therefore have much to do with the way hegemonic culture is constructed and aimed at these.

Back in the 1930s', Gramsci was intrigued by the influence which the Roman Catholicism had over italy (and the world) , particularly at the way they took care about how the Church is taken by between the learned and that of the less educated, in such a way that they prevent excessive gap developing, and hence maintain the crowd following (churches loves the word Fellowship, its an advertising term (sic) - whatever). and many of popular culture has been influenced...Oh and Elvis Presley!! and many pop music have many layers of the 'mores and lores' of "western religious cultures'...
so there...
Im not impressed with Duck Dynasty, myself i think its shit...and also I'm hardly surprised with this flare up on homosexuality and religion, in fact, I find it hilarious, and I'm amazed at this length of this thread!!
wow just wow, it really show how much of it is taken seriously.

that's all folks (ha, that Warner Bros cartoon)
 
Religious discussion allowed?

cfTszXZ.gif
 
i was pointing out at the myth of free speech...read my post again hardly about relihion, it is more about how religion IS tied up in culture in a so-called secular society of USA...
 
Grummer said:
i was pointing out at the myth of free speech...read my post again hardly about relihion, it is more about how religion IS tied up in culture in a so-called secular society of USA...
Click to expand...
It was not replied to you. That's why I didn't quote you. :lol: It was replied to any religious post in those pages. I can't stand that kind of religious discussion toward gay marriage, abortion, salvation, sin, etc. Creepy!
 
VacationGuy234 said:
If anything, the entire issue has to do with conduct clauses in contracts not free speech..

It's pretty simple, and I'll save the legal jargon, you don't hurt the bottom line of the company that feeds you.
Click to expand...

No one hurt their bottom line, they did that all by themselves.
 
I don't think this really a thread about religion, but our rights if free speech and religion. Slightly different.

Wasn't the original question do you think this violates his freedom of speech? You know this was all over the Internet, and a mind boggling amount if people think it does. It isn't just this situation in particular, it happens all the time, this confusion about are freedoms are. That's what I find interesting, and a little galling. We do have freedom of speech Grummer, it's just doesn't mean what some people think it means.

There are many different Christians, actually in human history Christian is a fairly new term, there's Catholics, Methodist, Protestant, baptist, born again, Mormons, and whoever lumping them together is newish, like the last 50 or so years. Oh and Grummer "In Gid we trust didn't show up on our money until the like 1953? Something like that. Anyway, all the other religions pretty much keep to themselves, how often do hear about a Buddist wanting laws based on their beliefs, wanting it in schools etc etc etc etc. Like never, so this cry about Christians not having as much religious freedom, or their freedom of speech oppressed is just kind of ludicrous. Then there are people in the country that are Wiccan, and more and more all the time are agnostic or aethiest. These people have rights as well. They don't need or deserve to be insulted and alienated by people of other faiths. Some people are just never ever going to understand that, that believe the things they believe every bit as much as a Christian, and Christians aren't "right" just because they are Christian. They don't see how their behavior actually violated other people rights. It's like tunnel vision or something.
 
Steinhauer said:
No one hurt their bottom line, they did that all by themselves.
Click to expand...

Rightly or wrongly, termination or suspension of employment is usually a power of both parties(lawyer powers being equal) employer and employee. It's no different than an NFL player portraying the NFL in light seen as unfavorable to the NFL. The NFL player has the power to leave the employment as well(as long as the contract states it).

I'm not even saying I agree with it(whether companies should have that power), but that is the issue here. When he signed on for the show, he knew the risks. It's no different for anyone who works for anyone. And, Ambrosia's point is that there is nothing illegal about it. So, it's not a free speech issue.

The people who make it into a free speech or religious issue are simply working for their own gain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top