The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty Debate

[BMCM]

Alcohol sales just happen to be specially restricted on the Christian sabbath. Sodomy, homosexuality and adultery just happen to be mentioned in the bible - it is mere coincidence that they are also laws based on your alleged "secular" morality. Murder and trespass have victims, that need their rights protected; what right is protected by restricting alcohol sales on the sabbath?

With the exception of alcohol sales on the Sabbath, Sodomy, homosexuality and adultery are sins in the eye of God. But didn't you say that it takes more then just the Christian vote to pass a law? Therefore non-christians also voted for these laws so how can you blame it all on Christians? As for the alcohol sales, I see people buying it on Sundays. If there are still blue laws out there would it not be up to the citizens of those States to change it?

 

[Carjosse]

You haven't the faintest idea what the word means. You need to learn more about subject matter before offering such incredibly ignorant comments.

If a government were to follow this stupid advice, there would be no laws against, say, torturing a child to death. If you think that "infringes on personal freedom" you have another thing coming.

It is one of the main philosophies of Canadian law, the government has no place in legislating morality. It is not the government's job to infringe on personal freedoms but when that action is potentially harmful to society it becomes an issue for the government i.e. torture, murder, robbery, etc.. It is how criminal law works, when you commit a crime you harm society.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You can voice your opposition and recriminations, but you are on the losing side of the cultural divide. It will eventually become socially unacceptable because eventually it will be an opinion held only be a small minority. The cultural battle over homosexuality, gay marriage, adoption, etc is over all that's left is the coming decades of mopping up.

The last two states forced into allowing SSM was not done by those stated "natural" means, but by the opinion of a judge to trump that "traditional" view of marriage while still a held as a majority opinion.

 

[Gardener]

IT is one of the main philosophies of Canadian law, the government has no place in legislating morality. It is not the government's job to infringe on personal freedoms but when that action is potentially harmful to society it becomes an issue for the government i.e. torture, murder, robbery, etc..

You have a young child's understanding of the word "morality".

It is high time you developed one that is more adult.

I realize this is just wikipedia, but it contains links that might help you gain enough understanding of the concepts involved so to sound less ignorant.
Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ttwtt78640]

With the exception of alcohol sales on the Sabbath, Sodomy, homosexuality and adultery are sins in the eye of God. But didn't you say that it takes more then just the Christian vote to pass a law? Therefore non-christians also voted for these laws so how can you blame it all on Christians? As for the alcohol sales, I see people buying it on Sundays. If there are still blue laws out there would it not be up to the citizens of those States to change it?

No, because it clearly does not.

Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sherman123]

The last two states forced into allowing SSM was not done by those stated "natural" means, but by the opinion of a judge to trump that "traditional" view of marriage while still a held as a majority opinion.

Yes they were, but it is tangential to the increasing shift in attitudes on homosexuality and SSM that are taking place broadly across the United States. It would have bee unthinkable to expect these kinds of rulings in 1993, in 2013 they make sense in the context of the changing cultural landscape. Poll after poll, the obvious entrenchment in popular culture, and radically changing attitudes among younger generations are a testament to this rapid change.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You haven't the faintest idea what the word means. You need to learn more about subject matter before offering such incredibly ignorant comments.

If a government were to follow this stupid advice, there would be no laws against, say, torturing a child to death. If you think that "infringes on personal freedom" you have another thing coming.

WRONG. Both torturing and death have a clear victim; those laws exist to protect the victim's freedom. Your freedom to freely swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

 

[Grim17]

But, until then, I think tolerance of all beliefs should be the rule of the day. Even if it means tolerating the social conservative. They too, shall pass.

Like the man at the center of this controversy said in the piece that started this thread... Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and it seems to me that liberalism demands not just that a person must tolerate that which they disagree with, but accept and embrace those things as well.

 

[Gardener]

WRONG. Both torturing and death have a clear victim; those laws exist to protect the victim's freedom. Your freedom to freely swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

Yes, torturing and killing have a clear victim -- and that is why such actions are immoral.

Once again -- the basis of our criminal and much other law is morality -- judging which actions are moral and which are immoral and codifying them into law in such a way as to provide greater disincentives for greater transgressions.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes they were, but it is tangential to the increasing shift in attitudes on homosexuality and SSM that are taking place broadly across the United States. It would have bee unthinkable to expect these kinds of rulings in 1993, in 2013 they make sense in the context of the changing cultural landscape. Poll after poll, the obvious entrenchment in popular culture, and radically changing attitudes among younger generations are a testament to this rapid change.

Because the majority in New York like something does not make it equally popular in Utah. You would never accept the reverse - mandating that New York accept the more relaxed gun laws of Utah or Arizona. Your selective use of popularity is hypocritical. States may have stricter gun laws but not stricter marriage laws; basically because that is what you happen to favor.

 

[Carjosse]

You have a young child's understanding of the word "morality".

It is high time you developed one that is more adult.

I realize this is just wikipedia, but it contains links that might help you gain enough understanding of the concepts involved so to sound less ignorant.
Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. They also happen to vary between individuals and groups. The government has no place in making laws that force ones morality upon another. For example people may find homosexuality and sodomy immoral and a sin but the government has no business in legislating that as it is only the concern of those individuals and does not affect anyone else in society.

 

[Lutherf]

Voting away others civil rights is not an option in America. I can't believe you don't know that.

Civil Rights?

I'm sick and damned tired of all this "civil rights" crap. 50 years ago we told you all this would happen and today we're seeing things come to a head. The whole concept of civil rights has gone out the window. EVERYTHING is a damned "civil right" today.

Marriage is a civil right
Health care is a civil right
Having a job is a civil right
Having a "living wage" is a civil right
Not seeing a nativity scene in public is a civil right
Not being offended is a civil right
Camping in parks is a civil right
****ting on cop cars is a civil right
Smoking dope is a civil right

Sheesh:roll: It just never ends.

What has all your "civil rights" crap accomplished so far? Y'all are still bitching that blacks don't have the same rights as whites but you've been pumping this "civil rights" bilge into the system for 50 years. Yippee!! You've stopped lynchings and everyone can eat at the same lunch counter but now black kids are killing each other faster than whites could have ever hoped to get away with. Congratulations! You got blacks accepted into public education but they are dropping out 50% more often than whites. Congratulations!!

Now, with your great successes with blacks you're going to "save" homosexuals with "civil rights". I tell you, if I was gay I'd take off running like a rabbit from a fox if you guys told me you were coming to help me.

 

[Sherman123]

Because the majority in New York like something does not make it equally popular in Utah. You would never accept the reverse - mandating that New York accept the more relaxed gun laws of Utah or Arizona. Your selective use of popularity is hypocritical. States may have stricter gun laws but not stricter marriage laws; basically because that is what you happen to favor.

You misconstrue my statement. I never gave my opinion on its legal justification, my premise is that this legal decision and others like DOMA are only possible in the context of a broad national shift on the issue of homosexuality. It would have been inconceivable in 1993 because there was almost no national support and few states if any had solid majorities. The ground has rapidly shifted and continues to shift even in places like Utah where opinions have transformed dramatically from the early 2000's to the present day. My point from the get go has been to illustrate that there is a wider cultural change taking place and those that are on the wrong side will increasingly find themselves marginalized as we go forward in the coming century.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You misconstrue my statement. I never gave my opinion on its legal justification, my premise is that this legal decision and others like DOMA are only possible in the context of a broad national shift on the issue of homosexuality. It would have been inconceivable in 1993 because there was almost no national support and few states if any had solid majorities. The ground has rapidly shifted and continues to shift even in places like Utah where opinions have transformed dramatically from the early 2000's to the present day. My point from the get go has been to illustrate that there is a wider cultural change taking place and those that are on the wrong side will increasingly find themselves marginalized as we go forward in the coming century.

Nice dodge of judicial activism now when it suits your "vision" of later. I discussed reality today and you blow that off speaking of "forward thinking" in future times. I will cease to try to reason with a profit (fortune teller?).

 

[Buck Ewer]

What it simply comes down to is that this guy (PHIL Robertson) is an asshole.
I watched the show last night, for the first time, just to see what it was all about and what I found was a very sophomoric though harmless heavily edited show about a family's interaction with common mundane circumstances.
When the Phil character entered the unconnected story-line the mood and thrust changed dramatically.
The brothers and uncle Si interacted in a jovial tongue in cheek friendly adversarial, fun kind of way demonstrating an understood deep family love. Mildly amusing and heart warming.
In the sequences with Phil the mood always changed because his dislike for the opinions and views and behavior of others in his family was real and appeared heart-felt.
His interaction with his grand-children and sons was always that of a mean-spirited antagonist. The grandchildren were largely un-responsive to answer him in any way shape or form, it was easy to see, the reason was to avoid his consistently berating and confrontational demeanor. Phil's interactions with all cast members were constantly ignorant and without a shred of empathy or respect.
The man is an asshole and IMHO detracts from the generally lighthearted, mildly entertaining mood of the show.
I can fully understand the desire on the part of A&E to remove Phil from the show.
No one likes an asshole and this man is, without doubt, a very real, high caliber, intentional, asshole..

 

[VanceMack]

I don't think re-education camps will be needed. The belief of the social conservative will be alienated on it's own merit and by attrition of those who still hang on to such archaic beliefs. But, until then, I think tolerance of all beliefs should be the rule of the day. Even if it means tolerating the social conservative. They too, shall pass.

You more than Tolerated that social conservative in the White House...you voted for him. Twice.

 

[Zyphlin]

I might remind everyone that people with long hair and unruly beards were once looked upon as dirty, smelly hippies.

The only constant in society is change. As much of an oxymoron as that is, it is the truth.

Strangely enough I believe this guy actually identified as a hippy back then.

 

[Zyphlin]

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

I believe Gardener's point is that by stating that it's okay to make laws where one person actions violates teh rights of another person, such as "murder" or "theft", is in and of itself "forcing ones morality upon another". Specifically, the moralistic view that the violation of another persons rights is a bad thing.

 

[Captain America]

Strangely enough I believe this guy actually identified as a hippy back then.

The picture I saw of him, in his college days, he was as clean cut as Wally Cleaver. I saw a very interesting video of The Robertson's called "I am Second."

It's almost a half-hour long. Understanding Phil Robertson's history, or what he professes his history to be, I find it hard that anyone would hold him up with any regard.

But I like the old coot myself. I'm funny that way.

 

[Buck Ewer]

The picture I saw of him, in his college days, he was as clean cut as Wally Cleaver. I saw a very interesting video of The Robertson's called "I am Second."

It's almost a half-hour long. Understanding Phil Robertson's history, or what he professes his history to be, I find it hard that anyone would hold him up with any regard.

But I like the old coot myself. I'm funny that way.

He was a drug abuser and a mean spirited drunk. He abused his wife and children.
Some people like assholes.

 

[Lutherf]

He was a drug abuser and a mean spirited drunk. He abused his wife and children.
Some people like assholes.

And some people repent.

 

[Captain America]

He was a drug abuser and a mean spirited drunk. He abused his wife and children.
Some people like assholes.

Well, he's baaaaaack!

Phil Robertson to Return to Duck Dynasty |

 

[Buck Ewer]

And some people repent.

Dry drunks are generally obnoxious and demanding.
Phil Robertson is no exception.

 

[Carleen]

Frankly, I think the guy is an idiot for saying what he did, but he certainly didn't "condemn" anyone and I don't think he was especially nasty about it.

I think he actually went out of his way to emphasize that though he may hold certain views he doesn't believe that it's his place to judge anyone.

I think you have to read exactly what he said. Not to believe in homosexuality is one thing. To call them names is another.

 

[Grim17]

well, he's baaaaaack!

phil robertson to return to duck dynasty |

lmmfao...