20 December, 2013

‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson suspended from show after anti-gay comments in GQ magazine | National Post

I am not a 'Duck Dynasty' viewer, having only watched one episode of the series, but even I have to ask if this is actually a surprise or shock to anyone? Is it not on a par with 'Honey Boo-Boo' (another show I've never seen more than five minutes of) saying that she prefers eating sweets to vegetables? Isn't the reason that these characters are on the tube to begin with because they are considered 'eccentric' in the first place? They sure as hell aren't there because they are 21st century versions of the types of families we watched in the 50's and 60's like the Cleavers (Leave it to Beaver) or the Brady Bunch! So why be upset when one of them says something as inane as Phil Robertson's remarks in GQ?

The other point I'd like to raise is that everyone seems upset by the homophobic remark but yet there's hardly a peep being offered by his equally offensive remark that African Americans were not 'unhappy' with segregation in pre-civil rights Mississippi. Is it more offensive to say something unpopular about gays than it is to say something that's clearly and offensively racist?

What do you think?

‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson suspended from show after anti-gay comments in GQ magazine | National Post


  1. I've never seen either show and I value my brain cells too much to ever contemplate it but who said that African Americans were not unhappy with segregation.

    Both statements are reprehensible, but people have a right to say it, and their networks have a right to shut down their shows and we have a right to call them reprehensible.

    Related to racism, here's an ethics quandary I face. My wife and I were given a gift certificate a few months ago by friends who we helped with a problem to a very good restaurant near us and we were planning to us it over the holidays (actually after our attendance at the TSO Messiah on Sunday). But that restaurant was last week found guilty of racism against its employees and fined $100,000. Do we go to the restaurant or not? My thought is to go and only order up to the cost of the gift certificate (meaning probably no wine or no dessert). Afterall the restuarant has the money for the GC. Any suggestions?

    1. Rationalist: Would I be safe in assuming that the restaurant has changed its policies and is now in compliance with the law? If the answer is yes, I'd use the certificate and enjoy my meal. If the answer is either 'no' or 'not completely yet', then I'd wait until they were. As you say, they already hold the money so not using the card is only going to serve to make a bit of extra profit. So as long as they've mended their ways and your dining there won't be interpreted as some sign of support for their past practices, I'd say 'bon appetite'!

      Fr. Tim


Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics