Patriarch off 'Duck Dynasty' after gay comments

[dmharvey]

This old clip pretty much sums up my thoughts on the "Duck Dynasty drama" and television in general...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a5_1387583134

[Kreutz]

Why is it that religious threads so reliably bring out the azzholes in our nature? Why do these threads always end up in a state of rhetorical sodomy?

People are touchy about something so personal.

To anyone who has read more than one of these threads, it is no wonder that the worst human carnage throughout history has been caused either by wars of religion or wars against religion (the latter for those who refuse to accept that militant atheism is a religion).

I can't think of a single purely religious war; look carefully and it boils down to territory and money once you remove the religious mask.

Even the Crusades were more about the trade routes than the Holy Land itself.

[Reverenddel]

Kreutz is (FRAKIN' HATE TO SAY IT) Correct again. Every "religious" war is over money, property, and power...

King's have fallen over "religion" because they pissedoff the person who was getting wealthy by them.

Henry VIII comes to mind. The Church Of England was due to the Pope not granting him a divorce! Why? Because if the Pope did that? He'd risk losing France, and Spain backing his plans for the MED!

[Reverenddel]

OH... Someone else got into the fray:

"“Cracker Barrel’s mission is Pleasing People. We operate within the ideals of fairness, mutual respect and equal treatment of all people. These ideals are the core of our corporate culture. We continue to offer Duck Commander products in our stores. We removed selected products which we were concerned might offend some of our guests while we evaluate the situation. We continually evaluate the products we offer and will continue to do so.”"

Uh-huh... You know what? I don't recall that many from the LGBT community in a Cracker Barrel, but I have seen a CRAP TON of Duck Dynasty folks in there!

Enjoy!

[VACoastie]

That's why I'm taking the family to eat there TONIGHT. They kept Duck Commander products ( Owned by the Robertsons) and ditched A&E's Duck Dynasty. I shall purchase a thing or two of Duck Commander.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[VACoastie]

Now the equal treatment thing and blah blah of their statement makes no sense to me. If they wanted to hinder people out of the latest "non-respect" (if you can call someone's popular religious view that) they would bring down duck commander and dynasty stuff.

Soooo... I'm assuming they're siding with the Robertson family in this case?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

I reading into that as well...

Keeping the FAMILY, but NOT THE NETWORK! A&E owns "Duck Dynasty" stuff.

[Remek]

Mamabear

You are correct, we do legislate morality. However it is not taken from a specific standpoint of a specific religion. It evolves from "natural law" from pre-catholic Rome, which actually evolved from Ancient Greek law. This is earlier than the first passages of the bible we're written.

We do not make murder illegal because god said it, it is based in reason: I do not want to be murdered, you don't want to be murdered, and it's fairly safe to say the vast majority of people do not want to be murdered, so we, take the step of agreeing it is illegal, and we will pursue anyone who does it, and punish them.

So, unfortunately, the argument that our laws rely on the bible is incorrect. In fact, the separation of church and state also evolves from the need to get the church out of English law. The English made a church for themselves, or Henry VIII did, and it worked for them for a while. We did it here in our founding documents to guarantee The government did not interfere with the religious freedoms of anyone in any religion, as well as to keep the different religions from forcing their specific religion as the law of the commons on all.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.

There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
Founding
Fathers % of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

NOTES: The table above counts people and not "roles," meaning that individuals have not been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed all three foundational documents and he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.

In the table above, some people have been counted more than once because they changed religious affiliation from one denomination to another. Thus, the individual amounts added together total more than 100%. This method is used because it results in accurate numbers for each individual religious affiliation. For example, a total of 7 Quakers are shown in the table above. There were indeed 7 Quakers who were in this group. (However, not all of these were life-long Quakers.) For the most part, very few Founding Fathers switched denomination during their lifetime (less than 8%), so double-counting has occurred only rarely in this table. Quakers, in fact, are more likely to have switched denominations than members of any other religious denomination. Along with taking up arms and supporting military action against the British, a large proportion of Quaker Founding Father officially renounced or were expelled from the ardently pacifistic denomination they had been raised in and joined another denomination (usually Episcopalianism).

Also, note that the proportions shown (percentage of each religious affiliation out of the total group of Founding Fathers) is the proportion out of Founders whose religious affiliation is known. The religious affiliation of a significant number of signers of the Articles of Confederation is not known, but if that information was available, it is expected that such information would not change the overall proportions signifcantly.

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence
Religious Affiliation # of
signers % of
signers
Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%
Congregationalist 13 23.2%
Presbyterian 12 21.4%
Quaker 2 3.6%
Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%
Catholic 1 1.8%
TOTAL 56 100%


Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.

These signers have long inspired deep admiration among both secularists (who appreciate the non-denominational nature of the Declaration) and by traditional religionists (who appreciate the Declaration's recognition of God as the source of the rights enumerated by the document).


Lossing's seminal 1848 collection of biographies of the signers of the Declaration of Independence echoed widely held sentiments held then and now that there was divine intent or inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. Lossing matter-of-factly identified the signers as "instruments of Providence" who have "gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land."

From: B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848) [reprinted in Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, WallBuilder Press: Aledo, Texas (1995)], pages 7-12:

[Palladin]

The one in the rear was a Methodist.

The Man in Black said so.

wurd

[WRW]

The one in the rear was a Methodist.

The Man in Black said so.

wurd

J.C. seems to be relevant the last few days. I was told that Catholics occupied Maryland and Protestants Virginia. Guess I was told wrong?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mamabearCali]

Remek if our laws were based on ancient Greek laws prostitution would be legal and if your child angers you, you can kill them. Ancient Greece was no paradise. In Sparta a mans coming of age was complete when he successfully killed a slave and got away with it. Want a wife..... Grab a local unmarried woman and if you can subdue and rape her she is yours......

Henry the VIII does not get the credit for separating church and state. He made the two even more intertwined. If anyone gets the credit for that it is the pilgrims who did not wish for a theocracy ( as the puritans did). But rather wished for good law practiced my godly people with the state being limited in scope and the church having the primary moral authority in our livens.

Our law loosely comes from English common law, which was influenced and refined through long centuries by contact with Christianity. To untwined the two is simply not possible.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Remek]

Reread what i wrote.

I said our law was based in those in that legal thought, not that we had their laws. I explained how too. Also, Prostitution is legal in at least one state. I never said greece was a paradise either. I said our law was based in roman law, which was based in ancient greek law. Very different from saying greece was paradise.

I also stated that England went a different way than the USA did. They originally formed their own state run religion to align the two, while we completely separated them. I admit it could have been written better here, but when i look at what i wrote, i think the point is still there. Forgive me though, i have a nasty flu.

The last paragraph befuddles me. English common law is the founding of our law. In fact there exist english cases even today that are studied to understand premises of our law today. But to argue that the law is from the bible is wrong. It is from natural law. Now that does not mean they do not agree on many points, but they certainly do disagree on others. For example, the bible says homosexuality is wrong, but we do not have such a law illegalizing it. Why not? Under your analysis, it should be easy to say "lets find a logic that works here and make a law", but it hasnt happened. Why? There is no such natural logic that works. The homosexuals at best are only harming themselves and not in a lethal manner (ignoring tangiential deviations). So here, the law disagrees with the bible.

But does it really? As I originally stated, in the first post, Jesus doesnt force compliance, he sets an example, and informs others only when asked. I'd go back to my original assetions: the laws are meant to be separate from the church. The intertwining you talk of exists in its absence: what is right is not made by Jesus' word, he only clarifies for us that which is true, due to god's plan.

Either way, if the bible were the law, whynhave a separate law? It is so that no religion can assert itself on every other religion. You must go through the filter of natural law to get the law (at leadt in common law, statute as we already know, simply requires morons to solve a problem that does not exist, and inspires hate in the populace).

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mamabearCali]

You are not seeing or perhaps are not aware that English common law was not immune to the culture in which it swam. It was a reflection of the culture and as that culture had been christian for a millennia ands half it certainly was influenced by scripture.

Now as I said before I do not think nor would I support laws that for every sin makes one a criminal. That would be ridiculous. We do not wish for a theocracy, but rather good laws and the freedom to be a godly person if I so wish.

As such I do not support laws to criminalize homosexual behavior. I do not think though that a person such as Phil, or I, or the baker in Colorado, to be forced to condone or participate in anyway in something we find to be sinful.

The way that we are Roman is in our being a republic, and we have separation of powes. But the laws of Rome..... Let's just say I would prefer common law to that nightmare.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

The one in the rear was a Methodist.

The Man in Black said so.

wurd

J.C. seems to be relevant the last few days. I was told that Catholics occupied Maryland and Protestants Virginia. Guess I was told wrong?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

No, this is correct.

I can't recall specifics but there was friction between the two for a long time over alleged "Popish plots".

[Palladin]

The one in the rear was a Methodist.

The Man in Black said so.

wurd

J.C. seems to be relevant the last few days. I was told that Catholics occupied Maryland and Protestants Virginia. Guess I was told wrong?

I just always appreciated the tongue in cheek caveat not to mix fun and politics.

[SpanishInquisition]

I support Phil.


Who here has read the bible in the original language? Seems that any translation team may be tempted or otherwise encouraged by their patrons to bias their work in favor of certain viewpoints.

Fun fact. James I of England (aka James VI of Scotland) had several of the scholars / translators that disagreed with him imprisoned or put to death.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mamabearCali]

I have not, but my very good friend Mike Licona has (fluent in the orginal languages and doctorate in the resurrection). Rest assured that God was not speaking in riddles all the time. According Mike Licona the translation we have while not perfect are very accurate. The parts where they have trouble are not in serious doctrinal areas. If you are reading in any of the major translation worry more about what you do understand than what you don't.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[VACoastie]

Well well well. Cracker Barrel has reversed its decision on pulling merchandise from the shelves. I will say that last night when I went there was NO Duck Dynasty stuff out, only Duck Commander.

It appears they collapsed to the social media aspect and the many calls and complaints of customers of their decision to remove select merchandise.

Soooo, they are for equal treatment and blah blah as long as it doesn't affect business and a few people complain?

Sure sounds like how America works too. A few complain, all will win/lose to appease and make them look like the good guy.

Do us a favor, if you say something, stick by it. Now I wish I didn't give them 40 dollars of my money.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

Remek if our laws were based on ancient Greek laws prostitution would be legal and if your child angers you, you can kill them. Ancient Greece was no paradise. In Sparta a mans coming of age was complete when he successfully killed a slave and got away with it. Want a wife..... Grab a local unmarried woman and if you can subdue and rape her she is yours....

Those Spartan maids carried knives on their thighs and they used them.

Perhaps this is why Plutarch wrote that “the men of Sparta always obeyed their wives.”