A&E Caves to Pressure from Robinsons & Fans - Including Christians - But...

GLAAD and Other Gay Advocacy Groups Suffer Stunning Defeat ...

But This ISN'T a Win for Christians

 A&E has reversed itself after ten days of twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, and has publicly reinstated Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robinson to the show.  With a mealy-mouthed and convoluted statement, A&E claimed a victory (of sorts) even as it admitted defeat.  The statement was a poor attempt at PR damage control, but given the situation they'd put themselves in, it was probably the best they could do.

This reversal was a huge and stunning defeat for GLAAD and all the other narrow-focus, one-issue, PC-enfolded fascist-tactic advocacy groups.  However, this defeat was not a victory for Christians who'd rallied to Robertson's support.

Let me repeat that.

This was NOT a victory for all of the Christians who'd rallied, in the hundreds of thousands, to  Phil Robertson's support.

This "victory" for Phil was prompted more by career-fear among A&E's top brass executives.  With good reason, the A&E suits' feared that they would go away because they'd destroyed the network's most profitable-ever franchise.  Hollywood, the entertainment media and it's read-headed stepchild, the broadcast news media - it's all a brutal business, driven by ratings and  profits.  Executives are paid ridiculous amounts of money for delivering hugely-profitable programming - but the minute something crashes and burns, jobs go on the block. 

In this case, it looked like the best-performing program A&E had ever put on the air was going away, and if that happened, heads would roll.  Board members and investors and "bigger suits" at the parent companies would have insisted on firing people who'd blown a multi-million-dollar profit center for no better point than appeasing a pressure group.

It's a corporate play, and here's how the players line up.  A&E Television Network us a joint venture of the Hearst Corporation and Disney-ABC Television Group, a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company.  That's a lot of corporate executives and board members who back A&E only because there is a lot of money to be made.  Lose some of that money and once high-flying execs will be out of work, and stigmatized for their failure as well. Nobody with a mortgage and an alimony, child support and a couple of kids in college is going to willingly risk firing over support for s single-issue pressure group, no matter how loud that group yells.  This applies to GLAAD, but it also applies to the Christians who backed Robertson.

The reason why A&E blinked is because the Robertson family stood behind their patriarch, making it clear that without Phil, there would be no show, no viewers, no ad revenues, no merchandising profits ... and no suits at A&E who had anything to do with getting into a game of chicken with a bunch of multi-millionaire rednecks who also have strong family values and rock-ribbed Christian beliefs.

Please don't misunderstand - without the support of hundreds of thousands of Christians and millions of fanatically-loyal viewers, A&E might have stared down the Robertsons.  It's hard to walk away from $2.5 million or so each season (with two seasons per year), even if you own a $400 million dollar business.  But the huge outpouring of support made it clear that the Robertsons could walk - away from A&E and into a new TV deal.  CBN and Glenn Beck's The Blaze had already made offers, and more would have come quickly.

Still, the final decision was influenced more by career-fear at the top of A&E  than it was by the rallying of the troops.  That rallying of outraged Christians and other fans was enough for Cracker Barrel - they quickly realized they were on the wrong side of the issue from their vocal target audience - but despite the online petitions and blogs and all the rest, A&E had no such realization.  Even in the face of the Robertson's apparent staunch faith, and even in the face of an outpouring of strong Christian and fan outrage, the suits at A&E do not take Christians - or duck hunters (i.e., bible-thumping red-necks) seriously.  We are the worst of the denizens of flyover country, and they're not even sure we exist.

Instead, those execs responsible for putting the most profitable franchise in the network's history at risk realized that they'd made a mistake in going to the mats with the Robertsons, and as a  result, they were about to lose, and if they lost, their jobs were at risk. 

Frankly, they realized that they might be fired for caving in to the demands of a small, vocal and fascist minority (GLAAD).  That was what happened to the NPR honcho lost her job after firing Juan Williams, except that instead of rolling over for GLAAD, she caved in to CAIR, a strident one-issue Muslim anti-defamation group. 

But the principle was the same - cave in, screw up, lose job.

At the bottom line (and it was really just a bottom-line issue for A&E), Duck just means too much Bucks to A&E to let the franchise go just to appease a pressure group, even one as powerful in Hollywood as GLAAD.

WIth this powerful reversal and repudiation of pressure group tactics - especially when accompanied by Cracker Barrel's own swift turn-around - executives at other businesses and media groups will now feel empowered to ignore GLAAD and other one-issue advocacy groups.  This will be especially true for those execs whose lavish lifestyles make them people who really can't afford risking their jobs. 

In the future, GLAAD will still be able to elicit meaningless platitudes, one akin to A&E's lame and confusing statement issued Friday, but GLAAD will not be able to force action that mean anything,  A&E's cave in has made it clear that supporting groups like GLAAD or CAIR risks costing shareholders money ... and executives their jobs.

However, despite the high-fives and self-congratulatory comments from many Christians who pushed hard to get A&E to cave, this is NOT a triumph for either religion or morality. Despite all of our best efforts - and they were good, good enough to get Cracker Barrel to cave - the A&E decision is all about pure economic power politics.  The fans - and most important, the Robinson's - willingness to tank the program and walk away, that was decisive. We Christians who spoke out helped, but we were not decisive.

A&E's leadership is still the same pro-gay/anti-Christian group they've always been.  It was the Robinsons (and, most importantly, their willingness to walk away) was decisive in persuading the decision-makers that it wasn't worth their jobs and their fabulous incomes to support GLAAD.

Allow me to conclude with the immortal words of Han Solo, just after Luke Skywalker destroyed his first Imperial fighter ...

Percent of Americans Claiming to Be Christian Down - Don't Worry - This is a Good Thing!

 God May Be Winnowing The Wheat From the Chaff

 

 It wasn't the Christmas present most believing Christians wanted to find under their tree, but if you read between the lines and analyze the statistics, you might find it's a wondrous gift indeed, for those who really believe.

 

The Harris Poll of more than 2,000 Americans is about as reliable as any poll you're likely to find.  They know what they're doing, and they have people on board skilled at asking questions which are honest - they don't lean toward a pre-ordained goal.  So when they issued their new national poll on faith and belief in America earlier today, I paid attention.

This new Harris poll shows several significant and downward trends in levels of belief among Americans.  Many Christians will view this with alarm, but I think this has something positive for us.  In the past, many Americans have claimed Christianity as their faith, but they are what my friend, Pastor David Rogers, calls "cultural Christians," people who go through the motions without ever taking a leap of faith and making Christ a part of their lives in any meaningful way.  

 

Now, with the rise in secularism in America, I think that the number of fair-weather Christians - what I'd like to call CINOs – Christians In Name Only - is declining.   

 

This could mean that we’re in a time of winnowing, a time where God is separating the wheat from the chaff.  Those looking for the Second Coming may see this as a sign (one among many) of the coming End Times, but I'm not expert enough in that area to even offer an opinion.  However, it seems clear that the ability of Christianity to exert secular influence is declining.  Sure, an activist group of believing Christians just got Cracker Barrel to reverse its stance on Duck Dynasty - it takes far fewer than a majority to be effective at influencing specific groups around specific issues, as GLAAD does all the time - but that's not the same thing as having a faith in God and Christ permeating our society or our government's decision-making.

 

It is obvious that the government of today is making decisions that would have been anathema to the Bible-believing Founding Fathers, who saw faith (not an "established church," but real faith) as essential in society, and a guiding influence for government.  Today, it's all but a secular sin to admit to having a committed faith, and official oppression of Christians (see some of the "rules" in Obamacare) has become the norm. 

To me, it seems that Christianity has always been strongest when there was a price to pay – only the strongest in their faith would hang tough when it wasn’t as easy and natural as Church on Sunday.  I’m not saying I want to pay a price for my faith, but as Christianity’s strength in America wanes (if the trends continue, and I believe they will), we will live in an increasingly secular society, one where the GLAADs and A&Es of the world will feel ever more justified (and safer) in attacking Christianity.  

That’s when we’ll see the sunshine Christians step aside.  That may be happening now.

The Poll itself shows some interesting numbers, statistics that demonstrate that many of those who profess to be Christians aren't really Christians after all - if I'm right, there's more winnowing to come.  Take a peak.

Three quarters of U.S. adults say they believe in God (down from 82 percent four years ago).  However, only 57 percent believe in the virgin birth, and 72 percent believe in miracles (down from 79 percent).  Only 68 percent believe in Heaven (down from 72 percent) - but amazingly, only 64 percent believe in the survival of the soul after death. That got me wondering - if you don't believe in the survival of the soul after death, what's the point in heaven?  

More numbers. While 75 percent say they believe in God, only 68 percent believe Jesus is God or the Son of God, and only 65 percent believe in the resurrection of Jesus.  Again, without belief in His divinity or resurrection, what is it that you DO believe?  I know Satan must be thrilled, though, because only 58 percent believe in him.

 

So who are these people? If you say you "believe," but don't believe in the Immaculate Conception (which means you don't believe Jesus was the Son of God), and don't believe in the resurrection (which means you don't believe there's salvation), what do you believe?  If you don't believe in these core tenets of the faith, are you really a Christian?

 

The decline in practicing "cultural Christians" - people who go through the motions without committing their soul to real believe in Christ - will hurt some churches.  Pews will be emptier and collection baskets will be thinner.  However, those churches have been the ones to "put on a show" for people, without actively engaging them and challenging them to walk in the shoes of Christ and his disciples.  

 

Other churches and faith-based movements, ones who can motivate their congregations and "convict" their members with an abiding belief in sin and redemption - those churches will prosper.  As our total numbers thin through this cultural winnowing process, those who remain (still, a hundred million or more, but way down from what it used to be) will want to come together, to share their faith and to be inspired by fellow believers.  This bodes well for the increase of planted churches and house churches, as well as for an increasingly active role, by Christians, in society.

I could be engaging in wishful thinking, but I believe what I'm saying to be largely true.  As the fairweather Christians fall by the wayside, it will be up to the rest of us to "take up the slack" in an increasingly secular and hostile world.   

 

I welcome your insights.

Why do the Heathen Rage? Why do the Aetheists and Secular Humanists Even Care?

Why Do Atheists Who Passionately Believe That There Is Nothing At All To Believe In Seem To Find Their Faith In Having Nothing To Have Faith In So All-Consuming

Ned Barnett

The passionate and public Atheists go to court to try to chance society to conform to their belief that there's nothing to believe in.  They hold rallies to make their non-belief.  They buy ads to trumpet their non-belief in the face of believers.  They stage protests to denounce anyone of faith who speaks out in favor of faith in something - not faith in nothing. 

But at the end of the day, it's all nothing but mock outrage.  If they were honest in their non-belief, they'd have nothing to rage at, nothing to lobby against, nothing spiritual to care about.

Atheists.  Be honest.  If you really do believe that there is nothing beyond what you can see, feel, touch, taste or smell - and certainly no God or Satan, no Heaven or Hell - then you really don't care what Christians believe and think.  And why should you? 

As a passionate and activist Atheist, you very publicly believe, and believe passionately, that there is no God, and certainly not the Christian Godhead of the Lord, Christ and the Spirit.  You go further and believe with all the soul (the one you don't have) that there is nothing to believe in, nothing at all - except, of course, for your passionate belief in nothing.  And a belief in nothing is nothing to get excited about, is it?

Let's suppose that you're right, that there is no God, that the Universe is a cosmic accident with no meaning.  OK, then why on earth would you even consider worrying about - not to mention actually caring about - what Christians believe and think?  If the whole idea of sin is this made-up, crazy, wacko Christian thing, why worry about it at all?   After all, you already believe that it doesn't exist?

If you're a homosexual Atheist, and a Christian with a fantasy obsession says you're a sinner doomed to hell, why should you care?  You know there's no God, no sin and no Hell. 

If you're a pedophile or a rapist, a prostitute or a  kidnapper - and you're an Atheist - you may have to worry about cops and juries and judges, but you don't have to worry about divine retribution. As an Atheist, you know there's no penalty for whatever you do, as long as you don't get caught - then, if you are caught, the only penalty is imposed by other men in the here-and-now.

If a Christian who believes in a God who you KNOW doesn't exist says that this non-existent God will condemn you, after death, for your lifestyle choices, why should you care?  You already know there's no afterlife. You already KNOW that the Christian's God doesn't exist, and you know that that without a god to condemn it, sin doesn't exist.  You already know that this Christian who's judging you must be bat-guano crazy. 

Given all of that, what does the opinion of a guy with bat droppings rattling around inside his skull, a guy who believes in the questionable translation of a ragged collection of 66 seemingly-contradictory books written two millenniums ago by some dusty nomads even matter to you?

Why do you care about that Christian or  his non-existent God?

Why do you care about Phil Robinson, the Duck Dynasty "Patriarch" who has become the latest cause for Atheist angst?

The guy believes in God.  He believes in that ancient text (with translations even believing Christians can't agree on) that condemns you.  He believes in virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, eternal life in a spirit world, and a loving, all-knowing God who nonetheless allowed some local yokels to whip him to the point of death before crucifying him - a particularly horrible way to die.

Is this someone you should care about?

If you're walking down the street and encounter a zombie'd out homeless wreck of a man who's busy talking to himself and shouting at everyone else, and he told you to sell GM short, would you do it?  No.  He's obviously crazy, and what does he know about the Stock Market?  Nothing.

If you're walking down the street and you encounter someone with a shaggy main of hair, a beard that ZZ Top would envy, and a camo suit straight out of The Nam, a shaggy redneck with a bible clutched in one hand as he's  saying, "you, homosexual, you're a sinner - give it up, find Jesus, repent and be saved," would you do it?  Or would you write him off as someone who ought to be in the same lock-down unit with that homeless guy.  He's obviously a passionate nutcase.  So why does his opinion matter?

Yet it seems to matter a great deal to Activist Atheists - and to Activist Gays, who tend to also disbelieve anyone's God because all the major God-figures in human religion condemn homosexuals and homosexuality.  Its a fact that it matters, but the real question is "why?"  Why do the Activist Atheists and Gays care so much about the opinions and beliefs of people they consider irrational, and the faux-condemnations those whack-jobs heap on them, based on some 2,000 to 3,000 year old collection of poorly-copied and poorly-translated papyrus scrolls.

Why would any card-carrying Atheist - a man or woman who knows for a "fact" that there's no God, and no sin - get the least bit worried about what some redneck cracker from way down deep in the bayou thinks about sin and homosexuality, let alone about your preference for anuses over vaginas?  Why would you care what condemnations of your lifestyle are written in his fairy-tale bible? After all, you believe his bible is complete fiction, a fairy-tale made up about the antics of some ancient desert tribal god-figure who - if he'd really existed, but of course he didn't - had obviously been a moral prude and a real buzz-kill.

Why does any of that bother you, a card-carrying Atheist, especially since you already know - KNOW, mind you, with a belief born of intellectual superiority and a rigidly rational mind-set - that what Robertson believes isn't even real?  Why in the world would a bright, intelligent, rational mind like yours get so upset about this Christian Myth?   I mean, c'mon, you know that there isn't any God - and, without God, there isn't any sin.

Morality and judgment, sin and punishment and redemption, all of those are figments of the easily-led, flyover-country Christ-believer's false set of beliefs, beliefs centered around that dusty desert tribal god YHWH.  That singular God, YHWH (known to his friends as Yahweh or Jehovah) is actually a "god" who is no more real than Ishtar or Ra, Zeus or Jupiter - so why worry about what HE says, anyway?

Why indeed.  The answer is simple.  Because - as you Activist Atheists know - there is no god. Because there's no god, then it stands to reason that there's no morality, no sin, no judgment, and best of all, no cosmic rules that arbitrarily apply to you.  Knowing this, knowing that Christians who denounce you or challenge you are both deluded and intellectually weak sheep intent on following an ancient myth, then why all the fuss? 

Why do you care if you're called a sinner by some backwoods hick on a duck show?

Why do you care if you're condemned to a non-existent Hell by some puffed up buffoon with a duck's tail and a microphone?

Hey, you know it's all BS - so why do you care? 

Because Atheism is a great gig, and you don't want to lose it.  With no god, there's no accountability for the way you live.  If  there's no god, then everything in your life is cool. 

But since the nearest "god" you can find is the statue of Prometheus in the sunken garden at the Rockefeller Center on Manhattan, then what's the problem?  The real  problem?

I'm no psychologist, but from decades of observation, I maintain that if someone spends an inordinate amount of time and energy - and even wealth - in denial of the existence of something, that person is generally trying to mask over a belief that he doesn't want.  There are exceptions, of course, but psychologists agree that there is always "something" behind any obsession.

For example ...

"Latent" homosexuals are usually those guys who spend a great deal of time denying their gender confusion - they do this by attacking those who are openly gay. 

Atheists - not those who just don't care, but those who spend all their time passionately fighting against a God they say they know doesn't exist - must actually believe something.  Deep down, they believe in something that either frightens the pure-cane (ahem) out of them, or they're afraid of something that challenges the very core of their precious self-image. 

I think that most of the passionate and outspokenly-public Atheists are really just whistling past the graveyard - they desperately hope there is no God or Hell, no sin or judgment.  Scared out of their wits at the consequences if they're wrong, but afraid or unable to embrace God and the Grace of forgiveness, these Atheists battle the image of an afterlife judged by God by creating a fantasy world in which there is no God, and where there are no consequences, no sins and no retribution.

That is why the Heathen Rage ...

BTW: I think any real Atheist would - because he believes that there's nothing there in the universe in which to believe or disbelieve -  have no reason to argue, deny, attack or defend.  He'd just move on to something he does believe in. Or have another double espresso at Starbucks.

***

With a tip of my hat to Rush Limbaugh - I saw his brief comment on a website and realized he'd framed an issue that's been troubling me for a long time.  He's the inspiration for what's here, but the mistakes are my own.