I'm not a big fan of boycotts, because they're fairly ineffective. Yes, I know that it was cool for people to say that they were "not gonna play Sun City" (a retirement community in Arizona), but boycotts are a really non-targeted way to make a point.
Allow me to explain.
I don't even have cable, but I've obviously heard about the Phil Robertson hiatus story. In case you haven't - there's a show called Duck Dynasty on A&E. One of the stars of the show, Phil Robertson, was interviewed by GQ, and in the course of the interview, he provided his paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. (For purposes of accuracy, it should be noted that bestiality is not explicitly mentioned in this particular passage.)
As far as I know, A&E Networks received no critical comments from the National Association of Adulterers, the Society of Slanderers, or the Drunk Dudes at the End of the Bar. However, other groups did complain, and A&E released this statement:
“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”
According to Variety and other sources, A&E Networks has placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus.
As I stated in a previous post, A&E, as a private company, has the right to suspend or even fire Robertson for something he said. And, by the same token, Sarah Palin and 999,999 other individuals have the right to boycott A&E Networks. The claim could be made that A&E Networks, while perfectly within its right to "suppress" people who quote from the Bible, does not reflect the views of the boycotters. So, rather than provide money to a company with whom they disagree, these people are going to boycott A&E Networks.
But is that enough? After all, A&E Networks is not a standalone company, but is actually a joint venture between two much larger companies. Therefore, the two parent companies also bear responsibility for suppressing the Bible.
And who are those two companies?
A+E Networks is a joint venture of Disney-ABC Television Group and Hearst Corporation.
Let's start with Rosebud. Take this article that talks about the controversy. Actually, don't take it. You shouldn't read it. That article appeared on the website of the San Francisco Chronicle, a Hearst-owned newspaper. If you read that article and look at the ads, you're supporting Bible suppression.
Which brings us to Disney. As I've previously noted, this particular company is famous for popularizing portrayals of sorcery, poisoning, and the worship of Greek gods. So it stands to reason that a Disney-owned company would punish someone for quoting from the Bible. And to top it off, we all know what happened to Hannah Montana.
Are those who are willing to boycott A&E also willing to boycott ALL of the Hearst newspapers, ALL of the Disney theme parks, and ALL of the college football bowl games that will air on ESPN over the next month?
After all, every touchdown scored by Notre Dame in the New Era Pinstripe Bowl is another six (yes, six) points against the Bible.
Are sola scriptura Christians prepared to boycott A&E's corporate parents? - I'm not a big fan of boycotts, because they're fairly ineffective. Yes, I know that it was cool for people to say that they were "not gonna play Sun City" ...
5 hours ago