A&E television has
indefinitely suspended Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the clan of TV’s
popular reality show “Duck Dynasty” following remarks that the 67-year-old Louisiana
native made in a GQ
interview. In the interview, the bearded elder statesman made statements
that have been perceived by some as homophobic and perceived by others as a
sincere statement of true Christian beliefs. When asked what behavior he
believes to be sinful, Robertson responded:
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph
out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and
that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the
idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the
drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom
of God. Don’t deceive yourself.
It’s not right.”
Critics charge that this was not
the first time that Phil Robertson expressed homophobic views, citing a video
of a 2010 speech that has surfaced on YouTube.
While many defenders of
Robertson are crying foul based upon First Amendment considerations, this
controversy is not a Constitutional matter. The First Amendment defends the
free speech and freedom of religion of individuals against infringement by the
federal government and by incorporation, against the state governments.
Robertson’s rights were in no way violated by the government. He has the right
to say what he did. Likewise his defenders and detractors have the right to say
what they are saying about the controversy. A&E is a private entity—a cable
channel owned jointly by the Hearst Corporation and Disney. Whether A&E has
the right to suspend Phil Robertson from the show depends upon the nature and
content of the contract. Whether it is prudent for A&E to suspend Phil
Robertson is a complex matter involving considerations of sponsors, viewers,
etc.
Many Robertson defenders believe
that because the sentiments expressed by Phil Robertson appear in the Bible,
any disapproval of his words must be some kind of political correctness gone
awry. One wonders if they would feel the same if Robertson had used the Bible
to attack Jews: “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers,
specially they of the circumcision:Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert
whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.” Or
if Robertson had been a Muslim using the Koran to attack Christians and Jews:
“Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we
believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed
aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers?” Freedom of speech and
religion require that believers be able to make such statements but also that
disbelievers be able to critique them.
The most crucial issue here is
not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It is also not whether Phil
Robertson’s words were inappropriately homophobic. The issue is the angry and
divided nature of the country. These divisions lead to bizarre and often
disgusting attitudes. Even worse, these divisions enable statists to divide and
conquer.
While Robertson may or may not
be homophobic, there is no doubt that many who have been celebrating his
statements are. While many of his detractors may legitimately be defending what
they view as a potentially dangerous homophobic slur, many of Robertson’s
detractors are playing the “gotcha” game. Such cynical purveyors of bogus
outrage just wait to hear an awkward public statement that sounds a bit sexist,
racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted and then pounce. Most of the time such
statements are not meant to be offensive. This hardly matters when the gender,
race, sexual orientation, or religion card may be played from the deck. Such
cynical accusations of bigotry are as morally wrong as bigotry itself.
Notice all of the hatred spewed
on the internet because of these divisions. While many critics of President
Obama rightly criticize his policies, many attack him because of the color of
his skin. While many justifiably rage against Islamic terrorism, many attack
Islam in general and lump in all Muslims with terrorists. Such disgusting
collectivism pits Americans against one another according to gender, race,
religion, sexual orientation, etc. The corporatist and unconstitutional
Obamacare is devastating the nation’s health care, yet people are spewing
hatred about a reality TV show. President Obama continues to shred the
Constitution, yet people often attack him for his race or claim that he is a
“secret Muslim.” The Federal Reserve and its nefarious backers continue to
destroy the economy, yet the nation is consumed by the nonsensical “War on
Christmas.”
The most sickening symptom of
this division is what now happens when there is a mass shooting or terrorist
attack. The rational and normal response would be to hope that death and injury
is minimized and that the perpetrator is captured. However, the increasingly
common response is to worry about the political ideology of the violent
perpetrator. In the wake of the Boston Marathon Bombing, many progressives
hoped that the attack was carried out by Tea Party types. When it was revealed
that the suspects were Muslims, neoconservatives and Islamophobes seemed
positively gleeful. For many, it no longer really matters how victims may
suffer. Instead, it matters that Floyd Lee Corkins was a progressive gay
activist, that Paul Ciancia opposed the New World Order, that Karl Pierson was a
socialist and Keynesian, etc. Collectivism rearing its ugly head. A Muslim
terrorist means that all Muslims are terrorists. A gay murderer means that all
homosexuals are murderers. An anti-NWO shooter means that all who oppose
globalism and fiat currency are violent criminals. A rampaging socialist means
that all socialists are potential school shooters. Or consider the perverse joy
with which many speak of “knock out” game attacks. Ecstasy over reporting black
on white violence. Consider also those who were more concerned with the idea
that George Zimmerman might be a racist than they were with the fact that
Trayvon Martin died. Instead of sadness and outrage, the new reaction to such
horrific events is joy that the perpetrator holds an ideology that one opposes
and dread if the ideology of the perpetrator is similar to one’s own.
Ben Franklin once famously said:
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” With
the deep and hateful collectivist divisions now present in the country, it
appears that statists will have no trouble erecting separate gallows for each
and every one of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment