Well, it’s about time. A&E has suspended Duck Dynasty‘s patriarch, Phil Robertson, for his frank Christian commentary on homosexuality.
The popular show, which is about evangelical Christians, has been a wildly popular, profitable venture for A&E. Only now, with the dismissal of Phil Robertson, have they decided that their claim of “having always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community” actually requires them to air programs in line with that claim.
To see this as an entertainment-page drama over free speech is silly (sorry, Sarah Palin). Instead, this is yet another instance in which a major American entity has made it clear that in the fight between culture and morality, they are on the side opposite Christians.
As some people have pointed out, they were within their rights. Nobody insists that a private network allow anything and everything just because participants in their program wish to exercise their right to free speech. I’m not complaining that the network made this move. In fact, I’m grateful.
I prefer a fair fight. Make it clear where you stand, since I have made it equally clear. Let us dispense with the obfuscating, trendy language of tolerance and openness, which really only masks a vast intolerance of all opinions but their own.
This is not the true tolerance, and ecumenism of Pope Francis, who says, “True openness involves remaining steadfast in one’s deepest convictions, clear and joyful in one’s own identity, while at the same time being “open to understanding those of the other party” and “knowing that dialogue can enrich each side”. (Evangelii gaudium).
This is the false-faced ‘tolerance’ of the “Co-Exist” generation, which, when it is revealed for the sham it is, evaporates into the privileging of one set of opinions over everything and everyone else, with a totalitarian silencing of any who think differently–or worse (and more commonly) the launching of a smear-campaign predicated on misquotes and caricatures.
Not to overquote Pope Francis, but he also said, of interreligious dialogue (which liberals and the ‘Co-Exist’ proponents claim to want):
“A healthy pluralism, one which genuinely respects differences and values them as such, does not entail privatizing religions in an attempt to reduce them to the quiet obscurity of the individual’s conscience or to relegate them to the enclosed precincts of churches, synagogues or mosques. This would represent, in effect, a new form of discrimination and authoritarianism. The respect due to the agnostic or non-believing minority should not be arbitrarily imposed in a way that silences the convictions of the believing majority or ignores the wealth of religious traditions” (EG 255).
Yet arbitrarily imposing silence on Christians in the name of ‘tolerance’ is exactly what A&E, Starbucks, and others, are doing in the U.S.
Take for example, what Phil Robertson actually said (excerpted directly from the interview):
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”
What, in your mind, is sinful?
“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,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “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.”
Two paragraphs later, Phil continues:
“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
Compare that to what is reported. Headlines include things like ‘Duck Dynasty’ star suspended for anti-gay remarks,’ and the articles, invariably, quote sparingly and manipulatively from the first paragraph I quoted above, where he lists homosexuality along with other sexual sins, but never from the second paragraph, where he speaks of forgiveness, evangelization, and non-judgment. In fact, his original point in mentioning things like bestiality and adultery was to offer his opinion that, if you allow some sin, you end up having to allow all sin, but that at the end of it all, the right to judge hearts lies with God.
The way the media spins it, however, you’d think he’d said he hated gays or wished they were all dead, like this little gem of reporting from CNN:
“Phil Robertson, a star of A&E’s ‘Duck Dynasty,’ has been suspended indefinitely after slamming gays in a magazine interview.”
Slamming?
Then you have the response of GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) to Robertson’s remarks:
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”
Christianity has always been clear about homosexuality. It condemns it. People who disagree with that tenet of Christian belief are not really Christian. So firstly, the GLAAD representative’s remark is inaccurate. More importantly, Phil’s comments were not stereotyping or even commenting on gay people themselves. He merely reiterated/paraphrased the Bible, and made an observation about the slippery slope of an all-inclusive relative morality. Furthermore, for a group clamoring for an non-judgmental acceptance of others regardless of their lifestyle, GLAAD seems to be making some pretty sweeping judgments about the sincerity of the Robertsons’ beliefs, and some pretty intolerant desires for ‘public disdain’ and rejection as their punishment for living a Christian lifestyle.
As I said before, I’m grateful. Thank you, A&E, for making it so clear what you think of Christianity. Thank you for showing us all that the only reason you’ve aired Duck Dynasty to begin with was profit. Thank you for letting practicing Christians in the U.S. (millions of whom are Duck Dynasty fans) know that you consider them a ‘stain’ on the country.
Because, let’s speak plainly. Even though we are to fight evil with Christ and hatred with love, let us not describe such conflicts in honeyed terms, or pretend that there are not two sides.
This is war.
25 thoughts on “A Big Round of Applause to A&E For Doing the Honest Thing!”
Nicely done, Bravo.
Christianity has always been clear about homosexuality. It condemns it.
The Church actually condemns acts. The inclination is a temptation. For us this is obvious. For others, not so much.
Oh, I am so forwarding this article to a few choice individuals. Excellent perspective on this latest display by the media to “twerk” the truth…..and quite hypocritically, to say the least. Kudos to Megan!
That’s a wonderful analysis. The reaction from all sides of this issue is a clear indication of how ideologically rigid many people in America are, and how incapable of actual dialogue those in the media and those with their agendas actually are. I appreciated this.
Pingback: Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson and Same-Sex Attraction | iwannabeasaint
The man speaks of actions and the “rightness” and “wrongness” of actions. Even the most liberal of thinkers would have to acknowledge that the basis of ethics is the same thought process. Open-mindedness can not, and must not deaden our sense of absolutes. Chaos is the only result of absolute relativism, and this chaos would infringe upon the rights and freedoms of all persons. If someone does wrong let him know – out of love for him, not judgment of him. Regardless of all the sound bites about “HATE”, Christianity is about Love and Truth and nothing more. May God Bless you all with His peace.
I completely agree. Everyone is entitled to their interpretation of ‘Love’ and ‘truth’. What I disagree with is when people impose their beliefs on others through force and the law.
What about laws against murder or rape? What if ‘someone’s interpretation’ of what is permissible includes raping or murdering? Doesn’t the government/laws/citizens have some responsibility for laying moral groundwork based on a shared set of principles and absolute Truths?
I am actually writing a book about this. This has probably been the hardest question for mankind.
Ask yourself why do so many cultures with so many different sets of assumptions have laws against murder, rape, stealing, and assault. Even the godless Communists had laws against murder.
The bottom line is you don’t need culture or ideology to understand why violence is problematic. Humans join groups for survival. Violence is banned because groups can not exist without some framework and rules to ensure the coexistence of individuals within that group.
The problem with culture and ideology is that it adds all this extraneous garbage.
“The bottom line is you don’t need culture or ideology to understand why violence is problematic.”
You’re exactly right! The innate sense of right and wrong is called ‘natural law’. Catholicism in no way contradicts, and in fact enhances and clarifies, tenets already ingrained in our hearts by God’s natural law.
The new God of the non-believers is conformity. We must all think alike according to their new God. We must all go to the same schools, learn the same lessons, speak like everyone else, be like everyone else, or we will be condemed.
We must all agree that sexual sins are not sins anymore or be condemed. It is just that simple.
Oh I left out one rule of the conformity cabal; they decide what is normal and conforming.
No you simpleton. Believe whatever you want. ‘Non-believers’ do not want you to be like them, they just don’t want to live under your laws.
So you think contraception is wrong. What about blow jobs? They don’t lead to babies. Are they bad too?
Precisely. Especially your last statement.
Why doesn’t the Catholic Church publicly speak out against blow jobs?
If you are sincerely asking, the Church has and always will condemn all non-generative sexual acts and all sexual acts outside of marriage. Although the Catechism does not mention oral sex by name (nor a host of other sexual sins), it does make it clear that all sexual acts which deliberately or inadvertantly preclude or frustrate the possibility of life are gravely sinful. Such acts, usually performed solely for sexual pleasure, remove one of the necessary components of marital sexual union–openness to procreation. The Church chooses to carefully and clearly define the parameters of what is or is not permissible, rather than list every single variant of sexual sin that is forbidden. This is partially, I think, because there are so many perversions of sex, no list could be complete, which would be unhelpful.
However, my piece was on Duck Dynasty, so perhaps we should forego a full-blown debate on sexual morality. 😉
So what about sex with an infertile women?
Natural infertility is not a deliberate or mechanical/artificial attempt to preclude or prevent procreation. In fact, some women deemed ‘infertile’ become pregnant even when doctors thought it would be almost or completely impossible. Thus, for a married couple to have sex even when one party is assumed to be infertile is not sinful, because they are still having sex that is open to life (even if it’s improbable or physically unlikely).
Menopause?
Same thing. Again, the Church forbids all attempts to stymie natural fertility. That includes any and all methods of contraception. So, for a woman past menopause, as long as no artificial contraception is used, married sexual union is still permitted because–should God choose–the couple isn’t preventing a pregnancy. It’s just highly unlikely that an older woman will conceive (though not impossible–look at the Bible!).
How do blow jobs stymie natural fertility?
Respectfully, this conversation is going in circles–and I try not to feed the trolls 😉
In all seriousness, if you would like to continue this conversation (and I am more than happy to do so, I just don’t think this is the forum for it), please feel free to shoot me an email at: mgarcia19891916@gmail.com.
God bless!
PS. The short response to your question is: male sperm contain the seed of life; according to the Catholic Church, male ejaculation is *never* permissible outside of the actual act of sexual intercourse with your [female] spouse, sans contraceptives.
Right… and so masterbation leeds to hell to?
Pingback: TrackBack
Pingback: Trackback