Phil Robertson in a interview with GQ expressed his beliefs as a very conservative and devout Christian. If anyone was surprised by his statements I’d have to ask what show they were watching. This show has never hidden the fact that the Robertson family is a Christian family. And while not all Christians believe as Phil does (I personally don’t) it’s not a surprise to hear that some do believe as he does.
A&E suspended Phil from filming which makes tons of sense. Because you know, you aren’t allow to hold any beliefs that might be seen as offensive.
Here is the statement A&E released:
“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’,” the network said in a statement.
“His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”
What? You’re disappointed that Phil holds some pretty well known Christian beliefs? Or are you disappointed that he chose to not keep his mouth shut about them so you could continue to pretend he isn’t Christian and continue to make a shit ton of money off his family?
So I was thinking, because often when these things happen a lot of things are said about how stating a religious belief such as his is intolerant, unaccepting and hateful. But if you think about this, unless he’s acting out on his beliefs, what exactly is intolerant and unaccepting?
For instance I personally think drinking is wrong. It’s a personal belief and because of it I myself don’t drink. I can state that I find drinking to be wrong and that’s my right to my opinion. But how is that unaccepting and intolerant of drinkers? See I’ve made a choice for myself to not drink and I don’t make other people abide by my belief process. So unless I’m forcing people to not drink, or putting them down and calling them horrible names, or beating them up or harassing them, all it is my opinion.
See I think what happens in the situation like Phil’s is a complete misunderstanding of the concept of sin. Sinning doesn’t make a person bad, immoral or evil, no matter how some people try to make it mean that. Sinning makes a person normal.
Because we all sin. And in God’s eyes my sin is no different than your sin. There is no ranking system (even if a church tries to tell you there is). To God a sin is a sin and that’s that. No ifs ands or buts about it. Sin is sin and God doesn’t like sin.
We all do it.
Of course should we call people out as sinners? Nope. Frankly we shouldn’t. As the Pope likes to say, “Who am I to judge?” And that’s very true. We aren’t the judge and jury of sin. That’s God’s job. I’m going to leave it up to him.
But even if we are not to call people out on their sins, doing so isn’t that offensive. It’s certainly not as offensive as people like to make it out to be. Also by saying people are sinning doesn’t mean that people are hateful as well.
We all do things in general that people will disagree with. Some might even see them as bad. But that doesn’t mean we are bad people. If the standard of who I associate with was based on who agrees totally and completely with me and behaved like me in every way, I’d have no one to associate with.
This idea that everyone must hold the same belief on subjects is insane. This is a diverse country with a diverse people, to even try to strip that away from us would be foolish.
People fight for equality, acceptance and tolerance for “everyone”. But that’s untrue. They’re fighting for acceptance and tolerance and equality for only the group they are working for. Rarely does their call extend to other groups. And that makes them hypocrites.
People should really think about it. You want people to treat you with respect, acceptance, tolerance but you can’t afford those same things to others? What the hell makes one person more deserving of acceptance, tolerance, and equality than another?
It seems to me that in recent years the push has been to make everyone believe as certain vocal special interest groups believe. And even if I agree with their general purpose to educate and bring awareness I can’t jump on the bandwagon of trying to shut up people who don’t think like you.
Tolerance and acceptance has to be given to all, no matter how weird, hateful, ignorant a statement is.
If you don’t like it, shouldn’t we then try to open a dialogue? How does one educate someone by calling for their head on a stick? How the hell is that education? How the hell does that fix the issue?
You know often parents talk about how children shouldn’t be fearful of their parents punishments. That children should rather do the right thing because it’s the right thing not because they fear the repercussions of their actions.
The concept is similar here. Are we in fact fixing the issue of hate and intolerance by using fear of the repercussions as a driving force? How the hell does one change the mind of someone if when you hear something hateful or hurtful you attack rather than teach? Does anyone believe that by removing Phil from the show that he’s suddenly going to change his mind?
No. He won’t change his mind. And it won’t change anyone else’s either. Because all you’ve done is silence people. Not educated. Just silenced people who don’t think like you. That does nothing to change this nation. It just means people aren’t talking in general. You’re using fear as a motivating factor, not education.
It seems counterproductive. You can’t teach if you’re unwilling to listen in general.
Anyhow that’s my long winded rant on why those who are shouting to silence Phil are just as intolerant of people as Phil supposedly is intolerant of people. Of course his actions (meaning the way he lives his life) say otherwise.
Edited to add: A&E the champion for the LGBT community hired Phil knowing his stance on homosexuality. What champion of LGBT rights would do that?