Phil Robertson is an Odd Duck
I don’t watch Duck
Dynasty. It was recommended to me; I
tried and didn’t last 5 minutes. My idea of, “reality” television means real
writing, real dialogue, real acting and real production values. The venue of the program does not bother me. While I certainly won’t be out in the cold,
itchy, buggy wilds to bring down a duck, I will eat all of them you want to
bring home. In fact, if you will do the
messy gutting and plucking I will cook the bird, all side dishes, provide the
wine and clean up afterwards. Yup, I’m a
city girl, no apologies offered.
That
being said, I simply do not get the angry response to Phil’s interview in
GQ. First of all, GQ wanted this
interview to fill a certain niche. If
Phil had come off as a closet liberal who simply likes to go to a vanilla
flavored church they would have shelved the whole interview. They wanted him to say something that rings
bells, and, clever business man that he is, he not only rang a bell, he applied
a mallet to a gong. Mr. Robertson is
happy; GQ is happy; everyone who markets Duck Dynasty material is happy. I suspect even the LGBT community is happy,
too. They get to hop on their soap box,
an opportunity never missed.
Robertson
is wide-ranging and specific in his paraphrasing of Corinthians’ list of who is
on God’s, “naughty” list. He includes
not just homosexuals, but also adulterers, idolaters, the greedy, drunkards,
slanderers or swindlers. None of these,
he says, will be granted the Kingdom
of Heaven . He considers all of these actions to be
sins. But he then goes on to say,
“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are
different from me. We are all created by
the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God
and loved each other.”
This
makes it abundantly clear that his condemnation of homosexuality along with the
laundry list of others discretions he gave does not refer to a temporal, but
ecclesiastical attitude. He is allowed
his opinion on this. I don’t hear the
capitalists decrying him for naming greed as a sin. I don’t even hear career politicians taking
umbrage at Robertson’s reference to swindlers (appropriate), or their campaign
staffers for the venial sin of slander.
The man has made a religious reference, which is protected free
speech.
Robertson
is frank about his misspent youth as a devotee of sex, drugs and
rock-n-roll. Evidently he operated as
his own moral authority for a while and it landed him in a nasty dark
hole—usually does. Like many recovering
abusers, he simply replaced a destructive addiction (alcohol/drugs) for the
much more positive mental and emotional attachment to religion. He has become a successful business owner,
provides employment for many, supports his family and is staying out of trouble. All of that is a good thing.
Whether
or not you like his feelings about homosexuality, none of it is more offensive
than Melissa Harris-Perry wearing tampons for earrings. I found that cheap trick mightily offensive,
but I didn’t ask for her to be fired.
While I do believe there are some things a woman keeps private, I don’t
want little Melissa out of work and on the dole. To those who are sure that Phil Robertson
should be vilified for holding a religious belief which they don’t agree with—get
over it. You do not have to share his
beliefs.
Support
religious freedom, and keep the faith.
Comments