Rodney King, Duck Dynasty and Moral Redistribution

What do Phil Robertson and Rodney King have in common? 

Rodney King, of course, is the drug addicted, alcoholic, convicted felon who’s beating by Los Angeles Police officers was caught on video and turned into a watershed event in civil rights.  Ultimately, in a civil trial, King won a judgment of $3.8 million.  Instead of using that money to turn his life around the money only enabled his drug and alcohol addiction.  The rest of King’s life was a series of arrests, substance abuse, rehab, failed marriages and unprotected sex.  He died at the bottom of a swimming pool on June 17, 2012, his body full of alcohol, cocaine, marijuana and PCP.  He was 47 years old.  He was broke. 

Phil Robertson is probably not going to die broke.  He has a master’s degree in education, and has enough smarts to start, grow and maintain a profitable company.  Unfortunately, every time Robertson opens his mouth he decreases his face value.  Personally, I think this is a marketing ploy, but that doesn’t make it any more palatable. 

For the record, I think that what consenting adults do is there business, as long as they, “…don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses.” (Alice Roosevelt Longworth)  Homosexuals are decent people who were hard-wired with a different, irrepressible, sexual orientation.  They should be allowed to marry, adopt children, and live with dignity and civil protection. I know what the Bible says about this, but when I hear ordinary mortals using it to condemn people to Hell my first thought is, “…and who are you to put limitations on the Grace of God?”

What Phil has to say about the life of Blacks in the South is ignorance on a stick.  But Phil has the right to say what he wants.  His employer has the right to hire and fire, and we all have the right to support or refute what he says.  I will continue to boycott all things, “Duck Dynasty.”

So, what do King and Robertson have in common?  The answer is that both of these unworthy individuals represent a worthy and larger issue.  It is simply too bad that neither of them is as good a person as the issue they represent.  King brought to the forefront the problem of police who overstep and abuse their authority.  Robertson represents an insidious redistribution of tolerance that attacks Christianity and gives a pass to other ideologies.  The same people who think that income redistribution is a good way to even the playing field (didn’t work so well for King, did it?) have decided it is also a great way to punish the conservative demographic.  Christianity isn’t the biggest religion in the world, but it is the majority religion in the United States.  For no reason, other than its popularity, Christianity has become a target for liberals. 

For example, the ACLU can’t wait to attack a Christmas crèche on public land.  Yet every June, Devil’s Tower in Wyoming is covered with American Indian fetishes and people are discouraged from climbing during that time because it has religious significance to our First Nation’s people.  The ACLU doesn’t say a word about this.  There is no difference between the religious components of crèches and fetishes, yet the minority religion has morphed into a protected class, and Christians have become the bad guys.  

There is no logic here.  You can’t limit the rights of a majority and give added ones to a minority.  To do that endangers both groups.  There is no such thing as moral redistribution.  You must either be consistent in how you judge all groups of people, or recognize yourself as a hypocrite. 

Keep the faith with justice for all.