My first encounter with the whole Duck Dynasty craze was when I was last in a Christian bookstore (still trying to get the taste out of my mouth), and I came across what I can only describe as a shrine to the show, and to Phil Robertson, one of its stars. And now, apparently, he has been suspended from the show by the network for his anti-gay comments expressed in an interview to GQ Magazine (something about anuses bad, vaginas good).
Now, Robertson’s views were hardly new, and certainly not new to the folks at A&E if they bothered to vet him, as this video plainly demonstrates.
It seems to me, then, that to really get at the heart of the matter we need to understand that there are a few things that this is NOT about. First, this is not about freedom of speech or the suspension of it. Anyone can say anything they want in this country without government interference (which is what freedom of speech protects). But four seconds’ thought should reveal that this has nothing to do with the Duck Dynasty episode, for the simple reason that Robertson wasn’t just speaking, he was speaking to a hugely influential international magazine in a planned, interview setting. And moreover, what he was saying was directed against a growing segment of the population. And further, it wasn’t the government that got involved to punish him, it was a private corporation that happened to be his employer, and to which he (almost surely) had made contractual promises not to engage in such speech publicly (Hashtag, Conservatives Don’t Get To Complain Here Because Last Time I Checked They Love The Free Market).
Furthermore, I don’t think this is an issue of tolerance — either Robertson’s lack of it towards gays or A&E’s lack of it towards him. The network clearly had no problem enriching this man in spite of his personal religious views on homosexuality, and in Robertson’s defense, most of his publicly-stated views are merely an echoing of what the Bible seems to teach pretty clearly.
So if it’s not about freedom of speech or about tolerance, what is it about?
In my view it’s about prudence and love. Does Robertson have the right to hold his positions? Of course. Does A&E have the right to suspend him for voicing them? Yes. But this whole fiasco could have been avoided if a little care and diplomacy had been exercised on Robertson’s part. He should realize that the entertainment industry of which he is now a part is comprised of many gay and lesbian people, people who are good and decent and caring members of society. And even though he has every right to believe what he wants about them privately, that right doesn’t necessitate or compel him to voice everything he happens to think every chance he gets to do so, as though the world is owed some precious access to his thoughts and feelings at every given moment.
In fact, what Robertson should have done is taken a page out of Pope Francis’s playbook. I mean, that kid has a knack for getting the most religion-hating liberals to absolutely adore him while they simultaneously and frustratedly admit that he is not altering the Church’s views on any of the hot-button topics under discussion. How does he do it? How has the pope just mastered this whole PR thing? Well, he basically says, “Look, you all know already what the Church thinks about abortion, and gay marriage, and birth control, so you probably don’t need me reminding of those positions every ten minutes like some smug a-hole. So if you don’t mind — and the conservatives in the crowd may need to excuse themselves to vomit — I’ma go embrace that boil-covered leper over there and treat him like a human being for the first time in his life (and I also plan to denounce savage capitalism a few times before lunch). Seacrest out!”
All this to say, some of us may celebrate the fact that our national airwaves will be one swamp-dwelling redneck lighter for the foreseeable future, and others may lament the triumph of the quote-unquote liberal agenda. But the bigger question is this: “How, in a culture that is growing more and more a-religious with the death of every old person, do those who do hold to some religious creed co-exist with those who do not share it?”
I mean, seriously, what’s the plan? Secession? Armed revolt? Stomping your feet? Whinging about Leave It To Beaver getting canceled? Because for my part (and unlike many of the contributors here I happen to be a religious guy), I would rather figure out how to humanize, and dignify, and love those who differ from me rather than seeing every circumstance in life as an opportunity to trumpet our differences.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know: I’m just a Marxist antichrist who was probably born in Kenya. . . .
Jason, yeah yeah, I know I’m a fascist wall street 1%er who was prolly born in the Rockefeller family…
Money is the root of all kinds of evil, fellow Christian sir. The problem attacking Capitalism proper is what do you want to replace it with? I know that’s not the sole point of your post here, but as a man with a degree from an economics department, and a man with 2k leanings that you and I do agree on (despite our differneces in which branch of Western Xiandom we fall on), I’m not completely on board with the Vicar’s views, but whatev, he’s free to his opinions as am I.
I’m rambling here, but thanks for blogging. You are a joy to follow (most of the time, remember, I’m a prot..)
Take care.
A Catholic take on this is good, but I’ll take Douthat’s thumbnail: “A&E is ridiculous. Robertson is ridiculous. America is ridiculous. Merry Christmas, and may God have mercy on us all.”
While I like his otherwise anti-culture warrior posture, the thing about the Francis example you choose here is how it’s just celebrity-oriented as Duckbeard’s. I know, it’s probably my Reformed sensibilities about not wearing faith one the sleeve, prayer closets and all that, but I fail to see how the problem with Duckbeard isn’t also one with Francis. Why does the world-at-large need anybody’s pious displays or pontifications?
How, in a culture that is growing more and more a-religious with the death of every old person, do those who do hold to some religious creed co-exist with those who do not share it?
Pontificating much here, but I’m not too too concerned with my folks etc dying (exponetiate that around the planet (or cosmos?)) that God didn’t design even that little wrinkle into the fabric of existence as a part of his grand design. The atheist wants to tell me that the look forward to death is, dunno, fatalism, cowardice, you name the adjective yourself. A Good Christian author, if memory serves, tells me Man was designed (destined) for more than this corporeal existence. There’s a name of a book on a blog I read, a boom I haven’t explored, but sounds like it could be good. On the tip of my tongue..
After all, oh death, where art thy vicotry? Thy sting?
Lates.
Andrew,
I don’t know, something fairer. But as you say, this isn’t really the point of my post.
I just think that the days of “I believe X, and therefore this country belongs to me” are over. We live in a post-Christian society and we all need to adjust, especially when it comes to how we carry ourselves in the public square.
Zrim,
Ha ha, love it.
I think your cynicism-skirt is showing. People who know the pope would tell you that Bishop Bergoglio was no different when he was serving in Argentina (riding the bus, doing the priests’ laundry, etc. Now that he’s pope, his job is pretty much to model the faith for the world. So I don’t think the “do your good works where no one can see them” rule applies here.
I just think that the days of “I believe X, and therefore this country belongs to me” are over.
Alright, I got you, and am with you here.
Cheers, and Merry Christmas to you.
Good point about not needing to remind folks every five minutes of our positions, but in fairness, wasn’t Robertson responding to a direct question with a direct answer? His reference to body parts was artless, to my thinking, but he hadn’t previously been harping on this one subject. If he had, all this would probably have come up long ago.
People who know the pope aren’t really in my circles.
But gird your paradigmatic loins: maybe his job isn’t quite in line with the Bible? I mean, what are you saying, a biblical principle is not only selectively applicable but also not applicable to someone whose job it is to model the faith? Still, you may have a point. While the Bible seems to forbid public faith modeling, being extra-biblical doesn’t bother Catholics. Duckbeard-the-biblicist should know better. Then again, biblicists aren’t as interested in the Bible as their description might suggest.
To answer Zrim’s question “…but I fail to see how the problem with Duckbeard isn’t also one with Francis. Why does the world-at-large need anybody’s pious displays or pontifications?” I think love without parameters is exactly what the world needs and rarely seen. Such displays, particularly by a religious figure, speak even louder.
Joe,
Yes, but he still should have been more diplomatic, I think. He should have understood his audience and his (new) community. Unless, of course, he wanted all this to happen. But if not, he should have dodged the question because now he’s made his bed and has to sleep in it.
Zrim,
I think you and other Hartians overplay the whole “Hide it under a bushel? YES!” thing. Jesus and the apostles walked around healing people and preaching sermons and casting out demons publicly. All the pope is doing is cruising around blessing all the throngs of people who want to see him. No big whoop.
And my larger point, of course, is that not saying everything you think all the time (prudence) can be a virtue.
Go easy on Phil Robertson. He’s the new Rosa Parks:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/ian-bayne-duck-dynasty_n_4480745.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
LOVE IT!!!! ALL OF IT!!
Nah. This has quite a bit to do with freedom of speech. It is irrelevant that the government protects a person’s right to say things. The social media pages blew up with tens of thousands of tirades about how Robertson needs to be silenced. So the issue is freedom of speech, but the issue is being raised by “we the people” who apparently do not believe in freedom of speech anymore.
But here is what I observed whilst flipping through the FB pages of my homosexual friends. Not one cry to hang Robertson. I did however see two comments regarding Robertson that specifically requested that people drop it. One was clear as a bell. “He has freedom of speech, and he is allowed to think what he wants.”
So quite a few of my straight friends blew up in a furry of rage, demanding all but the death of Robertson, while my gay friends respect his freedom to speak his mind.
If there is not something so profoundly telling in that…
In peoples efforts to be PC, they have decided that freedom of speech is not reality. They have decided that “we the people” will publicly crucify different opinions or thoughts. Gays won’t do this, because they have been there and learned their lessons.
“We the people” have become the thought police. The minority in this equation, at least from my perspective, have taken the high road, and let Robertson be. They do this because they just want the same thing.
Reuben,
Thanks for your comments.
No one is saying that Phil doesn’t have the freedom to say what he wants. But when you are the public face of hugely successful TV show aired by the company that employs you, you simply don’t have the freedom to say anything you want in a magazine interview.
The guy spoke without thinking, and now he’s paying the price. Simple as that.
I must have clocked out at some point, because for some reason, everyone has responded with the exact same line. “Nobody is saying Robertson…”
That is astounding head in the sand stuff right there.
MILLIONS ARE DEMANDING HE BE SILENCED!
Yes, I yelled.
Who cares what A&E does. I sure don’t. They have the right to start a new reality show dedicated to Robertson preaching. They have the right to fire him. I respect that right.
What has changed is the fact that there are fewer and fewer who respect that right. They trumpet tollerence. They only tollerate so much. They have taken complete leave of their senses.
I think what you’re missing is that EVERYONE has the same right to free speech, including those who want to express their disapproval of what Phil said. If you think they’re trying to silence his right to free speech, then what makes you any different in how you’re acting towards them?
I’m all for the Free Speech. Robertson should be able to voice his Moral Opinion without threat of losing his employment. A&E is in essence his employer.
Similarly, a Christian owned business shouldn’t be able to fire someone who is Pro Gay Marriage, even though that is a contrary Moral Opinion to that business.
We need a Standard that is adhered to equally for all.
The Gay Agenda will likely want it both ways (pardon the entendre, you know those Gays)…they’ll want a Robertson fired for what they consider anti-gay remarks, but they will want the right of a gay man to express his Pro Gay Marriage moral opinion without fearing being fired from a Church or other Christian owned business.
Pick a Standard and stick with it and apply it equally to all sides.
As a Libertarian, I say you should be able to voice your moral opinion without fear of job recrimination…whether it’s a Pro Gay opinion or a “Gay is immoral” moral opinion.
Christian, you missed me. Entirely. I am Libertarian. I say live and let live. I say to the blog host that this is about free speech. It is under attack now. It is not the government or A&E. Thats silly. It people who have chosen to be tollerant, and again, only to a degree. Its blood after that.
And Christian,
Seriously, equate me with your picture of me again. Please. I assume nothing of you. Do people the favor of assuming nothing of them.
My grace days at PhxP are over. To them, I am a drunk, a quack, gone off the rails.
How am I acting towards “them”? Do tell. Educate me on me.
Hi Alex.
Reuben, I didn’t miss you entirely or at all. I simply disagree. Liberals are not calling for him to not have the right to say what he said. That would be an attack on freedom of speech. They’re expressing (sometimes vehemently) their disapproval of what he said, which I believe is also free speech. This has nothing to do with “freedom of speech.”
Sorry, Reuben, you lost me with that lost comment. I didn’t assume anything about you. I was responding to your post:
So the issue is freedom of speech, but the issue is being raised by “we the people” who apparently do not believe in freedom of speech anymore.
My point, which perhaps I didn’t express clearly, is that you are expressing your disapproval of people who are calling out for his dismissal, but what I believe you’re missing is that they have the right to do that because of freedom of speech. You are, in a sense, wanting them silenced, just as you are accusing them of wanting Robertson silenced.
I didn’t assume anything about you personally. I don’t even know who you are. Sorry.
*last comment
Christian,
Liberals are in fact calling for him to not be able to say what he said.
How is that mentally stable?
I don’t want them silenced! I want them to learn! Tollerance is correct. Tollerance to a degree is stupid.
Liberals are calling for him not to have the right to say what he said, or they’re calling for him not to have the platform he has enjoyed with A&E? Those are two completely different things. If they’re calling for him not to have the right to say what he said, can you provide me with a mainstream liberal example?
Also, I disagree that tollerance [sic] to a degree is stupid. (i.e. someone threatening to kill someone should not be tolerated under “freedom of speech.”)
So the super logic comes out. Like duck guy. Gay is screwing cows. Freedom of speech is threatening to kill you.
Right.
Back to drinking.
Night yall.
Giid to see you in the blogs Alex.
Wow. Talk about missing a point entirely.
JJS, I know you find the silence ethic over-played. But I’m not sure we get these distracting and annoying things without religious celebrity of one sort or another at play, whether it’s broad American evangelicalism over gayness or the RCC coming in for worldwide scrutiny on the child abuse scandals. And why? Because both are more at ease with public religion. Meanwhile, nobody knows the URC (unlike more culturalist leaning communions) has elected to stay silent on formal statements concerning marriage because 1) it needs no clarifying, everybody knows men go with women and 2) it’s a worldly affair, let the world sort it out. We have neither popes nor TV stars and we seem better for it–no fools popping off and embarrassing us wholesale or pontiffs parading around tossing out good tidings as if nothing is happening.
PS the point about public display of piety isn’t meant to deny the public nature of faith. Yes, Jesus and company openly taught, etc., but it wasn’t to gain the sort of public fawning Francis gets or the kind of opportunity to whine about “persecution” that the Duckbeardians seek. In fact, their public faith only stored up the very opposite.
Jason, have you read the article/interview with Phil in GQ? If not, then seeing the full context of Phil’s remarks is important here, I think: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson
The reporter’s questions, and Phil’s answers, are not presented in a direct Q & A format in the article, and at times, it’s a bit difficult to ascertain whether Phil is actually replying to a direct question from the interviewer, or whether Phil’s observations are simply being “dropped into” certain parts of the article, possibly, to paint a particularly controversial portrait of him which well sell copies of CG. (I’m so cynical, hehe… actually, I’m really not, in general, or I try not to be, but given the format of this article/interview, and given the rather, ahem, “boys will be boys” hedonistic slant of GG in general, I think that there may be good reason to be at least *a little* suspicious of the interviewer’s presentation of Phil and his remarks therein.)
Of course, one may reasonably say, as you did in your post, that Phil should have known the nature of the entity that he was engaging here (GQ, and a larger entertainment industry, in which many people with homosexual inclinations are involved), and, thus, that he should not have mentioned homosexuality at all. I do get your point there.
There is certainly the need for Christians to be respectful, *always*, of all human beings made in the image of God, whether they identify as “heterosexual” or “homosexual” or “bi” or “asexual.” As a Catholic, I love, love, love the fact that in the Catechism, the Church refuses to identify people primarily by their sexual tendencies. We’re all human beings, made in His image, *first,* and *that* is our real identity, not our sexual and/or romantic inclinations. Even though some of Phil’s language is clumsy and coarse, I think that he gets what I just tried to articulate, because, among many other statements in the article, he says the following:
““You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”
He also makes these statements:
“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?”
Now, a lot of people are deeply angry that Phil mentioned people with homosexual inclinations along with “drunks” and “terrorists”– but as a Christian, I can’t help but ask myself, didn’t St. Paul basically speak in very similar language? I mean, Phil actually paraphrases (almost quotes, verbatim!) Paul here:
“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.”
If we’re going to say that Phil was not circumspect with his remarks in the GQ article, what do we then say about St. Paul’s extremely blunt, direct, no-apologies forms of preaching and writing in the pagan context of the Roman Empire? If he were among us today, how would he speak to a GQ interview about the various forms of sin that are highly visible in American society today? He might well say quite a bit about consumerism and hedonistic materialism– and with very good, abundant reason. He might also speak about homosexual sex and/or same-sex marriage, to a GQ interviewer, in terms that would anger and possibly alienate much of their audience… but doesn’t he do that very thing in the Bible, for anyone and everyone to read, anywhere and everywhere in the world (at least if they are literate, and if they’re not, then they can still easily hear Paul’s words preached in church services and on Christian radio)?
I’m not saying that I disagree with the Pope’s way of engaging the subject of homosexuality either– I emphatically *do not* disagree with him, because he is stating the Christian, Catholic truth that we are *all* humans beings, made in His image, and that God loves *all* of us, no matter what tendencies we may have, sexual or otherwise! 🙂 From Phil’s statements in the GQ article though, he seems to completely agree with the Pope, and with the New Testament, on that point.
Anyway, I’ll end this mini-dissertation of a comment of that note. 🙂 Actually, I won’t, hehe! One last thought on something that you wrote about in your post:
“All this to say, some of us may celebrate the fact that our national airwaves will be one swamp-dwelling redneck lighter for the foreseeable future, and others may lament the triumph of the quote-unquote liberal agenda.”
I really do understand– personally, viscerally– the derisive and/or dismissive attitude that many non-Southerners, and some people *in* the South, have toward “rednecks.” I’ll explain: I was born and raised in a small town in Alabama and, as an atheist punk rocker there, I hated, deeply and viscerally, the “rednecks” who used to utterly torment me in junior high and high school. In an adolescent form of retaliation against them, I would ridicule them, and aspects of their likes and dislikes, to my punk-rocker friends– to the point that, in retrospect, I actually dehumanized the “rednecks,” behind their backs, as much as they dehumanized me, to my face.
Looking back on those years now, I can only say, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, and Kyrie eleison. Only one of them has ever apologized to me for making my pre-college educational years a virtual living Hell– but they are all still human beings, made in the image of God, and I love them and value them, now, in ways that I did not and could not before, because my anger against them, and my smug sense of superiority *to* them, had blinded me to their very humanity. Sigh… sin sucks…. but thank God for repentance, forgiveness, and mercy!!!
Sorry for all of the typos! I obviously meant “GQ” in every section of my comment where I unintentionally typed something else for the name of the magazine. I probably should not be commenting at all this early in the morning. Back to bed!