Read the story. The WHOLE story and don't rush through it (http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson) and at least a modicum of the comments. Really you will get the whole picture in a nutshell. Bottom line, a big city reporter goes into a backwoods La. fundamental christians home and asks his opinion on sin, writes a story about it and sits back to watch the fireworks. There is a bit more than that which is why I ask you actually take the time to read the entire article. The reporter seems equally fascinated and repulsed by his experience. The bit about why he voted for Romney over Obama is perhaps the most personally damaging thing Phil said in the whole article from my personal bent on life. Go read it if you are interested in what that was about...
Now I have no delusions of 'solving' this one. This issue is now so far beyond the actual facts of the case it is laughable. It is now a rallying cry on both sides of the issue to use Phil and his opinions as a as bogey man or saint/hero depending on how you view the debate. I am just throwing my thoughts out there. Do with them what you will.
First up... Phil's freedom of speech has not been infringed upon. No federal or state government action has been taken to restrict his freedom, IE arrest him and lock him up, based on his comments. Phil expressed his freedom of speech, GQ expressed their freedom of the press and A&E.... did what? That to me is the question. If Phil signed a contract with wording on the lines of something slippery like 'Will not embarrass A&E' or some such and A&E decides his public statements contradict his contract then all they did was (intelligently or not) enforce their contractual rights to control a product they produce (Duck Dynasty show). And they will face the consequences of that decision.
That said should they have suspended him over this? I don't think so. Is Phil a saint? No way, and in his own words no way. He is one of many in this world to royally foul up their life and to restore it at least partially on the foundation of christian faith. It makes for a great story, and the Robertson family plays fantastic on TV. Here is hoping the golden goose was not slain for all involved, Phil, A&E, DD cast and all their fans of which I am one.
So Who's side am I on? Neither really. I am munching popcorn watching a freakin greek tragedy in the news at this point. Phil has the right to believe in Christ and to lead the life he feels that requires. A&E has the right to distance themselves from his interpretation or how they think it reflects on them. The LGBT and non-Chirstian community has the right to express their disapproval. And everyone else has the right to choose to watch/ban/support the results as they see fit. In a nutshell, it is ultimate Americana at its finest as I see it.
And that is that as far as it goes with the story of Phil Robertson and the GQ interview. The rest of this is in response to what I see as a particularly insidious thread of discussion I have seen in numerous comment threads about this issue where it often devolves into this notion that Phil being suspended from DD is a case of 'True' Americans (aka Christians) being beat down by liberal sinners. So where do I stand on that mess? in general I stand on the side of the American system. But what does that mean to me?
It means if anyone takes up Phil's opinions and those same passages in the bible and wants to make them the 'law of the land', that is something to which I will take sides on. If someone wants to try and ban the teaching of the bible and punish those that try and follow it, that is something which I will take sides on. I believe strongly in the freedom to choose for yourself. But, I draw the line at legally forcing others to believe as you. That is not what 'Freedom' in America is about. The concept of individual freedom as defined in America is hard. Believing it means accepting Christians, Homosexuals, KKK members, Atheists, Men, Women, Hindi, Buhddists, Politicians, Lawyers, Car salesmen, Muslims, Athletes, Telemarketers, Geeks etc... all as equally American. Believing in Christ does not make you any more American than someone that does not. Preferring sex with your own gender does not make you more American than those that prefer sex with the opposite gender. I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I struggle with accepting Telemarketers...
The founding of this nation was on the belief that all are created equal and possessing of inalienable rights such as to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in our founding documents of our government does it state what sexual orientation you are required to follow to be American. It most certainly does not specify a mandatory religious belief in order to be American, only that you are free from government persecution of your religion.
For those that hold we were founded by Christians for Christians... I would like to hear your thoughts on why such deeply christian men chose to so carefully avoid specifically calling out God and the teachings of Christ in our founding government documents? Then for bonus points tackle Thomas Jefferson and his personally edited edition of the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible). This one is particularly thorny if you believe the King James Bible or what it is founded on or one of its derivatives to be the indisputable word of God in its entirety.
The story of Christianity and this nation goes back well before its founding. Our founders saw religion and governments as essentially being incompatible and mixing them doomed to create strife. The history of the Crusades was much fresher for them. Governments had only recently managed to effectively separate themselves from the rule of the Pope. The issue of different stripes of Christianity being at war because of the implications of who held power was not just a matter of debate but one of imminent threat in the world. As a result they attempted to deal with (diffuse) what was seen as the inevitable friction of any religious belief and governments. The result was the so called 'separation of church and state'. This separation was held as essential by those same said deeply religious founders. They in effect said 'We will found a government that keeps its nose OUT of religion, in return for religion keeping its nose OUT of government'.
Building our government on the concept that church and state need to be separated did not make these men any more or less Christian than they were. But it most certainly does mean this country (in the sense of its governmental structure) was emphatically NOT founded as Christian. Else we would resemble early New England theocracies (which lead to things like the Salem Witch trials) rather than what we do have. Another thing to keep in mind is that the constitution was our SECOND attempt at forming a foundation for our nation. The first were the articles of confederation. Both the first attempt of the Articles of Confederation and the eventual Constitution were both equally and conspicuously 'godless' in structure and wording. In fact the Constitution as it originally existed did not touch on religion at all. Remember that freedom of religion is a first amendment right. In other words it was the first change to the original document. And that change was not to specifically protect a particular denomination of Christianity, nor to specifically protect generically only the followers of Christ. It was an open ended protection of religion. Thus with not one, but two attempts at building the foundation for our government, the sentiment to include any overt christian doctrine into our government structure was not strong enough to succeed.
It was not until the first amendment to the second attempt that religion was addressed at all and that amendment can basically be construed as constitutionally asserting that we all had to just agree to disagree (live and let live) when it came to religion... Think about that.
Ok, enough ranting. I wrote the above before A&E relented on the idea of suspending Phil from DD. Was good to see the family back each other on potential pain of losing significant money. Back to happy happy happy time.
