General News The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty Debate

I honestly can't even believe that this article was posted here on this site in defense of Phil Robertson. I mean... really? The article might as well be summed up in a single sentence: "Get over it queers, Jesus hates you!"

The article begins by attempting to white wash his remarks, and of course completely leaves out all the offensive things he said about African Americans. You know, the ones that were "pre-entitlement" and "pre-welfare" - because you know, all the black folks now-a-days are entitled and want their welfare checks. It's not like it was back in the day, when Phil got to chill with them while they picked cotton in the field. It was so much better for them back then, right? None of them were singing the blues... oh wait.

No, like all others there is this desire to focus on what he said about gay people. You know, the acceptable group to publicly hate.

It's clever how Larry Taunton attempts to paint this as an issue of someone not adhering to an "orthodoxy" of the "cultural left". Except, of course, this has nothing to do with left or right, liberal or conservative, it has to do with bigotry and what is acceptable as a platform for a bigot.

And of course, Larry Taunton uses the ridiculous arguments: 'Look at him! He's a hillbilly?! What did you expect?!' and 'He's just stating his religious views! Why do you hate religion?'

People like Larry Taunton remind me of exactly why I am an unabashed atheist.

I will happily and gleefully say it: If your view of "orthodox Christianity" (how the hell do you define that?) includes any form of bigotry, whether it's racial, anti-gay, anti-semitic, anti-woman, or whatever - then no, it is not acceptable. It is abhorrent. It is destructive and corrosive to the lives of the people it's meant to harm.

Such people DO NOT DESERVE a platform in which to spread their beliefs, and as a culture and a society we should actively seek to shut them out. No sane person would give a member of the KKK a platform in which to spread their bigotry, even though they can (and do) make many of the same arguments - drawing it directly from the Bible.

You see - that's what's been ignored in this conflict. The very fact that religion has always, always, ALWAYS been used in exactly this manner in order to oppress groups of people. There is simply this imaginary little bubble that people believe they live in where they can wave a magic wand and say, "Dude, it's my religion! You can't criticize it!"

Well, I'm sorry. I'm going to have to burst your bubble. Your religion can very well be criticized, and if your religion leads you to be a bigot then it sucks. You need to re-evaluate it.

You have the right to hold whatever beliefs you want, and I would defend that right vigorously because I believe it is essential to a free and democratic society. However, you are not entitled to a platform - especially a PRIVATE platform - in which to spread your bigotry.

I personally could careless how many people agree with him. I could careless if I am the only person in the United States that doesn't think the man shits sunshine. This is an issue of values. My values vs his values. His values tell him that it's okay to be anti-gay and racist. My values tell me that it's NOT okay to be anti-gay or racist.

There will NEVER be a point in which we reach common ground. Never. I want to live in a society where it is NOT socially acceptable to be anti-gay, racist, and anti-woman. If I want to live in that society there has to be a social price paid for holding that view, and as a result I will always advocate for that price to be paid.

None of what I've written so far even touches on the fact that there are literally millions upon millions of Christians in the United States and around the world who STRONGLY disagree with Larry Taunton and Phil Robertson. And I am quite certain that they are equally offended that their religion is being used as a weapon and a tool for bigotry.

What I find frustrating is the very fact every time a situation like this comes to the fore, the media never really displays the fact that millions of Christians strongly disagree and find that point of view abhorrent. No, the bigots are considered the "orthodox", and it's openly ignored that we have a cultural history of bigotry against so many people; all of which at one point or another had that good old orthodox religion used against them. How convenient that this is ignored and the dissenting religious voices are shut out of the conversation.

If this was just a fight between Christians, then I honestly wouldn't care all that much, though I know which side I'd support. But no, I am being asked to accept a clearly bigoted individual and not criticize him at all, because 'he's just talking about his religious beliefs'.

Well, Larry I can quote Rick Warren as well.

I neither hate nor fear folks like Phil or Larry. I believe they have every right to believe what they do. However, I am also bound by my convictions and compassion for the people who suffer as a result of their bigotry to speak out. That means fighting for social consequences to be imposed upon them, and not giving them a platform that would allow them to further spread their corrosive belief system.

Sometimes being compassionate means setting strong boundaries to protect yourself and others. LGBT people cannot change their sexual orientation or gender identity. Cis-gendered women cannot change their gender identity. People born with various darker skin pigmentations cannot change it to lily-white. People born in certain countries cannot change the origins of their birth. People CAN and DO change their beliefs and even their religion.

This man has shown grave disrespect to all of those people, and anyone who is actively supporting his right to continue to have a public platform is actively empowering him. They are actively helping craft a society in which people who hold views like his can speak them freely without outrage, criticism, or consequence.

I am staunchly opposed to living in such a society. That will never change.

 

I was gonna write something but I see Aldrick already wrote more than I could ever imagine on the subject, so essentially what Aldrick said

 

If (Orthodox) Christianity implies the demonization of homosexuals by calling homosexuality a "sin," then yes, it is wrong and unacceptable, and deserves to be attacked and exposed for what it is. "Political correctness" doesn't extend to such beliefs, just like it doesn't extend to anti-semite or racist beliefs.

Quote from the article:
Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that the network will not tolerate someone who conscientiously objects to homosexuality on religious grounds. The implication of that message is that 45 percent of Americans should, in principle, be prepared either to sacrifice their jobs or recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned. To the extent that we embrace that implication, in television and in other American industries, we're also embracing an identity as a nation that forces conformity while calling it tolerance.

Articles like this do nothing more than prove that gay bashing is still perfectly acceptable in society. Had the duck buffoon expressed views like "Jews are despicable and going to hell because they killed Jesus," the article writer would be singing a different tune. You cannot tolerate intolerance and expect it to lead to a tolerant society.

To the OP: There's only one side that's wrong here, the side that's been in the wrong for decades now, and whose name is quite ironic, all things considered.

 

Well maybe they should have to deal with all of the things LGBT individuals have had to deal with for decades and see how well they like it.

 

The guy is an absolute nut case. It's not just his homophobic and predjusticed views on slavery and blacks, but his views on the rape of young girls(and marrying a 15 yr old to an older man is statutory rape) that people just seem to overlook in favor of 'them gays' speaking out and complaining. The people who support him are sick. Period.

I believe in free speech, but encouraging someone to rape a child is beyond the pale.

 

I don't see how the article is defending the guy. Its making the very valid point that religion has a serious problem with us, and that he isn't alone in his views.

 

The article is a defense of Phil Robertson because the article not only attacks those insulted by Phil Robertsons remarks as being "disingenuous [in their] expressions of shock and horror", but at it's very core takes as its premise that somehow because Phil claims that his beliefs about gay people are religious that it should matter at all.

Let's be clear here, if we were talking about fundamentalist Muslims and their view and treatment of women, I have no doubt that Larry Taunton would have no trouble criticizing them. He would be intelligent enough to see that it has nothing to do with religion itself, because there are millions upon millions of Muslims who don't believe women should be treated like shit and deserve to be equal to men. No, he would see it for what it is a difference in values. One set of values say that women are not equal to men, and the other set of values say that women ARE equal to men. These two value systems are in direct opposition and cannot simultaneously exist in the same culture without conflict.

Larry is right that this has less to do with Phil and more to do about what he defines as "orthodox Christians", but he attempts to provide them a convenient shield to hide behind. That shield is religion, which although he does not come out and say it directly, it's fairly clear that he believes it would be objectionable to criticize him on those grounds.

When I walked away from the article it was pretty clear to me where Larry stood. He stood with the "45 percent" who believe being gay is a "sin", and did not like the fact that he was being told that his religious views were unacceptable. Well, if he sees gay people as less-than, and is not in favor of equality as a result of his religion - then yes, his views ARE unacceptable.

Attempting to say, 'It's my religion, you can't criticize me!' is not an acceptable defense. Attempting to paint it as reverse-discrimination is also not an acceptable defense, as if somehow the magical word of "tolerance" means we should be tolerant of all things equally - including intolerance and bigotry. Absolutely not.

Either we live in a society where African-Americans, women, and LGBT people are viewed as equal citizens or we do not. There is no effective middle ground, and no point where it makes sense for us to compromise with our opponents. I mean, really, what could we compromise with? Agree to return to old fashioned norms where we stayed in the closet and lived out our lives silently in unhappy heterosexual marriages in exchange for not being made criminals? Agree that we are sinful deviants in exchange for not being made into social outcasts?

Our two positions are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled. It's like you either believe segregation is acceptable or you don't. You either believe women should have equal employment opportunities or you don't. You either believe that LGBT people are equal to heterosexual cis-gendered people or you don't. There is no real middle ground there.

This is a difference in fundamental social values that goes outside of Christian religion. The religion is an excuse, a shield, that is used to try and make their values socially acceptable. There are people out there - even atheist people - who do not believe LGBT people deserve equality. How they ended up at this position is wholly irrelevant to the discussion. Whether they got there through following Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Shiva, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a crazy LSD trip they had a decade ago... it's all irrelevant. All that matters is that the values that they hold should not be considered socially acceptable.

By allowing those values to be seen as socially acceptable, it's aiding them in flourishing. It's giving them a sense of legitimacy. There is a reason that people who are racist and anti-woman couldn't get away with citing Bible passages to justify their claims. No one would accept it. Why? Because those views are not socially acceptable to hold.

That doesn't mean people don't hold those bigoted views - they most certainly do. What matters is that no respectable private group would give them a platform in which to spread their beliefs. This is what we want for ourselves, because right now - it clearly is acceptable to hide behind religion to spread bigoted views about gay people, and still be given a platform to do so.

We will never completely eliminate bigotry, but we can at the very least make it socially disadvantageous to openly be a bigot.

 

The way I see it, is that the article is making a point we should pay attention to, which is an issue where an entertaining industry collides with a moral institution.
Not that both are right or wrong, evil o saints. The fact of the ambivalence where in a "democracy" both points of view should be express and equally defended.
The issue is to meet either half way or a the end of this debate. Non of us is going to change their believes for any reason neither or orientation just because it is a matter to decide.

Media and profits has polarized the controversy. I don't believe there's going to exist a world where we sit along the fireplace and sing "cumbaya" 'cause this is the perfect example of diversity.

Now, in a way the view is some sort of scary where a minority has no "moral institutes" allied rather they applaud and condemn a fragment of what also freedom is too, by loving and making a live with whomever the heck you want to.
As for the conservative side I am glad that GLAAD spoke up and had an important impact on the matter.

It is not about if we should hate each other for what we believe or who we love or according to mr. Robertson who we choose to f**k. It is about the lack of respect we have as human beings and the freedom we have allowed to spread hate all over loosing little by little human sensitivity. No one should judge anyone and yet no one should bully anyone by making use of their "truths".

 

:eusa_clap aldrick

 

Christianity from the horse's mouth.

 

This is false. While in a democracy you can express any view, the defense of an issued view is in the hands of he who made it. The point of public debate is to ultimately have one view - the best view - triumph over lesser competing views.

 

You are right therefore, I said is something that gives the creeps. To know that end this with "one view" it doesn't mean is the right one. But ultimately North America at least, is still not being being ruled by any sacred scripture... So with that being said let's just hope the constitution at least give us comfort while protection the rights that so many have fought to get. Thanks for making a point here! :eusa_clap

 

Aldrick wins this thread.

Off topic. I know it's none of my business, but OP your identification as "bi, asexual to be clean" I think could easily be misinterpreted and reflect poorly on asexuality. Perhaps you mean celibate. One does not choose asexuality. But your use of the word "asexual" in association with implying that sex is unclean is problematic because it associates asexuality with sex negativity. If I have misinterpreted this I apologize.

 

I see two things ignored in this. Why does Phil and everyone like him always imply that anal sex is the exclusive domain of gay people and that gay people are the greatest sexual ill in the world? The media also ignored, as was mentioned, that many Christians recognize that being gay is not a sin.

There is far more sin, as Phil and his kind would call it, coming from straight people so why don't they tackle those issues first? They love to say that we're only 1-3% of the population. If they think that then why do they spend so much time opposing us? If they were really sincere about their beliefs they'd wage their campaigns against out-of-wedlock pregnancy, adultery and divorce since those impact far more people than us little gays. The reason they pick on us is they know they won't be popular or raise any money if they point out the straight sins. They aren't sincere about "saving souls" but as usual are nothing more than hypocrites. I wish the media would hit this point hard.

 

You ask too much of them. The media is after sensationalism to boost their ratings, not reason and educating people.

 

The problem with the article is that it acts like homophobia is just a basic part of Christianity with is harmful for two reasons.
The first is that is disregards the emotional, physical, and mental hardships that churches who preach against gay, bi/pan, and trans people cause. The article makes it seem like forcing people to show basic human decency to others and not attack others for their identities would be a form of religious intolerance. The article acts as if people should be allowed to speak openly against a group of people who have not done anything wrong, to criticize them, and shame them, because "their religion says to". I get the impression that the author is saying that not allowing homophobic people to speak their views would be just as bad as homophobia itself. Its a viewpoint that I hear a lot actually, people trying to act as if their "beliefs" are being disrespected because others are of the "opinion" that LGBTQIA people deserve equal rights. Basically this article attempts to raise sympathy for the "poor ole christians whose beliefs aren't gonna be respected because of those gosh darned homosexuals", which is incorrect on so many levels. Like, all of the levels.
The second reason is that the article only mentions one translation and interpretation of the Bible, albeit the most popular one. The article ignores the existence of my fellow LGBT Christians, or Christians who support LGBT, by acting as if every single Christian believes homosexuality is a sin, and every single Christian is reading the same (imo questionable) translation of the Bible, the one condemning homosexuality. I suspect this is done intentionally to make the issue seem like a cut and dry battle, and make it easier to give the same "poor ole christians" message. I think for this same reason the author of the article ignored the extremely racist remarks also made.
Basically the article is biased as heck and meant to garner sympathy for the duck dynasty star by making readers think a religious right is being violated. Same old tired tactic it seems.

 

Being a dick doesn't make you a dick if you do it in the name of an invisible name in the sky according to this article.

 

I heard about this... My dad took me out to a diner around christmas and this topic came up.
My dad knows i'm gay and I feel like it satisfied him that he had this moment to preach to me...
He's very religious and it stings ._.