Since so many people have put their two cents in over this Duck Dynasty controversy with the controversial statements that Phil Robertson made, I decided to go to the source, the actual GQ article and read it for myself and then form my own personal opinion.
One of the things that media tends to do in any given situation is twist a lot of what someone says for their own gain and benefit, or sometimes, to simply stir up controversy. Many articles since the GQ article came out have formed their own opinion, and without readers realizing it, they are forming an opinion based on someones already biased opinion of the article; and this is without even attempting to read where it all started from. Even the GQ article it self seems biased in my opinion. With this being said, this can go for either group, the ones that are against Phil Robertson and his beliefs as well as the ones that are supporting Phil Robertson in a blinding manner without actually diving into what he was fully talking about.
One of the big controversies is the things he is saying about the LGBT community...
While Phil is out in the woods with the reporter, this is where Phil, from my perspective, feels most comfortable. It is part of how he grew up, what relaxes him and what he enjoys, and because of that it is also where he feels he can speak freely.
One of the statements he makes is the following:
One of the statements he makes is the following:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina- as a man- would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
To me, that’s a normal, straight mans answer. No heterosexual man/woman is going to see what is desirable from a homosexual perspective, just as a homosexual man/woman is never going to see what is desirable from a heterosexual perspective.
Phil Robertson and the rest of the Duck Squad has never shied away from their Christian beliefs. At the end of every episode, every person watching Duck Dynasty is made fully away of the Robertson’s beliefs with the family group prayer and dinner that happens. The Robertson’s even spoke to A&E about the fact A&E would “bleep” words out to make it look like they were cursing even though they weren’t, something that Phil Robertson didn’t approve of and didn’t want to continue occurring, on top of additional things A&E was doing as well on the editing portions.
So why does it come as a surprise to many when this same bible-thumping man speaks about homosexuality being a sin? If you are a Christian, and a Christian that fully believes what the Bible states about homosexuality, there is no way around it but to call it “sin”.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 specifically states:
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
It is this scripture that Phil paraphrases when the reporter asks him “What, in your mind, is sinful?”
Phil’s response was another controversial point:
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. beastality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians...”
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. beastality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians...”
So many are stating Phil is comparing homosexuality to beastality, and to a point they are right-he is, but not in the way they are making it out to be. What I see is a pastor, a proud bible-thumping man stating ‘look, homosexuality to me is wrong and sinful, just like beastality is wrong and sinful, just like women sleeping with many men is wrong and sinful and women sleeping with women is wrong and sinful.’
What many can’t grasp is that in the Christian religion - sin is sin. A murderer and a liar are judged in the same way. One is not worse than the other because both sins equal out to the same in God’s eyes - separation from God. But when repentance happens that void dissipates and you are no longer separated by sin from God. Phil is stating the same thing, only using different sexually immoral things that occur in the world today opposed to the example of a murderer and liar.
People are stating that he is homophobic, yet what people don’t bring up is in the very next breath, Phil is found stating that “We never judge someone on whose 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...”
It is a fine line, with Phil stating that we won’t judge these people but at the same time stating his belief is they won’t go to heaven. However, the word of God is just that - in Christian belief it’s GOD’s word, it came from God, past thru His prophets, and so the fact the Bible says these types of people won’t inherit the kingdom of God is why you have Phil as well as many others making these types of statements. It becomes the concept hate the sin, love the sinner mentality.
People are also in a uproar of the fact that he is stating homosexuality is the same as drunks and terrorists, but again, as stated in the above, to this Christian man, sin is sin in God’s eyes, which is the same with most Christians. Sin is separation, so whether you are sleeping with the someone immorally or shooting up and killing people, it’s all separation from Christ and all the same in Christ’s eyes.
The last bit of controversy that this man has been dealing with is his comments on the Pre-Civil-Rights Era in Louisiana and what he experienced. He states:
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field....They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’- not a word!....Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
Now this is one statement I can see the controversy, the fact that Phil is stating to many people’s opinion - that his family as well as the blacks were on the same level during this time period, that in today’s society, blacks are the ones on welfare, they also are the ones that feel because they are simply black they have a “right” to things’. So I can see the controversy behind this statement.
I don’t however think it was racial or at least meant to be racial. We are all victims of our surroundings, and the same goes for Phil, we cannot judge him on what he saw or did not see growing up. No one can tell Phil that he didn’t see ‘happy’ blacks, that those black folks he saw didn’t complain, because we simply do not know. Not to mention the fact Phil was a child, 10 years old, the things a 10 year old versus and adult would see, probably are drastically different because our interpretation as a child and as an adult are vastly different. Phil is stating his view of what he saw during that time, does that mean there weren’t civil right issues for black folks? No, of course there were, Phil simply did not see that portion of it, and honestly I would think black or white, that would be something to be thankful of. I know many - both black and white- from back in that era that remember things they wish they did not have to remember and wish those things never existed. They also wish they could erase them from their memories, so having a 10 year old boy not experience the horrors of the civil rights era, to me, would be a good thing.
The pre-entitlement and pre-welfare, was certainly done in poor taste, but again, I don't think it was meant to be racial, not after reviewing how he worded everything else and what I took from everything else. Unfortunately, the way it came out it gave the notion that he was saying only black folks have pre-entitlement, only black folks are on welfare, where I think he was speaking about everyone in any race about entitlement and welfare. There unfortunately is a large number of people, black, white, hispanic, asian, etc. that do believe they have entitlements, whether it's because of what they dealt with growing up, the money they have, or something else; many unfortunately do carry this idea they have a "right" to something simply because of who they are. There unfortunately is a large number of people as well, of all races, that take advance of welfare too, and it is because of those people that is sheds a bad light on those that truly need the help. I think Phil was trying to say, no matter who you are, back in the day there simply was no welfare issues, there was no entitlement issues, no matter the race you were.
I don’t however think it was racial or at least meant to be racial. We are all victims of our surroundings, and the same goes for Phil, we cannot judge him on what he saw or did not see growing up. No one can tell Phil that he didn’t see ‘happy’ blacks, that those black folks he saw didn’t complain, because we simply do not know. Not to mention the fact Phil was a child, 10 years old, the things a 10 year old versus and adult would see, probably are drastically different because our interpretation as a child and as an adult are vastly different. Phil is stating his view of what he saw during that time, does that mean there weren’t civil right issues for black folks? No, of course there were, Phil simply did not see that portion of it, and honestly I would think black or white, that would be something to be thankful of. I know many - both black and white- from back in that era that remember things they wish they did not have to remember and wish those things never existed. They also wish they could erase them from their memories, so having a 10 year old boy not experience the horrors of the civil rights era, to me, would be a good thing.
The pre-entitlement and pre-welfare, was certainly done in poor taste, but again, I don't think it was meant to be racial, not after reviewing how he worded everything else and what I took from everything else. Unfortunately, the way it came out it gave the notion that he was saying only black folks have pre-entitlement, only black folks are on welfare, where I think he was speaking about everyone in any race about entitlement and welfare. There unfortunately is a large number of people, black, white, hispanic, asian, etc. that do believe they have entitlements, whether it's because of what they dealt with growing up, the money they have, or something else; many unfortunately do carry this idea they have a "right" to something simply because of who they are. There unfortunately is a large number of people as well, of all races, that take advance of welfare too, and it is because of those people that is sheds a bad light on those that truly need the help. I think Phil was trying to say, no matter who you are, back in the day there simply was no welfare issues, there was no entitlement issues, no matter the race you were.
The one thing I wish GQ would show is how the conversation of the Pre Civil Rights Era came about, as it is something just simply thrown into the article, it does not show any pre talk or post talk after this statement, and like we know, there are always two sides to a story.
Now with the uproar over the suspension of Duck Dynasty. Am I surprised? Not in the least. My first concept is, don’t ask someone’s opinion if you are going to then get offended by the opinion. It’s the whole “Freedom of Speech” thing. However, just because you have the freedom to say what you want, does not mean that freedom doesn’t come with consequence.
A&E can decide if they want to partner with Duck Dynasty or not, if the Robertson’s views don’t match up with the A&E Networks views, they can and will let them go simply for that alone. It is just like any other job, you cannot walk into a job and bash the company expecting to keep your job because you have “Freedom of Speech”. It is the same with TV Networks, there is simply no difference.
A&E can decide if they want to partner with Duck Dynasty or not, if the Robertson’s views don’t match up with the A&E Networks views, they can and will let them go simply for that alone. It is just like any other job, you cannot walk into a job and bash the company expecting to keep your job because you have “Freedom of Speech”. It is the same with TV Networks, there is simply no difference.
So no matter what your viewpoint is, no matter which side of the fence you decide to lean on, if you want to support the Robertson’s in this controversy or not support them, in the end that is your decision, but don’t base your decision on biased reviews of an article and side with that biased view. Always go to the source, always take away from it what your view is, not someone else's.
That was what my post basically stated, so I went ahead and deleted it. No Need to have the same thing said twice.
Post a Comment
<< Home