|The Anonymous Howard Beale: The Balrog of Truth|
Before I get into what the bigger implications are, let me just say I have no problem with the man believing whatever he wants. For now, this place is still America where you have the freedom of expression. While I am an Agnostic and prefer to come to my own conclusions about such monumental insights and tend not to believe verbatim an inflexible and contradictory dogmatic script from nearly 2,000 years ago, I nonetheless do believe in the constitution's first amendment which is a little more current and to put it bluntly; more humane.
The backlash is mostly stemming from GLADD, which is a prominent LBGT advocacy group. They released a statement condemning Phil Robertson for his "Vile and Extreme" comments towards homosexuals, and while I do agree with them up to a point, I draw the line at them being two-faced when it comes to them wanting him silenced, for being a "stain on A&E and their sponsors."
So let me get this straight (pun)... A group of people who use their freedom of speech to share their beliefs has shown public disdain for someone who uses their freedom of speech to share his beliefs? I thought this group was for equality? Maybe they have championed the Feminist definition of equality, where it's only equality when your side benefits.
The real conundrum of all this is... Phil Robertson, GLADD, GQ, and A&E have all made the correct decisions for themselves. Phil Robertson has done nothing wrong other than displaying ignorance with conviction, GLADD was given a golden opportunity to rake him over the coals to further their agenda of thought control, GQ is defending it's profit margins by spawning controversy like any successful media outlet must do, and A&E can choose not to have him as a representative of their network. What the hell sort of mess is this?
I suppose the reason Christians are upset is because they feel Robertson is being punished for simply being Christian, which is not the case. He is being punished because an advocacy group took exception to what he said and stirred the pot, which forced A&E's hand.
Now in a perfect world, all Phil Robertson would have said in the article is his one comment about "not agreeing, but not judging." Instead, he first made comments that homosexuality is akin to bestiality and whoring, and insisted that they could go to hell. Perfect world GQ would have refused to publish the inflammatory section of the interview, but that is just too tame. Perfect world GLADD would have shown disappointment without the drama of trying to silence him, and perfect world A&E would not have given in to hysteria and merely passed on the cost of losing of sponsors to his show or set a time frame for suspension. Alas this is not a perfect world.
As Jackie has posted in the past, it's as if people are addicted to being offended/playing victim. A victim is powerless to change their situation on their own, but what happens when both sides play victim? I know you have heard it before, some dude murders his wife and blames it on his harsh mother, or some chick goes fatal attraction and blames daddy issues. Passing the blame to someone else is quickly becoming the default position.
So who do I deem the victims in all this? A&E as strange as that sounds. The gay advocates won't feel much of a setback to their agenda by his comments, no matter how insensitive they were. Phil Robertson knowingly jumped into a hornets nest and got stung. GQ was licking their lips over the juicy media steak they were just handed. A&E played no part in creating this mess whatsoever, but now is left with the only real mess to clean up. Sort of like Democrats, Republicans, Lobbyists, and then the American people themselves... which one do you think is holding the bag when the deals are done?