Recently we have all been victims of a social blitzkrieg. Every news channel is showing the
tale of Phil Robertson and the A&E Duck Dynasty media attack. We are being asked to choose
sides from a possibly homophobic religious rich man, to a freedom of speech hating
corporation without a heart. In paraphrasing the bible Mr Robertson made it appear as if he
is comparing being gay with partaking of beastiality or perhaps being incredibly
promiscuous. We suppose being brought up believing that homosexuality is a sin, could lead
one to assume that possibilty. On the other hand A&E is taking a clearly political stand and
putting Mr Robinson on "haitus." We have been perusing the message boards and chat rooms to
get a feel for what people are saying. First of all there seem to be a lot of angry people
out there. Discarding the nutcases.. (Of which there are plenty) we find that the majority
of rants were of a freedom of speech nature, (with a little dash of freedom of religion
thrown in for flavor). On the other side of the coin were people who were offended that
they could be lumped in with the rampant bestiality crowd. (Have you ever seen them, they
hang out at Walmart.) We could also understand why they could be a bit disconcerted. (Read
pissed off.) by this comparison. How do we feel about it. Mr Robertson may say whatever he
wishes and in a free country he has a right to his opinion. A&E, (a private company) has a
right to air whatever views they deem acceptable. It is not a free speech issue as the
religious right would have us belief. While Mr Robertson is entitled to his views, they are
based upon his own religious idea of right and wrong. And therefor not the law of the land.
Our personal feelings about homosexuality notwithstanding, we have no right to dictate to
other people what sort of relationships they have. It's none of our business. And our
opinion on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality are meaningless. However, recently
many states attempted to pass laws making it illegal for any one other than one man and one
woman to marry. These laws are based on their belief that it is a sin to commit such an act.
Based upon their religious ideals. These laws are wrong, we are not a theocracy, congress
can pass no laws establishing a religion. Therefore these laws are unconstitutional. Period.
Argument over. Oh we apologize for the quality of the paragraph and sentence structure of the blog, we copied it from notepad and things went haywire. And as we are running against the clock we had no time to correct it. Ciao for now.
I really don't have an issue per se with the article specific to 'Duck Dynasty' and even your theme about suffering consequences related to freedom of speech. I often do wonder though how come the left never suffers though for THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR ASSEMBLY. Specifically, all those marches and related civil disobedience during the Vietnam War and burning of draft cards, etc.. Heck, a lot of these people are working next to me in the DoD today, so what did they ever suffer for their freedom of speech?? Were they ever denied jobs or even forced to move? Jane Fonda should at the very least lost her citizenship or been arrested or targeted as an enemy collaborator for hanging out on an enemy anti-air gun. So if I hang out with the Taliban now, can I just come back and resume my life and career like nothing happened? DIDN'T THINK SO!! Just thought I would point out the double standard of the left, which I always find very amusing and sometimes disturbing.
ReplyDeleteBTW - my above post was mostly pointing out the difference in general attitudes towards freedom of speech (protests) back a few generations versus now and not necessarily a 'left' versus 'right' issue. I did forget how much the 'Dixie Chicks' lost when they criticised 'W' for the Iraq war - which in hindsight was pretty much a bogus excuse to take over a country and has left it in shambles to this day.
ReplyDeleteI can't even count how many people on the left have also lost their jobs for speaking their minds. But Phil Robertson was in no way denied free speech and still isn't. Being on television is certainly not a right. He didn't even lose his job. Many companies have policies that could be considered infringement on free speech, (you have to cut your hair, wear a suit and tie, etc.) I'm sure if you went to work and opened a bible and started reading out loud you would quickly be told that is not for the workplace. Does that infringe free speech? I suppose some would see it that way. But when you leave work you can talk about what you want. As for Jane Fonda, no she should not have. She does agree that sitting on the anti-aircraft gun was wrong. (In hindsight maybe.) But again, she was protesting an unjust (to her anyway) war. When she came back from Vietnam the U.S. government investigated and found her not guilty of treason. Although she made statements opposing the war she never gave information or aid to the enemy. And contrary to those crazy emails everyone gets now and then, she did not cause anyone to get killed, and did deliver letters to the state department for delivery to families. (The prisoners were coerced into writing them however.) She, like most Americans were unaware of torture taking place when she visited. Anyway enough defending Hanoi Jane. See you soon.
ReplyDelete