If A&E had a problem with Phil Robertson's views on homosexuality they should have never put him on the air to begin with. Anyone who has watched the show, read his biography, or even been watching the news in the last few years should have had no surprise over his views on homosexuality. So I find it hard to believe that anyone at A&E was in any way caught off guard by these remarks. They knew what they had signed up for.
So why is it that after he speaks these blatantly obvious views in a magazine interview that they suspend his show and the internet is set ablaze? Are we all idiots or do we just love a good crucible? And tell me, how is all of this any different than what people are accusing him of? He is accused of being intolerant, yet isn't that exactly what is being flung his way?
We have a serious problem in this country. Far too many people have forgotten what the word tolerance means. If you need a refresher, here is how Merriam-Webster.com defines it: "Tolerance: willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own". Tolerance is not denying what you believe. It is accepting others rights to believe as they will even when it is different from your own.
Now you can say that Mr. Robertson brought this on himself by saying his beliefs publically, but asserting that he must deny his beliefs and lie about them when asked point blank what they are is again the opposite of tolerance. And it leads me to wonder why it is that people are so threatened by someone publically stating an opinion that again- has always been common knowledge. The only thing that A&E accomplished by their actions was to publically proclaim that they are a company afraid even the slightest negative PR. So much so that they would deny the rights of one of their biggest stars in the sake of keeping a loud fraction of the public happy.
Our forefathers founded this country not only on the principles that all men are created equal and have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but on the freedom for all to believe as they chose. Your right to pursue happiness in which ever way you morally deem acceptable is the same right that allows others to pursue their path to happiness based on what they deem morally acceptable. And the difference of morale opinion is the exact reason that they included the necessity of the separation of church and state. Church not meaning "the church" but beliefs off kinds, be that an official religion or your own personal beliefs you run your life by.
Now if Mr. Robertson had been using his TV show to intentionally broadcast anti-homosexual propaganda that people were tricked into viewing I could see there being a huge uproar. Or if he had been intentionally trying to deny the basic rights of others through his forced actions, I could see an uproar over that. But this isn't the issue that has sparked this blaze. The issue was an interview, given on request to a magazine because the guy has gotten wildly famous due to his families documentary style TV show (although I understand the situations and events of the show is definitely a staged mocumentary, the reality of these people and their personalities is not staged). He is famous for being who he is. And who he is is a deeply religious man, so naturally that comes out in the show and people get curious about his faith and want to ask questions. Those answers won't be exactly to everyone's liking because we are not all the same, and the wonderful thing about this country is we don't have to be. The other wonderful thing about this country is that if we don't like what he has to say, we are also free to turn the channel or not by the magazine.
Let us never forget- the right to freedom that allows us our views is the same right that allows others their view regardless how opposing it is to our own. We cannot take away their right without at the same time destroying our own.
No comments:
Post a Comment