As opposed to the Sarah Palins of the world, I actually read it. The Phil Robertson GQ interview, that is. Not that I read Gentleman’s Quarterly on a regular basis, mind you. Though my interest in issues of modern culture and, in particular, areas where the Church clashes with society — a society quickly becoming ambivalent to the power of sex and the secularization of the public square — might make such literature required reading, there is only so much I can take. But I did read it.
I might also point out that I don’t hunt. Nor do I watch “Duck Dynasty.” In fact, I’m proud to say that I have never watched more than an episode or two of ANY “reality” show, regardless of the values (or lack thereof) presented. I have, however, heard many things about the Robertson family that piqued my interest. It is indeed encouraging to know that the most popular TV show of its genre features humble Southerners who pray regularly and who apparently don’t actively seek the popularity the show has garnered them. Still, I don’t find the obviously (and admittedly) staged scenes of such shows entertaining. My idea of “reality” television is a sporting event (preferably football; especially the college type).
But you can’t deny the show’s popularity; nor the global attention received after the above said interview. In fact, though I found the article itself interesting, it’s the aftermath that speaks volumes on so many levels: the power of money, the role of the media in society and, most important (in my book) the ongoing push to vilify the age-old, natural law-based and scripturally-supported world view that says homosexual behavior is immoral. Did I miss anything?
In the end, however, it was the initial (over)reaction — and subsequent crawfishing — of the network, A&E, that I found most telling (I guess “Duck Dynasty” would fall under the “Entertainment” rather than the “Arts” category). Again, this is about SO many things and, in the end, money talks while everything else walks. Still, it’s the nation’s manipulated walk — or sprint, rather — toward a complete normalcy of any and all sexual deviance (except polygamy, that is ... and pedophilia, of course ... oh, and anything non-consensual) that I find most interesting. It’s official: the “gay card” has officially replaced the “race card” as the most overplayed gripe in America.
Not that the race card wasn’t played here. But, as with former governor Haley Barbour, who likewise spoke of his personal experiences with race-related issues as a child, Phil’s limited statements on black/white relations were misunderstood or, as is most likely, intentionally misreported. I mean, Jesse Jackson found them objectionable. Need I say more?
It’s the heightened sensitivity to all things homosexual-oriented, however (no pun intended), that stole the day. And it all begins with what I have found to be the Left’s complete inability to grasp anything faith-related. I mean, I think they WANT to understand, if only to be able to comprehend where the “other side” is coming from. But, as it stands, they are clueless. I blame the more progressive-leaning Christian denominations for this. If the Church herself can’t get the Bible story straight, how can we expect the rest of the world to? Read Romans (without the revisionist newspeak). There is reference to men exchanging “natural relations with women” and committing “shameful acts with other men” as well as other acts of “wickedness, evil, greed and depravity” such as envy, murder and malice. Gossipers are linked with murderers and, while most people would reasonably assume there is a difference in degree AND kind when it comes to some of these sins, the underlying emphasis is that we ALL sin and are unworthy of eternal life with God. This is what Phil Robertson was talking about.
No, I don’t plan on turning this into a sermon. I’d generally be preaching to the choir, anyway. But I think it’s important to point out that what is obvious to Bible-believing Christians — that while homosexual acts are indeed sinful, the list of what separates us from purity is long and it encompasses everyone — is absolutely foreign to those who base their values on a humanistic world view. For Phil Robertson to have listed same-sex behavior alongside what even humanists recognized as immoral behavior was unforgivable. Just look at the treatment even liberal stars like Alec Baldwin get when they utter the unconscionable “homophobic” remark. They put ’em in therapy, for goodness sake. Now they’re listening to a man who is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a major TV network spout these blasphemies with reckless abandon. He would have to pay.
In the end, the lesson to be learned from the reaction to the GQ interview is that, as far as the secular world is concerned — the media, academia and the politically-correct world in general — opinions contrary to THEIR view of what is right and wrong are not to be tolerated. Regardless of your political views, party membership or even sexual orientation THAT should be unacceptable.
Michael Artigues, a McComb pediatrician, writes regularly on family and social issues, or whatever strikes his fancy. “meus axilla” is Latin for “my armpit,” which he chose as the title of his blog in honor of his dad, who says that opinions are like armpits: everybody has them and everybody else’s stinks.
