I couldn't help but notice the conversations building around the
firing of Phil Robertson, and thought the debates surrounding it were
very interesting.
As a disclaimer, I will say that I didn't watch the interview and I don't watch Duck Dynasty. So, I have nothing to contribute about the dialogue that was presented during the interview.
However, this issue has welled up a massive flow of conversation all over social media, and I'd like to contribute something.
First of all, I'd like to say that what happened with Phil Robertson had little to do with the Constitution. So, if you're one who holds the Constitution in one hand and the Bible in another, you may have felt a tension inside of you when you heard about this story. You may have asked questions like, "Doesn't he have freedom of speech? Wasn't A&E discriminatory in their actions? Isn't there protection for stuff like this?"
In my opinion, the Constitution is a double-edged sword. While it was created to protect citizens and property owners from the iron grip of tyrannical governments, it gives free reign for business/property owners to run their businesses the way they'd like them to be run. Private owners can hire and fire at will, and there's nothing stopping them.
In this case, we'll never know if A&E was discriminatory in their actions because discrimination is a condition of the heart. The law has no ability to look into the heart. It can only take evidence and make a verdict.
On the other hand, we'll never know if Phil Robertson was discriminatory in his worldview. We believe what we believe until it changes, and there's so many factors that create our worldview: religious upbringing, experience, culture, etc.
The thing I found most interesting was, this story was the complete opposite of the Chic-Fi-Le story. In that case, the property owner was making a claim of his worldview, and there was an uproar from people who disagreed with it. At the same time, people who supported his view flocked to Chic-Fi-Le to buy chicken sandwiches.
In the story with Phil Robertson, the employee made a claim of his worldview, there was an uproar about it, and he got fired. There was an uproar from people who disagreed with A&E's actions, while the people who disagreed with Robertson's statements took their stand.
The same group of people who supported the president of Chic-Fi-Le's statements - the business owner - was probably the same group of people who supported Robertson's statements - the employee. You could say the first was a victory and the second was a defeat.
So . . . what does this tell us?
Both people made their worldviews public, but got different reactions. The president of Chic-Fi-Le was free to do whatever he wished, despite public opinion. Phil Robertson lost his job in lieu of his employers' opinions and the opinions of the public.
Now, to my point.
If you are a strong Constitutionalist, you should be really happy about what happened with Phil Robertson. It was a tangible expression of the Constitution working and allowing business to run free from government tyranny.
If you are a strong Conservative Christian, you should be really happy. You're man Phil stated his truth on a national scope and didn't dance around it.
If you completely disagreed with what Phil Robertson said, you should be really happy. The executives of A&E stood firmly by what they believed in.
This isn't a story about the fiery debate of homosexuality and gay marriage as much as it is about the tendency (judging by the conversations surrounding) for human beings to pick sides. One side thinks they're right, and the other side thinks they're right.
One of the most uniquely human things we have is the ability to believe whatever we want. The greatest obstacle I've found in my own life is being okay with that.
So, the hard question to ask is: Why was I offended by what Phil Robertson said? or Why was I offended by what A&E did? When we find the answer for that, we find the truth.
As a disclaimer, I will say that I didn't watch the interview and I don't watch Duck Dynasty. So, I have nothing to contribute about the dialogue that was presented during the interview.
However, this issue has welled up a massive flow of conversation all over social media, and I'd like to contribute something.
First of all, I'd like to say that what happened with Phil Robertson had little to do with the Constitution. So, if you're one who holds the Constitution in one hand and the Bible in another, you may have felt a tension inside of you when you heard about this story. You may have asked questions like, "Doesn't he have freedom of speech? Wasn't A&E discriminatory in their actions? Isn't there protection for stuff like this?"
In my opinion, the Constitution is a double-edged sword. While it was created to protect citizens and property owners from the iron grip of tyrannical governments, it gives free reign for business/property owners to run their businesses the way they'd like them to be run. Private owners can hire and fire at will, and there's nothing stopping them.
In this case, we'll never know if A&E was discriminatory in their actions because discrimination is a condition of the heart. The law has no ability to look into the heart. It can only take evidence and make a verdict.
On the other hand, we'll never know if Phil Robertson was discriminatory in his worldview. We believe what we believe until it changes, and there's so many factors that create our worldview: religious upbringing, experience, culture, etc.
The thing I found most interesting was, this story was the complete opposite of the Chic-Fi-Le story. In that case, the property owner was making a claim of his worldview, and there was an uproar from people who disagreed with it. At the same time, people who supported his view flocked to Chic-Fi-Le to buy chicken sandwiches.
In the story with Phil Robertson, the employee made a claim of his worldview, there was an uproar about it, and he got fired. There was an uproar from people who disagreed with A&E's actions, while the people who disagreed with Robertson's statements took their stand.
The same group of people who supported the president of Chic-Fi-Le's statements - the business owner - was probably the same group of people who supported Robertson's statements - the employee. You could say the first was a victory and the second was a defeat.
So . . . what does this tell us?
Both people made their worldviews public, but got different reactions. The president of Chic-Fi-Le was free to do whatever he wished, despite public opinion. Phil Robertson lost his job in lieu of his employers' opinions and the opinions of the public.
Now, to my point.
If you are a strong Constitutionalist, you should be really happy about what happened with Phil Robertson. It was a tangible expression of the Constitution working and allowing business to run free from government tyranny.
If you are a strong Conservative Christian, you should be really happy. You're man Phil stated his truth on a national scope and didn't dance around it.
If you completely disagreed with what Phil Robertson said, you should be really happy. The executives of A&E stood firmly by what they believed in.
This isn't a story about the fiery debate of homosexuality and gay marriage as much as it is about the tendency (judging by the conversations surrounding) for human beings to pick sides. One side thinks they're right, and the other side thinks they're right.
One of the most uniquely human things we have is the ability to believe whatever we want. The greatest obstacle I've found in my own life is being okay with that.
So, the hard question to ask is: Why was I offended by what Phil Robertson said? or Why was I offended by what A&E did? When we find the answer for that, we find the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment