Crush Phil Robertson, Crush Free Speech
Poor Phil Robertson, "Duck Dynasty" star. He had the temerity to express opinions to GQ about homosexuality that landed him crosswise the nation's gay jackboots. Out came the truncheons, whacking not just Phil over the head, but anyone, anywhere, who has anything to do with Phil, like A&E, which is the network that brings the wildly popular "Duck Dynasty" into millions of living rooms weekly.
Bang, bang, go the gay jackboots' clubs. Then comes the mace, just to make sure offenders get the point: Don't dare speak your mind publicly in ways that question the gay militants' party line, even if what you say is consistent with your deeply-held religious beliefs; even if what you say in no way threatens any harm to homosexuals.
Civil discourse? You have no contributions to make to the discussion (forget debate) about homosexual "rights," unless what you say ratifies and promotes said rights, i.e., marriage, child adoption, and whatever else. A cracker like you, Phil, needs to keep your "gay-bashing" beliefs quarantined to them murky ol' Lou'siana swamps.
Your religious beliefs inform you that practicing homosexuality is a sin? Verboten. Why, the gay jackboots will interpret your faith for you; that's their prerogative as the vanguard of an aggrieved and assertive minority.
From the Hollywood Reporter, regarding the Phil flap:
"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said.
Wilson Cruz, theologian and point man for those charitable souls at GLAAD, informs us that his comrades and he have the corner on what true Christians believe. Perhaps that needs to be amended: "should" believe, because GLAAD insists.
Never mind that there are tens of millions of fundamentalist Christians across the land who are closer to Phil's understanding of biblical teachings about homosexuality than those of Wilson Cruz (whatever they may be). No matter that there are yet more millions of traditional Roman and Orthodox Catholics whose faiths teach that practicing homosexuality is sinful. How about Conservative and Orthodox Jews? Or -- ready for this one -- Muslims?
Now, if Cruz and his fellow GLAAD thugs have a bone to pick, it's with Islam. Muslims aren't just about mild expressions of disapproval over homosexuality; they're about actually harming homosexuals. That's right. The Muslim faith promotes violence as retribution for the sin and "crime" of homosexuality, per the Quran's teachings. But, heck, it's easier to push around a "Duck Dynasty" star and intimidate the network that carries his show than stand up to the practitioners of a faith -- Islam -- who are serious about dispatching homosexuals and squashing the practice of homosexuality.
The problem with GLAAD challenging Islam is that their jackbootry is no match for Muslims' passionately-held faith. Muslims will eagerly meet GLAAD's bully-boy trash-talk and boycotts with scimitars and bombs. Homosexuals pushing boycotts at Al Jazeera are no match for an imam issuing a fatwa against, oh, say, GLAAD. Islam is defined by the warrior spirit. Homosexual activists better have more than an arsenal of words, threats, and boycotts to go to war with The Prophet's followers.
Certainly, it's political incorrect for GLAAD to go after Islam. Islam has won favor on the left. Why? Because Islam is seen as a handy weapon for helping destroy the West (not to mention that leftist lily-livers don't want their heads to meet the wrong end of Muslim swords). So don't expect GLAAD to go after Islam, hammer and tongs, anytime soon. If anything, continue to anticipate more syrupy sycophancy.
But hapless Phil Robertson, you bet. Phil's just a plump ol' duck lifting off the still, misty, dark waters in the rosy bayou morn. Pretty easy to aim a figurative shotgun at Phil to blow him outta the sky, huh? Pretty easy to bully the feller with the florid beard out of his show to set an example for likeminded Christians or the religious (Muslims exempted) who'd dare voice a belief that homosexuality (practiced) is a sin, and that society has a right to sanction behaviors that are in step with the natural order and time-tested as beneficial to society's wellbeing and furtherance.
Let's take a moment to issue a reality check for our paranoid amigos at GLAAD.
Americans, religious or not, favor toleration toward homosexuals. That translates into private lives lived as desired; that means no workplace or housing discrimination. That means -- shhh! -- leaving homosexuals alone. But for homosexual militants, that's not good enough. Toleration is intolerable. Forced acceptance is the gold standard -- and if one can't meet the standard, better keep one's trap shut tight. Better not gainsay efforts to permit homosexual marriage; better not claim that kids are better off raised in heterosexual households. Better not... or else.
What lies behind the stridency of homosexual activists? Fear, for one. Anger, for another. Resentment, for a third.
Despite the propaganda, homosexuals make up only about three percent of the population on these shores and globally. Homosexuals are a very distinct minority among a greatly larger population that is heterosexual, that bonds as heterosexuals, and that orders their lives as such, which is reflected in the broader culture and society. Heterosexuality is the norm; homosexuality is a deviance (stated mathematically, not pejoratively).
Those hard realities are what chafe homosexual militants; they can't change facts, though they're now marshalling every ounce of hostility and intimidation in what will inevitably be a vain attempt to do so. Nature and nature's reality will not yield, however.
Societies may be a little more pliable for a time, but not indefinitely. For some homosexuals -- the militants, particularly -- the fact that nature is what nature is and that, inevitably, cultures and societies must conform to nature's dictates or cease to exist is a source of anger and resentment. Longer term, most Americans won't go for societal destruction. Mimicking the heterosexual lifestyle -- marriage and children -- won't change facts anymore than strapping on wings and insisting one can fly.
There's an enormous conceit to homosexual militancy and a sad folly.
For homosexuals, toleration should be tolerable. Respect and civility are truly what a healthy society have to offer. Live your lives and we'll live ours. No ill or harm should come to you because of your sexuality. But there are societal intersections where we will meet, and it's there that critical decisions have to be made about the society -- its rules, standards, and values. A minority cannot long intimidate a majority into silence. Insisting the sun rise in the west and set in the east will not make it so.
Nowadays, homosexuals like to quote Pope Francis's comment, to wit: "Who am I to judge" homosexuals? I won't try to offer an interpretation of the Pope's words (as everyone and his sister do to serve their interests). Instead, I'll just state that as a practicing Roman Catholic, I'm taught that only God can judge hearts, but men -- men have been charged with judging actions. Men -- or humankind for the off-put -- are given to create and order societies to the tangible standards of nature, not to the whims or prejudices that some indulge.
For Christianity, as I understand my faith, compassion, forgiveness, and allowance for imperfection are requirements. Love thy neighbor as thyself means just that, for we all are God's children and all err. But it doesn't mean making no judgments of actions. Without judgment -- informed judgment -- how else do we strive to conform society to nature's laws? For if we don't, we'll surely perish.
But reason and reasonableness aren't checkboxes on militant homosexuals' agenda. It's the Night of the Long Knives, so to speak. Phil Robertson can attest to it.