Phil Robertson, Religion, and Free Speech

"Duck Dynasty" is a very popular television show.  I don't watch it.  I do not have cable, nor do I want it.  I could watch it online if I wanted to, but I don't.  The show simply does not appeal to me.  I've seen a few episodes, and while the Robertson's antics are certainly entertaining, I'd just rather watch Doctor Who.  The show has a lot of fanfare though, and in a nation that worships celebrities, what comes out of the mouths of these reality show stars matters (far more than it should).

The patriarch of the "Duck Dynasty" family, Phil Robertson, is in hot water today.  During an interview with GQ he voiced a number of controversial, though unsurprising, opinions.  His comment about homosexuals is what is drawing fire today.

Here is the statement that he made that is getting all of the attention:

When asked specifically, "What, in your mind, is sinful?" he responded:

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

He also decided to discuss how a vagina is obviously more pleasing than a man's anus.  You can't make this stuff up people.  

What's wrong with his statement is pretty clear:  he is equating homosexuality to bestiality, promiscuity, prostitution, and drunkenness.  That's offensive.  I'll get back to that in a moment, but I want to talk about something else right now.

This article isn't about Phil Robertson.  It's about America's response to A&E suspending him for his statement.  

America, or at least a large and vocal segment of our population, is rushing to Mr. Robertson's defense.  Robertson's defenders are primarily using two ideas to defend him:
1) free speech, and
2)freedom of religion.  

There are several problems with this defense.

First, freedom of speech and freedom of religion only protect citizens from legal persecution.  The first amendment does not protect your employment status.  Your employer can fire you for saying things that are deemed hurtful to others, particularly other employees.  A&E is a large network.  Are you telling me A&E doesn't employee any homosexuals?  I bet they do, and I bet the homosexuals employed by A&E think they deserve to work for a company that won't allow other employees to make harassing statements about them.  So what if Phil Robertson didn't directly address homosexuals in his workplace?  He knew he was speaking to a media outlet and what he said would be made public.  If the rest of us can get fired over what we post on Facebook, then why shouldn't Robertson get fired for saying something hurtful to a huge media conglomerate?  Should he be held to a different standard, a more relaxed standard, than the majority of his viewers?  Of course not.

The larger problem, however, is that Robertson's defenders are actually defending him because they think they should be allowed to say the same kind of nonsense in their own work environments without being reprimanded or fired.  They think they have the right to make hateful, hurtful comparisons under freedom of religion.  I am sick and tired of people using religion to justify bad behavior.

I've seen numerous people on social media going on and on about how A&E suspending Robertson teaches our children they can't stand up for their religion or speak their minds.  That's simply not true.  What it teaches our children is that there are consequences for your actions, and if you say something hurtful then you might get in really big trouble.  No one is telling Robertson he can't be a Christian.  A&E is making big bucks off of "Duck Dynasty" in part because the Robertsons are so publicly and vocally Christian.  Neither is anyone telling him to be silent.  What A&E is telling him is that you can't make certain hateful comparisons without consequences.

Now let's talk about the broader problem.  What is your defense of Phil Robertson teaching our children? Since you are all so mightily concerned about what firing Phil Robertson teaches children, let's take a moment to talk about what defending a person's right to compare homosexuals to bestiality and drunkenness teaches them.

First, it teaches children that if you are on television and make a lot of money, you have the right to say and do things that would get anyone else in any normal corporate environment fired.

Second, it teaches children that you can say hurtful things about other people as long as you can find a Bible verse to justify that hurtful thing.

Further, it says that hatred and bigotry are acceptable as long as that hatred is religiously sanctified hatred. It's okay to say hurtful things as long as you tout Jesus and Christian beliefs alongside those hurtful statements.  It is okay to hurt gay people's feelings by comparing them to people who screw dogs as long as you thump that Bible while you do it.

Yes, children of America, you can say whatever you want to about whomever you want to....as long as you pull out an obscure Bible verse to support the hate that spews forth from your mouth because hate in this country is religiously sanctified.  Why, Phil Robertson is downright holy for comparing homosexuals to drunks and hookers!

It also teaches children that reading a few verses out of the Bible makes them experts on an entire religion and gives them the right to serve as the mouthpieces of God.  If that isn't arrogance then I don't know what is.

Tell me, did Jesus go around saying ugly things about other people?  Did he ever compare homosexuality to bestiality?  Did Jesus ever say or do anything hateful to gay people?  No, and there were homosexuals during Jesus' time.  Since Robertson compared gays to prostitutes, let me ask you:  how did Jesus treat prostitutes? In Luke 7:36-50 Jesus reprimands people who are ugly to a prostitute and he is kind to her, forgiving her of her sins.  He says she has washed his feet with her tears.  So if Jesus was not unkind, and did not say unkind things to a prostitute, then what makes you think he would have said unkind things to or about a homosexual?

Stop teaching your children that it is okay to hurt someone's feelings under the guise of religion.  Hatred is not religiously sanctified.  Unkindness is not holy behavior.