Grilling
“Papa Duck”
Phil Robertson unintentionally exposed some very disturbing realities.
More
than a month has passed and the hysteria surrounding Phil Robertson's
comments in a magazine interview just isn't dying down. There is a
multitude of disturbing aspects to this topic that should alarm
everyone and they have absolutely nothing to do with what Phil
Robertson said.
The
lack of reading comprehension is without doubt the most disturbing
aspect of this whole fiasco because it's painfully obvious that the
majority of individuals and alleged “reporters” alike have placed
their ignorance on display. It goes beyond the incorrect and
fabricated quotes to the heart of the matter which should scare the
crap out of everyone. Many have screamed “freedom of speech”
proving they have no understanding of the Bill of Rights which does
not not apply to “all” speech and especially not to
non-government affairs. How can we expect to defend either the Bill
of Rights itself or people living under it if we don't even
understand what is written therein?
One
has to wonder how Camille Paglia becomes a
“University
Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the
Arts in Philadelphia” yet lacks the very basic understand that the
United States is “representative republic” and not a “democracy”
as she is quoted as saying in a Christian Post article1.
In the same article Paglia makes reference to how the “legacy of
free speech” has been lost by democratic political party. Why are
people not appalled by the fact that Paglia, an alleged “professor”,
is among the millions of others who fail to understand even the most
basic concepts of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights?
First
and foremost, there is an absolute clear distinction between a
“democracy” which is “group” sovereignty and a “republic”
which protects “individual” sovereignty. There is no mistaking
the fact that the United States Constitution clearly protects the
rights of the “individual” and not the “group” or
“collective”. Most important to this discussion is the fact that
the rights of the individual, specifically the “minority
individual”, are protected in a republic but not in a democracy.
One would think that Ms. Paglia
would have acquired this basic constitutional knowledge in a
middle-school civics class or at the very least sometime before being
assigned the title “professor”.
The
First Amendment to the US Constitution contained in what we know as
the “Bill of Rights” states:
Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While
each of these opens a can of worms for discussion, the intent here is
to remain focused upon the underlying claims of “free speech”.
Under the First Amendment, Phil Robertson is certainly guaranteed his
right to speak in public or private about anything he wishes –
however – once Phil has agreed to a private business
contract his speech may certainly be limited by the other party to
the said contract. This is essentially no different than when one
signs a contract with a “non-disclosure” or “industrial
espionage” clause, either or both parties of the contract are then
bound by the terms of said contract. Whether one chooses to side with
Phil or A&E, the fact remains that this is not a constitutional
matter, at most it can be a discrepancy of either civil or contract
law.
The
“Papa Duck” moniker arises from the comparison of Phil Robertson
to “Papa Francis” (Pope Francis) in a poorly written “Time
Ideas”2 commentary that is little more than a blatant
display of liberal academia induced ignorance. The author of this
most nonsensical article actually has the gall to claim that “Papa
Francis” is a trained philosopher who “singlehandedly [sic] saved
the church” by issuing the statement: “Who am I to judge?” ...
Seriously? How does one even consider making the claim that the Pope
“saved the church” by misunderstanding or outright dismissing the
very biblical truth upon which the church is to stand?
I
suppose it's not really a stretch to consider that the Pope would so
easily dismiss scripture since Variety.com3
ran an article stating that over 18,000 Christians signed a petition
supporting A&E in suspending Robertson. From a different angle
one could easily rephrase the statement to read: “Over 18,000
Christians thumbed their noses at God and would rather see people
suffer for eternity in hell than risk temporarily hurting their
feelings.”
While
most modern Christians fall back upon the segment of scripture “truth
in love” they conveniently dispose of the full context surrounding
the segment. The fourth chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians provides the necessary
context:
14
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the
waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the
cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15
Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every
respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. Ephesians 4:14-15
(NIV)4
It
is undeniable that the corruption of liberal academia and political
correctness have impacted the Church to the point where Christians en
masse reject the Great Commission in favor of being both "in"
and "of" the world by choosing a flawed sociopolitical
ideology over the Word of God. Ephesians is quite clear that we are
not to be deceived by schemes like that of political correctness and
tolerance. The truth need not be hateful and presented in love even
though it may be painful. It is the deceit of the world that causes
corruption of scriptural truth for all the way back in Genesis the
serpent schemed by inserting doubt with the question 'Hath God said?'
Political correctness and tolerance are the modern schemes of deceit
effectually repeating the question 'Hath God said?'
Truth
must be first and foremost no matter if one finds it painful or
disagreeable. Christians must speak the truth in order to show their love and concern for eternal matters greatly exceed those of temporal feelings.
References
1.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/lesbian-activist-blasts-ae-for-suspending-duck-dynasty-patriarch-phil-robertson-111311/
2. http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/#ixzz2nx2BjASC
4. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204&version=NIV;NASB
No comments:
Post a Comment