December 28, 2013

The following excerpts are from the Joe Dallas blog “The Phil Robertson Controversy: No More Ducking the Issue:” … “So OK, this is where I landed: I agree with most of what Phil said about homosexuality, and his positions match my own, though his statements on body parts seemed naïve and unhelpful (more on that later). The comments on race relations also came off a bit clumsy (ditto) but without malice. His remarks on both topics were, in fairness, responses to direct questions, so it wasn’t inappropriate for him to make them. I say it was wrong to suspend him, I do see this as a freedom of speech issue, and I believe A and E deserved the outcry it had to deal with. So I’m glad he’s reinstated, and I hope the takeaway lesson will be that Americans remain divided on sexual issues, that these are legitimate topics of discussion, and that citizens in the secular workplace should be free to express their position on homosexuality, pro or con, without having their livelihood threatened. On this point even the LA Times, hardly a bastion of conservatism, seems to agree by noting that ‘ideological purity tests have no place in that (television) medium or any other.’”

“That said, a few points could still be made.”

… “And that, to my thinking, is what this was all about. The gay rights issue is fast becoming one of basic freedoms – freedom of speech, conscience and religion. On one side are those claiming the traditional view is dangerous and harmful, and should thereby be silenced. On the other are those insisting that traditional views harm no one, and expressing them is essential to living out a faith which plainly defines the marital unit as heterosexual. For my part I’d rather count myself among those defending basic freedoms, which is why I’m convinced this whole messy episode was necessary. Plainly put, Phil took a fair, reasonable and Biblically based position. Media and cultural elites demanded his head. Someone had to fight back.” …