"Sticks and stones can break my bones- but words will never harm me." This old childhood adage is as familiar as it is absolutely INCORRECT. In fact, words can harm us. Words are sometimes the most harmful of all weapons used to wound our spirit, keep us in our place, or demoralize our lives. The latest set of words to grab our attention and propel the nation into our separate, and very polarized camps, were words spoken by Phil Robinson of Duck Dynasty fame. Phil was quoted from a GQ magazine article discussing homosexuality and racial issues, among other things. His comments are derived from his own version of his Christian faith and his experience growing up and living in the swampland of southern Louisiana. Phil and his family have parlayed a successful Duck Call manufacturing business into a reality TV show that features him and his family living life their way.
One of the most interesting aspects of this controversy that it (once again) illustrates that our culture has devolved to the point where any spark of conflict triggers us to retreat to our extreme corners and then come out swinging at each other like we all fall into
only two distinct camps with no middle ground. It seems we have given up all attempts at nuance or deeper thinking when we are faced with contentious issues. We have become a people where we are: pro-life or pro-choice; ultra conservative or ultra liberal; fundamentalist Christian or atheist; Fox News or MSNBC; Homophobic or pro-"gay agenda", with no ability to see the details of our arguments or appreciate anything the "other side" has to say. And, it appears, we are always looking for a fight. That kind of thinking has infected our Congress, causing it to be dysfunctional, and it is spreading to almost all aspects of our public discourse.
Having said that, let's look at this latest tempest of words and loyalties from the past week. The Robinsons are celebrities now. Given our worship of celebrity, an interview with Phil Robinson isn't an unusual thing. Phil is known for his back-woods wisdom and strong Christian faith, and has done quite a bit of guest preaching at his local congregation and other places around the country. But when the quotations from the GQ article became public this week there was an avalanche of shock and criticism. That led the parent network (A&E) that airs his show to suspend him from the show. That action caused an avalanche of push-back from some folks claiming that A&E was violating Phil's constitutionally protected right to free speech, and violating his right to practice his religious beliefs. Oh, how some have reacted! The social media is full of "I support Phil" sites with the usual chorus of right-wing politicians speaking up to defend Phil Robertson's comments- that would be the Sarah Palin crowd with Ms. Palin personally leading the charge to claim that Phil was merely paraphrasing the Gospel. She ends up concluding that "the liberal media" therefore must also hate the Gospel; and that is a very bad thing. There are those who claim the action by A&E violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. After listening to this for several days now I'm pretty sure some in this crowd don't have much familiarity with the Constitution or the Gospels.
Reading the quotations from Phil's interview left me feeling pretty disgusted with his opinions. I understand that we are all entitled to our opinion- but Phil's opinions are so offensive to many Americans that A&E had to distance themselves from him or be labeled as condoning them. For those of you who actually saw the comments, you know that he said, "start with homosexual behavior and just morph that out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this women and that women and those men". At one point he equated "the sin" of homosexuality to being a terrorist. Then he went on to describe his preference for the qualities of female anatomy compared to a male's anatomy, as if the selection of an orifice is the essence of committed relationships. What makes these statements offensive to me is that they cast a entire group of people with characteristics that simply aren't there. He certainly has the right to disapprove of homosexuality, but the way of expressing it was simply filled with inaccuracies designed to illicit an emotional reaction that causes harm to people.
Words can harm us. Words are the instrument to explain ideas, thoughts, and feelings. The result of these ideas, thoughts and feelings are actions. We have a long history of discrimination against gay people. It was not until very recently that gay people could be legally discriminated against in employment, housing, access to health care, and any number of other privileges. Even though many of those laws allowing discrimination have been stopped it is still clear that gay/lesbian people have a long way to go to gain full equality in our culture. So when someone uses the language Phil Robinson uses, it contributes to a stereotype and a mind-set that fosters more discrimination and sometimes even hatred. Phil's suggestion that gay people are the same as those who have sex with barnyard animals, the same as promiscuous people or prostitutes, or are sinners like terrorists ought to be considered offensive- primarily because it just isn't true. The same is true of his comments about race. For him to suggest that African-Americans seemed happier before the struggle for civil rights is so outlandishly inaccurate that it breeds total disrespect for an entire race of Americans and sadly cheapens the blood spilled, the sacrifices made and efforts of so many to gain civil rights and human dignity following the shame of slavery in this country.
The argument that his First Amendment rights are being violated is nonsense. The First Amendment protects us from Government censorship of speech. So far as I know the Government hasn't come after Phil and they won't. Freedom of speech has never been considered absolute or protected from all consequence. For instance I am not free to say certain things about my employer or the corporate values held by my employer. If I do-I won't get arrested, but I will surely be fired-just a Phil was. Nothing in this episode is a threat to the First Amendment. And as far as I know no one is stopping Phil from continuing to preach whatever message he chooses, in spite of how vile I, and others find it.
I cannot help but to hold Phil's comments up against my understanding of Christian religious values. To me they seem very far removed from the Christian faith. I fully understand that religious faith can have many interpretations and meanings to different people. In some ways that is the very nature of religion. In the many forms of Christianity, the definition of "sin" can vary widely and the ways of dealing with sin varies widely too. Some people, like Phil, choose condemnation accompanied descriptions analogous to every sort of evil, fitting or not. Others choose tolerance accompanied by forgiveness and kindness. Still others choose to see some transgressions, not as transgressions at all. Though I do not identify myself with any religion, I have a fairly good knowledge of Catholic faith from my upbringing and my education. Those experiences taught me that the definition of Christianity, put most simply, is to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the New Testament Gospels (the story of Jesus) do I find anything resembling the sentiments expressed by Phil Robinson. Instead, I find a message of love, of tolerance, of acceptance and of charity. I have seen the words of Phil's defenders over the last week claiming that he (and they) aren't making judgments about gay people- they are just defending their faith which defines homosexuality as sin. But, in fact they
are leveling a judgment- it is judgment that renders harsh consequences for gay people who struggle with their identity- a judgment that leads many people to needless shame, guilt, drug abuse, mental illness or suicide. At the very least it is judgment that devalues gay/lesbian people who live in life-long, committed, loving relationships. I know such people, and their relationships are as strong and loving as any heterosexual married couple.
At the beginning of this essay I mentioned that we are polarized and our discourse lacks nuance. The nuance I seek is the ability in all of us to see the grey areas in life. The nuance is to understand the complexity of human behavior and emotions, and not see things as black or white, good or bad, pure or evil. For those who want to practice Christianity better, I merely suggest there might be better authorities out there to take guidance from. The new Pope Francis may be a far better teacher than Phil Robinson. He, to my way of understanding Christian faith, is telling the faithful to focus more on charity and the commandment to love one another, than to condemn those you see as sinners. In that vein, it might be good to remember that sticks and stones are not the only things that can harm us-words harm us too. We should all use them thoughtfully, judiciously and with a spirit of kindness.
Thanks for looking in.
