Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

Op-Ed: Phil Robertson and Bigotry

By Burton Wiborg     Dec 22, 2013 in Entertainment
Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson has created a fierce contention of accusations being delivered by several liberal based media outlets. Should his belief in Christianity earn him the title of bigot?
Definition of bigot:
big·ot [big-uht] (noun)
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
For clarification, intolerant is defined as: not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted. Keep the last definition in mind, it'll come in handy later.
GQ's interview with Robertson has spiraled into a media slaying of the Duck Dynasty patriarch. Let's start with Piers Morgan who tweeted the First Amendment shouldn't protect vile bigots like Phil Robertson In other tweets, Morgan referred to him as a racist.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) suggest that Phil is lying about the beliefs of Christians and his family are claiming to be something they're not, a Christian family. They go as far to say that true Christians embrace homosexuality.
The Orlando Sentinel refers to him as "another garden variety bigot and an astonishing ignoramus to boot".
The latest high profile rant comes from the role model Charlie Sheen. You can read his opinion of Robertson here.
Now, back to bigotry and intolerant. One of the most argumentative topics, if not the most controversial in the history of mankind is the subject of religion. It has sparked more debates, disagreements, and has lead to wars throughout the history of mankind. It is a very sensitive topic. Here is a case where a choice of lifestyle is being injected into religion.
Robertson, who merely stated his religious beliefs, is being called a bigot and racist. In his GQ interview, nowhere can I remotely detect any bigotry or racism. His paraphrasing from the book of Corinthians in the bible is the very same message I've heard many times while sitting in church. He does state his personal views and what he believes his Bible tells him, but never does he describe himself as utterly intolerant of sinners or the gay community. Nor did he compare homosexuality to bestiality, only referring to all he mentioned in that paragraph as sin.
The real problem is, unlike the belief that people, cultures and rule of law change with the times, beliefs in religion has not and will not. For more than 2000 years Christianity has considered homosexuality as sin, and because our world is drastically changing all around us with laws recognizing gays and lesbians as a legal union, some want to interpret the Christian faith to coincide with that lifestyle. Unlike people, culture and the rule of law, the Holy Bible will never be rewritten to fit a different agenda. It is the foundation of the Christian religion.
One has to wonder about people like Piers Morgan, Charlie Sheen, and Wilson Cruz of GLAAD whose character should be in question. Their malice for people who practice their Christian faith is blatantly obvious. Referring to the definition above, and comments made by either party, who really sounds like they're guilty of intolerance?
I am in no way, shape or form judging or condemning the gay community, as the same as I'm not judging or condemning Phil Robertson, but when a person is referred to as a bigot and racist for speaking his Christian beliefs, it does put into question the moral character of the parties who are doing the name calling.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about duck dynasty, phil robertson, Liberalism
 
Entertainment Video
Latest News
Top News