You may hear this idea and say, "No, not true. Tolerance is what we stand for. Everyone is free to express their beliefs." Blah blah, you now feel better about yourself.
But is it really tolerance that people are supporting? Or is it just the idea of tolerance itself? Think about it: Once someone is intolerant of tolerance, pro-tolerance people choose to be intolerant to that stance. Therefore, they aren't so tolerant anymore. And now, they have voided their so-called support for tolerance all together.
This morning I woke up, checked all of my social networking website apps as the average American is now programmed to do. And then I saw a bunch of FB posts about Phil Robertson being suspended from Duck Dynasty. After more research, I learned that it was because Phil made "Anti-Gay Remarks". (Big woof).
I don't watch Duck Dynasty. I only know so much about the show and the family. However, does good reputation matter to the world anymore? Because the Robertson family portrays a great stance in the media. I don't see them getting poked at compared to those Kardashians (I love that show tbh). And since the media (especially LGBT and GLAAD advocates) is itching to find dirt on a wholesome, godly family; they choose to take one man's freedom of opinion and punish him for it.
But that's what you get when you are an individual with a contract signed to another presence in the media such as A&E. A&E now looks "bad" too.
Fox News shared A&E's public announcement:
"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series 'Duck Dynasty'. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks"
What I want to know is why A&E suspended Phil even though they acknowledged that his beliefs were not reflecting the network's opinions. Is suspension really necessary? But of course, in order to keep everyone happy and stuck in their little "tolerance" world, A&E chose to be intolerant. Well, that really makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
People as a whole need to control themselves in the battleground of differing opinion. Although others' opinions can be irritating to us personally, why do we always have to make a big ordeal about it? In the past I used to always think that I was responsible for standing up for anti-God remarks people made. Not only have I been frustrated by certain remarks people often choose to publicize, but I have felt like I want to set them straight or even "help them see." Then I realized that unless someone was directly asking me for my opinion, my thoughts weren't necessary to add to the whole equation.
But in Phil's situation, his opinion was asked of him. He shared, and then everyone went ballistic... that's pathetic. How tolerant of you, America.
Love this!
ReplyDeleteI agree. Go Phil!
ReplyDelete