Because I apparently have no self-respect and will bring myself to comment on the brouhaha du jour (or du yesterday — I’m a little late to this particular party.) For posterity’s sake, the background seems to be that one of the stars of an A&E reality show who portrays himself as a redneck (and may or may not actually be) for fun and profit made comments in an interview that gays were bad or gay sex is bad or something to that effect and did so with some fairly graphic language.
One of the quotes:
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
A&E bounced him from the show and the Internet lost its mind; with not a few people forgetting what they may have learned in civics class, suggesting this implicates the First Amendment despite the absence of government involvement.
Anyway, I don’t care too much about the particulars of that. What caught my interest enough to comment was a post by Andrew Walker at First Things that was mentioned by Tipsy.
Walker suggests that this is about morality. About good and evil.
Morality matters. America may be reacting against the declaration of moral obligation as much as it may be against the particular action that Robertson condemned. Robertson’s attempt at offering a comprehensive view of sexuality based on a certain understanding of human sexuality contradicts the reigning dictatorship of relativism.
Lacking the lexical ability to call a wrong a wrong (and, even worse, calling a “wrong” a “right”), we fall prey to what the prophet Isaiah warned of when he said: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
My problem with this sentiment is that you first have to make the case that being gay is immoral or that having sex is immoral or that being gay and having sex is immoral. I can see where these may be unChristian or anti-Biblical, but immoral? Maybe if you take the position that something can be immoral solely on the ipse dixit of the Bible.
I certainly get where greed can be immoral; definitely adultery, slander, and swindling. These are acts that harm others. Calling consensual sex immoral, in my mind, requires more support. I can definitely see a lot of situations where choosing to have sex with someone else is a poor decision; but I have a tougher time seeing where it is an immoral decision. And I think this is why attorneys general have had a tough time arguing in support of gay marriage bans and why courts have recently been so skeptical of such bans. It’s hard to identify the harm such bans are meant to cure.
A lot of this comes down to the question of morality. What is it? Is it stuff a particular holy book declares good and bad? Or is there an underlying rationale that allows one to logically come to a conclusion about morality regardless of whether they’ve read a particular holy book? Whatever that rationale is; I doubt Phil Richardson knows about it. His look a lot like cultural prejudices camouflaged as piety.
My major problem with much of this is the “pick & choose” theology. People decide X is immoral based on a statement in a 2,000 (or more) year old book but completely ignore other statements from the same book that Y or Z is also immoral.
This. Oh wow this. I use this argument on a regular basis.
he said some pretty stupid things about blacks, too, but his defenders are trying to ignore that part.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/phil-robertsons-america/282555/
Excellent work, Doug. And it is interesting to see that the racist comments are being ignored when they should be the focus of the discussion in the media.
And the “cultural prejudices camouflaged as piety” comment. Just excellent.
I think your confirmation bias may have gotten the better of you on this.
First, Walker doesn’t suggest that this is (just) about morality. He thinks that morality is “one element in this hubbub that’s going underemphasized, but that should be appreciated.”
Second, why must one “first … make the case that being gay is immoral or that having sex is immoral or that being gay and having sex is immoral” in order to make an “attempt at offering a comprehensive view of sexuality”? Isn’t starting with the particulars to reason to the overarching principle exactly backwards? (Rhetorically, Phil Robertson literally started with the particular, too, if you read the GQ story, though he quickly spun out to a more comprehsive list, evocative of a “comprehensive view.”)
Third, are you tacitly offering a formula that consent renders an act moral? Categorically? Then why is adultery immoral if the – well, I guess it pre-judges to call it “illicit” – couple consents and if spouse(s) don’t find out? Who is harmed? I guess it depends on how broadly you construe “harm.” Does putting yourself or someone else *at risk* of disease or pregnancy count as harm, or it it relevant to the morality of an act – even a consensual one? How about putting scars on your soul and your partner’s soul?
There’s a common idea that consent of adult participants does render and act moral, or so it seems to me.
What I’m looking for is something along the lines of “being gay is bad because [reason]” or, maybe “being gay and having sex with the person you love is bad in a way that being heterosexual and having sex with the person you love is not bad because [reason].”
Hey I can cut and paste this: He is a celebrity who is a family man and a product of his environment. Same thing with Paula Dean. In real life people get away with this behavior everyday. When someone is different we can easily hate them. But as I said on your previous post-
Sometimes just being different from another person causes pain and suffering. If we teach our kids to celebrate those differences then the world will be a better place! I teach mine that everyday! I think this time I will break out in song… ;) Yes it’s that easy!!!!!!!
Al Green – Put A Little Love In Your Heart Lyrics
Artist: Al Green
Listen while you read!
Think of your fellow man
Lend him a helping hand
Put a little love in your heart
You see it’s getting late
Oh, please don’t hesitate
Put a little love in your heart
And the world will be a better place
And the world will be a better place
For you and me, you just wait and see
Another day goes by
And still the children cry
Put a little love in you heart
If you want the world to know
We won’t let hatred grow
Put a little love in your heart
And the world will be a better place
And the world will be a better place
For you and me, you just wait and see
Wait and see
Take a good look around
And if you’re lookin’ down
Put a little love in your heart
I hope when you decide
Kindness will be your guide
Put a little love in your heart
And the world will be a better place
And the world will be a better place
For you and me, you just wait and see
Put a little love in your heart
Put a little love in your
Love in your heart
I posted too soon, since I meant to deny the universality of the view that consent makes moral.
There. All done now.
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND TO ALL A PEACEFUL JOYOUS DAY AND NIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT US?
AND THANK YOU!
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND TO ALL AND MAY EVERYONE HAVE A PEACEFUL JOYOUS DAY AND NIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REMEMBER PUT A LITTLE LOVE IN YOUR HEART!!!!
Blew it the first time and this is why my wife does English home work with my youngest who hates English! She is a perfectionist I’m not!
But somehow we make it work! Hmmm is there a lesson here somewhere???? ;) ;) ;) and a Happy New Years!!!!!!!
Sorry guys my tinnitus is kicking in can’t hear! Hmm can you yell using the printed word??? Thanks Doug Have a great xmas and new years be back at the end of the year!
There are those who assert morality cannot exist without biblical authority. One alternative the development of morality based on tens of thousands of years of human existence derived from utilitarian (with the good for society and the good of the individual as ultimate outcomes by which matters are gauged) assessments. “Murder” is wrong because, in the long run, society breaks down if it is allowed. There are corollaries that creep into the process. If murder is carried out on an organized basis to protect the society in question—i.e., war—it no longer is “murder.” “The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Pocket Ed., 1996. If the government does it, it no longer is “unlawful.” Then again, the Third Reich carried out murder deemed unlawful, afterward, by international tribunal. Both the current president and the immediate past president have carried out drone strikes that one could argue have murdered people. But their acts were “lawful.” Back to my original point: morality can exist without basis in biblical references. And Happy Birthday to Mithra!