Today I saw this picture on Facebook and thought it to be a very good depiction of the moral decay in our country.
On one hand, we have a young woman who has had a very successful career, albeit as more of a child star than as an adult. In the interest of rebranding herself, Miley took a path of what some would consider a more immoral approach. Raunchy dancing, sexual depictions and innuendos, and prancing around half naked. She used the shock approach to get more publicity and become someone different than the person people knew. Society, though shocked and in very few cases, outraged, accepted what she did since she is a performer. It was fine for her to do what she did, and continues to do, because society has lowered its standards for what is considered acceptable behavior.
On the other hand, we have a gentleman who was interviewed by a magazine. He was asked specific questions which he answered honestly and in complete line with his character. He did not pretend to be someone he isn't or give answers he considered "safe" or "politically correct". This is a man who is quite religious and has not hidden that fact from anyone during personal appearances, his book, or during their show. His life revolves around his relationship with God and his answers reflected that. Why then, does he get raked over the coals when a group doesn't like his comments, but Miley got a pass for offending parents and some religious groups?
It seems to me that we have become a nation of double standards. As long as what you are doing is not religious in nature, you may feel free to do whatever you want. Unless, of course, those activities are anti-Christian, then they can be religious in nature. It also seems that if the activities or the person, are less wholesome, they get a pass. But if you are genuinely a good person, maybe even religious, and offend a group you don't agree with, it's open season.
I believe the words bigot and homophobe get thrown around way too often for the wrong reasons. Let's look at those two words using Merriam Webster:
Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas. This definition, in my opinion, could have everyone labeled a bigot, unless you make "strongly and unfairly" both necessary to the definition. But who defines "unfairly"? Even then, just about everyone could be a bigot. It definitely means all Democrats and Republicans are bigots!! Phil not agreeing with homosexual behavior labels him a bigot because he holds that belief "strongly". His belief is his and I don't see it anymore as bigotry than the gay person who calls me names as a Catholic because I don't believe in gay marriage. Is a person a bigot because they accuse me, a Catholic, of worshipping Mary because we pray to her? Many of the statements made by liberals and gays could also be taken as bigotry. Let us also remember that Mr. Robertson said he did not agree with homosexuality but does not have anything against gays as people. Much like people may not like that he hunts, but may have nothing against him personally.
Homophobe: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly. This word gets unfairly thrown at anyone and everyone who has anything to say that does not agree with the LGBT agenda. Mr. Robertson said he doesn't see why a man would choose another man over a woman. I do not see that as showing hat or being afraid of homosexuals. I do not believe there is a record of him treating them badly. Simply disagreeing with someone does not automatically make you hateful of that person. It is as ridiculous as saying that I have a phobia against Harley Davidson motorcycles because I don't like how loud they are and wouldn't get one.
Those two words are quickly thrown out there to cause fear and obedience to what liberals want you to believe or do. I, for one, hope the Roberson family rallies around Phil, as I expect they will, and force A&E to withdraw their dismissal of Phil, or leave the network.
No comments:
Post a Comment