“Do we always have to make people go away?”
It’s not like the Intramuralist to begin with or even include a quote from political commentator, Bill Maher, but irony seems oddly apparent this time of year… and Maher’s one time question begs asking again now.
Why is it that instead of entertaining dialogue — instead of engaging in an interactive, back-and-forth conversation — instead of listening and learning and actually humbly educating one another through public discourse — why is it we often instead attempt to silence an opposing voice? Why can we not even entertain the conversation? Is it just too tough? Is it just so wrong? Is it just that their opinion is so wrong no one deserves to ever hear it?
As many are now aware, popular “Duck Dynasty” patriarch, Phil Robertson, was suspended by the A&E network because of his comments in GQ magazine regarding homosexual intercourse, sharing his opinion in a rather coarse way that homosexuality is sinful. Immediately, there were adamant calls for his firing and claims of Christian bigotry. While questions instinctively arise as to why calls for Robertson’s release were passionately immediate — but calls for recent non-Christian rants have been similarly silent — allow me to humbly return to what I believe is the better question: why is there a need by some to silence Robertson?
Can we not handle the conversation? Or do some, for some reason, not want us to even discuss this issue?
Friends, there exists all sorts of tangents to this controversy. Is it a free speech issue? Is it an issue of employment discrimination? Is Robertson’s perspective biblical? Is it contradictory? Are we practicing tolerance? Intolerance? And why this controversy now? As said at the onset of this post, irony seems oddly apparent this time of year. I find it fascinating that Robertson’s interview took place some time ago; television executives had to have known what Robertson said. However, only after the public pressure mounted by activist groups — and, immediately preceding A&E’s planned “Duck Dynasty” marathon — did the suspension — and supposed outrage — occur.
As typical then of the Intramuralist, let’s boldly but humbly ask the better question: can we or can we not handle the conversation? Can we wrestle with Robertson’s actual opinion?
Call me an idealist, but the Intramuralist adheres to the belief that truth always wins out in the end. In other words, what’s good and right and true cannot be squelched by the foolish acts of an individual. We cannot contain the truth.
Hence, wouldn’t it be wiser to allow the conversation? To work less to silence an opinion but to wrestle with its validity or lack of it? … Are we fearful? … are we righteous? … are we self-righteous? I speak not only of this somewhat silly show; I speak also of politics… religion. Again, quoting Maher, why do we always have to make people — and their opinion — go away?
My strong sense is the most effective way to influence others is to act wisely oneself — to engage in respectful dialogue — as opposed to dictating the dialogue. No one need to ever reason nor conclude — or grow — if opposing opinion is simply silenced. Come now; let’s reason together, fording one another the freedom to decide what is actually good and true… regardless of irony.
Respectfully,
AR