RUSH: Just one more thing on this Phil Robertson business. There’s a piece at TIME Magazine today by an admittedly homosexual writer by the name of Brandon Ambrosino. And the headline of the piece says: “The ‘Duck Dynasty’ Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil’s.” And he talks about the kind of things he’s looking at on Twitter. He says a lot of conservatives are making a point about irony. On the one hand, here’s Pope Francis, Il Papa, who believes the same stuff Phil Robertson believes, and he’s been named Man of the Year. Phil Robertson goes out and says it, and he’s gotta be dispatched, fired, suspended, destroyed, done away with.
Now, the writer thinks that the comparison doesn’t quite hold up because the pope is not out talking about it the way Phil Robertson was, but can’t deny that the belief is there. But the money quote here that makes the headline is at the end of the piece. “GK Chesterton said that bigotry –” this is a great definition of bigotry, by the way. Here it is. “– is ‘an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.’ If he is right — and he usually is — then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.”
Those are the words of the writer. They’re not my words, GLAAD. Well, I just gotta make that point. I’m just reading from the piece. These are the words of Mr. Ambrosino. (interruption) Wait, wait, wait a minute. Wait a sec. What do you mean, I don’t support boycotts? What are you talking about? Is there a boycott planned? Look, if people want to boycott something, fire away. I’m just not gonna lead one. I think the people that lead boycotts are showboats and are trying to draw attention to themselves. That’s my problem with boycotts. They’re gonna happen or not. I believe in the free market. The unfettered trickle-down of the free market.
But really, this definition of bigotry is pretty good: “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” Closed-minded. Closed-mindedness, rigidity, bigotry. And this guy is saying this knee-jerk, predictable slap jacket result from the gay community. I mean, he even asks earlier in the piece, a pull quote. “The point is worth considering. Even though Phil used crass, juvenile language to articulate his point, what he was getting at was his belief that homosexual ‘desire’ is unnatural, and inherently disordered. This opinion isn’t unique to Phil. It’s actually shared by a majority of his fans,” including it’s shared by the pope.
But then he asks in this piece, why does every time this happens, “Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?” This is, again, the words of the writer. That’s the subheadline, in fact. And that was the question I was asking in the first hour, specifically the first half hour. Look, if you don’t believe in God because there isn’t one, if you don’t believe in morality or sin because you don’t believe it exists, why get so worked up about it? But more to the point, why shut people up?