Particular episodes often have broader significances than the particular import of the events in isolation. In context, these events lie on fault-lines of larger issues. The support for Phil Robertson has little to do with Phil Robertson in particular and more with fundamental cultural conflict in which the Duck Dynasty Debacle is but one part. There are two larger issues at play here: intolerance from those who claim to represent the best interests of the homosexual community and threats to freedom of speech by large corporations.
The reality is that there is intolerance from those who claim to represent the best interests of the homosexual community. This is rooted in a prevalent homosexualist perspective on identity issues. Many homosexuals have the notion that their sexual orientation is not merely an attribute, but the defining attribute that represents their core identity. They reason then that it is impossible to disagree with "the homosexual" lifestyle without it being personal hostility towards homosexuals. This view, regardless of whether its holder is homosexual or heterosexual, is called homofascism.
There are three very big problems with this kind of reasoning:
One is that such a view makes peaceful coexistence impossible. Promoting such a view leads to inevitable conflict with Evangelical Christians and other spiritually minded people who believe homosexuality to be morally wrong and who identity with their religion or spirituality just as intensely as homosexuals identify with their sexuality. Engaging the broader culture in way homofascists do can only lead to genocidal war.
Another problem with the homofascist view is that insisting that people agree with you or be labeled haters and viewed as legitimate targets for discrimination leads to dysfunctional relationships. This approach is dysfunctional when applied to friends, family, and associates. When applied to children by their parents, it is more than dysfunctional; it is child abuse. If the homofascist method is so bad psychologically, why legitimize it politically.
The third reason that the homofascist view is bad is that we don't really want people to relate to the entire world on the basis of their sexuality, do we? Do we want teachers and child-care workers relating to children on the basis of their sexual identity; if sexual identity is the key attribute that defines a person, then every act is ultimately a sexual act. This could lead to some very bizarre consequences. The men of Sodom were homo-fascists who accused Lot of a hate crime because he sought to redirect their lusts towards heterosexual activity; they also made it clear they weren't taking no for an answer. The men of Sodom believe saying 'no' to their lusts was an act of personal hostility against them. In the mind of the Sodomites, their homosexual orientation justified homosexual gang rape.
While homosexualists today would deny that they would ever draw this conclusion, it is the logical conclusion of the notion that one's sexuality defines who they are. If one's sexual identity defines who they are, resistance to any expression of one's sexuality is an act of hostility.
The other big issue underlying the Duck Dynasty Debacle is the threats to freedom of speech by large corporations. Under current laws, the is no protection against an employee being fired on the basis of political, social, or philosophical views. I today's environment, the prevalence of social media means that it is easy for corporations to find out what people believe. The fact that a growing percentage of wealth is now being controlled by a shrinking group of elite people raises serious issues about the viability of liberty.
Do we want a society where large corporations can use termination or threat of termination as a tool to bully people into conforming their private lives into conformity with Corporate America. Keep in mind, this is a same Corporate America that spews and finances every abomination of our popular culture. What if these major corporations collude to marginalize to systematically exclude those who disagree with same-sex marriage? What if, tomorrow, these companies require their employees to sign a statement of faith as a condition of continued employment?
This is related to the issue of freedom of speech in social networks. what if Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Google decided to "cleanse the Internet" of content their admins did not like? What if all posts opposing abortion, same-sex marriage, and related content no longer appeared on Facebook or any mobile platform? What if such content could no longer be accessed through search engines controlled by these companies? While these companies cannot completely "cleanse the Internet," they control such a large segment of the market (over 90%) that any content censored in this way would appear in "Internet oblivion;" it would be hidden from the vast majority of Internet surfers.
Do we really want corporations to have this kind of power?
The reality is that there is intolerance from those who claim to represent the best interests of the homosexual community. This is rooted in a prevalent homosexualist perspective on identity issues. Many homosexuals have the notion that their sexual orientation is not merely an attribute, but the defining attribute that represents their core identity. They reason then that it is impossible to disagree with "the homosexual" lifestyle without it being personal hostility towards homosexuals. This view, regardless of whether its holder is homosexual or heterosexual, is called homofascism.
There are three very big problems with this kind of reasoning:
One is that such a view makes peaceful coexistence impossible. Promoting such a view leads to inevitable conflict with Evangelical Christians and other spiritually minded people who believe homosexuality to be morally wrong and who identity with their religion or spirituality just as intensely as homosexuals identify with their sexuality. Engaging the broader culture in way homofascists do can only lead to genocidal war.
Another problem with the homofascist view is that insisting that people agree with you or be labeled haters and viewed as legitimate targets for discrimination leads to dysfunctional relationships. This approach is dysfunctional when applied to friends, family, and associates. When applied to children by their parents, it is more than dysfunctional; it is child abuse. If the homofascist method is so bad psychologically, why legitimize it politically.
The third reason that the homofascist view is bad is that we don't really want people to relate to the entire world on the basis of their sexuality, do we? Do we want teachers and child-care workers relating to children on the basis of their sexual identity; if sexual identity is the key attribute that defines a person, then every act is ultimately a sexual act. This could lead to some very bizarre consequences. The men of Sodom were homo-fascists who accused Lot of a hate crime because he sought to redirect their lusts towards heterosexual activity; they also made it clear they weren't taking no for an answer. The men of Sodom believe saying 'no' to their lusts was an act of personal hostility against them. In the mind of the Sodomites, their homosexual orientation justified homosexual gang rape.
While homosexualists today would deny that they would ever draw this conclusion, it is the logical conclusion of the notion that one's sexuality defines who they are. If one's sexual identity defines who they are, resistance to any expression of one's sexuality is an act of hostility.
The other big issue underlying the Duck Dynasty Debacle is the threats to freedom of speech by large corporations. Under current laws, the is no protection against an employee being fired on the basis of political, social, or philosophical views. I today's environment, the prevalence of social media means that it is easy for corporations to find out what people believe. The fact that a growing percentage of wealth is now being controlled by a shrinking group of elite people raises serious issues about the viability of liberty.
Do we want a society where large corporations can use termination or threat of termination as a tool to bully people into conforming their private lives into conformity with Corporate America. Keep in mind, this is a same Corporate America that spews and finances every abomination of our popular culture. What if these major corporations collude to marginalize to systematically exclude those who disagree with same-sex marriage? What if, tomorrow, these companies require their employees to sign a statement of faith as a condition of continued employment?
This is related to the issue of freedom of speech in social networks. what if Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Google decided to "cleanse the Internet" of content their admins did not like? What if all posts opposing abortion, same-sex marriage, and related content no longer appeared on Facebook or any mobile platform? What if such content could no longer be accessed through search engines controlled by these companies? While these companies cannot completely "cleanse the Internet," they control such a large segment of the market (over 90%) that any content censored in this way would appear in "Internet oblivion;" it would be hidden from the vast majority of Internet surfers.
Do we really want corporations to have this kind of power?
No comments:
Post a Comment