Saturday, December 21, 2013

The Duck Dynasty Controversy and What It Means for Conservatives

My last post was a bit long and rambling. Allow me to summarize my position, and what I recommend for conservatives concerning gays.

1. Being virulently anti-gay is unlikely to help us regain control of the federal government, and therefore such expressions should be avoided. They hinder more than help. If I would be free to live my life as I choose, within the law, I must be willing to allow others the same privilege.

2. The purpose of government is not, or should not be, to enforce anyone's religious imperatives on the public at large.

3. The intense social and economic ostracism of the left on anyone who expresses contrary opinions is unfortunate and to be resisted; therefore, I support the boycott against A&E.

4. As conservatives, we need to pick and choose our fights carefully, with a long view, and avoid unnecessary controversies. We have a tendency to shoot ourselves in the foot and to fight battles we cannot win, and do not need to win, in order to restore the Constitution, limited government, and economic prosperity.

That's basically what I was trying to say in my last post. What do you think? What am I missing here?


Always On Watch said...

As I said elsewhere in a comment I left today...

What Phil Robertson went on to say has not been covered much by the mainstream media, has it?

However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

From the little that I know about Duck Dynasty, I wouldn't expect an attitude different than what Phil Robertson expressed in that GQ interview.


As for any and all politicians, they should stay out of this so-called controversy.

Stogie Chomper said...

Good point. My only disagreement with Robertson is his opinion that gays aren't going to Heaven. That's between individuals and God, and Robertson shouldn't suppose he has the right to condemn anyone to damnation. How can we say to gays, "You're going to Hell, but we'd still like your vote?"

Always On Watch said...

How can we say to gays, "You're going to Hell, but we'd still like your vote?"

We shouldn't.

But Robertson is not running for office, is he?

Of course, a few politicians weighed in. They should have zipped their lips -- other than>b>possibly to discuss First Amendment rights.

Stogie Chomper said...

Robertson is not running for office, but conservative support for him will spill over into the political arena. Therefore it is appropriate for us to point out the self-defeating nature of his comments about gays and heaven, and to discourage such expressions in the future.