Thursday, December 26, 2013

Complicated division

No, this isn't another blog about Phil Robertson. I've scratched that itch. Instead, I'm sharing this Facebook statement because it wouldn't recognize its reflection if it fell on itself.

What do I mean by that ludicrously mixed phrase? Just this: If you're going to bash someone for being divisive, it can't be in the defense of someone who is also divisive.

This reminds me of my Bush-era college days, when I heard many a person tell the Dixie Chicks to shut up and sing, then turn around and praise Charlie Daniels for his political statements. The Dixie Chicks, they'd argue, were divisive. Daniels, on the other hand, was a patriot with an unassailable, universal stance that no one could deny. The irony of this never registered with them.

To Wayne Dupree, Robertson is above reproach. Why? Because he's a man of GOD who loves everybody. Who could possibly be against that?

That question has an answer. A lot of people (myself included) aren't down with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" definition of love. Nor do we define God as a rigid deity whose dogma just happens to be aligned perfectly with the major tenets of today's Republican Party. In fact, there are multiple definitions of love, God, sin, patriotism and everything else that fundamentalists insist they have a definitive lock upon.

As for divisiveness, that's not defined by politics. I like some things Jesse Jackson stands for. I also agree that he is divisive. Hell, I'm also divisive on some things. So is anyone who stands up for anything, because there will always be people who disagree. That's not bad, and it's virtually unavoidable.

Robertson is also divisive. Again, that's not bad in and of itself. I happen to think he's wrong to the point of bigotry on a variety of issues, so I'll decry him for that. 

I'm tired of the false outrage over "divisiveness" that so often rears its head from people who support the most divisive figures in America. They should at least acknowledge their own sources of divisiveness. To have anyone claim the trophy of holy truth is to wreck any rational debate before it even begins.

That about sums it up.

No comments: