Duck Dynasty’S Phil Robertson Says If An Atheist Family Is Raped And Killed, They Would Discover Right And Wrong

[Penguin]

The fallacy in Robertson's claim is that atheists "need" to discover right and wrong. Christians--especially those of Fundamentalist persuasions--believe non-Christians have no morality. Atheists are singled out in this regard in that they do not believe there is a god, and so they must be the least moral of all, because morality comes from God. However, even if we put aside the entirety of the Bible, we can plainly see atheists have morality.

 

Our various communities have laws. Most people break at least some of those. Speeding, for example. Does this make us immoral? Christians would say "yes," even if they themselves speed. They would then argue that while they do what is wrong, they are forgiven by God's grace. They would admit this is not license for their immorality, and many would then attempt to curtail their speeding--for as long as it takes to forget the conversation.

 

The laws of almost every community on planet Earth also forbid stealing, murder, and child abuse. Is it the law that keeps us from doing these things? Perhaps, but I would wager we are inherently "wired" to be decent, if we are born in our right minds. The laws of the Egyptians in 3000 BC included concepts of justice. This tells us that before these laws were communicated, people saw a need--on their own--for balance, for a system declaring right and wrong. These beliefs predated Mosaic Law by 2,000 years, and were not exclusive to Egypt. None of these legal systems have perfectly preserved balance, hence the need for them as evolving concepts.

 

How did we as a society decide that a red light means people should stop, and all but a minority get on board with that concept? Morality grows out of the need for self-preservation. In the end, we all look out for number one, but we also have empathy for one another. It's the reason we might buy a homeless guy a sandwich or help someone who has fallen down. We inherently recognize what Christians call the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Morality is nothing more than recognition of cause and effect. I want others to help me, so I'm going to help them.

 

There is nothing in this world that is not under the umbrella idea that "if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Even Christians can't except themselves from it. "Love me and I'll accept you into heaven," God says. "Treat other people well, and you will be treated well," the Bible says. The same is true in any religion and culture, no matter what. We recognize child abuse for what it is because we know how we would feel if we were hurt that way, and we recognize the frailty of younger, less capable beings. That is why crimes against children are so abhorrent, even to men and women who are in prison for the most brutal of crimes. Men who rape adult women loathe child molesters, proving even criminals have morality.

 

Everyone--except perhaps the truly psychopathic, sociopathic, and psychotic--recognize evil and good. Ariel Castro, the man who kept three women trapped in his home for years and abused them in the worst of ways on a regular basis, recognized his evil. A person who cannot discern right from wrong does not try to hide their crimes. Castro reportedly hanged himself in his cell. If that is true and he did not have any unsolicited help in that endeavor, then it would be proof he recognized the evil of his crimes.

 

"What about Gandhi and Mother Teresa and others who selflessly gave up their lives in the service of others?" I would still argue they did what they did for what it would do for them. It feels good to help others, many times, or to support a cause. It's masturbation for the ego. "I'm a good person for doing this" is sometimes the gratification we get from helping others. It's the reason people eat organic or don't drive a car; they feel better about themselves for it, regardless of the benefits for anyone else.

 

Phil Robertson is also susceptible to this idea. He's a self-centered individual who spends his time lazing around, unless he's cracking sex jokes with his wife or "learning his grandchildren some responsibility." He's got the same mentality as every other Fundamentalist patriarch: I'm the leader, blessed by God, so I can do what I want and condemn others. It takes a person who is willfully blind or of diminished intelligence to believe one people group has a monopoly on morality. Laws are created based on morality, and laws are a part of every culture that survives for any length of time. Cultures may claim these ideas were inspired by their deities, but the god-fearing and the godless arrive at the same conclusions in regard to what is right and wrong.

 

Of course, a Christian would then argue that we only arrive at the same conclusions because of God, but they can't have their cake and eat it, too. Either God has nothing to do with us and therefore does not inspire us, or God is with us whether we believe in him or not, and therefore we have morality. Their logic falls apart, leading to one probable conclusion: morality is mankind's creation, based on cause and effect.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Robertson his philosophy aside, one thing seriously stands between his scenario of mutilation and murder...


 

 

 

and Ladies, if your SO is unwilling to defend you against the Reich:

 

 

 

Funny, Robertsons folks wrap themselves around Old Glory and being American, yet might deny another Man and family their Civil Rights to Life and Self Protection in part to Robertson and his bible.

 

2A is for every_fucking_body. Robertson just hammers *it* in a bit deeper.

 

kevinFuckin'L

[Blood]

Moar gunz!

[Reptillian]

I thought for a moment that this was Pat Robertson as I haven't remembered Pat Robertson in a while. My mother said that Pat Robertson is a genius just because he uses the bible to support his own argument. This guy on the other hands believes that initiating fear and flight response will teach atheists some lessons on morality or the concept of morality. Yeah, they're both screwballs, anyways.

[GoldenWolf]

This is just disgusting.

 

You know I try really hard to respect xians (somewhat), but when I see stuff like this, I honestly can't be fucked.

[Penguin]

I've been thinking: what if, in response to Robertson, people videoed, photographed, etc. the non-religious doing good things? Then maybe share it on your social media with #nogoodreason . Just a thought.

No good reason, as in, "I'm not doing this because I'm mandated by a deity or what have you. I'm doing this just to be a decent human being, because it's what I expect every moral human would do."

Maybe it could be coupled with #nogodreason, as in, "I don't need a god to tell me what's right and wrong."

[Fweethawt]

but when I see stuff like this, I honestly can't be fucked.

What?!? Huh?!?

 

Ha-ha! Almost spit my pop!

[FarflungWanderer]

I watched Duck Dynasty once upon a time. It's really a boring show. There are some funny moments, but those are likely the ones that are scripted...

 

As for Phil... He's a shitbird, through and through. To even fantasize that is insane. You could have made a similar point without such a graphic picture. But you didn't.

[Ellinas]

I've seen this programme advertised on one of the channels over heard.  Always wondered what on earth it was about.

 

Now I will make a point of never investigating further.

[Jeff]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo

[SilentLoner]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo

 

What I was going to post. Seriously, they're rich yuppies pretending to be rednecks. 

[Onyx]

Fuck you no-name reality show squid bastard. We don't care. Go away.

[Lucy]

I actually believe that he is an actor making controversial statements as a way to be "in character" with the redneck persona he has created. There is a real person and there is a public persona. He may actually believe the opposite of what he is saying, but he will say whatever will get him more ratings. Paradoxically, saying things that would ruin a regular entertainer's career only gain the Duck Dynasty bunch more ratings. Because they are rednecks, we expect them to do redneck things. Speaking as someone who would be considered a redneck, I see them as a poor parody of rednecks. If you notice even on their own show, they don't match the regular people they are interacting with. They seem like caricatures rather than real Southern "redneck" people.

 

 

The irony of his example being so similar to things God approved of in the Bible seems too obvious to be coincidental. If you read the Bible you would think that everything he described is just fine and dandy to do to an atheist family because they don't believe in God. People who don't believe in God in the Bible seem more like vermin to be exterminated rather than people. In fact if you put it in old English and used the literary writing style of the Bible's authors, it wouldn't seem out of place as a side story in the Bible at all.

[BrotherJosh]

They seem like caricatures rather than real Southern "redneck" people.

 

Which is why people from the South should be offended by their behavior. If I set out to act like a black person and did performed all these over the top stereotypes it would be considered offensive. The Duck Dynasty show and personas are a carefully crafted brand designed exactly as we see it. It generates a ton of controversy among the ivory tower liberals, which further endears them among their audience. All the while these guys take home millions and millions of dollars.

[Lucy]

 

They seem like caricatures rather than real Southern "redneck" people.

Which is why people from the South should be offended by their behavior.

 

They should be offended. I think defending the Christian faith overrides being angry at Southern stereotypes. I remember there was a quote in an interview about the producers of the show asking them not to use the word "Jesus" when they prayed on camera. The idea that Christianity is being persecuted will get approval ratings up faster than anything. I think the popularity of the show is more due to the Christianity being represented than anything else. As soon as someone acts like their Christianity is being persecuted everything else goes out the window and everyone stands up to defend their Christian brethren.

 

If you act like you're defending the Bible you can get people to side with you who otherwise wouldn't have anything to do with you.

[supernova999]

I live an hour away from these freaks! Yes, I am offended....of course the Christians over here drool over these morons!  Two words why they are on still on tv......tax credits!

[RogueScholar]

I listened to his speech and while it was not articulated in a way that is well oiled so to speak, I agree with his underlying point. Ultimately he's saying that even though "atheists" do not believe in God, they still recognise when certain actions are wrong. I have to agree with his point. Morality transcends the god he believes in and I for one wish to point out that this apparently the crux of his speech as far I can tell.

 

It's too bad more people don't actually bring this point up. Now, perhaps the point was inadvertently made, I don't know, but thanks for that nod to atheists in any event mate.

[FarflungWanderer]

I listened to his speech and while it was not articulated in a way that is well oiled so to speak, I agree with his underlying point. Ultimately he's saying that even though "atheists" do not believe in God, they still recognise when certain actions are wrong. I have to agree with his point. Morality transcends the god he believes in and I for one wish to point out that this apparently the crux of his speech as far I can tell.

 

It's too bad more people don't actually bring this point up. Now, perhaps the point was inadvertently made, I don't know, but thanks for that nod to atheists in any event mate.

 

I don't get how you got that, though I agree with the message behind your interpretation: Morality goes beyond any God.

 

From what I got from Robertson was a sadistic way of stating the standard Christian point that "without God, there is no morality and anything goes, even things that clearly are wrong".

[RogueScholar]

However, he stated that this atheist father, in spite of his atheism would say something was wrong with the situation involving the rape, death and castration stuff. Again, I totally agree with this assertion. You don't need to believe in god to understand when something is wrong.

 

As I stated earlier, the point may have been unintended but that is still the underlying, take home lesson from this speech.

[SilentLoner]

I've never actually seen the show. There are many benefits to not owning a TV.

 

I have a TV and I've never seen it 

[milesaway]

Screw Duck Dingaling and the horse it rode in on. They're irrelevant to me, and they've long since lost any respect I might have had for them. The sooner that series goes the way of Enron, the better I'll like it. 

[Joshpantera]

However, he stated that this atheist father, in spite of his atheism would say something was wrong with the situation involving the rape, death and castration stuff. Again, I totally agree with this assertion. You don't need to believe in god to understand when something is wrong.

 

As I stated earlier, the point may have been unintended but that is still the underlying, take home lesson from this speech. 

 

I never got that from the speech. 

 

What I took from the speech is that Phil wants to see the atheists face real horror, "the horror," in order to force them into admitting that there's something wrong with the horror. At that point of full on horror, according his speech, the big point would be made that the morality that the atheists are experiencing by admitting that this horror is wrong, comes from God - otherwise there would be no morality for the atheists to recognize in the first place because all morality exists only because God exists. In this thought process the atheists would be forced into admitting the existence of God by admitting the horror is wrong. 

 

So the point you're trying to take out of his speech free and clear of God seems too far of a stretch...

[RogueScholar]

This is pretty much how I see it:

 

 

Well, I'm not so sure about the Koch brothers, but that's a different conversation