'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

  • Thread starter Thread starter Siegehammer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Siegehammer

Guest
“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson told a gruesome, vivid story about the hypothetical rape and murder of a family to illustrate the perils of atheism at a prayer breakfast in Florida last Friday.

His talk was broadcast by the radio program TruNews.

A partial transcript from his speech:
I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them, and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’
Click to expand...
Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if there was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.’
Click to expand...
If it happened to them, they probably would say, ‘something about this just ain’t right.’
Click to expand...
The whole speech can be heard here.
 
What an utterly vile and disgusting scenario to be presenting at a prayer breakfast. It almost seems like this chap has fantasized about actually doing this. People are entitled to be atheists if they so wish. If Christians don’t like this, they should take it up with God. This man is an imbecile. Just because atheists don’t believe in God, doesn’t mean they don’t know right from wrong. It is something that is instilled in all of us.

Best wishes,
Padster
 
I understand what he meant, but I really wish he had come up with a less disgusting way to say it. Too many people are going to say, “Oh, this guy thinks it’s OK if atheists are raped and murdered,” which isn’t what he said at all.

He could have said something like, “People who think there’s no objective right and wrong, because there is no God to have set up reality that way, would feel differently about it if someone they loved was murdered and the murderer said it wasn’t wrong because there’s no such thing as wrong and anyway they’re mentally ill.”

Maybe he thought more people would hear it if he made the description so vivid, but since most of the people who hear it will probably misunderstand it unless they already agree with him, it was a bad idea.

Oh, well, we all have bad ideas. Also, we all forget at times that everything we say or do in public can live forever and be known by everyone on the planet, thanks to the ubiquity of the internet.

–Jen
 
revert_jen said:
I understand what he meant, but I really wish he had come up with a less disgusting way to say it. Too many people are going to say, “Oh, this guy thinks it’s OK if atheists are raped and murdered,” which isn’t what he said at all.

He could have said something like, “People who think there’s no objective right and wrong, because there is no God to have set up reality that way, would feel differently about it if someone they loved was murdered and the murderer said it wasn’t wrong because there’s no such thing as wrong and anyway they’re mentally ill.”

Maybe he thought more people would hear it if he made the description so vivid, but since most of the people who hear it will probably misunderstand it unless they already agree with him, it was a bad idea.

Oh, well, we all have bad ideas. Also, we all forget at times that everything we say or do in public can live forever and be known by everyone on the planet, thanks to the ubiquity of the internet.

–Jen
Click to expand...
Thats how I read it too.
 
I had to gloss over the words. I can’t fathom what this fellow meant to accomplish by letting these words escape from his mouth. Ugh.

Thanks, buddy. You sure make things easier for non-Christians to accept and understand Christianity. No stumbling blocks there. :rolleyes:

Sigh.
 
A good Catholic woman can also be attacked in her own home.

How do I know? It happened to me.
 
Yeah, that was really a very bad way to make his point, but I don’t think his point was either that that atheists don’t know right from wrong or that bad things are somehow more likely to happen to atheists. So far as I can make out, what he’s trying to say is that it’s a lot easier to deny that there is objective right and wrong when you are not experiencing objective wrong, and that all non-insane people, atheist or not, know this and will have this knowledge brought out in the presence of real, objective evil. We’ve all heard people say that there is no real, true good or bad, but only subjective opinions. He’s saying that no one really believes this.

Now if only he could have said it in a different way.
 
This guy is educated and knows better than to play that “shock jock” character. I guess all is fair in love and the wish to stay in the public limelight for your 15 minutes of fame.:eek:
 
I will confess that his crudeness in most societies in history would be distasteful, but in our own pagan nation he is not more vulgar than what his audience is exposed to in their own living rooms, nor could he be. His point is that objective good and evil cannot be denied in practice even by those who deny it, or its rational basis, in theory. His point is timely, and his example is memorable and forceful. His crudeness isn’t my style, but I don’t judge him harshly for it either.
 
Hmmm, I’m not sure if everyone is reading what I’m reading. The man isn’t calling for an atheist family to be murdered or that he waits eagerly for the day that such a thing will happen to non-believers; the man, rather sloppily, is saying that atheism - the belief in no God - is nonsensical because if there is no God then anyone can do what he wants, that consequences are meaningless and that what’s “right” vs “wrong” is just a social construct (one of modernism’s favorite key words).

This, in a way, is a challenge to non-believers from Phil R. If there’s no God, then what’s stopping sociopaths and psychos, the greedy, the deranged, the mentally unstable, the sex addicts, the nymphos, from doing what they desire and what does “social justice” have to with anything? I sense that’s what Phil is trying to engage in.

Yes, the way he went about saying that “if we are just combined of meaningless atoms what’s the point of integrity and ‘what’s right’?” was quite visceral, doesn’t help the already “crazy fundie Bible thumping” archetype nor religious Southerners, but I think I got his point. He may need to clarify his words if people send his agent/PR questions about his speech.

Now this isn’t a couple of news sites running with a misleading headline – it’s most of the major ‘news’ outlets, so that’s proof that the MSM is looking for anything to put Phil in the “crazy fundie redbeck is at it again” camp. It would be one thing if he put up a sign on a known atheists house, trespassing private property, saying “I’m Gonna Cut Your Manhood And Feed It To Your Dogs” all while screaming “Death to Your Family” holding up a machete. But that clearly didn’t happen – nowhere close.
 
He offers a valid challenge that’s utterly lost in the ridiculousness of the scenario he presents; which he fully knows is antagonistic and confrontational. I’ve just said a prayer for him because there’s a 1000 different ways he could have presented his argument without alienating people. I pray that God can fill his heart with just a bit more love.

Worse, that kind of sentiment makes effective Christian evangelization that much more difficult.
 
The most disturbing thing about this is what he’s saying about himself.

He is saying that without a belief in god, there is no reason not to act out that scenario. I don’t know any atheist that thinks that way. But apparently, Phil is one crisis of faith away from violent sociopathy.

This wasn’t a challenge to atheists. Challenges are questions or requests for explanations. This was a disturbing, attention-seeking, rant where he makes a lot of unsubstatiated suppositions, attributes them to atheists, and then says that atheists are the crazy ones for this outburst. Right.

But at this point, there’s nothing these duck dynasty media harlots could do to shock me.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
The most disturbing thing about this is what he’s saying about himself.

He is saying that without a belief in god, there is no reason not to act out that scenario. I don’t know any atheist that thinks that way. But apparently, Phil is one crisis of faith away from violent sociopathy.
Click to expand...
I don’t think he is saying anything like that. He is pointing out that those who don’t have a rational basis for believing in objective right or wrong have no grounds to say that these actions are objectively wrong. Everyone knows these actions are evil, even atheists as you point out and as Phil Robertson assumes.
 
It seems like Phil Robertson has never met a non-believer or at the very least spoken to one. If he did he could have asked where he or she gets his morality from. He might find it hard to believe that one can have a moral basis apart from his version of his particular god, but it’s true. He’d also learn that one advantage of not being tied to a certain deity’s version or morality is when that version comes in conflict with common sense.

And Phil isn’t the only one who makes the assertion that only Jesus can keep one from becomes a rapist or murderer. Apologists like Eric Hovind do it to.

What makes Phil’s outburst so unique is that he doubled down on the stupidity and the grossness. Usually it’s phrased from the apologist’s perspective, “If I didn’t have Jesus in my life there would be nothing to keep me from doing all sorts of horrible things.” Phil starts off with this vile scenario and then seems to suggest that an athiest who was a victim of this detailed Robertsonian storyline would have to accept it because he doesn’t have Jesus in his life. It’s all pretty disgusting.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
It seems like Phil Robertson has never met a non-believer or at the very least spoken to one. If he did he could have asked where he or she gets his morality from. He might find it hard to believe that one can have a moral basis apart from his version of his particular god, but it’s true. He’d also learn that one advantage of not being tied to a certain deity’s version or morality is when that version comes in conflict with common sense.

And Phil isn’t the only one who makes the assertion that only Jesus can keep one from becomes a rapist or murderer. Apologists like Eric Hovind do it to.

What makes Phil’s outburst so unique is that he doubled down on the stupidity and the grossness. Usually it’s phrased from the apologist’s perspective, “If I didn’t have Jesus in my life there would be nothing to keep me from doing all sorts of horrible things.” Phil starts off with this vile scenario and then seems to suggest that an athiest who was a victim of this detailed Robertsonian storyline would have to accept it because he doesn’t have Jesus in his life. It’s all pretty disgusting.
Click to expand...
So what system of ethics do you propose? Social contract? Utilitarianism? His hypothetical would need little modification to reveal the inadequacy of such systems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top