This week while I was deciding what topic I was going to work with, I found myself teetering on the edge of hypocrisy. I'd like to take a moment and explain why I had to do a little "editorial" soul searching, if you don't mind me bending your eyes for a couple of sentences. A few articles back I had written a piece on free speech. The views I expressed in that article have not waivered, on that I wish to be perfectly clear. I stand behind them and always will. This week I read numerous reports on Phil Robertson. For the two of you who don't know who this guy is, Robertson is an entrepreneur, reality show cast member (I loathe calling these reality show people "stars".... for that matter I loathe calling any one who stands in front of a camera for a living "stars") who got lucky by inventing a duck call that caught on with hunters and got lucky again to have a son smart enough to market it correctly, make millions and then this three time "lucky duck" landed a reality show on A&E. Now, back to the article.... After reading the reports about him I felt that his views were outrageous enough to merit my anger and wanted to do a few rebuttals. Here in lies my dilemma. With the philosophy expressed by me in my free speech article, how can I possibly turn an about face and fault this man for stating what he believes? The answer came to me within my own views. Being part of one of the groups of the people he recently attacked verbally, e.g. atheists, I feel that I have a dog in this fight and although that may sound self serving, I submit that I do not deny Robertson's right to say what he believes, but choose to exercise my right by expressing my disagreement with his statements. I hope you all will not fault me for a hypocrite and if you do, you have the right to that opinion.... no grudges.
Now, my fellow Observers, let us broach the subject matter. A few days ago, while addressing the annual Vero Beach Prayer Meeting Breakfast in Florida, Robertson made comments about a hypothetical atheist family consisting of a husband, wife and two daughters. In his story two "guys" break into their home, tie up the husband, rape his "two little atheist daughters" in front of him and then shoot them. Then the two "guys" decapitate his "little atheist wife" again, in front of him and then they "take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him.". (His "manhood", not the knife) He ends his analogy by referring that there is no concern by the perpetrators to be judged because (you probably guessed it) there is no god, therefore there is no right or wrong. And this was a annual prayer meeting? It begs the question what did they talk about last year? And who was the guest speaker?.... Manson via satellite?
Now, my loyal reader, as I previously stated, Mr. Robertson has every right to speak his mind but I think with the statements he made this week he encompassed and insulted not only a group of people's beliefs but how they live their lives as well. He suggests that because atheists lives are void of a "god", they have no sense of right or wrong. That because we don't believe we will be judged in his opinion of the afterlife, we can do whatever we want. In his words, "there's no right, there's no wrong so we're just having fun. We're sick in the head, have a nice day.". He has also, in the past, compared atheists to Nazis, Shinto, Islamists, and Communists because, as he points out, they all do not have Jesus in their lives. What he doesn't point out is that murdering, pillaging and war have historically been more associated with Christians than atheists. It's not our proverbial "schtick". Especially the killing in the name of god part. (he doesn't seem to want to point that out either) On the more benign side of Christianity we constantly see them force feeding the rest of society with their ideology, articles, books, TV shows and door to door preaching (my favorite). These things also seem to be practiced more by Christians than atheists. The beauty of their self serving argument is that it works in their favor on both sides of the god fearing coin. Not only do they have to save atheists from eternal damnation, they have to save good Christians from atheists. How many atheists have you seen knocking on doors to share their views? How many TV shows have you seen with atheists telling their audience that religion is a crock? It always seemed odd to me that Christians always argue their beliefs to the point of pushing it onto people in mass onslaught and atheists never defend theirs. Maybe it's because we don't have to. Our beliefs require no validation. They do not require mass numbers to "help" us believe in them. It makes me wonder why any one would want to believe in something that they question (whether they admit it or not) every day and have to reinforce that nagging question with faith. That could be the very reason why atheism is not regularly pushed down our throats. It has nothing to do with our numbers, they grow every day. It has everything to do with the fact that there is no leap of faith required. I find solace in that.
Now, lets get back to the "duck dummy". To me, Robertson making claims that atheists have no morals and will commit crimes against humanity without conscience or guilt because "god" is not in our lives to guide us has to be the most ridiculous statement I have heard in a while. The words themselves ring in the halls of self righteousness so loudly that he can hear no voice but his own. Furthermore, for any one familiar with this man, his rants have included more than atheists. In 2014 he was banned from his own show for statements he made against same sex relationships in a GQ interview. Grouping them in with terrorists, prostitution and bestiality by stating that "everything is blurred on what's right and wrong... sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there." Really?..... Teenage angst and confusion on a boy or girl scout camping trip which leads to a question of individual sexuality makes people eventually sell their bodies, blow up buildings and have sex with their pets? Well....I'm certainly glad I never went to one of those! So are my dog and two cats, I'm sure. Along the same line of thinking, he also stated that he believes that AIDS and other STD's are "gods penalty" for the "immoral conduct" carried out by gay people. Umm.....I think someone should let Phil know that quite a few heterosexual people get these diseases every day. So..... why is god penalizing them? Maybe it's because some of them cheated on their "clean" spouses. Oh....I'm sorry... I forgot about what Robertson did to "Miss" Kay. Guess god wasn't paying attention that day. Either that or Phil just doesn't want to share his stories about his numerous penicillin injections.
He also doesn't seem to like to do research on subject matter before he opens his mouth. It appears to happen more when that fact finding will dispute his beliefs, so allow me. I'll just share a few "godless" tidbits. According to a study published by Psychology Today:
1.) Atheists are less prejudiced, racist, close minded and authoritarian than practicing Christians
2.) Atheists are more supportive of women rights, gender equality and gay rights
3.) Only 0.2% of convicted prisoners in US jails are atheists
4.) Women in Christian families are more likely to be victims of domestic violence
And the one Mr. Robertson should have made sure he had had in his holier than thou pocket was that:
5.) Murder and violent crimes rates are higher in largely religious states than in less religious states
Hmmm.......I don't know..... Maybe the biggest reason that Christians speak up so loudly about their beliefs is because they have to keep reminding themselves of those "rules" their god passed down a few millennium ago. I find it very interesting that non religious people follow root Christian morals without the influence of a god more than belief driven Christians do.
However, I do have to say that I understand Robertson's viewpoint and believe him when he says that although he is against these lifestyles, he bears no hatred towards the people living them. If he is a "true" Christian, that's exactly the standpoint he has to take. If he doesn't, the bottom falls out of his bucket of holy water. What bothers me is that he uses this "no hatred love for sinners" as a defense for his views. He's not saying it or making the rules, he's simply quoting god's word on these issues and has a problem with people who "rally against me for giving them the truth about their sins.". Truth according to who? Sins against who? And here I thought ( as a raised catholic) only god could judge sin. Silly me! It's a good thing Sarah Palin jumped to his defense. You know, the Vice-Presidential candidate that claimed Russia was our "neighbor" and we could see them from Alaska when asked what her insights were into Russian actions. Palin "voiced" her opinions on Facebook and publicly cited that it was his right to free speech to state his views and I do not dispute that statement. What I don't agree with is the fact that Robertson uses god as his shield for that free speech. If you truly believe what you are saying and are willing to defend it, you shouldn't need god to back you up. Your ideals are your ideals whether they stem from your religion or the absence of it. Religion can shape your views but only a narrow minded person uses it as the sole source of them. I suppose a recovering alcoholic and drug addict who fled from authorities after assaulting a bar owner, cheating on and abusing his wife, who finally got sober and found Jesus is exactly the kind of person most Christians should listen to on matters of morality. Strictly an Observation. If you'll excuse me, I have to scrub the black off my kettle.
View my other articles and like Strictly an Observer on Facebook
Follow Strictly an Observer on Twitter
Follow Strictly an Observer on Google +
