Dumb Dynasty

Showing once again how deranged fundamental Christians can become, Duck Dynasty’s resident pea-brain Phil Robertson shared his unhealthy obsession with rape and decapitation. It’s unsettling for Atheists to see that so many devout believers are preoccupied with rape and torture, and Robertson’s latest deliberation is another scary case in point.

At a Prayer Breakfast in Vero Beach, FL, Robertson fantasized:

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 [sic] 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?

Somewhat revealingly, his narrative then changes to the second person, perhaps expressing his own revenge fantasy:

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 this [sic] 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.’

This guy needs therapy. And a brain. Both urgently.

First, it seems that Robertson confuses not having a belief with not being able to distinguish between right and wrong – something that even apes can; apes that are obviously not religious. If someone needs to read the bible to find out that murdering people is wrong, they are a danger to society. Robertson seemingly believes that someone who isn’t cowered by the Bible’s threat of eternal consequences would have no restraints and be free to do anything they like. Which, as IS proves, is rape and decapitation. Except that those guys say they believe in essentially the same god as Robertson does. A couple of things

  • It was some 2400 years ago when Greek Philosopher Plato showed in his Euthyphron that Gods and Good are separate concepts: believing in Gods does not make you a good person, nor is belief in Gods a prerequisite to being good.
  • Judging by his remarks, rape and decapitation are what Robertson would do if he wasn’t living under the threat of celestial retribution. The sickening story he tells is much too elaborate to be a first-time thought.
  • It seems that rape and decapitation are the hallmark of religious people, not atheists: the IS does it on a daily basis, and devout Christians just can’t stop talking about them.
  • For this argument to make any sense, Robertson must be deathly afraid of his god. How can you love something that you are terrified of?
  • For reasons eluding sanity Robertson ignores any retribution that society will exact on him should he live out his repulsive fantasies. What does that say about his view of society?

Just for the record – as always, atheists maintain that even though we do not fear eternal retribution, we already do all the raping and decapitation we want – which is none at all.

But there’s a lot more wrong with Robertson’s creepy outburst than a disturbing misunderstanding of fundamental ethics and a sickening fantasy.

First of all, in Robertson’s grisly story, the atheist, the one who allegedly can’t tell right from wrong, is the victim. As a general rule, perpetrators are to be held accountable for their actions, not their victims. It doesn’t matter if a victim can’t tell right from wrong: a person who is incapable of understanding basic ethics still has the same rights to every ethical rule we have. Not understanding your rights are not grounds to withhold them. Newborn babies have rights – even though they don’t (yet) understand them. Not getting this simple concept right requires an astonishing amount of ignorance and is a sign of a disturbing disconnect from reality.

Moreover, perpetrators by definition ignore the consequences their actions would incur, else they wouldn’t be perpetrators. It stands to reason (if there is any reason left in Robertson’s ‘argument’) that he somehow thinks that the murderers and rapists in his story somehow aren’t responsible for their actions; that the atheists somehow brought this about themselves. You know, like the woman wearing a short skirt is asking to be raped, and a guy with dark skin wants to by lynched. That’s one sickening line of reasoning.

What’s most bewildering in Robertson’s horrible sex-and-crime fantasy, though, is that he delivers the most convincing argument against his vile belief himself. Now, I know that following an argument to its conclusion isn’t a believer’s strong suit, but in this case, Robertson really should have gone the extra inch:

You see, Robertson never says anything about the religious background of the two murderers. Let’s assume that before they die, both rapist/murderers are saved – they affirm their belief in Christ. So, according to Robertson’s belief, what will be the result?

  • The atheists (husband, wife and their two little girls) suffer eternal torture in hell – because although they never committed a crime, they didn’t believe in Jesus
  • The rapists and murderers live in paradise because they accepted Jesus in their hearts
  • Robertson believes that this is good and just  

So who can’t distinguish between right and wrong?

Small wonder that the two guys committed their crime – Christianity offers a get-out-of-hell-free card. You can do the most horrible crime and don’t have to face the consequences as long as you believe in Jesus.

Moreover, the double child rape that Robertson fantasizes about squarely points the finger at a serious moral issue that all believers in an allegedly ethical, omnipotent god have to struggle with. As Tracy Harris observed:

If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God.

The fact that God does not step in to prevent the rape of the two children is not a case for an ethical god. It doesn’t disprove His existence, but casts his supposed benevolence in a very dim light. Plus it establishes that Atheists (Traci Harris is an outspoken atheist, and sometimes co-hosts The Atheist Experience, an Austin, TX, based cable TV show) are opposed to rape, even though they don’t believe in Gods. It also shows that she is more opposed to rape than the all-powerful Christian God – who doesn’t raise a finger to prevent it from happening.

In all, Robertson manages to prove just how horribly unjust and unethical his belief is, yet somehow fails to understand just what he is saying. Luckily for him, our society is better than this loon. If it behaved like he thinks we do, they’d have to ‘decapitate his head off’.

What an ass.

Rick Insanetorum

US Presidential Wannabe Rick Santorum appeared on fundamentalist Christian TV yesterday to give his ideas of what he thinks are sane propositions once his party assumes power:

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion

You know, strangely enough, it is. In unrelated news, one plus one equals two! Is America reverting to ‘W’-era stupidity? Can we expect Americans again to be proud of their ignorance, confidently holding up signs yelling “Get a brain! Morans”?

He then went on saying that removing the Bible from the classroom isn’t neutral, but the promotion of a different worldview. Yeah, like forcing a boxer to remove his knife before he enters the ring is promoting his opponent.

But Ricky didn’t leave it at that. Brace yourself, this one’s going to make you spell Moron with an ‘a’:

[They say that] the absence of religion is not a religion in itself – which it is!


Like being dead is a way to live or being bald is a hair color.

Rick: Unfortunately, the absence of intelligence is not a form of genius.

Well, you’ve got to hand it to Santorum. It’s 79 seconds of concentrated stupid, so dense that it’s on par with Archbishop John Nienstedt – and that guy is a pro!

Sharia’s bad rap

There is no doubt that the word ‘sharia’ carries huge challenges in relation to public relations,

declares UK’s Minister of Silly Thought (a.k.a. Minister of Faith), Baroness Warsi. Indeed. So do ‘Spanish Inquisition’ and ‘Apartheid’. All for good reason. She then goes on to make a couple of important points:

I am a British minister in the British cabinet […]. I am not elected[…]. I therefore don’t represent a constituency and I certainly don’t represent the British Muslim community.

Correct on all accounts – which rather does raise the question what the hell (pardon the pun) her role is. Except being a Baroness, which in the UK can be a job unto itself – see Queen (not the music group). If there is one thing she does it’s opposing ‘secular fundamentalists’ like Richard Dawkins.

The most aggressive post I get is from people who are secular fundamentalists,

she complains. She defines secular fundamentalists as people who say that there should be no public space for faith. It’s not entirely clear what her complaint is, but looking at other fundamentalists, she may complain about the complete absence of violence, calls for murder, or similar paraphernalia of standard fundamentalism that can be righteously denounced or talked away as being done by people who are ‘not true believers’.

It does not occur to her that the obvious opposite, someone who advocates faith in the public space, or, not to put too fine a point on this, holds public office for faith, must be a religious fundamentalist. Then again, reason never was the faithful’s strong suit, and she’s currently UK’s Queen of Faith.

It’s obvious that not only Sharia’s bad rap is well deserved.

Like yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater…

Persecuted Christian Revenge Fantasy ‘God’s Not Dead’ was released last Thursday. Here’s a comment from Natalia, a viewer:

I saw the film this evening. Was warned probably no seats left. Theatre packed. […] At the end everyone applauded! Several young men jumped up and preached loudly as credits were going by.

And that is a good thing? If she’s saying the truth – imagine you sat in a cinema, and suddenly the guy next to you jumped up, yelling ‘Allahu akbar!’ What would your first reaction be? Homeland Security or State Police?

If she’s not saying the truth – what does it say about devout believers who lie for their god?

Dark Horse

US pop star Katy Perry has produced a video for her song ‘Dark Horse’. In it, she portraits a Pharao or queen with magical powers who, among other antics, turns people bearing gifts into sand – and keeps the gifts. Simple imagery, simple melody, everyone gets it.

Except, it would seem, for some stuck-in-the-mud hardline Islamists. UK citizen Shazad Iqbal has started an on-line petition asking YouTube to withdraw the video. Why? Blasphemy of course. From the petition:

The video is considered as highly controversial to its viewers as a result of its portrayal of blasphemy.

At 01:15 into the video Dark Horse; a man is shown being burned, whilst wearing a pendant (also burned) forming the word ‘Allah’, which is the arabic word for God.

Such goes to show, that blasphemy is clearly conveyed in the video, since Katy Perry […] engulfs the believer and the word God in flames.

A couple of things:

  • what’s with the self-righteous passive wording? If you think the video is controversial, Iqbal, just say so. And ‘highly’? I think not. 50 thousand signatures vs. 50 million views – that’s not even a minority. That’s a rounding error.
  • have you watched the video? The actor at 1:15 is turned to sand, not burned. Not that it should matter.
  • you obviously do not object to other people being ‘burned’ – yet burning an inanimate pendant that spells ‘God’ is too much for you to watch? You definitely have your priorities wrong. 

More than 50’000 like-minded have signed the petition within three days. What is wrong with these people? Just don’t download the video if you don’t like it. Religious freedom means that Katy Perry does not have to bow to your beliefs. Just because you feel offended does not make you right. I feel offended by people wearing white socks. Does anyone care? And where’s the moratorium on people not using deodorant?

This whole thing is as absurd as if someone starts a petition to force YouTube to withdraw the video because they don’t like the song.  

Well, except that I would probably sign that one.

When Creationists speak…

You know, talking with Pentecostals is already strange; it feels like talking to someone over a cell phone with bad reception. Talking to New Earth Creationists, however, is the intellectual equivalent of an out-of-body experience: Surreal. A recent video on youtube shows excerpts from HBO’s documentation ‘Questioning Darwin’.

It begins with Pastor Peter LaRuffa

‘If the bible said that two plus two equals five, I wouldn’t question it – I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it’

Again, that’s a pastor talking. The video is an impressive document that shows how unquestioning faith, willful ignorance, and stubborn self-righteousness can make you dangerously out of touch with reality: these people know the (scientifically) correct answers, they even quote them, but then take a step into la-la-land to assert the most disingenuous, stupid and narrow-minded fantasy as the truth.

Dr. Charles Bonner (obviously not a scientific degree)

“To put man down as just an animal […] is totally preposterous. God made us in His image. […] Are you saying God is nothing more than an animal?”

The rhetoric question Bonner poses illustrates that he not only completely missed the boat, but showed up at the airport instead. Darwin must be wrong because Bonner thinks he himself looks like a god? If you watch the video, you’d see how even god would object to that.

Angel Dague:

“I just can’t fathom it. [Evolution] just sounds crazy to me”.

… because making the first human from clay, and the second from a rib of the first doesn’t? This is the caliber of thinking we are dealing with here. Then again, Angel burned her brain with drugs during her youth, so we’ll cut her some slack.

So let’s examine this Creationist’s analysis:

“If that’s the way the world works […] then you believe in a God that doesn’t intervene in nature. That takes away any possibility of miracles, any possibility of answered prayer, or any possibility of the resurrection. In reality, you take away the possibility of Christianity to be true at all”

Spot on! Unfortunately, this was meant as an argument against Darwin.

I recommend you watch the video. See how people over and over say “if [some basic truth] was true, then that would mean that God doesn’t exist”, only to conclude “I don’t like it, so I don’t believe it”.

An interesting study of how wishful thinking replaces rational thought. I feel sorry for these people.

Rev McClung’s speech (abridged)

Yesterday I commented on Rev Brian McClung’s protest against Reduced Shakespeare Company’s play The Bible: The Complete Word of God (abridged). The kerfuffle caused by the protest – not to mention the city council’s ill-advised attempt to ban the play – caused the performances to be sold out during their first days. Or, as the good reverend sees it:

Rev McClung described it as “perverse human nature” that the play had sold so many tickets since opposition was raised.

And so McClung took a stand, made his voice heard, electrified the crowd with his righteous defense of the honor of God’s word, and made sure that –

Police maintained a small presence but left before the play began.