Writing in the (conservative) National Review, Katherine Timpf argues that conservatives ought to distance themselves from Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” fame:
Phil Robertson is an ignorant buffoon, and that many of his comments — despite the fact that he does have every right to make them — are not ones that anyone should ever want to be associated with.
Now, before you start composing your hate mail — think about it. Do you really want a dude who is going to publicly ruminate about the gruesome rape, murder, and castration of a man and his “little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters” to be an official face of your #brand?
And he is an official face. He spoke at this year’s CPAC, where he also received a free-speech award named after conservative legend Andrew Breitbart.As for his most recent controversial comments, he made them during a speech at a prayer breakfast, and the very fact that he was given the role of “speaker” suggests that he’s viewed as a model of the Christian faith. He’s an icon — but why?
Simple. Far too many people think that if someone is persecuted for his passionately held beliefs, those beliefs must be right.
Defending the right to say something does NOT mean defending the merits of what was said, but many people seem to conflate the two. Similarly, the fact that someone is unfairly persecuted for his opinions does not make his opinions right.
Sheesh.
I know I have pointed this out countless times, but it’s a stubborn problem that will not go away.
I suspect an additional problem here is that many of Robertson’s defenders agree with his views, and are therefore delighted to defend them. If they disagreed, why, that would be another matter, wouldn’t it?
HT, Sarah Hoyt.
Comments
11 responses to “I will defend to the death your right to say whatever I agree with!”
In addition to your analysis, I would add that part of the love thrown Phil’s way from conservatives is due to the Celebrity Gap* that confronts conservatives. Celebrities who go to bat for the Dems and spout progressive pablum are a dime a dozen. Conservatives and the Repubs have far fewer celebs speaking publicly for their causes. So when a TV celebrity like Robertson jumps into the deep end of the political pool in defense of “traditional values”, the socon wing of the conservative coalition rejoices. To them, Phil is speaking “truth to power”.
And I think part of the reflexive defense of Robertson is due to the continuing marginalization of Christianity as the ultimate authority on all things concerning morality in the USA. Fungelical Protestants and Catholics think their god (and therefore themselves) should have the final say-so on all things moral. And the more marginalized they become, both politically and culturally, the more desperate they become to latch onto anything or anyone that they think will help stem the tide against them.
At the center of the current dust up was Robertson making the case (badly) that all morality stems from the Christian god. Many Christians see this as a trump card that proves their god’s existence and that atheists must be wrong. Their reasoning goes something like this:
IOW, Christians like Robertson can’t imagine that humans could come up with a set of rules on their own that promotes peace and harmony. They can’t imagine that people collectively might come to the conclusion that rape and murder and stealing harms people and therefore those things should be condemned and called immoral.
And it never occurs to fungelicals like Robertson that when ancient believers attribute morality’s existence to their god it is, in all probability, just another unfounded assertion like all the other unfounded assertions made in their holy books. Fungelicals are stuck on their circular reasoning treadmill: It’s true because it’s in the Bible; It’s in the Bible because it’s true.
I used to be on that same treadmill. And believe me when I say that life off that treadmill is so much better. Believers think that losing ones faith is the worst thing that could happen to a person. I think it’s one of the best things to ever happen to me.
*Celebrity Gap – A Randy original, AFAIK. LOL
As I type this the decent people of indiana are demonstrating against discrimination laws put forth by fundo scum which by the way is a form fascism not christianity. What next make them wear pink triangles. In california their is an initiative to make it legal to kill gays and here in arizona we have a volunteer militia to “deal” with undesirables. I have written a screenplay about them at my website: thealamoisavenged.com Fundos think they have the right to mind everybody’s business but their own.
Conservatives and Libertarians have always had a gigantic persecution complex
Easy to have a persecution comples, AJ, when you’re PRO-liberty. Someone’s always trying to take it away from you. (These days, for example, “liberals”–and by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators.”) And even easier to feel persecuted when the Big Kahuna of anti-liberty forces–Der Staat–has thousands and thousands of armed enforcers, and not only claims the right to kill you, but in fact has killed an estimated trillions (not counting victims of war–just victims of State rub-outs) in the 20th Century alone.
Trillions, you say?
I erred on “trillions.” I was thinking in terms of “three billions,” and the word “trillion” came to mind. Math is not my strong suit. (In fact, math is to me what economics and logic are to the average “liberal.”) I was trying to remember the figure quoted by Jim Powell in his great book THE TRIUMPH OF LIBERTY (a book to which State-fellators should react the way Dracula reacts to a crucifix), or at least remember the name of the scholar he quoted, but I could not. Now I’ve found the scholar: R. J. Rummel, who’s made a speciality of State-sponsored murder. See:
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Your link itself says 169MM, 208MM and 360MM.
Apparently, reading is not your strong suit either.
Still, unless you BELIEVE humans are worthless, those are not insignificant numbers.
Unless you do believe humans were worthless, you wouldn’t be wantonly mixing my millions, billions and trillions.
AJC, an obvious genius like yourself should have no problem doing a Google or Yahoo search on “R. J. Rummel” and/or “Democide.”
And I apologize for erring on “millions” versus “trillions.” It’s so much better to know that Der Staat has murdered only millions. I mean, yeah, trillions murdered would be unconscionable-but mere millions? Pah! A trifle! Nothing to get exercised about–especially since it could NEVER happen here!
“They can’t imagine that people collectively might come to the conclusion that rape and murder and stealing harms people and therefore those things should be condemned and called immoral.
You’re slipping in something there, probably without realizing it. That harming people is wrong. And beyond that, unstated, is that you place a value on society. A society that values the things you do that is.
Robertson isn’t actually talking about morality. He is talking about the existence of good and evil. If we are all just cosmic accidents that occurred as the result of impersonal forces, if we are just fleshy robots with no free will, then there is no good or evil.
And if there is no good or evil then you can condemn some actions as counter productive to achieving a society that provides the things you value. But some people don’t value the things you do. The fighters of ISIS for instance.
By what measure do you condemn them? By your own? Fine, but please at least acknowledge that Nietzsche was right. It is all just a matter of will to power.