Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Duck Dynasty’s loveless ethics and why reaver jokes aren’t funny

Duck Dynasty’s loveless ethics and why reaver jokes aren’t funny

Last updated on: March 26, 2015 at 6:49 pm by Fred Clark

Duck Dynasty’s loveless ethics and why reaver jokes aren’t funny 2015-03-26T18:49:35-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In the last post we discussed Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s prayer-breakfast sermon as a more disturbing variation of the old Aristocrats joke. That comparison seems necessary because Robertson starts his story like he’s beginning to tell a joke: “Two guys break into an atheist’s home …”

Ooh, I think, and lean forward a little in anticipation. This is how jokes begin, and Robertson has the same cheerfully expectant tone that people have when they begin a good joke.

I want to hear this joke. I’m a little concerned with the initial set-up — it really ought to be three guys, after all. Or, better yet, a Catholic priest, a Baptist minister, and a Jewish rabbi. But, still, I’m eager to hear the rest. I’ve never heard this one before. I hope it’s good.

Robertson continues the set-up, fumbling a bit, but it still sounds, formally, like the traditional structure of a joke proper:

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 things take a really ugly turn as Robertson continues:

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. … 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. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.”

Gnyaaah! This is not a joke. I have no idea what it is that Robertson is telling us — or why he creepily switches to the second-person “then you take a sharp knife …” — but it’s definitely not a joke.

But then, in a whiplash-inducing twist, Robertson reverts to the structure of a joke — hitting us with a punchline, a little flourish, and a rimshot to cue our laughter:

If it happened to them … they probably would say, “something about this just ain’t right.”

Hah! Gotcha, atheists! Checkmate!

Those stoopid atheists don’t believe in my God who tells me what’s right and wrong, but I bet if somebody did them wrong, they’d know it! If two guys broke into their house and you tied them up, and then we raped and murdered their families, and then I cut off their penises, then I’d bet they’d admit that what those two guys were doing was wrong!

Again, as I said above, gnyaaah.

The best we can hope for Mr. Robertson here is that his staggering ignorance applies equally to himself.

I mean, it seems apparent that Robertson doesn’t have any close friends who do not share his particular sectarian ideology, but surely he must be, on some level, aware that such people exist. And he must recognize, on some level, that the overwhelming majority of those other people — atheists, Jews, Mormons, mainline Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Rastafari, etc. — do not seem to be going around breaking into strangers’ homes, raping and murdering and cutting off penises.

I’m sure that Robertson has heard of Richard Dawkins, for example. And he probably thinks Dawkins is evil and damned and rude. But, as a simple matter of fact, he must also know that Dawkins and Sam Harris have not been going around breaking into houses, torturing, dismembering and decapitating people all willy nilly because atheism.

Robertson’s horrifying nightmare of a “joke” seems to be based on his confused partial perception of a common, bogus argument peddled by many of the pop-“apologetics” acts touring the right-wing Christian circuit. These self-proclaimed Christian apologists like to argue that Christianity (i.e., their own particular sectarian strain thereof) is the only sustainable basis for morality. Only faith — and only their faith — can teach us the difference between right and wrong. Thus, they say, we cannot be “good without God.”

And, therefore, there can never be any such thing as a good Samaritan. Q.E.D.

But even the clumsiest of these Francis Schaeffer wanna-bes — even the ones operating at a Josh McDowell-level of smuggery and self-righteous intoxication — don’t try to take this as far as Robertson does. They’ll at least acknowledge the existence of other approaches to morality, if only to avoid the dilemma Robertson creates for himself of having to explain why the world doesn’t look like a chaotic cesspool of perpetual Mad Maxian violence and depravity. They may present those other approaches to morality as cartoonish strawmen in order to make their preferred Revealed Rulebook approach seem superior, but they don’t pretend, as Robertson does, that everyone who isn’t a white evangelical is running around saying there’s no difference between right and wrong.

Robertson is also, I think, confused about the meaning of the Calvinist doctrine of “total depravity.” This is a popular confusion that I hate encountering because it puts me in the position of having to defend Calvin. The idea of “total depravity” (which comes from Augustine as much as Calvin) really would be better described as pervasive depravity. The idea isn’t that we are totally depraved and superlatively evil in every possible way, but rather that sin affects us totally — affects every part of us, every aspect of our humanity. At the same time, both Calvin and Augustine insisted, we are also totally bearers of the imago Dei, meaning that no part or aspect of our humanity does not also reflect the spark of the divine.

Total depravity doesn’t mean what Robertson seems to imagine it means — that without salvation we are inhuman reavers, conscienceless, bestial creatures of the sort described slaughtering the atheist family in his “joke.” That idea of human nature is not just a confused distortion of Calvinism, it’s also empirically false. There are more than 5 billion non-Christians here on planet Earth, and they do not, in actual fact, act like reavers.

This is why I hope that Robertson’s vast ignorance encompasses himself as well. Because Robertson isn’t just saying that his atheist neighbors are all sub-human reavers, he’s also saying that he would be a reaver himself if he hadn’t gotten “saved” at the right kind of church. His statement about those atheist neighbors is demonstrably ignorant. Let’s hope he’s equally ignorant about himself and that he doesn’t have any actual knowledge that what he’s accusing himself of might be true.

Because if what Robertson says about himself is true, then we should all double-check the locks on our windows, just in case he ever has a crisis of faith.

evangelicals

religious right

Satanic baby-killers

Previous Post

March 26, 2015

Duck Dynasty's loveless ethics and ... the Aristocrats!

Next Post

March 27, 2015 Left Behind Classic Fridays, No. 26: 'Go to Hell'

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who interpreted the handwriting on the wall?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Daniel Joseph Paul Peter