No, not me, of course–to defend that particular rant, you need the help of experts. So it’s breitbart.com that shows us how everybody in the liberal media got it wrong.
His words were indefensible,
But still they had to try;
They blamed the liberal media,
And caught them in a lie!
This wasn’t duck-man’s fantasy–
He knows it’s truly wrong–
He means to show that atheists
Are moral all along!
They know his scene is horrible,
But what old Phil finds odd?
Their moral indignation means
They must believe in God!
The logical conclusion of
The atheist world view
Means that anything is moral
If it feels that way to you!
Since no atheist believes that,
The conclusion’s rather grim:
It’s hypocrisy in action
But… the atheists, or him?
John Nolte, writing at breitbart, explains:
Robertson is not “fantasizing” about an atheist family suffering a home invasion. It’s glaringly obvious he is portraying this scenario, not only as terrible, but as the most terrible thing imaginable. He is using an extreme scenario to drive home an important point about right and wrong, and where the notion of moral relativism can ultimately lead.
Robertson is in no way saying atheists deserve this. Quite the opposite. It is horrifying and tragic situation and presented within that context. Robertson is telling a parable, a graphic parable, but still a parable using shock value as a way to bring home a perfectly valid point about a Godless world in which there is no Ten Commandments and by extension no basis to judge right from wrong.
It’s simple logic. Without God, there is no way to judge right from wrong. But atheists clearly do judge right from wrong. Logically, atheists must actually believe in god. It couldn’t possibly be that the first premise is faulty.
So, yeah, Robertson was saying the exact opposite of what nearly everybody heard him saying. With that sort of public speaking skill, I expect him to join Ted Cruz in the race for the oval office.