Dear Inside Vero,

I am writing regarding the “controversy” over the out of context statements the left wing progressive publication “Right Wing Watch,” has used for click bait on their website that has thus gone viral. I would like to set the record straight.

On the accusations that Phil Robertson’s example was in bad taste, I believe that accusation comes from no experience in discussing philosophy. College professors bring these examples to their classrooms when discussing ethics on a regular bases. Its a common exercise in discussing topics like moral relativism vs absolute truths for example.

Of course, the publications who took this quote out of context are not exactly “scholarly” and may indeed just be uneducated and inexperienced in this age old discussion. This discussion requires some knowledge of the topic and a ability to think without bias, as well as a willingness to learn.

Actually Ravi Zacharias discussed the same topic last year at the breakfast, in a different fashion, and no one batted a eye. Actually, none of the media at the breakfast batted a eye because in context the quote was not shocking. In context it was part of a ethical discussion on the impacts of a world without morality.

It was just the gossip magazine, “Right Wing Watch,” who was not there, of course, that clipped his quote out of context and started the rumor mill turning. It is pretty typical stuff and ironically makes those people look not moral for breaking another universal law of God, do not bare false witness and do not lie, therefore proving Robertson’s point that denying ones conscience is a result of denying Jesus.

Furthermore, I have heard many teachers like William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias as well as many philosophers and ethics scholars offer up much more difficult and shocking ethical dilemmas as a way to show the lack of a foundation in atheistic ethics. WLC has done this multiple times in debate and speeches. No one bats an eye because its just another ethical dilemma, they are a common tool in the arsenal of an ethicist. Getting upset over this is ignorance gone to seed and blossoming full stupidity.

The ironic thing here is that Phil was taking that hypothetical example and going to a place where every man has a conscience and knows for instance murder is wrong, and that by murdering one would be denying their conscience. And the publications missed the point and said he was saying atheists have no ability to know right and wrong. They were created by God too and have that ingrained morality in them as God’s creation. Phil Robertson went on to say that to deny ones conscience and to commit acts of violence means the individual is not looking to God for answers and is choosing to deny the law of God. Pretty basic stuff there, completely missed by the progressive publications.

May God Bless you and may you only print the truth,
Jenna Featherstone
Vero Beach Prayer Breakfast