Why CNN makes me sick...

[brian]

I found this on the internet the other day.  Basically CNN decides to do a special on discrimination against atheists in America.  The first part is sort of eye-opening, showing what is going on.  The then follow it up with a panel discussion in part two, with three "experts" on atheism:  two Christians and a Jew.  The discussion is titled "Why do atheists inspire such hatred."  The result is pure insanity from the religous right.

Part 1:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiyJzWy3CDQ
Part 2:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU

Imagine the controversy if they said something like this about any other minority...

If this is going on on CNN, I can only imagine what is going on over in the realm of Rupert Murdoch...

[trevor]

Holy crap... this is really scary.

"Are we going to take out 'One nation under God' from the pledge of allegiance?  When does it end.  We took prayer out of schools, what more do they want?"  Apparently maintaining the separation between church and state is quite a hassle.  I agree really, why should we all be given equal rights?  Why should we have freedom of speech?  Clearly this 'constitution' thing was pretty misguided.

"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."  Wow.  Just wow.  So you're free to believe in anything, as long as it's something.  Can it be myself?

"They have a horrible PR rep and don't have good marketing."  Clearly, belief is subject to the same market forces as tube socks.  Christianity better watch out, what if Wal-mart starts its own religion?

"Europe is becoming Islamist, it's fast falling, and intolerance is increasing."  I don't know where the fuck she got that information about Europe from.  A few extremists doesn't make the entirety of Europe 'Islamist' and intolerant.

There's a bunch of responses to the videos, some of them are good, some are not.  Either way, there's some interesting discussion, worth checking out.  Thanks for the links.

[X]

Well...
That "discussion" was rather one-sided.

Fair and balanced viewpoints not to be found.  For shame.

I don't think anybody would lump the actions of a few Christians as definitive of all,and yet that is what these people are doing to atheists.

We all want to see a godless, heathen, immoral andislamist (how that fall under the realm of godlessness is a mystery to me) country.

Or perhaps we just don't want to be forced to follow an arbitrary religion we don't believe in?

"One nation under god" was added in 1954.
"In god we trust" was first added in 1957, and by 1966 was on all U.S. currency.

It does indeed violate the first ammendment, but there are too many people who believe it is truth and has been for all history for it to be easily changed.

Of course, being Canadian, it doesn't really affect me.

At any rate, it seems they did finally bring an atheist into the debate (along with a reverend who appearantly is largely ignorant of the founding fathers and constitution of his own country, and a radio host who seems very rational):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVbLbweVWN8

[Steven]

It's absurd when a group that holds all the power, like the religious right, claims discrimination. Sorry but having "In god we trust" on your fucking money doesn't qualify as a right and is actually unconstitutional.

I'm not a violent person, but some of these videos absolutely make my blood boil. If I was there, I would've had a hard time not punching that whore in the face (but that would be considered racist and possibly sexist!). Also, in the future I won't put any stock in the Pulitzer Prize since they saw fit to award  one to her.

Imagine the controversy if they said something like this about any other minority...

Imagine going on CNN and saying this (please excuse my use of the 'n-word', I only use it to make a point): "Niggers need to shut up! They need to shut up! They need to stop crying wolf! This country was founded on nigger-hating! Don't impose upon my right to burn crosses on people's lawns and have "whites only" drinking fountains!"

If this is going on on CNN, I can only imagine what is going on over in the realm of Rupert Murdoch...

You don't have to imagine.....Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w8OhiLU7cU

Under Richard Dawkins name it doesn't say "scientist" or "professor", it says "atheist"!

[trevor]

Just as a note to the Bill O'Reilly clip that Steve linked... he has a pretty loose interpretation of roman catholicism if he thinks that Jesus is god.  My understanding is that Jesus was god's human analogue on earth, not god itself.  Also, he's batshit insane.  I love the look of superiority and victory on his face when Dawkins says that science can't explain everything yet.

[X]

Just as a note to the Bill O'Reilly clip that Steve linked... he has a pretty loose interpretation of roman catholicism if he thinks that Jesus is god.

What religion is it that that views Jesus as God?

At any rate, these videos are almost a year old.
It turns out Richard Dawkins was interviewed a little later, after some responses asking CNN why they had no Atheists in the debate.
"Most of the e-mails were from people who thought we should have included an atheist in our discussion."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wR6Mu5JULBo

[brian]

Is Bill O'Reilly the idiot nutbar, or the drugged up idiot nutbar?  I can never keep track of my idiot nutbars...

But seriously, I think there are a few big issues here that Christians don't understand, which causes a lot of confusion.

First, a lot of Christians are used to controlling everything and having everything their way, so when they don't get the special treatment they are used to they get upset (For example, not mentioning any gods instead of only mentioning their god).  Don't expect special treatment, and if you want to pray, do it in a church or in your home, not in a public institution.

Second, freedom of religion does mean freedom from religion, as atheists exist and to force people to acknowledge a god, even without specifying which god is ridiculous and probably unconstitutional in both Canada and the US.  Also, I wonder how people of polytheist religions such as Hinduism feel about mentioning only a singular god...

And also, we have to wonder whether it is always a good idea to continue with what some people claim a nation was "founded on".  America was founded by a bunch of white slaveowners on stolen land.  Canada was founded on stolen land and exploitation of Chinese railway workers.  We're not exactly off to a good start there, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that we should continue to utilize "coolies" for railway construction because it is "what Canada was founded on" (although one could argue that our reliance on Chinese goods made by Western companies in sweatshop conditions is basically the same thing, but that is going off on a tangent)

And the big one is that secularism does not necessarily mean preferring atheism.  It just means showing no preference by not mentioning a god when there is no reason to.


And of course, there is also the plain old religious bigotry factor in there, with people running atheists out of towns, or making them uncomfortable at schools.

"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."  Wow.  Just wow.  So you're free to believe in anything, as long as it's something.  Can it be myself?

No, but it can be the rock that helped you quit drinking