Religious no longer a protected class

Well said!

I applaud Dan Dennett for pointing out that holding people responsible for being truthful is not a ‘media bias.’ Religious violence is no joke. I would give my life for the right of both religious and non-religious people to speak their minds. That includes my right to peacefully question the truth of religious claims. I recommend Dennett’s book _Breaking the Spell_ for interesting stories about the relationship between religion and society.

“Is there widespread media bias against Christianity?”If by bias against we mean questioning of, then sure. But in that case, the media is biased against every single subject that is held up for scrutiny and discussion. It’s their job, after all.Given that most Americans are religious and most of the religious are Christians, then it becomes a family battle, doesn’t it? After all, even presuming that most people in the media are atheist (which I strongly doubt), they were likely raised by religious parents. Most of whom are/were, you guessed it! Christians.I don’t take issue with Hume urging Woods to go to church–I do take issue with his slap at other religions. Talk up what worked for yourself, your belief system, your faith; but understand that taking aim at others beliefs, before it is even raised by your audience, is a position of weakness on your part. It smacks of fear.

Thanks to Daniel Dennett, the author of ‘Consciousness Explained’ and ‘Freedom Evolves’ for this marvelous comment. There’s really nothing I need to add, except to take the complaints of the Christianoids (should any appear here) with the proverbial grain of salt.The group that really gets short shrift from the corporate media are atheists. Apart from lambasting our various spokesmen (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Mr. Dennett) they allow no positive column space including to the millions of atheists who would like a voice outside of ‘American Atheist’ Magazine.

“You seem to imply here that there is a double standard and you also seem to imply that you want the double standard to continue but to be reversed, is that so?”Despite your question, Dennett is correct in what he says. Those who claim to be speaking and acting on God’s behalf should indeed be held to a higher (not a “double”) standard. It’s even Scriptural. Jesus said, regarding any Christian who causes people to be tripped up who are still young in their faith journeys:”It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.”

Wrong is wrong, no matter what the reason.But rarely do any of the religious folks ever stand up to those preachers and imams who advocate violence, or the Benny Hinns who become millionaires selling snake oil. You’re always silent, unless it’s an opportunity to slam someone who doesn’t follow what you do.

Conservative Christianity which wages a war against gay people is immoral, not moral. Do Conservative Christians expect their victims to just take it in silence, with no reaction? That is not usually what happens in war. In war, violent attack is usually met with defense and counter-attack. Is that so hard for the poor victimied fundamentalists to understand?

Agree with the article completely. Evangelicals and fundamentalists of other religions have been given a false impression by the politeness with which we nonbelievers have treated them in the past. They think they’re the majority, for one thing, and that we are all somehow impressed or cowed by their righteousness when we are just too nice to call them morons to their faces. If they were to just quietly believe their nonsense and leave others alone that would be fine, but when they start trying to impose it on the rest of us the gloves have to come off.

Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins have the same bad habit: They tilt at hapless village vicars as if they were windmills.Yet Dennett writes: “I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice, and is punished accordingly, and religious leaders who incite such acts are regarded with the same contempt that we reserve for bartenders who send dangerously disabled people out onto the highways.”And yet neither he nor Dawkins can ever muster the personal courage — as opposed to the abstract courage that comes with striking poses — to pronounce the word “Islam.”It would have improved their jerimads against faith (read Christianity) if they had bothered to point out that more people have been killed every year for the past 100 years by Muslim fanatics than were killed in the entire sorry history of the Spanish Inquisition.It would have improved their books to have stopped to point out that evolutionary biology is virtually unknown in the Islamic world.It would have improved their books to demonstrate courage rather to strike a pose against something that is, finally, indifferent to their arguments.

* The respect accorded to Christianity in the past was not “hyper-diplomacy,” it was the societal norm expected of any nation’s dominant heritage, one in which most people, at least nominally, participated. Until the last couple of generations, that is. * The kinds of public invective against Christianity to which we’ve recently become accustomed–the vitriol towards Brit Hume, various celebrities’ equating Christians with Islamicist terrorists, the current administration’s open yet unfounded campaign against “right-wing extremist” Christians–are not examples of increased “scrutiny,” as Dennet puts it, but irrational prejudice. * The exercise of religion is akin to drunk driving? Where’s your empirical basis for that claim? * I agree that leaders who use religion to incite violence should be held liable. In reality, this would only apply to imams of mosques and madrassas who encourage jihad. No other religious leaders incite violence; certainly no Christians.* By all means, feel free to engage with any clergy about their teachings in the public marketplace of ideas, and if anyone’s claims about science or anything else don’t hold water, they will suffer the natural consequences of lost authority. Who, anywhere, has ever denied this? Where are the rampant claims to clerical exceptionalism by which Dennet is so outraged? His smear of prayer is not only baseless, however, it goes against any research that does exist on the subject, and which does support eh “efficacy of prayer.”* Again, the media is not “giving them a harder time” now, they and the secular cultural left are thoughtlessly deriding them and herding them out of the public sphere without the benefit, as it were, of a fair trial. No evidence is offered FOR anything Dennet says, nor are the theological claims of any religion seriously disputed. Dennet himself, sadly, would seem to be an example of the kind of bias whose existence he denies.

obx2004 You wrote, “But rarely do any of the religious folks ever stand up to those preachers and imams who advocate violence, or the Benny Hinns who become millionaires selling snake oil. You’re always silent, unless it’s an opportunity to slam someone who doesn’t follow what you do.”It may not be quite as “rare” as you seem to imply but as I have said many times on here, Jesus said, “Come follow Me”, He did not say to follow those that say that they are following Me.Actually, not only have I not “slammed” anyone that does not “follow what I do” but I have specifically said not to follow me and the “job” that God has chosen for me is NOT the “job” God has chosen or called anyone else to do.I have also said that God looks at the person, not the “label” and that this apparently is going to come as quite a surprise to quite a few.There seem to be quite a few from all of the different “labels” that like to “group” others together by “labels”, whether self-labeled or imposed by others, rather than actually listening to what a person says.As I have said, this includes both “believers” and “non-believers” having pre-formed or pre-judged opinions and for all effectives purposes being deaf to what someone actually says.Unless someone listens, one can not hear, unless someone hears, one can not know what someone else has said, seems obvious but is it?Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum, If you read the DSM IV, you will see clearly that you are either plain deluded or hallucinating when you talk of your relationship with an imaginary being.What would you say to a person who claimed to have a similar relationship with Santa Claus or The Tooth Fairy?

* The exercise of religion is akin to drunk driving? Where’s your empirical basis for that claim? careful with those demands for empirical evidence … where is yours? Where is the empirical evidence for any of the imaginary beings you believe in?It’s not so much what you believe as how you come to believe it. What has happened to the rational, reasoning brain in your head that convinces you that you have been lucky enough to be born in a country that believes in the right gods, while all other humans in countries that don’t believe in your gods – believe in other gods – are just screwed. All other humans throughout human history … all the Romans, the Greeks, the Aztec, the Buddhists … and so on and so on.That we should take seriously the juvenile rantings of such silly little minds is beyond belief.

“The world has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice.”(Alexander Solzhenitsyn)

lolsorry Mark, I’m no communist dictator. BTW, the attempt to tie non-belief in a fairy tail to the crimes of an insane dictator is one of the most pathetic and transparent ploys by those embarrassed by the new vocal atheists. It doesn’t fly. Dictators like Stalin easily made themselves earthly substitutes for the original celestial dictator. You know, the original dictator. The one we are all to bow down to and worship for his greatness. Unquestioningly with complete faith and obedience. Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or burn in hell for all eternity. The original genocidal overlord punisher who also loves us. Sound familiar? Gee where do you think dictators like Stalin and Hitler got that idea from? And how on earth were they able to find a population prone to such brainwashing? Hmmmm.I will “dream on”, for a day when when we stop brainwashing children into this bronze age cult and wake up from our primitive past.

Sorry Mark but you’re way off the mark again.I am as tribeless as they come.

For me, the difficulty is that religion is ridiculous on its face. No one needs to hear tirades about ghosts and zombies and rising to heaven on a horse: these ideas need no serious refutation. In fact, they invite ridicule. How do those who profess them expect otherwise?

An interesting, common feature of many of these “atheist” posters is the semi-literate quality on view. Inserting “duh” into a sentence featuring the gem “Correlation is not causation” does what precisely?

Oh mark,The illiterate one is the one who can’t read the names of the people posting to him. I said nothing to you about “correlation and causation” that was another poster. But I did point out that the countries with the highest populations of non-religious people are among the most peaceful countries in the world with the lowest crime rates and the happiest population. But since you bring it up, while it is true that “correlation is not causation”, in this case correlation is evidentiary. In the example you cited, it fails because you were errant (purposely I might add) in your correlation. As was pointed out by Barferio, the communists replaced one religion (Christianity) with another religion, (communist dictatorship) not atheism. There is no such thing as atheism. It is an invented word with no content. But keep trying little man. Like I said before, it’s fun to watch a snake-oil salesman scramble and flail as you do. 🙂

Oh Mark,”little man” is your response to “kid”And I have no doubt that you can grammar circles around me. And if I were one with your arguments, I would also try to change the subject to grammar and missing semi-colons. 😉

Are you naturally self-contradictory? First you attempt to insult me by using poor grammar, then you insult me by trotting out a truism “Correlation is not causation” then you say: “I’d just add that in countries where atheist populations have risen naturally with modernity such as Scandinavian countries, Australia and my Country, Canada, are among the most peaceful countries with the lowest crime rates and the happiest populations in the world…”

“I haven’t an argument with atheism per se, but with its inherent weakness: its exploitability by totalitarians”It has no such weakness because it does not exist. There is no content to exploit. Atheism is not a thing it is a reaction to a posit. It does not exist without theism where as theism exists quite well without atheism. Religion is the most exploitable world view especially with totalitarians because that’s what God is, a dictator. Genocidal, punishing, power tripping, must be worshiped and praised and obeyed unquestioningly. That’s God and Stalin and Hitler. This thing you call “atheism” is actually just rationality, and rationality can not be exploited. Delusion and worship however, are the easiest things in the world to exploit. Do you really not see this?