Atheist Bashing
 

Here are videos of a CNN piece on atheism. It's pretty hateful and irresponsible. CNN introduces a panel to discuss atheism... that includes no atheists. Now, I'll be honest, I had no idea it gets to this level of contention. I've never had anyone tell me I'm going to hell. Maybe this only happens in the bible belt.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tiyJzWy3CDQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tiyJzWy3CDQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fPHnXrU5JzU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fPHnXrU5JzU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

It's pretty sad. I guess that's the state of the media.

I suppose you could say that it's almost as bad as when you have a panel of athiests discussing different religions?

I happened to watch that on TV and I saw nothing wrong with it. They did make some interesting points (Such as athiesm in most European countries).

Sure it's as bad as a panel of atheists discussing religion. That's not the point. The point is, why would you do it? All it shows is that people who believe in god disagree with atheists. Well duh! If you're going to have a piece on a topic, the responsible way to portray it is with educated members of the field on both sides of the discussion. This fails to do that pretty much across the board.

So you don't think a panel with no atheists on it who are discussing atheism is over the line? I'd like to think we have all walks of life represented here on the TFP, so when a discussion pops up, we can have opposing viewpoints as well as first-hand accounts. This makes for interesting, informative and enlightening discussion. What CNN has done is tantamount to putting 4 white people in a room and have them talk about blacks. "I think they should shut up." Yeah, that would fly real well.

And while we're at it, let's talk about how Africa, with all those black people, is tearing itself apart. Damn, we can't trust those black people to have their way because it'll just fall apart. The only way is the white way. We're strong and we have a solid nation of whites!

Makes me wonder what the producer of that spot was thinking and why they even have a job. Seriously. If my wife had have delivered something that one-sided in journalism school she would have been flunked.

Do I think it's over the line? Not really. If you don't agree with their viewpoints, then don't watch the program. Going back to my original post, it's not an uncommon sight to see a panel of atheists discuss religious views/practices. I've yet to see, however, anyone make such a big deal out of such an obviously one-sided discussion. People only seem to care when the "Religious buffs" do it.

I thought it was funny that the only person who was defending the atheist (and frankly, for the sake of the discussion it could have really been any unpopular group) right to speak up about issues of concern was the espn commentator. The famous author and the "conservative" lawyer were both on the "I think they should shut up" side. IL, I think you could make a case for the circumstances in Europe right now that have nothing to do with atheism; furthermore, I think its a little bit conceited to act as though Europe is just falling into a state of total disrepair....as compared to? The states? I'm not sure that's a straightforward analysis, and I really don't think you can easily lay any claims at the feet of atheism.

Hal, I wonder what the conversation would be like if they did have an informed atheist up there arguing the points. I remember being a child and having Madelaine Murray O'Hare presented as an evil, evil woman who wasn't so much corrupt as she was just straight out insane. I was having lunch with a colleague from work a month ago or so, and after she'd mentioned her church about 30 times, she finally asked me where i attended. i told her i didn't believe in personified deities. her jaw dropped. i don't think she'd ever met a real-life atheist before. it was a strange scene, that's for sure. its not very common down here (the deep South) to find professed atheists. I forget that sometimes. I think there are a lot of people who are closer to agnostics, but even they go to Church.

pigglet, I'm going over what I would have said, imagining myself to be the lone atheist on the panel.

"Nobody is taking any right away, only making public spaces more accepting of all people. Excuse me if I want to feel accepted."

"That's a great bit of hate right there. Inferring that increasing islam influence in Europe is bad. Do you even feel your spine when you claim to be Jewish, yet submit that this is a 'Christian Nation'?"

"I don't know about anyone here, but I believe I live in a Free Nation, not a Christian Nation. What this means is I have the hope that one day ALL views are accepted. It's easy to squeeze out the little guy and I was raised to be more considerate."

"Are you inferring that Atheists have no moral decency? I can tell you that a person's beliefs have no bearing on their morals, only the guilt that they feel when they overstep them."

Exactly. The ESPN guy was sort of doing his best, but I think they left out some of the definite points. Prayer in School? When was that taken out? No one says you can't pray in school. The question is whether EVERYONE has to pray to God, or else be the outcast. Its systematic discrimination.

I always enjoy the "we are a Christian Nation" bit.

No. We're not. We are not a theocracy. Or am I now not an American? I don't get it.

I also think that point on Europe goes beyond the rising influence of Islam (and the poster case that happened in France recently); but goes to the American position that Europe is a dried up atrophied shell of nations. In my dealings with Europeans, I have to admit it looks pretty sweet. They're not worried about trying to be the biggest, baddest nation - so they actually have some sense of freedom that I think we frequently chase over here in the states. If atheism does that, I'm game.

But this is pretty much what every holiday is like down here. Then again, I'm within driving distance of Bob Jones University.

"...the small Mississippi town where they lived..."

That's all I needed to hear. There are still plenty of places in this country where not being the right religion (or not having any at all) will get you roundly rejected from that local society. And they are NOT friendly when they reject you. Sad state of affairs, I know... but that's how it is. And you're right, the story itself was pathetic.

One thing that upsets me is that a 24-hour news channel would appear to have plenty of time to take an issue such as this and delve into it in depth, giving air to all sides of the argument.

And I promise that if a major news network did a 10 minute piece on the morality of Christianity and offered no Christians the chance to speak, we would most definitely hear about it.

Nothing wrong with it? I'd agree that it wasn't "over the line", whatever that means, but it certainly struck me as intellectually lazy. What's the point of a panel discussion with no disagreement? There's no challenge in preaching to the choir. If they were going to go that route, they should've just stuck with a single speaker and removed the false semblance of a debate.

To the OP:

I got the impression, though, that the reporter didn't expect a lack of dissent, what with her "no one's going to defend them?" question. Am I just being gullible there?

I sometimes wonder why there are so many atheists on-line, yet I never seem to meet them in real life. Maybe it's because we don't have a church to go to? ;)

They should do a whole series of this show. Next week a bunch of people sit around and bash Christians. Week after that is the Jew bashing episode. And the fourth (and presumably last) episode would be the Muslim bashing episode.

maybe it was a social experiment? ;)

God said what?
And made up something
makes no sense.

I hate being ignored (Well, not totally ignored in this case, but partially ignored). To ask the question again, why has no one acknowledged the fact that there are many religious "Debates" done on both TV and in articles (Both of the news and scholarly type) which only consist of only the opinions of atheists-- "Debates", mind you, which have occurred for years. Where's the outcry?

I can't understand the double standard here. It's perfectly acceptable for atheists to hold one-sided arguments in order to sell their agenda, but it's unacceptable for religious people to do the same? How, exactly, does that work?

Not sure I follow you IL. I suppose I need to be educated about these religious debates involving only athiests.

Please youtube us examples of what you mean, IL, because I, like Hal, don't know what you're talking about.

And, depending on the subject, I'd probably think it was just as stupid. Having three atheists, a Buddhist and an African tribesman discuss the subtleties of the holy trinity would be a pretty academically lazy project, exactly as this is. If you're trying to have an informed debate, you need people to represent different points of view. What they had there was two people who CLEARLY had no idea what they're talking about (self hating Jews ftw) and one guy who was trying to have a reasonable conversation about the topic. That piece was shoddy journalism and, frankly, a little scary. And it gets a little scarier every time I watch it.

If there's disagreement between the atheists on the religious topic at hand, then it doesn't bother me. But if they're all just patting themselves on the back, then yeah, that's also a waste of time. And then they are both a waste of time.

Religion bears no ignorance;
all the rest is gravy...

Heh, perhaps I should explain?

I have been told a couple times that I will go to hell, then I realized I was gonna go to hell anyways so it doesn't really matter. I try my best to stay away from religious fanatic types since I've gotten into it with them so many times.

From my experience I will say that I think that if they included athiests in the debate it would have gotten a little out of hand, or at least there would be a lot more debating going on. That seems to be what happens when you put people together like that. However it is a major fault on CNN's part that they didn't really include much of an athiest viewpoint and it seems that it's not the first time they have done this. I remember stories based around Islam that were conducted the same way.

This happens, but we are so outnumbered that I doubt it will be the last time.

Hey, IL, when have you seen an all athiest debate about religion?

To the first video: Yes, athiests are not only marginalized but mistreated because they refuse to believe in magic. The more ignorant of the flock of Jesus (or Muhammed, or Moses, or even Shiva) often will consider someone to be less than human because they won't be joining the religious people in heaven. I just take it as jelousy and move on, but when one is evicted, something must be done.

The second video: Karen Hunter is a bigot. "They don't believe in anything." What a crock of shit. Atheists refuse to believe in the unprovable. We believe in science and what can be taken in through our sight, hearing, smell, taste or touch. "We took prayer out of schools, what more do they want?" Prayer never belonged in public schools because we are not a Christian theocracy. The removal of prayer from schools was a step towards equlibrium, not towards atheism. Debbie made me laugh. "We are a Christian nation! Well, I'm not Christian, I'm Jewish" which means that she can team up with her rivals to pick on the smaller groups that threatens them. Her claim that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion is so far beyond ludacris, that she should be crucified. Both of those women should go and live in Iran so that they understand what direction their ignorance would lead the country in.

I would have expected this kind of tripe from Fox News, but not CNN.

All i can ask is how can you expect more from cnn? In a world that doesn't exist in reality, perhaps you could expect them to err on the side of integrity instead of pandering to public opinion. This is not that world, and sadly, the opinions of the panelists probably represent the opinions of most of america.

Will, if CNN gained advertising dollars for this bit of tripe, they would consider it a success. I am hoping for a new look at the Fairness Doctrine and the end to single ownership of the public airways.

I guess you're right. It just makes me kinda sick when I realize how many people watch that nodding their zombie heads.

Nah, you'd need to cover all the big six religions: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Judaism, along with atheists.

This is one of the benefits of being a Unitarian Universalist. Nobody pays much attention to us because we're so small and because nobody can figure out what we're about.

It was a poorly formed panel that didn't have any atheists on it. There used to be a series of debates on PBS that would have a large panel of people of various religious, philosophical, and political affiliations to discuss the issue.

I loved watching those things.

This wasn't at all a well chosen panel. However, I do think the guy there made some good points in favor of accepting that atheists, just like anyone else, should have the same right to speak up about their beliefs as everyone else does.

The Jewish woman there really didn't strike me as being much like the Jewish people I've known, and I've known more than a few, both Orthodox and Reform. Judaism is an inward looking religion whose practitioners generally don't care about other people's religious beliefs or lack thereof. I suppose it's possible she's a messianic Jew, or a member of Jews for Jesus, which would explain her "It's a Christian Nation" nonsense and her apparent fervor for Christianity.

My favorite part was the other woman saying she didn't want atheists infringing on her right to have prayers in schools and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance immediately after a complaint about the atheist parent suing schools on his child's behalf.

It sucks that there wasn't an atheist on the panel, but at least there was one panelist who, after the idiotic "It's a Christian nation" talking point managed to give a good show of defending some of the rights of atheists.

I have a big problem with anyone who tells a particular group that they should "shut up" because of who they are. Annoys the hell out of me.

Oh, and "Freedom of Religion" does mean "freedom from religion", at least when it comes to government exercises of power.

We (atheists) are starting to fight back and the religious right don't like it. This is why, I think, we are seeing more and more of this and its sad... very sad.

All we can do is keep on plugging away and making sure that our rights and laws don't get taken over be one group's view on their god.

CNN is ridiculous and no intelligent person should be getting their news from there. Maybe they did this so atheists would take notice. A troll tactic?

I would love to see some of these debates on TV where athiests are discussing and trying to prove the non-existance of god.

I honestly doubt they exist, because what you just watched, was a news program. What is supposed to be an unbiased medium of spreading the facts, and knowledge of what is going on. How quick would a news station, in this country, air a program that alienates approx 90% of the population?

No, I don't think so.



They want athiests to shut up and not defend their right to speak out about what they believe are injustices? How is that any different that thiests speaking out about why they WANT prayer in school, and god on our money, and the pledge of allegiance?

You can thank the religious of this country, for sunday afternoon barbecue, when you've run out of beer, and you can't go to convenience store and pick up a 12pack of bud light. And they want to talk about oppression? Cry me a fucking river.

Kill people everyday because of your "Religion". Lie, Cheat, Steal, all in the name of religion, Every single day. Sure athiests do this as well, but you aren't going to tell me or anyone else with a lick of common sense that it happens as much, or for the same fervent reasons.



I'll also clear this up a bit, No, I'm not an athiest bashing thiests, No I'm not a thiest bashing on athiests.

I think athiests are dumb, just dumb. Ohhh but I won't leave out the thiestic right! I think they are dumb, equally dumb as the athiests. I won't be attaching my name to either list until something pretty significant happens.

Thanks Halx for reminding me why I don't watch CNN, especially Paula Zahn. As an atheist I am selective about who I let know about it. I know that there are people who are intolerant of that and it would only lead to my demise. You can't use reason to persuade somebody out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at that position. I found it funny that she said 1 to 3% without citing a source. Atheists are more "in the closet" than any other group. That is why you find so many online where they are anonymous and do not fear consequences from speaking their mind.

I recently watched a debate with a Muslim, Jew, and an atheist on CSpan or Cspan2, it was intelligent, thoughtful, and very educational. Did anyone else manage to see this?

Maybe this is an Australia/America thing but I really don't know that many religious people most people I know are non-religious. Our national non-religious rate is around 33% or something and my experiences would roughly correspond to that, much although I get a skew from the people I hang out with and living in the city etc.

I have only ever experienced religious intolerance the other way and I'm normally the perpetrator although I've tried to cut that down recently. Has anyone here experienced this kind of attitude first hand?

Menoman, What are you if you are neither atheist nor theist?

As I watch: First off, it that is a public school, it is not allowed to do 'bible study', so the parents were within their rights.
1-3% of the US population is athiestic? I'd say that's off ....
Wrong, lady, freedom of religion DOES mean freedom from religion
Karen Hunter needs to shut up. At least the gentleman realizes there's differences of beliefs and they should be respected if not agreed with.
Slow news day, Paula?

As for getting a panel of atheists to 'bash religion', the difference is, many if not most atheists were raised in a religious background or sought out religious teachings before deciding, as Willravel put it, to not accept magic. I find that no one who has a fervent religious belief knows squat about an atheists mindset and doesn't care to.

Belief in the supernatural without the bother of a supreme being, I'd guess.

Agnostic, basically the belief that the proof of god will never, and can never be proven by humans; The truth about a omnipotent, omniscience, supreme being, is unknown and unknowable.

Have any of you ever listened/watched to "The Atheist Viewpoint"? I'll admit that I haven't heard too many broadcasts (About two or three), but they quite frequently discuss religious viewpoints as they see it. Personally, I just don't see how this is any different than what you seem opposed to. A group of theists discussing atheism is fundamentally no different than a group of atheists discussing theism.

I'd have to side with the school on this one. If one family had such a problem with Bible study, then they could have either requested that their child not be required to participate or, if that wasn't good enough for them, moved elsewhere (Which they eventually did). The beliefs of a few shouldn't infringe on the beliefs of the majority.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

That's the newest data I could find on the internet, unless you can find something newer.

And it also means the freedom to practice any religion one wants. Slightly a stretch, but wouldn't not teaching any religion of any sort conform to atheist beliefs over theist beliefs?

Sure, every religion should be respected but it's generally atheists who make the biggest fuss over the most trivial of matters, such as removing the word "God" from the PoA or removing the word "God" from the US currency or just plain and simply removing the word "God" where ever it might appear. Here's a true story for you all: When I was in 7th grade we had a pep rally at the end of "Black History Month" (February). During the pep rally some kid sung the black national anthem, which happens to mention God. You wouldn't believe the uproar caused by the students and the parents who didn't believe in God. The entire thing ended up on the news and, in the end, the principal ended up stepping down and the assistant deputy officer ended up transferring to another school. The next year when they held the pep rally they ended up only singing the first half of the black national anthem, so as to not offend the atheists.

At the risk of sounding beligerent, my problem with atheists is that, many times, they're far more bigotted and intolerant than the religious people which they typically attack. Just take a look at any major atheist forum. They usually have a section dedicated to disproving other people's religious beliefs. In many cases it seems that atheists are more concerned with disproving other people's religions than they are living their own lives.

So you're saying it's possible for an atheist to know about theist beliefs but impossible for a theist to know about atheist beliefs? Or that atheists or more knowledgeable than theists? I have a problem with that assertion. If you've ever sat down and listened/saw a debate between atheists concerning other religions that you'd notice that they're just as condescending as their theist counterparts.

I started to write a response in direct opposition to IL, but I think I'm going to take a different route.

What we have is a nationally aired one-sided conversation on a subject that hardly gets a chance to shine in the public eye. It feels like that model that dropped an anicent mirror when it was on display. A delicate situation that was grossly mishandled. With any luck, there will be enough outrage to spark another segment in the coming days. We can only hope it is handled with more care.

Ya' know... I might be biased but I still don't see the problem.

Atheists (And I'm speaking in general) have let their agenda be known to the public, so it's highly unlikely that the CNN piece swayed the minds of any viewer one way or the other. I didn't learn anything that I otherwise didn't already know.

I wouldn't have such a problem with atheists in general if it didn't seem as if they had a personal crusade against organized religion as a whole. Whenever you have a public mentioning of "God" or have anything which can be related to the Judeo-Christian belief, it seems that you can almost always find an atheist calling for the removal of said references. It's as if they enjoy taking the "Seperation of Church and State" clause to the extreme.

I don't think that theists should impose their will on atheists, but I also don't believe that atheists should be able to impose their will on theists. It's almost to the point where you can't mention God in any public sense because "Someone" will take offense.

While you may be right in saying Athiests try to disprove god more than bible-thumpers try to prove his existance.

You cannot say that athiests are as organized and thorough in their attempts to recruit, convert, and generally change the lives of people not in their sect.

Not to mention the sheer arrogance of the thiests, who will flat out tell you you're going to hell because of your lifestyle.



if you want to look at mainstream athiests trying to change every "little" thing. That's the least of your worries, try being gay and having the religious whacks trying to change your entire lifestyle.

Not even close to a main-stream news organization airing such things. You tune into "The Athiest Viewpoint" as the title suggests, you are going to get exactly that... viewpoints of athiests. News organizations are not supposed to be biased, where as a program such as that it is expected.

Where does it say in the constitution it's ok to infringe the rights of ANY group? This isn't a case of taking "seperation of church and state" to the extreme. As you probably know, the interpretation of that is more along the lines of "The Government will not establish a singular government sponsored religion" Public schools are government establishments, therefore they cannot sponsor any religions. This isn't argueable.

Explained in my last post.

IL, when left unchecked, most religious people are fine with the seeping of their religion into facets of society. Some of it is harmless, like Christmas (I love Christmas), but some of it is actually quite dangerous to those who value a like without persecution. If my daughter has to sit in a science class and learn about mythology, I will be pissed and rightfully so. I have explained my understanding of God to my daughter and I've told her that if she ever wants to go to church, she is welcome to, but I don't want her to ever feel pressured. I've explained to her that some sunday schools have in them lessons about spreading the word, which can mean that kintegardners are out there asking questions like, "Do you know Jesus?" or "Have you been saved?", when they can't even grasp the meanings of such questions. When the answer isn't favorable, even the best of friends can turn on you. If my daughter is denied membership to the girlscouts, like the BSA does not admit atheists. "Under god" was added to the flag salute much, much later, and it ruined the meter of the damned thing. There really is no reason to assume that we are one nation under god, when many of us don't even believe in the exestence of god.

I think a lot of people would be pissed if private religious schools were legally required to teach evolution as an alternate to ID. Rven though it would ultimately be benificial to the students, it's not the place of the government to control or impose on faith. Likewise, people's right not to believe is imposed on when a religious theory is taught in science classrooms.

Will, let me know how successful you are in trying to keep kindergartners from discussing sensitive and/or embarrassing topics. I'd like to use my Way Back machine to go back to use your lessons to keep my kindergarten self from lecturing my teacher on the fact that boy have a penis and girls have a "bahgina". It would have saved me from further humiliation in the 4th grade when it was mentioned in front of a large group of my peers.

My point is that kids are going to talk about whatever they hear from adults. I absolutely agree that there shouldn't be any playground revivals/babtisms, but if it seems like a fun game or important to adults, it's going to get discussed.

As far as the Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, I was an agnostic Boy Scout and got my Eagle. Early on I had to make the decision which was more important, being a Boy Scout and paying lip service to the religious aspect or standing up for something I didn't even feel that passionately about anyway and losing out on the camping trips, rock climbing, etc. If being an atheist is more important to your daughter, then she needs to find an outlet other than the GSA. If not, tell her to not discuss it. The BSA/GSA have made it pretty clear that they're not willing to accept those that don't toe the line and the courts have backed them up. A decision on which is more important need to be made.

After withstanding several years of attempted conversions by friends and neighbors both growing up and in the couple years after college, I made the decision to tell those who insist on discussing religion that they're rude. Which they are. I just chose not to make my beliefs anyone else's business.

To speak to Hal's OP, why do I care what a bunch of talking heads think anyway, especially when those folks aren't in any position of power. If W was a part of the discussion, that would be something different, but this almost seems like they pulled 3 idiots off the tour of the CNN center and got them talking.

I agree with ngdawg here. I know many more athiests that are educated in religion than I do thiests educated in religions or beliefs other than their own. I think this is partly because of the way religions view those with other beliefs, most of the time it's not with a positive light and so alot of thiests don't know much about other religions. This is a generalization, I realize that but there's a point.

Religion has no place in school, there are multiple parts of the constitution that say this along with many Supreme Court rulings. This is fact, not opinion.

There are some very compelling articles and books out there right now on this very issue. I have a feeling that we've approached these ideas in other threads, but check these out...

If there's one person who is getting panties in a bunch these days, it's Richard Dawkins. This Wired article is worth checking out: http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html

My favourite recent article comes from the Guardian. This one's about how religion will just be too silly to outlast the end of the century: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...980979,00.html

Finally, South Park did a great two parter about this whole thing, taking a very reasonable position that any extremist view leads to trouble: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timeless_002719.php

So if CNN is pissing you off, atheists, don't worry... there's a lot more intelligent dialog out there.

Wow, this story really made my jaw drop. I find it hard to believe that this sort of discrimination can be directed at atheists. I'm pretty openly atheist, but I've never met with any discrimination (that I'm aware of). Perhaps I just live in a tolerant small town?

This story said that 1 to 3% of Americans are atheist, but <b><a href="http://jcnot4me.com/items/Misc%20Topics/atheists_in_america.htm">this</a></b> article says 14%, making it the third largest religion in the U.S. That's a pretty large difference. Of course, some non-religious people are not comfortable using the term "atheist", so that might explain the large difference. I'll admit, I didn't like the term much for awhile because it seemed that so many atheists are raving assholes. But then I just learned that raving assholes come in all shapes and colors.

Funny story: My friend, who is also an atheist, mentioned his beliefs to his neighbor. They looked a bit nervous and actually said "That's ok, I guess. I'm sure not ALL atheist worship the devil".

Hahahah!!! :lol:

Bizarre. Did your friend point out that devil worshippers, by definition, cannot be atheists?

It would seem that way wouldn't it. But that's actually not totally true.

An athiest can be a devil worshipper.

Devil worship is not the believe in the opposite 'diety', if you want to use that word, of God.

Devil worshippers actually believe that there is no God, No Devil, No Angels, they are in fact, athiests, they believe in no supernatural beings.

They do however believe in the "Idea" of the devil, what he would stand for were he existant.

They in essence merely believe in a true 'Free Will' way of living, without the constrictions placed upon us by a god, gods, or any type of religion.

You ruined the humor! It was funny that they equated atheism with satan worshiping, becuase both are independantly considerd by many Christians to be the opposite of their religion.

Yes, I can. Simply because you don't believe it happens, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. I asked this question before, but doesn't removing God or the mention of religion from the public sector promote the atheist agenda?

Which, of course, is nothing like someone telling you that you believe in a fairy tale or God doesn't exist. I've never denied the fact that theists don't try to convert people. I've just found it funny how people seemingly believe that atheists don't do the same.

That's nothing. Try praying in school without someone stating that you're "Offending" them.

And why, per chance, does it have to be mainstream? You wanted to know of an instance in which atheists debate religious topics in the absence of religious people.

...You're kidding, right? I'm sorry, but what exactly do you expect to see when you watch CNN? They're not exactly liberal (I'm not sure they ever have been, either). News stations can be as biased as they want, as they're not controlled by the government but by the people who sponsor them. Much like the atheists on their own station, CNN is allowed to run their own agenda.

Yes yes... I know... Seperation of Church and State... Yada yada yada...

Anyway, what I (And most other people have a problem with) is when you have a town which is predominantly comprised of one religion, an atheist moves in and then wants to change the way things are run because they're "Offended".

Yeah, if I were in that town in Mississippi, I'd have run the atheists out of town, too. You can have your child not participate in Bible study, but to claim that no one should participate in Bible study because you're offended is, IMO, idiotic. When I was in elementary school and my mom didn't agree with a part of the curriculum, do you know what she did? She wrote a note stating that she wanted me to go elsewhere for the duration of that time. I've never understand how/why people complain about things they don't have to participate in.

If the institution accepts federal funds, it shouldn't be done regardless of the majority opinion. They can do their own version freely, but not with public funds. It strikes me they're trying to sweep the larger problem under the rug and target an individual.

And as for "predominantly", who's left out? Does nobody else in that town have a problem with the one belief system? Given their upbringing and the non-acceptance at school, etc., do you think they'd feel safe enough to voice their opinion? The town should give up government funding and start a commune. That'd be the legal way to maintain their one-way policy. They wouldn't be the first.

This sentence contradicts itself. Worshipping something is predicated on a belief in its existence.

The person in the story equating atheism with devil worship was a Christian, so it is safe to assume that by "devil worship" she meant the Christian conception of the devil as a literal being. The irony in her statement comes from the idea that she seems to believe that there are people who don't believe in the Christian devil, yet worship him anyway.

The system of belief you describe is an atheistic belief system that only becomes devil worship if you accept the existence of the devil, at which point it becomes a theistic, or at least a deistic system.

My mother-in-law is a devout Christian. During the after-Thanksgiving chitchat, which had turned somehow to God, she asked me, "Do you believe?" to which I said an emphatic 'No".
Fast forward to Christmas dinner at her house. It is tradition that everyone stands around the table, holding hands as she says Grace. This year's grace included the following 'dig': "And please allow us to remember why we all are here tonight, even if some have chosen to forget"....
I don't tell people who are of faith that they're mistaken (outside of a debate platform) and I don't try to sway others to my line of thinking in this regard. But it seems the minute you reveal that your beliefs are not 'traditional', all bets are off as far as 'live and let live' goes. That was evidenced in that family's desire to not have their kid part of that 'bible study'(which I have to ask, who allowed that in a public school in the first place? They were right to voice opposition there)
Yes, IL, I do hold to that assumption, anecdotal as it may be; theists don't want to entertain the notion they might be worshipping something that never existed-atheists more often than not were taught believing in a deity until they questioned these teachings.

The Constitution is the only atheist agenda at work here, and it's persecution that 'atheists' (actually many Christians supported the removal of God from government, too) are trying to fix.
There's a difference between questioning and damning. I doubt any atheist would tell a Christian that he or she was going to hell.
So kids get beaten up for praying in school? I dare you to try and find an article to link to support that. Homosexuals are beaten up often because of their sexual orientation.

Apples and handguns.
In order to equate them, duh. You acted as if it were commonplace in a venue of similar viewership to the linked show above. It's not 50/50 here, it's more like 99/1, and it's not in your favor. Basically, you proved that the point you're trying to make isn't sound by showing how little you have to support it.
Just because something is a way doesn't mean that's the best way. Unbiased news is the friend of the informed man. Biased news is the friend of the mindless man. Feel free to quote me on that. CNN can go on and show children being raped, but that doesn't make it right.
One of the most important princeples of a non theocracy. Wait, do you want the US to be a theocracy?
That's a case of "you are not your own country, so shape up and follow the rules and don't be dicks".
That not only makes you a bigot, but a dick.
Prayer has no place in public schools, and there are laws to back me up on that. If you want to break the law, go right ahead, but you won't win any arguments that way. You might actually scare people from your camp. Also, I REALLY WISH RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WOULD READ THEIR OWN TEXTS:
Matthew 6:5-6

It's an interesting aspect of language in that it doesn't work like math when it comes to opposites. Because of the language we use to express it, an idea or a word can have more than one opposite without those opposites being equivalent to each other.

In this case, however, devil worship isn't really the opposite of Christian belief. Within the framework of Christian belief, worshiping the devil would mean the Christian conception of the devil as a fallen angel who presides over hell, which means accusing someone of devil worship assumes an acceptance of the Christian model of existence.

The woman seems to believe that there are people who accept the Christian model of the universe, yet don't belief in a supreme being.

I find that amusing.

ng, I had something similar happen these past holidays. There was a solemn push for "don't forget what this holiday is about." I held back mentioning pre-Christian winter solstice & dates picked out of a hat. Then came "remember, every morning we're closer to the end times than the day before." I did my Buckwheat impersonation trying not to smile, then snickered at the obvious. Tough recovery in that setting. From there I tried to stick with polite conversation.

Hate that.

Wouldn't you have to believe in hell first to tell someone they're going their?

This isn't even close to the point I was making. To say that theists are the only ones who try to conform others to their way of thinking is simply ridiculous.

Not quite. Now you're saying that it's all right to run your own agenda for so long as it's not viewed by the majority. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. CNN, just like that atheist TV show, is privately owned and run. They're under no obligation to show anything which doesn't fit their agenda.

You can sit here and try to nitpick at that argument as much as you want, but that's the bottom line. Before you finger point at CNN, you'd better take a good, hard look at your own camp.

You can find unbiased news in the United States? Sorry, but all TV stations have their own agendas to run. The atheists run theirs without much backlash, so why can't CNN?

Isn't it anyway?

Ya' know... One of the questions that they usually ask the presidency runners is "How does your faith affects your political position (Or something of the sort)?" So much for separation of Church and State.

Well, for one, I don't believe I ever said that. People can have different belief systems; I simply have a problem when one tries to impose their will on the other. I'd be willing to bet that the Mississippi school would have gladly let the kid be exempt from Bible study if his parents asked for him too. I've got a problem with the

Naw, it wouldn't. I wouldn't run them out for being atheists (That'd be dumb), but because they want to prevent everyone else from participating in Bible study rather than simply asking their child to be removed from Bible study.

Yes yes... I've heard this argument before.

The question still remains, what exactly is the opposition if it wouldn'e be required of anyone to participate (Sorta' like not saying the PoA)? Yeah. I know. I won't get a straight answer.

I've actually got a brilliant idea. Instead of prayer, let's just call it "Talk to whomever you believe in, if you believe in anything" time. It's all inclusive and couldn't possibly offend anyone :thumbsup:

Oh, and for the record, I fully well know what those verses mean (Yes, I have read the Bible, ya' know). They don't say not to engage in public prayer, but not to engage in public prayer as means showing you're superiority to anyone else. Would you care to distort anymore Bible verses?

I would also like to add that there is no atheist agenda. What people mean when they say this is that they think that the constitution is wrong. People suing to have religion removed aren't debating god's existence. They are citing the constitution.

People can pray in school. Where in the bible does it say that prayers that aren't spoken aloud don't count? There is a verse in the book of Matthew about how you shouldn't pray for others to see. Everyone praying out loud in unison does not make it more of a prayer. The only benefit of it is it serves to indoctrinate the masses.

Do people actually think that Jesus would be behind invoking his father's name for patriotic and nationalistic reasons? Please tell me where in the bible Jesus came to America? I tend to think he would react more like when he threw the money-changers out of the temple.

Willravel's subtle humor swings and misses.
But it's not that simple. Atheists convert with books or protests. Christians, some anyway, convert with knives. Have you ever heard of any religious person being physically hurt by atheists because of their faith? Absolutely not. Conversion with a book is better than conversion with a gun.
No, I'm saying you were incorrect when you said:
You had to find some miniscule, out in the boonies example, which really only made your case worse. If you hadn't responded then at least you didn't try and fail. Your fictional 'al atheists baching christianity' show was a farce.
Which camp is that? I watch Democracy Now! and read a few newspapers, not one of the BS news networks. Do you disagree with my clever little quote?
Hahaha. Here we are again. So where is this atheist agenda on TV? Noewhere. That's what I thought.
No, and if it were I'd fight to get it back to the way it's supposed to be.
YI think we can all agree that Presidents are not the place to look for a good example of anything that has to do with government except corruption or ignorance. Bush invaded Iraq with the supposed support of God.
When anything religious goes into public schools, it's an imposition. When religion leaves public schools, it's a return to equilibrium. Remember, atheism isn't a religion. It's a lack there of, and as such isn't subject to the same rules in public schools.
If the bible study is priave, that's great. I promote bible studies among Christians, just like I support Qu'ran studies for Muslims and Torah studies for Jews. Your religion is important to you and you experiencing the peace and understanding of that religion can't hurt me. The problem is that bible studies have no place in public schools.
Because it's not as cut and dry as you're making it. If a child wants to pray silently before a meal or before a test, no one cares, even us godless athiests. t's when the teacher leads the class in prayer right after doing the flag salute that things get really stupid. Would you want your kid reading from the Qu'ran and being taught that it's the correct religion at a public school? No? Why not? There's your answer.
I don't know of any school teacher that leads prayers to every diety. It's usually just one diety, and it's usually Christian (simply because Christianity is the most prevelant religion).
Why do you think people have to pray in school? They are lording their god over everyone. I did it when I was in school, and a lot of my Christian buddies did too. It's perfectly clear, and your suggestion that I'm distorting the bible is ludacris. The words are plain and simple.

...Sarcasm also isn't your forte...

What kind of comparison is this? Christianity has been around for over 2,000 years; Atheism in it's present form has been around for around 150 years. During Christianity's first 150 years, it didn't go out subjugating other cultures.

Couple of things here.

Nowhere did I say all atheists make it their goal to attack and disprove other religions. I did say, however, that this is the general attitude of most atheists. Anywho, with that being said, you stated that you were unfamiliar with such shows. I showed you one (Actually, it has about twenty or so broadcasts for you to listen to) and you instantly replied with "That doesn't count because it's not mainstream!" So, twenty or so non-mainstream shows in which you have a panel of atheists bash other religions is different than one show on a mainstream network bashing atheists how...? I'm still not seeing the difference, unless you're stating that it's A-OK to do the bashing as long as you're not on public TV.

Which camp is that? I watch Democracy Now! and read a few newspapers, not one of the BS news networks. Do you disagree with my clever little quote?

...Didn't we just go over this?

Great! You totally avoided the point I was making. If religion doesn't (And didn't) play such an important part in American society, do you think such a question would be continually posed in presidential debates? ...No? I didn't think so.

It's an imposition only if it's forced on you. If you're not required to participate in any religious based activity, then there's nothing being imposed on you. All you're effectively doing is preventing those people who want to take part in those activities from doing so (Which, according to your definition, would be imposition).

I promote Bible studies for anyone who wants them. I support Koran studies for anyone who wants them. I also support Torah studies for anyone who wants them. For the people who don't want them, I say move on with your life and stop acting as if you're being imposed upon because of what others do.

If you're not being forced into participation against your will, then you really have no room to complain.

No. I wouldn't. But, you know, I would prevent others from doing it. I'd simply do as my mom did me when I was little-- Request that I be removed from the classroom while such activities are going on. It's rocket science, I know.

You see, instead of having your child removed from the classroom, you'd rather inconvenience everyone else by restricting them from participating in such activities.

...And my subtle humor goes unnoticed...

First and foremost, you're not making the difference between group prayer and public prayer as described in the Bible. Group prayer occurs with more than one person; Public prayer is when you pray by yourself in public for the sole purpose of showing off. Hey, if you read the Bible you'd know that Jesus engaged in public prayer, too!

CNN will have the debate once more, with an athiest included in the panel. Thursday at 8pm.

Oh, and a blog post from the jewish girl..

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archi...theists_a.html

I honestly have never heard anyone who actually is a literal "Devil Worshipper".

There are many books on this subject, and they are amazingly interesting if you have an open mind, and are interested in religions.

Yes, a literal "Devil worshipper" is a thiest. But the mass majority of people who call themselves devil worshippers, do not believe that a devil, a god, or any supernatural creator/puppet master actually exist. Which by definition makes them athiest.

Perhaps in this case, it's safe to assume the christian meant the literal sense of the phrase.

but I was merely responding to Which isn't true.











You can, but you'd be wrong. Removing god from public promotes athiest agenda?

That's like saying removing nudists, from daytona beach, is promoting the "Bikini club". No, it's not, it's simply following the rules/laws.

I never said athiests don't do it, I said religious people do it much much MUCH more. You can't really argue that since 90% of the population is religious in some facet, you going to tell me that the 10% of athiests are out doing the religious majority?

Not going to bother with this one, simply because it's absolutely incredulous to even equate the two.

I wanted an equally credible isntance of it. Not some obscure program that rarely gets listened to/watched, and is KNOWN for bias. That program which I have listened to, is not claiming unbias.


Again, I didn't say it was unbias, I said it was portrayed as unbias, just as a news organization should be. Yes, they can be biased if they please, but that's not how they are expected to operate. This is obvious.

The problem I have with this, is that you think because you are in the majority, you get preferential treatment over the minority. You can try to misinterpret the constitution, and pretend it doesn't adhere to you, because you are the majority, but that is what I'd call idiocy.

Not to mention you saying you would run athiests out of town is a shining example of the intolerance you claim the ahiests have a monopoly on.

Christianity in it's current form is maybe 60 years old. I doubt you can compare Christianity 1500 years ago to Christianity today. No religion is consistant over that span of time.
No where did I say that either. How about we compare audiences? Tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands watch network news. How many listen to these shows? Can't you find something on MSNBC or something where all atheists come together to bash Christianity? Of course not. Why not? Because you're grasping at straws.
This isn't about american society as much as it is about government. Prayer in public schools and removing 'in god we trust' are two main examples cited by some atheists. The office of the president may be heald by a religious man, but that man has to figure out how to keep his faith seperate from his decision making process. Unless we're a theocracy. Bush is a prime example of what not to do. He uses his faith to gain more support and then he claims he makes decisions based on his faith. The man should have 'theocracy' tattood on his forehead. And under that it should say 'closed until further notice'.
Wrong. It is imposed when it is supported by the schools. There is a reason I don't want my daughter going to a private, religious school. They don't have private atheist schools, anyway, but that's beside the point. Public schools = government, and a democratic government cannot be religious. Democracy is supposed to be an atheist system, as it is made clear by anyone who knows anything about basic government. Freedom of religion does mean, in part, freedom from religion. School is somewhere you're forced to go before the age of 18, therefore if you are forced to go to a school that clearly is run like a Christian institution, you're being imposed upon. It's really that simple.
Do what you want outside of government organizations.
It's not about forced participation. It's about being surrounded by theism in schools. It's wrong, and it will stop because it's wrong.
Screw that. That's not how it works. That's what should happen in private, Christian schools. In public schools, there will be no prayer.
The inconvenience is when people are too simple to learn about their own government. American Idol is on, and W. Bush is talking about jesus, so let's make the atheist kid sit in the corner while we ironically ask god to bless our social studies.
No, I'm saying when people pray outloud in school, they are doing so to get attention. That's an affront to god according to your own book. It's a farce, it's an imposition, and it's not welcome. Grow up and wait until 3:00 to talk to god again like a normal person.

Jesus didn't go to public schools in the US to pray, because it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

It's fair to alienate the minority now? You think it'd be super dee duper if they made black kids leave the room when they discuss hot button topics that relate to whites?

I'm getting tired of this already.

You've already shown you understand the seperation clause of the constitution, now why on earth, are you still argueing this? You talk about forcing people to leave simply because they are not like you, which is the grandfather of hypocrisy seeing as how people who actually understand this country, and it's forefathers, yet still think they are special enough to bend those basic rights, the right to believe whatever you want, and not be persecuted for it, are the ones who would be pushed out of this place.

the problem isn't students in school praying, if some students want to pray, let them, the issue is when an authority figure directs the students to pray, or sets aside class time to pray. if a student wants to pray while the teacher is passing out the test, fine, but if the teacher says, before we take the test, lets pray, that is the problem.

No, but arguing that atheists haven't gone out and fought any wars when it's only approximately 150 years old unlike Christianity (Which is 2,000 years old), is just plain faulty. How many wars did Christianity fight in it's first 150 years? I'd be willing to guess that number would be zero.

Now you're arguing number of people reached? Really, this is just getting ridiculous. Whether or not you reach one person or a million people, the point is that just as CNN had a panel of non-atheists to discuss atheism, so too do atheists have panels of non-theists arguing religious topics. If you think that one is more acceptable than the other because it reaches less viewers, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Okay... That's some faulty logic. Unless you're being required to participate in religious events are even being made to acknowledge the teachings of another religion, then nothing is being imposed on you. That's like me saying that atheistic beliefs are being imposed on me by not allowing me to display my religious beliefs in school.

This isn't true. Democracies, in the purest of senses, are systems by which the majority rule (Though, in the US, the majority can't always overrule the minority).

No, you're really not being imposed upon. You're never forced to participate in prayer. Ever. Never have been, never will be.

...What are you talking about? You can use school facilities for religious purposes. I suppose you've also got a problem with that, seeing as how it's government property, right?

All you can say is "It's wrong!". Would you care to explain why it's wrong without using the "Because the law says so!" crutch. Does is somehow harm you? Does it cause irreperable damage somewhere in your life? Does it convert you to a particular religion?

Oh... I see... Screw that because it doesn't conform to your personal belief system, right?

If you sit in the corner, you still might be influenced by theist beliefs. No, you should go outside.

And how, exactly, did you come to this conclusion? If people want to engage in group prayer then, by all means, they should be allowed to.

...Oh. I thought he didn't go to public school in the US because it didn't exist at that time...

No one is alienating the minority. No one is even telling you that you have to go anywhere. Do you leave the room when someone begins saying the PoA? I wouldn't think so, as I believe you'd just not say it. Yet, somehow, this logic an't be applied elsewhere? That makes little to no sense to me. Anyway, when did it become fashionable to restrict the rights of the majority to appease the minority?

(And don't give me this hogwash that there are other religious groups. While that might be, guess who it was who challenged the PoA, prayer in school and the words "In God We Trust"?.)

The first amendment not only protects one's right to believe what they want, but it also protects the religious from non-religious measures (That means that amendments which are set up to restrict one's practice of their religion are also prohibited). You seem to forget that those "Basic rights" apply to everyone. It seems as if the only one trying to bend those basic rights are the atheists. By prohibiting theists to engage in public prayer, you are taking away the basic right of being able to express one's religion freely.

And, for the record, I believe prayer was first established in school by Congress in 1782 (By those forefathers you mentioned, nevertheless) and lasted about 180 years.

I have a question: What's the difference between student led prayer groups on school grounds and teacher led prayer groups on school grounds (Aside from the fact that one is perfectly legal and the other isn't)?

All I can say at this point is that everything you are saying of athiests, can and has been said about the religious.

Like... because thats exactly what you are doing

and because you can go outside to pray

and

because you've never been forced not to pray, and I can garrentee that.



and about this one I'm not even sure how you can possibly say that, without truly knowing that its a pile of crap.

You first say that the minority should succumb to you because your majority, then you can somehow say that? Boggles my mind.



I don't understand what is so hard to understand about Teachers = Government employees, they can't endorse ANY religion. Students = not government employees.

It's that simple.

Religion has no place in the curriculum of a public school.

Just make the prayer group an extra curricular activity. If you want to pray at school, just make a Jesus Club and meet after school hours.

Otherwise, why are you wasting precious school funding on proselytizing? This is not an us vs. them issue (or at least it shouldn't be). It is a matter of seeing that you live in a secularly governed nation. Religion has its place but that place is separate from the public sector (i.e. government and government run institutions).

Yep, unless Jesus or Matthew are going to be tutoring my kid in calculus, then its clearly a misuse of public funds. Take it after / before school. As long as equivalent time/space is available for other clubs as well, I think that's the appropriate way to handle it.

I can't even fathom running someone out of town because their family has a different belief system and they raise legally valid questions about the school system / court system / etc.

Heh, so, to get back on the topic of the CNN piece a little bit, I sent an email to them complaining about the lack of any Atheist representation on the program. I didn't really expect anyone of importance to read it, but figured I would send it to at least make myself feel better. However, the reply I got was pretty good....

Dear I-Reporter,

On behalf of CNN, please accept our sincere thanks for your I-Report submission during our memorial coverage of the tragic death of Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin. Thanks to the many submissions from our viewers, our coverage carried the personal touch that came from his vast and personal outreach to his many fans. Our programming effort was a huge success, and you are part of the reason for that.

Again, we sincerely thank you and hope you will continue to send relevant submissions to us at http://www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/

Best wishes,

CNN Public Information

Ratings.

And now we see the difference between television and journalism, for they are not the same thing.

what an idiotic "debate"....why does anyone watch cnn again? is there any motivation beyond the fact that it sucks a bit less than fox news? dont you find this more indicative than exceptional when it comes to thinking about cnn coverage of "news"?
to "debate" a controversial issue, assemble a panel of three conservatives. to "debate" the issue of atheism, get three conservative christians.
let them make a series of bizarre-o claims about the christian identity of the united states. say nothing.
let them say that atheists should" just shut up" and say nothing.
act as though this idiocy represents the parameters of acceptable debate.
it really is amazing.

so why does anyone watch cnn and confuse it with a legitimate information source again?

It wasn't big enough. Atheism has about 14% of the country. That's a lot of people. Also, atheism is hundreds to thousands of years old.
Ridiculous? It's simple. The OP had a video making it clear that 3 Christians had no trouble bashing atheism, depsite a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Then you made the claim that it happens all the time to Christians by atheists. Sorry, but you're wrong. You had to scourt the web, TV, and radio, and you found basically nothing. I'll bet $5 that you had to find that info and that you'd never heard of it before you had to go find it to back up something you pulled squarely from your butt.

The point is that you pulled it from your butt, and it's too late to try and fix it. The point is that, rather than address the point of the thread, you tried to make atheists seem equally insensitive and ignorant. Swing and a miss, again.
There's a difference between faulty logic and something that's obviously too complicated for you to understand. Let me make this simple: Prayer doesn't belong in schools. When prayer is in schools, it's wrong.
So then we VOTE and make this a theocracy, or you're wrong. Are we a theocracy? No. Therefore, you're wrong. Why are you trying to make this so complicated?
It's simple: when the school supports a certian religion, it's wrong. Pray silently all you want. Pray before you eat the crappy school lunch, pray befor taking that big math test, pray because you're worried about that bully, but a teacher leading a prayer is wrong.
Again, I'm sorry this is too complicated for you. Let me break it down.

From wiki
It's the law, sport, and we're going to obey it until you change it. And you won't be able to change it because even thouygh a vast majority of this country is Christian, very few of those Christians want to force their religion on others.

Uh...good question. Probably comparable to thinking 'Survivor' is 'reality tv'.
/me runs like hell from all the 'Survivor' fanatics.....

Halx, of all the problems with the media you could attack, you went and picked one of the weakest examples.

The first video was actually quite unbalanced - in favor of the athiests. If they'd wanted to do a balanced piece they should have talked to the other side - find the christians that are angry with the athiests and get their side of it. They didn't, so yes it was an irresponsible piece, but 180 degrees off from your interpretation.

The panel was not a discussion of the truth of athiesm vs. belief-in-deity. The panel was a discussion of whether or not athiests should be ostracized for their beliefs. You had 2 religious nuts (they need to shut up, I have the right to make everyone pray in school, etc) who wanted to ostracize them, one who didn't, and Paula questioned the nuts a lot harder than she questioned the reasonable man. It was a lot more balanced than most panel discussions. Yeah, would've been nice to have a second actual panelist against bashing athiests, but if you have a 3 person panel talking about a 2 sided issue you're gonna have imbalance one way or the other.

Frankly I'd like to see this stupid panel crap disappear forever. I don't care what 3 random bozos off the street think.

The arguement going on between Willravel and IL here is exactly why I think they didn't have any athiests on the CNN spot. It would have become an actual debate rather than a discussion and I believe that it would have gotten out of hand too.

My friend just said the perfect thing "They're all blinded by the light of God." this is exactly what I think.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/lmfao.gif
And there is the finger on the pulse that is CNN.....

I know it's not representative, but I found this today, and it reminded me of the worst excesses of some theists.

http://pics.obra.se/1170191653865.jpg

Please tell me you photoshopped that, Daniel. If you scanned it out of your local paper, I'm terrified.

"In God We Trust" didn't appear on the currency until the Civil War.

Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864.

In 1955, one year after Congress had the words "under God" put into the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust." All in an effort to combat those "Godless Communists.

So that's when all that malarky occured....:uhh: How righteous! :rolleyes: :p

I didn't shop it, I found it online, but if it's a shop it's a good one - you can see the shaddows of the letters on the reverse showing through very clearly...

I think it's from a locla paper somewhere near Bumfuck, a small town in the Bible Belt. :oogle:

If that letter that Daniel_ posted would have named any other group other than Atheists, there's no way it would have even been printed. Outlandish.

When I first read the OP I really didn't think this was a big deal. So they assembled a panel that didn't have any atheists on it: so what? The identities of the panelists were irrelevant to me, particularly on an issue such as this, where I assume that most Americans are in fact fairly reasonable.

Then I watched the clip of the debate.

This reminds me of why I really don't watch television news anymore. It scares me to death that thousands of otherwise intelligent people actually consume this tripe daily and see it as a source of information on which they base their view of 'reality'.