Ready to Vomit?
6 February 2007 by Bob
I apologize for two posts on the same topic, but now I have some video…
For those of you who haven’t yet heard, Paula Zahn from CNN (incredible journalist that she is) thought to have a segment on atheists in Amerikkka.
She started out in the first segment with the negative experiences of some family that involved — *gasp!* — xian intolerance and bigotry (even though we all know that never happens and is way overblown).
And then in the second segment proceeded to have a roundtable “discussion” about the issue.
Absolutely incredible. God Bless Amerikkka, folks…
Click on the pic to go to the site.
6 February 2007, on 3:13 pm
Typical hate filled religious responses, although the forum comments were by and large very good. Thanks Bob.
6 February 2007, on 3:29 pm
The interchange in Part 2 was incredible, particularly the utterings by the two women. I have met more rational people than those two residing as inmates in mental asylums. I find such levels of irrationality almost frightening to encounter. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that I have felt safer in the presence of some homicidal psychopaths I have encountered that I would feel in the presence of either of those two women.
6 February 2007, on 3:38 pm
I couldn’t finish watching the discussion. I was so sickened I had to turn it off. Apparently, having a stacked deck is what passes as “discussion” in this country. I was appalled that the one woman who was Jewish actually said that atheists are the ones discriminating against Christians.
We truly are the last minority that it is OK to bash.
And I recently read something about how nothing in film and television is an accident, so I’m inclined to think that they purposely went out and found overweight, less attractive people to feature. Then they find a cute Christian to talk about how ridiculous it is to take “In God We Trust” off the money. I really believe they did that to make atheists look worse. “Look, not only are they going to hell because they don’t believe in God, but they’re fat and ugly, too.”
Did you see the snide look that black woman from the discussion had when she sneered, “What do atheists believe? Nothing.”
Yeah, I find it funny that two black people and a Jew can sit there and act like there’s no such thing as discrimination.
6 February 2007, on 3:48 pm
To have xians and a jew speaking for atheists isn’t very fair. They should have had at least one atheist on the panel. It was so one-sided. CNN merely wanted to get ONE message across which is “atheists need to shut up.”
6 February 2007, on 4:10 pm
I sent CNN an e-mail letting them know that by not having an atheist on there to represent our side they completely proved the point of our descrimination. I am sure they don’t give a rats ass.
I agree with Marcy that it was very ironic and sad that they had two blacks and a jew saying that there is no descrimination.
The worst was when the jew said she UNDERSTOOD that this was a christian nation.
UGH!!!!!!!!
6 February 2007, on 4:21 pm
Well, if the title had said “Why is bigotry against atheist acceptable amongst the religious” I could have watched. But atheist “inspiring” hatred against themselves? Do blacks “inspire” hatred of them by whites? Think CNN could get away with that title?
Fuck CNN. Just ask Obama about their credibility.
6 February 2007, on 4:23 pm
The three panelists. Gladraggers doing what Gladraggers do. Nothing, and lying about it to boot.
6 February 2007, on 4:24 pm
I agree with Marcy that it was very ironic and sad that they had two blacks and a jew saying that there is no descrimination. . . .The worst was when the jew said she UNDERSTOOD that this was a christian nation.
(That’s why I got out of journalism — shitty stuff like this happens all the time.) CNN merely found three people and told them what side to take and probably paid them a lot of money to do it. It was like “good cop, bad cop.”
It was funny the other day, my sister when I suggested that something she saw on CNN was probably fake, she said “I don’t think a major news network would make this stuff up” Buuuhhhhaawaaaa! LOLOLOLOL! Unfortunately, much of America thinks that way.
6 February 2007, on 4:52 pm
After emailing my complaint, I sent some praise to Anderson Cooper for his Sylvia roasts. And I asked him to slap Paula Zahn for me. I used the phrase “moral relativism/epistemological nihilism” in the explanation for the request.
6 February 2007, on 5:02 pm
Truth be told, most of that crap was bushwah. Things like ‘believing in nothing’, prayer in school, all the old weary canards – like those 2 women saying nothing that hasn’t been said (& debunked) before.
It was mostly a ‘why don’t they just shut up’ rant. The tall black fellow made some good points, but he had no clue about the discrimination (”I’ve heard about it, read about it, I just don’t believe it”).
‘Cry wolf’ my homesick ass.
Maybe we’ll get some equal time, but I rather doubt it.
6 February 2007, on 5:02 pm
CNN=Crap TV.
That’s why I quit watching so long ago. Especially when they hired that little prick Glenn Beck.
6 February 2007, on 5:26 pm
The tall black fellow made some good points, but he had no clue about the discrimination (”I’ve heard about it, read about it, I just don’t believe it”).
“…And yet I’m participating in it right now.”
6 February 2007, on 5:36 pm
Did I miss when our country adopted a national religion? Cuz these people kept saying that this is a “Christian nation,” and they said it with such confidence, too. I have to wonder where I was when this went from being simply a nation where the majority of the population is Christian to a “Christian nation.”
6 February 2007, on 5:38 pm
Dear readers,
I was appalled by the anti-atheist bigotry espoused by the interviewees in the second video. No one has the right to order atheists to “shut up”, and then demand automatic “respect” for their own belief systems.
This position, of course, commits the fundamental fallacy of confusing “tolerance” with freedom of speech, and critiques of religion, with “intolerance”. With the right to free speech, comes to right to face criticism in a courageous manner. It is quite simply cowardice on the part of religious believers to request that atheists should “shut up”, and stop criticising the beliefs of religionists.
The alternative put forth by some is pseudo-relativism, that is, one must be “respectful” of others, and that “everyone has the right to act on their own personal convictions”. Then, naturally, when our backs are turned, religious believers can take off the cloak of relativism, and impose Old Testament values on others.
It is interesting to note, that religious believers in America want critics of religion to “shut up”, yet those same people have no qualms with the way in which Democrats and Republicans vigorously debate politics, and human affairs without the least bit of inhibition.
I also noticed the common error of positing that atheists have religious beliefs. While it is true that atheists can be religious, for example, in Buddhism, or Taoism, it is not universally true that atheism requires or entails religious belief systems. Atheism and atheists are too diverse for anyone to place them under one umbrella.
So, why then, do such galling distortions of atheism happen? In criticising atheists, anti-atheist bigots would rather make unsubstantiated and false assumptions about atheists; these vacuous attacks on atheism, in the absence of substantive argument and evidence require faith in order to make such claims believable. I noticed, for example, that the guy, Stephen A. Smith, rather lazily rejected the study that atheists are the least trusted minority in America; not only did he adopt a position of personal incredulity, because he personally couldn’t believe the study, he simply dismissed it out of hand, as if Americans were incapable of such discriminatory approaches to those who don’t share so-called “American Christian Values”.
It is not “intolerant” to ask that theists evaluate their beliefs, and find evidence to support them. It is intolerant and disrespectful to atheists to expect them to shut up, go away, pretend that they don’t exist, and so on. What argument or evidence did these interviewees provide in order for me, or any other atheist to behave in a “respectful” manner? None. With such poor critiques and blatant misrepresentations of atheism, and atheists, it is perhaps unsurprising that the credibility of American religious groups among atheists is so low.
It was a shame, that CNN did not request the opinion of a more learned atheist. The three interviewees behaved poorly, and only demonstrated that they, not atheists, are bigoted and intolerant. On nearly every occasion, that I watch or listen to debates about the role of religion in society, whether they are here in England, or elsewhere, I witness yet another plethora of ill-informed, and mawkish commentaries: You have no right to an uninformed opinion…we all have a moral obligation to make our opinions informed opinions, otherwise they are not valid.
As an English reader of this site, I recommend that American atheists should be unapologetic about their absence of theism. Do not for a minute think that you have to be “humble”, “respectful”, “tolerant”, or meek and mild simply because loud-mouthed, pseudo-educated bigots might “take offence”.
When American religionists finally come up with substantive and persuasive arguments to merit respect for their beliefs, then we might just listen. Keep in mind that no belief system automatically warrants “respect”. One has to earn it first.
Alan.
6 February 2007, on 6:00 pm
Did I miss when our country adopted a national religion? Cuz these people kept saying that this is a “Christian nation,” and they said it with such confidence, too. I have to wonder where I was when this went from being simply a nation where the majority of the population is Christian to a “Christian nation.”
Julie, Don’t worry about it – their claims are just more evidence of their delusional mindset.
6 February 2007, on 6:18 pm
Exactly, the fact is that if it was any other group they would HAVE to have a representative of that group on the panel. The fact is there are a lot of atheists in this country (I think 3,000,000 is lowballing it a bit) This was pathetic and sad
6 February 2007, on 7:35 pm
Here is the response from Karen Hunter to the way in which the atheist family found themselves driven out of town for their public Godlessness:
HUNTER: What does an atheist believe? Nothing. I think this is such a ridiculous story. Are we now going to take “In God We Trust” off of our dollars? Are we going to not say “one nation under God?” When does it end? We took prayer out of schools. What more do they want? …
HUNTER: They don’t have a good – marketing. If they had hallmark cards, maybe they wouldn’t feel so left out. We have Christmas cards. We have Kwanza cards now. Maybe they need to get some atheist cards and get that whole ball rolling so more people can get involved with what they’re doing. I think they need to shut up and let people do what they do. No, I think they need to shut up about it.
Allow me to paraphrase that:
As a black woman, whose ancestors experienced racism, in both America and under the British Empire, the discrimination against atheists is a trivial matter, worth dismissing out of hand. After all, these atheists brought it on themselves, for not believing in God, and having the temerity to say so in public. So, tough luck and shut up; don’t complain to us about wanting equal rights [we can have the freedom to say and do what we want, but atheists can make like a tree and leave]. Never mind if you and your family need to find another town to live in; at least we removed prayers from schools, but that wont affect you, because you’re atheists. We did that for you, and this is how you repay us, by complaining about bigotry? Gee wizz, if only we could send you Hallmark cards to shut you up, then you might not have gone public about your atheism, and made us despise you for doing so. If only Martin Luther King had thought to pass off Hallmark cards on displaced blacks, who encountered discrimination on buses, in schools, in public bathrooms, in workplaces, in neighbourhoods, then we might have a black president by now.
Stupid moron.
Alan.
6 February 2007, on 7:54 pm
The black woman just trivializes everything. So she pretty much doesn’t matter in the discussion.
Xian country my ass. There’s nothing in the Constitution about this being a Xian nation. Quite the opposite. If they can’t see that having any government-sanctioned use of religion is against the constitution’s separation of Church and State, then they are, quite simply, morons.
6 February 2007, on 7:54 pm
Karen Hunter was completely stupid.
What would she have thought if her line of “reasoning” would have been applied to blacks and slavery?
Are we now going to let blacks live where we live? Are we now going to say let blacks vote? When does it end? We abolished slavery, what more do they want?
When will these people wake up and realize that not all of us believe what they believe. I feel sorry for this country. We have a majority of idiots like this running things. It needs to stop before it’s too late.
6 February 2007, on 7:59 pm
I watched both videos. The feelings expressed there are quite indicative of the feelings that many theists feel towards atheists. And the key point is that these are “their feelings”. There wasn’t any reasoned argument about god belief at all. Just an assumption that god believers are all good people and that atheists, by default, must be bad people.
None of those people were picked because of their intellectual accumen concerning the subject. They were picked because it would make “good television.”
“Good television” is anything which improves ratings. The more people who watch, the higher the ratings and the more product that is sold. The emphasis is always on “how many people can I get to watch this?” – and consequently, how much money can I make from encouraging many people to watch?
So, I don’t expect a discussion concerning god belief to be anything more than it was on that show. – A shallow, uninformed excuse to increase ratings.
6 February 2007, on 8:06 pm
Of course they didn’t have an atheist on the panel discussion. The atheist would wipe the floor with these idiots so bad that CNN would either have to immediately cut away from the show or risk losing tons of viewers and revenue.
That’s the sad state of our so called “news” media. Profit is all that matters, so they’ll cater to anyone. They remain on one side until it becomes akin to suicide and then they switch opinion and pretend they always gave it equal time.
I wonder if the the next time CNN airs something about blacks being pissed off at something racist, they’ll have David Duke and three other high ranking members of the Klan on there.
But on topic, I was watching I think ABC News, and they now have a new series called “Test of Faith.” No atheist need apply.
So when will they do a series about atheists who don’t need to appeal to some nonexistant deity to get through tough problems in their lives?
6 February 2007, on 8:12 pm
Revenant said:
“The black woman just trivializes everything. So she pretty much doesn’t matter in the discussion.”
However, her views do represent those of a significant number of Americans. Simply because her views are a pile of trash, it does not mean that they won’t be felt in conservative quarters. Remember, the anti-atheist bigotry quarter yield a lot of power, and social influence on a local level, even if their ambitions never make it into legislature. The bigotry against atheists is an unwritten rule in some districts and towns: atheists, and I suspect that they far outnumber the Jewish lobby in number, need to come out in droves to counter the latent suspicion against them. Americans need to know that it is OK not to believe in God; there is one thing which needs more thought and planning, however, and this is in part due to the enormous prevalence of historical revisionism which goes on in your country: the greatest obstacle to progress in America is when one forgets the history of anti-Semitism, and apartheid which Jews and blacks had to fight against, and in some sense, fan the flames in order to gain equal rights. Do not allow people to rewrite history in order to suit their agenda: America was not founded on Christian values, the civil war was about slavery, and the constitution does indeed support church-state separation. Atheists need to remind Americans about this, especially Generation-next, whom we rely upon to build a more civil and tolerant society.
Alan.
6 February 2007, on 8:42 pm
Here’s what I don’t understand: Why is it hard for the religious to understand why an atheist would want to take “under God” out of the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?
It is not so dissimilar to forcing the children of Christians to make a pledge to the Flying Spaghetti Monster every day. You’re forcing children to pledge allegiance to a thing with which you do not believe.
Would Christians be absolutely freaked out if such a thing happened to their kids? I think so!
Because it is a popular religious belief it is somehow acceptable to force all children to pledge allegiance to it? Can you find a better example of oppression than forcing the children of your neighbors to pledge allegiance to a specific religious belief?
The whole format of Zhan’s “panel” was absurd and many things were said that should have been challenged that weren’t… Such as the assertion that you can’t have morals without religion. That alone places the beliefs of the speaker on a pedestal of arrogance.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
“In the heart of great injustice lies a popular belief and a sacred text backing it up.”
6 February 2007, on 9:20 pm
Does this news program show that most xian citizens in the U.S.A. would love to impose a xian theocracy on everyone and have the atheists and those whose beliefs differ from theirs’ to shut up and take the back seat?
Or is it not that way and atheists are coming out all over the place and xians feel so threatened by us that they have to skew a television show in order to give themselves a boost?
6 February 2007, on 10:53 pm
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Now THAT’s a pledge worthy of repeating.
6 February 2007, on 11:16 pm
Go ahead and keep telling atheists to shut up. All it does is encourage us.
7 February 2007, on 1:06 am
I wish Schlussel would have said “this is a White Christian country” instead.
7 February 2007, on 1:46 am
This panel was so ridiculous I could barely watch it. They are discussing atheism in America and this show amazingly forgets to have an actual atheist on to join the discussion. I was practically screaming at the TV while watching this.
Oh and how nice that the first thing out of Hunter’s mouth is an ignorant condescending cheap shot.
“What does an atheist believe? Nothing, right?”
No. I believe in treating other people how I’d like to be treated, helping others, protecting the environment, etc. I just don’t believe in fantasy stories that are no more real than The Lord of the Rings.
7 February 2007, on 3:00 am
I used to exchange pleasant e-mails with Karen Hunter when she was a columnist at The New York Daily News. I shot off an e-mail to her tonight letting her know how disappointed I was with her remarks. I was not hostile or belligerent. I kept it respectful. Hopefully she will reply to me. Here is the e-mail I sent her:
Dear Ms. Hunter,
When you were a columnist with The Daily News, we used to exchange e-mails from time to time. I complimented you because I saw you as someone with a fresh viewpoint that could not be pigeonholed as either liberal or conservative.
That is why I was extemely disappointed to read the transcript of your remarks the other evening when you appeared on Paula Zahn’s program on CNN. In response to Paula’s opening remarks, you said “What does an atheist believe? Nothing.”
Well, with all due respect Ms. Hunter, that is totally untrue. While I cannot speak for all atheists of course, I for one believe in many things. I believe in justice, equality, liberty and tolerance. I am married and have two children and want to raise them to be moral, decent and productive members of our society.
It is really funny that you say atheists should “just shut up” because that is the same thing that white supremacists in the South said about African-Americans trying to achieve equality and justice during the Civil Rights movement. And remember this Ms. Hunter, it was not atheists who were lynching African-Americans and sicking police dogs on peaceful protesters. No, the white supremacists who opposed the Civil Rights movement considered themselves decent, God-fearing Christian folks.
Now, because I can anticipate what you will write in response to that, I will beat you to the punch. I am not equating atheists in America today with the African-American struggle. I personally do not feel oppressed and I am extremely grateful that I live in the United States of America. And I also know that Christians were active in supporting the Civil Rights movement, so I am in no way demonizing good people who are Christians.
Where I disagree with you, vehemently for that matter, is your equation or morality with believing in a supreme being. While I am in no way perfect, I believe that on balance I am a good person and a benefit to our society, and manage to be so as an atheist.
What atheists, myself included, object to is that belief in a God is equated with being American. You mentioned on Paula’s program about atheists wanting “under God” taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. But you seem to not realize that those two words were not in the original Pledge and were not added until the mid-1950’s during a climate of hysteria during the Cold War against the Soviet Union and “godless” communism. Were the Americans who recited the Pledge before “under God” was added any less patriotic or moral as a result?
Personally, I really don’t care all that much about “under God” being in the Pledge or “In God We Trust” being on our money. I care more about the Religious Right trying to eliminate access to contraception, take away a woman’s right to control her body and foisting creationism on our public schools. I prefer substance over symbolism. That being said, if it was in my power to remove the God references from the Pledge and our currency, I of course would. It strikes me as silly to think that some supreme being will look more kindly on us if our money has “In God We Trust” on it or that such a deity holds us in special favor over other nations.
I imagine other atheists have sent you e-mails, and I certainly hope none of them were belligerent or hostile. For me personally, I just wanted to convey my disappointment that you think that people like me believe in “nothing” or that we are somehow a cause of this nation’s problems. The last time I checked, atheists weren’t responsible for our quagmire in Iraq, the Enron scandal, the shooting death of Amadou Diallo, or the suffering of the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, to name just a few.
Let me make an offer to you. The next time you are asked to appear on a TV program to talk about atheists, e-mail me and ask me some questions to find out what a real atheist thinks instead of telling the program audience what you think we believe. Does that sound fair?
7 February 2007, on 4:08 am
Well, I hate to be the 1 to say this:
But note that they picked three minorities to talk about a minority. Not (as has been noted) someone FROM the minority being discussed.
2 blacks, 1 of them a woman, and a Jewish woman.
Nice. Effective. Dishonest.
& the bigotry goes on.
7 February 2007, on 8:39 am
I agree with you, Alan. I meant that because her “points” were pedantic and silly, they had no relevance to the particular discussion.
The Civil War was partially about slavery.
7 February 2007, on 10:38 am
Alan said:
If Zahn had chosen the average under-25er off MySpace, she would have found a better balanced view of atheism. The fora on the ‘webs are less bigoted and more tolerant of group/issues like gays, atheism and race. (Don’t judge the group as a whole by the excesses of the few–the media loves to spotlight them, for our viewing-pleasure…)
My hope for the future is in that group as a voting bloc.
7 February 2007, on 11:39 am
I dunno, Naoimi. I’m in Indiana, attending university at a highly conservative campus. And the average under-25er in these here parts is a racist, fundie bigot.
I’d say don’t judge the group as a whole by the (very limited) sampling of the web crowd. If we did there’d be a whole lot more furries and otaku running around.
7 February 2007, on 12:24 pm
Tommykey said: “I was not hostile or belligerent. I kept it respectful. Hopefully she will reply to me.”
Nice job of ‘tempering’ your remarks!
Not having any knowledge of her background, I would have probably been more apt to have followed a rewrite of Rodney Dangerfield’s old line:
[Imitating & tweaking non existent tie.]: “I tell ya…she gets NO Respect!”
I ‘coitenly’ hope she responds; it’ll be interesting, if she ever does.
Thanks, for your very articulate effort!
7 February 2007, on 12:38 pm
What I found most ironic was that they kept flashing questions on the big screen behind them; the questions were actually decent, important questions that demanded answers, and nothing that was being discussed or said in the program even came close to addressing those questions.
7 February 2007, on 1:06 pm
Julie: your keywords–
–
say it all. The insularity inherent in your situation means that the “minority” viewpoint is squelched/marginalized/ignored/demonized. You are residing in a bubble, a closed-society that probably actively discourages dissent, or has created a culture that does not welcome or encourage it.
The anonymity of web cultures allows many to say the things that they think, while hiding behind a nom de guerre. I do, and I know many more who do, as well. There is safety in wearing a mask…
7 February 2007, on 3:01 pm
Naomi, I was making a point. Drawing from any small sample of like-minded individuals or extremists is not likely to produce an accurate generalization of that age-group.
You believe that the internet would yield an anonymous and diverse sample. I don’t. You mention forums and that you’ve seen more moderate viewpoints from the members of those forums. The type of people who are vocal about religon/politics/conservatism vs. liberalism on the internet are the ones who seek out forums or blogs dedicated specifically to those topics. Therefore you’re only getting the opinions of people who feel passionately one way or another.
7 February 2007, on 4:08 pm
on PZ’s site, he put up a link a day or two ago about giving the Religious Right nightmares. It seems a rather large percentage of the internet is made of atheists / agnostics.
My personal pov is that humanity is at a turning point and things will become very ugly and cut throat over the next few years. My hope is that I see(at least in my East Coast area) more and more children/young adults are NOT religious (or nominally so -ie. my parents make me go) and far more accepting of differences, be they religious, sexual, race or otherwise.
7 February 2007, on 4:26 pm
Well, here is my response, as I left a form letter/email at the CNN website:
7 February 2007, on 7:21 pm
Further to my comments above, I received the following unsatisfactory reply from Karen Hunter:
Soundbite television does not give anyone an opportunity to fully
express their views. I hate no one, I believe people have the right to
believe or not believe anything they want. Just don’t impose your views
on me. I want prayer in school. If you don’t want to pray, don’t pray.
you won’t be locked up for not praying, nor should you be vilified or
bothered. That’s your right. But if I want to pray with my students, I
can be fired.
You chose to be an atheist. You weren’t born that way. It’s a belief
system and no one has to know unless you walk around with a sign or
throw in people’s faces. Live and let live. Do what you want. But if I
believe that this society lacks morality and I believe that the kids in
my neighborhood would be better served by having a little of that in
their lives, please don’t go to the Supreme Court to ensure that they
don’t. It doesn’t impact on your ability to not believe on iota, does
it?
Thanks for the exchange…
Karen
7 February 2007, on 7:56 pm
Tommykey, her response is just mind-boggling to me; please do write her back! She may not answer your reply, but her intolerance and prejudice simply cannot stand unaddressed.
“…don’t impose your views on me. I want prayer in school.”
What part of “separation of church and state” does this woman not understand!?
“If you don’t want to pray, don’t pray. you [sic] won’t be locked up for not praying, nor should you be vilified or bothered. That’s your right.”
Gee, thanks; how generous and xian of you… It still doesn’t address how the imposition of prayer in school can create an atmosphere of negativity and discrimination against those who don’t join in the prayer.
“But if I want to pray with my students, I can be fired.”
Of course you can; you’re a government employee. The government cannot dictate or enforce religion on its people, and that includes your students. Your duty is to keep the classroom as unbiased and free as you humanly can; by leading a prayer, you’re forcing your students to at least pay lip service to religion in general. Again, what part of “separation of church and state” do you not understand?
But of course, you don’t want non-theist views imposed on you; what you want is the right to impose your theist views on the captive audience over whom you have power: your students.
“You chose to be an atheist. You weren’t born that way. It’s a belief system and no one has to know unless you walk around with a sign or throw in people’s faces. Live and let live. Do what you want.”
Ditto – but I wonder if she wears a cross around her neck visible to all who look at her. Surely that would count as a “sign,” wouldn’t it? Oh, I forgot; theists are exempt from her statement, and non-theists should just shut the fuck up…
“But if I believe that this society lacks morality and I believe that the kids in my neighborhood would be better served by having a little of that in their lives, please don’t go to the Supreme Court to ensure that they don’t.”
And again with the “religion = morality and atheism doesn’t” schtick that you took her to task on; I’m getting the distinct impression that she feels threatened by the fact that there are perfectly moral people running around out here who have no need of the god-crutch to maintain and indeed teach morality!
Typical theist: dance around the true issues and try to throw you off track with the “I’m-so-persecuted” crap… What a despicable point of view, especially given how respectful and diplomatic you were. And absolutely no invitation to continue the dialogue! And how dare she attempt to stop you, albeit rhetorically, from publicly addressing infringement of your rights–!
I’m so mad I could spit–!
7 February 2007, on 8:01 pm
Oh, and of course I forgot to point out that she’s equating atheism with an acquired belief system, which it’s not – like she hasn’t been intellectually dishonest enough already…
7 February 2007, on 8:06 pm
Ugh! This woman is a nightmare! (paraphrasing) “You should shut up, and not flaunt your beliefs in people’s faces. You should “live and let live.” But if I believe something, and I want to be open about my beliefs and preach at my students and the children in my neighborhood, then you have no right to try to stop me. I am exempt from all of the above and can do as I please.”
7 February 2007, on 8:13 pm
Y’know, she reminds me of a teacher that I had, actually. He was a geometry professor, but he also ran a study hall that students were assigned that was essentially a free period. I had him for this period one year, and I noticed a Bible quote on the blackboard one day. I asked: “Doesn’t that violate the separation of church and state?”
He smirked and said: “Well, no one’s complained yet.”
I said: “Someone just has.”
Within the week I was assigned to another study hall with a different teacher. I think I was 17 at the time, and not very comfortable with my atheism yet having grown up in a small, conservative Hoosier town. I really regret not fighting it more at the time, now that I’ve grown some metaphorical balls.
7 February 2007, on 8:23 pm
Yes, the people who were so afraid for their safety that they asked for their faces not to be shown are the ones who have to “just shut up”. Thanks a lot CNN.
7 February 2007, on 8:34 pm
“You chose to be an atheist. You weren’t born that way.”
Actually, we all are born atheists first; it takes religion to at least temporarily displace the atheism. And more often than not, people choose to be theists – unless they’re kids who get indoctrinated, like I was.
You chose to be a xian, lady, and you just happened to probably be born into a xian family in a mostly xian population. Had you been born into a Hindu family, you would probably be choosing Hinduism right now…
7 February 2007, on 8:43 pm
Yes tommykey, please do answer this woman!
“But if I want to pray with my students, I can be fired.”
As others stated, SOCAS. If she wants to pray ON HER OWN, fine and dandy. Involving others as an employee of the state is a no-no, for the excellent reasons Eve already gave.
“You weren’t born that way”
I didn’t have the first theistic thought in my head when I was born, thank you very much. And had I been given the choice, I wouldn’t have been indoctrinated into a system of lies.
It’s difficult to add anything to what Eve and Julie already said.
One set of rules for xians; another for everyone else.
7 February 2007, on 8:57 pm
I want prayer in school. If you don’t want to pray, don’t pray. you won’t be locked up for not praying, nor should you be vilified or bothered. That’s your right. But if I want to pray with my students, I can be fired.
Austin Cline rips this up nicely here. It would be insulting to add anything more.
I would also suggest reading the original point-by-point here.
But if I believe that this society lacks morality and I believe that the kids in my neighborhood would be better served by having a little of that in their lives, please don’t go to the Supreme Court to ensure that they don’t.
Yes, as opposed to the other more obvious (and, one would think, more academic) choice, which is to question the assumption of whether xian beliefs automatically entail morality in either motivation or fact.
I don’t know which is worse — i.e., the fact that she actually managed to get a degree, or the fact that CUNY actually hired this idiot.
7 February 2007, on 9:17 pm
Here is my reply to Karen Hunter’s response:
Dear Karen,
Thank you for your reply. I don’t want to belabor the issue, but there are
a few things in your reply that I feel merit a response.
First off, and this is certainly not your fault, CNN was irresponsible in
not having an atheist in the studio with the rest of you to respond to the
arguments and statements you all made. For instance, if I was there, as
soon as you said “What do atheists believe in? Nothing.” I would have, with
all due respect, blown you out of the water (figuratively speaking, of
course!). Instead, what CNN’s millions of viewers were treated to was Paula
Zahn and three theists telling them about atheists without an atheist voice
in the room to respond. That hardly seems fair.
As a parent of two small children, I totally agree with you that moral
values are important. Again, as I wrote in my e-mail below, albeit with a
spelling error, moral values and belief in a supreme being are two different
things. One can believe in a god (or at least profess to do so) and still
be immoral while another person can be an atheist and be good and moral.
Look at the virtues espoused by Confucius in The Analects, or Mo Tzi’s
doctrine of universal love. Both of them lived in China centuries before
the alleged birth of Jesus and had no knowledge of the Bible, and yet both
were clearly concerned with promoting virtue and good conduct in society.
With respect to your assertion that I chose to be an atheist, and that I was
not born that way, this is gravely in error. We are all born atheist. A
child has no inherent knowledge of a supreme being or a particular religious
doctrine. Rather we tend to follow the religion of our parents because our
parents made it a point of doing so. You also must realize, and this is
particularly the case with me, that many atheists were once very religious
people. As I wrote in a post on my blog, I even slept with the Bible in my
bed! It was only after I learned critical thinking that I learned to expand
my horizons outside of the Bible. It was only then that I realized that the
Bible did not represent the inerrant truth of the creator of the universe.
It is not a matter of me having woken up one day and saying to myself, “I
choose to be an atheist.” To give you an analogy, imagine if you are a
coroner and on a given day you are given a body to perform an autopsy to
determine the cause of death. You cannot declare the cause of death without
having conducted your examination. If after performing the autopsy the
evidence leads you to conclude that the person died from cyanide poisoning,
it would be wrong for me to say “You simply chose to believe that the person
died from cyanide poisoning.” It is the same thing for an atheist such as
myself. I did not choose to become an atheist anymore than you in my
hypothetical analogy concluded that the victim died from cyanide poisoning.
Lastly, with respect to school prayer, you wrote “Just don’t impose your
views on me. I want prayer in school.” Don’t you see the contradiction
there? Let me demonstrate with an admittedly extreme example. Imagine you
were a student in my class, which consisted of a racially diverse body of
students. What if I wanted to lead my class in a chant of “White Power!”
You naturally would object (as would I in real life!). My response would be
(1) that you are more than welcome to chant “White Power” with me and my
white students, and (2) if you did not want to, you were free to do so but
don’t impose your views on me. In this scenario, you would be perfectly
correct to argue that it did not matter if you were free not to participate
in the “White Power” chant because (1) you could not chant something that
was anathema to you, and (2) the fact that I was a teacher created a climate
of intimidation and exclusion for you.
Hunter College is a CUNY school, and therefore a public institution of
higher learning. As such, it must be neutral with respect to religion.
Atheists do not seek to take away freedom of religious belief. What we are
arguing is that the public square must be free of religion. No one would
dream of stopping you from praying in your home, or office, or church to
teach your students well and help them be the best they can be. And your
students who are religious are free to pray in their homes, churches or
virtually anyplace else that they will do well on your exams and pass your
course. Why then does your classroom have to be a forum for public prayer?
In parting, I never thought your statements on Paula Zahn’s program were
motivated by hatred. Rather, I believe they were skewed by a
misunderstanding of atheists. I hope in some small way I have helped you
achieve greater understanding.
Kind regards,
Tom
7 February 2007, on 10:18 pm
Oh boy, her responses are getting worse!
“whoa…back up…we are NOT born atheist. You are born with a blank
slate. You’re illiterate, you’re dumb, you can’t go to the bathroom on
your own and you’re cripple. But you’re not an atheist, which is a
belief system. or non belief system…you have to be conscious to
believe or not believe in a supreme being.”
7 February 2007, on 10:34 pm
“whoa…back up…we are NOT born atheist. You are born with a blank
slate. You’re illiterate, you’re dumb, you can’t go to the bathroom on
your own and you’re cripple. But you’re not an atheist, which is a
belief system. or non belief system…you have to be conscious to
believe or not believe in a supreme being.”
Does she not realize that, along with “illiterate”, “atheist” is the negative position, default from the beginning? I suppose that even if you aren’t exposed to the written word later on in life, she’ll say you’re just as illiterate as the day you were born. Yet, somehow, if you’re not exposed to religion, it’s different? …I just don’t get it.
On this topic, though- I wrote a letter to CNN complaining, as many did.. and I received an email response saying (paraphrased), “Thank you for your input about our Steve Irwin tribute” ?! There was nothing episode-specific about the form I used, and I clearly wasn’t talking about him. Yeah, they read all our letters personally all right…
7 February 2007, on 10:41 pm
Happens every time though, you poke at their precious, fragile little ‘belief’ system and they get both angry and idiotic.
Its a shame we can’t force them to sit through a few science courses (particularly biology as they seem to be so lacking in that discipline).
As for me, show me something a religious icon can do that Criss Angel can’t and maybe I’ll have chat with you. Until then religion is all hogwash.
8 February 2007, on 12:23 am
Oh boy, her responses are getting worse!
I really cannot believe this woman…
I just can’t believe she actually stands in the front of a classroom at a CUNY school…
I thought part of the job of academics was to — oh, I don’t know — maybe promote critical thinking skills…
Looks like were coming up a bit short in this area, Karen…
Someone might think about contacting the chair of the Media Studies Department at CUNY…
8 February 2007, on 12:49 am
I’ve never been so glad to not be an American. Wow. I feel for you all.
At least one panelist had the nerve to say “I don’t agree with [atheists] at all but they have the right to their own beliefs”. Oh, CNN, such balanced and reasoned debate.
Maybe we can get them to air that Dawkins documentary as compensation for showing this.
8 February 2007, on 3:03 am
I heard at the NGB, that Dawkins will be responding to this very soon.
8 February 2007, on 3:31 am
Tommykey: email this back to Karen Hunger–
From the CarpetbaggerReport, on former Arkansas governor,
Mike Huckabee, a candidate for president in 2008:
[I just deleted a very bloodthirsty remark, and thought better of it. Your example of reasonable rhetoric puts me to shame...]
8 February 2007, on 3:58 am
It sounds like Karen thinks atheists reject God, rather than reject the idea of a god, gods, or other supernatural miscellany on rational grounds. The former is undeniably a religious belief, and certainly not innate.
8 February 2007, on 5:47 am
One of the more disagreeable aspects of the program, in my view, was that the roundtable discussion was, to be “balanced and fair,” conducted by two Christians and a religious Jew.
8 February 2007, on 10:48 am
I heard at the NGB, that Dawkins will be responding to this very soon.
KA, I was hoping one of the well-known atheists would speak up about this. I will be looking forward to what he has to say.
8 February 2007, on 11:27 am
If this society truly does lack morality, then theists are to blame, since they are the majority. Thank gawd for the morality of Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Peter Popoff, and the countless televangelists who prey upon the gullible.
8 February 2007, on 12:17 pm
I have to agree that CNN did a huge disservice to atheists. How can they discuss atheism when their guests were so woefully ignorant on the subject?
I wrote a letter to CNN stating that I was extremely concerned and disheartened that they chose to not have atheist representation. I, too, received a canned response stating thanks for the input about Steve Irwin! WTF!!?? I was very specific in my letter to them that is was about the Jan 31 airing of Zahn’s show. So much for them actually reading any of the myriad complaints I’m sure they received due to that program. I wonder if there’s any way to make it known that CNN either screwed up royally or flat out refuses to truthfully address the concerns of atheists.
After watching that program I am more than determined now to not “Shut up”! I guess I should thank those silly women for cementing my determination to speak out.
8 February 2007, on 12:47 pm
Go, Tommykey! Do not stop now, please; this woman’s stance is crumbling right before our eyes:
“whoa…back up…we are NOT born atheist. You are born with a blank slate.”
No religious belief whatsoever = atheism. See? It’s really quite simple…
“You’re illiterate, you’re dumb, you can’t go to the bathroom on your own and you’re cripple. But you’re not an atheist, which is a belief system. or non belief system…”
Stumbling a little, are we, Ms. Hunter? Finding ourselves on very shaky ground at this point? Feeling around with our feet to make sure the rug’s still there? Atheism isn’t some idiotic concept like a “non belief system” theists like you have made up to deal with your discomfort over its obvious rationality and reasonableness; it is simply the absence of a belief system in the religious/supernatural. You don’t believe in unicorns, do you? No, of course not, but that doesn’t mean you hold the belief system of a-unicornism.
We are born without religious/supernatural beliefs, which makes us atheists by default. As Tom pointed out, the belief system gets imposed on us as we grow – or not, if we’re lucky.
“you have to be conscious to believe or not believe in a supreme being.”
Maybe; I don’t know the current scientific findings in the area of human consciousness. But even as we become conscious, our default position is that we have no innate beliefs in religion/the supernatural, hence we are atheists; beliefs must be taught to and imposed upon us externally.
I also can’t help noticing she doesn’t address your glaringly obvious points about separation of church and state as it applies in the classroom, or the existence of morality without religion; could this mean she’s conceding them to us? That she actually realizes she has nothing to stand on when it comes to those issues?
And oddly enough, not a peep about the blatantly biased episode that deliberately chose to exclude atheist representation – from a discussion about atheism!
8 February 2007, on 3:22 pm
From the fact that Hunter refuses to address the substantive issues being put to her (did I really read somewhere that she’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist?), and resorts to what she must know are ridiculously irrational and intellectually meaningless attacks (claiming that a ‘non-belief system’ is a de facto ‘belief system’, for example), I suggest that the poor woman is desperately in need of some form of therapeutic intervention, and soon.
Probably the person most capable of providing this service for her is her Pastor. After all, he is specially trained to mould the fragile, dysfunctional egos of people, such as Hunter, who are in desperate need of his ministrations, as he is an expert sophist, trained to present irrational, duplicitous and mendacious nonsense as if it had veridical authority, and provides the psychological crutch that she clearly needs so desperately.
Poor woman. I suppose I should feel sorry for her, but, truth be told, I wouldn’t give her the steam of my shite, to use an old Anglo-Saxon expression.
8 February 2007, on 3:37 pm
My letter to Karen Hunter is up – I endeavored to be as polite as I possibly could – it is possible that she’s been treated to a serious stream of invective, thereby making her responses as terse as they are.
I can’t fault anyone for being angry – I admit that my blood pressure rose as much as anyone’s.
I’ll try to give her a little slack, as she’s human.
How amenable to correction she might be, I have some serious doubts at this point.
We’ll see how ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler’ deals w/this. Problem is w/human nature, it’s usually who gets the 1st shot in, that gets more credence.
Let’s hope calmer voices prevail.
Nice going, Tommykey, BTW.
8 February 2007, on 4:27 pm
Good letter KA, very reasoned and urbane, but I doubt that it will achieve anything worthwhile, since it seems clear to me that Ms Hunter has effectively immunised herself against any evidence that would cause her to question her (de facto) irrational beliefs. However, if the main issue is not seen as one to change her beliefs, but to point out to others how ill-conceived they were, then publishing your letter has done a considerable service.
Well done, you.
8 February 2007, on 4:28 pm
Meant to add my appreciation for all those others who have made their correspondence with that odious woman public, and apologies for not naming them individually.
8 February 2007, on 5:36 pm
TOG:
I’ve already received a terse response, which I will post: I’ve answered her, & am waiting. Thanks for the praise.
We can change the world 1 mind at a time.
8 February 2007, on 8:53 pm
Okay, here is the rest of my e-mail exchange with Karen Hunter:
In reply to her “Whoa…back up” response, I wrote:
“Atheism is not a system of belief. It is simply lack of belief in a
deity. If you are raised in an environment where you are not even
taught the concept of a supreme being, you would still be an atheist.”
To which she shot back tersely:
“I don’t agree. the Native americans were not atheists.”
And here is what I expect to be my final reply:
“No, what I meant was that if you raised a child in an environment where he
or she was never taught the concept of a deity, that person would be an
atheist in the sense that they did not possess a belief in a supreme being.
You and I define atheism differently. I define it as the absence of belief
in a deity. You define it as a person who first has to be taught the
concept of a supreme being and then chooses not to believe. My definition
is simply broader than yours.
As for native americans, I never claimed that they were atheists. The
Aztecs weren’t cutting peoples hearts out atop sacrificial pyramids for the
sheer fun of it.
And just to assuage any concerns you might have, as I understand from
reading several blogs that you have received e-mails from other atheists
displeased with the CNN program, I did not share your e-mail address with
anybody. That would not be fair to a fellow Harry Potter fan. (5 months to
go till Book 7)
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to reply to me.
Best regards,
Tom”
I decided to leave it at that because I was not interested in a running debate over how to define an atheist. I expect I will get a final reply from her that will be along the lines of agree to disagree. I remember from past experience with her that she is a big Harry Potter fan, so I thought I would try to end it on a softer note.
8 February 2007, on 9:29 pm
I thought xians had denounced the Harry Potter books and movies as satanic witchcraft.
8 February 2007, on 9:34 pm
I guess Karen Hunter is a Harry Potter christian.
BTW, speaking of Dawkins being on Paula Zahn’s program tonight, wouldn’t you know it, Anna Nicole Smith died and they seem to be devoting the entire segment to her. Why I cannot imagine. What relevance does it have to our lives?
8 February 2007, on 10:37 pm
Tommykey:
Well, she gave me the same canned response she gave you (comment #40).
I’m afraid I laid into her a bit, told her that response had been posted here, & my response to her bit of fluff has been added to my blog entry.
9 February 2007, on 12:36 am
All this recent CNN commotion somehow reminded me; that the founder of CNN was Ted Turner…an atheist, if I’m not mistaken.
Actually…I think he was the original founder of the whole cable news concept, for that matter.
See, how much atheists contribute to the world…huh?…huh?…like Edison, Einstein, and on and on!
I don’t think Turner’s involved at all these days with the network; but I can’t help wondering what HE might think of the whole Paula Zahn shtick and other incidents of fundie coddling…like the ‘Left Behind’/'Porpoise driven life’ bullshitters on some of the fairly recent daytime news spots. Add in the Larry King coddling of so many other aspects of religious looneyville. Yeah…should we start writing him to have Dawkins, Harris, etc. on sometime…WITHOUT any religious cabal in attendance?
Turner’s atheism was always kind of glossed over, as I recall, when he was involved.
Of course, ya don’t think atheism played a role in the Turner/Fonda breakup, now, do ya?
On that note…actually Fonda’s ‘conversion’ is to a more ‘New Age’ Xtian variety; not your typical literalist bible thumper.
I kinda like the idea of appealing [with mass emailing?] to Larry King for a FULL hour, UNADULTERATED presentation of atheism; with call-ins kept to a VERY limited basis!
We have to…justifiably, I might add…INSIST on an All-Star cast, of course…nothing watered down!
[I'll even add: "I think Larry OWES us that!"]
How ’bout, for ’starters’:
Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Randi…and Ellen Johnson from American Atheists.
THAT lineup would be “verrry intereshting…and definitely…
NOT shtupid”? [yeah...ala 'Laugh In']
Hey…guys…like…I do get a FEW good ideas…at least, once in awhile…huh?
OK…”Dream On”?
Whateva!
9 February 2007, on 6:43 am
Tommy,
Your attempts to introduce some reason into poor Hunter’s life are commendable, but a total waste of your resources – she is absolutely intractable and completely immunised against any form or reality which calls into question her deeply-needed coping mechanism (her so-called belief in this ‘god’ of hers).
What’s more, if you were to have her in an environment where she was forced to give credence to your rational arguments, she would likely undergo a complete breakdown. Much better she be left with her so-called ‘holy bible’ and her ‘Harry Potter’ books, and allowed to indulge in her delusional fantasies in peace, poor woman.
Incidentally, re Revenant’s comment, they wanted to film one of the Potter books in Canterbury Cathedral, but it was refused permission on the grounds that it promulgated witchcraft and superstition and, by definition, was anti-Xtian.
So, the film-makers shot it in Gloucester Cathedral instead, since the clerics there were happy to give their permission (in exchange for a few million bucks, of course).
For those not in the know, Canterbury and Gloucester are both Anglican institutions.
9 February 2007, on 7:06 pm
Tommykey, she can certainly find no fault with you in your exchanges; you’ve remained unfailingly polite and reasonable. Perhaps Harry Potter can provide a bridge between theists and nons (optimistically chirps another fellow fan)!
That’s an interesting but not surprising tidbit, The Old Git; however, I must admit that when I was in England (oh so many years ago), I thoroughly enjoyed my day in Canterbury, including my visit to the cathedral. I have a soft spot (another one!) for well-preserved narrow, winding, cobblestoned medieval streets and town walls.
9 February 2007, on 9:18 pm
Thanks Eve.
I blogged about it here:
http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com/2007/02/disgrace-that-is-cnn.html
10 February 2007, on 8:19 pm
Tommy,
Good blog, and comments – except for the one claiming the programme anchor is an atheist (’cos if she is, she demonstrates the theist’s view that atheists have no integrity), but a complete waste of time and effort.
Sorry to say that, but in my lifetime, I’ve seen religious ignorance and superstition reach new depths of stupidity, ignorance, and mendacity, despite immense developments in scientific knowledge.
And like this alleged ‘God’ of theirs, I despair for the human race.
In conclusion, I remain unconvinced that all religious people shouldn’t be piled into a heap and set on fire.
Halleweeja!
13 February 2007, on 12:50 pm
[...] Okay: Take Two By Bob Just a follow-up from that amazing screw-up from CNN. [...]