Atheist activist Sam Harris recently proclaimed on National Public Radio that America needed a lot more mockery of religious belief. "I think the criticism of irrationality just has to come from 100 sides all at once,” he declared. “In the entertainment community, maybe you'll just have people making jokes that are funny enough and true enough so as to put religious certainty in a bad light."
Harris said he’s been trying hard to make contacts among the mind-benders in the news and entertainment media to find those God-scorning people who feel “a profound sense of relief that comes with hearing somebody call a spade a spade.”
Why does taxpayer-funded NPR, or anyone else for that matter, care what atheists like Sam Harris think? They are squarely in opposition to public opinion. According to a recent Zogby/American Bible Society poll, 84 percent of adults are not offended when they hear references to God or the Bible on network television shows, and 51 percent say entertainment networks should develop shows with positive messages – and even specifically refer to God and the Bible.
So who is paying attention to Sam Harris? The entertainment television industry.
After Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” box office tsunami two years ago, the conventional wisdom had it that Hollywood finally had accepted the marketability of faith-based programming. Not so. The Parents Television Council has completed its seventh study of the treatment of religion on prime-time network television, evaluating TV shows during the 2005-2006 season, and the numbers are stunning. From a quantitative standpoint, the total number of treatments of religion has been reduced by 50 percent in the past year alone. And when religion is part of the storyline, more often than not it is not a positive thing: television today regularly mocks the clergy, religious laity, church doctrines and religious institutions.
Religious people are often portrayed as frauds or the world’s biggest sinners. NBC’s “Law & Order: Criminal Intent” featured a nun who kicked a black man in the face after calling him the N-word. ABC’s “Boston Legal” had the man who had sex with a cow protesting he was a church deacon.
Or take an episode of ABC’s “Desperate Housewives,” where Gabi, one of the titled housewives, had sex with a teenage boy who told her, “Me and my friend Justin had this bet to see who could lose their virginity first this summer at Bible camp. Guess I beat him to the punch.” Why Bible camp? Why not?
Then there was this disgusting plotline in a different episode. This same dreadful woman Gabi lied during confession, telling a priest that a certain nun was having an affair with her husband. After gloating at her success getting the nun transferred to Alaska, she slapped the nun, then pushed her into a rack of candles, setting her on fire. And you thought parish life was dull.
Fox is now the Hollywood champion of God-mocking, the Atheist’s Favorite. The Sunday night cartoon block is a strong contributor, ridiculing God on what even the Fox folks must know -- like, Sunday? -- is His day. “The Family Guy” routinely mocks the sacred. One episode featured the teenaged son who discovers God looks like Angelina Jolie, and asks to “see your boobs.” “God” agrees, but warns him about the impressive “Rack of Infinite Wisdom.”
In another episode, Jesus Christ is depicted as a teenager arguing with St. Joseph: “Up yours, Joseph! You’re not my real dad!” Jesus phones Heaven, where God the Father answers while lying in bed with a woman. God hangs up on Jesus and leers at the woman, who holds up a condom. God responds: “Oh, come on, baby. It’s my birthday.” In yet another episode, God is shown passing gas and lighting the gas on fire. The show’s father character explains that this is how God created the universe.
When you look at these and so many other revolting examples, it becomes clear that a tiny atheist minority controls the creative cards in Hollywood. You think I exaggerate? Consider this study finding: Roughly six out of ten of the portrayals of religion on reality-based – which is to say, unscripted – TV shows were positive. That still doesn’t reflect public opinion, but it’s close. Unscripted shows were responsible for only 4.5 percent of the negative portrayals this study team found. The other 95.5 percent came from Hollywood’s professionals, who are at their most comfortable attacking that which you and I and most Americans hold sacred.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So, how many athiests are there?
December 30, 2006 - 13:09 ET by acaiguanaSo, how many athiests are there?
Is this percentage a reflection of the need to convert (evangelically I suppose) the rest of the world?
I really don't know what percentage of the American public is self-identified as 'athiest'.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"
Well, since 85% of the popula
December 30, 2006 - 13:30 ET by Ruths husband BenWell, since 85% of the population identifies itself as Christian, and there are significant Jewish, Moslem, and other religions in the U.S., we can presume that it is a very low percentage of Americans who self-identify as Atheists.
The point that we should take away from this is that our culture is under a significant and sustained attack from all sides. Your belief system, your moral system, your ethical basis, your family structure, all the components that make us Americans is under attack and those that want to destroy American have learned that the best place to begin is within.
...this is nothing new at all
December 30, 2006 - 16:13 ET by TruthMonger...this is nothing new at all ever since Jesus dragged his cross through the spitting and taunting crowds, and these like-minded contemporaries just confirm to me that my Christian faith is 100% right...I'm happy to pick up the cross and carry on where Jesus left off...and we should only be worried when these idiots STOP mocking us IMHO...
Most of these anti-Christ televison producers are of advanced adult age but have the intellectual development of your average junior high class-clown - as evidenced by these programs...they essentially behave like children - and so we treat them as such...
I'm happy to have them parade their petty disrespect on prime time television for all to see...believe me these programs are not reflecting badly on God or Christians at all - to those that are worth listening to at any rate...
Also great however to have you point these programs out in such detail, Brent! Thanks very much for taking the time...
God and Hollywood
January 1, 2007 - 21:25 ET by SportPoliticsMr. Bozell's last paragraph drove the point home for me. I do believe the left agenda that comes from Hollywood is hellbent on removing God and Christianity so that we can become more like their dream Europe where according to the polls I've seen faith is in the minority. They of course consider this "progressive" and their "new enlightenment", and figure the more they can destroy faith in the USA the greater a nation we will be.
This mindset was clear from the democrats for me since Bush was elected in 2000, and they maoned and gnashed their teeth over the "insane religious zealouts" that elected Bush. Then in 2004 they tried like heck to make Kerry a man of the cloth, but his abortion position made a mess of Communion for him, and the democrats failed again.
Probably the biggest "win" they have had was the Catholic pedophile scandal, and then of course this past election they had the preacher in Colodaro or Utah or wherever he was from.
As usual, the left press plays it to the fullest. One incident here or there, a few scandals, ignore the percentages entirely and claim it is an all out standard rule of practice, and then pile on forming the gigantic mountain that demands change.
I'm certain they figure that if they ridicule Belief enough in tens of thousands of shows, they can make it embarrassing or out of the mainstream, or uncool entirely, if anyone dares say they have Faith. That's what they're shooting for, that's what they want, and they won't stop until they get it. In the mean time, they can have their superiority complex which goes along with all the ridicule.
In their face however, is their cowering and crawling under a rock when it comes to Islam. It slaps them silly, and their charade is exposed, as is their pathetic chicken behavior.
It all ties in with their commie flavor dislike for the USA, and all the bal's of the world and the USA tell everyone to calm down and let them have their freedom of speech--- until that word Islam comes up - then the tune is altogether entirely different, and pukey lib censorship is the golden rule.
They're pathetic. They're full of it, period.
Your certainly right that it'
January 3, 2007 - 01:18 ET by Travis GibbyYour certainly right that it's nothing new. Religious persecution is at least as old as recorded history, whether it's Christians killing the Jews and Muslims, Protestants killing the Catholics, Catholics killing the Protestants, the Christians and the Muslims killing the atheists, and lately militant Muslims killing anyone who they consider infidels.
It seems like such a terrible waste, if there is a God, he probably is not a big fan of organized religion.
Don't forget the left wing extremism as well
January 3, 2007 - 02:15 ET by Carl KolchakDon't forget left wing atheists have attacked religion as well. Mao banned religion, Pol Pot banned religion, Stalin attacked religion, left wing Trotsky and Lenin attacked the Russian Orthodox church once they came into power. Left wing Stalinist Ceasuscu attacked religion, etc. Extremism comes in the form of atheism as well.
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings
That's true. I actually own o
January 3, 2007 - 19:54 ET by Travis GibbyThat's true. I actually own one of Sam Harris' books, The End of Faith. I agree with many of the things he writes, but I was surprised when I read him claim that:
" The very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss."
It makes me sad when atheists say obnoxious things like that. It gives the rest of us a bad name. How is it that Mr. Harris expects people to be tolerant of atheists if he isn't willing to be tolerant himself?
I suppose that there are obnoxious people in every group.
Travis
A quick search came up with 3
December 30, 2006 - 21:43 ET by FastEdA quick search came up with 3.8% of americans believe themselves to be athiest.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Hard to say exactly how many atheists there are.
January 1, 2007 - 20:54 ET by Travis GibbyAbout 2% of the U.S. population identifies themselves as atheists. Not a high percentage, but still more than the number of Jews in the USA.
About 15% of the U.S. population describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, or irreligious, and that is a significant percentage of the population.
It is hard to determine exactly how many atheists there are in the USA because people define atheism in different ways. Anyone who lacks belief in God(s) can be considered an atheist. That means that most people who consider themselves agnostics are atheists as well (an agnostic is someone who believes it is impossible to know whether any Gods exist or not).
I am an atheist and an agnostic, because I believe that it is impossible to know whether any Gods exist, and I also don't believe in any Gods. For several years I denied that I was an atheist, saying that I was only an agnostic, partly because I wanted to avoid the stigma that is placed on someone who is an atheist.
Travis Gibby
TG,I respect your views, plu
January 1, 2007 - 21:07 ET by bigtimerTG,
I respect your views, plus covering your self with both agnostic and atheist beliefs...
Just remember when you are dying if you do not go instantly not to call out God's name in any way shape or form.
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
Thank you bigtimer, but why d
January 2, 2007 - 02:09 ET by Travis GibbyThank you bigtimer, but why do you assume that I am "covering" myself with both agnostic and atheist beliefs? Why not assume that I simply don't believe in God, and that I don't think it's possible to know for certain?
Travis
TG help me out here
January 3, 2007 - 01:43 ET by misterbillI'm an older guy and not too swift, but I hope you can help me. I thought an atheist was sure there was no God and there wasn't any doubt???Either you are sure there is a God, sure there isn't or you aren't sure at all. I cannot think of any other position. One makes you a theist. The next says one is an atheist The last says you simply do not know. Explain someone who is sure there is no God and still doesn't know if He exists. (I told you I wasn't too swift.)
I admit some dictionaries expand one word (e.g. atheist to include agnostic), but the definition breakdown a= not, theism= belief in God, a=not,gnostic=knowledge or I just don't know. Are you a mugwump on this issue???
There are so many definitions
January 3, 2007 - 02:23 ET by Travis GibbyThere are so many definitions for atheism that it is no wonder that people get confused.
Theism is defined by Wikipedia as, "the belief in the existence of one or more Gods or deities."
The prefix "a" means without so many people hold that atheism means - without belief in the existence of Gods. I am an atheist in that sense. This definition is, in my opinion, is the best one and it's found in many dictionaries. This definition could include people who don't have an opinion as to whether Gods exist or not and people who have not yet been introduced to the concept of Gods.
Wikipedia defines atheism as, "the disbelief in the existence of any deities." I am an atheist in that sense to because I do have an opinion and to me, it seems unlikely that any Gods exist. Notice that the definition says nothing about being certain that no Gods exist.
So what is an agnostic then? Wikipedia defines agnosticism as, "the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities— is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable."
In other words, an agnostic is someone who believes that it isn't possible to know if God(s) exist or not.
I don't believe that it is possible to know if any Gods exist because, it could be that a God does exist, but for whatever reason God doesn't want us to know it, and has deliberately hidden evidence of his existence. If there really is an all powerful being, then he obviously could do this if he wanted to.
There are other definitions for atheism which deliberately try to paint atheists as immoral too. Dictionary.com includes, "Godless; immoral" as one of the definitions. The Catholic encyclopedia defines it as, "Denial of God stemming from moral failure." and a"practical atheist" is supposedly someone who claims to believe in God but denies God through immoral behavior. In other words, atheists are always immoral and not only that but they are also responsible for the immorality of believers as well!
These are really just pathetic attempts at painting atheists as immoral by using some arbitrary definition of the word atheist.
Clear as mud? Sorry if my explanatory skills aren't that great.
It's also possible for a theist to be agnostic because a theist could say, "I don't think it's possible to know if God exists, but I believe that he does." Most people who call themselves agnostics are atheists though.
Travis
Atheists
December 30, 2006 - 13:23 ET by iveseenitallAtheists are as blind and illogical as modern day liberals. Reality proves them wrong. Just look around or read the life of Albert Einstein who never could get his colleagues to prove him wrong about the existence of God. And Einstein was quite intelligent, no? Check his I.Q. as opposed to this "genius" Sam Harris.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I must be really blind than b
January 2, 2007 - 02:31 ET by Travis GibbyI must be really blind than because I'm both a liberal and an atheist. :)
Albert Einstein certainly was a very intelligent man, and I have no problem at all with his kind of religion. For Einstein, attempting to understand the way that the universe works was his religion. Although he did believe in a God of sorts, he was a pantheist who believed that the laws of the nature were God. He clearly stated that he did not believe in a personal God, and for this he was condemned and labeled an atheist.
Albert Einstein once stood up for the outspoken atheist philosopher Bertrand Russel when he was attacked after New York City College hired him. People labeled Russel a communist, which wasn't true, and called him a dog and said that he should go back where he came from. Albert Einstein said:
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thoughts in clear form."
But in the end political pressure was too great, and the New York City College unhired Russel simply because he was an unapologetic atheist.
Travis
atheists
December 30, 2006 - 13:57 ET by misterbillHey did you hear there are no atheists in foxholes??
That's because with no afterlife there is a stronger need to live and they are all retreating to stay alive. Oh well, not too funny. I guess we can't get them to wrap themselves with explosives and go to a mosque. They can't even look forward to 72 virgins. So what do they look forward too???
Never mind!
my brother is a card carryi
December 30, 2006 - 14:12 ET by lbcdawnmy brother is a card carrying atheist (really he showed me his card) he hates bush loves algore.. and mocks everything.. he says there are no absolutes... he absolutely believes this and doesn't see the irony/hypocrisy of the statement.
Hey Dawn,That is rich....I've
December 30, 2006 - 14:18 ET by BlondeHey Dawn,
That is rich....I've found that people who "hate" and "love" things, and believe there are "no absolutes", are the biggest hypicrites around. You said it perfectly.
Bet your Christmas dinners are interesting with your brother around. You must drive him right up his "absolute" tree.
A happy and prosperous 2007 to you and your family.
The statement "there are
December 30, 2006 - 15:20 ET by mattmThe statement "there are no absolutes" is itself an absolute, and therefore, the phrase is an oxymoron.
If an Atheist says he/she believes there is no god, that's fine. That's a belief and is therefore just as religious as Theism. Therefore, Atheists have no right to mock anyone for being "religious", since they, too, are religious.
If, on the other hand, they claim to know there is no God, then they are claiming omniscience, because the only way to know of the non-existence of God is to know everything, which is to be God. Therefore, Atheists (who claim to know there is no God) are, in fact, claiming an attribute that only a god could have, thereby making themselves their own god, thus rendering Atheism absurd.
This is the meaning of Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart 'there is no God'"
Wow....I love the way you put
December 30, 2006 - 15:29 ET by bigtimerWow....I love the way you put that mattm, so absolutely logical who could argue with that?
I am going to remember that for one person in particular, when and if it comes up again.
Perfect. Thanks.
Btw...Happy New Year to ya!
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
mattm right as usual
December 30, 2006 - 15:34 ET by misterbillmattm right as usual
"religion, a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe."
The reason they KNOW there is no God is because they looked him up on 411.com and he is not listed. LOL
Add my kudos to the rest, mat
December 31, 2006 - 06:55 ET by Indiana JoeAdd my kudos to the rest, mattm.
"Atheism," IS a "theism," as you point out. Occurred to me long ago. The "omniscience" angle HADN'T occurred, but is spot on also.
Nice deconstruction.
IJ
I have known many theists who
January 3, 2007 - 01:37 ET by Travis GibbyI have known many theists who seemed quite certain that God does exist, but I have yet to meet an atheist who claimed to be certain that no Gods exist.
Personally I am not certain that no Gods exist, I just don't see any reason to expect that one does. A person may say, "Well how do you explain the existence of life?" But you could just as easily ask, "Well how do you explain the existence of God?" so in the end, the God solution solves nothing. It just leads to more questions.
Most Christians have no problem discounting the existence of Apollo or Zeus, but if someone discounts the existence of Yahweh then they are naturally ignorant and narrow-minded.
Travis
Why would you be a theist i
January 3, 2007 - 02:15 ET by JerryWhy would one be a theist if they weren't certain that God exists? Isn't that the definition of theist?
You say that the question, "how do you explain the existence of life?" is somehow negated with another question, "how do you explain the existence of God?", I disagree. If I buy a book, I don't have to see the author to know he exists. The book by it's very existence, proves that the author exists. You may not be able to explain the existence of the author, but that does not detract from the logical deduction that he does indeed exist.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Theism is defined by Wikipedi
January 3, 2007 - 19:25 ET by Travis GibbyTheism is defined by Wikipedia as, "the belief in the existence of one or more Gods or deities." Notice that the definition doesn't imply certainty. If a person believes that God(s) exist then he is a theist, even if he's not sure.
"If I buy a book, I don't have to see the author to know he exists. The book by it's very existence, proves that the author exists. You may not be able to explain the existence of the author, but that does not detract from the logical deduction that he does indeed exist."
True, but if you think about it, the creation of a book is an observable process. The origins of life is not observable. If a group of prehistoric people who had never seen anything remotely like a book, came across a library full of them, it wouldn't be so obvious where the books came from. It is possible that they would even attribute the books to a God.
The point is, if you assume that life cannot exist without a supreme being first creating it; then you are faced with the very same problem you are trying to explain. If every living thing needs a creator, and God himself is a living being, then why shouldn't the same reasoning apply to God? Why shouldn't we also say, "God cannot exist without a supreme being first creating him." I am convinced that theologians cannot answer the question of how life originated any better than scientists can.
Travis
You miss the point. To cla
January 3, 2007 - 19:44 ET by Conservative VoiceYou miss the point. To claim there is no God is akin to saying that the book magically found happened due to the right random conditions, atoms of matter evolved and the symbols on the pages under these right conditions appeared and remained for all to judge and observe.
To me it takes greater faith to believe there is no God then there is to believe there is. Now to believe that God actually cares takes a great deal of faith as well. I would say that the amount of faith required would be in this order (small to large)
Belief in a Higher Power, God(s)
Belief that God(s) care what is going on here on Earth on the Global Scale
Belief that God(s) care what is going on in your personal life
Belief that there does not exist a God.
I can think of a few other po
January 4, 2007 - 00:36 ET by Travis GibbyI can think of a few other possibilities of how the hypothetical books might have originated, there could have been a more advanced culture who wrote them and migrated somewhere else, or perhaps there was some extinct species of book makers. Extraterrestrials could have put them there as well. :)
But seriously, I think we can all agree that the life forms that exist today could not have occurred through chance alone. However, the beauty of the Theory of Natural Selection, is that it shows how relatively simple organisms can give rise to more and more complex life forms given enough time.
Of course, natural selection can't show how life got started in the first place. I have heard of a few hypothesises about how life did get started. Some scientists like Richard Dawkins have suggested that perhaps in the very beginning there was just some self-replicating molecule, like a simplified RNA molecule. If that sounds too unlikely, consider the fact that it only had to happen once in the entire universe. From there natural selection would run it's course.
If life had only a one in a billion chance of occurring on any given planet, life would still have begun on at least a billion planets in the universe. Obviously earth would have to be one of those planets because we are sitting here discussing it.
Travis
I can't speak for your brother
January 2, 2007 - 02:37 ET by Travis GibbyI can't speak for your brother, but I think that there must be absolute truths about the world we live in. What I don't believe is that it is possible to be absolutely certain about anything. We are all fallible and many people have fought, killed and died for things they thought they were absolutely certain of, when in fact they were in error.
This is why I don't believe that faith, prayer, or personal revelation are reliable ways to discern truth from fiction. Which religion a person chooses has much more to do with which culture that they live in than how much they fast and pray. To me it seems that beliefs that were not based on evidence have been one of the most destructive forces throughout history, yet these faith commitments are central to all religions.
Mark Twain once said that it is often not what we don't know that gets us in to trouble, but what we know for sure, that just ain't so.
Travis
"That's because with no
December 31, 2006 - 06:51 ET by Indiana Joe"That's because with no afterlife there is a stronger need to live ..."
misterbill,
You've actually brushed up against my theory about the need for liberals to do everything possible to prolong their lives on this earth. Everything from bans on smoking, to bans on transfats, air bags, seat belt laws, and all the other "health police" legislation that's been pushed in the last couple decades.
People are paying upwards of $2 for a bottle of water, taking pill after pill for every minor infirmity, buying "rejuvenating" products, eating crazy cocktails of every "new" mineral, herb and supplement that comes down the pike, all in the name of staving off that "final frontier."
Hey, being healthy is a good thing, no doubt. And I wouldn't mind living longer. But the zeal with which some of these things are pushed has led me to believe that, even though they may not identify themselves as "atheist," enough people (liberals strongly represented in this group, IMO) believe there is nothing after this life. So much so that they will do ANYTHING to prolong it as much as possible.
Maybe not "atheists," but definitely not a strong representation of "the faithful."
IJ
PS- not to beat a dead horse, but, NB staff: masthead, "who's online," recent posts, PLEASE!!! IJ
God had it right
December 30, 2006 - 14:37 ET by nkviking75To quote Psalm 14:1 (the phrase is repeated in Psalm 53:1), "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" I respect the right of anyone to be an atheist, but I don't respect the way atheists think. They love to claim that they're the rational ones. It sure doesn't look that way to me.
nkviking75
December 30, 2006 - 14:57 ET by misterbillWell quoted. I respect the rights of atheists too. I do not believe their rights are superior to the majority of the population. We should be allowed to have creches at CHRISTmas. etc. I know I am preaching to the choir, but it was nice to say it aloud (so to speak).
The people that drive me up t
December 30, 2006 - 15:15 ET by bigtimerThe people that drive me up the wall are the agnostics...
For me that is like being a so-called moderate...
They think they are covering their rears either way you look at it.....
Just thought I would throw in my two-cents.
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
can't help myself
December 30, 2006 - 15:37 ET by misterbillBad boy with corny puns. My wife made ag nog for Christmas-- we had a bunch of ag-nogstics over. They didn't drink any because they weren't sure it was there.
Should of invited me.....I kn
December 30, 2006 - 15:57 ET by bigtimerShould of invited me.....I know an good ag nog when I see one.
Cheers!
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
Sorry, can't resist
December 30, 2006 - 21:59 ET by nkviking75Somewhat off topic, but I can't resist: Did you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic? He's not sure there's a dog.
Did you hear the one about
December 30, 2006 - 22:27 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsDid you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic? He's not sure there's a dog.
He converted after the dog bit him.
DSG
nkviking
December 31, 2006 - 02:18 ET by misterbillJust about to shut down and go to bed. Read your post--checking my seat to see if it's dry. Had to login and say thanks>
LMAO!!!!
nkv,Hadn't heard that one! Th
December 31, 2006 - 07:01 ET by Indiana Joenkv,
Hadn't heard that one! Thanks for my first good laugh of the day! ;^D
IJ
I am an atheist, and I also r
January 2, 2007 - 17:58 ET by Travis GibbyI am an atheist, and I also respect the rights of theists. It does not offend me when people tell me, "Merry Christmas." Actually, it makes me feel good. I am not offended when I see manger scenes in the park either, so long as they are near other non-christian symbols. I don't see it as a government endorsement of Christianity.
There are some things I don't like that go on in this country though. It hurts me when I, as a taxpayer, have to fund "faith-based programs" who use that money, in part, to spread their message that people like me are going to suffer in hell forever and ever, simply because we don't believe in the same religion as they do. It also offends me when public school systems are used to promote religious belief. The government is supposed to represent all the people, regardless of religious belief or lack of it, and the atheist families should be made as welcome in the school system as anyone else.
Travis Gibby
I knew there was a reason I d
December 30, 2006 - 14:56 ET by Eric TurnerI knew there was a reason I didn't watch primetime network television. I've never seen those shows and now I know why. Wow, I never knew it was that bad. It's tough enough having four kids and regulating what they see on television. But it makes it much easier when you simply decide to not allow entire networks or blocks of programming or specific genres in your house.
Man, I'd love to just do away with television altogether, but I'm afraid I'd have an insurrection in my house and have to call in the feds. Of course, then my kids would call the libs and they'd win the hearts of the media and then I'd lose and...well you can see where that would lead.
armyvet TV
December 30, 2006 - 15:04 ET by misterbillMany years ago, I was on assignment in Massachusetts. One of the engineers at MIT had fixed his TV set so that it would only receive two stations. Both stations were public TV and kids could learn a lot. Today, you don't know what you will receive on any station. I am a couch potato and watch a lot of TV. I do not watch any major networks national news. I watch the local news after the national. I learned about Olbermann and his ilk while surfing the net. But. getting to the direct point. I have seen and heard my twenty year old son's opinions and I strongly disagree with just about all of them. Then I found out , he gets his news from John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. nuff said!!!
Oh yeah, Comedy Central is an
December 30, 2006 - 15:21 ET by Eric TurnerOh yeah, Comedy Central is another channel they aren't allowed to watch, along with all the inane music channels.
My kids (all under 10 yrs old) get enough propaganda from school about Kwanzaa and Earth Day and stuff like that.
Massachusetts eh? I was stationed there from '85-'87. Had an acquaintance from H.S. attend MIT from '85-'89
armyvet
December 30, 2006 - 15:41 ET by misterbillMy compliments on monitoring your children. I wish I had done so more closely. The horse is out of the barn. I was born/raised in MA. Found myself odd man out because of political and moral attitudes. Took a job assignment elsewhere--went back twice--worse each time. The mystery to me is how can so many nice people hold such daffy attitudes (homosexuality, abortion, etc.) Sometimes love works better long-distance.
PS Almost fainted when they elected Mitt.........
the root of this evil
December 30, 2006 - 15:50 ET by tumbler_2007Mr. Bozell;
The artsy-fartsy current of our western society is now wed contentedly with gay and lesbian activism. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It's no coincidence today, how God and His faithful have been marginalized, and even brought low in the arts.
Every perceived attempt aiming at abortion rights and gay-lesbian rights is met with screams of "hate speech" and "bigotry"-- ! ! ! --You should've seen the horrified gritting of their teeth over at Huffypost blog; after I made attempts at explaining the marital act between a man and a woman-- ! -- When I made reference to the failure to consummate that lawfully gives a spouse grounds for anullment ! Every reaction was obscene and almost bestial against me. Leftists do not like to hear somebody correct them!
That attitude is what gives Madonna license to wantonly kiss women on stage and on camera with no reaction from anybody. Or Elton John, declaring his contempt for religion. Young people see these actions. It's Old Hat; particularly after the Monica Lewinsky scandal which was graphically fed our TV audiences for months. Recall who were the villains during the period: Ken Starr! Republicans! Might as well include God. (After all, He preaches "hate".) Where's it all to end?
ridicule
December 30, 2006 - 17:28 ET by Charliedoc“In the entertainment community, maybe you'll just have people making jokes that are funny enough and true enough so as to put religious certainty in a bad light."
So, how come it's OK for this jackleg to disparage my beliefs, and conspire to have others join him in attempting to humiliate me?
Isn't this a hate-crime?
Shouldn't the Attorney General investigate this?
(sorry, couldn't stop the sarcasm from bubbling over!)
Who's Being Marginalized?
January 2, 2007 - 20:38 ET by Travis Gibby"It's no coincidence today, how God and His faithful have been marginalized, and even brought low in the arts."
To be sure, there are a lot of atheistic zealots, just as there are a lot of religious zealots. But, I completely disagree with your statement that God and His faithful have been marginalized.
When George H. W. Bush said in a news conference, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Only one reporter bothered to report that intolerant statement. When I have told people about this incident, some simply shrug their shoulders and say, "Well that's his opinion." Sure presidents have a right to opinions too, but consider for a moment how the media would have reacted if Mr. Bush had said, "No, I don't think that Jews should be considered citizens."
In 2006 the University of Minnesota did a study that suggests that atheists may be Americas least trusted minority. Another Gallup poll done in 1999, if memory serves, showed that 79% of Americans would vote for a otherwise well qualified presidential candidate, if they knew he/she was a homosexual. When it came to atheists though only 49% of Americans said they would still vote for the candidate. Almost half of all Americans say atheists should not be allowed to teach at universities and a quarter of all Americans say that atheists should not be allowed to speak publicly against religion.
Although our constitution specifically states that, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." It is a common practice to require public officials to swear on a Bible they may or may not believe in and to a God that they may or may not believe in. Six states have language written into their Bill of Rights that require public office holders to have belief in a supreme being and a future state of rewards and punishments. This is based upon the generally accepted theory that the only people who believe in a supreme being are capable of being honest, decent human beings.
I love this country. It is the birthplace of the idea of separation of church and state. When I hear anti-atheist attitudes that are so common though, I feel ashamed. I dream of a time when everyone is free to express their beliefs and disbelief without being marginalized.
Travis Gibby
The legitimate powers of government extend to only such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.
* Thomas Jefferson, Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 254
I have no problem with a true
December 30, 2006 - 18:16 ET by 10thAmendmentI have no problem with a true atheist. Someone who does not believe in God and no belief in an afterlife. It's not a belief system, it's just someone who doesn't believe.
However, someone who doesn't believe so strongly that he/she needs to convert others to not believing or tries to keep others from following their own beliefs is a Missionary. Someone who goes on and on about how they don't believe and how everyone else should join them in not believing together is a Minister. We are seeing the church (or temple) of "There is No God". Seems more than a bit hypocritical.
If I'm watching a crime show in the evening and there is a Christian character I will turn to my lovely wife and pronounce, "he/she did it!" And rarely will I be wrong. This is not just anti God bias, it's lazy writing and boring.
These tv and film producer's would rather lose money that make money by making faithful friendly entertainment. It doesn't have to be preachy, just well written. NBC's new show this year Studio 60 on the Strip was a textbook example. I looked forward to seeing this show that had a cast I should have enjoyed. In the first episode they make the basic plotline that everyone in the show hated religion except for one character that didn't mind bashing her own beliefs to get a laugh. Did anyone watch a second episode, I did not. If you start out by telling me that you hate people like me, I believe you and change the channel.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
10thAmendment,"However,
December 31, 2006 - 07:12 ET by Indiana Joe10thAmendment,
"However, someone who doesn't believe so strongly that he/she needs to convert others to not believing or tries to keep others from following their own beliefs is a Missionary. Someone who goes on and on about how they don't believe and how everyone else should join them in not believing together is a Minister. We are seeing the church (or temple) of "There is No God". Seems more than a bit hypocritical."
My personal term for ALL of these types of people is "evangelical atheists." Pretty much says it all, IMHO.
Just thought I'd throw that out there... ;^)
Also, trying to "convert" others to their beliefs is just as hypocritical as you say. "Convert" hell, trying to FORCE their beliefs on the rest of us is just as "oppressive" and "intolerant" as they claim RELIGION to be.
Regards,
IJ
Hollywood is real brave bas
December 30, 2006 - 19:00 ET by mlongHollywood is real brave bashing Christians,Jews and Catholics..but lets see if they have the b*lls to go after Islam with the same intensity....of course we know they won't after the way Comedy Central (that is as religious bashing as you can get) chicken out to let South Park show Mohammad.
mlong,EXACTLY!!! I was just
December 31, 2006 - 07:19 ET by Indiana Joemlong,
EXACTLY!!! I was just waiting for ANYONE in our MSM to have the cojones to show the Mohammed cartoons. Of course, the Muslims would have marched, demonstrated, whatever. Who cares?
I was looking forward to the counter-protests, the chance for REAL Americans to take to the streets to march in defense of our Constitution. It could have been a tsunami of support.
But the chicken-livered "guardians of truth" never gave us the opportunity....
(Very disappointed that CC took THIS opportunity to censor "SP." The only time I ever saw....)
Regards,
IJ
okay, i'll call a 'spade' a 'spade'
December 30, 2006 - 19:24 ET by kathleenirishOkay, Mr. Harris, I'll call 'a spade a spade'.
You're a big jerk: an elite, pompous, narrow-minded, biased jerk.
I would use stronger language but I'm trying to clean up my act.
There is nothing more obnoxious and nauseating than an atheist preaching, and sir, your attempts at influencing an already downward-spiraling, death and sex-worshipping culture to turn even more towards secular empty values is sad.
All those wonderful atheists, including those who used God as their excuse to be evil: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Lenin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez; hmm, isn't that funny? So many of them are our socialist liberal friends' heroes! Secular humanism, my arse!
Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name.
God Bless Us, EVERY One! -Tiny Tim.