1. Comment #64705 by Tyler Durden on August 21, 2007 at 12:01 pm

"To believe or to deny the existence of God"

Doesn't this presume "the existence of God" in the first place in order to deny it - or am I just being pedantic?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

2. Comment #64706 by OhioAtheist on August 21, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Apart from the somewhat asinine opening statements (the very first sentence is an echo of the myth that there can be no evidence or arguments for or against the existence of God), this is great media exposure. Let the Nisbets and Epsteins of the world say what they will about the tactics of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, but it is because of those same tactics that atheism is enjoying the spotlight.

Other Comments by OhioAtheist

3. Comment #64709 by StormTrooperVII on August 21, 2007 at 12:19 pm

"But hold on"? That's becoming a very annoying phrase, implying the previous speaker was full of shit, where they should be doing something that's at best "neutral".

I do like the line "religion is little more than a habit."

Other Comments by StormTrooperVII

4. Comment #64710 by MilesSmiles on August 21, 2007 at 12:21 pm

as for the "divine dilemma", it seems that the science is in, no? it's good to see that sweeney is releasing her show as a movie...i think bill maher is also releasing a movie on religion. since it seems that we live in a visual age, i think the more of these videos like dawkins' root of all evil will really start an international evaluation of the necessity for and morality of certain dogmas. hitchens is on point here. check out his new site...

http://www.buildupthatwall.com

has a lot of good books listed, it also keeps up to date with his articles. as for this "gentleman's agreement" with religion, i would argue that religion has offended society to the point that secularists dont need to tread lightly anymore.

Other Comments by MilesSmiles

5. Comment #64713 by JemyM on August 21, 2007 at 12:31 pm

There are more than enough to disprove the organised religions so I really do not understand the whole "prove/disprove" god deal. Who cares about god when you know that the abrahamic religions do not describe true events.

You believe in a creator. Then what? You do not know the creator is, what he/she wants... You can look in the bible but that's not based on true events so it wont help you at all. In fact, you have to completely forget all concepts introduced by that book such as afterlife, ten commandments etc. You are completely blank with nothing to go on. Then what?

Oh, so you are going to hold on to the bible anyway. Well, that's when you are DELUSIONAL.

Other Comments by JemyM

6. Comment #64714 by robotaholic on August 21, 2007 at 12:31 pm

omgay I love Julia Sweeney and Richard Dawkins

Other Comments by robotaholic

7. Comment #64715 by DrShell on August 21, 2007 at 12:34 pm

I set my DVR to record this and ended up with nothing but local talking heads showing hour upon hour of the same weather images. It stormed in Oklahoma, you see. Shocking!

I'm not so angry about missing it as I was on Sunday, though. The religious studies dweeb got more air time (spouting inaccuracies at that) than the atheists, with the possible exception of Sweeney, whose atheism was presented like some sort of adolescent rebellion. That was really disappointing.

Other Comments by DrShell

8. Comment #64716 by SteveN on August 21, 2007 at 12:36 pm

http://www.buildupthatwall.com has a lot of good books listed....

Hmmm.... I've read 20 of his first 35, most more than once, and have enjoyed them all immensely. Guess I'm going to have to order all the others on the list now.

Other Comments by SteveN

9. Comment #64718 by Elli on August 21, 2007 at 12:41 pm

JemyM - that is really the correct way to look at it. All the mental gymnastic philosophy about deism but "then what?". Even mere acceptance of deism as a possibility (which I think hugely improbable) gives no rise to people claiming to 'know the mind' of such a deity. The specific theisms of the world are easily disprovable, science has much to say on the notion of interventionist deities (would be testable and observable if true), and deism ends at "who cares".

Other Comments by Elli

10. Comment #64719 by OhioAtheist on August 21, 2007 at 12:45 pm

What a bunch of fluffy crap journalism. I'm sick sick sick of the same fallacies vomitted up all over the tv and radio ~
- atheism is a "faith"
- the Stalinist & Nazi regimes were atheistic
- Christians defeated slavery in America
All of us here know that that's all bullshit because it's been repeated ad nauseum by our most vocal champions but somehow, our very valid explanations go unheard by the jerks who need to hear them the most.
How many times must we set it all straight?
WHAT GIVES???

Don't get too upset. This is mainstream media: we can't expect a blatantly pro-atheism piece. The segment gave respectable time to Sweeney and Hitchens (who seemed more sober than usual, which was both refreshing and disappointing). It would be unfair of us to demand that the religious point of view get no air time at all. Most of the words coming out of Prothero's mouth were false, of course, but that's to be expected. In fact, I admit to being somewhat pleased that he repeated these tired, thoroughly discredited arguments--interested and intelligent viewers will be easily able to refute them. Better than having a Hedges-style mysterian who uses many words to say nothing at all and thereby ends up looking far more insightful than he is.

Just two more things to note: One, I'm disappointed that the modern atheist movement was associated with the slightly nutty Ms. O'Hair. (Although her successor, Ms. Johnson, is very personable and intelligent.) Second, Julia Sweeney's mother said that she was taught in second grade in Catholic school that there was no proof of the existence of God. Now someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this contradict the official stance of the Catholic Church? I thought the Church held that the existence of God could be proven a priori by the ontological argument, and a posteriori by the arguments from teleology, cosmology, and moral law.

Other Comments by OhioAtheist

11. Comment #64724 by tieInterceptor on August 21, 2007 at 1:19 pm

"ohaioAtheist: Better than having a Hedges-style mysterian who uses many words to say nothing at all and thereby ends up looking far more insightful than he is."

true, It really makes my blood boil when they pull the smokescreen effect, so at least he admitted there is no proof, ... only faith,

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

12. Comment #64729 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 1:25 pm

"i'm catholic, i intend to stay catholic, i think the catholic church is a wonderful place."

"i just thought that is a hard way to go."

julia's mom didn't seem too convinced about god.

Other Comments by sane1

13. Comment #64730 by Icculus on August 21, 2007 at 1:25 pm

OhioAtheist - Now someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this contradict the official stance of the Catholic Church? I thought the Church held that the existence of God could be proven a priori by the ontological argument, and a posteriori by the arguments from teleology, cosmology, and moral law.

Mrs. Sweeney certainly would not be the first Catholic to pick and choose which parts of the official Catechism to accept and which parts to deny and/or not know. Catholics are renowned for their cafeteria style of religion. Realizing this, as a former Catholic, was my first step in becoming (or relizing that I was all along) an Atheist. Several former-Catholic Atheists I know had similar experiences.

Other Comments by Icculus

14. Comment #64731 by Kingasaurus on August 21, 2007 at 1:35 pm

What drives me crazy about "journalism" like this is that the central problem never seems to be dealt with. Atheists say there's no proof. Religious rebutters say they have faith and don't need the proof. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Furthermore, in addition to making it look like atheism is just adolescent rebellion, the way the piece is constructed makes it look like the religious have scored some kind of debating points on the atheists by claiming they were taught at a young age that you can't prove god - and these silly, unsophisticated atheists are telling them something they already know well. I also bristle at the suggestion that since we don't know everything, that supposedly gives you intellectual carte blanche to believe anything you like.

Just once, I'd like a story which deals with the central question: that religious faith is a fundamentally unreliable method of properly distinguishing fact from falsehood. It should be rejected for that reason alone, since very few people deliberately want to believe in something false. This is NEVER discussed in any mainstream media coverage of atheism, and the only place I hear it robustly talked about is when non-believers talk amongst themselves.

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

15. Comment #64732 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Stephen Prothorow (the professor in the piece) says religion is the: "greatest source of evil and greatest source good" Then, he says "you [atheists] can't have it both ways."
I'm thinking he missed his own point.

And that crap that the fact there is no proof is not a problem (for Protherow or the elder Ms Sweeney) is really an amazing amazing amazing fact that makes us logic and evidence based people doomed to exasperation.

...and the head of the american atheists underwhelmes me everytime I hear her. If I never see her again, I'll be very happy.

Other Comments by sane1

16. Comment #64734 by Riley on August 21, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Hitchens brought home what should have been the concluding interview of this piece.

Hitchens said:
"those who are religious claim not only to know that there is a god, which they cannot know, but they claim to know his mind and his instructions [...]"

An excellent point he could have taken even one step further. Not only do the religious claim to know what they cannot know about the existence of a god and the mind of this god, but far too many also demand that their friends and family and employees and government believe and follow these faith-based instructions as well.

The Three Stages of Supernatural Religious Belief
1) Belief in a god (i.e. the supernatural).
2) Belief that you know the mind and instructions of such a god.
3) Belief that everyone else needs to follow these instructions.

I would very much like to know how the "believer" population breaks down along these three categories.

Other Comments by Riley

17. Comment #64736 by TheHardProblem on August 21, 2007 at 2:15 pm

http://www.buildupthatwall.com

ah Christopher.. do you have no morals?! now I'm considering to start smoking.

Seriously, I know you're a cool guy, but that picture, now i know you know it as well.

edit: btw, noam chomsky is on the same side of Hitchens on the lower picture, HA!.

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

18. Comment #64738 by MilesSmiles on August 21, 2007 at 2:28 pm

that pictures from the cover of 'letters to a young contrarian' as for noam, he may disagree with hitchens on a variety of things, as many disagree with his position on iraq, but noam is a staunch supporter of freedom of speech, and regarding religion he has this to say...

"I am a child of the Enlightenment. I think irrational belief is a dangerous phenomenon, and I try to consciously avoid irrational belief. On the other hand, I certainly recognize that it's a major phenomenon for people in general, and you can understand why it would be. It does, apparently, provide personal sustenance, but also bonds of association and solidarity and a means for expressing elements of one's personality that are often very valuable elements. To many people it does that. In my view, there's nothing wrong with that. My view could be wrong, of course, but my position is that we should not succumb to irrational belief."

....it's quite clear then that they would be on the same side of the "wall"

Other Comments by MilesSmiles

19. Comment #64739 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Thanks, thehardproblem, for the link.

Other Comments by sane1

20. Comment #64740 by RickM on August 21, 2007 at 2:51 pm

JemyM wrote:
"...when you know that the abrahamic religions do not describe true events."

Yes, but they (the media) never get to that point. They just rotate around the edges, as in "I feel in my heart", "I know god exists", and so on; as if that's some kind of valid evidence.

Ticks me off.

Other Comments by RickM

21. Comment #64741 by geckoman on August 21, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Religion and much of the media have a fundamentally compromised relationship. The media tends to handle religious matters/debate with kid gloves. Among the reasons for this are the practical: legislation covers what can and cannot be said (in the UK in particular), and the conventional: that religious people and religion are de facto "nice" and interviewers don't want them to be publicly humiliated.

Therefore, I agree with posters who imply that any semi-positive atheistic content in any media outlet is in itself a small victory. I think we need to remember this if at times the coverage seems wishy-washy and guys like Hitchens seem to be holding back.

Other Comments by geckoman

22. Comment #64742 by OhioAtheist on August 21, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Re: Comments 18 & 19

I noticed Chomsky on that site (www.buildupthatwall.com) as well, and frankly I don't think he should be on there (especially right next to Harris!). He may be personally secular, but he has written very little on religion. As a public intellectual, his influence is entirely within the realms of linguistics and politics. His recent political work, moreover, portrays Islamist terrorists as victims of the genocidal American Empire; he does not acknowledge that religion is a primary source of world conflict. For these reasons it seems very strange indeed to count him as an ally of the present antireligious movement.

I admit to being biased against Chomsky for political reasons, but then again why shouldn't I want "our side" to avoid association with an apologist for the Khmer Rouge? I wouldn't tolerate a neo-Nazi on our side of the wall.

Other Comments by OhioAtheist

23. Comment #64743 by Crazymalc on August 21, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Julia Sweeney is cool.

I'd never heard of Madalyn Murray-O'Hair before. She seems uber-cool. I'd like to learn more about her.

Oh, and chuck in the normal comments about weak journalism and same-old same-old shaky arguments from the religious right.

Other Comments by Crazymalc

24. Comment #64744 by Crazymalc on August 21, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Having read about Madalyn Murray-O'Hair, i might back up a little from uber-cool and say "fascinating character" instead.

Other Comments by Crazymalc

25. Comment #64747 by heathen2 on August 21, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Crazymalc,

Check out "All the Questions You ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists" (1983) By Jon Murray (her son) and Madalyn Murray O'Hair. It is published by American Atheist Press.

I read through it recently. She was very straight forward and explains the philosophy of atheism in a way that everyone can understand. She was very hated and vilified, people considered her strident and shrill in her criticism. As Dawkins is sometimes characterized. I think even more so because of her gender.

Also, her life events are interesting and her death (along with her family members), bizarre and sad.

Other Comments by heathen2

26. Comment #64749 by heathen2 on August 21, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Having read about Madalyn Murray-O'Hair, i might back up a little from uber-cool and say "fascinating character" instead.

Yeah, I agree.

Other Comments by heathen2

27. Comment #64750 by ericcolumba on August 21, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Memo to self.
When being interviewd by CBS make sure there is a large stack of books in the background to prove that I am a knowledgable individual.

Other Comments by ericcolumba

28. Comment #64751 by joshuaslocum on August 21, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Note to TheHardProblem, #18:

Smoking doesn't make you immoral. Having your picture taken smoking doesn't make you immoral. Scolding adults in a prissy tone of voice because you dislike their personal habits does make one highly unpleasant, though.

Other Comments by joshuaslocum

29. Comment #64759 by Salvatore on August 21, 2007 at 5:09 pm

...perhaps the most perplexing of life's cosmic questions.

hm.

Other Comments by Salvatore

30. Comment #64761 by Thor on August 21, 2007 at 5:12 pm

www.buildupthatwall.com

MilesSmiles, thanks so much for that great link. It's a perfect resource for all things Hitchens; must be very recent - I hadn't heard of it yet.

I have been a Hitchens-Fan for a long time but up until now the best way to keep up with his output was hitchensweb.com, which has a rather Spartan design, to put it mildly, and is never really up to date.
Neither of these two claims to be an "official" website, though, and a domain name lookup gives you the names of private individuals.

Be that as it may, it doesn't matter to me whether it's a new "official" website or simply something a fan put up: it really is a great resource.

Other Comments by Thor

31. Comment #64763 by CruciFiction on August 21, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Say what they will about O'Hair's temperament, but she was always right on point when it came to religion and the constitutional issue of separation in the US.

And I don't think I've ever heard a more concise and eloquent description of what is an atheist than the one she offered to the SCOTUS:

"YOUR PETITIONERS ARE ATHEISTS and they define their life-style as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellowman instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellowman can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellowman rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god, nor channel action into prayer, nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."
~ Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), preamble to Murray v. Curlett, U.S. Supreme Court, April 27, 1961

Other Comments by CruciFiction

32. Comment #64764 by Cartomancer on August 21, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Re: the wall of separation

I thought Hitchens' slogan was about the wall of separation between religion and politics that Jefferson et al. incorporated into the American constitution, not the wall that separates the positions of the religious and the anti-religious in modern society. As such Noam Chomsky very much belongs on the political rather than the religious side.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

33. Comment #64768 by Fedler on August 21, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Re: Comment #64763 by CruciFiction

Very cool quote by O'Hair!

Other Comments by Fedler

34. Comment #64770 by k1mgy on August 21, 2007 at 6:35 pm

There is little of any worth to take home from the young "professor" at Boston University (a stones throw from where I live). BU has some great departments, so I suppose we can grant pardon as it shows its weak underbelly. It was a school first founded on religion, but evidence of it is thankfully nearly gone, except for this sad exception. If I were BU, I'd stuff this fellow somewhere beneath the chapel and re-print the maps.

With an almost-straight face professor youngling here has no trouble saying that there's no evidence for the existence of god. "I feel most Americans feel the same way," he giggles. No problem winging on through our short spit of a life basing it on ZERO.

Posing in front of book stacks and wandering beneath trees (conveying, despite the obvious, a man of deep learning and contemplation) he winds on with all the usual excuses that we're all so used to. The sharpest arrow in his quiver is the age-old and decidedly incorrect blather about all the horrors that Atheists have brought into the world.

Well, that just about wraps it up for academics. A rather good university hires a religious apologist who bases his entire career on something that cannot be proved and, to prop it all up, throws in some good old reliable and well founded American public opinion.

A pathetic showing, both for media and BU, but certainly a good show for the A team who need prove nothing. All we need do is ask the question.

Other Comments by k1mgy

35. Comment #64776 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Re: Comment #64763 by CruciFiction
Nice find. Thanks. Confirms I subscribe to the "atheist life-style."

Other Comments by sane1

36. Comment #64778 by TheHardProblem on August 21, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Note to joshuaslocum, #29:

I'm calling him immoral jokingly, because he portrays a very cool stance with a sigaret, just like the cowboy on a ciggaret-package.
I'm a huge supporter of Hitchens and he can do whatever he likes. I do worry for his health though, dont want to lose him because of some heart attack.

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

37. Comment #64780 by joshuaslocum on August 21, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Not to TheHardProblem, #29

Well, it sounds like I just need to lighten up then! Mea culpa. I'm taking the chip off my shoulder now:)


BTW. . would you prefer losing him to cancer, old age, or just what? We're all gonna die, brotha!


Best,

Josh

Other Comments by joshuaslocum

38. Comment #64781 by Veronique on August 21, 2007 at 8:26 pm

32. Comment #64763 by CruciFiction

I want to add my thanks for the quote. I have only heard her name a couple of times and can't recall any context.

I'll look her up. If she can say things like that, she's pretty clear in my book.

Julia Sweeney is terrific and I am glad she's making a movie of her show. I have only ever seen about 17 minutes of her on the TED talks. Loved it. She touches the funny nerve very well.

I agree with OhioAtheist and others about the exposure. It is because of RD and the others. They are doing a great job of lifting the atheist profile. We will see crappy stuff, pitched to the lowest common denominator audience and we will see serious, thoughtful interviews and discussions. The point is that 3 years ago, we wouldn't have seen anything, either crappy or good.

So I am on the side of 'any publicity is good publicity', even when I spit chips at the questions, assumptions and at some of the people who get interviewed. Atheism has coverage and that's got to be better than no coverage.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

39. Comment #64782 by anotherclinton on August 21, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Good old Christopher McHitchens from Portsmouth, Northern Ireland.

Excellent research, CBS.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

40. Comment #64784 by roach on August 21, 2007 at 9:18 pm

I wish I could get that Professor's job. It doesn't seem all too tough. A large part of it seems to involve reading books and not understanding them. I can do that!

Other Comments by roach

41. Comment #64786 by Paine on August 21, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Sorry to interrupt the party, but am I the only one who finds Ms Sweeney hugely irritating? Her whiny squeals grate my ears and her 'jokes' are nauseatingly dull.

Good on her for having the courage to come out and stand up for herself. I just wish she'd shut up about it.

P.S. would love to see Hitch destroy Prothero in a debate. Now THAT would be funny.

Other Comments by Paine

42. Comment #64789 by heathen2 on August 21, 2007 at 9:49 pm

I saw Prothero on the Daily Show (if I'm remembering correctly) and he was talking about the book of his.

It is true that Americans know very little about religion, in a real sense, such as comparative religions and a history of religious thought. Especially Christians, who rely on a personal relationship with their god and feel they have no need for any other knowledge. That seems to be part of the problem.

The other stuff that Prothero said though, about all the great stuff that flows from religion and evil atheistic Stalinistic regimes is pure bullshit.

Other Comments by heathen2

43. Comment #64791 by german-atheist on August 21, 2007 at 10:24 pm

K1mgy , ericcolumba


what`s wrong with being interviewed in front of a bookshelf or while having a walk in a park?
i have seen dawkins and hitchens in the same situation.would you rather watch richard dawkins and some high ranking english clergyman discussing religion (as they did some time ago on tv) sitting on the shitter?


i have learned about this comedian sweeney on you tube before and i find it amazing to see her getting all this media attantion for struggling with a childish fairytale.i was only nine years old when i talked to a school buddy and we wondered why the grown-ups kept on telling us about god when we already knew that it was our parents who placed the presents under the christmas tree and jesus was a fictional character like tom sawyer or the cartright family.the whole religion thing stayed that simple to me.who needs all those intelectuals and philosophers wrenching their brain about a simple question?are there gods?-of course not.
i can only admire dawkins and the hitch for keeping calm and friendly most of the time when they repeat over and over again the obvious- much like telling a five year old girl not to kiss one of the frogs in the garden,because this is all a nice little story to amuse small children.

Other Comments by german-atheist

44. Comment #64798 by walk on August 21, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Great thread, one & all. Lovin' it!

Other Comments by walk

45. Comment #64801 by BAEOZ on August 21, 2007 at 11:31 pm

german-atheist:

would you rather watch richard dawkins and some high ranking english clergyman discussing religion (as they did some time ago on tv) sitting on the shitter?

Yes, I would. That truly would be conscious raising. A nice, tiled shitter. Something we could imagine in a Roman bath house perhaps. With a water piece somewhere in the mid forground. Nice bushy shrubs sitting in pots in the background. And the sound of birds gently chirping in the distance. Then, right when the Bishop is admitting the whole god thing is a scam, he strains due to stress and an almighty fart is sounded and we cut to RD maintaining his demeanour whilst all around; camerguy, sound guy, bishop, loose it......"Bishop, I didn't quite hear your last comment due to the flatus. Did you say that you don't believe in god?"

I'm bored, sorry.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

46. Comment #64816 by sbooder on August 22, 2007 at 1:27 am

When will people understand that Joseph Stalin (who seems to be the one every believer brings up as did Stephen Prothero) did nothing in the name of atheism, he did what he did because he was a twat!

Other Comments by sbooder

47. Comment #64830 by Suffolk Blue on August 22, 2007 at 2:26 am

I think it's great that such a piece was aired on mainstream tv in the states. It may seem wishy-washy to us, but it could have opened the minds of some believers.

I just hope that "new atheism" (don't like the term myself) isn't a trendy media topic, fashionable at the moment, to be replaced by the next flavour of the month in due course. We must keep disbelief on the agenda.

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

48. Comment #64840 by pewkatchoo on August 22, 2007 at 3:40 am

OhioAtheist
I would have to agree with you. I would not want Noam Chomsky to be considered as a fellow traveller. He is definitely not someone I would want to be associated with. I find many of his views repellant. Just a tired old communist hack.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

49. Comment #64841 by Prufrock on August 22, 2007 at 3:42 am

Julia Sweeney's mother was a little worrying. Her remark about being told there was no proof of God in the second grade, reminded me of Ignatius Loyola's remark about showing him the boy at seven and I'll show you the man, or something like that. As a result of all of that childhood programming she would not even conceive of the possibility of there needing to be proof for a belief in anything. Even more worrying is the fact that as an adult it would not even cross her mind to ask whether her beliefs were in fact tenable. I guess it will take quite a few more years and a lot more work in neuroscience to finally show people that the personal God they talk to is really themselves. I see journalism as part of the entertainment industry. Its job is simply to put things across in as palatable a way as possible to as many of its advertiser's public as possible. Sometimes, I think we get the media we deserve. I am led to believe we are spoiled for choice where newspapers and magazines are concerned here in England; but Americans may not have the same breadth of editorial choices. Maybe that needs fixing. One thing is clear and that is that journalists don't always let the facts get in the way of a good story! You pay your money you make your choice.

Other Comments by Prufrock

50. Comment #64846 by ADParker on August 22, 2007 at 4:20 am

I like how the only arguments in favour were:
"Faith" - Please!
"Religious anti-slavery and Civil Rights" - There were theists (and atheists) on BOTH sides, and justification for the slavery/discrimination in the bible and religious teachings, and strong religious resistance to the changes, hardly convincing.

"Stalinism etc. = Atheist regimes" - Pathetic, old and tired religious rhetoric.

Other Comments by ADParker