ignorance subsidized?

[acroyear]

Pharyngula: I had no idea CNN had gotten this bad:

[The CNN segment on athiests] starts off reasonably enough with a segment on a family of atheists who were ostracized in a small town; then it closes with some young Republican-looking talking head who babbles about how atheists bring it on themselves, and we should blame all the militant atheists for the fact that people feel compelled to shun those who don't believe as they do. It was a weird blame-the-victim moment.

Then there's the panel afterwards. Others have mentioned the odd omission of any atheists from the discussion, but I was also flabbergasted at the question they were debating, which was displayed in big letters on a board behind them:

Why do atheists inspire such hatred?

Whoa. Hey, Debbie Schlussel, how would you feel if a panel of Christians and Muslims met to discuss "Why do Jews inspire such hatred?", and they decided that the problem is that Jews need to shut up and quit mentioning their beliefs in public? It's probably silly to ask that of Schlussel who seems to be vapidity personified, but that's really what the panel was about, with two (one was not sympathetic, but at least realized that atheists have the same rights he does) Christian twits telling us that atheists ought to shut up (literally) and that we ought to have prayers in school to restore morality.

I'm not an athiest nor an agnostic, though I'm certainly more of a "free thinker" than most religious people out there.  However, just as much as I won't tolerate the willful ignorance of people regarding science and history, I won't tolerate it in social factors as well.

Seriously, to have a panel (without an atheist on it) discussing atheists like they were "some other type of person" from those on said panel really is akin to having a panel discussing any religion or any other ethnic group like they were a "problem", and all it shows is that not only is bigotry alive and well in this country, but you can get paid for it on national (cable) TV!

Comments

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

[sequentialscott.livejournal.com]

This was Bush 1, right?

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

Yup -- the current one never was VP.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

There were people who were more cool with me being pagan than being atheist, down to one whose response was "No, you're not."

"Buh?"

"You're not atheist. You can't be sure, so you're agnostic."

I have absolutely no idea why it is so threatening to some people for others to opt out of the religious system. But she absolutely flipped out and decreed that it was NOT POSSIBLE for me to be an atheist.