Paula Zahn Now: Karen Hunter, Debbie Schlussel, Stephen A. Smith on Atheism
Just how pervasive is discrimination against atheists in America? Reliable studies consistently show that atheists are more despised than any other minority, but to what degree do these anti-atheist feelings translate into anti-atheist action? Since people don't know a person is an atheist unless the atheist reveals it, there's probably much less anti-atheist discrimination than there otherwise could be. Sometimes, though, it's possible to detect the rot of bigotry in little things: like a panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included.
On the January 31 edition of Paula Zahn Now, the problems experienced by atheists in America were discussed. This segment began by exploring some of the discrimination, hatred, and bigotry atheists have faced:
ZAHN: Imagine being chased out of your home, your neighborhood, even your community because of your beliefs. You're about to meet a family who says it happened to them and we're bringing their story out into the open tonight because there are at least three million people in this country like them, people who may also face this kind of discrimination and persecution. Here's faith and values correspondent Delia Gallagher.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was scared. I was beyond upset. I have never experienced such anger and hatred.
DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This couple, we're calling them John and Jane Smith, are so afraid they asked us not to identify them. Two years ago they say the small Mississippi town where they lived turned against them after they complained to the principal of their son's public elementary school about class time devoted to bible study and prayer.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We were pariahs. Nobody would speak to us. It was, nobody would let their children play with my son.
GALLAGHER: The Smith's story made local headlines when it was revealed that they were atheists and soon after, tensions at the school escalated. John says members of the community even called his boss at work.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think they called him to complain about the fact that he had brought an atheist to town.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We were absolutely isolated. People would drive the house, park in front of our house and stare like we were in a zoo.
GALLAGHER: Eventually they left town altogether.
[emphasis added]
They also discussed the story of Jean and Mike Rice:
JEAN RICE: We're regularly told that we're going to hell, that we're sending our children to hell.
GALLAGHER: In the last town they lived, Jean Rice says soon after confiding her atheism to a friend, her landlord told the Rices they would have to move.
JEAN RICE, ATHEIST: Within a few days of my telling her that we are atheist, she -- I started hearing from other people, oh, are you atheist? And it was quite shocking and within a few weeks, my landlord, our landlord gave us notice.
GALLAGHER: The Rices say they can't prove that religious discrimination was the reason they were asked to leave, but they found the timing suspicious.
MIKE RICE: It's hard on the kids, because our daughter had no one to play with for a long time.
[emphasis added]
After this short, superficial introduction for what life is like for some atheists in America, Paula Zahn turned for comments to the night's panel: Stephen A. Smith, who is an ESPN analyst and a sports columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, Debbie Schlussel, a conservative columnist, and Karen Hunter, who is a journalism professor at Hunter College in New York as well as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.
Here is what Karen Hunter had to say about all the atheists who are too afraid to reveal their atheism publicly and the atheists who, when they do come out in public, face hated and discrimination:
ZAHN: ... So do you think atheists should keep their religious beliefs secret? What's their beliefs period?
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. ...
HUNTER: I think they need to shut up about crying wolf all the time and saying that they're being imposed upon. I personally think that they should never have taken prayer out of schools. I would rather there be some morality in schools. But they did that because an atheist went to court and said their child -- don't pray (INAUDIBLE). ...
HUNTER: Eight to 12 percent. (INAUDIBLE) They're not hurting anyone. I personally don't have a problem with an atheist. Believe or don't believe what you want. Don't impose upon my right to want to have prayer in schools, to want to say the pledge of allegiance, to want to honor my God. Don't infringe upon that right.
[emphasis added]
I've talked before about the attitude of many Americans, even liberals, which seems to reduce to little more than "atheists should sit down and shut up." Here, though, we have Karen Hunter saying basically that: atheists should just shut up. Atheists who are afraid to reveal their atheism and have to leave town when their atheism is discovered should "shut up about crying wolf all the time and saying that they're being imposed upon" (having to flee town isn't really an "imposition," you see). Atheists who reveal their atheism and appear to suffer from discrimination because of it are just spreading a "ridiculous story" and should "shut up" because prayer has already been taken out of schools. What more do atheists want — to be treated like real, equal human beings?? How ridiculous.
Atheists are continually accused of being arrogant and condescending, but just how arrogant does a person have to be in order to say that atheists would feel less discriminated against and excluded if they just had some Hallmark cards. Yes, when no one will let their kids play with your kids, thus socially isolated your children and making them feel dirty, you'll feel better if you get a Hallmark card: So Sorry You're a Pariah. When you are kicked out of your apartment or have to flee your community because you're an atheist, you'll feel better if you get a nice atheist card: Good Luck Keeping Your Secret in the Next Town.
Karen Hunter is expressing nasty anti-atheist bigotry, nothing more and nothing less. Imagine if the report had been about blacks, Jews, Latinos, or Muslims who had been kicked out of their apartment, who had to flee town, and/or who had experienced harassment and discrimination in their community. Would it not have been immediately recognized as unacceptable bigotry if someone said "We let black kids into schools. What more do they want"? How about "If Jews had Hallmark cards, maybe they wouldn't feel so left out"? Maybe: "I think Latinos need to shut up about crying wolf all of the time and saying they're being imposed upon when they are kicked out of their housing."
If I were an atheist in Karen Hunter's classes, I think I might be too afraid to reveal it because I don't think I'd be able to trust her to treat me with the same dignity, respect, and fairness that she treats other students. To be perfectly honest, though, I think I would simply avoid her classes like the plague because I don't think that I would be able to receive a good education in journalism. What sorts of journalism professor believes and repeats so many falsehoods about atheists and church/state separation? (Karen Hunter doesn't have a home page, but the Hunter College's Film and Media Studies department does)
Prayer was not taken out of schools; state-written, state-endorsed, and state-mandated prayers were ended. Students can pray on their own all they way, so long as they don't interfere with the school day, but state and local governments are not allowed to write those prayers, endorse those prayers, encourage those prayers, tell students what to pray, when to pray, how to pray, or anything else like that. How is this not a huge step forward in basic religious liberty?
Although it might be nice is atheists could take credit for this advance, we can't. The decision which prohibited the state from sponsoring specific prayers in public schools was Engel v. Vitale, decided in 1962 by an 8-1 vote. The people who challenged the laws establishing such prayers were a mixture of believers and nonbelievers in New Hyde Park, New York,
Karen Hunter doesn't seem to realize that no one "imposes" on her right to want to have prayer in schools, to want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, to want to honor her god. Furthermore, no one "imposes" on her right to pray in school, to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or to honor her god. All that has changed is that the state cannot endorse, promote, or encourage her in doing any of this. Does Karen Hunter, professor of journalism, really think that her religious liberty depends on the government actively helping, encouraging, and endorsing her religious rituals? That's nonsense.
If you think Karen Hunter's bigotry is bad (and it certainly is), let's take a look at the comments from Debbie Schlussel:
ZAHN: Are any of you going to defend them here tonight?
SCHLUSSEL: No, I agree with her 100 percent. I think that the real discrimination is atheists against Americans who are religious. Listen, we are a Christian nation. I'm not a Christian. I'm Jewish, but I recognize we're a Christian country and freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. And the problem is that, you have these atheists selectively I believe attacking Christianity. ...I really believe that they are the ones who are the intolerant ones against Christians. ...
SCHLUSSEL: And what about this obnoxious Michael Newdow, who went all the way to the Supreme Court for his child, the child doesn't know what's going on, to try and get under God taken out of the pledge of allegiance. They are on the attack. It's obnoxious and they do need to shut up. ...
SCHLUSSEL: This is a Christian country. ...
SCHLUSSEL: (INAUDIBLE) Look where there are more atheists and where they've lost God, where the church is not that strong. Europe is becoming Islamist. It's fast falling and intolerance is increasing. That's the one reason our country has not become like Europe because we have strong Christians and because atheists are not strong. And I think that's a good thing.
[emphasis added]
So, Debbie Schlussel agrees with Karen Hunter's bigoted statements 100%, then proceeds to add even more bigotry on top of it: atheists are the ones who are "intolerant" against and "discriminating" against Christians. How so few atheists could be the source of so much intolerance and discrimination against so many Christians is completely inexplicable — but then again, Christians used to make the similar allegations against small communities of Jews. How ironic that Debbie Schlussel, herself a Jew, is so willing to repeat accusations against atheists that were once made against her ancestors.
Like Karen Hunter, Debbie Schlussel believes that atheists just need to shut up — it doesn't matter how often they have to flee their homes (how many Christians in America have to flee the persecution of local atheists?) or are kicked out of their apartments (how many Christians are kicked out by atheist landlords?), they just need to sit down and keep quiet. All of their agitation for equal rights and protections under the law is too obnoxious — they need to realize that they are subhumans and learn to live with their inequality. Right?
Just to top things off and make it clear where she stands, Debbie Schlussel ends with the statement (and this basically ended their segment) that she thinks it's a good thing that atheists "are not strong." She wants atheists in America to be weaker and more divided than other communities. Why? Apparently because religious believers — and particularly Christians — are more deserving of being strong in America. We may all be equal on paper, but in reality some Americans are more equal than others — and "that's a good thing."
The only person who had a kind word to say about atheists — and a negative word to say about the bigotry and discrimination which atheists face — was Stephen A. Smith, the ESPN analyst:
ZAHN: What happened to love thy neighbor, the idea that we should be able to practice free speech?
SMITH: That's nonexistent. We all know that. We talk about that in America, but that's pretty much nonexistent, especially in the red states, particularly in the south. That's where the atheists are having the most trouble. When they talk about violent acts that have been enacted them or (INAUDIBLE) exacted against them or what have you. That's the kind of area they're talking about. I think in New York City, I don't think people care too much about it. We're a Christian country. There's no question about that. I love the Lord. So does Karen, so does everybody that I know. But the reality is that you're entitled to believe what you want as long as you're not imposing your beliefs on other people. ...
SMITH: I don't think they need to shut up. The reason why I don't think they need to shut up is because there's a whole bunch of people in this world that we can look at and say they need to shut up and they certainly don't. You got everybody fighting for their own individual cause. This is their cause. We might not like it. I don't agree with it at all, but they do have a right. ...
SMITH: They are going on the attack, but the reality, again, is everybody has their own cause. The fact is there's a whole bunch of people in America who need to shut up and they don't. So why should these people be any less. We live in a nation. We're supposed to be tolerant. We're supposed to be accepting of other people's viewpoints, even when they are not our own and the fact is, if they're an atheist, that's their right. They're not going to change my belief in God (INAUDIBLE). ...
SMITH: When they want to take - when they want to take God out of the pledge of allegiance or whatever, this is what I'm saying. They're saying, OK, that's Christian. What if you're a Muslim? What if you're someone of a different belief? ...what they're saying is how can -- if we're inclusionary, why can't we include all that and we're not. That's my point.
[emphasis added]
Stephen Smith demonstrates that a Christian who disagrees with atheists is more than capable of recognizing that atheists shouldn't be treated as if they inferior and unequal. On a panel with two Christians and one Jew, only one Christian was willing to say that atheists should have the same rights and privileges as religious theists. Only Stephen Smith was willing to say that atheists should not have to shut up — that even if he disagrees with what they are saying, he's not going to go along with telling them to just keep quiet and stop bothering others.
Actually, I think I'm doing him a disservice here because his point, made very succinctly, is more complex and important than my comments show. When he says "there's a whole bunch of people in this world that we can look at and say they need to shut up and they certainly don't," I think he's referring to the fact that whenever a minority is agitating for an end to unjust privileges and the expansion of equality, those in charge who benefit from the privileges almost invariably respond by telling the minority to shut up, to stop rocking the boat, to not be so disrespectful or obnoxious, that they will achieve more by being more moderate and peaceful, etc.
Many whites told this to blacks agitating for civil rights in America, for example, and while the situation for atheists today isn't as awful as it was for blacks in the 1960s, it's not a coincidence that Christians are saying similar things to atheists that they once said to blacks. The reason why is because these responses are all excuses for maintaining the unjust privileges in the face of strong moral and legal arguments against them. These responses are all about attacking our "tone" and "attitude" because this allows those defending the status quo to avoid addressing our substantive arguments with equally substantive responses.
Before the panel was asked for their comments, the show had the very predictable talking head blaming atheists for all their problems — if atheists were simply a lot nicer, they wouldn't annoy people and would be treated better. Ryan Anderson, a Junior Fellow at First Things, said that "when that militant atheism becomes kind of like the public image of atheism, I think that gives rise to a lot of discontent with atheism." Of course, if this "militant atheism" is a "new atheism" like our critics say, then atheists must have been treated much better before all these "militant atheists" came around. Right?
Of course not — the treatment of atheists ten or twenty years ago was just as bad, if not worse, than it is today. This is why such condescending statements were rejected by black civil rights activists: they knew that they weren't being treated badly because of their activism — life for them was already bad before the movement started. Their only chance at being treated better was to fight for it because the whites in power who were benefiting from unjust privileges were never going to give it up willingly.
Atheists today know that they weren't being treated as complete equals before and they won't be treated as complete equals tomorrow unless they fight for it. Religious bigots like Karen Hunter and Debbie Schlussel will continue to be bigots — continue to encourage bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination — and won't stop simply out of the goodness of their hearts. Atheists have to stand up and demand better treatment, which involves arguing vociferously against all of the problems, errors, and dangers in religious, theistic ideologies.
People who benefit from the status quo will naturally react defensively by accusing us of being obnoxious, intolerant, disrespectful, militant, fundamentalist, and worse — but so what? They weren't treating us with equal consideration and dignity before (unless they were ignorant of our atheism), so we aren't any worse off now. At least we're being heard and that's an improvement. Now we can keep pushing to force religious theists to address our complaints substantively and not with the weak, self-serving rationalizations that we're all too "militant" and "intolerant" when we dare behave just like they have been behaving all their lives.
ZAHN: What I find so interesting is when you look at the statistics, that they were the most hated of all the minorities, gays (INAUDIBLE).
SMITH: I'm not even willing to believe that. That's news to me. I heard that, I read that, I just don't believe it.
This was the only really bad portion of Stephen Smith's comments — he may not believe that we are the most despised minority in America, but he should consider doing a little research first. If nothing else, he might want to ask himself why two Christians and a Jew, but no atheists, were invited to comment on discrimination against atheists. As Laura Cushing writes, "Wow, CNN... I really feel informed about the issues now."
If three Christians were invited to comment on discrimination against Jews, would that be acceptable? If three white people were invited to comment on discrimination against blacks, and all three insisted that racism is dead, might that not legitimately be treated as a part of the problem itself? For all his otherwise good insight, Smith didn't think to look around and ask why atheists were excluded from a discussion about atheism and whether that might itself by evidence for the truth of atheists' complaints about being excluded in American society.
Update: Since I first published this on February 1, interest in this story seem to have been growing. People who wish to complain can write to Paula Zahn on her comment page (thanks to Triphesas for this link). Debbie Schlussel has a contact page, but I doubt there is much point in using it. Stephen Smith also has a contact page, if you'd like to thank him for standing up for decency and equality.
People who want to watch the segment rather than simply read the transcript can do so on YouTube: Part 1; Part 2
PZ Myers at Pharyngula has written about it twice now, once linking to another blog post at Effect Measure which links back to this post. A good quote from the first link: "It convinced me of a couple of things. I apparently have not been militant enough, and am going to have to work harder at aggressively promoting godlessness. And I'm adding CNN to my list of news agencies to ignore, along with Fox."
Naked Journey Man has the videos on his blog and a discussion going on about the anti-atheist bigotry which CNN chose to present as if it were legitimate and justified. Brent Rasmussen has a post on the matter and so does The New Atheist. Alonzo Fyfe at Atheist Ethicist references it in larger post about the "Tone of Political Discourse. Bligbi encourages readers to write in to CNN and Carol Levesque points out the problem with having a discussion about atheists without any atheists present. There is also a discussion at the Atheist Parents discussion board.
Update 2: More reactions from atheists around the internet are discussed in a follow-up post.
Comments
And if anyone else out there wants to complain, here’s the to her comment page.
Maybe we should push to get Austin on one of these shows.
Ignore the html errors up there, please.
I agree with Triphesas. The first thing I did was to write CNN requesting an apology for this startling bigotry. If we don’t stand up to this type of prejudice it’ll never stop.
Are all panels assembled on Paula Zahn’s show always heavily weighed toward one viewpoint? If not, then it must’ve been clear to the producers that having a notable atheist on the show would’ve easily trumped their arguments and perhaps offended their base viewership. I guess ‘balanced’ has a new definition.
A good point that this article raises that I’ve personally noticed is how some quickly attack a person’s attitude, or method, rather than the argument and its merit when they debate. Perhaps extreme attitudes or actions merit criticism, but toppling a house of cards would be easier done from the base by attacking the argument, leaving ‘attitude’ and ‘method’ part of the toppled ruins.
Great article, Austin. Thanks for sticking up for the free thinkers of the world.
Here is my letter to Ms. Zahn:
Dear Paula Zahn,
Thank you for showing the video on discrimination against Atheists in America, on your January 31st show. If you or your panelists plan on discussing Atheism in the future, it would be good to have someone who can defend that point of view. Also, most studies show that approximately 15% of Americans can be called non-believers, not the 1 to 3% that was stated. The actual number is likely even higher, but many people are afraid to express their true beliefs because of the discrimination against Atheists.
I was astounded at the level of intolerance, religious chauvinism, and prejudice toward Atheists displayed by Karen Hunter and Debbie Schlussel. It’s especially egregious because these two are themselves members of minorities. Would either of them tolerate similar statements against her minority group? Karen Hunter should understand how Christianity has been used to endorse rascism and slavery. Debbie Schlussel should understand how Christianity has been used (especially by fascism) to control the populace and deny rights to Jews and other minorities. Apparently neither of them understood what I saw as the main point of the videos you showed — that overt discrimination is still active in America, and it is wrong.
Karen Hunter said that schools should have religion, as long as it’s her religion. She obviously does not understand that public schools are for all students, no matter their religion or lack thereof. Debbie Schlussel put forth the false idea the we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Freedom of religion means the right to reject any religion, including all religions. Only Stephen A. Smith understood the concept that freedom of speech is critical especially when one disagrees with what is said.
Debbie Schlussel grossly overstated the teaching of Islam in a California school, see http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm Her statement about Muslim prayers at football games and public high schools also seems to be overstated and intentionally inflamatory. However, both these purported incidents should give her some idea of what it’s like to have somebody else’s religion foisted upon a captive crowd.
Karen Hunter said that Atheists believe nothing. This is a common belief, and it is false. Most Atheists are also Secular Humanists. The philosophy of Secular Humanism declares that humans are most important, not any imaginary gods. We have the power, thru love, reason, science, courage, and vision, to solve our problems. We shape our destiny. We are each capable of personal development and satisfaction. Humanism holds as its highest goal the happiness, fulfillment, and freedom of all humankind.
All of your panelists agreed that the United States is a Christian nation. Although most citizens are Christian, the Constitution mandates that the government takes a neutral stance on religion. This was also expressed in the Treaty of Tripoli, which stated, “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” One other function of the Constitution is to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority — a concept that all your panelists should understand.
Sincerely,
Mark W. Thomas
Mountain View, CA
California Assistant State Director for American Atheists
http://www.atheists.org
Advisory Board Member, Godless Americans Political Action Committee
http://www.godlessamericans.org
Co-founder and President, Atheists of Silicon Valley
http://www.godlessgeeks.com
Steering Committee Member, San Francisco Atheists
http://www.sfatheists.com
Not much I could add to this, you all pretty much covered it except to say the last paragraph really “say’s it all!”
Very good article…I just may write that Karen Hunter.
I would like to see a show with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and a couple of top “religious” leaders here in America have a lil ole debate on the evils of religion and the belief in a god.
Austin, thanks for a thorough treatment of the PZN show. The interview was very well done and we were treated professionally by all involved. Delia collaborated on some of the questions, but unfortunately the show had to clip some of the best bits.
Here’s my response I sent to Paula Zahn:
I was surprised to hear Karen Hunter’s comments about atheists on yesterday’s show. Being a minority herself, I would have thought that she understood the value of open discourse among people with divergent views. What she was essentially saying is that those in the minority should just “shut up” and let the majority “do what they do.” How far would have Martin Luther King, Jr. gone if he took her advice? He was in the minority during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, so according to Ms. Hunter, his opinion does not count, and he should have just shut up and let the majority do what they do. Also, atheists do not seek to prohibit Ms. Hunter from worshiping her god. There is a perfectly appropriate place for her to do so…. in her church. Because public schools are made up of all kinds of people with different beliefs, it is not an appropriate forum for worshiping supernatural entities, whereas a church is usually made up of people sharing a common faith. Your panel was wrong to say that the United States is a “Christian” nation. Yes, it is comprised of a majority of citizens who claim to follow some Christian affiliated sect, but the government was clearly designed to be secular; thus, the 1st Amendment’s separation of church and state clause. Maybe Ms. Hunter, an African-American woman, a minority, should take her own advice and just shut up.
Dear readers,
I too 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. Of course, when a person has their particular conception of “God” on their side, no argument is necessary, no matter how logically flawed, or dismissive of the evidence. 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 afford more credibility towards their position. Keep in mind that no belief system automatically warrants “respect”. One has to earn it first.
I would like to have seen one Atheist there. Yeah, it would have been great if Dawkins could have d-slappped both Karen and Debbie. It would have been priceless.
One more thing. I’m not sure if you know about the Atheist blogroll. I would also like to be added to your related blogs section if possible.
Freedom of speech allows for criticism, but not intolerance. This can be a thin line to walk as an atheist. Atheists believe there is no god, and are often anti-religion to boot. We acknowledge the need to tolerate religion in society, but in America there is also a separation of church and state, so there is a provision that says we don’t have to tolerate religion in school or government. But criticism of religion is still a taboo subject in the U.S.; we can attack the president, we can openly discuss homosexuality, comedians can riff on the differences between blacks, whites, hispanics, and every other culture, but gawd forbid we make fun of someone’s religious beliefs.
This incident has made all the more obvious that there is a misconception that Atheists don’t believe in anything; to the contrary, I have faith in mankind. Only mankind can save itself. But perhaps this is where deists have such a hard time with atheists. They can understand people of different faiths because they at least still have this belief in the super-natural that they can identify with. Atheists don’t believe in the super-natural, and this threatens their comfort in the world that, even if this life is painful and isn’t just or fair, it will all be sorted out for them in the next life; all they have to do is believe. Atheism requires a responsibility for one’s own actions; god isn’t going to sort it all out, and that can be hard for people to accept.
It’s allot easier to avoid persecution as an atheist, because there is no physical sign that one is godless. As such, it is also often easier to stay quiet about one’s beliefs in order to avoid persecution. I don’t think my atheism is worth my persecution. It becomes easier to stay quiet, or lie. I also think that many atheists who are humanists understand it’s often not worth hurting other people’s feelings or destabilizing their lives by attacking their belief system. For me, it’s not about what other people believe; it’s how they act. There are many people in this world who are good deists, who attend church, temple, or mosque, and also help out at the food bank, contribute to the world in good ways, and these people don’t deserve to be attacked no matter what their beliefs.
Perhaps, as atheists, we need to stand up and stand out more often when we see religion gone wrong, and at the same time show our support for human justice and caring, no matter what belief system is behind it.
The Christians brought it all on themselves .The flaunting of the Hocus pocus system of supernatural , fairy tale worship sealed the deal during the last election. Trying to impose the will of imaginary gods , ghosts and spirits on the rational, reasonable thinker’s of this country is always going to elicit an critical response . The fact that they abhor criticism certainly doesn’t make their “vision”of god any more plausable . Even it up Paula !! Invite Dawkins or Harris the next time………….
Thanks Austin, another great post. I didn’t see it mentioned, but there is going to be another Paula show on Feb. 8th with Dawkins in response to the publicity and complaints.
My first reaction was to write CNN as well. Here is my post:
I write to comment on your January 31 program regarding discrimination against atheists. The story of the family of southern atheists persecuted and driven out of their town was deeply troubling. But it was not nearly as troubling as what followed.
If the story were about discrimination and persecution of a racial minority or, I suspect, any religious minority other than atheists, that group would have been prominently represented on the panel. But your panel included no atheists. The panelists you did choose, moreover, were clearly antogonistic towards atheists, thereby making the point (unintentionally of course) that bigotry is alive and well in America. Your decision to present only these views (along with the question you posed to the panel) made it appear that CNN is either actively promoting this bigotry or at least complicit in allowing it to thrive. If you do not intend to further this perception, I would strongly encourage you to take a more balanced approach in the future. We already have news agencies that are unapologetic about their intent to promote a specific ideological agenda. We do not need for CNN to become another one.
I’ll be interested to see the follow up with Dawkins.
Thanks Austin for the post and terrific rebuttal and all the links! I don’t really have anything more to add to what folks have already said; just want to put one more atheist name up here on the board.
Please don’t confuse me with Karen Hunter!!!
Paula Zahn wouldn’t have had to go far to find someone with an atheist’s point of view. CNN’s Larry King has repeatedly confirmed he is an agnostic.
http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Larry_King
If these frauds loved the Bible so much, they would learn that the first sin was a lie. The clowns that be, need someone to blame just as they blamed anyone with smarts for 911.
New Athiest
I disagree with you about Free Speech. If the freedom of speech is limited to only criticism then it’s not truly free speech. The right to say something that is totally and completely diametrically opposed to another person’s belief is the core of free speech. Acting on the intolerance is another issue altogether.
Your own words prove this point by stating that people don’t have to be tolerant of religion in schools.
Denying a person the right to say something is abridging the freedom of speech. Who gets to decide what is criticism and what is intolerance?
I think it’s worth mentioning that 8 state constitutions ban atheists from office and another bans participation in the legal system. You can see this here, with links to the constitutions in question:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm