This topic I have posted before but the recent news of Senator Stark announcing that he is an atheist has relit my fire. Whenever an interview or debate on a moral issue is presented in the media, the "moral" argument is ALWAYS represented by some type of clergyman (usually Catholic). The linking is not unexpected. As the majority of society associates ethics with religion then the authorities on religion naturally should be authorities on ethics--in the public mind. However, in an age of pedophilic raping priests, hypocrites like Ted Haggert, just flat out insane fucks like "Rev." Fred Phelps, bigots like Falwell, and insane nuts like Robertson (claiming Katrina was gaud's punishment and Chavez should be assassinated) it is high time that secular ethicists, especially secular academic philosophers of ethics, wrest this media monopoly from religion.
The question is how?
The question is how?
posted by:
|
-
Re: Wrestling Religion and the Media: 2 on 1 deathmatch
Thu, March 15, 2007 - 10:14 AManyone with any commone sense already has.....
but i don't think you're going to stop the sensationalism of the big media, etc...
-
Re: Wrestling Religion and the Media: 2 on 1 deathmatch
Sat, May 26, 2007 - 6:29 PMI've been an atheist since I was 15 (I grew up Roman Catholic), but I've never been concerned about the societal prejudices against atheism, since I've never found my beliefs to be an impediment. (And if you look, there're a lot of us around.) I've never hid my beliefs from anybody, but nor do I go around announcing them. I remember seeing some sort of "atheist club" program on public acccess back in the early 90's and thinking how ridiculous it was. Why make a big deal out of atheism, as if we're being persecuted for it? It's always seemed to me that two of the major differences between atheists and religious people is :
1. Atheists don't give a damn whether you're an atheist or not, and
2. Atheists don't go around trying to convert other people to atheism.
The recent explosion of religious "significance" in this country, and the Christian bigotry you see so often on cable news, and the fact that so many Democrats feel they have to pretend to be religious in order to be elected, is changing my perspective a little. The backlash we're now beginning to see is obviously a response to that. It seems to me that most atheists have likely had the same view as myself and are only now, with the increased media and social acceptance of religious intolerance, becoming annoyed. I think it's very proper that Jerry Falwell's death has led to more discussion about the visciousness and hatred that not only he, but many other Christians as well, have been spreading with a somewhat disturbing lack of resistance.
Maybe this might not seem like anything new to many people who've lived through the 40's & 50's; I don't know. One comforting thing to remember is that American society has been gradually progressing in a positive direction, socially and politically, for a good long time, is continuing to do so, and that this progress cannot be stopped. So it seems to me there's little to fear. I don't believe that America will EVER become a theocracratic republic. It's just very hard for me to see how that happens, in a nation like this.
Personally, I'm still not any sort of activist on the matter. But I'm glad that the backlash is beginning. I don't view atheists as a discriminated group. There're people with worse problems than having a different point of view. But I DO resent the intolerance and hatred being spread by so many Christians, and by one particular Jewish Senator from my own family's home state. -
-
Re: Wrestling Religion and the Media: 2 on 1 deathmatch
Sun, May 27, 2007 - 5:35 AM>>>>>Personally, I'm still not any sort of activist on the matter. But I'm glad that the backlash is beginning. I don't view atheists as a discriminated group.
A Univ. of Michigan study released two years ago demonstrated that atheists are "the least trusted sector of society" and are actively discriminated against. Pappy Bush claimed, "atheists should not be considered patriots nor citiziens; this is 'one nation under god'". The show 30 Days had a great episode on atheists in America--how theists perceive them and how theists believe they should be treated. In the Atheist tribe someone posted recent news stories of active discrimination and persecution against atheists including children of atheists.
To reiterate a point from my original post that Christopher Hitchens has taken up, Falwell would not have been given such a prominent public voice if he "did have the superstitious title of "Rev." before his name."---Hitchens My original post was primarily about how the mass media permits evangelical theists an EXCLUSIVE public voice on matters of ethics. We rarely, if ever, here from Peter Singer, Greg Pence (both of whom have testified before Congress), or a number of other ethicists, not even members of the White House Bioethics Council (which is currently exclusively comprised of religious evangelicals).
The push to teach intelligent design is a covert way of proselytizing in the science classroom. I know of one ELEMENTARY school that was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars because they thrice violated court orders to stop holding bible lessons during class time. The students were failing the Every Child Left Behind tests because the teachers were conducting bible studies and not teaching math, science, and English.
>>>>>One comforting thing to remember is that American society has been gradually progressing in a positive direction...
How much faster could society be progressing if religious evangelicals were not the tools of the GOP Repugnants? To paraphrase Sam Harris, "Look at how fast science progresses. How much has religion progressed in the past 300 years or so?" How can religion progress; what method can they utilize for expanding their knowledge base? Any "progression" they have made in history has been conceding ground to science. They tried to prevent people from looking through a telescope--they gouged out Copernicus' eyes--now that ground belongs to science; they did not progress. Religion never progresses; it has has no way to. Religion is a tool of oppression; either politically or personally (or both). To be religious (Abrahamic religious most notably) one must sacrifice his/her autonomy to "the will of God". This is the explicit message of Falwell, Robertson, Joel Olsteen, and especially Joyce Meyers. -
-
Re: Wrestling Religion and the Media: 2 on 1 deathmatch
Wed, May 30, 2007 - 1:05 AMNumbers and statistics. Thoughts and sentiments. I don't give a goddamn what Bush, Robertson, Sean Hannity or Joe Scarborough says. Let me know when this turns into an actual problem that bars us from employment and keeps us out of restaurants. Atheists have not been tracked, labeled, accounted for and gettoized. There are atheists in positions of power throughout the American school systems, even in bible territory. True, I do not live in a Christian-choked town, and therefore don't have to worry about being beaten up for not being a Christian. However, there does not appear, so far as I've been able to determine, a situation where widespread atheists need to fear for their lives on the basis of simply being themselves. In places where an atheist is going to get beat up for stating that he or she is an atheist, the atheist keeps his or her mouth shut, or moves a more secular region of the nation.
In Kansas, the entire school board that decreed WARNING stickers be placed on science textbooks was fired. The entire board. The media publicization of the potential of stem-cell research has led to polls which consistently state that a good majority of the American people favor the research. With awareness comes backlash to these sorts of fascist religious attempts to restrict people's freedom. Today, nearly everyone outside of Utah is aware of a whole lot of human traits that would've seemed shocking and sacriligious back in the 40's & 50's, and many if not most have accepted them as a part of reality.
In regard to the GOP: It's long seemed to me that the Republican has chosen to exploit Christianity for all its worth because it masks their most basic platform: The elimination of all assistance for the disabled, the unfortunate, the minorities . . . and the championing of the wealthy, who keep them in power. Without Christianity, this platform could not exist. And likewise, the Christian Right, as far as I can determine, relies on the Republican Party to keep its own agendas alive in American society. One depends upon the other. The Republican Party seems to be what has allowed the growth of Christian power, and vice versa.
In short, to twist Sharpton's ill-chosen words, this is a "temporary problem". The Christian Right has had its day, its power is fading and already it's on its way toward becoming irrelavent. Nothing lasts. They'll disintegrate again, until its time for them to reemerge a few decades later. But by that time, the Democratic party will have a stronger hold (look at the tendencies in Nevada & Virginia, and the growth of the minorities). -
-
Re: Wrestling Religion and the Media: 2 on 1 deathmatch
Wed, May 30, 2007 - 4:44 AMYou do realize that your first and third paragraphs contradict one another.
You obviously did not look at the Univ. of Michigan study.
-
-
Re: Wrestling Religion and the Media: 2 on 1 deathmatch
Wed, May 30, 2007 - 1:00 PMFIrst, I'm not arguing against you, man. I agree with your sentiments, I just don't see any need, just yet, to become hysterical over a bunch of lunatics and their newfound -- and likely fleeting -- freedom to spew sentiments of religious hatred. Especially with all the latest shit hitting the fan regarding talk-show hosts. (Maybe those are small potatoes and not quite related, but incidences have a tendency of coalescing, from time to time. Hate speech is hate speech is hate speech. Imus goes to Sharpton goes to Hitchens.)
I'm all ears to the U of Michigan study, and how actively it thinks we're being discriminated against, since no, I haven't read it. As for us being the "least trusted group", well, I've heard that one, and it means nothing to me. When the tear gas comes, when the burning torches plant themselves in our front yards, when J Edgar Hoover or Joe McCarthy returns from the grave and starts compiling a list of atheists - that's when I'll become worried, and that's when I'll begin raising my voice. Until then, perhaps we should not be so quick to feel anxious?
I don't see a contradiction between paragraphs 1 & 3. However: I cannot predict the future -- I admit that. The Republican Party has linked up with the Christian Right more solidly lately than before, but the Christian Right as a political movement does not seem to be sustaining its credibility and the current level of their power is arguable.
Again, look at history. Societies progress. Not just America but Europe as well. Germany is now a social democratic republic.
I suppose I'll look up the study. If you have any further reading for me, let me know. -
-
Re: Wrestling Religion and the Media: 2 on 1 deathmatch
Wed, May 30, 2007 - 1:25 PMAgreed that the Moral Majority and the Xtian Right may be loosing power; especially now that Falwell is dead.
Discrimination against atheists is one issue; the other is the lack of voice afforded atheists in the mass media. Atheists are starting to wrest the monopoly from the evangelical community--Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins. My main concern is the lack of a nonreligious voice in ethical debates presented within the mass media. This is absolutely shocking given the pedophile priest scandal (which the current pope new about as head of the Magisterium but shuffled them around the country rather than cloistering them or punishing them), the Mark Foley scandal, Ted Haggert scandal, the bigoted, racist, hate filled Falwell, almost everything out of Robertson's mouth. These are the people the mass media permits a monopoly to on "social" or "ethical" issues like stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, etc. These are the same people that deny evolution, promote intelligent design in schools, believes homosexuality is a choice and a mental illness that can be cured through electroshock therapy and aversion therapy, denies radiometric dating, and have established a Creation Museum in Kentucky. They don't understand even the basics of the scientific method yet they are permitted to dictate federal funding for scientific research (the White House Bioethics Council), was the basis for Bush's first veto after 6 years in office (stem cell research), attempt to dictate the standards of education, and who have received over $1.4 billion in faith based funding last year alone. The list is even longer than that. -
-
Re: Wrestling Religion and the Media: 2 on 1 deathmatch
Sun, June 3, 2007 - 4:39 AMI'm very interested to see how the Republican primary plays out once that lazy ego-stroked moron Fred Thompson gets into the race, and how the general election will play out. I'm predicting that the primary will end up a fight between the die-hard traditionalist conservatives and the moderate Republicans & other Republicans who WANT TO WIN, because they understand that, without a strong strategy & a popular Republic president or an unpopular Democratic president: radicalism will have a tougher time in today's climate. Given the current choices, I'm guessing the latter will choose Giuliani (as they already have) and the former will mostly coalesce behind Thompson and the rest fragment themselves among a few of the others. Romney, who frightens me the most (I'm a Bostonian and I STILL don't know who he is), I can't see winning the nomination.
The problem in the media, in fact, is more than just the issue of Christianity, it's the issue of allowing the Republicans to move public opinion to the right on many issues without any strong opposition (besides the spineless Democratic Centrists (as differentiated from the moderates) who've allowed it to happen and are continuing to allow it to happen).
There seems to be a weird mix of sentiment, I think, because despite the aforementioned rightward swing (part of which we've been talking about), it looks like a lot of people have gotten a little tired of Republican radicalism and the Christian right. And yet, if you've watched the latest Fox-hosted debate a couple weeks ago, one would think something different were going on in the public's collective mind. But then again... that debate was directed toward their 'base'. -
-
Re: Wrestling Religion and the Media: 2 on 1 deathmatch
Mon, June 4, 2007 - 2:40 PMIn many ways the founding fathers (especially Jefferson) would be aghast at the strength of the Religious Communities have here in the States...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
