Religion Denounced By Atheist Media

[Mexicanuck]

Originally Posted by westmanguy

9% of Americans are atheists.

1 in 5 people who work in the media (20%), are atheists, this undoubtebly explains how if religion, Christianity more importantly, is denounced by the media.

Please, don't get into a discussion about which religious views are controlling the media. But look at the logic. If 80% of people who work in the media are not atheist, wouldn't it be atheists who were getting the bad press?

Have you read Culture Wars? This is a book by Bill O'Reilly, yes alot of people hate him (even though SO many people agree with him), but he points out ALOT of media bs.

Let's not assume that atheists are left of centre. Don't forget that the CCF, predecessor to the NDP, had clergy as its early leaders. Most declared atheists who I know are clearly right of centre politically.

Now I happen to think that there are more atheists in the general population than people who would acknowledge their atheism. Ask a lot of people who identy themselves as Christians to explain the doctrines of their church (if they attend one) and I suspect you would find a lot of blank stares followed by stumbled comments. Heck, I even know of one person at DHC who didn't know the reason for the word Xmas.

Then ask those people whether they truely believe in a virgin birth, a death and physical resurrection, Jonah living inside the belly of a whale, Methuselah having his first son at 100 years of age and living to 969 years old, etc. and you will lose them. Yet I bet a lot of them would continue to report themselves as being "Christian".

Most media sell entertainment. They believe that conflict is entertaining. Some groups provide media with what they want, demonstrations of conflict. Media attend their events. People don't buy newspapers or watch the news to see people sitting in their living rooms quietly discussing things, so media don't cover that.

The media also believe that death and destruction is entertaining. Suggesting the media supports left wing politics on the basis of covering protests is like suggesting the media supports bad drivers and arsonists because they cover motor vehicle accidents and fires.

By the way, would this be the same Bill O'Reilly who had you believe that Cashman simply sentenced Hulett to 60 days? The same Bill O'Reilly who said that Cashman had said in court that he no longer believed in punishment? (When the transcript of the sentencing showed no such comment.)

[westmanguy]

It doesn't make sense though.

The atheist views and agenda gets more tolerance than religious views.

I said before and I will say it again, this is a big example.

A museum in California had a display of the nativity scene. The media, New York Times more importantly, denounced this and went crazy.

A few months later a museum funded by the tax payers displayed a dipiction of Mary naked covered in _____

They praised this as "artistic expression".

Don't get me wrong I believe in separation of church and state.

I don't believe in imposing my beliefs on others.

Same-sex marriage was a troubling issue for me, because:

I had no problems with same sex couples getting the same rights and benefits as married couples.

My religious beliefs do not believe in same-sex marriage.

I believe in people getting a choice if doesn't directly harm anything.

So same-sex marriage harms no-one. But they already get those rights through civil unions. So I was at a cross roads, and made the descision to go against it, due to the rights were already there (common-law marriages).\

Abortion. I am pro-life. Once again, I don't believe in imposing religious beliefs on the people. But I find its inhumane and hurts millions of developing lives.

To me its life from the fertilization of the egg. The woman should have the child in most cases, and they can give it up for adoption.

I believe in the rights of abortion for people who were raped, or its a direct danger to the woman's life, or "severe" birth defects.

But, the woman should allow that baby to live and have a life instead of killing it, you don't have to bare responsibility to it if you don't want to.

Now, here is an example. If I was an adult during the 70's I would have voted to give freedom to homosexuals.

It doesn't directly hurt anyone and they were extremely lacking rights and freedoms.

So my views: No belief should be imposed on the people. If I have a belief against something that hurts someone, then my belief should be imposed.

So overall the world needs the separation of church and state.

But the media attacks religion. With awful theories on Jesus getting married, or tons of stuff.

They really critisize and denounce religion.

In N. America, they denounce the belief in the Bible.

I mean, stop it. As long as I am not imposing beliefs on people, don't denounce me for what I believe in.

If I belief that also is in the rights of things that could get hurt (abortion), then my belief has to be taken into consideration, not for religion but for the rights of a thing or others.

But the media constantly tries to hurt my beliefs.

I take it personally.

How come we don't see rebuttles denouncing Atheism as nonsense in the media? Short answer, its not in there agenda.

So, yes, I feel religion is under attack by secular, atheist, media.

[Breadbin]

This is utter childish nonsense in my opinion. It's another invention of people with an extreme axe to grind against a relative minority (yes, like Bill O'Reilly). It's just like the "War on Christmas". Keep hammering away at an idea long enough and guaranteed people like you will pick up the flag and run with it.

There are people working in many places who have many views, it's a fact of life. Not all of those views are black and white, for or against Christianity. Some do a better job than others of remaining independent in their reporting, others don't try in the slightest. But there's nothing approaching the scale of what you're suggesting, on either side of that particular fence. You can find almost any view or opinion (or lack thereof) if you look for it.

[JesseJ]

My religious beliefs do not believe in same-sex marriage.
I believe in people getting a choice if doesn't directly harm anything.
Abortion. I am pro-life. Once again, I don't believe in imposing religious beliefs on the people. But I find its inhumane and hurts millions of developing lives.
To me its life from the fertilization of the egg. The woman should have the child in most cases, and they can give it up for adoption.
I believe in the rights of abortion for people who were raped, or its a direct danger to the woman's life, or "severe" birth defects.

These sentences just put you on my ignore list.

BTW, Jesus. . .12 apostles. . . 0 chicks (unless you believe the Da Vinci Code). . . little fruity if you ask me. . . And thats MY belief, which I am entitled to. It doesn't hurt anybody, does it?

[Mexicanuck]

Originally Posted by westmanguy

To me its life from the fertilization of the egg. The woman should have the child in most cases, and they can give it up for adoption.

I believe in the rights of abortion for people who were raped, or its a direct danger to the woman's life, or "severe" birth defects.

Do I have this right? "It's life" refers to the fertilized egg as being a person? Yet you believe that people should have the right to kill that life if the life was the product of rape or if the life had severe birth defects?

I would probably have more respect for your position if it was absolute. But it reads to me like you sanction the killing of human life in those circumstances, even without blameworthy conduct by the life that is being killed.

Wouldn't it logically flow from this that if a "born person" (contrasted with unborn person) were the product of rape, that "born person" could be killed? And if a "born person" developed severe defects such as ALS or Alzheimers that the "born person" could be killed?

[westmanguy]

Ok that nonsense statement put you on my ignor list.

You made absolute no sense.

If people aren't going to take this discussion civily, lets cut it rate now.

If people are going to bash me, I will not partake in this thread.

I don't mind being critisized, but I will not be flamed.

Keep it civil, agree, disagree, make your points, bring up other topics.

[Mexicanuck]

Originally Posted by westmanguy

A museum in California had a display of the nativity scene. The media, New York Times more importantly, denounced this and went crazy.

Can you provide a reference to this? I can't find any references to it on the WWW.

When I look at the religion articles in the NY Times online they appear to be anything but anti-religion to me.

[westmanguy]

Sorry, clarification.

People that are raped should probably have the option.

BUT personally, for my personal beliefs, ALL life should be able to flourish, if your raped, its not the child's fault, have it, keep it or put it up for adoption.

by severe birth defects, I mean, if the baby is so far damaged that its a vegetable, then the person should have the option to abort.

A kid that has some mental disabilities or no arm, should not be aborted IMO.

No matter the circumstances or adoption or whatever, the life should have the chance.

[Mexicanuck]

Originally Posted by westmanguy

Ok that nonsense statement put you on my ignor list.

You made absolute no sense.

I assume it is me being ignored. I guess the logic of my question was not apparent.

In any case, I will be without an internet connection until January 2 or 3.

[JohnnyCanuck]

This isn't a flame but I not sure you understand the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

The key to assessing the media is not to read the editorial or opinion pages, but to separate those from the actual news content. Watch The National, but not the features/documentaries ... you get almost purely factual reporting. Watch ABC News or NBC News without th features or the newsmags and you get factual reporting. Read the Globe and Mail but not the columnists or the Op/Ed pages and you get pure fact. Same with the NY Times.

With O'Reilly and the rest of the FNC gang? There is no reporting ... it is all op/ed and it is completely unbalanced. Not to mention that Bill O'Reilly's scandalous treatment of some his guests means that the little value he might bring in terms of balance to others in the media is competely drowned out by the static he generates. He is simply not credible. Well, I guess he appears so alongside such regulars as Ann Coulter and Rachel Marsden.

There simply is no balance at FNC. You do not get airtime at FNC unless you proudly speak to an ideological stance. There is no other mass media news organization that will mask fact with ideology.

Lastly, back to my original question. Do you understand the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? Members of the media are no more likely to be atheist than any member of the public at large. However, secularism and agnosticism are growing in our society. In my view, not a bad thing. I am not an atheist ... I do not actively disbelieve in God. I am, more and more, an agnostic. If there is a God, there is no excusing him or her for the misery he or she is piling on hundreds of millions of people on this planet. I have little time for a God responsible for Rwanda, Somalia, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Tibet, Israeli children being blown apart on buses, AIDS in Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. If that's the price for religion these days, I'm starting to think I can live without. That may make me an agnostic, but it does not make me an atheist.

[Mexicanuck]

Rachel Marsden? Bill O'Reilly has Rachel Marsden?

Is this the same Rachel Marsden who accused her Simon Fraser University swim coach of sexual harassment? And when the investigation was completed, it turned out that she was the one who was sending the sexually explicit emails to him while he was trying to avoid her?

Is this the same Rachel Marsden who worked at an MP's office but refused to use her real name as an employee?

[JohnnyCanuck]

It would be the very same Rachel Marsden. She provides the "Canadian" perspective. 'Nuff said.

[Breadbin]

Originally Posted by Mexicanuck

I assume it is me being ignored. I guess the logic of my question was not apparent.

No, actually I think it's me being ignored. Even though Westmanguy used the word "nonsense" first, apparently it's only applicable if it supports his various opinions.

However, I stand by my use of the word "childish". I don't think that counts as a flame because I was criticising the argument not the arguer. The notion that the entire spectrum of views represented in the modern day media can be summed up as an anti-religious (read: anti-Christian) "agenda" is definitely childish.

You can pick and choose examples to support the alternative notion that atheism, secularism, agnosticism (or any other -ism) are under attack on a daily basis in our society. Personally I've got better things to do than make things up to complain about.

Given that he's thrown his teddy and cried "I'm being flamed" when someone disagreed robustly then maybe the "childish" comment should have been aimed at the arguer after all...

Originally Posted by westmanguy

People that are raped should probably have the option.

BUT personally, for my personal beliefs, ALL life should be able to flourish, if your raped, its not the child's fault, have it, keep it or put it up for adoption.

...

No matter the circumstances or adoption or whatever, the life should have the chance.

And if you're going to throw views on same-sex marriage and abortion into a discussion (it seemed a bit off-topic to me when he first brought it up, but there you go) then at least have a distinct position that doesn't shift within the same post.

[Jake]

Locked until I can make sense of this thread.

[57]

If you can ever make sense of most of the religious threads, you're a better man than I Jake.