Can the media see bias?

Had I made crude, obscene comments about Martin Luther King, Jr., would I have been criticized mildly for intemperance? That, I think, is the closest analogy to this blogger thing.

David J. White, The problem with your argument is that many if not most people who are prejudiced rationalize their prejudice by claiming that they are not bigoted, only opposed to "optional" aspects of their victims' characters. It's the old ploy whereby racists "don't have a problem with *all* black people, just the ones who act like [n-word]." I'm sure this is the kind of logic that Amanda Marcotte and lots of others like her on the left employ to rationalize their bigotry toward Christians. They don't have a problem with Christians, just the ones who don't know their place, the ones who think they have as much right to act on the basis of their faith as atheists do.

Okay Rod, your new poster boy for Truth, Justice, and the American Way is some charlatan who once declared an onion dip ad an "Anti-Catholic Atrocity". Interestingly enough, I haven't noticed any priests dropping their sacramental vaseline and running to this guy's defense. Kim M

I just checked Ms. Marcotte's blog, and apparently she's quit Edwards' campaign.

Note to Rod: Mocking an ancient religious figure is not the same as mocking adherants of said religion. Thus, one can make fun of Moses without being an anti-Semite, and one can mock the Virgin Mary without being anti-Catholic. Please try to remember this for future reference. Thank you.

Nick J - First of all, tell that to the Danish cartoonists! Secondly, it all depends upon the way in which one does the poking fun. There are some hilarious jokes about the Theotokos that I have no trouble hearing or telling. But making vulgar and obscene comments about the Blessed Mother is another matter entirely. Lastly, these bloggers did not restrict themselves to ancient figures, but also villified modern-day Catholics in equally vicious language. Please try to remember this for future reference. Thank you.

You know, religious adherents have been known to mock the secular -- even to condemn their souls to eternal damnation. If that ain't hate speech, I don't know what is.

One of the many things that baffles me about you religious types is this bizarre urge to stick up for your sky god. Why do you care what unbelievers say about your deities? Does it hurt their feelings? Does the whole trinity weep big salty tears every time they re mocked? Can t they take revenge upon us infidels when we die? Can t Mary stand over the fiery pit poking the souls with a stick yelling George Carlin, NOT SO FUNNNY NOW IS HE?!!?! Anyway Rod has it ever occurred to you that if you could be so wrong about Iraq maybe you re wrong about other stuff? Stuff that you take on faith while ignoring the very real evidence? Ah well, baby steps, maybe one day.

I think there are two dynamics going on here. 1) The implication is that a minority needs the extra protection, but the majority should just suck it up and deal with it as par for the course for being the largest target around. As a member of a minority (Pagan, though I will trot out my Jewish heritage in certain circumstances), I see this expectation all the time from the minority side. I'm not saying it's right, and I don't personally agree with it. Standards of behavior should be just that, standard. 2) People are territorial. Face it, this is the exact same motivation we see in NIMBY protests, and from the other side with graffiti. One attacks the face of one's perceived invader, or one acts like an invader if only to get some attention. I see no difference between the (for example) Shia-Sunni violence (also worthy of the label ethnic cleansing) and the Muslim anger over the Danish cartoons. You step in my turf, you get your foot bitten off. Two years ago, I was in negotiation to use a vacant lot owned by a local, private Catholic trust, to hold outdoor theatrical performances. I'd already made connections with local businesses, and the priest I was dealing with liked very much the community action and support aspect... but his board of directors shot it down because of "insurance concerns". That was BS. I'd already contracted for full insurance coverage for the events. The priest had no problem with my production being explicitly Pagan (the org names both have "Pagan" in them, and our main event was the Greek tragedy Electra by Euripides), but some on his board (I am left to assume) had personal problems with the "P" word. I guess my point is that invective and insult have their valid motivations. The part we hope for is better impulse control prior to the public display of the invective.

"justify pornographic insults at Christian beliefs." Who has done that. Just because we don't drag out the "Christian victim" card doesn't mean someone justifies it. I thought the comments were irresponsible and Edwards' response was too weak. None of that changes, however, that those doing the most complaining are those with political scores and that this is about 85% politics and 15% religious.

You will notice, C&C, that I grant wide latitude for teasing, wisecracking and the like. It's when things cross the line into ugliness that I crank up the Deleter.

I don't care about religion in general. Worship as you please I will support your right to do that. But when you use your religion as an excuse to strip me of my basic rights and to promote bigotry and hatred of my and mine expect me ti fight back, hard. When you use your religion as an excuse for your political stands you make it a legitimate target for criticism.

" One of the many things that baffles me about you religious types is this bizarre urge to stick up for your sky god. Why do you care what unbelievers say about your deities? Does it hurt their feelings? " Because they know deep down they bought pig in a poke (no particular offence to Muslims) and they're afraid to peek inside. Kim M

"Eric B Islam, Christianity, Judaism from Aasgard to Zeus it s all the same, at least as far as I m concerned, just a wide variety of cola flavors canned under a different logo. Myths, legends and enough history to give it a foundation of sorts, but hey as written in the Book of John Lennon; whatever gets you through the night. So please take a criticism / mocking of one to apply to all." "Salvage" et al, If you think religion is a myth, that's your business. It really doesn't bother me. I'm sure you'll understand that I really don't care what you think. This issue here with Marcotte goes into the arena of unbridled rage and, quite frankly, vile insults. That's the distinction that I think everyone here is making. "Oh and the reason why Rod gets rammed over his criticism of Islam is that it s rooted in a sort of soft gooey bigotry; my god is real, yours is pretend! I think they re all pretend so my contempt and scorn is universally equal. If you re going to be a jerk it should be to all I think is the point." Actually, Rod's criticism has generally been that many of the elements within Islam are un-democratic and are going to cause serious tensions with western culture. That's not the same thing as what Marcotte did. It's suprising that someone with your suppossed reliance on reason can't see beyond that and analyze Rod's arguments on their own merits. Instead, you take the path of least resistance by making illogical inferences so that you can bolster up your own pre-conceived notions of reality.

Salvage, feel free to judge God. If you're wrong, you can expect him to return the favor. Your call, bubba. Ahhh, Pascal's Wager, that debunked old classic. How amusing to see it again.

Salvage, you and I certainly have some clarity about our viewpoints, which never hurts. I may be wrong; you may be wrong; we may both be wrong. But I'll close with this: I pray that God will change your mind as he changed mine. (And not because I'm looking for vindication; obviously, we could still both be wrong then too.) Rather, I pray that because, according to what believe to be true, that would be in your interest.

Newsweek reeks of a double standard. In its December 11, 2006 edition, it said that Michael Richards had gotten himself in trouble for his racist rant, and in the same article it recalled Mel Gibson s anti-Semitic remarks. On February 5, 2007, it said that Isaiah Washington got himself into hot water for making a homophobic comment. Marcotte and McEwan are *hardly* in the same category as Richards, Gibson, or Washington. If Edwards himself had said something similar, then sure, make a big friggin deal about it - but I don't know anyone personally who had ever heard of the two potty-mouths before they got Donahue's dander up. (By the by - anything Donahue says is about useless in my book. He could proclaim that water is wet, and I'd go check to make sure.)

Natasha thinks its sophisticated and shoking that she pronounces her membership in the Industrial World Workers' Union. Guess that confirms my conviction that the far left is dominated by people with dictatorial tendencies. You may be buried in a mass grave someday with these people, but hey, at least they'll give you legal abortion. Grow up, Natasha. People come to different conclusions on the abortion issue. Both sides get impassioned, and that's fine. Hurling invective and obscene, pornographic insults (which have no basis in reality) is not becoming (oh! is that too bourgeouise of a phrase for you) of an active participant in a presidential campaign.

And I could say that the above statement by you confirms that all conservatives are obsessed with making sweeping generalizations from limited, anectdotal evidence, but I'll be generous and assume it's just you in this case. You're welcome. Heh - Eric, my friend... You got Served!

Natasha, If you didn't use *your* religion -- atheism, leftism, the IWW or whatever -- to impose *your* will on innocent children's bodies by denying them life, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>I deleted Salvage's last post. I am not going to have blasphemy on this blog. We can discuss theism and atheism, but if you find you can't do it without resorting to blasphemy, don't start. Actually you seemed to have deleted two of my posts; the second had nothing to do with religion but was about the dictatorial tendencies of the left. But whatevs your blog. And isn t the discussing of atheism in fact intrinsically blasphemous? And what is blasphemy I wonder? Can I ask if any of the following qualify? The Vatican has engaged in a deliberate attempt to protect child rapists over the last 40 years or so. The Vatican s continue campaign of lies about condoms to the third world has cause incalculable pain and suffering. The Vatican and its leadership are more like the Pharisees and Emperors that crucified Jesus than Jesus himself. But in any case thank you Rod for proving my original point about how bizarre you religious types are when it comes to shots from unbelievers. It d be like if I was driving a Ferrari Testarossa and you pulled up in an 89 Chevette, rolled down your window and yelled Your car sucks! What would I do? Get red in the face with rage and sputter No! No way! or start listing the endless reasons why you re wrong? Or try and force you off the road? Or would I look startled, shake my head and laugh as I peel away at 100mph? And that s ultimately why people like Rod secure my atheism, you just don t act as if you really have an awesome god, you care what words on a screen say about it. How can someone who claims to know the divine be affected by something so petty?

>But I'll close with this: I pray that God will change your mind as he changed mine. What an odd idea, if your god wanted my mind changed wouldn t it be so? >Rather, I pray that because, according to what believe to be true, that would be in your interest. And yeah, that s the whole religion as an after-life insurance policy; believe because it s in my interests? Hmm that doesn t sound right to me. I believe what I believe because it s what I can see to be true, everything else is theory, conjecture or fiction. No religion has ever presented anything to me, outside of some self-evident personal philosophy such as do unto others and first stone casting, that smacks of truth. Just the same stories we ve been telling each other since we first huddled around the fire in a cave. Now, thankfully, we have television.

If you didn't use *your* religion -- atheism, leftism, the IWW or whatever -- to impose *your* will on innocent children's bodies by denying them life, we wouldn't be having this discussion. James Fitzgerald Those aren't religions James, despite what Ann Coulter says. As a big boy, I'd expect you to understand the difference.

I don't even understand the act of praying. Is it asking god to do something he wouldn't do unless you asked? Is it to change his mind? Doesn't he already know what it is you want even before you ask it? Is it to remind him that you believe in him? Doesn t he already know that as well? See when you say your god is omnipotent it makes it difficult to understand what it is a mortal can do for or to him.

ha! ha! Yes militant! We march up and down the street demanding everyone else believes as we do! And oooh we get all organized with petitions and demands whenever our ideas are offended by believers! I find it far more interesting that you use words like 'militant' rather than answer my questions. Tell me Rod; am I more militant than your hero Bill Donohue? I don't go around trying to shut up people who talk about how great Catholicism is, I just ask them questions that illustrate how confusing the whole business is to me. That doesn t sound very militant to me. But you ve always struck me as easily confused. And Rod, it s the blogosphere, I assure if we all had better things to do we d be doing them.

Salvage, >Or would I look startled, shake my head and LAUGH as I peel away at 100mph? (emphasis added) Cf. Psalm 2:4. :)

Aaron, The etymological meaning of "religion" is a shared bond of common belief that binds a group of people together. In that sense, atheism, leftism, the IWW, take your pick, are religions in the same sense that Judaism, Christianity, or Islam are. And they are religions just as susceptible to fundamentalism any of the others ones are, as your reply (among others) demonstrates more effectively than I could ever do. But, then, you wouldn't know all that, because, unlike me, you are a *little* boy.

Anyone who gets huffy about blasphemy directed at it must have at worst doubts and at best view their pantheon as somehow vulnerable and requiring a form of defence. It really doesn t matter what form that defence takes, trying to get bloggers fired or deleting comments it all smacks of a lack of confidence from a people who claim to be supremely secure in infinity. To take this to a more rational level... Savage, unless you've been lurking or posting under a different name, you're relatively new in these here parts. Allow me the indulgence of giving you the lay of the land, as seen from a non-religious progressive theist. (And do please pre-forgive my irrationality - I belive in something beyond myself, but that doesn't immediately discount the validity of my statements. Think of it the way you would any proclivity that informs one's conscience - supernaturality aside.) One thing you will note about Rod and many of the posters here - while many of them have beliefs that conflict with those of others, I get the sense that it is not the irreligiosity of modernity that sticks in their collective craw so much as the antagonism with which it is presented. Rod and others long for a gentility that may or may not have ever existed outside of their admittedly limited worlds. When they speak of "the world getting smaller" they mean "my world is getting bigger." As such, they are confronted with a world that contains events and attitudes to which they were not privy when the world was "smaller." This isn't necessarily an isolated affair of the genteel South (from which Rod originates) nor of the bourgeois North - it's happening all over the world. We're being confronted with ideas and images that aren't merely different than the way we were raised, but are downright contradictory. Rather than embrace change with open arms, many (including myself, often enough) retreat to a defensive stance, fists at the ready - fearful that the new ideas aren't merely trying to co-exist, but are trying to actually usurp. This results in uncivilty in the small and immediate (like the blogosphere), and even violence in the extreme ends of the spectrum. I would say that security in one's faith, whatever form that may take, allows for much more civil discourse. Several posters here embody that civility - Franklin Evans, for example. Others, feel the need to conquer lest they be conquered, and take things to the ugly place. I won't name names. What you'll find is NONE of the members of this community are one way all the time. Everyone has their hotbutton issues, and everyone crosses a line now and again. May I respectfully ask that you put down the dukes and dialogue instead of pushing the buttons you see with the sole purpose of watching the reaction, using it as proof of the invalidity of the stance taken, and having an ironic giggle over it? You may actually find yourself making a friend or two.

Well said, GIITV. Salvage, one of the rules for posting on Bnet is that you not be disruptive to the conversation. There are ways to make the points you want to make without being so insulting and confrontational. If you want to have a discussion here, you have to learn how to do that. If you just want to come in and yell, you'll get frequently deleted, and ultimately banned.

Speaking of which if you were wrong about one thing you believe why can t you be wrong on another? Salvage, I will answer this the same way I answer when it is leveled at me: I can be wrong, and if you decide that my being wrong once automatically makes me wrong all the time, then we have nothing further to say to one another. That's the glib response. Underneath, you buy into a fallacy which most rationalists fall prey to (myself included), and that's the attempt to apply rational standards to expressions of belief. I'm not saying that the attempt is wrong. I am saying that the attempt cannot be made once, and done. It must be made from scratch at every turn, because one cannot know a faith except by direct examination. I'll give you an example. I call my personal spirituality shamanic. Anyone who looks up the meaning of this term will be faced with the anthropological research done in the Mongolian steppes, the jungles of Africa and the plains of North America. For me, stopping there means that you will very likely know exactly nothing about my faith. You must examine it in detail before getting any sort of idea about it, let alone be able to rebut it. I blush a bit, being held up as a paragon by Giittv. It's true that I have a reputation for civility. If you promise not to broadcast it about too much, I'll let you in on a little secret: modes of expression and forms of address work both ways. If you have a sincere desire to engage in dialogue, as opposed to practice your verbal fisticuffs, then you will find yourself adjusting both the mode and the form according to your audience. I look civil because I adjust. I promise you, my writing skills and vocabulary provide me with an ability for both bombast and invective that is not often surpassed. I simply don't use it... ... well, it does come out, very rarely, and the secret is this: I enjoy it. :)

Also: you clearly pay more attention to Ann Coulter than I do, ie you pay her *any* attention at all. James Fitzgerald Sometimes the talking heads are so big you can't miss them.

Franklin Evans - more interesting thoughts but your answering a point I was making to Rod within the context of his recent acceptance that Iraq was a terrible mistake. He said something like that perhaps one should not follow authority without question. But here he is saying yay for Bill Donohue who is a very bad man. Who like GW Bush and Iraq has a bizarre and destructive agenda that could stand serious scrutiny for it's supporters. So it really doesn't apply to what your particular case. And as for your beliefs it sounds like you went out looking for answers rather than accepting the prepackages demonstratively false or at least highly unlikely ones the majority of North America subscribe to. That is something I have nothing but the deepest respect for. Explorers find truths and new frontiers. I'd do it but I'm a lazy, lazy man.

Aaron, Nothing I've had to say to you is equivocal, fundamentalist, or fallacious. Sure you did, you equivocated a(non)-belief with belief and further compounded different definitions of religion with one another. Every christian/muslim/etc is part of a religion, but not every atheist/leftist/IWW is. Simple fundamentalist talking points.

Aaron, If you ever can pry yourself away from Ann Coulter and the "simple fundamentalist talking points" that you -- unlike me -- are so enthralled by, and if you ever do get out of the house, as I sincerely hope you do, you might consider buying yourself a dictionary, since you clearly have no idea what the word "equivocate" means. Which makes me wonder how many other words you misunderstand. Speaking of words, you can have the last one; I have better things to do than be your worry-bone.

Aaron, Doesn't it give you pause that you are apparently the only one keeping up with this discussion who was "mislead" by James Fitzgerald's identification of "atheism, leftism, and the IWW" as religions? They clearly meet the definition he offered. They are "bonds of shared belief that bind a group of people together." His point seems to be that just as religions are ideological, ideologies are religious. And it seems to be a fairly uncontroversial point to everyone but you. You doth protest *way* too much.

Why do you defend child rapists and the system that sheltered them? A Very Large Percentage of the Catholic priesthood has either had improper relations with children or WORSE covered up for those monsters who did. But Rod and noted anti-semite Bill Donohue have to protect the "good" catholicism from outside criticism. Kind of like the "lack" of mainstream islam's outrage at terrorists. Maybe you should focus a little more on the child raping priests, and less on the people who point out that the roman catholic hierarchy (hows that non-extraditeable vatican treating you these days Cardinal Law?) aids and abets child rapists. I would be willing to bet that the number of victims of pedophile Catholic priests past and present vastly exceeds the victims of terrorism. I would bet that the number of pedophile priests active in the worlds billion Catholics vastly outnumbers the number of violent radical muslims in the world. Does this observation of truth make me an anti-catholic bigot? I clearly remember people in the early 90's in Ireland stating that the victims were wrong. And I remember little old american ladies rallying to the support of Cardinal Law. Most Catholics are good moral people. Some Catholic priests are immoral monsters, and some catholics, including yourself, have been duped into protecting them. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05098/484894.stm

James Fitzgerald's definition of "religion" did not ring quite true to me, so I looked it up in my big fat Webster's New International (1927). The definition is a bit long, but enlightening. Definition 1: "The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of idol-worshippers. Religion (as distinguished from theology) is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God. As distinguished from morality, religion denotes the influences and motives to human duty which are found in the character and will of God, while morality describes the duties to man, to which true religion always influences." As you can see, everything in this definition relates to God, and there is not much room in it for a "religion" consisting of non-belief. Definition 2: "Specif., conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting conduct of life and duty toward God and man; the Christian faith and practice." Definition 3 is about religious orders. Definition 4: "Devotion or fidelity, as to a principle or practice; scrupulous conformity; conscientiousness; deep attachment like that felt for an object of worship." This is about the only place where you could possibly slip in a definition of religion as being a belief that binds some group together. But I think that would be a pretty tenuous connection. One could say "he religiously practices his atheism," I suppose, but that would really be no more than a synonym for "scrupulously" or "rigorously." If being a Wobbly is a religion, then probably being a Girl Scout or a martial artist or a Star Trek fan could equally be defined as a religion. As it is customarily used, the word "religion" implies a connection to some kind of transcendent meaning, as well as a somewhat defined set of beliefs and practices. A mere conviction that God does not exist is hardly sufficent. You could possibly make a case for classical Marxism as resembling a religion, but even there I would argue that some elements are lacking. I know you said "the etymological definition." The American Heritage dictionary, 4th edition, does say religion perhaps comes from religare, to tie fast, which is possibly related to other words about horizontal ties, such as liaison or league. But I have also heard it argued that the "tie" involved was the linking of man to God by means of beliefs and practices intended to win divine favor. I know you're trying to make a point--"other things that people believe strongly can be equated with religion"--but I think you're deforming the language a bit to do it. Make that point if you want, but I don't accept that the word "religion" fits your usage comfortably.

Faith: Belief without evidence. Agnosticism: Belief requires evidence, evidence may exist. Atheist: Belief requires evidence, there is no evidence. If atheism is a religion then not believing in the tooth fairy is a religion, not believing pink unicorns inhabit the dark side of the moon is a religion and not believing that black is white is a religion. Absurd.

In response to Franklin Evans and to sigilaris, I fully admit that in invoking the etymology of religion that sigilaris cites, I'm trying to recover an earlier sense of religion that makes easier an understanding of the similarity between systems of moral belief predicated on the notion that a God exists -- ie "religion" in layman's terms -- and other systems of moral belief predicated on equally faith-based assumptions, ie everything else Anyone who wants to is welcome not to accept my etymological sense of the term "religon", in which case the disagreement is a semantic one. That said, I don't think it can be asserted (as some here have tried) that there is any *fundamental* difference between religions and other systems of moral belief. All moralities are founded on faith in self-evident "truths" that can't be supported by recourse to prior proof. There is no "evidence" that proves that life has any moral meaning whatsoever. So, if one acts as if life does have some non-theistic moral meaning, one is doing something no less "foolish" -- in rationalistic terms -- than one is doing if one believes that life's moral significance is founded on God. Given that, I don't see what people who base their actions on faith in some conception of "freedom" or "justice" or "human rights" or "progress" are doing that is so very different from what people are doing who base their actions on faith in some conception of God. The primary difference I *can* see is that many religious people are more aware of the leaps of faith they make than most of their "secular" colleagues are. I think conversation on this blog bears that out rather well.

Franklin, In regard to leaps of faith, what I'm arguing is that people of "secular" faiths don't recognize the leaps they are making when they choose to believe in all sorts of things that are equally as improbable in rational terms as anything contained in the Christian or any other "religious" tradition -- for example, the leftist notion that human beings and their cultures are purely the products of chance, and that the aforementioned chance not only yielded life, but a kind of life in which all humans and all human cultures are "equal" according to the scientific yardstick that is the only criterion for judgement that such a rationalist conception can allow itself in good faith (ahem). To me that seems far more improbable than any aspect of Christianity, including the resurrection of Christ. Which might be because it was the notion of the resurrected Christ that was historically the basis for the moral ideals of which the "secular" beliefs of today are unwittingly the vestige -- most especially the ideas of equality and human rights that are used to justiy so much of leftist ideology.

Salvage, We are ourselves natural beings, so there is no way anything supernatural -- or the absence thereof -- could be evident to us in a rational way. If we believe in God or if we disbelieve in God, we do so on faith. If we just don't know if there is or isn't a God, but don't have faith one way or the other, then we are agnostic. Geeze, Louise.....

Franklin, On Chance: What I mean is that, in a purely rationalistic world-view, it cannot be asserted that there is any design at work that produced the world as it is. Most people -- religious or secular -- assume that human lives are in one way or another of equal worth. That said, there is no rational or scientific reason for making that assumption. Such an assumption is, as you put it, "a human imposition on observable facts." My argument is that such an imposition in secular terms has no more rational foundation than the same imposition made in religious terms. The problem is that many people whose faith is expressed in "secular" terms attempt to use scientific reason as a means to undermine the same sort of imposition when made on "religious" grounds -- which is simply not a tenable move. On Equality: Suppose that future science shows -- as it very well may -- that there are inherent differences between the two sexes or among the different races, such that any rational basis for sexual or racial equality is undermined. How then would secular leftists maintain their ideology without recourse the the bad faith (ahem) of faith in an ideal of equality which, like the idea of God, has no rational foundation? Most scientific findings in the past two hundred years or so have been more expedient as sticks with which "the left" can beat "the right" than the other way round. But that may not always be so, and I think it behoves some on the left not to be so very hasty in abandoning a fideistic grounding for their ethical beliefs -- they might need it someday (soon). Thanks for the conversation.