Hey RawStory, why'd you take your eye off the ball?

[Goblinmonger]

All of the RS apologists here have been saying how we atheists should just shut up because there are so many more important issues out there. That this is just dividing us.

Well, my question is why did RS even publish that editorial in the first place then? How can you apologize that one away? If there are SOOOOOOO many more important things out there in the world, why did the editorial staff decide to publish something about a topic that "just isn't that important"?

Riddle me that, Batman.

[babylonsister]

1. What are you talking about? nt

[Goblinmonger]

Have you been under a rock?

The "atheists suck" editorial.

[babylonsister]

7. Have I been under a rock?

If you clarified what you were talking about, I wouldn't have to ask.
Not everyone reads RawStory daily, and not everyone gets peeved at what
you get peeved at.
Have you 'been under a rock'? :eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

11. There is a thread about 10 lines from the top of GD

right here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1035510&mesg_id=1035510 that has 324 responses to it about this issue. Seems like a big thing in GD. I posted about it in GD.

[Goblinmonger]

3. Damn dupes

Still don't like RawStory. I want an apology.

[MADem]

5. Yeah, my ? too!!! If there's an original thread on the obscure subject....

(which appears to be about an editorial, which is simply an OPINION, anyway)...wouldn't that be a great place to post a gripe??

[Goblinmonger]

10. And your point is?

I'm saying RawSotry was stupid for even posting the editorial if there are so many important issues out there.

I shouldn't be able to post my outrage at them?

[MADem]

32. My point is, you started a new thread on a rant that is unclear, at best

If you really wanted feedback, you'd post your gripe in the original thread, or provide a link to it. Instead, you assume that your pet issue is at the top of the list for everyone, and plainly, I am not the only one who had to root around to figure out what the hell you were complaining about.

And you exhort everyone to grab the pitchforks and go after RAW STORY for an OPINION piece. You want to know WHY they published this dastardly OPINION (Begone, First Amendment!)....you aver they must APOLOGIZE for having an OPINION different than your own.

Opinions are like...well...everyone's got one.

And that's just my opinion.

[underpants]

2. God Bless you for posting this

:evilgrin:

I really have little idea what this is about nor do I care.

[Beelzebud]

4. I'm an atheist. I didn't read Raw Story before,

and I won't be reading it now.

No change for me.

[Caution]

6. He is referring to the editorial linked below

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

It is offensive beyond words, inaccurate and an apology should be printed. Raw Story will no longer receive a single donation from me until they retract and apologize.

Here is the latest statement from RawStory regarding that editorial

Editor's note: If you've arrived here, it wasn't through the RAW STORY main site, but rather one of several blogs, many of which have cited this piece as an example of "religious intolerance."

Due to the heightened interest, it will reappear on the front page, along with two rebuttals of its content at a later date. It remains here, for the time being, so that the people directed by those sites (remember, those are the only people commenting) can have their say.

--Avery Walker

[babylonsister]

8. Thanks for making sense of the OP's nonsense. nt

[Caution]

9. You're welcome. It isn't nonsense. It just lacks context

I agree with every single thing the OP stated.

[trotsky]

15. Definitely not nonsense.

The editorial touched some very raw nerves, and there have been several threads complete with flamewars and lots of emotion.

An equivalent piece might have been written by a liberal who blamed "homosexual extremists" for electoral losses and how the Democratic party needs to disavow these "extremists", while explaining by "extremist" they mean someone who is gay and wants the right to marry.

[babylonsister]

21. I meant 'nonsense' in the context of not understanding what

the hell he was referring to. I didn't know about the previous threads, though I don't live under a rock.

[Goblinmonger]

24. 324+ responses

Three hundred and twenty four. Sorry for me assuming that someone who respondes to a RawStory thread in GD would be knowledgeable about the other HUGE RawStory thread in GD. Call me whacky.

[babylonsister]

30. What interests you doesn't necessarily interest me.

Just as, I stay out of Duke rape threads, try to steer clear of immigration threads, etc. You know what happens when you assume...

[Goblinmonger]

31. Ha ha ha

You clicked on this story. That indicates you are somewhat interested in RawStory. Why didn't you click on the other one that has been on the front page for a couple days?

[babylonsister]

38. Ha ha ha. I thought your anger might have something to do with

politics, seeing as this is DU. Silly me. :eyes:
And did I mention I don't usually get involved in religious or non-religious threads either?

[Goblinmonger]

41. If you don't think

that politics and religion are tightly wound together in this time of the rising American Taliban, then you really have been living under a rock. Do you know who is president?

[babylonsister]

47. I could try my usual snark as a response, but I

am very sorry this issue has your blood pressure boiling. Casting aspersions at DUers won't help you solve your anger. Have you considered therapy?
Religion is not an issue with me personally one way or the other. Deal with it.
And yes, our rightful president is Kerry.

[Goblinmonger]

57. Sorry to snap at you

Seriously. I am still pissed that so many people don't get that this issue is offensive. My anger has been incorrectly directed at you. Please accept my apologies.

[babylonsister]

58. Thank you, Goblinmonger.

That's very nice of you. I really am sorry you feel so angry. I might also if I held your point of view. :hug:

[Coexist]

26. I read it - and I don't agree with you

I try very hard to be agnostic, but lean atheist.

Being offended by that article is like a 'regular' Christian being offended by an article bashing Roberston's comments about Chavez, or a 'regular' Muslim being offended by jihadists.

Lighten up. I don't want non-religion shoved down my throat any more than I want religion shoved down it. The article was addressing obnoxious atheists, not atheism in general.

[Goblinmonger]

29. And how, exactly, did they define "obnoxious" atheists?

Pretty much any of us that actually dared to speak out. That is a problem.

[Coexist]

33. No - not those who speak out - those who try to shove it down

other people's throats. That's how I define it.

My beliefs are my beliefs - I think deeply on them, read what interests me about religion and non-religion. I don't like to see anyone pushing their beliefs (or non-beliefs) on people to prove that they are 'right'.

It is ugly no matter what side of the coin you are looking at.

[trotsky]

36. But that's the deal.

There are Robertsons. There are Falwells. There are bin Ladens. There are plenty living, breathing examples of the extreme religious whackos - on TV, in papers, you name it.

Where are these "atheist whackjobs" and why are they such a threat to the party?

The author of the piece played fast & loose with definitions in such a way as to include a lot more than just the imaginary atheists who want to ban all religion, and that's what most of us object to.

[Coexist]

42. my deal is - it is ONE opinion piece - if you can't take that

you are in for a bumpy ride.

Do you not think that the Muslim riots over a couple of cartoons were over the top, hyper-sensitive responses?

Is that really the category you wish to place yourself in?

I read anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish editorials in my paper from time to time. I hope that the Muslims and Jews reading them have the sense to realize that is it just one person's opinion and not all non-Muslims or non-Jews think like that. I would hope that as an atheist you can do that too.

You also have to remember the forced atheism that was so tied to the "Communist Menace" in our recent history. That may affect a lot of middle America's attitude on your beliefs.

[trotsky]

45. I don't give a rat's ass about someone speaking their opinion.

What I do object to is a "serious" journalism site like Raw Story giving space to publish it. Ms. Barton can post whatever she wants to on her blog (she has one) and deal with comments there. But for Raw Story to publish it, and then its editorial board basically telling those of us who disagree to cram it, well what do you expect?

Do you not think that the Muslim riots over a couple of cartoons were over the top, hyper-sensitive responses?

You bet the fuck I do. But are we smashing windows, burning things, calling for executions? So how is this even remotely similar? We are a minority group that feels unfairly singled out and demonized, and we are speaking our minds and demanding an apology.

You also have to remember the forced atheism that was so tied to the "Communist Menace" in our recent history.

Actually the only Soviet bloc country that outlawed religion and forced atheism was Albania. It was the Red Scare movement that tied "forced atheism" to communism. Now THAT I understand affected a lot of middle America's attitude on my (lack of) beliefs. But it was propaganda, and I think I have a right to try and counter it.

[DS1]

12. Because it was developing hard?

:shrug:

[Taxloss]

49. I don't know if it was breaking,

But it's certainly broken now.

[DS1]

50. It's definitely sucking

[Junkdrawer]

13. How long are you guys going to milk the "outrage"...

just curious :shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

16. Until I get an apology?

How about that?

My question for you is, why aren't you outraged? They printed something that was horribly bigoted. Their "apology" was basically telling those that saw the bigotry to shut up because there are more important issues out there. If that is true, then they should be blamed for publishing it in the first place.

[Junkdrawer]

17. One commentary from a guest commentator...

I think I can take the heat. How about you?

[Goblinmonger]

19. It was bigotry

They were called out on their bigotry. They continue to defend it. Will my life continue pretty much in the same way? Yes. Are they still bigots? Yes. Should so many people be supporting them for publishing this bigotry? Probably not.

[Junkdrawer]

20. I wouldn't go that far. But then, I guess I'm not that sensitive...

To each his own.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. If you have a personal problem with RS, why don't you use email?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scout1071]

22. I agree with the above.....take it to them if you have a problem.

Raw Story does do some great work. Sorry if you are offended by one op-ed. Duly noted that they should run all articles and op-ed's past you to make sure you aren't offended first.

Geez....lighten up.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[acmejack]

37. Why don't you discuss it with the author of the piece?

Seems she would be the one who would be the appropriate target for your outrage, not Raw Story who merely provided the forum which presented her views. Demanding equal space for a rebuttal would seem to be the thing to do, if you are so inflamed, present your reasoning, prove the fallacy behind the original editorializer's work, expose the bigotry and prove it is so for all to see.

I am sure the people at RS would have no problem giving you equal time and space for a rebuttal in the interest of fairness.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. The "outrage" has been going on for a while now....

...and just about everybody has had their say in the DU public forum.

WWhat's with the "personal sycophants" label? Why do you feel it necessary to become personally abusive toward the posters that don't share your particular opinion about RS? And before you answer, let me say right now that my question has nothing to do with how anyone personally feels about atheism.

Again, if you still have a personal axe to grind, take it directly to RS.

[Goblinmonger]

34. Shouldn't the apologists

be mad at RS for posting something that is not about an important issue? That is my whole point here. I have been told to be quiet because this issue isn't important and is just dividing the party. I now want those same people to tell me why they aren't mad at RS for doing the same thing initially.

[hwmnbn]

25. I never knew there were ......

atheist fundamentalists. But it appears some folks are religiously worked up over an editorial posted on Raw Story. Someone expressed an opinion, that's what an editorial is.

Now the atheist folks are all huffed up demanding apologies and or retribution here on DU. WTF am I missing? What else is behind all this angst?

What does god/no god have to do with anything important? It makes no sense to fight over this bullshit.

That's my editorial opinion. :smoke:

[Goblinmonger]

27. What's behind it?

How about being shit on constantly by the left? How about being told to shut up about separation of church and state issues because it will cost us votes and give the right wing fuel? How about having religion shoved down our throats on a daily basis?

And then, finally, how about having a "liberal" "journalistic" website tell us we are whackjobs and then have another progressive site become apologists for that bigotry?

How about that?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. Interesting. Are you contending that the editorial is personally....

...endorsed by the rest of the people that write for RS?

Aren't editorials expressions of personal opinions unless otherwise noted?

Why is it necessary for anyone at RS and/or Will Pitt to apologize for someone else's personal opinion?

[Goblinmonger]

39. No, I'm not

The point of this thread is to throw the "apology" back at RS.

But, since you asked, it may not be necessary for lala and/or Will Pitt to apologize, but lala and/or Will Pitt both took it upon themselves to come in to DU and tell atheists to shut the hell up about the article, that we were "madmen," and that we were dividing the party. Once they do that, they started it. This thread is in response to them for that. And all their lackeys that have been agreeing with them that the bigotry is OK because we have "more important" things to worry about.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. IMHO, I don't think anyone was told to "shut up" by anyone....

...do you have a link to the comments you mentioned?

Why do you think you're going to influence anyone's opinion when you use the term "lackey"?

[hwmnbn]

43. Whoa, dude ......

I guarantee you, I am the most atheistic mofo on the planet. I don't feel shit upon by anyone because I give no one that power.

When I engage views contrary to mine, I always use logic and common sense. It drives THEM up a wall when they can't respond coherently. Sometimes they go on a rant. That's when I know my ideas won.

Not a big deal, really.

[Marnieworld]

40. What I found upsetting

And I can only speak for myself as yes, an atheist, was that the point of the whole article was to call for a purge of atheists from the progressive movement. If there was a call to purge gay people from the movement I'm sure quite a number of people would be upset with that as well for ex. It was poorly written, filled with strawmen and never quite clear exactly how you tell a good atheist from a "whackjob" which made many atheists feel as if it implied that by being an atheist you are automatically a "whackjob" and therefore worthy of purging. Name calling and the greater debate about the universe and its mysteries aside , I know I'm not welcome in the GOP and this person was deciding that I should never be represented, that I don't have a "legitimate voice" in her movement either. That strategically it would be better if I was tossed over the side of the boat for the greater good. The silencing and discarding of a very large group of people who collectively have a positive impact on the country and the party/movement is what was offensive. Will I still read Raw Story? Sure, when they have something that interests me. They also do too much good to be completely discarded. It's good that this thought of purging for strategy was brought to light and discussed, but even I think we should stop beating this particular very dead horse.

Peace.
:hi:

[Goblinmonger]

44. If there would have been some sort of apology

I would not continue. But what really bothers me is that all that has come from RS and their apologists is just more of the "purging atheists" mentality. That is frustrating.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

51. So, by using the term "apologists" do you think you're winning....

...the discussion?

Maybe you should cool off and then contact RS directly.

[mdmc]

54. I apoligize to you for the raw story story.

and I am a catholic
peace and low stress

[Marnieworld]

56. I agree, yet

I'm not holding my breath for an apology. The bright side is that we got an opportunity to stand up for ourselves and say no! I will not cast aside and purged. My voice is legitimate and you have no right to say otherwise. RS has provided rebuttal space and an opportunity for debate. We are witnessing an evolving consciousness. Atheists have no visibility in our culture and are often misunderstood. Until Gays came out of the closet they had no voice. It's catalyzing moments like this where we can have a chance to say we're here, we're not bad people, we can disagree but there is room for all here. But yes, it's like if you were gay or African American and a close friend said homophobic or racist things to you about someone else. They could insist that they weren't talking about you but the hurt and betrayal revealed in those comments may be too much to overcome and continue the relationship. You think a progressive outlet like RS would get that we should work towards unity despite differences and it sucks when they miss this mark. End the friendship with them if you must because once spoken even an apology doesn't even help.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taxloss]

52. Then alert on it.

Per the rules.

[Junkdrawer]

55. There's a scene in a 60's movie (Casino Royal??)...

where, in the middle of a party, one of the modsters flashes a badge and says 'I'm from the FBI, you're all under arrest'. Then, one-by-one everyone at the party reveals that they're either CIA, FBI or MI5.

Some days, I wonder about this site....

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goblinmonger]

59. They took their eye off the ball.

That is the point of this OP.

Yeah, you christians have had it tough. I mean, sheesh, the Supreme Court is loaded with atheists, the administration is federally funding atheist-based initiatives, and you can't even worship where you want. How do you make it? Oh, wait...

I had it coming. I'm sorry, I thought that Neanderthal attitude was saved for the Duke rape threads, but apparently it is coming in here.

[pinto]

60. Locking

Post as stated is flamebait.