Spring Break
Non-random Rant on Religion
Alex Godden (OJ), Viewpoints Editor
Issue date: 2/11/08 Section: Viewpoints & Humor
This is going to be a real rant. Today I am really, really angry. So angry that I'm afraid this article probably won't be funny (at least, not intentionally).
Over the past few six months, the Atheists and Agnostics Group has been hacked, restricted and twice deleted from MySpace because they professed views that upset various religious groups. With over 35,000 members this was thought to be one of the largest self-organized groups of atheists and agnostics in the world (atheists being by nature a group not given to large-scale organization). This group has been insulted and threatened, despite doing nothing but openly discussing their beliefs with others who share them in a forum that everyone else is quite at liberty to ignore, if they wish.
So why, you may ask, has there not been an uproar? When major search engines started censoring content in China at the behest of the Chinese government, newspapers and pundits across the world started screeching from the rooftops about freedom of speech and the role of the internet. So why, when MySpace (part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire) starts effectively curtailing people's freedom of religion, is there not more fuss? Why are the only articles so far in the Boston Globe, The Cleveland Plain Dealer and now in an obscure and irrelevant business school newspaper?
I would hope that a country that prides itself on upholding freedom of religion would be equally concerned about people's right not to have a religion, but it seems not. In a 1999 Gallup Poll more Americans said they would vote for a Presidential candidate who was Mormon (79%) or Jewish (92%) than one who was openly atheist (49%). Given that these percentages are far higher than the proportion of Mormons or Jews in the population it seems that people are far more distrustful of people who choose not to believe in God than those who believe in a different one.
Would Satanists be more acceptable, in that at least by worshipping Satan they accept his existence, and therefore by extension take at least some of the Bible seriously? Or is it just an expectation that by having any kind of religious belief a leader would be more tolerant of those of other beliefs? A rather naive and flawed conclusion, given the historical evidence.
Over the past few six months, the Atheists and Agnostics Group has been hacked, restricted and twice deleted from MySpace because they professed views that upset various religious groups. With over 35,000 members this was thought to be one of the largest self-organized groups of atheists and agnostics in the world (atheists being by nature a group not given to large-scale organization). This group has been insulted and threatened, despite doing nothing but openly discussing their beliefs with others who share them in a forum that everyone else is quite at liberty to ignore, if they wish.
So why, you may ask, has there not been an uproar? When major search engines started censoring content in China at the behest of the Chinese government, newspapers and pundits across the world started screeching from the rooftops about freedom of speech and the role of the internet. So why, when MySpace (part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire) starts effectively curtailing people's freedom of religion, is there not more fuss? Why are the only articles so far in the Boston Globe, The Cleveland Plain Dealer and now in an obscure and irrelevant business school newspaper?
I would hope that a country that prides itself on upholding freedom of religion would be equally concerned about people's right not to have a religion, but it seems not. In a 1999 Gallup Poll more Americans said they would vote for a Presidential candidate who was Mormon (79%) or Jewish (92%) than one who was openly atheist (49%). Given that these percentages are far higher than the proportion of Mormons or Jews in the population it seems that people are far more distrustful of people who choose not to believe in God than those who believe in a different one.
Would Satanists be more acceptable, in that at least by worshipping Satan they accept his existence, and therefore by extension take at least some of the Bible seriously? Or is it just an expectation that by having any kind of religious belief a leader would be more tolerant of those of other beliefs? A rather naive and flawed conclusion, given the historical evidence.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Ned Jacobs
posted 2/11/08 @ 11:57 AM EST
Is this article by Alex Godden or someone else? It is not clear if he is simply the editor of viewpoints or simply its editor.
It does not logically follow that just because fewer than 50% of the people polled would vote for an opening atheist presidential candidate that this country "that prides itself on upholding freedom of religion [is less concerned] about people's right not to have a religion. (Continued…)
rity
posted 2/18/08 @ 4:38 PM EST
well said.
Post a Comment