Atheists in Dixieland
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Kansas City Star posted an opinion piece on atheists by Linda Staten on Friday. See? Even Dixieland has atheists. (Yes, I know Missouri was technically Union, but non-technically it's debatable.)
Here are the conclusions:Atheists are well-behaved.
Atheists don’t take up much space.
Atheists make good neighbors.
Atheists will not infringe upon your life uninvited.
Atheists are lousy fundraisers.
Atheists are the quiet type.
(via Keith)
Monday, February 25, 2008 at 5:22:00 PM CST
I read that piece a couple of days ago and enjoyed it. Thanks for highlighting it here too.
Monday, February 25, 2008 at 6:06:00 PM CST
I found this piece to be extremely condescending, poorly researched, and badly written. So it was about on par for an op-ed from the KC Star.
I sent the Falling Star an email yesterday asking them what her source was for the $100 BILLION dollars she claims televangelists raise every year. That's almost $275,000,000 per day. A minor point I know, but I'm a stickler for accuracy in opinion pieces since they are generally not held to the same journalistic standards as a news story.
P.S. I hate the Kansas City Star.
Monday, February 25, 2008 at 8:18:00 PM CST
Condescending? Explain.
I for one object to the idea that we take up little space. I'm 6'6", 220lbs. I take up a lot of space.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 12:03:00 AM CST
Philly, I fond Linda's tone condescending, as if she were correcting a disliked and misbehaving step-child.
She just hashes out atheist talking-points, and seems to assume that we po' mid-western, bible-banging, folks in da' fly-over-states needed to be told that there are some
people among us who *gasp* don't believe in a God or religion.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 8:55:00 AM CST
Gee. Isn't that nice. They admit that we might be human, and have a few redeeming features and a few even more redeeming vices (we're lousy extortionists compaired to televangelists). I agree with venjanz -- condescending.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 1:37:00 PM CST
I'm not very quiet.
Damn, philly. 6'6? I'm 5'0. We'd make a beautiful team.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 3:17:00 PM CST
It ain,t going to win any prizes, but then consider the audience. It was a good piece if only in its timing and the fact that it got printed.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 6:47:00 PM CST
If that was a condescending piece (and I can see it interpreted that way, if you assume the writer is a Christian) it was a NICE condescending piece, and it was fairly accurate, something you rarely see in the press when they deign to write about us.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 12:55:00 AM CST
Stoned, "fairly accurate" won't cut it in this case, since the author of this op-ed is a professional writer, and her work is published in major-league newspapers read by millions of people.
Sean, your "consider the audience" comment illustrates exactly the sort of bigotry that I parodied in my second comment on this thread; unless of course you thought Linda was speaking to the "audience" of Kansas City atheists. But if so, than what was the point of this article?
No, Linda was clearly directing her comments to non-atheists in a tone that was condescending, in my opinion.
Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 1:41:00 AM CST
Venjanz said: "I found this piece to be extremely condescending, poorly researched, and badly written."
That's nothing. You should read some of the stuff written by Christians about atheists. Condescension is the least of our problems. Not that I found the article in the least condescending.
"She just hashes out atheist talking-points, and seems to assume that we po' mid-western, bible-banging, folks in da' fly-over-states needed to be told that there are some
people among us who *gasp* don't believe in a God or religion."
I don't think the article presumed a lack of knowledge of the existence of atheists, but rather lack of knowledge about what kind of people they might be.
If you're a stickler for accuracy, you must have a lot of problem with religion.