Gratuitous Common Sense

This is absolutely unbelievable to me, but Paula Zahn has managed to do it again - allowing a gratuitously unchecked forum where Christians bash Atheists on CNN. The absolute unabashed bigotry is appalling. The hypocrisy seems to escape these folks.

Note: This video is from the January 31, 2007 edition of Paula Zahn Now, but I felt compelled, however belated, to comment on it anyway.

Notice how the video starts off? Paula Zahn says:

We’re talking about whether there is widespread discrimination against Atheists, folks who don’t believe in God.

She then proceeds to introduce her panel for this “discussion” which includes (wait for it…) three theists! Only one of whom, manages to mildly defend freedom of speech and civil liberties, but makes sure to profess his loyalty to his all-powerful authority figure before doing so.

Karen Hunter begins the discussion by questioning what more atheists could want:

Are we gonna take “In God We Trust” off of our dollars? Are we not gonna say “One nation under God”? When does it end? You know, We took prayer out of schools, what more do they want?

Now, normally, you would expect and unbiased journalist like Paula Zahn ( ) to correct her panel with the facts. She doesn’t have to present the Atheist point of view, only the facts. You know, like the fact that prayer has not been removed from schools, but forced state-sanctioned prayer has been declared unconstitutional. Karen seems to want to pose the question as if the apparent ridiculousness in her tone is enough to dismiss the entire subject. Not only that, but she acts like Christians did someone a favor by taking “prayer out of schools”. Nevermind the Constitution, the Atheists should be happy that we went along on that one.

Then Debbie Schlussel chimes in with her turn at the misinformation machine:

I think that, um, the real discrimination is Atheists against Americans who are religious. Listen, we are a Christian Nation.

Apparently this “attorney” is not familiar with Article 11 of the unanimously approved Treaty of Tripoli. Instead, she notes that she’s Jewish, as if to attempt to point out her objectivity on the subject, and goes on to posit that we are a Christian nation because there are a lot of Christians here.

She also manages to point out that:

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion

Well, I’ll be. Perhaps if she weren’t adhering to a inadequate and incomplete conventional wisdom interpretation of the establishment clause in the Constitution she might understand why her comment is flat out wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Notice that it doesn’t say “a religion”, it says “establishment of religion”. For it is inherent in the idea of freedom of religion that freedom from it must also be required. Otherwise you must choose which religion it’s going to be that gets to inhibit that freedom. Schlussel, obviously, thinks Christianity should be the religion that gets to restrict that freedom.

Moreover, forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon. In other words, to put it so bluntly so someone as dim as Schlussel can understand it, freedom of religion, by definition, means freedom from Christianity. And the same goes for every single other religion present in the world. See? I’m not just picking on (or discriminating against) the Christians.

Stephen A. Smith, a sports analyst for ESPN (why is he there?), manages to interject a thin slice of rationality into the discussion, immediately after professing his love for his lord, by pointing out that you’re entitled to believe what you want as long as you’re not imposing those beliefs on other people.

But not to be outdone, Karen points out that the Atheists’ problem is marketing, and perhaps Atheists should adopt the Christian strategy of feeding off American consumerism to get their “message” out:

If they had Hallmark cards, maybe they wouldn’t feel so left out… Maybe they need to get some atheist cards and get that whole ball rolling so more people can get involved in what they’re doing. I think they need to shut up, and let people do what they do.

Yes, let people (read: religious people) do what they do, like force others to adopt their beliefs through state sanctioned allegiance to an invisible overlord. I wonder how Karen would have felt if it were a white person standing there, saying that he thinks black people need to shut up and let people (read: white people) do what they do.

Now, I am by no means likening the discrimination against Atheists to that suffered by African Americans in this country. It is certainly not the same degree. But it is inarguable that the discrimination is present when Atheists, by law, are not allowed to hold public office in at least 8 states in this country.

Karen continues to shine as a beacon of ignorance:

I think they need to shut up about crying wolf all the time and saying that they’re being imposed upon.

Then, as if she is completely oblivious to the irony, she goes on to say in her very next sentence:

I, personally, think that they should never have taken prayer out of schools.

Don’t forget that state-sanctioned prayer was removed from schools because it was imposing on the freedoms of others, as laid out in the Constitution. Oh, but it continues:

I’d rather that there be some morality in schools, but they just did that because an atheist went to court and said that their child don’t pray.

Continuing with her assertion that prayer has been completely removed, she suggests that the absence of that prayer is somehow equivalent to an absence of morality. Now this is where you might expect, again, an unbiased journalists like Paula Zahn to step in with the facts. Maybe she could have corrected Karen again by pointing out that, not only is she wrong about the ‘removal of prayer’, but she is also wrong about why they did it.

The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6 to 1, declared that government-led prayer in public schools is unconstitutional in Engel v. Vitale, which was brought by a coalition of Atheists and Jewish groups.

Paula is now, at least, 0 for 2.

ONWARD with the misinformation Ms. Schlussel:

To try to get “under God” taken out of the pledge of allegiance, they are on the attack, and it’s obnoxious and they do need to shut up.

First, she falsely cited the case of Micheal Newdow, which didn’t directly address the establishment clause because they ruled he didn’t have legal standing to bring the case, because of a custody dispute over his daughter, who was the one subjected to the pledge of allegiance in question. But in the process, via the statement cited above, Schlussel fails to point out what, exactly, the Atheists are attacking. She insinuates that they are attacking religion and Christianity, but what they are in fact attacking is an infringement on the freedom from establishment of religion guaranteed by the Constituion. Schlussel equates an attack on infringed civil liberties to an attack on the religion itself. However, I doubt she’s putting religion and infringement on civil liberties in the same boat for the same reasons that Atheists might do so in such cases.

She goes on to display her bigotry for the entire world by saying that we should shut up because it’s obnoxious. Do I really need to point out why this is a shameful display of ignorance? Steven A. Smith, again, interjects a little rationality into the discussion.

But wait… she doesn’t want to be outdone, I said! Karen, back to you:

Their not hurting anyone. I don’t personally have a problem with an Atheist, believe or don’t believe what you want. But don’t impose upon my right to want to have prayer in schools, to want to say the pledge of allegiance, to want to honor my god. Don’t infringe upon that right.

Again, this is where you might expect someone like Paula Zahn to point out the fact that her right to want those things has not been infringed upon in any way by any Atheist, EVER. But no.

As if campaigning specifically for the honor of the dullest tool in the shed, Karen continues to mis-characterize the issue of prayer in schools, as if asking the state not to sanction it somehow keeps her from doing it. She does this so she can claim to somehow be oppressed, and has evidently developed some sort of discrimination complex. If this isn’t “crying wolf” then I don’t know what is. This so perfectly illustrates the point I made in an earlier post that I just have to add it here:

But when Steven A. Smith briefly, and unwittingly, touches on how freedom of religion begets freedom from religion, Schlussel jumps in to interrupt with the granddaddy of ignorance in this discussion by making baseless claims and vague declarations that amount to nothing more than a falsified assertion, made up only to support her hypocritical position:

Let’s look at Europe, where there are more Atheists, where they’ve lost God, where the church is not that strong. Europe is becoming Islamist, it’s fast-falling, and intolerance is increasing. That’s the one reason that our country has not become like Europe, because we have strong Christians. And because Atheists are not strong, and I think that’s a good thing.

Not only does she falsely claim that Europe is becoming Islamist and “fast-falling” and increasingly intolerant, but she confuses correlation with causality, and makes the dubious connection to the larger Atheist population there. She ignores the fact that it’s mostly radical Islamic sects that are becoming increasingly intolerant, not Europe as a whole. And she pulls the association to atheism directly out of her ass.

Then, she goes onto propose, like any good Christian, I mean Jew, that the reason we don’t have that kind of intolerance and decline in America is because of Christianity.

Wow!

Nice discussion Paula. I’m sure journalists everywhere are proud, and happy that you chose to confront this issue head-on. What a great example of real, factual, newsworthy discourse in America.

Thanks to Vast Left for posting the video.

Share This