CNN: Retarded panel discussion on atheist discrimination

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2007-02-06 07:42pm

You'd think this was on Fox News, but no... it's fucking CNN. They had a chance to address a serious issue here, that of discrimination against atheists, but they fucked it up with their fucking retarded panel discussion. Two of the panel members started going off on why atheists bring in on themselves for "attacking Christians". Where was the atheist representative in the discussion? Nowhere. Just one Christian guy who was semi-sympathetic. Just watch the clips, the discussion starts in part 2.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiyJzWy3CDQ

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2007-02-06 07:58pm

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Paula Zahn is a fucking bitch.

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2007-02-06 08:05pm

Ghetto Edit: Atheist Hallmark cards? WTF?

Xess · Post by **Xess** » 2007-02-06 08:56pm

Those two women were asstards. They trotted out the old "Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion." bullshit, typical fundie idiots.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-02-06 08:59pm

CNN has always been a right-wing news network. The only reason people have forgotten that is the fact that FOXNews was even more extreme.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-02-06 09:04pm

Love how that moron in part 1 describes taking court action to get "In God we Trust" off the money, etc is "militant". Suing over the right to believe IN something, deny medical procedures to one's children for religious reasons is NEVER seen as "militant" but not legal "battles" to prevent the Government from endorsing religion is, eh? And I'm not even an atheist.

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » 2007-02-06 09:54pm

I wouldn't call that a panel "discussion" so much as a panel slandering. It's not like there aren't an ample amount of celebrity atheists out there. I mean, if they're going to go ahead and include an ESPN reporter in their little bashing session, they might as well admit that they have no standards when it comes to composing these little panels. Fucking idiots.

Oh yeah, and strong Christians never discriminate. I guess the crusades and inquisition never happened.

Don't tell me that the land that was fucking stolen from my ancestors is a Christian nation, especially when the founding fathers were quite clear that it wasn't.

God, after seeing something like that, I just feel like just letting the hate dominate me.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-02-06 10:38pm

I find it sad that the Sports Journalist was the most rational one, if only because he could see the hypocrisy in the 'Shut Up' thing, though he should have said, 'Why don't we just go back fifty years and replace Atheist with Black, and you'll see the hypocrisy in what the fuck you're saying.'

Pulp Hero · Post by **Pulp Hero** » 2007-02-06 10:46pm

The ESPN guy was the smartest. WTF? He seemed really pissed that the woman was being such hypocrit, everyone seemed to keep cutting him off as he tried to make a point.

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2007-02-06 10:58pm

I've never been more infuriated by a CNN broadcast then by what I've seen in those clips tonight.

Will someone ask those motherfuckers how they conclude that the US is a Christian nation?

Will someone explain to them, that "God" was even in the original version of the pledge of allegiance and was added in the 1950s (since they seem to keep bitching about atheists demanding it be taken out)?

Will someone correct that motherfucker who keeps saying that "freedom of religion" does not mean "freedom from religion" as if that's the fucking issue?

That's why they call a fucking panel? I really wish someone who take the footage or a transcript of a conversation, make a website, break down the idiotic points and e-mail it to people for clarification.

I can't help but wonder what people actually buy into that bullshit. America's a Christian nation, yeah right. Sure, majority of the population may be Christian, but I never read anything in the constitution that said it was founded Christian.

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2007-02-06 11:08pm

And you know, even when they covered the amount of atheists in the States, they largely swept the issue under the rug.

Sure, there may only be 1-3% "official" atheists who have come out and said it. But I would bet any money in the world, there's a much higher percentage of people who are "closet atheists" or who are on the fence.

Yeah, people may go to church every Sunday, but how many people just go through the motions? Get up, listen to a sermon, and go out to lunch.

I would truly be surprised if the strength of the average Christian's faith is as strong as it was in the 50s, and I have no doubt it'll get weaker with time as people realize how much nonsense it all is.

I mean, I'm not one to knock religious beliefs, personally, I'm not decided on it, but I guarantee you for as much as they prattle on about how America is a Christian nation, I doubt it's as much as they claim.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2007-02-06 11:18pm

I noticed that by the way the two bitches talked about atheists, their prejudice was more transparent than glass. Their denigrating opinions of atheists reminded me of the way homophobes speak of homosexuals. They spoke of atheists in terms of "them" or "those immoral atheists". Atheists are sub-human to those Christofacists.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2007-02-06 11:29pm

Bashing on atheists is still acceptable these days. Even non-fundie, "moderate" people are still very pro-religion, and suspicious of people who don't believe in God.

I remember a fucking retarded Evolution vs. Creationism debate on CNN last year. They actually got a real evolution supporter, but he was just about the worst fucking representative imaginable. Despite the fact that he was on the right side, the guy no debating skills whatsoever, and thus made it seem like he was wrong. Whatever retarded creationist argument he encountered, this idiot responded with complete red herrings, bringing up facts that while true, were unrelated to the current point.

Eventually, the host (I think it was Lou Dobbs) got annoyed with the horribly inept evolution supporter, and concluded the segment by stating his opinion that he didn't believe the evidence behind evolution was as solid as some people thought it was.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-02-06 11:30pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:I noticed that by the way the two bitches talked about atheists, their prejudice was more transparent than glass. Their denigrating opinions of atheists reminded me of the way homophobes speak of homosexuals. They spoke of atheists in terms of "them" or "those immoral atheists". Atheists are sub-human to those Christofacists.

Well, the blonde was Jewish, but it's pretty clear she expects everyone to be Christianity's bitch.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2007-02-06 11:50pm

Having been a member of a number of sports forums, I've noticed that a lot of sports fans don't even respect Stephen A. Smith's opinions. He's been called a loudmouth ("Screamin' A. Smith") who shouts opinions that may or may not be based on facts. He's certainly enthusiastic and energetic, but I have a feeling he was hired to be an entertainer, and not really for insightful commentary. Questioning why the hell an ESPN commentator is even on this CNN panel, I expected him to scream something stupid and make an ass of himself. Little did I know that he would be the most intelligent of the three people there!

The two women were blatantly bigoted. The black woman kept whining about how the mean atheists took prayer out of schools, while the white woman kept said ridiculous things like "freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion" (I fucking hate this idiotic cliche) and "atheists are not strong."

All three of them agreed that America is a "Christian nation" (I wonder why the fucking Constitution says that it won't accept any establishment of religion then

). But at least Stephen A. Smith said that atheists have a right to say what they want, and that they're not any different than any of the other groups out there trying to have their say.

How fucking ridiculous is it when a loudmouth sports guy is the one who's the least full of shit on your show?

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2007-02-06 11:53pm

And people don't believe me when I point out that CNN is a right wing network..

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-02-07 12:21am

CNN - daily taking lessons from FOX News to improve our bigotry-levels!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-02-07 12:37am

It's been obvious that despite already being skewed right, CNN has been trying to move farther right. The fact that you cannot turn on the Headline CNN channel without seeing the grinning idiot doughboy visage of Glenn Beck is proof of that.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2007-02-07 01:29am

There's a reason James Wolcott dubbed Debbie Schlussel "Dairy Queen's answer to Ann Coulter". This is the same Debbie Schlussel who gloated over the murder of Marla Ruzicka in Iraq.

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5745

People all across the political spectrum, encompassing all possible views on the Iraq war, stopped for a moment of rueful silence when the news broke that Marla Ruzicka was killed by a suicide bomber the other day. Well, almost everyone, that is, except for one Debbie Schlussel, a right-wing columnist who tries to market herself as a kind of third-rate Ann Coulter (complete with a bad dye job and a come-hither sulk). She is glad that Marla is dead. She said so in her column. So is David Horowitz, the neoconservative demagogue who makes $180,000 a year (and more) cashing-in on his Communist-Marxist past (he's sorry, oh-sooooooo-sorry!). He published Schlussel's hate-filled screed on his smear site. Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but the neocon crazies have reached a new low. Here's a taste of Schlussel's poisonous brew:

"When The New York Times, Nightline, and CNN nominate a young blonde for sainthood ahead of the Pope, it's time for a reality check. Especially when that blonde, Marla Ruzicka's sole purpose is to legitimize our enemies, cause problems for U.S. troops already in harm's way, and morally equate dead terrorists with victims of 9/11."

Ruzicka spent the final years of her life trying to compensate the maimed, comfort the families of civilian "collateral damage," and heal at least some of the "liberating" wounds inflicted by U.S. military action in Iraq. Go here and here and here, read her firsthand accounts of her work in Iraq, and you tell me if she's there to "cause problems for U.S. troops" and "equate dead terrorists with victims of 9/11." Children missing limbs – these are "terrorists"? Only in the twisted, hateful world of Debbie Schlussel and her enablers and fans like David Horowitz. What's truly sickening about Schlussel's slime, however, is the sheer envy that emanates from it like a bad smell wafting up from her prose:

"A 28-year-old San Franciscan, Ruzicka was in Iraq 'to help the Iraqi people,' proclaim the multi-orgasmic mainstream media memorials to her. Even the Wall Street Journal's normally excellent Robert Pollock mourned 'Ambassador Marla' for being a less gnarly America-hater than the others. … With her cascading blonde hair and youthful looks, Ruzicka didn't look like your average greasy-haired, pot-smoking, hackey-sack-playing, crunchy radical. And the media swooned over her, the newly-anointed Vanity Fair pin-up in Birkenstocks."

Yeah, Debbie, Marla was a real blonde – unlike your haggish self. And she was young – again, unlike yourself, in spite of the few pounds of makeup you slosh on your tired old forty-if-you're-a-day face. But recognizing the roots (if you'll pardon the expression) of Schlussel's schadenfreude would require a "reality check" on Debbie Dye-job's part, which is not about to happen. Apart from outright envy, however, what exactly is Schlussel's beef?

The other fucktard was just as bad. I like this YouTube comment about her:

are they giving away pulitzer prizes in crackerjack boxes these days?

The only one who wasn't a complete fucking imbecile was the guy from ESPN.

Fiji_Fury · Post by **Fiji_Fury** » 2007-02-07 01:56am

I'm appalled by what those clips include. I had no idea that there was that kind of blatant insanity taking place on a such a large scale in the United States. The hypocrisy of complaing that Athiests shouldn't be able to force their beliefs on others, but that they should have to shut up and follow through the motions of religious convictions they don't even hold... what the fuck?

And how does anybody rationally believe that because prayers aren't said in school that there cannot be morality in school? What mind-boggling social and moral retardation are these people operating under? It's like they have no connection to reality whatsoever.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-02-07 02:06am

Fiji_Fury wrote:And how does anybody rationally believe that because prayers aren't said in school that there cannot be morality in school? What mind-boggling social and moral retardation are these people operating under? It's like they have no connection to reality whatsoever.

Unfortunately, thats the standard operating procedure of the religious right: blame all the problems on the people they don't like. They've been using scapegoats like that for centuries.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2007-02-07 02:06am

I've imagined myself trying to explain atheism to hardcore Christians, but it slowly dawned on me that their beliefs require their entire thinking to be so radically different from atheists that it'd be like trying to explain the concept of a computer microchip to someone from the medieval ages.

Their entire concept of what is right and moral orbits entirely around obedience to a diety and religion. What that religion deems right is moral and just. For atheists, what's right and moral is usually what's the most benefitting of humanity as a whole, but that concept just doesn't click with hardcore religious people. Faith is more right than human wellbeing. We struggle to understand how they could think this way, but likewise they cannot understand us.

I suppose this isn't enough of a reason to stop trying to argue for better treatment of atheists, but it's worthless sometimes.

Magus · Post by **Magus** » 2007-02-07 04:48am

I hate the stupid "Christian Nation" argument. Even if they only mean in a demographic sense, there's still a little thing called minority rights that override popular opinion. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of everyone in America is Christian - mandatory prayer in schools is still infringing on the rights of the .01%. And guess what? The .01% wins - that's the whole point.

darthbob88 · Post by **darthbob88** » 2007-02-07 06:57am

Magus wrote:I hate the stupid "Christian Nation" argument. Even if they only mean in a demographic sense, there's still a little thing called minority rights that override popular opinion. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of everyone in America is Christian - mandatory prayer in schools is still infringing on the rights of the .01%. And guess what? The .01% wins - that's the whole point.

Off topic, I know, but this has always annoyed me, that the 1 person in 10,000 gets to veto the decisions made by the other 9,999. How, exactly, is this different from a monarchy or an oligarchy, where the one or the few get to decide things?

Rhetorical question, BTW: The First Amendment and the ones after guarantee freedom of religion, and that includes freedom from religion, in the form of atheism. Therefore, mandatory prayer is infringing on previously enumerated rights, and unConstitutional. [/rant]

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2007-02-07 07:17am

The difference is quite simple darthbob88. That 1 in 1000 only applies when your restricting things, or forcing things on people. The 1 in 1000 for example does NOT decide the taxation rate, or how many people we enlist in the army each year. The only power of that 1 in 1000 is when you make EVERYONE do something for less than clear or explainable reasons.

Nearly all of the one in thousand examples are religious based.