About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hannity falsely claims Obama admin. gives special treatment to atheists

February 27, 2010 12:33 am ET — 145 Comments

Commenting on a White House staff-level meeting with leaders of atheist groups, Sean Hannity claimed that religious groups "have not received this treatment from the Obama White House." In fact, President Obama himself has met with numerous religious leaders, and the administration's contacts with religious groups include two days of meetings between administration staffers and more than 60 religious leaders.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

From the February 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: The Obama administration earlier today rolled out the red carpet for a coalition of atheist groups. Now, among the individuals in attendance was Michael Newdow. That's the California man who sued unsuccessfully to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, religious groups, however, have not received this kind of treatment from the Obama White House. Now, last year, the President distanced himself from the National Day of Prayer, cancelling the formal service traditionally held in honor of the day and refusing to attend a Catholic prayer breakfast. So what's going on? Has the administration demonstrated a pattern of hostility towards religion, or is this merely a coincidence?

Feb. 26: Secular Coalition of America leaders meet with Obama admin. officials

McClatchy: Secular Coalition met with Obama staff. On February 26, McClatchy Newspapers reported that leaders from the Secular Coalition for America met "with Obama administration officials from the public engagement office of the White House and from the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services and Defense" and that "President Obama -- as expected -- did not make an appearance." Prior to the meeting, McClatchy also reported on the scheduled meeting:

The president isn't expected to make an appearance at the meeting with the Secular Coalition for America or to unveil any new policy as a result of it.

Instead, several administration officials will sit down quietly for a morning meeting at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus with about 60 workhorses from the coalition's 10 member groups, including the American Atheists and the Council for Secular Humanism. Tina Tchen, the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, and representatives from the Justice and Health and Human Services departments will participate.

Coalition leaders are billing their visit as an important meeting between a presidential administration and the "nontheist" community. On the agenda are three policy areas: child medical neglect, military proselytizing and faith-based initiatives.

Obama has personally met with various religious leaders, groups

Obama has met with Pope Benedict, Dalai Lama, Mormon president, and Jewish leaders. On July 10, 2009, Obama met with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican. Obama similarly hosted separate White House meeting with a group of more than 16 Jewish leaders, including two rabbis; Mormon leaders, including Thomas S. Monson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and the Dalai Lama.

Obama White House hosted health care conference call with religious leaders. Obama spoke during an August 19, 2009 conference call organized by a "coalition of more than 30 faith-based groups" to discuss health care reform. The conference call reportedly included "at least 25 faith leaders -- from evangelical Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religious traditions."

Obama spoke at February 4 National Prayer Breakfast. At the February 4 National Prayer Breakfast, Obama spoke in front of "an array of religious leaders."

White House office devoted in part to faith-based outreach

WH Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnership exists to "build bridges between the federal government and nonprofit organizations, both secular and faith-based." The White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnership (OFBNP) states that its purpose is to "form partnerships between government at all levels and non-profit organizations, both secular and faith-based, to more effectively serve Americans in need."

Faith-based Advisory Council includes many religious leaders. As part of the OFBNP, the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is comprised of 25 leaders from religious and secular organizations. The group has created six task forces to identify the best practices for delivering social services and making recommendations for improving implementation and coordination of government policies related to faith-based and neighborhood organization, and will be releasing its final recommendations in March. The group includes Bishop Charles R. Blake, presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ; Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President of the National Council of Churches; Dr. Joel Hunter, senior pastor at Northland, a Church Distributed; Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie, bishop of the Thirteenth Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church; Rev. Otis Moss Jr., pastor emeritus of Oliviet Institutional Baptist Church; Dr. Frank Page, pastor at Taylors First Baptist Church and president emeritus of the Southern Baptist Convention; Rabbi David Saperstein, director and counsel of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Rev. William J. Shaw, president of the National Baptist Convention; and Rev. Larry J. Snyder, president and CEO of Catholic Charities USA.

Religious leaders repeatedly consulted by White House officials

Politico: "[R]eligious leaders meet with White House policymakers on a regular basis." On June 9, 2009, Politico reported:

Also, religious leaders meet with White House policymakers on a regular basis - and help to shape decisions on matters large and small. A White House speechwriter working on Obama's Egypt speech called several faith leaders to get their thoughts. After the White House unveiled its budget in April, officials convened a two-hour conference call with religious leaders to discuss how the spending plan would help the poor.

Two-day series of OFBNP briefings in April 2009 hosted more than 60 religious leaders. An April 9, 2009, Time article reported:

Over the course of two days, the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships gathered more than 60 religious leaders (and a handful of secular non-profits) at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for the first in what director Joshua Dubois says will be a series of briefings.

[...]

Throughout the two days, council members -- as well as approximately 40 additional religious leaders who were invited to attend the sessions -- sat through briefings by Administration officials on topics ranging from education reform and childhood hunger to energy policy. In a town where "religious issues" are often thought to be limited to hot-button social concerns like abortion and gay marriage, the wide array of information was welcomed by many of those gathered. "This shows us that none of our faiths disqualify us from being concerned about the issues facing our country," said Vashti McKenzie, a bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal church. She added, "We've heard from candidates before elections -- thank you for coming to us after the election is over."

Coalition of clergy members opposed to torture met with administration officials. On June 11, 2009, 33 religious leaders belonging to the National Religious Campaign Against Torture met with "senior Obama administration officials" to discuss the group's call for the "establishment of an independent, non-partisan Commission of Inquiry to investigate the development and implementation of a program of torture by the United States in the years after 9/11."

White House speechwriter reportedly consulted with religious leaders in preparing for Obama's speech in Egypt. On June 3, 2009, US News & World Report reported:

In preparing for the president's speech tomorrow from Cairo, the White House did something it hasn't previously in preparing Obama to engage Muslims abroad: It called on American religious leaders and experts, including many Muslims, for advice.

In a conference call last month, Obama's foreign policy speechwriter, Ben Rhodes, and aides in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships took input from Muslim, Christian, and Jewish figures concerning what the president should say in Cairo. "The White House did a very good job at taking advantage of the available expertise," says Dalia Mogahed, executive director of Gallup's Center for Muslim Studies, who participated in the call. 

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by grmce (February 27, 2010 1:32 am ET)
         
      I find it illustrative that so many of these right wing commentators who hide behind religion are such bald faced liars.

      Dr Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I presume that lying is now the first resort of the Murdoch Media commentator.

      As a South Australian I have long experience of "Mendacious Murdoch" and his approach to shaping events through selective journalism. His father, Sir Keith Murdoch, infamously did the same thing but on a smaller scale. Fox News has led to a whole new era, however, where selective and misleading reporting has given way to outright lies. This has seeped through into the rest of News Limited.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotx (February 27, 2010 2:13 am ET)
      23  
      Whah whah whah. He's talking to atheists. Whah whah whah. Boo hoo my feelings are hurt. Grow up you childish moron, I'm sure the sun will still rise tomorrow and you will still get to go to the church of your choosing. If your faith is that shallow and you feel threatened by the man simply talking to atheists maybe you're the one with the problem, hummmm?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ilikeike (February 27, 2010 5:19 pm ET)
        1 1
        just like all those "special "rights homosexuals and minorities are getting. if Hannity and his crowd dont get daily affirmation that they are the only real Americans they cry that others get special treatment.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Floyd (February 28, 2010 8:56 am ET)
        1 24
        Would atheists be considered a right-wing hate group or a left-wing hate group? The answer to that one would go a long way in explaining why Obama would talk to them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rms (February 28, 2010 12:30 pm ET)
          17  
          What? Why would they have to be either kind of hate group? Your post makes no sense.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by skiploader1111 (February 28, 2010 1:04 pm ET)
            15  
            As long as Floyd strongly claims that atheists = hate group, it is all the proof he needs to believe it. You can ask him why athiests have to be hate groups, but he doesn't have to argue the point. He will totally ignore your point and then explain how athiests = hate groups hurt America.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Vincent Truman (February 28, 2010 12:30 pm ET)
          1  
          Considering atheists a hate group is an interesting idea - I don't think it has much merit, considering the lack of headlines like "Atheists Fly Plane Into Building", "Another Atheist Caught Having Inappropriate Relations With a Minor" or "Lead Atheist Claims Haiti Had Pact With the Devil" - but an interesting idea nonetheless.

          It brings to mind a question - would we consider Pope Benedict a member of the right-wing hate group or a left-wing hate group?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (February 28, 2010 1:01 pm ET)
          18  
          They aren't a hate group at all. I'm a Christian, but I know people who are atheists who are much better people than you appear to be.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 28, 2010 1:01 pm ET)
          14  
          Atheism does not show one to be eitehr left-wing or right-wing, it only shows their relative intellingce. Of course that tends to show that they're left-leaning, but we've know THAT for years.

          As for hate? The closest thing we feel to hate is for brain-washed zombies like yourself who think that rejecting a system that inevitably leads to hate (that would be Religion) is somehow hateful.

          ---------------------------------------------------------
          "I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well."
          ~Stephen F. Roberts
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 8:39 am ET)
            1 1
            I will debate the intelligence factor . . . I personally know as fact that one can be a member of MENSA and be a believer. It's like any other generalization . . . say, the one made by Floyd . . . they are rarely true.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by shaggles (March 01, 2010 4:12 pm ET)
              2  
              But how many complete freakin' morons do you know who are atheists?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (March 01, 2010 8:43 am ET)
              8
            Hmmm, so atheists lean toward the liberal side of things? That explains the intollerant hate I am getting from all of you. Is intollerance part of the progressive teachings? Or are only YOU allowed to dislike someones religion because that denotes you've "progressed" beyond hating?
            Sorry, I simply see it as another group of hate-filled people who are intollerant of others. Quite similar to your expression of disbelief that anyone in their right mind could follow any religious beliefs.

            How do you account for all your intollerance within this belief system you try to express as being more perfect than anyone else's?
            I think it is quite hypocritical of you to call me hateful names while trying to explain why your belief isn't hateful. Do you have a cool quote from stephen roberts for that?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 9:26 am ET)
              5  
              Floyd, you are the one who is showing intolerance. Intolerance means the inability to accept difference of opinion. These folks are simply stating their opinions. You are unable to accept that they have the right to state their opinions.

              Oh, and religion has nothing to do with your ridiculous "us v. them" game. Some of the most devout Christians I know are liberals and some of the biggest atheists I know are conservatives.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (March 01, 2010 9:40 am ET)
                  6
                bintx, as I said before. WHERE have I said I do not accept your opinion? What I HAVE said is what MY opinion is. If you choose not to accept my opinion, then you are being intolerant. If you choose to restrict my opinion, you are being intolerant. Time to step up to the plate, bintx, and bring some proof of your claims. I have done it to support my opinion, can YOU?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 9:44 am ET)
                  3 1
                  I don't have to prove anything. Your comments on this thread prove my point.

                  As I said below . . . you are doing nothing good to further the teachings of my Lord and Savior. Christ was not intolerant. Paul, when spreading the Gospel, knew that attacking others and showing intolerance for their beliefs [you made ridiculously false claims against atheism, liberalism, and Islam] was NOT conducive to spreading the Word.

                  You are being intolerant, Floyd.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Floyd (March 01, 2010 10:01 am ET)
                      7
                    I accept your opinion. But, yes, you still have to provide proof of claims you are making. If you don't then you are no better than what you claim I am. Where are these "ridiculously" false claims I made against atheism, liberalism and islam?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Ruby (March 01, 2010 10:28 am ET)
                      7  
                      Well, for one, you suggested that atheism is a "hate group".
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by So Fain (March 01, 2010 4:47 pm ET)
                      1  
                      "Would atheists be considered a right-wing hate group or a left-wing hate group?"
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by So Fain (March 01, 2010 4:53 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      And don't forget this comment about Islam...

                      "Is that the religion that HATES gays and demeans women, but the left-wingnuts love?"

                      You're a hypocrite and your comments drip with intolerance and hate.

                      PS - I'm an Atheist... And not one of the nice guy, flower child, tree huggin' kind. I'm the kind that sees the hate and evil that religion has caused and I want to stomp it out. I'll give you the same amount of tolerance that you give others... None.

                      Buzz off, troll. Eternity awaits!
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by kevcol (March 01, 2010 4:23 pm ET)
                       
                    bintx, you wrote: "Christ was not intolerant."

                    I'm no longer a Christian but I do remember the theology.

                    Jehovah/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit equals the Holy Trinity, who are separate but equal. All of them have always existed, and Christians claim that the Bible was inspired by one of the entities of the Holy Trinity then intolerance in the bible expressed towards those who reject it is the intolerance of Jesus Christ.

                    Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

                    Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

                    So, bintx, in your view, these versus don't express intolerance by calling others fools, corrupt, abominable, iniquitous, they do nothing good none of them? And that's just a couple of the tame verses. What about the ones where your own family members should be viewed as your enemy if they don't believe in the deity depicted in it?
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by rms (March 01, 2010 10:51 am ET)
              3  
              Floyd, I wrote: "What? Why would they have to be either kind of hate group? Your post makes no sense."

              I am afraid I see no hate or intolerance in my question/observation (nor from the other posters, actually). I think you are being WAY too sensitive.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by ScienceBuff (March 01, 2010 12:54 pm ET)
              3  
              Hmmm, so atheists lean toward the liberal side of things? That explains the intollerant hate I am getting from all of you. - Floyd R. Turbo

              You seem to be under the impression that disagreeing with you and expressing the reasons for that disagreement constitutes intolerance. Your idea is extremely simplistic.

              I have no religious faith. None of the tales of supernatural beings and occurrences contained in most religions ring true to me. I don't see any real reason to believe in any magical superbeings that could be called deities. When I am asked about my religious beliefs and, specifically, why I don't accept christianity, there is no way for me to explain it without using words like magic, supernatural or superstition. Those words accurately reflect how I see religious stories of miracles and divine interventions. How is that intolerant? Simply because you find it offensive?

              Would atheists be considered a right-wing hate group or a left-wing hate group? - Floyd R. Turbo

              Now THAT is an intolerant thing to say.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by Reinhard (February 28, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
          14  
          Neither. The fact that I don't "believe" in gods no more constitutes a worldview than does my lack of belief in leprechauns. It's simply a non-issue.

          "Atheism" is simply one persons opinion of a particular topic.
          The people that usually spout nonsense about atheism being a worldview, or religion, or whatever usually have an agenda, the agenda being protecting their own absurd beliefs about their own gods. Ignorance works best en masse.

          Reinhard
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Julianna (February 28, 2010 6:11 pm ET)
               
            Hi Reinhard:
            I think that "A..tih..ism" is a "belief" in something that is a belief specifically for you..the individual. It's your free will to believe in GOD or reject the theory about GOD. However, I believe in free will usage for every one. So...man should not fight with man because of his beliefs. Offering Education about what we have as teaching material about GOD...and NO GOD...is essential. It helps with the process of using one's own free will. Therefore "ignorance" could never be used as an excuse for what ever you believe in if you have educated yourself in both theories. Only your final judgement of the accuracies of the research material will reward you with a peaceful decision to use your own free will with trust.
            Julianna
            Report Abuse
        • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 28, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
          10  
          Freedom of religion as reflected in Amendment 1 in the U.S. Constitution allows anyone of any religious or non-religious persuasion the same access to the president. The 1st Amendment doesn't endorse any particular religion, but gives citizens the freedom to make their own choices on this issue. Please change the channel on your teevee. Someone you've been listening to has led you to form the wrong conclusion/opinion on the meaning of the 1st Amendment.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by roland (February 28, 2010 7:39 pm ET)
          7 1
          If I dare to point out that Yahweh, the god of the Judeo-Christian religion, doesn't appear in the historical record until around 1000 BC - and then, initially, as one of the 70 sons of the Canaanite chief-god, El - am I being hateful?

          And if I also point out that the Egyptian and Sumerian gods predate Yahweh by at least 2000 years, am I also being hateful?

          Well, then so be it.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 01, 2010 11:34 am ET)
             
          "Would atheists be considered a right-wing hate group or a left-wing hate group? The answer to that one would go a long way in explaining why Obama would talk to them."

          Let me fix that for you:

          "Would Christians, Muslims, Jews, [insert religious group of choice here] be considered a right-wing hate group or a left-wing hate group? The answer to that one would go a long way in explaining why Obama would talk to them"

          There ... that's better.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by So Fain (March 01, 2010 4:45 pm ET)
             
          Dbag.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Dradeeus (February 27, 2010 6:50 am ET)
      30  
      Wait a sec, I thought he was a crazy Islamic? I mean, it was in the little Missile Defense symbol, right? He can't be both atheist AND Islamic. Can he?

      ...Like they know the difference.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by knowledgereigns (February 27, 2010 9:48 am ET)
        19  
        No, no, no! Haven't you heard? He's a radical anti-America Black Christian like Jeremiah Wright and he simply wants the terrorists to win.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (February 27, 2010 11:12 am ET)
        19  
        He can't be both atheist AND Islamic. Can he?


        In Conservo-world, he certainly can.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Dradeeus (February 27, 2010 1:27 pm ET)
          23  
          Well, he can be Nazi and communist at the same time, apparently. Why not go all the way.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Vincent Truman (February 28, 2010 12:32 pm ET)
               
            And a socialist from Kenya.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by GreenLantern (February 28, 2010 5:25 pm ET)
            11  
            True story, guy at work says this country is going socialist, communist, and fascist and President Obama is doing it. When I looked up and showed him the differences he said he was "right" (he didn't intend the pun but I really laughed anyway) and that I was arguing semantics!
            They do believe!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by killerstarfish (March 01, 2010 12:30 am ET)
                 
              I sympathize - but in this case it's my dad. It's not uncommon to hear him railing about our "socialist Marxist fascist" President.

              Yeah, they believe.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (March 01, 2010 8:33 am ET)
              2  
              Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

              OTOH...

              It would constitute malice on my part to assume that much stupidity on theirs...

              So... What is it? They can't be RIGHT because they don't even make any sense. So the explainations are limited to... What? Racism and stupidity? OK, IGNORANCE, really, due having been serially misinformed all these YEARS. But why then are they so resistant to new information that shows them how little sense they're making? What justifies their continued clinging to all the obvious lies?

              I hate to say "rasicm" myself. Personally, I prefer to blame all the worlds the world's problems on RELIGION. (And yes, I do realize that this is a vice as well!) But seriously... How much stupiudity is it OK to assume before we need to think that there'ssomething more sinister at work?

              -------------------------------------------------------
              Mister Owl, how many licks does it take to get to the Center...?
              (The world may never know.)
              Report Abuse
        • Author by glogrrl (February 27, 2010 4:57 pm ET)
             
          I believe they say he is also the AntiChrist. He must have multiple personalities!!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by knowledgereigns (March 01, 2010 9:59 pm ET)
               
            Yeah, a friend/acquantance of mine truly believed he might be the anti-christ. Needless to say, she now merely thinks he is a Muslim who wants the terrorists to win. You can't make this stuff up.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by rtejon (February 27, 2010 12:10 pm ET)
        12  
        Apostasy is the worst thing you can do under Shariah.

        But like you say, these people aren't big on nuance...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (February 28, 2010 8:58 am ET)
            18
          Is that the religion that HATES gays and demeans women, but the left-wingnuts love?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 28, 2010 12:56 pm ET)
            14  
            All religions hate gays and demean women, and those that do so to a lesser extent than other have progressed (as in, they are more "progressive.") Or they've evolved, if you prefer that shool of thought.

            Atheists, OTOH, harbor no ill will towards gays and treat women with equality. We don't even really hate religion, which says a lot for us, considering the all the harm religion does.

            -----------------------------------------------------
            Now why don't you take your sandwich-board and go find a street corner to annoy people from?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (February 28, 2010 3:32 pm ET)
              9  
              Many churches welcome gays and use gender-neutral language and have removed 'power words' like Lord from usage. It's a small minority now, but it is gaining strength.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 28, 2010 6:23 pm ET)
                5  
                Yes, that's true. But it's like I said: They're the more progressive ones.

                --------------------------------------------------
                Or "liberal" or "evolved" depending on your prefered semantics. ;)
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Dradeeus (March 01, 2010 5:57 am ET)
                3  
                When I went to church as a kid, my protestant church was incredibly progressive. Sermons were based around religious/sexual/racial tolerance and helping your fellow man. It even sometimes suggested that the bible was mostly allegory.

                I was actually incredibly surprised when I first learned, well... let's just say, not all churches shared our views.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by bruce1ace (February 28, 2010 3:34 pm ET)
              1 8
              Generalize much?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 28, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
                7 1
                I don't think so, no.

                In my experience there a stong positive correlation between the degree of ones religious zeal, and the degree to which they love their own and shun any others.

                ---------------------------------------------------
                But whatever. Take what you need from it.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 8:42 am ET)
            2  
            I'm a Christian . . . some interpretations of the Bible preach hatred of gays and demeaning of women. What's your point? Shariah law is not practiced by all Muslims any more than the hatred of gays and diminution of women is practiced by all Christians.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 01, 2010 11:47 am ET)
            1  
            "Is that the religion that HATES gays and demeans women, but the left-wingnuts love?"

            Hey Floyd, ever heard of a search engine? Errrrmmmmm Google comes to mind. If you'd take the time to do a bit of searching (avoid Wikipedia for info), you might just learn a thing or two.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (February 28, 2010 1:02 pm ET)
        12  
        That little Missle Defense symbol that was created over a year before he was elected . . . under the Bush administration???? Does that mean that Bush is a closet islamofascist????
        Report Abuse
    • Author by canaanxing9025 (February 27, 2010 8:12 am ET)
      19  
      Hannity often has S. E. Cupp on his show as a commentator. She is an avowed atheist. In his now famous defense with Robert Gibbs, he proclaims to have people on his show that he doesn't always agree with, or support.

      So, the President of the United States, our head of State, who represents all the citizens of the U. S. should not meet with athiests; because????????
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 27, 2010 2:05 pm ET)
        16  
        President of the United States... should not meet with atheists; because??


        Here's what I've learned;

        Religious people publicly stating their beliefs is simply them practicing freedom of religion as guaranteed in this country. I completely agree with that.

        Non-religious people publicly stating their beliefs is an assault on religion and/or God.

        Including religion in the public sphere ( In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, government bodies opening with prayer) is simply inclusive and respecting freedom.

        Omitting any of these is a promotion of atheism, and a full-frontal attack on people's faith.

        It's a double standard I've just sort of accepted over my lifetime. I'll call out any fool who tries to say atheism is a religion, but for the most part, I'm secure enough in my minority status that I don't sweat the other stuff.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (February 27, 2010 5:39 pm ET)
          10  
          Non-religious people publicly stating their beliefs is an assault on religion and/or God.

          Agreed, in part. But make no mistake: atheism, a term I loath, is a LACK of belief system, not a belief system. We are merely RATIONAL. Our refusal to endow the Unseen with super powers takes ZERO energy on our part. But consider how much energy goes into convincing one's self that God exists. Biblical study, church, prayers. But to count yourself among the rational, one need only do one thing: THINK about religion for 10-20 seconds then realize it's all made up nonsense, as fantastical and impossible as Santa Claus, which only children believe in.

          But a guy coming back from the dead (Jesus), a guy flying into space on a horse (Islam), a guy parting a sea (Judaism), why that's REAL...except there's just as much tangible proof those things happened as Santa Claus delivery presents to tens of millions of kids in one night. THINK on this bunkum for seconds and you're free of the delusional grip of religion forever.

          Randy
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Whispers (February 28, 2010 2:02 am ET)
            7 1
            No, atheism is not a "lack of a belief system". It's a lack of a belief in the supernatural.

            It's kind of difficult to get through life if you refuse to ever believe in anything.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fantagor (March 01, 2010 3:59 pm ET)
                 
              It's a lack of a belief in the supernatural.

              That is implied, since religion is heavily endowed in the idea that the supernatural is real.

              Randy
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 28, 2010 3:24 am ET)
            8 1
            atheism, a term I loath, is a LACK of belief system


            Randy, I'm going to try to clear this up, as obviously my earlier posts were misinterpreted.

            First of all, I wouldn't say I loathe the term atheism. I'm not religious, and i don't really like the term, but I'll use it as shorthand, for lack of a better word.

            Second, I wouldn't say it's a lack of a belief system. It's a belief system based on science and facts, rather than faith and mythology, but still a belief system.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by LeftOfCenter (February 28, 2010 9:35 am ET)
                 
              If I remember Scientology "claims" to be based on science... Atheism becomes a religion when the "atheist" tries like all religions to force or encourage their particular belief system on others...

              Sorta like AGW.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by fantagor (March 01, 2010 4:03 pm ET)
                 
              But I would contend that I'm not actively BELIEVING in science anymore than I believe in the sun or the moon or the computer I'm typing on. They are simply FACTS of life with some TANGIBLE proof of existence. Belief implies a need for FAITH, and evolution requires no faith, just an acceptance that current findings indicate that life occurred naturally without supernatural intervention. It's the acceptance of what we can directly perceive, as opposed to accepting the unseen based on the words of Bronze Age tribesmen and other primitive cultures of the far-flung past.

              Randy
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (February 28, 2010 9:03 am ET)
              15
            Let me follow your logic; because you LACK that makes you RATIONAL? Have you ever played the lottery? Wooops, so much for RATIONAL!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Anthony James (February 28, 2010 12:14 pm ET)
                 
              Be careful. If you're implying that the odds of winning the lottery mean people who play it are irrational, then you must admit that the odds of a supernatural creator who exempts himself/herself/itself from the various laws of science, who meddles in human affairs and bends reality to suit individual human needs, etc are so increasingly small that people who believe in one are irrational in the same kind of way. If, recognizing this, a person lacks the irrational beliefs of a supernatural worldview, then yes, comparatively s/he can identify as rational.

              A rational person doesn't take a statement out of context, confuse the logic, and pass it off as a counterargument.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (February 28, 2010 1:03 pm ET)
              13  
              Huh? You make absolutely NO sense.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 28, 2010 1:29 pm ET)
                15  
                I think Count Floyd was going for the hat trick. I see three posts by him on this thread, and not a coherent thought in the bunch. Or maybe it's a wingnut trifecta. Three strikes = a home run ?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by dirtylittlereligion (February 28, 2010 1:47 pm ET)
              10  
              Seriously Floyd, buddy...this isn't a fight you want to pick(not that you really seem to be having a conversation). You just proved all of our points, and all of our assumptions about irrationality.

              Just because we rationalize our lives doesn't mean we are a hate group. We're not a "group" at all, unless someone decides to have a meeting with fellow agnostics and atheists.

              And you AREN'T making any sense. I can barely understand your post, other than you are angry, seemingly confused, and I think I detect a hint of scorn.

              Nobody is forcing you to give up your beliefs. I personally look at it as "Hey, whatever floats your boat, whatever gets you through your day". I just don't know why you hate atheists so much. How has my lack of belief in the supernatural affected your life at all?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (March 01, 2010 8:32 am ET)
                  8
                I don't hate the atheist, I hate the lifestyle of atheism. It teaches liberal knowledge and everyone knows liberal knowledge is intollerant of others who don't agree with them. Is that what you want your lifestyle to be known as ... intollerant?
                It appears to be true, since EVERY poster replying to ANY of my statements is exhibiting intollerance upon someone who doesn't share their specific beliefs. I wish to thank each and every one of you who helped prove my point.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 9:04 am ET)
                  5  
                  Again, I say, HUH????

                  What the HELL are you trying to say? Atheism has nothing to do with your ridiculous "us v. them" game any more than Christianity does. Most of the Bible professors at our local Southern Baptist University are Democrats. Why? Because it is their belief, based upon their reading of the Bible, that Jesus Christ would NOT have been a Republican in its current incarnation.

                  Disagreement is not the same as "intolerance." You can say whatever you want to say . . . that doesn't mean I have to agree. Someone who is intolerant would tell you that you have no right to say anything at all.

                  Get a grip, Floyd, and turn off Fox/hate talk radio.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Ruby (March 01, 2010 10:34 am ET)
                  6  
                  Floyd, you're the one who initially implied that atheists, because they have a different set of beliefs than you, constitute a hate group. That's not intolerance?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by political_left-religious_right (March 01, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
                  2  
                  I don't hate the atheist, I hate the lifestyle of atheism.

                  What do atheists live like, Flawed?

                  It teaches liberal knowledge

                  Knowledge is not a lifestyle. Kindly get real.

                  and everyone knows liberal knowledge is intollerant [sic] of others who don't agree with them.

                  Since you have pretty much given the opposite of the truth of liberal knowledge, I would have to say that your claim that "everyone knows" it is a bald-faced lie. You have read that little thing about not bearing false witness, haven't you?

                  Is that what you want your lifestyle to be known as ... intollerant [sic]?

                  It would be nice if you could spare us the rantings and learn both the spelling and meaning of "intolerant"; the irony is mildly amusing, though.

                  It appears to be true, since EVERY poster replying to ANY of my statements is exhibiting intollerance [sic] upon someone who doesn't share their specific beliefs.

                  This is not only wildly inaccurate, but bordering on paranoid. Besides, you've never told us your specific beliefs. Are you a Christian? What denomination? What's your specific belief on the issue of, for instance, predestination and election?

                  I wish to thank each and every one of you who helped prove my point.

                  Which would apparently be none of us. Oh well, we can hope, even pray, for better from you next time.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by fantagor (March 01, 2010 4:05 pm ET)
              2  
              Ladies and gentlemen, I give our next pope, Pope Floyd the Totally Incomprehensible!

              Randy
              Report Abuse
          • Author by killerstarfish (March 01, 2010 12:34 am ET)
               
            You forgot the evil space lord who threw billions of aliens into Hawaii's volcanoes. ;)
            Report Abuse
          • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 01, 2010 12:06 pm ET)
            4  
            "atheism, a term I loath, is a LACK of belief system, not a belief system." --fantagor

            Where a monotheist believes in one god and a polytheist believes in more than one god, an atheist is simply a nonbeliever, unbeliever, disbeliever. Most of us believe in science rather than fantasy.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by canaanxing9025 (February 27, 2010 6:50 pm ET)
          5 1
          Don Hussein Fabuloso: (I am always amazed by people's handles.)
          Your post intrigued me, and here is why:

          "Religious people publicly stating their beliefs is simply them practicing freedom of religion as guaranteed in this country." We both agree.

          "Non-religious people publicly stating their beliefs is an assault on religion and/or God." Disagree. Your right to public discourse is protected by the First Amendment.

          "Including religion in the public sphere stating their beliefs (In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, government bodies opening with prayer) is simply inclusive and respecting freedom."
          Ok, you have two things that you are discussing here. I will attempt the second, first.

          Congress begins with an opening prayer. It is a government body. Congress, according to Article I of the Constitution makes its own rules. To my knowledge, it has never been challenged. But, they can toss it if they choose too.

          Now the first: "Including religion in the public sphere... is simply inclusive and respecting freedom." Personally,I don't have a problem witth "In God We Trust..." But it depends on how you define the public forum. I am the furthest thing from a Constitutional scholar. However, private clubs, should be exempted. That has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

          "Omitting any of these is a promotion of atheism, and a full-frontal attack on people's faith."
          No it's not. My understanding of the first amendment is that people have a right to their religion, or not to have a religion at all.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (February 27, 2010 8:38 pm ET)
            15  
            Uh, actually I think he was just expressing his understanding of how people react to atheist/atheism. (well, at least in the media)

            Non-religious people publicly stating their beliefs is an assault on religion and/or God.

            Media reaction:
            "Oh no! The atheist are attacking religion again. Save the children, cover their ears!!!!"

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 28, 2010 3:18 am ET)
              9  
              Thanks, bilbo_dies. I thought it was clear what I was saying.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 28, 2010 3:16 am ET)
            7  
            Canaan, see bilbo-dies post. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (February 27, 2010 8:52 am ET)
      22  
      I've never seen anyone as shallow and unsure of his faith than Hannity.

      If he and the others, who parade themselves across our screens every day, truly believed in their Christian faith, nothing could scare them. All other faiths and unfaiths could be presented and discussed openly because these "Christians" actually believed.

      Something tells me that the right's "Christians" are no different than their "Patriots".

      Both groups comprise fearful, unsure, cowarly people, who need the comfort of other weaklings to build their own strength.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by canaanxing9025 (February 27, 2010 9:36 am ET)
        9  
        I am pretty sure that if Roger Ailes held up Hannity's left hand and told him it was really his right hand, Hannity (who I believe is right handed) would begin writing with his left hand.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (February 27, 2010 8:39 pm ET)
          7  
          No, but; if he told him he wouldn't get paid then he probably would.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 9:06 am ET)
             
          That's what has been reported. Hannity will say ANYTHING if the money is right. He doesn't believe the crap he shovels, it's just a means to an end. Money in his pocket.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (February 27, 2010 10:08 am ET)
        8  
        That's the nature of mainstream religion. If you had a debate about whether or not Bigfoot exists people would be much more accepting of the fact that doubters were getting face time.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rtejon (February 27, 2010 12:25 pm ET)
        5  
        I'm not Catholic but I remember this episode that caused Hannity to lose quite a few Catholics from his audience.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 28, 2010 4:16 pm ET)
        4  
        Sounds just like Roger Ailes--fearful, unsure, cowardly, needing the comfort of weaklings to build their own strength. This is a man who rides to and from work in a small convoy and has a camera in the hallway outside his office. The utimate behind-the-scenes puppetmaster. I'd also like to add paranoid to the existing list of traits.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by semiarid (February 28, 2010 7:23 pm ET)
        4  
        I think you are overestimating Hannity. You are giving him way too much credit for having actual religious convictions. I doubt Hannity was propelled by religious outrage to make this claim, he just had to find something topical to badmouth Obama about. It doesn't have to make any sense, it just has to last for three hours a day, five days a week. That is Sean Hannity's job. We live in odd times, when honest people can't get honest work, but Sean Hannity can make a fortune badmouthing the President of the United States.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (February 27, 2010 8:58 am ET)
      12  
      This is just paranoia on the part of those who are actually unhappy about this meeting with atheists, humanists and secularists. I'm purposely differentiating that group from those, like Hannity, who only criticize it for purposes of partisan, opportunistic attack. Regardless, neither group would be happy with anything short of complete and total shunning and demonization of non-theistic groups.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by AB-001 (February 27, 2010 9:54 am ET)
      13  
      In Foxland, Muslims don't count, Buddhists get an asterisk and Jews are patronizingly tolerated. Hence they aren't "real" religious leaders. And did Fox Approved Christiansâ„¢ come to the Obama White House? Or was it those "other" Christians? You know, the ones who actually follow the teachings of Jesus.

      By those standards, Hannity has a point. By reality standards, another blatant Fox lie that its core audience wants to hear.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by AB-001 (February 27, 2010 9:56 am ET)
        6  
        Sorry, the "â„¢" was supposed to be a trademark symbol, but it didn't come through in the posting.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ilikeike (February 27, 2010 5:22 pm ET)
           
        G W Bush used to joke with his father about all the evangelical "wackos" they had to deal with. but I suppose that was of interest to Fox who praised Bush as a man of faith
        Report Abuse
    • Author by reanna-mator (February 27, 2010 10:23 am ET)
      18 1
      If God is so strong, why are some people so terrified of atheists?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 28, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
        4  
        True Christians are afraid of very few things on this earth. The Bible doesn't teach Christians to be fearful, in fact, it says the opposite. It is my opinion that fearful "Christians" aren't true Christians, they're CINO.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Floyd (March 01, 2010 8:55 am ET)
          5
        reanna-- If God is so strong, why are some people so terrified of atheists?

        I don't think good religous folk are terrified of atheists, we are more terrified at what atheism can do to folks. There are probably close to 50 examples of intollerance already posted here that show what atheism is like. Good religious folk are tollerant of others, no matter who they are, but they aren't tollerant of the lifestyle that caused their conditions. The lifestyle causes the fall, but help is there when those who fall need it. Apparantly, atheism doesn't share that decree. They tend to express hate towards anyone who questions their lifestyle, letting them fall and telling them to stay down there because they don't feel you are worthy of their considerations.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 9:11 am ET)
          2  
          Intolerant: unable to accept difference of opinion.

          Sorry, Floyd, but the only one I'm seeing on this thread who is unable to accept a difference of opinion is you. You are the one who is intolerant. These folks simply disagree with you. You are unwilling and unable to accept that disagreement.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (March 01, 2010 9:34 am ET)
              4
            *from Merriam-Webster
            Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
            Function: adjective
            Date: circa 1735
            1 : unable or unwilling to endure
            2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
            3 : exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>

            Ok, bintx, explain how I am unwilling to accept that you are being hypocritical? Are you granting me equal freedom to share social, political expressions? Or are you the bigoted one who is saying that only I (and those who think like I do) aren't allowed to express their opinions on atheism? Or, are you going to say I am perfectly free to express those opinions, but you don't have to accept them?

            The funny thing is that I haven't once said I do not accept your difference of opinion. I have only given my opinion. Which NONE of you have accepted. In fact ALL of you have said my opinion is unacceptable. WHO is being the intolerant one???
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 9:41 am ET)
              1  
              I'm not being hypocritical at all. You have every right to state your opinions as does every single other person on this board, but that's not what you are doing. You are expressing intolerance to others who are. You are the one who is screaming "intolerance" at people who are simply stating their opinions.


              Grow up, Floyd. You aren't doing the furtherance of Christianity much good with your intolerance and generalizations. Christ didn't preach intolerance. That's what you are showing here. Even Paul knew better than to attack the beliefs of those to whom he was spreading the Gospel.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by political_left-religious_right (March 01, 2010 1:06 pm ET)
              1  
              Flawed, I would like to point out something, besides the spelling of "intolerance," that has repeatedly escaped you.

              I have been on these boards for about four years now, and have always had the same screen name. I am perfectly willing to stand up and identify myself as a fundamental evangelical Christian. I know that there are people of other beliefs, including atheism, on this board.

              I have never had any leftist on these boards denigrate me because of my religious beliefs. I believe that bintx and epkklk, both professing Christians, could say the same thing. Everyone has been wonderfully tolerant. (Thank you all, by the way!)

              Now do you see why it's so hard to take you seriously when you keep screaming about religious intolerance?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (March 01, 2010 2:05 pm ET)
              2  


              I hate the lifestyle of atheism (Floyd)


              Floyd, have you seen anybody here say that they hate the lifestyle of religion ?
              Report Abuse
        • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 01, 2010 12:27 pm ET)
          3  
          "I don't think good religous folk are terrified of atheists, we are more terrified at what atheism can do to folks." --Floyd

          And what do you think atheism can do to folks, Floyd? I ask the question quite seriously ... not with intolerance.

          My father taught me that there are 3 things better left undiscussed: sex, religion and politics. While I like discussing them all, I do understand his point. All are VERY personal and very seldom are peoples' minds changed. However, I usually walk away from such a exchange having learned something and am a better person for have participating. Intolerance comes in to play when generalizations are made and people refuse to respect that there are others who do believe differently than they do are wrong.

          From what I've read here, Floyd, no one has said that you are wrong in your belief ... they've stated their beliefs which differ from yours. You do seem unable to accept that your beliefs are the right ones and any one who doesn't believe as you is being intolerant of you. I don't see it that way at all.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 01, 2010 12:29 pm ET)
               
            Sheesh ... I should proof before posting should be "participated" not "participating."
            Report Abuse
        • Author by reanna-mator (March 01, 2010 10:24 pm ET)
          1  
          By making assumptions about atheists, you've proven your own statement about the tolerance of "religious folk" to be quite false.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by MeanMrSpicyMustard (February 27, 2010 10:47 am ET)
      23  
      I get this a lot from Christians when I just meet them and the subject of me being an atheist is broached: "You're an atheist? But you're such a nice guy!" Scare tactics like this just keep Christians afraid of a demographic that's already stigmatized, already receives essentially zero representation in the government, and is already told to sit down and "be respectful of faith"... when, of course, you'll never hear a mainstream figure say that the religious should be quiet and be respectful of the faithless. It's disgusting. And it's not even just the neocons--or even conservatives--who are doing it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (February 27, 2010 1:52 pm ET)
        10  
        Good points!

        Along with many others, President Obama has used the term "non-believers", which I find somewhat demeaning and dismissive. I also recoil a bit when it's assumed that I have no faith.

        I believe and I have faith. I just don't believe in or have faith in a supreme entity (or entities), mythology or cult-demanded dogma.

        Maybe I'll start using a new acronym to describe myself when asked about my "faith" - OWTS (pronounced "outs"). Since my definition of "stupid" is intentional ignorance, OWTS would stand for One Who Tolerates Stupidity.

        I know, I know - that term has a whiff of superiority to it, but it's a lot better than GYHOYA (pronounced "gee-hoi-ya") - Get Yuz Heads Outta Yuz Asses.


        Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (February 27, 2010 5:29 pm ET)
          9  
          Along with many others, President Obama has used the term "non-believers", which I find somewhat demeaning and dismissive.

          This upsets me, too, but I think atheist is just as bad a label.

          People who don't believe in astrology aren't called "non-astrologists", nor are people who reject slavery called "non-slaveists". But when you reject the antiquated notions of Bronze Age tribesman, you are an "a-theist". Sorry, true believers of mystical nonsense, but I am merely "rational", and that requires no special label.

          Randy
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (March 01, 2010 9:03 am ET)
              9
            And like every other atheist before you, you exhibit intollerance of those not believing in YOUR religion (antiquated notions, mystical nonsense).
            Is there a catchy name you can use that expresses the intollerance your group has of others different than you? I would use hypocrit, but I think liberals have the market on that label cornered.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 9:08 am ET)
              4  
              What Randy said wasn't "intolerance" of believers. He disagrees. If he were intolerant, he would prohibit you from believing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fantagor (March 01, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
                1  
                Correct. I'm not going to legislate that people stop believing in God. But I am in favor of people deciding ON THEIR OWN TERMS to stop believing. There is a vast difference.

                Randy
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Ruby (March 01, 2010 10:38 am ET)
              5  
              Floyd...

              I am a devout Catholic. Bintx is also a Christian.

              Why is it that neither of us feels the need to accuse anyone on this thread of "intolerance"? Are you assuming that we're all atheists, because we're not.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by rms (March 01, 2010 10:57 am ET)
              4  
              In reading your multiple posts, I think you either (a) don't really understand atheism, or (b) the only atheists you have met are those who possess these negative characteristics. Trust me; they are FAR from representative.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 27, 2010 1:56 pm ET)
        18  
        "You're an atheist? But you're such a nice guy!"


        Haha, I've heard that before, Mr. M. I once found a wallet with some money in it, and returned it to the nearby address on the ID inside. The home was decorated with religious knick-knacks, yard signs, front door plaque, window stickers, and as the front door opened, all over the interior walls.

        The owner of the wallet took the opportunity to point out that God was working through me, and all thanks were due to His intervention, and she wanted to pray with me.

        I told her I wasn't a believer, and this was just a case of some guy returning her property, no miracles involved. She seemed almost angry that I was taking credit. She also seemed a little confused. She questioned me a bit, not seeming to understand why I would bring her money back if it wasn't going to help me get into heaven or stay out of hell.

        I guess it's good that some people have religion to give them a reason to behave.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (February 27, 2010 8:45 pm ET)
          12  
          She also seemed a little confused. She questioned me a bit, not seeming to understand why I would bring her money back if it wasn't going to help me get into heaven or stay out of hell.


          Could it be because religion tends to be based on fear?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (March 01, 2010 9:15 am ET)
            6
          Don, Do I need to point out that you're another intollerant person? Two things: 1- How can you KNOW that God didn't have a hand in letting YOU find the money and return it? 2- You can read her mind and say specifically she wanted you to agree that your good deed was going to get you into Heaven?
          I guess your cute little story shows that atheists are mind-readers AND intollerant. No wonder so many folks don't trust atheism.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 9:36 am ET)
            5  
            Floyd, Don's not being intolerant, YOU ARE. Don is stating an opinion. You are unable to accept that his opinion differs from yours.

            As a Christian, I find your intolerance of others offensive.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (March 01, 2010 10:10 am ET)
                6
              Ooooh, another mind-reader. Perhaps you can tell me what that lady was thinking. I asked Don how he knew what she was thinking but I got called "intolerant" for asking. Maybe your strong Christian faith can tell me how YOU know what she was thinking.

              But, personally, I don't care if I am offensive to you. That's why I don't prescribe to the liberal theology (like so many of you do). I am perfectly willing to let others have whatever opinion they want. However, if they expect me to shut up when I disagree with their opinion, then they are being hypocritical and ... yes, intolerant.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 10:39 am ET)
                5  
                I'm not a liberal, Floyd. You are no conservative. What that has to do with a discussion of religion is beyond me, though. You are talking about two different subjects.

                And, I will repeat . . . the only intolerance I've seen on this thread is coming from your posts. You don't want anyone to disagree with you. Grow up, Floyd.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by political_left-religious_right (March 01, 2010 1:13 pm ET)
                  2  
                  I must say that if our friend Flawed thinks he is being a good advertisement for Christianity, he is probably only helping the atheists in confirming their beliefs.

                  I suspect that God wouldn't be any too pleased with that!
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (March 01, 2010 1:09 pm ET)
            4  
            Don, Do I need to point out that you're another intollerant person?

            It'd be great if you could point out any evidence of anybody being untollurant, rather than just continuing to chant it over and over, but I won't hold my breath.

            Two things: 1- How can you KNOW that God didn't have a hand in letting YOU find the money and return it?

            I can't possibly know that. Nobody can. Do you think I should have submitted to the woman's request to honor her God because neither of us knew that He was involved ? Seems sort of silly. Do you let people force you to acknowledge as truth anything that you can't prove is not the truth ?

            2- You can read her mind and say specifically she wanted you to agree that your good deed was going to get you into Heaven?

            I never said that she wanted me to agree (any further than praying with her). I only said that her questions showed that she didn't really understand why I would return her property if there was no magical prize in it for me.

            You seem to have some really fundamental confusion on this topic. I'd recommend reading over the comments again when you've settled down a little.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Onyxcat (February 27, 2010 10:59 am ET)
      11  
      "...with Obama administration officials from the public engagement office of the White House and from the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services and Defense" and that "President Obama -- as expected -- did not make an appearance."

      So what is the stink? ? ? The President did NOT meet with any of these people. He did, however, meet with religious groups. Of course, Atheistism is a philosophy, not a system of beliefs.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (February 27, 2010 11:16 am ET)
        11  
        Well, it appears that Atheists may have equal access to the White House and that's unacceptable to people uncomfortable in their faith.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Conchobhar (February 27, 2010 12:02 pm ET)
          9  
          I fail to see how atheists "have equal access to the White House," if the President meets with religious groups, and doesn't meet with them.
          I can understand why he doesn't, of course, politically. This story, as it stands, is a one day distraction, if that. No telling what kind of legs it would have if he'd actually met with the "godless."
          While meeting with them would have had him standing with Washington, and I personally would have applauded it, it might be pragmatically unwise in what one hopes is the final push to get health care reform enacted. Those yokels are going to attack him no matter what he does, but this isn't the time to give them extra ammunition.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Dradeeus (February 27, 2010 2:56 pm ET)
          8  
          We may have come a long way, but non-Christians are still, unfortunately, a political liability.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (February 27, 2010 2:09 pm ET)
      14  
      Why do Christianists like Hannity feel so threatened by Atheism, given that God is almighty?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Disputed Zone (February 27, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
        7  
        Maybe this has something to do with it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MeanMrSpicyMustard (March 01, 2010 11:13 am ET)
          1  
          I'm an atheist and someone with an allegedly high IQ depending on the specific test, but even I can tell the flaws in that study right off the bat. A 6 to 11 point difference on a scale that's already controversial and not as quantitative as it seems is hardly worth discussing at all.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (March 01, 2010 9:07 am ET)
        2  
        Most real Christians aren't threatened by atheism.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (February 27, 2010 4:02 pm ET)
      11  
      This is the same President who just met with, yep, the Dalai Lama, who is of course, the leader of a major religion.

      Hannity, you look a fool yet once again.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by glogrrl (February 27, 2010 4:56 pm ET)
         
      SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (February 27, 2010 5:22 pm ET)
      10  
      Oh, yeah, that'll be the day when atheist and all people who are simply RATIONAL get preferential treatment.

      Special treatment is reserved exclusively for those who profess a belief in spooky incompetent father figures.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (February 27, 2010 6:16 pm ET)
      11  
      National Prayer Breakfast is hosted by a highly secretive group. If Obama skipped it, that was the right move.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Joker B (February 27, 2010 8:07 pm ET)
         
      Media Matters, is your citing of this story that Hannity is lying, or that Obama is not *really* talking to those horrible atheists that want to tear down all our precious values, like "the golden rule" and "Death to all apostates"?

      Just trying to figure out who I should be hating the most, here.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Space-Pedestrian (February 28, 2010 9:46 am ET)
      6  
      It's true. We ARE smarter than everyone else!!

      Your text to link here...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 28, 2010 4:30 pm ET)
        5  
        Wait until this news hit the MSM. Heads will be exploding in rw quarters.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by MeanMrSpicyMustard (March 01, 2010 11:14 am ET)
           
        Said it up above and I'll say it again here...

        I'm an atheist and someone with an allegedly high IQ depending on the specific test, but even I can tell the flaws in that study right off the bat. A 6 to 11 point difference on a scale that's already controversial and not as quantitative as it seems is hardly worth discussing at all.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by LeftOfCenter (February 28, 2010 9:48 am ET)
         
      It is a little strange....

      I find it amazing that any religious group actually BELIEVES that they can be stopped from "praying" in school. Oh maybe they can be stopped from making a "public display" of their "prayer", but stop them from "praying"...

      I further find it amazing that any "acceptable" religion can provide a "benediction" or "opening prayer", let a wiccan or "atheist" try and OMG we can't have that. Even better try a satanist....

      Religion, like "sexual "preference"" is a PERSONAL matter...

      My religious beliefs (or lack of) are none of ANYONES business. It is offensive that they would be questioned by ANYONE...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LibraF (February 28, 2010 12:33 pm ET)
         
      It's easy to understand why a TV and radio commentator would admonish anyone the commentator accuses of being an atheist. Society has of course required them bad atheists to wear that yellow symbol on their clothes and also have that mark on their arms so that atheists are easy to pick out. Indeed good Born-Again Christians like Robertson, Haggart, and others are what we should all strive to be. Some of us are still striving though. It's so good that Born-Again Christian religion is being pushed into politics more every election cycle. Guess there is something to be said for world unity. One of these days the only way we will be able to tell the difference between countries like Saudia Arabia or Iran and the US will be in their chosen style of dress.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (February 28, 2010 12:45 pm ET)
         
      . "So what's going on? Has the administration demonstrated a pattern of hostility towards religion, or is this merely a coincidence?" Or a silly lie which you made up Mr. SissyBoy. Shyawn..in your rapid fire non-snetnces you usually have 9 or 10 phraes but here only tewo questions..you could've added this third one third.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by little poncho (February 28, 2010 11:07 pm ET)
         
      WHO CARES, WHAT HANDADDY SAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
      Report Abuse
    • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 01, 2010 11:56 am ET)
      2  
      I've long tried understanding just how people can put so much trust and/or belief in something that is non-tangible (such as G-d, Jesus, Yaweh, etc.) and be so intolerant of others who believe in Buddha, Mohammed, the teachings of the Dalai Lama, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc. Heck, if you'd ask many of these folks who believe in G-d if they believed in UFO's, they would probably say no and show great intolerance toward those who do.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Reinhard (March 01, 2010 1:37 pm ET)
      1  
      Well at least through all of the back and forth with Floyd one positive outcome has emerged- he's learned how to spell intolerant. Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (March 01, 2010 4:09 pm ET)
      1  
      But how many complete freakin' morons do you know who are atheist?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (March 01, 2010 4:14 pm ET)
        1  
        This was meant as a response to Bintx above. I guess when the profanity filter kicks you out and you retype what you said in the same box it sticks it at the end instead of under the comment to which you are replying.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (March 01, 2010 6:04 pm ET)
      1  
      Liberalism, atheism linked to high IQ
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.