Media should push back on the religious privilege in American politics.
Not a prerequisite for public office.
Now that news editors have assembled and disseminated their end-of-year lists – Top 10 of This, Worst 5 of That – I'd like to mention one of the Most Missed Stories of 2015: how religious privilege plays out in American politics. You can't escape it, and yet it is almost always escaped.
What I mean by religious privilege is the presumption that being a member of a Judeo-Christian faith is better than having no religion or being a nonbeliever. This is something the news media routinely and uncritically accept.
The results are predictable: Nonbelievers can't run for office as openly secular, which skews public policy on issues such as women's reproductive freedom and whether evolution is taught in school, and politicians compete with each other to broadcast their sanctimony.
This is well worth reading in its entirety, [here] as it includes numerous examples of Republican clown car lunacy and links to great cartoons. The author, Robyn Blumner, is president and CEO of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science and project director of Openly Secular.
The Grateful Dead did a song titled I may be going to hell in a bucket but at least I'm enjoying the ride. This article alone has made the 2016 part of the ride better.
Considering how right-wing US News and World Report has been known to be, that a report from the Richard Dawkins Foundation appeared in it at all is an astonishing turn for them. I would love to see US News adopt such an editorial attitude, but knowing their history as I do, holding my breath is not a viable option.
Just recently a retired conservative MP in the UK revealed that he had hidden his atheism for 20 years for fear of the consequences. 75% of the electorate profess religious indifference, a hint at the hypocritical pretensions of the religious tolerance called for by the status quo.
This is well worth reading in its entirety ...
You might want to highlight the fact that the line at the top is a link. It wasn't immediately obvious to me, and it took me a minute or so to find it. Admittedly, I haven't had any coffee in about 8 hours ...
Usually, there's something a bit more indicative in the links to news stories that I see posted as discussions on here.
Wasn't the text blue like a regular link?
The default link-blue in Chrome is pretty dark. Plus, being the first line of the article, under a whole bunch of other link text at the top of the article:
... it kind of blends a bit, between that and the black text immediately below the article link ... all of which is in a font with very thin lines, which makes the color even harder to differentiate.
If you grab the "Read more here" text from the article itself and paste that into the discussions that you start, it helps a little. Or you could insert your own URL indicator yourself. I think that's what John usually does with the many interesting articles he posts.
Good point. For future reference I added another link toward the bottom.
That works pretty well. In the middle of a mass of black text, the blue link stands out a lot more.
When are the media going to describe the Bundy gang as Mormon terrorists?
Approximately 45 minutes after pigs evolve wings.
Well, since my grandpa was a monkey, according to evolution, it happens pretty quickly. Could be any day now.
And the week after that the flying pig will be able to ace the Turing test too.
Err, wouldn't pigs already be able to pass the Turing Test, given that they're alive and probably self-aware? We just need to establish a functional means of communication for complex ideas, between our species.