Posted by Hemant Mehta in An editorial in California’s Redding: Record Searchlight newspaper wants to say “The nuts of Westboro Baptist Church should stay in Kansas” rather than picketing a local soldier’s funeral.
And they do… they call WBC a “poisonous parody of faith whose adherents should stay in Kansas.”
Right on.
But what is up with the first line in the piece, referring to WBC?
They can’t be real Christians. They must be part of an atheist cabal.
Their goal? To undermine churches. To give religion a black eye. To plant in the minds of the young a twisted and evil view of Christianity.
How else to explain the perverse tactics of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, whose members travel the country to picket soldiers’ funerals with a message of hate?
Atheist cabal?!
Why would the writers attack bigotry by making bigoted statements themselves?
Seems to be a trend.
The comments on the editorial’s thread are even worse…
(via A Whore in the Temple of Reason)
[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]
Eep. We don’t want them in Kansas either! Maybe I’ll write an editorial about how the WBC should move to California.
Well said. Thanks for the link.
I think it makes sense… I don’t think the author is asserting that atheists are attacking bigotry, I think s/he is asserting that they are attacking religion. It’s a good point– the Westboro Baptist Church has probably driven more moderate people away from Christianity than all of Dawkins’ books combined. If a “cabal of atheists” wanted to create a less religious society, they could certainly do worse than to invent the WBC.
Too be fair, not all of the comments were bad. A lot of people were sticking up for the atheists.
When atheists mock religion, Landover Baptist is the result. When Christians commit themselves to believing the whole, Bible WBC is the result. Most Christians sensibly ignore most of the bits of the Bible WBC takes seriously.
I guess if you have a pack of lions or a gaggle of geese then you can have a cabal of atheists.
I guess the editors can’t tell the difference between WBC and Landover Baptist? (You could probably say Landover Baptist was created by an atheist cabal.)
Landover Baptist is a lot funnier.
Damn, they’re on to us.
This tactic is quite common really. If you’ve ever participated in (or just observed) religion debate forums I’m sure you’ve seen it. Liberal Christians claim that Conservative Christians are not “True Christians” and vice-versa (because no “True Christian” would do ABC or XYZ…). One side or the other accuses the opposite group of being fake Christians, even atheists posing as Christians, to make Christians and Christianity look bad. Round and round it goes ad nauseum. When it isn’t downright annoying it can be rather amusing.
I’ve heard people say the same thing about Rush Limbaugh… that he’s secretly a liberal, and he’s doing all of this to show how ridiculous republicanism is.
The problem is, somewhere now decades later, someone forgot the joke, and the rest of the republicans decided they’d be more like Rush and less like Eisenhower or the great true conservatives of his era, persona like Churchill. Serious-minded people for serious issues. The demagogs won out over the pragmatists. I blame it on pro wrestling.
Buffy,
I concur: that’s not my religion, that’s not my god you’re criticizing, they’re not true [insert religion here], [insert religion here] is a religion of peace, all religions are fundamentally for peace, all religions are for “good”. I have witnessed all of these. I don’t see the moderates religious winning the argument against the religious dickheads. Doubt, apathy, lack of belief is a much more powerful force against the kind of shit they’re selling.
I wish I had a cabal. Or at least a cadre. A posse, perhaps?
All right, who’s down for a friendly atheist posse?
Sounds like conspiracy theory 101. WBC would be a “controlled opposition”. There is no way anyone with a brain would take that article seriously.
Alan Bombria: “Sounds like conspiracy theory 101.”
It would be if it weren’t sarcasm. As it stands, it looks to be in the same line of thinking as Paul Krugman half-jokingly describing Bush as “The Arabian Candidate,” analogous to the “Manchurian Candidate,” where Bush’s seeming idiocy is because he is “really” an Al Qaeda mole.
Interestingly enough, the editorialist had said outright that it was an “ironic rhetorical device.”