Good old glib smug “mainstream” journalism, sneering at anything non-majoritarian or insurrectionist. Dana Milbank at the Washington Post apparently thinks secularism is just a big joke.
The nation’s atheists went to Capitol Hill on Monday to launch an effort that they hope will someday give them the lobbying clout of the Christian conservative movement.
They don’t have a prayer.
He sneers smugly. Is he pleased that theocrats have more lobbying clout than secularists? Does he think theocracy would be a good thing?
But that obvious fact won’t stop them from exercising their God-given right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. And their grievances are many, including:
● the “In God We Trust” national motto.
● the National Day of Prayer.
● the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
● the practice of opening sessions of Congress with a prayer and ending oaths of office with “so help me God.”
“What does that do to our non-theist community?” asked Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, which bills itself as the only full-time lobbying group for atheists, agnostics, humanists and the like. “What does that do to our minority religions like voodooism, etcetera?”
No doubt it makes them mad enough to cast a hex.
Again with the smug jokes. Is shallowness a requirement for doing mainstream journalism? Yes, probably. Shallowness and casual conformity.
Rogers, in a glittery gold blouse and knee-high boots with four-inch heels, acknowledges that she has a bit of a challenge to match the $390 million she says religious groups spend on lobbying each year.
Milbank, in a vomit-stained T shirt and a purple thong, should switch to writing copy for clothing catalogues.
Oh, c’mon, Ophelia. Rogers is a woman; don’t you know what she wore is SO MUCH more important than what she had to say? I write as I wear a simple white t-shirt with black shorts and no shoes. As a woman, it’s all about how we look…if she’s svelte and well-dressed, men might want to look at her and fondle her, and chew on her leg. If she’s not? Well, she just doesn’t matter – like me, in my simple white t-shirt and black shorts, because my doctor’s degree is irrelevant if I don’t know how to look suitably “feminine”.
Do you s’pose Edwina was feminine enough for him? He doesn’t quite say…
Perfect. What a beautifully unique sparklepony that guy is.
But, attire aside, Edwina Rogers is quoted thusly:
Why Voodooism? I mean, not that there’s anything more wrong with that than any other superstitious bullshit, but why use that as an example rather than, say, Buddhism or Jainism or Hinduism or any other ism that doesn’t have some of the occult, making-a-pact-with-the-debil-and-bringin’-the-hurricaines baggage? As part of a longer list on polytheistic or otherwise alternative viewpoints, sure, but as THE representative alternative? Am I the only one who finds that an odd choice?
@2 No. I also thought it was a bit odd. My go to “alts” in these sorts of discussions tend to be Buddhism and Islam because so many people are familiar with them and yet they are so different. But I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned Voodooism is an example. Is that even the right word? Isn’t is [Regional] Voodoo or something?
Also , Edwina is wearing 4 inch heals but no details on if they be stilettos or wedge. I’m unsure of how I should think of her without this very topical and important detail. There needs to be a follow up article. /sarc
“They don’t have a prayer.”
Oh my aching sides.
Right Isha, I think most people would say the same, which leads me to view the selection of ‘voodooism’ with some suspicion. Either Rogers is being fed some shitty talking points from her advisors, or she’s making these bad calls on her own. Either way it doesn’t bode well for effective advocacy.
Don’t have a… don’t have a prayer? I just got that! Ohhh ho ho ho! And they said print media was a dying art! Ha ha ha! What fun! Dana Milbank, you are the living end!
Sure, heap scorn on Milbank, he deserves it. But don’t ignore the fact that this column is a self-inflicted PR wound for the SCA. Voodooism?!? And no, it’s not fair that if Rogers wears a gold blouse and 4 inch heels it will be mentioned, but that’s the way it is. On what really matters, the image the article gives the secularist movement, it was a disaster: the nit-picking mentions of God, the awkward professor type, the herding cats trope, all the negative stereotypes are there. I’m sure Milbank found that the column wrote itself. The SCA needs to get a clue.
Make sure you take part in a contest meant for one of the best blog post on the net. I’ll mention this site!
exceptionally nice column, i absolutely love this internet site, continue it