Atheists agree with Fox News Megyn Kelly on free speech

[rug]

By James Kirk Wall, Thursday at 8:34 am

Most atheists are liberal democrats. Just hearing the words Fox News cause many to clinch their rears so tight that they could turn a lump of coal into a diamond. It’s not surprising that non-believers reject a Republican worshiping, Christian bigoted, scientifically illiterate, and biased “news” network. So what happens when a Fox News personality makes a statement that atheists have no choice but to love?

Megyn Kelly has become a powerful force in cable news, and she has been an absolute champion on the issue of free speech. This right is highly cherished in the atheist community. Our people have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed for simply saying they don’t believe in god in certain other countries.

So disagree with her as you will on economics or politics in general, but give her praise for defending our First Amendment. Here are some excellent examples.

We will not give up our freedoms because some uptight religious extremist schmuck can’t take a joke.

http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/2015/05/atheists-agree-with-fox-news-megyn-kelly-on-free-speech/

[cbayer]

1. I agree with the general position she takes here, but

where does Wall come off speaking for atheists?

It's not an atheist position and he speaks only for himself.

Hemant Mehta is also slobbering all over Kelly, too.

Maybe she will have an epiphany and change sides.

[rug]

2. "We"

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Greta Van Susteren Scolds Pamela Geller’s Group for Putting Cops at Risk

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greta-van-susteren-scolds-pamela-gellers-group-for-putting-cops-at-risk/

isn't this a fun game?

[rug]

4. It's not a game, it's a Rorschach test.

There are those who use the incident, while proclaiming the sanctity of free speech, that are much more interested in talking about the barbarity, et cetera, of religion.

And there are others who use the incident, while proclaiming the sanctity of free speech, that are much more interested in talking about the particular evil of Islam as the means to promote military intervention.

And then there are those, like Greta, who are much more interested in keeping her pay check.

It's a good thing no one here falls into any of those categories, isn't it?

[Goblinmonger]

5. And then there are those that want to defend free speech

even when it is the most vile people that need the defending.

And then there are those that will turn their back on free speech so that they can look SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO liberal toward religion all the while shitting on the First Amendment.

[rug]

6. Ah, category one.

QED.

A timely post.

[Goblinmonger]

7. Nope.

I can talk about Geller's speech without discussion religion. Have done it a great deal.

[rug]

8. You just did.

[Lordquinton]

38. Tell us Rug, what do you see?

This is far more revealing about you than anyone else.

[rug]

39. At the moment I see a post about meta with a suggestion of clairvoyance.

I consider both to be bunk.

[Lordquinton]

40. Really? You got that from the article you posted?

Very interesting... Please, tell us more...

[rug]

41. I got it directly from your post.

(See the word "post", not "article" in the reply?)

[warrant46]

52. Greta needs to take

Her Prozac

[cbayer]

10. Here is a whole other take on Megan Kelly's current position, and it's not pretty

or applause worthy. These are her true colors.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/05/megyn-kelly-tells-everyone-shut-and

[okasha]

11. I wonder who writes her material.

She has the 1000 yard stare of and flat voice of someone who doesn't know her "own" commentary and is reading off the teleprompter.

[cbayer]

12. Agree, she is very wooden.

Found out today that she is actually an attorney, though it doesn't really show.

While I agree with her basic defense of free speech, her real agenda is much clearer in this clip and if Wall and Mehta agree with this part of her defense, then they are smelling pretty islamophobic.

And if that's the case, they have even less cause to say they speak for atheists, because I gonna bet that the vast majority of atheists are not islamophobic at all.

[okasha]

13. I think we all agree about free-speech rights

If the threads in GD are any indication, though, the Islamophobic (and generally religiophobic) contingent commenting on this story is loud but small. Most recognize a setup when they see one. Even the presumably conservative mayor of conservative Garland has accused Geller of knowingly placing police officers and populace in danger.

Edited to add: can't post link, but Google "Garland mayor Geller," and you will have several to choose from. The TPM piece has a link to the original story in the Dallas Morning News.

[cbayer]

14. Agree - loud but small and starting to stick out like sore thumbs.

One put up a thread last night and got torn apart, which was a good thing to see.

DU'ers aren't dumb and while some may have fallen for the BS initially, most have backed away and see it for what it is.

Most of the remaining few already have no credibility, so I think it's all good.

[okasha]

15. I saw that.

It was a pathetic attempt.

[cbayer]

20. Now he's here saying I'm not a progressive with a good heart and I am patronizing muslims.

I'm not sure what words to use for this, but none of them would be positive.

[okasha]

24. "Pathetic attempt" still works, I think.

Looks like he's going for the secret handshake, which is even more pitiful.

On second thought, I'm getting a strong feeling of deja vu here. Hmmm...

[Yorktown]

31. Looks like the two of you share secret handshakes

Care to state what your common religious beliefs are.

And no, respecting others' religious beliefs is not a religious belief in itself.

Convert me: what's your god, ladies?

[Yorktown]

17. Nope, trying to pin me to Pamela Geller didn't work

The thread nicely evolved to put into light that the useful idiots of fundamentalism -in Lenin's terms- are delusional individuals who think hateful clerics will evolve if only they sang Kumbaya.

It's also contemptuous toward the great mass of muslims. You assume they cannot force the religious hierarchy to make the dogma evolve. You seem to have forgotten Christianity was forced to evolve.

A mere two centuries ago (give and take one or two decades), blasphemy laws were in place in the west. If there had been people like you then, saying the religious feelings of people should be vindicated, such laws would still be in place.

You are not a progressive with a good heart, you are patronizing muslims, complicit in not pushing for reform of inacceptable dogmas, and haughtily dismissive of agents of change.

[cbayer]

18. "You are not a progressive with a good heart" "You are patronizing muslims"

You are funny and getting funnier all the time.

Keep it up.

[Yorktown]

19. My pleasure.

Don't forget not to read what you're talking about.

It's mighty funny too.

[cbayer]

21. It's getting lonelier and lonelier where you are.

And that's a very good thing, imo.

I am sure that there are places that will fully embrace your POV, but I am very hopeful that this is not one of them.

[Yorktown]

22. LOL says who? Your confirmation bias is in overdrive.

Your vague, fuzzy, kimbayesque pronouncements are all very nice.

I am sure that there are places that will fully embrace your POV, sites about esotericism or new age spirituality,

but I am very hopeful that this is not one of them. Progressives usually advovate Reason.

Religion most often doesn't, if only because it's based on demonstrably silly books.

[okasha]

23. You had such an inglorious prattfall

in GD that you're going to do an encore here? Be welcome.

And by the way, please identify for us the moment when mockery begins to force you to change your mind. You're a marvelous argument against your own hypothesis, for which labor-saving fact I duly thank you.

[Yorktown]

25. My title was ill written, I rephrased it.

The "inglorious pratfall" you conjure up can only relate to the adverse initial reaction to my initial title, not text.

The fact of mentioning Mrs Geller in the title diverted the discussion from the topic my initial text was discussing.

Unlike you, I am not steeped in beliefs I would bask in and evolved to focus on a reasoned discussion.

Something you will never do about your 'feeling' there must be a god somewhere. And can't define.

[okasha]

28. LOL.

NanceGreggs, among others, left you in shreds.

[Yorktown]

30. NanceGreggs will have to learn to make points

Others brought objections I remember. Nothing of the sort about anything nanceGreggs wrote.

Confirmation bias within an in-group again, I suppose?


Btw, what do YOU believe in? cbayer believes in something warm and undefined not based on any text.

What about you? What is your god? Where is it? What is it made of? What does it do? How did you learn it?

[hrmjustin]

34. Always love Nance! Good for her.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. You too.

[Yorktown]

16. Atheists agree with Hitler on liking dogs

Last edited Sat May 9, 2015, 01:01 AM - Edit history (1)

But muhamad just so happened to hate dogs. We therefore now have a perfect equation:

• Haters = Hitler = dog lovers = atheists (and Megyn Kelly for good measure)

• Lovers = religion = dog haters = Islam (Allah akbar!!!!!)

I am so glad we got this correct through unimpeachable reasoning.

Prodded in that by an OP article of shining intellectual honesty.

[okasha]

26. Well, well. Another right-wing/fundie stereotype.

Abu Hurairah recounts two hadiths in which a person, one of them a prostitute, goes to Paradise because they give water to a thirsty dog. (There's another in which a woman goes to hell for starving a cat.). There are also references to Muhammad's own dogs, though he seems to have been a hopelessly smitten cat person.

[Yorktown]

27. LOL I suppose British muslim clerics are RW and got Islam wrong?

Police sniffer dogs to wear bootees during house searches to avoid offending Muslims
By GRAHAM SMITH FOR MAILONLINE
UPDATED: 16:42 GMT, 17 September 2008


Sniffer dogs may have to start wearing bootees when they are used by police to search Muslim homes so that they do not cause offence, it has emerged.

A recommendation initially drawn up to cover police searches of mosques where dogs are fitted with leather bootees is now said to have been extended to Muslim homes.

Under proposals from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the bootees would be used when the occupants objected to the search on religious grounds.

Dogs' saliva is considered to be unclean or impure in Islamic teaching and it is forbidden to keep the animals as pets.

[Yorktown]

29. Here, testimony that the doctrine of Islam calls dogs haram (Malaysian RW liars)

Dogs In Islam; An Insult Or Just Misunderstood?
Print Email Details Published on Thursday, 01 August 2013 08:00
0 Comments
Chetz pictured here with one of her dogsChetz pictured here with one of her dogsKUALA LUMPUR: Dogs and Muslims are a very touchy subject, no doubt.

Just on the heels of Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee's 'bak kut teh' Ramadhan posting on their Facebook account, an old video uploaded several years ago has gone viral purportedly insulting Islam by associating Aidilfitri with dogs.

For the most part, Muslims hold on to the belief that dogs are haram in Islam.

To associate a holy celebration such as Aidilfitri with dogs is seen to be as a blatant insult and insensitive.

However, how much do we really understand about the position of dogs in Islam?

How many of us who cry foul that the video is an insult actually bother to research and find out about what Islam says about dogs?

And how many of those who are non-Muslims understand the concern pertaining to dogs in Islam before crying foul that Muslims are being overly sensitive in the case of this video, or any other instances related to dogs?

Before the age of borderless information, for the most part, we accept things and do not question much.

We were taught that dogs are haram and we stuck to it without questioning.

[Yorktown]

32. Here, your 'fundie stereotype" backed by religious scripture:

I heard Allah's Apostle(P.B.U.H) saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)." {Hadith - Bukhari 3:515}

There you go: official scripture saying muhamad disapproved of dogs.

Unless you tell me Sahi Bukhari was a Christian Conservative fundie?

Checkmate.

[mr blur]

33. No offense, but God missed the target when you weren’t born a Muslim

[AtheistCrusader]

35. One of these days I'm going to actually bite on some of your ridiculous fucking flamebait.

That's going to be a real interesting day.

[rug]

37. It may be far more interesting than you contemplate.

BTW, the author, an atheist, might take exception to you calling his work "ridiculous fucking flamebait."

[Major Nikon]

42. Who cares if he takes exception?

What is it that’s green, hangs on the wall, and whistles?

[rug]

43. Who cares about anybody's opinion?

Especially, an anonymous internet opinion.

[Major Nikon]

44. Everyone has an opinion. Some are just more relevant than others

Someone who claims I need to give Megyn Kelly praise "for defending our First Amendment" just made themselves a bit less relevant. Megyn Kelly thinks RW detractors are anti-free speech, as if calling bullshit on obvious bullshit means you hate the Constitution. The thought of Megyn Kelly "defending our First Amendment" pretty much qualifies as "ridiculous fucking flamebait", and pointing out that an atheist said it is nothing more than a red herring.

[rug]

45. Since yo're throwing arond fallacies, you neglected to mention the straw man you made of the article

[Major Nikon]

46. So I used direct quotes, but it's strawman

[rug]

47. Well, you did quote AC, I'll give you that.

But the only quote from the article is that she is ""for defending our First Amendment". Do you think she is not?

[Major Nikon]

48. Before we get into any other tangents, how about explaining how I misrepresented anyone?

If you're going to call strawman, you should at least be able to demonstrate why, no?

[rug]

49. Sure.

You wrote:

Megyn Kelly thinks RW detractors are anti-free speech, as if calling bullshit on obvious bullshit means you hate the Constitution.

He wrote:

We will not give up our freedoms because some uptight religious extremist schmuck can’t take a joke.

We will not give Islam a free pass when Christianity and Judaism have been heavily mocked for decades.

While the first paragraph may refer to rightwingers, the second one does not.

It's odd that people can defend Geller, despite her being despicable, but cannot acknowledge that Kelly, despite her being despicable, has the same position on the First Amendment.

[Major Nikon]

50. Looks like a pretty big fail

So I'll ask again more specifically who did I misrepresent and how?

It's odd that people can defend Geller, despite her being despicable, but cannot acknowledge that Kelly, despite her being despicable, has the same position on the First Amendment.

^^^This^^^ is the epitome of strawman nonsense. You're trying to pretend this is only about Geller when the OP cited other examples and is pretending Kelly is some sort of champion of the 1st Amendment. Kinda lame, no?

[rug]

51. The fail started when you quoted AC.

[Major Nikon]

53. Which you still haven't explained how I misrepresented anyone

You quoted the author previously, but evidently it's all about AC now.

At this point I think it's safe you assume you won't and/or can't.

Cheers!

[rug]

54. I did.

Read it again.

This time, slowly.

[Major Nikon]

55. I'm not disputing that you've managed to convince yourself

[rug]

56. Nor I.

Yet, reality intervenes.

[Major Nikon]

57. Perhaps, but strange that you can't articulate it, no?

[rug]

58. See 54.

[Major Nikon]

59. Damned if I can find where you answered a simple and straightforward question.

So I'll just show you what proving an assertion actually looks like for reference.

It's odd that people can defend Geller, despite her being despicable, but cannot acknowledge that Kelly, despite her being despicable, has the same position on the First Amendment.

I never even mentioned Geller or even Kelly on the subject of Geller.

For further reading see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Cheers!