On May 27 2011 14:23 ghrur wrote:On May 27 2011 13:56 travis wrote:On May 27 2011 13:53 Diglett wrote:
the article is incredibly biased so it's hard to make a good opinion. but all i see a smartass kid trying to troll the school and from that, the whole community screwed him. stupid kid, stupid school, teachers, parents, etc.
Could you explain where the bias in the article is?
On May 27 2011 13:55 ghrur wrote:
You couldn't have quoted a less inflammatory article in a less obviously inflammatory way? Look, I no way condone the actions of the community, but I really hate this article being so heavily biased towards atheists (despite being one.) I'd rather call the community stupid and crazy rather than turn it into a Christian vs Atheists argument.
you too
Of course.
It takes the actions of a few and generalizes across to the whole. Specifically, it takes the actions of one southern community and generalizes it to all Christians. It also takes the actions of a few atheists as proof of the whole atheistic community. And it does this without reliable statistics that allow you to do so.
Example:
There's the ugly reality of anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination across the country -- especially in high schools. According to JT Eberhard, high school specialist for the Secular Student Alliance, "In Alabama, Auburn High School is refusing to allow an SSA affiliate. In Cranston, Rhode Island, a public school is facing an ACLU suit for refusing to take down a sectarian prayer [a banner posted in the school gym]. In Texas we had a student who was told he could have a secular club if he called it a philosophy club and didn't affiliate with the SSA. The list of similar situations is a mile long and these are only the ones I've become aware of in my first four and a half months on the job. The Fowler incident is much closer to being the norm than the exception."
There are rants about religion to be had here as well. There's the level of not only hostility, but panicked hostility, when entrenched religion gets its privileged status threatened. There's the way that religion relies on social consensus to perpetuate itself -- and how, when that consensus is threatened, it commonly reacts by smacking down dissent and expelling dissenters.
The first paragraph claims that this is the norm with three examples. Then it transitions to the second paragraph quoted to rant about religion. This is specifically hostile against religion, blaming them as the cause, and therefore the antithesis (atheism) is to be supported. It also insinuates that the norm for religious communities is to harass atheists or have an "anti-atheist bigotry." Really, that's far from the truth.
The article also uses diction to stress the connection between the community and Christians in general. Note:
When a high school atheist tried to stop prayer at his graduation, he was harassed and kicked out of his house
See, instead of high school student, it's high school atheist right before prayer. At his graduation means that the school is the Christian entity. Further support for this claim?
Damon Fowler, an atheist student
Stressing atheism with Fowler. School with Christian.
They went ahead and had the graduation prayer anyway.
They = school. Graduation prayer = school. Prayer = Religious, Christian thing to do. School = Christian.
And Damon is fortunate enough to have the backing of the atheist community
Damon = atheist. Making it clear. My god, this quote even juxtaposes the communities by basically saying atheist community = good, Damon's community = Christians = bad.
And that's the way the atheist community has stepped up to the plate
Once again, juxtaposing atheist community with Christian community (because one stepped up to the plate, who didn't? Christian community is implied).
So basically, the article is subtly (well, not really) arguing the superiority of the Atheist community to the Christian community.
Oh, and of course, there's loaded language here too to specifically cause hatred against the community in question.
Ostracized, demeaned, threatened, pilloried, hounded, etc. then connecting those actions back to Christians using the things I said above. Can you really say this isn't biased against the Christian community? Just take a look at the condescending tone it uses too.
Oh, and by the way? They went ahead and had the graduation prayer anyway.
Implication: Christians ignore the law.
It's a law and a Constitution that protects everybody, not just atheists. If you wouldn't want to be subjected to a government-sponsored Buddhist prayer, you ought not to be subjecting others to a government-sponsored Christian prayer.
Okay. I hope that's clear
Implication: I know the law; I know the Constitution. You don't because you're a Christian. Let me explain it for you.
In other words: Because the majority of students want an unconstitutional prayer at their graduation, therefore they're in the right.
Implication: Christians think majority is always right, despite it being unconstitutional.
There's the lack of understanding in the United States about fundamental civics: the all-too-common belief that "majority rules" in every situation, and the all-too-common failure to comprehend the principle that the minority has basic civil rights.
Implication: Christians across the US don't understand fundamental civics.
And of course -- duh -- there's separation of church and state. There's the principle that a public school should not be sponsoring prayers at graduations. What with that being a government establishment of religion and all, and thus being -- oh, what's that word? -- unconstitutional.
Implication: Christians don't understand separation of Church and State.
Yup. I would be fine reporting the event, but making a whole deal of Christians are bad vs Atheists are good just annoys the crap out of me.
EPT
