Yahoo News: “Only Atheists Should Hold Public Office”

Get a load of this unbelievab article from Yahoo by Andrew Riggio. And the left wonders why the right distrustful of the media. Honestly, I can easily believe someone believes this. I am profoundly shocked that they wrote it down without even a pretense to non-bigotry and then Yahoo Contributor Network allowed it to be published — and as an Editor’s pick no less (which is how I found it.)

Underlying this sincere[ly misguided] article is a growing narrative amongst all forms of secularism (including not only atheism but also Karen Armstrong style religiosity) that Atheism in its many forms is somehow not a ideological world view (i.e. a meaning meme) whereas religion is, and therefore atheism has an advantage in not being biased.

This is a dangerous point of view that would, if Andrew Riggio has his way, result in outright tyranny. Never let it be said that Atheists don’t wish to oppress others for having the wrong dogmas.

12 thoughts on “Yahoo News: “Only Atheists Should Hold Public Office”

  1. This is the same philosophy that claims Mormon history is neutral when written by non-Mormons and untrustworthy when written by believers. I’d rather read history — or elect public servants — who are aware of and guarding against possible biases than ignorant people who assume that their ignorance/uninvolvement makes them automatically better judges of matters in which they have no part.

  2. If Christians like the current GOP leaders are running, wouldn’t pretty much any atheist be a step up?

  3. Maybe we shouldn’t dismiss this so quickly. Presidents in the past were religious or non-religious to varying degrees and only spoke in religious terms in a general way when speaking on national issues. Abraham Lincoln, for example, did not speak in a specifically denominational way during the Civil War. FDR spoke only in broad religious terms during WWII. Increasingly, however, our politicians — particularly on the right — have been speaking in ways that use their religion in very specific terms. At that point, religion becomes exclusive, not inclusive and a lot of us feel shut out. I used to work for a former Republican senator who was a very religious man but he never spoke about religion the same way publically the way he spoke about it at home, with his family or with friends or at church. Publically, his faith was always open, welcoming, inclusive. If I have to listen to any more right-wing Christian evangelical zealots, I
    m not going to turn to atheism, but I might just stop listening altogether.

  4. “Get a load of this unbelievab article from Yahoo by Andrew Riggio. And the left wonders why the right distrustful of the media.”

    It should be noted that this wasn’t really written by the media–it’s done by a member of Yahoo!’s “Contributor Network” which is just normal people writing free-lance articles. Think of it more like a blog post than anything else.

  5. Tim
    Without digging into it can you tell me if their featured editorials always lean in a certain direction or do the have equally offensive editorials receiving feature status that say only God fearing Baptists should lead? Because it would seem to me the editorial boards often like to hide behind a “contributor” saying exactly what they can’t so easily get away with saying for a variety of reasons. Having run a site in the past with a couple hundred of thousand readers I had to take this approach a time or two so it’d not surprise me to see Yahoo’s board doing it.

  6. I used to have a yahoo account, which enticed me to read a lot of their featured articles, many of which were sensationalist trash, badly written, shamelessly politically correct, and commercial. I don’t remember ever reading anything substantive or enlightening.

    I wish that mainstream news outlets would be more careful about hiding their liberal biases, since it drives people to Fox News. It’s my extremely prejudiced view that liberal bias is a natural bi-product of both education and impartial journalistic exploration. But I do think that some of the mainstream media’s liberal preachiness is insufferable.

  7. Hi, Andrew Riggio here. Thanks for reading my article. Here’s my Yahoo! Contributor Profile link. I am sure there are other things you can find there that will drive you equally nuts. Have fun! :)

    [Removed link]

  8. Hi Andrew Riggio,

    Hey, thanks for stopping by and commenting.

    Please understand that this post really wasn’t aimed at you at all. The real point was that Yahoo News had elevated your article to an editor’s pick and therefore was intentionally promoting it. This post is about Yahoo News not you.

    Had what you said been all reversed (i.e. it was some Christian advocating that only Christians should be allowed to hold office) or with a religion was replaced with a race, Yahoo News would have (correctly) thought of your article as being morally equivalent to hate literature. Therefore, the fact that they promoted it tells us something important about Yahoo News.

    Oh, by the way, I have removed your link. I’m sure people who are really interested can easily find your profile and read all the articles you’ve written. But I don’t intend to let you use this site as a way of promoting articles of anyone that advances the idea that only people that agree with their views have a right to run governments. Tolerance is how you act towards those you disagree with, not how you act towards your potlical allies. I’m against intolerance and oppression in all forms.

  9. Pshaw. If you’re going to bash me the least you can do is show your readers where to find other reasons to despise me. :)

  10. Andrew,

    You have misunderstood. I am not bashing you.

    It is true that I don’t really believe bigoted hate material deserves a link or that I owe that sort of thing an enhancement to it’s rankings. Besdies, finding your stuff is easy for those interested.

    But you should not be despised for it. I think you honestly mean well and are just misguided. I think you’re probably a good person that is doing the best they know how with what they’ve been given and just haven’t really thought this through very well. It very hard to believe that if you had enough real life experience with the subject of how to make good government that you’d really and truly be an advocate for tyranny of one ideological faction over another via legal violence and power. So I’m basically assuming this is just a matter of maturity with time and experience.

    There is honestly no shame in that. No one starts life having thought things through well or having all the information they need to make wise and moral decisions. The fact that you were willing to take your opinions and subject them to criticism (i.e. make them public) should actually be commended. Keep doing that and with time this will most likely temper you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>