Explain to me how it is that the only people who get to write articles like this in coastal media elite forums - like this one - are non-believers? St Francis "goosed up" mass? The language reveals a fundamental dismissive mindset that seems near-universal in media venues like Slate. It speaks of "them", while it winks at "us." Funny how - Chris Hitchens excepted - none of you lot talk to Muslims that way. When will we read about the buffoonery that is Islam? The nutty, plagarizing Prophet, who made up the rules as he went along. When will you analyze the history of European depictions of the child-raping Muhammed? It's so much safer analyzing Christ out of existance, isn't it? No sense taking on those people - there's a new Thai place we haven't tried yet.

what I do sometimes wonder is why anyone thinks that comments like that are anything other than name calling ?

Because Muslim receives it's share of criticism here.

It used to be that someone who criticized christianity was working for Satan, lately it seems someone who criticises christianity is working for the Muslims :))

I don't know what article you're referring to, so I have to guess who the "you" is that you are referring to. If you are referring to atheists, Hitchens (who you mention), Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have expended a lot of energy in arguing against Islam as well as Christianity. In Harris' case, I get the impression he dislikes Islam much, much more than he dislikes Christianity. I'm not sure where (some) Christians get the idea that atheists dislike Christianity and don't mind Islam, as it certainly isn't from reading their words or listening to their talks. I disagree with Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins on a fair amount, but I would prefer that people argue with what their stated positions actually are.

He was doing as much child raping as your standard medieval/dark ages man of any nation or creed. I don't hold the sex against him, its his followers that were nuts.

Jon,

I know this will come off as trite but don't let it get to you so much. It comes off to me as a nine page story that really should have been 200 words. That often leads to a bunch of spare words that are used to fill up space.

As a member of the media, I can tell you that many reporters aren't religious because we're trained to be skeptical of everything. That's what makes us good at what we do. However, religion is something that believers take on faith. There isn't proof that Mary gave birth to the son of God and if we were to look at that logically, it would be much more believable that she simply got pregnant and made up a story. And it very well could have, but that's where faith comes in.

But I don't see it as analyzing Christ out of existence. The more I study about religion -- the science behind the plagues and raining for 40 days -- the more I believe. Does that make sense? As people try to disprove the existence of God, they are proving that all things are possible.

And if none of what's I've said makes any difference, try this: it's not Christmas that makes the life of Jesus important. It's the resurection. There is very little in the Bible about the birth, most of what we've come to commonly believe has been passed down to fill in holes. But it's the resurection that makes it all significant.

. . . many of us know few, if any, Muslims, while most people in the U.S. probably grew up in at least tacitly Christian households.

I know a bit about Islam; I don't see its appropriation of prior Abrahamic mythology as any more indicative of "buffoonery" than Christianity's grafting of pagan anthropomorphizing of deity and literalizing of blood sacrifice. Which is to say, I see no buffoonery, only ideas surrounded by what may or not be historical fact, none of which can be well verified.

Wondering: Does your division of all Americans into, apparently, "athiests" and "believers" constitute a "dismissive" attitude towards my pantheistic Buddhism?

JonFrum:

Explain to me how it is that the only people who get to write articles like this in coastal media elite forums - like this one - are non-believers? St Francis "goosed up" mass? The language reveals a fundamental dismissive mindset that seems near-universal in media venues like Slate. It speaks of "them", while it winks at "us." Funny how - Chris Hitchens excepted - none of you lot talk to Muslims that way. When will we read about the buffoonery that is Islam? The nutty, plagarizing Prophet, who made up the rules as he went along. When will you analyze the history of European depictions of the child-raping Muhammed? It's so much safer analyzing Christ out of existance, isn't it? No sense taking on those people - there's a new Thai place we haven't tried yet.

You have a point. They like to play it safe.

By all means it would be intereseting to see you debate your version of xtian polytheistic demi-deity worship with Christopher Hitchens. Perhaps you should email him?

and who "they" are and why you hate people who believe in different unprovable things than you do.

And if none of what's I've said makes any difference, try this: it's not Christmas that makes the life of Jesus important. It's the resurrection. There is very little in the Bible about the birth, most of what we've come to commonly believe has been passed down to fill in holes. But it's the resurrection that makes it all significant.

And yet:

It’s not what makes the resurrection so significant that is important these days ---- it is what is making the resurrection so insignificant that is important these days. Jesus and eternal hope was always a huge part of our culture and the psyche in the West up until the last century. Now in this age of prosperity and “enlightenment” faith has become the focus of contempt and mockery because too many people have become materialistic and hedonistic and have little time to think of any God or any cloudy unknown life after death. And the media has certainly added fuel to that mindset. Pity.

That's so disrespectful. I hope Jesus shits all over her for that.

Nick_Danger:

and who "they" are and why you hate people who believe in different unprovable things than you do.

LOL...I don't hate anyone.

Nanotech:

...LOL...I don't hate anyone.

And yet anyone who says anything half as critical about Christianity is called an anti-Christian Bigot hater.

Joyous Eid

Salaam

Maybe it's not 'we' who hate you, but yourselves? How else do you explain the twisted email you just wrote...so much in line with the 'right-wing' bigotry constantly spewing from the pens, mouths, etc., by dittos, so filled with baseless and utterly deceitful accusations against anybody who dares to think for themselves and does not kowtow to every bigot who makes identical absurd claims about how badly treated they are? And does so repeatedly, regardless of the facts.

Obviously, it is for the equally obvious purpose of trying to force others into falling in line behind whatever absurdity the writer demands they 'believe'--or, failing that, pretends to believe, which will suit just as well. So silly.