Of faux pas and First Amendments
Sunday, February 28th, 2010
Last week's commentary criticizing aggressive atheists stirred up a lot of controversy, some of it unintended. This week, Chris Satullo reacts to the reaction in his Center Square audio column.
Listen:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Well, that stirred things up.
Last week, I commented, admittedly in an exasperated tone, on the tendency of some secularists to talk about religion in dismissive, insulting ways.
I tried to hold a mirror up to such critics, by doing a shtick that portrayed human reason's role in history in similarly unfair manner.
This spurred much reaction. I got emails from people of faith, saying things like Bravo and Hell, yes.
On the other side, some seemed shocked that anyone could be allowed on public radio to confess a belief in God. A few demanded I resign or be fired. I guess I'm lucky no call arose to burn me at the stake.
Clearly, the piece was not as persuasive as I'd hoped. And I did one really stupid thing, for which I must atone. I quoted an old joke about the deep-blue political tendencies of that wonderful Philadelphia neighborhood, Mount Airy.
This was dumb, on three counts:
First, never poke at Philly pride of neighborhood.
Second, jokes rarely fit well in serious essays.
Third, humor that works among friends often falls flat with strangers.
So, to Mount Airy, where so many good friends live, my apologies.
Next, a word about the First Amendment, much cited in the raging on-line debate.
Some folks seem to misread this sacred text.
Here's the part about religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The First Amendment generally tells the federal government it must not impinge on freedom of conscience, or public acts driven by conscience. It is clearly more concerned about government meddling in religion than the reverse. The establishment clause tells the new federal government not even to think about setting up a national church.
The amendment does NOT say that people of religious faith must keep quiet about their quaint beliefs, lest they annoy nearby atheists. Activism motivated by the Gospel of Luke is as legitimate as activism motivated by An Inconvenient Truth.
None of this should be construed as a defense of cringe-worthy ideas such as creationism in schools. But such errors pretty much come in a First Amendment package deal with paragons such as Dr. King, Dorothy Day and Sister Mary Scullion.
I agree with the secularists on this: No creed should be enshrined as official government policy. Not Catholicism, not fundamentalism, not Hinduism. But not atheism either.
OK, fire away.
Richard Dawkins does not work for WHYY. Chris Satullo does. I expect at least a nod to objectivity from the radio station I contribute money to. Mr. Satullo should keep his views the same place where he keeps his political affiliations. Or are we next going to have to suffer his rants against whatever political party he is opposed to? Really, what's the difference?
I think all these criticisms only go further in supporting your original commentary. It seems that practically every and any thought, lifestyle and philosophy in the world has a right to exist except Christianity. How did Christianity, with all it's GOOD tenets that so many humans live by, suddenly turn into Nazism??
You've done well, Chris Satullo, faithful servant. Keep up the good fight.
No, actually, that hasn't been said by anyone commenting. And no one has equated Christianity with Nazism. And once again, "reaction" is trumping reason.
First off, the power in this country is well in the hands of those professing Christianity. Indeed those out of power use the "threat" that Obama is really a closet Muslim to undermine his credibility.
The overarching issue here, is that Mr. Satullo apprently doesn't have the intellectual wherewithal to pull off satire, and seems as well, unable to defend a "reactionary" position with reasoned, thoughtful response.
For Christ's sake, the man is the "Executive Director of News and Civic Dialogue," and should, at the very least hire himself an editor. I've exchanged emails with Mr. Satullo on this whole issue, and his blindness at the weakness of his original comment (which he has speciously tried to explain as satire), and the weakness of his arguments in his follow-up is, frankly, astounding.
Grace, Grace please read more carefully. Please don't put your emotions in this. Please feel free to be a Christian. Christians are not Nazis. No one said anything about any group not having the right to exist. Have you ever talked to a Jewish person or an Islamic person these days? I think what people are saying is that we don't want government to deny ANYONE the right to their religion by becoming the government of one religion or belief. If you are concerned about your religion getting weaker or being persecuted, talk to your religious leaders. Together, in this secular society, you are free to promote your beliefs. However, please don't prevent your neighbor from promoting his religious beliefs. That would not be very Christian. That would be like what happened to Jews in Russia and Nazi Germany. Finally, Grace, Look up "secular" in the dictionary. It simply means government, those guys who pave your roads, are neutral on religion.
I think what some people are failing to notice is that everyone, whatever there belief, is, at some point in there life, criticized and belittled by those who have opposing beliefs. What we need to do it not judge others of the same opposing beliefs. Not assume that they too are going to criticized and belittle you. Unfortunately, those who criticize and belittle are typically the same ones who are outspoken. Remember, there are those quiet atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc who simple respect kind and thoughtful people despite their differences.
Chris,
I was brought up in the Orthodox Church. I spent many years in "theological" upbringing, and I "speak the language."
I, however, acknowledge that the language itself is based on "a priori truths," that exist with no evidence, and that may often be absolutely disproved by the evidence. In fact, this is what "faith" is all about – read your Aquinas again.
How it is the "religious" people feel "intimidated into silence" is something I can't, for the life of me, understand. Given that I, or any other "secular humanist" couldn't be elected dog catcher in the country, our being "intimidated into silence" would be far more understandable.
Given that laws are still passed that deny certain citizens of their human, and civil rights (Gays, women) by those of a "religious" outlook, how is it that you can't understand "secular" disdain?
What makes theists feel "intimidated into silence," can only be their lack of rational evidence for their beliefs. I challenge (routinely) my "theist" friends, family, associates, etcetera, to discuss these issues all the time. Not one has ever been able to justify their beliefs (or political stances based on those beliefs), without resorting to "a priori truth," which assumes that their beliefs are correct in the first place. This is intellectual weakness, and laziness.
And this is why I suggest you were flatly, frankly, wrong in the approach you took. You made no intellectually strong arguments worthy of your position of "Director of News and Civic Dialogue." And you're not making them now. You're still responding out of a defensive posture. So…
If you disagree with me about the roots of "religious" beliefs, state so, and why. All I have is evidence based on anthropological writing. All I have is history. And, all I see on the "religious" front are innumerable "revealed truths" at odds with one another and that often lead to humans killing one another. And when I point this out to theists, they always respond that the message of their respective "faith" is being misinterpreted. So, I'm stumped. If you can explain it to me, I'm all ears.
And this is all any rational "secular" person demands. Theists have run the ball for millennia, and have the political power. They need not be afraid of the "secularists," but they may be asked for "proof."
Oh, and by the way, "atheism" isn't a "creed." It by definition couldn't be.
Mr Satullo,
My "previous point" was only the first I brought up. You seem to
accuse me of moving the goal line – I'm not. I'm pointing out to you a
number of intellectually weak arguments in both your initial
commentary, and noting that your follow-up only exacerbates the mess.
If you want to engage in "keeping a score" of who's "better," theists
or secular humanists, I'd be glad to…just point me in a direction where humanists have ever had political power.
For millennia political, and religious power have been largely one and
the same, and if not one and the same, certainly hand-in-hand. Whether
the many gods of Hinduism, Aztecs, Mayans, Egyptians, to monotheistic,
Judaism, Christianity, Islam – whatever God or Gods there may be, the
rituals and "theology" were all about keeping the followers in line.
And this is because "religion" is really about tribalism, defining
ourselves as a community, a tribe, or a nation, and it is about
sentient animals (humans) trying to find meaning in their mortality.
You may describe religion differently, as "revealed truths," from God
through his prophets, angels, whatever. But assuming you're
monotheistic your God must be crazy, because he's revealed several
different and conflicting truths.
So, at least admit to the following, that you were personally offended
by the bumper sticker you saw in the "People's Republic of Mount
Airy." It offended you because you have religious "beliefs," and that
you feel personally attacked by "secular humanists" who are
"threatening" to quell all discourse about God in the public/political
circle. You were offended – OK, you don't have a "right" to not be
offended – no one does.
But rather than let it go at that, and invite polite "civic dialogue,"
about your feelings, shared, no doubt with a good number of your
listeners, you claim to have made an attempt at satire.
The two sentences I pointed out in my last email exchange would never
qualify as satire or humor. And they did nothing to "hold a mirror" up
to me, or any other "secular humanist." You made intellectually weak
arguments, you made a claim of bigotry against people such as myself
who really DON'T care what you believe as long as you don't attempt
theocracy.
As for "secular" disdain for "religious" beliefs guiding our politics,
let me speak on our behalf – when the religious of the world finally
settle on which version of the revealed truth we're to live under,
then perhaps we'll listen…but we'll still demand proof.
To Chris Satullo
Re: Richard Dawkins on Radio Times
It is apparent from your response to, “God, these people annoy me”, that you are woefully obtuse in understanding the reasons why the majority of the listeners who responded to your Op-ed pieces are up-in-arms. “God, these people annoy me”, was a crass, insensitive attack on the WHYY secular humanists, atheists, rationalists, etc. You incoherently babble on about the communists of Mt. Airy, cherry-picking humanists, equating humanists with Pol Pot, Gulag, and the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the ignorance at Harvard University, and ultimately with how annoyed you get with, “the arrogant, wrong-headed take they (humanist/atheists) seek to impose on all discussions of church and state”, namely Richard Dawkins!
In your follow-up piece, you attempt, in the same rambling style, to mollify these listeners by stating that you were using humor to hold a mirror up to humanists who, “talk about religion in dismissive, insulting ways” (again Richard Dawkins). In an attempt to defend your position, you invoke the First Amendment to hide behind, by stating that humanist listeners of WHYY “seemed shocked that anyone could be allowed on public radio to confess a belief in God”, and, “the amendment does NOT say that people of religious faith must keep quiet about their quaint beliefs, lest they annoy nearby atheists”. I do not believe this to be true about public radio because I have heard people on WHYY state their belief in God on the radio segment “This I Believe”. Never have I heard anyone, on WHYY or PBS, carry on in such an irrational and disrespectful manner.
It is interesting to note that your first Op-ed piece aired on Oct. 18, 2009, and that Richard Dawkins was featured on the Marty Moss-Coane show Oct. 22, 2009. If you are honest with yourself, the real source of your anger and invectives stem from this show. The proof of this is in the preface to, “God, these people annoy me”, in which it was stated: “The British scientist Richard Dawkins has gotten famous by bashing religion as benighted superstition. In this week’s audio commentary, Chris Satullo takes Dawkins and his ilk to task by telling them they’re the ignorant bigots”. By your own admission, Marty Moss-Coane must be an ignorant bigot because she had Richard Dawkins on her show, and it appears she belongs to his cadre of “Ilk”. You chose to take your anger and resentment with Richard Dawkins, and his beliefs, by attacking the humanists of WHYY. What still baffles me is that the preface is about Dawkins, but you don’t mention him at all during your “rant”.
One of the principles that this nation was founded on, besides you mentioning the First Amendment, was “Freedom of Religion”. In 1807, Thomas Jefferson stated, "among the inestimable of our blessings, also, is that …of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will”. This inconvenient truth is often ignored by the conservative religious leaders. The Christian right has come to believe that this country was founded by a belief in God, and that true Americans and Patriots are Christians.
As an interesting experiment, why don’t you do an Op-Ed piece where you take Pat Robertson to task for proclaiming that the earthquake in Haiti was caused by its people’s “pact with the devil”. You could vehemently attack Christian Fundamentalists that believe every word of Pat Robertson, and see what response you get from the audience by debunking their beliefs and their literal interpretation of the Bible. You must not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible because you state in your piece, “None of this should be construed as a defense of cringe-worthy ideas such as creationism in schools”, therefore, you should be open to the idea.
If your Op-Ed pieces were as eloquent as Richard Dawkins’ discussions on evolution or his scientific discoveries,then you might not have had angered this portion of the WHYY audience for your Op-Ed pieces. Never once does Dawkins state that people are not free to believe what they like. You need to listen to the Richard Dawkins interview again. Your job title at WHYY indicates that you profess a belief in promoting civic discourse, however, your Op-ed pieces were not a civil, rational, or coherent response to Richard Dawkins, instead they were reactionary venting of your anger, frustration, and resentment.
In the end, I am a little dismayed at you and WHYY for not offering a sincere apology to its audience! Maybe the humanists listeners of WHYY do not constitute a large donor group needed to get a sincere apology. I guess I will know where to send my money in the future.
The attacks on Satullo simply confirmed his point, that atheists, agnostics and self-styled 'rationalists' in general are pompous and arrogant or, at the other extreme, hysterical and overly-sensitive. I'm glad he weighed in with his Rohrshack (spelling?) test of a commentary.
Good luck people, this is the same guy who was hand picked by WHYY's over paid top exec. When you think about it, WHYY is a lot like Whole Foods. On the surface, what they are selling is progressive, liberal and left leaning, but underneath it all, it is like any other organization where money and control are the only real factors and the "mission" is a thin veneer. They laid off 16 people last year. Other staff volunteered to sacrifice their own pay yet the top exec (highest paid of any public radio station exec) said this was "not an option." Does any of that reflect how you handle yourself at work? If so, fine, if not, take your money where you wish.
This little commentary is, I think a slip. It reveals the true feelings of WHYY "leaders" toward their audience. They could take a cue from Fox News and others – remember you are pandering to your audience for your bread and butter. They may annoy you, but never let that show. Tisk tisk.
Wow, calls for censorship on NPR. Interesting.
I suspect the real audience of WHYY is like the real Mt. Airy, where I live. The overly sanctimonious, self righteous, "crunchy" types really aren't the majority, they just stick out. They seem to like drawing attention to themselves.
On my little block in Mt. Airy we have such radicals as an older African American gentleman who goes to church every Sunday, an older African American woman who does the same and we even have, gasp!, a republican!!! Should I start a neighborhood drive to have them evicted from this self proclaimed realm of progressive liberalism? Should I tell them their outlook on life and the universe just doesn't fit and they should sell the house to someone more deserving?
Of course we have some newer neighbors, gay and straight, who could not stop talking about being drawn to the "community" as their reason for living here. These same people are the least social on the entire block, take such poor care of their yards, disturb the rest of us with poorly behaved children and are nowhere to be seen when others, without bumper stickers, are out helping our older neighbors shovel the walk.
Community, as with diversity, aren't things you can just put on a bumper sticker let alone bank on with a zip code. It smacks of an over simplification whether it is tea party pro gun stance or self righteous pedantic anti religion. The world, Mt. Airy and public radio are just a little more complex than that. Deal with it.
No calls for censorship at NPR (actually WHYY). Calls for civility, respect for truth, knowledge of facts, maybe even decent writing. Not calls for censorship. No one is telling Mr. Satullo that he can't express his ideas, far less that he can't hold religious beliefs.
We are saying that Weekend/Morning Edition is not The Morning Zoo. We are saying that WHYY's Executive Director of News and Civic Dialogue should, at a minimum, demonstrate in his commentary a robust grasp of his subject, and that specious argument and invective are not appropriate for someone with that title, and with Mr. Satullo's access to public radio as his podium. Or pulpit.
Wow, another deliberate mis-reading of the criticism.
Oh my Lord! I say that in jest, because I am not at all religious and I live in Mt. Airy and I used to live in Ann Arbor. Someone needs to take a looooonnnng look in the mirror. If one little commentary with one person's view on his beliefs is enough to set you and others off on a crusade (pun intended) to blackmail a radio station that presents so many different points of view, then you are seriously missing the point of NPR, WHYY not to mention Philadelphia and a few famous pieces of paper that were written here a few hundred years ago. Diversity, remember that word? Tolerance? It goes for ideas as well. What weakness, what fear, what a lack of strength in ones own convictions. Shame on you all.
Note, unlike many who lived in Ann Arbor, I actually went to the University there as well. It was a place where I learned to accept wildly different viewpoints and opinions. If you can't take your own view of things being knocked around a little, then I would suspect you are on a shaky intellectual foundation.
Again, reading for comprehension: I have not written anything that can be construed as blackmailing a radio station. My comments, and those of quite a few others, were directed at the tone, the accuracy, and the truth of what Mr. Satullo wrote in both the subject essays. I objected as well to what I saw as a breach of his responsibility to deliver thoughtful commentary rather than insult and invective. I also expressed my expectation that his facts would be straight, given his position as a news director at the station.
Nothing that anyone has posted on this comments page is going to be heard on the radio. There will be nothing but the self-serving essay from this weekend even to indicate to the listening audience that there were objections made to the original commentary. Mr. Satullo has the microphone. He can say what he likes, short of obscenity or libel. And he does. The majority of posts on this comments page have made it clear that the writers respect diversity, in fact respect Mr. Satullo's right to his opinions and his convictions far more than he does theirs. It was Mr. Satullo's dismissive, insulting and personal tone, as much as his tenuous grasp of fact, that stirred the ire of listeners.
It is also clear that listeners expect a higher standard of commentary from this radio station than this pair of editorials. Are we intellectually threatened? Of course not. Do we have problems with a diversity of ideas? We do not. Do we want a news director to be able to marshal his facts correctly and to write with some regard for civility? I, for one, do. Mr. Satullo has made it obvious that he has issues around both diversity and tolerance. It is his manifest intolerance that is the basis for my objections.
"Manifest intolerance"? Oh my, this is so hysterical, so overly dramatic.
How much are you not pledging? Let me know and I will more than make up for you running away (of course we all know you will continue to listen to WHYY).
Tone is in the ear of the beholder, Allison. NPR is not a place contracted to subscribe 100% to my views, but I guess others must think so. How truly revealing that one little smug commentary can instill such fear. I guess I can take a little diversity. Can you? What does diversity mean to you? I'm guessing it is only "diversity" if it makes you feel good.
Hmmm, maybe you're right about the diversity thing. Probably the hysterical thing, too.
How about $2,000, let's say. Not that I have any idea where you got the impression that I was refusing to pledge; objecting to something one hears on NPR, I mean WHYY, is not the same as refusing to pledge. But the station will appreciate your help anyway.
"If you can't take your own view of things being knocked around a little, then I would suspect you are on a shaky intellectual foundation. "
Exellent point. Now, if Mr. Suttulo would only understand that.
Blackmail, huh? Again, free speech is not speech without consequence.
Go Blue!
Sigh. Once more into the breach. Mr. Satullo:
1. I read every comment on your original essay; no one expressed shock that someone on NPR expressed religious belief on the air. They did express dismay at the inchoate and misinformed thoughts in your editorial. They did challenge your contention that people of religion were a beleagered minority in the public life of this country in the 21st century. They did call you out for some of the things you accused your target group of doing: cherry-picking history and conflating church-state and religion-science issues. Some called you out for confusing public figures (most of the famous people of faith you cited) with political figures actively involved in governing and making public policy. They did express outrage at your ham-handed way of making what seemed to you an obvious point, but seemed to most of those who responded to be an expression of your lack of grasp of the facts about which you sought to comment.
2. Calls for you to be removed from your position as Executive Director of News and Civic Dialogue were made because of evidence that your understanding of critical issues in contemporary life seemed lacking (based on reading the editorial); and that your choice of an appropriate way to express your views was a recitation of insult and half-truth unworthy of someone holding such a title at a media outlet in a metropolitan market.
3. Your reading of the First Amendment is not perhaps the most accurate. I don't know that there is an intent to greater concern over the establishment of a state religion than over the influence of a state religion (or any religion) upon government. The idea that government has no interest whatsoever in the consequences of freedom of conscience cannot possibly be true either. Freedom of conscience, unfortunately, can and does result in mayhem if it is defined as an unlimited freedom. In fact, there are plenty of contemporary examples of government concerning itself with public acts of conscience, including the killing of physicians providing legal abortion services and the shooting of soldiers on a military base in the name of a religious belief. Acts of conscience are not, by definition, either ethical or lawful. The first amendment does not contemplate countenancing any activity that a person believes to be an act of conscience.
4. You mention creationism in schools. Here is another example of the inaccuracies in your two editorials: in what schools? In religious schools, if they do not receive government funding, creationism may be and is taught. In PUBLIC schools, it may not be, and this is currently an issue of enormous contention, another example of the inroads religion has made in our public institutions. This and other ideas based on religious faith are far worse than cringeworthy; they cause the miseducation of legions of students in a time when we sorely need well-educated citizens, and they impose a species of religious belief upon everyone taught in those schools, public or private. Government has a limited voice in private schools, but it must guard against teaching based on religious belief in public schools. These impositions of tenets of religious faith have nothing whatsoever to do with Dorothy Day or Sister Mary Scullion. When they intrude upon publicly funded educational institutions, they represent the hijacking of non-religious, government-funded institutions in the service of thoroughly falsified views held by people with a particular strain of religious belief.
5. Roman Catholicism and Hinduism are organized religions. Fundamentalism is not. There are fundamentalists in every established religion. And this is part of my point and I suspect that of many others: your thought and your writing lack accuracy and insight.
6. It may be best to type out First Amendment, as F.A. has a meaning to some that might describe your apparent degree of understanding of this subject as well as of the objections that have been raised to your commentaries.
7. Center Square? Based upon your continued insistence that religious believers are bullied and marginalized by the ascendant community of those without religious affiliation, and that people are questioning your right to express the fact that you hold religious faith, I think maybe "own private Idaho". Just a literary reference, though; no intent to slight or insult Idaho.
I want to compliment you, Ms. Seward, on the coherent and organized way that your posts address this subject. I agree with the points you are making, but that doesn't matter, the point is that you're doing a great job in the area of Civic Dialogue, you probably have a successful career going but if it was my radio station I'd hire you in a heartbeat.
When this controversy becomes old news what I think I'll remember will be Mr. Satullo's sarcasm, contempt, disdain for those with whom he disagrees. I want to say that it's OK, it's just honest expression, it takes guts to let people know what you really feel, but then again it's kind of over the top to get paid to insult the folks who contribute to your salary, it makes me think there might be an exemption from accountability somewhere in the radio station's management.
I think it's possible that the disgust engendered by the absolute stupidity of creationists – for example their demand that we accept, and teach our children, their fundamentalist baloney that the earth is 5,000 years old and people and dinosaurs co-existed. Maybe the revulsion to that nonsense adds to the revulsion with the anti-science, anti-logic, anti-facts, anti-truth ideas and actions of Bushies and Palin-loving teabaggers and so on and eventually the backlash to that revulsion comes in the form of Mr. Satullo's commentaries. Maybe that's part of it.
Anyway we should thank Mr. Satullo for opening a nice controversial subject, and thank WHYY for this open forum, it's great to be able to just say what you want to without a bunch of passwords and pop-up ads.
I had always thought that Satullo's commentaries to be a waste of airtime.
However these last two have moved my opinion considerably. Let me say that I have no objection to his religious or political views, rather I object to his poisoning the airwaves with sarcastic and biased commentary. I expect the thoughtful and thought provoking analysis and commentary of Terry Gross and Dan Gottlieb from WHYY. Instead what we get from Satullo is rhetoric worthy of Beck, Limbaugh and FOX. I will be ending my membership if I have to continue listening to him.
Mr. Satullo,
Wow, where to begin? Last week's commentary was woefully off the mark, and this is even intellectually weaker. We "atheists" are truly sorry if having facts pointed out creates fear. That often happens when facts trump "belief."
However, this is ONE theist who doesn't give a rat's *#@ what someone else chooses to "believe." It's not my business. However, if I consider "theists" "benighted," (to use the word you pulled out of antiquity), it's because no "theism" is based in observable, confirmable, reproducible, evidence that can make an accurate prediction. This is "reasonable," that is, based in "reason."
If one were to profess a belief that the world exists on a flat, two-dimensional plane, or that the sun revolves around the Earth, one could expect a little disdain. "Theism" involves beliefs every bit as unsupported by facts.
This could be why you "just read a piece about Harvard University, where some faculty fought to banish all study of religion, as unworthy of such a great temple to Reason." Aquinas and any other "theologian" be damned, the study of "religious" thought may be interesting anthropologically, but it doesn't address reality.
All this being said, you are correct that the "Establishment" clause does, in fact read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
No one, not even this "atheist" disagrees. But, what's your point? The bumper sticker that started this only caused in you a knee-jerk reaction to defend your "beliefs" from the onslaught of rational thought. That you feel so threatened says much about your "faith."
But don't worry, your right to believe anything unconnected to reality is covered by our Constitution. As another reader put it: "Perhaps the greatest irony of this article is that the last time we mixed reason and politics, we got the United States Constitution."
Mr. Satullo:
Your clarification of “God these people annoy me,” further muddies the waters. I am no longer sure what your point is: that the denizens of Mt. Airy (green-Saab drivers excepted) really are nice people?
That we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to say what we like? Wasn’t it you who developed a foaming case of blood-lust over a relatively anemic bumper-sticker? Or was it the foreign car that you objected to?
That no creed should be sanctioned as government policy? Was that ever in question? Certainly not on the part of unbelievers. I can scarcely remember a time when radical atheists tried co-opt the airwaves in order to declare us a nation of rationalists.
True there are examples of state-sponsored violent rationalism (the Jacobin Cult of Reason, the National Socialist proscription of Catholicism, Mao’s Great Leap Forward) but these pale both in frequency and severity when compared with the believers’ dehumanization of one another.
The only people who have ever made the claim that we are a “Christian nation” would be the “cringe-worthy” lunatic fringe whom you so roundly disavow, but why are they any more hegemonic than the soccer mom who wants the Jesus prayer recited in homeroom, or the minister who demands abstinence only STD prevention, or my kindly aunt who believes abortion is murder but can not bring herself to support universal health care. All are blinded by spiritual arrogance, to the point where they can no longer distinguish moral courage from social domination.
Like you, I staunchly defend these people’s right to express their opinions, but if they display inconsistent behavior or hypocrisy shouldn’t they be subject to ridicule?
The problem is not in having faith; it lies in elevating faith to the same authority as reason in creating social policy. Science and religion are fundamentally different ways of thinking with fundamentally different purposes in human discourse.
Faith teaches me things that reason can never answer: what is life’s purpose; what is important; what does it mean to be a good person? But reason can solve problems with accuracy and precision unmatched by faith. Neither has a monopoly on truth.
Despite the vitriolic evidence of your more irate commentators, faith and reason really can live in harmony, but only when they are free of arrogance.
Some of us are so deafened by windbag believers we may have difficulty imagining what a humble faith would look like? Piety, unity, or mercy perhaps?
And a humble reason that doesn’t chill the heart? That might be seen in the practice of reasonableness, of listening, of moderation. These are high bars for any society to attain, but they are necessary for our desired peace and collective prosperity.
If I learn these lessons well then I may be able to do some good in my short life, but if I live in conviction without compassion then I am little better than a psychopath.
I listen to "Speaking of Faith" every Sunday morning. Krista Tippet presents speakers from all faiths, from areas where faith is doubted, from the world of faith in the scientific method, and somehow the tone doesn't get belligerent. But hey, yo, this is Philly, this is Big Hockey. This Fishtown and Olney and Oregon Ave. versus Chestnut Hill and Mt. Airy.
The back and forth insults may get boring. Can I do any better? Probably not. But I'd like to find a religion that didn't include indoctrinating children, that somehow didn't force itself into the unformed mind of the infant, the toddler, the kindergarten child, and so on. I'd like to find one that said, look, religious experience can be very real and very profound, and it can also be completely absent or not perceived or non-existent, either way it is one of the very complex parts of life, and it is difficult for even the most thoughtful and mature people to try to comprehend, so little children, we will not impose it on you from your cradle to your pre-kindergarten and on and on. When you can make up your own mind about the truth or falsity of things that you can not see or touch we will tell you what we know if you want us to.
You sound like a textbook Unitarian to me.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that children should not take up religion until they had the cognitive abilities to understand it on their own terms.
I would encourage those of you, who, like me are perturbed by this non-apology that misses the entire substance of people's concerns, to write to both email hidden; JavaScript is required and email hidden; JavaScript is required to let them know why you will be re-considering the contributions that you make to WHYY.
Yeah, you would think that, after having to extend their pledge drive, WHYY would want to avoid insulting a portion of their customer base.
Here's mine:
To whom it may concern:
I recently moved to Philadelphia from Ann Arbor, where Michigan Radio was a big part of my life. I expressed my appreciation by contributing, and looked forward to supporting WHYY when I moved here.
As one of "these people" who Mr. Sutullo cannot tolerate, I am writing to inform you that I will not be contributing to WHYY, and will encourage others to do the same, as long as you employ a news director who is bigoted toward certain members of his audience because of their religious beliefs. Mr. Satullo's arrogant, insulting column and intentionally obtuse "apology" are not examples of the kind of journalism that I can support. I am disappointed that my new home does not have an NPR station that I can support. Luckily, I can still listen to Michigan Radio online.
http://www.michiganradio.org/
How much do you donate Matt? Again, as with Allison, let me know and I will make up for it. If you don't pledge, do you promise to never listen again? Seriously, take a stance and cut it out completely! Can you do that? I doubt it. The lesson here is like everything in else in life, you aren't going to love it all.
P.S. Michigan radio, WUOM, is quite lame and doesn't hold a candle to WHYY. You know it's true. What local programming does WUOM produce that comes close to WHYY?
It's in the 4 figures. Good luck.
Yes, WHYY is superior in local programming to WUOM. That's precisely why I so looked forward to moving to Philly. The difference is that WUOM never went out of its way to insult a large swath of its audience.
Sure you do, $1000+? I'm cracking up here.
Oh my Lord! I say that in jest, because I am not at all religious and I live in Mt. Airy and I used to live in Ann Arbor. Someone needs to take a looooonnnng look in the mirror. If one little commentary with one person's view on his beliefs is enough to set you and others off on a crusade (pun intended) to blackmail a radio station that presents so many different points of view, then you are seriously missing the point of NPR, WHYY not to mention Philadelphia and a few famous pieces of paper that were written here a few hundred years ago. Diversity, remember that word? Tolerance? It goes for ideas as well. What weakness, what fear, what a lack of strength in ones own convictions. Shame on you all.
Note, unlike many who lived in Ann Arbor, I actually went to the University there as well. It was a place where I learned to accept wildly different viewpoints and opinions. If you can't take your own view of things being knocked around a little, then I would suspect you are on a shaky intellectual foundation.
Chris:
What a mess! I totally get your message but your delivery has caused an irate response.
It has always fascinated me how religion is still such a sensitive issue in America. Both sides seem to be terrified of the other.
On one extreme people with strong religious beliefs think that hell will break lose if the country is led by non-religious people, some sort of decadent society void of values. On the other extreme, the fear is that religious fanatics will bring us back to the inquisition.
And fear is a key component here. Both irrational views cause intolerance and a desire to impose in others your own beliefs.
I hope for the day when we honesty respect each other's beliefs. That day religion (or the lack of it) will be something as personal as your choice of food or clothes, and will not make us uncomfortable when talking about politics, economy, education, etc.
Wow. Don't know when to quit when you're behind, huh?
First, you state that "some seemed shocked that anyone could be allowed on public radio to confess a belief in God. " I've read every comment on the other thread. Nowhere does anyone say that you should not be allowed to say that you believe in god. Of course you are free to say whatever you like. But free speech does not mean speech without consequences. When you insult a good portion of your audience, you cannot be surprised when "these people" (as the headline of your last piece declares) promise to withdraw their support for your employer. I could care less whether you keep your job or not, as I have the choice to simply change the channel. Your comment here seems to be a deliberate mis-reading of the criticism of your previous piece. Claiming the protection of the first amendment is a specious ploy, as your right to say what you do is not the point of contention. And frankly, it's insulting that you would wrap yourself in the American flag as a defense from your critics.
While accusing your critics of mis-reading the first amendment, you commit the same sin. You state that "The First Amendment generally tells the federal government it must not impinge on freedom of conscience, or public acts driven by conscience. It is clearly more concerned about government meddling in religion than the reverse." In fact, the first amendment protects both entities from each other; the prohibition against the establishment of religion by the state protects religion from the imposition of the state.
The bumper sticker you quoted read: "The last time we mixed religion and politics, they burned people at the stake." You assume that the person driving that car is a liberal, an atheist, or both, when a religious person has just as much interest in keeping politics out of their religion.
Finally, what really surprises me about your columns is your apparent myopia regarding your audience. Even liberals will admit that NPR is left-leaning. Yet, you set out to antagonize your audience not once, but now twice. Keep insulting your audience, and you will find that they will stop listening.
Dear Matt -
Thanks for your passion on this point. We agree, the First Amendment seeks to protect religion and government from one another. In particular, the freedom of conscience of the invididual to believe and to act upon belief. Which either government, or religion imposing itself as government, can easily violate.
I find your insistence that a radio station should never challenge its audience a little hard to support. Surely you understand that a variety of people listen to a mass-market media outlet, so that on any given point of contention, any opinion expressed is sure to upset at least a portion of the audience, while causing another portion to cheer.
It's not clear to me why a particular subset, be it agnostic liberals or evangelical conservativs, should be exempt from ever having its views challenged.
The alternative would be to provide only safe pabulum of no particular outlook – which sounds kind of boring, doesn't it?
And to be perfectly clear, I wasn't "claiming the protection of the First Amendment." That would indeed be a weak riposte; you are right. Freedom of speech does not include freedom for consequences for speech. I don't recall asking for any.
I dunno. I thought I was being perfectly good-humored about the whole thing.
My mention of the F.A. was totally in the context of the religion clauses.
It's interesting to me how many people commenting seem to assume anyone who professes religious belief must be conservative in political outlook. The point here is how silent religious people of centrist or liberal outlook have become in recent years, partly for fear of running afoul of the anti-religious sentiments of their secular liberal friends.
Don't take it from me. Just ask them.
Chris
Mr. Satullo,
The real issue here has to do with your position at WHYY – I'm sure you didn't achieve it because you're an idiot – but…
If you're going to use your platform, use it well. If you want, for example, to make an argument that "reason" led to the Gulag, or Pol Pot, you'd better be prepared to make a convincing argument.
If you can't, fine, but then, at least, do a mea culpa for espousing an intellectually weak point of view from your "pulpit." This "Of Faux Pas, and the First Amendment" does no such thing.
Perhaps the editor needs an editor.
After hearing several of Chris Satullo's invectives recently, I conclude he's not very self-aware. Falls into the ultra-righteous stereotype "I am THE public servant" category who you can liberally tune out…
"Arrogant" is the word that springs to mind after reading these columns.
Chris:
I'm out of town one Sunday, and today I find out all hell ripped loose! Up-to-speed on last week's essay and today's; here goes:
First, bad case of reverse-snobbery, but secular humanists are used to it, so don't sweat it.
Second, this "atheism" thing, I'm a bit confused. When Ira Gershwin wrote: "I got plenty of nothin', And nothin's plenty for me.", it was tongue-in-cheek. In real life, it's an oxymoron: you can't actually have plenty of non existence. Why is it that people who simply and deeply do not believe in any of the world's major religions are labeled "atheist" as if it's a de facto alternative religion? Most non believers I've known simply do not buy the patriarchal doctrine the major religions have been selling. Religions that have been wrong on science and medicine for millennia, who can't explain the workings of our solar system, let alone the universe, are telling their followers exactly what comes after human death, after first begging the question on the existence of the human soul. One either believes in the next life or one doesn't. Paraphrasing Oscar Wilde who said: "Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the curious attractiveness of others", atheism is a myth originated by the religious to account for the curious contentment of non believers.
As for all this alleged, non believer persecution of believers who have been demurely standing by in an externally imposed silence, I've got to ask: Are we living on the same planet?
Since Ronald Reagan, Presidents hand out God's blessings for "America" (the US, that is) like party favors; politicians of all levels drag God into everything; believers are "blessed", "saved", "chosen" and regularly directed by God on a daily basis.
The Junior Bush administration started each day with a prayer meeting, and Sarah Palin who cut-and-ran from the Alaska governorship when the press closed in on her bad energy agreements, shut down a reporter by declaring that God was telling her what to do; therefore, she could not possibly be wrong. (Bush,Jr also claimed God's daily direction and a kind of papal infallibility.) Senator Mark Sanford, member of "The Family", selected by God to lead the nation. With WHYY's version of "This I Believe", one can't begin to count the references to God each week. Just this morning, WHYY's Paul Jackson led into "This American Life" with "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Chile". (Was this Mr. Jackson's personal sentiment or the station's official position?) Some may indeed see the mixing of religion and politics resulting in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, but I tend to think Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson more often than not.
As for the world's wars, I don't believe secular humanists are blowing up themselves and civilians in middle-east markets, and how many times have we been told that "there [were] no atheists in fox holes" during WW-I & WW-II? Just the believers of one group of nations killing another nation group of believers? And that bit of unpleasantness in Northern Ireland a decade or so ago, I remember something about two Christian religions being involved.
I won't get going about Catholic bishops who threaten liberal politicians with excommunication during elections, not for their war votes but for their support of a woman's access to a safe medical abortion in a sanitary setting, as opposed to the alternative from the not too distant past.
No, religion is alive and well and omnipresent throughout the land. And a day does not go by without a right-wing, God-on-his-sleeve, Republican senator or congressman telling us all "what the American people want and need", and what we do or "don't want our tax dollars spent on".
As if we're all just Republicans now!
"Why is it that people who simply and deeply do not believe in any of the world's major religions are labeled "atheist" as if it's a de facto alternative religion? "
This is a good point. People who choose not to be part of the system are still categorized by those within the system, by the terms defined by that system.
Back in college, we had a "Hands Across the Campus" event. The greeks insisted on having each frat and sorority grouped together in the chain, with "independents" placed together in a specific area. I didn't join a frat precisely because I didn't want to be defined by a group name, yet those within those groups couldn't help but to define me with a label.
Chris,
This is a poor excuse for an apology!!! I have no problem with your right to express your opinions under the First Amendment. But, you attacked a group of listeners that support this stations who choose not to believe in an organized religion. You are essentially biting part of the hand that feeds you and this station. I’m not sure if WHYY intended for your Op-ed pieces to be venue to attack a portion of their audience. If you want to express your total opinions freely, then raise your own funds and go for it with all the vigor and gusto you desire. Attack all those secularists that “talk about religion in dismissive, insulting ways”. Besides, I thought one of the tenets of the Christian faith was to turn the other cheek?
You express the concern that somehow people of faith are under siege by stating,” The amendment does NOT say that people of religious faith must keep quiet about their quaint beliefs, lest they annoy nearby atheists.” I am sure that if you totaled all the religious opinions that are expressed through radio, tv, newspapers or the internet that they would significantly out number the number of views expressed by secularists. I don’t see that there is any plot by atheist and/or secularist to deny/impinge the constitutional rights of religious groups to express their opinions. Your response smacks of paranoia.
One of the main problems with “God, these people annoy me” is the bigotry you express. What prevents you from inserting the words: Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Hindus, Caucasian, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Irish, etc, for Humanists/Atheist? There shouldn’t be tolerance for bigotry in any form! You said you tried to use humor to make your point, but, “Behind every joke there is an underlying truth.”
“God, these people annoy me,” stirred up a hornet’s nest of responses. Most of your previous comments on WHYY have generated only a few responses, however, “God, these people annoy me,” piece generated 134 responses. You also don’t seems realize the power you have behind the microphone to reach thousands of listeners, especially if you make a “faux pas”. I’m not sure that your Op-ed columns have really benefited WHYY, and would suggest that they be eliminated completely. I don’t feel that you have the finesse to express your opinions without stepping on the raw nerves of your listeners!
In conclusion, if you keep with your faith and religion, and ultimately walk through the “Pearly Gates of Heaven”, you will find solace in the fact that you won’t be annoyed by Humanists / Atheists any longer.
Sorry, I should have had someone proof read my commentbecause I left off a few word here and there. It happens, every now and then, when you cut and paste! At least I admit to my mistakes when I make them.
I believe the error in your argument is to equate religious faith with atheism. Religions are essentially exclusionary. The mortals who fashioned them understood the importance of rituals, dress, hair styles, social behaviors, even languages to define true believers and exclude all others. The believer by adopting these structures has made an enormous investment of conscience and often an investment of material wealth. To see this investment scorned by infidels or heretics is felt as a deeply personal attack. Leaders throughout history have used this predictable response to aggrandize political power. As defenders of the faith they claimed a sacred duty to enforce orthodoxy, convert the heathen and persecute heresy. The Founding Fathers were contemporaneous with the Spanish Inquisition. It was active on the borders of their new republic. Religious tests were common in English rule, beginning with the sovereign. The threat addressed in the Constitution was not that religion per se might be suppressed but rather that a dominant religion would suppress all others. Atheism logically treats all religions as equally valid as none has ever presented evidence more credible than any other. Ridicule is a rhetorical device of the minority that those who claim moral superiority must expect if not accept.
I think you still miss the point. You saw a anti religious bumper sticker and you commented on it and same of the recent atheist books. You're entitled to your opinion. But, so are the displayer of the bumper sticker and the authors of the books.
Mainstream religion is rarely criticized in the media, but these couple of expressions of an alternate view prompted you to broadcast an essay critical of non believers.
I still don't see the bumper sticker as being "anti-religious." It doesn't say that religion is bad. In fact, it affirms the strength of each independent institution. Religion is far better off without politics, and vice versa.
Mr. Satullo:
Once again, you seem to miss the point, or perhaps you're just conveniently ignoring it because you don't have an appropriate answer.
If you re-read the comments from your essay last week, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone, including me, who cares that you get on public radio to confess a belief in God. As far as I'm concerned, you can stand on top of City Hall and scream it to the skies. That's your choice.
What offended me, in both your essay and the response you posted on the website, was the way that your personal religious views biased your interpretation of history, your outright dismissal of the role of objectivity in journalism, and my concern that as the director of news, that your personal religious views could slant, distort, or influence what is reported as "news" on a radio station that I support.
If I wanted biased reporting masquerading as news, I'd watch FOX. The reason I opted to join WHYY instead is because of my belief that its reporting was less biased by the personal opinions of the people involved in writing the news reports. You provided a surprise look behind the scenes, and your invective against secular humanists, combined with your willingness to stereotype all of them as religion-haters, diminished my confidence in the news product that WHYY produces with you at the helm. That's why I questioned your fitness for your job. Not because of your personal views — those are yours. You are you entitled to them, and I respect them as being yours. But, I question your fitness for your job because I lack confidence in your ability to keep them out of your work as it pertains to the reporting of the news. If your position was Executive Director of Opinion and Commentary, I would've dismissed your essay last week as that of a thin-skinned person on the defensive about a bumper sticker. But you're the Executive Director of News. In my opinion, you should be held to a stricter standard. If your station's management doesn't agree, that's fine. It just factors into my decision about whether or not I consider WHYY as a credible news source, and whether or not WHYY (independent of NPR) is something that I wish to support financially.
Again, in case the fine points of the argument escape you, this is not about your personal religious views. I couldn't care less about those – they're yours and not mine. It's whether or not you're able to separate your personal beliefs from your professional responsibility. Based on what you've written and said, I do not have confidence that you're able to do that, and as such I trust the news that WHYY reports, under your supervision, less than I did two weeks ago.
Dear Sam,
I'd guess I'd ask that, if you have time, you might go back and read what I said about objectivity in last week's comments.
You are misstating it here.
I've worked in newsrooms for 35 years, and I can tell you from long experience that the journalists who were most puffed up about their objectivity, and least willing to examine how their own views affected their work, were often the ones who allowed the most unexamined bias to creep into their work.
We all have beliefs. Those beliefs INEVITABLY affect how we do our work; the more conscious and transparent we are about the beliefs, experiences and biases we bring to the table, the better and more reliable the resulting work is likely to be.
I'd also like to ask you whether you have ever in your life said anything ironical, hyperbolic or satiric. You don't seem to be getting this point: In this piece, I was adopting a tone FOR EFFECT. Kind of like the wonderful Lewis Black. Only less angry. (and you should hear what HE says about religion!).
Take care,
Chris
Mr Satullo, If you have to go on and on explaining your commentary, then perhaps it is just poorly written. This is just like if you have to explain a joke, its probably not a good joke. With 35 years as a journalist, you should be better at expressing yourself. In fact, I do believe you are very skilled at expressing yourself. That is the problem. As the comments of Sam and others express, this is not about your viewpoint. This is about yours FOX News style, insulting, pseudo-intellectual, name dropping rant that leaves a more thoughtful WHYY audience fearful there is no longer a balanced source of news and of productive discussion of issues. We support WHYY because of the thoughtful reporting of the likes of those like Sylvia Pujoli not Rush Limbaugh. For myself, I am sick of those who disagree, yelling at each other and not trying to learn from each other and move forward. You are just more noise out there stirring up anger. Is this the future of WHYY? Sound-bites, headlines, film at eleven? Lets talk about the state of the secular vs religious views in this country, rather than express anger at one or another. Lets look at what liberal or conservative means these days and how it has shifted and not get caught up in the virtues of one or another. That's what I used to get from WHYY. That's not what I get from you. That is why I supported WHYY in the past.
This is a total sham of an apology, and makes you look even worse. So you joke about Mt. Airy liberals in private, and wish you had kept it that way? Hmm.
I suspect people wrote in to demand you be fired not because you believe in God (and you clearly have no concept of the religious climate in Mt. Airy and its surrounding neighborhoods), but because your essay was bitter, biased and wrong-headed.
come on people, can you lighten up just a little bit? This sounds like an honest apology to me, and personally, I had a good laugh at the Mount Airy joke.
The original essay was not bitter, it just didn't suit your beliefs.
Jenelle, From reading most of Chris's work, I am very politically aligned with his views. That is not the issue. Read the comments again, it is not his "beliefs" that are the issue here. I listen to WHYY for balanced discussion of issues, not for angry, discussion stifling rants at one group or another. He is the News Director! He filters the news. He said in the commentary "And I, for one, am sick of tolerating such highly degreed bigotry in silence." Well, how far does that go? That is the issue.
First, I did not read your previous entry on this subject, and so do not fully comprehend what anger there may have been. But this does raise issues that I am concerned about.
I agree, in general, that the separation of Church and state does not mean that there should be no role for the religious in public life, but I think we do have a right to expect religious folks and non-religious folks to not be jerks about their positions on this issue.
I am, at best, an agnostic. I recognize many great things about religion and faith and have tried to learn from the religions around me and to lead a moral life as best I can based on what I have learned in 48 years on this earth. But I do not have "faith" in the strictly Christian sense; I do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, etc. I do believe that there is a higher power in this world, but I don't think of it as a consciousness or higher being ("God").
I don't begrudge my religious friends their belief. But I live in southern Delaware, where many political leaders feel strongly that they govern a strictly christian land. They profess tolerance for non-christians, but that very tolerance is based on a belief that non-christians are wrong, count less than christians, and will be damned come judgment day.
Surely this is not how a modern democracy should function.