11 Responses to “And Now for Something Familiar”

1. 1.   Linda Says:
   August 8th, 2009 at 11:36 am

   I enjoyed the entire interview.

2. 2.   JoshS Says:
   August 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

   It was kinda fun to bash Republicans and the religious right again

   I’ll give it to you Chris, you’ve got boundless chutzpah. How uncivil of you. How counterproductive. Won’t this just turn people off your message? Honestly, what is it with you? For me, but not for thee, apparently.

3. 3.   Another Josh S Says:
   August 8th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

   JoshS, he’s bashing the religious right (aka fundamentalists who take the bible literally) not just religious people. The religious right are anti-science, and that is the problem. To defend their anti-science position, they say they take the bible literally, yet they clearly do not take all of it literally. As Chris said in the interview, we have to figure out the motivations of these people and why they are having problems with science.

   Fortunately, most religious people do not fit into this category. Attacking religion when most religious people don’t have any problems with science will not help. Best to stick with the people who are clearly against science. Even if we can’t convince any of them (which seems likely), at the very least it will make other people realize how out of touch with reality the religious right are.

4. 4.   JoshS Says:
   August 8th, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   I can see why you’d think that, but no, I can’t agree. For someone like Chris who acts as if butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth, who clutches his pearls when an author like Jerry
   Coyne writes a firm but civil book review and characterizes it as “un-civil,” who shrieked in astonished outrage when PZ Myers pulled a stunt to expose the lunacy of fundamentalist Catholics , it’s rich for Chris to indulge in it himself.

   You say “we have to figure out the motivations of these people and why they are having problems with science.” Um. . . um. . . might it be their “faith-based” outlook? This is gob-smackingly obvious.

5. 5.   Another Josh S Says:
   August 8th, 2009 at 10:45 pm

   It might have started out originally being about the fundamentalist Catholics, but what he did ultimately was disrespectful to all Catholics, fundamentalist or otherwise. I personally think the stunt was completely unnecessary considering the lunacy was already very much exposed before the stunt. (Death threats? Really?!?) Very few Catholics are like that, and they don’t deserve to be disrespected because of the actions of a few crazy people among them.

   As for your second paragraph, first of all those aren’t my words, they came from the interview. And second of all, there are many moderates out there who have a faith-based outlook, and don’t have any problems with science. I don’t think the problem is that the fundamentalists have faith. I’d say the problem is their attitude towards science. They think scientists are liberal elitists intent on destroying their religion. And as long as there are “creation scientists” telling them that science supports their beliefs, nothing is going to convince them otherwise.

6. 6.   Bob Thomas Says:
   August 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

   Part of the problem is that folks like Chris helped to reframe the cracker incident to be about all religious people instead of just the fundies. The reframing has caused more problems then the original incident (IMO). I think M and K are on the same side as PZ but communication problems are messing things up.

7. 7.   Thomas Joseph Says:
   August 9th, 2009 at 11:04 pm

   I’m with JoshS on this one. The comment seems calculated and quite contrived, almost as if Chris is consciously catering to the New Atheist crowd he previously criticized. Throwing them a bone so to speak. There isn’t a need to bash all Republicans, I imagine quite a few Republicans could be placed soundly in the pro-science camp … however by doing this, Chris has violated his very own admonishment (in the political realm) to the New Atheists in the religious realm.

8. 8.   Helioprogenus Says:
   August 10th, 2009 at 6:52 pm

   As an Armenian, it’s deplorable to hear the term “Young Turk” accepted in so many circles. To draw a comparison, this would be like appearing on a radio program called the New Nazis. Both are terrible names, and reflect an ignorance that seems to be quite common.

   Young Turks were the political organization that masterminded the Armenian Genocide, and practically wiped Armenians off their native homeland, nearly annihilating them in the process. Supposedly, they came to power to address democratic reforms upon the fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire, but their utter disregard for the rights of a people who existed continuously in their homeland before the arrival of the Turks must not be forgotten. The numerous instances of genocide that have occurred since those days in the early 20′th century prove that these issues cannot be taken lightly. A whole people nearly vanished at the hands of an organization whose name is now used as an acceptable part of the English lexicon.

9. 9.   qbsmd Says:
   August 12th, 2009 at 10:42 am

   Helioprogenus,
   I was curious enough to look into why a radio show would name itself after a genocidal group. I got as far as Wikipedia “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#Young_Turk_Revolution.2C_1908″, which claims the exact opposite: the Young Turks attempted a coup, and those who opposed them began killing Armenians because at least some factions of the Young Turks were pro-equal rights.

10. 10.   Helioprogenus Says:
    August 13th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    @qbsmd

    I did have a response, but for whatever reason, it didn’t get posted, so I’ll have to rewrite about the Young Turks. The main architects of the Armenian Genocide where Talaat, Enver, and Jamal, all heads of the Young Turks. Although it’s true that they swept Turkish politics with the promise and implementation of Democratic reforms, they also included a heavy nationalistic message. This involved the complete Turkification of the former Ottoman Empire, and it didn’t leave much room for the Armenians, Assyrians, or Greeks. There were many massacres that preceded the Armenian Genocide under the rule of the last sultan Abdul Hamid II, called the Hamidian Massacres. These were regional massacres that didn’t have the organizational structure that the Armenian Genocide had. The genocidal campaigns included roving bands of Kurdish and Turkomen as well, but their orders had come from above. In fact, Kurds have apologized for their association with the Armenian Genocide.

    http://www.armenian-genocide.org/young_turks.html

11. 11.   mooney and co. vs. the new atheists | weird things Says:
    August 31st, 2009 at 2:45 am

    [...] on a high horse. Why after an interview with The Young Turks on Air America, he thought it was “kinda fun to bash Republicans and the religious right again” less than two weeks after he sternly warned that the internet’s vocal atheists are just [...]