I read an article titled “Leave God out of it, Zuma” on the Mail & Guardian website this morning. The article is written by a journalist with whom I studied and respect greatly. Verashni Pillay is an amazing writer and a gifted journalist and has been since our very first day at Rhodes University.
I have said all these nice things about her because it just goes to show that no matter how talented you are there will always be complications when writing about religion and politics. Even the best of us [Verashni] will occasional battle.
In the opening paragraph of the story Verashni manages to weaken her entire argument against Zuma by stating the following:
You know, it’s difficult enough being a Christian these days. Not only are there the money-making quacks to avoid, we also have to put up with smug and ill-read atheists. A tough job, all in all.
I believe that the argument is weakened because Verashni singles out one group to take aim at another.
Why is is that Verashni needed to firstly mention Atheists at all and secondly mention them in such a condescending and mocking tone? Hypocrisy? I think so. Verashni, how could you possibly consider writing an article criticising Zuma’s opinion on religion while in the opening paragraph of that criticism take a jab at another group?
There are a few things after the fact that bothered me a little bit more than the initial statement. In a reply to @gordonwells @michaelmeadon on Twitter Verashni believes she didn’t make a generalization. I sort of agree but why single out the “smug Atheists”? Why not applaud the well-read ones? Here’s that tweet: “True. Which is why I didn’t make a generalization. I spoke about a small group of people called smug atheists.”
Then Verashni states that the comment was a throw-away: “Not sure i DID want that. It was just one throw-away line that they’re ALL focusing on now. Sigh.” If it was a throw-away comment then why put it in the opening paragraph or article at all? When not just leave it out? Why pick on Atheists of any kind?
I agree with many of the comments in the original article but most of all what I’d like to add to the debate is that it’s not OK to single out a group in a condescending way if you are an impartial journalist whether you are writing an opinion piece or not. If the shoe was on the other foot and I’d written an article and added in a throw-away: “I hate dealing with Cheats, murderers and cocky Christians”. I imagine that the religious in the crowd would have a few things to say about that.
It’s the same thing. I don’t like being bundled with “Money-making quacks” or “smug and ill-read Atheists”. I am neither but now anyone who read her story thinks that Atheists are smug and ill-read.
Verashni, if you think it’s tough being a Christian in this world, walk a mile in my shoes.
8 Comments
Rich…!
Thanks dude, perfectly put.
Buum!
08 Feb 2011 08:02 am
UrsusZA
Quite the typical one-eyed opening statement!
Referring to Atheists as ill-read is, as I would understand it, generally referring to their lack of knowledge of the Bible which to me is staggeringly naive. The biggest failing of all Christians when it comes to argument is to refer to the Bible as a factual and non-biased source. An approach which when you review is weak way approach to prove a point, one that would not hold water if you took out the emotion that attaches itself to religious debate.
It must be so tough for Verashni to see those smiling Aetheist faces across the road or in a shopping mall, invading christian space with their self contented smirks – LOL. Obviously Verashni has experienced being harassed and bashed by Bible wielding Zealots … As a Rhodian “His People” should bring back an image of such types.
To end my bit I ask the next religiously focused person to closely review the behaviors and histories of their particular religion as a whole before speaking or writing, hopefully they will realise that “Everybodys sh1t stinks”
08 Feb 2011 09:02 am
Trev
I thought this pic that I found is well funny and relevant
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/monday-motivators-24.jpg
08 Feb 2011 09:02 am
Tweets that mention Leave Atheists out of it, Verashni – Nic Talks — Topsy.com
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Richard Mulholland, Nic Haralambous. Nic Haralambous said: Leave Atheists out of it, Verashni. My thoughts on column written by @verashni. http://t.co/qLCTYR8 [...]
Gaby
I’m just surprised that atheists are now a “group”. Before we know it, they’ll have a TV channel.
08 Feb 2011 09:02 am
Nic
Gaby – Haha, I think I sort of see your point, kind of. But what are you saying? That because Atheists don’t believe in a non-existent being that we aren’t able to organise ourselves? We’re not anarchists, we’re Atheists.
08 Feb 2011 09:02 am
Gaby
Hi Nic, ok, so atheism can be organised, around the belief that you don’t believe in a non-existent being. Why would anyone invest energy in that?
08 Feb 2011 10:02 am
Graeme
Gaby,
We form groups in order to collectively giggle at people who invest so much time in imaginary friends. Don’t they have enough real friends?
08 Feb 2011 05:02 pm
Leave a Comment