I am deeply amused. I’m no fan of “faith & religion” sections of newspapers—axe them and expand the funny pages, I say—but here’s one editor with smarts who gets the thumbs up from me. He gets lots of complaints that those dang non-Christians are being over-represented on the religion page; some of them are typical bigotry of the dominant delusion:
A couple of critics wanted to know why we were wasting ink on these “false” beliefs when Christ is the only path to salvation. Another caller said he was tired of having “that Islam religion … shoved in my face.”
Now here’s what I like: the editor decided to apply some common sense and science to the complaint. He looks at the demographics of the region his paper serves. He tallies up the content of the articles published in his section of the paper. He compares them. He comes to a conclusion.
Although Faith & Values isn’t ignoring Christians, my tally does suggest that we are giving nonreligious people less attention than they deserve. We’re already taking steps to correct that.
Whoa. Now there’s a demonstration of commendable Values (I note, though, that it wasn’t driven by Faith, but by evidence and social consciousness). I’m already impressed, but the guy goes a step further and does even better.
Some might argue that the religion section is meant for religious people, just as the Sports section is intended for sports fans. (Because I myself have little interest in sports, I don’t expect that section to cater to me.)
But this analogy is faulty. Nonreligious people have their own codes of ethics and explanations for the meaning of life. Many pursue independent spiritual paths; others are happily secular.
I think these people deserve more coverage in F&V. What do you think?
He’s asking for input. Go ahead, say nice things to Mark Fisher ([email protected]) of the Columbus Dispatch about his sensible and fair attitude. I guess I won’t lobby to have his pages replaced with double-sized copies of Cathy, Garfield, Marmaduke, and Family Circus.
Don’t be ridiculous, haven’t you watched CNN lately ?
Those uppity atheists don’t actually believe in anything and should just shut up.
Or so I’ve heard.
The hysterical responses to this article that will inevitably come from evangelicals will be better P.R. for the secular viewpoint than anything we could possibly come up with ourselves.
Family Circus?! I have to say that doesn’t strike me as much of an improvement.
@graccus:
Could be worse. PZ could have suggested replacing the F&V with the funnies by running a week’s worth of B.C. They wouldn’t even need to change the section name.
Family Circus??? You mean Pearls Before Swine, right? ;)
I’m mildly surprised PZ didn’t advocate replacing the section with double-sized copies of Sinfest.
Hey, that’s my paper! I’m so proud!!!
Our weekend subscription is safe for at least another year. Rock on, Dispatch.
I don’t know. I can’t say I’m clamoring for space on the F&V page, because I never read it either. If they want a page in the Saturday edition, then it’s fine with me. I don’t really need my lack of religious views validated by the local rag.
And besides…now I know the fundies will be saying this in their whiney letters, but bear with me here…we already have the whole rest of the paper. That’s the beauty of secular life-it is life. It is what actually happens to actual people who are just trying to stay alive and entertain themselves and help others. It’s open to everyone. Everyone can join in discussions of current events and science and arts and literature. You don’t need a starting point of having to have read this or that holy book or having to have attended this or that ceremony.
We don’t really need “here’s the godless view of something or other”, because we can already get that by simply examining things as they are and not starting to talk about beings that only exist in the minds of certain people.
I guess a little recognition is nice, but being in the F&V section when we lack the F that defines it seems kind of disengenuous.
toby, ARGGHHH
yes, you’re right…BC would be much, much worse. my fave was the strip that said darwin would have done better for the world as a rural anglican parson…I found this annoying at so many levels, that i’m getting irritated just thinking about it.
I guess my joke needs a little explaining (never a good sign): I’m so down on “faith & religion” sections that I think they’d be improved by running Family Circus instead, and I can’t stand Family Circus.
But seriously, this Mark Fisher fellow seems to have his head screwed on straight, so I’m going to stick up for this one religion section.
In my state of advanced exhaustion, I may have gotten overly literal minded.
Sorry to miss the joke, PZ.
Rey, I disagree with you. I think it’s important for people to be exposed to non-faith-based ethical systems, especially in the US where the education system doesn’t really impart much on the subject and people may not have been much exposed. A lot of the religious, especially rightwing Christians, seem to think that all atheists are nihilists. The idea of making an existential choice to do good without the threat of punishment is something that would be new for many people.
People who complain that their religion is underrepresented in the newspaper in relation to other religions are the ones who NEED more exposure to diverse spiritual and secular points of view; maybe it will help erode their closed-mindedness.
BTW, I’m a new blogger who’s looking for feedback and suggestions about my site. I would be strenuously appreciative if you could take a moment and look it over. Thanks!
Oh, certainly people should be exposed to that, and maybe the F&V section might be the most revelant place for it. The trouble is that atheists, agnostics (hell, especially agnostics ;), humanists and other assorted heathens aren’t really organized enough or do enough things as a group to generate a whole lot of news. The stuff that interests us interests people of all religious affiliation (like I said in my previous post, life is our religion, maaan), and so I can sort of see it coming down to a “we still exist, you know” article every couple months.
I don’t have a religion, but I do have values, and in this newspaper the section isn’t called “Faith & Religion” but rather “Faith & Values.” My values (freedom, honesty, fairness, equality, individuality, intelligence, reason, questioning) are continually under attack in this country by the religious right, whose values seem to be discrimination, hatred, hypocrisy, dishonesty, stupidity, and blind, unquestioning obedience. I would love to see some intelligent treatment of this in a newspaper. Too bad this is not my local paper.
PZ, if he does something good along these lines (that is available on-line non-subscription) would you link to it for all of us? I’d like to see it, and the sudden rush of internet hits should give this sensible guy a boost with his bosses.
Gracchus and Margaret make a very important point, IMO. It’s the Faith -> Values link that supports the widely-held assumption that the latter cannot exist without the former, and THAT link urgently needs breaking. There’s plenty of room for Values in the Faith and Values section.
My local paper has a weekly feature called “Ask the Religion Experts” or something similar. I read it about 1/3 of the time. In the feature, they pose a question to local religious mandarins. The typical respondents are the local Catholic archbishop, the (I think) senior Rabbi in town, a student at the main Sikh temple, a moderator/poobah at the local evangelical church, a senior imam, and often some people I can only describe as guests: a Hindu, a Buddhist, sometimes others.
All the responses are given approximately equal column inches, and since they are all answering the same questions, it makes for some interesting comparative reading.
The Rabbi, the Sikh student and the Archbishop tend to have the best overall responses. They’re usually the best written, and the first two in particular are almost always the most accomodating and least preachy. The evangelical guy is usually an embarrassment, in my opinion.
The best feature they ran was last year. The question was “what would you say if someone came to you and said that asked about converting to your faith”. The Rabbi’s respons was essentially “I’d tell them to go away because if they have to ask me, they are not ready”. I loved that answer, because he is correct.
If you have doubt, you are not ready. Perhaps you should examine your doubts… maybe you’ll give up superstition altogether and “convert” to atheism :)
Here’s the letter I sent to this editor:
Hello,
I applaud your suggestion that the Faith & Values section should reflect nonreligious views as well as religious views. I was a strong Christian for most of my life, but as a result of many months of thought, discussion, research and bible study I became an atheist over a year ago.
Although I no longer have Faith, I most certainly have Values, especially intellectual honesty, rationality, fairness and compassion. I have a great deal of concern for others, and a strong desire for greater happiness and reduced suffering in the world. I hope your readers will have the opportunity to learn about the views and values of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, brights, and others who live their lives without the assumption of anything supernatural.
I suspect your view will be unpopular with religious people who feel they have a monopoly on the truth. I admire your courage in raising this point, and I hope that you will be able to follow through on it.
Best wishes,
-Fred
Let’s see if he still has a job next week. Is he married to the boss’s daughter or something?
h, hy, ttlly gr tht thsts shld hv vc n ths “Fth & Vls” sctn.
thsm s crtnly lp f fth nd t’s ls rlgs stnc f y sk m.
‘v sn hw y trt ppl wh dn’t gr wth y, nd th rst f th wrld shld gt t wtnss ll f y n ctn.
Bttr yt, lt’s dvrts PZ’s blg rght smck n th mddl f th rlgn sctn. Yh! Tht wld b prfct…
Here’s my own email to the guy:
…
…
Re: Your “Faith & Values” column.
I think you said that very well. As an atheist, I’ve struggled to find a way to say that my ideas about compassion, ethics, morality, etc., deserve equal coverage in religious venues — such as the religion pages in newspapers. Though atheists are not religious, the ideas we have about life occupy that same part of the philosophical spectrum.
For instance, I myself don’t depend on religious faith for my ethical convictions, but in any roundtable public discussion of morality, I would be able to find no outlet except in a faith-related context. The only choice I have, it seems, is to either remain forever unheard, or to chime in during a religious discussion.
And certainly, religious people (many of whom have private doubts but have nowhere to go to explore them) deserve SOME exposure to the idea of “None of the above” when it comes to a discussion of religious choices.
Thank you for what you wrote. I hope you’re not screamed out of a job by the Christianist extremists.
…
…
So will they re-title the section “Faith and/or Values?”
I just sent off this email to Mark:
Hi Mark,
I just read a description of your recent column in the faith and
values section of your newspaper. I think your statement,
“But this analogy is faulty. Nonreligious people have their own codes
of ethics and explanations for the meaning of life. Many pursue
independent spiritual paths; others are happily secular.”
is right on and, as an atheist humanist, I’d like to thank you for
considering increasing coverage of issues related to people living
their lives according to ethics and morals not derived from belief in
a supernatural being. Too often, the meme that atheists are without
morals is propogated. I think you could do a whole lot to change that
perception by including stories from time to time about non-religious
people living moral, compassionate, and productive lives.
Thank you very much for consideration of the atheist/agnostic point of view in your column!
humanists and other assorted heathens aren’t really organized enough or do enough things as a group to generate a whole lot of news.
and you’re relying on which news source to tell you that there is not enough news generated???
oh irony.
talk about totally missing the point of the thread.
Well, what have you and your atheist friends done to make news lately? And I mean things specifically relating to atheism/humanism.
I sent a nice note to him, and received a reply that he has received many more replies than he usual gets (35!) and that 34 have been positive. (We’ll see what happens when snail mail rolls in.) He apologized for sending a general letter, but says he is taking into account everyone’s comments.
He seems like a really nice guy.
So will they re-title the section “Faith and/or Values?”
How about “Faith XOR Values?”
Well, what have you and your atheist friends done to make news lately? And I mean things specifically relating to atheism/humanism.
There are tons of stories (389 to be exact) about atheism on Google news at the moment. People are talking about it! That can only be a good thing.
My kind of christian.
http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0702/cr020807chrishedges.mov
More Chris Hedges please… or more press for him.
Cathy, Garfield, Marmaduke, and Family Circus.
PZ, your taste in comedy is depressing. The funny thing, is exactly what I’d think a fundie Christian would read, cause all that stuff is bland and non-offensive.
Give “Get Fuzzy”, “Pearls Before Swine” “The Boondocks” “Dilbert” and “Calvin and Hobbes” a look.
Ummm, that was my point: if we replace F&V pages with bad cartoons, it would be an improvement.
I’ll agree with you that we can add “Dibert” to my list.
He meant to be funny by picking the most vapid atrocious cartoons known to man.
Thanks for the pointer; I live in Columbus, and I typically ignore the Dispatch and go more more national and international publications.
Also, is it bad that trying to read disemvowelled comments is so much fun?
I call it the winger word scramble.
Well, what have you and your atheist friends done to make news lately?
knocks on rock?
hello?
*sigh*
again, you missed the point. What could we point to as newsworthy events… if no news outlet is bothering to report on them to begin with?
me, I’m not part of any ahteist or humanist groups, so how would I know?
Get it yet?
I’m in the same boat you are, it’s just that i recognize it.
I’m a news junkie and a Columbusite (Coloumbusonion? at any rate….) so im a regular reader of the dispatch. If the want to cater to our particular demographic expand the science section to something more than just 2 pages on wendnesday. I just toss the friday faith section in the can along with the ads anyway.
And as long as they have the rights to The Boondocks they might as well publish it.
Sent:
“Mr. Fisher,
As a resident of Columbus currently out-of-state for university, I was very happy to hear that you supported bring more “Values” to the F&V section. Exposing the citizens of Columbus to faiths or points of view that aren’t familiar is an important public service, especially to atheists like myself. Whether I choose to think of myself as a humanist, freethinker, secularist or agnostic, there are many in this country that would sooner judge me than know my name. Only by showing the world our similarities will we learn to accept the differences. Thank you for helping.”
Family Circus, Cathy, Marmaduke, and Garfield? As long as you’re expanding the comics, put in some good ones. Family Circus, Cathy, and Marmaduke are all bland and boring. Garfield had some great strips, but now it’s washed out and repetitive.
Kyle M, you have somewhat better taste. Unfortunately, Calvin and Hobbes is retired, Pearls Before Swine isn’t that great, Get Fuzzy is one of the worse strips, and although Dilbert is a good strip, PZ and Scott Adams have had some problems, so I doubt he’d advocate it.
I liked The Boondocks, but my local newspaper stopped carrying it some time ago. :(
Viewed as news or opinion, the godless need to be heard more often. However, those of us who never get together to celebrate our lack of faith can’t complain that the newspapers don’t leave large blank sections in the services listings to note our reticence.
Ye of little faith, upon whom time hangs heavy on Sunday mornings, may find the Unitarians surprisingly congenial. My unbelieving parents long enjoyed the company of fellow liberal skeptics.
Wow, Maronan, attacking “Get Fuzzy?” Them’s fightin’ words! It exposes the true evils of cats. At least inasmuch as the cat that owns me is evil. ;)
[…] I conclude that this region is about 80 percent Christian, with the evangelicals leading the pack, followed by the Roman Catholics and then the United Methodists. […]
During the last two years, Faith & Values has had 290 cover stories, of which 183 (63.1 percent) have been about Christianity. Another 39 stories, or 13.4 percent, have discussed multiple faiths, usually including Christianity. […]
We’ve also had 36 stories (12.4 percent) that weren’t about any religion per se but rather addressed general values, such as honesty, good sportsmanship or charity. Not counting these stories, our coverage has at least mentioned Christianity nearly 90 percent of the time.
I don’t think I’ve missed any figures, so:
63.1% + 12.4%*90% = 74.3% < 80% His numbers are off. Other than that, great article.
You forgot the 13.4% that discussed multiple faiths, and you seem to have misunderstod what he said – if you exclude the 12.4% dealing with general values, 90% of all articles (i.e. the remaining 87.6%) have mentioned Christianity – that would mean that 78.8% (87.6% * 0.9) of the total number of articles have mentioned Christianity – that seems reasonable when we consider the numbers 63.1% (pure Christianity) + 13.4% (multi-faith) = 76.5%
So his numbers seems to be correct – you just failed to understand what he was wrote.
And just for good measure 76.5% is 85% of all articles (76.5% / 0.9).
I sent this letter:
and received this back:
Time cannot hang heavy upon those still asleep.
http://www.glamour.com/news/articles/2007/01/purityballs07feb?printable=true¤tPage=all
A link to another article on purity balls and Unruh-
Why has there been so little discussion about the texas decision to fund the HPV vaccine and then the rescinding of that decision??
Maybe your daughter has something to say on that, PZ?
I think both topics can easily fit into a discussion on faith and values!! Whose faith, Whose values??
those of us who never get together to celebrate our lack of faith can’t complain that the newspapers don’t leave large blank sections in the services listings to note our reticence.
This is a good point. I admit I have some envy for those who live in cities with an active Ethical Society fellowship – a freethinking netfriend of mine who died a few years ago requested a memorial gathering at a local-to-her Ethical Society hall in Philadelphia, to which I couldn’t go but which was reported as a very positive experience by all those who did. A fellowship community with some structured meetings procedures certainly helps in setting a frame for discussing values with friends and family who also attend: this has always been the powerful glue in religious fellowships (although we know that glue doesn’t always stick).
I agree with Margaret (#15) that it would be nice to have future links to Mark Fisher’s column if he does something good for the nonreligious in the F&V section. He may have found a new niche of interested folks to read F&V!
I sent an e-mail off to Mark commending him for suggesting that the nonreligious need more coverage. Wouldn’t it be great if more people could understand the viewpoints of others? Anyway, I think we need to remind the courageous that they are appreciated.
There’s a fair amount of nonreligious activity in Columbus, though. I’m in Students for Freethought @ OSU–website to be revamped soon, we promise–and the Humanist Community of Central Ohio is also Columbus-based. Between us we got about as much Darwin Day stuff going on as the OSU biology departments.
Columbus is a shining bastion of tolerance by Ohio standards; there’s a large gay community, for instance, and a community of recent Somali immigrants. It’s only Michigan fans who need fear physical violence.
Anton – I’m very glad to see that you have so many options to participate in nonreligious activities. A lot of us in other parts of the U.S. aren’t so lucky, and tolerance is rare. Where I’m from there was an opinion piece in December telling the nonchristians to move their holidays, and not one person responded from the community to suggest that it was intolerant for the writer to have suggested that idea. To hear that an editor of the Faith and Values section thinks that the nonreligious need more coverage seems quite extraordinary to me.
The newspaper is about reporting the facts, not beliefs or peoples opinions.(only exception is the editorials)
all it should report about religion is when,and where a service or meeting is held.(nothing more)
If you want more, subscribe to a specialty magazine.
Thank-You
Hurray for freedom of speech and equality for those of all beliefs! No one has to agree with the religious beliefs that someone has, but they should at least listen to them…
Hurray! The positive responses are still ahead. I received the following response back from Mark this morning.
Dear Reader:
Thank you so much for sending me your thoughts on my Faith &
Values column, which has generated far more responses than I expected —
about 75 e-mails so far, of which 90% have been positive.
I hope you will forgive me for sending you this universal reply. I
have always been punctilious about responding to every e-mail
individually, but in this case there are just too many. (I’ve never been
the subject of a blog before.)
I assure you that I am reading every e-mail thoroughly and taking
note of the valuable suggestions that many writers have offered.
Sincerely (albeit generically),
Mark Fisher