Atheist donor is Olbermann’s worst person for June 29
30 June 2009 by StardustAs the Friendly Atheist wonders, did Keith Olbermann not stop to consider the reasons why the atheist donor didn’t want his identity known concerning his large contribution? Maybe that information would have taken the focus away from the message of the bus campaign and the media would have focused on the “evil donor”. Or maybe that person wanted to contribute to the campaign and didn’t want to “come out” in such a large way for whatever personal reasons he or she might have. Olbermann must not have taken the time to think before making his hasty decision to publicly condemn the person for their “hypocrisy.”
I would not consider anyone who donates money to a good cause to qualify for the “worst person” list. As one YouTube commenter stated “Personally, I think the person who gave the generous amount of 10,000 should be appreciated for their generosity. . .”
So, what’s up Keith??? Why the snark?
There are many reasons why the atheist would want to remain anonymous in regards to his/her donation. Hemant Mehta quotes Greta Christina:
There are some realities about living as an atheist that you may not know about, Mr. Olbermann. Coming out as an atheist can have serious real-world consequences. Parents get denied custody of their children for being atheists. People get harassed and vandalized by their neighbors for being atheists. Teachers get suspended for being atheists. Teenagers get harassed and suspended from school for being atheists. Politicians whip up anti-atheist fear to try to get elected. (And that’s just in the US. I’m not even talking about parts of the world where atheism is a crime, punishable by imprisonment or death.)
One can encourage others to “come out” even if it isn’t the right time or place for you to. We all have to do it in our own way, in our own time. Some just come out with it, for others it is a gradual and careful process.
30 June 2009, on 3:07 pm
Donors of any kind are smart to remain anonymous. Can no one think of a reason?
30 June 2009, on 3:29 pm
When someone gives large amounts of money, and makes himself known as the donor, there will be a zillion charities at his door with their hands out.
30 June 2009, on 3:50 pm
*headdesk*
I’m never watching an Olbermann clip ever again.
30 June 2009, on 7:44 pm
Oh, it wasn’t that bad. The bronze is to poke fun. Compare that to when he gave Monique Davis the gold last year for her anti-atheist tirade in the Illinois state legislature. He ripped her a new one.
I think he may be one of us, or at least agnostic.
30 June 2009, on 11:35 pm
^ Yeah, DRB…
a bit closer to Agnostic, I’d say.
I DVR and watch both Keith & Rachel Maddow rather…pardon the expression…”religiously”. Just when you think someone’s POSSIBLY atheist, out comes the old, “thank Gob”, or “my thoughts and prayers” regarding some current news item.
I’m still waiting for a Hitchens or Dawkins to pop up on either show…specifically on the subject of atheism. Unfortunately, even the most liberal commentators are scared shitless of showing any serious disrespect of any religions.
Still…at least there’s SOME remnant of hope with Olbermann and Maddow.
Every conflict in the World, forever and today, IMO, has it’s elemental roots in one or another fucking brand of ancient, totally made-up, bullshit religious insanity. Iran, Iraq…the USA…zama, zama.
A resulting fact, both strange and, unfortunately, simultaneously…even expected. Just the titles of many recurring daily news items like, f’rnstance, the recent US troop “adjustment” in Iraq shout that all too rather unnoticed reminder at you.
Like today’s…
“Iraqis celebrate US pullback but bombing kills 27″
Imagine, for a moment, living, daily,with those insane circumstances.
Yet, the overwhelming majority of people just don’t…or won’t…’get it’ regarding fucking religion!
Yeah…alas…yet another day on this rather “un-evolved”…or is it, “devolved”?…
“Demon (Alien?) haunted” Loony Bin..?
1 July 2009, on 10:16 am
OT…(or maybe not?)…
Here’s the link to a “nice” little recent YouTube from Michael Shermer…
“RDF TV – The Baloney Detection Kit – Michael Shermer”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
1 July 2009, on 11:02 am
Oh, it wasn’t that bad.
As one commenter stated, if it had been a conservative newscaster we would not say it wasn’t that bad. We would be outraged even if they were goofing around.
From what I have seen of Xian commenters about Olbermann’s little snark is that they are using it as another little bit of ammo against atheists and how “hypocritical” we are, yadda, yadda, yadda. Whether Olbermann was not being totally serious or not, atheists have a difficult time as it is getting positive press.
And if Olbermann is not a god believer or not, he needs to stop with the “prayers to the family, etc” that he sometimes uses at the end of his rants.
1 July 2009, on 4:10 pm
Compare that to when he gave Monique Davis the gold last year for her anti-atheist tirade in the Illinois state legislature.
Yes, do. He’s been better at defending atheists from the usual bullshit than anyone on TV. Any medium outside of blogs, actually.
he needs to stop with the “prayers to the family, etc” that he sometimes uses at the end of his rants
Can I still say “Jesus fucking Christ” when atheists live up to the caricature of being dogmatic in their own right?
1 July 2009, on 4:14 pm
The issue is that Olbermann dissing this atheist when he or she was only doing a good thing was just plain wrong. It’s okay to say when we don’t like or agree with something one of our television newsertainment “idols” does or says. His little “award” made atheists who choose to remain anonymous (for probable good reason) look bad.
1 July 2009, on 7:14 pm
Those ads really pissed a lot of people off. Maybe the donor was acting out of interest in his own safety.
1 July 2009, on 7:54 pm
I don’t think Olbermann needed to make a big deal about this man or woman wanting to remain anonymous. If he is on the side of the atheists/agnostics…being who he is, Olbermann could have put a whole different spin on the donor, and could have focused on the positive thing this person has done, and brought up possible reasons the donor did want to remain anonymous. He could have made the public stop and think why this person couldn’t come forward instead of trying to make the generous donor seem like a hypocritical doofus for choosing to remain anonymous.
1 July 2009, on 8:37 pm
Star,
I get where you’re coming from. When I first heard it the hair in the back of my neck stood up. However, what KO is poking fun at is the statement the NYC Atheist put out when announcing the campaign. Watch it again. Notic how he emphasizes the word “hiding”…Twice!
And then the kicker; the donor was anonymous. It’s the bad press release he’s ribbing.
They should have talked about not being alone in the world. Anything but “hiding”.
The NoGodBlog has an entry from the NYC Atheists. They think it’s funny.
“Hiding”.
1 July 2009, on 8:42 pm
DRB, After re-watching it I do see what you are talking about, however, I don’t think the general public is going to take time to analyze what he is saying and all the gob-botherers were most likely nodding their head in agreement with him and saying to each other “that hypocritical atheist!”. Most people heard what made the hair stand up on the back of your neck and that’s as far as it goes for most viewers, and most viewers are god believers.
1 July 2009, on 9:47 pm
Umm I think the point Keith Olbermann was making is how can you ask someone else to do something that you yourself is not willing to do.
If the cause is so important to you to donate or to be the biggest doner then why isn’t it just as important to put your name behind it.
Yes, yes I know what people will say, “because there are a lot of wackos out there that would try to come after you”. But I say no movement or cause doesn’t come without any conflict. A face and a name means more to a movement than the financial contribution.
Keith was just pointing out the hypocrisy of what the atheist founder wants other atheists to come out and not hide, but yet it’s okay to hide your identity if you are donating money to their cause. That’s the point.
1 July 2009, on 10:20 pm
OK, point taken. Maybe not his fan base, but out on youtube land it could be seen that way.
By the way, how’ve you been? I’ve been offline for a few years. Hanging in the re OK.
And whatever happened to RainDogZilla?
2 July 2009, on 12:31 am
Olbermann can blame me. Oh, I didn’t donate the money, I don’t have it to donate. But if I did have the money i would gladly donate it – in Olbermann’s name.
2 July 2009, on 11:34 am
cee cee, Some people who donate large amounts of money for a variety of causes choose to remain anonymous for the reasons some of us have mentioned in the above discussion here and at Friendly Atheist site.
cee cee, I am saying this to you in a friendly way, please to back and read the thread and you will find out some possibilities of why this person, or any person who gives a large amount of money would want to remain anonymous. It’s not important where the money came from, only that the cause is promoted. Names are not important for where the generosity comes from. This person who gives large amounts of money is doing more anonymously for this “out” campaign than you or I or anyone else who is sitting here anonymously in blogland chatting on atheist sites. AND this anonymous person is doing more than even Olbermann to get the word out that it is ok to be an atheist.
And once again, there are various reasons for the person not to reveal his identity. As people have stated above, maybe it will put his or her job in jeopardy, maybe it will cause family problems that person is not ready to deal with, maybe it’s a custody thing with kids involved, etc. The POINT is that the money was given for a good cause and the person need not be condemned for his or her good deed.
Anyone remember that anonymous donor who puts the gold coins in the Salvation Army buckets every Christmas season? Is he or she a hypocrite and deserving of Olbermann’s “Worst person” award? Shouldn’t that person let himself or herself be known for spreading the “good news of gawd”?
2 July 2009, on 2:50 pm
@Stardust
Hmm I wonder if Martin Luther King Jr and the others that marched for civil rights remain anonymous would there have been a civil rights movement? If gays, lesbians, and transgenders weren’t out there voicing the opinions for their rights would we have a LGBT movement?
It doesn’t matter how much money there is to put behind a cause or movement if people are not willing to step up and put their name and face behind it it’s not going to go anywhere. Which is the point Olberman was making.
I will repeat what I said before and I noticed you left it out in your reply….
“Yes, yes I know what people will say, “because there are a lot of wackos out there that would try to come after you”. But I say no movement or cause doesn’t come without any conflict. A face and a name means more to a movement than the financial contribution. ”
Also I think Olberman putting it on his show (even as the worst person) gave the cause some recognition more than what that guy donated.
Because before it appeared on Olberman I knew nothing about it this atheist movement….I didn’t know they needed a movement like this.
2 July 2009, on 3:04 pm
Cee cee,
I am sure there were many people who contributed to Martin Luther King Jr.’s mission who remained anonymous for various reasons. I am sure there are people who support other movements who must remain anonymous for their own safety and for the safety of their families. Some people are braver than others, but it doesn’t mean that the ones who are still afraid to “come out” don’t have anything to contribute.
I didn’t address the item you are referring to in your comment because people have stated that before in previous comments (about being afraid that wackos will come after him)…and I said to please review what everyone else has written. A face, in some instances only detracts from the message. It may even backfire on the donor and if he or she is a public official and doesn’t get re-elected because of it, that would also be bad for the atheist movement.
I stand my my opinion that Olbermann actually did a disservice to the message of the atheist “out campaign” and didn’t help it at all. I can’t see how dissing the donor did anything but to bring NEGATIVE attention to atheists.
Olbermann could have brought up the atheist campaign in a more positive light. He simply wasn’t thinking. Olbermann isn’t as smart as some people think he is. (check his background…he was a sports announcer for years…he is simply a tv personality). He is also human and can make a mistake once in awhile.
2 July 2009, on 5:56 pm
“Olbermann could have brought up the atheist campaign in a more positive light. He simply wasn’t thinking. Olbermann isn’t as smart as some people think he is. (check his background…he was a sports announcer for years…he is simply a tv personality). He is also human and can make a mistake once in awhile.”
I don’t know if Olbermann is an atheist or Christan, Catholic, or whatever he practices or doesn’t practice. But why does have to show a more positive light on the atheist campaign? Because you want him to?
I’ve been watching his show for some time now and he has never shied away from where he first started at in his t.v career, so I don’t understand him being a former sports announcer has to do with him being not so smart(in your opinion). Unless you’re trying to say sports announcer are not smart? Which I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that’s not what you’re saying.
I think the atheist campaign is probably happy that Olbermann did feature their cause on his show even if it was negative attention. They got free press (on the air) and have people talking about it.
Now what they need to do is turn it into something they can use. Maybe they should think about going on Olbermann’s show and talk about it. It could turn into a win win situation.
2 July 2009, on 8:22 pm
That would be nice. Yes.
Sports announcers are television personalities. Do you have to be smart to be a sports announcer? No…just look at some of the announcers and how they speak. Sports is basically entertainment. News programs are newsertainment. News reporters/anchors etc are television personalities. Because Olbermann is this crazed person who rants every day on television and says what a bunch of people want to hear in an extremely irate manner, they think he is a genius. He’s not. Check out his background. What I am saying is that his educational background isn’t that great, when compared to Rachel Maddow, for instance who is a Rhodes Scholar, and she has a PhD in Political Science. Too many people worship television personalities and take what they have to say as absolute. Sometimes, no matter how educated, they are human and make mistakes. Once in awhile they even admit it and publish or air a retraction.
Well, there’s a good idea. But slim chance that will ever happen.
Not from the feedback I have been reading. Commentors at most atheist blogs I have been reading aren’t too happy with him right now.
Like I said, yes…they have them talking about what a negative thing to do to the atheist campaign when it’s getting negative criticism from non-atheists as it is.
2 July 2009, on 9:35 pm
Lots of wealthy people contribute money to worthy causes and remain anonymous for very good reasons. First and foremost, they don’t need every charity on the planet hitting them for a large contribution. Olbermann must be having some trouble finding news worthy items to focus on these days.
2 July 2009, on 11:30 pm
Olbermann must be having some trouble finding news worthy items to focus on these days.
That’s a probably reason. Needed a filler for whatever reason he hadn’t found someone more “worthy” of the “honors”.
2 July 2009, on 11:46 pm
cee cee said…
“Because before it appeared on Olberman I knew nothing about it this atheist movement….I didn’t know THEY needed a movement like this.”
“I think the atheist campaign is probably happy that Olbermann did feature THEIR cause on his show even if it was negative attention. THEY got free press (on the air) and have people talking about it.
Now what THEY need to do is turn it into something THEY can use. Maybe THEY should think about going on Olbermann’s show and talk about it. It could turn into a win win situation.”
Hey, folks…
Are “we” arguing, here, with another atheist?…agnosti?…theist?… or WHAT?
…cee cee?
Just wondering. It “sounds” more like you’re trolling here.
For me, it’s not a “they”, “they’re”, or “their”…it’s “WE”, “WE’RE, or “OUR”…a somewhat major point, considering who WE are, here at GifS. I’m a bit reluctant to enter into any argument here…or arguments in general.
I could be wrong…but it occurred to me that something was being overlooked in the current…”mellay” [donnybrook?]
Backing up a bit…
cee cee:
“Hmm I wonder if Martin Luther King Jr and the others that marched for civil rights remain anonymous would there have been a civil rights movement? If gays, lesbians, and transgenders weren’t out there voicing the opinions for their rights would we have a LGBT movement?”
As to Martin Luther King Jr…where’s the comparison? He represented the readily accepted, and all too common, religious Power structure in the Black community…Christian based…not the most hated group of people in American society. As to anonymity…even the gay movement started off with mostly annoymous demonstrations…people who hadn’t really OFFICIALLY “come out of the closet”; and even the most conservative families had gays amongst them; much more readily admitted, than ever would admit that there were atheists amongst them.
Remember Anita Bryant and Phyllis Schlafly? Nobody even mentioned the SUBJECT of atheism, in those days.
Also…remember Madalyn Murray O’Hair?…the so-called “most hated person in America” back in the 1960s; and we all know what happened to her…or do we? Hardly a mention was ever made about her strange disappearance, etc.,at the time. Not many people generally cared what happened to her, I’d say…and there’s never been any sympathy for atheists…EVER!
Almost everyone who was Liberal in the 1960s backed the Civil Rights Movement…I certainly did…not so with anybody remotely connected with atheism; a movement which really didn’t exist until recently, with the advent of the Internet; and Dawkins, Harris, etc.
Anyhoo!…time will tell if Keith will turn out to be more sympathetic to OUR movement. In the meantime, for other obvious reasons, I’ll continue to watch his…and Rachel’s show.
3 July 2009, on 12:07 pm
ChuckA, good catch. I didn’t catch that first time around. Yeah, what are you cee cee? What side are you on? I was wondering why so much argument from another atheist. Little slips like “they” make me wonder.
Another great point, ChuckA. MLK Jr was well-respected by many and had a large following of God botherers.
3 July 2009, on 12:15 pm
OK, point taken. Maybe not his fan base, but out on youtube land it could be seen that way.
By the way, how’ve you been? I’ve been offline for a few years. Hanging in the re OK.
And whatever happened to RainDogZilla?
DRB, Glad to have you back. Hope you are doing well. As for me, it’s been a rough couple of years but seem to be finally improving and getting back to feeling pretty good. I don’t know what RDZ is up to. He comes and goes, but people seem to really like it when he comes back and posts. He livens things up, gets some good discussion going.
Where are you Raindoggie? If you are lurking, come out and post something!