Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Alice Shade @ Odessa, Ukraine. on June 5, 2007:

If only that was a single issue.

Sadly, there was many a time I read something similar. Why it is OK to defend any mainstream religion, but not atheism?

Frankly, the more I see of USA news, the more I come to believe, that there is something... fundamentally wrong, with whole idea of political correctness, as it is implemented right now. It seems to be selectively-blind, I`d say.

Posted by Conrad, Ohio on June 5, 2007:

"A touch" of "equal time" is right! The cup merely asks a question, just a tiny bit of sense in a heated issue, and it gets THIS sort of reaction? It's a tiny drop against a tidal wave of religious spew that, frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing.

I was born into a Methodist family and remember Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, and singing in the church boy's choir. But as I grew toward maturity, I bristled at the (as you say) "sit down, shut up, and don't ask questions" mentality of the church. It pushed me out. Let me say that again: IT PUSHED ME AWAY FROM CHURCH. Probably forever.

What sort of "faith" do people really have if such innocuous questions send them into a tailspin, like what happened with Incanno or Vivian in Florida? If they truly had faith, they'd merely smile at such a coffee cup (or story in a newsletter). That they protest -- either rashly like Incanno or, as you point out, quietly and even thoughtfully, like Vivian -- speaks volumes about the discomfort they feel inside themselves. You're not the cause of that discomfort, Randy, just a catalyst by shining what's really a tiny, tiny light on their souls. So I say not just "keep it up" but please brighten that light -- and shine it on all of us. Only then do we truly see what's in our souls.

I'm a Premium subscriber for life: work like yours needs support, and I'll be damned (er, upset!) if I sat by and let your voice waver for lack of support.

Posted by David -- Rochester on June 6, 2007:

Politicians pandering to the theist majority are fond of braying, "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion!" But of course, if we truly have a choice in religious matters, then "none of the above" must be an option or that choice is meaningless. Atheism is a religion just as bald is a hair color.

You hit it spot-on when you said that if the quote on the cup had been a theism-positive one, there would be no story here. Three hundred years after the Enlightenment, atheists are still the most despised minority in the US and it seems to be regressing, not improving. A recent poll asked voters which single characteristic of an otherwise well-qualified candidate would be the deal-breaker that prevented voting for him/her. Atheism "won," hands-down. Really? Candidates for office must assure us that they will be taking recourse to imaginary friends in the sky for solutions to real problems. Failure to do so is the single best reason NOT to vote for such a one?

Randy, I commend you for not despairing of this stiff-necked people. It's more than I can manage.

Posted by Carter, Clearwater, FL on June 6, 2007:

Randy, It looks like Starbuck's plan of stirring discussion is working! Maybe they will add some of the quotes from "This is True".

---

Indeed Starbucks' PR people (and stockholders) must be gleefully rubbing their hands together. Ms. Incanno did exactly what they were hoping for: she went to the media. -rc

Posted by Denise, NC on June 6, 2007:

Ah, to have a life where there is everything is so sweet and peaceful that I could take the time to make a public fuss about a comment on a coffee cup.

Has Incanno spayed or neutered her pets? Is her neighborhood crime-free? Are there no orphans that she can go preach to while she feeds and clothes them? If she wants to make a difference, she needs to start with more practical avenues.

Besides, who doesn't get a boost to their faith and a warm fuzzy feeling from feeding orphans? O:-)

Posted by Doug, Illinois on June 6, 2007:

Her answer could have been as simple as, "I believe that God is not a figment of my imagination. My relationship with God provides me strength and support in good times and in bad." Or something of the sort...which could lead to more discussion...exactly what Starbucks was looking to accomplish. Last time I checked, the only way to debate is to take contrary positions...otherwise it is not really a debate.

Randy, thank you for continuing to show how people need to think before they act.

Posted by Andy, Mission Viejo, CA on June 6, 2007:

Randy, I have wondered numerous times what your religious beliefs are. The fact that I have never been able to form a conclusion simply means, to me, that you are very even-handed on that particular subject just as you are on almost every other subject.

Being an atheist and having studied a good bit of history my beliefs are anti-religious, however also being a pragmatic libertarian my actions are a-religious...up to the point where someone pushes religion on me specifically (not the general case of advertising, praying, etc.) at which point I react with cold logic but am invariably polite.

Thanks for your great distinction between anti-religious and a-religious!

Posted by CeeJay, OH on June 6, 2007:

Ms. Incanno missed an opportunity here.

By letting the newspaper print a front page article about how offensive the comment was, all the discussion around here (I live about 20 miles from Dayton) has been about whether or not this constitutes news or about her inability to accept any criticism of her religious beliefs.

Instead of complaining about the comment, she could have written a reasoned letter to the editor, or to Starbucks. She may have started a discussion about the existence of God and maybe from that discussion somebody would have been able to convince me that god is not an imaginary figure.

Yes, the right to free speech means that she can choose to boycott Starbucks and let the whole world know why, but it also means that Starbucks can print whatever they want on their coffee cups.

Ms. Incanno could have used this as an opportunity to get some free advertising for God...instead she provided free advertising for Starbucks.

Posted by bandit, Albuquerque on June 6, 2007:

I happen to be a Christian who think a lot of people who use that term have a ghod *so* small they can only see him when they have their head up their ass.

It is a sad commentary on the general state when the first reaction of most folks, on whatever topic, is to scream bloody injustice instead of thinking. Pretty thin-skinned, too.

For example, on topic, I keep hearing how "Christianity is under attack". In China and other places, yes. Christians are in prison in China for just being Christians.

However, in the US, this kind of statement is just silly. Sometimes it is in response to evolution, sometimes because of some very silly comment by a TV preacher.

This is the most pro-Christian place on the planet. A previous comment about an atheist Presidential candidate is spot on - they wouldn't even start. A Mormon has problems because they are a suspect splinter cult (for the mainstream). There is now a Creation Museum, for goodness sake!

I am not only a Christian, I am an engineer. I believe in both the Bible, and in facts. Nothing in the Bible is contradicted by any facts we know today.

On the subject of evolution/creation: The Bible account answers *every* question of who (God), what (created the universe), where (everywhere), why (for His Glory), when (in the beginning). However, *how* is pretty thin, until Adam and Eve. As an engineer, "He made a mud man and breathed life into it, then Eve from the rib" is pretty thin on details.

Thus, this whole argument is rather silly, because it revolves around a specific belief: that the Genesis account is *factually* correct in *every* detail, including how. But How is never defined. "And God Said" is a who doing what.

Everyone accepts that there are stories in the Bible. These are used to teach, not to be an explicit factual truth. "When the fig tree blooms" is a prophesy about the nation of Israel being reborn, not a factual statement about a specific fig tree blooming 2000 years later.

Genesis is a story. Simple as that. It was told to folks who had no clue about the universe, or their own (flat) world. The mechanism (the how) was not the point, but the rest of the questions.

I do not spend money at Starbucks, because I hate coffee. I think I will go in and buy a cookie.

I suppose we should be grateful the Starbucks cup didn't say anything about evolution.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on June 6, 2007:

Simply put, Ms. Incanno overreacted by going to the media, which was the point of Randy's article. 'Nough said. Now for MY opinion...

I don't think that Starbucks "simply" asked a question. It was predicated upon one side of a debate, inviting rebuttal. Fine, if that's what Starbucks is in the business for. Personally, I think it's stupid from a business standpoint, but it's THEIR company. If I don't like it, I can take my business elsewhere.

And, although many tend to argue with me, I maintain that Atheism is just as much a religion (as evidenced by so many proponents) as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, or the many recognized religions without a god such as Buddhism or Taoism. As such, Atheism is as deserving of religious tolerance as any other, and its advocates owe the same courtesies that they demand for their own views.