The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

National Review blames Newtown massacre on women.

The editorial staff at the popular Republican resource 'The National Review' published an article that stated the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School would not have occurred had there been more men involved in running the institution.

Well, at least they didn’t blame atheists or the mentally ill (or guns).

James K.

Please consider reading and signing my atheists, agnostics, and nones acknowledgement petition on the White House petition Website. Even if you choose not to sign, please consider what it means when a sitting president's campaign adviser can blithely state that he does not view 1/5 of the American public as a constituency, what it means for our civil rights, and what it means to others who are religious that hear that. It is as egregious as Mitt Romney’s infamous 47% remark.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on December 21, 2012 at 6:21am

National Review?

Wasn't it started about fifty years ago by William Buckeley, the conservative Catholic that some people called "the finest mind the Thirteenth Century ever created"?

As I recall, he warned the Repubs of his time to not let the Birchers in. They ignored his warning and the Birchers started chasing the moderates out.

The result?

Today's Repubs, and the long clown show we knew as the 2012 Repub presidential primary.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patrick F on December 21, 2012 at 9:25pm

Funny thing is that his son, Chris Buckley, is who started the FFRF http://ffrf.org/

(hmm now that I am looking, I can't find reference there, but had heard it in the past.. I do know he is an atheist or agnostic, and has some tie with the FFRF, but can't find the reference of him founding it that I THOUGHT I had heard in the past)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on December 21, 2012 at 11:28pm

Patrick, I recall hearing of a big father-son disagreement but didn't look for the details.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on December 21, 2012 at 6:44am

How can anyone in this day and age read that and not think: discrimination, misogyny, and condescension (not necessarily in that order)? Such an attitude is an atavism, old-think, outmoded and inappropriate ... and I have to ask WHY does the National Review have to reach back to clutch at this old, non-supporting straw?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Kz on December 21, 2012 at 10:32am

Well, with the GOP beholden to Grover Norquist, and the Tea Party unable to get on board even with its own House leader's budget plan, it seems as though the moderates and liberals (the GOP used to be the liberal party - freed the slaves, started the EPA, immigrant amnesty all sorts of liberal stuff) are being shown the door.

Yes, the National Review is the conservative mag of the GOP. Yet even they are running out their moderates.

On the other hand, there are calls by the moderates and liberals still left in the party for the RNC to clean house of its extremists or they will withhold donations to the party. We'll have to see how that goes.