Talk:Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity

All right, I got my hands on this blather, hope you don't mind if I shoehorn some of my own opinions into the article. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Cupp also criticizes the Left for having an evolution fashion, there on the three types of shoes a women chose expressed her beliefs about evolution - but not one of them represented any expression for creationism or intelligent design

Is it saying that there were three types of shoes women could buy in a store that had a pro-evolution message on them? If so, where is 'there'. A women chose them? Did she chose all three types of shoes? Does it mean there are three types of pro-evolution shoe available on the market (in which case I suppose 'on' would be replaced by 'are'?). That sentence is just remarkably unclear. --Danfly (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like junk. Scoop it out & throw it away. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Like, gag me with a spoon

I picked this up mostly because it was free, but I also wanted to see a defense of the indefensible. Only two chapters in and I'm ready to gouge my eyes out with a rusty spork. It flogs every wingnut talking point and pseudofact possible (citing Whirled Nut commentary, really?). She equates Christianity with the religious right so much that the book isn't just offensive to atheists, but also Christians who don't buy the bull the likes of James Dobson is peddling. At least the book is pretty lightweight -- if you removed the phrase "liberal media" from it, the thing would probably come to about 20 pages long. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This thing is the perfect train-wreck. All I can think is "please make it stop!" but it keeps impressing me by managing to get worse as it goes on and I have to keep reading to see how it could possibly fail harder. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

But think of all the suffering you're saving by doing the hard work for us. We should all take one book each to spread the load and save on the embolisms. 20:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

RW, your one-stop shop for reviews of shit apologetics and wingnut books. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Last few chapters

Whatever happened to the last chapters? Are we just temporary excluding them until we write a whole analysis for them? Feredir28 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

They're there, just commented out. I'm only up to a few pages into the creationism chapter. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I sort of assumed

Breitbart wasn't a religious rightist type. More of a wild-eyed, angry brawler type. I've heard him and he uses profanity a lot so I just assumed. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

About Marx and Lincoln

Is it really true that they were in correspondence? The link shows a letter from Marx that was delivered to the ambassador. This sounds as if Marx rather impersonally wrote to Lincoln, not as if they were in legitimate correspondence. Correspondence occurs only when both parties participate.

If, indeed, Lincoln personally replied to Marx, please give some sort of evidence. Otherwise, surely we can give a better analogy here. Phiwum (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the text to better reflect the source. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)