Charlotte Pop Fest happening now!

The Charlotte Pop Fest is underway right now, September 24-26!  Proceeds from this non-profit fest will benefit the Richard Dawkins Foundation.  If you’re within striking distance of Charlotte, NC and want to attend, there’s more info at CharlottePopFest.com.

Not surprisingly, CPF has stirred up a bit of controversy, mostly thanks to news reporters who smell a juicy story, and from religious locals who don’t like that somebody’s raising money for a-t-h-e-i-s-t-s in a public way.

Here’s how one local news station covered the story (notice they start the report by saying “Science and Religion butting heads…” when nothing of the sort is happening at CPF):

And here’s a response from Keith Williams, a participant in the Charlotte Skeptics in the Pub:

To whom it may concern:

Your decision to label the Charlotte Pop Fest’s decision to support the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science as “controversial” was not well supported.  Your reporter Tom Roussey made a vague statement:

“…but not everyone would consider The Richard Dawkins Foundation a good cause….”

The reporter here failed to support his claim by presenting anyone who disputed the claim that the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science was not a “good cause.”  Instead, Roussey continued by inserting his own editorial bias by characterizing the Founder of the RDFRS as follows:

“…Dawkins is one of the best known evolutionists in the world, but also a major champion of Atheism, even writing a book called The God Delusion.”

Poor grammar aside, this is a weak ad hominem attack, which does nothing to address the mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation (which can be found here) and why that might be controversial.  Further, WBTV’s decision to use the word “evolutionist” as a scare word appalled me. Those who accept the overwhelmingly compelling evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection are no more “evolutionists” than those who accept Newton’s theory of gravity are “gravitiests.”  By implying that one’s acceptance of scientific evidence is an ideology, and one with which theists should be concerned, Roussey and WBTV are contributing to the subversion of science education which the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science seeks to combat.

Roussey continued the fear mongering by implying that atheists were seeking to subvert Charlotte’s popular and family-friendly Festival in the Park:

“…Festival in the Park attendee [Debby A.] isn’t sure what she thinks about bands from a festival promoting a major evolutionist and atheist playing here….”

Roussey’s interviewee did a good job of fielding Roussey’s leading questions.  She disagreed with the idea of the bands telling people what to believe or what not to believe, and it was clear she was not a supporter of atheism.  I agree with Debby’s assertion that the bands shouldn’t “go around saying you shouldn’t believe in this or you shouldn’t believe in that.”  That is not the intention of the Pop Festival or its bands, but Rossey said nothing to dissuade viewers from inferring this conclusion.  Instead, he reassured viewers that no proceeds from Festival in the Park would go to the benefactors of Charlotte Pop Fest.  Roussey also failed to mention that James Deem, organizer of the Charlotte Pop Fest, organized and supplied the musical entertainment for Festival in The Park at no cost.  As an atheist, I was disappointed that WBTV failed to highlight the fact that a fellow atheist had done a charitable deed in donating entertainment for our local community’s festival (I live close to Freedom Park), and instead chose to mischaracterize Deem’s efforts as conniving and subversive.

WBTV could have done a socially responsible thing by showing that “atheism” does not equate with immorality.  Many atheists are humanists, and seek to better our world and our communities.  That we do not believe in any given dogma says nothing of the morals to which we do subscribe.  If there is a controversy about Charlotte Pop Fest’s support of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, WBTV failed to show it.  Instead, viewers were presented with a biased piece of journalism that appeared to create a controversy more than objectively report one.  I expect better of WBTV and other local news media and hope to see more diligent work in the future.