Should the editor have published it, No.
But only because its clear bigotry, even for an opinion piece. Replace the word atheist with blacks, Christians or Jews (as Hemant did) and it would have never been published.

Had she made the same points in a more intellectual fashion, without the generalizations and clear hate and anger (which she hypocritically accuse some us of being) it would be a different story

If the publisher was just trying to cause controversy and get web traffic they should go with my earlier suggestion and replace the atheist with a more socially protected minority (blacks, Jews, Muslims, NRA members, Republicans, Xtians)

Each newspaper falls somewhere on that spectrum from high-principled journalism to gossip rag, smut rag or hate rag. Some have clawed their way from disrepute to respectability, but for most it has been a downhill route. As newspapers around the world face extinction in the Internet Epoch, I expect that we’ll see more of them whoring for any kind of readership instead of appealing to the best in their public.

I subscribed to the Los Angeles Times for many years, but some years ago I canceled because the paper started turning yellow long before the sun had baked it on my driveway.

The First Amendment right is for the newspaper, and if the editor decides not to publish an article then he is wielding that right. If anyone cries that the writer’s right has been suppressed then they’re ignorant fools who don’t understand the First Amendment in the first place. Editors don’t have to publish every piece of crap they recieve.

And in effect…what you are saying is that you think a newspaper should only print articles you agree with.

Got Straw?

I merely expect my paper to only run well-argued, well-written views I disagree with.

I used to work at a small newspaper, and I edited newspapers in high school and at my university. I’m a “true newspaper man”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

This was a shit article that I wouldn’t have run.

I know exactly what it means.

No, I don’t actually think you do. Or if you do, you ignored what it really means in order to make your point, which is a faulty point if you think the First Amendment guarantees Charlotte Allen ink in the Los Angeles Times.

The LA TIMES doesn’t owe ink to anyone, as it is not a public forum. Every editor knows this… in fact that’s WHAT an editor does… The job of editor is to choose who and what deserves column-inches and what does not.

I will agree that having her write very poorly and then having the respondents write and act better is a way to make lemonade out of lemons. In that way, I should be thankful that this enemy is ridiculous.

However, only through our anger and action is this enemy made to look ridiculous. The only way we make this lemonade is to respond exactly as we did.

By clamoring for a better and more discerning editorial treatment of stories like this, we are asking that the conversation advance, and not remain forever at the level of schoolyard sophistry.

Speaking of tone and substance, the article is clearly meant to provoke. A success, from what I can see.

Personally, I wouldn’t want my name attached to writing that’s so poor but I don’t necessarily see a problem with the article. I disagree on many points, find others quite laughable, but I have no problem with it being published in a “reputable” newspaper.

By the way, editors squelch pieces all the time. That’s their job; it’s called editing. Running that piece was poor editing. Space on an op-ed piece is finite; editors make judgment calls every day as to what deserves to appear there and what doesn’t. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

We cannot expect secular and atheistic views to be able to be presented while stopping all theistic viewpoints. And as I said, this article did more FOR atheism than against it.

Except, I suppose, for atheists who read it and get all offended and shocked…as if they did not know that the fundamentalists thought this about us. But again, a reasonable person affords others their own viewpoint…even in print…if they also expect their viewpoint to be allowed and show up in print.

I disagree with everything the article says (except that we are a bit angry…yes, that is true…with cause)…but I do not understand how alleged open minded freethinkers can want a newspaper to squelch an article simply because they disagree with it. The fact is, just as many most likely DO agree with it.