Ruth Gledhill writes the "Articles of Faith" blog for the UK's Times newspaper. I've subscribed to her column for a while now, because as an activist atheist, it's always good to see what's going on around the world in the area of "faith".
One of the problems* with Ruth is, though, that occasionally, she just doesn't get it.
Take this headline, for example.
Oh, Ruth! That's ironic! Those silly atheists have done a bus ad featuring children, but they're actually christians! Ho ho ho! Oh, those atheists, oh so wrong.
Trouble is, here's what the ad actually says
So in one fell swoop, Ruth Gledhill entirely ignores the point of the advertisement and labels the children concerned "christians". I don't know, do I really have to explain this? The ad is not claiming that they are atheist children, agnostic children, buddhist children or, for fuck's sake, satanist children. The point is that they are kids who should be allowed to grow up and then choose their own label, for themselves. Not have one thrust upon them by a sanctimonious religious affairs journalist.
This, perhaps, is why classic journalists shouldn't have blogs. Had Ruth tried to get this into her newspaper, an editor or subeditor would have looked at it and said...
"But Ruth, you've completely missed the point of the ad".
.... and promply pulled the story.
But Ruth has a blog, so we all get to see her getting it wrong.
Thanks for the laugh, Ruth.
* the other problem is that she has a major boner for christianity, and lacks objectivity as a result. A little more rational balance may be nice from a prominent national journalist.