bunrab | Commonplace entry

Why not use this space to keep my "commonplace book" entries as well? So here's one excerpt I want to keep on hand, and maybe share:

They Came From Out of The Sky
I find it discouraging - and a bit depressing - when I notice the unequal treatment afforded by the media to UFO believers on the one hand, and on the other, to those who believe in an invisible supreme being who inhabits the sky. Especially as the latter belief applies to the whole Jesus-Messiah-Son-of-God fable.
You may have noticed that, in the media, UFO believers are usually referred to as buffs, a term used to diminish and marginalize them by relegating them to the ranks of hobbyists and mere enthusiasts. They are made to seem like kooks and quaint dingbats who have the nerve to believe that, in an observable universe of trillions upon trillians of stars, and most likely many hundreds of billions of potentially inhabitable planets, some of those planets may have produced life-forms capable of doing things that we can't do.
On the other hand those who believe in an eternal, all-powerful being, a being who demands to be loved and adored unconditionally and who punishes and rewards according to his whims are thought to be worthy, upright, credible people. This, in spite of the large number of believers who are clearly close-minded fanatics.
To my way of thinking, there is every bit as much evidence for the existence of UFOs as there is for the existence of God. Probably far more. ...
Granted, the world of UFO-belief has its share of kooks, nuts and fringe people, but have you ever listened to some of these religious true-believers? Have you ever heard of any extreme, bizarre behavior and outlandish claims associated with religious zealots? Could any of them be considered kooks, nuts, or dingbats? A fair person would have to say yes.
But the marginal people in these two groups don't matter in this argument. What matters is the prejudice and superstition built into the media coverage of the two sets of beliefs. One is treated reverently and accepted as received truth, the other is treated laughingly and dismissed out of hand.
As evidence of the above premise, I offer one vision of a typical television news story heard each year on the final Friday of Lent:
"Today is Good Friday, observed by Christians worldwide as a day that commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose death redeemed the sins of mankind."
Here's the way it should be written:
"Today is Good Friday, observed worldwide by Jesus buff as the day on which the popular, bearded cultural figure, sometimes referred to as The Messiah, was allegedly crucified and - according to legend - died for mankind's so-called sins. Today kicks off a 'holy' weekend that culminates on Easter Sunday, when, it is widely believed, this dead 'savior' - who also, by the way, claimed to be the son of a sky-dwelling,invisible being known as God - mysteriously 'rose from the dead.'
"According to the legend, by volunteering to be killed and actually going through with it, Jesus saved every person who has ever lived - and every person who ever will live - from an eternity of suppering in a fiery region popularly known as hell, providing - so the story goes - that the person to be 'saved' firmly believes this rather fanciful tale."
That would be an example of unbiased news reporting. Don't wait around for it to happen. The aliens will land first.