Holy Trollers: How to argue about religion online
They are the same cast of characters that surface during every online debate about religion. Do you know a "Holy Troller?"
October 5th, 2013
08:00 AM ET

Holy Trollers: How to argue about religion online

By John Blake, CNN

(CNN) –"Yo mama..."

Whenever I heard those two words while growing up in inner-city Baltimore, I knew something bad was about to happen. Trading insults was a childhood ritual. But everyone understood that one subject was off-limits. You didn’t talk about anybody’s momma unless you were prepared to start swinging.

Now that I’m all grown-up, I’ve discovered a new arena for combat: The reader’s comments section for stories about religion.

When I first started writing about religion for an online news site, I eagerly turned to the comment section for my articles, fishing for compliments and wondering if I had provoked any thoughtful discussions about faith.

I don’t wonder anymore.

When I look at the comment section now, I see a whole lot of “yo mamas” being tossed about. Readers exchange juvenile insults, condescending lectures and veer off into tangents that have nothing to do with the article they just read.

For years, I’ve listened to these “holy trollers” in silence. Now I’m calling them out. I’ve learned that the same types of people take over online discussions about faith and transform them into the verbal equivalent of a food fight. You may recognize some of these characters.

You might even recognize yourself.

The Street Corner Prophet

When the Belief Blog ran a recent article on a television host who declared that atheists “don’t have to live here,” a commenter identified as “Karie” got into a heated exchange with someone who called themselves “Bible Clown.”

Karie called Bible Clown a “disgusting, deviant perverted virus,” and a “Bozo,” before ending with this prediction:

Hell is coming for you love. Special dungeon just for u and u won’t be able to die. LOL.LOL.”

The street corner prophets often act as if they’re deeply concerned about the fate of souls they disagree with, but you can tell that they relish the prospect of eternal torment for their online enemies.

Some don’t even try to hide their true motives:

“I hope you like worms because you will have your own personal worm to feed off your fat drippings in hell for all eternity…”

That’s what a commenter called “HeavenSent” said to another following an article on evangelical Pastor Rick Warren. HeavenSent ended his malediction with one word: “Amen.”

Okay, so that’s the wrong way to argue about religion online if you’re a street corner prophet. Now, here’s the right way:

Not everyone who disagrees with you deserves eternal torment. People rarely listen to someone who is in perpetual attack mode.

“We change no one’s mind by attacking,” said Charles Camosy, an ethics professor at Fordham University in New York City.

Camosy has made a career out of bridging religious differences. He’s part of a “Contending Modernites” group, which finds common ground between Christians and Muslims. He’s also the co-founder of a website devoted to dialing down the heat in religious arguments entitled, “Catholic Moral Theology.”

Camosy says that online discussions about religion are difficult because they are not in person. Tone and nuance gets lost online.

“You can’t look them in the face,” he said. “You can’t shake their hand or give a hug. You find it very difficult to have that sort of embodied trust.”

The Provoker

There isn’t any notion of “embodied trust” with the next online character: The provoker.

The provoker doesn’t even pretend to care about the final destination for someone’s soul. They come out punching, and they love to say things that they probably wouldn’t say to someone in person.

In the recent article on Warren, a reader who went by the surname of “Just the Facts Ma’am,” tells another:

“Thanks for once again confirming how vulgar, uneducated and delusional you are Meredith.”

In an article about millennials leaving the church, a reader who identified herself as “Jenna,” tells another: “Jesus never said any of that mess. You are a false prophet if I’ve ever seen one.”

How to argue about religion if you’re a provoker:

No one will listen to you if they don’t like you, said Joe Carter, an evangelical blogger and author of “How to Argue like Jesus,” a book that explores how Jesus verbally tangled with his enemies and persuaded his friends.

Carter said Jesus was such an excellent communicator because he told stories that provoked emotions, took surprising twists and forced people to draw their own conclusions. But he also connected with people because of a simple reason: he cared about them.

“When people know that you care about them, they’re more likely to be persuaded by you,” Carter said. “We tend to be persuaded by people we like and trust. Jesus had that in spades.”

The Atheist

One of my best friends was an atheist. Whenever we ran into one other, we’d launch into these long, philosophical discussions about religion.  I loved it. Like many atheists I subsequently met, I discovered that he knew more about the Bible than most people who claimed to be religious.

It’s too bad that many of the exchanges between atheists and people of faith in our comments section don’t follow the same script. In fact, they have some of the nastiest religious arguments I’ve witnessed online.

A sample:

In a recent Belief Blog article about atheism, a reader identifying himself as “Sam Stone” says to another: “Free people do not need a savior, Kate. Only slaves need saviors.”

Another reader who identifies himself as “CamDEn1” tells a Christian, “You are an uneducated fool. Ever you heard of Richard Dawkins? Sam Harris? Atheists have more respected scholars than Christianity…”

I get the source of frustration for some atheists. They have longed been caricatured by people of faith as moral degenerates who don’t care about morality. Some of them, in turn, have caricatured people of faith as weak-minded hypocrites who believe in fairy tales.

Here’s how to argue over religion if you’re an atheist:

Get beyond the stereotypes and actually spend time with a person of faith. And if you’re a person of faith, do the same with an atheist. You might be surprised.

That’s what happened when Camosy, the Fordham University ethics professor, embarked on a speaking tour with the renowned atheist and philosopher, Peter Singer, who is seen by many as the founder of the animal rights movement.

Camosy said the speaking tour forced him to read and pay attention to Singer’s arguments. He discovered that they share concerns over global poverty. He saw Singer as a person of good will.

“That created the space for us to have an honest, open and fruitful exchange with one another rather than exchanging barbs,” Camosy said.

It also created the space for personal transformation.

“Actually reading him converted me to being a vegetarian,” Camosy said. “But it was only being open to his arguments that made me see.”

The Scholar

I have a friend who is smart – scary smart.  He’s a genial, funny guy who happens to be a theology professor. I try to hang with him when we talk religion, but there’s always a point in the conversation when he loses me. I compare that moment to watching the starship Enterprise go into warp drive. He just goes into hyperspace and my brain just isn’t big enough to follow.

There a lot of big brains in our blog’s comment sections. I call these readers “the scholars.”

Some of them are self-appointed biblical experts. They talk as if they have God’s cell phone number: God has revealed great mysteries to them. They know the divine plan.

In a recent article I wrote about contemporary Christians feeling as if they were persecuted, a reader identified as “Tom Skylark” let me know what all this persecution was really about.

 Skylark said:

“Christians will face continued persecution then 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 will happen right before the 7 year tribulation when Israel burns Russia’s weapons for 7 years. (Ezekiel 39:9). Those who are not taken in the rapture will have the opportunity to receive Christ during the 7 year tribulation but will be beheaded for their testimony. (Revelation 20:4). How far is Russia towards its prophetic position which means the rapture (! Thessalonians 4:16-17) is even closer?

Actually, I did not know that, and I’m still not sure what it means.

Sometimes the scholar is someone who believes all religion is hopelessly derivative: it’s all based on something that came before.

A reader by the name of “Seyedibar” responded to my article on Christian persecution with this:

“A little study of history and comparative religion goes a long way. Abraham is based on an Egyptian figure. His god was Ptah, not El, and his vision was of Memphis, not Israel. Jesus was likely based on a Merkabah mystic, one of a hairdresser and carpenter. .. And if you back a little further, Uguritic archaeology shows us that the book of Genesis is based on the ancestor kings of the Canaanites. Most Christians and Jews aren’t aware that the creator of the Garden of Eden, El, is recorded to have died of a wild boar attack.”

 Like I said, hyperspace. I just can’t go where “Seyedibar” has gone before. I love the scholar’s passion for religion, but some of them lose me when they try to deploy all their knowledge of history and religion in any effort to change someone else’ beliefs.

How to argue about religion if you’re a scholar:

Accept that there is a limit to knowledge. I’ve never seen anyone say in response to a religious argument: “You are right. Your argument is irrefutable. I’m going to jettison a lifetime of beliefs on the spot right now because I obviously have no coherent reply.”

It just doesn’t happen.

Gordon Newby, a professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies at Emory University, said most people change religious beliefs “not because of one argument” but only after long conversations and intimate exposure to another faith.

“Logical arguments are nice but they're not going to change someone’s life,” Newby said. “We’re way too complicated for that. We’re not programmed machines. We have this whole limbic system of emotions and appetites and everything else.”

The Peacemaker

There are some readers who give me hope when I go to the comment section. They are the “peacemakers,” and they surely bless me with their attitudes.

Peacemakers try to keep arguments from getting personal. They are the online referees.  They turn the other cheek.

An exchange between someone called “Bootyfunk” and “KatieRose” shows a peacemaker in action.

“Bootyfunk”  gets upset with “KatieRose” because she says  “we must respect all ideas in the world, no matter how crazy.”

Bootyfunk says people don’t have to respect all ideas, and tells Katie Rose she shouldn't tell people not to debate religion on a blog about religion.

What does KatieRose say in response? She doesn’t go to war. She makes the peace:

“Okay! That works for me,” KatieRose said. “I’m sorry if it sounded like I was ordering people not to talk about an issue: I just disagreed with the focus of the discussion.”

“Bootyfunk” ends the discussion with a smiley-face symbol and a “smooches, Katie.”

How to argue about religion if you’re a peacemaker:

Keep on doing what you’re doing.

If only the rest of the comment section had more peacemakers. I actually e-mailed readers like “Bootyfunk” and “KatieRose” to get their perspective, but all I got was silence. Not one commenter wanted to talk on the record for this story. Only one person – an atheist – responded to my invitations to chat, and he didn’t want his name used.

But I have a feeling I’ll hear again from these holy trollers when I scan the comment section of Belief Blog. So will you, even if you don’t read that much about religion. These holy trollers show up in our lives and our workplaces. Many of them will sit next to us at the dinner table when families and friends get together for the upcoming holidays.

When the conversation turns to religion, you may meet your holy troller, and you will have to make a choice.

Do I make the peace, or do I go the war?

What kind of holy troller will you be?

- CNN Writer

Filed under: Atheism • Belief • Ethics • Internet • News media • Nones

soundoff (3,856 Responses)
  1. House of Turds

    Even this article caricatures atheists by suggesting they all fall into the same category when it comes to their behavior online. There are lots of atheists who don't have a hardline stance on religion. In fact, I would suggest that applies to the majority of them, it's just the loudest, most obnoxious ones tend to be militantly anti-religion. For atheists who do respect religion, it's not worth their time to get into arguments about the subject, so you seldom hear from them.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:31 am |
    • ishkabidle

      I will split hairs with you. Atheist is short for anti-theist. The quiet ones of us tend more toward the a-gnostic 'without theism' definition. I don't believe in any gods, but I find no conflict at a local church (of different skin color even!) when I go each Wednesday to help tutor kids.

      October 5, 2013 at 11:35 am |
      • Mr. Zootgeist

        Better go back and review how words are constructed. The "a" in front of "theist" negates the "theist" and means "not" or "without." See: http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php

        October 5, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • laceydon

      It is a rare atheist who posts who doesn't have pretty strong opinions. That may not represent all atheists, but it seems to be representative of those on this site. However, doesn't everyone who bothers to post have strong opinions?

      October 5, 2013 at 11:55 am |
    • unbeliever

      generalizing about "athiests" is like generalizing about people with brown hair....

      October 5, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
    • byoung1127

      The same should be said for Christians. We aren't all judgmental, condemning, righteous, holier-than-thou, abortion-clinic-picketers. It's not my place to condemn anyone. There are 2 commandments in the Bible after the Law was replaced by redemption through Jesus Christ: Love God, Love each other.

      October 5, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
  2. Jane M

    I have been arguing about religion on the Internet since 1995. I have seen all of the above. The subject is fascinating. I am always surprised by people who feel that religion and science are mutually exclusive. We are amoebas and to claim we "know" anything is egotistical.

    Great article!

    October 5, 2013 at 10:30 am |
  3. mikeymo1741

    I appreciate this article and will share it. I am a Christian, and a pastor, but I often have interfaith dialogues and read from a variety of sources and points of view. In fact, most often it strengthens my faith, because I find myself resolving what I do believe more firmly, and eliminating the fluff.

    There is absolutely room for science ( I am also a professed geek, possibly a nerd) and empiricism in a life informed by faith, We need not be at odds all the time.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:30 am |
    • Jane M

      I am a former Catholic. I feel the same way. I have never understood why some people feel that religion and science are mutually exclusive. We "know" so little.

      October 5, 2013 at 10:33 am |
  4. Scott B

    This was a good read, thanks for it.

    Never considered putting labels on myself regarding my means of discussion belief, but it's interesting discourse. Taking a moment to take stock of myself in the context of your article here, I guess I'm a hybrid Atheist / Peacemaker. I think I began down the Scholar path at one point when I was younger, but then realized (my inner Peacemaker perhaps?) that I was really only reaffirming what I already knew / experienced / believed. And I'm not going to be convincing anyone else to change their beliefs, so it was an exercise in futility.

    I have no desire to try to change or remove someone's belief structure, as long as they're not using it to negatively impact others. Unfortunately is that's last part that leads to a lot of backlash, even though attacking religion when people use it to do terrible things is misguided. It's going after the symptom and not the cause (which is that there are some terrible people around, and they'll use whatever means to do terrible things).

    October 5, 2013 at 10:29 am |
  5. Yeah, but...

    All this arguing would cease if people came to their senses and realized that god simply does not exist, therefore religions are false belief systems – destructive ones too. If we start from the understanding that we're simply humans and are responsible for our own actions, then civility and logic will prevail. If you start from a belief in a "one true god," then suddenly the question pops up, "whose god?" and then enters the assumption that if one does not believe in the "right god" then they'll go to hell. Now we're on the slippery slope to religious fanaticism, inquisitions, jihad, holy wars, etc. etc. etc.

    And you worry about trolls on chat boards? I think we've got bigger problems.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:27 am |
  6. Leisel

    Full disclosure: I'm an atheist with a commitment to freedom of speech. I have spent many happy hours discussing religion with deeply spiritual theologians. While I find fundamentalists of all religions too dogmatic for spirited debate, my liberal minded and theologically educated friends have opened my eyes to the richness of biblical history and philosophy. What I find interesting is that we often find ourselves agreeing that even though I remain staunchly atheist and they remain staunchly theist, we have more in common than either of us do with fundamentalists of any stripe. Being open minded about what can only ever be personal beliefs is the best path.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:24 am |
  7. Tim

    Yo mama...lol. I laughed out loud at the first paragraph. I remember, as a young christian, chasing a kid across the school yard and getting into a fist fight because he said "your mother" to me! I'm an atheist now, and would never condone that. Nice article though. 🙂

    October 5, 2013 at 10:21 am |
  8. JazzDawg

    I was born into a very religious family, and choose to be a non-believer much to their dismay. As an Atheist, I have had my share of debates and reach for the ever overwhelming evidence which I reasonably apply to debunk the argument for a deity. It would be my personal wish that religion as an explanation of creation, birth of morality or a basis to govern a society would go away quietly. Religion in my view has been a significant damaging factor in the past and continues as a limiting factor as we try to move forward. Religion is no longer needed and has run its course as a means to explain our existence. It is wholly redundant in the face of science and reason.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:21 am |
  9. Willa45

    Two things:
    First....I believe it is the height of arrogance for someone to have us presume that they alone have the exclusive on God and that they know (better than the rest of us) what God wants, says and does. That's why I take organized religion with a proverbial 'grain of salt'.

    Secondly: Who, among the billions of people that have lived over the span of time ever had first hand knowledge of God and left the unequivocal proof.No one, as far as I can tell because even the Bible is a third hand account (which amounts to hearsay).

    Let me also clarify that I happen to believe in God and I am a person of faith, but these matters are very personal to me. What I think is most important is that I not judge others or presume to impose my own personal beliefs on others. As I said before, arrogance is presuming that we know more than someone else does, when in fact we don't.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:21 am |
  10. JesusSuperHero

    I agree with the categorizations except for "Scholar". Your are assumed Scholar means religious scholar or Theologian.

    There are of course Scholars in many fields. And of course, in scientific fields, scholars are usually not religious

    October 5, 2013 at 10:16 am |
  11. farmerjeani

    Thank you for the article. We all get frustrated when we feel we are trying to make a reasonable statement or comment and are confronted with people who seem to be filled with hate and malice. I have come to believe, though, that the responders aren't like that at all. I think they feel so weak and lost that the only way they can get the attention they crave is through provoking people in the comments section of web articles. For a little while, at least one and maybe several other writers are focused solely on them and they have gained the power to provoke anger which is a form of control. They way to deal with it would be to completely ignore those kinds of comments, but I wonder if that wouldn't be a little cruel? Maybe this is the only area of their life they can control. But we certainly don't have to return the vitriol. We can give them some positive attention, let them know that while we don't agree we actually care that they have taken the time to comment.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:15 am |
  12. Rockerfeller

    That was a refreshing article.

    I would have to say, we find all those types of comment writers in almost every article, regardless of the topic or news outlet. I wonder what our civil discourse would be like if we all argued our points like Blake suggests?

    October 5, 2013 at 10:14 am |
  13. Science, Not Myth

    Arguing about religion is like arguing about alchemy.

    Religion = Ignorance

    October 5, 2013 at 10:14 am |
    • John

      Well, gee, I guess that settles it. Now we can all go home, right?

      October 5, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • Poltergiest

      Wtihout alchemy there would be no chemistry today. So is that really something to complain about?

      October 5, 2013 at 10:28 am |
      • unbeliever

        the point is, alchemy was based on observation, but no fundamental understanding of science. We have come a long way. Well, SOME of us have, anyway.

        October 5, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
  14. RichardSRussell

    I am an atheist who occasionally finds a topic on the Belief Blog that will consume an entire Saturday afternoon for me participating on the comment board. I sometimes find myself finally bailing out late at night after having generated a hundred comments of my own and read hundreds of others all day long. I recognize many of the "types" described in this article.

    Here's one that I think John Blake overlooked: the evangelist. I count myself among their number, altho the idea I'm pushing is not religion but freedom from it. Blake is right that I'm probably never gonna get thru to anyone who says, either explicitly or implicitly, "The Bible said it. I believe it. That ends it." I nonetheless reply to such comments anyway to dissect their arguments, not because I think it'll get thru to the diehard fundamentalist but because I know that *other people will be reading it, too!* And they may be more open-minded or sincerely interested in expanding their horizons.

    Also, once in a great while, I learn something new myself, but you'd probably be surprised at how seldom that happens. Many of the Christians I encounter seem to think that all they have to do is quote the Bible, and that alone suffices to triumphantly establish whatever point they're trying to make. It just never seems to dawn on them that somebody could possibly doubt a single word of their holy book, and they seem honestly befuddled when the response they get is "Why would you POSSIBLY believe that?" The few times any of them have ever essayed an answer, it takes about 3 exchanges to get into the self-reinforcing feedback loop "The Bible says so." "I believe the Bible is true because it's the word of God." "I know it's the word of God because the Bible says so." — and STILL they can't see why anyone would have trouble buying their particular "sacred" writings as a reliable authority — especially given that there are easily a dozen other major alternatives available, to say nothing of 5000 minor variations on their particular brand of The Truth.

    But I continue to participate anyway, mainly because, as I say, I'm pretty sure there are some uncommitted eyeballs that come to the zoo to watch us monkeys fling pöö at each other, and occasionally I may plant an idea in some of THEIR minds.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:14 am |
    • Chris Sadler

      Me to 'tee'. I also get a lot out of these 'arguments' as it never hurts to drop back to first principles and ask, "Why do I believe what I do". It's good practice for critical thinking and formulating points of view.

      It's also rather easy in a way. After all, the other side is arguing for the invisible, and their particular version of the invisible.

      (Scary that in 2013 that the majority still want to cling to bronze aged myths so silly that children see through them as you can tell by their questions).

      October 5, 2013 at 10:22 am |
    • I've changed

      Well stated Richard.I also read these articles and comments hoping to gain some reasonable explanation for belief in religion.Although some have given me moment of pause,the vast majority resort to mere faith as the answer.I also comment,hoping,in my limited way,to spark some use of logic in the thought of the religious.

      October 5, 2013 at 10:28 am |
    • justageek

      Anyone responding to these type of with an agenda either way, even if it is to sway the silent readers, is a troll. God or no God is an argument that cannot be won with the information we have today. Plain and simple.

      October 5, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
      • G to the T

        So far as "god" as a concept – you are correct, claiming certainty either way seems illogical. That being said, once someone starts talking about "God" (i.e. xian god) then we are able evaluate it's probability based on the evidence/attributes of that specific description. That is why I am an agnostic (we cannot know if a god exists either way) but am also an atheist as, so far, not enough data in favor of any of the versions of god has been presented.

        As such i will never dispute someone who says they believe god(s) exists, but once they state that they KNOW God (yahweh) exists, they have presented a theory that can be examined and falsfied just like any other.

        October 7, 2013 at 10:38 am |
  15. JLS639

    I love the term "Holy Troller."

    October 5, 2013 at 10:13 am |
  16. Hopeful for humanity

    The only thing you missed was the "I'm just sayin" contingent. I.e., if you knew about hell wouldn't you pick heaven, I'm just sayin...

    So many Christian people seem to believe that the rapture will occur on cue in their life time, why? They read whatever they want to read into current events and fail to consider the self serving nature of their conclusion.why will the destruction of mankind make them happy. They are as bad as any Islamist group.

    Regardless of religion, each day should be lived as though the earth were both heaven and hell and you desire heaven here on earth.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:13 am |
    • laceydon

      Good point about the rapture and the end of the earth. I don't know why Christians delight in judgment; even the Bible says mercy triumphs over judgment. And Jesus cried for those who were rejecting him and life he offered. If we were truly in tune with him, I think we would feel the same way he feels.

      October 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
  17. Trevor

    Trolling is no different than force feeding the thought of God starting at an early age. Ive seen more Jesus Christ bumper stickers than Atheist ones. You believe in Jesus you are normal....you believe in Santa, now then you are a nutcase. Trolling has been around a lot longer than the current internet Tweet era.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:13 am |
  18. LogicalOne

    Where is God's Facebook page, Twitter account or even reply to this article...oh, that's right, fairy tales don't exist in the real world.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:11 am |
    • I've changed

      Actually,God does have a twitter account;see #allmightygod.

      October 5, 2013 at 10:32 am |
      • laceydon


        October 5, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
  19. Rolick

    So CNN throws the red meat out there in what can be seen as a roman style forum called Beliefnet, and in doing so creates this violent discourse. And then says hmmm. what else can we do with these comments besides pits people against one another? Let's make it news.

    Shame on CNN for pushing our buttons, they know religion is so personal and any article will create the sweet controversy that makes their entertainment news machine go. They should not call it beleifnet, they should call it the The Real Churchgoers of the United States.

    If people could just keep their beleifs to themselves or at least not try to politicize them and make everyone do as they do, we would not be having this never ending argument.

    What was the golden rule about parties? Don't discuss religion or politics and you can get along with almost anyone. CNN uses both and pits us against each other for ratings.

    October 5, 2013 at 10:09 am |
    • minardi

      You are responsible for your reactions to CNN articles, not CNN.

      October 5, 2013 at 10:11 am |
      • Rolick

        Never said that I was not, but they certainly know which buttons to press to create violent discourse. It's a fact that marketers are now using this kind of discourse in their favor. They can even track when we the exchanges decline and use social media to manipulate us into ramping up the discourse again.

        So yes we are responsible, but we are being played.

        October 5, 2013 at 10:22 am |
  20. Marie Hicks

    Thank you for an encouraging article. May we all learn to be peacemakers. Pope Francis said that he admires Bl. Peter Favre, and Peter was one of the greatest peacemakers in the religious arguments of the 16th century. He wrote: The first thing to keep in mind is that if anyone would be of help to [those who disagree with us]in this day and age, he must look upon them with great charity and love them in truth. And he must close his mind to all thoughts that would tend to lessen his affection for them. The second thing to be remembered is the need of gaining their good will so that they in turn shall love and think kindly of us, This can be accomplished by dealing with them in a friendly way on those subjects about which we are in agreement and by avoiding those disputed points in which one side might give the impression of lording it over the other. Rapprochement should be established with them in those areas in which there is concord between us rather than in those which tend to point up our mutual differences.'

    October 5, 2013 at 10:08 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.