Were Rolling Stone right not to use this as their cover ?

Yes, because the shitstorm it would cause would be much larger than the reward of having a controversial cover.

I'm an atheist and i would not run that if i ran Rolling Stone...it puts out the vibe that Rolling Stone is partial to atheism and Rolling Stone or any media publication don't want to put out any such vibe that they are partial to anything...be it atheism, christianity, etc. It's an easy decision and one that should not be questioned. I'm surprised they even shot the photo.

KingsOwn19 wrote:

Yes, because the shitstorm it would cause would be much larger than the reward of having a controversial cover.

I'm an atheist and i would not run that if i ran Rolling Stone...it puts out the vibe that Rolling Stone is partial to atheism and Rolling Stone or any media publication don't want to put out any such vibe that they are partial to anything...be it atheism, christianity, etc. It's an easy decision and one that should not be questioned. I'm surprised they even shot the photo.

but every mag puts religion on their covers, quite frequently. Why not have a little bit of atheism?

I would say yes because I see absolutely no point to it at all

I dont have a real beef with it. Its just a picture.

I'd want a self portrait like that no joke, without the mike and atheist, although I am. I'm mixed between mostly atheist but a little bit agnostic, I'll say it's possible a supreme being exists, but certainly not the BS religions claim. Grew up a confirmed RC by the way...