Categorizing Religion Books January 14, 2008

Categorizing Religion Books

This unnamed now-named Toronto-based bookstore has a radical way of categorizing books about religion:


Ron Brown, who points this out, explains the anonymity:

Some have asked about the identity of the bookstore (so that they may go shop there!). I have deliberately kept this a secret. The reason being that I would hate to risk losing the proprietor sales should some sensitive religious people come across this increasingly popular photo and start encouraging coreligionists in the Toronto area to not shop there.

Meanwhile, in America, Michael Behe‘s books are still classified in the Science section…

What the hell is wrong with us?

[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Siamang

    Radical atheists would still complain that the sign is redundant.

    CS Lewis regarded Christianity as the true myth. So I guess he wouldn’t have a problem with this.

  • Mriana

    Well it’s about time they put religion in the myth section. I’ve always wondered why they didn’t before. Thing is Behe should not be in science. That doesn’t make sense either.

  • I’d be afraid it might lead to fist fights between religious fundamentalists and those who are buying Dawkins and Dennett. That is why they don’t put Left Behind stuff next to The God Delusion now, isn’t it?

  • Cade

    Sometimes, in Barnes and Nobel, I discretely walk by the religion section and move one of the bibles to the religious fiction section. It’s my little way of making a point.

error: Content is protected !!