John Starke’s careless cutting and pasting skills have left me with an insatiable desire to do the right (ethical/moral) thing: I must put Dr. Marks’ words back into context.  I understand Starke’s desire to spin the true meaning of “the atheist’s” words so they will confirm his obvious bias and suit the theistic tastes of his audience, but guess what?  That’s not right/ethical/moral.  I didn’t need to tell you that, now did I?
 
Starke has deliberately misrepresented the meaning behind the New York Times article written by Dr. Joel Marks…but wait, Christians don’t do mean and spiteful things, do they?  That wouldn’t be Christ-like!  The reason he was allowed to churn out his own twisted interpretation is because more often than not, we humans are too slothful to read anything in its entirety for ourselves.  We’re into brevity, so we’ll take the abridged version, thank you.  Oh, and if there’s any blatant prejudice, we’ll just let it soak right in because we don’t want to form our own opinions when we can take those of others.  If he’s a Christian writer, that’s all we need to know.  Christian readers tend to do this: they are cloistered in the religion section of the library and they never stray.  Something very important to mention straightaway: Dr. Marks states openly “I am not attempting to justify anything; I am trying to motivate informed and reflective choices.”  And here’s where he’ll lose a whole lot of Christians.  See, Christian thinker is an oxymoron. Christians are not allowed to question the moral teachings of their god any more than legitimate scientists are allowed to simply give us their “best guesses based on gut feelings.”  (Although this best guess/gut feeling technique is indeed the modus operandi of the Intelligent Designers.)
        
Here are some important words that were left out of Starke’s take the atheist’s “dark side”:

It is wrong to toss male chicks, alive and conscious, into a meat grinder, as happens in the egg industry. It is wrong to scorn homosexuals and deny them civil rights. It is wrong to massacre people in death camps. All of these things have met with general approval in one society or another. And yet I knew in my soul, with all of my conviction, with a passion, that they were wrong, wrong, wrong. I knew this with more certainty than I knew that the earth is round.
(Underlined portions denote those calculatedly omitted by Brother Starke.)

Starke fails to make clear to the reader the author’s well-explained philosophy, which is actually quite logical, meaningful, and kind.  After all, how many Christians extend their circle of compassion to all of God’s creatures, including farmed animals, as the Bible commands?  This atheist does it, and he’s not quick to hide it.
    
Here’s another example of the slice and dice journalism employed by Starke:

But suddenly I knew it no more. I was not merely skeptical or agnostic about it; I had come to believe, and do still, that these things are not wrong. But neither are they right; nor are they permissible.

I highly recommend reading Dr. Joel Marks’ article yourself.  You will see that he is an ethical and intelligent, highly inquisitive and logical human being who uses data, not dogma, to form his conclusions about ethics and morality.  He doesn’t strike me as the type of atheist who would run children down in the street with his car.  That’s a different type of atheist altogether.  That’s the much feared “Atheist Noir.”  Here are a few more words from the dark side:

…the sort of desire that now concerns me most is what we would want if we were absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as moral right and wrong. I think the most likely answer is: pretty much the same as what we want now.

Why has Dr. Marks abandoned referring to “morality” when trying to convince others to do what’s right and kind?  Because it doesn’t work.

For to argue that people who use animals for food and other purposes are doing something terribly wrong is hardly the way to win them over. That is more likely to elicit their defensive resistance. Instead I now focus on conveying information: about the state of affairs on factory farms and elsewhere, the environmental devastation that results and, especially, the sentient, intelligent, gentle and noble natures of the animals who are being brutalized and slaughtered. It is also important to spread knowledge of alternatives, like how to adopt a healthy and appetizing vegan diet. If such efforts will not cause people to alter their eating and buying habits, support the passage of various laws and so forth, I don’t know what will.
 
So nothing has changed, and everything has changed. For while my desires are the same, my manner of trying to implement them has altered radically. I now acknowledge that I cannot count on either God or morality to back up my personal preferences or clinch the case in any argument. (My emphasis)

Dr. Marks’ methods of educating others are clearly abandoned, but his ethics are still going strong….and they’re much stronger and well-intentioned than those of many Christ-followers.  How many Christians truly care enough about the suffering of other animals enough to actually live their principles of compassion and to obey the Golden Rule?  I guess atheists can have pretty stringent moral standards after all.  If every Christian simply followed the morals put forth in their Bible, we’d be….oh, wait, most of us would be stoned to death.  Never mind.  My advice to Christians, look to the atheists for answers in morality.  They’re the ones free to question and investigate, and yeah, they’ll be the ones reading the entire article.