1. Comment #22576 by NeoGothic on February 19, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Finally! There's hope for my country yet. Let's hope those people remember this debate and all the misery religion produces when we go to the voting booths in 2008.

Other Comments by NeoGothic

2. Comment #22578 by MelM on February 19, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Damn right it is!

"Theocracy Watch"

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Other Comments by MelM

3. Comment #22582 by MIND_REBEL on February 19, 2007 at 4:53 pm

The meme of religion is so deeply attached to the American pysche it's doubtful that they'll ever give it up.

I know from personal expierence that many Americans, including some family members, refuse to see the light and embrace Atheism even after reading The God Delusion and watching "The Root of All Evil". I've basically stopped talking with my parents as a result, but in the end it's worth while because I truely know that people like me and Prof Dawkins are making the world a better place.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

4. Comment #22583 by MelM on February 19, 2007 at 7:56 pm

BTW, "Infidel" by Ayann Hirsi Ali came onto the latest NYT best seller list at #6. Seeing the way she used her independent mind to get herself out of Islam and out of religion is quite inspiring and I hope it will be so to others. Perhaps this book will help blunt religion in the U.S.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali blog:
http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/

Other Comments by MelM

5. Comment #22588 by cassdenata on February 19, 2007 at 5:42 pm

Mind Rebel. That honestly doesn't sound like a good enough reason to stop talking to your parents. It is important to discuss these issues and hopefully religious extremism will play a lesser role in our lifetimes with our help, but you have to put it in to perspective. I don't know, something about your post seemed a bit holier-than-thou and sad.

Other Comments by cassdenata

6. Comment #22595 by neander on February 19, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Yes, way over the top. The problem with 70% of the panel agreeing is the "Kinsey" factor. I.e. only interested or relatively intelligent people attended thus skewing the result.
I have a deep suspicion that a standard poll would produce different figures.
As an aside I was once told that the inscription on the 1$ note indicated what was really worshipped!

Other Comments by neander

7. Comment #22600 by Sancus on February 19, 2007 at 10:17 pm

Always great to hear the word "damn" on NPR.

Other Comments by Sancus

8. Comment #22604 by Loren Michael on February 19, 2007 at 9:35 pm

I can't help but notice that the pro-religion folks lean amazingly heavily on the No True Scotsman fallacy. The second fellow to speak for them pretty much uses it as his entire premise.

Also, the link above is to the 50 minute edited debate. The long version is apparently RealPlayer only, at this address:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7422542

Other Comments by Loren Michael

9. Comment #22606 by MelM on February 19, 2007 at 9:50 pm

The vista of a new Dark Age is opening up before us.

I think Barbara Forrest sums it up very well in this short video.
http://www.evolutionvscreationism.info/Evolution%20vs.%20Creationism/9..html

The paperback version of her (and Paul R. Gross) book "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" will be published March 30, 2007. It will contain a new afterword about the Dover trial.
http://www.amazon.com/Creationisms-Trojan-Horse-Intelligent-Design/dp/0195319737/ref=ed_oe_p/104-7079336-6081544

Her view of the strength of the Jones decision is at the end of this video.
http://www.evolutionvscreationism.info/Evolution%20vs.%20Creationism/10..html

Other Comments by MelM

10. Comment #22608 by Russell Blackford on February 19, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Yes, dammit.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

11. Comment #22609 by Roy_H on February 20, 2007 at 1:14 am

Yes even George is recommending them to read this book ( I wish! )
http://www.rieckesbaysidegallery.com/programfiles/talers/bushdelusion.jpg

Other Comments by Roy_H

12. Comment #22616 by Luthien on February 20, 2007 at 3:22 am

Hmmm... Well, after reading the "stationary earth" people's website... *sigh*

Other Comments by Luthien

13. Comment #22637 by Pantore on February 20, 2007 at 7:28 am

@6

"Seeing the way she used her independent mind to get herself out of Islam and out of religion is quite inspiring and I hope it will be so to others. Perhaps this book will help blunt religion in the U.S."

Ayaan is an evil person, she works for AEI; those people have their own 'religion' it's called capitalist-fascism or like Mussolini used to say the right word for fascism is corporatism, meaning when businesses and government work together to control the population.

Hey isn't that what's going on this planet under the 'leadership' of the USA.

Religion is indeed very evil(imo) but it's on the 2nd place;the first place is reserved for 'lust for power'

Other Comments by Pantore

14. Comment #22643 by AtheistJunkie on February 20, 2007 at 8:24 am

Absolutely. Too damn religious. Any amount of religion is too much damn religion.

Other Comments by AtheistJunkie

15. Comment #22644 by scot on February 20, 2007 at 5:45 am

panotore,

"Ayaan is an evil person, she works for AEI; those people have their own 'religion' it's called capitalist-fascism or like Mussolini used to say the right word for fascism is corporatism, meaning when businesses and government work together to control the population."

Guilt by association in it's purest form to say that Ayaan is evil because she works for the AEI. Mussolini's corporatism refers to cartels which are illegal in the U.S.

From wikipedia: The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank, founded in 1943, whose stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism--limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate." I don't see anything religious or fascist in this stated mission.

Other Comments by scot

16. Comment #22651 by MAS2007 on February 20, 2007 at 10:18 am

These people are scary with their repressive attitudes. The dumbing down of America seems to be their goal. I monitor their email campaigns they complain about everything from Madonna to the superbowl airing rude fan jestures. Their lastest attack is on funding of PBS and NPR, GWB is attemping to cut gov support, (but war is good use of resources)

http://www.afa.net

This site is trying to protect everyone's rights.

http://www.moveon.org

Roxy Artwork

Other Comments by MAS2007

17. Comment #22652 by Riley on February 20, 2007 at 10:22 am

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI):
Their is truly a fascist element at large in the AEI. It's not an exaggeration or an idle pejoritive statement to say so. Michael Ledeen, holder of the "Freedom Chair" at the American Enterprise Institute is an outspoken proponent of fascism. The "Straussian" philosophy, which dominates the AEI (and by way of the AEI, the White House), is essentially a fascist philosophy. Even worse, it is a fascist philosophy that advocates the utility of religion in government and promotes the idea that lying is a noble and necessary means to unite and guide the 'polis'.

If you believe that there is too much damn religion in the U.S. and in the world in general, then you should know that powerful political figures in the U.S. view religion as a domestic and foriegn policy tool and that the AEI leads the way in promoting and making this philosophy a reality.

Read-up on Leo Strauss, the intellectual source of much of the "neo-con" political-religious-militant movement that has grown like a cancer in the United States. The resurgence of the philosophical idea that people need to be ruled by a southern-styled "gentry class", the formalized need for "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, and the absolute need to bind religion and government together to preserve civil order, are articulated philosophies actively sought by the followers of Leo Strauss who include prominent members of the U.S. government (primarily in the Republican Party) and the AEI.


Read:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935
http://www.hnn.us/articles/1494.html


"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. "
George W. Bush - June 18, 2002


--

Other Comments by Riley

18. Comment #22657 by nrvous on February 20, 2007 at 11:58 am

Let's just get the kids reading Phillip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy at a young age...

Other Comments by nrvous

19. Comment #22660 by Jason E. on February 20, 2007 at 10:35 am

I came to the US in 1972 from Iran at the age of seventeen and moved into an American Family home in the Midwest. My very first observation and experience was about how encapsolated Americans were by thier religion. You must know that I grew up amongst the most fanatical religious fondamentalists and I still found religion in America to be more controlling of its people than Islam in Iran. Of course the Shah was still in power in Iran and the Western influence on the culture was great. However, religion in America is the dominent force and it has got much worse than when I came here some thirty five years ago.
So, yes, I agree, America is too damn religious!

Jason E.

Other Comments by Jason E.

20. Comment #22664 by Lionel A on February 20, 2007 at 12:04 pm

For more on Jean Bethke Elshtain, I found this:

http://divinity.uchicago.edu/faculty/elshtain.shtml#shortbio

which will help demonstrate why she cannot understand the difference between proven fact based science and faith based upon the fanciful selection of texts from a work of allegorical fiction where nothing is proven.

On ID v evolution then Jean Bethke Elshtain has not, or deliberately refuses to differentiate between faith and science with respect to dogma. She is a paragon of her kind.

William A Galston, who appears to associate with Jean Bethke Elshtain on a number of public policy think tanks such as:

http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/IPPP/publications_Galston.htm

http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/qry/page.taf?id=107

http://www.foundationnews.org/CME/article.cfm?ID=1685

for starters, mentions his father Arthur William Galston Emeritus Professor of Biology at Yale University as if that should be an indicator of his take on the proposition under debate.

I don't know enough about his father's ideology to judge that, only his fields in biology but I have found this on amazon:

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/reader/1402030614/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc/702-7549305-0486408?ie=UTF8&p=S009#reader-link

which may provide clues if I could read the contents. Has anybody here done so and would they care to comment?

William Galston, predictably given his father's field of expertise, brings up Arthur Russel Wallace as an example of a scientist not happy with Darwinian evolution – as if that in itself proves anything.

What his kind, and especially the likes of Jean Bethke Elshtain (who expresses her disdain at the real world v illusory world distinction – proving that her level of fair logical debate is well under par), do not appreciate is that there is no debate within science of the general truth of evolution.

It was painful listening to this pair of deluded deluders whose points were so well rebutted by Susan Jacoby, her summation of the practice of one evangelist; 'This would be funny if our tax dollars were not paying this lunatic to peddle his nutty combination of right wing faith and junk science' – Classic she, Susan Jacoby in her extremely well phrased delivery, could have been referring to the teaching of ID. Well done Susan.

Overall - a broadcast of hope.

Other Comments by Lionel A

21. Comment #22666 by nine9s on February 20, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Michael Ledeen, holder of the "Freedom Chair" at the American Enterprise Institute is an outspoken proponent of fascism.

Jesus christ, how about some citation for such a serious and specific charge? "Outspoken proponent of fascism?" What kind of hyperbole have you been smoking?

The "Straussian" philosophy, which dominates the AEI

Citation, please.

(and by way of the AEI, the White House)

Do you really think that a goddamn think tank is more powerful than the president of the United States? If the president gets some of his info from AEI it's because he wants to get it from there, not because AEI has him by the throat. Next you're going to tell me who really shot Kennedy.

This is the same kind of moonbat, nonsensical, non-thinking that gets people believing in transubstantiation, reincarnation, and an eternity of hell for Gandhi. You're not interested in the truth; you're interested in enemy-bashing, political tribalism, and feeling superior. Get a life, man.

Other Comments by nine9s

22. Comment #22673 by Riley on February 20, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Jesus christ, how about some citation for such a serious and specific charge? "Outspoken proponent of fascism?" What kind of hyperbole have you been smoking?

citation:
"Flirting with Fascism: Neocon theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right." By John Laughland, The American Conservative, June 30, 2003.

Also, read one of (AEI Freedom Scholar) Michael Ledeen's books: "Universal Fascism" or "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago" .

You seem to hold a firm monopoly thus far on hyperbole, so to keep your imagination in check, I'll clarify what I mean by "fascist". By fascist I mean: a philosophy that advocates extraordinarily high amounts of nationalism, militarism, corporatism, moral absolutism, and dimished liberalism in government. I don't mean a Nazi, an anti-semite, a Hitler sympathizer or a Mussolini sympathizer. In the specific case of Ledeen, he has been an outspoken admirer of a pre-WWII era Italian-styled fascism (consistant with the definition of fascism given above).

The Bush Administration and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) manifest the Neo-conservative/Straussian strand of fascist idealism that among other things believes that (as articulated by a senior Bush Whitehouse aid): "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. [Guys like you] are in what we call the reality-based community."

source: "Bush's Thinking Masters" by Prof. Adel Safty, Permanent UNESCO Chair of Leadership and President of the School of Government and Leadership at Bahcesehir University, Istanbul.

Prof. Safty also does an excellent job documenting in short order the Bush Administrations' attempts to create its own reality to justify the invasion of Iraq: "Iraq: Manipulating the Evidence to Start a War"

The "Straussian" philosophy, which dominates the AEI
Citation, please.

citations:
"Neocons dance a Strauss waltz" by Jim Lobe of the Asian Times, May 9, 2003
"Leo Strauss and the Noble Lie:The Neo-Cons at War" by John G. Mason, Professor of Political Science at William Paterson University
"Making Patriots" by Walter Berns of the AEI.
IRC profile: Hillel Fradkin

Do you really think that a goddamn think tank is more powerful than the president of the United States?

no. I'm certain I never said that I did; is the AEI a sacred cow of yours?

"I admire AEI a lot," Bush said. "After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people. More than 20 AEI scholars have worked in my administration." - George Bush

Thinktanks like the American Enterprise Institute(AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) influence friendly administrations in many ways, especially by-way of an administration's staff - and in this case, the Bush Administration is substantially constructed from AEI and PNAC members: see Think Progress.

"The most prominent Straussian in the Whitehouse is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. [...] Wolfowitz is also seen as the chief architect of Washington's post-September 11 global strategy, including its controversial preemption policy.

"Two other very influential Straussians include Weekly Standard chief editor William Kristol and Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman and director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a six-year-old neoconservative group whose [founding members] include Vice President Dick Cheney [former Senior Fellow at the AEI - whose wife is a current Senior Fellow at the AEI] and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a number of other senior foreign policy officials.

"PNAC's early prescriptions and subsequent open letters to President George W Bush on how to fight the war on terrorism have anticipated to an uncanny extent precisely what the administration has done.

"[Bill] Kristol's father Irving, the godfather of neoconservatism who sits on the board of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where a number of prominent hawks, including former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, are based, has also credited Strauss with being one of the main influences on his thinking.

"While a New York Times article introduced readers to Strauss and his disciples in Washington, interest was further piqued this week by a lengthy article by The New Yorker's legendary investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, who noted that Abram Shulsky, a close Perle associate who has run a special intelligence unit in Rumsfeld's office, is also a Straussian."

source: "Neocons dance a Strauss waltz" by Jim Lobe of the Asian Times, May 9, 2003

also worth reading:
"The Long Reach of Leo Strauss" by William Pfaff, International Herald Tribune, May 15, 2003
"Veteran neo-con advisor moves on Iran" By Jim Lobe, Asian Times, Jun 26, 2003

AEI Senior Fellow, "the godfather of neoconservatism", Irving Kristol is also, by the way, an outspoken opponent of 'Darwinism'. As is AEI scholar and creationist pitbull: Joe Manzari. As was the Supreme Court Nominee of George H.W.("No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens") Bush: Robert Bork. Bork (yet another AEI Senior Fellow), even went out of his way to publicly denounce darwinism in his populous-aimed book: Slouching Toward Gomorrah, published using his credentials as a former U.S. Federal Court of Appeals judge and Supreme Court nominee.

primary sources:
"Origin of the Specious: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?" by Brian Doherty of Reason Magazine, July 1997
"Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception" by Jim Lobe

also read about:
The Discovery Institute authored "Wedge Strategy"
Christian Reconstructionism

If the president gets some of his info from AEI it's because he wants to get it from there, not because AEI has him by the throat.

Did I say that he didn't? Did I suggest that they did? No. But you're truly deluding yourself if you believe that a powerhouse think-tank like the AEI doesn't play an important role in the viability of presidential candidates it chooses to support and the construction of policy and staff selection for those presidents that it helps into office. It's not the sinister adversarial relationship you seem to require (and that I never suggested existed), rather the AEI, the PNAC (which includes among its core principles the goal to create: "a policy of military strength and moral clarity"), and the Bush Administration are all substantially in-sync on foreign and domestic policy.

Again (re-read my first post), what I'm saying is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Administration, and thinktanks such as the AEI and the PNAC are colaborators who together substantially contribute to an increase of religious thinking in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have created and linked from here a list of some of the most significant AEI members working to increase the role of religion in government.

One example of how the AEI leadership and the Bush White House work together to promote religion in government: the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is an office wholly created by the Bush Administration. To coordinate the function of this new governmental office with national church organizations, Carl Rove worked with afore mentioned William Kristol (AEI Advisory Board member and PNAC co-Founder/co-director, among other things) to create: the Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise(ACFE). Krystol is now on the ACFE Board of Trustees.

(and yes, I'm also saying that "religious thinking" (e.g. moral absolutism ('moral clarity') and reality creation) is one component of their political-activism which includes: hyper-nationalism, militarism, corporatism and anti-liberalism -- which collectively by definition is: 'fascism'.)

The Pentagon's Office of Special Plans (OSP) is yet another office wholly created by the Bush Administration in 2002 and is the same institution responsible for manufacturing the 'reality' that Iraq was operationally linked to al-Qa'ida and that aluminum centerfuge tubes and mobile biological weapons labs existed in Iraq (is it unjustly conspiritorial to suggest that the creation of this new office, the nature of the 'intelligence' reports it produced, and the 'failure of intelligence' that led to the invasion of Iraq was not coincidental given the facts?) . The director of this office reported directly to Straussian Ph.D student, Paul Wolfowitz ( the 'life changing' Yale Political Science teacher of indicted-for-lying, Chief of Staff to the Vice President: 'Scooter' Libby). The first director of the intelligence 'fixing' OSP was the former Special Counsel to Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle (AEI, PNAC), fellow straussian: Douglas Feith, who was famously described by General Tommy Franks as: "the f—king stupidest guy on the face of the earth" for his handling of intelligence. The second director was yet another former staffer to Richard Perle and yet another Leo Strauss Pd.D student: Abram Shulsky,

primary sources:
IRC Profie: Project for the New American Century
IRC Profie: American Enterprise Institute
"Selective Intelligence" by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, May 12, 2003
"Feith Takes the Fall" by Mark Thompson, Time Magazine, Feb. 09, 2007

minor supporting sources: Wikipedia, DOD, Mises Institute Review, and The Times

also very much worth reading:
"A Tragedy of Errors", a book review by Michael Lind (a former staffer to Irving Kristol)
"Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence", an essay by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt (two prominent 'neocon' Straussians - see above)
"US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy" - August 19, 2002, Brian Whitaker, Guardian Unlimited
"The Strong Must Rule the Weak: A Philosopher for an Empire" by Jim Lobe, May 12, 2003, a political analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus

Audio: Interviews with Strauss scholar and critic Shadia Drury, Canada Research Chair in Social Justice and Director of the Masters Program in Social and Political Thought at the University of Regina, CA:
Shadia Drury Interview with Michael Enright - C.B.C., 2005
Shadia Drury Interview with Matthew Rothschild - The Progressive, 2005

(sorry for the absurdly long post, but nine9s asked for it)

Other Comments by Riley

23. Comment #22679 by JesperB on February 20, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Hmmm, Jean Bethke Elshtain (JBE) seems to think that Eichmanns refusal to place his hand on the bible indicated that he was not religious "And he belonged to the Nazi inner circle".

Actually, the court transcripts reads (Emphasis mine):
___
Presiding Judge:

Decision No. 84

By virtue of Section 5 of the Courts (Offences Punishable by Death) Law, 5721-1961, I hereby order that, in order to reinsure the personal security of the Accused, he will testify from the accused's box.

[To the Accused] Put your right hand on the New Testament.

Accused: I do not swear by the Bible. I swear by God, for I am not bound by any confessional creed, but I do believe in God.

Presiding Judge: We shall permit you to take the oath in the form which you consider binding upon you. Therefore say: "I swear by God that my evidence in this trial will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Accused: I swear by God that my evidence in this trial will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

(http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-075-05.html)
___


Did she forget the rest of that exchange? Bottom line: Eichmann was religious and JBE is guilty of lying by omission.


But my favorite part of her speech was without a doubt the statement, that: "If you think we're too damn religious, you're likely to think we're too damn pluralistic". Can someone say Strawman?

Pathetic...

Other Comments by JesperB

24. Comment #22687 by Robert O'Brien on February 20, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Finally! There's hope for my country yet.

I humbly suggest that you restrain your jubilation until you acquaint yourself with the concept of representative sampling.

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien

25. Comment #22730 by Sancus on February 21, 2007 at 11:38 am

The electoral college is not exactly a "representative sampling" of the population.

Oh! That doesn't even matter, because the primaries used to nominate candidate are even less representative. Ridiculously less. Ah! My head hurts just thinking about it.

The 2008 election is not about who can get elected by the country. It's about who can survive Iowa and win Ohio. We've become the United States of Ohiowa.

Other Comments by Sancus

26. Comment #22738 by Convertedchristian on February 21, 2007 at 6:01 pm

some of the comments below are in response to my comment that i have now removed. It was dumb and out of place. Things in America are bad a we all need to come together to help change things. The US is a nice place to live, I think. I could been 1000 times better if we were, as a nation, not so stupid. So lets get started.

Other Comments by Convertedchristian

27. Comment #22743 by Russell Blackford on February 21, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Riley, while I see what you're getting at, I do respectfully ask you to be careful about accusing people of fascism unless they really are fascists in some pretty literal sense. When I think of fascism, I automatically have an emotional response because I have associations with the evils committed by Mussolini, the close association with Hitler, the killings of Jews, ruthless suppression of opposition by violence etc, etc. To call someone a fascist is to evoke all those connotations.

Isn't it enough to say that someone is authoritarian, illiberal, in favour of coercion, an enemy of individual liberty, or whatever the real charge is? That might not pack the same emotional wallop, but if the person is not actually anti-Semitic, a fan of Hitler or Mussolini, in favour of killing opponents, etc., the emotional wallop is an unearned one.

I even worry a little about the word "Islamofascism", but not so much - it's pretty clear that that word is making an analogy, and the analogy has some point: extreme militant Islamists do not literally embrace fascism as a political philosophy, but they commonly are anti-Semitic, sometimes have a good word for Hitler, are prepared to use violence to suppress opposition, and are extreme enemies of individual liberty in a way that goes far beyond any mainstream Western ideas. They are blood-soaked totalitarians.

But when someone is simply accused of being a fascist it looks like a literal claim is being made.

Of course, I'm just making a suggestion, not wanting to browbeat you. It's obviously up to you entirely.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

28. Comment #22760 by Old Coppernose on February 22, 2007 at 12:06 am

With regard to the below, just how bad does it have to be to be worth commenting on?

When USAnians ( I use this term to exclude those elsewhere on the American continents) say things like "Only 25% of Americans call themselves Evangelicals" that to this Brit sounds almost like someone saying "Only 25% of Americans believe in Santa Claus". Also religious people can be very mendacious in how they describe themselves and their beliefs - apparently 33% of USAnians are Biblical literalists, however they may escribe themselves.

Yes the US has great scientists - and it might have a lot more were it not for the fundies - and its science education is under direct threat. Kurt Wise who gave up a brilliant career in geology as a result of his fundamentalism is perhaps just the most notable of examples - the prospects of millions of USAnians having their understanding of the science and the world permanently scrambled.

In addition, millions are "End of Timers" - who believe that the end of the world is imminent, with likely nuclear wars and ecological catastrophe. IF people sincerely believe this, they are clearly less motivated to prevent these disasters (both of which of course, are very real threats) and possibly even motivated to cause them. This is grounds for concern for everyone on the planet.

In relative terms, this problem almost doesnt exist elsewhere in the western world. To the extent that it does in the UK is in part to US influence.

Yes, it IS as bad as people say. Atheists are marginalized in the US - here one tends to assume people are atheists unless they are perhaps recent immigrants. Acknowledging the severity of the problem isnt pessimism, it's necessary to do something about it.

having said that I'm not sure what anyone can do about it. I actually think that promoting atheism is not going to work. Instead imo nontheists should ally with moderate theists against the extremists.

Other Comments by Old Coppernose

29. Comment #22775 by goldmineguttd on February 22, 2007 at 5:44 am

having said that I'm not sure what anyone can do about it. I actually think that promoting atheism is not going to work. Instead imo nontheists should ally with moderate theists against the extremists.

lol, uh, that's what we've been doing so far!

It's time to stop doing that.

Other Comments by goldmineguttd

30. Comment #22783 by Riley on February 22, 2007 at 11:04 am

Religious fervor, patriotic fervor, The "Wedge Strategy" against science, economic class immobility and polarized disparity, political fundamentalism, declarations of American manifest destiny, doctrines of military pre-emption, exceptionalism, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping

... are all conditions invigorated by, if not wholly inacted by, policies of the currently dominant American political establishment. I'm sorry if these facts are scary sounding. I'm sorry that listing these facts sounds like fear-mongering --- but facts are facts.

"George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States. He was appointed by God.": U.S. Army Lt. General William Boykin to an Oregon religious group in June, 2003. General Boykin, who gave his speeches in full-dress Army uniform, toured the country to speak to church groups telling them such things as: "'Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.'

"In another speech, according to L.A. Times military analyst William Arkin, Boykin showed slides of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Jong Il, and asked, 'Why do they hate us? The answer is because we're a Christian nation.' [...] Before another religious group in Florida, Boykin described how his Delta Force commandos in Mogadishu finally tracked down one of the Muslim rebel leaders because 'I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.'

"Boykin is not just any Army general: Last June, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld nominated him for a third star and made him deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence." - Salon Magazine, 2003

"the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."
- April 30, 2003, Michael Ledeen, "Freedom Chair" Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

By pointing these things out, I'm not declaring that politically influential people in the U.S. like Ledeen and Boykin are evil, I'm not suggesting that people at the AEI are hateful, and I'm not declaring that the influence of such people is without check. I'm just pointing-out observable, well documented facts, worthy of attention and relevant to a discussion-thread about wether or not there is too much damn religious thinking in America. I bring up more of these facts now in response to comments like: "I think people on this website (some people) take it WAY out of proportion". and that they need "to get a life" (actually, I have a pretty good life, but thank you for your concern).

Have I misquoted or misrepresented the facts? What is it that's being taken out of proportion?

It is what it is.

( btw, based on my limited exposure to Ayann Hirsi Ali, I think she is great, I also think that there are some excellent scholars at the AEI, and I believe that all of their scholars and fellows are well meaning and likely very nice people - it's just that in my opinion, these things don't make up for the war promoting, hypernationalism fomenting, religious belief evangelizing, global-warming science obfuscating, creation scientist coddling leadership majority there, but it is what it is.)

worth reading:
"Origin of the Specious: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?" by Brian Doherty, Reason, July 1997
"The AEI, Iran and a Free Press" by Glenn Greenwald.
"Chomsky on Why Bush Does Diplomacy Mafia-Style" by Michael Shank, Foreign Policy in Focus.

---

Other Comments by Riley

31. Comment #22791 by savroD on February 22, 2007 at 10:52 am

From my perspective, the problem with this debate was clear. The undecided moved to the decided, after the debate. One quarter to a full third of the US population is brain dead when it comes to religion. No blathering about MLK or anybody elses religious affiliation is going to change the fact that there are people who are just unwilling and unable to change, no matter what the evidence. What is sick is to say the free speech of these folks is not tantamount to yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Other Comments by savroD

32. Comment #22794 by Convertedchristian on February 22, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I agree with all of you. I was not trying to say that things are not bad, they are. All I was saying was that even though there are a lot of christians in the US, it is still a nice place to live. Maybe I should of just said that. I bet you all I have wonderful lives and are in no need of a new one. I feel the need to retract my comment about getting a life. Also, my reference to people in the forums were directed towards people who want to abaondon the country to move to Europe. I just think they should stay and fight the good fight. In fact, just pay no attention to my comment above. I retract most of it because my message has come across in the wrong way.

Other Comments by Convertedchristian

33. Comment #22799 by Sancus on February 22, 2007 at 7:43 pm

What the hell's wrong with "patriotic fervor?"

Not to denigrate the rest of Riley's list, but let's please recognize that the USA is the first and probably only legitimate child of the Enlightenment.

Furthermore, I know you Europeans don't very much like where you come from (my ancestors didn't like it either), but that's no reason to expect that everyone should be the same. Actually yours is probably good reason for everyone to not like where you come from.

The United States is a great country even in the not-so-great times. That's what makes it and the Enlightenment really great.

Other Comments by Sancus

34. Comment #22806 by Shuggy on February 23, 2007 at 1:27 am

In Comment #22799, Sancus asked 'What the hell's wrong with "patriotic fervor?"'

To the extent that it is based in fact, only one country can be better than all other countries, and so it statistically, probably isn't yours/mine.

Even then, your/my country is probably only better in some respects and not others.

Even if my country is better than all others in all ways, patriotic fervour is an unhealthy reaction.

And in the real world, US patriotic fervour is right out of proportion to the US's actual virtues and celebrated for all the wrong reasons.

(I suspect that US quasi-religious devotions to the external trappings of patriotic fervour, especially the flag, the anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance, Freudianly (or do I mean Jungianly?) conceals its opposite, a fundamental instability, and the trappings are a desparate attempt to hold the country together. The world would be a happier place, now there is no Soviet Union, if it would fall into its natural parts, probably four in number, but the need of some for the wealth of the others will probably prevent that happening.)

Other Comments by Shuggy

35. Comment #22807 by Logicel on February 23, 2007 at 1:29 am

Convertedchristian, I don't frequent the forum that much at this site, but there has been a bit of America bashing on these threads connected to posted articles.

As an American, that has lived in Europe for almost 20 years, in various countries, I don't have a very strong identity with any country. BrianCoughlandWorld Citizen, and I think Denoir also, have posted about not being identified with a country. For me, America is the Constitution, not the land, the people, the customs, etc. The American Constitution is a great document. Along with many other developed democratic countries, America is a decent place to live. I don't think it is the greatest country, I don't think any country is.

When I first moved to Europe, specifically Great Britain, the anti-Americanism that I encountered could be paraphrased, "Why isn't America perfect? It is rich enough, educated enough, powerful enough, why does it have so many flaws?" The bar for Americans/America are set very high. Anti-Americanism, which by the way has existed for decades, is now focused on its ferocious consumer-based, hostile-to-the-environment capitalism, its invasion of Iraq and subsequent disaster, its hubris, and its religiousity.

In my work, it is Americans with whom I deal on a daily basis. And they are wonderful, kind, intelligent, reasonable, creative, entreprising, fair, and open-minded on the whole. Then I watch or listen to media coverage, and I think who are these American idiots! Then I remember the many Americans with whom I work, and I keep it in balance.

I would suggest that posters here should consider that when you bash America in these threads, you are causing discomfort to many that are on your side, and who are real people that deserve respect despite the accident of their birthplace. These people are fighting the good fight, and they are remaining within America to do so.

Other Comments by Logicel

36. Comment #22808 by Logicel on February 23, 2007 at 4:53 am

Sancus wrote: "Furthermore, I know you Europeans don't very much like where you come from (my ancestors didn't like it either), but that's no reason to expect that everyone should be the same. Actually yours is probably good reason for everyone to not like where you come from."
_____

In my years of living in Europe, what I encounter is a quiet respect which Europeans have for their particular set of customs and traditions. As it has been pointed out by other posters, Europe, unlike America, was practically destroyed by two world wars because of nationalism. Just because Europeans are cautious and critical of nationalism, it does not mean they are not pleased with their culture. They respect, enjoy, and are proud of that, they are just not nationalistic in expressing that pride, and being Europeans, they are reserved compared to rambunctious Americans.

And your experience is not mine, my parents who came from Germany and The Czech Republic, were very proud of their origins, and I know many more Americans who are proud of their European heritage also.

Other Comments by Logicel

37. Comment #22809 by Logicel on February 23, 2007 at 2:10 am

Perhaps what we all need now is some 'spirituality' with attitude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIgYBx2HxP0

Other Comments by Logicel