Just out of interest. Where is tolerance built into the framework of laws?

On an even more basic, functional level, it's inherent in democracy that you tolerate outcomes you didn't desire. The only outcomes we have any business working to prevent in a liberal society are ones which would see the equal protection and rights of all citizens and minorities (including the inevitable white minority) dismantled, and that should define the extent of our efforts against Islam and religion in general.

Well, I should be careful when I say 'creating'. Most of the time fear-mongers are not 'creating' worry out of thin air, so much as taking advantage of our evolved anxieties and conflict-oriented instincts when it comes to groups of 'others', and fretting over our relative strengths. The anxiety is primitive and so unsurprisingly the remedies people reach for are usually also primitive, anti-democratic, violent.

I repeatedly noted in my comment my concern about the spread of Islam as an ideology, and the challenging task of domesticating it. My point was that although I can't stand it when criticism of Islam is linked with racial discrimination and 'Islamophobia', articles like the original piece posted - along with its vile, thuggish commenters - really do demonstrate the nativism and racial paranoia that runs beneath a lot of the discussion.

We should honestly be as concerned about the spread of Islam as the spread of AIDs, but we should be working against it without framing the problem in terms of ethnic insurgency, which is precisely what the demographic argument does. That kind of talk will inevitably lead us to anti-democratic, conflict-oriented policies, and it's as hopeless as standing on a beach and trying to hold back the tide. If what we're worried about is indeed ideology, and not brown people, we should be working to fortify secular values in our laws and in our education, not fretting over how to stem a tide of foreigners.

I suppose it depends on your definitions. But I would say that 'creating worry' over changes in demographics is functionally equivalent to 'mongering fear'. :P

I loathe the multiculturalist canard that being concerned about Islam - an ideology that is several centuries less domesticated than Christianity - equates to base racism, but when you see this kind of fear-mongering over demographics, it really is pure paranoid nativism. It really is about 'foreign hordes' and their 'alien gods'.

Now, this should obviously concern white Christian Europeans that cherish the ethnic heritage of their pasty continent, and excite their fetish for conflict and apocalypse, but why should any of this shift the strategies of atheists and secularists? All of a sudden "they" are breeding too fast, and we throw our hands up in dismay, and literally start coyly discussing old Nazi policies as a remedy, with winks and chuckles? "Ah, I'm kidding about sterilising all of them, but seriously though.." Shut up. It's pathetic.

All this shift does is make the task of secularisation and religious domestication more difficult, and more imperative. Nothing more. If we want to call ourselves moral humanists, we play by the effing rules.

[Edit: This is in response to the original Canada Free Press piece that linked to that rotten Last Crusade site - the Reuters one has a much less hostile tone]

I have bookmarked it for later.. but the audio seems.. really, really quiet. :\

[My Facebook comment when linking to this article]
Professional liar Casey Luskin moans about the different connotations of the terms "skeptic" and "denier". He correctly explains that they both mean basically the same thing, but that one has esteemed connotations and the other has connotations of willful ignorance. Then he whinges that Intelligent Design - which is, in the eyes of his nations courts, a pernicious pseudo-scientific outgrowth of creationism - is unfairly labeled as denialism, going further to say that using the term is intended as a conversation-stopper and that we should consider its use intolerant and close-minded.
Well of course it is, in exactly the same way as a notice saying "Do not accept cheques from this lying cheapskate" is an intolerant conversation-stopper. Your institute is not practicing science, it's a PR front for creationism. You deserve neither tolerance nor civility, you stupid motherfucker.

Guys, guys.. you can't just keep naming every fossil you find after Charles Darwin. :P

Pretty much. I'm just interested in calibrating how far your opposition to government-run things goes. :P
It's just that it seems very intuitive to me that a government should provide for the common security of its people. The maintenance of a regulated environment, over the ultimate deregulated state - nature - is basically the purpose of any community at any scale. I.. don't see why that shouldn't include more tightly regulating the health insurance industry - including a government run option to force for-profit companies to trim their fat.
I've got no stake in its success, seeing I live in Australia, other than to speedily proceed to cap-and-trade legislation so Obama has something to show for himself at Copenhagen. But as the post mentions, these are pretty middle-of-the-road type policies we're talking about.

Good grief, what a surreal "discussion". Hard to see it happening here.

"I would prefer to think that what America has is an ability of its people to care for themselves"

I assume, seeing russkid places so much value on "taking care of yourself", he only sends his kids (or intends to send his kids) to private schools, or homeschooling, rather than relying on socialised education. I assume he never uses the USPS, seeing that's socialised postal care. I assume he never uses public transit, including highways, seeing that's socialised transportation. I assume he has no time for socialised law enforcement either - frankly if Americans can take care of themselves, they should be trusted to take legal matters into their own hands.
I assume he is against the FDA regulating food and drugs.. Americans should be able to take care of determining whether they're being poisoned or scammed on their own, rather than be held under the sway of socialised consumer protection. All funded by tax dollars - disgraceful, really. :|

I skimmed, but while focusing on the issue of rationed care, none of you seemed to ask russkid why he has no problem with the rationing that exists in the current situation, overseen by privately owned for-profit companies. It's amazing to me that conservatives are so blindly opposed to government in general (at least, when they're out of power), that they would rather be at the mercy of gigantic corporations than a not-for-profit organisation directly accountable to the people (also known as the government).

At this point I will shamelessly plug my own Crocoduck t-shirt.

http://www.cafepress.com.au/rMaynard

It's the only thing there at the moment, unlike boffinwear's cool store, but yeah. :P

I think you are being a little too optimistic there, David. The journalist says "hardwired by evolution to believe in God", but the actual scientist says "Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works."
Your particular capital G god was not mentioned as being a default or esteemed choice people are born to believe. Nor does it say that specific concepts or gods are pre-planted. What it says is that children are equipped with methods of reasoning that lead to supernatural beliefs. This description could cover a broad range of incorrect, imaginary reasoning, such as rapidly coming to believe that clothes draped on chairs are actually the form of a monster in their bedroom.
What the study suggests is that human children are innately susceptible to any variety of supernatural claim that enters their mind, as this sense of credulity apparently has a survival advantage.
That includes belief in ancestral spirits, multitudes of deities, witches, curses, magic spells, frightening shadows and, of course, monsters under the bed.

Sleep tight! :)

I posted this on a friend's blog when they posted a link to this article for discussion. Edited slightly:

It's pretty sensational to claim that Neo-darwinism is Dawkins "dogma", particularly when Dawkins has no actual control over research or education, and the competing frameworks she discusses are not only being researched but also taught in universities. I understand she's an atheist, but in this regard she sounds just like the Christians who can only conceive of power structures with reference to their own, and call him a priest, and evolution an object of devotion and worship. But as evidenced in her other work (she is currently promoting her book "The Selfish Genius: How Richard Dawkins Rewrote Darwin’s Legacy"), Eldson-Barker seems to have a chip on her shoulder. :P

Dawkins main famous books that she is claiming to be in a huff about (The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker) were published in the 1970s and 1980s, all of them over twenty years ago. Evolution science definitely seems to be shifting, and I think what she's actually whining about is Dawkins status as a public intellectual, that he is promoting a possibly overly-simple view of evolutionary process on talk shows, as if there is a new generation of science communicators just busting to start laying some epigenetic transfer onto the public, but, DAMN HIM, they are being held back.
I think what they would find, as Dawkins no doubt has in his decades as a communicator and years as the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, and as teachers in general have forever, is that you will get nowhere in the business of explaining if you start your explanations at the cutting edge of research. It's ass-backwards, plain and simple.

For advocacy purposes amongst non-scientists, it seems perfectly fine to me to stick to discussing heredity in a linear, "vertical" manner (the classic branching tree), without getting into how recent research into gene expression and lateral transfer may be muddying that picture.
It's routine for education on a subject to begin with a broad sweeping view of the field that then sharpens the focus (either in a top-down manner or by retracing the historical development of the theory) and fills in details and special conditions in which the broader "stereotype" of the subject learnt in previous semesters breaks down into ambiguity, until finally students reach the edge of modern research, in preparation for possible careers as researchers.

For explaining it to ignorant people (creationists) and the merely curious, you have to start at below the high school biology level of explanation. Dawkins has laboured admirably to boil evolution down to the most elementary terms, to explain what shouldn't have to be explained in five minute segments on talk shows. It leaves little room for uncertainty, or conditionals, or careful elaboration - you have to deal with absolute answers because you are dealing with children, in terms of that field (hence the 'but-why' ender that always makes me cringe: "Because of evidence"). It is a teaching moment, a moment of instruction, not a moment of elucidation or discussion. And when you boil it down, regardless of exciting new science, the essentials remain: "Living things were not created as separate kinds - they all come from other living things, with complexity and diversity receding as we travel further back in time. Therefore, it's a fucking tree. Deal with it."

Personal anecdote, but I do get a sense of disconnect between crazy-chiropracty and the basic physio stuff.
I had some back problems when I was a teenager, and went to a place that branded itself as a chiropractic clinic, but on reflection and in comparison to the stuff I've since learnt about chiropracty it seems more like it was just a plain old physio. There were just minor procedures that resulted in popping noises like knuckle-cracking, that honestly relieved stress. I had an x-ray taken and was given the common sense advice of adopting an exercise routine, that my spine was a little twisted to the side from hunching, and could be easily taken care of if I just had some stronger back muscles.

This is in Australia mind you, but from that time I got the sense that chiropractic care was just a sub-discipline of physiotherapy. It was only later I heard about all the crazy pseudo-science stuff, none of which reflected my own experience. My chiropractor never mentioned any of the energy stuff, or how other problems could be cured by spine "futzing", it was just - "your back is a bit crooked - I can crack it around a bit for immediate relief but if you want a long-term solution you should be exercising." Isn't that just physiotherapy? But if so, why did he call himself a chiropractor?
Like I said, it's a personal anecdote, but more importantly, it's definitely not testimony that "chiropracty" as described by Simon Singh has worked for me. Rather all I'm saying is that there must be a diversity of chiropractors out there in terms of how much they believe and how much they're just practicing basic physiotherapy.

"You might as well complain that it's a stupid show because they travel faster than light or because everybody looks like humans."

The FTL bothers me less than the "it turns out aliens are everywhere, and they look just like humans with extra features," but yes, those are other reasons it's a bad franchise. As for the advice of MST3K, I relax by not watching shows like Star Trek, because I can't watch it without getting picky like I just did. :P
The clip just reminded me of that, is all. The issues and ideas the writers wanted to explore always wielded priority over the believability of the technology, even in small gag scenes like this, so it's chock full of lame "it's future-science duh" cop-outs.

...right, so how exactly did the Holodeck have insight into their minds, let alone simulate an interaction that had not taken place in their memory? Clearly their brains and personalities are not stored on a disk, meaning that these are AI's, and much like the apple story, are apocryphal constructions, caricatures at best. This doesn't even enter into how their differential skill at poker is being simulated. With Data surely aware of these limitations why would he think it insightful? And, and... GODS I hate Star Trek.

Best wishes to Professor Hawking, in any case. :(

Wow, Chris Matthews lost his hair really fast. :P

It is kind of disturbing that the first comment here begins with "Theories???" and goes on to assert the commenter's certainty in the causes of suicide bombing, as if there is simply no need, or no knowledge to be gained, by sitting down and doing the research.
As some have pointed out, the researchers may have muddled their measurements of religious devotion, but you know what is the best way to find out if they did, right? It is not to say "This is wrong, we all know the real answer!" It is more research.
We should all be very careful about our "It's so obvious, just read the book - it's awful - jeez, case closed!" declarations, and be sure that they remain personal suspicions awaiting empirical confirmation, rather than simplistically asserted certainties based on incomplete perspectives and prejudice. :)

Bonzai

Actually our regular trolls here are extremely thick skinned.

Well yes, regular trolls would develop callouses. :P
In my defense I did say that was how to tell if someone is a troll, ie. identifying a new one, but your point is taken. It's certainly not a universal indicator.

Honestly, one of the easiest ways to tell if someone is a troll (which, on richarddawkins.net, typically means "a religious apologist") is if they're so thin-skinned as to go online and derail a thread by taking offense at "insults" like butt-head.
Butt-head?
Seriously?
UH OH, THAT ANGRY BRITISH MAN JUST CROSSED THE LINE. Calling people butt-heads, how did he get into Oxford! Harumph! And you CULTISTS are just going to let him get away with it! How despicable! He should be setting a better example! Take a hike, gramps.

Sam Harris's was a brilliant bait and switch. Really threw me off for the first few paragraphs. Once you've finished it though, even the first paragraphs flip like a magic eye.

"He demolishes the intellectual pretensions of militant atheists like Coyne and Dennett in the most elegant way imaginable: by merely divulging the title of a 17th century work by the great Robert Boyle. When I was a militant neo-rationalist, I had a sinking feeling that my colleagues and I had not fully reckoned with Boyle on the argument from Design and were, as a result, risking public humiliation." Ice cold burn, sir.

OOF that would smart. And they think the current thing is offensive! xD

As I explained Sheol99, even if that reasoning is wrong, it is regardless convincing to some people (typically, as you say, creationists), and hence it's useful information to know - not to lionize the man in a quasi-devotional sense, but to humiliate those who would seek to discredit him for silly and false reasons.

For example, this is particularly useful to know if one finds themselves talking with a creationist that makes such a claim, that suggests that Darwin was racist. Not only can we dismantle the claim, that the quality of science is determined by the character of scientists, we can also refute the claim itself as cheap slander.

It is similar to the rumour of Darwin's deathbed repentance. It would be enough, for a reasonable person, to patiently argue that his beliefs on his deathbed have no consequences for the evidence he collected and the ideas he developed, so it doesn't matter, but it's a double hit to their confidence to also point out that not only would it be irrelevant, it's also not true.

mrjonno & Foxy,
The argument that an evil man's ideas are evil/wrong is convincing to some people, it is used by some people seeking to discredit Darwin's ideas, and we should greet the opportunity to repudiate it.
It is correct that his character has no bearing on the veracity of his observations, and that biology has advanced considerably since his work, but given how much nonsense is made of the eugenicists "inspired" by Darwin, we should all be glad that the theory of natural selection was the product of a wholesome and socially progressive mind, and that we don't have to make excuses for it as having an unfortunate origin.

the end of biological deterioration (aging) as a cause of death.

A great speech, but seriously, how many god-damn times is this video going to get posted?

I have Religion Explained in my bookcase, having snatched it from my dad's bookcase a few years ago, but I never took the time to read through it all. Now I'm interested again.

1) The artist behind the song, Toumani Diabate, is apparently a "devout Muslim".
2) The song, Tapha Niang, which you can hear for free on Diabate's MySpace page, isn't half bad.
3) The design of the game, LittleBigPlanet, is premised on incredible customisation and user-generated content, and some particularly angry fans have already floated the idea of flooding the servers with levels with Qur'anic verses scribbled all over everything in protest.

Could this foot get any more shot?

An excellent point.
After all, the church shown in this video is not the church she was a member of until 2002. The video of THAT church is in video in the other post on this matter, also produced by the talk2action blog. :P

Remember when people tried to charge that Ron Paul was connected to racist newsletters? It was too tangential, too vague, and too hard to pin on him, and it fell flat. It distracted people from the more important task.. making the case that dismantling most of the government is probably a really bad idea.

This is kind of the same situation. I guess at the end of the day there's still more than enough meat to chew on without digging at her relationship with far-far-far-far-right churches.

The irony is that the more you and others engage in this kind of panic, witchhunt approach the more likely you are to drive people to vote for Palin.

Based on nothing. Please explain why voters would change their votes from Obama to McCain because of atheists criticising Palin for being a pentecostal Christian?
The bubble of her approval rating just burst and is now dropping. The more moderate, regular people learn, the more they have recoiled, intense scrutiny doesn't seem to be driving people to her defense, and the American voter is apparently capable of weighing the evidence. Shocking, I know.

The story of her association with a secessionist party has apparently deflated, but if we could expose people to her ties with a dominionist church.. that would be something.

Neuro, Wright's radical opinions were largely questioned for their political content, and used to call Obama's patriotism and views on race relations into question - asking how closely aligned his beliefs were with Wright if he had happily tolerated hearing things like "GOD DAMN AMERICA" at church before receiving public scrutiny. When people called him on it, he formally denounced Wright's radical opinions, made clear his incidental reasons for maintaining a connection to the church and Wright up to that point, and promptly left the church. Deeds to words.

Now, what is being called into question here (by here I mean the general scrutiny of her background, not these two videos, which make incidental references to the depth of her belief) is the actual content of Sarah Palin's religious beliefs, and the direct evidence of how they have in fact influenced her politics in the past, and could influence her political opinions going forward. Can it be said that his crazy former pastor shaped Obama's views on foreign policy? No? Okay, how about Palin's? Soldiers in Iraq are on "a mission from God," eh? Was that statement.. not scary to anyone here? Anybody at all?

Will she address the concern over these beliefs, and distance herself from this church of nutbags? No, because that's part of the reason she's on the ticket in the first place.