Doesn't it seem as though this world would be a lot happier place, more egalitarian without religion sticking its ugly nose where it doesn't belong; i.e. into Public Education? Are War and Money no longer the Prime Evils, but Religion itself as the Ultimate Force of Evil on this planet?
No. Religion does a lot of Good as well. Maybe a worldwide effort to eradicate Fundamentalism - the bane of all religions, would be in order. How can we start right here at home to get rid of them? Are there any suggestions that you can think of on how to start cleansing our own neighborhoods first from this worldwide Evil?
fixed links
[ edited by Borillar on Oct 14, 2002 02:55 PM ]
posted on October 14, 2002 05:12:08 PM new
Why shouldn't they teach "Creationism." It is a valid a theory as Evolution. Yes it is part of the Judo-Christian religion but it is also a valid theory. And both are still theories.
I was always offended when I went to school, evolution was taught as the only truth. All other beliefs were false and to be ridiculed. And those who believed the truth to be otherwise, failed the tests and did poorly on papers. Year after year, one would be required to reguritate information and theories one didn't accept or believe in, but was the only one allowed, if you wanted to graduate. After awhile of this constant duality, you believed, you had to, if just satisfy those who held your diploma...
But I also don't want the religious fanatics getting their hands into it either, it should be as an honest and open discussion. How can people choose what to believe, if you do not allow them a choice.
I know you do not want a one-party system, nor do you want a one-world government so why would you insist on one belief about the beginning of the universe.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
posted on October 14, 2002 05:34:43 PM new
Ah! Although it was not my intent on starting another Evolution/Creation debate thread and was intent upon focusing on Fundamentalism as an Evil that needs to be destroyed/eliminated/altered-to-become-safe, I will be happy to answer your questions for you, mlecher.
>Why shouldn't they teach "Creationism."
My objection is not to their teaching Creationism, but that they insist in teaching it as "science." Instead of allowing all religions around the world to have their version of the Creation story be taught to our children - which would be a real education and Evolution being taught in science class as the scientific explanation, not a single Fundamentalist who is demanding "equal time" for Creationist views to be taught in public classrooms will allow "equal time" for Evolution to be taught in their Sunday School classes in their churches. That should tell you something right then and there.
>It is a valid a theory as Evolution.
Science is based upon the hard facts and data, not merely upon speculation and belief. Evolution is a scientific Theory, which is different from the common-person's usage of the word theory (note the capital and lower-case 'T'). This is a common trick used by Creationists to confuse the public, to confuse our use of the word with the actual meaning of Scientific Theory.
posted on October 14, 2002 06:26:33 PM new
Evolution is still a scientific theory and a scientific theory is not a proof. That is the trick that the scientist uses. They have evidence, and they put that evidence together into a theory (yes, an over-simplified explanation), but it doesn't make it true.
Proof requires hard facts that neither theory has, they both require extreme amounts of faith, yes faith.
I prefer the theory where they both work together. Where God created the heavens and the earth and then developed it through several days(ages).
Before I was born and evolution and creation of the universe was new, scientific theory said the continents developed as they are now and life evolved similarly on all continents.
Religion believed God created the heavens and the earth
When I first started school, scientific theory stated that there were land bridges connecting the continents and that is why the same fossils were found on the different continents(that is how old I am).
Religion believed God created they heavens and the Earth
When in High School, scientific theory concluded plate tectonics(sp?) was the way it was and the why and where to end all.
Religion believed God created the Heavens and the Earth.
In Community College, there was a small problem with that plate theory thing....part of it was based on the fact that the magnetic field switched every 10,000 years like clockwork, marking the expanding sea floor like layers. However, it hadn't done it for the last 40,000 years....
Religion still believes God created the Heavens and the Earth.
I am sure scientists will come up with another theory...
And God will continue to develop Earth to keep them on their toes...
Plus they are constantly coming up with new theories on whether the universe is expanding or contracting or speeding up. In my lifetime I have heard all three, from different scientists at different times. All of them had the proper evidence and facts.
But me, I accept the belief that science and religious beliefs are complementary not adversarial...
Science can only explain so much, the rest you have to take on faith.
Why does water boil at 212F degrees?? I don't mean molecularly and such. Why doesn't it freeze at 212F and boil at 32F?
Maybe because someone thought that would be a dumb idea?
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
[ edited by mlecher on Oct 14, 2002 06:31 PM ]
posted on October 14, 2002 07:23:59 PM new
well said Borillar...to call creationism a scientific theory betrays a basic lack of understanding of how science arrives at theory...creationism may rightly be called a hypothesis (maybe, stretching it a little) but it isn't supported by the hard data necessary to be accurately called a theory...
The creationists of today give away their ignorance of Darwinian ideas by arguing in favor of "intelligent design" as if it were something in opposition to Darwin. Darwin himself, in The Origin of Species, spoke of the hand of God setting the processes of evolution into motion.
I was raised to believe in the old testament creation stories. My wife's culture believes they entered this world thru a spring in the Grand Canyon....a hole in the ground??? No sillier than a talking snake, whose story shall we teach as "science"??
I can look at the intricacy of a leaf, or watch the miracle of lambs being born, and in my heart I can and do FEEL the hand of God at work, but in a million years this would never be scientific proof of anything....
Regarding religious extremism...it's as repellent to me as it is to anyone, but I have a hard time with espousing the "eradication" or "cleansing" of any religious belief...extremism, religious or political, seems to be part of human nature. Going off to eliminate it looks like a fool's errand to me.Having said that, I do think parents and teachers need to be dilligent in keeping an eye out for the insidious methods that these people are using to christianize public education.
posted on October 14, 2002 07:53:08 PM new
There is more to the problem of claiming that creationism is science than no evidence. Crteationism also has the problem of not being able to be critically tested. Evolution has been highly corroborated and critically tested. One of the results of the most critical tests of evolution was the claim of transitional species and then the discovery of transitional species.
There exists no test that can be critical of creation by design done by a supreme magical being that defies the laws of nature. It is the invisible armadillo hypothesis but under a different name.
posted on October 14, 2002 08:31:14 PM new
Transmigration of species. No where in the fossil records has there been proven scientific evidence that one particular species has evolved into another species. In other words the fossil records cannot support that a fish evolved into a bird, etc. etc. Hence, how can evolution be proven?
"Abrupt appearance of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist) Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals."
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 14, 2002 08:32 PM ]
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 14, 2002 08:46 PM ]
posted on October 14, 2002 09:45:45 PM new
It's not whether a thing can be proven to be true that is a criteria of whether it's a Scientific Theory, it's whether a thing can, in principle, be proven to be untrue which makes it a Scientific Theory.
This is a distinction that people who say Creationism is "just as valid a theory" as Evolution persistently fail to understand.
Creationism can never be proven to be untrue. This is why it does not fit the definition of a Scientific Theory. Stop trying to cram it into a definition that it will never belong in.
posted on October 14, 2002 10:04:22 PM new
I prefer ideas or theories to be proven to be TRUE as to whether I am going to believe them or not. Evolution cannot be proven. Not in the fossil record. The probablity factors alone are enough to disprove evolution. Somthing cannot come from nothing...and that is a fact. This is the premise of evolution, that the world came from nothing. How can that be? How could there be a big bang? where did it come from? how did it get here? I'm no talking about the isolated topic if man evolved, if he evolved what did he evolve from? an explosion in the sky? so where did the explosion come from? Perhaps many people are simply brainwashed by a scientific community that proposes an answer they cannot prove, yet want to teach it as fact in the public schools. Was not Darwin himself racist in his view of survival of the fittest?
Plants appear abruptly, too. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner: "... I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.
posted on October 14, 2002 10:29:56 PM newRegarding religious extremism...it's as repellent to me as it is to anyone, but I have a hard time with espousing the "eradication" or "cleansing" of any religious belief...extremism, religious or political, seems to be part of human nature. Going off to eliminate it looks like a fool's errand to me. Having said that, I do think parents and teachers need to be dilligent in keeping an eye out for the insidious methods that these people are using to christianize public education.
I'm sorry folks. I really didn't want to get into another hotly debated thread about Evolution. You have to realize that Creationism is an act as repellant as Al-Queda/Taliban Fundies closing schools for girls at bayonet point. The difference is that Creationist make it more real because it is so close to home.
Think of the American Christian Fundamentalists as being reigned in as compared to the rampant outlaw-like behavior shown in foreign countries that are hounded by Islamic Fundamentalists. If we were such an lawless country, you can be sure that Falwell would be calling for the death of Islam on TV, it's followers in terrorist training camps, our schools under military assault by Christian Fundamentalists.
Christian Fundamentalist leaders know this.
That is why they get their hooks so deeply into the pockets and minds of our politicians, our bureaucracy, our schools, and the workplace. It is to bring about a loosening of the laws so that they can act more outrageous by the day. We are clearly faced with a Taliban-style government straining and chaffing at being held back by a few laws and a US Constitution under attack from all directions. If we allow this to continue, Creationism and its lies will be the least of our worries.
But this isn't some distant reality, folks. It's here NOW! Our opportunity to STOP IT is dwindling by the day and by the hour. Don't make the mistake of seeing these Christian Fundamentalist's leaders as mere hicks from backwater swamplands and chilly hilltops. They are well educated and well-funded - a lot more than you or me.
So what are we going to do? I'd like a serious list of what we CAN do. Our tactic of waiting for them to make the first move and then slam them with the Laws of the Land isn't going to work much longer, if it does at all anymore. We need to take the fight to the enemy. I suggest that we petition our government representatives to revoke the Christian Fundamentalist churches as being tax-exempt, since the churches are so deeply into politics, they should be classified as Political Groups. Just because they call the name of Jesus out loud as they collect the funds to go disrupt America and elect their representatives does not give them the right to a tax-free religious entity.
Now I know what an impossible job that is. Those Christian Fundamentalists have so much money that they buy off politicians with and influence the passing of laws and breaking down the barriers between Church and State, that we may seem insignificant by comparison. Maybe what we need is a grass-roots effort to get one Fundamentalist Church closed down one at a time in your neighborhood, then you city, your county, your state. It's not so strange an idea. If there were as many Fundamentalist Islamic Mosques in your city instead of Christian ones, and they were preaching hate and tying to take over everything, would you be so inclined to disbelieve that it is within you to go do something LEGAL about it?
posted on October 15, 2002 06:19:07 AM new
profe51....
There is also no "hard" evidence to support evolution as a "creation" theory. Merely evidence of "survival of the fittest" ADAPTED to support evolution. As someone said , the fossil record doesn't support evolution. It doesn't sometimes. And I believe you are old enough to have seen these "theories" constantly switch, turnaround and totally change, to suit the final conclusion.....
How should it be taught. Evolution should go back to being taught as a scientific THEORY not as scientific FACT! Yes, maybe when they do teach it they call it a theory, but as the ONLY theory, no others are to even be considered. Sort of like I was taught that Columbus "discovered" America(remember those days). Which was a tremendous surprise to the inhabitants and societies already here, who didn't know they were even lost. But again, no other answer was even to be considered, even punished for believing different.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
[ edited by mlecher on Oct 15, 2002 06:21 AM ]
posted on October 15, 2002 06:27:00 AM new
Creationism is a theory of evolution just as any other. You seem to ignore the scientific evidence for the idea that species evolve is about as solid as jello. As long as the idea is taught as a theory and is offered as a host of possiblities of the creation of man, then I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with it being discussed in a public school. The public school is funded by the taxpayer and a large percentage of people who pay taxes do not believe that evolution is the exclusive truth to the origin of life.
Creationism is not being presented as absolute truth and if you don't agree with the idea of it you will not be cast into a jail. We have freedom of speech in this country and a marketplace of ideas. Your quest to silence any other ideas of the creation of this universe is as facist as the illusion you have of creationists. Again, I see opinions with no real evidence to back up anything you claim about evolution except an almost rabid outcry against any other "theory". Frequently the people who believe in evolution are more "fundemental" and absoulute in their thinking than any creationist, and ofter very little to bring to a debate as to why their theory of evoultion is true. The scientific community is often wrong.
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 06:32 AM ]
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 06:34 AM ]
posted on October 15, 2002 06:39:39 AM new
Scientific Theories are often disproven. It's the very fact that they can be disproven which puts them in the realm of "Scientific Theory."
This really isn't a hard concept to understand.
Explore Creationism, but not in the framework of "Scientific Theory." It don't fit the criteria, end of story.
posted on October 15, 2002 06:48:00 AM new
of course science is often wrong, it's the nature of scientific inquiry...an ongoing process in search of the truth..the problem with creationism being taught in public schools is that it is faith based. Which creation story, out of the literally thousands which exist, shall we teach? And how do we teach that one without offending the faiths of others, and without crossing the line of bringing religion into public schools? I could teach my class:
"Most people on this earth come from a culture which has a legend regarding the creation of the earth and it's species. In most of these stories, a creator, a higher power often referred to as God (but not always)created the earth and it's species. These stories don't usually elaborate how exactly the creator did it.Often, he/she/they just said the word and it was done.These stories do not offer an historical timeline or studiable archaeological evidence, and they require that their believers accept the definition of God as given."
There, creationism taught avoiding ALL proselytizing. Now lets move on to science.
posted on October 15, 2002 08:31:11 AM new
Question: if I point a loaded gun to your head and begin to pull the trigger, will you say, "Oh! That's his Fourth Amendment Right in action! Let's not do anything about it!"
If your congressperson is trying to get religious dogma pushed onto kids in a public school, if your congressperson is trying to pass laws that dissolve the separation of church and state, if your congressperson is taking taxpayer public funds and giving them to religious, tax-free organizations are you going to say, "Oh! That's his First Amendment Right in action! Let's not do anything about it!"
Just because the harm that is being done by the Christian Fundamentalist influence in Washington D.C. is not straightforward as a loaded gun being placed to your temple does not mean that it is any less serious a matter! That you would rather avoid this subject shows that you are not willing to stand up for what is right and for our United States Constitution, which is the sworn enemy of these Fundamentalists. If you won't fight them, then you don't deserve to live in this country, IMO.
posted on October 15, 2002 08:49:10 AM new
As far as I can read from your post, it seems the debate over evolution and the origins of life are not really your primary concerns as much as the intrusion of Christian Fundementalist ideology into the public school system. So this debate is not truly about the flow of ideas, its more about your personal political agenda about a group of people (christian fundementalist)tp whom you see as a threat to our society.
Now lets step aside a look at the reality of the situtaion. We are not an athestic society, that would be communisem. The freedom of religion is a right granted to us from our constitution. The freedom of speech is also a right granted to us in our constitution. Therefore, it is within our rights as a free society to allow the creationist theory of the origin of man to be presented in a class room for evaluation by a student. It is up to the individual to weigh the evidence and decide for himself what he wants to believe.
Why are you so afraid of this process? do you have a personal hatred of religion? religion is a fact of life all over the world. I am not advocating that creationism be taught as the scientific proof of the exsistence of man because it never can be because it is a belief system. But I do not see it has a violation of the separation of church and state. I see it has more fuel to make the mind question. Isn't that what learning is suppose to be about?
posted on October 15, 2002 09:33:57 AM new
It appears that donny and profe51 are the only ones here that understands what science is and why creationism can not be in the realm of science.
I am also appalled that some think that because science changes theories, improves theories, or disgards theories is an impediment to the value of science, when in fact that is exactly what science is meant to do.
Proving a theory correct is not what science does. Doing critical experiments to prove a theory wrong is what science does. If a theory can not lend itself to a critical experiment, then it is non-sense as far as science is concerned. Rational design/creationism are non-sense and can not be critically tested.
The claims of evolution are easily tested, and evolution has been highly corroborated.
Can any of these creationists please forward a critical test test that will disprove that there is a magical supreme being that designed the universe ? It is impossible to test creationism because it is impossible to perform a critical test on a "spirit" that defies the laws of physics.
Such as- where does this rational designer live ? What does he/she eat, how does it travel, what type of energy does it use, what types of physical evidence is left behind when this entity has been present, does this entity occupy space and time, what created this creator ?
Creationism/rational design is not science and is non-sense. These debates were all done before during the Dark Ages, e.g, how many angels can sit atop the head of a needle, when does the soul actually leave the body when one dies- they actually used to weigh bodies just before and after they died to find the weight of the soul and when the soul actually left. How primitive and tribal, just where the religious nuts want us to return to.
Enough non-sense, let the schools stick to science and let the churches stick to non-sense.
[ edited by Reamond on Oct 15, 2002 01:25 PM ]
posted on October 15, 2002 11:57:28 AM new
Well-put, REAMOND. Logical, concise, to the point, no nonsense. Welcome back to the RT!
Artdoggy, if you do not want to live under a religious government, such as the Taliban or in Iraq or other religious regimes, then you had best make the connection between the heavy influence these Christian Fundamentalists use to thwart our Constitutional protections. Please realize that the First Amendment is not just about Freedom of Religion, but also Freedom FROM Religion! That these people want to tear down our Constitution and put a religious government into place is not just some crazy, wacko crackpot scheme in a nuthouse in Backwoods, Alabama. It is a reality that is tearing apart our Constitution on a daily basis, wearing it away at a frightening rate. It may be that by the time that Bush goes for re-election, we won't even have a Constitution left. Oh sure - on paper, but ever rule and law will have over-ruled it, warped it's meaning, and have been outright steam-rolled over. The enemy isn't Saddam Hussein or even Al-Queda: it's our own Christian Fundamentalists right here who are bent upon the destruction of the United States Constitution and all of their political cronies that they have put into place in our government to implement it.
The Question is: how do you STOP THEM?
The question is not Should we stop them, but HOW do we stop them?
Or, would you rather have the police come kicking down your front door and drag you off to a concentration "re-education" camp where their religion will be force-fed to you to make you change whatever ways it is about you that THEY don't approve of?
The ONLY, the One and ONLY difference between the Christian Fundamentalists in America and the Islamic Fundamentalists elsewhere in the world is that the United States Constitution is holding them back!
What are you willing to do NOW that prevents you from having to do something THEN when the Constitution is only a memory?
posted on October 15, 2002 12:10:15 PM new
Since Socrates was sentenced to his cup of hemlock for corrupting the youth, i.e., teaching them to think and inspiring them to seek knowledge beyond that revealed by gods through myth, religious zealots--and political ones when it serves their purposes-- have opposed progress in the arts, sciences, and government. And they've always eventually lost and adapted to the times.
The beliefs about creation used to be presented in world literature or other humanities classes and the subject of religion permeates classical literature. If those classes are well-taught and include open discussion, then religion should still be an important part of our educational system and given considerable attention. The teaching has to be about religion, not teaching the belief in religion, and of course proselytizing is prohibited.
From my reading of religious studies and articles, many religious leaders today, especially fundamentalists, see a decline in the importance of religion in people's lives and are especially fearful that continued scientific research in genetics, and the experiments with cloning and test-tube creations will further reduce religion's importance, perhaps even to the point of rendering it obsolete. Interestingly, studies show that over the last few decades, people have become more spiritual but less religious.
So the fundamentalists primarily have been organizing and working toward preservation by
attempting to make religion an integral part of public education, the political process, and the judicial system. It's sort of a backdoor approach to proselytizing while obstensibly denying that that is the intent. If the majority of people won't come to the building, then they will build their beliefs into the social institutions. A sort of indirect but inescapable attendance, as it were.
If they are successful, it will fundamentally alter our society and recreate a contemporary facsimilie of The Middle Ages-- or Dark Ages. Especially since our current political administration seems to have a similar end in mind.
[ edited by antiquary on Oct 15, 2002 12:12 PM ]
posted on October 15, 2002 12:11:22 PM new
Cold logic does not make for any more a humane environment than religious fervor.
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 12:12 PM ]
posted on October 15, 2002 12:42:34 PM new
Oh after reading the post above mine about how these supposed "fundmenttalists" are going to revert our public schools into the "dark ages" what a laugh!...it is only since prayer has been removed that I have seen schools decline into violent, hatefilled battlegrounds where students are either killed or hauled away in stretchers...and this is a Rennasiance? this is a Golden age of learning? Public schools are enough of a disaster without those sneaky crafty fundementalists trying to sneak in the back door and mess everything up!
posted on October 15, 2002 12:52:51 PM new
I will take cold logic over superstitution any day of the week.
Cold logic can be tested and refuted, and disgarded without a whimper from the science community.
Religion, even if shown to be in error, denies its error and still procedes to do its damage to human kind.
Imagine if a scientist proclaimed his/her theory to be incapable of being in error or being false. Critical experiments would ensue and if the theory was proved to be false, the theory would be disgarded.
Religion makes these claims of inerrancy every day. And even when evidence disproves these religious claims, the religious still cling to the faulty claims. In any other situation this would be called mental illness, but here in the US we call it free exercise. Until religion is willing to disgard beliefs that are proved wrong, there is no science in the religious realm.
These religious claims were exposed as frauds centuries ago by some of the most profound minds the Ages had to offer. The world awoke from an ignorant sleep induced by religious superstitution and fear. Now we have a new generation of religious zealots ( and I certainly include all religions in this group) attempting to put the mind of progress asleep again. These religious zealots rear their ugly and false notions every time world events strike fear in the mediocre mind.
posted on October 15, 2002 01:20:35 PM new
"it is only since prayer has been removed that I have seen schools decline into violent, hatefilled battlegrounds where students are either killed or hauled away in stretchers...and this is a Rennasiance?"
Would it be necessary to go down the list of problems US schools had when prayer was allowed in schools ? How about segregation ? Violence in schools was there also, except that when it occurred back then it wasn't reported.
The only disasters in public schools are where funding is low. There is no problem with public schools in the wealthy suburbs.
Even if all these problems were worse now than in the past, religion isn't the answer and never was throughout history.
And we are in a Rennasiance of such a magnitude that has never been seen before. It is also why fundementalism is growing - they fear change.
posted on October 15, 2002 02:35:45 PM new
"The only disasters in public schools are where funding is low. There is no problem with public schools in the wealthy suburbs."
False, very false. Columbine was a very wealthy affluent area. We do remember what happened there don't we?
"Religion, even if shown to be in error, denies its error and still procedes to do its damage to human kind."
Broad sweeping genralization. Do i hear an echo of Marxism here? Freedom of Religion and religious tolerance is what makes American a great country. Thousands of Christian Churchs and synagogues and mosques feed and clothe and help people everday.
"And we are in a Rennasiance of such a magnitude that has never been seen before. It is also why fundementalism is growing - they fear change."
Again another broad brush statement----who is they? you mean like they...The they like the Jews in wwII germany...the they like the serbs in bosnia? "THEY FEAR CHANGE"? because another IDEA might be presented as a THEORY...wow ideas really can be dangerous things for some people.
posted on October 15, 2002 03:06:26 PM new
There were rare instances of rich kids murdering school mates when there was prayer in school too.
Religion, even if shown to be in error, denies its error and still procedes to do its damage to human kind.
Broad sweeping genralization. Do i hear an echo of Marxism here? Freedom of Religion and religious tolerance is what makes American a great country. Thousands of Christian Churchs and synagogues and mosques feed and clothe and help people everday
It may be broad and it may be sweeping, but it is true. What "good" the religions do is irrelevant to the issue. The Nazis did some wonderful things for the German people too.
And we are in a Rennasiance of such a magnitude that has never been seen before. It is also why fundementalism is growing - they fear change
Again another broad brush statement----who is they? you mean like they...The they like the Jews in wwII germany...the they like the serbs in bosnia? "THEY FEAR CHANGE"? because another IDEA might be presented as a THEORY...wow ideas really can be dangerous things for some people
Fundementalists are the "they" we are speaking of. New ideas and disproving irational beliefs are dangerous thing with fundementalists. They resort to murder and violence when they begin to lose in the court of public opinion.
posted on October 15, 2002 04:40:44 PM new
Rare instances of school shootings being among the upperclasses? if you read the profile of a school shooter, its that of a white male, with an educated and ecomomically secure family. Are you somehow implying that wealthy people have a better morality than poor people? You opinions smack of elitisem.
Again, sadly your anger blinds you to the fact that religion does much good in the world and for many many people. The belief in God is a right every individual in this country has if he choses to believe and also the right to assembly and worship is their right also.
Your viewpoint on relgion is bordering on irrational and seems to be fed by somekind of perverse hatred of religion. You are intolerant, so much so that even trying to have a normal conversation with you is almost impossible. I think you should address what makes you think that you know what is best for other people.
Also, comparing the muslim taliban to an american fundementalist is just ridiculous. They are not the same. Its like comparing an apple to an orange. Your fears seem way out of proportion to reality.
