Slashdot Mirror

I do not donate to ALS because it is not one of my causes, but I encourage you to think carefully about what you care most about and sign up as a steady, long-term donor to a few causes that are really important to you... this is of far more long-term benefit than episodic giving.

I like the FFRF for one. I feel that working against religion is one of the most important things we can do for the long term benefit of all people. Make that all life. It will even help with things like ALS (or any other medical condition) as people will look for solutions instead of wishing at the sky.

Nothing fails like prayer. Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation

Join FFRF.

I find that it's easier to avoid taking other peoples' idiocy to heart when I can pay various non-profit organizations to deal with it on my behalf. Some recent favorites include:

The ever-present EFF
The Freedom from Religion Foundation
The American Library Association
The Wikimedia Foundation
The Nevada chapter of the ACLU (which is explicitly pro-Second Amendment, unlike the national body)

There are plenty of other worthy causes; those are just the ones on my list this year. Think about it this way: the God-botherers contribute a full 10% of their income, pre-tax, to try to drag civilization back into the Middle Ages. What's the best you can do?

I just wanted to say thanks for bringing my attention to the FFRF. This is my new favorite charity. We need more organizations protecting the constitution.

I find that it's easier to avoid taking other peoples' idiocy to heart when I can pay various non-profit organizations to deal with it on my behalf. Some recent favorites include:

The ever-present EFF
The Freedom from Religion Foundation
The American Library Association
The Wikimedia Foundation
The Nevada chapter of the ACLU (which is explicitly pro-Second Amendment, unlike the national body)

There are plenty of other worthy causes; those are just the ones on my list this year. Think about it this way: the God-botherers contribute a full 10% of their income, pre-tax, to try to drag civilization back into the Middle Ages. What's the best you can do?

2 very bad examples. The Dalai Lama stands for a political system not unlike a feudal one, you know, with stuff like slavery and all that. Tibet is arguably better off now than they would be with him, as terrible as that may sound. Mother Theresa was quite the horrible individual as well, in some ways. See here.

What would Jesus do about the problem of violence in society? The bible indicates he would make it worse by promoting violence as a favored method of dealing with problems. Unlike modern civilized people, he did not limit the acceptability of violence to situations requiring self-defense or the defense of others.

Why list the above people and not, say, anyone in the AEI that pushed for the war? Or politicians that pushed for the war? They all pushed for the war (and called those that opposed it "traitor"), but it was the Conservative commentators that use 'liberal' as a hate-filled epithet. Just as the poster did.

When did God enter the equation? When did God, as in "God made me do it", ever become an excuse for people? When did people start blaming mythical creatures and anthropomorphic deities for their own actions?

Are you being obtuse or just plain stupid? Let's look at a few examples.

A young mother maintained that voices in her head told her to test her faith in God, causing her to repeatedly slam her infant son to the ground and down a flight of stairs. Source: Tampa Tribune, Aug. 22, 2001

A Talladega County jury in August found Teresa Ann Archie, 40, guilty of the 1996 murder of her daughter Shavon Jackson. Archie, a paranoid schizophrenic, chased her daughter through their home, shooting her twice in the back after becoming convinced her 16-year-old was possessed by Satan. Source: The Daily Home, Aug. 15, 2001

Andrea Yates, the religious Dallas mother charged with drowning her 5 children in the bathtub, told family members from jail she thinks the "devil" is in her. Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 1, 2001

God made him commit a crime spree was the defense of bible-toting Henry Glen West, sentenced by an Okahoma County judge in April to two life terms. Source: Daily Oklahoman, April 21, 2001

Oh, and then there's this... where President Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq.

We have cited sources. Facts. Cross-references.

You have lies and sound-bites and fairy tales.

Keep them coming. Especially in a thread to do with myths.

You might find this interesting.

Essentially he argues that religion may be a survival trait, where mild psychoses aid belief. Saplosky is certainly qualified, and it's certainly preaching to the choir, but an interesting article nonetheless.

Lewis does address this theory- really, check him out sometime for a sane, non-American fundy view of Christianity. He actually leaves room for genetic and social origins of some morality

Oh yeah, let us trust a literary professor on science and mathematical models of morals which were invented far after he wrote the book! :-)

I was going to read C S Lewis when I was looking for theist arguments, but I lost interest after reading about Mere Assertions:

Lewis goes to great anecdotal length to argue for the existence of a "Natural Law" of morality within each human. Unlike the law of gravity, though, this moral law can be disobeyed.

"This law was called the Law of Nature," he writes, "because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colourblind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right." [...]

Lewis does not believe that differing civilizations have had differing moralities: " . . . these have never amounted to anything like a total difference." (Oh? What about culturally sanctioned polygamy, infanticide, cannibalism, wife beating, self mutilation, castration, incest and war?) He dismisses the critics who claim that morality is a result of the species' survival instinct by noting that we are free to obey or disobey this "instinct" and make our decision by a higher standard of Right and Wrong. "You might as well say the sheet music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one of the notes on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys."

And if you want to e.g. argue that war has always been seen as "necessary evil" and not a standard way of doing "business", then read up on clan societies and the old Asa (Norse, for English speaking) religion with holmgång and heaven only for those dead in battle!

Well, actually, it does.

"At this season of the the winter solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

http://ffrf.org/shop/products/details.php?cat=tshi rts&ID=TSAA2
Not exact but pretty damn close

The reason is that suffering is supposed to build character, which makes these drugs evil. God wants you to suffer for your own good. Now do you understand? Of course not, it doesn't make sense, but there it is. Someone once said that a Puritan is a person who lies awake at night terrified that somebody, somewhere, is enjoying themselves.

I wish it were only Puritans, but this kind of lunacy seems to permeate most of Christianity. Christoper Hitchens wrote a book entitled The Missionary Position which included eyewitness accounts of people who worked with Mother Theresa. Apparently, Mother Theresa refused to use pain killers stronger than aspirin, even for terminal patients who were writhing with pain from cancer. It's not like she couldn't afford them; her order had fifty million in the bank, and she wasn't far from Afghanistan--morphine would have been dirt cheap. Her rationale was that suffering brought you closer to Christ who suffered on the cross. So hey, pain is good, painkillers are evil, got it?

At some point, a religious consolation which was supposed to make people feel better about their pain (I'm sorry we can't help your pain, but something good may come of it) became twisted into a message that pain was good for the soul (which is why the Inquisitor needs all these implements of torture.) But don't try to understand it, it's a mystery...

They sound like honest to goodness christians to me:

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:9). (http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm for various other delightful translations)

or

". . . and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child." (2 Kings 8:12).

and so on and so forth.

http://www.ffrf.org/

To Representative Hiestand the discrepancy between the Arabic and English texts of Article XI invalidates the authenticity of this Article and what it says about the United States not being founded on the Christian religion. But it should be remembered that it was the Barlow version which was read by President Adams and the Senate and ratified by them. The American government, if not the Tripolitan, agreed that the government of the United States is not founded on the Christian religion.

the version ratified by Congress and signed by the President was the version WITH Article XI

and the link

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1997/june_july97/tripo li.html

sorry

So...wait. Are you really trying to say I don't have the right to be free from religion?

Try to keep away from things that say In God we trust.

No one else mentioned this fine organization which also has an entertaining newsletter: The Freedom from Religion Foundation http://www.ffrf.org/ is committed to keeping the boundaries between church and state.

Florida's law prohibiting bible reading in public schools was named after Harlow Chamberlin.

That's what the Bible says, but some people forget this and angrily defend the exact words of the Bible as God's absolute truth, thus refusing to allow their faith to be tested.

Here is a Bible Test for those who want their faith in the Bible tested.

I just stumbled upon this test some time ago and thought it looked interesting, although I have nothing to do with FFRF and don't know what they're all about.

: it'll be hard to condemn the statue of David as an evil
: pornographic thing, considering its based on the bible

Definitely not pornographic, but one can consider the Bible evil! It has some extremely violent parts, you know... but the really funny thing is: David's statue is not too faithful to the Bible, as it actually fits the greek ideal of beauty.

Take a look at his genitals. David - a jew - is NOT CIRCUMCISED. I think Michelangelo did not give a damn about the Bible then, he simply tried to make it the apex of human male beauty. And he followed the ideals of the Greek, who (correctly) saw the circumcised body as mutilated and sexually inferior.

Actually, the only issue I have with Strobel is that he pretends to take a certain critical approach and turns out not to be critical at all (i.e. if he were, he would have bothered interviewing people with intelligent counterarguments). You mention Lee as recommended reading, but you seem to retract his book. Of course to someone who already shares his conclusion, all of his arguments are highly convincing since they "confirm" what they already believe.

While evolution theory might or might not have its issues, I see no merit in resorting to primitive superstition based on a "big guy in the sky who made everything" theory. As far as I can see, most enthusiastic argumentation against evolution is from religious people, who can hardly be called unbiased.

A misunderstanding that you may have is that being a scientist does not equate being an atheist. Being a scientist myself, I was able to see for myself that enough scientists happen to be religious. Some of those probably don't believe in evolution at all, others believe in deistic evolution, etc.

If former beliefs are of any relevant, then on that basis, these guys and this one should be as convincing to you as your Strobel guy is intended to be to me.

Actually, the only issue I have with Strobel is that he pretends to take a certain critical approach and turns out not to be critical at all (i.e. if he were, he would have bothered interviewing people with intelligent counterarguments). You mention Lee as recommended reading, but you seem to retract his book. Of course to someone who already shares his conclusion, all of his arguments are highly convincing since they "confirm" what they already believe.

While evolution theory might or might not have its issues, I see no merit in resorting to primitive superstition based on a "big guy in the sky who made everything" theory. As far as I can see, most enthusiastic argumentation against evolution is from religious people, who can hardly be called unbiased.

A misunderstanding that you may have is that being a scientist does not equate being an atheist. Being a scientist myself, I was able to see for myself that enough scientists happen to be religious. Some of those probably don't believe in evolution at all, others believe in deistic evolution, etc.

If former beliefs are of any relevant, then on that basis, these guys and this one should be as convincing to you as your Strobel guy is intended to be to me.

> so feel free to mod me down.

Oh man, quit saying that. You are way too passive agressive.

A couple points: You can't have faith-based belief AND a theory. A theory is an explanation based on facts (tests, observations) while faith is complete belief in something without question with NO EVIDENCE. So you either believe this conspiracy of yours or you entertain it as a theory based on pure speculation (which makes for a lousy theory).

>My faith is in the word of the Bible,

You mean that obscene book full or murder, rape, advocating of genocide, slavery, etc?

For kicks take this fun Bible quiz. That's what you believe? Weird.

You forget that this country was mostly established by Christians.

Many of the "Founding Fathers" - Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Franklin, and Madison, to name a few - were Deists, Unitarians, or in some other way explictly disagreed with Christian dogma.

The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written duing the Washington administration, states that "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

To Christians, it's illogical to say that the pledge is unconstitutional for saying a fact (that God exists).

To an atheist, it's clearly unconstitutional to have the state push people to make a clearly untrue statement (that God exists).

Fortunately, we have a constitution that makes it clear that it is not the state's job to judge the truth or falsity of the proposition "God exists". Unfortunately we have a surplus of Christian nutcases who are incapable of accepting the plain text of the First Amendment.

You answer with dogma internal to your faith. (-: Even claims the bible to be perfect!? :-) I asked for an answer, not a politican's answer-another-question. If there should be a god, why would he be Xian? (When discussing Bertrand Russel and faith/reason in protestantism -- read his chapter on Roussau in his big book on philosophy... you're wrong.)

(-: My fault -- I assumed that on slashdot even a believer would be able to reason. :-)

If the fault was that you couldn't understand my bad presentation of the argument, I'm willing to rewrite it. (But then you would have asked.)

If you missed the point: The religious people are making a very extreme statement (a powerful supernatural being exists, he is a member of my cult). To not be laughed at -- considering the number of cults with contradicting statements -- you need very good support. Internal dogma isn't.

Yes, I've read up on religious arguments. They stink and never answer simple arguments like this. (I never read C S Lewis after finding this. Well, except for his self biography on when he became religious. Laughed my ass off.)

That is agnosticism.

An irrelevant word definition. See 101-103 here. This was your main problem with atheism? (-: You are 99.99% as much atheist as me, it's just that you are atheist for a god less... :-)

Yes, yes -- I know about Xian dogma -- trinity ("3 for the price of 1"), etc. Internal dogma point for one of multiple Jewish heresies are neither interesting or a serious argument that it happens to be the only true religion.

Will just comment on this:

You say all religions call for violence and death

Who am I fooling, there is no way you'll answer my argument seriously -- you'll just spout bible references.

They are all made-up, most likely by someone with Schizotypal syndrome.

Yes you can have it both ways. Otherwise:

The Bible states that the world is flat. Can you accept its round or are you suggesting that you can either be a Christian or a heathen 'round-worldist'.

Oh and since Adam and Eve are key to religion... then what about those people who weren't descended from them, those people that Cane was worried would smite him after he killed his brother. And those people whose daughter he married and lived with in the land of Nod.

Etc, etc, ad nauseam (see (Bible Contradictions))

The Bible contradicts itself constantly. You have to be able to rationally treat those contradictions. I can call myself a Christian without treating the Bible as literal truth. Can you?

Posted by Charos on Jun 3, 2000
Removed some dead links - 3/29/2001

I'll post a few links...the first few don't have scientific backing and just mention him being catholic...have you ever read Mein Kampf? I have and there is a quote directly from that book where Hitler says something along the lines of "I always have been, and will always be a catholic"

* http://www.richardhoskins.com/hrempir.htm

(read the section on WW2...a small quote "Adolf Hitler was a Catholic. As leader of the German state he signed a concordant with the Pope in 1934 in which it was agreed that he would protect Church assets in Germany in return for Catholic political endorsement and support.")
* http://www.oaktree.net/maranatha/promise.htm
* http://www.americanatheist.org/aut97/T1/editor.htm l
* http://ragnarok.umbc.edu/leonenet/1999-2/6445.html
* http://www.americanatheist.org/aut97/T1/editor.htm l
* http://christianbiblestudy.org/MOS/_MOSOPS/Hitlerc h.htm

OK...I could put more links...but I think you get the idea...but just in case...here's a direct quote from Hitler:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the One, who once in loneliness surrounded by only a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them." --Adolf Hitler, (1889 - 1945) Hitler's Speech in Munich APRIL 12, 1922

Need I go on? Hitler was a devout Catholic who paid his church taxed 'till the day he died...In fact both Pius XI and XII praised him as one of gods warriors...

Even today, when I refer to Hitler's Catholicism in conversation or a speech, it immediately becomes apparent that I have said something "not quite nice," and I am often challenged. Nontheists, I then explain, know that many modem tyrants, whether petty tyrants such as Richard Nixon, or more successful tyrants such as Hitler, have regarded themselves as exemplary Christians, an estimate their followers had no trouble accepting. Hitler's religiosity--he was a Catholic until his death--is often glossed over, but it is critical in understanding his motivation.

I have often reflected, wistfully, on how much happier modern history might have been had Hitler been brought up as an atheist, an agnostic, or, at least, a Unitarian. Born and bred a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."

You will find it in Mein Kampf.- "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work. "

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press In Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.

Offtopic, but C S Lewis is a pet peeve...

As an atheist I looked for good theist arguments to see if my arguments hold water. I was going to read Lewis, but Mere Assertions removed my interest.

I also read from his (one of?) biography. Not impressed with his analytical reasoning. My attempts to find good theist arguments have made me a bit of a misanthrope. ("Is that the best they can do!? A majority of people are able to base their world view on such pathetic excuses!? It's sick!")

I read Narnia as a kid and didn't mind. Children literature may be more suited to his talents. I don't know enough about that genre (anymore) to have a serious opinion.

This is the same guy who tried this before, I guess this time he got the right people to hear his case. This guy also has a JD degree and deals with constitutional issues... seems to me this is a personal agenda which he has thrust upon the rest of the U.S.

Excerpt from freethoughttoday.com from November 1999

Physician Michael Newdow of Broward County, Florida, has appealed the dismissal of his 1998 lawsuit seeking to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and restore its original language dating to 1892. The part-time resident of Fort Lauderdale is suing on behalf of his daughter, 5.

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages dismissed the case because his daughter wasn't yet school-age. Newdow argues that permitting his daughter to sit out the pledge, as provided for by a 1940's Supreme Court case, still subjects her to outsider status and religious dogma in school. The court has not considered the pledge since it was amended to include "under God" in 1948, although it recently let stand a federal court ruling dismissing a similar challenge out of Chicago. The U.S. House didn't open each daily session with the pledge until 1988, and the U.S. Senate didn't follow suit until June 24 this year.

How is removing the "under god" part curtailing ALL relgious expression? It is, in fact, supporting the original idea which is to curtail religious oppression. Forcing athiests and buddhists to recite what is effectively a christian prayer every morning is opression.

Strangely enough, removing "under God" from the p.o.a. is more of a cultural problem than a religious one; the idea being that even one annoyed non-christian can now block what had been a cherished tradition for decades... this falls squarely into my complaint that our culture, as pushed by the schools, is going to the lowest common denominator: what can we do that will annoy no one. This is the "clearing house" idea I mentioned earlier. Being buddhist and reciting the p.o.a. ... is that much worse than being christian and being indoctrinated with the views being pushed by Health Ed classes these days?

Point being, no matter what you have in the schools, there is always a cultural or religious force behind it being there. There is a valid disagreement here (despite what AC thinks, whew! ;) about which cultural/religious forces to favor, and how much is the majority allowed to impose on the rest. Right now, I think, we are swinging too far in favor of minority opinions; the government should not be compel us to deny our heritage in order to make immigrants more comfortable.

Right now, by law, secular philosophies are favored, and religious expression is being forced, bit-by-bit, from any public scene, hidden away like an embarrassing relative in the attic. I would as soon we still had nativity scenes on public lands .

I note with special interest that in Hawaii, Christian notices are bad, but Hawai'ian religious symbols are "culture".

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. If you have to TEACH it, then you are doing something wrong.

Hey, when you're born you don't know much. Someone has to teach you patriotism (let's hope it's your folks). The government should also encourage people to love America; it's in their own best interest.

No, it is a constitutional democratic republic, wherein what the majority can do (via their elected representatives) to the minority is strictly limited. One thing the majority can't do is push a religious point of view on the minority via the mechanisms of the state. Doesn't (in theory, anyway) matter if it's a minority of one.

True enough, the constitution is there to protect the minority. However, officials are elected by the majority (where the electoral college isn't involved!) and they tend to elect people who are religious. And as proved by the fact that "under god" and "in god we trust" were inserted inserted, they will try to push it.

What irks me is that (a) it was allowed at all and (b) it took this long to come under fire. It either speaks to the fact that people who opposed it were not vocal, were afraid to speak up, or just plain didn't care. To me, the phrases had become so ubiquitous I didn't even consider them a testament to religion.

Pleding alliegence to a piece of cloth is a dumb thing to do, but the state is permitted to encourage it. Pushing statements about metaphysics, however, is clearly out of its bailiwick.

I agree... Here's an interesting piece outlining separation of church and state issues. (It specifically mentions the pledge and currency)

It doesn't stop parents, of course. 13 years (k-12) of catholic school were torture. :)

"The next thing you know it will be illegial or unlawful to utter the word 'God' in public"

The same law that prohibits the government from promoting any religion, prohibits the government from censoring any particular religion

"So much for the founding fathers with their Christian beliefs"

Here is a pretty good discussion of why this claim is false. Read it and gain ammunition to use next time you hear this garbage.

On a personal note, it amazes me that anyone who has simply read the Constitution could come to a conclusion like this. I can only assume that it's something like an urban legend...

1. Bin Laden comes home to roost - about the militant's CIA training
   
2. Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban - Opinion, references the $43 million in 2001
   
3. $70 million in aid to Afghanistan in 1997 - according to the CIA itself.
   
4. Who is Osama Bin Laden?
   
5. They can't see why they are hated - Opinion
   
6. Arab-Americans feel a backlash
   
7. Arab-American community 'keeping its head down'
   
8. Acts of Terrorism the Ultimate 'Faith-Based Initiative' - Opinion
   
9. Charity receives hate calls
   
10. Falwell says 'ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this'
    

This nation was founded as a Christian nation on Biblical principles.

Yeah RIGHT. Try the State/Church Quiz, might clear up a thing or two.

See, Martin Luther is just one of many many examples of people who stood for what was right in spite of the religious authorities. Luther was a free thinker!

No True Scotsman
I must confess that this is the first time I've heard of this 'fallacy'. Searching for a definition, I found it with reference to "Free Thinkers" on the ffrf site. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah.
This doesn't sound like free thought to me!

Because my definition of Christianity is consistent - internally, and with that of Christ himself, I assert that your accusation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is invalid.

"Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Mt 7:21

Jesus didn't believe that all people who claimed Christianity were true Christians. I'll stand with Him.

Man, you're full of them today!
BTW - Your assertion that I was making an ad hominem attack was unfounded. Additionally, because I didn't shift my definition of Christianity, your scotsman assertion is invalid. Therefore this assertion that I'm full of them is not valid, either.

Nice try.

I'll give you kudos for creativity, but please punch holes in my argument rather than raise non-fallacies as red herrings.

the whole "killing people is wrong" thing goes out the window,
You shall not murder. Murder differs from killing.

Looks like you're the one who is full of them..... :)


What standard determines right?
Now you're learning!
You didn't answer my question.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Actually, we really aren't. We're a secular nation. The constitution has no mention of god or christianity. Most of the "pilgrims" were here for trade and not for "religious freedom". And "under god" in the pledge of allegiance and "in god we trust" on paper money did not appear until the 50's during McCarthyism (remember the *other* witch-hunt).

Read: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.html

Well, this would be a nice time to remind the crowd that the EFF is not the only foundation out there who needs a lot of help to finance lawyers to make good laws instead of only bad ones.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is out there to battle cases of separation of Church and State, Religious Freedom for Atheists, discrimination on faith (or lack thereof) and publishes a nice monthly paper (Freethought Today), which will be mailed to you once you become a member.

Go on! Don't hesitate! Join now!

For additional information, see also the Secular Web at http://www.infidels.org/

I'll go back to lurking now...

--
If you want to live in a country ruled by religion, move to Iran.

Well, this would be a nice time to remind the crowd that the EFF is not the only foundation out there who needs a lot of help to finance lawyers to make good laws instead of only bad ones.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is out there to battle cases of separation of Church and State, Religious Freedom for Atheists, discrimination on faith (or lack thereof) and publishes a nice monthly paper (Freethought Today), which will be mailed to you once you become a member.

Go on! Don't hesitate! Join now!

For additional information, see also the Secular Web at http://www.infidels.org/

I'll go back to lurking now...

--
If you want to live in a country ruled by religion, move to Iran.

That's right. The evil network executives force you at gunpoint to flip to the playboy channel. What a crock! Technology does not create the market for porn, it just eases the transaction!

society's sickest members to distribute information about the most taboo of topics: abortion, homosexuality, Islam, liberalism, etc.

I submit the sickest members are the hidebound conservatives who dismiss ideas through uninformed bigotry. What, you're not uninformed about these topics? Then you read the work of those you would silence. Why shouldn't someone else be allowed to, and form their own oppinion?

not honestly evaluating how well our choices fit into a moral and/or Scriptural worldview

Oh? Take a moment then to consider the Scriptural Worldview!!