Mad_Michael

This is tossed around as if it were 'conventional wisdom'. But there is no real basis for this statement based on the historical record. I defy you to list a few of the most bloody 'religious' wars in history. I will then show you that particular war was not about religion at all. If you do try taking up the challenge, don't bother with the 12th/13th century Crusades or the 16th/17th century religious wars. Those ones are too easy for me. Pick a tough one! Yes, everyone loves a good civil war.

No. Despite all the hundreds of good reasons to legalise pot and/or prostitution, there is one huge issue that is often overlooked. Tens of thousands of American college students coming over the border every Friday night in charter buses looking for pot and prostitute, a few beers perhaps, piss on the sidewalk, puke in an alleyway, maybe a drunken fight or two and then back on the bus to go home. Just ask the Dutch what they think of their wonderful system. There is a reason that Amsterdam's property values are comparatively the lowest in the Netherlands and decent Dutch people steer wide clear of that cesspool. Vice tourists are the absolute worst and bring nothing much of value to the economy.

Are you asserting that this is a front page blog post? Or is it actually just some comment left by some reader? Reader's comments are not properly attributed to the Blog itself.

Right. 1,000's of scientists, specialists in their applicable fields of study, following the principles of science in their peer-reviewed process are obviously engaged in propagating a myth. And everyone is following blindly behind these mystical soothsayers of science like a flock of sheep. Clearly, global-warming exists entirely as an article of faith since there is no way to collect evidence upon the topic and no way we can scientifically study this stuff and there's no way anyone can understand it, even if someone does study it - unless they are trustworthy and sincere, in which case that changes everything and shows why those who believe that global warming is in fact occuring are clearly delusional and entirely motivated by a fanatical passion for myth-making.

Bush couldn't pass his DMA nor could he pass a ban on abortion. Despite Republican control of Congress, at no time did they actually have sufficient legislative majority on either issue. Indeed, the DMA requires ratification by 2/3 of the State Legislatures and that's just not possible. Btw, Bush is only preventing Federal funding of stem-cell research in USA. Private funding of stem-cell research is entirely legal - which proves that Bush is just posturing on this issue, not actually taking a principled stand since stem-ccell research is not banned.

Good. Then stop making the topic all about me. I find discussing philosophy much more interesting.

To be frank, it doesn't make any sense to my why poeple watch television, let alone Fox News. It doesn't make any sense to me that that some people have a fanatical obsession with hating gay people. It doesn't make sense to me why some people like President Bush. It doesn't make sense to me why everyone isn't atheist. It doesn't make sense to me why everyone isn't educated and intelligent. It doesn't make sense to me why some people aren't civil and polite. Indeed, lots of things don't make sense. That's what makes life interesting.

Your question is flawed. One doesn't need a rational reason for anything, much less religious faith. Human beings have a long history of irrational passions. This is human nature. And since you asked, the vast majority of religious people inherited their religion from their parents/family upbringing. They are religious for the same reason they have manners and speak the language they do.

Great post. This last paragraph does seem a bit on the cynical side though. Pity you missed the original Iranian hostage application (that I well remember). It is that which makes the present application of the same symbol seem like mockery.

If not guided by God, everything is misguided by definition. Such a supposition is rational and logical, if it is based upon a belief in God. That being said, I commend your tact and shall share your vigil for the requested example.

Andrew, this is probably a topic we've touched on in the past. En garde! That is perhaps because volume is just another form of violence. If they don't listen to moderate voices, they aren't likely to listen to loud moderate voices. Indeed, the fundamentalists have not increased their visibility by 'speaking loudly'. They have done it with deeds. I see no value, purpose or function in moderate religious people harranguing immoderate fundamentalists. You accept my thesis then? Now all we have left to establish is the validity and justification of the distinction between moderate and immoderate atheists. American conservatives are politically allied with religious fundamentalists. Of course they are going to take that line. Indeed, that line of argument is un-conservative by definition of a lack of moderation, but one can't expect consistency or rationality in partisan politics. And the statement 'admits' nothing. It is not a proven argument or statement or fact - just a partisan tactic. I have no formal objections here - though I might suggest that atheists have no need to expand upon anything. Faith is a personal and subjective thing. If some person comes to you and asks your view on faith, I should think you should be welcome to give it. By why the need to aggresively expound it? There is no commandment or Godly reward for prolselytizing from some atheistic anti-God. Even the most expansive interpretation of the principles of personal morality and/or ethics doesn't require an atheist to go around to 'save souls' or 'disabuse' the believers. Absolutely - public discussion forums are places for public discourse and the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression do have some application (limited of course by various applicable laws and terms of service and whatnot). But I repeat, given "we now have a forum" - why the need for the soapbox? Are you not granting the religious fundamentalists more credit and influence than they actually have by taking up arms? Does not the very act of 'taking up arms' against them not act as a catalyst for religious fundamentalism in the first place? Are you not trying to throw gasoline on a fire here? No. You must not meet fire with fire. That just feeds the flames. Given what you say, there is all the more reason to engage a different approach. If you must fight a battle, take Sun Tzu to heart, not Blitzkrieg. No - that is not it. If fundamentalist religious people stayed home and prayed all day or spent all their time in Bible study, no one would care. To each his own. But it is the fact that they sometimes perhaps overstep the bounds of civil society in their desire to impose their fundamentalism upon you, me and society. That is why some people rightfully feel they have a duty to object to religious fundamentalism. Now if an atheist stayed home and speculated about a godless universe all day long, no one would care. To each his own. But when they sometimes perhaps overstep the bounds of civil society in their desire to impose their atheism upon you, me and society, that's when moderate and responsible people have a duty to rightfully object to these 'positivistic' atheists. I fail to see any difference between the characteristic of 'positivistic' or 'fundamentalist' here. They are indeed quite similar in character and form. Absolutely. Rational criticism is a core principle of classical liberalism and I can never defy that. But where is the rational criticism? All I see is 'partisan attack' in the application of the term 'evil'. That is to play the same game. Indeed you are.

If you work hard at it, it is possible to actually create the hatred and double-standards that you are suggesting already exist.

Why? Unless Harper is putting forth some specific legislation on the issue, I don't care what he thinks about the topic.

I strongly doubt it. All indications are that the younger generation are more liberal on social issues. Rather, I'd suspect ballot-stuffing here. It is an extremely common action of activist groups. Just about any internet derived poll is useless for this reason - they are always targeted by some interested party.

Good gosh - a theatre critic with no real education. And people wonder why I have such a low opinion of our beloved mass media - and pseudo-journalists.

You've been living in a cave these past 20 years? if after a 20 plus year in career you call him a pseud.....well, disagree with him if will, I usually do, but he's paid his dues as a columnist. I call everything "pseudo" as it seems highly applicable - especially with journalism. The term is not necessarily derogatory. Twenty years as a columnist eh? I am blissfully ignorant of conventional mass media personalities. The only media product I consume on a regular basis The Economist. Anyway, thanks for the clarification, I'll 'google' his name to see what his game is. All journalists play games.

Correct. I am an atheist yet I do not bash religion or religious folks. Some atheists do, most don't.

I always enjoy reading zealous fanatics chiding others for zealous fanatism. Your sweeping generalisation of "atheists" puts you in the same camp as those you presume to rant about.

Feel free. As you noted, the apology belongs to you, not I. Besides which, apologies aren't usually worth the breath they are spit out with (or the little pixels they are displayed with) so I don't place much store by them at all.

Thus, the universe you describe has a beginning. This is rather colourful and creative. Defies physics, but what the heck since we're just having fun here. Not true. The source is that "something which defies description" who decided to vomit. A colourful twist upon the long established philosophic idea of solepscism. I'll refrain from further comment here. After someone goes solepscist, further discussion is useless.

Who is Mark Steyn? Some pseudo-journalist-pundit I presume? And where is the substantive comment to accompany the cut'n'pastey stuff?

They presently dominate a not inconsiderable portion of the country. They have thus never been 'effectively' removed since they are still there trying to run the show. They presently have the power to control a large portion of the country and threaten the rest. The NATO enclave of Kabul is only a tiny fraction of the country.

I respectfully submit that 'sanity and level-headedness' in society is best achieved by not denigrating the beliefs of a very large proportion of our fellow citizens. Live and let live. Methinks you 'misunderestimate' the power of culture. Take away religion from the Arabs and they still have justification for a huge cultural and historical hatred for the Western powers. I've called you nothing. You are the one claiming the label. I'm only concerned with defining terms here. The most important point is that there is NOTHING about atheism that requires an attack upon religion. Many, if not most atheists don't do it. Those atheists that insist on attacking religion are thus 'fanatical' atheists - one step beyond the usual type of atheism.

Yes. He always treated it as a 'low profile' thing.

Graham held it since 1993. Before that woulda been straight I think. There was a one-term PCer there but prior to that it was David Crombie's seat for a long time. And 14 years is not a long time? Btw, Smitherman is the MPP and he's gay too. Kyle Rae is the local Councilor and he's gay too. You want to represent that riding/ward you must be either gay or gay friendly or get a new career.