Letters to the Editor
deluxe
Published Letters: 90 Editor's Choice: 4
-
[Read the article: The disbeliever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]HAN(F)D: "You were only surface-level polite to Chuck, and then only until you could set up your zingers...go re-read your letters."
Actually, I was sarcastic with Charlie until I realized he wasn't a fundie. Then I treated him with more regard. I don't think he was being insincere with his final overtures. I still don't agree with Catholicism (I was raised as a Catholic myself, but later questioned the whole faith issue as I learned more about the world and the people in it) but that doesn't mean I should be uncivil if someone else reveals him/herself to not having antagonistic intent. My take on this exchange is that Charlie had a certain element of curiosity about the atheist worldview, and engaged us in a reasonable manner, given the underlying disagreements.
"Look where kowtowing to fundamentalists has gotten us."
I don't think it is kowtowing so much; fundamentalists see it as their purpose to ultimately dominate the world by their own crusading efforts. The rest of us are simply in their path.
And while I agree with Harris' position that religious moderates, either tacitly or overtly, enable fundamentalists and their actions, that doesn't diminish the problems that religious fanatics themselves have caused. It's a pretty complex issue. Sam Harris (and others before him, but principally Harris in this case) has identified the level of dialog needed to question potentially-dangerous religious beliefs, namely, don't treat their claims with kid gloves. But one can't bring a bazooka to the bargaining table and expect a useful outcome.
Gonzo8: "please explain the rational basis for your belief in tran-substantiation... Or do you believe that it is symbolic, putting you into direct conflict with official church doctrine?"
Well, now that's a prime (and obvious) example of the sort of contradiction that religious moderates need to answer for. A fundamentalist won't give you a meaningful answer because they operate on a different plane that denies all rational thought. But you'll note that I also raised a list of logical questions a while back that remain objectively unanswered. One of these days I'll feel motivated enough to do the extensive research (namely read through pages and pages of religious debates at various sites dedicated to all this) and assemble my own 'best of' list of a skeptic's FAQs. Personally I'm not thrilled with the idea, but if I continue to engage in these debates I might as well collect the ammo...
-
An easy solution
[Read the article: Blunt vows a freeze on global warming fight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Take a vote to see who thinks global warming is a real phenomenon. Those who don't (starting with Blunt) will have their air conditioning cut off.
And then shut off all the A/C in the White House.
-
This is the most depressing thing I've read all day.
[Read the article: The baby bust]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've had a pretty good idea that right-wingers and highly-religious types have more kids, but to be reminded of it only adds to the sting. This also holds true in a lot of heavily-Islamic countries with fundamentalist governments.
Imagine if this trend holds to the point where it becomes numerically impossible for those with any hope to preserve this planet (which includes keeping human population in check) to have any influence in politics. We would then deserve our own extinction.
I don't know who is more selfish - those who have lots of kids with no plan for their future, or those like myself who won't be having any kids at all...
-
They should wear them out with too much sex
[Read the article: Colombian women launch "strike of crossed legs"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]An alternate approach: f*ck these men repeatedly until they wear out. Use whatever method/device/meat product necessary. At least try it for a month and see if it makes any impact.
I contend that a lot of the violence in the world could be mitigated by keeping aggressive men (and a few women) in constant post-orgasmic languor. Think of all the hyper-islamic "suiciders" who might have second thoughts if those 72 'virgins' lured them away from that day's bombings. You can't go out to engage the enemy if you sleep through the alarm...
Ok, I'm only half-serious here, and this strategy is horribly chauvinistic. It is unrealistic on many levels. But the opposite is no solution either. Many aggressive males and cultures tend to commit stupid, self-destructive acts if they are sexually frustrated or insecure. If women are somehow enabling them, they need to address the situation in a meaningful way. At least this report from Columbia is bringing sex into the discussion about large-scale violence, which is a good step forward no matter what these particular results may be.
-
Votes weighted by civics competancy test
[Read the article: Why are so many Americans still hoodwinked?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This will of course sound elitist and defy the 'one person, one vote' ideal, but I've often felt that citizens should take a civics competancy test and have their vote weighted by the results. (Going further, I would actually suggest an outright IQ test, but that is so loaded it would never be accepted by the very public it attempts to evaluate.) A civics test would evaluate a basic level of competency on behalf of the voter, both in terms of important matters of democracy and also general intelligence.
Each person's vote would then be weighted based on their score. Those with no interest in how our government actually operates and get low scores would not be as influential in elections as those who spend the time or mental effort to research what they are voting for. This would go a long way towards mitigating blocks of votes that result from disingenuous 'warm body' voter drives as well as those whose sole basis for their vote is the candidate's hair style.
Is this fair? That's open to a long debate, but the way things are now we have the classic example of "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."
Also:
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ptv_learn