I don't think anyone should stop bashing religion until all the religions ("spiritualities," whatever... SUPERSTITIONS) remove their tenets that bash women. They would probably then cease to exist, and rightly so. Women in particular need freedom from religion.

- the most religious country in the world. Most Americans don't attend religious services regularly, and they aren't about to start.

This sort of thing will probably breed a whole lot of Darias and Janes (the nonconformist heroines of the show "Daria.") It's nothing new. I loved girls like that... Where are they now...

Hitler was NOT an atheist. As for the rest, have you ever noticed that they're all from the 20th century, and they're all communists? In other words, they're the historical exceptions that prove the rule. If you look at history (or even the present!) there's no comparison.

Besides, do you really feel sorry for the Russian aristocracy, who partied while the peasants starved? The next time I hear "Well, Stalin was an atheist and he killed..." I want to say "Yeah, we're pretty good at it too. Don't piss me off."

Oh, and to the LW, and everyone else: COME OUT! Join the fight. The fate of this world depends on it. Take a stand for common sense and scientific fact.

AKA Smith, where are you? I'm in Dallas. Where's this scary town you mention? I was in band in high school, and we drove out to (I think) Tyler for one of the football games. Someone at the stadium made a "Your son's name" reference over the loudspeaker, at which point someone in band yelled out "Praise Allah!"

I came out as an atheist on the tenth of September, 2001. At university. I've never looked back.

The population of the world was vastly higher from the twentieth century than it had been in previous eras. Also, the technology for mass killing had developed vastly by then.

Take the historical long view. Those 20th century communists some people love to mention are, when you put it all in perspective, an anomaly.

If there was no religion, there would be no Jews. Without Jews, the Holocaust would only have been about half the size, if it happened at all.

Sam Harris says this better than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4

He starts addressing your concern at about the 3 minute mark.

As for certain people being punished for their membership in a certain class, it really depends. That's the sort of thing you have to judge on a case-by-case basis. Pol Pot picked the wrong targets.

I've always disliked uniforms, since I love seeing the people who go out of their way to look *different.* I knew lots of people like that growing up. Variety is the spice of life. With that said, referring to the inner-city example, it may be a necessary evil in some places.

Why do you want to shelter your kids from this sort of thing by keeping them at home, though? Shouldn't they learn how to deal with it, if necessary?

Punk rock (and its relatives) thrives on the behavior of the vapid brand-name bullies.

I understand perfectly.

I also realize I erred in preposition usage in my previous message.

... it's always nice to have a vapid mainstream against which one can rebel.

Also, I've always wondered this: How hard is it to pick something to wear? Just grab the top thing in the drawer!

What am I missing?

Perhaps we could change US trade policy so that this sort of thing doesn't happen in the future. We could change that at the ballot box if we wanted to. Imagine what we could do with more Senators like Sherrod Brown (author of "Myths of Free Trade") and Representatives like Dennis Kucinich.

That will suffice until workers (not the state) seize the means of production.

He may share many of the beliefs of the religious right, but he's no Christofascist, since he does not believe the federal government can or should enforce them. With that said, I would feel terrible for people stuck in the more backward states (like mine, right now) should this sort of power-devolution occur.

He's also completely opposed to neoliberalism. When he says "free market," he means it, and it ought to be a lot easier to build support for taking the rich off of welfare than the poor.

I was at a Star Wars Fan Days event recently, and there was a booth of Ron Paul supporters, with a sign that said "Restore the Republic."

Russia's economy is booming these days. I never encounter people saying that it's partially due to the country's population decline, but why not? A shrinking population takes strain off of the job- and housing markets, as well as a lot of other things.

This world needs fewer people. I'd rather see it occur due to contraception, or, failing that, abortion (and possibly thus sterility,) than war, famine, plague, and so on. Is that not sensible?

Poverty south of the border, like poverty around the world, is mostly (not entirely) due to the ongoing imperialism of the rich world. You can't blame the elites in those countries, since of course Washington keeps them in power. The results are clear: neoliberalism (so-called "free trade") results in poverty and inequality, all over the world. So why not get rid of it? I mention this all the time. Another world is possible.

Is Malaysia these days really that backward? From everything I've read about the place, a cleric like this would probably be seen as something of a crackpot.

If many people can't reproduce, then they won't. Some parts of Asia need a lot less reproduction. Still, lack of partners doesn't seem fair to the men, so perhaps they will import Filipinas, or Bangladeshis, or women from some other overpopulated country. If given help learning the language and acclimating, that could be a win-win situation.

It doesn't seem likely.

KiteFlyer, I shudder for my planet when I remember that people still believe in the supernatural.