Some of the only people doing civil rights activism in the American South in the 1930s, back before it was trendy and almost safe, were the members of the American Communist Party.

I'm so sick of this red herring "Atheists like [insert 20th century villain here] killed a lot of people, thus atheists don't have the moral high ground." Let me put it to rest right now.

Have you ever noticed that all of those examples are from the 20th century? They are the exceptions that prove the rule. For example-

Josef Stalin's motivation wasn't atheism, it was Stalinism. He sought political power and the furtherance of his megalomania. Whether or not his opponents were superstitious, he had plenty of more important reasons to purge them. Stalin's regime was often anti-Semitic, but Lenin's was not (quite the opposite, actually.) Kruschev ended or eased many of Stalin's anti-Semitic practices. Lenin and Kruschev were both atheists, like Stalin.

It's the same story for Mao. Hitler was not an atheist. The best example you can find might be Pol Pot, as practicing Buddhists were one element they sought to eliminate. Then there was Enver Hoxha of Albania, who actually does seem to fit the description even better, but the religious types never mention him.

If you pay any attention to the history of women's struggles, or if you only look at Broadsheet sometimes, you'll see the same story: religion harms women, secularists seek to liberate them. The Chinese communists unbound women's feet wherever they went. Secular Middle Eastern governments make a point of treating women better than elsewhere in the region. Examples abound.

The slogan "religion stops a thinking mind/brain" is available on stickers and shirts, complete with a graphic of a brainwave flattening. It's a shot at the slogan "abortion stops a beating heart." It's true. Religion destroys critical thinking like nothing else.

First of all, "Muslim" is not an ethnic group. They come in all shades.

I don't see that kind of sensitivity here. The vibe I get is that accurate instruction must override such backwards religious sensibilities. With that said, those sensibilities are seen as more understandable coming from someone from outside the First World.

Is there any particularly reason why Slovenia was used as a measuring stick? I don't want to jump to a conclusion, so I should ask first.

Also, is family planning underway in the Philippines? That sounds like a story in and of itself.

I'm still amazed at this. I realize adoption can be very complicated and expensive, but if it's in fact roughly as tough as IVF, only without the physical strain on one's body, why not go for adoption? Just imagine if all those births did not occur, but that many adoptions did. Would that not have a positive net impact on poverty rates?

It only takes a few seconds to make the additional motions women need to make in the restroom, so can that really be the cause? I've heard it's because women are in there primping. Is there any truth to that?

Does anybody else get this impression whenever these kinds of issues come up regarding East Asia, particularly China, and even regarding people of Chinese descent living elsewhere: They seem so cold!

I may not want children myself, I may not like to deal with children much at all, but I understand that people love their children and would never envision an attitude like I see in this article. So what if the child is a girl? Do so few of these people care for each other? The article mentions some who do, but why isn't it the rule?

No, my question is about the reporting, which casts China as a strange and mystic land.

In the U.S., and probably elsewhere, suicide rates increase with age.

That seems to imply that it's at least partially our fault, inasmuch as our government is supposedly under our control.

Of course the U.S. should get out of the Middle East. Privatization of somebody else's oil, and propping up brutal client regimes, is imperialism. Imperialism blows back on citizens of the Empire, who don't even benefit from imperialist policies anyway.

Of course the U.S. should stop supporting Israel. Israel is a rich, independent country with overwhelming military superiority against its neighbors. It also sits on stolen land, and unlike the U.S. or Canada or Australia or New Zealand, it's not demographically too late to make amends. Supporting Zionism blows back on us.

Just like immigration, they come here because we go there.

Mikes Pace, you're a provocateur, right? Just in case you're somehow serious:

Osama Bin Laden and all his followers don't hate "freedom" or "liberalism" or whatever, or Amsterdam would be dust by now, along with Sweden and Switzerland and Canada et cetera. People like that are angry about U.S. support for brutal regimes like the House of Saud, Hosni Mubarak, and, above all, Israel. They're angry about the ongoing U.S. war against the people of Iraq. Bin Laden paid special attention to the murderous sanctions in the 1990s.

All of that's in his writings and speeches.

And yes, those backward people over there (and over here) do need to get with the times, but nothing approaching colonialism is likely to do that. Prosperity and education will, as they inevitably lead to secularism.

Why are you embarrassed to admit you worried about your figure? That sounds like a noble cause to me.