Nina Burleigh's essay seemed pretty honest and thoughtful to me. It's tough not to get annoyed at the elitist tone of some of the statements--how many of us could choose to live in Manhattan--but I think it's important to look through that to the very real emotional conflicts Nina brings up. Children are naturally idealistic: they happily believe in Jesus, the good-old US of A and Sesame Street. There's nothing wrong with this...they have plenty of time to learn the unpleasant realities behind the pretty painted facade. I wouldn't want a child or grandchild of mine to grow up a religious absolutist or a jingoist, but I don't think I would tell a five-year-old about the horrors of war, either. I think it's enough to let him know that nations, like people, have a hard time being good. I think it's helpful to all ages of people to be able to believe that goodness exists in this painful world of ours. Without that belief, how do you keep on trying to be a responsible citizen tugging on the wheel of our ponderous ship of state?

I was raised in the country, and have a lot of very dear kinfolk who are christian, conservative and patriotic. They are also kind, loving and good, helpful neighbors. My husband, daughter and son are all veterans, but none of us think the Iraq war was necessary, right, or even well-waged. Even with all the terrible acts our government has committed during my lifetime--LBJ's lies about the Gulf of Tonkin, McNamara's ten thousand, assasinations of elected foreign leaders because they were too likely to favour the Soviet Union, and W and companies' assaults on the constitution--I still venerate the ideals of the US while I deplore its leadership. Can we please try and respect each other while we argue over what constitutes right and proper behaviour for people AND nations? A slap in the face won't make me consider your opinion--it'll just make me stubborn and mad.

Does anybody remember the Randy Newman song "Political Science"? (Let's Drop the Big One Now) I wish somebody would animate bush singing the lyrics...they seem pretty close to the w/rummy/rove worldview. Incidentally, bush's remarks about islamic "fascists" is just another example of his ignorance. Fascism implies a strong nationalistic state with no tolerance for liberalism in cahoots with industry to suppress individualism...hmmm, who does that sound like?

...but they share some of the same limitations. There are some traits that all people share: we all have the same biological imperatives, and we all have the same psychological imperatives. Nobody can live without air, water and food. Everybody seeks approval from the group and confirmation of the ideas that bring them comfort. It amuses me to hear a member of congress assure us solemnly that all the loot provided by lobbyists only buys them "access". How could any honest person not admit that when somebody gives you a nice present, you want to be nice to them back? Isn't that the elementary basis for social interchange between groups? Likewise, although science is a monumental effort to provide a body of observations and deductions, confirmed over time by repetition and replication, it has demonstrably fallen prey to the human tendancy to only see the evidence one is looking for...as has every branch of formalized spirituality that has ever existed. As far as science is concerned, the process is self correcting over time, because the practice of science rests on a foundation of skepticism. The contentious nature of scientists aids this process, even as the politicization and corporatization of science impedes it. The oldest extant flavors of formal spirituality operate significantly differently: they resist change and new ideas, they are essentially conservative rather than progressive in nature.

Bottom line? In science, examine the evidence critically. In spirituality, measure the dictates of dogma against your own sense of fair play. And for the sake of heaven and the world, be tolerant of the other guys' opinions. Isn't that what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they seperated state from spirituality? Evolution as a theory is very well supported by observation: arguments against it are based on semantics and corkscrewed interpretation. Traditional religions are based on sacred texts rather than experience and observation, yet every individual has his or her own perception of the sacred that can't be directly experienced by anybody else. When you look up at the grandeur of the stars, or experience the stillness at the heart of a forest, it doesn't matter whether you use science or spirituality as a means of understanding; the feeling itself is the constant.

Guys, guys, guys---it's the same little ice ball it's always been! The IAU changed its category, that's all. For you astrologers...have fun, enjoy, but if you were to take all your intricate calculations to an astronomer...you might be surprised to find that the planets aren't where you think they are. Traditional charts have been in use for thousands of years...long enough that the stars have changed their observed positions, let alone the planets. Our current North Star, Polaris, has not always been and will not always be in that pivotal position. (In a few more thousand years, when Vega is the North Star, it will be great for celestial navigators, since Vega is so much brighter than Polaris.) Astrology is a pleasant hobby, but not a science. If it helps people cope with the stresses of our civilization, jolly good. Better than heroin or alcohol. And for the comment about modern evolutionary theory having strayed from Darwin's original ideas...that's exactly the point! Science changes! Better instruments mean better observations, which leads to better science.

This article was contrived and nearly unreadable. Heather, get a job in a chicken farm.