wrote:

3. If false, it is truly heinous and I would be happy to see the purveyors of such extreme themes subjected to their alleged acts of violence, then hanged.

Now, let's not forget the rule of law. Not that I believe that you are really upset by this, given what you have supported in your comments previously. Or are you really so stupid that you have not understood how bad all of this is?

wrote:

That is, I don't believe the American people voted for torture prosecutions in November. I don't think Obama was given a mandate by the voters to prosecute Bush administration officials.

You are right they did not. But no, you are wrong, the American people do not get to vote on whether the DOJ carries out the prosecution of war crimes. If it is a crime, it is a CRIME. And so it remains unless the US further breaks international agreements it has signed. Did the American people vote for that?

wrote: Do you honestly not give respect to strangers you meet for the first time?

Sure, but in your case, it took only one post for you to lose it. Step back and look at the situation; I think you can do a lot better.

wrote:

...for "doing what it took to keep us safe". A much larger portion of the public than you'd like to imagine...

But even most of those folks are capable of understanding that torturing in order to create a reason to invade Iraq is not the same thing.

wrote: They're going to do their usual bull$hit "balanced" coverage...

If there are prosecutions, it will be in part because the media coverage will have been, for some reason, more comlplete than you are implying.

wrote:

The persons we water boarded we high level terrorists.

(Just to add a bit to what Holly's response.)

At least one of the most popular waterboardees was not a high level terrorist. Apparently he was the administrative assistant in charge of travel arrangements.

jebachman also wrote:

Can you say Pakistan, Taliban, and nuclear weapons in the same sentence?

If you are concerned that the Pakistan government could soon be run by the taliban, you are buying into the current version of "We must invade Iraq, it has WMD."

From his LRB (19 October 2006) review (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html) of the The God Delusion:

It thus comes as no surprise that Dawkins turns out to be an old-fashioned Hegelian when it comes to global politics, believing in a zeitgeist (his own term) involving ever increasing progress, with just the occasional ‘reversal’. ‘The whole wave,’ he rhapsodises in the finest Whiggish manner, ‘keeps moving.’ There are, he generously concedes, ‘local and temporary setbacks’ like the present US government – as though that regime were an electoral aberration, rather than the harbinger of a drastic transformation of the world order that we will probably have to live with for as long as we can foresee. Dawkins, by contrast, believes, in his Herbert Spencerish way, that ‘the progressive trend is unmistakable and it will continue.’ So there we are, then: we have it from the mouth of Mr Public Science himself that aside from a few local, temporary hiccups like ecological disasters, famine, ethnic wars and nuclear wastelands, History is perpetually on the up.

Apparently anything Dawkins believes is worthy of attack, not just his views on religion.

wrote:

It's a metaphor. A metaphor, attempting to provide insight into a mystery that's impenetrable by material methods, like biopsy or autopsy.

Metaphors can be thought of as coming in two broadly different types. The first is the kind intended by the author, expecting the audience to understand it. The other kind involves the use of a document in ways not intended by or even conceivable to the author(s). The whole scripture as a metaphor (as opposed to stories it contains) is this kind. The use of a document so diverse and contradictory in this way is an invitation to choose whatever meaning that you want. The attempt to provide insight is yours.

wrote:

How can you tell me that I'm a fool for believing that something unknowable is out there?

Who is telling you that? Dawkins certainly is not. And I do not think many of those commenting here are either.

wrote, on religious experience:

Science is of course free to attempt to define that realm as essentially nonexistent, as total bullshit or hallucination or not-yet-explained electrical impulses in the brain. But one could respond that such an unproven hypothesis itself smacks of theological argument.

How utterly stupid. It is not a theological argument, it is merely an hypothesis. Given that little is known of awareness except that it is associated with specific types of brain activity, it is up to those who think that some kind of awareness is not so associated to show some evidence, or just state that this is what they want to believe.

wrote: Liberal Humanism preaches that Humanity is the be-all and end-all, that Humanity can achieve Perfection by itself.

What bullshit! Perhaps you can show me wrong?

Hey, minority rights do matter. The majority does not get to have its way with everything, and I am a bit surprised you do not see this.

wrote: You, on the other hand, would have me live life as you see fit.

A little paranoia maybe? Nobody is trying to do that.

Perhaps you are also unable to see how much your performance here is like the typical republican response to any opposition:"You do not like the Iraq war? Then then you are an extreme left wing $&^%(**%$ who wants to take away my guns."

Your politics and religion show the same mental blindness.

...schools would crumble, basic public services would deteriorate...

(Amity does much better satire. GK needs a ghost writer.)

I am assuming that the comments from all those who appear to think that it is not satire are meta-satire.