Mr. Maranci posted a letter saying Stephen Colbert better watch his back, because the Bush clan is an incredibly vengeful bunch.

I thought that too. I bet he's going to be audited by the IRS for the rest of his life.

But I also bet that NO ONE in this country has, today, more people willing to take a bullet for him than Stephen Colbert.

The thing that KILLS me is that there is now once again a flurry of annoying emails going around, filled with crap that once again lays everything imaginable at the feet of clinton. It is the kind of email you always get from you 70 year old Uncle Joe, as he emails all 300 of his old codger white guy buddies.

The same thing happened with Cindy Sheehan. They made up scurrilous LIES and sent them around, ending with a demand that the media REPORT this stuff.

My personal feeling is that white guys are responsible for at least 99% of what ails the world, and OLD white guys are the worst of all. At the very least, they should not be allowed to email.

Do you think it might ever be possible for Salon to publish an article that explores an atheist's way of thinking?

I am running out of patience with this constant requirement that scientists and atheists keep an open mind; the reverse argument is never made, which is simply, "What would be so awful if this was it? If this was life, and if there is no afterlife and no big man in the sky who runs the show, and no guarantee of order and sense and meaning in our lives? Would it change the way you felt about your family, and would the way you behave be any different? Would your values suddenly crumble if there were no promise of reward or punishment in an afterlife?"

No one ever says to these people, "Well yes, that's all lovely, but i'd like to remind you to keep an open mind, that this could all be a lovely story but in the end, just imaginative drivel. It's important to always give rational thought its rightful consideration you know! You wouldn't want to be accused of being narrow-minded, would you?"

Salon, please, grow a back bone---offer an alternative. A piece about what the world might be like if we woke up tomorrow and there were no religions anywhere and we could all deal with our own mortality without going to pieces.

Shrill? Pot calling the kettle black, ikpo.

Philosophers have existed. No disagreement. I won't even argue their brilliance---I agree there have been brilliant philosophers. There have also been shamans and born again preachers who speak in tongues, and people who believe that dancing will bring rain. I just don't buy into the idea that any of these people had connections to the divine. I respect cultural traditions but am simply tired of seeing them considered as valid as hypothesis-driven science. It is possible to be an atheist, and still think human culture in all its variety is beautiful and to be admired, without feeling the need to base the major decisions in one's life on it.

My complaint is only that this discussion is always in only one direction. The direction of "I am bringing to the fore, yet another attempt at convincing smart people why it's acceptable (even intellectually rigorous) to be religious." Why is it we can't EVER have a discussion in the other direction? Why can't we ever have the discussion that says "Let's consider this from the other point of view---the point of view most atheists would be comfortable with." The point of view that says smart people can discuss the meaning of life, without requiring unseen forces and yes Ikpo, the big white guy in the sky.

Every year the NY times polls Americans and asks "Do you believe in God?". The percentage of Americans who respond affirmatively to that question never falls below 95%! The number in Europe is far far lower. As an American, it stuns me that so few people here consider an alternative answer to that question. But of course, it's because American society does not tolerate the discussion. And because we are so firmly told, over and over again, that spirituality and prayer and religion are good, and that atheists are shrill and unwholesome and, on some level, evil.

I get the feeling Ikpo, that you resent my not having applied myself more fully to this article. But I see these articles all of the time, at least once a day somewhere. And even frequently in Salon! But ask yourself. Have you EVER seen an article that explores the atheist points of view (about the meaning of life, and science, and mysticism and its functions in human culture) in Salon? Ever? And yet, Anne Lamott and countless others over the years, tell us unashamedly about their spirituality and readers, so caught up in the comforting haze of it all, are fine with it, never object, lap it up. I wonder if the bias were in the other direction, how long would Salon exist?

But maybe I'm wrong! I would be happy to concede having overlooked the kinds of articles I have described if I have actually missed seeing them. Perhaps there has been a flurry of reporting by open-minded religious types seeking to examine alternative ways of thinking and I've just missed it. I HAVE been busy, I'll admit. After all, Christians/Jews/Muslims/Wiccans etc, as you, ikpo have so succintly shown, are all about putting one's self into the other guy's shoes and maintaining civil discourse. They are all about listening to ALL points of view, right? It is, after all, the righteous way to be......