What I find most amusing is that most of the soft left believe that America is run by far right christian lunatics while at the same time much of the muslim world believes that America has been captured by pornographers, sodomites, adulterers and atheists. If you look at the likely next president of the US, John Mcain, you will find that he is, unarguably, neither. These simple, black and white prejudices are the constructs of simpletons and those with an axe to grind.

The strength of ill feeling towards, in fact the loathing of, fundamentalist Christians and their (perhaps a little bizarre) beliefs by the self same people won't bat an eyelid at the demands of muslim fundamentalists whose aims are at least as threatening to progressive types, never fails to mystify me. You won't see many christians calling for the stoning of adulterers (often women who've been raped) or the deaths of apostates. Under the Christian right, gays might not be able to be married but they aren’t likely to lose their heads either.

The soft left ignores the incorporation into western culture and law of many extremely anti-progressive, anti-liberal ideas and practices under the guise of multiculturalism. Its one thing for the muslims to think us infidels and unclean, another altogether for us to accept it. Take the handling of Korans in Guantanomo Bay. Wardens are required to handle the free books given to prisoners with plastic gloves to avoid contaminating them WTF?

How about cartoons? It’s not OK to depict the image of the prophet but it is OK to murder those that do.

When are the left going to wake up and realize that the real threat to their cherished progressive ideals isn’t the Christian fundamentalists “it’s the Muslim fundamentalists, stupid.”

Gym-Fish, I agree that “the very strength of the scientific method is the willingness to review and to change position in accord with new evidence”. However –

i) not all scientists follow this, and runner’s point might be that many scientists are too eager to publish the latest evolutionary step in their knowledge as “true”, and fail to mention that more evidence might later arrive that contradicts what they’re publishing;

ii) science is not the only arena in which learning happens. In Christianity at least – and, I suspect, in Judaism – the scriptures and their historical setting are under constant scholarly study and often reveal new ideas, some of which challenge the old. There are many Christians who are open to learn in this way. You may not have been claiming that learning is the monopoly of the non-religious, and I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood you. Anyhow, it is not a monopoly.

Thanks TRTL. I think secular humanism would be a good starting point – the best I can think of, anyway. Everyone could just “deem” humans to be of high and equal value, and then proceed from there. They would just have to act consistently with that starting-point. It’s hard to think of a better place to start.

I trust it’s a proposition we’d all agree to? Even though we might have different reasons for believing it. I say that because, in a different thread, it seemed to emerge that evolutionists are not really capable of being humanists in this sense – which surprised me at the time – but they could pretend. That’s why I use the word “deem”. We have to start somewhere.

Paul L: You're right. No-one I've read here supports fundo Islam, but the Christian-bashing is certainly chronic. Mind you, it's not entirely without reason: eg look at the rebranding of ID that Pericles points out. Not admirable, is it?

Pax,

goodthief, if you have evidence that "evolutionsts are not really capable of being humanists" i think you had better damn well present it.

i don't pretend that the barbarity in the old testament stops a christian from being good. i would think you would extend a similar charity to those who simply happen to choose not to deny a firmly established scientific theory.

Hey Alan,

I think you may have been a little harsh on Billy Graham mate.

In an interview with David Frost he said;

"I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say. I think we have made a mistake by thinking the bible is a scientific book. The bible is not a book of science."...

"I believe that God created man and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point he took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create the man..."

Now runner and Boaz have gone to great lengths in other posts to question the Christianity of those who are open to the notion of evolution. If they are to be true to that position I feel they should be prepared to state that Billy Graham is not a Christian.

However you Alan should countenence the proposition that the sleepovers at the whitehouse may well serve to curb a creationist president's excesses. Besides I really do have a bit of time for the lanky old bugger.

Alan this article of yours was a banal polemic of a kind devastatingly destroyed most recently by Ross Douthat:

Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy!
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=130&var_recherche=theocracy

I notice this kind of thing is a hobby horse of yours and its about time someone told you to relax and widen your reading a bit.

Martin Ibn Warriq,

Ross Douthat's article, which you describe as devastating, is really just an extended book review that creates a straw man 'theocracy' and blows it over as if he has done something wonderful. You missed the whole point of Matheson's article.

An open mind would help.