1. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #238627 by justwondering on August 28, 2008 at 12:28 pm

And I was worried about the Islamification of Europe until I read this. One bully can express malcontent over truth, at a museum of science no less, and the administration of the museum makes the decision to cover the sign? Oh this is terribly disturbing.

2. The Politics of God

Comment #210389 by justwondering on July 14, 2008 at 12:41 pm

sane1 -"Wasn't this posted months ago???"

Oops. Didn't realize that when I submitted this for posting. *Is embarrassed* It's a great article though, no?

3. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206443 by justwondering on July 8, 2008 at 11:24 am

While, as a critical thinker and lover of science, I found this amusing, as a mother I am horrified.

That this book was obviously prepared with an abundance of funds, in the wrong hands (the population of which is enormous), this book will be seen as an important work and possibly land in libraries and school systems all over the world. What a vicious weapon for ID proponents! A pretty picture book!

I almost found myself praying (!!) this piece of nonsense doesn't land on the desks of any school administrators here in the United States, or the several steps forward made by concerned parents who want evolution taught in schools without superstitious nonsense, will become several steps back.

Really, I could just cry.

4. Psychiatrists: Least Religious But Most Interested In Patients' Religion

Comment #200541 by justwondering on June 27, 2008 at 8:44 pm

What they fail to mention is a psychiatrist's hesitance to talk to a morbidly mentally ill patient about spiritual concerns. (Any truly sane shrink wouldn't bring religious concerns up in treating someone who's bat sh*t nutty and locked up.) It would be interesting to hear them address why they wouldn't!

This is sending out the wrong message. It's saying it's somehow mentally healthy to address your emotional problems with religion.

5. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #104474 by justwondering on December 28, 2007 at 3:17 pm

". . .I'm just wondering aloud why we all accept it so readily, without even thinking about it. And why don't we all admire – as I increasingly do -- those rare free spirits confident enough to rise above jealousy, stop fretting about who is "cheating on" whom, and tell the green-eyed monster to go jump in the lake?"

I'm "just wondering" this too, however, it remains that sexual fidelity persists as an important factor in relationships to most people. Even you cite these "rare" free spirits as being, well . . . rare. I agree with an earlier comment that the prior stated agreement in a relationship to remain in a monogomous erotic love relationship supercedes any other proscribed ethical principle. Clearly there can't be a norm prescribed by any group, religious or not. However, I agree we should dismiss the green-eyed monster. Infidelity happens, in spite of promises to the contrary. We ought to examine the possibility that human nature can lead us to do things we thought we would not. It bears upon the loving relationship between the couple to explore forgiveness. That way, there's nothing to hide. It might be a painful discussion, but the strength of the relationship should stand on its own without any religious morality muddying the waters. Bill and Hillary are still together and supportive of one another in spite of the past; awesome example to us all.