1. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177852 by mintcheerios on May 9, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Love the avatar Gordon.

2. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177851 by mintcheerios on May 9, 2008 at 8:26 pm

So the Cardinal thinks Hitler was a reasonable man? You'd have to be pretty fucked up in the head to think that.

3. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #177021 by mintcheerios on May 8, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Not to dwell on Geert Wilders, but after listening to some of his interviews it's clear that he's not racist. Also he had expected and had nothing against parliament previewing his movie. Anyone who considers Islam a race is utterly stupid.

It's also amazing to see how many people say that this retaliatory Muslim violence has nothing to do with Islam when the perpetrators say over and over and over again that they did it for Islam.

I'm very skeptical that video game violence leads to real life violence. It's usually not enough to say that a murderer used to be an avid gamer. However, if there were thousands of murderers who told us explicitly that they killed because they wanted to imitate a specific game while chanting lines from it, I'd be willing to concede that that game had something to do with the problem. I'd be stupid not to. With Islam, people are telling us to our faces exactly why they are killing sometimes with the Koran in their hands.

So here is another question to those who tirelessly exculpate Islam from Islamic violence. Why would these often educated middle to upper-class Muslim suicide bombers explicitly tell us that their violence is inspired by the Koran?

4. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176574 by mintcheerios on May 7, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Actually I thought Wilders' movie was pretty good. Also it doesn't make sense that he wanted his movie censored. A movie like that would be so damaging to Islam's image (as if it needed any more help) that it would further his cause. Maybe I'm missing something, but how is he a racist?

5. Investigating Atheism

Comment #166807 by mintcheerios on April 23, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Someone needs to put up a page called "Investigating Afairyism".

6. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163457 by mintcheerios on April 18, 2008 at 11:26 am

They really are shameless.

http://www.discovery.org/a/4589

7. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161131 by mintcheerios on April 14, 2008 at 9:42 pm

I found this right before I was about to start on a paper.

8. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156327 by mintcheerios on April 7, 2008 at 10:45 am

If she said something like that to a Muslim, her career would have ended on the spot.

9. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #147138 by mintcheerios on March 19, 2008 at 11:08 pm

You completely failed to acknowledge my point about thought experiments as if I had used an invisible font.

Instead you've made a new claim now that Sam is "talking in absolutes and in "every instances". This is just false and looks like a last ditch attempt at discrediting him. Instead of supporting this vague claim with evidence, you go on probing the validity of collateral damage in various hypothetical situations. This is another straw man, but this time I'll let you hack it to pieces. Sam never talks about what constitutes acceptable amounts collateral damage. He states that if one accepts collateral damage in certain circumstances, one should also be able to accept torture in certain rare circumstances. If one is willing to do something that would risk maiming innocent babies and children for a greater cause, one should also be willing to do something that would risk giving psychological damage to a known criminal for a greater cause. It seems to me that you don't even actually disagree with Sam's view on torture.

ThoughtsonCommonToad: So what's wrong with what Dawkins said in that quote? That it's possible that a child may be more traumatized by images of her friend in hell than getting touched inappropriately by a perverted old man?

10. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #146778 by mintcheerios on March 19, 2008 at 11:58 am

As I've already stated, the point is to talk about and ask new questions about torture which is exactly what we're doing. This is the purpose (or point) of a thought experiment.

You claim that if a thought-experiment is unlikely there is no point in making one.

I've given you an example of an unlikely thought-experiment that not only has a point, but is one of the apexes of modern philosophy on consciousness.

You must either amend your claim or admit that John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment is either pointless or likely to happen.

Sam doesn't necessarily justify collateral damage or torture. He says that if one is willing to find collateral damage acceptable (which maims and kills thousands of innocents) then certain forms of limited torture in order to save thousands of lives should also be acceptable. Of course it is possible to believe that collateral damage in any case is unacceptable in which case Sam's argument wouldn't apply. I think Sam's view on torture is the most misunderstood (or deliberately skewed) out of all the Four Horsemen with Dawkins's child abuse claim coming in at a close second.

I'm going to go and meet Richard Dawkins now. I'll be back!

11. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #146757 by mintcheerios on March 19, 2008 at 11:16 am

I'll quote Sam again. "But realism is not the point of such thought experiments."

Thought experiments like these are not pointless even if they are unrealistic. They bring up new questions and new perspectives to old questions. If you doubt this, ask any philosopher in the field of consciousness. I'm sure John Searle knows his Chinese Room thought-experiment is even more unlikely than Sam's situation, but no one with a reasonable mind could ever posit that Searle's thought experiment was pointless. It has raised some very important questions by even its detractors like Dan Dennett.

But I'll defend the straw man anyways. You claim that to meet the criteria to torture an individual it would be almost certain the location of the bomb would be known as well. Even you don't seem like it would be impossible to come up with a situation since you included the caveat 'almost' in your claim. What if someone gets caught in the middle of planting multiple bombs throughout a large city with long timers set to blow up in sequence. He claims to have successfully planted seven bombs and accurately predicts the time and place of the first bomb 5 seconds before it blows up a school maiming and killing 25 people, 19 of them children. He demands the independence of his country which is currently an unmeetable demand for geopolitical reasons. All talks and negotiations have been exhausted and the second bomb a day later explodes killing 12 and injuring 26 at a shopping center. There are five bombs left and each one blows up with him accurately identifying the location and time of the bomb 5 seconds before the bomb explodes. Did we really have no choice but to just sit and watch innocent people getting slaughtered? It doesn't take Tom Clancy to imagine situations like this. The utility of Sam's thought-experiment is being displayed precisely by this very discussion we are having. I actually enjoyed the 'food-for-thought' philosophical parts of The End of Faith more than the rest of the book.

You also claimed that Sam "uses this "ticking bomb" scenario to justify the general use of torture."

This is just untrue unless you think using it in emergency cases is general use. The only arguments I've heard against Sam's view on torture have been slippery-slopes or straw men (ie. Sam is illogical because his thought-experiment is unrealistic).

12. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #146309 by mintcheerios on March 18, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Here's a question I've never seen satisfactorily answered by those who insist exculpating Islam from terrorist attacks (I remember Scott Atran completely avoiding this one at Beyond Belief).

Why do all these suicide bombers keep telling us they are doing it for religious reasons?

Also Sam's view on torture is valid in the situations he's given (which are the only situations he would find torture permissible). He never justifies torture as a means of vengeance or hatred, but rather only for situations where many lives are on the line. The fact that a ticking time bomb scenario is unlikely to happen doesn't change that. Sam actually responds directly to this charge.

"Such "ticking-bomb" scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of such thought experiments. The point is that unless you have an argument that rules out torture even in idealized cases, you don't have a categorical argument against the use of torture."

al-rawandi: You said that you would advocate torture in a certain idealized case (even though they are highly unlikely to happen). Do you have a categorical argument against the use of torture or not?

It's time to stop pretending like Sam advocates torture for anything more than extreme cases and thought-experiments. If someone says he planted a ticking time bomb with a day left in some crowded building full of children and gets caught, how contemptible would you look if you tried to protect this guy from getting water-boarded? Realism is not the point here because it's a thought-experiment.

13. The Great Tantra Challenge

Comment #144849 by mintcheerios on March 16, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Sanal Edamaruku is a hero.

14. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144843 by mintcheerios on March 16, 2008 at 8:53 pm

"Those callers were amazing. I thought people like that were myths."

I think a lot of people find it hard to believe people like this exist, especially in Europe. The bogus idea that these people are only the fringe needs to be expelled. I get tired of moderates saying that there are only a few people like this thus people like Dawkins are mostly attacking a straw man. They wouldn't be able to say that if they lived in Texas for 23 years (or even just 23 days).

15. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138030 by mintcheerios on March 3, 2008 at 6:55 pm

I'm so driving to Austin.

16. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127612 by mintcheerios on February 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Another splendid roundhouse of reason from RD.

17. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #118767 by mintcheerios on January 31, 2008 at 12:46 am

The Christians in that debate would probably be considered atheists in America.

Also kudos to Dawkins for giving Islam another kick in the balls.

18. Death Sentence for Afghan Student

Comment #116766 by mintcheerios on January 27, 2008 at 11:03 am

I hope he runs away to a free speech nation and make some more articles.

19. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116024 by mintcheerios on January 25, 2008 at 10:14 am

Hitchens is right, the evil of the New Testament does exceed the evil of the Old.

20. Interview with Neil Shubin, author of 'Your Inner Fish'

Comment #112702 by mintcheerios on January 17, 2008 at 11:16 pm

He also had Sam Harris on the show.

21. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112047 by mintcheerios on January 16, 2008 at 8:46 am

Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

22. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102656 by mintcheerios on December 23, 2007 at 11:21 am

God is not to blame because he doesn't exist.

23. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101506 by mintcheerios on December 20, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Al-rawandi, what would convince you that this kind of terrorism is born of believing in certain teachings of the Koran? Would the terrorists have to verbally tell us ad-nauseum they do it in Allah's name? Would there have to be scientific polls from Muslim countries that show shocking numbers of people saying that suicide bombing civilian targets is justified? Would the Koran have to have hundreds of lines like "Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition... We will put TERROR into the hearts of the unbelievers, the fire shall be their home" (3:149-51)? Would there have to be a certain number of architects and engineers hitting the wall at 400mph? If all these things don't convince you, what would?

You are right to say that suicide bombing happens in many other contexts. But here's the difference. When a suicide bomber says "I did it because I was poor and I hated the government" we will both agree that was probably why he did it. When a Muslim suicide bomber says "I did it because I wanted to go to heaven as promised by Allah in the Koran" I will agree with that reason, but you will do your best to argue either A) that only a mentally ill person could read the Koran like that or B) he's lying for some reason. That is what it is to be an apologist for Islam.

You can argue your three ambiguous lines of prohibition against suicide all you want, but the fact is that there is far more in the Koran to suggest that fighting for Islam is a ticket to heaven. Dying in the process is like dying in a war. As Sam Harris states "A military action that entails sufficient risk of death could be considered "suicidal" rendering moot the distinction between suicide and death in the line of duty for one who would "fight for the cause of God".

The important thing is that people are actually interpreting the Koran like this and there is no one to tell them that the book was not really authored by God. Those people often get killed for even bringing it up. This is why there aren't many people like you in Saudi Arabia telling people that suicide bombing is wrong.

Imagine what would happen if in the 7th century all the lines in the Koran were replaced with lines from the UN Charter plus the idea that if you don't follow the charter you will burn in hell and if you do you will go to heaven. If you don't think this would significantly reduce suicide bombing, you need to have your head examined. It doesn't take a neurologist to know that believing stupid things can make you do stupid things. Anyone who claims that the tenets of Islam don't have much to do with suicide bombing is ignorant at best and helping lunatics kill off civilization at worst. If I'm not enough an expert on Islam, just ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

24. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100253 by mintcheerios on December 18, 2007 at 12:27 pm

The interviewer was a douche bag.

25. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98943 by mintcheerios on December 15, 2007 at 12:50 am

Yesterday night I ended up sleeping at 3 in the morning because of the Harris vs. Wolpe video and tonight this.

26. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #97970 by mintcheerios on December 12, 2007 at 11:03 pm

It looks like we need more enlightenment moderates, the ones who avoid using reason where appropriate.

27. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97078 by mintcheerios on December 11, 2007 at 11:15 am

As Sam said, this meme is not going away.

28. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96326 by mintcheerios on December 10, 2007 at 11:08 am

Haha, take that.

29. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #95136 by mintcheerios on December 7, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Moderates don't help the cause because they still believe that faith is a virtue. Since they admonish people to respect religious beliefs, they implicitly protect fundamentalists from criticism. To a moderate, it is offensive to point out absurdities of one's religious beliefs while at the same time these very absurd beliefs are what fuel religious fundamentalism. Moderates may not run planes into buildings, but they are still not free of the core problem at hand. The core problem is the acceptance and respect accorded to false beliefs. As a matter of act, moderates are more guilty of this sin than fundies. At least fundamentalists can see that religions other than their own do cause carm. The truth is that some false beliefs are more dangerous than others and it so happens that billions subscribe to some dangerous ones. It is taboo to notice this, especially to the moderate.

Also it seems like it's false to believe that moderates are necessarily more likely to deconvert than fundamentalists.

30. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94871 by mintcheerios on December 6, 2007 at 11:21 pm

This is exactly what the topic is about. Call me crazy but killing people and then attaching pre-written notes to them threatening to kill other people for religious reasons seems like religious terrorism to me. Even if it's not, we shouldn't treat such crimes any differently and we shouldn't ignore the fact that it was inspired by some very false beliefs.

The fact that criticizing Islam can get you killed in the middle-east (and apparently the west now) is now agreed by pretty much everyone. The argument at hand is about determining the cause of it. Atran's conclusion that it's really social groups is plain ridiculous because it doesn't make sense. He has done a considerable amount of research on the topic which is not to be ignored, but his conclusion doesn't follow. Sam even agreed with 90% of what he said. It's basically the conclusion he doesn't agree with.

Atran's credentials and experience have led you to fall into the fallacy of appealing to authority. He probably knows more facts and figures about terrorism than most people, but it's funny how he still hasn't laid a good case as to why religion has little or nothing to do with terrorism in the middle-east.

It's ironic too. Here we have the terrorists explicitly stating their reason for why they do it ad nauseum (Allah Akhbar), while the expert negotiator is thinking "Nah, quit lying, you all know you want to blow up this bus full of children because of friendship and soccer".

Atran's mountain of research and his following claims reminds me of what Bill Watterson thought the purpose of academic scholarship seemed like to him; "inflating weak ideas, obscuring poor reasoning, and inhibiting clarity".

31. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94853 by mintcheerios on December 6, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Bonzai: She's not just an ordinary ex-Muslim. She's someone who talks about it publically risking her life to help others who may be suffering like she did. She and her friend Theo van Gogh made a 10 minute short film criticizing Islam. Subsequently Theo van Gogh was shot, stabbed, and inches away from being completely decapitated. A knife went through his torso with a note saying that Ali would be next for being an apostate. This happened in Holland by an educated Muslim Dutch citizen in 2004. Would Theo van Gogh have gotten killed like that for making a film criticizing homeopathy? To any sane rational person the answer is no.

To go to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and tell her that her friend died because of soccer and friendships would take some gall considering her murdered friend had a note that basically said "You die for insulting Islam and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is next for being a kafir (non-believer)".

It would be like someone with a super condescending smug tone of voice telling a holocaust survivor that Nazism isn't responsible for your friend's death, but really friendship and soccer.

32. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #94845 by mintcheerios on December 6, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Moderates are the most annoying to debate. They basically claim that their religion has been wrongly practiced (or hijacked) for almost 2 millennia and finally in the late twentieth century ordinary people who almost never read their holy books have aligned closer to their religion than their past contemplatives who have memorized every page. To moderates, a Hindu from the 21st century acts more like a proper Christian than St. Augustine. The irrationality is astounding.

33. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94834 by mintcheerios on December 6, 2007 at 6:32 pm

I would love to see if Atran would have the gall to use his "it's soccer and friendship, not Islam" shtick on Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

34. Evolution and Texas

Comment #94524 by mintcheerios on December 5, 2007 at 11:15 pm

It's a circus of religious nonsense here in Texas. It's really hard for me to see how any person of reason could doubt that religion and science collide. Is a bunch of self-professed evangelists preaching about the evilness of evolution not convincing enough?

35. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82236 by mintcheerios on October 25, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Sam has never made more sense to me with this speech than when I saw how D'Souza debated with Shermer and Hitchens.

36. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80892 by mintcheerios on October 23, 2007 at 11:46 am

Does anyone else see Harris's point at the AAI conference now?

D'Souza's main tactic is clearly demonizing atheism. If you don't think so, look at the titles of many of his articles.

"Why Atheists are Not Very Bright"
"Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?"
"Atheism is the Opiate of the Morally Corrupt"
"What atheists Kant refute"
"Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history"

It needs to be pointed out that an atheist can be a Buddhist, astrologer, believer in fairies, or all of them put together. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you are suddenly a champion of reason. You can be an atheist and still be more irrational than Ted Haggard. This is how meaningless the term is and it's surprising how many people want to adopt it.

As Sam Harris says "It's as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it."

We are basically giving theists a strawman (the one they constructed) to beat up in front of an audience who can't tell the difference between straw and flesh. We are defending reason, not atheism. A world with only atheists could still be a world full of Pol Pots, Stalins, Buddhists, and holocaust-deniers, but a world with only reasonable people could never be so. How many supporters does D'Souza have for attacking atheism? How many would he have if he attacked the act of being reasonable?

37. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79699 by mintcheerios on October 18, 2007 at 7:55 am

Sam Harris needs to debate McGrath. He would make McGrath embarrassed to ever use the "atheism is a faith" straw man again.

The bulk of McGrath's argument is turning atheism into an ideology just like any other which is exactly what Sam Harris talked about. As baseless as that argument is, it is convincing to a lot of people.

Imagine what McGrath's argument would change to if Hitchens was a deist. The fact that his argument would even change shows how evasive McGrath is.

38. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76153 by mintcheerios on October 4, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Sam brings up a good point and I think to a certain extent they have been tried successfully. Bill Maher (like him or not) has never called himself an atheist (while he may not believe in a god) and he has never faced the Stalin argument, the you-can't-disprove-God-argument etc. Dawkins' foundation is for 'reason and science' not 'atheism and science'. We're really advocating reason here, not atheism.

People often ask what religion you are. Responding with "I'm an atheist" really does have liabilities. Saying you don't subscribe to any particular religion carries much less. Then the conversation can go untainted into discussions about believing in certain propositions. A Christian and most non-Christians can agree that winged horses aren't real and Muslims and non-Muslims can agree that virgin births are ridiculous. Once you're an atheist, both religions' books have some nasty things to say about you. Like Sam says, it's hard to argue against someone who just wants to be reasonable. No one would argue that reasonableness is what caused most of the atrocities in the 20th century (almost no one).

39. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73884 by mintcheerios on September 26, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Maybe so many people wouldn't misunderstand religion if people would just admit that the holy books are just fiction.

It's amazing how some moderates react when they see fundamentalist actions. "Duh, the story of the ark is just a metaphor, but the part about the cosmic zombie with magic powers is true".

40. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72534 by mintcheerios on September 21, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Revcort: ...not believing in the inspiration of Scripture will only lead down a slippery slope that will undermine and totally destroy the Christian faith.

Exactly, reason will ultimately be the demise of religion. The biggest thing that is threatening faith is reason so you must fight against it. Maybe one day you will prevail and destroy reason once and for all. Then people can accept Christ without having to overcome pesky burdens such as critical-thinking.

Or maybe reason will prevail and people will stop taking you seriously when you tell them that the book you're holding is magical.

41. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71176 by mintcheerios on September 18, 2007 at 1:48 am

I have a question for you revcort. Let's see if you have a judo move for this one.

Isn't it possible (and more likely) that God did write the bible, but he exaggerated his abilities by saying he was all-powerful and all-knowing? I mean he could still be pretty damn powerful (like nearly-all-powerful) and smart, but just not all-powerful or all-knowing like he claimed in the bible. I mean everyone's guilty of exaggerating their abilities and it's completely normal. I've said many times that I know everything about guitars, but in reality I haven't the slightest clue about the molecular constituents that make up my Schecter C-1 Classic. Wouldn't it be absurd if someone wanted to test my guitar omnisciency and asked "mintcheerios, how many electrons does the bridge of my Fender have?" We could be doing the same thing by assuming God really meant all-powerful or all-knowing in the bible instead of merely pretty-God-damn-powerful or super-ultra-hyper-smart. If it's true that God just exaggerated his claim of almightiness, the problem of theodicy is solved and you no longer have to resort to your gold medal deserving mental gymnastics to explain the discrepancies.

Why do bad things happen to good people? Because, even though God really wants to help, it's not his area of expertise. Why does God help someone get a pay raise while not giving food to starving praying children? Because his raise-giving ability is well-honed while his save-starving-children ability is severely lacking. Why doesn't God just come down and tell us that he exaggerated his claims in the bible? Because he failed Dimension Crossing 4334.

See how much more sense this makes? How could you possibly not accept my theory? Can you prove it wrong?

42. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #69373 by mintcheerios on September 11, 2007 at 2:55 am

It's articles like this that make me realize the futility of satirizing the religious.

43. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66347 by mintcheerios on August 29, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Donohue is an idiot.

44. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #50074 by mintcheerios on June 14, 2007 at 9:39 pm

It does seem such things like homeopathy are prevalent in the more secular societies. While it's not popular in the US, Europe is crazy about it in comparison.

Also religious moderation is one of the biggest impediments we have in dismantling fundamentalism. Attributing heinous religious acts to secular motives gives fundamentalism the shelter it needs to keep functioning.

45. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48107 by mintcheerios on June 6, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Another moderate shielding religion from the proper criticism it deserves. He washes the blood off the hands of religion by playing with semantics. He finds it impossibly hard to find a distinction between the performance of a requiem and a religious belief, but I find it rather easy. Could it be that the performance of a requiem doesn't advocate a dangerous ideology?

It is now astoundingly clear that people like this guy, Aslan, and Hedges are giving shelter to fundamentalists by making it taboo to criticize religion for what it is. However, Theo Hobson is worse than the rest because on top of everything, he pretends he is Webster and defines atheism as a belief system.

46. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48094 by mintcheerios on June 6, 2007 at 3:02 pm

I'm still waiting for the Harris vs. Hedges debate on audio or video.

47. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47715 by mintcheerios on June 5, 2007 at 10:53 am

Sam isn't addressing those people. He's addressing people who actually believe atheism will lead to moral chaos because it provides no moral basis.

48. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44866 by mintcheerios on May 25, 2007 at 12:23 pm

This stuff really is impossible to satirize.

49. Importing a slave class

Comment #44847 by mintcheerios on May 25, 2007 at 11:54 am

Robert nailed it on the head. The disengenuity of saying the "Democrats" held onto slavery is astounding. She knows many people don't know that the democrats of the time were right-wingers, and she is exploiting this to the max by banking on the ignorance of her readers.

50. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #44819 by mintcheerios on May 25, 2007 at 10:42 am

On Fox it was Dr. Falwell, and here it's Mr. Dawkins. We must be living in topsy-turvey world.