Monday, June 04, 2007

WILL THE DEMOCRATS EMBRACE ATHEISM?


At no point in our nation’s history has a fringe political movement been permitted to become more powerful than has the far left during the post 9/11 era.

The extreme left has essentially taken control of the Democratic party, forcing the top Presidential candidates to shape their rhetoric in increasingly liberal tones and use the Iraq war as a launching pad for an agenda which is not in sync with the values and priorities of most Americans.

In addition to the immediate abandonment of Iraq, these groups also advocate socialism in its purest form, a more Amsterdam-esque, hedonistic America with moral equivocation when it comes to America’s enemies and a “blame America first” attitude going well beyond patriotic questioning of American policy.
The most striking aspect of the far left’s surge in influence, however, is the renewed fashionability among liberal elites towards atheism. The mainstreaming of Bush hatred and other such practices has had a trickle-down effect which has led an increasing number of those on the far left, especially young people, to believe that there is no God.



A number of authors such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have recently published books making arguments in favor of Godlessness as part and parcel of American political life. As might be expected, these authors are being given lots of face time in the media as of late.

To be clear, this trend does not include those who consider themselves agnostic. One of the ploys adopted by atheists attempting to spread their ideology has been to lump those who are unsure about the existence or nature of a deity in with those who are confident that no such higher being exists.

This is an intellectually dishonest tactic meant to make the numbers of the unbelievers seem greater, and it works.

As voices from the American left become more and more audible, thanks in large part to the comfortable home which they have found on the Internet, atheism has experienced a surge in popularity among the liberal elite not seen since the leftist glory days of the 1930’s. My guess is that this is, in some large measure, a reaction to President Bush’s deeply held religious beliefs and to the power of the evangelicals who helped him get elected.

But how long will the Democratic presidential candidates be able to maintain the political balancing act which, on one hand, requires them to publicly state their belief in God in order to prevail in a general election setting, while on the other hand, playing footsie with the beliefs of their radical base? A sizeable portion of that activist base considers believers to be naïve, unenlightened fools who pray to an invisible being, who sits on a cloud somewhere in the sky, controlling the universe.

When coupled with the possibility that some of the more “progressive” candidates themselves may actually be closet atheists (Dennis Kucinich, I’m looking in your direction.) how long until the more moderate candidates will be forced to adopt a hostility towards the concept of God and those voters who do believe, in order to win a primary election?

We know that the Hillary Clintons and John Edwards of the world will say just about anything to satisfy the folks who control the money over at MoveOn.org and Media Matters. Therefore, is it that much of a stretch to imagine a future election in which hostility to God and religion is taken to an extreme level by a serious contender in order to satisfy an important political faction?

Just as the Evangelicals have proven their power in electing GOP candidates to high office, is it possible that Atheists could begin to wield a similar power among Democrats?

What consequences if any would Atheistic candidacies or tenures in office have on our nation?



While liberals constantly warn us of the boogeyman of theocracy dwelling in the motives of the current Administration, the truth is that these very people know in their heart of hearts that their fear mongering is based on a ludicrous distortion of reality.

Surely even they understand that the American people would overwhelmingly reject a Mullah style Christian candidate, if one existed.

They also must understand that Atheism represents the other extreme, which would be overwhelmingly rejected as well if a candidate espoused its principles, which are openly hostile towards religion.

Remember Communism? Yeah, it didn’t work.



It's important to keep in mind that Atheists tend not to be neutral on the question of religion. They view religion as bad. They see it as having a negative effect on society.

For the time being, Hillary and her ilk will continue to make speeches in African-American churches and pay lip service to those religious individuals whom the Democratic party has pretended to understand in the years since the 2004 Bush victory.

But as its left wing radical elite continues to grow in power, the time will come for the Democratic Party when the believers will not be able to co-exist with the non-believers. Then a re-alignment surely will occur, similar to the one of the 1970s and 1980s when the Southern Democrats abandoned the party for the GOP.

The same questions regarding the far left’s proclivity towards atheism could also be raised when it comes to their belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thus far, not even the most insane among the ’08 presidential candidates has given the slightest nod to the surprisingly high percentage of liberals who believe that the U.S. government was in some way behind the 9/11 attacks. Of course, there is still plenty of time and one of these guys (or gals) is bound to become desperate eventually.

Sphere: Related Content

23 comments:

terry said...

"The same questions regarding the far left’s proclivity towards atheism could also be raised when it comes to their belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories."

Check out the Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Government Officials, Professors, 9-11 Survivors and Family Members who have expressed significant criticism of the 9-11 Commission Report and/or allege government complicity in 9-11 found here:
www.patriotsquestion911.com

-

Anonymous said...

Dude. Give it a rest.

Dave C said...

Atheism is not a political point of view. It is belief in the truth, supported by evidence, rather than faith in a God, supported by no evidence at all.
Politics and religion should be mutually exclusive, without the latter informing the former.

bb said...

"At no point in our nation’s history has a fringe political movement been permitted to become more powerful than has the far left during the post 9/11 era."

Um.... yeah... So... That whole confederate thing? That wasn't a fringe movement?
What about the Fallwell-inspired and Bush-endoresed mobilization of the Evangelicals who want to turn this nation into a fascist "family values" wasteland of oppression, ignorance, intolerance, hatred, and good old jackassery?

What about the rise of Rush in his day? What about the rise of FOX news? (I know, I know, it's "fair and balanced." Is THAT why it created the "Half Hour News Hour?" Because it felt the need to further its journalistic intergrity by competing with a show on a COMEDY network!?)

"At no point in our nation's history?"

Get a grip, dude. Hyperbole doesn't help your hateful and irrational diatribes seem any more rational.

Hayduke said...

"The extreme left has essentially taken control of the Democratic party, forcing the top Presidential candidates to shape their rhetoric in increasingly liberal tones and use the Iraq war as a launching pad for an agenda which is not in sync with the values and priorities of most Americans."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Sorry, I snorted milk out my nose. Please don't write such hilarious comedy while I'm eating!

The Democratic Party is firmly in the hands of the Moderate Right. The Far Left have no political party to call their own since the assassination of the Socialist Party.

"The most striking aspect of the far left’s surge in influence, however, is the renewed fashionability among liberal elites towards atheism."

Liberal elites are not the far left. Liberal elites are the solid middle mugwumps, with their mugs on one side of the fence and their wumps on the other.

"One of the ploys adopted by atheists attempting to spread their ideology has been to lump those who are unsure about the existence or nature of a deity in with those who are confident that no such higher being exists."

Atheist - one who doesnot believe in a god.
Agnostic - one who does not believe in a god in the absence of evidence of a god.

"Remember Communism? Yeah, it didn’t work."

Are you thinking of State Capitalism in the Soviet Union, perhaps? Communism was never tried in the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution, so communism never had a chance to fail. Communism has nothing to do with religion. Communism is an economic system.

"The same questions regarding the far left’s proclivity towards atheism could also be raised when it comes to their belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories."

There is no "far left" belief in 9/11 copnspiracy theories. You must be thinking of the far right. I'm an anarchist, as far left asone can get. I have no such belief.

bb said...

"the surprisingly high percentage of liberals who believe that the U.S. government was in some way behind the 9/11 attacks"

you're going to have to show me those numbers.
Who are you defining as "liberals" here?
Do liberals = not right-wingers?
If so - really? a "surpringly high percentage?"

Who are these liberals you keep hastily lumping together and lambasting?

Falling Panda said...

A Rasmussen survey finds that, “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.”

That's 61% in regards to that question alone.
You can draw your own conclusions from those stats, but I think anyone who has watched the conspiracy nuts over the past 5 years knows where these people fall on the political spectrum.

bb said...

Nothing wrong with "not being sure." It means you're not an automaton who blindly accepts everything he's fed by the mainstream media as "cold hard fact." It's simply an indication that one has the capacity to wonder and think for oneself. And given all the absurd shennanigans these cats have been up to, I don't blame the "doubters." I'd rahter have doubters in our country than people who just shut up and think what they're told to think.
But I know how opposed to such notions you are, bud.

(on a friendly note - hung out with 'Noon last night. Missed ya!)

dan said...

That's not the point. If you do your research you know that there is no evidence whatsoever that the US had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks and ther are zero unanswered questions in regard to how those attacks took place or how the damage to the buildings occured.

If you can point one out I'd be happy to resond to it with facts.

In addition, there is no evidence to support the paranoia that Bush knew what was going to happen on that day.

Again..evidence?

Here is the scam. While there are reasonable reasons not to trust or to dislike the mainstream media, there is far more reason to believe that their evidence is credible than the stuff coming from the bloggers and hate sites where these kooky 9/11 ideas origonate. Those sites are where Rosie and a HUGE segment of Democrats are getting their anti-Bush rhetoric and talking points from.

It's not about thinking what your "told to think." It's about having the capacity to sift through the evidence and figure out which evidence is credible and which is not.

It is unfortunate that so many people in this country are either too lazy or simply incapable of doing this.

June Marie said...

"Not being sure" who was behind 9/11 or whether or not Bush knew about the attacks before they happened is like "not being sure" if the Nazi's were behind the holocaust.

In the internet era, you can make up a lot of things and make them look as though they have some truth to them by dressing them up with an official looking website, but the recent trend towards conspiracy theory based on partisan websites is a dangerous one.

Abouna said...

The Democrats have embraced atheism a long time ago. Now they are forcing it on the rest of us.

bb said...

"While there are reasonable reasons not to trust or to dislike the mainstream media, there is far more reason to believe that their evidence is credible than the stuff coming from the bloggers and hate sites where these kooky 9/11 ideas origonate."

I hope the irony of you - a biased, negligent, largely unoriginal, and underinformed blogger making this statement - wasn't lost on you while you were typing it, FP.

""Not being sure" who was behind 9/11 or whether or not Bush knew about the attacks before they happened is like "not being sure" if the Nazi's were behind the holocaust."

Um. No. But thanks for playing. Your brash, hasty and dismissive generalization is appreciated. So was this tidbit -

"In the internet era, you can make up a lot of things and make them look as though they have some truth to them by dressing them up with an official looking website, but the recent trend towards conspiracy theory based on partisan websites is a dangerous one."

Serioulsy.
I mean has this blog ever once displayed an ability to think beyond partisan politics? Nope. Has it ever once expressed an original take on an issue? (By "original," I mean one I didn't hear from Sean Hannity or Bill ORiley first) Nope. Has it ever once rolled up its sleeves, dug deep, and openly explored the roots of America's jitters, paranoia, mistrust, mistakes, issues, etc?
Nope. It just heedlessly bashes anyone who doesn't vote Red.

Now let's make one thing clear before this debate goes on any further - While I am fascinated by conspiracy theories, I do not fully endorse them. But yes - they fascinate me because I find it mind-boggling that so many people have ROOM for doubt. That there is such a glacier of mistrust. And if you think that mistrust is a symptom of being a "lazy" pajama-wearing blog-troller, think again. We live in a time when there is so much REASON to distrust, and to outright dismiss such mistrust is to shut off that part of your brain that involves critical thinking.

I mean, come on -
"In the internet era, you can make up a lot of things and make them look as though they have some truth to them..."

You mean like the Pentagon releasing a grainy blurry video of a plane hitting the Pentagon FIVE YEARS AFTER THE FACT? I'm not saying I believe in the conspiracy, but I AM saying that - I just watched a movie where a giant hole in the ocean ate a bunch of pirate ships and monsters. And I'm supposed to watch a grainy fuzzy 18 second video of something that kind of sort of looks like a plane hitting a building in a matter of 4 frames and blindly accept it as "fact?"

I dunno. There's simply too much at stake right now to do so.
If we aren't willing to even entertain alternative notions, then we're shutting off our brains.

FP, you always love to come back by starting off with things like "That's not the point." No. It might not be THE point. But it is A point.

And I'd love to talk to you about the reasonably questionable "holes" in the plot, etc, but I'm sure you'd just throw back pieces of information that you read in a MainStream media newspaper or magazine or website and made the choice to accept it as "fact," without questinoing the motives and perspectives or even the source itself.

bb said...

"The Democrats have embraced atheism a long time ago. Now they are forcing it on the rest of us."

??!??!

How? How are "they" "forcing" it on you?

bb said...

bb -

One last pesky question and then I'm done. I promise. And to Falling Panda and all it's readers - I'm a very very nice guy. I promise. I just get frustrated these days. Again - I feel like there's too much at stake to not.

""Not being sure" who was behind 9/11 or whether or not Bush knew about the attacks before they happened is like "not being sure" if the Nazi's were behind the holocaust."

Is it also like "not being sure" whether or not the European settlers were nice to Indians?
Or "not being sure" whether or not George Washington owned slaves - a statement often challenged by staunch "patriots" who claim that such assertions are fallacies fabricated by radical groups and "wacky" revisionist historians like Howard Zinn aimed to taint the image of America and its ideals?

(that's right - I said "taint")

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19100886/?GT1=10056

dan said...

Look dude, I know you’re cynical, as a yound artist living in NYC, you are almost required to be. But throughout that entire triad of postings you didn't give me a single reason to re examine my criticism of the Looney left's conspiracy theorists.

I'm a journalist, I can back anything I say up with established facts. Not all bloggers can say that, but it really doesn't matter to them if they see an opportunity to advance their agenda. i.e. The Lancet Study, Valarie Plame, The Downing Street Memo etc.

My ideas and the opinions expressed on this blog are positions I take on issues and while they are often in agreement with others, they are also often opinions that I have never heard expressed by anyone. For example my recent piece on Romney as well as the piece to which this comment thread runs are not theories which I have heard anywhere else. They are based on core issues that a lot of people talk about, but my views are my own, so you should leave the old liberal regurgitation of the theory of conservative regurgitation at the door, where it belongs.

I don't think you watch Bill O'Reilly ( your interpretation of what guys like he and Hannity say is way off and your concept of me just parroting someone else views are silly, since a) I don't think you have any idea of what conservative thinkers in this nation profess, besides what others tell you that they say on Air America or read on Left Wing websites and ideologically similar editorial pages. and b)With political analysis it's almost impossible to have an idea that is completely original. Someone somewhere has probably thought of a similar idea before you, whether it be coming from my mouth, O'Reilly's mouth or Noam Chomsky's.

So again, if you can give me a single good reason as to why we should give any credibility or even listen to the 9/11 truthers or the "Bush knew" crowd anymore, then bring it. Until you do and can back it up with something other than...well anything is possible, I'm going to just assume that you can't.

And here's the kicker

'When you refer to the
"roots of America's jitters, paranoia, mistrust, mistakes, issues, etc?"
"
That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's the irresponsible, ideologues who have pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, "Bush Lied" fairy tales, Big Brother fantasies, and march towards theocracy and fascism alarmism, who are directly responsible for not only the things that you mentioned above, but also the gradual disappearance of political discourse in this country.

But the heart of their argument can essentially be broken down into two words which I frequently see plastered on the bumper of some angry liberals car. "Buck Fush". That's essentially all that it is.

And I guarantee you one thing. If Hillary is elected you won't be seeing "Cillary's a Hunt" bumper stickers on our cars, and you won't see any crackpot theories about how she started a war for oil or lied to the American people when she didn't on this website. And that right there is better than most other bloggers of any ideology can promise.

Falling Panda said...

And let me make one last point.

There are reasons to question authority in this country, but too many people are questioning authority right now, simply for the sake of questioning authority, not because there is any good reason to.

The "reason to distrust" has been created by those who have an incentive to distrust and villify. Namely, those on the left who dislike the current administration or America for whatever reason.

This is not a new phenomenon by any means, it stems from the problems of the Johnson, Nixon and Clinton administrations and elsewhere. But it's reached a point where there are people with no credibility making stuff up and people are buying into it. They are hurting our country for the sake of what they want to be true and:
"There's simply too much at stake right now to do so." -bb

bb said...

I WANT to go on and talk about this, and I actually kind of thank you for the comment - "I know you’re cynical, as a yound artist living in NYC, you are almost required to be."

Because - Yes. It's in my job description. I'm here to raise the questions, to lift the rocks, to look on the dark side of the moon and see what's crawling around.

FP - You know I love ya, and I'm PRETTY sure that you ain't got nothin' but love for the bb despite our inability to see eye-to-eye. But that's what makes "discourse" a good thing. The fact that we're even doing this is indicative of the fact that - no, discourse is NOT dead.

I have to run out of town for a play reading, blah blah - but I WILL respond very soon.

all the best,
bb

dan said...

bb- without you this blog dies a slow painful death. Good luck.

bb said...

The only quick things I can get before I head out -

I actually do watch ORiley, if I'm around and have the time. I occasioinally listen to Thom Hartman (he's relatively sane), and I've read portions of Hannity's recent book (couldn't really stomach his uber-lionization of Regan and his staunch defense of Ollie North, nor do I have much respect in general for the way he spits on "myths" like "the need for fuel efficiency"). I found the chapters I read to be pretty onpar with a lot of conservative writing out there - More interested in villifying those who don't vote Red, and more focused on appealing to an audience/base/whatever you wanna call it for the sake of pundit celebrity knighthood rather than trying to offer strong insight and justification for the current Bush admin agenda. By "Strong" I mean something other than "they're out to get us," "they hate our freedoms," and "be afraid of the boogyeman in the shadows" (Which, yes, is also the umbrage I PERSONALLY take with farleft conspiracy nuts, I'm talking the hardcore kind that think it's all one big neverending entaglement going back to the apple. The tree one, not the big one.) (that doesn't mean they don't fascinate the writer in me, though. more on this later.)

I find it frustrating the way so many of these guys (conserv pundits) talk about events in the Middle East without a real sense of the history of that region and the incredibly complex social infrasctructure going on there. They talk like only the last 15 years matter. I think the reason they avoid history and social nuance isn't because they aren't smart guys. I think it's because they ARE smart guys. They're businessmen. They're TV men, they need ratings, they need people to stay tuned, to buy the books. And so they pander away, never once veering from the road or drawing outside of the lines. When we talk about the death of discourse in modern media culture, I firmly belive this is one of the main cuplrits - the entaglement of business interests and advertising revenue with media outlets. Who would tune in and watch an interesting discussion of the history of the Middle East going all the way back to the 13th century? No one. But it's so fun to point fingers and call names. Works for the Daily Show, works for ORiley, works for Ann Coulter, etc.
It DIDN'T work for Air America, but I'm convinced that's because their targeted audience actually, you know, reads books and stuff.

But all of that being thrown out there - I DO tune in to this stuff. I kinda think it's my responibility to as a writer person. I don't like writing one-sided pieces/plays/whatever you wanna call them that "villainize." I'm more interested in the human element. In exploring the emotional symptoms of the schizm and of the great divide. You can't do that if you only understand one perspective.

BTW -
For further reading re:the Mid East and/or the horribly complex role America's got in a post-Cold War world, might I suggest -
Smantha Power's A PROBLEM FROM HELL.
READING LOLITA IN TEHRAN.
George Packer's THE ASSASIN'S GATE.
Benjamin Barber's JIHAD VS MCWORLD.

later,
bb

dan said...

Actually I think that the reason Air America collapsed was two fold. First, in listening to it I found that it was far more mean-spirited than Conservative talk. You have people like Franken and Garafalo whose whole careers have been made up of saying funny, exagerated, shocking things and they brought it into their political commentary. I also believe that there is a feeling among some on the left that in order to be payed attention to they must yell, scream use over the top rhetoric in order to express their outrage and I don't really think that a lot of people want to listen to that.

The other reason why Air America didn't work is because so much of the liberal base is made up of minorities and one issue groups. Blacks, Gays, single women etc. These groups already have radio stations which specifically target them and cater to their interests.
Because the right is far more homogeneous, there is more of a natural audience out there for conservative talk.

For books on the history of the Middle East and the current situation in regard to The War on Terror, might I reccomend:

Bernard Lewis - What went Wrong?

Robert Spencer - The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades.)

Dinesh D'Souza - The Enemy at home.

Also, keep in mind that I do read the posts on Third Evolution (although I don't take Eddie's rants very seriously) so I know when your points mirror those that have been posted earlier on his blog

i.e People who were going to be Air America's audience were too busy reading.

So be very careful when you accuse me of regurgitating the talking points of others.

Love ya.

bb said...

Ha.

Fair enough. I will no longer stoop and accuse you of regurgitation.

(they spit in their palms, they shake hands)

Although I haven't read TE in months and months.
Crazy, crazy, Eddie, God love him. His is the kind of rabid anxiety that the writer in me finds fascinating - what a character! - but, like you, I can't take MOST of it that seriously. (But I think it makes for GREAT dialogue.)

It's funny - I feel like I somehow got roped into defending conspiracy theorists, when my initial intent was not so much to try making their arguments for them, but rather to express how their perspective, for me, illuminates my fascination with a larger social issue that's going on right now-

Regardless of political position - (and again, for the record, I'm a Dem by default only. I've been very disappointed in their improvisational disorganization in the wake of 9/11 and everything else. For the most part, they're a bunch of weak douchebags afraid to make decisions and pronouncements, trying to pander to every diverse group, while ultimately pleasinng no one. I'd happily be a Lbertarian or a Humanist or something, but that doesn't look as spiffy on your voter card and makes people look at you funny at bars) - there is this overwhelming sense of fear and mistrust that makes it hard for people to calmly be in the NOW (just take a look at last night's brilliant ending of THE SOPRANOS and the way it's open-endedness reflected a sense of parnoia and tension where neither needed to be).

Bush, The White House, Memos, News Outlets, Blogs, Radio.
There is a wall of information and noise out there, and even for those who DO take the time to sift through it all - most people are still making a concsious or subconscious choice, they DECIDE to readily accept something as truth.
For certainly there are a lot of facts out there, and not all of them add up (how can we possibly know the whole story?). But the truth isn't the same thing as fact (sorry to get all Kant and Heidegger on you).

Just look at these nuts opening the "Creation Museum" in Cincinatti. Showing - with so-called "scientific evidence" - that the Earth was created 2,000 years ago, that Adam and Eve walked among the dinosaurs, etc. They've been presented with information and - because it suits their position - they have chosen to accept it as "truth." More frightening - they're taking aim on children. Spreading their "truth" to impressionable minds, get 'em while they're young, etc. (sound like any one else we know?)
I think this is what people mean when they say "Radical Christianity is just as dangerous as Radical Islam."
Because Radical Christianity - (have you watched "Jesus Camp?") - also considers itself at war with everyont who isn't all things Radical Christianity.
Of course the obvious difference is that RC hasn't armed itself with nukes.
Yet.

I digress.
Do I BUY most 9/11 conspiracy theories? No.
But in regards to your cited poll - the wording of that thing is tricky.
"whether or not he knew about them in advance."
Knowing that there was a threat in advance is not the same thing as "being behind it, plotting it, tweaking his mustache and hatching a plan..." But the wording of that poll seems to want to lump everyone who has doubts about the attacks and our govt's preperation into one loony and easily dismissable mass in order to quel the spirit of vocal wondering.

Alot of reports, books, etc, suggest Bush did know full well that SOMEthing was coming. Not the specific DATE and TIME, perhaps, but Tenent was warning Clinton and Bush for years.
There's the famous Condi Rice bit quopting the memo that says "BinLaden determined to strike America."
Ron Suskind, in his book "THE ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE" talks about Bush being warned in the summer of 2001 by several top-ranking CIA officials only to respond by telling them "Allright, you've covered your ass now."

And yeah - I'll admit it - I find the whole famous PNAC thing with its now-infamous line "Would take a Pearl Harbor like event" a little sketchy. Not evidence of conspiracy. Just sketchy.
I find the fact that Bush was INSISTENT on finding a connection between Iraq and Al-Quaeda sketchy. Because when you WANT to find information to support your cause, you will eventually.
But whatever...

There is a WALL of "information" and print and noise out there. I firmly believe that nobody knows anything.
And why should we?
We're citizens, there's a lot of stake.
But whether many of us know it or not, we - consciously or subconsciously - choose which tidbits of information to accept as "truth" and which we can ignore for whatever reasons.

dan said...

Yeah, Jesus Camp was pretty scary. However, for a far more fair and balanced look at the evangelicals, I suggest the recent HBO special directed by...are you ready for this?...Alexandra Pelosi! I forget the name, but it's pretty good.

Shannonymous said...

OMG I LOVE WHEN FP & BB DEBATE! Sorry I didn't see this sooner, I was busy gettin' engaged & shit. ;)

You both bring up great points- you are amazing sparring partners. I want to film you guys walking around the city (L.A. or NYC) debating politics. I think it would be a real blockbuster documentary... especially if you both started doing your monkey imitations at certain points and grunting at each other! =D

Seriously though, I love the debates- keep up the good work!

Fondly,
S ;)

PS-
Abouna: you never cease to amaze me with your close-mindedness and your mockery of those who don't agree with you. Two traits unbecoming, especially for a man of the cloth.
PPS
dave c:
you said "Atheism is not a political point of view. It is belief in the truth, supported by evidence, rather than faith in a God, supported by no evidence at all." The DEFINITION of faith is believing in something even if you can't see it or prove it. Athiesm isn't necessarily a belief in the TRUTH because you can't PROVE that God does NOT exist! =) There may not be evidence that YOU can SEE that God exists, but there's also no definitive evidence that there is no God.

How ya like dem apples?!?! (Thank you professor Tom Cook for your Philosophy of Logic class. ;)