Pharyngula

Posted by: RamblinDude | December 29, 2009 7:33 PM

It's funny 'cause it's true, heh, heh.

Posted by: Sioux Laris | December 29, 2009 7:50 PM

This "creationists are trailer trash/hillbillies" take on creationists kind of bugs me: such people are ignorant for the best of reasons (they had no other source of information while immersed in a repressive social setting). I'd give them a chance - of anything other than violence - to at least get a smattering of why their folk beliefs don't hold water any longer.

The people I despise are the ones who INSIST on their ignorance, like Sarah "Utterly Insincere, Cynical and Greedy" Palin. They demand not simply the right to be an idiot (It IS a free country, after all - until they come into power.) but that idiocy be made the standard by which ideas are judged: their lies/prejudices musst be given privilege over any facts, and allowed exemption from any consequences.
These sorts of creationists are the ones to oppose and ridicule. They qualify as "evil" in whatever sense that loaded term has meaning.

Posted by: Kathy Orlinsky | December 29, 2009 8:05 PM

I've laughed at plenty of Palin comments, but the maddest I've ever gotten is when she said the country might be tired of elitists who haven't worked hard.

Not work hard?!?!

My fellow students and I didn't work hard in grad school, putting in 12+ hour days? My advisor didn't work hard putting in 14+ hour days to get tenure? Doctors don't work hard at their residencies? Lawyers don't work hard at their internships?

So, it's not only that she's ignorant, but she has no idea that it's possible to not be ignorant. She clearly thinks we 'elitists' have no better way to know anything than she does. It's not like we worked hard to gain that information!

Posted by: tractrix | December 29, 2009 8:08 PM

If only all creationists were hicks! I live in Virginia and I'm surrounded by creationists. They're college educated, professional, and financially comfortable (or even wealthy). They have no idea they're rednecks.

Finding a preschool for my child was impossible. Almost all preschools are in evangelical churches, and trust me, every other car in the parking lot is a Lexus or an Acura. My rusty little hubcap-free Subaru made me look like the hick.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | December 29, 2009 8:22 PM

Atheist Cartoons is one of the funniest atheist themed animations around (Thinking Atheist, NonStampCollector, and Darkmatter2525 are my other favorites).

Posted by: Zeno | December 29, 2009 8:30 PM

Good luck to little Aristarchus, who seems to be smart enough to want to get away (even if his only option is hitchhiking).

I wonder if that's how Bruce got away to Oxford.

Posted by: IanW | December 29, 2009 8:37 PM

Wonderful. I wish I could send this to my parents and family, but they don't know how to use the interwebs. Not much can be done about that, I suspect.

Posted by: tractrix | December 29, 2009 8:57 PM

The video also make the assumption that the gay son at Oxford will reject his family's absurd religious beliefs. From my experience, he's just as likely to be evangelical as the rest of his kin, even if they do reject him.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 29, 2009 9:19 PM

It's not quite as heavy handed as you might think. The cartoon was showing a 22nd Century couple and offspring. If the creationists have their way, science will be outlawed, book larnin' will be anti-social, and a person will be considered educated if they can slowly and painfully read the Bible. The standard of living in the 22nd Century will be similar to that of the 12th Century.

Posted by: Pastor Farm | December 29, 2009 9:22 PM

Wow, I was going to come on and complain about the stereotype that they're hicks and that I know far too many successful creationists, but I got beat to the punch.

Seriously, that made me feel like a loser since there are so many (at my work alone) above me in socioeconomic status.

As much as I'd like it, I can't feel even the slightest bit superior despite being more enlightened, since I'm too lazy to actually bother climbing that ladder.

Posted by: RamblinDude | December 29, 2009 9:47 PM

I watched it again and it made me laugh. It’s so over-the-top and stupid that it reminds me of creationists’ videos, but it’s the “Librul elites” fighting back. Go, go, science!

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | December 29, 2009 11:16 PM

The guy who runs Conservapedia is a lawyer (Why couldn't it be an engineer?)

If you are talking about Andy Schlafly he does have a B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University in addition to a law degree from Harvard Law School(Source). How the fuck that nut (see here for list of crazy statements he has made) was able to was able to get either degree, let alone both, I'm not sure. My guess is his mind was semi-functional in the past, but he has since lost it.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 30, 2009 12:10 AM

ffff-
Creationism in my last comment, not atheism. Atheism is the default rational position, not the one that screws with scientific understanding.

Posted by: Rorschach | December 30, 2009 12:22 AM

. Atheism is the default rational position, not the one that screws with scientific understanding.

Plenty of irrational atheists around.Or atheists that hold irrational or unscientific views in other fields.

Sadly, not believing in gods doesnt automatically make you a rationalist.

Posted by: eddie | December 30, 2009 12:48 AM

Unfortunately, merkin culture seems to actively discriminate against free thinkers in general. No surprise that church going rednecks in suits seem to be doing so well. merit has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: John Frum | December 30, 2009 12:56 AM

Came to complain about the stereotype but you guys have got it covered. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: amphiox | December 30, 2009 1:43 AM

re: #27

Nevertheless, atheism (the intellectual position itself as opposed to the people who hold it) IS the default rational position. Not believing in gods IS the rational position on this specific subject.

In the absence of evidence, disbelief is always the rational null hypothesis.

An individual atheist may or may not be rational in respect to any other given position or belief they hold, but the position that defines them as atheists - their non-belief in gods - IS rational. This holds true even if the reason they hold this position is not rational. The position itself is still the rational one.

Posted by: vanharris | December 30, 2009 5:20 AM

Feynmaniac #23, there's a guy in the UK, Andy McIntosh, BSc, PhD, DSc, FIMA, CMath, FInstE, CEng, FInstP, MIGEM, FRAeS. Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory - Faculty of Engineering - University of Leeds, who's a complete nutjob.

Andy McIntosh is probably the best known of the creationists in British academia. He is a Professor of Thermodynamics (basically chemical engineering) at the University of Leeds. McIntosh is also an uncompromising young earth creationist (YEC) whose work appears on the website of the YEC organisation Answers in Genesis (US) at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/origin-of-attack-defense-structures

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 30, 2009 6:17 AM

@vanharris's quote:

Erm, Andy old chap, if the universe was perfect, how did such an unfortunate event as the Fall come to pass?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | December 30, 2009 8:15 AM

Eh.. could have been better.

Also, people really should step back and think before poking fun at homeschooling. I was homeschooled in high school and it was honestly the best thing my mother could ever have done for me.

I was well above the grade level of the average student. In 1st and 2nd grade, my teachers would give me 3rd and 4th grade material to do - though they weren't allowed to skip me ahead until 4th grade. Unfortunately, we moved to a school district that refused to skip me ahead because it would hurt the self-esteem of the other kids in my class (yes, honestly.)

In 7th grade we moved again to a school where I was tortured. I mean, boys will be boys, and you'll always deal with bullies, but those kids had no filter of how much was too much. I developed back trouble because of that school year - I was slammed into lockers and shaken off the gym ropes, thrown to the concrete outside of the school, knocked off park equipment. Plus I was still completely above the level of other students, and should have been skipped ahead to the high school in the area.

So my mother home-(and later un-)schooled me and my sister (who was taken out for entirely different reasons.) It was honestly the best thing she's ever done for me. I could take courses to the levels I felt like taking, I was doing college-level essays in tenth grade, and most importantly, I didn't have to worry about being tortured.

Course, that following summer I had a growth spurt that took me up to about 5'8 and I was taller than the bullies who teased me.

Posted by: savagemickey | December 30, 2009 9:11 AM

For a full length movie version watch Idiocracy.

Posted by: Zernk | December 30, 2009 10:20 AM

Low -- Nyaa nyaa. Look at them. They suck. We rule.

Posted by: Sastra | December 30, 2009 11:14 AM

I think the point of the hillbilly stereotype can be found in the moral at the very end: "Remember, it doesn't matter what you believe ... as long as you believe it with all your heart."

That isn't satire aimed at fundamentalists: it's aimed at a certain type of "liberal" -- those who think fundamentalists and atheists are equally wrong -- two sides of the same coin -- because both groups try to argue their case. From the standpoint of someone promoting the live-and-let-live line, this is rude and intolerant. Instead, people ought to be allowed to believe whatever they want with no criticism -- as long as their beliefs are heartfelt, and provide meaning to their lives.

It's a response to the argument that atheists shouldn't be on the attack. Religion is basically personal therapy and art, and there are no dangerous social consequences to religious belief, as long as everyone just leaves everyone else alone. Relax: people will eventually come together, because they're all following their hearts. It's just a matter of time.

I think the cartoon was responding to this attitude with an "oh, yeah" type scenario of the future. How bad can it get? How strong can the disconnect be? How resistant to change is fundamentalism? Sincerity is no guarantee of gradual progression to harmony.

Posted by: raven | December 30, 2009 11:58 AM

Andy McIntosh babbling like an idiot:

The biblical response to DAS (Defence/Attack Structures) is that the theology of Darwin and Attenborough has made a major assumption—the world is now what it always has been. The Bible, as early as Genesis 3, etc. etc..

This god babble is the equivalent to some of the monologues of the guys down at the park pushing shopping carts around while clutching bottle shaped brown paper bags.

It is boring. It is crazy. Who cares what a few pages of ancient mythology says? What relevance does it have for 21st century humans?

If these clowns weren't trying to take over our country and destroy it, no one would give a rat's ass what they are gibbering on about. They would be lumped in with other lunatic fringers like the UFO, Bigfoot, elves, Birthers, Elvists, and ghost cults.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 30, 2009 12:09 PM

Oh, I like it. It's not supposed to be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But for criticism, obviously a real problem is that many of the anti-scientists believe in science until it bother Jebus, or anyway, his charlatans. Thus they can be engineers, physicists, chemists, maybe even biochemists, all the while spouting the most ignorant tripe regarding biology.

So yeah, they'll use science and technology emanating from science to attack the theory that happens to integrate biology with the other sciences. Which doesn't change the fact that many young fundamentalists are indeed short-changed by their religion and learn little science, since Jebus is everything, meaning that even "proper science" pales in significance.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: sandiseattle | December 30, 2009 12:28 PM

Watched it. Underwhelmed. Typical antireligion stuff. Only funny thing is the Jesus Tech sign, like that little mistake. It was a small chuckle.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 30, 2009 12:40 PM

"Like if only the politicians would listen to the scientists, then we could progress blissfully into our Utopian future. Or better, scientists should rule the world."

What? Whatever gave you that idea? The only thing that is stated or implied is that big advances happened. There's no implication of a scientific oligarchy, only that technology continues advancing. You're aware that happens, right?

@41: The evidence is that Idiocracy was wrong.

Posted by: Anri | December 30, 2009 1:30 PM

Speaking strictly for myself, and at the risk of sounding like a Tone Troll, I found the video disturbingly bigoted. it felt as though a great deal of the second half was, essentially, "Get smarter, or you might end up driving a PICKUP TRUCK and drinking BEER! ZOMG! You might even end up marrying a woman who WEARS CURLERS and knows how to BUTCHER A CHICKEN!! GADS! SWOON!"

To put it another way, let's change the race of the family in question - show a nice, well-dressed black family, planning on their son's college future, then (record screech sound effect!) OH NO, they are doomed, doomed, I tell you, to scenes of poor black urban life due to lack of education. All those tacky low rider cars, drinking Night Train and Thunderbird out of the bottle, ratty apartment living, etc, etc, with a heavy rap beat playing in the background. All things that we good, clean people are supposed to find horrifying simply upon exposure.

I imagine I'd find such a video very insulting and offensive.

Most folks I've met who actually do live in trailers (including some of my relations) are reasonably fine people. Perpetuating the stereotype makes the animators look like terrible snobs.
There are plenty of legitimate targets to be hit with visuals like this (grindingly poor people working a second job to pay for the Pope's Pradas, for ecample). IMHO, they'd be a better choice.

(Rant over)

Posted by: John Marley | December 30, 2009 1:37 PM

I love how little Aristarchus seemed to be hitchhiking the hell out of there.

(Maybe to join his more reasonable brother)

Posted by: realinterrobang | December 30, 2009 1:53 PM

Does anyone really believe that by eliminating religion that somehow that would allow the flowering of a new human nature or culture?

Straw man, and false dichotomy all at once. Nobody said any such thing. However, do you or do you not agree that religion as it is constituted right now is a significant contributor to the amount of human misery in the world? If you don't agree, I first of all don't know what rock you've been living under, but it's a big one, and I secondly think you don't belong on this blog.

It's entirely possible that if we eliminated religion, new forms of authoritarian social control that serve the same function would spring up almost overnight, but considering that religion took thousands of years to accrete into its current form, I suspect that possibility is highly unlikely.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | December 30, 2009 2:13 PM

a good chunch

Lol. Now raven, the voiceless velar fricative is not a suitable replacement for the voiceless velar plosive. lol

Posted by: raven | December 30, 2009 3:00 PM

wodenhouse being very stupid:

raven: "The fundie religious kooks are all Xian Dominionists who hate and fear modern science and the USA"

Wodenhouse: Do you really believe this? If you do, you are extremely naive. You seem to have an extreme kind of personality.

Wodenhouse, have you been asleep for the last century. No I don't "believe" that the fundie Death Cultists are all malevolent Xian Dominionists.

It is just a simple fact. A well known one. The DI is funded by a nasty group of Xian Dominionists. The father of Xian Dominionism was a psychopathic theologian, Rushdoony who proposed killing 99% of the US population and starting over. He was also Pat Robertson's mentor.

The fundies really want to take over and destroy the USA. They say so often. It's no secret. They hate and fear science. That is no secret either. We scientists get death threats constantly. I've been getting them for at least a decade. PZ Myers can get 100/day. They occasionally beat up and murder science supporters and MDs.

For the fundies, "who would jesus kill" is not a rhetorical question.

Talking about extreme personalities, you are a delusional moron who ignores any and all facts.

Forget fighting religion. It is a lost cause and counter productive. Eliminate economic disparity and insecurity and you will go along way to eliminating religion. Don't demonize people for what to them is part of being human.

I can see you can read as well as you think. Polls show 1-2 million people leaving US xianity every year, dropping by 0.5-0.9%/year. Down to 76% of the population and projected to drop below 50% in a few decades. These are facts, google the ARIS survey. We don't have to fight religion. It is destroying itself. When xian became synonymous with liar, moron, crazy, and sometimes killer, a lot of people didn't want to be one.

Posted by: RamblinDude | December 30, 2009 3:28 PM

wodenforce,

Does anyone really believe that by eliminating religion that somehow that would allow the flowering of a new human nature or culture? That we could live happily forever after?

No. But then the goal is not to eliminate religion or even disprove god. The goal is to advance rationality, critical thinking, and knowledge. The discontinuation of superstitious, disproved ideas—whatever they may be—is simply a consequence.

We have the technology and resources today to make the lives of those 1 billion hapless folk you refer to far better. We can eliminate economic disparity and insecurity, but it’s not science that is hindering the process; it’s human nature. The goal is to understand human nature for what it is so that through understanding we can do something about it. The more accurate our perception, the more intelligently we can act on problems. That’s why science is crucial. It gives us a glimpse into the nature of the real world in a way that no religion, or any other tradition of thought, ever has. Science has taught us that there are consequences to running roughshod over the earth; religion—especially Christianity—hasn’t.

That, in fact, is one of the reasons why there is a war on science today, and you’re being naïve if you don’t think there is a war. That war on science is the reason why so much effort is being applied by the rational community in shining a light on the dangers of religion. People trained in traditions of faith don’t like what science has to say, and they are impeding the progress of all. Religion needs to be taken to task, but no one thinks this will be a cure-all.

Posted by: Sastra | December 30, 2009 4:10 PM

wodenforce #62 wrote:

Of course I believe religion is a significant contributor to human misery, but how can you separates religion from language, race, ethnicity, nationality?

By pointing out, again and again, that religions are based on claims about the role of the supernatural in the world. They are not like race or ethnicity: they are rational conclusions more similar to political views, or a scientific hypotheses. And, because they are rational conclusions, it is possible for them to be wrong.

The belief that religion is -- or ought to be -- central to a person's very identity is a very dangerous belief, because it entrenches dogma. Although all religions are mixed up with culture and family and community and secular values, what makes them unique, and identifiable as religion, are the supernatural claims.

This has to be emphasized. All you have to do to stop being a Catholic, is think about the issue and decide that the beliefs are not true. All you have to do to stop being an atheist is conclude that the case for God, is persuasive and convincing. You go from one religious view to another by changing your mind: you do not die in the process.

The cultural belief that it's just fine -- even exemplary -- to maintain that changing your mind on an issue because you've been given new evidence would be just like dying or losing your entire selfhood -- is one that needs to be fought, if we are to maintain intellectual integrity, and honesty. This is true in science, politics -- and religion.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 30, 2009 4:53 PM

I'll be the first to defend moderate Christians, but the majority of Fundamentalists ARE that stupid. Some aren't, but most are. It's going too far to say they ALL are, but it's not the dualism you're claiming either

Posted by: raven | December 30, 2009 5:04 PM

You are creating, in your mind, a vast army of enemies that do not exist, and is no different than their claim that all scientists are out to destroy the values of their children with Darwinist relativism.

Yeah, I wish. Reading comprehension isn't anything you ever heard of.

We all get death threats and have for years. I used to call the FBI (death threats are felonies) and once they arrested two of them. I don't even bother anymore. PZ Myers can get up to a 100 death threats a day.

Fundies have god on their side and one solution to anything in their way. Kill.

What is the difference between a xian and a moslem fanatic? Nothing. Religious kooks are all the same. We just don't let ours run around loose. That is what the police, courts, and army are for. That is one of the defining features of a civilized society.

You will never engage reality, that is obvious. Just so you know, no, you have no right to impose your malevolent fundie beliefs on the rest of us. We vote, we pay taxes, and we employ professionals known as the police, DAs, judges, and soldiers to keep you away from us.

Sad times for religious fanatics since they lost the power to simply shoot people. Sad times for you.

Posted by: wodenforce | December 30, 2009 5:22 PM

Raven,

You are clearly nuts.

I am not trying to impose anything, especially fundamentalist beliefs. I am not even a xian. I am a fucking atheist you moron.

My problem is that you mash all these things things together and label everybody who is fundamentalist as killers, destroyers etc. You think you know everything about xians. Maybe your family was part of this america hating minority, and for that I am sorry. But don't be so stupid and put them all in this category.

Posted by: raven | December 30, 2009 5:27 PM

Raven,

You are clearly nuts.

I am not trying to impose anything, especially fundamentalist beliefs. I am not even a xian. I am a fucking atheist you moron.

Wodenforce, you might as well convert to xianity. You are 99% of the way there. You are a disgrace and a total failure as an atheist. They don't need or want nutcases.

You may have the last word or 2000 words. I really can't waste more of the day on lunatics.

Posted by: wodenforce | December 30, 2009 5:35 PM

Raven,

Look in the mirror. You are fucking batshit crazy. An arrogant fanatic with a maniacal ego. What a great combination of undesirable personality traits.

Posted by: wodenforce | December 30, 2009 8:33 PM

"Wodenforce, you might as well convert to xianity. You are 99% of the way there. You are a disgrace and a total failure as an atheist. They don't need or want nutcases."

Is it possible to be a failure as an atheist? Who is "they" that won't want me Raven? How is it possible to fail at atheism? I have to swallow whatever bullsit comes out of your atheist mouth? Would that make me a good atheist? The problem with this blog is that because you bash religion with whatever retarded stick is your hand, nobody will challenge you. You can say whatever nonsense you want as long as it agrees with the general anti-religion theme.

You are a living example of why getting rid of religion solves nothing. You have already developed your atheistic orthodoxy and no doubt would have no problem exercising me from your little clique if you had the power. (I would be willing to bet you have already emailed PZ in order to get me banned)

You have left one religion and have found something else to replace it. You are still the same ol' little fascist you always were.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | December 30, 2009 9:10 PM

I find both putative futures equally implausible.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 30, 2009 9:17 PM

Damn, I hit submit too soon.

Religioustolerance.org has a writeup on Dominationism and its twin, Reconstructionism.

Reconstructionism represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought found in the U.S. Its followers are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to facilitate this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order.

One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion peacefully. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to properly explain it to them. If, as many commentators predict, conversion of the U.S. to a theocracy is met with opposition, Dominionists may have to revert to force.

All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly fundamentalist Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed if found guilty. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed. [emphasis added]

Posted by: sandiseattle | December 30, 2009 9:23 PM

How did we degenerate TO "shouting."? I meant, sorry.

Posted by: John Morales | December 30, 2009 9:25 PM

wodenforce:

You [Raven] are a living example of why getting rid of religion solves nothing. [...]
You have left one religion and have found something else to replace it.

Your rant is incoherent.

Posted by: wodenforce | December 30, 2009 9:39 PM

Dominionists are a tiny tiny minority of Fundamentalists, let alone Xians. They are as likely to to try replace the US Constitution with the Hebrew scriptures, as Obama is going to create indoctrination camps for young people. It is a boogeyman.

Posted by: Sioux Laris | December 30, 2009 10:07 PM

Wodenforce,

Drop feckin' dead, you useless, stupid, almost certainly entirely dishonest tool.

Here's hoping you are starved to death, troll.

Have a nice day!

Respectfully,

-- SL

Posted by: John Morales | December 30, 2009 10:24 PM

wodenforce, is your intended point that religious fundamentalism is harmless and therefore not worth challenging, or is it that using science as a basis for informing policy is equivalent to using religion and constitutes 'scientism'?

Posted by: John Morales | December 30, 2009 11:22 PM

wodenforce, thanks for the clarification.

A few things:

I see some of the same demonization of the enemy here as I have seen on the rightie side.

"demonisation"?

Um, others have complained that creationists are being stereotyped. Yet the video describes those who hold certain views, and you no less than others know exactly to which group those view refer to...

"the enemy"?

Here's a partial transcript of those who are mocked in the video:
... this family is skeptical about science and progress; they certainly don't believe in the theory of evolution, and they want no part of the evil evolutionists' war on American children ...

Labeling all fundamentalist Christians (and there are a lot) as crazy killers and wannabe destroyers of America, is absurd.

Well, you're being somewhat hyperbolic here; much as the video lampoons what might happen to America if the above-mentioned science-skeptics get enough influence on policy.

Most Fundies do not want America destroyed or run by a theocracy. I cannot believe I am the only one to have a problem with that argument.

Well, clearly not. Raven (and the video) are not arguing that they wish destruction or overt power; rather, that if their attitude and principles become policy, that will likely be the outcome.

And though all Dominionists may be Fundies, certainly not all Fundies are Dominionists, as Raven claimed.

Can you quote Raven as imputing that?

My other point about Raven was that he claimed I was a failure as an Atheist [...]

Indeed, Raven extrapolated by assuming you would follow the implications through. Raven is, in a sense, chiding you by implying you're smart enough to do so. Consider it a back-handed compliment.

I suggested that trying to end religion was a waste of time and that decreasing economic insecurity might be a better way to fight religion.

Re your first clause, that's disputable; re the second, I doubt Raven or any of uswould dispute it.

PZ is on record as saying he'd have nothing against religion, were it to be no more than a hobby or avocation (such as knitting).

I think that is the Pharyngula consensus, too.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 30, 2009 11:39 PM

wodenforce apparently hasn't heard of the Family, and might not be american, maybe that would explain his/her ignorance or naivety regarding the political and social aspirations of organized fundamentalist christians in the USA.

That or his naivete outweighs his ego.

Posted by: raven | December 31, 2009 12:54 AM

Maybe the mentally ill crackpot has gone to bed by now.

wikipedia:

The term Christian right is used by people from a wide range of conservative political and religious viewpoints, for self identification and outside commentary. Some 15% of the electorate in the United States tell pollsters they align themselves with the Christian right, which serves as an important voting bloc within the U.S. Republican Party. In recent years, Christian right groups have appeared in other countries than the United States such as Canada and the Philippines. However, the Christian right remains a idiosyncratic phenomenon most commonly associated with the United States.[3]

John C. Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life states that Jerry Falwell used the label 'Religious Right' to describe himself, until it developed negative connotations, such as of hard-edged politics and intolerance,

Wikipedia states 15% of the electorate are Xian rightwingnuts. I suspect it is higher than that. They own the GOP these days. McCain and Palin polled 46% of the electorate. They control Texas and Louisiana and probably a few other states.

No one would give a rat's ass about these kooks if they weren't dangerous. And millions of people wouldn't be dropping out of US xianity if they weren't appalled by these evil people.

It is still an open question whether they will destroy our society. They had considerable influence with the Bush disaster, Bush being an evangelical xian. We are still recovering. Piles of dead bodies, rivers of blood, and a dead economy, banking system, and stock market. Just how obvious does it have to be before people catch on?

Posted by: grendelkhan | December 31, 2009 11:20 AM

Like most everyone else here says, the video is tribalist pap. It's designed to appeal to our desires to see ourselves as members of a much cooler group than the other guys, to identify with it and to congratulate ourselves on how much spiffier we are than the other bunch--none of which has the slightest relevance to the merits of the case.

Science isn't a good idea because poor people dress and talk funny. Had I standing, I would be offended.

Posted by: John Morales | December 31, 2009 9:08 PM

wodenforce:

Fundamentalist danger has been way overblown.

Uh-huh...

Sure. [2005 article]
In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."