Rackcliffe – You say: “Throwing out Christian morality issues such as Pro-life, Abstence before marriage between a man and woman, putting the needs of others before oneself, etc would be ideal starting points for achieving social justice.”
Are you throwing out ‘putting the needs of others before oneself”? I don’t get it – and it does not mesh with those other morality issues you mention.

Neither the Soviet Union nor Nazi Germany were socialist. In fact, the Third Reich was quite clearly a right-wing capitalist state. And just for the record, God did not leave us a handbook. (Unless you mean the Koran which was dictated to a man). The Bible was written by men (“The Gospel ACCORDING to Matthew, etc.), not God.

As for me, I’m wholeheartedly, unfailingly adopting the newest, most powerful religion. The one none dare speak out against or deny. And that means YOU!

The religion of Holocaustianity.

Here is the link for more info on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Scott, maybe you should read further. Evolutionary theory has plenty of evidence to support it — else it would not be a scientific theory. The Discovery Institute also disputes the theory, but offers no real evidence whatever to refute it. If real evidence is found to show that the theory is wrong, then it will be modified, or discarded. That hasn’t happened yet, as all the evidence is confirming of it rather than contradictory to it. Newton’s findings concerning gravity have been somewhat modified as a result of Einstein’s theories, though Newtonian physics are still very applicable in daily life, or in sending objects into orbit, or to other planets. Addressing and criticizing Darwin’s publication is sort of like criticizing Galileo because his telescopes were so crude. He wrote 150 years ago. Evolutionary biology has moved on. The only “Darwinism” we have today is the Social Darwinism, itself a bastardization of evolutionary theory through its incorrect interpretation of survival of the fittest (a bad choice of words), promoted by the right. But, the superstitious will retain their superstitions until the species passes from existence, I guess.

Transitional forms? We have heaps, as many as any reasonable person could ask, and more coming in every day. The wonder is not how few fossils we have but how many.

People seem to forget, or have never bothered to learn, that Darwin was not the only one exploring and observing the world around him during his time — and before. Darwin happened to be the first to be published widely. Type in Alfred Russell Wallace to your favorite search program, for instance. It might set you upon a journey of intellectual expansion. The view of the world would have changed with or without him specifically, at least for those more concerned with observation than with wishful thinking, or superstition, both of which lead to conclusions that are worse than utter poppycock.

Largely white audience? How do you know this?
You mention MLK. I take it you would not consider him a good, loyal American who was proud of his heritage? (If we were to take that comment literally and if I was to take your comment about it not belonging on DV literally)

i was using the word “god” as the mad priests use it. they know that it is a HE; talks hebrew and to hebrew prophets only; chooses people over other people, etc.
yes, we have to guess to obtain further sightings; but one has to see s’mthing before one says, Ok i’ve seen steam. Will it scald me if i put my hand in it? Can i use it?

i do not know how one can obtain new discoveries by neglecting to remember one saw the first cause; one saw, tasted, felt,, touched, heard s’mthing.
and obtained thus traces of the events, called memories. about which one can think.
but even memories precede thinking/guessing/postulating/theorising.
to obtain an image of s’mthing one had to see it first.
suthiano, i have not seen you; thus i have no image of you or your behavior.
but if i had expereienced you i wld have images of you and your behavior and only then make some conclusion as to whether you are friendly, nice, etc.tnx

Bozh can talk with me–we’re cool

Martha has a point…if your article was about laying blame on Repubs, the first paragraph wouldn’t seem so out of place. But you did include that first paragraph and though I think (unlike Martha) that the line about good loyal Americans was pointed, the notion that this was a Bush mainly problem shines through. Clinton was a tool of the ruling class too and worse in many ways

I enjoyed the rest of it but since definitions are important, I don’t think less people believe in God (whatever that means)—it’s just all the fashion now to say they don’t prescribe to a religion (whatever that means) and to a lesser extent “christianity” (again, whatever that means). I don’t think the study necessarily reflects any actual self realized change. Not to say though that it doesn’t mean anything that people are shedding the “christian” label.

Cheers