Ah, a variant on the classic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach.  Shrewd.

Yes, cunning and shameful.  I despise this sort of appeal.  "They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God."  Who?  Name one person who wants to do that.

That really sucks.  Another talking point for the nutters.  

And it's bullshit too.  It's no better than calling the insistence on fact-based arguments or scientific proof a "religion".  Once everything is a religion, then it all comes down to a pissing contest.  Jesus is better than Muhammad, on one hand-on the other, etc.  Ridiculous.  Religious people in this country have it made.  They've got political candidates and the media tripping over themselves to pander to their every nutty prejudice.  As if that isn't bad enough, now we happy few non-believers are going to get branded as "religious" thanks to this sanctimonious asshole.  No justice!

I saw this coming.  As humanist Jew, I am now about to duck under my desk and not come out until the election is over.

"Who?  Name one person who wants to do that."

Me! I'm sick of hearing about God's will and so on.  Ban it all!

UGH!!!

Stgla, is there room under there for an Episcopalian with a complicated religious pedigree?

Me too stgla.  When they start corraling the women and taking out the guns, just let me know so I can lock the doors.

struelpetr-

You echo my thoughts exactly!

That's actually an old meme. Someone always brings it up, or something like it, in when atheism is being debated.

It never resonates too loudly, because as Noam Scheiber says in a Stump post, "Is it just me, or is it slightly bizarre to use the word "religion" in a derogatory way--to conjure up dogma, irrationality, intolerance--in a speech defending religion?"

It's like, "I may be a backward idiot, but so are the secularists."

You'll paint yourself into a corner with it. Kind of like the Intelligent Designers wanting to claim the mantle of "science" for their ideas. A hundred years ago, creationists' motto was, "Revealed Truth trumps human theories." Now it's, "Human theories are irrefutable, and thank heaven they can be made to accord with Revealed Truth, or else we'd be up shit's creek."

Onward secularist soldiers, marching as to war...

reganad:  Really, *ban* it?  I don't think so.  Most of us believe in freedom of speech, expression, and religion.  I haven't seen any prominent "pointy-headed" anything advocate curtailing any of those rights one iota -- the evangelicals' perseuction complex is therefore so much made-up bullshit, like the War on Christmas.  That was my only point.

Despicable, indeed. ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THESE PISSFESTS OVER EMPTY SYMBOLIC CODEWORDS. I do not care about anyone's relationship with a spiritual creator. Not my business. I care intensely about his or her POLICY preferences. Any moral arguments he or she puts forth regarding policy must NOT privilege any religious authority, full stop.

Breaking news - Romney's religion and immigration flip-flop (see far-right hand column):

www.sfgate.com/.../asmussen

teplukhin2you : empty symbolic codewords, yes. Except that most Republicans are still fighting an empty symbolic war with the 1960s.

Quote:

"They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God."  Who?  Name one person who wants to do that.

THEY!!  You know, "they' (also known as "some"), those helpfully obscure phantoms everyone evokes when they want to scare you onto their side.  Romney's religion-banning phantoms are right there with Tancredo's bomb-toting illegal immigrants, Giuliani's terrorists on every street corner, W's Iraqi WMDs,...you know, "they"!!!!!.

*Sigh*  

jhildner, cspencef, et. al. -- actually, if you read the threads on TNR a week or so ago regarding religion and candidacy, you would have seen a number of people who wanted to get any mention of religion out of electoral politics and the broader governmental policy-making arena.

Personally, I'm wondering when people on the left and the right are going to stop fighting exaggerated bogeymen and address the concrete issues at hand.

epackard-02, are referring to concrete issues like the Islamofascists who have declared war on us, the illegals streaming over the border and Mexicanizing us, or the secularists who are trying to ban Jesus?  (hey, it rhymes, sort of).

Mitt Romney gives a speech about his wife's cloth coat, or dog Checkers, or something or other. Meanwhile, bin Laden is still in a cave somewhere having wet dreams about Whitney Houston.  We have a problem.

Presidential elections happen once every four years.  The Olympic Games happen once every four years.

Coincidence?

I propose that we begin to choose Presidents in the same way we select Olympic decathlon champions.

The Presidential Decathlon:

Day One:

The 100-Uses-Of-The-Word-"Faith" Dash: Huckabee and Romney lean forward at the tape!  A photo finish!

The HealthCare Jump:  HRC holds the record but Obama looked great at the Worlds.

The Shit Put:  Don't count out Dodd.  McCain, who's never felt comfortable in this event, finishes a distant seventh.

The High Deficit-Spending Jump:  Whoever best executes the LBJ Flop has the edge here.  Listen for the "strengthen the military" and "helping America's families" mantras; whoever sounds most sincere mouthing both in the same sentence is your favorite.

The 400 PhRMA Lobbyists:  Edwards' behind-closed-doors litigator's skills separate him from the pack.

Day Two:

The 110-Meter Sea Level Rise:  It's all about form, and Kucinich, who thinks "The Day After Tomorrow" was a better documentary than "An Inconvenient Truth," clears these hurdles faster than anyone.

The Discuss Throw:  Obama starts out strong here but Biden, hands down, is the Alpha and Omega of discussion. Obama pulls a vocal cord, while Biden is just getting warmed up.

The Putin Vault:  Rudy does best at making Bad Vlad sad, if purely by accident.

The Jowl Throw:  Okay, Fred, let 'er tip!  Let 'er rip, Fred!  Fred? Fred?

The 1500 Million Chinese Drivers:  A true endurance test.  I'm going with the dark horse: Bloomberg! Capitalism cures all ills!

Oh, well, ban it is silly of course. But I wish that talking of it were seen as kind of shameful, like nosepicking or farting.

Romney's speech accomplished nothing except to inflame the status quo.  Either you're religious or you're secular, and if you're the latter you're going to hell.  cspencef is right.  

But did no one catch what he said about he will serve no ONE religion?  Everyone has to say that who is not a Protestant.  If Mike Huckabee said that, what chance in hell would he have?  Was Romney trying to be Kennedy-esque?  If he was, he failed miserably.  Romney has just done the inevitable....pandered to the religious right in America.   Lovely....more of the same old tired right-wing religion rhetoric.  

epackard:  The point of that post was that paroachial politics and policy are contrary to the spirit of America, which, as Jefferson said, is "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."  (And, yes, I'm having fun with my Jefferson quotes today -- see the Mitt Speaks! thread.)  That's a far cry from seeking "to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God."  That's overstating the issue by a lot, and trading on patently bullshit notions evangelicals hold dear in re their persecution at the hands of godless, urban, coastal, liberal, intellectual, elitist blah blah blah.

reganad:

I agree and think that being publicly aggressive about one's faith is pretty rude.  (It can also be disgusting.  I was once approached by a little girl, 7 or 8, on the street who wanted, at the behest of her mother nearby, to tell me about Jesus.  Ugh)   But Mitt's quote makes it seem as though Christians are in some way threatened in the free (public) exercise of their religion, which is just sooo untrue.

jhildner: Is it really overstating the case by a lot? Really? I don't track these things but it seems to me that there have been many efforts to do just that. Am I the unwitting dupe of a paranoid pulpit? There seems to be an effort between relativism and atheism to render God meaningless or impotent and call it a new and fancy fully owned name: Humanism by vehicular secularism. Joseph Campbell....follow your bliss. If you think that there aren't all manner of frames competing for your allegiance mayhaps you should open your eyes. There was just recently a proposition in this very magazine that suggested brain scans for presidential hopefuls.

Kennedy gave a speech about tolerance and separation of church and state.  Romney gives a speech that embraces intolerance and endorses a religious test for public office holders (non-believers need not apply).  

What about that is worth celebrating, Michelle?

Boxo: Let's sort this out.  What could someone mean when they talk about removing acknowledgement of God from the public domain?  A few possibilities:  (1) Legal -- The bad guys want to eliminate God talk by force of government action.  (2) Moral -- The bad guys want to say that God talk is morally wrong.  (3) Political -- The bad guys want to say that God talk in politics is wrong.  (4) Cultural -- The bad guys want to say that God talk is rude.  (4) On the merits -- The bad guys want to say that God talk is factually wrong.

There seem to be a lot of folks who think that all five are going on full throttle, and it's that sham that Mitt is hooking into with this comment.

One by one:  (1)  Legal:  Yes, we have an establishment clause which frowns on *official endorsement* of religion.  Hence, no public school-led prayer and so forth.  All that does, though, is restrict *government* action.  In no way does it constitute an assault on the other half of the legal equation -- the free exercise clause -- and that freedom isn't under threat at all.  Many conflate a restriction on official endorsement, which actually enhances religious liberty, with a supposed attack on that very liberty.  In other words, the assault some see is really a refusal to enshrine religious viewpoints as law -- something which actually would assault the religious liberty of those who disagree by symbolically excluding them from what is supposed to be a religion-neutral political community.

(2) Moral:  I'm unaware of any "secularist" or whatever who has said that public proclamations of faith, per se, are morally wrong.  They may view particular doctrines or faith-inspired ideas as morally wrong, but those are other matters.  What "secularist" is saying that it is morally wrong for a preacher to preach or a sheep to bah?  The confused picture painted by the paranoid would have us believe otherwise.  Put it this way:  I'm a pretty rabid atheist.  Say I've got a brother who's a rabbi.  Say he's an inspiring, good man who dedicates his life to helping people.  I wouldn't view his Sabbath-day public acknowledgements of God as immoral.  Who out there would?

(3) Political:  Here it gets trickier, admittedly.  Obviously politicians have the *right* to proclaim their faith loudly, and voters have the *right* to make judgments about them based on that.  But is it appropriate or wise to engage in parochial politics?  Count me among those who think that if you're going to be a political leader, you have to be prepared to lead everyone, not just your co-religionists, with the goal of promoting the general welfare.  Parochial politics gets in the way of that.  I certainly don't mind a politician identifying his or her faith.  In fact, I'd probably want to know about it.  I don't even mind routine invocations of God if they're sincere.  What grates are what seem like phony invocations calculated to release Jesus-y pheromones.  Does this mean that I'm a soldier in the secularist army trying to win the War on God?  I don't think so.

(4) Cultural:  Here, we're in "War on Christmas" territory, which is phony garbage.  There was a time when common courtesy and politeness weren't sneeringly derided as political correctness.  That time is past.  When dealing with strangers or acquaintences, it's seldom appropriate to be gratuitously in-your-face about divisive viewpoints of any kind (unless they've opened the door to debate), and religious viewpoints often count as divisive.  Usually the idea is to get along.  Is it so horrible to recommend sensitivity?  Is it monstrous for a store to ask its employees to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, because, you know, some of the customers might be Jews or Muslims or Other?  Of course not.

(5) On the Merits:  As I said, I'm a pretty rabid atheist.  I bought and read the Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett books, and found that they said pretty much what I think.  I think God talk is factually wrong and that it's okay to say so (keeping in mind that you don't want to be an asshole about it -- see (4)).  So, yes, I do hope that one day God talk will seem embarrassing to most of us, like nosepicking or a fart, but mainly because I hope that one day the superstitions behind the talk, which I regard as unreasonable and therefore potentially dangerous, will cease to capture the imaginations of so many.  That's just my opinion, okay?  My having that opinion and expressing it doesn't pose a threat to freedom any more than the view that God had a son by a virgin who lives in the sky threatens my freedom.  Mitt, and the more vociferous legions who likewise trade in the myth of religious persecution in this country, want to say otherwise.  But they're just making things up and need to get a grip if they're sincere or quit lying if they're not.

stgla -- I'm not sure the point of your reply to me. You have never seen me demagogue the issues you mentioned in your post.  And, interestly, while my post points out that the right and left need to leave their exaggerated bogeyman aside, you write as if I'm defending the right-wing flavors of bogeyman.  Get a grip.

jhildner -- You commented that no one is trying to remove religion from the public domain. And now you prove my point that you didn't read the threads where some Talkbackers were arguing for exactly for that kind of repression.

purcellneil -- Can you give examples from the text of Romney's speech where he actually promoted intolerance?

jhildner -- Your writings on this thread seem to show you have quite a personal conflict in trying to square item #4 in your list versus item #5. Or maybe rudeness is limited only to those of faith who are publicly agressive about their beliefs and doesn't apply to those who are rude in pushing their non-belief.

epackard

In the first place, the whole speech endorses the prejudices of evangelical christians.  Romney didn't defend the principle that his candidacy should not be judged on his religious affiliation; rather, he went out of his way to minimize the perceptions among these evangelicals that Mormonism is all that different. By analogy, if Obama were to make a speech asking voters to be racially tolerant in their actions as voters, and then reassured all us white folks that he is only half black, that would hardly be an inspiring call for tolerance - and I think I would be justified in arguing that it only served to affirm intolerance.

In the second place, there are several examples in his speech of blatant intolerance.  Did he not claim that only a believer should be president?  Did he not say that all believers are his friends (a broad invitation to friendship that is analagous to the birthday party everyone gets invited to, except you). How about the curious statement that religion is a necessary precondition to freedom, and that we are a religious nation -- all these taken together add up to a clear message that my atheism is un-American.  

As a non-believer, I am confortable with the fact that I am in a minority.  As an American, I know that there are checks on the use of the power of the state by the majority religious group. However, we live in a time when that religious group controls a powerful political partiy.  I would like to have heard a clear call for tolerance from Mr Romney, but it would have cost him the nomination.

His message was supposed to be "I'm a Mormon and it doesn't matter"  but what we got is "Jesus is my personal savior, so it's okay to vote for me".  

Some call for tolerance, eh?

hildner for President. beautifully said.

This point esp resonates with this son of a pre-Atwater/Falwell/Reagan Republican: "There was a time when common courtesy and politeness weren't sneeringly derided as political correctness.  That time is past."  

I pine for the days when to be well raised was never to wear one's religion on one's sleeve, when good polite and respectable/respectful people refused to discuss religion or money with strangers.

Or voters.

jhildner-

I take exception with #5; I'm proud of my farts.  I concur otherwise.

jhildner:

I appreciate your taking the time to respond with as much care as you did.  Still even with all of your well considered rationale, it doesn't change the facts on the ground. You are arguing that by virtue of accomodation the default public position is No God. Not a bad playing field for your ultimate 'factual' to prevail. Be honest and allow that there are evangelical consequences to your position as well.

Personally I think it is ridiculous to proclaim irretrievable emotional damage at the hands of evangelists. The rudeness of it all is just too much. The sky is falling. I've been assaulted by this God person....give me a break. I once lived in a neighborhood friendly to door to door evangelization. More than a few Mormons and Jehovahs Witness types found their way into my kitchen for a little coffee of lemonade. I'm certain that they learned more in those minutes with me around the table than all of the time spent pounding the pavement in the name of their cause.

Hitchens and Dawkins are good reads and all thoughtful to a point. It might do them well to in the fashion of a law school exercise purpose to argue the other side of their position.

Sorry for my rambling. I'm still working on my first cup of coffee this morn and have lots of stuff to do directly. I'll try to get back on this later today and give an answer more reflective and worthy of your cogent reply.

Jack

"They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God."  Aaah, but who's God?  If someone wanted to have a animal sacrifice next to the national christmas tree?  Or wicca or "heaven forbid" satanism?  Or to bring it out of the clouds, Branch Davidians?  Truth be told, our culture depends a lot on ethics brought over by the potestants, but since then we've changed quite a bit.  In a society where Britney Spears pantiless pictures are all over the internet, I believe we do need to move back to our roots ethically, but IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO DO THAT!  They can't pick winners and losers in the economy or in the religious debate.  So they need to be agnostic (not atheistic), IMHO.

purcell - let's see, your beef with Romney is that personally, he might not like having an atheist as a friend, even though he claims that he is supportive of freedom of religion and the right of people to believe what they want to believe.

So, he can't imply that he'd rather not be around atheists but it's okay for folks on the left, particularly atheists, to expound about how bad Christians are?

Give me a break.

"If the liberalism of neutrality considers itself morally superior to any other kind of belief, there is the suspect that such a feeling of moral superiority covers for a mind unconciously marked by fanaticism. Is it possible to argument reasonably in this way? Is it possible to suggest that liberal citizens are, even if unconciously, determined by a fanatized mind?".

I was just reading an article that states this in the Revista Filosofica de Coimbra. The questions raised sure are interesting...

jhildner: We've had a previous discussion or two. You likely surmised that I am not your typical God guy. The truth is that I am not all that unique. There are many folks out there who make up the larger body of the church who simultaneously hold an answer and many many more questions. Such are the consequences of proximating yourself within the realm of Christian spiritual alchemy. Complete with admonishments to the effect that all of your works might be in vain but for your wanting. How can such a 'Catch 22' possibly serve its constituents (humanity)? By making each of us look to ourselves as ambassadors of a larger truth. Quite easily you and I are Gods within our universe. I know I have the power to strike vengeance and fury as justified by my own very self. I also have the capacity to love and sacrifice for the sake of something beyond myself.(perhaps my children or spouses sake). But always accountable. Judeo/Christian accountability is to law and conscience. Both which are capable of expanding only inasmuch that they are alive. Dead conscience, dead law. This is the West. Indignance at such a proposition is to kick at bricks for this is the foundation of this  bold adventure called The United States.

As you know I'm not much for lists. But as far as lists go your looks okay to me. That's one thing I appreciate about most atheists. They give you such good lists and are pretty damned organized about their blasphemies.

Political correctness is a different beast though. Much of what passes for PC is actually an advocacy for mind control by rote rather than conviction. I guess there is something to be siad for fake it till you make it but ss I've said before, a bit like digging out a purchase half way up the hill.

While I'm just riffin I think the Romney gambit will fail. Mormonism is a strange beast. He is advocating a kind of thinking which would ratify relativism. For his own purposes of course. May as well lump in Islam while we're at it. Yeah. Why not Wiccan, etc? Trying to corral all of those believers of convenience. There are quite a few of those. But not enough to put it over. The whole enemy of my enemy is my friend thing is dishonest. Even for atheists.

Please feel free to ramble as I have in your own right good man.

Jack

Tep: You make as if the only people knocking hard upon the door, either by direct reference of implication, are the evangelicals. I disagree. There response was not conjured within a vacuum. There has been a coarsening of our discourse which has had and continues to have many divergent and strident voices. All wrestling for a piece of the action. And all culpable for a degree of the tenor.

dbhuff: But isn't government a collective creation of people which ultimately reflects a positive philosophy?

Won't this positive aspect make definitive demands? It seems to me that it is something more than the officiator of the scrum. At least the foundations have a greater significance just by implication. At once rock solid but protean within boundaries? It seems unavoidable to me.

Boxo:

Thanks for the comments!

"You are arguing that by virtue of accomodation the default public position is No God. Not a bad playing field for your ultimate 'factual' to prevail. Be honest and allow that there are evangelical consequences to your position as well."

Interesting point, but, without providing another list, let me just say that, given my recommendations, there is a difference in "default public position" depending on context.  For example, on the legal front, I would hold pretty firmly to the idea that the default public position must be religious neutrality (which, we've come to understand, includes neutrality as to non-belief, semi-belief, and strong belief as well).  That's right there in the Constitution.  I regard religious liberty as a pretty important right, and that neutrality helps preserve it.  Many have argued (persuasively I think) that it's this "default public position of No God" when it comes to law that has helped religions, in all their variety, flourish in the U.S.  I think you can make similar arguments about God talk in politics, where I certainly don't recommend a ban but at least some care.  Politicians are public servants, not evangelists.  Meanwhile, the default public position in any house of worship or on a religious television show or in any forum where religious ideas are discussed or debated or promoted (of which there are many) is hardly "No God."  As for evangelism among athesists, I don't deny it.  But, then again, I have never said that there is anything wrong with evangelism per se -- understood as publicly promoting the message -- only that it's a good idea, as with anything, to be sensitive to time, place, and manner.

I, for example, don't send around mass emails at my workplace advocating atheism, and I wouldn't do that.  If I were running for public office, putting aside the question whether an atheist is electable, I wouldn't push atheism on the stump.  I wouldn't go door-to-door telling people that they should be atheists.  I wouldn't send my young child up to strangers with a script that says, "Have you heard the good news?  There's no God!"  I would regard all of those activities as pretty distasteful and inappropriate, because, having been blessed with empathy, I can appreciate that others may find such unsolicited preaching to be annoying or intrusive or rude.  On the other hand, I've had interesting conversations about atheism with co-workers on occasion, but those were occasions when the interest in discussing it was mutual.

You say: "Personally I think it is ridiculous to proclaim irretrievable emotional damage at the hands of evangelists. The rudeness of it all is just too much. The sky is falling."  Come on now.  Nobody's saying that Jehova's Witnesses or "Merry Christmas" decorations are causing irretrievable emotional damage.  I used words like "polite," "courteous," "sensitive," and so forth.  That's all.  The fact is, everyone pretty much agrees that being aggressive about any controversial or divisive viewpoint is, let's say, inappropriate in certain contexts.  Just as I don't send mass emails around the workplace promoting atheism, neither do I send mass emails promoting abortion rights or other political views.  Time, place, and manner -- that's all we're talking about.  Meanwhile, I don't really mind "Merry Christmas" at a store, and I think most non-Christian Americans probably agree with me.  Still, what's so horrible about the more religiously-neutral "Happy Holidays"?  We're not the ones going ape-shit about it -- calling it a "war on Christmas," and so on.

"Judeo/Christian accountability is to law and conscience. Both which are capable of expanding only inasmuch that they are alive. Dead conscience, dead law. This is the West. Indignance at such a proposition is to kick at bricks for this is the foundation of this  bold adventure called The United States."

Well, we don't need to debate #5, but *if* you are implying that law and conscience are uniquely Judeo/Christian and that without nurturing those religious roots, law and conscience will die, I strongly disagree.  In fact, the bold adventure of the United States is an Enlightenment baby, when elites like the founding fathers (whom I am not identifying as atheists, just to avoid confusion) deemphasized superstition, elevated reason, and preferred religiously neutral ways to promote their new (or at least freshly reinvogorated) concept of universal human rights -- a concept which the mean and corrupt churches they knew trampled and denied at every turn.

I think there is a lot of good and reasonable things you have offered up. I do find it a little intriguing that most atheists want to exclusivize, if you will, The Enlightenment. I would offer that there are alternative ways of looking at historical progressions. For instance, if Jaynesian psych were to hold any validity( that the concept of I or individual is a relatively new and still developing capacity) the significance of a Jesus, Savior figure might be seen as ultimately liberating as opposed to imprisoning in shackles of ignorance. The progressive march toward individual and hence individual responsibility was in fact aided and abetted by the underlying libertarian impetus from law to conscience. Hence the Reformation and its various iterations. Just a few tidbits for contemplation. It's a very big subject. My understanding don't afford the convenience that yours entertain. Rest assured though I consider you to likely be a decent fellow inspite of the fact that the flames of Hell are liking at your buttocks as we speak.

Be well. Jack

I think there is a lot of good and reasonable things you have offered up. I do find it a little intriguing that most atheists want to exclusivize, if you will, The Enlightenment. I would offer that there are alternative ways of looking at historical progressions. For instance, if Jaynesian psych were to hold any validity( that the concept of I or individual is a relatively new and still developing capacity) the significance of a Jesus, Savior figure might be seen as ultimately liberating as opposed to imprisoning in shackles of ignorance. The progressive march toward individual and hence individual responsibility was in fact aided and abetted by the underlying libertarian impetus from law to conscience. Hence the Reformation and its various iterations. Just a few tidbits for contemplation. It's a very big subject. My understandings don't afford the convenience that yours entertain. Rest assured though I consider you to likely be a decent fellow in spite of the fact that the flames of Hell are liking at your buttocks as we speak.

Be well. Jack

"The progressive march toward individual and hence individual responsibility was in fact aided and abetted by the underlying libertarian impetus from law to conscience."

Beautifully said. I would just correct the word "libertarian" and substitute it with the word "liberating"

"The progressive march toward individual and hence individual responsibility was in fact aided and abetted by the underlying liberating impetus from law to conscience".

And I do not want to pick on Jhildner again (I'm only doing it because I respect her...). But is it Jhildner that you are refusing precisely to take that liberating step? Is it that you're so frightened to accept our own maturity as moral selves that you are prefering blindly to keep attached to a individual liberty that is shaped within strict Law (a kiberty that strangely is opposed to us) and not within conscience (a liberty that is ours within a conscience that is us...)?

Thanks Luis. I will accept your revision for clarity sake. I'll have you know that I'm not often inclined to be so moved, however in this case, given the audience, I believe it to be well considered.

I also think that, substantially speaking, we are dealing with a degree a necessary self assumption in the dual progression. Modern atheists have many good complaints and identity formulations. They simply make the same mistake as the 'religious side' (somewhat fictional as characterized by collective assumption(s) ) in wanting to over-codify to the prejudice of self. The self is a much larger phenomenon than the ego will allow. I suspect a good deal of it is born of fear and conceit. Both sympathetic partners in myopia.

Impressive post Jack. And impressive accuracy." Both sympathetic partners in myopia" that desperately feed on each others myopia. A strange form of vampirism. Dangerous one too in the present circumstances. Well, keeping my hopes I, I suppose a truly apocalyptic moment would mean to end that fear and conceit in both sides. Understanding that that self means really our release from fear and ignorance. Our coming of age as truly accomplished human beings.