Re: Clarification -- Re: Dawkins dissembles?

From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 13:33:43 EDT

  • Next message: Iain Strachan: "Re: the hydrogen economy"

    Richard Faussette wrote:

    >Do you not see that the country will always reflect the will of the most
    >religious as in my example of an orthodox community that elects senators? You
    >either get into the game of life or you withdraw from it - if you withdraw you
    >lose by default -

    Democracy is a tough and costly institution to keep going.
    It is supposed to be maintained by a commitment from voters
    to understand who they are voting for and how the various
    institutions of government work. This is _supposed_ to be
    accomplised by education although I really wonder sometimes
    what people were doing in their political science classes.

    Democracy and science both are in danger from zealots within
    their institutions. In particular, I would suspect that
    atheist zealots are just as damaging and wicked as Christian
    zealots in science and both should be viewed with suspicion.
    Fortunately, for science, the more typical zealots of science
    eventually die off with their nonsense allowing new ideas to
    eventually permeate. However, when religion comes cloaked
    as science, this is probably the most dangerous: be it
    atheist or theist propaganda.

    As to Dershowitz, the right to free speach is also part
    of our constitution. Still, that does not mean that I
    have to agree with him. We have the institution of
    education, but in the end, it is by grace alone that
    we will muddle through each generation successfully.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 13:34:05 EDT