Captain's Quarters -

It wasn't an attack of good taste or any sort of social pressure that caused the display to be cancelled.

Someone bit the ears off of the statue.

I'm from the Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris/Christopherr Hitchens camp on theology in that I'm anti-theist and think that religion deserves to be soundly ridiculed at every opportunity. These so-called cherished beliefs need to be placed under a bright light and revealed for what they are - delusions caused by a form of culture-induced mental illness. So any form of criticism of religion is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. Conflating a human sacrifice (ugh) with the Easter Bunny is an insult to the rabbit.

If a belief system can't withstand mocking (and no belief-without-reason can in the long term) then it's a good indication that it's rotted from within. To be an accurate statement on the future prospects for religion, the choco-Jesus should be hollow.

The flip side of open ridicule of belief-without-reason is the resolution passed in the UN calling for a global ban on the defamation of religion. That is an extremely dangerous position to take, largely supported by Muslim nations (duh), because it leads to support for state-sponsered religion. And we've seen how well that works out.

Cap'n Ed wrote:

I can't peer into his soul to determine whether he meant to be deliberately sacrilegious or is just an idiot who didn't know any better.

The "artist" sounds like a lib, so both conditions doubtless apply!

BTW, does anybody know if this "art" was paid for by a grant from the NEA?

In light of the Theo Van Gogh case, Captain, you also need to point out that the artist wasn't stabbed to death by a "lone wolf" Christian in the street.

Shipmates,

Notice how the battier of the moonbat trolls encourage "sound ridicule" of certain people's beliefs...but find it so abhorrent when any ridicule is leveled on any of their sacred “liberal beliefs"?

It's not enough to disagree...like with a mangy hound dog, they must rub the nose into it…

…but before the cowards rub the nose in it…they have to make sure they are ridiculing someone who won’t lop off their head. Kinda like picking on the fat guy on the playground…or the runt…or the “homosexual”…real brave people here…LOL.

Twood sounds like an (ir)rationals groupie.

As to the artists' claim of satire, I would think having a chocolate enegizer bunny on the cross would have been quite funny and made the point more clearly. As it is, from my perspective as a Christian, the chocolate Jesus just makes me roll my eyes.

Twood, if put a giant, anatomically-correct marzipan Mohammed on display, will you volunteer to stand at the front door and "soundly ridicule" anyone who shows up to protest my take on their cherished beliefs?

Fred,

Your kidding of course...the liberal cowards are big at CLAIMING to have rights...as long as they don't have to do anything that could be dangerous or actually get their hands dirty trying to defend said rights...

They leave the protection of the rights up to the very same people they ridicule...pretty pathetic actually.

This liberal coward can't recall the last time his rights were protected by a conservative.

And the artist probably realized it would be provoactive - so what. That's the point. Art would be pretty booring if it was never provocative - the idea was to make people have this very discussion, and in that sense, at least, it succeeded.

Personally, I like when art shows the humanity of a diety. As an atheist, it pleases me to see things that make Christians question themselves a bit.

Mr Liberal Coward,

If you were honest, (Free of BDS)...you'd know that Bush (and many of the Republicans) are not conservatives.

1. What are your "rights"? Are your "rights" different than someone who lives in Mexico? How about Germany?

2. If the U.S. were not a sovereign nation, would you still have the "rights" you defined in answer 1 above?

3. In your world view, Mr Liberal Coward, who has defended your rights? A non-conservative Lawyer? A non-conservative Judge? Would these people have the same ability to defend your "rights" as defined in 1 above...if he/she had to operate under conditions of 2 above?

yes/no.

I think we're just confused. Clearly there are conservative soldiers that have bravely defended the United States so I can have rights, as well as liberal ones. I was talking about defending in the public sphere, not militarily.

I often hear from self-proclaimed "real" conservatives that Bush et. al. are not real conservatives. These are usually people I find much more reasonable than Bush. However, if you don't consider them real conservatives, you'll have to speak with them about highjacking your politics, not blame me for using the definition in the way that is most meaningful right now.

Hey FredRum,

It's not about ridiculing one set of beliefs over another, it's about placing all these beliefs out on the table under a bright light and seeing if they can withstand reasoned scrutiny. I say none of them can, and it appears that their inability to do so can be proportionate to the amount of violence perpetrated in their defense.

I've come to the conclusion that as ill-managed as the war in Iraq has been, it's actually right on the larger point. Islam is a political system masquerading as a religion. A political system that, like communism, deserves to be discredited, defeated, and discarded in the rubbish heap of history's bad ideas. (Plus, there's all that oil to consider.)

Separation of church and state is a hard line that we must never cross again. There should -never- be a religious test for anyone seeking government office. Which is why you conservatives should be rasing a huge stink over Dobson's attack on Thompson. -crickets chirping-

You can still see Nebraska's own Lard Mohammed. He isn't naked, but he has a big sword.

Hey FredRum,

It's not about ridiculing one set of beliefs over another, it's about placing all these beliefs out on the table under a bright light and seeing if they can withstand reasoned scrutiny. I say none of them can, and it appears that their inability to do so can be proportionate to the amount of violence perpetrated in their defense.

I've come to the conclusion that as ill-managed as the war in Iraq has been, as well as the larger war-on-terra, it's actually right on the larger point. Islam is a political system masquerading as a religion. A political system that, like communism, deserves to be discredited, defeated, and discarded in the rubbish heap of history's bad ideas. (Plus, there's all that oil to consider.)

It wasn't that long ago that Christians were killing each other over small differences in their delu..., um, cherished beliefs, and incorporating those delu..., um, cherished beliefs into law. Those religious wars in Europe informed the American founders. Separation of church and state is a hard line that we must never cross again. There should -never- be a religious test for anyone seeking government office. Which is why you conservatives should be raising a huge stink over Dobson's attack on Thompson. -crickets chirping-

You'd think after about 40 years that "conservatives" would realize that these wacky "artists" are just trying to outrage people. If the rightwingers in this country would just ignore these crazy "art" exhibits, they'd lose their outrageousness. Their pulling your string, and you fall for it year after year. By the way I'm Catholic and I think the statue was digusting but don't send Bill Donohue out as my spokesman, he's nuttier than a fruitcake in my opinion.

Yes, That's it, fellas. As usual, the brave self-righteous Liberals are like the 3rd grade bully. They pick on the fat guys, runts, and Homosexuals...or anyone else that they know won't fight back.

The only difference is the third grade bully isn’t nuanced enough to play the self-righteous part.

"This liberal coward can't recall the last time his rights were protected by a conservative."

So, Mr. Liberal Coward. Do you still stand by this statement?

The artist could have made his satirical point in any case without showing the genitalia of the crucified Christ. That was needlessly provocative, and certainly intentional.

The whole purpose was to show the genitalia. The statue could as easily have been made with the traditional loin cloth covering. It would have been an interesting exhibit and many people would have gone out of their way to see and admire it. But by making the figure totally naked, the "artist" intended to insult Christians. Remember Applewaithe (don't know about the spelling) and the crucifix in urine. It is designed to shock and disgust. And the "artist" gets to feel "oppressed and surpressed" by the rabid Christian rabble. Has nothing to do with "art" and everything to do with gaining attention and standing among the glitterati.

By the way, asking for a "10 Hail Mary" absolution shows all this to be true. That is obviously a snide comment meant to further inflame the hoi-poloi . This "artist" is smart enough to know that. And just before Holy Week.....give me a break.

Popping out of lurkerdom.

Anatomically correct representations of Christ are nothing new--they go all the way back to the beginning of the faith. That's not what has Donahue and many others upset--it's the fact that we seem to live under this double standard where it seems to be acceptable to ridicule those who are Christian or Jewish, but not to criticize or as TWood declares, to place "all these beliefs out on the table under a bright light...", other religions such as Islam or the secular religions of atheism and liberalism--and yes, atheism and liberalism have become religions of a sort and I will support that contention shortly. Religion and faith are neither evil nor destructive--in fact they are necessary to the human condition. What you have to remember is that religions are composed of human beings who are fallible. Blaming Christianity (or pick the faith of your choice) for all the world's ills is nothing more than a way to deflect the blame from its true source--ourselves as human beings. It's a whole lot easier to blame a transcendent figure than it is to blame ourselves when we foul up. As to the religious wars in Europe, while you can make the case--especially in France--that they did start off as religious wars, they very quickly became dynastic conflicts with religion very much a secondary consideration. It wasn't long until you had mercenary contingents in Imperial Catholic armies that were Protestants and mercenary contingents in Protestant German and Swedish armies that were Catholic. So, while religion was a factor, there was a whole lot more going on during that period.

Conservative democrat contends that these are "wacky 'artists' just out to outrage people," and that they should just be ignored. In some respects I agree in that the best way to show our opinion of their 'work' is to not patronize it. Enough empty gallery showings and they'll hopefully get the message to either change their style or find a new line of work. Of course, for this approach to work, state support for their 'endeavors' needs to be eliminated--which isn't a bad idea at all. If they're so sure as to the artistic worth of their projects, then let them work without a safety net.

TWood, in many ways you are as much a crusader and evangelist as the most ardent religious fundamentalist--the only difference is, you belong to a different religion. Humans will always have a hunger for the transcendent--I honestly think that is part of the human condition, it's what makes us special and unique. Faith in a deity or deities fulfills that hunger for many of us--for others, that need for transcendence is transformed into another venue--in your case, it appears to be the search for Rationalism--note I deliberately capitalized the 'R' as you are essentially elevating rationalism to a transcendent status. Just as in any other faith, there are atheists who are 'live and let live' atheists and others who are evangelical and even confrontational up to the point of being willing to hold their own Inquisitions.

As for the religion of liberalism: While I do think that Ann Coulter is a loose cannon and is often reckless, I do believe she has a point in her argument that modern liberalism--although I think leftism is a better term--is in the process of evolving into a type of religion, if it isn't there already. It has its own dogma as laid out by its Fathers (Marcuse, Deridda, Foucault, Gramsci, to name a few), interpreted by its own elite priesthood in colleges and universities, and preached by the clergy of academia and the media with leaders of political parties serving as its secular leadership. Modern liberalism has a crusading ethos and a strong willingness to act against heresy and to conduct ruthless Inquisitions against infidels and heretics. It is also based ultimately on belief and faith--sounds like a religion to me.

In the end, it's not that some artist decided to outrage Christians with his work that has myself and others upset--it's the hypocrisy of the media and the elites in embracing what he does while cowering in fear when a Danish cartoonist "shines a light" on Islam that irritates me.

So were they planning to have "Chocolate Jesus" playing during the exhibit?

Performed for Letterman, hosted on YouTube

TWood (to parphrase) - You already practice a religion. It's called Liberalism. You're from the Kerry, Pelosi, O'Donnell camp on theology in that you're a liberal. I think that that liberalism deserves to be soundly ridiculed at every opportunity. These so-called cherished beliefs need to be placed under a bright light and revealed for what they are - delusions caused by a form of culture-induced mental illness. So any form of criticism of liberalism is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.

Matt Helm:

Science is not religion. That argument was first floated by the creationists in their attempt to promote their 'theory' by renaming it intelligent design. It's an argument that acknowledges the complete lack of evidence for religion. Rather than try to meet science on its terms, it's an attempt to pull science down to religion's level.

If I want a sense of transcendence, I'll spend time looking at the images that the Hubble telescope sent down. Or trying to read Stephen Hawking's - A Brief History of Time. Or reading up on the research into the human genome project. Taking all that into account along with the empirical evidence of daily living, and keeping Occam's Razor in mind, the strongest statement I can make today is:

1. The universe appears to be self-organizing.

There is a body of research that posits that consciousness has a quantum behavior to it. Which would mean that our localized sense of being extends outward to interconnect with the rest of the universe. If the -science- of that proves out, then the statement could be modified to:

2. The universe appears to be self-organizing and self-aware, and we are part of that self-awareness.

I can live with 1. I'd -like- statement 2 to prove out eventually, since it would at least imply some purpose to all this. Which means that what I really want to be true is:

3. The universe is a self-aware entity with a plan.

But for now, the science isn't in on that. ;-)

Religious certainty cuts off the inquiry. I'll take the uncertainty that leads to better understanding rather than a delusion based on the conjectural 'scriptures' of stone age peasants.

Very interesting comments, TWood. But if (I stress "if") the universe is "a self-aware entity with a plan," wouldn't this logically entail, or at least logically permit, intelligent design (which you earlier dismissed)?

I think ID may be a more philosophically sophisticated position than you realize. It is not (necessarily) a matter of an anthropomorphic God tinkering with proteins like a kid with an Erector set. Rather, it posits that information is essential to life, because RNA/DNA are essentially nothing but encoded information - and information presupposes consciousness.

Bohm's theory of the holographic universe may be relevant here - the "explicate order" (which includes life) arising out of the "implicate order" (which is a nonphysical, nonlocal, spaceless, timeless dimension with the properties of consciousness).

Anyway, interesting thoughts - unexpected on a thread about a chocolate Jesus!

No, science is not religion, really that separation began with William of Ockham and Nominalism. There are most definitely questions that science or reason answers best--others, such as the existence of God, that can only be answered by faith. Both creationists and atheists, or rather anti-theists, such as yourself are wrong--you have to approach each--reason and faith, on their own terms.

Do I accept evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence supporting it is very strong, so unless it can be disproven using the scientific method, then the theory of evolution is the best scientific theory to explain life and its origins.

Do I accept the BIg Bang Theory of the universe? Yes. Again for the reason given above. At this time it provides the best scientific theory for the existence of the universe. Now these theories will always go through refinements and changes as new knowledge is uncovered through scientific methodology and that's as it should be.

Now, do I believe in a God that set it all in motion? Yes. But, you say, how can I believe in God and at the same time accept evolution and the Big Bang and even the possibility of parallel universes and all other things? Because I am approaching God through faith--not reason and I'm not even going to make an effort to deny that. I fully acknowledge that there comes a point where reason fails, that's where faith begins for me.

Religion doesn't cut off the inquiry--in fact, it can spark it and spur one on even further--because again, reason and faith do not have to clash--each has their own domains--although sometimes they do seem to come together in places. It did for St. Thomas Aquinas, for Roger Bacon, for Robert Grosseteste, and I can go on if you'd like.

'm by no means a stone aged peasant--who by the were far more sophisticated than you give them credit for being; but every time I look at the night sky or at the faces of those in my family or at a leaf, my appreciation for God and the universe grows. When I take my telescope out to look up into the night sky and I focus it on M-13, scientifically, I know it's a globular cluster composed of thousands of stars; or when I focus on the Orion Nebula, I know scientifically that it's a breeding ground for new stars and planets--and maybe even life. But when I look at those awesome sights, it also brings me closer to God--to the One that brought it all about--not necessarily through a few words and gestures, but by setting in place the natural and physical laws of this universe.

I don't push my faith on others, I don't insist on you believing the way I do, nor do I conflate my faith with science. As I've said, each exist and each have their role to play. Religion and science have both been corrupted by humans to serve their needs.

In fairness to you, you have addressed, at least in passing, the basic issue of Islamism as a political system masquerading as a religion; however, I don't think you've adequately addressed the issue of the basic hypocrisy of those embracing this artist while at the same time cowering in fear from shedding this light of yours on Islam. Now, if you look at it from that light, then I think you have to agree that Donahue actually does have a point.

I need to confess. I've plagiarized some phrasing from Christopher Hitchens' wonderful speech "The Moral Necessity of Atheism" linked here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSmh03pL44o

It's just that he says it so well, dontcha think?

Michael - Yes, I think there is something to intelligent design when -completely- disassociated from the Bible and any other form of organized religion on the planet. And even then only in this: One way in which mutations arise is from the change made to DNA when struck by radiation from outer space. If the universe has 'intent' then those beams from outer space may not be entirely random. But again, the -science- of that just isn't in yet.

Matt - I'm not interested in supporting one religion over another, or defending any hypocrisy over another. I think our government and media are complicit in an effort to do as little as possible to piss off the Muslims, not out of simple fear of a bit of violence, but out of fear of a disruption of the oil supplies and the damage that would do to our economy. And you know what? I think that's smart.

Why is it that every conversation on the net about Christianity has to drop into the atheists=scientists/Christians=idiots basket? The reality is that the US has been heavily influenced by Christianity since its inception and most of its people have been Christian and we somehow have managed to progress just fine and to lead the world in technological, medical and scientific investigation. And we've somehow done that with a teeny, tiny fraction of those people of the atheist persuasion.

My mom, a devout Catholic with degrees in chemistry and an MBA, always told us kids that science cannot contradict God because science is of God. It is just a false premise that science can only advance in the absence of belief in God.

Back to the statue - yawn, another obnoxious anti-Christian who can't let this horrible holiday where people get together with family and celebrate their shared joy in the Resurrection go by without, well, saying something. It is rather telling, isn't it, that we know this artist's name but the sculptor of the lard Mohammed is in hiding. Which one is genuinely using art to shine a light?

>but out of fear of a disruption of the oil supplies and the damage that would do to our economy.

I'm afraid I can't agree here. The media would love to see oil prices go through the roof so they could engage in their favorite pastime: blaming Bush. What accounts for their cautious treatment of Islam is fear of violent reprisals.

Re: science and religion, the gap between the two has been narrowing ever since the development of quantum physics, which challenges the whole concept of objective physical phenemona distinct from the observer. This gap will only continue to narrow, I expect. Both science and religion serve as pointers to ultimate truths that the mind cannot grasp in words or logic. For that reason, I think all religions should be respected, except for those teachings or practices that are provably dangerous (e.g., the Hindu practice of suttee).

As for atheism's moral necessity, some of the most murderous regimes in history were staunchly atheistic. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot made Torquemada look like a piker. And science is a value-neutral discipline; it has nothing to say about morality. The same technology can be used to create lifesaving vaccines or deadly bioweapons; science per se has no preference, even if individual scientists do.

My thoughts on the situtation are here:

http://thepopulistblog.com/2007/03/plainly-speaking-freedom-of-speech.html

TWood,

In this democracy of ideas, the religionists have spoken. The hotel renting space to the gallery putting on the exhibit folded under threat of boycott and forced the exhibit to close.

Personally, I think that the artist could have corrected the issue merely by pumping in the appropriate raspberry filling and having it ooze through some stigmata.

You are welcome to tweak the noses of whomever you wish -- just don't mind it if someone tweaks yours in return.

PTG,

Lard Mohammed probably won't last much longer than "My Sweet Lord". "My Sweet Lord" wasn't vandalized, just moved to a more private place where those in on the joke can keep the joke privately. I doubt Lard Mohammed will be allowed that dignity.

As a Catholic I'm used to having people like TWood get into my face. Since there is no compulsion in religion, he's welcome to stand and defend what he believes, and I'll likewise stand and defend my beliefs.

And, in a few years, we'll all find out who's autopilot steered the right course. There's a sound logical reason for faith in God. If there is no God, then those of us who listened to "God" and followed his commandments won't be rewarded Conversely, if there is a God, TWood may have a bit of explaining to do, and the penalty for the wrong answers may be quite severe.

I sleep well at night, TWood, because I've got a purpose in my life greater than myself. Hope you do too.

Jeff began by saying the "artist probably realized it would be provoactive" and then admits the obvious - of course that was Cavallaro’s purpose and it's Happy-Happy time for all the thinking people because this will "make Christians question themselves a bit." Can't help picturing Jeff rubbing his hands together with a crooked smile and a twinkle in his eye after he clicked the "Post" button - Jeff's turn to stick it to those Christian bastards, mu-ha-ha-ha.

Any discussion of crazy ol’ Christianity might lead to a mention of the Liberal's faith-based, nihilistic philosophy which is easily as vulnerable to ridicule. I just listened to How Modern Liberals Think which opened my ears to the other side's philosophy. Evan Sayet is a comedy writer/former Leftist and he echoes some of the ideas described in the book "The Closing of the American Mind" which I think Jerry or one of the commenters here mentioned before.

It’s a long speech by Evan Sayet but this snippet outlines the Left’s animosity towards Christianity and religion in general.

The modern liberal knows one thing - that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with, none of the religions, none of the philosophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government, none have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong the real cause of war, crime, poverty and injustice must be found- can only be found - in the attempt to be right.

See, if nobody thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn't disagree surely we wouldn't fight. If we didn't fight of course we wouldn't go to war. Without war there'd be no poverty. Without poverty there'd be no crime. Without crime there'd be no injustice. It's a utopian vision. And all that's required to usher [in] this utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality and decency -- all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving towards it.

unclesmrgol:

Pascal's Wager:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager

Not convincing for all the counterarguments given there.

What it also requires is not only acceptance of life in a cosmic concentration camp, but an -embrace- of total surveillance and control from which there is no escape -for eternity- and for which one never asked for to begin with.

That's insane.

As I grew up in the south as a Baptist I knew that Jesus was not made out of chocolate ... but I also know that Jesus was not blonde haired and blue eyed as they tried to make us all believe as kids and grownups ... quite frankly I don't care if someone made a fake Jesus out of coal or gold, what's the difference. If you believe you believe ... even if you make a Jesus made of matchsticks on your back deck.

Twood, you avoided answering my question (twice) and instead want to talk about Dobson and Thompson? I'm not even a religious guy, so squabbles about the faith of Presidential candidates couldn't be less important to me.

All I wanted to do was confirm my sneaking suspicion that despite the claims that your beef is with all "delusional" religions, in practice you devote most of your energy to ridiculing Christianity rather than Islam. In that you have much in common with Dawkins and other secularists, Twood.

What could it possibly be that results in such lopsided testicular fortitude? Hmmm...

Oh come on Fred, it's a stupid rhetorical question that deserves only a stupid rhetorical reply. Sure, you build a marzipan Mohammed and I'll support your right to display it. But the marzipan has to meet all the technical requirements dictated by the European Union. No crappy marzipan!

Political Islam is by far the most dangerous movement afoot today and requires our diligent resistance. Is that a strong enough statement for you?

I point out Dobson's attack on Thompson because we have groups within the US that want to move us backwards toward entertwining government with religion. Those groups are predominately Christian. If Islam ever gets a large enough foothold here, I'm sure they would lead the charge to set up Sharia here as well.

So, how's this: A pox on BOTH their houses.

Sheesh....

Heck, I'm not even Catholic anymore - I decided to go Wiccan a while back, simply becuase it's less depressing than atheism.

But come on, folks. Stuff like this is just rude.

Does anyone remember rude? Or polite? It seems like such an old-fashioned concept now...

The chocolate Jesus does make the point, and if he'd modelled it after another cruxifiction the point would have been made nicely. Heck, even if the artist had said "I was modelling it after this particular model, no commentary about Jesus's dangly bits intended", we'd still have been fine. Instead, we get dragged into this mess.

I wonder if the artist recognizes that if he hadn't sucked his art off message, the people who "persecute" him would actually agree with his central point - that Easter's become about chocolate instead of Jesus's death and resurrection.

Assuming you celebrate it that way, of course. Happy Spring Equinox, all.

(Bonus points if the Jesus is, like those great big Easter bunnies, hollow.)

"...I grew up in the South as a baptist."

Yep, about as believable as your claims to be conservative.

All I wanted to do was confirm my sneaking suspicion that despite the claims that your beef is with all "delusional" religions, in practice you devote most of your energy to ridiculing Christianity rather than Islam. In that you have much in common with Dawkins and other secularists, Twood.
You know, there's an old Soviet-time joke, about Russian and American guys arguing about the freedom of expression.
The American guy says: "In our country we have a freedom of expression. I could go the Capitol and protest with a sign 'Down with the president Reagan!'"
The Russian replies: "It's the same here. Anyone could go the the Red Square and protest with a sign "Down with the president Reagan!'"

If you live in a predominantly Christian country, the natural thing to do is to protest against excesses of Christianity, not Islam.

Speaking about hypocrisy, the most hypocritical thing is right-wingers that claim to be in the fight against Islamism but support Iraqi "democratic government" which is fundamentalist and anti-Semitic.

Twood,

Dawkins is a half rate biologist...on the fringes of science. I went to Oxford and got a real degree there (like Clinton didn't). Try asking about Dawkins with Oxford the mathmaticians, physicists, etc...real scientists. I'm not claiming that they're religeous...just that they actually show a bit of ingelligence...unlike Dawkins.

Nikolay, the best joke I heard during my time in Moscow was the one about the Russian optimist and the Russian pessimist. A Russian pessimist says "Things couldn't possibly get any worse!" and a Russian optimist says "Oh yes they could!"

Most left-wingers are more like the Russian pessimist, because to them nothing could possibly be worse than those predominant (as you point out) Christians who aren't being appropriately submissive to their secular liberal agenda. Most right-wingers and Christians probably resemble the Russian optimist because they realize "Oh yes, it can get worse, and if you think we're bad, just see how your secular utopia fares against the growing influence of Islam!"

As far as Iraqi anti-semitism, I must confess ignorance to the specifics of that, although I wouldn't be surprised because Islam and anti-semitism pretty much go hand-in-hand the world over. If forced to choose between no democracy or democracy with an anti-semitic tilt, I suppose I'd prefer a flawed democracy because at least it lays the foundation for possible future improvements. An Islamic theocracy pretty much rules out any chance of introspection or social enlightenment (notwithstanding all the current leftist canard's about Iran's "well-respected" and "fully-integrated" Jewish population.)

Twood, if you promise to treat creeping Islamism with the appropriate level of seriousness, I promise to stand with you should those crazy Xtians ever rise up and try to force the Lord's Prayer on your kids at school. Deal?

LOL, Fred. Deal.

Lib-O, I supect that Dawkins is more intelligent than 99% of the people on the planet. Which makes what he has to say at least worth hearing.

BTW, if anyone is still interested, the discussion of reason versus religion between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan is here:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html