It's all text. Consuming one over the other (to say nothing of consuming all of the above) doesn't lend greater credibility to (or, conversely, take any credibility away from) one's claims of intellect.

Anyway, Americans are under attack by the people who THINK they are intellectuals, and this gives them a right to tell other people how to live their lives.

Funny thing is, I'm more often told how to live my life by Christians than by intellectuals (Christian intellectuals--and there are a goodly number of them, though you'll probably never meet them on the Fray--will engage me in dialogue minus the dogma).

Ideas do have consequences. Good ideas have good consequences, and bad ideas, bad ones.

And good ideas can have bad consequences, and bad ideas, good ones. For instance . . .

Jesus never lifted a sword, but the religion founded in his name conquered the Roman Empire.

And led to the Crusades and the Inquisition, the burning of "witches," heretics, and homosexuals, etc. Even if you're inclined to differentiate between Christians and "Papists," would you be similarly inclined, then, to absolve Christ while putting Rome's crimes on the shoulders of Augustine and Aquinas?

Karl Marx never harmed a soul. But his ideas (he was undoubtedly an intellectual) paved the way for Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, who collectively were responsible for the murder of over 150 million people.

Sure. I tend to think of Marx as being to socialism what Nietzsche was to existentialism--a game-changing middle-entry that suffered from a facile materialism. Not without merit, but also not a solid foundation for any whole system.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see what the Inquisition or Crusades might have wrought if the former had gas chambers and the latter tanks and bombers.

Aristotle was hated by his peers, and his writings were lost for 1000 years. But today he is considered the founder of science and philosophy.

Yup.

Charles Darwin died a theist. But his theories became the intellectual underpinning for militant naturalism and atheism still with us today.

But need they be that, necessarily? Methodological naturalism is necessary for science to proceed, but a fair number of scientists--including a fair number who believe in evolution--stop short of belief in philosophical naturalism. The evidence for natural selection, microevolution, and speciation are undeniable; macroevolution is an extrapolation from that evidence that may or may not be warranted, depending on one's view. But my own belief in evolution is irrelevant so far as my belief in deity is concerned.

Darwin is undoubtedly in hell right now.

That doesn't sound like a very Christian viewpoint. If he accepted Christ as his savior, wouldn't even your theology hold that he was "saved?"

People who think they know more than they actually do should refrain from calling other people stupid. Maybe you should research those terms a bit.

I agree that Leroy pounced on you a bit unceremoniously, but the notion of a god that created the first lifeforms and then allowed the natural processes he/she/it had set in motion to run their course IS compatible with deistic belief in deity as clockmaker.

And what kind of thinker is that, exactly? I've never hidden the fact that I am a Christian.

Doesn't a Christian accept and/or assume, though, that God knows the heart, and that no man can suitably judge another man's salvation?

I suppose I wouldn't object to a doctor who thought that germs and viruses were products of intelligent design; assuming he or she is at least versed in what we can objectively demonstrate as far as the predictable behavior of such organisms, and how to treat or cure the maladies they cause, where he or she thinks they come from is irrelevant.

My hope would be that my doctor would limit himself to the practical implications of my condition. My only misgivings about a religious doctor--specifically a doctor whose religious views differed considerably from my own--would arise if he moved outside of those boundaries to hector about the moral implications of that condition.

You tell me how "christians" order you around, and I will give examples how liberals order me around.

Who do you think will get more examples?

You would discard a doctor simply because he does not believe in the theory of evolution - irrespective of all empirical evidence on how well he performs his actual job.

About a doctor who rejected the germ theory of disease?

You might as well be going to a witch-doctor, in that event.

The Encyclopedia Britannica: "Evolution, or the idea of common descent, is as well-established as the facts that the Earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the Sun."

I grew up Catholic. I didn't really have much choice in the matter (though it should be said that my mother wasn't particularly fervent or orthodox, and my father was really just along for the ride). So the organization to which I was ostensibly beholden insisted that the jerking off I did in my bedroom was verboten, to say nothing of the porn, the incessant fantasizing, etc. I've committed technically illegal sex acts in every state I've ever lived in (even post-Lawrence vs. Texas; most, though not all, of those acts were performed with members of the opposite sex). I was made to say the Pledge growing up, "under God" and all (though, to be fair, while I don't believe in what the Christians call "God"--I'm a pantheistic Buddhist--the execrable nature of loyalty oaths in general is what I primarily object to on that count).

On the other hand, the liberals here won't let me smoke in bars (I don't smoke, usually, but get me drunk enough and I might have a cig or two). It's always something, ain't it?

I'd say it's neither Christians nor, necessarily, conservatives who criminalize the weed that I go ahead and smoke anyway. Which, of course, brings us to the question of the day: When we're restricted in our behaviors by what we consider unjust laws--even if that restriction just amounts to doing the illegal act in hiding--how do we determine whether Christians, liberals, or some more generic sort of asshole (or timid, repressed mass of assholes) is responsible?

TheLyamHound: I suppose I wouldn't object to a doctor who thought that germs and viruses were products of intelligent design; assuming he or she is at least versed in what we can objectively demonstrate as far as the predictable behavior of such organisms, and how to treat or cure the maladies they cause, where he or she thinks they come from is irrelevant.

LeRoy: The 'predictable behavior of such organisms' is that they evolve. If you treat bacterial infections with anti-biotics, the predictable result is that the organisms will eventually evolve anti-biotic resistance. Which, as I hope you know, is becoming a major problem in the world today. Some fear that we are losing the 'arms race' with infectious diseases, and that we are moving into an era of history in which we will once again be faced with terrible and terrifying pandemics. See the highly regarded book The Coming Plague for an exposition of this view.

A doctor who believes that germs and viruses are intelligently designed must presumably also believe that God (or the intelligent designer, if you really prefer) is STILL happily designing new germs and new viruses to throw at us, his supposed Lords of Creation. Why would He be doing that? To punish us for our sins? Did God create the new H1N1 influenza virus? Or was it, more likely, the consequence of how we are interacting with the environment, specifically, with the conditions that exist in giant hog farms in Mexico?

I'd like to expand on the portion of my post to which you didn't respond, specifically:

>>It's all text. Consuming one over the other (to say nothing of consuming all of the above) doesn't lend greater credibility to (or, conversely, take any credibility away from) one's claims of intellect.<<

On what basis do you assume that one who has an active interest in TV and film isn't ALSO reading books? I'd be willing to be that I've read at least as many books as you have; I doubt that's marred, in any way, by my love for French and Japanese cinema, or even my appreciation for Joss Whedon's ouevre, to say nothing of the plays I've had to memorize over the years.

. . . that much of what constitutes the theory of evolution is settled science and clearly, demonstrably true, and while I believe that much of what's still in doubt is soon to be proven, I think you misrepresent the beliefs of creationists and intelligent design advocates. Most of them will readily concede that microevolution--not just evolution within species (or within genus; it's telling, I think, that when confronted with studies showing actual observed speciation events, the levels at which taxonomic change have to occur to provide evidence for macroevolution become ever higher), but also evolution in organisms simple enough in structure that significant changes can occur without measurable increase in genetic information--IS settled science.

Which is to say, even if your doctor believed that the Earth was only 6000 years old (and let it be known that I think anyone who thinks THAT has essentially recused herself from intelligent discourse), she'd probably still believe that bacteria and viruses "evolve."

Although I am betting you realize that there ARE people, and quite a few of them, who, with all sincerity, believe that God created the AIDS virus, and fairly recently, as a way to punish homosexuals.

Funny that lesbians seem fairly immune.

Maybe God likes lesbians.

[OK with me; I do, too. In fact, if I were a girl, I'd BE a lesbian....]

Intellectuals under attack: More importantly look at what is going on in American schools. They have drastically cut arts programs, our teachers are underpaid, children are forced to use out of date textbooks... but our sports programs are alive and well.

Which is rewarded more in school, intellectual ability or athletic ability? Want a quick answer? Check the trophy case at any American school.

Who is it America has chosen as their role models? The beautiful, the brainless, and the brawny.