I think Mr. Kuo's hope that Christian's will engage in politics wearing a secular hat, rather than a religious one, is unrealistic. Nor is it clear whether, functionally, it matters. Not only does it blithely overlook how easily demagogic religious leaders selectively choose arcane scripture to galvanize supporters--both as financial supporters to their racket and to their political cause--but it also overlooks how religious leaders can co-opt moral and ethical causes (abortion?) from the secular realm for their benefit. Perhaps the assumption driving this statement is that non-religiously formed political opinions are less calcified, and more easily swayable by reasoned debate. For such intractable public issues, though, I'm just not sure whether their opinion is based on shoddy religious reasoning or other ethical or moral objections.

If you get the opportunity, check out the book "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" by Susan Jacoby...if you aren't already familiar with it.

Jacoby discusses the influence of the mass media on religious groups in America. Like the tele-evangelists' abilities to gain such a huge audience of true believers. And how politics and economics plays into this whole equation. Regional differences cannot be ignored either...the whole North/South, rural/urban dichotomy. Personally, I think there are enough voices in the various Christian sects to keep any one voice from screaming over the others. That's the beauty of pluralism. No one group gets the microphone all the time.

I hate the double standard.

Why must Christians keep their beliefs separate? Why not other religions like the Religious Left, Muslims, and Secularists?

Yes, Secularism is a religion. So is Environmentalism and Socialists. They decided to create a lifestyle out of their religion, from believing in Darwinism, and having utopian visions of heaven on earth.

I will keep fighting for my Christian rights.... which are actually my rights as an American to be a citizen.

Although I share your Madisonian belief in the value of pluralism, I'm not as sanguine. As E.E. Schattschneider wrote, “the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper class accent”. Unfortunately, this "heavenly chorus" speaks not with an "upper class accent", but with a bullhorn from a pulpit to a constituency that revels in their role as obedient, and unquestioning, "sheep".

In response to "mashup"... I think it is important to remain objective in your job. You, as a citizen have rights of worship, freedom of association, free speech, etc because of the Constitution. Not because of the Bible or from your membership in a Christian Church. Your rights and civil liberties are protected by the U.S. Constitution, and this is a secular, enlightened notion.

I completely disagree with your portrayal of secularism is a religion. Religion is emotional and based on faith and dogma. Secularism is intellectual and based on reason and skepticism. It does not claim to take the place of religious thought or spirituality in general. It is not atheism or anti-religion. But being secular means being concerned that any one religious sect could overpower the rights of the individual citizen living in the U.S. We should all fight against theocracy and have a healthy distrust of fundamentalist motives.

We are not One Nation Under God. We just aren't. That is a mischaracterization of this nation. And claims that we are a Christian nation are just not true. Christianity may be the majority religion, but that doesn't mean all Christians or all Americans can be painted under the same broad brushstroke. Religious minorities (and those without religious membership) should never feel threatened by the American government or the Christian right as being less protected by the laws of the land.

In response to "Marshall":

Ahhh... the bully pulpit. There is a bit of a charismatic personality profile to most evangelical religious leaders...their ability to sometimes create a frenzy with all their rantings and ravings about the Apocalypse. I am fascinated by the power of the pulpit to inspire folks.

I realize that there is a tendency to call people "sheep" when they follow the messages of their leaders, but it must serve some other purpose as well. I don't think of human beings as simple sheep that follow blindly...they have to get something out of it...there's a purpose to it. A function. I'm not saying I understand it, but it makes me curious about why people in America are remaining so religious when compared to other nations.

I would have to disagree with Mojo that secularism, specifically secular humanism, isn't a religion. Like any religion, it has both a code of ethics, an explanation of how the world was formed--evolution.

And speaking of evolution, it is approached in much the same way that theology is. It starts off with a set of assumptions and tries to work out the specifics from there. We ASSUME that evolution occurred and change the theory on the specifics every time a new find is made. We ASSUME that the levels of Carbon 14 in living things millions of years ago were the same as they are today because today all living things have the same amounts. Since nobody was there to observe when the first single cell organisms evolved, and nobody was there to measure levels of carbon 14 in living things a million years ago, we really can't prove our assumptions, yet it is being taught as fact in schools. Mind you, I'm not saying that we didn't evolve, I'm just saying that believing in evolution requires some faith.

I strongly disagree with CMS that belief in evolution requires "faith". Faith in science? Faith requires a naive belief in something that is, effectively, non-falsifiable. You can not disprove--or prove, for that matter, which makes atheism, from a positivist perspective, irrational--the existence of an omnipotent deity. It's not observable and, presumably its essentially constant, so you can't compare variations in outcomes to demonstrate it exists. The theory of evolution, and the assumptions made to develop the theory and derive empirical, testable conjectures about how it works, can and has been subjected to empirical scrutiny. Advancement in our understanding of evolution leads--as it should--to theoretical refinements that can be tested. That is not faith. That is scientific progress.

"So is Environmentalism and Socialists."

>>Environmentalism isn't a religion, nor is socialism.

"They decided to create a lifestyle out of their religion, from believing in Darwinism, and having utopian visions of heaven on earth."

>>Evolution, Darwinian or otherise, similarly isn't a religion and no theory of evolution predicts we wil experience anything similar to a 'heaven on earth'. Similarly, confidence in evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) ins't a function of belief (i.e, does not derive from subjective personal faith that it is valid) but from evolutionary theories' demonstrable ability to explain all observations in their scope in a comprehensive and predictive manner.

"I will keep fighting for my Christian rights.... which are actually my rights as an American to be a citizen."

>> For Christian in the above sentence we may freely substitute "Jewish", "Islamic", "Wiccan", "Satanist", etc. While all Americans possess a right to free expression of religion your 'rights as an American to be a citizen' are entirely secular in nature.

“And speaking of evolution, it is approached in much the same way that theology is.”

>>That isn’t the case, unless theology is derived solely from objective observations that are repeatable, reproducible, and independent of the analyst, and unless theological models do not invoke supernatural entities or forces to craft explanations.

“It starts off with a set of assumptions and tries to work out the specifics from there.”

>>Sorry, that’s false. Evolutionary theories, like all scientific theories, derive not from assumptions but from large bodies of objective observations.

“We ASSUME that evolution occurred and change the theory on the specifics every time a new find is made.”

>>We don’t assume evolution occurred. Darwin didn’t assume evolution occurred. You’ve got the process backwards. What Darwin did initially and what we do now is to examine the body of objective evidence (observationally and experimentally collected) regarding existing biodiversity and from that evidence derive an explanation that is comprehensive, tentative and predictive. (I.e., he didn’t assume evolution occurred, he looked at what had occurred and asked “What explains this?”)

“We ASSUME that the levels of Carbon 14 in living things millions of years ago were the same as they are today because today all living things have the same amounts.”

>>No, we don’t. We don’t have to, as we can directly measure the levels of environmental carbon 14 that present in the atmosphere in the past that have been incorporated into datable geologic features. (And note that it is in fact impossible to meaure residual Carbon 14 in samples millions of years old: because of half-life constraints Carbon 14 dating may only be applied to samples less than 50,000 years old. Other radio-dating techniques using isotopes with much longer half-lives are used to date non-organic samples and samples older than 50,000 years.)

“Since nobody was there to observe when the first single cell organisms evolved, and nobody was there to measure levels of carbon 14 in living things a million years ago, we really can't prove our assumptions, yet it is being taught as fact in schools.”

>>Again: if you’re seriously suggesting that kids in schools are being taught that carbon 14 is used to date sample that are millions of years old you didn’t pay attention when the subject was being covered while you were attending school.

“Mind you, I'm not saying that we didn't evolve, I'm just saying that believing in evolution requires some faith.”

>>It isn’t necessary to believe in evolution, however, since confidence in evolutionary theories doesn’t derive from a subjective personal faith that they’re correct, any more than confidence in gravitational attraction or the heliocentric model of the solar system derives from faith. Confidence in all scientific theories derives from their demonstrated ability to comprehensively and predictively explain all observations within their scope.

like a complete Moonbat here - I really love it when you post. No one lays an evolutionary smackdown like JGC. There is so much misinformation out there from idiots with pictures of "crocoducks" to the more refined lunacy of Irreducible Complexity. These notions have been demolished years (decades!) ago, but proponents are still trotting them out hoping no one will catch them up... it's "only a theory" after all, right?

Thank you!

JGC:

“And speaking of evolution, it is approached in much the same way that theology is.”

>>That isn’t the case, unless theology is derived solely from objective observations that are repeatable, reproducible, and independent of the analyst, and unless theological models do not invoke supernatural entities or forces to craft explanations

You haven't proved evolution if you defined this as the scientific method.

You can't repeat what has happened. Scientists didn't even try to replicate their theories. What are they afraid of?

And you don’t understand science, the scientific method, or the definition of a scientific theory if you think it’s necessary to “repeat what has happened” in order for theories of evolution to possess confidence, or if you believe it’s possible for a scientific theory—any scientific theory, not just evolution, to be proven.

By definition a scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena constructed of corroborated hypotheses which is comprehensive, predictive, and tentative. By definition scientific theories cannot be proven true, only falsified. The inability to prove a theory true doesn’t imply that they lack value, since confidence in a scientific theory doesn’t derive from some possibility that it might one day be proven true but from it’s demonstrable ability to both comprehensively and predictively explain all observations within its scope.

“You can't repeat what has happened.”

>>We can certainly experimentally demonstrate evolutionary change resulting in the creation of biologically diverse populations in a repeatable manner—in fact, humans have been doing this in a goal oriented manner for centuries, imposing artificial selective pressures on isolated populations to cause a change in their genetic composition (it’s called ‘breeding animals’.)

“Scientists didn't even try to replicate their theories.”

>>You’re correct: scientist’s don’t try to replicate their theories, as the very phrase is a meaningless semantic hash. What scientists do is replicate their observations and experimental outcomes. Again: it’s a relatively trivial matter to experimentally demonstrate selection resulting in a change in a population’s genetic composition leading to altered phenotype (and that’s all evolution is.) With minimal supervision and resources you could demonstrate this yourself (for example, by selecting for T4 phage resistance in bacteria.)

Of course, it isn’t necessary to experimentally demonstrate that evolution occurs, since we can observe it happening all around us in realtime, in uncontrolled populations in the wild (how do you think antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria arise?) Note these observations include speciation events, which by definition represent observed macroevolution.

“What are they afraid of?”

>>Absolutely nothing, but thanks for asking. Evolutionary biologists are no more afraid to ‘replicate their theories’ regarding the natural mechanisms that create biodiversity than meteorologists are afraid to ‘replicate their theory’ regarding the natural mechanisms that create hurricanes and thunderstorms.

And as with hurricanes and thunderstorms it isn’t necessary to be able to repeat the phenomenon start to finish in a controlled laboratory setting to have confidence in the derived explanation.

I agree with "bugger"...good job with the intellectual "smack-down". Love it.

I'm so tired of Intelligent Designers and Creationists trying to pass off evolutionary theory as the "religion" of the atheist. To dismiss the theory of Natural Selection as mere speculation. As if science and religion can ever be compatible. Two entirely different ways of thinking, explaining, proving, etc, the natural world. And may the two never blend together. The clashes between religion and science historically just prove my point even more. Psedo-science undermines true scientifc benefits.

The scientist looks for facts and evidence; the religious folks look for "divine" answers and get all upset when their reasoning process is questioned or held up to any scrutiny. They can't be objective about this area: It is Subjective. All scientists know that they have to be prepared for the skeptics in their own fields and that their function is to offer material evidence to stake their claims, not faith-based "spiritual" ones.

Scientists do not get their feelings hurt over the critical review of their findings: They WELCOME critical review of their findings. THAT is part of the scientific method. THAT is how we progress and yes, dare I say it, evolve. And whenever we shine light into the dark places. Like the great Carl Sagan said: Science is a reaction to the Demon Haunted World. Science will bring enlightenment. It will answer the questions we humans have about our natural world, our social world, our inner world, etc. Using reason. Using our brain power and technology.

"I would have to disagree with Mojo that secularism, specifically secular humanism, isn't a religion. Like any religion, it has both a code of ethics, an explanation of how the world was formed--evolution."

Yes, secular humanism is a philosophy and has elements of religion, as a philosophy...in a broad sense of the word "religion"...but I was meaning simply secularism, as it relates to secular government/politics. But I also use the word "secular" to mean "no interference by religion". An impartial way to be a government employee perhaps...to not use your religious lens to color your judgement or actions in government decisions that affect all citizens.

I think public servants should be public servants...not beholden to the special interests of one particular group of noisy people. IAs a Democrat, for example, I will vote for people that fairly serve the interests of all/most Americans...not just the noisy ones (or the ones with the most cash in their pockets to flash around).

Your claim that secular humanism has a code of ethics struck me as very insightful but I don't think "evolutionary theory" really gets to this issue of "ethics" in any straightforward way. I'm interested in hearing how you think evolution has presented a "code of ethics" and what that may be. Do you think evolution is "Faith Based"?

In a book by Frans De Waal called "Our Inner Ape", I found the following statement: "Our humaneness is grounded in the social instincts that we share with other animals" and "Darwin felt that people are born to be moral". From those two statements--which I agree with--I don't see it as a matter of faith, but rather a matter of hard evidence. Our closest relatives-- the great apes-- are designed to be social creatures and have adapted to be social creatures because it helped them survive. Not because an outside force (supernatural) had anything to do with it. God isn't needed in the equation.

Religion serves a purpose. It provides all sorts of benefits for the people that have faith in it. I don't mean to be disrespectful because so many people find comfort in their religious beliefs. But religion is a social construct. We have created it, not the other way around. This is not to take away it's powerful influence on human thought and morality...I don't mean to dismiss it either.