We won't get better science teachers till will fire every damn one of them who teaches Creationism "Science."

If you are the Muslim child in Iraq (or possibly Iran in the future) do you really care if the person who sent the armaments flying was Christian (Haggee) or Atheist (Hitchens)?

In fact, since bibleheads, koranheads, and torah-heads are so delusional, couldn't atheists view the "believers" as lesser individuals worthy of destruction?

You misunderstand.

You did read my whole comment, didn't you?

I'll repeat my last sentence: I am respectful of others and don't require that anyone accept or agree with my faith, so I expect to be afforded respect in return.

Yet you say, "But fundamentally, I'm not sure why anyone's personal beliefs require our respect."

I don't know how to make myself clearer. I don't require that anyone accept or agree with my faith. But since my faith is personal and not intrusive, I simply expect for others to treat me with respect.

My husband doesn't believe in God--and he doesn't not believe in God. He simply doesn't care enough about the subject to spend time considering it. What he does care about (rightfully) is being free from having others try to impose their beliefs on him. Since I don't do that to him, my faith isn't at odds with his choice to give faith no consideration at all. He and I are compatible, as far as I'm concerned.

Here's a little background that's relevant to this particular post and thread:

Loki's post here refers specifically to a post and thread from yesterday in which TPM poster "Scientific" criticizes James Dobson for saying

"I think he's (Obama) deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology [...] He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter [...] Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies? [...] What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.

Dobson's statements were in response to Obama's statements that rationale for policy should be accessible to all Americans, regardless of religious faith or atheism or agnosticism. He said we had to avoid policy that uses as its rationale, simply, "because the Bible says so."

Scientific's main point: though the Democrats are unlike Republicans in that they disagree with using religion as a basis for shaping public policy or governing, Republicans should not assume they have "cornered the market on God." He further asserted that many religious African Americans, who have already been a reliable Democratic constituency, will have all the more reason to be attracted to a Democratic Party under the leadership of Barack Obama.

Now, the conflict Loki speaks to in this post happened this way:

Loki and countman dropped by the thread, not to make comments on the substance of the post, but to belittle Scientific and me after we had identified ourselves as Christian. Countman posted an off-topic response to one of my comments to say

Here we are in the 21st Century and people still believe in this nonsense. "My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend." Why not drink the complete glass of kool aid and support Creationism too.

His comment added nothing to the subject of the thread. While he was expressing contempt for my faith (which I both understand and agree he has a right to do), his comments also aimed at making me, personally, look like a silly, credulous "kool-aid" drinker.

So, yeah. I take offense at that. His supercilious, off-topic comments weren't an invitation to an intellectual, reasoned discussion about the role of religion in public policy, they were just snide remarks, the observable purpose being only to feed his belief in his intellectual superiority over me.

I stand up to people who try to strut and preen at my expense.

Thank you very much, Loki. I appreciate your tolerance and good will.

I have only one request of you: please take care to avoid painting us all with a broad brush. I'll greatly appreciate your care in acknowledging the tolerant, non-intrusive Christians (and observers of other religions) who inhabit this world in (I hope) ever increasing numbers.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! When was I a condescending asshole to you, Laura?

Actually, Loki, I think you misunderstood Scientific's meaning.

He was calling out Dobson's hypocrisy--his failure to behave, by Dobson's own professed standards in a manner compatible with being Christian.

But I understood from Scientific's post that he does, in fact, understand the absurdity you so aptly described: "That fighting over who is real and who is fake and who interprets that ancient novel more correctly is foolishness at best."

The reason? Because he refers to Obama's very sane statements (actually originating in his "Call to Renewal" address) that basically says everything you're saying, and puts it into context regarding making public policy:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Emphasis mine.

And this, regarding the futility of asking who is real or who is right:

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles. Emphasis mine.

In Scientific's essay, Dobson is "fake" to the extent that he (1) mischaracterized (or lied) about what Obama really did say, and (2) rather transparently uses religion and the bible strictly for political, not religious or spiritual purposes.

You know, if you carefully read and consider what Obama says about the role of religion in public life, you might find that his views are quite compatible with yours.

Likewise, if you take a more thoughtful, less reactive look at Christians like Obama, Scientific, and me, you will find that we are absolutely non-threatening to atheists and agnostics, and that we are your natural political allies.

To address one of the points in your post, "So is religion off limits?", I say, let's discuss it! But let's have a genuinely thoughtful, respectful (i.e., non-mocking) discussion about it. Those discussions would likely be enormously useful.

I appreciate your time and consideration.

I certainly agree with your points about science and math ed, but it isn't just science and math. But more importantly I think it is the case that Americans don't value education overall.

We do not reward people for having a good education. We reward people in this society who use whatever education they may have to make money. School is looked at not as a place that is useful because it is good to be an educated human being. School is valued by our society only to the point where it is vocationally useful and even then only grudgingly so.

Educating people properly and broadly so that they have the critical thinking skills to make sense of the world they live in is a necessary prerequisite for maintaining a Democratic Republicn in the modern world. Thus, every area of education is of tremendous importance. We have a great deal of work to do if we hope to maintain the republic. I hope it isn't too late.

Not to worry, I'll be making you sorry...