When religious fundamentalism is at its best, it’s stupid, and when it’s at it’s worst, it’s plain evil. Such as those that claimed that Katrina was a punishment to all the sinners of New Orleans, or the terrorists (whether Islamic like now, or the IRA, or other groups in Centuries long gone), or the parents that denied their daughter medical treatment, instead utilising prayer to save their daughter (until she died). These are some truly sick people.

Atheism, no matter how many times the fundies come up with the straw man that atheists are Stalinists or Maoists or Marxists, has never committed the atrocities that religion has over the years. That is why states should be secular, because a government that favours a particular religion automatically produces a state of conflict and oppression.

However, I think that the head which Sam hit squarely is in fact not so squarely hit. That is to say, I don’t think the book is the problem, the book is a book, a bunch of words mean nothing, it’s the interpretation applied to the words that’s the issue. I can interpret Dr. Suess’ imminent manifesto “Green Eggs and Ham” as a codex for living, but that would readily be seen as sillyness, it’s a children’s book. I could argue that the Green Eggs represent the things we find distasteful, but necessary in life, and the Ham as the inevitability of failing health (Ham is salty, salty leads to heart problems, hence, Ham represents the heartache we feel about our inevitable death). But I would be bullshitting you. Similarly, it’s not the Bible or the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon or any of that thats the problem, it’s the interpretation. Now, obviously if the book didn’t exist, then we would not have the ability to interpret (or misinterpret) it, and then the problem would be nonextant, however, it’s obviously true that good interpretations exist. Further, and I’m waxing post-modern here, there is likely no true interpretation, which is a fundamental issue with fundamentalism, they believe they have the “one true path”, when in fact there is likely no such path.

Your second paragraph sums up exactly what I was trying to say with that analogy, society decided racism was not acceptable, marginalized the racists, and now the problem is far less rampant, though still extant, than it was even a few years ago. Society is a sleeping giant, in a lot of ways, both society in general and religious subsocietie. If we wake up the liberal and moderate majority and simply remind them that this is truly an embarassing feature of their faith- perhaps not when it comes to the afterlife and all that, I can tolerate a few silly beliefs- the xenophobia, the puritanical conservativism, etc, then the problem will largely be religated to the corners of modern society. I think that part of getting to this point will be ’selling’ science to the moderates. In that- many moderates today are creationists, science has thusfar responded to creationism in either an extreme anti-creationism tone- attacking all creationists with equal ferocity, or by simply ignoring them. I think that, here, we also need to change tactics. Namely, we should stop telling them that creationism is stupid, just that science is a _better_ answer. This will be much more difficult, but similarly to the above, there are two kinds of creationists: creationists-by-default, that is, those who don’t know any better; and creationists-by-choice, that is, those who likely know better, and simply choose to be cretins, “cretinists” if you will.

The former group has simply been taught that science says they’re just animals, we came from nothing, and that we’re an accident. I am optimistic that these people could be easily shown the actuality- that we are not _just_ animals, we’re highly evolved, incredibly sophisticated animals; that we came from nothing, but through science and intelligence came into everything; and that we may have been a fluke, but we are no accident, that we are the product of millions and billions of years of endless, unwitting, painstaking, unceasing research on the part of no one at all. That is was _our_ species who survived all the trials and tribulations of our 15 million year development, plus the few hundred million year preseason, and of all the animals that ever lived on this planet, _we are the winners._

You present evolution like that, to someone who’s pastor has always told them that evolution said they were accidents and made them no more special than a monkey, I think you might get a few interested people in the former party.

The latter, on the other hand, I’d bet is hopeless, and the same method I suggest in the OP will eventually be used with them, too. It will simply be unacceptable to have the audacity to claim that we did not evolve.

I too, have rambled… meh, I’m in good company.

This all reminded me very much of Sam Harris’s speech here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2oJgsGR6c

(Ignore the overzealous woman at the start.)

I know Sam is talking more about opening the lines of communication- stop the nonsense about respecting the beliefs of others, and criticize the ideas. As in, when an honor killing happens in the news, don’t be afraid to point to the Koran as part of the problem. Or when an 18-month old girl dies because her parents refuse medicine in substitute of prayer, don’t be afraid to point to the Bible as part of the problem.

I like your analogy to feminism/patriarchy. But it all simply boils down to a fight against extremism- and I think Sam Harris hits this square on the head. It’s about opening that line of communication, and slowly making it acceptable to talk about some of the crazy beliefs that exist. It’s that comfort level. It’s similar to that transition from the 50s where blacks were looked down upon, to today when (I like to believe anyway, in the Wester World) most people view blacks as they should be- normal human beings. That ethic inequality has shrunk big time. It’s because as time went on, thinking others were unequal because of their race became embarassing- and so to may the belief in the supernatural someday.

The problem that I personally worry about is that innate resistance inside us to reconcile our own mortality. This is fine in and of itself, but this resistance might prove difficult when trying to convince the moderates to question the fundamentalists. I think it’s a far more difficult feat to accomplish than something like equal rights, abolition, or the like. Those things always seem to have a moral high ground (maybe I’m taking that for granted- hindsight is 20/20), but this is different. Those fundamentalists are allowed to ramble about because of the moderates, and to convince the moderates that the fundamentalists are wrong seems to me extremely difficult. To me and you, we can see a clear distinction between matters of belief and action (the difference between a belief in Allah and the honor killing of a 17 year old girl), but I feel that difference is far more blurred from a different perspective: that of a moderate.

Sorry- I’ve rambled a bit. Keep up the good work with the blog!