I tend to agree with ThatBritGuy on who those more important targets are. And at least it's something most of us here can agree on.

As rdf and I have pointed out, the religious in the US remain a threat in themselves, and have campaigns specifically related to their beliefs which do a great deal of damage - and I suspect some of these are an embarrassment to some of the neo-cons and it is just simplistic to think the latter are the cause of all important problems.

But disagreements are good to have, at times.

I'm sure you don't really expect ME to disagree with THIS :-)

    But it's difficult for them because the extremists will say to the moderates "our views are based on faith just like yours".

Do religious extremists really say that about moderates? Because I have never heard it. And I've seen and heard a few tapes of suicide bombers, Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants

I was of course imagining a direct encounter where moderates criticised the extermists' beliefs; I don't think the latter are likely to just volunteer the answer. But the logic remains; ultimately most religious believers have a problem strongly criticisng extremists in general terms because both ultimately rely on the same basis - faith. By giving respect to beliefs based on faith, as has been widespread, especially in the US, because some of them are nice moderates, we neglect the very necessary strong criticism of such an irrational basis for beliefs. As a result we have the absurd spectacle of two Republican Presidential canidates - frontrunners! - one of whom supports the teaching of creationsim and wants to change the Constitution to favour religion, while the other is a Mormon - and none of the mainstream media ridicule this - must respect people's faith - NO !(the Late show is off-air I think).

Dawkins et al are just carrying out long overdue, strong, well-publicised critiques which many moderate Christans, doubters and atheists welcome and feel necessary.


Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.