Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason

david-niose
In his new book, Fight Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason, David Niose draws a sharp distinction between backward and forward thinking.

These are not concepts that will seem strange, or appear to need much explanation for readers here. At the same time, this book is about assumptions, and Niose challenges many of them here. He will challenge some of yours just as he challenged some of mine.

That is why this is such an important book.

While we have seen evidence of the country’s shift to the left in recent polling figures, Niose points out that many on the liberal/progressive side are still stuck in the twentieth century.

He is talking not simply about views of atheists, but of assumptions many of us carry with us: “the role of government, education, the environment, and foreign policy,” he says, “are also rooted in paradigms that should have faded long ago.”

The result, he tells us, is that conservative assumptions rule the day. Rather than a “rational, human-centered public policy” we have the promotion of “antireason” which comes at us from “in a variety of forms” – and as we have here, he points to the corporate agenda as well as “certain governmental and religious interests.”

These are collectively “the Right,” that is, the conservative end of the political spectrum. The defining characteristics of the right, as he explains them, are:

  • Antigovernment
  • Militaristic
  • Moralistic
  • Pro-corporate
  • Sympathetic to Entanglement of Religion in Government

Niose does not make the distinction between liberal and progressive of Timothy Ferris in The Science of Liberty (2010). Niose is not looking at classical liberalism, but lumps progressives and liberals together. He is not looking at Ferris’ distinctions (those who stress liberty vs those who stress equality) but rather what ties modern liberals and progressives together: a devotion to reason and human-centered policy (Interestingly, you will find neither “liberal” nor “progressive” in the index of Niose’s book).

The defining characteristics of the left are:

  • Human centered
  • Promote Reason
  • Sensible egalitarianism
  • Pragmatism
  • Individual autonomy
  • Critical thinking

Much of this book deals with terms, and how we define and understand the world. Some of these may seem strange to readers, not accustomed to thinking about the world (or ourselves) in these ways.

fighting-back-the-rightDavid Niose is, of course, President of the American Humanist Association, as well as the Secular Coalition of America. The theme of his book revolves very much around the idea of freethought, a Enlightenment term which is not the same thing as open-minded, but, as he reminds us, thinking that is free from “dogma, superstition, and other irrational authority.”

Likewise, as he points out, freethought is not synonymous with secular. Saying you are a freethinker, he explains, makes a “broader declaration” about your thinking. Being a freethinker means you reject “unsupported claims of authority” and hold “a belief that reason and empiricism are the best means of attaining truth.”

Right there is the difference between the left and right in American politics today, and this is the most important distinction to be made in the book: the left operates out of an evidence-based world while the right clings to beliefs about what the world should be, or what they want it to be. The Bush administration admitted to creating their own reality and changing that faster than we could catch up, and conservatives haven’t stopped since.

If some of this book retreads familiar ground, it is eye-opening in many ways. It is meant to challenge your assumptions, and if there is one thing a freethinker should be able to do, it is to challenge his or her assumptions about the world.

I grew up in a very conservative household, and I began to have my assumptions challenged very early on, all the way into college and beyond. We don’t realize sometimes how locked into certain ways of thinking we can be. And this again is one of the themes of Niose’s book, that we are not always as forward-thinking as we assume.

As a Heathen, I don’t fit neatly into any of the niches Niose defines here. I am religious, but I am a secularist. Like John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth, I have my religious beliefs which do not affect my acceptance of science and its role. Niose speaks of this as the ability to compartmentalize our thinking. I understand the proper roles of science and religion, and government and religion. I am, says Niose, I suspect because we define “religion” differently, a part-time freethinker.

Niose wants to make the terms “progressive” and “freethinker” generally synonymous, and here again I think he differs from Ferris, who has a far less wholesome view of progressivism. I suspect part of the problem here is that attempts at neat definitions escape us.

We use definitions to define and understand our world, but few of us fit neatly into our created categories. We are not all one thing or another, but there are many shades in between, where we are part one thing and part another. Despite conservatism’s slavish devotion to the Religious Right, I know Heathens who have no problem at all defining themselves as conservatives, or aligning themselves with corporate anti-government propaganda.

But one does not have to be in complete agreement with Niose with regard to his use of terms to agree with him that the essential problem facing us today is antireason. However Niose defines us, and however much his definition of you may vary from your understanding of yourself, we can agree that conservative devotion to antireason is a threat to us all. We are all in this together.

Niose is writing this book because, as he says, he believes “we can reverse the onslaught of antireason that has overtaken the country.” This onslaught is directed by nonhuman people – corporations – and liberating ourselves from antireason means returning control of our systems over to humans.

I think we on the left are sometimes confused by what we are facing. We are dealing with rampant corporatism, the elite 1 percent who control most of the wealth in our country (and the world) and religious conservatives, all functioning as an unholy alliance bent on our destruction.

It is important that we understand this bewildering array of foes, and Niose breaks down for us what precisely we are facing in terms of enemies, and how we can hope to defeat them. If the liberal era came to an end with Reagan, events have proven that change can come. What has changed for the worse can change for the better.

Niose gives us hope. This is not an epistle of despair, but more of a secular gospel of hope, and a plan for positive change. A revolution that can come about only through a revolution in thinking. As he puts it, a serious discussion about our values as a society.

We have options.

Much of the change we have seen since World War II and the closing of our society centers around conservative religious thought: the addition of “God Bless America” to our vocabulary (1938), the National Day of Prayer (1952), “One Nation under God” (1954) and “In God We Trust” (1956), and the first president to “God Bless America” (1973). Noise calls this the “fence of piety” surrounding American politics.

But a fence built can be torn down and Niose’s appeal to a “secular emergence” is not unreasonable. There is hope in recent polling to suggest that it is not even unrealistic in our lifetimes. Here, Niose lays out a plan to affect that change.

It is change we need not only in culture war terms, because as we watch our world collapse around us in drought and wildfire and other natural disasters, rising sea levels and water shortages, and see the dearth of pragmatism directed at the dangers of global warming, we realize that without a change in our own thinking, no effective answers will be forthcoming.

In reading Niose’s book, I can’t help but think back to Carl Sagan’s magnum opus, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1997). Science is our last line of defense as a species against people who think a god or demons are the major threat facing us. Science is what shows us that our biggest enemy on this planet is ourselves.

This makes David Niose’s Fighting Back the Right more important than ever. Read it. Challenge your assumptions, and help reclaim America from the attack on reason.

If you’re ready to read more from the unbossed and unbought Politicus team, sign up for our newsletter here!

68 Replies to “Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason”

  1. I’ll be sure to get a few copies. If anything else it helps in fighting those who wish to turn America into a Theocracy.

  2. I am a freethinker.

    I reject “unsupported claims of authority.”

    Claiming the left has the high ground on reason is unsupported.

    I refute David Niose thus.

  3. An intriguing assertion, perhaps you can try backing up that assertion with facts.

    Just don’t use any liberal media in your effort.

    Oh, and nice job of keeping your Sabbath Day- holy.

  4. No problem, Moon. This isn’t work.

    I’m struck by the phrase “sensible egalitarianism.” I know what egalitarianism is, and I don’t understand why it needs a qualifier like “sensible”.

    It sounds a little like:

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

  5. You reject <em<"unsupported claims of authority" …

    And yet YOU provide NO support for YOUR claim.

    What is it with you and Erica constantly favoring ipse dixit and circulus in probando to try buttress your pablum?

    PS: While you have relinquished us Liberals from providing citations (see your comment @ 12:57 AM here:
    http://politicususa.wpengine.com/2015/05/29/texas-size-gop-hypocrisy-result-climate-change-deluge.html?replytocom=471912#respond )
    I, for one, am NOT extending that ridiculous dictum to you.

    PROVE YOUR CLAIMS WITH CITATIONS!

    And I’m floored that you, as a teacher, would let your students get by with unsupported claims. That’s just mind-boggling.

  6. ….perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the Left occupies higher ground than the Right on reason, and there’s plenty of support for that.

  7. Emmm…no. It means giving all people equal standing in the eyes of the law and an equal presumption of human dignity, without requiring them to all be the same. A blind man does not need a walker, nor a paraplegic a seeing eye dog, but they both require assistance to negotiate a world made for the able-bodied, and are equally entitled to receive it. Men don’t require pregnancy leave, while a father can require childcare leave in the same way a mother can. And so forth. Try to grasp it.

  8. Racism has destroyed the American education system. After Brown, southern States opted to educate no one, rather than educate Black children.

    The Constitution is mutual protection agreement. Inserting religion into that compact begins the cycle of king-of-the-hill that leads to civil war.

  9. Renardine, I like you definition fine, but there are different forms of egalitarianism; economic, political, philosophical, and they sometimes come into conflict with each other. You don’t have to throw in the snark (“try to grasp it.”) I’m not your enemy.

  10. David Niose seems to be saying that belief in religion and God is not based on reason and that’s a problem. I think the connection to corporatism is a entirely different discussion (unless money can substitute for God. For some it probably does.)

    So if all future decisions are not based on any moral foundation, what guides our decisions. Science? Will government replace the church?

  11. I thought you were leaving? I went back and looked and when you said “the last thing I read here”

    You meant READ (as in RED)

    Not READ (as in REED)

    I looked quick and thought you were saying you wouldn’t read anything here anymore!

    Not the last item you read was about…

    I almost missed you!

    LOL. What would we do without our resident GOP J Warren supporter?

  12. So maybe I wasn’t clear on that. Do I assume too much that our morality comes from a religious base? If not, then where does human morality come from?

  13. Sharia law… I think there’s good reason to get huffy about that particular moral framework. One of the problems with Sharia law is that the belief system (the religion) is tied to the “law” of the belief and subsequent enforcement. Never mind separation of church and state. Sharia law is the church, the sheriff, the judge and the executioner all wrapped up in one package.

  14. Robert, the same is true of the Law of Moses, which Republicans mistakenly conflate with the Constitution

  15. Her name is ELIZABETH Warren. Her name is ELIZABETH Warren. Her name is ELIZABETH Warren. Her name is ELIZABETH Warren. Her name is ELIZABETH Warren! Is my penance over yet? lol What’s the statute of limitations on typos around here, anyway?

  16. Sharia law is the church, the sheriff, the judge and the executioner all wrapped up in one package.

    —-

    And how is that any different from every other religion?

  17. Mr. Haraldsson, I know nothing about the Law of Moses, so I will accept what you say. My problem is, you didn’t say “religious people.” You said “Republicans.” I vote generally Republican but I am not a religious person. Many Republicans are atheists. Millions of Democrats are church goers and believe in God in many different ways. If were going to think with reason instead of with stereotypes, we all have to be careful.

  18. I’m not sure it is. Never mind the Crusades, but if you want to relate the Iraq War with Bush righting the wrongs of those heathens because God is on our side?

    Yeah, you got a point…

  19. OH BULL!

    You quoted Carly Fiorina and said that quote was from J Warren.

    You didn’t mix up names. You quoted Carly.

    BULL ROBERT.

    There is an archive here and I KNOW what you said anyway, don’t need to go find it.

    It was on the RED STATES HILLARY WINS column.

    That made you cut and paste your troll notes wrong and give J WARREN attributed to a highly forgettable lame Carly Quote.

  20. Robert, check your assumptions…

    While religion can provide moral guidance, there is no evidence that it is the ONLY way to form a personal and societal system of moral thought and behavior.

    Religion does have one advantage: It includes irrational thought and actions which Niose implies (assumption) is a negative trait that should (must?) be replaced by rationalism.

    I prefer scientific methodology to inform me, but only when I’m rational. Like every other human, fear of the unknown feeds my desire for certainty – the kind found in the operator’s manual known as the bible, koran, etc.

    Choose your illusion. :)

  21. Robert, I am sorry but it applies. Do you keep track of the legislation being pushed by the GOP? We do here.

    It is not atheist-friendly. It is not Heathen-friendly, nor Islam-friendly. It is not secular-friendly. It springs from some (false) Bible claims (a very cherry-picked Bible to boot.

  22. I agree with that too, John. We al pick our illusions.

    As far as GOP legislation I again must assume we are talking about LBGT issues and maybe abortion?

    My belief (moral system, illusion, whatever) is that the government needs to stay away from moral issues like these. I don’t know who said “You can’t legislate morality” was, but that’s where I am. Some Republicans (not all) are misguided moralists. They are matched by those on the Left demanding their moral framework be installed instead.

  23. Did I? Well, I didn’t do it on purpose and I hereby apologize. I’m sorry I mixed up those quotes. I was new to this site and wasn’t used to the tone and tenor of the personal attacks permitted here. I must have gotten a little rattled. But I’m better now. I’m comfortable with the vitriol and Carly Fiorina is not Elizabeth Warren and Jennifer Warren is still hot.

  24. I don’t know who said “You can’t legislate morality” was, but that’s where I am.

    Fair Enough.

    But I feel that there are some ‘moralities’ we need to legislate.

    Child raping for one…

  25. Robert, there is no way to NOT legislate morality. Good governance defines what is moral (allowed) and immoral ( not allowed). The question remains: Who makes the rules? Is governance the province of a select few? Or could it possibly be the consensus of those governed?

    This is a societal issue which abrogates individualism. The two may not match up. This has always been the problem of liberalism that touts individualism and stumbles over societal definitions.

    BTW, there are no free thinkers on this site. Free thinkers have given up society and it’s definitions. They are the “hermit in the cave” people. If you are here, you have accepted the constraints of societal conventions. That ain’t free thinking…

  26. Here’s what I meant. We have a topic on which we don’t agree. Thanks to the Internet, I can go to sites that support my argument. You can go to sites that support your argument. The sites say completely different things. They don’t help clarify anything. They don’t help. You are not going to believe anything related to FOX and I will laugh at quotes from Huffpost or Rolling Stone. So what’s the point?
    Oh, and save the latin, I sure can’t speak it. One thing teachers are careful to do is talk in the language appropriate to the student. Talking over their heads makes them think the teacher is pompous and insecure of their authority.

  27. Today in history
    The white riot that burned Greenwood to the ground

    The Oklahoma “where the wind comes sweepin’ down the plain” didn’t smell of wheat. It smelled of over 300 dead black bodies, homes and businesses burned in a white massacre of black Americans, in the Greenwood suburb of Tulsa, Oklahoma, which started on May 31 in 1921.

    35 square blocks of homes and businesses were torched by mobs of angry whites. … Over 600 successful businesses were lost. An estimated eight thousand citizens were homeless. Over one thousand two hundred homes destroyed.
    Read More
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/31/1387824/-The-white-riot-that-burned-Greenwood-to-the-ground

  28. Love it! Me too! BUT… only as long as I remain aware that I don’t know with any certainty. I don’t know, can’t know, never will know. Ain’t it delicious?

  29. Where does “morality” come from? Oh please. Try that humans had to live with each other in groups without constant mayhem and disruption and then add some “reason” for the fact that there needed to be restrictive concerning contentious behavior. And of course, it benefited the alphas, whether we needed them at times and other times need to be rid of them.

    Explain what godly precepts a flock of birds follows, or any other grouping of animals, including us. At least, any real “godly” influence.

  30. the tide has been turning against the right and the conservatives for a while now. seven long years of GOP obstruction, sabotage, and treason will be not be forgotten. these righties truly represent an enormous threat to our country, our democracy, and our constitution. these conservatives have become brainwashed zombies and have become a huge danger for all of us real americans and real Christians. we must reign in this rightwing madness and lunacy and we must do so now. the 2016 election cycle will be the last chance we have to eliminate this conservative cancer from this country.

  31. So your point is for groups of humans to live together way back when, they had to create some laws. (Don’t touch my wife. Don’t steal my stuff.)
    I’m very cool with that. that’s probably what happened.

    I’m about talked out on this thread. My original point was I didn’t like the author saying that by definition all lefies are rational free thinkers and all righties are superstitious trogs. It’s stereotyping, it’s prejudicial and it is NOT an example of free thinking!

  32. Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar?

    Me ineptum … interdum modo elabitur.
    Sane, paululum linguae Latinae dico. Id legi modo hic modo illic. Vero, Latine loqui non est difficilissimum. Lingua speciem involutam praebet, sed sat cito eam comprehendes.

    Atque memento, nulli adsunt Romanorum qui locutionem tuam corrigant.

  33. “…manners are the principles, which are eternal and universal, etiquette are the particular rules which are arbitrary and different in different times, different situations, different cultures…”
    Judith Martin.

    Morals occur the moment cultural differences, manners and, etiquette are smashed by religious pathos and dogma. Why don’t you take a closer look at those remaining loyal to their non-mannered religious “moral” behavior?

    It is NEVER, about human belief; it is ALWAYS about human behavior.

  34. @robert, when you started on this site , YOU were obnoxious and juvenile! within the last week you’ve really toned it down your rederick for whatever reason decided to act like a somewhat decent person, SORRY! I’m NOT buying it!! NOBODY jumps on the internet talking the BULL$HIT YOU were and low and behold, just changes! The REAL you was exactly the person YOU threw up here a few weeks ago! so save it! BTW YOU and your so called atheist REPUBLICAN friends are delusional!, your party has been hijacked by the RELIGIOUS RIGHT!! hadn’t you noticed? @robert, you’re a JOKE! you’re a confused MESS!! you come to liberal sites and make a FOOL out of yourself and you go to conservative sites and because you don’t goose step with them on every issue, they HATE you too!

  35. Thank you knight4444, you may be seated.

    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: In the issue presented before us, that the left has the monopoly on free-thinking, rational thought: I rest my case.

  36. Todays republicans are a JOKE! I guarantee you I know more about conservatism and conservative political history than 75% of ANY so called REPUBLICAN! Heres the reality my republican drones, you’re NOT conservatives! Conservatives wouldn’t be trying to legislate laws against a woman’s reproductive system! Conservatives wouldn’t be in bed with the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! Conservatives wouldn’t be trying like HELL to turn the USA into a theocracy! Conservatives wouldn’t have allow CITIZENS UNITED to ever exist! Conservatives wouldn’t have allow a B rated actor (REAGAN) to be their nominee for president! Conservatives wouldn’t undermine ANY sitting president and write traitorous letters to IRAN! do YOU want more? I swear, I could go on for HOURS doing this! Listen, your party has been hijacked by the OLIGARCH’S! LMFAO but chances are, you republicans don’t know the definition of OLIGARCHY means either! because YOU sure as hell don’t know the definition of conservative.

  37. HH…..thanks for this article making people aware of this book. I will get a copy or 2 to read and give as gifts.

  38. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: In the issue presented before us, that the left has the monopoly on free-thinking, rational thought: I rest my case.”

    Ahh, c’mon Robert. Waaaay too cheap and easy. No one has a lock on anything. You know that. It is true that the liberal/progressives make a more concerted effort to look at apparent reality as it is and less at how they would like it to be. But NO ONE has it down pat.

    The slippery slope for the ultra right is that their explanations rarely match the reality most of us have to deal with.

    For example, the thread in which a woman has declared that the flooding in Texas is god’s punishment for homosexuality and sodomy. I’m capable of accepting that she really believes this, but just what bubble does she live in? While this is an extreme example, it isn’t much of a stretch to see the ridiculous positions taken by so-called “conservative” politicians as they pander to people of this ilk.

    Progressives don’t have all an…

  39. No, you’re right John. My comment was not really based on our discussion thread, which I enjoyed. It was more a cheap shot at knight4444. I shouldn’t do that I know, But man! He is such a blowhole…

  40. You talk about challenging assumptions while listing several of your own that are largely incorrect:

    Antigovernment-Nope, advocating small gov’t is not anti-gov’t by definition.
    Militaristic-Nope. Repubs just acknowledge that sometimes force is necessary. Maybe not always used correctly, but plenty of lib presidents have used force as well. Repubs are not in favor of wars of conquest.
    Moralistic-Depends on what you mean. I think both sides could be described this way.
    Procorporate-Nope, pro-free market is not pro-corporate. In fact the tea party you hate so much was largely a reaction against corporatism and crony capitalism.
    Sympathetic to Entanglement of Religion in Government-Nope. Two sides to this coin. Repubs are concerned with gov’t interference with religion while libs are more concerned with religious interference with gov’t. Neither side is therefore in favor of entangling the two. They just disagree on where these entanglements are stemming from.

  41. @robert, thank you for proving my point, BTW like I’ve said before, you’re a A$SHOLE! a whining, little bed wetting A$SHOLE!!! @robert don’t get mad at me, why don’t YOU ask what people here think about you! and I would literally pay money to talk with YOU in person and watch you walk back all that BULL$HIT you post here! maybe I’ll hire you to mow my grass, A$SHOLE!

  42. Erica, you are wrong on almost all of your comments, but I’ll pick on just two.

    “Repubs are concerned with gov’t interference with religion while libs are more concerned with religious interference with gov’t. Neither side is therefore in favor of entangling the two. They just disagree on where these entanglements are stemming from.”

    Then why has there been a concerted effort by republican legislatures to deny equal rights to gays? What source of information do they use to validate their claims?

    I ask the same question concerning a woman’s right to choose her own health decisions?
    The conservative/republican people don’t seem to mind entangling government and religion at every opportunity. The laws of oppression aren’t being generated by progressives.

  43. @John, like I said earlier, republicans are lost souls! @erica rant was hilarious! REPUBLICANS ONLY want war when it’s necessary!! tell 99.99% of the GOP that! what are lindsey graham & john mccain been screaming about since 2000?? REPUBLICANS believe in “SMALL GOVERNMENT? LMFAO really? that’s why they try to create legislation every other day trying to ban abortion completely?? or push legislation so every man, woman and child owns a ASSAULT RIFLE? Oh and REPUBLICANS believe in fiscal responsibility but everywhere they govern SKYROCKETING DEBTS are always the byproduct, just ask KANSAS! REALITY CHECK, the GOP has moved radically RIGHT since NIXON since REAGAN, that it’s NOT even the same party anymore. This party would crucify a candidate like Eisenhower, Goldwater, NIXON, Mondale, REAGAN, BUSH SR. today, get real!

  44. Knight, I’m one of those confused people who think that the labels are backwards. A liberal is someone who thinks that the answers in 1950 are still right even though they have failed time and time again. A conservative says that this (choose your subject) isn’t working and what can we do to obtain better results?

    It keeps me confused. It’s sort of looking at the world upside down. I still haven’t figured out if it’s me or the world and I don’t have a guy in the sky or an operator’s manual. It sucks.

  45. ROBERT: “Oh, and save the Latin…. One thing teachers are careful to do is talk in the language appropriate to the student. Talking over their heads makes them think the teacher is pompous and insecure of their authority.”

    One thing that I admired about my teachers was that they spoke to students in a manner that challenged them and made them aspire to learning new things.

    You clearly do NOT subscribe to that approach.

    I found that teachers talking down to us students were condescending and patronizing.

    But that’s clearly the approach you ascribe to.

    My error – lesson learned. I will try NOT to make the mistake of aiming too high for you again.

    Thanks for the heads-up.

  46. Robert, you may regret that. I can’t speak for Erica, but you haven’t seen one of my scathing rants – and I can do that from time to time. Still, I promise to be on my best behavior – except when I’m not.

  47. @John, I sometimes get tired of these labels too but I characterized LIBERALS as individuals who believe “WE THE PEOPLE” should be GOVERNMENT! not the corporations! not the OLIGARCH’s. liberal tend to be very socialist, meaning WE care about our neighbor and not only because they look and think like us. Todays conservatives? believe business always has the ONLY solution for everything, that MONEY and POWER are how you judge yourself and others! I’m gonna stop there! because this is so much more complicated and no matter how I phrase this, some people will pick my very short, simplistic post apart lol.

  48. Knight, We don’t disagree about substance, but we need to focus on rationality and civility for any of this to be productive. Facts are just facts. The squabbling is deciding what the facts mean. Of course, squabbling is where there may be a little light shining through now and then…

    This has been a good thread. There was actually some dialog in amongst the diatribe.

    Night all…

  49. I like the idea of a book that doesn’t just identify the problems, but offers pragmatic ways to solve them. This is going right on my list.

  50. The Right appears to have been successfully infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    The Left seems to have forgotten how important our first freedoms are: Those of freedom of religion, speech, press, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

    Few if any politicians, Left or Right, ever talk about our first freedoms.

  51. Au Contraire, many of us on the Left have spoken out about our so-called ‘first freedoms’.
    It’s difficult to hear over the roar of the imbeciles on the right.

    There is a good reason why so many of us call them: The American Taliban.

  52. as a practicing Christian, I must object to your statement about the church. surely you realize there are many false prophets out there. how many “churches” build “gilded temples to god” without doing God’s work? I have more respect for the storefront preacher who feeds the homeless than for the likes of benny hinn or falwell, who have gotten rich off their churches. or those who feel that anything is right as long as God’s name is invoked. evil is evil no matter whose name it is done in, and lately I’ve seen a lot of evil done in God’s name, and it greatly disturbs me.

    you can, and probably will, go on believing the tripe that’s out there. I prefer to delve a little deeper and find out what’s really going on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.