Any questions?

But I do care to fight the good fight against the very weird people who are behind “intelligent design” creationism and the Godding of American political life. And a strategy that isolates Dawkins somewhat too “controversial” or “abrasive” for American consumption only strenghtens the hand of the people we are trying to confront.

As I’m sure you know much better than I, If one actually reads what they’ve written, and listens to what they are saying, their mission is not merely to protect a traditional pledge (which really isn’t so traditional) or wreck science. It’s to reverse what they believe are the harmful, destructive attitudes of the Enlightenment. They want to establish an American theocracy and eliminate “secular” culture as we know it. Does that mean Beethoven and Mozart along with Eminem? It does indeed. And I have no doubt that, if they succeed, they plan to do exactly what they say they will do.

(For those who think this is shrill and/or paranoid, I refer you to the writings of Rushdoony, the career of Walter Ahmanson, the speeches of Tim LaHaye, the speeches of Randall Terry, Jonathan Wells and numerous others. It is all available on the net and it makes for very sobering reading.)

Now, if your logic about strategy was viable, it should be those people, the real extremists and crazies, who should be trying not to antagonize people that much. But they haven’t taken your advice and yet they’ve done very well for their cause! They cheerfully go around spouting their outrageous nonsense with nary much effort to conceal their ideas or their intent. And the country’s public discourse becomes more and more surreal.

It’s not hard to find Wells defending “young earth” creationism, or Dembski arguing that “intelligent design” creationism is just a scientific translation of the Book of John. On evangelical websites, you can read arguments for the proof of God’s existence that date from before Aquinas, arguments in which the refutations are conveniently sidestepped and the religious intolerance is so thick it reads like something out of the Middle Ages. Let’s not forget that Pat Robertson, even now, numbers his flock at over a million. And he has never retracted any of the terrible things he’s said.

Given how seriously nuts all this is – scientifically, spiritually, and politically – how come they don’t try to hide it better from an American public that’s presumed wary of extremists like Dawkins? Why don’t they cover up the fact that they want religious litmus tests for political office, tests that would make it impossible for Catholics, Jews, and Muslims to hold religious office? The reason is obvious.

The far religious right recognizes that while some Americans are sometimes wary of extremists, nearly all Americans loathe namby-pambies who can’t or wont speak plainly and bluntly. To mince words, to compromise issues of truth with the American public is a loser strategy, plain and simple. Need proof? Look at the Democratic Party and their waning influence in decisions of national importance.

Another example. I’ve read, and I’m sure you have as well, Judge Jones’ decision in Kitzmiller. It’s brilliant and it’s blunt. In fact, it’s take no prisoners style recalls some Dawkins’ writing, even if – unlike Dawkins- the judge keeps his personal spiritual beliefs (or lack of same) private. In deed, aside from a few pro forma nods towards the religious, Judge Jones flatly refused to cowtow to the political aspiration of the self-righteous holier than thous despite Robertson’s calling down upon Dover, Pa the wrath of a scorned God.

And I say that’s just great what Judge Jones did, it’s just what this country needs more of. Blunt talk about exactly how stupid and dangerous “intelligent design” creationism is. Blunt talk that calls the fundamentalists propagating this trash exactly what they are: liars, which is what Judge Jones did.

As for “Under God,” I say that if getting people riled up about this silliness gives us an opportunity to express our very serious concerns about faith-based science and faith-based government donations to charity, then let’s push it. Compared to the actual effect of the repeal estate tax on the income of average Americans, removing “under God” from the Pledge is of paramount importance in the real world.

Bottom line, Chris: if you think you will get anywhere with the American public by pulling punches and hiding the likes of Dawkins, you are quite wrong.

Malcolm X was savvy enough to say to Martin Luther King that he was crucial to Dr. King’s success, because white people knew that if King failed, they’d have to deal with him. Malcolm was right. Similarly, let Dawkins be Dawkins and keep your attention on the ravings of the Dobsons and LaHayes. If nothing else, it makes it far more difficult for the opponents of science to portray a brilliant ariticulate voice of reason like Kenneth Miller as the “far left fringe of the neo-Darwin establishment.” And it prevents the center of this debate from shifting further and further towards catering to the lunatic obsessions of the religious right.

I consider the anger of fellow atheists to be tantamount to the kind of anger that women have felt toward culture, or marginalized racial minorities, the black panthers being a good example of that. It is righteous anger, but still anger that can come off as anti-social and even unethical when taken to extremes.