Some interesting comments over at Pharyngula

In the comments to this post on Pharyngula, there are some interesting questions and statements I feel like commenting on.

First one from Mike (the Mad Biologist, perhaps? EDIT: Nope. This is another Mike)

What world do you guys live in where openly expressed contempt is an effective tool of persuasion?

The world in which Henrik Ibsen, Georg Brandes, Jeppe Aakær et al broke the power of the Danish clergy in the first half of the 20th century by repeatedly and openly denigrating, insulting, ridiculing, and smearing Christianity. The world in which ridicule and insults broke the power of the patriarchy in '68.

Yes, sometimes atheists go overboard and become strident and overbearing. And that's more than a little pathetic to watch. But ridicule and contempt as political weapons should not be underestemated, nor should they be shelved because they are 'bad taste.' The truth, no matter how unpleasant it may seem, can never be objectionable or tasteless. And the truth of the matter is that fruitcake fundy religion is fully worthy of our contempt.

A bit later on, Dark Matter writes that

The nonoverlapping magisteria idea is a *politically naive* concept. There will be no
"respectful observance of areas of expertise", there will be only *incremental surrender*
to theocrats if one is foolish enough to think the theoctats will stay in their "backyard".

Anyone who believes this is fooling himself (or engaging in willful blindness) if they think the theocrats do not want to be the dominant influence of the political, *scientific* and cultural life of the US....what do you think that "culture war" stuff is about?

Truer words are rarely heard, so they in themselves bear repeating.

En regibemærkning: Jeg har efterhånden hørt en del folk sige at det aldrig vil gå så galt i Danmark som det er gået i USA, for så vidt gælder religion. Til dem vil jeg blot pege på udtalelser som denne:

Vi kunne begynde at overveje vores egen hellighed. Vi burde have forståelse for, at der er folk, der har en religion, og som har følt sig krænket i denne sag, mener han. Derfor er det ikke så enkelt med en demonstrativ gentagelse af provokationen, som David Trads lægger op til

af Seidenfaden (her). Eller det aldeles urimelige påstyr der kom ud af Foghs lidt tamme kommentar om at religion i et civiliseret land selvfølgeligt ikke har nogen plads i den politiske debat. Eller hvad med denne udsendelse? Den slags jubelidioti forventer jeg normalt at finde i Folk og Kirke, ikke i P1Debat!