I would argue that evolutions evidence is more on par with our evidence of the Trojan war thanbwith something that happened in written history and recorded by people who were there. But, as I said, I was arguing semantics. I firmly believe in evolution and that the creationists who run the Creation Museum a few miles upbthe road confuse science with conjecture when they call the idea that animals came to the new world on reed rafts as a scientific theory with now evidence of these rafts.

"Sometimes you can talk so eloquently and intelligently, Putin. So why do you insist on falling back on insulting nicknames ("fundies"), false equivalencies, and obvious misinterpretations as well as out of context quotations on a regular basis?"

I know you'll simply say I should hold myself to a "higher standard", but you can't go a single thread these days without your usual crap about how political science is a pseudo-science or attacking me for being an academic - it doesn't matter what we're talking about either. If you want a polite response then do something to deserve it. Your attempts to create ad hominem sideshows are getting really tedious.

Obi, you're the one who caused the so-called "leap" since it was you who brought up the separation of church and state. From there it wasn't too hard to talk about religion in public schools and the teaching/non-teaching of evolution.

"Is the theory of evolution a fact? That depends upon what you mean by fact. Did the Napolionic Wars really happen? Is it a fact or a theory? After all none of us were there, and we can't hop into a time machine. But the evidence is overwhelming. It is a fact. Likewise for evolution. The evidence is overwhelming."

Spyman +1

"Mostly because, well--I think DAWKINS is hisn own little Atheistic Fundamentalist."

When in doubt, bring up Dawkins. Dawkins wouldn't need to exist if fanatics were trying to infect every aspect of our society with their deluded nonsense. If evolutionary biology hadn't been attacked with a sustained disinformation campaign with impunity, Dawkins wouldn't need to write books. But since the critics of evolutionary theory typically don't have a clue what they're talking about but have successfully purged it from being taught properly in many public schools, the defenders of science must go on the offensive.

The Stephen Gould strategy of ignoring medieval barbarism hasn't worked. The fanatics need to be actively fought.

"The Stephen Gould strategy of ignoring medieval barbarism hasn't worked. The fanatics need to be actively fought."

In your case, with further fanaticism.

before the shit storm commences, I believe purging any sign of religion from a 100 meter radius around schools (no you did not say it but you implied it) is fanatic. As long as schools don't endorse any religion, there is not problem with students wearing a hijab, being part of a prayer group, or praying during school hours. Any attempts to deny it is fanatic.

Yeah sure, the whole of France is "fanatic". I don't really care what you call it. Nobody is harmed by prohibiting superstition in our schools, but a great many people are harmed by allowing superstition and preaching to contaminate our school curriculum and school culture.

um, the majority of France who outlawed the hijab due to intolerance is, add Switzerland to that. Amazing how intolerant you are yourself.

you want to know how I know it is intolerant, that for decades students were allowed to wear religious articles in french schools, until Islamic immigrants reached a critical mass, then all of a sudden it becomes illegal to wear a hijab to school Very progressive on their part, I'm glad you support their blatantly islamophobic decision

Islamophobic? Is Egypt "Islamophobic" too?

http://www.rnw.nl/international-justice/article/court-rules-favour-egypt-niqab-ban-exams

The French banned these symbols after the rise in head-scarf wearing because prior to the rise of head-scarf wearing they did not have a problem with the prevalence of wearing conspicuous religious symbols/clothing in public schools. School officials found that in the mid-2000s, more and more girls were being pressured to wear the hijab in school. Unable to target the people who were doing the pressuring, the solution of banning the hijab became the better option. They did not target only Islamic head coverings but all religious garments/symbols, so how is this Islamophobic?

I am more glad that Olbermann the oaf is gone from MSNBC.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHHAA

Islamophobic? Is Egypt "Islamophobic" too?

Um... yes, last time I checked Egypt was deathly afraid of islamists.

"The French banned these symbols after the rise in head-scarf wearing because prior to the rise of head-scarf wearing they did not have a problem with the prevalence of wearing conspicuous religious symbols/clothing in public schools.""

oh no? So why ban yamulkas in schools at the same time? Why wasnt that ban put into effect 50 years ago? Why ban large crosses now? Why wasnt that put into effect 50 years ago? Why not ban the hijab 25 years ago? bottom line, the french are scared about what is happening to their roman catholic nation, now that immigrant groups are on the rise they might as well show those damn durkas whose country it really is. So we ban the hijab, Oh, and oh yeah, this isnt directed at islamic people, so we ban all religious articles!

I am so glad you support this Putin.

amazing how you are willing to read so far into the actions of American politicians yet you refuse to see the readily apparent motives of european nations

"Um... yes, last time I checked Egypt was deathly afraid of islamists."

Considering their attacks on religious minorities in Egypt including the murder of Christians and destruction of churches, don't they have a good reason to be afraid of Islamists?

Is being afraid of Islamism the same as Islamophobia, in your book?

I don't get this new found 'progressive' trend of demanding that we tiptoe around the feelings of Islamic radicals. Heaven forbid somebody draws a cartoon, or burns a book, that will lead to random acts of murder, and of course it's the cartoon drawer's fault, not the murderers'.

"oh no? So why ban yamulkas in schools at the same time? Why wasnt that ban put into effect 50 years ago? Why ban large crosses now? Why wasnt that put into effect 50 years ago? Why not ban the hijab 25 years ago?"

Likely because very few Jews, Muslims, or Christians wore conspicuous religious attire or symbols before this problem arose, as I already said.

"bottom line, the french are scared about what is happening to their roman catholic nation, now that immigrant groups are on the rise they might as well show those damn durkas whose country it really is"

Ah yes, all French are racist, but you're the model of "open-mindedness". Because the French care so much about their Roman Catholicism, of course, with what 10% of them being devout?

If anything the ban is unfair to other groups, who had nothing to do with the ban but yet are collateral damage in this scenario.

I am open minded, always have been, you on the other hand are anything but...

There is religious devotion and then there is a cultural background. Perhaps instead of Roman catholic I should have said white non-islamic, but my point stands, the hijab ban was undoubtedly an anti-islamic action meant to preserve france from a perceived alien threat.

And by the way Mr. open-minded, since when have all who wear a hijab "Islamic Radicals"

About Egypt, I never said they had no reason to be afraid of Islamism, all i said is that yes, Egypts actions, like France's are aimed directly at the devout Muslim population.

Difference of course being, as you said, Egypt has a legitimate fear of Islamists, France wants to force a religious minority to assimilate. I guess if that doesn't work they'll ship them out of the country like they did with the Gypsies. "It isn't racism when they deserve it" as they tell you in Europe.

Here we go again. Putin equates all of Islam with terrorists just like he equates all of Christianity with fundamentalism. <*shakes head at the stupidity of a supposedly educated person*>

"If anything the ban is unfair to other groups, who had nothing to do with the ban but yet are collateral damage in this scenario."

What other groups? I thought the ban was a completely religious neutral bulwark of a secular state!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

You are telling me it was aimed directly at Islamic children and Christian and Jewish children are unfortunate "collateral damage"?

Obviously you must be mistaken

"bottom line, the french are scared about what is happening to their roman catholic nation, now that immigrant groups are on the rise they might as well show those damn durkas whose country it really is."

What is wrong with that. Is it morally wrong for a nation to try to preserve its traditional values? Is it wrong for a nation to decide what sort of nation it wants to be. Why can't a country say "This is who we are. If you don't want to integrate then this is not the country for you"?

@spyman - Are you saying religious freedom isn't a right for all people, only Americans?

I don't really believe in the concept of natural rights (God given as it were). In a democracy rights are decided by society. And we are never entirely free. At best the freedom to do one thing will impinge on the freedom of something else. Thus we have to choose what values we find most important. Religious freedom works well in America and Australia for that matter. I would not support the banning of the hijab here because it is a non-issue in this country. But France has to make its own decisions based on its own unique circumstances.

My question still stands. Is it morally wrong for a nation to try to preserve its traditional values?

It is dependent on what these values are.

If a nation has a history and tradition of executing dissidents, then yet it is worng. IT is absolutely wrong. England used to have a tradition of their nobles taking the virginity of new brides in lands they conquered. This was wrong as it was rape. The US had a long history and tradition of importing slave labor from Africa. This too was wrong. Are you saying the Confederacy wanting to protect that tradition and keep the slave labor trade was OK? I know the war between the Confederacy and the Union was much more complex than that, but that was one of the issues.

If the French do not have that right, than does any group have that right? Assemilation has been the rule in the US at least till recently. Does the US have the right to preserve the Anglo-American culture?

France is Western European predominently Christian liberal minded country. Is it okay for France to attempt to preseve those values?

The US government doesn't have the right to enforce any one culture, but then there is no such thing as an Anglo-American culture. In the Bayou, there is the Cajun culture. In the Midwest, there is "family values" culture. Each region of the US has it's own culture and I've never argued that the Mexican culture in LA or the Cuban culture in Miami or any other ethnic culture should be banned or restricted in any way and won't argue that unless the specifics of that culture violate the civil rights granted by the Constitution (i.e. cannibalism, slavery, etc.)

I know someone is about to bring up my complaint about speaking the language in another thread, but I made it very clear that if someone wants me to buy their services or products and those services or products are cross cultural (i.e. we aren't talking about an ethnic restaurant), they should be able to communicate clearly with me. So, if you are going to be an IT consultant (a non-ethnic industry) you should be able to communicate with your target audience. In the US, this is an English speaking, college educated group.

Likewise, if I develop something oriented around a specific ethnicity or culture, then I should conform to that culture's norms and speak their language.

"but then there is no such thing as an Anglo-American culture." I beg to differ on that. It may not be uniform in nature any more than it is in France, and minority groups have their own culture, but there still is an American culture that dominates the country.

We have Italian culture, Irish culture, German culture, Mexican culture, Cuban culture, Cajun culture, Southern culture, Chicago culture, Midwest culture, West Coast culture, Pacific Northwest culture, New York City culture, New England culture, and more. There is no one homogenized American culture. American pride? Yes. American dream? Absolutely. But not an American culture. This country is a meting pot. And while the cultures blur and blend into a homogenized kind of super culture, they still maintain their separate identities as well.

"There is no one homogenized American culture" "And while the cultures blur and blend into a homogenized kind of super culture" You are contradicting your self. What would call this "super culture" but the American Culture? As I stated it's not uniform over the entire country, but no culture that covers a large area can be.