You're going to love this one, Norm:

"Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine", a post written by one of Sam Brownback's horde. Wowzers.

Good to see the "terrorist" label on that rightist nutjob funeral disturber. I wonder if the media will use it for him? No, guess not. McVeigh wasn't a terrorist; Eric and Dylan (?) at Columbine weren't terrorists. Terrorists are swarthy and religiously maniacal--maniacal because of their particular religion. Christian terrorist is an oxymoron, right? Riiiiiiight. Far right, that is.

Thank you for linking to my site.

-Grey

The Alice Shannon letter is interesting in that it's something of a non-apocryphal urban legend. Snopes doesn't have a section for it yet, though there's been a forum discussion about it. The text of the letter itself gets published here and there from time to time. For instance, it appeared in the Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle in 2001 attributed to "Gloria ''Wendy" Ray, Aiken, S.C." Others have claimed to have seen the same letter in local papers around the country.

It's the Soldotna version, though, that almost always turns up online as an atheist boogeyman, probably because somebody got that nice scan of the printing as evidence it actually appeared in a newspaper. Once in a while it appears and Ms. Shannon briefly becomes the embodiment in absentia for all things horrible about American attitudes towards atheism. If the ill will of thousands of angry Internet readers could kill, the sound of poor Alice's head exploding would have echoed around the world, for an opinion she never authored, and, according to a followup letter, with which she never agreed. She claimed to have sent it in as a joke.

The sentiment is repugnant, but I have occasionally been curious as to its actual provenance.

The morality video link is exceptional. I had always suspected that there was something wrong with unending liberalism. There is some benefit to having constraints on the thinking that you can do as you please unless you are hurting someone.

Thanks so much for linking to my latest limerick about the Dems caving in to Bush ... yet again.

"There is some benefit to having constraints on the thinking that you can do as you please unless you are hurting someone."

The idea that you can do anything you want unless you hurt someone else is rather naïv and not very thought through. We all share the same Universe with the same elementary particles and the same energy, so anything you ever do will affect everyone else in some way or another. It's just a question of how much harm is done to others by your actions. And it should be obvious to all that oneself is not always the best judge of how much affected everyone else is by one's own actions.

Kristian Z.:

I appreciate your karmic interpretation; I share it, even. None of our actions take place in a vacuum. In order to encourage progressive dialogue, though, I have my own interpretation of moral debate.

"The idea that you can do anything you want unless you hurt someone else is rather naïv and not very thought through."

Addressing an opinion you agree with in an offensive manner doesn't promote communication. Doing this to our opponents is what Haidt criticizes. If we can't even begin with an agreement, we immediately distance ourselves from the other party. What can you do to enhance this dialogue?

Last night (5/22) there was a pretty good comedy about not listening to preachers (because they are just normal people) on comedy central but now I can't find who it was. Anyone know? Thanks