Eugene Volokh has an interesting, and quite accurate, post about what he calls "ACLU derangement syndrome". This notion follows on the heels of "Bush derangement syndrome", "Clinton derangement syndrome" and "NRA derangement syndrome. The idea is that some subjects prompt such anger in some people that they are incapable of thinking rationally about that subject. There are some who are so fanatically opposed to President Bush that they will accept any criticism of him no matter how nutty, and this was also true of many on the right regarding Bill Clinton - the very mention of their names sent some people into apoplectic fits and rendered them incapable of reasoned discourse on the subject. The same is certainly true, as Volokh points out, of many people with subjects like "sodomites" or "Jews".
Volokh's post was written in reply to a post by Clayton Cramer, and it is Cramer that Volokh says is suffering from ACLU derangement syndrome. In this post, Cramer pointed to a patently ridiculous trial going on in Italy where an atheist and a priest are suing one another over the question of the existence of Jesus and a judge has actually ordered the priest to prove in court that Jesus did in fact exist. Such a case would almost certainly be thrown out of court in the US. And Cramer then suggests that the ACLU was looking for a way to criminalize parents teaching their children about religion:
Now, I would like to think that the freedom of religion and freedom of the press provisions of the First Amendment would prevent such a suit from going forward in the U.S.--but you never know what cleverness the ACLU will pull out of its bag of magic tricks next.In Britain, a prominent scientist is arguing that religion is a form of child abuse [quote omitted]...
Ah, that's it! The ACLU will argue that children have a right to not be mentally abused by exposure to religion. This was, after all, the policy of the Soviet Union, which prohibited teaching religion to those under 18, and the ACLU's founder was a defender of Soviet practices on civil liberties...
This is exactly the type of ridiculous and over-the-top rhetoric that I frequently blast here regarding the ACLU, and it's nice to see Prof. Volokh jump on it. He begins by noting that after the 1930s and the Hitler-Stalin Pact, Roger Baldwin (the founder of the ACLU) became an outspoken critic of the Soviet Union and of communism. He wrote a book called A New Slavery, referring specifically to forced labor under communist governments and purged the ACLU of all communists involved at the time, presiding over the organization's trial of communist Elizabeth Gurley Flynn himself.
Volokh wrote to Cramer and asked him if he had any evidence that the ACLU would support any attempt to interfere with what a parent may teach their own child about religion. Naturally, he had none and was drawing absurd inferences from unrelated ACLU positions:
Its long history of opposing religious instruction in public schools, even when multiple beliefs were being taught, with the permission of the parents? I'm thinking of McCollum v. Board of Education (1948). I don't know if they participated in that suit or not, but I do know that they have participated in suits attempting to suppress far less substantial expressions of Christianity, such as the Los Angeles County seal idiocy.
Volokh correctly points out that these things have nothing to do with a parent's right to teach their own child about religion. The ACLU's suits deal almost exclusively with what a government agency may say about religion, not what a private organization or, far less, a parent can say about religion. They simply aren't the same thing, and any attempt to equate them is evidence that the person making the equation simply can't think rationally on this subject. Volokh concludes:
But, unfortunately, it seems to me that much criticism of the ACLU of the right reflects more by way of knee-jerk hostility than simply well-founded ideological disagreement. The four Derangement Syndromes I noted in the first paragraph (yes, the term is partly facetious; I don't think it's literal "derangement") have different moral qualities -- but what they share in common is a hostility that causes the speaker to miss contrary evidence, and to lose a sense of perspective.
Quite right. When you see halfwits like Gribbit declaring the ACLU the "biggest terrorist this nation has ever produced", you know you're dealing with someone who simply shuts off their brain when this issue comes up. There is no point in trying to reason them out of their position (and when I fisk them, I'm doing so for the benefit of others, not for them) because they weren't reasoned into that position in the first place.
Update: Cramer seems to have mastered the art of the irrelevant answer to legitimate criticism. At the bottom of his post he notes Prof. Volokh's criticism and purports to answer it:
Professor Volokh refers to this post as "ACLU Derangement Syndrome." But even a self-identified civil libertarian who describes himself as "am more likely to defend the ACLU then criticize it" argues in the comments over there that, "even I see that in a few instances ACLU takes its position to an extreme to threaten other freedoms."
Is he serious? Is that really the best argument he can come up with to defend his unjustified assertion and to answer Volokh's detailed and well-reasoned answer to that assertion, that an anonymous commenter on that blog agrees with him without giving any examples or evidence? That's an extremely weak argument from a guy who is obviously very bright and well educated.
- Log in to post comments
Although Cramer is indeed completely ignorant of what the ACLU does and what they stand for I can't completely disagree on indoctrination of religion being a form of child abuse (albeit very minor in most cases in practically swaying a child's critical thinking to show favoritism for one side, but forms of fundamentalism can lead to complete ignorance on certain subjects as well as generating hate towards opposing beliefs; but this is all a different subject). Hopefully, this author will someday step out of his blundering thought for a few moments and really read the history of the ACLU and what cases they've taken on. He might want to start with the history of the Constitution first then work his way to your site ;)
I very much doubt that Mr. Cramer will change his mind. He's on the record as being an anti-evolutionist and ideologue; on the issues of facts and evidence, he pretty much ignores them with the standard party line.
Roger Tang writes:
This is completely false. I am not an "anti-evolutionist." I believe that evolution needs to be taught in biology classes--but there are a few serious questions that biochemists such as Michael Behe raise that also need to be examined. Unfortunately, evolution is largely taught in the lower grades as dogma; many biology teachers simply do not know how to teach science as a method for pursuing truth.
What is the standard party line? On what subject?
IIDayo writes:
Some of my published works have been cited in decisions of the federal courts and the Rhode Island Supreme Court. I've taught Constitutional History before. See http://www.claytoncramer.com/boisestate/hist336/syllabus.htm for the syllabus, and http://www.claytoncramer.com/boisestate/hist336/readings.html for the reading list.
'but there are a few serious questions that biochemists such as Michael Behe raise that also need to be examined'
How is it that guys like you, who seem to be educated, don't realize that the 'questions' Behe raised have been answered?
It is an oddity.Also:
'In Britain, a prominent scientist is arguing that religion is a form of child abuse'
You could make a strong argument that indoctrinating children, little children, with images of hell and suffering is tantamount to child abuse. This doesn't encompass all religious thought such as love and ark's but it is a horrible thing to put into the mind of a child.
Especially considering the fact that these same people object to on screen violence and sex. I ask which is really more harmful to the lifelong human mind. So in this area, yes a case can be made.
Mr. Cramer: before you make a complete ass of yourself here, I strongly suggest you read the posts here and in Panda's Thumb regarding evolution. If you read all this with an open mind, you'll find that the "serious questions that biochemists such as Michael Behe raise" have been thoroughly answered, repeatedly, long ago; and anyone who alleges otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.
Clayton Cramer wrote:
This is really off the subject of this post, but I can't let this deceptive statement go by without comment. When you make this plural and refer to "biochemists such as Michael Behe", it implies that there is more than one such biochemist and Behe is a representative of that group. In fact, Behe is pretty much alone among biochemists taking this view. His arguments have been universally rejected among his colleagues in biochemistry.
Also, the statement that his serious questions "need to be examined" suggests that they have not been examined but this is also not the case. For all three of the cases where he claims to have discovered irreducible complexity, nature shows examples of less complex but still entirely functional systems. There is not a single bacterial flagellum but many different types of flagella, some with more components and some with less, and they are all functional. There are many different species with different blood clotting systems that lack some of the components of higher mammals, yet their blood clots just fine. Likewise, there are many species with simpler and less advanced immune systems that function quite well.
I would note several other facts about Behe's work. First, he admitted under oath in the Dover trial that the only research he has ever done on irreducible complexity (a computer simulation) showed that an IC system could evolve in a relatively short period of time even with all of the parameters of the simulation rigged to make it as unlikely as possible. Second, he also admitted under oath that he has never bothered to read most of the scientific literature on the evolution of the very systems for which he claims an evolutionary explanation is impossible. And lastly, he also said under oath that he nas no intention of doing any actual research to test his ideas.
Well, Mr. Cramer, I stand corrected on your study of Constitutional history. I am no expert myself but I read enough to gain a general understanding on the intents of our founding fathers. Doing a glance of your site I came across this section: http://www.claytoncramer.com/UnderGod.html
I'm under the impression that your views are that our country was founded as a Christian one (correct me if I'm wrong). You list a bunch of quotations regarding our founding fathers as well as state constitutions (which mean nothing after the 14th amendment in reference to religious views) in an attempt (in my opinion) to display an obvious intent of forming the country based on christianity. I'm not going to get into a huge debate on the issue but I will reply on your quote of Benjamin Franklin as I think it's misleading that issue.
Franklin puts forth a motion to invoke prayer to help the congress with their deliberations. This site says it best http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm:
"It is rarely noted that Franklin presented his motion after "four or five weeks" of deliberation, during which they had never once opened in prayer. More significantly, it is never mentioned that Franklin's motion was voted down! Fine Christians, these founding fathers. Furthermore, the context is usually ignored, too. He made the motion during an especially trying week of serious disagreement, when the convention was in danger of breaking up."
Where is this posted on your site? Shouldn't the fact that his motion was voted down be posted as well? Using your context as evidence would be misleading and wouldn't address the entire issue.
This is completely false. I am not an "anti-evolutionist." I believe that evolution needs to be taught in biology classes--but there are a few serious questions that biochemists such as Michael Behe raise that also need to be examined. Unfortunately, evolution is largely taught in the lower grades as dogma; many biology teachers simply do not know how to teach science as a method for pursuing truth.
What is the standard party line? On what subject?
If it walks like an anti-evolutionist, if it talks like an anti-evolutionist, it's pretty good bet that it's an anti-evolutionist.
When you spout typical anti-evolutionary talking points about evolution not being testable, then I think I'm safe that you're following a party line, since you obviously aren't following the biological literature and the dozens of papers appearing yearly about research into the mechanisms of speciation. And I would hazard that you're a better lawyer than a biologist....
Ed Brayton claims:
Universally? By the vast majority, no question, but there are a number of scientists that I am aware of who raise similar objections. Scott Minnich is a microbiology professor at the University of Idaho.
I've read the responses to Behe's irreducible complexity criticism, and while they make some good points, I don't find that they have demolished his questions. Here's my reaction to one of them.
Please give me a citation. You'll see why shortly.
Again, give me a citation. I would expect that "most" of the scientific literature on evolution would take several lifetimes to read.
This claim was emailed to me sometime back; when I actually looked up the cited location, what Behe said was that a scientist who had made a previous attempt to prove evolution in a particular species of bacteria spent 20 years of his life, representing hundreds of thousands of generations under stresses designed to encourage evolution--at the end of which, there had been nothing changed. Behe had no intention of devoting his entire career to proving something that he thinks is bogus. Why should he? Others have devoted their careers to trying to experimentally produce evolution, and failed.
You won't find me devoting my career to trying to prove that atheists founded the American Republic, partly because I am quite sure it isn't true, and partly because the proponents of a theory are responsible for providing evidence, not the opponents.
IIDayo writes:
It is certainly true that the 14th Amendment alters the relationship of the Bill of Rights to the states--but if you want to understand what the founding fathers intended with the establishment of religion clause, it helps to see what sort of laws they were passing, and what sort of statements they were making.
The 1776 New Jersey Constitution, for example, prohibited any establishment of religion--and in the same section, required that officeholders had to subscribe to the tents of some Protestant sect. "Establishment of religion" had a specific meaning; the ACLU has severely distorted this into "neutrality between religion and irreligion"--a position that would have been regarded as scandalous by the founding fathers.
At least one of the reasons for voting it down was calling in a clergyman for prayer might be regarded as evincing to the outside world that there were serious problems. (There were, but why broadcast it?)
As a general rule, times of difficulty tend to send most people to their knees in prayer. I am not surprised that the same was true at the Philadelphia Convention.
What makes Franklin's proposal especially interesting is that he is generally recognized as one of the least orthodox religious thinkers of the bunch. Shortly before Franklin's death, he wrote a letter to the President of Yale, and mentioned his uncertainty about the Divinity of Jesus, but primarily because Franklin had never taken the time to analyze the question carefully--and he expected to get the answer shortly. But Franklin asked that his unorthodox views be kept private; he knew that he was well outside the mainstream of American thought on this.
Regardless of what happened to Franklin's proposal--look at what it says when one of the most freethinking members of the Convention makes such a proposal. Franklin clearly knew these men well enough that he did not expect to have it lower their view of him.
Of course, when Congress finally opened for shop in 1789, they did open in prayer, not having to worry so much about what others outside might think. If you want to know what the position of the Congress that passed the First Amendment was, look at this:
Somehow, this doesn't quite sound like the actions of a bunch that looked down on religion--and they were prepared to pass a resolution calling for them all to go over to a church for worship services.
IIDayo writes:
Has it occurred to you that regardless of whether someone is raised as a fundamentalist, an atheist, or nothing at all, that a lot of parents do a lousy job? You doubtless know more fundamentalists that fit your model above, but that's just because fundamentalists outnumber atheists about 20 to 1.
One of the saddest aspects of the fanaticism of certain atheists is that they don't realize how many of the great scientists of history were fervent Christians. Isaac Newton, for example, was convinced that his commentary on the books of Daniel and Revelations was what he would be remembered for--not Principia Mathematica. There are a number of other prominent scientists such as Robert Boyle (Boyle's law) for whom science was only one field for the pursuit of truth, and Christianity was another--and more important.
Universally? By the vast majority, no question, but there are a number of scientists that I am aware of who raise similar objections. Scott Minnich is a microbiology professor at the University of Idaho.
And what RESEARCH are they doing to support this point? That's the point of science, you know; the rhetoric needs to be supported by evidence and research.
If you're not pointing at research, you're not dealing with the science. And your opinions, on a scientific level, are worth much less.
Ed's point stands unless you can point to substantive research that underlies ID and irreducible complexity.
Roger Tang writes:
If by research, you mean experimental verification, well, evolutionists have some problems in this area as well. Behe pointed to the guy trying to force bacterial evolution--and over several hundred thousand generations. That's at least possible; I shudder to think of the time scale required to do an experiment that would allow differentiation at even the genus level, much less at the phylum or class level.
When you get into physics, the problems are astonishingly similar. The January 2006 issue of Astronomy has an article pointing out that string theory is suffering a problem that in one the few cases where it has made a prediction--it was 55 orders of magnitude off--and that string theorists are now arguing that experimental verification may not be possible. And yet no one is proposing the excommunicate string theory from physics.
And yet no one is proposing the excommunicate string theory from physics
Actually, that is not true. As far as anyone can tell, there is no evidence for the non-theories that the string "theorists" have developed. Interesting mathematics, but no theory.
Oh, Mr Cramer, Newton was an ardent alchemist. Is that supposed to mean anything regarding his Principia?
Actually it does. It means that not everything that he wrote should be taken at face value. And it wasn't.
Clayton,
When Ed pointed out that biochemists aside from Behe universally reject Behe's claim, you say 'not so' and then bring up a non-biochemist, Minnich, as a counter-example. But even if you find just one biochemist who agrees, recognize that 99+% of biochemists, 99+% of microbiologists, 99+% of biologists of any stripe reject Behe's arguments. And yet you, a non-biologist, think you're able to see a virtue in his arguments that nobody else sees? Talk about hubris.
And you're understanding of evolution and the expirimental support for it are flawed, at best. Contrary to your claims, experiments to produce evolutionary change in bacteria have been remarkably successful.
If by research, you mean experimental verification, well, evolutionists have some problems in this area as well. Behe pointed to the guy trying to force bacterial evolution--and over several hundred thousand generations. That's at least possible; I shudder to think of the time scale required to do an experiment that would allow differentiation at even the genus level, much less at the phylum or class level.
Mr. Cramer, I repeat. As a scientist, you make a good lawyer. You really should stop before you embarass yourself further. And read the at least a FEW of the articles that are investigating the mechanisms of speciation. Plus a good textbook on the classification system and the arbitrary nature of almost any classification above the species level. Once you get into speciation, there's not much stopping you from getting genus and phylum changes.
And, by the way, you need to stop avoiding the problem that ID and irreducible complexity have produced NO scientific papers or research. The way science works is that you need to conduct resarch for positive evidence.
As it is, you are, despite your protests, marking off all the talking points of anti-evolutionists.
Clayton Cramer wrote:
You specifically said "biochemists such as Michael Behe". As far as I know, Behe is the only biochemist in the world who holds the position that he holds. Minnich is not a biochemist. None of that is terribly important, of course, I just thought you overstated the case rather considerably. What is important is the validity of the claims made by Behe, which are addressed below.
I think your reaction to Miller's article misses an awful lot. For instance, it misses the fact that, as I stated above, the claim of irreducible complexity is falsified in nature itself. Behe's argument relies upon the system being irreducibly complex, that every single component of the system must be in place for the system to have any function at all. But we know that's not true simply by looking at the diverse types of flagella that exist in the bacterial world - some flagella are less complex than others and still function. Some flagella are missing some of the components that are found in other flagella, yet they still function. Thus, his characterization of the system being irreducibly complex simply has to be false. All he is left with at that point is to point out that we haven't worked out every single step in the development of the flagellum with videotape-level evidence of watching it take place. And of course he's right about that, but this simply becomes a god of the gaps argument - you can't show precisely how it happened, therefore God must have done it. But at least the evolutionary development explanation allows us to research the question and search for an answer. There are testable hypotheses for the development of the flagellum that can be explored. The ID hypothesis here simply doesn't exist, it is nothing more than throwing up one's hands and saying "damned if I know". It is, as Michael Ruse likes to say, a science stopper.
ME: First, he admitted under oath in the Dover trial that the only research he has ever done on irreducible complexity (a computer simulation) showed that an IC system could evolve in a relatively short period of time even with all of the parameters of the simulation rigged to make it as unlikely as possible.
You can read my analysis of his testimony on the Behe and Snoke paper here. It includes the full relevant portion of his testimony on the matter. There's a lot there, but I'll sum it up. First, he admits that the computer simulation used population figures that were far smaller than the real figures for a bacterial population on earth. Second, he admits that the simulation ruled out several well known and well understood mechanisms for mutation and focused solely on point mutations. Third, he admits that the simulation ruled out any of those point mutations having any selective value at all. Lastly, he agrees that even with all of those patently unreal limitations that make the possibility of such a system developing (in this case, a multiple residue binding site where each and every component must be in place before it can function), the simulation still showed that that system could develop in 20,000 years. If you were to make the parameters reflect real world values, of course, that time frame would be far smaller.
ME: Second, he also admitted under oath that he has never bothered to read most of the scientific literature on the evolution of the very systems for which he claims an evolutionary explanation is impossible.
I didn't say the scientific literature on evolution, which no one could possibly read in a lifetime. I said the scientific literature on the evolution of the three specific systems he claims evolution cannot possibly, even hypothetically, explain (the flagellum, the immune system and the blood clotting cascade). And before I show you the relevant text of his testimony, I want to point out this statement by Behe on the stand (Day 12, AM transcript):
That's a hell of a bold claim. He isn't just speaking of those three systems listed above, he's claiming that there is no publication in the literature that describes how ANY complex biochemical system even MIGHT have occured. This is patently absurd for many reasons, the most obvious being that Behe himself admits that we understand the evolutionary development of numerous complex biochemical systems quite well, such as the hemoglobin system and the antifreeze protein system. But it becomes even more absurd when you see what he later said in his testimony. Indeed, he repeats this same sentiment many times, saying, more specifically, "We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system."
On Day 12 of the trial, under cross examination, Eric Rothschild placed in front of Behe and read him the titles of dozens of books and articles specifically about the evolution of the immune system and asked if he had read them. He admitted that he had not read most of them. Yet he claimed in his book to have done an exhaustive search of all of the relevant literature. And when confronted with all of these books and articles on that very subject he had never bothered to read, he just waved his hand and said it doesn't matter, he already knows that they won't explain how the immune system developed. Does that not strike you as a problem?
ME: And lastly, he also said under oath that he nas no intention of doing any actual research to test his ideas.
Well, Behe doesn't seem to agree with you. He claims to have a theory of intelligent design. He claims that this theory is testable. But he also says that the burden of proof is on those who don't think it's true to disprove and he says he has no interest in performing any of the tests that he proposes for his ideas:
So while Behe claims to have a theory and to have ways to test that theory, he prefers not to perform those tests and thinks the folks who are against his theory should do it, contrary to your assertion (which I agree with) that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
-- What makes Franklin's proposal especially interesting is that he is generally recognized as one of the least orthodox religious thinkers of the bunch. Shortly before Franklin's death, he wrote a letter to the President of Yale, and mentioned his uncertainty about the Divinity of Jesus, but primarily because Franklin had never taken the time to analyze the question carefully--and he expected to get the answer shortly. --
Actually, it's more likely that Franklin was being polite. From what I have seen, Franklin's religious views differed very little on the basics from Jefferson's and Adams's. They were all influenced by the great theological unitarian thinkers like Joseph Priestly (and Isaac Newton). Though they believed in a warm intervening God, they rejected many of the key tenents of orthodox Christianity. And the Trinity was the one doctrine they found to be the most incomprehensible and absurd.
-- But Franklin asked that his unorthodox views be kept private; he knew that he was well outside the mainstream of American thought on this. --
He could also have been publicly ruined like Thomas Paine. Many of the founders kept their unorthodox views to themselves out of necessity rather than desire. But they also looked forward to the day when the Enlightenment would free society of such shackles and actually transform the Christian religion itself. Just because his beliefs were "out of the mainstream," doesn't mean that the Founders wanted to preserve traditional orthodox Christianity.
Roger Tang at January 10, 2006 06:23 PM
Roger Tang at January 10, 2006 06:27 PM
I pretty much agree with these comments, but merely want to point out that not all sciences admit of experimental verification. In addition to Darwin's theory of evolution, several others come to mind, including astrophysics and geology, and there are several others.
I love Cramer's reference to that failed bacterial-evolution experiment -- it's almost like saying "I wasn't able to make a videotape of someone walking from Dallas to Toronto, therefore I see no reason to believe such a thing is possible."
Meanwhile, another experiment in bacterial evolution is enjoying a smashing -- and costly -- success. Does the phrase "drug-resistent bacteria" ring any bells, Mr. Cramer?
I don't want to pile on Cramer as he is at least responding to his fisking. But he isn't consistent:
'and partly because the proponents of a theory are responsible for providing evidence, not the opponents.'
So I must ask why he bothers thinking about ID at all, an idea(I won't dignify it by calling it a theory) which has produced zero evidence by their own admission.
Not to mention his general derision of atheists along the same line of thought. He simply doesn't ever prove his case. So essentially all his arguments go back to what he was taught as a boy being true and then derides the evidence as unimpressive when it is produced as it has been for nearly 200 years now. As the judge said in the Dover case these folks set the bar so high that no amount of evidence will ever do.
'he wrote a letter to the President of Yale, and mentioned his uncertainty about the Divinity of Jesus, but primarily because Franklin had never taken the time to analyze the question carefully--and he expected to get the answer shortly'
Franklin never analyzed the question carefully? How would one do such a thing? How ridiculous.
'One of the saddest aspects of the fanaticism of certain atheists is that they don't realize how many of the great scientists of history were fervent Christians'
Yes and many were fervent Muslims, jews, hindus, atheists, and agnostics. So what. What does that prove other than the human mind can compartmentize many different ideas? You keep throwing out Christian scientists as if they prove anything at all. It doesn't advance your idea. There are legions of atheist and agnostic scientists also. Again-it doesn't prove or disprove the veracity of an idea.
'Has it occurred to you that regardless of whether someone is raised as a fundamentalist, an atheist, or nothing at all, that a lot of parents do a lousy job? You doubtless know more fundamentalists that fit your model above, but that's just because fundamentalists outnumber atheists about 20 to 1. '
This entirely misses the point. If you intentionally feed tripe about hell and suffering into a young mind it may defacto make you a bad parent. You've set your child up to be potentially fearful of being human itself. Whether your a good parent in other avenues hardly matters for the purposes of this discussion.
I don't want to pile on Cramer as he is at least responding to his fisking. But he isn't consistent:
'and partly because the proponents of a theory are responsible for providing evidence, not the opponents.'
So I must ask why he bothers thinking about ID at all, an idea(I won't dignify it by calling it a theory) which has produced zero evidence by their own admission.
Not to mention his general derision of atheists along the same line of thought. He simply doesn't ever prove his case. So essentially all his arguments go back to what he was taught as a boy being true and then derides the evidence as unimpressive when it is produced as it has been for nearly 200 years now. As the judge said in the Dover case these folks set the bar so high that no amount of evidence will ever do.
'he wrote a letter to the President of Yale, and mentioned his uncertainty about the Divinity of Jesus, but primarily because Franklin had never taken the time to analyze the question carefully--and he expected to get the answer shortly'
Franklin never analyzed the question carefully? How would one do such a thing? How ridiculous.
'One of the saddest aspects of the fanaticism of certain atheists is that they don't realize how many of the great scientists of history were fervent Christians'
Yes and many were fervent Muslims, jews, hindus, atheists, and agnostics. So what. What does that prove other than the human mind can compartmentize many different ideas? You keep throwing out Christian scientists as if they prove anything at all. It doesn't advance your idea. There are legions of atheist and agnostic scientists also. Again-it doesn't prove or disprove the veracity of an idea.
'Has it occurred to you that regardless of whether someone is raised as a fundamentalist, an atheist, or nothing at all, that a lot of parents do a lousy job? You doubtless know more fundamentalists that fit your model above, but that's just because fundamentalists outnumber atheists about 20 to 1. '
This entirely misses the point. If you intentionally feed tripe about hell and suffering into a young mind it may defacto make you a bad parent. You've set your child up to be potentially fearful of being human itself. Whether your a good parent in other avenues hardly matters for the purposes of this discussion.