blasphemy

I'm ambivalent about this: there should not be a category of speech called "blasphemy" that gets free speakers prosecuted, persecuted, or dead.

But neither should theists and atheists go out of their way just to spite those who think differently than they do.

That said, I expect I'll continue to defend blasphemy by commission, omission, and grandstand applause. Just don't take it personally, anybody. I still respect your right to differ, and expect you to say that you do. Doesn't mean we have to be mean-spirited or violent about it.

Speaking of blasphemers: here's the charming side of Richard Dawkins, who really is passionate about his science. Good for him, and us. Talk on!

(P.S.-- And what a "cool" coincidence, as Alex would say, that his name came up independently in two different report presentations today. I think he's wrong to insist on an either/or between science and religion, but I also think a lot of his vaunted, reviled "arrogance" boils down to a compelling passion for "popular understanding"... and an impatience with those who won't acknowledge the birth of evolutionary "cool.")