Can fundamentalism lead to an exodus of scientists?

[empeake]

I'm relatively new, and don't know if this subject has been discussed before. If so, my apologies.

In view of the increasing presence of fundamentalist groups in the USA, the power they have in the government, the influence they have or could have in the judicial system, the social pressure they exert on the communities, the open persecution and stigmatization of atheists, the scare tactics, and the actual or potential use of violence against those who oppose their fundamentalist points of view, could we be seeing a gradual exodus of scientists to other countries where they could work in more favorable conditions? Perhaps not an exodus, but a shift in the geopolitical balance of scientific research.

Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid about the possibility of a fundamentalist inquisition. Perhaps my perspective is distorted by the fact that I don't live in the USA and I'm overestimating the strength of the fundamentalist movement or underestimating the resources of scientific community or the objectiveness of the legal system. In any case, what I see from the outside is scary.

[drkitten]

In view of the increasing presence of fundamentalist groups in the USA, the power they have in the government, the influence they have or could have in the judicial system, the social pressure they exert on the communities, the open persecution and stigmatization of atheists, the scare tactics, and the actual or potential use of violence against those who oppose their fundamentalist points of view, could we be seeing a gradual exodus of scientists to other countries where they could work in more favorable conditions? Perhaps not an exodus, but a shift in the geopolitical balance of scientific research.

I suspect the answer is somewhere between "yes" and "no." Certainly, the availability of scientific funding is a major influence on what (and how much) research is done; for example, since the United States government has more or less outlawed stem-cell research (and cut funds to a trickle), not very much research on stem cells is being performed in the United States. On the other hand, the United States is probably over-funding certain security-related research. A completely apolitical Dr Strangelove type would be happy to follow the money and leave the US if necessary to perform research.

On the other hand, most of the scientific community is standing relatively firm against the onslaught of fundamentalism (and has a long history of standing up to religous and political pressure in the name of "academic freedom"). I suspect that most of the pressures you mention -- e.g. scare tactics, social pressures, the potential use of violence -- are not yet significant enough to have any substantive effects.

The other factor to consider, of course, is that the United States is a very large place. Oklahoma's loss may well be California's gain.

[kevin]

When missouri was contemplating enacting some hard-core anti stem-cell research laws there was concern the Stowers Institute was going to move somewhere else.

http://www.stowers-institute.org/

[Overman]

I don't think it is as strong as you percieve it, but it grows. The great thing about America is that the administration changes relativly often compared to other countries that have had this exodus. Wait a couple of years and your worries might be irrelevant.

[Ziggurat]

In view of the increasing presence of fundamentalist groups in the USA, the power they have in the government, the influence they have or could have in the judicial system, the social pressure they exert on the communities, the open persecution and stigmatization of atheists, the scare tactics, and the actual or potential use of violence against those who oppose their fundamentalist points of view, could we be seeing a gradual exodus of scientists to other countries where they could work in more favorable conditions? Perhaps not an exodus, but a shift in the geopolitical balance of scientific research.

First off, I haven't actually seen any evidence that such groups DO have increasing influence in the US in any really meaningful ways. We've always had such groups. The Scopes Monkey trial didn't happen recently, for example. Press coverage of such groups is no better a metric for changes over time than it is for shark attacks, or the prevalence of abductions.

If there were to be a significant shift, where would it be from, and where would it be to? What are the possible competitors? Well, Europe is one obvious candidate. But if you want to talk about the role of fundamentalist religion discouraging science, well, fundamentalist Christianity might not be as strong in Europe as in the US, but fundamentalist Islam is much stronger, and it IS on the rise in Europe for largely demographic reasons. I would suggest that this is much more likely to discourage science than fundamentalist Christianity in the US, which we have been contending with for quite some time.

Another possibility is China. China is certainly making advances in terms of science, but that's largely due to increased investment internally. They may get a lot of foreign-educated scientists returning TO China, but they're not going to get a significant number of non-Chinese scientists to emigrate there. And they also face a different version of the same problem you refer to: restrictions on freedom, in their case imposed by the communist government rather than by religious passions.

Both China and Europe (as well as Japan) face serious demographic problems in the coming decades, though, which will create budgetary squeezes that will make funding scientific research harder. We will face this to some extent (with the retirement of the baby boomers) but to a lesser degree. The ability to fund science has always been absolutely critical to how well a country does in science.

For the last 6 decades, America has been completely dominant in terms of scientific output. Although other countries are likely to close the gap to some extent, we are likely to remain the leader scientifically for the forseeable future. And the primary reason for that is that American funding for science will likely remain larger than any other country (not surprising since we're the largest economy).

Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid about the possibility of a fundamentalist inquisition. Perhaps my perspective is distorted by the fact that I don't live in the USA and I'm overestimating the strength of the fundamentalist movement or underestimating the resources of scientific community or the objectiveness of the legal system. In any case, what I see from the outside is scary.

Americans are, for the most part, pretty practical people. Religion can have a lot of influence on specific issues like abortion where the question is ultimately one of moral judgment, but when the questions are largely practical and unemotional, voters usually go with whatever works. The idea that America is headed for theocracy may be good for newspaper circulation in Europe, but it's not going to happen.

[Katana]

I think you're quite justified in your fears.

As one example of the increasing intrusion of religious conservatism into science, let's take stem cell research. This is a field of study with tremendous promise in tackling diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, all of which cost society billions in healthcare dollars yearly. And how do you even calculate the emotional toll that they bring? Unfortunately, stem cell research slowed after our all-knowing president limited government funding to cell lines derived before 2001. He then banned any federal funding from going to studies involving stem cells produced in any manner requiring the destruction of human embryos. Unfortunately, it is this very type that contains the most promise in finding cures for these terrible diseases. As far as the "destruction of an embryo", what we're talking about is a tiny collection of cells-not what you might picture as an embryo but you never hear that side of things. I also realize that to some, that doesn't matter.

What many universities are now doing is turning to private funding. Fortunately, there is a good deal of it for now, but I can only imagine that it's because the donors are hoping to gain financially. Understandable, but what if that wasn't the case?

The U.S. used to lead the world in stem cell research, but, during Bush's time in the White House, publication of American studies has been on a steady decline while those in other countries have enjoyed an increase.

Why is government regulating in a manner directly tied to a religious belief (as another example, don't forget the Plan B fiasco)?

What ever happened to separation of church and state?

[Legalduck]

While fundamentalism currently have a great deal of power in politics, its not as dire as you might picture. I would have to disagree about the "open persecution" of atheists. While there is a stigma, it does not rise to the level of persecution for the most part. For one, this forum has many people who call themselves atheists, yet it operates freely. I'm an atheist, and I never felt in danger because of it. As far as I know, the government is not watching me because of my atheism. I'm pursuing employment with Homeland Security (my background checks are pending), and no one has questioned my beliefs on religion. Kooks like Robertson and Coulter might name-call, but name-calling isn't persecution.

That said, this particular administration seems very willing to ignore science, or only accept science that supports its agenda. The cuts in funding certainly hurt. But the scientific community seems relatively untouched. Unless the government begins redacting journal articles or seizing research, the US scientific community will outlive this adminstration. As Overman said, eventually this administration will change.

[Nero]

But if you want to talk about the role of fundamentalist religion discouraging science, well, fundamentalist Christianity might not be as strong in Europe as in the US, but fundamentalist Islam is much stronger, and it IS on the rise in Europe for largely demographic reasons. I would suggest that this is much more likely to discourage science than fundamentalist Christianity in the US, which we have been contending with for quite some time.

Not really sure that I would confer with this view, one of the primary issues with Islamic bodies resident in Europe is the non engagement with governments and hence little to no influence on central scientific fundings and hence research in itself. Whereas in the US the fundamental Christian groups do certainly seem to be able to exert quite impressive powers over central government, and scientific fundings.

Nero

[Katana]

But the scientific community seems relatively untouched.

But clinical medicine has been touched by religious influences likely not entirely due to this administration and, as a result, less likely to go away when it does.

[empeake]

As Overman said, eventually this administration will change.
And it could be for the worse...

IIRC, Superme Court judges are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. If the President is a fundamentalist and fundamentalists control the Senate, this could lead to a potentially dangerous situation in which decisions are influenced by religious interests.

Another concern I have is science in the classroom. Although ID attempts in Kansas and other states have been unsuccessful up to now, science education could be affected in ways that won't be evident for a generation or so.

[CapelDodger]

I don't think it is as strong as you percieve it, but it grows. The great thing about America is that the administration changes relativly often compared to other countries that have had this exodus. Wait a couple of years and your worries might be irrelevant.
There's a longer-term signal than the comings and goings of administrations. The increasing engagement of religion with politics can be traced back to Goldwater's days, via the Moral Majority/ Religious Right. Administrations are like waves, but fundamentalism is the incoming tide. Perhaps it will turn soon, but I see no sign of that. If Gore beats Rice in 2008 he'll still have had to mouth more platitudes about gawd than, say, Kennedy did. Or Ike, for that matter.

[CapelDodger]

IIRC, Superme Court judges are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. If the President is a fundamentalist and fundamentalists control the Senate, this could lead to a potentially dangerous situation in which decisions are influenced by religious interests.
The Supreme Court is the inertial damper in the US system (at federal and state level). Its composition is the measure of a series of administrations, and the slow movement of its centre-point is more informative than fleeting triumphs of the advertising industry (aka administrations). As is the line the centre-point is measured on. At one time it was Hard Money - Soft Money, at another it was Federal-State, at another Isolationist-Interventionist, and so on. Only recently has it become Secular-Religious.

[CapelDodger]

For the last 6 decades, America has been completely dominant in terms of scientific output. Although other countries are likely to close the gap to some extent, we are likely to remain the leader scientifically for the forseeable future. And the primary reason for that is that American funding for science will likely remain larger than any other country (not surprising since we're the largest economy).
Substitute Britain for America, and that could be from a Times (of London) editorial in 1906.

[chriswl]

Not really sure that I would confer with this view, one of the primary issues with Islamic bodies resident in Europe is the non engagement with governments and hence little to no influence on central scientific fundings and hence research in itself. Whereas in the US the fundamental Christian groups do certainly seem to be able to exert quite impressive powers over central government, and scientific fundings.
Yes, exactly. Muslims in the EU are essentially outsiders who are relatively uninfluential and poorer and less well-educated than average. The most extreme of European Muslims do not want to change European political attitudes - they reject western values and democracy as inherently corrupting and want nothing to do with them. They are cultural isolationists.

This is in sharp contrast with Christian fundamentalists in the overwhelmingly Christian US who have a huge reservoir of popular religious sentiment to draw on and are fully engaged in US politics at the highest level.

[RandFan]

Many if not most things are possible. Some would say all things are but I try and avoid absolutes.

I don't see it. I see people afraid that their beliefs are threatened and that they have an inflated sense of religion in the role of the founding of America and are trying to preserve what they see as sacred traditions and bring back god to public life.

The problem is that those people who fear a coming theocracy and sound the battle cry often cherry pick their data. Only the most frightening indicators are chosen. The facts are,

1.) Church attendance is declining.
2.) Materialism is increasing.
3.) Activities that are targeted by religious groups as counter to religion are increasing. Ellen DeGeneres is popular on T.V. though she was targeted by Christian groups. Shows like Queer as Folk, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, The L Word are enjoying success.

Americans like their lifestyles. On Sunday they like to watch sports, go to the mall, go fishing, highking, etc. These activities are on the increase not the decrease.

The cultural war is over. Christians are just unwilling to admit it. So they have found ways to stir people up. They claim that people's beliefs are under attack and the people have responded. But that is it. The people might watch Passion of the Christ and The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe in record numbers but that is because that is how they like their religion. In convenient, entrainment form.

So, contributions might be up, prayer might be up, calls for stopping perceived slights to religious institutions might be on the increase but all other indicators are down.

But by all means, fight religious intolerance and ignorance. Don't let religious organizations and people get away with BS like ID in school. These are worthy fights and this religious BS isn't going away anytime soon precisely because these institutions feel threatened and this is an attempt to regain control.

[KingMerv00]

In view of the increasing presence of fundamentalist groups in the USA, the power they have in the government, the influence they have or could have in the judicial system, the social pressure they exert on the communities, the open persecution and stigmatization of atheists, the scare tactics, and the actual or potential use of violence against those who oppose their fundamentalist points of view...

Frankly, I don't see it. I have never seen "open persecution", "scare tactics", or "actual violence". I am no martyr.

Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid about the possibility of a fundamentalist inquisition. Perhaps my perspective is distorted by the fact that I don't live in the USA and I'm overestimating the strength of the fundamentalist movement or underestimating the resources of scientific community or the objectiveness of the legal system. In any case, what I see from the outside is scary.

Don't worry too much. While fundamentalism might win the odd battle, secularism is on the rise.

[drkitten]

Frankly, I don't see it. I have never seen "open persecution", "scare tactics", or "actual violence". I am no martyr.

You may not have been looking hard enough. For example, the Nuremberg Files case? Advocating the murder of doctors who perform abortions, clinic workers who work with those doctors, and the judges who agree with them?

[KingMerv00]

You may not have been looking hard enough. For example, the Nuremberg Files case? Advocating the murder of doctors who perform abortions, clinic workers who work with those doctors, and the judges who agree with them?

The murder of abortion doctors is overwhelmingly condemned by the Christian community. Even Pat Robertson for cripes sake.

A few loons does not a trend make.

[Ziggurat]

Not really sure that I would confer with this view, one of the primary issues with Islamic bodies resident in Europe is the non engagement with governments and hence little to no influence on central scientific fundings and hence research in itself. Whereas in the US the fundamental Christian groups do certainly seem to be able to exert quite impressive powers over central government, and scientific fundings.

Nero

That's not quite my point. Currently, Islamists indeed don't seem to have much of a legislative agenda. But they don't need to in order to drive scientists out. All they need to do is make living conditions in Europe less preferable to America. Scientists are a fairly mobile workforce, and even if funding doesn't drop, if they find the general social environment more oppressive, they'll pick up and leave. Especially if they're Jewish, or gay.

And no, that's not going to have much equivalent effect in the US because fundamentalist Christianity isn't really making significant inroads into US public life, despite the shark attack-style stories to that effect.

[Ziggurat]

Substitute Britain for America, and that could be from a Times (of London) editorial in 1906.

You may be right about that, I have no experience of their circa 1906 editorials. But if they did write such a thing, they would have been completely wrong. Britain did not have, and NEVER had, the huge dominance of science that America has held post-WWII. Europe as a whole indeed had such a lead, but no single country within Europe was ever so scientifically dominant (at least not since Greece/Rome).

[CapelDodger]

You may be right about that, I have no experience of their circa 1906 editorials. But if they did write such a thing, they would have been completely wrong. Britain did not have, and NEVER had, the huge dominance of science that America has held post-WWII. Europe as a whole indeed had such a lead, but no single country within Europe was ever so scientifically dominant (at least not since Greece/Rome).
You have to consider the kind of science that the Times (and the imperial gestalt) would have regarded as supremely important. Their science, practical, oriented to business and, of course, the military. They wouldn't have noticed that the chemical (France, scientifically, Germany practically) and electrical (Britain and Italy scientifically, the US practically) industries were in the proces of changing the world.

They misread the dominance of Britain in science, just as you're misreading US dominance of science. Technology, no doubt. Who got to the Moon, after all?

If the bio-industry is in the process of changing the world (and it might be), how well is the US going to do in the next couple of decades? Evolution is central to modern biology - heck, early-modern biology - and US colleges are having to ask applicants if they believe in it.

We can meet up in 20 years and see how things have worked out. Memento mori, old chap, what?

[RandFan]

You may not have been looking hard enough. For example, the Nuremberg Files case? Advocating the murder of doctors who perform abortions, clinic workers who work with those doctors, and the judges who agree with them?How many people are in America?
How many of those people advocate the murder of doctors?
How many juges agree with murdering doctors? Cite please?

I think the flaw in your argument is not "looking hard enough". This sounds like data mining? At the moment you are citing anecdotal data. Do you have any hard data?

[empeake]

A few loons does not a trend make.
I agree with you. On the other hand, these cases can be classified as individual loons, acting more or less on their own. The problem is when the loons head an organization like PETA that (from what I've read) supports attacks on research facilities.

[Ziggurat]

They misread the dominance of Britain in science, just as you're misreading US dominance of science. Technology, no doubt. Who got to the Moon, after all?

Pick a measure, and we're probably in the lead. And I'm NOT just talking about technology. Nobel prizes? We're in the top spot. Leading research universities? We dominate the list.

If the bio-industry is in the process of changing the world (and it might be), how well is the US going to do in the next couple of decades?

How does biological science get translated into real-world applications? Mostly through medicine. Who leads the world in high-tech medicine? The US. We're not losing that lead, either.

Evolution is central to modern biology - heck, early-modern biology - and US colleges are having to ask applicants if they believe in it.

I've never run into anything of the sort. Shark-attack story, if you ask me.

[Scott Haley]

An article in "Slate" magazine says that Protestant fundamentalists in America are losing the solidarity that made them strong. Check it out at http://www.slate.com/id/2144522/?nav=ais I hope he's right.

[Katana]

How does biological science get translated into real-world applications? Mostly through medicine. Who leads the world in high-tech medicine? The US. We're not losing that lead, either.


Not yet anyway. Give us some more time.

[drkitten]

How many people are in America?
How many of those people advocate the murder of doctors?
How many juges agree with murdering doctors? Cite please?


Both you and Merv are confusing demographics for visibility, and popularity for power.

It only took two people to blow up the Oklahoma City FBI building; it takes only one gunman to murder an abortion doctor.

And one of the downsides of the Internet is that it makes it much more practical for small groups to organize and to have social and politial impact out of proportion to their numbers.

And if it's a merely a "trend" you want -- the trend is unfortunately towards increasing criminal activity against abortion providers (although at least the number of murders is staying near the floor.) See these stats (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/violence_statistics.html)from the National Abortion Federation. (http://www.prochoice.org/) Trespassing, arson, vandalism, death threats, and burglary all up in 2005 from 2006.

Sure, ten death threats doesn't sound like much -- until it's your death that's threatened. Partly as a result of this kind of pressure, the number of clinics offering abortion services has dropped USA-wide (http://http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27132). Violence and harassment are an often cited (http://www.abortionaccess.org/viewpages.php?id=155)reason -- "Through harassment and violence directed at doctors and other health care providers, anti-choice forces have discouraged both the teaching and provision of abortions. According to a 1998 study published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, abortion services are declining precipitously across the country. Anti-choice efforts have radically diminished the number of hospitals and individual providers offering abortion services, leaving 86% of U.S. counties without an abortion provider." "The few doctors willing to perform abortions are often marginalized within the medical profession. In fact, because only 2% of Ob/Gyns perform the majority of abortions in the U.S., they have become easy targets for anti-choice harassment and violence."

[CapelDodger]

Pick a measure, and we're probably in the lead. And I'm NOT just talking about technology. Nobel prizes? We're in the top spot. Leading research universities? We dominate the list.
The same (sans Nobel) could have been pointed out in the 1906 Times editorial. Memento mori.



How does biological science get translated into real-world applications? Mostly through medicine. Who leads the world in high-tech medicine? The US. We're not losing that lead, either.
When it comes to organic carpentry the US is top dog, no question. Genetic modification, though, that smacks of Playing God, don't you think? (Note to self : look up fundie responses to GM and correlate with regional agriculture.) DNA-based computing is surely way below fundie radar, it's below almost everybody's.

I bring up bio-tech as an analogy with the electrical industry in 1906, when its implications were as yet unknown. We don't know what the implications of bio-tech, or super-conductors, or materials science generally, or something that you and I haven't registered, will be. Prediction is difficult, especially when it's about the future.



I've never run into anything of the sort. Shark-attack story, if you ask me.
I was fishing, I must confess. I distinctly remember a biology professor being anathematised for using belief in evolution as a deal-breaker, but I heard about it on this forum, so how big a deal it really was I don't know. There's so much going on in the world at the moment one has to prioritise.

I don't want to get into a detailed discussion, I just wanted to say memento mori. Or, digging further back, watch out for hubris.

[CapelDodger]

An article in "Slate" magazine says that Protestant fundamentalists in America are losing the solidarity that made them strong. Check it out at http://www.slate.com/id/2144522/?nav=ais I hope he's right.
Thanks for that link.

There obviously isn't, and hasn't ever been, a fundie movement marching in step towards some political goal. Christianity is far too schismatic for that, it's in its blood, and of course particularly amongst Protestants. There are general fundie ideas - more religious influence in public life, for instance - but when that's been achieved, or at least is so perceived, the details intrude. And religious details can kill you.

The political exploitation of religion has been of that generalised fundie overlap. "What would Jesus drive?" is not the kind of religious influence the Republican strategists thought they were conceding. Prayers in school, ID, abortion, gay marriage, that's the sort of thing they had in mind. "We Are But Stewards of God's Creation" was definitely not.

[Scott Haley]

There obviously isn't, and hasn't ever been, a fundie movement marching in step towards some political goal. Christianity is far too schismatic for that, it's in its blood, and of course particularly amongst Protestants. There are general fundie ideas - more religious influence in public life, for instance - but when that's been achieved, or at least is so perceived, the details intrude. And religious details can kill you.

A large number of American Protestants formed a powerful political alliance that helped elect Ronald Reagan in the 1980's, and has supported Republican politicians ever since. They don't speak for all American Christians, but they're big and united enough to have great influence. There's another Slate Magazine article about them here: http://www.slate.com/id/2144601

[Katana]

A large number of American Protestants formed a powerful political alliance that helped elect Ronald Reagan in the 1980's, and has supported Republican politicians ever since. They don't speak for all American Christians, but they're big and united enough to have great influence. There's another Slate Magazine article about them here: http://www.slate.com/id/2144601

That was actually really interesting. Thanks for the link. Perhaps I shouldn't have been, but I was surprised to read that so many Christian conservatives would never vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. The media focuses so much on his anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, and anti-Hillary Clinton speeches that would on the face of it seem quite appealing to them. Apparently, they aren't enough to make up for his particular brand of faith with some of the evangelicals.

[advancedatheist]

I get the impression that the Republican elite cares more about securing its contributors' wealth than turning fundamentalist superstition into the law of the land. For example, we'll probably wind up in a situation in a few years where gay hecto-millionaires and billionaires can legally marry their lovers and leave their fortunes to them inheritance tax-free.

[Tony]

If there were to be a significant shift, where would it be from, and where would it be to? What are the possible competitors? Well, Europe is one obvious candidate. But if you want to talk about the role of fundamentalist religion discouraging science, well, fundamentalist Christianity might not be as strong in Europe as in the US, but fundamentalist Islam is much stronger, and it IS on the rise in Europe for largely demographic reasons. I would suggest that this is much more likely to discourage science than fundamentalist Christianity in the US, which we have been contending with for quite some time.


When was the last time you went to Europe?

[Ziggurat]

When was the last time you went to Europe?

April 2006.

[Tony]

April 2006.

Where did you go? I'm asking this because the claim that:

fundamentalist Christianity might not be as strong in Europe as in the US, but fundamentalist Islam is much stronger

Is patently false in the Europe I've been to. Fundamentalist islam doesn't have anything approaching to visibilty or social influence enjoyed by fundy christianity in the US.

[Tony]

An article in "Slate" magazine says that Protestant fundamentalists in America are losing the solidarity that made them strong. Check it out at http://www.slate.com/id/2144522/?nav=ais I hope he's right.


I've read that, and although I'm not entire convinced of his premise, he makes some good points.

Here is an article about the Patrick Henry madrassa and how it's starting to face reality:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/120/12.0.html

[Ziggurat]

Fundamentalist islam doesn't have anything approaching to visibilty or social influence enjoyed by fundy christianity in the US.

Ah, I see the problem. Ambiguity of the English language. Let me clarify my claim: Christian fundamentalism is stronger in the US than Christian fundamentalism in Europe. Islamic fundamentalism in Europe is stronger than Islamic fundamentalism in the US.

[CapelDodger]

A large number of American Protestants formed a powerful political alliance that helped elect Ronald Reagan in the 1980's, and has supported Republican politicians ever since. They don't speak for all American Christians, but they're big and united enough to have great influence.
No doubt, but they're united in the view that religion should have political influence, not in what that influence should achieve. That's where the details intrude. Also the disappointments. In the end, what did Reagan's administration do for the fundies? Apart from fine words, not a lot.

The GOP taps the fundies for votes, but their intentions remain the same : more for the rich and established, more for them. They'll throw some bones to the religious, and rhetoric is always free, but in the end it's the fundies that are being exploited. If god and profit clash, god loses.

There's another Slate Magazine article about them here: http://www.slate.com/id/2144601 (http://www.slate.com/id/2144601[/quote)
A good example of GOP cynicism. The lead partner is the political/economic element, not the religious. That's why theocracy isn't in prospect. The real danger is an administration that gains power through the religious vote in order to pursue policies that wouldn't get them elected, and have nothing to do with religion. Such as, for instance, the Project for a New American Century.

[CapelDodger]

Islamic fundamentalism in Europe is stronger than Islamic fundamentalism in the US.
And is utterly inconsequential in both arenas.

[Scott Haley]

And is utterly inconsequential in both arenas.

Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh might beg to disagree, but he can't because millitant Moslems killed him.

[Ziggurat]

And is utterly inconsequential in both arenas.

Let me ask you this, then: what Western country is currently prosecuting a prominent journalist for blasphemy?

There might actually be more than one country which fits this bill, but the one country I can guarantee it's NOT happening in is the US. The one I have in mind is Italy, which is prosecuting Oriana Fallaci for blasphemy against Islam. Inconsequential? I don't think so. And as pointed out above, neither would Van Gogh, if he were still alive.

[blutoski]

You may be right about that, I have no experience of their circa 1906 editorials. But if they did write such a thing, they would have been completely wrong. Britain did not have, and NEVER had, the huge dominance of science that America has held post-WWII. Europe as a whole indeed had such a lead, but no single country within Europe was ever so scientifically dominant (at least not since Greece/Rome).

Not true: in 1914, Germany held 80% of Nobel prizes, more patents than all other countries combined, and had produced more PhDs than all other countries combined for a decade straight.

Then, they decided to invade other countries, in order to 'spread the German miracle'.

[Roadtoad]

As sanguine as many are here, I have to remind you that most revolutions are won by minorities, rather than a majority.

IIRC, during the days of the American Revolution, only one third of the Colonists could be said to be in favor of Independence. One third were solidly for remaining with England, while the remaining third were waffling between the two. I'll have to dig up what it is I read, (Dammit, Hal, WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU!?!?!), but even within that third behind the Revolution, there were very broad distinctions as to what people wanted once the war was over. Would we be a part of a Commonwealth with England? Or would we truly be an independent nation? (Just as a reminder, we were one vote away from changing our national language to German.)

In the Civil War, the number of voters in the South who wanted secession were outnumbered by those who would have chosen to remain with the Union. The minority, however, were in positions of power, held in place by their own wealth and by their political connections.

Take another example, the Russian Revolution: Lenin and his followers were an even smaller minority, but they managed to establish themselves in positions of leadership. They built up momentum and plunged forward. A few people started an avalanche which evenually led to the takeover of the entire government, and the nation.

The Nazis had an even smaller number at one point. But they also had not only Hitler's ability as a speaker, but Goebbels and Himmler.

Don't underestimate these people. You have to remember that most of the time, it's the inaction of a majority that allows a minority to win, and win big. Take a look at the numbers of people who actually vote in any election. In Sacramento County, for example, we've had recent elections where only thirtyfive percent show up to vote. Consider that when someone suggests that a ballot proposition be brought to a vote mandating the teaching of ID.

The courts? Remember the Kelo Case, and the clear declaration of the Fifth Amendment that your property is yours, and cannot be taken save for the public good. The Supreme Court has warped and twisted that definition of "public good" to mean any damned thing the government wants it to mean. Don't allow yourself to fall into the trap of thinking that the next four years could mean a more balanced Court. Keep in mind that for the most part, Federal judges are there for life. If we lose two more justices in the next year or two, (a possibility), the Court could become more inclined to see ID as a balanced view, as opposed to the abomination that it is, a mutant warping of the laws of science.

You have to watch these people. They don't need great numbers. They just need patience and an opportunity. If you are out there speaking the truth, you stand a better chance of denying them the latter, and you could ultimately break the former. Fail to do that, either by playing games with people as the media is trying to do these days, or staying silent, and you will lose, and lose big.

[CapelDodger]

Take another example, the Russian Revolution: Lenin and his followers were an even smaller minority, but they managed to establish themselves in positions of leadership. They built up momentum and plunged forward. A few people started an avalanche which evenually led to the takeover of the entire government, and the nation.
I think Lenin was the first to set out a strategy for a minority, a "vanguard", to take over a mass movement. Thus Marxism-Leninism, Marx for the objective, Lenin for the means to achieve it. His theories are independent of ideology. Hitler and his faction rejected the ideology but learned a lot from the theory. So did Ben-Gurion. And so, IMO, did the founders of the Religious Right back in the 60's. Their motivation was more political than religious, again IMO, which is why theocracy is not the danger. The danger is a government following its own economic and foreign policy on the back of a manipulated religious vote.

You have to watch these people.
Eternal vigilance. Laughing at them is a useful policy, but they should not be regarded as a joke.

[Ziggurat]

Not true: in 1914, Germany held 80% of Nobel prizes, more patents than all other countries combined, and had produced more PhDs than all other countries combined for a decade straight.

In which case, Carpel Dodger's claim about English opinion circa 1906 was even more off base.

Then, they decided to invade other countries, in order to 'spread the German miracle'.

Umm... I'm guessing you're trying to draw parallels to modern day politics, but it doesn't work. As a description of the causes for the Great War (AKA World War I), that's about as nonsensical as it gets.

[CapelDodger]

There might actually be more than one country which fits this bill, but the one country I can guarantee it's NOT happening in is the US. The one I have in mind is Italy, which is prosecuting Oriana Fallaci for blasphemy against Islam. Inconsequential? I don't think so. And as pointed out above, neither would Van Gogh, if he were still alive.
The Italian case is not about fundamentalist Islam, it's about the Italian judicial and political systems, which are beyond rational understanding. Oriana Fallaci is a nasty piece of work, and insulting to all Muslims.

The Van Gogh murder is an isolated case. There was no great movement behind it, nor is any such movement in any way influential in Europe.

[blutoski]

In which case, Carpel Dodger's claim about English opinion circa 1906 was even more off base.

Well, he did say that it sounded like an editorial, and considering the rampant nationalism and jingoism of the day, I think it's credible that Brits felt this way.



Umm... I'm guessing you're trying to draw parallels to modern day politics, but it doesn't work. As a description of the causes for the Great War (AKA World War I), that's about as nonsensical as it gets.

Agreed. Poetic licence?

However, the point is that German scientific dominance ended abruptly when they engaged in an expensive war, and rediverted high-level (university) educational funding from basic research to weaponization. They also suffered from the politicization of new sciences: physics, for example, was fruitful until the presence of Jews in the Wilhelms became the most important issue in science, overshadowing actual findings for a decade. By the 1930s, German science was coasting on fumes.

It took less than a generation, and a handful of idealogues to wreck the German science machine.



The concern I have is that this could happen to the US because of three potential problems:

1. Global demographics and foreign national advancement. The trajectory is that not only will the US be a minor player in PhD granting in the future, but that it will be matched specifically by China in 2024 and again by India in 2026. That's before my neices graduate from their batchelors.

2. The above assumes "all things being equal." But the brain drain strategy may fail. That is: assume that the bucketloads of foreigners with batchelors will continue to seek graduate degrees in the US universities and graduate there. Doubtful.

3. The US will increasingly depend on domestic undergrads for its PhD recruitment, and there may not be replacement quantities available to match overseas brainpower.


The impact of religious fundamentalism is problematic: if they impact important/symbolic funding, then it will absolutely influence the decisinons of foreigners shopping around for graduate research projects and programs. This speaks to #2.

The production of internal students is impacted by the influence of religious groups on primary education. Right now, recent polls show that 85% of science teachers avoid teaching evolution even when its in the approved curriculum. Some, because they are religious and believe it violates their faith to teach it; others, because they are afraid of blowback from the students and their parents.

The strategy of organizations like the Discovery Institute, or individuals such as Coulter, is to undermine the credibility of science by portraying it as the domain of evil people. Marginalized cranks? Coulter's book, which includes an acerbic screed against the profession of science, just slid to #2 after several weeks as the US' #1 bestseller.



Rome did not fall because its army became weak. On the contrary: its army grew in size and strength during the first few centuries of decline. However, its culture imploded. When Diocletian/Maximian retook Persia (296CE) the empire's borders were larger than ever. But when they decided to celebrate it with a triumphial arch, they found that nobody in an empire of tens of millions actually knew how to make one anymore. The tradition of educating had long fallen into disuse. They ended up reusing an old arch, and peeled sculptures off of Trajan's.

[Ziggurat]

However, the point is that German scientific dominance ended abruptly when they engaged in an expensive war, and rediverted high-level (university) educational funding from basic research to weaponization. They also suffered from the politicization of new sciences: physics, for example, was fruitful until the presence of Jews in the Wilhelms became the most important issue in science, overshadowing actual findings for a decade.

The expense now isn't equivalent to WWI/WWII: even with the Iraq war, we're still only spending a few percent of our GDP on the military. And you bring up another point which I didn't make explicit but which was hinted at by my earlier comments: chasing Jews out of Germany crippled German science. Is there something that could chase them out of European science now or in the near future? Unfortunately yes, there is: fundamentalist Islam.

The concern I have is that this could happen to the US because of three potential problems:

1. Global demographics and foreign national advancement. The trajectory is that not only will the US be a minor player in PhD granting in the future, but that it will be matched specifically by China in 2024 and again by India in 2026. That's before my neices graduate from their batchelors.

I wouldn't put too much stock in this number. Drop the standards, for example, and you can make millions of Ph.D.'s. There's a reason China's best students still come to the US to earn their Ph.D.'s: because an American Ph.D. means more than a Chinese Ph.D., even in China. What's probably a more important number is the number of scientists actually engaged in research - if a Ph.D. physicist becomes a bank manager, for example, that doesn't give you much scientific workpower. China can easily outstrip us in terms of granting Ph.D's, but even by 2024, I doubt that they'll be able to support an equivalent number of actual scientists with research programs. And the US already produces more Ph.D.'s than the number of research positions it has available, so producing more science Ph.D.'s won't really help us. We're money-limited, not people-limited, and I don't see why China or India would be any different.

Not to mention, when it comes to demographics, China has major problems on the horizon. Their one-child policy is going to tilt their demographic profile heavily towards old people, which places much greater budgetary strain on the economy as fewer workers have to support more and more retirees. Under those conditions, budgets are going to be tight, and an aggressive scientific funding program is probably going to be hard to maintain. I expect India is a more likely long-term challenger to the US than China.

2. The above assumes "all things being equal." But the brain drain strategy may fail. That is: assume that the bucketloads of foreigners with batchelors will continue to seek graduate degrees in the US universities and graduate there. Doubtful.

3. The US will increasingly depend on domestic undergrads for its PhD recruitment, and there may not be replacement quantities available to match overseas brainpower.

I think that's purely a money problem. Jobs in the scientific field in the US are very competitive, because the applicant pool is larger than the position pool. Reverse that, and I think you can get quality replacements (people who currently look at the job prospects and decide their fortunes are better spent elsewhere) easily enough.. That's what happened after Sputnik, for example: funding poured in, positioned opened up, and people jumped into the field. A friend of mine who got a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford bailed out of the field into investment banking because he didn't think he could land a good job in academia - funding is all it would have taken to reverse his decision.

[Ziggurat]

The Italian case is not about fundamentalist Islam, it's about the Italian judicial and political systems, which are beyond rational understanding. Oriana Fallaci is a nasty piece of work, and insulting to all Muslims.

So what if she's insulting to all Muslims? And you can blame it on whoever you want to in this particular case, but the fact remains: in Italy, fundamentalist muslims have the ability to get someone prosecuted for blasphemy. Christian fundamentalists in the US have never had any such power. You may think that insignificant, but I do not.

The Van Gogh murder is an isolated case. There was no great movement behind it, nor is any such movement in any way influential in Europe.

Not in any way influential? Then why was Hirsi Ali, who was until recently a member of parliament, under massive police protection? If Van Gogh's murder was really so isolated, then why was the threat against her life considered credible even after his murderer was caught? You don't think it's influential if top government officials have to fear for their lives, and can get kicked out of their own homes because their neighbors can't stand the threat either? You're whistling past the graveyard: his murder was less isolated than we wish, and radical Islamists have more influence in Europe than most would care to acknowledge.

[RandFan]

Both you and Merv are confusing demographics for visibility, and popularity for power.

It only took two people to blow up the Oklahoma City FBI building; it takes only one gunman to murder an abortion doctor.

And one of the downsides of the Internet is that it makes it much more practical for small groups to organize and to have social and politial impact out of proportion to their numbers.

And if it's a merely a "trend" you want -- the trend is unfortunately towards increasing criminal activity against abortion providers (although at least the number of murders is staying near the floor.) See these stats (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/violence_statistics.html)from the National Abortion Federation. (http://www.prochoice.org/) Trespassing, arson, vandalism, death threats, and burglary all up in 2005 from 2006.

Sure, ten death threats doesn't sound like much -- until it's your death that's threatened. Partly as a result of this kind of pressure, the number of clinics offering abortion services has dropped USA-wide (http://http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27132). Violence and harassment are an often cited (http://www.abortionaccess.org/viewpages.php?id=155)reason -- "Through harassment and violence directed at doctors and other health care providers, anti-choice forces have discouraged both the teaching and provision of abortions. According to a 1998 study published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, abortion services are declining precipitously across the country. Anti-choice efforts have radically diminished the number of hospitals and individual providers offering abortion services, leaving 86% of U.S. counties without an abortion provider." "The few doctors willing to perform abortions are often marginalized within the medical profession. In fact, because only 2% of Ob/Gyns perform the majority of abortions in the U.S., they have become easy targets for anti-choice harassment and violence."At best you demonstrate the possibility of a few whack jobs to interfere with a controversial procedure. I'm for the rights of women to get abortions but apart from this you have demonstrated nothing.

Thanks though,

RandFan

[RandFan]

A...that helped elect Ronald Reagan in the 1980's... "Helped", I helped elect Ronald Reagan. I think you have your answer.

[CapelDodger]

So what if she's insulting to all Muslims? And you can blame it on whoever you want to in this particular case, but the fact remains: in Italy, fundamentalist muslims have the ability to get someone prosecuted for blasphemy. Christian fundamentalists in the US have never had any such power. You may think that insignificant, but I do not.
There has never been a blasphemy law in the US, the Bill of Rights forbids it. Had there ever been such a law Christian fundies would be clamouring for its use every day. Remember what happended to John Scopes. Italy does have a blasphemy law (as does Britain) but not to mollify Muslims. There's a rather more obvious candidate near to home.

Mainstream Italian Muslims have called for this prosecution.


Not in any way influential? Then why was Hirsi Ali, who was until recently a member of parliament, under massive police protection? If Van Gogh's murder was really so isolated, then why was the threat against her life considered credible even after his murderer was caught? You don't think it's influential if top government officials have to fear for their lives, and can get kicked out of their own homes because their neighbors can't stand the threat either? You're whistling past the graveyard: his murder was less isolated than we wish, and radical Islamists have more influence in Europe than most would care to acknowledge.
A top government official, and a unique example. (Perhaps not to be one for much longer, but that has nothing to do with Muslim fundies, of course.) From this you conjure a vision of Jews fleeing Europe in the near future as secularists cower in their cellars. As a vision, it's ... disproportionate.

[Ziggurat]

There has never been a blasphemy law in the US, the Bill of Rights forbids it.

Exactly. We have structures in place which prevent even influential groups from exerting certain kinds of power. Other countries do not, and so are more vulnerable.

Italy does have a blasphemy law (as does Britain) but not to mollify Muslims. There's a rather more obvious candidate near to home.

Doesn't matter who it was written for, muslims can still use it, and its use by Christians wouldn't improve things either.

Mainstream Italian Muslims have called for this prosecution.

That's even worse: it means that even a mainstream religious group actively opposes the kind of freedom that intellectuals (including scientists) value.

A top government official, and a unique example. (Perhaps not to be one for much longer, but that has nothing to do with Muslim fundies, of course.)

It cannot be considered unique, not when it essentially worked because she's gone now. The likelyhood of similar threats and pressure being levied against a politician who upsets Muslim groups in the future should be considered a certainty, because people repeat successful tactics. Even worse would be if no such threats were ever levied because no politicians were willing to take the risk of controversial stands. And I do not know what you mean by "that has nothing to do with Muslim fundies": are you saying that future threats of this kind, which would make Ali's case no longer unique, would have nothing to do with Muslim fundies? I cannot believe that, but perhaps I'm not reading your statement correctly.

From this you conjure a vision of Jews fleeing Europe in the near future as secularists cower in their cellars. As a vision, it's ... disproportionate.

Oh no, I don't think the secularists will cower in their cellars. Rather, they'll stand by and do nothing, because the hostility can be either ignored (it's just street crime when a Muslim kidnaps a Jew in France, holds him for ransom, and tortures him to death) or cloaked in political terms ("antizionism", for example) that many of those same secularists are already sympathetic towards.

[CapelDodger]

Exactly. We have structures in place which prevent even influential groups from exerting certain kinds of power. Other countries do not, and so are more vulnerable.
You didn't mention those structures when you paired the lack of blasphemy trials provoked by US fundies with the trial provoked by Italian Muslims. To the benefit of US culture and the disbenefit of Muslim culture, needless to say. The last blasphemy trial in Britain was against a gay newspaper, provoked by Christians. Make of that what you will.


Doesn't matter who it was written for, muslims can still use it, and its use by Christians wouldn't improve things either.
Blasphemy laws are nonsense, away with them, I say. Anachronistic hold-overs from a much longer and more complicated history than the US has had to endure.



That's even worse: it means that even a mainstream religious group actively opposes the kind of freedom that intellectuals (including scientists) value.
It still doesn't make this a Muslim fundie issue.



It cannot be considered unique, not when it essentially worked because she's gone now.
What has worked has been the anti-immigration sentiment in Holland. Nothing to do with Muslim fundies. She lied on her asylum application, and that was enough. The real influence in Europe today is anti-immigration. On that wave are rising the nationalists and racists. Who's the more likely threat to Europe's Jews? Today it's "Can someone be a French Muslim? Can someone be a Dutch Muslim?". Tomorrow it's "Can you be a French Jew?". Send them all back home - and of course, today the Jews have a "home"


The likelyhood of similar threats and pressure being levied against a politician who upsets Muslim groups in the future should be considered a certainty, because people repeat successful tactics.
How many more prominent female asylum-seekers who rage - justifiably - against women's role in Muslim societies does Holland have? Your mythical Islamist bogey-man is not going to manifest again. If I'm wrong one day, you can say "Told you so".

Even worse would be if no such threats were ever levied because no politicians were willing to take the risk of controversial stands. And I do not know what you mean by "that has nothing to do with Muslim fundies": are you saying that future threats of this kind, which would make Ali's case no longer unique, would have nothing to do with Muslim fundies? I cannot believe that, but perhaps I'm not reading your statement correctly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4985636.stm

Her troubles began when Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk said she should be stripped of her passport because of falsifications in her asylum application when she came to the Netherlands in 1992.

That's what I mean by "nothing to do with Muslim fundies". It has everything to do with Dutch politics and the prevailing anti-immigrant sentiment across Europe.

Oh no, I don't think the secularists will cower in their cellars. Rather, they'll stand by and do nothing, because the hostility can be either ignored (it's just street crime when a Muslim kidnaps a Jew in France, holds him for ransom, and tortures him to death) or cloaked in political terms ("antizionism", for example) that many of those same secularists are already sympathetic towards.
The French Jew's ordeal and murder was street-crime, committed by junkie loser scum who happened to be Muslim and believed that all Jews are rich - a common misconception. It had nothing to do with them being Muslim. The perpetrators were tracked down, some of them dragged back from abroad, and will face justice.

I am anti-zionist. Are you claiming that to be a cloak for anti-semitism?

[blutoski]

The expense now isn't equivalent to WWI/WWII: even with the Iraq war, we're still only spending a few percent of our GDP on the military. And you bring up another point which I didn't make explicit but which was hinted at by my earlier comments: chasing Jews out of Germany crippled German science. Is there something that could chase them out of European science now or in the near future? Unfortunately yes, there is: fundamentalist Islam.

True. However, be mindful that most refugee scientists from Europe in the '30s were not Jewish: they were rejecting ideologically-driven funding policies. Austria, Italy, and Czechoslovakia also saw brain drains, as their once-succesful nationalized research facilities became preoccupied with politics.





I wouldn't put too much stock in this number. Drop the standards, for example, and you can make millions of Ph.D.'s. There's a reason China's best students still come to the US to earn their Ph.D.'s: because an American Ph.D. means more than a Chinese Ph.D., even in China.

True, but two things:

1) this is a contemporary attitude. Maybe it's my age. When I was a kid, "made in Japan" meant "crap - doesn't work". Then, it was "made in South Korea" that meant it was junk. Hong Kong, Taiwan... when I was a kid, they made the stuff you found in cereal boxes. If somebody told me then that IBM's PC interest would be sold off to a Chinese company, it would have sounded like a joke.

2) the metric of PhDs is considered a proxy for overall knowledge worker production. For every PhD there is a proportional output of science graduates, engineers, &c.






What's probably a more important number is the number of scientists actually engaged in research - if a Ph.D. physicist becomes a bank manager, for example, that doesn't give you much scientific workpower. China can easily outstrip us in terms of granting Ph.D's, but even by 2024, I doubt that they'll be able to support an equivalent number of actual scientists with research programs. And the US already produces more Ph.D.'s than the number of research positions it has available, so producing more science Ph.D.'s won't really help us. We're money-limited, not people-limited, and I don't see why China or India would be any different.

Not to mention, when it comes to demographics, China has major problems on the horizon. Their one-child policy is going to tilt their demographic profile heavily towards old people, which places much greater budgetary strain on the economy as fewer workers have to support more and more retirees. Under those conditions, budgets are going to be tight, and an aggressive scientific funding program is probably going to be hard to maintain. I expect India is a more likely long-term challenger to the US than China.

Yes, and no. This is not a new argument. However, it can be interpreted as to China's advantage: just as Japan solved their greying problem by focusing research on automation to replace absent workers. This is the concern. Not just basic science PhDs, but the proportional number of engineering graduates.





I think that's purely a money problem. Jobs in the scientific field in the US are very competitive, because the applicant pool is larger than the position pool. Reverse that, and I think you can get quality replacements (people who currently look at the job prospects and decide their fortunes are better spent elsewhere) easily enough.. That's what happened after Sputnik, for example: funding poured in, positioned opened up, and people jumped into the field. A friend of mine who got a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford bailed out of the field into investment banking because he didn't think he could land a good job in academia - funding is all it would have taken to reverse his decision.

Right, so this is right on topic. A president that believes the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the earth will end soon, would not bode well for funding evolutionary research or alternative energy programs.

China, on the other hand, will have four times the budget, and if trends continue, fewer restricted avenues of research. More so, India.

[Ziggurat]

Blasphemy laws are nonsense, away with them, I say. Anachronistic hold-overs from a much longer and more complicated history than the US has had to endure.
True enough. And you're right to want to do away with them. But you haven't managed to. Hence, the possibility of religious prosecution in Europe remains a possibility, but it does not in the US. Regardless of the historical reasons for this situation, it is what it is, and it doesn't favor Europe over the US when it comes to keeping fundamentalism in check.

It still doesn't make this a Muslim fundie issue.What has worked has been the anti-immigration sentiment in Holland. Nothing to do with Muslim fundies.[/QUOTE]
Nothing to do with her departure? Perhaps not, though that is not how it will be seen by those Muslim fundies (who have gotten what they want), which means that they will consider their tactics a success. And they WERE the reason that she had to live with extensive, constant police protection, and why her neighbors got a court order to evict her from her home.

How many more prominent female asylum-seekers who rage - justifiably - against women's role in Muslim societies does Holland have?
More relevant question: how many people of any kind does Holland have who vocally and prominently demand better treatment for Muslim women? If there are any, they will encounter similar threats. If there are none, that does not speak well for Holland or its future. And they aren't the only ones who would be threatened, either. Imagine the hostility towards someone who promoted gay rights among Muslims, for example.

Your mythical Islamist bogey-man is not going to manifest again. If I'm wrong one day, you can say "Told you so".
To be honest, I doubt I will remember this thread long in the future. But your own statement is also a self-contradiction. If my "Islamist bogey-man" is mythical, how could he have ever manifested himself in the first place? If he never did, he cannot do so "again", and if he did even once, he is not "mythical".

The French Jew's ordeal and murder was street-crime, committed by junkie loser scum who happened to be Muslim and believed that all Jews are rich - a common misconception. It had nothing to do with them being Muslim.
Why do you think he believed that Jews are all rich? Why do you think he considered it acceptable to not only kidnap the guy, but also torture him to death? Why do you think he recited passages of the Koran to the victim's family? Nothing to do with him being Muslim? Would that it were so, but it takes willful blindness to believe that this was all mere coincidence.

The perpetrators were tracked down, some of them dragged back from abroad, and will face justice.
Sure. But the denial will remain. And the community that enabled such pathologies will carry on as if nothing happened. Violent street crime will continue, it will disproportionately target Jews, and the end result will be Jews will continue to leave Europe because it is becoming more and more hostile to them.

I am anti-zionist. Are you claiming that to be a cloak for anti-semitism?
In your particular case? I have as yet no reason to think so, nor is that my claim. I am saying that antisemitism is often cloaked as anti-zionism, not that all anti-zionism is antisemitism. But if you cannot recognize that such cloaking is common, then you really have been blinded.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, and no. This is not a new argument. However, it can be interpreted as to China's advantage: just as Japan solved their greying problem by focusing research on automation to replace absent workers. This is the concern. Not just basic science PhDs, but the proportional number of engineering graduates.
Has Japan solved their demographic problem? No, actually, they haven't. They've done much to help deal with it, but they are far from having solved it. China has not even begun to address it, nor (given a largely peasant population) are the approaches Japan has been taking even possible for China.

Right, so this is right on topic. A president that believes the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the earth will end soon, would not bode well for funding evolutionary research or alternative energy programs.
Sure. Have we ever had such a president? Not to my knowledge. Is Bush such a president? No indication of that.

China, on the other hand, will have four times the budget, and if trends continue, fewer restricted avenues of research. More so, India.
China will have four times the budget of the US? When? Not in my lifetime, if ever. They cannot keep up their current rate of growth: too much of it is due to low-hanging fruit of (such as modernizing to levels already widely available throughout the developed world), and cannot be sustained long-term. They have serious internal structural problems, PLUS a demographic nightmare, on the horizon, and that spells trouble not only for their economy but also their political structure and possibly even their unity as a single country. As for India, well, they've got religious issues too: not the same ones as us, to be sure, but they run even deeper, and can impact scientific research just as easily. But they aren't on track to overtake us economically any time soon, and almost certainly won't scientifically until that happens.

[CapelDodger]

True enough. And you're right to want to do away with them. But you haven't managed to. Hence, the possibility of religious prosecution in Europe remains a possibility, but it does not in the US. Regardless of the historical reasons for this situation, it is what it is, and it doesn't favor Europe over the US when it comes to keeping fundamentalism in check.
Blasphemy laws can as easily be used against Muslim fundamentalists as they can against those who disguise their racism by attacking a religion. No-one's been prosecuted for criticising Muslim fundies, which mainstream Muslims themselves regard as heretics and perverters of their faith. There's no extra vulnerability to fundamentalism because of blasphemy laws, and marginally the opposite.

In the US, safe from such laws, candidates for the Supreme Court are quizzed about their attitudes to Christian fundie obsessions. I've never heard anybody wonder whether an atheist could be elected in France or Spain, but I've heard it in regard to the US. Could a professed atheist reach the Supreme Court in today's political environment? I wonder.



Nothing to do with her departure? Perhaps not, though that is not how it will be seen by those Muslim fundies (who have gotten what they want) ...
As I understand Muslim fundies, what they wanted was for her to be stoned to death or some such. Dutch Muslim fundies will see her departure just as other Hollanders will, as the result of anti-immigrant sentiment. That sentiment is one of their hooks, but of course they claim that "anti-immigrant" is a cloak for "anti-Muslim". Her new job at the Heritage Foundation, Crusader Central to Muslim fundies, will not go unnoticed.

... which means that they will consider their tactics a success.

I've just speculated on how Dutch Muslim fundies will see this event, and I think it makes a lot more sense than your speculations. But then, I would.

And they WERE the reason that she had to live with extensive, constant police protection, and why her neighbors got a court order to evict her from her home.

A terrible thing. Would that there were no religions and no racism in the world. It doesn't signify that Muslim fundamentalism is a force to be reckoned with in Europe. It's commonly believed that Christian fundies, via their votes, are a force to be reckoned with in the US. Uncle Karl is credited with making them so.


More relevant question: how many people of any kind does Holland have who vocally and prominently demand better treatment for Muslim women? If there are any, they will encounter similar threats.
My friend Jeni for one, but only one in many thousands. There are any number of feminist, liberal, secularist, even anarchist groups in Holland working for Muslim women's rights and being very loud about it.

If there are none, that does not speak well for Holland or its future.

If you think there might be none, you don't know Holland. At all.

And they aren't the only ones who would be threatened, either. Imagine the hostility towards someone who promoted gay rights among Muslims, for example.

The Dutch gay scene is a lot butcher than you give them credit for. They've been on the case for decades.


To be honest, I doubt I will remember this thread long in the future.
It might come back to haunt you.
But your own statement is also a self-contradiction. If my "Islamist bogey-man" is mythical, how could he have ever manifested himself in the first place? If he never did, he cannot do so "again", and if he did even once, he is not "mythical".
My bad. I should have said "manifests itself in your world-view", avoiding the implication that it has manifested in the physical world.


Why do you think he believed that Jews are all rich?
Because he's ignorant and stupid and he's heard somebody say it sometime. The idea that Jews are more prosperous than ordinary folk is a long-standing meme in Western Europe, partly because it has a grain of truth in general terms. The idea that "Jews look after their own" is another such meme, and that not only has a grain of truth but is one reason for the other grain of truth.

Jews first came to Western Europe as traders, middle-class bourgeoisie. The Jewish triumph is to have remained more prosperous (as a community) than the hoi-polloi for over 2000 years.


Why do you think he considered it acceptable to not only kidnap the guy, but also torture him to death?
Who knows why people like that do what they do? From my reading, the guy's a sociopath. An overwhelming opinion of himself, charismatic enough to attract a lowlife entourage, revelling in his own power. Those are some good pointers.

Why do you think he recited passages of the Koran to the victim's family? Nothing to do with him being Muslim?

To be clear, there's no sign that this guy is religious. He's classified Muslim because of his parentage. As to the Koran quotes, which I don't know the details of, I can't help thinking of Pulp Fiction and the hit-man's biblical quotation. I'd bet this sociopath has watched the film a good few times.

Would that it were so, but it takes willful blindness to believe that this was all mere coincidence.
It takes an active imagination to make this a sign of Muslim fundie influence in Europe.


Sure. But the denial will remain. And the community that enabled such pathologies will carry on as if nothing happened. Violent street crime will continue, it will disproportionately target Jews, and the end result will be Jews will continue to leave Europe because it is becoming more and more hostile to them.
What's this about Jews leaving Europe? I've not waved anybody goodbye recently. Last time I was in town I noticed how many young Israelis were around "for their education". It was reminiscent of the First Intifada days.


In your particular case? I have as yet no reason to think so, nor is that my claim. I am saying that antisemitism is often cloaked as anti-zionism, not that all anti-zionism is antisemitism. But if you cannot recognize that such cloaking is common, then you really have been blinded.
What's the basis of your claim that anti-semitism is often cloaked by anti-zionism? If the anti-semitism is being cloaked, how do you know there's anti-semitism there? It is, after all, cloaked. And any anti-zionist can give you good reasons for their opinion, without recourse to anti-semitism.

Please enlighten me. How do you see through the cloak?

[thaiboxerken]

Another place where the fundies have won in government is with Abstinence Only programs. These are programs that replace sex education with "just dont' have sex" and "sex is bad, mmkay." Abstinence-only programs are not allowed to discuss condoms or contraceptives of any kind, they aren't even allowed to talk about masturbation. These programs have replaced sex-education in around 35% of public schools in the USA. Yes, we're teaching our kids to be ignorant about sex and reproduction. No, these programs don't actually stop kids from having sex.

That is just another area of science that is being dumbed down by the RR.

[Skeptic]

I'm relatively new, and don't know if this subject has been discussed before. If so, my apologies.

In view of the increasing presence of fundamentalist groups in the USA, the power they have in the government, the influence they have or could have in the judicial system, the social pressure they exert on the communities, the open persecution and stigmatization of atheists, the scare tactics, and the actual or potential use of violence against those who oppose their fundamentalist points of view, could we be seeing a gradual exodus of scientists to other countries where they could work in more favorable conditions?

Not impossible, of course. Still, it depends what you mean by "fundamentalism".

Throughout history, "fundamentalism" that got scientists to move was usually of the "we'll kill you and imprison your family if you do that / refuse to do that / belong to the wrong religion / read the wrong books / us results we don't want" sort. E.g., mideaval China, the inquisition, Spain in the 1500s, and (more recently) Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and fundamentalist Muslim countries today.

Fundamentalists in the USA do not have, and are not likely to have or want, such power; so in that respect your view of an "exodus" is unlikely.

The real problem as I see it is slightly different: not so much a direct attack of any sort on science, but public apathy and ignorance of it. If science dies in the USA, it will be of neglect, not of murder.

[Skeptic]

Blasphemy laws can as easily be used against Muslim fundamentalists as they can against those who disguise their racism by attacking a religion.

So if you say "I hate Muslim savages", you are (quite rightly of course), a racist.

But if you criticize Fundamentalist Islam and its Jihadism harshly, you are a disguised racist.

And who gets to determine whether you're a "disguised racist" or not? Why, the same people who make the accusation of "disguised racism" in the first place, of course.

Racism is one thing; "disguised racism" quite another. Very often--though of course not always--"You are a disguised racist" really means no more than "I disagree with you on that, but unfortunately the facts are obviously on your side, so I'll call you names."

Are you telling me there is actually a law making "disguised racism" illegal and punishable? If so, and if this law is actually used, this is totalitarian.

[blutoski]

Has Japan solved their demographic problem? No, actually, they haven't. They've done much to help deal with it, but they are far from having solved it. China has not even begun to address it, nor (given a largely peasant population) are the approaches Japan has been taking even possible for China.

Possibly not in our lifetimes, no, but ultimately yes. In my opinion, though, yes, in our lifetimes. That 2026 equalization estimate comes from the Economist, and you're one of the only people I've met recently who thinks it's controversial. I suppose a discussion of why you think generations of free-market theorists are wrong would be off topic, though.




Sure. Have we ever had such a president? Not to my knowledge. Is Bush such a president? No indication of that.

Arguably, yes, there has been at least one president with theocratic leanings. Thus was born the First Amendment.



China will have four times the budget of the US? When? Not in my lifetime, if ever. They cannot keep up their current rate of growth: too much of it is due to low-hanging fruit of (such as modernizing to levels already widely available throughout the developed world), and cannot be sustained long-term. They have serious internal structural problems, PLUS a demographic nightmare, on the horizon, and that spells trouble not only for their economy but also their political structure and possibly even their unity as a single country. As for India, well, they've got religious issues too: not the same ones as us, to be sure, but they run even deeper, and can impact scientific research just as easily. But they aren't on track to overtake us economically any time soon, and almost certainly won't scientifically until that happens.

I disagree. However:

I think you're missing my point. The question is: "Can fundamentalism lead to an exodus of scientists?" I'm saying: "Yes, especially if it infiltrates government policies and funding."

I'm not talking about Bush. Not everybody's talking about Bush when they say "a president" There will be others, theoretically.

Likewise, I said "an expensive war," and you started talking about Iraq. I was talking about Vietnam, which incurred a dreadful drag on the western economic environment for years. Estimates from the RAND are that it consumed up to 32% of US GDP in 1970. Many economists believe that the country is still reeling from the loss of investment, economic growth, and manpower. My analogy was that this can be a problem for attracting graduate prospects.

[RandFan]

And is utterly inconsequential in both arenas.Wow, I don't think I have ever heard a more confident but wrong proclamation.

What would prompt you to say such a thing, certainly not the evidence which directly contradicts you?

[Ziggurat]

That 2026 equalization estimate comes from the Economist, and you're one of the only people I've met recently who thinks it's controversial. I suppose a discussion of why you think generations of free-market theorists are wrong would be off topic, though.
Generations of free-market theorists? But it's not generations of free-market economists who are actually making that prediction, but a particular set of economists in the here and now. Projections that far ahead need a lot of assumptions. And 20 years is a long time for one or more of those assumptions to break down. I suspect very strongly that this will be the case.

Arguably, yes, there has been at least one president with theocratic leanings. Thus was born the First Amendment.
First, you didn't say theocratic leanings (whatever that means), you gave specific religious beliefs. And second, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was conceived of before the constitution was even ratified, which means that none of its contents can be attributed to the actions (or leanings) of ANY president.

I think you're missing my point. The question is: "Can fundamentalism lead to an exodus of scientists?" I'm saying: "Yes, especially if it infiltrates government policies and funding."
Sure, in principle that can happen anywhere. I took the original post more to ask about the possibility of it happening anytime soon in the US (because as a purely abstract question, I don't think it's interesting). And I consider that possibility quite small.

[CapelDodger]

Another place where the fundies have won in government is with Abstinence Only programs. These are programs that replace sex education with "just dont' have sex" and "sex is bad, mmkay." Abstinence-only programs are not allowed to discuss condoms or contraceptives of any kind, they aren't even allowed to talk about masturbation. These programs have replaced sex-education in around 35% of public schools in the USA. Yes, we're teaching our kids to be ignorant about sex and reproduction. No, these programs don't actually stop kids from having sex.

That is just another area of science that is being dumbed down by the RR.
Back in my day and milieu a popular canard was "convent-school girls are easy". It turned out to be broadly true. I was, as it happens, talking about this with some young Spaniards last weekend and the guys were, like, knowing smiles and the girls were, like, "They're such tarts!". People have to grow into their sexuality alongside the enemy to get a mature understanding of how life goes. Launching them into the real world at 17 or 18 is, frankly, cruel. Sink or swim.

[AWPrime]

I think that the US will end up in a viscous circle.

1. US loses power (all empires will get this problem).
2. The economic power shrinks.
3a. Less funding for research.
3b. A lot of scientists go to better places or don't go to the US (US imports a lot).
3c. Science becomes less popular; fewer scientists are created in the country.
4. The worsened economic conditions make people flock to religion.
5. Fundies gain more power.

[CapelDodger]

So if you say "I hate Muslim savages", you are (quite rightly of course), a racist.

But if you criticize Fundamentalist Islam and its Jihadism harshly, you are a disguised racist.

And who gets to determine whether you're a "disguised racist" or not? Why, the same people who make the accusation of "disguised racism" in the first place, of course.
I was very obviously referring to Oriana Fallaci who says Muslim immigrants "breed like rats". An image that's been used before in living European memory. She doesn't limit her contempt to fundamentalist Muslims, she applies it to them all. Of course she's disguising racism by attacking Muslims, a religion not a race. Just as the BNP is in the UK, or le Pen in France. These are the ideological progeny of Jew-baiters.

Racism is one thing; "disguised racism" quite another. Very often--though of course not always--"You are a disguised racist" really means no more than "I disagree with you on that, but unfortunately the facts are obviously on your side, so I'll call you names."
I'm familiar with the "disguised racism" argument. As an anti-zionist, how wouldn't I be? It's an opinion all too often attributed to disguised racism.

Are you telling me there is actually a law making "disguised racism" illegal and punishable? If so, and if this law is actually used, this is totalitarian.
Europe's mid-20thCE experience has led to many countries having laws against the promotion of racism. Immediately after the War Against Hitler religion was not yet an issue, except regarding Jews, Judaism being the only religion that Christianity has ever been prepared to co-exist with. With Jews, "race" and religion coincide. That's not the case with Islam. North Africans, Pakistanis, Iranians, Bangladeshis, Arabs - there's no race. Race-laws therefore cannot apply when "Muslim" is substituted for "darkie". The same racism applies.

If the racists do lever themselves into power by getting rid of the "Muslims", how far behind do you think the Jewish Question will be? The question being, why are they here instead of "at home"?

[CapelDodger]

Sure, in principle that can happen anywhere. I took the original post more to ask about the possibility of it happening anytime soon in the US (because as a purely abstract question, I don't think it's interesting). And I consider that possibility quite small.
Which is, presumably, why you brought up Muslim fundie influence in Europe to stave off boredom.

Hopefully our reasonably civilised discussion won't be debased by the arrival of some usual suspects. The thread-title isn't exactly jam to that kind of wasp.

I'd be happy to concentrate on my last question : how do you know that anti-zionism is disguising anti-semitism in some degree? I can make a cogent case for European anti-Muslimism being disguised racism when expressed by the BNP or Oriana Fallaci or Le Pen or any neo-Nazi lowlife who can spot skin-colour. Can you make one for anti-zionism being disguised anti-semitism?

[CapelDodger]

I think that the US will end up in a viscous circle.

1. US loses power (all empires will get this problem).
2. The economic power shrinks.
3a. Less funding for research.
3b. A lot of scientists go to better places or don't go to the US (US imports a lot).
3c. Science becomes less popular; fewer scientists are created in the country.
4. The worsened economic conditions make people flock to religion.
5. Fundies gain more power.
Crude, but no less true for that. Crude is good when considering deep history, which includes the before and the after and makes no special claim for the now.

"Empire" is a tad problematic, "regionally dominant socio-economic power-structure" leaves less room for diversionary tactics in this environment.

[Ziggurat]

1. US loses power (all empires will get this problem).

We're not an empire, though. We're a hegemon. There's a difference.

4. The worsened economic conditions make people flock to religion.

That CAN happen, but it's not the only response. For example, communism is also nominally an ideology of the poor and oppressed, but it's anti-religious. Not that a turn towards communism would be good for science (it would be bad for pretty much everything except large tacky statue makers), but the turn towards religion, just like pretty much everything else in your sequence, isn't automatic.

[blutoski]

Generations of free-market theorists? But it's not generations of free-market economists who are actually making that prediction, but a particular set of economists in the here and now. Projections that far ahead need a lot of assumptions. And 20 years is a long time for one or more of those assumptions to break down. I suspect very strongly that this will be the case.

I was too vague: it's not a statement specifically about China. For over a century, free market theorists have proposed that free markets will elevate and equalize living standards across borders: that it's only a matter of time. China seems well on its way to matching US GDP/capita within our lifetime. I'll live another 60 years.

Japan went from ashes to the second largest economy in the world in less than 1 generation. (about 24 years of growth from 1945 to 1969, at which time they passed the UK) China may have a few obstacles, but nothing like being a nation bombed to rubble and cinders, robbed of a generation of young men.

Like I said, maybe it's my age, but I've heard these rationalizations before, and maybe the first two competitors surprised me, but now I have a view that countries get a taste of freedom and there's no turning back.

Southeast Asia has a particular advantage, because the world has become incredibly dependent on knowledge workers, and SEA's Confuscian culture of learning means that once they have access to technological capital, they can become globally relevant very quickly. This contrasts with many other cultures, including the modern western attitude which treats textbooks like they're kryptonite.





First, you didn't say theocratic leanings (whatever that means), you gave specific religious beliefs.

Just examples. I'm pretty sure the early presidents felt the earth was about 6kyo. Bush has never answered what he personally thinks, so it's not a statement about his beliefs.

"Theocratic leanings" means what it means: the belief that the government's role is to enforce religious beliefs; that the separation of church and state is undesireable or unnecessary. eg: TheocracyWatch (http://www.theocracywatch.org/)

These meanings can manifest themselves in statements of support for the public funding of faith-based initatives, or distinctly religious education (eg: ID) in public schools. Another example would be the influence of a religious electorate on stem cell research grants.

The fact of the matter is that my wife was considering going to school in the US (she's an MD and is doing a research medicine PhD while completing her residency - we had been offered a significant scholarship at UVermont). The 'faith-based initiatives' funding concerned her (as a member of a minority Baptist group), and she decided on studying in Canada, to play it safe.





And second, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was conceived of before the constitution was even ratified, which means that none of its contents can be attributed to the actions (or leanings) of ANY president.

I guess arguably, although it was composed after the consitution was written. But it was not introduced into any legislature until 1791. Jefferson was responding to problems within Virginia, and nationally in terms of the Anglican church's access to state resources and unique protection vis a vis blasphemy. It's a simplification, of course, but the point is that an Anglican president had arranged special protection for his church and this seemed to have put public support behind the initiative which had lagged for years.







Sure, in principle that can happen anywhere. I took the original post more to ask about the possibility of it happening anytime soon in the US (because as a purely abstract question, I don't think it's interesting). And I consider that possibility quite small.

Small, yes. However, I would say that out of the advanced countries right now, the US is probably about third on the 'most vulnerable to theocracy' list. Poland (Catholic) and possibly Russia (Russian Orthodox) are much more at risk.

[AWPrime]

We're not an empire, though. We're a hegemon. There's a difference.
Same thing but different names for me. So lets go with "regionally dominant socio-economic power-structure".


That CAN happen, but it's not the only response. For example, communism is also nominally an ideology of the poor and oppressed, but it's anti-religious. Not that a turn towards communism would be good for science (it would be bad for pretty much everything except large tacky statue makers), but the turn towards religion, just like pretty much everything else in your sequence, isn't automatic.
I considered that, but the US is more geared to religion than communism.

[CapelDodger]

In your particular case? I have as yet no reason to think so, nor is that my claim. I am saying that antisemitism is often cloaked as anti-zionism, not that all anti-zionism is antisemitism. But if you cannot recognize that such cloaking is common, then you really have been blinded.
Since you haven't provided anything to back your claim that anti-semitism is often cloaked by anti-zionism, I'm satisifed that I haven't been blinded at all. I simply haven't made an assumption that you have.

I can provide one example of pro-zionism cloaking anti-semitism : Le Pen's last presidential campaign. Fulsome praise of Israel's way with Muslims, and an attempt to identify himself with Sharon. Don't ever think that this means the French Right's anti-semitism has gone away. I wouldn't assume that Christian fundie zionism means they've forgiven the Christ-killers either. For them it's no big step from encouraging Jewish return to making it obligatory - after all, by clinging on in Manhattan Jews are delaying the eschaton.

[Ziggurat]

Since you haven't provided anything to back your claim that anti-semitism is often cloaked by anti-zionism, I'm satisifed that I haven't been blinded at all. I simply haven't made an assumption that you have.

Mostly I just got bored with the thread, and stopped looking. But if the failure of some anonymous stranger on a message board to answer a question convinces you that you're right, well, I guess it doesn't take much for you to validate your own opinions.

[CapelDodger]

Mostly I just got bored with the thread, and stopped looking. But if the failure of some anonymous stranger on a message board to answer a question convinces you that you're right, well, I guess it doesn't take much for you to validate your own opinions.
Mostly, I suspect, you've got nothing to back your claim that anti-zionism is often a cloak for anti-semitism. So you do the surly adolescent "boring!" trick and slouch off to your room. That's good enough for me.

[Ziggurat]

Mostly, I suspect, you've got nothing to back your claim that anti-zionism is often a cloak for anti-semitism. So you do the surly adolescent "boring!" trick and slouch off to your room. That's good enough for me.

I'm sure it is, but I'm not here to please you.

But here's a nice recent example: the UN Human Rights Council. What was their first order of business? Israel-bashing. That's right: of all the human rights issues facing the world, what's the first resolution that this brand-spanking-new, supposedly improved body pass to condemn human rights violations? Israel, of course. What human rights issue has been deemed so critical to the entire world that it's been placed permanently on the council's agenda? Israel, of course. Infinitely worse human rights catastrophies are playing themselves out in Darfur and the Congo, but Israel, quite predictably, gets all the attention. Why is that? Is that mere anti-zionism? I don't believe it for a second, because none of the arguments for an anti-zionist position justify this obsession with Israel to the exclusion of other, far worse, human rights violations. It's antisemitism, though the guilty will never admit it, and it's transparent. But excuses will be made, as always.

[Questioninggeller]

I'm relatively new, and don't know if this subject has been discussed before. If so, my apologies.

In view of the increasing presence of fundamentalist groups in the USA, the power they have in the government, the influence they have or could have in the judicial system, the social pressure they exert on the communities, the open persecution and stigmatization of atheists, the scare tactics, and the actual or potential use of violence against those who oppose their fundamentalist points of view, could we be seeing a gradual exodus of scientists to other countries where they could work in more favorable conditions? Perhaps not an exodus, but a shift in the geopolitical balance of scientific research.

Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid about the possibility of a fundamentalist inquisition. Perhaps my perspective is distorted by the fact that I don't live in the USA and I'm overestimating the strength of the fundamentalist movement or underestimating the resources of scientific community or the objectiveness of the legal system. In any case, what I see from the outside is scary.

No, I doubt anyone would leave their country simply because of the religious right's power. Afterall where would they go? What country would serve scientific interest more than the US?

The people who follow Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are those that will always follow conspiracy theories whether the topic be about creationism, aliens/UFOs, a "war on Christmas," or a "flat earth." I don't think the majority of the reason-minded people will desert the country because of a minority, no matter how loud the cons are.

[CapelDodger]

I'm sure it is, but I'm not here to please you.
That doesn't stop me being pleased.

But here's a nice recent example: the UN Human Rights Council. What was their first order of business? Israel-bashing. That's right: of all the human rights issues facing the world, what's the first resolution that this brand-spanking-new, supposedly improved body pass to condemn human rights violations? Israel, of course. What human rights issue has been deemed so critical to the entire world that it's been placed permanently on the council's agenda? Israel, of course. Infinitely worse human rights catastrophies are playing themselves out in Darfur and the Congo, but Israel, quite predictably, gets all the attention. Why is that? Is that mere anti-zionism? I don't believe it for a second, because none of the arguments for an anti-zionist position justify this obsession with Israel to the exclusion of other, far worse, human rights violations. It's antisemitism, though the guilty will never admit it, and it's transparent. But excuses will be made, as always.
So nothing about anti-semitism that isn't directly related to Israel. Not in any way evidence that anti-semitism is being cloaked by anti-zionism.

Zionists often sanctify Israel's existence by reference to the UN resolution that conjured it up (and which they rejected). That was in the earliest days of the UN, and since the resulting conflict has still not ended it's hardly surprising the UN is rather focused on it. The internationally disruptive effect of the West's last remaining colonial war (now that Rhodesia and South Africa have been resolved in favour of home-grown problems) is going to keep it that way. Especially now that so many ex-imperialised states are UN members.

UN involvement in Darfur and Congo is aberrant, given its original remit. But the UN is actually involved in both, through an evolutionary process which is to be welcomed. Also, the Congo was another feature in the UN's birth-trauma.

If Israel ever defines its own borders - it's promised, but will take yet another four years apparently - its internal affairs will not be a UN concern. Palestinian attacks on Israel will be a UN concern, according to its remit. Let's see if Israel does actually define its territorial ambitions by 2010 and judge the UN by its response.