http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/bl...?newsfeed=trueIssues of personal faith can be a source of respectful debate and discussion. Since faith is often not based on evidence, however, it is hard to imagine how various deep philosophical or religious disagreements can be objectively laid to rest. As a result, skeptics like myself struggle to understand or anticipate the vehement anger that can be generated by the mere suggestion that perhaps there may be no God, or even that such a suggestion is not meant to offend.
Last week, police in Rhode Island had to be called to suppress an angry crowd at a school board meeting, and a 16-year-old atheist had to take time off school after being threatened and targeted by an online hate campaign. She was even described on the radio by a state representative as an "evil little thing". All the girl had done was to press for the removal of a banner bearing a prayer that asked "Our Heavenly Father" to grant pupils the desire "to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers" and "to be good sports".
For those that don't know, The Guardian is one of the major print publications from the U.K. It's always interesting to get an outsider's view on the U.S. This quote in particular was interesting.
Obviously talking about Gingrich. He isn't drawing judgment on the guy, but mentions that someone who has been "dubious" ethically is fit to be President because of his faith. Personally, that seems hypocritical, but that's just me. However, I simply can't fathom how atheists are polled as untrustworthy as RAPISTS. Something is wrong here.This probably explains recent electoral successes of openly devout presidential candidates who previously demonstrated dubious ethics, while also explaining the absence of any serious candidates without known religious affiliation.
Anyways, the overall point of the article is a good one I believe. Scientists are trained to be skeptical, of everything. We wouldn't get the answers we want if we simply trusted everything presented to us, regardless of evidence. So when that key characteristic of science is used by us in other parts of life, all of a sudden it's a bad thing? Now we're untrustworthy? Now we're on the same level as rapists? Something is seriously wrong with this entire situation...