Better science education should indeed be a priority, you are right about that.

Teaching 'm to read before teaching 'm to think would go a long way for many people already.

You are right about one thing. It is a psychological cliche to believe you are a better than average driver. Indeed.

However, as I argued above, I feel many atheists simply don't believe because they haven't seen anything to support the notion there is something to believe in.

Quite honestly, I don't understand your notion that atheism is truth. For all I know one day we can all be caught with our knickers down when we do discover there is a supreme being of some sort, even if it could be a wanker like Q from star trek.

The thing that most atheists would like is this:

- Quit trying to debunk factual phenomenon because they don't fit your antiquated book
- Quit trying to impose a system on morality on others based on what some dude with a beard wrote in Babylon 2500 years ago (talking about Torah here)

That's not so much debunking Christianity / Judaism / Islam as more trying to get the Christians / Jews / Muslims to shove it into our faces all the time with shitty and immoral legislation.

My belief is not a belief. I tend to only credit notions for which some kind of tangible proof or argument can be made. My atheism isn't because it is the cause that gives my life meaning, my atheism simply arose because all alternatives look silly.

Burden of proof, er?

Having said that, teaching about a known fact such as evolution doesn't necessarily push the atheist agenda, if there were one. Quite a few religious folks will happily accept a notion of a Creator that set everything in motion, including evolution.

As such, I really don't understand why you felt the need to come down on the previous poster like a tonne of bricks. While he or she phrased him- or herself clumsily, I fully agree with the point that teaching religion is bad for the morality of a people.

The reason is simple. I have my own set of morals, to which I hold myself accountable. I have developed those over time, and they are all mine. So when I try to do good, it comes from an internalized sense of what the right thing is.

Now a religious person has been bribed to do good with images of heaven, or intimidated to do good with images of hell. Hence, to a religious person the morality comes from an outside source. Moreover, most religions ask people to commit to a life-style that is inhumane, so they automatically, somehow, sometime will break that morality, and classify themselves as sinners. This just fosters bad behavior.

To cut a long story short, I tend to agree with the previous poster that raising kids religiously is bad, but on the other hand in this man's country your freedom of religion is constitutionally enshrined. Hence, it should be allowed.

Having said all that: evolution is a fact. Not teaching it is moronic and harmful.

You make that sound as if evolution is an ideology or religion, which it isn't. Evolution is an empirically proven fact. We have fossil records, nicely carbon dated, and we have instances of evolution happening in laboratory conditions, hell we've even observed it in real time in nature. That being said, it is simply one of the topics that people ought to know about.

This argument of infringing on other people's rights to believe as they will is irritating and incorrect. By framing it in the "freedom of religion" discussion, you are doing the science a disservice. Any parent can still tell their children what they think of the curriculum, and the government doesn't usurp a damn thing.

What a horrid argument. We've got this same thing going on in Holland surrounding discrimination against gay kids in religious schools. The government is looking to make sexual education, including LGBT information, mandatory, and these Calvinist and Catholic wankers in their special schools still think they should have the right to say homosexuality is a disease and a sin.

Luckily, in the Netherlands we are now debating whether the first Amendment of the Constitution, which the so-called "equality principle" and forbids any type of discrimination, should be amended with sexual orientation so that we can nip those ideas in the bud too.

The "Freedom of Religion" argument is solely used by a bunch of reactionaries who are afraid their power base will erode. Disgusting, really.

I hardly think that Corporal punishment, Death penalty, Surveillance or even being held without a fair trial are things any US citizen can comment on at this junction in time. As long as y'all have 12.000+ deaths due to handgun violence per annum, still execute more prisoners per year than any other country on the planet, run camps like Guantanamo and invade the odd nation for spurious reasons, y'all can't really bitch about Singapore, now can you?

Having said that, I am a citizen of the Netherlands. We've been known to be a wee more liberal and less violent than the US for a while now.

As an outside follower of American politics, I have no idea what the people were smoking when they modded this comment up +4 Insightful. Really. Seriously guys?

It is clear as my nose that Barack Obama has the following points:

- Pro choice in the abortion discussion
- Favors gay rights
- Favors a universal health care scheme
- Favors government intervention in economic matters
- Favors a certain wealth re-distribution through taxes in the direction of the lower and middle classes
- Actually seems to know his ass from his elbow in terms of foreign policy

Then Mitt Romney:

- Panders to the more fundamentalist Christian elements of the Republican electorate in spite of previously having been a moderate
- Therefore becoming more pro-life
- And less gay friendly
- Claims that no government is good government
- Does actually not know his ass from his elbow in foreign politics
- Does not believe in income re-distribution away from the richest 2% in the country, probably because he's exactly that

Now once everything has been said and done, while the difference between these two men is evident, the difference they can make depends largely on the equilibrium in the Senate and in Congress. If you are a democratic President, but the Republicans swing too large a bat in the Senate or Congress, you have to maneuver a lot to get anything done. Add to that filibusters and the mess is complete.

You cannot vote for a presidential candidate, then let them and their party slide during state- and local elections, and finally expect them to deliver on all they said. You need to follow through to ensure a robust power base across the board.

Hence, the previous poster's comment was idiotically near sighted, and the people who modded it up confuddled at best. ;)

Dipping your fingertips in oil before slicing the peppers makes it safer. ;)

Having said all that, this poll is ridiculously vague. The correct answer is that it depends.

A traditional Sauerkraut and Potato stew as made in Holland doesn't contain peppers. The peppers could be on the sides of crispy pork you fry with it, and then we're talking black peppers or a mix of white, green, rosé and black peppers. The good old fashioned stuff you get out of a mill, preferably a Peugeot mill.

Now both Thai and Indian curries benefit greatly from sharper peppers. One of my go-to peppers is the Madame Jeanette, a pepper that got introduced here by means of the Surinamese colony. The Madame Jeanette can have a 350.000 scovile index which is not bad for a naturally occurring chili.

When I am making Hungarian goulash I tend to douse everything in copious amounts of my own pepper mix. This means sweet paprika powder, spicy (Moroccan will also do) paprika powder augmented with Cayenne pepper powder, mixed peppers (black, green, rose, white) and possibly simple red chilies. The same goes for Chili con Carne, even though I might throw in a Madame Jeanette if I want to be evil about it.

Now when I am making noodles or Indonesian food, I tend to use Sambal. Sambal Badjak, Surinamese Sambal or Sambal Trassi are my favourites, while Sambal Oelek strikes me as a beginner's sambal for the uninterested masses.

Then if I throw some meat or gambas on the barbie, I tend to like using Surinamese Mango Chutney as a dip. It is a factor 10 hotter than the average Tabasco, with hints of sweetness and a very clean, sinus-clearing burn to it that stays on the lips for a good couple of hours.

It must be said that my foster sister from Suriname makes an excellent bleak-orange sambal made with Madame Jeanettes that will scorch you in a positively evil way.

So the question of adding heat to food is not a one-answer-fits-all type of question.

By the way, can you explain to me how it is xenophobic to defend the integrity of defenseless children, even if it is at the cost of the religious sensibility of the parents?

How would you feel if a group of surviving Mayans moved to the States and claimed they needed 50.000 virgins because their religion dictates they cut their hearts out with a crescent shaped knife?

Should children of Jehova's witnesses get blood transfusions, or should the parents be allowed to sentence those children to death because of their religion?

Should animal suffering no be minimized? If there are more humane ways to slaughter a cow than slicing its throat while alive, should they not be applied?

I hardly call the defense of dignity, humanity and children's integrity "Xenophobic".

If you subscribe to religious views that cause suffering, the problem is you. Not the German Constitutional Court, and they would be fully right to give you a slap on the wrist for bad behaviour.

This, as some would call it, is civilization.

And boy, let me tell you how idiotic that notion is.

I could masturbate just fine with a defunct foreskin in place, and I still happily rub the odd one out now that I got taken care of. People are more or less like bonobo chimps, you see. We'll find a way to conquer any and all debilitating circumstances that stand in the way of us getting off.

And, to be clear, more power to us! I really wonder why in some cultures sex is a bigger taboo than violence. It makes no sense from any perspective you care to throw at it.

Vaccines are a technological solution to foreign bodies affecting our health.

The Foreskin is an integral part of our body that has a function, namely the protection of the male member.

Your argument sucks almost as bad as your abrasive attitude.

Even "secular" Jews and those that are self-professed atheists subscribe to a whole host of none too moral or tasteful ideas. This doesn't become apparent on the face of it, but only becomes clear when you're immersed in the local culture.

I've addressed this point in reply to someone else, above. I can add to it that as a Dutchman who also lived in Sweden for seven years, I hadn't imagined in my wildest dreams that there were still people that had such backward notions on human rights, the right to choose, and the freedom of religion.

But then, I am still surprised why gay marriage and adoption are a topic in the US.

Quite honestly, I'd like to keep it that way, because the minute I become complacent towards such idiotic ideologies, I have drank too much of the cool aid.

Masturbation was possible for me, but was more concentrated on pressurized movement up and down the shaft. Quite honestly, the girth of my head was quite OK for stretching until I was 12, and then I had a bit of a growth spurt (no pun intended).

This caused the girth of the head of my penis to grow exponentially to the point where attempts to stretch the skin across it, even while in flaccid condition, were too painful to even want to think about.

The decision to cut a significant slice of your own penis is not taken lightly, trust me. I would not have done that if I hadn't seen any other option.

And for those who are wondering, I am not build like Rocco Siffredi. It may have more than adequate girth, the length still leaves something to be desired as far as I am concerned. Luckily my wife doesn't seem to feel that way. ;)

This is rather untrue too. The Jewish Ukranian father of my wife is the son of a Jewish Ukranian mother. The Mother dictates the "Jewishness" according to the Rabanut. He wasn't circumcised until he moved to Israel, where he was met with racist comments and torment. As a result of this he was more or less forced to circumcise himself.

So far the crazy view.

Now in my view, nobody is born Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindustani. Babies are simply born, and they grow up to be that which we shape them into, and that which they choose to be in life.

So no, my boy is not Jewish. First of all there is no god, so the notion of "Judaism" is about as absurd as flying pigs, and second of all because it is his inalienable right as a human to determine his own walk of life.

You, on the other hand, seem to be somewhat of a hardliner whilst not being too familiar with the ins and outs of what you're talking about.

Shana tova to you too. However, I will respectfully relegate your new years wishes to the first of January since I follow the Gregorian calendar.

It's funny you would ask this.

There is an element of choice. I wanted to make sure he had the Dutch Nationality and Passport next to his Israeli one. The reason for this is that the Israelis see him as having the Nationality "Yehudia" and the Religion "Yehudia". So it says in his birth certificate.

His Dutch passport, or so I'm hoping, should serve him as a reminder that he has a whole continent he can choose to live in, because it also makes him an EU citizen.

The difference between the Yehudia- and Dutch nationalities is that he can renounce the Dutch one without further problems or ado. He can choose not to be Dutch anymore at some point. Since he is an EU citizen this could indeed mean moving to France and becoming a French citizen rather effortlessly. Or Swedish, Austrian or Greek, for that matter. The choice will be his.

However the Israeli stance is that you can never not become Jewish and therefore you are an eternal citizen of Israel by proxy of that notion.

So while I didn't ask him if he wanted to be a Dutchman, I did introduce further elements of personal freedom of choice into his life from the get-go.

This was well thought through.

Having said all that, I find your reaction to be a piece of in absurdum reasoning. He got violated physically at birth, and furnishing him with some means of ID isn't the violation we're talking about.

I am not against circumcision for sound medical reasons. Not at all. After all, I had this procedure of my own free choice and have enjoyed the consequences ever since. Greatly, I might add.

I am however zealous about not taking others' right to choices away from them, regardless of who or what they are born into. If you call that meaningless zealotry, I fear I think you're a strange and macabre person.