Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Topical is not selective. (Score 1) 898

So by that definition, I can throw out about 90% of what you say since most of science is not evidential, but theoretical? Or, at least most of what is at stake in this discussion.

This law is nothing more than reactionary to the perception (these people hold) that people of faith are under attack. When you read most of the commentary on Slashdot regarding anything that says "faith might have value" you can see why people craft legislation like this and why they might think they're under attack. For instance, most of what is being said here can be summed-up in two statements:

People of faith are ignorant
Science and religion are mutually exclusive

So, you can see exact why people feel under attack and feel the need to react. Do you really blame folks for having to resort to passing legislation? When you read the rhetoric here, you can't really blame people for wanting protection under the law. Some of the comments here suggest such a high level of intolerance that one wonders if some of you had your way, would you completely outlaw faith and church?

You're not supposed to understand faith, you just have it. Just because you put yours in what you can touch doesn't mean that you have the right to criticize others because they don't.

Slashdot Top Deals

Memory fault -- core...uh...um...core... Oh dammit, I forget!