[NutCrackerBoy]

Minds that absorb Plato, Nietzsche, Darwin and Marx and not Christ, can only excrete that which is suitable for the sewer.

Scatalogically put. Since I am not a believer, I have a different take; though somewhat in agreement.

The likes of Molly Ivins and Richard Dawkins are so utterly wrong in their condemnation of religion, the Judeo-Christian in particular since its positive importance to the development of our culture can hardly be overestimated.

I don't find the emanations of these two to be evil on account of their ridiculous prejudices and blindness to the nature of life in front of them. But it is true IMO that each of the thinkers mentioned - Plato, Nietzsche, Darwin, and Marx have conveyed certain ideas which can be dangerous if used incorrectly.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The likes of Molly Ivins and Richard Dawkins are so utterly wrong in their condemnation of religion.

I've posted the Christmas essay State of the Faith Anno Domini, 2003 (Michael Novak) that references Richard Dawkins. Y'all come.

[Federalist 78]

Nietzsche, Darwin, and Marx have conveyed certain ideas which can be dangerous if used incorrectly.

January 2003 issue Cardozo Law Review is still effervescing over Nietzsche…determined, no doubt, to create a 1000 year Reich here.

[JudgemAll]

Plato, Nietzsche, Darwin, and Marx have conveyed certain ideas which can be dangerous if used incorrectly.

The problem with tenured philosphers and philosophies is that one has no option but to apply them thoroughly and dangerously in order to "prove" their validity. One cannot deviate for them even if they lead to disaster. There is no option out of the classroom of a professor who insists you deserve a bad grade because your methods are new or not approved. However there is plenty of options in the market to make your ideas work and people choose the man with the right idea, even if this idea is latter seen as ridiculous and has evolved.

[mrustow]

The likes of Molly Ivins and Richard Dawkins are so utterly wrong in their condemnation of religion, the Judeo-Christian in particular since its positive importance to the development of our culture can hardly be overestimated.

How can you condemn a "religion" that doesn't exist?

[Federalist 78]

There are those who have absorbed many philosophies and ignored the Biblical record. Their weltanschaunng may be forming and tentative, or final and resolute. It may be unique, or a mixture of all they have absorbed with one or more predominating. Nevertheless, when it comes time to act, their actions will be in accordance with their worldview, else they be labeled hypocritical. Those who have examined the Biblical record and vehemently rejected it in favor of antagonistic philosophies, are the ones most dangerous, if given any power to shove their sewage down other throats.