The Ben Stein "Expelled" Advert on the main page

[sushicombo]

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CM7uq47-gvyoYBDUAxgxMgg6bxR9nZLG1A

Wonder how the Google Ad Sense Algorithm came up with that one.

The Movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/)

The Extended Trailer (http://youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE)

Richard Dawkin's response (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,An-Open-Letter-to-David-J,Richard-Dawkins) to a viewer who just recently saw the movie.

I tend to think that most geeks bend atheist/agnostic but thats probably because most people tend to think everyone thinks the way they do and I tend to be nihilistic most of the time. Though it is in no way relevant to the content of the show and is too polarizing a topic to touch I'd be curious which direction the guys tend to be.

You?

[sushicombo]

btw if I had to guess

Dan - Atheist

Jeff - Sort of a neo-buddhist kinda thing.

Alex - On the fence. Mostly indifferent but not in a bad way.

[bassguitar115]

I doubt they would ever speak of their points of view or stances on this topic. . . It has the potential to upset fans that couldn't deal with differing opinions.

I do agree however that I would love to know there opinions on this type of thing. . . VERY interesting!

J.C.

[lavahot]

btw if I had to guess

Dan - Atheist

Jeff - Sort of a neo-buddhist kinda thing.

Alex - On the fence. Mostly indifferent but not in a bad way.

Well, I think Dan was raised Jewish, but he hasn't said anything about his current beliefs.

I think you might have gotten Jeff down pat, he seems to be the kind of guy who centers himself, kinda like Richard Gear.

Alex too. He really doesn't care unless the topic comes up then he really doesn't have any well-defined beliefs.

[dolson]

Doesn't Alex do that whole weird Bohemian Grove thing? I know it's not a religion, but it sure seems like some kind of weird-ass cult thing to me. Just going by some footage I've seen of it anyhow... Aaaaanyways, religion is a little bit personal, and these topics tend to get pretty... hot, in my experience.

[hapkido-ka]

I'm posting this because I found it upsetting...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
Mainly because I used to kind of like Ben Stein... :confused:

[bruce-leroy]

[
I tend to think that most geeks bend atheist/agnostic

You?

Not in my experience.

Anyway, the movie is supposedly about ID vs Evolution, not theism vs atheism. Lots of religious people believe in evolution, and several religious organizations (including some Creationist and ID advocates) have spoken out against the film.

[gabe_utsecks]

I really hope there isn't too much controversy around the film, because the more the media talks about the supposed controversy, the better it will do in theaters.

[kilroyperrywinkle]

I'm a christian and I hate this film.

My buddy wants to get a group of people together and go see it. I declined, and I have to admit I didn't do it in a friendly way. Here's my response, my friend ended his email with "for those who love science more than God...":

"I do love science.

Thats why I'd rather not watch a film that is going tell me the
"truth" about intelligent design.

No thanks. I don't need another "science versus faith" debate, or a
film that propagates a "war on Christmas" - like society. As much as I
like Ben Stein, I don't feel conflicted with my faith and my logic and
don't need to watch a film thats seems more interested in telling me
how radical it is, than what the facts are. Darwinism isn't a cult or
an evil empire. Its a best guess. And yes it takes time for the
scientific community time to come around to new ideas ( ie plate
tectonics) but if the ideas are sound and the evidence is there I
believe they'll come around. There are many scientists that believe in
the shrinking earth idea of geophysics instead of plate tectonics,
should we fight for their right to believe that the earth crust is
fixed? That it swells and deflates like a balloon? I don't think so.
(But if they're able to work in creationism! Whoa! Sign me up!)

Science has no baring on my beliefs, my faith isn't defined in science
journals, or blackboards. I believe in the separation of church and
state, that science has to be free from the bounds of the church. The
scientific community fought for hundreds of years to be free from the
wrath of the church, to be unbiased with its ideas. Now we're seeing
the backlash, now the church is telling us that its the victim, that
we're somehow victims of a closed minded evil scientific community
that wants your kids to be all soulless happy accidents. We're are not
victims. There is no evil empire. We're just too easily distracted by
debates that do not matter. Wither or not I'm right, or Stein is does
not matter. At all.

So yeah, I'm avoiding this film like the plague.

Call me when there's a film on how we've forgotten that we're call to
Serve, and how we could give everyone in the world access to fresh
water if we just stopped fighting about what verses are most important
and wither or not evergreen trees in the living room are Christ's or
holiday's.

There are real conflicts in this world, real issues that are worth my
time and money.

A movie about an idealogical war on the scientific community isn't one of them.

(Really though call me if you want to go see Iron Man... that movie
looks badass.)"

[gonzooo]

(Good response)
I think your response should summon great insight and thought. You seem to be able to keep your cool and present a level opinion in this, where a lot of people would burst out at either side, arms flailing.

[dstrack007]

Eventually I'll probably watch the film because I'm a big Ben Stein fan. He was the keynote speaker at the Chicago Security Traders Convention this year and he was great. I hope this movie doesn't destroy my impression of him.

[sushicombo]

....(Really though call me if you want to go see Iron Man... that movie
looks badass.)"

http://www.gtxf.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif Brilliant!

[rokov]

A rebuttal to Expelled ...
http://www.expelledexposed.com/

[esophagus]

Yoko Ono is suing the makers of the movie Expelled for using John Lennon's Imagine without permission. (http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b132830_Yoko_Expel_Imagine_f.html)

[diane]

This whole religion versus science thing gets me. The largest Christian group, Catholics-1 billion strong, had there Pope due a long scientific paper on why Evolution doesn't conflict at all with the Bible for the past Pope. It's actually a good read. So this concept that it is either or just doesn't make sense to me.

Second, there whole argument, that somehow they are being "suppressed" is funny. All anyone has to do is preform one experiment that can be repeated to be verified that contradicts evolution and that would through the whole thing into question. That's it. That is all. That is the very foundation of science and scientific method. Problem is that "evolutionary" experiments are being performed daily because of modern medicine and this theory is the most tested theory ever. More than gravity and the atomic theories put together. This concept that it has never been tested and "its just a theory" is so silly. And it just proves that their are idiots in every profession. But I guess someone has to be at the bottom of their class.

Third, and to me the most important, isn't Ben Stein an Economist? As a Finance and Stats major, he is a role model for me. But I would never, ever, claim that because I understand fiscal policy I can somehow comment with authority on another area of expertise, especially one as complex as Biology. That would be like me walking into a hospital and diagnosing people. I guess my issue is, why is he being viewed as bringing something to the movie that is of higher caliber than another B celeb? I am not trying to be mean, but come on, I don't listen to Sean Penn for Economics expertise, why the hell would I listen to Ben Stein for Biological expertise? And Sean Penn is an A class celeb.

[stubadub]

I tend to think that most geeks bend atheist/agnostic but thats probably because most people tend to think everyone thinks the way they do and I tend to be nihilistic most of the time.

You?

I came from a religious background, but I've been an atheist for many years. All of my high school friends were all some degree of agnostic or atheist. All of the good friends I made in college were atheists. So many of the people in my life shared the same belief as me, and growing up I'd heard so many times about the evil secular world that I thought people who thought like me were in greater number. Now I just believe that I tended to gravitate towards people like me, and that here in America I am clearly in the minority.

I am curious to see this movie, but not curious enough to support them through a purchased ticket.

[dark_shroud]

I have a strong Christian back ground and I'm fairly good at science. The two are not mutually exclusive. Just because someone doesn't believe in evolution doesn't mean they're stupid. They have a difference opinion. The same goes for people who do not believe in Intelligent design.

Darwin was all about discussion. We may not convince each other to change sides. But to say this is the right way and you're wrong and that's the end of it is the only actual act of stupidity.

The bottom line is that this movie was caught up in a FUD storm before it was ever released. I've listened to Ben promote/explain it a few times and I've heard people from the Darwin camp saying the movie is something totally different. So at this point just wait until it comes out to DVD and rent it or download the DVDrip if you won't want to buy a ticket.

My views, sorry but I'll take made in the image of God over decedent of a poo flinging monkey.

[kilroyperrywinkle]

I know on page one I have this long winded response to the film, but I wanted to add one more thing.

My father is a CRC pastor, he started going to seminary when I was in high school. I think this gave me a unique view on God, and faith. I was brought up knowing about Jesus, and his teaching, but not religion, or the theology behind it.

I hadn't given much thought as to where it all started until my dad would go to lectures about God's word and come home and give me the cliff notes versions. He wouldn't push it on me, it was more of a "whatcha think of that?" talk.

One of those talks came after a sermon about the "food miracles." The bread and fishes, and the water into wine. If (and this is a mighty big "if") you believe in these miracles then you're saying that the Son of God can create baked bread, whole fishes, and aged good wine from... well nothing. There's no baking required, no sped up fish growth, no construction... or anything like that. Just wine where there was water, and multiple fishes and bread loafs.

Its an awesome story, but I think Christians miss how awesome it is when you think of the universe, or the world.

I believe that God is all mighty, all powerful. If he wants a world, he is not required to start at the beginning. There is no need for him to start from "scratch" to create it. Just God.

If Jesus can make baked bread, mature (dead) fish, and aged wine. I believe God can make an aged universe and world. God is not bound by time, or the our human ideas of linear existence, so why should we graft our limited human perspective onto such an awesome being?

Whoa... my mind went somewhere... sorry guys I'm rambling... but I think there's something to that.

Thanks Dad.

[gonzooo]

My views, sorry but I'll take made in the image of God over decedent of a poo flinging monkey.
Can't help but get the feeling you think there's something ridiculous about being the descendant of a primate.

On a semi-related note: Why couldn't the image of God be a monkey? Why does no one ever point out that evolution could just be something engineered by God? If I ever was to believe in a god I'd believe he was some guy who ran a world experiment and just set stuff up, then started taking notes.

[damnedeyez]

Can't help but getting the feeling you think there's something ridiculous about being the descendant of a primate.

Many people do...it's one of the main aspects of being 'civilised' and one of the underpinnings of most religions.

[gobo]

My main problem with this movie is Ben Stein equating "Darwinians" (a made up term for people who believe in evolution) to the Third Reich and Hitler.

Intelligent Design IS NOT SCIENCE, I don't say this in a way to demean it or invalidate it but by strict definitions of science as something that is testable and where results can be repeated through experimentation having metaphysical designers can NOT be applied to this.

I'm not saying it's impossible that ID is the case (although I personally believe it's so inordinantly unlikely tat impossible is basically true) but it is NOT science and should not be taught in science class.

Perhaps it's unfortunate that our current scientific models don't work for ID, but that remains to be seen.

[bassguitar115]

I have a few comments regarding a previous post.

"This whole religion versus science thing gets me. The largest Christian group, Catholics-1 billion strong, had there Pope due a long scientific paper on why Evolution doesn't conflict at all with the Bible for the past Pope. It's actually a good read. So this concept that it is either or just doesn't make sense to me."

Yes, catholics make up a good percent of Christians worldwide, but that doesn't mean they are the definitive voice of Christianity. I'm a Christian, and I disagree with MANY things having to do with Catholics and the pope (where is the pope in the bible and why does he deserve so much power?). I agree, there isn't anything stopping religion and science from agreeing. In fact, in my experiences they have strengthened each other. However, I think what people mean when they say, "religion vs. science" is "Christianity vs. Evolution". That makes much more sense to me. . . If you read the Bible then you can see how it doesn't fit with evolution. If they contradict each other, then one of them must be wrong. . .

"Problem is that "evolutionary" experiments are being performed daily because of modern medicine and this theory is the most tested theory ever. More than gravity and the atomic theories put together. This concept that it has never been tested and "its just a theory" is so silly. And it just proves that their are idiots in every profession. But I guess someone has to be at the bottom of their class."

Maybe I'm cynical or just hard to persuade, but I don't think evolution is very tested at all. Sure, a lot of very smart scientists believe in it, but that doesn't change its validity. I have NEVER seen an experiment that proves evolution. How can you say it is, "the most tested theory ever"? I've never seen any proof of evolution. I'm pretty sure gravity is well established. I haven't seen anybody able to break pass it's hold =) Yes, there are "idiots" in every profession, but I think people should avoid calling someone an idiot simply because they have differing ideas. It would really suck (myself included) to call a bunch of people idiots, and then be shown later they were correct. What does that make you?

Bassguitar115
P.S. Just for clarification. When I talk of "evolution", I'm discussing it in the macro since of things.

[diane]

My views, sorry but I'll take made in the image of God over decedent of a poo flinging monkey.

Okay, first, do you understand the concept of Evolution? Because that statement really begs the question. Second, why does God and Evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Once again, I will point to the paper the current Pope wrote about 25 years ago. It is excellent and points out that the people who seem to push that God can't be involved in evolution are not scientists but those who are involved in religious organizations. Biology answers how and when but it can't answer why in the existential sense. And scientists have NEVER claimed too. Now yes, there are some very outspoken scientists who take real issue with religion. But frankly, religion has given them a lot to take issue with. Religion has attempted to use science to justify horrible behavior throughout all of history.

In order for something in science to be classified as a theory it has to be tested and retested. It only has to be proven wrong once to be disqualified. That is the scientific viewpoint of a theory. Creationism has never been tested. They have never presented a test that can be retested. In fact the whole argument for creationism is "evolution is just a theory". That makes creationism not a theory, but a hypothesis. Big difference. I can hypothesis that the world is flat. I don't need to prove it or anything.

Here is the underlying reason why evolution, and other theories are not laws, it is because we currently cannot witness them occur. Perfect example, no one can climb into a reactor and document an atom being split in order for atomic energy to move from the theory concept to a law. And yet that has been tested 1000 of times less than evolution. And we have witnessed evolution in smaller species from viruses and bacteria up to mice and some monkeys, we just have not had a long enough time period to witness it in us. Though there is evidence, such as height and longer life spans.

I don't think that most people who believe in creationism/ID are stupid. I think they are misinformed. And that is sad. Because these people are the same people who would line up for a vaccination to a deadly threat that was mutated by terrorists and released on us and not even realize that both the vaccination and the mutated biological threat cannot exist according the the hypothesis of ID. They exist because of the basic principals behind the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is simply that things will adapt over time to their environment. That is it. Yes, it is more involved and there is a ton of math, but in plain english, that is it.

And that is depressing that there are some religious groups, primarily located in the US, that take issue with this. If you actually read the bible, Jesus warns against people believing things simply because religious authorities say it is so. He does this several times, including a couple of showy ones. I believe in Jesus, and I believe that he performed miracles. But miracles are rare events, otherwise they would be common place and therefore not miracles. Now in order for them to be rare events, what is the norm. Well, looking at the evidence, and there is a ton of it, that would be evolution. I don't understand the idea that if Jesus performed these few miracles, then everything has to be a miracle. That isn't a logical argument. It also really degrades the miracles that Jesus performed. If they are so common place, then who gives a flying fig that he performed them.

What saddens me is that I work in the health care industry and I am seeing first had the impact of the lack of good science education. I really suspect that if the basic misconceptions concerning science, such as all scientists are athiests, elitists or hostile to religion, or the language issues such as the differing definitions between theory in everyday life versus science, the US will loose its edge in a field we have led in for so long. We will simply not have the people coming up the ranks to continue the research. Also, many scientists are leaving the US since they find it hostile and are fleeing to everywhere else, India, China, Korea, Europe and even South America (a very religious area but because they are primarily Catholic, they are pretty supportive of science). We will miss out on a lot. And given our current economic situation it will be sad to see on of the last things America was great at leave the states. I hope I am wrong. But with the recent rumors of Eli Lilly and Rouche, I don't think I am.

[stubadub]

I'm not trying to step on anyone's beliefs here, but a belief in God is not a matter for science. Science is about testable theories and observable phenomenon. God's existence cannot be tested or observed, but with the help of a little faith it can be inferred. If you want to believe that God is responsible for those phenmomenon I can respect that, even if I do not share that belief. If you want to choose in your own home to disbelieve in Evolution and believe in Creationism I cannot argue against your right to do that, nor can I argue against your right to raise your children with those same beliefs. Once you cross over into public schools and attempt to teach such a belief as science, then there is a problem.

Evolution is a theory that can be disproven as our scientific knowledge increases. Creationism will always be a matter of faith unless God decides to step down and settle the argument once and for all. It doesn't make it more scientific to change the name to Intelligent Design.

The argument that some scientists believe in Creationism is pretty flimsy. There have been numerous polls taken of the scientific community, and the number that do not believe in evolution is small. When you get specifically into the biologists that small number almost goes away completely. The more we study DNA the more support we find for the theory of evolution. If you choose to reject those discoveries in your own home that is your perogative, but we should not prevent science teachers from passing on this information because of personal belief systems, nor should we respond by presenting other belief systems as science.

The Intelligent Design agenda is specifically a Christian agenda. If we were to take one of the many other religions and attempt to present their respective creation stories in science class most people would balk. Take a look at the creation story that the Norse gods brought. No one would agree that should be taught as a theory of origin. It only seems more out of place because it is so assuredly not a part of any of our belief systems. When we bring it back into modern times we still have other religious theories of creation. Why should the Christian theory get special consideration as a science while we leave the Muslim, Hindu and Aboriginal theories outside of the classroom? It is only because Christianity is the dominant religion here in America.

[diane]

I have a few comments regarding a previous post.

"This whole religion versus science thing gets me. The largest Christian group, Catholics-1 billion strong, had there Pope due a long scientific paper on why Evolution doesn't conflict at all with the Bible for the past Pope. It's actually a good read. So this concept that it is either or just doesn't make sense to me."

Yes, catholics make up a good percent of Christians worldwide, but that doesn't mean they are the definitive voice of Christianity. I'm a Christian, and I disagree with MANY things having to do with Catholics and the pope (where is the pope in the bible and why does he deserve so much power?). I agree, there isn't anything stopping religion and science from agreeing. In fact, in my experiences they have strengthened each other. However, I think what people mean when they say, "religion vs. science" is "Christianity vs. Evolution". That makes much more sense to me. . . If you read the Bible then you can see how it doesn't fit with evolution. If they contradict each other, then one of them must be wrong. . .

"Problem is that "evolutionary" experiments are being performed daily because of modern medicine and this theory is the most tested theory ever. More than gravity and the atomic theories put together. This concept that it has never been tested and "its just a theory" is so silly. And it just proves that their are idiots in every profession. But I guess someone has to be at the bottom of their class."

Maybe I'm cynical or just hard to persuade, but I don't think evolution is very tested at all. Sure, a lot of very smart scientists believe in it, but that doesn't change its validity. I have NEVER seen an experiment that proves evolution. How can you say it is, "the most tested theory ever"? I've never seen any proof of evolution. I'm pretty sure gravity is well established. I haven't seen anybody able to break pass it's hold =) Yes, there are "idiots" in every profession, but I think people should avoid calling someone an idiot simply because they have differing ideas. It would really suck (myself included) to call a bunch of people idiots, and then be shown later they were correct. What does that make you?

Bassguitar115
P.S. Just for clarification. When I talk of "evolution", I'm discussing it in the macro since of things.

Well, there are idiot lawyers and there are idiot doctors. I see them everyday. There is evidence. Lots of it. Would you prefer the word incompetent? That is fine with me. But frankly when a person leaves a surgical utensil in a person, I think people have the right to call them an idiot. But that is my opinion.

As for gravity, well, astronauts have broken gravity's hold.

Now my question is do you read Nature, Science, and other scientific journals? I do. I also read the blogs of various scientific organizations, both those I agree with AMA and those I don't - I am not pro-cloning. There is a lot of evidence, the question is begged are you looking for it or are you going by what other people tell you and if so what is the agenda of those who are telling you.

As for the catholic aspect, as of July 2007 there were 6,602,224,175 people on the planet. The rough estimate of Catholics are a little over a billion. Do I say the pope speaks for all Christians, heavens no. But if you want to look at the largest sec within Christianity, heck the largest religion period, well then, you look at Catholics. It is hard to look at other Christian groups because they have breaks within themselves. Look at Southern Baptists, they have two secs within them that have two very different viewpoints. With Catholicism, of course not every Catholic agrees with everything, but at the end of the day, a basic point of Catholicism is that it is top down management. And if the Pope says something, that's it.
I don't agree with everything the CEO of the company I work for says, but at the end of the day, he is the voice of the company, not me.

There is a lot of evidence, even on the Marco level. Invitro-fertilization, vaccinations, gene therapy, these all provide large amounts of evidence. And as the genes are mapped even more, wow, the things that are being found out is impressive. But scientists are not going make movies, do huge press releases and go on talk shows to discuss every single thing. Frankly, they don't care if you "believe" or not. Science is not about belief. It is about facts, evidence and math. Once huge point about science is to not let your beliefs influence the outcome, because then you are not an observer, but a participant. I have a friend who is a minister and a professor of Physics. He loves to point that one out. To him, science has shown him that there is a God. Otherwise, the math wouldn't be so beautiful. But, he will not let that belief influence his work. Because that influence might blind him to the proof that there is a God because it might start out looking like it proves otherwise. As he likes to point out, God likes tests and bait and switches. And sometimes, you need to do what is true, not what you want. What if the evidence for God, the real evidence, is there, but because people are afraid of what evolution supposedly means, they try to prevent people from learning about it. And then no one finds the evidence. Yes faith is believing without evidence, but in a world torn by wars over very minute differences in belief, wouldn't it be wonderful. Granted, I am sure there would be people who argue that the evidence doesn't mean anything because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions of God and then would argue that we can't "Believe" the evidence.

[kilroyperrywinkle]

This kind of stuff is why I hate this crap...

It just keeps fueling the fires of debate on an issue that is undebatable. Any argument thats a "God Vs. <Insert Issue Here>" is dumb. No one wins and it makes God look like an asshole.

I'm out.

[esophagus]

There was a story on Wired about Errol Morris a while ago that I absolutely loved. Relates a bit to religion, not a lot to this conversation. Either way, I loved it, and thought I would share an excerpt. His chief obsession this afternoon is Laysan, a coral island in the middle of the Pacific that was once a major source of albatross eggs. The eggs are important, Morris tells me, because they are an excellent source of albumen, a key ingredient in a photo-emulsion process used in 19th-century photography.

...

When the coast is clear, he chuckles, then reaches for a gorgeous coffee table book of nature photographs titled Archipelago and spreads it open on his desk. Morris was initially rejected by every college he applied to, and he was later thrown out of graduate programs at UC Berkeley and Princeton. He remains a failed graduate student at heart, delighting in the pure play of ideas, with the secondary aim of exasperating any responsible adults in the room.

Archipelago, he explains, chronicles an attempt to clean up the island and turn it into a pristine habitat for the endangered albatross. The book tells the story of two birds, Bandy and Shed Bird. Morris is particularly fixated on Shed Bird, who was about to fledge when he toppled over, dead. "And they do a necropsy on Shed Bird, and they remove all this from his stomach," he says, jabbing his finger at the next photograph in the book, which shows a treasury of hundreds of small stones, a walnut, and other objects that might have come from the pants pockets of a young boy. But also among the debris are two cigarette lighters, part of a shotgun shell, and what appears to be a crack pipe.

Any attempts to keep the world pure will always end in failure, Morris explains. In this case, it turns out there are ocean currents that sweep a huge amount of garbage from the Pacific Rim and bring it out to Laysan. "I'm a little disturbed by hopefulness," he says. "It doesn't seem to be the ending that I'm looking for. Shed Bird dies for our sins. I'm a Jew, but I can still get behind that sort of thing."

[quorumcall]

Wow you guys are way to easy on I.D.ers. This whole movie is just the latest weapon in the "Wedge Strategy" used by creationists, which was originally formulated by Phillip Johnson and the Discovery Institute. Their strategy is to "teach the controversy" and I guess make people think that evolutionary biologists are Nazis.

Science is the understanding of something through facts, religion is the belief of something through faith. They go together about as well as trying to eat soup with a fork. If you truly believe that both can be reconciled, then you are probably confused in what your true core beliefs are.

The theory of evolution is that all living things in the present are the result of genetic mutation followed by natural selection. The evidence in support of this theory grows by leaps and bounds every day, especially ever since the discovery of DNA.

Einstein was told, after he published his theories on relativity and astrophysics, that over a hundred scientists were prepared to refute every single theory that he made. Einstein replied, "It only takes one." So far all we are hearing is a bunch of shouting and grunting with no actual scientific content. If science was on the side of I.D., then they wouldn't have to make a movie to try to convince everyone of that.

When the facts are on your side you pound the facts. When the law is on your side you pound the law. When neither is on your side you pound the table.

[puddlefish]

I'm just impressed that a conversation about religion has gone on this long without becoming a flame war.

Good show.

[gobo]

Seconded

[spectaculadracula]

Doesn't Alex do that whole weird Bohemian Grove thing? I know it's not a religion, but it sure seems like some kind of weird-ass cult thing to me. Just going by some footage I've seen of it anyhow... Aaaaanyways, religion is a little bit personal, and these topics tend to get pretty... hot, in my experience.

This is hot. I know I'm turned on.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

Interesting indeed. I shall have to look into it!