The school vouchers would have helped with this problem, then us religous conservative folks could have sent our kids to schools that teach what our kids should learn, then our hard earned tax money could support the school of our choice.

Progresso, I have my head quite firmly in the present when I say that religion causes almost all wars.  Perhaps I should have clarified: Religion causes almost all wars today, in the here and now.  Find a world map that shows religious boundaries and find a map that shows current conflicts.  Compare them.  Africa (right across the Sahel- Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan...) , the Middle East (need I say more), Kashmir, Chechnya, the former Yugoslavia...  (Yes, it mostly follows the lines of Islam, draw what conclusions you may.)  I can certainly think of an approximate 6 million people that were murdered because of their religion during WWII, as well as plenty of the people murdered by Stalin.  Christians and many followers of other religions in China during the Communist Revolution- exterminated or exiled.  Our own country is involved in a war with Islamic extremists.  How could you possibly say religion doesn't cause war?  Even if it isn't the direct cause, it is always in the background.

Progresso--we would have less war if we had less religious zealots. It is religion that the majority of wars being fought have stem from. By zealots it can mean any religion leaders --Muslim, Christianity etc. that believe their god is the right god and don't have tolerance toward others.   This is why there needs to be a complete separation of church and state.

 If the Iraq War is being fought to advance Christianity against Islam, we're certainly going about it in an odd way, since 2/3 of Iraq's Christian population has been forced to flee the country without a peep from our leaders.  Also passing without a word of national concern has been our ally Saudia Arabia's denial of the most basic religious freedoms to their Christian "guest workers", including pious Christians of all nations.  The only religion those wars and relations serve is the religion of manna and power.

Madkow, your citation of  the religious differences that initiated WWI, WWII, and others, as I asked, is notably absent, wherever the firm location of your your head.

 I never said the Iraq war is being fought to advance Christianity, because that isn't true.  Iraq is it's own conflict and I'm not addressing it with this assertion.  But why were we attacked on Sept.11, 2001?  That was Islamic extremists attacking their "enemies".  If you can't see the religious extremism that has smoldered and ignited conflict within the Middle East for centuries, I'm afraid you may be totally blind.  I didn't cite religious differences that initiated WWI, WWII, etc., because they were mainly political conflicts- albeit with devestating consequences for most non-Christian religions in the area, and to Christians to a more limited degree.  You can't possibly deny that the Jews were murdered because they were Jewish.  Also, the Holocaust set off the exodus of the remaining European Jews to Israel (who were welcomed there by the British who controlled the area), which began the long, disturbing history of Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East, and Middle East-United States conflict by extention of US support for Israel, among other factors.

Though I clarified my statement to speak exclusively about current wars, you still ask about wars that happened nearly a century to a half-century ago. Perhaps the World Wars are still ongoing on your mind, but to the rest of the world they are long over.  When we look at conflict today, we are mainly looking at the places mentioned in my previous post, especially Africa, where millions die and are displaced because of religious war.  But the world likes to turn a blind eye to it.  Why?  Perhaps the leader of Rwanda was correct when he said that to the Western powers, Africa is simply not interesting enough. 

 I've discussed the intellectual underpinnings for the holocaust in some detail in this thread, Madkow.  The Jews were slaughtered with others in an advancement of the quite scientific theory of eugenics, not as part of a religious conflict.  

Your post is incoherent.  You dismiss wars within living memory that killed hundreds of millions of people as being "a century or a half-century ago", even though I was responding to your statement that "religion causes almost all wars", which surely depends upon a time period to test its truth or falsity.

So, after you leave out the biggest wars of all time, and the wars that are happening now, and whichever other ones you want to leave out, you're left with what?  The Sudanese Civil War and Rwanda?  Fine, what was the religious basis for the Rwandan slaughter?  And what is the religious basis for the Sudanese conflict where ethnic-Arab Muslims are purging African Muslims from Darfour?

As for 9/11, Bin Laden didn't run his planes into Saint Patrick's Cathedral, he ran them into the World Trade Center.   For all his evil, his goal is less the defeat of  Christianity, than the defeat of the modern world of trade, finance, and cultural imperialism that defines the West and which aggressively exports its crass commercialism to the destruction of  the traditional  ways of life he champions.  It is a collision of cultures, yes.  But unless Money and Trade is our God, it is not a collision of religions.

Which brings me to the point - culture clash is the cause of wars, not religion.  Historically, to the extent that religion defines cultures, the lines of culture and religion are coincident which can lead to the false conclusion you have repeated.  But irreligious societies, and those not defined by religion have cultures too, and contrary to what you claim, champions of those cultures, including atheists, will fight as hard as anyone to protect them or impose them on others. 

Believe what you want, hon.  No one is going to convince you otherwise.

 http://reducedmass.com/2008...

Looks like the producers' continued with their lies in order to get some folks to participate in this project. Criminy, I can't believe anyone can excuse this kind of dishonesty in order to further the Creationist agenda.

Regarding the use of a song by The Killers, "All These Things That I've Done":

http://www.richarddawkins.n...

"What they authorized was a documentary about 'academic freedom in schools', not the film that the producers produced.

They contacted the producers of the film to ask that the song be removed but it is too late. Unfortunately it was misrepresented to them when the request came through to use it. Add this band to a long line of people who were misled by the producers of this film."

Interesting article, Scott. The problem is you can't get a straight answer when you ask these folks to define evolution. The process described in your article is dismissed as "microevolution" - variation within 'kind." Except they won't tell you what a "kind" is. They'll point to this article and say "it's still two kinds of lizard. You never see a lizard giving birth to a bird!" Apparently, Noah just had one lizard "kind" on the Ark. All the different species of lizard around today "mutated" from that one lizard pair, just a few thousand years ago. I know, it's crazy, but it seems to make sense to them.

How come all of these one-time posters here aren't defending Creationism/ID? You drive through here claiming all kinds of assertions (evolution is a myth, for example), but you don't back it up. Just like this travesty of a movie can't back up its claims. Pitiful, really.

oohchild, this reminds me of all the Micheal Moore movies that he has made that all the liberals love, but have been filled with mostly falsehoods and distortions, dosent feel good does it?, to know there are people with their own agenda out there making movies with lies and distortions and promoting them as facts, when they are easliy disproven, but no one wants to hear the truth, " I cant believe anyone would excuse his kind of dishonesty just to further his own political agenda", Hollywood just gives him Oscars and accolades, this movie will surely bomb at the box office, dont worry, people have their own faith and stick with it because it gives them comfort, it dosent matter what Hollywood says or anyone else,

What has Michael Moore presented as fact that has been disproven? Let's see, in "Roger and Me" the point of this documentary was that a greedy corporation doesn't care about the working class of a small town in Michigan.  True.  In "Bowling for Columbine" he wanted to demonstrate how America's fixation with fear and paranoia has bred a violent culture in our country.  True.  In "Farenheit 911" he wanted to demonstrate that George W. Bush is a bozo.  That's true.  In "Sicko" he wanted to show that our national healthcare system needs some fixing.  That's true.  There's a reason why Michael Moore continues to make award winning documentaries.  There's a reason why he's the most successful documentary filmmaker in the history of cinema and there's a reason why lot of people like to watch them.  They're great commentary and great entertainment.

According to reports & reviews, the director of this movie used a lot of Michael Moore's techniques - quick cuts to TV show images, cartoons, and an "everyman" interviewer (Ben Stein) with low-key delivery. The consensus is Expelled is all the worse for it.

Starbucks1, show me one instance where Michael Moore lied to participants about the nature of his films. Show me one time where Michael Moore stole material for inclusion in one of his projects.

These are supposedly Christian producers, & Ben Stein holds himself out to be a devout Jew. How is this not lying for religion?

The Truth will set you Free, not that this will change your mind oohchild, but Moore is widely known for his twisting of facts and outright lies, cmon, you know that, this is old news, the difference here is, the media and Hollywood embrace Moore and his lies, this movie will not go anywhere,it will tank, think how you would feel if The media embraced this movie like they did moores lies?, we would have to put you on suicide watch!,

http://www.deanesmay.com/po...

http://www.hardylaw.net/Tru...

http://www.moorewatch.com/i...

Then it should be easy for you to answer my query:

Starbucks1, show me one instance where Michael Moore lied to participants about the nature of his films. Show me one time where Michael Moore stole material for inclusion in one of his projects.

read thru the links I posted here oohchild, its all there, I do recall how he seemed to dupe Charlton Heston into a interview that Heston ended up walking out on, things like that, and look at this, http://www.cinemablend.com/...  and this, http://sayanythingblog.com/...

look , I agree with you on this movie your talking about here, it will bomb, who really cares, hardly anyone will see it, but everyone seems to agree that at best, Moore is a dishonest filmmaker, but he was embraced by the media, thats the difference, they ran with his lies, are you telling me that you are the last one in the country to believe everything he says?, say it isnt so!!,