compilation of thoughts

A faire worker in a f-locked post (so i'm not naming names ;-) ) asked about whether or not the "magic" of faire is less than it was, and if so, why?  here follows the compilation of my 4 posts to that thread.
( cut for length )

get past politeness - these people don't deserve it.

A column in the 'Post this week really held back and shouldn't have pulled the punches it pulled.  Hanle,president of the Biotechnology Institute, tried to present a positive case for continuing to teach science, stating much of the obvious of that which everybody knows and simply doesn't care about when their own version of religion is at stake and the political motivations (re: control over other people) are being interfered with.

Quite simply, he gives them too much credit.

Waging War on Evolution - washingtonpost.com:

Non-scientific viewpoints deserve respect.

I'm sorry, but in science, they simply don't. In matters of policy, a recognition that there is an emotional factor involved should not preclude disposing of an argument based solely on that emotion.

Hanle, you had a national public forum at your disposal and the chance to make the truth known and you blew it.  These people are liars with no respect for scientific views, courtroom etiquette, or public ethics.  They will do anything they can get away with to see to it that their religion trumps all other forms of thought.  No amount of evidence will ever change their closed minds and the ignorance it breeds.

All your "politeness" and "respect" does is give them more credit than they could possibly deserve, and does nothing to help rational (but unexposed/uneducated) people realize their freedoms and their future really is at stake if these nutcases get their way.

It is impossible to be "tolerant" of views that if their holders achieve political means, will use that power to remove your own tolerant views in favor of their own intolerance.