although it’s very clear that you’re in deep denial of the fact, you surely can’t deny that science doesn’t jibe too well with religion.

through the ages, time and time again religion fights against the findings of science that disagree with the dogmas of belief.

religion is anti-scientific from it’s inception. it makes claims that laugh in the face of science and add insult to injury by claiming that their (non) explanation is TRUE although they circumvent every reality based method of defining truth. for examples see the many miracles in biblical mythology.

and a few examples of religious anti-science (dramatized)

science: earth is not the center of the universe.
religion: NO! we will lock you up for life.
science: well, it’s not actually witches that are causing disease.
religion: you heretic, we shall burn you at the stake as well! and throw his wife into the river to see if she floats!
science: the fossil record quite clearly shows that evolution is a fact
religion: but, but, but… tansitional forms, er, complexity of eyes, umm… nooooooo! well, guess I’ll just have to homeschool my children because clearly I’m smarter than the 99.99% of scientists who understand biology.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

South Austin pastor guilty of molestation
By Steven Kreytak | Thursday, October 30, 2008, 03:35 PM

After deliberating for more than three hours, a Travis County jury this afternoon found a former South Austin pastor and apartment complex handyman guilty of multiple felony counts for sexually molesting three boys in 2005 and 2006.

The full article is here:

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/entries/2008/10/30/jury_deliberating_child_molest.html

Why is the anti-scientific stance of Christianity bad for America?

1) The letter never mentions religion yet Johnson thinks this letter somehow makes his point that religion is to blame for what is happening.

2) Johnson, in his typical non-thinking fashion, thinks Christianity is behind the declining federal support when there is no evidence for that here.

3) Without evidence to support the conclusion, it’s a Johnsonism to think declining federal support is the result of an anti-scientific stance.

4) From (3), it could be that funds were needed for other programs. They call this prioritization, Johnson, not an anti-scientific stance.

5) Funds could also have been withheld for moral reasons. Again, this is not an anti-scientific stance.