“Respecting” faith while “appreciating” science
Michael Zimmerman of the Clergy Letter Project is annoyed at (wait for it) “New Atheists.” He says members of the project have been “relentlessly attacked by “New Atheists.”
The crux of these attacks seems to take two forms. In the first, clergy members are ridiculed simply for having religious faith. In the second, supposedly intelligent people pretend they are unable to distinguish these clergy members from the fundamentalists…
He doesn’t quote or name or link to any “New Atheists” doing this, so it’s hard to know if his description is accurate, but in any case…he seems to have the usual, and socially conventional, blind spot about “religious faith.” He seems, in other words, to be blind to the fact that to people who don’t have it, “religious faith” and fundamentalism aren’t all that different. To non-believers, the important difference is between religious belief and its absence, not degrees of fundamentalism.
This sort of broad generalization of New Atheists is almost always lacking something… a presented example.
Examples, Zimmerman? Any? Until then, you’re characterizing a large group as aggressive and rather dishonest.
Who misses the distinctions between TEs and fundamentalists? Who, exactly?
Why do these articles/reviews not deal with the arguments New Atheists make instead of making charges that are not substantiated? I read Dawkin’s God Delusion and it’s an attack on arguments he disagrees with. Say what you think about the quality of his arguments, that’s what it is. He’s tough, as he should be, as any serious person should be, but it’s a serious book with a very strong section discussing the various arguments for the existence of gods and his reasons for thinking they’re very bad arguments. Most critics don’t even bother to take his arguments on, and instead focus exclusively on how bad the author is for making them. How long can they keep this up? Are they waiting for the buzzer?
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jessica Anderson, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: “Respecting” faith while “appreciating” science http://dlvr.it/2l8T5 […]
In the second, supposedly intelligent people pretend they are unable to distinguish these clergy members from the fundamentalists…
Fundamentalist and liberal theology need not be at war with one another. Clearly, both of these interpretations are not in conflict; rather, they make different kinds of extremely stupid claims.
Fundamentalist theology makes scientific claims which are supported by no evidence AND contradicted by a great deal of evidence (flat-out creationism), while liberal theology makes scientific claims which ONLY have no evidentiary basis (theistic evolution).
One need not reserve their contempt for one or the other. Both make incredibly stupid statements but deserve different levels of contempt.
I call my approach to this “Despising” fundamentalism” while “scoffing quietly” at liberal theology.
As Jerry and PZ have demonstrated, this is a beat-up. There simply have not been any concerted attacks on the Clergy Letter Project. I actually second Jerry in giving the project my faint support. There are some people who reject evolution, somewhat unthinkingly, even though the theological commitments of their churches are not in explicit opposition to it. They should be told the latter.
There are also many people who are almost unreachable because they are committed to tightly integrated theological systems that make little sense without a young earth, special creation, historical Fall, etc. These are unlikely to migrate to a more liberal form of Christianity. But perhaps they are not the true target of the Clergy Letter Project. Even if they are, the project may still do some good by reaching whoever is actually reachable. There’s doubtless at least some low-hanging fruit among the congregations of mainline churches.
What people have been objecting to in a concerted, somewhat relentless, way is not the Clergy Letter Project. It is NCSE’s unnuanced claim that evolution and religion are compatible.
That is a very different matter. For a start, evolution is difficult to square with any concept of a loving and providential god. The problems for this kind of god raised by evolution go far beyond the classic formulations of the Problem of Evil. NCSE should not be in the business of trying to settle issues like that. It shouldn’t be trying to pull out the rug from under scientifically-based arguments against certain conceptions of God.
But I don’t mind it sending out material telling the truth that many mainline churches are not opposed to evolution, think they can reconcile it with their theologies, have no problem with adherents accepting it, and so on. With the possible exception of PZ, I don’t think anyone minds that. As above, it may even do some good. Zimmerman needs to get his facts straight. As usual, this whine against the New Atheists has little basis in reality.
@4
I’m not sure that “contempt” would be the right word put so broadly as you put it. Also, though I don’t think that you were labeling adherents of TE “stupid”, but still, given the level of misrepresentation present, I think you should be more cautious with your words. I have comments like yours, which really aren’t that bad, pointed out to me as proof of the intolerance of NAs pretty regularly. I’m not saying that it is justified, but the first impression of an uninitiated reader upon reading a comment like yours might not be favorable.
Let’s at least make their smear job harder than it is.
@5
Hear, hear.
Woo, woo and more woo, just giving it a push up bra, a mini skirt and high heels doesn’t make it any less woo.
@6: Yes, I suppose you are right about that. I just thought it was a clever analogy. Maybe I just have to eliminate certain words from my vocabulary (or at least when addressing liberal theologians). I’ll make a concerted effort to avoid giving our ideological opponents greater ammunition.
@7: but it does get more “action,” so to speak.
This is a discourse to which we are not party. The Clergy Letter Project, along with BioLogos, is engaged in a struggle against biblically inerrant evangelical Christianity, and Zimmerman’s piece is all about that struggle. The swipe at new atheists is just by way of pointing to the barbarians at the gate, poised to consume your children should you fail to rise to the challenge.
Are people supposed to respect what they think is nonsense? I have no respect at all for religious beliefs; I have every respect for the right of people to believe whatever religious nonsense they like. However, if they claim the right to announce the truth of their beliefs I claim the right to say and show that they are perniciious and contradicary nonsense.
I think most of this to keep the faithful from thinking they may lose their faith if they accept evolution. This recent article at Biologos makes it clear when the author says:
They fear people losing faith more than they want evolution accepted.
In fairness the rest of the original posting is quite interesting. I agree with commenters above that it is wise to choose one’s words carefully, and there is certainly no need to alienate potential allies unnecessarily. My enemy’s enemy is my friend!
@6: Not necessarily; my enemy’s enemy may be a temporary ally for a specific circumstance. While there certainly is “no need to alienate potential allies unnecessarily” you may have to oppose them the next time round.
for @6 read @12; ho hum.
On the one hand there are good reasons to agree that liberal religion is better than illiberal religion, to approve of efforts to persuade believers that they don’t have to deny evolution, and so on, but on the other hand there are also good reasons to resist claims that one must explicitly value or “respect” religious belief as such in order to do those things.
Referring to your note #15, Ophelia, it is espcially important to note that, while the Roman catholic church — at least officially and in part — accepts evolution, it would be odd to claim, all evidence to the contrary, that it is in any respect a liberal church
In what way is acceptance of a massively confirmed finding of science evidence for liberalism at all? There’s much too much back patting going on because some clergy have come out in defence of evolutionary biology. But in response to the question whether religious people should accept the established findings of science, the reply should be, ‘By god, you’d better!’ If religion wants to find a part to play in contemporary society, acceptance of the findings of science should be a minimum requirement, not an occasion for celebration.
Having said that, however, Mr. Zimmerman is in honour bound to produce evidence for the claim that he makes that letter writers in the Clergy Letter Project have been relentlessly attacked or ridiculed by atheists, new or old. In many respects, the campaign is irrelevant; the fact that it appears to be necessary is a criticism, not a recommendation, of religious belief.
Ah, Eric, you’re channeling Carlyle, I see…but I’m no Margaret Fuller.
:- )
No, I would never dream of calling the Catholic church liberal. I said “liberal” there as a shorthand, and I half thought at the time that it was a misleading shorthand. [sigh] Lesson: don’t use shorthand!
Well, it wasn’t a criticism either suppressed or implied. But I’m a literal type. I sometimes need it all spelled out. (At least I found out who Margaret Fuller was, which added to my store of knowledge. Thanks.)
By the way, don’t get me started on channelling! I have a brother who believes, amongst other things, that he has channelled a gospel, and that he is no less a person than — wait for it! — the reincarnated twin brother of Jesus! It is, I’m afraid, enough to make me weep. But the idea of channelling has a very negative resonance for me, even though I’m not above echoing.
I’d like to voice sympathy for Zimmerman, while I agree that there have not be relentless attacks, he is not lying to us. He feels attacked.
If your friend came to you and said, “I feel attacked”, what kind of friend would respond by saying, you can’t show me where I’ve attacked you … therefore you are wrong. We stand under Blake’s poison tree … I was angry with my friend, I told my friend and my wrath did end.
Zimmerman should feel supported, just as Darrel Falk said he felt supported by my recognition of what he was trying to do. What cost is there with fully supporting Zimmerman, (and BioLogos), while still completely opposing religion? We don’t need to agree with them on their faith commitments to agree that they are trying to clean out the cesspool of religious ignorance. They are doing dirty work that needs doing.
Much of the climate of course has to do with the Chris Mooney type of attack where sockpuppets and trolls turn into a hall of mirrors effect where it seems that mild or measured criticism is really vicious hatred, but it also comes from a true lack of charity, compassion, and empathy from our corner of the internets.
The Mooney situation is dishonest and arrogant, and he deserves no quarter, but the feelings of men like Zimmerman, and Darrel Falk, (who for instance was accused by our host of “hosting a dialog” … that presumably he shouldn’t have) all flow into this.
Dawkins recently came out with this:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/486830-tradition-has-its-place-but-not-where-factual-knowledge-is-concerned
The old man is getting soft! But, why, as biologists, should we not recognize the meaning of tradition in human societies, without being sellouts to “facts”? It is like nothing less than a full cultural revolution will do, no genuine sympathy or recognition of the benefits of religion can be praised and still be true to the cause of “the facts”.
I assert (and it should not be controversial to do so) that religion has a huge role in “tradition” – many of us have left the church, nor never grown up in it – but any of us who are aware of history, or have friends with tastes other than our own, know that ignoring its centrality in human existence is tantamount to getting everything wrong about human history, and knowing nothing about human ecology.
Our response to Zimmerman should not be “show me where I have insulted you”, but rather, we respect that we have deep, perhaps even unbridgeable differences, but we recognize the same things you do, and support your efforts to drag people from the cesspool of ignorance imposed on them by their interpretation of religion.
In short, our position is strengthened by pointing out the necessity of their work, and congratulating them for the effort, not merely giving them indifferent acceptance.
So, PZ, stop being a grinch … go down to whooville and give Zimmerman a hug.
I’m sorry Scott, I’m not buying it. Sure, there’s a positive side to the Clergy Letter Project, and so far as I know no one is saying any different. But when you set it up like Zimmerman is doing, and falsely accuse people of relentlessly attacking you, then there’s something else at work, and it’s not healthy. What Zimmerman is doing is confusing the respect that is due to what you yourself call his “efforts [of dragging] people from the cesspool of ignorance imposed on them by their interpretation of religion” — strange, abrupt ending that: ‘from …’ to what? — with the respect that the religious demand for their cesspool of ignorance. For it is, after all, the way that religion lands people in this cesspool that needs to be overcome.
This is precisely where Dawkins’ point about tradition comes in, and he’s no softie. Sure, there’s all sorts of room for tradition, so long as there is no confusion between traditional things and matters of fact. But that is in fact what religion does all the time, and it profits from this confusion. If, as PZ points out, religion systematically employed the universal acid of metaphor,* religion would be reduced to a human creation before you can say Molly Malone. However, this is not what religion does with science. Just watch Polkinghorne play the same game. In the end everything is touched by the magic of god, and science is just a way of speaking about god’s majesty and power. Science gets to be metaphorical, and religion the plain truth.
So, no, I’m not disposed to go down and hug Zimmerman. He’s just taking baby steps. When he manages to walk on his own, then, perhaps, there will be occasion for celebration, not before! And the fact that he thinks he’s being relentlessly attacked is a good sign that he still doesn’t get the point.
*Can’t get Pharyngula to open, so can’t link it. Long essay on the metaphor as acid for dissolving biblical myth.
I’m not buying it either. If you go around in public claiming, falsely, that X has been relentlessly attacking you, then, unless you are the sort of person who obviously deserves relentless attacks, you are damaging X’s reputation. That’s very different from taking it up personally with X. If you go around damaging X’s reputation, then of course you’ll be called on it. Our reputations are precious. If, as participants in public debate, we suffer too much damage to our reputations … then our credibility is lost. We can end up effectively demonised and unable to get our message across.
So I’m not going to pat Zimmerman on the head and express sympathy for his pain. He’s going around smearing my allies, and that makes him my enemy. He didn’t have to do this.
Nor am I going to give Zimmerman my full support in other ways. Many of the most powerful arguments against religion are based on scientific findings with which the religious views of the world sit very badly. I’m not going to stop making this point or to stop criticising people who claim that “religion and science” are compatible in some broad, unnuanced way. Religion claims all sorts of authority that it doesn’t have because, ahem, it is false – and one reason we can be pretty sure it is false is that it fits so badly with what we are finding out about how the universe really works. That needs to be said clearly, carefully, and often.
As for the liberal religion thing – yes, such a thing exists. I find it hard to get a handle on how common it is, but I now see, for example, that one of my Facebook friends has recently put up that she believes in God because it gives her solace – but it’s all live and let live as far as she’s concerned (or something like that). I find this attitude strange: I could never believe in something merely because it gives me solace, but would want to know what evidence there is that this really exists. But I think I’m exceptional in this regard, along with the other regulars here.
Again, a real-life friend was recently asking me about 50 Voices of Disbelief, in particular whether its theme was really atheism or anti-religion. It came out that – to my surprise – he believes in God, feeling a sort of trust that God is looking after him or something like that, but he is turned off by all actual religions. Still, as I see it, he has some minimal religious belief.
These people really are liberal in many of their views. I would never pick them as having any religious belief at all. I expect that there are many, many others like them who have some kind of private belief in God or a world spirit or a “something out there”, as another friend once put it to me. In some cases, such people may also believe in some New Age woo, or something, but in any event there is nothing illiberal about them.
There are also people with much more sophisticated religious beliefs that may be thinned out in the direction of deism or non-literalism. At the level of the clergy, this may be very sophisticated indeed. In many cases, there is nothing illiberal about these people (e.g. in their social and political attitudes).
But the Catholic Church as an institution is not liberal or even moderate. Some of its individual clergy and laity – those who tend to oppose the directions taken by the Vatican – may be, but the Catholic Church is nothing of the sort. It has a rigid theology, grounded in the teachings of the Church, and highly illiberal canons of conduct that it imposes by political coercion whenever the circumstances allow. It is the opposite of liberal.
When talking about the Catholic Church and the mainline Protestant churches, I may grudgingly use the word “moderate”, but usually in scare quotes. I guess it’s okay to use a word like that to signify that their positions are not the most extreme ones in the marketplace of ideas. The word “liberal” doesn’t apply, though.
Now, I’m not going to go around thinking that my friends who have some religious ideas in their heads, but are genuinely liberal in most ways, are bad or stupid people, and in fact I find that way of talking rather repulsive (though we don’t actually see, at least not to any great extent, from major figures in the “New Atheism”). I may find their way of thinking puzzling, to the extent that it is not evidence based, but that’s about it. By all means, live and let live.
I just have to accept that most people are prepared to take on trust a lot of stuff that they’ve been socialised into, or which engages with their emotions. As I sometimes remark, even atheistic philosophers sometimes surprise me by believing in, and trying to defend, things for which there is no evidence, such as an objective morality. Just like non-philosophers, they seem to find it hard to apply the outsider test to whatever they have been socialised into believing.
The bottom line for me is that, in practice, there are many people around, some even in the clergy, who have some sort of liberal – genuinely liberal – religious view. But we should always be careful to distinguish between them and churches which are not liberal at all, socially, politically, or theologically, and don’t have much more going for them than an acceptance, perhaps qualified, of evolutionary science. The latter may be theologically moderate compared with fundamentalists, but there isn’t necessarily anything liberal about them. They can be enemies of freedom and reason as much as anyone else.
Scott
One, I didn’t say he was lying. He could be mistaken. But how do you know he is not lying to us? I don’t know that he’s lying, but I also don’t know that he isn’t. I don’t know what’s in his head.
How do you know he feels attacked? He didn’t say he feels attacked; he said there have been attacks. He’s attacked “new” atheists by claiming they have been attacking the Clergy Letter Project. It’s strange to defend that by asserting that he’s not lying and that he feels attacked. One doesn’t get to make stuff up about people just because one feels attacked.
Uhhhh……..I wouldn’t say that, but if I hadn’t attacked the friend, I would say I haven’t attacked you. I might also say why do you feel attacked; I might say I see why you feel that and I’m really sorry; I might do various things. But I wouldn’t necessarily take “I feel attacked” as a valid feeling – it would depend.
And then, the comparison is beside the point anyway; I don’t know Zimmerman, and what he was doing was trash-talking about a set of people that is under a steady barrage of trash-talk these days, so no, I don’t feel all tender about his hurt feelings, I feel irritated at his joining in The Great Kicking of the “new” atheists.
Why should Zimmerman feel supported? Zimmerman is a guy making a case in public; why do I have to support him? Why can’t I disagree with him if I in fact disagree with him?
It’s not possible to support BioLogos while completely opposing religion – that’s just contradictory.
And I notice that I used the term “more liberal form of Christianity” myself. I suppose I should have written “more moderate form of Christianity” – though I think that anyone who moves from fundamentalism probably would do so by moving to something at least more liberal rather than sideways into something that accepts evolution but is just as illiberal. A fundie who changes her theological mind is more likely to drift in the direction of liberal Protestantism than in the direction of, say, the Vatican. Or so my experience tells me; maybe I’m wrong.
I suggest that the Clergy Letter Project be seen as a stage in the ever-evolving larger project of religion itself, which is forever adjusting and readjusting to the environment around it. Likewise, the capacity of the human individual for self-persuasion, which is about equal to that of human groups for mutual reassurance.
In the wider panorama of human belief, some religions (eg Buddhism, Sikhism) have ceased to maintain that certain things we can all do will ensure that each of us lives forever. That is, if they ever did maintain that in the first place. Others are forever readjusting their stance on this question.
Darwin wrote in 1858 to the botanist Hooker that even privately confiding his theory to a small circle of fellow scientists was “like confessing to a murder,” which helps explain his delay in publishing. He had a pretty good idea of how he would be received by the religious mainstream of his day.
Darwin chose his anaology well. By locating Homo sapiens, despite all claims to the contrary, as merely another species in the animal kingdom, Darwin more than any other individual before him blew away eternal life; Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Limbo, Nirvana; the lot. In its own way, and against the backdrop of the assumptions and paradigm of 19th C Europe, that indeed amounted to mass murder.
People all over the place are still denying evolution, contesting it, looking for ways around it, and ways to believe in it while at the same time retaining belief in an afterlife.
Thus the Letter:
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
Metaphorical interpretations of scripture open up a different can of worms as compared with Biblical literalism. But liberal people like Zimmerman should be supported when they are attacked by fundamentalist zombies like the ID mob. Most definitely.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=charles-darwin-confessions&page=5
I’m happy to support Zimmerman in one context and criticize him in another.
I’m, like, totally flexible that way.
Quite so, Ophelia.
One can support Zimmerman against neanderthal fundamentalists and bigots without having to say one agrees with him, and without refraining from criticism of his position. For me to say otherwise of course would mean that I contradicted myself in Comment #25.
It’s not so much religion as politics; and in politics we naturally form alliances with those whose ideas are closest to our own.
Ophelia:
While I’m sympathetic to your view of public discourse, I accept that Zimmerman, has “feelings”, and he is reacting to how he “feels” and he’s entitled to do that – and as much as I’d like him to “stick to the facts” … he’s just a guy with a big petition. No we don’t have to accept that he feels attacked, but I’m accepting that he’s genuine when he says, “not feeling the love”. Furthermore, I think he WANTS to be loved by PZ … and that hurts him all the more. Nothing like the cold shoulder from someone you admire. Hell hath no fury than a biologist scorned.
But seriously, why do you say you:
completely oppose religion
what does that even mean, you don’t “completely oppose religion” … for instance, you would not support criminalizing religion, would you? You do not want their symbols torn down, the way say the Germans “completely oppose the nazis” … now do you?
You surely CAN support aspects of BioLogos – and it hurts you not in the least to have a nuanced view of them. I’ve been on here for hours over the past weeks, saying, we should do just that, recognize that BioLogos is just what Albert Mohler says it is, “a threat”, and give them credit for being a threat. Darrel Falk said we don’t agree but, “at least I understand him” … hug. Dawkins should be handing out reprints of Mohlers speech, if only to show that no form of religious moderation is going to do a darn bit of good against monsters like this. But no, Dawkins is over writing essays about how its OK with him for Jews to wear Yarmulkes.
This man is a professor at Oxford, and he is in the pathetic position of commenting on how its OK to have a Seder?
We can genuinely express our opinion that the vast swaths of humanity that are under threat by institutions run by men like Albert Mohler are WORSE than institutions run by Francis Collins – without agreeing with everything Francis Collins believes in. We can even argue with Collins, while congratulating him on shoving dynamite into the SBC and lighting the fuse … and we can howl with derisive laugher at the spectacle and say “told you so” … while saying playing foghorn leghorn to his chicken hawk antics.
You may feel they are drowning in shallow water … but they don’t. For some of these people it is more important to stay and fight, than leave. We don’t have to agree with them to agree that they are indeed “fighting”, at least in part for things we support, in Zimmerman’s case this is the explicit understanding that the bible isn’t a science book. Yawn.
How ’bout we start a movement in the New Atheism of sending random acts of kindness and appreciation to a person who has defended Darwin in the name of God?
How bout the annual Richard Dawkins award for the year’s best theological justification of Darwin to highlight the efforts of the Religious community to convince other segments of the religious community to stop being idiots?
I nominate Karl Giberson … come on … have fun with this. This is great stuff.
Oh wait, I know, you could have a “Butterflies and Wheels” award for the most sonorous sounding sentence that was used by a religious person to describe what other religious people believer as a “idiotic” … that would be great. You could comb though all of Darrel Falk’s essays and highlight all the different ways he phrases the idea that biblical literalism is moronic … it would be great.
Eric, what if instead of this notion of metaphor as acid to dissolve the bible, we took a more appropriate view of how acid acts on a base, and say it as acting to “neutralize” it?
The scripture gets leached of its caustic qualities, and becomes a harmless solution, conducive to life and metabolism … when we say we “oppose religion” … what we mean is we oppose the corrosive effects of religion.
Do we oppose a religion that has no harmful impact on anyone? Does a person who is genuinely loving, and good, and who also discovers a cure for cancer … someone we oppose?
Why?
oh, crap, Ophelia, I’m sorry, I’m the one that said, “completely oppose religion” and support BioLogos … my fault, I made a BIG mistake here, and got sloppy in my thinking and writing. I accused you of saying something that I said that didn’t make sense, which was a poorly chosen phrase … please forgive me for this mistake.
You are right. I said this in a very sloppy way and it doesn’t make sense and you are right to point it out.
Scott: I nominate Karl Giberson … come on … have fun with this. This is great stuff.
I am sure to the infinite degree that Ophelia can speak for herself, but for my part I think the exercise you propose would be a total bore. But everyone to their own taste…
On consideration, I would support a liberal Christian against an illiberal one, on purely Voltairean grounds. Actually, come to think of it, I would support a liberal anything against an authoritarian anything: say a liberal Muslim against an authoritarian Catholic; there being plenty of the latter still around. I would also incline to support a liberal Catholic against an authoritarian atheist.
But one choice is easy: I would support an LNB Muslim* against the rest put together: atheists, rationalists, Christians… the lot.
*LNB as in ‘Look, no bombs!’ – as at http://mgeorge8882000.blogspot.com/2010/06/muslim-of-year-look-no-bombs.html?zx=1bf3691f8f793412
A warning: some viewers may find the content offensive.
;-)
Scott – calm down a little. You seem overexcited.