capitalism - reasonably ok, as long as it is constrained by the "public
good" interest (however you define it), not socialism (which is really a
nanny state), but enlightened self-interest, where gov't nudges itself and
its citizens toward the public good based on facts not faith.

I disagree about your "nanny states' having been raised and nurtured
by one, as compared to your capitalism as is practicised nowadays in
the USA which seems not to be constrained by the "public good" but
where big business combined with political self serving has led to a
recession as you are currently entering.

Capitalism is good, agreed, but it must have some regulatory
constraints other than market forces. The social cost is too high
otherwise. This has been belatedly recognised by the previously
Communiist regimes.

Also, regardless of people's denial of a "God", each still has his own
"religion" which could be defined as a set of tenets, moral values,
beliefs and understanding as to one's place in the universe. Atheism
has also been described as a religion.

I would point to science, lead by intelligent, caring people who are
generally non-sectarian or can at least separate themselves from their faith
beliefs. Some have claimed that science (or math) is a religion, which I'll
allow, but it's based on hypothesis
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypothesis) vs. conjecture
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conjecture) or faith
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...=&o3=&h= 0000)
(aka Intelligent Design).

What part of science do you point to? Proven science (which is not a
hypothesis by the way) and the true spirit and freedom of intellectual
pursuit and discovery or the pseudo-science of the religious right
who, when barred by a constitutional ruling to teach Intelligent
Design in US schools have gotten around in in such as the state of
Louisiana by the devious means of the state's proposed Science
Education Act.

This Act is designed to slip Intelligent design in through the back
door. "Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand,
analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific
theories pertinent to the course being taught" The idea that evolution
has weaknesses and is therefore not a solid theory is a recurring
theme in ID literature.

I attended such a religious right boarding school in New Zealand. The
science teacher explained "We are forced to teach the THEORY of
Evolution by the curriculum. However, you all know that we don't
believe it" and went on to teach evolutionary theory in a ridiculous
manner that was so transparent I felt compelled to get some books on
it from the town library.

Evolution is not a theory. It is an established fact. There is
absolutely no reason either, that you cannot uncompromisingly combine
religious feelings with a belief in scientific knowledge. I had a
genetics and evolution professor at university who was a Presbytarian
deaconess. When I asked her if there was any conflict, she replied
"The more I learn about science, the more it reinforces my belief in
God" I now understand what she meant. It all depends on your personal
concept of God.

The "facts" of the book of Genesis were written down for the first
time in the time of King Hezekiah, over 800 years from when Moses
died. It was only in 1844 that a rather scholarly and widely read book
was published describing dinosaur bones having been formed by
"plastic force" and inspired by Satan to lead us astray. If I recall,
the author was one "Werner".

Sorry, I get carried away on this subject as I can see a new dark age
controlled by conservative religious fundamentalists fast coming upon
us. A major recession, huge unemployment and a couple of wars is all
that it will take. Raw capitalism is not serving us all that well it
seems by current economic events.

JC, I do agree that it would be great if society was controlled by
rational thinking scientists. However, human nature being what it is
and has always been, self serving politicians will arise and take back
control, even be it from behind the throne. Also, scientists are not
divorced from ego, selfishness, greed and all the other human
frailities. It just would not work unfortunately. I can give you
concrete examples of where scientists whose decision on, for example,
sustainable fisheries quotas, have sold out to business for personal
gain. They are not evil men but it is surprising easy to overstate
your projections in someone's favour when they offer you a high paying
job "if you ever think of leaving the Government". Asd a result these
fisheries such as the deep sea Orange Roughie have totally collapsed.

As for science. How many of your politicians (or mine) could give you
a tolerable account of the science behind global warming, climate
change, evolution and such? Very few indeed but they are being asked
to legislate for your country's benefit and survival. You have given
them that power to decide on your future.

Grossly Off topic but interesting,

regards
Peter