J. Frankel wrote:
“They say there are no atheists in foxholes. Perhaps, then, there are also no libertarians in financial crises.”

The statement relies on the assumption that the policy-makers were libertarians to begin with. The current administration isn't exactly shy of big government, nor is Congress. Yes, this is yet another example of inconsistencies between the rhetoric and the actions of the current administration, but it was never a libertarian administration.

Way off topic...

J. Frankel wrote:
(Indeed, Richard Dawkins argues that vast numbers of people who would no more bet on the existence of God than on the existence of the Easter Bunny, nonetheless call themselves “agnostics” rather than atheists, to avoid rocking the boat.)

That's the third time this week that I've run into a reference to Dawkins' attitude toward agnostics. There must be something in the water.

Stefanie wrote:
That's the third time this week that I've run into a reference to Dawkins' attitude toward agnostics. There must be something in the water.

Dawkins has many attitudes that I don't like, this being one of them. I agree that its a matter of degrees of perspective but I'm not agnostic to avoid rocking the boat.

There is a vast difference between refusing to accept the possibility of an unproved assertion that directly contradicts information that we have (such as Dawkin's example of bunny rabbits having tea on pluto) and refusing to accept the possibility of an unproved assertion that does not directly contradict any information that we have. Based on the information that I have I think the likelyhood that we are living in an elaborate video game is vastly greater than the likelyhood that bunny rabbits are having tea on pluto. You ask me if the Lord created the earth in seven days? Of course I'm comfortable saying that isn't true, and that is not inconsistent with being agnostic. Atheism requires that there be absolutely no possibility of any spiritual or supernatural explanation for anything. We do not have enough information to confidently hold such a conclusion, and I think doing so represents the same sort of unscientific thinking that religion requires.

Decius wrote:
Dawkins....

There is a vast difference...

Amen.