PZ Myers is at the heart of the faction that wants aggressive confrontation, not violence, but it appears anything short of that is fine with him. ...  There is another faction who is seemingly much more conciliatory, even looking for allies among liberal believers.

From the perspective of the anthropological literature I find it difficult to support either faction. ... The religious belief systems are clearly held in the heart (or the limbic system, or whatever), much more often than the mind. ...

I think our movement is lacking in anthropological education and perspective, and this shows even among some of our most respected thinkers like Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett, none of whom I who dare to imply criticism. ...

The anthropological perspective is not simply historical, but truly holistic in its approach to understanding culture and the behaviors within. Confrontation with a believer, as Steve Pinker has described, is a deeply emotional and physiological chemical explosion.  How could the believer be expected to argue, listen, or understand sensibly in that condition?  ...  A confrontational strategy that elicits that brain chemical torrent is simply going to be rejected by humans, very simple.

Here is a recent idea that I like very much from the perspective of the culture clash, and it absolutely is.  This is going to be a long fight. Homo Sapiens and probably our hominid ancestors have been consciously fearing the unknown for the better part of a million years and probably much more. I think that is conservative based on the most recent paleo-anthropology and genographic work.  So, is it realistic to think we are going to change this deeply seated, physiologically accommodated, habitual behavior and belief soon?  Will we change it with angry conflict?  That has never worked in any social or cultural change before, so why now?  The disbelieving community constantly thinks of itself as the smart ones.  Nonsense and I am sure Hitch will back me up on that. Clearly the answer is no, and the deduction leads us not to the other extreme, but to a strategy that takes into account the primate we are dealing with here. The use of reason and logic alone required that emotion is largely or completely removed from the strategy, on both sides!  When was the last time you debated such a serious issue without emotion?

So let’s have your thoughts…..take me to task, but see if you can do it without emotion my fellow primates.

Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action.

'You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. ... My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure.

The use of reason and logic alone required (sic) that emotion is largely or completely removed from the strategy, on both sides!

"The supreme task is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

"I have learned through bitter experience the one supreme lesson to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power which can move the world." -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (also, unfortunately, not a doctor)