Chomsky vs Dawkins

As an afterthought to my post of moments ago, I would point out that if I had to choose between Dawkins and Chomsky, 2 of 3 writers whose books I have read and known immediately that they are both much much smarter than I am and probably ever will be, I would choose Chomsky.

Why? Because of the times, the human race hasn't been threatened with extinction by religious dogma in anywhere near the same sphere that it is with a belief in Nations or nationalist dogma.

When Barnaby Joyce or Tony Abbot claim an ETS would result in jobs going overseas to China, they elevate the survival and well-being of Australians over the survival and wellbeing of humanity itself. If you take the 'perils of religion' as a failure for Moslems to identify with Christians and so on and so fourth, the 'Megadeath' that has been available to the human race and all of its dependant species since the realisation of nuclear weapons has been a function of states failing to identify that they are just communities of people that have essentially everything in common.

That is the real issue of survival of these times, whether it is climate change (which will result in an ice-age) or nuclear winter (which will result in a scorched earth, then an ice-age) the essentialness to recognize a global community transcendant of state interests makes the quibbles of religious groups a comparative luxury problem. (Though admittedly where states are divided along theological lines, it certainly doesn't help the greater cause).