It's my understanding that embryonic stem-cell research is completely legal; that while elements of the government do not endorse public funding of it, neither is private capital rushing to support it as is usually the case with any promising discovery; and that the suffering of many (if not millions) is currently being alleviated through some 70-odd lines of adult stem-cell therapy. Anyone to shed further light here?

Embryonic stem-cell research is not banned by the federal government, but there are some U.S. states in which it is indeed outlawed (see this USA Today article). And the federal ban on funding, if not on research, of ESCs is still incredibly restrictive, to the point where researchers cannot even study the subject in buildings built with federal assistance (source). Also, the vaunted 70 lines are turning out to be a bust for research, because they were grown on layers of "feeder cells" from mouse and fetal calf serum. It turns out that the stem cells have picked up a non-human molecule from those feeder cells which they now express on their own surfaces, which would provoke a dangerous immune reaction if these cells were ever transplanted into humnan beings (source).

Regarding the Tamil Tigers, I don't know much about that group. Harris characterizes them as a predominantly Hindu organization and I took his word for that; if that statement is incorrect, I'll certainly withdraw it. In any case, the point is still valid that fundamentalist Muslims are not the only or even the most frequent users of suicide terrorism, though they are certainly the most spectacularly evil in their use of it.

Also, addressing Daniel Morgan's comment:

I don't like the way the freethought community drops its skeptical bent and critical appraisal of arguments when they review the writing of some of the modern-day "heroes" in the culture wars.

What distressed me the most was that, despite Harris' foray into bizarre mysticism, he says so much that I agree with wholeheartedly. That makes it very difficult to dismiss him, and I hope I made the line sufficiently clear between applauding much of what he says while expressing reservations on some parts. I wouldn't say, however, that either he or Dawkins has a superficial approach to religious criticism. At worst, they could be accused of playing to the crowd, but there's no sin in that when we're trying to win people over to our side. As many have pointed out, it is not the airy, sophisticated, far-distant from reality beliefs of the theologians that Dawkins and Harris are attacking. They are attacking the average, largely literal religious views held by the "man on the street", for the simple reason that the latter view is far more common and poses a far greater danger.

Neither Harris or Dawkins are immune to criticism, as ebonmuse properly pointed out. To the best of my knowledge however, there is not a single serious agrument put forth by religous adherents (particularly and specifically the Abrahamic traditions) that has not been addressed with due diligence by Harris and or Dawkins. All that being said I would be more than happy to amend my statements if guided to specific instances or areas of religious scholarship either of them dismiss prior to investigation. At the very least I might then have an excuse to re-read their laudable works.

And I wonder if some of them consider a suicide-bomber death to be more dignified than dying of defeat in battle. It must be said that the Tamil Tigers are under siege by the Sri Lankan Army; they may have a desperado component in them.

The Japanese "kamikaze" airplane-as-cruise-missile attackers were much the same way. That strategy was reluctantly accepted out of a lack of better alternatives, and it was very controversial in the Japanese military. It was more popular in the Navy than in the Army, because while the Army was holding on to its part of China, the Navy was losing very badly in the War of the Pacific -- consistent with it being a desperado strategy.

There was even an American who was posthumously celebrated for doing that: Captain Richard Fleming. After the Battle of Midway, he and some fellow bomber pilots chased some Japanese ships to bomb them. But his plane got attacked and he decided to make the best of what little life he likely had left. So he flew his plane into one of the Japanese ships, and leaking gasoline from it caused a humongous fire that disabled the ship.

By comparison, Islamists seem almost swinishly hedonistic, looking forward to having harems of lovely ladies in the next world.

Though not all of their methods can be really apporoved of, their problems are much more complicated (primarily political, linguistic and partly ethinic), But its anything but religion.

Even if ESC won't treat anything, I think they're worth investigating anyway... you never know what you'll learn. Many things were invented or discovered pseudo-serendipitously.

Oh. And thanks. ^.^

I'm glad someone agrees with me that people like Harris and Dawkins deserve at least some criticism. I don't like the way the freethought community drops its skeptical bent and critical appraisal of arguments when they review the writing of some of the modern-day "heroes" in the culture wars. Sycophantic praise for these guys (and Dennett too, but it is much harder to point out flaws with his writing, as he is much more cautious and credible generally) is the antithesis of the values we freethinkers stand for. Plus, Dawkins and Harris can be superficial in their approach to religion, ignoring serious rebuttals and hand-waving when they could get serious and deep.

TK,

You're right that it's legal in the US (so far), but many states are actually seeking some sorts of restrictions, plus the restrictions passed by Congress on things like cloning and "fetal farming".

But, the point is valid that religious opposition is the reason that federal funding is completely absent from the research program. And, inarguably, the otherwise-present, crucial millions of dollars that are being witheld would speed up the discoveries and cures that are, instead, impeded by ancient dogmas.