And I thought the Situationists were extinct

Some articles are too inflamatory for my tastes, but this quote is dead-on:

The task before us is to do what we can to encourage independent thinking. First and foremost, we must insist on adult rationality in the public sphere. Religious institutions have managed, under the cover of decorum, to exempt themselves from critical examination. It is regarded as impolite to point out the ridiculous or dangerous when it comes to faith. In matters of belief, the operative norm is "anything goes." (Never mind that fundamentalists reject this and insist on complete conformity to their ideology. It is ironic that fundamentalism would have no place in public life were it not for the relativism that protects such illogic.)

Our public discourse ought to be based on a culture of evidence. Scientific rationality can protect us from the kind of logical errors that lead to tribalism. Now this does not mean that we all have to practice science or that only professional scientists should participate in public life. Anyone with normal intelligence is capable of the mental discipline that scientific rationality brings. We have to accept that we are part of the natural, physical world and seek to understand how it works. An openness to the world is part of the curiosity that such thinking encourages.

Scientific rationality is the foundation for aestheticization. The pursuit of beauty and pleasure requires contemplation of empirical facts. Human experience is an endless stream of empirical data. The aesthete investigates these data with the same curiosity as the scientist. (Recall the distinction between aesthete and artisan. The artisan can rely on rote repetition and traditional forms to produce art objects -- we've all encountered plenty of banal art -- but the aesthete thrives on experimentation.) This openness will lead to sympathy and away from tribalism.

The argument presented here, that aestheticization is incompatible with political violence, should not be taken as a claim that it is the only way to avoid collective violence. Other forms of secular humanism can lead to the same goal of a peaceful and prosperous world. The contrast between religious belief and aestheticization is instructive because it highlights the aspects of belief systems and moral judgment that promote violence. The most important lesson to be learned in this analysis is that religion is an indulgence that human societies can no longer afford. We do not need to believe in order to find happiness or peace of mind. And, as we have demonstrated, faith is an ethical dead-end. At this moment in history, religion is the most dangerous collective action frame in our world.

If communism were still around we could perhaps debate whether it or religion were more prone to political violence. Happily, we have relegated Stalinism to the reject pile of failed social experiments. That was a giant step forward for human progress. Now another step is required. Our future is at stake.

As Bertrand Russell succinctly put it, religion is "a disease born of fear" and "a source of untold misery to the human race." It stands in the way of intellectual and moral progress. This is as true today as it was in 1930 when Russell eloquently explained why he was an atheist. Religion breeds contempt for life and for the well-being of others. Fear drives believers to the most desperate acts. We ought to be mature enough to recognize that humans are capable of putting the beliefs of ancient communities where all artifacts belong, in the museum, and out of our daily lives. We have rightfully -- and wisely -- discarded the medicine of the Middle Ages. We should now do the same with these medieval traditions. It is time to throw all life-hating, pleasure-adverse ideologies into the dustbin of history.