[Jeff Chandler]

>>I'm just trying to see what you mean in #20.<<

In contrast with you consistantly intellegent posts in other areas of FR, when you enter into religious discussions you seem to assume the role of disruptor. Your post concerning JPII is a case in point; it was just plain mean.

In a free country, a man may do pretty much as he pleases, within certain societal limits. He is free to accept or reject the teachings of a particular religion. Therefore, it makes no logical sense to take offense at the teachings of that religion (unless it involves flying airliners into skyscrapers.) All he has to do is ignore them.

It's been my experience that when a man has a reflexive antipathy towards religion, it is often a sign of that man's antipathy towards religion's judgement of the morality of behaviors in which he engages (or would like to.) The left's anger towards the moral judgement against clinton's Whitehouse antics is this reaction writ large.

This may or may not apply to you, but your interest in ridiculing other's faith leads to suspicion.

[gcruse]

that man's antipathy towards religion's judgement of
the morality of behaviors in which he engages (or would like to.)

I engage in the mortal sin of disbelief.  As for the morality
of my behaviour, I'm afraid too many years have passed
for me to be much of a traducer there.  Now as for what I
would like to do, I didn't know the bible had thought crimes
but, now that you mention it, that seems likely.

Atheism isn't a cover for bad behavior, I don't think, as
much as it is the inevitable outcome of unfettered rationality.
It isn't something one chooses as much as where one arrives.
If I can jig someone into questioning the more blatant silliness
of religion, such as prayer curing Parkinson's, then I think
I am duty bound to try.