A good read, and I agree with the gist of it...

http://www.alternet.org/belief/143912/t ... age=entire

The debates about religion usually come in two types: "is religion accurate or mistaken," and "is religion helpful or harmful." And ever since I put together my best "mistaken" arguments, my Top Ten Reasons I Don't Believe in God, I've been trying to wrap up my "harmful" arguments in a similar nutshell.

But I'm realizing that I don't have ten arguments for why religion is harmful. I don't even have 57,842 arguments.

I have one.

I'm realizing that everything I've ever written about religion's harm boils down to one thing.

It's this: Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.

It therefore has no reality check.

I sure can't argue against this.

It's this: Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.

It therefore has no reality check.

I disagree. Religions are man made and, thus, as vulnerable to reality checks as any other man made philosophy or doctrine. Occasionally, small groups of people (ie: Jim Jones' mob or the Taliban) will allow religions to take them to the extreme end of the spectrum but, for the most part, people know the difference between right and wrong and even the most eloquent religious leader can't take them beyond certain points. In the main, religions tend to modify themselves to the morality of people rather than people modifying their morality to religions. If it wasn't so we in the Christian worlds would still be executing our sons for disobeying, poking each others eyes out, whacking our wives with sticks, owning slaves, etc.

Further, she give religion a lot more power than it really has. At one point she blames the Catholic Church and the Mormons for the defeat of the gay marriage bill in California and elsewhere. There's no question those churches played a part in the defeats but there were other churches that supported the bill. Further, those churches represent only a small portion of Californians and, even of those they do represent, there is no guarantee or evidence that the adherents voted as a block. What is more likely is that society, as a whole, is not quite ready for gay marriage and that it's acceptance would have been rejected even if the churches had not mounted their offensives. The bright side for gays and a bleak one for the churches is that, in all cases, the resistance to gay marriage is crumbling. Fifteen years ago the rather than being narrowly rejected the concept would have been soundly rejected. It may take another ten years but eventually those bills will pass.

I think those bills will finally go through too. I feel sorry for the people who spent their whole lives fighting for their right to be together under the law, and especially for those that might have lost their partners before they were able to legally marry.