>Religion does not have a monopoly on civilization
>
>Did somebody say that?

See Edward's message, few hours ago, on the thin shell over the inner animal, and the danger of it cracking. That's another echo of the old idea that morality and civilization are impossible without religion, and that the alternative is savagery. That's what I view as an attempt at monopoly.

>Do you believe in any of the behaviors promoted by religion? Example- The 10 Commandments. Do you have a philosophical disagreement with those sorts of ideas? By your own earlier comments, it seems you do not.

Up to the extent that I find them as part of civilization. The first and second commandment surely don't qualify, being just the membership exclusivity clauses. The ones against violence and false witnessing, I agree with. The ones against property violations, I agree only to the point where they treat women as property, which I strongly detest. The adultery clause, calendar clause (6 days plus one) - that's something I think should not be regulated by a religion. Respect to parents I agree with, but not complete obedience (which is a matter of interpretation - the text isn't really clear on that); if it is to be regulated at all, I'd then also like to see the parents being likewise obliged to respect their children as fellow human persons.

>So the objection seems to be that these agreeable ideas are connected to the idea of a God whose believers have exercised considerable secular power in many nations including the one you now choose to call home, and who have had the effontery to publish a list of preferred behaviors under the umbrella of the faith.
>
>Nobody insists that you become Christian if you want to adopt similar standards so there is no claim of monopoly.

No, the moral monopoly is in the assumption that the unbelievers have no moral. The first time I googled "unbeliever church", the first page brought a few sermons where the shepherds were openly advocating such a view. Tried again couple of years later, same.

>Why not just accept that there is an organized movement with the same sorts of standards you find agreeable, with institutions in place to guide the flock rather than relying on fragile individual morality. How convenient! Why not just go along with it- why do you feel a need to slam those who find comfort in their God?

>Or is it that you protesteth too much? ;-)

Just defending my kind from being viewed as less-than-human for not believing. Even less numerous minorities feel the urge to speak up. The unbeliever minority is the most underrepresented one in this country, and somehow speaking for unbelief is treated just as favorably as defense of smoking would be. Judging by what you can read in media here, you may as well assume everyone's a believer. It may be the unbelievers are too silent.

I'm not :).