>>Sometimes I wonder why I visit this forum. I always come back to two things: I am still one of the unwashed who works in VFP and I learn a few tricks now and then, and second, it is my "water cooler" where I get a bit of socialization that I gave up 22 years ago when I left the corporate world and started spending my working hours alone. That socialization is important to me but it requires that the gathering around the water cooler be civil and tolerant of all who join in. Slinging insults, especially to ones faith, is not being tolerant.
>>
>>On one hand, my intellect tells me to "turn the other cheek" and ignore the insults but on the other hand sometimes you have to point out the lack of civility and tolerance. I am not a "sucker". I pay my own way in this world, I never even accepted unemployment when I lost my job 22 years ago. I am not stupid although I guess I could have earned my two masters degrees somehow without thinking intelligently. And I am not weak as my airborne, ranger credentials and my Silver Star attest. I do not try to push my beliefs down anyone's throat but I do admit to being somewhat evangelistic as my faith requires and I do spend much more than my "tithe" in money and time in places all around the world in an attempt to help others.
>>
>>Having faith means believing in something that cannot be proven. Having faith does not mean a person is stupid and weak.
>
>Actually, I think faith requires bravery. I just couldn't imagine myself relying on just believing that things are so and so, and that this can help you in any other way but to boost your self-confidence (but then when it fails, the "you didn't believe enough" will introduce a load of self-doubt). Even though I can't understand how can people function this way, I respect their guts to do so.
>
>Faith, however, is a private matter. Organized religion, OTOH, is public, and it is just another type of human organization. Why would anyone identify with any of these, and why would anyone be offended when their favorite organization is criticized is beyond me. Being organizations of people and having goals they try to achieve makes them political organizations, and that alone makes any claim that they are the moral leaders of their members sound rather hollow. The difference between them and the professional politicians is that their campaign is always on and they ask for contributions in a different way, but that's about it.
>
>I have no preferred religious organization to criticize - being an equal opportunity unbeliever, I regret the fact that they only take up different amounts of space in the media, different time under the spotlight, so are exposed to sunlight in different degree. For one, there were cases of pedophilia in the Serbian Orthodox Church, and yes, just like their competition across the street, the upper ranks defended the offender and actually moved him instead of excommunicating him. Now whether he was moved up or sideways, I dunno. We even have two minor political parties led by Muslim priests, doing all the political dirty tricks, trying to provoke a local conflict for political gain (including against each other). How can these guys be anyone's moral authority, and why would anyone defend them on principle (before or despite the facts) - I don't know.

Wow, in this thread I am disagreeing left and right with people I normally agree with. I can't for the life of me understand how you can say religion is "just another type of human organization." It certainly isn't to most of those who go to church. Many of them consider their faith and beliefs just about the most important thing in their lives. Like you, I don't see things the way they do, but I would never question or mock their sincerity. To liked churches to General Motors, Apple, the Red Cross, Manchester United, whatever, that's ludicrous. (Well, maybe Man U).