Rich, great post!

In the interests of argument I'm going to disagree with some of your points ;-) :

>>The True Believers of any dogma cannot, almost by definition, admit any other version might have validity. Having found "The Truth" (as opposed the "Their Own Truth") they are therefore obligated to promulgate it so that others will see it (benefit from it) as well. This has been true of religions, political ideologies, economic movements, racial theories, etc.

Sounds compelling... but is it safe to extrapolate a medieval-sounding "True Believer of any dogma" onto everybody who professes a faith in 2004?

There are degrees of everything, including missionary fervor. There are also "missionaries" who labor in schools and hospitals to assist the disadvantaged without a promulgative murmur. Many moons ago I worked in one of those places on the Mozambique border. It was all funded by a church group I'd never heard of in the midwest, but there was no priest/pastor/whatever on the mission and absolutely no attempt to convert the heathens- we were fairly preoccupied trying to keep them alive. I think that is a more realistic face of modern religion. I don't recall such a hospital set up and funded by atheists or agnostics.

>>Which is why I understand (although as one who has not yet found "The Truth" I certainly don't approve) the prosletysing ferver of Christians, Muslims, Marxists/Capitalists, and Democracyists even to the point of conversion by force.

We can agree that many/most religions and political structures have skeletons in their closets. But can you name a modern democratic nation where religious "conversion by force" has existed in living memory?

>>It is "wrong for religious people to claim ownership of morality" because it assumes that moralilty is derived from religion.

Most would say it is derived from God, from a god, from self... not usually from the religion itself.

>>One of my truths is that things are right or wrong because THEY ARE, not because "God said so." I believe that there is a universality about morality that is comletely independent of religion.

That's exactly what Adolph Hitler thought. No I am not comparing you to him, I am pointing out that once you step outside religion, "it makes sense to me" is a poor predictor of moral behavior. Almost every crime is committed by somebody who thought it made sense at the time.

>>Along with EVERYBODY else, I am willing to impose my version of morality on the rest of you. I don't have a problem with the idea of the "Religious Right" trying to impose their version of morality on the rest of society. I don't have a problem with the "Liberal Left" trying to impose their version. I do have strong opinions on the veracity of their moral code, but they certainly have the right to try to make it universal, just as I do.

Many would argue that nobody has the right to try to force political or religious structure onto unwilling others. We should be grateful that our forebears adopted political and societal rules that allow us to speak and believe as we wish.

>>My own views were best expressed by Robert Heinlein in his novella Coventry. (To paraphrase)"Things are immoral which cause harm to others."

Who could disagree with Heinlein? ;-)

>>Therefore, I agree with the "Religious Right" about stealing, murder, rape, forgery, libel, etc. I disagree with them about things like bigamy/polyandry, prostitution, homosexuality, etc.

Surely that is political rather than religious? The "religious right" is powerless unless people vote for them, no matter how fervent they are. If they gain power they are more fairly described as "the majority".