ake: " it is perfectly possible for any rational person, either religious, atheist, or agnostic, to be opposed to "abortion on demand"
But it is also possible for rational persons of all those types to be in favor of the "freedom to choose". The common attitude is that abortion is almost always unfortunate & regrettable, but sometimes necessary. My view is that because rational people can disagree, free choice is the only rational rule to follow. No one should be forced or intimidated to undergo an abortion, but neither should they be prevented from it by those who disagree.


Pete.."... you seem to support the discrimination against bible believers in public office. "

That is not what I said. I said...or tried to say.. that those in public office should not use their religious beliefs in administering their office. Please understand that "bible believers" does not necessarily mean the most fundamentalist ones... such as you. There are many judges, members of Congress and clerks who consider themselves to be good Christians, but who are not Creationists, and who do not assume that the Bible is the final, official word on matters of conscience.
Once again, because even rational believers in various religions differ in their interpretations, the rule should be that *choice* is involved, and that the most conservative view is not the only reasonable view. (Isn't that easy to understand when seeing what the most conservative Muslims sometimes do in the name of their religion?)

When Scalia implies that his religious beliefs may influence his legal decisions, it indicates something beyond just rational disagreement. As I have said often, there are reasons why the word "belief" is used for certain things. If I were to assault you, saying that I 'believe' that you are possessed by demons, I assume you'd want to be defended on the grounds that I have no reasonable proof of such beliefs. My right to act on some beliefs ends where YOUR rights begin... and THAT is why fundamentalist religious beliefs should not be allowed to be imposed on those who do not accept them... and why those who deny various scientific findings should not be in positions where they can restrict what science tells us is good for people in general. They can try to DO science, but if they begin with a settled view of how the answers must be arranged, they are not actually doing science.

(and by the way... I have never called myself an atheist. I am a skeptic.... and a rationalist who has not seen what my reason tells me are good reasons for most religious beliefs)