Bill's assertion is flawed (in my opinion) in at least three ways:
1. He sets the foundation with the implication that religion gets in the way of rational thought -- and he does so by lumping all religion together in his statement, as though the differences between religions themselves is inconsequential in determining the rationality of their thought.
This way, "religion" is now something that is no more rational -- no stronger -- that its weakest link -- its least capable apologist.
2. Then he graciously and patronizingly allows as how, against all probability, somehow some religious people are still capable of rational thought.
3. But he further qualifies point number two: It is based on a judgement on his part -- that the religious, in order to be able to think rationally, must not actually believe what they believe.
I say that not all religions are equally reasonable or rational. And I say that the extent to which a particular religion is reasonable or rational will naturally dictate the extent to which they might influence a liberally educated, pluralistic, democratic society.