The quote in italics in Joe Offer's post was a direct riposte to his accusation that I'm an absolutist (his usual desperate resort, and always a pretty ridiculous one). That context is vitally important in understanding what I was trying to say, but, just as bible-quoters often do, the context was left behind. There is not only one correct answer, Joe. I must have said a hundred times down the years that I'm on the fence when it comes to God, admittedly not quite with one testicle on each side, of course. Neither you nor I has any kind of correct answer. The difference between us is that I prefer to put the rational case for seeking explanations that fit the laws of nature (and what beauty and diversity there is in nature that needs no extra layer of the supernatural imposed on it!) whilst you prefer to eschew that approach in favour of your perceived "deeper truths" and "sacred beliefs," an approach that immunises you against my sort of reality. That's all. As a thinking Catholic you are one of the more benign manifestations of religion, most of which is decidedly non-benign. But even you won't dissociate yourself from passing on your unsupported beliefs to children. I care not a jot about people's dearly-held beliefs, but I do care an awful lot about the ways in which children are forced to join the club long before they can think it out for themselves and how they are bombarded with the notion that they just happen to have been born into the one and only true faith. That's me when it comes to religion. No bitterness, no absolutism. Show us that you can say the same. And, while you're at it, keep your head.