Sadly, I kinda disagree all the way around.

I disagree with the simplified notion that one can (scientifically? rationally? logically?) lump a bunch of beliefs together, combine them collectively as "religion" and, though they disagree with each other -- often vehmently -- invalidate them all wholesale.

If one was really going to claim to approach this logically, one would (I think) have to approach each different belief and invalidate it on it's own merits or lack thereof.

Which leads me to why I think the wolfgang/Big Mick assertion is equally weak (much as I may like those guys). I don't think all philosophies and religions are equally valid. And I do think it matters whose beliefs and philosophies are superior or inferior.

I just happen to think that those philosophical superiorities and inferiorities should be "fought out" without the aid of government intervention.

Sadly, many of those philosophies drive folks to war or antisocial action. They always have and, unless I'm mistaken, I think it's naive to think that it won't ever be thus. When they do, I believe we have no other recourse but to at least refuse them that avenue of "persuasion".

My view of Christianity is that it would be of no value to "force" someone to believe as I do. That is because the act of forcing would make the choice invalid anyway. The Christianity with which I am familiar, though generously willing to share ideas and even argue philosophy, would none-the-less be totally puzzled at the notion of forcing someone to believe as we believe. I, and Christians who belive the same as I, believe Christianity must be volitional to be valid.

Because we live in a democracy I am given a voice in our government equal to the voice of those who believe as cruiser. Though I may not believe it of any value to force specifically Christian action from the general populace, my faith informs me on any number of things upon which any number of rational people would agree (banning murder, thievery, child abuse, etc). To the extent that that is "forcing my beliefs on you"......yup, I'll vote that way. We have the right as citizens to "force each other" to act the way we think they should. Likewise, I bet you guys regularly "force" me to act according to your beliefs, your morality.

Ever been in an argument in which you knew with absolute certainty that you were right.......only to have a "peacemaker" come along and assume to be smoothing things over by charcterizing your opponent correctly, then mischaracterizing your position, and finally, in the name of "peace" suggesting a compromise on his newly established reality? Pisses you right off, eh?