I concur there should be no harm or foul in disbeliving any proposition that you canot find evidence for. Whether you laugh at such or not is a matter of manners, not law. But it has always been aprimary rule of law in these parts, whether honored or not, that any individual within these shores has complete freedom to choose the "imaginary universe" that suits im or her best. That principle should never be abandoned, even if hard-core material science cannot find a good reason for it.

If the matter of gods, spirits and other things of a religious ilk cannot be left entirely out of the hustings, then there will be a serious problem. Hardcore anti-evolutionists and similar extremists in the US have already drawn up battle lines and strategems in some quarters, preferring to fall on the baricades of necessary than to allow any flexibility or tolerance in their religious views. The debacle of the Scopes trial and its sappy re-run in Dover, PA are examples.

Science and law must be preserved as territories where religion has no voice except in the neutrality thereto.

A