I have been musing on whether to bother getting into this particular thread.
Some of you know my basic views from years of reading them, and they are often a winding path between some of the other views here...both positive and negative.
From my viewpoint, (which is the result of being raised a Methodist, then entering a full college course of Philosophy and gradually becoming non-religious,) there are so many addenda and sub-topics needed here to explore the issues and opinions raised, that I am at a loss how to start.

WYSIWYG commented that her post had gone without reply, so I will use it to show why I say there are so many other points to be raised.

(note: WYSI & I have compared ideas on these things for several years, and we mostly respect each other's attitude and opinions)

"GOOD Authority" is authority ceded by free (non-coerced) choice, by a strong person, within a concept called "right relationship," to a power the person acknowledges to be a higher power. Not necessarily "higher" in terms of more-power, but power of a higher SORT than that power which the person has for one's own.

She has made a clear, informative and internally consistent definition......with the relevant term to 'me' being 'internally consistent'. The problem is, for that definition to be useful, a person must already be within a system, i.e., religion, that acknowledges that there IS such a thing as a 'higher power'.
This is the situation with many of the concepts & beliefs that get tossed about when religion is discussed, and it is why I never seem to be able to totally agree with either of the more extreme views.
It is, simply, not a trivial point to recognize that the reason the word 'belief' is used for certain human ideas, from religion to other arcane & metaphysical concepts, is that that they ARE ...ummmm... beliefs, and not 'facts'. I cannot emphasize enough how non-trivial this point is.
   When anyone makes a statement asserting something about religion, either positive or negative, they are usually assuming some unstated premises that are often not obvious, even to the assertor. The result of this is that so many of these discussions/debates get hung up on just a clash of contrary beliefs, with no one trying to see the other side's perspective.

Why do I keep harping on the non-triviality of my point? Because there is often a practical, operant difference in the way folks of opposing views make decisions and view others in society.
It is not 'just' whether one believes in a 'higher power' or not: it is what one 'believes' that higher power wants done and what the consequences of NOT doing it are. I am not familiar with the details of what Islam requires of its faithful (and I suspect there is not universal agreement within Islam)....but I KNOW that some Christian groups expect (require?) that its members try to recruit non-believers and also 'witness' their beliefs by publicly attempting to have their beliefs accepted into secular areas. Other groups do not emphasize this as much.
You see where this is going? There is no one, simple, clearly defined set of beliefs....nor is there any simple, clear, unambiguous form of rejection of religious ideas. The result is that daily practical conflicts arise as both sides attempt to justify and argue their behavior, voting patterns, food choices, dress patterns....and posts on Mudcat.. *wry smile*.
   Seldom does anyone explicitly acknowledge their rock-bottom assumptions in religious discussions..pro or con.... even though arguments go on tediously based ON those assumptions, with neither side quite realizing exactly what they disagree about...or why!(Little Hawk does explain himself pretty well and often, but I keep telling him that his are SO general that they are like cotton-candy... he, naturally, disagrees ☺.)

So... Joe Offer and others suggest that religion as religion is "ethically neutral", and I see the point they are trying to make. But it is also the case that--- ☛the very existence of a set of concepts that cannot be demonstrated and which are variably but seriously interpreted all over the world becomes a practically NON-neutral topic by default.

**We cannot treat something AS neutral which, by its very nature, requires behavior that comes into conflict with those who do not accept its premises**

We can, with effort and tolerance, mitigate that conflict and 'get along', but the basic conceptual differences permeate life in ways we don't always realize.

It ain't easy, folks....and the only ways to make it easy would not be acceptable to either side. This is what being human and being able to 'reason' means.