Don...it's not always about 'condemning' religions for anything, but just a problem with the unwarranted influence of religious doctrines on public policy or cultural norms.
Remember when it came out about:" First Lady Nancy Reagan's reliance on a San Francisco astrologer to determine the timing of the President's every public move. "?

"Wow", said a lot of people, "not a good idea to allow such a set of unfounded beliefs be the deciding factor in serious matters!"

Hard to control, but easy to understand the concerns.

But when it comes to religion, we are often expected to ignore certain ideas and practices because they come from a person's 'sacred beliefs'?

There are all sorts of things that 'some' people really 'believe' that most of the others would be shocked to hear was affecting their lives directly. (phrenology, Tarot, crystal balls, I Ching, reincarnation...etc.)

The point is that *IF* someone makes decisions about anything with a set of premises that are either false or cannot be tested, *then* they can construct almost any conclusions from them. I have posted this basic principle of logic several times.

From false premises, anything follows!

This is not some silly arcane slogan logicians invented to tease folks with...it has deep implications.


Now...before I get the usual complaints, let me reassure everyone... I KNOW that we cannot prove religion to BE false, (or any of those other beliefs), but **religiosity**, as a guiding principle, is used daily to justify things that are obviously against sane thinking. (Pat Robertson's stupid remarks are just some of the more egregious...they get public notice) There is not some clear line drawn where stuff on one side is 'ok' and across the line is 'dumb'. The line is a continuum with degrees of concern, value judgment, and public approval or disapproval.
   The Salem witch trials were 'really bad', as was 'burning at the stake' and other grotesque distortions of what religion is supposed to be about. How about church sanctioned exorcism? Borderline, huh? Self-flagellation? Matter of personal choice, but not exactly promoted, I gather. Snake handling? Basically rejected, but tolerated in some areas and considered 'quaint' when TV producers get to film it. Reciting public prayers before a meeting or sports event? Kinda depends on where you are and who complains!
Eventually, we get to religious beliefs and practices that are widely 'approved' simply because they are 1)accepted by a majority, 2)not terribly intrusive or dangerous ...like taking communion or fasting on certain days.

The only difference in the stuff in the list is degree of 'approval', not logic or science.

It is NOT right to condemn "a religion" for obvious stupid excesses and distortions by individuals...or even to try to deny the basis on which people believe what they believe; but it is relevant to be aware that 'religiosity' can be a matter of concern when it is used to explain, justify, promote, control... and otherwise affect human interactions.

"Separation of church & state" is not supposed to be just a slogan, it's supposed to be a fair guiding principle of THIS country's progress.