Don, you make a good point. it is religious people, not religion that is the issue. But that is a stance that may make sense, but is ultimately frustrating. If they do things in the name of a religion, it is a description of that religion. as a religion is an abstract formed by people, then any action in it's name forms part of it's whole. Like it or lump it. And the constitution of said religion does not help. Bible, Koran, whatever.. All talk about raping women, slaughtering children and genocide as an article of faith.

Mousethief. There is no such thing as an atheist. I reckon it to be a term of slur used by those who recognise religion. There is no term of reference for somebody who doesn't collect stamps, (antiphilatelist?) no word to describe somebody who doesn't follow football, (weird person?) no word to describe etc etc... So why a word to describe somebody who doesn't give superstition a second thought?

I am not an atheist, I am, to coin a phrase I heard by Jeremy Clarkson that I am comfortable with, irreligious. Even then, I am not comfortable with having a term to describe my stance.   Atheism by definition means no belief in anything, or ultimately chaos. As I said above, I can prove that f=ma, therefore there is not chaos. therefore atheism is a belief of its own rather than a sneering term used by superstitious people about people who are somewhat more rational when it comes to moral compass thoughts.

There are many civilisations. In fact all of them. it isn't praying for crops and sacrificing children that gives the harvest, it is the toil and sweat of planting and collecting. it isn't asking a deity to build shelter, it is people with daub, reed whatever. Now... at some point in any civilisation, you have to ensure the masses don't rise up because the leaders are more comfortable than them. You need a tool to keep them down. Can you guess what it is yet?

As i said, if we didn't have religion, we would have to invent it. Scriptures, wonderful stories some of them, (apart from the condoning oppression, genocide etc,) can make a good moral compass, morals to compare your actions with, and that ain't a bad thing if that's what you need. The problem being, said scriptures are part of controlling the masses, so by their existence, they are about ensuring everybody else sings from the same hymn sheet, (literally in some cases.)

And that is Willie's beef. And that is why Willie gets a bit hot under the collar where religions try to control society. Here in The UK, we have an issue at the moment where the Archbishop of Canterbury is sitting on the fence again regarding ordaining a gay bishop. the Prime Minister may have to intervene, (see? our politicians have to make the appointments, hence giving credence to the supremacy in law of religion.) We have laws, good or bad, concerning equality. How can a religion wish to be recognised under UK law and at the same time ignore equality? yet... they seem to think they can. That makes it a bigoted, and sadly illegal in the strict sense of the word, organisation. And they sit in the Lords, our upper house, pontificating over laws passed by our elected parliament.

You couldn't make it up.