Hey Joe,

thanks for the thoughtful response to my comments. Of course, it is obvious that I put them slightly more provocatively than required, but that is to try and smoke out debate.

I hope I don't come over as dismissing non fundamentalists as not being true adherents to their faith, although if I did, I would perversely be as one with the fundamentalists!   My picture of religion is on two levels really, and both are tinged with sadness.

First, at an intellectual and realistic level, if there is a grand design, nobody has seen the blueprint yet. The laws of physics hold, so I doubt there is chaos, but it was the likes of Newton, Planck, Einstein, Hawking and Bohr who have come closest to discovering the possibly undiscoverable, not those who walked in the heat of deserts for huge numbers of days and interpreted their delirium as something other than err.. delirium.

So what? You may say. It is the parable approach to weighing up your moral code that counts and the personification of an ultimate being (God) is an excellent proxy for what we don't understand. I actually like the literal approach to saying God is Love. Take it literally and I doubt anybody could argue otherwise.

However, the customs, chants, procedures and rationale of organised religions do make claims. Like it or lump it, they not infer, they seem to require the idea of an interventionalist sentient being who judges our actions and wants us to be grateful for the good things He does whilst not blaming him for the bad things in life. if I were to view religion as anything other than a tradition we are brought up with, I would fall at that particular hurdle.

You are right in asking why you have to bear their shame if they are the perversion. However, my point is that perversion is a relative thing. Are they peverting a mild idea or are you watering down a fundamental idea? depends on where you are observing from, and here outside the bubble, it is not quite as clear as you seem to think it is.

I may be wrong in saying the religion of many people requires uniformity, but religion as a corporate body has leaders and rules that are bandied about in your name. The Pope would be far happier if all catholics conformed to a level of adherence he would have you aspire to. Similarly, the Archbishop of Canterbury is digging himself a huge hole over ordination of female Bishops. My mate the local vicar wears a dog collar, so does an African supporter of death sentence for being gay. Both look to Dr Williams for a spiritual lead. Forgive me for being slightly cynical here, but how could I call myself an Anglican believer? Believe in what?? No. Using scripture to back up more temporal stances is far too convenient.

You ask where you fit in my picture. Well, you appear to have dedicated your life to doing good and if there were more around like you, the world would be a better place. And that strengthens my point. By saying you are in reasonably good standing, you run the risk of shallow people like me interpret that as meaning "reasonably at one with all the shennanigans going on in the Vatican."   So instead of viewing you as the wonderful person you must be, (and your tree post moved me, really did,) I would run the risk of associating you with what I have seen when in poor countries, seeing a huge catholic church with gilded statues, wealth pouring from every crevice in the huge monolithic building. Oh, and the kids running around the village square in rags, lack of education and life expectancy of residents being lower than my village was 200 years ago.

I could go on, and not just one type of faith, (although if the Vatican used it's wealth in the way the teachings of Jesus seems to say it should, and stop shaming contraception initiatives, and stop hiding it's more wayward employees from the authorities, and stop linking aid to baptism of those communities needing aid....   Sorry Joe, but you can't bring forward your adherence level without it being assessed against the actions of the church you are adhering to.)

I could look at my moral code and tick it against many religions expectations of its members. I am sure I tick more boxes than some people who would wish to be seen to be associated with a particular religion. Likewise, many people are comfortable with using scripture to inspire them without feeling associated with any particular creed.    But to associate yourself with a particular creed is inviting others to associate you with it too. it would be presumptuous of people to assume you agree with this but not that etc.

A female Iranian comic here in the UK tells stories about their local Imam in London. he preaches charity, love others etc. She jokes that he is Mullah Lite. Very good.....