Earlier this morning, Grishka said something that I think should be noted:

Religion is similar to ethnicity: normally you do not choose it, you are it, regardless of what you think of its representatives and prevailing ideologies. For example, if Salman Rushdie is called a "British Indian novelist" in Wikipedia, he can also be described as an "atheist Muslim".

I generally share this non-ideological view of religion, but it certainly doesn't apply as well to the ideological types like fundamentalist Christians (and Muslims, to an extent). American Protestantism tends toward this "proper ideology" perspective, but it's mostly the fundamentalists in every religious group that get bound up in this obsession with being in possession of the truth. For them, "correct" ideology is the be-all and end-all of religion. And like it or not, there are a lot of atheists for whom "correct" ideology is equally important. Maybe there's validity in Grishka's thinking even on this - certain people come from a background that prizes ideological correctness, and it is these people who make the most strident religionists or atheists.

For the rest of us, we are individuals who come from a context that includes ethnic and cultural and religious (or non-religious) traditions, and we view the world and life from our own context. Our ideas are influenced by the context from which we spring - but our thinking is not dictated by that context. If we're honest about it, we know that our particular context is neither "best" nor "worst" - it simply is, warts and all. And in that case, the question which is the basis of this entire discussion, is moot.

-Joe-