The problem comes from the use of language. When I see phrases like "...MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT..." and "Total, complete, 100%, unremitting BULLSHIT." then I have to assume that there is anger building and that does not add to the conversation/debate. I do not feel anger in this, only the stimulation of a good intellectual exchange. Thus I don't have enough invested in it to continue.

If you do want to continue I am perfectly willing. I refuse to participate in an attack on an individual. Attacks on someone's point is expected but should be phrased to pick apart the argument, not to impugn the individual making the argument.

On the original question of religion and respecting the belief system, I think we are saying the same thing. If the belief system causes harm to others there is a problem that needs to be changed. The mechanics of change are impossible to scope out but I believe it would have to be done.

On the question of science and religion we are talking apples and oranges. You cannot compare one to the other. However one can overlay the other. Religion lends itself to rationalizing arguments and interpretations that allows a scientist to be a religious person.

I'm curious as to why you consider my definition of science to be narrow.