Thanks for reading, it betrays an open-mindedness we could all do with more of.

You’re still not quite there, logic-wise, but maybe getting closer.

“Why should (religious people distinguish between their faith and their person)? Asking a Christian to leave their values and religiously-based positions aside is rather like asking a dairy farmer to leave aside his interest in dairy farming when taking part in his democracy”

If that’s the way you view it, then no sweat. Rural areas send representatives for rural interests, urban for urban, etc. They haggle and sort out a compromise, then on we go.

The key word in that paragraph is “compromise”.

People think democracy is about trying to win, but that is incorrect – the essence of democracy is losing. Specifically, being willing to lose. That’s what made January 6th such a watershed – an entire political party announced they were not willing to lose. Anyone who can’t accept compromising their positions can’t be a functioning participant in a democratic society.

The problem with religion is when it turns uncompromising. In a recent poll, 41% of Republicans said the Bible should overrule the will of the people. That’s theocracy, not democracy.

“You say ‘I either want an atheist country or I think Christians shouldn't be allowed to participate in governing the country.’”

Just to be clear, this is exactly not what I am saying.

“Though you don't say this explicitly, you also seem to believe that a Christian-based political belief can't possibly have any merit outside of its Christian basis.”

Not necessarily. My opinion is that in a multi-faith democracy, political beliefs without merit outside of their religious basis don’t have a place. It’s time to stop doing the Christian thing just because it’s the Christian thing.

Abortion is an interesting case. I personally don’t believe someone is alive at all until viable outside the womb, or should be conferred full rights until born. In between is fair game for questions. If I did, I might be opposed to abortion. You may believe something different. That’s cool, and it doesn’t matter how you came by that decision.

The problem is deciding when life begins. There is no hard and fast definition of life. (If it does begin at conception then we’re in a world of trouble, and yes of course I wrote about that too. A Modest Proposal for Protecting the Unborn: if it’s really about life then there are some consequences we have to consider.) A compromise position has been struck, but some people aren’t willing to live by it.

“Forgive me, but I believe this instinct of yours highlights a bias against positions held by Christians that might otherwise be considered reasonable, even if you still reasonably disagree with them.”

Absolutely not. How many times do I have to say I don’t give a damn about anybody’s faith? I judge as I find. Do not kill, keep your hands off your neighbor’s old lady, all that basic stuff. To be honest, I have no ideas what you guys believe in. All this talk about life, but throwing some kid in a cage to discourage his parents from trying to cross the border ain’t respect for life. As far as I can tell, a lot of you guys wash your hands of the kid at birth.

“Yes and no (that America is already the most overtly Christian country in the developed world).”

Have you done my “imagine it’s Islam” experiment? Trust me, the only way to avoid overt religiosity is to lock myself in my house and disconnect the TV and internet. It’s everywhere, and it is in my face every minute. Go try the experiment.

“Did you know, for example, that many African churches that once received missionaries from American churches are now sending their own missionaries back to the U.S., so rapid is the decline in Christian belief?”

Not surprising. Conservative Christians act like dickheads, and it seems even liberal Christians are sick of their act. Maybe younger people want more New Testament and less Old? If you guys followed my advice and kept it under your hat more you’d be more popular.

“Furthermore, apart from a few geographically specific areas, American Christianity is more in line with liberal politics than ever. In fact (and I apologize, I don't have the details/citations on hand, but I trust this will ring true) one's Christian beliefs rarely affect one's politics. A Christian in California, Portland, or New York City, is likely to be liberal, just as any person is probably liberal who lives in those areas. A Christian in Houston, Florida, or Alabama, is likely to be conservative, just as any person is probably conservative who lives in those areas. Religious beliefs don't tend to affect one's political beliefs materially, it just changes the language one uses (à la Wittgenstein's language game theory, perhaps?)”

Sorry, gotta call no way on that. I live in Washington, a reliably blue state where Republicans struggle to elect any candidate statewide, but our conservative Christians are as foam-at-the-mouth loopy as anybody in Alabama. If you do look up the numbers, it’s more accurate to say religious beliefs dictate political beliefs, or at least correlate.

“I recognize (our Catholic majority Supreme Court rules tomorrow that America is a Catholic nation and the Pope is allowed to dictate national policy) is a hypothetical. However, I'm sure you recognize that this is completely impossible.”

The point isn’t whether it’s possible, it’s asking yourself how a non-Catholic would feel about it.

“There are so many rules in place that would prevent this from even becoming a possibility that it's absurd to think about…The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids something like this happening.”

Yeah, that’s what I used to think, too. But I’m getting less and less sure every year. I never thought it would be possible for the Bible to supersede the law, but almost half of Republicans are down with that, and I have no faith the current SCOTUS would stand in the way of it. You may disagree, but ever since I decided the GOP and the Religious Right have no bottom to their behavior, I’ve rarely been wrong.

“Any S.C. Justice that approved this would likely be removed from the bench by demonstrating their extreme inaptitude for the position.”

You actually believe this Republican Party would vote to impeach any conservative judge ever, for any reason? Your naivete is positively adorable.

“Our laws, for better or worse, do prioritize some freedoms over others.”

Absolutely. That’s not what I meant. I would never support abolishing religion, banning guns, etc. But all those rights do have limitations, none are (or were ever meant to be) absolute. I meant when rights of equal weight clash.

“When it comes to tolerance, I'm not too interested. Tolerance tolerates bad ideas.”

Ah, but what are these “bad ideas”? For example: when I look at the U.S. Congress, I see an entire party wedded to what I consider very, very bad ideas. But somebody, somewhere elected these basket cases – and they feel the same way about me and my elected officials.

“In place of tolerance, we should have respect for truth.”

As a scientist by nature and training, this is my goal always. But that may bother you, because religious beliefs cannot be proven true.

“I don't want you to tolerate my ideas, nor I with yours.”

But you did ask about why I didn’t want to tolerate your religion. A tolerant society is one which decides what the rules should be, then lets people live and let live within those rules. Intolerance is refusing to do that. People who say racist things are going to be unpopular. Gay people have rights now, everybody needs to stop discriminating against them. Those who support bans on Muslim immigration or the building of mosques don’t get to claim they believe in freedom of religion.

“Perhaps we need a more open society, not a free society. Rather than shutting people's religions behind closed doors, we should all gather and not be offended when someone questions the veracity of our religious, scientific, or political claims.”

That is my dream world. However, in going on 60 years on this globe, I’ve seen a whole lot of people being offended and questioning the veracity of others' religious, scientific, or political claims…and almost all of it has been by Christians against everyone else.

Have you heard the saying “When all you’ve known is privilege, equality feels like oppression”? That’s what you’re feeling right now. For the first time in my life, the “nons” – non-white, non-straight, non-Christian – are winning. Occasionally.

When I was born, there was no Civil Rights Act, people went to prison for their sexuality, and there were states where women couldn’t get credit without a male cosigner. When I was in school, leaving off “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance could get you beaten up after school and any book with anti-Christian sentiment was unlikely to be in the library – and these things are still true in many places.

As a side note on the stupidity of “cancel culture”: did you notice all the anger on the right over liberals “canceling” J.K. Rowling for perceived anti-trans sentiment? It came off as very cynical, given that she has been one of the authors whose books have been most challenged in school libraries – by Christians.

I'm sorry to say it, but when I hear the word “Jesus” I cringe. To me it means bigotry, intolerance, and censorship. It has defined what I can say and do, and who I can vote for. I was a teacher in a small town, and you can bet your backside I never let a negative word about religion pass my lips. It’s a constant oppressive presence that seeps into every aspect of my life.

And despite that, I still don’t want to take your religion away. Weird, right? You’d think after all these years of a boot on my neck I’d want to get up and kick your ass. But I’m willing to let bygones be bygones. Just back it out of my face and stop trying to demand special favors for one faith in a country that supposedly doesn’t have an official religion. That’s all I ask.