Originally Posted by nostrum09
At this point we're more in agreement. The first part where I say religion is responsible for morals was bad wording. As I've ended up clarifying, religion is the mechanism by which man-made morals (those sets of rules and ideas that society came to believe to be best for their own survival) were handed down to the people to ensure that they followed orders, which was also in the best interest of society. Religion may have outlived its usefulness from that perspective, but we still can't deny that it's very likely that religion has gotten us to where we are now (even if we hit stumbling blocks along the way). And so what if it's outlived its usefulness? Subject to the exemptions I mentioned before (like nanny-statism because of religious convictions), if someone believes, who cares? Just like those on the left believe that same-sex marriage is a no-brainer since it doesn't affect the lives of those not gay, how does the personal religious belief (again subject to those exemptions) of someone affect anyone else?
Examples were brought up about the superiority of science over religion, so I felt it appropriate to mention that even great scientists have been respectful of that fact that science may not explain everything, and that religiousness/spirituality is not in and of itself bad.
Personal religion is fine as long as it does not become part of domestic and international policy. "God told me" should never be a valued argument in favor of going to war, for example.