I just posted this comment to another author which might be relevant:

Before Martin Luther announced that those who want to be justified have to live by faith; for the previous 1500 years people lived in a contrary fashion. Its been almost 2000 years since Jesus and his disciples did these things that is the hallmark of a living faith. What you have today getting about as church is as far away from the church as the people 1000 years ago who who were not living by faith but living none the less. You are asking the right questions, and if I were in your shoe I’d probably be a bit more ungracious about my inquiries. I am presently struggling like Martin might have in his day to unearth the proof of such faith you wish to examine and deserve. I have to strangle my discontent with people who call themselves fellow-Christians cause I can’t seem to raise these issues with them. You post comments to their blogs they talk past you to their little peanut gallery of entrenched like-minded whatever. I know what it’s like to want to know and are on the other side of that knowledge; was like that for my first 19 years. I have learned quite a bit since but had no regrets. I hate to say it but these days if you had the knowledge base and could make sense of the information science seem more on point with the question of god that what religion you find getting about.

Best regards

Certainly it is possible for religion and culture to be separated. Ideally, a culture which does not depend on religion for cohesion would allow for the same diversity of beliefs, not just in religion but in all areas, without basing decisions on issues that effect the entire culture on any particular religious belief. Understand this and you understand what I wanted to build with the atheist meetup all along.

The conflict is that certain religious org think it is a part of their “freedom of religion” to deny their employees insurance coverage of certain health care procedures and treatments their religion disagrees with. I am quite sure this is stretching the intend of a law that prevents any individual from being persecuted for following their chosen religion or supporting other religions though their taxes. Do we let them get around whatever laws or regulations they want in the name of “freedom of religion”? I think not.

A very well written article with many very good points and lots of good info. As you may have guessed, I have a few difficulties with some of the philosophical ideas. I think there are areas you may have over simplified. A person can be anti-abortion without being a religious fanatic. I personally know many people who are not religious at all and are against abortion. In fact I am puzzled how a person can be a humanist and be pro-choice. I don’t think it is a question of women’s rights. I agree that anyone should have the right to use contraception and I think we should provide it for those who cannot afford it. A woman has other rights as well. She has a right not to get pregnant by whatever method she chooses. She has a right to give an unwanted child up for adoption. She has a right to quality medical care if she becomes pregnant. The only right she does not have here is a right that no one has. She does not have the right to end a human life. Actually she does have a legal right to end that life. She does not have a moral right to do that.

If you want to maintain freedom FROM religion in this country, you must also maintain freedom OF religion. You cannot force a religious organization to comply with a rule that goes against their religious beliefs. No matter how foolish you think they are, if you wish to remain free you must also protect their freedoms. The obvious solution to the plight of the nurse you mentioned is for her to go to work for a secular hospital, or provide her own birth control. The better solution of course is to enact national health care and take those decisions out of the hands of religious institutions.