Peter wrote:
"My aim is not to elevate religion, but to point out that strong anti religous beleifs (which are a kind of religion) can lead to a negative form of "Creation Science"."

I disagree. It is not a religion to refute Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Why is it a kind of religion to refute religious nonsense?

You write:
"A balanced view of Religion would admit the possiblity of good as well as bad"

Oh I'll grant you the "possibility" of good as well as bad. But lets take a good look at historical reality. Take piece of paper and on one side write all of the good things that can be definitely attributed to religion: On the other all of the bad. Lets go good side / bad side.

G: Raises money to help the poor.
B: Spends billions on glorious churches.

G: Talks about the Golden Rule.
B: Supported most wars in the last 10,000 years.

G: Puts free bibles into hotel rooms.
B: Causes perfectly good trees to be cut down.

I'll grant "good" is possible if you'll grant that the overwhelming reality is that it has failed in that mission.

Why should I, or anyone, care what many US citizens think of nationalism? What is good is not a popularity contest.

Personally I have never been hurt by religion. Nor can I say that I have ever met any individuals hurt by it other than a friend who was sexually abused by a Catholic priest in the 1960s. My objection is based on 10,000 years of historical reality ... not some personal injury.

So far all of the religious organizations on this planet have not prayed their way to a cure for polio ... for smallpox ... for TB ... or obtained the favours of their creator to tell them about penicillin.

When the Pope or Father Jones or Imam Mohammed or Rabbi Goldberg delliver to humanity a cure for AIDS or war I'll change my mind.

Until then I see them as part of the problem not part of the solution.

DA Morgan