Dear Sherry,
Thank you for your feedback on my opinion piece from Philosoraptor. Lucky for both of us, the makeup of our society allows for this kind of free exchange without fear of repurcussions -- unlike the rigid culture of the terrorists who wish to destroy us.

Allow me to use quotes from your letter to keep myself on topic and direct my responses to portions of your letter.

You said: "In your article "The American Jihad", you practically denounced any type of American 'religion', because you thought that was invoking the wrath of Bin Laden and his 'thugs'"

Perhaps you misunderstood the point of my article. It wasn't a denunciation of any religion at all - not yours, not Islam, not my own beliefs - but, instead attempted to draw a parallel between different forms of zealotry. Zealotry is a danger - in the case of the Islamic world, zealotry has led them to incubate a culture of hatred which produces children willing to kill themselves in order to slaughter defenseless civilians. In the case of Americans, we generally distrust zealots and yet we have had our own brushes with them in the past -- the Salem Witch trials, the Ku Klux Klan after the Civil War; the anti-Communist fervor of the '50s which culminated in McCarthy's congressional inquisition, and more. We are hardly immune.

So what has preserved our freedom through those close calls with extremism? Why haven't we fallen prey to the same historical forces that swallowed Russia in 1917 and Germany and Japan in the 1930s? I submit to you that our safety net is precisely the fact that we maintain an open society where no one idea holds sway over any other save for the idea that freedom belongs to us all. To Americans, ideas are the single most precious thing in life - so precious that we willingly spill our blood in defense of those ideas. But in order for this system to function properly, we must guard against any one idea (other than Freedom) gaining primacy over any other idea -- and that particularly applies to religion. Our country includes millions of faithful Christians - yet if we listen to a few of them and allow their faith to be enforced through law, are we going to institute the laws of the Baptists, the Catholics, the Unitarians, the Methodists, the Jehovah Witness, the Pentacostals, or who? When religion is allowed that primacy, then religion in turn becomes subject to its own exclusionary laws. In other words, by abandoning the secular principles of government on which we were founded, you actually risk your own freedom to worship as you choose. You make your own faith fair game.

So what does that have to do with bin Laden and Bush? Simply this: Framing our fears and sorrow in terms of faith is understandable. Framing our determination and "crusade" in terms of that same faith is not. We risk becoming the same religious militants as the ones against whom we are fighting.

Quote: "yet in your article, "The Cult of Scientology" you call Scientology, a 'cult'. Can't you make up your mind? Scientology IS a 501c3 tax-exempt 'religion' and may well be considered a 'cult' by me, you, and others, but nevertheless, it IS a 'religion' that exists in this country, among many, many, religions that you find deplorable - YET, my friend, you attack, deny, and waste your words on negative comments about most of them, if not all."

If you're familiar with the history of Scientology, then you're also aware of the very shady circumstances under which they gained their 501c status. Simply because they've been granted tax exemption does not spare them from criticism. The fact that they use superstitious, phony "science" to mislead their followers makes them dangerous -- in fact, if you read the article you will note the citations from more than one judge in more than one country who called it a menace.

From my article:
"Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious...It is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit" - Justice Latey, ruling in the High Court of London.

"The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile." -California Superior Court Judge Breckenridge, speaking of L. Ron Hubbard, in a 1984 decision.

So you see, the problem is not so much that Scientology might be a legitimate religion. The problem is that it relies on falsehoods, corruption and deceit to survive.

Moving along, you next said: "In contrast, Sodom and Gomorrah was a city full of freedoms, rights, and social causes that went 'unchecked'. Look where it ended up? "

This reminds me of the warnings my small town friends gave me before I left home for college. They were afraid that exposure to "all those ideas" would confuse me. In reality, knowledge set me free. Knowledge isn't a danger except to ideas which cannot stand on their own in the daylight. More so, the only true test of the validity of an idea is by holding it up to examination and debate. What you seem to be implying here - and I hope not - is that knowledge and enlightenment are "wicked". I'm truly sorry there are people in the world who would agree with that, because it has only been through knowledge and reason that Man has survived and prospered - and only through them that we will survive in the future. Without knowledge and enlightenment, we would be faced with another era in which religion and superstition ruled the world. The last time that happened, we called it "The Dark Ages".

Quote: "Having said that because this country is headed in the same direction, I believe the 'end' of this age is coming to a quick close, according to the scriptures, that I believe in. Oh yes, there are Christians that tout doom and gloom, and victory, at the same time, but I do not. I read the scriptures as literal and not try to read between the lines. I don't think God meant for it to be a puzzlebook."

I'm afraid bin Laden would agree with you. You see, he too takes his holy book literally. He believes every single word it says - especially the parts about killing your enemies. And, certainly, the Bible has its own passages recommending or supporting genocide and infanticide (Joshua 6:21 and Deuteronomy 2:26-35), slavery ((Genesis 9:25-27), religious pogroms (Kings 18:17-40) and torturing civilian prisoners during war (2 Samuel 12:26-31). This is the consequence of placing unthinking trust in one source - particularly a source with such diverse and wide-ranging authorship.

As for Judgement Day, were you aware that there have been cults predicting the end of the world for virtually all of the 10,000 years of recorded human history? None of them have been right, yet. Quote: I believe this invoke the wrath and jealousy of other nations that Israel is such a small nation, yet very mighty because God's hand is still upon it - they are a covenant nation with God. Jealousy is a very evil force.

Of course, Israel's modern armored force and American-built F15 and F16s have something to do with it, as well as the incompetent military of the Arab nations.

Quote: I do not know why you find GOD so despicable, or maybe you just don't believe there is a God - maybe you had a bad experience in your life with a religious zealot????

If you read my Jihad article and the one on Scientology, did you not also read the "21st Century Fall Guys" ? I believe it discusses in detail many of the common misconceptions related to non-belief. It does not require a "bad experience" for a thinking person to realize that religious leaders are not necessarily nor automatically right by virtue of their station. Nor does it require a religious belief to lead a good, moral life.

Quote: "I pose this question to you about your faith, or your lack of it:

If I am WRONG about Jesus being the Son of God and having to believe upon Him to be saved and have the right of passage for eternity to Heaven, AND YOU ARE RIGHT, in that there is no God, or that if there is, everyone will enjoy eternal bliss (if that be so, then why don't we all just do what comes naturally and steal, rob, and kill? - what's the point of life?), then I have lost absolutely nothing, when I die and wake up somewhere else, or even as other religions believe: reincarnated. However, if I am RIGHT, and you are wrong, then you will have lost eternity forever. I find the latter a bit hard to take, don't you? I just don't think I would risk my eternal soul to a burning hell, nor would I want to risk it to evolve over and over."

Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager? French mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal posited this very question in the 17th century. Unfortunately, it is based on seriously flawed logic:

1. Which God is the right one to believe in? You believe strongly in your God, but what about the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others who believe just as strongly in theirs? On what basis should we accept only one of these and reject all others? They have their own holy books, too, and some even claim to be the One True Religion just as yours does.
2. Is God that stupid, that he wouldn't know you were only playing along to get a free ticket to heaven?
3. Why is it ever acceptable to invest our beliefs - and our integrity - in something simply to "save" ourselves? Whatever happened to conviction?
4. Why would an all-powerful Creating deity stoop to blackmail, as in "believe in me or I'll send you to hell"? If God is merciful and loving, as Christians claim, then it's not necessary to endorse the wager because everyone is forgiven.
5. If He knows ahead of time "the number of hairs on your head", then nothing you can do will surprise him. You have no free will because it's already been planned and 'written in the book'. Therefore, whatever choice you make is moot because it's already been made for you. If, on the other hand, you do have free will then what good is it if you don't have the freedom to choose one just as rationally as the other?