if you have an 'ax to grind with religion.
Not at all. Born and raised Roman Catholic----20 years of Catholic education, none the less.
The difference is, I've managed to negotiate what little religious beliefs I maintain against my political beliefs - in realizing that a 2000 year old document as interpreted by 70 year old white guys in Rome has exactly zip to do with how to best govern a country - but the same document might offer certain value in how to best govern my own personal decisions.
Call it Chreaster Catholicism or being a Buffet Catholic if you like 
I do have a certain distaste for the fire-and-brimstone-moral-values types particularly those that are involved in the religious activist organizations like FRC, [Insert State] Family Association, whatever. I find them duplicitous political hacks at the least and outright evil shitheads at the most. At any rate, those folks only serve to devolve what should be relatively sophisticated Americans accepting of other's values, cultures, personal choices into knuckle draggers. Not to start the ball rolling down another hill, but I can think of few things more disgusting than the pro-life crowd taking up arms over stem cell research. It simply requires such a mental cartwheel to equate the two on a practical level (not to say that they're not, in theory similar) and then to believe that the rest of the country should perform perform the same mental cartwheel to put these beliefs into policy: it's just bad. It's bad for everybody.
I mock them, yes; only when they're being stupid. Take, for example, Nitro's "I don't hate the gays, I just really hate administrative man hours" which is a canard of the highest order. One would either have to be an abject idiot to believe that, or they'd have to be covering up for twisted homophobic bend. Of course, people like that will keep the fact that they're not real fond of gay folks 'in the closet' in favor of indisputably thin 'logic'. I call it out a little harder than most....look...again....I'm from Chicago. We turned this:
Into an art form. I know it when I see it. If the guy doesn't like queer culture he shouldn't be gay. It's not that much to ask. Otherwise let those folks serve their country, pay their taxes, own/operate businesses, cut their lawns, and cut you off on the express-way during rush hour.
I would ascribe Richard Dawkins as an atheist fundamentalist as well as Hitchens.
I think we're both in the same book, just amiss in semantics. I've never really liked the term - not in the Dawkins sort of 'not like the term', but more or less that I think that there is a sufficient broadness to the Atheist . If you're referring to dogmatic, extreme, atheists who you don't invite to parties because they can't shut up and will end up in a martini driven debate with some fuggin' Paulbot libertarian: I know who you're talking about.
I don't disagree with you in the core flaws of high energy atheism/ nor would I disagree in principle that Dawkins and Hitchens both aren't missing a few key plot points. Though, on balance, I like Hitchens because he drinks like a fish, pisses people off, and holds up to the light the fact that the Abrahamic religions are similar. That even despite Nitro's forest for the trees "YEAH WELL THE CHRISTIANS DIDN"T DO WTC IT WAS THE MUSLIMS AND THE GAYS. FUGGIN GAY MUSLIMS HAVE NO PLACE IN MY ARMY", the core values of the big 3 are similar. Despite the operational differences, it's not that difficult to see organizational similarities.
To put it simply, yes, the Christian fundamentalist movement is more 'modern' in the sense that Islamic fundamentalism blows shit up far more often, I don't think it is exactly a stretch of the imagination to say that there's a very clear hierarchical similarity between say Mullah Muhammed Ackbar declaring a fatwa's against comedy central meanwhile the Family Research Council declares a boycott against the same. Sure, a boycott is certainly preferred to blowing somebody up. But both are fundamentally taking action against something that I think most people can agree is ethically appropriate. Both are selecting what they deem an appropriate weapon, both are selecting an enemy for much the same reasons, and both have a clergy or clergy like individual calling the shots.
Incidentally, about a year ago the wife and I went to a BYOB Palaeolithic style restaurant. The food really wasn't half bad. Just saying.
And that, is the longest comment I hope to leave anywhere:)
