You know, I see the anti-religion people in these threads tossing around "Religion" with a capital "R" as though it's this one, monolithic thing that people somehow invented, with one set of attributes and one pattern of behavior with which it can be universally associated, down through the ages and across all regions of the globe, and I really think this is one of the most detrimental (although ironically inadvertent) effects that the religious right in the US has had on the way we think about religion.
A) You want to talk simplicity and narrowness of thought? Let's start with the assumption of an A to B causal relationship between religion and behavior. This world view that the radical anti-religion folks have constructed demands that religion be a separate, static, distinct entity that influences people completely apart from every other aspect of their culture. There is no such religion. Any cultural anthropologist would balk at such a ludicrous notion. Culture is like everything else in the entire universe; it is, at every single moment, in a state of flux, both within itself and in relation to everything else. Just as there is no single portion of the brain that is solely responsible for, say, the perception of music, there is also no one portion of a culture that can be clearly and uniquely demarcated as "RELIGION." It influences, and is influenced by, everything else.
Growing up in Massachusetts, I had many friends who called themselves Congregationalists or Catholics. None of them would have disputed the validity of evolution, or claimed that homosexuality is wrong, or argued against contraception. (Catholics, mind you!) One of the most politically liberal friends I have back home is a devout Evangelical Christian. If your first instinct is to respond, "Well, you were in one of the most liberal states in the country," save yourself the trouble, because that's exactly my point. Religion is as much a product of its geographical and historical locality as it is of any primordial, mytho-historical provenance. The argument that religion just makes people do bad things (or good things) is one of the most intellectually lazy mantras currently being regurgitated in our nation's little culture war. You can reconcile anything you want, and I mean anything, with your religious beliefs.
B) Really just following from point A, can we at least pretend we're trying to make a distinction between Christianity-- or at the very least, mainstream Abrahamic religious tradition-- and religion as a whole? Because I think many folks in these debates are not saying what they mean when they talk about "religious people." The debate is focusing on those who believe in a personal, omnipotent god who presides over the affairs of civilization and provides a basis for moral imperatives. That's a ****load of qualifiers, and not only does it fail to describe accurately all religions of the world, but it also fails to describe all Christians, especially in a day and age when more and more people are claiming as their prerogative the choice of what aspects of their religious traditions to embrace. The only reason I can see for framing religion in such narrow terms is to conjure up the most inflammatory debate possible, which is silly, because if you actually take the time to study religious metaphysics or ethics, you find there are already plenty of legitimate debates to be had.
I'm as left-wing as they come, but the fact that so many liberals waste their time legitimizing the ravings of people whose bull**** should really be beneath them just makes me bash my head against the wall.
All right, that felt good; haven't ranted in a while. Time to get drunk.
