It is not irrelevant, I understood what you meant but I don’t agree. Your definition is ill-founded, superficial, non-academic and not very useful.
Non-academic, possibly. I could very well concede that. Otherwise, nonsense. This is absurd. One does not need a theology degree to use and understand the word 'religion.'
You can make how many moral judgements you want, but don’t expect people to consider them to be anything else but your personal opinion which you have created with regards to the social context you live in.
Yes, it’s an opinion you are entitled to, and I think that you and I would agree on topics like slavery etc. but I still consider them to be nothing but political correct opinions and values.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. This is a total impasse. I think this is so fundamentally wrong.
I can tell you are not conducting a historical analysis, since to be able to make statements like yours one has to consider the whole picture and all facts, not just some of the facts which suits ones own interests.
Nope, it’s not that easy. For example within psychoanalysis it’s assumed that people don’t generally know that much about their real motivations. That’s why the subconscious, dreams etc. are very important. So no, just because someone themselves are very convinced of the motivation behind their actions that doesn’t mean that that is the objective truth.
What essential facts did I leave out? What part of what I said was untrue?
Let's recap;
I said that religion is both fundamentally illogical, AND antithetical to rational thought. That's absolutely true. Religion involves holding beliefs and believing them fervently without any evidence, whatsoever. Were I to meet Jesus Christ in person, and receive scientifically unassailible proof that he is the one true god, and that everything in the Bible is completely accurate, which I would accept, this would not make me a Christian. What makes it 'faith' is that it's not grounded in evidence. Absolute certainty in the face of zero proof IS illogical. I also argue that illogical thought is generally bad, and should not be encouraged, which I don't think is controversial.
I also said that religion, as a rule, is inherently bigoted. This is also true. According to the official doctrine of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, heresy is an unpardonable sin. For example, it is made abundantly clear in the Bible that anyone who is not a Christian (Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/etc.) is going to burn in hell forever, and the implication is that this is justifiable. One does not need to do a penetrating analysis to see the worlds' religions, as a rule, are almost entirely incompatible. Moreover, many religions, especially the three Abrahamic faiths, which represent most of the people of faith on earth, also have very clear policies about homosexuals, about a woman's place, etc. Most of these perscriptions are very explicit. Also, most of the time these books not only say certain people are inherently inferior, or what have you, but actually suggests, or even commands believers to do harm to those deemed unfit, or unworthy, or what-have-you.
Which brings me to my next point, that there is no separating religion from violence. The books contain numerous, explicit exhortations to violence, and glorification of violence. I could fill up pages of quotes. This is underlined by the fact that perpetrating said violence was official policy, and continues to be in various religious groups. Not only was it condoned by the Bible, or by the institution of the church, there was a long pattern of behavior for hundreds of years of the most sadistic and wanton violence, from the crusades, to the modern abortion-clinic bombers. The history of religion is soaked in blood.
Lastly, I said that religion really only has academic value, to those who study art, history, literature, etc. None of the positive attributes; humility, charity, honesty, etc., that are claimed to be instilled by religion actually necessitate religious belief. While those who perpetrate religious violence are absolutely motivated by their beliefs, because they're taking it right out of the books. Again, I don't dispute that politics and economics are contributing factors, but to say that the guy who shouts Allahu Akbar!" before igniting the dynamite strapped to his chest, or the people who carry the banners reading; "God Hates Fags!" aren't motivated by their religion is simply preposterous. There's no reason to believe that if religion disappeared overnight that charity, or honesty, etc., would disappear, however I garuntee we'd see a lot less of the aforementioned behavior.
That is also an opinion you are entitled to. But it’s not a matter of liking it or not, the question is about whether or not it’s well-founded.
It's not just a matter of simply disliking it, I think Postmodernism for the most part includes a lot of bad ideas. However, that is really broad and, frankly, off-topic.
You can argue about what the authors of the bible actually meant by the comments on homosexuality, however I find it hard to believe that the modern interpreatation is that far off the mark. However, it has been interpreted essentially one way, and by the other Abrahamic faiths as well. Moreover, this is really only debateable because the Bible doesn't devote that much text to the subject. However, it devotes substantially greater text to other groups and how they should be treated, heretics, especially.
Again, your interpretation. And the “catholic church” doesn’t do or say anything, leaders within the catholic church does and says things.
Yes, it does. Just as the US government, or Chevron, etc. It's a large institution with a central charter, an organized hierarchy and leadership, etc.
You are just assuming that your opinions and values are the correct ones that everyone should adapt to.
I believe that right and wrong are not merely arbitrary constructions. I believe in morality and ethics, and that they are real, and grounded in the real world.
I personally agree with your values regarding slavery etc. Seriously, I live in the only country in the world where the largest church (who until recently was the state-church) has allowed gay couples to marry in exactly the same ritual and entering exactly the same covenant that heterosexual couples do.
That's not based on the official text, nor is that the policy of the Catholic church (The central body of Christianity.), or even the majority, or even close to a majority, of Christian denominations.
The question of being gay, straight or whatever is so irrelevant to me that I’ve never considered what to call myself, who I like etc. and I would never call myself straight, gay or whatever.
You can call yourself whatever you like, however, there are only so many options.
BUT I also know that my opinion is very, very rare and the fact is that the majority of the worlds population don’t share my opinion and I am aware that if I would have grown up in a different place, with different parents or different friends or whatever I would be of a different opinion. I don’t want to say that my opinion is better or more right then anyone else’s on this matter, although that’s how I subjectively feel. In one way I sometimes respect people that are against gay marriage here more then people that are for it because today here a lot of people don’t really think about it seriously, they just go along with everyone else and think it’s ok because it’s political correct to think so, but here if someone is against gay-marriage today that’s really, really controversial and that person will really have to think their opinion through both once and twice and constantly defend their opinion. But then at least they have thought it through closely.
Everything is a social construction, and however clear these values are to us they are nothing but social constructions, and if you think they are something else a lot of scholars would call you religious today in the postmodern era. Read the bible on the subject: Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s The Social Construction of reality – A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.
Again, this is a complete impasse. This idea that morality is just some arbitrary, artificial fabrication is absolutely wrong to me. I've never found this idea pursuasive.
Would you like to join my church? You'd be the most intelligent and eloquent parishoner. 
