I said what I did, not to suggest that our DOD should save the taxpayers a few billion dollars by doing it, but, rather, to point out that there's no room for rationality in any argument in which religion is a factor. The fact that nobody in DC is talking about that option is evidence enough, isn't it?

Religion is, among other things, a vehicle by which we, as humans, have, since well before recorded history, dealt with the inexplicable happenings in our lives. In that sense, it's inherently irrational. That's why we we try to keep it out of things that require rationality. It doesn't always work out that way, of course.

We certainly should keep it out of our politics, if for no other reason than to avoid arousing the ire of those with whose religious preferences we disagree.

In most parts of the world, people of differing religous beliefs seem to be able to coexist. The way in which they manage that is to leave other people's beliefs alone. Unlike what's done here in the "west," they don't run around telling everyone who disagrees with them that they're wrong. How must it make people in an old established culture feel when some youngster from a country that didn't exist before the 18th century tells them that the way in which they've done things, and quite successfully, thank you very much, for over 10000 years, is completely wrong. How it must infuriate them to see such a culture rise to preeminence in the world. Only time will tell whether they're really "wrong."

RE