Ok, I'll bite.
Describing people who are religious as being devoid of logic isn't a bigoted statement. I'm sure it's well thought out and based on personal interaction, not bullcrap and nonsense...
My 'typical right-wing argument' isn't based on nonsensical ravings or bigotry, and I do not have an 'anti-intellectual' bias. Quite the contrary. I believe one can be both intellectual and religious.
Unlike you, apparently, I know quite a few devout catholics, jews, and muslims that hold advanced degrees and have proven themselves to me to be unimpeachably smart. Why do you automatically assume that religious people are anti-intellectual?
Bigotry. If that's how you have been raised, I wouldn't brag too much. Your parents would likely be at least a little dissapointed in your statement, even though it was, as you say, made in jest.
. . . .
Now, you'll either come back with another smart alec answer, flame me, or make more excuses for why your statement is okay. That's fine. I've said my peace and am good with it. Not everyone cares about being civil, being kind, or just not being rude. OR, you'll just take a second and try replacing the words as I've asked and realize that your statement may have been an attempt at light joking around, but was somewhat unreasonable and offensive.
Either way, I'm good.
Best of luck!
Get off your soap-box! If you are both intellectual and religious, then this discussion probably doesn't apply to you. The problem is that I think most of us have
experienced people who use adherence to certain religious views as an excuse to not form their own opinions on a variety of topics. Also, there has been a resurgence in very public displays of blind fundamentalism recently, and I think this lends a bad reputation to many genuinely devout individuals.
Your assertions about art teachers lecturing on Bush and public school teachers denouncing god are disturbing, to say the least. That sounds like a case of you drawing sweeping generalizations from one or two isolated incidents. Any good teacher will differentiate between the science and religion, without trying to indoctrinate students.
As for you railing against all of the accommodations made for Muslims, think that they are trying to practice a religion individually (which this country supports) as opposed to foisting it on all citizens over the course of a day, as happens when the word "god" is in the pledge (that many students still are required to recite on a daily basis in school) and on our nation's currency (which most of us handle each day).
The reality is that religion is based on faith, which is belief in something without proof. That is sort of the antithesis of law (and science, for that matter). This doesn't mean that a very religious person cannot be successful in science or law, but rather that the person needs to be very aware to adjust his/her paradigm depending on whether he/she is in a private or professional sphere. Darwin and E.O. Wilson were both very religious individuals in addition to being renowned scientists, but they were able to realize that science addresses some issues, and religion addresses others. It's not an either/or situation.
Every group is going to have its extremists. You holding up some inflammatory examples of perceived religious persecution doesn't make you any more in the right (although they could be very valid examples). Have you stopped to consider that these examples hail from a few instances at a few schools, and probably do not reflect higher education at large? You're no better than the people on this thread you're trying to discredit.