Organised religion is a rather huge area with an incredible range of diversity in beliefs. You are falling into two traps:

One size fits all
The past is the present

In the recent provincial election in Ontario the ruling Conservative Party decided to import US policies into Canada and made as one of their platforms the promise of public funding of religious schools. Even in the Bible belt of Ontario the platform had 30% support. It's hard to say how badly this hurt the Conservatives, but they lost the election.

One might conclude that churches and their members tend to support a separation of church and state - fairly strongly at least in Ontario. (Interestingly enough the Catholic Church receives public funding - but that is a whole new topic.)

second, attitudes to churches as organised social and political actors. I am vigorously opposed to religion playing any part in politics, because religion is about absolutes (life and death), and inevitably leads to 'ends justify the means' policies and attitudes. Putting organised religion in politics inevitably brings totalitarianism or authoritarianism, because of the very nature of religion;

Religion is about absolutes (life and death) is one of those one size fits all statements. It is often true, it may even be true almost all the time (but I wouldn't be willing to bet on that). It certainly isn't true all the time. We use models to help us understand the world. They help make extremely complicated things understandable. You have presented a model. (In one sense religion is also model.) The point about models though is that they are not true representations, they are simplifications.

The rest of the quote I have taken is even more problematic. Not necessary false - just more problematic.

• Simple statements that ignore the original role that religion played - including being a social safety net. This role is still played by churches.

• It ignores the role of philosophy that is integral to what religion is.

• The blanket statement of "Politics" is practically meaningless in trying to sort out what you mean. A huge number of churches are backing the Earth Charter for example. Locally we engaged in action in opposition to indefinite deletion without trial that was taking place in Canada under the guise of fighting terrorism. As well we have supported Gay marriage. In Nazi Germany our faith is recognised for having hid political prisoners against the laws of the state. We are probably the original reason that one can confirm instead of swear on the bible in court, and early in our history we helped instituted fixed price selling instead of bargening. Are these "politics"? Advocating on behalf of the poor and downtrodden is a very long standing tradition of religion. Is this "politics"? How about deliberately breaking the law?

As far as atheist morality and ethics being unacceptable - Our local Unitarian Universalists get along quite well at our local interfaith group. I don't get that feeling at all. When I look at US fundamentalism though, I know exactly what you speak of. But you have presented one size fits all.

The site Religioustolerance.org attempts to define what religion is. It starts off by saying none are totally satisfying.

This is the 1990 Barns and Noble (Cambridge) Encyclopaedia:

"...no single definition will suffice to encompass the varied sets of traditions, practices, and ideas which constitute different religions."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

Think about it for a bit. If Barns and Noble can't come up with a definition of religion because it is too complex, simple statements about religion are almost guaranteed to be inaccurate at best.

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}