I think the real concern, which folks don't label as such, is "science" versus "superstition". The only way religion can validate itself is tautalogically, whereas "science" validates itself via replicability and reliablilty. Science is validated over and over each day, with the invalidations being rare. Cars run, and stop. And that's validation of science. And when they don't run, or don't stop, there is a reason, and that's science.

Religion is superstition, and is both validated and invalidated with every happening. Katrina, a response to certain conditions. God destroyed the evils of Bourbon Street. PTL. My house got flooded. Terrible. God saved my life. Amen. My cat drowned. Terrible. The dog lived. Thank God. (Look at birth defects, and tell me again about "Intelligent Design". Hell, look at George W. Bush, and tell me about "Intelligent Design". Or, for that matter, me. Even I could design a better me.)

If Man needs superstition to give meaning to his life, it's neither a great life nor significant meaning. I believe what "they" are saying is that we should stomp out superstition in the world, and it would be a better place.

Religion should be a vehicle to be of service to a Higher Power, instead of ego inflation and the illusion of tribal superiority. "Higher Power" is neither superstitious nor religion.

Arf