"ALL religions share these inherent absurdities to a certain extent"

That's the key - to a certain extent. The extent differs between different ones. Anyhow the reason why my attention is focused on what it is right now is because the paradoxes and contradictions have graver consequences than those in other faiths - like riots, people getting beheaded, having their hands chopped off and such.

I don't think I used any sensationalistic news articles. But put it this way - sensationalistic news articles appear because religious fanatics and those who choose to distort their religions exist, so perhaps the abundance of "sensationalistic news articles" is because many choose to follow militant Islam, or the more archaic strains of it. Of course, this ignores the silent majority which doesn't go around smashing bars during Ramadan and pressurising Mahathir's wife to wear a tudung, but the silent majority is ever silent, and its name is always smeared by the vocal and violent minority.

I haven't read the whole of the Koran/Quran either - I've read maybe one paragraph. So going by relativity, it seems I've found more mistakes in it than its counterpart. Happy?

I admit the Christian right does inhibit some of Man's progress, but I have to qualify your points. There is some body of evidence casting doubt on evolution, so the Christian Creationists do feel vindicated somewhat. Recently, I read a book - Stones And Bones, an introduction to Creationism, lent to a friend by my Medical Officer. Even with my skeletal knowledge of evolutionary theory, I was able to pooh pooh many of the points in the book, and I was quite pissed off by parts of the book stating that believing in Evolution is un-Christian. Ad Hominem appeals are really despicable. Anyhow, it boils down to this - Creationists start with the conclusion and work backwards to find their facts, while Evolutionists start with the facts and work to find a conclusion. Pretty much so, anyway.

On research, I don't think stem cell research from aborted foetuses would have been banned if not for Dubaya. The Democrats would likely have allowed it ; just because Mr President and some GOPians are influenced by the religious right, it doesn't necessarily follow that religion is a powerful inhibitor in Modern America. Ditto for euthanasia and abortion and anyhow even some atheists object to all three - some morals are inborn. The incest and murder taboos, for example, are universal.

If you want to take the argument to such a vague level, *anything* can be reinterpreted, liberalised and/or ignored. Bah. And the degrees to which various faiths "oppress women, impose restrictions on food, economic activity, lifestyle, and general happiness" vary greatly from religion to religion, assuming you choose to interpret each with the same degree of strictness or liberalism.

About poverty and fundamentalism: Osama bin Laden came from a rich family. Many JI operatives were/are fairly well to do, including many of those who plotted attacks in Singapore (hardly a poor country or failed state). Malaysia is hardly destitute, yet Kelantan and Terengganu have fallen to PAS. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated, too. I also find the sense of camarederie Muslims feel with the Palestinians (and other fellow Muslims) puzzling. I feel as much as the next person whenever a Palestinian house is demolished - but also when an Israeli is blown up by the latest suicide attack, and I don't restrict my concerns to the welfare of fellow adherents.

Generally, Muslims are more resolute in their faith than those of other religions, and I respect them for that (unless when it leads them to do stupid things like blow people up in the name of Allah). What is it about Islam that causes such great fervour, really? And why do they object so much to symbols of others' religions? For example Muslims don't use the Red Cross, but the Red Crescent. And apparently sales of swords in Singapore are not as brisk as they could be because some Muslims think the inverted sword looks like a cross (...)

Anyhow, no matter how much I may dissert on this and related topics, it's purely an intellectual exercise. Anyone is free to do anything they like, as long as they don't impugn or impinge on other's rights. The Golden Rule is wise indeed.

Freedom of information may be a little idealistic, but, hell, it's one of the few ideals that cynical me holds to. Anyhow it doesn't exist not because its existence is unfeasible, but because malignant forces suppress it. And not everyone can obtain information freely - even in places with Internet Access, the Powers That Be clamp down vigorously on "undesirable" sites such as those exposing the true state of their countries (eg Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia) [NB: I'm rather proud of the fact that the SBA doesn't try to censor sites that give an alternate view of our country, at least not that I know of]

Sometimes, I wonder what to do if the two doctrines that I hold dear conflict - that nothing is taboo and cannot be discussed or talked about, and that you should be able to do anything you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", but what if people are offended by what you say? But then, people get offended for the most trivial of reasons, so I think, after some meditation, that almost all words should be permissible.

And, to He Who Must Not Be Named: Don't speak too soon. If/when PAS wrests control of your state from UMNO, I'm sure the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice will come for you. Beware :)