Replies

We are, so to speak, the wayward children of the Gods who are to be loved, to be punished when we are bad, and rewarded when we are good. Now the important thing for public morality is not whether there is such a God or Gods, but that people believe and accept that there are. Without such a guide, people naturally fall into depravity.

This statement clearly states that belief in religion is more important than faith and truth. And the author continues with this view and reaches the conclusion that someone other than God must be the enforcer of their version of the belief in order to have a functional society. Even if it means hiding the truth and lying to the beleivers in orer to maintain their spiritual welfare. By lying, the foundation of a moral society becomes cracked and the people guiding religion become hypocrites, the Scribes and Pharasees, that Jesus held in contempt. The very statement that intellectual dishonest in the name of religion is a virtueot only condones lies, it says they are good. This crosses the line and that faith must be apostate.

This statement clearly states that belief in religion is more important than faith and truth. And the author continues with this view and reaches the conclusion that someone other than God must be the enforcer of their version of the belief in order to have a functional society.

Which would be true.

God (or gods) have a rather poor record of punishing murders, rapists, thieves, and brigands in this temporal world.
A king or prince would've found it convenient to justify their power of punishing criminals by infusing their law with religious connotations. Instead of "Do it because it's my will and I'm more powerful than you.", it becomes " Do it because it's God's will and he's more powerful ...".

Thus came the principle of religio rex -- the subjects must follow the king's religion. Deny the king's religion and you deny the king's authority.
And then there's King James I: "A Deo rex, a rege lex" -- "God [made the] king, [and the] king [makes the] law".

Modern democratic societies have a lesser need to justify this power since the law is based on concurrence of all the members of the community, not just one powerful individual. Good thing, too... Kings by divine right have become passe --1945 Japan not withstanding.

Even though we've dispensed with God-to-ruler-to-law linkage, there's always a group that insists that human can't control themselves and will degenerate into lawlessness and debauchery without religious (and particularly their religious) guidance.

... The very statement that intellectual dishonest in the name of religion is a virtueot only condones lies, it says they are good. This crosses the line and that faith must be apostate.

Of the last line in the article:
"Intellectual dishonesty in the name of religion is a virtue."

I read that as sarcasm and critical, not a defense, of creationist's lies.
In other words, "Lying for God is OK, because, like ..., it's for God, y'know?"