(for the record, I stopped talking with him because I honestly believe we weren’t having anything remotely like a conversation…just two people speaking at each other in…ahem…tongues)

Well, what he’s decided, of course, is to miss the point of my schitzophrenia remark.

He’s decided that I think all religions are the same.

Which is not what I said.

My point was that they are all equally crazy.  Medicated or not, violent or not, oppressive or not.  They are all people who hear voices from dogs.  The difference in how far you must stretch believability between scientology and christianity is negligible.

(Actually, I think scientology is much more believable)

I’m not sure how you can deny that.

And, of course, he’s made the classic mistake:

Because what is atheism, if not a rather odd — and somewhat counter-intuitive — form of religion (in that it is a philosophical conjecture, a belief in a universal negative)?

He thinks that, since I don’t believe in god, then thats a religion as well since, of course, it has the word ‘god’ in it.

That is similar to saying I have a significant belief that there is not a gorilla in my closet.

Now, I am not currently looking in my closet, so I suppose there MIGHT be a gorilla in there.

But I have zero reason to believe there is.

Thats one of the tragic mistakes most theists make.  They believe that there’s a decision to be made.  Do you believe in god or not, in short.

I see that as a logical mistake.

I don’t actively think there isn’t a gorilla in my closet.  It would be INSANE to think that I had to make a choice about whether or not there’s a big old beastie in my closet.  The default position is for me to not believe in such a thing in such a place.  Assuming that my bedroom isn’t part of the gorilla migratory pattern.

No one would say that one of my characteristics is that I believe my closet to be gorilla-free.

Nor, would anyone say, as a another example, that a significant trait I hold is that I don’t believe squirrels talk, or that my mother walks through walls, or that men rise from the dead.

These are, I think we can agree, aberrations from the norm.  Without evidence to say that these aberrations are occuring, the default position is that they aren’t happening.  But given that this is the default, the significant aspect is choosing to believe in them.

The norm is to not.

Of course, you can’t have these conversations with many theists because they believe there is evidence of god.  No one has shown me any.

They only thing they ever do is show examples of things we can’t explain…yet.

But they don’t like that last word.

So, as you’ve probably heard, at some courthouse in Crossville, Tennasee, there’s now a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (along with Jesus, etc.).

Someone, apparently, is quite upset by the whole thing.  Its not completely clear what he is upset about, but at the very least he is poorly informed about almost everything he discusses.  As a disclaimer, I have to admit (if you don’t already know it) that I don’t see any significant difference between FSM and Jesus, or, at least, I don’t see one of them as more or less bizarre or likely than the other.  Interestingly, I don’t see this as an insult to Christianity.  I think that, once you have an omnipotent, supernatural being, and his son being sent to Earth, and all these miracles, you just gone into the realm of the strange so far that it becomes difficult to see anything as being impossible.

That said, the Josh appears to be suffering from some sort of persecution syndrome which is common amoung those who have a massive majority (whites, men, christians) or disproportionate amounts of power in society.  They become very agitated when their views are not taken as law, or they have to share their space with others, etc.  One has to wonder, would Mr. Hayes be so quick to jump to the defense of Scientology?  Buddhism?  Taoism?  Probably not. 

Here’s my initial breakdown.

1. He’s complaining that people who vote based on their religions are being kept out of public debate.

“In our present context, those advocating for a completely secular state
discriminate against those who appeal to Christianity or the Bible for
guidance in public policy by merely labeling their agenda as religious”

But it seems to me that if you are guided by your religion, and your religious text, then by definition you have a religions agenda.  Call me nuts.
Further, once you have a religious agenda, there’s no point to debating.
Let’s see an example using abortion.
Person 1: Abortion should be illegal because the child within that womb has a soul and is therefor alive.
Person 2: Abortion should be illegal because the foetus is sufficiently developed to be considered alive and human.  Further, the foetus feels pain when the abortion is done.
Person 1 is stating a dogmatic belief which can’t possibly be argued against.  It may, in fact, be true, but there’s no point in debating it.
Person 2, however, is offering up evidence and making an argument.  His first statement may be a little hazy, but his second statement is clear as day.  Either one of these could be discussed and new information could be introduced to support or undermine his claims.

If Person 1 is prevented from taking part in a debate (and I’ve yet to see any evidence of this sort of thing happening…just look at the Republican Presidential debates), its only because they aren’t bringing anything to the table that can be debated (I suppose you could have a theological debate about whether or not the ‘child’ has a soul). 

2. Secular people are not neutral.

 ”In spite of their best efforts to appear as the objective, rational party, those opposed to Intelligent Design and the influence of religion upon the state have shown themselves to not be so “neutral” after all.”

I’m not at all certain what he’s talking about here.  In what way does any of this show a lack of neutrality? Further, where does rationality imply neutrality? 
A rational person approaches a situation or issue with an open mind, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a priori knowledge.  If you tell me a rock is made of gold, I can approach it rationally, and, knowing what I
know, test to see if it is really gold.  That test does not mean I am biased towards or against it being gold.
I have acquired knowledge and applied it.  Further, more than just factual knowledge can be applied to situations a rational person finds themselves in.  If we decide that logic is a useful tool, then in every situation, I can then apply logic to help me judge truth from fiction.  I do not have to recompile all the rules of logic in every situation.
In the case of I.D., the same thing applies.  Arguments might be made for Intelligent Design against evolution, but that doesn’t mean that both theories must wiegh equally (which is what proponants of I.D. want you to see as ‘fairness’).  Were one to apply this rule to all things, then we’d have to include, say, ‘time cube’ in out classrooms and all conspiracy theories about the moon landing, JFK’s assasination, and the Masons.  That isn’t neutrality.  Neutrality would be looking at the arguments for and against each side and determining which makes the stronger case, without presupposing the outcome (assuming you have no knowledge of the topic).
Again, neutrality doesn’t mean not having an informed opinion, nor does it mean going into every situation tabula rasa.  A rational person need not claim neutrality as a characteristic.  A rational person claims adherance to facts in evidence and logic.

3. He appears to be angry at Darwin

” While the idea of creation via the Flying Spaghetti Monster may seem ridiculous, modern Darwinist dogma is even more ridiculous in saying the universe came into existence out of nothing. To put it in mathematical terms, nobody multiplied by nothing equals everything”

Of course,   Darwin, and evolutionary biologists don’t make that claim at all.  In fact, that claim falls well outside the boundaries of biology.  So this may be the result of anger based on a misunderstanding, I suppose. 
Mr. Hayes, I do suggest that perhaps your energy spent writing this ‘editorial’ would have been better spent reading about rational thought and evolutionary theory (Darwinism, Neo-darwinism) so that you at least know what your opponant is actually saying.