I'm an old sf fan.  I've been looking forward to Battlestar Galactica.  Have had to wait for the series to hit disk, since I gave up on tv several years ago.

(No implication of superior taste intended.  Tv simply failed to provide me with entertainment or information, and it was unquestionably bad for my physical health.  If it still works for you, more power to you.)

So I eagerly devoured Heather Havrilesky's recent summary of the series.  I was so shocked I almost quit reading, though, when she revealed that a good deal of the plot and iconography of the show were based on Mormon theology, since "a devout Mormon" was one of the writers.

Now I am staunchly in favor of the right of an author to set forth his or her beliefs in his or her work, to be subject thereafter to the court of public opinion.  By all accounts, Battlestar Galactica is a good show.  But.

When did it become good to be "devout," regardless of the rationality of what you were devout to?  Is Mitt Romney somehow morally and intellectually respectable because he is "devout?"

The beginnings of most religions are veiled in antiquity.  We cannot examine the historical facts of their origins.  We are forced to judge their theologies on the basis of the reasonability of their claims and the behavior of their adherents.  (In that regard, I must say that I know at least as many generous, decent, tolerant, loving, peaceable, law-abiding atheists who abstain from alcohol, tobacco--and even coffee--as fundamentalists of any stripe.  It's quite obvious that morality is not contingent on theological beliefs, though many people think so.)

Mormonism and Scientology began quite recently, however, and we can not only examine the behavior of believers, but the actual recorded facts of their origins.  I consider myself to have faith, but it seems entirely justified to me to examine the claims of any theology according to evidence, observation, and reason.  The Dalai Lama said, "If science proves Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism must change."  Now THAT is the kind of religious faith I admire.  Faith combined with reason.  Faith that is not afraid of thought.  Faith that encourages good thinking.

 Ask yourself this:  What really good idea demands that you never question it?  What really good idea threatens you with eternal torment if you do not accede to it?  Good ideas stand on their merits, not on the threats uttered by their proponents.

Theologies first.  The angel Moroni?  Twelve golden tablets?  A lost tribe of Israelites?  Or if you prefer, Battlefield Earth, melodramatic space opera, clearing your engrams.

What can I say?  You think this stuff is credible?  Really?

The historical record next:   Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard had, pretty clearly on the record, these things in common:  They were both con men, and inventors of really clumsy and unbelievable (literally) tales.  (L. Ron was a BAD science fiction writer, and I don't mean bad in a good way.)

Do I give these religions a pass because it is wrong to criticize any religion whatsoever (except of course any of the wildly different sects of Mohammedanism or Buddhism)?  Or I do I examine their claims with the sort of critical eye that I turned on the creed I was brought up in, that of the Southern Baptists?

When I lived in Santa Fe (which has been described as 65 square miles surrounded by reality), I hired a carpenter for some minor work around the house.  He told me, in all seriousness, that an alien mothership was in orbit around the Earth, and when we died, it stored our minds in its vast data banks.  This was his religion.  Let's just say that I was in no danger of being coverted.   Where am I supposed to turn off my skepticism?  Was my skepticism justified because there was only one of him?  Is foolishness less foolish if it has attracted millions of adherents?  Shall I be afraid to say what I think because so many disagree?

I say once again I have no quarrel with beliefs, however preposterous they may strike me, so long as they result in decent behavior toward the Earth and its creatures, including one's fellow humans.  And observe once again that I am aware of no theology on Earth which does not have murderous and dishonest proponents.  I lean toward zen Buddhism, but there are plenty of examples of Buddhists killing other Buddhists.

Theologies that cannot withstand the light of inquiry frequently attempt to enforce obedience, or at least create fear.  The Mormons felt it necessary to meddle in California politics.  The Scientologists have a lot of money and lawyers, and woe be unto you if you attack them head-on.

Listen:  It doesn't matter how loudly you proclaim your belief, how unquestioning your obedience.  The intensity of one's belief has no correlation whatsoever with the factuality of that belief.

That is magical thinking, to suppose that it does.  That is the thinking of a child.  And children, you will remember, frequently kick their heels against the floor and howl if they don't get what they want.

So if you are a Mormon or a Scientologist, believe what you will.  But don't pester me with your silly notions, and quit interfering in the lives of perfectly decent people who are neither.

And just as a tip:  It might not hurt to do a little honest thoughtful examination of the contents of the theology you proclaim.