"Secular disdain for religion" (Opinion, Oct. 21), by Sutherland Institute president Paul Mero, was the silliest thing I have read in a long time.
Mero thinks that elaborate language can substitute for cohesive content. Case in point: "Condemning organized religion because of the Inquisition or the Taliban is like condemning Albert Einstein because some people have low IQs." Really? How does that even make sense?
Mero argues that civil society requires religion. "All but the secular mind pause to reflect persistently on the purpose of life." Logically, wouldn't religion provide the answer to the meaning of life? Mero had it backward: The person of faith would be carefree, knowing the answer; the secular human would be persistently pondering.