Who the hell do you think you are?

Originally I wasn't going to do this post, but given the problems with my PC I thought I had better put something up before people stop reading. :)

A while back, before I started to really become more involved with Atheism, I was plugging away on a certain news agency's faith blog leaving various sarcastic comments on videos about faith people leave up. They'll range from an objective analysis to out and out rudeness. Anonymity makes jerks out of everyone who posts on the internet, no exceptions. Well, in context of the person of course.

Now while I don't excuse my actions, I got a rather covertly hostile reply from someone called AngelhairXX (the XX is left out). In her Christian expletivive tirade (darn, jerk, naughty, etc), she managed to sum up her position as this...

"Who the hell do you think you are? How dare you question anyone's faith? They can believe in whatever they want to."

It took me back a second. I mean, who the hell am I to say those things? Why should I spend my time making people feel less sure about what they have been brought up to believe. What gives me the right?

Of course, one could always point to freedom of speech. One could point to the freedom of religion, which by corelation, also means freedom from religion. Both are excellent reasons why I have a right to challenge their faith.

However, the question is very decieving if you think about it. It places the onus of rights on the attacker, which is me. But why?

What I should have replied to AngelhairXX with is this...
"Why does a religious person have the right to have his/her faith NOT questioned?"

It's an honest question I have, and it's a sociological one. Why does society consider it unacceptable to question someone's faith?

Let's say there is a a Hindu person among a crowd who is explaining part of their creation story...

"From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command."

And let's say I'm in the crowd. I yell out "That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard."

Surely the people of the crowd would look down upon me. Hell, some may even ask me "Who the hell do you think you are?"

Now, let's do a slight change.

Let's say there's a salesman among the crowd explaining how his concoction of snake oil and floral extrats works to produce a child.

"You drink the potion before you go to bed. From the depths the humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread through your body, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. You awake. As the dawn begins to break, from your navel a magnificent lotus flower will grow. In the middle of the blossom will sit your child. He will await your care."

If I was to say ""That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard." Do you think the crowd would be upset? Of course not. They'd probablly agree. And unless some were fools, the majority would walk away and disregard the nonsense without a second thought.

My question is this. Why is it that religion is off bounds to inquiry. If it is the truth, why must it be hidden from the light of knowledge and science? Why is it that we exhalt people who recruit more people into their religion yet reject those who advise not to?

My answer to the question is that religion has had thousands of years to craft culture to suit it's purposes. What's your thoughts?