[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
You're claiming to have an "education" in religion, and yet you admit all your knowledge came from one (clearly biased) source and was related to one specific (and controversial) religion! To me that's not education at all. Your Catholic school is irrelevant - those comparing it to Tom Cruise's "education" are doing so appropriately. The reason Tom Cruise is so taken in is because he's spent years listening to propaganda from one side of the issue, and has never bothered to explore other viewpoints. That's what we call fanaticism, or at least myopia. If you want to be respected as having an education in religion, you'll need to explain what you've learned outside of Nuns-'R'-Us.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never admitted all my knowledge was from one source. I've studied a bit of Buddhism and I know a little about other religious history.

Here is what makes zero sense. Why do I have to study, say, Judaism in depth, to be familiar with Christianity?! It is not like other religions constantly attack Christianity. When I said I studied Christianity, I meant I studied the HISTORY of Christianity. I am well aware of opposing viewpoints.

When you know nothing about the source of my teachings (i.e. my specific school) why do you automatically assume it was biased? Again, I am perfectly capable of determining a legitimate education from a biased one. The fact that you automatically assume I was exposed to propoganda indicates that you are incapable of having a debate on religion without resorting to hateful insults. As a matter of fact, what EXACTLY do you know about Tom Cruise's religious education? Did you read about it in the Enquirer? How does the Enquirier compare Tom Cruise's religious education to Matt R.'s religious education? Hmm... I hope it's a reliable source you've got!