All people are equal. There is no superior race or religion. An atheist often can offer more to humanity than a fanatical religionist.
You just contradicted yourself. If "all people are equal" then the atheist and the fanatical religionist should be able to offer equal amounts to humanity in all cases.
Besides, the inherent equality of people isn't all-encompassing. Sure, no race is inherently superior to others, kings are just as liable to make mistakes as anyone else, etc., but not everyone has the same abilities.
This is what I was trying to get at earlier, by the way. The phrase "all people are equal" has taken on some new, very harmful, meanings among certain folks. These foster unreasonable expectations of people who have disabilities, for instance. That doesn't mean "all people are equal" is bad and should be discarded, but that it's not perfect or universally applicable.
If we try and look at the good in people we can be a friend to the whole world but if we look at people from a standpoint of their faults then being friends is a formidable task.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "friends don't let friends drive drunk"?
ONLY looking at faults is definitely not helpful. But it's just as bad to ONLY look at virtues. Both need to be looked at and acknowledged. For example, all people ARE equal, IN THE SENSE that we all have certain rights that need to be defended from time to time. But let's not pretend that these rights are usually enforced equally, or that everyone is equal in every single sense. Doing so just further enables the very real injustices that happen in the world.
Let me say this: if I felt your argument was 100% nonsense and didn't have a shred of virtue in it, or if there wasn't anything for me to learn, I wouldn't have bothered responding. I, too, get frustrated when people look at other religions and, based on only a few parts, declare the whole thing bad. Therefore, I try not to. For example, I've tried reading the Book of Joshua, the sixth book in the Tanakh. Twice. I can't. I simply CAN'T read that book. It disgusts me too much. HOWEVER, I have immense respect and admiration for Judaism as a religion, and Jewish people as, well, people. I understand that the Tanakh is useless without the Talmudic tradition, and that the events in Joshua don't necessarily describe historical events. (Even if it did, it'd be all kinds of hypocritical if I used such a history to judge the people alive today). I don't let my disgust for one part of the Tanakh dictate my overall opinion of Judaism. Notice, too, that I referred only to "my disgust" with the book; I never called the book itself "disgusting", nor will I.
I think the spirit of your argument has lots of merit. What I worry about is the fact that it seems based on very basic knowledge of religion as a whole, and how it relates to human behavior and culture. What I'm hoping to do isn't so much to say "you need to stop pretending there's beauty and start recognizing that the world is ugly", because I don't even believe that. Rather, I want to reinforce your argument
with acknowledgment that things are imperfect.
If it will help you come to understanding, consider that imperfections and flaws are what makes us distinct and interesting. Perfect, as far as I'm concerned, is synonymous with stagnant, and stagnant water is dangerous to drink. Therefore, having imperfections are actually superior to perfections. Having flaws means there's room for growth and improvement, room for new things. Perfect is also boring. In terms of art, it's far better to be REALLY bad than to be mediocre in perfection.
You may say I'm a fool, feeling the way that I do,
You can call me Pollyanna, say I'm crazy as a loon,
I believe in silver linings, and that's why I believe in you.
