It's not that I like sarcasm, it's that some targets are so easy...

No wait, I do like sarcasm.

Disclaimer: I love having discussion about differing cultures/worldviews/religions/beliefs, but this writer just makes herself an easy target. Plus, she has an obvious agenda she's trying to hide.

Today I clicked on a link with the snappy title 'Dating Someone Who Challenges Your Faith' to read a romantic advice article on msn. Never a good idea if you actually want advice, but usually good for a hoot or a soapbox.

For instance, I once read an article on whether a woman having sex on the first date would cause a man to not to commit to her. The guys were mainly saying "no, I'd still consider it." All the guys were still single at relatively old ages or divorced. Yeah, great advice from a bunch of men who can't commit or stay commited. Also, I don't think that their answers were self-interested at all. "Hey baby, you wanna have sex on our first date? SURE I'll still think about committing." *snicker* [Yeah maybe if by commit he means to a second date where he'd get some too.]

But getting back to today's delightful romance advice designed to prepare us for romantic bliss....After reading the following paragraph, I had a few questions:

"If you are going to try to talk about your differing viewpoints, try to put your feelings aside for a second and have the talk, says Kathryn Alice, a religious science practitioner at the Agape Spiritual Center in Culver City, CA. "Putting another first is a basic tenet of every major religion, and by setting aside your own agenda for your date's, you are engaging in a highly spiritual practice. A spirit of ecumenism is something that most faiths honor, and you can exhibit your ecumenical side in this way."

First, what the heck is a 'religious science practitioner' and where can I go to the school for making-up-fake-credentials-to-get-paid-and-quoted-on-msn.com? However, I should probably give Ms. Alice the benefit of the doubt and look into it on that old mainstay of scholastic studies: yahoo.com. Interestingly enough, what I discovered is that while the main website I found stressed that they are licensed (licensing means "professional expert" of course!) 'licensed' apparently means not by any entity one would normally trust to license an individual like say the state, or the federal government, or a professional association, but by the 'United Church of Religious Science.' Yup, just what I thought: made-up credentials, masquerading as licensing! (I wonder if you can sue for that?)

So, this brings a new question: how can a person who is proclaimed 'licensed' by an entity without any legal jurisdiction to license individuals, from a religion that most people have probably never even heard of, get to be an 'expert' on world religions and what they would consider appropriate? Did the msn freelance reporter actually think she was doing good research into the topic? I mean, I got suspicious as soon as they mentioned her source's title.

Then come the next questionable area of this article: apparently dating is a great way to "exhibit your ecumenical side"? Did this actually get into what is purporting to be a serious article?

First, the writer gives a story from her own personal life:

"I woke up one morning in college to find a priest at my dorm room door. He'd driven two-and-a-half hours to ask me to stop trying to lure away a member of his flock. I won't go into the details, but suffice it to say, my friend Dave (the sheep in question) and I had spent many evenings discussing his Catholicism. As I respectfully challenged his views, he began questioning his faith. No wonder his priest was worried."

However, you will remember from the earlier quote that one of her sources suggests "Putting another first is a basic tenet of every major religion, and by setting aside your own agenda for your date's"

This is an interesting angle when the very reason the freelance writer wrote this article was not because she was challenged to confront her own views, but she confronted her date's about HIS. And the actual name of her article? "Love and Losing Your Religion" I think it becomes clear that she's not really interested in individuals without religious views to put their dates first and be challenged in their own concepts; no, apparently it only goes the other way. And to show how correct she is to religious people who might be reading this article? She quotes a 'religious expert' who encases all this in terms of 'putting others first' and 'ecumenism.' Remember - if you are religious (any religion) - you are supposed to date people who have different (non-religious) beliefs and then let them challenge your faith - but it isn't supposed to go the other way. In the end this article is not about respecting others' beliefs, which is what it is trying to masquerage as, it's about what the title said - getting you to 'lose your religion.' And her handy tool? Dating and the influence of a person you are attracted to (apparently without using your brain to pre-determine whether this individual is compatible with you or would be a good person for you to date.)

We know what you are up to msn freelance writer, but please, at least be honest about it.