When questioning someone elses' beliefs is "impolite", you know there is something wrong with society's values.

We, at least Americans (I cannot speak for elsewhere), shun questioning faith. People like Mr. don't appear to be doing much good when politeness means bending the implications of our positions to appeal to the sentiments of the unwashed masses.

Take, for example, James Randi's brilliant (and yes, often scathing) attacks and criticisms of quacks, con-men, and supernaturalists in general. Few would advocate toning down the full implications of homeopathy being bogus (being that homeopaths are practicing dangerous non-medicine) or that psychic power scientifically unsound (thus making psychics, well, loony charlatans). But when it comes to the superstitions of the masses, well, manners apparently dictates "don't go there!" if the implication is too hard on the other side, truth be damned. And it's not just theists and agnostics making this criticism, some atheists do to.