No it isn't...
I'll clarify: I mentioned doctrine, which is basically most organized religion. It can be misused in both senses of the word: misapplied and mispurposed. Science - the scientific method - can be both misapplied and mispurposed as well. Personal religion, or spirituality, however, can not be misapplied - it is too nebulous and idiosyncratic.

Not really. It's about considering things as scientific data that aren't as well, and about whole areas where science shouldn't be considered relevant.

The whole concept of science vs religion is bizarre in that regard--the implication that science is more than a minor method that is mostly about being useful.
Why should religion be granted more prestige or authority?

I find it strange that you so easily ignore all the great ethical dilemmas generated by the fruits of science.

eh...your moral beliefs are rational and consistent? That's not good.
Your moral beliefs are not consistent? They seem consistent to me. You seem to be applying rational principles, or what is usually deemed rational: "This is harmful, so I should attempt to mitigate its expression."

I think you have everything backwards from the usual manner.

too much stock in principles for that to be the case.
'Presidential debates are not about facts, they're about principles'. You evidently hold many principles. What are you on about?

You would have to simplify, distort, twist, overreach
Can you give an example?

And how do you decide on the premises you take as true anyway?
How do you? You're the biggest moralist in the forum!