Secularists' vital war on religion
by AC Grayling

Reposted from here

As long as religion is a danger to the lives and liberties of others, secular liberals will never relent in their protests

It is surely a failing not to have heard of Gerald Warner before, but courtesy of the recent fire at the Wasilla Bible Church attended by Sarah Palin in far-off Alaska (Palin was not in the church at the time), this Daily Telegraph writer has leapt on to our radar in full cry, as follows:

If – and it is still a big if – arson was committed by militant homosexuals or liberals simply driven by hatred of Palin, then that is a phenomenon that should greatly concern the American public. Anti-Christian jihadism fuelled by secularism is as unacceptable as that driven by militant Islam. If Wasilla Church was burned by arsonists making an ideological point, that is terrorism.

If what is suspected turns out to be true, the burning of Wasilla Bible Church is a metaphor for the onslaught against Christianity that aggressive secularism has mounted in Europe and which, under the influence of the morally degenerate Democrat party, is now invading the United States. This may be a significant warning to complacent Christians.

Great stuff. Gerald Warner, as a Catholic (and apparently something of a "jihadist" himself), is a member of an institution whose history is littered with crusades, burnings at the stake, persecution of gays, and the perpetuation of the biggest pack of lies that the world has seen - so would seem to be in a poor position to try working the moral equivalence angle. Gays and liberal secularists as jihadists!

This is the funny bit. In the last few years secular liberals have been uncompromising in what they say about religion, and the targets of their criticism have squealed and complained as loudly as if they felt real flames licking round their feet. The churches answered criticism in the past with murder; if they still had the upper hand would they now restrict themselves to their critics' choice of weapon – words? The foam-flecked variety issuing from Warner suggests not.

Let us look at some comparisons. In Afghanistan the Taliban stop girls going to school, beat up women who show a millimeter of skin, ban music, kill gays, and in general force their choice of life and belief on everyone, thus illustrating the less charming aspects of enforced observance of religious orthodoxy under which most of humanity has suffered for most of history. By comparison, secular liberals of Europe and North America say that they think religion is a load of nonsense and that religious folk should keep their fantasies to themselves. Some comparison, eh? Some jihad! Its effectiveness, though, is a sign of insecurity among the faithful. Mark Twain defined faith as "believing what you know ain't so", and the level of insecurity among the faithful when criticised suggests that almost all of them really agree.

Gerald Warner and his kind strain hard to whip up a belief in a moral equivalence between the inhumanity, intolerance, coercion and violence of their own religions' histories and the criticism and disdain with which secularists view them now. I suspect that Warner really hopes that balaclava-wearing, Kalashnikov-toting secular liberals flew some paraffin-laden model aeroplanes into the Wasilla Bible Church. If so it would make the excesses of religion's crushing imposition on the human spirit all ok, because it would show that liberal secularism has become the very thging it criticises.

I wonder whether, in the dialogue of the deaf that this quarrel has become, a few reminders might be in order. Secularism is the view that religious outlooks, though perfectly entitled to exist and have their say, are not entitled to a bigger slice of the public pie than any other self-constituted, self-appointed, self-selected and self-serving civil society organisation. Yet the religious persistently ask for special treatment: public money for their "faith-based" schools, seats in the House of Lords, exemption from laws inconvenient to their prejudices, and so endlessly on. They even have the cheek to ask for "respect" for their silly and antiquated beliefs; and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council the Islamic countries are trying to subvert the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it is inconvenient to their medieval, sexist, intolerant outlook.

Secularists in the west say to the apologists of the religions: your beliefs are your choice, so take your place in the queue. They also say: you've had it your own way for a very long time - and committed a lot of crimes in the process - and you still fancy yourself entitled, but you aren't. You don't smell too good at times, so don't try to tell me what I can read, see on TV, do in my private time, think or say. In fact, keep your sticky fingers off my life. Believe what you like but don't expect me to admire or excuse you because of it: rather the contrary, given the fairy-stories in question. And when you are a danger to the lives and liberties of others, which alas is too frequently the wont of your ilk, we will speak out against you as loudly, persistently, and uncompromisingly as we can.

Huxley, plain and simple, liberals are also forcing their beliefs on us. I don't have freedom of speech bcus I can easily get sued by them. Screw that, I'm tired of their beliefs being forced on us. We state our beliefs and automatically we're in lala land, yet they state their belief and they are in full protection by the constitution, B.S.

They want to force their sickness down my throat, and yet when I state and fight for my view, I am automatically a bigot. They can insult us, yet we can't defend our beliefs. They have the "right" to fight for their beliefs, yet I don't have the "right" to fight for mine? That is the double standard. They want me to silence my voice for political correctness, I say screw it I will be politically incorrect. No one is stopping them from fighting for what they believe, they should stop crying victim when we fight for ours.

Basically both sides should fight. They fight, I fight, and no I won't be silenced. Who said they were better than us?

Dont these secularists like AC Grayling make you want to laugh them to derision?

when it comes to christianity . . . they are at war with religion.
When its islam they kow tow to the violent mullahs and tell us to "respect" their religion.

bunch of hypocrites.

davidylan:

don't these secularists like AC Grayling make you want to laugh them to derision?

when it comes to christianity . . . they are at war with religion.
When its islam they kow tow to the violent mullahs and tell us to "respect" their religion.

bunch of hypocrites.

Thank u. I want them to go to muslims and do the same thing. When sword swing for their necks, it's a different story.

davidylan:

don't these secularists like AC Grayling make you want to laugh them to derision?

when it comes to christianity . . . they are at war with religion.
When its islam they kow tow to the violent mullahs and tell us to "respect" their religion.

bunch of hypocrites.

I beg to differ. AC Grayling has been one of the most tranchant critics of ALL religions in contemporary times. I have read most of his works on religions and other subjects and I see he makes no exception to any form of irrationalism.

If you know any example of where he kow tows to the mullahs, I would be much oblige to check it out. Otherwise, you are the dishonest one.

By the way, could you make a trip to a dictionary and check out the meaning of the word "hypocrite"? You are in the habit of abusing this word.

huxley:

I beg to differ. AC Grayling has been one of the most tranchant critics of ALL religions in contemporary times. I have read most of his works on religions and other subjects and I see he makes no exception to any form of irrationalism.

If you know any example of where he kow tows to the mullahs, I would be much oblige to check it out. Otherwise, you are the dishonest one.

By the way, could you make a trip to a dictionary and check out the meaning of the word "hypocrite"? You are in the habit of abusing this word.

Hux, i read Grayling's pieces on the Guardian UK quite a few times . . . he isnt a critic of ALL religions but is particularly fixated on christianity. You shld know that his favorite mouthpiece (the Guardian) has a special section for blogging the quran which is very tightly moderated (your comment has to be vetted by the muslim coordinator), none for christianity and 90% of the blogs on secularism vs religion are ALWAYS skewed against christianity.

so pls shove your hypocrisy where it belongs.

Why dont you carry your protests to muslim ramadaan and lets see how long you still keep your head.

Hux, i read Grayling's pieces on the Guardian UK quite a few times . . . he isnt a critic of ALL religions but is particularly fixated on christianity.

I disagree. Grayling does criticize all religions. Most of his writings are concerned with Christianity because that would be the religion that affects him the most.
I do agree that there is a state of "hush-hush" where Islam is concerned sometimes. But Grayling can't be blamed for that - he's merely forced into a corner by a UK government that pussy-foots around that section of society for fear of offence. Something that does neither them or the Muslim community any favours and just breeds hatred all round.

Bastage:

I disagree. Grayling does criticize all religions. Most of his writings are concerned with Christianity because that would be the religion that affects him the most.
I do agree that there is a state of "hush-hush" where Islam is concerned sometimes. But Grayling can't be blamed for that - he's merely forced into a corner by a UK government that pussy-foots around that section of society for fear of offence. Something that does neither them or the Muslim community any favours and just breeds hatred all round.

How does christianity affect Grayling more than Islam for example?

Dude!!!

He lives in the UK. It's a society where everything is based upon Christianity. Everything we do here is based upon it!!!
Maybe it's so everyday that the majority don't even realise it, but to an atheist or an objective onlooker it sticks out like a sore thumb!!!

Islam merely makes the newspapers when the media want a whipping boy. Sometimes justifiable. Sometimes not. But for the average UK citizen it doesn't touch your life anywhere near as much as Christianity does.

Bastage:

Dude!!!

He lives in the UK. It's a society where everything is based upon Christianity. Everything we do here is based upon it!!!
Maybe it's so everyday that the majority don't even realise it, but to an atheist or an objective onlooker it sticks out like a sore thumb!!!

Islam merely makes the newspapers when the media want a whipping boy. Sometimes justifiable. Sometimes not. But for the average UK citizen it doesn't touch your life anywhere near as much as Christianity does.

I ask again . . . how does christianity affect you as an individual or Grayling? That christianity is part of the fabric of the society does not mean it negatively affects you. you live in a free society where christians can be fired for refusing to wed gay couples, christians are not allowed to wear religious insignia to work (hijabs are curiously allowed though) and were you have the freedom to be an athiest.

How does christianity affect you?

That christianity is part of the fabric of the society does not mean it negatively affects you.

It's not part of the fabric of society.
It shaped society!!!!

We live and breath the influence of Christianity.

That means that negatives within that society do affect me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not stating that it's all negative but people like Grayling are saying: would those negatives exist if Christianity didn't have such a big influence in our society? He obviously believes not.

To see what I mean, take my statement about the government pussy-footing around Islam. If the UK was predominantly Jewish do you think the policy would still be the same?

Bastage:

To see what I mean, take my statement about the government pussy-footing around Islam. If the UK was predominantly Jewish do you think the policy would still be the same?

Jewish society treats islam in just the same way the UK does. If not areas like Bethlehem wont be in muslim hands.

I ask again . . . what do you and AC Grayling want? you have freedom and a secular society . . . do you want churches banned and christianity outlawed?

you still havent answered me on how christianity negatively affects you as a citizen of the UK.

Jewish society treats islam in just the same way the UK does. If not areas like Bethlehem wont be in muslim hands.

Come now David. Even you can't believe that crap. I'm more of an apologist for Israel than most but that really is clutching at straws.

I ask again . . . what do you and AC Grayling want? you have freedom and a secular society . . . do you want churches banned and christianity outlawed?

I don't see why you have to put me in the same bracket as Grayling. He is an atheist. I am not. Personally, all I care about is not having religion shoved down my throat and my life affected because someone believes that it will get them into Heaven. In many ways, this is too late; as I have already stated - the society I live in was created by these people. Their grip has loosened in the past century though and that freedom you refer to is more down to the loosening of the influence of religion on our lives.
The Spanish Inquistion is no more but whereas some within Christianity may not mind it's return, there are plenty of us that are glad that it is gone and we wish to keep it like that. That is all I ask for - not the destruction of your churches or the outlawing of your religion. "Freedom" is relative by the way.

you still havent answered me on how christianity negatively affects you as a citizen of the UK.

You still don't get it do you? In a society which has been shaped by a religion, any negative affects me and is a result of that religion. Law, morality, tradition are all shaped by Christianity. People like Grayling are saying "Do we really need religion to tell us what goodness is? Wouldn't a humanist approach be better as it would be less biased?" Looking at the shape of the world today and the problems we have with religions, I can kind of see his point. I would not advocate his whole policy though and I do see him as a rabid "fundamental atheist" which to my mind, places him in the same category as any religious fundamentalist.


Finally, if you want me to specify about negatives, how about this Labour Government in power now? Policy has been shaped by two very religious prime-ministers. Blair stated that his religion was often a factor in his politics (but the fact is that Blair was understating - religion shaped his character and therefore had a pretty direct impact on all his policy). And believe me, there are plenty of goverment policies that have had a negative impact on my life.

Bastage:

Come now David. Even you can't believe that crap. I'm more of an apologist for Israel than most but that really is clutching at straws.

no its not . . . its a fact that jerusalem has a moslem leader of some sort. its a fact that historical jewish sites like jericho, bethlehem and hebron are in muslim hands. its a fact that the temple mount is accessible only to muslims.

Bastage:

Finally, if you want me to specify about negatives, how about this Labour Government in power now? Policy has been shaped by two very religious prime-ministers. Blair stated that his religion was often a factor in his politics (but the fact is that Blair was understating - religion shaped his character and therefore had a pretty direct impact on all his policy). And believe me, there are plenty of goverment policies that have had a negative impact on my life.

How did christianity affect you as an individual and AC Grayling in the UK?

You have run round and failed to address that simple point. Whether Blair was influenced by Shango or Ifa is beside the point, the constitution is there to protect your rights. He can only implement policy that is not in conflict with the rights of the majority so no, this is no negative at all.

Its just like complaining that Yar Adua's religion is having a negative impact on Nigeria.

no its not . . . its a fact that jerusalem has a moslem head. its a fact that historical jewish sites like jericho, bethlehem and hebron are in muslim hands. its a fact that the temple mount is accessible only to muslims.

So the embargo against the Gaza Strip counts for nothing? The expansion of West Bank settlements against international law means nothing? It's a fact that Arabs in Israel are treated like second-class citizens. Like I said, I'm an apologist, but even I can't justify that.

You have run round and failed to address that simple point. Whether Blair was influenced by Shango or Ifa is beside the point, the constitution is there to protect your rights. He can only implement policy that is not in conflict with the rights of the majority so no, this is no negative at all.

I've addressed the point, but you don't seem to be able to grasp it. Religion formed society, society formed people, people create negatives. Therefore any negative is a result of religion. It's not a case of one or two specifics but a case of everything.

Also, there is no constitution in the UK and the government can implement policy that is in conflict with the rights of the majority and often does. How about the deals with the EU that have been made against the wishes of the vast majority of the UK people? We were even promised a referendum until Brown reneged on the promise. And if Labour retain power, what about the new ID cards which the vast majority of people don't want? If that is not in conflict with the rights of the majority then I don't know what is.
Government is no "protector of rights". It is a "protector of interests". And quite often those interests are not of the UK people but of corporations and banks.

Bastage:

So the embargo against the Gaza Strip counts for nothing? The expansion of West Bank settlements against international law means nothing? It's a fact that Arabs in Israel are treated like second-class citizens. Like I said, I'm an apologist, but even I can't justify that.

When was the embargo on Gaza placed and why? the election of Hamas.
Was Gaza not under Israeli control before Israel was forced to withdraw?

Expansion of West Bank settlements? The West Bank was part of Israel before Jordan annexed it in 1949.

Arabs are not treated as second class citizens in Israel, this is nothing but anti-semitic hysteria. Are Igbos treated as second class citizens in nigeria? But since Azikiwe we have had no Igbo leader.

Bastage:

I've addressed the point, but you don't seem to be able to grasp it. Religion formed society, society formed people, people create negatives. Therefore any negative is a result of religion. It's not a case of one or two specifics but a case of everything.

this does not address the issue at all. I repeat my simple question again maybe it would be clearer - what are the negative effects of christianity to you as a citizen of the UK? How has christianity denied you your rights to freedom?

Bastage:

Also, there is no constitution in the UK and the government can implement policy that is in conflict with the rights of the majority and often does. How about the deals with the EU that have been made against the wishes of the vast majority of the UK people? We were even promised a referendum until Brown reneged on the promise. And if Labour retain power, what about the new ID cards which the vast majority of people don't want? If that is not in conflict with the rights of the majority then I don't know what is.
Government is no "protector of rights". It is a "protector of interests". And quite often those interests are not of the UK people but of corporations and banks.

Those deals were made SIMPLY because of Blair's christian beliefs?
The new ID cards are because of christianity?

C'mon even you know the above quote is so way off the mark.

Bastage:

I've addressed the point, but you don't seem to be able to grasp it. Religion formed society, society formed people, people create negatives. Therefore any negative is a result of religion. It's not a case of one or two specifics but a case of everything.

I had to come back to this again because of your allegation here which it basically false.

you havent addressed the issue in specifics at all, all you have done is appear to do so without making any point. You "points" have been sufficiently vague enough to give the false impression that you have indeed addressed the issue.

Religion may have formed the early British society but to say that religion/christianity shaped today's modern society is false. A large majority of British people are not religious and were born to non-religious parents.

People create negatives - true . . . but are these as a result of christianity? To therefore conclude (with the use of "therefore" that ANY negative is as a result of christianity does not make much sense at all.

What has christianity to do with creating negative stereotypes in British society?

Again i ask - any specific negative impact that christianity has had on YOU as an individual member of society?

Surely there must be a reason secularists are at war with it.

you still havent answered me on how christianity negatively affects you as a citizen of the UK.

Just thought I'd mention how Christianity negatively affects me and millions of others in the UK.

I want to send my children to the best school in my area, but i cant because they are not Roman Catholic, and don't follow that particular interpretation of the Bible. I pay my taxes like everyone else to help fund and run this school, so i should be allowed to send my children there.

No where else in society is this kind of discrimination allowed, but why are faith schools still allowed to practice archaic, separatist, and divisive selection policies.

It is time for religious discrimination to  be abolished and outlawed just like racial discrimination was. Its just not right, Remember when black children were banned from the best schools in America. It took the civil rights movement to bring the government kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

I think in the 21st century a secular religious rights movement is required to bring the churches into line with the concept of equality.

We are all the same.

mantraa:

you still havent answered me on how christianity negatively affects you as a citizen of the UK.

Just thought I'd mention how Christianity negatively affects me and millions of others in the UK.

I want to send my children to the best school in my area, but i can't because they are not Roman Catholic, and don't follow that particular interpretation of the Bible. I pay my taxes like everyone else to help fund and run this school, so i should be allowed to send my children there.

No where else in society is this kind of discrimination allowed, but why are faith schools still allowed to practice archaic, separatist, and divisive selection policies.

It is time for religious discrimination to be abolished and outlawed just like racial discrimination was. Its just not right, Remember when black children were banned from the best schools in America. It took the civil rights movement to bring the government kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

I think in the 21st century a secular religious rights movement is required to bring the churches into line with the concept of equality.

We are all the same.

Mantraa, that is no negative AT ALL. As much as YOU have a right to put up a private school and admit whoever you will, the roman catholic church also has that right in a secular society to choose whom to admit.

You dont have a right to force them to admit your kid . . . the only right you have is to pressure your government to stop funding religious schools which i wholeheartedly support. What about government-run schools? Why are you not pressuring your govt to make them as good as the catholic schools so your kid can attend?

Look at the area i hightlighted in blue - you are comparing apples to oranges bro. So shld boys-only schools be outlawed too so girls can attend if they are better? Is your child's inability to attend a christian school because non-christians are not allowed or because you do not want religion to be taught to your kid in school?

Is it not discrimination when you say that those of us who wish our children have religious education MUST be forced to close shop so you can send your child wherever you wish? Suppose we also ask that secularism be outlawed? Is secularism itself not reverse discrimination?

Arabs are not treated as second class citizens in Israel, this is nothing but anti-semitic hysteria.

I could argue long and hard with you on that one but maybe that's for another thread?

you havent addressed the issue in specifics at all, all you have done is appear to do so without making any point. You "points" have been sufficiently vague enough to give the false impression that you have indeed addressed the issue.

You're still not getting it. The UK was founded on Christian belief. Everything in it's society has a basis in religion at some point and to some degree. It's not a question of specifics. How can it be when everything is pertinent to Christianity in some way?

Religion may have formed the early British society but to say that religion/christianity shaped today's modern society is false. A large majority of British people are not religious and were born to non-religious parents.

No. Religion played a big part in British society right up to well into the 20th century and still plays a big part today. Go take a look at the main BBC news page and you'll see many, many of the stories there right now are related to religion in some way or another.

http://news.bbc.co.uk

The fact that people may not be as religious now is relevant but it doesn't mean that the echo of the more conservative Christian past of the UK isn't still reverberating strongly.

People create negatives - true . . . but are these as a result of christianity? To therefore conclude (with the use of "therefore" that ANY negative is as a result of christianity does not make much sense at all.

Yes. They are a result of Christianity. Our values, our morality and our lives have been shaped by it. Wether we like it or not, we are steeped in it. It is our very essence. People like Grayling are rebelling against that essence. They question wether or not it could have been better without religion and in the case of Grayling, have concluded that it would (rightly or wrongly).

What has christianity to do with creating negative stereotypes in British society?

The same as it has with creating positives. As stated above, it has created just about everything in society - good and bad.

Again i ask - any specific negative impact that christianity has had on YOU as an individual member of society?

And again, I'll tell you it's much, much bigger than specifics. It has shaped the very life that I lead with all of the negatives and positives that life contains.

Surely there must be a reason secularists are at war with it.

From reading about secularism (or more correctly in this case atheism) they reason that religion holds humanity back. They reason that morality is not the exclusive child of religion and that in some cases religion creates immorality that a more humanist or atheistic approach would avoid. They reason that society would be a happier place without religion as it brings un-neccessary guilt feelings that give negative results.

Bastage:

You're still not getting it. The UK was founded on Christian belief. Everything in it's society has a basis in religion at some point and to some degree. It's not a question of specifics. How can it be when everything is pertinent to Christianity in some way?

If this is true, how come people of other religions fit in so well into British society without giving up their own cultures, religious habits and lifestyles? I would expect a muslim to be much worse off.

Bastage:

And again, I'll tell you it's much, much bigger than specifics. It has shaped the very life that I lead with all of the negatives and positives that life contains.

Just one specific would be enough. Mantraa at least gave us one . . . if you complain so much about christianity in society surely you have one idea how it impacts you negatively.

If this is true, how come people of other religions fit in so well into British society without giving up their own cultures, religious habits and lifestyles? I would expect a muslim to be much worse off.

A helluva lot of people would disagree with you there. They would say that Muslim society is segregated from mainstream British society. The overwhelming view now is that multi-culturalism is a failed experiment.

Just one specific would be enough. Mantraa at least gave us one . . . if you complain so much about christianity in society surely you have one idea how it impacts you negatively.

Either you're still not getting it or you're being deliberately obtuse. As I've repeatedly stated, it's not a case of specifics. It's a case of everything.

We breathe Christianity, we sleep Christianity, we are formed by Christianity. When we interact with other people we do so on a basis created by Christianity.
That is what the secularists and the atheists are rebelling against. They're not rebelling against the ideas contained within or the trappings that Christianity contains. They're rebelling against the idea. They're rebelling against religion as a whole. The thing that created them and the society that they are living in. They're saying that society as a whole is negative because of religion and that they don't want religion influencing the way they live. It is much, much bigger than specifics.

Get it?

Bastage:

A helluva lot of people would disagree with you there. They would say that Muslim society is segregated from mainstream British society. The overwhelming view now is that multi-culturalism is a failed experiment.

I think a lot of the blame for the failure of multi-culturalism has to go to the muslim society itself. Especially those from asia . . . they seem averse to interacting with other members of society. the typical muslim mindset is one of "bidding our time till we become the majority" . . . its not one interested in being one with you.

Bastage:

Either you're still not getting it or you're being deliberately obtuse. As I've repeatedly stated, it's not a case of specifics. It's a case of everything.

We breathe Christianity, we sleep Christianity, we are formed by Christianity. When we interact with other people we do so on a basis created by Christianity.
That is what the secularists and the atheists are rebelling against. They're not rebelling against the ideas contained within or the trappings that Christianity contains. They're rebelling against the idea. They're rebelling against religion as a whole. The thing that created them and the society that they are living in. They're saying that society as a whole is negative because of religion and that they don't want religion influencing the way they live. It is much, much bigger than specifics.

Get it?

Maybe i shld pose my question in this manner . . . what are the things in British society (influenced by christianity) that you want changed?

Maybe i shld pose my question in this manner . . . what are the things in British society (influenced by christianity) that you want changed?

How about treating each other a lot better for a start?

Bastage:

How about treating each other a lot better for a start?

How?

I want to send my children to the best school in my area, but i can't because they are not Roman Catholic, and don't follow that particular interpretation of the Bible. I pay my taxes like everyone else to help fund and run this school, so i should be allowed to send my children there

I also pay my taxes but couldn't get accepted to Jacksonville University. Ma'am the Roman Catholic schools are not public schools and have the right to accept whatever children they wish to, it is not up to you to force your kids on them.

By the way Roman Catholic accepts kids from different faiths, so I know the reason u gave is false. I'm assuming u live in the UK? Now I definitely know that the reason you gave is false. You must have led yourself to believe it.

Bastage:

How about treating each other a lot better for a start?

Is christianity hindering the better treatment of people?

~Lady~:

I also pay my taxes but couldn't get accepted to Jacksonville University. Ma'am the Roman Catholic schools are not public schools and have the right to accept whatever children they wish to, it is not up to you to force your kids on them.

By the way Roman Catholic accepts kids from different faiths, so I know the reason u gave is false. I'm assuming u live in the UK? Now I definitely know that the reason you gave is false. You must have led yourself to believe it.

Exactly what i thot because in my little town in Nigeria many of my non-catholic friends, even muslims, attended the popular catholic primary school.

When its islam they kow tow to the violent mullahs and tell us to "respect" their religion.

shut ya mouth, who no fear taliban

Would anything be wrong if I raised up a private firm and refused to admit any black person.
Would anything be wrong if I took over a private firm and fired all christians?
Or fired all atheists?
Or fired all gay people?
Or fired all Nigerians?

You do not have to be affected individually by an act to see the injustices in said act. Case in point - slavery. Most of the leading abolitionist were not slaves and had never experienced being slaves individually. Yet they could see that slavery was a moral institution. A morally corrupt society tanish all that exist within it.

Allow me to give examples of how the Christian worldview corrupts the general societal moral. Take the case of birth control. In many parts of the Christian world, contraception is strictly discouraged. I mean, all forms of contraceptions, form coitus intteruptus, to condoms, to pills, etc, etc. This is Christian ,albeit Catholic, doctrine. Now can you imagine the consequences to such policies in the society? Rampant STD, many unwanted pregnancies, illegal and unorthodox forms of abortions, etc, etc. Any decent human who is not touched by such perversion of societal moral has clearly lost their mind (usually to religion).

Take the case of abortion. There are time when abortion is called for medically to save the life of the mother. Christian dogma outlaw such medical intervention.

Anti-cervical cancer vaccination. Recently, in the UK, a Catholic school barred young girls being innoculated against this ravaging form of cancer on its premises. What do you think was behind their thinking?

I could go on. Like I said, the moral and justice of a society is not measured by how "privilege" gets treated. At times, it is these "privilege" who are best equiped to discern the injustices imposed on the majority by the tyrannical stranglehold of tradition.

Arent you all tired of this mischievous and spurious claims to victimhood?

huxley:

You do not have to be affected individually by an act to see the injustices in said act. Case in point - slavery. Most of the leading abolitionist were not slaves and had never experienced being slaves individually. Yet they could see that slavery was a moral institution. A morally corrupt society tanish all that exist within it.

Slavery? Uhm we are talking how many centuries ago? Was slavery a result of religion or racial? Arab nations, white nations, EVEN pagan African states all held slaves at one point or the other so what has christianity to do with slavery?

huxley:

Allow me to give examples of how the Christian worldview corrupts the general societal moral. Take the case of birth control. In many parts of the Christian world, contraception is strictly discouraged. I mean, all forms of contraceptions, form coitus intteruptus, to condoms, to pills, etc, etc. This is Christian ,albeit Catholic, doctrine. Now can you imagine the consequences to such policies in the society? Rampant STD, many unwanted pregnancies, illegal and unorthodox forms of abortions, etc, etc. Any decent human who is not touched by such perversion of societal moral has clearly lost their mind (usually to religion).

1. Christians have a right just like you to voice their OPINION which, thank God, isnt law.

2. Despite the catholic church being firmly against gay marriage and abortion, America still went ahead to elect a liberal president who supports abortion and gay rights.

3. Even though contraception is "strictly discouraged" by christians . . . they do NOT force their opinions on you. Every silly 16yr old can purchase contraceptives at their local store.

[size=14pt]So what really is the point of this fraudulent example?[/size]

huxley:

Take the case of abortion. There are time when abortion is called for medically to save the life of the mother. Christian dogma outlaw such medical intervention.

That again is FALSE. While the catholic church forbids abortion (again note, its catholic doctrine that is NOT forced on the rest of society) . . . other individual christians have a choice to choose abortion shld it be required to save the life of the mother . . .

[size=14pt]So what really is the point of this fraudulent example?[/size]

huxley:

Anti-cervical cancer vaccination. Recently, in the UK, a Catholic school barred young girls being innoculated against this ravaging form of cancer on its premises. What do you think was behind their thinking?

Dont be deceptive . . . did this catholic school ban ALL young girls in the UK or those under their authority as students of their school?
The catholic school is a private institution and parents are not forced to send their children there. Shld you be interested in anti-cervical cancer vaccination for your daughter, pls place her in another private institution or your public schools.

[size=14pt]So what really is the point of this fraudulent example?[/size]

huxley:

I could go on. Like I said, the moral and justice of a society is not measured by how "privilege" gets treated. At times, it is these "privilege" who are best equiped to discern the injustices imposed on the majority by the tyrannical stranglehold of tradition.

Yeah you could go on being a hypocrite.