Skip to main content

Making War on Religion

By Carl S ~

Religious organizations and their leaders complain of the “war on religion” whenever they can't bully others into giving them what they want, even at a cost to everyone else‘s civil, moral, and human rights. Critics are accused of hating them, of being evil in opposing them. Indeed, judging by the reactions of religious spokesmen, whenever any person points out false propaganda perpetrated by clergy, or the contradictions and ridiculousness in their scriptures and dogmas (i.e., facts), that person is “making war on religion.” But, let's not forget, religions started the “war” in the first place. And they keep it going.

War needs propaganda and trust, and not necessarily truth, to begin and continue the combat. In the religious wars, all's fair and the ends justify the means to advance the kingdom of God. Who created this idea, who is trusted, and whose interpretations of reality allow this tradition to continue? This begs the question: should we care, or should we just we accept the traditional that faith and trust such as this is harmless and a positive contributor to society? Or must we deal with the facts that such systems give reasons to oppose them?

What is called “faith” involves trust. Religious faith involves special trust - demands in which the believer wills himself to accept dogmas. But, if you believe blindly, and trust wholeheartedly, without evidence, whatever your clergy tells you as true, then you are willing to accept lies. If you insist on believing what may in fact be lies, and deny all access to facts, you need to be aware that there are consequences to believing - not only for yourself, but for others. My rights are threatened and denied as a consequence of your insisting that your beliefs are sacrosanct and unchallengeable by reason and evidence; beliefs you refuse to consider with regard to truth in the first place. (And you expect to be respected for this?)

There are consequences:

Whenever a young woman dies unnecessarily in a hospital because of the unquestioned, therefor unopposed, beliefs of that hospital's denial of a life-saving abortion to her, that is the consequence for an innocent woman.

When a woman is denied essential healthcare needs because faith-based lawmakers have taken them away, she, the innocent, pays the consequences, sometimes with her life.

Any time lawmakers allow their uninvestigated, blind beliefs to override and deny rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice to others, by continuing to give irrational, unsubstantiated, superstitious beliefs their loyalty and immunity from criticism, then innocent people suffer as a consequence.

When a man, believing what his clergy taught him, unquestioningly, without evidence, brought that indoctrination to real life and applied their belief-insistence (that god talks to people)in order to create an actual war in Iraq, thousands of innocent civilians died as a consequence.

Whenever authority-figure men of God are immune from inquiry or investigation, then they are not subject to checks and balances, and their absolute faith corrupts absolutely. Whenever their words are held sacred, accepted blindly and willingly, there is the danger that innocent children will suffer, and have suffered, as a consequence.
Innocent men, women, and children were slaughtered in Rwanda, urged on by the trusted clergy.

When the Catholic Church exercises its “faith” in Africa, where the faithful have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe whatever it teaches, and follow as sheep refusing to use condoms, millions of innocents suffer and die from STD’s as the consequence.

In an entire country raised to respect authorities who were as unchallengeable as its clergy, a leader lied to its citizens about the Jewish people. He was believed and trusted because they wanted to believe him without evidence. Positive information about the Jewish people was suppressed as information not in agreement with the “truths” the churches had been teaching for centuries in that country. Millions of innocent men, women, and children suffered and died horribly as a result. These too are the consequences of the same revered religious tradition of accepting authority on faith, entrusted in its spokesmen.

When a faith-based organization is exempted from national laws every other organization must obey, citizens may be prejudiced against in employment because of their differences of faith or non- faith. And every time churches flaunt the laws in order to force their agendas and get away with it (as in promoting political candidates), they are privileged above the citizens who do not enjoy tax-exempt status.

Whenever televangelists, with their “authority,” and “faith healers ,“ con money from the poor, and any time priests offer prayers for cash, the “ faith” entrusted in them has consequences for the gullible.

And every time a girl is genitally mutilated according to a faith-tradition, she undergoes needless, poisonous suffering in her lifetime, even death, as consequences of her mutilator’s trusting, unquestioning, obedience.

Every time blind faith trumps the reasoning and evidence which are necessary to find truths, there are consequences. The costs are too high. One must not allow them to go unchallenged. In spite of the fact that some may have their comfort zones of belief disturbed and their faith-doors rattled.

Because there are so many individuals who prefer their addictions, and refuse to consider the damage that their respect for “unquestionable” dogmas can lead to, others do suffer.

The addiction to and respect for religions is continually disrupting education, critical thinking, rational discourse, our legal system and our human rights. Its intransigence is blocking progress in our entire society. These are the consequences for everyone.

These are facts, not faiths. And these facts alone are very good reasons to war against religion.

Any other examples you can cite on this subject, are most welcome.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro