//I have nothing against atheists//

Oh. So it wasn't you that wrote:

//This is probably because the atheistic Left has more in common with Islam than with civil, Western society.//

or

//Tony Lavis and Cobber the Hound, blast off with their predictable empty denials of any criticism they rightly see as being levelled at their type of idiocy.//

Ttbn, you started off attacking atheists and went on to accuse me of their type of idiocy (i.e. atheism). Now that I have corrected your misconception regarding my faith, you're suddenly going to turn around and pretend and that you didn't attack atheists in your first post on this thread? Or that you didn't accuse me of their type of idiocy (i.e. atheism) in your second post? Nice try, but we can all read here. Trying to claim you haven't said something which you demonstrably did isn't going to fool anybody, and diminishes your credibility.

Let me guess: somebody hacked your account.

Hi Toni,

Like ttbn, I fully support your right to be an idiot and to express your ignorant views. But when you put it out there, you have to expect the free expression of criticism of idiocy.

If we look at some crucial issues and compare how different religious doctrines support or condemn them, such as homosexuality, abortion, rights of women, freedom of expression, even you may be able to discern distinctions.

Homosexuality ? Interestingly, in the Middle East, Israel is the only country to have legalise this, and to support Gay Pride festivals. So that's a 'yes' from Judaism. How do Christians handle it, in countries like Australia ? Some churches do not support homosexual marriage but others have homosexual clergy. I don't know how Buddhism and Hinduism regard homosexuality, but they do seem to be much more indulgent than others towards it, lady boys being able to use women's toilets in Thailand, for instance.

And in Islam, in 2016 ? Apart from the extremes of throwing gays off tall buildings and otherwise executing them on suspicion, Islam does not seem to have a very enlightened approach to homosexuality. This must also be a problem for the pseudo-Left, in trying to square its uncritical support for Islam and for homosexual rights. Good luck.

Abortion ? The Catholic Church and a few Christian fundamentalist groups, and Islam generally, would deny the right of a woman to choose: in Islam, the unborn child would be the property of the father (unless illegitimate, then of course it's the mother's responsibility alone), so a woman can be stoned or otherwise murdered for attempting an abortion. I don't know how the pseudo-Left squares that with women's rights.

Women's rights in 2016: as far as I can ascertain, Judaism and Christianity seem to have a more enlightened approach than, let's say, Islam, with its honor killings, child brides, genital mutilation, women's legal (property, family law) rights being far inferior to men's, stoning for suspicion of adultery (or adulterous thoughts), etc. Hmmmm ...... how to square all that .....

[TBC]

[continued]

As for freedom of expression ? I would respectfully suggest that, on a continuum of most welcoming to least welcoming, many Christians and Christian groups and churches would be up towards one end while supporters of Islamic dogma (and much of the pseudo-Left) would be up towards the other. [Of course, we shouldn't forget the Crusades and the Inquisition: bastards !]

As an atheist, I'm happy to criticise all religious faiths - and to call it as I see it. I'm happy to conclude that, on the whole, the rights that we take for granted these days have their roots, indirectly and amid bitter disputes over many centuries against religious fundamentalism, in Christianity - not intentionally, but necessarily.

For example, the distinction between Church and State was laid bare in the twelfth century in the struggles for power between Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory, and thanks partly to European geography that struggle opened the way, eventually, to secular state power and people's rights, and the confining of religion to religious matters only. Islam had yet to go through that process of moving away from the unity of state power and religion and absolutism, and towards democracy. I wish Muslims luck, they will certainly need it over the next century.

Joe

The Australian Citizenship Pledge should include:
“In a secular, democratic society, I acknowledge that religious freedom includes the right to hold and communicate religious ideas and beliefs and the right to condemn them; and I affirm that no idea or belief is beyond critical examination.”

Joe,

Very well said. After being 'driven' to Sunday School, then into church (Presbyterian), I decided, at 16 years of age, that I was an atheist, and went about my life as such until reaching the agnostic stage when I decided I couldn't really know one way or the other. It's the only thing where I sit on the fence. I do not regret my religious education, but I do regret not having allowed my children the opportunity to experience it in my atheistic stage.

I am in full accord with your expression of the fact that we would not have had freedom of speech if it were not for the fact that Western society was based on Christian ethics - accidentally or otherwise.

I am also accepting of criticism of Christianity and Christians, but I am really pissed off with with Christ-abusers who apologise for - or never crticise - Islam. These people either totally accept Islam, or they are cowards, only criticising those who they know are no threat to them.

Hi ttbn,

I had a very good friend, now deceased, who was at one time Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, very dedicated all of his life to the welfare and happiness of Aboriginal people, a truly good, decent man. I don't think he would have ever hurt a fly.

Maybe we should judge religious activity by the extremes to which adherents are willing to go, in order to fulfil what they perceive as instructions from their gods. On that basis, I would suggest that Presbyterianism is well up there on the scale of 'religions of peace'. Other sects, and other religions may be somewhat more 'judgmental', more inclined to throw gays of high buildings or burn young women in cages or machine-gun children and old ladies, in the name of a religion of peace. Their god must be weeping.

Of course, most people wear their beliefs pretty casually, perhaps giving lip-service to the more extreme demands of their priests or rabbis or imams. Most Christians and Muslims have never read their holy books right through, I'm sure. After all, in the Middle Ages, Bibles were all in Latin which very few people, except some priests, could read - thank goodness for the printing press. And proper Korans must not only be written in Arabic, which many Muslims don't actually speak, but must be kept at the highest point in the house, untouched. And un-read.

But we all need some ethical foundation, regardless of whether we believe in gods or not. Without gods and their priests, it is harder to achieve that. Actually, I suspect that many believers also go through struggles to work out what is right or wrong, they don't all believe what they are told.

Even Mother Teresa is reported to have had very serious doubts about the existence of a god, back in the early fifties - (how could he allow such misery ?) - but still kept working with the poorest, non-Christians all, in Kalkotha, until she died. Now, that's my kind of believer :)

Cheers,

Joe