I do not consider religion to be the root of ALL evil. Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, atheists all. Hitler, despite his references to Christianity when he was a politician on the make, was in no sense a "practising" Christian.

My position is akin to that of Steven Weinberg, physicist and Nobel Laureate:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

On the other hand, religion is responsible for much that is wrong in the contemporary world. Not every global ill, but many of them, are a consequence of the malign influence of religion. Hence I applaud AC Grayling's timely column in the Guardian, "SECULARISTS' VITAL WAR ON RELIGION."

Quotes:

"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."

"Secularists…say to the apologists of the religions: your beliefs are your choice, so take your place in the queue…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."

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/20/wasilla-palin-church-fire-secularism

Hear hear!

Dear Steven.....

if only it was just the religious nutters who want it all their way..and want to impose laws on others.

A subject most of us are now familiar with I'm sure is the Ake Green case.

http://www.akegreen.org/

<<The whole thing actually started in 2002 when the Swedish Parliament enacted a new novel law that criminalized expressions of disrespect (Swedish: “missakting”) against homosexuals.>>

When the Prime Minister of a country (Sweden) declares it would be a crime to describe an un-natural act (Homosexual sex) as 'un-natural'...then we know we are in HUGE trouble!

The same law addresses issues of race, color and nationality, but the Bible does not condemn people based on any of these things. It is homosexual ACTS which are condemned.

So, clearly, a fight is unfolding. We cannot have both holding hands singing Kum Ba Yah.

The foul stench of Orwellian 'ministry of truth' is a pungent reminder of how close we are to his hyperthetical society.

LOL Polycarp I was wondering whether it would be you or OUG first off the mark.

For what it's worth I believe in free speech so I think you should be free to make any comment you like on homosexual acts.

On the other hand the religios – especially Muslims – are trying to restrict free speech. Another quote from Grayling:

"...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."

I think this is a reference to the attempt by Muslim countries to introduce blasphemy laws under the guise of enforcing "respect" for religions.

See:

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/12/19/Critics_slam_UN_religious_hate_vote/UPI-29281229711881/

Thanks Steven - that's an excellent little article that you linked to as a discussion starter. I think that the current atheist/secular response to neo-religionism is a fascinating and inevitable social phenomenon. Indeed, we've had some discussions here about local manifestations of this dialectic, with some very interesting negative perspectives from some OLO contributors who profess to be either atheist or secular in orientation.

On the other hand, we have a typically bizarre response from Porkycrap, who wants to divert the discussion to a revisitation of the sorry saga of the Swedish homophobic pastor that caused him to morph from Boazy into Porky.

I'd put money on Porky not having read the article that Steven based his OP on. If he had, he'd have undoubtedly responded to these gems:

<< 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. >>

Hear hear to that!

<< 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 >>

And who is it at OLO that rants most vociferously and intemperately against human rights, for exactly the same reasons? You don't "smell too good", Porky.

Hilarious.

Thanks again, Steven.

No problemo Steven... I'm actually 'Leigh' in drag :) (kidding)

The point you make.... about the Muslim countries appears to have flown totally over the somewhat flat head of CJ :) (think "man from IronBark and guilded youths" cj :) because it totally negates his rather lamely thought out.. 'mantra' like attack on me. (watch out CJ.. "I know karaty" as the saying goes, haha..

The PROBLEM I have with "Human Rights Legislation" is the very thing Steven pointed out... there are many parties and interests who want them to be THEIR version of human rights.. Islamic countries in particular want blasphemy laws or supression of criticism of Islam in the name of 'respect'....now..from that little 'gem' you can trace pretty much MOST of my 'Islamophobia' as it is often described. Except that it isn't an irrational phobia it is a very rational response to a very real, identifiable attempt to subvert our freedom to criticize.

I won't argue with the right to criticize my own faith, unfortunately for CJ..his criticisms would carry more weight if he avoided snide 'PolyCRAP' type epithets. Using them.. he just looks like a spoiled child who did not get his way.. awwwwwww :)

The point about Greene is that he should be just as entitled to criticize Homosexual behavior in his own church as homosexuals are to criticize and even vilify Fred Nile at their own next in house barbeque.

TRUE HUMAN RIGHTS... .is where I have the right to criticize your lifestyle and religious/faith choices and you have the equal right to criticize mine.
FULL STOP.

Anything less is not true human rights it is discrimination.

The fact that CJ is oblivous to this, as evidenced by his little whine is clear testimony to why we are cynical about the 'which/who' of "Human Rights" legislation.

No Boazy. Human Rights is far more than your right to criticise who you like.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

It’s about the rights to freedom from torture.
It’s about the rights to education.
It’s about the rights to freedom from slavery.
It’s about recognition as a person before the law.
It’s about the rights to freedom of movement.
It’s about the rights to freedom from persecution.
The list goes on….

Every day innocent people are being tortured in India, Turkey, Pakistan, China, Africa. Every day people are being starved by their own governments, detained arbitrarily, persecuted for their beliefs, denied access to education, and the list goes on….

Attacking Human Rights because of some stupid pastors spat with a couple of homosexuals in Sweden that happened years ago? Oh yeah, CJ’s the childish one.

Get over it.