RELIGION IS NOT FOR FREETHINKERS and it is for sheep who let the shepherds do the thinking for them
What of the Christian doctrine that religious freedom is the most basic and
important one and without it there is no such thing as real rights?
What does that mean?
The first thought is that in practice Christianity does
not worry about religious freedom for children are forced to the baptism font
and dragged to confirmation and communion and ordered on pain of damnation to
pay money to the Church.
Second it assumes that religion alone really matters. As long as you have religion, hospitals, health, governments have to go if something has to go.
Religious freedom rights mask a willingness for religion
to force itself on others and on the law.
Three religion does not admit that true religious freedom means a person can transition without social disapproval or worse from one faith other.
Religion should tell people to leave it if their research
shows that it is man-made or false. An honest religion helps people to leave.
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and
observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be
subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of
public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others.
Ronald Dworkin stated that there is no such thing as a right to religious
freedom. What should happen is that religion should be included among other
ethical entities and outlooks. He said there is a “general right to ethical
independence”. He justified the existence of arguments and bodies that have
differing ethical views.
The problem with his view is that lots of religions look for freedom despite
being opponents of "public order, health or morals". A religion for example that
bases its faith on deliberate lies can hardly deserve the same right to freedom
as a religion that cares about truth. It is an opponent of public morals.
Dworkin denies that religion demands belief in God. He thinks that religion is
only faith that your existence is important in itself no matter what you think
or what others think. It's objectively valuable. Another ingredient of real
religion is that you must look at the universe with awe and wonder.
He reasons that both the believers in God and many atheists agree with this so
belief in God is only a minor difference between them. This shows a total
misunderstanding of what God means. God means the living being who is infinite
goodness who alone is to be valued. Hardly a minor thing and Christians believe
that God alone is to be loved with all our heart.
Dworkin wanted to dilute the meaning of the word religion because he saw that
countries were using a more specific definition and awarding special rights and
privileges to entities that fitted the definition. It became a rationale or
excuse for giving religious people more rights than the non-religious. By
diluting the meaning, he hoped that equality would be achieved to a greater
degree.
People should be allowed to believe whatever they think is true because forcing
them serves no purpose. It is doing a disservice to truth in the name of truth!
As people often err, we have to allow freedom of thought. Truth is ruined and
faith in it is destroyed if freedom of thought is limited or taken away. It is
better to risk error than to risk suppressing truth. Unfettered debate is the
only way to get the best chance at finding the truth. Sometimes what sounds
crazy is in fact true. Sometimes error contains a little or a lot of truth.
Whoever opposes freedom of speech in fact is a defender of ignorance and an
enabler of liars and bigots.
Benjamin Franklin observed that truth supports itself and does not need anybody
to enforce it. "When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself;
and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it so that
its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil powers, it is a sign,
I apprehend, of its being a bad one". Religion uses laws and influences the
state to hinder freedom of speech. This is about power. It does not have much
faith in truth or God when it feels the need to manipulate.
What if kings and politicians believe religious nonsense and feel that they have
the right to believe that they know best and should force their religion or
religious views on the people as they have to force something on them anyway?
The Church says that if you won't be subject to her you will be subject to
something else so you might as well be subject to her. And besides if she has
the truth as she claims, you should be subject to her only. The notion that God
puts leaders in a position of authority even if they are not that godly implies
that we please him by obeying them and letting them impose their values on us.
The atheist does not reason that way. If atheism is correct then it would follow
that if we have the right of freedom of thought and freedom of speech, that if
either ours or theirs has to be sacrificed then it should be theirs.
If you really believe that God alone matters for he is all-good and the source
of all good, then it makes no sense to set up a system of law for ignoring him.
Belief in God then is intrinsically anti-secular. It makes you wonder about how
deep the secularism is in a person who claims to believe in God and who goes to
Sunday worship. The secular state has to remove all traces of the God doctrine
and refuse to encourage it in any way. Do not forget too that secularism is a
basic human right. Do not forget that anything that takes away the right of
people to make their own minds up be it God or religion or the state, produces
war. The only thing you need to do to bring about a war is to severely damage
people's democratic rights.
As policing what others think is impossible, religion has invented an
all-knowing God who forbids freedom of thought. We read in the Bible that God
considered Abraham justified or righteous simply for believing in what God said.
Both Catholics and Protestants believe in justification by faith. This means
that if you don't believe what God says you are sinful. It is a sin not to
believe. But it is a virtue to believe. The act of believing is a righteous act.
Protestants go as far as to say that justification is by faith alone. For
Catholics justification by faith is the start but you need justification by good
works too. But nevertheless justification by faith is the foundation and the
most important thing. Justification by works is impossible without it. Using God
to threaten people who think for themselves outside permitted boundaries is the
lowest trick of the low. Freedom of thought includes the promotion of
self-fulfilment and personal autonomy. Restrictions on what we must think and
the warning that we are immoral or sinful and deserving of punishment for not
believing something is a violation of a fundamental human right and the United
Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It opposes our growth. It
indicates fear of the truth. No true friend wants to stop you thinking for
yourself - the person that does that suspects that what he wants you to believe
is rubbish and doesn't care. It makes us think and live under a threat. It can
only make us willing to bully people who have a faith that differs from ours or
who leave our faith.
The doctrines that doubting God is a sin and that faith justifies are not merely
harmful in their consequences but ALSO IN THEIR CONTENT! They are insulting and
dehumanising doctrines in themselves even apart from any damage that they may
result in. They want to hurt the person who is considered to be offending
against or undermining or challenging a religious idea. But an idea has no
rights. Only people can have rights.
Without freedom of thought, truth itself ceases to be perceived as truth. It
becomes dogma. People will not understand it anymore. If you believe 1 and 1 are
2 because somebody says so that is dogma. If you believe it because you have
considered it and understood it as best you can, it is truth.
Without freedom of thought and freedom of speech other rights would soon vanish.
If your religion murders and you are not allowed to think it is doing wrong,
then you have turned your back on the right to life. Religious dogmatism is an
implied insult to all human rights. The hypothetical says as much about the kind
of person you are inside just as much as anything else does.
The real Christian who believes the Bible simply has to try and stop anybody
challenging the tenets of his faith. Period. Many Christians don't realise this
and what happens when they do? History shows that the blood flows.
Believers in God who see the harm in religion, atheists and agnostics need to
start doing something about the regrettable and dangerous influence of religion
on our society and our politics. It is simply unfair that something so twisted
should have so much clout.
Religion is just a con and its members are being exploited. Their right to the
truth is undermined by religion which seeks to control their morals and their
thinking and grab their money while inducing a need for religion that arises
from something as bad as a drug addiction. This outrage has to be halted and
information is the solution. Religion is intolerant towards real human rights
for it takes away the right to truth. The rights it supports lose their
credibility because of that. Would you believe a Nazi who cleaned a septic wound
you had in a concentration camp really supported your rights if you were a Jew?
