A thought: Tolerance is a big virtue these days. It is insulting for it implies putting up with something undesirable or immoral. Religious tolerance means one religion merely stomaching the others that disagree with it. There should be no religion as there is enough around to test our tolerance without it adding to the problems. Religion like a lot of things that is going around is inherently sectarian. Intolerance always starts with repressed hatred as signified by tolerance. Ecumenism - different religions being friends as religions - is just snow over the manure heap. It's good effects cannot last. And they don't!

Tolerance is putting up what you consider bad. It is an offensive insult. And the insult is compounded when you cannot provide evidence for your religious belief while you say you tolerate other religious beliefs. Why is it offensive? For tolerance implies that the tolerated are less than good or right and that sincere or not they do harm. Every religion claims to be right and that the others are wrong so tolerance is the best it can give. For somebody that cannot give sufficient evidence for their religious faith to tolerate me is to insult me and they show how bigoted they are.

Many humanists reject tolerance for tolerance means putting up with something bad so it is quite insulting and grudging. If people believe what they are doing is good we should encourage them to do it even if it is contrary to our principles. But nevertheless we have to try and win others to our way of thinking because it is the only way to certainty and joy for them and us.
Humanists hate spiritual opinions that look down on Atheism and the scientific method.

Humanists hate it when religion tries to promote its teaching in a way that affects the public sphere and politics. Humanists know that Humanism is the method of getting to the truth. Religion opposes that method thus for religion to promote itself at all is for it to damage

Humanism and the majesty of its ethos that we believe nothing until we learn the case in its favour.

If my religious group claims to be sure that its doctrines are all objectively true, then what if yours disagrees? Clearly religion has to undermine tolerance. If it acts tolerant it is being hypocritical. It may act tolerant but that does not change the fact that it is in essence intolerant. A dog that is trained to sing like a bird is still essentially a barker even if he never barks. It is his nature.

Anything that can be done without such as religion that embodies intrinsic intolerance is bad no matter how inconsistent it is with its intolerant nature.

Hating the sin is not just about hating the fact that people chose to do wrong. It is hating the wrong action. So you should hate it when an insane person has sex outside marriage without knowing what they are doing as much as you would hate it if they did it deliberately.
The hate sin love sinner tripe demands that society be very strict indeed. If an unbeliever won't go to Mass, that person is still a bad harmful person if going to Mass is right and good and God's law. It must not be tolerated. Catholics are bound to hate this action whether or not it is intended to be a sin. To complain that being compelled to go to Mass is against one's rights will invite the retort: "But what about our rights as Catholics to hate what you do?"

Suppose we pretend that it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin. The less evidence you have that an act that somebody did is wrong or sinful the more you hate them. And the more you think it is the sin you hate then the more you are in denial. You need proof (in theory) to be able to say you love them. Christianity plods on without proof. It has all these sins it cannot prove are really sins. Thus when it claims to be the only right religion and the only way to learn what right is, it follows that its morals should be enforced on people and those who say they can't be proved must be silenced.

The Catholic Church did not declare that the heretic had rights though errors have none until Vatican II (page 7, Human Rights; page 6, Religious Freedom).

Christian doctrine says we are all connected in Jesus so if somebody murders we are all part of the problem, we are all to blame and we are all sinners. The terrorists and the political movements that support them adore this message for it makes them feel good about what they do. The terrorists in Northern Ireland consecrated their murderous activities by prayer. Prayer is seen by sceptics as making yourself feel good for doing nothing.

Also, against those who say religion in itself never does harm but people do harm in the name of religion, we have to point to the harmful doctrines of the Church. They said Jesus was right not to walk away from his death to save us though God could have saved us another way. They say a baby that isn’t baptised is like a bastard – not a proper child of God. I could go on and on. And there is the small matter of the Bible and the Koran commanding violence in the name of God.

Some Christians believe that religion is a terrible evil thing that causes wars and general misery and they say they do not offer a religion but a relationship with Jesus. But the Bible, which claims to be the written word of God who is its author, is full of religion. It was God the Bible says set up the religion of the Jews. Moreover, every religion is composed of individuals who are their own religion unto themselves for the beliefs differ in interpretation and are based on different reasons. For anybody to claim to be a Christian who opposes religion is seriously confused thinking at best. Any religion could say the same. For example, the Mormons could say they are not a religion but a relationship with God the Father. A Muslim might say that Islam is not a religion but a way to Heaven.

The doctrine of God implies that since God is the law and is not subject to the law, that people must agree with him. The doctrine implies that they must not divorce goodness from God but fuse the two. Since God is supreme, there can be no law over him to punish him or reward him for what he does which raises the problem of how we know we can trust him. Christianity says just trust him. But it is unfair and bigoted to just trust a being that makes such serious and heavy demands on us: love me with all your heart and do what I say and condemn what I condemn even if my rules make no sense to anybody. It is like marrying somebody within seconds of meeting them.

The God concept then is inherently violent and intolerant and bloody.

Believers insist that we Atheists have no business judging God and finding him guilty of abusing the human race if he exists for we are not above God in order to sit over him in judgement. It implies that they think that all who oppose the true religion or philosophy must be stopped not to destroy freedom but to maintain it. People have a right to the truth and those who plot against the truth are denying them that right. But that does not mean it is necessary to force silence on people or to persecute them for differing from the truth. If you think you are right you have to work against other ideas by talking and by helping the promoters not to be one-sided. They can refer you to something that gives you the evidence for an alternative view. It is your duty to try and be right and anybody who is wrong has not tried hard enough.

We need to start seeing that when we say, "Only God can judge" we are saying that if we could see into people's hearts we would judge too. We are saying that we only refrain from judging because we cannot see. In fact, saying that only God can judge translates as, "If you are being bad then I'd judge you if I could prove it." Christian love always comes with a but. Such teachings only lead to tolerance of homosexuality not acceptance. They make indirect bigots of people.


Information is the best antidote to religion and RELIGION AND SECTARIANISM AND BIGOTRY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. People like us are to blame when religion thrives so we cannot punish anybody for being wrong. We need to do more.


No Copyright