Confronting Religionophobia

You try to completely obviate the spirit and legal base principles of the very laws you claim to 'Biblically-interpret:' ...seeing any mention of a Creator or 'Providence' or whatnot as an escape clause to override fundamental human rights and the base principles upon which all our other laws are *founded,* and from which they *take their authority.*
All are 'created equal' Even if you think your view of your God means you're entitled to try and get people to take that equality away from this or that group of individual Americans.
Posted by: Paganplace
----------
There is practially NO overlap between what I said in my posting and what you are saying in response. Either you have not read what I said or you have not understood it.
Posted by: rohitcuny
----------------
Let me elaborate a little. In my posting, I mentioned a lot of people, Gandhi, Buddha, Einstein, Marx, Darwin and many others as examples of great minds to whom we should listen. None of these people are even mentioned in paganplace's response. She assumes - with little evidence - that anyone who disagrees with her is a fundamentalist Christian.

But I am not a Christian, I am not a fundamentalist. I am a person who believes that human wisdom has been exhibited by many people over history. It cannot be summed up by whatever St. Paul said, or what the Pope says or on the other hand what Jefferson said. The problems of the world are complex and require thoughtful minds. Treating the constitution with respect it good. Treating the US constitution or the bill of rights, as interpreted by Scalia or Thomas or Souter, as scripture is very dangerous.

I don't want to sound harsh, but I would recommend to paganplace that she should graduate from high school before she posts in a major newspaper.

You try to completely obviate the spirit and legal base principles of the very laws you claim to 'Biblically-interpret:' ...seeing any mention of a Creator or 'Providence' or whatnot as an escape clause to override fundamental human rights and the base principles upon which all our other laws are *founded,* and from which they *take their authority.*
All are 'created equal' Even if you think your view of your God means you're entitled to try and get people to take that equality away from this or that group of individual Americans.
Posted by: Paganplace
----------
There is practially NO overlap between what I said in my posting and what you are saying in response. Either you have not read what I said or you have not understood it.

I mean, really, why is this so *difficult* for you? Our founding as a nation is based on the presumption that loyal Americans accept: That the inherent nature of humans is complete equality as beings and unalienable human rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From the 'highest authority imaginable,' perhaps, but *inherent and unalienable.

Not something you can claim to speak for 'God' and take away.

Period.

Rohitcuny:

"The declaration of independence and the US constitution have come to be regarded as scriptures during the last few years, rather than just political documents whose purpose was to justify the rebellion against England and to lay down the guidelines of the US government."

"There are many democracies in the world, and most have constitutions (the UK, one of the oldest, does not). But few worship their constitutions the way liberal Americans do."

It's not America's fault if you lack the capacity to see words and anything *but* either your Scripture or something like it.

These are our stated founding principles, including the part about enhancing and promoting Liberty where need to do so is discovered.

In fact, it's *conservatives who call it 'strict constructionism' to try and use the text to justify as if holy writ, the idea that our founding principles and even legal mandate to exist as a nation are merely some faded and/or inadequate emulation of your own Scripture.

You try to completely obviate the spirit and legal base principles of the very laws you claim to 'Biblically-interpret:' ...seeing any mention of a Creator or 'Providence' or whatnot as an escape clause to override fundamental human rights and the base principles upon which all our other laws are *founded,* and from which they *take their authority.*

All are 'created equal' Even if you think your view of your God means you're entitled to try and get people to take that equality away from this or that group of individual Americans.

The declaration of independence and the US constitution have come to be regarded as scriptures during the last few years, rather than just political documents whose purpose was to justify the rebellion against England and to lay down the guidelines of the US government.

There are many democracies in the world, and most have constitutions (the UK, one of the oldest, does not). But few worship their constitutions the way liberal Americans do.

Note now that humanity is much older than the US. Even the idea of democracy existed in Greece and also in India, where some small democracies existed in the time of the Buddha. Liberal Americans need to show some sense of perspective. 220 years is not that long a time in the history of mankind.

There have been wise men, the Buddha, Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Lao Tsu, Confucius, who lived before the framers of the constitution. And there have been other great people, Marx, Freud, Darwin, Einstein, Gandhi, whose work did not exist when the US constitution was written.

Note also that Jefferson whom a lot of people are deifying was a mortal man who owned slaves.

So what am I saying? I think American liberals need to stop playing "My religion is the only true religion" game. There are lots of insights elsewhere in the world and it is a mistake to treat the US constitution as a combination, Bible, textbook on Social Science, and textbook on Philosophy all rolled into one.

There is a lot about human nature which we are finding out just now which was not known in 1789, and no doubt more we will find out as time progresses. Even Arrow's theorem which puts down sharp limits on democracy (and which I suspect is not known to most politicians or voters) was not known until the middle of the XXth century.

So let us treat the current liberal understanding of politics and other matters, based on whatever happened in 1789 as something which deserves respect, but no more than that.

The American tragedy is that the obsession with "MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" has degenrated into narcissism and egoism. As a consequence we have had 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade, a 50% divorce rate, and 40% of children have no effective father. Also the US has enormous deficits both in its own budget and in its foreign trade. China is growing at 9% per year while the US regards a 0% rate of growth as a "triumph" - at least it is not negative!

The one good thing about religion is that it teaches humility. Arrogance towards other religions perhaps, but at least humility in one's relationship with God.

And THAT lesson, "I am not the center of the universe" which religion teaches, is one which Americans badly need to remember.

As for "inalienable" rights, none of us can escape old age, illness and death. Even Sotomayor will not give us that. So what good is it to have the right to kill the child inside one's womb? No matter how many you kill, when the grim reaper comes you will not be safe.

Left a stray bit of attribution at the bottom of my last post quoting Nunivek.

Anyway, see where I was going, Nunivek? I was countering your assertion back there that there can be no rational basis for unalienable human rights: it's perfectly rational, part of the reasoning process, even, to accept something as a premise and observe where it goes, in practice, as well as theory.

Morning, Nunivek:

"Ok, so to get this right, yes it is not a singular person per se who now is saying these truths are self-evident, now its a group. So if a group says something is true just because we believe innately that it is, we would say that they have come to this conclusion as an act of faith."

Actually, under American law, the point is that in our 'social contract' ...we accept this as a *premise.* While we may also have 'faith' that this premise is essentially true, the important part is, basically, that all our laws are based on accepting the proposition.

As I said, we *hold these truths to be self evident.* That's a thing we do.

"Personally, I think our system of governance and its "self-evident" rights is a reflection of a culture that is oppressive and denies human value and dignity reflected in what I think are human rights. We have raped the environment, for all intents and purposes essentially enslaved whole swathes of the world, waged war and continue to permit war as an option, execute people, and enshrined personal consumption as the most sacred and protected goal of our society. Many of these things are a direct result of these apparently "self-evident" rights,"

Actually, most of these things have nothing to do with individual human rights, but rather, the somewhat more recent phenomenon of 'Corporate Personhood.' While initially ostensibly intended to protect small enterprises, it's been used by big corporations to essentially claim that the corporation has the same rights, but few to none of the responsibilities, that are guaranteed to individuals.

Much descends from there. It's easier to moralize and blame the materialism of individuals, at least there's some oft- illusory control, there. Though in practice it only goes so far. When large entities like corporations have the power that comes from their size, and none of the social responsibilities... They do set the tone and structure of things on a lot of levels. Individual rights and liberties aren't at fault for this.

"which of course are not enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (a document that has no weight in our governance) but the Constitution."

The Declaration of Independence is the stated purpose and context for our inception and existence as a nation. It's surely profoundly relevant, even if the nuts and bolts are in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

"Btw, not even our system of governance assumes that these rights cannot change by the will of the people, we have a legislative process that permits any and all of the these "rights" to be changed and/or eliminated."

The price of freedom. Eternal vigilance. That's why we must stand true to these principles and indeed continue form a 'more perfect union.'

Posted by: nunivek

Put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping cows and bowing to Mecca five times a day.

Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the Commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings. And lets all hope there indeed is a place called Heaven!!!

ROHITCUNY wrote:

Try the Dhammapada. You can hear the first verses of it on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB1A9uT9kf0&feature=PlayList&p=A74A8C4FA5EC80A8

___________________________

What a calming meditation. Thank you very much.

NUNIVEK

Agree, this topic, in spite of been already discussed and re-discussed, still is interesting.

My attention so far has been focused to try to establish the origins and basis upon which the ethics and morals has been forming, and keep forming. There is some elemental atavism in the relationships of the family, the clan and the tribes that has given basis to the formation of ethics and morals. The self-evidence in the behavior of the environment,the place where relationships take place,shaped some very basic ethic principles. This precedes or was simultaneous to the appearance of religions.

The principles that gave advantages to the group were enforced by the leaders of the clans and taught from generation to generation. In fact religion was a perfect tool for keeping the clan in order. This means that the atavism as a vehicle to maintain alive ethics behaviors was kind of social atavism in the case of humans, not biological as the word implies.

Fast forward to today. There is not any reason for the golden rule today to be self-evident for one specific individual. Today selfishness is more self-evident than the golden rule. But this does not negate its human and practical origins. No god necessary. No ultimate philosophical objective need to be looked upon to explain the golden rule.

One particular individual, trying to answer the whys in the life will not arrive easily to answers. In fact there may not be answers for all the whys about human life. Some people find refuge in religion, believing without proofs. But for me those are not real answers.

Now, in the beginning most of the ethic principles were applied to relations within a group, not relations with other groups. This may explain why religious people love each other but can easily hate people belonging to other religions. Same thing happens within large groups. Small clans can hate members of other clans and take advantage of other if they get to rule the largest group. Fast forward again to human rights today, a valid attempt of modern societies, in this case nations, to agree on certain principles. They are not perfect nor everybody should agree with all the principles contained in the declaration, but is better than nothing.

Justacomment,
Btw, thanks for your comments as well, I appreciate civil dialogue :)
Obviously I find this to be an interesting topic ;)

Justacomment,
Your example of things that are "self-evident" do not truly extend analogically to human rights. Gravity for instance is a concept that yes a secular person does to some degree take on faith as they assume the predicted behaviour will continue to occur as observed and tested, yet there is loads of observation and interaction with the environment that supports this conclusion. I think you assume too much to suggest that secular ethics, perhaps such as the golden rule (as has been suggested here) is self-evident. If you want to look at evolutionary biology and animal behaviour it would seem to actually suggest a form of ethical living that is typically ruthlessly selfish, such that even socializing behaviour exists to systematically further the self (of course with the goal of personally propagating the species).
Now, I find that to be a pretty weak basis for a system of human rights. In fact, it could be argued that eugenics is a perfectly rational if not a necessary route to insure societal progress and prevent disease and all sorts of social maladies. There is no intrinsic personal benefit to support a severely mentally handicapped or developmentally delayed person from a biological perspective, should we just let them die or actively terminate them than? Why not, what stops this behaviour, and for that matter is this behaviour stopped at all (as long as it is in the womb we in fact encourage it within the medical profession, if not in the society as a whole)?
Why should we as an individual,family, or national unit not seek only what is best for us, especially if the people that are "in our way" hate us and identify us as enemies.
Thus what seems evident to me to be the default human ethical behaviour and constraints is a highly entrenched selfishness that is even perhaps hard-wired if you look at biological evidence.
So human rights suggests that some of these obviously natural behaviours are in fact patently wrong, but the difficult question really is why?

On the issue of universality,, I think there is a significant difference here. A system based on an appeal to human reason must be universal or near-universal in its acceptance, as the assumption is that it appeals to an objective form of reason available to all (btw, something which many non-believers think is metaphysically false). Whereas a solely faith-based ethical system does not claim to be based on human reason but on another factor or person, such as God. Consequently, a believer can hold that the scope of these rights extend to all people and live in such a way that upholds this belief without even a majority of people agreeing with them, because they do not have to look to the consensus of humanity as the authority on these matters. The most despised person, to them, can hold intrinsic value and deserve to be treated with dignity and love.

NUNIVEK

Thanks for your comments.

I tried to point to you the fact that religion or God as a basis for ethics is not necessarily universal. My comment to your assertion was that “Same thing can be said about an ethics coming from any particular religion.” In your last post it appears that you agree with this position because you state that “something being "self-evident" is the same as a faith statement”.

If I get you correctly we could say: secular or human ethics based on self-evidence is a faith statement similar to religion based ethics. And both are not universal.

There is something that is missing if we take this route. Both could be taken as statements of faith, I agree. But still there is a huge difference of degrees of “trustability” in each. I have faith that if I walk one step forward from the edge of the Colorado Canyon I will go down like a stone. People can try this millions of times and there it’s not going to be any difference. So trusting or having faith in my senses as self-evidence when I see a big hole is a good source of predictability, which is absolutely indispensable to go around in this world.

If I go further, there is no need to prove that if somebody hit another human with a big rock in the head, that person could end up dead or seriously crippled. This is self-evident and predictable. If those two persons need each other, a good “moral” or “ethical” practice will be not to harm each other. No god needed. Animals that has social life use these principles of morals. Even what can be described as empathy has been observed in monkeys.

Now, I cannot say the same about using revelations, books, prophets, gods, angels, demons, spirits, tarots, karma and the like as source of predictability. Yes, there are a lot of people that can have faith in any or all of these things, but there is no way they can prove anything about what they believe. That is the essence of faith and it is their right to believe what they want. If you live in any of the nations signatories of the human rights, there is a good chance that people in that country have freedom to have any faith.

At the end religious people have both kind of faith, anyway. They use the self-evidence faith to go around in this universe and the religious faith for other purposes, like to deal with the uncertainty of the after-death.

Paganplace, I find it fascinating that you judge my belief structure without me even saying what I think a Christian understanding of human rights is. Why do you assume that its automatically destructive, oppressive, or whatever, when you haven't even heard what it is?

I agree you don't have to believe in God, to believe that these "truths" are "self-evident", they are merely based on the desires of the people who chose to believe them. They are not based on pure reason or science (neither are theistic understanding either), and that is all that I have been trying to point out.

Ok, so to get this right, yes it is not a singular person per se who now is saying these truths are self-evident, now its a group. So if a group says something is true just because we believe innately that it is, we would say that they have come to this conclusion as an act of faith.

You seem to suggest that I believe that those who are not part of my faith community should have less rights or be treated worse, and this mostly certainly is not the case, in fact it is antithetical to the very Gospel message. I think you have dignity, and deserve respect and love, whether you believe in Christ or not. I agree the church is a disaster as a master and ruler, when the church is on the "throne" evil flourishes. The Church was created to serve and give itself sacrificially for the world in emulation of Christ, not to rule the world in His place.

Personally, I think our system of governance and its "self-evident" rights is a reflection of a culture that is oppressive and denies human value and dignity reflected in what I think are human rights. We have raped the environment, for all intents and purposes essentially enslaved whole swathes of the world, waged war and continue to permit war as an option, execute people, and enshrined personal consumption as the most sacred and protected goal of our society. Many of these things are a direct result of these apparently "self-evident" rights, which of course are not enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (a document that has no weight in our governance) but the Constitution.

Btw, not even our system of governance assumes that these rights cannot change by the will of the people, we have a legislative process that permits any and all of the these "rights" to be changed and/or eliminated.

You see, Nunivek, if you were *really* perceptive, you might notice that it's unnecessary for me to believe in any version of the authority of your God, ...for me to hold these truths to be self-evident.

It is, however, necessary for you to believe the word 'Creator' belongs to you and your assumptions and commandments to make the assertion that these *unalienable rights* must be somehow conditional if one *doesn't* believe in your view of your God and all appertaining conditions you choose to impose on fellow citizens you claim are not as equal as yourself.

Capiche?

Also, you miss a logical point in your argument against unalienable human rights, Nunivek:

", just contending that something being "self-evident" is the same as a faith statement. You believe it because it is, not because there is evidence to explain its origin or a rationale as to why in this case it always has existed and always should exist (as these kind of rights would have to be)"

It's not about 'I believe this is,'

It's about *We, the people, *hold these truths to be self-evident.**

We accept it as a given that these things are self-evident. It's not a matter of 'belief this is imposed,' It's a matter of *we choose to *actively hold these truths to be self-evident.* It's a thing we do, not a thing we 'receive' or 'argue' about 'interpreting.

We. Do the thing. Which is called holding these truths to be self-evident.

We don't overcomplicate it.

And it *works.* We can see and experience them and see that the objectives of are nation are *always* advanced when we find previously-neglected ways to express this *holding.*

That's the rational part. It's *not* rational to try and claim that because you have a particular belief, this process must have worked other than it did, and therefore our founding social contract means other than what it said.

I mean, you know, Nunivek, if it comes about where your view of your religion starts offering *more* unalienable human rights than secular governance, instead of claiming falsely, 'I gave you these and I'll darn well take them away when I please in the name of Gawd...'

Then, maybe you'd have some thin basis to even try to talk that way.

Your religion's ruled to much the same effect for some eighteen hundred years in one place or another, always to much the same effect.

It's our *secularism* in America that is the part that's different.

Cause the Founding Fathers knew all too well where what the kind of thing you say always goes. It was 'last week,' to them.

Breezin' on by, are we, Nunivek? :)

Justacomment, No, I do not agree that some of the articles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights are actually human rights and to say that they are universal is ridiculous. The pesky right to property is in there, how about the right to divorce or what is essentially the right to procreate? These are just self-evident to everyone? Apparently it is a human right that we get paid periodic holidays, that of course is obviously a human right?!

My point is that you can come up with things and title them "human rights" that are "unassailable" and "universally apparent". But that does not make them so. I am not arguing that you have to believe a Christian or even theistic worldview in reference to human rights, just contending that something being "self-evident" is the same as a faith statement. You believe it because it is, not because there is evidence to explain its origin or a rationale as to why in this case it always has existed and always should exist (as these kind of rights would have to be). History tells us otherwise, certain human rights come into vogue and some have even died since the idea of "human rights" was developed.
So ultimately,what is threatening about your positions being a position of faith?

So, Nunivek:

"So what exactly is inherent to us, Paganplace, as a result of our "humanity"?"

If you prick me, do I not bleed?

Or are you just entitled to ignore that fact if you think your particular view of your particular God *is* 'The Creator,' ... thus alienating both me and you from that simple human fact?

I say it's *self-evident* that when I say 'ow,* or become harmed, this is in fact what you are doing.

You're the one trying to claim it's impossible for things to be that simple. Not because you can claim there's nothing innate to humanity about this, but simply because you are trying to preserve the projected rule of your God, to say that harming me is not harming me.

You're trying to *obfuscate* the self-evident.

Ow. You're harming me.

But you won't stop, will you?

"You are not proposing a truly secular basis for human rights."

Wasn't my idea, I don't think, but, yes. I am. *My* Gods can smile about it. Last I heard, so could yours. Let's see, where's the variable here? Oh. That'd be you.

" A secular appeal demands some sort of rational explanation for the basis of ethical interaction in the form of human right? What is it?"

We hold it to be self-evident, which works, and your usual excuses lead to terrors.

Nunivek:

"Paganplace
Wow that entire comment was a fascinating obscuration of the Declaration of Independence."

Except it wasn't. It remains there in plain English.

" Which I believe Thomas Jefferson was attributing those rights to a Creator God who created humanity in such a way that these rights could not be infringed upon."

Actually, he was most importantly saying that these rights are endowed *by an unspecified* 'Creator,' (according to Deism, not Christianity) in such a way that they are self-evident (not commanded) and unalienable (not even by religion)

"Most "secularists" such as Jefferson at this time were deist, perhaps as a result of this very difficult metaphysical question about ethics."

Deism means that every time they say Creator or Providence isn't an excuse for you to claim authority in the name of your God to claim authority to remove self-evident and unalienable human rights.

QED.

As someone who was molested by a priest at 14, watched (at 17) my gay friend blow his brains out because his "loving" Mormon family and church wouldn't accept him, was used as "queer bait" in gay bashings in Utah, denied communion away at college from my life long faith because I was of the wrong "synod" and suffered 22 years of Utah Mormon ethnocentrism and intolerance, I guess I'm a "religionphobe"
Please refer me to a rehab where they only teach the true love of Jesus instead of working to manipulate, hate, exclude and scapegoat others in the name of "religion"
I've yet to find this place and the hateful Huckabees posting in this forum do not give me any hope that such a place exists.
Posted by: coloradodog
-----------
Try the Dhammapada. You can hear the first verses of it on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB1A9uT9kf0&feature=PlayList&p=A74A8C4FA5EC80A8

Or, listen to the following from Rumi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqVBGv2hpQ4&feature=PlayList&p=A74A8C4FA5EC80A8

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8bUIxacqKU&feature=PlayList&p=A74A8C4FA5EC80A8

Good luck!

Previous comment was directed to NUNIVEK...

Referring to human rights as basis for ethics you wrote: “…how do we know what these unalienable rights are, and why is it that they are far from universal but tend to be held only by those from a Western background? In fact some of these human rights are viewed by some cultures to be repugnant, anti-social, nonsensical, or even destructive.”

Same thing can be said about an ethics coming from any particular religion. Let me illustrate this point using as much as possible your same words: ***How do we know what these ten commandments and the Leviticus book are, and why is it that they are far from universal but tend to be held only by those with a background from certain regions and countries? In fact some of the things in the commandments and holly books are viewed by some other religions to be repugnant, anti-social, nonsensical, or even destructive.*** A little over two billion Christians out of close to seven billion people in earth planet is not much. And there are other religions that consider Christianity similar if not worse than the way you say some cultures see the human rights of the Western countries.

If you start from the golden rule -which is a human construct born out of the evolution of groups- you can expand to ethics principles that should be acceptable in any culture.

By the way, do you agree with the principles stated in the bill of human rights?

Paganplace
Wow that entire comment was a fascinating obscuration of the Declaration of Independence. Which I believe Thomas Jefferson was attributing those rights to a Creator God who created humanity in such a way that these rights could not be infringed upon. Most "secularists" such as Jefferson at this time were deist, perhaps as a result of this very difficult metaphysical question about ethics.
But in more direct response to your argumentation there are apparent holes such as how do we know what these unalienable rights are, and why is it that they are far from universal but tend to be held only by those from a Western background? In fact some of these unalienable rights are viewed by some cultures to be repugnant, anti-social, nonsensical, or even destructive.

Take for instance the Enlightenment Era right to Property (mind you which at that time only extended to white males, obviously inherent qualities). The Western concept of land and property didn't even exist in a huge portion of the world at that time, and still does not exist universally, and in fact this "right" has consequently been impressed on cultures and enforced to benefit the "rights" of the landowners (against those who believe no one can own land).

So what exactly is inherent to us, Paganplace, as a result of our "humanity"?

You are not proposing a truly secular basis for human rights. A secular appeal demands some sort of rational explanation for the basis of ethical interaction in the form of human right? What is it?

"

DMZ1~
Nunivek:

""We do good because its the right thing to do"
That is an incredibly circular and meaningless statement.
Our actions always have a reason and a value basis behind them. It is one of the deepest challenges of secular ethics, what is the basis of human rights? I for one see none in secular ethics."

You don't see them in secular ethics because you believe your own are based in your religion and that therefore no one else can possibly have any.

The basis of human rights is humanity. In the words of America, *we hold this truth to be *self-evident.*

Unalienable.

Not commanded, negotiable, or conditional.

Inherent to us. Whoever you'd like to give the credit for *that* to.

If you think it's about anything else, you start deciding who 'you' deign to 'grant' or 'remove' rights from.

But if you think of it in *that* way, then you accept no inherent human *rights* at all. Only things you claim authority to give or take away as you please in the name of your God.

Human rights are *human* rights.

May it please all good Gods.

Dmz1~
What exactly a healthy society looks like, as well as what happiness is, is certainly based on a value system. Even who needs or deserves assistance is determined by a value-judgment. You are employing a value-system in whom to and what you are giving, and most certainly why you are giving.

"Objectivity"

The contradiction is evident in your last statement which is that human rights are made up in the mind of humans. That is an arbitrary and subjective standard for rights. Essentially than rights just come and go, based on what, the whim of the majority? But doesn't that eliminate the power of human rights, which are that they transcend culture and situation to judge human ethical behaviour as right or wrong?

Nunivek:

The statement is neither circular nor meaningless. It is quite possible to look at the world objectively through totally non-religious eyes and conclude that many people are in dire need of assistance. Since I believe in a healthy, happy and harmonious society, then action is required to mitigate those things which interfere in the development of such a society. So, I give of my time and my money to do what I can.

I do not need a religious book or philosophy to motivate me - I am quite capable of developing a moral view without such references. Moreover, all human rights are the product of the minds of humans not some supernatural entity or belief.

As someone who was molested by a priest at 14, watched (at 17) my gay friend blow his brains out because his "loving" Mormon family and church wouldn't accept him, was used as "queer bait" in gay bashings in Utah, denied communion away at college from my life long faith because I was of the wrong "synod" and suffered 22 years of Utah Mormon ethnocentrism and intolerance, I guess I'm a "religionphobe"

Please refer me to a rehab where they only teach the true love of Jesus instead of working to manipulate, hate, exclude and scapegoat others in the name of "religion"

I've yet to find this place and the hateful Huckabees posting in this forum do not give me any hope that such a place exists.

The creation of the term "religionophobia" is merely another attempt by religionists and their apologists to put religious faith in a special criticism-free box, like the UN's blasphemy resolutions. Trying to equate a very healthy suspicion of religion and religious institutions of all sorts to anti-Semitism is disgusting and pathetic, Ms. Marshall. You ignore the screamingly obvious fact that nearly all of the killing and torment inflicted upon people today due to their religious beliefs is being perpetrated by followers of OTHER religious faiths. There are countless groups raping, torturing, and murdering in the name of their little gods. And there are even more seemingly benign "aid" organizations whose real purpose is to proselytize rather than assist.

Long and brutal experience has taught us that suspicion of religious organizations is warranted. Blind ideology MUST ALWAYS BE CHALLENGED!

DMZ1~
"We do good because its the right thing to do"
That is an incredibly circular and meaningless statement.
Our actions always have a reason and a value basis behind them. It is one of the deepest challenges of secular ethics, what is the basis of human rights? I for one see none in secular ethics.

I‘m, as many atheist, surrounded by beautiful and loved believers: my family, friends, coworkers and neighbors. So, what follows do not refer to people that practice a religion. These good people are victims rather than perpetrators.

Having said that, let’s talk about religious leaders. They are in the business of pain killers. They do not cure the patient: they hook the patient into a no-ending-treatment. They offer no cure to poverty, they only alleviate the pain of being poor.

If they work with masses of poor people, where is the profit? They benefit from the different groups within the power base. The groups with power are willing to help the missionaries as long as they help keep the masses under control. It’s highly convenient and of very low cost to insert a guard in the mind of each poor person. It's like a ROM chip that has the message: "Behave now while you suffer, later our god will compensate your obedience by not sending you to a hot chamber to be toasted for the eternity".

But this requires that the power groups also participate by showing allegiance to the new discovered god or gods. So, what apparently is a conversion from bottom up, really is top-down. The power groups also get hooked to the pain killers, but the difference is that they really enjoy it and profit from it, even if they give a share to the missionaries.

Katherine, this is not gratuitous “religionophobia“. Once political leaders get mixed with religious leaders, or worth, become both, there is no god that can save that country.

Surely the author jest. No where on Earth than Africa is it more apparent that religion is the problem, and not the solution. Most of the current genocide in Africa has been the result of Saudi Arabian funded Muslims killing off Christians and Animist, but the Christians will ultimately kill even more Africans by their interferrence in programs to promote condom distribution and usage. With 40million AIDS victims and still growing rapidly, the Pope and American fundamentalist that are actively blocking aids prevention programs, they have more blood on their hands the the genocidal Saudis.

In most of the world, progress will not happen until we get religion AWAY FROM THE TABLE. Screw giving them even more input.

Katherine:

Even though I am an atheist, much of what you say makes complete sense to me, but I think that you ignore the big elephants in the room

We as a people should provide assistance to those who need it -- whoever they are, wherever they are and whatever they need. I don't care if that assistance is provided by secular groups, religious groups, or something else as long as there is no seeking or expectation of reward. That means no proselytizing and no attempts at conversion. We do good because it is the right thing to do, not for expectations of winning new converts or some other agenda. If proselytizers and converters are encountered, they should be treated with extreme suspicion and wariness.

It would have been nice to have a somewhat more nuanced opinion.