It's not "much of the world", unless you go by strict population counts, in which case China horribly distorts the statistics. The middle-east is its own monster and always has been, but part of that monster was created BY the crusader Christians a thousand years ago, reinforced by political actions of the empire nations of the 19th century that only became a religious issue when a religious state was thrust upon their real estate.
By being a free society, religion has to be allowed as part of it.
Which religion?
THAT is the issue: when few religions are permitted to even tolerate the existence of others, and when their moral specifics are ingrained at a dogmatic level by preachers claiming to speak for "God" but really more interested in holding on to their own political power, what point does "religion" have in that society but to act to control it?
Only if NO religion is allowed to exert any political control is a society truly free.
Period.
There is NO EXCEPTION to this. None. You can not convince me otherwise. There is no rational argument that can be convincing. The very history of the church (of almost ALL churches) is, in itself, proof of that.
When a religion uses its numbers to enact political control over the minority, it is a tyranny, and it is a tyranny every church leader associated with the religious "right" Republican today relishes the chance for, and every action they take is not in God's love, but to impose that tyranny. This includes every lie they tell, *especially* those about science and history (like their numerous claims that the founding fathers wanted to create a "Christian" nation).
When a religion (as in a single sect) manipulates and over-uses the word "Christian" in order to make those not of the same sect act as if they were by not being aware of the extreme differences between their dogmas, as the religious right leaders often do to gain the votes of moderate and liberal sects like Episcopal and Methodist, they do so as an intentional distortion and a pure lie. And they do so *knowing* they are getting those moderates and liberals to vote against their real conscience by that association with the vague and common term, "Christian". In doing so, they are blasphemers in the *purest* sense of the word and I reject them - they contribute willfully to the sin of others.
And I *AM* Christian, last I checked. I just made the decision that the politics driving the churches, and driving my own church (Episcopal) to pieces, was not driven by the Spirit or a sincere effort to better mankind, but to continue to assert political control and a single, incorrect, interpretation of scripture into law and policy without regards to even the possibility that it might be wrong or immoral in reinforcing the absolute hatred (often, of gays) behind it.
MY faith is unchanged: it's the churches, including my own that got corrupted into thinking there is such a thing as a man less worthy than another of love, or lying by claiming to "love" while applying all the prejudice and hatred in their actions. That is a rejection of Christ's message and so I reject the church.
Religion can have a "place in society", and even Dawkins has said so (much as the commentators have missed that part in his books) but religion should NEVER be in a position to control it again. Such an action is the death of freedom in the purest sense and I will reject it.
Those who speak of "persecutions" speak only against the ACLU and others who would get in their way of having their theocratically-distorted vision of "morality" imposed on us as a tyrannical law. They claim "persecution" every time someone actually asserts that the Constitution forbids them their "right" to impose their religion in the classroom, or at taxpayer expense, or at the exclusion of other religions. They are indeed full of shit and such is the reason my original "persecutions" was in quotes.
no subject
By being a free society, religion has to be allowed as part of it.
Which religion?
THAT is the issue: when few religions are permitted to even tolerate the existence of others, and when their moral specifics are ingrained at a dogmatic level by preachers claiming to speak for "God" but really more interested in holding on to their own political power, what point does "religion" have in that society but to act to control it?
Only if NO religion is allowed to exert any political control is a society truly free.
Period.
There is NO EXCEPTION to this. None. You can not convince me otherwise. There is no rational argument that can be convincing. The very history of the church (of almost ALL churches) is, in itself, proof of that.
When a religion uses its numbers to enact political control over the minority, it is a tyranny, and it is a tyranny every church leader associated with the religious "right" Republican today relishes the chance for, and every action they take is not in God's love, but to impose that tyranny. This includes every lie they tell, *especially* those about science and history (like their numerous claims that the founding fathers wanted to create a "Christian" nation).
When a religion (as in a single sect) manipulates and over-uses the word "Christian" in order to make those not of the same sect act as if they were by not being aware of the extreme differences between their dogmas, as the religious right leaders often do to gain the votes of moderate and liberal sects like Episcopal and Methodist, they do so as an intentional distortion and a pure lie. And they do so *knowing* they are getting those moderates and liberals to vote against their real conscience by that association with the vague and common term, "Christian". In doing so, they are blasphemers in the *purest* sense of the word and I reject them - they contribute willfully to the sin of others.
And I *AM* Christian, last I checked. I just made the decision that the politics driving the churches, and driving my own church (Episcopal) to pieces, was not driven by the Spirit or a sincere effort to better mankind, but to continue to assert political control and a single, incorrect, interpretation of scripture into law and policy without regards to even the possibility that it might be wrong or immoral in reinforcing the absolute hatred (often, of gays) behind it.
MY faith is unchanged: it's the churches, including my own that got corrupted into thinking there is such a thing as a man less worthy than another of love, or lying by claiming to "love" while applying all the prejudice and hatred in their actions. That is a rejection of Christ's message and so I reject the church.
Religion can have a "place in society", and even Dawkins has said so (much as the commentators have missed that part in his books) but religion should NEVER be in a position to control it again. Such an action is the death of freedom in the purest sense and I will reject it.
Those who speak of "persecutions" speak only against the ACLU and others who would get in their way of having their theocratically-distorted vision of "morality" imposed on us as a tyrannical law. They claim "persecution" every time someone actually asserts that the Constitution forbids them their "right" to impose their religion in the classroom, or at taxpayer expense, or at the exclusion of other religions. They are indeed full of shit and such is the reason my original "persecutions" was in quotes.