Eradication of Religion, the only hope for civilization. (Part II)

To state it bluntly: The time has come for freedom of religion to end. At the very least the special status and exceptions religions enjoy in most of the western world should be revoked. No more tax exemptions, for starters...

Now while the abashment of the freedom of religion in itself is a just and sensible thing for our societies and would do much for the growing numbers of Atheists in the western world its greatest effect would be much more than simply change some rules. The effects will be so far reaching and so profound that the last theists to renounce their faith will do so asking themselves how they could ever have been persuaded to call themselves faithfuls in the first place.

The way things are right now Religion is in a unique position in so many ways, it influences our lives, actions and our very conscious and unconscious thinking. I've mentioned the tax exemption religions enjoy in most parts of the world for example, something not even members of royal families are considered to have a right and/or reason to be granted. But that's only an obvious and rationally debatable symptom of religion. There are far more insidious symptoms on so many levels most of which have never been consciously considered by most of the western world's people. This is because to consider them would compel one to allow concepts that are foundations from which moral values and ethics of the human species are developed.

With freedom of religion no longer on the same level as the laws of physics though, religion is reduced to what it actually is and always has been; a subculture. A subs culture which provides those who identify themselves as part of it based on convictions, personality, behavior and sense of equality among others who feel part of that subculture. It has requirements one must meet and rules one has to follow to be considered part of it and often those belonging to it have ways in which they're expected to express that they're part of it which distinguishes them in some unique way from the rest of society.

 
In case of religion that would be, for example, the scriptures which are held to be sacred and which those belonging to that religion use to guide them in living their lives. It would be the traditions they're expected to uphold, the activities which they're expected to participate in either in private or in groups. Prayer for instance, or going to church.  

But without the freedom of religion elevating religion into something not subject to criticism, rational scrutiny and unassailable in many ways by law it becomes nothing more than any other subculture that exists. Questioning their fundamental principles, beliefs, concepts and tenets is suddenly quite acceptable. And that ladies and gentlemen has far reaching implications for not only the religions themselves but for the way religious people are perceived. The way society interacts with religious people will change completely. 

Right now no one, or at least very few, allow the way they interact with other people to be influenced by the religion the other people are part of. In very few situations is religion a consideration in judging people, or a criteria upon which a decision about someone is based. At job interviews for example it rarely comes up in conversation, or forms a criteria to determine if an applicant is qualified for the job or not. It's considered, at the very least, bigotry if someone refuses to interact socially with people who are religious or treats religious people differently because they are religious.

But i've come to realize that this is not only something every individual should be allowed to decide for themselves but something that is commendable on the most fundamental level of ethic and moral decency. Every one will agree that pedophiles are rightfully universally despised, socially isolated and treated very much differently than anyone else. The reason for that is pedophiles believe it isn't wrong for adults to have sexual intercourse with children. Nobody will have any problem understanding that. There are other things that everyone is perfectly in agreement on to be justification for treating them differently from anyone else. 

But now let us consider a true Christian. A Christian believes that the Bible is, at the very least, scripture inspired by god. Well, if we allow ourselves to think rationally, and to judge that Christian based upon our moral and ethical values for good and evil we should be wary snd keep our distance from them as well as keeping them from being able to effect our lives in as little a way as possible. The Bible is full of things that we find from totally inappropriate to downright sickeningly despicable or worse. From bashing babies to death against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9) to selling ones daughter as a slave (Exodus 21:7) and everything else any moral human being considers too evil to think about is described in the bible and if not ordered by god himself (or given instructions on how to do it like in Exodus 21:7) than at least supported or condoned by god.

Someone who believes in the bible therefore also believes those things not to be evil. Lot allows his daughters to be gang-raped, and god's okay with that. Shouldn't we consider someone who believes that to be someone to avoid in our social lives? Shouldn't we make sure someone believing that selling ones daughters is okay never gets a job in government or child care? I say that if we consider those things objectively we should.

On another level is the consideration that when some one is capable of ignoring scientific facts in favor of their religion, or capable of holding religious convictions despite being perfectly aware of contradictory scientific facts that some one is capable and maybe even likely to do the same in other cases in which reality does not match, or is incompatible with, their own opinions or convictions. For me this is a consideration which greatly influences if and how i interact with someone, and my regard of them.

My ability to take someone seriously is inversely related to the level of ones religiousness. Someone who believes in creation for example i will avoid having to interact with as much as i can, and i shall never be able to take them seriously in any significant way. Someone who believes in evolution but believes there is a sentient entity somewhere who has created the universe for a purpose i can take a little more seriously but i still won't hold them in very high regard. Agnostics ("I don't know maaaan") i don't think much less of than "normal" people and consider it tells more about how far the hunan race has come since we developed conscious than it does about the agnost intelligence. An agnost is an uninformed atheist in my book.

(To be concluded (soon) in part III)