Religious Apartheid. A policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of religion.

We have seen this before: In Iraq, which we pretended to liberate from Saddam Hussein, who excluded all Muslims who disagreed with his form of Islam from power; In theocratic Iran; and in our close ally, Saudi Arabia; and in Syria, where a minority comprising less than one-quarter of the population controls the government. And we are seeing its beginnings in the United States, where if you are not the right sort of Christian, you are less, and treated like less. Quite openly fundamentalist Christians have declared the United States government their proper domain and their intention to exclude all others from it, whatever the Constitution says and guarantees.

If the term theocracy means nothing to you, how about the term religious apartheid instead? It can hardly sound less appealing, mostly because it would be difficult to get less appealing. There is no essential difference between one type of apartheid and another, whether based on race (Nazi Germany/South Africa/America) or religion (the examples given above). The Constitution says we all have equal rights, that religion can’t be a factor. Fundamentalist Christians say just the opposite. And they have been putting theory into practice since 1964.

Religious apartheid, though a part of Western life from the Theodosian Code until the European Enlightenment, has ancient antecedents. When you believe your god said “I am the only one” that there will be problems for everybody who doesn’t agree. It’s even worse when you believe he said to worship nobody but him. Pluralism gets thrown under the ox-cart, as they say. We are seeing plenty of evidence for that today.

--snip--

So this is the situation faced by Americans today who are not among the “chosen” – Americans who are seeing by fundamentalist Christians as polluting the new Israel – you cannot negotiate with those whom God has dismissed and violence is not only legitimate but mandatory. This attitude has a history extending back to the origins of Abrahamic monotheism, antecedents as old as the religion itself and it should come as no surprise that reactionary Christian fundamentalism has raised this old theocratic specter for a new generation of Canaanites. If we do indeed live in the “end times” they are the end times of religious liberty.

http://www.politicususa.com/america-faces-the-specter-of-religious-apartheid.html

Anders Behring Breivik, self-described “militant Christian,” wants to be taken seriously, and is complaining that he is the subject of ridicule in court proceedings.


The Norwegian anti-Islamic fanatic wants his killing of 77 people last summer to be judged as part of a much larger battle against immigration and multiculturalism, and not as the actions of a mad man. Last July, Breivik killed eight people with a car bomb in Oslo and then shot 69 at a Labour Party summer camp. Breivik went on trial on Monday, April 16, in Oslo.

On Wednesday, Breivik testified at his own trial. At one point an irritated Breivik complained: "I hope you will focus on the issue, not the person." At another point the visibly irritated 33-year-old told the court: “There are only two just and fair outcomes in this case: Acquittal or capital punishment."

Breivik told the court he didn't want to be killed, but said he would "respect" the decision. "I consider 21 years of prison as a pathetic punishment," he said. Later, Breivik described himself as a "militant Christian" who believed in the afterlife. Breivik has pled not guilty to terrorism and murder charges on grounds of "necessity". He called his victims "traitors" with immigrant-friendly ideas.

In his online writings Breivik, a right wing Islamophobe and Christian extremist, compared Muslims to Nazis, expressed contempt for multi-culturalism and religious tolerance, and strongly identified himself as a Christian conservative.

http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-national/militant-christian-anders-breivk-wants-to-be-taken-seriously#ixzz1sUfY4OKo

Last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a proclamation that called for every priest, parish and layperson to participate in a "great national campaign" to "defend religious liberty", which they said is "under attack, both at home and abroad." In fact, there are more than 100 upcoming “religious freedom” rallies scheduled nationwide.

True religious freedom is the ability to practice your religion and hold your religious beliefs, as long as those beliefs and practices do not infringe upon the religious freedom others, break the laws of the country we live in, or expect special government privileging. The secular character of our government is the best guarantee of the freedom for people of all religions to protect this right—whether they are Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, or any other religion —or non-religion.

The truth is that religious liberty does not mean that the government should excuse any person or organization from following the law based on their religion, nor does it mean that the government should fund any religious group that uses the funding to further its religious agenda. Religious institutions are not above the law, nor are they entitled to special treatment or funding.

To push its massive attack on true religious liberty, the USCCB is pushing a false definition of religious freedom—and it will be massive.

http://secular.org/blogs/lauren-youngblood/catholic-bishops-wage-war-true-religious-freedom

Atheists care about religion because religion is not some innocuous or mostly-benevolent force in society. Quite the contrary. Religion infringes upon the daily lives of all citizens, whether or not they believe. Churches are tax-exempt, yet they typically consume disproportionally more of public-funded resources. Time has clearly shown religion to be a significant factor in war, murder, suppression of scientific progress and humanitarian aid, and oppression of women, minorities and others with different beliefs.

- Religion is "in our face"

- Religious beliefs shape political decisions in spite of scientific consensus

- Atheists are actively discriminated against

- Religion imposes its own arbitrary moral values in the form of laws restricting peoples' freedom

- Atheists are forced to subsidize religion

- Religion curtails freedom of speech and freedom of expression

- Religion is actively and aggressively promoting war, conflict, oppression and prejudice

- Religion stifles progress in all areas of science and society

What about moderate/liberal theists/theism?

Contrary to what most may believe, moderate theists are the most destructive. This is because they provide the cover (as well as the breeding ground) for the fundamentalists. They are the major force that will not allow open and honest debate on theism to exist in the public mainstream media. There are many great documentaries on science and theology that will never air in the United States because theists, even moderate and liberal ones, would not tolerate such discussion. This is because theism really doesn't have much of a legitimate, rational leg to stand on. The very fact that theists would rather not have their beliefs critiqued further underlines the reality that their beliefs are most likely not rational and that theists are most likely unable to defend them in an open forum.


http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Why_atheists_care_about_religion