Half of American Christians can't say what Christianity has contributed to Society

"The people who seemed least aware of either the positive or negative contributions of Christians were the largest segment of Christians: Notionals. Along with the unchurched, Notional Christians were the segment most likely to not be able to identify either a positive or negative contribution of American Christians. Notionals currently represent about half of all Christians in the U.S.
Most of the non-Christian segments of the population cited serving the poor and underprivileged as the best thing that Christians have done.
Overall, there was a more extensive and diverse list of complaints about Christians and their churches than there was of examples of the benefits they have provided to society."

Barna.org October 25, 2010

For a list of complaints and grievances, scroll down to "Negative Contributions". Notably, Evangelicals are hard critics of American Christianity.

"When asked to identify what they thought were the negative contributions of Christians to American society in recent years, the most frequent response was violence or hatred incited in the name of Jesus Christ. One out of five Americans mentioned such vitriolic attitudes. This was most likely to be mentioned by people associated with non-Christian faiths (35%) and by evangelicals (31%)."

Muslim sex offenders may opt out of treatment

"Muslim sex offenders may be allowed to opt out of a prison treatment programme because it is against their religion, it has emerged. The Prison Service's Muslim advisor has said there is a "legitimate Islamic position" that criminals should not discuss their crimes with others. Under the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), which treats more than 600 prisoners including rapists and sexual killers each year, offenders must discuss their crime, sometimes in groups."

Telegraph.co.uk, 09/04/2008

This is fucking ridiculous.
If they're going to serve longer sentences instead, that's one thing, but if the programme works, then that is the most important aspect. They can not wave their stupid religion for everything :

"Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4.XI.1950"

It's fairly obvious that if they deny to take part in the programme, and end up raping again, then they have use their religion to infringe upon others' rights.

The things that offend armchair critics

"Fellow bloggers,

The writer at the Armchair Critic blog says that I should be shot for compiling the list of things that offend Muslims, and goes on to compare me to a terrorist.

Here's the Link.

Here's a short sample,

This guy is a real muppet. I couldn't care to dig up his background or where he came from for that matter. Anyone who stirs shit like that deserved to be shot really. This is simply a case of asking for it. Don't even mention terrorists, this chap could be in real trouble even if he bumped into his Muslim neighbour, if he has any.

Please spread the word about this guy.

Regards,
Kevin, The Amboy Times"

I see that the Armchair Critic has rewritten that post now, and there appears to have been quite a discussion which I haven't followed. But the right honourable Armchair Critic need to realize that merely compiling a list is not the same as contributing to its contents. I'm not one to ask for people to be shot, but if the Armchair Critic wants to point his gun, I mean finger, somewhere, how about pointing it in the right direction? Say, I contributed to that list with the story about this employee at Marks & Spencer who refused to sell the book First Bible Stories to an old grandmother. The real shit stirrer here is not me, Kevin or the Christian grandmother - it's the holier than thou employee. Episodes like this that have made me rethink freedom of religion because I realize that shit stirrers like this will use their religion for anything, so it needs clear limits.

It has to be said though, that there should perhaps have been made a list of "The things that do not offend Muslims", because while there's always a very large majority of Muslims who say nothing, thereby not making a difference(that's the real problem), there will often be a few individuals that champion common sense when faced with silly demands from fundamentalists.
Maybe they should get their own list?

The List of Things That Offend Muslims

The Amboy Times has a year old blogpost called "The List of Things That Offend Muslims". It is a post that keeps growing, as readers submit new stories about some complaint from some Muslim about some aspect of society the rest of us may take for granted. (I submitted the story about a grandmother who was refused service by Muslim staff when she tried to buy a book on bible stories for children.)
A lot of comments, both at Amboy times and at The Friendly Atheist say that it is unfair to use these loonies as examples of what Muslims in general do. I don't really think anyone does that(and most of us are quite happy to cheer at reasonable Muslims), but the fact remains: these complaints keep coming and they drag all Muslims with them down into the mud.
Of course, Christians have been complaining too, for 2000 years. Being persecuted is part of but their image. But complaints have weakened over time, though perhaps less so in USA.

It is all these complaints, whether they come from Muslims or anyone else(they are not alone), that made me think differently about Freedom of Religion. There should be a freedom to believe, express yourself and gather. But these outlandish demands must be curtailed. In the post "Freedom of religion has become a mockery and must be abolished" I mentioned that the beliefs, expressions and being able to gather is guaranteed even without Freedom of Religion:


However, I could have done more than that. I know there are some reasonable demands that goes outside the strictly intellectual frame. I then checked out the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"

As you see, here are some limitations:

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I think it is time that the devout community stop thinking of religious freedom as being able to do what they like in the name of their own religion. There are very real limitations, and they are here for very good reasons.
This is not just in the interest for Atheists to focus on. The example with the grandmother and the bible stories show as much. Not to mention that medical students disobeying hygiene rules because they are so much holier than the rest of us end up putting us all at risk.

The worst thing about many of these demands is that they're easy to see through as modern fundamentalism, and not rooted in a traditional interpretation of religion.

A note on Walkers Crisps and alcohol:
Before:

[The isolation of alcohol] as a relatively pure compound was first achieved by Muslim chemists who developed the art of distillation during the Abbasid caliphate, the most notable of whom were Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber), Al-Kindi (Alkindus) and al-Razi (Rhazes). The writings attributed to Jabir ibn Hayyan (721-815) mention the flammable vapors of boiled wine. Al-Kindi (801-873) unambiguously described the distillation of wine.[2]

Today:

Furious Muslims have heavily criticised Walkers crisps after it emerged that certain varieties of the manufacturer's products contain trace elements of alcohol.

How the mighty have fallen. These Walkers whiners are not only a nuisance to modern secular society, they are a disgrace to their own heritage.

I'll end with a recent Memri clip of a reasonable Muslim:
Shiite Saudi Scholar Hassan Al-Saffar Laments the State of the Sciences in the Arab and Islamic World

Freedom of religion has become a mockery and must be abolished

Lately, we have seen a couple of disturbing developments where freedom of religion has been used to make other people's lives miserable. Muslim staff at Sainsbury in England refused to handle alcohol, Muslim staff at Marks & Spencer refused to sell a book of bible stories, Muslim medical students refuse to learn about alcohol or sexual diseases and finally: Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules.

This of course comes on top of all the other problems with religion currently. The discerning reader will know that these are not all traditional rules in Islam, but that's besides the point. Religions have always taken strange paths. Martin Luther and John Calvin did not advocate traditional views, but their then untraditional views became religious branches in themselves. With the fundamentalist climate of Islam today it is important that we say stop before we're stuck with useless holier than thou employees who can't do anything because it's against their religion and who use their rights to infringe on our rights.

I think the solution is to scrap the law of freedom of religion. It is not my idea, the Swedish Humanists (including Björn Ulvaeus) did this earlier. Their point was that the law doesn't actually contribute to anything. I have made a chart below, based upon the universal Declaration of Human rights so you can see that even without a special law protecting religion there is a de facto religious freedom protecting religious people:

From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

As you can see, going to church or to mosque and listen to fanciful stories about God and believing them, and retelling them will not be outlawed if freedom of religion is removed.
What will become more difficult however is demand an extra privilege that atheists and agnostics can't have.

Can an Atheist teetotaller refuse to sell alcohol at Sainsbury?
Can an Atheist employee at Marks & Spencer refuse to sell religious books?
Can an Atheist prude refuse to show skin during lifesaving operations?

The answer is no. The golden rule is: If you don't want to sell religious books, then stay out of book shops that stock religious books. If you're an Atheist vegan, and you have big issues with selling meat, then work elsewhere. Easy as that. If Atheists or Theists have ideological or religious ideas that prevents them from doing their job, then they have no right to work there.

I must stress that scrapping such a law is not something that I've always wished for. Freedom of religion was one of the greatest achievements of the Enlightenment, and I am a firm believer in that religion is best fought with reason instead of laws. I want to convince people, not outlaw their ideas. But what was once a "live and let live" law has become a law that some religious people use to pester other people with and introduce religious tyrrany from the ground. That's why it must go.