Should we legalise Christianity?
Jake Farr-Wharton 27 comments
There has been a lot of talk recently, in our delightfully secular society, about the legalization of one of the world’s oldest forms of introspective perversion; Christianity.
Prior to entering the discussion on the legalization of Christianity, however, we should discuss how we got to this point.
Indeed, gone are the days when religion covertly pulled the strings of leverage behind the political machine, and less covertly, as priests, pastors and clerics told their congregations exactly who they would vote for, whilst demonizing the opposition.
Religion, as you may recall, was effectively neutered in the public sphere following the landmark study by a coalition of the world’s finest universities, which linked public declarations of religious belief to the astoundingly rapid decline in economic performance, intelligence quotients and breathable air.
After all, as the study found, “why would you care about the air or economy of tomorrow when your respective deity, penned in your respective holy book, expressly told you that the world is yours to do as you please?”
The study also found the following on intelligence, “when you’re taught from childhood that it is more important to believe in supernatural feats in direct spite of contrary evidence, than to trust in the empirical findings of scientific egg-heads, and subsequently punished for doubting the lack of evidence for human propagation from two white individuals in a garden, why study?”
Rather astoundingly, the level of ignorance towards scientific consensus was so prevalent at one point that the then Republican Party (and many ‘socially conservative political parties around the world) was made up, almost entirely, of individuals who believed that the fact of climate change was “just a myth”. This same group of people sought to remove the reproductive rights of women, forcing them to give birth to children they didn’t want - many of whom ended up in orphanages - whilst simultaneously stifling any attempt to promote sex education in schools and the use of condoms.
You may also remember the occasion where the Pope, a man who had personally enabled child abuse, entered Africa, a continent ravaged by sexually transmitted diseases, and told the people that condoms, which have an efficacy of preventing STIs above 98%, should not be used.
The final and some say the most salient finding of the study, uncovered a startling fact which we all now hold to be ‘common sense’ – “religion is responsible for the degradation of society, of morals and will lead to the ultimate destruction of humanity.”
Immediately upon the release, the governments who had not been effected by the degradation of intelligence began imposing laws to counter the overwhelming problem. Among them;
• All public policy was required to have empirical evidence supporting it;
• All schools were required to teach fact based curriculum, including a thorough reproductive and sexual education component;
• It was made illegal for religious instruction to take place prior to the age of 21, when the adult could critically analyze the claims;
• All religious institutions were taxed as the corporations they were found to be;
• All public declarations of belief, prayer and superstition based holidays were replaced with public appreciation of science, fundraising for medical research and government sanctioned family days.
The most important policy, as you may recall, was that religions be treated as the blight that they apparently were. Immediately, adherents in left their religion in droves, many exclaiming, “I was taught that being non-religious meant that you’d go to hell, but it turns out that the teaching and hell were just convenient lies to keep me in the pews.”
Of course, religion was not outlawed altogether, and people were welcome to their beliefs, regardless of how ridiculous they happened to be. As such, religion and loose ambivalent belief in ‘something’ remained in the public consciousness, but not in public. Belief became private and disorganized; for one’s own confidential philosophical musings, rather than for public display.
Now, the current problem facing society.
For some time now, the remaining adherents of Christianity have been segregating themselves from the greater society; succeeding from their countries of birth to form pseudo-nations called Christian Nations of Christianity. Here, they can publicly believe in their religion and teach their children what they call “Truth”, despite the actual presence of any truth. As a result of their separation and beliefs, however, they are not allowed to make any policy or actions which would affect anyone outside of their Nations.
Now, due to the spiraling rate of Christian on Christian crime – which incidentally proves the old adage that “belief in god ain’t ever stopped no one from murderin’” – the annexed Christians want to rejoin the countries that their forefathers left behind.
While our secular societies are objectively more accepting than the previous quasi and semi-secular societies, critics fear that it will, inevitably lead to mixed marriages between secularists and Christians, forcing a reinterpretation of the marriage acts.
What critics really fear, however, is that the defectors of the Christian Nations of Christians will have children in our secular nations, and be thereby legally able to run for politics. These “anchor babies” could indeed lead to a reformation of nonsensical values which our society did away with, long, long ago.
This reporter worries that given the Christian Nations of Christians’ focus on maintaining wealth for the wealthy at the expense of education and healthcare for the lower classes as sited in their policy entitled, “making the well off feel more comfortable”, the defectors would quickly become a burden on society. Their propensity to forego fact in place of faith means that their relative education levels would make them suitable for menial tasks, i.e. the jobs reserved for helping reformed prisoners reintegrate to the greater society.
What do you think? Should Christianity be again legalized in our prosperous secular societies?
Henk V.
Tuesday 12th April 2011 | 08:44 PM...in response to this comment by moderate. A commitment to education would be nice.
supra shoes,supra footwear,Che
Saturday 16th April 2011 | 09:23 PMWelcome to buy
supra shoes,
supra footwear,
Cheap supra shoes
supra skytop,
enjoys top quality.
JAB
Thursday 5th May 2011 | 11:25 AMJonathan Swift - A.D. 1708 - An Argument Against Abolishing Christianity.
a.k.a. - "An argument to prove that the abolishing of Christianity in England may, as things now stand, be attended with some inconveniences, and perhaps not produce those many good effects proposed thereby."
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/swift/jonathan/s97ab/
Muddie
Wednesday 6th July 2011 | 09:47 AM...in response to this comment by JAB. I must admit that he may have been right... for the time.
The world still runs on a massive game of chinese whispers and religion is the emperor of the game.
Muddie
Thursday 7th July 2011 | 06:31 PMJake, christianity is about as legal as having oral sex in a park toilet.
You probably dont want to admit to taking part in either when you get on "Credibility" as a contestant.
Now where is that damn chewing gum...
g
Thursday 7th July 2011 | 11:06 PM...in response to this comment by Muddie. I admit to Christianity so I assume that leaves you the public toilet Muddie?
I guess that explains your nick name as well
I guess its under the toilet seat where you left it.
Muddie
Friday 8th July 2011 | 04:54 PMI note you only admit to christianity. I doubt if it would number you amongst its brethren.
The least a christian can do is get familiar with christianity.
Muddie
Saturday 9th July 2011 | 06:26 PMYeah right, lke you could go to TAFE and learn to be a sly butcher! No way, you are too dumb to crack a fat...
In Australian, Dumbo/Gina/g has accused me of taking it up the arse..."a pillow biter".
Whilst being a wild accusation it doesnt make sense in the here and now. There are a lot of folk who enjoy a little anal side.
He probably is a little upset because he hasnt ever won one single argument here on his pre 1700 view of christianity.
2nd century christianity has it that nobody has to take hell or be accused of taking it up the bum. So where do the Gina/dumbo folk get it in their heads to post sexual tendencies? I dunno. Onward christian sly butchers I suppose...
Pathetic and weak Dumbo/Gilly/g when are you ever going to present one good argument?
Doesnt g stand for gargle?
Muddie
Saturday 9th July 2011 | 06:28 PMWhich gives me the conclusion... Gilly/dumbo/gina/ etc is a teenager.. not big on reading.
g
Friday 15th July 2011 | 08:55 PM...in response to this comment by Muddie. All thats deep and all Muddie, but!
Isnt the term muddie slang for anus in the gay lifestyle jargon. I am not judging you of course, dont rant I make no judgments.
It was you who started talking oral sex in public toilets, the muddie thing as well,we all know now 1+1=2. Doesnt take a TAFE education to work that out.
Just letting you know I was aware you are gay. Alternate lifestyles free will and all. Again I am not judging you Muddie. Its not my business.
Not like I plan to poke you in your Muddie eye. I dont want to get to familiar with your type.
G stands for Awesome, boy.
Best you laugh with all those laughing at you MUDDIE, it will dull your hate, somewhat.
Muddie
Sunday 17th July 2011 | 01:16 PMG for cod?
What are you rabbiting on about Gina?
Gina
Sunday 17th July 2011 | 01:40 PM...in response to this comment by Muddie. 'twas your boy Gilly I'm afraid. Wasn't me.
muddie
Sunday 17th July 2011 | 03:23 PMI get confused by personae....... Foath is my boy. The G/g/dumbo/hairdressing personae have been sprouted in another dimension where paredolia induced by looking at an alphabet gives one the "right" to create unrelated strings.
I was dumbfounded that TAFE was spelled correctly .
Now back to beak breaking "labour" in 11kb/s world. Yep, down south they dont have much more than grog shops, gardening and feasting on fish and chips..
Mind you, they do have a public toilet so I am keeping a wary eye out for conservatives.
I suppose I should keep a bit of an eye out for the "wham" that G/g/Dumbo/etc was on about. "wake me up before you go go" is the vernacular? correct?
Imagine that.. the level of gender-sexual confusion is rampant in "g" world...
Muddie
Sunday 17th July 2011 | 03:27 PMI should apologise about G/g/Dumbo's/Gilly's lack of understanding about the mathematical process and logic. Apparently one of the persona made it past 1st grade and has its sway over the rest.
Kiddies, don't do it at home.
Hey Dumbo
Sunday 17th July 2011 | 09:34 PMI will revert to calling you Dumbo and addressing you again in person as Hey Dumbo. I cant keep up with all your personas.
Toughen up princess. You are acting like a silly little school girl rather than a flying pachyderm grasping a white feather.
I think I can, I think I can.......No you cant silly silly boy.
Hey Dumbo, why are you not called Henk anymore?
Muddie
Monday 18th July 2011 | 10:15 AMNo, you did initially call yourself dumbo.
ps Dumbo was not a pachyderm, Jumbo was. This may assist with your deconstructing the caricature of a god that you think is in the bible.
Maybe if you actually had a hard copy and read it, you may understand this.
Muddie
Tuesday 19th July 2011 | 10:57 AMamazing that the "g" community shuts up for a while when their faux pas' are exposed. Don't worry, the college graduate fundamentalist runs every time I expose him on a site.
What was his name again? Was it Teela?
Back on full internet in the hub of the universe!
guest
Sunday 4th September 2011 | 11:24 AMchristianity may be a blight upon earth but the day a country outlaws or trys to regulate religion is the day we abandon the one of the most important things any nation could offer. I know this was ment to be a joke but abandoning rights is NOT funny.
Muddie
Sunday 4th September 2011 | 12:01 PMNo religion is a blight on the earth. Its the zeal of folk to impose what they think is righteous practice that is a blight on the earth.
I am sure every religion has very well thought out practices imposed and accepted by its adherents. The fact that folk step outside these bounds and evangelise by force (military, economical or social) means that the general adherents are blamed for these atrocities.
No, you cant blame religion for its zealots. you can blame oppression for creating zealots.
You an blame lack of education or poverty for creating zealots and you can blame some folks innate desire to be part of a pack.
Sadly as many herd animals.. a goodly part of the herd breeds with bull.
Blame faith. noble as it is, the desire to seek god and suspend all readily available knowledge to support your belief is called faith.
How often do you hear zealots say "Oh, I was an atheist and then i read, talked to, saw movie and found religion x fitted what I wanted perfectly"! They generally ignore the very components of their religion that would deny their position.
G
Tuesday 6th September 2011 | 05:24 PMAtheism and its religion of communism is clearly the pinnacle of religion at its most disgusting.
What a filthy blight is the religion of the atheist on humankind. Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin, but to name only a minority.
Millions and millions of children aborted and the moral-less atheist hands are clean. No standard and no style.
Dumbo, you are the biggest Zealot on this site.
Dunning Krugger effect anybody. The absolute bottom end of that scale sits Dumbo.
Muddie
Tuesday 6th September 2011 | 09:19 PMHave you been out on another hens night Gilly? Always the brides maid. Poor thing.
What are you writing about? Have you been to fascist school?
Any school would be acceptable for a girl in your condition
Muddie
Tuesday 6th September 2011 | 09:43 PMWho said I was an atheist anyway?
Atheism seems to be hijacked by folk who have swapped one belief set over for another. I hardly see the point when they drivel on like gilly.
Gilly, I consider all religions the same, they all tend to be utopian by definition. The totalitarian regimes did have a major problem with self perception. If you consider the crimes of pol pot, Mao and Stalin to be the minority who is the majority. Or was that just another slip of the half stung gilly after a rowdy hens weekend.
I take it you laud acts of religious terrorism then? Silly...
G
Wednesday 7th September 2011 | 09:33 PMOh Dumbo, you are like your website, dated and boring.
Like an old man past his use by date, Irrelevant.
Educated but nobody cares to listen. Education, and you sat at her feet all your life just so you could be somebody.
Lady Ga Ga is more relevant than you fool boy. Your life is wasted in your cowardice, you havnt the balls to stand for anything.
As the cool Mr T would say. "Pity you fool"
Yeah Mr T has a legacy and you have what? This? Wow?
Muddie
Thursday 8th September 2011 | 02:12 PMSorry, I dont have a web site. So I wonder where all this relevancy discussion was initiated.
Lady Gaga I have seen once on telly. Apparently she sells a lot of records. I would take it they get played once or twice and then get sent to the record stand.
Have you any close to topic keyboard grabs to spray with? Otherwise, get over your hens night and let us know when you can answer any of the questions asked of you as we have all asnwered every one of yours two or three times over...each
Do you want me to repost them..the girl who cuts and pastes coelacanth literature without thinking about it..
moderate
Tuesday 12th April 2011 | 05:45 PMReligion is something you can't really kill, and even if its not Christianity, or is not Muslim, there will always be Fanaticalness amongst the devoted individuals, early religions are basically built on Occult Idiology, Too think this has changed even in our lifetime (Shoko Asuhara for instance with Sarin poisoning Japanese trains in 1995.) The only difference is really that religions are violent only amongst each other as sub-religious grounds, Baptist vs Lutheran, Sunni vs Shiite and their hold on moral-political views. But let me digress, it only seems to really be the Fanatics.
Maybe if there is crossbreeding of idealogies we might see more free spiritualists which in many ways I see docile in comparison and let to feel what they believe, rather then force it.