In a court of law this week Lord Justice Laws censured religious faith and repudiated it saying it is "subjective as having no basis in fact".
Read the story here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7652358/Gary-Mc...

This senior judge was once a cathedral-school pupil and Oxford graduate who is now taking on the Church of England. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, is griping that Christians are being "persecuted in modern Britain."

The judge said that although everyone has a right to hold religious beliefs, such beliefs have no standing under the law. He told the court: "In the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necesssarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." Religious belief cannot be protected under the law . . . It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective; but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. . . If they did . . . our constitution would be on the road to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic."

How does the rest of the world feel about this, especially in North America, for what amounts to a powerful punch in support of a move towards a secular state in Britain?"

Views: 255

Replies to This Discussion

Sexay!
I so would :P
we need this in america
Mr. Martin,
I am living in an atheistic country (former Yugoslavia), that have had an "atheistic" schools.
Atheism must given much more from yourself, and be less painful for the believers.
It is necessary to represent the common interests.
What a pleasant switch from the US Supreme Court's telling an atheist to shut up because ours is a christian nation!
Which is ironic considering it's not a Christian nation.
Bravo.
Parents who withhold basic medical care from their children on religious grounds are guilty of child abuse and should be punished accordingly. Most likely, their children should be removed from such a hazardous environment.

A pharmacist who refuses to fill a valid prescription from a doctor on religious grounds should be fired. Society definitely has the right to prevent private citizens from oppressing other private citizens. More than a right, it has the moral duty to do so. That's a primary pillar of civil society--the government is empowered to enforce rules that prevent people from hurting each other (or punish them if they do).

In short, the line is drawn at the point of injury. Like all rights, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Your right to your religious practices ends where they harm another person.
It's well past time that we stood up against these charlatans masquerading as leaders and intellectuals. If you are a Xtian, Muslim, or any other kind of superstitious fool, then you have no standing making laws or anything else that would drag humanity back to before the bronze age.

Now if only the grownups in the United States could take over that asylum.......
It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective; but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.

Oh yeah! We so need a ruling like this in the US, followed by a national gay marriage executive order. Then maybe human rights could speed on into the 21st century.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service