Manus, Nauru way worse than Pezzullo texts

By Jane Salmon All the hyperbole about Pezzullo's fall from grace is…

From my "To read" list comes nothing but…

Now, how do I tackle this? Do I use the information in…

Cruel Prerogatives: Braverman on Refugees at the AEI

Suella Braverman has made beastliness a trait in British politics. The UK…

Dictator Dan Quits And Victoria Is Free...

With the resignation of Dan Andrews, Victorians can once again go to…

Tech Council of Australia Supports Indigenous Voice to…

Media Alert Canberra: Following the announcement of the referendum date, the Tech Council…

The Legacy of Daniel Andrews: Recognising the Good…

Today the impending retirement of Daniel Andrews – Labor Premier of Victoria…

Study reveals most common forms of coercive control…

Media Release A new study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and…

Great Expectations from the Summit of the G-77…

By Denis Bright The prospects for commitment to UN General Assembly’s sustainment development…


Christian intolerance is irrational and unacceptable

By James Moylan

I dislike Christians. However this is not bigotry. It is not an irrational dislike. Rather it is a dislike that is born out of a perfectly rational appraisal of what Christians generally say they believe and from watching what Christians do in our society.

If anyone asks me what I believe about a particular social issue, and why I believe what I do, then I can and will provide a ready answer. This is because, as a secular humanist, I feel that it is important that I not only advocate on behalf of the issues that I feel strongly about, but also that I am able to back up my arguments with logically justified and rationally thought-out propositions.

For example; I feel that every citizen should have the right to marry whomever they wish regardless of the gender or sex of the individuals involved. This is because it is fairly well documented that humans don’t really get much of a choice about their sexual orientation (unlike their religious views). So to refuse gays the right to marry is to deny them the right to do what comes naturally. That is inequitable. And the imposition of arbitrary inequity is harmful to both individuals within a society and to a society as a whole.

Whereas I think that it is obvious that allowing gays to marry will actually strengthen the bonds of attachment that exist between members of the community – and so will be good for the society as a whole. So, as far as I am concerned, gays can bang like dunny doors (anywhere that they won’t scare the horses) and should also be allowed to get married and divorced to their hearts content.

However, for many of the Christians amongst us, gay marriage seems to be a problem. At least it is a problem for all of the Christians who have actually read their own holy book. In fact: if you believe half of what the Bible has to say then you are simply obliged to be an intolerant bigot. Jesus was not big on tolerance. Moreover his ‘family values’ are simply repugnant.

Jesus repeatedly told his followers that: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. (Matthew 10:34)

This is not an isolated instance of intolerance. It simply reiterates one of the core teachings of Jesus that is oft repeated in all of the Gospels. Jesus taught that either you are with him or against him. Either you believe in what he had to say, and then do what he tells you to do, or you are not only deserving of death in this life, but that you will and should burn in hellfire eternal for daring to refuse his kind offer to be an eternal dictator.

I know that this message seems to run counter to what most incurious bystanders usually think about Christianity but then most people who profess to be a ‘Christians’ seem to know very little about Christianity. If most of them actually read their Bible they would very soon stop calling themselves Christians. It is a manual specifically advocating on behalf of gross intolerance.

The only people who are likely to argue about this interpretation of what Jesus had to say are wishy-washy social Christians. Evangelical Christians (who know their bible backwards) understand very well that the Bible says repeatedly and unequivocally that anyone who refuses to accept ‘the Lord’ will burn forever in a fiery pit. Evangelical Christians know that the bible consistently advises them to actively discriminate against non-Christians wherever and whenever they can. Evangelical Christians read the Bible and believe it – that is why they are bigots.

This is also why whenever Christianity actually does get the upper hand in politics then we see something like the ‘dark ages’ emerge. In a ‘Christian state’ people get sentenced to death for daring to be different. Women become chattel. Foreigners are vilified. Unbelievers are burnt at the stake. Sexual activity is described as being ‘dirty’, unauthorized sexual activity is deemed to be a crime, and anyone who is not heterosexual is described as being a pervert and will likely be gaoled (or worse).

As a secular humanist I actively encourage everyone in our society to read the bible and get very well acquainted with it. The Bible itself is the best advertising available for a secular life.

This is because there is no doubt that the Jesus featured in the Bible is a jealous and intolerant fellow. For example (in Matthew 11) he revels in the idea that all the inhabitants of several cities will burn in hellfire for all of eternity. In other parts of the Gospels this ‘holy man’ advocates on behalf of putting to death any children who are not obedient to their parents, abandoning those who refuse to believe, and beating slaves and wives.

Which brings me to the point of this essay: namely the lack of honesty being displayed by the Christian advocates who are currently campaigning on behalf of bigotry and homophobia.

Of course Jesus hated queers. He hated anyone who was different and not a Christian and instructed his followers to do the same. Christians hate queers because their god hates queers. But they know they can’t say that out loud in public because it sounds sick, stupid, and loopy (because it is sick, stupid, and loopy).

So while I can explain exactly what I believe and why I believe it – most Christians who are involved in politics or social advocacy simply cannot. They can tell you what they believe but they cannot back it up with anything but nebulous waffle. They are afraid to spell out in simple terms why they believe what they believe because what they actually believe sounds profoundly insane, unjust, and palpably inequitable.

So they turn to pursuing straw men arguments that are utterly silly and entirely beside the point. And they know it.

Evangelical Christians say that they are against the idea of allowing gay marriage because it somehow debases the ‘institution of marriage’. When you challenge them to justify this assertion they are likely to respond by saying that marriage is traditionally between a man and a women. They will then say that this is the way it has always been and so this is the way it should stay.

If you point out that this is simply incorrect and then demonstrate that in many parts of the world ‘traditional marriage’ can be between one man and many women (or between a man and his sister, or a first cousin) they will say ‘not in good white, Anglo, Christian countries.’

If you ask if we should uphold all of the other good white, Anglo, Christian, traditions like slavery, treating women as chattel, and burning witches at the stake, they will likely change the topic or refuse to argue any further. This is because these individuals are not arguing for or on behalf of a rationally considered and supported proposition. They are arguing on behalf of intolerance and bigotry. Their God has told them that they have to be intolerant and bigoted if they want to live forever in paradise. But of course they can’t say that; so they lie by omission. Instead of telling (Gods own) truth they argue about a whole bunch of stuff that they do not really believe in and which they know does not really matter or even make sense.

So the next time you are arguing with a Christian ‘activist’ then pin them down. Ask them if their God thinks that gay marriage is acceptable. Then ask them if they think that anyone who does not believe in what they believe will go to hell.

If they answer ‘yes’ then simply walk away; you might as well be arguing with a brick wall.

The Christians who are advocating against the adoption of equitable treatment for everyone in our society are not arguing on behalf of a position but rather on behalf of a religion.

So since religion has no place in a civil democratic discussion – neither should they.



Login here Register here
  1. susan

    Unfortunately something went wrong with our democracy and our parliament is full of brick walls. Who honestly thought that Brandis was going to compromise on the same sex plebiscite.

  2. hectorskid6149

    I’m no fan of Xians or Xianity and I agree wholeheartedly with marriage equality but I do think that if you’re going to quote scripture or make claims, please be accurate.
    The Matthew passage is a single instance and not, as stated, something Jesus constantly repeated. It was not even said by Jesus, but was a reflection back from the time the gospel was written: that was happening at the time of writing. It’s an existential depiction, not something, as you imply, that Jesus (who never said it) caused or wanted to happen.
    The bizarre paradox of course is that you, a self-designated secular humanist, read the bible more literally than the majority of Xians even! How does that work?
    We need reasoned, intelligent counters to the whack Xian antagonists. This sort of OP is not it.

  3. Marcass Hooliass

    Dear James, we as Christians still love you despite your disliking us. Thank you for being so frank as to open your article with such a broad sweeping generalist statement which clearly showed your bias and disdain. Can you please make sure your lions are keep well fed as I fear for our safety now that you have released them into the open domain of personal opinions self loathing and arrogance. Seriously mate the i key on all your devices is growing tired of it’s first preference.

  4. James Moylan

    hectorskid6149: like most apologist you simply do not know the bible. As I said in the article Jesus is quoted throughout the Gospels saying much the same thing regarding his detestable ‘family values’ – it is Xtians and Xtian apologists who want to paint the fellow as being something less than a fanatic.

    For example in Luke (an entirely other Gospel: (at 14: 25/27)

    Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said:
    “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.”

    Is that not exactly what Matthew said? So who is misquoting the bible?

  5. James Moylan

    And just in case you once again accuse me of cherry picking, here are a couple more quotes from the ‘holy book’ which reflect the family values preached by Jesus the fanatic:

    But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me (Jesus talking)
    Luke 19:27

    I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
    1 Timothy 2:12

    Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
    And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.
    1 Corinthians 14:34-35

    etc etc etc

  6. James Moylan

    Marcass Hooliass: I stand up and declare that your attempts (ie Christian) at imposing your repugnant bronze age religious values on the rest of us is disgusting and wrong and then you chime in with your passive aggressive statements to demonstrate exactly why I dislike Christians (in the main).

    I am honest about how I feel. However you won’t come out and say that I am going to burn in hell etc etc but rather you accuse me of being full of ‘self-loathing and arrogance’ – because I cannot abide Christian nonsense?

    (I write this to every other reader of course because, like almost all Christians, you will not listen as you have been training hard at not listening since you were very little.)

  7. Marcass Hooliass

    I asked that you fed the lions, not to release them upon my loving soul. I did not cast you into the fires of hell, you live there by choice. Your anger is burning your soul, your inability to show compassion demonstrates you have been consumed by your own sense of importance. Now the Lions are freed the only path left for my escape leads directly to Auschwitz, my greatest fear my deepest despair or is that a fairy tale? My God what are fools such as I to do caught between heaven and earth.

  8. diannaart

    I hold all formal religions in contempt for the ongoing impact they have on the lives of people, irrespective of their personal values. In Australia, the main suspect is Christianity.

    I have no argument with people who want to follow the infinite variety of interpretations made of the bible, Old and New – take from it what you will. But that’s where it stops. The personal choice of belief has no place in dictating to the general public whose beliefs range from devout to none whatsoever.

    Quoting snippets from a book of bronze-age mythology makes less sense than quoting from a dictionary – at least a dictionary strives for honesty and updates itself in keeping with changing mores… thinking that through, maybe we should ditch religious text completely and start quoting from dictionaries…



    Middle English (originally in the sense ‘life under monastic vows’): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) obligation, bond, reverence, perhaps based on Latin religare to bind.

  9. Deanna Jones

    I agree, diannaart, ditch it all completely. I’m really over the whole “Our slightly different version of the fairy tale is truer than your’s” narrative.

    James, you’ve only referred to gays in relation to marriage equality. What about lesbians, bisexuals and trans folk? You could refer to “…people from the LGBT community” or “people from queer community” or “people who are sexually and/or gender diverse” or “non-binary people” to be inclusive. Watch out for binaries. The term ‘gay’ does not cut it as an acceptable way to refer to us all.

  10. bobrafto

    Baird banned greyhounds for tearing up a few possums and rabbits.

    The churches have been sodomising young boys in their thousands for longer than anyone cares to remember.

    If it’s good enough to ban greyhounds it’s good enough to ban churches, they’re dens of iniquity.

  11. Harquebus

    I also despise religions and rather than argue with their practitioners which, is a total waste of time, I humiliate and denigrate them at every opportunity and shame them into silence.
    They prey on kids, brainwash them and deserve contempt.

  12. bobrafto

    If we ban churches the ssm issue goes away.

    And another random thought, Christianity was the birth of multi National corporatization and what a scam it was, the cost of salvation was a tithing of your hard earned and the Catholic version introduced a feature ‘the confessional’ to lure aholes to their flock as it always was and always will be all about the money.

  13. Carol Taylor

    Bobrafto, I wish.. I should imagine that there are plenty of atheist and agnostic homophobes, although I agree that the traditional churches are complete hypocrites as far as anything to do with preaching ‘morals’ is concerned.

  14. bobrafto

    At the very least, their non charitable arms should be taxed.

  15. jimhaz

    I think Christians prove we have no free will – that our personalities (and thus decision making) are a product of what we experience. Some actually seek no free will by relying on what priests say or the religious texts.

    Clearly religion is all just “tradition” (what we were taught by carers or sucked up by osmosis when young) and cognitively tradition is a just a sort of centre of gravity – it is what our minds are AUTOMATICALLY drawn to. This is what gives it the power of “truth” – we are always being drawn into the same conceptual centre and this repeated experience increases the truth value of the traditional beliefs, making tradition into objective truth, rather than the subjective truth it should be.

    Tradition creates the foundation of all future thinking and becomes intertwined with our ego. Egos are sets of learnt programs or sub-routines. Being active programs they contain both data and the instructions to form this data into some sort of action – generally an emotional impulse (which can include the emotional impulse that causes the rejection of new ideas). The data the brain uses in the ego programs contains both non-variables or ROM-Read-only memory (as part of the learnt program structure) and variables as in RAM – Random-access memory (the present set of conditions and experiences).

    The religious learn to rely on ROM memory – perhaps due to the unease created in one’s logical mental tools resulting from the outdated and wildly inconsistent religious facts (and the Christians have had 2000 years to fully develop their circular thinking system to close off free thinking).

    In the end they capitulate – the need to be part of the local herd dominates over the need to be logical. Their egos develop a program that refuses to let the present set of conditions and experiences change or overlay the existing religious based ego programs – their AI is essentially disabled when it comes to these existential matters.

    Being “born again” (or a scientologist, or some form of crazy new-ager) is a bit different as only some of the religious tradition pre-exists. Generally the people who are born again have had and are currently experiencing severe emotional difficulties and may be slightly mad or at least emotionally volatile. They have faulty ego programs and when they find something that allows them to turn off their confusion (by learning the routine that ceases ego program change – like taking the bible literally) they adopt it as soon and deeply as they can.
    So the way to cure the religious is the quite similar to the way the fundie religions operate, say for example the way evangelical Christians might seek to “cure a homosexual” – ie isolation from friends and intense brainwashing sessions – they break them down so that the person’s ego is so confused they can no longer think, and then establish the ego system they want the person to have.

    Sometimes people will slowly just drift away from religion – but they need to develop alternative interests like science and philosophy to remove the ego program that prevents them from learning to be adaptable to and accept reality.

    Sadly, as most suspect a funded YES, NO plebiscite will harden the significantly religious even more. Facts for this group are unlikely to be important. Pointless arguing with them and they are already so polarised that offensive tactics wont matter.

    Trouble is offensive tactics might turn off the less faithful – those that might vote Yes. This group will listen to facts, but I’d also use philosophical arguments. Publicise the most open groups – differentiate them from the hard core mobs.

  16. crypt0

    Ghandi is credited, rightly or wrongly, with the following … “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
    Anyone doubting the veracity of the above statement need only look at this current LieNP government, on the front bench, definitely on the back bench, and presumably on the benches in between.
    Or they could ponder the hierarchy of a few prominent religions and the subject of child sexual abuse.
    If Julia Gillard hadn’t established the RC into such, does anyone really think abbott or turnbull would have ?

  17. Matt


    You are over-complicating a very simple message. What God gives is pure, what people record (Jesus wrote nothing himself) and what people interfere with inevitably ends up impure.

    The message of Christ is expressed entirely and simply in the following:

    “When asked by an expert in the Mosaic Law:

    “‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?’ “

    Jesus replied:

    “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.””

    That is the teaching – that is all that is needed. You can leave all the rest with its complications behind. It is a religion of love given by the spirit of love. As to the first part – how can you look at the beauty of nature, the stars, the people around you and not love them and their creator?


  18. The Faceless Man

    The only thing your soul will meet after you die is worms coming to feast on your lifeless corpse.
    Believe what you want, it’s not like any rational person cares.
    The fear of the unknown can convince you of anything. Remember a time when the world was flat? Remember when the church suppressed and imprisoned Galileo for exposing that the earth was not at the center of the universe?
    A god of the Sun that predates jesus by thousands of years is a false god deemed illegitimate by man made Christianity, spare me the propaganda.
    Praise Viracocha!

  19. mizgaro

    Pretty good article, and I agree with the basic sentiment but statements such as these
    “I dislike Christians”‘
    “Of course Jesus hated queers. He hated anyone who was different and not a Christian” and this one
    “religion has no place in a civil democratic discussion”
    well, they are quite dumb statements, even from the view of a fellow athiest.

  20. townsvilleblog

    I long for the day that someone puts an end to the God hoax, this has been a great yarn, but either God was a spaceman or he just didn’t exist. All these cults such as the assembly of god cult from the USA are really just businesses selling hope and fear and using the profits to pamper themselves but the ‘blind’ robots who follow these cults can’t seem to see the forest for the trees!

  21. Cathy Sutcliffe

    The trouble with christians and god botherers is, you just can not get a sensible argument out of them. Once you start quoting scripture, then arguing about the quote itself, what verse, who said it etc the point is lost. Then it’s all about who is right by who knows scripture best. Ridiculous bunch of people, in my blanket approach opinion. James Moylen, I liked your article. Would have been better without scripture…because you have seen where it leads, hey…nowhere. Christians have huge ego problems, and look for misquoted scripture like some look for grammatical mistakes. Then the subject matter is lost altogether, it’s just about who knows their bible the best! Now the point about the christians starting capitalism and how western governments are dictating their flock to divide….. I wonder just how religious our government are. Are they? They seem to be thinking like the pig headed yankee swineherd ‘it’s god’s own country’ bullshite bible bashers. But are they? I doubt they are very religious, but they will go with the flow, which is just as alarming. btw people. I can’t type god or christians without spell checker saying it’s incorrect because I will not capitalize. But you can write Atheist and Devil without capitals and it doesn’t have a problem. The problem is, even your keyboard is set to good american christian standards. Bah…..

  22. Aden Clark

    As soon as I saw the words “Inequity” I tuned out. Inequity isn’t the problem for society. Equity is. I prefer equality.

    It may surprise you to know that I voted ‘yes’ and that I’m an Atheist. I’m just not a preachy Atheist.

    If “70% of Australians support gay marriage” then why all the fuss? If you don’t like Christians ramming their views down your throat, then why would that be ok with marriage equality?

    It is ok to hear opinions you do not like. I don’t like your opinion but I would never write a whole piece about it. I respect your freedom to say things that I don’t like.

    If the vocal elements of the LQBT+ community had this attitude. Then gay marriage and all sorts of other progressive laws would probably already be in place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: