There is no God. The Absence of God: The Struggle for Equality of Homosexuals and Women is a Direct Result of Religion

Saturday, September 3, 2011

The Struggle for Equality of Homosexuals and Women is a Direct Result of Religion

While the United States of America and the rest of the world have made great strides in equality for all, some groups of people have been denied this basic human right. Two examples of such groups are women and homosexuals. It is by no means coincidental that religion condemns both of these groups.

The Bible and the Quran both suggest women are inferior to men. In the bible, God tells Eve, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing... Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." Genesis 3:16. In predominately christian societies such as America, women have had to struggle to gain their rights. Until 1920, American women did not have the right to vote. The first woman policeman was not hired until 1891. America has yet to have a woman president. The list goes on and on.

The Quran states, "Men have one degree above women." [Quran 2: 228] In Muslim society, there is not much to be said other than that 96% of failed suicides come from women. Women are not allowed into sport stadiums, and they can be married at any age (even when they are still being breastfed). Again, the list goes on and on.

The bible states in Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them." After reading this, it is no surprise that a mostly christian society like America does not allow homosexuals to marry. Nor does it surprise that many Americans still think homosexuality is a choice. All of this just because the bible says homosexuality is a sin.

The Quran condemns homosexuality. It reads, "Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly."[27:55] Again, no surprise that Islamic law forbids same sex intercourse.

In societies where religion discriminates against women and homosexuals, both of these groups lack equality. A certain group of religious people will continue to follow their oh so beloved and trusted scripture, and as a result, will always discriminate against such groups of humans. It is not the fault of the homosexuals or women, as they have not done anything wrong. But because religion says homosexuals are sinners and that women are inferior to men, they will always be treated as such.


  1. I read your blog and I wanted to comment on some aspects of it. You seem very knowledgeable and conversant about religion. I guess that I would argue with 2 things in your written position:

    1) I think that you take and evidence-based approach to God. That is, in the absence of evidence for God in your life, you generalize this to imagine that this is also true in other people's lives. Because you don't see God, God must not really exist for anyone else. Can you imagine a situation where an individual might not be able to experience something that another individual might? Otherwise, can you present an argument to clarify this question?

    2) I worry a little about the strong anti-religious bias that appears in your posts. How is this different from being homophobic, or anti-feminist, or antisemitic, or racist?


  2. Dear Anonymous,

    Thank you very much for commenting. I am very aware that many other people believe that they can see God. However, I do think that those people are in a way, delusional.

    Now don't get me wrong, I do not by any means dislike religious people, I simply strongly disagree with some of their beliefs.

    To address your question in 2), it is true that this blog is written by two atheists. I have been raised in an atheist family, but my co blogger, The Fifth Horseman of New Atheism was raised in a Lutheran family. We do write our posts from an atheist's perspective, but we try not to (and rarely do) directly insult religion.

    Although I understand your point, writing from an anti-religious standpoint is not in any way comparable to racism or any other of your examples. Unlike racism (the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.), we do not think ourselves any better than religious people. In fact, some of the smartest people ever to walk the Earth were religious. We simply think we are right about this issue, given that we have so many facts on our side. Let me ask you this: If a democrat states that lowering taxes well not help the economy, therefore saying that republicans are wrong on the issue, would you consider that comparable to homophobia or racism? In a way, we are doing the exact same thing. We state our opinions without do insulting our opposition, and we back up everything with facts.

    Hope this helps,

    The Atheist Crusader

    P.S If you have a follow up question, please post it here.

  3. Your expressed defense of freedom of expression and the personal appeal for tolerance of other points of view is noteworthy. I was hoping for some further examples of physical differences that might cause differences in experiences. For example:
    1) An earthquake in Japan might not be felt by a person in Colorado.
    2) A dog might smell or hear something that a person standing next to the dog might not.
    3) A deaf person might not hear the same sounds as a hearing person.
    I challenge you to come up with some more examples - it's a creativity test. I also guess that we might have a disagreement about the definition of delusional, and also perhaps your definition of racism. My argument with the latter is perhaps the distinction between belief and action. People may entertain all sorts of thoughts. For example, define Jewish. Does someone stop being Jewish because they question the existence of God? Does someone stop being Jewish because they become old and lose their mind and can't remember things? With race, there is the question of perceived identity (both self and other), and actions that harm based on that perceived identity by others.
    Your point about democrats and republicans is very well made. I do think that lines can be drawn so that politics are so partisan that a democrat would never vote for a republican idea, and a republican would never vote for a democratic idea. This fracturing makes it difficult to accomplish anything.

    A lot of interesting ideas here.