When I talk with some of my American and even Danish friends they like to paint a picture of Denmark, as a haven of secularism and non-belief.
The more scrutiny I have applied to this picture of Denmark, more and more of the paint falls off, showing the ugly face of apathy painted underneath.
Denmark by law is not secular, we have a state church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, and our head of state, currently the Queen Magrethe II, is ordained by the Christian god.
In society apathy rules supreme, which is one of the reasons why I joined the Danish Atheist Society, to help fight this apathy, to make my voice and concerns heard.
You may ask, "But if people do not care about religion, does that not make it easier?"
No it does not, since many of the Christian groups in Denmark, do care, they want their messages and way of life to be spread and embraced by as many as possible, they want to ban abortion, minimize the rights of people who have other sexual preferences than themselves.
When I then speak up, to call these people out, for being an overall danger for the progress of the Danish society, I am told to be a fanatic, and why cannot I not just leave these people alone?
I cannot leave them alone, because they cannot leave me or my rights alone, it is impossible for them, by the dogma they have put up themselves.
Their goal is conversion of the population, into their cult of death, and eliminating free thought and new ideas.
Yet the apathetic population is blissfully ignorant about these groups of Christians, that are not a small minority, but cling together in fear, as soon as the word Muslim is uttered in the media.
Muslims that seek the same goal as these Christians, same rhetoric, and methods.
Denmark like to put itself up on a pedestal, as some champion of democracy, and human rights.
With the same breath, you will hear politicians saying on live TV (which is later cut out of the rerun) that we would have to thank the Christian church and values for the democracy we have to day.
The audacity and ignorance that some politicians from their platform of authority freely and proudly displays is almost vulgar.
Few years back Danmarks Radio (The Danish National Broadcasting Company) got new guidelines put down by the politicians in power, that they should spread the Christian message and values, with an addendum that they were not allowed to discriminate by race, sexuality, religion, and more.
The reason why we have a democracy as we do in Denmark, is of no credit to the churches of Christianity, it is centuries of free-thinkers’ work, many with their life at risk.
Fighting for human rights, putting the will and rights of the people, before the will of some proposed deity.
Also the state church, in a position of being the highest religious authority in the nation, with a nationwide ban on any gay marriages within any religion.
I have discussed for a total of weeks with people that say, "Well gay people can get civil union, why should the church not be allowed to choose who they want to marry."
My response is and always will be, as long as civil union in Denmark does not hold the same rights as a couple that is married, I will be against having this ban.
Ironically this state church is also named, "The Danish People’s Church", yet discriminate against large portions of the population of the Danish society.
I would have nothing against showing the actual face of Christianity, when they are not put under the restraints of democracy, to show people its true face, and ask them afterwards, "Is this truly what you want?"
Secularism is important for those facts, that politicians should not make any laws or favors for any religious adherence.
You might wonder what are the potential effects of this reference being removed, I will tell you.
76 countries have criminalised being homosexual, bisexual, transsexual. Five of those have made it a capital punishment, and Uganda being one of them have also tried to add it to death penalty for being gay.
When this reference has been removed, the UN cannot condemn the nations that want to execute some for being gay. You might think this violating human rights, but not according to the UN. The UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity has not been adopted as a resolution.
This is one of the flaws of democracy, the majority might be a bunch of anti-gay, religious fucktards, and yet because there is no constitution within the UN that protects the minority from the majority, it is possible.
I read comments on various news sites that have been featuring this piece of news, and it seems people are more than ready to say it is all the fault of Islam and the Arabs.
But when you look at the list of the countries that voted for the deletion of this references, it is basically 50/50 Christian and Islam majority based countries.
Countries that voted to delete sexual orientation from anti-execution measures:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Salam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Countries that voted against:
Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia,Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland,India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Countries that abstained:
Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Fiji, Mauritius, Mongolia, Papau New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.
Are there not words and sentences that are better unsaid? Is it not better just to say you are not allowed to say or do this at all. Limiting our freedom of expression in order to prevent that some groups of our society get offended.
Who is to say what is okay to do and what is not?
Would we ever trust those that got that power?
We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard.
~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
I am not scared of the extremists from any camp that wants me to be quiet. I know that these people do not think that we should have democracy or freedom of expression. They want us to bow after their norms and rules.
The Pakistani government is a classic example of a regime that lacks confidence in its own values, and it is ironic that they fight the protests against limitations of free speech by censoring both Facebook and Youtube.
Efficiently decreasing the overall internet traffic in Pakistan by ~25% according to Reuters.
Also by doing this, leaves the “Draw Muhammad” group and its supporters almost unchallenged on both Facebook and Youtube.
I will end this entry with yet another quote by Voltaire.
Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire
So to all those people who oppose my ideas of liberty and human rights, I respect your right to speak up against me, but I do not respect you when you try by force to censor me, or by death treaths, that just help to weaken your cause to show people that your arguments cannot withhold scrutiny that you have to resort to extremes.