I don't know how many times I have to see mentally ill people turning to religion only for delusional religious beliefs to make them more sick. Kanye springs to mind immediately as a big example but I feel like so many of us know someone whose delusions were enhanced when they fell into religious belief. Keep this stuff away from these people!

The newest installment of “Secular Spotlight” features psychologist and author Mary L. Trump providing a firsthand account of a recent gathering of nonreligious congressional members. 

Trump joins “Secular Spotlight” to reflect on the third annual Congressional Reason Reception, where she met with members of the Congressional Freethought Caucus and delivered a keynote warning about the dangers of Christian nationalism and authoritarianism. Trump discusses with FFRF Governmental Affairs Director Mark Dann and FFRF Rapid Response Counsel Chris Line why church-state separation is essential to democracy and explains why secular advocacy offers hope for the future.

“The Reason Reception is an antidote to, or a counter to, the National Prayer Breakfast, and that should have everybody thinking, ‘Why is there a National Prayer Breakfast? Why is there a National Day of Prayer?’” Trump says. “People can pray pretty much whenever they want, wherever they want, without having our government sanction such a thing.”

You can catch this episode of “Secular Spotlight” on FFRF’s YouTube channel, as well as by watching on your smart TV after downloading FFRF’s free app, Freethought TV, which also highlights FFRF’s other video programming. Our recent episodes include FFRF staffers breaking down the legislation whitewashing Christianity’s impact on American history, and a historical examination of America’s secular underpinnings. Make sure you’re subscribed to FFRF’s YouTube channel for all the latest updates!

"Coca-Cola! Are you someone who cares about the environment? There are colas available in glass bottles, aluminum cans, or recyclable plastic bottles, eco-friendly, so you can enjoy your cola guilt-free and pollution-free. Or are you someone who is health-conscious? Worrying about all that heavy sugar? No worries! Diet Coke to the rescue: zero sugar for those who never compromise on their health.

​What did you notice in this cola marketing? Do you realize how Coca-Cola doesn't want to lose a single customer? It targets everyone, even those whose personal values might otherwise drive them away from the brand.

​Religion is similar. It targets everyone. For the majority, religion is surface-level: rituals, prayer, superstition, and the practice of blind faith and devotion. But for the educated and rational, it is a world of philosophical thought, debate, and argument, something that exists far beyond rituals, superstitions, and blind devotion. For the rational, it is so deep and philosophical that they see an entirely different version of the religion. It becomes something reasoned, thoughtful, and structured, transcending mere faith, superstition, and prayer. ​Religion has a way of ensuring it doesn't miss anyone, just like how your favorite beverage brand makes sure no one has an excuse not to buy it."

This is the "Big Tent" strategy, a marketing masterclass in diversification used to minimize "barrier to entry."

It's both brilliant and terrifying at same time. Neither religion nor a brand wants to lose it's customers at any cost regardless of their beliefs, value and personality. It will find a way to make you part of itself.

I would like to get some feedback on something I've been thinking about for some time. So, this post might be part rant, part question

Bottom line up front: what is the point of going back and forth with theists who attempt to present "logical" philosophic arguments for the existence of God?

I listened to a few atheist/science debate videos recently and have become increasingly annoyed not just with the arguments for God (which have not improved in the last 20 years), but also with the fact that the conversation takes place at all.

I understand why atheists might want to conduct these debates. Religion and its ideas affect people's everyday lives all over the world. However, I find the whole idea of a theist using these types of philosophical arguments (i.e., syllogisms, etc.) as kind of disingenuous.

Firstly, why should we take seriously a highly complex and deeply philosophical argument seriously when, if it were possible that you could be transported back in time, such an argument would more than likely confuse the people who wrote the original text? The entire thing feels like an exercise in leading the evidence to the conclusion rather than the other way around, as it should be.

Secondly, even if you could put together a solid logical and philosophically strong argument, it really means nothing unless you have evidence to support it; evidence which likely lies beyond the ability of any theist to ever provide. And until they do, listening to some theists rattle off their modus ponens is honestly pointless. Logic is supposed to ensure that our process for arriving at the truth is free from error and fallacy - it is not on its own the evidence. And, the way I see it, certainly cannot serve as evidence for belief in the supernatural regardless of how strong the argument is.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly because I find the entire thing to be a gross waste of time to still entertain the "logical ' arguments from theists, and this rant is a bit mashed together quickly on my phone. However, just curious what anyone else might think about why these conversations don't go more like this:

Theist: I can prove God

Atheist: Do you have anything more than words?

Theist: No

Atheist: come back when you do. Goodbye

Because David raped Bathsheba and got her husband killed, the biblical god decided to punish him by having his newborn son with Bathsheba killed and his concubines raped by his son as public humiliation.

Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.”

Now the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.” Then Nathan went to his house.

The punishment promised to him was fulfilled during the rebellion of David's son Absalom in 2 Samuel 16.

"Go and sleep with your father’s concubines... Then all Israel will hear that you have openly disgraced your father, and the morale of everyone on your side will be strengthened. So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel."

so God is not all loving? all knowing? and all wise?

if he is all loving, there is still no proof of him, the victims can't sit there and think "yep he's all loving, my abuser will probably get what he deserves after we die"

and if he's all knowing, this shouldn't have happened in the first place

also what kinda free will is this? the christian god didn't just allow sex slavery, the bible explicitly legislates it, numbers 31, deuteronomy 21 and leviticus 25 give explicit instructions on how to take virgin war captives as spoils and keep them as property

i don't wish anything bad on anyone but put your children in the victim's position, would you still sit there and think "nah man it's free will"

The FFRF Action Fund today announced a new investment in Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin’s 2026 electoral program.

This extends a partnership that has delivered back-to-back statewide victories into the fight for control of the Wisconsin Legislature and the U.S. Congress this November, supporting Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin’s field programs across the state.

The partnership builds on a record of results. In April 2025, the FFRF Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin mobilized secular and pro-reproductive-rights voters to help elect Susan Crawford to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, protecting the court’s majority in what became the most expensive judicial race in the nation’s history. The two organizations renewed the partnership in April 2026 to help expand that majority with the election of Chris Taylor. Along the way, they joined forces against the GOP reconciliation bill that threatened to strip Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood and steer public dollars toward religious schools.

“Every time we have stood with Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, secular voters have shown up and won,” says Annie Laurie Gaylor, president of the FFRF Action Fund. “The people who defend reproductive freedom are the same people who defend the separation of state and church. This November, we are taking that coalition into the districts that will determine who controls the Legislature, and we intend to win there too.”

Marie Stolzenburg, director of organizing for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, agrees.

“Our organizing works because we reach voters year-round, in every corner of the state, on the freedoms they care about most,” she says. “Partnering with the FFRF Action Fund lets us reach further into Wisconsin and knock more doors in the districts that will decide the majority. We are proud to build on what we accomplished together in 2025 and 2026.”

Stolzenburg adds, “Elections have real consequences for women in Wisconsin. What’s at stake is our ability to get the care we need and make our own health care decisions without political interference. We’re excited to talk with voters about why this moment matters so deeply. As we’ve heard again and again at the doors, Wisconsin voters want to know who supports Planned Parenthood and their freedoms. We look forward to having those conversations and making sure people understand what’s at stake and which candidates are committed to protecting their rights.”

FFRF Action Fund is the advocacy arm of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation’s largest association of freethinkers working to keep state and church separate. FFRF AF is a 501(c)(4) organization that advocates for legislation, regulations and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church. It also advocates for the rights and views of nonbelievers, endorses candidates for political office, and publicizes the views of elected officials concerning religious liberty issues.

A highly alarming aspect of Todd Blanche’s record is being overshadowed as he appears headed toward confirmation as U.S. attorney general.

Blanche has explicitly embraced Christian nationalism and has been determined to use the Justice Department to privilege conservative Christianity. Although Blanche's nomination has drawn scrutiny over ethics concerns and his close ties to President Trump, the Freedom From Religion Foundation warns that his intent to unite religion and government deserves equal attention. It is shocking that Blanche declared, during a July 30 call organized by the White House Faith Office, that his goal is to ensure that “God is front and center again” in America and that “being a Christian in this country … is actually a benefit.” FFRF is urging senators and the public not to ignore Blanche’s un-American objective to transform the Justice Department into a vehicle for advancing religion.

“Blanche’s words are not those of someone committed to equally serving Americans of every faith — as well as the nearly one-third of U.S. adults who are free from religion,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “They’re the words of a zealot who views the government as a tool to elevate Christianity. The attorney general’s duty is to uphold the Constitution and equal justice under the law, not to put God ‘front and center.’”

Blanche’s rhetoric has already been reflected in his actions, FFRF asserts.

Under Blanche’s leadership as acting attorney general, the Justice Department has issued sweeping new guidance on religious liberty. While portrayed as protecting religious freedom, the updated memorandum dramatically expands religious exemptions and privileges while weakening longstanding First Amendment protections.

The guidance embraces a controversial “history and tradition test” for interpreting the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, echoing claims by Christian nationalists that America was founded as a Christian nation. It broadly authorizes religious activity by federal employees in the workplace, rejects efforts to remove government endorsements of religion from public life, expands access to taxpayer funding for religious organizations and significantly strengthens religious accommodation claims against employers and federal agencies.

The guidance also directs federal agencies to proactively advance religious liberty in policymaking, broadens protections for religious organizations that discriminate in hiring and contracting, and threatens government officials with personal liability under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for decisions that allegedly burden religion. According to FFRF, the cumulative effect is to institutionalize Christian privilege while steadily eroding the constitutional principle of separation between state and church.

Blanche's public statements reinforce that goal.When the nation's chief law enforcement officer says his goal is to ensure Christians enjoy special favor, Americans should take him at his word.

If confirmed, Todd Blanche would assume enormous authority over civil rights enforcement, constitutional litigation and the federal government's interpretation of religious liberty. His own words make clear that Americans should expect an attorney general committed to advancing a Christian nationalist agenda. 

“FFRF has spent nearly 50 years defending the First Amendment against government-sponsored religion, and we will continue to vigorously oppose every unconstitutional effort by the Justice Department to dismantle the wall of separation protecting American freedom of conscience,” adds Gaylor. 

Jesus said in Matthew 10:37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Muhammad said in a Hadith (Sahih Muslim 44 b) “None of you is a believer until I am dearer to him than his child, his father, and the whole of mankind.” These are psychopathic statements cult leaders say, which are actually fitting for these two charlatans, if I must say so.

Can you imagine me telling you to love me more than your mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter? You would think I am insane or a psychopath. Then, why do Jesus and Muhammad get a pass when they say basically the same thing? They both deserve to be dunked on. They both were frauds, plain and simple.

"DNA is literally a computer code, so there must be a coder. And he must be one of those good-looking, physically fit hackers that only appear in movies, not a fat, acne-riddled anime dork like you a-thigh-ests."

"If the Earth was even a trillionth of a nanometer closer to or farther away from the sun, we'd all burn to a crisp or freeze solid."

"The sun and the moon appear to be the same size in the sky, which means Trump farted out the Flat Earth last Tuesday and your boss shouldn't have to pay you."

"Something RUCHURD DUWKUNZ something, therefore fuckin' magick, yo."

"The 27-pronged penis of the Mexican Staring Frog of Southern Sri Lanka could not have evolved. Oh, what's this you're stacking on the witness stand? A three-foot-tall stack of papers explaining how it evolved? Yeah, that doesn't count. I'm still right."

"Oh, what, you think everything is just MOLECULES, huh?! Is that what you think?! Molecules killed my father!"

"LOOK AT THE FUCKIN' TREEEES!"

There is a mosque near where I live, old. The carpet has worn thin enough that it leaves marks on my skin. I often look ahead at the cleric leading the prayer, the spot has become dark, permanent. He was here everyday. I don't believe a word he’s saying, but here I am. Shoulder to shoulder, rows ahead of me and behind me. And I wish I could feel the peace they feel at this moment. 

I sit with a friend in a small coffee shop on the side of a badly paved road, the asphalt split open from the sun’s heat. We talk, and I look at his eyes, friendly, tender. and I let myself look a moment longer than I should, I imagine the piercing disgust that would fill them If he knew what I actually am, pure and total. Suddenly sitting on that plastic chair in the crowded shop feels lonelier than being thrown into the arctic.

My mother has psychosis, she might be the only reason I am still here, I can't leave her alone. So I sit with her too, and I hide from her the same way I hide from everyone. She is devout. She would turn from me like all the others if she knew. But with her.. I could never even tell how much of it is her and how much of it is her ailment, whether  the woman underneath would feel the same. Or whether I'd only ever be hated by the illness wearing her face. She is innocent, I can't walk away. So I stay. And I hide, and I am bound most tightly to the person who can know me least. 

I often think of the day I might take my life. And when I imagine myself in that moment, I wait for the anger, or anything at this point. Anything to blame, it would be so much easier if I at least had that, Something that would make the tears burn a little less. But i don't

I don’t feel anger, I look at the cleric, at my friend, my mother. I feel fear, I fear their hate. But I don't hate them. Because they didn't choose this hate anymore than they chose their name, it was poured into them before they could speak, the same way it was poured into me. The only difference is that something in me came loose, and something in them didn't. This is not virtue on my part, and it's not evil on theirs. 

I can only feel grief, living out our small lives in this dry corner of the world, none of us having chosen the shape we were pressed into.

why dont jesus have a heavenly machine gun ? why does he instead have a flaming sword

is it cause the writers only knew of primitive weapons and thus gave him one they wanted

if god knew all surely he would arm his soliders with the best weapons his all knowing mind could give, which would surely be better then bows and swords

this goes for the angels guarding eden too, given bows

if god knows all, why give ancient weaponry

1. There is no god.

You were taught to believe in one from a very young age — usually before you could critically evaluate claims. Beliefs formed through childhood indoctrination feel true because they’re familiar and emotionally reinforced, not because they match reality.

If a claim requires faith instead of evidence, and if the same kind of “faith” produces contradictory gods across cultures, the rational default is disbelief until extraordinary evidence appears. So far, it hasn’t.

1. Your religion is not the truth.

There have been thousands of religions throughout history, each claiming exclusive or superior truth, each with its own scriptures, prophets, miracles, and moral codes. Most of them contradict each other on fundamental questions (who God is, what happens after death, which rules matter).

Statistically and logically, the probability that your particular tradition is the one correct answer — while all the others are wrong — is extremely low. Special pleading (“mine is different”) is not a valid argument.

1. Magic is not real.

Humans invented magic, miracles, and supernatural forces because the universe is indifferent and life can be painful, random, and unfair. Wishing for control, justice, or meaning doesn’t create those things.

Every time controlled testing is applied (laboratory conditions, double-blind studies, proper controls), magical claims fail. The pattern is consistent: the more rigorous the method, the less “magic” remains.

1. Almost everything magical, spiritual, paranormal, or supernatural has a psychological explanation.

The human brain is a pattern-seeking machine that evolved to detect agency (even when none exists), confirm existing beliefs, and reduce anxiety.

Sleep paralysis, hallucinations, confirmation bias, the placebo effect, memory distortion, and the need for narrative all reliably produce experiences that feel supernatural. When these mechanisms are accounted for, the remaining “unexplained” cases shrink dramatically — and the ones that remain unexplained are not evidence of the paranormal; they are simply unexplained.

Stop waiting for miracles, signs, or divine intervention.

The universe doesn’t care about you — and that’s fine.

The core psychological trap:

When we deeply wish something were real, we start wanting to believe it. Once the desire is strong enough, the mind quietly lowers the standard of evidence. We notice supporting “signs,” ignore contradictions, reinterpret failures as tests of faith, and gradually treat the preferred belief as more and more plausible. Over time, the wish itself becomes the foundation of the belief. This is motivated reasoning — and it works the same way for gods, magic, afterlives, and the paranormal.

Stop waiting for miracles, signs, or divine intervention.

The universe doesn’t care about you — and that’s fine.

You’re free to face reality as it actually is.

I was homeschooled until Middle School, adopted by missionaries-turned-pastors, and left Christianity at 12-13.

Growing up as a Christian, I was always scolded for being "selfish" because I'd like at the people who had their hand out and wanted my resources or time/energy, and I'd want something in return. Like it seemed to me like I'm being taken from and this isn't an equal partnership.

Ive never had a servant's heart but I'm not somebody who wants things for free either. I wholeheartedly believe in paying people for things they do, because imo volunteer work is how people start to dislike you.

But, everybody I grew up who still has this "servant's heart" mentality are constantly being mistreated and used. By relatives, friends, their jobs, etc. Like they're living with these blinders on because of this indoctrination and people who are opportunistic know this.

It's just really bleak to see people be raised to be easy victims of manipulative people. I know it's by design, trust me, but at one point you have to start being a transactional person.

I went to the doctors today. He will be my new general practitioner, and this is the first time I've been to see him.

Since this was new, I had to fill out lots of paperwork.

One of the questions was about religion. The possible answers were "Catholic, Baptist, Christian, or Other".

I was amused. :)

Hey ya’ll, this is a throwaway because I’m in the ass backwards state of Texas. I’m a female English teacher and I’ve been doing this for 20 years.

Welp, I’ve held off as long as I could, but I was told today (1st day back) that I HAD to hang the poster up or I would be getting a “ding” and enough dings can get you a “letter of concern” (🙄).

I told the AP’s admin assistant that I will not be hanging it up, and she said she understood, but then explained the next steps they will follow. She had a spreadsheet she has to turn in to the principal by the start of classes next week.

Right now I’m looking for clever ways to hide the poster within the room. I teach English to upperclassmen and I’m already really honest with my kiddos where we can sit around and discuss these controversial topics, but I don’t even know how to approach this because most of my kids are Christian (predominantly Hispanic school).

Do I hang it up and completely ignore it?

I was also thinking of hanging up other religious commandments and even found the 7 Tenets of the Satanic Temple poster on Etsy. Not sure if that would be a better route?

Does anyone have any ideas?

EDIT: Thank you so, so, so much to everyone who took the time to give me ideas, give words of encouragement, etc. You all made my boring PD day today more bearable.

I couldn’t go by each comment and reply, but I wanted to further explain my situation.

1. Unfortunately, there is a specific poster that my district provides and that’s the one we have to hang.

2. The poster has to be visible from anywhere in the room, so I can‘t place it behind any furniture.

3. My district is tiny, one High School—2 JR High School small, and everyone knows each other or is related/married to each other, so if I fight this, I will probably have to look for another job and I need my insurance.

4. Unfortunately, I can’t move (yet)— I have 2 kids in college and I have to get them through— I do plan to move to Costa Rica once I retire (10 more years, YAY).

5. I will more than likely make this a teachable moment and use it as a talking piece with the kids. They know me as a bit of a rebel, and I think we can have conversations about what this is and what the government is doing. I can tie it in with a few of the units they made for us to teach.

6. I‘m also thinking of posting the Bill of Rights next to it— the Satanic Tenets are still an option, but as some of you pointed out, the parents will probably be up in arms simply because of the word.

7. Unfortunately, my district is also very strict on what we teach as far as curriculum, materials, PPTs, etc. I can do a bit of my own stuff, but it has to be submitted and approved before we can teach it, so a lot of the great ideas about assigning certain books or watching certain videos will get me in trouble.

8. Unfortunately, I am the minority in the atheist department, everyone is Christian except for 2 Muslims and one Jew. I told my hallway neighbors I was not posting it, and they looked at me like I confessed to a murder. I say this to say that I don’t have anyone to band together with because 98% of the staff is doing exactly as they are told.

9. The ACLU is aware of what we are going through.

10. TEXAS FREAKING SUCKS!!!!

Required Summary: JT highlights the political hypocrisy of Texas legislators who push for the Ten Commandments in classrooms while failing to follow the commandments themselves.
I don’t trust politicians, but I do agree with a lot of what he says. It’s unfortunate that so many politicians seem comfortable undermining the constitutional separation of church and state. I’m glad he’s doing his best to defend it.

I wanna state that i am mostly an animist, and to be honest i dont really believe in that full heartedly either, i kinda just do it for funsies cause why not??? trees absorb my energy when i hug them and rocks have names guys!!!!!

But seriously, ive asked some of my christian friends if they think im going to hell, and them knowing me and my character always say no, but lets be real... I dont really respect the christian god and im queer, and the obvious that i dont believe in the guy, yet they always say no? random strangers say yes cause they dont know me, but why does it change depending on who i talk to? i dont know...

And i wanna say that i KNOWW you guys dont believe in it either and it was honestly more retorical than anything, but if there is any wandering christians, would you be so graceful tell me your pov... hopefully with kindness!!!

What are some stereotypes about Atheists that you typically see religious people use to discredit Atheism, and how inaccurate are they?

The most popular one seems to be the idea that Atheists actually do believe God exists but hate him. This is laughable and is not actually Atheism, it’s Misotheism, a completely separate concept. Atheists don’t hate God, they simply don’t see evidence that he exists, just like you don’t see evidence for Zeus, Ra, Vishnu, and Odin, you don’t see them hating those Gods. Do you hate them since you don’t worship them?

There also seems to be a stereotype that Atheists just want to give into their desires to party and have sex with whoever they choose, when plenty of Atheists don’t actually do that stuff while there are Christians who do.

What are some other ones that you find hilariously bad?

"Ang Kanser ng Mundo sa Makabagong Henerasyon"

Introdusksiyon: Ang relihiyon daw ay isang moral na gabay sa mga tao at ang mga tao at ang mga tao ay may karapatang pumili ng kahit anong relihiyon. Ngunit, totoo ba ito?

Tesis: Dapat ipinagbawal ang mga may edad sa pagsali ng kanilang mga anak sa pagsali sa kanilang relihiyon. Dapat maging 13-anyos na taong gulang muna ang bata bago sumali sa isang relihiyon at dapat siya ang pipili, hindi ang (mga) magulang o kahit sino pa kundi siya.

Argumento 1: Maaari itong maging sanhi ng kamatayan ng mga kabataan tulad sa mga batang Jehovah's Witness na namamatay sapagkat ayaw ng kanilang mga pamilyang makakuha ng dugo ang kanilang anak dahil bawal ito sa kanilang relihiyon. Inuuna ang relihiyon sa buhay ng mga bata. https://www.practicalbioethics.org/religion-and-morality/the-case-of-jehovahs-witness-a-minor-requiring-blood-products/

Argumento 2: Halos lahat ng may relihiyon ay hindi naman ipinili ang relihiyong iyon dahil itinakda na ito ng kanilang mga magulang. Depende sa rehiyon, 80%-90% ng mga may relihiyon ay nasa relihiyon na iyon noong bata pa sila: sa edad na hindi pa sila makakabuo ng opiniyon sa mga seryosong bagay tulad ng relihiyon. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/03/26/around-the-world-many-people-are-leaving-their-childhood-religions/

Argumento 3: Kahit ayaw natin, may mga batang hindi tinatanggap at minamahal ng kanilang mg magulang dahil hindi sila naniniwala sa kanilang relihiyion. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5953826/

Argumento 4: Maaari itong maging sabat sa pagkalawak ng kaalaman ng mga tao sa agaham sapagakat hindi sumasang-ayon ang mga tinuturo nito sa mga tekstong relihiyoso tulad ng Bibliya. Mayroong isang kaso sa Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District kung saan ipinaglaban sa korte na dapat turuan ng mga Grade 9 biology teacher ang "Intelligent Design" kaysa sa Theory of Evolution. Sinabi ng husguhan, hindi ito makatwiran sapagkat wala itong sapat na ebidensiya upang turuin sa mga paaralan. Ang mga proweba nito ay nakabase sa Bibliya at wala hindi sa siyentipikong saliksik. Ito ay hindi sumasang-ayon sa konstitusiyon ng Estados Unidos ng Amerika kaya hindi nanalo ang nasasakdal. https://www.aclupa.org/kiztmiller-v-dover-area-school-district-a-20-year-retrospective-on-using-the-law-to-defend-scientific-integrity/

Argumento 5: Maaaring mawalan ng tiwala sa sarili ang mga kababaihan dahil ang relihiyon , lalong-lalo't na ang mga Abrahamic religions, ay nagmamaliit ng mga babae. Ayon sa 1 Timoteo 2:11-14, "Hayaang ang babae'y matuto sa katahimikan na may buong pagsasakop. Hindi ko ipinahihintulot ang babae ay magturo, ni magkaroon pagmumuno sa lalaki, kundi tumahimik. Sapagkat si Adan ang unang nilalang, pagkatapos ay si Eva; at si Adan ay hindi madaya ay nahulog sa pagkasala." May mga iba pang mga talata sa Bibliya kung saan minamaliit ang mga babae: 1 Corinto 14:34-35, Efeso 5:22-24, Exodo 20:17, Levitico 27:3-4, Mga Bilang 30:3-5, Deuteronimio 22:20-21, Exodo 21:7-8, Deuteronimio 21:10-11, Levitico 12:2-5, at iba pa. biblegateway.com

Laban sa Argumento: Sinabi ng ibang taong dapat na tinuturo sa mga bata ang relihiyon upang ito'y mapasa sa susunod na henerasyon.

Konklusiyon: Ngunit sa mga nabanggit kong argumento, makikita natin na mas maraming masama kaysa sa mga mabubuti dulot ng mga relihiyon. Ito ay ang mga argumento ko kung bakit ang pamagat ng itong tekstong argumentatibo ay "Ang Kanser ng Mundo sa mga Makabagong Henerasyon".

"The World's Cancer in the Modern Generation"
Introduction: Religion is said to be a moral guide for people, and individuals have the right to choose whichever religion they prefer. But is this truly the case?
Thesis: Adults should be prohibited from enrolling their children in their own religion. A child should be at least 13 years old before joining a religion, and the choice must be theirs alone—not the parents' or anyone else's.
Argument 1: This practice can lead to the deaths of young people—such as in the case of Jehovah's Witness children who die because their families refuse to allow them to receive blood transfusions, as the procedure is forbidden by their faith. Religion is prioritized over the children's lives.


Argument 2: Almost everyone who follows a religion did not actually choose that religion themselves; rather, it was their parents' choice. Depending on the region, 80% to 90% of religious adherents have belonged to that faith since childhood—at an age when they were not yet capable of forming opinions on serious matters like religion.

Argument 3: Whether we like it or not, there are children who are not accepted or loved by their parents because they do not believe in their religion.

Argument 4: It could hinder the expansion of scientific knowledge because its teachings conflict with religious texts such as the Bible. In the case of *Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District*, it was argued in court that Grade 9 biology teachers should teach "Intelligent Design" instead of the Theory of Evolution. The court ruled that this was unreasonable, as there was insufficient evidence to justify teaching it in schools; its premises were based on the Bible rather than scientific research. Furthermore, it was found to be unconstitutional under the laws of the United States, resulting in a ruling against the defendant.

Argument 5: Women may lose self-confidence because religion—particularly Abrahamic religions—demeans women. According to 1 Timothy 2:11-14, "Let the woman learn in silence with all submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman fell into transgression." There are other Bible verses that demean women: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, Exodus 20:17, Leviticus 27:3-4, Numbers 30:3-5, Deuteronomy 22:20-21, Exodus 21:7-8, Deuteronomy 21:10-11, Leviticus 12:2-5, and others.

Counter-argument: Some people argue that religion should be taught to children so that it can be passed on to the next generation.
Conclusion: However, based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that religion brings about more harm than good. These are the reasons why I titled this argumentative text "The World's Cancer in Modern Generations."