Is there such a thing as absolute morality?

Christianity certainly does not say this.

Islam certainly does not say this.

We will leave it to you to investigate which religion does say this - why should we do all the work!

The "enslave" part is quite interesting. Both Christianity and Islam supported slavery for hundreds of years and religious arguments were not the motivation for the anti-slavery movement - simply because anti-slavery arguments do not appear in the Bible or the Qur'an. It was humanist arguments, empathy with your fellow human beings, that motivated the anti-slavery movement.

The problem - extending the absolutes

Of course, we can all agree on a set of basic moral and ethical values - the problem comes when individual religions attempt to extend this base in such a way that it impinges on the freedoms of those who choose not to adopt their religion.

Attitudes towards reproduction, sex and sexuality are typically labelled "moral" by many religious groups to justify interference in the personal lives of people within their religion and, even worse, people outside their religion.

Why do religions have such a problem with sex, gender and sexuality?

Sex is one of the strongest of all human motivations and one of the things that makes life a real pleasure. What sort of perverted god would demand that its followers abstain from the most natural of human instincts? Why is pleasure wrong? How can celibate priests pontificate about sexual relationships? Why have religions used a perverted view of sexuality to allow celibate priest to abuse children (and adults) and get away with it? Why do religious people engage in sado-masochistic acts such as self-flagellation?

What sort of warped minds expect teenagers, full of hormones, to "say no to pre-marital sex"? Do the people who say this accept responsibility for the world's highest levels of sexually transmitted diseases and highest rates of teenage pregnancies that result from such advice - and from the total failure to provide comprehensive, open and non-judgmental sex education?

What is this religious hang-up about sex?

Morality

For the purpose of this article, "morality" is defined as the ability to determine what is "right" from what is "wrong".

Please see our separate page on morality and the common moral decencies.

Attitude of the religious

The religious rely on two things to determine whether something is right or wrong:

• the writings of their holy book;
• the interpretation of those writings by their religious leaders.

Holy books frequently contain contradictory advice - encouraging selective quotations to support the argument of the day.

Holy books were written by men and are interpreted by men - and the interpretations vary over time and in the light of current circumstances.

In other words, there is no absolute definition of what is right or wrong - it depends which part of the holy book you select, what the current circumstances are and whose interpretation you accept.

Attitude of the non-religious

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (articles listed below) defines certain rights that all people should have.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no strength in law but it has been adopted by individual countries and groups of countries - for example, in the European Convention on Human Rights.

To secularists, adhering to these rights is "right" and not adhering to them is "wrong".

Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights are subject to interpretation. The European Court of Human Rights is the legal arbiter in the case of disputes about the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no such arbiter in the case of Universal Declaration of Human Rights since, in itself, it has no standing in law.

An example of interpretation

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of ... religion ..." including "freedom to ... either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Article 22 states:

"Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

Questions arise:

• How far should anyone be permitted to "manifest his religion" in public?

  Would it be acceptable for a religious person to stand with a loud hailer in the middle of a large town and bellow out his religious beliefs to passers by?

  Would he be causing a nuisance or would he simply be exercising his right?

• How far are parents permitted to go in choosing the kind of education for their children?

  Would it be acceptable for a fascist group to establish a private school to educate their children in the teachings of fascism?

  Should religion be imposed on a child?

  When does education become indoctrination?

  Should children be told about all belief systems, religious and non-religions, in order to make an educated and informed choice?

  Do parents "own" their children?

  At what point do the child's rights take precedence over the parents'?

  How far should society intervene to ensure a balanced and rational education?

Abortion: a specific morality issue

The religious tend to lay down rules relating to sexual morality. For example:

• The Catholic church states that contraception (other than the rhythm method) and abortion are absolutely wrong in all circumstances.
• Many interpreters of the Koran impose a long list of rules on women, including hiding their face in public, covering their hair, covering their arms and legs and, in some cases, not driving cars!
• Many Imams declare that a woman guilty of adultery shall be stoned to death - for some reason this does not apply to the man involved.

However, Muslim attitudes, like Christian attitudes, to contraception and abortion vary considerably - from the ultra-conservative to the liberal.

There has been a long history of contraception in Islam with leading physicians developing many alternative methods. There is also a broad acceptance of abortion in the first four months of pregnancy where there is a threat to the mother's life or the probability of giving birth to a deformed or defective child. Some go further and effectively accept abortion on demand.

Some religious and some non-religious people define certain key points:

• the point of conception - where the sperm meets the egg and cell division commences;
• the point of sustainability - where a foetus outside the womb could, in theory, breath for itself - with or without the aid of external equipment. Advances in technology mean that this point has become earlier in pregnancy;
• the point of birth - where the newborn becomes a legal entity.

Many religious and non-religious people are divided on a number of key issues:

• should abortion be permitted where it is necessary to protect the mother's life;
• should abortion be permitted where conception results from the rape of a child by her father or other close relative?
• should abortion be permitted where conception results from the rape of an adult;
• should abortion be permitted where a contraceptive method has failed or where it was not used;
• should abortion be permitted where the woman does not want a child or is not capable of bringing up a child - the "unwanted child" issue;
• whose interests should be paramount: the mother's or the foetus';
• what are the responsibilities of the man involved? (This last one is frequently ignored with all pressure being applied to the woman.)

These arguments can go round in circles with more and more conditions being placed on abortion.

Each argument attempts to impose a subjective societal "rule" on the pregnant woman.

The author of this article believes that a pregnant woman considering abortion should be provided with all the information available for and against continuing with a pregnancy - in full recognition of what effect having a child will have on her future medical, psychological and economic life. The ultimate decision is then hers and hers alone.

The real evil in this debate

The true "evil" in this debate is any attempt by the religious to put the "fear of god" into a woman so that she can no longer make a rational decision

In this respect, the Catholic Church is the most evil of all religions - and evil compounded by Catholic priests in third word countries actively preaching that condoms are useless in the drive to prevent HIV/AIDS because "the HIV/AIDS germ is so small it will pass through the condom." (Yes, they really do preach this - contact us for the source.)

Abortion will continue - inside or outside the law

Abortion has always been used to prevent unwanted births - and will continue to be used whether or not it is permitted by law.

Making it illegal imposes a double penalty on the pregnant woman who has had an abortion: she is a criminal and she has gone through the emotional and physical stress of an abortion. The decision to have an abortion is not taken lightly by any of the women involved.

Illegal back street abortions dramatically increase the likelihood of permanent injury and potential death for the pregnant woman.

Making abortion illegal creates a golden opportunity for the unscrupulous and criminal to gain financially from the misery of women who do not wish to give birth.

Criminalising abortion will increase crime and it will injure and kill more women.

Abortion will not "go away" because a state, under pressure from the religious, decides to make it illegal.

What of the rights of the unborn child?

Emotive language - "the unborn child", "the baby in the womb" - is a linguistic trick frequently used by the pro-life, anti-pregnant-women, movement.

A foetus does not have rights. Rights begin at birth. See Article 1 below.

Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights