Details
Estonia has a population of 1.3 million and one of the most sparsely populated countries in Europe. Almost 50% of Estonia is covered by forest. Tallinn's Old Town is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Sites Estonia is the top nation per capita for the number of international fashion models. Estonians have the biggest collection of folk songs in the world with written records of 133,000 folk songs. Estonian schools are teaching children as young as seven how to programme computers. Estonia is the homeland of Skype, Hotmail and KaZaA Estonia is the least religious country in the world with only 14% of Гоп claiming any religious beliefs. r
Estonia,countries
More
I would much rather teach my children right from wrong by teaching them how to tell the difference, not by saying what's in this old book here is right, and what isn't is wrong... oh, and don't bother actually reading the book; just do whatever the man in the dress on the stage tells you to.
I want to teach my children to judge others by their words and actions towards other people, not by picking some arbitrary and irrelevant quality about them and using that as justification to forever consign them to "not-us" status.
A predominantly non-religious country is a country where I don't have to worry that what my kids are learning at school is not an education, but indoctrination into some teacher's death cult. It would be a school where the rules are based in facts and reality, not some fantasy of unrealistic religions wish-fulfillment.
And less you think I'm ducking at shadows, let's have a look at an example of the alternative:
In the last several decades, several US states successfully lobbied to have sex education struck from all public school curriculums. As a result, several years later, the instances of teenaged pregnancies doubled and tripled in every one of those states. In all other parts of the country, teenage pregnancies have been on a steady decline.
You asked: "Why would people having a religious belief be a concern to you at all?"
Because we have to live with them, and living in a country where religious extremists both run the country and dictate the laws is equally terrifying whether you're in the Middle East, or North America. Separation of Church and State was a vitally important principle for founding a successful and functional country. It's a shame we don't follow it anymore.
of course in my opinion the important thing its prevent any institution, organisation or cult have to much power over the people.
I agree that there should be a separation of church and state but to demand that there be no one of religious belief in government office is just ridiculous. If you don't want a religious leader to be in office then just cast your vote. You don't however get to complain that those who have religious belief not be able to lead. That goes against our rights because in no way is an atheist man better or worse than a religious man. Besides, if he was elected into office, who do you think put him there? The majority of the people. In which case would religious individuals, making the other the minority. We do things for the best of the majority, not the minority. Despite whether they are religious or not.
Your ethics argument is very vague making it sound more like random statements rather than actual examples. So let me just explain to you how most Christian ethics work since it's clear you don't understand:
We as humans cannot establish a moral compass for ourselves. Case being that the popular moral compass in today's society is to "just do what you think is right" which in and of itself is the reason why there is so much evil in the world. Murderers for example, many of them believe that the homicides they commit are doing the right thing. But where did they get that idea? From themselves. And no one can judge them because they're doing what makes them feel good.
It was the religious right wingers who claimed their church-taught morality found the teaching of sex Ed in schools to be unethical. I never said they READ their Biblefaith fact I implied most of them don't. That doesn't seem to prevent them from claiming their religion justifies their most irrational beliefs.
Every politician seeking office in the USA panders heavily to the religious fundamentalists, because those are very sizable groups of virtually guaranteed voters. If they're willing to spend days outside waving "God Hates Fags" signs, for sure they'll show up for however many minutes it takes to cast their vote for the candidate who claims to be a devout member of their club, and will prove it by introducing bills and laws that pander to their fears and predijuces, no matter how poorly thought out, how self-destructive, no matter if contradicts something the Bible ACTUALLY says or not.
It's not the personal faith of the politician I'm concerned with; it's the agenda of the religious groups he or she is willing to advance irresponsibly to further his/her career. It makes no distinguishable difference which politician is selected; the same root problem persists.
Remember this conversation started with "Why would people having a religious belief be a concern to you at all?". A predominantly areligious country will not be run by politicians whose careers hinge in pandering to the poorly reasoned whims of religious nuts. It's no longer politically advantageous to present oneself as someone who prioritizes religious dogma above common sense. It is instead advantageous to convince the voting public that you are a clear-headed and rational person capable of making rational choices based on the specific circumstances, as opposed to a broad moral rule of thumb that may not be relevant in every (or any) cases.
I disagree completely with every statement in your final paragraph. That shouldn't be a surprise. If we both agreed thats how the world worked, we probably would have met in the same church last Sunday, wouldn't we?
I must say though, despite us being in obvious disagreement you have given me a level of respect to my argument that no atheist has before and I am very grateful.
Yay us! ^_^
So I believe there is a "God" of some sort; a higher power greater than humans in this universe. I further believe such a being is beyond human comprehension, which creates something of a conflict with large groups of people claiming to know with absolute certainty who God is, what He wants and who we're supposed to hate and torment on his behalf at the same time we claim to "love" them as God's children. Studying religious history doesn't resolve these contradictions, it crystallizes them and adds hundreds more, along with context and clarity.
MOST agnostics seem to develop as a result of learning about religious history, in my experience. Faith, pretty much by definition, means to believe without questioning, and it is no coincidence that Faith is touted as the highest possible virtue a religious person can exemplify... because once you start asking too many questions, you start finding answers that don't fit with the religious doctrine in the slightest, shines a light on the deceptions. This is obviously the worst thing that can occur to an organised religion; its adherents asking questions and finding real answers that don't match what you've been drilling into them since they were small, impressionable children who would believe anything. Thusly, Faith (not asking questions) is the ultimate religious virtue, the importance of which is stressed over and over again.
.
I think I got stuck in lecture-mode again. Pardon. :P
Skype and Kazaa were coded by Estonians. Skype was however founded by a Danish-born Estonian and a Swede, they also bought Kazaa.