"The use of "religion" as an excuse to repress the freedom of expression
and to deny human rights is not confined to any country or time."
by:
Margaret Atwood
(1939-) Canadian poet, author
Source:
Letter, Index on Censorship, 1995
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
The oppression of "religion" is the biggest repression of freedom and excuse for denial of human rights in any country at any time.
 -- warren, olathe     
    		•  
     -- Anonymous      
    This quote is unfortuatly true. Religion is used too often as an excuse for hushing up information
     -- Ariel, Norht Carolina     
    		•  
    Yes religion needs to be oppressed!!!!!!
     -- lisa, colorado     
    		•  
     -- Anonymous      
    A correct observation and exactly the reason I subscribe to no organized religion...including socialism.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
    		•  
    As a stand alone statement it is accurate though, there are other 'uses' exercised to repress freedom. Socialism, the religion, as exampled by the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land makes clear the current accurateness of the quote. Further, such a thing as governmental license illuminates the timeliness of the statement. License is "A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary) By what lawful nexus was the human right to express one's self by contract or participate in the religious ordinance of marriage transferred from the individual sovereign to the omnipresent / omnipotent competent authority i.e., the god of all rights = the statist theocracy ? By what enabling event made contracting and marriage illegal acts that such illegality needed an independent third party, the holder of all rights, necessary to authorize the participation in such ?
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    Hey Mike, I've got a theory for you regarding marriage "licenses". There is no reason in the world for government to get involved in a declaration between two people made in front of their friends, family and community, that they intend to spend their lives together. Why should the government be concerned with such arrangements? It's for tax purposes that's why. It is in order to establish that for taxation two people are now one "tax unit". Each being responsible for the other's tax situation which allows the Elitist Bankers collection wing greater latitude to take whatever they want from the household and exercise greater control in it's campaign of economic slavery. It makes me wonder why gay people who want to live together demand "official recognition". I don't think they know when they've got it good. ;-)
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
    		•  
    J Carlton, I'm with you on organized religion, but I include disorganized religions also.
     -- jim k, Austin, Tx     
    		•  
    J Carlton, my research shows one of the first uses of government license was to give authority for certain owners of chattel to have family relations with their property (gave authority to slave owner's to rape their slaves). In a sort of continuance, once the individual sovereign became owned chattel of the statist theocracy / government, authority was once again given to permit the illegal act. The reasons for the license was as you said, for control and money. The gay movement for recognized marriage is not a movement of rights but rather, a movement to become equal in slavery.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    Sounds about right Mike. I hadn't done any research on the subject at all, just an observation of events during my life.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
    		•  
    Every religion and denomination have rules for the followers to obey. Depending on the power of the particular church/cult, punishments may be applied to the 'sinners' and 'heretics.' and this is even still true today. This is primary reason for the separation of church and state.

    As for marriage licenses, the custom goes WAY back. Remember that in a monarchy, all the people are subjects of the Crown, and permission was needed from the Crown in order for two of the king's subjects to marry -- and among the royals, marriages were pre-arranged. And the local 'lord' had the right to impregnate the bride-to-be in advance of the groom.

    A marriage license is in fact a corporation -- it is the commercialization of marriage so that it comes under the commercial law jurisdiction. In some states it is not called a license but a 'certificate' that certifies the agreement between the two parties. Yes, it is about property and ultimately jurisdiction over the children, which the state is now party to.

    The church and now the state place themselves at every rite of passage of life as the perpetual authority and ultimate judge. The problem with religion and statism, in my opinion, is that the 'ministers' assume the role of God and mete out punishment in God's name. Instead of truly trusting in God, they assume their own correctness and authority over the rest of us.

    I think you will find the battle for gay marriage to be simply a further expansion of statism. I have no problem with gays committing themselves to each other, having a ceremony, and living happily ever after. But what they want are tax breaks and cheaper insurance coverage. The state just wants more authority over people, so ultimately I think we will see gay marriage commonplace in the years to come. A state-recognized marriage simply affirms the authority of the state over the union -- is that really what we want or need?
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    		 Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    Today's Quotes
    More Quotations
    Most Popular
    Recent Comments
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2026 Liberty-Tree.ca