http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10778564/Our-Christian-beliefs-are-under-attack-from-influential-and-militant-atheists.ht...

I cannot state this enough. There is a HUGE differnece between a goverment's duty to protect pluralism and diversity, and the ability to demonstrate the credibility of ANY given claim.

To start off with Christianity is not the only religion on the face of the planet.  Muslims also claim their religion is under attack. Jews claim they are under attack as well.

Was the earth created in 6 days? No? Do men pop out of dirt? No. Do women pop out of ribs? No. Will you get 72 virgins in an afterlife? No? Is the name "Yahweh" orginal to Hebrew? No.

This artical trys to claim if it had not been for Christianity. No, it was in spite of Christianity that the west became civil. One could certianly argue in history that some Christians took a more liberal attitute(for their time) in the view of empathy for others was a contribution. This however is still what allows humans to argue over what is in us outside of religion itself. It was not Christianity that made us more civil, anymore than Malala's being a Muslim will gain more rights for women in Islam. What is really at work is our species empathy for our fellow humans. We falsely attribute the good we do as being a result of religion, instead of seeing our common behavior causing us to do it in spite of religion.

Of course Christianity is under attack, just like saying Islam is not needed to be a moral guide. Just like saying the earth is not flat. Anyone can argue their religion is the cause of positive things, and certianly they all do make that arugment. But what humans fail to consider in all this arguing of "we do good" is simple. If we all do good, then the good we do is in us, NOT the clubs humans invent.

Why shouldn't claims of antiquity be under attack? That is not an argument to physically errase history, or ignore history. Just an attack on bad claims. An attack on absurd claims. An attack on the idea that a label, a tradition, a religion, is the sole patent owner of our existence.

Science proves we have better tools to study the nature of relality. In no way is that a call to have humans become emotionless robots or a call to set up a "evil scientist" frankenstien society where the "evil scientist" treats everything in an emotionless lab rat environment.

No, the "attack", is what constantly allows humans to question social norms so that we do not dwell on bad data. "Militant" is the childish slur those stuck on claims of antiquity. The human refusal to accept that one got it wrong. It is the adult still insisting the existence of Santa when they have RIGHTFULLY been told that the claim has no merit in reality.

Our species refusal to let go of the past and look to the future, is a result of our flawed perceptions. We form groups around what we think works, and when that pattern gets challenged it is seen as a threat to that group. We do ourselves no good as a species being more concerned promoting clubs claiming them to be "good" as if good was an invention of one club. It is one thing to accept the reality of pluralism. It is not ok to demand taboos as if someone's claims should never be questioned at all.

I see nothing "militant" about ending slavery. I see nothing "militant" about women's right to vote. I see nothing "militant" in telling the men of Islam that women are NOT property. I see nothing "militant" in saying the sun is not a god. I see nothing "militant" in saying the earth was not created in 6 days. And I also see nothing "militiant" in saying pluralistic societies should not value a government that sets up social pecking orders that favor one religion over another.

The UK is simply growing up. Maybe, just like American Christians, maybe the believer needs to consider that what they do good, is in them, not their religion.