without consideration for those who may think differently. The legal educational system issimilarly ambiguous and one-sided. Many (if not most) religious institutions rely on theeducation of their population, in fact every human society does, what the secularists are doinghere is simply supporting the idea that the state creates a legal system that includes educationbut excludes religious institutions. This is not a free and open understanding of religiouspractice, but the restriction of society to secularism through dogmatic, undefined, arbitrary, andheavy-handed techniques.
ecularism cannot, by definition, accept most faiths, as most faiths support either a certain legalcode or a certain statehood model, if not both. Muslims, for example, are required to live by
hariah law. The definition and implementation of this legal system is up to the religiousscholars in Islam, but this model is mutually exclusive to secularism. The assumption thatsecularists make, as with all bigots, is that their system is better and should be the default.The intolerance of secularism is defined very well by the fifth point: all religious practice thatinterferes with secularism should be banned. There are other points that continue to support anultimately intolerant model such as the prohibition of the segregation of the sexes. Mens andwomens bathrooms are obviously not included, but it is because of problem 1, ambiguity of terms and an assumption of agreement rather than because of some sort of logic.If read from an outside perspective one will discover to his horror that this 10-item manifesto isa simple declaration that all who think differently or behave in a way not deemed acceptable bythe secularist will be punished.
This combination leads to the ultimate tyranny of a secular society. Because ambiguouspunishments are given out to either individuals, institutions or even victims for crimes that arenot well defined a secular government will inevitably become a tyrant of intolerance anddespair. This has happened numerous times before, from the French Revolution to AndersBreviks assault on human dignity, the list is not difficult to populate.
The 10 points made above aim not at increasing human dignity, but at spreading secularism.This is evident in the lack of support or definition of the ideas contained therein, and thewording.
Abolition of all restrictive and repressive cultural and religious customs whichhinder and contradict woman¶s independence, free will and equality. Prohibition of segregation of sexes.´ The supreme irony is that this very sentence segregates men awayfrom the realm of being protected. A further semantic clue lies in the fact that only culturaland religious customs are forbidden, and again the assumption is made that all humans(women seem to be taken as particularly in need of help here) are in fact independent, thatfree will exists, and that equality is good. Before these ideas are considered the secularists