I reject the concept that religion possesses any kind of a 'moral compass' which is not available to those who are not 'under the spell'. I reject any notion that religion is morally superior to those people who are outside it.
Christian morality, for example, is rooted in primitive First Century beliefs. It builds its foundations on (sometimes dubious) interpretations of (sometimes poorly) translated words from a single collection of (unverifiable) tales, which are from a distant age and a different world. It has always (immorally) resisted improvements and always will.
The bible, for example could have commenced with a basic declaration of human rights like >> this < < but it does no such thing.
As Paula Kirby once said:
Religion actively discourages moral progress, because religion DEFINES morality as the attitudes that prevailed hundreds or thousands of years ago.
How 'moral' is it, for example:
- to sell a 'product' (religion) based on extraordinary but unproven dogma?
- to dangle an unverifiable carrot on a stick (eternal life), to convince the gullible to tip the contents of their wallets onto the church plate?
- to swear the truth on a bible that has many untruths in between it's covers?
- for a church leader to actively suppress serial child abuse by priests and to cover up their crimes?
Contemporary secular morality has and always will have a superior moral compass to even the best ideas of religion. Yet religion is always telling us that <insert your religious brand> is the originator or morality and that morality cannot exist without <insert your religious brand>.
If nothing else, they're certainly very good at hypocrisy,