Not because of religion, but in spite of it
Gee, ever since the Christianists took over the Republican Party, seized power under the criminal Bush regime, shredded the Constitution, and turned us into a nation of torturers, then started lawyering up and claiming their Fifth Amendment rights, religion has been under attack.
I wonder why?
Anyhow, former Speechwriter to Royalty and Republican operative Michael Gerson is making good money from the desk in the Op-Ed department that Fred Hiatt graciously granted him, so what's he whinging about?
In many quarters, the role of religion in public life and foreign policy is under question as a source of hatred and extremism.
I really, really like "in many quarters." You can see where Bush picked up that "some say" riff from, eh?
But this year marks the 200th anniversary of history's strongest counterexample -- the strange, irrational end of the British slave trade.
If that's the strongest counterexample--to what, Gerson never says--then I'd say the atheists are in pretty good shape:
Because a child of six could take apart Gerson's logic. Just because B happens after A doesn't mean that B happens because of A.
In fact, fighting against slavery is something any secular humanist would be proud to do (and today, they often are. Especially in the world Gerson made).
So I'd say that the Brits who abolished slavery did it in spite of religion, not because of it.
And how could it be otherwise?
There is no God.