The world that we live in is filled with injustices, oppressions, prejudices, and discrimination. The global world is vastly unequal in terms of opportunities and chances for social mobility. An African-American hip-hop artist, Nas, once raised the question, “Why wasn’t I a child of a doctor, who left stocks for me?” Many people live in misery and dire social oppression. There are places in third-world countries (created by western imperialism) where people starve, and there are others who are clinically obese. To confront such vast inequalities, human beings have theorized a variety of ideologies, all attempting to deal with this sad fact of human existence. These include: communism, socialism, feminism, black feminism, radical feminism liberalism, and secular humanism.
All of these egalitarian theories seek to fundamentally address inequality in the world, whether it be economic-based inequality, gender-based inequality or racial-based inequalities or oppressions. Within secular humanism and other secular ideologies is the presumption of human equality, they assert all human beings are equal and are thus each deserving of equal rights.
Yet, where do they get this fundamental belief from? Some people are born short while others are born tall. People have various degrees of talents, mental abilities, and physical abilities. Are human beings truly equal? Professor Hunter Baker writes:
“The ultimate test for the claim of a scientific worldview by secularists rests upon the very great values they place upon equality. Scientifically speaking, it is extraordinarily difficult to argue for equality of persons. …..if we are to accept the empirical reality of people and their differences, there should be a presumption of inequality rather than the presumption of equality upon which so many political philosophers depend.”
Secular humanism, communism, anarchism, and many sects within feminism reject God, viewing religious dictates to be oppressive. Yet, where do these egalitarians get this presumption of equality?
Hunter Baker in ‘The end of secularism’ writes, “If we are equal, it is almost surely in the sense of being equal before God, because we are in fact equal in virtually no other way.”
All of these ideologies inherit their presumption of human equality from Judea-Christian theology. Hunter Baker continues, “The ideas we cherish about ‘equal worth’ and ‘inalienable rights’ are products of our religious heritage. They simply cannot be justified by a naturalistic/empirical view of the world. Secular egalitarians [Marxism, Atheistic Feminism..etc), then are ‘free riders,’ living off an inheritances they view with disdain.’”
Even nietzsche who proclaimed “God is Dead” writes:
“Another Christian concept, no less crazy:the concept of equality of souls before God. This concept furnishes the
prototype of all theories of equal rights.”
Secular humanists have absolutely no intellectual basis to justify human equality, but all Abrahamic faiths hold that all human beings are spiritually equal before God. Dr. Joel McDurmon notes:
I could not help but think of today’s rosy-checked moralist, Dawkins, preaching against the cosmic bully of the Oled Testament, and denouncing the extremes of religion- all while unaware that he must have the morality of Christendom under his feet(and his audience’s feet) in order to denounce those extremes.
Secularists want to deny it, but all of their ideologies which reinforce human dignity, compassion, and equality and equal worth are an inheritance of Judea-Christian theology. Thus, secularism is in debt to Christianity. So before secular humanist criticize religion(Christianity or Islam) as sources of patriarchy or repressive to women, they need to provide a rational basis to justify human equality. Adopting a non-theistic worldview, secularists must prove that it is possible to objectively define equality, then define equality , and if they are capable of doing that then they must prove we have an objective obligation to exercise equality in society.
——————————-The end of secularism, hunter bakeratheism, moral swindle, http://americanvision.org/1825/atheisms-moral-swindle/
Within modern feminist thought, religion has undergone increased scrutiny as a source of patriarchy. Yet, Early Christian women in the women’s suffrage movement advocated the prohibition of alcohol on the basis that it contributed to spousal abuse. Many of these activists were practicing Christians and leaders of the Women’s Suffrage Movement, such as Lucretia Mott, Elizabath Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony, who were influenced by the Quaker Christian theology of spiritual equality, which states men and womern are equal under God.In the will to power, Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed, “Another Christian concept, no less crazy: the concept of equality of souls before God. This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights.”  Equality and justice between the sexes is based on the Judea-Christian notion that both men and women’s souls are equal and is the basis for morality and equal treatment.
In “Created Equal: The Origins of Human Dignity”, Dinesh D’Souza writes;
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that ‘all men are created equal’ he claimed that this was a self evident Truth. But it is not evident at all. Indeed, most cultures throughout history, and even today, reject the proposition. On the face of it, there is something absurd in claiming human equality when all around us we see dramatic evidence of inequality. People are unequal in height, in weight, in strength, in stamina, in intelligence, in perseverance, in truthfulness, and in about every other quality. Inequality seems to be the self-evident reality of human nature. Jefferson knew this. He was asserting human equality of a special kind Human beings, he was claiming, are moral equals. They don’t all behave equally we all, but each of their lives has a moral worth no greater and no less than that of any other. According to this strange doctrine, the worth of a street sweeper on the streets of Philadelphia was as great as that of Jefferson himself. Each life is valuable, and no one’s life is more valuable than another’s. The preciousness and equality of every human life is a Christian idea. Christians have always believed that God places infinite value on each human life He creates and that He loves each person equally.” 
John Locke, the philosophical founder of liberalism was a practicing Christian and his values influenced his ideals. The parent ideology of feminism is indeed liberalism as feminists seek to eradicate barriers to gender equality on the basis of securing individual rights and equality. This is why early women of the suffrage movement, who have been classified as “first-wave feminists,” were influenced primarily by Christian Qaker theology.Yet, second wave feminists were associated with normalizing alternative sexualities, sexual liberation, birth control and reproductive rights. They began to see Christianity as a source which sought to control and repress the female sex-drive. The reason for this is simple, if they retained the belief in God, they would be obligated to follow God’s commandments; thus women could never truly be free from some authority over their autonomy. They began to deny God. In doing so, they forgot their ideological foundation. The early feminist fought for women’s rights on the basis of males and females having souls equal before God. Yet in the modern leftist activist groups denying God seems to be the ‘cool thing to do’. One Femen members, Inna writes:
We would never talk about Allah or Jesus and other fantasies if those fantasies did not affect human rights…I’m an atheist.
According to Femen, I guess even fasting is patriarchal.
Do secular feminists even have a moral foundation to justify equality between the sexes?
Of constant criticism within feminist literature is the idea that Judea-Christianity seeks to control and repress female sex drives.
In “The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women,” feminist Jessica criticizes the Judea-Christian values governing sexual intercourse in society. According to them, patriarchy created an oppressive system where virginity was linked to virtue. Thus, embracing the idea of chastity was to submit to patriarchy-and promiscuity was offered as an a way to combat this. Gloria Steinem, a feminist icon, has been quoted as saying, – “A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after.”  As an alternative to the Judea-Christian values they advocate ‘sexual liberation. Essentially, what the sexual liberation movement did was increase male sexual pleasures, males who according to feminists were complicit in a patriarchal structure.
Representing this mentality is a young feminist blogger who wrote, “Women are often raised with this idea of ‘only have sex with people that matter to you,’ which I think is an elaborate way of further solidifying slut-shaming in our society… Sometimes it’s fun to have sex with someone who doesn’t matter 
In One Magazine a woman declares,”Yeah, I’m a Slut.My Body belongs to me. I sleep with who I want…i’m not your property.” 
Sally Cline, lamenting over the sexual liberation movement, wrote that, ““Masters of manipulation have managed successfully to portray the sixties as a time of freedom for women, when in fact it was not freedom as such but freedom to have more sex often provided it was pointedly directed at male pleasure, relentlessly supported male domination and kept women in submissive roles. It gave men more access to women’s bodies, it justified male promiscuity and power, and it encouraged a separation of body and emotion, or sexual behavior and loving feelings. It may have been male sexual liberation, but for women it must more aptly be named Genital Appropriation….The genital appropriation era actually permitted was more access to women’s bodies by more men; what it actually achieved was not a great deal of liberation for women but a great deal of legitimacy for male promiscuity; what it actually passed on to women was the male fragmentation of emotion from body, and the easily internalized schism between genital sex and responsible loving.”
The sexual liberation movement eroded the courtship system and gave rise to hook-up-culture. The reality is, sex with someone you barley know, which is advocated by many feminists, in the sexual liberation movement is not at all rooted in biology or nature. An anthropologist, Townsend, said, “We possess unconscious emotional-motivation mechanisms that warn women via bad feelings when they engage in sexual behavior that would have been maladaptive in earlier evolutionary eras. Casual sex with men unwilling to invest in them or their offspring is a prime instigator of such negative feelings.”
Intense physical pleasure results in chemical changes in the brain that encourage bonding and emotional attachment. This biological response is nature’s way of encouraging couples to stay together if the woman becomes pregnant, so that the child will be cared for. This is why women often report feeling emotional attachment after sexual relations, even when it was supposed to be a mere “friends with benefits” type of relationship.When women engage in the most intimate act possible, with men they barely know or have no emotional connection with, it inevitably leaves them with a feeling of emptiness, which they may mistake as sexual insatiability. In fact, the element that is missing is emotional intimacy, not physical intimacy.
This often results in women facing heartbreaks when it doesn’t turn out how they want it. Women were not designed for casual sex. In fact there exists an entire body of literature that seeks to help women overcome this biological response.Jennifer Morse wrote, “A modern woman is required to assign a higher place to her desire for autonomy than her desire for connection. She is supposed to be tough enough to stand on her own two feet without worrying about whether her partner in a one night stand will never call her again.”
The widespread prevalence of easy access to the female womb in the ‘hook-up’ culture conditioned men to think that a pick-up line and a few beers is all it takes to “get hoes,” as they call it. Their perception of women has diminished to the point that they no longer view women as people at all, but as objects used only for sex. Love and affection is abandoned, along with any attempt at building a meaningful, committed relationship. The general mindset of young men is that they “don’t love the hoes” so there’s no motivation for monogamy, or even a mutual respect for one another.
The birth control pills that many women willingly ingest have been linked to breast cancer, miscarriages, and an inability to get pregnant when the woman desires. Such a lifestyle is not liberating. Religion does not seek to control or repress female sexual desire, but instead facilitate a realm in which female sexual desire is exclusively expressed within the institution of marriage, whereby a man takes a vow before God: to remain loyal and faithful to her until death does them part. This is the opposite of objectification. In contrast, the sexual liberation movement turned women into ‘disposable sex objects,’ encouraging that women be promiscuous and men to be less committed. Until secular feminism recognizes the necessity of God, it will continue to go astray and promote misguidance.In the next article we will take a look at, “Does God Hate Women” and dissect the arguments the author uses against religion.
1)Friedrich Nietzsche,TheWill to Power
2)http://www.ysursa.com/history/pdf/Dsouza.pdf, CREATED EQUAL: THE ORIGINS OFHUMAN DIGNITY.
6)A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost VirtueBy Wendy Shalit
7) Quotes found on
A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue – Page 192 – Google Books Resultbooks.google.com/books?isbn=0684863170Wendy Shalit
9)Jennifer Roback Morse, Smart Sex: Finding Life Long Love in a hook up world