I have been quietly simmering for the last few days, and other than a few comments on Twitter I have kept silent. But Polly Toynbee’s article in the Guardian here today has finally broken this camel’s back.

There are many, many attacks on various churches and faiths at the moment, and it seems that Christians among many other faiths are being reviled. That is, when we are not being ridiculed and dismissed as deluded fanatics in various stages of hysteria. Or angry, hellfire-spouting, self-righteous hypocrites. None of these are particularly flattering, now are they?

I would like to take a few moments to refute some of the assertions made in Toynbee’s article. You are free, as is your human right, to read no further, but please do. It may surprise you, and I will welcome arguments with open arms in the comments.

Women’s bodies are the common battleground, symbols of all religions’ authority and identity. Cover them up with veil or burka, keep them from the altar, shave their heads, give them ritual baths, church them, make them walk a step behind, subject them to men’s authority, keep priests celibately free of women, unclean and unworthy. Eve is the cause of all temptation in Abrahamic faiths. Only by suppressing women can priests and imams hold down the power of sex, the flesh and the devil. The Church of England is on the point of schism over gay priests, women bishops and African homophobia. The secular world looks on in utter perplexity.

Women have long been subjected, with or without religion. If anyone is interested in the Biblical point of view, a Godly marriage is a partnership where both man and woman have rights and responsibilities towards each other. Perhaps people quick to point out the subjection of women should ask themselves whether this repression is carried out with a religious basis or a human, power-hungry one? And Eve is NOT the cause of all temptation. The Devil is. Jesus never discriminated against women; one of the greatest Judges in the Bible is a woman, as is one of the most moving stories of leadership under Queen Esther.

About sex, by the way: WHAT is the obsession with sex in this article? It’s a common misconception that ‘religions’, and Catholics in particular, are grim joykillers who use sex purely for ‘procreating’ – rubbish! People of faith acknowledge sex as one of God’s great gifts, BUT when enjoyed in the context He designed – marriage. Otherwise, like another great gift such as food, people misuse it, glut on it and it loses its inherent beauty. Saying religions oppress sex is a cheap and easy shot without any real thought. There are those who look down on it – ‘prudes’ – but there are as many prudes without faith in God as with.

Sex is a big issue, yes. I personally believe that sex is for marriage, and I come from both sides of the matter here, having lived with my husband for several years before we got married. I would personally prefer ‘our’ version of being ‘obsessed with sex’, in that we stress the importance of keeping it special and reserved for marriage, to the secular version wherein billboards for strip clubs cover the sides of tall office blocks, newspapers have pictures of topless girls as an integral feature, and sex is a casual or even essential part of life among teenagers and even pre-teens. Maybe a higher regard for it would lead to a healthier society? Just a thought.

The Catholic church stance on contraception – yes, this is a more difficult issue, particularly in the light of HIV epidemics and poor families who struggle with many children, and I know this is the tip of the iceberg. But on the other side, is it worth considering the context of this ban on contraception? As in the ideal society wherein sex is reserved for marriage and therefore STDs are not an issue, and a mutual society which cares for its members and tries to prevent poverty so that the number of children you have is not an issue either? Yes, this is an idealistic vision which bears little resemblance to the world. But does that make it less valuable? Should we not picture our ideal society in case it never happens, and should we not try to make it happen? I don’t know on this one. Doubtless the Church should do more against HIV. But it is not a lack of contraceptive that spreads HIV, it is Man’s actions. I am painfully aware I am speaking from my armchair on this one, so I will say no more for now.

Trying to deny the primal life force has led to centuries of persecution, suffering, secrecy and breathtaking hypocrisy. Wherever male cultural leaders hold absolute and unscrutinised power, women and children will be abused. In western secular life this has at last been recognised: in schools, prisons, care homes and within families, wherever the powerless are unseen and unheard, horrors will happen without checks and transparency. Abusers gravitate towards closed organisations, and absolute power turns people into abusers. But the Vatican still talks of a few bad apples requiring internal discipline, the pope refusing to hand rapists over to secular law. Imams, gurus, priests, all hold sway over the vulnerable. As secretive madrasas and new religious “free” schools multiply while officials nervously respect their cultural independence, expect more abuse as bad as the Belgian Catholic cases now emerging.

Abuse is wrong, full stop. It is the more tragic when it is carried out by people of authority, in positions of trust, and these are even more emotive when God enters the question. But it is important to remember that, actually, God is not entering the question. Nowhere does God say His priests can abuse anyone, let alone children. Children are infinitely precious to God. These abusers were taking advantage of their position, which could have been that of a priest, a teacher or a family member. And abuse is more common by a family member than anyone else – talk about a position of trust and authority. These situations were badly handled but demonising all priests and believers is not the way to go. And pre-empting abuse as in the passage above is just, frankly, silly and hysterical.

The other dominion the religions control is death. Were it not for the faiths with their grip on hospices and palliative care, the law on assisted dying would be reformed

Yikes! So is Toynbee advocating a free-for-all? Perhaps someone SHOULD have a grip on hospices? In fact, if we’re on the question of hospices, perhaps we should be grateful that faiths have such a care for the dying that they provide hospices at all? I do not see the government trying desperately to provide palliative care but prevented by the grip of those darned faiths.

In a week when, on the wilder fringes, a Florida pastor’s threat to burn200 copies of the Qur’an risked igniting holy war among equally extreme battalions of Islamist fundamentalists, while hate-filled Christians try to stop the building of a Muslim centre in a New York that is remembering the jihadist attack victims, nobody needs reminding of the incendiary dangers of religion. But just when democracies should determinedly separate religion from state, the British state appeases, most alarmingly in new segregated schools. Why invite the pope on a “state” visit costing millions in a time of cutbacks?

The threat to burn the Qu’ran did not risk igniting holy war. Muslims were, quite naturally, offended by some insensitive fool threatening to destroy their holy book. I would be rather offended if people said they were going to burn the Bible, although I expect to see it any day now. The stated warnings from the US and UK governments that the burning would endanger the troops in Afghanistan was ridiculous. The troops are an Invasion force occupying a foreign country with little justification, spending millions in the process. They are already under threat. The key to their safety lies in the hands of the governments keeping them there.

And, by the way, a ‘”state” visit’? The Pope is a Head of State, so like it or not, his visit is a State visit. What he does on his visit is another matter. Yes, he will celebrate Mass. Are you seriously proposing that the Pope does NOT celebrate Mass? Would you ask a Muslim leader to not carry out his daily prayers while on a visit somewhere? And should he not advocate his views and opinions? Where would his moral stance be then? He would be quite rightly criticised as a hypocrite for keeping quiet merely to avoid rocking the boat. Kind of a lose-lose situation there I think.

All atheists now tend to be called “militant”, yet we seek to silence none, to burn no books, to stop no masses or Friday prayers, impose no laws, asking only free choice over sex and death. Religion deserves its say, but only proportional to its numbers. No privileges, no special protection against feeling offended.

No, militant atheists are called militant. At the risk of generalising as badly as Toynbee does here, atheists may not seek to silence any by force, but I have too often lately seen ridicule, humiliation and laughing dismissal of faith to doubt that there is silencing by emotional means. We are often seen as deluded and retrogressive. God? Who believes in that old chestnut any more? Why believe in a Creator when we’ve nearly discovered the God Particle? Excuse me, but where did the God Particle come from? Am I missing something here? And one more question here – why shouldn’t there be any special protection against feeling offended? Surely everyone should be protected from feeling offended – no matter their beliefs. I have the greatest respect for atheists, provided they treat me with the same, and do not offer lazy, trite arguments without any knowledge of my faith which they are dismissing without any interest in hearing my side of things.

The director of pastoral affairs in the Westminster diocese, Edmund Adamus, says Britain has become a “selfish hedonistic wasteland” of sex and secularism. He echoes the supreme arrogance of all the religious who claim there is no morality without God. Nonsense, but unlike the religious the godless claim no moral superiority. Wise humanists know that good and bad are pretty evenly distributed. Humanity has an innate moral sense, without threats of divine wrath and reward. Good and bad works are done by both the secular and the religious. But wherever the institutions of religion wield real power, they prove a force for cruelty and hypocrisy.

‘Nonsense’? In the very sentence after declaiming the ‘supreme arrogance’ of religion? Ha! But seriously, the ‘religious’ do not see themselves as morally superior. We are aware of our failings and faults, acutely aware, but we have the joy and hope of salvation. Unlike the non-religious, those of ‘faith’ do not claim that our worth comes from us ourselves, our own merits. Any merits we have we know to be the gift of God and an echo of Him in ourselves. Our soul is our part of God that we carry with us, and any good in me is entirely down to how much I let God work through me. I have often, lately, been given the great compliment of being a good listener and a caring person. I would say to those people, that this is entirely due to my blossoming confidence in my own worth as a woman of God. That there is One who loves me no matter what, so I want, need, to extend this unconditional love to those I care about. And in case you are thinking, “Yes, but those will be other Christians”, no, actually, they’re not. The ones I am particularly thinking of as I type are staunchly atheist. But then again, you cannot trust what I say, because I am a “hate-filled Christian” (from the article quoted here). Huh.

Can I really let the last sentence of this section pass without comment? That the institutions of religion prove a force for cruelty and hypocrisy? That no other institutions do the same? Can I really not point out that bodies such as the Quakers fought the hardest against slavery? That Jesuits provided education that would only have been the purlieu of the rich? The problem is not that God is in the equation, but that His name is, and is being used as a cover. Humankind in any institution or force has again and again proven a force for cruelty and hypocrisy.

Atheists are good haters, they claim, but feeble compared with the religious sects. Atheists have dried-up souls, without spiritual or visionary transcendentalism. To which we say: the human imagination is all we need to hold in awe. Live in optimism without fear of judgment and death. There is enough purpose and meaning in life, love and leaving a good legacy. Oppose the danger of religious zealotry with the liberating belief that life on earth is precious because this here and now is all there is, and our destiny is in our own hands.

Do atheists have souls? I mean, by their own arguments? This is a genuine question. If so, why, if this is all there is? Life on earth is no less precious because of a hope in the hereafter- it is more so. I mentioned before that we have the hope of salvation – if this is deluded, then I am glad to be deluded because I do have hope, I have a reason for my existence greater than being a mere chance, I have knowledge of myself as a child of God and a wondrous creation, not just a random assortment of molecules. I have witnessed a love greater than I can describe, and while articles that denigrate that love rile me, I know that God can transcend that, without my pitiful blog post in His defence.

My belief does not oppress me – it liberates me far more than I could ever have imagined.