I must admit I did miss most of the point for wanting to move to Estonia - If you don't like religion, move to a country with a low minority of religion. Or try your best to change everyone's minds. Your point is made whether I agree with it or not.
I must say though, despite us being in obvious disagreement you have given me a level of respect to my argument that no atheist has before and I am very grateful.
Your obvious bitterness and loathing for religion aside, I agree that sex ed should be taught but I have concerns on how it's done but that in and of itself is more of an issue of education as a whole rather than the finer details of it. However, in no way is keeping children ignorant of sex ed a religious teaching. If you read a bible this would be obvious to you. This is mistake made by man and the consequences of it pinned onto religion. So in no way does the bible tell anyone to not teach sex. In fact the bible celebrates sex between spouses.
I agree that there should be a separation of church and state but to demand that there be no one of religious belief in government office is just ridiculous. If you don't want a religious leader to be in office then just cast your vote. You don't however get to complain that those who have religious belief not be able to lead. That goes against our rights because in no way is an atheist man better or worse than a religious man. Besides, if he was elected into office, who do you think put him there? The majority of the people. In which case would religious individuals, making the other the minority. We do things for the best of the majority, not the minority. Despite whether they are religious or not.
Your ethics argument is very vague making it sound more like random statements rather than actual examples. So let me just explain to you how most Christian ethics work since it's clear you don't understand:
We as humans cannot establish a moral compass for ourselves. Case being that the popular moral compass in today's society is to "just do what you think is right" which in and of itself is the reason why there is so much evil in the world. Murderers for example, many of them believe that the homicides they commit are doing the right thing. But where did they get that idea? From themselves. And no one can judge them because they're doing what makes them feel good.
I must say though, despite us being in obvious disagreement you have given me a level of respect to my argument that no atheist has before and I am very grateful.
I agree that there should be a separation of church and state but to demand that there be no one of religious belief in government office is just ridiculous. If you don't want a religious leader to be in office then just cast your vote. You don't however get to complain that those who have religious belief not be able to lead. That goes against our rights because in no way is an atheist man better or worse than a religious man. Besides, if he was elected into office, who do you think put him there? The majority of the people. In which case would religious individuals, making the other the minority. We do things for the best of the majority, not the minority. Despite whether they are religious or not.
Your ethics argument is very vague making it sound more like random statements rather than actual examples. So let me just explain to you how most Christian ethics work since it's clear you don't understand:
We as humans cannot establish a moral compass for ourselves. Case being that the popular moral compass in today's society is to "just do what you think is right" which in and of itself is the reason why there is so much evil in the world. Murderers for example, many of them believe that the homicides they commit are doing the right thing. But where did they get that idea? From themselves. And no one can judge them because they're doing what makes them feel good.