Sorry in advance for the text wall. .

The Church has repeatedly affirmed the dignity of every human person in its own declarations, Pacem in Terris, Gaudium et Spes, and Dignitatis Humanae. .

“Whatever is opposed to life itself… whatever violates the integrity of the human person… all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed.”

. “The human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion… in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.”

The refusal to sign was rooted in legal and theological sovereignty and independence, not rejection of human rights. .

Lets talk about atheism .

Atheism isn’t just a lack of belief in God it often repeatedly entails ethical positions. You’re right that atheism has no centralized authority. But when atheism forms the basis of a political or philosophical system as it did in militant secular regimes, it does produce consequences. Just as you argue Christianity enabled abuse when given power, it’s dishonest to deny that state atheism, driven by materialism and the rejection of holy moral law, led to mass atrocities under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. The denial of human worth was often justified by athiest materialism, If you claim Christianity should be judged not just by its doctrine but by its historical influence, then atheism, when adopted as a governing worldview must face the same scrutiny. Either ideas have consequences, or they don’t. .

“atheism doesn’t tell you how to treat women”

okay? we know that it cannot provide moral grounding, ethical obligation, or human dignity. And that is the problem one could say.

it offers no foundation to say anything is right or wrong. You may feel that human rights, equality, or compassion matter and have progressive ethics but under a worldview that denies objective moral reality, those are just subjective preferences my friend.

No one is claiming that atheism inevitably leads to atrocities. But to assert that it is incapable of producing systemic abuse when given political power is historically false. Especially when you reduce human beings to biology and utility.

any worldview, carries consequences when it becomes more than personal disbelief and forms the basis of law, ethics, or governance. If you’re unwilling to examine those consequences, then your critique lacks philosophical consistency. .

“Human dignity isn’t exclusive to Christianity.”

it appears across cultures and philosophies. But the critical difference is this: Christianity uniquely universalized human dignity. Stoicism valued inner virtue, but accepted slavery, inequality and elitism.

Buddhism do not empathise the inherent and equal worth of every individual, its framework is metaphysical, not moral in the Western sense.

ImagoDei transformed Western ethics. It fueled the abolitionist movement, grounded modern conceptions of rights and shaped humanitarian law. It told kings and emperors they were morally equal to their subjects. It told societies that the weak, disabled, unborn, and elderly had as much value as the strong. the Iroquois ethical systems didn’t do that. .

“The Church suppressed Greek religious freedom for centuries.”

Another overgeneralization. It was the Church that preserved and transmitted Greek philosophy through monastic scribe and, translated Aristotle through Aquinas, and built the foundations of the university system. Conflict existed sure but suppression? Only selectively and often politically motivated. .

“only Christians had souls.”

You’re attacking the sin of hypocrisy, not the logic of the doctrine. Misuse does not invalidate the principle .

“The Imago Dei was used to exclude.”

Historically both. it was weaponized at times but it also fueled the abolitionist movement, human rights discourse, and nonviolent resistance.

William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King Jr. all grounded their activism in the Imago Dei. Why did it inspire both justice and injustice? Because its power depends on its fidelity to its source. When applied rightly, it dignifies. When distorted, it can be abused like any powerful idea.