We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators. - Richard Dawkins

The fact that it has nothing else to contribute to human wisdom is no reason to hand religion a free licence to tell us what to do. Which religion, anyway? The one in which we happen to have been brought up? To which chapter, then, of which book of the Bible should we turn — for they are far from unanimous and some of them are odious by any reasonable standards. How many literalists have read enough of the Bible to know that the death penalty is prescribed for adultery, for gathering sticks on the sabbath and for cheeking your parents? If we reject Deuteronomy and Leviticus (as all enlightened moderns do), by what criteria do we then decide which of religion's moral values to accept? Or should we pick and choose among all the world's religions until we find one whose moral teaching suits us? If so, again we must ask, by what criterion do we choose? And if we have independent criteria for choosing among religious moralities, why not cut out the middle man and go straight for the moral choice without the religion?

Применение противозачаточных средств иногда критикуют как «противоестественное». Да, это так — очень противоестественное. Беда в том, что противоестественно и всеобщее благосостояние. Я думаю, что большинство из нас считает всеобщее благосостояние в высшей степени желательным. Невозможно, однако, добиться противоестественного всеобщего благосостояния, если не пойти при этом также на противоестественную регуляцию рождаемости, так как это приведет к еще большим невзгодам, чем существующие в природе.

As a liberal I would hesitate to propose a blanket ban on any style of dress because of the implications for individual liberty and freedom of choice.