Good Friday, as according to Thomas Jefferson

Good Friday is a Christian religious holiday that marks the cruxification of Jesus and his death on the cross.

It's one of the most important holy days in the Christian faith, since it not only commemorates Jesus 'dying for our sins' but also sets up the celebration of his resurrection the following Sunday.

It's an interesting time of year for me, because as with much of Christian faith, I appreciate the story of Good Friday, but not the superstition surrounding it.

I'm a Christian in that I believe Jesus Christ was a real (albeit mortal) man whose life was at least reflected in the writings of the New Testament - but I'm no "Christian" because I don't believe he was the son of God, I don't believe he "bore our sins in his body" and I certainly don't believe he was resurrected from the dead.

This is an opinion shared by many - including iconic ginger Thomas Jefferson.

Although many ignorant folk celebrate him as a "good Christian American," the second president of this great nation was nothing of the sort.

Although no atheist (he often referenced a higher power, "nature's God" and providence) Thomas Jefferson was definitely no Christian, either - and argued that while there were worthwhile parts of the Gospels, the majority was "the fabric of very inferior minds" and sifting one from the other was like "picking out diamonds from dunghills."

Conservatives will disagree - and cheerfully pluck out-of-context quotes to illustrate Jefferson's supposed Christian faith - but they're wrong.

If you need proof of that, look no further than one of the many remarkable books Thomas Jefferson wrote - the one commonly referred to as "The Jefferson Bible."

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was his attempt to rationalize Christian theology with his pragmatic, rational view of the world. To that end, Jefferson carefully consolidated the life of Jesus from the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and removed from them all reference to prophecies, superstition and anything supernatural.

Basically, it portrayed Jesus as a human philosopher who preached brotherly love, peace and tolerance - and as such, his "bible" ends on Good Friday, when Jesus died on the cross and his body was gently lifted to the ground by Joseph of Arimathaea.

There was no resurrection. There was no ghostly appearance to the disciples in the upper room. He certainly never encountered Paul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus (and that pretty much confirms what I've always suspected - that Paul was a self-serving parasite whose religious sermons had nothing to do with the teachings or beliefs of Jesus.)

Jesus simply died - murdered cruelly and unfairly for preaching peace and understanding. Which, in many ways, makes his death monumentally more significant. That's why I prefer to think of Good Friday as Jefferson did: The closing chapter of Jesus' life; not the foreshadowing of a comic-book style comeback.

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth ends like this:

Then Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

A poignant end to an important story; and a way to make Christianity relevant even to those of us who don't believe in any of the religious mumbo-jumbo related to it.

Religion and Baby - it's back, baby!

Readers might have noticed posts appearing and disappearing over the last few days. Hopefully now the lines of communication have been reestablished, this shouldn't happen again.

So after a three day absence, here's the reappearance of my last post - which, as I mentioned before, is an angry, opinionated rant that's bound to offend good Christians everywhere...

As readers of my blog will know, I stopped believing in God over six months ago and since then have taken a very dim view of Christianity (or the popular American derivation of it.) (See the addendum below for some clarification about this.)

But with baby's long term upbringing to consider, it's been agreed to give him a somewhat traditional introduction to religion.

I don't think this is a bad thing at all. I mean, while I don't believe in God, I'm still interested in the history and politics of Christianity and can't help but acknowledge the enormous importance The Bible has had in the development and history of western civilisation.

The Bible as (bad) Literature.

Learning about the Bible is still a valid and important thing and whether my son eventually believes in it or not, he'll still benefit from a firm comprehension of the Christian religion.

Also, it's very important not to impose one's own beliefs on your children. It's up to them to make their own minds up - when they're old enough.

The success of the more militant evangelical groups in America's Midwest seems to come from parents brainwashing their offspring as early as possible (I recommend watching the terrifying documentary Jesus Camp to see how valid this accusation is.)

Hopefully, my wife and I can give our son a broad base of knowledge with which to reach his own conclusion when he's grown up a little.

But when it comes to Christianity, what's the most appropriate sect to follow?

What flavour of Christianity do you fancy?

Well, as a historian I'm pretty old school about this. There are only two truly valid forms of Christianity. Catholic and Orthodox. They date back practically to the Biblical period itself and in the western world, all modern scripture and canon originates with the Catholic church.

However, raising our son as a Catholic isn't really a practical proposition. For a start, I'm not a Catholic myself and I certainly have no intention of going through the motions to 'pretend' to be one for the sake of him joining that church.

Secondly, and more importantly, the Catholic church is a wildly corrupt and cynical organisation headed by an octogenarian former Nazi. Plus the John Jay Report revealed that between 1950 and 2002, 4% of Catholic priests had been embroiled in accusations of child sexual molestation and that's hardly the environment I want to expose my son to!

Throw in some of the more recent decisions the Catholic church has made - like angrily declaring the use of condoms in AIDS raddled Africa as a Biblical sin - and it's fairly obvious that the Catholic church is no place for anybody capable of making rational decisions!

But where does that leave us?

Splinter Groups

Well, if there's one thing America has, it's thousands of protestant Churches. Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals... The list goes on and on and on - leaving us with a rather generic wad of mediocre protestants who add up to a whopping 80 million Church going Americans!

I have several issues with the idea of joining any of these Churches, though. For a start, tracing the history of any splinter group of modern Christianity generally reveals them to have begun for cynical, flawed and 'human' reasons rather than any particular spiritual imperative.

Protestants broke away from the Catholic church because they didn't want to give money to the Pope, or they wanted their priests to have families, or any of a thousands similarly inane reasons. Scripture rarely comes into it and if it does, it's used as a cover to rationalize a more practical reason to abandon the Catholic church.

What really annoys me about the dreary evangelical movement is their blithe decision to pick and choose which scripture they like and which they don't. Leviticus says it's a sin to 'lay with another man,' so they oppose homosexuality. Leviticus also said it's an equal sin to eat shellfish, but go to any 'pot luck' Church picnic and somebody will have brought a shrimp cocktail along!

Three first hand accounts of Jesus' life never recorded him saying anything against homosexuality. Paul, a guy who'd never even met Jesus, attributed anti-gay rhetoric to the King of Kings and conservative Christians accept it.

In fact, they'll pick and choose any out-of-context scripture if it appears to support their 'family values.' And that's the problem... The evangelical movement is Christianity cynically marketed towards the lowest common denominator.

It's scriptually unsound and, when you delve a little deeper into the evangelical movement's murky history (throw in the Klu Klux Klan, adultery, embezzlement, homosexuality and homophobia) it's pretty clear that the movement is fairly morally bankrupt as well.

So where does that leave us?

Well, in the end there was only one clear choice for me when it came to our son's spiritual upbringing - but it's an organisation that is tarred by almost all of the flaws I've mentioned above.

The Anglican, Episcopalian, Church of England.

The Anglican church began life in exactly the same cynical, political manner as any other form of protestantism.

King Henry VIII wanted to annul his marriage to his wife, Catherine of Aragon. The Pope refused to allow him to do this (as he'd actually make a papal decree making the marriage legitimate in the first place.) Angry and frustrated, King Henry split from the Catholic Church and established a 'Church of England' of which he was the head.

This had the added benefit of allowing him to ransack the Catholic Churches and monasteries, which swiftly made his bankrupt nation one of the richest in the world.

There were pages and pages of scriptural and spiritual analysis written to 'justify' the break from the Catholic church, but looking at the facts it's difficult to see the foundation of the Church of England as anything other than a cynical political move by an unscrupulous (but brilliant) monarch.

However, since that time, the Anglican church has remained pretty true to itself and it's adhesion to certain Catholic traditions make it a comfortable compromise for many churchgoers. This, plus some excellent missionary work during Britain's empire days, has helped make the Episcopalian Church the third largest in the world.

I am, of course, very comfortable with the Anglican Church. My grandfather was a vicar and a Chaplin in the RAF. I was raised in the days before religion was banned from schools, so we sung hymns at assembly and went to the Harvest Festival at the local Anglican Church. I attended a theological college (to study history, admittedly) and dated a priestess-in-training, so I wound up going to Church far more often than I'd liked!

In fact, several of my university buddies have ended up being ordained or working in the church, so it's a body I've continued to be associated with for most of my life.

Not to mention, the Anglican church - even if you're attending services in America, Africa or elsewhere - has a irrevocable streak of Englishness about it that I am excited to expose our little Anglo-American boy to.

My wife is also unopposed to raising our son as an Anglican, because the Episcopalian church services resemble Catholic ones and it's a respectable, established church instead of one of these fly-by-night offshoots America seems littered with (what the hell is the difference between the denominations of Baptists and why do they all hate each other so much?)

Problems with the Anglican Church

Of course, one of the problems with the Anglican church is that right at this second it's basically self destructing. In Canterbury, Bishops are gathering for the annual Lambeth conference and there's enormous controversy surrounding it.

This is because the Anglican church is traditionally fairly progressive - which is why I prefer them to the Catholic church (whose attitudes towards homosexuality, sexuality and 'sin' borders on the crazy.) But even the liberal church finds itself divided over the issue of openly gay priests (the first openly gay Bishop was recently ordained in New Hampshire) and the idea of female Bishops (which was recently introduced.)

Vast numbers of Bishops are boycotting the Lambeth conference to protest these progressive moves and even though I'm fairly liberal and have no issues with gay or female priests or bishops, I can't really blame them given some of the rubbish that comes out of the Archbishop of Canterbury's mouth.

That being said, one of the reasons I'm starkly opposed to the American evangelical movement is because they spend so much time and energy ranting and raving against homosexuality and female equality. Whatever happens, I'm not prepared to embroil my son in any religion that uses poorly interpreted scripture as an excuse to be actively homophobic or misogynistic.

More important to me than any religious rubbish are the founding principles of American society - the inalienable right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' I don't have to approve of gay marriage or female priests, but since the lifestyle choices these people make do not affect myself or my family in any way, it is deeply hypocritical and unAmerican to infringe their rights simply because I don't approve of them!

This is America. Freedom is our most important commodity. What terrifies me about exposing my son to any form of organised religion is that Christians are actively campaigning to erode people's freedoms every single day.

But, like I said. I can introduce my son to my own opinions and beliefs, but as a responsible parent I should ensure he makes his own decision about things. I just hope (since I can't pray to a God I don't believe in) that he makes the right ones.

Addendum:

Since writing this, I have been asked to clarify my position towards religion and the existence of God, so here goes:

I am not opposed to the concept of a ‘higher power’ because, in many ways, it seems so wildly improbable that this ONE planet in this enormous solar system could just randomly produce life… and of that life this ONE type of monkey randomly develop language and music and art and Cheverolets… While the rest live in the trees and all the other planets are barren rocks.

It's so random. So unlikely. When you look at the probabilities like that, it seems insane that there’s any other explanation for the existence of humanity.

In many ways, it’s like the world’s an experiment. A Petri dish. An art project. And if that's the case, there HAS to be a God-like scientist, chemist or art student overseeing the whole thing…

So while I might not believe in it myself, I certainly don't entirely discount the possibility of this 'higher power.' What I do discount - absolutely and with extreme prejudice, is the concept of a Christian God.

The God described in the Bible is irrational and contradictory. He falls totally flat from the get-go, especially with things like the concept of good and evil, or the Christian God being ‘good’ but letting bad things happen.

The tsunami killed millions for no good reason. If ‘God’ is the ultimate power, who controls everything, why did he decide to do that?

How the word was created is a mystery, and while I definitely lean towards atheist rather than agnostic, a deity could exist. However, I firmly refuse to believe in the Christian God. He seems so hypocritical. So false. So wrong.

I mean, what’s up with the Book of Job? God made the man’s life a total misery to prove a point to Satan? To win an arguement? That makes God an enormous... Well, I won't say what it makes God, at the risk of offending one of my readers. Let's just say that it doesn't make God a very nice man at all.

And I don’t like the idea of original sin. When I look at my sleeping son, he looks so sweet and innocent and I hate the concept of a religion that’s condemning him to hell until he’s baptized and grows up to accept Jesus Christ as his savior. I mean, the Bible says we have free will, but it’s not exactly free will when the deal is: ‘Accept Christ or go to hell.’ That’s not free will at all! It's slavery!

So just to clarify, my athiest pretentions are more theological in nature than philosophical. Believing in science and reason might answer more questions can Christianity ever could - but the big ones still remain unanswered.

Innocence and Slavery

In the face of imminent fatherhood, I guess it's only natural that you pay more attention to kids you run into on a day-to-day basis. It's quite amusing. Kids seem a lot smarter than they look. Certainly smarter than their parents!

My nephew-in-law, for example, hurls whatever he's given out of his hand. 'Mom' hands him a bottle and crash! Down it goes onto the floor. 'Mom' obediently picks it up and hands it back to the grinning baby and crash! Down it goes again, waiting for her to return it.

The cheeky little devil is playing 'fetch' with her, as if she was a dog!

It certainly dispels the myth of kids being 'innocent' (since I believe they're cunning and devious little bundles.)

But 'innocence' is an interesting concept when it comes to kids - and one that troubles me.

Of course, kids are innocent. They're born knowing nothing - and the way they see the world is shaped by their parents from day one. Nature versus nurture is an ongoing debate, but nobody can argue that a parent has enormous responsibility in helping create the person baby grows up to be.

Yet Christians believe that nobody is 'born innocent.' They believe in the myth of 'Original Sin,' which means newborns are automatically cursed with the sin of Adam and Eve, who disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and were suitably punished (along with all of their descendants - basically all of mankind.)

I think this is a HORRIBLE concept. For Christians, as soon as they're old enough to talk and listen, they're taught that they're somehow dirty and wrong and their whole lives are shaped by this reinforced sense of inadequacy.

It's clearly true... It seems everybody I know who was raised as a Christian is riddled with neurosis (myself included.) The ideas of 'Catholic guilt' and 'Protestant sensibilities' must stem from somewhere!

I think the reason politically-minded conservative Christians spend so much time trying to alter other people's behaviour (ban pornography! Homosexuality is a sin!) is because they're constantly fighting an inner battle between their own natural instincts and the rigid morality enforced by the church.

Kids are taught that they are wrong and the only way to find salvation and be 'fixed' is to submit yourself entirely to Jesus. Only by subjugating yourself to him will you avoid burning in hell.

And THAT'S the bit that really troubles me.

You can live a sin-free life, remaining virginal and chaste, honest and kind, sober and pure, yet none of that's good enough to get yourself into heaven. Only subjugation to Jesus counts.

Which leads you to the impossible situation of 'bad' people, who drank and gambled and led sinful lives full of sex, drugs, pornography and rock 'n roll, being just as eligible for entry into heaven as the 'pure' man.

Sign on the dotted line, pledge your drug-raddled body to Jesus and all those years of sin (and fun) are forgotten. In fact, if you read The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) you'll see that a life of sin can be a fast-track route to salvation while the 'pure and chaste' route largely goes unrewarded!

As the elder son (the non-prodigal one) complained: "Lo, these many years have I served thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment; and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this thy son was come who hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf."

Basically: "I was a good son and I got bumpkiss for it. My badly-behaved brother slinks back home and you treat him like royalty."

I never did understand that story (which, like The Book of Job, seems only to illustrate that God could be an enormous dick when it came to his faithful followers.)

[Did you have a point? Editorial Bear]

I did indeed have a point.

This is all rubbish! It's one of the concepts of Christianity (like the existence of evil and bad things happening) that make no sense whatsoever.

Making Sense of It All

One of the most troubling aspects of Christianity (for Christians, that is) is how to explain how bad things are allowed to happen, which is where the whole (entirely inadequate) explanation of 'free will' comes into the equation.

The purpose of the early church was not to make people believe in God and live pure and chaste lives. It was to get 'bums in pews' and have the collection plate overflowing with donations (hence why the Catholic Church remains one of the richest organisations in the world.)

In order to 'convince' [blackmail - Editorial Bear] people into following the church, they cleverly created the concept of Original Sin so that people would be required to subjugate themselves to Jesus even if they lived pure and totally blameless lives.

'You're born wrong!' the church says, 'and your only hope for salvation is Christ.'

When it's 'God's Way or the High Way [To eternal torment - Editorial Bear]' it doesn't seem like there's too much 'free will' in there at all! It's slavery, pure and simple.

.

Oh well. What can you do. As more and more of the vagaries and inconsistencies that riddle Christianity are pointed out to me, the more astounded I am that believers fight so enthusiastically to rationalize them.

.

But I still 'tut tut' at parents letting their kids run around naked, or other 'inappropriate' behaviour, so I guess I'm still just as brainwashed by the Church's moral rectitude as the rest of them.

If nothing else, my theories on Original Sin make a brilliant idea for a fantasy screenplay. How about an adaption of The God Delusion, along the same vein as the Da Vinci Code? [Hokey and melodramatic? Seems like it'll suit the source material - Editorial Bear]

**adopts deep and booming 'trailer' voice...**

For centuries, the people of planet Earth have been cursed by a cruel and vengeful God.

Born condemned to an eternity of torture, only slavery to their undead zombie master* can spare them. Until one day, a hero emerged to lead the enslaved to freedom...

His name was Ricardo Dawkins... and he exposed 'The God Delusion.'

The God Delusion
Coming to Cinemas 2010.

Starring:

Arnold Schwarzenegger as Richard 'Ricardo' Dawkins

Jeremy Irons as Undead Zombie Jesus

Tom Wilkinson as Pat Robertson

Anne Hathaway as Repressed Virgin

.

.

.

.

.
*that's Jesus, who I guess was technically 'undead' or a 'zombie' when he arose from the dead

It's days like this that make me hate Christianity...

WARNING: I realise that some of my readers are Christians. Therefore, to put this angry post into context, you might want to read about my loss of faith, which explains my angry and occasionally bitter position on religion.

Myanmar believes 4,000 die in cyclone

By Aung Hla Tun Reuters - 24 minutes ago

YANGON (Reuters) - Myanmar's military junta believes at least 4,000 people died in a cyclone that ripped through the Irrawaddy delta, triggering a massive international aid response for the pariah southeast Asian nation. Full story here.

4,000 people dead in what used to be Burma (I think they call in Myanmar these days.)

4,000 people! In the space of a few hours! All from a single 'Act of God' that tore through Irrawaddy delta leaving a trail of wreckage and corpses in it's wake.

4,000 is the official casualty figure, but it's climbing all the time. Conservative estimates put the actual death toll at closer to 10,000.

It's days like this that I pray God doesn't exist - because if he did, how could something like this happen? If God existed, he'd be at worst a mass murderer - at best a criminally negligent landlord. Events like this are simply incompatible with the feel good crap Christians try to spoon feed us.

I mean, what's the Christian take on the events in Burma?

I remember in the days following the Tsunami how a Christian friend of mine was trying to explain that hardly any of the 250,000 South East Asians who'd been killed would go to heaven 'because most of them are Muslim.'

Apparently you have to accept Jesus Christ before you get a pass to heaven, so the quarter of a million God wiped out that Christmas morning lost not only their lives, but were condemned to eternal damnation.

Nice stuff, this Christianity.

But even the specific technicalities of Christian 'lore' fade into insignificance when you look at the big picture. How could God even let this happen?

In the Bible, terrible events normally happen for the reason. The great flood was a 'cleansing' that either wiped out the 'bad men' or, if you read some of the more juicy Catholic texts, eliminated the 'Nephilum' who were the offspring of Angels and humans.

If the Tsunami or the cyclone in Myanmar happened for a reason, what was it?

And whatever the supposed 'reason,' how can a 'loving' God coolly eliminate thousands of his children - even for some supposed indiscretion. It doesn't sound like a loving God to me - more like a vengeful, petty, brutal mass murderer. Mind you, that's how he acted in the Old Testament.

I will never understand how a Christian can witness events like these and not doubt their faith. In fact, I'm surprised how anybody who lives on Earth can still believe God is kind and loving. The cyclone in Myanmar was a more epic 'Act of God' than most, but the negligent and criminal acts God condones occur each and every day in plain sight.

A church going, God-fearing family who find out that one of them has terminal cancer. A random fire wiping out a family's uninsured home, leaving them penniless. One I witnessed myself - a regular church-goer paralysed after an accident on a trampoline, unable to move and throwing his family into poverty and uncertainty.

Surely these events are just The book of Job, reenacted by the Lord's faithful servants all across the world, each and every day.

If this is how God rewards his 'faithful,' I'm pleased I rejected such a concept. Servitude to 'God' is servitude to a petty, cruel and spiteful master who kills and condemns on a whim.

No, the only way life makes any sense is if there is no God.

If random tragedies like the thousands killed in Myanmar are just that - random tragedies. Random is easier to accept that some distorted 'message' from a celestial murderer who considers himself our 'moral authority.'

Why do Christians hate Gay People?

“Texas senator John Cornyn’s argument against gay marriage is: ‘If your neighbor marries a box turtle, it doesn’t affect your everyday life. But that doesn’t make it right.’ Now, I myself was not a psychology major, but after hearing that, I think it’s safe to assume that at one point or another, Senator Cornyn must have thought about making love to a box turtle.” Aziz Ansari, New York comedian.

Have you ever wondered why the fundamentalist Christian right-wing of America is so obsessed with gay people?

I mean, they're totally obsessed with homosexuality. It's one of the cornerstones of evangelical politics. It inspires more bile than pretty much anything else - and more bullshit. I recently read about a so-called 'Homosexual Agenda' on a right-wing site. It makes gay people sound more like the proponents of a 'new world order' than fellas who dig other fellas.

You've got to wonder where this obsession stems from. Personally, I believe it's all Freudian. After all, it's a commonly held belief that homophobia - which translates as fear, rather than hatred of gay people - often stems from a homophobic person's denial and repression of their own homosexual impulses.

Which makes sense when you take outspoken pastor Ted Haggard, who was voted one of the most influential evangelical preachers in the United States for his determined stance against gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

He once stated; "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly con­demned in the Scriptures." This was shortly before he was revealed to have been involved in a three-year long homosexual relationship with a male prostitute.

Or Paul Barnes, founder of Grace Chapel in Colorado. Despite preaching about how homosexuality was an unnatural sin condemned by scripture, he confessed in December 2006: "I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy. . . ."

It seems wherever you look, more and more outspoken critics of homosexuality are proving the stereotype right by admitting their own uncertain sexuality.

The Christian Position

If you ask a fundamentalist Christian why they hate gay people, you'll generally hear the same list of arguments.

1. It's unnatural.
2. It's unhealthy.
3. It's considered a sin by the scripture of the Bible.

That's what Christians CLAIM is the basis for their dislike of homosexuality and public acceptance of a gay lifestyle - things like gay marriage (or civil partnerships) and the right for gay people to adopt.

However, on even the briefest examination of their arguments, it's clear to see the Christian anti-homosexual agenda is simply riddled with holes.

Let's examine the arguments:

1: Homosexuality is unnatural.

I'm not sure what the criteria for 'unnatural' is, but homosexuality is rife in nature. National Geographic and Wikipedia have lists of literally hundreds of mammals who have been observed engaging in same-sex activity.

Bonobo monkeys are an excellent example, with 100% of researched animals involving themselves in homosexual or bisexual relationships with other Bonobo monkeys.

Considering that a record 1,500 species of animals have been recorded displaying homosexual behaviour, the argument that homosexuality isn't a normal, everyday part of nature's rich tapestry falls utterly flat.

Of course, some Christians refute this logical argument on the grounds that they believe mankind did not evolve from animals. If mankind is not evolved from monkeys, why should we emulate their behavior by tolerating homosexual behaviour in society?

This is a rather contradictory argument, however. If you're going to distance mankind from the animals from which we evolved (or not, depending on your beliefs) it's suddenly so much harder to claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural.'

Homosexuality is entirely natural in the wild, so in order to claim it's 'unnatural' in mankind is to hold humanity to a different standard than nature. In that case - who has the authority to argue that homosexuality is or isn't 'natural' in polite, civilized homosapien society?

Like most Christian arguments, it all circles back to the Good Book. Nature itself might not say that homosexuality is 'unnatural,' but the Bible apparently does. In that regard, the Christian right-wing has already surrendered this first position against homosexuality by falling back on their third argument.

2. It's unhealthy.

Mike Huckabee, the most conservative Republican candidate for the White House, proudly declared: "Homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

He's talking, of course, about AIDS.

When AIDS and HIV first arrived on the scene, in the early eighties, it was often thought of as a 'gay' disease. It ran rampant through the gay community in the United States and while the heterosexual infection rate is now higher than amongst the gay community, it's still a disease that's often considered part of the homosexual lifestyle.

The fact that AIDS is still a hotly discussed issue within the gay community encourages conservatives to argue that it's proof that homosexuality is an unhealthy and unnatural lifestyle. Condoning homosexuality, as far as they're concerned, puts everybody at risk from infection.

Certainly, in the early days of the AIDS crisis, this argument carried some weight. The heterosexual community was generally only exposed to AIDS and HIV when a blood-doner gave tainted blood (infecting the recipient) or a man on the 'Down Low' maintained heterosexual relationships while at the same time engaging in clandestine homosexual encounters.

With much more being known about AIDS and HIV these days, those risks are reduced. Blood screening has practically eliminated the risk of infection via transfusion and a growing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle has reduced the number of men who feel pressured to repress their natural inclinations and live 'double lives' (except in the religious community, examples being Ted Haggard and Paul Barnes.)

These days, it's fairly clear that the major infection risk somebody with AIDS poses is if you sleep with them. This makes the fervent outbursts of Ted Haggard that much more duplicitous. When he was preaching about the health risks of homosexuality and what a risk it posed to the community, it was clearly because he was exposing himself to that risk and he was scared.

The Christian condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle actually exposes more people to risk. As Barnes and Haggard illustrate, men who feel pressured to hide their true sexuality often maintain heterosexual relationships in public and have homosexual encounters in private.

Religion prevents these men being able to live their desired lifestyle - and in maintaining a straight 'front' they're exposing their wives to the very same health risks they protest against.

3: It's considered a sin by the scripture of the Bible.

This is where the Christian argument falls back to during every engagement. The Bible apparently says that homosexuality is a sin - and therefore should not be condoned.

While the scriptural argument might be the cornerstone of the Christian position on homosexuality, it's not a very good one. Even before you actually examine the evidence contained within the Bible, you have to consider a very important question:

The Bible apparently says that homosexuality is a sin. But so what?

UnAmerican

Because America is not a Christian society. Sure, the United States might have been founded on Christian principles, but at least two of the founding fathers were confirmed atheists and since the foundation of America, the demographic has broadened to include Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Seiks and Muslims.

What unifies the people of America is not the Bible, but the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - and they say nothing on the subject of homosexuality.

In fact, the first line of the Declaration of Independence is:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

During the Civil Rights movement, the right of a person to have a consensual, monogamous, long term relationship with another human being was constitutionally protected by 'the pursuit of happiness' in the 1967 Supreme Court Case Loving vs. Virgina. In that case, it was an interracial relationship - but the precedent was set.

Christians can legitimately argue that the word 'marriage' refers only to a man and a women. But allowing two people of the same gender to have an officially mandated civil partnership with each other - offering the same protections, benefits and standing as a heterosexual marriage - is quite clearly the constitutional right of every American couple who decide to live that way.

If a Christian believes their values are truly in conflict with the Constitution, they have to ask themselves: Which are you? A Christian or an American?

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive - but many fundamentalist Christians choose to make them that way. It's evident in the political positions they take regarding homosexuality.

Fundamentalist Christians either want to appoint right-wing, conservative Supreme Court Justices who will ignore the precedent set by Loving vs. Virginia, or they lobby to change to Constitution itself to include the rule that marriage is 'between a man and a woman.'

The fact that the Christian right wing cannot support their own position without manipulating or amending the Constitution illustrates just how conflicted it is with the spirit of American society.

Inaccurate

But moving on, it's time to examine the Bible itself and see exactly what it says about homosexuality.

Now I've often found discussing such issues with fundamentalist Christians to be difficult. As far as many Christians are concerned, they know the Bible better than any non-believer and often dismiss any notion of discussing the subject with somebody who hasn't already taken their blinkered position on the subject.

But that's just an arrogant statement - and incorrect. For one thing, the ability to quote every line of the Good News Bible does not make you a Biblical scholar. Most fundamentalist Christians are only familiar with the Bible they use in Church and in Bible study. They argue that this is the entirely accurate, heavenly inspired Word of God.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

But it's not. It's a very long way away from that.

The Good News Bible or King James Bible is merely an English translation of a Biblical anthology. It MUST be considered as such. If anybody has learned a second language and done translation work, they must know that there are several different ways of translating something and to believe that any English-language translation of the Bible is 100% accurate is to assume that the original translators were as divinely blessed as the Bible's original authors.

Take some of the translation problems Biblical scholars encounter. In one example, in Matthew 5:22, the Revised Standard Bible says Jesus warns people: "Whoever insults his brother, he must answer for it in court."

The King James Bible translates this somewhat more closely to the original Koine Greek text, which comes out as: "That whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Racha, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

The King James Bible used the word 'Racha' as one of the insults Jesus warns against using. At that time, no translation for the word could be found - so the term was left untranslated. However, a more recent study of ancient Hebrew and contemporary Greek indicates that the word 'Racha. was synonymous with the Hebrew term "rakh" - which indicates a man of weak, effeminate and homosexual appearance. Historian Warren Johansson equated to the common anti-gay slur 'faggot.'

So therefore, in the original Matthew 5:22, Jesus warns his followers not to make fun of men of effeminate or gay appearance. He specifically uses that term. Hardly supporting the traditional anti-gay position Christians take, is it?

The Christian Argument

When it comes to scriptural evidence condemning homosexuality, Christians are largely wise enough to ignore the Old Testament. Although the Old Testament position on homosexuality was explicit - so were positions on a variety of other things, which are incompatible with a modern Christian lifestyle.

For example, Leviticus 18:22 says: “And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination."

However, according to Leviticus, it is an equal 'abomination' to eat shellfish, pork or rabbit, so considering even fundamentalist Christians enjoy a good pork chop or shrimp cocktail, you can't base an argument against homosexuality on Leviticus. That would just be hypocritical.

Instead, Christians argue that the New Testament provides ample evidence that Christianity condemns homosexuality. Although this isn't entirely accurate.

In actual fact, there are only two explicit references to homosexuality in the New Testament, both appearing in the Pauline epistles.

That in itself is interesting. Paul the Apostle did not actually know Jesus. He didn't actually know anybody who knew Jesus. In fact, he claims to have received the Gospel from a vision of the resurrected Jesus while traveling on the road to Damascus.

Therefore, even assuming the translations of Pauline epistles appearing in the King James Bible or Good News Bible are remotely close to the original texts, it's worth noting that by historical standards, Paul's gospel is anecdotal at best.

In Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 , Paul wrote:

"Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul says:

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There are two major issues with accepting these two references to homosexuality as absolute proof that it was condemned in the Bible.

First off, it was Paul speaking, not Jesus. Paul the Apostle is not God. Paul the Apostle is not Jesus. In fact, Paul hadn't even met Jesus. Therefore, it seems entirely contradictory to base a scriptural argument against homosexuality purely on the words of a man other than Jesus.

Especially since the only reference Jesus himself made about homosexuality in the entire New Testament was to condemn people who insult men who were 'Racha' or seemingly homosexual.

Apart from that, Jesus doesn't say a thing about homosexuality - and considering just how important the issue is amongst modern-day fundamentalist Christians, I find it very troubling that the spokesman of their entire religion had nothing to say on the subject.

Secondly, Paul's comments are in themselves contradictory to the Christian faith. The basic philosophy of Christianity is that anybody can inherit the Kingdom of God as long as they accept Jesus. Absolutely anybody regardless of the sins they have committed.

Evidence of this comes from a far more accurate source than Paul's epistles. Both Luke and Matthew recount the last hours of Jesus' life, in which he spoke to two thieves crucified to the left and right of him by the Romans.

The 'Good Thief' accepted being crucified; "for we receive the due reward of our deeds." But he recognized Jesus as the son of God and asked: "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Jesus responded: "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:39-43.

And THAT'S the basis of Christianity. That anybody - regardless of what they've done throughout their life - will be welcomed into heaven as long as they accept Jesus.

So when Paul pompously argues that gays and drunkards won't 'inherit the Kingdom of God' then he's contradicting none other than Jesus himself. I personally believe Paul is arrogantly pontificating his own beliefs using Jesus' name to give himself credibility.

After all, if you believe Corinthians 6:9-10 condemns homosexuality, it also equally condemns drunkenness, talking about somebody behind their back and even obesity (...nor the greedy...)

And anybody who's spent any time around fundamentalist Christians will realize that excommunicating all two-faced gossipers would leave the Churches pretty empty.

The Pauline epistles are simply flawed - from both a historical and a scriptural basis. Therefore, inarguably, using them as evidence in the argument against homosexuality leaves that position equally flawed. Jesus never condemned homosexuality. That's a fact, documented beyond any reasonable doubt within the Bible.

Let's Get Real

Having examined the flaws in the fundamentalist position, it's worth taking a step back at looking at the big picture. The anti-gay argument is seriously flawed. Only in the narrowest, most blinkered interpretation of scripture is it possible to determine that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible (although not by Jesus himself.)

That raises the question: Why are fundamentalist Christians SO vehemently opposed to accepting homosexuality?

I believe the answer to that one lies in recent history.

Man & Woman?

Currently, the major sticking point Christians are unwilling to budge on is the subject of gay marriage. Not just the term 'marriage,' but the idea of offering same-sex couples in committed relationships the same legal protection married couples have.

It's rather alarming to look back just forty years to see a similar position being upheld in the southern United States - protesting marriage between the races.

During the first half of the 20th century, all across the United States, there were laws enacted to separate black people from white. They went to different schools, rode different buses and even drank out of different water fountains. Top of the list of 'racial crimes' was an interracial marriage between a white person and a black one.

In 1967, Loving vs. Virginia was a hotly contested court case that saw a black woman marry a white man in the District of Columbia (as was allowed in the American capital.) When the married couple moved back to their home state of Virginia, a grand jury issued an indictment against the couple as they'd married in violation of Virginia's segregation laws.

On sentencing the couple, the judge announced the following:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Note the opening words: 'Almighty God.'

Just like in the argument against gay marriage, it's the Lord's name used (taken in vain) and it's apparently his will that blacks and whites be separated.

But the Lovings did not capitulate - and the court case reached the Supreme Court - the highest court in all of America. Nearly ten years after their original indictment, the Lovings were allowed to remain married, on the grounds that Virginia's segregation laws were unconstitutional and "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."

Chief Justice Warren explained his ruling:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Note that the gender of the 'person' a man is free to marry is never mentioned. Some people argue it's implied - but other people logically argue that the only requirements to marry is mutual consent by both parties (rendering senator John Cornyn’s 'box turtle' argument void, since a box turtle, or any animal, is incapable of offering informed consent to marry.)

Bigotry in Faith's Clothing

The alarming thing comparing Loving vs. Virginia to the modern day argument against gay marriage are the similarities. It seems like it's the same old cast, performing the same old script, just four decades later.

While certain Christians were instrumental in securing Civil Rights for African-Americans, the core support for racial segregation across the United States came from the majority of 'decent,' normal, Church-going Americans. The same people who are now protesting against gay marriage.

In fact, the scriptural arguments were quite similar, too - with the 'mark of Cain' often being interpreted as dark skin, thereby offering scriptural evidence to support the assumption that black people were spiritually inferior to whites.

Such scriptural interpretations were clearly just cynical attempts to hide racism and bigotry behind the legitimacy of religion. I honestly don't see how the Christian position on homosexuality is any different today.

It's quite clear that the most verbal opponents of gay rights aren't fighting against homosexual equality for any 'greater good' or 'higher calling.' They simply don't like gay people. They're scared of the effects 'gay' people will have on good, old-fashioned 'family values.'

But that's no different to white people in the 1950's being scared of the effect 'negro culture' would have on polite, white society - heralded by the arrival of 'rock & roll' music.

It doesn't necessarily mean the Church goers in the 1950's or the fundamentalist Christians of today are necessarily bad people. They're just not exposed to homosexual people in the same way those of us in urban areas are - and are therefore apprehensive about people they know nothing about (aside from whispered rumors and Church mandated anti-homosexual propaganda.)

This is why the anti-gay movement is much stronger in America's heartland than places like New York City or California. In New York, we know that the gay community wants nothing more than the basic civil liberties the 'heartland' of America was denying black people less than half a century ago.

The right to avoid discrimination. The legal protection of an officially recognized, consensual, monogamous, committed relationship. The right for certain aspects of 'gay history' like the Stonewall Riots to be recognized - just like important events in the history of the Civil Rights movement are recognized.

In protesting so vehemently against this, I'm worried the fundamentalist Christians are being enormously hypocritical. In the New Testament, Jesus certainly never said anything about homosexuality, so by putting his name behind a movement to repress and deny other human beings their basic human rights seems totally against everything Christianity is supposed to stand for.

"They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good." Titus 1:16

Abortion shouldn't be a political issue...

Over on CK's blog, he's gearing up for a month-long debate on an issue about which he feels very strongly. Abortion.

Totally unlike England, where the topic is wisely avoided, American politicians stake their political territory with their attitudes towards abortion.

No other social topic polorises the American people. CK himself admits that Democratic "financial and social policies would fly with most of the Christian right, but their stance on abortion forces them to vote predominately Republican."

It's a very thorny topic - so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.

When it comes to abortion, I have two positions.

1. I do think abortion is wrong.
2. I don't think abortion should be banned.

These two statements might seem to be contradictory, but they're not. You don't have to agree with or condone abortion to realise that it's a problem that won't be solved by some utterly ill-considered blanket ban.

A federal ban on abortion - which is what I'd imagine hard core conservatives like CK are calling for - is an utterly unrealistic, unconstitutional and downright stupid idea. And I'll tell you why.

Why Abortion is Wrong

When it comes to the morality of abortion, CK and I are on the same page.

It's really quite simple. When sperm and egg combine and create a viable zygote, a woman is considered 'pregnant.' That zygote soon becomes an embryo, a multicellular diploid eukaryote, which ideally imbeds itself in the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus.

Unless something's wrong with it (25% of all pregnancies end before 13 weeks) or an accident happens, that bundle of cells will grow into a fetus and then be born as a baby. To all intents and purposes, new life begins at the moment of conception.

An abortion terminates that pregnancy - and snuffs out that potential new life before it even has a chance to begin. While the pro-choice advocates try to shuffle around the cold hard reality of it, it's really as simple as that. An abortion stops a beating heart.

Advances in science mean a premature baby can be kept alive earlier and earlier now. On the other end of the spectrum, scientists can create embryos and grow them in test tubes and could, theoretically, produce babies entirely independently of a human womb. So you can't really gloss over what abortion actually is.

Now I have a robust attitude towards life and death, growing up on a farm and being a firm advocate of meat-eating and huntin' and fishin' and all the animal-slaughtering resultant therein. However, I also believe that if you're grown up enough to let your eggs and your sperm get within touching distance of each other, you're grown up enough to deal with the consequences.

I personally consider the 'pro-choice' decision to be no decision at all.

Why an Abortion Ban is wrong...

Despite that being my personal take on the abortion issue, I am strongly opposed to the Republican demand for a federal ban on abortions - or giving individual states the right to ban the procedure. There are several reasons for this.

An Abortion Ban won't End Abortion

Remember prohibition, anyone?

The abortionist is probably the world's second oldest profession - probably stemming from a need generated by the first! Throughout recorded history there have always been abortions and doubtless, there always will be in the future.

From medicine women giving herbs and tinctures to induce miscarriage, to midwives with coat-hangers doing a side business 'helping' careless girls - the history of abortion is pretty much as long as the history of civilisation.

Abortion has only been legal for the last half century - yet it was a flourishing business in America long before then. Frank Sinatra's mother, Dolly, used to perform abortions in pre-war Hoboken.

The simple fact is, as long as there is a demand for abortions, there will be people willing to supply them - legally or illegally. Last year, there were 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States alone. Conservatives who imagine a ban will end them overnight are delusional.

At least legal abortions are performed by licenced physicians in clean, clinical conditions. A woman visiting an abortion clinic is offered counseling to ensure she's fully aware of the ramifications of the decision she's making. As it is presently, woman having abortions are at least offered a safe environment in which to do so.

If conservatives successfully overturn Roe vs. Wade - the Supreme Court ruling that declared abortion a constitutionally protected right - the abortion industry would simply go underground.

1.2 million women every single year seek abortions. The vast majority of them would continue to do so even if abortion was made illegal. They only difference is, they'd have them performed by unlicenced physicians, in unsanitary conditions - without any form of accountability.

History has shown that illegally performed abortions have a very high rate of infection, injury and death. If conservatives overturned the ban on abortions, they wouldn't save the lives of 'all' the babies. They'd just add a large number of young women to the death toll.

This is the number one reason why a ban on abortion is stupid. You don't have to like abortion - but you do have to accept the reality of the situation.

It's the conservatives' fault...

Abortion 'friendly' England is famed for it's high rate of teenage pregnancy. However, it's interesting to note that the real figures for unplanned teenage pregnancy are actually much higher in the United States - more than double.

Head down south to Texas and that percentage rate shoots up to be more than three times the figure in England - almost sixty girls out of a thousand wind up pregnant. Statistically, that means a higher percentage girls are having abortions in Texas too.

And why? Well, ironically, it's the fault of the same people calling for an abortion ban! Conservative policies are often to blame for unplanned pregnancies in the first place!

Take, for example, sex education. In modern society - with depictions of sexually active teenagers all over the television and movie screens - it's an accepted fact that youngsters are going to sexually experiment.

Yet abortion-hating conservatives also demand that teenagers are given 'abstinence only' sexual education. They're not told about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases or condoms. Instead, the conservatives believe teenagers should simply be instructed to 'keep it in their pants' until the day they walk down the aisle.

Yet mountains of research has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that abstinence only sexual education does not work. Kids are just as likely to be sexually active after receiving abstinence only sexual education as kids who were taught about the 'bells and whistles' of responsible sex.

The only difference is that 'abstinence only' kids don't use protection.

How conservatives could ever imagine that abstinence only sexual education works is beyond me. The only thing I do understand is that this policy directly contributes to unplanned pregnancies.

Conservatives are a driving force behind the demand for abortions.

I'll tell you what to do, but I sure ain't helping...

Another way in which conservative policies directly contribute to the number of abortions performed in America regards their attitudes towards welfare.

In England, 17% of all pregnancies are terminated. In the United States, that figure is 22%. Why is the figure so much higher in America, where 50% of the population is supposedly against abortion?

The answer is easy - and directly linked to the number one reason why women have abortions. "I can't support a baby right now."

Britain's 'nanny state' policies reward single teenage mothers. Having a baby means a council house, welfare cheque and child support. For many teenage girls in lower class parts of the country, having a baby is seen as career choice. Women are 'set for life' if they knock out a couple of sprogs by age 20.

It's not an admirable policy - but it explains why more women in Britain are willing to follow their pregnancy through than in America.

Because rightly or wrong, America has a considerably smaller welfare system and the state is not going to be there to support every single mother. An unplanned pregnancy often means a woman simply can't support herself or her new baby - driving women towards having abortions simply because they have no other choice.

And ironically, it's conservative policies that drive this demand for abortions. The Republican's are the party of 'small government' in which Americans are expected to fend for themselves in matters of welfare and healthcare.

Republicans angrily insist that pregnant women carry their pregnancies to term - but then refuse to support them when they do. It's utterly contradictory and hypocritical. The pro-life conservatives cry that 'all life is sacred' as long as it's not their life and they're not expected to pay for it.

I'm not saying it's a good idea - I myself have conservative financial values - but if the conservatives REALLY wanted to reduce the number of women having abortions, they'd be there to offer them support. If a woman is driven to an abortion clinic because she 'can't support a baby,' a true pro-life campaigner would reach into their pocket and pay the rent cheque and grocery bill that this new mother can't.

But, of course, that's not how most conservatives think. They limit their appraisal of abortion to moral condemnation and angry jundgementalism. They never think of the consequences of their actions.

1.2 Million Served...

Zooming out and looking at the big picture, there are some other serious ramifications behind a conservative call for a blanket ban on abortions.

Last year, 1.2 million women had an abortion. Imagine, for a second, the inconceivable notion of 1.2 million women with unplanned pregnancies actually carrying them to term every single year!

Right now, the conservatives are bitching about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country every year. Imagine what would happen if a group as large as the population of Dallas, Texas turned up in our maternity wards as well?

Constitutional Hypocrisy

Let's not forget the possibly most important reason why a ban on abortion is an idiotic idea. Because the Supreme Court - the highest court of law in the United States - said a ban on abortion is fundamentally unconstitutional.

According to the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, banning abortions violates the Fourteenth Amendment. That ruling means that no state or national legislative body can ban abortions. You don't have to like it, but it's the law.

Conservatives who oppose abortion want to elect a president who will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court - and hope that one of them will overrule Roe vs. Wade. There's nothing like bypassing the democratic process when you've got an axe to grind, eh?

Let's not beat around the (George) Bush. It's very clearly established in the Constitution that judges are not supposed to legislate from the benches. Making laws is the job of Congress and the Senate - and those laws must fit within the confines of the Constitution.

If conservatives want to pass a law banning abortions, they're damn well going to have to do it through the legislative, facing the scrutiny of this nation's elected representatives. Screwing around with Supreme Court is unconstitutional and unAmerican.

Conservatives may decry people burning the American flag, but apparently they're more than willing to stomp all over it to get what they want.

Just plain dumb...

And, finally, there's just the very unlikable face of the pro-life conservative movement, who undermine the morality of their argument each and every day with offensive and hypocritical actions.

Life is sacred, say the conservatives. Yet fervant anti-abortionists shoot doctors dead outside abortion clinics. Conservatives still support the death penalty. The right wing only 'Support our Troops' as far as sending them abroad to be shot at by Islamic fundamentalists.

I really don't like being lectured about the sanctity of life by people whose hands are practically dripping with blood.

The Solution

It's not all bad news. There is hope for the conservatives and for a rational, practical campaign to eliminate the need for abortions. Those who are pro-life have to look at the big picture and decide which values are more important to them - and what they're willing to sacrifice to help stamp out the demand for abortions in the United States.

Because banning them won't work - but long term changes might.

There are two main keys to reducing the number of abortions - and hopefully setting a precedent that will see the demand for pregnancy termination practically reduced to zero.

• Adequate sex education for teenagers - so they know how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy if they're sexually active (and two out of three are.)
• Adequate resources for poor mothers - so if a woman finds herself pregnant, she doesn't need to worry about paying for a roof over her head or affording food and medical bills.

The downside, of course, is that conservatives are going to have to put up with higher taxes to pay for this - and they're going to have to get off their blinkered high horse about decent sex education.

Whether or not the average conservative is willing to make that sacrifice is a question I can't answer - but until they're willing to, women will still seek abortions (legally or not.)

Who's Evolved?

Brazil finds fossil of "missing link" to crocodile
Thu Jan 31, 12:30 PM ET

RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) - Brazilian paleontologists said on Thursday they had found the fossil of a new species of prehistoric predator that represented a "missing link" to modern-day crocodiles.

The well-preserved fossil of Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi, a medium-sized lizard-like predator measuring about 5 1/2 feet (1.7 meters) from head to tail, dates back about 80 million years to the Late Cretaceous period.

"This is scientifically important because the specimen literally is the link between more primitive crocodiles that lived in the era of the dinosaurs 80-85 million years ago and modern species."

And yet creationists are still insisting the world is only 7,000 years old. Presumably this Brazilian behemoth was just a normal crocodile that ate too much.

Really, in the face of a daily onslaught of credible evidence, a refusal to even consider the scientific facts proves that fundementalist Christians aren't evolving at all.

Which doesn't bode well for them. Look what happened to homo neanderthalensis.

Waiting for Dog

Although rarely the focus of it, religion had always been part of my life.

Although I hardly remember him, my grandfather was a Church of England vicar - and a very good one from what I've heard. The sort of man who sacrificed a lot for the sake of his 'flock' and was an advisor, friend and mentor to his parishioners as much as their spirtual leader.

At school, I was one of the last generation of kids who said prayers and sang hymns at assembly. In Autumn, we'd go to Harvest Festival at the local church. We sang religious Christmas Carols to our parents at the end of the year.

I attended St David's University College, in Lampeter. It was originally founded by Cambridge as a theological university for aspiring priests. Many of my friends later went on to a career in the Church of England.

Although I'd never been a regular church goer, I fell heavily for an aspiring priest (priestess?) while I was there and used to obediantly follow her to chapel several times a week.

I left university and the years of indoctrination did their trick. Although I didn't regularly attend church, I still considered myself a Christian. As a history major, I tempered my consideration of the Bible with my knowledge of historical fact (something some Christians are unwilling to do) but I still believed in the big, general idea of Christianity.

I talked to God. A lot. And I never asked him for anything except the strength or motivation to achieve my goals or make it through troubling periods of my life.

When I finally met my wife, my religious convictions (however little conviction I had in them) were at least part of the reason why she considered me valid matrimonial material. She is a deeply spiritual Catholic. I don't believe she'd have married somebody who didn't at least believe in God. She often asked me if I prayed (I never liked the term 'pray.' I talked to God, like you would a friend, older brother, father or boss.)

As such, things continued more or less smoothly for the first four years of our marriage - until something that might seem to be utterly insignificant utterly shattered my beliefs.

Meaningless

On July 15th of last year, my wife's little cat Ava got hit by a car. She died in my wife's arms as we zoomed off to the local animal hospital. It was just once - and just for a second - but as Ava passed away my wife let out the most heart wrenching sob. It still brings tears to my eyes when I remember hearing it.

Some people may scoff, since Ava was 'just' a cat - but when Ava passed away I remember being filled to overflowing with hot, bubbling anger. I was utterly, hatefully furious with this 'God' who I had believed in and trusted.

Ava passing away didn't shake my wife's beliefs, but it completely destroyed mine. For a while, I still believed in God. I still believed in the 'facts' of Chrisianity. They just stopped making sense to me. Every single day, I observed more and more things about 'Christianity' that seemed disgustingly hypocritical or desperately absurd.

I listened to Christians try to explain to why a 'good' God (who grants rewards to his faithful subjects) would allow bad things to happen. And the more I heard the excuses, the justifications and the fantasies, the more they made my skin crawl. Try reading this disgusting piece of tripe.

It was only after a conversation with my father, during which we discussed history, the Bible and faith through the ages, that the penny dropped. I realised that the way the real world operated was quite simply incompatible with the fantasy of Christianity.

I didn't need to keep asking myself why, or waste anger on a deaf, dumb and blind God who only existed in the prayers I'd previously made to him. I looked up to the heavens and instead of seeing The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost, I saw twinkling stars - flaming balls of gas burning millions of miles away.

I realised God didn't exist - and it was one of the most liberating spiritual experiences of my life.

I even stopped being angry about Ava. Her being hit by that car wasn't down to the negligence of some careless, patriarchial diety. It was just an accident. It meant I could finally just let it go and be sad for the little cat, instead of holding her inside me like a big ball of angry fire.

And remarkably, as soon as I slipped free from the shackles of faith, the world started to make more sense. The beliefs I'd had in this 'God' were soon replaced by an embrace of rationalism. Facts and science and history offered answers to things that Christianity never had.

I felt empowered. I'd previously thanked 'God' for the good fortune I'd had achieving my dreams, like moving to America. Once I'd stepped free from religion's shadow, I realised that the people I needed to thank were my parents, my mentors, my wife, my friends and even, to a larger extent than I'd ever thought before, myself.

And I had hope. Because if achieving dreams was down to hard work and luck, rather than the whim of the 'Holy Father,' I could play the odds and take my chances. If I won - fantastic! If I lost, I'd know it was down to bad luck or lack of skills or effort - instead of a cruel God punishing me for 'lustfully' checking out a girl on the subway or some other equally ridiculous 'sin.'

Morality was easy. Respect for my fellow man - and respect for the laws of the state of New Jersey - were all the moral guidance I needed. I no longer needed to feel guilty for a litany of meaningless 'sins' invented by a repressive religious regime.

I walked away from God and it was one of the best decisions of my life. Never before have I felt so alive. Never before has the world made so much sense to me. I have experienced 'enlightenment' and embraced my new destiny as a Born Again Athiest.

But the problem?

While I have undergone this spiritual awakening, my wife is still devoutly Catholic. She would be horrified to know that I have utterly lost my 'faith.' I feel bad about it - but it's not like I have any choice in the matter. It just 'clicked' and nothing's ever made so much sense to me before. I can't go back to believing in God any more, just as I'm sure no devout Christian could just 'decide' to become an athiest.

But I keep my beliefs to myself - and I am still entirely respectful of what she chooses to believe.

Jesus is Still my Homeboy

It's important to note that a lack of Christian belief doesn't mean I've stopped believing in the Bible. The Bible - at least parts of it - contain documented historical fact.

Werner Keller's amazing book The Bible as History is an excellent starting point. Although the archeological material is quite dated now (most of it pre-dates the 1930's) the facts are clear. Many of the 'stories' of the Bible are actually based on real events from that period of history.

Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, for example. In 1996, William Ryan and Walter Pitman, geologists from Columbia University, published evidence of an immense flood of the Black Sea in 5600BC (matching the dating in the Bible) which could well have served as the the basis for the myth of The Great Flood. For almost a full year, ten cubic MILES of seawater flooded farmland around the Black Sea nearly every single day.

Considering so much of the Bible contains nods to actual historical events, it's entirely logical to believe that some of the stories have some basis of truth to them. Which means the teachings of a humble carpenter from Nazereth are a philosophy that can't be disregarded as easily as the fantasy of an 'all powerful' cat-murdering God.

Angry.

I am no longer angry at God - because I might as well be angry at Winnie the Pooh or Captain Ahab. I might as well be angry at a cup of coffee for all the good it does.

But I am angry at a lot of Christians - especially since coming to America. I'm angry for all sorts of reasons. Some of these reasons are entirely selfish.

One of the things I detest most about 'hard core' Christians is them ramming their faith down my throat. Am I any better when I scoff and seeth at their wretched refusal to accept rationality and fact? Pride is a Christian sin, yet it took athiesm to make me humble in my beliefs.

I am still open to other beliefs because rationalism doesn't offer all the answers. For example, the concept of a 'higher power' delivering that inexplicable 'spark' which gave birth to all life on earth is entirely rational. Scientists can't quite explain how 'life' came from 'no life' and until they do, the idea of a mystical deity providing that spark is as difficult/easy to prove as any more 'rational' explanation.

What I can't stand - and what constitutes the 'faith' that I want to ram down the throat of pious Christians - is when they ignore irifutible, documented fact and instead chose to remain ignorant by sticking to dogma that's been proven time and time again to be utterly fantastical.

Like creation. For thousands of Christians, their 'God' can't be limited to rational scientific theory (the 'higher power' and the 'spark of life' theory.)

They declare that the world was created seven thousand years ago, when God made the heavens and the earth and made Adam from clay - creating Eve from his rib. It's exactly as it was laid out in the Bible.

WHICH IS RUBBISH! I mean, how can the world only be seven thousand years old when we have carbon dated human fossils dating back 130,000 years? Carbon dating is a pretty exact science. Christians who dispute carbon dating might as well dispute the existence of the light bulb, or Sweden.

Well, why not? They've never been there. They've only read about it in books. So there's no 'proof' that Sweden exists.

It's so utterly idiotic that it makes me swoon. The thought of a man like Mike Huckabee - who believes in the biblical story of creation - making it to the White House is utterly terryifying. What else does he not believe in?

Another perfect example is the story of Noah's Ark - I've mentioned it above.

You'd have thought the fundementalist Christians would be happy that history has given credibility to the overall story of the Bible. But NO.

They're not happy - because a flood in Europe isn't what the Bible says happened:

"Noah’s Flood was not a local flood in the Black Sea area," utterly retarded website Answers in Genesis declares, "but a world-wide flood that has left its mark on every continent on this planet."

Which it isn't - since you'd think we'd have noticed one of those.

I should try and restrain myself, because human beings have the right to believe whatever they want. No matter how stupid it is.

But whenever I hear a 'born again' Christian dismissively say: 'the world was created in seven days, just like it says in the Bible, and the theory of evolution is just a theory,' I still feel the urge to whack them around the chops and angrily expose them out as the blinkered idiot they clearly are.

But I can't do that. Because that's not very 'Christian' of me. It's ironic that popular use of the term 'Christian' signify acts of charity, generosity and respect - while 'real' Christians can often be incredibly disrespectful.

Take for example this letter, sent to the parents of Heath Ledger - the talented young actor who starred in Brokeback Mountain and passed away last week.

Stupidity and Hate

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle," says presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee. The Westboro Baptist Church is more concise. "God hates fags!"

Christianity is often used as a shield for people to say offensive things that would never be tolerated in secular society.

Lesbians and gays getting married hurts nobody. Homosexuality isn't a 'lifestyle choice' but a genetic trait that appears in animals as well as humans - yet fundementalist Christians try to change natural human behavior by manipulation, lies and emotional blackmail.

Why can't fundementalist Christians join polite society in embracing tolerance instead of hate? After all, if you read the Bible, that's what Jesus himself would do.

Jesus, whether he was a humble carpenter from Nazereth or the son of God made man, had a simple philosophy. Accept every man as your brother.

Until modern fundementalist Christians can actually follow the scripture of their prophet, it looks like we'll still be living in a country in which the most 'Christian' of people are liberal secularists.