Why good Evangelicals make lousy Americans

Read Professor Tom's rebuttal here.

That's right, kids. It's time to start beating your head against the table again. The inimitable Siger forwarded this article to me and it makes me want to stab myself in the head with staples:

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

By Anita Singh

Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. Full story here.

This is so astonishingly depressing. This wonderful nation was brought into being by some of the smartest men ever to breath - but two hundred years after the Founding Fathers left their democratic legacy, it seems the nation's taking a step backwards.

We don't teach our kids about the incontrovertible evidence of evolution because it offends our 'religious sensibilities.' We deny gay Americans their basic civil rights because it offends our 'religious sensibilities.' We're even arguing about giving health care to the poor because our 'religious sensibilities' apparently decry sharing our hard-earned buck with the less fortunate (I think Jesus actually preached the exact opposite.)

This driving demon of extreme evangelicalism is perhaps why America's slipped from its position as the world's most competitive economy. Maybe it's why we're the only industrialized nation in the world without universal health care. Perhaps fundamentalism is why India and China are beginning to eclipse us economically.

This obsession with medieval thinking is, just maybe, the reason why the rest of the developed world is marching inexorably forward and we're stuck resolutely where we were.

What happens to a nation which embraces extremist religion over science, humanism and reason? It becomes a hell-hole like Iran or Afghanistan. What happens to people who believe extremist religion trumps education? They become progressively more stupid as each new generation forgets what the prior generation learned.

The problem isn't Christianity - because Evangelicalism no longer even remotely resembles Christianity. The message Jesus Christ spread was simply to love your brother, something we're increasingly reluctant to do because loving your brother sounds suspiciously like 'socialism.'

Words just fail me. However much I rant, it seems impossible to adequately communicate my deep-rooted frustration with the 80 million or so Americans who believe their God-given purpose is to dismantle everything good, bright, right and sacred about this wonderful country.

It strikes me you can be a Good (Evangelical) Christian, or a Good American. I'm just increasingly losing faith that you can be both.

Evangelical Brainwashing FTW

FINDLAY, Ohio – A student at a fundamentalist Baptist school that forbids dancing, rock music, hand-holding and kissing will be suspended if he takes his girlfriend to her public high school prom, his principal said. Story here.

Honestly, where exactly in the Bible does it say that kissing, hand-holding or rock music is a sin? Where on Earth do these insane people come up with their cult-like absurdities?

Despite the warning, 17-year-old Tyler Frost plans to attend Findlay High School's prom on Saturday. The teen will be suspended from classes and receive an "incomplete" on remaining assignments.

I think you have to deeply question the thought process involved in sending your child to a school like this one. In this day and age, exposing a teenager to this kind of mindless, soulless brainwashing must surely be classified as child abuse.

Je-bus: Money well spent?

Traditionally, Evangelicalism hasn't done very well in Britain. In addition to having a fairly progressive state religion (The Church of England) Brits aren't generally programmed to go in for all that 'happy clappy' claptrap or join the 'praise Jesus!' crowd.

However, in recent years, that has been changing. The resurgence of the Evangelical cult in America has emboldened fundamentalist Christians in other countries, including England.

This campaign of disinformation is being fought on several fronts, including the teaching of Creationism in state schools (utterly despicable) and even a number of London buses emblazoned with Biblical quotes, such as: "When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:8)."


I find this troubling for several reasons - not least of which, because I'm pretty sure it's illegal (I worked in advertising for years and Britain's got some pretty strict rules about using religion in adverts.)

But the really objectionable bit is that these 'Je-buses' promote a link to a website which, when visited, warns people that: "You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his demonic spirits! (Matthew 25: 41)."

Now this is where it gets silly.

Guardian journalist Ariane Sherine (who I have developed a total crush on) was so enraged by these buses and their fire-and-brimstone messaging that she encouraged readers to donate money for a 'positive response' to the Evangelicals and their nonsense.

"If there are 4,680 atheists reading this," Sherine challenged in her column, "and we all contribute £5, it's possible that we can fund a much-needed atheist London bus ad with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life."

Sherine set up a 'Just Giving' account with a proposed target of £5,500 and - much to everybody's surprise - busted that target by an astonishing 2400%.

Richard Dawkins, the man behind the best-selling book 'The God Delusion' proudly launched the 'atheist bus' campaign, which rolled out on a whopping 800 buses nationwide, instead of just the original 30 Ariane Sherine had envisaged.


The campaign even went international, with buses in Spain and Washington D.C. running the slogan: "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake." The Australian advertising commission, funnily enough, rejected a similar atheist campaign.

Now, as somebody who has had it up to here with the misleading, offensive, bigoted, ignorant rubbish peddled by the mainstream Evangelicalism, you'd think I'd find the rise of the atheist buses to be heartwarming and affirming. However, I can't help but think they're an awful waste of money.

£135,000 was spent on the national "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life" campaign. God knows how much money was frittered away by the stupid Evangelicals on their original 'you're all going to hell' bus stickers in the first place.

That money could have gone to cancer research, finding a cure for AIDS or something else practical. Instead, we're using one of the most expensive, imprecise and immeasurable advertising mediums on the planet to fight an expensive war for the hearts and minds of a bunch of people who probably couldn't care less in the first place.

I do think the atheist bus campaign was a complete waste of time and money, but it's the Evangelicals I'm especially angry at. If they weren't so eager to reduce the Western world to a backwards, fundamentalist regime, (like the Taliban in the middle east) than all those well intentioned atheists, who donated money to counter that rubbish on those 'Je-buses', could have donated to much more worthwhile charities instead.

One Salient Oversight

Coffee Bean directed readers towards this post, by evangelical Christian One Salient Oversight, asking the question: "What's driving American evangelicalism?"

"Being an evangelical seems to be getting harder by the day," he admits. "Not because I somehow think that there's evil ungodly atheists or Darwinists out there who are going to destroy the world - they're hardly going to do much anyway. No; what makes it hard being an evangelical these days is the actions of other evangelicals."

I've been bickering, as normal, with a conservative pal of mine about Christianity and the recent election and my point - that the Bush-bumper sticker crew is more concerned with pushing their own political agenda than God's - seems to be shared by OSO.

It turns out, you don't need to be a Godless, Atheist heathen like me to feel that way.

Read the post here.

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.

The Bible as Literature

My recent tongue-in-cheek post about the Bible resulted in a couple of emails and a blog comment.

One acknowledged that I 'didn't mean any harm' by my post, another implied that my reference to the contradictions, discrepancies and inaccuracies in the Bible 'reveal a lack of understanding of the work.'

It's the second statement I disagree with. This is a very common response from people who don't agree with my particular take on the Bible and the context of what's written within it - but I went to a theological university (albeit to study history) and took classes on the history and origins of the Bible.

I think this puts me in a better position to discuss it than a certain sect of the Christian community, whose 'knowledge' of the Bible stems from them reading their own particular English translation of the Bible and discussing it amongst themselves.

There is an important difference between 'studying the Bible' (in which one learns about the documentary history of the Bible, the historical and political influences that effected it's development and the context in which it was written) and 'Bible studies.' Reading four chapters of the Bible every day does not give you a better understanding of it.

The fact is, each of the 21 English-language translations of the Bible are riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and inaccuracies. Even ignoring the internal inaccuracies, it's difficult to reconcile how one translation of the Bible (such as the popular King James) is often in contradiction with another (such as the Revised Standard Bible.)

I've written quite extensively about it here - The Bible and Star Wars.

It doesn't have to be a big deal. The inaccuracy of the Bible shouldn't be a question of faith.

For example, I'm an atheist and I still believe that the Bible contains many historical and philosophical truths. Catholics and Episcopalians still believe that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins - yet they're willing to accept that the story of creation was allegorical and the actual birth of mankind follows what scientific study has taught us.

[You should listen to the Catholics, guys. When it comes to The Bible, they wrote the book. Literally. - Editorial Bear.]

The problem arises when fundamentalist evangelicals - and yes, I'm sorry I'm always ragging on you - try to claim that the Bible isn't inaccurate. It's not allegorical. It's literal fact and it's the infallible word of God.

I simply find it astonishing - mind boggling - that we live in the early years of the 21st century (man has split the atom, sent men to the moon and harnessed the power of DNA) yet there are millions of people in the United States who honestly believe that the world is 7,000 years old and God made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs (what was she? Six inches tall?)

But I've discussed this particular troubling issue many, many times over and generally reached the same impasse. They tell me: "If the facts don't agree with our belief system, then the facts are wrong." There's very little point discussing it further.

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?" Stephen Colbert

Riddle Me This...

Assuming for a second that the Bible is the infallible word of God and the copy you've got sitting in your bookcase (let's say it's the Revised Standard Bible) is entirely 100% accurate (even if it has several inconsistencies with your neighbour's King James Bible) could you answer me these questions? I'll make them multiple choice, to keep things easy.

Let's look at some of the attitudes and inspirations behind Christian faith first.

God is...

1. ...love, which is not jealous or boastful
2. ...a jealous God, who will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins and will turn and do you hurt, and consume you

The Bible's attitudes towards feminism are:

1. Progressive. "There is no such thing as male and female, for you are all one person in Christ Jesus."
2. Chauvinistic. "Women should keep silent. They have no permission to talk. If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands at home."

What was God's attitude to enemies and war?

1. He was an old softy! "Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors. There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds."
2. He was a vicious old bastard. "Go now, fall upon them! Destroy them! Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and donkeys!"

If that hasn't confused you, let's have a look at some of the purely factual evidence regarding certain events (like Christ's Crucifixion.)

After Judas betrayed him, following the Last Supper, which of the Jewish authorities decided whether to hand Jesus Christ over to Pontius Pilate or not?

1. Jesus is placed on trial in front of the whole Sanhedrin.
2. There's no trial. The Sanhedrin merely hold an inquiry to decide.
3. There isn't even an inquiry. Jesus only appears before Annas and Caiphas.

When Jesus is arrested, how does he tell his disciples to react?

1. Non-violently. "Those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword," he warns them.
2. Aggressively. "Whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one!"
3. He doesn't say a thing. He's too busy getting arrested.

After betraying Jesus, Judas Iscariot...

1. Gave back the money he'd been bribed and hung himself.
2. Kept the money, fell over and died after his intestines randomly fell out.

The answer to all of the questions is 'all of the above.'

These are just a tiny handful of the hundreds of blatant contradictions contained within the Bible, ranging from major theological issues (is homosexuality a sin? Or does Jesus condone it?) to some mundane, but important facts (Luke says Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, while Matthew implied they lived in Bethlehem.)

I've said it once. I ought to say it again. The fact that the Bible is a deeply flawed and inaccurate document does not stop it being an enormously important book - nor diminish the message of faith it contains. However, it is not the infallible word of God, as certain evangelicals would like to believe. It's not even the infallible word of man.

In the course of the Bible's long journey to your bookshelf, the real events that inspired it have been significantly warped, manipulated, misquoted and fictionalized. The worst of that damage has been done in the last century or so - when dozens of forthright and opinionated 'translators' delivered their own 'versions' of the King James Bible, using creative licence to insert their own religious agendas in amongst the so called 'words of God.'

There are no less than 21 different English translations of the Bible. You can see that list here. What troubles me more than any of the inconsistencies within the scriptures itself are the discrepancies between one edition of the 'English Language Bible' and another.

One Bible translates something one way. Another translates it different. This website allows you to take a specific passage from the Bible and compare each of the 21 translations against each other. Before anybody claims that 'the Bible' is the infallible word of God, they should take their favourite passage and see how different it appears in other versions.

Which one is the 'infallible word of God?'

None of them. And the sooner the evangelical movement accept that faith in God doesn't require slavish devotion to a flawed religious text, the sooner we can all embrace rationality and reason, instead of cynical superstition.

An Empty Room

After believing in God for nearly thirty years, I sometimes find it difficult to shake off some the old habits I used to have back in my 'faithful' days.

Like when faced with adversity - which could mean some life threatening crisis, or just hoping Tina doesn't discover I spilt candle-wax on the carpet - I often retreat into myself to that little imaginary room where I used to speak to God.

Except, of course, it's empty.

I find it very strange that my faith in God has completely evaporated, yet that room still remains. As an amateur psychologist [Since when were you an amateur psychologist? - Editorial Bear] I imagine everybody has this empty room in their heads and as people grow up, they fill it with whatever symbol of faith gives them comfort (or they're ruthlessly indoctrinated with.)

I'm going to stick a bookshelf in mine. Full of science and history books.