The Great Debate: "Is it appropriate for the United States Pledge of Allegiance to contain the words 'under God' in it?"

Today is the first of (hopefully) a series of cross-blog debates with conservative blogger Mike Waters; who enjoys the challenge of a gentlemanly discussion. To kick things off, we started with the question of whether or not 'under God' should be included in the Pledge of Allegiance. He argues 'yes,' whereas as an atheist, I firmly believe that God should stay out of my business (after all, I stay out of his.)

Go and read Mike's opinion over on his blog; and be sure to comment on what you read!

In the mean time, here's my two cents:

"Is it appropriate for the United States Pledge of Allegiance to contain the words 'under God' in it?"

When an Atheist wades into this issue, people roll their eyes.

“Here it comes! More crap from some idiot claiming two words inhibit his ‘freedoms’.”

And honestly, that's how I felt until recently! Even though I was atheist, ‘under God’ seemed so utterly inconsequential, the phrase had never bothered me before. It was just tradition, right?

But that was because I’d never been asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before.

The day I became an American, I stood up and realized these words meant something.

The Pledge of Allegiance was as significant to me as my marriage vows, which meant the words ‘under God’ presented a problem: because God had nothing to do with my allegiance to America.

And while 90% of Americans are Christian, it’s wrong that the rest should be required to pledge loyalty to something we don’t believe in; especially when it’s attached to something we do so passionately believe in (i.e. our allegiance to the United States.)

The founding fathers agreed. Their First Amendment reads: “…make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

By including the words ‘under God’ in the pledge, it ‘establishes’ a single, monotheistic religion (one God, instead of none, or many) that contradicts the beliefs of atheists, Hindus and many others.

Conservatives argue: “This country was founded on Christian principles”, but the founding fathers, despite many being devout Christians, separated Church and State from the very beginning.

Benjamin Franklin even edited Thomas Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence to replace ‘sacred rights’ with ‘inalienable rights’ because he didn’t want people thinking that a religious deity granted these rights.

Need more proof? The 1794 Treaty of Tripoli, made law by many of the founding fathers, opened: “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

But why, if the founding fathers separated church and state, are the words ‘under God’ included in the pledge at all?

Well, they had nothing to do with it. The pledge was actually written in 1894, by a Baptist minister called Francis Bellamy.

You might think: “If he was a Baptist minister, no wonder he included the words ‘under God.”

But you’d be wrong.

Because Bellamy understood the Constitution, and despite his religious beliefs, knew it would be unconstitutional to include God in the pledge.

In fact, it wasn’t until 1954, during the height of McCarthyism, that religious extremists campaigned to have ‘under God’ added. They argued that communism was defined by atheism – religion being the ‘opiate of the masses.’ To establish America’s differences more firmly, they petitioned Eisenhower to include the words ‘under God’ in the pledge (words possibly used by Abraham Lincoln during the Gettysburg Address, although many contemporary transcripts don’t include them.)

It was paranoia and persecution that forced congress to add ‘under God’ to the pledge; despite it being in opposition not just to the intentions of the founding fathers, but the man who wrote the pledge itself.

Which makes the question no longer: “Should the words ‘under God’ be removed from the pledge,” but “should they have ever been included in the first place?”

To which the answer – whether you’re a Christian or not – is a resolute, resounding: “No!”

Religious Freedom, or Bigotry? The Segregation of the Jews

I've written before about the misnomer that is 'religious freedom.' It's a common cry from evangelical Christians in America, who use it to defend a multitude of sins that would have our founding fathers spinning in their graves.

But it's worth remembering that so-called 'religious freedom' is an excuse used by many faiths - like those defending their right to build a needlessly provocative mosque just steps from Ground Zero in New York.

But perhaps the most flagrant display of bigotry disguised as 'religious freedom' comes from Israel, where ultra-orthodox Jews are demanding that a girl's school in the West Bank settlement of Emanuel be segregated - with the school only admitting Jews of Ashkenazi descent. Jewish girls of Sephardic descent are to be excluded because, in the words of one Ashkenazi parent, "the families of the Sephardi girls aren't religious enough."

To outsiders, this might seem a little confusing - so I'll explain:

Judaism exists as a sort of contradiction - it is both a race and a faith. Most Jews come from one of two ethnic groupings - Ashkenazi, who originated from Russia, the Slavic nations and Europe (and tend to have reddish hair and even blue eyes) and Sephardi, who originated from Jesus' homeland in the middle east and have dark hair, olive skin and a genetic layout pretty much identical to middle eastern Arabs.

Demographically, Ashkenazi Jews tend to enjoy a certain amount of economic and social privilege in Isreal, which reflects on the quality of their schooling. "Everyone wants to send their children to Ashkenazi schools,"explained Sephardic parent Zion Harounian, who has nine children - many of whom attend the contested school. "The quality of the Ashkenazi schools is much higher. They are stronger politically, so they get more money."

So just like the more highly regarded school zones in America, parents are anxious to give their kids the best start in life by letting them attend the 'best' (in this case, read Ashkenazi) schools.

Which is where the outrage begins.

43 parents of Ashkenazi students refused to allow their children to attend classes while girls of both Askenazi and Sephardic descent were allowed to study together. They demanded that the school be completely segregated - and took the case to the Supreme Court to get their 'religious freedom' exercised.

Unsurprisingly, Israel's highest court did not rule in their favor - demanding that the integration of Ashkenazi and Sephardic students go ahead as planned. The result? A mass demonstration in which 100,000 supporters of the Ashkenazi segregation gathered in the streets of Jerusalem - some even waving placards claiming "The Supreme Court is fascist!"

It's deeply troubling for a number of reasons - not least of which because of the power the ultra-Orthodox Jews possess in an apparently modern democracy like Israel.

(To gather 100,000 protesters to defend a school segregation is astonishing. Compare it to the recent Tea Party protests in the USA - in which a movement that supposedly encompasses 30% of Americans struggles to gather more than a few thousand protesters.)

But more so, it's troubling because of the implication of what the Ashkenazi parents are trying to accomplish - nothing short of racial segregation. It's telling that their attempts to divide the school are not done on religious grounds - separating students based on which sect of Judaism they follow - but purely on ethnic grounds.

The red/blond haired Ashkenazi desire to be separate from the olive-skinned, black haired Sephardic Jews in a manner alarmingly similar to the way Germans in the thirties sought to segregate (and then eliminate) the Jews who failed to match their 'Aryan ideals.'

There's also something ironic about the fact that 'nazi' are the last letters of the group demanding segregation.

Such ethnic groupings have no place in Israel. After all, the nation is largely founded by survivors - either of the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s, or the single-minded attrition of neighboring Arab countries during the decades that followed. They shouldn't tolerate that same hatred and racism within their own borders.

I have many Israeli friends and one of the things they've always impressed upon me is the fact that Israel is meant to encompass, rather than segregate. Jews from all over the world are welcome in Israel - whether they were born Jewish, or converted en route.

And that's the final tipping point - the fact that Judaism isn't - and should never be - about ethnicity. It's certainly true that most of my Jewish-American friends describe themselves as 'Jewish' in the same way friends call themselves 'Italian' or 'Polish' or 'African American.' However, Judaism is ultimately a religion and a faith - and people of any background can be called to it and convert. A corn-fed Nebraskan girl can be just as Jewish as a Brighton Beach Orthodox Jew if she embraces that faith.

So the decision of these Israeli parents to try and segregate their school smacks of nothing but bigotry, hypocrisy and racism - which is especially heinous in a nation founded by those who'd survived the murderous result of those three cardinal sins when they were practiced in the 1930s.

The Ashkenazi parents are wailing that their 'religious freedom' is being infringed by forcing their children to study with kids of another ethnicity - but given that ultimately both groups of children are of the same religion, that argument falls resolutely and irredeemably flat.

It's just yet another example of what we encounter every single day in America - religious bigots defending their hypocrisy behind the misguided misnomer of 'religious freedom' - when in truth, freedom and religion have very little to do with it.

The Pope: Female priests as bad as pedophiles

It’s clear that BP and the Catholic Church are in a frantic battle with each other to win the ‘PR disaster’ Olympics.

While BP has done an incredible job – flooding the gulf of Mexico with millions of barrels of oil and trading a mass murderer for oil rights – the gold medal ultimately has to go to the Vatican.

Yesterday they announced ‘tough new rules’ to combat corruption in the church that neatly equated the institutionalized sexual abuse of minors with the ordainment of female priests - apparently both ‘grave crimes’ that ‘equally defile’ the Catholic church.

It’s just further evidence of what a corrupt, obsolete and despicable racket the Catholic church has become. That old goat Ratzinger – a former Hitler Youth member, anti-Semite (and here) and champion of kiddie-fiddlers – is steadfastly leading the world’s oldest corporation into a black hole of moral and spiritual irrelevance from which it will (hopefully) never emerge.

The problem with the Vatican’s statement isn’t so much that they’re still against female priests – I know plenty of people who take that position, even if I totally disagree with it.

It’s that they blithely considered ordaining women to be a ‘crime’ equal to sexual abuse. It completely undermines any attempt they’ve made to make amends for their wrongs (decades of covering up institutionalized pedophilia) – and neatly reminds us that the ‘modern’ Catholic church remains irreconcilably medieval.

I happen to be an enormous fan of female priests. The reverend of our church is a woman – and she’s the one who helped me reconcile my skepticism with my spirituality.

Although I remain an unrepentant reader of Thomas Jefferson’s Bible, the Anglican church has become more a part of my life now than it ever was when I was studying at a theological university, or even going out with a girl who had ambitions to be ordained.

This is entirely because of the amazing attitude, wisdom and kindness of our (female) priest, who has made the church more relevant to me today that it's ever been, even if my skeptical attitudes towards religion might seem irreconcilable with it. If her work is any indication of the potential female Catholic priests might have, the Vatican should have been ordaining them decades ago.

But they’re not – and that’s why the Catholic church is doomed.

Ask anybody with an interest in organized religion and they’ll tell you that it’s women who drive the church forward – they make up the bulk of the congregation, and the largest portion of the active church community.

In fact, almost every church I know is fighting a constant battle to attract and keep male members.

In not recognizing the vital role women play in modern religion – and in refusing to allow them to become officially recognized leaders within it – the Catholic church is doing itself yet another great disservice (just one more in a litany of own goals they’ve scored recently.)

Shame on the Vatican and shame on Ratzinger.

Ignorance is Inherited

This just makes me sad.

The note from the ignorant parent reads:

“Note: Just to let you it is not that we don’t believe in things like that, it is just misleading when you talk about it being billions of years old, when we all know that the world is only about 6,000 years old. So why would I pay so that you can misslead my children, your world is just a revolving(?), ours has a start and an end. God created the world. He created animals and man all in the same week. It was also Adam who named all the animals, they will do the essay ‘Rock and Minerals’ but it might not be 5 pages long, and about billions of years, it will be according to the Bible.”

Why would a non-believer go to Church?

One question I'm frequently asked is about Church.

Since I don't believe in a higher power, people wonder why I attend our local Anglican church most Sundays. They wonder why I'm on the Lector's roll - and why I even teach Sunday school.

There are actually many reasons. Here's the most important one: It's for my son.

But that's not the only reason (as I'll explain later.)

Mini-Militant is just a baby - but as he grows up, he's going to have to go through the same spiritual journey as the rest of us did. Will he believe in God? What shape will that faith take? Or will he reach the same conclusion I did - that there is no 'higher power?'

Whatever decision he eventually makes - it's his. I'm sure my belief will influence him - but similarly, so will his mother's strong faith. In any event, I want to give him the chance to reach that conclusion himself instead of being brainwashed one way or another (something I detest about fundamentalism in America.)

But less magnanimously, I also want his introduction to religion to be a good one. The Anglican church means a lot to me - not just because it's the denomination I was raised as. In America, especially, it's one of the most progressive churches around - and what they've prioritized about 'Christ's message' is definitely the right stuff to take away from Christianity.

I don't want my son growing up to learn that Christianity equals bigotry, homophobia, hypocrisy or conservatism - as it's taught to millions of fundamentalists each Sunday.

Another reason I want to give my son exposure to Christianity is because the Bible is an incredibly significant part of western culture. It's not, in any way, the 'basis' for American society (as some deeply delusional people will claim.)

However, the majority of Americans are Christian and the majority of the things I think are important - like literature and history - are better appreciated with a knowledge of the scripture that is so often made reference to within them.

And, finally, I want my son to experience the same Church I did - so we'll have a common bond. He's going to grow up in a different country to me - with a radically different way of thinking. So many of my experiences - like playing cricket and rugby in P.E. (ick) or conkers in the playground, or listening to the BBC on the drive to school - are going to be completely alien to him. This is a way to make sure my son grows up with his British heritage as part of his life - and that means an awful lot to me.

But that's not all.

While I might claim that I'm 'doing it for my son', that's not the entire truth. I don't think I'm altruistic enough to go to Church every Sunday if I didn't take something away from it myself - which I most certainly do.

For a start, I want to support our local Church, and the Episcopal Church in America in general. 70% of Americans claim to be Christian - and there are an awful lot of churches vying for their loyalty. I want to make sure that the Anglican church - a church that's progressive, fair and follows a vision of Christ's message that embraces everything good about religion - continues to stand strongly amongst the other denominations (especially the ones with more questionable beliefs.)

If I can only achieve that by being one more 'bum in a pew' on Sunday morning, and making a weekly donation to my Church, I think that's a small sacrifice to make.

Secondly, just because I don't believe in God, it doesn't mean I don't believe in Jesus. I'm a historian, after all - and the fact that a billion-strong faith that's endured for two millenia originated with the teachings of one man, it's pretty strong historical evidence that he might have really existed.

I don't believe Jesus was the son of God. I don't believe he performed miracles, or healed the blind. I do believe he went about the Holy Land preaching a message of brotherly love, tolerance and understanding - and much of what he taught is still applicable today.

He wasn't sent down from heaven to die for our sins - but he was put on this Earth to pass along some of the most important philosophical teachings in human history.

...and finally, I get something out of church - every week.

Our Reverend is an incredibly intelligent woman and her sermons are always thought-provoking. She has a wonderful way of taking scriptural teachings from the Bible - what I dismiss as the purely humanist philosophy taught by Jesus - and making them relevant to our daily lives.

It's very rare that I leave the church on a Sunday without feeling like I've learned something - and that this new knowledge could help me become a better person.

When I first lost my faith, I was very angry with God - and then when I realized you couldn't be angry with something that didn't exist, I transferred that anger to his followers (as demonstrated by a hundred angry posts about Christianity.)

But now I've mellowed - and can see that religion might be meaningless in my eyes, but it's not meaningless to millions of other people. I believe most of humanity is hardwired to 'believe' in something - and if that 'something' is as progressive, positive and good as the religion taught in my local Anglican Church, than this Atheist is very happy to support it.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe in my Church. That's why I'm a part of it.

Hear endeth the lesson.

Einstein vs. God

The extent of Einstein's genius was not limited to physics.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Albert Einstein, March 1931

Is the Bible conservative enough?

Andrew Schlafly, the right-wing pundit behind the utterly objectionable resource for retards, Conservapedia, is at it again - leading his most deranged crusade to date.

This fundamentalist Christian has launched a crusade to reclaim the Bible - by destroying what he claims is a clear 'liberal bias' in modern Biblical translations.

"Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations," Schlafly argues on The Conservative Bible Project.

With the assistance of a team of self-appointed Biblical scholars (a very loosely defined term) the Conservative Bible Project will help create a modern translation of the Bible following these ten guidelines:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the New International Version is written at only the 7th grade level.
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of hell or the devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open mindedness often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Yes, that's right. These jackasses are going to rewrite the Bible because it's too liberal.

The Bible - the document the conservative far right have historically used to justify segregation, homophobia and the death penalty - apparently isn't 'right wing' enough. Are they kidding?

Just listen to some of this rubbish: They want to eliminate 'socialist' language from the Bible! They want to chop out stories like The Adulteress ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone") because it's 'inauthentic' (and, coincidentally, condemns the death penalty.)

Most stupidly of all, they want to make sure all of Jesus' economic parables fit in with the theory of the free market!

Cute - they want to eliminate mention of an economic concept that originated sixteen hundred years after the Bible was written - a term coined by René-Louis de Voyer de Paulmy, marquis d' Argenson, when he touted his 'laissez faire' economic policy.

It's frankly pathetic and risible.

Consider that the translation of the Bible they most strongly object to - the New International Version written between 1965 and 1975 - was painstakingly translated over the course of a decade, from the original Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. The New Testament was derived from 1514's Novum Testamentum Graece.

It took a team from the Christian Reformed Church, the National Association of Evangelicals, and a group of international scholars, ten years to produce the painstakingly translated manuscript.

In contrast, the Conservative Bible Project have given themselves a timeline of three months - just over ninety days - to create their new translation. Instead of the reams of contemporary documentation the NIV scholars used, they'll base their translation almost entirely on the King James Version of the Bible, translated in 1611 by the Church of England (which Schlafly admits was chosen because they can 'translate it' without "requiring a license or any fees.")

As a historian, it's utterly offensive to me. They're totally unqualified. They're approaching their mission from a position of utter bias. They have no academic, historical or theological authority to give their project even the remotest whiff of credibility.

All these idiots are really doing is taking what the King James Bible says and changing it to suit their political and social values. They really ought to be honest with themselves and admit that.

Why does it ALWAYS have to be about 'religious freedoms?'

Check out the shorts on the left.

This American-made, 'Bermuda style' swim shorts are the standard swimming uniform for bathers across the United States. It's practically impossible to find any other style of swimwear in America - and believe me, I've tried.

But, funnily enough, these standard-issue swim shorts are actually illegal in France.

In public pools in France, strict health and safety laws ban any form of swimwear that could also be worn as 'streetwear.'

"Clothes used in public can contain molecules, viruses, et cetera, which will go in the water and could be transmitted to other bathers," explained regional swimming pool official Daniel Guillaume. "All pool-goers must don appropriate attire — swimsuits for women and tight, swim-specific briefs for men."

It's the law, believe it or not. If you attempted to wear those baggy, American-style shorts to a public swimming pool, you'd be turned away at the door. Don't believe me? I've seen it happen to literally dozens of American students visiting Aquaboulevard in Paris.

So the law's the law, right? And the reasons for implementing it, although arguable, seem clear.

Not according to 'Carole,' a 35-year-old Frenchwoman who recently converted to Islam. When she wanted to go swimming at her local pool in Emerainville, she refused to wear a traditional one-piece swimsuit as this exposed too much of her body. Therefore, she decided to wear a 'Burquini' instead - an absurd head-to-toe covering that looks like a tightly fitting tracksuit.

Bathing belles in their Burquinis

Unsurprisingly - since they get their knickers in a twist over even Bermuda shorts - the pool officials weren't happy about 'Carole' and her choice of swimwear. The forbid her from entering the pool, citing the health and hygiene laws I mentioned above.

Perhaps to a rational person, this might have been the end of the situation. Not so for 'Carole.' Enraged at the reaction, she proceeded to her local police station and tried to file a discrimination charge with the Police Nationale (it was dismissed as 'groundless.')

"For me, this is nothing but segregation," an angry 'Carole' told Le Parisien. She cited the recent laws banning the Burqha and other overtly religious outfits. As far as she was concerned, not allowing her to use her 'Burquini' was religious discrimination. She's vowed to take the matter to the courts with the help of various anti-discrimination groups.

I find this both laughable and offensive, all at once.

Personally, I'm SICK of people taking totally secular situations, in which they refuse to conform to a perfectly reasonable standard of behavior, and manipulating them to make it appear like they're the victims of 'religious discrimination.'

The swimming costume law in France is an old one - and it effects hundreds of unsuspecting American tourists every year, when they try to take a dip in their baggy swim shorts. The issue isn't about religion at all. It's about not wearing stupid baggy clothing to the public swimming pool.

'Carole' is totally abusing the concept of 'religious discrimination' by pursuing this baseless crusade of hers. She's just the latest in a long line of idiots who confuse 'expected standards of behavior' with 'religious freedom.'

Want another example? How about the Muslims in London hospitals, who refuse to use hand sanitizer because it contains alcohol, which is 'forbidden' according to the Quran. Exercising their 'religious freedom' exposes the hospital and it's patients to MRSA infections (which kill thousands yearly.)

There are dozens of other examples, like the Christian parents who refused to treat their son's cancer because it was against their holistic beliefs, or a Christian counselor who refused to treat unmarried, cohabiting couples even though she knew it would be part of her job before she applied for it.

The case can even be made that refusing to serve gay and same-sex couples, under the claim of exercising one's 'religious freedom,' is another example of religion trumping basic standards of human behavior.

It disgusts me.

I'm totally behind religious freedom - the right to follow and practice any religion you want. I'm even supportive of reasonable requests to accommodate different religions into secular life - like giving Jewish employees certain religious holidays (like Passover) off.

But when it comes to violating basic standards of behaviour, or refusing to abide to secular laws that the rest of the country must obey, I get a very bad taste in my mouth when I hear the words 'religious freedom' being used as an excuse.

To the 'Caroles' of the world, I say this: It's not all about religion, and it's not all about you.

If you want to be part of civilized society, there are certain standards of behavior you have to abide by. If your religious beliefs contradict those, I think it's your religious beliefs that you should be criticizing - not society itself

[This is especially valid in the case of Christianity, which covers this very topic in the first verse of Romans - Editorial Bear]

Lies Conservatives Tell Us

"America is a Christian nation."

I've already established a convincing argument why any concept of America being a 'Christian' nation is a bunch of rubbish - you can read it here, but if you want the Cliffsnotes, it comes down to the Founding Fathers declaring:

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Funnily enough, I discovered something new today that throws even more water onto the smoldering embers of evangelical indignation.

The next time somebody arrogantly sneers: "It's 'One Nation Under God', remember?" you can throw right back at them with: "No, it ain't."

"One Nation Under God" comes from the American 'Pledge of Allegiance', a ditty familiar to any American schoolkid, as they recite it under their nation's flag every morning in the classroom (a practice I thoroughly approve of.)

Most people will know the pledge as:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

This is the phrase that gives all those evangelicals their ammunition. "See, it reads 'One Nation Under God," they argue.

Well, the fact is it doesn't.

The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, by Francis Bellamy. Bellamy was a queer fish - an unrepentant Socialist (although also a devout Christian) he deliberately left out any mention of religion (he also left out references to 'equality' and 'fraternity' as that suggested that blacks and women should be included in the 'all men are created equal' bit in the Declaration of Independence.)

Bellamy's Pledge of Allegiance - which was our nation's pledge for over fifty years, was a short, sweet and secular:

"I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

The words 'flag of the United States of America' were added in 1924, ostensibly to give the in-rush of Italian, German and Jewish immigrants a clear reference that it was the American flag they were pledging allegiance to, not their own.

President Eisenhower only signed an act adding 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 - under intense pressure from the Catholic Knights of Columbus (and, according to some, in order to appease the McCarthyites, who were quick to remind people that only 'evil' Socialists were non-religious.)

And ever since Eisenhower signed that alteration into law, there's been controversy surrounding the addition of the words 'under God' to the Pledge - with good reason. It doesn't take a Supreme Court Justice to realize that it violates the First Amendment clause (banning establishment of Religion.)

But even then, Christians laying claim to a 'Christian America' just because of a cynical addition to the Pledge of Allegiance is a bankrupt endeavor. America isn't - and has never been - a truly 'Christian' nation.

It was founded by Deists, Atheists and bickering Christians of every denomination - and almost every article of American law gives broad mention to an all-encompassing, monotheistic spirituality - but not one reference to 'Jesus Christ.'

In fact, America's 'religion' could reference practically any spiritual belief: There are mentions of the 'Laws of Nature' and 'Nature's God' and a reference to 'the Creator' - but all that's closer to paganism than Christianity. I challenge anybody to find a single mention of 'Jesus Christ' in any significant Government documentation...

...at least, one that wasn't scrawled in the margins by Donald Rumsfeld.

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.

Dreams from my Father by Barack Obama

In the lead-up to the election, the conservative opponents of Barack Obama threw countless questions at him - questions regarding his birth, his upbringing, his religion and his relationships.

They demanded answers to these questions, seemingly unaware that these answers were already sitting on a shelf in their local Barnes and Noble - in the form of Barack Obama's first book, Dreams from my Father.

Written in 1995, when Obama had just been elected president of the Harvard Law Review (and his political career wasn't even conceived of) Dreams from my Father is a spectacularly candid biography that earnestly and honestly examines many of the perceived 'issues' people had with the idea of electing Obama.

The book is an education - an education all those political pundits should have availed themselves of.

Dreams from my Father is practically unique in the history of American politics. Sure, plenty of presidential candidates had written books. No less than 16 of the candidates in the 2008 Republican and Democratic primaries had political manifestos on the bookshelves of Borders and Amazon.

However, Dreams from my Father was written before Obama considered running for senator or president. That makes it uniquely free of snake-oil and slickness.

The Obama we read about in Dreams from my Father is a sharply introspective man, desperate to make sense of the confusing place he finds himself growing up in cross-cultural America.

Born of a black African and a white American, Obama describes being balanced on the knife-edge between black and white American culture.

As Obama grows up, as described in the first part of Dreams from my Father, he gravitates towards the African American community, but feels unable to integrate with them fully because he lacked the experience of growing up as a black American (he was raised by his white mother in Hawaii and Indonesia.)

He's also apprehensive of the more militant blacks he meets, who condemn white culture as the reason for their plight. This is jarring for him, as Obama's white grandparents set a great example of how tolerant and liberal white, mid-Western Americans can be.

The second part of the book explores his move to Chicago. In attempting to make a positive difference to the lives of impoverished blacks, Obama finds it difficult to swallow the liberal assumption that black poverty is reinforced by institutionalized racism.

The reality of the situation - that poverty in the inner city is at least partially perpetuated by the very people it affects - is a realization that Obama certainly didn't feel comfortable discussing with the community he was helping to 'organize.'

As the second section of the book ends, with Obama winning a place at Harvard and giving up his position as community organizer, it's clear he's become frustrated by the fact that the answers he seeks aren't black and white. Much like himself, they're a mixture of the two.

The final section of Dream from my Father is more personal, as Obama travels to his father's birthplace, Kenya, to meet his African family.

Travelling to the 'old country,' he admits that he hoped to find the answers he was seeking by embracing his African heritage. However, like everything else he describes in his book, it's not quite as simple as that.

Despite being welcomed and embraced by his enormous family, Obama's still left as the outsider. While he doesn't feel the alienation of being black in Africa, he's still on the outside, looking in, because in Kenya he's an 'American' rather than a native.

If the message of Dreams from my Father is anything, it's that there are no clear, easy and straightforward answers to anything.

During the years he described in his biography, Obama tried to embrace many different lives in order to find his 'place' in America. Ultimately, all of them came up short. Obama's American experience was not one of being 'black' or 'white' or even 'brown'. He was all of those things, yet simultaneously not 'enough' of any of them.

Even fourteen years ago, when he hadn't had the experience earned in the State or Federal Senate, it was apparent that Barack Obama was a wise, rational man who rejected polarizing ideology or blithe answers that inadequately answered life's more difficult questions.

It's that mentality, so beautifully outlined in Dreams from my Father, that make me even more confident that America's made the right choice in electing him president.

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.

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

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.

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.