“Question with boldness even the existence of God” – America as a Christian Nation.

The often quoted claim that the United States of America is a “Christian nation” is not an attempt to link the percentage of the population who identify themselves as Christian, with how the Country should be governed; but is in fact a suggestion that the Country was founded by devout Christians, developing a country on the Christian system of belief and values.
This simply isn’t true.

The true genius of America’s Founding Fathers lies in their commitment to the separation of Church and State. It is impossible to quantify how huge an experiment this was. Church and State had been intrinsically linked without question for at least a thousand years. The merging of the two, was based on religious authority. To question that, was to question the legitimacy of religious rule itself. A truly revolutionary concept.

It is true that none of the Founders were Atheists, (unless you count Benjamin Franklin as a Founding Father), they were almost all secularists, several (and the ones we consider the most important) were deists, and few were devout Christians. Christianity cannot claim the Founders as their own, nor can they claim the intention of a Nation built on Christianity. We Atheists, similarly cannot claim the Founders as our own. Neither have a strong case. To understand the brilliance of the Founders barrier between Church and State we must examine the context of the period in which they lived. We must not view them through 21st Century Atheism/Christian Right tinted specs.

1776 was a time far before Darwin produced the greatest scientific discovery of all time, the greatest story ever told; The Origin of Species. It was a time when, up until very recently, to question Church doctrine was punishable by torture, imprisonment, or even death. For over a thousand years the basis of government was questioned very periodically and with very little acknowledgement of the fusion of Church and State. The two were the same thing. Kings and Queens derived their ‘right’ to rule from God. That they were the middle men between God and humanity, and so they were not accountable to anyone other than God. Powerful barons at times tried to overthrow the Monarchy; Simon De Montfort (power hungry, had no intention of popular rule), Oliver Cromwell (Puritan; as fundamental as Christianity gets). But the logic that the Monarch derives their power from God was left unchallenged, and was still at the heart of the understanding of how Government works by 1776.

The Church was at the centre of the community. Education was predominantly Christian by nature. And Capitalism was developing in the Northern States whilst the Southern States seemed poised to hold onto an economic system built on slavery; the two systems would one day clash violently, resulting in the triumph of Capitalism. We almost instinctively link the birth of modern Capitalism to the United States. But Capitalism has its roots in Christian thinking. Weber once argued that the type of Protestantism that made its way to the United States in the 17th Century differed vastly from the old Catholic powers, in that it exhalted the importance of the individual and his/her duty to improve the materialistic needs of those around them. Before the Constitution officially separated Church and State we can see that the new Protestant work ethic surrounding the materialistic desires of the individual was helping to foster the atmosphere of a nation built around the individual. In this respect, Christianity played a pivotal role in the building of America.

During their schooling the Founders would have attended Catechism classes, sang hymns, and made to learn and recite Bible passages as was the norm for the education system at the time. The majority of the population would have been subjected to Christian literature, and not much else. And this is where the Founders differ.

They were all, without exception, members of the upper classes. Their education would have been mixed. It would certainly have included the necessary Catechism classes and hymns and Biblical recitals, but it would also have been mixed with new Enlightenment ideas coming out of Europe around the time. It is important to note that Thomas Jefferson was schooled in Latin, Greek and Classical Literature. His Philosophy teacher was a man named Professor William Small; himself a child of Enlightenment ideals. Jefferson’s philosophy lessons covered morality, ethics, and the study of early Greek atheist writers.
Benjamin Franklin was a student of the Socratic method, and idolised the Ancient Greek Atheist. Franklin himself states quite openly:

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”

Franklin exemplifies Socratic reasoning with:

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”

- We may call Franklin a Deist, but I’m pretty convinced he’s as close to Atheist as the 18th Century could ever produce, given the lack of scientific understanding for much of how the World, and human biology worked.

It would seem that the United States of America, as a political entity is wholly secular. The Constitution itself is a beautiful piece of Enlightenment literature. It unequivocally states the end of the Divine right to rule. A 1000+ year old settlement that not even the Magna Carta could break. It gives power to the people in a way that had never been considered before. But whilst the political resolution was indeed secular, the majority of the American public in the 1780s, were Christian. But that is largely irrelevant to our understanding of what America “is”. For that, we have to understanding the Constitution, and the people who framed it. As already noted Franklin was pretty much an Atheist. Jefferson on the other hand, was simply anti-Christian. He was Deist:

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”

And, I think most importantly of all Jefferson’s writings…. a letter he penned to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

- In fact, the Christian Right in Jefferson’s time attempted to block his Presidency based on the belief that he was an Atheist. Jefferson is a deist. He believed in a creator, but not the God of Christianity. He believed more strongly in the principles of the Enlightenment; individual freedom, the supremacy of human reason, and a binding separation between the Church’s ethical positions, and the State. He believed in certain teachings of Jesus (but denied his divinity) that supported the golden rule seen throughout the World and not limited to Christianity; treat others as you wish to be treated. This is where the new Christian Right and the Founding Fathers part ways.

The 1950s saw a new strand of Christian thought, moulded to political agenda with the Christian Right. This took on three branches:

Anti-Communism.

Hayekian Free Market Principles.

Opposition to social liberalism; values that appeared to be incompatible with traditional Christian thought.
In short, it was a response to the massive changes economically, socially and politically taking place during the middle of the 20th Century. Science and technology were becoming ever more necessary and sophisticated. Darwinism was being taken seriously. Women were ever more liberated, working and forging careers. Immigrants from non-Christian backgrounds were arriving. Communism was supposedly threatening property and individual freedoms. The Christian Right could vastly broaden their appeal, if they aligned themselves with a political and economic view point that Government = bad, Corporations = great. Suddenly poorer people struggling to put food on their tables will vote Republican to uphold traditional Christian values, not realising that economically their neighbourhoods will be ignored, investment dried up, and any sort of Welfare help cut to within an inch of its life…. all for the benefit of a few wealthy tax cuts under the almost hilarious – if it weren’t so curiously dangerous – rhetoric of “Well, they’re wealth creators”. So, the Christian Right has a broader appeal.

This merging of Christian fundamentalism with the Right Wing can be most clearly seen with its most revered members. Billy Graham managed to link Christian dogma with anti-communism and as a result, ranks a record 41 times between 1948 and 1998 on Gallup’s poll of Most Admired Men in America. The agenda seems obvious; align Christian Right Winged thinking with the National identity; make America a Christian-Right country, and claim it has always been so. And it’s had its successes….

In 1979 Ronald Reagan appointed a man named Paul Laxalt as his campaign manager. Among the campaign team, and later the White House staff, Laxalt was known as the “First Friend” for his close relationship to the President. Laxalt, in 1979, whilst Senator for Nevada, introduced a Bill called the ‘Family Protection Act’. Note the naming of the Bill. Point three on my list above, points to opposition to social liberalism. This Bill is a prime example of that. ‘Family Protection’ is worded to suggest there is an imminent attack on YOUR family. Be afraid. Where does this attack come from? Well, according to the Bill; pretty much everywhere that isn’t fundamentally Christian. It restricted access to abortion, restricted gay rights, and offered tax incentives to stay at home moms. It is a curious paradox of the Right Wing; they claim to be anti-big government, yet enact very anti-Constitutional, anti-separation of Church and State, anti-individual rights, where ever those individual rights don’t suit their very narrow vision of what being an ‘American’ truly means; (Christian, white, rich, male).

Like the rest of the Right Wing, Christian America holds Reagan up as a great President. The perfect Christian Conservative. It seems Christian voters are happy to overlook his disastrous Presidency (truly one of the worst in history – as I have noted in a previous blog), simply because his values were Christian by nature. Reagan’s legacy was one of homelessness, selfishness, arrogance, lack of compassion or empathy, hate, Corporate greed, death, and misery. All in the name of an economic policy disastrously known as “trickle down”. History will remember both him and Thatcher as little beacons of horror and misery for the majority. That’s all.

Thankfully Laxalt’s Bill never made it past Committee stage, but the fact is that as small Christian Right pressure groups popped up during the 1960s as a way to counter the social liberalism of the day…. by the 1980s, they had members in both Houses of Congress, and very close to the President. This says three things to me about the nature of the American identity by the 1980s; people are willing to vote based on religious conviction, ignoring the economic implications of their vote. Two, most people in the US considered their faith to be of great importance. Three, those who do vote based on religious conviction, are anti-Constitutional in their belief that religion should play a part in the legislative process, and not simply be kept between the individual and their ‘God’. And Reagan was the ideal candidate to play on this anti-Constitutional religious dogmatic approach to politics. He was quite willing to break down the wall that was so brilliantly erected between Church and State some 200 years previous. In 1984, Reagan gave a speech the National Religious Broadcasters. The only President up until that point to agree to give a speech to them, in which he states:

“Let’s begin at the beginning. God is the center of our lives; the human family stands at the center of society; and our greatest hope for the future is in the faces of our children. Seven thousand Poles recently came to the christening of Maria Victoria Walesa, daughter of Danuta and Lech Walesa, to express their belief that solidarity of the family remains the foundation of freedom.”

- This irritatingly nasty little manipulative quote stands to try to define what it means to be a human being. God must be the centre of our existence. The family, can only possibly be a religious concept. To a Christian public angry at the social liberalism and apparent moral relativism born out of the 1960s, this must have sounded wondrous. It is also, of course, nonsense. The entire paragraph, utter garbage. Let us not forget that whilst Reagan stresses the importance of ‘our children’ for the future of the Nation, he was busy cutting away all social programs, oversaw the closing of schools and libraries on a huge scale, creating a legacy of child poverty that still hasn’t been fixed, ensuring that the gap between rich and poor widened beyond anyone’s expectations. This wasn’t a man who cared about humanity, or “our children”. But he believed in God, and so the public warmed to him.

In 1988 Reagan completely destroyed any trace of Enlightenment thinking that brought around the creation of the secular United States of America with his State of the Union address, in which he states:

Well now, we come to a family issue that we must have the courage to confront. Tonight, I call America — a good nation, a moral people — to charitable but realistic consideration of the terrible cost of abortion on demand. To those who say this violates a woman’s right to control of her own body — can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Let us unite as a nation and protect the unborn with legislation that would stop all federal funding for abortion — and with a human life amendment making, of course, an exception where the unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Our Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right of taking a life in self-defense.

And let me add here: so many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation’s health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being — yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.

- Here, he completely reasserts the link between Church and State. He includes the famous phrase from the Declaration. He appears to be trying to link himself to the Founders. Suddenly political America has a “Judeo-Christian tradition”. This is a Theocratic President, not a secular, democratic, constitutional President. This is a Christian that the Founders specifically wanted to keep away from Government.

The rewriting of history to suit Christian America is a regular occurrence from the 1950s until the present day. Somehow, it has managed to convince a Nation that “One Nation, under God” was always a part of the Pledge, or that “In God We Trust” always appeared on the dollar bill. Both of which are a product of the rise of the Christian Right in the 1950s. Jefferson and Franklin would have reacted with anger at the inclusion of “One Nation, under God” on any public institution.
The rewriting of history doesn’t stop there. The Christian Right are experts at rewriting the Bible to appear to support their prejudices. As noted above, anti-social liberalism is a key ingredient in the making of the Christian Right, and this social liberalism extends to homosexuality. We see the influence of the Christian Right in the passing of the ‘Defence of Marriage Act’ – again… using ‘defence’ to hide the fact that they are slowly breaking down the barrier between Church and State, slowly eroding individual rights, replacing them with Christian theocratic ‘values’. The ‘Defence of Marriage Act’ states:

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

-If this isn’t a restriction of human rights, by a bunch of homophobic anti-constitutional theocrats, I don’t know what is. This is the ultimate in Government power over individual rights. It is a restriction on ‘love’. Which on the surface, appears to be based on Biblical principles, but underneath it is clearly a case of prejudice making its way into law. I say this, because if marriage were in fact based on Biblical principles, we could all marry our sister’s as advocated in Genesis 20:1-14. Or we could, by law, have a right to take concubines as advocated in 2 Sam 5:13
and 2 Chron 11:21. Or that we’d be forced to shave our wife’s head as advocated by Deut. 21:11-13. Or a wife would be banned from offering an opinion of her own, especially in Church as advocated in I Corinthians 14:34-35. Or if a man rapes a virgin, as long as he pays, he is entitled to marry her as advocated in Deut. 22:28. Or we may take a child of a foreigner, and marry her, because by law she’d be our property, as advocated by Leviticus 25:44-46. And so it goes on. The ‘Defence of Marriage Act’ is simply a Bill of prejudice, and nothing else.

What The ‘Defence of Marriage Act’ shows is how vast the Theocratic Christian Right has managed to penetrate a Government that was built on anti-Theocratic, Enlightenment principles. Language like “Defence” and “Freedom” and “Individual” when linked to Christian-inspired changes to the law, are an attempt to provide a direct link using secular language, to the nature of the Founding documents and the people who penned it, whilst being vastly incompatible with the ideals set out by the Founding Fathers as they seek to limit the rights of anyone who doesn’t fit the narrow band of “Christian” that they attempt to perpetuate. It is within this context that it isn’t surprising that the Republican Party requires the Christian vote to be electorally successful, and so with that need comes deeply anti-constitutional, anti-freedom policies designed to placate Christian extremists with regard to abortion, homosexuality,and the teaching of evolution above creationism (I refuse to call it ‘intelligent design’).

The growth of the Christian Right seems to be a reaction to a perceived ‘threat’ to their understanding of how a moral society should work. It is true that Protestantism, as noted by Weber, set the ball rolling for the freedoms that would paradoxically come to shatter the grip that the religion had on the Country. The attempts by Reagan, and later by Presidential candidates like Santorum to make sure the wall between Church and State be forever knocked down have had their successes when trying to define the United States as a ‘Christian Nation’, but luckily the principles of the Enlightenment and the atmosphere created by the Constitution seem almost always likely to prevail, unfortunately the Christian Right will always have an incalculable affect on the nature of National identity within the very secular United States. It is the nature of a secular Constitution, a secular system of Government, contrasting with a majority Christian population.

Nevertheless, it is within the atmosphere of an almost entirely Christian Nation, in 1776, before Darwin, before Einstein attempted to provide a theory of everything, before anyone had even suggested the model for the Big Bang; that a few men came together, and questioned the prevailing notion that a society should be based on religious values. People who insisted that reason and inquiry were key to progress, and who told us all to question everything, including the existence of a God. Were they influenced by Christianity? Of course. It would have been impossible not to be. But breaking the chains that Christianity had forced upon its subjects for so long, was an act of great rebellion. To build a country around these new principles was ground breaking, and without any precedent. To them, they were not building another Christian nation. They were building something that transcended religious belief. It is something the Christian Right have attempted to destroy time and time again over the past sixty years. For my part, I am with the Founders. Religion should be kept as far away from the public sphere as notably possible.

The burden of proof

It seems apparent from early on in the history of the Church, that the existence of a Christian God was not disputed. The arguments and the philosophical debate seemed irrelevant. It simply gave many people who were already becoming suspicious of the Polytheistic system forced upon them by Rome, a chance to reassert control over their lives, and a way to escape and hide in a World of their own. A sense of individuality apart from Rome.

Doctrine became more important than spirituality and truth. Bishop Victor of Rome, around 190ad decided when Easter would be celebrated. He came up against opposition from a sect called the Quatrodecimens who insisted on celebrating Easter on Jewish passover. Victor demanded uniformity. The Catholic Church was becoming powerful very early on, and any descent from its ranks, was met with swift punishment and calls of heresy. Many gnostic groups felt the full force of the Catholic Church’s iron fist. The truth was that many different Christian sects existed. Some didn’t even acknowledge the resurrection. Many didn’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. There could only be one sect that reigned victorious; not because of any divine power, but because it had friends in very high and rich places. The Catholic Church spread its message violently and with threat of severe punishment, for centuries proceeding the early years of the Church. Islam is experiencing much the same attempts to monopolise knowledge and debate in Eastern Nations now. If you dare to question the tenets of Islam in a Nation like Iran, you better run for your life. That is the only reason organised religion is perpetuated. The existence of God and the philosophical arguments surrounding his supposed transcendental nature, were not explored pre-Enlightenment, through fear alone, not reason.

Anyway, today I had a short discussion with a Muslim guy who told me that as an Atheist, I could not disprove the existence of a God.

There were two problems I can see instantly with this statement.

Firstly, this is entering the realms of Deism. It is true, I cannot disprove a creator. But a creator has no attributes, and so it takes a rather large leap to get from a creator, to the Christian or Islamic God. A creator could be anything; an infinitely good creator, an infinitely evil creator, two creators, a creator whose final act before dying, was to create the universe, a creator that created the universe but then stepped back. This is entirely different from a God of religion. To prove a religion is worthy of public power, it must first prove a creator who is infinitely good, infinitely knowledgeable. And so we are given the old cosmological argument provided by Aquinas, and currently being used constantly by William Lane Craig in every debate he has:
1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.
The problem being, that point two is conjecture, rather than truth. Aquinas’ logic is limited by time itself. If existence is infinite, then everything that exists has indeed been caused by that which came before. Fortunately for those of us who languish in unbelief; not everything that exists, has a cause. On the subatomic level, protons appear spontaneously and cease to exist just as quickly. The entire study of Quantum Mechanics backs this up. Both Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss attest to this.

Even if Aquinas’ logic is applied to the existence of a God, it is impossible to assign the logic to the existence of a God of organised religion, because Aquinas’ God could have been the first cause, but has had nothing to do with existence ever since. Perhaps it was more than one first cause. But obviously this is irrelevant because no philosopher would take the old cosmological argument seriously any more.

There is a more rounded version and a more modern version of the cosmological argument that is early Islamic in origin, though taken from earlier traditions. But even this argument, is weak. The Kalam Argument as it is known states that:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It is weak because of how it is worded. The language is its downfall. “Everything that begins to exist has a cause“. This places a limit to “everything“. Everything…. that begins to exist. Which automatically excludes the idea of something that doesn’t begin to exist, i.e – a God. It is trying to prove God, by just presuming God already exists as something that didn’t begin to exist, and just existed any way. The Islamic Kalam argument does not point out where the evidence is for that which did not begin to exist. It is trying to persuade the reader that God is already a known. He is transcendental and so already exists. Almost clever, but not actually.

It is also limited by the constraints of time. Something cannot ‘begin’ unless time exists. Since time sprang into existence at the point of the big bang, there is no ’cause’ before. Because before doesn’t exist. The entire chain of cause and effect began at the point of the big bang. So, the premise of the Kalam argument is wrong. It follows then, that the rest of it, is wrong.

On the cosmological argument, the Muslim guy tried to suggest to me, that the Koran offers evidence that science has only just managed to discover. He quoted the Koran:

Then He turned to the sky, when it was still gas, and said to it, and to the earth, “Come into existence, willingly or unwillingly.” They said, “We come willingly.”

Quite how this relates to science is beyond me. As far as I can discern, a God looked at some Gas and said “make the Earth”. I’m pretty sure that isn’t what Stephan Hawking is trying to suggest. It is not a very persuasive argument to say the very very least. Even then, the Koran is saying nothing new. Even for the time period. The Ancient Greeks, 1000 years before the Koran, were theorising about atoms, gas particles and even evolution. The Greeks had guessed that the atom was the building block of everything, long before Islam sprang into existence. It would be wholly arrogant for Islam to take credit for knowledge that pre-dates it, by about a millennium. That being said, the Koran doesn’t mention atoms. It mentions gas (doesn’t go into much detail, unsurprisingly for a Religious text). And so, is wrong. Scientists would be ashamed to call this verse scientific in any way whatsoever.

The cosmological argument, in every way, fails.
Even if it didn’t fail, the cosmological argument does not imply a personal God of any sort. That is problem number one with the statement “Prove God doesn’t exist“.

The second problem and most important, is the burden of proof.
As an Atheist, I did not start by saying “God doesn’t exist“. I simply hear a religious person say “God does exist” and I reject the notion, based on the lack of evidence to support the assertion that the religious person has made.

The burden of proof is not on me to disprove the existence of a God, because it is logically impossible to do so. It would be equally as impossible to ask a religious person to prove that there isn’t a monkey sitting on my head, that turns invisible whenever someone else looks at me. They would not logically be able to disprove it, because it is an assertion that I have made without the use of evidence. The burden of proof is lodged firmly with me. If I am to make an extraordinary claim, and use it to justify horrendous abuses and prejudices (the appalling and frankly moronic and dangerous way religious people treat homosexuality), then they MUST provide extraordinary evidence.

Proof against an assertion with no characteristics or evidence, is logically impossible. I should not be expected to provide evidence for denying an assertion. The person making the assertion should provide the evidence.
So the burden of proof is not on Atheists, it is on the believers. And none of them can offer any proof whatsoever. It comes back round to the original cosmological argument, especially with reference to the Kalam argument. A God that cannot be seen or heard or have any kind of human attributes attached to it, and was the first cause so must exist outside of the realm that He created (if I make a cup, I am not part of the cup, I am apart from the cup), cannot be disproved as such. I cannot possibly, as an Atheist summon up enough arrogance to presume I can disprove something that according to those who make the assertion, exists beyond the realm of human knowledge. We are all subject to the limitations of time and space and we cannot transcend that. That goes for religious people also.

And so it stands, the burden of proof is not on me, it is on the religious person.
Needless to say, the Muslim guy I was speaking to briefly, didn’t answer.

The antonym of reason

It is no secret that given my way, I would have chapters from ‘God is not great’ by the wonderful Christopher Hitchens read loudly to school children in early morning assembly, followed by a reading from Darwin’s Origin of Species. Sadly, at my primary school, we had to endure horrid little assemblies that started with prayer, followed by hymns, followed by a Jesus story; all presented as fact, father than fairy tale.

So I took it upon myself, now that I am older – and free to question without being sent out of assembly for disrupting prayer – to send an email to our local council, to raise this with them. I inquired:

I was wondering if you could spare a couple of minutes to answer a few questions I have.
I am an ex-pupil of The Meadows. I am 25 now and studying at Demontfort University. I was talking to another ex-pupil a week or two ago, and we both vividly recall the school assemblies in which we started each one with prayer and hymns. This strikes me as a little odd. I never questioned the religious aspect of what we were being taught. As a kid, I understood the stories from the Bible that our trusted teachers were reading to us, as fact. Why would I assume any different? We weren’t being taught any different.

The stories we were read from the Bible were taught as truth and as factual as 1+1=2. If we did not sit in silence and pray and sing hymns, we were sent out of the assembly. I wondered why this is?

I do not recall hearing the name Darwin until I was at least 12, and even then it was in passing. We were encouraged to read or listen to Biblical stories, which I’ve since dismissed as nonsense, and yet were never introduced to even the very basics of Darwinian thought.

We were taught the Christian way in the truth. Any one of any other religion was sent out of the assembly for prayers and hymns, creating a horrible social barrier that you can’t see past as children, it simply perpetuates the problem of suspicion toward anyone considered “different”.

I also note that the Christian story, whilst not being contrasted with the very fundamentals of Darwinian fact, was also not contrasted with any other form of philosophical thought. We were not taught to question what our headteacher was reading out to us. We were not taught the frankly appalling history of Organised Religion, instead we were apparently a part of that organisation because we were being told that fairy tales were truth without being encouraged and taught to think freely for ourselves, we would be punished if we were to do so.

I was wondering if this was a government policy at the time, or if the school imposed those ideas on us themselves, and if so, do you believe it was the right thing to do?
Thanks for your time.

It is surely a matter of concern when a teacher is imposing religion onto easily suggestible young minds, without teaching them also how to question what is being said? The Jehovah’s Witness kids along with the Muslim children were always sent out whilst prayer was conducted. And as kids, we always viewed them as “different”. This apparently needless social barrier is reflected later in life. Especially in deeply religious Nations. Muslims and Atheists especially in America are treated with fear and a degree of resentment from the Christian Right. I cannot see any purpose in morning prayer and hymns. It certainly isn’t cultural learning, because it espouses the ideals of Christianity above all else.

Anyway, the Senior School Development Advisor for the School Improvement and Performance Service of the Council very kindly got back to me, with:

Dear Jamie

Thank you for your e-mail which has been passed to me for response.

The legislation around assemblies (which is still in place today), is that there should be a daily act of collective worship which should be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian nature in every maintained school, whether it is a church school or not. Therefore, what you describe as practice at the Meadow Primary School would have been following the legislation. There is scope within the law for parents to request that their children do not attend Collective Worship and alternative supervision has to be put in place for these children. In some schools, parents make alternative arrangements for their children to have tuition about their own religions at this time. From your description, I would imagine this was the case at The Meadow Primary School when you were a pupil there.

The collective worship does not form part of the religious education curriculum, although the school can designate assembly time to cover part of the syllabus if they wish. The religious education curriculum is education about different religions and the syllabus is drawn together in each local authority by an independent group of advisers from different religions. Teaching in religious education is intended to inform about different religions, not convert children to any religion. Darwinism is not included as it is not considered to be a religion. Again, there is scope within the law for parents to request that their children should be withdrawn from Religious Education.

The theories of evolution are covered in the Science curriculum, particularly in primary around the way animals and plants have adapted to their environment. At Primary School, “Charles Darwin” might not be mentioned in person (this is not prescribed in the curriculum) but some schools might choose to do so.

In your e-mail you question the school’s practice of withdrawing children who misbehaved from assembly. Every school has a duty to ensure that the behaviour of some children does not interrupt the concentration of others and I presume this is how the school implemented that duty.

You obviously feel strongly about the collective worship and religious education in Primary School and the effect it had on you. Legislation about Collective Worship and the content of the curriculum is set by central government. The Department for Education is currently running a consultation on what should be in a revised curriculum. Although they are not looking specifically at RE, I strongly advise that you consider responding to the consultation with your views of the curriculum, as it is important that young people who have recently been through the education system should have opportunity to contribute. I include a web-link for your convenience, which also contains links to the DfE curriculum review facebook page.

Whilst I appreciated the response, I did get the feeling that she was suggesting that she sees no problem with the balance being tipped too far in favour of religion over the fundamentals of Darwinist thought. The entire study of Modern Biology is based on the concepts discovered by Charles Darwin. In fact, not just Modern Biology, but all the life sciences…

Ecology

Biocomputing

Nanotechnology

Botany

Medicine

Genetics

Food science

Immunology

Zoology

Biomedical Sciences
etc etc etc etc etc.
Whilst it might be true that the adaptation of plants and animals to their environment was taught…. I don’t remember it, it wasn’t pressed home, it wasn’t explained, and its immense importance on philosophy, science, human development and our ancestral history was passed over because they apparently think it is far more important for us to believe that God put us here; a lie. We certainly never knew that all life is descended from common ancestry; the very fundamentals.

The problem, as I see it, lies in this line:

“The collective worship does not form part of the religious education curriculum.”

The above line is reflected in the legislation that it references.
The School Standards and Framework Act 1998, section 70, states:

Requirements relating to collective worship.

(1)Subject to section 71, each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.

That’s quite a worrying line in a piece of legislation, to me. Why is it considered necessary, by law, for a child to be involved in worship? Why isn’t the child allowed to choose? Surely it is not a requirement of the State to be demanding mandatory religious worship of its children?

The “collective worship” (what an awful phrase, very cult-like) is not a part of the education curriculum. It stands outside of that. It transcends the curriculum. Something as unimportant as unprovable dogma and superstition is considered strangely important enough to be placed above the curriculum and used primarily for a method of Christian indoctrination, as it was at my school. At the same time, the way plants adapt to their surroundings, is on the curriculum, it is of secondary importance, according to the legislation of the land, and it is all that exists in the way of the fundamentals of Darwinian thought. I see this as a major, major imbalance in the system. Couple this with the incredibly unhealthy concept of Religious Schools themselves, and humanity is always going to be strangled at a very early stage in the development of our minds, by religious dogma.

“At Primary School, “Charles Darwin” might not be mentioned in person (this is not prescribed in the curriculum) but some schools might choose to do so.”

- That is absolutely not good enough. His name is far, far more important, to be heard at a young age, than Jesus. There is absolutely no question about that. One of those names probably didn’t exist, and simply speaks of a very narrow spectrum of morality, contradicting himself and prior Christian teachings, endlessly. His words were written down 40 years after he died, and have been rewritten, manipulated and revised for centuries. The other is responsible for the most important discovery that humanity has ever stumbled across.

The Department of Education issued guidance on collective worship, which states as its objective:

…. promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils and of society.

- It is true that an assembly is a great way to bring children together, but it shouldn’t be assumed that religion is the basis of morality. There is a quite a formidable case to be made, that says religion has not been a force for moral good in the World, and that by excluding the horrific history of religion, schools are teaching a vast amount of ignorance on such an extreme level. Basing morality on Christianity is an epic over statement, and suggests that without collective worship, children would be unable to taught to distinguish between right and wrong. Morality is not based on religion. Religion attempts to base itself on the contextual morality of a specific time. Morality is simply society evolving collectively, for its own survival and advancement. Christian interrogation techniques of the 1500s would not be considered moral today. The slavery advocated in the Old Testament, is certainly not moral. The imprisonment of George Holyoak for blasphemy in 1843, would not be considered moral now. Religion is a dynamic force that updates along with society, it is not special, it is offering nothing new, and it is still a force for regression. Humanity invented it, so humanity can do without it.

The guidelines go on:

It is a matter of deep concern that in many schools these activities do not take place with the frequency required or to the standards that pupils deserve.

- What is actually of deep concern, is state sponsored fairy tales promoted as truth. What is “collective worship”? What are we worshipping? Can the state prove that was we are collectively worshiping actually exists, and if by some miracle they can justify it, can they prove that the entity they are worshiping is good? Because for every relatively non-violent passage in the Bible, I can pick out another ten that say otherwise.
They are promoting Christianity for reasons of tradition, and tradition is the absolute antonym of reason.

I argue that the balance is tipped firmly in the wrong direction. It is the reason why people will still genuinely believe themselves when they say “yeah but evolution is just a theory”….. no it isn’t. The supreme ignorance cannot be attributed entirely to the individual, it must start from a young age. Evolution; and all the wonderful branches that stem from it, such as biology and zoology, are apparently less important than making sure impressionable children believe religion is the foundation of all morality. The early education system teaches that Jesus was born to a Virgin, they he is the son of God and that he died for our sins. It is a very one sided view of history and a vast manipulation of a child’s mind. A mind which is like a sponge at that age, cannot comprehend the illogical nonsense of what their trusted teacher is implying.

Religious teaching in schools should be limited to cultural studies, not presented as fact.

The Enlightenment of the Devil

Dwindling aimlessly in the realm of unbelief, as I am doing recently, I am reading “God and the State” by Bakunin, along with a plethora of other books. A passage from God and the State stood out for me, because it sums up exactly how I feel about Christianity, and it’s obvious contradictions.

The quote:

“The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty-Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves.

He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.”

I wanted to expand on this quote.
What Bakunin is getting at, is the idea that the God of the Bible is a ruthless, heartless, crazed dictator. He wants His subjects to understand that they should not question Him. He holds the ultimate knowledge and they shouldn’t. If anyone disobeys him, as Adam and Eve did, they shall be punished. The Catholic Church similarly seemed to punish anyone throughout the centuries, who fell across ideas and discoveries that ran contrary to their teaching. The Church’s treatment of Galileo is a famous example of the brutality of the Church when its authority is challenged. God had the same superiority complex, and tantrum when humanity demanded educating, in the garden of Eden. He created the concept of sin, He punishes a concept that he created, and then a few thousand years later He sends His one begotten son, to die an horrific death in order to absorb the concept that He created in the first place.

God placed a restriction on knowledge. He demanded obedient slaves, and if they wanted to improve their knowledge, they would be punished. Alongside complete obedience, he demands worship. This seem like a game. It serves no overriding purpose. Pawns are played with. And to make matters worse, those pawns are given curiosity and a yearning for knowledge and self improvement, built into their mentality. This wretched little game played by God, is both pointless, and torturous.

Along comes Satan. A symbol of evil, simply, it seems, because he tempts humanity away from God. I’m not entirely sure why this is considered a great evil. We must first accept that we wish to be next to God, to be tempted from him. And that requires our faculties of reason. Perhaps then, Satan is getting a bit of a bad press. Why is the questioning of authority a bad thing? It seems to me that questioning authority, is the basis of liberty. God wants complete obedience as revealed through scripture. This means any progressive free thinking is entirely forbidden. It means if our conscience tells us that a cute old lesbian couple, deeply in love, are not evil people destined for hell, we are to ignore it and instead choose prejudice as sanctioned by the Bible. If we follow our conscience (a conscience given to us by God in the first place), we are simply being tested by the evil of Satan. It means, Galileo should have been imprisoned for questioning Christian dogma, dogma that plunged Europe into a devastating Dark Age, ruthlessly suppressing all advancement, and discarding advances made by the Greeks. Free thought and curiosity, according to God, is a sin. That is the way of God. Satan, if anything, tells you to think for yourself.

If I am to think that the the systematic murder of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of first born children, sanctioned and executed by God in the book of Exodus, is wrong, I am being tempted by the Devil away from God. I should be condemning those first born children. That is the reality of being close to God.

Further in Exodus, we see God demanding the deaths of anyone who dances around the golden calf. This includes family, children and friends of the group. Exodus 32:28 suggests 3000 people were slaughtered for dancing around a calf. I’d say this God is evil.

In Numbers 31, God commands the total annihilation of the Midianite people (The Midianites were a tribe of Abraham’s descendants through the line of Keturah. This story always struck me as particularly cruel, whenever I read the Bible. I have my copy of the Bible sat on my lap as I write this, and I cannot for the life of me workout how anyone can read it, and not despise this God as we despise people like Hitler and Pol Pot. He seems no different. After the annihilation of the Midianite people, Moses, working on the command of God, says:

“……. kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.”

Kill all the male children, but keep the female children, as long as they’re virgins, for themselves. Nice. 32,000 virgins in all. I am not sure how Christians or Jews can suggest that any children deserve that treatment. The Midianites inhabited a large area. Much of Northern Arabia was Midianite territory at one stage. They were a diverse people.

An authoritarian God, cannot also promote truly ethical values and behaviour. An authoritarian God necessarily negates free will. We must be good because we’re commanded to be good, by the standard of Holy Texts that most of us find the majority of, to be abhorrent to our sense of right and wrong. Morality is not morality, if it is forced and threatened.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church”, a book of defined Catholicism suggests that Satan exists only because God allows him too. In paragraph 395, it states:

Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries – of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence.

You may be mistaken into thinking that the above is the ramblings of an insane person. You’d be wrong. But only slightly. It is the ramblings of an insane institution; the Church. God allows Satan to exist. God therefore allows what he considers evil to exist. He is not at war with evil, he will never be at war with evil, because he is in complete control at all times. Which suggests, he isn’t all that loving afterall. But we knew that, given that he’s already wiped out a few million people, whilst condemning young virgins to a life of abuse at the hands of his followers (Catholic Priests are carrying on the tradition recently, it would seem).

Paragraph 397 states:

Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

- Interesting use of the word ‘freedom‘. You are ‘free‘ to decide whether or not to believe in God’s word, but if you choose not to, you will be punished. That’s like saying to your child “You are free to play with the skateboard indoors, but if you do, I will put your head in the oven.” Freedom isn’t freedom if one of the two available chooses includes awful punishment.

In fact, there are virtually millions upon millions of people condemned to death, and violent deaths at that, by God. I cannot for the life of me find one death ordered by Satan. All he tends to do, is tempt people to question everything this maniac in the sky tells them. Satan, although portrayed in Christian literature (although not so much in the Bible) as the fallen angel turned demon, sent to tempt humanity into evil, seems actually to be the voice of reason. If we were to take the Bible as metaphor, perhaps one could infer that Satan represents reason, and enlightenment, whereas God represents Christian/Islamic dogma and slavery.

The only way we “know” that Satan is evil, is because it is alluded to in the Bible and subsequent Christian texts. Forgive me for saying, but I am not going to rely on the writings of the single most violent and corrupt institution that has existed over the past two thousand years, to lecture me on what is good and what is evil. How hypocritical of them. It also suggests that Satan is far more powerful than God. The entire history of humanity and its suffering, according to Biblical principles, was caused by Satan. The triumph of free thought over mind-dictatorship.

Bakunin points out that Satan is the first great rebel against great an evil authoritative figure. He encourages disobedience and questioning. He is the founder of the enlightenment, millennia before the enlightenment takes place. Satan is the Christian version of Prometheus. A champion of mankind. It would appear that Christianity has taught us, that an entity that gave us the courage to investigate for ourselves, and expand our understanding, and to question everything; is evil. Genocide on a scale that would make Stalin fall to his knees in awe, gets twisted and presented as “good”, whereas educating people away from this nonsense, is presented as “evil”. Christianity is therefore a very regressive force within society. The Catholic Church embodies this regressive nature perfectly.

The Enlightenment, and all the advances it brought with it. The scientific method, political and social rights, evolutionary theory, separation of Church and State….. This is what the Biblical God forbids, and attributes entirely to Satan.

We should perhaps be a little more critical of the Theocratic dictator God whom punishes you for loving the ‘wrong’ person, requires constant worship, and demands complete obedience, and a little less critical of the free thinking, enlightened Devil.

So you’re offended. So fucking what?

“So you’re offended. So fucking what?”

- Stephen Fry, on the offence caused when speaking about religion.

When Saint Thomas Moore refused to take the oath of supremacy, that stated the King was the head of the Church in England, and not the Pope; he was executed. Bishop Fisher followed the same fate. As did many other Catholics who refused the oath. It was used as an instrument of propaganda and a power tool. The oath itself went on to inspire the wording of the US oath of citizenship (also nothing more than a power tool and instrument of propaganda, swearing an oath; your life, to an abstract concept of Nationalism), which ends with the line ‘so help me God’. It would appear that with over five hundred years, and countless Christianity inspired murders, Christianity itself still has a debilitating strangle hold over people, especially those who do not wish to indulge in primitive cult worship. We have not learnt a thing, as a species.

It is no secret that I find organised religion to be massively intolerable. It offends my sense of rationale. It’s bloodshed history disturbs me. I also find it particularly funny. Something to be laughed at. I do not like how much power it has over the World.

In 2006 a group called Christian Voice picketed outside the Student Union of St Andrew’s University, where a play called Jerry Springer The Opera was being performed. The musical is written by one of my favourite comedians, Stewart Lee, and is a satirical look at the World and Christianity, based on Jerry Springer Show. Christian Voice threatened members of the audience, and so many extra security guards were brought in to protect the audience. The show inside, got a standing ovation.

In the same year, and for the same reasons, Christian Voice threatened to picket strongly in force outside of the Cancer Care centre Maggie’s Centres, if they accepted a £3000 donation from Jerry Springer The Opera. Christian Voice told Maggie’s Centres that to accept the donation from a show full of ‘filth and blasphemy’ would be a public relations disaster. Maggie’s Centres therefore rejected the donation through fear and intimidation from a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. The donation would have been used to provide a better standard of palliative cancer care for sufferers and their families. But apparently that’s not as important as offending a few nutjobs and their make-believe fantasy World. The Christian Voice website, almost brags incessantly about how they successfully harassed theatres into dropping Jerry Springer The Opera, with threats of private prosecutions for blasphemy under the Incitement To Racial and Religious Hatred Act.

The show failed to gain massive audiences, due to the fact that theatres across the UK pulled out, because of the intimidation from Christian Voice. The group however said that the show’s failings was due to divine intervention rather than their own actions. Clearly divine intervention didn’t reach far enough, because Jerry Springer The Opera won four awards at the 2004 Laurence Olivier Awards, including Best Sound Design, Best Actor in a Musical, Best Acting in a supporting role, and Best New Musical. Best Musical at the Critics’ Circle Awards, Best Musical at the Evening Standard Awards, Best Touring Production at the TMA Awards, and Best Musical at the Whatsonstage.com Theatre Goers Choice Awards. This all suggests that a magic man made God had nothing to do with the lack of viewers, and more to do with the threats, intimidation, and outright bullshit of Christian fundamentalists and their rather pathetic cult.

Fundamentalist Christians are just as much of a roadblock to the betterment of humanity, as fundamentalist Muslims who insist on calling for the deaths of anyone who draws a picture of the Prophet Mohammad. The very fact that a historical speculation rather than fact is taken so seriously to the point where threats upon a man’s life are made, is evidence to me that we have allowed organised religion to dictate our way of thinking far too much over the years. I have no doubt that those muslim fundamentalists find a picture of Mohammad offensive and derogatory, and that is our fault as a society for allowing it to get that far. Generation after generation of indoctrination, and teaching our children not to think for themselves has created a bunch of angry mindless robots who think that their imaginary man in the sky is worth dying and killing for. We are teaching our children that a person is a religion or a nationality first, and a human being second. Why should it matter?

Whilst a large number of US citizens spend their time complaining that Obama is some evil Marxist for extending a decent standard of healthcare to a higher number of Americans; they had absolute no problem when President George Bush spent billions of US$ sending thousands of soldiers to their pointless deaths, and the deaths of many many innocent Iraqi’s including Children. They took it as a sign that their thuggish imperialistic temperament was endorsed by their God, when George Bush told the Palestinian delegation at peace talks in 2003 that:

‘I am driven with a mission from God’. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me.’

Perhaps when God told George to go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan, he meant that he should personally go, with a sword and shield to fight them, not sit at home in luxury, sending a bunch of kids from low socio-economic backgrounds to their deaths for a few years without actually achieving a thing other than an increased threat from another bunch of crazed fundamentalists other than his own.

I have no doubt that the power that Christianity has, and the illegitimate authority it commands over our lives is a left over from the end of the Renaissance period, and beginning of Enlightenment. John Locke quite famously said that Atheism was:

“not at all to be tolerated because, promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.”

These people have always believed themselves to be the height of human morality. The problem is that hypocrisy is lurking ever so slightly beneath the surface of the claims of people like John Locke. The Popes of the time (Middle Ages/Reformation/Renaissance/Enlightenment/present day) were almost always corrupt and up until very recently, made sure those ‘promises, coventants and oaths’ were keeping entirely with what the Church’s understanding of the words meant (which were always very loose definitions; usually definitions that made the Church richer) and enforced it upon the pain of death for those who dissented.

During his reign in the 15th and 16th Century, Pope Alexander VI (Patron of Raphael, Michelangelo and Bramante) had a long term mistress whom bore him four children. She was married to someone else at the time. That didn’t stop the Pope. Before he became Pope Alexander, Roderic de Borja amassed huge wealth, and used it to bribe electors into electing him to the Papacy. His daughter Lucrezia is said to have bore him a daughter/niece. A contemporary writer in Rome wrote that Lucrezia was “the pope’s daughter, wife and daughter-in-law“. An Ambassador to the Papacy, Burchard, wrote of Alexander introducing his son to his court, and the celebration that ensued:

“On Sunday evening, 30 October [1501], Don Cesare Borja gave his father a supper in the apostolic palace, with 50 decent prostitutes or courtesans in bright garb in attendance, who after the meal danced with the servants and others there, first fully dressed and then naked.
Following the supper, lampstands holding lighted candles were placed on the floor and chestnuts strewn about, which the prostitutes, naked and on their hands and knees, had to pick up with their mouths as they crawled in and out among the lampstands.
The Pope watched and admired their noble parts. The evening ended with an obscene contest of these women, coupled with male servants of the Vatican, for prizes which the Pope presented.
Don Cesare, Donna Lucrezia and the Pope later each took a partner of their liking for further dalliances.”

It was during this period, that the Papacy had a strict control over the lives of its citizens. It was beaten into the brains of its citizens across Europe, that Christianity was not to be questions, or attacked. The penalty for heresy in most parts of the known World, was death. So it is no wonder that we are still living with the remnants of those days; angry self righteous Christians attempting to push their sense of organised communal morality onto the masses through fear and oppressive intolerance. We have seen the death and destruction caused when they have a lot of power. They should have no power.

The power of the Papacy didn’t only exist during the corruption of the Renaissance era. In March 2010, it emerged that the office of the Papacy prevented a 1996 prosecution of Priest Laurence Murphy, who had admitted sexually abusing over 200 young boys. Pope Benedict XVI at the time was in charge of the Catholic Church’s disciplinary offices. A trial was organised, but under orders that it be kept entirely secret. We wouldn’t want to taint the righteous name of the Catholic Church. Murphy then appealed to Benedict (then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) for mercy, and the case was immediately dropped. The Pope therefore, covered up child molestation, to protect the name of the Church.

The mother of one of the victims of Murphy said:

“There should be no institution that is not accountable for what they do, that is able to hide behind the faith. You know the Catholic Church is very powerful and that should not be.”

We should not allow the Papacy, or organised religion in general any kind of say as to how we run our own lives. We shouldn’t feel guilty if our standards are below those put to us by the Church or any other religious institution. I would rather not go to a heaven endorsed by the Catholic Church.

Religion should be individual. A sense of spirituality is not a bad thing in itself. If you find a show offensive to your unproven belief, then don’t watch the show. Do not try to ban it for the rest of us. We have our own minds. Personal faith is not a bad thing. Organised faith are comprised of institutions that should be mocked, laughed at, ignored, and powerless.

So you’re offended, so fucking what?

The Church of Me

“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” – Thomas Jefferson

I’ve always wondered where the line between inventive cult nonsense, and respectful religion is crossed. If I were to say I believed in a talking prophetic snake that lives in a cave on Saturn, i’d be told i’m crazy. Yet, a story in which a man is born to a woman who has never even so much as had sex, lives a miracle filled life, dies, raises from the dead like a zombie messiah, walks around for a while, and then ascends into Heaven, is highly respected, and actually has political influence, purely because billions of people believe in it? A factitious God of an old Testament that appears to resemble tyrannical dictators throughout history, filled with gratuitous hate, than a loving God; but it must be respected? Why? It is illogical to be disrespectful to another human being based on their sexuality or their race or their gender, something they have no control over, however their religious belief is simply a concept, an idea, ideas do not demand respect inherently.

Religious indoctrination, is somewhat unnerving and in my humble opinion, impossibly detrimental to the workings of society and the relationships we form. Homosexuality is looked down upon for no justifiable reason; kids are made to say prayer in school without actually given the choice of what they want to believe; non-believers are condemned to hell regardless of great humanitarian works they may undertake; candidates for President have their religious beliefs tested before facing election; Gospels that contradict each other, leave out important parts of the Story (Jesus virgin birth is only mentioned in two gospels); the wars it causes, the lies it thrives on, the terrible acts people have taken in it’s name. It’s all so wrong.

It amazes me that the line between absolute nonsense and respectful religion is not crossed because there is any sort of empirical evidence, but crossed simply because more people chose to believe it. Some of those, will regard anyone who dares to question them, impertinent heathens destined for hell. The restrictions the system of what it’s followers deem to be universal God-given facts, places on the World have not improved the World. It hasn’t made the World a safe haven. We’re not peaceful, we’re not safe, we’re at the most dangerous point in history. Religious dogma and the intolerance it lives off to feed it’s outdated traditions, is living in the middle ages.

For me, spirituality is an inward manifestation of insecurities, imperfections and a deep desire for guidance. I myself, rely on the Tao Te Ching when my own personal insecurities demand guidance and reassurance that my philosophical and sociological thoughts and opinions are both logical and respectful. Spirituality is not something to be forced onto society as a whole. I would not dream of telling people that they either conform to my way, or be damned. I do not condemn Christians, they are entitled to believe as they wish. I merely condemn the need to force religion onto others, through political process and the education system.

I cannot prove that there is no God. Nobody has that authority. But similarly, I cannot prove that there is a God. I am simply against mass indoctrination based on superstition and out dated tradition. You and I have equally unknowing minds, whether you’re a preacher or an expert in Biblical studies or an Atheist. You have no deeper understanding of the workings of the Universe than I do. You are not an expert.

It is my general belief, my own deeply held Philosophy that you should act always according to the maxim, that you do to others that which you have problem having done to you. If you wish to sleep around, fine. If you wish to be straight or gay or a transsexual, fine. If you wish to do drugs, fine. If you wish to drink, fine. It is your decision. As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, there is no problem. As long as you’re friendly, polite, and well intentioned, then nothing else matters. A bigoted, supremely prejudice myth based God certainly doesn’t matter.

Of course the Story of Jesus, and what he wants and expects, has been hijacked by the Right Wing, for it’s “freedom” agenda, which apparently doesn’t take into account the fact that the wealthy preachers, Popes and ministers are as unlikely to get into their heaven as an agnostic such as myself is. I may be a bit controversial here, but judging by Jesus’ standards, i’d say he’d be condemned as a Socialist by today’s standards. Otherwise those lepers would have had to produced their insurance documents before being cured. The bread and the fish would have been distributed to the hardest working, or those who were the sons of the hardest working. Acts 2:44-45 reads like a section of a Socialist manifesto: “All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” He certainly didn’t preach the message of ruthless competition and winner takes all wealth. I’d go one step further, and say that by Biblical accounts, Jesus was executed, because he supported the less fortunate and so threatened the wealth of the rich.

It amazes me that Christianity (especially American Christianity) has developed almost an entirely separate sect, to the teachings of Jesus. They some how manage to combine the teachings of Jesus, with Nationalism, with Capitalism, and with the odd skewed understanding of “traditional marriage“, despite all three of those, going against everything Jesus ever taught. If you’re going to insist that gays shouldn’t be allowed to be married on religious grounds, then perhaps I could count on your support when I try to marry six wives, like King David. Or when I try to pass a law requiring all the brothers of dead men, to marry their dead brother’s widow and have children, as sanctioned in Matthew 22:24. (“Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him“). Why just go after homosexuals? Why not the brothers of dead men, who haven’t married their brother’s widow? Surely they’re sinning too? Christianity itself was a product of it’s time. It has no relevance today. The only basis it has, it to allow those with deeply held prejudice and intolerant views, to cite the Bible for justification. Much of the time (as is the case with the entire Catholic Church), they are so far off the mark of Biblical teachings, i’m almost inclined to believe i’m more of a Christian than the Catholic Church could ever be.

If it is true, that hell is going to be packed with Atheists, sexually promiscuous women, scientists, those who undertook great acts of kindness but weren’t Christian, Democrat Presidents, anyone who has ever touched pigskin, among others – then Hell is the fun and happy place to be! If the option is “Become a gay hating Republican, or go to Hell“, then i’m afraid it’s Hell every time. If my mother, my father, my grandparents, me, and all of my friends who do not subscribe to Christian doctrine are damned to an eternity in a torturous Hell, then the God that created these ridiculous rules, is a God I want nothing to do with.

And so with all of that in mind, I have decided to formulate my own religious system of beliefs, based on the following points.

Thou shall treat others, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religious belief, as equal to yourself.

Wednesday is to be the day of sex. This is important to my new Religion because sex is the binding essence of all life. And let’s face it, we’d all quite like to have sexual freedom.

A man can lie with another man as he would a woman, if he so wishes. To ignore your true feelings and to oppress your sexuality, for this is unnatural. (Leviticus 18:22)

Anyone who offers their daughters up to be raped by towns people (even if it is to save angels) is not the good guy! (Genesis 19:8)

No one shall ever say “My country is a Christian country“. Especially when (as is the case with the U.S.A), it isn’t, and never was.

There will be no list that says “Thou shalt not murder“, because it’s common sense, it didn’t need writing down, it isn’t morality based on Religious beliefs. Instead, we shall replace pointless Jealous-God Commandments like “Do not have any other gods before me“, and replace with much more principled and practical moral codes (which the Catholic Church could really benefit from) like “Thou shalt not rape, molest, slaughter, torture, or intentionally hurt another“.

If you’re a Politician, your belief in this religion, shall not interfere with your duties to the public. You shall not try to influence policy in the direction of religious dogma.

My birth will be determined, three hundred years after i’ve died, by Roman dictators.

Touching pig skin is not dirty, any God who says it is, is just being pedantic.

Two thousand year old scribblings, do not constitute “absolute truth“.

Creating light, after the Earth and Heavens, is just ridiculous. God (me) created light first. I’ll create the sun first. Because there would be no way to distinguish day from night otherwise, and that’d be a ridiculous way to spend, let’s say, the first three days. (Genesis 1:16)

When I die, please Gospel of Jamie writers, let’s agree what my last words were. I don’t want three different versions, like with Matthew, Luke and John.

Homosexuals can marry. Why should they be excluded from the misery of marriage?

Just so you know, I probably wont spend more than an hour a day, blessing America.

Good deeds will get you into my heaven!

Believing, by blind faith, rejecting all evidence to the contrary, is the great catastrophe of mankind.

If something good happens to you, you will not be required to say “God blessed me, thank you Lord“, whilst ignoring the plight of millions in extreme poverty. I’d be a shit God to bless Britney Spears with the ability to get rich and win awards, and yet ignore millions of others. If good things happen to you, I really don’t need you to thank me on National Television.

Money is not the driving force of life. Less is more.

You cannot charge money for anything with my name on it. There will be no huge Vatican like building. Any money donated will go on community projects (Communist God?).

You may wear clothing woven from two different types of material. It would be a most ridiculous and pointless rule ever suggested (Leviticus 19:19).

Women are not created for the servitude of men. To suggest otherwise, is just more prejudice, bigoted nonsense (I Corinthians 11:8-9).

Women may be in a position of power (1 Tim 2:12).

You may not sell your daughter, nor any person, into slavery. (Exodus 21:7).

You may lust after whomever you wish, because it’s perfectly natural, everyone does it (Matthew 5:28).

You may associate with Atheists (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).

Let’s please not celebrate the traditional marriage. Between man and woman. And between the man and his concubines (II Sam 5:13). And that marriage between a believer and non-believer is forbidden(Gen 24:3). And that if there is no decent man, single women should get their father’s drunk, and sleep with their dads (Genesis 19:31-36). Biblical marriage is just a nightmare.

It is not acceptable to pick and choose passages, just to attempt to justify your own hatreds.

Please understand, that Evolution doesn’t mean your great grandfather once slept with a monkey. That’s not how it works.

It is okay if you do not take the Bible seriously. You are a free, rational thinking, entity. You are free to believe whatever you so wish, you are free to think, without fear of punishment for those beliefs.

Join the Church of Jamie today!

Republican Day III

Now, I could just about cope with the BIG INFLATED SOCIALIST state en acting laws preventing me from stoning my dad, for working on the Sabbath, clearly going against the Bible and Exodus 35:2. I was even able to cope with the fact that the Commie Atheist law tells me that whether my slave dies today, or in two days time, it’s still punishable, even though the rightful word of my loving God tells me in Exodus 21:20-21 that if he dies in two days time, it’s okay and that I shouldn’t be punished (did you know, that the State in it’s increasing attempts to block my religious freedom, have ACTUALLY banned slavery? It’s outrageous. What next, a ban on laughing except for black people and gays?).

However, I cannot quite believe what i’m hearing, when a friend informed me that Gayowa, ConnetiAIDS, Bummingchusettes And Homont aren’t the only States to be allowing those who want to give AIDs to my children, to get married. New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine (notice they’re all in Satan’s part of the U.S.OF Awesome) are all expected to vote in favour of the homogays very soon.

In 2006, the greatest President the USAwesome has ever known, George W Bush (Whose first name, begins with the same letter as God’s. Coincidence?) called for a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage. He said quite beautifully, and tolerantly that “A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society“. And he’s right!!! American Heterosexual families in Gayowa are now victims. They can’t go outside without men in pink shorts and leather BDSM clothing chasing them with their cocks out and the butt flap on their shorts wide open, forcing them to listen to George Michael. Is this what you want America? You want your children exposed to this?

It’s just unnatural. So horribly unnatural. Nothing about homogay marriage is natural. But my belief in a man who was born to a Virgin, who was visited by three men who followed the words of an angel, and who grew up to perform miracles, was crucified but rose from the dead, walked around for a few days and then flew up to a bearded man in the sky (Who by the way, supported the election of John McCain in 2008….. which means Democrat voters are going to hell)… will allow me to beat those unnatural bastards.

By allowing Homofags to get married, the U.S Senate is undermining the marriage between man and woman. Before the queers were allowed to marry, no men or women ever got divorced. FACT. Britney Spears would not have felt forced into marrying a man for twenty four hours. FACT. Anti-gay Republicans like Richard Curtis would not have accidentally fallen on top of a man in a hotel room whilst they both just happened to be naked (there clothes were stolen by gay democrats!!) and then dressed up like a woman. FACT! And Fox News’s (the only fair and impartial news channel in the World) Sean Hannity would not have been FORCED by the Gays to pose with hookers even though he’s married. FACT!

This is all part of the Gay agenda, designed to destroy heterosexual marriage eventually. Did you know for example, that every time a gay couple marry, a heterosexual couple have to divorce. Heterosexual people are being forced to give up their Religious principles based on Jesus spending a lot of intimate time with twelve male disciples, in order to accept that gayism as anything but a disgusting child abusing aids spreading society killer.

Well I for one wont let it happen any more. And i’m not the only one! Over at the insightful and fully FACT based freedom loving website Americans for Truth have opened my eyes to the truth. They are the “leading resource for exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda. ” And that’s exactly what it is! An agenda! A Satanist agenda at that. Heterosexuals have no agenda. We just want to be able to get married, whilst oppressing preventing those who engage in sexual acts that we deem inappropriate. (and for those of you who say that truth is subjective…. erm… WAKE UP! ….. The Bible says otherwise…. take that Liberals!!).
They highlight an email they received from a liberal Christian (which is just another way of saying “working undercover for Satan)…

“Grow the [f–k] up. My god your an [a–shole]. I can see that look on your balding head. Probably in the closet all these years trying to deny your mysioginistic [sic] way. God can\’t save you from the [f–cking] miserable choices you make in interpretating his rules as literal, not figurative mesaages [sic] on ways to live your life. I went to sunday school for half of my life – I should know. The name of this site should not be Americans for Truth, but Americans for Lies. People do not force themselves to like other people, amd [sic] only a thickheaded person like you deserves to rot in the depths of hell if there is such a place. Another good name for this site would be mainly [yourana–hole.com]. Perfectly suits you afterall.”

First of all, Satan worshipper, bald men can use their heads to absorb more of God’s light. So what do you have to say now? He then appears to suggest that the word of God is up for interpretation. Which it isn’t. It clearly states that Gays are an abomination. Notice he refers to the “A-hole” a couple of times? Do you know why that is? That’s right, it’s because he loves men. He seems to be suggesting that “Americans for Truth” are picking and choosing what they wish to take literally from the Bible. Which is false again!!! Because I happen to know for certain, that their new website, entitled “Americans for giving AIDs to Atheists” is going to be a massive hit! It’s based purely on Exodus 15:26, which clearly states that if you disobey God, you should be punished with horrible disease. To be fair though, it’s only a matter of time before they get AIDs anyway, given that they’re all gay anyway.

The gay days are numbered! Republicans are going to kick ass!

Republican Jamie

For one day only, i’ve decided to embrace the art of being a Republican.
And so for all you lefties (closet homosexuals) and those of you who like to engage brain activity (Satan worshippers) it’s probably best you look away now.

Thank god for Texas Gov. Rick Perry (A true Patriot, perhaps even the ACTUAL 2nd coming of Christ), who suggested Texas could secede from the Union. Texans should be proud! They don’t need evil socialist gay loving social security, medicaid, highway repair, medicare and anything else the Union offers them. Texas doesn’t need to be included in the same list of States as Gayowa. Take your Socialist Federal infrastructure back! Take back Department of Defence funding! Texas doesn’t need that commie bullshit. God will replace it all! And as for the new Texan economy, it’d be amazingly strong! Because we’re the party of fiscal responsibility you know! Plus, Bush is a Texan, so considering he’s been a fiscal genius over his eight years (I like to call them, America’s Golden Years), he can be the brand new Nation of Texas Treasury Secretary. YEAH! Texas doesn’t need your commie Union.

For the past three months a black man (I believe they are referred to as “bruvas“) has occupied George Bush’s house. It seems a little unfair. Bush had successfully managed to lower house prices SO much, that anyone (including lazy “bruvas from da hood“) can afford to buy, so much so that a bruva has taken Bush’s house from him. That’s gratitude for you. The lying liberal media (with the exception of the totally fair and unbiased Fox News) have lost control when it comes to Barack HUSSAIN (yes, Hussain!!! It sounds like insane!!! Coincidence?) Obama (YES!! Obama!! It sounds like a bomber!! Coincidence?…. Barak insane Abomber*….. God warned us!!). They’re everywhere. The BBC over here with it’s Trotskyist approach to news reporting …… i’ve never once seen them refer to homosexuals as dirty sinners, who shouldn’t be allowed near children, and are on their way to hell… even though that’s exactly what they are. The liberal media with it’s homosexual agenda must go!

Earlier I pointed out that Bush had managed to destroy push down house prices so much so that even those weird coloured people bought them up. Which in turn, lead to the crises we’re in today. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Phil Gramm just tried to help. The Liberal media and it’s muslim loving homosexual agenda will have you believe that those three helped deregulate so much that the entire market became one big mess. Well it wouldn’t have become a mess if blacks hadn’t started paying for things they couldn’t afford bringing their crime and “shiz” into crime free happy joyful white neighbourhoods!!!! We all know that the only way to deal with a fire is to set it on fire. And so logic dictates that the only way to deal with this crises is more deregulation!! Much like the only way to deal with increase in gun crime is more guns!!!

Liberals will have you believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion. As an outsider looking into the Freest country on the Planet, I wonder, where is the freedom for a Christian to block a woman deciding what she thinks is best for her body? She’s clearly wrong if the she wants an abortion. She’s going against God. Like the gays and the jews and brown people. The true followers of Jesus Christ (Republicans) have a moral duty to correct this. It wont be long before they actually want to abort children AFTER they’re born, have left college and got a job. The liberals will say it’s the mothers right. Could they be any more in cahoots with the anti-christ (who, coincidentally, is Barak Insane Abomber)? Liberals would allow a child to grow up, and indulge in premarital sex…… homosexual sex nonetheless, with same sex hookers, and then for fun, they’d go out and perform an abortion.

We fight for the right of life! Children are precious and should be treated as such! Even before birth. In fact, even before conception. Every time you masturbate you’re killing potential children, and God hates you for it, you fucking murderers. And don’t tell me that we’re baby killers just because a few Iraqi children died in our bombing. They don’t even believe in Jesus. And, they’re Iraqi, so they’d only grow up to be terrorists anyway.
We protect children! Which is why we vetoed the SCHIP program, an evil leftie commie hippy program designed to give five million poor children health insurance. Do you know how Clinton wanted to pay to cover those poor lazy kids? That’s right! He wanted to raise tax on cigarettes. Which, in turn would lead to less smoking, and less State tax revenue. He actually thought it was Constitutional to help lazy kids whilst at the same time cut smoking. All it’s doing is teaching kids to be commies and that’s un-American. “Help” is un-American.
Luckily Senate Majority Leader at the time, Trent Lott said that it was just a large inflated Government program that would not pass! Hate lazy kids but love cigarettes? Vote Lott! Perhaps if the children weren’t lazy or black or muslims, Jesus Christ would love them enough to give them more money for health insurance. But he didn’t. Because they’re lazy. And the money I spend on cigarettes I DO NOT want going to helping Satan’s children, who will probably grow up to be homosexuals or criminals any way.
Luckily Bush was on hand to veto any attempt to pass such a bill, saying that it would “federalize health care” and we don’t want no fucking evil commie healthcare system like the gayropeans in countries like Gay Britain have.
But then Barack Insane Abomber became President (America’s first Terrorist President, who will undo all the humanitarian work that Bush has achieved), and suddenly four million more children including (and this bit sickens me) the children of legal immigrants are now covered!!!! Commie Mexican kids, taking up YOUR tax dollars to fund their health care? What next? A Socialist police force covering all areas regardless of who can afford it? Some of those kids don’t even believe in Jesus. Should we be paying for them to recover? Boo hoo, they’re ill…… if they weren’t so heretical and lazy, perhaps they wouldn’t need your tax money!!

What if those kids grow up to be scientists (faggot Jesus deniers)? How guilty will you feel if you helped cure a kid who insists on Darwin’s idea that your grandma was an ape? What if he teaches YOUR kids that gays are not evil satan worshippers? What if he teaches that the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old? What if he grows up to tell us all that Polar bears are worth saving instead of letting Dick Cheney grow richer from his oil ventures? What if he grows up to support action on climate change (it’s really cold here today, Global Warming? More like Global liberal homosexual jesus hating bullshit) Could you live with yourself if all that happened? I certainly couldn’t. The liberal media would win, and that can’t happen!! Why haven’t they questioned where Abomber gets his suits from? I tell you why…. because he gets his suits from terrorist homosexuals in Iran which is near Eurogaycommieland. That’s why!

The fact remains that Abomber wants to let muslims with bombs straight from Gitmo (liberals say that some of those inmates are “innocent”….. they come from outside the U.S.of.AWESOME, so they’re not fucking innocent. They deserve it! The Satan worshipping homos) live next door to you. It’s no surprise. He’s never once came out in public and denied that he’s a terrorist, which means he’s a terrorist. Like all muslims are terrorists. He wants to let homos into the military. Yeah that’s just what they need, whilst the REAL men are killing as many dirty terrorist arabs as possible, suddenly a man dancing to George Michael records sits next to them and starts talking about shoes.
He wants your kids to be bummed in school by the gays. He thinks it’s ok to allow teachers to say “Darwin” instead of “Satan” and teach that farfetched ridiculous impossible concept of evolution. Luckily It wont last long, we have Jesus on our side….. he was the son of a virgin and God, who was killed for our sins, rose from the dead, walked around for a bit, and then ascended into heaven. And worst of all Barack Insane Abomber has never once said “I’m not a muslim and i’m not an atheist“. Logic must conclude that because he’s never said those words, he must be a muslim and an atheist aswell as being a homosexual, a jew and black (so much for racial equality, change we can believe in?). We need to stop this. Already “Gayowa” has given into to the fags and given them the right to get married (which means I never want to get married, because if I did, i’d be a bit like the gays, and that’s disgusting) turning their state into as Humanevents calls it “A mecca” for aids lovers. Our children are the real victims here (not the lazy ones mentioned earlier, they’re already going to hell). They’re going to grow up thinking that it’s acceptable for two men to get married (two women is hott!), and so rejecting Jesus Christ in the process. And everyone knows if you reject Jesus our lord, you’re going to hell. As this chart shows.

See that! Satan is a pacifist. A leftie. A liberal. A homosexual. He doesn’t believe in violence. We have God on our side. He isn’t afraid to kick ass! FUCK YEAH!

Do I feel safer with Barack Insane Abomber in the White House? No. Whilst he and his home boyz sit chillin’ to 50 Cent, talking using a teleprompter (Bush didn’t have to do that, and his speeches are just as awe-inspiring and beautifully eloquent – even more so than the terrorist who took over) the World is laughing at America because we’re the wimps now! At least Bush and Jesus kept us in the West safe from terrorism (Madrid, London, 9/11, Turkey, Tunisia, and Morocco don’t count as proof that the World is more unsafe because if the Gayocrats had been in charge since 2001, those places wouldn’t even exist now!!! They’d all be muslim….. London would now be Londonstan… Bush stopped that from happening). Barack Insane Abomber is one of those who want to hurt Americans. When end of days is upon us (Republicans vs atheist homosexual muslim jews), Insane Abomber will have a lot of explaining to do.

Thank goodness for Republican bloggers! Like Sure Sense, who rightfully warns that after the Homeland Security Document covering Right Winged extremism (it is my freedom and the freedom of the other Republican bloggers, to completely ignore the fact that a report was also released on Left Wing Extremism) is bringing about THE END OF THE WORLD! Sure Sense doesn’t like that the DOHS Document, especially line “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration“
Sure Sense, tries to analyse the line, with his own magical synopsis…..
“So what this is saying is that all Evangelical Christians, who hold homosexuality and abortion to be a sin are now potential terrorist threats. “
- YES! That’s exactly what it says. I didn’t notice it before, because I was too busy focusing on the actual words. When I read it over and over, that’s exactly what it says! They are putting all Christians down as terrorists! Which we’re not! That’s the muslims! Luckily Sure Sense is on track to be much more understanding toward us Christians, much more accepting, much less vile…
” I do not hold that Buddha, Confucius, or Mohammad can get people to God. Sure, they may help you be “religious”, but all of their teachings are about how you have to be good enough, and you can’t be.”
- That’s fucking right! How dare the DOHS attack us. Those damn intolerent, ignorant bastards. It’s everyone else, who aren’t American Christians, who’re going to hell!!! We tried to tell that to the Iraqis, they hate us for it. So fuck them!
He doesn’t stop there! He continues with his well thought out logic!!…
” From there, we’ll see Christians being jailed, and eventually martyred.“
That’s right!! As well as being a gay loving commie, Abomber is also a big fan of the works of Emperor Nero. I fear for the future of Christians.

The only way to clean up the mess that Abomber has created (It’s a new mess, totally unexpected, definitely was not the fault of the previous incredibly competent Administration, despite what Liberals might tell you), is by having tea parties and talk of secession!!! That’s the way forward for the glorious GOP! Chuck Norris/Rush Limbaugh for President/Vice President of Texas!!!!!

Right, i’m off teabagging with the other ten Republicans (which the Liberal media wont cover by the way!!!) We don’t want our children inheriting such a huge tax burden!!!!(that’s not to say we wont accept the tax cut they’re giving us… the biggest in middle class U.S History apparently…..which makes them SECRET communists or fascists. One of the other!) Our children have a right to inherit an overly polluted earth free from tax burden!! We’re revolting for the sake of FREEDOM and that makes us Patriots! Unlike when those Lefties protested the Iraq war, the un-American homosexual Jesus hating muslims.

For true freedom (we freed Iraq baby!!) vote Republican in 2012. If you don’t, then you’re going to hell.

*Watching too much Abomber increases the risk of cancer.

Making a hell out of heaven

I appear to had forgotten just how unreasonable a vindaloo is a few hours after you’ve eaten it.
It’s like an incredibly attractive female, who, after you’ve “enjoyed” her, tells you she’s got herpes.
It sits there, staring at me, begging to be eaten, and so owing to my great incapability for saying no, I eat it. Savouring every last beautifully cheap and greasy mouthful (the curry, not the attractive female), I’m too deep into the heavenly taste, that I don’t think about the consequences of these actions. I go to bed satisfied.
A few hours later, and I wake up feeling like someone is about to blowtorch my arse.

I’ve wondered recently, what heaven is. What it’s like. Who it pleases. Who decides what universal perfection and happiness is. I mean, I understand that Heaven is the perfected perfection. It’s also very Conservative, in that it doesn’t like change or social progression. God spits at the Gays! Like an angry redneck scared that the sanctity of his second marriage to his second cousin may be undermined if we let the “fags” marry. It’s also very undemocratic, what with one guy ruling the entire place, very heavy handedly I might add, Bush will be invading heaven before January, I assure you.

If, as Christians tend to suggest, no homosexual person, or no person who questions Christianity, or no person who hasn’t accepted Jesus as “their lord and saviour” exists in heaven, then I do not want to go to Heaven. If the Christian heaven, void of anyone who happens to have a different view of life exists, then it’s indeed a very good advert for going to Hell. Hell seems much more diverse and accepting.
A Christian at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park, once told me that unless you accept Jesus into your life, you are destined for hell. I asked him, “what would happen to an Aid Worker in the Sudan, who dedicates his life to helping others, all his money goes into helping orphaned children live a better life, but is Atheist, and Gay?” The Christian, told me that man would go to hell for being a non believer. Yet this Christian stood in front of me, aimlessly condemning good people to hell, will be going straight to heaven? This same Christian, who will act morally, purely to appease his God and maybe get on the path to Heaven, whereas that Gay Atheist aid worker, acts morally, because he wants to do good, he has no one to impress, no God to appease, he does the right thing, for the sake of humanity, is going to hell? I think that’s a brilliant advert for hell right there.

Surely Heaven is different for everyone? My idea of the perfect eternal World will be entirely different to that, for example, of a White Supremacist. Their idea of heaven, may very well be void of all black or Asian people. Whereas, my idea of heaven would include every ethnic grouping, every coloured skin, every sexual orientation, every Nationality, every class, and every walk of life on the planet, living in a place without a whisp of fear or bigotry.
The idea of the perfect World for a Priest, may not include sexual salacious bliss, or may only include sexual salacious bliss for couples who had married in the material World. This, is my idea of hell.

Everyone is different.

A Vegetarian may find that his or her idea of Heaven, is never having to find another restaurant that actually caters to Vegetarians in a respectful maner. A table full of beautiful Vegetarian dishes. Whereas, my only edible wish for Heaven, all I ask of God, if he truly is merciful, would be a Vindaloo that doesn’t set my arse on fire.

The hypocrisy of the Christian Right

 

****

Hitler was a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
Sadam was a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
Polpot was a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
Osama Bin Laden is a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
General Pinochet was a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
George W Bush is a genocidal maniac, and hetrosexual.
Myra Hindley killed kids, and was hetrosexual.
Ted Bundy killed college girls, and was hetrosexual.
Ian Huntley killed two little girls, and was hetrosexual.
And yet the Christian Right has the fucking nerve to suggest it’s homosexuality that is a cancer on the Planet.

It strikes me as utterly inexcusable that a Nation bound to the values of freedom and fairness, condemn anyone who happens to have a different sexual preference to one that happened to be written down, 2000 or so years ago, when you know, it was alright for grown men to sleep with fourteen year old girls. And they hold that time up, as a guidance for all morality.
It’s bigotted, it’s unfounded, it’s another case of using that horrible form of social manipulation… “God” ….. to justify ones own disgraceful prejudices.

It would seem that happiness is not an individual freedom. It seems that the Christian Right Wing, decide what should be considered happiness. Gay people are not wanting to get married, in order to spit in the face of hetrosexual couples. They just want the absolute freedom to be happy, just like a hetrosexual couple, and no one has any right to deny them that freedom, if you voted in favour of Prop. 8, you should be incredibly ashamed of yourself, you’re beliefs on this matter, are wrong.

I read this today, in regard to Proposition 8, a Law banning same sex marriage in California……
“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”

What an idiot.
“Hey, what you doing today?“
“Oh you know, this and that, some golf maybe, a bit of homosexuality, maybe go swimming”.
Clearly, from an misinformed, bigotted Christian, insisting that HIS God, is one of peace, love, and unity, and yet paradoxically, condemning everyone to hell who isn’t an avid fan of his favourite work of Fiction, the Bible. Aside from the fact that the fundamental principle of Christianity is that God is perfect, and does not make mistakes, and therefore by definition, would accept homosexuality for what it is, just another form of love, because he created it, there are absolutely no other reasons to feel that gay marriage would undermine male/female marriage.

He went on…
“Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable.”

The difference, that he chooses to ignore, is that homosexuality, between two consenting adults, is not harming anyone, it’s nobody elses business, it isn’t causing any harm. It’s a sexual preference. Nothing else. It isn’t wrong, it isn’t unnatural. It has nothing to do with the Christian right. It’s personal choice. For what possible reason is it wrong? Use your own mind on this one, not one of a vile, hate-filled God.

One guy suggested that he wants to ban gay marriage, because he doesn’t want his kids indoctrinated with the idea that homosexuality is ok, at school, when in fact, he suggested that homosexuality was “another form of abuse”. This man, shouldn’t be having kids, if he’s just trying to pass on messages of hate to his own children. I’d be far more pissed off, and have to remove my kids from school, if they were teaching that it’s wrong to be homosexual. If one of my kids thinks he may be gay, and the school is telling everyone that it’s wrong, i’d pull my kid straight out of that school. And what the fuck is with “it’s just another form of abuse”….. clearly when God created Christians, he may have overestimated his ability.

Another guy suggested that gay guys are much more promiscuous than hetrosexual males and so far more likely to spread disease. I’m a hetrosexual male, and i’m promiscuous. I love sex. Infact, sex to me, has nothing to do with “procreation“, it’s all about fun, enjoying myself, relaxing, and above all, happiness. If a God would rather me sit in my room, rocking backwards and forwards, crying over the fact that i’m a dirty sinner, whilst I condemn anyone with opinions of their own to hell, then that’s a God who quite frankly, can fuck off.
If I were to settle down and get married, have kids. I’d be lying to myself. I’d be hugely unhappy, and would be wasting both mine and my partners life, because it’s just not me. Not a Christian, not a Politician pandering to the bigots, and not a God is going to tell me otherwise. I’m me. Sex is such a taboo subject, people telling other people who they should love, how they should live, and who they should enjoy sex with. It should not be like this.

Why is it perfectly ok for the Christian Right to attack anything that isn’t directly pro-life….. homosexuality, abortion, but they seem to keep quiet when THEIR right winged Christian government destroy over 600,000 innocent lives in foreign countries, for reasons we still don’t know of? It seems great to be pro-life, as long as that life is white, christian, American, and doesn’t grow up to be gay. It takes hypocrisy to an entirely new level. I wish they would just admit that they use the Bible to justify themselves, and that it isn’t actually a religious matter, they just hate gay people, or go one step further, they hate anyone who happens to be slightly different. Because, God, as we all know, is a red neck from Texas, which is why they relate to him so well.  

It’s beautifully ignorant of the far right Christian hate brigade, to cite Leviticus, with…
“A man shall not lie with another man, it is an abomination” ……as proof that God is up in heaven throwing darts at a poster of Elton John, and yet they cleverly ignore verses in Exodus, such as…

“On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death.”
My dad works on a Sunday sometimes. Infact, tomorrow is Sunday, i’ll be doing some University work, for monday. Is God sending me to hell? Should I be put to death tomorrow? The Christians who despise gay people due to a verse in leviticus, and therefore morally obliged to put anyone to do death who happens to work on a Sunday, otherwise, their argument is void of all intelligence (As if it isn’t already). And does this hell consist of free thinkers, as opposed to the easily manipulated hate filled lunatics God seems to use as his spokes people, because if that’s what Hell is, i’m quite looking forward to it. It’ll be refreshing to be honest.
Exodus 21:7…
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do.”
Fantastic. If i’m ever in need of some spare cash, God says it’s alright for me to sell my daughter into slavery. That’s fine then. So, if my dad works on a Sunday, but then sells my sister into slavery, has he cancelled the sin out, with his morally superior act of selling kids into slavery? Will be be saved?

The point is, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to have a problem with homosexuality, other than ones own personal hatred toward anyone who happens to be slightly different.
They claim it’s “unnatural”. Surely it’s far more unnatural to surppress who you are, in order to please a bunch of ignorant bigots? In fact, i’d go one further, and say that what is far more unnatural, is blind obediance to a man in the sky, something that can neither be proved true or false.
Gay couples who love each other, just as much as hetrosexual couples, who simply want to be recognised for their bond, should have the same level of rights as hetrosexual couples. Hetrosexual couples, are not superior.

When it comes to equality, clearly a large section of Americans are living in their own little World. Don’t bang on about how you voted Republican, to protect civil liberties and freedom, and then demand that other sections of society give up their rights to the same freedom you wish to preserve, you bigotted, out of date, idiotic, mindless, despicable excuses for human beings.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

GOD LOVES HATE!

Rant over.