Ok, Ok… I know. You’re saying this time you’ve lost it. Hear me out. The theme of many of the articles that I have written has been that religion is most certainly a man made creation. I believe the evidence in biblical text, for me at least, is clear. The Christian God is a flawed God, particularly in the Old Testament. As I began thinking about how man went about to create a God, I tried to think about how modern day fictional writers would “create” a God. Star Trek came to mind. There are many episodes of the original Star Trek that dealt with God or God-like beings. I think it’s interesting as we look at some of these episodes, how man chose to portray a modern interpretation of what a God-like entity might be like.

Chronologically the first episode to portray a “God” was titled, Where No Man Has Gone Before. In short, a crewman on the Enterprise is the victim of an energy field that grants him exponentially stronger telepathic and telekinetic powers as the hours go by. After the accident he grows increasing intolerant of mankind’s comparative weakness. He begins to consider himself a God and many of his human foibles become accentuated by his new found powers. He begins to exhibit the same traits as many of those exhibited by the God of the old testament. He becomes, arrogant, cruel and tormenting. Kirk eventually “takes care of business” before his crewman’s abilities continue to grow beyond their ability to contain him. In this episode mankind is far too immature to deal with supernatural powers of this magnitude.

Interestingly, the beings in the next two episodes evolved into their powers over millions of years. The Metrons (Arena)  and the Organians (Errand of Mercy) were powerful beings who used their abilities to bring peace and end violence. With their powers they found there was no reason for the petty behavior they were at one time capable of. They had evolved beyond the need for vengeance or wrathful behavior, a lesson the Christian God never seemed to learn (particularly in the Old Testament).

Star Trek is also full of powerful beings that are not so nice, just like the Bible.

Wouldn’t a real God, logically act more like a being who is mature and peaceful? If God is all knowing and all powerful what would be the point of  putting people through sickness, infant death, war, pestilence, plague, blight, starvation, etc. I know, we shouldn’t ask what God’s purpose is right? Well… why? Why should it be considered impertinent to ask?  Why would God have given us brains if we were meant not to use them for problem solving?

Science fiction writers come in all shapes and sizes. Some like to write about mean spirited supernatural beings and some write about gentle and loving supernatural beings. That describes the writers of Star Trek, the Old Testament and the New Testament. All three works of fiction.

]]> http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/09/27/star-trek-and-god/feed/ 2 http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/08/07/putting-the-good-book-in-context/ http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/08/07/putting-the-good-book-in-context/#comments Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:09:33 +0000 Craig http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/?p=975

I have had many theological discussions with Christians and inevitably at some point during our discussion the comment, “you’re taking the meaning out of context” is dropped. I think that a contextual understanding of the bible and Christianity is important also. Let me take this opportunity to try and put the bible and Christianity in it’s proper context.

There is plenty of terrible un-Godlike behavior in the new testament, but for sure it is easier to quote better examples of God’s loveless actions from the old testament. I have had people tell me, “…well yeah that’s the old testament but the new testament is much more peaceful”. I will be taking quotes for most of this article from the old testament.  I will be doing so because the old testament is particularly brutal. If you are a Christian and you believe the inspired word of God is infallible (and you have to), why does it matter that only the brutish old testament is mentioned? Having been written first, it has the distinction of being perhaps more timely and therefore more accurate (disbelief appropriately suspended) to the events that it describes.

Let’s start with the bronze age’s answer to Las Vegas, Sodom and Gomorrah. God was not happy with the evil taking place in the twin cities so he decided to rain down upon them “burning sulphur.” This is odd and cruel at the same time. Odd because if you were God, do you think burning sulphur would be the best way to completely wipe out two cities? Cruel because it involves burning men, women and children. Wouldn’t a 30 mile wide plasma beam be more efficient or at least more humane? It’s also a lot more cool than… burning sulphur.  Keep in mind bronze age construction had advanced from an earlier technique of packed clay walls to actual bricks made from mud.  Mud bricks don’t burn well, in fact heat is what is used to dry them. Weird God would choose such an incredibly inefficient way to smite people… unless the bible was written solely by men who didn’t know what a plasma beam or anything else more advanced was than… burning sulphur. Hard to keep this story any more in context than that.

Next, let’s talk about God’s quirky sense of humor. Just imagine if you had a neighbor whose name was, oh I don’t know, ahhhh… Abraham. Let’s say some “guy” showed up at Abraham’s house one day and put a gun to Abraham’s head and tried to force him to kill his son, ahhhhh… Isaac. Then right before Abraham did it the “guy” stopped him and said “Wait! I just wanted to see if you’d do it!”  Would we think this “guy” was funny, smart, all knowing, all powerful, peaceful, kind, or loving. No, we’d think this “guy” was vicious, cruel and twisted. I think you get the point. If God was omniscient, he would have already know what Abraham was going to do or he’s just a malevolent jerk who gets off on yanking mankind’s chain. Not very Godlike… unless God was a creation of mankind who from time to time does suffer from these character flaws. Hard to keep this story any more in context than that.

Now, Exodus 2:29-30 :

At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

Does anything here strike you as odd? Yeah I know, “why should God kill the children for the wrongs of their parents?”. Sure that’s unforgivingly evil, but that’s not even the “odd” part. I’m talking about killing the firstborn of the livestock! The livestock? Here is context for you. Throughout the bible, God has penalized mankind by killing his children and/or his livestock. In an earlier article I quoted Leviticus 26:21-22.

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins.  I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.

God sure has a thing for killing livestock… or does he? Seems to me far more likely that mankind in the bronze age recognized how valuable livestock was to the other bronze agers of the time and decided to use livestock as leverage in the good book. Sounds again like mankind was truly doing the story telling here. Hard to keep this story any more in context than that.

I could go on…but I think it is clear that contextually these stories and most likely the entire bible, were man made from start to finish. How modern day rational people can’t see that the bible is riddled with un-Godlike, but very human, behavior is astounding to me.

…Sometimes a burning bush, is just a burning bush.

This is exactly what we are meant to believe God did. With our eternal salvation on the line, God chose to speak in secret with one person at a time (Moses, Abraham, Joseph Smith, etc.) in order to spread the word. Convenient that for most of God’s or his minion’s appearances there weren’t many or any witnesses.

We are told that Jesus was born by an immaculate conception. Says who, Mary? How difficult would it be for a woman who may have bore another man’s child without the knowledge or, I’m assuming, consent of her husband to lie? Is this really that difficult to believe? Remember this was the bronze age, a time period filled with illiterate and ignorant people ruled more by superstition than reason. Imagine further that to keep up the subterfuge upon his birth, the child is told he is the son of God and was born from a virgin mother. The lie becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Am I suggesting this is what happened? No. I don’t know and neither do you or anyone (I’m talking to you Christians) who suggests they do. I do believe that this is FAR more plausible a foundational story for Christianity than Jesus being born of a virgin mother, curing the blind, walking on water, dying on the cross and resurrecting three days later thereby washing away all my naughty deeds. This leads us to the title of this article, religion is a setup.

Why would a God purposely put into motion a set of circumstances so preposterous, so witness-less, and then penalize mankind for not following it blindly; and by blindly, I mean just on faith. Think about it. If you were going to hold people eternally accountable for their actions, wouldn’t you at least give them reasonable assurances that what they were being asked to do was what you truly intended for them to do? You wouldn’t leave your true meaning shrouded in mystery . Your expectations would be clearly defined and verifiable.

You would never couch something so important in riddles and decades old hearsay. If there truly was an all powerful and all knowing God, he/she wouldn’t either.

In the Indian village of Solapur, residents mark the birth of a new child by tossing the newborn from a 50 foot Muslim shrine onto a sheet below. The bizarre tradition is over 500 years old.

God has ordered some pretty despicable things to be done during his tenure over mankind. The destruction of entire cities, blights, plagues, multiple smitings, disease, pestilence, and genocidal floods. It’s an impressive resume by any mass murderer’s reckoning to be sure but there’s more! God loves to torture and kill children or gutlessly order his minions to torture and kill children.

Every night on the evening news we hear about murder, rape or any number of brutal crimes being committed.  Horrible to be sure but society does become immune. Rarely is the water cooler abuzz with talk of any but the most disgusting of these crimes, unless a child is involved. Our society finds, rightfully so, that crimes such as this involving children are of the most heinous nature. It’s a fact that more often than not, child predators are the first to be beaten or killed by their fellow inmates once incarcerated. Even criminals agree that these choice individuals are fair game for a rather rude introduction into our penal system. God help himself should he ever take up residence within the American penal system, for he would certainly be due a beating.

God has always had a special place in his heart for children. I suppose that’s why he at times singles them out for his own particular brand of cruelty and barbarism. Jesus may “love the little children” but God…not so much. Here’ s some of God’s greatest hits:

1. In the name of God, Jewish males have the grand fortune of being subjected to ritualistic genital mutilation.
2. Children who fall ill are medically neglected by those of the Jehovah’s Witness cult.
3. Children are tossed off buildings in parts of India for good luck.

These are examples of a modern day misinterpretation of God’s will by man, you say? These are not actions that God would ever have endorsed, you say? Nice try. These are actually rather “meek and mild” examples of God’s depravity. We can look to God’s divinely inspired instruction manual, the bible, for some of his most horrid and genocidal greatest hits.

Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol.
(Prov. 23:13-14)

Pardon me if I don’t begin singing, “My God is an Awesome God”. God is not only in favor of strict discipline but he fully endorses all out beatings.

From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!”  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

God  only knows what he would have done had the small boys taken his name in vain. Maybe he could have resurrected them and killed them twice. …”my God is an awesome God”…(keep singing, keep singing).

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins.  I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

NO, not the cattle!! Yes in God’s eye the loss of children is equated with the loss of one’s livestock.

I could continue in this same vein, citing example after example of God’s pitiless hatred for those who are weak and guiltless but I think you get the point. I haven’t even begun to touch on all of the instances where God ordered the death of children for the inequities of the parents or their parent’s parents. God’s big on generational smiting.

A society can often be judged on how it treats its weaker members. How a civilization treats its handicapped or helpless children can tell you a lot about that civilization’s foundational morality.  Christians love to suggest that God provides society with a moral compass and that atheists are immoral. Well I don’t kill, mutilate or maim helpless children. I don’t order others to do what I don’t have the guts to do myself, while holding eternal damnation over the heads of my witless  accomplices and I don’t worship anyone who does.

If these forementioned acts are the acts of the loving Christian God then I want nothing to do with him or his ignorant, mentally retarded followers who would support such cruelty. Make no mistake, to be a Christian means you DO support these acts. The bible is allegedly the inspired word of God and is therefore infallible. You simply CAN’T be a Christian without believing God is omniscient and  omnipotent. If you truly consider yourself to be a Christian you are a willing supporter of all of these vicious decrees.

…”my God is an awesome God”…(keep singing, keep singing)

Here’s the quote.

You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem.

In another related quote, he said,

[AIDS] is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.

The Catholic Church promotes “abstinence education” and opposes methods of birth control, including condoms. Perhaps the Pope was using statistics such as the ones in this article which state that even though the number of condoms has increased, so has the number of people infected with HIV.

[Edward Green] wrote Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning From Successes in Developing Countries and reported that, between 1989 and 2001, the average number of condoms per male ages 15 to 49 in African countries skyrocketed. So did the number of those infected with HIV. South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe had the world’s highest levels of condom availability per man. They also had the world’s highest HIV rates.

At first glance, that sounds bad for proponents of condom usage for AIDS prevention. However, it says nothing about condom usage, only condom availability. The hardest part about promoting condom usage in places like South Africa, Botswana, and Zimbabwe is overcoming the social aversion to condom usage. Education is key, and with church representatives like Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo running around saying things like this…

The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom. [...] These margins of uncertainty… should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger.

…educating people is a nearly insurmountable struggle against a increasing rise of deliberately orchestrated ignorance and misinformation. The Catholic Church, because of its adherence to faith-based dogma, is working directly against efforts that are proven, when given the chance, to reduce the spread of HIV.

According to the World Health Organization (information from the same article above), “consistent and correct” condom usage reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. Given that the WHO bases their statements on science and research, I’d say that they’re at least a little more reliable regarding medical issues than an organization that bases its beliefs on a 2,000 year old holy book.

The Pope’s statements are irresponsible and ethically bankrupt at best.

General enjoyability of the movie aside, I found that it had a story point that easily applies to atheism and religion. Watching it, I found myself feeling slightly subversive, which added an extra dollop of glee to my movie experience.

Despereaux was an unusual mouse who didn’t do the normal mouse things… like cower or scurry in fear. This was something that was very troubling to his parents and to his teachers and (I think) the school principal. They were trying to figure out how to get him to be fearful like his older brother and all the other mice.

Speaking of cowering and scurrying (in fear), the principal said something like…

Sometimes the younger ones just need to see the older ones doing it to learn it. Nobody is born with a sense of fear. It’s something that has to be taught.

That was the line that smacked me in the head. The parallel to religion is so “in your face.”

Nobody is born a Christian… or a Muslim… or a Catholic. Nobody is born fearing God or fearing Hell. Nobody is born thinking that they are sinners. Nobody is born feeling that they’re not worthy. Nobody is born thinking there is a grand magician in the sky. Nobody is born believing ancient dogma.

Nobody is born with a sense of fear.

It has to be taught.

Would that more people were like that little mouse Despereux. Then perhaps the world could have a happier story like the movie… where all the mice realized that their “taught” fears were unfounded, freeing them up to enjoy so much more of life’s joys.

Good for you, Depereaux.

What I find ironic is that religion provides the biggest license to sin that any self-respecting, lascivious, lusting hedonist could possibly wish for. Atheism, having no dogma (since it’s not a religion and is purely the lack of belief in a deity), gives no free pass. Because of that, atheists must maintain a much higher interest in practicing moral behavior than religious folks do.

How so? I’ll discuss Christians for the purpose of this example. Their Bible teaches that God sent his son, Jesus, to die for their sins in order that they may have eternal life (Romans 6:23, John 3:16, etc.). They believe Jesus already died for their sins so what they need to do is believe in Jesus, repent of their sins, and it’s all forgiven (1 John 1:9). Of course, it has to be sincere. There are plenty of Bible verses that talk about sin, repentance, and forgiveness. So using these rules, a Christian can spend his entire life committing all kinds of heinous acts, but in the end, if he asks for forgiveness and sincerely repents of his sins, all is forgiven and he gets into Heaven. That is what the Bible says.

If, however, we have no religious figures to grant us redemption from our sins, it becomes critically important that we live a good, moral life. Why? Because the only forgiveness we can rely on is the forgiveness of friends and family. Good, ethical behavior is critical in maintaining those relationships. The better they are maintained and cultivated, the better our lives and the happier we are. Doing good, helping others, being a friend, creating lifetime bonds… that’s important stuff. If we fail, we become alienated. If we wrong someone, no forgiveness counts but the forgiveness of the person we wronged. No absolution is granted by a third party.

Everyone in this world depends on social connections and on society in general. What we do affects those connections. Circles of influence grow and overlap on a global scale and interactions matter not just on a personal level, but on a societal level… and a global one. Living a good, ethical life benefits us not only personally, but it benefits our family, our friends, our community, our country, and our world.

There’s no need for religion to be involved. Frankly, I don’t want a free pass for forgiveness. If I wrong someone, it’s up to me to fix it. I want to take personal responsibility for my actions and for the repercussions of those actions. Religion cheapens that and absolves people of personal responsibility.

That’s certainly not what this world needs.

Ebonmuse over at Daylight Atheism wrote a nice piece about the absurdity of the whole claim of Christians being persecuted. Over at the Enemy Combatant Trailmix Appreciation Club, intelekshual hits on the topic with her (I think) customary acerbic wit.

The whole idea of Christians being some sort of persecuted minority is just absurd. The criticisms generally only come when Christians attempt to push their ideology and dogma onto the real minority groups. The blind arrogance of acting as if they are somehow the underdog, as if they have a lock on the “Truth,” as if they’re better than those with different beliefs, as if they deserve pity for withstanding so much persecution… it’s just incredible.

The CADC’s mission statement is this:

The mission of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) is to advance religious liberty for Christians by protecting Christians from defamation, discrimination, and bigotry from any and all sources by means of education and selected legal services including litigation, inside the United States and internationally.

“…protecting Christians from defamation, discrimination, and bigotry…”

Who will protect the rest of us from their defamation, discrimination, and bigotry? That remains the much larger issue.

Mr. Dalpiaz evidently does not approve of the billboard, nor does he approve or agree with the FFRF’s Annie Laurie Gaylor’s comments about religion. That’s understandable. I don’t always agree with everything she says, either, even though I’m a FFRF member. One of the wonderful things about this country (the USA) is our freedom to disagree and express our disagreement. The First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees that.

In that light, I would like to point out the logical failings of Mr. Dalpiaz’s statements and show that, in numerous cases, his statements are the exact opposite of what is actually true. Sadly, I see this kind of illogical rhetoric all the time and it’s frustrating to say the least.

Here’s the letter (quoted) along with my comments.

“Imagine No Religion”: A Canton billboard bearing this message was pictured in a Repository article (“Group blames religion for world’s woes,” Dec. 11). Quotes from Freedom From Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor include: “We are the largest, national organization of freethinkers; we all disbelieve in the same God.”

A logic check is in order. If no God exists, then there is nothing to disbelieve in, and no need to waste time and money discrediting a nonexistent being. One must assume she perceives a being, an existing God.

Yes. A logic check is in order, but not a check on Ms. Gaylor. To atheists, “God” is a concept… an idea. It’s a concept created by man. So, of course, the concept of God exists, as do the concepts of the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Russell’s Teapot. However, beyond the concept, we don’t believe any of them actually exist. Mr. Dalpiaz seems to be saying that in order to disbelieve something, it must actually exist in the first place, which is patently and obviously false.

Gaylor again: “When government gets into suppressing speech, that’s the worst form of censorship,” arguing that religion and belief in God are a “great source of divisiveness.”

Government censorship is bad. Perhaps debatably the worst, but definitely bad. As for religion and belief in God, history has shown repeatedly and unequivocally that they are a source of divisiveness. Anyone who’s ever had a high school history class (and paid attention) can verify that. Anyone who’s relatively up to date on international current events can verify that. The situation within Iraq is a prime example. The situation between Israel and Palestine is another.

Recall the divisive efforts of atheists such as Michael Newdow campaigning to remove “In God We Trust” from our coinage, and the relentless ACLU anti-Christian campaigns.

They file suits in government courts. Their logic system condones suppressing constitutionally guaranteed religious expression.

Newdow filed suit to remove “In God We Trust” from coinage because it violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court did not agree, though they came close, by ruling that “In God We Trust” is not a religious phrase, which relegates “God” to the level of a political slogan… a mascot.

The ACLU does not create or run anti-Christian campaigns. Mr. Dalpiaz obviously does not understand the idea of civil liberties in accordance with the First Amendment. The ACLU files suits to preserve the separation of church and state in order to keep our country from heading down the path of becoming a theocracy. The ACLU is definitely not anti-Christian. Contrary to Mr. Dalpiaz’s statement that their “logic system condones suppressing (sic) constitutionally guaranteed religious expression”, the ACLU fights for the exact opposite. They are attempting to preserve that guaranteed religious expression… for everyone, not just for Christians. The ACLU does not file suit to stop churches from holding services or to stop Christians from expressing their beliefs. They file suit to stop Christians from trying to insinuate their dogma and their ideology into our government.

“We just think if you’re going to believe in something, have some evidence for it, and not just faith,” says Gaylor.

No evidence supports atheism. It is a belief system based on atheists’ faith that no God exists.

In a way, Mr. Dalpiaz is correct in that “no evidence supports atheism” but in a backward sort of way. It’s not really that no evidence supports atheism but that a complete lack of evidence supports atheism. Since there is no evidence of the existence of a supreme being, nor has their ever been evidence, atheism is a logical and rational conclusion.

In addition, Atheism is not a belief system. It is one belief (or lack of belief)… period. There is no set of rules, no dogma, no holy book, nor any ideology. In my case, it’s a lack of belief in the supernatural, including God. In some atheist’s cases, it’s a belief that there is no god. There is a distinct difference, but in both cases, there is no belief system.

If there is no God, why are atheist freethinkers so threatened that they must launch anti-God campaigns?

Atheists are not threatened by God. They are threatened by anti-intellectual, uneducated religious zealots who want to insinuate their religious dogma into our government. They are threatened by religious fundamentalists who, because of their hypocritical lack of tolerance, want to throw out the First Amendment of our Constitution and create a government based on Christian theology.

Though Mr. Dalpiaz doesn’t give a specific example of the atheist’s so-called “anti-God campaigns,” it’s more likely that the actions are geared toward either protesting the lack of church-state separation or toward protecting existing church-state separation. It seems that many Christians view such actions as anti-God, rather than pro United States.

God is no threat. Fundamentalist religious zealots attempting to commandeer the government are a threat.

Imagine no religion? Easy. Daily, we see the negative results of a society losing its religious heritage.

As 2009 approaches, corporate and personal greed and corruption are leading to suffering not seen since the Great Depression.

Since Mr. Dalpiaz wasn’t specific about what he means by “religious heritage,” I’ll have to leave that alone. I will say, however, that the United States, though populated mostly by Christians of one form or another, does not have a “Christian” government and was not founded on “Christian” principles. For more detail, see my related post about why the United States is not a Christian Nation.

As for the negative results that Mr. Dalpiaz is seeing, the only ones specified are corporate greed and corruption which he says are leading to suffering. I’m not sure if I understand what the connection is between atheism and these “negative results” since Mr. Dalpiaz again avoids any specifics. Perhaps the insinuation is that the lack of belief in a divine creator has somehow magically trounced Wall Street? I don’t know and I don’t want to presume to know what Mr. Dalpiaz is thinking in this case.

We need to ask if religion is to blame. Are the “intellectual elites” who strive to eradicate God from our nation worthy of our allegiance?

Or might it be that religion, which identifies the loving God who presented us with the guidelines for correct living based on Judeo-Christian principles, the only hope we have?

Oh, the Grand Finale! There’s so much of a train wreck in these last three sentences that it’s almost hard to know where to begin.

Again, with another vague statement, Mr. Dalpiaz says we need to ask if religion is to blame… for what? The “negative results” mentioned earlier? Was that ever a claim? I don’t recall Ms. Gaylor saying that. Perhaps I missed it.

Then comes the perennial favorite of religious folks and right-wing conservatives… the “intellectual elites.” In Mr. Dalpiaz’s case, it seems he feels that the “intellectual elites” are striving to eradicate God from our nation. There are two issues here. The first is his reference to intellectual elites. This always seems to mean “people with more education than you have.” I’ve always heard this stated as a negative, insinuating that it’s not good to have an education… that it’s not good to be intelligent… that it’s not good to understand science or to think rationally. This is ignorant absurdity at its worst. Why do religious zealots (and right-wing conservatives) so frequently criticize education and intelligence? Why does it seem to be more popular in this country today to be an uneducated, “everyday Joe,” anti-intellectual than to be someone who strives to educate onself and think with rationality and logic?

The second issue is that he somehow feels (let me paraphrase) “smart people are trying to get rid of God.” I don’t think that’s the case at all. I think smart people are trying to protect the Constitution of the United States from right-wing religious zealots, but I don’t think they’re trying to get rid of God. Based on Mr. Dalpiaz’s previous statements, I’ll just assume that he misinterprets the actions of the “smart people” because he’s not clear on what the First Amendment says.

On to the last sentence; Mr. Dalpiaz’s sweeping statement of Christian self-righteousness. The reference to a “loving God” is somewhat laughable, given Biblical text. The collected actions of the Biblical God are more vile and heinous that all the actions of the mythological Greek and Roman gods combined. Perhaps Mr. Dalpiaz isn’t referring to the Biblical God, though he does imply that with a reference to Judeo-Christian principles (which are?).

I’m almost sure that he isn’t referring to the Bible when he mentions “guidelines for correct living,” either, since the Bible is full of horrendous “guidelines” what with all the stoning, slavery, and subjugation of women (and that’s the New Testament).  There are some good things, yes, but as a good Christian, I don’t think you’re supposed to pick and choose what you want to follow. I don’t think anyone who’s actually read the Bible could rationally say that its contents provide the “only hope we have.”

In general, Mr. Dalpiaz misses the entire difference between being anti-God and being pro-Constitution. Keeping church and state separate is a basic principle of the First Amendment and when Christians try to maneuver their ideological dump truck up to our governmental system, rational people are going to respond with protests and action in order to preserve the deliberately secular system of government created by our Founding Fathers.

So worship all you want. Pray all you want. Celebrate whatever holidays you want to celebrate. Just don’t expect to be using government money or government property and don’t expect to get your ideological “values” established as part of our government.

The claim is usually made during political discussions, but the intellectual morose of the argument is evident regardless of context. I most frequently hear the statement from people who don’t have the information required to back up the claim and who refuse to acknowledge any evidence that threatens to penetrate their self-imposed cocoon of ignorance. For good reason, it seems, since if they did choose to acknowledge the evidence, their claim would be simply invalidated.

Looking at the text that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America used makes it unquestionably evident that a “Christian Nation” was not what they intended to create.

The text of the Declaration of Independence mentions “Nature” and “Nature’s God” and says that people are “endowed by their Creator” with certain inalienable rights. The wording of “Nature’s God” and the reference to an indistinct “Creator” is a result of the deist beliefs of a number of the founding fathers and does not refer to what is typically considered today to be the “Christian” god. It is specifically vague so as not to indicate a specific religion.

The Constitution does not mention a god of any sort. It even goes so far as to specify (in Article Six) that “no religious test” shall ever be required as a qualification for public office. That’s far from qualifying as a “Christian” principle. It is specifically stating that the government should not be a “Christian” one… or one of any other denomination.

The Bill of Rights goes even further than the “no religious test” statement to specify that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Fourteenth Amendment expanded this to include state and local governments as well.

That clause is decidedly not Christian. Not only does it prohibit this country from establishing itself as Christian, but it is also interpreted as prohibiting preferential treatment of one religion over another. It also makes it quite clear that people are free to practice whatever religion they choose. What that means is that the United States Government is absolutely non-secular. It is not Christian. It is not Islamic. It is not Catholic. It is not any of the multitude of religions that are practiced on this planet. Nor is it Atheist. It is simply non-secular. The First Amendment effectively makes religion irrelevant, regardless of denomination.

The religious beliefs of some the founding fathers is often used as a point to argue against the United States being a “Christian” nation. Some being deists and some opposed (vehemently) to organized religion, they would obviously have been opposed to creating a government that was saddled with the baggage of any religious denomination. While I agree with that, I feel that it’s not particularly relevant.

Even if all the Founding Fathers had been strongly Christian (which they were most certainly not), it would not be evidence that the government they created was based on Christian principles. How could it be? If someone is a Christian, does it mean that everything he creates is based on Christian principles? If he makes a sculpture of an elephant, is it somehow inherently Christian? If he writes a murder mystery novel, is it somehow inherently Christian? If he creates a playbook for a professional sports team, is it somehow inherently Christian? It seems an absurd notion.

The Founding Fathers were not creating a system of rules for peoples’ lives. They were not creating a set of moral imperatives to show people the way to salvation. They were creating a government; one that would provide for the fair and safe governing of a newly formed country in a way that would allow individual freedoms. They included no religious dogma. They even included straightforward provisions to prevent it from ever interfering in the government’s workings.

John Adams even stated it outright when he said, “This nation of ours was not founded on Christian principles.”

There is absolutely no basis for the statement that the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. It is pure wishful thinking, lacking any kind of evidence or rationality.

Perhaps that explains why so many Christians continue to believe it.