The Atheist Blogger

My Feeds

I subscribe to quite a few blogs; some technical, some webcomics, most atheist-based. However I do subscribe to a few Christian blogs for various reasons:

“Atheist Central” by Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort’s blog is a great place if you want to have a laugh, or simply want to watch a load of bigoted hatred emerge out of the “love” theists have for our souls. Whether he is busy redefining science or claiming that light is invisible, Ray Comfort always manages to bring a smile to the face of any atheist. Heck, he even has his own bunch of debunkers.

Stuff Christians Like by Prodigal John

This blog is rather atheist-friendly since atheists aren’t actually mentioned, so it is a nice look into the minds of Christians when they aren’t all riled up over our “atheist faith”.

Debunking Atheists by Dan

Debunking Atheists has a special place not only in my feed reader but also in my blog’s blogroll because the author challenged me to put him there after he wrote answers to the Atheist Thirteen for me. Dan (the author in question) has a current series trying to “Debunk Evolution” which is hilarious to read, mainly because he doesn’t understand the fundamentals of the science and simply repeats well-known lies.

Uncommon Descent by William Dembski (originally)

A blog about Intelligent Design, which of course spouts the same rubbish and regurgitated debunked “facts” they’ve been talking about for years. The site logo is still the I.D mascot, the bacterial flagellum, which of course has various explanations for its existence through Evolutionary theory. Still, it’s great fun to read on all the “controversy” surrounding these issues.

So what Christian blogs do you peruse? Why do you do it? Do you actively take part in discussions or just sit in the sidelines?

My recent article deals with the misconception that the UK is a “secular nation“. A secular nation does not depend on the public view of secularism, but on how the country is run. It doesn’t matter if the majority of or even the total populace agree with secularism, because if the country’s constitution somehow includes religion, the majority opinion is null and void. Likewise, a completely religious country could indeed be very secular if they didn’t mention religion in their government.

So after taking in this information, which do you think is more secular? The UK or the USA?

 Loading ...

I get tired of Americans always claiming that we have it “so good” over here because we are such a secular country. In reality however, I think America is more secular. Your constitution restricts the government from making a national religion^[1]; in essence calling for a separation of church and state (the definition of secularism). We have no such ruling.

Many would argue that the words “In God We Trust” on money and “One Nation Under God” on the Pledge of Allegiance are not things you would find in a secular nation, and this is true. The difference being that in the USA, you could take your case to the Supreme Court and get these words taken off (in principle, although for other reasons this might not happen). In the United Kingdom, the government could decide to put “God” everywhere and we wouldn’t be able to do a thing about it.

So both countries are not truly secular (I doubt there are many countries that are), but to say that the UK is predominantly more secular is false.

National Religion

For one thing, the United Kingdom has a national religion, Christianity. It’s called “The Church of England”^[2] (CofE), and is headed by the monarchy, our head of state. The head of state, currently Queen Elizabeth II, has to swear to protect the religion of the UK at their coronation. When asked,

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?^[3]

Liz replied,

All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.

Who was doing the question asking? Why, only the person prevailing over the coronation: The Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest position to hold in The Church Of England. In a truly secular nation, the Queen would have been crowned by the Prime Minister, and would have vowed to protect the laws of the nation, not the laws of God.

Government

House Of Lords

The church has infiltrated the very heart of government though, and 26 members of the clergy are always elected to the House of Lords to sit as the Lords Spiritual^[4]. The House of Lords are overseers of the House of Commons, which holds the government as elected by the people. Whilst their power is restricted by parliamentary acts, they are able to delay certain bills.

Not only are clergy sat in the House of Lords, but a prayer is said before chamber sessions even begin^[5]. Both the House of Lords and House of Commons participate in prayer, which although voluntary, is still an anti-secular event.

Additionally, the blasphemy laws that plagued our nation since their 17th century induction into the common law system were only abolished on May 8th, 2008^[6]. That’s 6 months ago to-the-day. It’s a step in the right direction, but the long road to secularism is miles long.

Education

I know full well how much religion impacts on education. Over 25% of primary schools (ages 5-11) are CofE Schools, and just under 6% of secondary schools (11-16) share this attribute^[7]. These are government funded schools, and these figures are for one church. There are many Roman Catholic schools that receive funding from the government too.

I went to two primary schools, both CofE, and both situated next to churches. We had prayers twice a day, and when we left, we were given a Bible as a present (I threw mine away). My secondary school was founded and named after Bishop John Wordsworth^[8] and is situated next to Salisbury Cathedral, following the CofE faith. We also had prayers daily, but luckily when I left I had something useful…namely an education.

Now I’m attending Royal Holloway, a university that is connected to the monarchy in some bizarre way, and therefore still connected to the Church of England.

So please, the next time you consider how much “better” it is over here, why not consider how much worse it is too?

Whenever a documentary is made of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), it always focuses on the church members, and hardly ever on people who have left the church. This is probably because those who did leave don’t want to talk about their experiences, but a journalist by the name of Trevor Melanson was astonished to discover that his taxi driver was none other than Nate Phelps, the son of Fred Phelps, and brother to Shirley Phelps-Roper.

An interview took place afterwards, and many things were revealed about how children are brought up in the Phelps household, which included regular beatings.

The mattock, a close cousin of the pickaxe, is used to dig through tough, earthy surfaces—it loosens soil, breaks rock, and tears through knotted grass. Its handle is a three-foot wooden shaft, twice the density of a baseball bat and its dual-sided iron head is comprised of a chisel and a pick. It was Pastor Fred Phelps’s weapon of choice when beating his children according to his son, Nate Phelps.

“The Bible says ‘spare the rod, spoil the child,’” explained Nate, “and he would be screaming that out as he was beating us.” One Christmas night, Pastor Phelps hit Nate over 200 times with a mattock’s handle, swinging it like a baseball player.

Nate left the household when he was 18, before returning 3 years later, and then leaving again when it became too much. What is uplifting about this story is how even those brought up in such harsh conditions can come to the side of rationality.

Nate agrees with prominent atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins, who has said that religion can be “real child abuse.”

…

“The threat of eternal Hell is an extreme example of mental abuse,” Dawkins says on his website, “just as violent sodomy is an extreme example of physical abuse.”

“I couldn’t agree more,” asserted Nate. “In so many different ways we have abused children with religion over the centuries.”

…

“I do declare myself an atheist now,” affirmed Nate, “although I’m willing to admit that there’s stuff in life that I’m not real clear on yet.”

Although Nate still lives with anxiety caused by his childhood suffering, he has a strong positive outlook for the future, saying “I just want peace. I want to not wake up fearful every morning”.

The full story can be read here, as well as the comments (the first is by Shirley Phelps-Roper and is a laugh). In other WBC news, it seems a non-existent being hates Barack Obama:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Now that “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” has come out on DVD, it seemed only right that I watched it to see what all the fuss was about. For those who are unaware, Expelled is a science fiction thriller that revolves around a post-Nazi, communist Darwinian world, ruled by tyrants, where anyone who simply mentions “God” is quietly removed from academic positions.

The film starts out by highlighting the relationship the story has with oppression and Communism; images of the separation of East Germany from West Germany and the building of the Berlin Wall is shown as the opening credits are edited onto signs in the archive footage (an applaudable effort by the visual effects team). A ball is accidentally kicked over the wall by a group of young boys playing football in the streets, and this foreshadows the people who are “expelled” later in the film. They too are “kicked” over the wall of oppression and their freedoms taken from them.

Ben Stein, the narrator and hero of the film, is introduced in a lecture set in the present day, where he is planning to tell his amazing story to a group of eager listeners. As Ben walks down the long corridor to present his talk, the faces and voices of the villains of the movie are seen and heard, each one arguing their position as the absolute truth, and therefore absolute law.

Ben Stein stars as the film's hero, locked in a war with SCIENCE.

Our hero talks about how freedom made America great, but how he has seen those freedoms torn down by the neo-Nazi organisation known collectively as “SCIENCE”. Over the course of the film, Ben meets in secret, the people who were kicked out of the organisation for questioning the methods used in controlling the people. Those who questioned the doctrine of Darwinism and the Dawkinsian Act (enforced to crush opponents of SCIENCE) were branded as “Intellectual Terrorists”, and forced to live in hiding from the brutal regime, their lives in ruins.

Ben’s view of the SCIENCE organisation begins to crumble, and he realises the corruption that has been hidden from the public view. Confused and scared, he visits his close friend Michael Shermer, a propaganda writer for SCIENCE, who attempts to explain the actions of SCIENCE in a purely positive way. Ben’s realisation that Shermer is just as corrupt as the leaders of SCIENCE leads to some dramatic scenes between the two friends, and ends with Shermer betraying Ben to the authorities.

Now on the run from the SCIENCE police (led by Richard Dawkins himself), Ben seeks out the resistance movement in the confusing back-alleys of Seattle. He seeks refuge with the anti-SCIENCE organisation “The Discovery Institute”, and from there sets out on his missions to bring down the evil leaders of SCIENCE.

The finale of the film comes in the confrontational encounter with the ruthless SCIENCE leader, Richard Dawkins. Ben is captured and interrogated by Dawkins, although Ben gets the upper hand in the process and forces Dawkins into a intellectual trap. The film ends with Ben escaping the clutches of SCIENCE, and pledging to tell the world about the corruption in the organisation.

This was an exciting movie, very well written, with plot twists that even M. Night Shyamalan would have trouble coming up with. It is so amazingly well done that at points I was actually convinced that this could happen in the real world, which is yet another credit to the realism the writers managed to convey in the film.

Both Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins gave fantastic performances in their roles as hero and villain respectively. I suspect an Oscar nomination might be just around the corner for such talented people; they certainly deserved one!

Overall, this movie scores 9/10. Very enjoyable.