After enduring what was without doubt the toughest day of [...]]]> If one could sum up the place of religion in American politics in one short clip, then it would be tough to do better than show Herman Cain breaking out into song at the end of his speech at the National Press Club yesterday:

After enduring what was without doubt the toughest day of his campaign, what better way to reassure his supporters of his innocence and resoluteness in the face of the sexual harassment charges and to remind them of the deep Christian faith he shares with them, than to sing something written by Dottie Rambo, the patron saint of emotive spiritual songs in the evangelical community?

What is amazing is the contrast between that and, say, the last General Election in the UK, where the religious beliefs of the three main candidates for Prime Minister, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, and Nick Clegg, went almost completely unremarked upon by the press and by the candidates themselves, and played no factor in outcome of the election (even though Nick Clegg is a self-professed atheist).

If any of them had broken into song the way Herman Cain did, it would have been dismissed as naked pandering, at best, and a worst, it would have disqualified them as suitable material for the role as Prime Minister in the eyes of a majority of British voters.

Of course, nothing Herman Cain does comes close to naked cynical use of religion Newt Gingrich has had to employ just to get himself into a position to run for the Republican nomination (with a large assist from the Catholic Church). Ironically, it’s Newt Gingrich who likely stands to benefit the most from Herman Cain’s recent travails. It’s possible that in a couple of months we’ll be missing the time when Cain used his folksy religious shorthand to establish his conservative credentials.

There are quite a few things in this clip worthy of debate, like atheist Kate Smurthwaite implying that those who believe things [...]]]> PZ Myers just posted some comments about the a video that’s making the rounds at the moment from a British talk show which was discussing the question “Does Heaven Exist?”

There are quite a few things in this clip worthy of debate, like atheist Kate Smurthwaite implying that those who believe things on faith are idiots (I prefer to call their beliefs idiotic, not the people who believe them since we’re all prone to believing idiotic things at times), and the nonsensical arguments about “believing in money” as though that justifies belief in a specific vision of an afterlife. But I would like to focus on the very brief exchange between Smurthwaite and the (presumed) Christian minister who said that all aborted fetuses go to Heaven:

MINISTER: Heaven is real. We believe heaven is real, and by the way, we spoke about abortion, I just want to say that, theologically, I believe that every aborted child is in Heaven.

SMURTHWAITE: So we would be doing them a favor by aborting them then.

MINISTER: No I’m not saying that–

SMURTHWAITE: I mean, really, if you want to call that, then have your own argument.

MINISTER: Well that’s a very trivial response to a very serious issue.

SMURTHWAITE: No but that’s absolutely factual response to what you’re saying, if that’s what you’re saying.

MINISTER: No, I’m not saying that. No, God is a God of the defenseless. He is a God of your [indecipherable]…

At that point, rather annoyingly, the host changes the subject, so we don’t get to hear the Christian minister’s full rebuttal, but I think we’ve heard enough to know that he isn’t about to address the crux of the Smurthwaite’s argument.

Essentially, if you believe that (a) you have to be a born-again, Bible-believing Christian to get into Heaven when you die and (b) the only exception to that rule is that babies, aborted fetuses, young children, and the mentally handicapped get a free pass into Heaven (because they are not able to understand the consequences of sin), then there is absolutely no way around the fact that these beliefs turn abortion into the ultimate act of mercy.

The equation is very simple. First, just answer the following two questions:

1) What percentage of people do you believe will go to Heaven when they die?
2) What percentage of aborted fetuses do you believe go to Heaven?

Then subtract the second answer from the first answer and you end up with the percentage of people who would have been saved from an eternity of suffering in Hell, if only they had been aborted.

For example, if we restrict ourselves to talking about Americans, the typical answers a fundamentalist American Christian would give are:

1) 25% (i.e. the number of truly saved Christians, not the number of nominal Christians)
2) 100%

Thus, out of 300 million Americans alive today, approximately 225 million people are destined for an eternity of unimaginable suffering and anguish in Hell. Conversely, every single one of the estimated 55 million or so fetuses that have been aborted since the Roe vs Wade decision is supposedly enjoying the never-ending delights of a Heavenly afterlife today.

Now, tell me this. Why do so many conservative Christians want to end the greatest and most foolproof tool of salvation that humanity has ever invented?

This absolutist stance against abortion looks even worse when you factor in countries where almost nobody is a Christian. If their beliefs are true, then Christians who support the Mexico City Policy–the one that bans non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries–are condemning millions of human beings to an eternity in Hell who would have otherwise have gone to Heaven. There just isn’t any other conclusion you can reach, if their beliefs are true.

The main rebuttal Christian anti-abortion activists make is that abortion, or killing a baby or small child is a sin. It is against the will of God and can never be condoned. Fair enough, but now answer these questions:

1) Would you give up your life to save that of your child?
2) Would you sacrifice your life to save your child from an eternity in Hell?
3) Would you commit a sin to absolutely guarantee your child their place in Heaven?

I suspect that the vast majority of Christian parents would answer “Yes” to the first two questions in a heartbeat and would be more reticent about the last one.

But why? What greater gift can a Christian parent bestow upon their child other than the absolute guarantee of an eternity in Heaven? Depriving them of a few decades of uncertain life here on Earth pales into insignificance when compared with the risk that they might suffer an eternity–endless billions of years–in Hell as a result.

Sure, the odds of a child born into a family of Bible-believing Americans growing up to be a born-again Christian are probably not that bad, but they are not that high either–probably not much more than 50% these days. And what if, say, you’re the wife of a Muslim Imam living in Mecca, and you’ve secretly become a born-again Christian? The odds of your children becoming Christians are all but non-existent. Their only decent chance of going to Heaven is for you to abort them or kill them before they reach the “age of accountability.”

Therefore, the most pernicious thing about the traditional doctrine of Hell is that it turns abortion into one of the most merciful and sacrificial acts a mother is capable of. There is simply no way around that fact.

Now, if you are a born-again Christian parent or prospective parent, please do not think for one moment that I am suggesting that you should kill your child, or even have an abortion, in order to guarantee your child a spot in Heaven. Rather, I want you to see the doctrine of Hell for the totally illogical and irrational concept that it is. When a person’s eternal destination is the only thing that really matters (and how can it not be so when you compare all of eternity with a mere “three score years and ten?”), it trivializes life in the extreme and turns all arguments into nonsense.

For more about the clip see Kate Smurthwaite’s blog entry, My Atheist B*tchslap and the Internet.

I spoke to a feisty Rick Perry this morning who said he agreed with his wife’s comments that his campaign has [...]]]> Apparently, Rick Perry and his wife now believe that the word “persecution” is wholly inadequate for the terrible way in which he has been roughed up by his opponents this Republican Primary season:

I spoke to a feisty Rick Perry this morning who said he agreed with his wife’s comments that his campaign has been “brutalized” because of his Christianity and Perry came out of the gates attacking Herman Cain’s now famous 9-9-9 plan.

“I’ll stand by my wife. I think she’s right on both cases. My understanding is that she said I’m the most conservative candidate in the race and ‘he’s a Christian.’ So I haven’t got anything I can add to that and she’s hit me on my mark both times there,” Perry said on “GMA.”

While campaigning for her husband in South Carolina Anita Perry said “We are being brutalized by our opponents and our own party. So much of that is, I think they look at him because of his faith. He’s the only true conservative. Well, there are some conservatives. And they’re there for good reasons.”

Seriously?

Clearly this is just sour grapes in response to Governor Goodhair’s poll numbers plunging off a cliff after a string of inept performances in the debates, but it doesn’t even make any sense given that every candidate whose name is not Mitt Romney is bending over backwards to demonstrate just how ultra-conservative and God-fearing they are.

But it certainly does fit the pattern of anointing oneself a martyr for your faith that Christian conservatives love to indulge in. Any criticism of their faith, no matter how mild, is cause for accusations of religious persecution, and we hear them so often that the p-word isn’t enough anymore, and hence the word “brutalized” is trotted out instead.

If nothing else, this type of language completely trivializes the real religious persecution that millions of Christians face elsewhere in the world, where people risk imprisonment, injury, and even death for practicing what they believe. Contrast that with American Christians–probably the wealthiest, most privileged and powerful bunch of believers on Earth outside the Vatican.

Hint: someone in the press calling your debate performances poor and unimpressive doesn’t count as religious persecution.

Pathetic, the lot of them.

And there’s a simple answer if, like me, you don’t believe Hell exists.

But for “Bible-believing” Christians the answer isn’t so simple, if Todd Friel of Wretched Radio is any guide.

How can that be? After all, it’s well known that Steve Jobs was a Buddhist, not a Christian, and according to [...]]]> Simple question.

And there’s a simple answer if, like me, you don’t believe Hell exists.

But for “Bible-believing” Christians the answer isn’t so simple, if Todd Friel of Wretched Radio is any guide.

How can that be? After all, it’s well known that Steve Jobs was a Buddhist, not a Christian, and according to the fundamentalists who believe in an inerrant Bible, there is no leeway for non-believers, no matter how great a positive impact they have had on the world. Steve Jobs has got to be in Hell, right?

But, according to Todd Friel, on Tuesday’s edition of Wretched Radio, the correct answer is “We don’t know.”

Hmm. His argument seems solid enough:

“What we do know is that if you have Jesus in your heart, you will go to Heaven. If you don’t have Jesus, then you won’t. We don’t know what was in Steve Jobs’ heart [the moment he passed away].”

Agreed, but I think you would also agree that the odds of Steve Jobs having a death-bed conversion after being a Buddhist almost all his adult life, are pretty slim. If the Christian fundamentalist concept of Hell is true, then Steve Jobs is almost certainly just getting settled in for an eternity of unbearable torment and pain in the Lake of Fire–agonies that will have him yearning for the days when all he was suffering from was terminal pancreatic cancer.

The funny thing is, these same Christians are far less reticent when it comes to the eternal fate of certain other people when they die–like, say, Josef Stalin, Timothy McVeigh, or even Senator Ted Kennedy (a favorite target of hate amongst the religious right). It doesn’t even cross their mind that these people might have, in their very last moments, been “born-again.” Evil people deserve to go to Hell, so it’s okay to talk about them being there. Indeed it’s only right that they should be sent there after all the terrible things they did.

But according to their fundamentalist belief system, every other unsaved person deserves to be there too, right next to the worst evildoers in history–including Steve Jobs, Mahatma Gandhi, that tireless Mormon charity worker who lived down the street, and that nice fifteen-year old daughter of an atheist neighbor who was always willing to lend a hand, and so on. Even the kindest, most generous people in history are screaming in agony right next to mass murderers and brutal rapists if they happened not to have heard about Jesus.

But Bible-believing Christians can’t go about telling everyone that–not unless they are trying to lead a bitter and lonely life with no friends–so if the question of a recently deceased, non-evil person’s eternal fate crops up, the weasel words come out: “We don’t know what was in their heart.”

I also suspect it’s a way to avoid thinking too hard about it themselves–to duck the full ramifications of just how cruel and nasty their doctrine of Hell really is.

His lengthy sequence of leading questions is designed to convince people that unless accept Jesus as their savior, God will send them [...]]]> Ray Comfort has gotten a lot of mileage out of his approach to witnessing to people on the street using his well-worn tactics of quite literally putting the fear of Hell into them.

His lengthy sequence of leading questions is designed to convince people that unless accept Jesus as their savior, God will send them to Hell when they die. If that sounds like a threat, that’s because it is, but it only works if people believe that Hell is real, and that everyone who is not a “born-again Christian” will go there when they die.

The problem for Comfort is that more and more people (including many Christians) are rejecting this medieval–and thoroughly evil–concept of Hell. Why?  Because it simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. If Comfort’s claims about Hell are true, then there isn’t a greater example of injustice to be found anywhere on Earth in all of history.

In order to illustrate just how abhorrent the doctrine of Hell would be if it was true, I thought it would be fun to take a leaf out of Ray Comfort’s book and come up with a series of questions that will lead inexorably to this conclusion.

Before I get to the questions, please remember that this format doesn’t allow for a lengthy debate over the finer points of arcane theological doctrine. It’s a rapid fire session where the target of the question is under pressure to supply quick sound-bite answers. If you believe this is unfair, then by all means tell Ray Comfort that you object to his tactics too.

So here goes, with the likely answers interspersed:

• Do you believe in Heaven?
  Yes
• Do you believe in Hell?
  Yes
• What sort of people end up in Hell when they die?
  Evil people — Hitler, Stalin, serial killers, and so on
• What happens to people in Hell?
  They suffer unending torture, pain and anguish
• How long for?
  Forever
• So, not a place where you would like to end up, then?
  Nope
• Do you believe that when a baby dies, it goes to Hell?
  No
• Why not?
  Because a baby doesn’t know right from wrong, and it would be unthinkable to send an innocent baby to Hell
• What about a three-year-old?
  No
• Why not?
  Same reason, they don’t understand right from wrong.
• How about a five-year-old?
  Of course not. Same reason again.
• So you’re saying that because young children don’t know right from wrong, God will not punish them by sending them to Hell?
  Correct
• At what age do children begin to understand the difference between right and wrong?
  Dunno… about ten years old?
  [Note: here you will probably get a range of ages, but likely something under the age of 14. Any higher, and there are plenty of examples from real life to draw from to argue that the vast majority of children do begin to understand right from wrong and the concept of immoral behavior (lying, stealing, etc.) a good deal younger than that.]
• So, you’re saying that a ten-year-old girl can lie, cheat, and steal and know that it is wrong to do so?
  Yes
• Therefore you believe that a ten-year-old girl can knowingly commit immoral acts.
  Yes
• In other words, she can and will commit sins.Yes, but only small ones
• Small ones?
  I mean, she might lie to her mom about having done her homework, or steal fries from her little sister’s dinner plate. Stuff like that.
  
• And what type of punishment does she deserve for that?
  Well, it depends, but she should probably be sent to her room, or maybe grounded.
• Shouldn’t she be whipped or beaten for lying to their mother or stealing from their sister?
  Don’t be ridiculous. That would be reprehensible.
• Okay, then. Let’s suppose our ten-year-old girl, fresh off from being grounded for lying to her mother, is struck by a car on her way to school and is killed? What happens to her when she dies (assuming she, like most kids, is not already a born-again Christian)?
  Er…
• Maybe this will jog your memory. What does the Bible say happens to all unsaved sinners when they die?
  They go to Hell.
• So what happens to this ten-year-old sinner when she is killed in the accident?
  Um… Erm… She goes to Hell too, I guess.
• And what did you say await sinners when they goes to Hell?
  Unending torture, pain and anguish.
• But why would she be punished so mercilessly?
  Because she broke God’s law
• By lying about doing her homework?
  Um… Yes, and other stuff.
• Stuff worse than lying?
  Maybe… I don’t know…
• Which is worse? Spending an eternity in Hell, or being punched in the face?
  Going to Hell, of course
• How much worse?
  Millions of times worse
• What would you think of someone who punched a ten-year-old girl in the face for lying about dong her homework?
  I would say they were a monster, and that they probably belonged in jail
• And what if the punishment they gave her was millions of times worse than a punch in the face?
  I… er… but that’s not the same thing!
• Why not?
  God’s justice is perfect!  There’s also the issue of original sin.
• Hmm. So it’s okay to punch a ten-year-old girl in the face if one of her parents does something wrong?
  Don’t be ridiculous. I’m not saying that at all.
• But you just said that our ten-year-old girl deserves to suffer unending torture, pain, and anguish to Hell for something that someone else did thousands of years ago. That is what the doctrine of original sin implies, right?
  Yes, but… I don’t know…
• All right. Let’s try this one. According to a recent World Health Organization study, about 1.4 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 die every year. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that only 500,000 of them were old enough to understand the concept of sin and redemption, and were not born-again Christians when they died. The numbers have probably varied wildly in the last two thousand years but given that the death rate of children was much higher in the past than it is today, it’s reasonable to assume that 500,000 is not that far off as a yearly estimate throughout that time, even when the world population was much lower. If so, then how many children do you think could be rotting in Hell today, just from the last 2,000 years alone, if Ray Comfort’s beliefs about Hell are true?
  I don’t know, but I’m sure you’re about to tell me…
• Yes I am. A billion… That’s a billion children who, for every second for the rest of eternity are suffering torture, pain, and anguish beyond the experience of any living being. Would you call that just?
  No.
• What would you call it?
  An abomination.
• Then why the hell (pardon the pun) do you believe in this crap?
  Good question. Let me get back to you on that one.
• No, problem. Have a nice day.

As always, I welcome comments on my postings, for or against. But I would particularly welcome suggestions on how to improve this set of questions, and if anyone actually tries them out on people for real, I would love to hear what happens.

A simple question, yet one that has wracked the minds of millions of religious people throughout history.

Why me?

Books have been written on the subject. Theologians have wrestled with this question for their entire careers.

Why my kind, faithful, beautiful wife?

Theodicy, a completely new term [...]]]>

“Why do bad things happen to good people?”

A simple question, yet one that has wracked the minds of millions of religious people throughout history.

Why me?

Books have been written on the subject. Theologians have wrestled with this question for their entire careers.

Why my kind, faithful, beautiful wife?

Theodicy, a completely new term and field of study, was even invented to examine the question.

How could God let such an evil thing happen to my baby girl?

But, take God out of the picture, and the answer to this question is self-evident. It’s also short and concise–so short and concise that it fits on a tee shirt. In fact, you may have already seen someone wearing one with this answer printed on it:

“Shit happens.“

Sometimes, it really is just that simple.