Friendly Atheist by @hemantmehta » Interviews


Interview with Michael Baigent, Author of Racing Toward Armageddon

Posted in General, Interviews at 9:00 am by Hemant Mehta

Michael Baigent is the co-author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the book that provided the underlying idea behind The Da Vinci Code (that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child and the bloodline lives on). In fact, his last name is an anagram for a main character in Dan Brown’s book. His work has been both revered and vilified and, in 2007, he was on the losing end of a lawsuit against Brown.

Baigent has just released his new book, Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the World, which is about… well… you can figure that out yourself.

armageddoncover

Here is one excerpt from the prologue:

At its heart fundamentalism is a relentless progression deeper and deeper into intolerance and ignorance, which, unless opposed, will by default achieve its aims. Judged and measured against their own pronouncements, we must conclude that the fundamentalist religions of all denominations are opposing the free will and vibrancy of human life — they are, paradoxically, performing the very task they attribute to the feared Antichrist: they are attempting to convert a distorted view of reality into such a skillfully packaged shape that it might be taken as truth.

Fundamentalist religions are humanity’s greatest enemy. Blunt speaking, certainly, but time is short, and I see no reason not to call it as I see it. The fact we all have to face is that the fundamentalist religions leave no room for human frailty, for compassion, for forgiveness, or for creative freedom of thought. They are trying to return us to that time of darkness we thought was left far behind, where blind belief was considered more important than farsighted discovery, where the dogmatic was more valued than the tolerant and the false was more important than the true.

You submitted questions to Mr. Baigent about his current (and previous) work and his responses are below:

You have made a name for yourself promoting supposed conspiracies. Why do you think these alleged conspiracies are so secret? What do they have to gain in utter secrecy?

The nature of conspiracies is that they are secret; or, at least, they try to be. But the fact is that most people are not capable of keeping a secret for very long and so pieces of all conspiracies tend to leak out.

And there are others which are hidden in plain view –- my colleagues and I have always argued that certain of the Grail stories are of this type. For example, the Perlesvaus and the Vulgate cycle is focused upon the perfect knight whose bloodline reaches back in the past to Jerusalem. We see this as a literary packaging of a little known historical fact entangled with the deliberate medieval aspiration for the institution of knighthood being made into a spiritual calling.

In the end though, if we define a conspiracy as a group of people meeting unobserved and unreported to decide events which affect all of us, then we can see many commercial and governmental decisions in this way. We are told very little of the reasons for most of the decisions which directly affect us. And we accept this as normal. Why?

I think that people with power tend to act in this way quite naturally which is why it is so important that we maintain the institution of democracy with its checks and balances and insist at all times upon as much transparency and freedom of information that we can.

If decisions remain unchecked and uninvestigated those making them will all too easily slip into a self-interested way of operating. Secrecy allows them to more easily act without oversight; to more easily act in accordance with their own agendas rather than that of the people they supposedly represent.

If these massive conspiracies are true, what should the average person do about it? How can anyone fight against shadows that only a handful even know exist?

Ask questions of everything. Demand answers from even the most powerful. Publicise your investigations. Fear no one.

What do you believe about these religions you write about? About Jesus? Are you a skeptic or do you have any beliefs in the supernatural? Do you believe there is one true God we should follow?

I had a very powerful experience in my twenties which was of a spiritual nature. It was not, however, linked to any single belief system or religion. And this has driven me ever since. So I consider myself deeply committed to the spiritual but as deeply opposed to the manipulation of religion and belief structures.

So far as Jesus is concerned: according to the testimony of Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, he did exist. Fine. And some fine words have been attributed to him. Whether he actually said them or not is actually irrelevant as far as I am concerned. However, one thing is clear, Jesus was never God. For a Jew to claim this would have been so outrageous that he would have been stoned to death as an heretic rather than crucified by the Romans as a political agitator — a crucifixion [that] the evidence (such as it is) suggests he survived.

I am also opposed to any suggestion that [there] is one true anthropomorphic god we should follow although this does depend heavily on how you define God. I tend to avoid the word since it is a male noun and this tends to exclude the feminine as well as separate “God” from “his” creation. If the word is to have any real meaning then it must tend towards unity rather than separation. Language is an imperfect tool but we do our best with it: I tend to prefer the word “Divinity” since it seems to me that it has a wider embrace and avoids the dangers of the sectarian.

To whom do you aim your books? The people following the major religions in your new book? The atheists and skeptics? The people who tend to believe in conspiracy theories?

I aim all my books at people who have questions but do not perhaps have the time or the opportunity to investigate them. I am, if you like, doing it for them. The most important thing we can do is to keep asking questions. We should tech our children to ask questions rather than fill their heads with dogmatic belief structures.

In this latest book, though, I am also trying to provide ammunition for moderate theists to oppose the excesses and errors of the religious fundamentalists.

Should we be worrying about one religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) more than the others when it comes to their views on Armageddon?

Well, we should worry about all religious bigots: Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, to give a few. In pragmatic terms Judaism is perhaps the least offensive in this respect since It is not trying to set up a world-wide domination as is Fundamentalist Islam and Christianity. And Judaism has no concept of Armageddon although it is hard to see how they might destroy the mosques on the Temple Mount in order to rebuild the Temple without precipitating the worst jihad yet.

In layman’s terms, what should we look for if the end of the world is near? What are religious people doing to bring it about?

Let’s be clear: the world is not going to end, though we might if we are stupid enough! Those who believe in Armageddon might cause this prophecy to be self-fulfilling and instigate a major war in the Middle East. That is the danger.

One reader wanted to know how you felt about Dan Brown’s atrocious prose and ham-fisted storytelling.

I don’t really have an opinion. How do you feel? [Hemant says: I wouldn't assign Brown's books to an English class, but I'll be damned if they aren't all addictive little page-turners.]

Speaking of Brown, how have you dealt with losing the lawsuit against him? Have you been able to pay off your legal fees? Have you recovered from it or are you still upset/angry about the ruling?

I was never upset or angry about the ruling. My colleague and I considered that Brown had stolen our Intellectual Property and so we had no alternative but to mount a challenge. We were either going to win or lose; we lost. In these situations, as James Lee Burke has observed, you need to walk upright out of the cannon smoke with a smile on your face.

The release of this book coincides with the release of Brown’s new book The Lost Symbol. Is that a publicity move or mere coincidence?

So far as I know it is a coincidence though [it] does seem strange to me how my last book also came out with the paperback version of Da Vinci Code. Perhaps there is some celestial marketing strategy which is linking our books together? Or perhaps there is a conspiracy?

Is there a place for moderate theists in our world? Or do you, like many of the “New Atheists,” believe that they simply lend cover to the extremists of the major faiths?

I am not an atheist but a mystic. I think that the search for spirituality and meaning is as much a part of being human as the need for water, air, food, sunlight, love. But I consider that people can worship whatever they like from an anthropomorphic god to a lump of rock but I object if they begin insisting that I should share their belief. In essence I consider belief to be intrinsically dangerous. I contrast it to knowledge.

If someone tells me not to put my hand in a fire because it will burn and be painful then I can believe this and so never act in this way. But I cannot say that I know what this pain is. However, if I decide to experience it for myself and put my hand in the fire, get burned, and feel pain then I am in a better position: rather than believing in pain as an abstract concept, I now know pain through personal experience. Both approaches end with avoiding the fire but one comes from belief and the other from knowledge. Knowledge is wiser than belief.

I feel about spirituality in a similar way. The spiritual is personal and experiential; religion unfortunately very quickly becomes a power structure promulgating belief using dogmatic texts and ruling with sacerdotal hierarchies.

I think that there is certainly a place for moderate theists in our world so long as they are not evangelical in their approach to others. It is not for me to tell them what to believe. But I think also that moderate theists can too easily find themselves lending cover to extremists because, in the face of the extremists’ certainty, self confidence and aggressiveness their initial response is to step back rather than to oppose. One can say that they are too tolerant of intolerance.

I conclude from this that it would be a good idea to try and strengthen the hand of moderate theists since they are a huge group potentially able to reduce the power of the extremists — they speak the same language and use the same texts. By opposing moderate theists one is attacking a major ally in the fight against extremism.

In your new book, you warn against the danger of a society in which we are so tolerant of faith that we allow these extremists to run amok. What’s the remedy? What can we do to stop these religions from destroying the world?

I don’t think that there is any sure remedy. The basic situation is that we are all human beings living on this world; how then can we get along together — without feeling the need to blow ourselves up on buses or aeroplanes?

In my book I suggest that the era of one god has come to an end; that it is causing more problems than it solves. People with only one god tend to argue aggressively which is best.
But in the end I think that all these differences are superficial: religions always had an inner and an outer aspect. All the problems of extremism arise from an obsession with the outer form of religion; the inner is deliberately ignored and if not ignored, derided. So long as we find ourselves locked into the outer forms then, I fear, peace and harmony will be elusive.

I write in my book: “To have a society that accepts different expressions of Divinity is one that allows a path for everyone. No one need fight over the name of the god -– or goddess –- one worships; if others do not like one, they can seek another. It doesn’t matter. Ultimately, all these paths lead to the top of the sacred mountain, though some are perhaps rockier than others.”

Racing Toward Armageddon is now available in bookstores.

A trailer for the book can be seen here.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Interview with Jay Wexler, Author of Holy Hullabaloos

Posted in Books, General, Interviews at 11:00 am by Hemant Mehta

Holy Hullabaloos is a novel approach to a book. Jay Wexler is a Professor at the Boston University School of Law and the separation of church and state is an issue that has always been important to him.

The book documents his road trip to many of the battlegrounds of major church/state cases. You get both first-hand accounts of what these places are like along with the history of what happened.

holyhulla

Among his visits: Wexler goes to Santa Fe, Texas, where the Supreme Court ruled that a student could not deliver a prayer over the public address system before football games. He also visits Grendel’s Den, a restaurant and bar, in Massachusetts. The bar was denied a liquor license when it first opened because a nearby church objected to the bar’s presence. The Supreme Court ruled that the church’s influence here was unconstitutional.

It’s a very interesting way to go beyond the legal decisions and see these places first-hand.

I’m not a fan of the title and I think this book would’ve been so much better with pictures of the locations scattered throughout, but I did learn a lot. It’s definitely more enjoyable than reading a Wikipedia entry on these cases, and you do get a more comprehensive look at these places than you would in any textbook.

Wexler was kind enough to answer my questions (I threw in links when necessary):

What should religious readers take away from this book? Will they get as much out of it as non-religious readers might?

I hope that religious leaders, if they read the book, come to understand that atheism is a legitimate perspective that the government should respect. I also hope they understand — as I hope non-religious leaders will, too — that it’s possible to talk about these controversial church-state issues with some levity. Maybe not all the time, but at least some of the time.

What was your favorite place to visit?

They were all pretty fun places. Rural Wisconsin is beautiful, and New Glarus beer is delicious. Also, all the Limburger cheese in America comes from this one county I visited in Wisconsin, so that was pretty great. Visiting the US Senate, and listening to the Chaplain give the prayer at the beginning of the session, though, was something I had wanted to do for a long time. When you read those prayers in the Congressional Record, they seem banal. But when you hear the Chaplain say them in the Senate hall, they take on a whole different feel. Much more powerful — and more dangerous.

What did you find out on your trip that you never would have learned in law school?

Well, one example is my visit to Kiryas Joel, where the Satmar Hasidim live. There’s simply no way to appreciate the uniqueness of that community without going there. I had previously thought that maybe some non-Satmar might want to live in that community, but having seen the place, I can testify now that it would be extremely surprising if someone who was not a Satmar wanted to live there.

Were there any places you were unable to visit on your trip?

Oh, there were many, and if anyone wants me to write a sequel, I’d be delighted. I didn’t make it West of the Mississippi River, for example. I wish I had had the time and resources to visit some Native American communities and find out their views about the religion clauses were. Maybe the community in Oregon where the Smith peyote case came from.

What themes did you find among your visits? Were certain areas more likely to be hotbeds for church/state issues?

I think that church/state issues can pop up anywhere where there are diverse opinions about religion, which in the United States means just about anywhere. So there are of course a lot of controversies about these issues in the south — like in Texas — but there are also plenty of them right here in the northeast.

As to themes, I guess what I might say is that the people I talked to, whether they were religious or not, whether they were members of majority sects or minority ones, all seemed pretty thoughtful about the issues. Clearly there can be a lot of anger and spite when it comes to questions of separation, but there are a lot of people out there who show great sensitivity to those they disagree with as well.

Which church/state issue do you feel is most important for atheists to be knowledgeable about?

They’re all pretty important, and it’s not hard to learn about all of them. To me, it’s the issue about religious displays and symbols that I find the most compelling. I doubt that as atheists we will ever succeed in getting “In God We Trust” off the currency, but we can continue to have some successes in demanding that government not put up displays that go too far in endorsing religion. The so-called “endorsement” test is hanging on by a thread, though, with the retirement of Justice O’Connor, and so atheists need to be aware that the next few Supreme Court nominations might turn out to be very important for this issue.

What has the Supreme Court gotten right and wrong in these cases?

I think the endorsement test, in theory, is the right test for evaluating religious displays and symbols, though the Court hasn’t always applied it correctly. The Court has also now over-simplified the issue of public funding of religious schools. On the other hand, the Court has gotten both of its evolution cases right and its decisions regarding school prayer are correct as well, which the Court should get a lot of credit for, since they were (and continue to be in some places) quite unpopular.

What questions should our politicians be asking prospective Supreme Court nominees to make sure church/state separation is upheld?

I think that nominees are sufficiently savvy these days that they’re unlikely to answer questions in a way that will get them in trouble, but right now they should be asked whether they believe stare decisis (adherence to precedent) is an important value in the religion clause context (and elsewhere too), since both the continued vitality of the endorsement test and the current rule that direct funding of religious organizations can’t be used for religious purposes are both up in the air at the moment.

Should public school students be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance (with “Under God” in it)? Should “In God We Trust” appear on our money? What cases should church/state separation proponents be going after? Which cases would likely be the most successful for us?

Public school students actually do not have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, with or without “under god” in it. The Court decided that many years ago in a case called Barnette. But the question remains whether the teacher can nonetheless lead the class in the pledge, since nonbelievers might feel coerced into saying “under god” through peer pressure (there’s also the issues of whether the Pledge is an endorsement of religion and whether “under god” was added into the Pledge for a religious purpose; the answer to both is yes, in my view). I think that under current Supreme Court doctrine, teachers should not be allowed to lead their classes in the “under god” version of the Pledge. I’d rather have “In God We Trust” off our money, but I doubt that will ever happen. The issue for atheists and separationists is whether to go after these cases that are clear losers in the Court or the ones where if we win, there will be such a backlash that we really end up losing. My own view is to stay away from those cases and focus more on the display and funding cases, but I appreciate that other atheists will differ on this. For example, I respect Mike Newdow a lot (he even wrote the theme song for my book, which I urge you to check out on www.holyhullabaloos.com), even though I might personally not bring the cases that he has chosen to bring.

Holy Hullabaloos will be in bookstores on June 1st but you can pre-order it on Amazon today.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Interview with Kathryn Joyce, Author of Quiverfull

Posted in General, Interviews at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta

If you heard the following, you’d likely find it sexist, misogynistic, and misguided.

When Martha Peace says it, though, she’s a hero to thousands of fundamentalist Christian women everywhere:

… [P]riorities [for Christian women] may include rising early to feed the family, being available anytime to satisfy a husband’s desires (barring a few “ungodly” or “homosexual” acts), seeking his approval regarding work, appearance, and leisure, and accepting that he has the “burden” of final say in arguments. After a wife has respectfully appealed her spouse’s decision — a privilege she should not abuse — she must accept his final answer as “God’s will for her at that time”… The godly wife must also suppress selfish desires (for romance, a career, an equitable marriage), practice addressing her spouse in soothing tones, and maintain a private log of bitter thoughts to guide her repentance. “If you disobey your husband,” Peace admonishes in The Excellent Wife, “you are indirectly shaking your fist at God.”

Peace is one of the women profiled in Kathryn Joyce’s new book Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement.

quiverfull

Quiverfull” refers to the notion that women should “receive children eagerly as blessings from God, eschewing all forms of birth control, including natural family planning and sterilization.”

Essentially, a Quiverfull woman breeds and keeps breeding, knocking out babies until her uterus gives out or menopause kicks in.

This leads to families with 6 or 10 or 14 or more children (in my mind, every batch of seven children is referred to as a “Duggar of kids“)… and if this trend continues… well, you can anticipate the problems.

You submitted questions about the Quiverfull movement and Kathryn’s thoughtful and detailed (and all-too-disturbing) responses are below:

What kind of education do Quiverfull children receive? Do a significant percentage of them go to college? Do females get the same opportunities for education as males?

Almost all Quiverfull children are homeschooled, and while there’s no single curriculum to point to, a number of leaders within the movement have advocated tailoring boys’ and girls’ education to the future roles they will hold. In the case of daughters, homeschooling leader R.C. Sproul, Jr., a prominent face in Quiverfull circles, argues that their education should prepare them to be mothers and stay-at-home wives.

In a particularly disturbing anecdote, he recounts the story of a 9-year old daughter of an acquaintance who couldn’t yet read, but was a very responsible and maternal older sister to her younger siblings: a situation that confirmed his view of the daughter as an “overachiever” well on her way to being a successful helpmeet and mother herself one day.

As for college, it varies a bit. Many sons are allowed to attend, particularly if they’re taking distance courses. This path is open for some daughters, but Quiverfull leaders strongly argue against allowing daughters to attend college away from home, as the encounter with worldly outsiders could damage or destroy their faith. Instead, they suggest that daughters stay at home after they graduate from homeschool, and practice being a helpmeet to their father as they will one day help and serve their husbands.

How many Quiverfull children marry and start their own families before the age of 25? Is this a movement that passes on from generation to generation?

It’s hard to give real numbers for the movement, and particularly for where the younger generation is now. As Quiverfull began in earnest in the mid-80s, it’s only in the past few years that there has been a real wave of second generation Quiverfull children marrying and having children. The movement, which has a vibrant internet presence, makes a lot of these developments, celebrating the marriages and new children of young believers. The older generation also stresses the dire importance of passing on their beliefs to the next generation, and to this end are focusing massive attention on outreach to daughters as young as five, inculcating a sense of their destiny in embracing the Quiverfull lifestyle. And they certainly also encourage women and men to marry early. While a number of children will leave the movement when they come of age, the lifestyle is structured to make that difficult, often keeping children sheltered from too much outside influence that could turn them away from the conviction.

Do female children in these families have much freedom regarding who they marry? Regarding anything, really?

A qualified yes. When children of the movement marry, it’s not through arranged marriages, but it is often through a courtship process that has an unusual amount of paternal involvement. Courtship is promoted through homeschooling and conservative religious circles as a chaste alternative to dating, which with or without sex is disparaged as the casual “trying on” of different partners. Courtship, alternately, is explicitly marriage-minded, and only occurs after a young man proves himself to a woman’s father. Quite literally, the male suitor is actually courting the daughter’s father, long before she is supposed to know that someone is interested in her. This is discussed as a way to protect vulnerable girls’ hearts from becoming emotionally invested before there’s the safety of commitment.

However, as advocates explicitly acknowledge, it’s also the best way of making sure that the daughter marries a man suitably in tune with the father’s ideology. For men concerned with keeping the movement going in the next generation, it’s important to make sure they marry their daughter to a man who will be similarly faithful to patriarchy and Quiverfull convictions.

Are any of the members of this movement actually adopting, or are they simply reproducing?

Yes, there is a good deal of adoption among Quiverfull families as well as in the broader conservative Christian community. Adoption usually supplements a biological family though, rather than replace the necessity of a woman leaving her fertility in God’s hands, so they may have six biological children and then adopt four more.

You mentioned in your Salon article that the Quiverfull movement “… likely numbers in the tens of thousands but… is growing exponentially.” Are there numbers/studies to back that up?

No. I don’t know of any real research on the Quiverfull movement yet. Hopefully there will be more in the future. My estimate is based on speaking with dozens of movement leaders, looking at the membership numbers for online communities, and considering that the conviction of having as many children as God gives you is considerably broader than the people who claim the Quiverfull name or participate in its forums.

What toll do all these births have on the mother — Emotionally and physically? You mentioned in your article one mother suffered a partial uterine rupture. Has it ever been worse?

Emotionally and physically, many women — particularly those who have left the movement — say the lifestyle is one of relentless work and exhaustion. Quiverfull mothers perform a staggering amount of labor in terms of pregnancy and childbearing, childcare, homeschooling, cooking and cleaning and being a submissive wife. There does seem to be a high incidence of reproductive problems among some mothers, though of course this could be due to the fact that the mothers are having far more children, and far later into life, than many other women.

Nonetheless, many women have spoken of extremely difficult pregnancies — a number of whom are put on strict bed rest — and labors. Additionally, there is often a focus on natural and even unassisted home births among Quiverfull moms. This isn’t a requirement of the Quiverfull conviction, but like many related facets of the movement (such as home churching or other, agrarian-minded efforts towards family self-sufficiency), it’s an idea many women are exposed to through movement literature. In a very extreme case in Australia, a Quiverfull mother died following the teachings of one fringe home-birth advocate. Though that seems to have been an anomalous case, home births, and continuing conceptions despite poor health do make for some serious health risks for some mothers.

What can we do for women who want to leave this movement? How can we ensure that the daughters and sons of these women and men get assistance out?

That’s a hard question. There are not many vocal exited women, though Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff and Vyckie Garrison are notable exceptions. Exited women face substantial difficulties as single mothers to large families, often including a number of young children, often limited financial resources, and a lack of outside work experience. Additionally, they’re often without references from a community that they left and which will often shun them. Understanding and respect — particularly that they came to their convictions not through ignorance but through devout belief — would likely be a relief to these moms. For both mothers and children, there are serious and very substantial psychological, emotional, spiritual and financial barriers to leaving the movement. Still, Quiverfull is not a cult, but a conviction that many women do choose willingly — however constrained their choices later become.

Are these people (women and children) on some sort of public assistance? If so, what’s being done about it?

Generally speaking no, they’re not. Most Quiverfull believers tend to have very strong beliefs about living debt-free and not accepting government assistance. They believe that churches are the proper custodians of public charity and welfare. However, if they did need public assistance, helping families feed and clothe their children is what public assistance programs are in place to do, so I don’t believe anything would need to be done about the proper functioning of a social safety net.

Are there allies within the religious congregations that perceive this movement as a threat? Or at least a bad idea?

There is abundant and lively opposition to patriarchy and Quiverfull ideologies within more liberal and moderate churches. Much of the momentum of Quiverfull began — like fundamentalism itself — as a backlash against liberalized theology in Protestant denominations. In this case, it was a reaction against the influence of feminism in Christian churches. Though Quiverfull is at the vanguard of a much broader resurgence of complementarianism, or “biblical” gender roles, across conservative denominations, there are many other mainstream and liberal denominations that are passionate advocates for women’s and reproductive rights.

What happens if it turns out that either one of the couple is infertile? If they are willing to accept 17 kids as “God’s plan” are they willing to accept zero, or do they go in for medical intervention? And what is their standing in the community if they can’t have kids?

The philosophy of Quiverfull, of leaving fertility in God’s hands, is ideally supposed to mean that parents accept whatever God gives them: 17 children or none. And I have met a few infertile women who still called themselves Quiverfull — though they spoke of feeling stung by some in the movement who focused predominantly on the number of children one has as a measure of spirituality.

Also, in some of the literature of the movement, Quiverfull mothers who had borne large families spoke of their sadness and loss of identity when they began menopause and began to lose their fertility. One even described herself as feeling dried out and withered when her childbearing years ended. This, significantly, is the same language that is used to describe the side-effects of using birth control, or even women who don’t have children. For me, it was a powerful illustration of what a no-win situation this ideology can be, even for women who followed the conviction diligently their entire reproductive lives.

Kathryn Joyce’s book Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement is now available in bookstores.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Interview with Kevin Roose, Author of The Unlikely Disciple

Posted in General, Interviews at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta

Before I talk about Kevin Roose’s excellent new book, The Unlikely Disciple, let me remind you of this clip from Real Time with Bill Maher:

Remember that sense of anger you felt every time Jerry Falwell made any sort of public statement? Maybe, like Maher, you weren’t all that sad when he passed away.

Kevin Roose felt pretty much the same way about Falwell a few years ago — basing his view of Falwell off the man he’d seen on television. But when working as an intern for AJ Jacobs (author of The Year of Living Biblically), he met a few students from Liberty (the school Falwell founded) and became curious about what their lives were like.

So he applied to — and was accepted into — Liberty University.

Kevin’s book The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University is a recounting of his months there. It’s one of the best books I’ve read in years.

roose

In it, Kevin describes a little bit of everything — his awkward dates with a sweet Christian girl, what he learned in his classes (Young Earth Creationism and Evangelism 101, to name a couple), and his one-on-one interview with Falwell himself (the last print interview Falwell gave before dying).

I’ll say it again: This is an *incredible* book — I couldn’t put it down — and not just for the entertainment value. Every atheist should read this to find out what the Fundamentalist Christian world is really like. It’s not always as awful as you might think and the students aren’t all cookie-cutter Falwells-in-training. Still, when you see how repressed some of the students are, what lengths they go to in order to remain “pure,” and what they are learning, it’s obvious how problematic religion and dogma can be.

Speaking of what you learn there… here’s a partial list of questions actually asked on the History of Life midterm exam, according to Kevin:

1. True or False: Noah’s Ark was large enough to carry various kinds of dinosaurs.
2. True or False: Science is the only way to truly know truth about the world.
3. True or False: Margaret Sanger [the founder of Planned Parenthood] was a promoter of eugenics [selective breeding, a practice commonly associated with the Nazi Party].
4. True or False: Evolution can be proven using the scientific method.

Correct answers (according to Liberty):

1. True
2. False
3. True
4. False

You could ace it… but it would cost you your last trace of rationality.

I had the chance to talk to Kevin about his experiences there. Some excerpts from his book are interspersed below our conversation:

Hemant: How in the world did you get accepted into Liberty?

Kevin: Honestly, I have no idea. I filled out the application, wrote the essay (“Describe how your perspectives of life and morality will enable you to contribute to Liberty University’s mission”) and submitted it along with my transcript from Brown. A few weeks later, the thick envelope came. I guess they really needed the tuition money.

  • Liberty’s application doesn’t include a mandatory statement of faith, but to complete the essay prompt… I had to read a few dozen Christian articles and sermons online and wrangle some of the buzzwords into a three-paragraph response. (I won’t reprint the whole thing here, but it included sentences like “The path to righteousness is not an easy one.”) I filled in a few more blanks, clicked “Send,” and my application tumbled through the ether to Liberty. (p. 12)

On the Creation Studies class:

Hemant: What was it like sitting in a Creation Studies class when you knew what was being taught was untrue?

Kevin: Creation Studies was probably the most challenging part of my academic life at Liberty, precisely because I didn’t agree with what was being taught. (To quote the popular bumper sticker, I give evolution two opposable thumbs up.) But I took solace in the fact that even if I didn’t believe that Noah’s Flood or Adam and Eve were totally historical, learning to see things from the creationist’s point of view would be good for my open-mindedness. I think it’s crucially important to learn about worldviews we don’t agree with, even if those worldviews lead to exam questions like: “True or False: Noah’s Ark was large enough to accommodate various kinds of dinosaurs.”

Hemant: How should the scientific world respond to the education that Liberty students receive (i.e. Creationism)? Should universities or public schools hire Liberty graduates?

Kevin: Depends which Liberty graduates you’re talking about. Like every school, students who come from Liberty are a diverse bunch, and I have no doubt that some of them would be completely capable teachers. Some might not be, of course. So I think it’s important to assess each individual case. I wouldn’t throw someone out of a job interview just because he or she was a Liberty graduate.

  • All Liberty students are required to take a creation studies course, while only Biology majors are required to learn evolution-based science. And even those evolution courses are sort of Fair and BalancedTM, if you get my drift. (p. 33)

On Falwell and the students at Liberty:

Hemant: Were the students at Liberty as sheltered as one might expect? What would they be surprised to find out about mainstream America?

Kevin: Actually, I was surprised at how non-sheltered they were. Almost everyone I met was totally socially adjusted, and could have fit in at any American college. Most of the time, conversations in the dorm centered on girls, homework, and music — the same stuff you’d hear at Brown.

Hemant: What was the reaction like from Liberty students (and yourself) at the mainstream media’s response to Jerry Falwell’s death? People like Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens said some pretty nasty things about him. Were their comments appropriate? Did Liberty students understand why these things were being said?

Kevin: Ah yes, the Hitchens eulogy. I believe he summed up his views when he told Anderson Cooper [Hemant: Actually, Hannity & Colmes] that “if you gave [Falwell] an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.” Which, despite being quite funny, isn’t entirely accurate. I actually got to interview Dr. Falwell (as Liberty students call him) before he died, and I got to see a different side of him, one that explained why he had millions of die-hard followers and a student body who absolutely adored him. I had very mixed emotions when he died, because while I think he did some incredibly hurtful things in his life, I appreciated certain elements of his personality.

Hemant: What should the secular world know about Jerry Falwell?

Kevin: He was a complicated guy, much moreso than the one-dimensional caricature he became whenever the TV cameras were rolling. For example, he loved light-hearted practical jokes. When he died, they found three boxes of stinkbombs in his desk. It doesn’t make the hateful things he did any less offensive, but it also helps to explain why he was as popular as he was. You can’t become a religious leader of his magnitude without touching some lives.

Hemant: Based on your writing (and I suppose to nobody’s surprise), gay students would have a horrible time at the school. Do you feel like the atmosphere will ever get better for them among that crowd?

Kevin: I’d like to say I’m optimistic, but I just don’t know. The school has an incredibly long history of anti-gay activism, and I don’t know what it’d take to reverse it. I think only time will tell.

  • All in all, the Liberty students I’ve met are a lot more socially adjusted than I expected. They’re not rabid, frothing fundamentalists who spend their days sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls and penning angry missives to the ACLU… in fact, I suspect a lot of my hallmates at Liberty could fit in perfectly well at a secular college. (p. 63)
  • But that’s the secret about a place like Liberty; everyone doubts. (p. 105)

On the Rules:

Hemant: Who came up with the three-second rule for hugging? It sounds so… exact. Like they ran some sort of calculation.

Kevin: There’s actually a Facebook group called “I Hug For 3 Seconds, Sometimes 4,” which is subversive and exciting and sad all at the same time.

Hemant: Which Liberty rule was the strangest to adhere to?

Kevin: I’m not sure about strangest, but the hardest was definitely the no-cursing rule. I actually had to buy a Christian self-help book, called “30 Days to Taming Your Tongue,” which tells you how to replace your four-letter vulgarities with words like “Glory!” and “Mercy me!”

  • By the end of the list [of rules], filmmaker [and fellow student] Ryan is rubbing his temples and breathing heavily.

    “Now, I know you guys are probably thinking, what did I get myself into?” [Resident Assistant] Stubbs says. “But it’s not really that hard.”

    [R.A.] Fox adds, “You just have to go in with a positive attitude. If you think, ‘Oh man, these rules are such a drag,’ you’re going to miss out on a lot. We see the rules as a way to maintain our focus on God. They give us freedom to concentrate on the things that really matter.” (p. 23)

On the Quiverfull movement:

Hemant: How serious is the Quiverfull movement among the Christians you met?

Kevin: It’s hard to tell. In theory, a lot of Liberty students I met agreed with the basic Quiverfull teachings (have as many kids as possible, as quickly as possible), but I’m not sure how many of them actually plan on starting Quiverfull families. Once they see how expensive childcare is, I’m guessing some of them will have a change of heart.

  • “Listen up, students,” [Falwell] said. “Now, I made sure there were five thousand girls here on campus, and five thousand boys. I don’t know how much more I can do. Folks, we need more Liberty babies for Christ. Let’s get going!” (p. 73)

On the Rational Response Squad:

Hemant: A professor at Liberty challenged the Rational Response Squad to a debate and you wrote about some surprising reactions from Liberty students after it occurred. Why was this debate such a big deal for them? (Or was it a big deal at all?)

Kevin: The debate was interesting, because while it was pretty clear to everyone at Liberty that Dr. [Ergun] Caner (the professor who challenged the atheists) got walloped, it didn’t cause a mass spiritual panic among Liberty students. It made me wonder whether the point of atheist/believer debates is really to change people’s minds, or whether they serve mostly as reinforcement for each side.

  • Dr. Caner got a few good points in. He put forth a fairly convincing version of the argument from design (the world is so beautiful and so orderly that it must have been designed by a creator). But ultimately, he was outmatched. The atheists anticipated his arguments and had counterarguments in hand. They knew the Bible inside and out and confronted him with hard-to-spin textual contradictions… and althought Dr. Caner came up with explanations for the discrepancies, they were hardly rock solid…

    “The atheists definitely knew what they were talking about,” [fellow student Brad] says. “I almost don’t want to say it, but… they beat him.” (p. 133)

On channeling Ray Comfort:

Hemant: You evangelized with a group of Liberty students at Daytona Beach over spring break. What was the best/worst part of this experience?

Kevin: The worst part of the week, probably not surprisingly, was evangelizing to secular coeds, most of whom were drunk, preoccupied, or both. Being shunned and mocked by strangers is never fun, even if you don’t believe in what you’re selling. On the bright side, we were evangelizing outside a nightclub one night, and a “Girls Gone Wild”-style film crew came and set up next to us, so we got a nice little assembly line going.

Hemant: Have you seen the banana video?

Kevin: I have. Actually, I heard professors at Liberty tell students NOT to use the banana example when debating non-believers. Even at Liberty, fruit-based arguments aren’t the most convincing.

  • Evangelizing to secular spring breakers in Florida struck me as an enormous waste of time. Why not go somewhere where Jesus would be an easier sell? Like Islamabad? Or a Christopher Hitchens dinner party? (p. 146)
  • For these Liberty students, going to Daytona is a tool for self-anesthetization, a way to get used to the feeling of being an outcast in the secular world. The first forty times someone blows you off, it feels awful. The second forty times, you start reassuring yourself that all of this must serve a higher purpose. By the end of the week, you get the point — you are going to be mocked and scorned for your faith, and this is the way it’s supposed to be (p. 163)

On the book and its reception:

Hemant: What’s the best writing advice you received from AJ Jacobs?

Kevin: AJ has been an incredibly supportive mentor throughout the whole publishing process. (To use a Bible metaphor, he’s sort of the Apostle Paul to my Timothy.) As far as specific advice, he once told me that going into print journalism these days is sort of like going into Betamax sales. I took it as a challenge to get published.

Hemant: Will a book tour stop at Liberty? What is the reaction to your book like from current students?

Kevin: I didn’t know what to expect at first, but so far, the reaction has been almost entirely positive. I think Liberty gets a lot of negative press, so the fact that I actually spent time there and gave it a balanced portrayal has helped Liberty students appreciate the book. I’ve gotten a lot of e-mails saying, basically, “Thanks for taking us seriously.”

Hemant: Have you kept in touch with any students at Liberty? You mentioned in the book’s epilogue that most of the reactions from your friends there were pretty positive. Did any of them react negatively to the book and their portrayal?

Kevin: I’ve gotten a lot of calls from my Liberty friends in the past few weeks, all of them incredibly positive. Mostly, they want to know who all the pseudonyms represent. But I think, aside from the narcissistic thrill of being written about, they’re excited that the book isn’t a scathing exposé or a down-with-religion tell-all, that I tried to find good things to say about Liberty in addition to the not-so-good things.

  • “This blows my mind, to be honest,” [a fellow student] said. “But I’m not mad. I think it’s pretty cool actually. I’m happy for you. I haven’t read a book in six, seven years. But I might read this one.” (p. 312)

On the aftermath:

Hemant: How would you currently label yourself when it comes to religion? Do you still pray?

Kevin: I was “God-ambivalent” when I went to Liberty — not exactly a believer, but not exactly an agnostic or an atheist. Now, I’m more comfortable with religion, and I do try to pray every day, even though I’m still not convinced it has any cosmic effect. I try to remember what Oswald Chambers said about prayer, which is that (and I’m paraphrasing) it’s not so much that prayer changes things, but that prayer changes us and we change things. So even if God isn’t listening, I think the practice of praying for other people can make us more selfless, more willing to reach out.

The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University hits the bookstores this Thursday.

If you have any follow-up questions for Kevin, leave them in the comments! I’ll pass them along to him.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Interview with Roy Speckhardt of the American Humanist Association

Posted in Atheist Advertising, Interviews at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta

There’s been a lot of reactions (good and bad) to the American Humanist Association’s atheist bus campaign. In short, the AHA will be running the following ad on buses in the metro Washington, D.C. area:

The Christian Right thinks this is an attack on them. Conservative commentators aren’t happy either.

Today, AHA’s Jesse Galef was on FOXNews discussing the ads. The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue was also there to offer a counterpoint… which included the mentions of Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Stalin. (It had to be tough for Jesse to engage in a battle of minds with an unarmed lunatic…)

Anyway, after learning about the American version of the atheist bus campaign, a few questions came to mind:

– How did this idea come about?

– Was the AHA in contact with the British Humanist Association because of the success of the BHA’s own ad campaign?

– How will the AHA gauge the success of the ads?

– Will we see “atheist buses” in other cities anytime soon?

– How is the AHA reacting to the conservative Christian response?

Roy Speckhardt, the Executive Director of the AHA, was kind enough to answer those questions.

His statement to me is below:

The American Humanist Association started running paid advertisements as part of our annual program plans when Steve Goldberg and David Niose developed ideas for mass marketing in 2005. As we humanists, atheists, and freethinkers know too well, we’ve been mostly ignored by the media and the political powers that be, so paid ads were a way for us to break through that barrier. Through FreeThought Action we’ve run amazingly successful ads in a number of U.S. cities. The idea to do bus ads originated as a way to get around the billboard prohibition in the Washington DC metro area. But then, as we saw the British Humanist Association reap terrific results from a clever campaign in the UK, we wanted to shift our ad to have a similar flavor.

The American Humanist Association has come a long way in recent years and we were moving quickly to run the BHA ad before its media coverage was forgotten by reporters. However, since the BHA ads weren’t running until January they preferred we not use their wording. So our board and staff worked on a slogan that would be more fitting to the coming holiday season. The result has already far exceeded my expectations. People are coming out of the woodwork to respond to this campaign. And I’m pleased to report that we’re hearing from supporters and local group leaders about interest in rolling out the campaign in other cities. I’m optimistic that plans will soon be finalized to do just that.

I think it’s humorous that so many people of faith think they were the ones we were targeting with these ads. We’ve got millions of people to reach who are humanists but don’t know of us or care to join an organized movement. These nontheists are the real target. But if I think that bit of self-centeredness on behalf of the religious is humorous, I think it’s just hilarious that some actually find the ad offensive.

Really, the absurdity is palpable. Let me explain the situation. Some of the roughly ninety percent of our society are offended that a small organization made a tiny advertising purchase to reach out to its minority constituency? And the source of this offense is the fact that we just raised the question “Why believe in a god?” Sounds like some folks have major security issues…

The folks on Fox and Friends (who just had me on for a follow-up interview) were among those who seemed to feel this was an attack ad on Christians. Hearing their antics you can almost see what their imagining: sneaky atheists aiming to unhinge the faithful by ambushing them with magic language that will undermine their faith. But then you have to remind yourself about the source of all that unhinging — a simple question.


Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Interview with American Teen’s Hannah Bailey

Posted in Dating, General, Interviews at 8:00 am by Hemant Mehta

A few weeks ago, I had a chance to catch a screening of a new documentary, American Teen, a movie being called a “modern day Breakfast Club.”

I loved the movie.

Maybe it has something to do with having just taught at a high school similar to the one in the film, but I also think it’s easy to relate to and shows a lot of truths about high school life you don’t see in scripted films. (The documentary was filmed a few years ago at Warsaw Community High School in Indiana.)

At the theater I saw it at, my friend and I were surrounded by a couple hundred new college students going through a freshmen orientation. They were screaming at the screen when the “popular” girl did something bitchy. They were going “Aww!” when the “geek” asked out a girl (and failed miserably). They were in tears when one student achieved a major goal toward the end of the film. The reactions were almost as entertaining as the movie itself. Everyone was emotionally invested in the students’ lives. You felt like you knew the kids personally.

One of the students prominently featured in the movie was Hannah Bailey, the “rebel.”

According to the movie’s official website:

Hannah Bailey is smart and beautiful, but a misfit in her high school. She is a liberal atheist living in a traditional, Christian, conservative town and dreams of moving to California after graduation.

Truth be told, Hannah’s agnostic, not atheist. But religion doesn’t play a major role in the film.

In fact, despite the conservative nature of the town, director Nanette Burstein said religion and politics were not major topics in the movie for a key reason:

Because they don’t care about them. And at my high school, nobody cared about politics. And religion… I shouldn’t say nobody cared about religion, because that’s not true. Politics, they definitely don’t care about. Religion, I was open to being a problem — or, if a conflict came up that was important. There were certainly relationships where a certain kid might be much more religious and dating a Catholic, and that might be a problem for their parents. But that just didn’t come up in the people I was filming. The only one who came from a pretty religious background was Mitch, the blonde guy. But it didn’t really enter into his story. Politics never entered into it, because they just didn’t care. And it doesn’t affect their world.

Hannah’s story was possibly the most compelling for me, and she was gracious enough to answer some questions pertaining to her (lack of) faith and the film:

Hemant Mehta: It’s hard enough reliving tough high school moments in one’s memory… What was it like watching breakups and other difficult moments from your senior year on film?

Hannah Bailey: Re-living high school’s not too tough. I’ve moved on. I will never talk to most of those kids again, so it doesn’t matter much. I’m friends with Joel [the "perfect boyfriend" who broke up with her]. I’ve made peace with the experience. It’s alright.

HM: What did you learn about yourself and your friends when watching the movie that you didn’t know (or couldn’t know) when you were in high school? What secrets came to light only when you saw the final product?

HB: People ask me what I learned about myself. Honestly, I didn’t learn much from the movie. I learned a lot from moving to California, confronting my problems, reflecting — you know, just generally living. By the time I saw the movie (2 years after I graduated), I had figured most of that high school stuff out already. I guess one thing I am starting to realize now is that my best friend, Clarke [seen in the film], is definitely the most incredible person on this planet. But, I think I kinda already knew that.

HM: Did any scenes make you wince? Were any of them surprisingly pleasant to watch?

HB: It’s a little hard to see myself cry again and again, but what girl doesn’t cry after a heart-crushing breakup. Most, I assume. It’s difficult to watch my mom and hear the audience’s reaction when she says “You’re not special.” I wish people would realize that she simply misspoke. She meant that I shouldn’t deserve special treatment, that I shouldn’t think of myself as above anyone else. She was right.

The Mitch and me montage was surprisingly cute. The dragon outfit scene is the best.

HM: How did your agnosticism affect how people perceived you in your school? In your community? Were you “out” about being non-religious?

HB: I don’t really talk openly about religion much. I figure it’s good to let people do what they want to do. The only time I really argue is when religion creates any kind of prejudice tendencies or just plain ignorance. I will speak up about that because, in my opinion, there is no right or wrong when it comes to religion, but when it comes to any kind of prejudice because of religion, there is. As I say in the film, Warsaw is predominantly Christian, which is true. It used to bother me more when I was younger, because I felt so different I guess, but I trained myself to be more accepting as I entered high school and beyond. A lot of my best friends are religious. I have no problem with that because they’re totally cool about it.

HM: Where did that agnosticism stem from? It seemed like your family was religious in some way in the movie…

HB: My extended family is religious, yes, but my immediate family is much more lax about it. My mom was raised as a strict Catholic, so she sort of rebelled against that as she grew up. She’s still Christian, but she doesn’t feel the need to go to church or make a big to do about it. My dad is more like me. Much more open-minded about the whole subject. I was very spiritual as a kid, but I always questioned how so many major religions can be “the one.” It never made sense. I decided when I was very young that I wasn’t going to denounce any one religion, but I wasn’t going to practice one specifically either. Who am I to say what’s right or wrong?

HM: When you and the other students featured in the film saw the movie for the first time, what were your reactions?

HB: The other “teens” and I (along with Nanette the director, and Jordan [Roberts] the producer) watched the movie together the night before the Sundance premiere. It was very emotional. We all cried a bit, I think. Mostly laughs though. We’re all so far removed from that drama that’s it’s laughable now.

We took the whole thing a lot lot lighter than the audience normally does.

HM: High school reunion: Looking forward to it?

HB: I’ll go to a high school reunion. I’m looking forward to drinking and dancing with my friends. I’m looking forward to finding out what became of everyone. It should be fun.

HM: What sorts of movies do you plan on making once you finish film school?

HB: Right now, I’m looking to write comedy, comedy-horror, and drama. Those are my specialties. I would edit anything. I don’t have plans to direct right now, but you never know. Ask me again in 10 years.

If this movie is showing anywhere in your area, go see it. Totally worth the price of admission.


Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Interview with Candace Chellew-Hodge, Gay-Friendly Pastor

Posted in GLBT, General, Interviews at 1:00 pm by Hemant Mehta

Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge is the founder/editor of Whosoever, an “online magazine for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Christians.”

She is a self-proclaimed “recovering Southern Baptist.”

Her first book, Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians, will be published this September.

bulletproof.jpg

All this puts her in a rather unique position among Christians — she is both one of the flock and one who goes against a belief that has become almost synonymous with the word “Christian” (that the gay homosexuals must be stopped).

She was kind enough to answer a number of questions regarding her beliefs and attitude:

Hemant Mehta: How do you deal with other religious figures who consider homosexuality an abomination?

Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge: I try to deal with all of my opponents with love and understanding. I also try to not take their rants against homosexuality personally. It’s not about me. Something about homosexuality sets them off. Something within them is reacting against the idea of homosexuality or a gay Christian. I want to understand what that is, so I try to listen deeply to them. What I mainly hear is fear and pain. They’re afraid of losing their faith and being wrong on some point of faith is scary — it means they may be wrong in other areas. I also hear the pain. Anti-gay Christians do have a deep concern for GLBT people and want to see them come to God. They often resort to repulsive ways of telling us about their concern, but I can still hear that concern and try to respond to them in a loving manner.

In the end, I attempt to look past the hateful words and actions and try to see the humanity in my opponent. If I can model this, perhaps I’ll get the same consideration in return. I treat them as I want them to treat me, whether they return that treatment or not. I don’t want to argue — I want to understand my enemy and in that way, perhaps eliminate one more enemy when we find common ground. We may still disagree about homosexuality, but at least a door has been opened to dialogue.

HM: Is there a generational gap on this issue in the church? In other words, are younger Christians much more likely than older Christians to be open to homosexuality and the belief that they [homosexuals], too, can get into Heaven?

CC-H: I think there is a generation gap going on, but that’s not to say all younger Christians are pro-gay. There are still plenty of anti-gay young people in the church. They’ve been taught by their elders that being gay is sinful, so they embrace that idea without much thought. I think it may be easier to get the younger Christians to change their minds.

I fear that many pro-gay young adults are simply turned off by Christianity because it’s seen as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. I do hope, however, that younger Christians within the church will see the error of their elders and bring the church into a more modern understanding of homosexuality and the Bible.

HM: How do you deal with the portions of the Bible which say homosexuality is a sin? On what authority do you take your interpretation? Is it based on the original intentions of the writers? A more liberal viewpoint?

CC-H: I have yet to find a section in the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin. There is no such passage. What the Bible condemns are some sexual acts between same-sex partners (mainly men). The acts condemned include sexual acts done in the context of temple worship (passages in Leviticus as well as Paul’s mention of same-sex acts fall under this category), use and abuse of another person sexually, pederasty or prostitution (condemned in other New Testament passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9), and rape (which is the entire point of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis). Nowhere does the Bible state that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is sinful — it merely instructs anyone, gay or straight, that any sexual act that does not spring from a place of love, respect and commitment to the other person involved is sinful. There is nothing in the Bible that condemns homosexuality, per se, or condemns sexual conduct between two consenting adults engaged in a loving, monogamous relationship.

The authority of such an interpretation comes from a long line of historical criticism of the Bible. There are plenty of biblical scholars who have come to this position including Bishop John Shelby Spong and Walter Wink. Even conservative commentators like Robert Gagnon are now admitting that the Sodom and Gomorrah story is not about homosexuality, but about inhospitality and rape.

The method of historical criticism seeks to understand each passage in the context of the audience to which it was first written. In that context, knowledge of sexual orientation was lacking — the original audience still believed the woman was merely an incubator and the whole of human life resided in sperm. A notion of sexual orientation was well beyond their grasp. In fact, the word “homosexual” wasn’t coined until 1869, so it could not have been used by biblical writers and was only later used in biblical translations after 1946 when the rise of Communism and the “homosexual menace” began to come into our society’s vernacular. Translators in that time made the decision to use “homosexual” to describe the sinful sexual practices mentioned in the Bible. Not a far stretch since homosexuality was still considered a mental illness. It seemed to make sense that these lustful, sinful acts could simply be covered with the new word “homosexual.” I believe translators are mistaken and were guided by their own internal and political prejudices against gays and lesbians — prejudices that persist today thanks to their decision to insert a fairly recent word and concept into an ancient text.

HM: How do other Christians treat you since you are outspoken in your defense of GLBT Christians and how they can be “saved” without trying to change their orientation?

CC-H: Depends on the Christian. Those who agree with me are glad that I am outspoken. Many in our community are afraid to be outspoken for fear that they’ll face reprisals or attacks from other Christians who disagree. So, they’re happy to have me out there advocating for them in the church.

As for Christians who disagree with me, most of the vitriol I receive comes in the form of hate mail. When face to face, most Christians who disagree with me are very civil and curious about my beliefs. I’ve had good dialogue with many Christians who disagree. Most often we end up still disagreeing, but at least we’ve had some contact. The only angry Christians who disagree are usually the ones who show up at Pride celebrations and want to argue with me. I usually smile and say, “God bless you” and walk away. There’s really no need in arguing with those sorts of Christians.

HM: What arguments can convince other religious people that homosexuality is acceptable to the Christian God?

CC-H: Again, it depends on the Christian in question. For some, like those who paint hateful slogans on signs and go to gay pride parades are really beyond reason. They have so much of their self-identity invested in what they hate that it would take a miracle to turn some of those around. Not to say it can’t happen, but no argument will sway them. Some event would have to happen to give them some sort of epiphany. That’s why I don’t argue with those sorts of Christians. Their hearts and minds are closed. I only hope that by refusing to argue I plant a seed of nonviolence in them that will take root somehow.

As for other Christians, some can be convinced by biblical arguments, but that’s usually a dead end. I believe that religious people’s hearts and minds will change in the same way they changed over the issue of slavery and racism. They will come to realize that discrimination against any group, for any reason, is wrong and condemned by God. Even though slavery is never condemned in the Bible, we condemn it today — even though ending slavery goes against “God’s word.” Why did we end slavery then? Because our conscience can’t take the thought of owning another human being. We now know, instinctively, that it is wrong. It was NOT arguments from the Bible that convinced us slavery was wrong — since the Bible says it’s right. We changed because we, as humans, came to a deep understanding that freedom is the right of every human being. That change came slower in the church — but you won’t find a church now that thinks slavery is something we should bring back.

This is how we will change society and the church on the issue of homosexuality. We work to raise the conscience of people so they realize that discrimination against a group of people simply because who they love is ridiculous and wrong. Polls are already showing that the younger generation is realizing this. It’s really only a matter of time before society grants full rights to gays and lesbians. The churches will eventually follow suit, with a minority of churches remaining firm in their prejudice (like the Southern Baptists still discriminating against women in ministry).

HM: What is the best way to approach anti-gay Christians?

CC-H: In a non-defensive manner. If we approach anyone spoiling for a fight, we’ll get one. When I encounter anti-gay Christians I try to do a lot of listening, because if you listen to them you begin to understand that their anti-gay stance has nothing to do with you and everything to do with their own fears. They have a fear that if they’re wrong about this part of the Bible, then the whole house of cards that is their faith comes tumbling down. Gay Christians are a challenge to their idea of biblical authority. They don’t want to have to rethink or re-examine their faith, so it’s easier to make the gay Christian wrong than it is to be forced to examine their beliefs.

Having said that, though, not all anti-gay Christians are raving bigots. Many of them have just never met gay people and are simply in need of an education. Extending a hand of friendship and honest dialogue is often the best gesture we can make. Remember, we’re trying to raise the conscience of people — we do that by being open and ready to talk with anyone who will have a constructive and honest dialogue with us.

HM: How long will it take, do you think, until mainstream Christianity adopts more enlightened views on GLBT issues?

CC-H: For some of the more liberal streams of Christianity, I think it will be sooner rather than later. For the more conservative denominations like the Southern Baptists, I don’t know if they ever will. They still struggle with what to do with their women and only within the past few years apologized for their support of slavery.

HM: What can be done about Christian groups that try to “cure” homosexuality?

CC-H: There needs to be a concerted effort to continue to discredit them. Some good work has been done over the years — since most of their “research” into homosexuality has been debunked and their “experts” exorcised from any respectable professional affiliations.

It also needs to be made clear that, to a person, those who claim to be “ex-gay” will all admit they still “struggle” with same-sex attraction. It needs to be emphasized that all that has changed in these people is behavior, not orientation.

HM: Can you blame GLBT people for leaving the faith after being treated so horribly for so long?

CC-H: No, I don’t blame them at all. I left the faith for many years for exactly the same reason. It’s like leaving an abusive relationship — I applaud anyone who gets out of an abusive situation alive and relatively intact.

I am on a mission to help those who left that they don’t have to suffer in an abusive religious situation. There are many safe churches and denominations where they can return to Christianity if they so choose.

My only concern is that those who leave Christianity find something else that fulfills that spiritual side of themselves. I believe we are hardwired to be connected to something greater than ourselves — whether we call it “God,” “the Universe,” “the Holy,” or “no gods.” I love pagans because their rituals are rich with meaning. They don’t have a “god” that they worship, but they have a deep sense of the holy — a deep sense of awe at being alive. That is a deeply spiritual connection — deeper than most Christians I know.

I explored many faiths — Buddhism, Taoism and the like. I found much of value in each tradition, but returned to Christianity because its traditions and rituals are what connects me to the divine, the holy. It’s where I find my sense of awe. I want all GLBT people to find that place where they connect in that way. It doesn’t have to be in Christianity.

HM: At what age do you feel Christian children (or children in general) should learn about sexual orientation and GLBT people?

CC-H: I think it should be taught as early as possible that some people pair up as boy/girl and others pair up as girl/girl or boy/boy and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as the relationship is based in love. Sexual matters don’t need to be discussed until later in life when they can handle that information, but the concept of two people loving one another, regardless of gender mix, should be taught from birth!

HM: Do you think the whole LGBT issue with the church is simply part of a larger rift between strict literalistic interpretations of the Bible and more open liberal interpretations?

CC-H: The GLBT issue is completely about biblical authority. If the literalists lose it’s just another battle they’ve lost over biblical authority. They argued for the rightness of slavery — because God blesses it all through the Bible. They argued for the rightness of racism because God’s word tells us to separate the races. They argued for the rightness of the subjugation of women because the Bible says women can’t be ordained, should never teach a man and keep quiet in church. They have lost all of these arguments about biblical authority and they’ll be damned if they’re going to lose another. So, they’re fighting tooth and nail. They’re losing and they know it, which is why they are fighting so hard right now.

HM: How successful have you been in your quest to change the minds of anti-gay Christians?

CC-H: That’s hard to quantify. I get plenty of emails from folks who say they once believed GLBT people were condemned but have changed their minds, perhaps because of something I’ve written or said. Whosoever, the online magazine I run, receives more than half a million visitors each year and I only hear from a fraction of them. I think I’d be shocked at how many lives I’ve touched over the years. I can only hope that I have planted seeds of change in the hearts of many anti-gay Christians — because the only way we can change hearts and minds is one person at a time.

If you’re interested in exploring these issues more deeply, her book will be out soon and you can pre-order it now.

Feel free to leave follow-up questions in the comments and I will be sure to pass them along.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Interview with John Loftus, author of Why I Became an Atheist

Posted in GLBT, General, Interviews at 8:00 am by Hemant Mehta

John Loftus served in the ministry for 14 years, first as a youth minister, then a minister, then a senior minister for a number of (conservative) Christian churches of Christ. He studied under the likes of Dr. William Lane Craig and has degrees from Lincoln Christian Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He’s taught apologetics classes at Christian colleges.

And now, he’s an atheist.

He’s also the author of the soon-to-be-released Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity.

He recently answered questions via email:

Hemant Mehta: How “strong” of a Christian were you in your earlier life?

John Loftus: For a long time I had no doubts whatsoever about the Christian faith. I was a believer, not just to the bone, but to the very marrow. I was as passionate as one could get about the faith. That passion was what motivated me to want to study about my faith, to share it, to preach it, and to defend it.

HM: Was your change to atheism sudden or gradual?

JL: Perhaps the more entrenched one is both emotional and intellectual, the longer of a process it is. The process for me took about six years, perhaps due to the fact that I suppressed my doubts, perhaps because I was involved in the church, perhaps because of my education. After six years I became a liberal existential deist, who simply chose to believe in God and the afterlife. Then I became an agnostic. I wrote my first book as an agnostic in 2004. Then I became an atheist shortly afterward.

HM: When your doubts began to form, how did you justify your religious faith before finally abandoning it?

JL: Out of ignorance; at least, that’s what I think now. I was blinded by my upbringing to believe. I was raised to put on God glasses, which only allowed me to see the world through Christian eyes. I discounted disconfirming evidence. I didn’t understand Biblical archaeology. I didn’t understand the nature of historical studies when it comes to supporting a historical religion like Christianity. I didn’t understand the true nature of the ancient superstitious and barbaric writings found in the Bible. I didn’t understand science. I didn’t understand that philosophy can be used to confirm what I wanted to believe, but that what I believed could not be sustained by a true reading of canonized Bible. I simply read the wrong books. Because of a blinding faith I just could not see things differently.

HM: What were some of the reactions you received when you told others you were no longer a Christian?

JL: “You need to seek counseling.” “I feel very sad for you.” Most of the Christians I knew simply asked me what happened, “why did you change your mind?” That’s what prompted me to write my book, to help them understand. Christians who never knew me while I was a believer drill me with questions looking for anything that might evidence I was never was a true believer in the first place.

HM: Do you think a Christian audience will read this book or will it just reiterate to atheists what we already know? How do you get Christians to take a look at a book like this?

JL: I think many Christians will read this book, because I wrote it with them in mind, not the skeptic. I treat their beliefs respectfully, too, without demeaning them for believing, because I myself believed what they did with all seriousness. I have a unique pedigree among evangelical thinkers as I studied under some of the best of them, like Dr. Craig, Dr. Strauss, Dr. Paul Feinberg, Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, Dr. Stuart C. Hackett, and Dr. Ronald Feenstra. There are many books written on both sides of this great debate that merely “preach to the choir.” Mine is not one of them. Most skeptics who read it will see, for perhaps the first time, how Christian apologists defend their faith. I don’t think most skeptics understand Christianity enough to be able to deal effectively with believers. So skeptics will learn some valuable lessons and arguments if they want to convince believers they are deluded.

HM: How could you convince someone to become an atheist if they’re not quite religious anymore but not yet ready to abandon their faith?

JL: I don’t know what will convince any particular person to become an atheist, since that which is considered convincing to people is person-related. There is an irreducible personal element involved in whether an argument is convincing or not, in the absence of a mutually agreed upon repeatable scientific experiment. That being said, I think the arguments in my book will push the reader in that direction. The major goal in my book is not to convince people to become atheists, though, although I do argue for this. My major goal is to do the hard work of pushing Christians off of dead center. I aim to dislodge them from their certainties, to provoke them to doubt; intensive doubt if possible. Where they end up after I get them to think for themselves, without reliance on dogma or an authoritative inspired book, will be up to them. But I show them the way if they wish to follow in my path.

HM: What changed the most for you when you became an atheist?

JL: Well, I didn’t become a serial-killer, if that’s what you mean ;-) I’m the same person I was when I believed. Nothing much has changed in that department, except I don’t go to church activities and I no longer feel guilt for the lack of tithing or prayer or evangelism or unforgiveness, and so on and so on. I feel, well, human!

HM: Where do you agree and disagree with the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc)?

JL: I am grateful for the awareness these men have created among the English speaking world. Just like the gays had to grab our attention by being obnoxious, so also Dawkins in particular, had to treat religion in demeaning ways to provoke believers to really think about what they believe. He treats the monotheistic religions just like everyone else does to dead gods like Zeus or Apollo or Poseidon. We easily dismiss these mythical characters. Sam Harris reminds us that the sole difference is that the majority of people alive today believe in the God of the Bible. Now that these “New Atheists” have accomplished this rise in consciousness I want to treat the arguments of the believers seriously, and show why they are deluded to continue believing in a non-threatening, respectful manner.

HM: Are you optimistic about the future of atheism?

JL: Yes, very much so. I think it’s the wave of the future, even if it is sloughing along at a slow but steady pace. There will always be believers, of course, but skepticism will continue to rise in the polls.

Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity is slated for release on July 15th.

If you have any questions you’d like to ask him, leave them in the comments and I’ll pass them along.


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Interview with Christine Wicker, Author of The Fall of the Evangelical Nation

Posted in GLBT, General, Interviews at 8:00 am by Hemant Mehta

Christine Wicker was a feature writer, columnist, and religion reporter for the Dallas Morning News for seventeen years. She’s also author of a New York Times bestseller Lily Dale: The True Story of the Town that Talks to the Dead.

Her new project gets right to the heart of all we’ve been told about Evangelical Christians.

The numbers we have been given are all wrong, says Wicker.

The tag line on the book’s back cover? “What Evangelicals Don’t Want You to Know.”

And if you need any further convincing to check this book out, here is what she writes in the opening pages:

“Let me stop here and define what I meant by evangelicals… I meant those people who have accepted Jesus as their personal savior and as the only way to heaven, who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and who are scaring the bejesus out of the rest of America.”

So true…

Her book is called The Fall of the Evangelical Nation.

Wicker was kind enough to answer a number of questions about her book and research:

Hemant Mehta: What percent of the country is evangelical Christian, by your definition?

Christine Wicker: Seven percent. That’s opposed to the 25 percent that we’ve been lead to believe are evangelicals.

HM: Speaking of which, what is your definition of “evangelical”? (You put both Rick Warren and the National Association of Evangelicals outside that label — calling them shifters — for example.)

CW: I define evangelicals the way the public perceives them.

I’m basically talking about the most conservative evangelicals who have dominated the public discussions of morality and been seen as politically potent forces, the ones the media quotes and helps define by giving them far more coverage than any other religious group (despite the fact that other Christians outnumber them by 5 or 6 to one.)

So I’m talking about the Religious Right.

My seven percent is actually higher than the 20 percent of self-described evangelicals who say they are in the Religious Right.

I identify these evangelicals by membership in churches, attendance, behavior, and beliefs.

HM: What percent of the country regularly attends a church? How does that compare with the percentage of people who are explicitly non-religious?

CW: The best anyone can tell, 19 to 20 percent of Americans are in church on a given Sunday.

The number of people who don’t believe or don’t put themselves in an institutional religious group more than doubled from 14 million to 29 million from 1990 to 2001. As a percentage of the population, they grew from 8 percent to more than 14 percent.

They are the fastest growing “spiritual” category in the country in percentage and numbers.

HM: You noticed a discrepancy between the cited number of members of the National Association of Evangelicals and the actual number. Ditto with the Southern Baptists. How drastic were these “shifts”?

CW: The NAE has said they have 30 million members. They actually have 7.6 million, tops. That’s the number of members their churches claim. So the actual number is almost certainly half to a fourth of that.

The SBC says it has 16 million. Five to eight million of them don’t even live in the same towns their churches are in. Insiders count SBC church health by how many attend Sunday School on average. That number is about 4 million for the entire denomination.

HM: With all the money brought in each week and the power of the megachurches, why isn’t that number growing?

CW: The megachurches are growing. By last report they are increasing twice as fast anyone thought they would.

If they continue to grow, they could be the salvation, no pun intended, of the Evangelical Nation. But signs indicate the growth may be slowing.

Lots of insiders believe they’re doomed.

Here’s why: big buildings, big debt, shifting demographics, dissatisfied members, and retiring founders.

Let me unpack just one of those problems: dissatisfied members.

These churches are constructed to attract so-called seekers. That builds attendance.

But they don’t give their most dedicated, generous and hard-working core members the kind of environment where they feel that God is present and that they are growing in their faith, according to a study by Willow Creek, a huge church that has cloned itself all over the country. One evangelical thinks the most dedicated evangelicals are being so poorly served by church that they are already leaving and 20 million will eventually be out the door.

Willow Creek ministers are completely changing their approach to try to retain and satisfy these core members. But the change has many dangers. Churches that serve core members’ need for spiritual growth typically don’t serve new members and therefore fail to grow numerically.

HM: In an article from 2000, you wrote about how Christians divorce at a higher rate than non-Christians. Is that still the case?

CW: Yes.

Evangelicals also have similar rates of drug, alcohol and pornography addiction. They seem to engage in extra-marital and pre-marital sex at the same rates that others do.

Faith doesn’t appear to have impact on moral behavior.

HM: What is the biggest mistake that churches make?

CW: If you take a look at the Dallas Morning News article that I wrote and is on my website… you’ll get a taste of the attacks coming from inside and outside the church.

One I don’t mention is among of the biggest: they teach members that they are the only ones saved and the only ones who have the Truth.

Those contentions seem more and more arrogant and even un-Christian to outsiders.

HM: How do cultural issues (like the recent gay marriage decision in California) impact the church?

CW: The culture has clearly changed the evangelical church more than it has changed the culture. Preachers have said that for years, and they’re right.

Opposing gay rights is a good example of how evangelicals have tried to keep a behavior from becoming normalized. But they’ve failed with premarital sex, parenthood outside of marriage, dancing, divorce, abortion and alcohol consumption.

One scholar believes gay rights with be as damaging to evangelicals as supporting slavery was to Southern Baptists after the Civil War.

HM: How politically entrenched are the megachurches with the Republican Party?

CW: It’s rare to find anyone in evangelical megachurches who will admit to being a Democrat. Megachurch preachers are unlikely to push particular candidates from the pulpit but they tie Republican policies to Biblical truth regularly.

And these churches give out Christian voter guides that elide the boundary between Republican issues and Christian issues by putting lower taxes and support of the war, for instance, right next to issues like abortion and gay rights.

HM: Are churches hurting or helping themselves by taking a more literal view of Scripture?

CW: For 20 years they were able to say that literalism built great faith and drew crowds, but that worm is beginning to turn.

Princeton scholar Robert Wuthnow recently published a book that challenges whether biblical literalism has been helped churches grow. He thinks rising income and education, which usually mean lower birthrates, have hurt mainline Protestant churches more than lapses in doctrine, as evangelicals claimed.

Now evangelicals are beginning to feel the impact lower birthrates that come along with their own rising income and education. It’s no accident that they are starting to tell women that having lots of children is what God wants them to do.

HM: When people leave (evangelical) Christianity, where are they going? What are they becoming?

CW: Perhaps a thousand evangelicals leave their churches every day and most are thought to leave faith altogether. Others drift into more mainstream Christian churches.

HM: How big of a role will evangelical Christians play in the upcoming presidential elections?

CW: The 18 percent of self-identified evangelicals who aren’t Religious Right supporters are a swing vote. They seem likely to go with the Democrats this year. The 7 percent who are dedicated and likely to be Religious Right members won’t. But they may not go with McCain either. That’s why he’s been courting such right wing preachers.

But he made the right choice to distance himself from them. Even the core 7 percent doesn’t go as far as Hagee does, and even some die-hard, nonevangelical Republicans might pull back from him if he and Hagee were too closely aligned.

I’d say the Republicans will do a bit of race baiting this year to keep those RR folks and others awake and afraid and running to the polls.

Democrats have to capture the swing vote, but I’d say it’s pretty much theirs. Check out my piece on Huffington Post for more analysis.

HM: How much influence do the non-religious have on national affairs?

CW: Hard to say.

Quietly? Probably a lot through individual efforts that don’t focus on faith specifically. But in a democracy the organized tend to be heard and have power in the media and at the polls. And the rich tend to get what they want through donations and lobbying. Nobody cares about their faith.

HM: (I ask this for the atheist audience:) If you were an atheist, how would you capitalize on the failings of the church?

CW: This is a great time for people with other ideas about moral and ethic behavior to assert themselves. I hope they will flood into the public square and begin a national discussion about who Americans are and want to be morally, spiritually and ethically.

As ideas about spirituality have changed, an atheist might be seen as a spiritual person even without belief in God. Merely being seen as “spiritual but not religious” is a good thing in this country and will open a lot of doors that being an out-of-the-closet atheist wouldn’t.

As the new atheism has struck chords with people who claim no religious title at all, we’ve realized that non-God-based ideas have a constituency.

But atheists have the same problem I’m having with publicity on my book. Mass media are afraid of the Religious Right audience. They don’t want to offend anyone.

Alternative media and the Internet are the best opportunity for the spread of new ideas.

HM: How should the church respond in return?

CW: I hope mainliners (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists and Episcopalians) will be more aggressive about their ideas. They’ve been doing the hard work of trying to serve a changing country’s real needs. So they are in a great position.

Evangelicals are already changing. Some are giving up the idea that only they are saved and going to heaven. Others are focusing on environmentalism and poverty. Others are going the other direction and becoming even more conservative.

HM: What are your thoughts on the recent Evangelical Manifesto that criticized the politicization of the faith?

CW: It’s one of the clear signs that evangelicals are in trouble. Their politics have hurt them tremendously. So much so that even the word evangelical is now in bad odor and many don’t want to claim it.

HM: What has been the Christian response to your book?

CW: Christianity Today tried to demean it by making it sound as though it was nothing new. But of course they would. Image is everything and if the word gets out that evangelicals aren’t so powerful, Christianity Today won’t be either.

Many evangelicals know that I’m right. Of course, they would. I got most of my information from evangelical churches.

Some of them even think the truth of the book could help the cause of Christ.

Others tell me I’m wrong. But new evidence comes in every day. Those people just aren’t plugged in enough to know what’s happening.

Some send me Bible verses. When I was a kid in the Baptist church we had “sword drills,” which were our name for Bible verse recitation. Those who send me Bible verses are generally stabbing me with their swords.

HM: As a former religion reporter, what do you like and dislike about religion or “Faith & Values” pages across the country?

CW: They cover groups – denominations, organizations, theological schools. Media are good at that.

But the real action in American spirituality is not organized. So reporters have a hard time getting a handle on the most important stories.

You can read another interview with the author at Conversation at the Edge.

The Fall of the Evangelical Nation is in bookstores now.


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Interview with Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi

Posted in General, Interviews, Secular Coalition for America at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta

A lot of you may have already read the excerpt from Matt Taibbi’s new book The Great Derangement in the current issue of Rolling Stone or throughout the atheist blogosphere.

If not, you at least owe it to yourself to read a couple of his Campaign 2008 articles for RS.

Taibbi is also a frequent correspondent on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher.

taibbi.jpg

He recently spoke to me about his new book, religion and politics, and the New Atheists.

Hemant Mehta: In your book, you go undercover to a Christian church retreat and share anecdotes of the people who attended; you say they’re “beyond suggestible” when it comes to thinking differently from what their pastor tells them. Do you think there is any “cure” for them? Is there any way to teach them to think critically at that stage in their life?

Matt Taibbi: The reason many of these people turned to this kind of religion in the first place is because critical thinking turned out to be not such a positive experience for them. The very appeal of the religion is the surrender of that tiresome responsibility. The only way these people are going to reject that lifestyle is if it turns out to be ineffective in helping them negotiate the logistical problems of their lives. It’s similar to being a drug addict — until you run out of money/come down with AIDS or liver problems/develop too high of a tolerance, why stop taking the drug? But generally speaking I think the way to approach the problem is to get to people before they join these churches. These pastors find people who are miserable and lost and alone and get them to join their ranks; if there were more opportunities for people, or if people had more of a say in running their lives, I think they wouldn’t turn to these religions so much. One of the premises of the book I just wrote is that people have so little input into our national politics — a system that really only works for the monied insider class — that people have become alienated from the secular/political world and have retreated into various conspiratorial doctrines, on both the left and the right. We fix that, and maybe this goes away a little.

HM: Are there any Christian churches that support the notion of questioning what is said by the pastor?

MT: Well, there are certainly some religions that encourage intellectual curiosity more than others. Catholics are at least encouraged to be educated, to read books other than the Bible. You don’t see that in these fundamentalist churches.

HM: Do you think that pastors like John Hagee and the late Jerry Falwell are rising in popularity or are even Christians getting sick and tired of them?

MT: I think there are a few things at work. Overall, young people are less and less religious every year. The numbers for 16-29 year-olds go something like this: about 60 percent now call themselves Christian, and that compares to about 78 percent of Americans over 60 who call themselves Christian. But I’d bet that of those who are religious, relatively large numbers of them are going to megachurches of this sort and foreswearing the less extreme forms of the religion. I remember visiting southern Ohio on a story about the congressional race between Jean Schmidt and Victoria Wulsin and finding most of the small protestant churches in the district — a district that had a booming population thanks to high numbers of carpet bagging out-of-towners flocking to new corporate campuses — rapidly losing parishioners to the giant, McDonald’s style megachurches newly erected in the area. The population is now increasingly suburban and you have more people moving from place to place to chase jobs. For those people, it’s easier to just slide into a generic giganto-church with a big local TV presence than it is to root out some smaller church. It’s like anything else — if you’re in a strange place, are you going to shop at Home Depot, or will you take the time to find the mom-and-pop hardware store? And the megachurches are built around charismatic leaders of this sort. So I’d say it’s half-and-half — they’re losing popularity as a share of the whole population, gaining as a share of the religious demographic.

HM: What role should religion play in the political arena?

MT: Well, I’m an atheist/agnostic, so I would say none. People should stick to solving the problems they have the tools to solve. If you have a budget crisis, well, human beings can do the math, work out a new tax/spending strategy, and fix that. But we don’t have any tools for [divining] the will of God as it relates to, say, a new problem like high school shootings, the Iraq war, or the AIDS virus. All we have are the opinions of religious leaders whose motives may or may not be pure, and whose grasp of logic may or may not be of the highest quality. If you inject religion into the equation, the debate is necessarily going to be subjective, emotional, and inconclusive. It’s also very easy for unscrupulous people to use religion to further various ends for other reasons. Hagee’s humping of Israel is a great example. How do you get fundamentalist Christians to support the financial subsidy of/military aid to a Jewish state? Easy; you convince them the world is going to end soon, and that we’re going to be on the wrong side of Armageddon unless we support Israel.

HM: How strong will the Christian support be for John McCain in the upcoming election?

MT: Yeah, I don’t know. I’ve heard some ugly stuff about McCain in those circles. Then again, Hillary isn’t too popular either. In my church they taught us that Hillary’s first act as president would be to tax the churches. So McCain may get some support by default. As for his relationship to Hagee — that’s purely an AIPAC (Israeli lobby) relationship. Both are heavy AIPAC guys. It has nothing to do with religion.

HM: If McCain won the presidency in 2008, what sort of role would the Religious Right play in the next administration? Would it be any different from its current role in the Bush administration?

MT: I suspect it would be greatly reduced. McCain isn’t a true believer like Bush. McCain can barely conceal his annoyance at certain concessions he has to make to political reality, and religion is one of the things that seems to annoy him. I can’t imagine him having prayer breakfasts and that sort of thing a la Bush.

HM: Following up on that, if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama won the presidency, what role would religion play (politically) over the next several years?

MT: Let me put it this way — I doubt Jeremiah Wright will have much of a role. If Obama gets in, one of his first actions will be to get NASA to shoot Wright into space. Hillary will believe whatever the polls tell her to believe. Her real religion will be the church of the Pew/Gallup survey.

HM: What comes to mind when your read each of the following?

The “New Atheism”

MT: I used to agree with it wholeheartedly. The idea of making belief in God socially unacceptable made sense to me. Now I’m not so sure. The real crime of religions, it seems to me, is the arrogance religious leaders display in being so confident about the nature of the universe. Atheists can display the same arrogance about their beliefs. When people ask me what I believe about God, I tell them the truth, which is that I have no fucking idea. Obviously there are aspects to the human experience that are beyond our comprehension. Otherwise we wouldn’t all be so miserable/ridiculous all the time. I think the best thing to shoot for is a situation in which people are simply comfortable with the fact that life is a great and endlessly confounding, often very (painfully) funny mystery. The New Atheism sometimes seems to me to reject the idea that anything is unknowable — which, to me, if it were true, would be very sad.

HM: The Bible

MT: A hilarious and deeply twisted book, which in parts is poetic and in other parts so disturbed as to be almost incredible. The first time I read about those guys knocking on Lot’s door and demanding sex with those angels — and Lot offering his virgin daughter to them in their place — I wondered if the people who wrote this stuff were sane at all. Some of that stuff is pure comedy and it’s amazing to me that people don’t see through it. For instance, the subsequent scene where Lot is in the cave, and his daughters get him drunk and bang him in order to (they think) propagate the species — how can you read that and not see it as some elaborate story cooked up by Lot later on? “Well, we were in this cave and we thought the whole world had ended and I was the last man on earth, and I was drunk… It’s not like I was molesting my daughters or anything! After all, they came on to me!” I wonder even more about the people who read, say, the story of Abraham and Isaac and commend Abraham for being willing to sacrifice Isaac. What sane person doesn’t read this and wonder why anyone would worship a God who pulled such vicious and sadistic stunts? That stuff flips me out.

HM: Richard Dawkins

MT: Yeah, see above about the New Atheism. I get what he’s saying. I’m just not sure about the tone.

HM: Intelligent Design

MT: An intellectual absurdity. What’s odd to me about Intelligent design is that belief in it requires Christians to accept so much science that they might as well just accept the theory of evolution as a whole. I never understood the hostility toward evolution — except insofar as religious leaders always condemn anything they can’t really understand.

HM: The Pope

MT: Can’t stand it when the Pope comes to America and everyone goes gaga over him. Last week they preempted a Lakers game in my area to cover his sermon in Yankee stadium. That was enough for me to hate him forever.

HM: Ben Stein

MT: A paranoiac and a yahoo. Calling evolution an inspiration for Nazism is like calling physics an inspiration for Charles Whitman’s campus shootings.

HM: How soon will it be until we see more openly non-theistic people (such as Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)) get elected to higher public office?

MT: I’m not holding my breath. Atheism is the last taboo in American politics. I’m not saying it can’t happen, but it probably won’t be soon.

HM: What should atheists groups (like the Secular Coalition for America lobbying group) be doing to get a seat at the table in American politics?

MT: Hard to say. The problem atheists have is the same problem everyone has — there’s a monopoly on power held by the Republican/Democrat clan, and it’s been hard for any outside group to break that cycle. I think atheists probably need to work on the concept of dissenting parties getting a voice before they can get their specific agenda on the table.

HM: Should atheists be respectful, if not accepting, of Christian beliefs?

MT: That’s a good and difficult question. In the end, I think the answer is no. You can be kind to a person who, say, reaches forty and still believes in Santa Claus. But you don’t have to respect his beliefs. Religion for quite a long time has benefited by the respectful acquiescence of nonbelievers. I know I’m getting close to the views of the New Atheists I just criticized, but I think it might help if religion were made more generally ridiculous.

HM: What would Jesus do?

MT: He would puke into his cloak if he could see how things turned out.

The Great Derangement comes out on May 6th.


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

© Copyright Friendly Atheist by @hemantmehta 2009. All rights reserved. | Powered by Wordpress | Designed by Elegant WPT