Most Americans Say God Didn't Play A Role In Recent Elections

 

The charts above are from a Pew Research Center survey -- done between May 5th and 11th of a nationwide sample of 8,937 adults with a 1.4 point margin of error.

The Day God Gave Americans The Sacred GUN!

(By Tara Jacoby in The Washington Post.)

One of the most ridiculous arguments that right-wingers use to justify our gun culture is that Americans have a "god-given right to own guns". It's a ludicrous idea of course, but rationality is not the strong suit for religious gun-nuts.

Washington Post columnist Alexandra Petri has written a nice bit of satire about this idea. She writes:

“Democrats say we have guns in America because of ‘corruption.’ No, we have guns because it’s our God-given right enshrined in the Constitution." — Former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders

Yes, this is true, and it is good that we talk about it. This is a fact about the American founding that has been suppressed for too long. Certainly all the firearms that sprout Hydra-like across the country were acquired by no mortal means, and it is important for us to describe exactly how they came about, so that we may better understand and appreciate them.

The year is not important. But it was a long time ago, at least 230 years.

The country possessed many wonders. There were waterfalls, rocks, rills, woods, templed hills. There were raccoons, small nervous bears that were forever washing their hands like tiny Ladys Macbeth. There were armadillos. There was even syphilis and Christianity, both thoughtful gifts from Europe. But when one surveyed the country from above, something seemed to be missing. What was it?

Suddenly, thunder rumbled. In the hall in Philadelphia where they were gathered to write a Constitution, and also in Virginia where George Mason was crafting the Virginia Declaration of Rights (confusingly, these events were in different years, but theologians assure me this is possible), the delegates shuddered, and Benjamin Franklin had to rub James Madison’s back soothingly and murmur to him so his hands stopped shaking enough to be able to start taking notes again.

“BEHOLD,” said a thundering voice from a cloud. (Madison had resumed taking his notes at this point, which is how we know this.) The heavens parted. An enormous hand stretched forth, holding a mysterious black object, long and pointed like a stick.

“I’M GIVING YOU THIS,” the hand said. “A GIFT, FROM ME TO YOU, THAT NO ONE CAN EVER TAKE AWAY.”

“What is it?” the delegates asked.

“JUST TAKE IT,” the hand said. “DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT.”

“What’s it for?” the delegates asked.

“KILLING,” the hand said. “INDISCRIMINATELY. CHILDREN, TEENAGERS, GRANDMOTHERS, PARENTS ON THEIR WAY TO PICK UP THEIR KIDS FROM SCHOOL. TODDLERS. I GUESS YOU COULD USE IT FOR HUNTING, BUT NOT IF YOU WERE PARTICULARLY GOOD AT HUNTING.”

“Like a musket?” someone asked.

The voice laughed long and loud and rumblingly. “ONLY IN THE LOOSEST SENSE,” the voice said. “FOR BEHOLD, THIS CAN FIRE 600 ROUNDS PER MINUTE.”

“This seems like it could be useful in a war,” Mason said, not unreasonably.

“I DON’T MEAN IN WAR,” the voice said. “THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. I MEAN, IN PRIVATE HOMES AND ON CITY STREETS AND UNLOCKED IN CABINETS IN HOUSES WITH TODDLERS IN THEM, AND IN THE HANDS OF POLICE OFFICERS.”

“Oh,” the delegates said. “Uh, well.”

“IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT YOU HAVE THIS,” the voice said.

“Is this for the well-regulated militia?” someone asked.

“NOT REALLY,” the voice said. “DON’T GET DISTRACTED. IF ANYONE TRIES TO RESTRICT IT TO THAT, SAY NO. SAY I GAVE YOU THESE. SAY THEY’RE FROM ME AND THEY’D BETTER NOT TRY TO TAKE THEM.”

“I have a slight question,” Benjamin Franklin said.

“STOP ASKING QUESTIONS,” the voice said. “AND IF ANYONE EVER SAYS, ‘THERE ARE TOO MANY, THESE ARE TOO DANGEROUS, WE DON’T WANT THEM ANY MORE, THE MILITIA THING HAS REALLY WANED SO IT SEEMS LIKE MOSTLY THEY ARE USED TO CAUSE ACCIDENTS IN THE HOME, TO INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO END THEIR LIVES WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO, AND TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND CIVILIANS,’ YOU MUST SAY NO, BECAUSE I TOLD YOU SO AND I AM PLEASED TO BEHOLD THIS GREAT WORK.”

The clouds began to close. These objects began to rain from the sky in a great profusion. Large and small, shiny and dull. They fell onto the table until you could not see the Constitution underneath them.

The voice receded in a great rumbling.

“Wait! Do you think the electoral college is a good system?” Madison yelled after it. But there was no answer.

The objects lay there in a pile on the green felt-covered table. Nobody would touch them for a long time.

“How do we," one of the delegates started, then stopped. “Uh, how do we indicate all of that, in the Constitution?"

Madison sighed. “Let’s just put in the militia thing,” he said. “All of that may well happen, but I am not certain we should give it a head start.”

Franklin sighed. “This is why I’m a deist.”

That is as far as the notes go on the day when God gave us all this God-given right.

Belief In God In The United States

These charts are from a recent CBS News Poll -- done between September 10th and 15th of a national sample of 1,012 adults, with a margin of error of 3 points. They asked respondents about their belief in god. Overall, about 78% said they believed in god -- about 4 points lower than this same poll in 2006.

As the top chart shows, a belief in god has declined by generation. Only 67% of those 18-34 believe in god -- 18 points lower than those over 55.

The South has the highest percentage believing in god (83%), while the West has the lowest percentage (70%).

Belief also varies by political persuasion. About 86% of conservatives believe in god, while only about 65% of liberals believe.

1/4 Of Reg. Voters Say God Wanted Trump To Be President

The chart above reflects the results of a new Fox News Poll -- done between February 10th and 12th of a national sample of 1,004 registered voters, and has a margin of error of 3 points.

It shows a rather shocking result (at least for me it's shocking). It seems that about 1 out of every four registered voters (25%) thinks that god wanted Donald Trump to be president. If there is a god, which I doubt, I don't understand why anyone would think he/she would care who the leader of any country was.

Pluralities of Trump voters (46%) and Republicans (45%) believed god supported Trump. But the group believing that the most was White evangelicals (55%). That seems more than a little hypocritical to me. This is the group that yells the loudest about the need for morality in the nation, and yet they chose to back the most amoral man in the country -- Donald Trump --  man without any moral or ethical standard at all.

What this poll tells me is that about a quarter of registered voters are complete idiots.

Is There A God? - Stephen Hawking Said NO!

(Photo of Stephen Hawking, from NBC News, is by Frederick M. Brown / Getty Images.)

Throughout the history of mankind, there have been thousands of gods/goddesses worshipped by humans. Are any of them real? Is there a god? Before his death, noted scientist Stephen Hawking tried to answer that question. Here is what he believed at related by Brandon Specktor for NBC News:

In Stephen Hawking's final book "Brief Answers to Big Questions," published Tuesday (Oct. 16) by Bantam Books, the professor begins a series of 10 intergalactic essays by addressing life's oldest and most religiously fraught question of all: Is there a God?

Hawking's answer — compiled from decades of prior interviews, essays and speeches with the help of his family, colleagues and the Steven Hawking Estate — should come as no surprise to readers who have followed his work, er, religiously.

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.

"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.

With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.

"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."

Hawking's explanation begins with quantum mechanics, which explains how subatomic particles behave. In quantum studies, it's common to see subatomic particles like protons and electrons seemingly appear out of nowhere, stick around for a while and then disappear again to a completely different location. Because the universe was once the size of a subatomic particle itself, it's plausible that it behaved similarly during the Big Bang, Hawking wrote.

"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature," he wrote.

That still doesn't explain away the possibility that God created that proton-size singularity, then flipped the quantum- mechanical switch that allowed it to pop. But Hawking says science has an explanation here, too. To illustrate, he points to the physics of black holes — collapsed stars that are so dense, nothing, including light, can escape their pull.

Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

This argument will do little to persuade theistic believers, but that was never Hawking's intent. As a scientist with a near-religious devotion to understanding the cosmos, Hawking sought to "know the mind of God" by learning everything he could about the self-sufficient universe around us. While his view of the universe might render a divine creator and the laws of nature incompatible, it still leaves ample space for faith, hope, wonder and, especially, gratitude.

"We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe," Hawking concludes the first chapter of his final book, "and for that I am extremely grateful."

Only 56% Of Americans Believe In The Biblical God

Polls normally ask if a person is religious, or if they are a member of a particular religion or sect. This survey asked a different question -- do you believe in a god, and what kind of god?

It turns out that only 56% of the population believes in the kind of god in the christian bible (or muslim or jewish religious books). That's a much lower number than the percentage of people who say they are members of the christian, muslim, or jewish faiths.

Another 32% say they believe in some kind of higher power or spiritual force. Then about 10% say they don't believe in any kind of god at all.

The number believing in a biblical kind of god is lowest among young people and highest among older people -- and just the opposite is true about the rather amorphous "higher power/spiritual force". The number who don't believe in any kind of god increases with age, and the number believing in no god decreases in age.

The survey also queried Republicans and Democrats. About 70% of Republicans believe in a biblical god, while only 45% of Democrats do. About 14% of Democrats believe in no god, while only 5% of Republicans believe that.

These numbers come from a Pew Research Center survey done between December 4th and 18th of 2017. The poll surveyed 4,729 adults, and has a margin of error of 2.3 points.

The Rights Of American Citizens Do NOT Come From God

Right-wing politicians, in an effort to appeal to evangelical voters, love to claim that the rights afforded American citizens come from god. That is simply not true. All rights of U.S. citizens spring directly from the United States Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights).

Andrew L. Seidel has written an excellent article on this subject for the Religious News Service. Here is part of that article:

When Virginia ratified 10 of the 12 proposed amendments to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, it became the 10th state to do so and gifted America with an enduring legacy, the Bill of Rights. We celebrate that heritage today.

But for President Trump and many religious Americans, those rights are not secured by the Constitution or “We the People.” Instead, they are a gift from God.

Trump is marking Bill of Rights Day and Human Rights Week with a proclamation that invoked our “God-given rights” three times. Trump has made similar claims many times, but so have other presidents, including President Obama. Roy Moore’s entire career is based on his idea that “Our rights are given by God.” He even argues that religious liberty “comes from God, not from the Constitution.” Premising our rights on some supernatural benevolence is dangerous.

History has shown us that what is given by a god can be taken away by those who speak with or for that god. Slavery was God’s will, until it wasn’t. Segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were meant to keep the races separate, as God intended. The opposition to same-sex marriage was largely based in religion: “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Progress in many important areas of human rights has long been opposed by those claiming to know God’s mind and executing God’s will. True, religion helped in some of these causes, but the opposing justifications were nearly always situated in divine law.

Human rights are absolute and universal; not susceptible to religious whim and fancy. Simply by virtue of being human — just because you were born — you have certain inherent, inalienable rights. . . .

God-given rights are so problematic because they depend solely on a particular individual’s interpretation of his god’s word. Perhaps the interpreter adheres to some higher authority, such as a pope or an author of the Bible. But at the end of that line of spiritual authority, a human being is claiming to know “God’s will.” One person’s belief is suddenly given the weight of divine law. A fallible human is claiming divine sanction.

This is moral relativism, which is often maligned by religious leaders, masquerading as moral absolutism. It is far better to premise human rights on the simple fact of being human, than to put them into the hands of one person claiming to speak for a supernatural being that may or may not exist. . . .

Rights are not bestowed, not by magistrates, kings, or even by gods. Rights are asserted. Once they are asserted they must be defended.

Belief In God Has Dropped Significantly In The Last 15 Years

The chart above was made from information in a recent Gallup Poll -- done between June 14th and 23rd of a random national sample of 1,025 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

It shows the belief in a god by Americans has dropped from 90% in May of 2001 to 79% in May of 2016. That's an 11 point drop in just the last 15 years. In that same 15 years, the belief in angels has dropped by 7 points, belief in Heaven has dropped by 12 points, belief in Hell has dropped by 7 points, and belief in the devil has dropped by 7 points.

This trend toward disbelief is going to keep growing. Each generation has less belief in religion than the one before it, and the latest generation has the biggest percentage of unbelievers ever.

It has been generally accepted that about 6% of the U.S. population are admitted atheists. This poll puts the number of those who don't believe there is a god (i.e., atheists) at 11%. That tells me that about half of atheists are still in the closet -- unwilling to admit their belief publicly because of a fear of retaliation from their employer or their community.

And that 11% is not an insignificant number. The U.S. population is over 322 million people. That means there are currently more than 35 million atheists in this country.

A Great Answer To A Stupid Question

(This photo of British actor and author Stephen Fry is from The Guardian.)

There is a silly question that religious people love to ask us atheists -- What will you say to god if you are wrong? I have always thought this was a silly question because:
1. You don't talk to anyone after death.
2. There is absolutely no proof that any kind of god exists.
3. It's a pretty sick religion that needs the hope & fear of an afterlife to gain adherents.

But christians think they are somehow making a point by asking that question -- and recently, an Irish TV interviewer had the temerity to ask that question of actor, author, and noted atheist, Stephen Fry. After he insisted on an answer, Fry told him:

“How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault? It’s not right.

“It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?”

The interviewer pressed the question further, and Fry added:

“I would say: ‘bone cancer in children? What’s that about?’

“Because the God who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac. Totally selfish. We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him?! What kind of god would do that?”

And then after being asked how he accounted for the wonders of the world, Fry said:

“Yes, the world is very splendid but it also has in it insects whose whole lifecycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. They eat outwards from the eyes. Why? Why did you do that to us? You could easily have made a creation in which that didn’t exist. It is simply not acceptable.

“It’s perfectly apparent that he is monstrous. Utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.”

I thought those were great answers, and I still wonder why anyone would even want to believe in such a god? And why do christians feel the need to impose their fear of death (and an afterlife) on reasonable people?

26% Of Americans Say God Picks Winner Of Sporting Events

The Super Bowl is coming up, so the Public Religion Research Institute did a survey of Americans (questioning 1,012 adults between January 14th and 18th, with a 3.6 point margin of error).

I found that survey to be very disturbing. It seems that more than a quarter of all Americans (26%) and all sports fans (27%) don't really believe that game (or other sporting events) is determined by those playing and coaching the game. They believe God has a hand in picking the winner of all sporting events -- evidently tipping the game outcome toward his favorite team.

That poses the question of just how this invisible sky god picks his winners. Does he have favorite teams (as most sports fans do)? Does he favor the team with the most god-believers on it? Does he measure the strength of those beliefs, and make sure the strongest believers win? Are the losers to understand they have been reprimanded by god?

The whole idea of this is ludicrous. Are we really to believe that god (if he/she even exists) is callous enough to let many thousands die each day (starvation, war, natural disaster, murder, suicide, etc.), but thinks a sporting event (which has only entertainment value) is so important that he/she must intervene and determine a winner (and loser)? That makes no sense at all, and any god that capricious would deserve no believers.

The survey also asked if that invisible god rewards athletes who have faith with good health and success (see chart below). And sadly, even higher percentages believe this (evidently not understanding that this is very much the same as god picking sports winners and losers). Why would a god reward athletes while allowing terrible things to happen to others (both believers and non-believers)?

Whether you believe in a god or not, the idea that a god would consider sporting events important enough to intervene is a ludicrous idea.

Ex-Fundie Pastor Says Life Has Meaning Without God

Christians have long claimed that life has no meaning without god (and that all morality is based on religion). I have never believed that, and neither do the growing millions who have abandoned a religion that no longer makes sense to them.

One of those people is Ryan Bell (pictured), who was a Seventh Day Adventist paste for 19 years. After many years of trying to convince others that christianity was the answer, he began to have doubts. About a year ago, he resigned as pastor and began a personal journey to seriously examine theism and atheism -- and what he discovered will shock many christians. He has found that a belief in god is not necessary to be a moral person or to have meaning in a person's life.

Here is how he explains it in an article for CNN. The article is an excellent and thought-provoking one, and should be read by all theists and atheists.

It was January 2014 and I was sitting on the beach in Malibu looking out at the seemingly endless Pacific Ocean, ebbing and flowing. I had just begun a personal project of challenging my lifelong assumption that God exists.

You see, I had been a Seventh-day Adventist pastor for 19 years. I resigned from my pastoral position the year before, but now I stepped away from my faith altogether. It was a gut-wrenching decision but I couldn't see any other way to find peace and clarity. I encountered major theological differences with my denomination and evangelical Christianity in general, including the way it marginalizes women and LGBT people.

I questioned the problem of evils and God's general silence and inactivity. I sought out more liberal theologies and found them to be the slow death of God. Now I had to face the very real possibility that God does not exist.

Would I discover that God was present and involved, or would I discover that the whole web of theological claims I had embraced and helped develop were false?

I was feeling small against the beautiful and terrifyingly indifferent sea before me. Then I started to feel grateful. "What are the chances that I would be sitting on this beach right now, looking at this remarkable scene of beauty?" I thought. I was struck again by how unlikely my existence is.

One question I've been repeatedly asked is how my life has any meaning without God. While I had heard dozens of Christian apologists claim that meaning cannot be found without God, I had a curious experience. My appreciation for life and its potential increased when I stepped away from my faith.

Atheists are often accused of being nihilists or absurdists. Absurdism is a school of thought arguing that humanity's effort to find inherent meaning in life is futile. Nihilism goes further and in doing so becomes a mood or a disposition as well as a philosophical frame of mind. Nihilism says that nothing matters at all.

"If there is no God, then man and the universe are doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death, we await our unavoidable execution. There is no God, and there is no immortality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life itself is absurd. It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose," writes William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist.

But my experience is that acknowledging the absence of God has helped me refocus on the wonderful and unlikely life I do have. This realization has increased my appreciation for beauty and given me a sense of immediacy about my life. As I come to terms with the fact that this life is the only one I get, I am more motivated than ever to make it count.

I want to experience as much happiness and pleasure as I can while helping others to attain their happiness. I construct meaning in my life from many sources, including love, family, friendships, service, learning and so on.

Popular Christian theology, on the other hand, renders this life less meaningful by anchoring all notions of value and purpose to a paradise somewhere in the future, in a place other than where we are right now. Ironically, my Christian upbringing taught me that ultimately this life doesn't matter, which tends to make believers apathetic about suffering and think that things will only get worse before God suddenly solves everything on the last day.

It struck me this year that nihilism is a disease born of theism. Some people have been taught to expect meaning outside of this world beyond our earthly experiences. When they come upon the many absurdities of life and see that it's "not as advertised," an existential despair can take hold.

The problem is not solved by inventing a God in which to place all our hopes, but rather, to face life honestly and create beauty from the absurd.

Without dependency on a cosmic savior who is coming to rescue us, we are free to recognize that we are the ones we're waiting for. If we don't make the world a fair and habitable place, no one else is going to do it for us. Our lives matter because our choices affect others and our children's future.

Life does not need a divine source in order to be meaningful. Anyone who has seen a breathtaking sunset or fallen in love with another human being knows that we make meaning from the experiences of our lives; we construct it the way we construct any social narrative.

Free from false expectations we are free to create purpose, share love, and enjoy the endless beauty of our world. We are the fortunate ones. There is no need for fear to have the last word.

You Don't Need To Believe In God To Be A Good American

Fundamentalist christians are a strange lot (as are fundamentalists of any religion). Many of them believe a person cannot be patriotic -- cannot be a good American, without believing in god (specifically the christian version of god). I just had one tell me this in this last week. They seem to forget that this country is founded on a secular Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion (including the right to be free from religion). They also ignore the fact that there are atheists in foxholes, and many non-believers have given their lives to defend this country and its Constitution.

Fortunately, most Americans don't believe that. They understand that there are good and loyal Americans of all religious faiths, and of no religious faith. I was gratified to see the editorial written and published on December 7th by the editorial staff of the Los Angeles Times, which states the same. I post a part of that editorial below:

It might seem paradoxical that so many Americans consider religious faith — and sometimes a particular faith — as a necessary component of American identity. After all, the Constitution says that there shall be “no religious test” for holding public office, and the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from legislating an “establishment of religion,” a stricture that the Supreme Court has extended to state governments. Thomas Jefferson famously referred to a “wall of separation” between church and state, and the metaphor is among the most recognizable in American life.

That wall, it's true, has always been a porous one. Some breaches are less objectionable than others. Scholars have a term for the sort of pro forma religious language that is customary in presidential addresses and state funerals: “ceremonial deism.” But there are also attempts to equate Americanness with specific faiths, such as the campaign in Mississippi and the rash of bills in statehouses targeting the phantom menace of sharia law infiltrating the judicial system.

We believe that entanglement of religion and government runs the risk of marginalizing citizens who don't share the religion of the majority. That is especially a concern at a time of growing religious diversity and an increase in the number of Americans who tell pollsters they aren't affiliated with any religion. In a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, 19.6% of adults said they were “religiously unaffiliated.”

So what should be done to solidify Jefferson's wall — other than rejecting initiatives such as the one in Mississippi? At a minimum, officials should resist identifying patriotism with any particular religion. It's gratifying that official chaplains in the U.S. Congress, although they are Christian clergymen, in general have chosen not to offer distinctively Christian prayers. To his credit, Obama, like President George W. Bush before him, has reached out to Muslims as well as to Jews and Christians. The White House is now the scene of an annual Iftar dinner marking the end of Ramadan.

But equal treatment for organized religions, while it avoids the evil of “establishing” a single faith, can still carry the message that those with no religious beliefs at all are second-class citizens. That is why this page has opposed even nonsectarian prayers at meetings of local government bodies. Political leaders, especially those who frequently engage in religious language, should acknowledge that there is no religious test for being a good American. Obama did just that in his first inaugural address when he said that “we are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers.” We'd like to see more public officials recognize that reality; one way of doing that is to include nonreligious speakers in solemn public events. (That wasn't done when public officials, including Obama, came together last year to honor the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings, despite a request that the speakers include a representative from the Secular Coalition for America.)

Organized religion undeniably plays an important and often constructive role in the lives of many Americans. Religious figures have been instrumental in political causes from abolitionism to the civil rights movement. No one should seek to banish them from political debate. But we reject the notion that religious faith in general or adherence to a particular creed is an essential attribute of being American. The only creed to which a citizen of this country should have to pay homage is the Constitution.

Does A Personal God Exist - Or Just An Impersonal Force ?

These two charts are from the Religious News Service. It concerns god. A lot of religious people say they believe in god -- but what do they mean by god? Are they talking about a personal god with whom a person can have a relationship, or an impersonal force called god. Many of our Founding Fathers believed in the latter. They were deists, believing in neither organized religion nor a personal god.

These charts show many theists these days share the view of an impersonal god (something like "nature" itself). The top chart shows the number of people saying they believe in a god. The bottom chart shows the number who say they believe in a personal god (who they can have a relationship with). Note there is a drop-off with all religions in the bottom chart.

The Polytheistic Roots Of Judaism And Christianity

(Image is from the website of mohebban-e-fatemeh.)

Ask any of the adherents of the Abrahamic religions, judaism and christianity (and islam), and they will quickly tell you that there is only one god. But they contain many god-like beings such as the devil, angels, demons, and for christians, the holy ghost and son of god (parts of a trinity of gods). It shouldn't surprise us though that they are able to claim only one god while actually believing in many god-like creatures, because those religions actually sprang from a polytheistic tradition -- a fact that is verified in the old testament itself.

One of the best articles about this comes from Carolyn Hyppolite at Debunking Christianity -- And Then Some. Here is what she has to say about that polytheistic tradition:

For the better part of a decade, I began most mornings with a recitation of the psalms. In fact, I began my morning as Catholic monastics do with a recitation of the 95^th psalm. Every day, I chanted these words, “For the Lord is a great God, and a great king above all gods” (Psalm 95:3) without noticing that this statement stood in conflict with my monotheistic vision. 

The Psalm is saying the LORD—this is actually YHWH, the divine name—is a great el (Ancient Canaanite (Ugaritic) word for god). He is not only great but he is king above all elohim (gods). Why not YHWH is great?  This is certainly what one might expect if there is only one god (el) in the universe? How could one be kings of gods (elohim) if there is just god?

Like all good Christians, I read the litany of Old Testament passages condemning of worship of false idols as just that. God does not want his children doing something as foolish as worshipping wood and metal carvings. He wants them to worship the true God. However, a closer reading of the Hebrew Bible indicates that this is not at all the case. 

The majority of the Old Testament is macho posturing. It is about one deity striving to demonstrate that he is greater than the other gods by bringing about the military defeat of the worshippers of other deities. It is a usurpation of the role of chief god among the pantheon of gods. 

Of course, Israelite religion eventually moves from our god is greater than all gods (Exodus 18:11) to “they were no gods, but the work of human hands” (Isaiah 37:19).

But as Biblical scholars all know and as your pastor probably also knows, but won’t tell you, this was later development and that much of the Old Testament indicates throughout her history, Israel thought that the other gods were very real, and YHWH is jealous of them, like a husband is jealous of a very real other man. 

Throughout the Biblical text YHWH seeks to demonstrate his superiority of the gods of the nation. YHWH sends plagues to Egypt because “on all of the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments” (Exodus 12:12). One does not judge things that don’t exist. 

The Scripture writer than adds “I am the Lord” (12:12). This is not I am in charge—although that is the implication—but I am YHWH. I am YHWH is repeated over 150 times in the Old Testament as a way of boosting the particular deity who has triumphed. 

However, the best piece of evidence of Israel polytheistic roots is probably found in Deuteronomy 32:

When the Most High apportioned the nations,
    when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
    according to the number of the gods;
the Lord’s (YHWH) own portion was his people,
    Jacob his allotted share (Deut. 32:8-9). (NRSV)

Deuteronomy 32 is Moses’s Farewell Song to Israel before his passing (of course, it was written many centuries after the exodus for which there is not much evidence). 

The word Most High here is not just another word for God, but El Elyon, the name of the chief God in Ugaritic pantheon. According to Canaanite mythology, he has supposedly fathered 70 sons.[1] This is historical background of this passage. 

The Most High (El Elyon) is dividing up the peoples of the world among his sons and setting boundaries for each god. YHWH is one of the gods and Israel is his portion. 

This text is such a blow to the Bible’s monotheistic pretensions that most Bible translations cover it up with a more palatable translation. The NIV and NASB translates elohim not as it should “gods” but as “sons of Israel.” The NKJV opts for the gender sensitive but still inaccurate “children of Israel.” 

This might make theological sense but it does not make syntactic sense. Why would God set boundaries for other peoples according to the number of sons of Israel? This would also implies that there are only twelve nations. 

Over time, Israel decides that it is not enough for YHWH to have Jacob as his portion. The other gods are ineffective and they have to go.

Thus, God calls a divine council:

God has taken his place in the divine council;
    in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly
    and show partiality to the wicked? 
 Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
    maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

I say, “You are gods,
    children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
    and fall like any prince” (Psalm 82:1-4, 6-7). (NRSV)

Again, English translators of the Bible seek to cover the pagan origin of the psalm. It is well-known among Biblical scholars that the divine council is a Canaanite setting in which El reigns over the other gods. Thus, the NASB opts for “his own congregation.” The NKJV says, “the congregation of the mighty.” The NIV says “the great assembly.”

In addition, that there are gods in this assembly is also covered up by the NASB, which translates elohim as “rulers.”

Again, this only makes theological sense. If there is not a god addressing other divine beings, then the punishment does not make sense. The psalmist says:

I say, “You are gods,
    children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
    and fall like any prince.”

It does not make sense to condemn a human being to die like a mortal or just a regular, old prince. The human being was already going to die like a mortal.

By the first century, Judaism was a solidly monotheistic religion, thus in the Gospel of John, we find Jesus interpreting the “You” are human beings. 

The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled—can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?  (John 10:33-36). 

And that is the story of how God, who was many, became one, and then became three.

Don't Say The Pledge

There is a move among some atheist organizations right now to encourage people to refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I support this move, and I haven't said the pledge in many years now. Why? Does it mean I'm not patriotic? Of course not. Patriotism doesn't depend on reciting a few words.

I cannot bring myself to recite the pledge because of the phrase "one nation under god". For me, that would mean I pledge my support for the United States being a religious (and probably christian) nation -- and I cannot do that. This nation was founded as a secular nation and that's what it should remain -- because only a secular nation can guarantee religious freedom (which includes the freedom to not be religious).

The pledge has not always contained the offensive god phrase. It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. Bellamy was both a Baptist minister and a socialist, but saw no need to include either politics or religion in the pledge. The pledge as he wrote it could be recited by any American -- regardless of their politics or religious views. It was not until 1954 (more than 60 years later) that the god phrase was inserted into the pledge -- turning it into something that millions of attests in America could no longer pledge.

The saddest thing about the current movement to not say the pledge is that many students are being punished by their teachers for refusing to stand and recite the pledge. That is ridiculous -- and it is unconstitutional. No student (or adult) in this country should be punished for exercising their right not to participate in what they consider a religious ritual -- especially in a public (government) school.

I know these teachers (and other christians) don't understand how offensive the word god can be to some people. But they need to ask themselves a question. Could they in good conscience recite the pledge if it contained the phrase "under allah" or "under satan"? I doubt it. I think they would find that far too offensive. They need to understand that the phrase "under god" is just as offensive to many atheists.

Why can't we just go back to the original pledge -- a pledge that anyone can recite without going against their conscience?

Air Force Now Says "God" Can Be Omitted From The Oath

Last Sunday I posted about the  U.S. Air Force refusing to let an airman re-enlist because he refused to include the words"So Help Me God" in his military oath. The Air Force had allowed those joining or re-enlisting to omit the words in the past, but changed that last October. They said those words must be in the oath, and claimed they were just coming into compliance with federal rules.

Of course their action violated an article of the Constitution saying no religious test could be required as a "qualification for any office or public trust", and also violated the freedom of religion portion of the First Amendment (which also guarantees the right to be free from religion). The American Humanist Association (AHA) wrote the Air Force on behalf of the atheist airman, and threatened to sue unless he was allowed to omit the four offensive words.

Now, only a week later, there is good news to report. The Air Force has reversed their decision, and will allow the airman (and anyone else) to omit the words from his military oath. They did so on orders from the Department of Defense, who said the airman must be allowed to re-enlist without having to include _So Help Me God" in his oath of service. Here is the press release from the Air Force on this matter (released on September 17th):

 The Air Force has instructed force support offices across the service to allow both enlisted members and officers to omit the words “So help me God” from enlistment and officer appointment oaths if an Airman chooses.

In response to concerns raised by Airmen, the Department of the Air Force requested an opinion from the Department of Defense General Counsel addressing the legal parameters of the oath. The resulting opinion concluded that an individual may strike or omit the words “So help me God” from an enlistment or appointment oath if preferred.

“We take any instance in which Airmen report concerns regarding religious freedom seriously,” said Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. “We are making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen's rights are protected.”

The Air Force will be updating the instructions for both enlisted and commissioned Airmen to reflect these changes in the coming weeks, but the policy change is effective now. Airmen who choose to omit the words 'So help me God' from enlistment and officer appointment oaths may do so.

The language in previous instructions was based on an Air Force legal interpretation of 10 U.S.C. 502, 5 U.S.C. 3331 and Title 32, which contain the oaths of office.

The Air Force requested the review following a ceremony at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, in which an enlisted Airman struck out the words, “So help me God” on the Department of Defense Form 4 and did not include them in his verbal oath. The Airman's unit was unable to process his paperwork due to the guidance in Air Force Instruction 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, which prohibited any omissions. Now that the Department of Defense General Counsel has provided an opinion, the Airman’s enlistment paperwork will be processed to completion.