Christopher Hitchens and Fred Blackwell of the Family Research Council squared off on MSNBC’s Hardball recently, tackling the question of America’s “Christian Nation” status.

The debate was in reference to the recent Newsweek article about religion in America called “The End of Christian America.” Both men were brought in to debate two points: Is America a Christian nation? and is religion suffering in today’s America.

One thing is once again clear from this video: Never go into a debate with Christopher Hitchens unless you can match his personality. You will not beat him with words, even if you are right. He’s just too good. So when you sit there and laugh and smile the whole time like you are humoring a child, you end up looking like an idiot. You hear me Mr. Blackwell?

Anyway, here is the video of the discussion.

Now, this is a topic I’ve talked about at length before. From looking at the facts, it is crystal clear that the United States is not now, nor was it ever, a Christian nation. The foundation of this country may have been influenced by Christianity, just as it was by many other beliefs, and it was certainly influenced by religion. But influenced by religion does not by definition make it Christian.

It’s good to see this being debated on a main stage. The sooner people stop believing in fairy tales and myths about this country, the sooner we can learn from past history and make it better. Jefferson, Washington and Franklin would laugh in your face if you tried to tell them that they created a Christian nation. It’s just not true, and seeing men like Mr. Blackwell chuckle to themselves when presented with facts is pathetic. Well done, once again, Mr. Hitchens.

Despite the Oklahoma legislatures best efforts to keep Richard Dawkins off the University of Oklahoma’s campus, the famous biologist, atheist and author spoke at the campus Friday.

Greeted with loud cheers, Dawkins began his speech by addressing the resolutions, to the delight of those in attendance.

According to insidehighered.com (HT: Dallas Morning News:

A large crowd greeted Richard Dawkins at the University of Oklahoma Friday, cheering on the biologist as he spoke about evolution and the attacks on science by creationists and others. Some legislators spoke out against the university’s invitation to Dawkins. One member of the Oklahoma House has introduced resolutions (which have not been voted on) to express disappointment with the university for giving a forum to the noted scholar because of his “biased philosophy.” Another resolution prompted by the Dawkins visit attacked the university’s zoology department, saying that it has been “framing the Darwinian theory of evolution as doctrinal dogmatism rather than a hypothetical construction within the disciplines of the sciences.” The zoology department offended the legislator in question by having material on the department Web site that explains the science of evolution

And with thanks to the same Web site for providing the link, enjoy some of Mr. Dawkins’ opening remarks.

You just have to love the “Intelligent Falling” vs. Theory of Gravity argument.

The myth of America being a Christian nation is no longer just historical — it is modern.

American Religious Identification Survey’s most recent findings show that more Americans identify themselves as non-religious and that the number of people that consider themselves Christian has fallen, both in large numbers since 1990.

In the first poll in 1990, only about eight percent of the respondents identified themselves as being non-religious, compared with 15% in the recent poll, nearly double the first finding.

Christians made up 86% of the US in 1990, but now only 76% of the respondents call themselves Christian. Catholics remained relatively steady, going from 26% to 25% since the first poll, despite growing by nearly 11 million members.

Also found in the poll was a doubling of Muslims, though they remain a small percentage, going from 0.3% to 0.6% of the population. Jews and Mormons remained relatively steady over the 19 years.

So why is it happening?

The survey’s principal investigator, sociologist Barry A. Kosmin of Trinity College in Connecticut, described the overall trend as an erosion of the “religious middle ground.”

He said many people appeared to be rebuffing denominations altogether or favoring more conservative evangelical groups that have boosted their relatively small memberships by offering emotional and personalized religious experiences.

Kosmin said the changing religious outlook also reflected an increasingly diverse and complex culture that emphasized greater tolerance for diversity while eschewing respect for authority.

I can’t really argue with the results of the poll. While religion seems to be playing a bigger role in some parts of society, notably religion and science, it is becoming more clear that there are many more people willing to stand up for facts and truth in the face of tradition and ceremony.

Religion is not going anywhere anytime soon, but I think the results speak for themselves.

People that want to fight for religion to be put back into several aspects of American culture, like prayer in schools, abortion laws and gay marriage are fighting a battle that will only get more difficult with time. Arguments and political opinions that are rooted in religion will only become more deflated over time as the United States continues to shift to a more secular society.

Those who argue that a return to the country’s religious roots will see more people fighting their political motives, making the battles tougher and tougher to win.

As the current Obama generation gets older, I won’t be surprised to see the non-religious figures double again over the next 20 years, giving us non-believers nearly a third of the population.

The question will become, as the non-religious get more power and voice, does the nation improve with those numbers. If not, expect a regrowth of religion over time if morals continue to decay. There is likely no real solution to the problems with morality that America faces, but there are many people that will always relate morality to religion.

In the meantime, this poll is good news for those of us who want acceptance first and foremost. A world without religion would be a great thing, but a country where the non-religious are accepted is vital.

President Obama has tabbed a 26-year old Pentecostal minister to run his faith-based programs, a White House aide announced Thursday.

Joshua DuBois worked for Obama during his time in the Senate and the president considers him a close adviser to the president. Prior to getting involved with Obama, DuBois was educated at Princeton and is an associate minister at a Pentecostal church in Massachusetts.

For those of you not familiar with Pentecostalism, here are some tidbits from your neighborhood Wikipedia:

• Pentecostals are characterized by their practice of speaking in other tongues. A Pentecostal believer in an ecstatic religious experience may vocalize fluent unintelligible utterances (glossolalia) or articulate an alleged natural language previously unknown to the speaker (xenoglossy).
• Pentecostals generally adhere to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, believing that the Bible has definitive authority in matters of faith, and adopt a literalist approach in its interpretation.
• The gift of tongues may be exercised anywhere, but many denominations believe that it must only be exercised with a person who has the gift of “interpretation of tongues” present whether that be another person or the one who gives the tongue. The interpreter may interpret the tongue into the language of the gathered Christians so that they can understand the message.

They sure seem like a fine group, one that should fit right in with an extremely liberal president and Congress. Oh, they’re also against gay right, same-sex marriage and abortion rights. Perfect for Obama’s camp.

According to the Washington Post, President Obama is planning on expanding the role of faith-based programs in his administration.

Obama aides have said the president’s effort will expand the faith-based office at the White House. President George W. Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives made a priority of placing faith offices within federal agencies and was criticized by some former high-ranking staff members for becoming politicized.

While many on the left fully expected the new president to shut down the office of faith-based initiatives, instead he chose to choose a very conservative Christian to head it up and expand the office.

That Obama sure is winning friends in Washington, isn’t he?

Back in July, Obama said in a campaign speech that he wouldn’t allow the discrimination that is currently legally allowed in this office to continue, but has been suspiciously mum on the topic since it became his job to have an opinion on it.

We’ll see how this one plays out, but I have a feeling that the liberals in Washington are not going to be real happy about this one. Conservatives will be getting what they want, but they’ll never admit to approving of something Obama does, so it’s really a lose-lose for him.

Since the days of Taft, one of the “honors” that comes with being the President of the United States is that you are also the honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America. While it’s really just a title with no real meaning, secular groups are uniting to ask President-elect Obama to deny receiving the honor for religious reasons.

You see, the Boy Scouts are a very religious and discriminatory group. Sure they do some good for those that are in the group — knot tying and such — but they also exclude members or parents based on their religious views or sexual preferences.

Since they are a private group, they are free to include and exclude whomever they want to, but for that same reason, they should also not be tied in with any government duties or people. By accepting the title of honorary president, Obama would be condoning the Boy Scouts discriminatory ways.

Here is the full text of the letter being sent to Obama by a collection of secular groups who oppose his acceptance of the Boy Scouts honor.

January 13, 2009

Dear President-Elect Barack Obama:

In light of your campaign promise to bring the nation together in a spirit of change we need, we, the undersigned nontheist organizations, urge you to take this opportunity to signify that discrimination against atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other nontheists will not be condoned.

Thus we write to urge you to decline the title and role of honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America. The BSA has acted vigorously in recent years to expel atheist and agnostic members and employees. This policy expresses the Declaration of Religious Principle, Bylaws of Boy Scouts of America, part. IX, § 1, cl. 1:

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.” The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members.

The BSA has elected to set itself apart as a private organization that may discriminate in ways contrary to the laws and practices required of local, state, and federal authorities. Accepting the title and role of honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America would thus send the message that institutional discrimination against people who don’t happen to believe in a god is acceptable.

Many presidents of the United States have taken on the title of honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America. However, this tradition was established when discrimination against nontheists was, unfortunately, socially acceptable. Given that nontheists now make up a sizeable minority of the American population-­having more numbers than Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews combined-­the BSA is clearly out of touch with the spirit of pluralism, tolerance, and inclusiveness that compose today’s American values. By contrast, in 1993 the Girl Scouts of the United States of America adopted more inclusive policies.

Therefore, please decline the title and role of honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America until such time as the organization reforms its bylaws and practices to be non-discriminatory.

Yours in Unity,

American Atheists
American Ethical Union
American Humanist Association
Atheist Alliance International
Atheist Nexus
Camp Quest
Center for Atheism
Center for Inquiry
Center for Naturalism
Council for Secular Humanism
Freedom From Religion Foundation
FreeThoughtAction
HUUmanists
Institute for Humanist Studies
International Federation for Secular & Humanistic Judaism Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers Secular Coalition for America Secular Student Alliance Society for Humanistic Judaism

Normally, I’m of no opinion on superficial matter such as this, but I agree with the letter, and any support or endorsement of a group like this, no matter how popular they are, is wrong at a presidential level.

Normally, I’d say it’s just a tradition and does no harm, but the awareness this rebuke could raise is important. The Boy Scouts mean well but do wrong, similar to groups like Alcoholics Anonymous. The message of their goals is lost in the narrow mindedness of their ways. For this reason, I too support the words of this letter.

A Jacksonville woman says that her church has threatened her with making her sins public, and tell the congregation about her sexual exploits with her boyfriend.

The 49-year old divorced mother said that the church intends to follow the word of the Bible and “tell it to the church.”

Included in the congregation are her friends and children.

The woman has since left the church, but that hasn’t stopped the church from informing her via letter that her sins will be revealed to the church on Jan. 4.

According to the website for the local channel four in Jacksonville:

The 49-year-old said she has been dating a man for a while and she said members of the congregation at Grace Community Church haven’t been happy about the relationship.

“Because I have a boyfriend that I’m involved with … to not be married to that person is a sin,” Hancock said.

She said the issue caused her to leave the church. However, she said the church has not let go of her.

The letter Hancock received from the church states that because she has refused to end her sexual relationship with her boyfriend, “you leave us with no other choice but to carry out the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ” … “In accordance with Matthew 18:17 we intend to ‘tell it to the church.’”

“On January 4, my sins will be told to the church, publicly, with my children sitting in the church and my friends,” Hancock said.

So, if you’re going to stick the word of the Bible so closely, at what point can I expect to show up for the stonings?

Oh, and also, what are women doing in the church to begin with. According to the Bible, they are only allowed to be taught what their husbands teach them. So it’s the church’s fault for letting this divorced woman in their congregation.

All or nothing, folks. You can’t just start picking and choosing your literal punishments from the Bible, or we’ll start running out of Christians and heathens real soon.

As you may have heard, president-elect Barack Obama has chosen a pro-life, anti-gay marriage pastor to speak at his inaugruation. If he was going for “can’t make anyone happy,” he succeeded.

Let’s face it, no decision Obama makes for a while is going to please conservatives. Giving Rick Warren a microphone to make a speech isn’t going to do it for sure.

And already, liberals are growing wearisome that Obama won’t stick to the left and pass all of their bills. A large part of Obama’s base is supportive of women’s birth control rights and gay marriage. Pissing them off before you even take office is not the best idea either.

So how does he win?

Could he just stick to the party lines? That obviously won’t help with the right, but he knows that before his time in office is up, he will need to work with the Republicans. This choice is a good faith way of getting their approval on at least one thing.

Could he continue to pander to his base? He’s already won their vote, now he needs to do his job. But beyond the voters is the Congress that he will lean on to get his ideas turned into laws. Alienating your liberal Congress is not the best foot to start out on.

So what was the right call?

For me, an atheist, it would be to simply omit the pastor part of the day, but I understand that in today’s day and age that is simply not an option.

So for what his options were, I think he made the right call. It’s more important to reach some level of bipartisan discussion than it is to continue to preach to the choir and please his base.

Obama’s job is to be the president of all 50 states, not just the ones that voted for him. I see this as a good faith act of inclusion to those on the other side of the aisle, and if the liberals in this country are upset, so what?

The sooner the Congressional Democrats realize that they are not getting a blank check and a “yes man” in office, the sooner they can draft solid legislation, not just liberal pleasing legislation.

Including the Republicans, even if it’s only in a symbolic way like this, is an important step in the Obama administration.

I was not an Obama voter, but as an American I respect him for being my president. As such, I will judge him openly and honestly, and in this situation, I think Obama made the right call.

Suck it up, liberals.

American Atheists is suing the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security to remove language that directly gives credit to God for protecting the state from terrorism.

The actual law as written reads: “The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”

According to the Lexington Herald-Leader:

“The requirement to credit God for Kentucky’s protection was tucked into 2006 homeland security legislation by state Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a Southern Baptist minister.

‘This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky,’ Riner said last week.

Riner said he expects Homeland Security to include language recognizing God’s benevolent protection in its official reports and other materials — sometimes the agency does, and sometimes it doesn’t — and to maintain a plaque with that message at the state’s Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort.

In the suit, American Atheists argues that Homeland Security should focus on public-safety threats rather than promote religion. The suit notes that the federal and state homeland security agencies were created as a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by Muslim fundamentalists, and it refers to those attacks as ‘a faith-based initiative.’

The plaintiffs ask for the homeland security law to be stripped of its references to God. They also ask for monetary damages, claiming to have suffered sleeping disorders and ‘mental pain and anguish.’”

So what the fine people of Kentucky are saying is that as humans, we are powerless to protect ourselves from danger without God. If there is safety, it is because of God. Do you think that Rep. Riner is willing to also add that God must be blamed when terrorism strikes the Commonwealth of Kentucky? Clearly, if the first thing to do is praise God for the security that you have, then you must blame God when that security is broken.

I have a hard time thinking that this language will show up.

From a different article, same paper:

“State Rep. Tom Riner, a Southern Baptist minister, tucked the God provision into Homeland Security legislation as a floor amendment that lawmakers overwhelmingly approved two years ago.

As amended, Homeland Security’s religious duties now come before all else, including its distribution of millions of dollars in federal grants and its analysis of possible threats.

The time and energy spent crediting God are appropriate, said Riner, D-Louisville, in an interview this week.

‘This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky,’ Riner said. ‘Government itself, apart from God, cannot close the security gap. The job is too big for government.’

Nonetheless, it is government that operates the Office of Homeland Security in Frankfort, with a budget this year of about $28 million, mostly federal funds. And some administrations are more religious than others.”

Here is the bottom line. If the people of Kentucky want to protect themselves with the use of federal funds for their Office of Homeland Security, the God language must go. This one is about as clear as clear can be.

If you want to praise God when you go to church for keeping you and your family safe, go right ahead. But if you want to take my tax dollars and require that plaques be place honoring God and require that God be given credit for protecting your people, you must be crazy.

These are federal funds being spent on this. That means I am paying for you to praise God for protecting Kentucky from terrorism? My money is better spent elsewhere.

I think the American Atheists have got an easy one on their hands here, but when it comes to ousting religion from the Bible Belt, who knows.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is not too happy about the new Capitol Visitor Center, the $621 million underground museum that traces the history of the Capitol, as well as the Senate and House of Representatives.

The U.S. Capitol Visitor Center features exhibits, videos, historical artifacts and restaurants, but according to Sen. DeMint, it is missing something.

That something is God. DeMint is upset that the Center does not honor the history and tradition of faith and religious heritage in the United States.

The full text of DeMint’s statement is here, from TheHill.com:

“The Capitol Visitor Center is designed to tell the history and purpose of our nation’s Capitol, but it fails to appropriately honor our religious heritage that has been critical to America’s success. While the Architect of the Capitol has pledged to include some references to faith, more needs to be done. You cannot accurately tell the history of America or its Capitol by ignoring the religious heritage of our Founders and the generations since who relied on their faith for strength and guidance. The millions of visitors that will visit the CVC each year should get a true portrayal of the motivations and inspirations of those who have served in Congress since its establishment.

“The current CVC displays are left-leaning and in some cases distort our true history. Exhibits portray the federal government as the fulfillment of human ambition and the answer to all of society’s problems. This is a clear departure from acknowledging that Americans’ rights ‘are endowed by their Creator’ and stem from ‘a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.’ Instead, the CVC’s most prominent display proclaims faith not in God, but in government. Visitors will enter reading a large engraving that states, ‘We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.’ This is an intentional misrepresentation of our nation’s real history, and an offensive refusal to honor America’s God-given blessings. As George Washington stated clearly in his first inaugural address:

‘…[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge.’

“The fundamental principles of the freedom we enjoy in this country stem from our Founding Fathers’ beliefs in a higher power, beliefs put forth in the Declaration of Independence and manifest throughout our Constitution,” said Senator DeMint. “If we cease to acknowledge this fact, we may cease to enjoy some of the freedoms we take for granted. We must not censor historical references to God for the sake of political correctness. And we must truthfully represent the limited form of government the Constitution lays out so that our ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.’ So help us God.”

I’ve written at length in the past about the myth of the United States being a “Christian Nation,” but DeMint is right that there is faith and religion in the history of the United States. I just don’t know where it would fit into a museum. Thomas Jefferson’s edited Bible on display?

I understand what DeMint is saying about ignoring the facts about America’s history, but I think he is making something out of nothing.

Sure, some of the Founding Fathers relied on faith to get them through troubled times. They also relied on oxygen and the French, but I doubt either of them have exhibits in the Center.

The exclusion of religion from something is not necessarily an attack on religion or an attempt to suppress history. In my opinion, it’s simply a matter of picking and choosing what is not only important and relevant, but what can be displayed appropriately in museum form.

If what DeMint is saying about the architect promising the inclusion of faith in the final product is true, then he has a legitimate complaint. But nevertheless, I don’t think this is an example of us angry atheists forcing God out of everything.

I think Sen. DeMint needs to lighten up a bit and enjoy what the museum does offer. No museum is perfect. Hell, the Museum of Natural History doesn’t even have a creation exhibit and the Creation Museum doesn’t even have any facts. Take what is there and enjoy it.

If the museum does a good job at accurately representing the history of the Capitol and Congress without including the personal beliefs of those who worked there, then the Capitol Visitor Center is doing its job.

With the sound defeats suffered in this year’s elections, the Republican Party is taking a long look in the mirror. They need to regroup if they want any chance at having some say in the direction of this country.

Here’s where they went wrong:

Republicans hatched a plan that would win over more than half of the country, playing to the religious base of middle America, with the plan being that once they’re in, they’re in for good.

The religious were catered to by the right, transforming a party of fiscal responsibility, strong defense and small government into a party of Christian ideals and specific fundamental beliefs. This was working for over 20 years. It started before the Reagan administration and continued through the re-election of George W. Bush. The Republicans had it all going their way.

But they went too far.

They made gay marriage, abortion, stem cells and evolution more important than fiscal responsibility and small government. The party of fiscal responsibility forgot how to put away the checkbook. They created a whole they couldn’t climb out of, and they did it by trying to convert people into their party, rather than trying to include people in their party.

Now, the Republicans are hated by an entire generation. The plan to have a permanent majority was broken by the new batch of adults eligible to vote. There will always be voter turnover. Each election, more people die and more people turn 18. If you aren’t always attempting to include both ends of the spectrum, you’ll always be leaving people out.

And now, the GOP must make a major decision.

Should God and religion be a major focal point in their party’s platform? The answer, of course, is no. But will the Republicans see the reality of their dire situation.

A religious base is certainly nice to have if you are running for office, but it’s obviously not bullet proof. What the party is missing is that there are many, many people (like myself) who are conservative in the true sense of the word (small government, strong defense, low taxes) who don’t prioritize their political beliefs with the Bible in mind.

I have views on abortion, stem cells, the environment and gay marriage, but I don’t think that any single issue like that is A) party dependent, or B) big enough to be worth ostracizing so many people.

Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post had this to say on the matter:

“Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth — as long as we’re setting ourselves free — is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.”

I know there are many religious conservatives out there, but they are losing elections because they are practically requiring religious beliefs just to feel like you’re a part of the party.

Treat issues like issues, each individually. Trust the American people to make up their minds on issues and how to make up their minds. There is no need to stick to the party line with every issue on the table. The Democrats are just as bad as Republicans with their partisan views on some topics (like global warming), but they are the party that is at least acting inclusive.

The Republican Party needs to remember what one them so many elections. This is a center-right nation, but it’s not a completely Christian nation. It never was. The foundations of the party still work and can still win elections. It’s the talking down to us godless folk that is losing you votes.

Whether they want to admit it or not, there is a whole generation of agnostics reaching the voting age every year. Religion is becoming less important in this country every year. For some, that’s the problem, but for many, it’s just a reality that is both good and bad.

If the Republicans want to win any elections any time soon, they can’t just try to point at Obama as a failure and play off of it (though it just worked for Obama, so they’ll probably give it a shot). They need to regroup and become a party of inclusiveness, not the VIP GOP that it is these days.

I was once a Republican. If they lighten up on the religion, I might be again someday. But in their current form, my voter card still has the ‘NP’ box checked.