Is Christianity Inherently Good?

I posted the comment below in response to a blog          with a common theme: the great wisdom of our founding fathers (U.S.) in recognizing Christianity as our guiding principle (even though what they often said was more deist than Christian and some were no doubt paying lip service to God as men in politics often need to do).

The blogger sets up his thesis, first, with his knowledge of what was in Washington’s mind, ‘With the clear understanding that God governs over the daily affairs of man and rules over the destiny of nations, Washington avowed shortly thereafter in his inaugural address [then Washington’s words], “We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained…”

The blogger’s thesis fairly developed in these two paragraphs:

“Our Founding Fathers never intended for the Constitution to be twisted by our court system to impose an atheist-humanist dominion as the foundation of our laws. The Constitution of the U.S. certainly protects the freedom of citizens to openly practice any (or no) religion—providing that such practices not express themselves in deviant or socially violent behavior.

These protections, however, were never intended to oblige official governmental indifference toward Christianity, or worse yet, create hostility toward Christianity.  In fact, Christianity, whose moral virtue was well recognized for promoting benevolence and good-will toward those of other faiths, was deemed to be an essential foundation for true pluralism, or true religious tolerance. There is significant legal support for this guiding principle, including Charleston v. Benjamin, 1846 (Christianity was cited as that “Noble safeguard of religious toleration”) and Lindenmuller v. The People, 1860 (“This liberty of conscience in matters of faith and practice is entirely consistent with the existence, in fact, of the Christian religion”).”

My comment on the blog

Struggle though they might, those who would have freed us entirely from religion’s intrusion into politics in the Continental Congress couldn’t overcome the religious fervor of those who would impose religion upon us.
Christianity has had a better upside than it might have had; in seeking to do good without proselytizing it has achieved it’s greatest accomplishments.

Whether it’s a good idea to let religion hold sway over a civilization, though, can be considered clearly from the perspective of Christianity’s brethren religion, Islam.  Would we want our institutions all beholden to Islam?  Surely, if we were all born in a Muslim country, most of us would be Muslims.
Humanism puts people ahead of religion and religious dogma.  When you look to the Middle East you might well think those countries could use a little bit of that.  Islamic nations didn’t have the Enlightenment that Christian Europe did.  In the Middle Ages, Christianity put upwards of 500,000 to death for their variance in belief from strict dogma.  The humanist Enlightenment allowed our humanity to come through to overcome that mindset and helped Christianity to see the error of it’s ways.

Christianity like Islam and every other organization or institution isn’t good no matter what it does, rather it is good when it chooses correctly to be good and do good.

July 3, 2015 at 9:04 am Leave a comment

Creationism could be coming to a high school near you

I wrote to Congressman Jim Buchy of the Ohio House about an alert I received that repealing Common Core Curriculum in the high schools could be used as a way re-open the path for Creationism to be injected in high school curriculums.  I’ll repeat the text of Rep. Buchy’s letter below the document to make it readable.  The original document seemed difficult to copy here.





Rep. Buchy’s email:

“Dear Douglas,

Thank you for contacting my office with concerns regarding House Bill 597.  I support this bill and recently voted it out of the Rules and Reference Committee, to be considered on the floor.

House bill 597 is not about getting creationism to be taught in public schools.  Instead, the bill aims to repeal Common Core in the state of Ohio in order to put control of schools back in the hands of local government and parents.

I support House Bill 597 because I do not agree with the Common Core standards, and neither do the majority of constituents I have heard from.  I haven’t, however, received one email or phone call from a constituent that shares your concerns.  The fact is that the 84th House District, myself included, is made up of many fine Christian people who [sic] people that God does have a place in everyday life.  If I find that a lot of my constituents would support a bill that requires creationism to be taught in schools, I would consider that very idea.

Thank you for contacting me regarding this important matter.  Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding further state issues.

Please help me determine key issues for this General Assembly: Complete my Legislative Survey.  Please follow the link.


[signed] Jim Buchy

Jim Buchy

State Representative

84th House District


I initially responded with the next two paragraphs when I was under the weather with a cold, then recently expanded my reply to the following:

From Douglas Falknor to Rep84

Dear Representative Buchy,

I’m saddened to hear that. Education was once the liberator of thought and did its part to free western civilization from religious dogma. It bears noting that the repeating of scientific and historical facts was punishable by death then. Now the lessons being taught by creationists reject objective knowledge in favor of religious belief posing as fact.

Even though there’s been a tradition of government held hostage by religion in this country, education has been free up ’til recently. If you take these steps backwards you may spawn home taught fundamentalists who over time may achieve a level of literal fundamentalism worthy of eastern madrassas and beyond what most Christians today would consider reasonable.

To test the rightness or wrongness of teaching creationism to America’s youth, you need only substitute the teaching of any other religion’s origin myth in place of it. Only that would be fair to the other religions. Or are our high schools only Christian schools?

The near total domination of the culture by Christianity for two hundred years has not served Christians well with respect to learning to treat other religions with equanimity. The greater diversity of race, for instance, has kept the unequal treatment of minorities on the American Christian radar (TV) screens until the culture has made a modicum of concessions in the treatment of those who are of different races and ethnicities.

Christians, however, have not had enough experience with believers of other faiths to know appropriate etiquette in their interactions with them… so sensitivity in the treatment of others—treating others the way you want to be treated—has lagged behind in the arena of religion. (…and nonbelievers? Christians send death threats and hate mail…and don’t see the reflection of themselves in their actions.)

There’s always been this confusion over whether America is a Christian nation or everybody’s nation. Even George H. W. Bush got it wrong. Why? It was the religion talking. The more religion focuses the full spectrum of the public’s attention on its misbehavior the more apparent it becomes that those affected by religion should recuse themselves from actions that would impose their religion on others. Shouldn’t this include those who would rule us? Or are our rulers agents of religion first before our democracy?

We recognize this bondage to religion in the fundamentalists of other religions. It’s not so obvious to us in ourselves. We inherit this devotion to religion naturally. See the evidence for this in Religion is God’s Way of Showing Us it’s a Lot Earlier in Human Evolution than We Thought on Audible and Amazon

Douglas Falknor

January 4, 2015 at 5:33 pm 1 comment

Is there any authentic spirituality?

This is the sister question to “Why are we spiritual if this is only a secular universe?”  We are spiritual AND this is only a secular (nonspiritual) universe.  We evolved a spiritual need.  It is certain and it is certainly with us always.

It’s fulfillment is less certain.  And it has remained uncertain throughout our deep evolutionary time.   That need makes us seek communal religious behavior.   We may ask God for spiritual fulfillment.  We may dance our way to it with trance-inducing drum rhythms.   Ritual is the cut-and-dried approach, the default connection to the spiritual.

At a minimum, ritual is a religious placebo.  We may think it gets us where we want to go–whether it does or not.  In the institution of modern religions, as we sit in the pews, we are under social pressure to behave, to behave AS IF we’ve been spiritually satisfied.  Is it the religious equivalent, though, to seeing that the emperor, who has no new clothes, is naked?

If we do have the need, but most of us don’t achieve spiritual satisfaction, what should be our path?

December 28, 2014 at 5:45 pm Leave a comment

Is Humanism a Religion?

Recently a judge ruled in a federal court case ( {sic}) in favor of a prisoner that Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes. The inmate had been denied approval to form a humanist study group. The prisoner, Holden, was at FCI Sheridan since 2010. (Note that atheism was already recognized for the purpose of designating prisoners’ religious preferences as were many religions and sects.)

The Center for Inquiry, in its newsletter, said “While we were glad that humanism was declared to be on equal footing with religious beliefs in this case, we are also concerned that this decision will now have unforeseen negative consequences for secular humanism more generally.”
Humanists especially the self-espoused secular variety have wanted the First Amendment protection that is afforded to religion(s), but as a body, secular humanists might aspire to being separate from and even rising above religion, often critical of religion’s many faults. Some might say humanists can’t have it both ways.

I think Humanism is a religion-alternative and necessarily must have the same protections or it will be at the unfair mercy of some religions and some religious people. That’s not to say it is a religion. And that’s not to say it functions like one (though it might for some).

There is a rebuttal by the humanists most opposed to the general implications of accepting Humanism as a religion. read it right now at Tom Flynn’s blog at Free Thinking.

The overlooked obvious in every instance of these debates is the question of terms—the definition and meaning of the words we use. Meanings vary. Consider all the definitions the dictionary gives for the terms we use: religion, spirituality, etc. We all act as if there is only one meaning for a word when there are a number.

The definition of religion itself is elusive. Some have many gods, others have none. Spirituality is essential to the practitioners of some religions but reduced to ritual-by-rote for others. The line between some religions and the so-called graceful life philosophies is blurred.
If we don’t mean the same thing with our words, we are not communicating, we are miscommunicating. Talk under those circumstances is talk at cross purposes.

In the various meanings of religion, Humanism might meet the spiritual needs of some of its followers. Does that make it a religion? And if a believer religion fails to be spiritually fulfilling, does it stop being a religion? No that’s just modern religion.

November 16, 2014 at 10:10 pm Leave a comment

Boycott Pepsi?

I just read a call to boycott Pepsi, as the blogger relates the offense, for omitting “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance so as not to be divisive.  Pepsi supposedly did that when printing the phrase “one nation…indivisible…” on cans.  The call came from a Christian I know.  To put words in her mouth, she is probably saying that the Pledge should be recited as Congress has dictated it.

It took about ten seconds of my time to search on the words “Pepsi Pledge of Allegiance” to find that this is a rumor started about a decade ago over something Dr. Pepper may have done.    The “one nation…indivisible” phrase, it would seem obvious, is what one might say in saluting the nation.  “One nation, under God” is a religious observation.

Once again, though, we nonbelievers would have received the default discrimination, one that some beverage company would have tried to save the world from–sticking religion into everything–when religion was the intrusion in the first place.  (I’m sure you know, but around 1954 in the communist-obsessed environment overheated by Senator Joe McCarthy and others,  Congress thought they’d trip up the Commies but injecting God into the Pledge–the same environment that brought us Vietnam–because Commies wouldn’t say “under God” if it was in the Pledge.  Will someone one please answer my question:  Why would the Commies say the Pledge as it was?  And if they were going to falsely recite the Pledge, why wouldn’t they falsely Pledge to God as well?).

That’s what it is, you know.  A Pledge or acknowledgement that we recognize that the U.S. nation is under God’s charge and loyal to Him.  I would venture to say that the communist threat from within has passed… so is Congress likely to remove the phrase?   Congress has not only shifted Right, it has shifted even more to the Christian Right.  Individually, those congressmen and senators will tell you that their first loyalty is to God… just like their radicalized Muslim brothers would.

You may be familiar with my theory of why or how the religiously affected get that way (Religion is God’s Way of Showing Us it’s a lot Earlier in Human Evolution than We Thought).  If they are deceived, even if willingly, that makes ours a rough row to hoe.  Everywhere that religion encroaches, once it’s there, it’s locked on.  Marked territory not only to never be freed again–the religious are blind to it.  It no longer is open to question.  Religion gets a free ride, a pass.   It is outside the questions, outside the equation of things that can be examined for fairness or equality.

That’s why it is so hard for us to gain any ground even though religion has encroached so much into are world.  Blind justice may treat us fairly, but not if justice is blinded by religion.  Why do they think they should be able to treat us unfairly?  Well, they pay lip service to tradition, but it’s the underestimated effect religion has on the religious that  they are most blind to.

If you consider civil rights laws, and rest assured that is the field where the discrimination against us lies, we are being discriminated against due to religion.  The bigots among the religious say we can’t be because we have no religion.









July 19, 2014 at 4:20 pm Leave a comment

Correction to the blog post on the Pledge of Allegiance

To: ‘’
Subject: Misinforming the public


Hello Lauren,

 This is the second time I’ve misinformed the public and those who follow my blog by relying on the information in the Secular Coalition’s Weekly Wrap Up.

 Let me quote from an article in both the email & on the SCA website:


“Secular Americans Disappointed with MA Supreme Court Decision on Pledge of Allegiance

 Fri, 05/09/2014 – 11:26

“Washington, DC—The Secular Coalition for America today expressed disappointment with Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in the case of Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District.

“The case challenged a state law that requires daily school-sponsored and teacher-led classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court sided with the defendant, and ruled that the school district can compel students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance including the wording “under God”.”       [Bolding is mine]

If you’ll click on that “decision” link, above, and read the source material, you’ll find that school children’s reciting of the Pledge of  Allegiance is stated to be voluntary and this is repeated about half a dozen times in the court summary. 

I can’t trust the SCA’s reporting of the facts after being twice burnt and that’s a shame because you are a position to have a command of the facts and events that are vitally important to nonbelievers, freethinkers, etc.

I’ve offered links to SCA and its articles on several occasions in my blog and I apologize to my readers for that and my part in misleading them–more than once.




May 10, 2014 at 12:06 pm 1 comment

One nation under God with liberty and justice for all

“Today [This is a quote from the Secular Coalition earlier this week.], the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued another disappointing decision in the case of Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District.”

“The case challenged a state law that requires daily school-sponsored and teacher-led classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court sided with the defendant, and ruled that the school district can compel students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance including the wording “under God”.”


The earlier decision referred to was the case The Town of Greece v. Galloway before the U.S. Supreme Court about the village starting each meeting with prayer. To me, though, the Massachusetts decision is much more troubling. The Secular Coalition states it quite well:

            “The case challenged a state law that requires daily school-sponsored and teacher-led classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court sided with the defendant, and ruled that the school district can compel students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance including the wording “under God”. – See more at:

            “Niose [then president of Secular Coalition] argued that the wording “under God” in the Pledge discriminates against atheists and other nonbelievers, by instilling and defining patriotism according to a god belief.

               ‘ “Atheist-humanist children love their country no less than do children who believe in God, and it’s just wrong to have a daily patriotic exercise that invalidates them by associating patriotism with God-belief,” Niose said after arguing the case. “If schools conduct a daily exercise to instill national loyalty, it should be inclusive and nondiscriminatory.” ‘

                “- See more at:  ”


The two points that make this the more heinous decision of the week are these:

 state law [ ] requires daily school-sponsored and teacher-led classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance


the school district can compel students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance including the wording “under God”.

 I’d like to be a student there and be outted for not saying “under God.”  I currently substitute “religious freedom” in the Pledge now.

If I wouldn’t be turned in for that, I’d turn myself in for lying when I say, One nation under God with liberty and justice for all though  that now lies at the feet of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.








May 10, 2014 at 10:32 am 1 comment

Older Posts


I write for agnostics, freethinkers, atheists and humanists. In my nonfiction, the purpose is the celebration of our noble human spirit. The general pursuit may be Evolutionary Theology, though believers seem to populate that field (so maybe it's evolutionary Humanism). By looking at who we are and where we came from, we can derive much meaning, and perhaps more importantly, understanding, as well as some sense of where we could go.

Religion is God’s Way of Showing Us it’s Earlier in Human Evolution than We Thought

This title is an upcoming book at the publisher's now. I'd like feedback on this title. It's meant to make people think and feel something. And to hint at things for both believers and non- on multiple levels. The book is of a wider scope, though, one which is ultimately a way to grasp more meaning for ourselves. Believers are always telling us our lives don't have meaning without a god. We often counter that it's more meaningful to be looking for our own meaning than to be arbitrarily ascribed it by an imaginary supernatural being. Ultimately, and this is what I think is unique about this book, you'll see how we can be just as spiritual in our own way. Since we've inhertited a capacity for religion (some more than others) as an evolutionary adaptation, believers and non- are both potentially spritual in the same way--but it is an earthly, secular spirituality in which we all can share.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.