"I bet you daren't criticise any religion that isn't Christianity..."

Yesterday evening, while I quietly watched some television, tweeted and wrote some blog posts about the UK's archaic Sunday trading laws and the fact that there is nothing about the Christian festival of Easter that holds up to any scrutiny, someone sent me a message:

"I bet you daren't criticise any religion that isn't Christianity..."

It struck me as a rather perverse observation on my frequent anti-faith and anti-religion comments, and all I can assume is that they only live those which are aimed directly at Christianity and haven't noticed, or choose not to notice,those which have a much broader target.

After all, there is just as little factual basis and archaelogical reord for Islam as there is for Christianity - i.e. there is none. There is absolutely nothing to support any of the stories in the Holy books of Seikhs or Hindus, in the same way that there is hardly a single word in the Bible that can be substantiated by cold, hard fact. Nd as for Buddhists, well, from what I understand, there may well have been a man who was known as the Buddha but his stories and teachings are fanciful and whimsical fairy stories in much the same way as anything about gods and heavens and an after life are.

Nobody today believes in the Norse gods of Thor and Odin, they are accepted as nothing more than an ancient mythology, and, of course, the same is true of the numerous gods worshipped in Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt. And yet so many of those who are happy to see these ancient gods as just mythologies, hold that THEIR god is true - even when they share so many basic facts (if you have spare time, do google Horus, Mithras and Jesus and revel in the number of simarities shared by all three).

And my same criticism applies to the umpteen smaller religions that exist around the world. All have been invented by primitive societies to try to understand the world and their existence, and all should have been superseded by science and reason, if it were not for the manipulaters and controllers, the abuses of the vulnerable and ignorant, who readily take on the mantle of church leadership.

No, I am more than happy to criticise evil lies whenever or wherever they come from.

I guess, though, that the person passing judgement on me has a tiny point in that I do, probably, criticise Christianity slightly more than the other superstitions. The reasons for that are simple: the UK has an established church, the Head of state is also the Head of one sect of the Christian church and that religion still holds considerable sway and power over parliament, with more than 70 unelected bishops in the House of Lords, able to impose their will and their bigotry on the whole of society, whether the rest of society believes in the same god,a different god, or has worked out that no gods exist.

And, sadly, in the UK our calendar is still dominated by Christian festivals: Christmas, Easter, Whitsun - despite the fact that few people actively take part in regular church ceremonies and fewer and fewer people now accept the lies that the church puts out.

Yes, I criticise Christianity because it is divisive and evil, some of its core tenets are blatantly bigoted, and, historically, the church has done much more to harm others than any good it has achieved. How many wars have been fought in the name of atheism compared to those fought to defend an imaginary friend?

I criticise all faiths and all religions, because they are all untrue and we, as a society,should be educating people away from such dangerous nonsense.

OPINION: The Tyranny of Tolerance

Over the past couple of years the religious faiths, particularly the Christians, have become more and more shrill in the defence of and support for their "beliefs" and if, or more often when, they look like losing the debate they scream that those who oppose them are being intolerant.

Tolerance is, to an extent, a good thing. Of course it is. But the way that the faiths use it as a club with which to batter opponents is nothing more than a Tyranny of Tolerance.

Tolerance isn't a right. Just because someone says or believes something doesn't give them the right to say it and have it defended by the law. Look at the racism of extreme far right parties. Their racism should never be tolerated in a modern society and while they have a right to say their views (as long as they stay within the race hate laws that protect minorities), and they have a right to stand for public office and see if others support their views, but they do not have the right to have their views uncontested, and they do not have the right o impose their beliefs on others.

This is, or at least should be, the case with religious faith too. Just because somehow has a religious faith doesn't mean it should be protected or tolerated. Far from it.

When religions display bigotry they must, of course, be challenged and their bigotry highlighted. Currently many oppose the Christian stance against gay marriage and feel it is an affront to civilised society. Some of us think it comes quite close to breaking the law.

There is no way that Christian bigotry should be tolerated and yet, because it's their "faith" that's what many Christians want and demand.

Ultimately, why should ANY faith that has, at its core, an imaginary superbeing and all sorts of unproven, unprovable "facts" that are used as mind control on its adherents?

Religious faith, the denial of science, reason and logic, is, at best, stupidity and ignorance and, at worst, a form of mental illness and madness. If I suddenly announced that invisible superbeings were talking to me I'd, quite rightly, be licked up for my own safety and the safety of others but Christians think that such nonsense should be tolerated if it's their lunacy - because that's faith and should be beyond normal society.

What utter nonsense.

Religious faith should not be tolerated as a matter of course. It should be challenged at every turn. It should be shown to be a nonsense. It should, when appropriate, be ridiculed. It should, when it breaks the laws that the rest of use have to follow, be prosecuted. It should be brought to book in every way possible so that people know the facts about religion.

Tolerance of religion is a bad thing for society - it allows churches to abuse and control the vulnerable and leads to a society divided by superstition, which has to be a bad thing.

Should horoscopes be tolerated and not mocked for their blatant nonsense? Of course not.

Should all who speak out homophobic ally, as Christian leaders have on the issue if fat marriage, be tolerated? No of course not, and the churches must not be above the law and treated differently.

Religious faith is a bad thing. It is a nonsense in modern society and yet Liz Windsor sits as Head of the established church being praised for her leadership for 60 years over ridiculous superstitions, and Rowan Willuams, the Archbishop of Bigotry, fuels the fires being intolerant of reason and fact whilst demanding tolerance for his own nonsense.

The Tyranny of Tolerance, the last line of defence for the abusive religions, must be smashed.

OPINION: Time to change the National Anthem

Today's ruling that councils cannot have prayers as part of their official business has seen a number of rabid dog loonies defending Christian's "right" to pray when and where they want and bleating on about the oppression of their "faith" (mental illness).

One particular Christian on BBC Radio Five said that if the ruling is applied it would mean that councils wouldn't be able to ever sing the national anthem. Hurrah! Oh wouldn't it be good to get rid of this deeply offensive, divisive dirge which, quite likely, isn't even of British origin (it's more than likely an adaptation of a French folk hymn!).

God save the Queen isn't suitable as the national anthem of a democracy in the 21st century - even if we do carry on paying £200+ million per year to allow the Windsors to be the biggest benefit scroungers in the country.

God save our gracious Quuen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen.
Send her victorious,
Happy and Glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.

What a load of absolute bollocks!

This verse, if you're Scottish things get worse and much more offensive in later verses (it says that "rebellious Scots" should be crushed), isn't a national anthem at all - it's a paean to a fictional superbeing to look after one person. What has that got to do with national identity?

I have no problem with a national anthem - if we HAVE to have nationalities (something I've often questioned), then there's nothing wrong with a song but it should be inclusive, positive and be about the nation, not just the parasite with privileges at the top.

I disagree that our current monarch is "gracious" or "noble" = she is the head of a business which, in order to operate, restricts the freedoms and rights of the vast bulk of the rest of the people who live in the same country, and who is propped up through pointless, outdated titles and baubles and other bribery.

And why do we want her to be "victorious" - I'd rather we lived in a peaceful world, not one that had wars to be won and battles and victories.

And why, even if we wanted a song about the nation's figurehead, should we be praying to a "god" - which god? Why any god at all? The vast majority don't attend church regularly and aren't "religious" in any meaningful way. Although many still put "C of E' on the census or on forms in hospital they are cultural Christians, or social Christians, whose only links to the church are for weddings, funerals, attending the odd Christening and, of course, a carol service at Christmas.

It is time the "national anthem" was abandoned and replaced with something which has words that are inclusive, non-denominational, non-sectarian, positive and, come on, with a good rousing tune.

There are some fantastic national anthem melodies around the world - the French and American ones are particularly rousing, but our one is just snoresville. Maybe we look at other, existing melodies and songs and see if there is something that could be adopted as a new anthem, or maybe we hold a competition for a new anthem.

Whatever we do, we need a new national anthem - and soon!

As a result of a tweet, I was asked by @thesamosa to write a response to this article.

Here is my response:

“Faith” and the election

Religion has been sidelined in the current UK general election in a way that Americans, for example, could probably never understand. In the USA the idea that someone running for President could, publicly at least, be an atheist is just not conceivable to many and yet, at this election, we do have one party leader who is openly non-religious. This is a major breakthrough and has, perhaps, been one of many reasons for the sidelining of religion in political matters in recent months.

Personally I find it scary that the most powerful man in the world, a man who has his finger on the nuclear button and who controls the biggest economy in the world, also believes in a superbeing for which there is absolutely no evidence. Shouldn’t he be offered help, guidance and psychotherapy instead of being given the ability to blow up the world? Isn’t this putting the crazy man in charge? Isn’t “faith” in such matters simply a lunacy?

And yet the religions, despite their blatant lack of sense, fact and evidence, want to be taken seriously and want to hold sway at election time. To me this is wrong and dangerous for a number of reasons.

It seems, many people of “faith” abandon their “faith” when it gets to an election. We’ve all seen those little bracelets with WWJD on them – “What Would Jesus Do?” – well, let’s be honest, Jesus, had he existed (and there’s no contemporaneous evidence – but that’s another whole article!), would not be voting for any right-wing/capitalist party and yet few in the Tory ranks would say they are atheist or agnostic – most would say they are Christian. Jesus WOULD have voted for some sort of socialist party – the communists even.

The most religious parties are often the most bigoted and extremist parties. Take a look at parties like the British National Party (BNP_ and the English Defence League (EDL); these are both parties who many consider to be fundamentally racist, xenophobic and highly bigoted. Does this fit with the “love your neighbour” message of Christianity? Of course it doesn’t. And yet it is these extremist parties who, as well as the national flag, often proclaim their support and defence for the national religion. Why? Is it because religion is also fundamentally bigoted and divisive? I would say yes.

So why do people of “faith” struggle to see the contradiction that so often exists between their belief and their politics? This is harder to explain but, in my opinion, it is because they are confused, ignorant of the facts, brainwashed or simply lunatics. Take your pick!

Faith may have been justifiable in the 14^th century when society as a whole was ignorant of so much about the universe but today, in the 21^st century, it has no place.

It is right that, in this election, “faith” has been sidelined. We need to grab politics back from the mad men, the ignorant, the bigoted and the confused, and bring it into the modern world – a rational world of fact and the principle of genuinely loving your neighbour.