Dear Rowan Williams...

Dear Rowan Williams,

As I'm sure you know, you have just over six months left as Archbishop of Canterbury and I'd like to suggest a couple of things that you could do that could transform your time as Primate of All England from a disappointing waste of time and opportunity to One of the most important periods in the history of the Church of England.

First. I think it's time to state categorically that homosexuality is natural and to prejudice against anyone who is homosexual is ill-informed, ignorant bigotry and has no place in any part of modern society, and that includes within the Christian church.

Second. It's time that the Church of England decided to come clean about its wealth, its finances and, in particular, it's tax status. If, as many if us suspect, the church has been avoiding, and, indeed, evading paying its fair share if tax then things need to be changed. A good Christian, and a good Christian church, should be proud to pay its taxes and contribute to the wider society.

Third. It is vital that you go on the record to say that the Pope's anti-condom statements are wrong and dangerous. You need to say that he, and his predecessor, are responsible for many thousands of deaths, particularly in Africa, that make the Church in Rome as evil as many dictators and oppressive regimes.

Fourth. I think it is time that you accepted that charging admission to historic buildings, most of which have received substantial grants and benefits from tax payers, is just wrong. Historic buildings belong to us all - unless you are prepared to pay full rates and taxes related to them being businesses.

Fifth. It is time to end the nonsense of having over seventy unelected bishops in the House of Lords. In a democracy Christians are as free to stand for election as anybody else. To have such a substantial number of votes reserved for one sect of one religion is unfair and unreasonable, and it is unrepresentative of our modern society. Why no reserved seats for Muslim leaders, or Hindus, or Seikhs. And let's not forget that, in practise, the majority of modern society are either agnostic or atheist - maybe the British Humanist Siciety should have guaranteed votes in the House of Lords, or the National Secular Society?

Sixth. I call on you to end the nonsense about "militant atheism" or "creeping secularism". I know it has helped you, and the likes of Baroness Warsi (really, you should choose your metaphorical bed partners rather better) to gain easy headlines but the truth is that religions are failing because education has shown them to be inaccurate and, basically, a pack of lies. You, as an intelligent man, and one going into academe as your next step, should be pleased that education is gradually winning over and that common sense and reason are winning through.

Seventh. Although it has served the Church of England well over the centuries, we both know that an established church is just daft in the 21st century. I guess the legislation would take longer than the amount of time you have left in Lambeth Palace, but you really should set the wheels in motion for the disestablishment of the Church. To give privilege and power to one faith group, particularly when only a small percentage if the population are actually practical adherents to that faith, needs to end.

Eighth and final. I realise this will be the hardest for you to do, but, if you want to be taken seriously in the academic world, and you want to be seen as having any intellectual integrity, you need to make it clear that there is, in fact, absolutely no contemporaneous evidence for any of the Bew Testament stories about Jesus, that the stories weren't written down for at least two generations and then by non-eye witnesses in different parts if the world, and that, with very little research, it is easy to see where the various stories have all been borrowed and stolen from. Fine, if you still want to believe they are true that's your choice, but, please, tell the truth about the historicity of the New Teatament stories.

Anyway, I realise it'll be a busy six months for you, what with the Jubilee, Olympics (did you get any tickets?) and starting to pack up your ornaments and nick backs ready for the removal firm, but still, please, seriously consider my suggestions of ways to improve British society and, if such things matter to you, make yourself a bit of a name.

Thanks, and have a great time in Canbridge,

Rob Steadman

COMMENT: Christians to run anti-gay adverts on London buses

How can it be, in 2012, that anything as ill-informed and bigotted as an anti-gay advert to be run on the side of London buses can be permitted by law?

But that's exactly what's about to happen because London buses have been booked to carry a Christian advertising campaign starting next week.

The ad will claim that the power of therapy can change the sexual orientation of gay people.

The ads, which will read "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!", are backed by the Core Issues Trust whose leader has said that "homoerotic behaviour is sinful".

The charity (yes, they have charitable status despite running ignorant and bigotted hate campaigns) funds "reparative therapy" for Christians who believe they have homosexual feelings and want to become straight.

Another group backing the campaign is Anglican Mainstream, an orthodox Anglican group who have equated homosexuality with alcoholism.

How can such bigotry and ignorance be tolerated in the modern world?

Not only should London Transport refuse to carry these adverts (surely they break various advertising laws anyway?) but the two groups backing the campaign need to be investigated and have their charitable statuses removed.

There is no place for ill-informed, prejudice and bigotry in any civilised society. Christianity, which has such bigotry at its very core, needs to adapt or have all state funding, subsidies and tax breaks removed from it.

I wonder if the Mayoral candidates will have anything to say, it will they fear losing the Christian vote?

"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: Christians should wear a cross

Tomorrow, in his Easter Sunday sermon, Cardinal Keith O' Brien, the head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, will call for all Christians to wear the symbol of the cross every day.

This is the latest from the various parts of the Christian church in their claims that Christianity is being marginalised in modern society, and a call to fight back against what church leaders call "militant secularisation and atheism".

Some religions, of course, require their followers to wear symbols (turbans, for instance), while others have become accepted as the norm but there is no requirement in the Bible for Christians to display their faith in this way.

And why would they? Do Christians really want to wear a badge that announces to the world that they are bigoted against homosexuals, or that their religion believes in the suppression of women?

I guess it will the rest of us to be able to identify those amongst us who believe superstitious mumbo jumbo instead of scientific fact. Indeed, why don't Christians just wear a dunce's cap instead of a cross?

Cardinal O'Brien will point out that a small lapel cross costs less than an Easter egg. Is that the motivation for his idiotic outcry? It's a way of flogging more Jesus merchandise and add to the, already obscene, amounts of money the tax evading church has?

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: The Firebombing of Charlie Hebdo

The firebombing of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in the early hours of this morning should send a shiver down the spine of all right-thinking and responsible people.

The editorial team had decided to make the next edition of the weekly magazine an "Arab Spring Special Edition" - to celebrate the new freedoms countries like Tunisia now had. The cover cartoon mocked the fact that Tunisia's new "freedoms" included the imposition of Sharia Law and had a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad saying: "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter".

The "Arab Spring Special Edition" hadn't even hit the newsstands yet.

Of course, cartoons of the prophet have been known to cause controversies before; the Jylands-Posten cartoons of 2005 caused no end of trouble with death threats, etc. The editors at Charlie Hebdo could, perhaps have thought things were different in France where, in 2007, their right to re-publish the Danish cartoons was upeld.

The Quran does not explicity outlaw images of Muhammad.

In fact, it is only in some supplementary teaching, called hadith, that Muslims are forbidden from making visual images of figures. Somehow, though, the fundamentalist and fanatical Muslims have decided that images of the prophet are a bad thing and to make such an image makes you a target for violent retribution.

Any sane person can see this is a nonsense. Can you imagine a ban on images of Jesus or the Buddha? Those religions not only allow for artists to create imagery of their religious figures but cope when those images are used to mock their religion. Why can't Islam be the same? Is Islamic belief that fragile?

And why make up extra rules that aren't in the Quran? It's not like art wasn't around before Muhammad had his revelations.

The Christian church has been worryling quiet about the Charlie Hebdo firebombing today. I realise that Rowan Williams is a bit busy trying to dig himself and St. Paul's Cathedral out of the huge hole they have created for themselves with their tepid response to the Occupy London protesters (and the huge finiancial investments and links the catherdal has with the City of London), and the Pope, well, he's always busy trying to cover up the wrong-doings of his clergy - but, surely, they should have stood strong and spoken out against this evil and dangerous fundamentalism?

Let's hope that politicians can stand up to this aggressive bullying by lunatics. No one should be in fear of their life because they draw or published a cartoon. No society should tolerate these extremists.

The story of the Arab Spring is yet to unfold - let's hope it is not the story of how fanatical lunatics took over a large amount of the world.