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

"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: Banning religious symbols in the workplace

It all started in 2006 with Nadia Eweida, the fundamentalist Christian, who wanted to be allowed to flaunt and advertise her religion at work, even though it broke BA's uniform policies.

Naturally, the dullards and religious extremists of the right wing press were up in arms and Christians up and down the country, including the then prime minister Tony Blair, weighed in saying that they were being victimised and that it was their right to display their faith. Even Boris Johnson supported Mrs. Eweida, and he ought to know better.

Similarly, a nurse who offered prayers for patients, as if superstition could intervene where medicine struggled, was rightly disciplined for imposing her faith.

More recently the same numbskulls have defended the right of a council to have prayers as part of their meeting and claimed that this didn't prejudice or favour anyone or any group! There has been a lot of whining and whinging about "militant atheism" and "creeping secularism" as if atheism and secularism are bad things.

Surely, if there is any sense, it is time for parliament to drop its prayers and for courts to abandon the nonsense of witnesses swearing on the Bible, a book so full of lies it throws into doubt every word sworn on it!

Although, through extreme pressure from religious groups, supported by the government, BA were forced to initially back down and allow employees to advertise their religion on their work uniforms, it is pleasing to hear that the case is not yet over and that the current Tory government, which many would have thought would have been on the side of the religious nut jobs, is supporting BA's original decision and saying that there is no right to wear religious symbols in the workplace.

Mrs. Eweida has continued to fight to be allowed to advertise her faith at work and, with financial help from a number of Christian fundamentalist sources, she has now taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The British government, in a rare moment of common sense, will oppose her petition - and rightly so.

Sadly, though, Ministers will only be opposing "optional" religious symbols such as the Christian cross, and not all religious symbols, some of which have a compulsory element, like headscarves, bangles, etc.

This is a shame. There has already been a hearing in which Justice Stephen Sedley threw out Mrs Eweida’s case for discrimination, accusing her of following a “sectarian agenda”. Given that, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Mrs Eweida will probably argue, in Strasbourg, that her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a cross in the same way that another female employee may well argue her deep personal convictions drove her to wear a burka. But that is simply a nonsensical argument.

BA have acted both reasonably and proportionately in the way it dealt with Mrs. Eweida and its time that all religions were prevented from flaunting their beliefs in public. It is time that religious faith, a clear mental illness and a display of ignorance and stupidity, was forced to be a private matter at worst, and educated out of society at best.

As a society we mustn't fall into the trap of thinking the only fundamentalists are Muslims and they're all suicide bombers. To adhere to a religious faith in the 21st Century, denying science, reason and all rational thought, is a ridiculous position to hold and good governments must act to prevent the cancer of religious faith spreading any further.

The banning of religious symbols in the workplace is the act of a courageous company standing against the would-be oppressors of the Church. The government and the European Court of Human Rights now need to stand up for sanity.

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.

So you want to follow a religion...

... but you're not sure which one?

Click here for a handy flow chart that makes it easy to decide!

OPINION: Councils and prayers

This week, the National Secular Society has taken a case to the High Court calling on Bidedord Council to end its practise of having prayers before council meetings.

I just had to check my calendar - it is the 21st century and not 1511. What on earth is any state, government or council institution doing having prayers before meetings?

It's bad enough that their are elected officials who believe in such superstitious nonsense and believe that praying to a fictional super being will help them, it's another matter entirely that the concil endorses such behaviour by making time for it.

Sure, Bideford Council doesn't "take a register" until after the prayers are over, attendance at them is not compulsory, but what a waste of time and what an awful and bigoted message it sends out to their constituents.

The can be no justification for maintaining this tradition - and saying its a tradition is. I defence, traditions and customs change over the centuries.

In France and the USA, to name but two nations, the state and education has, by law, to be secular. "Faith" and all religious mumbo-jumbo isn't allowed. Schools aren't allowed to indoctrinate children with the daily acts of worship that we, in the UK, have by law; state occasions don't have priests, vicars, rabbis, etc. at them; and council meetings don't have prayers before them.

France and the USA, both very religious countries, realise that "faith" is a private matter and has no place in state or educational matters.

It is time we left the Dark Ages and moved to having a secular society - and when that's achieved we can look more closely a why so man still believe the lies of the churches and see if improved eduction might cure them of their "faith" illness.

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.