He says that you cannot have a Christian Nation anymore than you can have a Christian bicycle.

Half of his church left when he preached this sermon and published the book. I was very impressed that he went through with it.
Here’s an interview with him about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIWs_G4oJaA

Dan whines that Christian’s don’t tolerate him

And where do I do that, exactly?

most of Dan arguments assume that Catholicism is a form of Christianity.

Actually, I’m an equal opportunity iconoclastic. In fact, I rarely assume Catholicism as my starting point. Usually I take evangelical Christianity as my base. But if it knocks down Catholicism in the process, that’s bonus.

Dan, what about the persecution that goes on today against Christians? Isn’t that a type of intolerance?

Of course it is, and I think it’s horrible. But it’s due to religion — usually Islam. I believe in freedom for people to practice whatever voodoo they want, as long as they can’t compel me to take part it in and it does not harm to other.

I don’t know why you’d think I’d be in favor of being intolerant to Christians. I remember thinking that way when I was a Christian — everyone calls for tolerance except for with Christians — but that’s not true. There is no reason to put CHristians to death anymore than to put Muslims or Atheists or Hindus to death. It’s wrong.

Well, they could have chosen a religion other than Church of England…

Tolerance is one of those words that has almost no use in debate because each side is going to define it differently. Dan whines that Christian’s don’t tolerate him, Christians whine that Dan doesn’t tolerate them.

What matters is what God tolerates. God doesn’t tolerate sin, and that’s why our laws should reflect His moral laws. (Yes, I said moral laws, not ceremonial laws.)

Also, I should note that most of Dan arguments assume that Catholicism is a form of Christianity.

Dan, what about the persecution that goes on today against Christians? Isn’t that a type of intolerance? Funny how only in nations with a Christian history have atheists and believers living together peacefully. Remember that atheist-run country where Christians lived peacefully? Neither do I.

In other words, while modern enlightened christianity has some admirable aspects, those aspects are due to the enlightenment and not due to christianity.

At its best, Christianity increases tolerance. At its worst, not so much :p

Beyond that, I shy away from labelling an entire religion based on the excesses of a minority.

What better justification than divine endorsement? And since you can conveniently interpret the holy scriptures to mean almost anything, it’s easy to obtain this endorsement and thereby justify behaving like a jerk. In fact, by assuming the religious interpretation that best supports your bigoted views, you also automatically assume the moral high ground, and opposing views will default to being false and/or evil.

That’s one thing separating religious and non-religious people: the non-religious have a harder time justifying themselves when they’re being jerks.

True, intolerant people are always intolerant and even if they were atheists, they would find some other reason to hate others. But the uniquely religious toxin here is that not only do they find a justification to their hate, they find it as being a sublime good, something encouraged by no lesser authority than the creator of the universe.

Witch burning
Torture
White Supremacy (i.e. defense of slavery)
Anti-Semitism
Sexism
Crazy views on Psychological science
Crazy views on Medical science

These are all areas where the Church has risen up to defend “god’s way” then been beaten down by the strong arm of justice.

It will happen at least two more times:

Homosexuality
Abortion

Maybe when the church is finally tolerant of these last two things, they will be completely powerless.

“I think also because there is a fragmentation of religion into many subgroups which are too intolerant of each other to band together to persecute heretics, or even to agree on what constitutes heresy.”

To these two, I would add a pluralistic society. It is not only secular government that keeps a restraining hand on the religous but other competing ideas. The ideas of the areligious and other religions are a moderating force on any one religion. It creates a market place of ideas where any singular religion has to compete. This applies to racial issues, women’s issues, science, gay rights. Where we now are voting on gay marriage, Christians would have prosecuted gay behavior – but they don’t even suggest certain Biblical things anymore because of competing, more compassionate, ideas. IMO, they would totally revert on these issues in absense of a pluralism.

Anyway, thanks for the website. :-)

Firstly, if the US government declared an official religion, it would be still subservient to the King of England because the king was the head of Church as well as head of State. After all the fighting and bloodshed to end up a pawn of the King’s religious council? No way!

Secondly, theocracy directly interferes with democracy. If there’s an official state religion with the power to declare laws, no balance of powers applies as religious law supersedes human laws according to all theology. Pardon the shameless blog plug, but here’s a bit where I explain exactly how a government based on secular principles would begin to break down when religion isn’t separated from the State:

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2008/10/27/scary-thought-of-the-day/

Basically, a theocracy would become either a form of dictatorship or monarchy depending on how content we are with our fate.

(I think actually that religion massively magnifies intolerance. It’s the nature of a religious world view to believe that only your view is correct, and that dissent is therefore a threat. It also strongly appeals to people who are inclined towards fanaticism. Only a secular society can accept multiple and often contradictory points of view. In a religious society, you toe the line for the good of your own health.)

I think also because there is a fragmentation of religion into many subgroups which are too intolerant of each other to band together to persecute heretics, or even to agree on what constitutes heresy.

Church and state are not separate enough for me, by the way.