< Previous: A Change in the Wind Up: Site Index Next: Poetry Sunday: Dirge Without Music >
Is America a Christian Nation?

A frequent refrain among the religious right is that the United States of America is a "Christian nation", or that this country was founded on Christian principles. However, I've never seen any religious apologist explain what exactly this is supposed to mean beyond making the mere statement. If this nation was founded on Christian principles, which principles are those? If Christianity played such a major role in our nation's founding, then what specific contributions did it make?

In an attempt to help the religious right answer this key question, I'll list some of America's core defining principles as given in the Constitution, and examine whether any of them could plausibly be said to come from Christianity or the Bible:

Republican democracy. Through a public ballot open to all adult citizens, Americans elect candidates who will represent them at the local, state and federal levels. All officials of the American government are either directly elected by the people or are appointed by others who are elected.

Separation of powers. The American government is divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. Through various mechanisms, these three branches can check each other's power - the president can issue pardons and veto legislation, Congress can override vetoes and pass constitutional amendments, and the courts can rule laws and executive actions unconstitutional - which prevents too much power from accumulating in the hands of any one individual or group.

Federalism. The U.S. is set up as a series of states with a limited degree of autonomy, united together and overseen by a central, federal government. Power is shared between the two, with some areas being the province of the states and others set by the federal authority.

The process of amendment. The U.S. Constitution can be changed in any way, either to pass new clauses or to repeal existing ones, if the proposed amendment is approved by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states.

Religious freedom. The Constitution explicitly provides that no religious test shall ever be required for any public office in the United States, nor shall the government officially establish any religion. No law which infringes on the free exercise of religion is permitted.

Freedom of speech, assembly, press and petition. The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that no law shall be passed which abridges the citizens' freedom of speech, nor their right to protest and petition the government, nor the right of the press to report information on the events of the day.

Protection from search and seizure. The police force in America may not enter a person's home or search their possessions without proving reasonable suspicion and obtaining the consent of an independent magistrate, in the form of a search warrant.

Trial by jury. Americans accused of crimes can only be convicted by a jury made up of people living in the area where the crime has taken place. In addition, people on trial have the right to confront witnesses against them and may not be compelled to testify against themselves.

Protection from cruel or unusual punishment. Cruel, degrading, or torturous punishments are constitutionally forbidden.

Equality of all people under the law. Most fundamental to the American experiment is the idea that all people have equal protection under the law, that no one group has any more or fewer legal rights than any other. This more than anything else is the idea that defines us, and though we have not always lived up to it, throughout our history we have steadily been making strides toward expanding the boundaries of liberty to include all Americans.

Now, let's see what Biblical equivalents, if any, these principles have:

Republican democracy: Explicitly denied by the Bible. Rather than democracy, the Bible's preferred model of government is a divine-right kingship, where one individual is hereditarily chosen and wields supreme power. This is what America's founders were rebelling against when they brought forth this nation.

Separation of powers: Explicitly denied by the Bible. As above, in the Bible's divine-right monarchy, a single individual wields supreme power over all functions of government. Some apologists seek to find an equivalent in a verse from Isaiah 33 - "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king" - but what they overlook is that this verse explicitly envisions all three of these powers as being held by the same person.

Federalism: Partial equivalent in the Bible. The Old Testament's society, where each of the twelve tribes of Israel has partial autonomy over its own region, is similar to the American model of states. However, there is a notable dissimilarity as well: the Bible envisions membership in a tribe as hereditary, whereas states are made up of free collections of individuals who can move around at will. In any case, some sort of hierarchy is unavoidable in any organization too large for a single person to directly oversee.

The process of amendment: Explicitly denied by the Bible. Rather than creating a living, dynamic system of laws that can be improved and mended as society sees fit, the Bible claims that its laws are eternal and immutable, literally set in stone, and can neither be added to nor changed. The Old Testament says that each of its laws "shall be a statute forever" (Leviticus 23:41), and the New Testament says that anyone who suggests a different gospel should be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

Religious freedom: Explicitly denied by the Bible. Far from granting people the right to worship as they see fit, the Bible says that anyone who encourages believers to serve other gods, or anyone who speaks "blasphemy", should be killed (Deuteronomy 13:6-9, Leviticus 24:16). God himself joins in on many occasions by slaughtering people who worship different gods (Exodus 22:20). Although Jesus does say that people should "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Mark 12:17), there is no indication that any non-Christian should enjoy the same freedom of worship as believers.

Freedom of speech, assembly, press and petition: Explicitly denied by the Bible. As above, the Bible does not grant freedom of speech, but rather threatens death for those who speak in unapproved ways. Ancient Israel had no concept of the press, but there are also many cases in which people were killed for unapproved assemblies or for questioning their leaders (Numbers 16:35).

Protection from search and seizure: No equivalent in the Bible. Lacking a judicial system or separation of powers, ancient Israel had no notion of search warrants or of protection from arbitrary seizure.

Trial by jury: No equivalent in the Bible. Again, the Bible has nothing like our custom of the legal or judicial system. It does say that a man who suspects his wife of committing adultery can bring her before the priests and force her to drink "bitter water" which will cause her belly to swell and her thighs to rot if she is guilty (Numbers 5). If anything, this is most similar to the barbaric concept of trial by ordeal. It also says that anyone who accidentally kills someone may be killed without consequence by a relative of the deceased (whom it calls the "avenger of blood") (Joshua 20). Again, no mention is made of convening a jury to determine the guilt of the accused. Finally, it says that any person may be convicted of a crime on the testimony of just two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15), which is a far cry from the American legal system.

Protection from cruel or unusual punishment: Explicitly denied by the Bible. One of the most common punishments prescribed by the Bible is stoning - bludgeoning a person to death by smashing in his head and face with rocks. This penalty is prescribed for crimes such as disobeying one's parents (Deuteronomy 21:21), picking up sticks on Sunday (Numbers 15:36), or being gay (Leviticus 20:13). This is "cruel and unusual" punishment by any rational definition of that term.

Equality of all people under the law: Explicitly denied by the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that the Israelites enjoyed special favor as compared to everybody else, and were treated differently by the Mosaic law code. For example, foreigners taken as slaves could be kept indefinitely, while Israelite slaves were freed every seven years during Jubilee (Leviticus 25:39-46). Even among Israelites, there were stark divisions: women are worth considerably less than men (Leviticus 27:1-7), and the handicapped are discriminated against (Leviticus 21:17-23). Even Jesus joins in by making statements comparing non-Jews to dogs (Mark 7:27).

* * *

In sum, the basic principles of American democracy cannot be found in either testament of the Bible. This is hardly surprising: America's founders drew their ideas from the rational philosophy of the Enlightenment, as well as from the English common law; they said so themselves.

And to this evidence, we must add the fact that many of America's most influential founders held notably unorthodox religious views. Far from being the monolithic group of pious, church-going, by-the-book fundamentalists that today's religious right imagines them as, the founders were a diverse, freethinking group, few of them strictly obedient to any creed. It is almost certainly no coincidence that, while divine-right monarchies across the world have ended in degeneration or destruction, the American system of government whose origins were based in reason and not hobbled by rigid dogma has survived and flourished.

October 13, 2007, 10:48 am • Posted in: The RotundaCommentOptions

Bookmark This:   Del.icio.us del.icio.us   Digg Digg   Reddit Reddit   StumbleUpon StumbleUpon  

44 Comments

Brilliant!You have a way of boiling these things things down to their essentials.

Before America, practically all government was modeled on the religious, biblical type. The American Revolution was explicitly a rebellion against that style of government. The idea that we are a Christian nation, founded on Christian values, is so antithetical to the ideals of the American Revolution, that Jefferson, Washington, Madison and Monroe are spinning in their graves, as we speak.

Nicely done...I can't say I've ever seen any sort of analysis like this. Great post.

In Sagan's "Varieties of Scientific Experience", he comments that not once has any "Christian nation" followed explicitly Gospel principles.

America is a Christian Majority Nation, but it is also a pluralistic democracy that allows for freedom of belief, or in our cases, freedom to disbelieve!

I agreed with everything except: "It is almost certainly no coincidence that, while divine-right monarchies across the world have ended in degeneration or destruction, the American system of government whose origins were based in reason and not hobbled by rigid dogma has survived and flourished."

The American system of government has been in place little more than 230 years, whereas some of the world's monarchies held power for hundreds, if not thousands, of years before ending in "degeneration or destruction." Democracy, in the American sense, is far too young for us to say that it is immune to the short-comings of monarchy and theocracy.

I once challenged an apologist about how our government is based on the bible. He gave me the Isaiah 33 verse that you mentioned above - "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king". It's obvious this is talking about a monarchy, not three separate, equi-powerful branches of government.

But for the apologists, I'm afraid that if they repeat this lie of the USA being a christian nation enough times, they will believe it as truth.

Critical thinking and decent education are our only hope.

I've never understood why the religious right want a "christian nation", when it is because we are a secular nation that they have the freedom to worship as they see fit. If USA was started as a "christian nation" then I do not see how fundamentalism could have even got started, since many practises of fundies are considered blasphemous to mainline protestants (speaking in tounges, adult baptism, etc). If the christians of the 1770's (mostly mainline protestants in America) had control, they would have nipped these practices off at the bud.

One should also note that quite a few religious leaders at the end of the 18th century denounced the Constitution as an atheist document.

If the Christian right want to think this is a Christian Nation they would have to explain how slavery and the genocide of the Natives exemplifies Christian values. But, at any rate the government structure as pointed out was not built on Christian ideology.

The one point in your analysis that I disagree with is that the idea that the Bible supports the divine right of kings. In the Old Testament, God was reluctant to give the Israelites a king, and it never did end up going well for them. As far as I can tell, what the Bible seems to think works best is even worse, a priest led nation.

This is a very good post. I agree with most of your analysis and love the clear, simple way in which you've laid out your points. Good thinking and excellent exposition. Erika has already stated my one objection. Monarchy was not "God's" preferred option for the governance of "His" people, it was a form of government that those silly Israelites allegedly coerced "Him" into granting.

"If the Christian right want to think this is a Christian Nation they would have to explain how slavery and the genocide of the Natives exemplifies Christian values."

Actually, both slavery and genocide are Christian values. Old Testament values, anyway. Both institutions are spoken of favorably in the Old Testament. And Jesus himself spoke of slavery, not approvingly exactly, but not disapprovingly either: simply as a normal, accepted fact of life.

Great post as always, Ebon!

As usual, a fine post. I learn something valuable every time I visit. Even though I feel that I already knew all of these things, with regard to both the US and the Bible, this was the first time I'd ever seen assembled in this point-counterpoint manner. It will serve as a good model for me the next time I hear somebody make that claim. Thank you.

As far as I'm concerned, saying that the US is a Christian nation because the majority of people are Christian is akin to saying that we're a White nation because most people here are white. And I can only imagine what would happen if somebody were to claim that we live in a White nation.

This is an excellent analysis, and somewhat timely. I wonder if the "Christian Civilization Club" is still doing their booth at ARC, and whether someone less hopeless with formatting than I would be interested in formatting the above into a pamphlet readily distributable (I think it would be useful to have a printed version without a letterhead that says "atheism", though obviously the written version would properly credit Adam. Ebonmusings.org might be a better site reference; the idea is to reduce the probability of the reader dismissing it out of hand. x.x)

Garry Wills has a new book out on the topic of separation of church and state.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594201463/internetinfidels

LA Times review here:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten10oct10,0,3455157.story?coll=la-headlines-calendar

Rereading what I wrote, it might seem apropos of nothing, but Adam's post reminded me of the book review I read, which is why I mentioned it.

Nice work, Ebonmuse. This is a strong, concise rebuttal to a common apologetic myth, and is exactly the sort of thing we need.

Great post. Should be required reading for all xtians, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't know if anyone else here knows about it, but none other than Frank Zappa wrote of the same subject, in the song "Dumb All Over," and in his autobiography. He specifically called out Pat Robertson, saying that one of Robertson's most reprehensible activities is to rewrite American history with a christian bias. Zappa goes on to quote the founders of our country on the subject of religion, and leaves no doubt as to what their intentions were regarding the subject.

I've been a fan of Zappa's for a long time and this is one of the many reasons why.

It is innaccurate to accuse Pat Robertson of "rewriting American history with a christian bias." What he's doing is what my generation usually refers to as "making shit up."

Excellent post. This is all well encapsulated by the phrase "a nation of Christians is not a Christian nation", a quote I read recently and noted for future comment. You've saved me the job!

The writers of the Bible had mixed minds about kings. Though they criticized kings they considered bad, they nowhere argued that that means that we ought not to have any kings at all. This is apparent from their admiration of kings that they considered good, and who they believed the Messiah would be: a good king who would restore the Davidic dynasty.

And the Bible has several theocrat leaders, notably Moses and Ezra and Nehemiah and Peter. The latter was a bit Stalinist; when Ananias and Sapphira refused to turn over all their property to him, they mysteriously collapsed and died, or so we are told.

Excellent. My one niggle: All people have equal protection under the law, but not all people have the "same rights", insofar as only native citizens may run for President, for example. This however, is a minor point.

Excellent post. I'll remember these points to use in debate.

"Actually, both slavery and genocide are Christian values. Old Testament values, anyway. Both institutions are spoken of favorably in the Old Testament. And Jesus himself spoke of slavery, not approvingly exactly, but not disapprovingly either: simply as a normal, accepted fact of life."

That was the point I was making the things Christianity contributed to the founding of our nation where the worst things about this country.

Excellent post as always Ebonmuse! Thanks for sharing. I also feel like I learn something every time I visit. This post gives me more ammo against fundies that insist we were founded as a Christian nation. It's an argument I have had some trouble arguing against. I also struggle with the free will argument, the question of morality without god, the problem of original sin, and Christ's infinite atonement. Maybe in the future you can provide your insight on these other issues so we can continue to build our arsenal.

Yes, the preferred OT government was not a monarchy. A priest or prophet was to lead the people. When the religious leader is also the political leader and so controls every aspect of the lives of citizens, that's not a monarchy, it's a dictatorship. so, totalitarianism is really the best term for biblical government. Kings only tell you what to do, not what to believe and feel.

A Blind Trust for Religious Belief?

Earlier this month John McCain, in an interview published on BeliefNet.com, infamously said:
I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation… We welcome the poor, the tired, ...

Theocracies are inherently dictatorial. When breaking the law becomes a sin, humanity is likely to be jettisoned; this is one of the lessons of the Inquisition.

A companion piece to this is in order; one in which you compare the Biblical values against the founding laws of the land, presumably starting with the Ten Commandments and moving outward from that -- It's noteworthy that only two commandments condemn actions likewise prohibited by American law, and violations of some of them are actually protected.

Nekouken: I'm way ahead of you, my friend. :)

Great post!

But ever try having an intelligent conversation with a religious nut? They abandon logic and reason at the door..What gets me is that the religious right in America oppose evething Jesus advocated-(He advocated peace, charity and shunned greed).

Those that worship this man as a god have turned him into something quite the opposite..

I think the reason Christian zealots want everyone to be Christian in the US is the same reason Muslim extremists want everyone to be Muslim- Its all about conformity- Religion demands conformity, and independent thought is looked on with scorn. The parable of Adam and eve partaking in the apple (the fruit of knwledge) was a condemnation of questioning authority- and thus a demand for conformity....

If Christians really think America is a Christian nation, then why aren't they all out doing what Jesus would do- helping the poor, feeding the hungry, discouraging hatred, and advocating peace?
Christian zealots i have met care nothing for the poor, prefer violence to peace, and advoacate hate, not love...

In no way shape of form do the 'ideals' of the Christian right in America bear any resemblance to the teachings of Jesus....

I'm Jesus ever did return, they'd probrolly have him beaten and tortured, and shipped off to Gitmo..

Great post. I see the claim that this is a Christian Country is an expression of insecurity by the Christian right. These people believe that this country's downfall is approaching by way of the immigrants of other cultures and religions. Therefore, they feel the need to make this claim about the U.S. Of course the link is clear; this country was founded by white Anglo Christians (or their descendants). Maybe they figure that if they don't make the claim first, then the Muslims will say this is a Muslim nation. Heaven forbid!

"It's noteworthy that only two commandments condemn actions likewise prohibited by American law, and violations of some of them are actually protected."
- check out George Carlin's bit on the 10 commandments as he reduces them to two.
It's on youtube.

Thank you. The companion piece to this one would be "Is the American System of Justice Based on the Ten Commandments?" Of course, the answer is No. Putting aside your point (here) that the Commandments as originally given in the Bible are different from how they've ended up, the argument that there is a direct line from them to our legal system is silly.

Trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, the right to abstain from offering self-incriminating testimony, the right to examine the evidence against you, the requirement of warrants, habeas corpus—these are the things that make our legal system (in theory, at least) so special and so powerful. And none of those things has anything to do with the Commandments! (Any version of them.)

"This penalty is prescribed for crimes such as disobeying one's parents (Deuteronomy 21:21), picking up sticks on Sunday (Numbers 15:36), or being gay (Leviticus 20:13)."
At the time the Bible was written, there was no concept of what we know today as "gay." Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality.

Tim

Tim wrote: "At the time the Bible was written, there was no concept of what we know today as "gay." Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality."

Interesting point. While homosexual behaviour is condemned by Old Testament writers (at least in the approved Christian translations of these ancient texts) there is no mention of a person who is primarily or exclusively sexually orientated towards their own sex, either male or female. Of course, there is no mention or understanding of a whole lot of non-main-stream human endowments or disfunctions and a lot of clear-cut discrimination against those with disabilities. Jesus's attitude to physical illness was much more tolerant and understanding than towards cerebral, mental or cognitive disabilities. These were the only ones diagnosed and treated as being possessed by devils.

There is another interesting point to make. Let us assume that Jesus of Nazarath actually existed and did, in fact, travel around the countryside with twelve fishermen whom he had persuaded to abandon their families. The statistical probablity that two or more of this 13 person group was "homosexual" is extremely high. That includes the man, Jesus.

The Bible is completely silent about their sexual activity, or abnormal lack of it. For a homosexual or asexual, self-exile to the "wilderness" with a group of men would be a good way to avoid the strong social pressures of the time to marry and have children.

Females were not recorded as being encouraged to spent any significant amounts of time with any of the Jesus Band. Even the visits which Jesus is reported to have made to Mary Magdalene seemed to be done as more of a duty than a pleasure.

None of the stories credit Jesus as having any sexual feelings or temptations whatever. Only Paul/Saul mentions sexual temptation, and they occur within a strong misogynist framework.

It is really ironical that the man/god who is held up a an example of human "perfection" by American Christian extremists is so antithetical to their view of what is moral. The Biblical Jesus is the illegitimate son of a woman who was unwittingly impregnated by his (divine) father. He lived in a household where, if you believe the Catholic version, he was the only child of parents who never had sex, either normal or abnormal. His abnormal upbringing so scared him that he left home in his thirties and persuaded a group of local fishermen to abandon their families and travel around the countryside with him. Accept for directing that one of his disciples look after his mother after after his death by torture, he never accepted any responsibility of care for anyone, including children. He was certainly not a "family friendly" person.

I am currently taking a history class on Native Americans and a lot of the government that we have was based off of.... The Iroquois Republic. This was an alliance among many of the east coast tribes. It was established pre-colonel to protect each other from other tribes. It had all the branches and the original amendments could be seen in their society. In fact the very symbol we use (Eagle carrying arrows and an olive branch) uses their symbol (An eagle carrying arrows). We are not a "Christian based" Nation.... We were Indian based. More specifically an Iroquois Republic based nation.

I remember that during and before WW II, Hitler's chief of propoganda mastered the technique of the big lie - to make your claim so broad that someone was bound to believe it. We all need to be periodically reminded of that.

Also, there is the treaty of Tripoli, unanimously approved by the senate in 1797, and signed by John Adams. Article eleven states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

As a Christian foreigner -coming from an atheist background (family and education)-I agree that is hard to consider United States a Christian nation. I believe the majority of the population of your country DO NOT represents what a disciple of Christ should be and many important aspects of American history (slavery, racism, extreme violence, etc) are not examples of Christian behavior at all, also I do not manage enough information to support the idea that your country's core principles were established on Christian beliefs, BUT your vision of Christians morals is what concerns me.

I have to say it is very incomplete -and distorted-, mostly because you only use Old Testament references -with the exception of two New Testament references out of context-, a decision very convenient for atheist supporters -REMEBER I HAVE BEEN THERE BEFORE-.

O.T. has to be seen "through the eyes" of the N.T., for example you say "Protection from cruel or unusual punishment - Explicitly denied by the Bible", that is not true, you should say "unsupported in Old Testament times, supported and practiced by Jesus and his disciples(John 8:1-11).

Many of the practices of a rigidly organized society like early Israelite, during very especific times, seems tyrannical -but not even close to the atrocities of theirs neighbors and inhabitants of other parts of the world by that time- by our modern standards, but Christian morals established on New Testament principles are centuries ahead of many of the most important social reformations world have ever seen, like protecting childhood (Matthew 18:6)and racial tolerance (John 4:7-9).

Please go beyond traditional American experience at the time to analyze Christianity and try to inquire faith without negative preconceive ideas. A real disciple of Christ do not correspond to the many racist, ignorant, arrogant, selfish, xenophobic, retrograde individuals who have took to themselves the ownership of the Christian faith.

Sorry for my poor English.

O.T. has to be seen "through the eyes" of the N.T Comment by: Pablo Fuentes

I would say then that the OT has to stop being quoted by christian 'preists'. They cannot speak out of both sides of their mouths. Otherwise, you have rules and advice for life which can be contradictory of each other. If The NT superseded the OT, why are they still published together?

It is not secret, even in the most conservative circles, the preeminence of NT over OT. OT times and circumstances were very different and God’s revelation (obviously you cannot believe in that if you are not a Christian) wasn’t complete. Actually pre-Jesus historical, social, political and religious events were aligning through hundreds of years to prepare a most suitable historical context to receive the messiah. If you read the last part of the Old Testament is mostly a group of prophetic texts (written centuries before Jesus time) that predicted future events regarding Israel and the coming of the messiah. O.T. is the foundation for Christianity and contains many important teachings and historical information. Almost all of the early disciples were Jewish who knew about the promise of messiah. You cannot build a house without foundation; however the foundation is neither a complete building.

It is not secret, even in the most conservative circles, the preeminence of NT over OT.

Which is why Xians try so hard to make sure the 10 commandments are posted everywhere.

OT times and circumstances were very different and God’s revelation (obviously you cannot believe in that if you are not a Christian) wasn’t complete.

Why not? Why was this world not ready for god? Couldn't he create a world that would be ready?

Actually pre-Jesus historical, social, political and religious events were aligning through hundreds of years to prepare a most suitable historical context to receive the messiah.

Huh? You mean a world where the messiah would be ridiculed and crucified?

If you read the last part of the Old Testament is mostly a group of prophetic texts (written centuries before Jesus time) that predicted future events regarding Israel and the coming of the messiah.

Yeah, so? Prophetic writings were not at all uncommon. If they had actually been specific and fulfilled, then maybe you'd have something.

O.T. is the foundation for Christianity and contains many important teachings and historical information.

Such as what? How to mistreat women or slaves?

Almost all of the early disciples were Jewish who knew about the promise of messiah.

Again, so what? Many Jews still think a messiah might come. Just because they believed in one doesn't mean that one came or will come.

You cannot build a house without foundation; however the foundation is neither a complete building.

I don't see why an omni-max god couldn't.

Leave a comment

This comment form is a trap for spambots. If you can see it, don't use it. Use the comment form below.

Please uncheck this box before submitting your comment

Do not uncheck this box

Please uncheck this box before submitting your comment

Do not uncheck this box

Please note: First-time commenters are subject to moderation.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Comment preview:

Other options:

RECENT POSTS

MUST-READ POSTS (view all)

RECENT COMMENTS

SITE CATEGORIES (explanation)

ARCHIVES

BLOGROLL

PODCASTS

OTHER LINKS

THIS BLOG'S PARENT SITE

SEARCH THIS SITE

WHAT I'M READING

Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht

past books >

The Humanist Symposium
The Out Campaign

RSS 2.0 FEED

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

WHY "DAYLIGHT ATHEISM"?

FEEDBACK

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Opera
Firefox
Net Atheists Top Sites Blog Top Sites

Powered by WordPress