Why I Need to Thank Bart Ehrman - Another Great Humanist!

It was 2006, I had just left the priesthood. It was the loneliest time of my life and I knew there was no going back to the community I had left behind. Virtually all the friendships I had at St.Aidan's were based, to a large degree, on the common faith that we shared. That’s how a priest becomes friendly with parishioners. You start with the beliefs that are shared in common and friendship grows from there. Of course other types of friendship do arise out of the bond of faith, especially where common interests are found. I have played more games of golf with Douglas than any other person on the planet, and I look forward to any invitation from him to play again. Still,  leaving a faith community behind is especially hard because it not only severs that bond of friendship it also severs you from the community in an intellectual way. There is no one left to test your ideas with, especially when your ideas run counter to the zeitgeist of that community. The result is that you are now left completely alone to figure out your own spirituality, whatever that may be, as well as physically and intellectually. I knew I was an atheist, but thought that there must be more to my atheism than simple non belief.

Intellectual Christians? This is one of the ideas that is hardest for many atheists to understand. For example, how can it be that a well educated and "smart" person can believe in the resurrection?  This is a fair question to ask and it does ring true when an atheist points out that such a belief in the resurrection really isn't so smart. Humanists, as a group seem to be slightly more willing to look past this failure. Humanists know that educated people of faith can be quite rational in many other aspects and are willing to look past the failure of logic that would allow someone to believe in such silliness. It does not seem to work the other way around with Christians. Those who call themselves Christian, at least those who congregate in churches, run the other direction when a person declares that they are a non believer. This redoubles the feeling of loneliness for someone who has discovered that they no longer believe. Any discussion or verbal exploration of the topic of unbelief is discouraged by the behavior of the Christians with whom you may be visiting. They consider it impolite and very inappropriate for a person who was once in a position of leadership within the church to raise questions that may lead to a discovery that the tenets of their faith are untrue. They are just as unwilling to accept any criticism of the Church hierarchy and organization in my experience.  And so it is that a person who has left faith behind will find they are unable to reconnect with many of their former friends and will also find that they are cut off from the intellectual part of the community that they were once a big part of. 

Now that this stage is set, I need to express my thanks to Bart Ehrman. 

I have never met him in person but have read many, many of his books. He has given me, by extension of his written words, the friendship that I needed when I first left the church. The common experience of his interest in scripture, his complete lack of faith, and his love of history have made him one of my best friends. He has given me the intellectual conversations I missed so much when I first left the ministry. My favorite book by Ehrman is entitled Misquoting Jesus and in it he gives a summary of his gradual realization that he no longer believes the scriptures to be the literal word of God. This had a big effect on my own lack of belief because it added intellectual credibility to my non belief in the same way that Richard Dawkins book The Selfish Gene did. Ehrman dissects scripture with a very sharp knife, and cuts deeper into it than any other Humanist I know. Through Ehrman I found the intellectual nuance that was missing from many of my own arguments against Christianity. 

(Link to Book Below)

Here is one example of Ehrman's ability to reason, based on his deep understanding of Biblical history and scripture. This quote is about the apparent lack of original manuscripts of the Bible. Ehrman states, "If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what would be the point if we don't have [the original manuscripts of] the very words of scripture? In some places, as we will see, we simply cannot be sure that we have reconstructed the original text accurately. It's a bit hard to know what the words of the Bible mean if we don't even know what the words are!" He then goes on to say, "This became a problem for my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture that it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given them to them (and possibly even given them the words in a language they could understand, rather than Greek and Hebrew). The fact that we don't have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. And if he didn't perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words."

Ehrman then goes on to explain that the Bible is in fact a very human document rather than a godly one and must be studied as such. He goes on to state "This was a human book from beginning to end. It was written by different human authors at different times and in different places to address different needs. Many of these authors no doubt felt they were inspired by God to say what they did, but they had their own perspectives, their own beliefs, their own views, their own needs, their own desires, their own understandings, their own theology; and these perspectives, beliefs, views, needs, desires, understandings, and theologies informed everything they said." 

I couldn't agree more. Loneliness be gone,  Ehrman's humanistic study of scripture has shaped how I look at history, scripture, theology and the world today and for that I must say, "Thank You Mr. Ehrman." 

Link To Bart Ehrman's Blog: http://ehrmanblog.org

Ehrman's Book Misquoting Jesus:  http://www.amazon.ca/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

I added the words in square brackets [ ] for the sake of clarity. 

Top Five Reasons Why I Do Not Believe in God Anymore.

1. I struggle with the idea that there could have ever been a loving God. 

Sistine Chapel

I was a Christian for more than 30 years and struggled with this idea almost daily. As a member of the clergy, when I preached from the pulpit I always put forth the idea that God was loving, kind, just, and able to see past our human failings based on the model of Jesus Christ. I sincerely thought of Jesus Christ as the kind of person that embodied a loving God. He was kind to sinners, willing to stand up for the downtrodden, accepting of those who had different outlooks on life, like the Samaritans. The problem is that this God, the kind that is just like Jesus Christ, is not exemplified by the Christian church. Nor does that God seem to exist outside of the Bible.

There seems to be a strong correlation between those who have found God and how they treat others in this world. The Canadian Residential Schools scandal where over 150,000 aboriginal children where taken from their parents in an attempt to Christianize them comes to mind. That scandal resulted in numerous abuses of these children. I could go on and make a list of scandals starting with sexual abuse by clergy, robbing aboriginal children of their language and taking a wrecking ball to aboriginal families to make them more Christian. I could talk specifically about murder and wars by Christian leaders but I think you already get the point. The most war like people on this planet are religious. The most religious people on this planet are the most war like. They are nothing like the “perfect” God we are supposed to believe in.

If God is loving, why does he not intervene? Why does he not “check in” to straighten things out? If God was a parent, we would accuse him of child abandonment. If God exists, we certainly cannot say he is loving.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?” – Epicurus

2. The Bible does a poor job of explaining our world and our universe.

When I suffered my final crisis of faith I decided to take a three month sabbatical from the priesthood. I started to explore science for a better explanation of the world. (In all fairness I should mention that I owned a subscription to Scientific American for virtually the whole time I was a member of the clergy, but I digress.)

I started to look in earnest for a better explanation of this world that the one given in the Bible. Once I stumbled upon the “The Selfish Gene”, a book by Richard Dawkins I knew I had found and answer that straightened out any issues I had with evolution. What had been missing from my understanding of evolution was the molecular explanation made in Chapter 3 - Immortal Coils. Once I read this I knew there was no need for the hand of God in the making of humankind. I also read numerous books on cosmology, psychology, philosophy and science. They are so superior to any “god did it” explanations that they literally reduced God to something that might have existed before the big bang. Later, I went back to university. The best class I ever took at university was called Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences. It taught me the best parts of skepticism and how to use them wisely. Once the fire was ignited there was no turning back to the bible for answers.


3.Christian Treatment of Homosexuals. (and others)

Homosexuals Being Burned in Rotterdam 15th Century

If Christians really believe in the Golden Rule, “Treat others as you would be treated” their treatment of homosexuals over the ages betrays a huge hypocrisy. During the second world war German Christians sent gay men off to be exterminated with the Jews. All other Christian countries had already made homosexuality illegal and in some cases punishable by incarceration. Homosexuals are described by the scriptures as being heinous and murderous characters. Nothing could be further from the truth. A fair and unbiased reading of Saint Paul’s writings shows how wrong and how ignorant he really was. Modern science gives a completely different behavioral analysis of homosexuals. Fair and unbiased, science offers explanations of what homosexuality is and why it occurs that do not demonize or judge. Why is science better at being “Christ like” than Christians are?

Add to this that nonbelievers and those from other religions were treated just as badly over the ages and you’ll get my point.

4.What about the other Gods?

Thor fights the giants

As a Christian I dismissed all other gods without much of a thought. Did Thor really swing a big hammer that caused the thunder we hear?  Of course not. As a child I had learned about how the sun heats the earth and how weather patterns follow. The idea that Thor was needed to explain thunder seemed silly.

Did Apollo really bring healing, deadly plagues or ill health? Of course not. As a schoolboy I had already learned the germ theory of disease transmission. To implicate Apollo seemed equally silly.

I dismissed virtually all the prophets of other religions with similar ease. Did Muhammed really ride a white horse up to heaven? Of course horses cannot fly. That seems silly.

But, and this is a big but, when asked if Jesus walked on water, I would hesitate and say, “Well we don’t really know he didn’t. Anything is possible when God is involved.” Today I see it differently. I have studied other religions and see how it was that I was willing to be skeptical about them, but not about the far fetched stories in the Christian Bible. Now I believe in one less God than before; the Christian God.

5. Hell

А fresco detail of Hell
St. Nicolas in Raduil village, Bulgaria

What kind of omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God needs to use eternal punishment, in the form of a burning hot eternal hell to bring his people closer to him?  This is the God who we are told created us. This is the God who is supposed to understand, better than we do, how psychosis, neurosis and other mental diseases occur. This is the God who would cause sinners and non believers to burn for eternity, rather than explain himself or cure their mental disease. Threatening to send someone to burn in Hell is a manipulative and mean way of accomplishing anything. How can anyone love a God that is so evil as to do that to his own creation, especially when that creation is sentient?

To be honest, the fact that hell exists in Christian belief is proof that God truly is evil, or that religion was created by men whose intention it was to scare people into submission.

Today there are many people who see religion as benevolent and kind and gloss right over the concept of hell as central to their belief in salvation. Islam is also guilty of this manipulation.  This is clear evidence that all abrahamic religions are manipulative at their very core.

Christians who proselytize do so based on their fear that you are going to hell. (What a strange form of love that is!) When they repent it is because they fear hell.  Fear of hell is a poor reason for you to be a good person. Why not just treat people kindly because thats how you want to be treated.

6. I refuse to be a hypocrite or to be disingenuous. (Bonus answer) I could sit quietly in church, but what would that accomplish? I just don’t believe those stories anymore.  Hey, at least I have my integrity. It’s better to be an honest atheist than a hypocritical Christian.

Why the Inaccuracy of the Canadian Census Matters

Declining religiosity? A recent article in the Winnipeg Free Press correctly identified the fact that there are more "nones" in Canada, and Manitoba than ever before. The article states, "The 2011 National Household Survey released earlier this month reports more than 311,000 Manitobans, roughly one-quarter of the population, as having no religious affiliation." While there are many who think this is good news. (myself included) There are also those of us who recognize that the method used to gather this information is flawed. 

The 2011 National Household Survey did not ask Canadians what they believe. Instead it stated: 
"22. What is this person's religion?

Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if this person is not currently a practising member of that group.

For example, Roman Catholic, United Church, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Muslim, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Greek Orthodox, etc.

Specify one denomination or religion only.

• No religion" 

The obvious problem with this question is the part that says "even if this person is not currently a practising member". It is clearly biased against those who would say, "I was raised (insert religion) and am now a non believer." It has lead to bloated numbers that incorrectly indicate that there are more Catholics, Anglicans and Muslims etc, in Manitoba than there really are. In fact the number of "nones" has been steadily increasing as people shed the religion of  their parents in spite of this bias. 

Why does this matter? Because Canada's Federal government spends a lot of taxpayer money on religion. A lot. The whole purpose of a census is for the government to  have its own "reality check" and ensure that it is providing services that match the demographics of society. Over the last seven years the Government of Canada increased its spending for religious agencies dramatically. Consider that  the amount of taxpayer money given to religious entities for international development in 2010 was 42 percent higher than in 2005. It went up to 129 Million from 90 million per year in that 5 year period. Also consider that religious organizations that have lobbied the government in order to stop legislation allowing same sex marriage or abortion are the ones who have received this funding. Oh I know, they never "directly" lobby the government. But they do organize parades that lead to our legislature, or meetings in churches to stop legislation that would make room for homosexuals in Manitoba Schools.   Recently Crossroads Christian Communications received $544,000 of federal funding while openly espousing homophobia abroad and on its web page. 

It's just my opinion, but a democratic government's spending should reflect the values and demographics of its citizens. If we want better roads government should spend the money on that, but when 25 percent of the population has purposely distanced itself from the church, in many cases for good reason, Government should also respect that. This is especially true when these churches are already tax exempt. They really have no need for federal money. 

It should not be the role of our government to tell any citizen what religion they should follow and yet because of the wording used, the census does not allow us to leave our religion behind. This is just wrong. 

Today I Stumbled Over a Parade.

Today while walking home after an early evening work function I walked into a parade. 

No really, I literally walked into a parade. There were about 400 people waving anti-abortion flags and banners on Broadway. As I tried to scoot across Broadway avenue I was almost hit by a sign .  

I understand the need for free speech and the right to protest. We always have to stand up for those who want to freely express their ideas. That's what makes Canada so special. In our country everyone gets to express their opinion no mater how foul. But it does not mean that I have to like their opinion and it certainly is my right to tell them I don't. Frankly I think these ultra religious, bible quoting, scripture chanting wing-nuts are as offensive as it gets. Even still, I will always stand up for their right to express an opinion. 

After 5 minutes or so I thought I should exercise my right to free speech and tell them what I think, but before I said the first word I realized no one was paying any attention to them. The were being ignored by everyone else on the street. As they marched and chanted they looked around hoping someone would  return an affirmative glance. No one did. 

30 people were quietly walking along the sidewalk in various directions, I assume they were trying to make it home after work too. They seemed embarrassed to face these Catholic banner waving zealots. It was a remarkable experience to witness. It felt so good I decided to let the silence speak for me. 

I wish I could say the silence was an example of how Canadians can be "oh so polite". It was so much more than that. These protesters were literally marching and chanting to an empty street. Their voices echoed off of empty buildings. The people who walked down the street didn't even look up. With eyes averted everyone walked solemnly, silently along avoiding any eye contact that would reinforce this crowd.  Can you imagine a parade going by where no one looks up to see it? For six blocks as I walked next to this mob as I headed to my home only one man looked up, stopped, read their signs, listened to their chanting and then shook his head and muttered something unintelligible before he proceeded on his way.

Personally, I think silence screams.  It is saying fuck off and go home, let women decide for themselves. 

Why I support Bill 18 Manitoba's Anti Bullying Law

This Morning I will be speaking as a member of a panel that is gathering at the Carol Shields Auditorium at the Millennium Library in Downtown Winnipeg. The meeting starts in one and a half hours, at 11:00 AM and runs for two hours.

Why I support Manitoba Bill 18. http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/40-2/b018e.php

Religious life has many manifestations. For many people religious faith means a life full of reverence and love for their God and humankind. It is also deeply powerful and lends great meaning to ones existence. In smaller communities, especially where the foundations of the community were originally religious in nature, religion expresses itself in ways we are not used to seeing in our shared secular society. The religious culture in the small city of Steinbach is an example of this phenomenon. Shared community values and beliefs are seen as important to the fabric of the community itself.  Steinbach is a beautiful city with beautiful people in it.

I used to share in the religious experience, first as a born again Christian and then later as an Anglican clergyman.  I understand how hard it can be to see community values erode. One becomes unsure of what will come next.  Uncertainly leads to fear. 

Even still, today I am an atheist and humanist. I am not religious what so ever.

There are other manifestations of religion that are not anywhere as polite as the one I have just described. History shows us what happens in many parts of the world where religion has control or becomes the governing force of society. Those who have suffered from discipline or punishment from a religious government are not dealt with any where as humanely as those in secular democracies. History clearly shows us how (and why) religion has prevented women from having the same rights as men. History also shows us how ill treatment of homosexuals has been justified, time and time again, in order to prevent them from becoming an established part of our society. 

What forces made Canada different? Canada wasn't always the way it is today, a placid secular democracy.  145 years ago women began to stand up and insist that they should have rights equal to that of a man. Where did these women get these ideas from? Where did these brave women find the backing to press onward as religious leaders publicly called them down. 

Organized religion fought them every step of the way.  

The free exchange of ideas and ideals begins with Democracy and freedom of thought and speech. The creation and recreation of Canada's constitution placed all citizens on an equal footing, removing the obvious advantage held by religious leaders from certain religious denominations.  The history of Canada includes Town Hall meetings taking place place all over Canada after various levels of government were formed. This process was slow and it was organic. Those who were newly imported from Europe and the rest of he world  became engaged in our democratic processes at every level.  There were those who claimed to know what the mind of God  was and expressed their views at these meetings. Others who did not agree with those religious leaders finally had an equal say in the governance of society. As Canadians we have slowly and quite literally reformed what "Community" means in our own way. 

The time has come for us to be at ease with full equality and inclusion of LGBT people into our society. Collectively, Canadians have enabled gays and lesbians to marry, now we need to protect children from the bullies who would harass them into compliance with religious ideals.  In fact we need to stop all bullies that would harass our children, online or otherwise. 

In Canadian society the town hall has now replaced the church hall, and in Canada's town hall there is room for everyone. We would not have made the gains that we have made in today's society if we had not adhered to democratic, secular and humanistic principles by each of our successive governments. 

The principles of democracy, and the right to self organize have already been extended to many of the groups in our society that want it. This should includes LGBT teens who are trying to make it through our education system without being harassed. And when they are being harassed they need that self organized support group even more. 

There is no question about it, religious freedom is not being infringed upon. If we can allow children to self organize bible study groups in our public schools, why can't we let LGBT students do the same?  If we can demand that Christian children not be harassed send for holding to sincerely held religious beliefs why can't we ask the same for children struggling with their sexuality.  

Thank you for your time. 

Jeffrey Olsson

Does The Bible Promote Hatred? UPDATED

Spanish Explorer Balboa Balboa setting his war dogs upon
Indian practitioners of male love in 1513; New York Public Library

As an Atheist I am surprised at how many times people ask me if I think the Bible promotes hatred. I say it does while others, mostly Christians, say it doesn't. 

Lets look at the evidence! This article intends to take a very brief look into what the bible says about hatred and how it gets applied in Christendom.


Firstly, the bible does have scriptures in it that say "the Lord hates..." For example in Proverbs 6:16-19 it states: 

"16) These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17) A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18) A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19) A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." 


Note the use of the word abomination in Proverbs 16:16. There are actually only two versions of the bible which translate the Hebrew word Tōʻēḇa to mean abomination (a hateful sin). They are the Authorized King James Version (AKJV) and the  New American Standard Bible (NASB). Other translations do not use the word abomination synonymously with the word Tōʻēḇa.


The idea that a God hates liars, those who kill innocents, those who devise mischief or bear false witness is not really all that radical of an idea. I see this as a simple moral code that explains why we should not do those things.  In fact there are stories in scripture where people purposely lie to their enemies with the intent of serving God's purpose. There are also stories in scripture where God allows genocide or the murder of innocent children for those from other religions. Think of the great flood story or read Leviticus 26:22 and see what happens to those who worship other gods and you'll get my point. Scripture has strict requirements for humans, while God has free reign and a huge ego that needs sacrifice to be satisfied. 


A casual reading of these scriptures leads one to believe that the Christian God hates certain human activities. He is also willing to destroy those who partake in these activities and throw them to eternal damnation. It all seems a little extreme to me.  

Homosexuality
Homosexuality is certainly one of those human activities talked about in the Bible. The word abomination is also used liberally in the following passages.  Homosexuality is referred to twice in reference to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22). Five times in reference to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8). It is referred to in the context of prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Four of the references are nonspecific condemnations of the act itself (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10) There are no positive statements about homosexuality in scripture. 

Male lovers are burned at the stake,
Zurich 1482 (Zurich Central Library)

It is important to note that of the scriptures listed above, 1 Corinthians, Romans and 1 Timothy are all New Testament scriptures. This means that there really is no way to avoid God's judgement for those who would say that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament.  Homosexuality is still officially an abomination in modern Christianity. This may not be true if the church you go to is so liberal that they do not consider scripture an authority to be followed. 

Historically speaking, over the centuries the practices of the church include burning homosexuals at the stake, murder of homosexuals, laws passed in every Christian country banning homosexuality, incarceration and torture of homosexuals and more. During the holocaust homosexuals were included with all of the others who were killed. The word homosexual is still considered a pejorative term in many parts of the world. You can read more here.

In western countries with secular governments homosexuality has once again been removed from the law books as a crime. In some countries it has been recognized by the state in the same way heterosexual marriage has been. 

Hatred of women in scripture
The issue of biblical promotion of hatred towards women not as easily understood as the issue of homosexuality for a few reasons. One, while one scripture says things like "women are to be honoured" it also codifies the sale of daughters into slavery. "Honour thy father and mother" is a common theme that shows up throughout scripture and by all rights the idea is a good one. BUT, and you knew I would say "but", we have to carefully consider other scriptures that place women in a roles subservient to men or that would make it lawful to treat women as less than human.  Again, lets look at the evidence.  I have included only a few of the examples from scripture to make this point. There are many others.


Old Testament
Genesis 3:16 - Women cursed and blamed for the downfall of all mankind after being deceived by satan and eating the fruit of the forbidden tree of knowledge.
16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Exodus 20:17  - Concept of women treated as property codified into law.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Exodus 21:7-11 – Women as sex slaves
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Numbers 5:12-28 – Women tested for adultery using bitter water (there is no such test for a man). The woman is presumed guilty in absence of any evidence and made to drink water that will make her sick and cause her to miscarry if she is pregnant. All of this based on “feelings of jealousy” by her husband.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - How Rape is to be handled -this is scary
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you

New Testament
Ephesians 5:22-23 – Women subservient to men
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 – Women not to speak at public gathering of the church
34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:13-15 – Women prone to deception
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[a] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Titus 2:3-5 - Older women seen as wine drinkers and slanderers
3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

1 Peter 3:1-7 – Women are subservient and weaker than men.
Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. 7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Revelation 14:1-4 – Sexual contact with a woman defiles men
Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. 3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb.


In conclusion
In conclusion it appears that over the long course of history Christians have abhorred homosexuals and women to the same extent that their scriptures have required it. The hatred of homosexuals in scripture has clearly been used as a justification for many atrocities and Christians continue fight against those who would give the same rights to homosexuals as they would to any other person.The Hatred of women has also caused them to be treated as much less than human in many societies over the course of history. We cannot ever forget how the emancipation of women occured in western society only 100 years ago. Even today the inequality between men and women persists. 


The verdict: 
The Bible promotes hatred.  But you knew I would say that. 

Scriptures shown are either  Authorized King James Version or New International Version (NIV) Used with permission. All images were published before 1923 and are  used under Creative Commons Licence.

Rob Nash - Wouldn't know a bully if he was one

I just read A Free Press article by an evangelist named Rob Nash. He goes from school to school in Canada trying to convert kids, I think. Thats what people tell me anyhow. I am not sure. Whatever the case, you can read his Winnipeg Free Press article here: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/law-on-bullying-divides-194136641.html

My opinion is this: 
Rob Nash makes a factual error in what he says. 1.) He says, "Laws forcing us to join this group or that, identifying us with what makes us different will most likely result in..." 
The law in no way forces anyone to join anything. If Kids want to stay in the closet they are welcomed to. They do not need to stick their neck out, if they do not want to. 

2) Nash also says, "She said it began the day after she joined the gay-straight alliance. Someone carved an anti-gay slur into her locker door." 
So let me get this straight, the bullies up their game by doing even more bullying and the existence of a gay straight alliance is to blame for it? I do not think that is a fair characterization. The truth is that anti bullying programs have a lot to do with education about what is or is not acceptable behaviour, and obviously someone missed the point. What if this had happened when she had no support group to go to? It would have been much worse, she would have been completely alone with NO ONE to talk to about the problem. No matter how you define this the bully is to blame, not the innocent child who seeks support. The truth of the matter is that someone is being very mean to our children, and we need to find a way to support our kids. The more kids that step up to join these groups the better they function. 

3) Finally Nash Says, "There's no consistency from school to school, city to city or province to province on guidelines related to bullying." 
These guidelines follow the lead taken by Ontario, and they are province wide. Someone has to be first and there is nothing wrong with this. so now two provinces have set the standard for everyone. Why is that a bad thing? 

Nash seems lost, confused or biased, I cannot tell. He seems unable to connect with the solution to the problem, which is to teach an anti-bullying curriculum in schools and make a safe place for kids who need it. If teaching kids not to bully and to behave with empathy and providing a safe place for them to meet and form an alliance is the problem, what does Nash propose as a solution? Nothing? 

Top Ten Ways John Locke Helped To Pave The Way For Humanism, Secularism and Pluralism

John Locke (1632-1704) is one of those characters that modern Humanists often have a hard time accepting as a person of great influence. The reason for this is because John Locke was a deeply religious man.  When someone is quoted as loving the Bible, or saying “The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men.- It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter.- It is all pure” I start to cringe. I just don’t agree with Locke about this. Because of this I do understand why many Humanists and Atheists tend to ignore this man’s influence.

All I ask is that you hear me out, and look at the record this man has in defining the rights of others. You will soon see I am correct in thinking Locke was a great thinker who helped to point the way towards the modern humanist movement in western society.

Before I am accused by a Christian reader of being unfair  for making Locke a pillar of an Atheistic community I need to point out that not only did John Locke point the way to humanism, he was a thinker who actually helped move Christianity to the much more liberal version we see in the western world today. He is also considered by many to be the father of Classical Liberalism, a political movement that helped many Christians see the humanistic  seed in their religion.  For those Christians scripture became less important when compared to other civil liberties like freedom of conscience and  freedom of religion. Today, when liberal Christians read scripture, they now have basic concepts of epistemology to thank for their ability to discern what is true and what is fable. We Must not forget that Locke’s writing had this effect. The western world is a much nicer place thanks to this man.

This liberalizing force has had other effects on the way people read Christian scripture. Consider that freedom of conscience is not defended in scripture, and yet virtually every Christian in western society has little problem accepting this idea. Freedom of religion is also not defended in scripture and today many Christians consider this to be the hallmark of any great democracy.  Many would even die to protect that right.  Ask any Atheist who has a conservative Christian relative if that relative actually believes in freedom of religion. If the answer is yes, in spite of any other “fire and brimstone” beliefs that relative may hold, it is because of John Locke. I should also add that Christians certainly did not always hold to the principles of democracy as they do today.  In this century Christians are almost universally adamant about their love of democracy. If you are a humanist I hope you are starting to see my point about Locke’s influence on western society.

Here are the Top Ten ways that John Locke helped to pave the way for Humanism, Secularism and Pluralism in western society

1. Locke is the Father of Classical Liberalism,  a political movement that espouses freedom of conscience , freedom of religion, rule of law and political freedom. He argued for individual  conscience , free from state control. One look at these ideas and you quickly see how these political beliefs limit the role of the church in society and place the responsibility for governance on the democratically elected government. Concepts like separation of church and state were borne from these ideas.
2. Locke was an influential enlightenment thinker who redefined the concept of self. Locke postulated that the mind of the newborn child is a blank slate (tabula rasa) that is transformed through experience, sensory perception, education and reflection (thinking). By doing so he rejected the concepts of original sin and placed a primary importance on education and reflection. This theory also explains how it is that humans can believe such diverse things without the need for divine or demonic intervention
3. Locke developed the theory of mind and explained how it is possible to attribute mental states to oneself and others and to see that others have different desires, beliefs and intentions than you yourself may have. His ideas were picked up and expanded upon by humanistic philosophers David  Hume and Immanuel Kant, who are both prominent humanistic philosophers. 
4. He defied Cartesian dualist thinking by rejecting the idea that the soul is separate from the body. While this was not his own idea, his stature helped bring respectability to this idea, and to anyone who would look for naturalistic solutions within the realm of philosophy and modern psychology.   It also formed the basis of the tabula rasa idea mentioned above in point 2.
5. Locke formulated the classical reasoning for religious tolerance in a democratic society. “All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions”. He also stated, “We have a right to religious freedom because the nature of faith itself is contradicted by compulsion.” My interpretation of this is: Due to the requirement of faith, religion cannot be forced.  This is a pretty cool concept and it has literally changed the face of Christianity. Anyone who understands and prescribes to this belief should understand how burning someone at the stake is not helping their salvation. This thinking, adopted by others, paved the way for the pluralistic societies we live in today.
6. Locke posited that the state (government, courts, humans) cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints. By this assertion be identified the principle of pluralism and the need for secular government.
7. Locke explained that  government enforcing a state religion would not give the desired effect upon society. Where faith is required it must come naturally. “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom”
8. Locke argued that coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity. This opinion was based on observations of the results of the recently European Wars of Religion, in which countless people died over arguments or religious belief.
9. Locke asserted that all humans need be considered equal under the law, and treated fairly. “Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power vested in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, when the rule prescribes not, and not to be subject to the inconstant, unknown, arbitrary will of another man”
10. Locke understood the limitations of human knowledge and epistemology. In  An Essay Concerning Human Understanding  Locke stated, “No man's knowledge here can go beyond experience.”

All in all I hope you can see why I think this guy is so cool. Thanks!

Rebutting the Rebutter. Tastes great with toast.

This is Part 2 of a series defending the ideas in my book Leaving Faith Behind.  Today I am going to cover point number two of John Feakes rebuttal called "Atheist or Agnostic".

My observation, after having read many books on philosophy and having reviewed many websites arguing for the existence of a God is that just about anyone can use the language of philosophy. Just because someone uses that language does not mean that the ideas presented by them are elegant, logical, rational or reasonable.

The real proof of a good idea is found in the testing of that idea. The idea I was testing in my book was that of the existence of a God. However, the point I was making in Chapter 7 had little to do with the argument itself, instead it was about categorizing the responses various people may have when asked if they believe in God. The scale I presented in the book was not even an argument, it was a mere explanation that there is a continuum of beliefs from absolute faith in a God to no faith what so ever.

1. Absolute faith, 2. Thinks there is a God but has questions, 3. Does not know, 4. There probably is no God, 5. Absolute certainty that there is no God.

Like I said in the book, I am in category 4. Agnostic who leans hard towards atheism.

Feakes makes the following argument:
a) A person in category 1 may have had a personal revelation,
and
b) The person in category 5 cannot disprove God but only the arguments for the possibility of a God.

In one sense Feakes is correct; just because someone can defeat arguments that claim there is a God does not mean it really is so. It is possible that God may exist outside of human logic. Again, we need to be careful here because this truth is not proof of the existence of God anymore than Feakes correctness is. To claim so is a logical fallacy.

However a broader response is still required: I have not had a personal revelation so I cannot possibly be in category 1. If Feakes claims to be in category 1 it is incumbent upon him to explain and provide tangible evidence. (I should explain the proven fallibility of eye witness testimony here, but do not have time. Ask any court room judge or lawyer or read the history of the Salem Witch Trials. Just because your neighbour claims they saw you turn into a cat or curse their crops does not make you a witch, or a cat.)

Prithu Chasing Prithvi
at least we have a photo!

Feakes personal revelation of God through the holy spirit is not credible evidence of Gods existence. If it were I would be forced to choose between him and the millions of other people claiming to have had a different personal revelation from God. There are 2400 different names for God. I do not feel compelled to choose between any of them for that reason. Physical evidence is the only acceptable proof and it has not been provided. Finally, it is entirely possible that Feakes is mistaken. His personal revelation may be an error of cognition,  a failure of character, or may mean he has been tricked. I tend to think he is innocent of any malevolent intent and is just wrong about things. I will never forget that terrible evening I spent sitting with Grandma in the hospital emergency ward where an infirm man repeatedly screamed aloud that he was Jesus Christ returned to earth to judge us. Thank goodness they sedated him.

Now, on to the rest of the argument:

If that is the best argument a theist can offer there isn't much left to stand on. Isn't that the reason why Faith is necessary? To claim there is a God and have others (me) believe you requires physical evidence. Feakes has no physical evidence and his arguments for the existence of God have been defeated. How is it that I am illogical in this case?

It is possible that God may be hidden somewhere outside the universe. (Feakes does not even bother to make this claim.) But the complexity of that argument goes well beyond anyones abiltity to prove it. If God exists outside of the Universe I challenge anyone to show us where he is. The best we can do is to admit we can not know.

And so it is that I am an agnostic. I do not claim to know. Feakes, on the other hand, claims to know that there is a God without providing any physical evidence to support his claim. For me to accept that would be illogical.

The Problem of Evil: 

Back in Chapter two of my book I address the problem of evil. I have not yet found an argument that defeats this one. I challenge any Christian to show me how it is that this fails.  Here is the premise of Epicurus's argument:  (Assuming that the world is full of injustice, war, death, and malevolence as it is today and seemingly has always been)

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

I'll break it apart and examine each portion below:


1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.  If God is willing to stop evil in this world but is too weak, he is not really a God, is he. At least not in the sense put forth by Feakes where God is assumed to be omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing). Perhaps God is not smart enough to stop evil? That is also a good reason to wonder. In either case, God is unable, and not worthy of the title "God" in the Christian sense of the term.  Lets face it, there are numerous wars raging right now and people who are claiming first hand knowledge of God pray to him for peace, or for their faction to win. They literally claim God is on their side. Based on the death toll God does not appear to answer their prayers. What about the 25,000 children who will die of malnutrition today? What about the thousands of women who are forced to cower from the fists of their abusive husbands every single day? What about the floods, accidents and other natural disasters? Where is this all powerful, all knowing God? Not here apparently. Nor can he logically be omnipotent.

2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 

Priest Blessing Weapons with
Holy Water: Ukraine

If God is able, aware and not willing to prevent all of this evil he must be the evil one. Think about how Christianity makes the claim that God is our father. What father lets his children kill each other? Rape each other? Ignore each other in a time of need? What Father creates his children gay, black, white, (insert descriptor here) and then allows his other children to beat, murder or maim them? Only an evil father would do that. Whats more, I make this point using a humble human standard for fatherhood.  Shouldn't a God who is omnipotent and omniscient do better than we do as parents? Once again Epicurus is correct.

3. Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
Christianity attempts to solve this problem by introducing the devil but ignores its own claim that God is all powerful and all knowing. If there really is a devil running around in this world, God has to have given him free reign to do what he does. Lets face it, this isn't the Norse God Loki we are talking about. We are talking about a devil who seduces priests into raping little children, helps militant muslims convincing others to strap a bomb to their chests and commit murder suicide, and allows disease to cause pandemics killing millions. If God is able and willing to prevent evil, all he has to do is do it. Sadly, he has not done it, see problem 2.

4. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” 
Seriously, if God is not strong enough nor willing to address the problems of this world (let alone those of my favourite hockey team) why would anyone call him a God? It is here that Epicurus puts the final nail in God's coffin. The world does have evil in it. Therefore god is either not willing, or is not able. In either case god is not worthy of our worship or the name "God". God is dead.

Feakes response to this is as follows: "It simply does not follow that because evil exists in the world it is therefore impossible that a loving God exists. For Olsson to maintain this position, he would have to show that it is impossible that God may have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil we see in the world today."

No, I do not have "to show that it is impossible that God may have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil we see in the world today." The onus is on Feakes to make a positive proof, or at least a reasoned argument showing why God ignores mankind and creation. Seriously, what reason would God need NOT to prevent evil in this world? All powerful? All knowing? Loving?

Apparently Feakes God is dead, non existent, or just doesn't give a shit.

In my upcoming blog posts I will look further into Feakes biased review of my book and rebutt it one article at a time.

Part One of my rebuttal is here: http://leavefaithbehind.blogspot.ca/2013/02/when-christians-attack-irrationality.html

If you can stomach it, John Feakes rebuttal of my book is located here: http://www.carewinnipeg.com/articles/18-rebuttals-and-debates/68-leaving-reason-behind-a-review-of-the-humanist-apologetic-by-jeff-olsson

Oh, don't forget to check out his Creation Museum. It's so quaint. http://www.carewinnipeg.com/museum-home

When Christians Attack Irrationality Follows

Have you ever had one of those days where you just shake your head and wonder? It seems that ideology bends the human mind in ways that are not only predictable, but disappointing. Back in 2009 I wrote a book called Leaving Faith Behind. In this book I explain why I left the clergy, the Anglican Church of Canada, and eventually Christianity. I am now an Atheist and a Humanist.

Available at Amazon.com

One of the reasons I wrote the book was because people were making up their own reasons as to why I had left the faith. These ridiculous stories got back to me. I did not want unfettered speculation about the matter of my personal life to occur. I had witnessed character assassinations by congregants firsthand while serving at St. Aidan's Church in Winnipeg. I knew I needed to be clear, concise and compelling when I explained why I do not believe in a God anymore. I made no judgment of any of my old Christian friends and asked politely that they would understand and let me leave in peace. Not all of them did, some were very cruel. I'll leave that for another blog entry.

I consider Brett Cane, the former rector (chief clergyman) of St.Aidan's who I served under, a friend. A damned good friend. He never judged me harshly. He treated me kindly and even made it possible for me to make a polite exit. Even though it did get ugly, I can only say that he defended my right to believe or not, freely. He is a good man. He knew about my unbelief before anyone else within the Anglican Church. He acted as you would expect a Christian to act when they meet someone who is struggling with their faith. Kindly.

John Feakes is not like my former colleague. He has written a rebuttal of my book called "Leaving Reason Behind" that makes gross misrepresentations about what I said in the book. Feakes  is involved in running a ministry called C.A.R.E (Christian Apologetics Research and Evangelism) Ministries here in Winnipeg. This same ministry has a small Creation Museum in which Feakes claims to debunk evolution and he teaches young earth creationist ideology to his adherents.

As I read his review of my book I realized it was Feakes who left reason far, far behind.

Feakes entitled part one of his review of my book "What's Natural = What's Moral". In this review he reviews chapters 4 and 5 of my book and builds a bold straw man* argument:

"In the next few pages Olsson describes how the Anglican Church stood against homosexual behaviour on biblical grounds and his place in the middle of the debate. 
He states on p. 19:
“Faced with an explosive issue on which it appears the Bible is incorrect, I was forced to choose.”

From these statements one is left to conclude that the only reason the Bible was deemed “incorrect” on the issue was simply because homosexual behaviour is (i)“natural” and (ii) occurs in other mammalian species. 
Let’s examine these arguments. (i) Homosexuality is moral because it is natural. This is a rather strange criterion by which to ascertain the morality of a particular practice, particularly within a humanistic/atheistic framework because according to this worldview absolutely everything is natural! This is why Naturalism and Atheism are most often used interchangeably. If homosexuality is moral because it’s natural, then discrimination against homosexuals could also be deemed moral for the same reason.
(ii) Homosexuality is moral because it is observed in other mammalian species. This is a particularly nightmarish ethical standard.  By this criterion, all sorts of horrendous behaviour could be justified. For instance, in the animal kingdom, the males of many mammalian species will forcibly copulate with females. In humans this behaviour would be called rape. Ought we to regard rape as therefore moral? Likewise, some species will destroy their own offspring. In humans this would be called infanticide. Ought this to be regarded as therefore moral behaviour? Animals regularly forcibly take from each other. In humans this would be called theft. Does this mean that theft can be justified? Of course Olsson stands against such things as theft, rape and murder, but he fails to tell us why. Left with the criteria he provides us with in his book, we must see prohibitions against such actions as purely arbitrary."

What Feakes missed in his review of this section of my book is that I was not defending the morality of homosexuality. I was, clearly, attacking those who would impinge on the human rights of homosexuals in the course of defending traditional marriage. I never made the argument that homosexuality is "moral". I merely explained that it occurs naturally in mammalian populations and it is in fact quite common throughout nature. I also pointed out that since there is no gene transfer mechanism, homosexuality cannot "take over" the heterosexual preference of most humans. I stated "There is, in fact, no "war" on the family".

The title of chapter 4 is "Treatment of Homosexuals". I wrote that chapter to explain why Christians need to stop persecuting homosexuals and leave them alone. The last sentence of the chapter summarizes this thought as it states: "It is unacceptable to make a scapegoat out of the homosexual community."

Apparently Feakes did not comprehend the main thrust of that short two page chapter so now I will spell it out here:

"Treat others as you would like them to treat you". (The Golden Rule)

The golden rule is well known moral principle that predates Christianity by at least 1780 years. It is documented in law codes like the famous Babylonian "Code of Hammurabi" and hundreds of years later it was used in religious law texts like the Torah. It is a simple Humanistic principle that requires no religious affiliation to understand. It is by all rights a secular moral code. According to Christian scriptures Jesus repeated these same words. Words used  by many wise philosophers over thousands of years before his birth. Why did Feakes, a Christian, fail to identify this simple moral code that I left unstated in that chapter? (really, did I have to say it?) Perhaps it was more important to protect his religious fetish than to admit that Christianity's hatred of homosexuality has hurt or killed so many people.

In my upcoming Blog posts I will look further into Feakes biased review of my book and rebutt it one article at a time.

If you can stomach it, John Feakes rebuttal of my book is located here: http://www.carewinnipeg.com/articles/18-rebuttals-and-debates/68-leaving-reason-behind-a-review-of-the-humanist-apologetic-by-jeff-olsson

Oh, don't forget to check out his Creation Museum. It's so quaint. http://www.carewinnipeg.com/museum-home

*A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. (From Wikipedia)

Letter to CrossRoads Christian Ministries Founder Ron Mainse

Today, in response to the article linked below I wrote a letter to the founder of Crossroads Christian Ministries. I am dismayed that the Federal Government has started to fund groups that are endorsing hatred towards Homosexuals with public money. I will also be writing to my MP to express my disgust. 

My Letter: 

I just read the article in Winnipeg Free Press today that explains what's been going on in Uganda. Apparently your organization, Crossroads Christian Ministries has been receiving government funding to teach "hygiene awareness" in Uganda. I have been to Uganda recently, doing work to help the less fortunate near Jinja. My experience is that when government funding goes to groups like yours it invariably come with all of the baggage associated with your organizations teachings about homosexuality. Without ever having to say a word abroad, your current policies and teachings endorse the draconian laws proposed by the Ugandan Government. 

I am deeply disappointed that you are not explaining how "unchristian" it is to hold such bigoted views against any minority, especially in a country where the threat of a new law bringing the death sentence has been hanging over the heads of homosexuals for almost three years now. Where is your compassion? Why, on an issue that Jesus himself said nothing, do you find it necessary to make such a fuss. 

Today I will start writing a letter to my MP, to all MP's and to anyone else who will listen, explaining that your organization endorses a theology of hatred towards homosexuals. 

If Jesus met a homosexual who was about to be stoned to death on the street in Uganda would he also threaten him with a death sentence? If the answer is yes, then I no longer want to be associated with christianity in any way what so ever. It is clearly recognizable to me that christianity has become a religion of hatred, rather than love. 

Jeffrey Olsson

Winnipeg, Manitoba

I am referring to this article: 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/anti-gay-religious-group-gets-funding-from-canadian-government-to-work-in-africa-190597271.html

Uganda "Kill the Gays" Law Still Before Parliament.

In  early 2010 I was preparing for my first trip to Africa. My job was to go to Uganda and teach risk management to a large energy company that employed thousands of workers.

I did all the things anyone  would do to prepare for a trip overseas. I looked online for all of he information I could find out about Uganda. What would I do for entertainment? What local, cultural events could I expect to find? I already knew I wouldn't be staying in the city, I would be going to a remote area where a hydroelectric dam was being built north of a small city called Jinja. This knowledge made the mystery seem a little bit deeper. I was so excited to go, I thought this would be an adventure of a lifetime. 

The small hotel I stayed at was beautiful. It was nestled high on top of the riverbank looking down at the Nile River, hidden away in an obscure place called Overtime Rapids. It was like being in Eden, the food was great, the local people were innocent and beautiful. The local culture was rich. Every day it was about 30 degrees Celsius outside and every evening it cooled off to about 18 degrees. Perfect.  It was right smack on the equator and very near to Lake Victoria, the source of the great Nile River.  I  was convinced that this would be one of the greatest places to live in all the world.  

After the first two days I sensed something was wrong. I had recently read about the new Ugandan parliamentary bill that was being proposed that would make homosexuality punishable by death. This made my curiosity even stronger,  how could it be that such a law would be passed in a former British colony. Don't they have human rights laws in former British colonies?

Being one of the few people who spoke English in the area I quickly made friends with any other English speaking people I happened to find. It wasn't like in the city where english was the common language. Somehow, we seem to find each other in the restaurants or at the bar in Jinja. The owner of the hotel had lunch or supper with me every chance he got, (this was a privilege I was unaccustomed to), but I quickly found that it made sense in light of the fact that he needed somebody to talk to who was from his culture, just as much as I did. One day as we ate our lunch, we talked about the new anti-homosexuality bill at great length and I learned that not everything in Uganda was as rosy as the climate. He explained that in today's political climate any Ugandan who was gay would lead a life of desperate fear, especially if a family member or members of your village found out. He explained that this hatred ran very deep and some were beaten or ostracized for being gay. Upon this revelation we both sat silent, looking at the villagers swimming in the nile. It didn't seem so idyllic anymore. I reflected on how different it is in Canada and shared how astonishing it is to encounter hatred head on. "Ahhh, Africa", he said.   

It's easy to judge another culture when you're not from it. It's also easy to look down the end of your nose at another country where the economy is not as strong as the one back home. But that wasn't what was happening here. We realized that something was dramatically different in Uganda than we were accustomed to. It didn't seem to fit  with the rest of what we saw. 

The Ugandan economy is still  in great disarray, its currency is not accepted by any other African Country. People who live and work in Uganda  earn a mere pittance compared to the hourly wage that we have here in Canada. At a local coffee shop I frequented, one server spoke English. As the days passed  Naburye and I slowly became friends. She told me about how she used to be a school teacher but had taken work serving coffee to because it payed twice as much money. Her eyes lit up as she explained that she now earned 90,000 Ugandan Shillings per month. She seemed so happy as she explained that she was finally getting ahead and that she was able to get some of the things that she wanted for her kids. After she left to serve another customer I did the conversion, and found out that she was making the equivalent of $35.00 CDN per month.  She was a mother of two and worked a 12 hour day 7 days a week.  It was like a shock to me, and I wept quietly for a moment. I realized how wonderful it is to be a Canadian.  Naburye was trilingual, she spoke English, Luganda (a local dialect) and French. She had a university degree and was fully qualified as a high school teacher.  As  our daily conversations strayed to many different topics, I found that she was very well-educated and learned that we shared a wide variety of experiences when it came to raising children. She was just like me in one respect, she loved meeting people from other cultures and learning about them.  

Each day I would walk down the hill  into the local village to get some exercise. As I walked around I saw how the locals  lived. An entire family of five or six would fit into a one or two room wooden hut. The homes had sticks for a frame thatched roofs and mud covered walls. The children were always happy to see me and would run alongside me as I jogged or walk with me as I trudged back through the village each day before heading off to teach. Everyone was very nice to me, no exceptions.  

Uganda is a very Christian country, recent polls show 85% of the population  is Christian and 12 percent of the population is Muslim. The remainder of the population is split between traditional indigenous religious beliefs, Baha'i and non belief. Pollsters speculate that unbelief maybe as low as 0.9%.  To my knowledge there's only one secular school, a humanist grade school in Kasesse, many hundreds of kilometers away from where I was staying. Many times I found myself looking at a map trying to figure out how it would be possible to get there during my time off. It was just too far.  

Considering how “Christian” Uganda is, none of this business about homosexuality seem to make sense to me. How can a country where everyone is so pleasant, so polite, be so vehemently opposed to homosexuality? Why would people think it's okay to kill someone for having a different sexual orientation than themselves. Who was teaching people these things? This isn't the way that Canadian Christians act, is it? 

In Canada, we seem to have a "live and let live" attitude towards people that are different from us. We certainly wouldn't think that it's right to kill someone simply because they live their lives differently than us, especially if it doesn't affect us. Christians in Canada may be opposed to laws enabling homosexual marriage but they certainly didn't seem to be calling for a death penalty.  

Why is the attitude so different in Uganda? The answer to this question was explained to me by Naburye as she served me coffee in the restaurant one morning. On Sunday mornings people were told about homosexuality in church. As polite as she was she made no apology as she  explained why the church leaders were right and homosexuals were wrong for living their lives the way they did. “After all, the bible is very clear on this issue”, she remarked, " Unless homosexuals are willing to change the way they live they certainly will go to hell.  We do this because we love them, we don't want them to go to hell". 

I didn't dare object to her statement because I hoped she would say more to explain this thinking in the days to follow. Later, I took the time to ask her what she thought about birth control and what the church leaders were telling her about that. Her second answer was almost as scary as her first.

It seems to me that once you're outside of the cities in Uganda the only people who have a hold on the minds of the local villagers are the preachers in the churches and in the mosques. There is no voice of reason, its a monopoly. Naburye explained to me that condoms were the cause of AIDS and licentious living. Apparently, even after attending university she had no reason to question the teachings of the church. 

Many years ago when I was a young Christian I wondered what it would be like to live in a country where everyone shared my Christian beliefs. It was like a dream for me,  to be able to tell people about the God who loves them, the God who would save them. I wanted to see people's lives change, to see them set free from sin.  I had no idea that it would look like this! Uganda is a country that has had many wars run through it. It's also a country where greed and corruption seem to be the order of the day and where the lower class don't seem to stand much of a chance in the competition for good jobs. Minorities are marginalized, and apparently homosexuals don't stand a chance if this new law passes through Parliament. 

So it was that my great adventure to the source of the Nile was tainted by what I had learned. I was unable to look at Uganda with the great sense of mystery that took hold of me before I left Canada. A new mystery had taken its place, "How could life in a Christian nation go so horribly wrong for so many".

While I do have fond memories of Uganda they are bittersweet. Knowing that this law has yet to pass through Parliament, and that it hangs over the heads of every gay person in the country is truly disturbing. It has now been more than three years since this bill was first introduced and every person in the country is watching and waiting for this law to either pass or to be struck down. The majority of Ugandans seem to be cheering for this law. Even though it has not yet passed it brings terror to the minds of those in the sights of the lawmakers.

I now know what it is like when the church, and it's leaders are in control of a country, I can't imagine living in such fear. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/01/2013121392698654.html