Katherine Stewart

Katherine was gracious enough to answer questions about her book and our exchange is below:

Hemant: The book’s subtitle is “The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children.” Can you explain the “stealth” part of that? What exactly is the Christian Right doing that’s somewhat secretive or sneaky?

Katherine: Many of the initiatives I looked at rely to a surprising degree on misdirection and deceit of one group or another. The Good News Club itself, for example presents itself to parent and administrators as an outside group. But it creates the false but unavoidable (and, as far as I can tell, intentional) impression in young school children that its form of religion is officially endorsed by the school. It describes itself with nonthreatening labels such as “nondenominational” and “interdenominational,” which makes people think it’s broadly Christian, when in fact it’s highly sectarian. And it pretends to offer “Bible study,” when really it’s about indoctrinating kids in a fundamentalist form of religion. Anyone who doubts that should read the Statement of Faith on their workers’ applications.

Other religious initiatives are equally sneaky. The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools curriculum courses, for instance, present themselves as nonsectarian study of the Bible as a work of literature and history. But that’s just a thin cover for sectarian proselytizing. The “pizza evangelists,” who come into the schools under the pretense of offering instruction on bullying, anti-drug awareness, or character education turn around and use the platform to create opportunities for proselytizing. I should add that many of the activists I spoke to, and whom I describe in my book, take a delight in the sneakiness of their approach.

Hemant: If parents need to give permission for their children to attend meetings of the Good News Clubs, why does the fact that these groups meet in a school setting matter? Wouldn’t these parents just teach their children the same things in their own house or at a church if the school wasn’t an option?

Katherine: With older kids, that approach makes some sense. But remember, Good News Clubs focus on very young kids, in their first years of public schooling; a centerpiece of their program is the “wordless book,” which can be used to convert children as young as four and five years old. Kids at that age simply aren’t able to distinguish what takes place in a school and what is endorsed by the school.

Remember: we’re talking about little kids here. In their minds, no institution has as much authority as the public school. For them, if it is taught in school, it must be true.

I have seen several instances, including at my own elementary school, when the Good News Clubs were offered cheaper and better space at a church immediately next door to the school, and they declined. They want to be in the school because they know that kids will think their Club is endorsed by the school. Another important factor is that by placing the Clubs in the school, it becomes easier for Good News Club instructors to persuade the children enrolled in their groups to work to recruit other children in the school.

Hemant: What was the significance of the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School? How does it come into play today?

Katherine: The Milford decision removed any serious Establishment Clause concerns in connection with Good News-style activities, and at the same time it said that to exclude such activities represented an unconstitutional violation of speech rights. The net effect has been to propose that whenever a school creates what is technically known as a “limited public forum,” which is to say, as soon as it opens its doors to outside groups of pretty much any kind, it must allow religious groups such as the Good News Club. This decision opened the way for church planting in public schools and a host of other religious initiatives in schools.

In effect it gives a trump card to religious groups, because it is only in the case of religious groups that to exclude them amounts to a violation of their speech rights. So now schools can exclude a soccer club, or martial arts, or political groups, or a theater group if they wish, but the one category they may not exclude is religious groups.

The Good News Clubs made quick use of this trump card. Their numbers in public schools went up 728 per cent in the ten years since the Milford decision. And church-planting in New York City’s public schools went from 0 to 160 over the same period.

This decision is problematic, in my view. Schools routinely exclude partisan political groups from meeting in the school building, for instance, and nobody imagines that we are discriminating against anybody’s viewpoint. But now, when religious groups are excluded, they complain that they are being discriminated against. The Milford decision also undermined the idea that peer pressure or coercion are important factors in school-related cases.

Hemant: Do all these Christian groups need to pay the schools rent for use of the space? Do they pay what other similar groups pay? And can they get away with not paying if it’s a school-sanctioned club like many other after-school groups?

Katherine: Generally they pay what other outside groups pay, which is not very much. But in many instances, you can’t call it “rent” — it is generally a use fee or a custodian’s fee. In the instance of churches planted in public schools in New York City, it amounts to a state subsidy. Instead of paying for their own buildings, buying their own furniture, paying for heat, electricity, air conditioning, renovations, and upkeep of the facility, the churches in question simply paid a custodians’ fee. That’s not “rent” by any stretch of the imagination.

Hemant: I only know of a handful of high school atheist groups and possibly only one middle school atheist group. Do any other religious groups (or atheist groups) try to form in elementary schools or is that strictly a Christian phenomenon? Either way, would that be a good idea for those of us who are not Christian?

Katherine: I don’t know of any atheist groups in elementary schools, but I think it would be a bad idea for the same reason that I think it’s a bad idea for the Christian groups to do it. However, it would be interesting to know what would happen if people were to try to set up an atheist group in a public elementary school that went after “churched” kids, the way Good News Clubs go after “unchurched” kids. If such a club were disallowed, that would highlight problems with the current policy and might potentially be used to challenge it.

Hemant: Would you rather see schools allow *all* religious groups to meet in the building (outside of class time) or should they close the doors to religious groups altogether? Are both legal options?

Katherine: Again, if we are talking about elementary schools, I would exclude religion as a category, just as we exclude politics as a category. It used to be legal to exclude religion as a category, and it is legal in a limited way in certain contexts. However, in most of the country, as a result of the Milford decision, it is no longer legal to exclude religious groups.

At the high school level, I think after-school groups in general should have maximum leeway. But bear in mind that a number of the religious groups make an effort to insert themselves in school-related activities, such as athletics. If Christian athletes want to get together after the game and after school to talk about their religion or engage in acts of worship, that seems perfectly fine. But many groups now attempt to make their religion part of the game, inevitably forcing everyone on the team to take a public stand.

We should not get overly legalistic here. Some things are legally or constitutionally permissible, but that does not mean that they are the right thing to do. If a school in a diverse community is to function well, its members need to show a certain amount of civility and respect toward one another. We are all free to practice our faith, if any, in our homes, houses of worship, and any number of other places. Do we really need to turn our public schools into religious battlefields?

Hemant: At one point in the book, Pastor Rich Lang compares the methods of the Child Evangelism Fellowship (which runs the Good News Clubs) to the Hitler Youth because of the way they target children. Is that a fair comparison?

Katherine: Some of the evangelical missionaries that I have read explicitly cite the Nazis, the Taliban, and the Bolsheviks as models of other groups that focus on children. Not every effort to preach to the young is a form of fascism, but fascism characteristically involves indoctrination of the young.

Hemant: Other than getting educated on the issues, what would you like readers to do in response to reading your book?

Katherine: They should support groups working for the separation of church and state. They should support politicians and political movements that work to bring better people to the judiciary. They should strengthen programs and policies that promote tolerance and civility in our public schools. They should inform themselves about what is taking place in their local schools, and they should educate others about this movement in our midst.

The Good News Club is available today in the four bookstores left in the country and everywhere online.

If you use the service at all, you may already be a fan of @almightygod. With nearly 25,000 followers, he may be the most popular deity out there, which, as we all know, makes everything he says totally true.

He was kind enough to answer some of my questions:

Do you exist?

I tweet, therefore I am. Besides, If I don’t exist, then who pops up the next tissue in the Kleenex box? Case closed!

Do you believe in yourself?

I don’t believe. I know.

All Christians claim to be “True Christians”… but they can’t all be right. So which sect has it correct?

I don’t want to spoil the exciting high-stakes guessing game I’ve set up, but I will say that it’s not a denomination that’s famous for raping children.

Who’s going to win the Republican primary?

Based on the crowds at the debates, the winning candidate will be someone who loves execution, hates gay troops, and thinks the uninsured should just die. But I don’t want to spoil the surprise for you, so keep tuning in to those debates. I’ll give you one hint: It will be a white man.

Why do you hate the gays so much?

It’s not so much that I hate them. They just gross me out… and they deserve to be executed and then roasted in hell for eternity. Other than that I’m fine with them, especially if they’re funny.

The platypus… Were you high when you created that one?

Yes, but that’s not why it turned out so strange. I had a box of spare parts left over after creating all the normal animals and I decided to superglue them all together and add some X-Men like electrolocation superpowers to the bill.

What’s your biggest mistake?

The flood. I shouldn’t have saved those 8 humans.

What’s your biggest secret?

I sometimes use my omniscience to watch people pee.

You must get a lot of action up in Heaven, no?

Well, ever since I kicked Asherah out and had her murdered along with her priests, goddesses just don’t want to come back to my place. I did put it in a human lady a few millennia back, but that turned out to be too much drama. So, I just do what any single dad would do. If I don’t answer your prayer, that’s probably what I’m up to.

You seem to pick on Third World countries a lot. What did they ever do to you?

People in Third World countries tend to die sooner than in rich countries. So, you might say that I love them more since I’m taking them to heaven sooner. And if they’ve never heard of Jesus before, they’ll go straight to heaven on a technicality. You’re welcome, Third World countries! See you soon!

Atheists say they just want some evidence that you exist. So why can’t you just give us some solid proof?

I could just offer some proof and take all the mystique out of it, but I’d rather hide myself from humans and then punish anyone who doesn’t believe the stories about me. I value blind faith and fawning more than informed camaraderie. If I offered a bit of proof, those inquisitive humans would just want more information and more intervention. It’s easier to just take a hands-off approach and then reward and punish people after they die. I’ve got to keep up my reputation for working in mysterious ways.

Will the atheists ever win and get everyone to stop believing in you?

No. And even if they did, humans will always be willing to believe in crazy things. I doubt that I need to provide examples.

…

Thanks to @almightygod for giving me His time… when he could probably have spent it saving lives or sending us the cure for cancer or something.

Excerpts from our conversation are below. The remarks are entirely those of Ms. Ouellette, except for my own, which are [marked off in brackets].

I’ve edited our remarks for the sake of clarity without affecting the content.

***

On her experiences in math classes:

I had a really good Geometry teacher — that was the last time I really enjoyed math. but I remember asking him in high school the usual question: “When am I ever going to use this?” And he tried. He tried to let me know, but I thought I was going to be a writer and it would never be relevant. [Laughter]

…

I never liked math, but I’d always done well in it. I got straight As all through high school, and that includes my Algebra classes, but I didn’t understand what I was doing in Algebra class. To this day, I do not know how I got an A in Algebra class.

Teachers encounter this a lot. There [are] certain students — and I was one of them — … we test really well on standardized tests. We pick out patterns and we figure out what you want to hear very, very easily and it makes it hard to teach us. Teachers don’t understand that [it] actually looks like we’re learning and maybe we’re not, and that was what happened to me in math class. I knew I didn’t understand it and I was terrified of being found out. As a result, I had a huge amount of anxiety over that and it just colored my attitude towards math from then on.

[Because you could get by?]

Because I could get by and I felt there’s something wrong here. I know I’m getting away with something.

***

On her next book:

It’s gonna be quite different. But it grew out of [The Calculus Diaries] because one of the questions I had to ask myself while doing this was, “Where did that math phobia come from?”… Part of it was [that] there was a whole series of… factors that made me self-identify at some point as bad at math. There were lots of different things. It wasn’t any one thing. So I started asking questions about how we build identity and how that helps us and how that harms us, how it makes us hold ourselves back. So the next book is actually going to be looking at the science of self and identity… Me, Myself, and Why is kind of the working title.

***

On whether women have a tougher time excelling at math and why that might be the case:

It’s way too easy to just say, “Blame the patriarchy.” That is certainly part of it, though. I’m of a generation… where that was still very much an issue. And there’s also family, sibling dynamics that play [a role]. I have a brother who’s a year older and I was very, very good at music and writing and things like that. So my folks wanted us each to have our thing so they decided that my brother was good at math… and it was ironic that my brother was “good at math” when I was the one getting As…

[Was he not getting straights As?]

No! Plus, I was writing his English papers for him. [Laughter] But those little things all add up. Just little things. But the fact that numbers, perhaps, did not come as easily to me, I actually had to work a little at the math, and because I was very smart, I wasn’t used to it. So I felt, well, “I must really be stupid. I must be bad at this.”

… One of the most important things I learned was that every time I got a B, or failed at something, or felt like I failed, I learned more, because I was actually pushing myself. I realized that if you’re not slightly uncomfortable, if you’re not a little bit at sea, you’re not challenging yourself.

The first teacher who told me that changed my life.

***

On math books aimed at girls:

I love [Danica McKellar's] books. I know she’s been critiqued for “pinkifying” math, and I get that, but I think that there are girls who are pink. I have a niece who’s pink. I also have a niece who’s goth. So I think Danica is targeting an audience, a demographic, of girls who like those things. They’re girly girls. And she can speak to them and make math relevant to them in a way that most of us cannot.

I can make it relevant to Buffy fans and to people who dig zombies. So the goth group is my group… I think [Danica's] doing something very, very important. I think you need to look at who the target audiences are for [my own] book because no one book is going to serve every need.

***

Ouellette is the author of The Calculus Diaries and The Physics of the Buffyverse. She blogs at Cocktail Party Physics and is also on Twitter.

Last week, I had a chance to sit down with Neil deGrasse Tyson at The Amazing Meeting 9 in Las Vegas. We discussed the future of the space program and science education, among other things.

Excerpts from that conversation are below. The remarks are entirely those of Dr. Tyson, except for my own, which are [marked off in brackets].

I’ve edited our remarks for the sake of clarity without affecting the content.

***

On the lack of qualified science teachers and how to get more people interested in science:

While increasing the ranks of teachers, or making them better in the STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] fields… sure we need that. But I think it’s overrated in the impact it would actually have on the nation… What the nation needs is something to stimulate a sort of “STEM field zeitgeist” of the entire educational pipeline.

And when you do that, then everybody wants to become a scientist, and everybody wants to become a teacher, but to create a program to create more teachers is… was it Saint-Exupery who said, “If you want to build a better boat, don’t teach people carpentry. Teach them to long for the sea.”

[And they'll find a way to get there?]

Yes. And it’s the longing that innovates. It’s the longing that drives human emotion and human ambition… and that’s different from the teacher lighting the spark. Which, of course, you need, but the teachers don’t light sparks in everyone, maybe a few kids per class, at most. If you teach a person to long for the sea, they’re gonna beg, borrow, and steal to make a boat to get there. You don’t teach them boatmaking.

[Have we done a good job of teaching them that longing…?]

We haven’t done it since the 1960s.

[With the space program?]

Yes, that’s correct.

[What do you think is the equivalent of that now...?]

A funded space program. Going to Mars. If we did, and you choose the astronaut class — by the way they’d be in middle school today — you choose ones that are doing well in school, that are physically fit, that are kind, that’ll handle it… they’d be in Teen Beat magazines, they’d be interviewed on the evening news. It’d be cool again to be a scientist, to be an astronaut. It’d be our modern version of the Mercury Seven, who were paraded around the country as a next generation of explorers and discoverers.

…

You want better science? Create a project that is so compelling, that people will climb over the hill to want to become scientists. And create the compelling case to get the best teachers there can be in the service of that interest and that ambition.

***

On whether private companies can replace NASA now that its funding has dropped:

There’s been a misconception about the role of the private sector in this exercise. It’s been commonly thought that NASA is ceding the frontier to the private sector. That’s just not the case. There is no marketplace on the frontier of technology that has never been tested before. The scale of funding and the uncertainty of return of that funding requires governments to engage in it as an exercise… That’s always been the case.

…

The Dutch East India trading company was not the first to land in America. That was a government-funded project that sent Columbus, it sent Magellan… then, once you know what the dangers are, you can mitigate against them, you know where to go, you know where the cultures are, you know where the riches are. Then you can set up your business channels.

So the private enterprise, in the context of American space exploration, involves access to low Earth orbit, where we’ve been for the past 50 years. The entrepreneurial space is not to advance a frontier; it’s to gain inexpensive access to low Earth orbit, creating other business opportunities there. That’s what it’s gonna do. Meanwhile, NASA will continue, if it’s properly funded, to advance the frontier beyond that.

And you can imagine a day when NASA needs a lift to the Space Station. It doesn’t fire its own rockets; it rents a seat on a commercial vehicle. The US Postal Service does that. They don’t fly their own “postal planes”…

But the first person to do it, there is no business case for it.

If the government has foresight, it would do it because it would believe within itself that, one day, it would become a huge enterprise that it could then tax. That’s all there is.

***

On science literacy and whether it’s getting better or worse:

I’m neutral on that. There are pockets where it’s getting better and other pockets where it’s worse…

[Where are we good and where are we bad?]

With the explosion of the Internet, your access to good science sources is as never before. You don’t have to even get out of your butt — as in the old days, you’d have to go to a library if you didn’t have science books at home — you don’t even have to leave the easy chair to search on countable number of web pages that feature science content. Not only that, you can channel surf and find a station — multiple stations — given unto science-themed documentaries. When I grew up, you’d go months before you would come upon such a show.

…

You have access. But just as you have access to the good stuff, you have access to the bad stuff… there can be a mistake that’s published, no one knows how to judge it, and then it runs through like wildfire. Either because the fact is tasty, or very retell-able, or they want it to be true…

…

The easiest misconception is the fact that people don’t know how to ask for the meaning of information they’ve just learned.

There was a news article that said, “In August, 2003, Mars will be closer to Earth than it’s been in 60,000 years.” So do you freak out…? Or do you say, “How much closer will it be?” It’d be, like, a couple of inches closer than it was last year. Just because it’s a record doesn’t make it interesting. Just because it hasn’t happened in a long time doesn’t make it unusual… The alignment of the planets at any given instant — it’s not going to repeat for 200,000 years or more. So, “Wow, it’s rare, so let’s get a picture of this rare configuration!” Well, 5 minutes later, it’s in another configuration that’s not gonna repeat for another 200,000 years… it’s rare, but uninteresting.

Those things distort anybody’s understanding of how to interpret data, the meaning of a statement about a record.

…

I celebrate access to science that’s out there, but I lament the noise level of what can contaminate the really good sources [of information]…

***

On something — anything — that’s not cool about him:

My Achilles’ heel… hmm… I have some more TV work coming in the fall and I’ve gotta get the TV weight going… The camera puts pounds on. I want to look as good as I can… whatever is possible given my age and body type and whatever… just because then it’s, in television, it’s writ there forever, and so you want to at least look your best, as they say. So I’ve got some pounds to lose, I think. I want to lose at least 30 pounds, possibly as much as 50. That’s a lot of weight. So I’m Chubby Neil right now.

But wait till the fall! It’ll be Six Pack. Ripped. Back up when I walk into a room then!

***

Tyson is the author of The Pluto Files and Death by Black Hole. His next book, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier, is slated to be released in 2012.

Daniel Fincke, who writes the always interesting and challenging blog Camels With Hammers recently interviewed me via instant messaging for a few evenings. He will be publishing it in installments over the next several days.

You can read the first installment here, where he asks me about my background, the development of my atheism, and how the Ask Richard column got started.

In the next section he will ask me about anger in families divided over religion, and I also talk about effectively communicating with theists.

Future installments, probably one each day, will include:
Atheism and Religions As Bases For Identities
How Atheists Should Respond to Alcoholics Anonymous, and How Personal Values Influence Professional Therapy
The Ethics of Lying To Stay In A Protective Closet
How Atheists Should Confront And Replace Religions
Whether Believers and Non-Believers Should Avoid Marrying Each Other
Whether Believers Are Literally Deluded
Mistakes Atheists Make

Dan asks wonderfully evocative questions and he had me working hard, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Whether or not you agree with some of the things I say, I think the interview will stimulate some useful thinking as well as positive dialogues between people.

You all contributed over $15,000 toward a scholarship to help Damon out. Even after several days, I can’t get over that fact when I look at the number. Thank you to everyone who contributed. If you’d still like to chip in, you can do so until the end of the month:

You can also make a donation on behalf of Damon to the ACLU of Louisiana and FFRF.

A lot of readers have been curious about how Damon is doing. I sent along your questions to Damon and his brother Jerrett, and they were nice enough to offer responses:

What was Damon’s motivation for emailing his principal about the prayer?

Damon: I felt as thought it was a direct violation of the First Amendment, aside from being blatantly disrespectful of other religious views. A prayer at graduation to one specific god does nothing but separate the class into religious groups, anyway. The class of 2011 can’t unite under one specific view if they don’t all carry that view.

…

What’s the current living situation with Damon? What are his plans for the coming months and the next school year?

Jerrett: Damon is currently living with my sister, Heather. She’s in a 1-bedroom apartment in the Dallas area. This summer, I will be helping him register for classes, getting him a cheap car (because you just can’t live without a car here in Dallas), getting all his important documents from Louisiana, and, of course, we are looking into our legal options against Morehouse Parish.

As far as school is concerned, I will be setting him up with Dallas Community College to get some of his pre-reqs out of the way and helping him possibly get signed up for the University of North Texas in the Spring. This would all depend on what he actually wants to do with his life. I’m a firm believer that he shouldn’t go to a 4-year school without knowing exactly what he wants to do.

…

What are Damon’s college ambitions?

Damon: I’ve been looking into a few different things, but I can’t say with 100% certainty. I do plan on going to college soon, though.

Jerrett: Damon has mentioned to me that he wants to be a game programmer, but at this point I think it’s most important to focus on the core credits until he figures things out 100%.

…

While all this controversy was going on, did Damon have any student or teacher support at his high school (even in private, if not in public)?

Damon: I did. Though they didn’t agree with me, a couple teachers did show that they were proud of me for standing up for what I think is right.

…

Not to get into family gossip, but why were your parents mad about this particular incident? Was that out of nowhere? Was it building up from other things? Have they always been very religious?

Jerrett: My parents can be a little unpredictable about things. I heard rumors that they fully blame me for everything that my brother did in the last several months, from admitting that he’s an atheist to the school prayer incident.

It probably has a lot to do with the email I sent my mother when I was 23, after I left home to go to school the Dallas area. She kept trying to rule my life, asking me if I found a church in Texas. I finally got tired of it and told her, in a lengthy email, that I am agnostic and there is no way I’ll ever go back to Christianity. She tells me that I’ve gotten too smart and that because of that I have turned my back on God. Apparently, to her, there is a such thing as “thinking too much.” I think out of a reaction to what I did to her years ago, she’s lashing out at Damon. It just gives her an excuse to hate, to cut people off. It’s sad, but I can’t really do anything about it. All I can do is move on with my life. If she wants to be part of it she’s got to do a lot of apologizing, not only to me, but to my brother and sister as well.

…

Do you think reconciliation with your parents is possible?

Damon: I can’t say. It doesn’t seem likely at this time. Maybe in the future.

Jerrett: She needs to do a lot of make-up work if she wants to be in my life again.

…

Has Damon considered starting an atheist group at his college?

Jerrett: Both of the colleges that Damon wants to attend have secular groups already.

…

How can all of us help?

Damon: Really, any support is great. I never asked for much. When I posted that Reddit article, I was only looking for a little motivation and support because I knew I wouldn’t get any locally. I’ve gotten more than that and I’m very grateful for it. I thank all who have given their support, even if it was just a few seconds out of their time to tell me that they’re behind me on this.

Jerrett: My biggest fear is that, since this is the Internet, people will find other places to focus their attention. This is going to be a long and drawn out battle and there is little we can do to make it go faster.

The support so far is amazing, more than I could have ever imagined, however, I hope that the support doesn’t go away. We need the community behind us so that we have the strength to follow this through. This isn’t just for us, this is for everyone out there as well. Anyone who’s hurting, marginalized, ignored because of their lack of religion or religious preference. My dream is to see this through and to have full support all the way.

…

Is there any thing you both would like to say to readers that hasn’t been said already?

Damon: I would like to say that I will continue the fight. I’m not backing down, and I will continue to stand for Constitutional rights as long as they’re violated. They’re there for a reason.

Jerrett: I would just like to reiterate that we really need the community to support us. This is a long battle and it’s not going to be easy. Please don’t be “Internet forgetful” about this. People are marginalized every day and we have to fight so that future generations can feel more free than us.

For anyone interested, after a conversation with Jerrett about what to do with the donation money, we’ve decided that I will send him the money straight-up and they will figure out the best way to make use of it. Since Damon’s college plans aren’t solidified yet, and the tuition wouldn’t go to just one school, this plan works for all of us.

I’ll provide proof that this transaction took place as soon as I can. Jerrett told me he will provide updates about the money on the Support Damon Facebook page.

While we’re mentioning interviews today I wanted to pass along that I’ll be on FOX News’ Alan Colmes Radio Show tonight at 10:30PM EST to discuss the Secular Student Alliance’s recent success in helping secular high school students! It should be positive – yes, it’s FOX, but it’s Alan Colmes who I suspect will be friendly to our message.

I’m never sure what to expect, though. (Hemant has been burned by this before, too.) I’ve had pretty good experiences in general. I was interviewed on Faith Talk Radio earlier today – an evangelical show – and we had a polite and respectful conversation.

If you get a chance, tune in!

Well, that sounds all well and good. There are certainly many stereotypes about Christians… but they’re usually well-deserved, right? In the book UnChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, the authors wrote about the terms people most often thought of when they heard the word “Christian”:

Homophobic.

Hypocritical.

Too political.

Judgmental.

Having a “must-save-you-or-else” mentality.

Sheltered.

Now, Changing the Face of Christianity is trying to fix all that and they definitely have an uphill battle.

Brad White is the founder and president of the organization. He answered a few of my questions about the organization via email. I know it’s long, but I urge you to read what this reformer is trying to do… and see if you think he gets it:

Are Christians aware that people think of them this way [with those stereotypes]?

Some are, but unfortunately many are not. There IS a growing movement in this country by like-minded people to take back the church, so to speak, from those that choose to live in an UnChristian way absurdly in the name of Christ.

There are many who feel like they are doing a service by condemning and ridiculing homosexuals. This is both homophobic AND hypocritical and their intentions don’t justify their means. Just like most people at least subconsciously know they are selfish to the core, I believe that many Christians subconsciously realize they are often hypocritical and judgmental. However, since it’s not on the surface, they refuse to see it or do anything about it. Our agenda is to change that status quo. We are shining light on the problems within our Christian faith, to convict believers to take action and work on themselves.

You’ll enjoy this. I spoke at a morning Christian devotional meeting last year and I asked people to tell me the first word that came to their mind when I said “Christian.” To my surprise, out of 20 or so people, 3 immediately said “hypocritical.” Another 2 said “judgmental.” And to be fair, many others said “loving,” “compassionate,” etc. My point being that there ARE Christian followers that acknowledge the problem. Our mission then is to help these people move from A to B, status quo to Christian transformation… to put aside judgment and bring their behaviors in line with their beliefs.

Have we earned the negative stereotype of having a “must save or else” mentality? Yes. This is a conflicting issue for most Christians. I loved what outspoken atheist comedian Penn Jillette says on this issue: “If you truly believe I’m going to hell, and you truly believe you have the answer, and you DON’T tell me, then you must really hate me.” That’s the difficulty. Many who have this attitude do care for you more than you know, and because they care, they are sharing the gospel with you. Now, as a former atheist, and someone who has discussed this issue with many current atheists, what these well intentioned Christians don’t understand is that you have heard it many times before. I admire those who are so convicted by their faith that they share it without regard for how they come across. What they don’t realize is that the “save you or else” attitude generally produces the opposite effect. Instead of a warm fuzzy feeling, it enrages you.

This is where Changing the Face of Christianity steps in with a strong message to Christians. STOP! For those Christians well versed in the Bible, we have to accept that whether anyone comes to Jesus Christ or not is truly out of our hands. It’s God’s job.

Here is what we recommend to these people: If you truly love and care about that person, then simply love them unconditionally. Don’t befriend them with ulterior motives just to try to save them. Just love them. If you can’t love them for who they are, then you don’t really love them. And be open to listening to them and their beliefs. Again, not with an attitude of trying to change their mind. People who truly listen and give their time to someone else with no strings attached… those are people who love others as God calls us to. Said in a way like Jesus likely would say it, If you truly want to save them, then love them, feed them, serve them, humble yourself before them, give your life for them. We don’t do that very well. Over time, we hope to change that.

On the Too Political and sheltered stereotypes, I don’t believe many in our faith see it at all. Let’s first define the terms. Too political in our context means using politics to force our beliefs on others through legislation. Sheltered, which we call “superficial” on our website, means that we live in a Christian bubble and rarely seek to engage with the rest of the world or learn new things like advances in science. Again, these are difficult issues to wrestle with. Everyone involved in politics is fighting for their own beliefs and values. Christians fighting in the political arena to end abortion are doing so because of strong convictions. Homosexuals fighting in the political arena for gay marriage are doing the same thing. Where Christian behavior needs to be more consistent with our beliefs is in how we treat those NOT in the majority. We must not use our political influence to subordinate or withhold rights from others that we enjoy. When it comes to being sheltered or superficial in our understanding of the world, again we are guilty as charged. Part of our mission is to help Christians understand advances in science, and learn how to integrate those advances into our faith. We may disagree, but I strongly believe that science and religion/faith CAN coexist. So instead of fearing what there is to learn there, we should embrace it and seek to learn more.

If even most “liberal” Christians remain opposed to gay marriage, how can you really change the perception of Christians as homophobic?

To me, it all comes down to how homosexuals are treated by Christians one-on-one, either face to face or website comment to website comment. What’s my attitude toward homosexuals? When we address that in a positive, constructive way, over time I believe the perception will start to reverse.

Now, let’s talk about the issue of gay marriage. This is a HOT issue at least in the USA. I’m going to answer this the long way to explain my personal opinion.

I saw a comedy routine several years ago called “Defending the Caveman.” Google it. It essentially talks about why men and women have such as hard time relating and communicating. It’s because we speak a different language. Men speak to Men…and everything is ok. Women speak to women and everything is ok. When Men speak to women, WE speak as if we are talking to a man, and the women hears us as if they are talking to a women. It fails. Then we sleep on the couch!

Ok, so why the metaphor. I think the HUGE problem with this debate is a matter of language and interpretation. When Christians talk about gay marriage, we are talking about what we perceive as Right vs Wrong. When LGBTs talk about gay marriage, they are talking about dominance and control vs. equal protection and rights. When Christians oppose gay marriage, are we using politics and religion to dominate and control? Yes. And we (Changing the Face of Christianity) believe that such dominance and control is wrong.

Ok, so what is the big problem with language then? In our opinion, It’s around the term “Marriage.” This is going to sound contradictory but it’s truly not when you understand the language, from a Christians’ perspective. I support a homosexual’s right to a “civil union” but not to “marriage.” How can that be? Christians believe that “Marriage” is God-ordained and is DEFINED by God in the Bible as a sacred and holy act between a man and a woman. To allow “Marriage” to be redefined as an act between two men or two women, or to mandate that a Christian church or pastor officiate such Marriage as a sanctioned act of God, is simply unconscionable.

Now, am I ok with two men or two women having a civil union in a government sanctioned civil court? Absolutely! I’m perfectly fine with it. Would I prefer to see a homosexual couple in a committed civil union relationship or an uncommitted one? In a committed one. I’ve personally witnessed a lesbian couple who had a child through a sperm donor, bonded with the child, and then broke up, just like in heterosexual couples. The birth mom had legal custody of the child. The other lady had absolutely no rights under the law. Lots of issues there, but saying it briefly, it would have been better for the child to have both women with custody. They both heaped love on the child, and the child deserved better.

So why all the fuss over gay marriage? I don’t presume to speak for the majority of Christians on this. However, I strongly believe it’s because homosexuals are fighting for “Gay Marriage,” even if all they are really seeking equal rights to are “Civil Unions.” It’s incredibly unfortunate, but we simply can’t talk to each other any better than men and women can’t talk to each other after eons of trying.

Changing the Face of Christianity officially started in 2010. How we engage with homosexuals is one of 6-7 major issues we are bringing to the forefront within Christian churches and communities. We will certainly say more on this topic on our website over time. So stay tuned as we work within Christian circles to improve the dialogue and mutual respect between heterosexual Christians and homosexuals. And regardless of what we do, we will have strong opposition within our Churches. This is a mission that I expect will take an entire lifetime to see to completion and we’ve only just begun. We would welcome your support and encouragement.

Do you consider being gay a choice?

First, and possibly most importantly, I am a heterosexual and I can’t possibly walk in the shoes of a homosexual. So, all I can do is express my beliefs based on what I’ve seen, heard, and observed. I don’t claim to have any special knowledge in this area.

Short answer: I’ve seen conflicting evidence and passionate arguments from both sides. So for me, the jury is still out. That is, until someone can help resolve the conflicts or show me the irrefutable evidence. Until then, I’ll have to place my faith in what I’ve seen so far. I am very open to reading and learning more on the subject. So, if you have any suggestions, please reply back with your recommendations.

Long Answer: I’ve seen strong evidence that it is a genetic pre-disposition. That’s tough to debate. I can recall kids as early as age 10 [who] were stereotypically effeminate, and very likely went on to BE homosexual after puberty. I’ve also personally known several heterosexuals who later Chose to be bi-sexual or homosexual. I don’t know what you call them, so I simply call them “switchers.” Another person I’ve not met but I heard about a while ago, who was a very active and vocal PRO lesbian her whole life but switched later in life, shows evidence that regardless of any genetic pre-disposition, it can still be a choice. Here is the link to her site. You can read her personal story here.

So, what do I believe? If I had to take an educated best guess, I’d say that homosexuality is something you are genetically pre-disposed to and yet it’s still a choice.

Let me give you a non-homosexual metaphor. I’ve heard that alcoholics are born that way (genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism). They don’t know it until their first drink. For most, you drink and you can easily take it or leave it. But for alcoholics, you take the first drink and you are hooked. It’s an addiction. You can’t stop. It becomes a part of you. Someone says, why don’t you just stop drinking? And the response is, “Do you think I would choose this? It’s not a choice. I can’t stop even if I wanted to.”

So, in either situation, whether it’s alcoholism, homosexuality, or anything else you want to compare it to, the question our organization would ask is: How should YOU as a Christian treat that person? And the answer would be: love them, support them, and encourage them. Do NOT reject them and for heaven’s sake don’t condemn them as if they are somehow worse than yourself.

You say you want to tackle Intolerance within the Christian community. What would be an example of a “tolerant” Christian? Are there examples of well-known Christians who fall in the tolerant camp?

Intolerance is one of the 6-7 major issues we are trying to reverse within Christianity. So, again, we welcome your support in our mission to reverse Christian intolerance.

Now, I hope this next part doesn’t disappoint you. Intolerance is a big word with many definitions. As we’ve shared our message of tolerance, we have encountered some reasonable backlash. For example, many people believe that “tolerance” means the same thing as “agreement” or “approval.” People that believe in that definition oppose us and for good reason. We aren’t seeking that kind of tolerance. That’s not how we define it.

Tolerance as we define it is more like “disapproving but not being jerks about it.” “Disagreeing without attempting to force our beliefs on you.” But communicating those distinctions [is] an uphill battle.

I don’t think (correct me if I’m wrong) that most Atheists want our agreement that God doesn’t exist, but [would rather we] just leave you guys alone to live in peace! E.g. “Tolerate you.” Just as we want you to tolerate us (not disrespect us for having different beliefs).

Certainly some radical atheists would rather see all Christians, all believers of any religion (and the lawyers, too) drowned at the bottom of the ocean (which is it’s own bit of intolerance). But the vast majority of Atheists I’ve encountered simply want to be left alone and to have respectful conversations about beliefs.

I’ve spent a lot of time on Atheist sites and having conversations with Atheists. Having been a former atheist myself, I empathize with you. I CAN and HAVE walked in your shoes on that one. Atheists don’t want to be “saved,” “prayed for,” or “preached to.” It’s sad that so many Christians are blinded by a desire to “save” someone that they end up irrecoverably pissing off the very people they are trying to “save.”

So, as an organization, we seek the kind of tolerance that will allow Christians and non-Christians, Christians and atheists, Christians and Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. to be able to sit in the same room together having a polite and sometimes passionate conversation with the other side, without disintegrating into rude, disrespectful, and demeaning, close-minded debate. Can’t we both share our beliefs, disagree, and still go have a beer afterwards as friends? Even if Christians are in the majority, can’t we allow other religions equal freedoms under law? I would hope so. The USA is not a theocracy, nor do mainstream Christians desire a theocracy. We just want the freedom to practice our religion, just as others want the freedom to practice their religion or lack of religion. That’s the kind of tolerance we seek. Tolerance even in the face of disagreement.

An example of a Tolerant Christian then, according to our definition, would be one that can engage in conversation with people who have strongly differing opinions, keep the tone civil, be open-minded to learning about the other person’s view, and not come across with an arrogant attitude. Not simply talking to someone with an agenda to convince them, but to have mutual sharing.

I know many tolerant Christians, most of which you probably wouldn’t know. And unlike “I am second,” we aren’t trying to compile a list of such people. So, the best I can do is suggest a few authors that have written great books that we really relate to that seem to have the attitude we seek. Drew Dyck, author of Generation Ex-Christian is one. Another well known figure is Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill church and author of several books. [Hemant's note: Rob wrote the foreword to I Sold My Soul on eBay]

May I ask you or your readers the same question? What would be a good example of a tolerant atheist, and who is your best known tolerant atheist? Who do you believe best represents the best of what atheism can be?

Will your organization call out specific examples of Christians who are guilty of perpetuating the stereotypes? I see atheist blogs doing this all the time, but it would mean a lot more if the same criticism was leveled from other Christians.

Absolutely. That is definitely part of our plans. There was a “Pastor” of a church in the Dallas, TX area who was recently arrested and charged with the theft of property from one of her former church members. It’s scandalous! At this point, she is “alleged” to have committed the crime, and I’m sure at some point will be convicted. But until the ruling is made official and she is found guilty, it would be irresponsible of us to come out publically.

Enough press has already been given to the Catholic bishops and arch-bishops charged with pedophilia and their subsequent attempts to cover it up. Both are regrettable examples of hypocrisy. Another great example is the folks at Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. They are the group that protests the funerals of USA armed forces personnel, because they believe their deaths are signs of God’s judgment because of rampant homosexuality in our country! They are the ones that take the position that “God hates fags.” There are two words in their name that I have great disagreement with: Baptist and Church. They are a very intolerant, hypocritical, homophobic, and judgmental bunch. I hesitate to even call them Christians. I believe on God’s judgment day he will look in their faces and say “I didn’t know you.”

How will your organization address popular pastors who are guilty of being homophobic, overly political, etc.?

Over time, I can see us taking positions against parts of their ministries which are too political or homophobic, etc… But to be clear, we are not a “witch hunt” organization. We will first and foremost accept them and love them, and seek to offer them a different way of looking at the situation. If you want to provide us with a list of such pastors and what problems you see, we would be happy to investigate the issues and come out with a formal stance on them. It may be hard to see, but many of these pastors are also doing very positive things. It would be hypocritical of me to say to any one of them that they must step down because of a moral failure or because I disagree with their approach. All humans, including pastors, are broken and need compassion and mercy on an ongoing basis. So, the opportunity I see is that we could approach these pastors, share our mission and passion on the topics, help them see the damage that they sometimes cause, and ask them to move in our direction. Change would be a long term goal.

If your vision comes true, what do you hope to accomplish with your organization? (I ask this because, even if Christians were “true to Jesus” and not guilty of the stereotypes, most atheists I know wouldn’t be any closer to accepting Christ. We aren’t Christians because there are intellectual reasons against it, not because Christians don’t live up to Jesus’ standards.)

Our mission IS what we hope to accomplish. We are working to reverse Christian intolerance, hypocrisy, homophobia, judgmentalism, and other negative Christian stereotypes, by helping Christians to be more like Jesus Christ. Christian maturity is defined as becoming more and more like Jesus Christ. To mature takes desire, education, and assistance. By pointing out the damage we sometimes cause in the world, we hope to instill the desire for change. We seek to educate Christians on HOW to live and love others as Jesus calls us to. And we will work to assist Christians in this change.

Now, here are few byproducts of that change we welcome and expect over the long term, but again to be clear… this is not our purpose. When someone hears the word “Christian,” we want that to be a sweet sound to the ear. Truly! If the majority of Christians you encountered lived lives you appreciated and respected, because of the love they directly showed to you, we would hope the image of Christianity in your mind would be changed for the better. Just like Atheists don’t like being looked at with disdain, neither do we. We don’t like a “bad” Christians giving a bad name to Christianity, and so it would be nice to have a positive reputation.

I don’t believe that WE can convince an intellectual atheist to become a Christian. As a former atheist, I can tell you that no argument could ever convince me. It’s God’s job to do that in His own timing. However, given the stereotypes we are trying to reverse, our lives don’t often offer a very compelling example of what Christ can do in the life of a believer. So, why would you even be interested in the first place?

I don’t have to tell you that there are many types of Atheists, just as there are many types of Christians. Some atheists would be convinced of the existence of God if they truly “saw” God working and moving in people’s lives in a good and positive way that defied all “human” reason. If we can help in that area, as a byproduct of our mission, then we welcome that. For those atheists that need undeniable evidence, we could only pray and ask God to provide that evidence for those who are truly open and willing to see it.

How will your organization reach out to atheists? (I think a lot of atheists distrust Christians because there are usually ulterior motives at play when Christians say they want to work with us.)

There is an incredibly well-earned amount of distrust between atheists and Christians. For most Christians, it’s hard to put down the desires to “save them” long enough to just be in relationship with atheists. So, we lead with our agenda and you can see it coming a mile away. Beyond the question of “does God exist?”, if we actually took the time to get to know each other, we might find out that we actually like each other in spite of our differences. To be fair, my experience is that most atheists lead with their own agenda of deconversion when talking with a Christian.

So, the way we would prefer to reach out to atheists is in the form of open-minded, agenda-free dialogue. I ask you questions about what you believe, you respond, you ask me questions about what I believe, I respond. If we can leave our agendas at the door, we might actually learn something about each other. That sounds simple, but you’ve got to know how incredibly difficult that proposition is. From my experience, everybody wants to be right, and everyone wants you to know they are right.

On most blogs, I see believers and non-believers fighting it out. Everyone is doing a lot of talking and not a lot of listening. Someone famous said “you can’t learn anything while you are talking,” and I agree. So, we would aim to talk with you, but do a lot of listening.

Again, I KNOW you won’t be convinced by anything I could say. So, why waste my breath and your time? We either must learn to just leave each other alone, learn to talk about everything BUT God, or learn to listen and learn from each other with civility and mutual respect. We’re working on the third option… engaging you with civility and respect, and seeking to learn from you, not to convert you. Is that tough? Yep. But I believe it’s worth enduring through the lack of trust long enough to repair trust, build bridges, establish areas of agreement, and simply talk as friends who truly care for each other.

So, with that in mind, It’s my turn to stop and listen. How would you WANT us to reach out to you?

And one more question. Will you support what we are doing?

Do I support what they’re trying to do? Sure… I applaud anyone who can hold a mirror up to the church so it can see itself the way most of us do.

But it’s clear that, in some cases, Brad just doesn’t get it. And if that’s true, then I don’t think he’ll get very far.

Like the gay marriage thing. It’s really not just a matter of different definitions. “Married” couples simply have more rights than couples with just a “civil union.” All states recognize marriage, but not all of them will recognize a civil union from another state. There are tax breaks married couples get that those in civil unions do not. There are hospital visitation rights for married couples but not domestic partners.

Christians don’t have dibs on the word “marriage.” If marriage is truly Christian-God-ordained, as Brad said, then I guess all non-Christians should be stripped of their right to marry, too. (Sorry, mom and dad.)

But. I don’t think any of this is what Brad intended to say. I think his intention was that he’d be fine with gay couples getting equal rights under the law. As long as they refrained from the word marriage.

Again, this is a problem. I don’t care at all if some church pastor refuses to marry a gay couple. He doesn’t have to and I wouldn’t want him to. No pro-gay-marriage initiative has *ever* mandated that a pastor officiate a gay wedding. But the government should not be in the business of defining marriage in a Christian way. They should not be saying, “You can marry this person, but not that one.”

Gay couples (and straight allies) are fighting for equal marriage — with that term, because separate but equal isn’t truly equal — under the law. No one’s telling your church what to do or how to act.

Also, please never compare being gay to being an alcoholic. You’re never going to win any arguments with us that way.

…

As for the Christians Brad “calls out”… it’s a nice start, but going after Westboro Baptist Church is like shooting fish in a barrel. Going after a pastor who may have stolen from her own church? Easy. The Catholic Church? Really? (Are any churches defending these people?) I’m not interested in Changing the Face of Christianity calling out jackasses, alleged criminal, and pedophiles. That’s easy to do. None of that takes any real courage.

…

What about the statement that “some radical atheists would rather see all Christians, all believers of any religion (and the lawyers, too) drowned at the bottom of the ocean (which is it’s own bit of intolerance)”?

Wow.

None of the “radical atheists” — I presume Mr. White’s referring to people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and PZ Myers — have ever said we’d be better off if the religious people were dead, or anything even remotely close to it. Seriously, give me a citation for that…

We don’t need to resort to that because logic, evidence, and all of reality is on our side. “Radical atheists” want to convince you you’re wrong with our arguments. (Radical followers of religion, however, have no problem killing abortion doctors or flying into buildings in the name of martyrdom.)

By the way, not all the “radical atheists” would get rid of religion if they were given the option, either. We don’t want to “force” people into atheism any more than we want to live in a theocracy. They have to come to that decision on their own.

That was an irresponsible thing to say, and I hope Brad understands why.

Bottom line: Brad still has a lot to learn. But I sincerely think Brad seems to be open to getting educated about it. That’s a good first step.

So let’s educate him.

He finished 5^th in the season finale of Last Comic Standing earlier this week. If you need any proof of his appeal to atheists and science/math geeks everywhere, just take a look at these two clips of him in action:

Myq describes himself as “a Jewy-ish atheistic vegan” (among other things).

He probably would’ve grabbed my attention with that description alone, but I came to enjoy his comedy even more after I started reading his blog and Twitter feeds (especially this one). He’s clearly a gifted comedy writer who has a very unique way with words.

In the aftermath of the Last Comic Standing finale, Myq was kind enough to answer my questions:

So, you won this competition, right?

Correct. (Just don’t do any fact-checking on this one.)

What types of religion jokes seem to go over well with your audiences (regardless of their religious makeup)?

I aim to have my jokes be enjoyable by all reasonable people of whatever faith they want. I know that the definition of the term “reasonable” can vary, as there are some people who hate that I’m a “Jew” even though to many Jews I’m probably not that much OF a “Jew.”

But as far as most of the audiences I come across, people are generally receptive to whatever jokes I tell, which skew towards my belief in the real physical world, which has many amazing things and people in it. (I’m an Earth half-full kind of guy.) I talk about things that exist in this plane of existence, and that includes religious people and their beliefs, which I do support as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others (which happens sometimes).

Sometimes taking religious documents literally also can lead to some humorous scenarios, and I find that most reasonable religious people (of which there are many) are cool with pointing such things out as well. You can believe in God and also enjoying laughing at ridiculous things. I think. And what I think matters, because as I understand it, I was made in God’s image, so he must feel similarly at least a little.

Are there certain topics you feel are off limits in your comedy?

No. The great thing about standup is that you can talk about whatever you want. I don’t that gives comedians a license to be cruel, but freedom of speech is a powerful thing, and when we start saying “say this, but not that,” we miss out on things of significance, I think. I mean, I don’t talk about things like bestiality merely to be inflammatory, but because I have (hopefully) substantial and interesting things to say about it.

Do you feel that jokes about Christianity help you or hurt you with the show’s judges? (Or did they only care if it was funny or not?) What about with the American public, who ultimately voted for the winner?

As far as the judges go, I think they were just looking for good comedy by original comedians, regardless of topic. Funny was their barometer, as far as I know. And I don’t know what the demographic of the voting public is or was, but I’m not specifically going after Christians. I’m not like “Jews win! Christians lose!” I’m not a fan of any organized religion specifically (Buddhists are disorganized, right?), though again, I do support it for people who get positive things out of it and use it to do positive things.

That said, there’s a school of comedy that specifically aims to speak truth to power, and Christianity is the religious power in this country. Authority should always be questioned; that’s what this country was founded on. So apparently I’m a patriot, and I guess people didn’t want someone so patriotic to win.

Where did you get your love for wordplay?

My mother was a dictionary and my father was a thesaurus. So that might be where I got a diction addiction.

What’s the best response you’ve heard from someone in the audience after a show? What would you *like* to hear an audience member say?

I most like to hear audiences say “hahahahaha” DURING the show. That trumps most anything anyone could say after. But in general, I’m happy to hear anything along the lines of “that was good/you are funny/I am happy to have seen this show/you will go places” (as long as that last one isn’t “you should go places right now, away from this place”).

When did you realize you were an atheist?

I’ll start by saying I don’t really like labels. I consider myself a “non-labeler.” That said, I believe the word “atheism” comes from something meaning “without belief” or something close to that. I think that various people perceive the word and concept in different ways, some viewing atheists as aggressively attacking the concept of god (which some do), but I take it more literally; it’s just that I’ve not seen any real reason that belief is warranted. I mean, I like the idea of belief, and growing up I did believe… even in college, I remember thinking things like “we can’t know for sure, we have no proof one way or the other, so why not choose the belief that makes me feel better? if it’s unknowable.”

But sometime thereafter, early in young adulthood, I started thinking more about all the bad things that happen in the world, and the (to me) unacceptable justifications for why a well-intentioned God would allow such things to happen. I also read some books by Daniel Quinn (“Ishmael” and several others) that put into context various stories from the Bible, paired up with stories of the beginning of agricultural civilization 10,000 years ago, and it really made more sense to see them as stories.

Of course I don’t know everything, and I’m certainly open to be proven wrong. But I’m just a big fan of the reality that we can perceive, doing what good we can in this world that we (almost) know exists, etc.

Or maybe it was the first time I took mushrooms.

I’m an atheist who’s only vegetarian. Am I evil for not being vegan?

I don’t think words like “evil” are that useful. I aim to live my life in as utilitarian way as possible. Create as much pleasure, try to avoid causing pain. Most of us probably strive for similar things, but along the way our own pleasure often gets prioritized over not causing others pain. Is that bad? I think so, though I’m certainly guilty of it as well. It’s also human. These days, it’s hard to be part of society and not be hypocritical in some way.

So, I don’t blame you for not being vegan, but I would question why you are not? Just because you love cheese? (For me, becoming vegan was about acknowledging that dairy came from the same torturous industry that the meat did. You can’t get milk without cows giving birth, and they’re all in the same system. That said, I do entirely support people who get their dairy AND meat from local farms that treat animals nicely. So, if you do that? Not evil at all.)

Now that Last Comic Standing is over, what’s the next reality show you’ll be appearing on?

I tried out for Beauty and the Geek once, but I was too beautiful I think. Sincerely, my plan is to appear on shows in reality, that’s it.

Which comedians (past and present) do you love listening to?

Mitch Hedberg, Louis CK, Doug Stanhope, Patton Oswalt, Emo Philips, Brian Regan, Andy Kindler, Paul F. Tompkins, Reggie Watts, and many more.

Quick: Impress us with a good joke!

Quick: check out my Twitter feed!

Myq’s CD is called Vegan Mind Meld.

Go buy it, and then remember to vote for him on Last Com—oh, wait. Dammit. Just go see him when he visits your city!

I had a chance to ask the pastor of that church, Dr. Terry D. Jones, a few questions and he gave me the following responses. Feel free to discuss his answers in the comments.

I am posting them here unedited:

Who is the audience for your event?

We hope to reach Moslems and Non-Moslems to awake and awareness that the Koran is a book of lies and that the only true salvation is in Jesus Christ.

Do you think Muslims will turn to Christ as a result of this?

This is our prayer and desire that they would seriously reexamine their religion. They will then come to the conclusion that Islam is of the devil and Christianity is the only true religion.

While you may feel “Islam is a lie” (as it says on your website), do you think this is a smart thing to do strategically?

Yes, we believe it is a smart thing because it will get the attention of thousands of people hopefully causing them to reexamine their relationship with God.

Do you worry about being accused of spreading hate? Is any publicity good publicity?

No, we are not worried about spreading hate because we are spreading the truth. Truth is love and the hope of salvation.

Do you fear any backlash from the Muslim community?

Of course we do becaue Islam has proven itself to be a violent religion and Muhammed promoted violence in the Koran.

Have any of the media reports of this event portrayed you unfairly or inaccurately? Would you like to set the record straight on any particular issue?

We have been accused of being racist. We are not attacking a race. In other words, we are not attacking the Moslem. We love the Moslems and hope that they would come to true salvation. What we are attacking is Islam, the religion, and Sharia law, the political system.

It’s called an “International” event, but is any group/church outside of yours planning on joining you?

We have gotten responses from all around the world. Yes, we are expecting hundreds to attend.

Would you support a Muslim (or atheist) group that felt Christianity was a problem and made plans to burn copies of the Bible?

We, of course, would not support them, but we would support their first amendment rights of freedom of expression

How do you respond to Christians who feel this does more harm than good for spreading the faith?

This is the way that we have chosen to do it. To those Christians who disagree, we would encourage them to choose their own method of spreading the gospel and do so.