Pastor Craig Groeschel of Edmond, OK has coined the term “Christian Atheists”.  He even claims he was one until he saw the light.  Basically, what he means by the term is similar to what I’ve always thought of as “Sunday Christians”.  That is, people who go through the motions of being Christian, but don’t really live their lives as if they were.

I think his basic premise is a good one.  Simply attending church and throwing money in the collection plate won’t get you into heaven.   As he says, “to the Christian Atheist, the holy God of the universe is quietly transformed into a cosmic soda machine. If we give enough money, or pray the right prayer, or live the right way, God must deliver and do what we ask.”  But that’s not how it’s supposed to work.

Still, the pastor’s emphasis on the importance of fearing God is perhaps not warranted.  I do think that while some require fear and trepidation and the threat of eternal damnation to contain their behavior, others respond just as well to incentives and the appeal of God’s love, heaven, and life everlasting.  Yet I do think it’s easy to delude yourself into believing you deserve all the perks without having made any of the sacrifices.

I also have honest mixed feelings about the use of the term “Christian Atheists”.  I do recognize the power of casting someone who identifies as a Christian with the atheist label.  That label is anathema to most Christians, and since the pastor is trying to incite movement, it’s tactically useful to lay down a metric boat-load of stink where they’re sitting now.  But this also perpetuates the stereotype of atheists as amoral hedonists, and as I’ve written at length before, that is an unfounded characterization.

In fact, I’d go so far as to wager that atheists on a whole are as moral as Groeschel’s true believers.  That in fact, it is the Sunday Christians who, as a group, are more prone to rationalizing their desires rather than living within the boundaries of their personal philosophies and moral code—whether that code is imposed externally or internally.  All of which may mean that the better term for these folks might be “Christian|Atheists,” where the imperative is to get them off the fence.  Be one or the other.  Make some well considered introspective choices about what they believe and why, and then live their lives accordingly.

At it’s core this isn’t so very far from what the pastor is advocating, although I’m sure he doesn’t see there is more than one good choice to be made.

A group called Atheist Agenda at the University of Texas San Antonio has resurrected a program they are calling “Smut for Smut”.  The trade-in program encourages students to hand in a bible in return for pornography.  Not surprisingly, Christian groups on campus are outraged.  Police and University officials say the students have a right to conduct the swap.

I often advocate for people to speak out when their own side goes off the rails.  If the Democrats are out of line, it’s easy and expected for the GOP to call them on it, but it carries much more weight if the offender’s own party cries foul.  Similarly, I’ve called for Christians and Muslims to advocate against ridiculous behavior from within their own camps.  It’s my turn to walk that talk.

While I firmly hold that the “Smut for Smut” program is legal, it’s minimally in poor taste.  It’s not only offensive to Christians, but as an atheist I find it offensive myself.  Moreover, it’s not helping.  As a minority struggling for tolerance and acceptance, it doesn’t further the cause to disrespect the majority to whom you’re trying to appeal. Further, atheists already suffer from preconceived stereotypes of being amoral hedonists.  Associating us with porn really doesn’t do much to dissuade people from that mindset.

There is no greater good to be achieved here.  This is a publicity stunt, pure and simple.  And no, any publicity is not good publicity.  To the members of the ironically named Atheist Agenda at UTSA, cut it out.  Your parents’ are ashamed of you, and so am I.

Recent AP news headline: Atheism book found in home linked to fire suspect

The article goes on to explain the arrest of an arsonist and his accomplice who torched a church in Texas that they attended as children.  Further, they are using DNA evidence to try and link the criminals to several other fires.  Yet the core theme of this story is the existence of a book on atheism in the guy’s house.

They don’t even try to explicitly claim the guy is or became an atheist, or that his unalleged atheism was responsible for his actions.  But the title clearly leads the reader to make that link.  They mention in passing the finding of another book titled “Demon Possession,” but there isn’t even the remote hint that the Devil made him do the crime.  I’m guessing there were probably more than two books in the house, but the others (whatever they were) didn’t make the article.  Although I have a feeling that even if a copy of “Arson for Dummies” was found, it wouldn’t have made the headline.

What’s more, the book in question is “The Atheist’s Way: Living Well Without Gods.”  Book reviewer Dan Barker says of the book, “Millions of people lead happy, moral, loving, meaningful lives without believing in a god, and Eric Maisel explains in exquisite rational and compassionate detail how we do it.”  Sounds like pretty subversive stuff, doesn’t it?  The kind of radical godless hedonism that would lead you to burn down a church.

Atheists are not evil and amoral any more than Mexicans are lazy, women are frail, or Jews are good with money.  It’s bad enough that atheist stereotypes exist in society.  We don’t need to tolerate them in the press.

I intentionally stayed out of the whole Tiger Woods debacle. I really couldn’t care less if he’s slept with the entire night-shift at the IHOP. I even ducked when Brit Hume opined on a Fox News panel that Tiger ought to convert to Christianity in order to put all this behind him. But Ann Coulter has now clarified Hume’s remarks in a way that seems to abuse Buddhists, Christians, and, well… sane people.

The presumably well intentioned Hume said recently:

“The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

It wasn’t clear to me that saying this on a news program was really the appropriate venue, and at the time I thought it reflected a lack of understanding of Buddhism. Buddhism does offer a strong theme of forgiveness, to the extent that it’s a pretty central tenet of their philosophy. But most westerners are pretty unfamiliar with other religions, so railing against that was probably picking nits.

But Coulter has shed a whole new light on this. She is not saying that Buddhism doesn’t offer forgiveness. Rather she’s saying that it’s just so much easier to get forgiven in Christianity. She says:

You can be washing the dishes or walking your dog or just sitting there minding your business hating Susan Sarandon and accept that God sent his only son to die for your sins and rise from the dead … and you’re in!

God sent his only son to get the crap beaten out of him, die for our sins and rise from the dead. If you believe that, you’re in. Your sins are washed away from you — sins even worse than adultery! — because of the cross.

Really? That’s it? Commit all the sins you want, have a passing thought while walking the dog and all is better? Clearly Ms. Coulter is more ignorant about Christianity that Mr. Hume is about Buddhism. Although it does make me wonder how rampant this overly simplified view of Christian theology is. Is this why people like Coulter can exhibit such non-Christian behaviors in their life? Because they know they are just one dog-walk from forgiveness and a free ticket to heaven?

Ironically, it is people like Coulter who rail against atheists as being inherently immoral because we have no god to answer to. Apparently she and her ilk don’t have to answer either. Just make a timely and trite profession of faith. It’s people like this who give good Christians a bad reputation. And it would be nice to see some of them take her to task for this.