Dissecting The Dynamo

I've recently found myself pondering what makes Way of the Master such a force to be reckoned with in the evangelical Christian world. Whether non-theists want to admit it or not, WOTM is quite a dynamic and successful ministry; I have the financial reports to prove it (another entry for another day). However, just because they are good at what they do, it doesn't mean that what they do is good. Ray Comfort's Living Waters Publications (the umbrella organization of WOTM), has quite a heavy revenue (and expenditure) report and it is interesting to speculate why it has risen to such status in such a short matter or time. I think I may have the answer.

From my perspective there are three major roles at WOTM and one sidekick position:

Kirk Cameron -- The Notoriety

Everyone, but everyone knows who Kirk is and knows his claim to fame (and can probably even sing the show's theme song); Growing Pains was one of the highest-rated sitcoms in recent decades so where goes his name, so goes at least marginal success.

With his name recognition, Kirk could sell a ketchup popsicle to a man in a white suit in July. Having said that, the popularity and growth of the ministry is mostly due to that factor alone considering the fact that his participation in WOTM enterprises are negligible to the tune of one brief, weekly radio appearance, short promotional loops played during station breaks and the WOTM television production.

Ray Comfort -- The Message

This author and itinerant preacher from New Zealand is the puppet master of the entire operation. Cameron even admits that the foundation for the ministry is based on Comfort's theology in one of his recorded endorsements for Ray's breakout book and ministry namesake The Way of the Master in saying, "I had already been a Christian for 14 years but when I read (the book) it absolutely revolutionized the way I looked at evangelizing... ." Obviously it didn't take much for Ray to coerce Kirk to come on board; he has quite a way with words.

Todd Friel -- The Voice/Comedy

Our illustrious show host is the very notable and recognizable voice of WOTM Radio. Aside from his "Todd-isms" (another post for another day) and his usually self-deprecating humor, he is the main source of the hate-speech that is propagated from this organization. His false sense of humility and sincerity are all but transparent.

The message Todd spreads is strangely exactly in line with that of Ray Comfort (and the shows golden boy, Kirk) which leads me to believe that Todd is simply Ray's mouthpiece. After all, how are we to take Todd at his word or even to take him seriously when we understand that he was at one time a professional comedian? I hope for his sake that his affiliation with the business is nothing more than an elaborate hoax. My better judgments tells me it's not.

Our sidekick role, as mentioned earlier in this post, is filled by none other than show Program Director, Tony Verkinnes. His often dull and monotonous reactions to Todd's amped up charges allow me to fittingly designate him the title of Todd's comedic straight man. After all, Todd's very hyper and aggressive form of evangelism and apologetics must be counteracted with soothing commentary; rich chocolate chip cookies always go down better with a glass of cold milk.

As a business, WOTM has a great recipe. It's just a pity that the main ingredient is...

Willful Misrepresentation

This entry might also have been titled "Lying."

Todd uses the ten commandments to show the "lost" that they have sinned against a holy and righteous god, will stand in judgment before him after they die and must repent and receive the forgiveness offered through Jesus Christ's shed blood on the cross of Calvary (let me know if I've misrepresented this; I think I've expressed it fairly accurately).

If Todd uses the commandments to show the unsaved their transgressions, why does he knowingly and repeatedly continue to break the ninth commandment by lying to his listening audience?

When Todd is asked of all the historical atrocities committed in the name of god by the pious, he indefinitely shifts the focus away from the reformation or the crusades and towards the Holocaust and other such contemporary examples of cruelty. He claims that the reformation and crusades weren't fought by True Christians™, but by heretics and hypocrites. Of course, if a freethinker were to use that sort of caveat against Friel, he would of course decry it as a foul.

Much to the chagrin of the WOTM staff, atheists do not feel it necessary to defend Adolph Hitler as an atheist because, in fact, he was not; Hitler was a Catholic mystic. Just take a quick glance at the photo embedded in this entry and you will notice that it is Nazi Germany-era military regalia. Now, for those of my non German-speaking readers, the script emblazoned across the top of this belt buckle reads "God With Us."

Todd Friel knows this historical fact and continues to disregard it for the spiritual benefit of his listeners. Shouldn't someone call him up and remind him what his god says about lying?

The (Opposing) View

For those of you who may be interested in reading more about views that differ from my own but don't have the time or the desire to wade through the mire that is Way of the Master, I have posted a new link in the left margin of this blog. It is relatively well-written and will give you a taste of what is being taught by WOTM. The writer's doctrinal views are incredibly similar to those of Friel, Comfort and Cameron all the way down to his concept of "grace through the law".

To better understand the mind of a fundamental, evangelical Christian literalist, visit Anathema Unbound (Jason Seipp) at "The 'ology' of Theology" and tell him Former Follier sends his greetings.

Absolute Proof God Exists -- Part Two

Second Non-Biblical Proof of God -- "Conscience"

Before we begin, let's define the word "conscience" and take a brief look at its root words:

Conscience: The inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action (from the roots con meaning "together" or "with" and scientia meaning "knowledge").

Supposing that humans are born with an innate sense of right and wrong, we must further assume that , at birth, we have enough information from which to come to "knowledgeable" conclusions. When my daughter was an infant, it became abundantly clear that she was a blank slate and was only ingrained with the most primitive of functions: the ability to drink, breathe, expel waste, sleep and explore her newly-formed vocal chords when she perceived duress or desire. Those are the basics that all human infants are born with; the basic will to survive.

All of my daughter's "knowledge" since her birth has come from her surroundings: interaction with her parents, brother, grandparents, sight, taste, sound, touch, etc. How, then, can fundamentalist evangelicals like Todd Friel claim the knowledge from which you make moral or ethical assessments to be an inborn trait? Nothing happens in a vacuum... certainly not the psychological growth and development of a child! Every factor imposed on a human (man, woman or child) will have some sort of affect on their perceptions and interaction with the world around them.

The human ability to discern between perceived "good" and "bad" decisions start at childbirth and grow through adolescence and into adulthood. When parents raise their children, the majority feel it their obligation to instruct them in a way in which they will grow to be productive, with the ability to make social contributions. It eludes me how theists can extrapolate divine providence from something that is so clearly socially driven.

More than half a century before the gospels of Christ were written, the ethic of reciprocity was first being alliterated. Today, we know this code of ethical conduct as "The Golden Rule", the foundation of humanistic (the only viable) ethical principles.

Absolute Proof God Exists -- Part One

We freethinkers should be embarrassed. Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort and Todd Friel have deftly and equisitely proven the existence of God. The best part? Biblical proofs are optional. How do they do it? They point out two proofs: one external and one internal.

First Non-Biblical Proof of God -- "Creation"

That's right! When you look out your window at the beauty that surrounds us, you are to see design. The WOTM staff claim that our universe is the epitome of form and function. Take, for instance, the placement of our planet in relation to the sun; if we were revolving any closer to the sun than we currently are, our atmosphere would be too warm to sustain life. If we were any further from the sun, our atmosphere would be too cold!

Looking at things from a creationist's point of view, this screams of intelligent design. "God set the earth in orbit around the sun in the precise spot for life to flourish!" With a bit of effort, it is possible to look at things from a naturalistic point of view. Rather than life being supported on this earth because of its placement, perhaps the placement of the earth enabled life to emerge. Notice the distinction? This is hardly proof of God's existence. Furthermore, the creation account (or accounts depending on which brand of creationism your brand of Christianity supports) can be found only in holy texts and are completely unsupported by modern science.

If theists are such firm believers in creation "science", why don't they rely solely on the fruits of those labors? That would mean no more chemistry-based products (sorry, Todd, hand sanitizer is out of the question). I challenge theists to show me one practical application of "creation science" in our modern world. If you want to understand how much evolutionary science contributes to your life, go open your medicine cabinet.

I would like to point out that the most powerful tool for evangelical Christians is the ability to obfuscate an argument with semantics. When one of the WOTM staff members try the old watch/watchmaker or painting/painter routine, keep in mind that they have carefully selected the words they wish to use to effect the outcome they desire. For instance: Todd might say, "Take a look at that building! It couldn't have just appeared because a building needs a... builder. Right! The same thing is true with creation (notice the switch?); you can't have creation without a creator!" Most of the people he proselytizes never catch the switch.

But consider this, if the wording is changed to something that is more neutral (something which is unattainable when dealing with any evangelical group) the ball falls squarely into the court of the naturalistic freethinker. "When you look around at nature (I've been on "nature walks" but never on a "creation walk"), you have to admit that natural selection takes place." Not too difficult, eh? If theists are taken aback by the abrupt way in which the table was shifted, they can begin by fumbling through their rationalizations for all of the "design" flaws that abound in nature.

Holy Crescent Hospital?

On Thursday's edition of WOTM radio, Todd made a well-timed, off-the-cuff quip about a hospital that was referenced in a recent news report saying, "Would that have been Holy Crescent Hospital?" Station engineer and comedic straight-man, Tony Verkinnes, replied with a well-timed, "No... that would be... Holy Cross Hospital." This from a duo that claims the worldwide variance of religion to be compelling evidence for the validity of the Christian faith and the bible from which it is founded.

I recently brought up this very point on a call to the show; I asked how Christians can suppose that everyone holds to the same beliefs as them when the social, geographic and demographic factors of religion are taken into consideration. How can Todd confidently tell a Muslim, Krishna or Hindu that he is absolutely right in his beliefs and they are unequivocally wrong? Doesn't he realize that his introduction to Christianity came in much the same way introduced to the English language?

Knowing that there are more than 30,000 Christ-centered religions worldwide and that we are living in the U.S. ("one nation under God"), doesn't it follow that the vast majority of our health care institutions are affiliated in some way with protestantism or Catholicism (depending on the ebb and flow of the social tide, Catholics may or may not be considered Christians)? I would no more expect to find a Muslim-run hospital in my area than I would a hospital with the marquis written in Sanskrit.

If Todd were visiting Dubai City or Kolkata, would he really expect to find a hospital chapel with a crucifix or a statuette of the virgin Mary? The answer is obvious, religions are vast and wide-ranging but they all share one common factor: The adherents of these faiths have created their own culturally and socially relevant god(s) to worship. Todd is no different.

Passion Of The Friel

Todd Friel loves The Passion of The Christ. He does. In going through the WOTM radio show archives, I have come across many airings where he exalts the movie and Mel Gibson for making it. To Todd it is an accurate and sobering account of the sacrifice that his Lord and Savior made in becoming the atonement for his sins. Believe it or not, I have no problem at all with his admiration for the movie; it was a well-produced bit of drama (though a bit gory for my taste).

My only request is that Todd be honest with us, his listeners, as many look up to him as a shining example or Christian morality. How then does it reflect on him and his God to be blatantly hypocritical? Why do I say this? Because Mr. Friel does not endorse and even decries the viewership of R-Rated films. As a matter of fact, Todd owns a bit of hardware (the name escapes me) for his home entertainment system that removes all foul language from whatever programming he may currently be viewing. Does this same device censor or distort visual representations of violence? If it did, Todd and his family would be left with a ten or fifteen minute snippet that would contain the opening credits, Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (until the guard's ear is sliced off, at least) and some of the more mundane bits of dialogue between Jesus and his disciples, among others. The majority of the movie is spent graphically portraying the scourging, beating and crucifixion of Jesus as is described just as vividly in the (contradictory) Gospel accounts in the bible. So much so, in fact, that it is enough to engender a feeling of nausea in the most jaded of moviegoers.

How then can Mr. Friel blame the state of our nation's moral decline on violent media when he openly endorses perhaps one of the most gruesome feature films of all time? If left in the wrong hands, this gore fest could further pervert a mind already demented by grotesque fantasy and could be the breaking point that might affect another school shooting or federal building bombing.

I find it troubling that Mr. Friel dissuades the viewership of secular media for mature audiences but freely advocates The Passion as wholesome family fare. The story depicted in the movie comes from an equally horrifying book which, if rated,might find itself on the top rack in most retail outlets. Doesn't this attest to the fact that theists really do employ situational ethics? "Don't watch Apocalypse Now because it's R-Rated; instead, bless your soul and glorify God as you watch His Son's blood being wrung out like a sopping wet dishtowel." Just another testament to my reasoning for not following a god that lusts for his own son's sacrificial blood and for not joining the ranks of a congregation that joyously worships such a monster.

Why link the show?

Many of you may be curious (some have even asked) why I have a feed link to the WOTM radio show archives in the left margin of this site. The answer is simple: I don't fear their content. As a matter of fact, I encourage everyone to tune into their broadcasts at least once; if nothing else, it's good for a laugh. By supplying my readers (both theists and freethinkers alike) with all of the resources I have at my disposal, I feel like you will be better equipped to make a wise and informed decision.

Liars shall have their part in the lake of fire...

If the theology that Todd, Ray and Kirk follow is literally true, then they have willfully lied to all of the atheistic listeners to their show. Does that put them in danger of burning forever in hell? Of course, they will all claim that all of their sins, past, present and future, are covered in the blood of Jesus who is the propitiation for the iniquities of all True Believers™. Regardless of their claims, it seems counterproductive to lie to the very people they are trying to save from condemnation.

On the June 14th airing of WOTM Radio, Ray and Todd promised a copy of The Evidence Bible and/or God Doesn't Believe In Atheists to an etheist they had been speaking to named Jack (Chicago, IL) at the 37 min. 45 sec. mark. They went further by making an open-ended promise to supply any atheist that called into the show with a complimentary copy of The Evidence Bible. I have since called the show but have yet to receive my Bible. As a matter of fact, I have sent emails to both Todd and Ray separately inquiring as to the status of my shipment but stranegly enough haven't received a reply. Todd used to respond to my messages but it seems he's lost interest in me in recent months. The same cannot be said for me; I continue to find him interesting, untrustworthy and dangerous.

A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit...

What kind of message do the Way of the Master and Living Waters ministries send when they support and endorse the viewership of a truly "corrupt" network, Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)? Are you at all familiar with any of the scandal that has surrounded and continues to surround network co-founders Paul and Jan Crouch? No? Well, let me fill you in...

• TBN (a non-profit organization) generates almost $200 million annually, nearly two-thirds of which comes from viewer contributions. The rest is a kickback from the televangelists and prosperity preachers that air their programs.
• During fundraising drives, the hosts will often make emotional appeals to the viewing audience to pledge their financial support to "the ministry" although recent budget information shows a surplus of almost $600 million in the "ministry" fund.
• Many preachers and televangelists who have been under suspicion, charged and even indicted for money laundering, cooking the books and pandering have been featured in the past on the network; some have not been allowed to return and have sought out other venues such as BET to hook the late-night, minority audience and cash-in on their fear of mortality.
• In late 2004, Paul Crouch paid nearly $500,000 in an out of court settlement to a former employee who made allegations that Crouch made indecent sexual advances. The former employee was named Enoch "Lonnie" Ford. Crouch denied having a homosexual relationship but admitted to the pay-off. In my opinion, actions speak louder than words.

This is but a small list of the many criticisms that constantly swirl around the network and network heads (of the lineage of Paul). Knowing that TBN has such a shady and disreputable past, why would Kirk, Ray and mouthpiece Todd feel at all confident about buying airtime on the network for specials and weekly productions of the evangelical Way of the Master television show?

Do WOTM execs feel that it is more important to reach the masses at the expense of the conscience they speak so much of? Does Todd honestly feel comfortable sitting on-stage with a man who paid half a million dollars in hush money to the old office janitor? I wonder how Todd can so viciously attack false preachers and teachers when he relies on the viewership of these men (Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Jack and Rexella Van Impe, etc.) to pay his undoubtedly exorbitant paycheck.

Todd is right when he quotes the scriptures in saying "by your fruits ye shall know them"; Todd bears fraudulent, wicked fruit.

Anti-Testimony: A Brief Deconversion Story

I was raised in a very strict fundamental Baptist home and was "saved" at five years of age while eating my breakfast cereal before kindergarten one morning. From that point on, I was "in rebellion to God," as my parents liked to put it. Nothing I did seemed to be good enough: I was an honor roll student, bilingual at a young age, a prodigious illustrator , a budding actor and, above all, was involved in all the affairs of the church and the associated school (which I attended from the age of four until my high school graduation at seventeen) such as puppet ministry, nursing home ministry, church and school choir and band, bus ministry, youth group and all associated activities and even door-to-door witnessing on Saturdays.

It was on a Saturday morning when I was "calling" on the lost that I had my first run-in with an atheist (cue scary music). He lived in a ramshackle old house in a wooded cul-de-sac in a neighborhood not too far from my own. He was gruff, unpleasant and impolite; not necessarily the way I'd like to be perceived as an atheist. From that point on, he was the embodiment of the evil atheist in my then-Christian mind.

As the years passed, what I was being taught of the Bible became absolutely unfulfilling and I had no desire to study it further for my own understanding because, well, what would be the point? I was still a piece of shit to my parents, regardless of what I did or did not do. This is when I began to "backslide." I turned to secular friends, secular music and everything else that was abhorred by my parents and their church. I would still attend with them and was still involved in all of the extra activities but only nominally.

By the time I was fifteen I was smoking, fooling around with girls, using "filthy" language... all the things that good Christian boys and girls ought not to do. And I loved it all. A couple years later when I graduated high school I decided to remove myself from my parents' oppressive rule and place myself in another equally oppressive environment but one that would later prove to be more rewarding and personally beneficial. I enlisted in the Army at seventeen years of age (with parental consent).

I served six years and climbed the ranks, declining several promotions allow the way for fear of leadership. While I was in the military, I was first confronted with secular individuals that I didn't know personally (ie. neighborhood friends, cousins) and was impressed by their ability to reason. Growing up, I was rarely given choices yet in these people I saw that they made dozens of choices daily and revelled in it; they were leading their lives, not merely living them.

Due to my upbringing, these events brought me back to the Bible to search for hidden meaning and truths. Perhaps my pastor had been skipping over nuggets of knowledge all those years. It was my duty to find those bits of wisdom and apply them.

Well, I don't need to tell any of you that I didn't find them. I studied and prayed but to no avail. I was forced to a conclusion much to the detriment of my faith: God was not in the Bible. In fact, God wasn't around at all. Further, He never had been around.

The open and honest reading of "God's Word" had crushed my faith, destroyed my world-view and, as a result, given me the best gift imaginable: The ability to think. And live.

Judge not lest ye be judged...

Theists have pioneered and championed the use of the bad analogy. I've sat through my fair share of sermons in my lifetime and can still vividly recall some incredibly poor object lessons and analogies that were tossed out from the pulpit. I think I've finally found one that tops the list in none other than our very own Mr. Friel. It isn't so much a "bad" analogy as it is dangerous.

Todd prides himself in his ability to field "uncomfortable" biblical questions but he shouldn't sing his own praises too loudly because he only entertains such questions for a short time before shifting gears and imposing the Ten Commandments. He uses this tried and true method of "speaking to the conscience" in order to show his audience that they have sinned before an almighty god and are worthy of spiritual death followed by eternal damnation in a lake of fire. But Todd holds the keys of your heart (as god's servant) and can show you how your soul can be cleansed and Christ can do a transforming work inside of you, securing a place for you in heaven. The best part of the deal is that you don't have to do a thing in exchange for all of this goodness... except die to yourself... and repent of your sins and turn from them... oh, and to plead God's mercy through the death, burial and resurrection of his son, Jesus Christ. Other than that, salvation is completely free!

It sounds more like spiritual quid pro quo than a free gift, if you ask me.

What really gets me is the way Todd will solemnly and soberly appeal to the fear of his listeners and callers by equating sins against god with wrongs against man that are punishable in a court of law. Let me draw a basic mental image for you, one that is based on Todd's very own examples in his soul-winning efforts:

If a criminal guilty of a violent crime appears before a judge in a court of law, the judge will be forced to punish him in order to maintain justice. The judge will not accept pleas for a lessened sentence but will weigh the heftiest fine against him. Unless someone steps in and mercifully pays the fine, justice cannot be met.

If the false dichotomy cannot easily be seen, let me shed some light on it for you.

To begin with, a sin is supposedly the ultimate affront against a holy and righteous god and is punishable with eternal torment in a place that god created and set aside for those who trespass against his laws. There is no social equivalent to this concept especially not a mere monetary fine! The most imposing punishment one man can levy against another is capital punishment which is a finite punishment. How does infinite suffering at the hands of a wrathful god correlate with momentary physical pain?

Knowing that a fine is not a viable penalty to be imposed on a criminal guilty of committing the most heinous acts imaginable (under the assumption that god finds all sins equally and eternally offensive) but capital or, at the very least, corporal punishment, we can see that no court in this country would accept a substitute. Once tried and convicted, a criminal must suffer his own fate; his best-friend can't offer himself up to the courts as a sacrifice. That's (ancient) tribal mentality and doesn't appease the modern judicial system.

We can then go on to understand that, in a court of law, mercy and justice are not mutually compatible. If a stay of execution is ordered not because of the suspects innocence but on a whim, the Governor has exhibited (unwarranted) mercy. However, if the sodium pentathol is injected into his veins, true justice has been achieved (if one can call it that).

After exposing this fraudulent analogy, how then can Todd continue to use it to instill fear in the hearts of his throngs? It isn't difficult to see the psychological (cruel) game he's playing by beating people into emotional submission. Fundamentalist theology can be likened unto spiritual battered spouse syndrome! Once you have a captive, submissive audience, well...

So, can God be eternally merciful and just? It's exactly what the WOTM crew would have you to believe. Let's see what the dictionary has to say about the denotation of these two words (no need to apply hermeneutical principles here):

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Just -- Being what is merited or deserved: (a just punishment)

Mercy -- Lenient or compassionate treatment: (begged for mercy)

If these two terms are mutually compatible, I'd like to know how. Besides, before we go condemning others for their actions in the sight of god, shouldn't we prove his existence first?

In the beginning...

There is so much that can and will be said about Mr. Friel, our illustrious WOTM Radio host, but it must all be prefaced. This entry is meant to thoroughly explain Todd's worldview so I may better explain the divisive tenets of his Christian faith.

Let me begin by saying that personal faith is something which I have no desire to combat. As a humanist, I feel like it is the right of every human to believe whatever he or she likes and to live their life accordingly. This principle does not hold when dealing with Todd and his ilk (namely Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and their minions); they are devoted to a cause which preaches hostility, resentment of innate human nature, desire for unachievable goals and the obligation to spread their hate-filled message under the guise of concern. Those who adhere to the doctrine that is proposed by the WOTM staff are equally as frightening.

Let's think of the core beliefs of Todd's brand of Christianity (True Christianity™): The Ten Commandments. This is the set of Mosaic laws that has been the source of controversy in the courts for the last few years regarding its presence in American courthouses (among other public places). Without delving too deeply into the commandments themselves, we can plainly see that the request for them to be posted in public places is about as asinine as it would be to post excerpts from the Communist Manifesto or from the Codex Hammurabi. Actually, it would be somewhat understandable to post Hammurabi's code of ethics in courthouses because they are based on humanistic principles. The ten commandments are not.

At risk of making this entry too lengthy and difficult to read, I'd like to post and dissect the Ten Commandments as they were purportedly given to Moses (although the two sets of "the same" ten commandments that were given to Moses and the ancient Israelites are completely different between the Exodus and Deuteronomy accounts... food for thought):

First Commandment --
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Second Commandment --
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

Third Commandment --
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Fourth Commandment --
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Fifth Commandment --
Honour thy father and thy mother.

Sixth Commandment --
Thou shalt not kill.

Seventh Commandment --
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Eighth Commandment --
Thou shalt not steal.

Ninth Commandment --
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Tenth Commandment --
Thou shalt not covet.

It has been said before that trying to argue theology with a moderate or liberal Christian is "like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall" which is absolutely true. For that reason, I am glad that Todd is a strict fundamentalist (although he does take many liberties in changing the connotation of scriptural passages when confronted with biblical errors and contradictions) because you can always count on him to dig his own grave. What Todd fails to realize is that a great many thoughtful unbelievers have come to their lack of belief (quite a lengthy and painful process) by actually reading the book that he uses to try to convert "the lost"... the bible! No single book in history has caused so much controversy but not for the reasons Christians would like to believe. It is not because of the supposed truth contained within the canon but because of its undeniably fictitious nature. That's not to say there aren't some accuracies in the bible (historical, geographical and otherwise) but the inaccuracies far outweigh them.

Upon inspection of Todd's chosen "spiritual weapon" (the Decalogue or Ten Commandments), we can see that it is indeed imperfect, dull and even unreliable. It demands dogmatic belief in order to render itself effective. The problem is, humans (Americans especially) rely on situational ethics; a system where no dogmatic moral or ethical code can be enacted for numerous societal reasons. Approximately six billion humans currently inhabit this planet and you could expect that number to be exponentially lower (less than 100,000?) if all Mosaic laws were enforced. Let's take a look.

Applying humanist principles (situational ethics) to nearly all of the commandments shown above will lay bare exactly how morally bankrupt they and their adherents are:

Starting with the first commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me.) we can see that an assumption is immediately made that, not only is there only one god, but that all humans have an intimate knowledge of said god. Going back into recorded history, we know that there have been thousands of conceived deities that were feared and worshipped, many even predating the Christian god, Yahweh (YHWH). Letting alone the ancient Nordic gods and the Greek pantheon, we know that there are currently more than 30,000 Christo-centric religions! Do they all share the same god? Seems to me, the knowledge of any deity is ambiguous at best.

The second commandment (Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.) is, for all intents and purposes, an extension of the preceding commandment. Supposedly, it is morally unlawful to worship anyone but the "one, true god" but further, it is wrong to create an image of your idea of a rival deity to worship. I don't know the relevance of this commandment other than to show exactly how jealous and megalomaniacal the described god is.

Next, we are told not to use this god's name in vain (Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.). Most fundamentalist Christians, including Todd, call this the act of blasphemy. However, the operative word in the third commandment is "name". Many different questions arise once that word pops out at us: Did god name himself or allow humans to name him? What name does he ask us to revere? Is his name truly "God" or is that merely a title like bishop or duke? Regardless of what is truly considered blasphemy, Christians must realize that the same courtesies should be extended to other, differing faiths. Todd has no qualms with calling Muslims "wrong" or mocking Allah or the prophet Muhammad; he isn't above calling Hindus misguided in their faith in a "dead god". This doesn't concern Christians, though, because... well... they don't believe in those "false gods". I believe I've made my point. Besides, doesn't it strike you as odd how the words humans speak can somehow offend a deity?

The fourth commandment (Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.) is something that has been hotly debated in many Christian circles. While most believers agree that it is important to set aside one day a week to reflect on spiritual matters (following the example god set during the first week in recorded history, the creation week), many disagree as to the extent of "remembrance" that is necessary in order to keep this law. Literalists will tell you that absolutely no work should be done on the sabbath (to include cooking meals? I guess fasting is in order.) while others may insist that working for profit is what is prohibited. Regardless of the implications of this law, it is unfeasible in modern culture. We rely on countless private citizens to keep society moving forward while believers take a day to worship: law enforcement officials, soldiers, medical professionals... even clergymen, if you want to get technical. Are you starting to see why its so frightening to many of us to have these "laws" posted at federal courthouses? Does our legal system really enforce these first four commandments? What if it did?

Commandment number five (Honour thy father and thy mother.) seems benign enough and could even be mistaken for a humanistic principle. It is not. As I stated earlier, these commandments are absolutely dogmatic and leave no room for personal value judgments; they are black and white. God wants all children (even through adulthood, we can assume) to honor their parents without any qualifiers. It is not extreme or unreasonable to suppose that many people who have found themselves parents have not been deserving of respect from their children. Kids all over the world are beaten, tortured and even raped (god should be proud) by their parents. Are children to respect and honor these monsters? According to the bible, yes. Absolute moral bankruptcy.

The sixth and most well-known commandment (Thou shalt not kill.) is one of the only humanistic principles in the entire list. It's just a shame that god breaks his own law, the one with the most dire of societal consequences, numerous times throughout the bible. Not only does he commit the act, he also condones the killing of others and even commands it. Again, there are no qualifiers in this law. It plainly states that you should not take another life. Christian Americans who are pro death penalty seem to have swept this commandment under the rug in favor of "an eye for an eye".

Next we are commanded not to "commit adultery". While I know that Christians would like to claim that this commandment supports celibacy before marriage, we have biblical examples to the contrary. It seems god wasn't too concerned about adultery in the Old Testament (he used it in order to populate the earth) due to the fact that he sets up a supplementary law for any man who decided to rape a woman. He had to go to the hassle of either marrying her, paying her father or having her stoned. Todd likes to use the "Old Covenant/Ceremonial Law vs. New Covenant/Reformed Law" argument to get rid of this pesky problem. I find it difficult to believe that god replaced more than 600 Old Testament laws but decided that ten were good enough to keep from the cutting room floor. Also, when does god recognize the marriage between two (heterosexual) people? When the vows are exchanged? When the wedding certificate is signed? When the marriage is consummated? It seems we still have way too much control over this supreme being.

I have no reservations with the eighth commandment (Thou shalt not steal.); who would? But for Christians to claim that this is a direct edict from their god is absurd. It's common sense! It's what we teach our children at the earliest age: The Golden Rule. Does god really have to tell us not to steal in the same breath that he tells us not to take another human life? It seems to be one of the pettier laws, to tell you the truth.

The ninth commandment (Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.) is naturally dogmatic in nature when situational ethics are better suited. The act of lying is not intrinsically wrong but the intent may be. Conversely, the intent may also be noble. If upon taking in a battered (and fried?) woman into your home, would you 'fess up if her attacker asked you if you were harboring her? Telling the truth in this situation would not only endanger her but would also jeopardize the safety of yourself and anyone else in the residence. Is lying wrong? It depends. Whether it is or isn't, god can't make that call; you can.

The last commandment (Thou shalt not covet.) is absolutely ludicrous. Why shouldn't you want something nice that someone else has? Isn't desire a good motivating factor? The more I think of this supposed god-inspired law, I am more and more convinced that it was kind of a last-minute entry so the ancient Israelites would have a nice, round number of laws for aesthetic purposes. I mean, the Nine Commandments just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Todd actually uses these ten laws to show callers and people he witnesses to in public that they are imperfect beings and have transgressed against an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-perfect god and that they need to repent and beg forgiveness to avoid being damned to hell by this being (who is in all other contexts referred to as loving and gracious). The more you hear him go through the list, the more comical it is which is fitting considering he used to be a professional comedian. Well, it would be funny if it weren't so frightening, I suppose.

I am going to end this (very long) entry here and post again very soon and show the false analogy Todd makes in equating god's justice with man's judicial system. He uses it so often and with so much fervor that you can't help but be taken in by it. I can show very simply how he is playing a game of semantics and drawing false parallels to achieve his ultimate goal. It's sad that I have to do this; more people should be able to see the lies on their own. But for each person he proselytizes to that gets suckered in, there is a freethinker waiting in the wings to bolster my "faith" in mankind.

Let me introduce you to my friend!

Alright, I admit it; he's not technically my friend. It would be an easy mistake for me to make because listening to a person ramble aimlessly and thoughtlessly for two solid hours each day will give you some sort of a connection, no matter how tenuous. My connection to "Mr. Mr. Todd Friel" (not a typo) is that I used to be in his shoes... except that mine were two or three sizes smaller, I don't host my own daily Christian radio talk show (nor have I ever) and I gave up my dogmatic, fundamentalist beliefs years ago. Other than that, we could be brothers (in Christ).

I can't speak authoritatively on the things that affected Todd during his formative years but I can say with some degree of certainty that he chose to follow his god, the god of the bible, based on the prevailing Christian influences around him in the Midwestern United States. Had he been born in Bucharest or Phnom Penh, he would undoubtedly not only be speaking another language but singing another theological tune. According to Todd, this has no bearing whatsoever over the legitimacy nor the accuracy of the bible and all its claims.

Now, you may be curious why I decided to devote time and attention to this man. Am I right? What could Todd Friel possibly have done to raise the hackles of this otherwise friendly atheist? I'm glad you asked:

Aside from the fact that Todd frequently spouts more contradictions that the bible itself contains, he is above all a fear monger. Todd thrives on using his righteous justification from his god to spread fear of eternal torment in a (god-created) lake of fire. I can gladly go into a long theological tirade about hell, its purpose, its derivation, location, etc. but I believe I will save that for another time. Suffice it to say, Todd thrives on instilling terror in the hearts of unbelievers; his glaring sense of moral hauteur is cloaked (poorly) behind his piety. Pitiful.

You've been introduced. Stick around for the pinata party.