By Marya Hornbacher, Special to CNN
(CNN) - Kicked back with his boots on the table at the head of the smoke-dense room, the meeting's leader banged his fist and bellowed, “By the grace of this program and the blood of Jesus Christ, I’m sober today!”
I blinked.
This was not an auspicious beginning for the project of getting my vaguely atheistic, very alcoholic self off the sauce.
I wondered if perhaps I’d wandered into the wrong room. I thought maybe I’d wound up in Alcoholics Anonymous for crown-of-thorn Christians, and in the next room might find AA for lapsed Catholics, and downstairs a group for AA Hare Krishnas and one for AA Ukrainian Jews.
But a decade later, I’ve become aware that 12-step programs are home to people from every religion, denomination, sect, cult, political tilt, gender identity, sexual preference, economic strata, racial and ethnic background, believers in gun rights and abortion rights and the right to home schooling, drinkers of coffee and tea, whiskey and mouthwash, people who sleep on their sides or their stomachs or sidewalks.
Anyone who cares to sober up, in other words, can give it a shot the 12-step way. The official preamble Alcoholics Anonymous states: "The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking.”
And millions of people want that and find a way to do it in this program. I’m one of them. I was, not to put too fine a point on it, a raging drunk. Now I’m not.
It wasn’t magic; it was brutally hard work to get from point A to B. I do believe I’d be dead without the help of the people and the structure of the steps in AA.
But I don’t believe in God.
To read the full article, click HERE.
Author Archive for Emy
Being an atheist/agnostic/non-believer/free-thinker has its perks. I mean, you don't have to go to church on Sunday and that's perfectly fine. You don't have to feel tied down to a bunch of rules that some institution placed on you. You can open up your mind to the world around you and see it for the beauty that it is, not what you interpret some god or gods make it.
One downside, though? Finding faith in times of need.
You see, I'm a performer. And it's a tough career I've chosen, particularly when you have kids (which I do). As it happens, I've applied for a position that would solve a ton of our problems. It would be a long term gig--no, CAREER. It would prevent us from moving constantly to the next gig. It would include benefits, plenty of paid vacation time and time off, it would come with prestige, and it would help me support my family. Not only that, but I'd be SINGING. Which is what I do.
At this point, while waiting for the invitation for the live audition, if I was a godly woman, I would put my faith in the Lord. I would ask for help with this, because I know it would give my family a better life. Selfish prayer? Maybe. But I'm just saying that's what I'd do. It would be so much easier to put trust in a God and know that he would help me through this time in my life.
But the thing is, I don't. So how does an atheist find "faith"? And by the term faith, I'm not talking about faith in a god, or faith in a religion. Just plain faith. The definition of the word is "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability." In this case, I'm taking it as faith in myself. And believe me, that is much harder than finding a faith in God. To have faith in yourself, you can depend on no one but you. At the end of the day, if you failed, it's your failure and not anyone else's. Faith in oneself is a full responsibility. How many people can say that have it?
I'd love to displace that responsibility and put it on a God. That would be easier. That would take the pressure off. It would be in his or her hands, not mine. But as such, I believe you must be stronger to find faith in yourself and yourself alone. It takes a kind of will... a kind of decision. It means you're constantly choosing yourself, even though at many turns, you may doubt.
I have faith in other things, too. I believe there are good people in the world. That the world is, ultimately, a good place. That the people hiring at this job are doing it in an honest way. I could give you a list. But this is the burden I'm bearing at the moment, so I've been wanting to share it with all of you. Faith doesn't have to be a dirty word for an atheist. We can still find faith, it just has different meaning.
Another upside? If I get the job, it's because I deserved it. I earned it. Not because a god earned it for me. So there's a sense of pride in that. I have hope. I am working on my faith. If any of you want to share your own stories, please feel free to do so in the comment section. How have you developed your own sense of faith?
One downside, though? Finding faith in times of need.
You see, I'm a performer. And it's a tough career I've chosen, particularly when you have kids (which I do). As it happens, I've applied for a position that would solve a ton of our problems. It would be a long term gig--no, CAREER. It would prevent us from moving constantly to the next gig. It would include benefits, plenty of paid vacation time and time off, it would come with prestige, and it would help me support my family. Not only that, but I'd be SINGING. Which is what I do.
At this point, while waiting for the invitation for the live audition, if I was a godly woman, I would put my faith in the Lord. I would ask for help with this, because I know it would give my family a better life. Selfish prayer? Maybe. But I'm just saying that's what I'd do. It would be so much easier to put trust in a God and know that he would help me through this time in my life.
But the thing is, I don't. So how does an atheist find "faith"? And by the term faith, I'm not talking about faith in a god, or faith in a religion. Just plain faith. The definition of the word is "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability." In this case, I'm taking it as faith in myself. And believe me, that is much harder than finding a faith in God. To have faith in yourself, you can depend on no one but you. At the end of the day, if you failed, it's your failure and not anyone else's. Faith in oneself is a full responsibility. How many people can say that have it?
I'd love to displace that responsibility and put it on a God. That would be easier. That would take the pressure off. It would be in his or her hands, not mine. But as such, I believe you must be stronger to find faith in yourself and yourself alone. It takes a kind of will... a kind of decision. It means you're constantly choosing yourself, even though at many turns, you may doubt.
I have faith in other things, too. I believe there are good people in the world. That the world is, ultimately, a good place. That the people hiring at this job are doing it in an honest way. I could give you a list. But this is the burden I'm bearing at the moment, so I've been wanting to share it with all of you. Faith doesn't have to be a dirty word for an atheist. We can still find faith, it just has different meaning.
Another upside? If I get the job, it's because I deserved it. I earned it. Not because a god earned it for me. So there's a sense of pride in that. I have hope. I am working on my faith. If any of you want to share your own stories, please feel free to do so in the comment section. How have you developed your own sense of faith?
U.S. Senator Al Franken caught Thomas Minnery (VP for government & public policy for Focus on the Family) mis-characterizing a study about children being raised in nuclear families. This is priceless.
Focus on the Family (a tax-free government supported group) is anti feminism, pro corporal punishment, pro National Day of Prayer, pro teaching evolution in public schools, pro death penalty, and strives to prove that being gay is a "choice".
Focus on the Family (a tax-free government supported group) is anti feminism, pro corporal punishment, pro National Day of Prayer, pro teaching evolution in public schools, pro death penalty, and strives to prove that being gay is a "choice".
From Austin Cline, About.com
Myth:
Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are demonizing Christians, labeling them anti-science and anti-intellectual.
Response:
Atheists today are no less vocal or sharp in their criticisms of theism and religion than they were last year or ten years ago; however, there have been a few very high-profiles books and criticisms which appear to have set some religious theists on edge. They are not accustomed to such pointed, direct attempts to refute or undermine their beliefs and feel they are being demonized by irreligious atheists. Disagreeing with someone and saying they are wrong is not demonization, however.
For one thing, the criticisms leveled against religion, religious beliefs, and theism are no worse than — and in most cases are quite a bit less nasty than — many of the things which conservative religious believers have been saying about atheism, secularism, and godless liberalism for many years now. The people complaining today about being demonized did not, as far as I know, raise their voices in protest against the demonization of others by members of their own community. When demonization is only bad when it's done to you, then your complaints only end up being self-serving.
Demonizing someone means representing them as evil or diabolic. Atheist criticisms may portray religion, religious beliefs, or religious theism as evil or harmful, but it's quite rare for atheists to do this to religious believers as a class. Some may indeed do this, either because they really hate religious believers or simply because they carelessly allow attacks on beliefs to slip over into attacks on believers. Either way it's definitely wrong and shouldn't happen.
At the same time, though, believers themselves shouldn't treat criticism or even attacks on their religion as attacks on them personally. People may regard their religion and their theism as the central axis on which their lives turn, and even treat attacks on their religion as a personal insult. This does not justify saying that critics are "demonizing" them as individuals. If an atheist is able to maintain a distinction between a belief and the person holding the belief, then the believer should try to do so as well.
As to the claim that Christianity is being treated as anti-science and anti-intellectual by atheists, there is a lot more validity to this. Atheists do frequently criticize Christianity, especially conservative Christianity, as anti-science and anti-intellectual — because very often, that's precisely what Christianity is. Research shows that about half the people of America believe that the universe is a mere 6,000 to 10,000 years old, for example. They only reason they believe this is because of conservative Christian views of the Bible, religion, and science — it's not Buddhism or Taoism causing people to adopt such a manifestly false view of reality.
This belief about the age of the universe is wrong, and unequivocally so. It's not disrespectful to say so, nor is vociferously arguing against this view an example of "intolerance." Furthermore, any religion which encourages, promotes, teaches, or supports such a view can only be deemed anti-science and anti-intellectual — the same goes for more "moderate" efforts, like Intelligent Design. It's a complete denial of everything we have learned from most fields in the natural sciences as well as of the basic methodology by which science operates (and due to which science has proven so much more successful than religion).
As for being anti-intellectual, there are examples of Christians promoting exactly that in reaction to atheist criticisms. One person wrote in to the Times: "Why does Professor Richard Dawkins begrudge us our illusions? Knowledge is not necessarily a solution." I don't think that a person can get much more anti-intellectual than to say that they would rather have illusions (presumably comforting and comfortable illusions) over knowledge. When a religion encourages people to prefer to be deceived rather than acquire an accurate understanding of reality, it is unquestionably anti-intellectual.
There is nothing about religion which absolutely requires it to be anti-science or anti-intellectual. Religion is simply a type of belief system and there are certainly secular belief systems which are anti-science and anti-intellectual as well. There are, however, strong tendencies in religions which incline them towards totalitarianism, absolutism, and dogmatism. These qualities can be key components in an anti-science, anti-intellectual stance, and it's to be expected that religion might be this way more often than chance would dictate.
There is nothing militant or intolerant about criticizing any belief system which is anti-science and anti-intellectual — not even if one attacks or mocks such a belief system. Given how much our species and our societies today depend upon science, technology, and the best possible use of the human intellect, we need to fight such belief systems as much as possible. If people hold to a belief system that teaches them to believe manifestly false things for bad reasons, they should be told this and encouraged to give up this belief system for something better.
Myth:
Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are demonizing Christians, labeling them anti-science and anti-intellectual.
Response:
Atheists today are no less vocal or sharp in their criticisms of theism and religion than they were last year or ten years ago; however, there have been a few very high-profiles books and criticisms which appear to have set some religious theists on edge. They are not accustomed to such pointed, direct attempts to refute or undermine their beliefs and feel they are being demonized by irreligious atheists. Disagreeing with someone and saying they are wrong is not demonization, however.
For one thing, the criticisms leveled against religion, religious beliefs, and theism are no worse than — and in most cases are quite a bit less nasty than — many of the things which conservative religious believers have been saying about atheism, secularism, and godless liberalism for many years now. The people complaining today about being demonized did not, as far as I know, raise their voices in protest against the demonization of others by members of their own community. When demonization is only bad when it's done to you, then your complaints only end up being self-serving.
Demonizing someone means representing them as evil or diabolic. Atheist criticisms may portray religion, religious beliefs, or religious theism as evil or harmful, but it's quite rare for atheists to do this to religious believers as a class. Some may indeed do this, either because they really hate religious believers or simply because they carelessly allow attacks on beliefs to slip over into attacks on believers. Either way it's definitely wrong and shouldn't happen.
At the same time, though, believers themselves shouldn't treat criticism or even attacks on their religion as attacks on them personally. People may regard their religion and their theism as the central axis on which their lives turn, and even treat attacks on their religion as a personal insult. This does not justify saying that critics are "demonizing" them as individuals. If an atheist is able to maintain a distinction between a belief and the person holding the belief, then the believer should try to do so as well.
As to the claim that Christianity is being treated as anti-science and anti-intellectual by atheists, there is a lot more validity to this. Atheists do frequently criticize Christianity, especially conservative Christianity, as anti-science and anti-intellectual — because very often, that's precisely what Christianity is. Research shows that about half the people of America believe that the universe is a mere 6,000 to 10,000 years old, for example. They only reason they believe this is because of conservative Christian views of the Bible, religion, and science — it's not Buddhism or Taoism causing people to adopt such a manifestly false view of reality.
This belief about the age of the universe is wrong, and unequivocally so. It's not disrespectful to say so, nor is vociferously arguing against this view an example of "intolerance." Furthermore, any religion which encourages, promotes, teaches, or supports such a view can only be deemed anti-science and anti-intellectual — the same goes for more "moderate" efforts, like Intelligent Design. It's a complete denial of everything we have learned from most fields in the natural sciences as well as of the basic methodology by which science operates (and due to which science has proven so much more successful than religion).
As for being anti-intellectual, there are examples of Christians promoting exactly that in reaction to atheist criticisms. One person wrote in to the Times: "Why does Professor Richard Dawkins begrudge us our illusions? Knowledge is not necessarily a solution." I don't think that a person can get much more anti-intellectual than to say that they would rather have illusions (presumably comforting and comfortable illusions) over knowledge. When a religion encourages people to prefer to be deceived rather than acquire an accurate understanding of reality, it is unquestionably anti-intellectual.
There is nothing about religion which absolutely requires it to be anti-science or anti-intellectual. Religion is simply a type of belief system and there are certainly secular belief systems which are anti-science and anti-intellectual as well. There are, however, strong tendencies in religions which incline them towards totalitarianism, absolutism, and dogmatism. These qualities can be key components in an anti-science, anti-intellectual stance, and it's to be expected that religion might be this way more often than chance would dictate.
There is nothing militant or intolerant about criticizing any belief system which is anti-science and anti-intellectual — not even if one attacks or mocks such a belief system. Given how much our species and our societies today depend upon science, technology, and the best possible use of the human intellect, we need to fight such belief systems as much as possible. If people hold to a belief system that teaches them to believe manifestly false things for bad reasons, they should be told this and encouraged to give up this belief system for something better.
This is a wondering telling from Hugh Kramer of the LA Atheism Examiner on how he "crossed over" to atheism. Thank you for sharing, Hugh.
This is part of a series of autobiographical stories of how people become atheists. I start with mine but guest writers are invited to contribute theirs too. Write to me on my Facebook page for more details. The first guest contributor's story will appear tomorrow.
Some people experience epiphanies; something occurs, perhaps even something ordinary and in an instant, their previous worldview shatters and they are changed forever. I envy those people for my progress to new ways of seeing the world has always been plodding and often painful. My personal transformation from theist to atheist took place over more years than many of my readers have been alive. I never intended to become an atheist and in some respects I was only dragged into atheism kicking and screaming. Experience and what Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, called "Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft" (That damned whore, Reason) are what dragged me there.
I did have some small advantages though. I grew up in Los Angeles, which is not a particularly religious town and was raised in a not particularly religious Jewish family. We took the existence of God for a given and observed a few of the major holidays but otherwise the only strongly-stressed Jewish rule we were taught was to live life as good people. By the time my parents decided I needed to learn more about Judaism in preparation for my Bar Mitzvah (the Jewish coming of age ceremony), I was too old (11 going on 12) for the transplant to take. I still believed in God and still considered myself Jewish but I couldn't take all the dietary and other restrictions seriously.
The next transformation didn't take place until I got to college. There I discovered science and philosophy. Oddly enough, it wasn't the works of greats like Hume or Locke or Nietzsche that had the biggest influence on me. It was something I read before them that made me receptive to new mental landscapes like theirs. I'm almost ashamed to admit that it was an otherwise stupid piece of nonsense called "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg" I was assigned to read in Sociology 101. It was mostly New Age woo (unscientific, non-evidence-based assertions) but the central concept, that was more than one way to see the world (what German philosophers call "Weltanschauung") struck me almost with the force of a revelation. I feel stupid admitting it now but the idea had just never occurred to me before. As this new thought gradually sunk in, it had the effect of opening me up to new ideas and concepts. I was still vaguely theistic though because I wanted to believe in a fair universe; that there was some kind of balance between good and bad or right and wrong.
That idea started teetering because of another book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity by behavioral psychologist, B F Skinner. The book argued that free will was an illusion and that belief in individual autonomy was hindering both the scientific understanding of psychology and the development of a healthier, happier society. While I found those ideas convincing at the time, what I took away from the book more permanently was an understanding that the evidence-based scientific method was probably the best tool mankind has ever developed for the accurate evaluation and acquisition of knowledge... and because it provided techniques to compensate for personal bias, I decided it could be applied to personal knowledge as well. I reexamined a lot of beliefs at this time that I had taken for granted. Some held up under scrutiny. Some didn't. I changed my stance on the Vietnam War, for instance. More importantly, I took another look at my ideas about religion and found them wanting. There was no good evidence of a balance in the universe between what I thought good or bad. There was no good evidence of any force personally interested in it or me either. I couldn't prove there wasn't some kind of supernatural force behind the universe but I also couldn't see that the claims of special knowledge of any religion had more than faith going for them either.
So I became an agnostic. I remained one for decades. It took the events of 9/11/2001 to change that. I can't remember a time when I didn't think religious fanatics were nuts (so nuts in fact, that I coined the word "fanutic" to describe them). It just hadn't been brought home to me before on such a personal level how dangerous to the modern world religion could be.
And it wasn't just Islamic fundamentalists that scared me. I began to notice how religion also provided cover for extremists in America and in my own community. I saw them attacking civil rights for women and homosexuals. I saw them trying to undermine science in the classroom and in scientific research. I saw them infiltrating the military, the judiciary and school boards; all in an effort to roll back the clock to a time when human rights were dispensed at the whim of divine autocrats (or at least their self-styled interpreters) if at all. I could not prove there were no gods, but it had been a long time since I believed in any. I called myself an agnostic though because I'd felt no pressing need to make any declarations about it.
Now I did.
I still can't prove there are no gods, but I think them highly unlikely and don't believe in any. More than that, I think the belief in such supernatural overlords is, in essence, an embrace of the irrational and dangerously skews a person's perspective even in its milder forms. In its more virulent forms, I think it's a malignancy that eats individual freedom and threatens the existence of a civilized world.
That's why I became an atheist.
And an activist.
(Emy's Note: Are you as scared as I am?)
By Liane Membis, CNNThere’s a new set of housewives on the block.
These women aren’t whining about fashion faux pas and socialite misgivings. Their stories are cast somewhere between the books of Genesis and Revelation.
Ty Adams, a web-based evangelist and author, is producing “The Real Housewives of the Bible,” a two-part DVD series that tracks six women dealing with the ups and downs of marriage as they strive to be good wives.
Adams said that “outrageous reality shows” like Bravo’s “The Real Housewives” series and VH1’s “Basketball Wives” inspired her to create a more wholesome version of the franchise.
“I was frustrated with what I was seeing,” she said. “A lot of society is looking towards programming to educate them on relationships and these shows haven’t effectively done that.”
“They have ruined and tainted our ability to secure good relationships and to make women into good wives,” said Adams, who is based in Detroit.
Adams has provided Christian relationship advice for nearly ten years, since she founded a production company called Heaven Enterprises in 2002. She’s the author of Single, Saved and Having Sex, has produced religious DVDs and plays and offers sex and relationship advice through a web-based column called “Ask Ty.”
Adams says the goal of her “Real Housewives” DVD, due out later this month, is helping women juxtapose real-life issues with Christian teaching. She says that teaching includes women’s obligation to attempt to sustain relationships that have endured extra-marital affairs and other hardships.
“Because we live in a media-driven society, telling these age-old stories of adultery, loneliness and longing through entertainment helps women relate,” Adams said.
Each character on the show represents a different woman from the Bible. A character based on the biblical Sarah struggles with infertility. (The biblical Sarah was barren until she reached old age).
Gold-digging women are likened to Delilah from the Book of Judges, who seduced and deceived Samson - who'd fallen in love with her - through repetitious requests.
And the show features plenty of Jezebels.
“Many single women can get a man but they can’t keep a man,” Adams said. “So many singles have been in girlfriend status for so long that they only understand that mentality. They don’t know what it takes to be a good wife in order to sustain a relationship and some parts of society promotes that.”
By Kenneth C. Davis, Special to CNN
(CNN) -- As America celebrates its birthday on July 4, the timeless words of Thomas Jefferson will surely be invoked to remind us of our founding ideals -- that "All men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator" with the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These phrases, a cherished part of our history, have rightly been called "American Scripture."
But Jefferson penned another phrase, arguably his most famous after those from the Declaration of Independence. These far more contentious words -- "a wall of separation between church and state" -- lie at the heart of the ongoing debate between those who see America as a "Christian Nation" and those who see it as a secular republic, a debate that is hotter than a Washington Fourth of July.
It is true these words do not appear in any early national document. What may be Jefferson's second most-quoted phrase is found instead in a letter he sent to a Baptist association in Danbury, Connecticut.
While president in 1802, Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State ... "
The framers ... understood the long history of sectarian bloodshed in Europe that brought many pilgrims to America.
The idea was not Jefferson's. Other 17th- and 18th-century Enlightenment writers had used a variant of it. Earlier still, religious dissident Roger Williams had written in a 1644 letter of a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."
Williams, who founded Rhode Island with a colonial charter that included religious freedom, knew intolerance firsthand. He and other religious dissenters, including Anne Hutchinson, had been banished from neighboring Massachusetts, the "shining city on a hill" where Catholics, Quakers and Baptists were banned under penalty of death.
As president, Jefferson was voicing an idea that was fundamental to his view of religion and government, expressed most significantly in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which he drafted in 1777.
Revised by James Madison and passed by Virginia's legislature in January 1786, the bill stated: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened (sic) in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ..."
It was this simple -- government could not dictate how to pray, or that you cannot pray, or that you must pray.
Jefferson regarded this law so highly that he had his authorship of the statute made part of his epitaph, along with writing the Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (Being president wasn't worth a mention.)
Why do Jefferson's "other words" matter today?
First, because knowing history matters -- it can safeguard us from repeating our mistakes and help us value our rights, won at great cost. Yet we are sorely lacking in knowledge about our past, as shown by a recent National Assessment of Educational Progress.
But more to the point, we are witnessing an aggressively promoted version of our history and heritage in which America is called a "Christian Nation."
This "Sunday School" version of our past has gained currency among conservative television commentators, school boards that have rewritten state textbooks and several GOP presidential candidates, some of whom trekked to Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in early June 2011.
No one can argue, as "Christian Nation" proponents correctly state, that the Founding Fathers were not Christian, although some notably doubted Christ's divinity.
More precisely, the founders were, with very few exceptions, mainstream Protestants. Many of them were Episcopalians, the American offshoot of the official Church of England. The status of America's Catholics, both legally and socially, in the colonies and early Republic, was clearly second-class. Other Christian sects, including Baptists, Quakers and Mormons, faced official resistance, discrimination and worse for decades.
But the founders, and more specifically the framers of the Constitution, included men who had fought a war for independence -- the very war celebrated on the "Glorious Fourth" -- against a country in which church and state were essentially one.
They understood the long history of sectarian bloodshed in Europe that brought many pilgrims to America. They knew the dangers of merging government, which was designed to protect individual rights, with religion, which as Jefferson argued, was a matter of individual conscience.
And that is why the U.S. Constitution reads as it does.
The supreme law of the land, written in the summer of 1787, includes no references to religion -- including in the presidential oath of office -- until the conclusion of Article VI, after all that dull stuff about debts and treaties: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (There is a pro forma "Year of the Lord" reference in the date at the Constitution's conclusion.)
Original intent? "No religious Test" seems pretty clear cut.
The primacy of a secular state was solidified when the First Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. According to Purdue history professor Frank Lambert, that "introduced the radical notion that the state had no voice concerning matters of conscience."
Beyond that, the first House of Representatives, while debating the First Amendment, specifically rejected a Senate proposal calling for the establishment of Christianity as an official religion. As Lambert concludes, "There would be no Church of the United States. Nor would America represent itself as a Christian Republic."
The actions of the first presidents, founders of the first rank, confirmed this "original intent:"
-- In 1790, President George Washington wrote to America's first synagogue, in Rhode Island, that "all possess alike liberty of conscience" and that "toleration" was an "inherent national gift," not the government's to dole out or take away
-- In 1797, with President John Adams in office, the Senate unanimously approved one of America's earliest foreign treaties, which emphatically stated (Article 11): "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) ..."
-- In 1802, Jefferson added his famous "wall of separation," implicit in the Constitution until he so described it (and cited in several Supreme Court decisions since).
These are, to borrow an admittedly loaded phrase, "inconvenient truths" to those who proclaim that America is a "Christian Nation."
The Constitution and the views of these Founding Fathers trump all arguments about references to God in presidential speeches (permitted under the First Amendment), on money (not introduced until the Civil War), the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God" added in 1954) and in the national motto "In God We Trust" (adopted by law in 1956).
And those contentious monuments to the Ten Commandments found around the country and occasionally challenged in court? Many of them were installed as a publicity stunt for Cecile B. DeMille's 1956 Hollywood spectacle, "The Ten Commandments."
So who are you going to believe? Thomas Jefferson or Hollywood? On second thought: Don't answer.
July 4, 2011 9:10 a.m. EDT
(CNN) -- As America celebrates its birthday on July 4, the timeless words of Thomas Jefferson will surely be invoked to remind us of our founding ideals -- that "All men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator" with the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These phrases, a cherished part of our history, have rightly been called "American Scripture."
But Jefferson penned another phrase, arguably his most famous after those from the Declaration of Independence. These far more contentious words -- "a wall of separation between church and state" -- lie at the heart of the ongoing debate between those who see America as a "Christian Nation" and those who see it as a secular republic, a debate that is hotter than a Washington Fourth of July.
It is true these words do not appear in any early national document. What may be Jefferson's second most-quoted phrase is found instead in a letter he sent to a Baptist association in Danbury, Connecticut.
While president in 1802, Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State ... "
The framers ... understood the long history of sectarian bloodshed in Europe that brought many pilgrims to America.
--Kenneth C. Davis
Williams, who founded Rhode Island with a colonial charter that included religious freedom, knew intolerance firsthand. He and other religious dissenters, including Anne Hutchinson, had been banished from neighboring Massachusetts, the "shining city on a hill" where Catholics, Quakers and Baptists were banned under penalty of death.
As president, Jefferson was voicing an idea that was fundamental to his view of religion and government, expressed most significantly in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which he drafted in 1777.
Revised by James Madison and passed by Virginia's legislature in January 1786, the bill stated: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened (sic) in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ..."
It was this simple -- government could not dictate how to pray, or that you cannot pray, or that you must pray.
Jefferson regarded this law so highly that he had his authorship of the statute made part of his epitaph, along with writing the Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (Being president wasn't worth a mention.)
Why do Jefferson's "other words" matter today?
First, because knowing history matters -- it can safeguard us from repeating our mistakes and help us value our rights, won at great cost. Yet we are sorely lacking in knowledge about our past, as shown by a recent National Assessment of Educational Progress.
But more to the point, we are witnessing an aggressively promoted version of our history and heritage in which America is called a "Christian Nation."
This "Sunday School" version of our past has gained currency among conservative television commentators, school boards that have rewritten state textbooks and several GOP presidential candidates, some of whom trekked to Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in early June 2011.
No one can argue, as "Christian Nation" proponents correctly state, that the Founding Fathers were not Christian, although some notably doubted Christ's divinity.
More precisely, the founders were, with very few exceptions, mainstream Protestants. Many of them were Episcopalians, the American offshoot of the official Church of England. The status of America's Catholics, both legally and socially, in the colonies and early Republic, was clearly second-class. Other Christian sects, including Baptists, Quakers and Mormons, faced official resistance, discrimination and worse for decades.
But the founders, and more specifically the framers of the Constitution, included men who had fought a war for independence -- the very war celebrated on the "Glorious Fourth" -- against a country in which church and state were essentially one.
They understood the long history of sectarian bloodshed in Europe that brought many pilgrims to America. They knew the dangers of merging government, which was designed to protect individual rights, with religion, which as Jefferson argued, was a matter of individual conscience.
And that is why the U.S. Constitution reads as it does.
The supreme law of the land, written in the summer of 1787, includes no references to religion -- including in the presidential oath of office -- until the conclusion of Article VI, after all that dull stuff about debts and treaties: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (There is a pro forma "Year of the Lord" reference in the date at the Constitution's conclusion.)
Original intent? "No religious Test" seems pretty clear cut.
The primacy of a secular state was solidified when the First Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. According to Purdue history professor Frank Lambert, that "introduced the radical notion that the state had no voice concerning matters of conscience."
Beyond that, the first House of Representatives, while debating the First Amendment, specifically rejected a Senate proposal calling for the establishment of Christianity as an official religion. As Lambert concludes, "There would be no Church of the United States. Nor would America represent itself as a Christian Republic."
The actions of the first presidents, founders of the first rank, confirmed this "original intent:"
-- In 1790, President George Washington wrote to America's first synagogue, in Rhode Island, that "all possess alike liberty of conscience" and that "toleration" was an "inherent national gift," not the government's to dole out or take away
-- In 1797, with President John Adams in office, the Senate unanimously approved one of America's earliest foreign treaties, which emphatically stated (Article 11): "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) ..."
-- In 1802, Jefferson added his famous "wall of separation," implicit in the Constitution until he so described it (and cited in several Supreme Court decisions since).
These are, to borrow an admittedly loaded phrase, "inconvenient truths" to those who proclaim that America is a "Christian Nation."
The Constitution and the views of these Founding Fathers trump all arguments about references to God in presidential speeches (permitted under the First Amendment), on money (not introduced until the Civil War), the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God" added in 1954) and in the national motto "In God We Trust" (adopted by law in 1956).
And those contentious monuments to the Ten Commandments found around the country and occasionally challenged in court? Many of them were installed as a publicity stunt for Cecile B. DeMille's 1956 Hollywood spectacle, "The Ten Commandments."
So who are you going to believe? Thomas Jefferson or Hollywood? On second thought: Don't answer.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Kenneth C. Davis.
by Howard Chua-Eoan on Time.com. Saturday, June 25, 2011
I woke up this morning to discover that, despite my best efforts, I was still only married to my job.
I had spent part of the night in Greenwich Village with the crowds outside the Stonewall Inn celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York state. I proposed to several passersby but every single one laughed. The thumping of "Y.M.C.A." on an adjacent boombox killed any possibility of romance. (Why is that song always played at weddings?)
I had wandered down from a party about 10 blocks north, in Chelsea, one of New York City's gay enclaves. The gathering at that apartment was slightly surreal. It appeared to be familiar: handsome young men flirting with each other over sweets and alcohol. But now they had a complex new dimension to navigate through — albeit the kind of calculus that heterosexuals can do in their sleep. Or when they sleep with each other. Or when they wake up and discover who they have slept with. It's the possibility of marriage, lurking subtly somewhere in one's head. Imagine all the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that will emerge as that little formula weaves itself into the lives of gay New Yorkers. Soon, we can have the kind of domestic life straight people have. One day, we may no longer even be gay. Just the people next door. No more parades. (See pictures of New Yorkers celebrating the legalization of gay marriage.)
Of course, that's not going to happen soon. No matter that New York is the largest state of the Union to hold that the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is equal to that of a man and a woman.
California, the largest state in the Union, had that distinction for a few months before electoral and judicial jiu jitsu tied marriage up in knots there. There are 44 more states to go and a rowdy presidential campaign season that is bound to roil a whole range of political bases. And who knows if the legalization of gay marriage in New York, because it is New York, will actually work against marriage equality across the country. Could an exodus of gay people from the rest of the U.S. to the Empire State sap the will (and pocketbooks) of campaigns to legalize marriage in, say, Missouri or Minnesota or Kansas? Just saying.
But in one very important way, marriage will not quite be marriage even in New York, even 30 days from now when the law goes into effect. That is because the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that entangle the domestic lives of straight people often have another component — religion. And religious institutions have an exemption in the new law from accommodating gay people. It was key to the passage of the legislation. (See how Albany passed the vote.)
Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't going to be the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me? Of course, there have been and will be congregations and churches that allow gay men and lesbians to be married in their midst and to bless those unions, recognizing that God loves them just as much as Governor Andrew Cuomo does. But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith but will now rally their congregants to reject politicians who are willing to abide with this extension of secular civil rights — no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times.
I write this as a deeply religious Christian who is pained that the church that otherwise provides me with so much spiritual comfort and joy will never allow me to marry within its walls. Some clerics may be "liberal" enough to turn a blind eye to gay relationships so long as they do not have to recognize them, much less grant them any kind of imprimatur. And, as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity.
The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here we will have to continue to march in our parades and to sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up this morning, I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore.
I woke up this morning to discover that, despite my best efforts, I was still only married to my job.
I had spent part of the night in Greenwich Village with the crowds outside the Stonewall Inn celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York state. I proposed to several passersby but every single one laughed. The thumping of "Y.M.C.A." on an adjacent boombox killed any possibility of romance. (Why is that song always played at weddings?)
I had wandered down from a party about 10 blocks north, in Chelsea, one of New York City's gay enclaves. The gathering at that apartment was slightly surreal. It appeared to be familiar: handsome young men flirting with each other over sweets and alcohol. But now they had a complex new dimension to navigate through — albeit the kind of calculus that heterosexuals can do in their sleep. Or when they sleep with each other. Or when they wake up and discover who they have slept with. It's the possibility of marriage, lurking subtly somewhere in one's head. Imagine all the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that will emerge as that little formula weaves itself into the lives of gay New Yorkers. Soon, we can have the kind of domestic life straight people have. One day, we may no longer even be gay. Just the people next door. No more parades. (See pictures of New Yorkers celebrating the legalization of gay marriage.)
Of course, that's not going to happen soon. No matter that New York is the largest state of the Union to hold that the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is equal to that of a man and a woman.
California, the largest state in the Union, had that distinction for a few months before electoral and judicial jiu jitsu tied marriage up in knots there. There are 44 more states to go and a rowdy presidential campaign season that is bound to roil a whole range of political bases. And who knows if the legalization of gay marriage in New York, because it is New York, will actually work against marriage equality across the country. Could an exodus of gay people from the rest of the U.S. to the Empire State sap the will (and pocketbooks) of campaigns to legalize marriage in, say, Missouri or Minnesota or Kansas? Just saying.
But in one very important way, marriage will not quite be marriage even in New York, even 30 days from now when the law goes into effect. That is because the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that entangle the domestic lives of straight people often have another component — religion. And religious institutions have an exemption in the new law from accommodating gay people. It was key to the passage of the legislation. (See how Albany passed the vote.)
Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't going to be the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me? Of course, there have been and will be congregations and churches that allow gay men and lesbians to be married in their midst and to bless those unions, recognizing that God loves them just as much as Governor Andrew Cuomo does. But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith but will now rally their congregants to reject politicians who are willing to abide with this extension of secular civil rights — no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times.
I write this as a deeply religious Christian who is pained that the church that otherwise provides me with so much spiritual comfort and joy will never allow me to marry within its walls. Some clerics may be "liberal" enough to turn a blind eye to gay relationships so long as they do not have to recognize them, much less grant them any kind of imprimatur. And, as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity.
The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here we will have to continue to march in our parades and to sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up this morning, I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore.
by Howard Chua-Eoan on Time.com. Saturday, June 25, 2011
I woke up this morning to discover that, despite my best efforts, I was still only married to my job.
I had spent part of the night in Greenwich Village with the crowds outside the Stonewall Inn celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York state. I proposed to several passersby but every single one laughed. The thumping of "Y.M.C.A." on an adjacent boombox killed any possibility of romance. (Why is that song always played at weddings?)
I had wandered down from a party about 10 blocks north, in Chelsea, one of New York City's gay enclaves. The gathering at that apartment was slightly surreal. It appeared to be familiar: handsome young men flirting with each other over sweets and alcohol. But now they had a complex new dimension to navigate through — albeit the kind of calculus that heterosexuals can do in their sleep. Or when they sleep with each other. Or when they wake up and discover who they have slept with. It's the possibility of marriage, lurking subtly somewhere in one's head. Imagine all the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that will emerge as that little formula weaves itself into the lives of gay New Yorkers. Soon, we can have the kind of domestic life straight people have. One day, we may no longer even be gay. Just the people next door. No more parades. (See pictures of New Yorkers celebrating the legalization of gay marriage.)
Of course, that's not going to happen soon. No matter that New York is the largest state of the Union to hold that the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is equal to that of a man and a woman.
California, the largest state in the Union, had that distinction for a few months before electoral and judicial jiu jitsu tied marriage up in knots there. There are 44 more states to go and a rowdy presidential campaign season that is bound to roil a whole range of political bases. And who knows if the legalization of gay marriage in New York, because it is New York, will actually work against marriage equality across the country. Could an exodus of gay people from the rest of the U.S. to the Empire State sap the will (and pocketbooks) of campaigns to legalize marriage in, say, Missouri or Minnesota or Kansas? Just saying.
But in one very important way, marriage will not quite be marriage even in New York, even 30 days from now when the law goes into effect. That is because the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that entangle the domestic lives of straight people often have another component — religion. And religious institutions have an exemption in the new law from accommodating gay people. It was key to the passage of the legislation. (See how Albany passed the vote.)
Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't going to be the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me? Of course, there have been and will be congregations and churches that allow gay men and lesbians to be married in their midst and to bless those unions, recognizing that God loves them just as much as Governor Andrew Cuomo does. But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith but will now rally their congregants to reject politicians who are willing to abide with this extension of secular civil rights — no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times.
I write this as a deeply religious Christian who is pained that the church that otherwise provides me with so much spiritual comfort and joy will never allow me to marry within its walls. Some clerics may be "liberal" enough to turn a blind eye to gay relationships so long as they do not have to recognize them, much less grant them any kind of imprimatur. And, as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity.
The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here we will have to continue to march in our parades and to sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up this morning, I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore.
I woke up this morning to discover that, despite my best efforts, I was still only married to my job.
I had spent part of the night in Greenwich Village with the crowds outside the Stonewall Inn celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York state. I proposed to several passersby but every single one laughed. The thumping of "Y.M.C.A." on an adjacent boombox killed any possibility of romance. (Why is that song always played at weddings?)
I had wandered down from a party about 10 blocks north, in Chelsea, one of New York City's gay enclaves. The gathering at that apartment was slightly surreal. It appeared to be familiar: handsome young men flirting with each other over sweets and alcohol. But now they had a complex new dimension to navigate through — albeit the kind of calculus that heterosexuals can do in their sleep. Or when they sleep with each other. Or when they wake up and discover who they have slept with. It's the possibility of marriage, lurking subtly somewhere in one's head. Imagine all the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that will emerge as that little formula weaves itself into the lives of gay New Yorkers. Soon, we can have the kind of domestic life straight people have. One day, we may no longer even be gay. Just the people next door. No more parades. (See pictures of New Yorkers celebrating the legalization of gay marriage.)
Of course, that's not going to happen soon. No matter that New York is the largest state of the Union to hold that the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is equal to that of a man and a woman.
California, the largest state in the Union, had that distinction for a few months before electoral and judicial jiu jitsu tied marriage up in knots there. There are 44 more states to go and a rowdy presidential campaign season that is bound to roil a whole range of political bases. And who knows if the legalization of gay marriage in New York, because it is New York, will actually work against marriage equality across the country. Could an exodus of gay people from the rest of the U.S. to the Empire State sap the will (and pocketbooks) of campaigns to legalize marriage in, say, Missouri or Minnesota or Kansas? Just saying.
But in one very important way, marriage will not quite be marriage even in New York, even 30 days from now when the law goes into effect. That is because the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that entangle the domestic lives of straight people often have another component — religion. And religious institutions have an exemption in the new law from accommodating gay people. It was key to the passage of the legislation. (See how Albany passed the vote.)
Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't going to be the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me? Of course, there have been and will be congregations and churches that allow gay men and lesbians to be married in their midst and to bless those unions, recognizing that God loves them just as much as Governor Andrew Cuomo does. But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith but will now rally their congregants to reject politicians who are willing to abide with this extension of secular civil rights — no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times.
I write this as a deeply religious Christian who is pained that the church that otherwise provides me with so much spiritual comfort and joy will never allow me to marry within its walls. Some clerics may be "liberal" enough to turn a blind eye to gay relationships so long as they do not have to recognize them, much less grant them any kind of imprimatur. And, as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity.
The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here we will have to continue to march in our parades and to sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up this morning, I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore.
I'd like to take a break from the normal discussion to present this video. And may I just say: Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
I'd like to take a break from the normal discussion to present this video. And may I just say: Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
It didn't work out that way. Two decades later, Wall has not only left the Catholic Church, he has become one of its most tireless opponents.
He's an ex-priest, driven from ministry by the feeling that his superiors used him to help cover up sex abuse by other clergymen.
And he's using the training he gained as a priest to work with victims of abuse who want to take the church to court.
Since 1991, Wall says he has consulted on more than 1,000 abuse cases, helping lawyers pick apart defenses mounted by dioceses from Alaska to Australia.
Now a senior consultant at the law firm of Manly and Stewart in Southern California, Wall spoke to CNN on the sidelines of a recent conference for legal and religion scholars at Cardiff Law School in Wales.
In Philadelphia, where four priests and a Catholic school teacher were indicted on sex abuse charges earlier this year, Wall says he is helping the district attorney build an unprecedented criminal case not only against the clergy, but against an archdiocesan official who supervised them. The priests – one of whom is the church official – and the teacher have denied the allegations.
The case is potentially historic. Wall doesn't know of another case where a U.S. prosecutor has gone after an official at the top of the church hierarchy as well as the suspected abusers themselves.
Prosecutors are trying to convict a vicar – the man who supervised the priests in the archdiocese – with child endangerment because they say he allowed suspected abusers to have contact with young people.
The case raises the possibility that a high-ranking church official will end up behind bars.
Wall hopes the threat of prison time will change the way American bishops respond to abuse allegations in a way that civil lawsuits have not.
"In the civil cases, we have taken over $3 billion, but you're not getting a lot of change in the system," he says.

Patrick Wall outside a recent conference in Wales.
And even so, Wall says, priests are still abusing children.
"I'm working on stuff that happened in the summer of 2010," he says. "It's the same old sodomy."
A life-changing assignment
Wall was studying to be a priest at Saint John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, when there was a life-changing knock on his door one morning after breakfast.
At his door that day in 1990 was the head of the abbey, Abbot Jerome Theisen, with an assignment, Wall says.
Wall, then 25, was to move into one of the freshman dormitories at the university associated with the abbey. The abbot wanted him to become a faculty resident, a staff position that involved keeping an eye on first-year university students in college housing. He was to make the move immediately, that very morning.
Wall knew why.
"Starting in 1989, we started getting hit with lawsuit after lawsuit" from people alleging that priests had abused them, Wall says. He says the abbot told him that credible abuse accusations had been made against the man Wall was to replace.
Brother Paul Richards, a spokesman for Saint John's Abbey, said that the monastery and university had no record of why Wall was asked to work in the dorm. Abbot Theisen has died, Richards added.
Saint John's Abbey adopted a policy on sexual abuse and exploitation in 1989, it says on its website, saying that made it “among the first institutions to adopt” such a policy.
Wall, for his part, says the abbot's request put him on the road to becoming what the church unofficially calls a "fixer," a person who parachutes in to replace clergy who have to disappear quickly and quietly.

Wall as the temporary administrator at a Maplewood, Minnesota church in 1995.
A lawsuit was filed earlier this month against Saint John's by a man who says he was abused in the 1960s by a priest who later served as abbot between Theisen and Klassen. The abbey says it was “shocked” by the charges against the late Abbot Timothy Kelly, who died of cancer last year.
It says it is investigating the claims against Kelly, calling them “the first allegations that Abbot Kelly violated his vows or was an abuser.”
Wall plans to testify in that case, he told CNN.
"In the fall of '92 we had another 13 [abuse] cases come through," Wall says. "They pushed up my ordination" by a few months, Wall says, so he could step into the shoes of another priest who had to vanish.
Understanding the damage
It was after his ordination, Wall says, that he began to understand the trauma that abusive priests were inflicting, not only on their victims but on victims' families and communities.
As a new priest, Wall started hearing confessions of victims' relatives who blamed themselves for the abuse, telling Wall "I should have known, I should have seen the signs."
A heavy-set man who laughs easily, Wall still looks like the linebacker he was in high school and college. He peppers his speech with words like "dude" and casually refers to people who he thinks have done something stupid as "morons."
But relating the confessions of victims' relatives, Wall's cheerful demeanor hardens.
"I'm telling them, 'You haven't committed a sin,'" he says.

Wall, right, with his mom, dad and a diocesan priest in 1989.
Over the next four years, Wall says that the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis sent him to four more places in Minnesota where priests needed to move out fast.
He learned a lot. Wall says he saw that there was a budget for handling cases of priestly sexual abuse as far back as 1994, eight years before the scandal blew up nationally with revelations about abuse in Boston, Massachusetts. The archdiocese could not immediately confirm that, but spokesman Dennis McGrath said he would not be surprised if it was true, saying the archdiocese had been a leader in helping victims of abuse.
Wall did what the church told him to do for as long as he could, he says, but his doubts continued to grow.
"I followed the party line," he says. "But it's pretty hard to follow the party line when you don't think the party line is moral any more."
The breaking point came in 1997. Wall was in Rome, studying for a master's of divinity degree. His abbot called from Minnesota to tell him he was being posted to the Bahamas.
It was not the dream job it might sound like.
Wall says that the Bahamas was where Saint John's was sending priests it had to keep away from people because of abuse allegations. Richards, the abbey's spokesman, flatly denies the charge.
"I basically was going to be a prison warden," Wall says.
"Without much planning, I said, 'Basta cosi,'" he says, lapsing into Minnesota-accented Italian meaning, "Enough of this." Wall had decided to leave the priesthood.

Patrick Wall at his first mass as a priest in December 1992.
Richards denies those allegations. "It has never been the abbey's practice to require payback for education from members of our community who have left," he says, "and it was not the case with Pat Wall."
Wall says the abbot's threats did not change his mind.
"All it did is piss me off even more," he says. "I left without a plan in December 1997."
Insider knowledge
Wall says he went home to Lake City, Minnesota to live with his parents, then bounced from job to job for nearly five years. He got married and had a daughter. He made good money as a salesman in Southern California but says he found the work as intellectually stimulating as "shovelling dirt."
And then, in 2002, the California state legislature did something that would change Wall's life. The state opened a one-year window to allow victims of clergy abuse to sue the church, even if the if the statute of limitations on the case had already expired.
Wall's eyes light up as he discusses the moment.
The law did not specifically target the Catholic Church, Wall says, noting that some rabbis were sued as well. But Catholic organizations were by far the largest group of defendants.
Still, suing a Catholic diocese was no easy task. "The litigation demanded a level of expertise that had never been needed before," Wall says.
Because of his religious training in canon law, as the Catholic Church's rules are known, Wall had that expertise. He knew how and where the church kept records. He knew where money came from and where it went. He spoke Italian and Latin.
In his first case, he testified against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange, California, challenging its claim that it did not know the Franciscan friar at the center of abuse allegations.
Wall insisted that the archdiocese and any priest in it would have easy access to church records saying who the Franciscan was and who had jurisdiction over him.
The case settled out of court, Wall says.
The Diocese of Orange declined to comment for this article, as did the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which is the defendant in several cases currently involving Wall’s firm, Manly and Stewart.
Jeffrey Lena, a lawyer who represents the Vatican in the United States, also declined to comment.
But Jeff Anderson, a Minnesota-based lawyer who specializes in suing the Catholic Church on behalf of abuse victims and filed the suit against Saint John's Abbey, is full of praise for Wall.
Anderson calls Wall “an extraordinary researcher, academic and hands-on voice of experience from the inside.”
He praises the former priest's “courage,” and says he is a “powerful, insightful source of information based on his own personal experience and his study of the phenomenon” of abuse.
An old problem
Wall argues that the problem of abuse by priests is far older than anyone in the church admits publicly.
The earliest church records concerning sexual misconduct by priests come from the Council of Elvira, he says. That synod took place in what is now Spain in the year 309.
There was a treatment center for abusive priests in Hartford, Connecticut, as far back as 1822, Wall says, and the Vatican issued instructions to American bishops on how to judge and punish accusations of criminal acts by priests as far back as 1883.
Wall provided his translation of the 1883 instructions to CNN. They do not refer to any specific crimes, but refer to “abuses” and “evils.” They set out how to investigate, judge and punish crimes by priests, laying out rules such as the examination of witnesses in private, and the opportunity for the accused to know the charges and to respond and appeal.
The Philadelphia district attorney's office declined to comment on assistance it is receiving from Wall, saying it was prevented by court order from discussing the case with the media.
But Wall says that years of seeing how the Catholic Church handles abuse cases have convinced him that the church will not solve the problem itself.
He says he's not impressed by new instructions from Rome last month giving bishops around the world a year to come up with procedures for handling allegations of abuse.
"It's a Circular Letter," he says, using the official church term for the document. "That means it's for the circular file. Bishops are going to throw it away."
Last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops revised its 2002 charter around dealing with sex abuse allegations to reflect the Vatican's new standards.
Wall believes the Catholic Church will survive this scandal.
"It's going to fix itself," he says.
"The institution is going to become radically smaller" as people abandon the church, he predicts. "The loss of membership, the problems in the criminal courts, the statements from the pope - these are all good."
Perpetrators need "access, power and money" in order to commit crimes and get away with them, Wall argues. A smaller, weaker Catholic Church won't be able to provide those things, making it less of a haven for abusers, he says, which will lead to a cleansed institution.
In the meantime, Wall says, the church should give up trying to handle abusers internally and let the law step in.
He recommends that the church "completely get out" of child protection, hand over all its files to civil law enforcement, and make bishops sign a legal oath every year that there are no perpetrators in the ministry - which would open them to criminal prosecution if they are found to have lied.
"Otherwise," he says, "I'll be prosecuting priest sex abuse cases for the rest of my life."
It didn't work out that way. Two decades later, Wall has not only left the Catholic Church, he has become one of its most tireless opponents.
He's an ex-priest, driven from ministry by the feeling that his superiors used him to help cover up sex abuse by other clergymen.
And he's using the training he gained as a priest to work with victims of abuse who want to take the church to court.
Since 1991, Wall says he has consulted on more than 1,000 abuse cases, helping lawyers pick apart defenses mounted by dioceses from Alaska to Australia.
Now a senior consultant at the law firm of Manly and Stewart in Southern California, Wall spoke to CNN on the sidelines of a recent conference for legal and religion scholars at Cardiff Law School in Wales.
In Philadelphia, where four priests and a Catholic school teacher were indicted on sex abuse charges earlier this year, Wall says he is helping the district attorney build an unprecedented criminal case not only against the clergy, but against an archdiocesan official who supervised them. The priests – one of whom is the church official – and the teacher have denied the allegations.
The case is potentially historic. Wall doesn't know of another case where a U.S. prosecutor has gone after an official at the top of the church hierarchy as well as the suspected abusers themselves.
Prosecutors are trying to convict a vicar – the man who supervised the priests in the archdiocese – with child endangerment because they say he allowed suspected abusers to have contact with young people.
The case raises the possibility that a high-ranking church official will end up behind bars.
Wall hopes the threat of prison time will change the way American bishops respond to abuse allegations in a way that civil lawsuits have not.
"In the civil cases, we have taken over $3 billion, but you're not getting a lot of change in the system," he says.

Patrick Wall outside a recent conference in Wales.
And even so, Wall says, priests are still abusing children.
"I'm working on stuff that happened in the summer of 2010," he says. "It's the same old sodomy."
A life-changing assignment
Wall was studying to be a priest at Saint John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, when there was a life-changing knock on his door one morning after breakfast.
At his door that day in 1990 was the head of the abbey, Abbot Jerome Theisen, with an assignment, Wall says.
Wall, then 25, was to move into one of the freshman dormitories at the university associated with the abbey. The abbot wanted him to become a faculty resident, a staff position that involved keeping an eye on first-year university students in college housing. He was to make the move immediately, that very morning.
Wall knew why.
"Starting in 1989, we started getting hit with lawsuit after lawsuit" from people alleging that priests had abused them, Wall says. He says the abbot told him that credible abuse accusations had been made against the man Wall was to replace.
Brother Paul Richards, a spokesman for Saint John's Abbey, said that the monastery and university had no record of why Wall was asked to work in the dorm. Abbot Theisen has died, Richards added.
Saint John's Abbey adopted a policy on sexual abuse and exploitation in 1989, it says on its website, saying that made it “among the first institutions to adopt” such a policy.
Wall, for his part, says the abbot's request put him on the road to becoming what the church unofficially calls a "fixer," a person who parachutes in to replace clergy who have to disappear quickly and quietly.

Wall as the temporary administrator at a Maplewood, Minnesota church in 1995.
A lawsuit was filed earlier this month against Saint John's by a man who says he was abused in the 1960s by a priest who later served as abbot between Theisen and Klassen. The abbey says it was “shocked” by the charges against the late Abbot Timothy Kelly, who died of cancer last year.
It says it is investigating the claims against Kelly, calling them “the first allegations that Abbot Kelly violated his vows or was an abuser.”
Wall plans to testify in that case, he told CNN.
"In the fall of '92 we had another 13 [abuse] cases come through," Wall says. "They pushed up my ordination" by a few months, Wall says, so he could step into the shoes of another priest who had to vanish.
Understanding the damage
It was after his ordination, Wall says, that he began to understand the trauma that abusive priests were inflicting, not only on their victims but on victims' families and communities.
As a new priest, Wall started hearing confessions of victims' relatives who blamed themselves for the abuse, telling Wall "I should have known, I should have seen the signs."
A heavy-set man who laughs easily, Wall still looks like the linebacker he was in high school and college. He peppers his speech with words like "dude" and casually refers to people who he thinks have done something stupid as "morons."
But relating the confessions of victims' relatives, Wall's cheerful demeanor hardens.
"I'm telling them, 'You haven't committed a sin,'" he says.

Wall, right, with his mom, dad and a diocesan priest in 1989.
Over the next four years, Wall says that the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis sent him to four more places in Minnesota where priests needed to move out fast.
He learned a lot. Wall says he saw that there was a budget for handling cases of priestly sexual abuse as far back as 1994, eight years before the scandal blew up nationally with revelations about abuse in Boston, Massachusetts. The archdiocese could not immediately confirm that, but spokesman Dennis McGrath said he would not be surprised if it was true, saying the archdiocese had been a leader in helping victims of abuse.
Wall did what the church told him to do for as long as he could, he says, but his doubts continued to grow.
"I followed the party line," he says. "But it's pretty hard to follow the party line when you don't think the party line is moral any more."
The breaking point came in 1997. Wall was in Rome, studying for a master's of divinity degree. His abbot called from Minnesota to tell him he was being posted to the Bahamas.
It was not the dream job it might sound like.
Wall says that the Bahamas was where Saint John's was sending priests it had to keep away from people because of abuse allegations. Richards, the abbey's spokesman, flatly denies the charge.
"I basically was going to be a prison warden," Wall says.
"Without much planning, I said, 'Basta cosi,'" he says, lapsing into Minnesota-accented Italian meaning, "Enough of this." Wall had decided to leave the priesthood.

Patrick Wall at his first mass as a priest in December 1992.
Richards denies those allegations. "It has never been the abbey's practice to require payback for education from members of our community who have left," he says, "and it was not the case with Pat Wall."
Wall says the abbot's threats did not change his mind.
"All it did is piss me off even more," he says. "I left without a plan in December 1997."
Insider knowledge
Wall says he went home to Lake City, Minnesota to live with his parents, then bounced from job to job for nearly five years. He got married and had a daughter. He made good money as a salesman in Southern California but says he found the work as intellectually stimulating as "shovelling dirt."
And then, in 2002, the California state legislature did something that would change Wall's life. The state opened a one-year window to allow victims of clergy abuse to sue the church, even if the if the statute of limitations on the case had already expired.
Wall's eyes light up as he discusses the moment.
The law did not specifically target the Catholic Church, Wall says, noting that some rabbis were sued as well. But Catholic organizations were by far the largest group of defendants.
Still, suing a Catholic diocese was no easy task. "The litigation demanded a level of expertise that had never been needed before," Wall says.
Because of his religious training in canon law, as the Catholic Church's rules are known, Wall had that expertise. He knew how and where the church kept records. He knew where money came from and where it went. He spoke Italian and Latin.
In his first case, he testified against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange, California, challenging its claim that it did not know the Franciscan friar at the center of abuse allegations.
Wall insisted that the archdiocese and any priest in it would have easy access to church records saying who the Franciscan was and who had jurisdiction over him.
The case settled out of court, Wall says.
The Diocese of Orange declined to comment for this article, as did the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which is the defendant in several cases currently involving Wall’s firm, Manly and Stewart.
Jeffrey Lena, a lawyer who represents the Vatican in the United States, also declined to comment.
But Jeff Anderson, a Minnesota-based lawyer who specializes in suing the Catholic Church on behalf of abuse victims and filed the suit against Saint John's Abbey, is full of praise for Wall.
Anderson calls Wall “an extraordinary researcher, academic and hands-on voice of experience from the inside.”
He praises the former priest's “courage,” and says he is a “powerful, insightful source of information based on his own personal experience and his study of the phenomenon” of abuse.
An old problem
Wall argues that the problem of abuse by priests is far older than anyone in the church admits publicly.
The earliest church records concerning sexual misconduct by priests come from the Council of Elvira, he says. That synod took place in what is now Spain in the year 309.
There was a treatment center for abusive priests in Hartford, Connecticut, as far back as 1822, Wall says, and the Vatican issued instructions to American bishops on how to judge and punish accusations of criminal acts by priests as far back as 1883.
Wall provided his translation of the 1883 instructions to CNN. They do not refer to any specific crimes, but refer to “abuses” and “evils.” They set out how to investigate, judge and punish crimes by priests, laying out rules such as the examination of witnesses in private, and the opportunity for the accused to know the charges and to respond and appeal.
The Philadelphia district attorney's office declined to comment on assistance it is receiving from Wall, saying it was prevented by court order from discussing the case with the media.
But Wall says that years of seeing how the Catholic Church handles abuse cases have convinced him that the church will not solve the problem itself.
He says he's not impressed by new instructions from Rome last month giving bishops around the world a year to come up with procedures for handling allegations of abuse.
"It's a Circular Letter," he says, using the official church term for the document. "That means it's for the circular file. Bishops are going to throw it away."
Last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops revised its 2002 charter around dealing with sex abuse allegations to reflect the Vatican's new standards.
Wall believes the Catholic Church will survive this scandal.
"It's going to fix itself," he says.
"The institution is going to become radically smaller" as people abandon the church, he predicts. "The loss of membership, the problems in the criminal courts, the statements from the pope - these are all good."
Perpetrators need "access, power and money" in order to commit crimes and get away with them, Wall argues. A smaller, weaker Catholic Church won't be able to provide those things, making it less of a haven for abusers, he says, which will lead to a cleansed institution.
In the meantime, Wall says, the church should give up trying to handle abusers internally and let the law step in.
He recommends that the church "completely get out" of child protection, hand over all its files to civil law enforcement, and make bishops sign a legal oath every year that there are no perpetrators in the ministry - which would open them to criminal prosecution if they are found to have lied.
"Otherwise," he says, "I'll be prosecuting priest sex abuse cases for the rest of my life."
Another great one from Hugh at the LA Atheism Examiner. June 13, 2011
Today, Bryan Fischer, host of the American Family Association* talk radio program, Focal Point, told his audience that he is the victim of a hate crime by homosexuals. Fischer claims that homosexual "activists" are trying to "demonize" the AFA and him in order to "derail 'The Response' prayer rally that Gov. Rick Perry is organizing."
Today, Bryan Fischer, host of the American Family Association* talk radio program, Focal Point, told his audience that he is the victim of a hate crime by homosexuals. Fischer claims that homosexual "activists" are trying to "demonize" the AFA and him in order to "derail 'The Response' prayer rally that Gov. Rick Perry is organizing."
You can find a short video of Fischer claiming victimhood in the column at left.
Fischer has an interesting definition of what a hate crime is too:
"You are watching a hate crime in action, because the definition of a hate crime is harrassment; intimidation that is based by prejudice; motivated by prejudice against somebody's religious beliefs."
That's a little more exclusive than other definitions like, for instance, the one the US Department of Justice uses. In addition to religion, that one includes criminal acts based on characteristics like race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.
Fischer, who regularly refers to "homosexual activists" as Nazis and terrorists, did, however, broaden his definition of hate crimes a little in his broadcast:
"...so this intimidation, this harrassment, and remember, one of the definitions in a hate crime of 'harrassment' is derogatory terminology, derogatory language, all kinds of epithets that are going to be thrown at us that meets the definition of a hate crime."
One last note: According to his Wikipedia entry:
"Fischer has been sharply criticized for his written and verbal attacks on Native Americans, African Americans, Muslims, gays and Hispanics. Fischer's divisive comments were cited by Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in explaining the hate group designation they gave to the AFA in November 2010."
*The American Family Association (AFA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that promotes conservative Christian values such as opposition to same-sex marriage, to pornography, and to abortion, as well as other public policy goals such as deregulation of the oil industry and lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act. (ibid)
**(Many thanks go to Right Wing Watch who do the heavy lifting and watch people like Bryan Fischer so I don't have to)
Another great one from Hugh at the LA Atheism Examiner. June 13, 2011
Today, Bryan Fischer, host of the American Family Association* talk radio program, Focal Point, told his audience that he is the victim of a hate crime by homosexuals. Fischer claims that homosexual "activists" are trying to "demonize" the AFA and him in order to "derail 'The Response' prayer rally that Gov. Rick Perry is organizing."
Today, Bryan Fischer, host of the American Family Association* talk radio program, Focal Point, told his audience that he is the victim of a hate crime by homosexuals. Fischer claims that homosexual "activists" are trying to "demonize" the AFA and him in order to "derail 'The Response' prayer rally that Gov. Rick Perry is organizing."
You can find a short video of Fischer claiming victimhood in the column at left.
Fischer has an interesting definition of what a hate crime is too:
"You are watching a hate crime in action, because the definition of a hate crime is harrassment; intimidation that is based by prejudice; motivated by prejudice against somebody's religious beliefs."
That's a little more exclusive than other definitions like, for instance, the one the US Department of Justice uses. In addition to religion, that one includes criminal acts based on characteristics like race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.
Fischer, who regularly refers to "homosexual activists" as Nazis and terrorists, did, however, broaden his definition of hate crimes a little in his broadcast:
"...so this intimidation, this harrassment, and remember, one of the definitions in a hate crime of 'harrassment' is derogatory terminology, derogatory language, all kinds of epithets that are going to be thrown at us that meets the definition of a hate crime."
One last note: According to his Wikipedia entry:
"Fischer has been sharply criticized for his written and verbal attacks on Native Americans, African Americans, Muslims, gays and Hispanics. Fischer's divisive comments were cited by Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in explaining the hate group designation they gave to the AFA in November 2010."
*The American Family Association (AFA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that promotes conservative Christian values such as opposition to same-sex marriage, to pornography, and to abortion, as well as other public policy goals such as deregulation of the oil industry and lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act. (ibid)
**(Many thanks go to Right Wing Watch who do the heavy lifting and watch people like Bryan Fischer so I don't have to)









Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription

