Name change

OK, after the consultation (thanks, all!) I have decided to change the name from "Church of Jesus Christ Atheist" to "Christian Atheism in Action" (not "inaction"). The new URL for the blog is christian-atheist.blogspot.com (yes, it has a hyphen - sorry about that).

One problem with the "Church" label was that it gave the impression that we were trying to start a denomination. That would be totally against the core concept of the Christianity Compatibility Layer. Another problem was that it juxtaposed "Jesus Christ" with "Atheist" too soon in the game, and I think potentially alienated part of the audience who really need to get a wee bit deeper into the thinking before deciding whether to switch off.

So let me know what you think - is there a better title? Are there other blogs or websites doing a similar thing to this? Are there useful links you can suggest? Is the concept fundamentally flawed, or is there a better way of getting atheists and believers alike to snuggle cosily together under the banner of "Christian" (in the same way as I hope they can do for Judaism and Islam)?

Alienation or Illumination?

It has come to my attention (i.e. I've been collared by one of my nearest and dearest) that the title of this blog, "Church of Jesus Christ Atheist" might be somewhat alienating or even offensive to some Christians, or even to some Atheists. Perhaps the juxtaposition of Jesus Christ and Atheism is too much for some (despite the very deliberate device in the gospels of Matthew and Mark that suggest that Jesus cried out on the cross "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?").

Whether we like it or not (and I don't - just to make that clear), many Christians and Atheists regard the "other side" with a degree of disdain, suspicion, or even outright hostility, so that putting Jesus Christ together with Atheist might raise a few eyebrows.

My intent in the name was to indeed raise the eyebrows, but not to put people off; rather, I wanted them to read further, to see whether the distinction was as sharp as it is often made out. I would contend that already many people who see themselves as Christian, and unapologetically so, do not believe that the bible records absolutely accurate accounts of past events, do not believe the stories of miracles represent true records of real events, do not believe that Jesus was divine, born of a virgin, or rose from the dead, and don't even believe in God (at least not in the "conventional" way).

So enough preamble. It's over to you folks now: should I change the name of this blog, and if so, what should I change it to? Bear in mind the stated purpose of the blog - to develop a Christianity Compatibility Layer for Atheists. Some ideas for starters:

• "Christian Atheist Understanding"
• "Tolerating Difference"
• "What is Truth?"

Opinions welcome below in the comments section. Thanks in advance!

A Christian Atheist response to the #Brady scandal

[Image source: BBC]

The Catholic Primate of all Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, is in some very hot water, and like the proverbial frog in a saucepan, claims he is quite happy as the gas is turned up and the water starts to boil. It turns out that his role in the Catholic Church's cover-up of clerical paedophilia was substantially greater than he has previously intimated, and he had the opportunity to save children from abuse, but failed to do so. "Just following orders" is as close as we got to an explanation of his position.

This has prompted a huge wave of outrage in Ireland, much of it (rightly) directed towards the Catholic Church itself, whose archaic procedures left it effectively legally and morally rudderless, where defence of the Church itself was seen as more important than the protection of little children. Jesus himself had something to say about that, but I don't see the Vatican or the Irish Church hierarchy queuing up to be fitted for their millstones.

But as Christian Atheists, whether Catholic, Protestant or other, what should we take from this sordid affair?

My own view is that we need to learn the lessons - no organisation or structure has the right to decide for itself to deal with criminal matters purely through its own procedures. People collusive in such procedures - which effectively amount to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - need to examine their consciences, and offer their resignations, even if only to show some degree of contrition. Children need to be protected at all times.

Although writing from an unashamedly Atheist position, I do not feel that religion per se is the great social evil that some Atheists make it out to be. The evil is unchallengeable belief. The arrogance that will see Brady fall (inevitably) derives from an unshakeable belief in his own superiority, and a view that the church can do no wrong. The complete absence of humility is staggering in its extent, but perhaps not surprising, given the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to those who break ranks (Father Brian D'Arcy being the most prominent and commendable example).

Should Christians leave the Catholic Church for a different church? I can't say. But Christian Atheists should at least make their voice heard on this and other issues. We do not lack a moral compass, as some detractors would imply. On the contrary, we base our dealings with our fellow humans on that Great Commandment (a short sharp Humanist manifesto if ever there was one) to love our neighbour as ourselves. The irony is that the priest and Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan were obeying their religious orders not to touch a wounded person. Yet in following orders, in putting their religious structures and procedures above the act of helping a fellow human being in dire distress, we quite rightly regard them as ghastly hypocrites. And so we should regard Brady. And indeed, so we should regard ourselves when we look back over our lives at the times when we have just followed orders, and left someone to suffer.

Sometimes the best way to show leadership is to resign. In clinging to the ever-more sweaty and sordid reins of power, Brady is putting himself above the victims of his own inexcusable inaction.