I really wanted to like this book. Separation of Church and Hate: A Sane Person’s Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds, by actor and comedian John Fugelsang, is a much-needed takedown of Bible-thumping fundamentalists and Christian nationalists. Unfortunately, the book gets hopelessly tangled up in its own contradictions. I read only the first three chapters, about 60 pages, and set it aside. Let me tell you why.

Separation of Church and Hate:
A Sane Person’s Guide to Taking Back the Bible from
Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds
By John Fugelsang
Avid Reader Press, New York, 2025

To begin with, I am not Christian. My heritage is Jewish and my beliefs are Atheist. So I appreciate that Flugelsang wrote the book for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike.

Fugelsang grew up in a devout Catholic family. He’s the son of a former nun and a former Franciscan brother, or, as he puts it, the son of “two people who broke a promise to God.” Interesting background. Watching television in the 1980s and 90s, he noticed a stark difference between his parents’ relatively liberal teachings and the “Christian leaders” he saw on TV.

“They were the fundamentalists, the power-hungry grifters who took advantage of the fact that most people don’t know the Bible all that well. They were charlatans, frauds, hypocrites and villains.” [p. 5]

So he wrote this book “to help you use the Bible when engaging with the fundamentalists in your life, at your job, or, if you must, on your social media feed.” [p. 13]

It seemed like such s a laudable goal.

For sure, there are some good things in this book, at least in the parts I read.

Fugelsang defines fundamentalists as people who believe that all the events in the Bible are 100% accurate historical records, and all the dialog in the Bible is the infallible word of God. No metaphors, no interpretation. The literal truth. Fundamentalists are:

 “High certainty, low empathy, science resistant. Fundamentalists are deeply into hierarchy, raised on patriarchy, and they always prop up oligarchy.” [p. 54]

Of course, you can find fundamentalists in every religion, and in every political party too.

He describes Christian nationalism as a form of fundamentalism based on “the belief that God intended America to be a Christian nation and that a ‘true’ American should be a Christian, too.” [p. 7]

He says,

“They’re not really concerned with ‘freedom of religion.’ Their mission is earthly power in the form of a Christian nation that’s controlled by their specific, Jesus-free take on the Bible. … They don’t like that they can’t control women anymore, and they’re terrified of becoming a minority in a country they believe they own.” [p. 8]

I think his diagnosis is spot on.

Fugelsang has some great quips too:

“If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that nobody hates like a Christian who’s just been told their hate isn’t Christian.” [p. 13]

“I generally trust people who are seeking the truth; I tend to be wary of those who claim they’ve found it.” [p. 15]

“And remember – if your church isn’t telling you to love your enemies but keeps telling you who your enemies are, you’re not really in a church.” [p. 16]

“It should also be noted that enslaving people and slaughtering Indigenous people disqualifies America from ever pretending to have been founded on Jesus’s movement …” [p. 59]

As far as I’m concerned, Christian nationalism is a toxic blight on society and a direct threat to democracy. Anyone who steps up to knock it down is doing humanity a great service. I applaud Fugelsang’s intent.

But, sadly, I think he’s not much different from the people he’s criticizing, except for a better sense of humor, perhaps.

The first problem with Separation of Church and Hate is the way Flugelsang distinguishes between two groups of Christians. On the one hand, there are “liberal and moderate Jesus-following Christians” along with “sane conservatives.” They are the “authentic” and “decent” Christians. Opposing them are “these people,” the fundamentalists and Christian nationalists. They are the “batshit crazy Christians.”

Us and them.

But this is exactly what religion always does: divide people. Even within the same religion. It reminds me of the “splitters” scene from Monty Python’s The Life of Brian. Fugelsang doesn’t seem to realize that he’s doing the same thing his opponents are doing.

In reality, of course, there’s a continuum of viewpoints and beliefs and no clear dividing line between the “good guys” and the “bad guys.” It’s not obvious to me why we should trust Fugelsang’s line-drawing more than anyone else’s. Maybe we shouldn’t be drawing dividing lines at all.

Flugelsang asserts that religion itself isn’t the problem, only the fundamentalists within each religion. I disagree. Any religion that claims a monopoly on truth – our God is the one true god, our book is the one true book – is the problem.

However, the critical flaw in this book is its very purpose: arming oneself for debate with Christian nationalists by becoming better informed about what the Bible “really says” is a fool’s errand.

The problem shows up before the text of the book even starts. On the copyright page, Fugelsang acknowledges scripture quotations from 10 (ten!) different versions of the Bible. I’m glad he acknowledges his sources, but the fact that he quotes from so many just proves that there are multiple competing interpretations of what is supposed to be the revealed word of God. Which one’s right? Why are Fugelsang’s choices better than anyone else’s? Is he cherry-picking?

Debating Christian nationalists by debunking their biblical interpretation with your biblical interpretation doesn’t seem like a good use of anyone’s time let alone a winning strategy. Fugelsang admits this:

“But – you likely won’t change their minds. And that’s okay.” [p. 62]

So what then is the point of the book?

I’m glad Fugelsang exposes the hypocrisy, misogyny, homophobia and other sins of the Christian nationalist movement. But as he says, it’s not our job to deprogram zealots.

Yet that seems to be exactly what Separation of Church and Hate is trying to do. The result is an entertaining collection of talking points for a futile debate that, once started, will inevitably spiral into an acrimonious dead end.

Christian nationalists need to be defeated, not debated.

To do that, the rest of us need to put forward a more compelling vision of the kind of society we want to live in. One that’s not built on hate and domination, but on love and inclusion. Factional fighting within and between religions is invariably destructive. In a wildly diverse society like ours, we must find a way to rise above the fault lines that divide us.

Thanks for reading.