About Me

Name: Jack Fisher
Email: slickboy44@fastmail.fm Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Objective Religions Studies
Reason Resources
Debunking Creationisms

The Audacity of Christian Victimhood

Posted by Jack Fisher on Sunday, November 29, 2009 10:45:33 AM
Christianity has always had leg up in the Western world. Going back to the pre-modern days in Europe and continuing into the modern era in the American Republic, the Christians have had a privlidged position in society. Over half of the founding fathers were Christians. Every president that ever took office has had a Christian background. Most congressmen are Christian. The Republican Party is largely dominated by Christians. Many influencial figures in both the public and the private sphere enjoy special exposure because of their Christian faith. 

Yet despite all this power and prestige, Christians still have the audacity to claim that they are victims and are being oppressed.


Less than two years ago, the Christian Right had nearly every branch of the government in the hands of like-minded individuals. Both houses of Congress were dominated by Republicans. President George W. Bush, a devout Christian and friend of the Christian Right, was in the White House. Right leaning judges like John Roberts was appointed as Chief Justice to the Supreme Court. Various positions in the government were handed out to like-minded Christians such as Monica Goodly, who was a graduate of Pat Robertson's unaccreditted law school. Even the now disgraced reverend, Ted Haggard, famously had a weekly conference with the president. All this power and access and somehow Christians are being oppressed? No other group in the history of the country had enjoyed such privlidge. Even with all this power, access, and support it still isn't enough.

Many Christian groups, especially within the Christian Right, claim victimhood on the social issues. These issues include the civil rights of homosexuals, teaching evolution in public schools, and abortion access. They'll even touch on smaller issues like violence and sex in the media, singling out video games, pornography, and swearing on TV as a threat to so-called family values. The logic seems to be that anything that goes against their worldview is somehow an affront to their faith. These issues that are largely products of non-spiritual matters are seen as direct attacks on them personally. In a sense the Christians are on one side of the culture war and the biggest threat to them is the secular world which they seem to believe is robbing them of their spiritual power.

Now this mindset is an important aspect of this movement because it carries with it a dangerous connotation. Human beings are psychologically wired to respond to attacks. It's a purely survival instinct, refined through countless generations of evolution (although the Christians would probably scoff at this). Experiments have shown that test subjects will respond with near equal fortitude when they feel threatened just as they do when they actually are threatened. It's as present in humans is it is to lab rats. So when Christian leaders tell their flock they're under attack, their instinct kicks in and they don't stop and think logically about what they're doing. There is not even a second of consideration to wonder whether or not someone living differently or seeing the world differently gives them a right to stick their noses in other peoples' business. There isn't a moment's hesitation to ignore the law and the liberty of others in the name of morality and family values. It's easy to forget in this mindset that individual rights are meant to protect one group from imposing their will on another. It was why the US Constitution set such strict guidelines as to what rights individuals (not certaing groups) have and are protected under the law.

Yet this is lost on the Christians that feel threatened. They believe this country is a Christian country and should somehow reflect a Christian set of values. What is lost in this mindset is the fallacy of correlation versus causation. Or in a more appropriate context, are the tenants of American liberty because of or in spite of the Christian majority? Religious idealogues will point to any number of examples, but they'll never give anything of substance that proves the concept of life, liberty, and property is somehow strictly a Christian idea (often ignoring the contributions of the ancients like Greece and Rome and the secular thinkers of the Enlightenment). This notion of entitlement carries with it the same consequences of all entitlement. It leads the group to believe they are somehow entitled to more power and resources than other people that don't agree with them. They may sincerely believe that their values are the values that will make society better, ignoring the fact that every group like them religious or otherwise thinks the same thing. It is that conflict of intent that requires the rights of individuals be protected and not groups so no one group may impose their will on the other group. But that doesn't stop the Christians.

Just this past week, a faith-based group including Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York issued a public statement entitled "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience." What it says is nothing new. Christians of many demoninations including Catholics and Protestants assert that Christian values are under attack and Christians everywhere must rise up and buck the trend of secularism. It's a fairly natural response to a group that feels threatened by a changing world. This same argument has been make many times before, since the very beginning of the Christian Right and the Moral Majority. The greatest irony is the terms 'secularism' or the 'secular world' is never clearly defined. Bill O'Reilly will throw out terms like 'Secular Progressive' without really citing the underlying meaning of this term and the philosophy behind it. He and others like him will only point out that these non-Christians are against their cherished beliefs and are seeking to rob them of their right to exercise it.

It should be a laughable notion, Christians being the victims after all the power and prestige they've enjoyed. Just as laughable as the notion that whites are the victims of attacks by minorities after all the privlidges they've had over the years as well. But it is dead serious. These misguided crusades are never questioned by the flock and never critically analyzed by those leading them. So long as society is not to their liking, Christians and other groups like them will protest that they are victims. The problem is society will never be to their liking because society is always changing and always will change. It fits the very definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's only bound to continue and the best defense is freedom and liberty, not just for religious idealogues but from them as well.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When Religious Zealots Spew Ignorance

Posted by Jack Fisher on Friday, September 25, 2009 11:28:46 PM
The theory of evolution and science itself has been attacked by the religion since the days of the Spanish Inquisition. Throughout history religious zealots have harassed, hindered, or outright suppressed the likes of Galieo, Copernicus, and Charles Darwin. It's never on the merits of the work itself. It always has to do with certain groups just not liking that the stories in their favorite religous texts being disproved in the real world. It's not about their claims being valid. It's about vindicating thier own beliefs and rallying around something that seems so counter-intuitive to their illogical thinking.

Sadly enough, the assault on science continues to this day. The church has long since lost it's power, but the attack can come from a myriad of sources. Some even come from former teenage idols. Kirk Cameron, a former child star from the sitcom Growing Pains, has taken up the mantle of overzealous religious dogma. In a recent interview with People, he discussed plans to distribute 'edited' versions of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 19th across college campuses.

Kirk Cameron Defends attacks on Darwin

By edited, of course, that means mixed with irrational creationist dogma that has long since been disproved and has no merit in modern science. Yet he makes no apologies. He describes the edited text as a "balanced view of Creationism with information from scientists who actually believe God created the universe." But this is a complete oxymoron.

When it comes to the debate between creationism and science, there is no balance. Science uses reason, evidence, and logic. Creationism uses belief, superstition, and dogma. To people like Cameron, a firm belief in his particular supernatural deity is all it takes to disprove a theory that is accepted by over 95 percent of scientists and has mountains of evidence across varying fields like palentology, zoology, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, chemistry, comparative morphology, and taxonomy. Creationism isn't supported by anything other than dogmatic believers who know next to nothing about science, what it is or how it works. They don't even understand what the word 'theory' means. To people like Cameron, it means a guess. But if he just opened any legitimate dictionary, he would see that's completely wrong. Yet this doesn't bother him. He and his partner in crime, Ray Comfort, continue to state and restate the same false statements again and again, never changing their message or the merits that support it. They either aren't that concerned with the truth or simply do not care.

What Kirk is doing has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with promoting his agenda and that of his creationist buddies. By disturbing these perverse texts across college campuses, he hopes to gain followers. In his mind he's saving their souls, but in reality he's dooming them to ignorance. Creationism is one of the most perverted flaws of religion. It makes people mix belief with truth, causing them to abandon any semblance of reason or questioning in any objective manner. It's all about propagating the faith. Anything that gets the believer to think in any way that deviates from accepted dogma must somehow be bad, even if it is backed up by evidence and logic. This isn't just immoral. It's downright inhumane, attempting to rob people of their natrual capacity for reason and knowledge.

On November 21st, 2009, it will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's landmark "On the Origins of Species." It is sad that after all this time, there are still people like Kirk Cameron who spew their Bronze Age worldviews and call it moral. People like them would have society march backwards into the dark ages, negating all the progress that religion and zealous preachers have fought tirelessly to hinder. To them, saving souls is worth all the countless lives that would be lost by abandoning this powerful tool for human progress.

That in essence is the ultimate tragedy. What if centuries ago there was an Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawkings who had insight into the world that could have advanced mankind out of the Dark Ages faster? Yet they were never able to contribute because zealous religious officials felt threatened by their work and had them silenced or even killed? There's no telling how many lives could have been spared, but that doesn't matter to these people. Any amount of death is worth it if it gains them favor of their invisible god. That, in every sense, is evil in it's purest form.

For a rebuttal of Kirk Cameron's many erroneous views, please check out the video below.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religious Liberty vs. Collectivism

Posted by Jack Fisher on Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:59:59 AM

Before the founding of the American Republic, it was unheard of for a country not to have an official religion. The founding fathers sought to set themselves apart from the tyranny and autocracy of European powers at the time by leaving their new country open for any religion, regardless of how great a majority it may be in the populace, to thrive and benefit from equal protection under the law. It is one of the reasons why so religious groups like muslims, jews, catholics, and buddhists have been able to come to America and enjoy the success wrought by freedom and liberty.

But in the era of political correctness, religious liberty is being continually contorted in ways that go against the very principles of freedom. Recently, Townhall columnist Chuck Norris reported on a situation that would have been laughable if it weren't true:

Got your permit to study the Bible?

The event was a real headscratcher. David and Mary Jones were visited by a county code enforcement officer on April 10 (Good Friday) after receiving a complaint about their Christian gatherings, which included only around 15 people. After hearing they did things such as pray, read scripture, and discuss spiritual matters they were given a cease and desist order. That's worth repeating. An official of law enforcement told two people with the same legal rights as everyone else to cease and desist their religious gatherings.

That's not the only incident of it's kind. On June 3rd the Associated Press reported that a Pennsylvania court ruled 2-1 that a Kindergartner's mother cannot read the bible for show-and-tell, even if it is her favorite book.

 
It's the same as the previous story. The law is basically telling people they cannot discuss their faith publically even when it is done in a peaceful, non-threatening way. Even as an atheist with many criticisms against religion, I find that nothing short of outrageous.
 
The issue at hand is not about church and state as some left-wing politicians may see it. The issue is freedom of expression. It's been a developing trend since the turn of the century. Conservatives and progressives alike seek policy that favors or dissuades certain groups of people over the others. It's classic collectivism, trying to mold society by regulating (or sometimes dictating) how people can gather and express themselves. But the core elements of a free society do not reflect collectivism. They reflect individual rights.
 
Freedom of expression cannot be masked by the church/state issue. The freedom to expression one's self and beliefs is a fundemental right that extends to religion. Any person of faith be they Christian, Muslim, or New Age has a right to stand in a public or private square and express their religion in any way they see fit so long as it is peaceful and does not infringe on the rights of others. This means things like praying in a park, preaching on a street corner, or discussing spiritual matters with others in an open place is every bit as protected as political speech. This extends to public schools as well. In a free society, there is no public institution where free citizens have to leave their rights at the door in order to serve some politically correct agenda. If people wish to discuss religion in a school, a public park, or even a court house they should not be dissuaded from doing so.
 
The constitution is clear. The government is not to prohibit the free expression of religion or endorse any one faith over the other. That means the government cannot grant special privlidges to certain faiths people happen to like. It also can't give public money to someone and have them use it to carry out their own religious activities. So if the people in the article were doing what they did using government resources, then that would be an issue. But it wasn't. These were people just freely discussing their beliefs. To deny them that is to pervert the spirit of separation of church and state and stand against the principles of religous liberty and freedom of expression.
 
I am proud to be an atheist. I feel it is wrong whenever the government uses its powers to further religious agendas as it has often done with the Christian Right. But I am never in favor of policies that would prohibit people from freely expressing their religion. As long as it's peaceful, they have every right to their faith as I do to my non-faith. Collective idealists stand against this under the veil of political correctness. If they can harass one religous group, they can harass them all. And that completley goes against the spirit of a free and just society.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Men and Gods

Posted by Jack Fisher on Saturday, May 30, 2009 9:23:21 AM
In wake of the recent controversy over Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame, a lot has been said about religious issues concerning the abortion debate, the state of Christianity, and religion in general. It's hard to imagine how the speech would have been controversial if religion wasn't a factor. The staunch pro-life position of Notre Dame is strongly tied to the Roman Catholic faith. It would be difficult to contemplate such a strong position without the dogma of religion behind it.

Religion is capable of bringing out good in humanity, but it also does more to divide people than almost any other force. Terrorism, prejudice, and bigotry have often had religious motivations. While religion may not be the cause, it certainly doesn't help. Religon is, regardless of what many zealots say, a product of man. And as such, it is prone to man's flaws. Common ground is hard to come by in that context. Understanding it even harder.

Recently, I came across an essay written by a man named Tom Hart. I feel it does a great job of describing the issue of religion being subject to the whims of man. It also leaves room for hope.

Do not blame God for man's mistakes". These simple words add up to one of the most profound statements I've ever read. It was scrawled on a bathroom wall of the university I attended. For some reason this statement has stayed in the back my mind for many years. Gradually, over time, it has led me to ask questions and I have spent years attempting to find the answers. What ARE man's mistakes that we blame God for? You can decide for yourself and follow your own path to see what it means to you, but it has lead me to seek answers about my religious beliefs. I have come to the conclusion that organized religion may very well be the biggest mistake that God is being blamed for. I will present arguments in an attempt to show you why I feel this way.

God did not create even one of the many religions we have, men did. Each founder of a particular religion looked within themselves and saw God, and interpreted what they saw as a revelation of how to live and worship him. They were then able to convince others into believing that THEY alone had God's undivided attention and that everyone should believe as they do; BUT just because someone says, "God told me how to worship him", doesn't make it so. Each person who claims to have been given "the word" from God, interpreted their revelations according to their own subjective beliefs. For all we know each may have been given the exact same message, but interpreted it differently OR no message at all. Therefore, it doesn't make these so-called prophets right, or divinely inspired, it just makes them great salesmen. Each religion has had a great salesman.

God may be the biggest jokester of all time. He has allowed man to create a multitude of ways to worship him. He has allowed us to form and then change religions as we see fit, never interfering with what or how it is being taught. Most religions claim to be inspired by the same God. Many religions say, "my religion is the only TRUE religion" and the more fanatical religions say, "God will punish you if you don't believe in what I believe in". I do not see how anyone who knows there is a God could truly believe that he would damn the majority of the population of this world to purgatory automatically. Therefore, it is impossible for me to believe that there is only one true religion. If so, then most of us are going straight to Hell.

It is my opinion that Our God is tolerant of all religions. He doesn't care that humans have devised so many ways to worship him. He is tolerant of our foolishness and the disparate ways we've created to worship him. We are human after all and as most religions agree upon, flawed. What he does care about are those things that unite all religions. It is sad that we don't put more emphasis on these things and not the differences.

Most people desperately want to believe in something, even if that something is to believe in nothing. As a species we constantly try to find something, anything that will explain human existence, why we are here, and our place in it; but it must be tangible for us to accept it. We are social beings and must be able to see it, touch it, and be a part of it in order to believe in it. Organized religion fills that need. Just believing in, and talking to, God does not. It's lonely when it?s just you and God. He doesn't say a lot and requires you to do all the talking. He exists only as a metaphysical being. God requires absolute belief in him without ever giving you a chance to scientifically prove or disprove his existence. That's hard to sustain for any one person without the support and fellowship of others. Thus, we organize ourselves into groups of like-minded individuals, who have basically the same beliefs, and call it a religion.

The majority of people never actually chose their own religion. It was chosen for them by the simple act of being born. I have no doubt that:
bullet If I was born in a Israel I would probably be Jewish, OR
bullet If I was born in Utah I would probably be a Mormon, OR
bullet If I was born in the Middle East I would probably be a Muslim.
For the majority of us, religion is not a choice, it is a birthright. I apologize to that small percentage of you who have actively chosen your religion because it fits your beliefs. You've obviously searched until you found a religion that, as closely as possible, fits your spiritual needs. That works for me too, but unfortunately, we are in the minority and as of this point in my life, I have not found that religion.

Please don't get the wrong idea. I respect all non-fanatical religions and those people who believe in them. I truly believe that all religions have something worthwhile to teach, but each of us ultimately decides what we will believe in and what we will not. It doesn't matter what religion you are a part of, I guarantee that there are certain tenets of your religion that you disagree with. That's because YOUR beliefs are subjective and are actually only between you and God, and no one else. The religion you are a part of simply fore fills MOST of your spiritual needs, but not all. It is just comforting being in an organized religion where we know that everyone who honestly adheres to most of our religion's beliefs will be blessed and allowed into heaven. In the end though, you will answer to God, not your religion, for your beliefs.

I have been to services in many places of worship. In each, I try to come away with the same thing: some new thought or idea that will help me understand God better and be a better person toward others. I understand that I do not have all the answers and never will, but I also understand that neither does anyone else. And while I may disagree with various religions on a number of points they adamantly believe in, they may have an answer to just one of the questions that I have been searching for, or either raise a question that I have never thought of . That makes every religion relevant. But regardless of what is said, it is ME who internalizes what is being taught during a sermon. I will subjectively believe what is taught and add that knowledge to MY belief system, use it to reinforce beliefs that I already have, or I will reject it. Even if you are a member of a particular religion, you do the same thing. All of us only accept those teachings that fit within our own personal belief system. We discard the rest. Therefore your religion is ultimately between you and God and concerns no one else. The answers I find are only relevant to me and help me along the path to a better understanding of God.

To limit oneself to a set of answers that a single religion can offer is to limit the available answers. The answers to all our questions are out there. They will be found by fitting the pieces of the puzzle together. No one religion has all the answers and as long as we refuse to look for answers anywhere except in our own religion we will never find them.

I personally believe that religion has nothing to do with books, or prophets, or religious leaders, or houses of worship. Those were ALL created by men according to their own beliefs, not by God. We believe in these things because they ultimately match our own personal, subjective, beliefs. Each religion has followers because of each individuals ability to look within themselves and match their own beliefs against the religion they follow. Therefore, my beliefs are just between me and God. The religion I choose to follow is secondary. In the end, I will answer to him, not because of which church I went to, but because of the type of person I was during my life and how I treated others while I was here. It is what resides within me and makes me who I am that will determine whether God will look at me favorably or not. It is the search for answers to the moral questions I have, and how I use the answers that I add to MY belief system that is important. I refuse to limit myself to the answers that only one religion can supply. I am the owner of my own beliefs and God will be the judge of whether I am right or wrong, as he will with us all.

Organized religions do not unite us, they divide us. They segregate one group from another. You can argue the truthfulness of your religion all you want to, but you'll only alienate others who honestly believe in the truthfulness of theirs. Organized religions, regardless of their good intentions, have caused hate, mistrust and in extreme cases death and destruction. "Believe in what I believe in, because if you don't God will not love you and you will go straight to Hell". Think about it, God can not want that. That can not be God's plan for us to worship him. I can not believe that a loving God would not tell us which religion is the "true" religion, but then condemn us to eternal damnation if we guess wrong. No one religion or person has ever had an absolute control over right and wrong or absolute knowledge of the REAL truth.

In most Blogs and articles on religion, many people will argue religious points of view by quoting scripture from their own religion as absolute proof of a point, or will quote history as defined by their particular religious texts. These arguments are absolute truisms to those who believe in them, but are meaningless to those whose religion teaches a different, or even opposing, point of view. Teachings of any religion, that are specific to that religion, will never settle an issue or unite anyone. Therefore, the only test that can be applied to a religion to determine whether it is "the true religion" is whether its tenets resonate as the truth to everyone. It will be one that's inclusive to all.

The good news is that there is a religion that we are all already apart of. We just don't accept it and use it as a tool to unite us spiritually. It doesn?t have a name. It shouldn?t. To give it a name would just throw it into the pot with all the others. If it was ever formalized and put into that pot, I wouldn't join it. It is personal and concerns no one else but me and God. It is a religion of actions and not just words. It demands no place of worship, religious texts, or men who claim to know more about it than I do. It is within me. I know more about it than anyone else ever could. I alone am responsible for finding the answers to the questions I have about it. The answers I do find may be relevant to me, and no one else.

If we pray to God, we don?t pray for Baptist things, or Jewish things, or Muslin things, or Catholic things. We ALL pray to our God for the exact same things regardless of our organized religious differences. We pray for God to protect our families, our friends, our neighbors, our country, peace on earth, an end to the pain and suffering of others, for food to feed the starving, that God may grant us peace within ourselves, and to give us an understanding of exactly what kind of person he wants us to be. Among many others, these are the important things and the things we have in common that should unite us. These things can not be made into an organized religion but, none-the-less, unite us. It is OUR conversations with God that unite us ALL. Even though it is a personal conversation between each of us and God, it is the same conversation. We leave religion behind when we pray to God.

Each of us has within ourselves the ultimate religion, and it is the same. It should unite us, but doesn?t because we?d rather give it a name, write books about it, build places to go to worship it, and create deities of those men who say they know more about it than we do. How can anyone say that the very things that keep us apart will ever unite us. Organized religion does just that and always will. The goal of a true religion should be to work toward peace within ourselves and harmony with others. It should consist of the things that bind us all together, not tear us apart. Only when we recognize this, will there ever be a true religion.

It is my belief that there is only one God. He is called by many names and worshiped in many ways by different religions, BUT he will judge each of us using the exact same criteria that will not be based upon any particular religion's beliefs. It will be based upon our relationships with each other and the type of lives we lived. Until everyone recognizes that each of us contains the true religion within ourselves, because it unites us all as one with God, we will never have peace within ourselves or with each other. These are the things that God will ultimately judge us by. So worship God as your heart tells you to and search for the answers you need to satisfy the questions you have, but please "Do not blame God for man's mistakes".

You can view the essay here: God's God
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islam: Peace or Violence?

Posted by Jack Fisher on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:21:34 PM
In wake of the September 11th attacks, many questions have arisen about the religion of Islam. It's no secret that every hijacker was young devout Muslim. It has lead many to ask whether or not Islam is a religion of peace or violence. There is a long answer and a short answer to this question. The short answer, put in simplest terms: it is both.
 
It's no secret even to moderates. There are many instance of intolerance, cruelty, and injustice in Islam. Just as there are in many religions, there are parts of it that many would deem immoral and prejudice by modern standards. In the Quran, Islam's holy book, there are passages such as:
 
Allah loveth not the disbelievers--3:32
 
They who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, such are rightful owners of hell.--5:11
 
When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso on that day turneth his back to them ... hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell.--8:15-16
 
Beyond the Quran, the religion of Islam does have violent and intolerant traditions. In the early days of the faith Islam was spread by the sword. Armies from Saudi Arabia fought and conqured vast territory from India to Africa and to parts of southern Europe. Islam would not have been possible were it not for war. The Prophet Muhammad did indeed rally his followers to battle in reconquering Mecca. And some of those war-like traditions have continued to the modern age.
 
But regardless of these aspects, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, law-biding citizens. The radical wing of Islam, which gets far more media attention than the moderates, highlight only those who take it to the extreme. Yet it often seems like extremeism in Islam is mroe prevalant than it is in other religions. There are few Christian, Jewish, or Buddist suicide bombers in the news. And there many countries of conflict are classified as Islamic countries. But is the religion the source?
 
The long answer is more complicated. Radical Islam in its current incarnation was not prevalant until the 20th century. It's no coincidence that the areas where radical Islam has emerged are also areas that have been heavily impovered and have a history of authoritarian rule. Africa, Iraq, and Iran, all of which are historical hotbeds of radicalism, are largely products of the colonization period. The modern boundaries of many countries were not determined by the people living there, they were more or less dictated by the dominant European powers. On top of that, unfavorable trade policies helped spread poverty through large segments of the population. And poverty, more than any other force, helps the cause of radicals.
 
It happened in Russia in the early 20th century. The impoverished masses turned towards the communists to save them. The same thing happened in the Middle East. Western powers dominated and devastated many communities so they turned to religion to save them. Even after the colonists left, the effects remained and continued to propogate as authoritarian regimes came and went, subjecting people to more poverty and making them more prone to radicalism.
 
This is also apparent in Muslim communities in Western Europe, where a large proportion of Islamic communities live below the poverty line and are easily swayed by radicals. That is why Europe deals with more extreme Muslims. In the United States, Muslims are much more affluent and endure far less poverty than in other countries. Compared to other minorities like Hispanics and African Americans, Muslims are one of the most successful immigrant groups. There are still extremists, but they do not have the willing populace that communities in Europe have.
 
The United States became a target by becoming what the European colonial powers were in cenuries past. By supporting tyrannical regimes like the Shah of Iran and the royal family in Saudi Arabia, radicals have a lot to work with in propogating hate and intolerance. It's easy to push the more violent aspects of a religion when the people see themselves as victims. And nothing fosters more religious radicalism than victimhood.
 
Throughout history, there have been many religions considered violent. The common denominator for all of them usually include poverty, tyranny, and war-like culture. Muslims will find just as many justifications for violence as Christians or Jewish faiths if the conditions are right. It's easy to quote mine the Bible and the Quran. But in this context religion is not an instigator of violence, it is a reinforcing factor. It does not cause the problem, but it sure doesn't help it and it can make it worse.
 
Religion is a sensitive and personal issue. There's a lot people can do affect it. But when confronted with basic questions such as whether or not a religion like Islam is one of peace or violence, it is important to consider all sides. Human beings and even cultures of all kinds are capable of reprehensible behavior. Religion can either hurt or help. When it comes to violence, it can do both.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Problems with Biblical Literalism

Posted by Jack Fisher on Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:07:51 PM
Many times when non-believers debate believers on any major issue, believers turn to the assumed inerrency of the bible. They will throw out any number of bible quotes that they say proves their claim. They use it to condemn homosexuality, evolution, women's rights, etc. And many quotes are fairly well known. There are parts of the bible that do condemn homosexuality when literally interpreted, most notably in Leviticus. Evolution does counter the literal reading of the Genesis story. And the literal reading of quotes from Corenthians does suggest strong opposition to gender equality. But this idea that the bible is completely inerrant and should be taken literally not only defies reason, it completely misses the point of the bible.
 
Most people don't realize that the idea of bibilical literalism is a very new concept. For most of the history of Christianity, biblical literalism was not endorsed. It was only during the Protestant Reformation that the idea started to emerge and it was only around the late 19th and early 20th century that it became firmly entrenched. The reason for this has to do with how society has evolved. Up until the 20th century, the vast majority of people were illiterate. The only way they knew the bible was through what their priest or paster told them. And it was a given that priests and pastors were not immune from putting their own spin on things. The whole reason the reformation took place was because Catholic Church was abusing this power to justify its own corruption and shortcomings. And now that society has evolved even further with the vast majority of people being able to read on some levels and the modern use of mass media and printing, everybody has a chance to read and interpret the bible. And that opens the door to some unintended consequences.
 
Most people do not know the history of the bible. They don't understand how it emerged, how it was compiled, and in what context it was written in. Some don't even understand the difference between the New Testament and Old Testament. There is a great deal of historical, cultural, and even politicial context surrounding the bible and it's origins. Many don't know that it has been changed and edited over the years as well as translated many times over. It becomes even more convoluted when one considers that the bible was written down in three different languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). And any linguist will affirm that there is no such thing as a perfect translation from one language (especially languages centuries old) to another langugae. And when that isn't taken into account, ignoring context and content, it's easy to misjudge and misconstrue the true meaning of the bible.
 
Believers will cite quotes as evidence to vindicate their morals, but they fail to understand that there is a difference between what the text reads and what it means. Taking the words at face value completely ignores the context. It also ignores the situations for which the culture that wrote these texts were dealing with. Passages against homosexuality and pre-marital sex reflected what was vital to their culture, which at the time was very ridged. Any out of wed-lock births caused a lot of conflict when dealing with passing down family names and inheriting property rights. And homosexuality hindered the production of offspring at a time when populations were dwindling and infant mortality was high. But times have changed and the cultures of the modern era deal with a different set of circumstancs. And it is unreasonable and irrational to apply the same standards of Bronze Age cultures with modern cultures.
 
Anybody who reads a book at a 5th grade level understand that there is context and there is meaning behind the words of any book. Biblical literalists never rise above that 5th grade level, taking only the words as they appear and using them to pursue their agenda. Biblical literalism has been used to condemn homosexuality, science, and minorities and promote violence, prejudice, and bigotry. But that doesn't mean this is what the bible promotes. That's just what the words mean at face value. There are many other deeper meanings to the stories of the bible and like any book, it is subject to interpretation. The way a white middle class man reads the bible is going to be different than how a poor working class black woman is going to read the bible. No one interpretation is true and anybody who claims otherwise is guilty of idoltry. They don't worship god or any supernatural deity. They worship a book full of stories about god and supernatural deities.
 
Even if the bible is inspiried by god, there is no denying that it was written down by the hand of men. And for a book that has been edited and re-translated as many times as the bible, it is impossible avoid the inevitable emergence of spin and personal interpretations. As a non believer, the bible is just another book of myths and folklore to me. To others it is an inspirational text of the divine. But to those who use the bible as if it were a god itself, they do a great dis-service to their faith and other faiths like it and their reckless use of irrational quote mining is a major threat to a free society where the freedoms to believe are protected, but not the freedom to impose.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (11) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Perspective on Religion vs. Science Debate

Posted by Jack Fisher on Friday, January 16, 2009 9:43:01 PM
Most people don't understand or appreciate how much science has done for them. Anybody living in the United States or any industrialized country owes their lives to science and all it has brought us. Because of science millions if not billions of lives have been saved thanks to medical advancements that have cured diseases like polio and smallpox and millions more can survive thanks to lower infant morality. Because of science our civilization has an abudnence of food that is unsurpassed compared to any other time in history and because of science our understanding of how nature and the cosmos work has been greatly expanded. Everytime someone is able to eat ample food, drink clean water, or heal with modern medicine they are indebted to the advances made by countless men of science who used their reason and ingenuity to further our knowledge and create new ways to live and survive.
 
And yet despite all science has given civilization, there are those who seek to undermine it with age old superstition and dogma. These people feel so threatened by the advancements science has made they are willing to undo it and all the good it does just so they can keep their age old beliefs. Chief among these anti-science zealots are those calling themselves 'creation scientists.' Yet it would be an insult to real scientists everywhere to call these people scientists because what they do isn't science. It is just another way for them to push their religous beliefs on people and by disguising it as science they try to get a certain level of legitimacy, which is impossible because they completely ignore the tenants of science.
 
These creation scientists actually believe that the stories in the bible are literally true. They believe that the world was created by a supernatural being and that there was a global flood that only one man survived by building a single boat that housed two of every animal. They genuinely believe that the entire world was destroyed by their 'loving god' and they can prove this with science even though all of their claims have been rejected by legitimate research. But this doesn't seem to bother them. They reject vast body of geological and fossil evidence, claiming it can be explained by their faulty reasoning and misconstrued, out of context, and often outrageous biblical interpretations. They openly admit that if any evidence or theory of any kind comes along that my counter what their old book of Judeo-Christian myths and legends says then it must be thrown out.

Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis (or Answers in Magic would be a more accurate description), is a well-known creationists who claims to know the actual 'science' of creation, but his claims and methods are about as steeped in science as the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. His site openly admits in it's mission statement that "We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness." This basically destroyed their scientific credibility because it states they have their conclusion already and will only shape the facts to agree with it. And that is NOT science. That's nonsense.

Science works in the opposite direction. It takes evidence and draws conclusions of it and often new evidence comes along to change that conclusion. People used to believe demons caused disease, but new evidence came along in the form of scientific observation of bacteria and microbes that proved otherwise. But if Ken Ham's method were applied and the idea of demons causing a disease was assumed since the bible says nothing about bacteria and affirms that demons cause disease, that evidence would have to be thrown out because it contradicts his assertion. Imagine if germ theory had been thrown out and science was not able to develop an understanding of disease. Millions if not billions of people would have died from a lack of understanding of how to treat diseases like polio and smallpox. But at least people like Ken Ham would have felt comfortable that their faith was secure. It only cost millions of lives and countless suffering. Is that really worth it?

Another common claim people like Ken Ham and his cohorts Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (which is also an oxymoron because they don't research anything but the bible) and convicted fraudster Kent Hovind (the man who loves to claim dinosaurs and man walked together) like to espouse is that they are looking at the same evidence, they are just interpreting it differently. This is also a bogus argument because their 'interpretation' is steeped in dogma that allows for supernatural forces to play a part in natural processes. And in science there can be no supernatural forces whatsoever, otherwise it is by definition not science. Science does not claim to have all the answers, but when it doesn't know something it admits it doesn't know. It doesn't claim to know saying their version of a supernatural entity is behind it all. It actually seeks to investigate the phenomenon and explain it through natural forces.

This is possibly the biggest crime creationists and other anti-science zealots commit. They stiffle human curiosity into looking into a phenomonon. Someone out there may have had the answers to these questions about the universe a long time ago, but because of zealots and dogmas they were afraid or unable to pursue their curiosity and their knowledge was lost. Dogma such as creationism and anything like it teaches people to be content with not knowing something and attibuting it to supernatural forces they can never grasp. It hinders creativity and the human mind itself. These dogmatic zealots are not scientists, they are tyrants of the human spirit.

And their reverence of scripture and age old text (not just the bible but books like the Quran and the Book of Mormon), tries to parade nonsense as science even when it has been thoroughly disproven. There are still people who believe in the geocentric model of the solar system, that is having the Earth at the center of the universe, because that's what the bible implies. And their arguments are even laid out int the following website:

Geocentric Earth Nonsense

Creationists fight so hard to get their views forced into schools in regards to evolution. Yet you don't see many trying to push the Geocentric aspect of their dogma on anybody yet. As Penn Jillette so eloquently put "I'm sure they're just thinking...one step at a time."

This is the ultimate irony. The beliefs and nonsense these creation science and anti-science zealots try to push on the public is known by many to be wrong and good science has debunked it time and again. So they actively seek the government to support them through use of force either through policy or monetary support. They know they can't win in the ligitmate arena so they have to use force and that shows just how flawed their principles are.

I take this time to rant against these anti-science dogmatic zealots parading around as real scientists because they really do undermine the foundations of modern civilizaton. They would have it that we reject that which has given us so much just so they could feel good and secure about their beliefs. They would gladly march us all back into the Dark Ages where medicine involved prayer and exorcism and anybody doing research that contradicted sacred scripture was imprisoned or put to death and where irrational superstition took precedence over reason. And they do it with a smile, not caring of how many people would suffer and die as a result. If there isn't a greater example of ture evil then I've never heard one. If they have such a big problem with science then they should move out of our modernized world and live in hut in the middle of nowhere farming with pick axes and hand tools, just as it was in the days of their sacred tales. Because if science is so bad and so anti-god, then they should practice what they preach.

This is a free society. People have a right to believe whatever they want to believe. But in the world of reason, if you're going to make a claim you must support it with evidence. And faith is not evidence. Faith is faith. Don't confuse the two. Otherwise you'll damage both and all of society, not just science and religion, will be undermined.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islam, Peace, and Violence

Posted by Jack Fisher on Sunday, December 07, 2008 10:26:28 AM
In a previous post I discussed the various instances of cruelty, violence, and intolerance listed in the bible. I wanted to show how some of the morals and ethics of the bible are not compatible with the standards of a free society. But in the spirit of equality, I feel it is worth pointing out that Islam has the same inconsistencies and they are much more visible. Since the attacks on 9/11 there has been a lot of debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace or violence. Some conservatives claim it is a religion that preaches violence and fuels intolerance. Liberals say it's more about economics and geopolitics. But the truth is they are both right. Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a religion of peace and violence. Now it's worth saying that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful. The terrorist minorities are a very small subset of radicals that just happen to get more news coverage. But these minorities, which are present in other religions, are spurred on by the many instances of violence and cruelty preached in their sacred texts.

It is debatable how many instances of cruelty there are in the Quran, but there are plenty to list. Here is just a few notables (paraphrased for convenience with citations so you can see for yourself):
  1. Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6
  2. Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10
  3. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24
  4. Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 90
  5. "Guard yourselves against a day when no soul will in aught avail another, nor will intercession be accepted from it, nor will compensation be received from it, nor will they be helped."
    There will come a day when Allah will refuse all prayers and help no one. 2:48
  6. Allah brags about drowning the Egyptian army. 2:50
  7. "Whosoever hath done evil and his sin surroundeth him; such are rightful owners of the Fire." 2:81
  8. If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85
  9. Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96
  10. For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104
  11. For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114
  12. "And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119
  13. Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126
  14. The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162
  15. Allah is severe punishment! 2:165-6
  16. They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167
  17. Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174
  18. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175
  19. "Fight in the way of Allah." 2:190, 2:244
  20. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178
  21. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2
  22. "Guard us from the doom of Fire." 2:201
  23. Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206
  24. War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
  25. Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217
  26. Those who marry unbelievers will burn in the Fire. 2:221
  27. Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257
  28. "Those who swallow usury ... are rightful owners of the Fire." 2:275
  29. Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. 3:4
  30. Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire. 3:10
  31. Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell. 3:12
  32. "Guard us from the punishment of Fire." 3:16
  33. Non-muslims will be punished by Allah for their nonbelief. 3:19
  34. Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21
  35. "They [Christians and Jews] say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion." (The Fire will burn them forever.) 3:24
  36. Theirs will be a painful doom. 3:77
  37. All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die. 3:85
  38. Apostates will be cursed by Allah, angels, and men. They will have a painful doom. 3:86-88
And these are just the first chapters of the Quran. There are 114 in all and there is cruelty and violence littered throughout. So if any muslim wants to justify an act of terrorism, they have more than enough citations in their book. And that's a dangerous tool because it suspends real world morality for a supernatural mission. It dehumanizes other people who many not believe the same way and makes them much easier to kill. Because if Allah commands it, all is well. And it doesn't stop with violence. There are even more instances of intolerance. Here are just a few (cited and paraphrased):

  1. "Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray."
    Muslims generally interpret "those whom Allah has favored," "those who earn Allah's anger," and "those who go astray" as Muslims, Jews, and Christians, respectively. 1:6-7
  2. Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6
  3. Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10
  4. Allah has blinded the disbelievers. 2:17-18
  5. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24
  6. Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 2:90
  7. Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61
  8. Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66
  9. If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85
  10. Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. 2:88
  11. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. 2:89
  12. Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96
  13. Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. 2:98
  14. Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99
  15. For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104
  16. Don't question anything Muhammed says or choose disbelief over faith. 2:108
  17. "But those who keep their duty to Allah will be above them [non-muslims] on the Day of Resurrection." 2:212
  18. For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114
  19. "And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119
  20. Disbelievers are losers. 2:121
  21. Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126
  22. "Who forsaketh the religion of Abraham save him who befooleth himself?"
    Cited in the Hamas Charter (Article 27) to condemn the idea of a secular state. 2:130
  23. Those who reject the proofs, are accursed of Allah. 2:159
  24. Those who die disbelievers, are cursed by Allah, angels, and men. 2:161
  25. The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162
  26. They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167
  27. Disbelievers will be deaf, dumb, and blind. 2:171
  28. Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174
  29. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175
  30. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178
  31. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2
  32. Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193
  33. Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206
  34. War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
  35. Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217
  36. Intermarriage is forbidden. 2:221
  37. The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers. 2:254
  38. Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257
  39. Allah does not guide disbelievers. 2:264
  40. "Give us victory over the disbelieving folk." 2:286
Overall, according to Skeptic's Annotated Quran there are an estimated 526 instances of intolerance in the Quran and roughly 520 instances of cruelty and violence (see full list here). A large part of the Quran is dedicated to assaulting non-believers and dehumanizing them to the point where it creates a very cruel 'us vs them' worldview. It is in essance a reflection of the group dynamics of religion. It creates a circle of believers who believe in their heart of hearts that they are right, they are god's chosen, and everybody else is wrong. It creates great solidarity and can rally people to do unspeakable acts of violence and hatred. And it is hard to counter them because they are justified with supernatural forces.

So is Islam a religion of violence? To some extent yes. It incites the same violence as Christianity and Judaism, but the difference with Islam is the media highlights it much more often. And it is worth stating that these holy texts are still believed to be the inerrant word of god. If anybody takes that to its logical extreme then they will find many justifications for murder, violence, and hatred. And that has no place in a free society

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Belief isn't Truth

Posted by Jack Fisher on Sunday, November 30, 2008 10:39:16 AM
In the never-ending search for truth its easy for people with no expertise in certain matters to fall prey to oversimplified, overzealous beliefs. They are spurred on the the age-old addage that seeing is believing and believing is seeing. While that may be true on some levels, many fail to understand that to believe in something isn't the same as knowing it. In the realm of emperical reasoning beliefs and eyewitness testimony are among the least relyable means of proving any claim. Only evidence can prove a claim, but many dogmatic believers shun the idea of providing anything tangible to prove their beliefs. They go so far as to claim they don't just believe it, they know it. This is where religion runs into problems.

In every debate I've had with religious believers, they all make the same claim. They say that their beliefs are the turth and to reject their beliefs is to reject the truth. Many take it a step further and claim that their beliefs are not beliefs at all and that they are "revealed truths" from some supernatural entity or spirit. They'll claim the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bagahavita is truth revealed by divinity. But there's no evidence of that they're true. There is nothing tangible they can provide to prove that any of these texts or messages came from any divine source. That is why faith is necessary. But that is where it ends. Faith and belief do not equal truth. They are just beliefs.

It is among the most frustrating parts of being an atheist. I do not believe in the mythological claims of religion for the same reason I do not believe in fairies, unicorns, or elves. Many religious people will scoff at the notion of their existance as well, and yet using the same faulty reasoning they claim their brand of supernatural dogma is right and true. And every time I try and point this out to them they thumb their nose at me, claiming I am shunning their diety by rejecting the revealed truth (which is really just boils down to personal belief). But I am not shunning just their diety. I'm just rejecting every supernatural diety on a purely reasonable stance. If there is no evidence then there is no proof.

Some will counter that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of abscense.' And this is true to some extent. Many things may be possible that we can never prove, but it's necessary to seperate that which is possible from that which is probable.  Is it probable that there are other forms of life outside our planet? Taking into account what we know about life, physics, and the cosmos then yes. It is probable, even though we don't have any evidence of it yet. It does fit into our understanding of the natural world that we can measure and observe. So is it probable that there is some all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural sky god lurking in some spiritual realm watching over and observing our every move and judging us for everything we do? The answer is simply no. There is nothing outside the realm of baseless speculation that such a being could exist. It is by the very nature of the supernatrual to be unprovable and untestable. That is why faith is required, otherwise nobody would believe it.

Then there are those who equate believing in something equats to values. Many religous social conservatives call themselves 'value voters,' but this is another faulty assumption. Just believing in something doesn't make any one person more righteous than anyone else. If you believe that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, that's fine. But it doesn't make you any more upstanding than an atheist, muslim, or hindu. It is a grossly self-centered, narcisistic view to think that a single set of beliefs are the right set of beliefs while all others are either wrong. Yet this is the view of many religons (and I'm not just referring to Christianity). It creates a dangerous precedent by claiming their side is right and the other side is wrong. So that gives them permission to demonize, persecute, and sometimes even harm those who believe differently. And there are no values in such despicable self-righteousness.

In a free society people are free to believe whatever they want to believe. You can believe in all the stories of the Bible and you can believe that crystals have special healing properties. But the line is drawn when those beliefs are imposed on others or endorsed by the state. Beliefs are not knowledge and they never will be. You can believe in something all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Having faith and believing in something greater than yourself is a noble thing, but it's necessary to keep things in perspective and understand that it is a belief and not the truth.

The following is link to an interesting video I found on youtube that also explains this concept in a much better way than I ever could.

Beliving isn't Knowing
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Morality and Immorality in the Bible

Posted by Jack Fisher on Saturday, September 27, 2008 7:21:11 PM
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, states on his organization's website that "This ministry is therefore based upon six guiding philosophies that are apparent at every level throughout the organization. These "pillars" are drawn from the wisdom of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian ethic, rather than from the humanistic notions of today's theorists." Throughout his site, he evokes passages of the bible as justification for the morals that he and his organization promote that include opposing gay marriage, teaching creationism along with evolution, and banning abortion. He, like many Christians, believe that the bible is the ultimate authority for morality because it is inspired by god and if the bible says it than it must be true.

But like so many religious organizations before them, they pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to believe because it supports their agenda. The way they see it, if their beliefs are justified by scripture then they are inherently right and immune from moral scrutiny. This way of thinking is dangerous because it opens the door to promoting all sorts of morally questionable ideas and in the past it has been used to justify many that modern society would find atrocious today. It is equally troubling when the bible itself states that it is infallible and that includes both the Old and New Testament. One such passages is 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 which states as follows:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

So even though both testaments were assembled at different times and different eras by different people they were still divinely inspired. This paints a clear and ominous picture. If everything in the bible is right, then ALL of it must be followed and not just the parts that people like. And some of the morals of their time are entirely incompatible with the morals of the free society. One clear example is the concept of genocide. In all civilized society, genocide is regarded as the most immoral and dispicable acts imaginable yet in several instances god himself carries out or condones acts of genocide.

In several instances god himself carries out acts of genocide. The most glaring and well-known is in Genesis 6:5-9 where it clearly states as follows:

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

But there are plenty others. The following list documents and justifies just a few acts of genocide:

Deuteronomy 7:1-2:

"... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Joshua 6:21:

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and donkey, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 10:40-41:

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."

But it doesn't stop at genocide. The bible promotes a wide range of morally questionable acts that are but not limited to the following:

Animal cruelty - Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4

Incest - Genesis 4; 9:1; 19:30-38; 20:11-12, 2 Samuel 13:1-15

Slavery - Numbers 31:31-35, Leviticus 25:44-45, Exodus 21:2-7, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2

Abuse of Slaves - Exodus 21:7, Luke 12:47-48

Spousal Abuse - Numbers 5:5-31, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29

Child Abuse - Genesis 22, Deuteronomy 21:18-21; 23:2, Proverbs 13:10; 20:30; 22:15; 23:13-14, Psalm 137:9

Abortion - Amos 1:13, 2 Kings 15:16, Hosea 9:11-16; 13:16, Numbers 5:5-31

Pillage - Genesis 34:13-29, Deuteronomy 20:13-14, Numbers 31:7-12

Murder - Exodus 2:12, Judges 9:5; 11:29-39; 14:19, 2 Samuel 18:15, 1 Kings 2:24-25, 29-34, 46, 9:27, 10:7, 2 Chronicles 21:4, Ezekiel 20:26

Cannibalism - Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53, Isaiah 49:26, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:8-10, 2 Kings 6:29

The bible also promotes extreme prejudice against groups such as:

Race - Exodus 23:23; 28, Numbers 21:35, Deuteronomy 3:6; 7:1, Matthew 15:22-28

Nationality - Leviticus 25:46, Joshua 6:21-27, Matthew 11:21-24,

Religion - 2 Kings 10:19-27 (although it is throughout the bible, this passage is especially glaring)

Sex - Genesis 38:16-24, Judges 9:53-59; 19:22-29; 21:10-12, Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 22:23-24; 28-29; 25:11-12, Zechariah 14:1-2, Leviticus 12:1-8; 14; 15:19-30; 18:19; 19:20; 21:9; 27:3-7, Numbers 1:2; 20:13-15; 30:3-16; 31:14-18

Sexual Orientation - Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13

None of these morals have ANY place in a free society. Those that claim the bible is infallible and must be followed absolutely have no excuse. You can't claim everything in the bible is true and then just ignore the parts you don't like. That is being dishonest and groups like Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, and the Family Research Council are all guilty of it because they all claim to use the bible as a source and as justification for their beliefs. They pick and choose according to whatever promotes their social agenda and in a society that champions liberty and justice for all these morals should be kept within the books themselves and NEVER used as a moral guide for any moral decision let alone law.

Now I focus on the bible because I am a former Christian. I have nothing against other Christians or people of faith in general. I understand that there are plenty of good passages in the bible such as love thy neighbor and forgiving those who have done wrong, but I find it very disturbing when people who claim to have a superior moral sense because of their faith. They use scripture to justify their beliefs and sometimes their actions when acts of violence and prejudice are carried out in the name of their beliefs. Believing is one thing, but acting on them is crossing a major line and in a free society there is no justification for such acts. Whether it is lynching blacks or killing gay teenagers like Matthew Shepard, the morality of the bible should NOT be part of a modern, civilized society. It has a place, but not in the law or the government. Religion is religion and belief is belief. And it should not be used to impose morality or immorality on anybody in a free society.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »