Godless (34 page)
(2) “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” As with the first one, this does not advocate any behavior, unless it is interpreted as a command to go into mourning. Instead, why not encourage people to comfort those who are in mourning?
(3) “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” This is not advocating meekness, it is merely stating that if you happen to be a meek person then don’t feel bad about it because you won’t be left out. This might have some worth if meekness is equated with gentleness and pacifism, but even then it is valued only as a condition for a major payoff in the future. This is like saying, “Be nice to Grandma because she might put you in her will.” Incidentally, meekness is one attribute that is rarely seen in Christian history, current or past. How meek is the popular hymn “Onward, Christian Soldiers”? How much meekness is found in televangelists? How meek is the pope? Are the faces of the anti-abortionists filled with gentleness as they scream threats and physically block access to clinics, all in the name of God? How meek was Jesus when he cursed the fig tree, drove out the money changers, murdered a herd of swine or looked at his disciples with anger? How meek are the Christians who shout insulting and threatening messages on the answering machine at the Freedom From Religion Foundation? Meekness might be a useful survival tactic of those who are supposed to be in submission to a powerful master, such as slaves or Christian wives, but since much of life calls for firm, decisive and sometimes forceful action in order to correct inequalities and abuses, “meekness” seems like a rather weak and useless order.
(4) “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.” This merely encourages religious rituals, such as prayer. It offers no advice about how to treat other human beings. If “righteousness” is interpreted politically, then this is a dangerous verse. Righteousness breeds censorship, segregation, persecution, civil inequality and intolerance. Millions of people have been killed and persecuted by the righteousness of others. If “righteousness” can be interpreted to mean “morality,” then why hunger and thirst after it? Why not just be moral? If you have to hunger and thirst for goodness, then you are admitting you are not such a good person in the first place. Forget about original sin and just start acting ethically.
(5) “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” This might be admirable, but how many of us (besides parents) are ever in a position to bestow mercy? The ability to grant mercy implies an authoritative control over others: slavemaster, king, military leader, judge. Christian parents ought to observe this mandate when they are about to follow the biblical command to spank their children. The motivation for this Beatitude is wrong: “for they shall obtain mercy.” This beatitude is actually a threat, implying that God will not be merciful to those who are not merciful. Why would God not want to be merciful? Wouldn’t the “crime” of a lack of mercy be one of the situations producing a need for God’s mercy? A better moral principle might say, “Blessed are the cautious, because no human being has the right to go overboard in defending against the harm of another.”
There is a potential dark side to this verse. Many believers are eager to forgive the sins of their pastors, priests and other church leaders, unwilling to denounce them or to seek criminal or civil justice when they commit crimes. This is painfully evident in the many cases of pedophilia and child abuse by priests and ministers. Many church members rally to the support of the minister, consoling him with “mercy” in his time of need—while blaming or ignoring the victims. If this beatitude produces such a lack of accountability, then it is truly an evil verse.
(6) “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” What does “pure” mean, in real terms? If it means “the lack of desire to hurt others” then it is not bad. If it means “being spiritual, separate from worldly concerns” then it is bigoted and potentially dangerous. No ethical benefits arise from anti-social or self-denying attitudes. The Apostle Paul talked about having a “pure conscience” and this might be considered an admirable attitude in certain groups, but if there is no elaboration about how this affects conduct, then it is useless as a moral guide. Besides all that, how in the world can a person be “pure in heart” if we are all born sinners?
(7) “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” This is the best of the bunch. We all want peace, but how do we get it? Was the bomb at Hiroshima peaceful because it ended the war? Are nuclear warheads “blessed?” The United States is currently “at peace” with the Native Americans; however, was United States policy therefore peaceful and blessed toward the Indians? Besides, Jesus contradicted his own advice by warning, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Bible scholar Hector Avalos, in his book
Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence,
points out that the word “peace” in scripture doesn’t have the same meaning as the modern-day, warm and fuzzy, “let’s all get along” version. Peace was a military concept, not an ideal of tolerance. “Shalom” should more accurately be translated as “pacification.” In Deuteronomy 20:10-11 God told his chosen people: “When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor.” In other words, there will be “peace on earth” when non-Jews are either killed or turned into slaves. According to Jesus, these holy marauding peacemakers are “blessed.”
Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence,
points out that the word “peace” in scripture doesn’t have the same meaning as the modern-day, warm and fuzzy, “let’s all get along” version. Peace was a military concept, not an ideal of tolerance. “Shalom” should more accurately be translated as “pacification.” In Deuteronomy 20:10-11 God told his chosen people: “When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor.” In other words, there will be “peace on earth” when non-Jews are either killed or turned into slaves. According to Jesus, these holy marauding peacemakers are “blessed.”
(8) “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” This Beatitude is dangerous. Besides being in the passive voice and not advocating any specific moral behavior, “Blessed are they which are persecuted” appears to invite, encourage and praise confrontation and dispute among human beings. Some have even interpreted this verse as a command to go out and “get persecuted.” This persecution complex, admittedly not shared by all Christians, contradicts the seventh Beatitude! If you stir up trouble for Jesus, you are blessed and will receive a great “reward in heaven.” You are supposed to “rejoice, and be exceeding glad” when your actions incite others to treat you badly.
Persecution is something that could happen to anyone, whether that person has integrity or not, in the course of supporting a cause. Freethinkers have garnered their share of hostility while working for the separation of church and state (are we therefore “blessed”?). But to seek persecution and to “rejoice” in it is perverse. Are we supposed to say, “Yay! Someone called me an idiot! Hooray! I got another death threat!”?
The Beatitudes are immature: “If you kids will stop fighting and pay attention to me, I’ll take you to the movies.” Since they give little behavioral advice, stressing inner attitudes of being, they sometimes are called the “be-attitudes” by preachers. (Not the “do-attitudes.”) They are fluff. Offering skimpy moral guidance, they turn out to be mere platitudes to keep the poor and disenfranchised content to stay in their place. They are not good guides for behavior.
I have heard Christians say that “turning the other cheek” is what makes Christianity unique, comparing it to Martin Luther King’s nonviolent resistance. Here is how Jesus phrased it in the Sermon on the Mount: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)
At face value (no pun intended) this appears to be a plea for pacifism, and if it is interpreted as such then it is acceptable. Most of us agree that it is usually more moral to avoid violence. We tell children not to hit other kids in the schoolyard even if they hit first, and to try to resolve differences in other ways. But the way Jesus put it, this is not nonviolent resistance—it is violent nonresistance! To invite an abusive person to engage in further abuse is not pacifism. It is reckless. If someone breaks into my house and threatens our family, should I stand idle and let it happen? If a woman is raped, should she love her enemy and invite him back to her home? Do Christian members of the National Rifle Association think they should let go of their guns?
Some might argue that the phrase “turn the other cheek” is just a figure of speech and that Jesus did not actually mean we should encourage maltreatment. But reading the context in Matthew 5:40-42 reveals that this is indeed what he meant, ordering believers to reward doubly those who steal or kidnap.
A more sensible rule would say, “If someone smites thee on thy right cheek, then get away from that person! Defend yourself to avoid further harm. Ask for help, file charges, or try to stop the abuse from happening to someone else. Let the person know that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. Never invite abuse.”
The bible does contain a smattering of potentially useful advice, such as the admonition against laziness in Proverbs 6:6-11, but even this admirable attempt to improve character fails to point out that there is nothing immoral about laziness itself. Ethical considerations are situational and laziness would be wrong only if it caused unnecessary harm to someone. On the whole, the bible does not have a grasp of ethics.
Even if we all agreed that an absolute moral code were necessary, we would have a serious practical problem. How do we know what that code is? Who decides how the bible is interpreted? Millions of devout, bible-believing Christians and Jews who study scripture carefully cannot agree on many important moral issues. They come down on different sides of the debate about capital punishment, abortion, physician-assisted suicide, death with dignity, ordination of women, women’s rights, gay rights, birth control, war and many other issues. What good does it do to have a divine code of ethics if no one knows what it is?
If morality means anything, it means that we are accountable to others. Christians believe that we are accountable not to people, but to God. Since God is nonexistent, then they are accountable to no one. Even if a god does exist, they are in practice not directly accountable to anyone in the real world, which amounts to the same thing. Since bible believers are accountable to God and not to humanity, they can ask for forgiveness from God for any crimes they commit against humanity. In other words, they can act with impunity. And they often do.
It does no good to say that Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins. I don’t have any sins, but if I did I wouldn’t want Jesus to die for my sins. I would say, “No, thanks. I will take responsibility for my own actions.” What self-respecting person would want otherwise? If I commit a crime, Jesus can die a million deaths and still not change the fact that the guilt lies with me. If I am convicted of a felony, does the law allow someone else to go to prison in my place? What good would that do? It would make a mockery of law and justice and would turn me into an even more reprehensible character, fobbing responsibility off on another. To sing “Jesus died for my sin” is to admit that wrongful actions have nothing at all to do with consequences against flesh-and-blood sentient creatures who hurt.
Humanists are accountable to real, natural, breathing human beings (and other sentient animals), and to enforceable human laws, not to an unprovable, pie-in-the-sky deity. This makes humanism superior as a guide for moral behavior. Humanism is not just better than the bible—the Bad Book—it is the only way we can be moral.
Chapter Eleven
Murder, He Wrote
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has a series of inexpensive “nontracts” that are very popular with members. They have been used to counter proselytizers and to introduce inquiring friends to the reasonableness of freethought. They are called “nontracts”—tracts for nonbelievers—because “tract” can connote propaganda. Most freethinkers are happy to live and let live and only respond when confronted by believers, although one unbeliever became so exasperated over a local church that he sneaked into the sanctuary and inserted
Dear Believer
into every hymnbook. (I don’t recommend doing this, but I suppose it is not unfair.)
Dear Believer
into every hymnbook. (I don’t recommend doing this, but I suppose it is not unfair.)
The nontracts have been passed out all over the continent, and guess who gets the fallout. The Foundation office regularly receives letters from the recipients and has even picked up a few members among supportive readers. One fellow read
Ten Common Myths About Atheists
on a laundromat bulletin board and promptly joined. Usually, however, we hear from believers who want to correct our heresy.
Ten Common Myths About Atheists
on a laundromat bulletin board and promptly joined. Usually, however, we hear from believers who want to correct our heresy.
The
Bible Contradictions
nontract provokes the longest letters. We get these tortured point-by-point defenses of the “inerrant word of God” from fundamentalist preachers and other Christians who think the discrepancies can be explained. What they lack in logic they make up for in length.
Bible Contradictions
nontract provokes the longest letters. We get these tortured point-by-point defenses of the “inerrant word of God” from fundamentalist preachers and other Christians who think the discrepancies can be explained. What they lack in logic they make up for in length.
Other books
No Signature by William Bell
The Foretelling by Alice Hoffman
Revealed by Amanda Valentino
Devil’s in the Details by Sydney Gibson
ONCE IN A BLUE MOON (BLUEBONNET, TEXAS Book 2) by Stuart, Amie
All The Ways To Ruin A Rogue (The Debutante Files Book 2) by Sophie Jordan
The Sea by John Banville
The Gowrie Conspiracy by Alanna Knight
The Remedy by Michelle Lovric
After Effects by Catherine Aird