Nicholas Kristof published two articles lately. The first detailed the life, arguably bad decisions, and far worse results of a college friend of his. Long story short, the friend quit a lucrative job, decided he couldn’t afford private health insurance, was scraping by, delayed checking on some funny symptoms because of the cost of a doctor’s visit and wishful thinking … and ended up with prostate cancer that had metastasized into his bones.
Kristof used it as an example of our broken insurance system, something that can take some mistakes and leave you to die for them.
Clearly the traveler deserved being robbed for not hiring a private security guard on this dangerous road!
The second article, five days later, noted that the friend had died. Kristof then went over some of the reactions he got from some folks to the first article.
“Your friend made a foolish choice, and actions have consequences,” one reader said in a Twitter message.
[…] “Not sure why I’m to feel guilty about your friend’s problem,” Terry from Oregon wrote on my blog. “I take care of myself and mine, and I am not responsible for anyone else.”
Bruce wrote that many people in hospitals are there because of their own poor choices: “Smoking, obesity, drugs, alcohol, noncompliance with medical advice. Extreme age and debility, patients so sick, old, demented, weak, that if families had to pay one-tenth the cost of keeping the poor souls alive, they would instantly see that it was money wasted.”
That last item in particular — but even all the rest — put all the GOP talk over the last five years about “Death Panels” to shame. Even if you leave off the euthanistic enthusiasm of Bruce, you’re left with a set of criteria for who get to live, who gets to die. Nobody was seriously proposing (Republican rhetoric aside) a system of deciding who was somehow worthy of treatment due to their utility to the State. But here are people suggesting who is worthy of treatment based on guilt, on stupidity or irresponsibility, or (even better) to consanguinity. Republicans said that bureaucrats wanted the power of life or death — but, private-sector-wise, that’s what they have in the insurance industry. And these writers seem to want it themselves as well. If you are deemed too foolish, or too irresponsible, or if you’re not related to me, then you are not worthy of assistance to live.
That harsh view is gaining ground, particularly on the right. Pew Research Center polling has found that the proportion of Republicans who agree that “it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves” has slipped from 58 percent in 2007 to just 40 percent today.
What percentage of Republicans claim to be Christians again?
Kristof puts it a little differently:
First, a civilized society compensates for the human propensity to screw up. That’s why we have single-payer firefighters and police officers. That’s why we require seat belts. When someone who has been speeding gets in a car accident, the 911 operator doesn’t sneer: “You were irresponsible, so figure out your own way to the hospital” — and hang up.
To err is human, but so is to forgive. Living in a community means being interconnected in myriad ways — including by empathy. To feel undiminished by the deaths of those around us isn’t heroic Ayn Rand individualism. It’s sociopathic. Compassion isn’t a sign of weakness, but of civilization.
Except, of course, if you don’t punish the guilty — even the now-helpless and penitent guilty — then you create a “moral hazard.” Someone might think they can get away with working less than you, with being less morally worthy than you, and not suffer the just and righteous consequences of their slackerdom. Better that all such should die, even if a few maybe-not-quite-so-deserving fall through the cracks, too. Kill ’em all, and let God sort ’em out. I mean, it’s not any of us are required to forgive others their sins or debts or trespasses or anything …
I have to wonder, though, how many of those writers would actually act any differently if Kristof’s friend hadn’t made those mistakes — if he’d simply lost his insurance for one reason or another, hadn’t been able to afford regular doctor’s visits, and fallen mortally ill again. Would they have made up some new reason to judge him guilty, some other moral failing or weakness to cause him to deserve death? Would they assume that if he found himself in such straits, well, obviously God was punishing him for some sort of sin, and who were they to say otherwise? Would they not even make a pretense of moral justice and simply continue to proclaim a tribalistic “me and mine vs. everyone else”?
How did that "Am I my brother's keeper?" excuse work out for Cain?
Ultimately, Kristof notes, it comes down to a societal choice — one that puts lie to the whole “Culture / Sanctity of Life” rhetoric that comes from the GOP and the Right:
In other countries, I’ve covered massacres, wars, famines and genocides, and they’re heart-rending because they’re so unnecessary and arbitrary. Those massacred in the Darfur genocide in Sudan might be alive if they had been born in Britain.
That’s how I feel about Scott. His death was also unnecessary and might not have occurred if he had lived in Britain or Canada or any other modern country where universal health care is standard and life expectancy is longer.
As long as, as a nation, we in the United States decide that help is only to be made available those the majority (or, in the Senate, the super-minority) decide are morally worthy of being helped, and as long as we let that and our “Don’t Tread on Me”ism and “I got mine, you go pound sand”ism and “Makers Not Takers”ism act as de facto but very real Death Panels … then I think we’ll be incurring a much great moral hazard than the possibility that someone “undeserving” might game the system and not pay the ultimate price for it.
Occasionally one runs up into things in other countries that are different from what one’s used to here in the US.
For example, in the US it is unthinkable to ask someone to put their religious affiliation on a government form, or in any sort of normal employment record. I was surprised, when we were expanding our HR system world-wide, that in Germany, for example, it was required to track religion on the HR record. The idea was that it was necessary to track to avoid (or detect) religious discrimination cases (similar to how in the US we store info on race, which isn’t allowed in most other countries).
I’m traveling to India on business next month, the first time in some years, so I’ve been doing an India visa application. And one of the questions is, “Religion,” which surprised me a bit …
… though there are historic reasons why it might be sought after, and (given the large number of questions as to whether I have Pakistani relatives, I suspect it might also subject my application to greater scrutiny for some answers).
Choices offered were:
BAHAI
BUDDHISM
CHRISTIAN
HINDU
ISLAM
OTHERS
PARSI
SIKH
ZORASTRIAN [sic]
Not the choices one would see in a similar demographic survey in the US, which was also interesting.
(For the record, I put “CHRISTIAN”.)
No profound conclusion here, just an observation that other folks don’t always do the same things that we do, and that our “normal” isn’t that of others.
I get a note back from the Google+Blog dude about every 3 days, pointing out something else I need to do before he can do more testing as to why it’s stopped working on my blog. Hopefully I’ve cleared away the last hurdle and the answer won’t be, “Sorry, guy, guess it just won’t work for you.”
Serious stuff
Theology – I was never a huge Peanuts fan, but this summarizes a lot of my feelings on religion and other ideological frameworks.
How not to be creepy – John Scalzi’s advice to geeks who aren’t sure if they’re being creepy at conventions.
Overmanaging Your Oven – That “350 degrees” instruction on the recipe? Probably doesn’t have to be 350 degrees. Which is good, because your oven probably can’t be reliably set to 350 degrees anyway.
ALERT! ALERT! – You keep using those words, Denver Post. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.
The end of the starter pistol – Why don’t they use starter pistols any more in the Olympics? Safety and legal reasons, sure, but also because they weren’t as fair as the current speaker arrangement.
I ran across this this list first via Fred Clark, tracking it back to here — a list of 76 actions proclaimed as sinful or forbidden in Leviticus.
Leviticus is a funny book for modern Christians. Along with Deuteronomy and swathes of Exodus and Numbers, it lays out the Law for the Israelites. But it’s largely ignored by modern Christians because it’s felt that Jesus replaced the Law (except where He didn’t) and that Paul said a lot of it didn’t apply (except for the parts that did). And for all of that, many are still willing to cite Leviticus for things that they think are sinful, while ignoring it for things they don’t.
In other words, people tend to cherry-pick which of the Levitican laws (or, for that matter, all of the Old Covenant, not to mention most of the Bible) they think still apply, and which don’t.
This cherry-picking is sometimes reasoned, and sometimes not. Sometimes it’s based on personal taste — I think that’s okay, so we can ignore that law. Everyone does that these days, so it must be fine. I think that’s icky, so we should cite it frequently as sinful. Sometimes it’s based on reasoning — e.g., comparing them to the Greatest Commandments as Jesus laid them out and seeing if they still seem to apply:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I prefer the latter approach.
So here are 76 things in Leviticus, with verse references, that are banned. It’s by no means exhaustive. As an extension of original list, I’m going to try to include the stated penalties for each act. Consider which of these you (if you’re of such persuasion) think still apply, and which we get a pass on, and why you believe so.
Some of the items specify the penalty or punishment. Many fall back to Leviticus 4 and 5, which lists, based on who commits the sin and whether they knew it was a sin or not, what sort of sacrificial offering animal needs to be given up.
The text except for what’s in [square brackets] is from here.
1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11) [Normal penalty.]
2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13) [Normal penalty.]
3. Eating fat (3:17) [That one’s “a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.” All fat is to be saved for offerings to God. Normal penalty.]
4. Eating blood (3:17) [Normal penalty]
5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1) [“They will be held responsible.”]
6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1) [Which sounds like hearsay. At any rate, “they shall be held responsible.”]
7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2) [NIV translates this as touching “the carcass” of an unclean animal. So if Rover dies, or you’re a worker in a pork plant, you’re in trouble here. Normal penalty.]
8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4) [Even if you don’t realize you have. Normal penalty.]
9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2) [Return the item and a 20% penalty, plus normal penalty.]
10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3) [Return the item and a 20% penalty, plus normal penalty.]
11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1) [God will smite you.]
12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6) [“You will die” and God will be angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]
13. Tearing your clothes (10:6) [“You will die” and God will be angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]
14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9) [“You will die.” May only apply to the priesthood.]
15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7) [“You will be unclean.]
16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8) [“You will be unclean.”]
17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12) [“You will be unclean.”]
18. Eating – or touching the carcass of – eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19) [“You will be unclean.”]
19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22) [“You will be unclean.”]
20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27) [“You will be unclean.” Also applies to touching their carcasses.]
21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard,the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29) [“You will be unclean.”]
22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42) [“You will be unclean.”]
23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4) [Actually, she’s unclean a week, and then another 33 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]
24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5) [Actually, she’s unclean a week, and then another 66 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]
25. Having sex with your mother (18:7) [The penalty for all the sexual sins in ch. 18 is that the participants are to be “cut off” from their people. Some have additional penalties mentioned below.]
26. Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8) [In 20:11, both are to be put to death.]
27. Having sex with your sister (18:9) [In 20:17, if you marry her, both are to be “publicly removed from their people”]
28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13) [In 20:19, he will be held responsible for the dishonor.]
31. Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14) [In 20:20, they are held responsible for the dishonor, “they will die childless”]
32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15) [In 20:12, both are to be put to death.]
33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16) [In 20:21, if you marry her, “they will be childless.”]
34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17) [No specific penalty given, but per 20:14 if you marry both of them, all three of you are to be “burned in fire.”]
35. Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) [15:24 simply says the man will be considered unclean for 7 days. In 20:18, “Both of them are to be cut off from their people”]
37. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20) [In 20:10, both are to be put to death.]
38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21) [In 20:2, the person is to be stoned to death.]
39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22) [In 20:13, both are to be put to death.]
40. Having sex with an animal (18:23) [In 20:15, both are to be killed.]
41. Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4) [No penalty given.]
42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) [To be left for the poor. No penalty given.]
43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10) [To be left for the poor. No penalty given.]
44. Stealing (19:11) [No penalty given.]
45. Lying (19:11) [No penalty given.]
46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12) [No penalty given.]
47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13) [No penalty given.]
48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13) [No penalty given.]
49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14) [No penalty given.]
50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15) [No penalty given.]
51. Spreading slander (19:16) [No penalty given.]
52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16) [No penalty given.]
53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18) [No penalty given.]
54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) [No penalty given.]
56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) [No penalty given.]
57. Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20) [“Due punishment,” but not death, just a ram for sacrifice.]
58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23) [No penalty given. May only apply to fruit trees planted in Israel.]
59. Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26) [No penalty, but in 20:6 they will be “cut off from their people” by God. In 20:27, they are to be stoned to death.]
60. Trimming your beard (19:27) [No penalty given.]
61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27) [No penalty given.]
62. Getting tattoos (19:28) [No penalty given.]
63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29) [“The land will turn to prostitution.” No other penalty given.]
64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31) [No penalty given.]
65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32) [No penalty given.]
66. Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34) [No penalty given.]
67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36) [No penalty given.]
68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9) [Death, as noted.]
69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13) [No penalty given.]
70. Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11) [I.e., if you’re a priest. No penalty given.]
71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28) [May apply only to sacrificial animals. No penalty given.]
72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3) [No penalty given.]
73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14) [Death.]
74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22) [Killing someone means death. Injuring someone mean punishment in kind. Killing or injuring another’s animal means punishment in kind.]
75. Selling land permanently (25:23) [No penalty given.]
76. Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42) [No penalty given.]
Quite the list. Not many Christians today would go for all of those … but most would consider some of them as laudable commandments still applicable today.
And for good measure,I’ll add this little bit (Leviticus 35-37):
If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.
Yeah, like that’s going to picked up by anyone today.
We are talking about, in the cases of contraception that prevents implantation, a cluster of 2 to a few dozen cells, max. I decline to consider that abortion and murder of a human life.
Yes, if left alone, those cells might eventually become a human being. But an appalling number of those fertilized eggs miscarry — between a third and a half, from the numbers I've seen. If every zygote is sacred, then we are looking at a massive child mortality rate compared to which the voluntary abortion rate pales.
But the idea that any zygote is a human being and that it must be protected at any stage as dearly as one would protect a baby is an argument that reduces to absurdity when taken back earlier. The argument against artificial birth control from the Catholic Church is that it prevents what might be the natural result of intercourse, a fertilized egg. It's not just that it destroys that fertilized egg, but even destroying the potentiality of fertilization (e.g., by using a condom or diaphragm) is considered sinful.
If that's the case, then the logical conclusion is that men and women ought to marry as soon as they become fertile, so as to maximize the potential number of babies that might be produced.
(How this meshes with Paul, who suggested that a celebate life was actually superior, though "it is better to marry than to burn," is unclear.)
(How it meshes with the Catholic teaching of the Rhythm Method / "Natural Family Planning" to avoid pregnancy is also unclear — avoiding pregnancy through specific actions, with or without technological or pharmaceutical means, seems to be fundamentally the same to me.)
I think society as a whole has rejected the suggestion that we should be breeding like rabbits ASAP. Nobody is advocating that 9-12-year-olds get married so that they can start producing babies, even if that means that some potential human beings never come to be. The problem here is that there a huge gap between the theological principles that are given such weight and how people behave in their own, personal, messy lives — thus the number of even Catholic women who have used birth control.
To summarize, if you believe that anything that prevents implantation is destroying a human life — and thus is morally equivalent to abortion — it is difficult to understand how you would allow any contraceptive use (in which area the Catholic Church is somewhat consistent) — and, in fact, why you would not then encourage people to start having babies as soon as they are biologically capable of doing so.
And I don't understand, if you're not willing to go to that extreme, why you would cavil at people using artificial birth control, and having insurance coverage for it. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Religious Groups Equate Abortion With Some Contraceptives
Opponents of the rule mandating insurance coverage for birth control contend that some contraception methods amount to abortion, but experts say the drugs work prior to fertilization.
It seems to me that the healthy heart of skepticism is accepting that I might be wrong, and you might be wrong, and while we may have to pragmatically accept things that are told to us (my mechanic, who knows far more about cars than I do, assures me my car is unlikely to burst into flames spontaneously), we shouldn't mistake that authoritative likelihood with certainty.
In a sense, a true skeptic would be more humble than any saint. #ddtb (via +Scott Randel)
Because everyone who approaches the Bible does so with a sense of what's important and what's not — and, based on that, latches onto passages that they consider (or have been taught are) important and pertinent, and Commands from On High … and disregards passages that they think are trivial, no longer important, puzzling mysteries, and/or historical oddities that can be set aside.
The issue becomes (a) awareness and acknowledgment of it, and (b) what you then choose to pay attention to, and why.
I'll be the first to admit that — and that the messages I find in the Bible that I think are both illustrative and (to me) compelling are those of love for others and a focus on personal morality in the context of a greater society. In so doing, yeah, I disregard or dismiss a lot of things I consider as historical or cultural baggage from the writers. And, yeah, some might consider that some sort of confirmation bias (look, the Bible supports what I believe already!), but, then, I also don't consider my personal beliefs to be perfected universal diktats for all to obey. #ddtb
Yes, there are a thousand reasons not to do the right thing. The thing you know is the right thing, the think you know you'll feel guilty about if you don't.
A thousand reasons to go along. To pass the buck. To look the other way. To not do what you think is right, or to delay action to ask someone else what they think, or to simply do the safe thing and claim that you figured that those other folks would take care of it, so you don't have to.
But a million reasons don't justify. Or excuse. Or, speaking from my own personal, small experience, help you sleep at night.
Yeah, it's about Penn State. But it's about a lot more than that. #ddtb
Embedded Link
No more dismissal, no more excuses « Decrepit Old Fool
No more dismissal, no more excuses. By decrepadmin, on November 13th, 2011. (Trigger alert). This article in Scientific American has been making the rounds, in defense of witnesses who don't inter…
So let me set up the disclaimer here that might well render my opinions here completely uninformed and moot. I do not have a spouse with Alzheimer’s, nor have I. I have had a spouse (not my present one) with significant mental / emotional issues, but it’s definitely not the same thing. So, having said that …
Pat Robertson has come under a lot of fire, from a number of different directions over remarks he made on his 700 Club program. A married man whose wife has advanced Alzheimer’s is beginning to date other ladies, and concerned friend of the family wants some guidance from Pat as to what the right course of action is.
Pat’s advice is that dude should get a divorce. Which, obviously, has set a number of eyebrows askance, mine included. He’s drawing criticism from advocates for sufferers from Alzheimer’s, as well as from a number of Christians commenters.
Now, in Pat Robertson’s defense (not words I often string together), there’s method to his madness. He clearly recognizes the difficulty of the situation for the man in question (it’s “a terribly hard thing” — though I wonder how he would feel were the gender roles reversed). He recognizes, if not from his own life then from stories he’s been told by others, how much advanced Alzheimer’s can change someone (“This is a kind of death … it’s like a walking death”). He’s not really advocating throwing the wife here off the back of the sleigh, sort of (“… make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her”). And he even confesses on a couple of occasions that this, unlike his many, many, many other moral judgments, may be beyond him (“This is an ethical question that’s beyond my ken”).
His focus, though, is on how the man in question can seek “companionship” without breaking the marriage vows (and, reading between the lines, committing adultery). As Robertson couches it (emphasis mine), “If he’s going to do something [i.e., date], he should divorce her and start all over again.”
Robertson’s clumsy approach is to get a divorce, justifying it as the partner that was married being, effectively, “dead.” That’s an interesting variant on Paul’s “it’s better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor 7:9), but I think is wrong-headed and the wrong way to approach it.
First off, it seems a glib, sloppy excuse-making of the kind that Robertson, and other conservative Christian pundits, would lambaste were it to come from a more liberal or less Religious Right figure. After all, on this basis, someone who was in an irreversible coma could be divorced on the same basis (and, as I noted earlier, Robertson was at the forefront in the “judicial murder” charges regarding Terri Schiavo who was far more “dead” than the wife in this case).
But it’s not just the hypocrisy here that bothers me. From a practical standpoint, this is simply unworkable. The woman involved is far more likely to be able to get custodial care and so forth if she remains married to the man (assuming their pooled resources are greater). Divorce her, and, what, she becomes a ward of the state, or the responsibility of her other kin? That’s not going to go well for her, nor is it a good act toward anyone else.
Unlike Pat, I’m not willing to let the husband here off the hook. That vow about “better and worse … in sickness and in health, until death do us part” doesn’t have an escape clause for Alzheimer’s, nor is “death” footnoted as “including permanent, tragic dementia.” It’s a commitment, mutually reached, mutually binding. If the husband chooses to terminate it, that’s between him and his wife and God (and, perhaps, the next person he marries or “commits” to), but giving him a pass isn’t the right approach.
I would say, if he’s dating others, seeking companionship (including, yes, sex), then fine, understandable, even arguably positive and healthy. It doesn’t remove from him the obligation to care for his wife, to treat her with humanity and compassion and dignity … but if it helps him through the day (or night), then I’d think it better and easier and less of a rules lawyering twist to forgive him adultery (with or without sex) than to okay his dumping his wife because she doesn’t recognize him any more.
There are no good answers here because it’s not a good situation. As noted above, I can’t pretend to know what the husband in this case is going through. But Robertson’s answer is far less than good, and is focused on the wrong thing. He’s willing to destroy a marriage in order to save it some technical denting, to protect the letter of the law rather than its spirit. I can’t think that’s would Jesus would do, nor is it a kindness to anyone involved, husband or wife.
I’m not much of an evangelist for my faith — at least not an evangelist in the traditional sense of “buttonhole a stranger, tell them your testimony, knock down their arguments, get ’em to declare Christ as their personal savior, and move on” kind of a thing. In fact, every single component of that description makes me shudder, for a variety of reasons …
… which Fred Clark lays out beautifully in his post, “Use Words If Necessary“. The title is part of a phrase attributed to St Francis of Assisi: Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.
I won’t “spoil” Fred’s words with a paraphrase, but I think a recap of his points about evangelization lay it out well:
Evangelism is hospitality.
Evangelism requires relationship.
Listen.
Your story is not an argument.
Disciples, not merely converts.
To which I’d add the theme that underlies all of the above: Evangelism is genuine. If you’re doing it to make points, or count coup, or control others, or make people agree with you … you’re doing it wrong.
It’s a cliche, but if more Christians evangelized along the lines that Fred lays out, both Christians and evangelization would have a lot better rep — and be a lot more “successful.”
Now bear in mind, I don’t see evangelism in the same sort of apocalyptic terms as some Christians seem to. I don’t see becoming a Christian (however one defines the term) as essential to eternal joy. I certainly don’t think I have the whole faith/spirituality/morality thing anywhere near down pat myself, so presenting myself as some Oracular Font of Salvation, Whose Words Must Be Listened To Lest Perpetual Damnation and Torment Ensue would be somewhere between hubris and insanity.
But telling about my own story and beliefs to others with whom I’m in a relationship, and hearing theirs, and maybe clarifying to ourselves where we stand (and maybe where we might think of going to stand next)? That’s downright heavenly, whether its with actions or words.
This is an occasional series of posts about the scripture read at our church and what it means to me. I attend an Episcopal service, and we are in Year A of the Revised Common Lectionary.
This week’s readings are particularly meaningful, as my parish church is named after the Good Shepherd, and it is readings about Jesus as the Good Shepherd that are the focus today.
This being the post-Easter period, the lectionary uses readings from the Acts of the Apostles rather than the Old Testament for the first reading. This one is popular among “liberal” congregations (emphasis mine):
Those who had been baptized devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.
Damned commie hippies!
I’ve long believed that the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was its adoption by Constantine as the state religion of the Empire. Once the religion became inextricably linked to the civil authorities and the power of the state, it could only become, itself, more temporal, more material, more officious and power-hungry. While I think separation of Church and State is good for the State, I also think it’s even better for the Church. Once God and Caesar are conjoined, it’s difficult to tell what to render to whom.
Anyway, it’s worth reading what those early Christians did, and how they lived. They were together, commune-like, and “had all things in common.” Those who had any wealth pooled it together, selling their possessions, and giving to those who were in need.
This, then, is a key message of Jesus, and one that those with a stake in material goods tend to quickly gloss over. Jesus was not about Religious Rules (indeed, he railed against the Law). He called for us to love God, and to love our neighbors. Loving God is relatively easy, in some ways — loving our neighbors as ourselves, to the point of giving up our worldly possessions for them as they are needed, and to even give up our lives as necessary, is quite a different thing, and much harder in many ways.
Indeed, I don’t claim any special virtue here. Yeah, I give to a number of charitable concerns, but I’m also about to take a very nice vacation to Italy, and not as some sort of pilgrimage. I’m bound up on the love of the world as much as anyone else — but I try to at least recognize the obligations Jesus places on me to care for my fellows.
After a reading of Psalm 23 (the quintessential Good Shepherd verse), we get into something that seems much darker and more stereotypically ashes-and-sackcloth — but which really follows the same thread as the reading from Acts.
It is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.
“He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
Martyrdom is not easy to talk about these days, but it’s simply the ultimate expression of that self-sacrificing spirit discussed in the previous reading, as exemplified by Jesus.
What’s remarkable is how, in juxtaposition to this, we have Christians today getting the self-righteous vapors because some people have the nerve to publicly disagree with them. Imagine!
Some Christian says, “Gays are sick, twisted, evil, perverted, sub-humans who ought to be locked up, deported, reprogrammed, or, even possibly, stoned to death.”
Someone else says, “I believe you are trying to impose your religious faith upon our legal system.
Said Christian replies, “I’M BEING OPPRESSED! SOON, EASTER AND CHRISTMAS WILL BE ILLEGAL! JUST SEND MONEY!”
Really?
“When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.” Granted, that’s easier said than done, but one would expect Christians to at least recognize the way they should be reacting to those who abuse them (even leaving aside that “disagreement” is not “abuse”).
I’m not going to quote this one at length because John is sometimes a bit zany. Basically, Jesus riffs on the faithful-as-sheep motif, with religious leaders as the folks trying to lead the sheep. But there are lots of illegitimate would-be shepherds who jump the fence into the sheepfold to steal the sheep that are there, even though they don’t recognize the false shepherd’s voices.
Jesus, though, proclaims himself “the gate,” through which all legit shepherds will pass into and out of the sheepfold:
Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
There’s an old set of jokes that notes that shepherds are just raising sheep to be “fleeced,” or slaughtered. But the folks of Judea would have recognized the metaphor — whatever the ultimate fate of the sheep, the immediate need and duty of the shepherd was for them to be fed and watered and protected from thieves and predators. That’s what the good shepherd does, even at sacrifice to himself. That’s the rule for looking for a good shepherd to follow — the extent to which he actually emulates the self-sacrificing and caring nature of Christ for the entire flock.
The false shepherds who seek to steal the sheep, to exploit them rather than keep them well, to prey upon them in fact, are to be rejected. The metaphorical resemblance to “just send money!” televangelists and similar Internet sharks is to me, far too obvious — especially when the message from those false shepherds is less about care of the flock (even its weakest and most vulnerable members), but about keeping the sheep afraid. Which any livestock specialist will tell you is a way to make the animals stressed and thus less healthy and robust and capable of facing the world and surviving on their own.
The Good Shepherd seeks sheep that “have life, and have it abundantly.” The false shepherds seek sheep that tremble and shy away from life. I know which I choose to follow.
(There is an understandable rejection of the idea of equating people to sheep — though usually more along the lines of individual rejection — “I am not a sheep” — than rejection of the idea of other people being sheep. I’m willing to include myself in the metaphor, if only because I know I resemble silly sheep as often as not, and am just as likely to go astray.)
Anti-abortion folks often equate abortion to infanticide. Despite the fact that the vast majority of abortions occur long before the fetus is more than an inch or two in size, there’s still a kind of squirmy discomfort even among the most staunch pro-choice advocate, about the charge. After all, when we think of fetuses, we tend to think of well-developed proto-babies (realistically or not), and it’s just difficult to not think of them as actual infants that we’re hardwired to defend.
Unless, of course, they have Evil Parents.
Greta Christina points out this article by Christian apologist (and debater-vs-atheists) William Lane Craig, wherein he defends the genocidal slaughter of Canaanites, including (of course) their children.
As Christina notes:
William Lane Craig is not some drooling wingnut. He’s not some extremist Fred Phelps type, ranting about how God’s hateful vengeance is upon us for tolerating homosexuality. He’s not some itinerant street preacher, railing on college campuses about premarital holding hands. He’s an extensively- educated, widely-published, widely-read theological scholar and debater. When believers accuse atheists of ignoring sophisticated modern theology, Craig is one of the people they’re talking about.
And reading Craig, he comes across as scholarly, faithful, even compassionate in some ways. He’s no ranter or raver. And his position in the article boils down to this:
It's good to have no moral obligations or prohibitions.
I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.
What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.
[…] Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.
God can do whatever He wants. God is Good. Therefore, whatever God does — or orders — is Good. Even if it doesn’t seem Good.
Not good, as in how the Canaanites were not good.
By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.
Now, I’m a Theist. And a Christian. I believe in a good God. And I from my beliefs, my reading, my reason, and from whatever inspiration the Holy Spirit might provide my conscience, this (quoted at length, apologies) doesn’t strike me as the Good that God commands of us.
By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.
Sort of like how the Klan thinks that God wants Whites to be set exclusively apart from Blacks.
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
That would be more convincing if God actually, y’know, mentioned that in context. As opposed to, say, Deut. 10:10-17
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
So children in the more distant cities can be taken as slaves. The children in the cities that (the Israelites record) God is giving the Israelites are to be killed. No mention of moral justification — just kill ’em.
Naughty Canaanites
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
But then, again, we’re thinking of this from a Christianized, Western standpoint. For people in the ancient world, life was already brutal. Violence and war were a fact of life for people living in the ancient Near East. Evidence of this fact is that the people who told these stories apparently thought nothing of what the Israeli soldiers were commanded to do (especially if these are founding legends of the nation). No one was wringing his hands over the soldiers’ having to kill the Canaanites; those who did so were national heroes.
So, it’s all okay to kill the Canaanites because the parents were evil (and evil people can be killed) and the children would cause amalgamation (Holy Lester Maddox, Batman!), and besides, the children were Innocents and therefore went straight to heaven (unless you believe Jonathan Edwards). Besides, they were all brutal and savage back in the day, so nobody gave it a second thought.
At least, nobody writing the account of cleansing Canaan in the Bible.
Now, I don’t pretend that I understand all of God’s ways. I don’t. And I’m willing to accept that there are things I don’t understand in my limited knowledge and reason. I’m not God. (Thank God.)
But while there are things I’m willing to accept as confusing, I still think I’m called to try to understand, to reconcile to my beliefs, and to learn or change what I believe in based on them. I may not succeed, but not trying is not an option.
Dude! You took Me seriously?
This all reminds me of a debate I got into many years ago on the Belief-L listserv about the Sacrifice of Abraham. That’s another great ol’ Old Testament story. God tells Abraham to take his firstborn, Isaac, up onto a mountaintop and sacrifice him. As in “drive a dagger into his heart and kill him.” Abraham isn’t real thrilled, but, being a faithful type, he goes through with it — right up to the point where he’s about to do the deed, at which point God says, “Psych!” and lets Abraham and Isaac off the hook. (He provides a ram instead to be sacrificed, since knife and altar were already prepped.)
We had a long debate over whether this was a moral act on Abraham’s part. On the one hand … GOD! And it’s not just (as in the case of Canaan) God speaking through his local rep. Abraham was talked to by GOD and told to do this thing.
When God gives you an order, who is a human to say, “Um … say what?”
On the other hand … there’s doubt.
If you’re told by God to do something that seems antithetical to what you understand God to be about … does it make most sense to believe that God is saying something that doesn’t sound God-ish? Or that you’re not actually hearing God?
I came down in the latter camp. Perhaps it is lack of self-confidence, but I think of it as a certain measure of pragmatism: Occam’s Razor seems to tell me that if God is not acting like God, then He isn’t God, but a delusion.
In other words, if God appeared before me and told me to sacrifice my daughter to Him, I wouldn’t assume that God was revealing some new, great truth, but that I was suffering a mental breakdown and really needed to be locked up before I hurt someone.
So let’s get back to the slaughter of the Canaanites — man, woman, and child. Through that whole period, we have God acting in a way that seems antithetical to how, later, Jesus taught us to live. Jesus preached against violence, against hatred, against killing. He did not justify the Jews or Israelites being able to do anything they wanted in God’s name, but sought to engage everyone.
If we’re to take Christ’s teachings seriously, then it seems to me that there are two conclusions:
God’s will and commands are portrayed in the Old Testament accurately, and we just have to assume (or laboriously figure out a rationale, as does Dr. Craig, to justify it) that this represents some sort of counter-intuitive Good.
God’s will is not accurately described in these passages in the Bible; instead, the Israelites justified their bloody conquest by attributing it to God’s command. (This option includes the possibility that there is no God, but that’s not the debate we’re having here.)
To me, #2 seems much more likely.
Now, ironically, Dr Craig considers this option. But this is what drives him to find some tortured justification.
In fact, ironically, many Old Testament critics are sceptical that the events of the conquest of Canaan ever occurred. They take these stories to be part of the legends of the founding of Israel, akin to the myths of Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome. For such critics the problem of God’s issuing such a command evaporates.
Now that puts the issue in quite a different perspective! The question of biblical inerrancy is an important one, but it’s not like the existence of God or the deity of Christ! If we Christians can’t find a good answer to the question before us and are, moreover, persuaded that such a command is inconsistent with God’s nature, then we’ll have to give up biblical inerrancy. But we shouldn’t let the unbeliever raising this question get away with thinking that it implies more than it does.
I’ll set aside Dr. Craig’s implication that Christians assume Biblical inerrancy (or that those who don’t go along with Biblical inerrancy are “unbelievers”). But he never seems to consider the idea that God’s will is simply being misrepresented; instead, he suggests a parallel straw man that the Israelites did not actually do any of this. Nevertheless, even this (though it avoids the moral conundrum) must be refuted. And Dr. Craig does so by simply saying, “Well, if God said it (and the Bible says He did), then it must be okay.”
It really seems like there are two ways of approaching this, if one assumes that God is Omnibenevolent (if beyond Human Understanding). Either:
Good is defined by whatever God is saying at the moment (“Love your neighbor!” “Sacrifice your son!” “Feed the poor!” “Slaughter the Babies of the Canaanites!”),
… or …
If what God seems to be saying (or is claimed to be saying) at a given moment doesn’t seem to match what God has elsewhere said is Good, then maybe the seeming (or claim) is incorrect (mistaken or deceptive).
Now, there are conveniences to #1, and dangers to #2. Human morality is terribly slippery and subject to wishful thinking. It’s far too easy to say, “Um, yeah, I think God really wants my happiness above all things, so if I have the sense that God is telling me I shouldn’t sleep around on my wife with this really sexy blonde here … well, obviously it’s not really God telling me that.”
But maybe that gets into my personal kink about the purpose of life (where, to be sure, my wife is the really sexy blonde). I don’t think we’re here to learn to obey. I think we’re here to figure out what we should do. If all that was wanted was obedience, then why free will? Why intellect? Why reason?
So we try to figure out what’s right. What’s moral. What, to frame it as Jesus did, demonstrates love of God and love of neighbor.
The Three-Legged Stool
Anglican Christianity has a tradition of a “three-legged stool” for trying to figure things things out — scripture, tradition, and reason. In other words, scripture provides some guidance, and then tradition represents the conclusions of previous generations, and then reason is the personal component — the personal responsibility to figure things out for oneself.
Simply put, blind obedience seems highly overrated to my mind. It make no sense to me to create free, reasoning creatures that are expected, as an end-state, to simply do what they are told.
Dr. Craig then segues into the (logical) question of why it’s okay for the Israelites to wage holy war against the Canaanites, but not for Muslims to wage holy war against other unbelievers.
Now how does all this relate to Islamic jihad? Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith. Islam divides the world into two camps: the dar al-Islam (House of Submission) and the dar al-harb (House of War). The former are those lands which have been brought into submission to Islam; the latter are those nations which have not yet been brought into submission. This is how Islam actually views the world!
By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just judgement upon those peoples. The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith.
It seems odd to me that Dr. Craig gives a pass to the Israelites because they weren’t trying to convert, but to annihilate. Or that, conveniently, the nastiest nations around that deserved judgment and destruction just happened to be right where the Israelites wanted to settled down …
Moreover, the slaughter of the Canaanites represented an unusual historical circumstance, not a regular means of behavior.
Everyone always thinks they are an exception, or have some particular, unusual circumstance that justifies their breaking the normal rules.
Nor is it clear why the Canaanites was a particularly unusual historical circumstance.
The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God.
Well, I’m glad we have that settled.
If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him.
On the assumption that you have God’s commands right. After all, any number of nations and psychopaths have been convinced that God was telling them to do one particular horror or another.
But, then, if you are convinced that God is talking to you, then if you are simply obedient, you will do whatever the voices tell you to do. Because, after all God defines what is Good, and therefore what you think God is saying must be a moral imperative.
But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims.
It seems to me that the all-loving God that Dr. Craig, as his brand of Christian, believes in, was willing to exercise savage temporal judgment (and capital punishment) on the “debauched and cruel” Canaanites. There’s no sign of God loving the Canaanites, no regret or sorrow or concern expressed in Scripture. Nor is there any promise of salvation for the innocent Canaanite babies. The judgment is final and brutal — kill them all (except for the ones that are occasionally allowed to be enslaved) and let God sort them out.
Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately.
That also seems to be the case for the Israelites’ Yaweh.
Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His dealing with mankind. By contrast Christians hold that God’s holy and loving nature determines what He commands.
Except that Dr. Craig would argue that God’s supposed omnibenevolence trumps everything, so if He seems arbitrary in His dealing with mankind, it must be because we simply don’t understand how His commands are holy and loving. We know God’s commands are loving, even when they seem not to be, because God’s commands are always loving, so we need to redefine what loving is to match them.
As opposed to our simply misunderstanding (or distorting) what His actual dealings (and commands) are.
The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct, but which is the true God?
Or, if you’re willing to let go of Biblical inerrancy, where are we actually hearing what the true God wanted?
The Israelites (and Yahweh) slaughter the Amorites (Joshua 10:10-11)
So, to summarize Dr. Craig’s position:
The Canaanite adults were bad, so they deserved to be killed. (Or at least that’s what the Israelite propaganda would indicate.)
The Canaanite children (to some age point, undefined, but presumably including babies, unless one believes in the principle of Infant Damnation) were innocent, so if they were killed as collateral damage (to avoid any Canaanite Cooties on the Israelites), they were not actually harmed by being killed (whew!) because they all went to Heaven. (We don’t have any Scriptural basis for believing this, but Dr. Craig assures us it’s true.)
God said to do it (and we know that because we know that the Bible is completely true because the Bible says that God says it is), so it must be the Good thing to have done.
The Israelites were Only Following Orders.
Honestly, that doesn’t make me feel much better about a bunch of babies being killed.
Though it does make me wonder (to bring it back to the beginning of the post), if, as Dr. Craig argues:
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
Then on what basis does the Religious Right condemn abortion?
To preach long, loud, and Damnation, is the way to be cried up. We love a man that damns us, and we run after him again to save us.
— John Selden (1584-1654), Table Talk, “Damnation” (1686)
I’ve been enjoying (and GSharing at least some of) Fred Clark’s blog posts on Rob Bell, Bell’s new book Love Wins, and the apoplexy of what Clark calls “Team Hell,” which insists that Bell’s neo-Universalism is heresy of the highest order because it denies the ultimate punishment of eternal, conscious, torment of sinners.
In his latest post, Clark discusses the “Missiological Argument” for Hell. Rather than argue theology, or logic, or philosophy, this argument says that Hell is useful, because, essentially, it scares people into sticking to the straight and narrow, going to church, seeking forgiveness, and thus being saved. For example, he cites Russell Moore, dean of the school of theology at Southern Seminary, who was recently reported as saying:
Bell’s view of salvation, Moore said, is wrong biblically but also flawed practically and will lead to empty church pews. If the pastor says there is no judgment and everyone will end up in heaven, then people have little motivation to follow Christ, Moore and the other panelists said.
Clark summarizes:
Moore says the church will collapse without the threat of judgment. And, to be clear, “judgment” must mean nothing less than the vast majority of humankind suffering consciously for eternity in the Hell that Moore, et. al., imagine (magical fire, merciless God, “holy” as synonym for “sadistic,” etc.). Without that threat, Moore says, there can be no revival, no evangelism, no missionary outreach, no church growth. Without Hell, the church will shrink and shrivel and fade away.
Clark’s post is a great dismemberment of Moore’s argument, and well worth reading on its own, but it led me to my own Universalist considerations.
To consider a triumph of God’s love over obstinate sin to be “no judgment” is telling — it’s a “you’re either for us or against us, now and forever” kind of nearsightedness. Misdeeds and ignorance carry consequences, in this world and the next, I should think. The question is whether those consequences are eternal, or are fitting to the circumstance. Is God’s grace a limited time offer? Why would it be?
The Missiological Argument is not unique to modern Christian orthodoxy. Ironically, in some ways it’s one of the reasons why there’s often such confusion over whether this country’s Founders were good, religious Christians. Many of them, privately, were not — or, rather, many of them believed in a variety of unorthox positions, heresies, or were Deists or atheists.
But both publicly and privately they’d assert that they thought religion in general, and thus the majority’s Christianity in particular, were useful, because it provided a social regulation on the hoi polloi.
I understand what they say there. And there are times when I recognize how my own good behavior is driven less by a desire to be nice and beneficent than to avoid shame or feared punishment.
Still … I would say my own deeper belief is along the lines of Sir Thomas Brown, in Religio Medici (1643)
I can hardly think there was ever any scared into Heaven; they go the fairest way to Heaven that would serve God without a Hell.
O God! If I worship Thee in fear of Hell, burn me in Hell; and if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise; but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine Everlasting Beauty!
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
Indeed, in that same 1930 article, Einstein wrote:
The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples’ lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.
That’s a great way of putting it — religion of fear vs a religion of morality. A religion that uses fear of the outside world, and fear of the anger of the gods, as its goad, vs. a religion that seeks to improve how we treat one another.
I am a Universalist, by personal theology. I believe that, ultimately, all will find their way to God. I don’t say that with the arrogance that says, “You’ll all figure out how you were wrong and I was right.” I figure I’m as far from God, relatively speaking, as anyone else.
But I don’t believe that God, a loving God that went to the effort of creating us, is willing to discard any of that creation — especially because, as fallible humans, we’re bound to get something wrong. Most things wrong, most likely.
Much less do I think that, like Team Hell does, God will send the humans crafted (if you believe the Bible) “in His image” to a eternal, conscious, inescapable torment. That would be hard enough to stomach for even the most vile of miscreants — your Hitlers and Stalins and Pol Pots and Idi Amins — let alone for some of the fine, upstanding, even saintly folks out there who had the misfortune to belong to the wrong (or no) church, or believe in a doctrine that happened to be incorrect.
Universalism, in its various flavors, is not new. It’s been considered a legitimate, if minority, branch of Christian belief for centuries. Madeleine L’Engle put it as follows:
I know a number of highly sensitive and intelligent people in my own communion who consider as a heresy my faith that God’s loving concern for his creation will outlast all our willfulness and pride. No matter how many eons it takes, he will not rest until all of creation, including Satan, is reconciled to him, until there is no creature who cannot return his look of love with a joyful response of love […] Some people feel it to be heresy because it appears to deny man his freedom to refuse to love God. But this, it seems to me, denies God his freedom to go on loving us beyond all our willfulness and pride. If the Word of God is the light of the world, and this light cannot be put out, ultimately it will brighten all the dark corners of our hearts and we will be able to see, and seeing, will be given the grace to respond with love — and of our own free will.
Unfortunately, it’s also considered heretical for too many, not because it denies the freedom of will, but because it denies the inevitability of deserved and ultimate judgment among a certain brand of Christian, the “pious sadists” as Isaac Asimov called them. As Steve Allen observed:
To those who wish to punish others — or at least to see them punished, if the avengers are too cowardly to take matters into their own hands — the belief in a fiery, hideous hell appears to be a great source of comfort.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell.
(By the way, I’m not quote-dropping to impress by authority. These folks are just using the words to express my thoughts better than I can. And since I have their quotes collected, I might as well link back for folks to look up the sources.)
This sort of perpetual punishment — a final judgment that can come at any time, before education, illumination, inspiration, or sheer chance can lead one to the “acceptable” path, that can strike with a car accident, a lightning bolt, an overdose, or just old age — makes no sense to me. It puts a time limit on both Man and God to be reconciled, and an arbitrary and capricious time limit at that. Those who vigorously hold to it, ultimately, strike me as the older sibling in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, ticked off that his “lost” brother has been found and brought back into the fold. The unfairness of it all seems to choke them.
The doctrine of Hell was perhaps most soundly criticized by the 19th Century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll. He reviled it not so much for it being a myth, but for the effect it had on the living, and for what it said about the God that Christians claimed to worship.
While utterly discarding all creeds, and denying the truth of all religions, there is neither in my heart nor upon my lips a sneer for the hopeful, loving and tender souls who believe that from all this discord will result a perfect harmony; that every evil will in some mysterious way become a good, and that above and over all there is a being who, in some way, will reclaim and glorify every one of the children of men; but for those who heartlessly try to prove that salvation is almost impossible; that damnation is almost certain; that the highway of the universe leads to hell; who fill life with fear and death with horror; who curse the cradle and mock the tomb, it is impossible to entertain other than feelings of pity, contempt and scorn. (1876)
Is it necessary that Heaven should borrow its light from the glare of Hell? Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice, immortal meanness. To worship an eternal gaoler hardens, debases, and pollutes even the vilest soul. While there is one sad and breaking heart in the universe, no good being can be perfectly happy. … I want no part in any heaven in which the saved, the ransomed and redeemed will drown with shouts of joy the cries and sobs of hell — in which happiness will forget misery, where the tears of the lost only increase laughter and double bliss. (1881)
I attack the doctrine of eternal pain. I hold it in infinite and utter abhorrence. And if there be a God in this universe who made a hell; if there be a God in this universe who denies to any human being the right of reformation, then that God is not good, that God is not just, and the future of man is infinitely dark. I despise that doctrine, and I have done what little I could to get that horror from the cradle, that horror from the hearts of mothers, that horror from the hearts of husbands and fathers, and sons, and brothers, and sisters. It is a doctrine that turns to ashes all the humanities of life and all the hopes of mankind. I despise it. (1882)
For my money, Ingersoll expresses my beliefs here more fully than Russell Moore. The Religion of Fear not only makes out God to be the “eternal gaoler,” but turns those who follow Him into trustees, trying to get in good with the screws in order to get some privileges, or in desperate hope of a kind word at the parole hearing. It makes the world into Us vs Them, the Saved vs the Damned, and promotes either a smug self-righteousness in being part of the inner circle, or a perpetually wearying pain of seeing so many souls lost.
To promulgate such doctrines theologically is dubious — to do so out of a desire to fill church pews is, honestly, despicable.
If there is a Hell, then couching it in terms of Team Hell’s lake of fire and Dante-esque sadism parlor seems nonsensical to me. I’d be closer to the ideas C.S. Lewis talked of in The Great Divorce (1945) — not a rejecting punishment by God toward Man, but a rejection by Man of God.
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.
Lewis’ Hell is a vast and spiritually empty realm, a “grey town” full of ghosts, “joyless, friendless, and uncomfortable.” Those who are there are there by choice, unwilling to face the deeper reality of Heaven for a variety of reasons. “There is always something they insist on keeping, even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy.” Any punishment is passive, self-inflicted — a turning from the frightening shock of transformative bliss to superficially more comfortable cul-de-sac of self-deception. It is, in its own way, as horrifying as a lake of fire and gibbering demons with pitchforks — but less personally cruel.
Lewis’ allegory states that any in Hell can decide upon Heaven when they choose — but the implication is that some don’t, or won’t. And, in the end, that’s where I have to part ways. If The Great Divorce is willing to have any of those lost souls, dwindled to infinitesimal points, remain lost for eternity, irredeemable — even in a Hell where the doors are “locked on the inside” — I am not. Nor, I believe, is God.
I cannot believe that God wants punishment to go on interminably any more than does a loving parent. The entire purpose of loving punishment is to teach, and it lasts only as long as is needed for the lesson. And the lesson is always love.
I find that a greater comfort, and a sounder doctrine, than Team Hell. Amen.
(The various illustrations in this post are by Gustave Dore, who in 1861 released a series of illustrations from Dante’s Inferno. They’ve become iconic representations of the tortures of Hell. More info on Dore and his various pictures from Dante’s 14th Century works here.)
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Their Own Private Europe – NYTimes.com – The GOP hereby formally requests that “facts” not be allowed to interfere with their “talking points.” Thank you.
Tussling Over Jesus – NYTimes.com – “To me, this battle illuminates two rival religious approaches, within the Catholic church and any spiritual tradition. One approach focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners. The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness.” I know which one resembles most the Jesus I read about in the Bible.
What Is The LEAST Dangerous, Cutest Thing We Can Outlaw Next? – “How about those scary animals that have clipboards and dream up worst case scenarios for every aspect of childhood? Let’s ban THOSE! But no, first we must worry more about The Children.” Crikey.
Google Starts Censoring BitTorrent, RapidShare and More | TorrentFreak – It’s hardly censorship, but … well, it’s an odd thing for them to do — completely ineffective, even trivial, yet an intentional step. Is it a (poorly considered, but intentionally harmless) sop to Big Media, or the start of something less savory from Google in this area?
“Semper Fi Parents”‘ blog is supposedly about chronicling the Marine career of their daughter, which I think is an awesome thing to do. Apparently it’s also occasionally about screedifying about “those Liberals.” (That the underlying Blogspot site is called “RightWingWizKid” might betray a certain bias). So join us on this journey to discover why I (as an avowed Liberal) don’t believe in God. Which is the actual headline of the post: Why Liberals Don’t Believe in God:
Somehow I don’t think this is going to be a “fair and balanced” appraisal
There is a reason why many liberals don’t believe in God. It’s because he has been unfair to them. He gave something to the rest of us that liberals don’t have. It’s the only conclusion I can come to. In thinking over some basic liberal beliefs, the only logical conclusion is that liberals are missing a few brain cells, mainly the ones that give the rest of us common sense and prevent us from being hypocrites. Otherwise, how can they believe the following?:
So, just to be clear, the reason Liberals don’t believe in God is because they’re idiots, so they’re resentful of God for treating them unfairly. I’ll assume this is going to be part of the “writing about Constitutional and political events that I feel not only affect the men and women of America’s Armed Forces, but the freedoms the rest of us enjoy due to their sacrifice” and, in fact, meant to be … um … humorous. (Ah, wait, “political satire” is included in the list of things written about here — except there’s very little satirical in the rest of the post, unless it’s to be a satire of standard Conservative blogging points.) Ahem.
Note that accusing Liberals of being atheists and Not True Christians and the like is a fairly common calumny on the Right. They take horrible offense if anyone questions their piety, or their beliefs, but take it for granted that anyone to the left of Glenn Beck is probably suspect in their orthodoxy. That makes this a “ha ha funny” moment that really isn’t, because it’s joking about Liberals all being atheists (which I resent as a Christian and Liberal) in a way that goes right along with the libel that Liberals are all atheists.
Or, maybe, I’m just an overly-sensitive Liberal.
That Al Gore is a hero for speaking out against global warming. As he leaves his home, which has the highest energy consumption in the state, boards a private jet, and then takes a limo to wherever he is promoting his dogma.
Ah, let’s start off with Al Gore, who has the burden of being That Clinton Guy’s VP, The Guy Who Ran Against Dubya, and That Global Warming Dude. Al Gore is a favorite target of the Right, and, in the grand tradition of shooting at the messenger when the message is bothersome.
As far as the whole “Al’s House is an Energy Hog,” I’ll point to this Snopes article on the subject.
Liberals applaud the ACLU for fighting for the rights of the average American.
Actually, I applaud the ACLU for fighting for the rights of all Americans. If we only fight for the rights of “average” Americans, or “majority” Americans, or “the ones who think like we do” Americans, we weaken all Americans’ rights.
While they overlook the fact that the ACLU wages war against such traditions as the Boy Scouts of America, the NRA, Christmas, and numerous other decent and moral things.
This makes it sound like the ACLU is particularly targeting the institutions involved just becuse they are “traditions” and “decent and moral things.” Which, of course, is just goofy. In the specific cases involved, the ACLU has fought for actual Constitutional principles. They’ve also defended a variety of conservative / traditional institutions on those same principles. The ACLU understands what “liberty and justice for all” means.
The fact that the ACLU lobbies for the “rights” of terrorists and provides legal representation to such groups as the North American Man-Boy Love Association doesn’t bother a liberal in the least.
And they defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie, too. And it bothers me, insofar as I detest the Nazis. And NAMBLA. And (actual) terrorsts.
But if we only extend those “inalienable” Constitutional rights to the folks we agree with, then they aren’t rights, are they? They’re just majority privileges. Which means that any time the majority thinks that you or I are on the fringe and undesirable or embarrassing, we can have our privileges taken away, too.
Liberals support abortion on demand.
There’s this odd meme on the Right that Liberals looooove abortion. That they relish seeing how high they can push the abortion numbers. That they throw abortion parties and abortion picnics and hold abortion competitions. They want “abortion on demand” delivered to their doorstep as fast as movies on demand are — and they want you to pay for it, bwah-ha-ha! Ugh. Most Liberals I know (self included) aren’t particularly fond of abortion. We don’t particularly like it. We really don’t like the circumstances that cause women to think of it as the least worst alternative. While I am sure there are some Left Fringers who see abortion as a casual birth control method, that’s not how most Liberals see it. That’s not how most women who’ve had abortions see it. We’re with Bill Clinton’s desire to make it “safe, legal, and rare.” But as much as we dislike abortion, we’re also reluctant to make that decision for a woman, or to get between a woman and her doctor over whether it’s necessary or desirable. And we’ve very aware of how abortion restrictions (and the birth control restrictions that too many on the far Right are also covertly in favor of) have been used to oppress women in ages past, intentionally or just effectively.
And they oppose the death penalty.
So, somehow it’s okay to say “Liberals love abortion, but hate the death penalty” and not note the converse of “Conservatives hate abortion, but love the death penalty.” I give kudos to the Catholic Church for, on principle, opposing both.
Now I can understand an argument that “the unborn are innocent; the condemned are guilty.” That does draw a distinction — but many Liberals object to capital punishment, less over the idea of taking a life (though some folks’ eagerness to do so gets a little creepy), than over the idea that our justice system (especially when it comes to capital crimes) is so flawed that we can have little confidence that, in fact, the condemned are guilty. Anybody who claims they are against the killing of innocents would have to be willfully blind to think that doesn’t happen on Death Row in this country. Not everyone executed, certainly, doesn’t deserve it. But not everyone does — and that’s an unjust killing that’s done on behalf of all of us.
Liberals feel that it is fine for such experts as Danny Glover, Sean Penn, George Clooney and the like to air their views on American political policies. But when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck share their thoughts, they should be restricted by a “Fairness” Doctrine.
I am not a particular fan of the “Fairness Doctrine,” but, regardless, there are no actual effort from the Left to re-impose it. Even if there was, it cuts both ways. It means that if Sean Penn gets to blather on the air for an hour, then Glenn Beck does. And, frankly, Sean Penn gives me hives. But I don’t think he’s any less intellectually, educationally, or tempermentally unqualified to shoot off his mouth than Limbaugh, Coulter, or Beck.
Honestly, I wish they’d all shut up — but I defend their rights to bloviate as they see fit and/or profitable.
Liberals openly support gay rights parades. Yet feel that Christmas Nativity scenes should be illegal.
Um … no. If any organization wants to apply for a parade permit — be it the Ultra Gay Leather Boys of Downtown Denver, or the Devout Christian Nativity Reenactors of Our Lady of Perpetual Motion — that’s fine. As long as everyone gets the opportunity and everyone abides by the rules, that’s what makes this nation great. My objection (and that of such whacko groups as the ACLU) to Nativity Scenes only involves their display on public land with public funding, and in circumstances where other religious (or irreligious groups) don’t get the same opportunity. In other words, where Christianity, exclusively, is being supported by the taxpayer.
My family has a nativity scene. We have it in our house. My church has one that it will display by the altar. Heck, if my church decided to display it on their front lawn (as some of my neighbors do), that’d be fine by me. But why should I be asking people who don’t believe in the Nativity to fund, through their taxes, the display of a nativity scene on government property?
That “racial profiling” of Muslims is wrong. But that returning war vets are “potential domestic terrorists.”
Again, a lovely mix-and-mismatch of different issues. Profiling of Muslims and/or Arabs (or Semites other than Israelis) is “wrong” because (a) it sweeps up a whole group of people based on the actions of a tiny minority (e.g., why not, then, profile Caucasians or Gun Owners based on the terrorist activities of Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, and the Huttaree?). (b) it’s ineffective (it assumes that all Islamicist terrorists are swarthy Middle Easterners, ignoring the various cases where that has not been the case), let alone the opportunity that such a profiling regime would provide actual terrorists to bypass security by coming up with fellow-travelers, mules, and others who would not trigger the “OMG HE’S AN AYRAB!” profile. (c) it encourages group prejudice, something we all (except for the proverbial WASP) have fine historical reasons to reject.
As to the whole veteran meme — yeesh. The DHS, after having issued a report about possible left-wing extremist groups in the US posing a domestic terror threat, has a report in the pipeline (initiated under the George W. Bush administration) about possible right-wing extremist terror … and the Right, once Obama is in office, goes ape-shit. It’s worth noting that the report suggests, as one element, returning veterans, as combat troops, might be targeted by right-wing extremist groups for recruitment. It didn’t suggest that all veterans were possible terrorists — it simply said that right-wing terrorists might see combat-trained veterans as possible recruits. Duh.
That it’s fine for a kid to bring a book about Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx to school. Yet that a kid carrying a Bible should be expelled.
I’m not sure what’s wrong about a kid bringing a book about Hitler or Marx, as historical subjects, to school. A kid obsessively reading books about Hitler would be more disturbing. I doubt any kid (or most adults) would be interested in reading much by Marx. The Bible-carrying kid expulsion does sound pretty outrageous. And, um, unrealistic. If someone would actually point to a case of the latter, I’d be more than happy to condemn it.
That Fox News is nothing more that an offshoot of the Republican Party.
Never mind that pretty much the entire active list of potential Republican candidates for President in 2012 have gigs with Fox. Never mind that Fox has openly declared itself “the voice of the opposition” to the Democratic Administration. Never mind that Fox’s owner, News Corp, contributed under orders of its president, Rupert Murdoch, significant sums to to Republican causes in this last election, and that Murdoch made significant personal contributions to GOP leaders’ campaigns.
And that Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, etc. simply report the news without any personal bias.
I don’t know any Liberal who would make that statement about Keith Olbermann. They may like him (or not), but he’s clearly got a Point of View. And, in fact, he’s not actually hired as a newscaster, but as someone with a personal opinion. As is Chris Matthews. (And, for that matter, as is Bill O’Reilly.) Criticisms about Katie Couric are mostly because she managed to point out, through her interviews, that Sarah Palin is a dolt. And she did it by letting the subject’s words speak for themselves.
Liberals will cite the U.S. Constitution when they speak about the “separation of church and state. Despite the fact that that phrase is not included in the Constitution.
Well, no. I don’t know any Liberal who will claim the phrase “separation of church and state” is actually, word for word, in the Constitution. Really, can we have a citation here?
That said, the phrase was coined by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, and echoed by Founding Father JamesMadison, and is clearly the sentiment of a number of the Founders as to what the First Amendment was meant to do. The term “separation of powers” isn’t in text of the Constitution, either, but I don’t hear anyone protesting that as a bogus concept. Well, except for for the folks who dislike the judiciary.
Liberals believe that Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. In spite of the fact that he has done nothing to earn it, and he was only in office for a month or two when he was nominated.
Actually, most Liberals I know would agree that Obama had not done much to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize (except to be Not George W. Bush). In fact, that was my reaction when it came out. Ironically, many Liberals would think it even less deserved currently. (Personally, the Nobel Peace Prize is … of dubious distinction, in terms of some of the folks to whom it’s been awarded.)
They believe Obama and Pelosi when they say that universal health care will lead to a reduction in the federal deficit. They never ask how insuring the (supposedly) 45 million Americans without health insurance will make money.
Obama and Pelosi assert it because the Congressional Budget Office asserts it. Here’s why that works (hints: free competition, getting away from an “emergency room as baseline medical care” culture for the poor, seeking efficiencies in Medicare, taxation of “Cadillac” plans).
Liberals will repeatedly bash Judaism and Christianity.
Liberals dislike the assertive claims of cultural ownership and exceptional virtue and righteous dominance by Christianity in America. To the extent that Christianists claim “We’re Number One (and the government should give us money because of that, and, oh, our religious laws should be national laws, too), I will feel free to “bash” those Christian groups (while still being a regular churchgoer).
Liberals tend to support Judaism as a minority religion, though they also tend to reject American foreign policy knee-jerkingly supporting Israel no matter what it does. (As a Liberal, I support Israel’s right to exist and be secure; I reject its territorial aggrandizement and oppression of the Palestinian populations; I also reject the conservative elements of Israeli culture that seek to run it as a conservative Jewish theocracy).
But they become angry if they hear anyone say anything bad about Islam.
Nice blanket statement. I get angry when people assert that all Muslims are out to TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY AND CUT OFF OUR HEADS AND MAKE THIS THE UNITED STATES OF SHARIA. That’s just a xenophobia to go along with previous American cultural/immigration shifts (along the lines of “ALL IRISH AND ITALIANS ARE OUT TO TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY AND COMPEL US TAKE COMMUNION AND MAKE THIS INTO THE UNITED STATES OF THE POPE”).
On the other hand, I (and other Liberals) are more than happy to criticize theocratic Islamic regimes and societies that impose cruel punishment upon (e.g.) rape victims and homosexuals (and, for that matter, Christians). And we do.
Ironically, I feel that Liberals (at least as I consider myself one) take the concept of “Don’t Tread on Me” more seriously than many Conservatives. We believe in inclusion (don’t tread on anyone) and protection for all, not just for the people we approve of.
So the next time you hear a liberal spouting off with some stupid statement, try and keep in mind that it’s not entirely their fault.
Yeah. We’ve probably been goaded into it by some conservative telling us we’re liberal idiots who hate God.
Note: in response to a comment on his original post, the author posted a full-length “defense” — which basically just restates all the points he originally made above.
So after discussing the Evils of Atheistic Billboards yesterday (or, more properly, the hypocrisy of Christians condemning Atheists for proselytization efforts), a few more items bobbed up on the subject. Like this billboard:
It came up at this page at Pharyngula in conjunction with PZ Myers objecting to an atheist with Christian family members who objected to the billboard as simply being provocative. Les shared the article in Google Reader, and I commented:
Isn’t there a difference, though, between at least sometimes “letting people go about their daily lives in peace” and “bowing and scraping and saying ‘Yassuh’ to the religious”?
My main problem with this particular ad is that, I don’t like anyone telling me what I “KNOW”. In some ways, this strikes me as the flip side to “Even atheists know in their hearts that God is real” crap.
Reminding theists that atheists are real, that they are good people, even that they disagree, is in fact a good thing. It’s also good (as noted yesterday) to let people who aren’t believers know that there are kindred spirits out there. Telling people, at Christmas, that their beliefs about Christmas are a myth (and that, arguably, they KNOW it to be true) strikes me as being unnecessarily rude.
That said, I then ran across today this even more pathetically maddening article on the subject, from the “Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.” And this one deserves (sigh) a lengthy screed.
Now, if the CADC was focused on pointing out places where Christians were, in fact, unfairly defamed, pointing out how that was the case, and asking that people of goodwill join in stopping such occurrences, I’d be all over that.
Double poopy-heads!
Instead, the CADC’s MO is basically to screech, “Hey! They called us poopy-heads! But they’re double poopy-heads!” Which is, of course, just what Jesus indicated one should do and feel when being persecuted for His sake, right?
As we enter the Christmas season, atheist groups are lining up again to bash Christianity.
Some atheist groups are interested in “bashing” Christianity, for a variety of reasons. They don’t usually restrict themselves to the Christmas season.
A group called American Atheists purchased a billboard in New Jersey that shows a silhouette of the Three Wise Men approaching the Nativity. Underneath is written, “You KNOW it’s a Myth. This Season, Celebrate REASON!”
Well, that much is accurate.
It's not a myth, it's just Cliff's Notes
Biblically speaking, of course, the Wise Men men did not arrive while the newborn Jesus lay in the manger. Nor were there canonically three of them. Nor do they even appear in more than just one of the Gospels. So, even from a Biblical standpoint, the whole “We Three Kings of Orient Are” is a myth within Christianity. But that’s not quite the intent of the billboard, I suspect, and, mysteriously, the CADC would probably handwave away that aspect of it, so I suppose I digress.
It’s interesting that this same hostility isn’t displayed against Muslims during Ramadan or towards Jews during their Holy Days.
Well, despite fear of Muslims taking over America, or fear of the overwhelming power of Jews in the media, both groups remain tiny percentages of the population and of the culture. If one is out to object to religious myths, it makes sense to take on the big dog in the yard.
That said, atheists do, as appropriate, criticize Muslims and Jews. It’s hardly surprising that the CADC doesn’t actually notice this. Especially as the CADC probably sees this as some huge crypto-Atheist-Muslim-Jewish conspiracy against Jesus. So it goes.
Apparently the American Atheists are ignorant of the fact that history proves Christ’s birth is not a myth.
Plus, Jesus is pearly-white and rosy-cheeked and CERTAINLY not swarthy or Semetic
Despite fervent assertions to the contrary, the historical basis for Jesus is hardly as settled as that, let alone the specific events surrounding his birth. The last time I looked, there was at least some basis for Jesus’ historicity, but not not so much as to assert “ignorance” of the “fact” of the “proof.”
But, then, “blessed are you who have not seen, but have believed.”
Jesus is not only the promised Messiah, God born of human flesh, he is the crucified and risen Savior of the World.
Which isn’t exactly arguing from history.
Over three hundred fulfilled biblical prophecies, corroborated by non-Christian sources and eyewitness testimony are stubborn facts atheists simply pretend aren’t there.
Wow. Really? I mean, sure, the Bible (esp. Matthew) is full of “fulfilled biblical prophecies,” but that’s kind of to be expected.
I looked around at the CADC site for the basis for this assertion, but their “Resources” page is simply an introduction to “Seven Reasons Barack Obama Is Not A Christian.” Um … right …
Atheists seem to hold a deep-seated, irrational resentment against Christmas and the joyous message of salvation that it declares. They are apparently too proud to admit their sin and need of a Savior, so they flee to “REASON.” Yet, their atheistic reasoning is so inconsistent and depressing.
Oh, those Atheists — so “deep-seated irrational,” so “proud” and “inconsistent” and “depressing.” It’s a good thing the CADC can try to defend against the defamation of Christianity without defaming others, because otherwise those Atheists sure would be easy targets!
Ahem. So we trot out the standard anti-Atheist memes here:
Atheists are driven by a resentment/hatred of God/Christ and, by extension, Christmas. The idea that one might legitimately, honestly question the facts of Christianity, or its theology (itself a tangled web that’s cause Christians to come to blows and blood and the auto-de-fe in the past), is utterly beyond comprehension.
Atheists are just simply too proud to admit that they are sinful and in need of salvation. Never mind that some Christians seem to proud over their having achieved salvation over those other poor schmucks who are headed to the Fiery Furnace.
There’s nothing to base these idea on, other than wishful thinking. It’s as silly (or slanderous) to assert that atheists know in their heart that God exists and are simply ignoring Him out of fear or pride, as it is to assert that theists know (ahem) in their heart that God is a myth and are simply going along out of fear or pride.
And, by the way, what is it about REASON that makes it something one “flees” to? Sign me up with Abraham Heschel, a man of faith:
Without reason we would not know how to apply the insights of faith to the concrete issues of living. … The rejection of reason is cowardice and betrays a lack of faith.
The idea that God created us as Reasoning individuals says to me we are called on to use those cognitive tools that God provided us. I think there is room (at least in my life) for Faith as well as Reason — indeed, as with Heschel, I think both are critical components. But to dismiss atheists as “fleeing to Reason” is to denegrate one of God’s great gifts to us.
I have always wondered why atheists spend money on billboards to try to persuade others of their position if they really believe their own ideology. According to honest atheists, if there is no God logic dictates there is no truth, right or wrong, or meaning.
Yet some atheists are compelled to live as if what they think is true, and that their lives actually do matter. It looks to me like they didn’t read their Nietzsche very closely and can’t live according to “REASON” after all.
The appeal to “honest atheists” aside, while it is true that some atheists are nihilist (just as some Christians are hate-mongers), and some think Nietzsche is the coolest philosopher ever (just as some Christians think Pat Robertson is da bomb), most of the ones I know do believe in “right and wrong,” do feel that life has “meaning” — but a meaning that they figure out for themselves, and right and wrong as they reason makes sense, as opposed to simply taking what a preacher or scripture or some other blessed authority dictates.
I’m not sure what it means to say that “if there is no God, logic dictates there is no truth.” I’d look for more education on the subject, but the Resources page is still blathering about Obama being an Evil, Liberal, Radical, False Christian.
As a Christian I understand it’s impossible to make sense of this world and my life apart from God. Jesus Christ alone meets the deepest need of mankind- reconciliation to a Holy God.
As a Christian, I am glad you (whoever you are) find sense in this world and life as informed by Jesus Christ. Your anecdotal evidence is hardly demonstrable truth, let along logic and reason, that nobody can can do similarly without Him. There seem to be plenty of people in the world to demonstrate just the opposite, no matter how much you claim it is impossible.
Some of them even seem to be (gasp) atheists.
Reason ultimately ends in hopelessness, meaninglessness and despair.
Because?
The Christ Mass According to St. Frankie
Atheists want us to replace “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” with “Have Yourself a Nihilistic Breakdown.”
Oddly enough, I don’t know any atheists want anyone to have “Nihilistic Breakdowns.” In fact, most of them would be happy for folks to have a “Merry Little Christmas” (If I noted that the song is utterly non-religious, other than using the word “Christmas,” would I be being provocative?).
That doesn’t sound very attractive to me. I much prefer a living hope and the supernatural joy of Christ, thank you very much.
And more power to you. But if you can’t do so without mocking and namecalling of those who feel differently — does that raise you much above the level of what you’re criticizing in others?
This post would not be complete without looking at the comments. As one might expect, most show all the fervor of the original poster but with half the REASONing. For example:
We shouldn’t be surprised that someone foolish enough to hate and disbelieve in God would go to all lengths to make others “two-fold more a child of hell” than themselves. They particularly hate Biblical Christianity because Jesus Christ is the one & only way to eternal life.
If one disbelieves in God, why would one hate God? The underlying accusation here is that atheists not only know that God is real (they actually believe in him), they’re going through the atheistic motions out of hatred of God, and to suck others into their hell-bound maw. I.e., atheists aren’t just wrong or unenlightened or mistaken, they are intentionally evil.
All I can say here is that this doesn’t match most of the atheists I know. It’s altogether possible, even likely, that some avowed atheists are actually anti-theists — they believe in God, but they are, in fact, angry and rejecting of their concept of God because of something that’s happened in their life. But most of the folks I know who are atheists have taken a bit more reasoned approach to their beliefs (more reasoned than most Cultural Christians), and are a-theists primarily for a reason.
To me, atheist are a testimony to Christianity as they have to name God before they can deny Him. They have just named what they deny.
God is a Magic Name, and if you say it three times, there’s a 2d100 percentile chance that He will appear …
Proof via the Gospel of St. Calvin
Ah, Pascal’s Wager. What a truly heart-felt, sincere, positive, loving reason to be a Christian. Or a Zoroastrian. Or a Hindu. Or SantaClausist. Or …
I continually marvel at just how angry, resentful and even downright hostile atheists will become toward people who are simply exercising their own free will and Constitutional rights to choose what they personally want to believe and follow, just as the atheists have done. If atheists sincerely believe that God, Heaven, Hell, eternity, etc. are all part of some impotent, superstitous myth, why do they care so much that some people might choose to believe in it, even total strangers they don’t even know? That they protest so vehemently tells it all, I think, meaning they actually know the truth, mad as everything at even the slightest reminder. Trying so desperately to hide from the truth, visible, vocal Christians must be real nasty thorns.
Or, maybe, they get tired of Christians arguing that not only are they (Christians) right, but that they (Atheists) know it but are desperately trying to hide from the truth.
Or, framed another way, If Christians sincerely believe that God, Heaven, Hell, eternity, etc. are all real and therefore they are themselves saved, why do they care so much that some people might choose to disbelieve it, even total strangers they don’t even know? That they protest so vehemently tells it all, I think, meaning they actually know the truth, mad as everything at even the slightest reminder. Trying so desperately to hide from the truth, visible, vocal atheists must be real nasty thorns.
I will note that some of the commenters are actually reasonable, even suggesting that Atheists are ticked off, not at Christ, but at Christians.
It bothers me, and angers me when Christians act out on their own fears and hatred of non-Christians. If atheists want to challenge the existence of God, lets organize a civilized and publicized discussion about it. Other than that, I say we join the organization American Atheists in promoting the free exercise of religion for all people in this country. The great men of Christ who formed the foundation of this country respected and protected the rights of conscience for all people – we should recognize that the institutional church has not always done so.
Amen, brother.
So, to summarize:
I’m not thrilled with the billboard in question largely because it’s confrontational and asserts what people believe in their hearts — as obnoxiously as the old “there are no atheists in foxholes” canard …
… or, to turn to this particular CADC post, as obnoxiously as the “atheists hate God therefore they hate people who believe in God because they are too proud and cowardly and sinful to admit they themselves believe in God” calumny.
If you can’t protect yourself from defamation without defaming others, then consider simply turning the other cheek. It’s not easy, and it’s not something I, for one, do nearly as well as I ought, but, especially for those who claim to follow Christ, it’s what we’re supposed to do, dagnabbit.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
— Jesus, Matthew 7:1-5
*She considers herself in rebellion against “the mainstream media, the Episcopal Church (and others which make up the rules instead of obeying them), and the decaying culture her children witness every day.”
One of those "hostile" and "intolerant" atheist billboards
She goes through a series of examples of ads — billboards, bus ads, etc. — being put up by the American Humanist Association, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the American Atheists. They vary from cute to mildly confrontational, but they boil down to a declaration of: “I don’t believe in God, but I can still be a good, moral human being with a nice life; if you feel the same way, don’t be afraid to speak up.”
Ms Segelstein is exasperated and confused.
I guess I just don’t understand. Christians (along with Jews and Muslims) …
… And, I suppose, some other parenthetical religions …
… gather in groups to worship. Atheists don’t gather not to worship, so why seek out members? What’s there to be a member of?
Humans are social animals. We look for ways to herd together. Loneliness is one of the great psyche-crushing occurrences in the human experience.
Let’s say you lived in a neighborhood where everyone painted their houses taupe. In fact, the HOA rules pretty much encouraged that. And everyone was always raving about how wonderful the color was, how lovely it looked, how excellent it was to live in a neighborhood of all-taupe houses. There might even be discussion in passing, over the back fence, about how there were some folks who preferred blue houses, but, you know, those people had bad taste at best, and were perhaps mentally disordered at worst.
And let’s say you really don’t like taupe houses. But you’re trapped there, all alone.
Until one day someone says, “Well, you know, I actually kind of like blue houses. I’ve always found taupe houses a bit boring, even ugly.”
Wouldn’t you be thrilled?
Wouldn’t you wish you’d spoken out sooner?
Wouldn’t you be so happy there was someone else out there who validated your feelings, so that you weren’t alone any more?
Ms Segelstein doesn’t get it. As far as she’s concerned, there’s people who like taupe houses, and folks who criticize the people who like taupe houses, and she doesn’t understand why.
(And, yes, atheists do gather together sometimes to discuss stuff, even in regular meetings. Though I think most of them do, in fact, enjoy sleeping in on Sundays.)
And why should atheists care about stopping worshippers who are just “going through the motions”?
Because they believe in personal liberty? In people being able to make a choice? In folks feeling trapped but also feeling like they have to go along with the taupe house thing because, well, everyone else does it, and that’s the color house their parents lived in.
Or, to put it another way, as the Bible says in John 8:31-32:
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Truth. Truth is important. Some people value the truth, and they value the opportunity for people to discover the truth, and to act on that discovery.
People who are just “going through the motions” might be perfectly happy to go along as they are. Or they might be miserable and feel trapped. But they’re a lot less likely to do anything about it if they don’t realize that what they feel isn’t unnatural or evil or anti-social or a disappointment to the world. Choosing to stop being a believer “going through the motions” doesn’t mean cutting oneself off from all society. There are others who (dis)believe like you do.
That’s the message these billboards are trying to convey.
Do they think they might get their hands on money once pledged to churches?
Of course. Because (a) we all know that atheists are amoral and only interested in money, and (b) Christian churches and church leaders would never advertise their religious gatherings in order to get money.
Trying to tear down the belief system of the world’s foremost religion — Christianity — is what seems intolerant to me. Placing prominent ads declaring the birth of Christ to be a myth seems downright hostile.
Given the vocal, virulent, hateful efforts by some conservative Christians to, for example, tear down the belief system of another of the world’s foremost religions — Islam (we’ll leave aside the long history of Christianity tearing down the beliefs of Jews, or of Christian missions sent around the world to convert/”save” the non-Christians of the planet, regardless of what they currently believe) — it’s hard to take Segelstein seriously here.
Turning the clock back a bit, consider Paul, who basically went off to Greece to preach against the false gods of “the world’s foremost religion” in favor of his Christian God. Declaring Zeus a myth would have seemed downright hostile to some, don’t you think?
But Ms Segelstein still doesn’t get it.
To my mind, these campaigns feel defensive, as though atheists are weighted down with chips on their shoulders, or feel left out of some club.
Ever seen a bully get hit back? Their immediate reaction isn’t fear (that may come), or anger (that may come, too). It’s outrage, confusion, dismay at a turning around of the Established Order of Things.
Thus, too many Christians (mostly, though not exclusively, on the Right) are outraged about people who disagree with them, who question their facts, who point out where their actions to match their words, who dare suggest that Christians have at times been bullies, or who dare whisper that Christianity might be wrong. How dare they? Sure, many Christians are huge believers in the Great Commission to bring all people to Christ, but it someone dares try to bring someone away from Christ …
Well, they’re just being “defensive.” They have “chips on their shoulders.” Obviously they “feel left out of some club.”
Yes. That “club” is a society that assumes Christianity as the norm — and anyone who varies from that norm as something Different, Other, something suspicious, a bit sinister, probably a threat (hide your children) … or, at the very least, someone whose “belief system” needs to be “torn down.”
It’s projection. The folks most appalled at anyone trying to proselytize out of their community, and the most willing to ascribe to that proselytizer dark and threatening motives … are the very ones who see nothing wrong with proselytizing folks into their community. After all, if Christianity is the “norm” and that is “right,” then anything else is “abnormal” and “wrong.”
Thus, the assertions of theological reality that Christian churchgoers would consider to be innocuous mantras are, in fact, attempts to change someone’s belief system. “Jesus saves!” might sound like a hearty, welcoming, even positive statement to someone who believes in Jesus. To someone who doesn’t, it’s making assertions about one’s spiritual fate (you need to be saved), which religious faith is true (the one associated with Jesus), and the implications of failing to follow that faith (lack of salvation).
Oklahoma also has various “God” billboards which purport to pose questions and observations from the Almighty, like: “You think it’s hot here?” and “What part of `Thou shalt not …’ didn’t you understand?” and “Life is short. Eternity isn’t.”
It’s not that such things shouldn’t be said. It’s that some Christians are so blind as to think it’s fine and natural and acceptable for them to say “My belief system is true, yours is false, join me” while it’s rude and “hostile” and “intolerant” for someone else to say exactly the same thing (or even to say, “Hey, if you really don’t believe, that’s okay, you’re not alone”). Especially when it’s (shudder) atheists.
Mote? Meet beam.
I don’t approve of intolerance, whether from atheists or theists of any stripe. And when the atheist/humanist world gets the widespread, shrilly intolerant screedifying — accepted, even lauded by the Christian Religious Right — of folks like Peter LaBarbera (a co-columnist at OneNewsNow) or Bryan Fischer, let alone James Dobson, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell — I will criticize it as firmly. In the meantime, insisting that atheists practice a “Don’t Ask, And Really, Truly Don’t Tell” policy on their very minority belief system because it offends Christians who see it as a Dire Threat to their majority … is pretty goofy.
Speaking of which:
Christians I know don’t go around declaring that only fellow Christians can be good. And if they do, they’re wrong.
Really, Ms Segelstein? Really? You’ve never heard that? Every visit the Internet much?
How about, again, your fellow OneNewsNow columnists, who suggest we can only have a good, moral country if we havea Christian country.
Or maybe you’ve heard Christians (some Christians, at least) saying that, no matter how “good” a non-Christian acts, they are condemned to suffer eternal torment in Hell (“You think it’s hot here?”).
Indeed, Ms Segelstein, as a “reluctant rebel” against the Episcopal Church, you would probably prefer a more strict adherence (as ultra-orthodox Anglicans do) to the Anglicanism’s 39 Articles of Religion, the 13th of which pretty much says just what you say you’ve never heard Christians assert:
XIII. Of Works before Justification: Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.
In other words, doing good works without faith in Christ ticks God off. Which I think means “declaring that only Christians can be good.”
(I don’t believe that, mind you, and I’d say most Episcopalians don’t — but, then, Ms Segelstein is on record criticizing the Episcopal Church “and others which make up the rules instead of obeying them.” So wonder if she “obeys”/believes in that rule, too.)
Maybe Christians should launch a kinder, gentler campaign in response. They could quote Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC, from his book The Reason for God on the subject of common grace: “[E]very act of goodness, wisdom, justice, and beauty is empowered by God….He casts them across all humanity, regardless of religious conviction, race, gender or any other attribute to enrich, brighten and preserve the world.”
Actually, if more Christians did take that tack, I think a lot fewer people would feel that some (many? most?) Christians are as arrogant as we sometimes come across (“Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven”).
That wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) stop others from making their own assertions as to the metaphysics (or lack thereof) of the universe, or which “myths” are “real,” or of inviting those who might believe the same to come join them (or at least know they are not alone). But it would maybe help establish a climate where we could figure out where we can all get along and discuss some of these questions together.
I love where I live. There are so many things I appreciate about the United States, its culture, its system of government, its people. I might feel the same way if I lived in some other places, but the fact is, here I am, and, for all that I occasionally criticize aspects of this country, its culture, its government, its people — I am very thankful I am here (versus, say, Somalia).
And I love living in Colorado, in the Denver area, and in this very cool house we’ve been slowly making even better. Thankful I had the opportunity to come here, and live here.
I’m thankful for my family. My Mom and Dad, even my Brother. My In-Laws are pretty cool, too (waves).
And, of course, my wonderful wife and my incredible daughter. To have them in my life is so incredibly keen, I can’t begin to describe it. Profoundly thankful.
And then there’s my friends, and my job, and living in an era with More Internet, Less Plague, etc.
I have a lot to be thankful for. And I am. I’m thankful to all the people who have made my life as really good as it is. And, yes, I am thankful to my Creator for however it worked out that I’m here to enjoy it.
The blowback to my column of two days ago, in which I argued that we seem to have become reluctant to award the Medal of Honor to those who take aggressive action against the enemy and kill bad guys, has been fierce. It has been angry, vituperative, hate-filled, and laced with both profanity and blasphemy.
Hmmm … angry, vituperative, hate-filled, laced with concepts profane and blasphemous … I think you’re projecting, Bryan …
What is striking here is that readers who have reacted so viscerally to what I wrote apparently didn’t read it, or only read the parts that ticked them off. I’m guessing a fair amount of the reaction has come from those who didn’t actually read the column, but read what others said about the column. It’s been fascinating to watch.
Okay, let me go back and read the column …
… um ….
… okay, yeah, I have a visceral reaction all right. I think I’m going to lose my dinner.
For clarification, here are excerpts from my first column in which I clearly state that it is altogether right that we honor heroism and bravery when it is expressed in self sacrifice:
The Medal of Honor will be awarded this afternoon to Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta for his heroism in Afghanistan, and deservedly so. He took a bullet in his protective vest as he pulled one soldier to safety, and then rescued the sergeant who was walking point and had been taken captive by two Taliban, whom Sgt. Giunta shot to free his comrade-in-arms.
This is just the eighth Medal of Honor awarded during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Sgt. Giunta is the only one who lived long enough to receive his medal in person…
Jesus, in words often cited in ceremonies such as the one which will take place this afternoon, said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). So it is entirely right that we honor this kind of bravery and self-sacrifice, which is surely an imitation of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
I’m not sure there is a clearer or more forceful way for me to say it than I did right there, that we surely ought to continue doing what we have done, which is to grant our highest award for valor to those who risk their lives and even forfeit them, as our Lord and Savior did, in defending the lives of their friends.
Some have accused me of denigrating awards for such valor, which is nonsense, as the words above attest. I can hardly be rightly accused of denigrating an award given to those who I believe exemplify the courage and self-sacrifice of the Savior of the world. I have no doubt that I will continue to be accused of this, but such accusations are entirely without merit.
That’s a very nice spin on it, Bryan, but it just won’t fly. Yes, you say that’s all awfully nice and all … but then you turn around and indicate that it’s not enough. No, it’s not enough that we honor “those who risk their lives and even forfeit them … defending the lives of their friends” — if we’re not making a point to be honoring people who do so as they “kill people and break things.”
Even the very nice reference to Jesus gets this part added in the previous column:
However, Jesus’ act of self-sacrifice would ultimately have been meaningless – yes, meaningless – if he had not inflicted a mortal wound on the enemy while giving up his own life.
The significance of the cross is not just that Jesus laid down his life for us, but that he defeated the enemy of our souls in the process. It was on the cross that he crushed the head of the serpent. It was on the cross that “he disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15).
It’s only important that Jesus died in order to crush his enemy. Saving us is nice, but “meaningless.”
One can imagine — in fact, whole theologies, some of them very orthodox, have maintained — that Jesus’ death was not an “attack,” but a “rescue” … a throwing himself on a spiritual grenade of sin and death, perhaps, or running into the burning building of hell to bring out one more lost soul, or being the sacrificial man at the last ditch, whose actions allow his fellows to get away.
Lots of ways you can see Jesus’ death and resurrection. Turning it into a Commando Raid to Kill the Serpent is … not one I’ve often seen.
I’m not saying that our soldiers have become feminized in the least, especially those who have earned the Medal of Honor. It’s not our soldiers who have become feminized, it is the awards process that has become feminized.
And, of course, feminization is, by definition, bad.
What I am saying is that I am observing a trend in which we single out bravery in self-defense …
Darned feminists, celebrating defensive bravery!
… and yet seem hesitant to single out bravery in launching aggressive attacks that result in the deaths of enemy soldiers.
Congressional Medals of Honor (Army, Navy/Marines, Air Force)
Believe it or not, racking up a body count by “launching aggressive attacks that result in the deaths of enemy soldiers” is not the criterion for receiving the CMOH:
The Medal of Honor … is awarded in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. … The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life.
Nothing there about killing the bad guys. Nothing there about not killing the bad guys.
A shock, yes, I know. Either he’s lying, or he’s just accepting someone’s word as the basis for a screed without making any fact checks. As he put it in his earlier column:
According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one.
Let’s take a look at this most recent girly-girl citation, to Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta, awarded 16 November 2010. Here’s what happened:
Specialist Salvatore A. Giunta distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy in the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan, on October 25, 2007. While conducting a patrol as team leader with Company B, 2d Battalion (Airborne), 503d Infantry Regiment, Specialist Giunta and his team were navigating through harsh terrain when they were ambushed by a well-armed and well-coordinated insurgent force. While under heavy enemy fire, Specialist Giunta immediately sprinted towards cover and engaged the enemy. Seeing that his squad leader had fallen and believing that he had been injured, Specialist Giunta exposed himself to withering enemy fire and raced towards his squad leader, helped him to cover, and administered medical aid. While administering first aid, enemy fire struck Specialist Giunta’s body armor and his secondary weapon. Without regard to the ongoing fire, Specialist Giunta engaged the enemy before prepping and throwing grenades, using the explosions for cover in order to conceal his position. Attempting to reach additional wounded fellow soldiers who were separated from the squad, Specialist Giunta and his team encountered a barrage of enemy fire that forced them to the ground. The team continued forward and upon reaching the wounded soldiers, Specialist Giunta realized that another soldier was still separated from the element. Specialist Giunta then advanced forward on his own initiative. As he crested the top of a hill, he observed two insurgents carrying away an American soldier. He immediately engaged the enemy, killing one and wounding the other. Upon reaching the wounded soldier, he began to provide medical aid, as his squad caught up and provided security. Specialist Giunta’s unwavering courage, selflessness, and decisive leadership while under extreme enemy fire were integral to his platoon’s ability to defeat an enemy ambush and recover a fellow American soldier from the enemy. Specialist Salvatore A. Giunta’s extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, Company B, 2d Battalion (Airborne), 503d Infantry Regiment, and the United States Army.
The citation doesn’t say he got the award for “saving life” nor does it say it was “inflicting casualties on the enemy.” In point of fact, then-Specialist Giunta did both. and with valor. He attacked, he rendered aid, he counter-attacked, he freed a potential hostage.
I suppose Bryan doesn’t consider it all quite as masculine as if Specialist Giunta had launched a berserker attack against the insurgents, regardless of what else was going on around him, but …
I never even remotely suggested that we should stop honoring exceptional bravery in defense of our own troops; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact, as the above excerpts show. To borrow a phrase from Jesus, I say, “You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former” (Matthew 23:23).
See, Bryan seems to think a dire battle situation — of the sort that CMOHs come from are either “defensive” or “offensive.”
Robert J. Miller distinguished himself by extraordinary acts of heroism while serving as the Weapons Sergeant in Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha 3312, Special Operations Task Force-33, Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan during combat operations against an armed enemy in Konar Province, Afghanistan on January 25, 2008. While conducting a combat reconnaissance patrol through the Gowardesh Valley, Staff Sergeant Miller and his small element of U.S. and Afghan National Army soldiers engaged a force of 15 to 20 insurgents occupying prepared fighting positions. Staff Sergeant Miller initiated the assault by engaging the enemy positions with his vehicle’s turret-mounted Mark-19 40 millimeter automatic grenade launcher while simultaneously providing detailed descriptions of the enemy positions to his command, enabling effective, accurate close air support. Following the engagement, Staff Sergeant Miller led a small squad forward to conduct a battle damage assessment. As the group neared the small, steep, narrow valley that the enemy had inhabited, a large, well-coordinated insurgent force initiated a near ambush, assaulting from elevated positions with ample cover. Exposed and with little available cover, the patrol was totally vulnerable to enemy rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapon fire. As point man, Staff Sergeant Miller was at the front of the patrol, cut off from supporting elements, and less than 20 meters from enemy forces. Nonetheless, with total disregard for his own safety, he called for his men to quickly move back to covered positions as he charged the enemy over exposed ground and under overwhelming enemy fire in order to provide protective fire for his team. While maneuvering to engage the enemy, Staff Sergeant Miller was shot in his upper torso. Ignoring the wound, he continued to push the fight, moving to draw fire from over one hundred enemy fighters upon himself. He then again charged forward through an open area in order to allow his teammates to safely reach cover. After killing at least 10 insurgents, wounding dozens more, and repeatedly exposing himself to withering enemy fire while moving from position to position, Staff Sergeant Miller was mortally wounded by enemy fire. His extraordinary valor ultimately saved the lives of seven members of his own team and 15 Afghanistan National Army soldiers. Staff Sergeant Miller’s heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty, and at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself and the United States Army.
Too bad that’s such a feminine tale of saving lives and being protective and nurturing. I’m sure the 10 dead and dozens of wounded dead insurgents are kind of embarrassed to have been taken down by such a “feminized” award-winning scenario.
Staff Sergeant Jared C. Monti distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a team leader with Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3d Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 3d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, in connection with combat operations against an armed enemy in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan, on June 21, 2006. While Staff Sergeant Monti was leading a mission aimed at gathering intelligence and directing fire against the enemy, his 16-man patrol was attacked by as many as 50 enemy fighters. On the verge of being overrun, Staff Sergeant Monti quickly directed his men to set up a defensive position behind a rock formation. He then called for indirect fire support, accurately targeting the rounds upon the enemy who had closed to within 50 meters of his position. While still directing fire, Staff Sergeant Monti personally engaged the enemy with his rifle and a grenade, successfully disrupting an attempt to flank his patrol. Staff Sergeant Monti then realized that one of his Soldiers was lying wounded in the open ground between the advancing enemy and the patrol’s position. With complete disregard for his own safety, Staff Sergeant Monti twice attempted to move from behind the cover of the rocks into the face of relentless enemy fire to rescue his fallen comrade. Determined not to leave his Soldier, Staff Sergeant Monti made a third attempt to cross open terrain through intense enemy fire. On this final attempt, he was mortally wounded, sacrificing his own life in an effort to save his fellow Soldier. Staff Sergeant Monti’s selfless acts of heroism inspired his patrol to fight off the larger enemy force. Staff Sergeant Monti’s immeasurable courage and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, and the United States Army.
It’s a shame all that life-saving stuff at the end waters down all the personal killing done by Staff Sergeant Monti earlier in the citation.
But enough debunking of Bryan’s core thesis, let’s go back to his self-aggrandizing defensiveness. He continues:
It is striking that a certain amount of the criticism I have received actually verifies my thesis.
Note that by noting a “certain amount” there’s no telling if this is all, most, or a handful of his respondents.
In response to my call to also honor those who have killed bad guys in defense of our country, I have been called everything from savage to brute to bloodthirsty to anti-American to un-American to traitor to “expletives deleted” to the antichrist himself.
Golly, I’d love to know about these comments in context. Were they about the idea that CMOHs should be given for folks who have shown valor in primarily attacking the enemy? Or were they about how killing people is not only a valorous event but a Biblically blessed and even morally desirable act? Or maybe they were about the idea that “feminine” is somehow being used as a pejorative …
Surely some of this supports my contention that we have become too squeamish to honor such valor. It’s almost as if it embarrasses us, as if we feel there is something inappropriate about awarding our highest honor to those who kill the enemy in battle. It is as if our culture has become so soft and so feminized that it makes us enormously uncomfortable to think about praising such actions. It’s like we know such warfare needs to be waged, but we’re hoping we don’t have to find out very much about it.
Because “feminized’ means “soft” and “uncomfortable” — and not wildly enthused about killing qua killing.
Remember, of course, that all of the CMOH winners above did, in fact, kill others. Indeed, they actually led attacks.
It apparently is easier for us to honor valor when exhibited in self-defense, but we find ourselves reluctant to honor killing the enemy when we are the aggressor in a military setting.
By my rough count, about 25% of the Medals of Honor during the Vietnam War were granted to soldiers who showed unusual bravery and courage in assertive military action against the enemy. So far, according to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, we have yet to do so even once in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely there have been exceptional acts of bravery of those kinds in these wars, and yet we have failed to grant our highest honor for gallantry to any of them.
Actually, that’s an interesting question — are military operations in Afghanistan (or Iraq) comparable to Vietnam? Let alone WW II, etc.? After all, we’re not talking about typical large unit engagements, or assaults on enemy lines, but anti-insurgency operations, in both urban and rural settings. That leads, it would seem to me, to fewer purely offensive operations of the sort that would lead to “Charge of the Light Brigade” style CMOH opportunities.
And yet, remember that each of the above recipients managed to show valor, not just for all that feminized “saving fellow soldier” bits but also for aggressive actions.
That’s when Bryan jumps on this theological bandwagon:
The Scriptures certainly know nothing of such squeamishness. Remember what drove King Saul into a jealous rage was when the women of Israel commemorated David’s exploits in song:
“Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (1 Samuel 18:7).
And this was not the last of David’s exploits in just wars. He went down to the town of Keilah where he “fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock and struck them with a great blow” (1 Samuel 23:5).
I’m finally snipping a bit of Bryan’s screed because the rest is all about the Righteous Warfare of the Old Testament, Saul and David and the rest.
This is the point where, to be honest, it’s hard to refute Bryan. Because, to be honest, it’s perfectly legitimate, Biblically, to use the Old Testament and Israel’s holy wars against the Philistines and the like to justify Going Out and Killing All the Bad Guys You Can as a sacred and God-approved thing to do.
Does Bryan think these acts would warrant the Congressional Medal of Honor? Is this how Bryan thinks our soldiers should be acting in Afghanistan and Iraq?
For what it’s worth (and I’m sure Bryan would consider me damned for it), I reject these passages as reflecting the will of God.
Skipping ahead, we get …
Christianity is not a religion of pacifism. Remember that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers who came to him to lay down their arms, even when they asked him directly, “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).
A fascinating passage, but let quote it more in full (Luke 3:10-14):
“What should we do then?” the crowd asked. John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
Socialist!
Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?” “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
Wasn’t Bryan just preaching the other day about how “the involuntary transfer of wealth is fundamentally immoral. The voluntary transfer of wealth, on the other hand, is noble and compassionate.” He was condemning taxation for health care, but it would seem to apply for any taxation. Yet Bryan ignores John the Baptist not telling the tax collectors to lay down their tax rolls …
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
No, John the Baptist doesn’t tell them to stop fighting — because, yes, sometimes it’s necessary. He does seem to address what was a more immediate problem regarding soldiers (whether Herod’s or Caesar’s) in Judea at the time — trying to supplement their income through extortion.
War is certainly a terrible thing, and should only be waged for the highest and most just of causes. But if the cause is just, then there is great honor in achieving military success, success which should be celebrated and rewarded.
One could argue that war, even when just, is so terrible that to celebrate it is to sinfully worship its evils — lesser evils, perhaps, but evils nonetheless. It’s like celebrating a mastectomy, even if it’s done for a high and noble cause.
That said, there can be valor in war, exemplified in self-sacrifice toward the cause. That’s not about killing per se. It may well involve the killing of others, as a last resort and to a higher end, or it may be the protection of one’s brethren in arms, or a mixture of both. The Medals of Honor described above all fit the bill. To denegrate them by noting that they reflect some sort of (obviously inferior, if not sinful) “feminization” is, frankly, sickening.
Similarly sickening is the idea that war’s about “killing people and breaking things.” While it’s fine to quote Patton’s “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his,” killing for the sake of killing, even in a “holy cause,” is not a moral imperative. Indeed, it’s a claim that can be made by the “Bad Guys,” too. It devalues human life, the creation of God.
I am reminded of Rear Admiral Jack Phillip at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba in the Spanish-American War, who admonished his men who were celebrating the burning Spanish shop Vizcaya, “Don’t cheer, men; those poor devils are dying.”
And that echoes the older Talmudic tale: “When the Egyptians were drowning in the Red Sea, the angels in heaven began to break forth in songs of jubilation, but the Holy One, blessed be He, silenced them: ‘My creatures are perishing — and ye are ready to sing!'”
Bryan sums up:
The bottom line here is that the God of the Bible clearly honors those who show valor and gallantry in waging aggressive war in a just cause against the enemies of freedom, even while inflicting massive casualties in the process. What I’m saying is that it’s time we started imitating God’s example again.
If we leave aside the self-serving tales of conquest and genocide that fill the Old Testament, the New Testament (you know, the one that Changes Everything when it comes to dietary laws, but not, per Bryan, rules of warfare) doesn’t seem all that sanguine about war. While John the Baptist seems more interested in soldiery acting justly, Jesus mentions, pretty clearly, that violence is a sketchy option at best (Matthew 26:50-52):
And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.
And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Those who individually act in valor in battle, offering up their lives, are worthy of praise. That they do so in pursuit of the death of their opponents is incidental; where they do so in clearly seeking to protect their comrades in battle is even more laudatory, to my mind. That Bryan seems to think that reflects some sort of dubious feminization of the Medal of Honor is, honestly, more indicative of his bloody mindset that anything else.
I’ll close only in noting one more CMOH tale, this one from WW II. Like the above, it’s a blend of fearlessness in striking at the enemy and a devotion to protect one’s comrades in arms. It refers to Private Rodger Young, who died on New Georgia, Solomon Islands:
On 31 July 1943, the infantry company of which Pvt. Young was a member, was ordered to make a limited withdrawal from the battle line in order to adjust the battalion’s position for the night. At this time, Pvt. Young’s platoon was engaged with the enemy in a dense jungle where observation was very limited. The platoon suddenly was pinned down by intense fire from a Japanese machinegun concealed on higher ground only 75 yards away. The initial burst wounded Pvt. Young. As the platoon started to obey the order to withdraw, Pvt. Young called out that he could see the enemy emplacement, whereupon he started creeping toward it. Another burst from the machinegun wounded him the second time. Despite the wounds, he continued his heroic advance, attracting enemy fire and answering with rifle fire. When he was close enough to his objective, he began throwing handgrenades, and while doing so was hit again and killed. Pvt. Young’s bold action in closing with this Japanese pillbox and thus diverting its fire, permitted his platoon to disengage itself, without loss, and was responsible for several enemy casualties.
Was that a somehow feminized Medal of Honor, Bryan? Did they sing girly-girl songs about it? Or was it acceptable only so long as there were enough other medals given to guys attacking Japanese pillboxes just for the sake of killing the Bad Guys?
Ah, let’s start off with Al Gore, who has the burden of being That Clinton Guy’s VP, The Guy Who Ran Against Dubya, and That Global Warming Dude. Al Gore is a favorite target of the Right, and, in the grand tradition of shooting at the messenger when the message is bothersome.
I really tried to stay away. Honest. Yet Bryan Fischer pulled me back in, after (a) posting that