tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) (10/10/83)
[ From Pamela Troy ] This piece is written in response to an article by Paul Dubuc in which he answered some questions I posted in an earlier article. In the interests of space, I have tried to hone my article down, so I may not be able to cover all of the points I would like to. However, I will try to answer the questions Paul has put to me. Paul maintains that "our human laws need to be based on some unalterable, external standard," and he begins by asking me these two questions about the motivations behind the system of ethics held by an atheist, my father. l) How would my individual acts of lying, stealing, and cruelty make the world an uglier, more dangerous place? Why should I care about the rest of the world if I can get away with these things and make myself happy? If there is no God to whom I owe obedience, why can't I live by my own rules, as I see fit? It's fine for others to live by the rules of society. But why should I? (especially if there is nothing powerful enough to stop me) 2) Why should I care about the world? What is there inherent in atheism that compels me to be "good"? Why should you accept your father's standard of conduct (other than the fact that he is your father and you love and respect him)? Individual acts of lying, stealing, and cruelty make the world an uglier, more dangerous place, not only for the victims of these actions, but for the liar, the thief, and the brute. A person who does not respect the rights of those around him is not likely to have his own rights respected, and I have known few cheats and bullies who have gotten away with it for very long. Most dishonest people are frightened souls who live in terror of being discovered, and I've never known a bully who was very happy with the knowledge that he is feared and detested by his neighbors. Society, though not omnipotent, can be pretty powerful, and it has a way of enforcing its own rules. You should care about the world because it is where you live. For an atheist, what else is there? I accept my father's standard of conduct because he has done very well for himself and his family in living by it. He went through four years of Louisiana politics with his integrity intact, and I consider that quite an accomplishment. No, there is no God in atheism threatening to hit me with a stick if I do something wrong. My father believes something is made right or wrong by its effects on other people, not by whether a supernatural being likes it or not. (From Paul) There have been those who have done heinous things in the name of Christianity, but the Bible exposes them for the hypocrites they are. As for Atheism, we would do well to remember that everything that Josef Stalin did in his purge was legal. The law of Russia was his own. (From Pam) In this paragraph you reveal a rather self-serving double standard.... You ask us to separate bad Christians from good, acknowledging only the good ones as true Christians. (From Paul) I don't think it is too much to say that if anyone is going to call themselves a Christian they should submit themselves to the biblical standard of conduct. To redefine Christianity to make it more conformable to our own ideas is a subtle form of idolatry. (Making God in man's image). I'm afraid I did not make myself clear. I was objecting to the fact that you were insisting that I judge Christians by their highest common denominator, those Christians who practice tolerance, while you yourself were judging atheists by their lowest common denominator, Josef Stalin and his like. Later, we discussed whether or not Stalin could be a hypocritical atheist. (Paul) My point was that Stalin's actions were not hypocritical to atheism....The only thing that I can see that is hypocritical to an atheist is for him/her to act as if God exists....Atheism appeals to no authority for its validity. Atheism has no inherent standard of "right" and "wrong", only the arbitrary standard of individual atheists. Answer this for me: How can human rights be considered intrinsic, unalienable, and unalterable if there is no authority higher than man to appeal to? If atheism's flaw is that it appeals to no higher authority, then Stalin should have been immune to this flaw, and your use of him as an example is meaningless. Stalin WAS appealing to a higher authority to justify his actions. That authority was Marx. Look at history. When populations have been massacred and cultures destroyed, it has not been by the "fuzzy-minded" atheists who are not positive about right and wrong. Crimes against humanity tend to be committed by somebody clutching a book, and claiming that it and it alone holds the key to what is good and what is bad. Higher authorities will always be the bane of the human race. I will discuss this at greater length later. (From Paul) 1) Is it bigotry to reprimand a teacher for telling a student that he thinks it is wrong to have pre-marital sex because it is proscribed by the Bible? If not, then is it okay to prevent teachers from telling a student that pre-marital sex is acceptable based on another value system? It certainly is bigotry. A teacher should be free to offer his opinions to a student SO LONG AS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS OPINIONS AND BELIEFS, NOT AS FACTS. For example, it would be all right for me to say, "As a witch, I do not consider responsible pre-marital sex wrong." It would NOT be all right if I said, "Pre-marital sex is ducky and anyone who disagrees is a crazy old prude who should have his head examined." Actually, I know of very few cases of a teacher actually promoting pre-marital sex in the classroom. I do know of a case where a teacher was accused of doing just that because she had not explicitly stated that pre-marital sex was wrong. 2) Do you think that teachers should be allowed to present the scientific evidences for Creationism along with those for Evolutionism in the classroom? Certainly, as long as the evidence presented is as scientifically researched and as carefully documented as that for evolution, and so long as the presentation does not confine itself to one creation model. There are a great many, you know, aside from the Christian version. 3) If atheism describes the lack of religion, then what right does the government have to insist on a purely atheistic environment in the public schools? If atheism is a religion, then how does the separation of church and state principle apply to it? How are we to guard against our children being inculcated with atheism if theistic viewpoints are removed from consideration in the schools? Atheism is not merely the lack of religion, and I would not call the environment at public schools atheistic. If it were, the students would be actively taught that religion was bad. This is not the case. Your children would be in danger of being "inculcated with atheism" only if theistic considerations were removed from your home or your church, or if the schools started teaching that religion was pernicious. (From Pam) Would my children be forced to participate in Christian religious services, such as prayer to Jesus?...If my child does not take part, how can you insure that he won't be targeted by a Christian teacher and subjected to pressure to convert? (From Paul) On the contrary, non-Christians should be prevented from taking part in many Christian religious services. Forced participation in re- ligious activities accomplishes nothing. I'm glad you don't believe in involuntary prayer, but you have not answered my question. There are, I know, some people who like to advertise their religion in the way they dress, in religious jewelry, or by prayer. All of these things are allowed in the public schools, so long as they are done in a non-disruptive way. But suppose an unbelieving student, for whatever reason, does not wish to be identified as such? Certainly he has the right to his anonymity. A school prayer, which publicly separates believers from unbelievers, would shatter this privacy. Tim wants me to add this: Paul, you have said that you believe in state-sponsored religious services. You have also said that you believe that those of other faiths should be "prevented from taking part" in some Christian services. This means that people could be excluded from state-sponsored affairs on the basis of religion. I would oppose any such measure to the death if necessary, just as our founding fathers would have. Now back to Pam. In my previous article I had cited Numbers 3l, in which Moses orders the slaughter of captured Midianite women and male children, as an example of a passage which could be used to justify brutality against unbelievers. Here is part of Paul's response: To shed some additional light on Numbers 3l, first read Numbers 25.... Notice how God judges his own people before he does the Midianites. When you consider what rituals were involved in the Midianites' worship of the God Baal you might begin to see a different motive for the men of Israel saving the women. You might also see a reason for the anger of Moses at this, and why he saw that the virgins were spared. You may not agree with my God's view or morality or understand his hatred of sin. But your interpretation of Numbers 3l doesn't tell the whole story. Christians cannot use the Old Testament examples you mention to justify taking God's judgement of sin into their own hands. The coming of Christ modified God's judgement of sin greatly. I don't think I needed to "interpret" Numbers 3l. What happens in these verses is quite baldly described, and it is exceedingly barbaric and cruel. But I did read Numbers 25, and encountered the following heartwarming passages: And Israel abode in Shittim and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Ba'al-pe'or: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Ba'al-pe'or. And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Mid'i-antish woman in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel... And when Phin'e-has, the son of El-a'zar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw *it*, he rose up from among the congregation and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. You do know, don't you, what an agonizingly long time it takes to die from a stab in the gut? The fact that God could be just as beastly to his own people neither surprises not reassures me. I knew the first time I read Numbers 3l that the motives of the men of Israel saving the women were not exactly pure, but this hardly justifies murdering not only them but their male children. And Moses' magnanimous gesture of sparing the virgins becomes in itself questionable when he invites the Israelites to keep the girl children "alive for yourselves." He seems motivated not so much by moral indignation as by the fear of venereal disease breaking out among the tribes. A pity he didn't have a nice efficient gas chamber to get rid of these diseased creatures. I find your last statement rather mystifying in light of your insistence on "intrinsic, unalienable, and unalterable" human rights. My "relative, fuzzy, and irrelevant" sense of ethics hold that right and wrong are not something that can be changed by the wave of a divine wand. It was an atrocity when the Phalangists murdered the Palestinian refugees at Shantila, and it was no less an atrocity when Moses did the same with the Midianites. It was a filthy crime several years ago when a young man shot and killed a black man for jogging with a white woman on the grounds that they were destroying our country by "race-mixing". It was also a filthy crime when Phineas impaled Zimri and Cozbi because he had gotten it into his head that he was protecting Israel from a plague. The suffering of these people was no less intense because they lived many centuries ago. I am mystified at the double standard so many Christians seem to carry when it comes to Moses' actions in the Old Testament. Herod's massacre of the innocents was terrible because it was against God. Moses' massacre was O.K. because it pleased God. I find this concept of right and wrong dangerous and revolting. What's to stop your God from deciding once again that these methods are pleasing to him, or to stop some Christian from deciding that he has? (From Paul) What do you think will guarantee justice and truth? Nothing. There is no society that can consistently uphold, much less recognize these virtues. You, yourself, acknowledge in your article that there are many Christians who "misinterpret" the word and have a poor understanding of the concept of conversion, so justice and truth cannot be guaranteed in a Christian society, or, for that matter, in any society which is based on a dogmatic system. The best we can do is avoid injustice and untruth by having a government which adopts a "hands-off" attitude towards religious beliefs. This means not promoting any particular religion or belief, leaving it strictly to the individual to decide, and restricting only those actions which interfere with the rights of others. I enjoyed your article, and I hope I have answered your questions as plainly and as intelligently as you answered mine. Pamela Troy
pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (10/12/83)
This article is mainly a response to Pamela Troy's recent articles.
One of which is quoted extensively. But the remarks aren't directed
entirely toward her. This is going to be my last article for
quite awhile. (explained at the end) So I hope you will forgive it's
excessive lenth.
[ From Pamela Troy ]
Paul maintains that "our human laws need to be based on some unalterable,
external standard," and he begins by asking me these two questions about the
motivations behind the system of ethics held by an atheist, my father.
l) How would my individual acts of lying, stealing, and cruelty
make the world an uglier, more dangerous place? Why should
I care about the rest of the world if I can get away with these
things and make myself happy? If there is no God to whom I
owe obedience, why can't I live by my own rules, as I see fit?
It's fine for others to live by the rules of society. But why
should I? (especially if there is nothing powerful enough to
stop me)
2) Why should I care about the world? What is there inherent in
atheism that compels me to be "good"? Why should you accept
your father's standard of conduct (other than the fact that he
is your father and you love and respect him)?
Individual acts of lying, stealing, and cruelty make the world an uglier,
more dangerous place, not only for the victims of these actions, but for the
liar, the thief, and the brute. A person who does not respect the rights of
those around him is not likely to have his own rights respected, and I have
known few cheats and bullies who have gotten away with it for very long.
Most dishonest people are frightened souls who live in terror of being
discovered, and I've never known a bully who was very happy with the
knowledge that he is feared and detested by his neighbors. Society, though
not omnipotent, can be pretty powerful, and it has a way of enforcing its
own rules.
Individual acts of dishonesty also contribute to the personal advantage of
the one committing these acts. If I am willing to forgo any benefit to
society my honest behavior may produce, in exchange for the personal "benefits"
of my lying, cheating, and stealing, why not? I am sure that the ugliness
and danger of the world is a result of all the individual acts of dishonesty.
But how do you place responsibility on any given individual to be "good"?
The essence of my first question was that there will always be a portion
of society that will steal, lie, and cheat. So why shouldn't I join them
if I deem it to my benefit. The only reason dishonest people live in fear
is because they are afraid of getting caught. They have no real concern for
the one's they harm. Is fear of "judgement" any way to compel someone to
be good? How is society enforcing its rules different from a "god" with
who will hit him over the head with a stick for his evil ways? The terror
you talk about works both ways. There are many honest people who live in
terror of the thief. The usual response of many of these people is not
to "get involved" when they witness a crime taking place. The very fact
that we consider those who do get involved to be heros is a testimony to
the rarity of such action. Most people fear that the criminal will soon be
back out on the street (which happens more often than not) seeking revenge.
There is no restitution for those who fall victim to crime in our society.
I don't think the average criminal cares what his neighbors think of him.
They have learned to live with and accept it as a fact of life because,
once he is a criminal there is not much he can do to remove the social
stigma he has. Society does not forgive those who have paid their debt
to society. I do not have much confidence that that kind of society will
keep the world safe. It might, but I think then people will start trading
their freedom for more safety. More and more time and money is going into
protection services and devices that don't really solve the problem--just
move it somewhere else.
Also you seem to assume that the "laws of society" are, or always will be
just and fair. How can we gaurantee this to a reasonable degree? Whose
judgement will be used to determine if society's laws are fair? Society
itself?
You should care about the world because it is where you live. For an
atheist, what else is there? I accept my father's standard of conduct
because he has done very well for himself and his family in living by it.
He went through four years of Louisiana politics with his integrity intact,
and I consider that quite an accomplishment. No, there is no God in atheism
threatening to hit me with a stick if I do something wrong. My father
believes something is made right or wrong by its effects on other people,
not by whether a supernatural being likes it or not.
It is unlikely that the increment of my individual acts of dishonesty will
put the world in a total state of chaos in my lifetime. Therefore, if I
see advantage to my being dishonest and the bad effects of my dishonesty
will most likely be bourne by others, why shouldn't I? Life is short.
Why should I care about those around me or those who come after?
You and others may think I would be a crumb for thinking this way, but
why then should I care what you think?
I think I have a different view of the Christian God than you do. I percieve
His statements of judgment as warnings rather than threats. I don't think
it is his intent to destroy anyone. But without such a provision for the
destruction of evil, there is no ultimate justice.
(From Paul)
There have been those who have done heinous things in the name
of Christianity, but the Bible exposes them for the hypocrites
they are. As for Atheism, we would do well to remember that
everything that Josef Stalin did in his purge was legal. The
law of Russia was his own.
(From Pam)
In this paragraph you reveal a rather self-serving double
standard.... You ask us to separate bad Christians from good,
acknowledging only the good ones as true Christians.
(From Paul)
I don't think it is too much to say that if anyone is going to call
themselves a Christian they should submit themselves to the biblical
standard of conduct. To redefine Christianity to make it more
conformable to our own ideas is a subtle form of idolatry. (Making
God in man's image).
I'm afraid I did not make myself clear. I was objecting to the fact that
you were insisting that I judge Christians by their highest common
denominator, those Christians who practice tolerance, while you yourself
were judging atheists by their lowest common denominator, Josef Stalin and
his like. Later, we discussed whether or not Stalin could be a hypocritical
atheist.
I am only asking that you judge Christians by the Bible, not the actions
of the "best" Christians. That is what I mean by "biblical standard of
conduct". That is the one God will judge us by. Why shouldn't you?
If the Bible is the Christians highest common denominator, so be it.
What will serve as such for atheists? Can they all agree on a moral code?
By what should we judge the behavior of atheists? Bertrand Russel tried
to use the Bible to show the hypocracy of Christians while asserting
that it didn't matter that he didn't live up to these commands because
he was an atheist (or, as he more aptly put it, an anti-theist). If we want
to point out the errors of Christians, doing so from a biblical standpoint
at least gives us ground to stand on.
(Paul)
My point was that Stalin's actions were not hypocritical to
atheism....The only thing that I can see that is hypocritical to
an atheist is for him/her to act as if God exists....Atheism
appeals to no authority for its validity. Atheism has no
inherent standard of "right" and "wrong", only the arbitrary
standard of individual atheists. Answer this for me:
How can human rights be considered intrinsic, unalienable, and
unalterable if there is no authority higher than man to appeal
to?
If atheism's flaw is that it appeals to no higher authority, then Stalin
should have been immune to this flaw, and your use of him as an example is
meaningless. Stalin WAS appealing to a higher authority to justify his
actions. That authority was Marx. Look at history. When populations have
been massacred and cultures destroyed, it has not been by the "fuzzy-minded"
atheists who are not positive about right and wrong. Crimes against
humanity tend to be committed by somebody clutching a book, and claiming
that it and it alone holds the key to what is good and what is bad. Higher
authorities will always be the bane of the human race. I will discuss this
at greater length later.
But if Stalin was an atheist he wasn't bound by the authority of Marx. You
said in your other article that Stalin was considered by many Marxists to
be a failure as a true marxist. Yet here you seem to be saying that Stalin
tried to conciously uphold that authority. You also seem to regard any
higher standard to be the bane of the human race based on the fact that it is
a "higher standard" not on the content of that standard. On what basis can
you do this? I have asserted that the Bible represents a standard higher
than man. Yet Marx was a man. The claim of divine inspiration that the
Bible makes for itself is a complex subject. Yet without getting into that
I think that it is a superior standard than the work of any man.
To those who reject the divine inspiration of the Bible, I would
first respond by saying the following:
I have heard many people reject the divine inspiriation that the Bible
claims for itself because of the events in history involved in bringing
it to its present form. But, to me, it seems that those who reject the
Bible on the basis of its historical background have no definite criteria
for doing so. Those who reject Scripture in this way must answer the
question of how God *should* have provided a historically accurate, humanly
understandable, physically preservable and transmittable, revelation of
himself in order for their rejection to carry much weight. What charactistics
*would* make up a divinely inspired book, assuming that God wanted to give
us one? And what validates those characteristics? What characteristics
and historical consequences would make its divine inspiration beyond any doubt?
Such criteria, if it were to be set forth, would probably vary umong
the skeptics. Yet, even if consistent criteria were produced, if God
always acted within man-made definitions of his character, what kind
of God would he be? A God that is the servant of men, his actions always
falling within what man would expect and define for him?
I think that of all "holy" or doctrinal books, if one was ever going
to be inspired by God, it would have to be the Bible. Not only because
of its internal workings, but because of the uniqueness of Jesus, who
died and rose from the dead. He regarded scripture as being the basis
of truth and himself as the embodiment of it. His character and actions
as I read them in the N.T. seem to bear those claims out.
Back to the original question of authority:
Most people obey and respect police officers not because of the personal
authority they carry, but because of the authority our laws invest in them.
Is the higher law that gives a police officer his/her authority a bane on
the police department, or on society? I believe for human laws to be gaurenteed
some measure of justice they must ultimately be anchored in something higher
than man. Otherwise all authority becomes meaningless, depending on some
combination of brute force and the willingness of individuals to submit
to it. Brute force is not always just and is easily abused, and laws that
are only as strong as the individuals willingness to obey are no laws at all.
And neither do the individuals who break laws any real good.
(From Paul)
1) Is it bigotry to reprimand a teacher for telling a student that
he thinks it is wrong to have pre-marital sex because it is
proscribed by the Bible? If not, then is it okay to prevent
teachers from telling a student that pre-marital sex is
acceptable based on another value system?
It certainly is bigotry. A teacher should be free to offer his opinions to
a student SO LONG AS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS OPINIONS AND BELIEFS, NOT AS
FACTS. For example, it would be all right for me to say, "As a witch, I do
not consider responsible pre-marital sex wrong." It would NOT be all right
if I said, "Pre-marital sex is ducky and anyone who disagrees is a crazy old
prude who should have his head examined." Actually, I know of very few
cases of a teacher actually promoting pre-marital sex in the classroom. I
do know of a case where a teacher was accused of doing just that because she
had not explicitly stated that pre-marital sex was wrong.
What should the child understand "responsible" pre-marital sex to consist of?
Their idea of what is responsible may be different than yours.
At what age are they capable of handling such "responsibility"? And what
is your basis for drawing that line? Why should the younger child obey
you when you sugest they wait until that age?
You pose a problem for the sincere Christian here. A sincere belief in
scripture reveals that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Period. Not just
wrong if you happen to be a Christian. The Bible defines and absolute
moral standard. It also does not do this arbitrarily. I think the moral
dictates in the Bible are prescribed in keeping with the way God intended
human life to function, to be full and happy. I would say that the shifting
of sexual values in our country has made our society an uglier, more more
dangerous place to live.
Teachers don't need to promote premarital sex in the classroom *per se*.
Sex is promoted in the media, advertising, movies, books, and magazines.
These things represent the default values that children will adopt in the
abscence of advice to the contrary. All that has to be done in the schools
is to assume they are "doing it" and provide free (government funded)
contraceptives. Whether or not the accept them, the act of offering them
constitutes assent to sexual activity. I don't think young people in school
are old enough to make decisions about their sexual behavior that involve
such life impacting things as pregnancy, veneral disease, abortion etc.
Peer pressure is too strong and often makes the parents out to be the old
prudes.
You seem to be asking Christians who care about the world they live in
to refrain from doing anything to change it according to what they see
as right values. You want us to adhere to an absolute value system
without presenting it as such in the world. You make it awful hard to
be a Christian. We have to believe in something with all our hearts,
but acknowledge that it is irrelevant to the real world.
I agree that you have the right to reject that standard and not to be
forced into acting according to it. Your value system may be relativistic,
but you cannot expect Christians to present theirs as such. Scripture
asserts that absolutes do exist and that it is to our detriment (both
personally and corporately) to ignore them. I would like to repeat what
I said in my original article:
"It seems to me that ideas of what is right and wrong, good and bad, become
relative, fuzzy, then irrelevant within an atheistic context. It doesn't
matter what an individual feels is right or wrong because if right and
wrong are not considered absolute, then an individual has no right to
impose his idea of right and wrong on others."
And also what I said to Tom Harris in a related article:
"So what defines your idea of morals? If you believe that "right" and
"wrong", "true" and "false" exist, then two contradicting moral values
cannot both be right. They can both be wrong, but if they are then
this implies that there must be another way that is "right". Situational
factors may enter in, but most people operate as if there is a "right"
way to do something in any situation, and that its being "right" does
not depend on the values of the people involved (although they may
consider it to depend on their circumstances)."
"My point is that most people make judgements according to some
standard as to what is "moral" and what is not. They also
seem to operate on the assumption that this standard transcends
their own subjective viewpoint. Otherwise, How could we judge another's
actions to be "wrong"?"
I assume, Pam, that you consider irresponsible pre-marital sex to be
wrong. (I suppose most people would agree that irresponsible "anything"
is wrong.) Why? And what constitutes "irresponsible"?
[Back to Pam and her answers to my questions:]
2) Do you think that teachers should be allowed to present the
scientific evidences for Creationism along with those for
Evolutionism in the classroom?
Certainly, as long as the evidence presented is as scientifically researched
and as carefully documented as that for evolution, and so long as the
presentation does not confine itself to one creation model. There are a
great many, you know, aside from the Christian version.
I was not talking about the "Christian version" of creation. I was talking
about a balenced presentation of the evidence supporting our origin as the
result of an intelligent Creator along with that supporting it as a result
of random chance over time. The Bible should not be used as a textbook on
creationism in the public schools. Many like to maintain the label of
"religion" on creationism so that its teaching can be censored under the
First Amendment. The ACLU has vigorously opposed in the courts legislation
that would provide for this balenced treatment. In the Scopes Trial that
won the right for evolution to be taught in schools, Clarence Darrow stated,
"It is bigotry to teach only one view as to origins". I couldn't agree more.
I'm afraid that the work creationist scientists are doing just does not
have the funding or popular support that evolution does. So I doubt that
it will meet the criteria you suggest. How do you expect them to fight
against the bias that exists in the scientific community? Scientists have
had their funding cut, papers rejected by journals, students have been
dismissed from classes for opposing evolutionary theory on scientific
grounds. Their stories often remind me of the ones people tell about
be repremanded for asking hard questions about religion. It seems that
those who espouse the theory of evolution are just as sensitive to
a critical examination of their beliefs, and just as demanding of an
uncritical acceptance of them.
As long as only one theory of origins is taught data will be *selected*
to support that theory and not *sorted* to see which theory it supports.
Let it be known that I am talking about ORIGINS here and the claim that
primitive forms of life have evolved into higher forms over time.
Evolutionists have a habit of assuming and teaching that since various
species have been observed to "evolve" (or adapt) in a changing environment,
that this constitutes strong support for evolution on a grande scale.
A butterfly changing color is still a butterfly. A lizard becomming a bird
is quite another matter. The former fits within both creationist theory
and evolution. The latter fits only evolution.
Many take offence at the implication that evolutionism precludes belief
in God. Of course it doesn't. But then nothing really does, does it?
Evolutionism is atheistic in the sense that there is no need for God in
it. Belief in God is optional, at best. Some seem to think that that
fact alone makes it a superior, and more scientific, belief system than
creationism.
3) If atheism describes the lack of religion, then what right does
the government have to insist on a purely atheistic environment
in the public schools? If atheism is a religion, then how does
the separation of church and state principle apply to it? How
are we to guard against our children being inculcated with
atheism if theistic viewpoints are removed from consideration in
the schools?
Atheism is not merely the lack of religion, and I would not call the
environment at public schools atheistic. If it were, the students would be
actively taught that religion was bad. This is not the case. Your children
would be in danger of being "inculcated with atheism" only if theistic
considerations were removed from your home or your church, or if the schools
started teaching that religion was pernicious.
Actively teaching that religion is bad is anti-theism, not atheism.
Do all atheists teach their children that religion is bad? Did your
father? I would think that all atheists believe that there is no God.
I do not think they all believe that belief in God is bad. My question
here still stands.
My point is that by removeing the theistic point of view from schools
we encourage childen to make all their moral and scholastic decisions
totally independant of what the Bible has to say on the matter.
This is, in effect, saying that religion is fine to please mom and dad
but you really don't need it for, or it is not relevant to, the things
society considers important.
It does no good for Christians to live sheltered lives. They have just
as much of a right to apply their beliefs in the institutions that form
and govern our society as the atheist. By saying that we have no
right to do so, people are asking us to ghettoize our beliefs to an
area out of the mainstream of society (i.e. Keep your religion in
your home, church, and between your ears). No one else is asked to
live with that kind of dichotomy. If you make us view our values one
way privately and another way publicly the only reasonable
alternatives are either to abandon religion, or to withdraw into our
own pietistic, religious world.
I guess I have some other things I would like explained to me:
1) Books written by Christian authors dealing with subjects like
family relationships, marriage, child raising, ethics, pholosophy, etc.
regularly outsell similar books written from a non-thesitc or anti-theistc
viewpoint. Why don't any of these EVER appear on the so-called
best sellers lists of the NYT, Time magazine, or Washington Post?
If Cookbooks and sex manuals can make it why don't these?
To the many who don't know better these best sellers lists represent
the important reading matierial, because everybody is reading it.
Similarly, bookstore chains put all these "best sellers" up front on
attractive displays in their stores, while all the Christian authored
books are lumped in the back with the token Bibles people might want
to buy for their bookshelves. I've noticed that same kind of
representation in public librarys; and they aren't supposed to be
subject to the laws of supply and demand. (Try finding some books
on scientific creationism in your library. You'd think there were
only two or three of them in existence! And I've found not a few
"anti-creationstic" books. Those seem to get into the library
fairly quickly).
2) Name one popular television show, cast in a contemporary setting,
with characters that obviously consider their religion to be an important
part of their lives. I see feminist values being represented, along
with those of minorities--even in commercials and other advertising.
Why even witches were liberated from the ugly, black hat and
broom stick image. "Bewitched" may not have given an accurate view
of witches, but it certianly was an improvement and not really derogatory.
But were are all the Christians that supposedly make up such a large
cross section of our society? They are either absent, or cast as
dim wits. Why?
It doesn't help me to tell me Christains have their own TV networks
and bookstores. (Gee we even have our own newsgroup!). So what!
Maybe you should let us have our own section on city busses so
that we are less likely to talk to other passengers about our religion.
Or our own newspapers so they can devote the space used by the "religion"
page to more important stuff. (Except that this section has proven
too valuable for reporting how "fundamentalists" deny medical care to
their children and how the revival of Christian belief on the local
college campus represents and "anti-intellectual" movement.)
Tell Blacks and women to be content with their traditional gettos and
to keep their blackness and feminism out of our politics, institutions
of learning, news media, economy, and corporate life and see how
fair they think you are being. I would be glad to see the 700 Club,
PTL Club, and other "Christian programming" go away (I don't care for it
anyway) if we weren't hit in the mouth with the First Amendment every
time we opened it anywhere that it would make a difference.
To me, my faith is just as much a part of me as my gender and color
of skin. For some their religion may be a preference or an option,
but I believe mine contains objective truth and I remain skeptical
of the many "proofs" to the contrary.
My list goes on, but I'll end this one here.
(From Pam)
Would my children be forced to participate in Christian religious
services, such as prayer to Jesus?...If my child does not take part,
how can you insure that he won't be targeted by a Christian teacher
and subjected to pressure to convert?
(From Paul)
On the contrary, non-Christians should be prevented from taking part
in many Christian religious services. Forced participation in re-
ligious activities accomplishes nothing.
I'm glad you don't believe in involuntary prayer, but you have not answered
my question. There are, I know, some people who like to advertise their
religion in the way they dress, in religious jewelry, or by prayer. All of
these things are allowed in the public schools, so long as they are done in
a non-disruptive way. But suppose an unbelieving student, for whatever
reason, does not wish to be identified as such? Certainly he has the right
to his anonymity. A school prayer, which publicly separates believers from
unbelievers, would shatter this privacy.
Tim wants me to add this: Paul, you have said that you believe in
state-sponsored religious services. You have also said that you believe
that those of other faiths should be "prevented from taking part" in
some Christian services. This means that people could be excluded from
state-sponsored affairs on the basis of religion. I would oppose any such
measure to the death if necessary, just as our founding fathers would have.
Now back to Pam.
In my answer to the above question I dealt with the issue of being forced
to participate. You did not mention voluntary prayer. If children desire
anonymity because of a fear of being persecuted for their beliefs then
there is a problem. Children who pray ought to be taught that it is wrong
to antagonise those who don't. It's just like any other predjudice.
If kids aren't taught that the color of a person's skin makes a difference
in how they are to be treated they won't make the distinction. Kids are
going to find out that not everyone believes in their God anyway, so why
not instruct them in the proper attitudes toward those who don't. Kids
should not convert other kids against their parents wishes.
I am not sure that I do support state sponsored religious services.
Why would the state have to sponsor them? When I said "prevented"
I was not thinking of anything that would be state sponsored. I thought
you had envisioned atheists being forced to be baptized or conform
to some sort of conversion experience. I do not see any sense in that.
(Don't ask me why some churches baptize infants). You may have been
thinking of state sponsored service in your question, but I was not
thinking of it in my answer.
In my previous article I had cited Numbers 3l, in which Moses orders the
slaughter of captured Midianite women and male children, as an example of a
passage which could be used to justify brutality against unbelievers. Here
is part of Paul's response:
To shed some additional light on Numbers 3l, first read Numbers
25.... Notice how God judges his own people before he does the
Midianites.
When you consider what rituals were involved in the Midianites'
worship of the God Baal you might begin to see a different motive
for the men of Israel saving the women. You might also see a reason
for the anger of Moses at this, and why he saw that the virgins were
spared.
You may not agree with my God's view or morality or understand his
hatred of sin. But your interpretation of Numbers 3l doesn't tell
the whole story.
Christians cannot use the Old Testament examples you mention to
justify taking God's judgement of sin into their own hands. The
coming of Christ modified God's judgement of sin greatly.
I don't think I needed to "interpret" Numbers 3l. What happens in these
verses is quite baldly described, and it is exceedingly barbaric and cruel.
But I did read Numbers 25, and encountered the following heartwarming
passages:
And Israel abode in Shittim and the people began to commit
whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the
people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did
eat and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself
unto Ba'al-pe'or: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against
Israel. And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of
the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun,
that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from
Israel. And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye
every one his men that were joined unto Ba'al-pe'or.
And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought
unto his brethren a Mid'i-antish woman in the sight of Moses
and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of
Israel... And when Phin'e-has, the son of El-a'zar, the son of
Aaron the priest, saw *it*, he rose up from among the congregation
and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of
Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the
man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague
was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died
in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
You do know, don't you, what an agonizingly long time it takes to die from a
stab in the gut? The fact that God could be just as beastly to his own
people neither surprises not reassures me.
No I don't know how long it takes. And I don't know how long it took in
this case. Neither do you. It is not clear from my translations (NASB,
RSV, Amplified) that the woman was stabbed in the belly. They all say
"body". I could just as easily maintain that they were stabbed through
the heart (torso) and died instantly. But that is beside the point.
I didn't refer you to Numbers 25 to reassure you.
I knew the first time I read Numbers 3l that the motives of the men of
Israel saving the women were not exactly pure, but this hardly justifies
murdering not only them but their male children. And Moses' magnanimous
gesture of sparing the virgins becomes in itself questionable when he
invites the Israelites to keep the girl children "alive for yourselves."
He seems motivated not so much by moral indignation as by the fear of
venereal disease breaking out among the tribes. A pity he didn't have a
nice efficient gas chamber to get rid of these diseased creatures.
You seem to credit Moses with the idea to kill the Midianites. The Bible
says it was a command of God. At least blame the one responsible. Actually
the event is more complex that just sexual immorality. Male and female
prostitution was practiced by the Midianites as an intrinsic part of their
religious service. If the apostacy had been allowed to continue It would
have been the downfall of Isreal for all practical purposes. They would
never have been established as a nation in the Land God wanted to give them.
I know you don't sympathize with this either.
You and others who point an accusing finger at God for his "unjust" acts
seem to look at each of the events that precipitated those acts as if
they happened in a vaccuum. Someone slanders God's prophets and they
die. Is that the only offence they were guilty of? We look at the *actions*
of others and measure their punishment or reward accordingly. I think
God looks deeper than that; and he is the only one who can do this accurately.
I referred you to Numbers 25 only to show that he does this to everyone
equally--Jew or Gentile, Christian or not. You seemed to think that we
think God winks at sin in one group of people and not another.
Is someone with criminal intent and desires any less a criminal if those
desires do not find their way into action? To us maybe, but not to God.
The point is that humans, as a race are fallen, we all die because
of the curse in the Garden. God's plan since then was to reedeem us as
a race instead of wiping us out entirely. He had to work within the
constraints of our space-time history to do it because we must play
and active role in our own redemption. He has intervened in areas
where that goal (the comming of Christ) was in danger, and that has meant
death for many.
I find your last statement rather mystifying in light of your insistence on
"intrinsic, unalienable, and unalterable" human rights. My "relative,
fuzzy, and irrelevant" sense of ethics hold that right and wrong are not
something that can be changed by the wave of a divine wand. It was an
atrocity when the Phalangists murdered the Palestinian refugees at Shantila,
and it was no less an atrocity when Moses did the same with the Midianites.
Where did God change right and wrong? The price of rebellion against
God was spelled out in the Garden. In this "game" of life God subjects
everyone to the same rules. If the Midianites were destroyed by famine
or some other "natural" disaster the survivors would only think they
had angered their own gods. This would only give them impetus to devote
themselves more strongly to those gods in order to please them.
... I am mystified at
the double standard so many Christians seem to carry when it comes to Moses'
actions in the Old Testament. Herod's massacre of the innocents was
terrible because it was against God. Moses' massacre was O.K. because it
pleased God. I find this concept of right and wrong dangerous and
revolting. What's to stop your God from deciding once again that these
methods are pleasing to him, or to stop some Christian from deciding that
he has?
There is another difference which I think is important. Herod's massacre
was Herod's idea. Moses' "massacre" was not. Yes, I do believe God knows
what is right and wrong better than we do. If anyone is to make decisions
as to who should live and who should die it must be God and not man.
But let me see if I can answer your last question in a nutshell:
In the begining God judged men as good or bad based on their actions.
(e.g. eat of that tree and you die). Because man's nature was not fallen
he wasn't motivated by evil (though he had the potential to be).
>From the time of man's first disobedience
man's nature has fallen. We no longer have it in ourselves to perform
all the right actions to be perfectly good and acceptable to God.
Since the penalty for sin was death, Israel was allowed to offer their
best animals in sacrifice for their own sins. But the sacrifice
had to be repeatedly offered since such sacrifices had no changing
effect on the hearts of men. When the state of Israel turned to outright
rebellion (neglect of sacrifices, denial of Gods concern over sin) God
often chose to destroy the offenders. The Jews, I believe, had a vague
concept of the afterlife. To them there was no heaven or hell that
represented punishment only the promise of death for sin and a vague
existence after that.
The only way to pay the price for our sin once and for all was for a
man to freely give up his own life when he had no sin of his own to die
for. The only perfect one was God, so God became man (Son), tempted as we
are, yet without sin and died an unjust death. Do you know how long it
takes to die on a cross? Does it help to know he did ABSOLUTELY nothing
to deserve even the lightest punishment?
Since that time man's rightness with God does not depend on physical
acts which are often hypocritical, at best. But on the acceptance
of our state, the acknowledgement of what God provided to save us,
and a desire to change one's life; asking God to impart that desire
and ability (called grace) to you.
This doesn't mean the Christian doesn't sin or that God doesn't
hate the Chrisian's sins. Good actions still matter, but only as
the product of a changed heart. Christians also have a responsibility
to be conserned for the well being of the world God made. You don't
have to be a Christian to benefit from that part. I think that it
is unfortunate that many view the responsiblities God places on us
to live in a good (not perfect) society are viewed as unnecesary bondage.
Yet problems come when we don't face up to those responsibilities.
Problems we keep trying to avoid without bringing God into the picture.
Christians cannot be the instruments of Gods destruction or judgement.
Since Christ's comming judgement is reserved for a day at the end of
our time. God's purpose in providing for our redemption as a race
has been accomplish in Jesus Christ. There is no scriptural reason
(in the teaching of Christ) that God will again use physical punishment
at the hands of men to judge others for their sin. The cannon of
Scripture is closed. (See the end of Revelation). There are no loose
ends. The Messiah has come.
You can do what you want. It doesn't hinder God's, now accomplished, plan.
But a day of reconing is set for all of us. The struggle here isn't
basically a moral one. It is truth agains untruth (II Cor. 10:1-6).
Christian need to work to expose the truth as truth, both for
themselves and others, not to impose a certian morality. Morality
comes according to one's knowlege of the Truth. And "the truth
shall make you free", Jesus said.
The fact of my Christian status gives me no excuse for thinking
I am inherently better than an unbeliever in the same way that
a millionare's son has no real reason to be proud of his inherited
wealth. There is a great tendency toward snobbery in such people
and I know you've all seen it in Christians. But that's a problem
you are right to confront us with.
(From Paul)
What do you think will guarantee justice and truth?
Nothing. There is no society that can consistently uphold, much less
recognize these virtues. You, yourself, acknowledge in your article that
there are many Christians who "misinterpret" the word and have a poor
understanding of the concept of conversion, so justice and truth cannot be
guaranteed in a Christian society, or, for that matter, in any society which
is based on a dogmatic system. The best we can do is avoid injustice and
untruth by having a government which adopts a "hands-off" attitude towards
religious beliefs. This means not promoting any particular religion or
belief, leaving it strictly to the individual to decide, and restricting
only those actions which interfere with the rights of others.
I agree. Except that I don't have confidence in the ablility of an amoral
government to discern as to what is the just restriction of actions.
What happens when rights conflict with one another? Some standard must
be invoked to resolve conflicts in a just manner. Many groups are now
finding it expedient to circumvent the legislative process in our country
by passing, or effectively repealing laws in the courts. The courts usurp
the power of the legislature. And once they have this power, who's going
to make them give it back?
I enjoyed your article, and I hope I have answered your questions as plainly
and as intelligently as you answered mine.
Pamela Troy
Likewise. I would just like to say, at the close of this, my longest article
ever; that it will be my last for quite some time. (somewhere between
two months and forever). I have not tried here to give a well honed argument
for my beliefs on the issues discussed. I'm sure there are many holes.
Space does not provide for patching all of them. You can do two things
with the holes:
1) You can find the missing pieces on your own, or
2) Use the holes as hand holds to tear the whole thing apart
and walk away.
It's up to you. If you follow either path, I am confident you
will achieve your purpose to your own satisfaction.
The subjects here are complex. Volumes have been written on them.
(not easily to be found in your local bookstore or library, of course :-) ).
I would really like to say that have benefitted from, and been strenthened
a great deal by those I have had discussions with on the net and I regret
my departure from that.
I am, however, realizing the limits of this mode of communication to
convey accurately the concepts we are discussing. Christianity is
an impartation of life, not a mere exchange of abstract ideas.
I cannot share my life with you over the net, so I am very limited in
being able to help anyone see the truth of biblical Christianity.
I am greatful for the challenge of doing so, however.
I also see the need to devote more of my time communicating the love
of Christ to those that I can share some of my life with. Sometimes
I think I am neglecting them only to provide excercise for your
flame throwers :-).
If anyone reading this ever finds themselves in Columbus OH and wants
to talk, please look me up. I'm the only "Dubuc" in the Columbus phone
directory. I will also be grateful for any letters in response
to the thing I've said here. (I'm not makeing this statement to
forstall any criticism.) I will at least acknowledge them so you
know I've read them.
If the things I have written in any of my article have helped anyone,
I'm glad. If they hurt, I'm sorry.
Paul Dubucshebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) (10/14/83)
More whining about how Christians are continually being discriminated against (among other things, of course). If blacks and women wanted to hold *all* of the power positions in the country, I wouldn't feel too bad about discriminating against them either. Why is it that when everybody else wants equality, the Christians want exclusiveness? stan the l.h. utah-cs!shebs