This site was written using OpenOffice, running on Mandriva Linux.This website is owned, maintained, and © copyrighted by Michael Wong.
Last Updated: Sep 4, 2007. Read the Site FAQ!
The Bible encourages racial and sexual inequality and religious intolerance, not only in its Ten Commandments but also with numerous other incidents spread throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It has no support whatsoever for what we consider "family values" today, and it has far more justifications for murder than condemnations of it. Fundamentalists like to talk about the Bible's "absolute" moral code (contrasting it with what they view as humanists' "moral relativism"), but its teachings are anything but consistent. God told the Jews not to kill or steal, then promptly ordered them to kill their enemies, steal their land, and enslave their women and children. Jesus told his followers to love their neighbours, but he also cast his vote in support of racism by referring to the Canaanites as "dogs", and he cast his vote in favour of religious intolerance by declaring that Christians should regard all others as "enemies", even in their own family. Fundamentalists, when confronted by these facts, often become defensive and complain that we're not taking them "in context". "In context", eh? Who's using "moral relativism" now? Indeed, the only truly consistent moral principle in the Bible is the doctrine of allegiance and obedience: you must pledge allegiance to God and obey his orders. Everything else is strictly subordinate, and subject to interpretation "in context". So much for Biblical "absolute morality". Humanist values, on the other hand, apply to everyone, all the time. No one is exempt from humanist ethics; no one stands above it; no one can dictate its rules while defying them himself. If you want "absolute morality", look to the humanist moral code. If you want "moral relativism", look to the Bible.
It has been argued that we cannot blame the Bible for the way in which fundamentalists use it, because it contains both good sentiments and bad, and it's really the chronicling of a continuing journey towards enlightenment rather than a fixed source of values. However, while that may exonerate modern, ethical Christians who are willing to ignore such horrifying precedents as Joshua's holy wars or Lot's use of his daughters as bargaining chips, it can hardly exonerate the Bible itself, or the fact that it has not been revised for nearly two thousand years. If the constitution of a modern secular nation contained an ancient clause stipulating that women should be subservient to men or blacks should be held inferior to whites, would we argue that the document as a whole is still acceptable as long as subsequent passages mitigate this message? Would we argue that the document is sacred and cannot be changed? Would we argue that since the passage is no longer enforced, it should not be removed? Of course not. We would demand that the offending passage be removed, arguing that it is an embarrassment and a blight upon our conscience until we do so. Why do Christians not treat the Bible the same way? Because, unfortunately, the Bible is "sacred", and it cannot even be questioned, much less revised. Any system of thought which suppresses questions and instinctively opposes progress is a system of oppression, and Christians who cannot be open minded about the Bible (ie- the "Biblical inerrantists") are always going to oppress others.
I have received both positive and negative feedback on this article (the negative feedback coming, not coincidentally, from Catholics and fundamentalists). Criticism usually focused on the idea that it was "hateful" for me to criticize certain beliefs or attitudes. I have found this to be an interesting new propaganda technique being used by the right wing, and it's hardly restricted to people who E-mail me. In the last Canadian 2000 federal election, one of the candidates (Stockwell Day) was criticized for having supported certain religious private schools' use of textbooks containing anti-Semitic messages. He tried to argue (as did his supporters) that it's hypocritical for those who preach tolerance to attack other peoples' religious beliefs (even when they include anti-Semitism), and that such criticism amounts to hate-mongering. In other words, we must be tolerant of intolerance, lest we be accused of being intolerant ourselves! This is an incredibly audacious perversion upon the notion of tolerance, but it makes no sense; it is not hypocritical to be intolerant of intolerance itself!
It is not "hateful" to criticize a belief, an idea, or an attitude. It would be "hateful" to make unfounded generalizations about entire groups of people, which is why I made a point of differentiating between progressive Christians and reactionary fundamentalists; not all Christians are necessarily alike, particularly with regard to their attitudes toward the hatefulness of the Old Testament. In fact, the medieval Albigensians actually discarded the Old Testament entirely because they found its morality abhorrent, although their belief system (based entirely on the New Testament) died out after the Catholics hunted them down and slaughtered them for heresy. Luckily, modern Christians are permitted somewhat more latitude in their interpretations of Scripture than their medieval predecessors were.
The same rules apply for both sides. If someone wants to criticize the concepts of humanist morality such as the notion of human rights or the importance of promoting the general welfare of humankind, then that's fine with me (although I'm not sure what basis there would be for criticism). But if he or she were to go farther than that, and make ridiculous, unfounded generalizations about all atheists being immoral (not to mention unfit for public office), then this would go beyond criticism of ideas and into the realm of hatred against people. That is the distinction which the right-wing fundamentalists ignore, because they are engaging in real hatred, while their opponents restrict themselves to criticism of doctrine.
Ted Collins, for reminding me of the two divergent sets of Ten Commandments in Exodus
Michael V. Miller, for reminding me about how Job's wife survived and was regarded as a "foolish woman" for becoming bitter over the deaths of her ten children, thus providing more evidence of the depth of Biblical misogyny and contempt for family loyalty.
Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Friedman, ISBN 0-06-063035-3. Even though the author is a Christian, he chose to examine the Bible from the perspective of an historian rather than a theologian, with rather dramatic results. If you believe in Biblical inerrancy and the divine origin of the Scriptures, you probably won't after reading and understanding this book. He states that in his own case, he doesn't need the fraudulent notion of Biblical inerrancy in order to be a Christian, but for those who cling to Biblical inerrancy as a doctrine (ie- fundamentalists and Creationists), this book may upset their carefully constructed intellectual house of cards.
The Joy of Sects: A Spirited Guide to the World's Religious Traditions by Peter Occhiogrosso, ISBN 0-385-42564-3. This book describes the history of the world's religions in exhaustive detail, and it provides many interesting revelations on how Judaism and its offshoots were inspired by pre-existing local religions. This author is obviously not a Christian, but he doesn't bear Christianity any special ill will. He merely studies it just as he does all of the other religions, without elevating it or demeaning it compared to the rest of them. This is a stark contrast to the Christian fundamentalist approach when studying other religions, which is to dismiss all of them as inferior. Indeed, most Christians would find it almost impossible to analyze Christianity as "just another religion", hence the importance of an outsider's viewpoint.
The Infidels.org Quote page. This is not a book, but rather, a huge collection of interesting quotes regarding christianity, atheism, and creationism.
Jump to sub-page:
Jump to:
This site was written using OpenOffice, running on Mandriva Linux.