Morality & Politics

Biblical Morality: Did Jesus Fix The Problem?

The Old Testament was obviously not concerned with human rights or the good of mankind, so it has no relation to modern (humanist) morality. Its ethical framework is much different than anything we would consider "morality" today; instead of rights, it speaks of rules (which God can override at his whim). Instead of the good of mankind, it speaks of the glorification of God (even if that glorification comes at great cost to mankind, as demonstrated in the Great Flood).

It has often been said that we shouldn't criticize these repugnant aspects of the Old Testament because all of that was, as the fundamentalists say, "before Christ". However, in addition to the specific problems outlined with the New Testament in the previous pages, there are 3 serious problems with this argument:

  1. How many Christians do you know who don't quote the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments are the source of Judeo-Christian hatred of other religions, and if Christians continue to quote the Ten Commandments, they must also answer for their inherent bigotry.

  2. How many Christians do you know who are willing to throw the Old Testament out the window? I've spent time in churches, and I know how often the Old Testament is quoted in sermons. And it isn't just the preachers; the passage in Leviticus which condemns homosexuality is still widely quoted, even though Leviticus also condemns the eating of pork or shellfish, and it explicitly instructs that any woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night must be stoned to death.

  3. Exactly which portions of the Old Testament were made obsolete by Jesus? He never explained in enough detail to keep people from arbitrarily choosing which sections they wish to obey. He said that you should "love thy neighbour" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but even the most cursory examination of Crusade and Inquisition history will show that it has historically been very easy for Christians to classify acts of hatred against other religions as a twisted form of "love", ie- it's "for their own good".

It's true that Jesus did seem to have a far more humane approach than the Old Testament God, but his instructive method of parables instead of legalism was deliberately vague, which unfortunately gave believers wide latitude to invent their own interpretations and then publicize them in Jesus' name (in fact, Paul wasted no time in doing just that). An even larger problem is that three of Christianity's central tenets can be very easily abused by believers who want to commit atrocities, as we saw in the Dark Ages:

  1. "The greatest duty of a Christian is to Spread the Word". In the Dark Ages, this was the motivation for atrocities: everyone must convert. Those who convert willingly are praised, those who refuse to convert must be tortured into conversion for their own good. This was precisely the rationalization used when the Roman Catholic church officially authorized torture in the 13th century. Contrary to popular belief, this is not typical of all religions. All religions have their various beliefs, but few of them include the drive to recruit others as part of those beliefs.

  2. "Non-Christians deserve, and will suffer horrible pain for eternity". This is carried over from Judaism, it is the justification for atrocities, and it's basically an ethical appeal to authority: if the kinder, gentler New Testament God still sees fit to condemn unbelievers to an eternity of horrible torture, then how can we, as mere humans, condemn good Christians for using relatively small amounts of torture in a "good cause"? Again, the Roman Catholics publicly used this justification for the atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisitions. The notion of Hell has been called the "poison pill" by some Christians in the past, because the existence of Hell means that God is still just as vengeful and capricious as he was in the Old Testament, and if this is the God that we are expected to worship, then it's easy to see how Christians were able to convince themselves that it was acceptable to torture others during the Middle Ages: if they believe that Godly behaviour is moral behaviour, then the existence of Hell is tantamount to moral permission for torture!

  3. "We are all born sinners. God does not care about the magnitude of Earthly sin; all sin is equal in His eyes. God also does not care about Earthly nobility or wisdom; there is nothing you can do on this Earth to atone for your sin. Therefore, salvation can only come through allegiance to Christ". This is the absolution for atrocities. By devaluing and indeed, almost nullifying the importance of joy or suffering in this world, this idea makes it all too easy for believers to commit atrocities, secure in the knowledge that if they are loyal to Christ, they will go to Heaven anyway. After all, if their atrocities help "save" more people from Hell, then they are doing God's work, right? And besides, the suffering and pleasures of "the flesh" have no real significance in the eyes of God anyway. The deliberate separation of Earthly actions from spiritual salvation is almost unique to Christianity, and by eliminating any notion of what some call "karma" and devaluing the importance of worldly actions, it is perhaps the most dangerous religious principle ever introduced. It so easily lends itself to crusades and inquisitions that virtually constant moral vigilance is required in order to prevent abuse.

Must these beliefs lead to atrocities? Not necessarily, but if you examine the history of Christianity in its entirety, you will find that tolerance and pacifism are the exception rather than the norm. It has only been in the last few centuries that we have seen a divergence of sorts, between moral Christians and fundamentalists. The very notion of a Christian who is accepting of other beliefs would have been unthinkable 400 years ago, so the "kinder, gentler" Christianity that many modern Christians call their own is really a very recent development in the overall scope of Christian history, and it is one which many fundamentalists denounce as a dilution of "traditional" values.

One would think there would be a clash of values between Christian moderates and the fundamentalist lunatics whose overt goal is to take control of the government, remove religious freedom, and convert the nation into a Christian theocracy, but the fundamentalists have numerous advantages in terms of visibility. Their collective fervour means that they can easily raise substantial funds for their publicity campaigns (and make no mistake: creationism is a publicity campaign rather than a scientific research project). Their shrill, hateful rhetoric is florid and makes for controversial television, so the media eagerly flocks to their press conferences. Their political activism can take the form of boycotts, letter-writing campaigns, protests, well-funded local government candidates, etc., and it means that their attitudes spill over into the world of politics and government, which further encourages media attention. And finally, they aggressively punish Christians who dare to speak out against them. For example, John McCain (a devout Christian) made headlines during his presidential bid by blasting the right wing fundamentalist hatemongers, and he was immediately labelled "anti-Christian!" (and as we all know, he eventually lost the Republican candidacy to a man who speaks English as if it's his third language, but who has pledged to tear down the wall between church and state). The basic nature of fundamentalism is reactionary; it is driven by fear of progress and it blames societal problems on modern thinking, so it seeks to erase modern thinking in favour of "old fashioned" or "traditional" values (using the implicit assumption that if something has been around for a long time, it must be superior).

From the standpoint of religious doctrine, Christian fundamentalism is really no different than other forms of fundamentalism, such as orthodox judaism or Islamic fundamentalism. The fundamentalists seek to return to the old ways, under the guise of restoring true faith in their religion. In Islamic fundamentalist nations, we've seen that this results in countless violations of human rights, and that is invariably the result whenever church and state join, hence the American founding fathers' insistence that a "wall of separation" should be erected in order to prevent this happening in America. If Christian fundamentalists had their way and restored Biblical inerrancy as a legal principle, it would undoubtedly have the same result as the restoration of religious fundamentalism in places like Afghanistan.

Continue to 7. Can a Religion Grow?

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: