BABY STEPPED IN BULLCRAP

Every so often I hear believers swoon over some religious leader who said something that wasn't completely terrible. Congratulations to them for managing to scrounge up at least a modicum of human decency. Can I stop holding my breath now?

Perhaps these baby steps are a good sign. But don't expect me to ignore their long history of abuses for which they have yet to atone.

Probably the most blatant example of this two-faced ingratiation is Pope Francis. On the one hand, he pays the most swell-sounding lip service to progressive Catholics on topics like, say, gay rights. But on the other hand, if you know anything about actual Catholic doctrine, you can hardly say that the Pope is a friend of the LGBT community. Case in point: a few weeks ago social media was all a flutter over an anecdote of a gay man who had a one-on-one conversation with Francis, wherein the self-proclaimed infallible Holy See said of the man's homosexuality and abuse he suffered at the hands of a Catholic priest, "You know Juan Carlos, that does not matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say."

So there you have it. The Pope, and by extension the Catholic church as a whole, is now totally squared on the LGBT issue. Except that he isn't. If he was actually interested in righting wrongs against LGBT people he would actually change church policy to be more inclusive--which is something that the Pope could do! But he doesn't seem interested in that. Which means that he isn't really interested in making amends or ending abuse.

Some people have argued that Pope Francis is laying the ground work for more impactful change in future generations. Bullcrap. Did Moses lay inter-generational ground work to prepare the Israelites for the Ten Commandments? No, he destroyed the golden calf and made them wander in the desert for forty years. Did Jesus ease the Pharisees into the higher law? No, he raided the money changers in the temple and called local church leadership a bunch of greedy hypocrites. Did Pope Benedict simply fulfill John Paul's end game by abandoning the atrocious centuries-old doctrine of Limbo? No! That's not how a top down theocracy works! God tells the Pope, the Pope tells the church, the church accepts it as dogma. And according to the church's dogma, once the Pope makes something official, anyone who disagrees--including politically motivated Cardinals--is in the wrong. That's how infallibility works.

This same principle applies to the Mormon church and their "prophet" as well. A handful of lower-tier leaders have made efforts to soften the church's stance on LGBT issues (while others have hardened it), and progressive Mormons sing their praises. But in terms of actually policy, there is no place for homosexuals in the church. At least none which the mental health community would call healthy. And the fact that this is just the latest example of the church being decades behind the times shows how very fallible their theocratic system is.

Every year Provo hosts a giant patriotic circle-jerk for the Fourth of July. The night before the big day they kick off the event with an informal parade where everyday folk drive cars and motorcycles up and down State Street making all kinds of noise for hundreds of cheering pedestrians lining the sidewalk. The next morning, along the same street and in much the same fashion, is a formal Freedom Festival parade. The evening is filled with fireworks and music and dancing at the Stadium of Fire, which  conveniently rakes in a boatload of money for Mormon-owned BYU.

Last year the Freedom Festival brought controversy to the event when it came to light that every single LGBT advocacy group which had petitioned for a float in the parade was denied. This year, the mayor signed a statement that the festival would not discriminate against any group on the basis of sexual orientation. And the very next day, the festival denied all of the same LGBT groups participation in the parade on the basis that they were not "patriotic." Which, of course, raises the question of how the festival can in turn allow a group of 150+ Mormon missionaries to march in the parade...

In response, several LGBT supporters began making plans for a protest during the parade, which is similarly allowed during the Salt Lake Pride Parade, only from the other direction (what's more patriotic than a protest?).

Well, in a rare display of public outcry--at least for Utah County--LGBT advocates seem to have won the day. The festival organizers have agreed to allow LGBT groups in the parade so long as they abide by certain patriotic stipulations, including wearing red, white and blue colored clothes and waving American flags, etc. Interestingly, for the first time, the Mormon missionary mob will not be participating in the parade, but will instead be volunteers helping run the festivities. My guess is that this is intended to allow missionaries to rub elbows with patrons more freely. Clever, I guess.

My favorite part of the whole debacle, and the most reassuring sign that Utah is capable of baby steps even if the Mormon church isn't, is that Utah County Commissioner Nathan Ivie threatened to pull taxpayer funding for the event ($113,000) if the organizers continued to discriminate against LGBT groups, and had this to say: "I also know bulls--- when I see it. I didn’t think somebody would be stupid enough to do what they did."

Perhaps Mr. Ivie is new to Utah...

CONDIMENT COW-TOW

"Don't swallow your moral code in tablet form."
--Christopher Hitchens






I am often flabbergasted by the assertion that the Christian "10 Commandments" are the basis of modern morality (I say "Christian" because Jews tend to not limit themselves to such a finite number of divine mandates). Throughout the United States, courthouses and government buildings are riddled with plaques and monuments advertising everyone's favorite imposing religious screed.


Perhaps my cynicism is kicking in, but it seems that the most vocal proponents of plastering the "10 Commandments" on publicly funded government buildings know very little about the commandments, or what they say. In fact, it is a common gag on late night TV programs to ask random people on the street who profess to be Christians and advocates of the moral superiority of the "10 Commandments" just how many they can name. As you may suspect, most people can't name very many.

Typically, the commands which most people get right also happen to be the ones which likely do not need to be spelled out (i.e. Do not murder, steal, lie, etc.). Few people get the ones which set up the Old Testament god, Yahweh, as a jealous control freak, or equate women with cattle. I wonder why?

I have heard theists claim that every law on the books can be traced back to one of the "10 Commandments." Think about this. They suggest that traffic laws and taxes and divorce suits with messy custody battles all originate from the "10 Commandments."

Before I get to the actual list of commandments, I should point out that not only do the "10 Commandments" say nothing about the things above, but they also fail to address issues like rape, genocide, slavery, and child abuse. Not to mention some of the commandments have absolutely no modern adaptation in US laws, such as keeping the Sabbath.

There is no reason to think that the "10 Commandments" would be so broad and all-inclusive. After all, they are only the first 10 of over 600 Jewish laws in the Old Testament, many of which speak favorably of things like rape, genocide and child abuse. And this is exactly what we would expect from a moral code devised by tribalistic, bloodthirsty, ignorant Palestinians in the Bronze Age.

On to the Big Ten:

1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Right off the bat, god shows his petty jealousy by at once acknowledging and dismissing the existence of other gods. This is consistent with the ancient Canaanite pantheon of gods, from which Yahweh originated. Conversely, this challenges the proposed omnipotence of Yahweh. Why would an all-powerful being care if mere mortals believe and worship him?

Also, none of the laws in the US constitution have anything to do with the idea that the Old Testament god should be the only god worshiped. Our pluralistic melting-pot of a society simply does not allow this totalitarian ideal.

2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

"And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

More tribalistic chest-puffing. Some people read this commandment to mean that nothing should be more important to a person than god. But the language indicates to me that Yahweh wants to set himself apart from the other gods of the pantheon. To do this he threatens a curse on those who do not accept him, which will extend at least four generations. Nothing says divine justice and mercy and sound moral reasoning like punishing children for the actions of their great great great grandparents.

It is also worth noting that many Christian religions, including Catholicism and Christian orthodoxy, proudly flaunt their "graven images" (i.e. "pics of dead people"). Such saintly iconography has created issues in the past, in some cases resulting in Protestant splinter groups, and as a result the Catholic Church (I'm not so sure of the Orthodox Church) has changed this commandment. I suppose they can get away with this since they are just making it up anyway.

Again, this command has no modern equivalent in our multicultural society.

3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

This commandment has bred confusion for centuries. It seems that every denomination has its own interpretation of this verse. I was taught that it decries profanity in general by specifying an improper use of god's name, whatever that means.

Some Jewish sects go so far as to condemn the very utterance of god's name (which in Hebrew is super long and includes every letter in their alphabet). Not only does this have nothing to do with morality or US law, it creates a false sense of morality in much the same way Muslims view pictures of the prophet Muhammad. Some Muslims are willing to kill non-Muslim blasphemers, such as Danish cartoonists and French satirists.

A less common interpretation is that one should not make oaths on god's name which cannot be upheld, because this makes god look silly. Although this reading of the verse makes more textual sense to me than the anti-profanity gibberish I was taught as a child, I still find it absurd.

Oaths make little sense to me. Aside from oaths made in court, and a few other instances, they have been largely abandoned by society in favor of written contracts, which, let's face it, are more effective and easier to regulate.

4. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."

"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:"

"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Further in the 600+ commandments in the Law of Moses it is specified that those who violate this command should be stoned to death. Nothing about this is moral. Not the law, nor the punishment. Whether a person works on Sunday (or Saturday, if they are Jewish or Seventh-Day Adventist, or Friday if they are Muslim) speaks nothing about their morals.

The reasoning behind this law is completely crazy anti-science woo. Because the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe created everything in six days and then took a break, we must follow the same pattern. Why does an all-powerful being need a break? Why don't those who advocate for the moral superiority of the "10 Commandments" work six days a week? It seems to me that they like their weekends as much as anyone.

Of course, there is no equivalent to this commandment in US law. Although, many areas in highly religious states frown on businesses simply being open on Sunday. So much so, in fact, that I know many people who refuse to go to businesses that open on Sunday, even on other days of the week. This is a major selling point for Macy's grocery stores in Utah, for example.

5. "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

As with the command to not do any work on the Sabbath, the punishment for breaking this law, as explained further in the Law of Moses, is to stone the unruly children to death.

While there is no shortage of troubled kids who disobey their parents, it is not the disobedience which is most troublesome, since it is often a manifestation of deeper issues. Typically, mental issues, substance abuse and criminal activity are the primary reasons kids may be deemed sufficiently troubled as to warrant intervention or disciplinary action from the state. In most other cases I can think of, the children are actually victims and any "acting out" is simply a cry for help. So, again, there is little to no correlation to US law.

Adding to the moral disconnect between the "10 Commandments" and our society, the promise that obedience to parents will extend one's life is simply untrue and more superstitious bull crap. Unsure? Ask the parents of a child who has passed away just how extra disobedient the child was before their death. I would be surprised if any such parents could utter a single word against their lost child. As far as I can figure, the only way the promise of a longer life for obedient children would hold true is if parents, as the Law of Moses commands, stone their disobedient children.

6. "Thou shalt not kill."

Simple and to the point, this commandment is one of the few on the list which actually has a modern equivalent in our laws. In fact, every society that has ever seen growth and civilization has had some form of this prohibition. As Christopher Hitchens points out, it would be hard to imagine that the ancient Jews would have made it as far as Mount Sinai had they been under a different impression.

The universality of laws against murder suggests that the "10 Commandants" are not the origin of such a moral position, and are not necessary to see the societal benefits.

Some people who question the veracity of the bible point to the apparent hypocrisy of god issuing the command to not kill, when he also commands the Jews to wipe out entire civilizations, killing men, women, children, and in some cases, livestock. Not to worry, though! Christian apologists have you doubters covered. You see, the argument goes that the Hebrew word used in this commandment is specific to unlawful or unjust murders between Jews. If you are killing heathens or apostates for god, you are morally unblemished.

7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Although this is not explicitly in our laws (infidelity may lead to uncontested divorce, depending on agreements made in the marriage contract, but it is not illegal), I generally agree that cheating on one's partner is immoral. It could cause psychological issues and distrust, as well as putting the other person in harm’s way of STDs without their knowledge. If both parties are aware and agree to extramarital relations beforehand, however, I see no moral reasons to oppose it.

8. "Thou shalt not steal."

As with the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not kill"), prohibitions on theft seem fairly universal. And such universality suggests that a pronouncement from god on this subject is neither revolutionary, nor necessary. In short, when people are allowed to set their own moral limits, they generally wind up agreeing that stealing is bad. There may be exceptions to this, such as a starving homeless child stealing food to survive, but it works as a rule of thumb.

The reason this works is because most people understand that things like theft and murder do real, demonstrable harm to others. This is the root of morality: levels of harm in social interactions. God need not enter in to the equation, especially if he can arbitrarily decide not to follow his own moral commands should it suit his purposes (or, rather, the purposes of self-proclaimed prophets speaking on god's behalf...).

9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

Most people simplify this verse to say that one should not lie. I find this overly simplistic. As with theft, there may be situations in which lying is the most moral choice.

A well-known example of this is Jews during WWII pretending to be Christians in order to avoid the wholesale slaughter of their people by the Nazis (by the way, many Nazis believed that, since the Jews killed Jesus, they were killing for god).

Not all examples of acceptable reasons to lie involve saving one's life, however. Perhaps a young atheist cannot admit their position due to family pressures. Perhaps parents want to surprise their small children on Christmas and Easter with miraculously appearing presents and chocolate eggs. Perhaps one wishes to spare someone else unnecessary grief.

The point is that lying is not cut and dry. Generally, it may be advisable not to lie, but it is not universal. Of the commandments which do have some connection to modern laws, lying seems to have the most exceptions. Furthermore, most instances when a person might lie are not illegal.

Perjury before a court, breaking or lying about legal contracts, or pretending to be someone else to deceive a police officer are among the few types of lies which concern our legal system. Whether or not you say truthful things about a neighbor will not generally raise any legal eyebrows.

10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."

So far, most of the commandments are either amoral (morally neutral) or morally obvious. This command, however, is explicitly immoral. It is tantamount to thought-crime. It tells believers that god not only knows what they think, but will judge them eternally according to their thoughts.

"Covet" is synonymous with "desire." Some add that it is an obsessive desire. If all a person does is desire, obsessively or not, and does not act on this, where is the harm to others? I don't see how wanting something can be implicitly immoral, much less punishable.

For instance, pedophilia (another issue completely missed by the Law of Moses) is pretty close to universally despised, yet simply finding children sexually appealing is not a crime. Only when an adult actively tries to seduce a minor is the criminality line crossed. It is the action which is criminal and immoral, not necessarily the thoughts.

I realize this may sound off-putting or morally questionable to some, and to be clear, I am not condoning pedophilia--even in thought. Such people need psychological help, because in most instances the condition is indicative of deep emotional issues, even mental underdevelopment. But needing professional help is not immoral and it is not criminal. And neither are disturbing thoughts or wanting the possessions of others.

Also, did you catch the subtle bit of sexism when god listed women alongside cattle as possessions of "thy neighbor?" Nice one god. Ancient Jews, like many patriarchal societies of their time, viewed women as property of men. Many Christians, Muslims and Jews today still follow this and treat women as second class citizens. Worst of all, the holy book to which they adhere and claim is the basis of their morality actually supports their misogyny!

If you take nothing else from this far too long post, please see that the bible does not make people more moral. It teaches them to surrender their conscience and accept an outdated moral authority. This is not morality--this is subservience. Hitchens asked, "Who, but a slave, would want this?"

Many atheists have addressed the "10 Commandments" by either deconstructing them and pointing out their immoral nature, as I have attempted here, or by submitting their own "atheist" or "secular" commandments.

The most entertaining of these which I have come across is from Bobby Henderson in his book, "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." This satirical take on religion is both more interesting than the original Commandments (aka "Condiments") and, somewhat ironically, more moral. See for yourself:

The eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like A Sanctimonious, Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.

2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don't Require Sacrifices And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.

3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey-Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal And Fuchsia.

4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off The TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.

5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B******.

6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):

A. Ending Poverty


B. Curing Diseases


C. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable

I Might Be A Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM The Creator.

7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?

8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. IfThe Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear A CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece Of Rubber. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did IT I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.

RAmen.


BONUS MATERIAL:

Christopher Hitchens on the 10 Commandments:

BELLY ACHE

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
--Scott D. Weitzenhoffer








Many times when I challenge the beliefs of religious people they will accuse me of being cynical and closed-minded. The problem is not that I dismiss their beliefs out of hand, as some claim, but that the evidence which they present for their extraordinary claim is laughable upon inspection.

Most often, they are simply committing the "argument from ignorance" fallacy, and figure that if I cannot offer a more plausible explanation than "god did it" (or "aliens" or "ghosts"), then they are justified in their belief. Never mind the fact that "I don't know" is always a more tenable position than asserting unverified supernatural forces.

I will admit that on some occasions I have literally laughed out loud at a person's supernatural claims, but I do at least try to hear them out first.

A couple of months ago a childhood friend of mine posted a story on Facebook with the following comment:

"The more I read about this story the more incredible it is. . Miracles do happen!"

Intrigued, I read the article which inferred that a dead Catholic Saint (my friend is Mormon, by the way) appeared at a car accident scene, said a blessing with a woman trapped in a car, immediately following which the firefighters were finally able to open the car enough to get the woman out, and then vanished without a trace. 

Now, the facts of the claim are that a man dressed as a Catholic Priest showed up and said a prayer, and the firefighters got the woman out shortly after. These are facts confirmed by several eye-witnesses, including the firefighters and medical personnel. But a dead saint?

Other articles claimed that the man was an angel, which, depending on who you ask, isn't that far from a dead saint.

One of the reasons so many people are convinced this priest was an angel is that the road had been blocked for "quite a few miles", according to the local sheriff deputy (video below), and no one saw how he got to the scene or how he left. Intriguing to be sure, but does this imply, much less prove, supernatural powers?

Furthermore, witnesses add that no one recognized the priest from the local parish of the small nearby town.

Oh, and he had an unrecognizable accent (which raises the question, why would an angel have an accent?).

So far it seems that there are a lot of unanswered questions about this priest. But do unanswered questions and astonishing coincidences equal a miracle? Perhaps to those eager to believe.

In the days following the incident, but still before the article was published, no one had come forward as the mysterious priest, thus adding fuel to the speculative fire. Not surprisingly, the local Catholic Church said that they had no interest in conducting an investigation of the priest's identity, and neither will the local sheriff deputy (who is also convinced of a miracle).

This seems especially telling to me. These people are more interested in maintaining their comfortable belief, that an angel saved a woman's life, than determining the truth about what happened. As I have said before, once you accept a wrong answer, however comforting it may be, you stop looking for the right answer.

Well, as it turns out the mystery priest did turn himself in, er... he came forward and answered all the questions that people were using to posit this as a miraculous angel sighting. Not only is he not an angel, but he was also past the road block before police put it up, thus allowing him to slowly approach the scene until he got about 150 yards from the car where he stopped to help. Also, he was visiting the local parish because the regular priest was ill, and he was more or less subbing. And the accent? Irish or something; I couldn't quite place it (therefore, he's an angel, right?)

So, that's it. No more miracle. Everyone sees that it was a regular priest doing what regular priests do, and this is no more miraculous than any other accident with a survivor. Right?

I was hoping that my friend who had originally posted this story would post an article about the mystery priest coming forward. He did not. Even if he had been made aware of the priest of earthly origin, this would still not be a notch against god's track record for him. He is the kind of believer who holds the preservation of faith as more important than truth. Although, I doubt he sees it this way.

What about the eye-witnesses who started all the commotion in the first place? One firefighter had this to say:

"My initial reaction was kind of two-fold: One side of me was absolutely ecstatic that I'm now gonna be able to physically meet this individual that was there to provide the comfort. And the other side of me was kind of sad because I know there was a lot of people that were touched by this story that were grasping on to the thought that this mysterious priest was placed there by god in a form that they had their interpretation of. He was my angel either way and I'm gonna still stick to that."

(Note: even the priest admits that the woman was saved by expert response of professionals who have trained for this very thing. It's too bad he also asserts that they did so with god's help. But if god is going to help professionals in this way, why train in the first place?)

So, what did the priest actually do other than occupy the time and attention of police and firemen attempting to save the life of a woman trapped in a car and offer reassurances? Where is the miracle? That personel were able to pull the woman out after the priest offered a prayer? She was trapped in the car for over an hour, not to mention had barely survived a horrific accident. Where was god then? More importantly, if god really had caused the firefighters to open the car only after the priest showed up, how would you demonstrate this? It is one thing to point to the coincidences of the event; it is quite another to offer verifiable evidence of supernatural intervention.

If the priest had not come forward and clarified the issue, would anyone still be justified in believing he was an angel or that it was a miracle from god? How would such an answer really answer anything? Wouldn't it simply confound the issue with more unanswered questions?

A comfortable delusion is still a delusion.



BONUS MATERIAL:

"News" segment on the mysterious priest:

Sheriff's deputy describes mysterious priest:

The priest comes forward:

CIRCULAR CIRCLE IS CIRCULAR

When I was in high school preparing to go on a Mormon mission and trying desperately to have some kind of spiritual experience affirming that the Mormon Church was true, I had a seed of doubt planted by a well-intentioned source. This young man was a couple of years older than me (he still is, in fact) and had just returned from a mission of his own, making him an ideal person for me to talk to concerning such a "burning in the bosom." Or so I thought.

During a discussion or class or something, this person brought up some of the conditions one must allegedly meet in order to recieve a genuine answer from god concerning the validity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, among other things. As he described how one must first have a desire to believe, I found myself for the first time questioning how this process was any different than just simply believing what you want to believe, because you just want to believe it. At the time, I had no knowledge of confirmation bias, or self-affirmation, but what really got me was when he further explained that the Holy Ghost will never lead you astray from what the Church teaches. In other words, only spiritual experiences which agree with the Church are really from god. Well, if this isn't a circular argument, then I don't know what is. He may as well have said, "I know god talks to me, because he tells me so."

Deep down I knew there was a huge problem with the reasoning behind all of this "spiritual experience" business, but I couldn't bring myself to admit it--not even in private. There was too much pressure for me to go on a mission, go to BYU, get married and make lots of babies as quickly as possible. Which brings me to my next point: the Mormon Church's policy to "get 'em while they're young".

One of the toughest things I can imagine in a marriage is when two people of the same religious devotion get married, and some time down the road, one of the two loses their faith. I don't know of very many couples who have survived this. For this reason, many people bury their doubts about a given religion, as it were, "for the kids". Now, the cynical side of me wants to think that this predicament is exploited by religious leaders, with claims that god wants young adults to marry and have children as soon as they can, in order to seal the door on a marriage and trap people in a particular religion for the rest of their lives. The more compassionate side of me wants to think people wouldn't be so callous and flippant with the lives of other people. The more practical side of me thinks it is more complicated than either of those options.

It always seems sinister to me whenever I hear the Mormon Church talk about eternal families. The idea that families can live together in heaven for all of eternity sounds great to many people. This is especially true of young couples starting their families. But without any thing more than a pre-desired sensation, with no verifiable evidence to confirm its origin, and a vague promise that, if obedient to Mormonism, families can be eternal, how can a rationally minded person not at least be skeptical of the claim? Sure it sounds nice, but so what? Is it true? How do you know one way or the other?

This sort of manipulation of the heart-strings brings the argument "What if you're wrong?" to a whole new low. This is why videos like the one below irk me so much:

One last point: Suppose for a moment that one were to empirically demonstrate that god really does talk to people through physical sensations in their chest, and that such a sensation really does confirm that the Book of Mormon is true; would this mean that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "official" Mormon church) is true? No. Ever since the death of Joseph Smith there have been more schisms in Mormonism than Catholicism has had in 2000 years. Just look at the chart below.

With so many sects claiming the Book of Mormon is true, and that they are the true successors of Joseph Smith, how do you know you have accepted the right brand of Mormonism? Even if a burning in the bosom is genuinely from god, how does it prove anything? How do you even know it's genuine?



BONUS MATERIAL:

A family which survived a crisis of faith:

BLAS FOR ME, BLAS FOR YOU

Here is Eddie Izzard on the history of the Church of England:

And one on Popes:

SAY IT AIN'T SO

Many churches count among their numbers people who stop going to church, no matter how long they haven't attended their services. This seems to be especially true of Mormons and Catholics. Whether this is optimistic or opportunistic, many people are disturbed by this practice as it inaccurately depicts congregation numbers.

Look at it this way, if a person is baptised into the Mormon church at the age of eight (or the Catholic church at the age of 8 weeks), but never goes to church services, marks the "atheist" box on census forms, yet never bothers to officially remove their name from church records, will they die a member of that faith? If you ask religious authorities, yes. This may be technically correct by the Church's standard, but by any practical measure they never really participated in the religion, and so should not be considered as members. The same should be true of one who leaves a given church later on in life. If they say they no longer wish to be a member, then that should be the end of it.

Some churches (again, look at Mormonism) intentionally make it quite difficult to remove one's name from their records. In Mormonism the process of removing one's name from church records consists of disciplinary hearings with various church leaders, during which one is asked to denounce the church and its teachings. It is as awkward as it is unnecessary, so many who leave the church either leave without removing their names or threaten legal action if the church insists on going through the "proper channels" in order to drag things out.

In related news, Atheist Alliance International is conducting a "census" where former believers can participate and offer information about their backgrounds. Note: the servers are having issues, so if you can't get to the survey, try again later.

ORIGINAL PRANKSTER

"This story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple, by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up."
--Thomas Paine (Founding Father of the United States)





I have mentioned "Original Sin" and the idea of sins carrying on to any subsequent generations in a few posts now. Lately, I have been thinking about this in the context of Mormonism, and what I was taught while growing up in the Church.

Officially, the Church does not accept the traditional doctrine of "Original Sin" and various leaders have explained why this concept is immoral. In fact, the rejection of this bit of dogma is even included in the "Articles of Faith" (part of the Mormon canon):

"2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

While it is true that Mormon's believe that in the Final Judgement at the end of the world people will be judged according to their actions alone, this says nothing of god issuing punishments to all mankind for Adam's transgressions in this life. This seems to give licence to doctrines like the "Fall of Mankind" or the "Fall of Adam" which is the idea that all of mankind is punished for Adam's partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil by falling from the grace and literal presence of god.

(Some Mormons believe that the Earth used to be located near the infamous planet Kolob and was subsequently moved away after the debacle in the Garden of Eden, but as far as I'm aware, this is conjecture and not official Church doctrine).

In principle it seems that Mormons only have a problem with the eternal consequences of "Original Sin", as this is the primary moral difference between it and the "Fall of Adam". This is reinforced when you consider the fact that the Book of Mormon contains many passages where god curses, albeit only temporally, entire groups of people for the actions of their ancestors. Temporal punishment is less amoral than eternal punishment, but it is still not moral in any meaningful sense. It is merely the lesser of two amoral propositions.

Here are just a few examples of such cursings: Curse of the Lamanites ("skin of blackness"); anyone "mixing their seed" with the Lamanites (inter-racial marriage); Nephites who would not repent of their adultery (and possibly polygamy--no, that can't be right...); the Tower of Babel (origin of multiple languages around the world--except, of course, the Chinese who had been reading and writing in their own language for centuries before this story allegedly took place); anyone who does not give money to the Church (convenient, isn't it?). You get the idea.

Ultimately, that the Mormon church does not accept "Original Sin" seems to be yet another case of more modern religions negating outdated doctrines of older religions. A little common sense shows that "Original Sin" is not a just doctrine, which could be one reason Christianity has had to fight so hard to remain relevant. And I'm not just talking about the scripture wars and dogmatic changes of the last century, but for the last two thousand years.

At face value, Christianity is not as moral as it would have you believe ("Original Sin", eternal punishments for finite crimes, rewarding gullibility over reason and rationality). This, I think, is one reason why the Inquisition occurred--without forcing people to accept doctrines like "Original Sin" by threat of death, who would believe it to be morally justifiable? And without the Inquisition I find it very hard to believe that Christianity would have survived this long.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is the Atheist Experience discussing "Original Sin" and Adam and Eve:

CHRISTIANITY 2.0

"What is the alternative to religion as we know it? As it turns out, this is the wrong question to ask. Chemistry was not an "alternative" to alchemy; it was a wholesale exchange of ignorance at its most rococo for genuine knowledge. We will find that, as with alchemy, to speak of "alternatives" to religious faith is to miss the point."
--Sam Harris, "The End of Faith"




Of all the proposed concepts of Hell, Mormonism's take seems to be the most wishy-washy. There will be no fire or brimstone, or even any temporary torture, let alone the eternal variety. In fact the only real punishment in "Mormon Hell" is that you won't be able to have sex for eternity (or as they put it, "continuing to make families in the hereafter"), as good and faithful Mormons are promised.

Mormonism attacks many key aspects of traditional Christianity, which is why many Catholics and Protestant Christians don't consider Mormons real Christians. Take, for instance, the idea of original sin, which is arguably the most immoral aspect of Christianity. Think of it in terms of "group punishment" (punishing a group of people for the actions of a single person) to see what I mean.

Early Mormons realized the immoral nature of setting the sins of the fathers squarely upon the shoulders of the sons, and tried to come up with a way to get rid of that bit of doctrine without removing the need for Christ's Crucifixion altogether. The result is what they call "The Fall of Mankind" or "The Fall of Adam".

This is really just a rewording of the old problem, as it still entails a departure from the grace of god due to Adam's actions, which affects all generations after Adam and Eve's big faux pas with that pesky tree of knowledge of good and evil (I still haven't heard a good explanation for how Adam and Eve could be held accountable for partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil without possessing the ability to discern between good and evil in the first place...).

After Mormons did away with original sin (while ultimately not doing anything about it) they were then able to address the Christian doctrine of newborn babies being sent to Hell for not being baptized before death. The Book of Mormon addresses this:

Moroni 8:8 "...wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them."

11 "And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins."

12 "But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!" [emphasis added]

(As an aside, if Pro-Lifers think the soul enters the body at conception, thereby making zygotes human and eligible for original sin, shouldn't they be performing pre-birth baptisms, lest an un-born embryo be sent to Hell for miscarrying?)

But this does not adequately address the idea that any adult who dies without even hearing the name "Jesus Christ" will similarly be sent to Hell. So, Mormons have addressed this by creating "Spirit Prison" for souls of those who die without an opportunity to accept Mormonism, to do so with the aide of post-mortem missionaries. Seemingly, every problematic Christian doctrine has an easy solution in Mormonism, which is why I sometimes call Mormonism "Christianity 2.0".

The reason I bring up these topics and show how Mormonism has addressed problematic doctrines of Christianity is not to show the superiority of Mormonism, but rather to illustrate how more modern religions address problems in older religions.

Religions evolve (presumably out of survival). Catholics no longer believe in limbo, a literal reading of the creation myth in Genesis, or that the whole Jewish race is personally responsible for the Crucifixion of Christ. Similarly, Mormons no longer believe you have to be a polygamist to enter into heaven, or that blacks are cursed for Cain's transgression, or that if Native Americans repent and become Mormon they will become "white and delightsome" again. And no one believes in Apollo.

If such changes in religion are inevitable, as I think they are on the whole, when will we see Mormons welcome gay members into their temples and leadership, just as they did blacks in the Church in 1978? When will women be counted as equal to men, rather than having "separate roles" in the church. When will the Church's humanitarian efforts out-weigh the building of new temples, chapels and conference halls both financially and in man-hours?

I look forward to Christianity 3.0. Perhaps then we can shake more of this superstitious baggage and mental gymnastics in order to square religious beliefs with common sense, and instead focus on actually helping people.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Mr Deity explaining the racism inherent within Mormonism:

 

PACE FALM

"If we are going to teach "creation science" . . . as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction."
—JUDITH HAYES

The following is a rather long (ongoing?) conversation I had on Facebook about a clip from Bill Nye (the Science Guy), where he says that it is inappropriate to teach creationism to children. But before you read it, watch the clip.

 

 

Person 1: "That was irrational on various levels on his part. the vast majority of intellectual break throughs in science, medical health care and inventions that changed the world came from individuals who believed in creationism. I've been studying biology, chemistry, physics for the last 4 years. Professors (who are not Mormon as side note) have talked to me on an individual level and stated that the theory of evolution is incomplete and not fact, they only teach it because they have been commissioned to do so. Anyway, creationism is absolutely appropriate for children."

 

Me: "[Person 1], a couple of centuries ago the vast majority of intellectual break throughs in cosmology came from individuals who believed the Earth was the center of the Universe. So what? The question is not how many professors you know personally who believe "evolution is incomplete and not a fact." The question is why they think that. Also, even if evolution was disproven completely, that is still not an argument in favor of creationism, because it is not a true dichotomy (disproving "x" does not prove "y"). Bill Nye's point is that creationism has no evidence to support it, and this makes it inappropriate for children. Do you, [Person 1], have evidence for creationism? I suggest you check out "talkorgins.org" to see what scientists have to say about many creationist claims. One last thing, evolution is a fact in the same way gravity is a fact. It is based on observations which formulate a scientific theory. That evolution happens is a fact, the theory of evolution is the explanation of the facts. Check out "notjustatheory.com" to see what I mean."

Person 2: "[Me] im gonna emphatically disagree with you based on this......Faith. Who appointed this man to tell me or anyone else how to raise my children? There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your children about creationism if that is your belief system. If i choose to teach evolution to my children then that is my perogative as well, dont you think. Youre allowed to teach your children satanism. Do i question you? I dont care what you teach your children as long as it coincides with the law. Personally Ill teach them evolution and creationism" 
 

Me: "Having the right to teach your children something does not make it appropriate. Bill Nye's is talking about methods of thought. According to him, it is inappropriate to teach children creationsim because it is not based on evidence. This method of thinking is in opposition to the way science works, which will influence the way future doctors and engineers go about solving problems. This is his point. You have every right to teach your children that the earth is flat (look up the "Flat Earth Society"), but you cannot deny this will affect the way your children view the world and how they think. Also, based on previous comments made by Bill Nye, he seems to be attacking Young Earth Creationism through a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, rather than the more modern reconciliation of creation through evolution, which is what it sounds like you are teaching your kids. Correct me if I'm wrong."

 

Person 2: "What i am saying is this. There is nothing wrong with teaching your children the literal interpretation of Creationism. People have been passing down faith, God, and their religion to their children for thousands of years. And this clown comes out and says this!? Can you at least admit this hasn't caused any damage whatsoever to children. I contend without faith, morals,religion that we would not be living in the greatest civil society in the history of the world. This argument is absolute garbage."

 

Person 2: "Let me further say this....Science has not been able to disprove the possibility of a higher power or God either. To say theres no proof, there is no proof to the contrary either......is there? So who is this clown Bill Nye to tell me that i am wrong teaching my children my sincere beliefs? When he cant prove that my beliefs are wrong? Idiotic argument im sorry"

 

Person 2: "[Original Poster] i swear you love to stir me up dont you? I think you like to post controversial things and just sit back and enjoy the show laughing dont you?"

 
Me: "No, I cannot admit that this "hasn't caused any damage whatsoever to children." Many people have experienced great inner turmoil when trying to reconcile the things they have been taught as truth with what they see around them, or what science has shown us. At the time of Galileo, the Catholic Church taught that the geocentrism of the Earth proved God's glory and power. When Galileo used physics to show that the sun was the center of the solar system, thus disproving geocentrism, the Church feared what this would mean docrinally, and he was exiled and lived under house arrest for the remainder of his life. The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence to support it (apply this to bigfoot, UFO's, Santa Clause, etc.). This is the basis of science, and this is the point Bill Nye is trying to make. Falling back on the argument that "science has not been able to disprove the possibility of a higher power or God" is a shifting of the burden of proof (can you prove Santa didn't put presents under the tree?). Is this why you believe in god? Because science hasn't disproved it? Then I say you need to rethink your faith. I don't mean this sarcastically or to be mean. I genuinely think there are better reasons to believe in god than an argument from ignorance. Let us be clear, you can believe in creationism without teaching it as divine truth. Many people do this. It is when it is established as unalterable dogma that it causes problems with scientific thinking. And, since you brought it up, faith and religion are separate from morality and are not responsible for “the greatest civil society in the history of the world.” Every significant scientific advancement (the earth goes around the sun, evolution, the big bang, germ theory, etc.) has been vehemently opposed by at least one significant and powerful religious group which has sought to suppress information and ideas. But this is not what Bill Nye is talking about! Again, he is talking about methods of thought. And some methods of thought are inappropriate for children."

Person 2: "Oh good grief! You know what, Bill Nye is flat wrong brother and so are you. Its really sad that some people are so ardent on destroying this society based on their lack of faith because they cant prove it. Your Santa clause example is ridiculous. A made up story that can be proven just that, a story. Why dont you people just leave us alone and allow us to live our lives, believe what we want and teach our children what we want. You people are corrupting this country which was founded by men of faith. How do you explain miracles genius? I have personally witnessed several undisputed miracles in my own life. How lost some have become trying to drag society into darkness with them. Perhaps one day your eyes will truly be opened to a world filled with the love of God. I suspect you cringe at that statement. It takes a whole lot of humility and maturity to see. Good luck with that." 

Person 3: "One word: Dinosaurs. Where oh where did those things come from? Also, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington were deists. Which means they believed that God did not intervene in his creation (no miracles, no favorite nations/races). He made the world and moved on. And while you are preaching humility and maturity... your facebook rants aren't building your case."

Person 2: "My facebook rants are coming from a man watching his country go down in flames at the hands of a dictator buddy. I believe the Capitalist free market society this country was built on has done more to lift up individuals then any other system in the history of the world pal. Your fraudulent President is turning it into a Communist type iron fisted top down imperial regime with himsekf at"

(I assume he wasn't finished writing) 

Me: "I don’t know where I said I was trying to destroy society (ardently, no less), but I think you have me mistaken for someone else. But none of this has anything to do with what Bill Nye is talking about. Bill is saying that teaching children to believe things without evidence is not as good as teaching them to use the scientific method (which, by the way, is why this society is so great). I have no doubt you have experienced things which you can only explain by supernatural means. Does this make it so? How do you know if you are correct in your interpretation? How does explaining things through supernatural means explain anything at all? How do you know if your supernatural explanation is better than other supernatural explanations? If I can only explain visions and voices in my head as god talking to me, what happens when I discover epilepsy? If the Bible explains diseases as being the result of sin or demonic possession, as many used to believe, why investigate germs? Again, (sigh) this is what Bill Nye is talking about. Being satisfied with a non-answer stops investigation. This is the harm. I don't cringe at the prospect of anything if it can be demonstrated as being true, and despite the sarcasm in your tone, I do appreciate the sentiment."

Person 3: "Again, that maturity and humility is shining through."

 

Person 2: "[Me] youre an exeptionally intelligent guy. I yield to your knowledge of science. I believe in science absolutely and have no doubts have benefited the world immensely. I just happen to disagree with Bill Nye. I think he's just dead wrong. Sure given your example some children struggle with creationism. Im not sure how you were raised but im sure there are those like you that have been raised this way that do struggle with it of course. Is it damaging? I would argue not to a child who was raised properly and not abused with it. We all question this at some point in our lives. I appreciate your arguments and your reason. I do apologize for my sarcasm. Im very engaged in our politics and tend to be able to pair just about anything into it. Wasn't my intention to bring politics into this discussion. Anyway God bless ;-)" 

Person 2: "So is the oatmeal dripping off your chin buddy. How bout you go away now."
(I assume this comment was directed at Person 3)

 
Me: "I'm glad that you at least partially see my point in the harm teaching creationism can cause. Now I ask, how many children struggling with this reconciliation makes it no longer OK to teach creationism? Going back to the Santa Clause example (respectfully, of course), if even one child was emotionally disraught by the teaching of Santa Clause, wouldn't that be enough to say we shouldn't teach this to children without a good reason and at least some evidence? How much emotional trauma is acceptable? Wouldn't it be better to teach children how to think and find answers for themselves rather than telling them what to believe implicitly?

Original Poster:

Person 2: "As far as my children go they are taught creationism in the literal sense and that it is what i personally believe to be true and have faith that the things i teach are true. It really depends how it is taught. There are proper ways this can be done. In a healthy environment with discussion and prayer i dont believe this is harmful in the least. There are wrong ways to do this of course. As far as the Santa Clause example i dont think ever in my life have heard a case of a child being emotionally damaged by this. There are going to be disappointments in life, winners and losers. Too often people do not let their children experience these things. Life experience builds character. Being allowed to experience loss is not a bad thing. Children do not need to be shielded from everything bad that may happen. This is going to be the downfall of our society because our children are being taught that everybody wins, heres a trophy for all. If we do not allow failure when they hit the real world they will be in for a huge emotional loss. Im not sure if this ties into what you are saying but it seems relevent."

Person 2: "[Original Poster] you crack me up man! lol"

Me: "Let me see if I understand you. You are saying it is OK to teach children something false because when they find out it is false it will build character, regardless of any potential emotional damage? That sounds very cynical to me. By this logic, is there anything that would be inappropriate to teach children? I hope that you teach your children creationism, and evolution and as many different ideas as you can. I also hope you teach them how do make their own decision as to which one they accept as truth (even if it means they might not believe in creationism). As an aside, have you ever considered the possiblility that god may have used evolution as the mechanism for creation? I only bring this up because many religious people hold this view, including the previous Pope."

Person 2: "I believe creationism to be true. As far as Santa Clause it is the spirit of the season. A symbol. All children taught this eventually realize he is not actually a real person and are ok. I believe in some forms of evolution and dont think it is wrong to expose them to different theories in this case."

Person 2: "So yes im not the type of person to shelter my child from getting upset. This is part of life and necessary."

Person 2: "At the same time i dont intentionally expose them to things i know to be false."

Person 4: "Wow. You should write something long and boring. And ya did."

Me: "I'm not talking about sheltering children. I'm talking about teaching them to accept things which are false and the damage that can cause. Suppose a child never learned Santa isn't real? Would that negatively affect the way they view the world? Many children are not Ok when they find out Santa isn't real. They usually come to accept it eventually, but initially it can be traumatic. But the point is, why would you teach your children something as truth if you cannot demontrate it as such? What does this teach your children about truth? Or accepting things as truth despite evidence to the contrary, as is common for Young Earth Creationists like those at Answers in Genesis, who actually built a multi-million dollar museum displaying vegetarian velociraptors living harmoniously with humans before the great flood. At what point do you go too far?" 

Person 2: "You're really getting in the weeds here with alot of "what ifs". Creationism is taught with faith and prayer. It cant be taught on absolute fact, only belief. Religion itself is faith based confirmed by much prayer. Why is it so difficult to accept those who choose to believe in something based on faith? I teach my children this because i believe it. Thats it. Your arguments on damaging children with this is minute at best. The benefits are life long when taught properly."

 

Me: ""Creationism is taught with faith and prayer. It cant be taught on absolute fact, only belief." This is exactly my point. If you teach creation with this mindset, then I think we are in agreement. OK, everyone. The show is over. Cheers."

Person 2: ";-)"