We Can Show Them How to Accept the Imperfect Christians

When I was a Christian, it was hard not to notice that some Christians were good people. They were kind, considerate of others, and generous with what they had. They stood out to me, and I considered them role models. I often wished there were more of them because they weren't as common as I would have liked.

At the time, I wanted to believe that Christianity was a force for good in the world. I wanted to believe that it transformed ordinary people into good people. But no matter how many times I heard people make this claim, I couldn't accept it. It didn't seem to work this way.

Question the Common Practice of Equating Christian With Moral Goodness

I've written quite a bit about how it is a mistake to equate "Christian" with moral goodness. This is still common practice in the United States, and it is a practice not limited to Christians. In fact, I hear it from other atheists more than I hear it from Christians. They are trying to call attention to hypocrisy but end up helping to perpetuate a myth.

When I encounter this assumption from Christians, it is usually quite blatant. I challenge it, pointing it out and explaining that I reject it. The version I hear from atheists is often more subtle. I try to make it more explicit since the person often doesn't realize what they are doing. I then challenge it and try to suggest alternatives. But why? Why do I bother with any of this?

Harmful Beliefs Deserve No Respect Even When Justified By Religion

Everyone can think of at least one belief system which is detrimental to human welfare. What I mean by "detrimental" in this context is that it leads to unnecessary pain and suffering. This does not mean it could not still have some positive attributes. But whatever positives might apply cannot make up for the harm caused.

Consider something like racism. The detrimental nature seems obvious. So obvious that it is hard to think of anything positive. Should you respect the racist beliefs of others? That question seems absurd, doesn't it? You might respect someone who held racist beliefs. You might respect the fact that they have the right to believe whatever they want. We all have that right, and it is rarely in jeopardy. But isn't respecting the beliefs themselves quite different?

Want to End Christian Privilege? Reject the 'Fake Christian' Narrative

Image by Екатерина Гусева from Pixabay

Whenever a Christian does something bad or says something objectionable, what happens? You guessed it! Other Christians line up to claim that the offender is not a "real Christian." This phenomenon is nothing new. We've observed it more times than we can count. But this is no mere annoyance. The assumption that "Christian = good" is a core part of Christian privilege.

As annoying as some atheists find this, it is not difficult to understand why Christians would do it. Creating distance between themselves and bad behavior is appealing. It also helps to maintain the privilege they enjoy. The real puzzle is why so many atheists, humanists, and freethinkers take part.

Would They Prefer a Christian Child Molester Over a Morally Upstanding Atheist?

I have a difficult time coming up with a good analogy to help Christians living in the United States understand how their behavior affects others (for those few who seem to care about such things). What I am thinking about specifically is how thoroughly they have managed to demonize atheism and dehumanize atheists. This has an impact on those of us who live in particularly religious areas dominated by fundamentalist forms of Christianity. It is hard not to internalize some of it, and I think this can lead us to be different people from those we would like to be.

The closest thing I have been able to come up with would be to ask someone to imagine the sort of reactions they would receive if they were to identify themselves as a child molester. Just imagine how others would respond to something like, "Hi! I'm Bob, and I molest children." The reactions would not be positive and knowing this would probably lead Bob to accurately anticipate negative reactions.

We Should Not Look the Other Way When Christian Women Police Female Sexuality

Christian men receive considerable and well-deserved criticism for their attempts at policing women's sexuality. When they do it, it seems sexist in addition to everything else that's wrong with it. At the same time, I hate to see Christian women getting a pass for doing the same thing, especially when they often seem to be the primary offenders outside of politics.

From what I've observed in daily life, many Christian women are absolutely ruthless when it comes to policing the sexuality, dress, grooming, weight, and physical appearance of other women. They can make life a living hell for women who are on the receiving end of this nonsense, and they openly say things I rarely hear from men. So-called slut shaming is a prime example. They refer to other women behind their backs as "whores," "sluts," "tramps," and even "trash" simply because these other women are wearing something they might not have the nerve to wear. Of course, my favorites are the ones who actually call others "fornicators," as that one almost always produces an involuntary giggle because I just can't get enough of that word. I can only guess at their motives, but it often comes across as something we might expect to hear from someone who was horribly jealous.

The Prayer Amplifier: A Question of Ethics

You have a great idea for an invention that is practically guaranteed to be a big moneymaker. Even if it does not live up to the various advertising claims you would make about it, it will sell well and earn you a fortune. In fact, no amount of scientific proof that your invention does not do what you will claim it does is going to hurt your sales. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? There is just one small problem. You see, you know that your invention does not work. So you couldn't ethically market it as doing something that you knew it couldn't do, right? Not so fast! Things are not quite as simple as I've made them sound. Your customers are absolutely convinced that the device works, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to dissuade them.

I want you to imagine that the invention I described above is a prayer amplifier. And now we'll consider the ethical implications of selling such a product.

Christians Who Would Rape and Murder Without God-Belief

If you have spent any time interacting with fundamentalist Christians, you have undoubtedly heard something like the following:

If I didn't believe in "God" (i.e., the one particular god I prefer over countless others humans have worshiped throughout time), I'd be running wild in the streets because there would be no morality. Without any reason to be good, I'd rape and murder at will. So would everybody else.

I don't recall hearing this from Christians who were not fundamentalists, but it wouldn't shock me to learn that some of them say similar things from time-to-time. It seems to be an odd byproduct of what they have been taught about the relationship of Christianity to morality and bigoted attitudes toward atheists.

Christian Bible is Poor Basis of Morality

Many contemporary Christians claim that their bible is the source of all morality and that it serves as something of a guide for them to determine how to live their lives. If we accept that they believe this to be the case (which may not be warranted), the implications are terrifying. Granted, there are some good things in their bible, and even if they can be traced back to moral systems that pre-date Christianity, this does not necessarily diminish their value. But there are also many terrible things in their bible, making me extremely uncomfortable with the notion that anyone might suggest that it should guide the behavior of my Christian neighbors today.

It may be helpful to consider an example, and there are many to pick from. The following comes from Exodus 34: 13-17 and provides one of many decent examples of why I have a difficult time with the claim that this book can be regarded as any sort of guide to moral behavior:

...ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. Thou shall make thee no molten gods.

Sharing Stories of Christian Wrongdoing

When I'm on Twitter, I often see atheists posting links to stories about Christian wrongdoing. There's nothing surprising about this. I do it too. As long as Christians keep claiming to be morally superior to atheists and other non-Christians, sharing these stories seems like a useful public service. But in a surprising number of these cases, I see atheists accompanying their links with commentary suggesting that the Christian involved is not "a real Christian" or not "behaving in a very Christian manner." This added commentary often seems to undermine what I assume is the point of sharing the story.

Suppose an evangelical fundamentalist pastor is caught stealing money from his church (shocking, I know). If an atheist shares a link to this story on Twitter and adds something like, "This doesn't seem like a very Christian thing to do," I find myself feeling puzzled. How is it not a Christian thing to do when so many are caught doing it? And why would an atheist play into the whole Christian = moral thing by suggesting that a criminal act was not a Christian thing to do? By impugning the Christianity of the pastor, isn't the atheist doing exactly what many Christians are going to do when confronted with the story?

Twin Pillars of Christian Morality

If you are a regular visitor to this site, you probably know that I've long been a fan of George H. Smith's book, Atheism: The Case Against God (Skeptic's Bookshelf). I first read it in 2006, and it inspired more than a few posts since then. This will be an example.

One of the most common justifications Christians offer for their religion is the link between it and morality. Without the Christian god, they say, morality would have no meaning and mass depravity would result. These Christians can offer many passages from their bible which appear to convey solid ethical principles with which few of us would disagree. They are fond of using these passages as a way of championing the moral influence of their religion.

According to many Christians, especially those we would label "moderate," "liberal," or even "progressive," the central theme of Christianity is love. As it relates to morality, their god has provided humanity with ethical rules much like we would expect from a good parent. If we follow these rules, we are promised eternal salvation. Those who have difficulty following the rules are not necessarily lost because their god is about love, forgiveness, compassion, etc.

Holding Christians to a Higher Moral Standard

Is it fair to hold Christians to a higher moral standard than everyone else just because they are Christians? Initially, I'd have to say no. This does not seem fair. Morality has nothing to do with supernatural entities, and both Christians and atheists are perfectly capable of operating in a moral way (or not).

And yet, many Christians are quick to claim that they (or at least other Christians) should be held to a higher moral standard because they are Christians. It would seem that this sort of increased moral responsibility for Christians is precisely what Billy Graham advocated in this 2006 column. Here is what Graham told a Christian who had written into his column:

Because you understand more clearly than some people do what God expects of you, in one way you are even more guilty in God's eyes than they are.

Presidential Pardons and the Absolution of Sin

I can't keep up with all the outrage thee days. Just as I was trying to figure out who Samantha Bee was and why it was such a big deal that she used a Scottish term of endearment to describe Ivanka Trump, news dropped that President Trump decided to pardon Christian extremist Dinesh D'Souza. I found something interesting about the outrage around the presidential pardon. Unlike some outrage, the source of this particular outrage tended to be expressed very clearly. It indicated, people said, a total lack of accountability. I think they are right. This is a problem.

Many evangelical fundamentalist Christians believe they have a "personal relationship" with someone who might have lived over 2,000 years ago and who is now somehow their "savior." These people think that this Jesus figure will absolve their sins in exchange for their belief in him. Their faith, in other words, is the path to their salvation. But much like a presidential pardon, this seems to seriously undermine personal responsibility for one's actions. Isn't this precisely what leads so many atheists to say that the deathbed conversion reflects a flawed form of morality?

Good Deeds and Christianity

In every religious discussion I've had with a Christian, one point inevitably comes up. I've encountered a few variants, but it tends to go something like this:

By criticizing religion and focusing on all the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, you are forgetting about all the good deeds for which Christianity is responsible. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Christianity has been responsible for some awful things, but we must not forget the many positive outcomes.

The Moral Inferiority of Atheists

When I was a child being indoctrinated into Christianity, I don't remember anyone explicitly telling me that I was morally superior to atheists because I believed in gods. I don't think they had to. The implication was clear whenever hell was mentioned. People who didn't believe what I believed were going to hell, and good people didn't end up in hell. Like most of the rest of it, this bit of the indoctrination stuck. I believed it. I had no reason not to.

I think it helped considerably that I didn't know any atheists. As a child, I only knew a couple of non-Christians. I would eventually ask questions about their eternal future and discover that I didn't care for the answers, but that would come later. Not knowing any atheists meant that I had no counter-examples of good people who were atheists. I never had the opportunity to ask those questions and hear nonsensical answers. I had plenty of counter-examples in the form of morally horrible Christians, but it would take me a while longer to figure that out.

The fact that I accepted and internalized this nonsense about the moral inferiority of atheists sure did make the realization that I no longer believed in gods more difficult than it might have otherwise been. I remember those sleepless nights. What had happened to me that I could doubt the existence of gods? How could I have turned out to be such an awful person? What sort of future would I now have? I'd eventually recognize that I was no more or less moral as an atheist than I had been as a religious believer, but it took awhile.

Good Without Gods

An early version of this post was written in 2007. It has been revised and expanded since it addresses a topic that remains relevant: the relationship between religious belief and morality.

There was a great article by Dan Gardner published in The Ottawa Citizen. Unfortunately, it is no longer available online. When I read it in 2007, I noted that it was precisely the sort of pro-atheist article we atheists need to get out there more frequently. Gardner not only dispelled one of the most important myths about atheists but he also showed how the Christians who condemn us as immoral have to keep revising their criticism as it proves erroneous.

Atheists Fail to Consider the Historical Context of the Bible

Perhaps Christians' complaint of atheists using bible verses out of context is not terribly persuasive, but there is a different sort of "out of context" argument that seems to have some merit. Some Christians respond to an atheist pointing to objectionable passages in their "holy" book by claiming that we are failing to consider the historical context in which the verses were written. In essence, we are condemning what were once common practices through the lens of modern morality. At least on the surface, this is not a bad argument.

Suppose that slavery could be found in most of the civilizations in existence during the time period in which the Christian bible was written. If that was the case, it would make sense that the bible condoned the practice. The same could be said for all sorts of other practices that strike us as barbaric today but were once commonplace. According to some Christians, atheists are being neither fair nor honest when we focus on such practices without taking into account their historical context.

This sort of objection makes some sense. At least, it would make some sense if the person making it was prepared to let go of the absurd notion that the bible is timeless and/or serves as a guide for how modern Christians should live their lives.

U.S. Lacks Moral Authority to Prevent Others From Developing Nuclear Weapons

Beginning shortly before President Obama took office in 2008 and continuing for several months into his administration, we heard an awful lot from him about how we needed to "look forward as opposed to looking backwards." To place this in the proper context of the time, recall that he was indicating that there would be no investigation of Bush/Cheney war crimes. I thought this was a serious mistake at the time, and I spoke out against it repeatedly. As far as I was concerned, Obama's refusal to prosecute war crimes compromised his moral authority. I still consider this to be his primary failure, along with refusing to prosecute those on Wall St. who were responsible for the economic collapse.

Even today, it still bothers me that we chose to accept torture as part of our legacy instead of demanding accountability for the elected officials in both parties who ordered it, provided cover for those who did it, and subsequently prevented their prosecution. Some things are serious enough that they need to be dealt with before we should consider moving on, and torture falls into that category for me. And yes, this bothers me more than most of what I've seen from Trump so far.

Do We Have a Moral Obligation to Call Out Bigotry?

I was writing a blog post the other day, and I had my Twitter app open on my desktop as I often do when I am writing blog posts. Out of the blue, someone I was not following and with whom I was unfamiliar tweeted a bigoted statement to me. I mention that I was not following this person to indicate that this was different from me seeing a bigoted statement appear in my timeline from someone I was following. This one was tweeted directly to me (i.e., the tweet began with my Twitter handle, @vjack).

It occurred to me in the moment that I had at least a few choices. For example, I could:

1. Ignore the tweet.
2. Respond directly to the person who sent the tweet (i.e., use the normal reply function).
3. Respond in such a way that my response would be seen by everyone following me on Twitter.

When Words Lead to Violence

Assault is a criminal offense. I happen to think that is a good thing. The intentional infliction of physical harm on someone who does not wish to be harmed should be against the law. I do not expect this to be a terribly controversial idea. What seems to be a bit more controversial is that I'd take this one step further and suggest that being verbally insulted by someone does not justify physically assaulting them.

Suppose a stranger approaches you on the street and calls you a name. Imagine that it is the worst name imaginable and that you are "triggered." Admittedly, this situation sucks. Your hurt feelings do not, however, justify you physically attacking the stranger. Having your feelings hurt by a verbal insult, as unpleasant an experience as it can be, does not justify a violent act.