The Amorality of Christian Extremism

I've thought long and hard about whether to express what I'm about to say.  I try to respect all religions and all human beings.  I know that many, many of us are honestly trying to do what we think is right and that that probably includes most Christian extremists as well.  However...

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, envinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty... to provide new guards for their future. -- Declaration of Independence

I've realized that it's time to take a stand.

I also realize that Christian extremism and conservative Christianity are both very broad categories with a lot of diversity within them.  This post is a reaction to a what I see as the middle of that bell curve, based on what I hear via the media from Christian extremist preachers, ministers, and leaders, the proseltytizers who come to my door to preach to me, and what friends of mine who were raised in some form of Christian extremism have told me.  I apologize if I've unfairly offended anyone, however I have come to realize that I feel morally called to take a stand and that offense of the type of Christian extremists I'm talking about in the post is inevitable and of their own doing.

Christian extremists are at this moment trying to legislate their religious beliefs, trying to beat society into submission to their beliefs, and telling non-Christians that we're all going to "burn in Hell" if we don't share their beliefs.*

Here is my response to Christian extremism...

Faith is Amoral

I once had a young woman I had gotten to know ask me out to Church.  She invited me to an event on a Saturday that claimed to be a talk on psychology.  The speaker concluded by saying that "only Jesus" can "help" us with our emotions.  Although this was an ambush, since the talk was not on psychology but on Christianity, I did not initially hold this against the young woman, since I realized that she might not have realized where the talk would lead.  

She invited me to go out to lunch with her friends afterwards, and her friends tried to convert me over lunch.  Another ambush!  When they asked me why I wouldn't convert, I told them that no one had ever convinced me that Christianity was true.  When they asked me why, I pointed out logical flaws I saw in Christian doctrine.  Then, one woman at the table exclaimed, "but you have to have faith!"  A man, who was currently enrolled in a theological seminary, replied to her, "he's not ready for faith.  He needs logic first."  The man proceeded to attempt to use sophistry to trick me into agreeing with him.  I countered all of his arguments.

Wait a second, I thought, something's wrong here.  To me, faith is something we have based on intuition, which, in turn, is based on facts.  For example, I might have faith that a friend can be trusted based on the fact that the friend has proven trustworthy in the past.  That is, although I can't prove that the friend is always trustworthy, I can make an intuitive leap that they're likely to be and decide to trust them.

However, faith, as these Christians evidently defined it, is a complete disposal and abandonment of reason!  Conferring with friends of mine who were raised in some form of Christian extremism (and even many who were raised conservative or even moderate Christian), I've been able to confirm that such Christians are explicitly taught to ignore reason and replace it, wholesale, with what they call "faith".  Moreover, they were taught that, unless they had faith, they'd go to Hell.  It's this definition of faith that I address herein.

So what Christian extremists (and many other Christians as well) mean by faith is really superstition.    Faith to them means (1) believing in the Bible without any reason, (2) believing in God without any reason, and (3) assuming a set of rules based on 1 and 2.

To summarize...

faith = superstition = a lack of reason

"thou shalt not" = taboo

But morality depends on reason.  If I proposed that eating kumquats was evil, you'd demand to know why I thought that, wouldn't you?  I hope you would.  To defend such a claim, I'd need to show you some evidence or produce some logic that made the eating of kumquats is something we can evaluate morally.  For example, you might, very reasonably, expect me to say tell you how it would harm anybody if kumquats got eaten, since whether or not something is harmful is one way that we evaluate morality.

However, if I were to tell you only that I have faith that they are, that God said so, and that you're going to burn in Hell if you eat kumquats, you'd not only think me crazy, you'd be outraged, and rightly so.  I'd be accusing you of immorality without any reasonable basis whatsoever!  And yet, this is exactly what the Christian extremists do (though not about kumquats).  

Take for example homosexuality.  Their argument for it being "immoral" is simply that it says it is in their mythology book.  They make no argument based on any sort of reason or explaining how it harms anyone.**  Accusing another of immorality is a terrible thing.  If we're to do it, we'd better have a very good case for it.

Anything that someone says is "wrong" based on faith in mythology and not on reason is not only superstition, but taboo.  Such rules, when not put to any rational moral evaluation, have no moral value.

Faith is superstition and superstition is amoral.

Fundamentalism is Amoral

Fundamentalist Christians are particularly amoral on these grounds.  They claim that the Bible is "inerrant".[1]  That is, they claim that the Bible is absolutely true.  This is logically disprovable a few thousand times over through internal contradiction.  Perhaps the most glaring example of this is that the gospel attributed to Matthew and the gospel attributed to Luke each have genealogies of Joseph, both of which attempt to show that Jesus is the Messiah.  

The idea in both Gospels is to show that Joseph was directly descended from King David.  However, the genealogies are as different as can be!  They differ not only in the names themselves, but in the number of generations between David and Joseph, in whether or not Joseph was also descended from Solomon, and even the father, grandfather and great grandfather of Joseph differ.[2]  I am at a loss to find ways in which they're are even remotely similar!

Now, some Christian Extremists go so far as falsely stating that one of these genealogies is actually the genealogy of Mary.  Neither is!  Anyone who bothers to read these Gospels will find they're both genealogies of Joseph.  Now, there are only two possibilities as to why these Christians would do this.  (1) They bear false witness against the Gospels, in violation of their Ten Commandments, which they claim to hallow.   (2) They are ignorant of their own scripture, which they themselves hold as the Word of God.  Is it not their duty to know this scripture?  In either case, they show themselves to be immoral by their own reckoning.  In either case, why should we give any credence whatsoever to anything they say about their religion?

Unless we descend into superstition, there are only three logical conclusions here:

1. The gospel attributed to Matthew is right and the gospel attributed to Luke is wrong.
2. The gospel attributed to Luke is right and the gospel attributed to Matthew is wrong.
3. Both are wrong.

Who could possibly think that the authors of both books were actually there?  Surely, even if they got a few things wrong, they'd at least have gotten Joseph's father, grandfather and great grandfather right, simply by asking Joseph.  Then again, maybe the these gospels were written by authors who weren't the apostles and never witnessed any of the things they wrote about.

Yet Fundamentalism claims that both gospels are absolutely true.  Therefore, Fundamentalism is wrong.  Fundamentalism is superstitious and, as we've seen, non-logical propositions about how people should act have no moral basis.

Fundamentalism = superstition = amoral

Christian Extremists Lack a Moral Compass

Christian extremism, particularly Fundamentalism, is non-logical.  Rather than having morals, it has amoral superstitions based on blind faith, which, as I've shown, fail to support their proposals for "right" and "wrong" with any logical or rational basis.

Superstition, as opposed to reason-based morality, cannot point us toward good.  Reason can tell us which way's good.  Superstition cannot!

How I Now Respond

I've come to the conclusion that it's time that I took a stand against all of this.  I used to feel like I didn't want to offend anyone, but, I can no longer keep silent just to keep Christian extremists safe from offense.  I've realized that it's inevitable that they will take offense, because they're offended by anyone who disagrees with them, on the basis of such people refusing to share their superstitions, and they insist on foisting their superstitions on the public. 

There is some shit I will not eat. -- E.E. Cummings

I'm happy to let anyone have their superstitions who will leave me alone.  In fact, I'll confess to having some of my own, but I refuse to allow my superstitions to be the sole basis for my morals and I refuse to allow other people to foist their superstitions on me on a spurious moralistic claim.  When people insist on forcing their superstitions on others, whether legally or socially, I draw the line and it becomes impossible for people like me, that is people of good conscience, to avoid offending the superstitious pseudo-moralists.

Moreover, after thinking long and hard about this, I've come to the conclusion that it's high time we called them on their pseudo-moralism.  They think they're morally superior to the rest of us.  In fact, as I've just shown, they're morally inferior.  I refuse to let them treat me or any of us as moral inferiors any longer.  I can respect them by leaving them alone as much as they leave me alone, but I cannot be a doormat to their socio-political attacks.  If such amoral people insist on telling me that I'm immoral, I feel that I must speak my side.  I feel like I'm disrespecting them, but our side is so rarely heard, because so many of us try so, so hard to respect everyone.  By attacking my moral standing, they put me in a position in which I find it impossible to respect them and in which my silence can be taken as assent.  I believe that they've force all of our hands and that we must speak up.  I will attempt to be as respectful, diplomatic, polite, and good as I can, but I will be silent no longer.

• When Christians try to convert me, and ask why I won't convert, I plan to tell them that I think a literal interpretation of the Bible is superstitious and amoral, but that they have a right to their beliefs.  
• If they're offended by this, I'll point out that they asked.
• If they tell me I'm going to go to Hell (or the equivalent), I'll tell them I think that's a superstition too and that their belief in it further convinces me of their lack of morals, but affirm their rights to their beliefs.
• I'll affirm that I know that they're doing what they think is right, but I'll also point out that I am too.
• When Christian extremists try to steamroll over our sacred freedom of religion, try to tear down our sacred wall of separation of church and state***, try to put social pressure on others to capitulate to their superstitious demands, tell us that we're going to "burn in Hell" (or equivalent words), I intend to respond just as I would if they were at my door.

I'm slowly realizing just how huge of a threat Christian extremists are to America.  If they get their way, America will be ruled by Christian Sharia laws.  I, for one, feel a moral duty to stop them.

--- Footnotes:

* Even if Christians say something like, "you're not going to go to Heaven unless you convert," or, "I'm worried about your soul," we all know what they mean as surely as black people know what it means when people dressed in white sheets and pillowcases burn crosses on their lawns.  We know that these phrases really mean, "you're going to burn in Hell if you disagree with us." 

** At least that I've ever heard.

*** Many Christian extremists have pointed out that the words "separation of Church and State" are not in the Constitution.  In fact, the First Amendment says much the same thing in different words, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."  The terms "separation of Church and State" comes from Thomas Jefferson's "Letter to the Danbury Baptists", in which he characterized that clause as "a wall of separation of church and state".  Separation of Church and State is critical to freedom of religion.  You can't have the second without the first.  It's also a foundational national value of America and a sacred relic of the Enlightenment.

[1] See for instances:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism#Terminology

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Christian-Fundamentalism

[2] Matthew 1:2-16, Luke 3:23