Should we update the Pledge?

The Pledge of Allegiance is the most anti-American thing we Americans can do and I have already stated my opposition to the pledge here, here, here and here.

Basically, my argument is that compulsory patriotism is not patriotism. If people want to pledge something on their own because they feel the need, then so be it. But when you require that the pledge be recited through peer pressure, you've invalidated any sort of free exercise and freedom of conscious.

David Waters at the On Faith blog argues this compelling reason why the Pledge is wrong and should be updated.

Second, the greatest threat to American freedom is no longer godless communism but "godly" terrorism -- people who pledge their allegiance to God. Docherty noted that even Stalin's Soviet Union could claim to be "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Today, even a Taliban-led Afghanistan could claim to be "one nation, under God."

Both the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan have established the Koran as the basis for its laws, unlike the United States that has a prohibition against church and state conflation in the First Amendment and Article VI for religious oaths. Furthermore, the United States constitution does not establish the Bible as a basis for our laws.

And Waters is correct.

The United States should be a country that is exceptional in its church and state separation since we were the first country to be founded as such.

If we didn't want to be like the Communists in the 50's, then we shouldn't want to be like the highly divided countries of Afghanistan and Iraq (where religious and sectarian violence makes all the headlines) today. 

The "Once Saved, Always Saved" Dilemma

On August 4th, 2009, 48 year old George Sodini killed 4 people (as well as himself) in a Pittsburgh suburban health club -- targeting mostly women. Prior to the shooting, he stated on his blog (now since removed):

"Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them."

These are not the beliefs of a lone maniac, but are mainstream Christian beliefs. It is the salvation, of Jesus Christ, of course. Salvation, is described by this evangelical site as:

Jesus is the only one that has the perfect ransom and perfect gift to save us. There is no other way to salvation and redemption. Jesus’ redeeming act on the cross paid the ransom (price) for our sins. Jesus does not need to take on the punishment for our sin anymore. It is finished. He has paid the price once; He has paid the ransom for all on the cross.   

Your garden-variety Christian is taught to believe that Jesus died on the cross as the price for human sins and this in turn was the redemption of humanity. Sodini may have been referring to the doctrine of "Eternal Security"which has its roots in Calvinism. Bible.org describes "Eternal Security" as:

While the believer may gain assurance of his salvation and know that he has been saved, the question may arise concerning the permanence of his salvation. Once genuinely saved by trusting in the merit of Christ’s death on the cross for sin, can the believer lose his salvation? Is there anything we can do to lose our salvation? The answer is NO! Why? Because Scripture clearly affirms the fact we are protected by the power of God through faith. Faith brings us into a grace relationship with God as a gift of God through the merit of His beloved Son. We are saved by His record, not ours.

It seems clear that one can never lose their salvation. (Even if they murder) John 3:16 is unequivocal. So if your George Sodini, you can kill people, yourself, and you still will be saved and go to Heaven. Likewise with Mehmet Ali Agca, who shot John Paul II in the eighties and converted to Christianity in 2010.

Accordingly, the saved can do anything and it doesn't matter if it is immoral or inhumane -- as long as they believe that Jesus died for their sins. With this kind of free-pass, Christians need not act morally.

And herein lies the dilemma.

If Jesus' did not die for all sins, then what did he die for? Jesus' death becomes a conditional act -- only saving some and not others, or dying for some sins and not others. If some sins are exempt from Jesus' death, then he certainly did not die for all of humanity. Jesus either died for humanity's sins or he didn't. And if Jesus only died for some sins and not others, what was the point? Jesus death on the cross was supposed to have paid this "ransom." Again, what's the point if Jesus only died for one set of sins and not all?

Also, there is also no need for Christians to do go deeds, because once you're saved, you're saved. And if good deeds are required, then Jesus' death becomes once again a conditional act. Why should it matter to god if my good deeds are done because I believe in Jesus or not? The only unforgivable sin is blaspheme against the holy spirit. Since the Bible makes this clear, then Jesus' death and his so-called redemption is a conditional exercise for which God died for himself. (Jesus is supposed to be God after all.) This being so, Jesus' death isn't redemptive.

Likewise with bad deeds. If Jesus did die for all sins, (even if we include blaspheme against the holy spirit) then what's to stop you from murdering like Sodini? What's to stop you from murdering scores and bombing buildings like Anders Behring Breivik? Jesus paid the "ransom" with his death and through the acceptance of people's sincere belief. Jesus' death on the cross gives people free reign to do whatever misdeeds they chose to do.

The doctrine of salvation becomes even more hopelessly incoherent when you stop to factor in the doctrine and belief in Hell. If Hell really exists to punish sinners and non-believers infinitely for finite crimes, then Jesus' death becomes once again conditional. He didn't die for all sins, in fact he didn't die for any. The injustice of infinite punishment invalidates any sort of "ransom" that Jesus was suppose to pay with his temporary "death."

So where does this leave the doctrine of salvation?

It leaves the doctrine hopelessly unintelligible and incoherent and no amount of twisting can harmonize the doctrine with reality.

Everlasting Life?

One of the great assets that religion has is its promise of everlasting life after death. Whether it is an eternity in hell or heaven, reincarnation, our lives (for the price of belief and submission to a system of subsequent beliefs) can be continued after death.

Notice, however, that everlasting life is granted only after you are dead.

Religion does not give you everlasting life, immortality, when you are still living. Why? Because it can not deliver.

If religion really had the power to grant you immortality, then it would do so, magically, in this existence and not some other. If god really has the power to grant you everlasting life, then it is conceivable that he could do so in this life and in not some other as it shouldn't be beyond his power.

If religion really could deliver everlasting life while you are still alive there would be no sense of loss, no fear over dying, and no graveyards.

Religion only promises to deliver immortality after you are dead where no amount of scientific measurement can be done. No amount of metric gathering can be done. No amount of verification can be done to assure one that life does indeed continue after death. And no evidence can be collected to prove there really is everlasting life after death.

Religion only promises immortality after you are dead because it exploits our fears of extinguishment and gaps in our knowledge. It is a promise built on ignorance and fear.

The promise of everlasting life is an empty promise.

Divisible, Under God

American Christians (usually of the right wing variety) love to cram the Pledge of Allegiance phrase, "Indivisible, Under God" down every American's throat.

But this is neither true, nor is it accurate.

How many different religions make the claim that they know the way to god?

How many different sects, and how many different denominations are there in one religion like Christianity? In Islam? In Judaism? In Hinduism? Not only do these religions make mutually exclusive claims about god, but they contradict themselves internally.

Christianity specifically divides people into "saved" and "not saved."

How much religious strife and war has the belief in god created? Terrorism? Or division among families and communities?

It should be the most obvious thing in the world, but humans are more divisible under god, than without.

We are all born atheist

We are all born atheist. This is a fact. If it wasn't for our parents, society, and tradition making up the concept of god then we would have no beliefs in the gods. As I write this, my daughter is 9 months old and she has (probably) has no beliefs. She certainly doesn't believe in god because she has not been taught these beliefs nor has she the maturity to learn such beliefs. Theistic belief is usually a matter location. If you are born in the west, you are probably Christian. If you are born in the east, you are probably Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim -- depending on the country.

I was taught to believe in god. I was never given much of choice in the matter. Luckily, my skepticism took hold and I was able to unlearn these erroneous beliefs.

Here's to reason and skepticism for making me the secular humanist, strong atheist that I am today.

Creationists believe in incest

Now I am willing to bet that pretty much all Christians will tell you that incest is morally wrong. Heck, if it wasn't for the righteous Lot (2 Peter 2:7-8) impregnating his daughters after the fall of Sodom and Gomorra the Bible would be pretty clear in its condemnation about incest. (Leviticus 18:6; 20:11; 20:12; 20:14.)

However, creationists literally believe that the first book of the Bible is a historical account and that the events described within actually happened. You know, God blew on some dust and made Adam the first human; took a rib from him and created the first woman as a companion; all people and all nations are descended from these two people. This means that creationists believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans and all of humanity is later descended from them. All people.

A leading creationist website, Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis, in response to a question from an apparent child states:

Olivia, let’s look at what the Bible says to find an answer. Our verse says that God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. In other words, they were supposed to start a family in the Garden. But the Bible also indicates that they had to leave before they had any children.

You see, the Bible tells us that all men are born with the sin of Adam. If Adam and Eve had started their family in the Garden, their children would not have been born in sin or affected by Adam’s sin. So, I think they may have been in the Garden only a few days before they sinned and God made them leave. 

When you believe the bible literally, then little questions like this become a big concern. It seems pretty clear that to AIG, Adam and Eve were the first parents, whether they had their children in "garden" or not. Notice how important it is to them that all children are impugned with original sin since Adam and Eve.

And then theres All About Creation.org, which asserts to us:

Adam and Eve were the first humans, according to the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian religions, and all humans have descended from them.

There's no doubt there. All humans are descended from Adam and Eve. Not that they were some of the first people. No, they were the first people and all humans are descended from them. You. Me. Everybody. All 6 billion of us on this planet.

This is a big problem for creationists like Ken Ham that they don't like to think about or address. In the mp3 clip "Adam of Eve - Parents of All People," Ham talks around the issue of incest. Instead, he begs evolutionary biology in making the case for Adam and Eve as the parents of all people.

It should be blaring apparent that if Adam and Eve were the only two people who started the human race, then the only people that are left to breed with are sons and daughters since there would have been no other people around to breed with. This means that Adam must have had sex with his daughters, Eve must have sex with her sons, and that sons and daughters had sex with brothers and sisters to have had children to propagate the species. It's so painfully obvious that it doesn't take science to disprove this very notion, just applied reason.

And we know what interbreeding in families does to populations and persons, don't we?

Whether they admit it or not, creationists must believe in incest since they believe that Adam and Eve were historical figures and that all of humanity is descended from them.

This is why belief in the Genesis myth is ridiculous.

The "Gotcha" Moment

A few years back, three older women came to my door to preach the gospel to me. I lived in a neighborhood of Milwaukee that had several churches just blocks away. One close-by church was Catholic and one was Lutheran, and there were several other Protestant denominations nearby too.

I went to the door and the oldest of the three ladies invited me to their church as she attempted to hand me something.

Not wanting to waste too much time with these people, who came uninvited to proselytize at my door, I said to them, "No thanks. You believe in talking snakes."

This screwed up the faces of two of the younger ladies who knew they weren't going to pull any bullshit on me, but the oldest one was undeterred. She quickly asked if I knew what ventriloquism was. Even she could sense the ridiculousness of her beliefs and she attempted to offer a naturalistic explanation of a "talking snake" to me standing at the door.

Likewise, undeterred, I said "You have no biblical justification for that." Dismissing her I said curtly "Thanks for stopping by" and closed the door on them. I wanted them to know that their invasion into my privacy was not welcomed and their superstition was unwelcomed too. What is it with some Christians who think that their proselytizing is welcome? They do this to me too on Facebook.

The Genesis account of Adam and Eve and the serpent is foundational to Christian beliefs because without original sin, there can be no doctrine of atonement and no need for Jesus Christ. Most Christians, especially if they are literalists, actually believe in a talking snake and magic fruit.

My gotcha moment exposed the ridiculousness of their religion and they knew it.

---

This incident occurred before Bill Maher's movie Religulous.