koller@freethinker.org
Germantown, Maryland
The Blasphemy of Revealed Religion
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall." - Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason"
There was at least one unfortunate victim during the rise of Naturalism,
namely Deism. Among other things, Deism was one of the truly useful weapons
to put revealed religion adherents on the defensive. So few believers are
impressed with evidence and facts. So few care to investigate and inquire
as to the validity of their faith. But the statements made by proponents
of Deism were palpable to the believer, speaking in a familiar religious
lingo.
Thomas Paine was a master at this. He put revealed religion in general,
and Christianity in particular, on the defensive like no one else ever
has. He put the Christians in the awkward position of blaspheming the Creator
of the universe. Christianity, along with all other revealed religions,
past, present, and future, are put in their proper place of human inventions.
They are mere creations of humankind and do nothing to enlighten humankind
on the nature and attributes of the Almighty.
Paine states that it is only Creation which is constant and unchanging
and is therefore the only true source of knowledge of the Creator. All
other "methods" are mere futile human attempts to personify and unjustifiably
expound upon the nature of the Almighty. These personifications and expositions
are subject to the whims and cultures of humankind, whereas Creation is
independent and impervious to such things. Creation (our natural world)
cannot be maligned or construed by man for his own purposes. Creation speaks
for itself.
In his "Age of Reason", Paine defended the Almighty against the assaults,
arrogance, and blasphemy of religionists. His words are sharp and decidedly
unabashed. The religionist cannot escape Paine's accusations and must defend
their continual insistence on blaspheming the Creator. Since I cannot even
begin to do this with the eloquence that Paine did, I devote the rest of
this essay to some of Paine's words concerning organized and revealed religion.
(see also my blurb on Paine's
Public Profession)
"Revelation then, so far as the term has relation between God and man,
can only be applied to something which God reveals of his will to man;
but though the power of the Almighty to make such a communication is necessarily
admitted, because to that power all things are possible, yet the thing
so revealed (if anything ever was revealed, and which, bye the bye, it
is impossible to prove), is revelation to the person only to whom it is
made. His account of it to another person is not revelation; and whoever
puts faith in that account, puts it in the man from whom the account comes;
and that man may have been deceived, or may have dreamed it, or he may
be an impostor and may lie. There is no possible criterion whereby to judge
of the truth of what he tells, for even the morality of it would be no
proof of revelation. In all such cases the proper answer would be, 'When
it is revealed to me, I will believe it to be a revelation; but it is not,
and cannot be incumbent upon me to believe it to be revelation before;
neither is it proper that I should take the word of a man as the word of
God, and put man in the place of God.'"
"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication,
if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has
been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person,
it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person,
a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a
revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only,
and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe
it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation
that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation
is necessarily limited to the first communication - after this, it is only
an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to
him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be
incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation
made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
"All the corruptions that have taken place in theology and in religion,
have been produced by admitting of what man calls revealed religion. The
Mythologists pretended to more revealed religion than the Christians do.
They had their oracles and their priests, who were supposed to receive
and deliver the word of God verbally, on almost all occasions.
Since, then, all corruptions, down from Moloch to modern predestinarianism,
and the human sacrifices of the heathens to the Christian sacrifice of
the Creator, have been produced by admitting of what is called revealed
religion, the most effectual means to prevent all such evils and impositions
is not to admit of any other revelation than that which is manifested in
the book of creation, and to contemplate the creation as the only true
and real word of God that ever did or ever will exist; and that everything
else, called the word of God, is fable and imposition."
"But though every created thing is, in this sense, a mystery, the word
mystery cannot be applied to moral truth, any more than obscurity can be
applied to light. ... Mystery is the antagonist of truth. It is a fog of
human invention, that obscures truth, and represents it in distortion.
Truth never envelops itself in mystery, and the mystery in which it is
at any time enveloped is the work of its antagonist, and never of itself."
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst;
every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but
this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity."
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more
derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to
reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."
"The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject,
the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the
errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists
and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are
of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in
print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God. The Word of God exists
in something else."
"When I see throughout this book, called the Bible, a history of the grossest
vices and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible tales and stories,
I could not so dishonor my Creator by calling it by His name."
"What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is
it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed
debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery
is called faith."
"It is far better that we admitted a thousand devils to roam at large than
that we permitted one such impostor and monster as Moses, Joshua, Samuel,
and the Bible prophets, to come with the pretended word of God and have
credit among us."
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the
cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which
more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we
call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness
that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely
detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."
"As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of
God. It is a book of lies and contradictions, and a history of bad times
and bad men. There are but a few good characters in the whole book." [Letter
to William Duane, April 23, 1806]
Michael
Koller
koller@freethinker.org
Germantown,
Maryland
|
Mainstream Americans must take a more proactive posture! In community after community we are seeing the Religious Right seize the floor and set the public agenda. Meanwhile, we are stunned regarding what the general public can be lead to believe about public schools, libraries, Planned Parenthood, Public Broadcasting, mainline churches, the US Constitution, etc. We must retake the floor, set the public agenda and argue from our strengths. The following suggestions have all been effective in countering the Religious Right in local communities across America. |
First -- Organize a "Letters to the Editor" committee with regular meetings.
Examine your local newspapers for stories that mention or promote Religious
Right themes and issues. (Keep a file of clippings. Today's letter writer
is tomorrow's Religious Right candidate). At your meetings, practice writing
short "Letters to the Editor," rebutting Religious Right points of view.
Then, send the best letters.
Editors are usually flooded with shrill extremist letters. Often they have no letters from the more "high minded" moderate elements in the community. Write in an attempt to remind average citizens what American values really are, and how the Religious Right actually undermines our traditional American values. |
|
Make a list of local ministers, Rabbis, business people, and others known
for their moderate/liberal cast of mind. Have committee members solicit
them to write "Letters to the Editor," rebutting Religious Right propaganda.
The Letters to the Editor column in your local newspaper can be used as
a free advertisement for tolerance, the social value of pluralism, church-state
separation, and freedom of conscience. Use it regularly to get the message
out.
Second -- A Religious Right meeting, in full swing, is not an attractive sight to most Americans. One of the best ways to educate others is simply to take them to a local Religious Right meeting. When I first objected to the Christian Coalition in my community, some of my parishioners asked, "How could Christians being involved in politics be |
bad?"
Since no amount of explanation could express what I already knew, I said,
"I trust your good sense. Come to the next Christian Coalition meeting
with me. Make your own judgment." They did. After the meeting, they were
all stunned. Their common reaction was, "We certainly do not want
those people speaking for us!"
Third---A good way to put the Religious Right on the defensive in an upcoming local election is to survey the candidates in local races--especially school board races. Asking questions "out loud" that have only been whispered in private can have a dramatic effect. For an election in Lake County, Ohio, I formed a citizen's group we named "Citizens for Political Responsibility (CPR)." We then compiled a list of survey questions specifically worded to reveal Religious Right sympathies of candidates. |
| We mailed
each candidate a survey and followed up with a phone call.
Simultaneously, we faxed a copy of the survey to all local news media and
followed that up with phone calls. The stir caused by asking the
questions in such a public way focused attention on the background of several
Religious Right candidates. Clearly, we caught them off guard. All lost
in close races. To obtain questions suitable for such a survey,
see the "Freedom Writer" web site at: http://www.ifas.org
or e-mail at: IFAS@Birkshire.net.
Care should be taken to check with your local Board of Elections regarding the proper registration of a committee that plans to be active in an upcoming election. Fourth--One of the best ways to expose Religious Right radicalism to a community is to get their leadership |
before a general public audience in a predetermined debate format. Challenge your most obvious Religious Right leader to a public debate moderated by the League of Women Voters. Usually this Religious Right leader will be the local county or state chair of the Christian Coalition. If possible, make the challenge during a local Christian Coalition meeting. Beforehand, quietly make sure the local press will be present. The challenge should be drawn up as a formal debate challenge with a stated "proposition" for debate. I have used, "Resolved: that the Christian Coalition (or religious Right) is a divisive force within the American political and religious community." Since you may have to negotiate your resolution, start with a strong one! |
|
For maximum effect, make the challenge in September or October of an election
year. You will have Religious Right leadership spending valuable pre-November
time either trying to dismiss your debate challenge or preparing for it.
If they refuse to debate, simply ask, "How can the same people who claim
a desire to be a part of the public debate - refuse to debate in public?
Exactly what are they afraid the public will discover?" If debating the
Religious Right appeals to you and you would like to discuss the details,
I can be reached at watkinsjw@juno.com.
Lastly--My web site, "Mainstream Opinion," contains short readable editorials |
specifically
written to rebut Religious Right propaganda. The editorials are regularly
updated and indexed by title. Anyone may download an editorial and submit
it by fax to the opinion page editor of their local newspaper. New editorials
are regularly added. If you are looking for a way to fight the Religious
Right, log on at: http://www.mainstreamop.org.
Rev. James W. Watkins Editor's Note: Rev. James W. Watkins has been pastor of Old South Church, United Church of Christ, Kirtland, OH, since November of 1993. Over a 28-year ministerial career, Rev. Watkins has been pastor of six churches. In addition to his pastoral work, Rev. Watkins is an author, educator, and community activist. |
Politics makes strange bedfellows -- and, so it seems, does the never-ending struggle for the continued separation of church & state.
Jim Cox
AAW
President
|
|
|
|
|