[recycled post - first appeared here]
Some people argue that religion has done bad things, and then fail to acknowledge any good. Other people claim that religion does good things, and then either ignore the bad or attribute it to political, economic, or other factors. Neither group is acting fairly. And both are at least partly mistaken.
Consider this country’s civil rights movement. It is claimed that religion helped push progress along. And although it is true that church groups marched, and from numerous pulpits the message for change was broadcast, Christianity — our nation’s dominant religion — had nothing to do with it. Why? Because groups such as the Ku Klux Klan used their own version of Christianity and Bible passages to resist the very same progress.
Apologists might insist that the KKK distorted the real message of Jesus, while those in favor of civil rights had the correct understanding. The real message? Certainly the historical figure of Jesus made a number of pro-social statements about loving thy neighbor and honoring the meek. But equally essential components of his teaching included the exhortation that judgment, justice and reward awaited in the afterlife, that people must acknowledge his divinity and follow him or hellfire awaited, and that individuals were either for him or against him. Furthermore, there are at least half a dozen verses in the New Testament that unambiguously support inequality (i.e., 1 Peter 2:18 — Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.)
Would you say that the person who inspired those ideas was suited to lead an important social movement today? I wouldn’t.
What is true Christianity? This is a nearly absurd question. Both Jesus and Christianity are largely what have been made of them. An honest reading of the Bible, extra-canonical gospels, and scholarly works about the origin and evolution of the early Christian churches makes that eminently clear.
It wasn’t Christianity itself — the religion — that played a pivotal role in the civil rights movement. Rather, it was the set of values that individuals and groups held and acted upon. Jewish and Buddhist individuals and groups also protested and marched, as did countless other uncategorized people. To understand what was really at work, we must look beyond labels.
Christian ideology employs a carrot and a stick to influence behavior. The carrot — a life everlasting in heaven; the stick — eternal torment in a fiery pit called hell.
According to the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg and his theory of moral development, the desire to obtain reward and/or avoid punishment represents the first level of morality, the lowest of six.
The child who refrains from hitting his sister simply because he does not want to get punished by mom or dad is exhibiting basement level moral reasoning. At a higher level, say #4, in which actions reflect social concern and conscience, it wouldn’t matter if the boy got caught or not: he would refrain from hitting his sister not because he feared punishment or anticipated reward, he would do it for more self-less reasons including concern for his sister’s happiness.
Given that no statistically significant differences in “upright” behavior has been found between the theist and the atheist (rate of divorce, assault, theft, etc., and controlling for educational achievement and income), couldn’t it be argued that by lacking a belief in a post-mortem benefits/punishment package, the atheist’s good behavior reflects a higher level of development, at least cognitively, than those who believe in heaven and hell?
Do the Bible and Christianity, by emphasizing afterlife consequences, infantilize our thinking about right and wrong?
Mary, now she’s infallible. Well, at least the plastic kind. Or the kind in millennia-old stories.
Perfection. Such a beautiful idea. If not a tad boring.
But when applied to the real people — ridiculous.
Mary was perfect because she was so close to her god. She did have his child, after all. Now that’s close.
The Pope, we are told, is infallible. And why wouldn’t he be. He’s close to his god, too. But not in that way. I don’t think. Surely bathing in all that spirituality gives one the moral strength to always do the right thing. Right?
Maybe not. Maybe that’s all just hokum. You think?
Speaking of the Pope, I love this from the Onion “News in Photos”:
