www.freethoughtperspective.net

BERNARD KATZ

Recently, the New York Times had an article about the intolerant record of our American history without much of an explanation as to why. It is important to recognize that one important reason for this attitude and behavior is the great influence of the Bible. Since our country was breast-fed on scripture, many of us have found that its milk has soured our culture. The following is a brief sampling of many of those very negative, obnoxious, undemocratic and unacceptable influences.

1). Pro-slavery and anti-black: Genesis 9:18-27; Exodus chapter 21; Titus 2:9-10; Timothy 6:1-6

2). Anti-feminine: Leviticus 27:1-6; Deuteronomy 5:21; 1 Corinthian 11:3, 7-9

3). Anti-Semitic: John 5:16-18, 7:1, 8:44

4). Anti-intellectual: Ecclesiastes 6:8; 1 Corinthians 2:1-2, 3:18-19, 4:10

5). Anti-democratic: John 3:18, 36; Acts 5:29; Romans 13:1-2; 1 John 5:12

6). Anti-animal: Leviticus 7:1-7; Matthew 5:23-24, 26:17-28; John chapter 19

7). Anti-abortion: Exodus 21:22-25 (according to Christian fundamentalists)

8). Anti-capitalistic and pro-communistic: Acts 2:44-45, 4:34-37

9). Anti-divorce: Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9

10). Anti-gambling: Joshua 14:2, 21:8; Numbers 26-52; Proverbs 16:33; Galatians 5:16-21

11). Anti-homosexual: Leviticus 18:22, 21:8; Romans 1:26-27

12). Anti-ecumenism: Judges 19:12; Nehemiah 13:3, 9:2; Isaiah 1:7; Matthew 10:5; Luke 10:10-16

13). Pro-war: Exodus 15:3; Luke 21:10; Revelation 12:7, 19:11, 19

14. Pro-genocide: Exodus 34:11-14; Leviticus 26:7-9, Revelation 6:8

Ernestine Rose aptly summarizes our response to the terrible effects of religion by saying: “It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists and were religion not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so.”

BERNARD KATZ

No doubt this will come as a shock, but not only is mythology the substance of religion it is also the distant foundation of modern physics!

The most obvious aspect of such a connection lies in the fact that most of the basic concepts of physics, such as space, time, matter, energy, field, particle, etc., were originally intuitive, mythological ideas of the old Greek and other ancient philosophers—ideas that then slowly evolved and became more accurate and that today are mainly expressed in abstract mathematical terms.

The idea of a particle, for instance, was formulated by the fourth-century B.C.E. Greek philosopher Leucippus and his pupil Democritus, who called it the “atom,” that is, the “indivisible unit.” Epicurus (341-270) BCE), for example, concluded that the gods have a real existence, but as images or shades of a peculiar kind of extremely fine atoms. Many of the ancients, as well as our enlightened Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, also thought so. Though the atom has not proved indivisible, we still conceive of the atom as the springboard that led to the new physics of quantum mechanics.

Another example: consider the soul. Primitive conceptions divided the soul into two parts, one called the “bound soul.” This was imagined as the vital principle of various internal organs. The other was called the “Breath Soul.” The evidence for the idea of soul and breath is a familiar one, coming from the Greek “psyche” and the Hebrew “nephesh,” the German “Geist,” and the English “ghost,” and “spirit.”

The fact that all these words originally meant simply “breath” also indicates that the mythological “spirit” was the primary idea of the two.

There are at least two reasons for these ideas because they did not all originate in the idea of breath, but in a still deeper one, namely, in that of intestinal gas. Connections can be made between the idea of intestinal gas and the conception of the Breath-Soul.

Confining ourselves solely to Hindu and Greek philosophy, and first describing the Hindu, we note the following beliefs and statements in the Upanishads alone. Prana (breath) is identified on the one hand with Brahman, the Supreme Being, and on the other with Atman, the primary essence of the Universe. Here’s the description: From Atman came the Other, from this the wind, from this the fire, from this the water, and from water, came earth. Thus the four primary elements are expressed in terms of a gas. It is unnecessary to cite any further examples, but it may be said that by far the greater part of this whole literature is taken up with this theme, the ideas of breath, wind, and so on, being described in the most exalted spiritual/mythological language imaginable.

If we turn to Greece we find that the same group of ideas forms a central starting point for a great part of the views on philosophy, medicine and psychology. Many of the earlier monists, including Anaximenes, posited air as the basic and thus the most important element. Thus the continued existence of the world was explained by a process of cosmic respiration.

Let’s take another example of how mythology has mothered science—that of calendar making. Whereas the computation of lunar periods required only man’s ability to count the nights of the moon on his ten fingers, the needs of agriculture made it necessary to reckon time in much longer periods. Both the development of agriculture and the use of solar time were, therefore, dependent upon, and perhaps coincident with, man’s learning to count the days in a whole year.

Knowledge of the 365-day solar year appears in the very oldest Egyptian records and seems to have been the basis of the calendar used by the Egyptians as early as 4000 or 5000 BCE. To the end of a 360-day zodiacal year they added 5 intercalary days that were celebrated as the birthdays of the gods Osiris, Isis, Horus, Typhon, and Nephthys. In the seventh century BCE, Thales, the first of the Greek philosophers, brought that knowledge of the 365-day year to Greece.

The idea of energy, and its relationship to force and movement, was also formulated by early Greek thinkers, and was developed by Stoic philosophers. They postulated the existence of a sort of life-giving “tension” which supports and moves all things. This is obviously a semi-mythological germ of our modern concept of energy.

Even comparatively modern scientists and thinkers have relied on half-mythological images when building up new concepts. In the 17th-century, for instance, the absolute validity of the law of causality seemed “proved” to Renes Descartes, “by the fact that God is immutable in His decisions and actions.” And the great German astronomer Johannes Kepler asserted that there are not more and not less than three dimensions of space on account of the Trinity. He also asserted that the planets were swept along in their paths by angels with brooms!

The 18th-century German mathematician Karl Eriedrich Gauss gives an example of an experience much like those of the prophets of Israel and the prophet Jesus who called it a revelation from God. He says that he found a certain rule in the theory of numbers “not by painstaking research, but by the Grace of God, so to speak. The riddle solved itself as lightning strikes, and I myself could not tell or show the connection between what I knew before, what I last used to experiment with, and what produced the final success.”

These are just a few examples among many that show how even our more modern and basic scientific concepts remained for a long time linked with the mythology of ancient man.

As it is known today, science is of recent origin. But the traditions and mythology out of which it emerged reach back beyond recorded history. Belief in the ability of gods and demons to transform themselves into birds and animals, to defy the laws of gravity, to change their stature from minute to gigantic proportions, to make themselves invisible, or to perform any other feat that man can conceive, is the oldest and most primitive product of man’s effort to think about the ways of the world in which he lives. This presumed ability of the gods constituted a magic formula which enabled mystic priests to provide a solution for any imaginable problem as easily as a magician takes rabbits out of a hat. Once the belief in this supernatural power found its way into the cultures of the early peoples, their ability to tell the difference between fact and fancy, possibility and impossibility, was impaired and they became susceptible to belief in all kinds of superstitions, myths, magic, and miracles.

Yet, in spite of all the supernatural explanations provided for all earthly or heavenly phenomena and the little incentive that remained for seeking their true scientific explanation, mankind’s mythology managed to provide the seed from which science eventually grew.

It took long centuries of torturous effort, secrecy, great courage and self-sacrifice to achieve the break away from out-and-out mythology. Early Greek/Hellenistic culture began a different approach to science. We moderns have to thank the Ionian natural philosophers especially, for they removed the gods and goddesses from the personal roles they had played in the cosmologies of Babylonia and Egypt and looked to order the world according to natural principles.

WILLIAM HARWOOD

“This meeting of the Republican Election Strategy Committee will now come to order. First order of business: How do we win back a majority in Congress when the Democratic president keeps putting forth legislation that even Republican voters recognize as good for America?”

“That’s easy. We don’t let his proposals pass.”

“Really? And how do we stop them, when the Democrats have a majority in both houses?”

“Simple. We don’t let any Obama proposal come to a yes-no vote that he could conceivably win.”

“Are you saying we should filibuster everything, so that no proposal by the Democrats is ever allowed to pass? And how do we justify such a tactic come election time?”

“We won’t have to justify it. Keep in mind that these are the same mental catamites that grabbed their ankles and let it happen when the Supreme Court overthrew the Constitution in order to appoint the loser of the 2000 election President. We campaign on the premise that having Obama in charge was like having no Congress at all. It was his watch, and he brought us to the brink of a new Great Depression. So throw him out and elect a Republican majority that will fix the economy, instead of sitting on its collective arse as the Democrats have done.”

“The economy is the big issue, certainly. But how do we respond when the Democrats point out that Bush transformed Clinton’s budget surplus into a trillion-dollar deficit, and brought on the recession with his tax cuts for the super-rich?”

“No problem. When the Democrats argue that it was Bush who screwed the economy in the first place, we smirk and say something like, ‘If it was Bush’s fault, why hasn’t Obama fixed it? He’s had plenty of time.’ We blame Obama for everything.”

“What about the accusation that the Democratic majority in Congress couldn’t achieve anything because Republican filibusters prevented their legislation from being voted on? How do we answer that?”

“We won’t have to. We keep repeating over and over that the Democrats did nothing, and if they retain their majorities they’ll go on doing nothing.”

“What do we say about the arguments that got Obama elected in the first place? Rolling Stone called Bush the worst president America has ever had, and polls indicate that a high percentage agree.”

“We find a spokesperson to call Obama the worst president America has ever had. Maybe that idiot Dan Quayle can be conned into saying something of the sort? Or if not him, then his son, who is currently a senatorial candidate?”

“And what of the widespread comparisons of Gee Duyba with Hitler, who similarly started a war of personal aggrandizement?”

“We find a few lunatic fringers willing to compare Obama with Hitler. In a nation full of Becks, Limbaughs, and Palins, fruitcakes willing to parrot whatever guano we spill onto the floor of their cages shouldn’t be hard to find. And we don’t openly endorse their verbal diarrhea. We simply ignore it—after making sure it gets the maximum possible coverage.”

“In other words we lie?”

“Not just lie. The Big Lie. Repeated over and over, a Big Lie becomes truth, at least in the minds of the mindless masses. It was  the Willie Horton lie that got Dukakis beaten by Daddy Bush. It was Junior Bush’s Big Lie that he was not a liar that enabled him to beat John McCain for the Republican nomination in 2000, and the Supreme Court’s Big Lie that a recount would not change the result that enabled them to appoint their own party-liner president. The Big Lie has always worked for the Republican Party, and the Big Lie that Obama’s refusal to compromise was the reason his proposals failed will work this time.”

“And what if his proposals for universal health care and extension of unemployment benefits manage to get passed? What do we do then?”

“No problem. We redefine everything he does so that it comes out as a disaster. We call health care, ‘Obamacare,’ and compare it with the health care systems in Canada and Europe.”

“But those systems work fine.”

“The masses don’t know that. We tell them that Canadians with serious health problems have to come to America for treatment, and find an example of a single Canadian who did so, and we can convince the great unwashed that the ninety-nine percent of Canadians for whom the system works don’t count. Health care for everyone is un-American. Same with unemployment benefits. We claim that the unemployed are lazy bums who refuse to work, and call feeding them ‘socialism’ which we compare with Stalin’s Soviet Socialist Republic and Hitler’s National Socialist Party.”

“Hitler fed the unemployed, so feeding the unemployed must be a bad thing?”

“Precisely. But we can take a lesson from a different Hitler policy. He came to power by giving the Germans someone to hate. We give conservatives someone to hate, by goading Democrats into supporting liberal causes such as a woman’s right to choose abortions, atheists’ right to equality under the law, the right of gays to marry members of their own sex, and the right of Muslims, whom we equate with terrorists, to practice their religion under the noses of god-fearing Christians. We even find some Manchurian Candidates willing to accuse Obama of being a Muslim. And when the media ask if we personally believe he’s a Muslim, we don’t mention that  he’s as godphuqt a Christian as any Republicanazi. Instead, we answer that we are willing to take his word that he is not, as if his word is the only evidence there is. As a political strategy, hate works. Try it and see.”

Will the combination of the Big Lie and organized hate work? Will the Party of No successfully lie itself into a majority in the House of Representatives in 2010? If it does, the brain amputees who let it happen will have no one to blame but themselves. And they can be very sure that, having been rewarded for lying, the Big Liars will use the same strategy to regain the Senate and the Presidency in 2012. America could find itself looking back on the theofascist tyranny of Bush Junior, when even mainstream Republicans viewed extremists like Faux News, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party as raving mad dogs, as the good old days.

FROM WILLIAM HARWOOD

(RECOVERED JESUS ADDICT)

Sir,

The reason you are unable to see Islam as an evil, insane, hate-filled, sado-masochistic, genocidal, anti-human perversion, is that you refuse to recognize RELIGION as an evil, insane, hate-filled, sado-masochistic, genocidal, anti-human perversion.

Try reading a Tanakh, Bible or Koran sometime. If you do not recognize them as the most obscene paeans to evil ever written, with Mein Kampf not even a close contender, and the characters transcribed as God, Yahweh, and Allah as the most sadistic, evil, mass-murdering psychopaths in all fiction, it is because there are none so blind as those who will not see.

As Isaac Asimov accurately observed, “Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”

A. J. MATTILL, Jr.

According to Psalm 19:7, “the law of the Lord is perfect” (King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Contemporary English Version, New International Version). In other words, the law of the Lord is inerrant, without a flaw.

Consider these “perfect laws of the Lord”:

1). “You shall circumcise every baby boy when he is eight days old” (Genesis 17:12). 2). “You shall execute parent-cursers” (Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9; Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10. 3). “You shall not permit a witch to live” (Exodus 22:18) 4). “You shall stone to death anyone who worships other gods” (Deuteronomy 17:2-7). 5). “You shall kill the men in a far-off town the Lord helps you to capture, and take the women and children as slaves, and keep the livestock and everything else of value” (Deuteronomy 20:10-15).

6). “You shall stone to death at the door of her father’s house a bride who was not a virgin” (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). 7.) “You shall whip with no more than forty lashes a culprit the judges in court decide deserves a beating” (Deuteronomy 25:1-3). 8). “You shall cut off the hand of any woman who grabs the private parts of a man fighting her husband” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12). 9). “You shall not withhold correction from children, for if you beat them with a rod, they will not die” (Proverbs 23:13). 10). “You shall poke out your eye and cut off your hand and foot, if they cause you to sin, and throw them away” (Matthew 5:29-30; 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-48).

People whose lives are governed by reverence for truth, for beauty, for life, and for mystery will note at once that these ten “perfect laws” are anything but perfect. But how about the Golden Rule?: “Whatsoever you would that others should do unto you, do you also unto them” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31). But when you look critically at the Golden Rule we must conclude that it falls far short of being “a perfect law.”  The Golden Rule would approach perfection if it were modified as follows: “Do to others what you would want them to do to you if you had their taste; if you had their mood; if you had their nature; if you had their temperament; and if common sense requires you to do so.”

Conclusion. If we have found only one imperfect law of the Lord in the Bible, we have made our case: “The law of the Lord” is not perfect.

BERNARD KATZ

Lately, I’ve been verbally assaulted by some clergymen. They say that as an atheist I have a closed mind—and am in the same classification as the onerous close-minded Christian fundamentalists. Instead of closing my mind to the claims of religion I should do what scientists do: keep an open mind.

This advice needs a reality check. For it is based upon a ridiculous understanding of what science does as well as what happens in fields other than science. There are literally thousands of things, ideas, philosophies and even religions that are no longer accepted as part of the corpus of educated and well-informed people.

Let me toss out some of the major or well-known things and ideas we no longer accept—things and ideas on which we no longer waste our time, energy and assets, things for which we are justified in having closed minds.

An easy proof of what I am saying is simply to check the table of contents of any book about the paranormal or hoaxes. I have in front of me two such easily attained books: Gordon Stein’s Encyclopedia of Hoaxes and the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience edited by William F. Williams. I’m going to present some general categories and their specifics about which we no longer have open minds.

1). Archaeology: Our minds are closed to ancient astronauts populating the earth, the Piltdown man, King Tut’s curse and the pyramids.

2). Disappearance’s: We no longer accept the “mystery” of the Bermuda (or Devil’s) Triangle.

3). Earth theories: Who suspends judgment about whether the earth is flat—or even hollow?

4). Historical: The Donation of Constantine and the False Decretals are no longer valid. We now have closed minds to Nostradamus’s predictions.

5). Inventions: Who now believes in perpetual motion machines and anti-gravity devices or the “ether” that was supposed to fill all space beyond the moon?

6). Medicine: What enlightened person now accepts Biorhythms, “Goat gland” therapy or psychic surgery?

7). Photography: Remember the Cottinger fairies, Kirlian photography or spirit photography? Is there any one broad-minded enough to buy into these?

8). Psychology: Is there any reason to keep our minds open to Clever Hans the horse that allegedly could count, reflexology, Bridey Murphy and her past lives brought to the surface through hypnotism, “out-of-body” and “near-death experiences,” channeling, and “koro”—a condition in which males believe that their penises are shrinking and disappearing inside their abdomens?

9). Science: Big Foot, Crop Circles, astrology, levitation, extra-sensory perception, crystal gazing, pyramid power, metal bending, the Jersey Devil, “Scientific Creationism”and its latest version, the “Intelligent Designer,” the “young-earth theory, UFO’s, plants supposedly have feelings, mermaids and mermen, unicorns and dragons. Are we to overlook these aberrations in order to be open-minded?

And lastly,

10) Religion: This includes but by all means is restricted to faith healing, divination. Noah’s ark, Mother Shipton’s prophecies, Jesse’s prophecies, Joseph Smith’s “golden tablets,” Christian Science, Scientology, Pope Joan, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Shroud of Turin, and many other relics, the Bible as the Word of God, the existence of God and Satan (or the Devil), the reality of angels and demons, witches and warlocks, and heaven and hell. How can you do other than to close your mind to such unwarranted claims?

Although the results of science are tentative and not dogmatic, they are based on evidence, not authority or intuition.

One very important exception to this concept of close-mindedness is religion. It is schizophrenic. On the one hand it demands a rigid adherence to what it considers God’s Word or to the authority who so interprets those revelations. Yet on the other hand it can not agree upon dogmas, the number of gods and goddesses, the quantity and kind of lesser spirits, the kinds and content of rituals and holidays, the contents of their so-called holy books, the authorities that are to be followed. The vast number of denominations, sects, and individuals who simply cannot agree demonstrates open-mindedness with a vengeance. Believing in such subjective and intuitive anarchism is a form of madness.

In view of the above, you don’t have to be a cannibal to get fed up with people who insist that we always should have an open mind!

BERNARD KATZ

Some of the best arguments supporting the rationalist positions come from our opponents. Kierkegaard agreed with the early church apologist Tertullian that from the standpoint of human reason the Christian gospel is impossible. Many foes of Christianity would be more than happy to endorse this attitude. But to most Christian apologists it does indeed sound strange that defenders of the gospel should not only concede but insist upon the self-contradictory character of the Christian message. What is the basis these irrationalists use to support their radical strategy?

First of all, they find such self-contradictions (euphemistically called “paradoxes”), in the New Testament itself. Jesus, they point out, spoke in paradoxes. “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39).

In such declarations, Jesus makes no effort to appeal to our reason, much less try to establish them on rational grounds. Like the aphorisms of Zen, these sayings purposely affront human reason. They are Jesus’ attempt to break man away from his rational thought processes and to return him to the more primitive levels of response. His paradoxes make sense to him because he was convinced that “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

The apostle Paul also cries defiantly: “The Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Cor. 1:22-23). Paul is not the only one for whom paradox is acceptable. Here’s Paul speaking for the entire Christian community: “We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing everything” (2 Cor. 6:8-10). Such an eloquent string of paradoxes is to applaud, but as rhetoric not reason.

Secondly, these radical irrationalists argue that such a passage as quoted above demonstrates that the early Christians, following the generation of the original disciples and Paul, well knew that the gospel was an irresolvable paradox, that it was not to be systematized but declared. They did not defend it with philosophical arguments but defended themselves by declaring it to be the word of God. They did not call on men to judge them true or false, for only God was worthy to judge the truth of their testimony.

It was only later that men began to fortify their doubts about the gospel by reinforcing it with Greek philosophy. But in doing so, they changed the whole character of the message from the revealed word of God to a human philosophy facing various rivals and seeking the approving judgments of human reason.

Lastly, these Christian radicals insist that the character of the gospel itself demonstrates its irrational nature. Here is the gist, from their point of view, of the major paradox. On the one side, they point out that God and man are wholly other. What has God, who was in the beginning, who was before the earth and heavens, in common with a being born only yesterday? What similarity can be found between the God who alone gave his eternal law, is perfectly righteous, infallible,  omnipresent, omnipotent, and his sinful, devilish, frail, and puny subjects on earth? Isaiah emphasizes by having God say: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my way” (55:8).

The opposing side of the paradox, they demonstrate, is a gospel which is all based on God’s having become man and having lived on earth as a helpless babe, a despised man, a man persecuted, spat upon and killed by other men. The eternal  God crucified? The immortal Creator dying and laid in a sepulcher? A dead God resurrected to the flesh and eating a meal of fried fish? That’s the gospel story.

Nor is it merely alleged that God appeared to be a man and seemed to die. That is not the gospel! Only the heretical docetists and other Gnostics thought that! Rather, say the radicals, He who would never deceive his children actually became man and truly died for their redemption.

Self-contradictory? Absurd? Impossible? Of course. The radical irrationalists concede all of this.

When Jesus was asked which was the great commandment in the law, he took his text from Deuteronomy 6:5 “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). If Jesus and his followers had only paid more attention to the latter part of the commandment—”and with all your mind”—then these radical Christian apologists would not insult us further by adding to their own support to the irrationalities that beset us.

STEPHEN VAN ECK

Is there anyone who isn’t familiar with Jack T. Chick? His distinctive cartoon tracts have been littering the world for several decades. Chick is a devout proponent of the “Scare the Hell” style of Evangelism, a style we all know well. But on top of that, he has endeavored to spread the most bizarre form of anti-Catholicism. Now as bad as the Catholic Church has been through the centuries, it’s unfair to accuse it of being supernaturally evil, since it isn’t supernatural at all. And since Chick’s tableau is so grossly at odds with reality, respect for truth compels me to defend the dubious honor of the Church against Chick’s deranged calumny.

In both small tracts and full-length comic books, Chick has peddled the following tale: Three generations after Noah, who traditionally lived in the 24th century BCE, Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-10) became the world’s first king. That, and the legend that he was a mighty hunter, is all the Bible says about him. Chick embellishes this scant mention by adding that he concocted the “evil” Babylonian religion. And he married a witch named Semiramis. Nimrod, as the story goes, made his wife the “Queen of Heaven” in the evil new protofaith, which then takes a nifty detour through Egyptology.

Here’s where it gets paranoid. According to Chick, Catholicism is a Satanic conspiracy to contaminate pure Christianity (Fundamentalist Protestantism, of course) with Babylonian religion, in order to lead humanity astray—all the way to Hell! The Catholic Church making Mary the “Queen of Heaven”, a title originally adhering to Isis, is the principal evidence he has to substantiate his tale.

There’s no doubt that Chick believes this nonsense. And it is indeed nonsense, not the slightest bit Scriptural, let alone historical.

Here are the facts:

Serious Bible scholars, of which Chick is not one, mostly concur that Nimrod in the Bible is an anachronistic reference to Tukulti-Ninurta I, king of Assyria—not Babylon. (The mangling of his name from Ninurt-to Nimrod in Hebrew is far from the most egregious example of such.) His being a legendary hunter is a reflection of the fact that Assyrian kings were often depicted in hunting mode. Ninurta’s rule began in 1235 BCE, so Chick’s time frame is way off. Babylonian religion, rather than being invented by Ninurta, predates him by almost a millennium.

Now what about Semiramis? Not only wasn’t she Babylonian, either, but she lived in the 9th century BCE, three centuries after “Nimrod”. So she could barely have been his wife.  There was a second Tikulti-Ninurta then, but she wasn’t his wife, either. She was married to the third king following TK2, Shamshi-Adad V, who ruled from 824-810 BCE. And far from being the notorious witch of Chick’s dark imaginings, she impressed the ancient world with her mundane political skills. Though a foreign princess (an Aramaen), she ruled Assyria as regent from 810-806 BCE. There was only one Semiramis known to history, and this was her. History records nothing bad about her. Yet Chick somehow does.

The facts are a lot different from Chick’s fanciful version. I contacted the Chick organization to inquire about the source(s) for his Nimrod allegations. As far as I can tell, outside of the obscure reference to “Mystery Babylon” in Revelation 17 (a symbolic reference for Rome, by the way, and not Babylon, there are none. The elaboration from there seems to be an exclusive Revelation for Jack T. Chick; in other words, a product of his feverish imagination.

As you know, only in its acceptance by 2 billion others keeps the likewise ridiculous Jesus story from being seen in the same way.

LELAND W. RUBLE

Of all those who write, speak, and otherwise are known as fanatic supporters of the political right’s  objectives and motivation, none are more successful in this endeavor than are the following individuals whom I consider the foremost propagandists of a right wing agenda in the USA. They are: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. This does not assume that they are the only individuals acting as propagandists for the resurrection of a religious, fascist right wing government, there are many, many more involved in a never-ending campaign of support for a government based on the extremism of a radical, authoritarian political conservatism. However, these three, at present, are the most recognized voices and the most often mentioned in the media as individuals who passionately—and often insanely—support an agenda that clearly resembles a politically fascist/religious movement dedicated to the elimination of every trace of political liberalism and progressive liberal thought in the USA.

No one who has ever listened to any one of the above mentioned, can honestly deny that these individuals often sound on certain occasions, as though they were preaching their fascist right wing propaganda from the padded room of an asylum. Just one episode, for instance, of Glenn Beck prancing before a chalk board on his Fox TV program, with phony tears streaming off his bloated face, is enough to convince any sane viewer—it’s doubtful that many of his admirers can be perceived as sane—that Beck appears and sounds like someone recently released without supervision from an institution for the mentally disturbed. According to some in the media, he is not correctly perceived by the majority of those who listen to him, as a slick, ingratiating salesman for a national fascist and religious plutocracy. Indeed, it defies credibility that anyone would seriously listen to either the buffoon Beck, Hannity, or Limbaugh, and uncritically digest the lunatic rhetoric of any one of these propagandists.

Since all three hardcore right wing propagandists have daily radio programs broadcast from coast to coast, they have an advantage which only a few minor liberal hosts enjoy in this media of communication. In other words, they have dominated in this media for the last two decades. This is mainly due to huge radio companies with a monopoly over what is broadcast in this media. This is due to the fact that they own an overwhelming number of radio stations in the USA. Evidently, they have decided—because the owners are ideologically sympathetic to the political and social agenda of the right wing in this country—that the best source of their continued prosperity is to exclusively permit only those who are right wing conservatives and politically lunatic libertarian ideologues to participate in having programs on their vast network of radio stations. The usual excuse for not promoting liberal talk-show hosts, is that they do not bring in the income generated by right wing hosts. Whether this is true or not, is debatable.

What really motivates these blustering, obnoxious babblers of a conservative fascist political ideology?  What makes Limbaugh in his permanently paranoid state of mind, perceive liberalism as a plague, as something to politically avoid, because in his distorted perception of reality, it is the cause of all that is wrong in society. Isn’t it possible that Limbaugh is disdainful of anything liberal because in situations that require critical thinking, Limbaugh has a morbid fetish for strictly relying on traditional solutions that have already been confirmed for centuries as reliable, reasonable, (and even unreasonable) approaches to social and political efforts. The conservative mind of any one of those mentioned, is incapable of thinking of the “possibility” that there may be a better more creative way to resolve a problem politically or socially. They cannot perceive society rejecting the old traditional way of doing things and re-establishing new ways to resolve problems. This is why the Catholic Church remains bogged down and unable to change their ancient ways of doing things—such as birth control, contraceptives, opposition to homosexuality, and many other decrees—because this church refuses to accept a more “liberal” attitude in regard to its make-believe dogmas. A liberal approach rather than a worn-out conservative method of resolving a problem, means at times, of doing something entirely different than what has been done over the centuries. Politically, it may mean the entire rejection of a conservative political concept and policy by replacing it with a liberal concept that is entirely new and different.

For instance, with the gradual introduction of same-sex marriages—an issue all three mentioned have opposed—the politically conservative have responded like rabid dogs, outraged, discouraged, and depressed over the notion that eventually same sex-marriages could be made legal in a majority of states. Their outrage is similar to the Catholic hierarchy’s recent statement to “…list women’s ordination in the same category as pedophiles and rapists…” Erin Saiz Hanna, executive director of the Women’s Ordination Conference recently stated. They are mainly disturbed because this action, same-sex marriages, does not fit the historical model of behavior that has been defined (from a religious point of view) as an act permanently restricted to marriage between a man and woman. Those like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck, perceive this as another progressive liberal effort to change the biblical concept of marriage by altering its definition to socially benefit gays and lesbians with a desire to marry one another. They ignore the fact that depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry one another, “…violated the due process and equal protection rights of gays and lesbians under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution,” U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker explained, in his decision to throw out the ban on same-sex marriages in California.

This also puts the fundamentalist religious establishment and a majority of clergy in the position of having to refuse officiating over marriages where the bride and groom are both of the same sex. The religious establishment has always found ways to enlarge its bank account by devising numerous schemes that involve the exchange of money for services rendered. Many times it may be nothing more than appealing to government for taxed funds to finance questionable works of charity.

Ditto for raising such a stink over the Obama Administration and its challenge to Arizona’s Immigration Law, SB1070, which empowers police to stop and interrogate any individual about his/her lawful immigration status if they have “reasonable suspicion” and makes it a trespassing crime to be an undocumented person in Arizona. This may appeal to the radical hardcore right wingers as a solution to the State’s struggle over an influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico. These are individuals who mainly (although illegally) cross the border because of economic reasons and in some situations, may be involved in the illegal drug trade. This is a situation that has been made worse by the fact that corporate America has always encouraged this process by illegally hiring immigrants for cheap labor. Another reason is the fact that Congress has for decades avoided resolving this issue because of political influence and other reasons.

The problem with Arizona’s Immigration Law SB1070, is the fact that it can easily be abused by individuals in law enforcement who may harbor a racial or other paranoid suspicion against people whose habits, speech, and skin color is different from their own. This, if one thinks about it in an historical context, has been used by authoritarian regimes to wrongly cast suspicion on a race of people or individuals whom authorities consider trouble-makers such as left or right wing anarchists  that might cost a regime the support of its citizens. Think of how a similar law was used by Nazis to make it extremely difficult or impossible for Jews whose freedom was so completely suppressed in 1930s Germany, that it was nearly impossible to freely live without fear of reprisal from authorities who viewed all Jews as enemies of the State. All three, Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity, have enthusiastically  supported Arizona’s Immigration Law SB1070.

Similar laws also were wrongly and tragically used during the “Dark Ages” against people deliberately defined and characterized by religious authorities as witches or those who dared challenge the tyrannical authority or theology of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. And, if one dared express “unbelief” in the Christian god, it was an invitation for the religious Gestapo (the priesthood) to sadistically and brutally execute numerous individuals in the name of god.

In the USA, similar laws were used by this government against Native Americans, even after their land had been seized and their way of life obstructed by settlers and a military with weapons far superior to the bow and arrow used by the Native Americans to defend themselves. They were characterized by the settlers and the reigning government as enemies and people to avoid, mainly because (like illegal immigrants from Mexico) they thought differently, looked different, and enjoyed a lifestyle foreign to those who seized their land and eventually forced them to resettle on government reservations.

There is no need here to extrapolate on the once horrible situations of those characterized as Blacks in this nation. Blacks along with  anyone perceived as Mexican or Latino are currently being used by some on the radical right, including Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity, as scapegoats, or more accurately, as a hostile political wedge issue intended to influence the 2010 election. The recent ugly episode involving Shirley Sherrod is just one of many incidents likely to occur as the hardcore political/religious right plots its agenda to hopefully (they wish) regain control of Congress in 2010.

Make no mistake about it, the three mentioned propagandists primary objective has always been to bring about a fascist, religious conservative revolution by introducing to their audience a view of government that is entirely fascistic, anti-democratic, and anti-liberal. Professing to indulge in the fantasy that they are in possession of some esoteric knowledge—Glen Beck for instance—they attempt to give the false impression that “only” their way of thinking and perceiving the concepts of democratic government far surpasses anything that has ever been achieved by past or current liberal governments. In this instance, they have the obscene habit of mocking liberal Franklin D. Roosevelt’s numerous efforts and programs to end the “Great Depression” that began in 1929 and did not end until the early 1940s. All three prey like bloodsucking parasites, by critically attacking Roosevelt’s liberal achievements, and falsely proclaiming that he prolonged the depression “because of government intervention.”  Like so many so-called conservative libertarians who have aligned themselves with the political right, this false argument has been consistently used by the right as an excuse to give the false impression that if Roosevelt’s administration had not intervened, the depression would have (all by itself) simply restored the economy with no government intervention. This same absurd argument is being directed daily by the propagandists against the Obama administration, mainly as a means to falsely convince the public that any form of government intervention is a misuse of taxed funds, and that private enterprise is far more qualified to resolve this problem. They don’t mention the fact that it was private enterprise that exploited the system and is responsible for the damage it has caused to the American economy through the use of deception and dishonesty.

Since all three propagandists have become millionaires through their employment as deranged prophets of the American right, they are not, as millions of Americans are, in the dreaded situation of losing their jobs, their homes, and other compelling needs. These three psycho-babblers are not in the least concerned with the actual, not the fantasized version of reality that they daily proclaim on their programs. They themselves, are immune to the struggles of the ordinary man and woman, who because of circumstances beyond their control, was not responsible for the current worldwide economic slump caused by greedy financial institutions which, in the act of manipulating their finances to boost profits, deprived millions of people of their livelihood.

As far as these three are concerned, the economic situation was not due to the function of banks and other financial institutions. It was, as they say repeatedly, liberal policies enacted into law under previous Democratic administrations. Bush ll and his administration, because it was conservative, was not in a position to prevent the collapse of the economy that occurred near the end of Bush’s eight year reign. This is the deceptive mantra repeated over and over again by the propagandists on their radio programs. This is what they want their audience to falsely believe. They also repeatedly express the ludicrous notion that unless the American public returns to an exclusive belief in the Christian god and a strict conservative political system, this nation is doomed to failure. This utter insanity is predicated on the “Doomsday Scenario” spread by the absurd, illogical, and bizarre religious fiction written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, both men esteemed idols of the political/religious right.

The utterly false notion that American was founded as a Christian nation is constantly emphasized by Glenn Beck and his recent introduction of self-proclaimed political/religious historian David Barton on his TV program. Beck is promoting Barton in order to feed his audience the false impression that the founders and other important individuals in America’s past were all believers in the Christian god. In other words, if Beck, the dipsy convert to the fictional twilight zone of Mormonism, believes it and Barton promotes it, it is true, and that’s that! Naturally, Beck would never reveal to his audience what Barton actually is, because if he did it would expose Barton and himself, for what they are, one an impostor, and the other a politically fascist clown gullible enough to believe  his propaganda is based on truth, and not the absolute absurdity of a man, who along with Limbaugh and Hannity, are historical nitwits and deceptive promoters of a hardcore right wing ideology in opposition to any and all efforts to maintain government from a liberal perspective of reality.

In conclusion, not one of those mentioned knows anymore, and probably less than the average man and woman. However, by having access to a microphone, and an audience of millions (with few other alternatives other than NPR and the nearly invisible broadcast voice of a liberal commentator) they can say whatever emerges from their unrestrained, irrational minds, and seriously entertain the desire that their audience sucks it up and returns day after day to feed on more bombastic drivel that unfortunately passes for rational commentary in this present decade.

BERNARD KATZ

In pre-Pauline and Pauline Christian communities, women appear to have functioned almost identically to men. In fact, it is possible that more women than men were house-church leaders, hosting vital prayer meetings that became the kernel of the movement. At least one woman deacon, Phoebe, is recorded in the New Testament (Rom. 16:1-2), and she functioned as an official teacher and missionary in the church of Cenchreae. Euodia and Syntyche from Philippi (Phil. 4:2-3) were prominent leaders of that community, and Junia served the church at Rome as an apostle (Rom. 16:7).

The most prominent woman in the New Testament is Priscilla, who worked alongside her husband and was probably the more renowned of the pair (1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16: 3-4; Acts 18). The women Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis in Romans 16 are described as having labored (kopian) for the Lord, the same term Paul used to describe his own evangelizing and teaching activities.

In examining Timothy 3:2 we find the following: “The saying is true: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…” Apparently, there were bishops who had more than one wife!

Moreover, there was Peter, the “Rock,” upon which Jesus supposedly built his church—and his chief disciple was married! We know this from Matt. 8:14: “And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with fever, he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and served him.”

Furthermore, we read of Paul who is complaining: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas [Peter]?” (1 Cor. 9:5)

So what’s the Church so uptight about? Since it claims to proclaim the “good news” and God’s Word, why has it denied women the priesthood for so long?

A. J. MATTILL, Jr.

In this study we focus our attention on twenty-six sets of statements found in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Christians in the Church of Colossae, a small town some one hundred miles east of Ephesus, which is now part of Turkey. We ask readers to decide whether these verses in the Epistle to the Colossians are sense or nonsense, that is, reasonable or absurd. Unless otherwise noted, the biblical quotations are based on the Contemporary English Version.

1. God chose Paul to be an apostle of Christ Jesus (1:1). Sense or Nonsense?

2. God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1:3). Sense or Nonsense?

3. What the Christians in Colossae hope for is kept safe for them in heaven (1:5). Sense or Nonsense?

4. God’s glorious power will make the Christians in Colossae patient and strong enough to endure anything, and they will be truly happy (1:11). Sense or Nonsense?

5. God rescued the Christians in Colossae from the dark power of Satan and brought them into the kingdom of his dear Son, who forgives our sins and sets us free (1:13). Sense or Nonsense?

6. “Christ is exactly like God, who cannot be seen. He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation” (1:15). Sense or Nonsense?

7. “Everything was created by Christ, everything in heaven and on earth, everything seen and unseen, including all forces and powers, and all rulers and authorities. All things were created by God’s son, and everything was made for him” (1:16). Sense or Nonsense?

8. “God’s Son was before all else, and by him everything is held together” (1:17). Sense or Nonsense?

9. “God’s Son is the head of his body, which is the church” (1:18). Sense or Nonsense?

10. “He is the very beginning, the first to be raised from death, so that he would be above all others” (1:18). Sense or Nonsense?

11. “God was pleased for his Son to make peace by sacrificing his blood on the cross, so that all things in heaven and earth would be brought back to God” (1:20). Sense or Nonsense?

12. “Don’t let anyone fool you by using senseless arguments. These arguments don’t come from Christ but from the powers of this world, that is, Spirits and unseen forces which control human lives and are connected with the movements of the stars” (2:8). Sense or Nonsense?

13. “You must quit being angry, hateful, and evil. You must no longer say insulting or cruel things about others” (3:8). “And stop lying to each other. You have given up your old way of life with its habits” (3:9). Sense or Nonsense?

14. “Each of you is now a new person. You are becoming more and more like your Creator, and you will understand him better” (3:10). Sense or Nonsense?

15. “It doesn’t matter if you are a Greek or a Jew, or if you are circumcised or not. You may even be a barbarian or a Scythian [people known for their cruelty], and you may be a slave or a free person. Yet Christ is all that matters, and he lives in all of us” (3:11). Sense or Nonsense?

16. “God loves you and has chosen you as his own special people. So be gentle, kind, humble, meek, and patient” (3:12). “Put up with each other, and forgive anyone who does you wrong, just as Christ has forgiven you” (3:13). “Love is more important than anything else. It is what ties everything completely together” (3:14). Sense or Nonsense?

17. “Each of you is part of the body of Christ, and you were chosen to live together in peace. So let the peace that comes from Christ control your thoughts. And be grateful” (3:15). Sense or Nonsense?

18. “Let the message about Christ completely fill your lives, while you use all your wisdom to teach and instruct each other. With thankful hearts, sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God” (3:16). “Whatever you say or do should be done in the name of the Lord Jesus, as you give thanks to God the Father because of him” (3:17). Sense or Nonsense?

19. “A wife must put her husband first. This is her duty as a follower of the Lord” (3:18). “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord” (King James Version). Sense or Nonsense?

20. “A husband must love his wife and not abuse her” (3:19). Sense or Nonsense?

21. “Children must always obey their parents. This pleases the Lord” (3:20).

22. “Slaves, you must always obey your earthly masters” (3:22). Sense or Nonsense?

23. “Slave owners, be fair and honest with your slaves. Don’t forget that you have a Master in heaven” (4:1).

24. “Never give up praying. And when you pray, keep alert and be thankful” (4:2). Sense or Nonsense?

25. Please pray that I will explain the mystery about Christ (4:3) and make the message as clear as possible (4:4). Sense or Nonsense?

26. “When you are with unbelievers, always make good use of the time (4:5). Choose your words carefully and be ready to give answers to anyone who asks questions” (4:6). Sense or Nonsense?

Conclusion. Now that you have read the twenty-six passages, please mark each passage as Sense or Nonsense. For what it’s worth, I marked every passage as Nonsense except 20, which I regard as Sense.

BERNARD KATZ

(This was actually written by me to a fundamentalist minister with whom I had a long and frustrating dialogue.)

Dear Reverend,

We have come to the end of our dialogue, agreeing that we cannot agree on anything. I must admit, however, that you have conjured up the most outlandish scriptural hocus-pocus to refute me. As I have told you several times, with the kind of exegesis you use you should have been a Canon lawyer. I bet you could even prove that the fourth member of the Trinity is Santa Claus!

As I gaze backwards across all of our battlefields, the following images flit across my mind which summarize many of our skirmishes.

To you there is a real personality called Satan; to me this is just another name for the scarecrow in the corn field.

To you Hell is God’s penitentiary; to me it is just a designation for a place paved with the tongues of theologians.

To you Heaven is where Christians who are elected by God go to sing his praises; to me it is the Coney Island of the Christian imagination.

To you God is the hero of the Books of books; to me God is merely an explanation to save an explanation.

To you religion is a necessary institution; to me it is only organized superstition.

To you the fall of man is the origin of all our troubles; to me man did not fall at all but ascended.

To you the eating of the fruit of the tree of good and evil was the start of man’s downfall; to me the acquisition of knowledge was the beginning of man’s ascent from the quagmire of ignorance.

To you Adam was the first man; to me he was simply the first man to tell about his operation.

To you Eve was literally created from Adam’s rib; to me Adam’s rib is just the original bone of contention.

To you an angel is quite real and frequently is found in heaven; to me he ‘s merely a pedestrian who forgot to jump.

To you God created man in his own image; to me Man created god in his own image.

To you God created the world out of nothing; to me that just makes the deity the Ruler of nothing.

To you Jesus was the result of a Virgin Birth; to me he was the end product of unplanned parenthood.

To you the Bible is the inerrant and complete Word of God; to me it is a handbook for travelers by authors who have never been there.

To you Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the past and the future; to me he is simply a man who lived before his time.

To you Jesus was the supreme sacrifice; to me a sacrifice is another name for a bargain.

To you the Gospels mean good news; to me they are the disasters of yesteryear.

To you an oracle is a revelation from God; to me it is a belief owned exclusively by one person.

To you charismatics are filled with the Holy Spirit; to me it is a religion with a vaudeville act.

To you a eunuch is one who so made himself for the kingdom of heaven; to me he is one who knows what to do but can’t do it.

To you the church is the body of Christ; to me it is a place where people who have never been to heaven brag about it to persons who will never get there.

To you theology is the science of God; to me it is what people think they are doing when they are merely arranging their prejudices.

To you Christians always have an eye on the future; to me the future is only two days from yesterday.

To you the Tower of Babel is where God confused the language of men; to me it is a place where Solomon kept his wives.

To you a Christian is the only one who has the truth; to me he is a person suffering from an overwhelming compulsion to believe what is not true.

To you a witch shall be put to death; to me a witch is a mother-in-law who has made good.

To you a miracle is due to God’s interference with his own laws of nature; to me it is God’s admission that he was mistaken in his original model.

To you an apologist is one who argues cogently for the Christian cause; to me he is laying the foundation for future offenses.

To you the Christian message is contained in the word “agape;” to me there can be no one to practice “agape” unless they had engaged in “eros.”

To you God made the world in six days and declared it good; to me if he had made the world in six days he should have been arrested on the seventh for having botched the job.

To you the clergyman is a spiritual leader; to me he is a man who undertakes to manage our spiritual affairs so he can better his temporal ones.

To you Matthew and Luke are witnesses that Jesus was born a babe and John and Paul are witnesses that Jesus was pre-existent; to me Jesus was non-existent.

To you Easter is the supreme holiday of your Lord’s ascension; to me this is merely a time to eat rabbit stew.

To you Judas Iscariot was a villainous traitor; to me, when two men in the same business always agree, one of them becomes unnecessary.

To you Christianity guarantees immortality; to me, when all else has failed, promises of ever-lasting life hold troops together.

To you the Word is mightier-than the sword; to me the Oilcan is mightier than the Word.

To you life is a series of sacraments; to me life is a series of yellow pads.

To you a prophet is one who can correctly foretell the future; to me he’s simply a person who, because he’s made two consecutive right guesses, has a reputation as an expert.

To you Jesus was a genius; to me a genius is a person who can do anything except make a living.

To you God is love; to me love is a many splintered thing.

To you marriages are made in Heaven; to me I wonder if God would bother to come to some of the affairs he has arranged.

To you love of God is everything; to me I never loved anyone else the way I love myself.

To you Christian love is the complete answer; to me, if love is the answer, I want a new question.

To you Christian love will solve all of our problems; to me this is like trying to wash the Empire state Building with a bar of soap.

To you the world is controlled by demons; to me everyone carries around his own monsters.

To you the Last Judgment is coming; to me it happens every day.

To you God has intervened in humans affairs; to me when a man is drowning, it is better for him to try to swim than to splash around waiting for divine intervention.

To you the ultimate mystery is God; to me the ultimate mystery is myself.

To you a Christian is supposed to be a highly moral person; to me a real Christian is one who can give his pet parrot to the town gossip.

To you the Bible speaks of everlasting hope; to me it’s going to turn out bad—I read the last page.

To you God never makes mistakes; to me, if God had meant us to eat sugar, why did WE have to invent dentists?

To you Jesus’ virgin birth was unique; to me, entering life by way of the vagina is as good a way as any.

To you archeology “proves” the Bible; to me archaeology cannot transcend the fact that it is based on human garbage.

To you it is called praying when you talk to God; to me, if God talks back it’s called schizophrenia.

To you the lion and calf shall lie down together; to me the calf won’t get much sleep.

To you the poor shall inherit the earth; to me the rich will inherit the church.

To you Jesus was a Jew by accident only; to me, if there was a Jesus, he must have worn a mezuzah because he certainly didn’t wear a cross.

To you there is an afterlife; to me there is none, and to prove my sincerity, I’m not even bringing a change of underwear.

SINcerely yours,

Bernard Katz

STEPHEN VAN ECK

America was founded originally and prominently by Puritans, but when it came to formally founding it, this was achieved by Deists, Unitarians, Freemasons, and liberal Episcopalians—anything but Puritans. There’s been an essential tension ever since between the Enlightenment vision of the founders—who Puritans have been taught to revere while utterly misconstruing—and the Puritan myth of the new Jerusalem, the Shining City on the Hill. The discrepancy between these two images of America is the root of the present-day “Culture War”, declared by modern-day Puritans and waged almost unilaterally, while the rest of us simply live life.

One of the most pitched battles in this Culture War is over secularism. The Right Wing and aggressive Christians are staunchly against it. Their tactic for destroying  it consists of the frequent repetition of several false statements that reflect reality as they wish it to be. Some know they’re false, but like Goebbels believe that statements become “true” by repetition.

Here they are, and I’m sure you’ve heard them before:

1) The Founders did not intend to create a secular government.

2) Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. It’s a “myth” or a “lie”.

3) The First Amendment’s Non-establishment Clause was only intended to prohibit an official denomination.

4) Separation of Church and State is a recent invention of activist Liberal judges. And worst of all (5) America was founded on Christianity.

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of hearing these fraudulent statements, concocted to create a false reality. And I never let them pass unchallenged. If you’d like to do the same, below are all the facts you need to enlist in the fight.

First of all, we can easily establish that Separation of Church and State as a concept predates recent suspect Justices. It’s older than the foundation of America itself! Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and he did so to escape the religious tyranny of the Puritans in Massachusetts. In 1644 he referred to his ideal of “a hedge, or wall of separation, between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.” In his ideal, everyone could have their own garden, not have one  foisted on them.

This concept informed our Founders, especially Madison, as they created the First Amendment. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, used a variation of the disputed phrase in an 1819 letter: “The number, the industry and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.” So he indisputably believed what revisionists deny.

Furthermore, as President Madison vetoed a bill giving a parcel of land in Mississippi to a Baptist Church, writing “The appropriation of funds … for the use and support of religious societies [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment’.” This proves, using the most relevant person possible, that the Original Intent of the Non-establishment Clause was NOT merely to prohibit an official denomination. Conservatives like to emphasize Original Intent. Let’s hold then to it!

The Danbury Letter by Thomas Jefferson (1802) using the phrase “wall of separation between Church and State” in connection to the First Amendment, is well-known to both sides of the dispute. For their part, the revisionists desperately try to downplay its significance. What they need to know is that, rather than issuing offhand comments, Jefferson consulted his Attorney General, Levi Lincoln, about it, writing that he was “making them [his comments] the occasion … of sowing useful truths and principles among the people. The Baptist address … admits of a condemnation of an alliance between Church and State.

The Supreme Court, in Reynolds v. United States (1879), cited the Danbury Letter as evidence of Original Intent: “Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment.” These words are from Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, who served long before any recent “Liberal Activists”, so he can’t be so flatly dismissed.

Other Presidents affirmed the Separation of Church and State. Andrew Jackson was asked by a group to declare a Day of Prayer in 1832. He declined, writing “I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution … and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.”

Also affirming separation was Millard Fillmore, who wrote, “If any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but in fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled.”

Then there’s President Grant, who wrote (in 1875), “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the Church, and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.”

It’s not only Presidents who understand that church-state separation is legitimate. The same attitude was held by nineteenth-century clergy, as reported by deTocqueville in “Democracy in America” (a book that conservatives flaunting erudition are fond of referring to.) DeTocqueville wanted to understand how America avoided the religious strife he’d known in Europe, and, asking the clergy, “I found that they differed in matters of detail alone, and that they attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state.”

So now we’ve documented that Separation is not a recent imposition. Also that the Non-establishment Clause is more encompassing than the minimalist position advanced by the Religious Right. Should anyone doubt that the Founders intended to create a secular government, they need to see Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797): “The government of the United States is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion.” Those who know about this treaty and who take the revisionist side strive to downplay this, too. But that’s not a tenable position when it’s pointed out that the text was cleared by the attorney General and passed unanimously by the Senate, with no record of any objection to Article 11. There’s your Original Intent. And keep in mind that Article VI of the Constitution says that all treaties when passed become the Law of the Land.

The Constitution is a wholly secular document that doesn’t even mention God at all. So how can it possibly be “based on Christianity” as some claim? The Preamble does not say, “We the People of the United States, in order to advance the Christian Faith …” If the Founders had wanted it so, they would have written it that way.

Yet the Christian Nation proponents do their feeble best to deny reality. “Pat” Robertson goes off the deep end when he often says, “Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. It’s in the Soviet Constitution” (as if it’s all some sort of commie plot). Sure it’s in the Soviet Constitution—in imitation of ours, which is much older. And like everything else in that defunct document, it was not worth the paper it was printed on. It would seem that there’s some things about our Constitution that “Pat” wishes were likewise defunct.

Instead of bringing up the Soviet Constitution, he might have brought up the Constitution of Japan, which also creates a separation between religion and government. A constitution that was written for them by Douglas MacArthur, based on ours. Would Robertson still accuse him of ripping off the Soviet Constitution?

Most revisionists, including Robertson, are fond of arguing that Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution because those exact words are not there. This is a moronic argument, particularly from a lawyer. Neither are the words “separation of powers”, “checks and balances”, and “right to a fair trial”, and who would argue that these concepts are not part of our system of government? Although they would summarily (and arrogantly) reject any Supreme Court decision of the past 67 years that happens to go against their preferences, the fact remains that these decisions consistently, clearly, and overwhelmingly ratify church-state separation as the meaning of the Non-establishment Clause [Everson, 1947] and reject the minimalist position that the First Amendment only prohibits an official sect [McCollum, 1948]. Like it or not, it’s settled law.

Yet they continue to argue. And like Orwell, they believe that he who controls the past controls the future, so they are attempting to rewrite the past along theocratic lines. Their alliance with (or takeover of) the Republican Party has paid dividends. They’ve managed to stack the Supreme Court with four real ideological activists who dare to reject any and all settled precedents in the area of church-state law, plus a shaky swing vote. We must not let their subversive efforts succeed with the addition of a solid fifth vote. This would mean the death of secularism and the dawn of theocracy ["the worst type of government"—C. S. Lewis] An essential part of preventing that prospect is not allowing the revisionist arguments to succeed. Not when we have all the facts on our side.

A. J. MATTILL, Jr.

We begin our examination of Psalm 24 with my rendition of this psalm based upon the King James Version, the New American Bible, Today’s English Version, and the Contemporary English Version: 1 The earth and everything in it, including the people who live there, belong to the Lord. 2 The Lord placed it all on the oceans and rivers. 3 Who may climb up to the Lord’s mountain and stand in his holy temple? 4 Those who have clean hands and pure hearts, that is, those who don’t worship idols, who do right for the right reasons, and who don’t tell lies under oath. 5 The Lord who saves them will bless them, 6 because they worship and serve the God of Jacob. 7 Open the ancient gates, so that the glorious king may come in. 8 Who is this king of glory? He is our Lord, a strong warrior, mighty in battle. 9 Fling wide the ancient gates so that the glorious king may come in. 10 Who is this king of glory? He is the Lord of hosts, the commanding general of armies.

Before we criticize Psalm 24, we must point out that commentators have highly praised this psalm: “This is one of the most majestic portions of the Psalter and retains an atmosphere of inexpressible grandeur.”—Elmer A. Leslie, The Abingdon Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929), p. 527. Now we are ready to point out four untenable concepts found in Psalm 24. Untenable, of course, means not able to be defended, not reasonable.

Untenable Concept One: The Biblical World Picture. Psalm 24:2 pictures the Lord as placing the earth on the waters under the earth. In other words, the earth is immovably fixed in the center of the universe. Note Genesis 7:11,  the fountains of the great deep”; Exodus 20:4, “the waters under the earth”; and Psalm 136:6, “the earth above the waters.” For more on how contrary to modern science Psalm 24:2 and a host of other passages are, see my The Seven Mighty Blows to Traditional Beliefs (Gordo, AL: The Flatwoods Free Press, 1995, second edition), pp. ii, 3-8.

Untenable Concept Two: A Mighty Man of War. Now hear this: The Lord is a strong warrior, mighty in battle. He’s the Lord of hosts, the commanding general of armies (Psalm 24:8, 10). These verses glorify the Lord as a man of war. Such a brutal God never heard of ahimsa, that is, non-violence in word, thought, and deed. On the contrary, the Lord’s motto is, “Kill, kill, kill!”

Untenable Concept Three: A Mass Slaughterer of Animals. Now let us focus our attention on Psalm 24:3, Who may stand in the Lord’s holy temple?” How tragic that “the Lord’s holy temple” was not a place where one could worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. On the contrary, the temple was the bloody place where the priests sacrificed zillions of animals and poured on the altar the lifeblood of sacrifices that supposedly atoned for sins. Priests killed an animal by cutting its throat so that the blood flowed from it. To slaughter birds, priests twisted their necks. Kill, kill, kill! Thus the God of Psalm 24 is responsible for slaughtering untold numbers of people and animals. The temple was the headquarters of bloody butcher-shop religion/pitiless packinghouse piety/senseless slaughterhouse spirituality.

Untenable Concept Four: A God Who Plays Favorites. Without batting an eye, Psalm 24:5-6 tells us upfront that those who serve the God of Jacob are the Lord’s chosen people. God is proud of his playing favorites with the Israelites, the descendants of Jacob. God selected Israel as his chosen people and promised them the land of Palestine and the Messiah. Psalm 72:8-11 predicts that the king of the chosen people will have dominion over all the earth. How commendable is the action of Reform Jews in deleting from their prayer book all references to a chosen people!

“Thank God”  for Celsus, a Roman philosopher who flourished about AD/CE 175-180. According to Celsus, “the very notion of an elect people of God is worse than irrational; it also leads Christians and Jews to imagine that their myths are superior to everyone else’s, and that their religion is true and all others are false.”  For more on Celsus see my An Awesome Trinity: Charvaka, Celsus, Meslier (Gordo, AL: The Flatwoods Free Press, 1999), pp. 7-19.

Conclusion. We conclude that Psalm 24 is not an inspired, infallible psalm because it contains at least four untenable concepts: 1) Its biblical world picture; 2) God is a mighty man of war, whose motto  is “Kill, kill, kill!”—that is Kill people!; 3) God is a bloodthirsty butcher, commanding his worshipers to “Kill, kill, kill!”—that is Kill animals! and 4) God enjoys playing favorites, selecting the Israelites as his chosen people. How can any person in his/her right mind kneel in awe before such a God as that?

STEPHEN VAN ECK

Those of you who engage in debate with amateur apologists will from time to time come across classic arguments by leading apologists of the past, albeit in a deficient way. If you want to be prepared to recognize and refute these arguments, here they are.

PASCAL’S WAGER. Most of you have heard of it. It’s a popular tactic with amateur evangelists, who think it’s devastatingly clever. It goes like this: If you believe in Jesus and are wrong, you’ve lost nothing. But if you don’t believe and are wrong, you’ve lost everything. So the sensible thing to do is believe.

There are problems with both propositions. The first one commits the fallacy of Neglected Evidence. Lost nothing? What about the integrity of your mind—filling it with nonsense? What about the freedoms lost while under the burden of a false and restrictive dogma? Plus, no matter how “sensible” it may be to believe, one cannot force oneself to believe against one’s own inclinations. The case for Christianity is simply not adequate, notwithstanding the angle of self-interest. Bottom line, it’s intellectual cowardice, hedging one’s convictions. Real truth is not based on calculations of self-interest.

LIAR, LUNATIC OR LORD. This is C. S. Lewis’s famous trichotomy, likewise popular with amateur evangelists. Like Pascal’s Wager, they think it is an airtight logical trap. Basically, it puts forth three options that exhaust all possibilities: Jesus was either a liar claiming Messianic status or he was a lunatic or he was what he said he was. Lewis eliminates the first two options too hastily.

Lewis says that if Jesus was a liar, he would have been found out and suffered a loss of following, plus death as a false prophet. Well, he DID get executed, but they append another meaning to that. As for loss of following, not necessarily. Joseph Smith would have been certified legitimate by Lewis’s test. He was a liar, as Lewis might have conceded, yet he had a following that thrives to this day. And anyway, Jesus might have been another False Messiah, not False Prophet. Premise false.

As for the lunatic possibility—no one would have followed a lunatic? The Rev. Jim Jones comes to mind, and he had more followers, obedient to death, than Jesus is said to have had when he died. Premise false.

Lewis’s trichotomy neglects a fourth valid possibility: LEGEND. Christianity seems to have been a Jewish version of the “savior” Mystery Cults, which Gentiles later adapted, erroneously thinking it described an actual historic figure. It’s a more plausible explanation than Lord. Sorry, C. S.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT OF ST. ANSELM. I’ve seen some pretty poor versions of this presented by amateur apologists. Here it is, in all its glory:

1) Even a doubter of the existence of God would have to have some understanding of what it is they’re doubting.

2) They would understand God to be a being than whom nothing greater can be thought.

3) But it is greater to exist outside the mind than merely as a concept in it.

4) Given this, whoever doubts the existence of God is making a contradiction, since they would be saying that it is possible to think of something greater than a being of whom nothing greater can be thought.

5) Hence, by definition God necessarily exists.

This is a remarkably moronic display of faulty logic.

One cannot conclusively demonstrate the existence of something outside the mind from the fact that a concept for it exists in the mind. If that was necessary, then Superman or any other fictional character would be demonstrably “real”.

The key phrase here is “by definition”. A contradiction in the definition does not comprise proof by default. It’s mere wordplay that proves absolutely nothing. Besides, Premise #4 is erroneous, since even a doubter’s doubt clearly includes the hypothetical notion that God might be real.

Further clarity can be found if one starts by hypothetically assuming that there is no God. One could still conceive of a being greater than whom nothing can be thought. It would still be valid to say that it is greater to exist in reality than just in the mind, but this is only if the object in mind actually exists outside it! A Supreme Being would not magically come into existence from a definitional contradiction, all the less so because this contradiction is not really there at all. Just like God …

Anselm’s problem, in addition to being logically impaired, was his failure to examine the proposition from the other side, from the perspective of God not existing; an unthinkable thought to the committed zealot, who prejudges the case, and who inevitably will make logical errors.

By William Harwood ©2010, ISBN 978-1-935444-21-3, Published by World Audience Inc. 303 Park Avenue South, Suite 1440, New York, NY 10010-3657, 424 pp., pbk., $37.16

Reviewed by Leland W. Ruble

This book contains two separate novels of hypnotists and their use of the pseudo scientific method of hypnotism for economic gain. The author writes from a perspective that makes it evident that he has an extensive knowledge of hypnotism and those involved in this profession on a daily basis.

At one time, not too far in the distant past, hypnotism was viewed far more favorably and less critically than it now is. Mainly because it has been exposed in the media as not being a valid scientific method, and has been classified along with other non-scientific procedures, as an exercise incapable of achieving the realistic  results a hypnotist  may attempt to convince an audience, can actually occur while an individual is supposedly under the spell of hypnotism.  Over the last several decades performances by professional hypnotists have dwindled to a trickle. There may,  I am certain, still be the occasional magician in Las Vegas or some resort that still uses hypnotism in his act. Then there is of course, the often recurring use of hypnotism on TV programs and in movies, used mainly as a device to add interest to the plot of the story.

I am not certain, but I don’t think hypnotism is any longer accepted in the medical community as an effective means of treating an illness. However, I can still imagine Christian Science converts using the hypnotic symbol  of an imaginary  god as having the awesome capability to cure the body by convincing the patient that this god is using its magic to rid the patient of an illness. It still continues, in spite of evidence disproving its effectiveness, to be used by some psychologists, psychiatrists and others in the mental health profession, as part of their bag of tricks to miraculously cure certain afflictions of the mind. It also has been used in other deceptive ways to deceive individuals into believing they were abducted by aliens, lived one or several past lives as Napoleon, King James, Joan of Arc, or even participated in torturous and imaginary satanic rituals, while supposedly in a drugged state of being. It has also been deceptively used by child psychological inquisitors, investigating unfounded cases of child molestation to deceive children into falsely believing they were sexually molested when they were not. Some adults involved in the childcare system have been falsely accused of child molestation and have been  wrongly incarcerated because of information gathered through the unfounded, unscientific method of hypnotic suggestion.

The author uses his extensive knowledge of hypnotism to weave two separate stories of men who practiced the profession of hypnotism with some success. Pat Zubrick is the protagonist of the first novel, The Great Zubrick. It is told with great humor, while also leading the reader into the murky, uncertain environment in which Zubrick lives, acts, and thrives in Australia. As spectators into the private life of Zubrick, one becomes immersed in a life that revolves around the constant quest for monetary gain, sexual escapades, and many other humorous and serious situations derived from Zubrick’s immersion into an environment where hypnotism becomes the driving force in his life.

The author who has a wide and comprehensive knowledge of religion often uses this knowledge to draw comparisons between religious faith, hypnotism, and sex. For instance: Whoever heard of a god that defined sin as “the unnecessary hurting of a non-consenting being” and decreed that, “If it doesn’t hurt somebody, then it can’t possibly be objectionable to any sane god.”"? What was the point of being the One True God, if Yahweh could not arbitrarily decree that right and wrong were whatever He said they were, heads it’s a sin and tails it’s a virtue?” (p.20)

According to the author, most candidates willing to be hypnotized, do so, as more or less willing subjects who follow the commands of the hypnotist, while deceiving themselves into falsely believing they are under the sway of an hypnotic spell. If a command is given that is perceived as mentally, sexually, or physically disagreeable to the subject, they in most circumstances will not comply. However, if the subject, for instance a female, is seeking a sexual relationship with the hypnotist, she most likely will oblige the hypnotist’s suggestions and react accordingly in order to satisfy a sexual urge. The female can excuse herself from her actions, by mentally convincing herself  that what she did, was done under the self deceptive pretense that she was hypnotized into participating in a sexual act, not under her own volition, but under the suggestive commands of the hypnotist.

In reference to a popular faith healer and televangelist, the author has Zubrick say: “This guy is the Barnum of bullshit.” Pat explained. “He’s as much a hypnotist as I am, He makes zillions in America pretending to represent a god he doesn’t believe in. I might pick up a few pointers. If  this is the way to get rich, why not. It’s all show business.” (p.80)

And, “The Pope says birth control is a sin,” Johanna picked up one of the priest’s throwaway lines.” (p.89)

“Yes, and in his conscience it is. The Holy Father does the best he can with the limited capacity God gave him, and we can’t ask more than that from any of God’s creatures. If the Pope’s reality, or my reality, is also your reality, that would certainly simplify your decision-making. But I’m not going to tell you what you must do. That’s up to you.” (p.89)

Zubrick because of a minor sexual offense in Australia, exiles himself to Canada. He had agreed to plead guilty to having carnal knowledge of a girl under sixteen, and that all other charges had been dropped. (p.98)

“…In most of Australia, shagging an experienced fourteen-year old would get you a fine. This is the theocracy of Queensland. The Premier could take human rights lessons from the Ayatollah. The place is so backward, state elections still use first-the-post voting, like children, retards and North Americans…” (p.98)

There are numerous incidents of Zubrick’s encounters with the opposite sex. Many are humorous episodes, with the occasional reference to biblical morality and how state and religion have worked hand in hand to make offensive certain sexual acts, which are neither offensive nor aggressive, and used mainly by political theocrats as the means to further their authoritarian control over a society’s morality.

In a discussion on the subject of religion there is this humorous conservation: “I’m a Loveite,” Dorie affirmed, and Loveites are allowed to think for themselves. If a prime minister or a president said wearing red socks on Thursday was a capital crime, wouldn’t you put him in the loony bin? Yet gods make laws equally capricious, like not going without a turban or not eating pork or drinking tea or copulating without a license, and people accept it. Could a god really be responsible for laws based on ‘heads it’s a sin and tails it’s a virtue? Fanatics who bomb tadpolecide clinics accuse their god of inspiring them. Couldn’t Bible authors have told the same lie?” (p.153)

There are articles on the subject of hypnotism and reviews of the author’s many books. The Last Hypnotist, begins on p.241 and concludes on p.424.

This novel is the story of Van Kruger who studies to become a priest, but after being exiled to remote New Guinea, he abandons the priesthood, which in turn, leads to his decision to become a professional hypnotist. This also, like the other novel, is a clever, humorous story with many examples of the author explaining the weakness, imperfections, defects, and flaws, inherent in Christianity. For instance, the blunders, mayhem, and tragedies it has caused by sticking its tyrannical nose into the functions of society, and deciding with the assistance of political theocrats, what is and is not morally permissible from  the austere  perspective of a Christian fundamentalist persuasion.  For instance, ever since the late R. Reagan’s make-believe presidency, the Republican party in the USA has become more and more a politically functioning branch of  a Christian religious fundamentalism, and its never-ending attempts to achieve a political theocracy based on the worst examples of biblical oppression. Tea Party favorite and politically dipsy, Sarah Palin, is a perfect example of the religiously fundamentalist conservative. A woman who is applauded and generously supported by an adoring audience of right wing, politically motivated religious and other asinine dimwits, drooling over the probable aspect of a future government based on the imbecility of  fundamentalist Christianity.

Here is one of many examples the author includes to depict the fatuous, idiotic motives incorporated in various religions based on the biblical god:  “Surely you don’t think that the Catholic god, who bans birth control but permits smoking and eating pork, and the Jewish god, who bans eating pork but permits birth control and smoking, and the Mormon god, who bans smoking but permits birth control and eating pork, are the same god? Don’t you think he’d have to be, how do you say, split-brained with many selves?”

“Are you saying god is schizophrenic?”

“No, love,” Bjorn grinned. “You just did.” (p.289

Here’s another example: “When did I ever claim to believe in your god?” Rob responded. “Protestantism came into existence as a rejection of the kind of god that would make laws based on, ‘Heads it’s a sin and tails it’s a virtue.’ Unitarianism was a rejection of a three-headed god so evil that it would applaud the Inquisition. Then there’s Deism, which rejected gods so egocentric and megalomaniac that they demand constant sucking up from terrified sycophants. Hugieism is Deism with an anthropomorphic face. We don’t believe a god named Hughie actually exists. He represents a ‘what if?’ You have your imaginary gods and I have mine. Don’t ever confuse the two.” (p.377)

The author, not only in this novel, but in the entire book, covers a wide range of subjects related to the nonsense of religions, as well as other aspects of religious faith, by allowing his characters  to discuss these and other issues as the story develops. Anyone no longer mentally stifled by the absurdity of allowing one’s mind to be manipulated by the clergy or the evangelical fervor of modern Billy Graham’s, using their mouths to convey an insane depiction of an alien world inhabited by winged angels, or an underworld of flames and eternal fire, should read this entire book for the sheer enjoyment, intelligence, and numerous exposes of religious tyranny and its oppressive authoritarian  ambitions to achieve a sadistic theocratic society.

A hypnotist is not unlike an evangelist.  With the exception, that they are not as insane  nor as god intoxicated as  foaming at the mouth, wild-eyed evangelists like Benny Hinn. A man who has been extremely successful in convincing Christian fundamentalists he has the supernatural ability to heal people of their worst physical ailments. Christian converts, convinced that there is a living, breathing supernatural god, can easily be duped into being convinced that a religious huckster like Hinn, has, because of his feigned belief in a god, been miraculously gifted with the power to heal. In reality, the only thing Hinn has ever healed is himself, with the use of prescribed medication, and a doctor’s treatment of his illness, not through the improbable, impossible intervention of an invisible deity.

It wouldn’t be fair to divulge the ending of either novel, however, the reader will not be surprised, and if not  religious, consider the outcome, a most likely scenario for those who, previously involved in the practice of hypnotism, have drifted into another, more lucrative profession that has for centuries  been used successfully by those seeking to thrive economically through the use of suggestion (preaching), to convince a public that belief in an alternate reality (god belief) is possible and probable. Unfortunately, most of those hypnotized in this fashion, remain hypnotized for the remainder of their natural lives.

A. J. MATTILL, Jr.

In this paper we are questioning the inerrancy of the Bible. One article in The Sword of the Lord, May 28, 2010, says this: “There are no mistakes or errors in the Bible. The Bible is the infallible Word of the eternal God.” Another writer in the same issue of The Sword declares: “I have complete confidence in what God says in the Bible. For example, everything God says about the Great Flood reported in Genesis is informative, correct, and true. The Bible is true; it is trustworthy. I can rely on what it says. Pure, unfiltered truth reaches out from the pages of the Bible, and that is good news!” Now let us ponder a number of verses which skeptics regard as erroneous.

Error 1. The Bible teaches that “the earth is set firmly in place and cannot be moved” (1 Chronicles 16:30; Psalms 93:1, 96:10; 104:5). Astronomy, on the other hand, teaches us that the earth moves around the sun. Yet Joshua 10:12-13 assumes that the sun, not the earth, stood still.

Error 2. The Bible errs when it presents as historical facts the account of Noah’s Flood in Genesis 6-8. Such a catastrophic deluge finds no place in the history of the rocks. Geologists account for the present status of the earth satisfactorily without the hypothesis of a worldwide flood.

Note that when we disprove the Flood of Genesis 6-8 we are at the same time destroying the inspiration of the biblical writers who mistakenly endorsed belief in Noah’s Flood: Isaiah 54:9; Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26:27; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5: 3:5-6. If these statements from Matthew and Luke are to be trusted, Jesus himself was also taken in by the story of the Flood.

Error 3. Elijah raises the widow’s son (1 Kings 17:17-24). Error 4. Elisha raises the Shunammite’s son (2 Kings 4:32-37). Error 5. A corpse thrown into Elisha’s grave revives and stands up the instant it touches the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:20-21). Error 6. Jesus raises the ruler’s daughter (Matthew 9:23-25; Mark 5:35-42; Luke 8:49-55). Error 7. Jesus raises a widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11-15). Error 8. Jesus raises Lazarus, four days in the tomb, and stinking. Lazarus comes floating out of the tomb (John 11:43-44). Error 9. God opens tombs in Jerusalem and raises many of the corpses to life, whereupon they come out of their tombs and appear to many people (Matthew 27:51-53). Error 10. Jesus rises from the dead (Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-9). Error 11. Peter raises Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:36-42). Error 12. Paul raises Eutychus to life (Acts 20:9-12). Once dead, always dead! Dead persons never live again!

Error 13. The Chosen People. The doctrine of Israel as God’s chosen people is a a cardinal teaching of the Bible and hence of Judaism and Christianity. The basic doctrine means that God has elected one people, Israel, from among all the nations of the world, to receive his Word and to preserve his worship. The God of all creation has established a close, exclusive, and everlasting relationship between himself and his chosen people.

Needless to say, this doctrine is unacceptable to many thoughtful people because it means that God is partial to one nation. A partial God is as distasteful as partial parents, or partial judges, or partial teachers.

This doctrine is also unacceptable because it promotes imperialism on the part of the chosen people, for it encourages them to conquer, rule, and even exterminate other peoples (Deuteronomy 7:1-4). God gave Abraham and his descendants the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, which would include all or part of modern Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq (Genesis 15:17-21). Israel’s enemies will come begging for mercy, but Israel will trample them down (Deuteronomy 33:29). A psalmist predicts that the king of the chosen people will have dominion over all the earth, that his enemies will lick the dust, pay tribute to him and serve him (Psalm 72:8-11).

Error 14. The Bible errs on the ages of early humans (Genesis 5:1-31 and 9:29). Adam died at the age of 930 years, Enosh at 905, Kenan at 910, Mehalalel at 895, Jared at 962, Methuselah at 969, Lamech at 777, and Noah at 950. By way of contrast, the prevailing view among informed persons today is that the life span of humans has been increasing during the course of evolution. Evidence unearthed so far indicates that forty was a ripe old age for prehistoric man.

Error 15. Genesis 6:4 errs in reporting that in those days there were giants on the earth who were descendants of supernatural beings and human women.

Error 16. Genesis 17:11-12 mistakenly approves God’s command to Abraham and his descendants to circumcize every baby boy when he is eight days old—a painfully cruel and senseless procedure, all too widely practiced to this day.

Error 17. Matthew 10:23 reports one of Jesus’ major blunders: He sends the twelve disciples on a speedy mission to the towns of Israel, assuring them that the world will end in a few weeks before the disciples complete their mission. Likewise in Matthew 16:27-28 he assures his followers that some of them will not die before they see the Son of Man come as King.

Error 18. Jesus alerted the people: “This generation (the people then living) will not pass away before all these things take place” (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). The endtime events will happen before the people then living had all died. If Jesus had had his way, the first century would have been the last.

Error 19. In John 3:16 Jesus gives us the most famous verse in the New Testament, “God so loved the world . . . ” There is a caring God who loves the world unconditionally and unendingly. Yet neither Jesus nor anyone else can explain why people and animals suffer so much and so pointlessly in a world created and governed by an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-wise God. No God of unlimited love would have designed a world which is a slaughterhouse, brutal, gory, and vast, ruled by the law that creatures must eat and be eaten, find food until they become food. No beneficent designer would have designed a violent universe of exploding stars, killer stars, cannibalistic black holes, colliding galaxies, and erupting galaxies. Jesus would have been closer to the truth if he had informed us that the world, far from being created and controlled by a loving God, is governed by blind, unfeeling physical forces. In short, Jesus’ teaching about God’s love is one of the least credible of all his teachings.

Error 20. Jesus erred egregiously when he preached these words: “Whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). The following persons called certain people fools: David (Psalms 14:1 and 53:1). Solomon, the traditional author of the book of Proverbs, delighted in calling people fools (Proverbs 15:2,5; 26:11). Paul called his opponent a fool (1 Corinthians 15:36). Paul addressed the Galatians as “You foolish Galatians!” (Galatians 3:1). Peter called his critics ignorant fools (1 Peter 2:15). Jesus called the person a fool who does not obey his (Jesus’) teachings. Jesus called the Pharisees fools (Luke 11-40). He called the scribes and Pharisees “blind fools” (Matthew 23:17, 19). Jesus addressed two of his disciples as fools (Luke 24:25). God often called people fools (Jeremiah 4:22; 5:21; Ezekiel 13:3). Look who’s condemned to hell: David, Solomon, Paul, Peter, Jesus, and God. What an amazing series of errors!`

Conclusion. Are there errors in an errorless Bible? I say, “Yes, the Bible is chock-full of errors.” What do you say?

Keep on reading. For more on these subjects see my The Seven Mighty Blows to Traditional Beliefs, Second Edition, and the three volumes of my Sweet Jesus, published by the Flatwoods Free Press, 750 Lum Fife Road, Gordo, AL 35466-3357

BERNARD KATZ

In a recent interview written up in the newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the following question was put to Hitchens: “You’re an outspoken atheist who frequently debates religious thinkers. Why is religion so important to you?”

To which Hitchens answers: “Because it’s the original subject, humanity’s first attempt to make sense of things. It precedes philosophy, science, medicine, and free inquiry. It comes from the extreme barbarous childhood of our species, but it deserves respect.

Really?

From our secular humanist point of view, I thought that religion was like Roger Dangerfield’s attitude when he used to say that “he gets no respect!” Why would we respect the morals of what Hitchens clearly recognizes as “barbaric”? In one of his latest books—and a best-seller—the very title of his book shows no respect for religion. For its very odd title is god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything! Note that “god” is denigrated by using the small “g” and that the word “poison” covers the contents of his book like a toxic cloud. A brief sampling of what he writes also supports his contempt for religion.

Here’s what he says about the supposedly benign and humane Dalai Lama. “The human species is an animal species without very much variation within it, and it is idle and futile to imagine that a voyage to Tibet, say, will discover an entirely different harmony with nature or eternity. The Dalai Lama, for example, is entirely and easily recognizable to a secularist. In exactly the same way as a medieval princeling, he makes the claim not just that Tibet should be independent of Chinese hegemony—a ‘perfectly good’ demand, if I may render it into everyday English—but that he himself is a hereditary king appointed by heaven itself. How convenient! Dissenting sects within his faith are persecuted; his one-man rule in an Indian enclave is absolute; he makes absurd pronouncements about sex and diet and, when on his trips to Hollywood fund-raisers, anoints major donors like Steven Segal and Richard Gere as holy. (Indeed, even Mr. Gere was moved to whine a bit when Mr. Segal was invested as a tulku, or person of high enlightenment. It must be annoying to be outbid at such a spiritual auction.) I will admit that the current “Dalai” or supreme lama is a man of some charm and presence, as I will admit that the present Queen of England is a person of more integrity than most of her predecessors, but this does not invalidate the critique of hereditary monarchy, and the first foreign visitors to Tibet were downright appalled at the feudal domination, and hideous punishments, that kept the population in permanent serfdom to a parasitic monastic elite.” (p.200)

And here’s what Hitchens says about the humane actions and comments by Mother Teresa:

“Every single step toward the clarification of this argument [about birth control] has been opposed root and branch by the clergy. The attempt even to educate people in the possibility of ‘family planning’ was anathematized from the first, and its early advocates and teachers were arrested (like John Stuart Mill) or put in jail or thrown out of their jobs. Only a few years ago, Mother Teresa denounced contraception as the moral equivalent of abortion, which ‘logically’ meant (since she regarded abortion as murder) that a sheath or a pill was a murder weapon also. She was a little more fanatical even than her church, but here again we can see that the strenuous and dogmatic is the moral enemy of the good. It demands that we believe the impossible, and practice the unfeasible. The whole case for extending protection to the unborn, and to expressing a bias in favor of life, has been wrecked by those who use unborn children, as well as born ones, as mere manipulable objects of their doctrine.” (pp.222-23)

The following commentaries show that Hitchens has NO respect for religion, don’t they? So we have good reason to be quite annoyed, if not angered when after writing this highly disrespectful book about the “poison” of religion, Hitchens turns about-face and then says that we should “respect” this insidious aspect of man’s barbarous past!

So I repeat: Christopher Hitchens, did we hear you right?

“Losing Our Religion” by S. E. Cupp, Publisher Simon & Shuster, 288 pp., Hardcover, $24

Author Review by Stephen Van Eck

When Paris was liberated from the Nazis, those women who’d consorted with the enemy were shaved bald. Based on this historical precedent, S. E. Cupp should come down with an acute case of alopecia.

Cupp, who claims to be an Atheist, has written a trite, tedious and tendentious tone denouncing the “Liberal media” for its alleged negative attitude toward Christianity. This raised a lot of questions, but mostly: “Have you NO idea of all the horrible things that have been done in the name of Christ? Is present-day Christianity exempt from criticism?” Cupp would seem to give a resounding no to the first question, and a resounding yes to the second. Cupp bases her book on the utterly unquestioned notion that “America was founded on Christianity”, a fallacy no Atheist should need to have refuted. She even repeats the hoary nonsense about a “War on Christmas”, a picked fight by Fundys that no Atheist should credit. All this makes one wonder just what kind of Atheist she is. Well, she’s one who’d be happy to hawk her screed on The 700 Club (June 4). There, she agreed with Gordon Robertson that Christians are the only group that can be maligned with impunity. (Interesting Victim Complex in the majority faith.) Apparently she’s not Atheist enough to notice that this status more properly belongs to the group in which she claims membership.

So what motivates someone like her? Cupp is a prominent political archconservative (a correspondent on Hannity) with an axe to grind against a media that sometimes has the temerity to fail to ratify her policy preferences. (As if they’re obligated to.) Not a loving Cupp, she really hates Liberals and Liberalism. More and more in recent times, that seems to be the quintessence of the Conservative  Movement. So, gripped with festering resentment against Liberals, she’s striking back at it, enlisting Christians with a message they’re primed to hear; but in pandering to what in all logic should be her enemy she is making a Devil’s bargain. If Christianity had the monopoly of power it once had and craves to restore, people like her would be in mortal peril. The “Liberal media” she denounces stands in the way of Theocracy sometimes (though not enough). She’s blithely ignorant of the more frequent instances where the media is deferential to or assists Christianity. Otherwise she’d have no book, which would have been better.

We would expect an Atheist to show at least a modicum of awareness of the Dark Side of Christianity (and there’s a book by Helen Ellerbe with that exact title that I’d recommend to her.) But Cupp is not much of an Atheist at all. In fact, I’d lay odds she’ll eventually get “born again” and join the enemy. All the more reason to wish she’ll go bald.

And one must also wonder why a Jewish-founded firm would agree to publish a book that advances Christian Supremacy. Their grasp of history must be as deficient as Cupp’s.

A. J. MATTILL, Jr.

Long ago, as a boy in Sunday School, I memorized the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; and descended into hell; the third day He arose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”

Volumes have been written to explain the Apostles’ Creed, but here we concentrate on Jesus’ Ascension: “He ascended into Heaven.” Unless otherwise noted, biblical quotations are from the King James Version.

First of all, we note that in the Bible Jesus is not the only person who was believed to have ascended into heaven. The others are Enoch and Elijah.

1. Enoch (Genesis 5:23-24). “23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: 24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not, for God took him.” Hebrews 11:5: “5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death: and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” This means that God took up Enoch from earth without Enoch’s dying.

2. Elijah (2 Kings 2:9-15). “Behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted Elijah and Elisha asunder, and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” Elijah went up in a whirlwind on the fiery chariot to heaven.

3. Jesus (seven passages affirm his ascension): 1. “So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them [the eleven disciples], he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19).  (2.) “50 And he led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them, 51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven” (Luke 24:50-51). (3.) “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that cometh down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13). (4.) “I go to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2). (5.) “Jesus saith unto her [Mary Magdalene], Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethern, and say to them, I ascend unto my father, and your father; and to my God and your God” (John 20:17). (6.) “And when he [Jesus] had spoken these things, while they [the apostles] beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). (7.) “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things” (Ephesians 4:10).

4. The Virgin Mary. Our ministudy of Ascension would be incomplete without mentioning the fact that in the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church the Virgin Mary ascended into heaven: “The Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1994, p. 252.

5. Mohammed. Shame on us if we forget that Holy Islamic Scriptures have preserved for humankind the tradition of Mohammed’s Ascension. In the year 621, at the age of 51 years, Mohammed fell asleep on a carpet at his cousin’s place. Suddenly the voice of the Archangel Gabriel broke the silence and called on Mohammed, “Awake, thou sleeper, awake!” Mohammed saw a horse as dazzling as Gabriel. It had the glittering wings of an immense eagle. Gabriel told Mohammed that the horse’s name was Burak, the horse of Abraham. Burak allowed Mohammed to ride on its back and soared into the starry night. First of all, they flew to Mount Sinai, where Jehovah had given the Ten Commandments to Moses. Then they flew to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. Finally, they went to Heaven, where Mohammed met with many of the Holy Land’s previous horsemen, such as Adam, Noah, Enoch, Elijah, Jesus, and a few others.—Based upon http://www.allaboutturkey.com/muhammed.htm.

“Burak” reminds us of a swift, winged horse in Greek mythology named Pegasus, who soared toward heaven. Pegasus’ soaring flight was interpreted as an allegory of the soul’s immortality.

ASSESSING ASCENSIONS. Here we look briefly at three positions: 1. Rationalists, who reject belief in anything supernatural, deny belief in ascensions of anyone to heaven at any time or any place. End of discussion.

2. Some Christians, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, believe that Jesus ascended to heaven but no one else did. Jehovah “took Enoch” (Genesis 5:23-24), but not to heaven. God “took Enoch” in the sense that God cut short Enoch’s life at age 365. Jesus stated clearly in John 3:13 that he, Jesus, was the only person who ever ascended to heaven, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” So much for anyone else, such as Enoch, Elijah, the Virgin Mary, and Mohammed. For more on the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view of ascension, see Enoch in Volume One of their Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, published by the Watchtower and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

3. Astronomy versus Ascension. As Fundamentalist Christians understand Isaiah 14:13, heaven is beyond the highest stars, some 500,000,000 light years away. Thus a person ascending to heaven would have to travel 186,000 miles per second (the speed of light) for 500,000,000 years to get there. Yet believers contend that those who ascended to heaven did so instantly: Bang! Just that quick! Needless to say, modern astronomy has done  away with a heaven located a few miles above a flat earth.