Some of the world’s greatest documents speak of equality. Both the
Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address declare that “all men
are created equal”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares “All
human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
While one could argue about how equal mankind is upon birth, the egalitarian
ideology so eloquently expressed within these documents wouldn’t have been
realized unless the dominant oppressor was persuaded to relinquish control.
Unfortunately the agent of persuasion triggering the change wasn’t reason…it
was war! Mr. Yates, my 8th grade History teacher was
correct…”What we learn from history is that we don’t learn from
history!”
Egalitarianism is a grand idea, but an unrealistic one that assumes that
respect ought to be rendered to all people (especially to those considered to be
in a weaker, inferior position.) From
an Ex-Minister vantage point that is concerned with good secular and religious
relations; it is essential that respect be earned before one starts to discuss
or assume equality! This is an unmarked two way street currently. Who draws the
lines, and where shall they be placed? What needs to happen for both sides to
garner respect for the other?
The assumption of societal egalitarianism
undermines and stifles humanity’s progression. How can we have equality when a
sizeable portion of humanity’s foundation rests upon a superstitious base like
the Bible or the Koran? These two compete for supremacy, nothing egalitarian
here!
Religious dogmas conclude that their
“truth” should reign supreme and that following its sectarian dictates will
remedy personal and societal ills. Oh really? The next two sentences will debunk
that theory. 1) Divorce rates are higher in the Bible-belt Southern USA despite
the warnings of Hell to those who partake! 2) Celibacy demands of the Roman
Catholic Church clergy has contributed to the Catholic pedophilia epidemic. God
himself with his Holy Spirit living within these folks cannot muster a remedy
for their personal problems. Has God failed these folks, or the clergy sold them
a bill of goods, or both? Some cure, perhaps the church should stop
administering the sin disease they spread. The mere existence of religious
plurality itself ought to debunk the egalitarian misnomer. Heck, you can’t get
Christians and Muslims to agree upon a basis for human rights.
Whereas following any of our dominant
superstitious blueprints cannot attain an egalitarian world, the better world we
seek would be more plausible within the parameters of the Humanist
Manifesto III. This writer has frequently pondered how anyone could object
to the guiding principles of the manifesto?
The Clergy Scam: Spreading a disease and trying to
cure it
Everyone knows that it is the clergy that
vehemently object to secularism (i.e. humanism). Why do they do this? Are they
against a better world…or do they fear what ex-ministers like myself face
whenever they decide to make an honest living outside of the “ministry”? Let
me speak directly, if the clergy didn’t spin superstition…they would be out
upon the street without a profession and without their livelihood!
This dependence is ably denoted upon a D.C.
metro church marquee that read:
“I
need you, and you need me, and we all need Jesus”.
My take upon this is…”Here we have a bunch
of weak and needy people burdened by a fictitious dilemma enabled though
illiteracy.” I certainly don’t need the church, the pastor’s help (his
name was underneath of that quote...mercifully withheld here), Jesus and the
curse or guilt of sin. In essence, Christianity gives mankind something cancer
like (sin which will kill you) and stands ready to profit with the cure and will
have a pastor hold your hand until you reach the Promised Land in death (as long
as you pay him.) This scam breaks down whenever the potential recipient refuses
to accept the terminal diagnosis (you’ll have no need of the cure if you
refuse to accept the fictitious disease.)
Let me summarize what really transpires. If a
religious leader gives a man a poison pill with the direct intent of his
swallowing, that man gets called a reverend (worthy of reverence.) Think of how
twisted this is! Rather than being scorned and disgraced, a reverend is held in
high esteem (pedestal problem) by the faithful and society accepts them as
equals according to diminutive egalitarian standards. What next? Will we start
praising people who spread hepatitis?
The only KJV usage of “reverend” occurs in
Psalms 111:9 which clearly states that the title of reverend is exclusively
reserved for the God of the Bible! Many clergy clamor for the title of
“reverend” and are oblivious or illiterate about what the title really means
(mortal man wanting the same transcendent respect equal to what his God
gets…in reality they are Biblical blasphemers!). There is something wrong in a
society that esteems illiterate men whom do as Matt. 15:14 suggest “they be
blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall
into the ditch.”
Ex-Minister proposes a unique approach towards
the secular versus faithful divide. This website/proposed organization has long
been at odds with the standard “hacking” methodology that many of our peers
use to attack the fortress of the faithful. Ex-Minister’s fresh approach
isn’t timid or weak but seeks to avoid the confrontational “we have the
truth…your ignorant” proposition that religious folks don’t appreciate!
We realize the immense, delicate human aspects
of reaching the greatest perpetrators of religion (the clergy) and to assist and
help them to utilize their talents in constructive matters outside of the
ministry. Making inroads with the clergy are the key in changing/shaping
society. Few understand the pivotal power and influence of the clergy to sway
society’s acceptance or disregard towards dogma. Few understand the need of
support that those clergy would need if they were to leave the ministry like
this writer and other ex-ministers have done.
This writer was a benefactor of the
egalitarian myth when he was a fundamentalist minister. Fundamentalists took
from society…they didn’t give back! Yet, I was afforded undeserved respect
for propagating detrimental societal dogmas, unscientific views, and standing in
the way of societal progress. In time, as my thinking developed, I came to
realize that fundamentalism was eminently selfish and socially unconcerned about
many important aspects of humanity. Altruistic humanist values invigorated and
propelled me to abandon faith and attempt to organize likeminded former clerical
visionaries whom want to change the world!
I
wish we were much tougher upon ministers and churches. We shouldn’t
automatically grant any of these egalitarian statuses until they have earned it!
Smug Fundamentalist’s that think they “have the truth” tend to be the most
persistently onerous citizens of society, yet networks like Fox give them
headlines. Societal uneasiness in handling these peculiar folks has usually been
to grant them unmerited egalitarianism. Religious perpetuity relies upon the
continuation of this egalitarian myth for its survival. Without the myth, basic
“survival of the fittest” rules would apply rather than the free pass
afforded to humans that cling to superstition. Skillful, informed responses towards breaking down this egalitarian myth
is precisely where the resolution of secular versus religious conflict lies.
Personally,
I abhor the thought of mankind subjugating themselves under the control of
religious authorities. While I agree with their right to do so, the part
that
disturbs me is the great masses of religious people that do so have built political
power and influence with their numbers. The strength of their numbers often
gets likeminded elected/influential leaders into leadership roles with their
“holy
book” mindset that frequently do not respect the separation of church and
state.
Freethinkers don’t want to be bound by the same chain that shackles the faithful
but our granting them egalitarian status allows them the opportunity to impinge
upon societal progress.
Should
rational citizens that have avoided the mind traps of organized religion
have to endure the absurdities that the fundamentalists insist society
should be forced to abide by? Should we be following the ignorance of
dumbed-down fundamentalist out of cowardice to confront "sacred
absurdities"? Shouldn't the brightest minds and leaders with a common
good social conscience be the people whom lead us rather than dull
simpletons that cannot distinguish between what is rational and supernatural
nonsense?
The
egalitarian myth is built upon societal illiteracy
As
kindly as I can say this, the bulk of our society has miserably failed to
properly interpret those “holy books” for what they really are… which is
ANCIENT LITERATURE. The majority of the faithful are too afraid to make critical
inquiry of the literature book that undermines their lives and by extension
undermines the progression of our society.
In a democracy numbers count and church leadership knows this all too
well and is frightened by the enlightenment that the secular movement brings.
Critical
inquiry reveals that the basic tenants of Christianity cannot properly withstand
secular scrutiny. The weight of the evidence against Christianity renders the
Bible to be nothing more than the domain of those who don’t recognize a text
of literature for what it truly is. The Bible isn’t the “word of God”
that merits any reverence or authority; it is just an ancient collection of
literature thrown together that has tripped up people whom resist critical
inquiry. Sorry to speak so bluntly, but honesty demands that one be considered
illiterate if you propagate a literal interpretation of the Bible. Liberal or PC
Christianity understands this, the fundamentalists don’t.
What a Fool Believes
Men behind the myth:
Ignorant Con men proclaiming an infallible Bible
{6,000 year old earth}
The
Bible begins with two differing accounts of creation and the entirety of the
time span of the book is consistent with Bishop
Ussher's assessment that the Bible indicates that creation occurred in 4004
BC. There is absolutely NO CHANCE that our earth is merely some 6,000 years old.
Young earth creationists are married to a literal interpretation of the Bible
and thus choose of follow illiterate con men’s ignorance rather than
verifiable science that leaves no possibility for a young earth. Science itself
invalidates the literal interpretation of the Bible! It’s unfortunate to see
people follow superstition rather than science, which begs the egalitarian
worthiness question of the fundamentalist faithful.
{Historicity of the Old
Testament}
Furthermore,
scholars such as Thomas Thompson and Ahmed Osman rip the historic integrity of
the Old Testament to shreds. Osman’s book, “Jesus in the House of the
Pharoahs” (which should make any Biblical literalist blush) augments the view
that the Bible rightfully be considered as literature rather than a historically
reliable document. Frankly, the Old Testament is an embarrassment to
Christianity and it is sheer folly to seek to augment the case for Christianity
with its usage. The dismantling of the Old Testament leaves the New Testament a
moot point.
{Is Christ Historical or
Merely a Legend?}
The
Bible itself knows the importance of Christ and the supposed resurrection.
I
Cor 15:14-15 “And if Christ be
not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and
we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he
raised up Christ; whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.”
This
former minister came to the conclusion long ago that the whole story of the
death, burial and resurrection of Christ was written into history. A simple
challenge that any reader can do is to simply visit their favorite bookseller
and scan the works of Tacitus. Tacitus
(AD 56 - 117) was a contemporary of the time period when the New Testament books
were supposedly written. There is much to discuss here but in the end, nothing therein
persuades one that the gospels are credible.
{Gospel…Goyim under a
spell}
Yea,
ministers teach that the gospel is simply the good news. But the thought of a
questionable historical figure being able to collect, suffer, and atone for the
fictitious sins of mankind is crazy! Go (goyim) spel (under the spell). Please
look up the term goyim to grasp the meaning of what this term (gospel) may truly
mean. Nearly all Jewish people reject the absurdity of what the gospel entails.
It seems that gospel belief induces a spell that is contrary to reason.
{Homosexuality is Natural and
other Sexuality Misunderstandings of the Faithful}
Excuse me for laughing
as I write this, but I cannot help but laugh upon the realization that a fundy
thinks an animal engaging in same sex sexual intercourse with another animal has
done so because they want to “show the finger” in rebellion to the dictates
of the god of the Bible. The Bible implies that homosexuality is against nature
when in reality IT IS natural!
The
Bible has it all WRONG! Nature itself proves though animal sexuality that the
Bible is wrong! Animals follow their nature, which sometimes finds them engaging
in same sex sexuality. The “Intelligent Design” school of thought which
fellowships with the Biblical God cannot reconcile these sexual matters and
inerrancy. Nor do they have an answer for a hermaphrodite (an individual which
has both male and female sexual genitalia). Fundamentalist homophobes don’t
want to accept that hermaphrodites were created (designed) that way by their God
because they would then have to admit to an error of the scriptures and that
homosexuality comes naturally for some people. Again, matters like these beg the
question of egalitarian worthiness of the fundamentalist faithful.
Ex-Minister
realizes that the Bible is the world’s runaway best-selling book that hasn’t
been read and understood by the faithful who so boldly proclaim its brilliance.
Society loves sex and so does the Bible, yet why are the faithful so sexually
repressed? The Bible is indeed a very sexual book! Just read K.J.
Aaron’s excellent treatment of the subject matter which is upon the
Ex-Minister website to better understand what the Bible teaches about sexual
matters.
The ministerial path to a
secular society
Men
of integrity aren’t afraid to scrutinize their belief systems and follow the
evidence where it leads. Cowards and clergy con men don’t have the integrity
to venture into it lest they discover things that other honest former ministers
like Joseph McCabe and Charles B. Templeton found so disturbing. Disturbing
enough to face the facts and consequences of their convictions and thus cease
paying homage to the egalitarian myth by leaving the ministry. McCabe’s and
Templeton’s ministry departures serve as tremendous examples of courage and
pioneer leadership that inspire posterity to follow reason rather than
superstition.
I’m
certain that many other ministers have come to some of the same conclusions and
would like to leave the ministry! The problem is that they would face tremendous
societal prejudices, discrimination and financial problems for doing so!
Ministers
desirous of paycheck continuity fortify the egalitarian myth every Sunday. The
minister depends upon the parishioner for his paycheck (“I need you” portion
of the D.C. church marquee). If someone really wanted to secularize society
they should be targeting the psyche and motivations of its ministers rather than
focusing upon the periphery of what they teach! Again, I ask for funding to
build a world-class organization that reaches out to the needs of the clergy!
Passionate ex-ministers employing a loving, understanding, and positive
constructive energy rather than a negative, confrontational approach can best
dismantle the myth and build a better society.
Sophisticated
Christianity: What Many Skeptics Don’t Understand
Now,
lets make this essay really interesting! There has always been this divide
within Christianity between the Fundamentalist (literalists) and the
Philosophical/Cultural Christian (PC or liberal) crowd. No one will come right
out to say this like I did back in 2008, but “if
your Bible isn't literal, then it must be literature !”
The
PC crowd is intellectually brighter than the fundamentalists (no contest), but
they still cannot bring themselves to abandon teaching Christianity as a
religion. They treat Christianity as a religion but many of them teach
Christianity’s book (the Bible) like it is nothing more than a philosophy. The
Bible is a “suggestive” book to PC’s rather than a book that demands
strict adherence (as a fundamentalist insists upon.)
The majority of PC ministers teach as if Jesus was a real life historical
figure who left behind a desirable philosophy that people should seek to follow.
Many of these PC ministers see the problems of the Bible and refrain from
demanding strict adherence. They think they have enough of the “truth” to
justify their profession while the fundy never bothers to question anything.
Fundamentalist
sermons are replete with imperatives of what the listener must do to be in a
proper relationship with God. Deep within the PC minister knows that they
don’t have that “Divine mandate” that the fundamentalist publicly uses to
their advantage to drive the parishioner into action. The fundies are oblivious
to the contradictions and seek to beat the sheep into submission with their
flawed understanding/proclamation of the Bible.
What
skeptics don’t understand is that both siblings NEED the rivalry for their
perpetuity. PC Christianity wouldn’t grow without the energy of the fundies
and fundamentalism wouldn’t survive without the social gospel contributions of
the PC’s. Our failure to isolate the two main differing brands of Christianity
is what enables both of them to survive.
As much as I appreciate and respect the PC’s societal
contributions, it is the PC’s who give Christianity dignity and provide the
fundamentalists an undeserved “respectability
cover.” While both use the same book and apply it differently; they both share
the same God. Society doesn’t separate the two because if they did, the
fundamentalists would be exposed for being a self-centered group of
intellectually challenged hillbillies. Their differences are looked upon as
“interpretation issues” or “differences of opinion” which popular
opinion says should be looked upon with tolerance. That tolerance is the free
pass that allows fundamentalism to survive. Isolate the fundamentalists from the
PC’s and the whole equation changes!
Delving
deeper into this divide is exactly what skeptical non-believers should be doing!
PC Christianity is respectable and is socially conscious while fundamental
Christianity needlessly divides society and should to be annihilated. If
skeptics only knew how bad they look by broad brushing Christianity…they would
then understand why they cannot gain the ear of Christians. Here you have the PC
Christians providing medical care, food and shelter to people in need which
speaks well of Christianity only to have a skeptic belittle and ridicule the
beliefs of a group that does good to their fellow man.
To
disrespect a humanitarian seems cold blooded to a normal person…who wants to
listen to an unreasonable person of “reason”? Many Christians cannot get
past the lack of humanity and social disregard that many non-theists exhibit.
One gets the impression that many non-theists exhibit a vocational school
discipline rather than a balanced liberal arts education.
If
only the skeptical world would adopt a progressive humanist approach that
appreciates and seeks ways to cooperate with PC Christianity rather than looking
for ways to fight or insult them. The pioneer secular humanitarian Ted Turner
found a way to do so. Ex-Minister was stunned by the secular silence following
Turner’s landmark decision, so much so that I wrote about it here.
Where are the visionaries within the skeptical movement? Has skepticism
become so atheistic that it eschews humanitarianism?
As
much as I wished that the question were merely rhetorical, one can’t help but
notice the division within skepticism. The pre-dominant ideological swing of
late seems to be uninterested in dialogue or common ground, but rather to foster
an atmosphere that is hostile towards people of faith. What, we are asking folks
to leave one unreasonable dysfunctional family (faith) to join a hostile one
that doesn’t like anyone different than ourselves? That’s xenophobia folks,
not reason!
Some
might misconstrue that writing an essay like this to be an attempt to
“knockout” Christianity. You are correct if you are referring to
fundamentalism. I see PC Christianity more as a humanistic philosophy without a
Biblical anchor than a religion (if it is not literal…it must be literature,
philosophy or mythology). Ex-Minister is more intrigued about
working/cooperating with these “literature teachers” along humanitarian
themes then to debunk their harmless faith tradition. Debunking isn’t
considered to be the pinnacle for Ex-Minister; humanitarian concerns should come
first for non-theists.
Closing
comments
While
egalitarianism is a myth, isn’t the thought behind the overall idea respect? I
see egalitarianism as a protective layer of political correctness doctrine that
serves fragile religious interests. Secular
ire is raised when religious groups get privileges and protection in a
supposedly fair, democratic society. The conflict escalates whenever
fundamentalists make exclusive truth claims that people like myself can easily
debunk. Aiding and abetting religious con men troubles me when they should have
to fend for themselves just like everyone else does for survival. The
faithful’s only redemptive value comes not from the religion but the humanist
qualities that they exhibit towards society. PC’s have these religious
humanist qualities, fundamentalists don’t. I see no redemptive value in
fundamentalism, which is why I’d love to see it be unprotected so that it
meets its doom at the hands of secular interests.
Here is the contrast and abrupt turning point,
which Ex-Minister comprehends within religion that atheism doesn’t recognize.
PC Christianity has a social conscious that is humanistic in nature. In an
evolutionary theoried world of the survival of the fittest and the winner takes
all mentality…who will look out for the interests of those not so strong?
Humanists whether they be secular or religious in nature are most likely going
to be the ones who are concerned with the things that make society civilized.
These are the types of people that I want to partner and cooperate with to build
society and they definitely deserve secular respect!
