What is the Christian's Role in Politics?

Posted

Following is a proposal for a discussion I am moderating with a group of men from my church. I am interested to hear what my readers (haha) think on the subject as well. If you are interested in coming, email me and I'll fill you in.

Question for discussion:
What is the Christian's role in politics ?

Background:
During the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, the republican campaign teams relied heavily upon the so called "Christian Right." Indeed were it not for the efforts of many pastors and well known Christian leaders, such as Rick Warren of The Purpose Driven Life, and James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who gave weighty endorsements to candidates and issues, George W. Bush may not have won these close elections. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage are often enough to mobilize Christians to voting booths and sometimes make them into political activists. Meanwhile, there has emerged a minority voice inside of Christianity that laments the idea that Christians have been reduced to a voting block. These pastors and theologians argue that Christianity should not be so involved in politics. How should we then live? Ought we as Christians strive to create a theocracy of the United States, or should we work to glorify God via other avenues such as culture and art?
Other Details:
The goal here is to come to a better understand of how Christ would have us conduct ourselves and our church. With that in mind please do research to support your view point. There is ample material in support of each side on the internet and at the public library. Of course Biblical references that reinforce your ideas are highly encouraged. At any discussion among intelligent Christians there is bound to be strong opinions on each side. Remember that the fellow disagreeing with you is your brother. With that in mind bring your sharpest wits and leave your ego at home. Oh, and bring a pipe or cigar to smoke if you like.

An Angry Jesus

Posted

   Over the past few weeks I have been reading Bart Ehrman's book  Misquoting Jesus.  I think Ehrman is wrong on his most basic premises, but will debate that later.  Yesterday I read that, according to Ehrman, there is a mistake in the passage; Mark 1:39 - 45, which describes Jesus' healing of a leper.  All English translations of the Bible, and the two Greek translations I have access to, use the word "Splangnistheis," which most translate as "filled with compassion." to describe Jesus' reaction when confronted by the leper.  However, the most reliable manuscripts, the context of the passage, and Mark's writing style indicate that a different word was used.  The word that may have been original is "Orgistheis," which means "becoming angry."  Presumably towards the leper.  Ehrman goes on to state how devastating the picture of an angry Jesus would be to the fundamental beliefs of evangelicals.
    I think that in this case Ehrman makes a good point, and that there is sufficient evidence to cause us to question which word was actually intended by Mark.  But an angry Jesus would certainly not cause me to doubt my beliefs.  In fact, I think that an angry Jesus here would fit perfectly with the gospel message of who Jesus was.  The root of Orgistheis is orgizo.  Orgizo means to be angry.  It is used eight times in the new testament, but never in reference to Jesus.  Often, however Jesus uses the word in His parables to describe the character who represents God the Father.  (See Matt 18:3422:7  and Luke 14:21)  This is not completely compelling, but  I think it is significant that Jesus is not bashful about describing His Father as capable of anger.
      
Certainly Jesus' Father, the God of the Old Testament, displays anger at times.  The Hebrew (by my uneducated research) equivalent to Orgizo is Ka'ac.  It appears 54 times  in the old testament.  Of which 42 refer to the anger of God.  Throughout Jesus' ministry He frequently identified himself as God.  Why do we expect Him to be different from the God described in the Old Testament, who is clearly capable of anger.
    Often Jesus rebuked the pharisees in a way that was certainly not gentle.  See Matthew 23:23-29, for an example of Jesus' language towards the pharisees.  Likewise, Jesus rebukes His disciples for their lack of faith.  Poor Peter was often the target of this criticism.  Click here for the most common example.  I think that it is very important to examine the way in which the leper approaches Jesus in order to understand His response.
    Christians are given a picture of Jesus as a gentle man, who carries baby lambs and holds the hands of children.  But consider Matthew 21:12, and Mark 11:15.  Both passages describe Jesus on a rampage, overturning tables and driving out merchants.  Perhaps our ideas of Jesus are flawed.  Perhaps Jesus is not the gentle pushover that is pictured in all of those Sunday school flannel board figures.  Perhaps Jesus is at times a raging lion, perhaps He is like His Father after all.
    Ehrman offers the explanations of a few evangelicals regarding the possible use of the word "angry" in Mark 1:41.  These examples (as represented by Ehrman) are weak and wishy-washy.  I don't know which word Mark actually used, but what is the matter with Jesus being angry once in a while?  Maybe a little appropriately applied anger would suit today's church well.

Posted

A Humble Rebuttal:

    Over the last few months I have undertaken a study of certain contemporary books which seek to attack Christianity.  The first was Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation,"  Which I discussed on this blog, the second was Christopher Hitchens's "God is Not Great."  This I did not post on because his arguments were almost identical to Harris's, and his tone was patronizing and belittling.  In short, I found Hitchens to be a jerk.  Many of his "arguments" against Christianity came in the form of backhanded snipes which implied that only a complete idiot would believe the teachings of Christ.  I have not yet justified him with a response, and probably won't.  The third book in my anti-canon is Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus.
    I have addressed Ehrman before on this blog here.  He is different from the other Authors I have thus far encountered as Ehrman is not an atheist, nor is he a hater of religion.  He is the chair of the religion department at the University of North Carolina and the default religious "authority" for many news outlets including NPR.  In Misquoting Jesus Ehrman presents the case that the scriptures we have come to rely on as the New Testament are not so reliable.  He shows, or attempts to show, that over the centuries scribes and other ne'r-do-wells have changed the original meaning of the documents so that we cannot know what they originally meant.  This is a reformed and sophishticated (please pardon the pun) version of the old "telephone" argument, which goes:  The Bible is like a centuries old game of telephone, in which participants make a line and whisper a phrase into one after an other's ear.  By the time the last person gets the message, and announces it to the group, it has completely changed from the original.  I do not have the intellectual tools to confront Ehrman head on.  As I make my way through his book I will do my best to pick apart his argument.  But what strikes me on first glance follows:

    God was active in the writing of the scriptures.  One of the crux's of Christianity is the "inspiration" of scripture.  In other words; while the specific words of Paul, Luke, Moses etc were their own, the ideas behind those words came from God.  This idea is represented in II Tim 3:16II Peter 1:20-21  and Deut 29:29.  The Bible is God's special way of revealing himself to us.  It was written over a period of 2000 years, by more than 40 different authors.  God was not only present when the ideas were put down, but He has been present throughout time, ensuring that those ideas remain accurate into every time and every translation.  Ehrman obviously does not subscribe to this belief.  He must believe that immediately after having inspired each of the scriptures, God abandoned them and left it up to fallen, sinful human beings to preserve them for generations.  This is not consistent with the sovereign God represented in both the Old and the New Testaments.  Just as God was sovereign in the time of Abraham, Moses, King David, and Paul the Apostle, He was sovereign in the time of Socrates, Ceasar, Charlemagne, Henry VIII, and Napoleon, and He continues to be sovereign today.  And just as the scriptures were important to the people of the first century, so are they important to us today.  God would not have abandoned His inspired, special revelation, just as He has not abandoned us.

Here are a few better rebuttals to Ehrman.  I have not read them, but will try and figure out which one is best and purchase it.  Look for a review later on.

Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus

    By Dillon Burroughs from Dallas Theological Seminary

   By Timothy Paul Jones, published by Inter Varsity Press

Posted

On Religion and Science:


    I have been doing a lot of thinking lately about evolution and creation.  In the past I have held firmly to the rare belief that God did not create the cosmos in a literal six days, but took His time.  I based this belief on the poetic nature of Genesis 1, the timelessness of God evidenced in verses like II Peter 3:8, and the piles of geological evidence that my father, a Christian geologist, showed me.  While I am certain that this belief is consistent with scripture, many Christians are appalled by my interpretation of facts.  
    Many feel that I am not trusting God, by looking to science instead of the Bible for answers regarding the nature of how the universe was created.  Now I am beginning to study biological evidence for evolution, and I am, quite frankly, overwhelmed by how convincing a case can be made for biological evolution.  This evidence is not from "bad" science, bent on disproving God, (although there is lots of that), but from good scientific work dedicated to finding a real understanding of the world we live in.  This has been very convicting for me, and has prompted a real examination of Genesis 1:1 in order to really find what in the creation account excludes evolution.  I am troubled, and relieved to report that I have found very little in Scripture to dissuade me from buying into evolution.  I am not completely convinced yet, and must undertake more study before I make my mind up.
    I fear though, that many Christians will chastise me for "abandoning" the Bible in exchange for science.  Thus here is my answer:

    God has revealed Himself to us in two ways; through Scripture and through His creation. Romans 1:20 Science is a tool that God gave us to better understand His creation.  As it would be foolish to neglect the study of scripture, isn't it also foolish to neglect the study of creation?  I don't understand why so many Christians are "afraid" of Science.  When Science provides evidence for a new understanding of the universe Christians often resist it.  When Copernicus came out with his theory that Earth and the other planets revolved around the sun, instead of everything in the universe revolving around Earth, the church was outraged.  Now, everyone accepts this theory as fact, and nobody questions weather or not it is consistent with scripture.
    The trouble is that radicals on both sides of the evolution debate have polarized the issue so much that the truth is clouded and hard for anyone to see.  (We live in the Shadow Lands).  Atheists such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have seized evolution from the real scientists and screamed that it shows how foolish belief in God is.  I can assure you that nothing in the science of evolution explains away God.  Meanwhile, aggressive Christians, many of whom know nothing of science, try to discredit evolution because it threatens what they believe.  Many times this belief is based on a poor understanding of scripture.  I think that we Christians need to relax. Complaining about evolution only shows our fear of it.  Evolution is a possible explanation of how the universe became the way it is today, it can never explain how the universe became. Is God so small that He could not have created the universe through a process?
    I've listed a few references to help if anyone else is curious about evolution.

Darrel R. Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology

    I can't find a Google Books page for this reference, but it looks like it's on Amazon


Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief


Keith B. Miller, ed., Perspectives on an Evolving Creation


Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution


Finally, there is a movie coming out soon about the politicization of evolution that looks very interesting:


See the trailer:

Posted

Letter to a Christian Nation Part III

Or

"Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

Notes from the last 11 pages of Harris's Book.

Religion, Violence, and the Future of Civilization:

79-83) Hard to find a usable quote here. Harris explains that most societies are aligned along religious lines, then lists a series of wars which he claims are being fought because of religion.

84-85) "Political correctness and the fear of racism have made many Europeans reluctant to oppose the terrifying religious commitments of the extremists in their midst." Two points; In 2005 (I think) France outlawed the wearing of religious paraphernalia in public places. This was to limit the dress of Muslim women, but it also included crosses. Second, This seems more a fault of political correctness and "fear of racism."

85) "The idea that Islam is a 'peaceful religion hijacked by extremists' is a fantasy, and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge." This proceeds a paragraph in which Harris states the danger of Islam. I think I see where he is going here and my answer is this: Christianity is not Islam. I know Harris attempted to liken Christianity to Islam earlier, but he was not successful. He concludes this section by claiming that religious dialogue and "tolerance" are not the answer, that one faith will not be reconciled to another. For once we are in agreement. He has not claimed here that Christianity is violent like Islam, but he is leading us there.

Conclusion:

89) "You may even experience feelings of bliss while praying." Talk about patronizing. Clearly this man has never prayed.

89) "I would point out however, that billions of other human beings, in every time and place, have had similar experiences--but they had them while thinking about Krishna, or Allah, or the Buddha, while making art or music, or while contemplating nature." More evidence that humans have an internal need to cry out to, and imitate our creator. Not all people know His name, but every one wants to be near Him. What about the cosmos instilled this instinct? If we evolved by means of pure chance, where did this desire come from? Wouldn't this have been naturally selected away eons ago? If evolution constantly making things better, (Contrary to the second law), and Belief in anything greater than me is bad, then why isn't religion extinct?

89) "You are, of coarse, right to believe that there is more to life than simply understanding the structure and contents of the universe. But this does not make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about it's structure or contents any more respectable." OK Harris has been very careful to point out that science cannot answer questions about the reasons behind the universe, with this statement he indicates that it is OK to believe something about the meaning of life. But he's written this whole letter attempting to convince me that there is no meaning of life. He wants to have his cake and to eat it too.

90) Next Harris claims that religion must have served some evolutionary purpose, but that purpose is over, and we must move on. If this is true why doesn't evolution take care of it? He concludes with this comment: "There is, after all, nothing more natural than rape." Only an Atheist could say something like that. To suggest that rape is anything but sin requires a level of moral depravity one could only find by turning his back on God.

91) "This letter has been an expression of that amazement [that you believe in a living God] and perhaps a little hope." What hope does Mr. Harris have? By abandoning God he has abandoned hope, and he is encouraging us to do the same.

Posted

Letter to a Christian Nation Part II

or

You and me baby ain't nothin but mammals

Here are my notes on pages 46-79. Please feel free to comment, but keep in mind that they are just notes and thus very rough.

Who Puts the Good in the Good Book:

46) "Even if a belief in God had a reliable positive effect on human behavior, this would not offer a reason to believe in God." But we don't believe in God because it is "Good for society," We believe in God because He is there. Christianity's faith in God is not out of necessity for a harmonious society, it is because we are expressing our need to cry out to our Creator. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Faith in God is not bad for society, but it wouldn't matter if it was. Is Harris suggesting that I think that if I just believe in God every one will be happy? That's preposterous.

47-48) Here Harris describes the Tsunami in 2004 that killed thousands of people. This time he quotes liberal Christians who think that belief in God makes them feel good. He shoots this down with ease and I agree that if we based our beliefs on our feelings, we won't believe in a benevolent God for very long. He then quotes the Christians who believe that the Tsunami was a consequence of God's wrath. He says this makes sense, but then, how is God good? This is a question that has been asked for a very long time. I trust that what God knows is good, is superior to what I (or any other person) think is good. I don't understand why God allows bad things to happen, but if God is God, and I am His creation then I don't need to understand. God is not dependent on my approval to exist. Here Harris displays his relativistic definition of good.

49) "You are using your own moral intuitions to decide that the Bible is the appropriate guarantor of your moral intuitions. You intuitions are still primary, and your reasoning is circular." Where does he get the idea that I believe in God and the Deity of Christ because I agree with Him. I believe in the Deity of Christ because it is reasonable. If I believe that Christ is God, then I must follow His commandments, and make His "moral intuitions" my own. First comes reasonable belief, then comes disciple hood. That is not circular. Here someone like Earlman makes a much better argument against Christianity.

50) "We decide what is good in the Good Book. We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another distillation of morality:...[paraphrases Deut 22:13-21] If we are civilized we will reject this as the vilest lunacy imaginable." Christians don't pick and choose the passages they like from the Bible, at least they ought not. I don't decide what is good in the good book, I trust God that it is all good. Deut 22:13-21 sounds heinous, but it is there to demonstrate extent of God's love and grace. See the book of Hosea.

50) "The choice is simple, we can either have a twenty first century conversation about morality and human well-being--a conversation in which we avail ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophic arguments that have accumulated in the last two thousand years..."

"You and me baby aren't nothin but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel."----The Bloodhound Gang 1998

The Goodness of God:

50-54) Here Harris describes several tragedies, hurricane Katrina is the central theme. His point is dramatically put, that a benevolent God could not do such heinous things. Again, God's existence is no dependant on any one's approval. Many terrible things happen that we do not understand.

54) "Once you stop swaddling the reality of the world's suffering in religious fantasies, you will feel in your bones just how precious life is--and, indeed how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all." Is this supposed to be comforting? If there is no God, then there is no reason. A place with no reason is...well it's hell. I would rather there be a reason that I don't understand, or even don't agree with, than complete randomness.

55) "But we have seen that human standards of morality are precisely what you use to establish God's goodness in the first place." No God is not good because I agree with Him. Here Harris shows the heart of his fallacy. Goodness is not defined by humans. Goodness is defined by God. Things happen that I don't understand, things happen that I don't like, but God is not seeking my approval. Funny that so many points in his book seem to be well thought out and carefully explained, but he leaves us to glean out the most fundamental assumption that is made; The question of what is Good, and what is not.

The Power of Prophecy:

57) Here he makes the claim that the writers of the New Testament simply looked back to the books of the Old and wrote their fiction based on the prophesies they saw. But the "Old Testament" as we know it did not exist until well after most of the New Testament was written. The books of the old testament were put together based on the scriptures that were most often quoted by Christ. In many cases the writers of the New Testament had little access to the books of the Old.

58) There is a discussion about the Gospel writers disagreeing on the virgin birth. Must do more research.

58-59) Apparent contradictions between Mark and Matthew as to when exactly Christ was crucified, Matt 27:9-10 attributes a saying to Jeremiah which appears in Zacharia 11:12-13

60) "The Bible contains nothing like this [specific prophecy] in fact it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century. This should trouble you." This does not trouble me. The Bible was written by men living in the first century (NT). No where does the Bible claim to be the actual words of God. The word's are the authors (Paul, John etc). It is the ideas that are God's. The Canon keeps coming up in these arguments.

60-62) Now Harris laments the Bible for not giving us specific mathematics and the cure for cancer. God created the capacity for science and reason, the Bible God's answer key. It seems like Harris wants God to be like himself. He has measured his idea of God, and found it lacking. Harris therefore decided that God could not exist. God wants me to be like Himself. He measured my inmost character and found me lacking. So he sent His son to die, so that I could be made Holy.

The clash of Science and Religion:

First of all, there should be no clash between science and religion. Science is a tool that God has given us to better understand His creation and thereby Him.

65) "Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies."

Maybe so, but this is the fault of believers, not of God. I agree with him to an extent about religion. We Christians ought not to separate our lives into different areas. Rather we ought to go about our whole lives seeking the glory of God.

67) "It is time that we admitted that 'Faith' is nothing more than the licence religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail." Wrong again. My faith in God does not come into play when I question if He exists. I need only marvel at the beauty of my wife, or the Grand Canyon to answer those questions. My faith is used when I question weather or not God will keep His promises to me. That faith is based on the fact that He has kept all of His promises in the past, and that He will continue to do so.

The Fact of Life:

This section talks about the "irrefutable evidence" supporting evolution, yet no specific examples are given. Harris just states that I would be a fool to question them. So in the previous section he scolds me for believing in God despite lack of evidence, then in the next he tells me that I am foolish for not accepting evolution, yet offers no evidence of support for evolution. Make up your mind. I won't defend creationism here, but may comeback to it later.

He further laments the ideas of intelligent design. Well I have a lot of problems with those theories myself and I will therefore take a pass here.

75) "Over 99 percent of the species that ever walked, flew or slithered upon this earth are now extinct. This fact alone appears to rule out intelligent design." Again he does not understand God so he therefore dismisses Him. Fortunately God is not dependent on our understanding of Him, or our acceptance of Him in order to exist. He follows with the idea that since things have gone extinct and "regressed," an intelligent being could not have been behind the design of the cosmos. But the second law of thermo is in perfect conjunction with scripture. Things were perfect when God created the earth, and they have become less so over time (as a result of sin.) Eventually the whole system will revert to chaos, at which time, or before, Christ will return and set things right.

78) Harris then concludes this discussion by describing a few "design flaws" in humans. These "Flaws" cause people to suffer. Thus, according to Harris, they are bad, and could not have come from anything intelligent. He has again confused his inability to understand God with the existence thereof. Also check out whydoesgodhateamputees.com

Religion, Violence and the Future of Civilisation:

It is late, and I am getting lazy, yet here comes the rub of the argument. I will defer to fresh eyes and mind. Tune in tomorrow.

Posted

Letter to a Christian NationLetter to a Christian Nation, By Sam Harris

Here are some notes I made whilst reading Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation." I am reading this in preparation for a series of lectures I will be making to high school students about Christian apologetics. I wanted to do something a little more current than Evidence That Demands a Verdict, and Know Why You Believe. So I am trying to take some of the most recent affronts to Christianity and work on some defences from them. This book was published in 2007 and represents a very prevalent idea; that Christianity like, Islam is dangerous because it breeds fanatics who depart from reason, and kill in the name of God.

My notes follow. Please be kind. They are just notes, and I'm sure they are rife with all manner of errors. This is over the first 45 pages, tomorrow I will work on the last 45. Wednesday I will gather my thoughts into some coherency and put up something respectable.

Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris

samharris.org

Note to the Reader:
vii) "The most hostile of these communications always comes from Christians."
Guilty.
viii) "Such a person believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that only those who accept

the divinity of Christ will experience salvation after death."
Who else is a Christian?
ix) "...and that the first members of our species was fashioned out of dirt and divine breath."
Is it less fantastic to believe that we came spontaneously from an ape like creature?
He finishes the note with a discussion of what he believes that Christians believe about Christ's return.

He equates the belief that the world will end with the idea that America will regress from power and ability. It

is mystifying that while I cling to the idea that a departure of faith has led to our recent demise, there is a

very popular idea that renewed faith is the true cause of the same.

No Heading:
3-5) Here Harris introduces himself by flatly stating that he is not a relativist. This is very

important, and it sets this attack apart from the majority of attacks on Christianity today.
7) "Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way Muslims view Christianity. And that this

is the way I view all religions." MOHAMED WAS DOCUMENTED SINNER, HE WAS, HIS PROPHECIES AND TEACHINGS CONTRADICT

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. HE THEREFORE CANNOT BE FROM GOD.

The Wisdom of the Bible:
8) "Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering." WRONG. QUESTIONS OF MORALITY

ARE ABOUT WHAT IS PLEASING TO GOD, AND WHAT IS NOT. HUMAN HAPPINESS AND SUFFERING (ON EARTH) HAVE LITTLE TO DO

WITH MORALITY. He continues to quote Duet 13:6, 8-15. Next he quotes Christ, that the law will stand until it is

fulfilled (Matt 5:18-19)
11) "The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self contradictory that

it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five centuries."
13) Quotes 2 Thess 1:6-9 and John 15:6 These passages describe the vengeance of God on the non believer.

But if God is God, then vengeance is His prerogative. He is holding God up to what he believes to be good, not what

God defines as good.
15-19) He concludes this section with examples of how the Bible "condones" slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46,

Exodus 21:7-11, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Tim 6:1-4). "The moment that one recognizes that Slaves are Human beings like

himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that it is patently evil to

own and treat them like farm equipment." PRECISELY. BUT MY DOGS EXPERIENCE HAPPINESS AND SUFFERING AS WELL. IS

IT PATENTLY EVIL FOR ME TO OWN THEM, AND USE WATSON TO HELP ME FIND BIRDS? THE REASON SLAVERY IS WRONG IS BECAUSE

MAN IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. HARRIS KNOWS THIS BUT DOESN'T REALIZE IT. IF THE BIBLE IS NOT TRUE, THEN HOW

COULD WE ARGUE AGAINST SLAVERY SHORT OF BECOMING HINDU?

The Ten Commandments:
19) "The first four have nothing whatsoever to do with morality." WHOSE MORALITY? HARRIS HAS YET TO GIVE

A SOLID DEFINITION OF MORALITY OTHER THAN "WHATEVER MAKES PEOPLE HAPPY IS GOOD" IF WE DEFINE MORALITY AS "THAT

WHICH IS PLEASING TO GOD" THEN THE FIRST FOUR COMMANDMENTS ARE ABSOLUTELY MORAL.

Real Morality:
24-25)OK, NOW HE IS GOING TO DEFINE MORALITY...WELL MAYBE NOT. HE MENTIONS SOMETHING ABOUT LOVE...AND

"better and worse ways to seek happiness." He spends these pages summarizing (I think) that Humans can find a

"guide" (my word, not Harris's) to morality programed into them. He even says that chimpanzees display a loose

idea of what is "right" and what is not. But how did this get in us? Did the Cosmos in their timeless randomness

program these ideas into the world? MANY QUESTIONS HERE LEFT UNANSWERED.
25) "One of the most pernicious effects of religion is that it tends to divorce morality from the reality

of human and animal suffering." HE CONTINUES TO PAGE 29 WITH A DISCUSSION OF BAD POLICY ABOUT AIDS AND HPV, AND

ATTRIBUTES IT TO CHRISTIANITY. THIS MAY BE TRUE. BUT LETS REMEMBER THAT THE REASON THERE IS SUFFERING IS BECAUSE

THERE IS SIN. WHAT CHRISTIANS DO POLITICALLY IS OFTEN MISGUIDED, AND ALWAYS CONTROVERSIAL. BUT CHRISTIANS KNOW

THAT THE ONLY WAY TO EXTERMINATE SUFFERING IS TO EXTERMINATE SIN.
29-32) IS A DISCUSSION OF STEM CELL RESEARCH. I NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE DETAILS, BUT HE IS GOING AT

THIS WITH THE IDEA THAT WHATEVER CAUSES THE LEAST AMOUNT OF SUFFERING IS MORAL. IF THIS IS TRUE THEN HE IS

PROBABLY RIGHT. BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MORAL.

Doing Good for God:
35) Here he quotes Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great) in saying that Mother Teresa furthered poverty

by apposing the empowerment of women. But Ghandi too furthered poverty by pushing India into a textile industry

and helping Sukarno into power. He goes on to extol Mother Teresa for proclaiming that abortion is the greatest

evil we face as a society. Then he argues against this by declaring that the suffering of a fetus is less than

the suffering of others. Here he demonstrates that what is moral, is what causes the least amount of suffering.

Are Atheists Evil:
35-46) First he attempts to refute the idea that the greatest genocides of recent history happened in

atheist societies. He attempts to explain that it was the leader (Hitler, Stalin eg.) who caused the genocide,

not the atheists. But what society allowed the maniac to take power. He goes so far as to say that these

societies actually had a "cult of personality" attached to their leader. THIS CULT OF PERSONALITY COULD ONLY ARISE

IN A PLACE WHERE GOD IS ABSENT.