The United States has virtually no domestic problem that couldn’t be quickly resolved by freeing up that much wasted spending. We could push for treaties eliminating all nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (including our own, of course) and still have the greatest military on earth many times over. Eliminating weapons of mass destruction from the world’s arsenals would make us far safer than we are today (after all, Star Wars will never be a reliable defense), save us hundreds of billions, and allow us to invest the savings in ourselves and our economic future. Yet, as Greenwald points out, the major candidates in both political parties are unwilling — probably afraid — to propose the slightest cut in military expenditures.

Unless the United States can reign in what Eisenhower called the “military-industrial-congressional complex” its status as the world’s greatest economic power will come to an end during the 21st century. And with economic collapse, its military collapse will shortly follow.

Why is it that the most Christian of the worlds great nations is also the most militaristic? What is it about church-going Christians which makes them so eager to put money into warfare? The answer, I suspect, is fear. Fearful people become Christians in the first place, and Christianity — perhaps more than other religions — preys on fear in order to gain followers. Fear of death, fear of future punishment, fear of angering God. Add to that fear of other countries, fear of one’s enemies.

The result? A self-defeating blindness that leads to a monomania of investing in armaments and armies. Even when the nation’s weaknesses lie elsewhere.

The problem is that the U.N. Human Rights Council’s wording is so broad that it condemns not just biases against people of various religious traditions, but any “defamation” of the content of those religious traditions. Instead of defending, this betrays human rights. As Brown wrote,

We believe that the Council resolutions combating defamation of religions are inappropriate and misguided. It is people that merit protection, Mr President, not their beliefs. We would suggest that member States would do better to consider a resolution combating religious obstruction to the enjoyment of human rights.

Brown pointed out that religion is often the enemy of human rights, and the resolution seems to support local laws which protect religion from being criticized on that point.

In our work of promoting reproductive health and rights we often find ourselves being opposed by religious leaders. In our programs for sex education for young people in Africa it is more often than not the churches who oppose us, believing that ignorance in matters of human reproduction is better than knowledge. In Africa, many campaigns for AIDS prevention have been cut back or replaced entirely by religiously-inspired and totally ineffective campaigns promoting abstinence only – in a continent where abstinence is simply not an option for many young girls. And we actually find some church leaders telling lies about the efficacy of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

In March this year we presented to the Council a paper on the cruel practice of child marriage [A/HRC/4/NGO/84] . In some countries we are told that this blight on the lives of young girls has divine sanction, and that to criticise it is tantamount to blasphemy – defamation of religion.

I’m glad the IHEU has seconded her on thi.

In a not unrelated matter, the IHEU has also criticized the U.N. Special Report on Islamophobia, calling the report by the U.N. Special Rapporteur “seriously flawed”. The idea behind the report is to criticize hatred and bias against Muslims which has been rearing up in Europe and elsewhere. But like the resolution against defamation of religion, the report fails to distinguish between belief systems and the people who hold to them.

As I quoted Brown earlier, “It is people that merit protection…not their beliefs.” The U. N. Special Rapporteur, explains the IHEU letter,

… fails to distinguish between, on the one hand, Islamophobia, which he defines as “baseless hostility and fear vis-à-vis Islam”, and on the other, legitimate concerns regarding the rise of Islamic extremism.

Furthermore, IHEU points out something so obvious that it should never have to be pointed out to any “Human Rights Council”, namely that the radical Islam which has become ascendant in many parts of the world is an enemy of human rights, including the right to freedom of religious belief, but also the right to kiss in public, the right of women to drive cars or teach in schools or even show their faces in public, the right to dance with someone of the opposite sex or play modern music — the list, ridiculous as it is, goes on and on.

Secondly, he fails to recognise the important differences that exist between the Islamic and modern European worldviews; differences that need to be addressed if increasing tension is to be avoided. Rather than dismissing Europe’s defence of its identity, which he describes as ‘based on intangible “values”‘ in scare quotes, he should recognise that these values are neither intangible nor exclusively “European”. They include, inter alia, the dignity and autonomy of the individual, equality of the sexes, democracy, and human rights – surely the very rights that this Council should be seeking to defend.

I have no doubt that many in the U. N. are frightened by the hostile state of affairs which currently exists between Christians and Muslims, and they desire to the stave off the rhetoric about WWIII which rolls so easily off the lips of both Christian Presidents and al Qaeda mullahs today.

The neo-Conservative goal of militarily overthrowing conservative Islamic regimes throughout the middle east was doomed from the start because of neo-Conservatives’ fundamental inability to understand human nature. When under attack or the stress of warfare, people become frightened and religious, and in fact more fanatical. Attacking the middle east the way the U. S. has exacerbates the problem of Islamic radicalism. It’s the opposite of a solution.

But that doesn’t change the fact that Islam is a threat to human rights in every country in which it is dominant if that nation lacks adequate separation of religion and state. We don’t need the U.N. or its Human Rights Council to forget why it exists. Not now and not ever.

To create the necessary conditions requires the presence of a dangerous, virtually undefeatable enemy. Satan, who is so powerful that God apparently needs our assistance to defeat him, fits the bill perfectly. And the devil is the sort of ubiquitous, wily adversary that can’t help but make believers paranoid at every momentary lapse from the battle, at every voice that isn’t an obvious paean to God.

That is the real reason we invaded Iraq. It is the reason we threaten Iran today with two major carrier groups sitting in the Gulf ready for attack. Fundamentalism relies on struggle with a dangerous adversary. The state of the world in 2007 is the direct result of putting a fundamentalist in the White House and giving him the most powerful position in the world.

After the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001, nearly every country on earth offered to help the United States in the effort to find and capture the terrorists behind it. The offer of assistance came even from Iraq and Iran. In the case of Iran, their interests and ours meshed well together. The Taliban who ruled Afghanistan had long been a thorn in their side – there was no love lost between the leaders of Iran and the leaders of Afghanistan. The Taliban tolerated and even seemed to support not just al Qaeda but also anti-Iranian terrorist groups like MEC.

Iranian/US cooperation against terrorists operating in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East seemed natural, and the Iranian government made overtures to the Bush Administration to set up just such an arrangement. There is a poem by Edwin Markham that perfectly encapsulates the opportunity that was suddenly available.

He drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout
But love and I had the wit to win
We drew a circle that took him in

The tragedy of 9-11 had a silver lining: it created an ideal opportunity to bring former enemies together in a spirit of cooperation against a common enemy. That enemy, suicide Islamic terrorism, was being condemned even in Tehran and Baghdad, and civilized people of all religions including Islam wanted to join us in stamping it out.

But that, unfortunately, would have left an adversary too small and weak to satisfy the needs of the fundamentalism inhabiting the White House. One can’t be involved with God in a cosmic struggle if the enemy is minor and easily defeated. Where’s the fear, the risk, the paranoia necessary to make people reject creature comforts and pleasures, the bodily satisfactions of life on earth, and embrace heaven?

You see, that is the fundamental challenge of afterlife. How to get people to stop loving the good things of the body, the social pleasures of food and sex and the genial enjoyment of the company of others, and get them to turn their allegiance toward what comes after death? Love, in all its forms, naturally draws us toward the embodiment of life, toward each other as body-beings.

To transfer our allegiance elsewhere, fundamentalism has to find a way to break people up, replace love with strife, condemn bodily pleasures as “sin”, create exclusive circles to drive people apart, divide human loyalties between “us” and “them”. Only by creating inordinate fear and dissonance is it possible to re-make something as undesirable as death into something to be worshipped.

That’s all heaven is: death marketed as something wonderful.

Death is eternal all right. Non-existence is the only thing that can be eternal. Call it heaven, give it wings and violins, declare the wasteland of non-existence “paradise”: that is what the cult of afterlife is all about.

Life, on the other hand, can only be temporary. Pleasures must be temporary or else they would cease to remain pleasurable, would become tedious and eventually a nightmare. Imagine having sex and being forced at the moment of orgasm to endure that sensation constantly and unchanging for weeks, years, centuries, a million billion centuries. It would utterly destroy the pleasure of it. It would transform the initially wonderful sensation into nothing less than torture.

Pleasure has to be temporary to be pleasurable. Life must be fleeting to be wonderful. We have to die and cease to exist in order for life to be valuable and good for us. That is the simple reality. And our lives are good, our pleasures are supremely wonderful.

But fundamentalism has to find a way to make us forget that. It has to sabotage our human desires and pleasures. Has to, because fundamentalism is committed to worshipping not our existence but our non-existence, and calling it heaven.

It is not easy to make human beings turn against life, but fundamentalism has been successful at doing so. The fundamentalists who flew planes into the Pentagon and World Trade Center were so turned.

The trick is to create a climate of fear and paranoia peppered with the threat of a virtually undefeatable enemy, a Satan, a devil incarnate. That is what is required in order to motivate human beings sufficiently enough that they will abandon the pleasure of life for the mirage of afterlife. It is the modus operandi of fundamentalism.

And that is why the fundamentalist in the White House has positioned two carrier groups in Gulf armed and ready to pummel Iran. It is why the administration manufactured a reason to invade Iraq four years ago. Fundamentalism must have as frightening an adversary as possible in order to turn us against life.

I doubt President Bush or the fundamentalists in his administration even understand their need for a powerful enemy. If they understood their actions, if they comprehended the fear and paranoia which pushes them to draw circles to shut others out and create enemies, that itself would be a step toward self-enlightenment.

It might even be a step toward comprehending the fundamental flaw of the cult of afterlife.

‘A featured speaker, Franklin Graham, who delivered George Bush’s first inaugural prayer, was introduced. . . .

The “heart” of Graham’s speech was a call for holy war. He preached about the “battle for souls of men and women from North to South, East to West, over the entire earth.” There is, he declared, “No way to God but through Jesus Christ.”‘

Franklin Graham and Ron Luce seem to be off the same religious block as Charles Stanley, head of the First Baptist Church in Atlanta and former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who declared in a sermon that “God is in favor of war” during the propaganda run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Taylor continues,

‘Graham told the biblical story of Daniel “taming the Babylonians.” After celebrating the U.S. troops who are killing in Iraq right now, he preached that there is “no difference between the Iraqis today and Babylon 1,000 years ago.” In the Bible Babylon is the epitome of evil and decadence. All manner of bloodlust and plunder against it is not just condoned but celebrated. As Psalm 137:9 spells out, even the babies are to be dashed to death against the rocks!

While calling on the youth present to engage in this “battle for the souls of men,” he exhorts them, “No souls can be saved without the shedding of blood. Blood must be shed!”

Then, a group of Navy SEALs are projected on the large screen above the stadium as they make their way from backstage. Dressed in camouflage, carrying automatic weapons, kicking down doors and firing blanks into empty rooms along their way, they looked like the house-to-house raids and indiscriminate killing seen in rare footage out of Iraq.

Fireworks exploded and flames billowed as Ron Luce greeted, bragging that all of these men have been involved in real battles. They are part of FORCE Ministries, which conducts Bible studies at military bases around the world and is made up of current and retired SEALs, law enforcement, and other military who preach the Gospel. Among those on stage, one is a SEAL just back from Afghanistan and another was a member of a police SWAT team. All of them are trained to kill and do so believing God is sanctioning them.

One of the SEALs told about boot camp and being forced to surrender his entire will to the demands of his instructor. Luce stepped in to tell the audience, “That is your youth pastor. He’s going to make you a SEAL for Christ.” Of course, the great Commander of this religious army is God who issues his foot-soldiers armor-”a shield of faith, a belt of truth, and boots of preparedness”-as well as “offensive weapons” like the “sword of the spirit” and the “word of God.”

This merging of “God’s Army” and the U.S. military returns full circle to the event’s opening when a letter of greeting and blessings from George W. Bush was read. After that, a minister had led thousands to bow their heads and thank the lord for giving them George Bush, who coincidentally is the U.S.’s Commander-in-Chief.”‘

It would appear that the goal is to create a mass movement to transform American into a theocracy and the U. S. Military into an “Army of God”. Although Islam may be the ultimate target, the immediate target is gays & lesbians, abortion, birth control, and our modern secular society in general.

See http://www.counterpunch.com/taylor05232006.html for Sunsara Taylor’s full article.

Rev. William Alberts: Time for People of Faith to Censure Bush

Alberts writes,

‘Resolving disputes peacefully was the first thing out of President Bush’s mouth and apparently the last thing on his mind. His pre-war public posture was that of a man of faith and peace. At his March 6, 2003 news conference, he said, “I pray daily. I pray for wisdom and guidance and strength. . . . I pray for peace. I pray for peace.” (The New York Times, Mar. 7, 2003) Two weeks later he ordered the bombing of the Iraqi people and the invasion of their country.’

Albert follows by impolitely bringing up the, ahem, public record as known so far. That records makes it clear that invading Iraq was on the agenda from day 1, and that the administration deliberately deceived the public in order to get their war. “I pray daily…for peace” indeed!

Alberts also pushes people of faith to call for Bush’s impeachment. But he overlooks one little detail. The one constant and dependable group these last 5 years, the segment of the American population that has steadfastly voted for, cheered on, and championed our current President, is none other than people of faith.

Perhaps what we should be asking is this: Why were people of faith so easily manipulated by the administration and shepherded along like, well, sheep?

Answer: that is what people of faith are good at — being sheep. And faith is the sheepdog that makes it possible.

The consequences of a U. S. attack would be as positive for China as they would be negative for the United States. Hue diplomatic task is to nod and pretend to assist while making sure not to actually do anything that might be perceived in the Muslim world as abetting the U. S. attack.

China has already benefited indirectly from the invasion of Iraq, but what they stand to gain from a repeat with Iran is far greater. Some might object that a U. S. strike against Iran will lead to oil disruptions – both in the flow of Iranian oil and in retaliatory sabotage elsewhere. But whereas China depends on oil in order to fuel its extraordinary growth rate, the U. S.depends on oil to avoid economic collapse. To put it another way: for China oil is an enabler; for the U.S. oil is an addiction. China is in a vastly stronger position to weather oil disruptions than is the United States or Europe.

Which is why any oil disruptions which result from striking Iran can only lead to further engagement of the U. S.military in the middle east. We may be forced to commit troops to defend oil facilities and shipping lanes and engage in military strikes against suspected terrorist cells throughout the region. Thus we are likely to become embroiled in a wider middle-east/Islamic terrorist war which will look to the world very much like oil-hungry Christians against oil-possessing Muslims. At which point bin Laden will have achieved his wildest dream.

And note that U. S. defense of middle eastern oil supplies will surely include defending China’s oil supplies as well. This is because the U. S. economy has become dependent not just on oil but also on cheap Chinese manufacturing. Having outsourced our industrial capacity, our economy is susceptible not just to an oil shock but also – perhaps even more so – to a “China shock” thanks to our incredible dependence on Chinese imports. And let’s be clear: having dismantled manufacturing within the U. S. mainland over the past 3 decades, it would take years to rebuild that capacity.

With the United States terminally embroiled in a fight for economic survival against Islamic terrorism in order to safeguard our oil supply, China would soon catapult into the leading economic superpower in the world. Furthermore, the likehood of another major terrorist attack on U. S. soil within the decade, already increased 3-fold by the invasion of Iraq, would increase 3-fold again with the bombing of Iran, especially so if we used tactical nukes.

Internally, the next major attack on U. S. soil (we are talking 9-11 size or greater) would inflict a possibly fatal blow on American freedom, particularly if we continue to have political cowards holding office. Politically the United States would start to look a lot more like China, perhaps with more economic freedom but indistinguishable in terms of civil liberties.

That is the path we are embarked upon.

And make no mistake, striking Iran is the Administration’s preferred option. Most likely they will try to use the election cycle to get Congressional authorization for military action “upon determination by the Administration that diplomatic efforts have failed” (similar to the authorization for the Iraq invasion) before November, though the actual attack would not come until after the election.

The focus of Stanley’s sermon was two-fold: God loves war, and it was wrong for protesters to oppose the Bush administration’s forthcoming invasion of Iraq. Since I was both atheist and protester, the tape was undoubtedly sent my way in an effort to change my outlook on each count.

Instead, I responded with a long emailed reply, which follows:

A Reply to Rev. Charles Stanley

Let me start by summarizing Stanley’s message. He begins by asking how it is possible to reconcile going to war and killing the enemy in light of Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor”. To find the answer we should look in the Bible, he tells us. So Stanley asks, “What does the word of God say about this whole issue of war?”

Part of the answer is found in Romans 13:1-4 which Stanley quotes as saying that “every person is to be subject to the governing authority”. In my King James it says “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers…” but the context bears Stanley out: “higher powers” here means the government, and in particular, the Roman government. As the King James says, “the powers that be are ordained of God.”

He follows this by quoting Romans 3:10-18, which declares that no one is righteous, no one is seeking God, no one is doing good, and ends (in my translation) with the lines, “And the way of peace they have not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Stanley quotes this to tell us that God has a plan and purpose which people have largely turned away from.

“Naturally God doesn’t like bloodshed,” he continues. However, Stanley adds, “The truth is though He hates war, He also uses war to accomplish His purpose and His plan. There are times when God has chosen — does choose — will choose — to use war as a vessel, as a vehicle, to accomplish His divine will.” Stanley then quotes from Ecclesiastes, “there is a time for peace and there is a time for war.” (Eccl. 3:8).

“God is in favor of war,” Stanley continues, referring to Deut. 20:1-19, “He, through His servant Moses, gives them the blueprint by which they are to carry out war.” Stanley summarizes God’s plan thusly: when approaching “cities which are very far off” (Deut 20:15) God told the Israelites to first offer them the chance to surrender peacefully, and if they surrender they will be made into servants (“forced labor” Stanley says; “tributaries” says King James) of the Israelites.

However, Stanley tells us, if the city refuses to surrender peacefully, then God ordered the Israelites to attack, and once they have captured the city, God’s order was to kill all the males and to take the women, children and cattle as spoils of war. (Deut 20:10-14)

But, says Stanley, God has a different plan for the cities which lie in the land promised to the Israelites by God, the “promised land”. These cities should not be offered the chance to surrender, but should be utterly destroyed. “You shall not leave alive anything that breathes,” quotes Stanley from Deut. 20:16. In the passages that follow God orders them to utterly destroy the men, women, children, cattle, everything, including cutting down all trees that do not provide food.

Stanley then tells us he will explain why a loving God would order such wanton destruction (which is precisely the question in my mind).

In particular he points out Deut. 20:17-18 which says that God wants these cities and all their people (the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Jebusites) killed rather than enslaved because they believe in pagan gods and because they do immoral and detestable things.

Stanley thus lists two reasons these cities and all their people must be killed, but he leaves out an obvious 3rd reason: they live on land which God has promised to the Israelites. They are in the way.

There appear to be 3 reasons, therefore, why God is advocating war against these cities, and beyond that, why God is insisting that Israel slaughter them all:

(1) they are in the way, located on land which God has promised to the Israelites

(2) they worship Gods other than Jehovah

(3) they behave immorally, and if not killed off they will be a bad influence on the Israelites.

The Israelites, Stanley tells us, did try to follow God’s bloody plan, attacking cities and slaughtering the inhabitants — for a season or two. But then they began to tire of war and killing, and in fact decided to stop fighting. This made God angry, and He warned the Israelites that He would punish them severely if they became peaceful. To back this up, Stanley quotes from Numbers 33:55, where God tells the Israelites, “If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you…they will become thorns in your side.” He then quotes the even more ominous warning of the next verse, where God says, “Moreover, it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.”

Nonetheless, the Israelites were so tired of killing that they still refused to attack any new cities. Instead, they began to trade with the cities God wanted destroyed. Worse, “they began to inter-marry, inter-marrying into a pagan society, into a pagan religion. And so what they were doing, they were destroying God’s purpose for themselves. They lived in a society of paganism, in a word, of paganism and immorality. And God knew that He must keep his nation pure.”

“God uses warfare as a form of judgment,” Stanley explains, even “as a judgment on his own people when they fall into idolatry and immorality.” And he quotes Jeremiah chapter 5, and Deut. 9:4-6. God, apparently, is quite aware that the Israelites are an unrighteous and “stiff-necked” people, and not deserving of the lands the Lord has promised to them. Instead, Stanley says, God wants these cities slaughtered — not because the Israelites are deserving — but because the cities are wicked. (What their wickedness consists of is not mentioned, nor how it differs from the Israelites own behavior, but it is clear that at the very least these cities did not believe in the right God, which is Jehovah, the God of the Israelites.)

Stanley summarizes by saying, “God was committed to keeping Israel pure no matter what” and he then quotes God as saying “they will spoil my chosen people by their paganism and their immorality.” Thus, Stanley tells us, God is an advocate of war. “There is no question,” he tells us, “God favors warfare, and He favors war for a very specific reason: punish the wicked.”

In fact, to wipe them — men, women and children — off the face of the earth.

Jesus Was Not a Pacifist

Having made his first point, Stanley now turns to the present. He tells us that God favors America because of our Christianity. Furthermore, Satan targets the United States for the same reason: we are Bible-believing Christians. Therefore God also favors war when carried on by Americans, and it is part of His plan for us that we should go to war and fight certain chosen enemies. (Remember this, because soon he will tell us that protesting against the U.S. getting involved in a war goes against God’s will.)

Next he explains that when a soldier kills the enemy, it is not murder. Why not? Because his government has ordered the soldier to kill the enemy. Since governments were ordained by God, as we were told in Romans 13:1-4, obeying the government in warfare is not merely acceptable, it is what God wants soldiers to do.

Furthermore, Stanley says, don’t say that Jesus was a pacifist. He then quotes Luke 22:35-36, where Jesus tells his followers to buy swords, even if they have to sell their clothing to afford it. Nor does it work to argue that Jesus was a pacifist because he did not resist arrest in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus didn’t resist or fight back, Stanley tells us, because “he came for the purpose of laying down his life.”

“Do you think the Romans killed him? The Jews killed him?” Stanley asks the audience. “No. Do you know who killed Jesus? The Father. He sent Him to die. He came to die.”

Stanley next says the Bible provides 2 reasons for war:

(1) defense

(2) to eliminate dictators who enslave their own people

This appears to be a reference to Saddam Hussein, and the proposed war in Iraq. But Stanley does not provide any Biblical quotes to back up these two reasons for war. And, as we saw earlier, the quotes he used previously to justified warfare led to 3 quite different reasons or justifications:

(1) when they are in the way, located on land promised to the Israelites

(2) when they worship Gods other than Jehovah

(3) when they behave immorally, and will be a bad influence if not killed

In other words, Stanley seems to have changed God’s reasons for war to fit the situation of Iraq today — but he neglects to provide any Biblical justification for this change. He fails to tell us where in the Bible we are told to oppose corrupt or vicious dictators. No mention of dictatorship was included in the rationale for attacking and wiping out the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, or Jebusites.

In fact, the very passages from the book of Romans which Stanley quotes as showing God instructs us to obey the government — these very passages repudiate his claim that the Bible tells us to fight against dictators. Why? Because the Roman Empire at the time was a dictatorship!

It’s worse than that, actually. For the Roman Empire was also thoroughly pagan. Its people overwhelmingly preferred and worshipped pagan gods, engaged in pagan rituals, and were entertained by pagan debaucheries in the colosseum. Yet here we have Stanley quoting Romans 13:1-4 that Christians should honor and obey such governments, and not oppose them.

Where does Stanley get his notion that dictatorship is bad? Not from the Bible, it appears. This becomes clear when we read the Old Testament, for we see that Moses was essentially a petty dictator. Although he didn’t have poisonous gas to work with a la Saddam Hussein, Moses nevertheless wiped out whole cities. And in passages not quoted by Stanley, he ordered many of his own people deliberately killed for opposing his policies.

It is difficult, in fact, to find much in the Bible that is democracy-friendly.

Moving on, Stanley asks, what is the proper response of citizens when their nation goes to war? Again he quotes our passages in Romans. “Paul in Romans 13 says it is your responsibility to submit to the government and go to war” no questions asked. In fact, there is only one reason ever to protest your government, and that is when a government “requires you to commit some act, behave in a fashion to disobey the clear word of God”. Even here, it must be the clear word of God, and “not based on some little opinion you have.”

The fact that you think a particular war wrong is insufficient to take a stand against it, for the clear word of God, says Stanley, supports war.

To back this up, Stanley quotes from Numbers 32:6-23 with its cautionary tale about the children of Ruben and Gad. They were ranchers who were quite content to stay in Gilead instead of crossing the Jordan to the promised land and destroying the cities that stood in the way. This reluctance to go to war made God very angry, and He punished the Israelites for it by making them wander in the wilderness for 40 years. Here is Numbers 32: 20-23, which Stanley quotes: “And Moses said unto them, If ye will do this thing, if ye will go armed before the Lord to war, And will go all of you armed over Jordan before the Lord, until he hath driven out his enemies from before him, And the land be subdued before the Lord: then afterwards ye shall return, and be guiltless before the Lord, and before Israel; this land shall be your possession before the Lord. But if ye will not do so, behold, you have sinned against the Lord: and be sure your sin will find you out.”

This convinced the children of Ruben and Gad, who agreed to cross the Jordan with arms and attack the cities there. But God never relented on the punishment of 40 years in the wilderness.

The point, says Stanley, is that it is wrong, in God’s eyes, to protest your government when it is about to go to war. “It is a violation,” he says flatly, “of the word of God not to defend your country if the country calls you to do so.”

Stanley then addresses protesters directly (those who protest the proposed war against Iraq, presumably): “And what are your sons and daughters going to say one of these years when you’re an old man or an old woman and this nation is in havoc, occupied by someone else, and you have to say to your sons and daughters, well, you know, back in those days we didn’t fight, we protested.”

Of course, it’s not clear that Iraq or Al Q’aeda or anyone else is a threat to take over the United States and occupy us. In believing they are a threat to invade and conquer us, Stanley makes it clear how little regard he has for our armed forces. For while on one hand he praises our soldiers for being good Christians, on the other he apparently considers them incapable of defending us from a 3rd rate military like Iraq’s.

The Fragility of the Christian Religion

I will quote the next thing Stanley says in full, because it drew a standing ovation from the audience. “And when I think about those organizations that do their best, one in particular, to take God out of our society, out of the schools, off our money, you name it, take the name of God off of it, I’m here to tell you, we must not be quiet. While those — please listen! — place us in a position that God, to be true to himself, would one day have to send a foreign army into our land to punish us, because we allowed ourselves to become a pagan nation, of immorality and disbelief in God because we allowed somebody to erase the name of God from our society. It must never be allowed to happen.”

Now it becomes clear why, in Stanley’s view, Iraq or Al Q’aeda is a threat to take over the United States: because if we don’t keep the correct religious beliefs then God will join on their side against us!

How quickly Charles Stanley has forgotten the Bible passages he quoted from Romans. For there, Christians are instructed to give their complete allegiance to a pagan government: the Roman Empire. Indeed, the message of those passages he quoted seems to be that Christians have a duty to separate religion from government: that if the government is not Christian it is ok; if it is thoroughly pagan, if like Rome it does not even recognize the God of Christianity, that is ok!

But what is most remarkable about Charles Stanley’s quote (and the standing ovation which followed) is how fragile he believes Christianity to be. For he fears that if the words “In God we Trust” are taken off the dollar, and if “under God” and school-led prayers are removed from our schools, then Americans will abandon their Christian beliefs for paganism. How very insecure Stanley’s sort of Christianity is.

It is very much like God’s fear — in the Biblical passages quoted earlier — that unless the preexisting cities in the promised land are completely destroyed, they will influence the Israelites to abandon their chosen religion for foreign ones. Instead of “faith” this appears to be a complete lack of faith in His chosen people, just as Stanley seems to have a complete lack of faith in Christians to remain Christian if the government is no longer pushing God.

For a religion that has 2 billion adherents worldwide, it is rather surprising that it is so fragile, that without the help of government it will disappear!

There is also, in Stanley’s words, an implied threat: if we stop being Christians then God will lead the attack against us. Now, in all honesty, this is ludicrous. But because Stanley and his audience sincerely believe it is so, they must commit themselves to suppressing anything they believe will make God turn against us. To not be a Christian, in their view, endangers the nation, and consequently non-Christian viewpoints ought to be suppressed. That is the logical consequence of what Stanley is saying, and as such it is a complete betrayal of the principles of our American Revolution and our Constitution. It is un-American through and through.

It is also nearly identical to what the Islamic extremists say when they insist on putting Sharia, the religious laws, above those of civil government. God will punish us if we fail to enforce Islam, if we fail to call for fatwa against unbelievers, they say!

I used to believe that Christianity had outgrown this sort of thing — now I am not so sure.

Stanley finishes by praising President Bush for his Godly character and for “beginning the day with the word of God and on his knees.” He then calls on Bush’s political opponents to rally behind the President and not oppose his war policy. “And I would say to those politicians who only act politically, not what’s best for the nation but what’s best for their politics, either God change their attitude or remove them!” Stanley then tells the audience that other than for this last statement, “I’ve not given you my opinion. I’ve simply told you what God said.”

He ends with the statement that he is not trying to force his religion on anyone. It is a comment for which I’m grateful. At the same time I can’t help but notice that he does seem to want to use the power of government to push his God on a captive audience in the schools.

Christianity vs Democracy

Let me now make some comments about Stanley’s position. Although it is clear that he favors the U. S. attacking Iraq, he doesn’t present any reasons in support of doing so. Therefore I will not address the wisdom of attacking or not attacking Iraq.

What Charles Stanley does say is that citizens should obey their government and not protest or object to the government’s war policy. He doesn’t argue that this is because the current administration’s war policy is the correct or best policy. Instead he argues we should not object because governments are ordained of God, and it is God’s will that we should obey our government and go to war. He believes, apparently, if our government orders us to fight, then it is God’s desire that we fight. And that God will condemn us for questioning war.

As stated, this seems to put God’s approval and authority behind any government that chooses to go to war. And since war usually involves two sides, it follows that God gives his approval and authority to both sides.

I doubt if Stanley wants to say this! Instead, I imagine, he wants to say that God is on the side of His chosen people, and never of the enemies of His chosen people. And that Americans are His chosen people.

But the Bible does not say that we are His chosen people. (Possibly the Book of Mormon does, but Stanley is not quoting that book.) The fact is that Americans are not Israelites, and the quotes Stanley uses from the Old Testament were directed at the Israelites, and were in reference to the “promised land.”

Furthermore, the Israelites were Jewish, and Christians are not Jewish. And though it is true that some Americans are Jewish, the vast, vast majority are not. So it is unlikely that Christians — or Americans — are God’s chosen people, no matter how much we would like to flatter ourselves that we are.

But there is a more serious problem with Stanley’s viewpoint. He sets Christianity up in opposition to the principles upon which our nation was founded. For he tells us that it is wrong for citizens to object to a government policy even before that policy has been enacted. (Since no war with Iraq has begun yet, protesters are objecting to a policy that has not yet been enacted.) Despite the Constitution, despite the Bill of Rights, Stanley insists that God is against citizens who contest a war policy — that to oppose our government on a matter related to war is immoral and unGodly.

What it is, in reality, is democracy. Our nation is founded on the notion that people must have a voice in their own government. This is accomplished, of course, through elections, but also (as guaranteed by the Constitution) through petitioning the government and through peaceful assembly. Furthermore, even after a war has actually begun, it is the right (and I would say the duty) of those who object to the war to say so publicly. Otherwise their voices are not heard. John Lock’s theory of government, the theory upon which the Founding Fathers acted when they created our nation, is predicated on the importance of everyone’s voice being represented and heard. Without all interests having their proportionate voice, government will inevitably veer off-balance.

So to shut people up because you don’t like what they say, that is to fail to understand the whole principle of representative government which inspired our forefathers. It is a betrayal of American values — out of ignorance undoubtedly, but a betrayal nonetheless.

Two Peas in a Pod

Another difficulty I see with Dr. Stanley’s position is in how closely it parallels Osama Bin Laden’s own explanation of why God wants him to attack the American people. We have committed abominations, we flaunt our sexual perversions, do immoral things, and worst of all, we are infidels who have abandoned God and separated church from state — so says Bin Laden. And he bases the necessity for attacking Americans on the claim that God supports it and indeed orders it. And like Stanley, he points to God’s Word as proof of this.

The similarity between Stanley and Bin Laden is frightening, but instructive. For where Stanley fears that Americans will abandon Christianity and embrace pagan religions, leading God to join with our enemies, Bin Laden says simply, that has already happened. God has already joined the other side — the al Q’aeda side against us.

But to see how similar Bin Laden and Stanley are in their arguments, it is necessary to read Bin Laden’s own words, his “Letter to America” published in November (but ignored by the U. S. press).

The Inspired Word of God

My next objection — and this is a fundamental one — is this: the Bible is not God’s word and therefore to quote the Bible as evidence that God loves war is futile.

Why do I say that the Bible is not God’s word?

First of all, even the Christians who say the Bible is God’s word, don’t actually believe that. They don’t mean, for example, that God actually wrote the Bible. They recognize that men wrote the Bible. Moses, for example, is said to have written the first 5 books of the Bible. Moses is not God, but a man.

The same goes for the other books of the Old and New Testament — most of them have titles which identify their supposed authors (or in the case of Paul’s letters, his audience). Each book is attributed to this man or that man, but in every case, men. They were not written by God Himself but by human beings. Thus the Bible is quite literally not the word of God but of men.

Ah, but they were men inspired by God!

Perhaps, but that does not make it God’s word. It makes it at best man’s word with inspiration from God. And whether the inspiration is really there is up to our judgment. Perhaps it was the Qur’an that God inspired, or the Kama Sutra, or the Book of Mormon, or the Prince. How are we to know which book or books are inspired by God without reading and using our own judgment?

So, how do we judge? For one thing, we can read a passage and decide whether it’s worthy of God — does it represent, in a reasonable way, the perfection, the beauty, the goodness of God?

Well, I can tell you right now that many of the passages in the Bible — particularly some of those preferred by Dr. Stanley — do not represent the perfection, the beauty, or the goodness of God. If anything, they slander God. And I think it is clear that a passage which slanders God is not likely to have been inspired by God.

Of course, maybe I’m wrong to insist on God’s beauty, goodness, and perfection. Maybe Stanley is right in his belief that God wanted to see every man, woman, and child in the cities of the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites utterly destroyed. But if so, as my daughter asked, why didn’t God just destroy them Himself? Why did He put so much effort into talking the Israelites into doing His dirty work for Him?

The answer is that He didn’t. The answer is that Stanley and Deuteronomy slander God’s good name. They tell lies about God.

It seems to me that at one time Christianity was different. At one time most Christians preferred the Golden Rule and ‘love thy neighbor’ and ‘turn the other cheek’ over the debaucheries that fill too much of the Old Testament.

Perhaps I only imagined it. But I thought that Christianity was once a religion of love rather than a religion of war, a religion of tolerance rather than a religion of killing people because they believe in the wrong God or do immoral things. Jesus embraced sinners — or so the rumor goes. But Stanley tells us that God wipes out entire cities because they worship the wrong deity and behave improperly.

Is this Christianity? Or is it Christinsanity?

As many of you know, I am an atheist. But whether I believe in God or not, I insist on His perfection. If there is a God, He is a perfect God. Not a devil or demon or some kind of imperfect, immoral godlet. Yet Dr. Stanley and his brand of Christianity insist on just such an imperfect God, a God who loves blood and slaughter.

Such a God, if it existed, would be evil. And it strikes me that to desire the existence of such a God is nothing other than to desire evil.

A Modest Analogy

Let me suggest an analogy. Assume for the moment that your name is John Doe and you live at 1234 Heaven Place in your current city or town. Let us assume also that you are a good person with a good reputation.

Now imagine that you learn that two people you have never met, Bob and Sally, are making widely disseminated public statements about you. In short, Bob has announced that he adores you and follows your advice in everything he does. Sally, for her part, has declared that Bob is making it up and furthermore has said that you, John Doe, do not even exist.

Imagine, furthermore, that more details come in. You learn that although Bob is fanatic about you, always tooting your horn, he also makes claims about your opinions and desires, and about your past behavior, which do not put you in the best light. For example, he claims (positively, in his mind, apparently) that you have both advocated and committed mass murder in the past, that you have no objection to torture — and in fact you learn that Bob has declared that you intend to torture huge numbers of people in the future. Bob has even named a few specific individuals (and indeed whole groups of people) who he says you will torture and torment.

Now imagine, as I said before, that you are a good person with a good reputation, that you have never killed or tortured anyone, and have no intentions to do so in the future. How are you likely to react to Bob’s statements?

May I suggest that it is quite possible that you would look at them more as accusations than as “statements”, and although Bob thinks he is praising you, most likely you would find this sort of “praise” not to be praise at all, but character assassination.

You also learn a bit more about what Sally is saying, which is that if Bob is telling the truth then you, John Doe, are evil. But in fact Sally thinks Bob has made you up, and made up 1234 Heaven Place as well, and that you do not even exist.

Put yourself in this situation, and try to “feel” your reaction to Sally and to Bob.

Let me suggest that the normal reaction is that Bob is likely to make you far angrier than Sally does. It is Bob, after all, who is harming your reputation with accusations (but Bob calls them “affirmations”!) to which you strenuously object. Sally, on the other hand, has indirectly defended you by denying that Bob is talking about someone real.

Of course, you are real. You are very real. And you probably want Sally to know that (but you also probably want to assure her that Bob’s characterization of you is quite false). You might be tempted, in fact, to invite Sally over to 1234 Heaven Place just to show her that you (and Heaven Place) are indeed quite real. Instead of being angry at her when she arrives, I imagine you are more likely to take delight in needling her about her doubt. On a serious note, you might even thank her for speaking out against Bob.

As for Bob, it seems to me that you would be quite angry at him for sullying your reputation — the sort of anger that anyone who has been slandered feels. I imagine you would want nothing to do with such scum. And that if you did decide to invite him over to your place, the first thing you would do would be to give him a real tongue-lashing. (Or perhaps you’d have your lawyers present, and threaten him with a lawsuit if he doesn’t retract his statements.)

What might make your anger at Bob even stronger is the realization that not only does he describe you as a monster, but that he slavishly adores the monster he describes and calls you. Of the real you, Bob has no conception and no concern.

But actually, the situation is worse than that. For Bob does say a lot of good things about you. In doing so, however, he only makes the bad things he says appear more credible to other people. And since Bob is obviously such a fan of yours, since he claims to know you intimately, to talk with you often and so on, the net effect is to make it seem as though Bob was someone “in the know” about you.

This actually makes his statements far more harmful to your reputation than if they came from somebody who openly hated you. For in that latter case everyone would see that the speaker disliked you, and would at least want to hear your side of the story. But because you are being slandered by someone who adores you, people are likely to think “if that is what John Doe’s friends say about him, what are his enemies saying?”

Who needs enemies when you have a “friend” like Bob?

In short, as a fanatic who adores you and calls you his “friend”, Bob is in a position to do far more harm to your reputation than any “enemies” could ever hope to do.

If you have followed so far, you recognize that Sally is the atheist and Bob — well, Bob is a lot like Dr. Charles Stanley.

But Is It True?

Do most Christians really talk as though God was a mass murderer and torturer? Does the average Christian slander God?

Unfortunately, as the affirmation by Charles Stanley’s audience shows, the answer is yes. Nor are they alone, unfortunately. Many — but not all — Christians slander God. As do many — but not all — Muslims. These two religions together account for about 3 billion people out of the world’s 5 billion, and the last thing the world needs is to have them angrily throwing damnation at each other, each using its God to condemn the other to hell and damnation.

As I see it there are two primary ways in which Christians damage the reputation of God.

First, by declaring the Bible (with all its atrocities from the Flood onward) to be God’s literal Word. Like Stanley, they make God out to look like a blood-thirsty demon — all the while praising Him. The Qur’an is used in much the same way. Claiming to have “God’s Word”, both Christians and Muslims declare that God destroyed all but a handful of people and animals with a worldwide flood. And they assert, as we have seen, that God ordered the slaughter of whole cities including women and children.

Second, by declaring that God will torture and punish people in hell for not having the right beliefs. Conversely, God will save others regardless of their behavior simply because they do have the right beliefs. Thus, according to many Christians, a rapist and murderer sitting on death row can suddenly accept Jesus into his heart repent and be saved; while the girl he raped and slaughtered goes right to hell for not believing in the right god. (The whole notion of prison ministries is based on this.)

Again, I want to stress that not all Christians slander God. Christianity doesn’t have to be a religion which imputes evil to God or denies His/Her perfection.

Christians, if they so choose, can decide to concentrate on Jesus’ moral teachings in the New Testament. They can repudiate or find a way to re-interpret the stories of floods and slaughter and eternal punishment and hell that dot the Bible, and concentrate instead on a view of God that is good and beautiful and perfect.

George Bush’s God

Stanley ended his sermon with the image of President Bush getting down on his knees every morning and praying to God. But what God does President Bush pray to?

Is it Stanley’s God? Is it the God who loves to see women and children — indeed, entire cities slaughtered?

When the President reads the Bible, is it Stanley’s Bible? Does he read the same passages Stanley reads and draw the same awful conclusions?

Does he pray to a God of power, raw and unrestrained, or to a God of love?

Does he condemn the Israelites for tiring of war and slaughter? Or does he praise the children of Ruben and Gad for their refusal to cross the Jordan to destroy another city?

What kind of God does our President believe in?

I’m afraid it is a God of war.

A God who thrives on war. And the question for today is this: Christianity — or Christinsanity?