Are we all subject to God’s Law?

A blog on the The New Republic’s website about the progressive narrowing of the religious right’s social agenda reminded me of a question that’s buzzed around in my head from time-to-time.  We all know this agenda includes banning gay marriage and abortion, because the Bible says these are no-no’s, but the question is, why does the religious right seek to make these social issues, subject to punitive legislation, rather than merely private concerns?

Because God hates them?  Well, God hates lots of things, including adultery, divorce, and linen-wool blended clothing (Lev. 19:19), but no one is proposing to outlaw them, which I suppose is fortunate for a few mega-preachers.

Because they violate the Ten Commandments, upon which the entirety of western civilization is allegedly based?  That might work for abortion (Commandment VI), but gay marriage?  Is there some secret 11th commandment they’re not telling us about?  Should we also ban other religions (Commandment I)?  Playing golf on Sunday (Commandment IV)?

Because Jesus specifically forbade them?  No good there, either; he was completely silent on these issues.

Because they’re personally harmed?  It’s hard to see how two same-sex individuals uttering marriage vows harms anyone.  And wouldn’t aborted babies get a ticket straight to heaven?

Because they’re slippery slopes, leading inexorably to the complete destruction of society? I’d think the religious right would want society to fall into moral turpitude, do everything to hasten it, in fact, since that would fulfill prophecy of Jesus’s return (2 Tim. 3:1-4) and the moving in to their new heavenly mansions.

I’m trying quite hard, but I fail to see the religious right’s method for determining when a Biblical injunction should apply only to themselves, and when it should apply to society as a whole.

Even more curiously, these behavioral autocrats believe that man is inherently fallen and will always do all sorts of nasty stuff.  So why should they even care what any non-believer does?  Are laws against certain sins supposed to make the country more moral?  If so, why not scrap the entire legal code and make the Bible the basis of our laws, turn our democracy into a theocracy?  Because, as we know, that’s worked so well in the past.

As a libertarian, I find their professions of faith in freedom hypocritical.  Liberty is not granted piecemeal; it’s not even a grant, but our inherent right.  The best protection of one’s own freedom is the protection of everyone else’s.  A government with the right to trample on your neighbor’s freedom also has the right to trample on your own.  If the religious nannies really practiced what they preached, they would cease being obstacles and live their lives as an example.

If you wish to observe a particular day as holy or refrain from pre-marital sex in compliance with the dictates of your particular religious brand, more power to you.  Just don’t extend those rules to the rest of us, or you may find yourself living by the rules others think you should live by.

Does God like to punish?

Anyone who’s read the Bible knows that punishing people took up a goodly portion of God’s time.  And it didn’t much matter if you actually did anything wrong or not, or if you were under a certain age.  Guilt by association was just as much a crime as the “crime” itself–just ask the Canaanites or the pre-Flood inhabitants.

And if you think the punishments have stopped because we live in some period of grace, think again.  With every calamity–natural or not–some “man of God” dutifully proclaims it divine retribution for one human “sin” or another–gay pride parades, gambling, abortion, dancing–you name it.  Some even believe calamities are a herald of the imminent end times–the fact that the same things have been occurring for millions of years doesn’t seem to phase these people, however.

The funny thing about these prognosticators of doom is that they also believe in a god who sends the unrepentant (read: those who don’t belong to their particular sect, in their particular religion) to eternal suffering in the fiery pits of hell.  Their god, apparently not simply content with punishing us forever and ever after death, also feels it necessary to mete out punishment during our lifetimes.  And if we poor SOBs should die as a result, then tough shit.  Out of the fire, and into the frying pan!

So, you can see, God really likes to punish. And, I gotta hand it to him, in a number of really inventive ways.  A virus which progressively destroys your immune system, leaving you to die a slow and miserable death?  Who da thunk it?!

But what about the the innocent casualties?  You know, those who’re did everything right, muttered the correct magical words, dutifully contributed to the collection plate every Sunday in the red brick church.  Is God punishing them too when they get run over by a hurricane or tidal wave?

Oh, no!  They are merely being “called home.”  At the worst, they should recall that this is a fallen world, righteously susceptible to God’s carpet-bomb justice.  ‘Cause, you know, sparing the good and innocent is too much to ask of the Omnipotent Creator of the Known Universe.  If I was one of those Rapturians–people who believe they’ll be magically beamed into the sky before the real shit hits the fan–I would feel a little worried about this divine tendency to simply blow everyone away.

The really curious thing is the response of these men of God and their fellow believers.  They sometimes actually help the victims. WTF? I can think of no more sinful act than working against God’s justice.  They may think that poor, hungry child in Somalia deserves food, but they should remember, that kid has got sin-tainted blood and is almost certainly headed for hell.  Best to send ’em a Bible instead (only the KJV1611 version will do).

You can’t help but get the impression God is chomping at the bit to annihilate His creation as soon as possible, and is blowing off a little steam in the meantime.  With divine love like this…

God as Bumbling Chef

The theory of evolution has always presented a tremendous number of problems for theists.  Besides the obvious complete upending of the traditional creation myth, the theory elegantly demonstrates how order and design can emerge from mindless chaos, given time.  Previously, only an intelligent agent was thought capable of creating the design we see in nature.  While some theists still deny evolution, others who’ve faced the obvious truth of the theory, many of whom support the idea of Intelligent Design, reconcile their beliefs with the justification that God used evolution to create the diversity of life on earth, “guiding” the process to produce us.

No evidence is actually put forward to support this view; rather, it is surmised.  Since the existence of God is assumed a priori, he must have used evolution in some manner to populate the planet with a diversity of life, and, ultimately, humanity.  Since we are myopic creatures, say these evolutionary theists, who are we to suggest this was not the optimal way?  Evolution and theism are not incompatible, they correctly, if lamely, point out.

Before critically examining this view, let’s step back for a moment and recall how costly and time intensive evolution is.  It took almost a billion years after Earth’s formation for the first pre-life forms to appear, the prokaryotes.  After a couple billion more, the first true cells appeared, the eukaryotes, upon which most current life is based.  It took another 700 billion years for multi-cell organisms to arrive.  Throughout all this time, billions upon billions of lifeforms were born and died.  Finally, humanity appeared, which apparently was the goal all along.

With this in mind, let’s compare how atheists and theists view evolution.

Atheist: Evolution is a natural, mindless, and meandering process, without supernatural direction.

Theist: Evolution is a supernaturally-directed process, but God made it only appear to be natural, mindless, and meandering.

Both views are possibly true, but which is simpler and therefore to be preferred?  I’ll let you be the judge of that.  But the obvious question theists need to answer is, why would God utilize a process that, for all intents and purposes, makes it look like he had no hand in it at all?  What happened to the heavily intercessionist deity–you know, the one who will blow up the world some day–we’ve been told exists all along?  What’s more, evolution means no Adam and Eve, and therefore, no Original Sin, which pretty much collapses the whole raison d’être of their religions in the first place.

As quaky as the theistic creationists are, they’re to be commended for at least adhering to a consistent view of God, one that , according to their holy books, created life, the universe, and everything about 6,000 years ago.  It’s just that creationism is akin to belief in a flat-earth or geocentrism in its total rejection of reality.  Theistic evolution, on the other hand, makes God appear to be some kind of bumbling chef, toiling away in his kitchen earth to finally (!) achieve the dish he intended.  No wonder many creationists wail and gnash their teeth at evolution.

Once again, Occam’s razor trumps theism.