Winnipeg Sun on Biblical Morality

[X]

If you've been reading the Sun lately (specifically the Letters to the Editor page), you'll have noticed a bit of a debate going on over the Bible.  Specifically, the contention that the Bible is a moral compass.

It is not.  Indeed, it fails utterly as a moral guide.

Why?  There is much in the "guidelines" of the Bible that is decidedly immoral by today's standards.

I would like to submit a letter to UMMASH to be sent to the Sun on behalf of this group.  The letter follows below.

[X]

To the Winnipeg Sun,
Re: Biblical Morality.

Lately, there have been some letters to the editor in your newspaper alluding to the use of the Bible as a moral guide.  The general consensus from the Sun, and many readers, seems to be that the Bible is useful as a moral compass.
I wish to contest this point.  Far from being a moral guide, the Bible fails as a moral compass.
Allow me to explain:
I will concede that the Bible contains a few good moral guides.  People often refer to the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.  I will not delve into the Ten Commandments and Golden Rule here, except to recommend that people read Exodus 34 to find the only decalogue explicitly described as the "Ten Commandments".  (FYI:  Boiling a young goat in its mother's milk was a worship practice of Baal.)
The point I want to make is simple.  The Bible contains many laws, which are, at best, questionable by today's moral standards.  It degrades women and forced to positions of silent servility and property.  It discriminates against people who are not perfect physical specimens.  People who have physical flaws, poor eyesight, deformaties or amputations, are not welcome in God's assemblies.  It advocates murder and genocide toward people who don't follow Yahweh, or who disobey Yahweh's authoritarian dictatorship.  It supports slavery.  It even gives instructions on how to sell, buy and beat slaves.
With all this poor morality in the Bible, how do you choose which morals in it are good, and which are bad?
Further, if you have to choose, it follows that you are using a moral compass that is not the Bible to determine your moral guide.  If you have to parse the good morals from the bad in the Bile, you cannot claim to be using it as a moral guide.
Either the Bible is a moral guide, in which case all it's instructions are moral virtues, or it is not, and you have to choose your own morals from it.  Since the latter is the case, it follows that calling the Bible a moral guide is a position stemming from ignorance of what it actually says.
And before somebody writes in to claim that Jesus or the New Testament made it all better, be aware that this is untrue.  Jesus states several times that he supports, and thinks everyone should follow, the 613 laws of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy).  Read Matthew 5:17-18 for just one example.
In summation, the fact is that you cannot claim the Bible to be a moral compass if you have to rely on some other source to judge the morality of the Bible.

Sincerely, the University of Manitoba Society of Manitoba Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists.
www.ummash.org

[X]

Please feel free to suggest alternate letters, revisions, or edits.

The idea is to correct a common misconception, and get people thinking a little more critically about their Holy Book, rather than to agravate or insult people.

Hopefully we can raise an eyebrow or two, let some closeted atheists know they aren't alone, and maybe attract some people with questions.

[Steven]

I found these letters just to give people some background.

'Bible is full of bloodshed'

This past Sunday, something stupid and judgmental was written by Billy Graham in your Life's Issues section.

The questioner asked Graham, "If America is a Christian nation, why is there so much immorality in your movies and television programs?"

Instead of dismissing this person, Graham retells the tired old argument that the Bible is a moral compass for those seeking moral lives when, in fact, one read through of the Bible shows the morals are twisted.

The Bible is full of bloodshed and judgment in which it is said homosexuals and disobedient children should be executed. I don't understand how people look at reverends for moral guidance while the Bible they preach as the "good book" has historically pushed people to commit despicable acts of violence.

If Graham had a mind, he would have told the questioner that we aren't perfect, but at least we don't hold public executions, slaughter foreign journalists and contractors and preach a type of law that is restrictive and brutal. I would rather live 100 years in this country than spend one minute in whatever country the closed-minded questioner is from.

Ben Morris

Winnipeg

(There's room enough in this world for people of all beliefs.)

World better for religion

Re: Bible is full of bloodshed, Letters, Dec. 27.

I read with some interest in Ben Morris's opinion about the "Good Book" and its influence in history.

Does Ben Morris know that the worst wars and battles in history were the First and Second World Wars? Might we ask what religion started those? Were they fought in the name of atheism, secularism or nationalism?

The world may be a bad place but I think religion has made it better.

Cameron Steinbusch

Winnipeg

(That doesn't excuse religious crusades.)

Bible still relevant

Re: Bible is full of bloodshed, Letters, Dec. 27.

I have to take issue with letter writer Ben Morris who makes the ludicrous claim that the Bible advocates executing homosexuals and disobedient children. Obviously Ben hasn't cracked open the good book too often.

The Bible does say that unrepentant sinners will have no place in heaven and that includes homosexuals.

In the eyes of God, homosexual behaviour is a sin as is sex outside of a marriage or extra-marital sex.

The same applies to liars, thieves, drunkards and gossips. Homosexuals are not being singled out, although many of them including their media whores seem to think that their behaviour should be exempt from being called a sin and instead applaud it.

We don't give standing ovations and hoot and holler like village idiots if someone says they're proud of being an adulterer.

The Bible is a moral compass in many respects. I'd advise everyone to give it a read. You'd be surprised just how relevant it is.

Barry Banek

Winnipeg

(The Bible also preaches tolerance.)

Bible tool for intolerant

Re: Bible still relevant, Letters, Dec. 30.

Obviously Mr. Banek has his opinion printed often in your pages, and for good reason. He writes well, and very often has a good point to make.

However, when it comes to the issue of basic human sexuality, the man becomes a Bible-thumping buffoon. I wonder if he's heard of respected organizations such as the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, who are very clear that a person's sexuality is not chosen and cannot be altered. Would he suggest that in order to honour the Bible, these people should live loveless lives?

Whenever this man puts pen to paper on this subject, the hatred comes oozing out. I humbly suggest we know a little more on the subject of human sexuality today than they did when the bible was written. I'm so tired of people using the bible to justify intolerance.

K. Scott

Winnipeg

His point that the Bible is a moral compass is still valid.

[Steven]

As far as your letter goes X, I think it is good, but I would suggest that you shorten it a bit so that they are more likely to print it.

The Bible contains many laws, which are, at best, questionable by today's moral standards.  It degrades women and forced to positions of silent servility and property.  It discriminates against people who are not perfect physical specimens.  People who have physical flaws, poor eyesight, deformaties or amputations, are not welcome in God's assemblies.  It advocates murder and genocide toward people who don't follow Yahweh, or who disobey Yahweh's authoritarian dictatorship.  It supports slavery.  It even gives instructions on how to sell, buy and beat slaves.

Maybe for this part we could find specific biblical passages that demonstrate this, and maybe find some from the New Testament as they always seem to object to invoking the Old Testament.

Perhaps I will revise and add some of my own thoughts and then post it here.

[Gerry]

Love the idea... good luck.
If you haven't heard of it yet, here's a good site for dealing with apologists of the bible. It's a Wiki, meaning anyone can contribute to it.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

One of Jesus's most cited speeches which many people think cannot be criticized -- The Sermon on the Mount -- is torn apart:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_Mount

There was plenty of objectionable things said in the New Testament.

I'll give you that The Old Testament is overflowing with them... It's just too easy to find objectionable passages in the Old Testament. It makes me wonder how people can claim that there's much of any good morals in the bible.

Those people who think the US was founded on the 10 Commandments have never examined this claim. I heard on one podcast going over the 10 commandments, and came up with TWO out of ten which had corresponding laws: Don't Steal, Don't Kill -- The same laws found in any country.

Here's some responses to someone's question asking for examples of immoral teachings of the New Testament:
http://atheists.meetup.com/67/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3989928

I'm not very eloquent with words, so I'll leave it up to you to piece them together.
Good luck.

[X]

Feel free to re-write or alter it as you see fit.

I agree it's lengthy.  In addition, it sort of dances around the subject before coming to the conclusion that since you need an outside moral guide to determine what laws you deem moral/immoral in the Bible, you can't claim the Bible as a moral compass.

It would be nice to see something short, that starts with the presumption of the bible as a moral guide, gives eidence it's not moral at all, and then concludes with the statement about why it therefore can't be a moral compass.

I'd like it to represent this group, so it better be good, or else you'll burn in Hell!   


EDIT:

As far as your letter goes X, I think it is good, but I would suggest that you shorten it a bit so that they are more likely to print it.

The Bible contains many laws, which are, at best, questionable by today's moral standards.  It degrades women and forced to positions of silent servility and property.  It discriminates against people who are not perfect physical specimens.  People who have physical flaws, poor eyesight, deformaties or amputations, are not welcome in God's assemblies.  It advocates murder and genocide toward people who don't follow Yahweh, or who disobey Yahweh's authoritarian dictatorship.  It supports slavery.  It even gives instructions on how to sell, buy and beat slaves.

Maybe for this part we could find specific biblical passages that demonstrate this, and maybe find some from the New Testament as they always seem to object to invoking the Old Testament.

Perhaps I will revise and add some of my own thoughts and then post it here.

Degrades women:  Genesis 3:16, Exodus 20:17, Leviticus 12:1-5, Leviticus 15:19-33, Numbers 30:3-16, Deuteronomy 21:11-14, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:12 Source  See also
Discriminates against imperfection:  Leviticus 21:16-23, Numbers 5:1-4, Deuteronomy 23:2
Advocates killing:  Deuteronomy 17:12, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 20:27, Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 21:9, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Deuteronomy  22:20-21, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Leviticus 24:10-16, Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Deuteronomy 18:20-22, Numbers 1:48-51, Romans 1:24-32 Source
Supports slavery:  Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-21, Luke 12:47-48 Source

I've limited this to books from the Pentateuch and support from the New Testament.
The list can probably be pared down substantially.


And maybe we should mention the whole homosexuality issue?
And don't forget that anyone who disagrees with or doesn't follow these things shall spend eternity in torment.

[brian]

I think your letter is good but we should try to get it to around 200 to 250 words.  I also think we should try to get in the dangers of fundamentalism and the main idea that you don't need a 2000 year old book to tell you what is right and wrong.

Lemme take a crack at it...



Lately, there have been some letters to the editor in your newspaper alluding to the use of the Bible as a moral guide.  The general consensus from the Sun and many readers seems to be that the Bible is useful as a moral compass.

While the Bible does contain some good moral teachings, it also contains some very harmful moral teachings as well.  These include degrading women, discrimination against homosexuals and those of different religions, promoting rape, slavery, killing and genocide and other teachings that any reasonable person would agree are highly immoral.  It is also fraught with contradictions, making it a very poor basis for a system of morals.

Contrary to the opinions of some theists, we do not need to use religious texts as a moral crutch.  To use them as a primary source of morals requires one to believe in both the good and bad moral teachings.  This attitude manifests itself as dangerous fundamentalism.  The other alternative is to pick and choose, however that requires a person to base his or her decision on a separate set of morals not related to the religious text in question and is more a matter of looking for biblical passages that coincide with your preexisting moral values.

Additionally, refraining from certain acts out of a fear of divine punishment is not morality.  It is simply a fear of punishment, akin to refraining from murder solely because of a fear of getting caught and facing prison time.

Perhaps a better source of morality are the basic humanist values of reason, compassion and scientific understanding.

(Insert name here)
University of Manitoba Society of Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (MASH)
www.ummash.org


(264 words not including signature)


How does this look?

May be a touch long, maybe we can take out the last or second last paragraph?

If we want to get it in, I think we should send it ASAP, preferably by tomorrow evening (technically tonight as it is after midnight).  Also I think we have to put a name on it (can't always sign with an X  ).  As PR guy, I could send it out any time, unless you want to.

[X]

Well, it's nice and short Brian.

If I may be so bold as to modify it slightly (removing allusions to fundamentalism and contradictions.  important thought they are, they are not directly the issue at hand):

Lately, there have been some letters to the editor in your newspaper alluding to the use of the Bible as a moral guide.  The general consensus from the Sun and many readers seems to be that the Bible is useful as a moral compass.

While the Bible does contain some good moral teachings, it also contains some very harmful moral teachings.  These include degradation of women, discrimination against homosexuals and those of different religions, promoting rape, slavery, killing and genocide,  as well as many other teachings that any reasonable person would agree are highly immoral.

To use the Bible as a primary source of morals requires one to believe in both the good and bad moral teachings.  The other alternative is to pick and choose, however that requires a person to base his or her decision on a separate set of morals not related to the religious text in question.  Once you do this, you can no longer claim the Bible as a moral guide.  You simply can't have it both ways.

Additionally, refraining from certain acts out of a fear of divine punishment is not morality.  It is simply a fear of punishment, akin to refraining from murder solely because of a fear of getting caught and facing prison time.  And I seriously doubt that anybody is "good" because they feel god is watching.  Unless that person agrees that without gods watchful eye, they would be out there committing heinous crimes.

Perhaps a better source of morality are the basic humanist values of reason, compassion and scientific understanding.

<Insert name or PR person or president here>
<insert individuals executive position here>
University of Manitoba Society of Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (MASH)
www.ummash.org

I'm wary of the line "And I seriously doubt that anybody is "good" because they feel god is watching.  Unless that person agrees that without gods watchful eye, they would be out there committing heinous crimes.".

Additionally, the line "You simply can't have it both ways." is a perhaps-not-so-subtle dig at the author of todays letter, attached below.

Standing with god

Letter writer K. Scott pulls out the old canard that a person's sexuality is not chosen and cannot be altered.

If we're going to accept that nonsense then we're just around the corner from accepting pedophiles. The perverts at the UN sponsored NAMBLA will tell you that pedophiles are also born with a proclivity towards children. How long then until society accepts this?

The Bible is very explicit in stating that sexual relations are to be limited between a man and a woman and only under marriage.

K. Scott can call me a Bible- thumping buffoon, but I am only reiterating the word of God. And on this point all major religions are in agreement including Muslims and Jews.

So go ahead K. Scott, call someone a Qur'an-thumping Muslim or a Talmud-thumping Jew while you're at it.

God is no respecter of man and certainly does not regard the American Psychological Association or American Psychiatric Association with anything other than contempt.

As for me and my house, we unashamedly stand with God.

Barry Banek

Winnipeg

(We presume you've heard of consenting adults.)

Additionally, I think we should set a deadline for hashing out and submitting a final revision of this letter.
Say, before Sunday?

[Steven]

I think your letter is good Brian, but just for fun I edited it more like how I would have written it. I realize we are trying to be diplomatic but some phrases sound kind of wishy-washy (no offence ). Here it is:

Lately, there have been some letters to the editor in your newspaper alluding to the use of the Bible as a moral guide. The general consensus from the Sun and many readers seems to be that the Bible is useful as a moral compass.

While the Bible does contain some good moral teachings, it also contains some very harmful moral teachings. These include degrading women, discrimination against homosexuals and those of different religions, promoting rape, slavery, killing and genocide and other teachings that any reasonable person would find offensive. This makes the Bible a very poor basis for a system of morals.

Contrary to the opinions of some theists, we do not need to use religious texts as a moral crutch. To use them as a primary source of morals requires one to believe in both the good and bad moral teachings. To pick and choose only the good parts, however, requires a person to use a different moral standard, separate from the religious text in question. Once you do this, you can no longer claim the Bible as a moral guide. You simply can't have it both ways.

The moral standard by which you pick and choose is available to all of us, whether we are religious or not. Following the basic values of reason, compassion and scientific understanding will serve us better than any prescribed by a holy book. It provides us with better reasons to be moral than a fear of divine punishment. We are more than capable of deciding what is moral by ourselves.

(Insert name here)
University of Manitoba Society of Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (MASH)
www.ummash.org

What do you think?

[X]

I like that, Steve.

Just rmemeber to make sure an executive submits it, wand that their position is given below their name.

That way, it becomes an official statement of this group.

[brian]

I think if we are to set a deadline, it should be Friday afternoonish.  That way we have a chance of maybe getting it in the Saturday paper which more people read.

[trevor]

I think the letter idea is great!  Here's my attempt:

Lately there have been some letters to the editor alluding to the use of the Bible as a moral guide. The general consensus seems to be that the Bible is useful as a moral compass.

While the Bible does contain some good moral teachings, it also contains very harmful moral teachings; the Bible promotes degrading women, discriminating against homosexuals and those of different religions, rape, slavery, killing and genocide. Following all of the Bible's teachings would result in a very immoral society, by modern standards. Hence, most Christians only follow some of the Bible's teachings.

But how does one choose which teachings to follow and which to ignore? Clearly, there is some other source providing moral guidance: reason and compassion. That moral guide is available to everyone, religious or not. There is no need to use religious texts as a moral crutch.

Following the values of reason, compassion and scientific understanding will serve us better than any rules prescribed by a holy book. Caring for fellow human beings is a far better reason to be moral than fear of divine punishment. We are more than capable of deciding what is moral by ourselves.

The members of Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (MASH) at the University of Manitoba
http://ummash.org/

Is there a reason that we have to include a specific name/position with the letter?  It's been worked on collaboratively, and it's still "officially" by us.

But yes, Friday sounds good. I don't think we'll ever be 100% satisfied by any version of the letter anyway...

[X]

I'm still torn about saying something to the effect of "...and contrary to popular opinion, the New Testament does not make it all better.  Jesus states in several places his support for the old laws..."

I don't know.  It's adding extra stuff, and comes across as an afterthought, but I can't help feeling that if we don't put it in, they are going to make that claim.


In addition, I feel that the statement about not being able to claim the bible as a moral guide should be kept.  It emphases the point that needs to be made.

Just my (anonymous) opinion.

[brian]

Lately there have been some letters to the editor alluding to the use of the Bible as a moral guide. The general consensus seems to be that the Bible is useful as a moral compass.

While the Bible does contain some good moral teachings, it also contains very harmful moral teachings; the Bible promotes degrading women, discriminating against homosexuals and those of different religions, rape, slavery, killing and genocide. Following all of the Bible's teachings would result in a very immoral society by any reasonable standards. Hence, most Christians only follow some of the Bible's teachings.

But how does one choose which teachings to follow and which to ignore? Clearly, there is some other source providing moral guidance: reason and compassion. That moral guide is available to everyone, religious or not. There is no need to use religious texts as a moral crutch.

Following the values of reason, compassion and scientific understanding will serve us better than any rules prescribed by a holy book. Caring for fellow human beings is a far better reason to be moral than fear of divine punishment. We are more than capable of deciding what is moral by ourselves.

The members of Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (MASH) at the University of Manitoba
http://ummash.org/

I personally think "by any reasonable standards" is better than "by modern standards" because it can't be construed to mean that morals should change with time (something that is generally argues against by those kinds of people).

Regarding the signature, I don't know if a name is necessary or not.  I don't know of any rules, but all the letters I have seen printed generally follow the format of:
"Some guy,
Some organization"
I don't know if it is that important or not though.