Religious people, especially religious leaders, talk a lot about "faith." They try to tell us that it's a good thing. "Have faith!" they say. They even tell us that it's the best way to believe (they even say "to know") certain things. Like whether Jesus died for your sins, or whether the gospel stories are true, or whether Jesus rose from the dead.
Actually, it's the ONLY way you can believe some of the things that religion wants you to believe. But is that a good thing?
"Faith" is also the only way you can believe things that aren't true. It's the only way you can believe in fairies, or Santa Claus, or that the earth is hollow or flat. Yes, there are people who fervently believe such things. And they do it using faith.
As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believin' in things you know ain't so." Or, more precisely, things that you SHOULD know ain't so, if you took the time to think and do some research. And even the Bible tells us that we should check everything out and only keep whatever passes the test (Saint Paul, I Thessalonians 5:21).
There are a lot of religious claims that you cannot, by the nature of things, check out. You cannot check whether God really doesn't want you to eat pork, or to work on the Sabbath. No way can you find out whether Uncle Jack really is in hell, or whether Grandma is really in heaven with the angels. But we have good ways of finding out whether the earth is only a few thousand years old, or whether there were no human beings until about six thousand years ago, or whether a great flood covered the entire earth a few thousand years ago. It's foolish to rely on "faith" to deny the facts of reality.
"Faith" is really just a nicer-sounding word for "credulity" or "gullibility." Christians tell you, "If you have enough faith, you can believe that Jesus died for your sins, that he rose from the dead, that if you have that faith, and believe that, and regularly partake of the tokens of his body and his blood, you can look forward to being with him forever in heaven."
Here's the translation: "If you are gullible enough, you can believe that the cruel death of an Jewish rabbi two thousand years ago relieves your guilt for anything you've done wrong, that this rabbi came back to life after dying, and if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood, you will have a wonderful life, but only after you're really dead. But you have to be gullible enough, the more gullible the better!"
"Faith" is the same thing that swindlers and conmen use to get money out of people. "Believe me, and you will get rich - eventually, some day!" How is the swindler any different from the preacher or the priest? The only difference is that most swindlers do know that they are lying. Many preachers and priests are just as much gullible victims as most believers. But they cannot be excused. They should have been less gullible themselves.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
About That Resurrection
At Easter Christians celebrate the resurrection of the man-god Jesus from the dead. The man whom the Romans executed for treason - claiming that he would establish a Jewish "kingdom of God" and thus implicitly overthrow the Roman rule of Palestine - supposedly came back to life after lying dead in a tomb for two nights (according to the Gospels) or three nights (according to Paul). And then he rose visibly into heaven, just like the Emperor Augustus had done (but Jesus didn't need a chariot like the Roman did).
What evidence is there that Jesus really came back to life? The evidence is pretty slim, and convincing only to Christians.
First of all, there is no contemporary evidence of the resurrection at all. None. That is, there is no documentation, no writing from the time of the supposed events that even mentions them. The only accounts are much, much later. Are they reliable? Are they even believable?
Paul was writing about 25 or 30 years after the crucifixion, and he was admittedly not there. He writes nothing else about Jesus' life or even his teachings. He only reports (based on what?) that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. He says that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, but he gives no details of that, and nobody else reports this astonishing event. He claims that Jesus came to him in a vision, but like the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, he can't get the details right every time he tells it (in one version his companions heard the voice but saw nothing, in another they saw the vision but heard nothing).
None of the gospel writers were actually there. Whatever their identities (many scholars doubt that the real authors were the men whose names are attached to them), they were writing several decades after the events, and their accounts of those Easter week events are moving, but contradictory. Their purpose in writing is propaganda, and like all propagandists, they do not hesitate to embellish, invent, and sensationalize. Any attorney cross-examining them would tear their "testimony" to shreds. Conclusion: not reliable.
There is no doubt that five decades after Jesus' death there were many who believed that he had risen from the dead. Is that any kind of reliable evidence? Hardly. People - especially superstitious people (and that was certainly a superstitious age, when even well-educated people believed in magic and miracles) - believe all kinds of things for which there is no evidence. Peddlers of religion and quack medicine call this "faith" and if they can convince someone that "faith" is a good thing, they have found a buyer.
What are the facts? 1. People who are dead don't come back to life, except in fairy tales and legends (Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, etc.). 2. People will believe any absurd thing, if you promise them something (like "you too can come back to life, if you just believe that Jesus did!"). Don't fall for it!
What evidence is there that Jesus really came back to life? The evidence is pretty slim, and convincing only to Christians.
First of all, there is no contemporary evidence of the resurrection at all. None. That is, there is no documentation, no writing from the time of the supposed events that even mentions them. The only accounts are much, much later. Are they reliable? Are they even believable?
Paul was writing about 25 or 30 years after the crucifixion, and he was admittedly not there. He writes nothing else about Jesus' life or even his teachings. He only reports (based on what?) that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. He says that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, but he gives no details of that, and nobody else reports this astonishing event. He claims that Jesus came to him in a vision, but like the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, he can't get the details right every time he tells it (in one version his companions heard the voice but saw nothing, in another they saw the vision but heard nothing).
None of the gospel writers were actually there. Whatever their identities (many scholars doubt that the real authors were the men whose names are attached to them), they were writing several decades after the events, and their accounts of those Easter week events are moving, but contradictory. Their purpose in writing is propaganda, and like all propagandists, they do not hesitate to embellish, invent, and sensationalize. Any attorney cross-examining them would tear their "testimony" to shreds. Conclusion: not reliable.
There is no doubt that five decades after Jesus' death there were many who believed that he had risen from the dead. Is that any kind of reliable evidence? Hardly. People - especially superstitious people (and that was certainly a superstitious age, when even well-educated people believed in magic and miracles) - believe all kinds of things for which there is no evidence. Peddlers of religion and quack medicine call this "faith" and if they can convince someone that "faith" is a good thing, they have found a buyer.
What are the facts? 1. People who are dead don't come back to life, except in fairy tales and legends (Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, etc.). 2. People will believe any absurd thing, if you promise them something (like "you too can come back to life, if you just believe that Jesus did!"). Don't fall for it!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Christians want to "put Christ back into Christmas"?
[Sorry for the blog neglect the last few months!]
Every year about this time the Christians start making a big thing about how "Christmas" is about Christ, because "Christ" is in the name of the holiday. "Put Christ back in Christmas!" they insist. It isn't good enough to wish someone "Happy holidays!" It has to be "Merry CHRISTmas!"
These members of the word-police want to force all of us to celebrate this universal holiday at the time of the winter solstice in their way, or no way. They overlook quite a few facts that really make their attitude ridiculous:
- The holiday was a pagan holiday long before the Christians adopted it. It celebrated the solstice (the sun turning in the sky, the days beginning to get longer rather than shorter) and the many pagan gods to whom the solstice was attributed, such as Mithras (also called "the Unconquered Sun").
- Many Christians condemned (and still condemn) the celebration of the holiday, including the early Christian settlers of New England, precisely because of its non-Christian (pagan) origin.
- Jesus was not born in December, but more likely in the spring, if shepherds really were watching their flocks by night. Mithras, however, was born on December 25, according to legend.
And what does the name of a day really have to do with the purpose or meaning of the day? If Christians insist that the name "Christmas" requires a particular interpretation, including memorializing their god on that day, then we heathens must also insist that Wednesday be acknowledged as what its name says: Woden's Day. Woden is, of course, the king of the gods in the original Norse and Germanic religions. And much of the rest of the week is in honor of the pagan gods as well. Tuesday honors Tiu, the Norse god of war. Thursday belongs to Thor, the god of thunder. And Friday is the day to honor the goddess Freia, goddess of beauty.
So I say, let the Christians have December 25 if they are willing to let us heathens have all the days that are named after the original gods.
They can still hold their Bible-study sessions on Woden's day, and at the end of the week express their thanks by saying "Thank god it's Freya's day!"
Let's put the gods back in the weekdays!
Every year about this time the Christians start making a big thing about how "Christmas" is about Christ, because "Christ" is in the name of the holiday. "Put Christ back in Christmas!" they insist. It isn't good enough to wish someone "Happy holidays!" It has to be "Merry CHRISTmas!"
These members of the word-police want to force all of us to celebrate this universal holiday at the time of the winter solstice in their way, or no way. They overlook quite a few facts that really make their attitude ridiculous:
- The holiday was a pagan holiday long before the Christians adopted it. It celebrated the solstice (the sun turning in the sky, the days beginning to get longer rather than shorter) and the many pagan gods to whom the solstice was attributed, such as Mithras (also called "the Unconquered Sun").
- Many Christians condemned (and still condemn) the celebration of the holiday, including the early Christian settlers of New England, precisely because of its non-Christian (pagan) origin.
- Jesus was not born in December, but more likely in the spring, if shepherds really were watching their flocks by night. Mithras, however, was born on December 25, according to legend.
And what does the name of a day really have to do with the purpose or meaning of the day? If Christians insist that the name "Christmas" requires a particular interpretation, including memorializing their god on that day, then we heathens must also insist that Wednesday be acknowledged as what its name says: Woden's Day. Woden is, of course, the king of the gods in the original Norse and Germanic religions. And much of the rest of the week is in honor of the pagan gods as well. Tuesday honors Tiu, the Norse god of war. Thursday belongs to Thor, the god of thunder. And Friday is the day to honor the goddess Freia, goddess of beauty.
So I say, let the Christians have December 25 if they are willing to let us heathens have all the days that are named after the original gods.
They can still hold their Bible-study sessions on Woden's day, and at the end of the week express their thanks by saying "Thank god it's Freya's day!"
Let's put the gods back in the weekdays!
Monday, June 1, 2009
More Problems About God
Most believers in God claim that God is "perfect." Usually they do not seem to draw the ultimate conclusions from saying that, but simply use the word without thinking of the implications.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
What About The Bible?
People often quote a Bible passage to me, implying that the Bible is the ultimate authority on the subject (morals, geology, science, history, philosophy).
I see absolutely no reason why I should pay much attention to what the Bible says, and certainly no reason to consider it to be the "word of God." In fact, I can think of quite a few good reasons NOT to consider it as anything more than a collection of the myths, legends and beliefs of a very primitive and superstitious people. The fear of death is something that the priests have drilled into us in order to allow them to have power over us. They are simply insurance salesmen, and they have to make you are afraid of something before you will buy their insurance against it.
I have not only read the Bible very carefully, but I have also spent considerable time studying it. It was my reading of the Bible that first convinced me that there was nothing holy or inspired about it, since it so full of contradictions, errors, absurdities and even condonation of evil. The mere fact that there are so many thousands of Jewish and Christian sects, all with differing doctrines, all claiming the Bible as the basis of their doctrines, proves how unreliable it is.
My extensive notes run to 64 pages fine print.
I have - encouraged by Christian friends - read the works of many Christian apologists: C. S. Lewis, John Warwick Montgomery, Ron Rhodes, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Simon Greenleaf, Alfred Edersheim, (and others), and I find them consistently illogical and unable to deal satisfactorily with the obvious Bible problems. I also find that my Christian friends are usually unwilling to read any of the books which I recommend to them about the Bible and Christianity.
The Jesus that most Christians worship is certainly not anyone who lived in Palestine two thousand years ago, but is an artificial (mythical) construct of people who never even knew Jesus or the people whom he supposedly taught. The history of early Christianity is a forgery constructed by the Roman church, as is becoming ever more clear with the discovery of long-suppressed Christian writings which contradict traditional Christian doctrine. To put it bluntly: the New Testament is a pious fraud.
.
And please don't suggest that one must read the Bible "in the proper Spirit" unless you can define what you mean as something other than simply "being willing to accept whatever it says as the Word of God."
I see absolutely no reason why I should pay much attention to what the Bible says, and certainly no reason to consider it to be the "word of God." In fact, I can think of quite a few good reasons NOT to consider it as anything more than a collection of the myths, legends and beliefs of a very primitive and superstitious people. The fear of death is something that the priests have drilled into us in order to allow them to have power over us. They are simply insurance salesmen, and they have to make you are afraid of something before you will buy their insurance against it.
I have not only read the Bible very carefully, but I have also spent considerable time studying it. It was my reading of the Bible that first convinced me that there was nothing holy or inspired about it, since it so full of contradictions, errors, absurdities and even condonation of evil. The mere fact that there are so many thousands of Jewish and Christian sects, all with differing doctrines, all claiming the Bible as the basis of their doctrines, proves how unreliable it is.
My extensive notes run to 64 pages fine print.
I have - encouraged by Christian friends - read the works of many Christian apologists: C. S. Lewis, John Warwick Montgomery, Ron Rhodes, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Simon Greenleaf, Alfred Edersheim, (and others), and I find them consistently illogical and unable to deal satisfactorily with the obvious Bible problems. I also find that my Christian friends are usually unwilling to read any of the books which I recommend to them about the Bible and Christianity.
The Jesus that most Christians worship is certainly not anyone who lived in Palestine two thousand years ago, but is an artificial (mythical) construct of people who never even knew Jesus or the people whom he supposedly taught. The history of early Christianity is a forgery constructed by the Roman church, as is becoming ever more clear with the discovery of long-suppressed Christian writings which contradict traditional Christian doctrine. To put it bluntly: the New Testament is a pious fraud.
.
And please don't suggest that one must read the Bible "in the proper Spirit" unless you can define what you mean as something other than simply "being willing to accept whatever it says as the Word of God."
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Easter - The Ancient (Pre-Christian) Festival
Happy Easter to All!
As at Christmas, when we are urged to bring back the "true meaning" of the holiday, so at Easter are we urged to do so, especially by letters to the editor and columns on the religious page of the newspaper.
Of course, we all have the right to use any reason we like for celebrating any holiday. But the implication that your Easter celebration is authentic only if you do it with the Christian resurrection in mind betrays an ignorance of religious history.
This holiday has been celebrated every spring all over the world in an unbroken tradition going back to many centuries before Jesus was even born, and thus cannot have had any original connection to him.
Easter was originally (and still is) a celebration of the fertility of the earth, renewed each springtime. The egg, the chick, the rabbit, the flowers, are all fertility symbols (and much older than the Christian symbol of the resurrected god). Its celebration has often been marked by sexual exuberance, as is still prominent in the pre-Lenten Carneval and Mardi Gras festivals and the phallic symbolism of the May pole and the cross.
Long before Jesus, many peoples associated this festival with the coming back to life of the god of fertility (Tammuz - see Ezek 8:14, Adonis, Osiris, Perseus, Orpheus), who had been dead in the underworld during the winter. Even the name by which Christians still celebrate the festival is a corruption of the name of the ancient fertility goddess Ishtar or Ashtoreth (whose name also survives in the name of one of the books of the Old Testament, the only Bible book that contains no reference to God - the Book of Esther).
The Christian church, because it could not eradicate the celebration of this popular festival, reinterpreted it and assigned to it a new meaning, but was unable to erase completely its original significance. Undoubtedly current attempts by Christians will have no more success. The egg and the rabbit, the phallic pole or cross (the real symbols of the festival) will continue to be loved and celebrated as long as we can marvel at the new life which the spring brings.
As at Christmas, when we are urged to bring back the "true meaning" of the holiday, so at Easter are we urged to do so, especially by letters to the editor and columns on the religious page of the newspaper.
Of course, we all have the right to use any reason we like for celebrating any holiday. But the implication that your Easter celebration is authentic only if you do it with the Christian resurrection in mind betrays an ignorance of religious history.
This holiday has been celebrated every spring all over the world in an unbroken tradition going back to many centuries before Jesus was even born, and thus cannot have had any original connection to him.
Easter was originally (and still is) a celebration of the fertility of the earth, renewed each springtime. The egg, the chick, the rabbit, the flowers, are all fertility symbols (and much older than the Christian symbol of the resurrected god). Its celebration has often been marked by sexual exuberance, as is still prominent in the pre-Lenten Carneval and Mardi Gras festivals and the phallic symbolism of the May pole and the cross.
Long before Jesus, many peoples associated this festival with the coming back to life of the god of fertility (Tammuz - see Ezek 8:14, Adonis, Osiris, Perseus, Orpheus), who had been dead in the underworld during the winter. Even the name by which Christians still celebrate the festival is a corruption of the name of the ancient fertility goddess Ishtar or Ashtoreth (whose name also survives in the name of one of the books of the Old Testament, the only Bible book that contains no reference to God - the Book of Esther).
The Christian church, because it could not eradicate the celebration of this popular festival, reinterpreted it and assigned to it a new meaning, but was unable to erase completely its original significance. Undoubtedly current attempts by Christians will have no more success. The egg and the rabbit, the phallic pole or cross (the real symbols of the festival) will continue to be loved and celebrated as long as we can marvel at the new life which the spring brings.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Respect for Religious Scruples Being Enacted Into Law
The Idaho state legislature is considering a law which would allow pharmacists licensed and practicing in that state to refuse to fill prescriptions which are offensive to their religious beliefs. So a Catholic pharmacist in Idaho could refuse to dispense birth control pills. Even though the prescription is legal, and neither the doctor nor the customer have any religious objection to birth control.
The bill has already passed the House and is now going to the Senate. It is supported by many religious groups as a proper recognition of religious conscience and respect for individual religious scruples.
I have not read the text of the bill, so I don't know whether a pharmacy could refuse to hire a Catholic pharmacist whom they knew would refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. I suspect that the bill requires "reasonable accommodation."
I think the bill will soon be considered not broad enough.
What about a mortuary who hires a Hassidic Jew? Orthodox Jews believe that touching a dead body makes one "unclean."
Muslim cab drivers in large cities such as New York refuse to take passengers who are carrying alcoholic beverages. Shouldn't they be protected, too?
It is against the Mormon religion to use coffee, tobacco, or tea (as well as alcohol). Should a restaurant be forced to hire a Mormon who refuses to serve coffee to a customer, or a glass of wine?
Should a Muslim be able to refuse to make a ham sandwich, if he works in a deli?
A simpler solution: if you are Catholic, don't become a pharmacist. If you're a Jew, don't look for a job in a deli or a funeral parlor. If you're a Mormon waiter, go get a job in some small town in Utah.
But it seems to be perfectly all right that nonbelievers are paid their wages in money that says "In God We Trust." And nobody objects if the nonbeliever's children have to recite the Pledge to the flag with the words "under God."
Religious attitudes need less respect, not more.
The bill has already passed the House and is now going to the Senate. It is supported by many religious groups as a proper recognition of religious conscience and respect for individual religious scruples.
I have not read the text of the bill, so I don't know whether a pharmacy could refuse to hire a Catholic pharmacist whom they knew would refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. I suspect that the bill requires "reasonable accommodation."
I think the bill will soon be considered not broad enough.
What about a mortuary who hires a Hassidic Jew? Orthodox Jews believe that touching a dead body makes one "unclean."
Muslim cab drivers in large cities such as New York refuse to take passengers who are carrying alcoholic beverages. Shouldn't they be protected, too?
It is against the Mormon religion to use coffee, tobacco, or tea (as well as alcohol). Should a restaurant be forced to hire a Mormon who refuses to serve coffee to a customer, or a glass of wine?
Should a Muslim be able to refuse to make a ham sandwich, if he works in a deli?
A simpler solution: if you are Catholic, don't become a pharmacist. If you're a Jew, don't look for a job in a deli or a funeral parlor. If you're a Mormon waiter, go get a job in some small town in Utah.
But it seems to be perfectly all right that nonbelievers are paid their wages in money that says "In God We Trust." And nobody objects if the nonbeliever's children have to recite the Pledge to the flag with the words "under God."
Religious attitudes need less respect, not more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)