Religion is a Mental Illness

Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof. And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink. And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

"It seems to me that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all have the same god, and he's telling them all different things." -- Billy Connolly

The London council that almost cancelled Hanukkah

Havering council seemed more concerned with appeasing bigots than with supporting Jews.

spiked-online.com

With a wave of anti-Semitism sweeping Britain – and London in particular – you might expect local authorities to jump at the chance to show some solidarity with their Jewish communities.

If so, you’d be wrong. Havering Borough Council is a case in point. On Thursday, it announced it was to cancel this year’s Hanukkah celebrations. The council claimed that erecting and lighting the large menorah outside Havering Town Hall could ‘inflame community tensions’ and lead to vandalism and disruption. (It had already paid for the specially designed menorah.)

On Friday, in the face of a considerable backlash, Havering announced a u-turn. It has been reported that the council had an ‘urgent meeting’ with Jewish community leaders and has since decided that the menorah-lighting event could indeed go ahead later this month.

But this volte-face will do little to erase the damage done by the original, spectacularly ill-judged decision. Indeed, Havering’s initial move to cancel the event has been roundly condemned by those of all faiths and none.

Nazir Afzal, the first Muslim chancellor of Manchester University, pointed out that the celebration of the Jewish festival has nothing at all to do with the war in Gaza. Dr Krish Kandiah, the director of the pro-refugee Sanctuary Foundation, pledged to stand ‘with the Jewish community in Havering’. Hope Not Hate founder Nick Lowles also intervened, saying that the council’s original decision was wrong ‘on every level’.

Muhammad Manwar Ali, an experienced figure in the counter-extremism field, was blunter still. He described the plan to cancel the event as ‘absolutely awful’ and a form of ‘shameless appeasement’. He’s not wrong. Havering seemed more concerned with appeasing anti-Semites than with supporting the local Jewish community.

Havering seemed to think that by cancelling Hanukkah celebrations community tensions would be eased. This is absurd. It would have made them worse. Not only was Havering threatening to cancel a religious celebration that has long brought joy and happiness to the capital; it was also pandering to nasty extremist factions.

Failing to stand in solidarity with British Jews sends a dangerous message. Regardless of your opinion on the conflict in Gaza, Jewish people are not agents of the Israeli government – they simply want to celebrate their religious holiday in peace. Havering was effectively threatening to suppress one religious minority at the presumed behest of another. All because it assumed that the visible display of Jewishness would upset – and potentially anger – the local Muslim community. Which is also incredibly insulting to Muslims.

Havering has not only failed its Jewish residents – it has also undermined religious freedom more generally. This kind of decision, although it has been reversed, still sets a sinister precedent. It suggests that the feelings of some minority groups should take priority over the rights of others.

If we want to build a truly harmonious and diverse society, we cannot capitulate to bigots who may take offence to harmless religious rituals. Now more than ever, we must rise above tribal identity politics in Britain. We need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with British Jews and send the clear message that anti-Semitism and hatred will not win.

Three Jewish men who all survived the Auschwitz concentration camp and were liberated on the same day reunite 73 years later, in 2019. All three men survived the camp, and the number on their tattoos are different by only 10, meaning they were all in the camp simultaneously. All three went on to have families and good lives. Photographer: Sandi Bachom Source: Last eye witness project

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

God's Love & Justice Because nothing says just and loving like sending babies straight to Heaven, after mercilessly butchering them and their mothers, and letting their virgin sisters live, so they could be 'married' by their killers.

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian. Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war. So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

How can we reconcile God’s commandment not to kill anyone with his commandment to kill everyone? In light of this account [Ex 32:27-28], and many others like it, the sixth commandment should perhaps read thus: "Thou shalt not kill—not unless the Lord thy God says so. Then shalt thou slaughter thine enemies with abandon." -- Michael Shermer

Deconstructing the Decalogue

Or, How to Think About the Ten Commandments

michaelshermer.substack.com

There is arguably no better known set of moral precepts than the Ten Commandments. As an exercise in moral casuistry, in this essay, excerpted from my chapter on religion in my 2015 book The Moral Arc, let’s consider them again in the context of how far the moral arc has bent since they were decreed over three millennia ago. (The Ten Commandments are stated in two books of the Old Testament, Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-21. I quote from Exodus, King James Version.) In the next essay I shall reconstruct them from the perspective of a science- and reason-based moral system.

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

First, this commandment reveals that polytheism was commonplace at the time and that Yahweh was, among other things, a jealous god (see God’s own clarification in Commandment 2). Second, it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in that it restricts freedom of religious expression (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”), making the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places such as schools and courthouses unconstitutional.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

This commandment is also in violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech, of which artistic expression is included by precedence of many Supreme Court cases (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”). It also brings to mind what the Taliban did in Afghanistan when they destroyed ancient religious relics not approved by their Islamist masters. Elsewhere in the Bible, the word “idol” is synonymously used, with the Hebrew word pesel translated as an object carved or hewn out of stone, wood or metal.

What, then, are we to make of the crucifix, worn by millions of Christians as an image, an idol, a symbol of what Jesus suffered for their sins? The crucifix is a graven image of torture as it was commonly practiced by the Romans. If Jews today were suddenly to start sporting little gas chambers on gold necklaces the shocked public reaction would be as unsurprising as it would be unmistakable.

I the LORD thy God am a jealous God.

That might explain the genocides, wars, conquests, and mass exterminations commanded by the deity of the Old Testament. These humanlike emotions reveal Yahweh to be more like a Greek god, and much like an adolescent, who lacks the wisdom to control his passions.

The last part of this commandment—visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me—violates the most fundamental principle of Western jurisprudence developed over centuries of legal precedence that one can be only be guilty of one’s own sins and not the sins of one’s parents, grandparents, great grandparents, or anyone else for that matter.  

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

This commandment is once again an infringement on our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech and religious expression, and another indication of Yahweh’s petty jealousies and un-Godlike ways.

IV. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Again, freedom of speech and religious expression means we may or may not choose to treat the Sabbath as holy, and the rest of this commandment—For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy—make it clear that its purpose is to once again pay homage to Yahweh.

Thus far, the first four commandments have nothing whatsoever to do with morality as we understand it today in terms of how we are to interact with others, resolve conflicts, or improve the survival and flourishing of other sentient beings. At this point the Decalogue is entirely concerned with the relationship of humans and god, not humans and humans.

V. Honor thy father and thy mother.

As a father myself, this commandment feels right and reasonable, since most of us parents appreciate being honored by our children, especially because we’ve invested considerable love, attention, and resources into them. But “commanding” honor—much less love—doesn’t ring true to me as a parent, since such sentiments usually come naturally anyway. Plus, commanding honor is an oxymoron, made all the worse by the hint of a reward for so doing, as in the rest of that commandment: “that thy days may be long upon the land which the lord thy God giveth thee.” Honor either happens naturally as a result of a loving and fulfilling relationship between parents and offspring, or it doesn’t. For a precept to be moral, it must involve an element of choice between doing something entirely self-serving and doing something that helps another, even at the cost of oneself.    

VI. Thou shalt not kill.

Finally, we get a genuine moral principle worth our attention and respect. Yet even here, much ink has been spilled by biblical scholars and theologians about the difference between murder and killing (such as in self-defense), not to mention all the different types of killing, from first-degree murder to manslaughter, along with mitigating circumstances and exclusions, such as self-defense, provocation, accidental killings, capital punishment, euthanasia, and of course war.

Many Hebrew scholars believe that the prohibition is against murder only. But what are we to make of the story in Exodus (32:27-28) in which Moses brought down from the mountain top the first set of tablets, which he smashed in anger, and then commanded the Levites: “Thus saith the lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.”

How can we reconcile God’s commandment not to kill anyone with his commandment to kill everyone? In light of this account, and many others like it, the sixth commandment should perhaps read thus: Thou shalt not kill—not unless the Lord thy God says so. Then shalt thou slaughter thine enemies with abandon.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Coming from a deity who impregnated somebody else’s fiancé, that’s a bit rich. However, the bigger issue is that this commandment, like all the others, is a blunt instrument that doesn’t take into account the wide variety of circumstances in which people find themselves. Surely grownups in intimate relationships can and should negotiate the details of their relationship for themselves, and one hopes that they’ll act honorably toward their partner out of a sense of integrity, and not because a deity told them to.     

VII. Thou shalt not steal.

Again, do we really need a deity to command this? All cultures had and have moral rules and legal codes about theft.

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Anyone who has been lied to or gossiped about can explain why this moral commandment makes sense and is needed, so chalk one up for the Bible’s authors whose insights here were spot on.

X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.

Consider what it means to covet something—to crave or want or desire it—so this commandment is the world’s first thought crime, which goes against centuries of Western legal codes. More to the point, the very foundation of capitalism is the coveting or desire for things and, ironically, it is Bible-quoting Christian conservatives who most defend the very coveting forbidden in this final mandate.

The late Christopher Hitchens best summed up the implications of taking this commandment seriously, in an April 2010 Vanity Fair essay: “Leaving aside the many jokes about whether or not it’s okay or kosher to covet thy neighbor’s wife’s ass, you are bound to notice once again that, like the Sabbath order, it’s addressed to the servant-owning and property-owning class. Moreover, it lumps the wife in with the rest of the chattel (and in that epoch could have been rendered as ‘thy neighbor’s wives,’ to boot).”

After demolishing the Decalogue in his inimitable style, Hitchens proffered his own list of commandments:

• Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or color.  • Do not ever use people as private property. • Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations. • Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child.  • Do not condemn people for their inborn nature—why would God create so many homosexuals only in order to torture and destroy them? • Be aware that you too are an animal and dependent on the web of nature, and think and act accordingly.  • Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife. • Turn off that fucking cell phone—you have no idea how unimportant your call is to us. • Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions. • Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above.”

Hitchens caps his list in summary judgment: “In short: Do not swallow your moral code in tablet form.”

Now, that is a rational prescription! In my next Skeptic column here I will offer my own “Provisional Rational Decalogue.” So you don’t miss it please consider subscribing below.

"Your religion is only peaceful if you ignore most of it."

"The 'God of Abraham' and his followers have had apx. 3,800 years to demonstrate 'His' existence… Judaism has had about 3,800 years; Christianity, about 2,000 years; Islam, about 1,400 gears and Mormonism, about 200 years. Thousands of years, billions of followers and millions killed in 'His' name, yet NOT ONE has demonstrated the existence of the Abrahamic god. It is time for humanity as a whole to reject the 'god of Abraham hypothesis', altogether."

"Monotheism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) shows up, what, four or five thousand years ago at the most.

So if you give me my most microscopically small assumption of human existence, for at least 70,000 years, heaven watches as the human species is born, dies, usually of its teeth, usually at about 20, usually its infants having about a 9, 10, 2% chance of living. You can—I don’t have to draw you a picture—watches this with indifference.

Thousands and thousands of generations, miserable, illiterate, starving, hungry. To say nothing of the wars they’ll fight with each other, to say nothing of the cruelties they will inflict as well as the ones they will suffer just from existence.

And only three or four, perhaps five thousand years ago, heaven decides it's enough of that, it’s time for an intervention.

And the best way to do it would be in the most primitive part of the Middle East.

Not in China where people can read and have looked at telescopes. No, in the most primitive part of the Middle East basically by offering human sacrifice to them.

This is a doctrine that cannot be believed by anyone who studied anything scientific, anything historical, anything archaeological, anything paleological, anything biological. No, can’t be believed by anyone.

It can be only be believed by someone who wants to be a play thing and a slave of a pitiless, totalitarian power.

How glad we should be that the evidence for this ghastly entity is nil."