Ray Pritchard: Bible Should Be Imposed on Americans
Photo © istockphoto/Jason Major
Poster © Austin Cline
Devout Christians are faced with a dilemma: if they sincerely believe that the Bible is the Word of God, they should support structuring society according to what their god wants, but if they do this they support replacing America's republican government with a theocracy. Not too many Christians want to openly endorse theocracy, but they also don't want to say that the demands of their god shouldn't be the basis for America's laws.
Dr. Ray Pritchard, pastor of the Calvary Memorial Church in Oak Park, Illinois, wrote in Crosswalk:
It's easy to fall into the trap of saying, "If people don't believe the Word of God, we shouldn't quote it because they won't accept it anyway." That reflects a worldly sort of wisdom that assumes God's Word has no inherent power. Hebrews 4:12-13 tells us that the Word of God is shaper than any two-edged sword. It cuts through all our pious excuses and lays bare the thoughts and intents of the heart. When Paul listed the weapons of spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6:10-17, he only mentions one offensive weapon-- "the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God" (v. 17).
The Bible is the Word of God whether we believe it or not. It doesn't become God's Word because we believe it. Our belief or unbelief does not change the nature of God's truth. ... If we truly believe what God says about homosexuality, we ought to say so publicly. I agree with those who say that the Bible shouldn't be our only argument, but I disagree with those who say we should never quote the Bible when moral issues are being discussed in the public square. The fact that the Bible makes some people angry proves that the sword is doing its work.
If biblical texts are used by someone to defend their statements that they don’t like homosexuality, that’s fine — others can engage them in debate or ignore them if they wish. If, however, biblical texts are used to support an argument that laws should be passed criminalizing homosexuality, then the what we have is an attempt to also argue that our laws should be based upon what the Bible says. That’s not fine.
Ray Pritchard is using the Bible to justify using the Bible, which is circular at best. His argument here isn't far off from apologists who insist that the Bible is true and is the Word of God because the Bible says so! Pritchard doesn’t seem to realize that non-believers will take him a lot less seriously when they see him using such obviously fallacious arguments like that. If his thinking is so unclear as to imagine that such arguments are reasonable, we have good reason to question the soundness of his judgments in other matters.
Civil laws and public policy must not be based upon religious doctrines. Acceptance of the Bible as a guide for laws depends upon accepting certain religious doctrines about the Bible, something that not even all Christians or Jews will necessarily agree to. If laws are based upon that religious understanding of the Bible, then those who disagree are therefore having other people’s religious beliefs imposed upon them — and that’s simply not acceptable.
Comments
included 4 religious warnings which caused it to be banned from school textbooks for the last 10 years, although, it was common use for 100 years before that. One such warning was ” Of all the dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain, would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”
George washington
Austin,
From where is right and wrong derived from for the Atheist/Anti-theist?
From nature? Doesn’t nature eat its young?
1. It depends on the person. Not all atheists believe the same things.
2. Atheism is not a proper nouns, so it and “atheist” shouldn’t be capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence.
Hey everyone
I am a Christian and I totally agree, any religious conviction should be kept personal.
The constitution is the only way to go.
The civil laws are made to oversee everyone, not just the followers of a religion. It’s good to see that there are religious people that understand this.
Now there are places where religious law are in fact the only (or at least a very strong main-) source of civil law: Saudi Arabia, Israel. Those same places most always tend impose, in practice, their moral standards to individual visitors and foreign policy alike.
The USA does exactly the same in practice. Does anyone believe that a more secular government would be less “imposing” or authoritative in its policies than the present ones, more or less Christian in nature?
Austin, “circular” here is an understatement. God exists because the bible says so, and the bible exists because it is the word of god? I am getting very DIZZY!
The bible is a religious document, not an historical, factual document. It is a piece of fiction, like “Alice in Wonderland.” It is a good piece of fiction, like AiW, but still a piece of fiction, and nobody has the right to use the power of government to force me or anyone else to live by what is written in it.
Why can’t the religious fundies understand this?
Even if the bible were completely literally true, it would still cause massive problems for people who think religion ought to lead public policy. Just take any pair of contradictory statements in the Bible (i.e., “nonbelievers should be killed” and “nonbelievers should be converted” and “nonbelievers should not be spoken to” and “nonbelievers do not exist”) and try to implement it, and suddenly things get very complex indeed.
From where is right and wrong derived from for the Atheist/Anti-theist?
Very simple: the Golden Rule, which predates Christianity by thousands of years.
Why confuse things with the rest of the BS that religions demand?
It’s true that in Nature, some creatures eat their young under certain circumstances. Humans are not one of those creatures. We are social animals with innate empathy and a sense of fairness and reciprocity as well as less polite urges. When you think about right and wrong in terms of the best way for humans to live together, given human nature, it is not so mysterious where our morality comes from.
“The bible is a religious document, not an historical, factual document. It is a piece of fiction, like “Alice in Wonderland.””
Degree,
You’re not familiar with Israel, eh? There are one or two associations with history there.
What somebody should do is force you to read some history…aside from the Bible.
MattB- Whether it has “one or two associations” with history doesn’t make the bible a historical or factual text. Are you familiar with New York City, the September 11th, 2001 attacks and Al- Queda? Captain America went after Al- Queda after the Sept 11 attacks, does that mean Captain America comic books are historical or factual texts?
“Why can’t the religious fundies understand this? ”
Because they are deluded. They live in an alternate reality. They twist new facts to fit their belief system. Their belief system never changes. Words don’t mean the same to them as they do to us. They are subversives and should be treated as such.
While I don’t believe that the bible should be IMPOSED on anyone, I do think all adults should read that book.Then consign it to the circular file on the floor.
Sonord, the Golden Rule sucks. It imposes your values on the other person. Theists live by the Golden Rule, which is why they are always assuming that others want what they want. Suicide bombers could claim to be living by the Golden Rule, which is why it should be discarded.
The Platinum Rule of Humanists is vastly superior. Do unto others as THEY would have done unto them. This necessitates actually talking to them and finding out what their opinions, values, and wants are.
My comment as mailed to Mr Pritchard:
Hello Mr Pritchard,
I read your opinion piece on the upcoming US President inauguration.
We both disagree on the separation of church and state, so I’m not going to discuss the fact that no religious prayer should be part of this ceremony, or any involving a government or state-run institution, in any democracy.
But I am curious about your end point. What does your “historic understanding of marriage” include? Bans on women owning property? Bans on mixed-race marriages? What is your position on slaves being able to marry? At what point does your “historical understanding” kick in? It would have to be post-1900 to accommodate a women being able to vote, and to not have to discuss slavery, wouldn’t it? It would have to be post-1965 or so to be comfortable with mixed marriages, wouldn’t it? I’ve been alive almost that long, but I know “history” happened before I arrived. I trust you understand that there are countless non-Christian societies that have defined marriage in different ways throughout history, as well?
When Christians claim that their opinions are based upon a “historic understanding” this isn’t really true, because different societies, in different times, have ALL interpreted marriage a little differently. All social debates are the result of constant dialogue, and constant change. I like the German word for it - “zeitgeist”, which translates as “spirit of the times”. This applies as much to the minority of humanity who have been Christian as to the vast majority who have not.
This claim in ongoing debates about marriage are either based upon ignorance, or upon intentional deception. I know you wouldn’t want us atheists to start thinking that religion is either ignorance or deception, so you may want to reconsider making such obviously incorrect claims when debating an issue like marriage. They tend to undermine the credibility of your argument.
Thank you for your time,
Name
The fact that the Bible makes some people angry proves that the sword is doing its work.
Sadly, Pritchard is right on this point.
The Bible, and it’s blood-stained progenitor the Christian Church, has the unsettling effect of provoking deep anger and social unrest, to say nothing of genocidal purges, slavery, degredation, and abuse. The Father’s business is a depraved industry, indeed.
Christianity is a sword, and much like the tip of Fortinbras’ rapier, despite whatever good it has encouraged, it also poisons everything.
The whole Bible? These nutjobs will guarantee that no one will ever read the Bible. Another victory for compulsory education.
Even the religious are giving up on the bible as the “word of god”. Well, stands to reason I suppose…a lot of the religious are giving up on religion.
Which Bible would that be? Catholic, King James
or any of the other versions.?
Which Bible would that be? Catholic, King James
or any of the other versions.? With or without the added and or removed books? Not a bad idea as long as each section is accompanied by an analysis and rebuttal and read by a non religious person. Maybe use only those parts that can be supported by verifiable facts. Be a pretty slim volume then.
The bible should be read just as we read Gtimm’s fairy tales. Everyone talks about the bible as I know it bible is the Greek word for book. As to which bible should be read the old testament bunch are the culperts for this mythology being foisted on mankind. While we are at it what is the difference between one jewish religion and the other called christianity? It is all the same stuff warmed over to become muslims isn’t it?
Nothing should be imposed on anyone. We all have a free will to make up our own minds and follow our own beliefs.
But, its funny how Atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of a god and yet all you atheists always talk about God and Bible so much in your arguments. Atheism relies on Religion. If you don’t believe it just leave it and move on with your life…or are you trying so hard to suppress your belief it in a God or the possibly of His existence.
You’re mistaken.
You mean, belief in the existence of gods.
Atheism and religion are separate issues entirely.
Simple: what people believe is important and when people belief false, harmful, or silly things, those beliefs shouldn’t be ignored.