Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learningfrom the world's big
thinkers
Has science made religion useless?
Placing science and religion at opposite ends of the belief spectrum is to ignore their unique purposes.
15 July, 2020
- Science and religion (fact versus faith) are often seen as two incongruous groups. When you consider the purpose of each and the questions that they seek to answer, the comparison becomes less black and white.
- This video features religious scholars, a primatologist, a neuroendocrinologist, a comedian, and other brilliant minds considering, among other things, the evolutionary function that religion serves, the power of symbols, and the human need to learn, explore, and know the world around us so that it becomes a less scary place.
- "I think most people are actually kind of comfortable with the idea that science is a reliable way to learn about nature, but it's not the whole story and there's a place also for religion, for faith, for theology, for philosophy," says Francis Collins, American geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). "But that harmony perspective doesn't get as much attention. Nobody is as interested in harmony as they are in conflict."
Ask an atheist: Does the universe have a purpose?
All that matters is the here and now.
25 April, 2020
- While bestselling author and skeptic Michael Shermer doesn't believe in God or any outside force that cares about us, he also doesn't think that the existence of one would give our lives meaning.
- Shermer argues that it is up to us to create purpose for ourselves in various ways, including through meaningful work, familial and romantic relationships, and a connection and respect for the wonder of nature.
- "It doesn't matter what happens billions of years from now or whether there's a God or not, whether there's an afterlife or not," he says. "It's irrelevant. This is the life that matters."
<p class="media-headline"><br></p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="8136d96df2100e7406b6fd3d4a99c5ba" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1108489788?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41MZkjc+wiL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__description">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__title" style="display: block;">Giving the Devil his Due: Reflections of a Scientific Humanist</div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__by-amazon"><!-- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1108489788?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">by now at amazone</a> --></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__list-price"><span class="grey">List Price: </span><span class="list-price">$18.46</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__new-price"><span class="grey">New From: </span><span class="new-price">$18.46</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__used-price"><span class="grey">Used From: </span><span class="used-price">$21.58</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
</div>
</a>
</div>
Keep reading
Show less
What are the chances that God is actually good?
Philosophy professor James Sterba revives a very old argument.
27 January, 2020
Photo by Motoki Tonn on Unsplash
- In his book, Is a Good God Logically Possible?, James Sterba investigates the role of evil.
- Sterba contends that if God is all-powerful then he'd be able to stop evil from occurring in the world.
- God's inability (or unwillingness) to stop evil should make us question his role, or even his existence.
<p>Why does God allow evil to happen? This question has been at the heart of Western religious philosophy since the dawn of monotheism. The very term and concept of God has long divided humans. Is he the first mover? Beyond definition, as many have argued? If God is all-powerful and humans are incapable of even defining him—I'm using "him" out of convenience, as "it" would be more appropriate in this case; a gendered deity is quite definable—why are so many certain they recognize his moral standing? Given how many sects of religions exist, how can so many people be so wrong? </p><p>If we recognize that evil exists (a hard point to dispute), and we also believe that God is <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/" target="_blank">omnipotent and omniscient</a>, then we are granting this deity—to be clear, we're discussing the Abrahamic god—the power of knowing when evil exists and an ability to eliminate it. If God is incapable of stopping evil he is not all-powerful. If he is capable of stopping evil but chooses not to, well, we've got an evil God on our hands. </p><p>The latest thinker to tackle this unnerving question is <a href="https://philosophy.nd.edu/people/faculty/james-sterba/" target="_blank">James Sterba</a>, professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and author of the book, <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9783030054687" target="_blank"><em>Is a Good God Logically Possible?</em></a> While many forms of evil can be discussed in this context, Sterba builds his argument in one specific domain, as he <a href="https://pointofinquiry.org/2020/01/is-a-good-god-logically-possible-james-sterba/" target="_blank">recently explained</a>. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I'm thinking about moral evil. This is the evil that human beings do. And I'm not thinking about all the evil of a particular action. I'm only worried about the external consequences. This is the part of the evil action that I think God gets in trouble about."</p><p>To highlight his reasoning, Sterba uses the example of homicide. A man gets a gun, loads it, aims, and pulls the trigger. The speeding bullet is the consequence of an idea: he wants to murder someone. Sterba does not concern himself with God's role in the internal process that led to the purchase and usage of that gun. Thinking, he claims, is for man alone. He questions why God would not have stopped the <em>external consequence</em> of the shooting. He's not looking for this deity to play the role of thought police, but to step in as actual police would.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjYxOTk0NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjI4Nzc2NH0.8wdlBYwqAF4vLazPK3DIxs6n9Sf4yT6T4HLEL9GBFYc/img.jpg?width=980" id="1e046" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d24e1c8b640e367ea3fba9dd4799aa0d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A young boy carrying a placard in London's Trafalgar Square which says, 'Prepare to Meet Thy God'.
Photo by Fox Photos/Getty Images
<p>If God is unable or unwilling to stop the external consequences of evil—while good and evil can be culturally relative terms, murder is universally recognized as being in the red—then the implications, to the religious at least, would equate to blasphemy. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"If there's all this evil in the world, maybe God can't prevent it. Then he's still all powerful, he just logically can't prevent it. The problem there is it turns out that God would be less powerful than we are because we can prevent lots of evil. Now if God is stuck in a logical possibility while we're only stuck in a causal one, then he's so much less powerful than us. The traditional God can't be less powerful than we are." </p><p>While this discussion is often relegated to religious philosophy, we regularly witness the effects. Sterba mentions the Pauline principle, that "one should never do evil so that good may come." Murdering a doctor that provides abortions, a platform accepted by extreme religious conservatives, falls into this category. We can place the <a href="https://apnews.com/015702afdb4d4fbf85cf5070cd2c6824" target="_blank">record number of migrant children</a> held in detention centers in 2019, nearly 70,000, because their imprisonment supposedly saves American jobs, or keeps brown people out, or this week's excuse du jour in that category as well. </p><p>Sterba says that a religion that purports to champion charity and poverty should not be making a utilitarian argument when at root its adherents should be thinking about not doing evil. Doing evil for a supposed later good is not, by its very nature, a charitable act. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"In traditional religious views, utilitarianism is a horrible thing. Trying to maximize utilitarianism is a bad way of thinking about things. You should be thinking about not doing evil and you should be worrying about intention."</p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="5DFJLQ1580053754" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Good-God-Logically-Possible/dp/3030054683?SubscriptionId=AKIAJGTABWIBL2VADPUA&tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=3030054683" target="_blank">
<img src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31mi6tnZxzL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__description">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__title" style="display: block;">Is a Good God Logically Possible?</div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__by-amazon"><!-- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Good-God-Logically-Possible/dp/3030054683?SubscriptionId=AKIAJGTABWIBL2VADPUA&tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=3030054683" target="_blank">by now at amazone</a> --></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__list-price"><span class="grey">List Price: </span><span class="list-price">$29.99</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__new-price"><span class="grey">New From: </span><span class="new-price">$20.73</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__used-price"><span class="grey">Used From: </span><span class="used-price">$22.46</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
</div>
</a>
</div>
<p>Sterba invokes the <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-05469-4_4" target="_blank">Doctrine of Double Effect</a>, citing the famous ethical dilemma known as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem" target="_blank">Trolley problem</a>. A speeding trolly is about to kill five people. You're standing on a bridge and can pull a lever to veer the car to another track and only kill one. In most studies, five to one is easy for people to grapple with—except when they are asked to physically pull the lever, that is. Regardless, the tradeoff is less evil thanks to the hands of a human.</p><p>Sterba says this dilemma works in humans but not God. If God is truly powerful, "he's never stuck in allowing evil to happen. We sometimes are stuck if we're trying to do some good, we're allowing evil to happen, God could always, at the level of external action, stop the evil of all bad actions." </p><p>God, he continues, should not be causally or logically unable to stop evil, if he so chooses. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Either he's not done it because he's an evil god—that's not a helpful result—or he's not done it because he's not very powerful, maybe even less powerful than us." </p><p>While Sterba focuses on moral evil, he entertains nature as well. Take climate change. Beyond the acceleration of environmental catastrophes, the planet has never actually been completely hospitable to humans. Natural disasters have always occurred; our species has nearly been wiped out in past eras. Why would an all-powerful god not make this planet more amenable to our survival if we're really his chosen species? </p><p>There might never be answers to such questions given the contentious nature of this discussion. While Sterba goes to great philosophical lengths to contemplate the problem of evil, he also grounds his thinking in the practical and applicable. Regardless of your religious belief (or non-belief), it behooves everyone to remember that when it comes to moral evil, we are all empowered to play a beneficent, or evil, role. As he puts it, </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Even if we think God is behind everything, we should do all we can."</p><p>Amen.</p><p>----</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a>. His next book is </em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
U.S. court approval of ‘IM GOD’ license plate is a victory for atheists
A federal court ruled that the state of Kentucky was wrong to deny a man's request for a personalized license plate reading "IM GOD." Here's why that's a win against atheist discrimination.
19 November, 2019
Photo provided by the Freedom From Religion Foundation
- After a three-year legal battle, a federal court last week cleared the way for a man in Kentucky to obtain a customized license plate declaring "IM GOD."
- The Kentucky Division of Motor Vehicles rejected the plate in 2016 claiming it violated the state's rule against religious messages on license plates.
- A state/church watchdog organization says the court's decision to approve the plate highlighted the bias the state of Kentucky was displaying toward religious non-believers.
<p><br></p></div>
<p>After a three-year legal battle, a federal court last week cleared the way for a man in Kentucky to obtain a customized license plate declaring "IM GOD" after citing First Amendment rights after the state of Kentucky denied him the plate.</p><p>The message could be considered blasphemous and even "obscene or vulgar" as officials at the Kentucky Division of Motor Vehicles initially claimed when they rejected the plate in 2016. (The state later claimed that the plate wasn't approved because it was "not in good taste.") For Hart, a self-described atheist, it was a harmless, humorous message he had the right to display. So he filed a lawsuit. </p>
Free Speech Rights
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA5MjQ5My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMzA1OTk0NH0.t2TNz1t3jYq-xuZ2pt0OkONlBG0KB1OAxvXTuVyAY3o/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C61&height=700" id="449b7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c2a239e02e4ca2fd0e0482ddefbffe3d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Photo Source: Public Domain Files
<p>The lawsuit, filed by the <a href="http://icm-tracking.meltwater.com/link.php?DynEngagement=true&H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhm13K0KQUwVm%2Fs%2Fe1Da9%2FiGktTnOSOjEtWpylTLOYtqKX1z4vgLtJAcuM%2FHAlUJmdFhFUk0a3m0oj&G=0&R=https%3A%2F%2Fffrf.org%2Flegal%2Fchallenges%2Fongoing-lawsuits%23id-27965&I=20191113182603.000008fc12d1%40mail6-114-ussnn1&X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVkY2M0YWIzYzNjZWRiMzZiYmYwN2Y5MTs%3D&S=xahZtyD2Jy-2uV1RUfalNzGETNpSMaboSbaFXdOatTw" target="_blank">Freedom From Religion Foundation and ACLU</a>, challenged the Transportation Cabinet's denial of Hart's plate, which it argued was based on the state's required restrictions on license plate messages that communicate religious, anti-religious, or political viewpoints. Essentially, it said that a license plate qualifies as government speech, so Hart's vanity plate didn't have free speech protections. </p><p>But the <a href="http://icm-tracking.meltwater.com/link.php?DynEngagement=true&H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhm13K0KQUwVm%2Fs%2Fe1Da9%2FiGktTnOSOjEtWpylTLOYtqKX1z4vgLtJAcuM%2FHAlUJmdFhFUk0a3m0oj&G=0&R=https%3A%2F%2Fffrf.org%2Fimages%2FHartvThomasOp.pdf&I=20191113182603.000008fc12d1%40mail6-114-ussnn1&X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVkY2M0YWIzYzNjZWRiMzZiYmYwN2Y5MTs%3D&S=fsuaPJ5zHV_z02ZGXGp6h-G5KJ02lYRFjbijINCZSnc" target="_blank">U.S. District Court for the Eastern Court of Kentucky</a>, which resoundingly ruled in favor of Hart, said that the Commonwealth of Kentucky had gone too far. It concluded that the rule governing such license plates was an unreasonable and impermissible restriction of Hart's First Amendment rights. This was because of the inconsistency of the rule's application, which amounted to the state picking and choosing what kind of messages it wanted on the road regarding the topic of religion.</p><p>"The same year Mr. Hart was denied a plate reading 'IM GOD', the Transportation Cabinet approved the contradictory plates 'NOGAS', 'EATGAS', 'VEGAN', and 'BBQ4U' among many others," wrote U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove in his decision. "Under the Transportation Cabinet's logic, the Commonwealth is not only contradicting itself, but spewing nonsense."</p><p>"If the Court finds that vanity plates are government speech, then the Court would also be finding that Kentucky has officially endorsed the words 'UDDER', 'BOOGR', 'JUICY', 'W8LOSS' and 'FATA55,'" he also noted, according to WDRB.</p>Win Against Religious Discrimination
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c0d10d900fd769db0bb1efd0f1974bae"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0Ea4nkN5CeE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national state/church organization, the court's decision highlighted the bias the state of Kentucky was displaying toward religious non-believers.</p><p>"As the court affirmed, the denial of Ben Hart's choice of a license plate was pure discrimination," said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor <a href="https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/36267-i-m-god-victory" target="_blank">in a press release</a>. </p><p>Hart expressed gratitude for the court's ruling against that discrimination. </p><p>"I'm thankful to finally have the same opportunity to select a personal message for my license plate just as any other driver," said Hart in FFRF's press release. "There is nothing inappropriate about my view that religious beliefs are subject to individual interpretation."</p><p>This display of religious bias isn't surprising, and it likely isn't the first or only instance. Despite the increased visibility of atheists and the decline in religious beliefs in the United States, uncomfortable attitudes towards atheists <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/29/why-are-americans-still-uncomfortable-with-atheism" target="_blank">are still prevalen</a>t. This makes the ruling all the more significant.</p><p>It might be just one silly license plate, but this case underlines how government officials are able to censor certain messages like those on license plates and determine whether they are, say, too blasphemous or too religious. Thanks to this ruling, those officials will have to check certain biases they have when giving a state stamp of approval to license plate messages. Aside from atheists or other religious minorities, this court decision is a win for anyone who might want to promote a viewpoint on government property without being censored because certain officials don't like the message.</p><p>According to FFRF attorney Patrick Elliott in a "newsbite" by the nonprofit organization, it is particularly egregious for government workers to censor phrases on the topic of religion because it equates to them endorsing pro-religious or anti-religious messages. Now, thanks to this ruling, the state of Kentucky can't do that. <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/470440-judge-rules-kentucky-man-can-get-license-plate-reading-im-god" target="_blank">And the rest of the nation has taken note.</a></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Why America’s Christian foundation is a myth
A new book by constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel takes on Christian nationalism.
17 October, 2019
Image Source: Ericsphotography / Getty Images
- A new book by attorney Andrew Seidel, 'The Founding Myth: Why Christian nationalism Is Un-American', takes on the myth of America's Christian founding.
- Christian nationalism is the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation on Christian principles, and that the nation has strayed from that original foundation.
- Judeo-Christian principles are fundamentally opposed to the principles on which America was built, argues Seidel.
<p><br></p></div>
<div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="C1D7DN1571337963" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Myth-Christian-Nationalism-American/dp/1454933275?SubscriptionId=AKIAJGTABWIBL2VADPUA&tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1454933275" target="_blank">
<img src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41A2V%2BOl%2B9L.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__description">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__title" style="display: block;">The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American</div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__by-amazon"><!-- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Myth-Christian-Nationalism-American/dp/1454933275?SubscriptionId=AKIAJGTABWIBL2VADPUA&tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1454933275" target="_blank">by now at amazone</a> --></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__list-price"><span class="grey">List Price: </span><span class="list-price">$24.95</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__new-price"><span class="grey">New From: </span><span class="new-price">$11.17</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__used-price"><span class="grey">Used From: </span><span class="used-price">$13.99</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
</div>
</a>
</div>
<p>You've probably heard it expressed once or twice, by some political pundit or another, that America was founded on Christian principles. </p><p>While these sentiments have been floating around American political discourse for a while, under the Trump administration they have become more aggressive. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/14/trump-administration-fans-out-defend-christianity-across-political-spectrum/" target="_blank">Earlier this month</a>, for instance, President Trump, Attorney General William P. Bar, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo all spoke publicly on the role of Christianity in American life and politics. </p><p>A new book by constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel, 'The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American,' challenges that notion in arguably the most comprehensive take down yet of what he calls "Christian nationalism."</p>
What is Christian Nationalism?
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="45fe304220a3ed5d6c8d8b5ee5591fca"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rImjGolrxFI?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Seidel, an attorney at the <a href="https://ffrf.org/" target="_blank">Freedom From Religion Foundation</a>, defines Christian nationalism as the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation on Christian principles, and most importantly, that the nation has strayed from that original foundation. </p><p>It is this language of redemptive Christian nationalism, according to Seidel, that is used to justify recent policies such as immigration policy that banned immigration from <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/" target="_blank">Muslim majority countries</a>, government funded <a href="https://religionnews.com/2018/02/14/private-school-vouchers-are-a-threat-to-religious-freedom/" target="_blank">voucher school programs</a>, the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/" target="_blank">child separation policy</a> at the border, opposition to <a href="https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806990/trump-religion-lgbtq-discrimination-rule" target="_blank">LGBTQ</a> rights, <a href="https://baptistnews.com/article/god-wants-humans-use-natural-gas-oil-not-keep-ground-says-epa-chief/#.XaikPBQXDzJ" target="_blank">environmental</a> deregulation, the evisceration of <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-abortion-laws-separation-church-state-20190523-story.html" target="_blank">women's reproductive rights</a>, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/04/project-blitz-the-legislative-assault-by-christian-nationalists-to-reshape-america" target="_blank">Project Blitz</a> - an overt Christian nationalist push to rewrite American law. </p><p>According to Seidel, the aim of certain politicians is to wipe away the regressive aspects of these policies by incorrectly claiming they align with America's Christian heritage.</p><p>"The political theology of Christian nationalism, their very identity, is dependent upon a common well of myths and lies," he says. "Without the historical cover that the lies give, their policy justifications crumble." </p><p>Common myths he points to include American verbiage such as "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust." The former was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and the latter was not required on currency until 1956. The original motto the founders suggested was the Latin phrase <em>E pluribus unum</em>, which translates to "Out of many, one." Other untruths are that the Declaration of Independence references Jesus multiple times, that the founders prayed at the Constitutional Convention, and that our laws were based on the Ten Commandments. </p><p>But Seidel's book goes beyond gently correcting historical inaccuracies spewed by Christian nationalists, pointing out that correction is not enough at this political moment. He makes the claim that America's foundation is in direct opposition of the principles found in the Bible. </p><p>"Pointing out errors is no longer sufficient," says Seidel. "This book does that, but it takes the next step. It goes on the offensive. This book is an assault on the Christian nationalist identity. Not only are Christian nationalists wrong, but their beliefs and their identity run counter to the ideals on which this nation was founded. They are un-American."</p>American principles
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjAxMTQ0My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwOTE0OTk4NH0.IaWhBHKQ0mMcpaHDwW5_j2JBcLgg7Qc34TH23R9AHkU/img.jpg?width=980" id="c4589" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="da9144aa1c801b63458694629b197a49" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image Source: Wikimedia
<p>The central question that Seidel sought to answer was: Did Judeo-Christian principles positively influence the founding of the United States of America?</p><p>"The answer to that is no, America was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and it's a good thing because those principles are fundamentally opposed to the principles on which this nation was built," argues Seidel. </p><p>For example, there is a common misconception that America's legal system is based on the Ten Commandments. He devotes an entire chapter of the book to rigorously debunking the myth commandment by commandment. </p><p>"When you crack open a bible and read those it becomes very obvious that they are fundamentally opposed to American values and founding principles," says Seidel, who points to commandment number one: I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me. "It would be very difficult to write a sentence that is more fundamentally opposed to our <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment" target="_blank">First Amendment</a> than the First Commandment." </p><p>Another founding myth that has prevailed is the story of the Pilgrims and Puritans arriving in the New World seeking religious liberty. It isn't exactly true. </p><p>"They were fleeing religious persecution," says Seidel. "But they didn't come to America seeking religious freedom. They actually didn't come to America first." </p><p>First, they <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/the-pilgrims-before-plymouth-111851259/" target="_blank">fled to Leiden</a> in the Netherlands, one of the (inconveniently) freest, most tolerant countries in Europe. The religious freedom there posed a bit of a problem for the Puritans according to Seidel, who says that the followers were exercising their freedom and leaving the faith. It led the church fathers to conclude that they needed to find a new land where they could use the secular law to impose religious law. </p><p>"[That's] why they came to the New World," says Seidel. "Not for religious liberty, but seeking the ability to establish tiny theocracies in New England. When the founders looked at that earlier history, they looked at it as an example of how not to build a government."</p>Claims on patriotism
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjAxMTQzOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTkxNTYzOH0.s0uEWyEqQ3bTy4nAAlNcGTZn1dYsmARQhWvLDyPnXzc/img.jpg?width=980" id="9cedb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="666b080097f98424d74f21236916050a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="the American flag" />Image Source: Wikimedia
<p>Ultimately, 'The Founding Myth' is an aim to take away the exclusivity that Christian nationalists attribute to being an American. </p><p>"Patriotism has no religion," says Seidel. "There's no such thing as the freedom of religion without a government that is free from religion. America's unique contribution to political science is the wall of separation between state and church. That had never been done before. That is an American original." </p><p>This is something that he says we should be proud of, rather than seeking to undermine with myths about a Christian founding. We also, he mentions, should remind Americans that our Constitution demands the absolute separation of church and state. </p><p>"We have to raise hell whenever that wall between state and church is breached," says Seidel "This is not a Christian nation. Our Constitution does not belong to the Christians. It belongs to we the people, all of the people. And it's about damn time we start acting like it."</p>America has outgrown its ‘Judeo-Christian’ label. What’s next?
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="rjppOvZq" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="963e234e6605e58df2585ae275f4b014"> <div id="botr_rjppOvZq_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/rjppOvZq-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/rjppOvZq-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/rjppOvZq-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
