“Reasons to Abandon Christianity”, #6

What follows is Bufe’s 6th of his “20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity”, followed by my assessment.

6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism. Given that Christians claim to have the one true faith, to have a book that is the Word of God, and (in many cases) to receive guidance directly from God, they feel little or no compunction about using force and coercion to enforce “God’s Will” (which they, of course, interpret and understand). Given that they believe (or pretend) that they’re receiving orders from the Almighty (who would cast them into hell should they disobey), it’s little wonder that they feel no reluctance, and in fact are eager, to intrude into the most personal aspects of the lives of nonbelievers. This is most obvious today in the area of sex, with Christians attempting to deny women the right to abortion and to mandate near-useless abstinence-only sex “education” in the public schools. It’s also obvious in the area of education, with Christians attempting to force biology teachers to teach their creation myth (but not those of Hindus, Native Americans, et al.) in place of (or as being equally valid as) the very well established theory of evolution. But the authoritarian tendencies of Christianity reach much further than this.

Up until well into the 20th century in the United States and other Christian countries (notably Ireland), Christian churches pressured governments into passing laws forbidding the sale and distribution of birth control devices, and they also managed to enact laws forbidding even the description of birth control devices. This assault on free speech was part and parcel of Christianity’s shameful history of attempting to suppress “indecent” and “subversive” materials (and to throw their producers in jail or burn them alive). This anti-free speech stance of Christianity dates back centuries, with the cases of Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno (who was burnt alive) being good illustrations of it. Perhaps the most colorful example of this intrusive Christian tendency toward censorship is the Catholic Church’s Index of Prohibited Books, which dates from the 16th century and which was abandoned only in the latter part of the 20th century—not because the church recognized it as a crime against human freedom, but because it could no longer be enforced (not that it was ever systematically enforced—that was too big a job even for the Inquisition).

Christian authoritarianism extends, however, far beyond attempts to suppress free speech; it extends even to attempts to suppress freedom of belief. In the 15th century, under Ferdinand and Isabella at about the time of Columbus’s discovery of the New World, Spain’s Jews were ordered either to convert to Christianity or to flee the country; about half chose exile, while those who remained, the “Conversos,” were favorite targets of the Inquisition. A few years later, Spain’s Muslims were forced to make a similar choice.

This Christian hatred of freedom of belief—and of individual freedom in general—extends to this day. Up until the late 19th century in England, atheists who had the temerity to openly advocate their beliefs were jailed. Even today in many parts of the United States laws still exist that forbid atheists from serving on juries or from holding public office. And it’s no mystery what the driving force is behind laws against victimless “crimes” such as nudity, sodomy, fornication, cohabitation, and prostitution.

If your nonintrusive beliefs or actions are not in accord with Christian “morality,” you can bet that Christians will feel completely justified—not to mention righteous—in poking their noses (often in the form of state police agencies) into your private life.

Sadly, Bufe—in his one-sided attack against Christianity—has revealed the shallow nature of his thinking in this matter. While I will make a credible case that Scriptures hardly promote Bufe’s model of authoritarianism, Bufe fails to concede that authoritarianism is hardly an invention of Christians. In fact, it is a hallmark of most societies in world history.

In his books Basic Economics, Applied Economics, and Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Thomas Sowell points out the common occurrence of students asking him (often in brazen disgust), “Where did slavery originate?” (As if slavery was a white-man’s invention.)

Sowell confronts such assertions by insisting that the proper question is “Where did freedom originate?”

This is because authoritarianism—and its close cousin, slavery—are a very common thread in most cultures and ages in human history.

Freedom, on the other hand, is a product of Western civilization. I will not belabor the point that Christians are the most ardent proponents of freedom. (How many slaves did the Pagans free?)

Authoritarianism is very historical over the breadth of human history. It thrived among the Romans. (Ever heard of emperor worship?) It thrived in Babylon. It thrived among the Persians. It still thrives in Africa and in Arab cultures—as most Muslim countries are still run by dictators. It is a common thread in Asian cultures, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central America. It is a staple of every implementation of Communism.

In fact, suppression of basic freedoms—i.e. speech—has been a hallmark of secularism. Many universities today—while proclaiming themselves as places of “free inquiry”—have implemented unconstitutional “speech codes”. The targets? Mostly conservative Christians. Mike Adams, professor of Criminology at UNC-Wilmington, has amply documented these matters. Such trampling of freedom has been a common thread of communism, socialism, Nazism, and secular dictatorships, and is alive and well in American academia.

Against that backdrop, Christianity—both in book and implementation—has been quite a liberating force in the world over its two millennia of history. At the very least, the case is makeable that it is less authoritarian than most governmental systems in history. Even in “free” secular countries—such as Japan and Singapore—citizens are subject to police-state governmental intrusion. That is also true—to a lesser extent—in Europe.

While Bufe has rightly noted that governments—at the behest of Christians—have at times been intrusive of freedoms, he wrongfully ignores the Christian basis for fundamental liberty. For example, while many Christian denominations adamantly oppose any alcohol consumption, this is not a Biblical position. (The Scriptures teach against drunkenness, not drinking: Jesus drank wine, and even turned water into it.) While the Catholic Church was notorious for its opposition to contraception, that has hardly been a hallmark of Protestants.

In the NT, Jesus and Paul are quite clear on the issue of authoritarianism. While they taught and admonished with authority, they hardly browbeat disciples into submission. Their practices were anything but abusive. For example, while Church discipline was necessary, neither Paul nor Peter commanded brutality or “my-way-or-the-highway” leadership styles. Paul, Peter, and Timothy each ministered with authority by earning the respect of their fellow believers. They worked diligently to maintain that trust; they never resorted to abusive, roughhouse tactics.

As for abortion, the only authoritarians are those in the secular left. By insisting on the Roe v. Wade framework, this denies citizens the ability to resolve a legitimate issue via democratic means. Whatever one thinks of abortion, three facts are undeniable:

(1) Abortion was hardly regarded as a fundamental right for nearly 200 years of American history. It took an activist court to proclaim it so in 1973.

(2) Human life begins in the womb.

(3) As technology advances, viability—the point at which the unborn can live outside the womb—is moving closer to that first trimester.

Given those facts, a reasonable case can be made for allowing this issue to be resolved democratically, without Supreme Court nominations being hijacked by this one issue.

Supporting the pro-life cause hardly requires that one be Christian. Nat Hentoff of Village Voice is atheist and very pro-life. The same was true regarding former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, who abandoned his support of abortion in the 1970s and converted to Catholicism in the 1990s.

As for sex education, Bufe reveals his flagrant dishonesty by dismissing Christian opposition to government-controlled sex education as “authoritarianism”. In fact, government control of education is itself authoritarianism. If you think your kids need condoms, you can buy them at any drug or convenience store. There is no imperative to spend tax dollars promoting either morality or amorality, especially regarding products that studies show teens will rarely use.

Bufe is an authoritarian by asserting pontificatory moralizations–secular, but still moralizations–regarding social issues. He obviously is against democracy. This puts him in the same league with Saddam Hussein.

Likewise, it is authoritarianism on the part of secularists to promote the government control—and limits thereof—regarding discussion of science in the classroom. If teaching Christianity is a violation of separation of church and state, then the same is true for Naturalism, Reductionism, and Materialism.

Bufe—and his True Believers in tow—fail to differentiate matters that are outside the perimeter of the scientific method from those that are inside. The rightful criticisms of ID are not leveled against Naturalism, Reductionism, and Materialism. The latter are also religious viewpoints that some evolutionists attempt to promote as “science” while pushing the government to forbid discussion of Intelligent Design. This is brazen hypocrisy at its worst.

More recently, secularists in universities have denied recognition to evangelical Christian, and even pro-life groups. So it appears that many suppporters of secularism are all for free inquiry as long as that umbrella excludes Christian viewpoints. In the secularist Animal Farm, some animals are indeed more equal than others, and the secularists get to determine which animals are the most equal. This is because they are so gifted. ROFLMBO!

In contrast, the Bible quite clearly endorses free inquiry, as the corpus of Scripture includes significant examples of it. One only need look as far as Ecclesiastes. While some Christians have opposed freedom of belief, that is not a Biblical position. Beliefs do matter from a theological standpoint, not a criminal one.