I) When one claims that organized religion isn't a dictatorship, I may make an interesting response: Adolph Hitler, historically one of the most infamous of dictators, never demanded that all children born to Germans immediately become members of the National Socialist Party, even though I'm sure he was well under the illusion that the Nazi Party was the only way to elevate and perpetuate the German nation. Nor did Joseph Stalin (another totalitarian of some note) order all children born in the Soviet Union to be "christened" communist.

On the other hand, as I've witnessed and understood the process, much of the christian doctrine (for instance), especially the dogma of the catholic denomination, DOES demand that all children born to EVERYONE of this "true faith" (and even many that aren't) be "christened" into that faith in what I maintain is the misguided belief that their "souls" will be saved. Otherwise, they face banishment from that "faith" (with no mention made as to why there is no concern shown the "souls" of those who are banished). Then there are the different (and, therefore, dangerous, yet vulnerable) philosophies of the jews, islamists, hindustanis, etc. Who's kidding whom here? How can this dictatorial reasoning in any way further our innate, natural desire for self-determination and intellectual expression? It seems that organized, deistic religion is perpetuated through the innate penchant of the common man to refuse to outgrow an incomprehensible belief in simple shibboleth.

II) Everything, good, bad or indifferent which has taken place throughout (at least) the past two thousand years of human history has occurred during a time when the christian religion considers itself firmly in control of mankind's emotional, intellectual, spiritual and financial destiny.

If, however, an ever more enlightened mankind is moving away from christianity in particular and religion in general, as it seems to be, might we possibly be moving toward something higher within ourselves rather than the second Dark Ages frantically pushed at us by the increasingly frustrated and futile apologists for organized religion? The contentiousness, incomprehensibility and contradictions inherent in a belief in such supernatural imaginings as dogmatic deities and "scriptures" flies in the face of reason and enlightenment, especially in the twenty-first century (or, maybe the two hundred and twenty-first century)

III) As I've mentioned before, every individual on the planet is the result of biological chance, born and molded not in "god's" image but by upbringing, environment, geographical happenstance, education, experience, intellectual acuity, economic circumstance, and physical and mental health.

All this adds up to the uniqueness of individuality common to all of mankind yet so repressed and stunted by the blanket of religious superstition; so subjugated to the alleged "ecstasy" of gods and saints and ancient prophets. Since childhood, the tribal, pagan, clannish, even barbaric concepts of organized religion and its myriad deities are inculcated into one's self (even among the most "backward" of peoples) through parables, myths, glorified nursery rhymes and fairy tales, mystical rite, encyclicals and edicts. The Inquisition, for instance, was one result of this violent repression of spirit and conscience by an organized religion. (This "mistake" among others is now unavoidably acknowledged by a pope obviously more concerned that he is losing control of his "flock" than in discovering and acknowledging truth.) Apparently, our democracy here in the U.S. has, at last, provided an atmosphere where the less inhibited and more reasonable of us are beginning to shake off the yoke of religious dictatorship. This obviously worries those who owe their financial well being and "authority" to the continued ignorance of the masses. For instance, the vatican has, for some years now, worried that the increasing individuality and independence of "American catholicism" will eventually bring about the downfall of that Medieval monstrosity while the various islamic theocratic dictators in the Middle East are obsessively concerned that the enlightened ideals and secularist philosophies of "the Great Satan" (the U.S.) will expose and undermine the mortally granted "authority" these shamans often assume.

IV) C.S. Lewis, one of literature's most voluble apologists for "god", Jesus, religion in general and christianity in particular was, like most of his ilk, living in the past. As a self-appointed champion of humanity representing the "perfection" of "god", its "love" and apparent omniscience, Mr. Lewis seemed to be caught up in the idyllic notions that organized religion has been ever blameless with its refusal to recognize progress. As with all those having the herd-like "faith" in organized religion, he seemed enamored of the clannish concept that, because his ordinary circle of acquaintances all happened to belong to the same religious community (in this case, christianity), the entire rest of the world was living in "sin". Are the adherents to christianity meant to live in this multi-dimensional fantasy forever? What are we to make of human progress; of individuality? Had Mr. Lewis ever wondered why there is more than one major religious philosophy? Had he pondered the fact that although christianity may be the largest of organized religions...the myth of christianity is apparently not best for us all? Could the myth of buddhism be best? (Why?) Could the myth of judaism be best? (Why?) Could the myth of islam be best? (Why?) Why are any of these sectarian myths even considered "best" (or worst) for all of humanity? Are they superstitions or do they benefit humanity directly? Materially or simply in a self-satisfied and self-complimentary way? Might mankind be better off embracing secular humanism, for example, than its present transcendental conglomerations of contradiction?

Historically, religion with all its myths, parables, ceremony, etc. has actually failed a large segment of believers, has still misled us into thinking we are "created in god's image". When we ignore history (religious or otherwise), we are condemned to repeat it. So inevitably there's another Jesus-like legend out there ready to be executed (and therefore, exalted) with potentially further numberless crimes against humanity and individuality and therefore, an opportunity for even more misery to be perpetrated in the name of "christ II". (See the admonition by Pascal in Sec. III of The Manifesto) Where will it end?

V) The human species considers itself "sacred". As anti-humanist as it may sound, I believe the truth to be that an individual human being is merely one of TRILLIONS of biological processes occurring at every moment of every day, planet-wide and that we consider human life "sacred" simply because we have the reasoning capacity to do so, not because it's especially true. Is organized religion, therefore, along with its myriad other faults, a process of denial?

VI) A point I cannot emphasize enough: the concept known as christianity is on the horns of a dilemma. As I have asked before in these pages, is the christian faith a sin? Or a fraud? It is definitely one or the other in spite of its rhetoric, fairy tales, ritual, alleged compassion, etc.

We have in the old testament of the traditional, judeo/christian bible, the ten commandments (of "god"...they say). One of the less realistic of the ten commandments states, quite clearly: "you will worship no other god but me". Another states "you will worship no graven images". These commands are accompanied by all kinds of dire threats about retribution into generations uncounted should any of them be "broken" (and these threats are from an allegedly "benevolent" deity). In its worship of Jesus (and the saints, etc.), christians have "broken" at least those above two commandments (even as infants, through the sheer act of baptism or "christening"). (See "Logic + Reason=Spirituality")

Christ-ianity is obviously all about the worship of "christ" or the prophet occasionally known as Jesus. Therefore, christianity seems a "sin" in its worship of more than one "god" (actually there seem to be three gods altogether if you consider the "father, son and holy ghost"). And this is not to mention its worship of crosses, saints, bibles, beads, etc.

This argument assumes, of course, that Jesus is (or was) a "god" (or "lord of hosts" or whatever convenient title of the moment). If that's so, why is he so often referred to as "the son of god" or as "sitting at the right hand of god"? And if he is (or was) "god" why would he have to call out in obvious distress, the phrase "forgive them, father, for they know not what they do" (or words to that effect). If the man is "god, the lord of hosts", the supreme deity, the personification of your basic "higher power", the head honcho, how can he call on his "father" and yet, now be worshipped as the father, all seemingly in direct contravention of the "father's" wishes? Was he, as I am quite convinced, a mere mortal, thus exposing christianity as a fraud (in spite of all the incomprehensible, quasi-explanatory mumbo-jumbo that will be thrown at one for even thinking this heresy)? If "christ" is the supreme deity, why would he call upon another for forgiveness (and deliverance?) thereby revealing "christ"-ianity to be a fraud? And a dangerous fraud too, if one could get the opinion of the millions of victims of religious strife over the centuries.

If "christ" isn't the supreme deity, is merely the "son" rather than the "father" or, isn't even the son but merely a "sitter at the right hand of 'god'" and it turns out there really is a "supreme being" of some sort, then christianity is a sin, in disobedience of the direct orders of the "creator" or "supreme being." (And, as a non-believer or as a former christian, or both, I'm in deep shit.)

Either way seems to give christianity very little intellectual justification or value!

VII) Whenever any secularist attempts to debunk the rationality behind religious faith, he or she is accused of having his or her "own truth" as opposed to the theist "truth"; essentially, he or she is orally patted on the head and told: "You have your truth and I have mine, which is my 'faith'". There are, of course, some elementary truths on both sides. The major "truth" to the different variations of theism is the fact that religious faith is an observable part of life, no matter that the "divine" basis for that faith has never been proven.

Theists, especially of the christian variety, however, refuse to consider three major "truths" of non-theism: A) If there is only one "God", there ought not to be so many religious philosophies, each with their different notions of "God's plan", and mankind's journey to realize this "plan" is useless. B) If an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent "God" is a truth, the notions of non-theism, or secularist thinking ought not to even exist (nor should evil or sin). C) With Darwin's proof (as well as current universal scientific acceptance) of Natural Selection, of evolution, Adam and Eve are proven to be a myth. This proof of Natural Selection, therefore, disproves the ridiculous "truth" propagated by organized religion concerning "original sin". Thus, there is no use for a deity of any sort in cleansing us of this alleged "sin" since there is no "sin"

Should not a "truth" one has reasoned out on ones own (made an individual effort to discover) be considered more valid, closer to "The Truth" of existence by the existees, than a supposition (theism) that's been shoved down ones throat for ones entire life?

VIII) One further point: why haven't I, as a heretic, as an infidel, as a seeker of truth, long ago been struck down by this "god of hell-fire"? Now THAT would be definitive proof, to me anyhow, and to anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby, that my beliefs are "dead" wrong.

Page written by: Eric D. Tallberg

October, 1998