Monday, May 31, 2010

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media

Avram Noam Chomsky is a world-famous linguist and intellectual political dissident who has written eloquently on many aspects of the world's social and political spectrum. In his many writings on politics, Chomsky places extensive emphasis on American foreign policy and the ways in which it influences events in the world at large [1]. This focus is not surprising, given the fact that America is the world's strongest superpower, with our economy totaling 30% of the total world economy while our population totals only about 5% of the world population. The actions taken by America holds global ramifications across the board, and few intellectuals are possessed of as firm and incisive an understanding of this than Noam Chomsky.

The 1992 documentary film Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media is a film adaptation of a 1988 book Chomsky authored with economist and media analyst Edward S. Herman. The book, entitled Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, is concerned primarily with the concentration of media ownership [2]. As the wording of the title clearly implies, the book's thesis is that there exists some degree of manipulation that takes place in terms of which viewpoints and political ideas are allowed to be voiced in the media, and which are constructed to appear as though they stand within mainstream acceptance. The documentary film, created by Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, expands upon the book's subject of concentration of ownership in news media and how that concentration impacts the range of political discourse in society. Interspersed throughout this exploration are in-depth elucidations of the life and work of Noam Chomsky, including his lifelong research in linguistics and his views on other political matters, as well as biographical details of his personal life.

There are many aspects of the life and work of Noam Chomsky that make for interesting (not to mention heated) discussion. Among these various aspects, and one which the freethinking community may find worth emphasizing, is that Chomsky is a convinced atheist whose earliest cultural experience was in the secular Judaism of his parents, who were both teachers of the Hebrew language. From an early age, he identified and strongly connected with the secular and socialist aspects of the Jewish community in which he was raised. He was born in December of 1928, and was especially influenced between the formative ages of seven and ten by the events that unfolded in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. The libertarian socialism driving those fighting for democracy in Spain at the time greatly contributed to the early development of Chomsky's political philosophy.

By this point in his career, Chomsky joins the ranks of intellectuals who have shown the academic community that atheists tend to be provocative thinkers. Of course, the very nature of atheism is provocative in a culture that is dominated by religion, rendering a provocative stance unavoidable for an open atheist. But one fact that is often grossly under-acknowledged is that the one and only thing that unites atheists is our lack of a belief in any god. There is literally no official atheist position on anything else. After all, any community that has produced such figures as Emma Goldman, Ayn Rand, Camilla Paglia, Christopher Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is obviously politically diverse and divergent. Emma Goldman (1869-1940) played a pivotal role in shaping the same anarchist tradition that Chomsky now embraces and contributes to with his work. Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was an Objectivist who rejected all forms of supernaturalism as being antithetical to reason. These figures questioned the prevailing ideologies of their day, and those who follow in their footsteps maintain that questioning tendency. Noam Chomsky himself is heavily immersed in skeptical inquiry and universal ethics, and he has been and continues to be a tireless critic of the centralization of authority that benefits the few at the expense of very many. The major emphases of the documentary Manufacturing Consent are Chomsky's views and application of ethics and egalitarianism. At one point in the documentary, he recounts an early childhood experience he had in which another child was being bullied at his school. He relates that he remembers wanting to stand up for this bullied child, but became too afraid of being beaten up himself to step in and intervene. Ever since that incident, Chomsky says, he has always felt attracted to standing up for the underdog.

The "Liberal" Media and the Role of Faith in the Manufacture of Consent

The manipulation of political discourse executed by our current system of corporate media, as explored in the film, can be very clearly observed and confirmed by anybody. The most obvious culprit, of course, is Fox News. But interestingly enough, less obvious culprits have included CBS, which has been attacked from both sides of the political spectrum. In 2001, a book by Bernard Goldberg entitled Bias was released [3]. In this book, former CBS news reporter and producer Goldberg charges CBS with being the greatest bastion of liberal lunacy and bias in all media. Then, only three years later, CBS found itself charged with harboring a strong conservative bias in January of 2004, when the progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org attempted to place their anti-Bush ad "Child's Pay" as a broadcast during the Super Bowl [4]. CBS rejected the ad on grounds that it was "controversial," leading MoveOn.org to accuse CBS of being disproportionately conservative and of censoring from that position. These situations serve to illustrate the fact that while political favoritism is clear and unmistakable in some cases (such as Fox News), the direction of favoritism is often somewhat hazier in most other cases.

The grey areas encountered in trying to discern the direction of favoritism is especially the case with so-called "liberal" media. Outlets such as National Public Radio (NPR) is generally considered to be very liberal in the estimation of most critics and the general public. But Chomsky argues that media tends to be very "liberal" only by an almost begrudging necessity, in order to establish the agenda for what mainstream discourse is to consist of. Anything that ventures beyond those established parameters is marginalized and stigmatized. The public is thus encouraged to think of such ideas as being on the fringe and discouraged from looking deeper into what prevailing assumptions create the status quo in the first place. Chomsky's position is that the media does indeed tend to be more liberal, but only to the extent that the powers that be are not questioned. And therein lies the contradiction of the "liberal media." Choosing not to question the powers that be which control the concentration of media ownership is a strikingly conservative outlook. The media is artificially "liberal" in the context of television shows such as CNN's Crossfire (which aired from 1982 to 2005), in which representatives from both the Left and the Right engaged in on-air debate. Because both sides are being presented in this kind of format, this means that for all intents and purposes the network is being "liberal" in allowing both sides to air their say. Yet the "both sides" format implies that the two viewpoints being presented are all we have at our disposal, and this sets the parameter for what kinds of dissenting political discourse are tolerated. Coming out of the anarchist tradition, Chomsky seeks to question the forms of authority that dominate the mainstream media in the form of such parameter-setting, in order to realize the egalitarian vision he champions.

The following quote from the film encapsulates in a nutshell the overriding theme that is fleshed out in the course of the documentary:
Elizabeth Sikorovsky ("American Focus" Student Radio): From Washington, D.C., he's intellectual, author and linguist Professor Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: what is that title meant to describe?

Chomsky: Well, the title is actually borrowed from a book by Walter Lippmann written back around 1921, in which he described what he called the "manufacture of consent" as a "revolution" in "the practice of democracy." What it amounts to is a technique of control, and he said this was useful and necessary because the common interest, the general concerns of all people, elude the public. The public just isn't up to dealing with them. And they have to be the domain of what he called a "specialized class."

[Cut to footage of a lecture delivered by Chomsky]: Notice that that's the opposite of the standard view about democracy. There's a version of this expressed by the highly respected moralist and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, who was very influential on contemporary policy makers. His view was that rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason but faith. And this naive faith requires necessary illusions and emotionally potent oversimplifications, which are provided by the myth-maker to keep the ordinary person on course.

This is a worthwhile point to make in discussions concerning why Chomsky's ideas are relevant to skepticism and atheism. Only through rational discourse and critical thinking can we discuss what impacts us as a culture and as a country with immense political influence in a way that examines all sides of any given issue in order to discern which is best supported by available evidence. The promotion of faith in religion and supernaturalism and the promotion of the acceptance of authoritarianism that comes through faith can be extremely destructive. The promotion of faith and authoritarianism leads inevitably to complacent believers blindly accepting what they are told without further inquiry or examination. Such promotion can also lead to religiously-motivated terrorist movements. A striking example of this is seen in the case of Chuck Spingola, a proudly self-described Christian terrorist, who in 2004 called upon his fellow Christian extremists on his "Army of God" website to carry out their religious duty by waging a wave of violence against abortion clinics and doctors [5]. Spingola has faith that his god decrees higher laws, and therefore his faith tells him that he has no need to be a contributing member of society. The notion he holds that says he can pass judgment on his fellow citizens comes about because his is a faith-based position, not a rational one. This faith-based position tells people like Spingola that the commands of his invisible friend is the sufficient legitimizing factor for his personal murderous prejudices. The "naive faith that requires necessary illusions and emotionally potent oversimplifications" that Chomsky brings up is an important and worthwhile concept to consider when examining the contrasts between faith and reason. What we discover is that the "myth-maker" can often inspire dangerous actions that go beyond mere harmless belief in irrationalities.

Football, Fundamentalism and Alternative Media

The most negative feedback to this documentary that Noam Chomsky received was in response to his statements concerning sports coverage in news media. Chomsky's view is that sports coverage is used to dumb down people and make them largely uncritical, to divert the public's analytical thinking skills towards matters that are not important in terms of current events. There is some validity in this argument; if everyone in America is occupied with worrying about trivial issues, such as another breakup between Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, then perhaps they are not remaining as astutely aware as they should be of issues such as expansions to the Patriot Act that were snuck under the door by the Bush administration. While it is my contention that Ben Affleck and J.Lo can be the basis of worthwhile ideological and cultural analysis, as can football, the points raised by Chomsky deserve to be seriously taken into account. He says,
It's not the case, as the naive might think, that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy. Rather, as this whole line of thinkers observes, it's the essence of democracy. The point is that in a military state or a feudal state or what you would nowadays call a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think; because you've got a bludgeon over their head and you can control what they do. But when the State loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force, and when the voice of the people can be heard, you have this problem: It may make people so curious and so arrogant that they don't have the humility to submit to a civil rule. And therefore you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called "propaganda," the manufacture of consent, the creation of necessary illusions, various ways of either marginalizing the general public or reducing them to apathy in some fashion.

Now there are other media too, whose basic social role is quite different. It's a diversion. There's the real mass media, the kinds that are aimed at, you know, the guys who - Joe Six-Pack, that kind. The purpose of those media is just to dull people's brains. This is an oversimplification, but for the eighty percent (or whatever they are), the main thing for them is to divert them, to get them to watch National Football League and to worry about, you know, a mother with child with six heads, or whatever you pick up . . . on the supermarket stands and so on. Or, you know, look at astrology or get involved in, you know, fundamentalist stuff or something or other. Just get them away. You know, get them away from things that matter. And for that, it's important to reduce their capacity to think.

Sports . . . another crucial example of the indoctrination system idea. For one thing, because it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. It keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea about doing something about. And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in sports. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in. They have the most exotic information and understanding about, you know, all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this. I remember in high school . . . I suddenly asked myself at one point, Why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know. It's got nothing to do with me. I mean, why am I cheering for my team? It doesn't make any sense, you know. But the point is it does make sense. It's a way of building up irrational attitudes and submission to authority and, you know, group cohesion behind the . . . leadership elements. In fact, it's training in irrational jingoism.

Those are indeed fighting words, and I will here contribute only a slight disagreement to the fray. I can readily understand and agree that trivial media such as celebrity worship, football, etc. could very well serve as a diversion. But I do not see the fundamentalist thinking that he mentions as being a tool used for drawing people away from involvement in society. I would argue that fundamentalist movements are a tool used to draw people into being more involved, albeit from the basis of a particular ideological agenda that does not contribute to the healthy involvement Chomsky is referring to. Again, one need look no further than Chuck Spingola and his "Army of God" movement for confirmation of this fact. Religious fundamentalism, especially as it has been developing in this country, has been an extremely useful tool in the hands of the Religious Right, which is very politically motivated. The manipulation of fundamentalism has been a great asset for the likes of John Ashcroft and the late Jerry Falwell. To a considerably large extent, Americans have even substituted fundamentalism for politics. One can also argue that fundamentalism is dumbing down the masses while simultaneously mobilizing them. But the crucial difference is that fundamentalism is dumbing people down and force-feeding dogma in a way that is useful to groups with political agendas, whereas the kind of diversion characterized by things like astrology, football or Trading Spaces is not particularly pursuant to encouraging participation in movements that have important effects on the political or social landscape. Even if sports as covered by the media is a "training in irrational jingoism" (which I think is a valid observation), getting people to zone out on football cannot be said to satisfy or aid groups with a political agenda to attain power. On the other hand, religious fundamentalism, supernaturalism and conspiracy theories are far more useful forces. Those are means of manufacturing consent that are actually useful politically to groups such as the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority and other organizations under the umbrella of the Religious Right. These forces are also useful in the service of an elite who have a unity of interests. One need look no further than the Bush White House of the last decade, during which our country was subjected to Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Mr. Halliburton himself, Dick Cheney.

In regards to Chomsky's statements on sports being a tool that serves to keep people from worrying about issues of more considerable import to their lives, I wish to play the devil's advocate. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. There is nothing inherently wrong with sports. If people find football games entertaining, I see nothing draconian in indulging in that entertainment. There is no nefarious movement to dumb down the public with high school football games. Chomsky does have a valid point in the sense that media attention is often excessively geared toward trivial and downright stupid content. Chomsky also has a valid point in that corporate news networks such as Fox and (to some degree) MSNBC do engage in the manufacturing of pseudo-stories about an issue they allege is important. They will present such stories through talking heads that give their view about why a given issue is important, when in reality the story is bullshit and lacks substance. Oftentimes, the stories presented by these corporate news outlets contain nothing that holds any bearing to Joe Blow from Idaho sitting in his living room. Such stories are not specifically relevant to him, but the news media is very skilled in persuading him that he should be invested in an obscure social issue playing out among people across the country. This manufacturing of pseudo-stories in corporate news can be viewed as a good example of the kind of distraction Chomsky is referring to.

However, I argue that there can be political and social value in following sports, largely depending on who the participants in the sport are and the extent to which meaningful symbolism is involved. One figure that comes to mind is the heavyweight boxing champion Muhammed Ali. As a black Muslim, Ali experienced a great deal of trouble in working to to maintain his boxing career because of his refusal to serve in the Vietnam war on religious grounds. Also, in the degrees to which women are allowed to participate in certain sports, there is opportunity to analyze the feminist significance of sports. There do exist aspects to sports whose larger implications can be meaningfully pondered. This is where I find Chomsky's assessment to be terribly simplistic.

However, buried within his remarks is the fact that Chomsky stands in awe of human creativity and is interested in encouraging as many people as possible to rise above being mere cogs in a machine by putting their intelligence to application. It is on this point that I could not agree more wholeheartedly with Chomsky. Of particular importance is his comment that, given the rather intricate analysis that ordinary people are able to deliver on call-in shows related to sports, it would be great if they were able to engage in comparable analysis with regard to political and social issues. There are media outlets that attempt to provide such opportunity for important political and social analysis, but their success is often limited by the barriers of big business demands and what kind of shows get the best ratings. This is why alternative media is crucial to the survival of democracy. I do not think it is any accident that most of the footage for the documentary Manufacturing Consent comes from a number of interviews of Noam Chomsky on public access television shows and community radio stations. The subliminal message of the documentary strongly praises and promotes the efforts of alternative media. Noam Chomsky gives considerable credit to the benefit to social and political critical analysis that alternative media provides, and for this reason alone this film is worth viewing and discussing.

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media can be viewed online at http://www.hulu.com/watch/118171/manufacturing-consent or downloaded from http://www.archive.org/details/NoamChomskyNoamChomskyManufacturingConsent_0.

Notes

1. Noam Chomsky (2003). Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Metropolitan Books. I recommend this macroscopic analysis of U.S. foreign policy from WWII to the Iraq War as the best place to start for anyone interested in getting a sense of Chomsky's views on foreign policy.

2. Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.

3. Bernard Goldberg (2001). Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing.

4. This ad can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9WKimKIyUQ&feature=related

5. Dean Schabner. "A Call to Arms for 'Christian Terrorists'." ABC News 22 January 2004. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96790.

Friday, May 21, 2010

On Being Godless in Ann Coulter's America

According to Ann Coulter, who apparently is very godfull, all liberals are godless. In 2006, Coulter's publishers released her book entitled Godless: The Church of Liberalism, a disgustingly idiotic polemic against the Left in which she claims that liberalism is inherently atheistic; all liberals (including Democrats) are atheists, whether secretly or openly. Her observations include such gems as "Throughout the 2004 campaign, the Democrats were looking for a Democrat who believed in God - a pursuit similar to a woman searching for a boyfriend in a room full of choreographers" [1]. The wide sweep of her broad brush extends far, as in this passage:
The absence of a divinity makes liberals' belief system no less religious. Liberals define religion as only those belief systems that subscribe to the notion of a divine being in order to dismiss other religions as mere religion and theirs as something greater . . . Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul. Their religion holds that there is nothing sacred about human consciousness. It's just an accident no more significant than our possession of opposable thumbs. They deny what we know about ourselves: that we are moral beings in God's image [2].

In response, I say that I only wish it was true that all Democrats and liberals were atheists. Needless to say, this is obviously not the case. I have heard stories from fellow liberals who decided to get involved in local politics, who attended Democratic Conventions at which they were actually cornered and yelled at by their fellow Democrats who were offended by the fact that they openly did not believe in a god. Having read her book, I can say also say that I wish Ann Coulter could write a book that was not so full of logical fallacies and blatant inaccuracies.

There has been much talk within the Democratic Party in the past several years concerning the question of whether they should adopt a clearly-recognizable Christian direction. This debate comes as a result of the success the Republicans enjoyed by snuggling up with the Religious Right since the early 1980s. Many Democrats have suggested that snuggling up with the Religious Left would contribute to their own success. There is a problem with this suggestion. While it is true that Republicans blatantly lie when they accuse all Democrats or all liberals of being atheists, it is also true that the majority of atheists are Democrats and liberals. This is a point I concede. As statistically verified by both Al Franken (who is very liberal) and Ann Coulter herself, the atheist vote went to Al Gore in 2000 and to John Kerry in 2004. This is an established fact. Of course, the only reason Coulter has cited these statistics is to invoke "atheist" as a pejorative term to express her contempt for Gore and Kerry. The point is that she is aware there is a noticeable segment of the Democratic Party that identify as atheists [3]. Thus, when Republicans throw accusations of godlessness at the Democratic Party (as in Coulter's book, which stands as the clearest statement of this accusation thus far), the Democratic Party's knee-jerk reaction is to kowtow to the largest interest groups and insist that they are Christians. When this happens, a considerable segment, namely the atheist segment, of the Democratic Party becomes alienated.

In a similar vein to the divide caused by the jury being out concerning God's existence, many Democrats understandably became desperate following the 2004 election that once again placed incompetence in the White House, to the point where they contemplated conceding issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The fact that this unfortunate debate had to play out in the Democratic Party demonstrates the sheer gravity of the country's predicament at the hands of power-hungry Republicans who had no regard for progress, who were insistent in keeping the rich wealthy and in keeping the poor in their place. Many Democrats argued that bones should be thrown to conservatives on the abortion issue especially, tried to convince themselves that abortion was not that important of an issue, and suggested that they should seek the potentially stronger support that would come from the public if pro-life Democrats created a platform. I believe such contemplations and discussions are legitimate. If they are pursuant to getting democratic principles in positions of influence, discussions concerning whether or not to temporarily (and I stress temporality) leave issues such as gay marriage on the back burner are not insidious. Still, I am very thankful and glad that the Democratic Party has not gone that route as yet.

Natural hostilities are apt to arise as a consequence of this alienation, hostilities that have the potential to boil over and drive a chunk of the Democratic Party away. Consider that, statistically speaking, the recent national votes have arrived very close to a 50-50 division either way. Let us simplify this for the sake of argument and posit that roughly half of these voters are Democrats. What percentage of the country identifies as atheist? According to the principal investigators of the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, about 12% of Americans describe themselves as atheists [4]. If the majority of atheists in this country are Democrats, this means that atheists represent about 20% of Democrats. Now, what political party would not love to inspire the alienation of 20% of the opposing party's votes? It is my strong suspicion that what Coulter's book can potentially bring about is absolutely intentional. Ann Coulter is bringing up charges of godlessness against the liberal community for the sole purpose of provoking a knee-jerk reaction that can easily end up splitting the Democratic Party. It is abundantly clear that her claim that all liberals and all Democrats are atheists is utter nonsense. It is completely not true, and even someone as inept a thinker as Ann Coulter must know this. But the accusation of godlessness serves a dishonest purpose. Giant organizations tend not to think carefully about the consequences of their knee-jerk reactions. Coulter is counting on this weakness, expecting the Democratic Party to respond to her by insisting that they are going in a Christian direction. Because of this response, 20% of the Democratic vote could simply disappear. In my estimation, this is the sole purpose of her book.

The Republican Party is a very homogeneous institution. Being conservatives, after all, they encourage their members to vote the same way at all times on every issue, whether these issues relate to fiscal conservatism or theocratic agendas. For instance, the Republicans managed to convince the segment of their party that is constituted of poor but religious fanatics to vote for massive tax cuts for the rich. This, of course, has nothing to do with their interests, and is of course contrary to their interests. Yet because the Republicans are interested in developing a very homogeneous party that believes the same way on all issues, the move toward massive tax cuts for the rich have been spun into a "value," and the poor segment of the party's constituents have been convinced on the basis of that spin to accept such moves that work against their interests. The Democrats, on the other hand, tend to be a mix of diverse people who support a fairly wide range of different causes and who are generally supportive of progress. As matters stand now, the Democratic Party is a coalition made up of different groups who tend to be more accepting of people and who generally oppose throwing bombs. Some may argue that it is not so much a natural tendency as it is a necessity for the Democrats to be widely accepting of other people. Still, whether a tendency or a necessity, this is what Ann Coulter and the rest of the Religious Right are attacking, taking advantage of the Democrats' already tenuous constitution. This becomes abundantly clear in Coulter's book at the various points in which she condemns Wiccans and New Agers in the Democratic Party. It is true that the Democratic Party draws in the flaky New Age types. Thus, tarring the entire Democratic Party in one broad stroke because of the flaky New Age craziness that is sometimes to be found among a certain number of its members is an example of the exact same strategy utilized in calling all Democrats atheists, in this case targeting a different segment of the coalition. I personally take as much offense at being labeled a New Age lunatic as a liberal Christian Democrat takes at being labeled an atheist.

The response to Ann Coulter should most certainly not be along the lines of "Ann Coulter is an ugly cunt." However accurate this response is, it is not relevant. Rather, the response in the Democratic Party needs to be one of constructive action. All people in the Democratic coalition, including atheists, Wiccans, New Agers and liberal Christians, desperately needs to gather together and work out how we are going to co-exist. We must engage in dialogue among ourselves about the differences we bring to the table, and by doing so honestly discover the common ground and actively focus on that common ground. By doing so we prevent the sort of division-inducing knee-jerk reaction that Ann Coulter and the rest of the right-wing Republicans are actively trying to provoke from us.

The Left's Doctrine of Infallibility?
Still, it is difficult not to respond harshly to Ann Coulter. For another stand she takes in the book that gave her the most controversy and created the most outcry in the media was her opinion on 9/11 widows, specifically the Jersey Girls. I suspect she stooped to this low level because she realized that she was not going to receive the media attention and shock value she craves by merely attacking atheists. The controversial attack she makes on the 9/11 widows reads as follows:
These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much" [5].

The only conclusion one can come to is that Coulter is going out of her way to purposefully provoke anger from people. She goes on to claim that these widows who speak out against the Bush administration and the War on Terror are using the fact that they are widows to exercise what Coulter calls "the Left's doctrine of infallibility." She writes,
Finally, the Democrats hit on an ingenious strategy: They would choose only messengers whom we're not allowed to reply to. That's why all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing, hysterical women. You can't respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering. Liberals haven't changed the message, just the messenger. All the most prominent liberal spkesmen are people with "absolute moral authority" - Democrats with a dead husband, a dead child, a wife who works at the CIA, a war record, a terminal illness, or as a last resort, being on a first-name basis with Nelson Mandela. Like Oprah during Sweeps Week, liberals have come to rely exclusively on people with sad stories to improve their Q rating. They've become the "Lifetime" TV network of political parties. Liberals prey on people at a time of extreme emotional vulnerability and offer them fame and fortune to be that month's purveyor of hate. Victory goes to the most hysterical [6].

What crackpot argument can't be immunized by the Left's invocation of infallibility based on personal experience? Today, a Democrat called for the institution of Communism in America, confiscation of all private property, forcible agricultural collectivization, imprisonment of intellectuals, and seizure of all handguns - moments before her entire family was wiped out in a tornado. Responses? Perhaps the Democrats could find an orphaned child whose parents were brutally hacksawed to death to put forth their tax plan. If these Democrat human shields have a point worth making, how about allowing it to be made by someone we're allowed to respond to? [7].

In a number of radio and television interviews, Coulter defended her statements about the four 9/11 widows known as the Jersey Girls by saying that all she meant was that the widows ended up enjoying themselves in the media spotlight after their husbands' deaths, not that the widows would have chosen that their husbands die in order to receive this enjoyment. I do not particularly see what the difference is. The way I see it, if somebody experiences a terrible personal tragedy, I want something nice to happen to that person and for that person to glean enjoyment from it. This is especially my wish for someone dealing with personal tragedy when comfort comes to them that serves a worthwhile cause, as in the case with the Jersey Girls. I do not see what the problem with this could be, but apparently Coulter does. The Jersey Girls do not enjoy being widows in the least, as Coulter seems to be suggesting. Still, even if Coulter did not intend to convey that message, whatever else she could have meant is irrelevant in the face of what she so strongly implies.

The claim that these widows cannot be responded to when they denounce the war in Iraq and the Bush administration is especially inane. Who says they cannot be responded to? Coulter can respond to them, and in fact she did in her book! Chapter five of Godless is a response to them. And in responding to them in thuis book, Coulter demonstrates without apology or ambiguity that she has no compassion whatsoever for these women. But an important distinction must be made at this point: When Coulter responds to the points raised by these widowed women, no one will begrudge her of that response. After all, Coulter is exercising her freedom of speech. However, Coulter has not responded to any of the points raised by these women, either in her book Godless or elsewhere. She responds to them only by attacking them personally, which is what she seems to think responding to people is all about. She has not said a word concerning what they are actually saying, has not addressed a single issue they have raised. Rather, Coulter is attacking them for being widows and for having a voice.

Notice that Coulter does not explain what she means when she complains that one cannot respond to people who have experienced personal tragedy or hardship. But perhaps she does not need to explain. It is presumably clear that she means that if a person responds to their points in criticism, that person ends up looking like a callous individual. She is wrong about this; such a person only comes across as a callous and evil person if he or she responds to them in the manner Coulter has chosen to respond to them. Again, Coulter seems incapable of addressing the actual points raised by people she disagrees with, opting instead to resort to ad hominem attacks. She comes across looking like a callous and despicable person by actually being a callous and despicable person, yet she proceeds to erect a pretense of being misunderstood. Her claim seems to be that even if one responded to the activism borne out of her liberal opponents' personal tragedy, one would still come across as extremely insensitive. But then again, she does not even make a first attempt to respond with reasoned argument. Consider also what Coulter means when she speaks of somebody she can respond to. She means somebody she can beat up on, somebody whose character she can slander and still retain a good image for herself. What Coulter really wants is to get away with insensitivity, to bypass the effort that reasoned argument requires. In effect, she is telling the Democratic Party to only choose spokespeople that she can easily mock. If this is her strategy, people should not be paying her any attention in the first place.

But despite the fact that people should not be giving her the satisfaction of serious attention, the fact is that people are doing this. It is no great stretch to maintain that nobody seriously believes that the widows are enjoying their husbands' deaths. But Ann Coulter's whole strategy is very reminiscent of the stratregy employed by Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. Like Ann Coulter, Fred Phelps makes statements that are so outrageous that he knows people are going to be angry at him. Whether Phelps actually believes the things he says is debatable. But his whole strategy is to make himself a controversial public figure by making people angry with him in the hopes that somebody will punch him or otherwise make him look like a martyr so he can then proceed to sue them. Similarly, Ann Coulter's strategy is to make herself a controversial public figure, make hideous statements that hold only shock value so that people will hate her, and then gleefully point out how angry her opponents are when they harshly criticize her. This strategy is clearly evident in her book, whose pages take the reader into a very target-rich environment. A whole world of hate is contained in just the first fifteen pages. It is clear that Coulter is relaying on the doctrine that states that whoever loses their temper first in debate loses, which is simply not true. However, it is true that in losing one's temper, one may thereby risk losing access to one's critical faculties and making mistakes in argument. But such a risk has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the argument utilized. Ann Coulter does not make any use of serious arguments, yet she expects to be taken seriously. One case in point is seen in her appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on June 14, 2006, when she answered Leno's question as to whether she traveled with bodyguards with the inane comment that "I travel with conservative men. They're pretty fiercesome, unlike the liberals you showed the last time I was on when I spoke on a college campus. We got these nuanced liberals throwing food, and they missed. Unlike them, I think my male friends can take them" [8]. However misguided and careless it may be, it can often seem as if the only possible response to that is "Fuck you, you bitch." Her statements are not real points, and there is no substance to them. There is therefore no demand for a real counter-argument, for Coulter cannot handle real counter-arguments. But we must also keep in mind that this is precisely why Coulter is hoping for just such a harsh and shallow response, rather than a reasonably thought-out criticism that her shallow mind cannot handle.

Ann Coulter also complains that the Democrats are getting behind spokespeople who have experienced personal tragedies, almost as a way of shielding themselves and their ideas. However, the fact is that the spokesperson is merely an exemplar of the actual feelings held by people in the Democratic Party about the issue at hand. Cindy Sheehan was not "discovered" by the Democratic Party and subsequently funded and placed on a pedestal as a ploy to insert a spokesperson against the war in front of Republicans who could not criticize her without looking like insensitive and callous individuals. Cindy Sheehan started autonomously and on her own volition. She was actually sincerely infuriated by Bush's war because of the personal tragedy she experienced in losing her son to the war. Democrats simply noticed her and thought that she was a great spokesperson for what they agreed was wrong, namely the many tragedies that struck home for many people due to an unjust war that was based on lies, not just for Sheehan. When we point this out, people like Ann Coulter can then charge us with playing on people's sympathies or taking advantage of people's instinctive dislike of death and horror occasioned by war. Yet people like Ann Coulter will then turn around and charge anti-war activists who have not personally lost any close friend or loved one with having no justification for talking, with having no stake in the anti-war cause. Thus, right-wing conservatives have erected an artificial lose-lose situation which they dishonestly impose on the liberal community. Consider also why the Republican Party has not been engaging in the same activity. If Ann Coulter is correct in claiming that the "doctrine of infallibility" is so very effective for immunizing dissenting voices from criticism, where are the Republican spokespeople who have known personal tragedies that the Democrats are not allowed to respond to? Ann Coulter would likely answer this by saying that "Republicans have principles" or something along those lines. But I challenge her or any other right-wing conservative to name an issue that conservatives are passionate about for which there can possibly exist a person who has experienced a personal tragedy. Find a person who has suffered a personal tragedy because somebody else burned a flag. Find a person who has suffered a personal tragedy because a gay couple got married. One would be very hard-pressed to find examples of any such people.

Of course, Republicans have been known to fabricate personal tragedies. For example, a father named David Parker claimed that a group of first-grade children surrounded his seven year-old son in the schoolyard of Estabrook Elementary School and physically assaulted him because David Parker was known in the Lexington, Massachusetts community as an anti-gay activist [9]. I am not claiming that this story is not true (even though the superintendent of the school stated after the alleged incident that the fight was actually occasioned by a squabble over where students would sit in the cafeteria and was not related to the anti-gay activism of the child's father, and even though David Parker himself admitted that the police were not contacted by him because he did not want an investigation made on the matter). But if the incident as spun by David Parker and a slough of right-wing articles did indeed occur (which the evidence strongly indicates did not), it would be just as wrong as any other beating incident. Physical attack is certainly not the way to resolve matters. The point is that if this incident did happen, we do have an example of a person on the conservative side of the political spectrum who can cite personal hardship. So would Ann Coulter tell David Parker to keep his mouth shut? Would she bother to be consistent by telling him to keep quiet because Parker is making it look as if the right-wing community is putting forth spokespeople that people cannot respond to? I would like to see Coulter say this, but I daresay we cannot expect such consistency from her and her right-wing allies.

A Liberal War on Science?
There is another area very clumsily explored by Ann Coulter in her book that I find worthy of my criticism. Coulter devotes chapter seven of Godless to her claim that there is a liberal war on science. In this claim, she is referring to the liberal reaction to studies that supposedly contain findings such as that blacks are not as intelligent as white people or that women are not as skilled at science or mathematics as men. Allow me to describe the full stupid argument: Coulter contends that when "scientific" results such as these come in, Republicans are able to find it within themselves to simply accept facts and move on, because they believe a God created the universe the way it is for a mysterious purpose, and that consequently whatever we may discover is perfectly fine (of course, she inconsistently makes an exception for the fact of evolution, which she devotes the last four chapters of the book to attacking). I quote her own words on the matter:
Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? [10].

This is the scope of her argument. This claim completely ignores the fact that Republicans are extremely guilty of concocting fake science to build their case based upon preconceptions. One example that is actually cited and commented on by Coulter in her book is the incident involving Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University. In January 2005, Summers gave a speech in which he suggested that women were not as skilled at science or mathematics as men due to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end" [11]. The outcry that his suggestions sparked eventually contributed to his resignation from the Harvard presidency in 2006 due to charges of sexism and careless scholarship [12]. I am not sure just why Coulter chose to cite this case in a discussion of a liberal war on science, because this was not a scientific study at all. It was simply a man stating his ideas. Despite this, Coulter focuses on the liberal outcry that resulted.

Now it is true that there are many liberals who strongly object to certain ideas proposed in scientific circles, liberals who would not want it to be discovered that they are wrong about such matters. But while I cannot speak for all liberals, I believe that regardless of any scientific findings, we should still adhere to to the social convention that says that everybody deserves equal rights, for this principled convention is of the utmost importance. This brings me to the issue referred to by Coulter at the beginning of the above quote, namely the controversial study by psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray as encapsulated in their 1994 book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. In this book, it is claimed that there exist racial differences in intelligence, and that IQ is genetically determined. In addition to over-stressing the point that people possess different cognitive abilities and differing abilities along an iteration of qualities, the authors proposed to spread abilities out along a rating scale and claimed to have arrived at a mean median, illuminating standard deviations on several mathematical relationships and ratios. Unfortunately, the book's thesis wrongly paints black people and other people of color as being less intelligent than white people. Contrary to what Coulter claims in her book, many researchers in the psychological community have reviewed the study contained in the 800-page book and uncovered many flaws in Herrnstein's and Murray's research. Personally, I believe it is dangerous to even study such matters. And when I say it is "dangerous," I am not arguing that we should avoid studying the issue of race and intelligence. I think it is dangerous to leap out of airplanes for skydiving, but I do not say that people should be barred from engaging in that activity. What I mean is that it is dangerous only in the sense that even if the findings of Herrnstein and Murray were true, it can be misused by those who harbor a nefarious agenda to undermine equal rights, Social Darwinism being one example of such a nefarious agenda.

But the larger point to take home is that Ann Coulter's claim that conservatives are free to accept at face value any so-called scientific findings that conform well into their agendas because they Christians is utter nonsense. It is also utter nonsense to say that liberals are trying to impose their views on the world against all scientific evidence, simply because they have an ideological problem with a given study. This being the case, I actually must agree with her that there have been incidents of unfounded liberal reactions to scientific findings, although such cases are extremely rare. One example of this is seen in a 1998 study conducted and written by Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman, in which it was found that the negative impact of childhood sexual abuse was less severe than people had generally supposed [13]. The United States House of Representatives responded by signing a resolution on July 30, 1999 stating that the findings were false [14]. This resolution, which was passed unanimously in the Senate, greatly concerned a number of psychologists who recognized a potential chilling effect the resolution could wreak on future research. It is understandable that a liberal such as myself might have a knee-jerk reaction to the findings of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman and insist that their conclusions could not possibly be right. But rather than go this uncritical route, liberal thinkers would do well to honestly strive to maintain critical thinking and follow the evidence where it leads, all the while not falling for the fallacy that progressive morals such as the protection of children need be affected by research findings. We would do well to consider the way in which Rind and his fellow researchers conclude their study:
[I]t is important to consider implications of the current review for moral and legal positions on CSA [childhood sexual abuse]. If it is true that wrongfulness in sexual matters does not imply harmfulness, then it is also true that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness. Moral codes of a society with respect to sexual behavior need not be, and often have not been, based on considerations of psychological harmfulness or health. Similarly, legal codes may be, and have often been, unconnected to such considerations. In this sense, the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered. The current findings are relevant to moral and legal positions only to the extent that these positions are based on the presumption of psychological harm [15].

I agree with Ann Coulter that in the event that liberal censure of scientific studies occurs, this is to be condemned as wrong. I even agree with her that this does at times happen among liberals, not least because, as I mentioned above, New Agers with outlandish beliefs and religious kooks of the touchy-feely variety tend to be drawn toward the liberal side of the spectrum. But to place such instances on a playing field equal to the documented Republican campaign to hire government appointees to insert themselves into institutions such as NASA, instructing them to modify the scientific reports that come out of such places to match the Republican agenda is horrendously out of all proportion. It is one thing to hope that one does not find out certain facts, which I think is the wrong approach. It is quite another matter to maintain that even if we found that certain conclusions are true, there are actual issues related to how we as a divided society are to find points of unity and work together that trump such conclusions in levels of importance. We do not want to sweep coherence and cooperation for the cause of equal rights and progress under the carpet based upon an unwarranted, ideologically-motivated interpretation of facts that arise out of studies. Knowing those facts is a positive and worthy goal. But we should avoid forsaking our social conventions that are beneficial for all people who care about equal rights on the basis of any factual studies.

It is of course great fun to proverbially bash Ann Coulter. But the question then becomes whether or not critics such as myself are playing into her hands in some sense. After all, publicity is Ann Coulter's greatest ally. In answer to this, I return to my advice for the Democratic Party that I intimated early in this essay. The different subgroups within the Democratic Party need to make an active effort to engage in dialogue, to seek out common ground and figure out how to continue working together toward larger goals that transcend provincial interests that fragment the Democratic Party. The idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity is simply not true. As a result of such a collaboration, the liberal community can expose the emptiness of Coulter's attempts to divide us through shallow accusations with no substance. If this happens, her book will be remembered as nothing more than a childish and failed attempt to score points for her party through her reliance on the right-wing's conception of us as thoughtless and careless responders to her broad-brush allegations. My second bit of advice in answer to the question of Ann Coulter's potential publicity is that, if you intend to purchase her book, purchase it from a used bookstore.

Notes

1. Ann Coulter (2006). Godless: The Church of Liberalism. New York: Crown Forum, p. 19.

2. Coulter, Godless, p. 3.

3. For the record, this is merely representative of that 80%. There are atheists in the secular community who constitute the "token" Republicans or libertarians. It is simply a fact that 80% of atheists in America tend to vote Democratic. Because my focus in this essay is Ann Coulter, I will refrain from speculating on why this may be the case.

4. Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar. "Summary Report: March 2009." American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS 2008]. Hartford, Connecticut: Trinity College.

5. Coulter, Godless, p. 103.

6. Ibid., p. 104.

7. Ibid., p. 146.

8. "June 14, 2006." The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. National Broadcasting Company. Burbank, California. 14 June 2006. Online video of the interview available at http://www.buzznet.com/www/search/videos/carlin/2755783/ann-coulter-jay-leno/.

9. Maria Sacchetti. "Official Says Father's View on Gays Didn't Spark Fight: Lexington Boy Beaten at Recess." The Boston Globe 20 June 2006.
For the right-wing perspective on this incident, see http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/parker_son_incident/index.html#top.

10. Coulter, Godless, p. 175.

11. Lawrence H. Summers. "Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce." President and Fellows of Harvard College, January 14, 2005. http://web.archive.org/web/20080130023006/http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html.

12. Marcella Bombardieri. "Summers' Remarks on Women Draw Fire." The Boston Globe 17 January 2005.

13. Rind, B; Tromovitch P, Bauserman R (1998). "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples." Psychological Bulletin 124 (1): 22–53.
Online PDF available at http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf.

14. United States Congress (1999). "Whereas no segment of our society is more critical to the future of human survival than our children." 106th Congress, Resolution 107.
Online PDF available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:hc107enr.txt.pdf.

15. Rind, et al. (1998). Psychological Bulletin 124 (1): 47. Emphasis mine.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Songs of Human Sacrifice: An Exploration of the Theme of Redemption in Christian Hymns

Many people for whom the experience of growing up in a fundamentalist Christian atmosphere is completely foreign are liable to be quite surprised, even shocked, at some of the songs that are taught to children in fundamentalist Christian churches. Within the context of speaking to and comparing the experiences of other atheists who were raised religiously fundamentalist versus atheists who had a completely secular and non-religious upbringing, several interesting observations arise. On a very general and superficial level, one finds that there tends to be a wide understanding regarding the religious doctrine that inspires Christian hymns among those who were raised in that environment. On the other hand, those who are unfamiliar with religious culture sometimes lack a grasp of the total experience of the fundamentalist upbringing, including what it means to be entrenched in a church from an early age and to be surrounded by that distinctive kind of community. People who have deconverted from Christianity will often express that they completely understand the psychology of religious belief, and why it is that people can commit to and believe in a delusion.

Then there are other nonbelievers who have never had religious belief who are incredulous as to how anybody can believe in the basic tenets of Christianity and who do not understand how a reasonable person can possibly affirm it. These lifelong nonbelievers will often speak of friends they have whom they describe as very intelligent and who even understand particular aspects of the sciences, but whose usually-apparent reasoning skills seem to fly out the window the moment they begin speaking about their religion. And they do not understand how and why this occurs.

But for those of us nonbelievers who were raised fundamentalist, the answer to this phenomenon of human nature is not difficult to come by; we understand how and why this cognitive dissonance occurs, because we used to think the same way. Having made my company with several ex-Christians as well as current Christians of late, I do not think one has to be in any way unintelligent in order to believe in religion. Some atheists assert that there must be some kind of chemical imbalance at work on intelligent people who believe in religion. But this is not necessarily true, either. A chemical imbalance is not needed to explain the phenomenon of religious belief among the well-educated; all that is needed for fundamentalist religion to take hold is successful indoctrination.

But let us return to the subject of the shock lifelong nonbelievers are prone to express when learning of some of the lyrics contained in the songs taught to children in churches. I personally remember these songs, and my memory clearly recalls singing them when I was as young as four years old. I do not remember much else from the time I was four years old, but I remember these songs to this day. This serves to demonstrate that persistent dogmatic instruction works very well. Even more interesting, though, is another experience that nonbelievers who were raised fundamentalist have often expressed between themselves: when one progresses beyond and disposes of a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, he or she will sometimes go back to read a passage from the Bible and be surprised to find what they read is dramatically different from what they remember reading in their religious past. What they read will often not be the story they recall. At this point, one begins to realize just how much of what she read was impacted by what she was told she was reading in lieu of what she was actually reading. Organized religion has mastered the art of suppressing freedom of thought among its flock. The same experience holds true of traditional Christian hymns. For instance, songs such as "Are You Washed in the Blood?" seem normal to a great many people. Yet when I hear and consider that hymn today, I have a mental image of people bathing themselves in human blood, and the whole imagery strikes me as very off-putting.

Speaking as one who had attended Sunday School regularly as a child, from the time I was a toddler to the time I was in high school, I can make the observation that children raised in church environments for the most part get little more than the nice stories of the Bible, or Bible stories revised such that they are made more palatable for modern-day values. For example, I have seen children's books about Noah's Ark that depict fluffy little animals walking up into the ark, complete with a rainbow at the end of the tale. What is effectively glossed over is the part of the story that involves billions of people being drowned in a global genocide. It is not that this aspect of the story is completely glossed over; I can personally attest to the fact that children in fundamentalist churches are indeed taught that the world was destroyed, that people were wicked and killed as a result. Still, the overriding focus of the Sunday-School version of the story is that God loved Noah and his family and preserved them from the horrible flood. The nasty parts are slipped in and included, but they are minimized. The global genocide of billions via drowning is somewhat out-of-focus in the background of the proverbial camera, and it is presented as normalized. The rendition is essentially structured as "God needed to destroy the world because everyone was wicked. But Noah was good, and so God saved Noah and a selection of animals from the impending destruction." When a fundamentalist Christian defends the story of Genesis chapters 6-8, he is defending it as a righteous story. By defending this story, he is asserting that everybody, including children and animals, deserved to die, except Noah and his family. Such a defense is morally backward.

Another example of a Biblical story whose immoral elements very often become the subject of much minimization and normalization is seen in the story of Abraham's God-given orders to sacrifice his son, as related in Genesis 22. The message conveyed by this story is that if God tells a follower to kill his child, it is morally good and upstanding to intend to carry that command out, regardless of whether or not God stops the act from being completed. The story relates that Abraham was virtuous for being willing to fulfill God's murderous bidding, and for not questioning the command. This is why Abraham is later listed in the New Testament (Hebrews 11) as a man of great faith, for he was willing to do whatever he was asked by the deity without question, including killing his own child. The fact that the murderous act was halted by God is extremely significant to the Christian mindset, and this divine halting is consequently the most dwelled-upon aspect of the story. Yet in defending this story, many Christians do not seem to understand just what they are advocating. The part of the story in which the child sacrifice is stopped at the last minute is very minor in comparison to the core message that is advocated, namely that unquestioning faith is a good thing, including when it involves an intention to murder one's child as a sacrifice to God.

The Value of Love and the Christian Doctrine of Human Worthlessness in Context

In his 2008 album What If We, Brandon Heath beautifully delivers a modern hymn called "Love Never Fails" [1]. This song is a simple ode to the value of love, and it is the simplicity of the message that confers aesthetic quality to the song. If one was not aware that this particular song is actually rooted in Scripture, he or she might hear the song and not even realize that Brandon Heath is in fact singing a hymn. There is very little in the song to hint at any explicitly supernatural element beyond the message that love is valuable. One line in the song's lyrics reads, "Love will not cease / At the end of time." It is at this juncture that we perhaps find a hint that Heath is referring to a concept akin to God's love continuing for eternity after the world has ended. Even so, the listener would not likely read that much into the song if he or she was unfamiliar with the Biblical passage upon which it is based. When heard independently of a knowledge of its source material, "Love Never Fails" can be understood as simply a poetic statement about the endurance of love, and a person unfamiliar with the Bible is justified in understanding the song in that very general way.

The Biblical passage upon which Brandon Heath's song is based is found in the New Testament book of I Corinthians, a very eloquent passage commonly attributed to the Apostle Paul. This is a passage that is frequently and quite appropriately cited at weddings. The following is an abridged portion of this passage:
And now I will show you the most excellent way.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

(I Corinthians 12:31b, 13:2-8, 13, New International Version).

This is a beautiful passage; certainly it is one that I, even as an atheist, personally consider to be one of the most beautiful passages in the Bible. Most people recognize instinctively the beauty of these verses, and most people greatly value the kind of love expressed in them, regardless of personal belief concerning the Bible as a whole. As mentioned above, the fact that this passage is quoted frequently at weddings is quite apropos, being as it is a beautiful statement about the enduring nature of love, the forgiving nature of love, and what it means to look at a person in love that is unconditional. This passage conveys a sense that a life lived without love is less than it can be and should be. The Christian will also consider this to be a beautiful passage, but will unnecessarily qualify this with a belief that it is rendered beautiful by virtue of being inspired by God [2]. This Christian will assert that the passage in question was actually written by God, using Paul as merely a vessel. In other words, God used Paul as something of a scribe who was merely transcribing God's words, and what we have preserved is God's statement on love. This view has many problems attached to it. Perhaps most importantly, such a view is highly demeaning. I do not believe that God wrote this through Paul. I believe that Paul wrote this, and that he was expressing his own view on love. Furthermore, I contend that a human being is fully capable of expressing this view, that a human being is fully capable of appreciating love, and that a human being is fully capable of writing a beautiful passage regarding love. The valuable aspects of love can be understood and expressed by human beings in such a way that other human beings are touched so deeply that the writing endures for two thousand years. This is a testament to the insight of humanity; we do not need a God to give us this kind of enduring literature. In those who claim that we need God in order to gain any worthwhile insight, we see an example of the way in which religionists portray God as always receiving credit for what we call goodness, while people always receive the blame for the bad side of life.

A Hymn to Humanism

In 1855, American poet Walt Whitman produced what is to this day his best-known poem, "Song of Myself." This very lengthy poem is a humanistic hymn of sorts which carries overtones of Transcendentalist thought, a thematic current which Whitman (the subject and center of the poem) makes use of to develop an expansive persona for himself that shatters the conventional limits socially and traditionally imposed on the self. In one portion of the poem, Whitman writes,
Welcome is every organ and attribute of me, and of any man hearty and clean,
Not an inch nor a particle of an inch is vile, and none shall be less familiar than the rest.

Trippers and askers surround me,
People I meet, the effect upon me of my early life or the ward and city I live in, or the nation,
The latest dates, discoveries, inventions, societies, authors old and new,
My dinner, dress, associates, looks, compliments, dues,
The real or fancied indifference of some man or woman I love,
The sickness of one of my folks or of myself, or ill-doing or loss or lack of money, or depressions or exaltations,
Battles, the horrors of fratricidal war, the fever of doubtful news, the fitful events;
These come to me days and nights and go from me again,
But they are not the Me myself.

Apart from the pulling and hauling stands what I am,
Stands amused, complacent, compassionating, idle, unitary,
Looks down, is erect, or bends an arm on an impalpable certain rest,
Looking with side-curved head curious what will come next,
Both in and out of the game and watching and wondering at it.

I believe in you my soul, the other I am must not abase itself to you,
And you must not be abased to the other [3].

The "Song of Myself," in its entirety (which I strongly encourage all to read), is an ode to the human self and a celebration of the human self (something most Christians would presumably consider "evil," as the poet is worshiping himself instead of their God; this observation is peripheral to the point at hand, but will become important later). For the sake of the present argument, let us assume that when Whitman writes "I believe in you my soul," he is referring to a spiritual belief in a supernatural soul, and that such is what he is describing. Even while making a reference to such a belief, at least on the surface, Whitman nevertheless makes it unambiguously clear that even given his affirmation of whatever it is he is calling his "soul," he presents this affirmation in egalitarian proportion to his physical aspects. That is, he portrays his physical self as no less acceptable, no less celebratory, and no less a part of him than whatever else he is or may be. He is declaring that whatever aspects of him exist are all aspects that are worthy of celebration, not condemnation. In Whitman's mind, even if the soul exists, it is neither better nor worse than his physical existence, a sentiment expressed in the line "the other I am must not abase itself to you, And you must not be abased to the other."

This is the philosophical area in which redemptive religion utterly fails in terms of fulfilling human lives. Redemptive religion does insist on an abasement of the human condition, and even an abasement of mere human existence. Redemptive religion teaches that we as human beings cannot achieve, cannot be good, and cannot be worthwhile without first valuing the immaterial aspect of oneself that is alleged to be superior than the physical aspect. According to the doctrines of redemptive religion, the immaterial aspect of the person is so superior to the physical person that it is the only aspect worthy of enduring forever. And according to the religionists, it is in fact the physical nature of humans that condemns them on whatever level and to whatever degree is required for a redemptive religion to make sense.

The writings of William Shakespeare are, of course, not to be overlooked by those engaged in purveying themes of beauty in literature that have transcended the ages. There is such a large number of beautiful texts by Shakespeare that it is difficult to make a selection from them to share as examples in a single essay. However, the following quotation, which comes from an individual writing about Shakespeare, is a sufficient capsule summary of the power of Shakespeare. The article in which it appears is relevant to our discussion, for the author in the end appears to fall for the kind of dualistic dichotomy of human nature that Walt Whitman, for example, sought successfully to avoid:
In the class of literature we have here described, Shakespeare's dramas stand supreme. They are not religious works. They are not Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu Scriptures. They are what we call secular dramas, worldly plays if you like. But so transcendent is their beauty and so luminous is their internal content, that they have held countless millions enthralled during their uninterrupted performance on the world's stages ever since their first appearance over three hundred and fifty years ago [4].

Thus far, the author gives inspiring testament to the talent of an excellent human writer. Note, however, what this writer goes on to say:
People see and read the plays for pleasure and pastime. In doing so they expose themselves to a magic that, by its very nature, works upon their inner being, imparting to it basic patterns of the good and the true and the beautiful, charging it with impulses that propel it upward on its godward way. The magical influence which they so exercise derives from that element which flowed into them from super-human levels. These elements are purely spiritual. It is their presence in the dramas that truly makes of Shakespeare's plays humanity's Lay Bible.

This conclusion strikes me as a slap in the face to what the writer just credited Shakespeare with in the selfsame paragraph. To suggest that Shakespeare was only capable of writing what he did because of his spiritual aspect, or that we are only capable of appreciating his works because of his spiritual aspect, is utterly wrong and constitutes an affront to humanity's artistic achievements. Yet this is a common tactic; when all else fails in the attempt to demonstrate that something good has a religious origin, those who argue along these lines can always fall back on the notion that when something is ubiquitously recognized as good, whether it be the St. Paul's view on love, Walt Whitman or Shakespeare, it is proved that it is religious in nature. A similar tendency to axiomatically equate what is good with what is religious is seen in the religionists' common response to secularists who point out the exceedingly large number of atheists who have done good things for society that make lasting differences and impact peoples' lives for the better. Their response is almost always that this only shows that these atheists "have morality written on their hearts by God."

The Christian message of redemptive religion, in essence, is that as a human being, there is something so wrong with you that you require redemption. While the details differ across denominations, this redemption is generally redemption from a state of being that is in some way separated from God, whether that be eternal hellfire or total annihilation. According to orthodox Christianity, the way to be reconciled to God is through being redeemed, which is achieved by the death of Jesus Christ. This doctrine has its roots in rituals described in the Old Testament which involved sacrificing a spotless lamb to the deity Yahweh. In the Christian New Testament, the spotless lamb is represented by the character of Jesus Christ, who was literally executed as a human sacrifice to atone for the sins of humanity. These sins apparently were - and continue to be - so heinous that they required execution as the price to be paid for their absolvement.

One of the most vivid descriptions of just how despicable humanity is in the eyes of the Christian God is seen in Jonathan Edwards' sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Edwards, an eighteenth-century American theologian, writes at considerable length in this sermon about how vile and contemptible all humans are in their sins, likening humanity to loathsome insects being held over a fire:
The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell [5].

For Christians who are orthodox in their theology, there is no way to argue that a death was required as the price of redemption for your failings, and then proceed to claim that your failings are minor. If one accepts the idea that Jesus died for our sins, and that the death represented perfect justice, one is compelled to also accept that the penalty prescribed for whatever is flawed and wrong with people is a murderous human sacrifice. Christianity demands an acceptance that human sacrifice is the just price to compensate for the worthlessness of humanity. The upshot of the whole grisly theological scenario is said to be that Jesus Christ came back from the dead after his execution, and that this was a demonstration that believers in Christ will also resurrect from their death and live again just as Christ did at his resurrection. But this has nothing to do with the fact that, according to Christianity, the payment price for the sins of humanity is a human sacrifice. Within Christianity, the idea that we can do anything to redeem ourselves is absolutely eviscerated. There is nothing we are capable of that can possibly redeem us. For if there was a way to redeem ourselves through our own efforts, Jesus would not have been demanded as sacrifice. The price of redemption is negated if it is possible for a person to ever be worthy of not being separated from God eternally. Whether the specific denominational doctrine dictates total annihilation or eternal life in torment, you are said to deserve whatever constitutes the bad side of entering the afterlife. Furthermore, you are powerless to effect anything that will change that undeserving condition. Only the execution that Jesus suffered satisfies the arbitrary price that Yahweh concocted to pay himself off. In essence, Yahweh is represented in Christianity as insisting that he will accept us with him in the heavenly abode for eternity only if somebody will kill somebody, a sacrifice that must be a perfect, sinless person.

Now, Beloved, Let Us Turn to Our Hymnals . . .

The foregoing discussion was pursuant to explaining the Christian doctrine of redemption, such that the hymns to be considered in the rest of this essay make sense. These hymns are in some ways symbolic, yet it should be understood that even in their symbolism, they are referring to an actual execution. The blood that is referenced in these hymns is literal blood according to the mindset of the Christian. What the faithful sing about every Sunday morning is not symbolic blood; it is the blood of an executed man killed as a human sacrifice to atone for how worthless and despicable people are.

1) "Are You Washed in the Blood?" ~ written and composed by Elisha A. Hoffman in 1878:

Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing pow'r?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

CHORUS
Are you washed in the blood,
In the soul-cleansing blood of the Lamb?
Are your garments spotless? Are they white as snow?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?


This invitational song is one that is often sung at the end of the church service as a way of encouraging emotionally-charged conversion and baptism. The "Lamb" is a reference to the altar sacrifices described in the Old Testament. The song uses the imagery of a lamb sacrifice as a metaphor, but it is referring to a human sacrifice that they do believe literally occurred and was justified.

2) "There is Power in the Blood" ~ written and composed by Lewis E. Jones in 1899:

Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood.
Would you o’er evil a victory win?
There’s wonderful power in the blood.

CHORUS
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb.
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.

Would you be whiter, much whiter than snow?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood.
Sin stains are lost in its life giving flow.
There’s wonderful power in the blood.


The first line asks the listener/reader if he or she wants to get rid of sin. The second line is a reflection of the Christian belief that Jesus' death redeems one from that sin. The third and fourth lines tell us that if you want to win over the evil forces plaguing your life, appealing to this human sacrifice is a good course to venture into. The "good" is the redemptive human sacrifice. And when the hymn states that "Sin stains are lost in its life giving flow," a flow of literal blood is being referred to. Coming just short of raising images of gushes of blood, the hymn is speaking of blood that was shed on a crucifix from a human sacrifice. I humbly suggest that this is insanity! I can even conceive of a comedy bit crassly satirizing the ideas presented in this and similar hymns, perhaps in the vein of Mitchell and Webb, in which a Christian arrives in heaven only to find himself being welcomed with huge buckets of blood and approached with invitations to dive in and bathe.

3) "Not All the Blood of Beasts" ~ written by Isaac Watts in 1709:

Not all the blood of beasts
On Jewish altars slain
Could give the guilty conscience peace
Or wash away the stain.

But Christ, the heav’nly Lamb,
Takes all our sins away;
A sacrifice of nobler name
And richer blood than they.

Believing, we rejoice
To see the curse remove;
We bless the Lamb with cheerful voice,
And sing His bleeding love.


If you are a Christian, you will immediately understand the meaning of this hymn's title, which makes reference to the belief that all the sacrifices of animals in the Old Testament system were not sufficient for absolvement of sins, which is why Jesus was required to be killed as a sacrifice instead. Notice that this hymn throws words and phrases such as "love" and "bless with cheerful voice" into the mix. This is to suggest that the human sacrifice that is required to make redemption possible is supposedly a gesture of love and a cause of rejoicing. This is what even young children are taught.

4) "Nothing But the Blood" ~ written and composed by Robert Lowry in 1876:

Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

This is all my hope and peace,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.


This hymn heavily alludes to the theological issues raised earlier in this essay concerning the doctrine that there is nothing any person can do on their own to effect salvation. As irredeemable creatures, there is nothing we can do to redeem ourself. As discussed above, this doctrine is one that strikes me as a singularly degrading vision of humanity and displays a contempt of human goodness. The last four lines in the hymn as quoted conveys the idea that all human righteousness, including anything good that you or I possibly can be, is relegated to the blood of a brutally-executed human sacrifice. One can hardly conceive of a more morally-bankrupt way of thinking.

5) "Just As I Am, Without One Plea" ~ written by Charlotte Elliott in 1834:

Just as I am, without one plea
But that thy blood was shed for me,
And that thou bidst me come to thee,
O Lamb of God, I come! I come!

Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come! I come!

Just as I am, though tossed about
With many a conflict, many a doubt,
Fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come! I come!


It is interesting to note that the last quoted verse of this hymn acknowledges doubt, only to say that experiencing trouble in believing or being conflicted is a trivial matter. The doubter is encouraged to simply push the doubt aside, to disregard it and continue pushing toward simple acceptance. It seems there is no scarcity of Christian literature devoted to addressing doubts, and this is quite telling. The reason there is so much doubt among thinking Christians that occasions such literature is simple: Christianity is actually fairly hard to seriously believe.

6) "Whiter Than Snow" ~ written by James L. Nicholson in 1872:

Lord Jesus, let nothing unholy remain,
Apply Thine own blood and extract every stain;
To get this blest cleansing, I all things forego—
Now wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Lord Jesus, look down from Thy throne in the skies,
And help me to make a complete sacrifice;
I give up myself, and whatever I know—
Now wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Lord Jesus, for this I most humbly entreat,
I wait, blessed Lord, at Thy crucified feet,
By faith for my cleansing, I see thy blood flow—
Now wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.


The middle verse of this hymn is included here as a fitting and direct response to people who invoke any form of Pascal's Wager as an argument for Christianity (a wager, by the way, that works for literally any religion or belief system that involves a threat of horrible proportions for unbelief). According to one facet of this wager, if you believe and you come to the end of life being wrong about that belief, you will not have given up or lost anything. Nicholson's hymn gives the lie to this notion, for as the hymn puts it, Christianity is "a complete sacrifice; I give up myself, and whatever I know—." According to this message, giving up one's entire life is integral and indispensable to believing in Christianity. One does not give up nothing if he or she ends up being wrong; everything is given up in the process of belief.

7) "Saved by the Blood" ~ written by Fanny Crosby in 1875 (not to be confused with S.J. Henderson's 1902 hymn of the same title):

We’re saved by the blood
That was drawn from the side
Of Jesus our Lord,
When He languished and died.

CHORUS
Hallelujah to God,
For redemption so free;
Hallelujah, hallelujah,
Dear Savior, to Thee.

That blood is a fount
Where the vilest may go
And wash till their souls
Shall be whiter than snow.


In this hymn, Crosby speaks of redemption as being "so free." The glaring problem with this is that someone died a brutal death, through blood "drawn from the side" like a "fount." That is anything but free.

8) "Amazing Grace" ~ written by John Newton in 1779:

Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That sav'd a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears reliev'd;
How precious did that grace appear,
The hour I first believ'd!

Thro' many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
'Tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.


"Amazing Grace" is a hymn that is of particular interest in our overview. Many people familiar with the cultural atmosphere a religious community tend not to recall any elements that are particularly degrading in the hymn. This is likely because "Amazing Grace" is perhaps the most famous Christian hymn of all time. Being performed tens of millions of times annually as it is, the philosophy embedded in the song can easily become obscured by its traditional familiarity. Another reason this hymn is important to consider is because many people are often under the impression that hymns replete with barbarism, blood and contempt for humanity are not popular or representatively selected among many religious communities. "Amazing Grace" is the counter-argument to this perception, for it is an extremely popular tune. One would be hard-pressed to find anyone, religiously or secularly persuaded, who is not familiar with the song.

The history of modern interpretation surrounding this hymn is of particular interest, in that many modern groups who perform this song have struck out the word "wretch" and replaced it with a variety of other words that come off as less harsh in their estimation of humanity. Such replacement is completely contrary to the intention of the song, for the "wretch" is practically its entire focus. I have encountered several such versions of "Amazing Grace" that strike out the word "wretch," and can testify that while the striking out of the word diminishes its demeaning message, both the power and logic of the song as a whole is diminished as well. Catholic poet and essayist Kathleen Norris criticizes such revisions well by pointing out that "the bowdlerization of the text that results is thoroughly wretched English, and also laughably bland, which, taken together, is not an inconsiderable accomplishment" [6]. The bowdlerization of hymns turns up elsewhere as well. For instance, "Battle Hymn of the Republic," written by Julia Ward Howe in 1861, contains a verse that reads "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free." Some modern versions have modified that particular verse to read "As he died to make all holy, let us live to make all free." This modification effectively whitewashes the fact that "Battle Hymn of the Republic" is a war song whose contextual inspiration was the American Civil War.

These are good examples of people trying valiantly to pretend that these songs really do not say that which they really do say. More significantly, we also see in these modifications a pretense concerning doctrinal undertones. It is not as if using the word "wretch" distorts the doctrine that the hymn purports to represent and convey. On the contrary, the word "wretch" reflects the doctrine quite robustly. If an execution is required to compensate for what you committed and for your shortcomings, you must have extremely bad character traits. In this doctrinal scenario, you did not carry out something slightly wayward. You are manifestly evil to the core of your being. If one accepts the redemptive doctrine ascribed to the death and resurrection of Jesus, then a rejection of the word "wretch" is conspicuously inconsistent. The author of the hymn "Amazing Grace" is literally its defining context. John Newton (1725-1807) was a slave trader who experienced a violent, life-threatening storm aboard one of his slave ships in 1748 at the age of twenty-two. This storm resulted in the ship filling with water and beginning to sink, and also resulted in Newton's conversion to Christianity. He then wrote "Amazing Grace" with this experience in mind, as a reflection on what a terrible person he was and his amazement at being spared death. The hymn emphasizes the wickedness of the poet in dramatic contrast to the undeserved grace he received, and it is this contrast that gives the hymn its powerful meaning. The reality is that in order to believe that a bloody human sacrifice is a justifiable divine response to your life, you must necessarily believe that you are a wretched being, a "loathsome insect" as Edwards would have it.

9) "Alas! And Did My Savior Bleed?" ~ written by Isaac Watts in 1707:

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For sinners such as I?
[originally, For such a worm as I?]

CHORUS
At the cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away,
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day!

Thy body slain, sweet Jesus, Thine—
And bathed in its own blood—
While the firm mark of wrath divine,
His Soul in anguish stood.

Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!

Well might the sun in darkness hide
And shut his glories in,
When Christ, the mighty Maker died,
For man the creature’s sin.


In the history of modern interpretations and version of this hymn, we find instances of lyrical bowdlerization similar to those seen in hymns such as "Amazing Grace" and "Battle Hymn of the Republic." Many people apparently do not appreciate the negative implications inherent in how the singer is asked to self-reference. This offending line originally came at the end of the first verse: "For such a worm as I." This phrase has been changed to "For sinners such as I," amd this revision now appears in most in-print hymnals and on most websites on which the lyrics are posted. On his website, Christian educator and columnist Keith Drury wrote an article not only seeking to explain and defend this revision, but also to condemn those few people in his congregation who prefer to keep the "worm" line as people with negative attitudes and poor self-esteem. He writes:
The rest of us just sing louder and drown out these sour notes. There are far more choir members singing songs of self-esteem than Reformers singing songs of total depravity. Since we’ve already rejected their “worm theology” we just ignore their warnings. We continue to preach a happy face doctrine of self esteem. People to like it. Which is why so many last Sunday changed the lyrics of Amazing Grace." We might think John Newton was a wretches [sic] and worm, but not us, thank you very much. We’re far better than that [7].

There is even a point early in his short article where Drury remarks "To be quite honest we don’t believe we were ever wretches—even before getting saved. Basically we think of ourselves as fairly nice people who became Christians and added meaning to our lives." But if Christian ministers such as Drury understand and accept what they are teaching as far as the Christian doctrine of redemption, they are in no position to deny that they and everyone else are worthy of execution. It is of course very amusing that some will sing about worms and some will sing about sinners (even in the same congregation), while both sides believe themselves to be better than the other. But what is truly amusing is that a congregation can reject a self-reference to "worm" or "wretch" and change it accordingly, but then continue to consider the redemptive meaning of the song to be intact.

"Was it for crimes that I had done / He groaned upon the tree?" This line is asking a powerful rhetorical question: Was it for me that he died, because of the crimes I committed? The answer to this is a resounding yes. According to Christian doctrine, an execution is required to pay for the acts of each and every person. The Christian cannot turn around and offer "But I was a good person." Good people do not need to be executed! Drury commits this error when he and his congregation sing of the blood of redemption and of Jesus' death freeing them from their sins, but then proceeds to state that "We might think John Newton was a [wretch] and worm, but not us, thank you very much. We’re far better than that." How can they claim that it would be justice for somebody to be brutally executed on their behalf, for their wrongdoings, and then turn around and state that they are primarily concerned with self-esteem above all? They are not crusaders of self-esteem, they are crusaders of total confusion. They do not make any sense.

The Sunday worshiper who self-references as a wretch and as a worm makes much more sense than people like Drury, for one who self-references as a wretch and a worm understands the doctrine. How much clearer do matters have to be laid out doctrinally than "When Christ, the might Maker died / For man the creature's sin"? Encapsulated in this hymn and the other hymns we have considered in this treatise is a twisted and demeaning philosophy that advocates scapegoating in lieu of personal responsibility for one's own actions. These hymns and the thousands of others that Christianity has inspired present us with a view of humanity that is utterly demeaning and degrading, a view designed to instill guilt and fear in people. And where guilt and fear are the tactics used to keep any system afloat, there is a sure indication that such a system should be discarded, and that a brighter vision of humanity's potential should be pursued.

NOTES

1. Brandon Heath, "Love Never Fails," from What If We (Reunion, 2008). This song can be heard online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2HMuADj5mA (accessed 14 May 2010).

2. Not everything I say throughout this treatise will be qualified fully. But here I should take the time to say at the outset the obvious fact that not all Christians believe the same way. I understand Christians hold different views concerning the inspiration of Scripture, and I am not describing all Christians when I speak of this belief or the others I discuss.

3. Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass: Inclusive Edition, ed. Emory Holloway (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1926).

4. Rosicrucian Fellowship International Headquarters, "Shakespeare -- The Lay Bible," http://www.rosicrucian.com/zineen/pamen041.htm (accessed 14 May 2010).

5. Jonathan Edwards (1741), "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," in Jonathan Edwards: Representative Selections, with Introduction, Bibliography, and Notes Revised Edition, ed. Clarence H. Faust and Thomas H. Johnson (New York: Hill and Wang, 1962), pp. 164-165.

6. Kathleen Norris, Amazing Grace: A Vocabulary of Faith (New York: Riverhead Books, 1998), p. 166.

7. Keith Drury, "Saving Wretches Like You: Of Wretches and Worms," TuesdayColumn.com 30 Jan. 2007, http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/wretch.worm.htm (accessed 14 May 2010).