An interesting religious conversation took place recently in the letters section of The State News. The discussion, on sin and homosexuality, reminded me of a quote from the brilliant British philosopher Bertrand Russell, "When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue. But when two theologians differ, since there is no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force."
Russell's observation interests me in its recognition of an elemental difference between religious assertions and questions of science and logic. It's relevant because it explains why religious disagreements are rarely resolved.
In science, disagreements are settled on the weight and persuasiveness of objective evidence. When conclusive evidence is obtained, the debate is over. As a result, science gradually progresses from diversity of opinion to consensus.
Religion is just the opposite. Throughout history, religious disagreements have frequently resulted in the deaths of those who questioned the ruling orthodoxy or in church schisms and mutual enmity. Such church splintering has repeatedly transpired, resulting in hundreds of distinct Christian denominations or sects and a wide variety of beliefs. Lacking objective verifiable evidence, religion moves from compulsory consensus to belief anarchy.
Not surprisingly, religious discussions on topics like sin and homosexuality go nowhere. Individuals have differing faith-based views on the proper way to read the Bible and on which passages to emphasize. Conservative Christians point to passages in the Bible unambiguously condemning homosexuality. Some liberal Christians, in contrast, dismiss such condemnations as the product of an ancient and primitive culture; they prefer to emphasize the more loving, caring and inspiring passages in the texts. Neither view can be proven correct.
My initial amusement over the ongoing homosexuality debate changed when I reminded myself that this dispute wasn't merely an absurd and pointless discussion between Christians. Unfortunately, the religious right's success in packing our government with fundamentalist zealots means that questions of faith are increasingly likely to impact people's lives. It's already happened. The religiously motivated fight against equal legal status for gay couples and the opposition to human embryonic stem cell research demonstrates how unsubstantiated personal faith is impacting public policy.
I really don't care what Christians profess to believe, so long as the archaic morality of the Bible and other components of religious faith aren't imposed on our religiously neutral and secular society.
One letter in The State News contained the assertion, "The Bible is perfectly clear in its condemnation of homosexual actions." ("Church often are accepting of LGBT" SN 7/28) True enough, it's also quite clear on a number of other issues. What if society followed other "perfectly clear" Biblical instructions?
Let's have some fun.
The Bible doesn't merely condemn homosexuality, it also provides God's instruction for punishment: "they shall surely be put to death," (Leviticus 20:13). That seems rather clear, what part about "surely be put to death" doesn't everyone understand?
The Bible is also perfectly clear on the appropriate punishment for other offenses. Stubborn and rebellious children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Adulterers? Kill them (Leviticus 20:10). Do I even need to describe what must happen to those who blaspheme God, or work on Sunday, or to women who are not virgins on their wedding night, or betrothed virgins who get raped in a city without crying out for help? The answers: death, death, death and death (Levitcus. 24:16, Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Deuteronomy 22:23-24). What about those who worship a different god or follow the Wiccan religion? Can you guess what must be done to them, or do you need to look that up? Here's a hint; it's not a hug.
By the way ladies, no more epidurals or cesarean sections. Women are supposed to endure the pain of childbirth - it's a curse from God: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Genesis 3:16).
Thankfully, our legal and medical systems aren't based on the "good book."
These absurd ethical standards, and many more, stem from the same ignorance and superstition as the prohibitions against homosexuality. It's a wonder that any modern-thinking person looks to the Bible as a source of morality.
John Bice is an MSU staff member. Reach him at bice@msu.edu.
