Issue #177-Letters on: Church/State, Jesus vs. Pau

Biblical Errancy Issue #177-Letters on: Church/State, Jesus vs. Paul, Why I do It, Reader Proposes Anti-Religious Cartoons Like Jack Chicks, Actual Religious Bloopers, Students Religious Bloopers

Nov 10, '08 3:04 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #177 September 1997, Editor: Dennis McKinsey



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY

This months issue will focus on letters from our readers.


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #743 from NB of Tucson, Arizona

Regarding your comments on the final part of my letter #690 in BE #166, I have a few (a very few) comments:.... Second, you refer to countries where freedom from religion doesn't exist, although interestingly, the three countries you specify happen to be Muslim countries. You made no mention, for example, of the Republic of Ireland, where the Roman Catholic Church functions as a "fourth branch" of the government, and where abortion is still illegal and until recently divorce was illegal; or Northern Ireland, where Protestants have been oppressing Catholics for decades, or even Mexico, where the President and Vice President must belong to the Roman Catholic Church.

You may be too young to remember it, but I remember only too well when the words "under God" were interpolated into the Pledge of Allegiance--Congress did that in 1954, at the height of Sen. Joe McCarthy's reign of Terror. "In God We Trust" got on our coins because a Protestant minister in 1861 (when the Union forces were losing early battles of the Civil War) wrote to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase suggesting that there be some sort of acknowledgment of Almighty God on our coins. A year later Chase ordered a phrase slightly modified from the fourth stanza of the "Star Spangled Banner" (which didn't become the national anthem until 1931): "In God We Trust" was put on coins to be issued in 1864. Legend has it that Chase, who was deeply suspicious of President Lincoln, chose that phrase to imply that in Lincoln he did not trust. In any case, coins with that phrase did appear in 1864, and from time to time after that. In 1902, President Teddy Roosevelt asked Congress to take them off our coins for good, but Congress told T.R. to stuff it. Finally in 1955, just after Joe McCarthy's fall, Congress ordered In God We Trust to be on all future coins and currency.

You may not be aware that until 1914 the "Establishment of Religion" clause of the First Amendment was construed to apply to Congress, not the states, and until the 1820s several states, including Connecticut and Virginia, did have "state churches" and believers and nonbelievers alike were required to pay taxes to support them. In 1914, the Supreme court held that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the same restrictions to the states as the Bill of Rights applies to Congress. This ended the concept of "state churches", but hardly ended the controversy, as witness the so-called "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", which is now being challenged in the Supreme Court, the case before the Court concerning whether or not a Roman Catholic Church can build an "extension" into an area zoned for commerce.

Finally, you refer to my "gratuitous" observation that the only dissenter in the Tennessee State resolution was a Jew. In my Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "gratuitous" is defined as "given, bestowed, or obtained without charge or payment; free, voluntary; being without apparent reason, cause, or justification: a gratuitous insult." I assume that it is the latter definition to which you refer; but there was a palpable reason; Tennessee (where I did a lot of my growing up) is in the heart of the "Bible Belt", where all non-Christians are viewed as "strange", so it took quite a bit of courage for a Jew to vote against posting part of the law of Moses. Anyway, you say that you couldn't help but draw a "subtle suspicion", from that reference, without specifying what that suspicion was. I assure you that I am not Jewish, if that is what you meant, nor am I a fundamentalist, nor am I a "biblicist", if by that you mean that think that the Bible is literal, inert truth. often disagree with your interpretations of the Bible, but it can hardly be said that you haven't had "a fair and impartial hearing".

Editors Response to Letter #743

Dear NB. Although you are focusing on essentially extra biblical information, a few comments are in order.

First, I focused on Muslim countries because their intolerance shows religion at its worse and many countries in which Islam dominates are considerably more oppressive than Christian nations like Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Mexico, although it is more a matter of degree than kind.

Second, I assume your history lesson is as accurate as it is interesting.

And finally, in so far as my reference to the word "gratuitous" is concerned, I tend to suspect anti-Semitism when I see a Jew or Jews being singled out in what could be construed as a negative or critical manner. Apparently that was not the intent of your letter judging by your comment that it took quite a bit of courage for a Jew to vote against posting part of the law of Moses. That is not the kind of comment that would normally be associated with an anti-Semite and for that you are to be complimented rather than faulted. Your motives were ambiguous and for that reason I made no direct accusation.

Letter #744 from PW via Email (Part a)

(I pondered for some time whether or not the following email exchange should even be included in a reputable publication in light of the fact that more acidity than sagacity was created. It is indicative of the kind of dialogues that occasionally occur on the Internet and the depths to which conversations can descend and ego tripping can supplant intelligent discourse--Ed.)

Dear Mr. McKinsey, First of all, note that it is I who am browsing, not my software. The reaction comes from me, not from Netscape Navigator. You have no reason to trust me, nor to take my opinion as meaningful. As far as you're concerned, I'm just another 'net bum'. Yet I offer you this: I've just browsed a couple of your articles regarding the character of Jesus and of Paul, and have to say that I haven't seen a more confused analysis of the scriptures since I first encountered Mormon missionaries. In the dozen or more complaints about Jesus and Paul which I read, I found perhaps only one question which even raised an eyebrow; the rest were simply nonsense. I'm disappointed. Usually, when I read the questions bright atheists or agnostics pose, I find a few which stimulate my thinking, some reasonable observation which leads me to seek new light on some theological topic. I found nothing of this sort in your writing. Bummer.

Editors Response to Letter #744 (Part a)

You might be interested in knowing that I am wholly unimpressed with your criticisms, since they are so obviously lacking in specifics and clearly wedded to glittering generalities. Like so many Christian apologists you employ the nebulous to fool the credulous. Since you proved nothing whatever, there is no reason for me to even move an eyebrow much less raise one.

You say, "You have no reason to trust me, nor to take my opinion as meaningful" and with that I could not agree more. With an analysis as anemic as yours, one would hardly be reasonable to proceed any other way.

You refer to yourself as "just another 'net bum.'" I don't know about the "net" aspect but I have every reason to accept the rest. For someone so unwilling to discuss specifics and apparently unable to present a case, to use the word "nonsense" in regard to those of the opposite persuasion is the height of duplicity, not to mention ideological irrelevance and impotence.

Letter #744 Continues (Part b)

I am impressed, however, with the sheer volume of your writings. You clearly take religion seriously if it absorbs so much of your physical and emotional energy. I wonder if you know why you spend so much energy refuting something you consider worthless.

Editors Response to Letter #744 (Part b)

Because it needs to be done, that's why! That should be obvious to anyone who has not been indoctrinated, if not brainwashed, from infancy. If you had read all of my issues as well as my book, you would not have asked such an inane question.

Letter #744 Continues (Part c)

I don't for a second buy your explanation that the topic is unbalanced. Christian pulpits and seminaries are full of men and women who detract from the veracity of the Bible, the historicity of Jesus and the integrity of Paul and the other apostles. One needs to choose carefully to find a corner of Christianity in which these things are NOT defamed.

Editors Response to Letter #744 (Part c)

You don't watch TV or listen to the radio very much do you. You appear to be completely oblivious to the influence of the religious right in this country and the amount of one-sided propaganda that is being disseminated throughout the land to influence the masses. For every one who mirrors your description, hundreds do not. I assume you are some kind of latter-day pseudo-intellectual troglodyte.

And if you had bothered to read all of my issues you would know that they concentrate on biblical inerrancy and fundamentalism. I don't think you even managed to read the title of the publication, let alone the sub caption.

I am going to do you the favor of forgetting that you even made a statement so ignorant as, "I don't for a second buy your explanation that the topic is unbalanced." When is the last time you heard someone on the national or local media make the kinds of statements found in this publication? In fact, I'm tempted to go even further and not let others know you uttered a comment that detached from reality. But, alas, my conscience, convictions, clarity, and clobber-them-as-necessary commitments won't let me.

Letter #744 Continues (Part d)

You've got some other agenda cooking, probably somewhere in your past. Do you know what it is?

Editors Response to Letter #744 (Part d)

Yes, indeed; it is called the "Let sanity reign" agenda.

Letter #744 Continues (Part e)

In response, it would be perfectly legitimate for you to ask why I should take the time to tell you I don't find your writing helpful. I don't know the answer, but am considering the question.

In case you're interested in whom it is that chides you, I'm a 42-year-old Jewish American male who believed the gospel at the age of 19. I have a graduate degree in business. I've studied the scriptures and theology seriously, for a layman. I describe myself as "an Evangelical with footnotes," because there are several positions held by Evangelicals which I don't believe hold water, strict inerrancy among them. My IQ is high but falls short of genius; however, I scored in the 99th percentile in analytical reasoning on the GRE. I know soundly reasoned analysis when I read it. Yours ain't.

Editors Response to Letter #744 (Part e)

Is all of this supposed to impress me? It don't. Nor does your evolution toward mental decrepitude. Adolph Hitler had a high IQ too and you can see where that got us and what he did to millions. Unless you have some concrete and specific facts to not only present but prove, please don't clutter up my computer screen again with your drivel. There is none so deaf as he who won't hear and you're a quintessential example of same. Come back when you are more qualified, more researched, and more willing to provide details. Right now about all you are capable of doing is regurgitating the excrement you swallowed from childhood.

Letter #744 Concludes (Part f)

( PW ended his attack with the following vacuous quotation--Ed.).

They are asleep; and in their dreams they have made alarm clocks illegal.

Editors Concluding Response to Letter #744 (Part f)

P.S. Your concluding quote is about as coherent and relevant as your entire monologue. If that is the best you can do, then you are in even worse shape than I thought. You need help my friend.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #745 via email from KL

Dear Mr. McKinsey,

I recently came across the web site for your Biblical Errancy newsletters. I downloaded many of the issues and have been browsing them off-line.

I want to congratulate you for the amazing work that you've done. I myself, in relation to a project have been working on, started over a year ago to research and seek out those inconsistencies and factual errors in the Bible that I'd always heard existed. But after spending perhaps 50 or 100 hours on the project--quite fruitful, but tedious-- I thought to myself that surely someone has done all this work before and was simply duplicating labor unnecessarily. So off to the library I went. But even there it was not easy to find a book dedicated to the type of Biblical research I was looking for. And so to the Internet I went where I found your newsletters. I have also since then discovered that Prometheus Books published your Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, which I have not been able to find anywhere (Just contact me--Ed.) and presume is a compendium of the high points of your newsletters.

I will come out right here at the beginning and say that I am most definitely NOT a Christian, and though I am genetically and culturally Jewish I believe that monotheism in general is one of the greatest tragedies ever to befall mankind. Of the three main branches of monotheism, I'd say that Christianity and Islam are equally heinous, drenched as they are in intolerance, ignorance and blood. Judaism, though it is the parent religion of the other two, is far less noxious because it is not evangelical and has no desire to convert everyone in the world to its beliefs. True, the Jews of the Old Testament waged war and slaughtered their neighbors, but if truth be told they were no worse in their behavior than most ethnic, religious or national groups of that period. Nor was their self-righteous belief system any more extreme than that of other ancient peoples.

The reason I am writing to you is this: I am working on producing a series of anti-propagandistic cartoon booklets, very similar in style to Chick Publications' which are Christian right-wing brainwash tracts (which I'm sure you're familiar with). But instead I will be presenting a sane point of view, that of a rational, humanity-centered realism. The reason I am doing this is that the vast majority of humanist/rationalist knowledge and debunking literature out there is targeted toward intellectuals and already-confirmed nonbelievers. My proposed booklets are meant to be handed out or sent to Christians, especially those who desperately need some enlightenment. (Priests and ministers long ago learned that "preaching to the choir" is ineffectual in winning new converts, and that if one wants to get across one's viewpoint it is best to present it to people who don't already hold one's belief system.)

Some aggressive or inquisitive Christians do read publications like The Biblical Errancy Newsletter or books from the Prometheus catalog, if only at least to get a peek into the enemy's camp. But the truth is, your average American Christian would rather chew glass than expend intellectual effort reading anything antithetical to his beliefs. Most Christians (and most Americans) are semiliterate, uninquisitive, and have absolutely no interest in seeking out any upsetting information. Most Christians have surrounded themselves with a cocoon of brain-numbing Christian propaganda--television, radio, books, magazines, friends, community--and will never even encounter the kind of information presented in Biblical Errancy. They don't argue with you because they don't know you exist, and they never will.

We need to reach these pathetic, deluded people and bring them back in the fold of humanity. But we will not reach them with highfalutin intellectual treatises that require thought on the part of the reader. They've been brainwashed and we need to unbrainwash them.

Consider these very informative quotes from the Chick Publications catalog and web site:

"'This Was Your Life' (the first Chick cartoon tract) was converted to booklet form after Bob Hammond, missionary broadcaster of 'The Voice of China and Asia,' told Chick that the multitudes of Chinese were won to communism through cartoon booklets. Jack Chick decided to try to use the same technique to win souls for Christ."

Very interesting! The ubiquitous Christian evangelical tracts are in fact consciously emulating a successful communist educational device. If the Christians can steal an idea from the communists, we can steal the same idea from the Christians. It must work, or it wouldn't be worth stealing.

"Before you can share the gospel with someone, you must first get their attention. The world knows how to get and hold people's attention...with pictures--television, movies, videos, comics, etc. Chick tracts use the same technique, using irresistible cartoon pictures to grab the reader's attention. Nobody, young or old, can resist cartoons."

These Chick people are not as ignorant as they seem. Many studies have indeed proven that visual images draw attention more quickly and leave a stronger impression than words alone.

Once attracted by the cartoon, people are drawn into Chick tracts by the interesting real-life or dramatic stories. The combination of dramatic stories and cartoons make Chick tracts irresistible. Many Christians who were discouraged because their wordy tracts were rejected or thrown on the ground have been thrilled to see how readily people accept Chick tracts. The devil doesn't mind it when Christians hand out gospel tracts...just as long as nobody reads them. But when Chick tracts are distributed, he blows a fuse, because he knows that nobody can resist them. Chick tracts GET READ!"

If wordy Christian tracts get thrown on the ground, you can imagine what happens to wordier, anti-Christian books: they don't even get picked up in the first place!

"Once hooked by the cartoons and drawn in by the dramatic stories, readers soon learn that woven into each story is a basic gospel message, presented in a way that anyone can understand. No deep theological concepts, no confusion, just a simple gospel message, showing that everyone must be born again through faith in Jesus Christ."

Tempted as I am to do otherwise, I plan to emulate the successful Chick formula here: keep the message of the cartoon booklets as simple as possible. This of course will be a much more difficult task, since Christianity offers a simplified, irrational quick-fix "solution" to complicated real-life problems; whereas the real way to fix society's ills involves deep thought, hard work, and coordinated effort - not a concept that can be easily summarized in a meaningless catch-phrase or in a cartoon picture.

"From a humble beginning on Jack Chick's kitchen table over 35 years ago, Chick Publications has grown to an international ministry, providing soul winners with illustrated gospel literature, including English Chick Tracts, Spanish Chick Tracts, and Chick Tracts in over 60 other languages. Over 400 million have been sold."

Think about it: 400 million Christian propaganda booklets. That's probably more than the sum total of all the book sales of all the humanist, atheist and rationalist publishers in the world this century. And Chick Publications is only one of dozens of Christian companies putting out these booklets. We're fighting a flood of ignorance with a single sandbag of truth.

The time has come to give the Christians a dose of their own medicine. In the last decade, Christian political activists have co-opted and consciously imitated the social protest techniques pioneered by liberals in the '60s: boycotts, nonviolent picketing, letter-writing campaigns, grassroots organizing. And they've used these techniques to great effect. It's sweet justice to turn the tables on the Christians by co-opting one of their most successful evangelical techniques and using it against them.

I am working with an extremely talented cartoonist whose eye-catching style is perfect for propaganda. I won't go so far as to send you a mockup script for one of the tracts because I don't want to inundate you with information. Besides, I haven't finished writing them yet. But I will say that I am putting a great deal of thought into how to make them the most effective, primarily by debunking fundamentalist Christian claims and showing how rational thought, not blind faith, will solve both the readers' individual problems and society's problems at large.

I am writing to you for two reasons: first to get your overall opinion of this booklet idea--whether or not you think it's a worthwhile project to pursue; second to ask if you have any suggestions as to whom I should approach with the proposal. I don't want to do all the publishing myself - too much of a hassle! I'd like to work with an outside publisher, organization, or interested group, but I don't have the slightest idea where to begin. You've been involved in debunking Christian claims for a long time, and so you know the field much better than me. To whom should propose this idea?

Thanks for your time. You can add me to your list of admirers!

Editors Response to Letter #745

Your idea is interesting and worthy of consideration but I am not sure what kind of cartoons you have in mind. The ideas of rationality and logical thought just don't lend themselves to shocking, jolting, stunning or eye-catching jokes and cartoons. We are more educators than entertainers and for that reason our material is not really conducive to what you are trying to do. I think you exposed the inherent weakness in your own approach when you said, "This of course will be a much more difficult task, since Christianity offers a simplified, irrational quick-fix solution to complicated real-life problems; whereas the real way to fix society's ills involves deep thought, hard work, and coordinated effort - not a concept that can be easily summarized in a meaningless catch-phrase or in a cartoon picture." Nevertheless, I am certainly willing to read or view anything you have. By all means send me some examples and I will tell you what I think. As far as getting it published is concerned, first and above all, ask yourself: Is it going to make money. That is far and away the greatest concern of publishers and big profits require a big audience. You have to ask yourself: Is this really going to appeal to a mass audience. If your answer is no, then all I can say is, Good Luck. As many books as you have had published, based upon your bio accompanying this letter, you probably know better than I. I have come to the conclusion that the best way to get writings out to a sizable audience is through creation of a web site on the Internet. It is far and away the best hope for the little guy who is more interested in telling people what they ought to hear than what they want to hear, and more concerned with accuracy than popularity, profits, and production. With the NET you can tell it like it is, and that is tremendously attractive. For the first time in my life I have actually been able to reach a large audience without going through a battery of censors and a gauntlet of editors. You don't have to cater to the whims, wishes, and all-encompassing concerns for the bottom line of publishers; you can express your real views without being concerned with who will be alienated; you don't have to worry about printings, mailings, postage, advertising, accounting, and deadlines, and you don't have to pander to the LCD in order to even get a hearing. Above all you don't have to put "Will It Make a Buck" in front of every concept, consideration, and conduct. Except for a very few publishers like Prometheus, most are far more concerned with what sells than that which is accurate, truthful, relevant, and non-escapist.

In any event, please keep me posted regarding how things are turning out. If it works, by all means proceed. But in the current anti-intellectual climate of this nation, thought-provoking, stimulating, challenging literature and conversation is not where the masses are. One need only view the TV talk shows that have replaced Phil Donahue or the news programs of Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw which supplanted the Cronkite era to see that.

Letter #746 via email from JN of Pennsylvania.

(Over the years we have occasionally received religious humor and bloopers from various readers and we've decided to lighten up a little by including some for the first time. Our first list is from JN who sent us some choice morsels and stated--Ed.),

These are ACTUAL announcements from ACTUAL church bulletins:

1. Don't let worry kill you -- let the church help.

2. Thursday night - Potluck supper. Prayer and medication to follow.

3. Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our church and community.

4. For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs.

5. The rosebud on the alter this morning is to announce the birth of David Belzer, the sin of Rev. and Mrs. Julius Belzer.

6. This afternoon there will be a meeting in the South and North ends of the church. Children will be baptized at both ends.

7. Tuesday at 4:00 PM there will be an ice cream social. All ladies giving milk will please come early.

8. Wednesday the ladies liturgy will meet. Mrs. Johnson will sing "Put me in my little bed" accompanied by the pastor.

9. Thursday at 5:00 PM there will be a meeting of the Little Mothers Club. All ladies wishing to be "Little Mothers" will meet with the Pastor in his study.

10. This being Easter Sunday, we will ask Mrs. Lewis to come forward and lay an egg on the altar.

11. The service will close with "Little Drops of Water." One of the ladies will start quietly and the rest of the congregation will join in.

12. Next Sunday a special collection will be taken to defray the cost of the new carpet. All those wishing to do something on the new carpet will come forward and do so.

13. The ladies of the church have cast off clothing of every kind. They can be seen in the church basement Saturday.

14. A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall. Music will follow.

15. At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be "What is Hell?" Come early and listen to our choir practice.

(I have always been hesitant about including this kind of material because of the unintended impression it might convey and the questionable taste in some instances--Ed.)

Letter #747 from Anonymous Donor in Ohio

(An anonymous donor in Ohio sent us the following history of the world according to student bloopers. He obtained it from a teacher in what appears to be a religious school named St. Paul's. The teacher entitled his list The World According to Student Bloopers and prefaced his presentation by saying--Ed),

One of the fringe benefits of being an English or History teacher is receiving the occasional jewel of a student blooper in an essay. I have pasted together the following "history" of the world from certifiably genuine student bloopers collected by teachers throughout the United States, from grade eight through college level. Care has been taken to preserve all the misspellings found in the original document. Read carefully, and you will learn a lot.

(We abbreviated the teachers extended list to include only those quotes pertaining to the Bible, religion, and related material--Ed.)

The inhabitants of Egypt were called mummies.

They lived in the Sarah Dessert and traveled by Camelot.

The climate of the Sarah is such that the inhabitants have to live elsewhere, so certain areas of the dessert are cultivated by irritation.

The Egyptians built the Pyramids in the shape of a huge triangular cube.

The Pramids are a range of mountains between France and Spain.

The Bible is full of interesting caricatures.

In the first book of the Bible, Guinesses, Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree.

One of their children, Cain, asked "Am I my brother's son?"

God asked Abraham to sacrifice Issac on Mount Montezuma.

Jacob, son of Issac, stole his brother's birthmark.

Jacob was a patriarch who brought up his twelve sons to be patriarchs, but they did not take to it.

One of Jacob's sons, Joseph, gave refuse to the Israelites.

Pharaoh forced the Hebrew slaved to make bread without straw.

Moses led them to the Red Sea, where they made unleavened bread, which is bread made without any ingredients.

David was a Hebrew king skilled at playing the liar.

He fougth with the Philatelists, a race of people who lived in biblical times.

Solomon, one of David's sons, had 500 wives and 500 porcupines.

Martin Luther was nailed to the church door at Wittenberg for selling papal indulgences.

He died a horrible death, being excommunicated by a bull.

Gutenberg invented the Bible.

(Some adults actually believe the latter--Ed.).

Editors Response to Letter #747 and its addenda.

The writer of the Student Bloopers said, "Read carefully and you will learn a lot." I am not sure I learned much of anything other than the fact that some students can't spell or write coherently and know little about history or literature. When it comes to knowledge of the Bible specifically, it is hard to determine if that is a plus or minus, although I suspect the former.