Quote Of The Day: Mohammad Owned Black Slaves

I could never understand why any black person could be a Christian, given how the religion was forced onto their African ancestors by their white slave masters. I can certainly see how they would want to leave Christianity, but some black people think Islam is the answer. I've never understood that either, given how Islam had its own African slave trade for centuries. In fact the prophet of Islam himself owned black slaves. It says so right in the Islamic scriptures in the Hadith. Sahih Muslim Book 010, Hadith Number 3901:

Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).

Are black Muslims aware of this? Does those who left Christianity to convert to Islam because they felt Christianity was too much of a white man's religion know that they now swear allegiance to a religion whose founder owned black slaves? Say what you want about Jesus, but he never owned any slaves, certainly not any black ones.

Biblical Slavery For Foreigners Part III: The Micro Argument

I just wrote a lengthy follow up to my original post on biblical slavery for foreigners where I critiqued a popular Christian rebuttal but I realized that I needed a micro version of the argument that the Bible allows for conditions that meet the definition of slavery. I also want to list some of the most common responses I hear from Christians defending the view that the Bible doesn't condone slavery. So below is a micro argument that argues that the Bible does indeed condone slavery and it can be copied and pasted by anyone who wants to use it in an online debate. The agenda is as follows: (1) start with defining slavery, (2) show how the Bible allows for conditions that meet the definition of slavery, and (3) rebut a few common points and preempt as many common responses one often hears.

The Argument

The goal of this argument is to make the case that the Bible condoned conditions that amount to what we'd properly call slavery. Slavery can be generally defined as follows:

1. The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude.
2. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
3. The subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

So at least two conditions have to be met in order to properly be called slavery: (1) The person has to be forced into the position against their will, and (2) the person has to be made to perform some kind of labor, and paid nothing or next to nothing, for a certain amount of time, up to life. This would not generally include people punished for crimes in a just court of law. If anything meets these two conditions, it can be properly called slavery. I will argue that the Bible allowed for situations that meet these conditions.

In the Old Testament foreign slaves could be acquired by war, purchase, or birth. Deut. 20:12-14 says that the Israelites could force the inhabitants of the region they call their "Promised Land" as well as "all the cities that are at a distance from [them] and do not belong to the nations nearby" into forced servitude if they surrender their land and belongings. If they don't surrender, their towns will be besieged and their men will be killed and the women and children can be taken as booty. In Judges 1:28-34 it even says the Israelites forced the Canaanites, the Naphtalites, and the Amorites into servitude, all while the "LORD was with them." 1 Kings 9:21 tells of how King Solomon conscripted foreign tribes who the Israelites couldn't exterminate "to serve as slave labor" building temples, palaces, and the walls of towns. And to distinguish the rules between Hebrews and non-Hebrews, Leviticus 25:44-46 specifies that foreign slaves are not to be freed after the 7th year as a Hebrew servants do, they serve for life and can be inherited as property. This meets both of the conditions for slavery above in that under Old Testament law (1) persons could be forced into the position of subordination or property to another person against their will, or be born into that position, and (2) made to perform unpaid labor.

It is important to note that this argument is not trying to say that all conditions of servitude in the Bible meet the conditions of slavery. Much of it was what can properly be called indentured servitude. This argument is an in principle argument that resolves the question of whether any conditions allowed for under Old Testament Mosaic law meets the conditions for slavery. That is a very important point one has to be aware of when responding to this argument.

Biblical Slavery For Foreigners Part II

In the ongoing question about whether the Bible condones human slavery, Christian apologists have come up with many ways to try and explain that it doesn't. One Christian is Glenn Miller, who wrote a piece on the Christian Think Tank website on slavery in the Bible arguing this point. To properly answer this question, one should ask whether Mosaic law allowed foreigners in Israel to be legally kept in conditions amounting to slavery.

So what is slavery? Slavery has many definitions. For example:

1. The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude.
2. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
3. The subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

All of these paint a situation one could properly call slavery. Interestingly, to be a slave does not require it to be based on race or ethnicity, and it does not have to be life long. Someone forced into servitude and labor for a finite amount of time can still be considered a slave during the time they are forced. I mention this because many Christian apologists are quick to point out that biblical slavery was not exactly like slavery in the Antebellum South. That may be so, but that doesn't mean biblical slavery wasn't slavery. In the Old Testament, Mosaic law describes how foreigners (non-Hebrews) could be forcefully taken as slaves by being acquired by war (Deut. 20:12-14) and foreign slaves could be kept for life (Lev 25:44-46). While the servitude forced upon prisoners convicted of just crimes is not generally considered slavery, this didn't apply to the people the Bible mentions were forced into servitude. So at least two conditions have to be met in order to properly be called slavery: (1) The person has to be forced into the position against their will, and (2) the person has to be made to perform some kind of labor, and paid nothing or next to nothing, for a certain amount of time, up to life. Now, we can endlessly split hairs over exactly what's "force" (does verbal intimidation or coercion count as force?), but it's not necessary now, as clearly being threatened with death at the end of a sword counts as force.

I made a post a while back called Biblical Slavery for Foreigners where I quote from A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, a scholarly work that mentions the allowance of forced lifelong slavery for foreigners in ancient Israel. Miller's article references my source 21 times but when he quotes from it he often is quoting from slave systems of other non-Hebrew cultures. For example, his citation of page 449 references Assyrian slavery. Page 585 references Mesopotamian uses of slavery. Page 664 references Emar, part of Anatolia and the Levant. Page 741 refers to Canaanite culture. And page 199 refers to Mesopotamian culture again. None of these references refer to Hebrew culture and law which is the very thing in question. We're not debating what the Sumerians did or the Hittites did. We're debating what the Israelites did because Christians believe their law came from Yahweh—the one true god, and many Christians today are still claiming this god — and only this god — grounds morality. That's what the debate is about. And all these points Miller makes that slavery was sometimes (or even often) an economic need is totally irrelevant. No one denies that indentured servitude existed in the ANE. When debating whether the Bible condones slavery we're having an in principle argument here: did Mosaic law condone forced servitude that could last for life under any circumstances? Yes or no? That is the issue. Showing that most slavery was voluntary indentured servitude in the ANE is totally irrelevant.

AnticitizenX's YouTube Page

A YouTuber who goes by the name of "anticitizenx" makes some pretty well made videos. Check out some of his videos below on a variety of philosophical and theological concepts. He hammers away at some of the obvious (as well as not so obvious) flaws in common theological arguments, like one of my favorites to debate, the moral argument.

What is Truth?

No, Really, What is Free Will?

Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 1: Why God Matters

Biblical Slavery For Foreigners

Many Christian apologists will not accept the idea that biblical slavery in the Old Testament was indeed slavery. They think it was all voluntary indentured servitude, or something like it. Here's a quote from A History Of Ancient Near Eastern Law on slavery (emphasis mine):


4.5.5.1 Enslavement

A citizen could not be enslaved against his will if independent or
without the permission of the person under whose authority he was
if a subordinate member of a household. The only exception was
enslavement by court order for commission of a crime or civil wrong. Although in practice economic circumstances would often force a person into slavery, in law his act was, strictly speaking, voluntary. The foreigner, by contrast, could be enslaved through capture in war, kidnapping, or force, unless protected by the local ruler or given resident alien status. In the latter case, protection still might only be partial. As a proverb puts it: "A resident alien in another city is a slave."

To drive the point even further so that there is no confusion over whether this applied to Israel:*

4.5.2.2 Foreign slaves could be acquired by war, purchase, or birth. If a besieged city accepts the offer to allow their surrender, the people serve as tribute labor (Deut. 20:11). Should the city not surrender, men should be killed at capture rather than turned into slaves; women and children can be taken as booty (Deut. 20:12-14).

4.5.4.6 Foreign slaves bought from the surrounding nations or from foreigners living in Israel do not go out: they are inherited as property (Lev. 25:44-46).

The Christian or Jew who wishes to deny that some Biblical slavery was indeed real life slavery, little different from the kind we had in the antebellum South, and condoned by their god, Yahweh, is in utter denial.

*Added 7/9/15

The Slaughter Of The Canaanites According To William Lane Craig

I'm really enjoying Thom Stark's critique of Paul Copan's book, Is God A Moral Monster?. Copan writes the standard apologetic that you will hear many Christians making who defend the Iron-age morality of the Old Testament, like slavery, polygamy and genocide. Stark's critique, Is God A Moral Compromiser?, is full of really great counter arguments and I think it's a must read for any atheist or critic of the current apologetic espoused by the likes of Copan and Craig and their minions.

It got me thinking about the Canaanite genocide in the Old Testament again with some new insights that I hadn't known before. I've covered the Canaanite slaughter numerous times here and debated it on other blogs. Since William Lane Craig is the loudest Christian apologist, at least in the English speaking world, I shall critique his justification of the Canaanite conquests that he did through his website Reasonable Faith.

I'm going to respond to one Q & A entitled "Slaughter of the Canaanites." As I read it, nearly everything Craig writes makes me want to hurl at my computer screen because of the moral depravity that being forced to defend the barbaric Iron-age literature makes him sink to. Craig makes every attempt to praise Yahweh and Mosaic "morality" to warm the reader up to an image of the Old Testament god and law as being perfectly on par with reasonable moral sensibilities. He writes:

The command to kill all the Canaanite peoples is jarring precisely because it seems so at odds with the portrait of Yahweh, Israel’s God, which is painted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Contrary to the vituperative rhetoric of someone like Richard Dawkins, the God of the Hebrew Bible is a God of justice, long-suffering, and compassion.

Well considering that Yahweh commands several genocides after the Canaanite genocide, it isn't actually totally out of his character. The Canaanite conquest is just the first of what will be a series of genocides and that's probably why up until this point in the Bible, it may seem so "at odds" with Yahweh. But the reader of the OT will already have come to understand Yahweh as having been responsible for mass killing the entire planet in Genesis, and mass killing all the first born in Egypt, as well as striking several people dead for rather trivial reasons, so no it is not out of character. What's "at odds" with Yahweh's character, is that with the Canaanites, he's commanding other people to do his mass slaughter, instead of doing it himself. That's so out of character for Yahweh, really.

Cognitive Acrobatics On Slavery & Killing Naughty Kids, Once Again

The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism.

- Christopher Hitchens

This quote from Hitchens shows why I could never be a Christian. (And I've seriously tried to consider what it would be like.) As soon as I were to adopt any belief in god, I'd immediately be fraught with massive cognitive dissonance. Even the idea of a jovial god of pure love and peace wouldn't fare any less problematic. And considering my deep philosophical nature, trying to reconcile the existence of a god with the facts I'm aware of would drive me insane. Belief in god can only work if you don't think, or if you surrender your mind and adopt the mentality that whatever god does is perfect by definition, thereby alleviating you from the stinging questions of suffering and evil. But I just can't surrender my mind to anyone; I'm a thinker.

I've been debating this harebrained Jehovah's Witness recently, whose church is arguably a cult. JoHos are fundamentalists who take the Bible more or less literally. In addition to prohibitions on smoking and drinking, they believe we all descended from Adam and Eve roughly in the last 6-10,000 years, that Noah actually literally put two of every animal (including dinosaurs?) on a boat, and that every other miraculous claim in the Bible is true.

When debating Biblical morality over on Unreasonable Faith, it just amazes me what kind of cognitive acrobatics fundamentalists like JoHos have to do to keep composure. Consider this dialogue:

JoHo: God wills something because He is good. 

Me: I already refuted that and your response was that being loving compassionate and fair is good because god is loving compassionate and fair, and god is good because he is loving compassionate and fair. It's a circular argument. 

JoHo: You're conflating moral ontology with moral semantics. Our concern is with moral ontology, that is to say, the foundation in reality of moral values. Our concern is not with moral semantics, that is to say, the meaning of moral terms. We have a clear understanding of moral vocabulary like “good,” “evil,” right,” and so on, without reference to God. Thus, it is informative to learn that “God is essentially good.” 

Me: I know perfectly well the difference between moral ontology, moral semantics and moral epistemology. You're just cutting and pasting other people's arguments without even reading my responses to you because you know you will have to make a circular argument to get out of the Euthyphro dilemma.

The New Testament Condemns Slavery?

Searching for verses in the Bible that condone slavery is not hard, especially in the Old Testament. But the New Testament condones slavery too. Here are just a few of those verses:

Ephesians 6:5

 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear."

1 Peter 2:18 

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." 

Titus 2:9 

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,"

Bring this up to any Christian in a debate and all you will hear is denial, denial, denial. They will say things like, "Biblical slavery wasn't really slavery, it was voluntary servitude." This is an outright lie that has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. Just check out for example Thom Stark's critique of Paul Copan's attempt to justify this response here in his two chapters on biblical slavery in Is God A Moral Compromiser?

Christians might also try to use Colossians 4:1 which says "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." They'll use this passage to say that god wanted masters to treat their slaves decent and with respect, and that slavery "back then" was different. But the Christian would of course be forgetting that 1 Peter 2:18, which I quoted above, says slaves are to obey ALL masters, both the kind and the cruel. And of course, the central objection to the New Testament is overlooked in this response—that is the issue of slavery itself. Who cares if the master is nice. The master is still owning another human being as property, and god is perfectly fine with it.

Another objection Christians will use to object to slavery is a passage in 1 Timothy 1:10, which is supposed to condemn "the sexually immoral, those practicing homosexuality, slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."

There are at least three ways you can react to this passage in 1 Timothy. First, it still makes it OK to purchase slaves from others who may have kidnapped other people into slavery, or who have sold their daughters into slavery, or who are selling slaves they have inherited as property (which Leviticus 25:44-46 allows). 1 Timothy 6:1-2 even says that good obedient slaves glorify god by serving their masters well. So this passage doesn't condemn the institution of slavery, just one aspect of it.

Refuting William Lane Craig: William Lane Craig Fails Again On Gratuitous Evil

I wrote my Evolutionary Argument Against God partly in response to Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, and William Lane Craig's fuck up on animal suffering.

On a recent Q&A on his website, ReasonableFaith, Craig addresses the problem of gratuitous suffering. A writer asks Craig about his debate with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (which I reviewed here) where Armstrong made an argument that gratuitous evil is incompatible with god:

your response to the problem of gratuitous natural evil seems to create a problem for people who want to be moral. I perceive a baby dying of a painful disease as a moral evil and I judge God to be an immoral monster for allowing that to happen. But your response suggests that my judgment is in error: how do I know God does not have some greater reason for allowing that suffering?       

 Now onto Craig's response. He says,

There’s just no good reason to be a moral sceptic unless you’ve got some sort of really powerful argument for atheism, an argument whose premises are attested even more powerfully than the existence of objective moral values and duties. But what could that argument be? You yourself recognize that the argument from apparently gratuitous evil in the world will not do because of the infeasibility of proving that the evil we see is, indeed, gratuitous. So what justification is there for being an atheist and, hence, a moral sceptic?

In my review of Craig's debate with Armstrong, I pointed out that Craig's rebuttal didn't even begin to address the problem of conscious animal suffering. This is clearly a case of gratuitous suffering. Also, Craig justifies human suffering by saying it is the fault of man's sin and rebellion against god, but how does that account of millions of years of evolution that required suffering long before humans arrived on the scene? Craig's appeal to animals not having meta-cognition has been debunked numerous times, and even Craig admits primates have meta-cognition. 

Then Craig says,

Given our historical and cognitive limitations, I think that we are simply not in a position to say with any sort of confidence that the evil we observe in the world is pointless or unnecessary.

This is the old, "The Lord works in mysterious ways" adage in modern form. If the atheist cannot say gratuitous suffering exists, then what information does the theist have that the atheist cannot know that allows the theist to say that it doesn't? Scripture? Unproven dogma written by Iron-age people full of superstition? I have not heard a reasonable case that didn't deviate tremendously from standard Christian ethic to justify millions of years of animal and pre-human hominid suffering with god, none of which was necessary. Now the issue Craig is addressing here is a human baby suffering. Craig says it's perfectly consistent with god's character and has justified this belief elsewhere because he says that baby can get a chance to go to heaven. But here he's equating compensation with justification.

Then Craig offers a critique of consequentialism:

On consequentialism if your torturing and raping a little girl would somehow ultimately redound to the benefit of mankind, then not only is this action morally permissible for you, but you are morally obligated to do it!

On Craig's divine command theory, if god commands that you sacrifice your son or commit genocide against the neighboring tribe and take their land and underage girls, "then not only is this action morally permissible for you, but you are morally obligated to do it!" Craig willfully ignores how absurd his divine command system of ethics is.

How To Beat Your Slave: Answering Society's Age Old Dilemma

I remember coming across this video years ago and thought I'd blog it now. It goes over the regulations that the Bible has for beating one's slave........oh, sorry I meant indentured servant. I always seem to forget that modern Christians are uncomfortable with the word "slave" and so they'd prefer to hide behind the idea that the Bible only endorses a humane indentured servitude.

But if any Christians are reading this, I'd like to know what your reaction would be towards your faith, if you did learn for a fact that that the "slavery" in the Bible was indeed slavery as we know it (i.e. the owning of human beings by other human beings against their will, for up to an indefinite period of time).

Would it change your opinion about your religion at all? Would it make you reconsider it morally, or would you suppress or ignore this knowledge, and continue your unquestionable belief and devotion to the lord your god?

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.        (Lev. 25:44–6) 

The Perfect God Who Compromises

Many Christians have tried over the years to re-brand the god of the Old Testament in a kinder gentler light especially after the recent tidal waves of secular criticism coming from the new atheists. It's always a good laugh hearing Christians try to gloss over horrific detail and superfluous cruelty created at the hands of the benevolent deity they adore. I have been reading a book written by Thom Stark called Is God A Moral Compromiser? It's a critical review of Paul Copan's book Is God A Moral Monster? Among other things, Paul has tried in his book to argue that the slavery of the OT was really just a humane form of indentured servitude. Thom Stark disagrees. He writes:

Telling masters to be kind to their slaves is all very well, but far from representing moral progress, that just has the effect of reinforcing the institution of slavery by putting a kindly face on it. If slavery was so emphatically against the grain of the gospel, then why not just make it a requirement of church membership that one cannot own slaves? (p. 24)

The argument made by many theists that the Bible actually regulated slavery and made it more humane compared to other cultures still does nothing to denounce the institution itself. Trying to argue that regulating slavery somehow makes slavery morally acceptable would be like trying to argue that regulating how often and severe a pimp can beat his prostitute makes it morally acceptable. Theists are just kidding themselves, they really are. I think it is psychologically difficult for many theists to come to the acknowledgement that their god could be capable of the type of cruelty that the new atheists accuse him of.

Regarding the indentured servitude theory, was it really as humane as many Christians make it out to be? This is another popular tactic made by the apologists. Thom Stark addresses this in detail in his book. He writes:

It’s true that Hebrew male slaves served only a term of six years, to be released in the seventh, but this was emphatically not true of any and all non-Hebrew slaves, despite Copan’s attempts to force the text to say otherwise. Moreover, most ancient Near Eastern societies had release laws comparable to Israel’s mandates, and while a six year term of service was stipulated in the laws of Moses, only a three year term of service was permitted in the Code of Hammurabi! (p. 165)

I always knew that biblical slavery was indeed slavery. And even if it wasn't, indentured servitude where your "master" is allowed to beat you within certain regulations, I cannot imagine an all-knowing and all-loving god permitting or commanding. Rather, these biblical "morals" are much more obviously the product of a Bronze Age, Near-Eastern tribe full of superstition and xenophobia, and that's why they make little sense in today's light.

Another website of New Zealand Christian apologists called thinkingmatters.org expresses concern over whether the OT god changed his mind. According to the blog, god in a way compromises and gives moral commandments in the OT that are an improvement over what existed before, but are still less than ideal. If that's true, god's moral commandments in the OT are intentionally imperfect, but function as a "compromise between the ideal and the enforceable." It's funny that this same blog praises Paul Copan's responses to the criticism of the new atheists apparently unaware of the his on-again off-again relationship to the truth.

If misguiding your readers and compromising on the truth are what you need to sugarcoat the god of the OT so he doesn't look like a moral monster, then you're really just following in the footsteps and examples set by the god of the Bible.

Why Secularism?

Debating with theists recently regarding opposing conceptions of government has lead me to ask the question: Why secularism? In other words, why do I believe in a secular government? Is secularism a religion unto itself? And is a secular government unfair to those who oppose it?

Secularism is defined as "the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element." Phrases like "the separation of church and state" are often evoked. Secularism is necessary in order to prevent laws from being passed that are based not on reason and science, but from a religious customs, traditions, rules and scripture. It it the absolutism of morality guided by revelation that I have such abhorrence for.

The idea is very simple: in a pluralistic society like the U.S., where many faiths are practiced, secularism becomes necessary to prevent laws from being passed and enforced onto people that are based on another person's religion. Most of us would not want to be forced to live under the rules of a religion that we do not hold, such as Islamic Sharia. Many people who are of a particular faith also do not want their religion's rules legislated onto them because they feel that many of their religion's obligations are a matter of personal observation. This is why secularism has been so successful in the West and continues to spread around the world.

As an atheist, I want to live in a society whose laws are rational and just, and based on reason and science. Religious laws sometimes enforce conduct that when examined through the light of reason and science, make little to no sense. For example, Jews and Muslims are forbidden to eat pork. Why? Because god says so. Now imagine a law forbidding pork from being served, regardless of whether you are a Jew, Muslim or not. "Because god says so" is not a justifiable way for a law to be passed, for reasons rather obvious to the atheist and theist alike. This also gets you into the problem of just whose god will it be whose commandments get inscribed into law. You will either have to have a national religion or some sort of religious partitioning that will usually lead to prolonged conflict. To prevent all of this, separating religion from government seems to be the obvious solution.

But the argument is far from over. Let's look at some issues made by some of those critical of secularism. Some claim that secularism is itself a religion, and that a secular government is merely one that has secularism as its state religion. It is certainly possible to define religion many ways. If religion is defined as to not include a deity, but to simply represent a system of beliefs, such as a political ideology, then one could twist out an argument that makes secularism look like an imposing force like so many theocracies today and of years past. The problem here, is that if you dilute the definition of religion to include any set of beliefs, then every belief could be come a religion. In other words, being a democrat or a republican can be your religion. Being a socialist or a capitalist can be your religion. So then under this diluted definition of religion, wouldn't our capitalist economy actually be a religion being imposed on every American, regardless of whether they agreed with it or not? All governments have to impose some system of rules and beliefs onto their citizens. It is just simply impossible to have a system so free that no one has anything ever imposed on them. That would lead to anarchy.

Now what about the person who opposes secularism? Are they being treated in a similar manner to how an atheist would be treated in a theocracy? In a theocracy, the atheist will have to be subjected to religious laws, at home and within the workplace. What they eat, who they can have sex with, how they can dress, whether they can drive or not, might be affected. They might have part of their income taken and given to the state religion, they might face penalties for not observing religious duties that could include jail time. They might not be able to speak out and criticize the state religion or the religion's leaders, with penalties ranging from fines to death. It might also be illegal to influence others with another religion or political ideology with similar penalties. A theocracy can force the believer and non believer alike to live as close as possible to the religion's rules, and this may include violations of some of the most basic of human rights.

Under modern secularism, those who wish to observe their religions can do so freely, so long as it does not violate common sense laws based on reason and science. So for example, if your religion allows the forced marriage of underage girls to older men, if it allows honor killing, or if it prevents various justified civil liberties, then the secular government will have to step in to prevent this. This is no more of a violation of one's religious freedom as it is a protection of other's rights. If your religion does not recognize these civil rights, let me remind you that all Abrahamic religions condone various forms of human slavery. So the emancipation of slaves in the American south under this argument would technically qualify as a secular government limiting the "rights" of slave holders to continue their practice of slavery. The moral problem we see when faced with religion is that as the forces of modernity, precipitated by morality guided by a deeper scientific understanding of reality, clashes with Iron Age ideas, we are increasingly seeing hostility in a culture war where the battle lines are drawn in our classrooms and bedrooms.

Freedom gives you choice; it gives you options. If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one; if you don't like abortion, don't have one; if you don't like eating broccoli, don't eat it; but do not prevent others from doing so. And if you are against any morality based on reason and science because it violates your religion, then mount an argument based on science and reason against it without appeal to scripture. Revelation just doesn't cut it as a valid argument.

Finally, I want to add that it is certainly possible that a secularist can become so fundamental that they begin acting like the theocrats in various oppressive regimes. When secularists start acting like adamant communists in their treatment of religious freedom, I oppose them as I would the theocratist. Freedom of conscious is fundamental and must remain so. So I guess therefore what I am really against is any system that stifles freedom, whether it be theocratic or secular. Modern liberal secular democracies offer us the best hope for a free society, with the most justified laws, based not on Iron Age "revelations" when human knowledge of the world was in its infancy, but by using the powers of science and reason. It is because of this that I regard secularism as the best political system.

How To Talk To A Muslim: Debating Homosexuality

In debating conservative Muslim Gareth Bryant, I get to see how the mind of the devoutly religious behaves. When he wrote a blog post concerning the origin of sodomy and homosexuality, I once again had to call him out on his bullshit. Not only does he think homosexuality is wrong, he thinks it's a choice and that it originated from the fabled towns of Sodom and Gomorrah!

In this short exchange, I try to talk some sense into him by arguing that homosexuality is perfectly natural using a common sense argument that he never refutes. All he can do is use a trick of wordplay by insisting that the term "sexual preference" itself shows that it is a choice.

Some Brief Islamic-History (the origin of Sodomy & Homosexuality):

http://garethbryant.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/somebriefislamichistorytheoriginofsodomy/

ME: 

Homosexuality is natural, it always was, and it is no more a choice than being left-handed is a choice. Now I used to think like you about homosexuality when I was a teenager, which is to say – ignorant, but then I grew up and got educated on the matter. Homosexuality predates all the people in biblical lands in towns whose existence is even disputed by modern archaeology, because it existed in the animal kingdom long before humans evolved.

At any given time, at any given location, you are going to have a certain percentage of people that are gay – that’s just the way it is OK. To deny gay people their equal civil rights today, is tantamount to the denial of black people their equal civil rights generations ago. Why can’t we live in a society, where consenting adults can do what they want, sexually? If you don’t like sodomy, or gay sex, DON’T DO IT! Don’t watch porn, or the trash perpetrated by the movie industry. I’m an atheist and I don’t watch that crap. But don’t deny other people the right to do so.

If you don’t eat pork, fine. I respect your right not to eat it. Respect the civil rights of people in a free secular society like ours or go move to an oppressive Muslim majority country like Sudan.

GB:

Homosexuality is a choice: Allowing a man to insert his penis, or any other foreign, non-medically required item, into one’s rectum, voluntarily, is a choice; likewise, allowing one’s self to insert one’s own penis, or any other foreign, non-medically required item, into another man’s rectum, voluntarily, is a choice. Why do you think that Homosexuality is still classified as a “sexual-preference”? The word “preference” in and of itself, directly denotes the manifestation of the power of choice.

ME:

A homosexual act might be a choice, just as a left handed person can physically write with their right hand. But homosexual desire is innate as is being left handed. You and I are both men, right? You know and I know that we cannot force an erection at will, it has to just happen. How could a heterosexual man who gets aroused by women, suddenly make his penis only get aroused when he is with other men? Gay men cannot get sexually aroused to have sex with women so how can they pretend to be straight. You cannot just change your sexual “preference” like you can change your politics. And why would heterosexual men choose to be gay anyway if they are straight? So they can get their asses kicked more? It makes no sense. Why do animals like Bonobos engage in homosexuality, when they are not conscious of god or any silly divine commandments?

One thing I hate about religion is that is misrepresents human sexuality through the scope of man kind when we knew nothing of real science. That is why all religions are full of nonsense on matters of science, history, and human sexuality. And to those like me who aren’t brainwashed, it is painfully obvious.

The term “sexual preference” does not accurately describe sexual orientation and I don’t like the term myself. As does the term “sexual persuasion”. These terms was made by people ignorant of the truth. I didn't invent these terms so don’t hold me accountable to their ignorance.

END

I also make the comment here on the "sexually-deviant" nature of homosexuality comparing it to other Islamic morality:

What is normal in Islam? Marrying pre-pubescent girls? Slavery? Let’s make homosexuality illegal and bring back slavery the way it was in the 7th century to restore “morality” the way it should be. See why the West and the Islamic world will never get along?

Summary:

Conservative Muslims today do not want to concede an inch on homosexuality, but they're willing to renounce slavery and forcing underage girls into arranged marriages with older men (at least some in the West are). These are both things condoned in the Qur'an but many Muslims are against them today. It is obvious that Muslims, just like Christians, pick and choose their morality from their "holy" books. 

Finally, we have science on our side concerning sexuality, and they don't. And that is why we will win this debate in the long run. So it is comforting to know that uneducated, conservative minded religious fanatics like Gareth are becoming more and more rare everyday. 

Morality and the fascination of it

What is morally right or wrong? This is a question I've been thinking of a lot lately. When you think of morality you have to bring in religion to the picture. The two go hand in hand. I've already gotten to the point that we get some of our morality from religion, but that really means we get it from ourselves since religion is man-made. The issue I have is over moral relativism, and moral absolutism. This is what theists accuse atheists of not being able to posses: absolute moral truths. If morality is man-made, then it is all a matter of opinion. What is right and wrong is relative to the individual making it.

Well this is a deep subject that philosophers have been arguing for thousands of years, and surely for many more to come. I've been thinking long and hard on this, and I will continue developing my moral beliefs for my entire life, sharpening them as I age with grace. I don't believe in total moral relativism. That would be foolish. Total moral relativity to the individual opens up all kids of horrible scenarios. Look at what we consider right and wrong in the U.S. and look at what is considered right and wrong in the Middle East, or parts of Africa. It shockingly differs quite often. I'm still developing my morality on what is right and wrong. When it trickles down into the little things it becomes relative. For example, social customs in different cultures. In parts of the Middle East it is offensive to expose the bottom of your shoes to others, which is why many Middle Eastern men sit cross-legged like women do here. Is that morally wrong there? Female circumcision or female genital mutilation as others call it is still practiced in parts of east and northern Africa and parts of the Middle East. Is it morally right over there and wrong in the west? Who is right on this issue, and whoever is right, do they have the right to impose their beliefs on the others?

This is an issue the U.N. has undertaken, and international human rights organizations. I personally believe FGM is morally wrong but its practitioners cite the Qu'ran as a source of its sanction by the prophet Mohammad who allowed it to happen but never said it was mandatory. The fact that any parts of a person's genitals should be cut off to make the person behave better is to me if you believe it's a covenant with God or a recommendation, a flaw in God's design. Why would God give women a clitoris if it needs to be cut off to prevent her from being promiscuous? Is the clitoris an add-on in God's design, that can be uninstalled if not wanted or needed? Or, is God just having fun by creating parts on our bodies that he then orders us to have cut off?

FGM is an issue that is often cited as a moral issue in the world where we have two opposing parties who feel they each have the right answer about it. It is an issue that makes me feel moral relativism is impractical. If it is wrong here it is wrong there. I think the long and arduous road to the present day morality and humanism we find in most Western cultures is what we'd expect if morality was indeed man-made. There seems to be some biological and evolutionary morals that have become ingrained in us. Incest for example has negative biological consequences, it can lead to disease and genetic disorders that create weaker immune system responses to germs. This is why incest is morally wrong, even most animals don't do it. Killing and warfare is wrong, because the death of many loved ones with have a negative affect on your dependency on them for hard times. But what about killing is self-defense? Or revenge? Is killing ever justified? According to Christianity you're suppose to love your enemy and do good to them. So for a true Christian it is never sanctioned. To me killing is only ever truly justified in self-defense.

I was reading the book What Every Christian Should Know About Islam by Ruqaiyyah Waris Masqsood. In it, it tells what morals Muslims believe in general according to traditional Islamic beliefs. It says that in Islam, Muslims are against lenders charging outrageous interest to the people they lend money to. This is an egregious practice by the world bank organizations, credit card companies, and student loan providers to cheat people out of money who is often end up paying double or more of what they originally borrowed due to high interest rates. In the book it said that in Islamic beliefs there should be no interest at all. I agree with this actually. I started thinking about how horrible it is for those of us that need loans or to borrow money, then find ourselves trapped under a mountain of debt as the interest accumulates. I think it is morally wrong for these practices to continue. Wall Street doesn't seem to care. This is something that I actually agree with Islam about. That is why, I guess some Islamic radical fundamentalists have hated and targeted American financial institutions. Is it morally wrong to charge outrageously high interest rates or use deceptive tactics to trick borrowers? I say yes, others say no. Who is right? I don't think the answer is terrorism, but instead careful, open and honest debate and boycotting lenders who use those tactics.

Morality is fascinating to me. I love to debate it with friends. The literal morality found in the Bible or Qu'ran if applied today in our modern society would be atrocious. Human slavery is the issue I always bring up and ask. If it is morally wrong today why was it not in biblical times? Why doesn't God or Jesus, or Mohammad devote even one line specifically denouncing the practice of human slavery at anytime? You'd think that such a serious issue would elicit a little time devoted to it. The Bible and Qu'ran both condone human slavery and even go into detail about how to properly treat human slaves and when they can or cannot be killed or set free. Wouldn't a simple line or paragraph from Jesus or Muhammad denouncing the practice of human slavery for every person of any color or gender, as a crime in they eyes of God have stopped 1900 years or so of this sad memory of our history from ever happening? One line could have have ended millions of people from having to go through the horrible experience that is slavery. So why didn't these so called prophets utter these words? I believe it is because they weren't prophets at all, just regular mortal men, eccentric preachers yes, but still products of the times they lived in. And during those times slavery was common, they didn't know better, now we do. This is why I know the holy books of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are man-made. Their morality is frozen in dogma by religion. It is akin to deciding what is right and wrong at 14 years old and expecting those beliefs to be held when you're 30, 50 and 70. You will obviously learn more as your grow older and sharpen your morality with new information, just as we as a species have grown older and have come to a better understanding of right and wrong.

This still leaves us with the problem I mentioned earlier of moral relativism. Nobody's right if everybody's wrong. Who's right has the right to be able to impose itself on the others wrong? Who's right when it comes to the moral issues that plague the world? The answer is actually quite simple: we are.