textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000612.txt

Tony Gibson

Should We Mock at Religion?

Many people, perhaps the majority, hold that although we should freely express
our atheistical views, we should carefully avoid mocking at religion. Such
mockery does, of course, gravely offend the sensibilities of religious people.
It is held that in the presence of religious people we should speak in terms of
respect about their beliefs, however ridiculous or indeed offensive we find
them, especially when they are being taught to children who are too young to
reason for themselves. I have not noticed that religious people show the least
respect for the opinions of atheists, or refrain from speaking of them in the
most derogatory terms; they seem to expect that their own views are the only
ones worthy of respect. In the present century we have seen the rise of what
might be termed secular religions, systems of belief which are held with utter
fervour, contempt for evidence, and held to justify the most atrocious and
inhuman acts. I refer to such world-wide cults as Marxism-Leninism, Maoism and
the brand of Fascism that gripped the German people under the Nazi regime. I
think that it is justifiable to refer to them as religions for they differed
only from the better established religions such as Christianity, Orthodox
Judaism, Islam and Shinto in that they do not postulate a supernatural God.
These secular religions have been short-lived in our twentieth-century
experience, although there is no guarantee that they will not rise again to
power at some time in future history. To some extent they resemble the dominant
religion during one period of the Roman Empire in which the Emperor was held to
be a God, and to be worshipped as such, at least in some parts of the Empire.
Religious figures such as Stalin, Hitler and Chairman Mao were, to all intents,
regarded as God during the latter part of their reigns and it was blasphemy, and
punishable by death, to ridicule them.
I have noticed that many Christians did not hesitate to mock figures such as
Stalin, and pour scorn on Marxism-Leninism in the presence if devout Communists;
they did not seem concerned that they were deeply hurting the feelings of their
listeners. Yet if anyone expressed the opinion that Jesus Christ was a silly
twit and much of what he was alleged to have said was nonsense, boring
platitude, contradictory and just plain silly they would feel that this was in
very `bad taste'. Some centuries ago they would have demanded that the speaker
should be imprisoned, hanged or burnt for expressing such opinions, but now that
they have lost their power in Christendom they can only fall back on `bad
taste', although there are still trials for blasphemy in this country, as
Nicolas Walter points out.
1. I have never encountered a devout Christian who will seriously debate the
point that Jesus Christ (if he ever existed) was simply a very conceited young
man, equal in his brass-faced conceit to Stalin, Hitler or Mao. Why should we
treat this man of straw, whose very historical existence is in doubt, with
special respect?
2 .Why should we treat all the muddled blether attributed to him as being beyond
criticism? The Christian story is no better and no worse than any other recorded
mythology, and we must acknowledge that its emotional power is comparable to
that of other legends. We acknowledge the dramatic power of the legends of
Oedipus, Orestes, Iphigenia, Medea and other Greek myths; but to pretend that
these things actually happened, and to teach children that this is true and not
to be questioned, is to tell them a pack of lies.
The Christian Bible, Old Testament and New, is part of our cultural heritage
and, written as it is in the magnificent language of Jacobean English, it is a
valuable piece of literature and children should certainly become familiar with
it as part of their general education.Someone who does not know who Noah was, or
Samson, or Judas Iscariot, has certainly missed out in part of his education
just as if he had never heard of Oedipus or Odysseus. What the modern Christians
have done is an act of cultural vandalism. They have taken the Jamesian Bible
and vandalised it by rendering it into `modern' English. Thus legendary
happenings, such as the feeding of the four thousand, told in the original
Jamesian translation has a certain dignity and grandeur appropriate to legend:
And Jesus saith unto them, 
How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes.
And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground.And he took the seven
loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his
disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.And they did all eat and were
filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full.
(Matthew 15, 34-37, The King James Bible)
It is almost poetry, and we can accept this impossible happening as a piece of
romantic hyperbole, like Samson killing ten thousand men with the jawbone of an
ass! But what have the modern churchmen done with it? They have pretended that
it actually happened and reported it much as it might appear in The News of the
World`How many loaves have you' Jesus asked. `Seven' they replied, `and there
are a few small fishes'. So he ordered the people to sit down on the ground;
then he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and after giving thanks to God he
broke them and gave to the disciples, and the disciples gave to the people. They
all ate to their heart's content; and the scraps left over, which they picked
up, were enough to fill seven baskets. (The New English Bible)A conjuring trick
worthy of Uri Geller! Told like that, it is a monstrous lie devised to deceive
children and the simple-minded, and deserving to be mocked and ridiculed.
During the 1930s when Hitler and Mussolini were extending their power, the
cartoonist David Low produced a series of very funny satirical cartoons
depicting them in various clownish situations. These men were responsible for
very great villainy, but moral condemnation was not enough; they could be cut
down to size most effectively by being mocked as clowns. Later, when Hitler and
Stalin formed a pact and dismembered Poland, Stalin also became the butt of
Low's satirical brush, and depicted not only as evil but as a blundering oaf. I
think that we should not fail to expose the ridiculous aspects of religion and
to prick the pomposity of priests and their gods and icons with satire.
Children are too immature to appreciate the extensive harm that religion has
caused, and continues to cause, world-wide. However, we can and should show them
the ridiculous aspects of the solemn and powerful figures who strive to
intimidate and corrupt them by pretending that a set of thumping great lies are
sacred truths. We will enlighten them more effectively by showing that priests
and churchmen are clowns peddling piffle, than attempting to explain the full
tragic consequences of their religious endeavours. Full understanding of the
meaning of religion, which is like a mental disease of humankind, will come
later. 

Belief and make-believe

Belief and Make-believe is the title of one of George Wells' books. Children
learn to discriminate between fact and fantasy very early the Beanstalk, Red
Riding Hood and the Wolf, Aladdin and his Lamp, and Sindbad the Sailor, but they
do not believe that such exciting adventures ever took place in reality. They
can easily accept that the Christian myths, or those of other religions, are
similarly in the realm of fantasy, and not that of reality. Our various
folk-festivals, which we should all enjoy, have their associated myths;
Christmas has the baby in the manger, the three wise men following a star, etc.
(myths that date from many centuries before their alleged occurrenceat the time
of King Herod), but there is also the myth of Santa Claus travelling with his
reindeer over our roof-tops. But while children enjoy these myths, they soon
appreciate that anyone who seriously pretends that reindeer really do clatter
over our roof-tops is a joker, a buffoon, a jester at the feast who is not to be
taken seriously. 
But when churchmen solemnly pretend that all sorts of impossible marvels really
did take place, and demand that children should believe them on pain of
punishment, these people are both clowns and bloody liars and should be
recognised as such by children.
I have been referring to children and the attempt by religious people to abuse
and corrupt them by attempting to make them accept that a pack of lies is sacred
truth. But what of mature and intelligent adults who claim to believe in the
literal truth of what their Church (or other religious institution) teaches?
Here we must examine what we mean by `belief'. Do they really believe, or do
they only believe of themselves that they hold such absurd beliefs? This
question is one of considerable psychological interest.
By analogy, I must refer to people whom we regard as mentally sick, and appear
to believe, perhaps temporarily, that they are someone other than themselves
generally famous or notorious historical figures. When working at the Maudsley
Hospital I was seeing a patient who apparently believed that she was Joan of
Arc, and demanded that she be treated as such. This lady suffered from a
condition known as manic-depressive psychosis, a disorder in which the manic
phase is of a temporary nature, but during which the person may be subject to
extraordinary delusions. When she was coming out of her `high' and returning to
normal, no longer claiming to be Joan of Arc, I was able to discuss the matter
quite rationally with her. I asked her if it had worried her during her deluded
state that she, a medieval woman, was living in twentieth-century London. She
said no, because she never actually _believed_ that she was Joan of Arc; she
knew all the time that she was a housewife, but acting in the role of the
medieval figure was so immensely gratifying to her that she could not bear to
admit, either to herself or to others, that she was not the historic figure she
claimed to be. We must consider whether an intelligent and well-balanced adult
who claims to believe all the nonsense that his religion teaches, is in a
similar position. He cannot bear to admit, even to himself, that it is all
rubbish, for such an admission would have serious consequences for his emotional
life and mental balance. `Losing faith' sometimes brings on a mental breakdown,
and I have known this happen with a devout Communist who `lost faith' at the
time of the Soviet crushing of the Hungarian rising in 1956. 
Intelligent but religious adults may also be compared with small children who go
through phases of acting out a fantasy over a short period. 
A little boy may go through a phase of apparently believing himself to be a
squirrel, and demand that he be treated as such as far as is compatible with his
normal life. When his hair is brushed he insists that it is to be referred to as
his `fur'; he asks to be given plenty of nuts, and accumulates a store of them
under his pillow. Sometimes he will eat his tea up a tree. He goes to school
quite normally, and tolerant teachers must overlook his squirrel-like behaviour
provided that it does not disrupt the classroom. The acting out of such
fantasies by children is generally quite brief, and sensible parents do not mock
his squirrel role but are indulgent towards it. But is it true to say that he
believe that he is a squirrel.
Some intelligent adults may go through a period of apparently holding a quite
bizarre belief with great fervour, without being otherwise mentally unbalanced.
I remember that at the LSE there was a group of young women who belonged to a
James Dean Club. James Dean was a was that they firmly believed that Dean was
still mysteriously alive and actively performing. This belief was very rewarding
to them and acted as the social cement that held the group together. When they
acquired steady boyfriends they dropped away. Their sisterhood was rather like
that of nuns who are supposed to believe that they are Brides of Christ'. But
can we really call this `belief'?
What then is `belief'? There are some physicists who are devout Christians. Ask
such a physicist whether the mass of the planet Earth was diminished by about
nine or ten stone when Christ left it and ascended to Heaven, and what does he
reply? Inwardly he may be somewhat disturbed and annoyed that you are trying to
bait him by ridiculing his belief.
Outwardly he will probably remain calm and try to demonstrate that it is an
ignorant question that cannot properly be answered because the questioner does
not properly understand the nature of scienceor religion. He believes that he
believes, and it would be emotionally catastrophic for him to admit doubt. 

Does mocking harden belief?

In some cases mocking hardens the outward expression of belief. The manic
patient who claimed to be Joan of Arc, the little boy who said he was a
squirrel, the students who claimed that James Dean was still alive, the
Communists who worshipped Stalin or Mao, the physicist who said that of course
Christ ascended to Heaven, would all be more strident in their affirmation of
belief if they were mocked. But in the long run mockery will create a climate of
scepticism in which the intended victims of religious propaganda will be less
vulnerable, and some of the `believers' may eventually come to admit to
themselves that they truly do not believe such a lot of nonsense, and it is
merely a crutch on which they have to depend because of their personal
inadequacy. They may learn to do without this crutch, and to trust their own
rational judgement. Eventually, like the lady coming out of her manic state,
they may admit to themselves that they never really believed in the nonsense,
but that claiming to believe it served a purpose for a time. It is possible that
humanity may eventually outgrowthe tragic legacy of religion, with all the
bloodshed and strife. Humanity may become rational and humane.

Flogging a dead horse?


A. N. Wilson, the well-known biographer, novelist and erstwhile Christian
apologist, writes:
` It is said in the Bible that the love of money is the root of all evil. It
might be truer to say that the love of God is the root of all evil. Religion is
the tragedy of mankind.'
Very true, and being of this opinion also, I find it heartening that a man of
his intellectual power should have shaken off the chains of irrational belief
that were put upon him as a child. 
Christian apologists sometimes use the argument that people of considerable
intellectual power, such as Dr Johnson, were religious. But a man's beliefs, his
deepest principles, are not simply the product of his intellect; they are
powerfully buttressed by emotion, and all too often maintained by fear. The weak
and terrified child lives on deep within us long after we have attained adult
status. Although fear and intimidation are at the heart of religious
indoctrination, children's positive emotions are also manipulated. The myth of
gentle Jesus, the darling baby cradled in the manger, is played up every
Christmastide, and the pathos of the crucifixion is invoked, with the monstrous
implication that it is he or she, the little child, who is somehow responsible
for this cruel torture because of acts of sin! Yet it is this same Jesus who,
according to the Gospel of St Matthew, declared: `Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword' (Matthew 10, 34-36).
There are plenty of similar contradictions in the Gospels to bemuse and confuse
the child, and they are not a source of weakness, but of strength, as they serve
the essential purpose of religion: to administer a resounding slap in the face
of reason and common sense.
If one refers to all the cruel horrors that are practised in the name of
religion, religious people declare that there is nothing wrong with Christianity
(Islam, Judaism, etc.); the horrors, they say, are due to the wickedness of
human nature. The fact is that although people can be cruel, intolerant and
irrational enough when acting in their own personal self-interest on occasion,
they are infinitely more beastly when acting in the furtherance of a religious
purpose, as history and modern tragedies bear witness. Strengthened by religion,
ordinary weak, moderately selfish and sometimes kindly human beings can become
transformed into monsters: monsters of arrogance and intolerance, unflinchingly
flouting all human values, because they believe that somehow they are doing it
to the greater glory of God.
By castigating religion like this in the late twentieth century in Britain, am I
merely flogging a dead horse? Non-believers can regard the Church of England,
and other such religious bodies, with amused tolerance, and do and say what they
please. But what degree of freedom of thought, speech and action we have
achieved has been hard won through centuries of struggle, and such freedom as we
have is tenuous. Among the preachers who coo to us so gently over the radio, are
those who would dearly like to get back to the days when their ancestors
imprisoned, hanged and burnt us for questioning their power and dogmatism. The
death threats against Salman Rushdie demonstrate that fanatics in Britain can
get away with open incitement to murder and snap their fingers at British law.
It is permissible because it is a matter of religion! A. N. Wilson speaks truly
when he says that `Religion is the tragedy of mankind'.
I have dealt mainly with the Christian religion in this essay, but of course all
I have written applies equally to other religions all over the world, including
the non-theistic religions that some people like to designate as `political'.
Anarchism implies not only atheism but active struggle against religion itself,
and where satire proves an effective means of combating it, then we should
certainly engage in mockery and not be deterred by any feeling that religion
holds any special right to immunity.
Footnotes
1. N. Walter Blasphemy: ancient and modern London: Rationalist ,Press
Association 1990.
2. For a discussion of the historicity of Christ, see G.A. Wells Did Jesus
Exist? London: Pemberton 1986.
3. G.A. Wells Belief and Make-believe,La Salle, Illinois: Open Court 1991.
4. A.N. Wilson Against Religion: why we should try to live without it, Chatto
CounterBlasts No. 19, London: Chatto & Windus 1991.