The word “faith” is short and appears innocuous. But it has caused much human misery in history and continues to do so presently. A good first step in addressing this problem is to appreciate that “faith,” like most words, has multiple meanings. The type of faith discussed in this essay will be confined to religious beliefs without supporting logic and evidence. The explanation of how faith developed will be about the Christian religion, but many of the concepts apply to religion in general.

The idea that any conclusion should be reached without evidence is uniquely bizarre. A person who professes belief without evidence in other than a religious context is thought of as a fool. But in the case of religion, turning a fatal logical flaw into a concept that is revered and held in awe is a remarkable achievement.

Faith is the very lifeblood of religion. Faith gives people license to believe in the imaginary world of the supernatural where the dead rise out of their graves and snakes talk. It provides almost impregnable protection for religion against critical inquiry. Faith is the ultimate cop-out. Completely absurd and contradictory beliefs can be justified. If it weren’t for faith, religion could not exist. Doctrine provides the foundation of religion but without faith the doctrine would be meaningless. Lacking faith, we would never have seen the many abuses associated with monotheistic religion throughout history.

But how did such a foolish idea as religious faith ever come to be regarded with such awe and respect?

One of the major factors promoting faith was the Bible. Faith was mentioned only twice in the Old Testament but several hundred times in the New Testament. Jesus reportedly said, “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible.” And Paul states that faith is the only way a person can be “saved” when he said, “For by grace are ye saved through faith … not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the truth would be revealed through logic and evidence. In fact, it consistently discourages the acquisition of knowledge by these means and instead touts the superiority of knowledge arrived at by faith. The story about Thomas the doubter is a dramatic example of the glorifying of faith. Alone among the disciples, Thomas asked for proof of the extraordinary claim of resurrection, a request that most rational people would consider quite reasonable. Jesus accepted the challenge and provided proof that satisfied Thomas. But then in John 20:29 Christ demolishes the idea of religious skepticism and elevates faith to a profound virtue with this irrational statement: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” With this passage, Christians would hence regard anyone who exhibited skepticism about their religious claims as “a doubting Thomas.” Religious skepticism became a sin.

Tertullian (c.160-c.230), a Roman theologian and Christian, pushed the virtue of faith to its ultimate. He was the son of a centurion and well educated, especially in law. Tertullian is mainly famous for the quote: “It is certain because it is impossible,” often incorrectly quoted as, “I believe it because it is impossible.” In other words, he thought that if a religious belief seemed impossible, that seeming impossibility made it certain. He believed that the more impossible a religious belief seemed, the more it would strengthen a person’s faith.

Christian leaders through the centuries further fortified the idea of the power of faith by continued propaganda. However, as science in the last few centuries began explaining the working of the Universe through natural means and religion began losing every battle with science, faith began taking a beating.

To counteract this negative trend, conservative Christians staged a series of meetings called the “Niagara Conferences.” The people attracted to the cause were generally poor, rural, and not well educated. It was ironic that two rich, urban, well educated oil tycoons, the Stewart brothers, Lyman and Milton, gave the movement its biggest boost. They financed a series of twelve booklets entitled The Fundamentals (1910-1915). In these booklets the five basic fundamentals necessary to be a “true” Christian were publicized, the ones that had been agreed on at the Niagara conferences. These fundamentals included:

(1) The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
(2) The complete inerrancy of the Bible
(3) Christ’s atonement for the sins of man on the cross
(4) The divine status of Christ
(5) The Resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ.

Christian Fundamentalists with their dogmatic claims were now in a position to answer the conclusions reached by scientific (critical) thinking. Since the Fundamentalists’ conclusions were based on an inerrant source, the direct word of God as revealed in the Bible, then henceforth their conclusions would trump any amount of conclusions reached by logic and evidence. And what was it that rendered this Fundamentalist doctrine valid? Faith, of course. Faith and only faith.

And this strategy from a numerical standpoint has been successful. The Christian Fundamentalist denominations, energized by the renewed empowerment of faith, have been the most rapidly growing of all Christian denominations.

This renewed glorification of faith produces major problems for society. Religious claims based on faith cannot be resolved. The citing of an infallible source ends all rational discussion and sets one group in society against another, or is even divisive within a religious group itself.

A few examples show the detrimental effects of faith-based decisions:

Evolution. Despite being one of the most thoroughly documented conclusions in all of science, Christian Fundamentalists return again and again with some version of Creationism. Belief in Creationism is also behind Fundamentalists’ denial of the scientifically well documented “big bang theory.” In effect, they are claiming that the Bible is a scientific textbook. The denial of the scientific evidence can lead to a type of child abuse since their children don’t receive proper scientific educations and are launched into a scientifically-oriented society with a major handicap.

Homosexuality. There is now much scientific evidence that sexual preference is inborn. But those holding faith-based conclusions don’t want to hear any of the scientific information. They want to hear only what the Bible says. Again, they are using the Bible as a pseudo-scientific textbook.

Abortion and Stem Cell Therapy. Whatever one’s conclusions are on these subjects, they should not be based on an embryo having a soul. There is no scientific evidence that a soul exists in an embryo or any other living organism.

Women’s Rights. The Biblical view is the one that those relying on religious faith use as a guideline for the treatment of women. They show little interest in the scientific studies about women.

Science. Although those using faith-based conclusions readily accept the benefits provided by science, they otherwise have an antipathy toward it since scientific conclusions are regularly in conflict with their faith-based ones. They tend to minimize scientific study for themselves and their children.

Church-State Separation. The true believers have faith in the infallibility of their beliefs and see no reason why they shouldn’t impose them on everybody. They are just doing God’s work.

Abstinence-Only Programs for Teenagers. The faith-based conclusion is that premarital sex is sinful and that abstinence-only programs should be promoted using religious zealotry. Recent scientific studies show that these programs simply don’t work.

Although Christian Fundamentalists rely on and glorify faith more than moderate Christian denominations, the latter also base their religious conclusions on faith, but usually with less dogmatism. Nevertheless, moderate Christians also help perpetuate the idea that faith is a valid way to arrive at truth about the material Universe. In doing so, they encourage the extreme views of the Christian Fundamentalists by seldom criticizing these views.

Most faith-based religious conclusions that are detrimental to society involve the material Universe, not what many freethinkers would regard as an imaginary spiritual region. Science with its use of logic and evidence has earned the right to be the sole interpreter of how the material Universe works by always being right in its numerous fights with religion.

Imagine an ideal world where people realize that faith is a bogus way to reach any valid conclusion, even a religious one. Conflicts would only be resolved using logic and evidence. No longer would debates end when a believer slammed a faith-based door in another person’s face. This dream can be realized by explaining to the media and the public the reasons that conclusions based on faith are irrational and detrimental to society.

Related posts:

1. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

Let us suppose that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

– John Stuart Mill, Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, On Liberty (1859), quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church

In Part 1 I mentioned the letter written by the Reverend M.R. Watkinson to the Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase. Written November 13, 1861, this was the first request according to the U.S. Treasury Department for the recognition of God on U.S. coins. The Rev. Watkinson was a Baptist minister and Secretary Chase an Anglican/Episcopalian.

The letter reads as follows:

You are are about to submit you annual report to Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were now shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words ‘perpetual union’; within this ring the all seeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath the eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united. In the folds of the bars the words, ‘God, liberty, law.’

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my heart I have felt our national shame in disowning God not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

Secretary Chase replied:

No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

“In God We Trust” was approved December 9, 1863.

It seems clear that both Rev. Watkinson and Sec. Chase are Christian. Rev. Watkinson did not say in the second paragraph, “You are probably a non-Christian or Jew or Muslim, but said, “You are a probably a Christian.” He seems concerned that the nation had, in some way, disowned God. I am not sure what he meant unless he is referring to our secular constitution and the men of the Enlightenment who drafted it. His prime motivation for having God’s name on coins is his awareness of America’s past brutal injustices and inequities, calling it a “heathen nation.”

Did Rev. Watkinson think putting God’s name on coins and having an “all seeing eye crowned with a halo” would set things aright, alleviate the “ignominy of heathenism,” and that “no possible citizen could object?” No citizen or any other religious entity was ever asked!

Having God’s name, Christian or otherwise, on currency or any other property has not stopped inhumane practice anywhere in the world. It serves no purpose except in the minds of believers. Human beings commit crimes against humanity and human beings can end these brutalities. Invoking God does nothing.

These two Christians, Rev. Watkinson and Sec. Chase, were responsible for this action. Politicians and other state and federal government officials who are Christian have tried, and are still trying, to inscribe “In God We Trust” (or the Ten Commandments) on federal and state buildings. Making “In God We Trust” the national motto is incredibly disrespectful to those who practice the many other religions in the U.S. (or practice no religion at all).  It is equally incredible that it was ever allowed.

What I cannot understand is how the Supreme Court can rule that the motto is not wholly Christian and not an explicit breech of the separation of church and State.

Related posts:

1. In God We Trust? – Part 1

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Black, held:

The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this:

• Neither the state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
• Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
• Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
• No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non attendance.
• No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
• Neither state nor Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs or any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.

For a very long time there has been much controversy and debating about the constitutionality of the national motto “In God We Trust” and the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Are they a breech of the separation of Church and State and the clause against the establishment of religion put forth by Thomas Jefferson? This dilemma may never be settled because of the many different interpretations of Jefferson’s words and their meaning.

The following is my interpretation of how these phrases came to be. It should shed light on whether or not these terms are of religious intent and prefer one religion over all others. The Supreme Court has most often ruled that this not the case.

On July 4, 1776 congress appointed Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams to prepare a design for the Great Seal of the United States. In August their first design was submitted to Congress with the motto “E Pluribus Unum,” which means out of many, one. The design was rejected (not the motto), as were five other designs over the next five years.

In 1782 Congress asked Mr. Charles Thomson, the Secretary of Congress, to complete the project. He and his friend Mr. Barton produced a design of an eagle with a heart-shaped shield, holding arrows and an olive branch in its claws. The motto “E Pluribus Unum” was on the scroll held in the eagle’s beak. The design has been modified slightly in that the shield is not heart shaped and there are thirteen stars for the thirteen colonies over the eagles head. This motto was never made into a law but was considered the de facto motto of the United States for 174 years, until 1956. The motto was used on some federal coins beginning in 1795.

In 1812 our young nation, still struggling after the Revolution, found itself at war once again. In 1814 prisoner of war Francis Scott Key wrote The Star Spangled Banner during a very difficult time. His song, as we all know, eventually became our national anthem. The final stanza initially read:

And this be our motto,’In God is our trust.’
And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O’re the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Many believe this is where the idea for the present US motto came from. This seems to be the first usage of such a phrase but was not applied to anything pertaining to the government until 1864. It has never been used by Jews or Muslims or any other monotheistic or polytheistic religion with the exception of Christianity.

At the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, a group of Protestants started a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents, an process that continues to this day. The Reverend M.R. Watkinson, a Baptist minister,  wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase promoting the concept. It wasn’t until 1863 that Mr. Chase asked James Pollock, the Director of the Mint, to come up with a suitable motto for Union coins. After considering several different wordings, he picked “In God We Trust” and Congress passed the legislation in 1864. It took another Act of congress to have the motto placed on other U.S. coins between 1886 and 1916. “In God We Trust” has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909 and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It has also appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins since 1908. But at that point it was still not on paper currency.

Another 40 years passed.

On July 20, 1956  the 84th Congress passed a law, approved by President Dwight Eisenhower, declaring “In God We Trust” the national motto of the United States, usurping the de facto “E Pluribus Unum.” It was first used on paper money in 1957 and was on all money by 1966.

This law was, in part, due to the state of our nation. The McCarthy communist witch hunt was rampant; it was the height of the Cold War. People were fearful and distrustful. This atmosphere was ripe for religious fervor to thrive. Paramount on the minds of many was having God on our side to fight the godless communists. The phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance during this same period, authorized by the President.

What interests me is those who insist the motto and phrase are not religious and do not promote one particular religion. Yet it is the religious and those of the Christian faith in particular who were responsible for, and the most vocal about, adding the terms to our currency and pledge. Christian believers today are lobbying to have “In God We Trust” inscribed on federal and state buildings and state license plates, etc.

What would these people of Christian faith, most of whom also proclaim allegiance to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution, do if the Muslim community insisted that we have “In Allah We Trust” added to the currency and other prominent places? Allah and God are separate deities worshiped by two different religious groups in America where freedom of religion is protected. Would Muslims have the right to lobby for this? How would Christians respond to this?

What about Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and other religious minorities? And atheist agnostics, secular humanists who reside in America? Could they lobby for their own phrases, according to their beliefs or nonbeliefs, to be included on currency and elsewhere? Wouldn’t that be fair?

What mottos might these groups want included on our currency and government buildings? “In God We Trust, But Not In Jesus”, “In Braham, Vishnu, and Shiva We Trust”, “In The Buddha And Inner Peace We Trust”, and “In Reason, Secularism And Enlightenment We Trust?” The list could go on. Who do you think would be in opposition to any and all of these additions?

“In God We Trust” and “under God” are Christian in origin and represent only one religious faith. While Christianity is the religion of the majority of Americans, this does not mean Christians have cornered the market on God, faith, and belief. Nor do they have the right to silence the voices of other believers or nonbelievers in opposition to these phrases by insisting that the majority rules and that the motto and phrase are neutral, patriotic and inclusive. Plainly, they are not.

A better idea might be to consider reinstating the original motto of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin;  E Pluribus Unum - Out Of Many, One.

(to be continued in Part 2)

Related posts:

1. In God We Trust? – Part 2

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, who is a Baptist minister, stated “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do – to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

This statement should be of serious concern to every thinking, patriotic American and anyone who values freedom.

Mr. Huckabee, asked during one of the debates if he believed in the Bible, said he thought the Bible was the inerrant word of God. My question to him is just what part of the Constitution would he like to amend using the standards God supports and sanctions in the Holy Bible?

Perhaps he would like to bring back slavery, which is rampant throughout the Bible with no objection from the Lord.  Maybe he would like to see torture sanctioned. According to a recent Pew poll on the “enhanced interrogation techniques” authorized by the Bush/Cheney administration, the majority of Christians have no problem with torture. But most people know that when you torture someone, they will confess to or say just about anything and truth is not necessarily the outcome. Think of the Inquisition, witch hunts, and burning heretics at the stake.

By amending the Constitution, Mr. Huckabee could make abortion a crime, even though “abortion” is not mentioned in the Bible. Pro lifers cite Exodus 21:22-25 to justify their stance, but this passage actually says that if a man strikes his pregnant wife, causing her “fruit to depart,” the wife can punish the husband. But if the wife dies, he gets the death penalty. The punishment is for killing the woman not the child. The Bible has chapters and verses filled with God authorizing the killing of men, women, and children. (See 2 Kings 2:23-24, 1 Samuel 15:3, Deuteronomy 2:34, Isaiah 13:16 to name a few.) No matter how one interprets or justifies these passages, the Bible does not appear to be pro life.

As for homosexuality, in Leviticus 20:13 the penalty is death for both parties. However, the death penalty also applies to adultery (Leviticus 20:10). The two verses on homosexuality appear to be paramount to Christians, who think they know what constitutes a loving marriage (between a man and a woman) and healthy family values. Their definition of what and whom a marriage and family consist of is just as antiquated as the person/s who wrote Leviticus. The basis for their value system is also ironic since currently 50% of all marriages between men and women end in divorce.

How would adulterers feel, I wonder, if society treated them the same as homosexuals? There would be those who would justify killing them because the Bible said it was what they deserve. It is we the people who see just how insane this is and have begun to rectify the erroneous situation by introducing governmental hate bills.

Moreover, for all the ministers like Mr. Huckabee who are concerned about not being able to rant about the “abomination” of homosexuality, think about this. Priests and pedophiles and other adult deviants are raping young children as I write this. If Christian ministers want to express outrage or do something about the lives of ‘living’ children, let these people be their sermon. Consenting adult homosexuals don’t hurt anyone.

Then there’s the issue of women. Women in many societies have come a long way, but equality between the sexes is still not fully realized. Women’s status is debased in much of the Bible. They are blamed for the original sin and are held in contempt. “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,” God says to woman in Genesis 3:13. Would Mr. Huckabee and his Christian friends mandate women to be subservient to their husbands?

In short, I can’t imagine what Mr. Huckabee has in mind for amending the Constitution. God is very deliberately not mentioned in that document. The men who drafted it were not affirming or applying Christian or God’s standards when they wrote it. What kind of committee would be formed for Mr. Huckabee’s amendment undertaking and who would be on it? How would those who disagreed with or disobeyed their amendments be punished? Stoned to death or discriminated against and relegated to the fringes of society as many still are today who disagree with religious dogma and orthodoxy?

We do not get our morality from any holy book or religious dogma. “We the people” use reason, logic, and critical thinking when distinguishing right from wrong. There are those who do the right thing “in the name of God” and those who do not believe in God who do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do.

Much immorality has occurred throughout history “in the name of God.” Belief in God is still the basis for many atrocities today. The more pious a country is and the more it intermingles its religion with its government, the more oppressive and dangerous it is for its citizens. Hopefully more and more people will come to realize this. The US Constitution must remain secular, as the framers intended.

Related posts:

1. Book Review – Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)