An Incredibly Beautiful Peace

I ended the last essay by describing my beautiful experience in Strasbourg at seeing to what extent the horrors of past war and oppression have been swept away from Europe since the end of World War 2. I grew up hearing horror stories of the German war from my uncle. To people of his generation, the peace that has lasted in Europe since 1945 was unthinkable. But my generation has seen it. A large part of the credit belongs to the European Union, which richly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize it received in 2012. And while some countries such as England have questioned the workability of complete economic integration, nobody wants to go back to the days of antagonism, certainly not of war.

I thought about these things in Strasbourg, France, on July 18 and 19. On July 18, I walked from the Wacken tram stop over to the European Union Parliament building. The main building is in Bruxelles (Brussels), but this secondary building is still very big and busy. The flags of the Union and of France were still at half staff in memory of the July 14 terrorist attack in Nice.

Nearby was the Court of Human Rights. In America, we are used to thinking of human rights as something that we choose and impose on the rest of the world. Many other nations, such as Russia and China, believe the same thing about their right to impose their values on the world. But in the European Union, the member countries deliberate together about what is right and wrong. I felt humble as I stood before the court, which also had the French and European flags at half staff, realizing that I represented a country which would never let any other country tell us, or even suggest to us, what to do.

The next day, July 20, we went with our French family across the Rhine River bridge into Germany. No checkpoint for passports. The European authorities have restricted traffic flow, presumably to monitor vehicles that might carry out terrorist attacks like those not a week earlier in Nice. But they have no plans to block the free flow of humans across the Rhine; in fact, they are constructing a new tram line over the river.

We walked through the beautiful German city of Kehl to a park along the Rhine. Of course, France was visible just a short distance away, across the river. This was the frontier of war for a millennium. But today it is just a peaceful park. Best of all, there is a pedestrian footbridge, away from the traffic of the vehicle bridge, which spans the river. We walked across and back. There wasn’t much to see or do; it was the significance of the act itself that will stay forever in my memory. In the middle of the bridge, right on the border, French-German couples have placed padlocks in the chain link, indicating that for them the new peace between France and Germany is not merely an international agreement but the most intense form of love.

The new stage of altruism that awaits the social evolution of our species is international trust and, where possible, love. I felt no hostility as I entered France, or walked between France and Germany. The only hostility I felt was in returning to the United States, where federal officials grilled me with trick questions to make sure that I, an American citizen, was not posing a threat to my own country. In Europe, there is a lot of altruism between nations; in America, especially in this political season, we have very little altruism within our country.

Our species evolved to be altruistic within our group and ferocious to everyone outside of our group. The European Union represents perhaps the best example of large-scale outside-the-group altruism that the world has ever seen, and its greatest success is the lasting peace, and the unthinkability of war, between France and Germany.

And you will notice also that this lasting peace was achieved totally in the absence of religious doctrine. While some peacemakers have religious motivation, there was utterly no theological foundation that enabled this peace to take shape. Today, the major denominations no longer scream for war. But they did not figure out international peace by reading the Bible; they had it forced upon them.

Horrors of War, Pleasures of Peace

I have begun posting a series of essays from my recent trip to France on my science blog. I will also post here the entries that have some religious significance.

On July 13, my wife and I visted the Musée Historique de Strasbourg. On July 15, we were back in Old Strasbourg at the Place Kléber (Kleber Plaza) and the Cathedral. What I saw at those times was immensely moving and significant and may have been my most memorable experience in France.

The museum documented a thousand years of history in which Strasbourg, on the Rhine River, was nearly always consumed in war between places that are now part of France and now part of Germany. Throughout this time, Strasbourg thought of itself as Alsacian rather than strictly French or strictly German. And why not? Whichever side it took, it would be conquered by the other side within a century or two anyway. And while it was fun to dress up in simulated medieval armor (see photo), there is no avoiding the fact that this constant state of warfare was gruesome and entailed unmeasurable amounts of suffering.

Most striking of all were the centuries of religious intolerance and slaughter. Throughout most of the history of Strasbourg, as in all other European cities, the Jews were forced to live in ghettos; near the museum you can still walk on the Rue des Juifs, which is very narrow just as it was in ghetto days, only it is now clean and free.

Then there was the Reformation, when Alsace was divided up into little enclaves: Territoires passés a la Réforme (territories becoming Protestant at the Reformation), Territories restés catholiques (territories remaining Catholic), Zones où la Réforme a été combattue (combat zones), and (the smallest of all) Territoires où les deux confessions ont été tolerées (zones where both “confessions” were tolerated) (see photo). 

Inevitably, toward the end of the tour of the museum, we saw the photos and artifacts of Nazi occupation in World War II. The French did not simply surrender; they had a heavily fortified Maginot Line right in Alsace, ready to defend France from a German invasion across the Rhine. But the Germans invaded Belgium and took over France from the north, making the Maginot Line useless. In the museum we saw a photo of Hitler standing at the base of Strasbourg Cathedral, and of big Nazi military displays in the Place Kléber, which they renamed Karl Roos Platz. There was even a display about brutal Nazi experimentation on living humans. When liberation came, under General Leclerc, the Nazi influence was swept away with great enthusiasm (see the photos).

Here is the part that meant the most to me. A couple of days later, on July 15, when my wife and I happened by the Cathedral—there very Cathedral where Jews were oppressed for centuries, and where Hitler walked—we saw a klezmer band making some of the most joyous Jewish music you ever heard. Everybody loved this Jewish music and its talented performers. Take that, Hitler! And take that, you priests who oppressed the Jews for millennia! Right at that moment, while the lead musician (who played my old instrument the euphonium) was when I felt, more than ever before in my life, the joy of international peace, the brotherhood and sisterhood of the human species.

Not So Inerrant After All

Fundamentalist Christians believe themselves to be personally inerrant when it comes to interpreting the Bible. The Bible is capable of many different interpretations, but a fundamentalist believes that whatever interpretation s/he chooses is inevitably the correct one. For example, they believe that “day” in Genesis 1 means 24 hours; but this cannot be the meaning of “day” in Genesis 2. So they claim that the word has two different meanings in the two chapters. And they believe that this rule of interpretation cannot be wrong, and you are headed straight for hell if you think they are wrong.

But they have quietly allowed their inerrant interpretations to change. A few decades ago, conservative white Christians were absolutely certain that some people were black because of the Curse of Cain, or maybe it was the Curse of Ham, or something, and that they had literal Biblical justification for hating black people and undertaking acts of violence against them. There are still white Biblical fundamentalists who believe this, but it is a comparatively rare belief today. Somehow, in the last few decades, many fundamentalist Christians have changed their beliefs. This has not happened because of federal government force. Maybe it started that way; they were furious about the government enforcing school busing and integration. But today you will find very few fundamentalist Christians who say “I get along with black people only because the federal government forces me to.” Most white fundamentalists genuinely like people of other races. Now.

Why the change? The Bible has not changed. Nor did God appear in the sky and announce, “Hey, uh, listen up; I just decided, uh, that it’s okay to like black people now.” It is the fundamentalists themselves who have changed their beliefs. If fundamentalists are inerrant in their Bible interpretations, then why have their beliefs changed? It is because they learned some things. They learned from experience that black people are just people, with good and bad individuals just like any other race. This means that somebody was wrong sometime. Either modern fundamentalists are insulting the Bible by liking black people, or else their recent predecessors were insulting the Bible by hating black people. Somewhere along the line, somebody interpreted the Bible incorrectly.

When a modern fundamentalist claims that they and they alone know what the correct interpretation of the Bible is, they should remember that earlier fundamentalists made the same claim about beliefs that are now widely rejected.

What Fundamentalists Think about Themselves

I wrote the following as an introduction to a book I am working on. I decided to not use it, since it has a very negative tone. But I believe it is true and I will post it here for you to look over briefly if you wish.

The term fundamentalist was first used in the 1920s in a series of books, The Fundamentals, published in the United States, which clearly outlined the beliefs that a Christian was supposed to have, based upon a “literal” reading of the Bible. All around these authors, the world was changing rapidly, and they had to figure out which of their beliefs were fundamental, and which could be surrendered. The authors were reacting against a tide of loose morality that they believed was sweeping the country during what we still call “The Roaring Twenties.” The Roaring Twenties came to an end not so much because fundamentalism triumphed but because the Great Depression brought an end to exuberant and spendthrift living.

But “fundamentalist” has come to mean something very different today. It no longer means someone who simply believes the Bible to be literally true. It has come to represent a person who almost treats a Bible as a talisman that makes them superior to other humans—spiritually superior, as if it makes Satan flee from them in terror, and mentally superior, as it makes their minds capable of understanding all eternal truths. It also serves as a badge of membership in an elite society of God’s very, very special Elect. It no longer represents a person who humbly accepts the Word of God; it has come to represent a person who considers himself or herself to be personally inerrant and commanded to be ready for action in God’s name. They may not literally make these claims about themselves, but if you listen to what they say and look at what they do, this is the conclusion that you will have to reach. I used to be a Christian fundamentalist and I did not literally make these claims about myself. I was hesitant and quiet about asserting myself to be superior to non-Christians, and even to non-fundamentalist Christians, in this way. But I knew plenty of other fundamentalists who were neither hesitant nor quiet. Eventually my level of discomfort was so great that I left fundamentalism. I was quite aware of my own imperfections, and finally decided I could no longer place myself in a superior position of authority over other people.

First, consider the unspoken fundamentalist belief in personal inerrancy. They hold their Bibles in the air, and believe that they know the answer to every question about the history of the universe, the story of mankind, and the meaning of life. They know the single correct answer to every political question. They don’t even have to read that Bible. They would be hard-pressed to tell you very many things that are, in fact, in that bible. Ask one of them what the prophets Joel or Amos or Obadiah said. Most of them have never read the entire Bible, or even very much of it, which is strange since they say that a Christian has to live by all of those words. But just having it in their hands gives them the power to know everything, at least everything that matters.

I used to admire my fellow fundamentalists whose Bibles looked well-worn with study. Then I saw one of them, after church, talking with others. He held his soft-leather-bound Bible in his hands and bent it back and forth in a harmless and meaningless manner. So that’s why it looks well worn! Not because he reads it, but because he bends it back and forth whenever he talks to people after church! My Bible looked unstudied, because I kept it in the blue box in which it had originally been given to me and took it out only to use it. My badge of distinction was, of course, the deep stains from the oil on my fingers on the box. This Bible, by the way, was a gift from the other fundamentalists. They were tired of me using my Revised Standard Version. They insisted, quietly since they could not prove it, that the only version of the Bible that was really valid was the English translation that was made in 1611 under the oversight of a king, King James (who was a closet homosexual and had a lover’s-tunnel built between his room and that of his male partner.)

Second, consider their unspoken belief that God has commanded them to be ready for action. They are legislators, or vote for legislators, who want to enshrine a special status for fundamentalism, even if not by name, in state laws. And not just for fundamentalism, but for a whole bushel full of conservative laws that have no direct and clear connection with fundamentalism. Take, for example, gun rights. Nearly all fundamentalists believe that Americans should have nearly unlimited access to firearms. Where did they get this idea? They cannot show it to you in the Bible. Jesus even told his disciple Peter to put his sword away because “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.” This was clearly meant by Jesus as disapproval of weapons.

At the moment, most fundamentalists believe that all of their actions should be within the law of the land. But I would like to point out how tenuous this belief is. It is based upon only a few scriptures, each of which can be interpreted differently than what fundamentalists currently believe. Jesus said to render under to Caesar what is Caesar’s, so they pay their taxes. The Apostle Paul told them to be subject to the government authorities, so they obey the law. But they all know that there are limits to this authority. Jesus testified during his trial before Pontius Pilate that “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, then my servants would take up arms.” Nevertheless, when the Roman government or its local subsidiaries commanded Christians to worship Caesar or local gods, they refused. At some point, a line is crossed.

And it is a moving line. Sometimes the line moves back. Fundamentalists find themselves spending less and less time opposing things that they used to consider utterly fundamental, such as racial segregation in the past and gay rights at the present time. Sometimes, as with racial segregation, they will even admit that they have learned some things and that fundamentalists in the past had been wrong. In other cases, as with gay rights, they still believe the same things they did before but are now unwilling to make such a big deal about it—so long as gay people stay out of their churches and don’t teach school and don’t run for public office.

But the line can, under the right circumstances, move forward. Fundamentalists have immense numbers of firearms which they claim they will never use against any human who simply disagrees with them. They want their assault weapons only to play with them, and their handguns only for self-defense. But they are ready. All that is needed is for the religious leaders whose commands they follow to say, “The time has come for us to use those guns.” You think it can never happen, and I hope it can never happen. But there is nothing to prevent it from happening during a time of social disruption, when the government that they claim to respect in God’s name appears to not be functioning in a manner they consider viable. They are ready, at least many of them are.

Many fundamentalists consider themselves commanded to be ready for action because they believe themselves to be personally inerrant. If and when the time comes, they will not have time to consult a Bible for answers about what to do. Should they support Texas secession from the Union, as hundreds of thousands of them now do, or not? Should they oppose government-mandated or even government-encouraged measures for energy efficiency, or should they continue to insist that God wants us to burn up all the oil and coal we can, right now, as millions of them believe? Should they join a militia, as thousands of them have, or not? And should such a militia take up arms against the government, as claimed by one local elected official in Texas, or not? The Bible, which they haven’t read anyway, has no clear answers spelled out to such questions. They have to use their own judgment which they believe is inerrant, so long as they hold that Bible up over their heads.

Respecting our Heritage

After those emails from Hell, anything I write as a straight essay has got to be a let-down. But get used to it! It’s time to get back to having a reg’lar blog.

I respect my heritage. My great-great grandfather fought on the Confederate side in the Civil War. I respect him. But that doesn’t mean I have to celebrate that particular aspect of his life. I don’t know much else about him, except that he was one of six husbands of Minerva Pettit, who cheated on him. He was a farmer in Indian Territory. I don’t think he owned slaves. I think I can respect his memory for other reasons. Even as recently as the generation just before mine, nearly all the members of my family on both sides were racists, sometimes to an alarming extent (although their abuse of blacks was only verbal, as far as I know). I can hate this part of my heritage, even while respecting the many good aspects of their characters.

But in Oklahoma, where I live—especially in the town of Tushka, a few miles north of where I work, a town that has two Confederate flag roadside stands, and where they proudly declare themselves to be Confederates rather than Americans—hundreds of thousands of people (a significant minority of our population of three million) worship the Confederate flag.

What are other people around the world to make of this? They can be excused for thinking that a significant number of Americans still yearn for the days of slavery.

Of course the Confederates were not as evil as the Nazis. But today in Germany you seldom if ever see a swastika or Nazi flag. As a matter of fact, such insignia virtually disappeared right after the War. The Third Reich is part of German history, and they preserve its memory, but they do not celebrate it. They have, collectively as a nation, repented of their evil past. What would you think if, all over rural Germany, you saw Nazi flags waving?

If anything, the Imperial Japanese were worse than the Nazis. But today you almost never see—perhaps never; I don’t know—the Imperial Japanese flag with red rays coming out of the red sun. The Empire of the Sun, the mythic land of Hakkō Ichiyū, is part of the historical heritage of Japan, but they do not celebrate it. They have, collectively as a nation, repented of their evil past. Just recently the prime minister of Japan apologized to South Korea for some events during what they called the Greater East Asian Conflict, which began with the Japanese annexation of Korea. What would you think if, all over rural Japan, you saw Imperial flags waving?

I stopped at a Confederate museum north of Tushka. It had old stuff in it like most museums. But it did not celebrate the Confederacy. It simply preserved its memory. Unlike my stressful visit with a Confederate flag salesman (described in an earlier entry), to whom the Confederacy was an important part of the present, this museum considered the Confederacy to be part of the past. I enjoyed this museum. I have to agree with South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (see, I sometimes agree with Southern Republicans) that the Confederate flag belongs in a museum.

Germany and Japan have repented. The Confederate States of America has not. The former Confederacy is defiant. That is our shame in the eyes of the world.

Why Do Some Creationists Hate God’s Creation?

I know I have written about this topic previously, but I have a new story to relate to you about it.

There is a certain state senator in Oklahoma, whose name some of you know but which I will not here publish, who is infamous for being an extreme creationist. (He represents me in the state senate.) Every year he introduces legislation that supposedly protects the rights of creationist students, rights that are already protected. He insists on a top-down, big-government solution to a nonexistent problem, something you would not expect from a Republican. He gets little support even from fellow Republicans.

But it appears that he has open disdain for God’s creation, if that is what nature is.

One of our best undergraduate students presented a poster at the state capitol during a research symposium. State representatives and senators were free to roam around and see the exciting scientific research being done by undergraduates in Oklahoma. Our student’s poster was about stream reclamation and the reduction of water pollution. She won a prize for the quality of her work.

The state senator referred to above was one of the ones who went around looking at the posters. He asked the student whether her research was directly related to human health. She indicated that it was indirectly related to human health, through the promotion of environmental quality. The senator derisively wondered who would possibly fund scientific research that was not directly related to human health. The student indicated that it was sponsored, in part, by a federal grant. The senator responded that wasting money was typical of the federal government.

This senator openly sneered at one of the best undergrad students at the university in his own district. And he did so by openly stating that anything having to do with the natural world was not worth studying. He was openly dismissive of both science education and God’s creation.

This is not always the way Republicans behave. Our local state representative, also a Republican, visited with the student and was respectful of the quality of the work.

I suspect that, for this senator, creationism is merely a political tool. When he campaigns, he can say that he is defending God against the evil worshippers of Satan, which apparently includes many or most of his fellow Republicans who do not support his extremism. This senator apparently thinks that God was stupid for having created anything in the world other than humans and those things that humans directly use. God created many species that we not only do not use but do not even know; what kind of stupid God would have created all these species without asking this senator’s permission first? Or, more likely, this senator doesn’t really believe in God at all and just uses God as a political tool.

I could respect environmentalist creationists. I’m still waiting to find one.

My Skepticism: The Early Days

Perhaps the first seedling of skepticism germinated in my brain long, long before I became a skeptical inquirer of Christianity. It happened back when I was still a fundamentalist.

The church of which I was a member insisted that everyone in the world who believed differently from us, or ever had, were going to burn in hell forever. This would include people who were members of other Christian churches. Even at the time, I simply could not believe this. I personally knew lots of people who were not in our church but whom a God of Love would simply not be able to send to hell, unless he was an evil God.

That was it. It took decades for the realization to emerge in my mind that the whole doctrinal infrastructure of who is going to heaven and who is going to hell was invented by humans. As I write these words, the climactic theme from Gustav Mahler’s Resurrection Symphony is booming in my mind—at the climax of which, everyone is amazed to discover that the Resurrection is for everyone and not just for the doctrinally orthodox.