The Universality Of Morality

A Dubious Abrahamic Legacy:

Try persuading a Hindu or Jain or Buddhist that the only way to truly recognize the dignity / value of each and every human being is by recourse to Abrahamic (i.e. Biblical) sources.  The mere suggestion is preposterous; and will surely elicit a bewilderment.

We can be quite certain that Siddhartha Gautama did not have Mosaic law in mind when he preached benevolence; and that Ashoka the Great had not read the Bible when he promulgated a system of human rights.  Alas, one is forced to countenance both absurdity and hubris in order to make the claim that Abrahamic dogmas are the only feasible basis for an objective morality.

It is risible that the more ardent proponents of Abrahamic religion are so determined to take credit for ethical precepts that they routinely flout (e.g. judge not let you be judged, don’t be greedy, eschew materialism, love thy neighbor, be forbearing, etc.)  Claiming that one’s creed is the basis for certain ideals while simultaneously usurping those very ideals is a boondoggle that should be so easily dismissed.

As should be plain to see, the vast majority of Christianity has almost nothing to do with anything Jesus of Nazareth actually preached. It is no secret that the creed’s most vociferous practitioners routinely pass judgement, epitomize avarice, relish conspicuous consumption, are eager to persecute, and are the LAST to forgive.  (The happy exceptions, like Quakers and Unitarians, prove the rule.)  Voltaire put it well when he noted: “Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.”  Thomas Paine concurred, noting that “It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.” {21}

There are other problems.  Pretending to harbor grievances about something while simultaneously PROMOTING it would be laughable if it were not so perfidious.  It is a rather perverse irony that the (demonized) Egyptians of the Pharaonic epoch–who serve as the primary villain throughout the Torah–did NOT practice slavery; even as Mosaic law PRESCRIBES slavery.  This should prompt us to ask: Which ethical system was more immoral?

So what of the obligatory exaltation Abrahamic lore? Per most religious apologists, we are obliged to attribute any moral principle to a tribalistic, authoritarian system that demands a censorious approach to thought / expression, mandates dogmatism, and engenders revanchist attitudes.  That theme scheme is so Reactionary would seem to be a red flag for most level-headed people.  Yet many are duped into giving such a strikingly obtuse, puritanical mindset plaudits for being (what they are convinced is) the SOLUTION TO so many problems.

When it comes to its slew of odious proclamations, the Torah often ends up contradicting itself.  Take genocidal mania, for example.  Weren’t all humans “created in the image of god”?  Yet, then again, didn’t the Creator of the Universe decide to pick favorites amongst the homo sapiens scattered across this third planet from Sol? {31}

This issue prompted Thomas Paine to state: “Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man?”

In Jeremiah 11:11, the Abrahamic deity pronounces: “I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them.”  What sort of super-being is this?  Clearly, one that is pathologically vindictive.

With tales of Elijah letting children be eaten by bears and Joshua stopping the sun mid-day (so that he would have time to complete his genocide), it is clear that good will was not paramount in the proposed cosmogony.

We might inquirer further: Were the MIDIANITES of the Hijaz or the AMALEKITES of Edom “created in the image of god” when Yahweh instructed the Israelites to slaughter all of them?  What of the Moabites…or any of the other peoples against whom god adjured annihilation?  Pogroms along ethnic lines, you say?  If we’re all god’s children, how does this make sense?

And what about the denizens of the Indus Valley or of the Yellow River Valley?  Did the Indians and Chinese matter?  What about the Celt-Iberians, Siberians, Polynesians, and Native Americans?  Were they less relevant to the grand cosmic plan?  Or is it more likely that the senescent authors of the Torah were simply unaware that such peoples even existed? {23}  The obliviousness of primitive minds seems to be a more likely explanation than “god works in mysterious ways”.

Well, hold on.  Let’s be charitable.  Perhaps those genocides were isolated incidents, attributable to extenuating circumstances.  Alas, no.  Ethnic cleansing seems to have been standard operating procedure for the duration of the Bronze Age.  Behold First Samuel 6:10, where–we are notified–50,000 were slaughtered. For what egregious transgression was this atrocity perpetrated? For peeking into the ark of the covenant.  In First Samuel 15:3, followers are commanded to slaughter ALL Amalikites, including women and children (and, for good measure, all their livestock).

The Abrahamic deity’s wrath even extended to children (Second Kings 2:23-24) and to infants (Exodus 12:29 and Psalm 137:9).  Especially cringe-worthy is Deuteronomy 20:10-15: “When god hands the city over to you, kill every man in that city with your swords.  But take the women, the children, the cattle, and everything else of value as plunder for yourselves.  You may possess and use these spoils of war that the god gives you from your enemies.”  Sounds like the rantings of a primitive tribal panjandrum rather than the wise council of a benevolent super-being.

We see here where the Sunnah got its precedent.  As I show in my essay on the Syriac source-material for its scripture, Islam lifted much of its creed from antecedent Abrahamic lore; and–as outlined in my series on the history of Salafism–when it came to carrying on the tradition of genocidal mania, it put the precedent into overdrive.

Alas, collective punishment along ethnic lines was standard throughout the Torah–as with Genesis 34:25-29.  Numbers 31 is perhaps the most heinous.  In verses 13-18,  Moses orders his followers to execute all the Midianite boys and non-virgin females…which entailed the slaughter of many tens of thousands.  Wherefore?  To take revenge for a bad dalliance between an Israelite man and a Midianite girl.  But take heart: During the mass execution, 32,000 virgin females were spared…and subsequently enslaved.

(What else do we encounter in Numbers?  Behold verses 1-3 and 27-35 in chapter 21; as well as verse 35 in chapter 16.)

And what of culpability-by-association?  As it happens, collective punishment was not limited to those who were contemporaneous.  Exodus 34:7, Deuteronomy 5:9, and Numbers 14:18 demand that, should one transgress, descendants shall ALSO be punished. Sons and grandsons aren’t enough; they shall be punished for the next FOUR GENERATIONS. (!)  This goes beyond pathological vindictiveness; it is sheer malice.  (Think this was an aberration.  Nope.  It is reiterated in the Book of Isaiah (65:6-7) AND in the Book of Jeremiah (32:18), as well as in Psalms 79 and 109.

Exodus 23:31-33 is a recipe for Judeo-Supremacy: “You shall drive [non-Hebrews] out before you.  You shall not make a treaty with them and their gods.  They shall not be allowed to live in your land.”  This is actually harsher than even the Koran, which makes allowances for fellow “People of the Book” (“dhimmi”) remaining in the land…so long as they submit (that is: don’t get out of line and pay the protection tax).

The genocidal passages go on and on.  The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:23-25…and through Exodus 32:27, where Moses slaughtered 3,000 of his fellow Hebrews for not toeing the line.  For other examples of sanctioned genocide in the Torah, see Deuteronomy 3:3-7, 7:12, and 20:16. {22}

The Judaic apologist may be inclined to respond: “Well, the Torah may extol genocide.  But hey!  At least it tells us not to bathe a calf in its mother’s milk!”  In fact, virtually all of the hundreds of “mitzvot” enumerated (in the 3rd century A.D., the Palestinian rabbi Simlai counted 613 in all) are utterly inane, if not asinine.  We already mentioned the (half-assed) proscriptions against greed, lying, stealing, cheating, and killing.  Fine. But here’s the thing: None of the OTHER commandments–in EITHER of the versions presented in the Torah–have anything to do with ethics.  Rather, they have to do with procedural matters (read: FORMALITIES).  After all, a “mitzvah” was originally conceived as a RELIGIOUS obligation, not an ethical obligation.  In other words: This was a matter of PIETY, not of probity. {24}

This enumeration of “mitzvot” has had virtually no role to play in the development of (estimable) ethical systems–nor any role to play in the development of civil society; seeing as how it was purportedly codified two and a half millennia ago.  (This fact is made plain in my survey: “The Long History of Legal Codes”.)  Voltaire was correct when he observed that “as long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” {13}

To what extent and in what ways does Mosaic law capitalize on all that is best in humanity?  How, exactly, does the Halakha, or the Roman Catholic catechism, or the Sunnah invoke the better angels of our nature?  These are legitimate questions to pose.  Be that as it may, to insist that [insert holy book here] is the final word on all important matters is to implicitly–if not explicitly–repudiate all the things that mankind has learned ever since (in science as well as in political theory).

For when fetishizing a holy book, one is obliged to suppose that the point at which it was composed was the point at which mankind’s understanding of the universe reached its pinnacle–that is: knowledge stopped evolving in any significant way.

Pursuant to this putative historiographical apogee, there was no more room for (fundamental) improvement.  After all, THAT was the resplendent acme of all insight.  The implication of this self-ingratiating farce is simple: We now have nothing left to do but refer back to what the designated tract says.  It’s all in there…somewhere…even if you need to engage in some exegetical acrobatics to get what you’re looking for.

The obduracy of this worldview is on full display in the Hebrew Bible.  The Creator of the Universe decided to make a compact with one particular tribe in Bronze Age Canaan…well, ACCORDING TO THAT TRIBE.  Funny how that worked out.  Such brazen conceit reminds us of the universal penchant to proclaim: “God is exclusively on OUR side”…which, it turns out, is something anyone can say at any point to justify, well, ANYTHING.

Though entirely specious, this captivating narrative holds tremendous appeal.  More to the point: Such a proposition would surely have seemed plausible to those of a pre-modern age (in which dogmatism and tribalism ran rampant).  For everyone likes to believe that the auspicious events of THEIR OWN epoch represent the high water-mark of human actualization.  They can then proceed with the unwavering conviction that, come what may, the god(s) are on THEIR side.  (With the imprimatur of the godhead, anything goes.)  Thus a tenet is seen as inviolable if it is issued from “on high”.  (After all, who are we mere mortals to question the wisdom of an omniscient super-being; or challenge what has been divinely ordained?)  And who is “god”?  Well, it’s whoever one makes him / her to be.  As Voltaire noted: “God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.”

In his snide remark about freethinkers’ indiscriminate will to believe, G.K. Chesterton had it exactly backwards.  In the event that one is over-eager to stand for SOMETHING, one will fall for just about anything.  More to the point: If one is prone to deifying a figurehead (be it a person or supernatural entity), then one will be willing to believe whatever happens to hit the right buttons–no matter how outlandish (or, as Scott Atran noted, ESPECIALLY if it is outlandish).  For when a person is heavily inclined toward cultic thinking, and he is earnestly seeking to satiate certain needs, all bets are off.  Such a person is likely to be drawn to some form of cult activity.  WHICH cult it ends up being is largely a matter of accident (esp. accident of birth); as it will likely be whatever presents itself most readily (or, if there are several viable options, whatever most resonates; pace ambient social pressures).

Cultic thinking is fungible precisely due to the versatility of this psychical mechanism.  That’s why the penchant for religiosity is transferable between creeds: disenchanted Catholics become Evangelicals, disaffected Evangelicals become Scientologists, etc.  (It’s not for nothing that wayward gang-members routinely convert to Islam while in prison.)  Once cult activity PER SE is on the table, the possibilities are almost endless.

Meanwhile, someone who has managed to find a sense of purpose / belonging by his own devices will NOT be disposed to cult activity; especially when one has cultivated a healthy self-esteem.  Far from prostituting his mind to the first charismatic leader to mesmerize him, he is forced to be more judicious in what he opts to lend credence.  Having procured for himself a firm existential orientation–WITHOUT having resorted to dogmatism or tribalism–he is more apt to engage in critical reflection / deliberation.  Such lucidity / perspicacity enables someone to secure all the purported virtues of religionism (morality, spirituality, community, existential ballast) without having to countenance any of its drawbacks.  Insisting that dogmatism and/or tribalism is required to have an ethical framework, access to the divine, social support, or something to “live for” is like insisting that one must be well-versed in alchemy to be a chemist.

Make no mistake: The appeal of cult activity is profound.  For it is a straight-forward way to (seem to) give one’s life meaning.  And it confers the satisfaction of being part of something important (thereby: offering a sense of direction for those who may otherwise feel lost at sea; conferring the much-needed sensation of MATTERING on those who might otherwise feel alienated; providing structure to those who may otherwise be rudderless).  Religionism is a balm for disaffection and anomie.

We join clubs to belong (that is: to be part of something, to feel accepted by others).  We engage in idolatry (that is: worship celestial beings or worldly demagogues) because we revel in enchantment (especially when it is SHARED enchantment).  So in the event that one is prone to idolatry and/or dogmatism and/or tribalism, as soon as one finds something that “fits the bill”, one will be willing to believe, well, ANYTHING.

And contrary to G.K. Chesterton’s quip that non-believers are prone to believing anything, not even the most jaded of nihilists could actually believe in NOTHING; lest they not survive beyond this weekend.  (The alternative to religionism isn’t nihilism; it’s finding the need to figure things out without resorting to dogmatism.)

Question: What sort of person is open to believe just about anything?  Certainly not a well-adjusted person who thinks for himself.  Well-honed critical thinking skills (spec. in the context of Kantian autonomy) is a virtual guarantee that one will NOT succumb to institutionalized dogmatism (that is: will not be religious). As the consummate freethinker, Thomas Paine put it well when he averred, “My mind is my own church.”  And as Kant made clear: To be autonomous is not a gateway to nihilism; it’s a gateway to MATURITY.  (Nietzsche would have concurred.)  Rectitude is inimical to heteronomy.  Probity knows no groupthink, and certainly no obeisance.  Heteronomy is no basis for morality; as any idiot can follow orders. Only when one’s morality is predicated on genuine autonomy do principles really matter.

To recapitulate: Positing a monumental historical interlude (a figure, an event, a holy book) with one’s progenitors (their leaders, deeds, and tenets) as the stars of the show, often entails seeing mankind’s procurement of wisdom as a fait accompli.  The implication is that, thereafter, all we have left to do is re-apply what has already been given to us.

Here’s the catch.  In order to maintain this illusion, people today are forced to suppose that any (apparent) improvements that have occurred in the intervening time must be attributed to that singular milestone.  (Here, “milestone” is an apt metaphor, as the creed is typically rigid and, well, set in stone.)  Consequently, any insights that have been gleaned EVER SINCE that pivotal juncture must be seen in light of, well, that particular interlude in human history–be it a man receiving divine revelation on a mountaintop or a demagogue making a decree from his ivory tower.

Take, for example, the fetishization of the Mosaic decalogue (a.k.a. the “ten commandments”) in the Abrahamic tradition.  The Hebrews’ covenant with the Abrahamic deity had two primary versions: Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-21.  (Take your pick.) {5}  We might start by noting that there is no indication that either David OR Solomon (the two kings of the united “Kingdom of Israel”) had any knowledge of a Mosaic decalogue.  There is not a single reference to the fabled “ten commandments” in anything they said or did. (!)  After all, David had no qualms with coveting the married woman, Bathsheba–a clear contravention of the covenant with his god that he surely would have at least CONSIDERED. {9}

The best that can be said about Mosaic law is that some of it pointed out what was already obvious to any sane person at any point in history: that we should not cheat, steal, lie, or kill (without permission).  Yet even on those elementary points, the decalogue does not quite get it right.  For it does not prohibit all forms of cheating (deception); it does not prohibit theft across the board (defrauding ANYONE, extorting ANYONE); and–in its earnest abjuration of genocide–it certainly does not prohibit ALL instances of murder.  (Hence: Don’t commit unsanctioned homicide; but feel free to stone women for extramarital sex.)

So what, then?  The divinely-forged compact admonished people not to covet others’ property (including others’ wives); and often limited other admonishments to fellow Hebrews.  Indeed, Judaic proscriptions like those against lying and killing–and usury, for that matter–seem not to have applied to those outside the tribe; as they pertained exclusively to fellow Hebrews. {11}  How can we be so sure “neighbors” was so circumscribed?  Fixation on bloodlines was a major part of this dubious precedent.  Tellingly, even the descendants of “mamzers” (those of impure / foreign blood) were prohibited by this law-code from taking part in the “congregation of Yahweh” UP TO THE TENTH GENERATION (as specified in the opening verses of Deuteronomy chapter 23). 

Hence we are given a strictly delimited version of “love thy neighbor”.  Certain entitlements were limited to the chosen people: Beth Israel.

Moreover: The prohibition against lying was presented only in terms of bearing false witness; and so did not extend to an obligation to keep promises with–nor to abstain from hoodwinking–those outside of the tribe.  (The stricture seems to have been limited to testimonials; whereby piety was to be upheld.  Other forms of deception were, apparently, still fair game.)  Hence: TESTIMONY should be honest.  Meanwhile, slavery was all well and good.

And so we find that even on the most basic of moral precepts, the Abrahamic creed fell far short; and fell far short from the get-go. {10}  The notion that civil society owes the honoring of Mosaic law for its most prized virtues–and would not have an objective basis for morality BUT FOR Judaism / Christianity–is nothing short of preposterous.  Yet this does not prevent the most delusive of Judaic / Christian apologists from making such brazen claims.

Judaism began with sacralized human sacrifices.  This execrable “Yah-weh-ist” practice is attested throughout the Hebrew Bible.  Here are two dozen notable passages:

• Exodus (13:12-16, 16:20, 20:26, 22:28-30, 23:37, and 34:19)
• Deuteronomy (12:30-31 and 18:10)
• Judges (11:29-40)
• Second Kings (3:27, 16:3, 17:[1]7, 21:6, and 23:10)
• Second Chronicles (28:3 and 33:6)
• Jeremiah (7:31, 19:4-5, and 32:35)
• Isaiah (30:27-33 and 57:5-7)
• Ezekiel (16:20-21 and 20:26-37)
• Psalm (106:35-38)

It is from that tradition that Judaism was born.  (Note the reversion to the practice by kings Ahaz and Manasseh of Judah.  Sometimes the practice was rebuffed by god; much of the time it was demanded.  Either way, it was clearly an issue in need of being addressed amongst the target audience.)

The “Akedah” (the test of Abraham) was not about god’s (circumscribed) willingness to permit someone to transplant a human sacrifice with that of a ram; it was about one’s willingness to sacrifice a fellow human–even one’s own child–to appease the godhead.  Doing good deeds to demonstrate one’s fealty?  No.  The Abrahamic deity wanted FLESH.  (Call this the “burned meat over benevolence” precedent.)  Eventually, human sacrifice was eschewed (Micah 6:7) and even proscribed (Leviticus 18:21 and 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:30-31 and 18:10).  There seems to have been an effort to erase the fact that the Abrahamic deity once demanded such a opprobrious deed.  In Jeremiah 19:4-5, god not only rebukes the practice; he insists he never condoned it.  (After all, how could the ultimate source of moral authority have possibly ever endorsed reprobate behavior?)  The problem is that antecedent scripture remained fully in tact; and on the record for everyone to see.

As it turns out, nothing in Abrahamic scripture comes remotely close to articulating the most basic principles of civil society (e.g. human rights).  Therefore the supposition that civil society is PREDICATED ON Abrahamic scripture is completely without merit.  To anyone who makes such an outlandish contention, the only response is: “Don’t be ridiculous.”

Alas.  It is routine for the most ardent religionists to ascribe far, far, far more significance to their own sacred texts than is warranted; and thus to take credit for everything good that’s ever happened…whilst passing the buck when it comes to responsibility for anything bad.

So what are we to make of the commandment to not covet the property of, bear false witness against, or kill one’s fellow Hebrew?  Is this something to be impressed by?

No.  Societies around the world had been hewing to such mores long before–and long after–the Exilic Period; and NONE of it had anything to do with tablets carried down from Mount Horeb.  Yet the way Judeo-Christian apologists crow about the Mosaic legacy, all of Western Civilization–and even DEMOCRACY ITSELF–is predicated on Judeo-Christian tenets; even if unwittingly.

The implication here is that mankind has the Abrahamic (religious) tradition to thank for all its accomplishments….including the insights of the Enlightenment. (!)  This is, of course, not only patently absurd; it is–in many ways–the exact opposite of the case.

And what of freedom of expression (of conscience, of speech, of the press) and of dissent?  THAT certainly did not derive from Judeo-Christian tenets.  Leviticus 24:16 mandates the death-penalty for anyone who blasphemes.  The same goes for the New Testament. Saul’s letter to the Romans explicitly prohibits dissent from authority (13:1-2).  (No kidding.  He proclaims that it is our duty to obey those in power, whoever they might be.  Gadzooks!) {36}

Even a cursory survey of world history (and of the PRESENT geo-political landscape) reveals–with blinding clarity–that authoritarian / puritanical mindset is synonymous with fundamentalist religion, irrespective of the creed.  Hence: When the English Bill of Rights was drafted in 1689, and when the American Bill of Rights exactly one century later, the measures had NOTHING to do with religious doctrine.

This bear worth repeating: Authoritarian / puritanical sensibilities have always been concomitant with cult activity–be it Orthodox Judaism or Pentecostalism or Salafism or Juche or Scientology or anything else.

It is no secret that the Roman Catholic Church was always adamantly against the separation of church and state.  The MILLENNIUM of European society’s stagnation is largely attributable to the fact that, throughout the era of the Holy Roman Empire, church and state were inextricably intertwined.  So it comes as little surprise that when the Florentine author, Dante Alighieri penned a treatise promoting the separation of church and state in 1312, “De Monarchia”, the Vatican immediately banned it.

This position was, of course, in spite of Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21, and Luke 20:25; in which Jesus of Nazareth (hereafter: JoN) exhorted his followers to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto god that which is for god.  It’s easy to skip that part when one is hellbent on instituting theocracy.

The fact that the Gospels enjoined the separation of church and state was laudable.  It is worth noting three other estimable teachings ascribed to JoN:

• “turn the other cheek” (reject the temptation to be vengeful; be peaceable)
• “judge not lest ye be judged” (be tolerant of those with whom you disagree; be open-minded)
• “love thy neighbor” (extend the scope of empathy to THE OTHER; be kind to the stranger)

Thus NON-theocracy, forbearance, humility, and compassion.  Such ideals are is illustrated in such parables as the Good Samaritan and the challenge to chastisers quick to condemn others to cast the first stone.

JoN also espoused communal ownership (i.e. socialism)–as attested in Luke 3:11 when he states: “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and whoever has food is to do likewise.”  (If one didn’t know any better, one might be left with the impression that JoN was some sort of Progressive.  Imagine.)

Materialism / hyper-consumerism (esp. conspicuous consumption) is a flagrant betrayal of JoN’s message.  But no matter.  Vengeance, hubris, AND cupidity–along with obsession and delusion–are all hallmarks of the most zealous Christians in history.

The Roman Catholic Church went so far as to turn ALL FIVE of the above (estimable) teachings completely on their head.  JoN’s admonishments against hoarding wealth were completely ignored by the Vatican, which–in due course–became a repository of monomaniacal ambition and unbounded decadence; not to mention a hive of unbridled avarice.

At every point, and in every way, the Catholic Church rebuked prognostications that “the meek shall inherit the Earth”; opting instead for power.  Before long, the Vatican had become one of the most corrupt institutions on the planet; and perhaps the most unscrupulous organization in human history.  (Times haven’t changed.)

Since Theodosius christened the Roman Empire a totalitarian theocracy at Thessalonica in February of 380, a prerequisite for being a Roman Catholic was–effectively–to ignore just about everything worthwhile JoN is purported to have taught.

And what of Islam?  What role has the Sunnah played in the annals of human events?

In order to answer this question, there is a query that level-headed Muslims might wish to pose to themselves.  Pick any (genuine) pearl of wisdom acquired since birth, and ask: “Did I need the Sunnah for that?  Could I have gleaned it independently of my Faith?”  If Islam’s holy book is, indeed, a valid source of wisdom, then there should be clear responses to these questions (respectively: “yes” and “no”).

Alas, one digs oneself into quite a deep hole should one answer in this way.  For, in doing so, one is essentially admitting that one is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.  (This seems to be a harsh indictment until we take any fundamental moral insight, and hear one say, “Gosh-golly!  BUT FOR having read the Koran, I would not have realized that.”  Such a person is either deluded or a sociopath.)

For those with dignity, the (honest) responses to the above two questions can only possibly be, respectively: “of course not” and “of course”.  In that case, one implicitly admits that the Koran is–AT BEST–a grievously imperfect moral prosthetic for, well, those who are in desperate need of said prosthetic.

The fact of the matter is that when a Progressive Muslim condemns any of the morally repugnant things that are routinely done in the name of Islam, it is not his Muslim-ness that enables him–let alone impels him–to do so; it is his basic humanity.  And one’s humanity exists independently of any given dogmatic system.  More to the point: Probity is not realized by reading any specific book; as moral sense cannot be gleaned from an instruction manual.  (Following directions is a sign of obeisance, not of rectitude.) To morally evaluate a source, one must have recourse to standards that exist independently of the source-in-question.

The issue here is one of appropriate attribution.  If a religious person exhibits probity, shall we suppose that it is somehow due to an unwavering adherence to sacred doctrine?  Would the person be iniquitous BUT FOR having sworn himself to this or that code?  Such questions answer themselves.

For example, regarding punishment for apostasy, Progressive Muslims are forced to unequivocally and categorically disavow 2:217, 4:89, 5:54, 9:11-12/66/73-74, and 88:21 (though they may not admit–to others or to themselves–that this is, in fact, what they are doing).  Their rejection–be it implicit or explicit–belies the professed (divine) nature of the book in which these passages are contained.  It should be noted that this is not a matter of rejecting some allegedly “distorted” INTERPRETATION OF these verses; it is the rejection of the verses themselves.  There is no other way to repudiate what they clearly mean. (The trick, of course, is not to read between the lines; it’s to read the lines themselves.)

It is only through the bowdlerization of sacred texts (selective disavowal of passages based on standards that cannot THEMSELVES derive from the text in question) that most religious traditions can be reconciled with an effort to foster civil society.  Engaging in exegetical shenanigans, whereby chimerical subtext is posited so as to tweak the meaning as it suits one’s purposes, is disingenuous.  The need to resort to such hermeneutic chicanery in order to get a text to mean what one WISHES it meant would not exist had the text been composed in a cogent manner.  (This brings to mind a quip by Voltaire: “The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reason.”) Such exegetical shenanigans (known as “eisegesis”) is simply a form of legerdemain: clandestinely importing the desired meaning into the text, then pretending it inhered in the text all along.

To reiterate: Rather than reading “between the lines”, honest expositors simply read the lines themselves.  It is only via a judicious parsing of scripture that Progressive X (where X is ANY religion) is possible.  No exegetical shenanigans required.

It seems that no matter how diligently we try to twist and contort our interpretive lens into a funhouse mirror, we simply cannot make a text mean what it obviously does not really mean; or make it seem more erudite than it really is.

Like any other holy book in history, the Koran played no role AT ALL in the development of civil society.  To illustrate this point, simply contrast the writings of, say, Thomas Paine with the Koran’s contents (or, for that matter, the contents of the Torah).  The juxtaposition is jaw-dropping–both in erudition and in eloquence.

Of course, Paine is only one possible point of contrast.  If we read Bacon, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, Michel de Montaigne, the Marquis de Condorcet, Kant, Wollstonecraft, Mill, Dewey–or, for that matter, the likes of John Rawls, Peter Singer, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Ronald Dworkin, or Amartya Sen–and then read ANY Abrahamic scripture, we will encounter the extremes of human discourse.  (Making this contrast requires that one actually read the above works–a task that few have bothered to do.)

To pretend that the Torah or Koran is the best articulation of moral principles…EVER…is just plain silly.  When one reads the Torah or Koran, one should realize something that is glaringly obvious: It is not that mankind can do better; it is that mankind HAS done better.  Much, much, much better.  If the “Recitations” is an accurate transcription of the Creator of the Universe, then the Creator of the Universe has much to learn from any one of the aforementioned thinkers.  (Unlike most other holy books, doctrinal Muslims actually believe that the Koran is a VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT of the Abrahamic deity’s final message to all mankind.)

As for the claim that the Koran (or the Torah, for that matter) is THE best possible explication of human rights, another comparison may be in order.  Contrast the contents of the 1948 U.N. Declaration of Human Rights with the contents of Islam’s holy book.  Not fair, you say?  Recall that the Koran, according to the Koran, is supposed to be a perfectly worded, TIMELESS piece of exposition.  That is: It is impossible to articulate any of its points any better; and its messages are adequate FOR EVERYONE, FOR ALL TIME.  The book not only invites such comparisons; it demands them.

So what is it, exactly, that we are supposed to learn from Biblical proclamations?  That the Creator of the Universe prefers offerings of singed meat over fresh vegetables (as Cain learned)?  That if a man finds his betrothed not to be virginal, he shall stone her to death at her father’s doorstep?  That trial by ordeal is a prudent way to see if a woman accused of adultery is guilty? {17}  That disobedient children should be KILLED?  That homosexuality is an abomination?  That genocide is a prudent way to remedy perceived iniquity? {18}  Are we to suppose that it was mixing meat with dairy that was preventing mankind from realizing its full potential?  (That last query sounds zany.  Yet according to Exodus 23:19, the answer is a resounding YES.)

With its “an eye for an eye” protocol, the Torah promotes a retributive conception of “justice” (the justice of tribal honor; and thus tribe-based animus) rather than restorative justice (the distributive justice of civil society).  Two wrongs don’t make a right.  The response to those who demonstrate the worst of what humans can do is to show them the best of humanity; so what are we to make of passages like Exodus 21:24 and Koran 5:45?  That the punishment should be proportional to the crime?  Nope; that’s clearly not what it says.  The line is clearly an enjoinder for retribution.

Alas, the most profound moral lesson proffered by Mosaic law is that deception, betrayal, covetousness, and murder are off-limits–a notification that is not exactly earth-shattering news for anyone who is sane.  For the world’s Judeo-Christian apologists to take credit for such elementary strictures is rather daffy.  As we’ll see below, such prohibitions are STANDARD in ethical codes around the world.

Are we to consider the ultimate source of moral guidance to be a book in which the deity has a bear maul children (Second Kings 2:23-24) and has a mob stone a man to death for the crime of gathering kindling on Saturday so that he may feed his family (Numbers 15:32-36)?  If one isn’t afflicted with psychopathy, the answer is obvious.

We know that things like fraud and theft are unethical simply from the Golden Rule: a maxim that–as we’ll see–predates Occidental mores.  The mistake, of course, is to suppose that the only way to establish an objective basis for morality is to espouse Divine Command Theory (discussed forthwith).

Even the didactic heft proffered by the Talmudic tradition–insofar as it proffered laudable discursive approaches to important matters–was predicated not on the credence of Mosaic law, but on the capacity for people to engage in critical deliberation; and on a precedent of intellectual curiosity that in no way depended on the Halakha…or on ANY sacred doctrine for that matter.  Talmudic discourse was a tradition of conducting worthwhile discussion IN SPITE OF the miasma of titillating dogmas in which participants immersed themselves.  They operated with alacrity IN SPITE OF, not because of, their religiosity.

So we might ask: When we are instructed to stone to death brides found not to be virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), are we to take that as seriously as the demand to stone to death those gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)?  How about when First Samuel 18:25 recommends the ruler be given a hundred goyim foreskins as tribute?

Upon surveying the contents of the Torah (nay, the entire Mikra), we quickly find we are dealing with the ramblings of authors addled by Iron Age thinking.  The Hebrew Bible is a treasure trove of moral insights in the same way that Ptolemy’s “Almagest” furnishes us with the finer points of theoretical cosmology.  It is no exaggeration to say that the average Harlequin Romance novel is a better source of spiritual guidance.

Is it prudent to allow ourselves to be held hostage by such arcane material?  Responsible thinkers are obliged to bring their moral intuitions to bear on whatever sacred texts happen to tantalize their fancy.  (This is just as much true when it comes to the New Testament…which, it turns out, also promotes both slavery and misogyny.)

For an indication of how intellectually benighted the earliest Abrahamic culture was, we might note the glaring paucity of scientific and technological achievements.  During the Second Temple / Mishnaic periods, the grand total of scientific and technological contributions of Beth Israel was ZERO. {7}  The explanation for this is simple: The earliest Jews sought explanations solely in myth (that is: not in by analyzing efficient causes or inquiry into the natural world).  They were steeped in dogmatism; and critical thinking was anathema.  Tellingly, in 1677, when a Jewish thinker finally got around to articulating the principle of sufficient reason, it required him LEAVING Judaism.  As is well known, Spinoza was banished from Beth Israel for his unsolicited (secular) insights.

Such deficiency becomes especially obvious when we contrast (pre-Talmudic) Beth Israel to, say, the Chinese, Hindus / Buddhists, Persians, and Greeks of the same period–all of whom made profound advances; none of whom were acquainted with the Abrahamic deity.

And so it went: In between animal sacrifices and playing nine kinnor, those partaking in the Mosaic Law in the pre-Talmudic era accomplished nothing outside the production of the Mikra…along with perhaps the beginnings of the Mishnaic tradition. {3}  Looking to the Exilic Period in particular (when Judaic lore was first codified), try as one might, one cannot find the Judaic equivalent of a Pythagoras (who was teaching at around that time).  If a cosmic super-being had truly “chosen” this small band of Middle Eastern monotheists, he certainly did not choose them to understand much about the natural world.

In spite of all this, Judeo-Christian AND Muslim apologists persist in making the following (cockamamie) claim: BUT FOR this Abrahamic creed, there would be no OBJECTIVE basis for ethical guidelines in everyday life.  This impoverished view of morality is based–in large part–on ignorance (of history, of their own creed, and of moral philosophy).  In the more invidious cases, this claim is based on a wanton obfuscation of the intellectual blight that has been virtually synonymous with Judeo-Christian and Islamic dominion throughout history.  Only a moral dunce says: “If it were not for these edicts, we would have no objective basis for morality!”  

At best, a holy book is a prosthetic for morality (just as it serves as a prosthetic for spirituality).  But to concede that the lore of this or that religion is a didactic tool is to concede that it is really nothing more than a compelling narrative vehicle–like any other useful parable.  Hence there is an obvious answer to the question: If not for THIS instruction manual, how could we have a solid foundation for ascertaining what is right and wrong?

It is indubitable that objective moral standards are available to Freethinkers.  In fact, instruction manuals only ever GET IN THE WAY of apprehending such standards.  With this in mind, it makes perfect sense that Jews, Christians, and Muslims practiced slavery.  After all, the concept of human rights was inimical to the worldview of the authors of their respective scriptures.  It is to this heinous practice–and conditions for the emergence of civil rights–that we now turn.