Should We Abolish Christianity?

By

William D. Dannenmaier

The United States Constitution, our legal system and the recognition it gives to the value of human life was developed and has evolved from the Christian principles of our founding fathers.  But those very principles have permitted routine attacks on the religion from which they were devised.

On a disorganized basis, attacks on Christianity probably began prior to the American Revolution.  On the current organized basis, it has been led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and, more recently, by Muslim leaders and, worst of all, by our Federal Government.  San Francisco’s homosexual festival’s recent insulting and sexual parody of Christianity and its founder are a step downward in those well organized attacks. 

Everyone is familiar with the lawsuits by the ACLU against any school district or public property that dares to erect a Christmas tree or sing a Christmas hymn.  Such lawsuits and, I presume, fear of the lawsuits, have led to interesting and stupid decisions.  Recently, a young woman graduating from the top of her class in high school had the audacity to thank God for her success – the school refused her a diploma.  That problem seems to occur every year.  About fifteen years ago, my grandson August’s school in Colorado Springs declared against Christmas celebrations.  August, in the second grade, was told to draw symbols of Hanukkah, a celebration of a Jewish military victory several thousand years ago.  When he protested that he wanted to draw pictures of the Christ child, he was sent to the Principal.  His father had to go to school because of his misbehavior. Why was it right for him to draw a Jewish symbol, but wrong to draw a Christian symbol?  I could understand that in Israel, where it is against the law to try to convert people to Christianity (better an atheist than a Christian!) but Colorado Springs is in the United States.

In recent years, Muslims have become active in demanding their “rights.”  A woman in Florida was permitted to have her driver’s license photograph taken completely veiled in accordance with “Muslim” law.  Florida did not raise the fact that if she lived in a country with strict Muslim law, she wouldn’t be permitted to drive an automobile – or leave home without the company of an adult male relative.  Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis are refusing to drive passengers from the airport who possess liquor, again because it is against “Muslim” law.  They won’t permit blind people with Seeing Eye dogs to ride in their cabs for the same reason.  All of these people have left nations where Muslim law ruled because they couldn’t stand living in a nation created under and ruled by Muslim law.  Now they want the right to impose that law here. 

The founders of the United States specifically separated the powers of church and state.  They didn’t want priests or mullahs making and enforcing their own rules.  I thought that was still the law in the United States.  Why did Florida change the state law for a religious reason? 

More disturbing are recent federal actions.  Last year the Internal Revenue Service sued two churches in California whose pastors had dared discuss politics from their pulpits.  Isn’t it the right, even the obligation, of ministers (or priests or rabbis) to speak out on matters which affect the lives of their parishioners?  Particularly moral matters?  It interested me, that the national news and none of the mainstream churches made a public outcry over this.  Also disturbing, was the Congressman who took his oath of office on the Qur’an.  It authorizes the killing of people who are “unbelievers,” an authorization which some Muslim sects accept as also meaning members of other Muslim sects.  This is quite different from Christianity, which tells people to love their neighbors - without questioning their religion.  

With all these doubts in mind, I purchased and read A Tale of a Tub and Other Writings by Jonathan Swift, which was published three hundred years ago.  I did this following an article which, in describing Swift as the greatest writer of satire in the English language, also said “A Tale of a Tub” was his best work – better than Gulliver’s Travels.   

I found “A Tale of a Tub” difficult to understand because of my lack of knowledge of English history, but one of the gems in the book was “The Abolishing of Christianity in England.”  Swift said that while he couldn’t defend “real” Christianity, he could defend “nominal” Christianity. 

According to Swift people need a religion to revile, to protest against because complaining about God is much safer than complaining about real people.  That if they protested against political leaders or government institutions – say the IRS – they could get in trouble.  Of course this is even truer of Christians in Muslim countries; there a protest can lead to a death sentence.

Swift argued that criticizing Christianity in England provided a living for many professors, particularly philosophers and social scientists.  He claimed artists and comedians also profited from Christianity and their freedom to ridicule it.  

It appears there has been little change since 1708.   In our time, an “artist” made his fame by immersing a cross in a bottle of urine.  Has anyone heard of him or his work before or since?  Some actress of declining notoriety, not talent as it wasn’t there in the first place, had herself posed as if on a cross.  It resurrected her name – for a moment.

This latter point of usefulness reminded me of how President Clinton, when it was proven without doubt that he had sexual affairs and had lied about them to the public as well as under oath, immediately went to TWO different ministers for counseling on his “problem.”  Hillary Clinton’s famous criticism of the “right wing conspiracy of fundamentalists” was another use of Christianity for personal benefit.  At the time, I tried to remember when two different fundamentalist churches had agreed on anything, the idea of their uniting in a national conspiracy was hilarious, but the press didn’t think so.  Actually, this brings up my last point. 

Jonathan Swift also wrote – remember this was three hundred years ago – that having a nominal faith neither helps nor hurts a person in their daily life.  He pointed out that it in no way affected their behavior.  Nominal Christians cheat, lie, swear and drink as much as anyone else.  Swift mused that if military commanders received the same obedience to their orders that nominal Christians give to their religions teachings, they could never lead an army anywhere. 

Swift considered nominal Christianity both useful and necessary for the economy in England.  However, he reiterated that he could not defend “real” Christians, the reason being that in following the rules laid down by Jesus they would completely disrupt the nation as it existed: its politics, its business, and its education.  I suspect he might be right about our day also.