After a long silence, Roger Hutchinson has apparently decided to try his luck again at defending the indefensible. Long time subscribers will immediately recognize his name, because Mr. Hutchinson has left behind him a long string of failures in trying to defend the inerrancy of the Bible. These failures are a matter of record and speak for themselves in the back issues of TSR. On the internet, he has left behind him an even longer string of dismal failures, where at times his name has been used as a synonym for the silly speculations that inerrantists resort to in order to "explain" biblical inconsistencies and discrepancies. If he wishes to return to The Skeptical Review as a defender of the biblicist position, I am glad to accord him the space to present his case. I am, however, disappointed to see that his ability to reason rationally has not improved since his last appearance in this forum.
Anyone who will take the time to read in succession my article ( front page, January/February 1999) and his "reply" to it will see that he spent his time fighting straw men rather than addressing the points that I made. I cited books, chapters, and verses to show that the Bible teaches that Yahweh chose one nation to be his "own possession above all peoples that are on the face of the earth" (Dt. 7:6), that Yahweh ordered his "chosen ones" to exterminate systematically entire nations of people who either occupied a territory that this god presumably wanted "his people" to have or were considered enemies of his "chosen ones" (Dt. 20:16; Josh. 11:20; 1 Sam. 15:1-3), that Yahweh had commanded "his people" not to "suffer a witch to live" (Ex. 22:18), and that he had said that homosexuals should be killed (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:27, 32).
I proposed that it is entirely reasonable to think that at least some people who have firm convictions that the Bible is the "inspired word of God" will read such stuff as this and think that it is God's will for them to behave accordingly. I have read Hutchinson's article several times, but the only attempt that I saw him make to address these issues was to suggest that Fred Phelps, the Baptist preacher who is infamous for his hatred of homosexuals, "has always personally hated homosexuals and merely uses the Bible to give an air of legitimacy to his hatred." I suppose that if he were pressed to explain away the Salem witch trials, he would claim that the Puritan establishment, under whose auspices the trials were conducted, had always personally hated witches and had merely used the Bible to give an air of legitimacy to their hatred. He could do the same for the witch hunts and inquisitions in Europe. The leaders of these persecutions had always personally hated witches and heretics and had merely quoted the Bible and used the authority of the church just to give an air of legitimacy to their hatred. In other words, we see that Hutchinson's tactics haven't changed. Just as he always seemed to know exactly what Bible writers really meant to say in texts that have been cited as examples of biblical discrepancy, so now he claims to know what the personal beliefs and intentions of people like Fred Phelps really are. They aren't actually sincere Christians; they are phonies who are parading about as Christians in order to give a semblance of "legitimacy" to their hatred. Those who spend much time on the internet will recognize this as just another variation of the not-real-Christians "explanation" of persecutions and atrocities committed in the past by church officials. "Well, those people weren't real Christians," modern defenders of the faith will argue. If, however, they can find an atrocity that was committed by leaders who at least seemed to be atheists, they have no problem considering these people to be "real atheists," whose atheistic beliefs were what motivated them to commit atrocities.
Hutchinson went so far as to label those responsible for "the killing fields of Cambodia" as "skeptics who could not stomach the Biblical injunction to love thy neighbor and eventually went off the deep end." Several times he referred to such world leaders as "skeptics of the Bible," as if we are supposed to believe that leaders in far eastern countries like Cambodia and China, where infamous atrocities have been committed, had studied the Bible sufficiently to know what it teaches and had rejected it. The fact is that Hutchinson cannot establish that any of these leaders were "skeptics of the Bible" or that they even knew enough about the Bible to know whether it was a believable book or not. I cannot be called a skeptic of the Zoroastrian Avesta, because I simply don't know enough about it to describe myself as one who is a skeptic of this book, and the same is true of other holy books. A more probable explanation of the atrocities committed in China and Cambodia is that the leaders of these nations were politicians who exterminated all potential opposition in order to secure their dictatorial positions, and religious beliefs had nothing to do with it.
The same can be said of Joseph Stalin, who was another of Hutchinson's examples of those whose "skepticism of the Bible" led them to commit atrocities. I'd personally like to know how that Hutchinson knows that Stalin was motivated by biblical skepticism to commit atrocities. The truth is that Stalin studied for the priesthood and was educated in a seminary, so if Hutchinson has any evidence that Stalin turned to a kind of biblical skepticism that motivated him to commit the atrocities attributed to him, then he should present it rather than just speculate about a dictator's motivation for eradicating his opposition. Otherwise, it is more reasonable to believe that Stalin was politically motivated to exterminate all those whom he perceived as threats to the security of his political hold on the Soviet Union and that his personal beliefs about the Bible had nothing to do with it. Indeed, if one were truly a "Bible skeptic," he would probably be motivated to refrain from genocide and mass executions, because tales of such deeds (presumably commanded by "God") fill the pages of the Old Testament, and this aspect of the Bible has probably produced more biblical skeptics than any other single factor. How reasonable is it, then, to think that a "real" Bible skeptic would want to imitate something in the Bible that he had found to be morally repugnant?
Hutchinson's argument seems to be this: The leaders of China, Cambodia, and the Soviet Union committed various atrocities. These leaders showed no indication of believing in the Bible. Therefore, their atrocities were motivated by their lack of belief in the Bible. By the same line of reasoning, I could prove that Hitler's atrocities were motivated by his belief in Christianity. Hitler committed various atrocities, especially against European Jews. The writings of Hitler made frequent references to his belief in God and Christianity. Therefore, Hitler's atrocities were motivated by his belief in God and Christianity. If Hutchinson's reasoning is sound, then so is mine. If not, why not? If Hutchinson doubts that Hitler held Christian beliefs, I will gladly send him a long list of quotations from Hitler's speeches and writings that show that he did.
In all probability, Hitler's atrocities had little to do with his religious beliefs, just as the Cambodian, Chinese, and Soviet atrocities had little to do with the religious views of the leaders of these nations. It is far more likely that they were all driven by political motivation and were willing to do whatever was necessary to secure their dictatorial holds over their respective nations.
Political purges are quite different from inquisitions and religious persecutions. In the former, the ones in power seek to preserve their political bases by removing their opposition; in the latter, a religious establishment seeks to remove what is considered a threat to the "true faith" or even to "save the souls" of those who have heretical views. Second Chronicles 21:4 claimed that when Jehoram of Judah succeeded his father Jehoshaphat as king, he killed all of his brothers. We would hardly think that Jehoram's belief in Yahweh was the motivation behind this atrocity but that it was instead a purely political act. He wanted to secure his throne by eliminating the most likely threats to his reign. Second Kings 9-10 relates the story of Jehu's massacre of the royal family of Israel, after which he became king of the Northern Kingdom. As the story is related, Jehu committed the massacre in obedience to a divine decree, but if any such incident as this actually happened, it is far more likely that it was motivated by political ambition rather than divine injunction. Jehu may have been a believer in Yahweh, who alleged divine decree in order to justify his actions, but it wasn't very likely that his faith motivated him. He just wanted to be king like so many other tyrants who have seized power by bloody force.
The apparent motivation behind inquisitions and persecutions was radically different, a basic fact that Hutchinson could learn by consulting just a general encyclopedia. The "inquisition" was a religious judicial institution that was established by papal decree in the middle ages. Its purpose was to seek out, try, and sentence persons guilty of heresy. At first, the church didn't approve of "coercion and physical penalties," but this opinion changed in the 12th century with the rise of Albigensianism, which was viewed as threatening to matrimony and other church-approved social institutions. Pope Innocent III began an organized crusade to wipe out this heresy, and part of his effort was the enactment of punitive legislation. The atrocities that are most often associated with the Inquisition began in 1231 when Pope Gregory IX issued his Excommunicamus, which transferred much of the responsibility for "orthodoxy" from the bishops to "inquisitors," who had been appointed with special papal powers that included severe penalties for heresy. To summarize the general history of the Inquisition would be a pointless waste of publishing space, since its history is well established in reference books that Hutchinson could consult if he doubts its affiliation with the Christian establishment of the eras in which it thrived. The inquisitors could and did prosecute any person they suspected of heresy, and they elicited confessions by offering less severe punishments to those who would confess voluntarily. Those who didn't were tried before clerical courts. They were required under oath to answer all charges filed against them, and the testimony of two witnesses was usually considered proof of their guilt. Those who were even suspected of lying were imprisoned, and in 1252 Pope Innocent IV officially approved the use of torture to extract confessions from the accused. Those who confessed were sometimes publicly scourged and forced to submit to other public humiliations, such as carrying crosses and wearing "tongues" of red cloth on their garments to signal that they had been found guilty of lying. The worst penalty that could be imposed at this time was life imprisonment, but when the church wanted a more severe punishment, the "guilty" were turned over to civil authorities, who understood this transfer as a demand for execution. During the Spanish Inquisition, however, the inquisitors were empowered by decree of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, with papal approval, to impose the death penalty on the "guilty." Tomas de Torquemanda, the most notorious of the grand inquisitors, executed thousands of heretics. The "grand inquisitor" was even given jurisdiction over the local tribunals in Spanish colonies in Mexico and Peru. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V introduced the Inquisition into the Netherlands in 1522 in a failed attempt to stamp out Protestantism. Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia, which I accessed on the internet to gather most of this information, noted at the end of its article on the Inquisition that "many Protestant lands had institutions as repressive as the Spanish Inquisition, such as the consistory in Geneva at the time of the French reformer John Calvin," but space won't allow me to discuss the heinous crimes of Protestantism.
That Hutchinson would even try to compare the acts of recent far eastern tyrants, who as far as we know had no opinions about the Bible, to actions like the inquisitions and other persecutions that were obviously religiously motivated is an act of desperation on his part. The record is clear that the Puritan establishment of colonial New England persecuted and executed Quakers and other dissidents because they were considered heretics. The modern record is clear that preachers such as Fred Phelps publicly denounce homosexuality from their pulpits and in some cases take their intolerance to the streets, waving signs that quote the Bible in defense of their actions. The record is clear that Christian fundamentalists have gone so far as to found the Christian Reconstruction movement, which calls for a national government established on "biblical principles" that will provide the death penalty by stoning (no less) for crimes of heresy, adultery, disobedience to parents, and all of the other offenses that called for death under the Mosaic law.
But where are the public records of any organization of skeptics, agnostics, atheists, or humanists who advocate such intolerance toward those whose beliefs are different from theirs? Has anyone ever heard of an atheist organization that advocates the bombing or burning of churches? Has anyone ever heard of any humanist organization that publicly proclaims racial supremacy or hatred of homosexuals? Has anyone ever heard of an organization of skeptics that advocates violence toward leaders of the Christian Coalition? Has anyone ever heard of an organization of skeptics or atheists or humanists that advocates bombing the offices of "pro-life" groups. If Hutchinson knows of any such movements made up of skeptics, atheists, or humanists, why doesn't he call them to our attention?
The truth is that religion seems to foster intolerance. That appears to be true of other religions as well as Christianity. The more fundamentalist a person is in his religious beliefs, the more likely he/she is to be intolerant of those who disagree, and the less religious one is, the more tolerant he/she is likely to be. Hutchinson made a great issue over Christianity's "message of love," and it is undeniably true that some very lofty moral and social principles are taught in the Bible. I would never deny that, but for every scripture that Hutchinson can quote that teaches such ethics as "love thy neighbor," I can quote one that teaches hatred and intolerance. This fact about the Bible is what makes so absurd the often-heard inerrantist claim that the Bible is perfectly harmonious in its themes from cover to cover. That just isn't so. The Bible has two faces. It teaches love, but it also teaches intolerance and hate. It's such a pity that so many Christians neglect biblical teachings about love and practice what the other face of the Bible teaches.
FREE SUBSCRIPTION: For a free subscription to The Skeptical Review, e-mail jftill@midwest.net or write to P. O. Box 717, Canton, IL 61520-0717.
Last updated: