A Morally Questionable Escape Clause

The bible doesn’t condemn divinely commanded violence… but we should.

“Anyone who condones, the ‘deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing’, …should be regarded with abhorrence.” Raymond Bradley

“We trust that this book will bring insight and moral understanding to an issue that continues vex many people. We hope that sufficient light has been shed…” Copan and Flannagan 

That isn’t what I found in their book; no real insight, no moral understanding and definitely no sufficient light being shed on the issue of biblical violence. What I did find was a book so full of prevarications and morally questionable justifications that it was incredibly painful to read. We’ve covered chapters one, five and fifteen in previous blogs, so lets see what more they have to offer.

Chapter 17: Is it Rational to Believe God Commanded the Killing of Innocents?

When Professor of Philosophy Wesley Morriston says that “the reasons given in the OT texts (for the massacre of the Canaanites) are implausible and morally suspect”, (which they are), C&F spend the rest of the chapter attempting to discredit him. They write, “We have given good reason to think that the objective moral principle that it is wrong to ‘deliberately and mercilessly slaughter innocent men, women, and children’, is not an absolute.” They write that they believe God issuing the command is stronger than the grounds for thinking that killing innocents is always wrong. Simply put, if God gives the command to kill innocents, it’s okay.

This is the kind of sanctimonious rationalizing disgusts me and, “should be regarded with abhorrence”.

Chapter 18: What if Someone Claimed God Commanded Killing the Innocent Today?

In this chapter C&F quote Morriston, as saying that if a contemporary leader were to issue such a command to kill innocents, we would say that he was out of his mind and that we should treat OT divinely mandated genocide in the same way. Once again C&F use this chapter to discredit Morriston by saying that modern day “thus says the Lord” utterances are not authoritative, like those from Isaiah and Paul and therefore, should be rejected. Obviously, they have not seen the YouTube videos where self-proclaimed modern-day prophets are foretelling the coronation of a new anointed one (who happens to be a godless, immoral man) who will soon occupy the White House and bring a theocracy to America. They also foretell the complete destruction and annihilation of his enemies. Most reasonable minded Americans would agree that these modern-day prophets are out of their minds. However, if these so-called prophets were to issue a decree that they said, “came from God”, there is little doubt that their followers would, without question obey, even if it violates widely held objective moral principles.

Morriston also referred to a 2008 event in which 52 children were rescued from a polygamist sect in Texas. He then asks what if the (fictitious) governor of Texas had said that he received a divine command to completely wipe out the fundamental Mormons, by saying “Make no agreements with these people. Show them no mercy and kill them all”.

C&F discredit Morriston by saying that “we have good grounds for ruling out the suggestion about some… fictitious Texas governor who now speaks on God’s behalf” What C&F fail to grasp here is that, for christians, any command coming from someone in authority is a command from God. The book of Romans tells us that “the one in authority is God’s servant for your good… and agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.” It wouldn’t matter that the governor wasn’t ‘speaking on God’s behalf’, if the decree came from someone in authority (as long as it was a republican) christians are commanded to obey. This theme also permeates human history. It would be impossible to document all the times in history that after an atrocious act was committed the subordinates claimed, quite innocently, that they were just following orders.

It’s interesting that C&F would use the example of a fictitious governor ordering an extermination, because it resembles an actual historical event. (See end note 1.)

Chapter 19: The Role of Miracles and the Command to Kill the Canaanites.

In this chapter they argue that we can know the command to commit genocide in the OT came from Yahweh, because there were corresponding miracles to demonstrate that the command came from God, such as a burning bush experience, crossing the Red Sea on dry land, a pillar of fire and manna from heaven. According to them, these miracles were validation that the command to kill innocents did indeed come from Yahweh and not someone’s “mere inner subjective sensing”. Meaning, if some modern-day prophet was to issue a command to, let’s say, exterminate all atheist, we can only be assured the command came from God if it was accompanied by some grand miracles. But as we have already seen, it wouldn’t matter. Even if it violates objective moral principles, any order from someone in authority will be followed despite the lack of miracles.

Chapter 20: Does Religion Cause Violence?

In this chapter, they quote several modern-day scholars who make the case that religion, especially monotheism is, by its very nature, violent. Obviously, C&F disagree and make their case by pointing fingers at secularist, atheists, and polytheists, which they say are equally as violent. It’s a classic case of diversion and if we read between the lines, we can see what they are actually saying. “Our religion might have a history of violence, but look at those other guys, they’re violent too.” Then in an attempt to completely divert the attention away from its violent history to something more positive, C&F say that even atheists would agree that there are some positive aspects of christianity. According to them, christianity might have a violent history but it is also responsible for influencing “human rights, education and literacy for all, moral reforms, democracy, and equality before the law.”

Wow, that’s quite a claim, which I personally believe would disappear, much like a mirage, with closer evaluation. But that’s a blog for another day.

Chapter 21: Are Yahweh Wars in the Old Testament Just Like Islamic Jihad?

This chapter is especially interesting. C&F quote several “popular writers on religion” who say that there is far more violence in the bible than in the Qur’an. C&F call their claims misleading and misguided and spend the rest of the chapter attempting to show that Islam is historically more violent than either Judaism or Christianity. They have even created a side-by-side table graphic comparing “Yahweh War in the Old Testament” with “Islamic Jihad” which for them clearly shows that Islamic Jihad is the more violent. Why this is important to their original argument is unclear. Perhaps, in their attempts to justify biblical violence, it is helpful to show that other monotheistic religions are just as violent. Something, by the way, they tried to disprove in the previous chapter. (Yahweh wars? See End note 3.)

Chapter 22: Did Old Testament War Texts Inspire the Crusades?

I didn’t even bother to read this chapter because, after the previous 21 chapters, I already knew what their answer would be. And if you’ve been paying attention, so will you.

My summary

With each chapter I read, my disgust with Copan and Flannagan’s prevarication and disturbing lack of moral integrity grew. What can you say about a person who believes that “if God gives the command, it’s okay to slaughter of men, women, and children”. It hurt my soul to read their book, much in the same way it hurts my soul when I hear white supremacists indiscriminately spewing hate at non-whites, or when overzealous patriots violently attack minorities like Asians or Muslims (both verbally and physically) simply because of something they read on the internet, or how insensitive and pious christians condemn my gay friends based entirely on only six bible verses. And the most disturbing part is that all of them will use the bible to justify their morally questionable behavior, just like Copan and Flannagan do.

By commanding and condoning (and not condemning) the massacre of the Canaanites, the bible sets a precedence, much like the issue of slavery. Since, the bible never condemns the practice of slavery, pastors in the Antebellum South used scripture to justify the practice of owning another human being (see end note 2). In like manner, the bible never condemns the slaughter of the Canaanites, and therefore, some well-meaning christians, just like in the Antebellum South, will have precedence and justification (given them by C&F) for violating objective moral principles against harming another human being.

Although, C&F repeatedly say that it is only on “rare or highly unusual occasions” that God allows exceptions to a general rule against killing innocent women and children, some of their more zealous readers will skip over the “rare and highly unusual” part and embrace the “can be overridden” part. This is the most concerning part about their book. The following disturbing statements are the underlying message of their book and should not be ignored.

• “Therefore, the killing of innocents can be overridden.”
• “On closer investigation, the wrongness of killing innocent people is not a nonnegotiable principle” Chap. 16.
• The objective moral principle that it is wrong to ‘deliberately and mercilessly slaughter innocent men, women, and children’, is not an absolute. Chap. 17
• “Many ethicists contend that while the claim “it is wrong to kill innocent people” is correct as a general rule, it can be overridden.” Chap. 15.
• “God did issue an exception to the general prohibition against taking innocent human life.” Chap. 17
• “God issuing the command to kill innocent woman and children is stronger than thinking that killing innocents is always wrong.” Chap. 17.
• “Killing innocent women and children is not always wrong.” Chap. 16.

By saying that the killing of innocents can be overridden if God gives the command, C&F have given their readers an “escape clause” that gives them permission to violate any number of object moral principles.

Final thoughts

At one time in my life, I called myself a christian, and spent decades in a christian community, but If Copan and Flannagan’s twisted reasoning represent mainstream christianity, then I am proud to say that I am no longer a part of such a community. I want nothing to do with people who believe that “sometimes” it’s okay to kill innocent women and children. Raymond Bradley was correct when he said… “they should be treated with abhorrence and disgust”.

The following two quotes, although separated by a couple of centuries, sum it up rather succinctly for me.

“Many will be repulsed by such a god who can command the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, and might also question the sanity and compassion of those who follow such a god.” Charlie Trimm

“Copan and Flannagan’s book “is the reverse of truth, and I become so tired of examining into its inconsistencies and absurdities, that I hasten to the conclusion of it, in order to proceed to something better.” Thomas Paine

End note:

1) In October of 1838, the governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs issued an “extermination order” saying that the “Mormons must be treated as enemies and must be exterminated or driven out of the state… for the public good.” Two hundred militiamen carried out that extermination order by butchering everyone in a Mormon settlement at Haun’s Mill. It’s more than likely that many, if not all, of those militiamen were good christian men who were doing their duty to rid their christian community of Mormon influence. Ironically that kind of thinking corresponds with C&F’s third justification for killing the Canaanites.

• Justification 3: Corrupting Influences and the Risk of Assimilation. We cannot risk assimilating with “those people”. Whatever threatens the purity and integrity of our religion should be taken with utter seriousness.

C&F might argue that the governor’s extermination order was not divinely given, but to the militiamen, it made no difference.

Nineteen years later, the Mormons (now in Utah) in an eye for an eye sort of fashion, retaliated by attacking a wagon train of non-Mormon settlers from Arkansas, who were not guilty of any wrongdoing except trespassing on Mormon land. (Which, by the way, is C&F first justification for killing the Canaanites.) The story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a twisted web of deception, corruption, and coverup. It is unclear who gave the order, but when the federal government showed up to investigate the massacre, Prophet Brigham Young denied any involvement, and instead, pointed a finger at militia leader John Lee and said, “The time has come when they will try John D. Lee and not the Mormon Church, and that is all we have ever wanted.” John Lee, surprisingly enough, was the only person arrested for the massacre. He was convicted in 1876 and executed in March 1877 at Mountain Meadows.

Once again C&F might argue that the command to slaughter the Arkansan settlers did not come directly from God, but to the Mormon militiamen, who were undoubtedly religious men, it made no difference. The order was given by someone in authority in their religious community and they obeyed it without question and thus slaughtered 120 trespassing gentiles.

2) Some of the arguments for slavery that were used by pastors in the Antebellum South really were quite compelling. If you haven’t actually read them, you should. See my previous blogs for more on this topic.

3) C&F’s referring to the conquest of Canaan as “Yahweh wars” is both misleading and deceptive. Numbers 31: 48-49, says that the officers of the army took a census and reported to Moses that not a single man was missing. Hmmm, let’s see, one side is completely annihilated (except of course for the young virgin girls) and the other side doesn’t lose a single man. That is not war, that is a massacre, plain and simple.  Verses 50-54 tell us that the booty of this slaughter was 16,750 shekels of goal. This biblical narrative shows us that it was not a holy or just war, it was a mass genocide carried out for land and for riches. And one more thing, verse 54 tells us that Moses and Eleazar took all the gold for themselves and called it a “memorial before the lord”. How convenient!

Coming next:

There is little or no archaeological evidence to support the historical narratives of the conquest of Canaan. So, what if it never actually happened? Would that let Yahweh and christians off the hook for genocide? We’ll explore that idea more in the next blog.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum