February 19, 2001

Hello Liz,

Thank you for writing to me. I really enjoy hearing from my readers. Below I have some comments in response to your criticisms of my essay. I hope you take these in a positively constructive way, as that is how they are intended.

I read your article "The Bloody Glove."

Excellent! I'm very pleased to hear this. Can you remember how you found it? Did you find it through a search engine? If so, do you remember which one, and which keywords you were searching for?

I can see your religion is Objectivism. Like any religion, it is comprised of values you subscribe to, and a worldview that governs your choices.

Objectivism is not a religion, but a rational form of philosophy. By contrast, religion is a primitive form of philosophy, an attempt to systematize a comprehensive view of life and of reality, not by relying on reason and the facts of reality, but by commitment to unsupported and unsupportable dogma. Where religious doctrines are based on alleged historical events which cannot be verified (e.g., Moses' encountering the burning bush in Ex. 3; Jesus allegedly dying on the cross and reviving from death three days later as recorded in the gospels of the New Testament, etc.), Objectivism establishes its fundamental principles on the self-evident facts of reality (e.g., Existence exists; to exist is to be something; A is A; causality is identity applied to action; consciousness is consciousness of something - which means: existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness, etc.). To call Objectivism a religion is to obliterate the meaning of both, and is not an assertion based on sound reasoning. The method of religion could not be further from that of Objectivism. While the alleged truths of religious ideas are based ultimately on threats (e.g., "believe, or go to hell"), the truths of Objectivism are based on the law of identity, which is a corollary of the undeniable and irreducible fact that existence exists. Unlike a religion, Objectivism does not affirm facts which are accessible only to a chosen few (cf. religion's claim to "divine revelation"). Objectivism affirms facts which are available to all human beings, facts which all human beings must assume even in order to dispute, ignore or reject them, facts which men routinely take for granted and rarely if ever identify explicitly. Objectivism's method and approach to systematizing a comprehensive view of reality bear no similarity to that of a religion.

I agree that religion has led to pain and suffering. I am a Christ-follower, and the Christian theology I agree with decries inflicting pain and suffering to others. The Bible says somewhere, do unto others (the good) you would like them to do unto you. I'm not going to tell you where, because I am not a Bible expert.

It is a good start that you recognize the pain and suffering which religious philosophies have caused throughout history. Many people deny this, but that is not surprising when we recognize that religious philosophy compels men to affirm claims in spite of their lack of evidence and in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

While it may be the case that Christianity does not command its believers to do violence, it is a fact that Christianity does not offer a rational code of philosophy to secure man's individual rights. The Bible nowhere discusses man's individual rights in explicit terms, neither does it define the concept 'rights', nor does it articulate a theory of man's rights. This is a tremendous failing on the part of the Bible and those who perpetuate such intellectual default.

The teaching you are looking for where Jesus teaches that one should do unto others as he would have done unto him (so-called "Golden Rule"), is found in Matt. 7:12 and Luke 6:31. Few Christians realize that this teaching is not original to Jesus. In his famous book Atheism: The Case Against God, author George H. Smith points out:

So much for the claim that Jesus' teachings were original to him!

But this so-called moral principle is duly objectionable. For how suddenly does the maxim "do unto others as you would have done unto you" conveniently justify the attitude "do unto others what others have done unto you." Thus, if someone commits an injustice to you, on the Golden Rule's advise, you can easily turn around and assume that the perpetrator of the injustice must naturally want the same injustice done in return to him.

Additionally, Christianity teaches men not to protect their rights, if perchance they have adscititiously defined such a code (i.e., if they borrowed the ideas which define a rational code of man's rights from a different philosophy). For instance, in his Sermon on the Mount, we find Jesus making the following statements:

Matt. 5:39: "I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

For one thing, Jesus nowhere explains why one should "resist not evil," nor does he explain why one should allow himself to be pummeled on the left as well as on the right cheek. He simply says it, and we are supposed to obey without reason.

Now, if I take this teaching as a solemn principle, as Christianity would have me do, then upon what basis could I affirm my right not to be assaulted by a stranger I encounter on the street? If men are to "resist not evil," then on what philosophical basis are they to define laws protecting men's rights, laws against assault and murder, and on what philosophical basis could one justify establishing a means of enforcing any laws which protect men's rights, such as a police force? Jesus' commandment here just annulled all philosophical bases for such protections.

Matt. 5:40: "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."

Again, why? Jesus does not explain. Nor does Jesus make any mention about the circumstances of such a lawsuit. It could be that the owner of the coat is in the right, and has a just claim to his coat, and should surrender neither his coat nor his cloak to his legal counterparts. This is inane, and Jesus seems to be completely aloof of his own absurdity here, and unfortunately, so are many Christians today.

Matt. 5:41:"And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."

And why should one do that? Jesus again does not say, but we are expected to obey anyway.

So, that means I am supposed to simply drop whatever I am doing, regardless of its importance to my life and my values, I am supposed to just pick up and follow someone for two miles, even though I am not to expect to do so for any reason. Those who accept and follow this kind of exhortation should get what they deserve.

Matt. 5:42: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."

Again, why? Jesus does not say, but pastors and evangelists all across America today expect men to accept this arbitrary claim on one's own possessions for no good reason whatsoever. Jesus does not teach that men should be willing to earn what they require and want in life; instead, he teaches that you can get something just for the asking. But this is seriously ignorant of the meaning of values and of the fact that values must be produced. Someone had to produce the coat and the cloak to which Jesus referred in Matt. 5:40, but he doesn't seem to care about this fact. And the owner of the coat and the cloak which Jesus mentioned above may have purchased them in accordance with the trader principle, but Jesus would have this fellow surrender those values according to the moocher's principle. Again, Jesus seems clueless about the owner's right to his own possessions. How can such teachings as Jesus gives here be incorporated into a philosophy which recognizes man's right to his own property? Blank out.

Liz, if you are, as you say, a Christ-follower, then you must follow what Jesus teaches, right? If this is true, then I hereby ask you for $1000.00. By virtue of the fact that I am asking, Jesus holds you to an obligation to give it to me. For he states, "Give to him that asketh thee." Now I'm asking. Please send me the sum of $1000.00 cash.

Something tells me you won't do this, but you will still insist on calling yourself a Christ-follower. And you will probably not allow yourself to admit that your refusal to give me the $1000.00 I am asking for, conflicts with Jesus' teaching in Matt. 5:42.

Let's look at a couple others:

Matt. 5:43-44: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

Again, I ask: WHY? And again, Jesus does not say, he simply expects us to follow his words and obey blindly.

But there is a significant problem in Jesus' teaching here, and that is his ignorance of the nature of love. One cannot love on command since love is not subject to commands. If love were subject to commands, I could get a date every Friday night, and so could everyone else. But Jesus' commandment here neglects the even more important fact that love is one's emotional response to his own values, and is thus profoundly selfish in nature. Indeed, Jesus would have us love people without regard or reference to our values; our values are irrelevant to our love, if we should simply love others because Jesus says so. He says we should love our enemies, even though our enemies might very well be enemies by virtue of their threat to our values. Thus we are suppose to value those who threaten our values, which is a contradiction. Christians often want to make Jesus' teachings sound valid for his insistence on returning benevolence in response to hatred and enmity. But he gives us no good reason to do so. Indeed, why should I give a dime to those whom I consider my enemies? Why should I help those who would work to my demise? Just because? No, I will not obey Jesus here. And if my punishment is eternal torment in hell rather than dancing around before a wrathful, jealous God who feeds on the pretense of irrational love, then I will gladly take that instead.

In Matt. 5:46, Jesus is attempting to use reason to justify the inanity of his teachings, for he states, "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?" Now Jesus speaks of rewards when he's already taught that whatever reward we may achieve is not ours to begin with, but something which belongs to those who come and ask them from us (cf. Matt. 5:42). What is Jesus' concern for reward now? He does not clarify. Also, his attempted justification seems to imply the idea that one should expect a reward for loving others. But he's got it all backwards! For one loves the values he's already achieved. This Jesus was no philosopher, he was a mystic and a pursuer of the unearned!

Matt. 22:39 has Jesus state: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Why should I do this? Again, Jesus does not say, but he does repeat his earlier mistaken view that love is subject to commandments. Furthermore, Jesus' teaching makes no room for any concern about the nature of one's neighbor whom he is commanded to love. What if my neighbor is dishonest, fraudulent and morally despicable? Jesus would have me love this person anyway? Ain't gonna happen. I declare my right to assess (yes, JUDGE) the character of others before I choose to value and love them. If Jesus doesn't approve of this, he can go to hell. Also, this teaching is not original to Jesus, so he cannot take credit. For we find this teaching in Lev. 19:18. If Jesus wants to pass himself off as an original in the area of moral teaching, then he's a fraud, and I don't love fraudulent people.

I could go on, but I think you got the picture. A rational doctrine of man's individual rights cannot be integrated with Jesus' morality. This should be amply clear.

Your arguments are unsound regarding self-sacrifice because they take into account only the altruism that Christianity (and apparently other religions) promote.

First of all, this would not make my arguments unsound. But additionally, my arguments against altruism are not directed only at only religious views of morality promote. My arguments against altruism are effectively valid against all forms of this dire and egregious code.

In addition, however, Christianity says, Love your neighbor as yourself. To me this implies we must care for ourselves first, because only if we do that, will we be able to exist and therefore love others (or do anything else.)

I addressed the failings of the bankrupt principle "love your neighbor as yourself" above. I stand by my reasons for rejecting it as insufficient for men of reason and good conscience.

If you are a Christian, how do you justify pursuing your own values (be they your paycheck, a fine meal at a nice restaurant, new linens for your bedding, new shoes for your aching feet, an evening at the movies, etc.), when such activity is condemned because it is indisputably selfish in nature?

Does this mean that I advocate hating my neighbors? Not at all. I have not stated this, but naturally many will argue that's what my rejection of the commandment to love my neighbor as myself entails. Indeed, as I said above, I reserve the right to judge my neighbors first, and then decide whether or not they are worthy of my love. I do not love blindly; indeed, whatever it is that men do blindly, it surely is not love!

I do not feel Christianity implies or states anywhere that man does not have a right to exist for his own sake.

One could make the case that the Bible does not explicitly reject man's right to exist for his own sake. (Though I don't think I'd have any difficulty supporting an argument to the contrary; see my brief analysis of Jesus' teachings at the Sermon on the Mount above.) But that's not the point. The point is that the Bible nowhere defines man's right to exist for his own sake, and therefore cannot be considered a champion of this right. Indeed, its silence on this matter in terms of explicitly identified essentials makes it useless in regard to protecting man's rights, and quite useful to any effort designed to destroy man's individual rights.

The cheap and flimsy maxims of Jesus' teachings and the decalogue (the 10 commandments) cannot offer themselves as a substitute for man's inalienable, individual rights. Man's rights are not the product of a series of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots." The very idea of commanding men to do one thing or another, or to refrain from this or that, which is the Bible's method, is contrary to the concept of man's rights.

Can you answer these questions for me?

Do I have the right to not love God?

Do I have the right to disagree with one of God's prophets?

Do I have the right to disagree with Jesus' teachings?

Do I have the right to reject the claim that Jesus was the "son of God"?

Do I have the right to judge the teachings of the Bible against a measure of my own choosing, even if that measure is my own understanding?

Do I have the right to resist evil, even when Jesus taught men not to? (cf. Matt. 5:39)

Do I have the right to develop my atheistic views, even if they expose the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Christian religion?

If the Bible can be spun into a defense of my right to exist for my own sake, how can it be integrated with the free exercise thereof?

Indeed, only upon a rational philosophy, which is Objectivism, can one define and defend one's individual rights.

Who says man has such a right? You? Objectivism?

It is not a questions of who says that man has the right to exist for his own sake. Rather, it is what principles support the recognition and defense of man's rights, and which principles must be rejected, attacked, or ignored in order to deny man's right to exist for his own sake. Indeed, those principles are developed by Objectivism.

See for instance:

"Having a right to exist" is a value that you possess. Not everyone agrees with such a statement, though I suppose most would. Whether people have any particular rights or not is a matter of opinion. Some say children have a right to be born despite what their parents say. Some do not agree. Some say certain criminals do not have the right to exist. Some do not agree.

Indeed, not everyone does agree that each human being has the right to exist for his own sake. Many are the religious, who hold that man has an obligation (a "purpose" as they call it) to live for God's sake. What could motivate the rejection of another human being's right to exist for his own sake? Have you ever asked yourself that? I have. I hold that the motivation to reject another's right to exist for his own sake is ultimately and always the pursuit of the unearned. Someone wants something, but he resents the fact that he must earn his values in reality. Instead of acknowledging this fact of reality, which he finds inconvenient, he dismisses the idea of man's rights and proceeds accordingly. Jesus' teachings as we saw above opened the way for the pursuit of the unearned. Indeed, the whole way of the Bible in its assessment of man is founded on the unearned. From the doctrine of unearned guilt (e.g., "original sin") to the doctrine of unearned redemption (e.g., "atonement"), the principle doctrines of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, provide those who subsist on the unearned all that they could ever hope for in terms of philosophical rudiments. However, I do not accept the unearned, neither in values, nor in guilt. That is essentially why I am not a Christian. If I want something, I don't need to pray for it, and expect it to be given to me for the asking. Instead, I will use my reason and I will not hesitate to earn what I want.

re: your paragraph "In the case of Soviet Union.."I am sure I am not the only one to tell you that a belief that the state is more important that the individual, is not a religious belief, but a societal belief and government."

This depends on the context that generates this belief. Keep in mind that religion as such is a primitive form of philosophy, and that social theory is a branch of philosophy. Obviously, religious ideas of morality applied to interpersonal relationships has necessary implications for social theory. If a religious viewpoint holds that man has a duty (i.e., an unquestionable moral obligation) to sacrifice himself to those who live in his community, does this view not imply a kind of social theory? Of course it does. There might be social theories which hold that the state is more important than the individuals who make up the state which are not specifically religious in nature per se; but history has shown that even secular theories which hold the individual subordinate to the state find their genetic and philosophical inspirations in religious views.

In my essay I point this out when I refer to the influence of orthodox Christianity in Russia during the nine centuries which preceded the establishment of the Soviet state. Most people in the West know little about the savage history of Russia prior to the rise of Leninism and communism. This fact is indisputable:

Do you really think that an entire nation as a whole can steep itself in the thick of Christian mysticism for nine centuries and its philosophers and social theorists were not influenced by its moral and political doctrines when it came time to draft the foundations for a new government? How can one think this at all? Christianity teaches the individual that he has a moral duty to sacrifice himself (see the teachings of Jesus, for example, as recorded in the New Testament). Likewise, communism teaches that the individual has the moral duty to sacrifice himself as well. While Christianity teaches that man must sacrifice himself to God, communism - as a secular counterpart to Christianity - simply replaces "God" with "the State" and expects that citizens sacrifice themselves to the State instead of to a supernatural being.

The branch of philosophy known as politics is the application of that philosophy's moral doctrines to interpersonal relationships. Politics follows necessarily from morality since morality is more fundamental in the scheme of philosophical development. How one conducts himself amongst others finds its basis in the principles which define how he conducts himself alone to begin with. A moral doctrine which teaches that the individual has the right to exist for his own sake will give rise to a political doctrine which secures this right in social contexts. Conversely, a morality which teaches that an individual does not have the right to exist for his own sake will neither give rise nor support political doctrines which make provision for such rights.

I don't understand why you compare religion to the Soviet Union and China statist governments.

Because, both are forms of philosophy, and they have fundamental similarities. I show this in my essay. Perhaps you should read it again? A philosophy is an attempt to give man a comprehensive view of reality and of life. Religion is a primitive form of this as it developed without the benefit of a firmly established rational epistemology and science. Since religion flourished without counter for many, many centuries, it is only to be expected that religious influences would find their way into secularized philosophies. Indeed, many secularized philosophies are simply religious philosophies with unessential details replaced by others (such as religion's duty to sacrifice to God being replaced by communism's duty to sacrifice to the State; the essential - sacrifice - is common to both; the detail - the object of sacrifice - has been replaced with something new). In my essay, I demonstrate that religious philosophy and the philosophies underpinning the political philosophies of the Soviet Union and of China are identical in terms of essentials rather than in terms of unessential details. In other words, they are identical in terms of fundamental principles; only in terms of concretes and symbols do they find any distinction, and such distinction is not essential if the same principles guide both.

Just as Jesus taught that men should humble themselves before others, to rejoice in their poverty and to sacrifice themselves (cf. Matt. 5; cf. also Paul's exhortation that believers present their "bodies as living sacrifices" - Rom. 12:1; etc.), Marx, Lenin, Stalin, etc. all taught that men should humble themselves to the State and to sacrifice themselves to the State. In terms of philosophical principle, these ideas are fundamentally identical.

In a nutshell, that is why I compare the religion with the philosophies of the Soviet Union and of China.

As we know, these try to quash all religion and mysticism and whatever you want to call it because it threatens the government's power.

I do not disagree with you here. Indeed, to preserve power, the communists must crush any competitors which come along. The communist thugs were not stupid; they recognized that religious beliefs are a powerful competitor. And just as the communists launched pogroms against faithful religious believers and destroyed their churches and communities, the religious have always launched their pogroms against the heretics, against the infidels, against the pagans, against the heathens, against the "unsaved." History has testified to them all. In fact, Christianity is the undisputed "champion" in terms of its success at such villainy, with centuries of crusades, bloodshed, witch hunts, faked trials, burnings at the stake, inquisitions, exiles, purges, and campaigns of murderous slaughtering in the name of God, compared to a handful of decades of such egregious activity in the hands of the communists, their secular counterparts.

In my essay, I basically argue that the injustices of both religion and of communism find a common root: errant philosophy put into practice. When ideas are put into practice, there is a causal consequence. What ideas have been put into practice? What are the bases of those ideas? What justifies those bases? How is what justifies those bases validated? Etc. What is primary according to religion? The will of God. What is primary to communism? The will of the State. In either case, it is the fact that somebody's will or whims are held above the facts of reality. If God says the earth is flat and is the center of the universe, what believer will question that? If God says that a worldwide flood killed all the human inhabitants of the earth except for a family of eight, even though there is no evidence to support this claim, what believer will question it? Similarly, if Stalin proclaimed that one's child is unworthy to pursue an education in business or in the arts, but shall spend her life in a muffler factory in the foothills of the Ural Mountains, what mother is going to challenge this and not fear for her life?

The similarities are crystal clear to me. Why are they not clear to you?

To me it is obvious that the reason they (had) (have) statist government is because they do not practice democracy or republicanism, and do not have individual freedoms within their constituion. Therefore, to combat this we need to encourage individual freedom and democracy.

But if one's philosophical foundations are unequipped to identify that man has the right to the individual freedom which you mention, how will their consequent doctrines support the view that this freedom should be identified and protected without contradiction? That is the problem. A philosophy which holds that man's moral duty is to sacrifice himself, either to God or to the State, how can one affirm a political doctrine which recognizes man's right to individual freedom?

The way to combat this injustice against man is not by encouraging democracy. Democracy is the principle that the majority have the final say in political issues. This is another misplaced priority. Just as above we found that the essential problem common to both religion is that principle is founded on someone's will (either on the will of God, or on the will of the State), you now suggest that the solution is to encourage the will of the populace. Although the view that the populace has a will is built on false metaphysical assumptions (an individual has his own will, the populace does not have a will), its proponents pretend that this will can be determined through vote. Thus, if a community votes to attach a tax to your earned income to support some program or effort, even if you do not support that program or effort, your right to your own rightfully earned income has been willed away by democratic decree. This essentially means that you have no guaranteed rights, particularly if the "will" of the people determines that you are in the way or are just a means to their ends.

As for me, I am an American and have some indivisual freedoms more or less guaranteed by the constitution, and have made the individual decision to believe in God, and even Jesus Christ.

And as an Objectivist, I recognize your right to believe in God and Jesus Christ, just as I recognize my right not to believe in these things, for whatever reason or non-reason one wants to give. Those who are indifferent to essentials and rational principle, and who instead focus on concretes and particulars as if these latter could substitute for sound principles, may claim that your right to believe and my right not to believe conflict with each other. But indeed, the recognition that you have the right to believe just as I have the right not to believe finds its basis in a fundamental principle: the fact that man has the right to exist for his own sake. This includes one's right to determine how to order the content of his mind, be it along religious lines, or along secular lines which mirror religious lines, or along objective lines. My argument, however, is that this fundamental right can only be defended on a proper view of metaphysics, epistemology and morality, which is supplied by Objectivism.

It is not wholly logical, but to me logic is not something I can base all my values on.

The dichotomy between logic and values to which you allude here finds its inspiration in religious philosophy, which advocates metaphysical dualism. How often have you heard statements such as "it works in theory, but not in practice," or "it sounds good on paper, but not in real life," or "I chose not to follow my mind, but to follow my heart instead" or "don't try to think it out, use your instincts instead…"? These are fundamentally no different than your own statement above. For the objective theory of values, I refer you to Ayn Rand's essay "The Objectivist Ethics," in her book The Virtue of Selfishness. Objectivism does not make allowance for such dichotomies as the one you affirm here.

At the same time, existance of God and Jesus explains to me some basic questions of life, even in a logical way. It explains that we here for a purpose: to love God, and to love others and ourselves.

And if others do not accept this claim to purpose, what then? If I reject the idea that man's purpose is to love God (how can one love the arbitrary anyway?), does this grant to those who do affirm this claim the right to force those like myself who do not affirm this claim? I hold that the purpose of my life is to live it and to enjoy it selfishly. I do not accept the claim that I should sacrifice it. If God exists, and God has something He needs, He can supply His needs for Himself. He certainly does not need me. And I certainly do not need Him. And I am all the happier for it. This will naturally rub many people the wrong way, and may even outrage them. What are they going to do, reach for a gun? Invoke laws to penalize men such as myself who dare to declare their right to exist for their own sake?

Look at the bloody conflicts which still rage around the globe today as a result of religious ideas put into practice. We find Catholics fighting Protestants in Ireland. We find Christians fighting Muslims in the Balkans. We find Muslims fighting Christians in the Sudan. We find the Muslims fighting the Jews in the Middle East. We find the Sunnis fighting the Shiites. We find every possible combination of religious faction fighting its rivals. We find the practice of slavery, infanticide, female genital mutilation, and a host of other injustices, all perpetrated in the name of "God" in many places throughout the earth, even today!

In America, we find Christians fighting against a woman's (an individual's) right to choose. We find the collective of mystics fighting to restrict the rights of the individual. We find the disintegration of the intellect of man in state schools, where some want to teach fable as if it were science.

All these injustices find their root in the errant philosophies (much of it explicitly religious, much of it religiously influenced and motivated) when put into practice.

To believe, as I once did, that there is not reason for me to be here, that I and everyone is a biological accident, is not logical.

Are you implying that the two horns - "I am here for a purpose (and that purpose is to serve God" vs. "my life and everyone's life is a biological accident" - are jointly exhaustive alternatives? I find this to be a false dichotomy, and amazingly it is quite commonly met. Again, I refer you to Rational Philosophy, which is Objectivism. I strongly urge you to take the time to investigate it a little further, and with the most unrelenting honesty you can summon, before you dismiss it as something it is not. If your position is true, what do you have to lose? If my position is true, what do you not stand to gain?

To believe as I do now that there is a reason for us to be here, explains why we exist and is logical, sorta like 2+2 =4. I can't explain it any better than that, and as all god-believers know, only once you believe in god can you understand why people believe in god.

You cannot explain it any better because it is not something that can be explained. Religionists have historically held that God is a "mystery" and therefore they openly admit that they enshrine the incomprehensible, just as they worship the arbitrary. No, they cannot explain it, but they expect men to accept this as knowledge anyway. And if they don't, out come the swords, the tribunals, the crusade armies, the inquisitions, the pogroms and purges, the legislation of anti-man, anti-reason, anti-understanding. "Lean not unto thine own understanding," Proverbs 3:5 tells us. "Just obey, even if you do not understand; trust us, we have your best interests at heart," they try to console as they disarm and disintegrate.

Have a good day, and don't hesitate to write again.

Best regards,

Anton Thorn