“godless” by Dan Barker (Part 8): That Immoral Jesus! And Those Horrifically Immoral Beatitudes!

Welcome to Part 8 of my extended book analysis of Dan Barker’s book, godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. Try to follow this: this particular post (Part 8) is the 4^th post on the 10^th chapter in Barker’s book, which is the first chapter in the 3^rd part of his book. I promise this particular post will the last post on his 10^th chapter. But I have to say, Barker does end his chapter in a flourish: it’s all about Jesus…and just how immoral he really is. So get on your track shoes, we’re going on another Barker Bolt.

IX. The Golden Rule

Barker first takes on Jesus’ statement of the Golden Rule: “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” Most people realize that this is a pretty good principle to try to live by. Well, leave it to Barker to come up with a ridiculous example that shows how this really isn’t all that great. After noting that the famous Rabbi uttered a similar thing, only negatively (“Don’t do to others what you would not want them to do to you”), Barker then says, “Whether phrased positively or negatively, what do you do with a wife who hates back rubs and a husband who loves them?” (194). That’s right—back rubs.

In any case, Barker once again shows his Fundamentalist obsession with rules and his assumption that the Bible is a moral rule book when he declares that the Golden Rule “hardly supports the claim that the bible is a superior guide for moral behavior” (194). After all, other teachers have said similar things, so voila! The Bible isn’t a superior guide book! Well, again, it is a wrong to start with the assumption that the Bible is some sort of moral guidebook manual.

X. Love Thy Neighbor

When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus basically said there were two: to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. He said that the entire Torah was fulfilled in these two commandments. Well, leave it to Barker to find something wrong with loving God and loving your neighbor. He first gets rather snarky by saying, “If God had known that ‘love thy neighbor’ was to be one of the biggies, why did he not include it in his Big Ten?” “Maybe God, one he became a human being, actually became a better person” (194). And then says later, “So, according to Jesus, we should remove those Ten Commandments from government property. All we need is love. Love is all we need” (195).

Well, to begin with there is no such thing as “the Big Ten,” as if there were ten “super duper rules” that God thought was more important than others. What we call “the Ten Commandments” are simply the first ten commandments of a larger corpus of Old Testament legal material. In addition, in case you didn’t know, Barker has a really big issue with displays of things like the Ten Commandments and other religious-related images on government property. He seems to think that the first amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”) means that there can’t be any religious displays whatsoever on public property. Let’s be clear: the first amendment doesn’t prohibit that or things like that. For someone who is obsessed with rules and laws, Barker should learn to read the first “rule” in the Constitution a bit better: it says the government can’t pass a law that establishes a particular religion as the state religion; it doesn’t say there can’t be public displays of religion.

Barker, though, isn’t quite done with “Love your neighbor.” He complains that although “love is good, this rule is not specific” (195)—again, his Fundamentalist obsession with rules on full display. Jesus’ whole point is that if you love God and loves your neighbor, then you don’t have to worry about obsessing over rules. It is incredibly sad that Barker’s response is, “Could you be more specific about that rule?”

If that response is just sad, this next one is positively inflammatory and shameful. After claiming that “neighbor” in the Old Testament meant fellow Israelites (and let’s just say that claim is highly dubious, to say the least), Barker then says this whopper: “In the context of the Old Testament, ‘love thy neighbor’ is actually discriminatory. It would be like Klu Klux Klan leaders advising their followers to ‘love your white neighbors” (195). That’s right: Barker might be the only person in the world who could claim with a straight face that “love your neighbor” = KKK love.

XI. The Beatitudes

By far, the most humorous part of chapter 10 was Barker’s comments on the Beatitudes. Simply put, Barker goes to such absurd lengths to try to claim the Beatitudes are immoral, that it is utterly laughable. Each Beatitude will be in bold, with a comment by Barker in italics. But it should be pointed out up front that the first thing he says about the Beatitudes is this: “Five of the eight Beatitudes have nothing to do with morality” (197)—Again, his Fundamentalist mindset and obsession with moral rules is on full display. In any case, let’s look at the Beatitudes:

1: Blessed are the Poor in Spirit: “This praises a condition that is not admirable. Are we all supposed to become ‘poor-spirited’? What does ‘poor in spirit’ mean? This verse does not advocate any specific, positive ethical action. It only says that if you happen to be ‘poor in spirit’ then be happy because you are going to heaven. Verses such as these have been cited to keep slaves and women in their places with promises of ‘pie in the sky.’” (197)

2: Blessed are those who Mourn: Doesn’t advocate any behavior, “unless it is interpreted as a command to go into mourning. Instead, why not encourage people to comfort those who are mourning?” (197)

3: Blessed are the Meek: “This is not advocating meekness, it is merely stating that if you happen to be a meek person then don’t feel bad about it because you won’t be left out.” “This is like saying, ‘Be nice to Grandma because she might put you in her will.’” (197)

4: Blessed are those who Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness: “This merely encourages religious rituals, such as prayer.” (198)

5: Blessed are the Merciful: “This might be admirable, but how many of us (besides parents) are ever in a position to bestow mercy? The ability to grant mercy implies an authoritative control over others: slavemaster, military leader, judge. Christian parents ought to observe this mandate when they are about to follow the biblical command to spank their children.” (198)

6: Blessed are those who are Pure in Heart: “What does ‘pure’ mean, in real terms? If it means ‘the lack of desire to hurt others,’ then it is not bad. If it means ‘being spiritual, separate from worldly concerns,’ then it is bigoted and potentially dangerous. No ethical benefits arise from anti-social or self-denying attitudes.” (199)

7: Blessed are the Peacemakers: “We all want peace, but how do we get it? Was the bomb at Hiroshima peaceful because it ended the war? Are nuclear warheads ‘blessed’? …Besides, Jesus contradicted his own advice by warning, ‘Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.’ “Peace was a military concept, not an ideal of tolerance. ‘Shalom’ should more accurately be translated as ‘pacification.’ In other words, there will be ‘peace on earth’ when non-Jews are either killed or turned into slaves. According to Jesus, these holy marauding peacemakers are ‘blessed.’” (200) [For humor, enjoy Monty Python’s take on the Sermon on the Mount]

8: Blessed are those who are Persecuted for Righteousness’ Sake: “This Beatitude is dangerous. Besides being in the passive voice and not advocating any specific moral behavior, ‘Blessed are they which are persecuted’ appears to invite, encourage and praise confrontation and dispute among human beings.” (200)

What can one possibly say to those comments? Who can take them seriously? I certainly can’t. Who has ever interpreted “poor in spirit” with oppression of women and slaves? Didn’t Barker read the rest of the second Beatitude, where Jesus says that those who mourn will be comforted? Have you ever thought “Blessed are the meek” is the equivalent of being nice to grandma so you can get in her will? When has “hungering and thirsting for righteousness” the same as religious ritual? Did Barker just equate “Blessed are the merciful” with slavemasters, and “pure in heart” with being bigoted and anti-social?

And don’t get me started with “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Let me be blunt: if you think that when Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” that he was advocating the killing and enslaving of non-Jews, you are a dithering idiot. And finally, Barker might be the only person ever to have claimed that people persecuted for righteousness basically deserved what was coming to them. Let’s be clear, Barker’s comments here condemn the work of Martin Luther King and Gandhi, for they were confronting other human beings. Shame on them!

Barker then mentions one more “rule” that Jesus gave: to turn the other cheek. Admittedly, this is a tough one, for everything inside us wants to fight back when we are hit. To be clear, I don’t think Jesus was setting this down as some “absolute rule.” His point, especially within the context of the Jews being subject to Rome, was that when you are struck, you can choose to still love the person who struck you, and it is through that kind of love that people’s hearts can be changed.

I remember in junior high there was a certain kid who was always picking on me and challenging me to a fight (I was picked on rather mercilessly in junior high). Then one day, in the locker room before gym class, he came up to me and said, “Come on, Joel! Behind the library after school! Let’s fight!” I just looked at him and said, “You know, Phillip, I really don’t think I could care less.” And the look that came across his face was one that said, “Huh? He really doesn’t hate me or wants to fight me.” He just said, “Oh, okay,” and we actually became friends after that. It’s not really “turning the other cheek,” but I think that was the kind of think that Jesus was getting at.

Well, Barker doesn’t quite get this. Instead, he immediately decontextualizes Jesus’ comments and assumes he said them in 21^st century America…and oh, he assumes this is “a rule” (again): “A more sensible rule would say, ‘If someone smites thee on thy right cheek, then get away from that person! Defend yourself to avoid further harm. Ask for help, file charges, or try to stop the abuse from happening to someone else. Let the person know that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. Never invite abuse” (201).

Yep, that would be a really “sensible rule” for a Jew being confronted with a Roman soldier, or an Iraqi Christian being caught and tortured by ISIS fighters: “Hey now! That really isn’t appropriate! If you keep burning me in a cage, I’m going to call the ACLU!”

XII. Humanism Offers Morality

At the end of his chapter, after attempting to show that the Bible is some kind of immoral rule book, Barker confidently declares that HUMANISM provides a better morality. Well, not really…he really just gets a few more digs in at the Bible.

“Even if we all agreed that an absolute moral code were necessary, we would have a serious practical problem. How do we know what that code is? Who decides how the bible is interpreted?” (201).

Again, the Bible doesn’t present itself as some sort of “absolute moral code.” That is a fundamental (oh, the irony!) misunderstanding of the Bible itself. It is quite clear that even though Barker is now an atheist, he still is enslaved to a rule-obsessed, Fundamentalist mindset and worldview.

“If morality means anything, it means that we are accountable to others. Christians believe that we are accountable not to people, but to God. Since God is nonexistent, then they are accountable to no one” (202).

Yes, this comment might be catnip for his fellow Fundamentalist atheists, but it is nonsense to anyone who knows anything about the impact that Christianity has had on the human race. I would recommend Rodney Stark’s book, The Triumph of Christianity…as well as my upcoming book, Christianity and the (R)evolution of Worldviews in Western Culture. Hopefully it will be out in April.

Barker ends the chapter with these words: “It does no good to say that Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins. I don’t have any sins, but if I did I wouldn’t want Jesus to die for my sins. I would say, ‘No, thanks. I will take responsibility for my own actions’” (202).

Without getting preachy, let me just point that Barker does have sins—they are on display on virtually every page of this chapter: purposeful distortions, inflammatory (and ridiculous) comments. I’m sorry, but anyone who claims the things Barker does in this chapter is either purposely deceitful or willfully ignorant. There are no two ways about it.