SilentDave.net

(SILENT DAVE and RAY COMFORT are lying unconscious on a white cloud, stretching out to infinity. Slowly, groggily, they come to and look at each other in some surprise. A pause.)

DAVE: Well . . . this is embarrassing.

RAY (jumping to his feet): I KNEW it! Hah! I TOLD you, and you wouldn’t listen! Ohh, you’re gonna get it! The Lord came for me, came for both of us!

DAVE (standing): Uh, well . . . hey, aren’t you Ray Comfort?

RAY: I am, and you’re one of those annoying atheist bloggers, aren’t you? Well, I hate to say I told you so, but . . .

DAVE: Go ahead. You know you want to.

RAY: I told you so!

(Ray rubs his hand together and cackles with glee, looking around.)

RAY: Lord? I’m here, Lord! Your servant has arrived! And so has a very surprised, and soon to be very terrified atheist! (to Dave) So what do you have to say now? Huh?

DAVE: Well . . . I do have to admit, the fact that we’re even here is one point for you. That is, I mean . . . we are dead, right?

RAY: I’m here, Lord! I’m waiting for you!

DAVE: I remember walking through downtown, looking up at a skyscraper and seeing a refrigerator . . .

RAY: Lord Jesus? I’ve arrived!

DAVE: . . . and a mountain lion . . .

RAY: Lord! I’m here, Lord!

DAVE: . . . in Minneapolis? (looking at Ray) Look, if God is here, I’m pretty sure he can hear you without you shouting.

RAY: Hee hee! We’ll see who’s laughing in a minute! LORD! I’ve come, Lord!

(An awkward pause.)

RAY: Lord? . . . Uh, where are you, Lord?

DAVE: Not really what you were expecting either?

RAY: Shut up, you stupid atheist. Enjoy not being on fire while you still can. Lord! Where are you!?

(Another pause.)

DAVE: Okay, God, I’m with Ray on this one: Where are you?

RAY: He’s coming, don’t worry. Or rather, start worrying! (nervous chuckle)

DAVE: Well yes, I’m worried. I didn’t expect this for a moment.

RAY: Oh, please. You knew perfectly well that this was coming.

DAVE: No I didn’t.

RAY: You knew perfectly well that God exists and that you were in danger of Hell. You chose to live in your sin instead.

DAVE (sighing): NOW, of all times, you’re going to keep that routine going?

RAY: Heh, well, we’ll see in a moment who’s right. LORD! WE’RE HERE, LORD!

(Long pause.)

DAVE: A moment, two moments, whatever.

RAY: Shut up!

DAVE: Sorry. I make jokes when I’m nervous.

RAY: Yeah, well, you should be nervous. You’re gonna get it!

(Long pause.)

DAVE: When?

RAY: You act like you’re so sure even now. How pathetic. Let me ask you this: Do you still profess atheism?

DAVE: Well, I have to admit, it’s not looking as good as it was a few moments ago, but–

RAY: Hah! Not so smart now, are you?

DAVE: Okay, you know what? I’ll just shut up and wait and see what happens.

RAY: You do that.

(Dave sits down. A very awkward two minutes pass in silence as Ray paces around, looking anxious, and Dave sits there, in trepidation.)

RAY (suddenly): Not even a little?

DAVE (startled): What? I’m sorry, what?

RAY: You’re not even a little bit sorry for being an atheist?

DAVE: Well . . . no, I’m not. I mean, clearly, I was wrong — at least I think I was, or at least I was about one part of it all, cause we’re dead and we’re here — but according to Christianity, it all depends on what you do during your life. So it’s too late to change anything now, right?

RAY: That’s right. It’s too late for you! (cackle)

DAVE: Seriously, you need to stop cackling.

RAY: Er, sorry . . . but I mean, knowing what you know now, would you still claim to be an atheist in your life?

DAVE: Knowing what I know now? Probably not — this is more in line with your worldview than a naturalistic one.

RAY: So you admit I was right?

DAVE: Like I said, it’s looking more that way than it was a moment ago–

RAY: Argh! Why can’t you just admit it?

DAVE: Admit what?

RAY: That I was right! That God exists!

(Pause.)

DAVE: Does my admitting it mean that much to you?

RAY: I, uh, no, of course not! God has vindicated us.

DAVE: Speaking of God, where IS he?

RAY: HE’LL BE HERE!!

DAVE: . . . okay, calm down . . . as I was saying, it’s looking more like you’re right than it was a moment ago, but God hasn’t shown up. So far, this is just a, uh, white place. Just the two of us. No God, no angels–

RAY: God goes by his own timetable, not yours.

DAVE: Fair enough. But since the guy knows you so well, any chance he’s shared that timetable with you?

(Ray glowers.)

DAVE: Sorry. The nervous humor thing again.

RAY: Look, just admit that I was right.

DAVE: So it does mean that much to you.

RAY: Yes! I mean, no! I mean . . .

DAVE: God hasn’t shown up. And according to you, it’s too late to do anything that would make a difference, including say that yes, God does exist.

RAY: You’re not serious! After all this, you still claim to think that God does not exist?

DAVE: Well, I guess I can’t still say that I’m a strong atheist — I no longer hold the belief that God is nonexistent. But I’m not yet prepared to say that he does exist, so technically–

RAY: YOU’RE STILL AN ATHEIST? I mean, here you are, in Heaven, and you’re still an atheist? What is WRONG with you?

VOICE (O.S.): Actually, he’s completely correct.

(Ray and Dave both look toward the voice, surprised. Suddenly, a WOMAN walks onto stage, wearing a white robe, smiling benevolently. Ray kneels before her.)

RAY: Jesus is Lord! I am your servant.

WOMAN: I’m not Jesus.

RAY: Er . . . I know that. But . . .

WOMAN: But?

RAY: You’re . . . I mean, you’re an angel, right?

(The woman pats Ray on the head condescendingly, and walks over to Dave, who looks uncertain.)

DAVE: Um . . . pleasure to meet you.

WOMAN: And you, Dave. We’ve been hoping you would pass the test.

RAY: What!? What do you mean, he passed the test? He’s an atheist!

WOMAN: Yes. And he’s completely correct. God does not exist.

(Ray’s jaw falls to the cloud.)

RAY: You . . . what . . . how . . .

DAVE: Whoever you are, ma’am, I think you finally made his brain explode. But I don’t think there’s any such thing as an atheist angel, is there? So who ARE you?

WOMAN: I am an Explorer. I am one of a vast race of beings, what you would call extra-terrestrial beings.

DAVE: And you run the afterlife?

WOMAN: In a sense. We reconstituted your body from our temporal records at the moment of your death — which, by the way, was several billion of your years ago, even though you think it was just now.

DAVE: So I’m not really me, I’m just a copy of me? I mean, I know that wasn’t too clear–

WOMAN (smiling): It’s all right. No, we managed to capture what you think of as a soul, which is really just the material quantum pattern– here, it’ll be easier if I show you.

(She waves her hand in front of Dave. A flat screen appears in front of him, over which tiny letters, numbers, symbols and diagrams flash across it at an amazingly fast rate. Dave watches it for several seconds until it stops and the screen disappears.)

DAVE: Wow. I see. Hey, that’s a neat trick! So I really am me, and you — Explorers, you said? You brought me back from the dead?

WOMAN: We see it as our ethical duty to do so with all sentient beings.

RAY: Um, may I say something here? Even if you’re speaking the truth, young lady, it doesn’t mean God does not exist, because he does!

WOMAN: No he doesn’t. We proved that a long time ago.

RAY: No, that is impossible. You can’t prove what is not–

(The woman waves her hand again, and the screen appears in front of Ray, showing him things, then disappears a few seconds later. Ray blinks.)

RAY: . . . wow . . .

DAVE: So, what happens now?

WOMAN: Having done our ethical duty, we have the power to give you whatever existence you desire, to have whatever experiences you wish for as long as you wish. Or . . .

DAVE: Or?

WOMAN: Or you may join us. We Explorers are just what the name suggests: we explore reality itself — time, space, and all that lays beyond. We believe in acquiring knowledge for its own sake. If you are open minded, and thirst for knowledge as we do, then we would love to have you on our journey.

DAVE: Wow! That sounds incredible!

RAY: Not a chance. I don’t care what you people think you’ve “proved” there, I still believe that the Lord will come for me.

WOMAN: That’s all right, Ray — you’re not invited.

RAY: I’m not?

WOMAN: These last few minutes was your final test. Your last chance to open your mind to the possibilities. We knew we wanted Dave, but you didn’t appear to be — how can I put this politely? — an ideal candidate for our purposes. But even with our temporal records, we’ve been wrong in the past. So we gave you one final opportunity. And you failed.

RAY: I failed? I mean . . . I don’t care what you think! You’re obviously a sinful being of some sort, and God will no more choose you than he will choose him! (points at Dave)

WOMAN: Well, we don’t feel it ethical to change what a person believes; we can only show you what is and let you make up your own mind. After that, it’s up to you. Now, as I said, we can give you whatever existence you desire, for as long as you–

RAY: I’m staying right here! My Lord Jesus will come for me, and I’ll be here when he comes! I’ll wait forever if that’s what it takes!

WOMAN: As you wish. Are you ready, Dave?

DAVE: Yes, I am. (to Ray) I guess this is goodbye, Ray. Are you sure you want to–

RAY: Get away from me! Go to Hell where you belong!

WOMAN: Trust me, Dave, I’ve been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years — some people truly are hopeless.

DAVE (sighing): I never really wanted to believe that, but . . . I guess I have to. Goodbye, then, Ray.

WOMAN: When you wish for a ceasation of existence, simply walk in that direction (points) until you find the Void — there you will find peace. Goodbye.

(Dave and the Woman walk off stage together.)

RAY: Fine! I’ll wait here . . . by myself! I don’t need . . . you . . . I’m fine. I said I’m FINE! I have my faith! No, not faith — I KNOW! I don’t care what you show on that little screen, I don’t care what you . . . I don’t care! Jesus will come!

(long pause)

RAY: Jesus? I’m here, Lord! Where are you?

(long pause)

RAY: LORD! . . . how long must I wait? . . .

(long pause. Ray, looking despondent, sits down on a piece of white.)

RAY: He’ll come . . . I know he will . . . Lord? . . .

(Long pause. Ray buries his head in his hands. Slow fade-out.)

Note: For the last week I’ve been posting a series of “Questions for Christians” posts over at the Raytractors blog. It occurs to me that I haven’t been cross-posting them to or from this blog, which is, after all, my “home” blog. Thus, for the benefit of my regular readers (all three of them?) and the folks at Planet Atheism, I’ll cross-post them here over the new few days. I’ll also be better about posting future “Questions…” posts in both places as the series continues. Thank you.

First, the usual disclaimer: the purpose of these posts is to pose questions to Christians who come here (or go anywhere, for that matter) with the intent of converting us to Christianity, but also with an open mind about their own faith. My ultimate goal in asking these questions is to have you deconvert from Christianity. If you are not open to at least the possibility of that happening, then I suggest you not respond to these questions, as that will be a waste of your time and our bandwidth. At the same time, I am open to the possibility of learning a thing or two about Christianity along the way — but if you plan to post a comment with the intention of being a teacher, instead of a learner, then please don’t bother. These questions are for your benefit.

The following questions have to do with morality and goodness in Christian theism.

1. How do you define the word “good”?

You almost certainly know a human whom you would call good — let’s call him John — and if you are a Christian then you certainly think that God is good. What I’m looking for in this question is a definition of the word “good” such that, using that definition, the sentences “John is good” and “God is good” would both be true sentences. (If you happen to believe that no human being at all is “good,” then feel free to substitute a sentence such as “John tries to be good” or “John has good qualities about him.”)

2. How do you define the word “just?”

3. How do you define the word “loving?”

Same caveats as above: I’m looking for a definition of these words as they’re used to describe both John and God.

4. Is murder wrong because God says it is, or does God say murder is wrong because murder is wrong?

This is a variation of an old argument called the Euthyphro Dilemma, named for the titular character in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, against whom it was first used. The dilemma is this: if murder is wrong because God says it is, then morality is a function of God’s commands; thus, if God were to command that murder is right, then that would be true. This means that it is possible for murder to be right, whereas objective morality necessitates that murder is always wrong, thus God’s existence is incompatible with objective morality. On the other hand, if God says murder is wrong because murder is wrong, then God is deriving that moral fact from an independent standard, which means that an independent moral standard exists against which God himself can be judged — and by any rationally defensible standard of morality, that judgment is far from favorable.

It does no good to respond that morality is dictated by God’s unchanging nature, as that only pushes the question back a notch: is murder wrong because God’s nature says it is, or does God’s nature say murder is wrong because murder is wrong? (You cannot say that God’s nature qua God’s nature necessarily exists in the absence of a particular sort of ontological argument for God’s existence, a sort which has never been offered, still less proven.)

Nor can you say that there is no causal relationship, as “murder is wrong” is a moral fact, and any given fact can only have three possible relations to an intelligent being: it is created by that being, discovered by that being, or unknown to that being. Number three would not be an option with God, obviously, so either God created “murder is wrong” or he discovered it. So I ask again: Is murder wrong because God says so, or does God say so because it’s wrong?

5. Should we stone to death anyone who works on the Sabbath?

The Bible’s answer is yes, we must. Do you think that is right? If by circumstance it fell upon you to actually carry out the stoning, would you be willing to go through with it? If not, why not?

A related question:

5a. Do you think that human slavery is morally acceptable if done in accordance with the Bible?

At least one poster on the Raytractors blog, Jean Gasho-Musuka, has stated that it is indeed morally acceptable (why not, she said, as we are all slaves to Christ anyway). Do you agree? Do you believe that human slavery is never morally acceptable?

These final two questions pretty much speak for themselves:

6. Who is more moral, the person who does good because of the threat of punishment, or the person who does good in spite of no such threat?

7. Who has more incentive to be moral, one who believes that the slate will eventually be wiped clean and all will be forgiven provided you repent, or the person who believes there is no cosmic forgiveness, and that you and your descendants will be stuck with whatever mistakes you make?

 This post is the first in a series I am planning, the purpose of which is to pose questions to Christians who come here (or go anywhere, for that matter) with the intent of converting us to Christianity, but also with an open mind about their own faith. I won’t pretend that my ultimate goal isn’t to have you deconvert from Christianity, but forget about that for now; each post for the time being will focus on a particular aspect of the Christian faith that the Christian would benefit from reconsidering.

We’ll start with the following four questions about the doctrine of Hell, that being a place where the wicked and unrepentant will be tortured for all eternity after death. If you don’t believe that Hell exists, or is such a place, then these questions won’t apply to you — but they will apply to most evangelical Christians.

1. How do you know that Hell exists?

Being an atheist, I don’t believe that the Bible is completely true, or even largely true, so citing the Bible as evidence that Hell exists won’t work on me. If the Bible is the only thing you have to go with, however, then our next discussion can focus on whether the Bible can be considered reliable evidence for anything at all.

Obviously — at least I hope you find it as obvious as I do — the fact that a large number of people might believe in something isn’t proof of anything. Nor are near-death experiences of such a place, as these have been explained as processes of the physical brain. So how do you know Hell even exists?

2. How can Hell possibly be moral?

How can an all-loving God allow, still less create, a place of eternal torture? Doesn’t torturing, or threatening to torture, a person indicate that you hate them, rather than love them and want a relationship with them?

Some apologists say that God doesn’t send people to Hell, rather we send ourselves through sin. In the first place, however, we did not create Hell, God did, so this doesn’t answer why God would deliberately create a place of eternal torture for those who disobeyed him. (Some will say that Satan, not God, created Hell — but even if that unlikely scenario were the case, the fact remains that God seems to have no problem in making use of the place.)

In the second place, nobody ever chooses to be tortured. Ask any waterboarding victim if he chose to undergo that procedure. (Journalist and outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens did voluntarily undergo the procedure, for the sake of an article he was writing — he confirmed that it was indeed a form of torture, and that he would never do it again.) Ask any political prisoner if they would choose to be tortured. They never make that choice — even in disobeying their captors, knowing that torture would be the result; that is not tantamount to choosing to accept torture, as the captors simply do not have the moral right to do that. Hell is flat-out immoral in any human sense of the word.

Would you respond, then, that Hell, while immoral by human standards, is moral by God’s standards? If you allow that human and divine moral standards can diverge so widely, then you must also concede that other things which we consider immoral might be considered perfectly moral by God. Such as lying to humans. Such as telling us that we’ll be saved if we accept Jesus and so forth, when he in fact has no intention of saving us, but intends to throw everyone, Christian and atheist alike, into Hell. Along with Hell, Christians can’t provide any evidence that a single person is currently in Heaven. So the question remains: How can Hell possibly be moral?

3. How can Hell possibly be just?

This is a separate question from the above: it refers to the justice, or lack thereof, in subjecting a person to infinite punishment for finite crimes. If a person’s only crime is jaywalking, you don’t give him the punishment that you would give to a mass murderer; that would be gross injustice. With humans, every crime we could possibly commit, against man or God, is finite, and therefore merits finite punishment. But Hell is forever. It is infinite punishment. How, then, can it be a just punishment for any crime humans commit during our lives?

Some Christians say that, because the crimes are committed against an infinite being, they are of infinite magnitude. However, a defining characteristic of a crime is that it causes harm, either directly to its victims or indirectly to a society — thus, humans can never commit a crime against God, as finite beings can only inflict zero or negligible harm on an infinite being.

Another unjust aspect of Hell is the impossibility of release; even if a person repents in Hell and is genuinely sorry for what they have done and is prepared to accept Christ, the vast majority of Christian sects teach that there will be no release for them. We are told that God will accept any sincere repentance from someone on Earth, regardless of what prompted it — why would the same not apply in Hell? There can be no non-arbitrary answer to this question. So once again: how can Hell possibly be just?

4. Why is Hell necessary?

Why did God feel the need to create such a place in the first place? (Those who say that Satan, not God, created Hell, see above.)

The common answer here is that God has no choice, that he is incapable of existing in the presence of sin, and that Hell is the only metaphysical alternative to his own realm. But if that answer is true, then God is not God. Because God is, by definition, all-powerful — he can handle the problem, quite literally, any way he wants to.

God could extinguish souls rather than subject them to torture. He could create another metaphysical realm, something like Earth, and keep them there until they get it right. He could simply forgive them unconditionally, snap his fingers (so to speak) to “cleanse” the soul of sin, and admit them into Heaven. To deny that God is capable of any of these things is to deny that God is all-powerful, thus to deny that God is God, and hence to admit that you are an atheist.

The only reason I can think of for God to create and/or make use of a realm such as Hell is because he is sadistic and enjoys the suffering of others. But, of course, this is incompatible with the existence of an all-loving God. So I ask again: why is Hell necessary?

If the Christian wants us to take the concept of Hell seriously, as something more than an evangelistic tactic to try to coerce us into becoming Christians, then the very least he or she must do is provide satisfactory answers to all four of these questions. To my knowledge — and I have studied philosophy of religion intensively for over a decade — this has never been done. If you are able to do it, you would be the first. Do you think you can do it? Or do you think you had better rethink the whole Hell thing?

One of Ray Comfort’s little evangelistic tricks is his use of the word “creation” to describe the universe itself, which both sides can agree exist, so that he can (1) define God into existence, and (2) belittle atheists for not seeing the “obvious.” It’s a meme that all of us Raytractors have come across repeatedly: “Creation implies a creator.”

But consider this: we could just as easily call the universe “the natural realm,” which defines metaphysical naturalism into existence, and belittle Ray for not seeing the obvious.

(Ray might respond that the word “universe” means “one word,” which implies the existence of a Speaker. But when using the word “universe,” I no more mean to say “that which is spoken by God” than Ray, when saying “bless you” to someone who has sneezed, means to say “you appear to have the Black Plague, please keep your distance.”)

So we can both do a service to our respective theories depending on what term we use for the universe. Ray can say it implies a creator, I can say it implies naturalism. But who’s actually correct? Whose theory does the universe we observe confirm?

To answer that, let’s look at what each of our theories predicts and compare those predictions to what we observe, keeping score along the way.

Christianity predicts: A universe in which Earth and humans are the main feature, the basic reason for it existing in the first place.
Naturalism predicts: A universe in which neither humans nor their homeworld are anything special in the grand scheme of things.
What we observe: A universe in which humans and their world are lost among countless trillions of stars; not only are we not the center of the universe, we can’t even see the center of the universe, being so far away.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 1.

Christianity predicts: A universe in which the beginning of the universe and the beginning of humans are seperated by a matter of days.
Naturalism predicts: A universe in which the beginning of the universe adn the beginning of humans are seperated by vast periods of time, millions or billions of years, it taking that long for life to develop from inanimate matter through natural processes.
What we observe: A universe that has been around for about 14 billion years, but a human species that has only been around for several thousand.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 2.

Christianity predicts: A human race created by as simple and efficient a means as an extremely powerful spiritual essence could manage.
Naturalism predicts: Life arising, if at all, through some sort of chemical “code” which copies itself and is subject to mutation so as to be able to change form from inanimate to animate matter.
What we observe: Billions of years of evolution, and DNA.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 3.

Christianity predicts: Intelligent minds which, being made of spirit (whatever that is), exist and function completely independently of any physical body.
Naturalism predicts: Any mind which exists is made of the same stuff as the universe and biological life, and therefore suffers from the same limitations and drawbacks as that stuff.
What we observe: Intelligent minds are produced by a physical machine, the human brain; by altering the physical state of this brain, we can change the mind itself.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 4.

Christianity predicts: The existence of a being who is powerful enough and knowledgable enough to prevent human suffering, and who loves them and cares about them enough to do so.
Naturalism predicts: No such being necessarily exists.
What we observe: The existence of enormous amounts of unprevented suffering.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 5.

Christianity predicts: The existence of a being who has a specific and vitally important message for mankind, namely the gospel message, and is powerful enough to deliver that message individually to each and every human.
Naturalism predicts: No such being necessarily exists.
What we observe: Widespread unawareness of the gospel message, and equally widespread reasonable nonbelief therein.
Score Ray 0, atheists 6.

With some creative work, any theory, including Christianity, can be modified to become compatible with these observations, but that proves nothing unless the modifications themselves are independently proven. For example, Joe killing Steve is inconsistent with the proposition “Joe is a morally good person.” A Joe-apologist could modify that theory to state that Steve had a nuclear bomb, was about to detonate it in the middle of a city, and that killing him was the only way to stop him. But the fact that the theory is able to be modified in such a way is, by itself, insufficient to salvage the “Joe is good” theory; we would have to have independent confirmation that Steve had a nuke, that he was about to detonate it, and that Joe’s only option was indeed to kill Steve.

Therefore, if the Christian wanted to solve the problem of, say, the vast size of the universe by saying that God had some important reason for creating trillions upon trillions of light years of apparently empty space for a universe created especially for humans, that would not prove anything — not unless the Christian could prove, to the same standard of proof as the original question, that such a desire on God’s part actually exists. He can’t.

Similarly, any attempt to make God compatible with suffering by citing, say, free will fails unless accompanied by (1) a logical proof that a world in which all beings freely make choices that avoid suffering is impossible, (2) some sort of proof of the existence of Satan or whatever malevolent entity is responsible for natural suffering, and (3) some sort of proof of the existence of a desire on God’s part that all beings have free will, and that his desire that this obtain is greater than his maximal love for us. These must all be proved independently — both from one another and from the original theory that God exists in the first place — and to within the same standard of proof as the original theory. Needless to say, this has not been done.

So there you have it. The natural realm implies naturalism — and this is so obvious that Ray and the Raybots are fools for not seeing it. Now let’s look at how this meme defeats Ray’s meme:

Q: Doesn’t a builder imply a builder?

A: Is there any building in New York City that was built by a discorporeal spirit? In Chicago? In Moscow? Tokyo? Sydney? Cape Town? Bellweather, CA? Of course not — all buildings were built by physical beings who arose by natural processes.

Q: Doesn’t a painter imply a painter?

A: Was the Mona Lisa painted by a ghost? Starry Night? The Last Supper? No, they were all painted by humans. Physical beings. Natural beings.

Q: Doesn’t creation imply a creator?

A: Christians and atheists disagree on whether the universe is a creation — in the sense that it was created by an intelligent being — but there is a set of objects — buildings, painters, cars, etc. — that we do agree are creations. Can the Christian name one of those objects, just one of them, that was created by something other than a finite physical being? Of course he can’t!

So if the universe is a creation by an intelligent being, then all the evidence suggests that the creator of the universe is some sort of finite physical being as well, and none of the evidence suggests the contrary.

Therefore, the universe was caused to exist either by a natural person or by impersonal natural processes — consistent with the predictions of naturalism, contradictory to the predictions of Christianity.

Score: Ray 0, atheists 7.

The natural realm implies naturalism. QED.

Recall that, in response to the announced atheist strike, Ray Comfort said oh well, he has a hundred more “questions” from atheists to get to. So whom does he turn on today? One of his fellow Christians, of course!

A Christian named “Rose” apparently wrote something to Ray, denouncing him for being judgmental, praised human tolerance, said that there are people of multiple faiths who are in heaven, that hell is not a literal place of torture, and other things often espoused by more liberal Christians.

Ray posted the communique, in its entirety (or so I presume — I have to, since Ray didn’t bother linking to the source), without comment, and in fact without any indication at all that it was the words of somebody else, except for the “–Rose” at the bottom. I was rather confused by it at first, thinking it was a very un-Rayish message, until I realized they were someone else’s words.

Now, granted that Ray has things to talk about besides atheists, despite the new name of his blog. And granted that he might want to address other Christian theologies. But why would he post someone else’s words, without comment and without a relvatively clear statement that they were not his words? Another reader, one not entirely familiar with Rayism, could see that post and easily think that they were expressing Ray’s own sentiments, even if not his exact words. Why did Ray not bother with anything more than a cut and paste?

The answer can be found in the comments section.

“Tinina Marie” wrote:

I like many of the christians that read this blog rarely post comments; this post or comment is a perfect example of why. I pray that God reveals himself to Rose and that the Gospel pricks her heart.

“forgiven37″ wrote:

this is the problem that we are facing in the Church today. so many people only know a few scriptures and don’t have a understanding of what it actually means to be a Christian.

“Robin Baker” said to Rose:

You should examine yourself and whether or not you are a true believer in Jesus Christ after a post like that.

“berean wife” commented:

Witnessing and sharing with those like Rose who say they are saved is so hard. Of course they always throw in a few “judge not” accusations.

“Emily” said:

Now how do you turn around and witness to this lady? She thinks she’s Christian. Now what?

Ray’s motives now become clear: in the absence of atheists, he has turned his blog into a true “echo chamber.” He’s not talking to atheists, or even to other Christians, but to his own fans. He posted something that he, and his fans — is there a common usage nickname for them, by the way? Rayniacs? Raybrains? Just plain idiots? — clearly disagree with, and he knew that the Ray-philes would come through for him, turn against Rose and praise Ray.

I doubt it hurt his ego any.

But I’m not writing this merely to comment on Ray Comfort’s ego, massive topic though that is. I’m concerned with a more serious issue:

For many decades now, humanity has been marching — slowly, and with not a few setbacks — toward a culture of human tolerance and pluralism, of mutual understanding and acceptance. Futurists regard this as a good thing, a necessary thing if humanity is to successfully advance, both technologically and culturally.

Rose’s theology — which, don’t get me wrong, I otherwise regard as only marginally more intellectually acceptable than Ray’s — is in keeping with that trend. Perhaps it is even an objectively good thing, a necessary stepping stone on the path to creating a secular, humanistic society.

And perhaps Ray and the Rayettes have seen this already, and that’s precisely why they’re bent on denouncing it. They regard it as a social force that will overthrow everything they believe, and that is therefore not only undesirable but supremely evil. Literally! “sassy chic” writes:

The easiest deception Satan has is to make you believe you are just fine. Works with the athiest (sic) as well as the so called “christian”. You are fine, I am fine, there is no hell, there is no God…

So Rose is not only wrong, she’s (unwittingly) a follower of Satan, the Main Bad Guy in the bad video game backstory that is Christian fundamentalism. She believes in God and Jesus and sin and salvation, but because of what she believes regarding the peculiar nature of salvation, she herself is to be damned.

According to these people, you not only have to be a Ray-type Christian to be saved, you have to believe that everyone who is NOT a Ray-type Christian will be damned in order to be saved. So according to Ray and Ray’s Rats . . .

Christians believe that only Christians will be saved.

And what is a Christian? It’s a person who believes (among other things) that only Christians will be saved. So, unpacking the above statement, we get . . .

Only those who believe that Christians will be saved will be saved.

And unpacking again, we get . . .

Only those who believe that only those who believe that Christians will be saved will be saved will be saved.

And continuing to unpack as necessary, we get . . .

Only those who believe that only those who believe that only those who believe that only those who believe that only those who believe that only those who believe that only those who believe that only those who believe that only those who believe . . .

(….)

. . . will be saved will be saved will be saved will be saved will be saved will be saved will be saved will be saved will be saved will be saved.

That sentence is the essence of fundamentalist Christianity. The first part ends in an infinite regress, and the last part begins with one, but if you look at the connecting part, the middle of it all, you will see that there’s nothing there.

That is the essence of Christianity. It is, at its very center, nothing at all. It is a void surrounded by a very dense shell. It is a Tootsie Pop without the Tootsie. It is — please forgive me, I know it’s a cheap shot and an obvious one, but I simply cannot resist — Ray Comfort’s skull.

At this point, no doubt, Rayheads will echo the words of Lauren to Ray:

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

Which, of course, is what Ray does to atheists every day, yet few of the Rayskulls would consider us blessed. I guess it’s a selective thing. Like the Bible itself.

But the saddest part of the whole thing is that these Christians are blind to the evil of the hatemongering that they are perpetuating, that they see nothing wrong with it. In response to Rose’s comment that for every person drawn to Christianity by Ray’s brand of evangelism, nine people are pushed away, “jason” said:

Exactly, and Jesus explicitly told us this would be the case: ‘Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.’ (Matthew 7:13-14)

In other words, it’s okay to spread hate and intolerance, because anyone who is offended is headed toward “the wide gate” anyway. And in the middle of this bigot-fest, what I think is the most telling comment of all, from Lauren again:

Does anyone think it’s hilarious that the athiests (sic) are gone? It’s so beautiful and peaceful here today.

There you have it: hatred is beautiful, and intolerance is peaceful. That, in the end, is what fundamentalist Christianity is: a thin shell of happy rhetoric and flowery hope for salvation, surrounding a thick mantle of hatred, bigotry and inhumanity, wrapped around a central core of nothing at all. That’s what they want us to swallow. That’s what they want us to be physically tortured for should we refuse.

I disagree with Rose’s metaphysical beliefs no less than Ray’s, but at least, in the grand march of human progress, she is marching in the right direction. Perhaps she will catch up to us someday. As for Ray and the Rayskulls, well, one way of looking at it is that they’re going in the wrong direction, and trying to drag us with. But a more optimistic view is this: Humanity is finally leaving them behind. Let’s hope we do so quickly, lest they bring the whole damn thing to a halt.

(Cross-posted to The Raytractors.)

Time for some more Ray Comfort.

Q: Hang on there, bucko. Why are you focused on Ray Comfort all of a sudden? As apologists go, he’s among the lowest of the low. He’s an idiot, plain and simple. Certainly there are better apologists out there — Craig, Swinburne, Plantinga — whom you could be focusing on. Why such an easy target like Comfort?

A: For the same reason the Secular Web went after Josh McDowell, the Skeptical Review went after Robert Turkel, and the IRS went after Kent Hovind[1]: when someone is that loud, that arrogant and that stupid, he just begs to be ganked. (”Ganked” is a MMORPG term, by the way; it refers to a much stronger player killing a much weaker player who doesn’t have a chance. Kind of like what atheists do to Ray Comfort.)

I’ve written about Craig and Plantinga elsewhere on this blog, but they’re not all that well known, especially Plantinga, to the average Christian. Comfort is a bit more well-known. Probably because he’s not as technical. And has Kirk Cameron for a sidekick. Christians know him. They need to know why he’s full of it.

Anyway, on to the “Comfort food:”

Those who have never heard the good news of the gospel will go to Heaven, if they have never sinned. However, if they have lied, stolen, committed adultery, been covetous, had sex outside of marriage, looked with lust, hated anyone, been unthankful to God, committed homosexual acts, murdered, blasphemed, failed to love their neighbor as themselves, and to love the One who gave them life with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength, etc., they will end up in Hell. God will give them justice.

How is that justice? How is any finite crime deserving of infinite torture? And don’t give me that “crimes against an infinite being are of infinite magnitude” nonsense; that’s a completely arbitrary moral principle which has no basis in observed reality. (How could it? We have no observations of infinite beings in reality!) It makes just as much sense to say that finite crimes against an infinite being are of negligible magnitude. More sense, in fact, from a mathematical point of view. So I ask again: how is that justice?

Also, notice the contradiction there? “Those who have never heard of God will go to heaven as long as they love God.” And if they don’t love God, despite being unaware, then God will send them to hell.[2] Never mind worship — does Ray honestly believe that his god is worthy of respect?

You have faith in an unscientific theory (Darwinian evolution) that is in great error, and one which cannot be supported with anything but conjecture. Evolution is nothing but a long and winding rabbit trail that leads nowhere. You have no explanation as to the origin of creation (how it began), why it began, or where the materials came from for the beginning.

The ironic part is, this passage appears in the same post as a complaint that, when confronted with gaps in the fossil record, anti-creationists leapfrog from biological evolution to cosmological evolution — the exact same thing Ray is doing!

The old “no transitional fossils” claim is a non-starter, by the way. It’s just an excuse for creationists like Ray to dismiss the evidence right in front of their eyes. Their logic goes like this:

RAY: Evolution is disproved by a gap in the fossil record between species A and species E!

REALIST: Actually, we have fossils of species B, species C and species D.

RAY: Evolution is disproved by four caps in the fossil record: between A and B, between B and C, between C and D, and between D and E!

And so on.

Another question, by the way: why is it that creationists are so hung up about Charles Darwin? Why do they call it Darwinism, and us Darwinists? If someone believes that psychology is a valid science, are they called a Freudist? I happen to believe that light bulbs exist — should I therefore be called an Edisonist? Seriously, Ray, get over Darwin. We have.

All forms of the evolution are a non issue when compared to your eternal salvation.

Uh, Ray? You creationists are the only ones making an issue of evolution. To actual scientists, it’s about as controversial as gravity.

In other words, everything material degenerates (rots). An apple rots in time. So does an egg. Rocks crumble into dust, in time. If the universe was around forever (trillions and trillions plus years), everything material would have turned to dust.

Trillions and trillions plus years? That’s your conception of “forever?” Pretty weak. It seems like your conception of “forever” is just “a really, really, really long time.” But it’s not. It’s INFINITE time. The nature of our quantum universe is such that any logically possible event will happen, given sufficient time. An uncaused Big Bang is a logically possible event (to say otherwise is to betray a misunderstanding of the limitations of the laws of logic), and “forever” is, by definition, a sufficient time for anything.

I now live an ethical life out of an appreciation for mercy. This ethical life may or may not be as ethical as that of an atheist, but that will have no bearing at all on Judgment Day. God will judge the world in perfect righteousness, and only those who have called upon His mercy will be saved from His terrible justice.

In other words, the little girl who doesn’t steal the cookie for fear her daddy will beat her if she does is more moral than the little girl who doesn’t steal because it wouldn’t be nice, or fair to the other children who haven’t had a cookie yet. I can’t even the magnitude of brainwashing needed to actually believe that.

As for the phrase “terrible justice,” well, with respect to the point I made above, I guess that says it all. Ray’s notion of justice (by divine proxy) is terrible. Terrible enough, I would humbly suggest, to need drastic revision.

This is the post that got my attention, however, a post entitled “Atheist Strike:”

A little bird told me that it was going to be a two-week strike. How about a little longer? I need a break. One of my posts had 252 comments. That’s a lot of moderating.

Now, I knew that there were a number of atheists who posted on Ray’s blog, but I didn’t read deeply enough into the comments to realize that there were enough of them, and they were well enough organized, to put on a strike! Thanks to Ray calling that to my attention, and a little Googling (I didn’t bother looking for a link at Ray’s blog, as he summarily deletes posts with URLs), I found this blog dedicated to the very thing I’ve been doing lately.

Get the feeling that Ray Comfort is a bit dishonest? A tad uninformed?

Somewhat passive aggressive? Here you can network and talk with others who feel the same. We’re NOT here to bash religion or the religious; anyone who can’t stomach Comfort’s theology is welcome to join. Also, you can post anything that Ray would censor - esp. links to references and refutations of Comfort’s hogwash. We just ask that you stay on topic and not be abusive.

Sounds good to me.

As per Rufus’ suggestion, and what seems like popular demand - the Raytractors are going on strike. Why? To see what Ray’s blog turns into without the most interesting part of it - namely, US!

Ray’s response, as you can tell from the above, is “yawn.” He’s also stated that he has over a hundred “questions” from atheists to answer while the “Raytractors” are on strike, so he’ll not want for material. Neither, of course, will we.

In fact, let’s honor Ray’s request and make the strike longer. Let’s make it indefinite. Let’s let his blog turn into an echo chamber, see whether it stays active or turns small-time, like . . . well, to be brutally honest, like my own blog at the moment. Let those Christian readers who are actually reachable look around and wonder why there aren’t any actual atheists at “Atheist Central” — and them let them use Google for ten seconds, as I did, and learn the truth. And let the others continue to “peek” at our own blogs (because heaven forbid they should actually read what we have to say!) and wonder what they’re missing out on by not being a freethinker.

.

[1] To the best of my knowledge, the IRS didn’t actually go after Hovind for his religious stupidity — at least, not directly. They went after him because he refused to pay his taxes. Hovind claimed that it was a matter of principle, that he was doing God’s work and therefore his holdings belonged to God. He maintained this attitude all throughout his trial, right through the guilty verdict . . . at least until the sentencing, when he was actually facing prison time. Then he begged the court for leniency, saying that he’d pay all his taxes if they didn’t send him to prison. So much for principle.

[2] At this point we usually hear the “God doesn’t send people to hell, people send themselves” canard. That’s what I call Abusive Boyfriend Theology: the man wrapping the belt around his hand, standing over his battered, broken girlfriend, sobbing and cowering on the floor; and just before he beats the crap out of her for talking back to him, he says, “This isn’t my fault. You brought this on yourself.”

In my last post I suggested that Ray Comfort changed the title of his blog to “Atheist Central” because he is repressing something. It seems that I was perfectly correct. The title of his most recent post says it all:

God is not All-loving.

The atheist’s position is that a theistic God does not exist — a God which is defined as all-loving by the vast majority of Christians and theologians (there are a few notable exceptions, such as Fred Phelps (click at your own risk)). Ray Comfort’s statement that God is not all-loving is tantamount to the statement that an all-loving God does not exist. Hence, Ray Comfort is an atheist. Welcome to the club, Ray!

Q: Actually, if you put his statement into context, despite his misleading use of it in isolation for the title of his blog post, couldn’t Ray have meant to say that God is not only loving? That he does have maximal love for us, but he has other important attributes as well?

A: That could indeed be the case, as suggested by the rest of the opening paragraph:

To say that that is the sole makeup of His character is to create an idol. That god doesn’t exist, except in the minds of those that conceive Him to be like that. The God of the Bible is holy, righteous, full of justice and truth, as well as love and mercy.

In which case, sorry Ray, I’ll have to rescind your EAC membership after all. But why does he bring this up? He does so to respond to a variant of a familiar atheist argument, the argument from religious confusion:

So, if God sees fit to save someone in America He does so because of His goodness. If He saves someone in Iraq, India, China, Japan, He does so because He is good, and He reveals His goodness by sending missionaries to those countries so that they will hear the gospel. (…) The Bible says that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws Him, and God draws whom He will to Himself whether the person to whom He is extending mercy lives in Iraq, New Zealand, China, Japan or the United States.

So according to Ray Comfort, God just happens to choose 90% of North Americans and less than one percent of Middle Easterners. Why is that, exactly, Ray? Is it the weather in these places, the topography, what? Also, why did the Father not want to draw to him a single person living in North America prior to the 16th century or so?

We would have no reason to expect this observation if Christianity were true — God, if he existed, would have, quite literally, an infinite number of methods by which to spread his message, relying exclusively upon fallible and limited human messengers with human powers being among the least efficient of these methods. Ray has no non-arbitrary way to explain this observation.

However, if atheism is true, then every single religion and supernatural belief is a man-made convention spread entirely through man-made means; this in turn entails that the propagation of these religions and beliefs suffer from the same limitations as any other form of human communication. And lo and behold, that is exactly what we observe in the world.

Atheism defeats Ray Comfort.

With Frank Turek and Neil Mammen having grown so afraid of me that they’ve banned me from their blog, and with Ernie Laurence not having shown his face around here since the conclusion of our debate — has he even read my final statement? — I haven’t had any Christian apologist to pick on. As you can tell by looking back through this blog, my output tends to suffer when I don’t have an apologist to pick on. So, let’s look at Ray Comfort.

Comfort is an apologist who, judging from his bibliography, aims to rival Isaac Asimov himself in terms of quantity, if not quality. Best known for his collaboration with child actor turned childish apologist Kirk Cameron, as well as for the “banana argument” (which he has even admitted is bogus, but of course that hasn’t stopped him from using it) and for his virtual debauchery at the hands of the RRS, Comfort spends his time these days on a blog that was originally called “Comfort Food.” He later changed it to “The Soapbox” and, most recently, “Atheist Central.” That’ll give you an idea of his fixation.

Q: Wait a second, Dave. Aren’t you rather fixated on Christian apologists?

A: If I myself can be said to be fixated on anything, it’s World of Warcraft. My interest in examining and debunking apologists is just that: an interest. Comfort, however, has a true fixation, as his blog archive even before the recent name change clearly shows.

I won’t even bother going to his site and posting there directly, as I wouldn’t last long. Comfort’s ban button finger is even more itchy than Turek’s — among the bannable offenses on his blog are blasphemous statements and failure to capitalize the words “God” and “Jesus.” But of course, Christians are free to insult atheists — and Comfort does so regularly. For example:

It has been rightly said that the “atheist” can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.

Classy stuff, huh? And, of course, if I were to return the favor, for instance by comparing Christians to cannibals (at the time of this writing, the hot topic in the atheist blogosphere is Crackergate), Comfort would say that that only confirms that which he implies in the above analogy: atheists are uniformly immoral.

Here’s another, very familiar, argument:

[L]et’s say that the atheist has an incredible 1 percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the 99 percent of the knowledge that he hasn’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? One who is reasonable will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the vast knowledge that he hasn’t yet discovered, there could be enough proof that God does exist. (…) I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement.

Of course, anyone who’s given more than five seconds of objective thought to the issue can spot the problem with that argument. To make the absolute statement “There are no square circles,” for instance, you don’t need to know everything in the universe; rather you only need to know two things: the definition of a square, and the definition of a circle. Likewise, to make the absolute statement “There is no God,” you need only know the definition of “God” and one other thing, such as “suffering exists” or “nonbelief exists,” which contradicts the existence of a being so defined.

Many are the examples of Ray, and Sidekick Kirk, calling us fools (Psalm 14:1, of course, and if confronted about this, of course they’d say “I don’t say it, the Bible does,” thus evading responsibility for their words), who deny common sense and “don’t want to be confused by the facts.” Apparently, this approach is meant to open our hearts.

Here are a few other things Ray and Kirk call us:

Creation proves scientifically and absolutely to any sane mind that there is a Creator.

Insane.

However, there is something even more ludicrous than the imaginings of idolaters. It is that trait of human nature that is just as predictable —the intellectual suicide of the atheist.

Intellectually dead.

It is quite simple to prove that an atheist doesn’t exist.

Nonexistent.

Perhaps Ray is hoping that, by raising our blood pressure high enough, we’ll have a near-fatal stroke or heart attack, and that the fear of being so close to death will cause us to convert out of fear — and in so doing ignoring Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Allen “WinAce” Glenn, and so many other atheists who have faced death with greater awareness and nobility than Ray Comfort seems to face life with.

Q: Was that an insult?

A: I suppose it was.

Q: Won’t Comfort take that as confirmation that atheists are immoral?

A: I suppose he will.

Q: Even while continuing to act immoral and disrespectful to us?

A: Even so.

Q: Classy indeed. So what’s to be done about this guy?

A: Three things. First, keep an eye on Comfort Food — I mean, The Soapbox — I mean, Atheist Central — on a semi-regular basis. Continue to point out his insults and rebut his arguments (such as they are), in the hopes that Christians will learn something from both.

Second, challenge Ray Comfort to a debate on whether or not God exists. A written debate — that’s the format I would be comfortable with, and I suspect Ray, being a writer, would as well. I suspect he’ll refuse, assuming he even has the cajones to venture into actual atheist territory long enough to learn of this challenge, but my challenge will remain standing. My schedule isn’t as busy as I suspect he’s going to say his is, so I can place myself at his disposal rather comfortably. Pardon the pun.

Third, play more World of Warcraft. Because there are, believe it or not, things that interest me more than what Ray Comfort has to say — and to be blunt, the Horde in Arathi Basin worry me far more than Comfort’s insults and threats of hell. If that blows Ray’s mind, then oh well, at least the collateral damage will be minimal.

Q: Was that another insult?

A: Hey, I’m willing to take the high road if he is.

Q: Think he’ll be willing?

A: Don’t hold your breath.

Q: One more thing: aside from the obvious play on words — and that was a huge groaner for which I will never forgive you — what, exactly, is the title of this post supposed to refer to?

A: Ray Comfort’s discomfort over the existence of atheism. I’ve already said that mine is an interest in Christian apologists, not a fixation — but if I changed the name of this blog from SilentDave.net to ChristianCentral.net or something similar, you’d not only call me out on that statement, you’d also think I was repressing something . . .

Regardless of the message conveyed in my last post, it is possible that an amendment will be passed at some point that would establish a Christian theocracy. I’ve been trying to visualize what such an amendment would look like, and I would welcome your ideas on what you would add or change to the following if you were a Christian theocrat.

SECTION 1. The United States of America acknowledges and celebrates the existence of the Lord God, the intrinsic sinfulness of humanity, the incarnation of God’s son Jesus Christ, the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ, the opportunity for humanity to attain eternal salvation through Jesus, the damnation of all humans who reject said opportunity, the inerrancy of the Holy Bible in its original form, and the coming return of Jesus Christ to establish dominion over all the Earth, forever.

SECTION 2. The first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

SECTION 3. Neither Congress nor any state or local government body shall make any law, nor shall any law be enforced by any means, which has the effect of abridging the rights of United States citizens to acknowledge, celebrate and communicate the acknowledged and celebrated items in Section 1.

SECTION 4. The early termination of a pregnancy by any means, for any reason save dire medical emergency, is hereby prohibited.

SECTION 5. Neither Congress nor any State legislature may pass any law, or retain any existing law, which acknowledges or grants rights to any marriage not consisting of one man and one woman.

SECTION 6. The teaching of the theory of Evolution, or any other scientific or pseudoscientific theory which is inconsistent with the acknowledged and celebrated items in Sections 1, by any educator or any educational institution, is hereby prohibited, except when such teaching is solely for purposes of contrast with the scientific theory of Scientific Creationism or Intelligent Design.

SECTION 7. Effective one day after ratification of this article of amendment, Article V of the United States Constitution is hereby repealed.

A brief sampling:

1789: After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

1810: If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

1860: In all the territory of the United States now held, or hereafter acquired, situate north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance. (…) Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves.

1861: No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

1912: [I]ntermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States or any territory under their jurisdiction, is forever prohibited; and the term ‘negro or person of color,’ as here employed, shall be held to mean any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African or negro blood.

1954: This nation devoutly recognizes the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Savior and Ruler of nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of Almighty God.

2004: Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.