Falsehood of the Far Right #3 - Non-Christians are immoral

           Falsehoods and misconceptions of the far Right #3 : Non-Christians are amoral.

        This is by far the simplest and most direct bald faced lie to refute. One caveat, here, however, if an individual characterizes them self  as a Christian,  I will take them at their word, and judge their actions accordingly, through that lens.  Of course for many professing Christians, the lack of belief in a deity is all the proof necessary for a denunciation of the non-believer as either amoral or immoral (or, usually, both). The problem for these persons is that they are ignorant of the true gist and implication of  these terms.

        it is difficult, in less than a ream of paper and with this author's limited abilities,  to do a truly exhaustive analysis here, so let's take several constructs (for want of as better term) of  morality as generally defined, and analyze them  individually.     

Belief in a supernatural supreme entity:  

Christians have no monopoly on such beliefs, as many of the world's major religions have such tenets as a foundation. Some have one cosmic muffin, several have a whole six pack, but obviously, when Christians say "God,"  the ones on the far right mean Jesus' alleged old man. By implication, therefore,  all Buddhists, Jains, Muslims, Sikhs, animists, and vegans are immoral. (just kidding with the vegan thing, to see if you're still with me). Sadly, many Far Right Christians, hereafter abbreviated as FRCs)  would apply the same label (non-Christian) to Mormons and even Roman Catholics - I have heard it myself.  So what FRCs frequently mean is that "If you don't believe in our God in the same sense as we believe in him/her/it, you are immoral.  A list of just a few persons who are "immoral" by that standard would include Gandhi, all the Dalai Lamas, most native Americans, and to some FRCs the Pope. Really?   

Love & Good Will to others:

Good will towards others is a vital component of   morality for two reasons. First, genuinely moral acts must include a desire that others do well. It is not "morality" to grudgingly help someone you wish would curl up and die. It's also not morality to help someone due to inducements like threats or rewards. Second, an attitude of good will should  encourage moral behavior without needing to be prodded and pushed. Good will thus functions as both a context and driving force behind moral behavior. Some of the most hospitable, open and sharing persons on Planet earth are tribal peoples who have no concept of a Christian God or doctrine

Reason:

The unbreakable link between reason and morality can also be construed as one of the strongest argument against deities. This link may not be intuitively recognizable, but it's arguably indispensable. Unless morality is simply rote  obedience to memorized rules or as random as a coin toss,  it is essential to be able to think clearly and coherently about  moral choices. One must be able  to adequately reason one's way through the various options and consequences of actions in order to arrive at any decent conclusion. Without reason, then, there is faint hope of   having  a moral system or to behave morally. Unfortunately for Christian dogmatists, reason and logic are the Kryptonites of traditional Christian beliefs. It is imperative here to separate action from belief, as many Christians (not FRCs, in many cases)  act morally and with concern for their fellow man. That they do so is laudable; why they do it is another issue. It is my  belief, based on observation, that those Christians who act with compassion and concern, would  do so regardless of their structured belief system  

Compassion & Empathy:

Most people realize that empathy plays an important role when it comes to morality, but its importance may not be as well understood as it should be. Treating others with dignity does not require orders from any gods, but it does require that we be able to conceptualize how our actions affect others. This, in turn, requires an ability to empathize with others  an ability to be able to imagine what it's like to be them, even if only briefly. The ability to think critically is actually enhanced when the mind is not weighed down with such cornball or dogmatic  ideations as "What would Jesus do?"  Picture the Hindu, faced with a moral decision having to run through a list of Gods and their avatars until he finds one which suits him. Ludicrous.

Personal Autonomy:

Without personal autonomy, morality is not possible. If humans  are simply robots following orders from some, or several eye(s) in the sky, then their actions can only be described as obedient or disobedient.  Mere obedience, however, cannot be morality.  If that were true, Hitler's SS would  be the most moral cadre ever!  Mankind  need the ability to choose what to do and to choose the moral action. Autonomy is critical because we are amoral in or dealings with others  if we prevent them from enjoying the same level of autonomy which we demand for ourselves. Ascribing authority to God or a God(s) is a double edged cop-out in that it removes responsibility and accountability  from one whose actions are couched in terms of mandated action pursuant to belief. Flip Wilson's "The devil made me do it" also has it's Christian  equivalence when a Kim Davis cites "God's Law" as justification for violating the civil rights of  others.

Pleasure:

In Western religions, at least, pleasure and morality are often diametrically opposed. This opposition is not necessary in secular  morality.  To the contrary, seeking to generally increase the ability of people to experience pleasure or diminish pain is often important in godless morality. This is because without any belief in an afterlife, it follows that this life is all we have and so we must make the most of it while we can. If we can't enjoy being alive, what's the point of living? Mother Theresa provided a classic example of the Christian perversion of this concept:  “Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus - a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”  She said this while administering only aspirin for women in excruciating pain because more potent medications cost money, which she had in abundance, but sent much of to Rome.

Honesty:

Honesty is important because truth is important; truth is critical because an inaccurate picture of reality cannot reliably help us to survive and understand. In spite of this fairly obvious reasoning, the history of Christianity and the Church is rife with contradictory  events. Galileo and others paid the price for honesty. Today, most climatologists are being pilloried by FRCs in like manner. We need accurate information about what is going on and a reliable method for evaluating that information if we are to achieve anything. False information or dogmatic adherence to superstition  will hinder or ruin us. There can be no morality without honesty, but there can only be honesty without gods. If there are no gods, then dismissing them is the only honest thing to do.

Altruism:

Whatever label we choose to give it, the act of sacrificing something for the sake of others is common to all cultures and all social species. One doesn't need God(s) or religion to tell you that if you value others, sometimes what they need must take precedence over what you need or just think you need. A society without self-sacrifice would be a society without love, justice, mercy, empathy, or compassion.

Moral Values Without Gods or Religion:

A standard defense of deism is frequently the postulate  only God is the basis for being moral in the first place?  the follow-on is to introduce the fear factor - "What reason is there to care about behaving morally at all if not the "fear of God"?  Even asking this, certain that it cannot be answered demonstrates the  self delusion of  a teenage solipsist who thinks he has stumbled on a way to refute every argument or belief by adopting extreme skepticism.  The problem with this question is that it presumes that morality is something that can be separated from human society and consciousness and independently grounded, justified, or explained. Morality is as integral to human society as a person's major organs are integral to the human body: although the functions of each can be discussed independently, explanations for each can only occur in the context of the entire system. Religious believers who see morality exclusively in terms of their god and religion are  unable to cognitively acknowledge this in a manner analogous to someone who imagines that humans acquire a liver through a process other than through the natural growth that lies behind every other organ.

Justice & Mercy:

Justice means ensuring that people receive what they deserve;  that a criminal receives the appropriate punishment, for example. Mercy is a countervailing principle which promotes being less harsh than one is entitled to be. Balancing the two is key for dealing with people morally. For many FRCs, the ludicrous concept of "grace" is used to condemn the non-Christian pedophile or adulterer in the most strenuous terms while giving a Josh Duggar a pass because "He repented."   A lack of justice is wrong, but a lack of mercy can be just as wrong. None of this requires any gods for guidance. To the contrary, the Bible is rife with stories of (apparently) the same God, acting both mercifully and with extraordinary cruelty.  A non-believer might look upon the story of the Hebrew armies  outside the walls of Jericho and legitimately wonder why the citizens inside were condemned to be slaughtered. After all, what had they done but live there? The mythology associated with such tales is one of irrational violence,  racism, genocide, slavery and mass destruction all accomplished in the name of "God." And non Christians are amoral?

Summary:

So how do we integrate all this into  the context of human society, which is generally negatively judgmental when confronting atheism, agnosticism and to a lesser extent, non-Christian beliefs?  There are essentially two issues  here. First:  why behave morally only in some particular set of circumstances, and why behave morally in general, even if not in every case? Second, religious morality which is ultimately based on the commands of a god cannot answer these questions because "God says so" and "You'll go to hell otherwise" are dogma, produced by humans, derived from verbal tradition and superstition, and introduced primarily as a way to keep order and separate an elite (priestly) class from the masses. Just like the pony you wanted for Christmas, wishing doesn't make it so.

Probably the simplest explanation for morality in human society is the fact that human social groups need predictable rules and behavior to function. As social animals, we can no more exist without morality than we can without our lungs. Everything else is just detail.