"If you are doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, GET IT IN WRITING. His word isn't worth shit, not with the good lord tellin' him how to fuck you on the deal..."

- William S. Burroughs & The Disposable Heroes

As an atheist, I hear this question often. It usually comes from Christians who are convinced that anyone who doesn't believe in a god must be an immoral monster.

The assumptions behind this question are telling. The person who asks it is assuming that the only reason to act - or refrain from acting - in a certain way is an imperative from above. Everything which is not expressly forbidden is permitted, and anything which is permitted is good.

If this can even be called a morality, it is the morality of a sociopath, and these Christians are, in fact, sociopaths. Like criminal sociopaths, their concern is not with the effect their actions will have on others, but whether they can get away with it. The only thing that separates them from the criminal sort of sociopath is their belief that God is watching their every move, and won't let them get away with anything.

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.
- 1 Corinthians 6:12

This morality is nothing more than a fear of power. It has nothing to do with a respect for their fellow man, nor even for themselves. They have no concept of a difference between what is permitted, and what is profitable. A particularly ironic blindness, since the Bible specifically addresses it in 1 Corinthians 6:12!

It is a blindness that explains much about the fundamentalist mindset. For example, the desire to pass laws regulating every aspect of a private individual's life. To a person who believes that everything that is lawful is profitable, the repeal of laws banning abortion, marijuana, or pornography represents encouragement of these acts. The only reason they have for not engaging in these things is the threat of punishment from God. Since threats and force are the only thing they understand, they feel they must apply the force of law to those who don't believe in the force of a god as they do. They find the idea that those who don't believe in God might have another basis of morality besides threats and force completely inconceivable.

It also explains why so many Christians who leave the faith go on self-destructive benders. The only reason they had for not doing so in the past was the command of God, and once they cease believing in God, anything goes. Sadly, since these former Christians were never taught to be truly moral as children they usually have to learn the hard way. Some never do, and either end up killing themselves, or running back to the church and the fear-based morality they can understand.

The morality I practice is based upon one premise, that other individuals are my equals. My will holds no greater force than the will of another, and the wills of others are no greater than my own. As such, I have no justification to exert my will against another, and vice versa.

This principle that others are and should be treated as equal to one's self seems nearly universal. It appears in many philosophies, and was already old when Jesus coined the most familiar version, the Golden Rule. Even those who violate it seem to be aware of it, for their justifications usually involve reasons why their wills are superior to the wills of their victims. Unfortunately, the commandment of a god is often used as one of those justifications.

There is no need to go to a god to find out how to treat other people. Why should there be, when people can tell me what they want and don't want themselves? Furthermore, I have the ability to make my wishes known to others, and those who are moral will respect those wishes, just as I respect theirs.

July 11, 1997

Copyright © 1997 by Jason Steiner.