You Should Be Ashamed

The idea of vicarious redemption is a disgusting one.

The Beginning...

A criminal dons his dapperest suit in preparation for the trial. His bow-tie must be parallel to the floor. His shirt must show three quarters of an inch at each wrist. The rest of his life hangs in the balance. The judge sits. The crowd sits. The lawyers debate. The jury discusses. The jury judges, "Guilty on all charges!." The man's life is at an end in his mind. His last hope destroyed. But, "Wait!" the judge shouts. "I have a sentence to decree." The room falls still in anticipation. "I will have my son tortured to death, to stand in your place. Your judgement is satisfied." says the judge.

The criminal's mind races. Never would he have thought of such a saving grace, and yet... it feels hollow. He had been feeling that he was to get what he deserved, but now... he was to be responsible for the suffering of yet another? Would those he harmed feel satisfied at the shift in justice? Surely not, he thought. Surely the judge was rich enough to pay his debts, but this? Even he, a murderer and a thief, had never even dreamed of torturing someone. The criminal in a final attempt at redemption speaks up to yell, "No! I admit it, I did the crime, punish me. But leave your son alone." The judge stares uncaringly back and says, "No. I will have my son tortured to death and it will be your fault." Blinded by the thought of this added injustice he fights his bonds with all his might until he breaks free. He fights to warn the judges son, to prevent this injustice from being done. This, he thinks, would be the last important thing in his life. So he fights so hard and so tirelessly, that in the chaotic and many-manned attempt to subdue him, the would-be peace-keepers accidentally kill him.

...The End

Anyone should be ashamed to think that the judge is the hero of this story. Even more so if they think that the judge in this story is the greatest example of justice and mercy one could imagine. One may pay my debts. One may even lie in order to do my time in prison, but no one can take away my responsibility for wrong action. The act of scapegoating is central to Christianity, and it demonstrates quite clearly that the belief system is, at it's core, morally bankrupt.

Consistency is Key

"There's a homeless man in our attic!"

"What?"

"It's true! He's been thumping around up there all morning!"

"All morning? How'd he get in there? Didn't we lock up last night?"

"I don't know but he's probably going through all our stuff looking for valuables."

"I'm sure we locked up, did you see him?"

"No, I just heard him."

"Well, how do you know it's a him then?"

"Okay okay, a homeless person. But it's probably a him, just statistically speaking."

"Well, if you only heard the noise, how can you be sure it's a homeless person and not a raccoon or something?"

"I KNOW it's a person. A raccoon couldn't possibly make that much noise."

"Now wait a second, how can you say that you KNOW it's a person when you said yourself that you didn't see anyone?"

"I KNOW it's a person. I'm 100% sure of it. My instincts are spot on on this type of thing."

"Hold on a sec..."

"It's a hairy homeless man who wants soup. He's probably a war vet and wants to find his old war medals which he drunkenly believes reside in our attic. He got in by taking a crowbar to the back door. We should call the cops because he's armed and dangerous and wanted in three counties."

"..."

"What?"

"You can't possibly know all that if the only evidence you have is that you heard something. I didn't hear anything. For all I know you didn't either."

"Just because the truth is frightening doesn't make it not the truth. Don't worry, we'll call the cops. We can hide in the bedroom and lock the door and turn the lights off and I'll cuddle you under the covers to keep you safe. We should probably take our clothes off too because the soup-craving veteran criminal is said to be afraid of naked bodies."

"...in that case, I'll take my chances with the homeless man."


At what point do we stop taking the claims of this person seriously? And for what reasons? Are those reasons consistent with the way we handle claims made by everyone?

Examine your reaction to the dialogue. Were you skeptical right away? Or did it take the claimant making a statement of knowledge that was not apparently available to him?

I don't ask that people convert. I just ask that they be consistent. If it is not okay to accept this persons claims on faith, then why would it be okay to accept the claims of a priest, pastor, rabbi or mullah on faith? Each make claims about reality, with 100% certitude, to which they can not apparently know the answer.