Stephen
Kershnar
Original Sin and the War on Christmas
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
December
10, 2018
The war on Christmas is an attempt
by the government and private companies to avoid mentioning Christmas or its
religious content. Schools, stores, and advertisers are soldiers in the war. Partly
in response to the war, some religious folk encourage people to keep Christmas
focused on Christ. An interesting issue is whether the war is justified.
Christianity has a number of problematic
doctrines. Examples include atonement (Christ can be punished or, perhaps, pay
for other people’s sins), transubstantiation (all of Jesus can be located in
each of many different wafers), and the trinity (the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost are distinct and yet only one person).
Perhaps the most bizarre religious
doctrine, though, is the doctrine of original sin. The Catholic version (seen
in Catechism of the Catholic Church
and Catholic Encyclopedia and other
places) holds that through his sin, Adam caused the human race to face not only
bodily death, but to also have evil desires that produce a tendency to sin.
Adam’s sin was so monstrous that not only did he lose holiness and justice, but
he lost it for almost everyone else. This sin so stains humanity that infants
have to be baptized to wash it out of them. The original sin that Adam brought
about is not universal, though. The Virgin Mary was conceived without original
sin.
Some
Protestantism lines adopt a similar position. This was true of some of its leaders.
Consider, for example, Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564). Nor was this position plucked out of
thin air. It is a plausible interpretation of the Old Testament (see Psalms
51:5) and New Testament (see Romans
5:12-21 and Corinthians 15:21-22). Mormons and most Jews reject this doctrine,
but have plenty of other problematic doctrines.
St. Augustine (354-430) believed
that original sin was so serious that unbaptized infants who die early go to
hell. However, the Catholic Church’s current position is that it does not know
what happens to them. It instructs members that they can hope that such infants
go to heaven rather than in Limbo or to hell. Still, a grieving parent can’t
rule out that her miscarried or aborted fetus or tragically dead infant might
be in Limbo or Hell, perhaps even permanently.
The doctrine of original sin has
problems. First, what did Adam do that was so bad that he stained not only
himself, but also humanity? He (and, perhaps also, Eve) was disobedient to God
and consumed forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is
hard to see why this is a sin given that he wasn’t blameworthy for doing it. He
wasn’t blameworthy because he didn’t know disobedience is wrong. He didn’t know
it was wrong because such knowledge requires his knowing good and evil (and
this came about from eating the fruit).
Second, even if it were sinful to
eat the forbidden fruit, it is hard to see why this result in future people being
in a fallen state when they didn’t perform the sin. In general, one person
cannot be blamed for what another does unless both are part of a conspiracy.
People today did not conspire with Adam. Even if a fallen state is not strictly
speaking sin, it is unclear how Adam could have done something that resulted in
people thousands of years later lacking holiness, justice, and (sanctifying)
grace.
Third, even if Adam did sin and a
son can be blamed for his father’s sin, one wonders why God would not simply
give people holiness, justice, and grace. That is, did God have a good reason
to deny them these things? If he did have a good reason, then it is this
reason, rather than Adam’s sin, that explains why they are in a fallen state.
If God does not have a good reason, then he harms them or, at least, refuses to
benefit them for no good reason. We expect more from him.
Fourth, science gives us no reason
to think that there ever was a Garden of Eden, tree of knowledge of good and
evil, or that early humans or apes were free of envious, lustful, and violent desires.
Thus, the doctrine fits poorly with science.
Should the problems with Christianity
provide a justification for the war on Christmas? The motivation for the war in
the context of government rests on concerns about the separation of church and
state. In the private sector, its motivation is not causing unnecessary
offense. It doesn’t rest on whether Christianity is plausible.
There
is nothing wrong with government or businesses using their resources to make people
happy even if it does so by catering to an implausible worldview. Still, if large
number of people believed in the moral views of the Westboro Baptist Church or
the metaphysical views of Mormonism or Scientology, it would seem that the
destructive or false nature of such belief systems might be a good reason not
to cater to them.
If
this is correct, and I am not sure it is, then perhaps whether the government
or businesses cater to Christianity should also be evaluated with regard to
whether it is destructive or false. The doctrine of original sin suggests that
some lines of Christianity would not fare well when evaluated for truth. It is
less clear if Christianity is destructive. The religion’s costs and benefits
are so complex and extensive that is nearly impossible to determine whether
people would have been better off without it.
Still,
Christmas is a joyous and beautiful holiday. It would be a shame for businesses
and other private groups to tamp it down merely to avoid offending
hyper-sensitive babies. Perhaps a good rule might be that if promoting a
holiday makes many people happy, then in the absence of a strong evidence of a
comparable cost, it is fine to promote it.
