The foundation of a conservative religious theist’s concept of social cohesion and civilization is unanimous acceptance of his own tribal culture -- what the theist calls the rules of “morality.” Although the believer has been conditioned to think of this tribal set of rules as unitary, it is, in fact, made up of two kinds of rules: those addressing basic morality, and those addressing cultural “morality.”
In addition to the rules of basic morality -- do not kill your tribemate, do not steal from your tribemate, do not lie to your tribemate -- tribal cultures also attempt to impose rules of cultural “morality.” The rules of cultural “morality” dictate what worship practices one must or must not engage in; what sexual and reproductive practices one must or must not engage in; what items of clothing and jewelry one must or must not wear; what foods one must or must not eat (and when); on what days one must or must not work, and so on.
The rules of basic morality deal with murder, theft and lying -- issues that will cause distrust, strife and division in any tribe or culture. The rules of cultural “morality” deal with issues of tribal identity -- the customs peculiar to one particular tribe. The rules of basic morality derive from a Darwinian “survival of the fittest” evolutionary process: humans survive best when we live in groups, group living requires trust, and trust is maintained only in tribes whose members refrain from killing each other, stealing from each other and lying to each other. (In fact, even social animals, like chimpanzees and wolves, generally refrain from killing tribe/pack-mates.) The rules of cultural “morality” vary randomly from tribe to tribe, like home-decorating themes in a suburban neighborhood, and are largely meaningless to tribes other than the one in which they originate.
That meaninglessness can be a source of strife between tribes. Since “outsiders” do not accept and obey all of the local tribe’s rules of “morality,” they aren’t controlled by a trusted “moral” code. They may be viewed as infidels, heretics, blasphemers or potential enemies. While some tribes may tolerate differences, other tribes consider such “outsiders” to be fair game for any immoral treatment: theft or destruction of their property, assault, forced conversion, enslavement or extermination.
Conservative Christian tribal cultural “morality” demands unquestioning, fetish-like adherence to “The Ten Commandments” as a unit. In fact, “The Ten Commandments” is an obvious mix of basic morality and tribal cultural “morality.” The first four commandments, as listed in Exodus 20 of the Protestant Christian tribe’s Revised Standard Version of the “Holy Bible,” are explicitly tribal cultural worship instructions (worship only one particular god; make no graven images; do not take the deity’s name in vain; keep a sabbath). The rules of basic morality are included as the sixth, eighth and ninth commandments, interspersed with commandments ordering respect for parents, and prohibiting adultery and coveting. The Roman Catholic tribe’s version has no commandment against making graven images, and splits the commandment against coveting in two to maintain the magic number ten.
The purpose of lumping together the rules of cultural “morality” with the rules of basic morality is to try to give the rules of cultural “morality” some of the legitimacy of the rules of basic morality. Anyone who has even rudimentary reasoning skills will accept that the rules of basic morality are necessary for maintaining trust, not only within his own tribe, but also in any tribe. If such a person can be led to believe that his own tribe’s cultural “morality” rules legitimately deserve to be considered part of the rules of basic morality, it becomes highly unlikely that that person will ever question his tribe’s culture, its rites and rituals, the demands of sacrifice and tithing, or the right of the tribe’s priest-king to reign.
In primitive societies, religious, political and military leadership was/is often embodied in a small ruling clique that claims to speak for one or more gods. The priests vouch for the gods’ selection of the political leader, and the political leader, in his military leadership role, takes on a duty to the priesthood as “Defender of the Faith.” That faith almost inevitably includes belief in some kind of conscious existence after the death of the body, along with some kind of judgment and eternal reward or punishment for one’s acts during life. For some odd reason, the gods’ opinions about rewardable and punishable behaviors, as announced by the ruling elite, often coincide with the Earthly interests of the ruling elite. Tribe members are required to deliver tithes to the Earthly authorities and obey their orders, including orders to take up arms and risk death in combat against whomever the ruling elite designates as an enemy of the tribe or its god(s).
Naturally, those who die in combat against the enemy of the tribe or its god(s) are highly praised, and allegedly -- according to the priesthood -- looked on with favor by the god(s). The families of the war dead are comforted with visions of their relative enjoying some eternal reward, but they are also always made aware that, if they want to ever be reunited with that relative in the afterlife, they, too, must obey the cultural “morality” -- and especially the worship rules -- promulgated by the ruling elite.
Ruling elites have enjoyed great power by combining government and religion (theocracy) because of the influence that government can wield by threatening eternal punishment for disobedience or promising eternal reward for obedient service. That kind of power is possible only because many people are frightened by the idea of oblivion after death -- the idea that one ceases to exist, and that loved ones who have already died have ceased to exist, never to be encountered again. The hope of some kind of continued conscious existence after the death of the body has broad appeal, and theocrats play on that hope for their own benefit.
Theocratic power is reduced when people learn to tell the difference between basic morality and cultural “morality.” That enlightenment often results from recognizing and examining the random, arbitrary variations in cultural “morality” and customs from tribe to tribe. Following that line of inquiry honestly can lead to recognition that the rules of cultural “morality” are, at best, intended to deal with a situation that existed at a certain place and time -- like prohibiting eating pork because raising pigs in a desert requires too much scarce water -- and may not be applicable to the here and now. Other rules of tribal cultural “morality” will be seen to be complete fabrications, with no rational basis. As such, they can be dismissed without harm. These fabricated rules include religious worship rules. No one has ever produced any credible, objective evidence to back the claims they make about the existence of gods or an afterlife.
Since the rules of basic morality arise from Darwinian survival processes, and the rules of tribal cultural “morality” arise from random social processes, there is no provable connection between the two. That means that it is quite possible to reject conservative Christian tribal cultural “morality” without also rejecting basic morality. Atheists can indeed be moral without accepting the claims that people make about the existence of gods or an afterlife or any kind of eternal reward or punishment after death.
Some conservative Christians claim that morality originated with their Bible. That is equivalent to claiming that words originated from the dictionary. Christians have no reasonable claim to authorship and ownership of basic morality, simply because their tribal moral code INCLUDES the rules of basic morality.
Back in the first column of this pamphlet, the rules of basic morality were stated as protective only to tribemates. Even though those rules are common to every tribe, some tribes consider “outsiders” to be fair game for treatment that violates them. The measure of how civilized an individual is can be taken by that individual’s answer to the question, “How big is your tribe: how much of the human race falls under the protection of your tribal code of morality, and how much of the human race do you consider to be ‘outsiders’?” For primitives, that protection extends no farther than blood relatives or the local tribal congregation. Progressively more-civilized individuals recognize that their tribal code of morality protects ever-larger fractions of the human race: people living in neighboring tribes and congregations, other cities, states, nations, empires, and, ultimately, the entire human race.
