Skip to main content

The Clergy. the Gods, and Other Deceivers

By Carl S ~

Clergy are by definition specifically ordained persons of organized religious bodies, past and present, authorized to perform and administer religious rites. Thus: Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopal priests, plus rabbis, ministers, imams, the priests of Baal, Ra, Ahura Mazda, including any and all of the millions of gods. Clergy are practitioners. And, if you're making a connection between clergy and voodoo practitioners and witch doctors here, you're getting the picture. (By the way, did you know that a “mojo” is “a magic charm or spell?” So is a Christian cross. Got your mojo/cross working?)

Dictionary definition of “clergy”: The body of people ordained for religious service.” And who “ordains” them? Why, other clergy! What other clergy? Why, the clergy that belongs to any sect which “ordains,” or, in other words, orders them so by decree. So, whatever the religious sect declares is true, is what they are ordained to practice. Unlike certification for other practitioners such as physicians, lawyers, and scientists, requiring proven factual evidence, clerical certification is conferred by tradition.

How does one get certification to speak for God or gods - what are the methods? Through learning by rote. And what does “rote” mean? Again, the dictionary tells us, “Memorization through repetition, often without understanding.” {Isn’t this the methodology of “religious educati0n?”) Anyway, repeating the repetitions to the satisfaction of the “ordaining” elite club members licenses one to become one of them. Now, with clerical ordination, one is endowed with authority to speak for and be a representative of, say, God, with a traditional title of respect, to boot.

“Theology: the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.” - H.L. Mencken

Now, what do clergy learn to know, actually? Well, they learn how to be careful what they say, so that they won't find themselves questioned or contradicted. They learn, through lessons from other clergy, plus trial and error, what to avoid talking about, what to ignore; such as doubts about what they‘re supposedly experts on. They have to know, for example, to tell a mother whose son was randomly killed, that the God he speaks for allowed this tragedy to test her faith, and loves her and the deceased. Or that God demanded the sacrifice of the child for the sins of the parents. Or whatever explanations they can come up with after ascertaining the gullibility of the believer. On them falls the task of assuring her they “know” these things. Perhaps through their own nature, or the nurturing of other clergy, they know the practice of traditional religious emotional manipulation. And, if they've been taught their religious history, they know that “truth” is determined by vote. Tradition.

A clergyman, traditionally, would advise a woman whose marriage or affair has ended to, “Pray to God for guidance; pray to God to send you his choice for a partner,” even when the woman has a history of bad choices of men who used and dumped her - every one of them she decided to get involved with after she prayed to God. (Note to “Christian Mingle “: God's choice for my first wife was the woman from hell.)

A clergy member would have to know just enough scripture to find answers for any situation, good or bad, and know all the rote answers and excuses for his god’s actions and failures to act. And, know how to practice those traditions dating all the way back to when the first gods were dreamed up.

Because clergy claim an “insider knowledge of truth” that ordinary people do not have (since clergy are by tradition exempt from criticism of their “knowledge”), they enjoy a privileged status in societies, and even dominance, in many societies, where they link themselves and their god as one. Unlike lawyers, scientists, doctors, etc., they are not required to actually prove what they affirm as true.

Indeed, how can one disprove the existence of invisible beings who speak personally to and through them? But I forget - no religious claims rest on proof.
The best clergy can come up with for their claims is, “Take our word for it on faith.”

Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899), articulated this in his time: “The clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know.” Unlike scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc., they have not learned how to know. They are content to be authorities on what they don't know. If they were honest, they would admit this, but they can't even consider doing so; if they did they'd be out of j obs. If they were honest, they would not say the words they quote are those of Jesus or Mohammed, or any other prophets, but “attributed to,” or “allegedly said” by them. So, they must ignore and dismiss that fact, as well as train their faithful to ignore the contradictions and making stuff up in what they preach. This “ordained” practice is just the opposite of a search for truth, and is a reason they disagree with each other, have so many sects, and wage sectarian wars using the Medieval standard of “truth through combat.“ (Whoever wins is telling the truth.)

What's to be done about the tradition that rewards and reveres clergy of all faiths, who also by tradition contradict one another and one another’s sects? They're all teaching by rote, also known as, “memorization through repetition, often without understanding.” What if religions have turned that “often” into “always?” On second thought, don't all faiths require their practitioners, their faithful, to reject understanding, claiming that faith surpasses understanding? Ergo: Don’t even try to understand.

What’s so special about any system to make it traditional? Every practice is challenged to prove its claims are true . . . except religion. Perhaps religion’s value has to do with deception, especially self-deception. Perhaps we humans naturally are attracted, fascinated by, deceivers like magicians, story tellers, the characters actors portray to believability, by witch doctors, shamans, the Bernie Madoffs, Ponzis, popes, con artists, spies, etc. We are offended and even seek revenge for the deceit and betrayal that affects us personally, but are entertained when it doesn't. (And, after all, we know that deception abounds in nature.)

It all seems so natural to deceive one another and ourselves, avoiding or not bothering to understand why we do so. And religion reinforces those patterns, makes them sacred. Ordinarily, people are content to support the deceivers, including clergy, if they see them as entertaining and not threatening. Find a clergy member who doesn’t entertain, and he or she will be eventually out the door; find one who combines entertainment with telling the congregation only what they want to hear and you'll find a celebrity, even a Pied Piper. That’s traditional.

We don't know whether these suspicions as to why religion is still traditional are true, but we do know that it's about time not only clergy but believers knew that they don't know what they claim to know.


Popular posts from this blog


By David Andrew Dugle ~ O ctober. Halloween. It's time to visit the haunted house I used to live in. When I was five my dad was able to build a big modern house. Moving in before it was complete, my younger brother and I were sleeping in a large unfinished area directly under the living room. It should have been too new to be a haunted house, but now and then I would wake up in the tiny, dark hours and see the blurry image of a face, or at least what I took to be a face, glowing, faintly yellow, high up on the wall near the ceiling. I'm not kidding! Most nights it didn’t appear at all. But when it did show itself, at first I thought it was a ghost and it scared me like nothing else I’d ever seen. But the face never did anything; unmoving, it just stayed in that one spot. Turning on the lights would make it disappear, making my fears difficult to explain, so I never told anyone. My Sunday School teachers had always told me to be good because God was just behind m

The Blame Game or Shit Happens

By Webmdave ~ A relative suffering from Type 1 diabetes was recently hospitalized for an emergency amputation. The physicians hoped to halt the spread of septic gangrene seeping from an incurable foot wound. Naturally, family and friends were very concerned. His wife was especially concerned. She bemoaned, “I just don’t want this (the advanced sepsis and the resultant amputation) to be my fault.” It may be that this couple didn’t fully comprehend the seriousness of the situation. It may be that their choice of treatment was less than ideal. Perhaps their home diabetes maintenance was inconsistent. Some Christians I know might say the culprit was a lack of spiritual faith. Others would credit it all to God’s mysterious will. Surely there is someone or something to blame. Someone to whom to ascribe credit. Isn’t there? A few days after the operation, I was talking to a man who had family members who had suffered similar diabetic experiences. Some of those also suffered ea

Reasons for my disbelief

By Rebekah ~ T here are many layers to the reasons for my disbelief, most of which I haven't even touched on here... When I think of Evangelical Christianity, two concepts come to mind: intense psychological traps, and the danger of glossing over and missing a true appreciation for the one life we know that we have. I am actually agnostic when it comes to a being who set creation in motion and remains separated from us in a different realm. If there is a deistic God, then he/she doesn't particularly care if I believe in them, so I won't force belief and instead I will focus on this one life that I know I have, with the people I can see and feel. But I do have a lot of experience with the ideas of God put forth by Evangelical Christianity, and am confident it isn't true. If it's the case god has indeed created both a physical and a heavenly spiritual realm, then why did God even need to create a physical realm? If the point of its existence is to evolve to pas

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two