In the excerpted portion below, Professor Dershowitz expresses opinions unambiguously antagonistic toward the Christian faith. Read this article, have a look at “Christian Education: The More and the Less” and ask yourself, “How well has the average Christian been prepared to respond to the likes of Mr. Dershowitz?”

Thank you all very much for inviting me to this wonderful event tonight. I spent the whole day today preparing for this debate by carrying around a copy of the Bible. It made me feel like I'm in a different line of work — no, not preacher. Presidential candidate. Ah, because this presidential campaign has seemed to me as it were a campaign for deacon or bishop rather than a campaign for leader of the free world. I learned a lot as I always do from Ambassador Keynes [sic], but I want to read you something which also taught me a great deal. I recently came across this on the internet. It's a letter written to Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you so much for trying to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:12 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

But I need some advice from you regarding some of the other specific laws and how best to follow them. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a 'pleasing odor for the Lord' (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery as suggested by Exodus 21:7. What do you think a fair price would be? I know I'm allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 19:24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but some women take offense. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I obliged morally to kill him myself, or may I hire a hit man? I know you have studied these things extensively, and so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Morality without religion
Now, I don't dispute what Ambassador Keynes [sic] said about the need for morality to control scientific developments. Where my problem comes up is in his attempt to correlate precisely religion and morality. When Sen. Lieberman said the following, "George Washington warned us never to indulge in the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion," he was wrong and so was George Washington. There, I said it. George Washington was wrong. Morality can be maintained without religion, and indeed it must be maintained without religion, because there are always going to be people who are not religious.

In North America today, according to a recent census, there are 27 million people who are not religious and a million and a half avowed atheists. There is no evidence to suggest they are less moral than those who go to synagogue, mosque, and church everyday. Indeed, it is my contention that a truly moral person, who acts morally — not out of fear of damnation or out of promise of reward, but because it's the right thing — if anything, is more moral. More moral. The atheist or the agnostic who throws himself in front of an oncoming bus to save a child, knowing that there is no eternal promise, that there is nothing but the grave that awaits him, is more moral than Sir Thomas More who made a cost/benefit analysis as to whether or not to face eternal damnation by disobeying the pope or face instantaneous death by disobeying the king.

Pascal's wager — which I'm sure you all know about — Pascal said, "One must bet either there is a God or there is no God. If there is a God and you don't believe in him, you will be damned. If there is no God and you do believe in him, well, no harm." Therefore, belief is the worst kind of Kennedy School cost/benefit analysis, more appropriate to a business school than a divinity school. What kind of a God would reward you for making a cost/benefit analysis and making that kind of calculation that Pascal asks you to make?

So, I think there is no correlation — empirical, logical, moral — between one's moral attitudes and what one chooses as one's tribal beliefs. Because after all, most of us remain in the beliefs into which we were born. How does that work? We chose the right religion? Few of us choose religion. Most of us simply follow in the religion in which we were born.

And organized religion is very divisive, particularly monotheistic organized religion, because it tells you "there is one true God, and our religion knows who it is — all the other religions are wrong." The recent encyclical from the Catholic Church put it very directly. "He who believes in Jesus Christ and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned." It's as simple as that. What kind of a God would condemn you for disbelieving in him? That approach to religion sounds like petty tyranny. If you think through faith and you try your best, in Paul Tillick's sense, of trying to deal with the ultimate, and after thinking hard and giving all the benefit of the doubt you come away saying, "On balance, I don't believe" — you should be punished for that? For that true exercise of belief by eternal damnation?

But if you make a cost/benefit calculus that leads you to say you believe, you are rewarded for that? That's not the kind of morality we should be encouraging. That's a kind of morality that leads to the same kind of cost/benefit analysis that, I think, has led to disasters in the past.

I think the problem with the Odyssey is a very serious one. How does one explain the disasters in the world? I remember when Elian Gonzalez was rescued. So many religious people said, "See, see, God is wonderful. He saved Elian Gonzalez with porpoises." Yeah, but what about those people who died? Was God not responsible for their death? "Oh, God works in mysterious ways." If you are willing as human beings to abdicate your intelligence to a being who you don't understand or know, what will that lead you to? It will lead you to being Abraham in the Bible. God comes down and says to Abraham, "Kill your son." And Abraham says, "Sure." And he's prepared to kill his son. And there have been many Abrahams in the past.

There are great many good things that result from religion. Religion does provide some answers to some problems for some people, but organized religion particularly creates division. The United States Supreme Court in an opinion in the last part of the 19th Century declared Mohammadism to be a false religion. It said that women shouldn't be lawyers because that was God's will. And more recently it said that homosexuality is immoral. That's wrong. I don't care if the Bible says it. It's wrong. It's wrong to divide people on the basis of sexual preference, of sexual orientation. It's wrong to say that women are unequal, if the Bible says so. It's wrong to say that Blacks are unequal even if the Hammite myth supports it or suggests it. The Bible is often wrong.

It is often right. Of course, it is often brilliantly right. Many of the Ten Commandments are worthy to be followed. Not all of them, but many of them. It's not worth following the Tenth Commandment that says do not make a graven image. Or do not take the Lord's name in vain. I don't care about that. I don't care whether you take God's name in vain or make graven images — that's not the concern of a civic society. We can do much better than the Ten Commandments. We can have "do not lie; do not cheat." We can have commandments that are relevant. The commandments were written by human beings. The Bible was written by human beings. The Bible contains brilliant wisdom of humanity and some terribly grievous errors which have led to the Crusades, which have led to the Inquisition, which have led to pogroms, which have led to terrorism.

I agree with you that there are great dangers that I foresee in the 21st Century, and I think among the greatest of those dangers is religiously-inspired terrorism supported by weapons of mass destruction. When you give religiously inspired zealots weapons of mass destruction and you promise them that if they kill innocent people they will go to heaven, imagine what the consequences are. The same day that Joseph Lieberman said that you could not separate morality from religion, the New York Times had a picture of a leading Islamic fundamentalist calling for the destruction of the Jewish people in the name of religion.

And so, I think we need to be very cautious. I think we have to be very circumspect. I think we have to give religion its due. I think we have to respect those for whom religion is important, but equally respect those who can achieve good morality without religion. That's the American way. That's what the Constitution means when it says that no religious test shall ever be required for office under the United States. That should be a metaphor. Don't judge people by their religion or lack thereof. Thank you.

¹ For the full debate, see: www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/00 _09_27debate.htm

(Note: Referrals to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family are for informational purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)