Religious belief, especially extremist belief such as fundamentalism, can give rise to some paradoxical, contradictory or bizarre notions. For example, a minority of Christian pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists if you prefer), see no problem in murdering abortion clinic workers in order to save the "lives" of unborn children (foetuses, embryos or small collections of cells). Even though this obviously conflicts directly with the commandment not to kill, it is possible to rationalise away the contradiction. The victims (doctors, that is) may be viewed as enemies of God, in which case the shooter is defending God or doing His work. Alternatively, the evil of killing an adult human being is weighed against the "greater good" of saving the lives of the unborn children, and is therefore perceived to be morally justifiable (more on this later). The perpetrators might additionally feel that they answer only to God and his "higher law", and are not bound by the secular, worldly legal system.

To illustrate this paradox (and the ambiguous nature of Christianity in general), I shall conjure up a purely hypothetical Christian sect which remains in keeping with Christian morality whilst at the same time committing some of the most barbarous acts imaginable.

The hypothetical sect is

The Baby Killing Church Of Jesus Christ

Before you get your knickers in a twist, Gentle Reader, I am in no way condoning this sort of behaviour, nor suggesting that any Christians do or should. (Whether or not Christians actually ever have engaged in this sort of activity or reasoning is a matter of personal opinion.)

The untimely death of infants can be a problem for religion. What happens to the soul of the child seems to be unclear at best, and different types of Christian have different ideas about it. Part of the problem appears to be that babies (and young infants) have not developed to the stage where they can be held accountable for any sins they might inadvertently commit - they are either actually unable to consciously perform something that could be called a sin, or do not understand the consequences of their own actions. Some doctrines consider infants to be guilt-free until a certain age, whereas others consider them to be tainted with Original Sin right from conception.

Some Catholics, for instance, believe that the soul goes to a place (or state) called Limbo, where it either remains forever, or is eventually admitted into Heaven, or is maybe even "recycled" and born again into a new body. This does not seem to be part of official Catholic doctrine, however. The Christus Rex website states
"With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation."

( If the reasoning of some Christians is correct, Heaven is not only filled with babies, foetuses and infants who met with an untimely death, but it must also be knee-deep in freshly fertilised human ova that failed to embed in the womb, were reabsorbed by the body, or spontaneously miscarried before the mother even knew she was potentially pregnant. )

A minority believe that unbaptised infants (or, in fact, anyone who was not baptised) go to Hell, simply because they have not been christened. This attitude, which may have been used to justify various atrocities committed against non-Christians,is shown by an example from my Hogwash page: "This came up in a discussion about the American wars against the Indians in the 19th century. It was said that it was a good thing that all those Indians were killed; otherwise, all those children would have grown up, died, and gone to hell."

I think it is reasonable to assume that most Christians believe that God ensures that the souls of infants go straight to Heaven, or are at least carefully looked after.

Once a child has grown beyond a certain stage, however, they clearly run the risk of Eternal Damnation and Hellfire (or some other variation on the Excluded-From-Heaven theme). They become accountable for their own sins, whether they have been baptised or not. Of course, Hell can easily be avoided if you truly repent of your sinful ways and accept Jesus as your personal Saviour, but this option is not always available to everyone (they might die in some way before this can be done, for instance).

Clearly, the worst possible fate for any human being is to go to Hell, and the best possible fate is to get into Heaven. One of the driving forces behind many Christian organisations is to bring people to Christ, ensuring that they go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

Now, remember the earlier comment about a "greater good" result outweighing a particular "evil" action? This is often the explanation given by theists when presented with the Argument From Evil (AFE). Briefly put, the AFE recognises that many seemingly arbitrary events happen which cause human suffering. Diseases, natural disasters, and massacres of humans by humans. Clearly, God could prevent any and all of these, but does not. This is used as evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-caring deity (see Further Reading below, for links to AFE articles).

One of the few reasonable responses [1] that can be made to the AFE is that some unknown future good is ensured as a result of the present evil - God wouldn't allow it unless it was necessary. (A big problem with this argument is presented in the Moral Argument From Evil article below. Basically, people who believe this should therefore not attempt to prevent evil from happening, as it must be a part of God's Great Plan.)

So, some evil or harmful acts may be morally justifiable if it is known that a greater good will result from the act. As a simple example, breaking a person's arms with a baseball bat is generally considered to be a bad thing; but if they are being electrocuted by a live power cable in their hands, hitting them with the bat may be the only way to save their life. In this case, the resultant good (being saved from electrocution) clearly outweighs the harmful act (having your arms broken).

To bring back the original example, shooting an abortion doctor is also generally thought to be evil, but some people can morally justify it (to themselves and those who share their beliefs) if they believe they are saving the lives of innocent children. As far as they are concerned, the resultant good of saving innocent souls outweighs the sins of becoming a murderer and ending an adult human life (if the shooter actually considers the act to be murder, and not the will of God).

This is where the (fictitious) Baby Killing Church Of Jesus Christ enters the scene...

Members of this church truly believe that infants go straight to Heaven, that good results can outweigh evil actions, and that people who grow up run the risk of going to Hell. Many moderate Christians would share these views, but the church members take it a little further. Thus, it makes sense for them to kill as many babies as soon as possible, in the certain knowledge that those tiny souls will immediately be transported to Heaven for all eternity, safe from the horrors and temptations of this world that could drive them from God and possibly even to eternal damnation.

Even though the act of baby-killing is a sin, the benefit provided to the child's soul (i.e. going straight to Heaven, for all eternity) vastly outweighs the evil of the sin and the potential risk of the child eventually going to Hell.

Being truly altruistic people, members have no problem with the concept of killing vast numbers of babies and innocent infants (in as humane, swift and painless a manner as possible). God Himself appears to work in this manner - He knows in advance what the future benefit of an apparent evil will be, even if we humans can only explain it as a mysterious aspect of God's eternal plan. Knowing that we were created, at least spiritually, in God's image, it is reasonable to believe that we have similar morals and duties. Members see this apparent slaughter not as an act of evil, but as a Holy, almost Godlike thing.

There is often heated debate in the church as to the fate of the baby-killers themselves. Will they be rewarded by God for preventing so many people growing up into sinners and going to Hell, or will He condemn them for breaking a sacred commandment? Those who suspect the latter often become resigned to their fate, but willingly so as they recognise the inevitable good that results from their actions. Sometimes people have to be sacrificed for the good of others. They remind themselves of the great sacrifice Jesus himself made for the good of all mankind, although obviously they would never consider themselves to be in the same league as Christ. They are merely following humbly in his footsteps. Others simply feel that they are part of God's mysterious plan, and He is working through them to perform a necessary function that non-believers mistakenly consider to be wrong. The believers can not only see more of God's Big Picture, they are actively involved in the construction of it.

Of course, they cannot simply go round killing the children of non-members, as the ignorant secular society would unreasonably object to this. Like willing human sacrifices of ages past, the church-going parents of babies happily, joyfully, piously bring their tiny loved ones into the church to be Sent On Their Glorious Way, secure in the knowledge that their infants will reside forever in the Light of God's Love. They consider pregnancy to be a blessing, as it means yet another soul will be in Heaven within a few short months.

The church obviously has a conflict of views with the pro-life lobby. Angry scenes often erupt outside abortion clinics, with the pro-lifers standing on one side urging the young mothers to change their minds, and the church members on the other side, cheering, encouraging and blessing them as they go in. To some people, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster, but to the BKCOJC members it is a blessed opportunity to fast-track another Angel into Heaven. Leaflets are given out, asking the mothers to maybe come along to a church meeting at a later date...

The above depiction is clearly fictional, but I think that it demonstrates the potential for almost anything to be justified and rationalised by a sufficiently vague, fuzzy and ambiguous belief system. You might say that no Christian could ever be a member of such an organisation, and as far as I know, no church resembling the Baby Killing Church Of Jesus Christ has ever existed [2]. An extremist offshoot of the persecuted Cathars ("good Christians") could have potentially evolved into it, as they believed that Satan (or an Evil Jehovah) created the world to torment us, and death was the only escape. However, individuals who could easily have been members have existed throughout history :-

• Reading through the news links at the end of my Does Religion Do Any Harm? page, you can soon find many examples of loving parents who have (inadvertently) violently killed their children during some sort of exorcism to drive out a demon or save their soul.
• In the Dark Ages (and occasionally in more modern times) many people were burned alive in order to save the soul of the "witch" from Satan, or from the demon that was presumed to possess them.
• People who attack abortion-clinic workers (or any other "enemies" of their God such as homosexuals, blasphemers or unbelievers) may also fall into this category, as they are willing to risk their own salvation by killing others in order to prevent abortions from being performed (and, as mentioned, they may even believe that God will look kindly on them for doing so).
• Doomsday cults (often based on the Bible in Western countries) invariably include innocent children, infants and pregnant mothers when they commit mass suicide, "helping" those who are too young, afraid or not convinced enough to do it themselves.

Yes, the Baby Killing Church Of Jesus Christ is unlikely and far-fetched.

But by just how much, I wonder? If you heard about such an organisation on the 6 o'clock News one evening, you might be appalled and shocked, but just how surprised would you be?

Some theists might try to turn this argument around, and use it against atheists and humanists. After all, if there is no afterlife, and no purpose or meaning to this life, this "vale of tears", then wouldn't it be better to prevent potential human suffering and misery as early as possible and end the lives of humans straight away? Surely extinction is best for sentient beings in a Godless universe? There will be no eternal punishment for doing so, and the worst an individual could risk is prison or execution (and if the person is truly altruistic, they will be able to accept their own demise as a sacrifice for the greater good). The benefit to the baby (death and oblivion) outweighs the potential evil (life of meaningless existence and possible suffering).

From a humanist point of view, this does not work. In order to do so, the con (death) would have to outweigh the pro (awful, meaningless existence full of pain and suffering). However, humanists do not see life a meaningless, pointless void full of despair and misery (as some people might have you believe). Instead, we see it as joyful, awesome, interesting and wonderful. Also, we recognise just how enormously rare and valuable an intelligent human life is, and the potential for greatness that all people have. Instead of sending children to Heaven, the humanist would rather educate and nurture that child into another Da Vinci or Einstein.

In case your Strawman Detector ^TM is starting to sound an alarm here (as mine was whilst I was writing), I should state that I'm not trying to set up the BKCOJC as a representation of general Christianity and then easily knock it down and score cheap points for Humanism. It is obviously not representative and most Christians would rightly be horrified at the concept (although it is not entirely incompatible with many common Christian beliefs). Rather, I am attempting to show that, to humanists, there is no concept of a Heaven or other afterlife that could possibly outweigh the benefit of living on Earth, here and now. Nor is there any Hell to be saved from. One of the goals of the humanist ideal to is bring the good life to the entire spectrum of humanity - to globally increase the quality and enjoyment of life. In the context of this article, that increase has the side-effect of making life ever more preferable to oblivious death, by actively reducing human misery and suffering.

Notes
[1] Another response is to say that God gave us free will, and so cannot intervene without removing that freedom. God considers that the freedom he gave us outweighs the harm that could be prevented were he to intervene. Pat Robertson puts it like this:
" You might say that suffering is a result of freedom. God has given man a certain amount of freedom. If man were merely a robot, an automaton, then God could always force him to do what is right. But God gives man the freedom either to love and obey Him or to rebel against Him. When man rebels against God, he hurts not only himself but also his fellow man.
...
Why does God allow [various types of suffering] to happen? When we ask this question, it brings us back to the statement that God has created man as a free being - free even to the point of ruining much of God's creation." - online article: Why There is Suffering in the World

Put simply - humans are not prevented from committing evil, because our free will is so important to God. To have free will outweighs not having free will, even though it allows people to do evil. The flaws in this type of defense are exposed in "Does the Free-Will Defense Constitute a Sound Theodicy?" in the Further Reading section, below.

[2] Ted Sadler sent me the following snippet from The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience :

The Enlightenment skeptic, Voltaire in his Treatise on Tolerance, "Refers to the members of a small Danish [Christian] sect, who accepted the premiss that, whereas infants who die before being baptized are damned, those who die immediately after having received baptism enjoy eternal glory. They accordingly went around killing as many newly baptized infants as they could discover, thereby preserving them from sin, from the miseries of this life, and from hell, and sending them infallibly to heaven. In the light of their beliefs they were acting rationally, but they did not secure Voltaire’s approval. ‘These charitable persons,’ he said, ‘omitted to consider that most fathers and mothers are sufficiently worldly to prefer having their sons and daughters with them than to see them slaughtered as a passport to Paradise.’" - A. J. Ayer, Voltaire (New York: Random House, 1986), pp. 168-9.