THE HAPPY HERETIC
JUDITH HAYES
JULY 2004
All Babies Are Atheists
The title alone will infuriate a great many people. However, there is no getting around the simple truth of it: all babies are atheists. How could it be otherwise? In fact, all children are atheists until they reach an age where they can truly understand religious doctrine, which will mean well into their teens. Children can mimic their parents in prayer, for example, by closing their eyes and clasping their hands together, and repeating some words that they don’t understand. (Aside from the fact that I was cute as a button as a toddler, the main reason I included in my book [In God We Trust: But Which One?] a photo of me in the “prayer mode” at age 2 years and 9 months, was to demonstrate the silliness of toddlers praying.) Of course even toddler-praying can’t happen until a child reaches the age of speech.
Beyond praying though, there is so much more to consider when parents proclaim that their little ones are Christian or Jewish or Hindu or Muslim and so on. To say that someone is “Christian” is to say that the someone understands: (1) the story of the life of Jesus as told in the Bible; (2) the concepts of heaven and hell; (3) the concept of “faith” in an invisible entity; (4) sin; (5) forgiveness; (6) the Triune God and (7) communion. With all this complicated theology in mind, picture a 5-month-old infant contentedly filling her diaper, and try to convince anyone that she understands all of the above. If she does not, she is not a Christian. I don’t care how much water you sprinkle on her head, or how many magical words you recite over her as she howls in a church, she doesn’t have the foggiest idea about any of it. Which means she cannot be a Christian.
And let’s not forget transubstantiation! Many Christian groups hold that when the communion wafer and wine are consumed they are transformed, literally, into the body and blood of Jesus. Aside from being disgusting and so transparently cannibalistic, it is also a very complicated piece of theology and was the subject of actual religious wars in the past. Incredible. But no matter which side of the fence you are on, to impart any understanding of this bit of theology to an infant is ludicrous. And yet without that understanding, the infant is not Christian. The infant has huge theological gaps. As in having no theological concepts at all.
One particularly grisly religious practice which has yet to be eradicated in this country, and many others, is circumcision. How it got started in the first place is a matter of scholarly debate and I don’t really care one way or another. But the practice itself is barbaric, without a shred of medical benefit to be derived. Taking a sweet newborn baby boy and cutting off the tip of his penis is beyond cruel. It is patently stupid. The lame claim that removing the foreskin is for “sanitary” reasons does not hold up. Religionists vainly argue that by deforming a male baby this way you will be preventing the future build-up of “smegma” in the penis. It may do that; but it also desensitizes the penis, making future sexual intercourse far less enjoyable than it would otherwise be. And in any case, in considering the formation of smegma, the male penis can’t begin to collect the amount that the female genitals can collect. But do any circumcision-promoters in this country propose slicing off a baby girl’s vaginal lips? If not, why not?
I once saw a video tape of a circumcision being done in a hospital. The tiny baby was strapped to a table, unable to move arms or legs, and when the surgeon sliced off the penis tip the baby began to scream, its face contorted with pain. It was horrifying to watch. It was surrealistic. You ask yourself, What is that monster doing to that poor baby, and why? Stop him! Yet circumcision, a strictly religious barbarity, remains to this day. And when it has been completed, observant Jews will declare that now their infant is officially part of the Jewish faith. Wrong. He is now just a baby with a permanently mutilated penis.
Bodily mutilation or not, all religions, whatever their tenets, cannot be understood by a baby. Moreover, a baby cannot possibly believe in any of it and that’s the biggest part of the rub here. In order to “be” a member of a religion you not only must understand religious concepts, but you must believe in them, which is a different thing altogether. And it is far more difficult than just understanding. I understand Christian theology, which isn’t too tricky; but I don’t believe in it. Nor can any infant.
Think this through. How can any rituals done over/for/around a baby affect the baby’s understanding of the world around it? The infant doesn’t understand language or geography or personal property or income taxes or…..anything at all, really. To then present that baby to a priest and after some water sprinkles and some solemn words say that the baby is now Catholic, means that the baby magically understands the difference between a venal sin and a mortal sin. Can’t you see how silly that is? The baby understands nothing more than was understood before the religious ceremony. And, since the infant in question does not understand, let alone believe, in any kind of God at all, it is an atheist – a being without religious belief.
Proof of my point lies in a common religious answer to a ticklish question: What happens if a baby dies before baptism or some equivalent ritual? Throughout history theologians have struggled with that simple, lucid question. Answers were not easy. First there had to be a determination of when a soul entered a human body, and no one throughout the ages agreed on that one. They still don’t. Christian fundamentalists claim a zygote has a soul. And civil rights. Well, if a zygote has civil rights, shouldn’t it be allowed to vote? If it isn’t a convicted felon, or a foreigner, why not? Such madness maddens me.
It’s like the arguments about religious burials, and cremation and so on. Some sects believe in cremation; others hold that to be a desecration. Some, like early Native Americans and Roman Catholics, believed that a proper burial could only take place in “consecrated” ground. Holy ground. But wait a minute. If a burial in “holy” ground was required as a launch pad, so to speak, to the afterworld, what happened to people who drowned or died in a fire with no remains? Again, the only answer to those questions is the usual indefensible refuge about the omnipotent Creator taking that into consideration. Again then, why bother with all the rigmarole in the first place? I remember asking my mother why we Lutherans didn’t believe in cremation and she told me it was because the body would be joined with the soul in heaven. The practicalities of decomposition apparently escaped her. But when I asked the died-in-a-fire question, she told me to shut up and let God worry about it. Thanks, Mom! That’s an extremely helpful answer! But I digress.
So, anyway, we have a baby who unfortunately died, say, one day after birth. For those who believe in souls and an afterlife, what will happen to this baby’s soul? Roman Catholics were really stumped by this, and for centuries maintained that the baby’s soul would go to “Limbo” which is/was the abode of just or innocent souls that were excluded from heaven, but not consigned to hell. They’ve since cancelled Limbo, which leaves you wondering about all its millions of inhabitants. Hmmm. Hope they’re okay.
Protestants generally had no answer at all for un-baptized babies and said that “God will work it out.” Well, if that’s true, why bother with baptism to begin with? Why not just let God work it out? For those who believe in reincarnation, there’s really no problem with infant deaths. Their souls will be on their way to a new life a tad early, to be sure, but on their way nevertheless. But whatever religious doctrines are held to be infallible by any religion, they are so held by adults only. Only adults can begin to grasp the concepts involved (and often convoluted) in religious belief. Therefore only adults can be religious. Therefore all babies are atheists.