Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

prayer

More on the Christian sense of entitlement

This morning, I read an article written by Reverend Michael Bresciani titled “National Day of Prayer out says federal judge — America’s identity eroding.” It’s generally more of the ignorance commonly displayed by the religious right when claiming the United States is a “Christian Nation,” though Bresciani does claim that label is inaccurate. He does, however, display much ignorance over the issue in general.

Let me show what he got right, first, though. Regarding the ruling declaring the national day of prayer unconstitutional, Rev. Bresciani says…

With mid-term elections looming only months from now any decision to drop the day would surely add to the growing dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. The move to restrain himself is seen as politically motivated by most and, it is not consistent with his previous stand on Christianity. [sic]

I couldn’t agree more… except for the last bit because I’m not sure what Bresciani is referring to when he talks about Obama’s “previous stand on Christianity.” However, any decision that continues the day of prayer will most definitely be political. The outrage from Christians over their false sense of “persecution” would probably be overwhelming. Obama knows that, and even though the federal judge who ruled the day of prayer unconstitutional did so lucidly, logically, and correctly, the sense of entitlement that many Christians feel because of their religion will most likely compel him to still issue the “Day of Prayer” proclamation. The point that Bresciani makes about it being political is true. It certainly isn’t Constitutional.

Here’s another point of agreement I have with Bresciani… taken slightly out of context because the surrounding text contains points of disagreement.

[…] President Obama’s administration started off in the same vein with his now famous proclamation that America is “not a Christian nation” Of course we are not a “Christian” nation because there is no such thing.

Christianity is something each individual must decide upon for themselves. […]

In fact whenever any religion becomes the “national religion” it ceases to be spiritual and can only become tyrannical. If by not ascribing to the national religion you become a law breaker what would most people do?

Aside from leaving out the key “at least not just” phrase of the “no longer a Christian nation” quote, Bresciani seems to agree that we are not a Christian nation… because Christianity is something personal. I’m not sure he’ll get all that much agreement from many on the religious right, but I’m with him when he says that we’re not a Christian nation… and that Christianity (and religion in general) is an individual decision. His point about a national religion ceasing to be spiritual is another point of agreement, though I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. That it can only become tyrannical is arguable. I don’t think I would consider the Church of England to be tyrannical.

Sadly, that’s about the extent of our agreement. The rest of his article is packed solidly full of straw men, hyperbole, bible quotes, and outright falsehoods. I’m going to hit a few key points, but read his entire article to get the full gist of how “off the mark” Bresciani’s thinking is.

Our national identity and our Christian roots are being ignored, denied or challenged on every level.

Really? Our national identity? Our Christian roots? I have a sneaking suspicion that, to Bresciani, those two are one and the same. If he is absurdly assigning Christianity to our nation’s identity, which seems to be the case, wouldn’t it be right to challenge that nation, given the purely secular nation of our Constitution… that Constitution that prohibits any laws respecting an establishment of religion? As for Christian roots, that’s just more misguided propaganda by the religious right.

More accurately we are a nation that was founded on Christian principles and up to now has had more praying Christians than any other nation in history.

No. No we are not a nation founded on Christian principles. We are a nation founded on secular principles as specifically spelled out in the Constitution. I can’t refute that we have more “praying Christians” than any other nation but praying or not, it doesn’t mean that Christians should be afforded any special rights or privileges. That would most certainly go against the founding principles of our country!

Bresciani goes off the deep end the more he writes.

We know that it’s universally acceptable to refer to some places as Muslim nations but somehow we are ashamed to be called a Christian nation. We also know that if Muslims were denied their right to pray five times per day facing Mecca in Saudi Arabia they would riot, war and die fighting against that ruling.

Interestingly enough. those “Muslim nations” have governments that are very, very specifically Islam-based. They don’t have anything resembling our secular government or our secular founding documents, so it’s quite appropriate to call them a “Muslim nation.” However, given our government and our founding documents, it’s wholly inappropriate and inaccurate to call the United States a “Christian nation.”

The second point speculating about Muslims being denied their right to pray is, I’m assuming, a reference to the “National Day of Prayer” ruling, but it’s an entirely inaccurate comparison. Nobody is this country is denied their right to pray… any time, any place. The NDOP ruling doesn’t take away that right. It doesn’t affect it in the slightest. What it does, is prevent the US government from promoting a call to religious action… something the judge very clearly spelled out in the ruling. Bresciani obviously misses the point.

Going further off the deep end…

If viewed in its converse form, we could say that when secular forces of atheism, agnosticism and anti-Christian bigotry go to the law against prayer in our national life, it is they who have decided to get the fed to make laws regarding the establishment or more accurately, the dis-establishment of religion. This may be the very argument used to challenge the ruling.

Again… completely wrong on multiple counts. The challenges to nationally-sponsored prayer or religious practice are not an attempt to make laws, they are attempts to enforce already existing laws. They are attempts to enforce the basic tenants of our Constitution. None of the laws try to “dis-establish” religion. They keep religion from intruding in government matters… just as the Constitution dictates. Despite what Bresciani seems to think, preventing someone from breaking a law is not the same thing as creating a law.

While the ACLU and others spend big bucks to fight crosses at memorials, nativity scenes, prayer in the congress or any public place, prayer in the military and classroom mentions of God why haven’t we equated that with a huge move to violate our right to religion and a willingness to engage the powers that be to make laws that adversely affect the establishment of religion?

Wow. That entire paragraph is a monstrosity of logical and factual failure. Bresciani not only misses the point, but he misses it to such a large degree that he seems to be arguing against a straw man of monumental proportions.

The ACLU does not fight nativity scenes. They fight governmental displays of nativity scenes (which amounts to illegally promoting a specific religion… again with that pesky Constitution!). Nativity scenes are not banned in non-government public places, as is evidenced by their widespread use by churches, private organizations, and homeowners all throughout the holiday season. The ACLU rightly fights against government-sponsored prayer, but not in “any public place.” They would vehemently fight for your right to pray wherever you want to pray… as long your prayer is not being sponsored or promoted by the government.

Nothing the ACLU does violates a right to religion. The converse is true. They protect people from having religion forced on them by the government and, once again, they are backed up by our Constitution. Bresciani is portraying Christians as being stripped of their privileges and entitlements… as poor, sad, abused victims of persecution… because they are not being allowed to force the government to give them special privileges or special treatment.

This is not a matter of atheists (or any other non-Christian demographic) forcing their beliefs down the throats of Christians. The notion is absurd. The ACLU and other supporting groups are watchdog groups who prevent Christians from doing what they falsely accuse others of doing.

While some atheists will loudly proclaim their beliefs and vociferously decry any sort of religious belief as harmful and ignorant, it is well within their rights to do so. It is also well within someone’s rights to decry atheism… to mercilessly criticize those who do not belief in a personal God who answers prayers. Freedom of speech is a precious right in this country and I (and the ACLU) fully support it. Promote your religious beliefs as loudly as you dare.

They line gets drawn, however, when the government is used to promote your religious beliefs. That’s such a huge key point and is so often missed (or blatantly ignored) by the Christian right when they’re spouting off about attacks on their faith or unfair treatment or persecution. They complain when they can’t use government property to display their religious icons. They complain when they can’t have government-funded public schools promote prayer. They complain when they can’t have the government create a special day calling for religious action. They complain when they can’t make government-funded schools teach a biblical creation stories. They complain when they aren’t allowed to display their bible verses in government courtrooms.

But do they complain that they can’t put nativity scenes in the church’s front yard? Do they complain that personal prayer is banned in a national park? Do they complain that they can’t teach their own children their religious beliefs? Do they complain that they aren’t allowed to meet with like-minded people to worship?

No. No they don’t. And the reason they don’t is that they are allowed to do all these things. They have an unprecedented level of freedom to practice their religion as they choose, when they choose, and where they choose.

The only two caveats are that they can’t infringe on the rights of others and they can’t be funded or promoted or organized by the government. Shouldn’t that be enough? Shouldn’t that freedom be enough?

Evidently, many Christians don’t seem to think so. They want the government to support them… and only them… and to relegate the rest of the citizenry to a lesser standing in society. When they demand the government sponsor a national day of prayer, when they expect the government to display their religious icons, when they expect the government to encourage everyone to participate in their religion… what they are doing is calling for a theocracy.

If the Christian right got their way, our government would be as outwardly religious as the governments in some Middle Eastern countries. Freedom of religion, in their minds, seems to mean freedom to practice the Christian religion… and if you happen to have other beliefs, you should just shut up and keep them to yourself.

Perhaps they don’t want Christianity to become the governmentally-declared religion of our country (because as Bresciani says, it would make it political instead of spiritual), but I have no doubt that many of them would have Christianity as our “official” religion… complete with special privileges and entitlements (much like they have now, in some cases) so that it would be the official state religion in every way except for a legal proclamation. They won’t be happy until we are a Christian nation… and people like Bresciani are pushing for it more every day.

If they could only get rid of that pesky Constitution.

Pure Dobsonian ignorance

On April 15th, a district court in Wisconsin ruled that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. It’s a decision that was a long time coming.

From the article:

Crabb wrote that her ruling was not a judgment on the value of prayer. She noted government involvement in prayer may be constitutional if the conduct serves a “significant secular purpose” and doesn’t amount to a call for religious action. But the National Day of Prayer crosses that line, she wrote.

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

No doubt the decision will be appealed because it seems the religious right can’t stand to lose an opportunity to have the government endorse their religion. They’ll claim, over and over, that religion belief and practice is a personal thing and that it’s an issue of freedom, but they don’t really seem to grasp the concept that the freedom should apply to everyone. They seem to feel that it only applies to those who share their faith.

Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, seems to take her ignorance a step further. She is quoted as saying (emphasis mine)…

“Since the days of our Founding Fathers, the government has protected and encouraged public prayer and other expressions of dependence on the Almighty,” Dobson said. “This is a concerted effort by a small but determined number of people who have tried to prohibit all references to the Creator in the public square, whether it be the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, or the simple act of corporate prayer – this is unconscionable for a free society.”

The highlighted statement is blatantly and unequivocally false. The people who oppose government-sponsored religious displays are not trying to prohibit religious references in the public square. In truth, most of them (if not all) would fully support the rights of anyone to display their religious beliefs in the public square. That is evidenced by the sheer numbers of churches found all across the country. It’s not uncommon to see three or four churches in a two-block radius of some towns. Religious billboards abound. “Jesus fishes” adorn cars. Crosses hang around necks and decorate roadsides. …and nobody is trying to stop it. It’s freedom.

What they are trying to stop is the promotion of religion by government institutions, including nativity scenes on government property, prayer during government meetings and publicly funded schools, government funding for religious organizations that discriminate based on religion, and any other government support, promotion, or favoritism of any type of religious practices.

So Shirley Dobson has it all wrong, but the sad thing is, the religious right will believe her and they will shake their fists in fury over their perceived persecution… because little by little, their ability to use government to push their superstitious beliefs on the rest of the country is being whittled away. They can’t understand that they are not the ones who are being persecuted. They are the persecutors.

Why do they need to display their nativity scenes on government steps when their are literally thousands of churches where the display would be far more relevant. Why do they need to force all children to pray in schools when children can pray at home, in school, on the playground, and anywhere and any time they want already? Why do they need to demand preferential treatment by the government in support of their religion when their god is supposedly all-powerful?

Their outrage and anger is absurd. It’s ignorant. It’s overbearing. It’s self-righteous and arrogant. It’s hypocritical. It’s intellectually crippling.

…all because of their grandiose superstitions.

Fun with church signs

The sign at a local church has been updated to read…

Prayer should be our first resource… not our last resort.

I’ve written about prayer before (as have plenty of others), so this may seem like an easy target. However, I think the usual arguments of "prayer does nothing" or "prayer is the way to feel good about doing something while actually doing nothing at all" don’t quite cover this one.

In saying that prayer should be our first resource, not our last resort, this church is indicating that the first thing you should do is pray. Not act. Not evaluate. Not consider.

What’s wrong with that? In my opinion, it advocates laziness. It advocates an abdication of responsibility. Rather than deal with something directly in a real way, the church says, you should first pray for the intervention (or assistance) of a divine being. The implication is that, if I pray and my prayer is "answered," I can get away with not actually doing anything.

There’s a distinction that needs to be made, I think, between this type of taking the "easy way out" and the type of ingenuity that inspires the invention of time-saving techniques or appliances. Techniques and gadgets are the result of real effort. They’re measurable, tangible, useful, and provide a real, repeatable, consistent benefit to those who use them.

Prayer is simply wishing. Prayer is saying, "I hope I don’t have to do anything." Prayer is using ancient mythology and superstition for the express purpose of removing personal responsibility. That calm feeling that people report having when they pray would seem to come from the belief that they no longer have any responsibility… that everything will be fine… and that they didn’t have to lift a finger.

Actions get things done. Prayer is a hindrance.

Tea baggers praying for Senator Byrd to die

Just a quick note to highlight a post by Jesse Galef on The Friendly Atheist blog.

The Washington Post reported an interesting statement by Senator Tom Coburn (emphasis mine).

[Senator] Robert Byrd was wheeled in at 1 a.m. to break a filibuster on the manager’s amendment. Byrd’s presence was not required, especially considering that he’d clearly telegraphed his intention to vote to break the filibuster. But Republicans forced him to travel to the chamber. Indeed, shortly before he arrived, Sen. Tom Coburn headed to the floor to propose a prayer. “What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight,” he said. “That’s what they ought to pray.”

Putting aside the fact that prayer does nothing, that’s just nasty and uncalled for. Coburn doesn’t specifically say that he wishes Byrd would die or become too ill to make the vote, but it’s not hard to infer it from his words. Here’s a link to the video, which also includes Senator Dick Durbin’s request for clarification of Coburn’s remarks.

However, it gets worse. On a CSPAN program, a caller asked Senator John Barrasso what went wrong. Here’s the video. The transcript of what the caller asks is below.

The transcript of the caller’s words:

CALLER: Yeah doctor. Our small tea bag group here in Waycross, we got our vigil together and took Dr. Coburn’s instructions and prayed real hard that Sen. Byrd would either die or couldn’t show up at the vote the other night.

How hard did you pray because I see one of our members was missing this morning. Did it backfire on us? One of our members died? How hard did you pray senator? Did you pray hard enough?

Assuming the caller isn’t a Poe, I find two things appalling about this call. First, obviously, that the caller and his “tea bag group” actually got together and prayed that Senator Byrd would “either die or couldn’t show up.” That’s a pretty good example of evil and immorality right there.

The second thing that is just as troubling is the response from both the CSPAN commentator and Senator Barrasso. Neither of them even acknowledges the fact that a caller just openly admitted to getting a group together and praying for the death of a United States Senator. It’s as if they felt that it was a perfectly rational thing to do, therefore not deserving of any attention.

Jesse Galef said…

Obviously I don’t believe prayer will have an effect, but it says a lot about the people praying. It’s indicative of the sad state we’re in that I can’t tell whether the caller was sarcastic or not – those could have been tears or laughter making him choke up. But I’m astounded – and disgusted – that neither Barrasso nor the moderator commented on it.

Astounded and disgusted, indeed.

Bush is now a motivational speaker

George W. Bush has started making the rounds as a motivational speaker and was given a warm welcome at a Texas event attended by around 15,000 people. He was speaking along with Colin Powell, Terry Bradshaw, and Rudy Giuliani among others. Bush was not the headliner of the event and only spoke for about thirty minutes. According to the article, he seemed relaxed and received a standing ovation.

From the article…

…[Chris Clarke, 25, a salesman from Dallas] said, it could turn out that Bush may be more suited to motivational speaking than being president. He said when Bush misspeaks, it sounds “incompetent if you are president. But here it can be inspiring. It makes him seem like a regular guy, no better than me.”

I can easily see that. The “Down Home” personality would play well to a casual audience that’s looking for motivation and fun stories. On the world stage as president… not so much.

However, here’s the part that I found disconcerting… though unsurprising. During his talk, he frequently mentioned his faith in God. Part of his talk…

“I don’t see how you can be president without relying on the Almighty. Now when I was 21, I wouldn’t have told you that, but at age 63, I can tell you that one of the most amazing surprises of the presidency was the fact that people’s prayers affected me. I can’t prove it to you. But I can tell you some days were great, some days not so great. But every day was joyous.” That, he attributed, to the prayers of others.

People’s prayers affected him. The fact that every day was joyous, he attributes to the prayers of others. In the words of Yoda, “That is why you fail.”

I’ll go out on a limb here and agree that, if you believe in prayer and you know someone is praying for you, it may help you psychologically, knowing that there are people who support you… in the same way you know people support you when they say “Good luck!” or “I love you!” or “Have a nice life!” (Okay… maybe not that last one). Perhaps that’s what Bush meant when he said that people’s prayers affected him… but I doubt it. His reference to the Almighty would indicate that he is talking about the spiritual, supernatural power of prayer.

I find it disturbing that any world leader (or local leader for that matter) would rely on the “Almighty.” It seems to me that a reliance on rational thinking, both his own and that of his advisers, would be a far more critical and useful reliance. Getting support from real people in the real world is not only more practical, it’s… well… real. If a president wants to rely on a supernatural being to give him warm fuzzies and reduce his stress level, that’s fine. If that same president wants to rely on supernatural beings to give him advice on policy and help with decision making, there’s a serious, serious problem.

I’m glad Bush has moved on to motivational speaking.

Fun with church signs

Occasionally, I see a church sign that just begs to be addressed. A local church recently changed their sign to read:

Time well spent is time spent in prayer.

I know that the idea that a god listens to (and answers) prayers is something that is foundational to many peoples’ religious beliefs. Hearing the phrases “I’ll pray for you” or “You’ll be in my prayers” is an all-too-common occurrence. To an atheist, it sounds even worse when someone asks “Please pray for my friend” or “Your prayers would be appreciated.”

Prayer - How to do nothing and still think you're helping Not only do I feel that the person asking me to pray is engaging in nothing more than wishful thinking, but he’s asking me to participate in his do-nothing fantasy world as well… in the belief that clasping my hands together and wishing really, really hard is going to make any difference to his situation.

Prayer is contradictory to some pretty basic Christian beliefs, too. Another common phrase that is heard from religious folks is “God has a plan” or “God will show me the way.” Their god is supposedly all-powerful, as well… omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. So… wouldn’t he already know what they want? If that god has a plan, won’t his plan play out as he designed it… with our without their prayers?

Prayer is an attempt to change the will of a god. Doesn’t that seem a bit egotistical on the part of the person praying? On one hand, believers will say their god is mighty, loving, benevolent, and all-knowing… but they’ll turn around and try to tell him something, anyway… as if he doesn’t already know… as if they can change his mind.

I suppose some might simply pray their adoration for their god instead of asking for his assistance. That doesn’t seem to be quite as ego-centric, but it does seem to be just as irrelevant. And really, if some almighty god really gets off on his subjects repeatedly telling him how awesome he is, isn’t that just petty and vain?

I think prayer is one of the religious concepts that believers don’t think about very much. They just do it. Thinking about it would “break the spell,” as Daniel Dennett would say. If the practice is examined too closely, it falls apart into a chaotic pile of contradictions, pettiness, and wasted time.

I propose fixing the church sign by replacing “well spent” with “wasted.” It would be far more accurate and might actually encourage congregation members to raise their heads, get off their knees, unclasp their hands, and instead of simply wishing for a situation to improve (thereby doing nothing), take action to improve the situation.

Now that would be time well spent.

Why take them seriously?

Here’s why it’s really hard to take the religious right seriously.

“I don’t believe in global warming,” said conservative activist Kim Simac, a horse trainer and mother of nine from Wisconsin who also believes that the teaching of creationism and prayer need to be brought back to public schools.

(via)

…and…

One delegate, Sue Phelps, drew comparisons between Barack Obama, Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler – “they were good orators too” – and said the president’s nationality and religion were “unanswered questions”.

(via)

…and…

“Today in America, far too many young people enter adulthood unprepared for college, career, and life,” said Allan Golston, president of The Gates Foundation’s U.S. Program. [Drew] Dickens agrees and believes that “part of the problem is that we have removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from our schools and curriculum.”

(via)

I could go on. When people are that vocal, yet that oblivious to facts, that ignorant of the Constitution, and that eager to force their religious beliefs on others, they’ve really got no room to complain when they are ignored or mocked.

Howse wants to reclaim the church

Brannon Hose Last week, Brannon Howse wrote an article explaining why a biblical worldview is so critical in light of trends showing more and more people leaving the church. It seems to be mostly a marketing ploy for his program materials, but he rants on for quite a bit. He cites a book by Ken Ham titled Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. In the book, Ham had surveys taken from conservative congregations and found that today’s kids are leaving the church at a record rate… and not just in college.

In addition, he concludes that Sunday school doesn’t help kids develop a Christian worldview and that they are “statistical failures.” Sunday school, it seems, is allowing parents to “shrug off their responsibility as the primary teachers, mentors, and pastors to their family.”

I’ll agree that there seems to be (at least anecdotally) an increasing number of parents who do “shrug off” their responsibilities in raising their children, but if Sunday school keeps them from indoctrinating their kids with a religious worldview, then I can’t help but think Sunday school can be a good thing.

From the article…

Only 11 percent of those who have left the Church did so during the college years. Almost 90 percent of them were lost in middle school and high school. By the time they got to college they were already gone! About 40 percent are leaving the Church during elementary and middle school years!

Of course, Howse’s answer to this “crisis” of mass church exodus is “Biblical worldview and apologetics training” (conveniently available for purchase from his website). Howse laments that, even though the church has had billions of dollars, only 1% of adults have what he defines as a “Biblical worldview” and teens are leaving the church in ever-increasing numbers because they don’t have that worldview. In this article, he doesn’t spell out exactly what that worldview entails (though I’m sure he does elsewhere on his site), but he does mention that churches that used to be evangelical now “reject the exclusivity of Jesus Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture and most of the essential Christian doctrines.”

He expounds a bit on what should be happening in the churches.

Even among our truly evangelical, Bible-believing churches, how many churches teach the Biblical worldview for law, science, economics, history, family, social issues, and education? At church do adults or students learn about the lie of global warming, radical environmentalism, socialism, evolution, postmodernism, situational ethics, political correctness, population control, the myth of the separation of church and state, the Biblical worldview for marriage, the Biblical role of men and women and the lie of feminism?

There’s just so much wrong in that one paragraph that it threatens to make my head hurt. When people talk about injecting religion (especially fundamentalist, evangelical religion) into every aspect of our lives, my skin starts to crawl at the thought. It’s not because, as some theists claim, that I want to live my life however I want and be able to do whatever I want without eternal consequences. I’ve addressed that before. It’s because the implication is that dogmatic, inflexible, 2,000-year-old mythology, when vehemently applied to modern life, will improve our standard of living. It’s a horribly Orwellian idea, but folks like Howse would love to have it applied world-wide.

He continues by criticizing the church’s actions.

Because the church is not answering the real-world questions of our students and the public school system is, Christian youth increasingly believe that at church we deal with “spiritual” issue but at school we talk about “real life” issues. The truth is, all issues are spiritual; every issue can be examined in light of Biblical principles but not if the church is only teaching Bible stories instead of Biblical principles contained in those Bible stories.

Schools are supposed to teach answers to “real life” issues… especially our public schools. Howse’s brand of woo (or any brand, for that matter) has no place in our public school system, for at least three reasons. First, it’s unconstitutional to promote a religious view in our schools. Second, Howse’s version of Christianity is intellectually dishonest. Third, Christianity (and other theistic religions) is morally ambiguous at best and frequently morally reprehensible.

The window of freedom is closing on America and soon I, and our other speakers, could be prosecuted for the Biblical truth we are teaching. Hate-crime laws would do just this.

That’s Howse at his alarmist, fear-mongering best. Hate-crime laws would never prevent anyone from speaking about their religion, regardless of how absurd or spiteful their religious views are. His alarmism continues with vague statements about what I assume to be the “Fairness Doctrine” and a prayer at a booster club luncheon, implying that jail time is inevitable for people who speak from a “Biblical worldview.”

Then comes another sales pitch that hinges on the OMG!!! from the previous paragraph.

Worldview Weekend is training, equipping, and encouraging individuals of all ages that will be just like these men. Our nation needs Christians that will stand up and speak out with the truth of a Biblical worldview even in the face of persecution and prosecution.

Of course, it wouldn’t be Brannon Howse if there wasn’t some conspiracy theory hullaballoo thrown in for good measure (emphasis mine).

[…] the worldview war in America is connected to four major forces; occultism/pagan spirituality, the apostate church, corrupt government/corporate officials and the educational establishment. All four of these groups are aggressively working at the national and international level to accomplish their ultimate goal of global governance as predicted by many New Age writers like Alice Bailey. The Bible predicts this will occur and at this year’s rallies we will look at how God would have us to respond to what is happening at break-neck speed.

If I didn’t think he was serious, I’d find his writing hysterically funny. As it is, it’s both disturbing and sad. People like Howse, who seem to be barely hanging onto the fringe of the fundamentalist, right-wing precipice, want to teach their views as truth to our nation’s children. It’s bad enough that otherwise seemingly rational adults subscribe to this intellectually harmful nonsense, but to promote the foisting of this drivel onto our children is reprehensible.

Fortunately, as the beginning of his article notes, kids are leaving the church in droves. No doubt some of that is from apathy, but it’s nice to imagine that some of them are just coming to the realization that religion is simply an unnecessary obstruction to a healthy, happy life. It’s also hard to buy into the “young earth creationist” idea that The Flintstones is an accurate portrayal of history.

Howse ends his article with a plea for help in getting those wayward kids back in church. He wants help distributing magazines to advertise his seminars, he wants prayers, and of course, he wants money.

Because, you know, woo is expensive.

Dale Neumann let his daughter die

Dale and Leilani Neumann There’s been a lot written in the atheist and skeptic blogospheres lately about Dale Neumann, who killed his 11-year-old daughter Madeline by refusing to take her to the doctor, instead choosing to pray for her recovery. He’s been charged with second-degree reckless homocide (back in March of 2003) for his daughter’s death from undiagnosed diabetes. Madeline’s mother, Leilani, has already been convicted of second-degree reckless homicide and faces up to 25 years in prison, according to an MSNBC article.

On Thursday the July 30th, He was the last person to testify in his trial, stating that he felt that he couldn’t take his daughter to the doctor without disobeying God. He evidently read from the bible during his testimony, preaching to the jury about his faith and God’s ability to heal.

Dale Neumann said, “Who am I to predict death when death is an appointed time for all of us?”

From the MSNBC article

Dale Neumann told the jury he didn’t seek medical help for his child because “I can’t do that because Biblically, I cannot find that is the way people are healed.”

He added: “If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God. I am not believing what he said he would do.”

[…]

Prosecutors say he should have taken the girl to a hospital because she couldn’t walk, talk, eat or speak.

Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family’s rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed.

Prosecutors say that she couldn’t walk, talk, eat, or speak and should have been taken to a doctor. Lynn Wilde, who testified in Newmann’s defense, said that she thought Madeline had the flu and that she looked a little pale and was weak. She also made noises and moved her head.

Wilde, a loyal member of Neumann’s Bible study group, testified for the defense as Neumann’s attorney tried to show the father didn’t know how ill his daughter was. Wilde said the five adults and three other children at the home prayed and took communion in an effort to heal the girl. She went home and took a nap, expecting the Neumanns to call later and say Madeline was fine and walking again.

“I believe in the power of prayer,” Wilde testified.

Madeline died about two hours later, whereupon someone called 911.

Two points come to mind. First, the instantaneous one, is that both parents should be locked up for murder. Neither should get off on an insanity plea, though, in my opinion, they are both clearly insane… also negligent, abusive, ignorant, and immoral. Their daughter would probably still be alive had they sought medical treatment when she exhibited symptoms. She would have had an even better chance had she received regular checkups prior to developing outward symptoms.

That’s the point that most of the blog entries I’ve read have emphasized and I agree.

The other point that came to mind (and some blogs have probably brought this up, too) is that, if other religious people believed what they profess to believe, they would all do the same thing that the Neumanns did. If they believe in a god who is all-powerful, loving, and benevolent, who can heal the sick and perform miracles, who created the very universe by simply willing it to be so, who listens to and answers prayers… then why would they do anything other than pray for their sick loved ones?

Lynn Wilde said, “I believe in the power of prayer.” How many other religious believers make the same statement of belief? How many profess to believe it absolutely? Yet how many of them act as if they believe it absolutely? I doubt the numbers are very large.

Most people take sick children to the doctor. Most people go to the doctor themselves when symptoms indicate something serious. Most people take pain medication when they have a headache. Most people behave in a rational way that has nothing to do with believing in an all-powerful, loving deity… despite any claims to religious belief they may profess.

So I have to conclude that, when people actually act on their professed religious beliefs… when they trust in the “power of prayer” and their benevolent, loving deity to do what’s right for their children… when they refuse to get professional medical treatment for serious health conditions, instead choosing to do nothing but pray… when they put their full trust in their almighty god to save them… people die and they get convicted of murder.

They should be convicted, but it underscores my point… that most people who claim to be devout religious believers and who claim to put their full trust in their god really aren’t and really don’t. They put their trust in other people… doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen, engineers, scientists, teachers… friends.

That’s where the trust really belongs, anyway.

Fun With Church Signs

PrayerTonight I passed a church that frequently updates their sign with (sometimes) clever sayings. Today, they have the old saying, “After all is said and done, usually a lot more is said than done.”

There’s nothing innately religiousy about that phrase… except that it immediately struck me as a perfect analogy for prayer.

If you’re relying on prayer, then all that ever happens is the saying… and none of the doing… since prayer is basically mental masturbation under the guise of religious piety. As a popular bumper sticker says (Hooray for bumper sticker psychology!), “The hard work of one does more than the prayers of millions.”

If prayer truly worked and religious-minded people actually believed that it worked, it would seem that prayer would solve every problem. It doesn’t, of course, and therein lies the basis for explanatory shenanigans… as follows.

If a prayer is made and the wish comes true, it was God answering the prayer and is a delightful, miraculous experience, be it large or small. If a prayer is made and the wish doesn’t come true, then it wasn’t God’s plan for it to happen or the non-answer is a test of some sort. It never means that God wasn’t listening.

If I pray for a flipped coin to land heads up, what will happen is that my prayer is answered roughly fifty percent of the time. It’s a miracle! The other fifty percent of the time, God chose not to make the coin land that way.

A funny thing, though… if I don’t say any prayers (because perhaps… I don’t know… there’s nobody listening?), then the coin will land heads up (are you ready for this?) roughly fifty percent of the time!

Amazingly enough, anyone that believes in prayer will dismiss that little example by calling it trivial or nonsensical. Of course God isn’t going to intervene in something so silly. That’s a useless request. However, those same people will, no doubt, claim divine intervention for small things like a cool breeze or for help with the tricky loading of a lawnmower onto a truck or for the serendipitous discovery of a ten dollar bill blowing down the sidewalk. It seems there’s a double standard in operation there.

I will concede one possible benefit of prayer. For some people, it no doubt makes them feel calmer and more at peace. However, the same can be said for meditation or a quick nap or deep breathing or even spending time with friends, all things that can be used to accomplish the same effect without the superstitious notion of a all-powerful voyeur.

It’s not that God isn’t listening. It’s that he doesn’t exist.