Brazil to subsidize birth control pills

SAO PAULO, Brazil - Just weeks after Pope Benedict XVI denounced government-backed contraception in a visit to Brazil, the president unveiled a program Monday to provide cheap birth control pills at 10,000 drug stores across the country.

(applauds) If this is the effect the Pope has on the countries he visits, I encourage him to tour widely and often.

"The church favors responsible parenthood, with parents using natural (birth control) methods," said Tempesta, who oversees the church in the northeastern state of Para.

- Brazil to subsidize birth control pills

As the joke goes, the Catholic Church allows women to use mathematics to prevent pregnancy, but neither physics nor chemistry. "Natural Family Planning" has always struck me as a ridiculously contrived loophole. I once heard it explained that the method leaves open the opportunity for God to "give" you a child, if he so wishes. I suppose that if I were to believe in an omnipotent deity who reputably once managed to impregnate a virgin, I'd likely trust that neither a condom nor a pill full of hormones would be likely to thwart him. Perhaps I’m over-estimating omnipotence.

(cross posted at The Atheist Mama)

Abject Disappointment with my 24 Hours of Theism

Dear Bible ministry of prayer people,

A few days ago, I received an envelope from you containing the following objects: a paper prayer mat, a cheerfully underlined “God’s Holy Blessing” type letter, and a page of testimonies from those who followed your instructions and received either large amounts of money or other blessings (mostly large amounts of money).

This was not, however, the first time that I have been thus selected. I received my first prayer mat and associated papers in my mailbox approximately five years ago. I was quite surprised to learn God was planning on bestowing such wonders upon an atheist. However, the lure of financial gain and other holy treasures gave me pause, and I decided to give this “believing” stuff a try, at least for the 24 hour period specified in your letter. I followed your instructions and happily awaited my rewards.

I must say I was sorely disappointed for my effort, and feel that God must not, indeed, be as interested in bestowing his glory upon me as you led me to believe. I shall outline my disappointments for you, so you may fully understand the degree of God’s failure to meet my needs. First, I must call your attention to a section of page two of your letter. It reads:

Pray for my family and me for…

( ) My Soul
( ) A Closer Walk with Jesus

etc, etc… a bunch of other stuff that, as a nontheistic sort, didn’t interest me so much… but then….

( ) Confusion In My Home

!!!!!

I was terribly excited to see that I could ask the Lord for confusion in my home, something that I’m sure everyone covets (or maybe just prays for, seeing as coveting tends to be on the no no list). However, after dutifully checking the box and sending the letter back, I find that my household situation has only gotten less confusing! With the departure of a significant other (now an ex-significant other), his mistress, and his dog almost three years ago, I find myself in a significantly less confusing and generally more peaceful household. Why would God so ignore my pleas for chaos? WHY?

As for financial gain, with the said departure of ex, I find myself with $30,000 of student loan debt. Seeing as I did not have $30,000 of student loan debt three years ago, I must only conclude that either God hates me (this would really be rather harsh, as I did return the highly valuable paper prayer mat you enclosed with your last letter), or God has trouble telling the difference between positive and negative numbers. As a math tutor, I would be happy to help with the latter, but not if I would be smote for my efforts. Just how much pride cometh before fall? Does the joy that comes from possessing a more thorough knowledge of integers than God count as undue pride?

I digress. After my fruitless attempts at following your instructions, I think it’s time to resort to new methods of persuasion. Thus, I shall hold your prayer mat hostage until God does one of the following: (a) grants me my two (just two! I’m not greedy!) wishes of financial gain and household confusion (b) publicly admits that he doesn’t exist (c) signs up for math tutoring. Under the circumstances, I feel my requests are perfectly reasonable. I shall be eagerly awaiting God’s reply.

Yours truly,

Disappointed Ohio Atheist

The Watchmaker’s Apprentice part 2

Previously, we determined that you had been stranded on a beach, found a few watches, made a few religions on your own, and then found a tribe and religion that offered some comfort and assistance. The story was the backdrop for examining the Watchmaker argument: Given Design. Therefore Creator.

It might be interesting to take a native’s perspective as they investigate the outsider’s magical “watch.” You, now the native, see the magical moving watch of your new friend. You determine that this watch, being not alive, must have a creator like the creator of your boats and bows. Given Design. Therefore Creator.

You determine that to make such a small, yet powerful object, this creator must have amazing and magical powers. Given Design. Therefore Powerful Creator.

You ask your friend about the watch and he provides you with a book. He declares it to be the watchmakers manual and from it you can learn what you need to know. Given Writings. Therefore Divine Word.

You can not actually read the book, so your friend ‘helps’ you. He explains some of the desires of the watchmaker, such as daily winding and protection from the rain. He also explains the location of the watchmaker, a place called “China”, and that the watchmaker has the power to make this and many other items. You fiercely follow the ‘user instructions’, worried that you will miss out on gifts or suffer due to breaking the watchmakers rules. Given Paranoia. Therefore Dogma.

You tell some of your friends of the benefits and “other items” that the watchmaker can provide. You tell them of the inviolable “usage instructions” your friend has translated for you. That they may also get benefits of the watchmaker if they follow the “usage instructions.” Some of your native friends are impressed and come to see the watch. Given Promises. Therefore Followers.

After a short time, your native friends appreciate the knowledge that you are bringing. They are happy about the promise of new gifts and often come to you for advice and counsel about what the watchmaker would want. Given Followers. Therefore Clergy.

Your friend has noticed what you are doing and explains that you may have misunderstood. After some time, you think you understand. You are sorry about missing out and go to tell some of the natives that you misunderstood. The ‘user instructions’ and the watch are not really so great. They are angry and want some of what you promised. Although you try to explain, some of them refuse to believe you and hold onto the “old ways.” Given Hope. Therefore Delusion.

Some of your native friends never give up about the watchmaker. Your and your outside friend and many of the others wonder at how they could still be confused, but they seem happy and so you leave them alone. After a time, you and your outsider friend pass on, but the promises of the watchmaker do not. A future expedition finds the remote island. There are standard divine statues, but they seem to have watches carved into their arms. The natives perform a daily prayer ritual called “winding” and tell of a great messiah who will one day return to take them all to salvation in China. Given Time. Therefore Legend.

One of the members of the expedition explains that you can go to a place called heaven if you put water on your head and just believe really hard, but the natives weren’t nearly gullible enough to believe that.

[Although I wrote this from scratch, I was quickly shown a passage in Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. This passage talks about a phenomenon called “Cargo Cults” in which natives deify sailors and the possessions they bring on cargo ships. In case you thought this was implausible, well apparently it does happen.]

The Watchmaker's Apprentice part 1

Let us assume for a moment that you, the reader, are stranded on a desert island. You see design in the world and theorize that, yes, there must indeed be a higher power responsible for this design. You have determined in fact that there is a higher being, although you are still a little unclear about the details. Given Design. Therefore Creator. You have extrapolated this principle from watch to universe. Let us return to the details and theorize about what practical conclusions one might draw, and how curious these conclusions might seem.

You are stranded on a beach and see a watch, concluding that there must be other intelligent life. You come closer only to find that the watch is actually a shiny rock on some kelp that gave the appearance of a rock. Your expectations and prior knowledge led you to jump to a conclusion prior to verifying evidence. Given Nothing. Therefore Creator.

Later, you have been without food and are in dire straights. You find another watch, concluding again that there must be civilization. Later, after continuing your search, you find food, eat, and regain your wits. You find the ‘watch’ was actually just a rock. Given Dire Straits. Therefore Creator.

Later, your newly-found food supply dwindles and you again find yourself in dire straights. In your state, you determine that it must have been the fake watch that led you to your initial success in finding food. You return to the ‘watch’, pick it up, and carry it with you believing that this watch will assist you. Given Coincidence. Therefore Personal Creator.

You later find food and a native tribe. They are tentative, but you move closer to their leader. They see on your arm a real watch. They see its hands moving for no apparent reason and determine you to be a magical being. Given Unknown. Therefore Powerful Creator.

As they bow and show deference, you unfortunately trip and fall on your face, showing your lack of divinity. They immediately drag you to their Gods, one of which is a body with a large eye, and the other of which is a body with a head. With their spears, they indicate clearly that you should worship. Given Threats. Therefore Worship. And Given Outsiders. Therefore Assimilation.

You defer, and, given no other alternative, you live with the tribe rather happily for a period of time. You adopt their customs, including worship. The comfort provided by their society gives you ample incentive to allow them the superstitions you know are wrong. Given Habit. Therefore Religion And Given Comfort. Therefore Compliance.

How many times has this played out in the past? Combinations of assumed magic, the unknown, coincidence, and assimilation all leading towards a pattern of organized religion. Independents wandered through difficult surroundings with little understanding of the world and happy for any opportunity to band together with others for protection.

Next, we'll examine the Watchmaker argument from the native’s perspective.

Separation of Church and State, No Excuses!

(While this post is technically by dday76, I couldn’t quite keep my fingers out of it. Aviaa-ian inserts are marked with italics. BTW- this post is almost entirely facetious.)

I was in Rome the other day and thought I would pop over to the Vatican to make sure there was no mischief. I walked into the courtyard, saw the people, a big fountain, and some enormous, really expensive looking buildings they built after solving world hunger... and, oh, what's this? A nativity scene? This is government-owned land! How dare they! This huge display flies in the face of Church-State Separation. Angrily shaking my fist, I vowed to follow up with a stern letter to the local magistrate.

Yes, I’m sure the Pope will be very interested in hearing such concerns. Heaven forbid the Vatican promote religion or religious displays! Perhaps he just wasn’t aware such clear conflict of interest was occurring on the property?

By the way, if you haven’t followed the link to look at the picture, you absolutely should. Facetious or not, we were really there…

On the other hand, if these were pious people, maybe I could also benefit from their blessings. I went over to the fountain, tossed a coin in, and wished really, really hard for world peace and just a few small things for myself, Amen.

Clearly, your time at the Vatican was better spent than mine. I just wandered around pondering the items one would include on a Rome/Vatican purity test:

__ had sex on an ancient monument? (3 pts)
__ had sex in a cathedral? (5 pts) with a nun/priest? (10 pts) with the Pope? (50 pts)

… and so forth.

When talking with a local resident later, I found this wasn't the correct way to do one's wishing, or as they call it "praying" at the Vatican. They said something about kneeling and clasping one's hands together, so I noted that for the next time. I'm not sure how well it works though. I came across a young girl literally in the shadow of the Vatican, on her knees, hands clasped, head bowed, just praying her little heart out. But her plastic cup barely had one Euro in it. Almost an hour later, she was still on the same sidewalk and her god's grace hadn't made much headway in filling the plastic cup. Hmm... she perhaps should have been wearing only one sandal or offering up a gourd or such.

God works in myssstttteeerious ways. It makes perfect sense that all present-day miracles are indistinguishable from chance and coincidence, while reports of past miracles of floods, plagues, and the like were so much more… well… miraculous! Helping beggars at the Vatican? Clearly too obvious a miracle for the new, “subtle” version of god.

Mmmm... Worms...

Did you know that every day 150,000 people die? People just like you and me. Every 24 hours 150,000 people pass from time into eternity. Do you ever think about that? Isn’t there something within you that says, ‘I don’t want to die?’ That’s your god given will to live.

So says one of the floating, talking men of The Way of the Master.

I tried their 10-commandments quiz and am thrilled announce that I’m actually not doing as badly as one might imagine! First, the negatives:

• I certainly take the name of god in vain, though generally only in bed.


• I sometimes work seven-day weeks, thus violating whichever Sabbath you might chose to declare holy.


• I may have dishonored my parents on several occasions as a teenager.


• I have committed adultery. Well, only if you count the sex-before-marriage sort. However, this seems to be a popular sort to count.


• I have lied on occasion (“Yes Suzie, I loooooove your new haircut”).


• I have coveted, among other things, a bagel one of my students was eating in front of me at work last Sunday. What can I say- I was hungry.

So, I’m not entirely biblically pure. However, it’s really not all bad news.

• I can honestly state that I haven’t put any other gods before “god.” I don’t believe in any of ‘em, so there is no need for deity prioritizing.


• I haven’t committed idolatry. This is another benefit of atheism.


• I haven’t stolen.


• I haven’t murdered…. though if thoughts could kill, I might be answering this one a bit differently.

In summary, I have only violated 6 of the 10 commandments, leaving me 40% biblically pure. That’s probably the most chaste I’ve scored on an Internet purity test yet.

Also on this site is a video describing how to convert an atheist. The cool floaty men (though in this video they are sitting rather than floating) oh-so-pretentiously describe their method as “bait and hook.” The bait draws the atheist into the conversation by framing the debate in rational terms. Apparently, logic is to atheists as worms are to fish. Then, once the atheist is happily munching on his or her juicy worm, BOOM, comes the hook, the emotional draw of GUILT in the form of the Ten Commandments. It’s something like this: logic, designer, cars, Ten Commandments, stealing, lying, YOU’RE BAD, guilt, fear, DEATH.

Unfortunately, even the possibly pretend atheists in the video didn’t really seem to reel in perfectly nicely, though they were significantly less eloquent than most real atheists I know (note: a lapsed Christian is not the same as an atheist). Apparently, atheists (even pretend ones) are adept at picking the worms off the hook before swallowing ‘em. Or perhaps they’re just getting their worms from other sources. (shrugs) Something like that. Either way, definitely go check out the videos at The Way of the Master. Just watch for those pesky hooks!

(cross posted at The Atheist Mama)

Mercy Me!

He said that it was his belief that God first intervened to spare his life in 1973, amid rioting in Belfast, when he found himself stranded with two of his men in a Loyalist paramilitary area.

A hail of gunfire cut down the other soldiers, fatally injuring one, while Sir Richard emerged unscathed.

The second incident took place during a mine-clearing operation in South Armagh in 1975, when an explosion killed his company commander, Major Peter Willis. Sir Richard had been walking alongside him moments before but had stopped to study an aerial photograph.

The general's third brush with death came a few months later in Germany when he fell asleep at the wheel of a car but was fortunate to veer off into a field rather than into a steep bank and wood which bordered the route 200 yards further on.

"On three occasions, God had shown me his love and his protection and had challenged me to make a complete commitment to him, but on each occasion I had failed to make the response that he wanted from me," said Sir Richard, who is vice-president of the Officers' Christian Union.

- God saved me from death three times, says Army chief

Goodness. Apparently, god wasn't so fond of the two who were killed in his presence.

The thing about near-death experiences is that the ones who live to tell about it... are... well... the ones who live to tell about it. It's much harder for the dead to lament god's lack of mercy.

Knock-knock!

An elderly lady was well-known for her faith and for her boldness in talking about it. She would stand on her front porch and shout "PRAISE THE LORD!"

Next door to her lived an atheist who would get so angry at her proclamations he would shout, "There ain`t no Lord!!"

Hard times set in on the elderly lady, and she prayed for GOD to send her some assistance. She stood on her porch and shouted "PRAISE THE LORD. GOD I NEED FOOD!! I AM HAVING A HARD TIME. PLEASE LORD, SEND ME SOME GROCERIES!!"

The next morning the lady went out on her porch and noted a large bag of groceries and shouted, "PRAISE THE LORD."

The neighbor jumped from behind a bush and said, "Aha! I told you there was no Lord. I bought those groceries, God didn`t."

The lady started jumping up and down and clapping her hands and said, "PRAISE THE LORD. He not only sent me groceries, but He made the devil pay for them. PRAISE THE LORD!"

In my last post, I promised to start this post with a knock-knock joke. As you have likely realized, the above joke is not of the knock-knock variety. There is a knock-knock joke in the post... but not until the very end. The above joke was included to tide you over and prevent unnecessary incidences of bad-joke withdrawal.

(clears throat)

Regardless, speaking of believing what we want to believe:

The Rev. Ron Carlson, a popular author and lecturer, sometimes presents his audience with two stories and asks them whether it matters which one is true.

In the secular account, "You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere."

In the Christian view, by contrast, "You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are the climax of His creation. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with him."

First of all… STRAW MAN and FALSE DICHOTOMY!

(blinks and readjusts self to former state of calm dignity)

Truth isn’t a popularity contest. Sure, it sounds pretty to live in a world where meaning and goodness are predefined by a wrinkled man with a beard. However, wanting to believe something (i.e. your pet bunny Foo Foo will never die) doesn’t make it an accurate representation of reality (rabbits have a life-span of approximately eight years and, to date, there has never been a recorded instance of an immortal rabbit).

I have no problem with the concept of making meaning. It’s like the life-review equivalent of good writing techniques; you sort through the mess of details of an event to identify, define, and present the essentials. However, when we decide try to randomly ascribe cause to our selected sentences, we’ve crossed the line from good technique to bad logic.

The article quoted above then moves to the ever-popular hobby of atheist bashing:

Across the globe, religious faith is thriving and religious people are having more children. By contrast, atheist conventions only draw a handful of embittered souls, and the atheist lifestyle seems to produce listless tribes that cannot even reproduce themselves.

Have you ever been to an atheist convention? I have, and between the engaging speakers, dinners with crowds of participants, and dancing at a three level club, there wasn’t time to be embittered. Sure, sure, atheists should continue to work to improve their general PR. However, the false idea of atheists being uniformly dour and boring is perpetuated mainly by articles and misrepresentations like this.

Lacking the strong Christian identity that produced its greatness, atheist Europe seems to be a civilization on its way out. We have met Nietzsche's "last man" and his name is Sven.

(blinks) Was the greatness you were referring to simple imperialism or to the tendency of the Christian Europeans of the past to murder and enslave the “heathen” natives they would encounter?

Based on my experiences, I’m pretty sure the more secular version of European civilization isn’t on its way out. We’ve already established that you’ve likely not attended an atheist convention. Have you been to Europe?

The real difference is that in the past, children were valued as gifts from God, and now they are viewed by many people as instruments of self-gratification. The old principle was, "Be fruitful and multiply." The new one is, "Have as many children as enhance your lifestyle."

Or, “we have access to birth control and careers and thus have other options to pursue if we wish.” Not to mention, “seeing as the world population continues to grow and we have limited resources, it doesn’t seem like such a tragedy if some people chose to have one or even (heaven forbid) no children.”

The prophets of the disappearance of religion seem to have proven themselves to be false prophets. Even though the world is becoming richer, religion seems to be getting stronger. The United States is the richest and most technologically advanced society in the world, and religion shows no signs of disappearing on these shores.

Richest?? Well, perhaps if you ignore Luxemborg and Norway. Then again, they are part of that silly, declining Europe, so we can just ignore them anyway.

My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. It seems perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no purpose to life or the universe, indeed whose only moral drive seems to be sneering at their fellow human beings who do have a sense of purpose.

No darling, I just sneer at people who write poorly researched articles accusing atheists of having no moral purpose.

Here is where the biological expertise of Dawkins and his friends could prove illuminating. Maybe they can turn their Darwinian lens on themselves and help us understand how atheism, like the human tailbone and the panda's thumb, somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past.

- God knows why faith is thriving by Dinesh D'Souza.

Yes, logic is clearly a vestigial trait.

***

Oh, and...

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

(silence)

(silence)

(silence)

(peers outside at the friendly darkness)

(shrugs)

Who's there? Well, nothing supernatural as far as I can see, but is that really so scary?

(shrugs)

I'm okay with getting my meaning from humanity and my groceries from my neighbor.

(cross posted at The Atheist Mama)

Ahmadinejad and the Pope Agree. How Quaint.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here on Friday that the big powers' atheism is the rootcause of man's problems today.

- Ahmadinejad: Atheism of big powers is rootcause of man's plight

Ahmadinejad, dear, you're being cliche. The pope said essentially the same thing a few weeks back.

(glances around self) Big powers? Where are these atheistic big powers? How is it that we are the scary demon of two major religions when we are an unorganized minority?

I personally feel I should strike fear only in the hearts of tricky standardized test questions and leafy green vegetables. I make it a practice to conquer and destroy both on a regular basis. Otherwise, I’m pretty un-scary. (shrugs)

PERA-noia, PERA-noia, the ACLU is coming to get me…

Please excuse my awful pun of a title. It’s a pera-dy (see that was a worse pun! I bet you didn’t think it could get worse than the title!) of the first line of Harvey Danger’s Flag Pole Sitta. Their version was a bit more sing-able than mine.

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- After impassioned debate on the separation of church and state Sept. 26, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would make it harder to sue the government for violations of church-state separation.

House members voted 244-173 in favor of H.R. 2679, called by supporters the "Public Expression of Religion Act." In cases involving the First Amendment's establishment clause, the proposal would prevent federal courts from requiring government entities to reimburse the legal costs of the individual or group that sued the government agency -- even though the agency was found in violation of the constitution.

The establishment clause bars the government from endorsing or inhibiting religious groups or doctrines. Currently, federal judges routinely require the government entity to pay the legal expenses of a plaintiff who successfully asserts an establishment-clause violation.

Supporters contended that the bill would keep special-interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union from "abusing the system" when filing challenges to government actions that may endorse religion.

The ACLU is not abusing the system. The government, when it violates the establishment clause, is abusing the system. The House, when passing this bill, just abused the system. The ACLU helps police the system. See the difference?

"Too often today, overzealous courts have infringed an individual's right to worship," Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a supporter of the measure, said on the House floor. "These attacks on our religious heritage are frivolous."

No. The courts have maintained our right to not have our noses shoved in your religious whatever. They aren’t frivolous lawsuits. They’re lawsuits to defend the rights of religious and nonreligious minorities.

But opponents said it would have a chilling effect on the ability of religious minorities to defend their freedoms.

"Mr. Speaker, let's be clear -- there's nothing benign about this bill. This bill makes it more difficult to enforce the First Amendment to the Constitution and the very words thereof designed to protect the religious freedom of every American," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas).

Without such reimbursements, many church-state separationist groups and other civil-rights groups could not afford to file such lawsuits in the first place.

Yes.

The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), said some such groups file lawsuits and use the threat of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to pressure municipalities and states into settling before the case reaches court.

"Without that ability for the ACLU and others to go into these closed-door sessions and say to the mayor…we're going to sue, we're going to win, and you're going to have to pay our attorneys' fees, these cases will go to court," Hostettler said, referring to the American Civil Liberties Union.

(rolls eyes) Yes, yes, let’s drag the ACLU into it. Everyone likes to bash the ACLU! A note: you only have to reimburse the legal fees if they show you’ve violated the establishment clause. Don’t violate it, and you’ll be fine.

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked the bill's supporters if they would feel the same way about limiting attorneys' fees in such cases if government agencies were being sued for advancing other religions.

"Let's assume in some town Sunni Muslims became a majority. And let's assume that everyone in that town…was forced to recite 'There is but one God, and Allah is his name,'" he said, quoting Islam's most common affirmation of faith.

"They think that only the majority religion is ever going to be in the position to dominate the local government or any government. Maybe so, but the whole reason we have the First Amendment is because you can't be sure."

(nods) Yes. However, I don’t think that’s the main issue. The main issue (for me at least) is that it’s not fair to squish the rights of minorities even if you have the power to do so.

Although a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate, that body is virtually certain not to address it before Congress ends its current term.
- House passes measure to chill establishment-clause lawsuits

I hope not, as I still have hope that Dem’s might gain a Senate majority for the next term. Either way, write to your Senators!

***


On the same topic, but from slightly less sane sources:

… all of our veterans cemeteries and memorials on public property are at risk – unless PERA passes.

Oh! Oh! Veterans cemeteries! Veterans cemeteries! Emotional, non-touchable patriotism-related issue!!!!! ACLU! BAD! ANTI-AMERICAN! ANTI-AMERICAN! DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!!! ALCU! BAD!!!

AHHHHHHH!!!!!

What a great choice of issue to exploit to scare people into supporting this bill. ACLU ATTACKING FALLEN VETERNS! It’s ridiculous propaganda.

As a clarification, I’m certainly not bashing veterans. I support our former troops… especially in bed. As a clarification of my clarification, I suppose I only actually support one of them in this manner. However, this seems like a contribution at least on par with buying a few plastic flags or patriotic bumper stickers or the like, yes? ;)

(shrugs) Anyway, let’s continue. So, why do these lovely people believe veterans cemeteries are under attack?

The ACLU has claimed nationally that gravestones have been “deemed” constitutional because families, not the government, choose the religious symbols. However, the truth is no court of precedent has ever “deemed” that it is constitutional for the government to allow and pay for gravestones bearing religious symbols at veteran cemeteries, on the basis that families, rather than the government, chose the symbol. The ACLU has cited no such decision; and none has been found to exist.

So, seeing as the ACLU feels these displays are constitutional, it has just declared that it doesn’t feel the need for litigation, correct?

Second, the ACLU has never taken that position in litigation; rather, it insists that religious symbols are unconstitutional if on public property.

The ACLU defined why it felt this was a different issue: family choice of personal expression of personal religion on a personal gravestone.

Third, the ACLU has not stated it will not sue the freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols or expressions that exist at veterans cemeteries.

I can see a clear difference between freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols and gravestones bearing religious symbols. While it isn’t an issue of utmost concern to me, I think the random, non-person-or-people-specific religious memorials should probably be removed from public grounds if they are causing upset. The cemeteries would still be there.

Fourth, there are thousands of grave markers, including 9,000 at the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach, which the government decided upon, not families.

Erm, the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach in France? Somehow, I can’t picture the ACLU suing over this.

Fifth, the ACLU is hardly the only entity representing a threat of such lawsuits. Nothing in the law currently prevents others, including Islamist fanatics, from filing Establishment Clause lawsuits against veterans cemeteries, and then demanding court-awarded, taxpayer-paid attorney fees.

- ACLU’s Disinformation On Public Expression Of Religion Act Exposed

Yes, because clearly this is how Islamist fanatics spread their message. Many congratulations for managing to raise your propaganda level at least a few points with the inclusion of the phrase, “Islamist fanatics.” Your target audience is now at least 32.452% more likely to write a letter to his or her congressman.

To see the ACLU’s response to the House passing PERA, read their press release. And write to your Senators!

Multiple-Choice God

… the study went further by asking respondents what sort of God they believed in. The results put the perennial debate over the role of religion in public life in a new light.

The survey identifies four conceptions of God, which it labels A, B, C and D.

A is the Authoritarian God, worshiped by 31.4% of respondents. This deity is highly involved, responsible for Earthly events such as tsunamis or economic upturns and "capable of meting out punishment to those who are unfaithful or ungodly."

B is the Benevolent God, the choice of 23% of respondents. He also is involved in human affairs but isn't in the smiting business. This God is "mainly a force of positive influence in the world and is less willing to condemn or punish individuals."

C is the Critical God, who "really does not interact with the world." But believers in this God — 16% of the sample — still watch their Ps and Qs because God C "views the current state of the world unfavorably" and will punish evildoers "in another life."

Last but not least is D, the Distant God. Twenty-four percent of respondents endorsed — "embraced" is probably too strong a word — this version of the deity, "a cosmic force which set the laws of nature in motion" but has no interest in human activities.

This puts the SAT in a new light. At least that’s just an unfair test to determine who gets into college. Multiple choice tests for eternal salvation, eh? I’d imagine there’s a guessing penalty.

Finally, there are the atheists, who accounted for 5.2% of respondents. (They aren't dignified with an abbreviation. F for faithless?

How about just E, none of the above?

All quotes are from Multiple-Choice God.

Futher further "friendly" fire

**An addition to my post from this morning.... 'cause I just can't get enough of the pope.**


Or, from Pope stops short of apology to Muslims:

"We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life," said the message posted in the name of the Mujahedeen Army on a Web site frequently used by militant groups. The message's authenticity could not be independently verified. The statement was addressed to "you dog of Rome" and threatens to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home."

(coughs) Once again, we’re not violent! We just adore death!

As I’m continually mocking, I shall point out I do get that these messages/firebombs/etc. are being sent out by select groups of Muslims. I find the garden-variety Muslim no more irrational than the garden-variety Christian. The Muslim extremists just tend to be a lot noisier in today’s world.

He noted that earlier during his German trip, Benedict warned "secularized Western culture" against holding contempt for any religion or believers.

(skip a few paragraphs)

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan insisted the pope apologize to the Muslim world, saying he had spoken "not like a man of religion but like a usual politician."

Exactly like a politician! We’ll pander to various religious groups, but why bother worrying about whether or not we step on secular toes? Oh, and I’m not contemptuous of believers. I’m just contemptuous of many of their beliefs.

"We have to show the determination and care not to hurt one another and avoid situations where we may hurt each others' beliefs," the Istanbul-based Patriarchate said.

(rolls eyes) As already suggested, the pope is perhaps not the most convincing figure when it comes to pointing fingers at violent religions. However, I’m all for pointing at fundamentalism/ridiculousness and calling it by name. You can’t expect me to smile sweetly and accept whatever you want to believe when laws and actions based on these beliefs restrict the rights of others. Believe whatever you like, just keep it out of the lives of others. If you don’t, expect to be pointed at.

Further "Friendly" Fire

Further clarification on the pope’s remarks about atheists and Islam in Pope said to be upset Muslims offended:

"Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against 'the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom,'" Bertone said, citing words from another speech that Benedict gave during the German trip.

Pfff! What would I do with my spare time if I had to guard against cynicism and mockery of the sacred? Secularism is more dangerous than religious fervor? Pffff! A note: I don’t have contempt for god (as I don't believe in him/her/it), but my contempt for the thoughts of the pope certainly continues to grow.

Two churches in the West Bank were hit by firebombs Saturday, and a group claiming responsibility said it was protesting Benedict's words.

Right. Secularism is a LOT more dangerous than religious fervor. Those were friendly firebombs!

Glass Houses & Charred Popes

Some updates on my thoughts about the pope’s recent speeches: apparently, I skipped right over the part that’s making the news. When quoting Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, the pope referred to Islam as a violent religion.

First, as was pointed out to me in an email this morning (thanks J!), it’s rather hard to claim you aren’t violent when your response to being called violent is to burn the pope in effigy. (shrugs) Perhaps it was a non-violent form of burning-in-effigy. The burning of the Danish embassy a while back? Done in the least violent way possible!

However, the pope may also not wish to throw stones while standing in his own glass house. Islam certainly isn’t the only violent religion out there... come on now, he was quoting from the era of the crusades. You can find many, many violent, awful quotes in both holy books. The level of violence among the followers depends largely on who’s doing the interpreting and in what socio-political conditions.

As for the anti-atheist and anti-science remarks for which I originally grumbled at the pope, I see absolutely no atheists rioting. Perhaps this is because atheism is not a religion and we thus manage to skip much of this irrational mob action each time someone pokes a stick at us? Oh sure, atheism doesn’t prevent people from being silly, mean, bigoted, angry, or even violent. However, there is no banner, symbol, or holy book of atheism we feel compelled to protect. We grumble. We type. Sometimes, we even throw a minor fit. However, in the end, our fits tend to be significantly easier to clean up after than those of offended religious groups.

Mr. FTP god and his blatant misuse of ropes

I was at my friend K’s apartment last night when she mentioned that she’d been left an exciting, fun-to-mock religious pamphlet on her car windshield at work on Monday. My car is never papered with such pamphlets, likely because I work in a small, well-to-do town where we shoot pamphleteers on site. Okay, perhaps not. But we’d probably at least give them a hefty ticket and force them to plant flowers on Main St as punishment. Regardless, K had accidentally thrown away the pamphlet. Possibly due to my having consumed alcohol on an empty stomach, or possibly simply an indication of my innate lunacy, I suggested we go dig it out of her dumpster. We did and found it was defiled only by the tiniest piece of (holy?) mold.

The tract is entitled

“What If You Had Been Here?
September 11, 2001
A Day That Began
Like Any Other Day”

and features a picture of the world trade center with various computer added (I’m guessing- it looks fairly unrealistic) mounds of smoke.

Do I even have to add that I think it’s total crap to exploit the fear of terrorist attack for religious (or, for that matter political) purposes?

Regardless, without further ado, I bring to you the words of the Fellowship Tract League (FTP):

WHAT IF YOU had been in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001? What would have happened to YOU? YOU could have died, and YOU would have had to face God.

ME? Not only me, but in CAPITALS? Oh my… this FTP god is one serious critter.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. Hebrews 9:27

That actually makes more sense this morning, sans vodka. However, I’m still not sure that I’d qualify it as good writing. Lots of people, even nonreligious ones, like to point to the Bible as “great literature”. I’ve read the Bible. Parts of it are quite lovely and might qualify as “great literature”. However, other parts just make the writing-tutor in me want to cringe and yell, “keep it short and to the point! Short and to the point!”

Sin is breaking God’s law. It is doing something God said not to do, or not doing something God said to do.

(blinks)

I suppose that makes sense. However, if I take this literally, I fear I shall have to take up arms against opposing tribes or something of that nature. It’s been a couple of years since I’ve used a sword. I’m not sure I’m up for it.

Sin is an offense against God.

Well then, perhaps Mr. FTP god just needs to get over it. I find people using adjectives as adverbs terribly offensive. However, I have yet to suggest that all people who do so be stoned to death. (the population of Ohio would dwindle to nothing, I fear)

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is as much God as if He had never become man and as much man as if He had never been God.

(blinks)

Well, it’s beyond my comprehension, so it must be true, right?

A gift is free. Eternal life is not anything we can earn, it is something we accept. Romans 6:23 gives us two choices. We can pay for our sin ourselves by dying and going to Hell, or we can accept God’s gift of eternal life and go to Heaven when we die.

Apparently the FTL god has bad management skills. Let’s say you have a group of workers making widgets. I’d imagine the best way to motivate them would be to say, well, you can work as hard as you’d like to make as many widgets as you'd like… however, the only factor used to determine if you’ll get paid is whether or not you ask for your check. I’m sure absolutely everyone will jump at the chance to make widgets, even though it as no effect whatsoever on whether or not they are paid.

Frankly, if there must be religion, I’d rather people feel compelled to do nice things in exchange for salvation.

For whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Does calling "upon the name of the Lord" in bed count? I might be saved and not even know it!

Anytime you start telling people, all you have to do is this one religious whatever, and you’ll go to heaven, you open the door to awful interpretations of what that one thing might be. Well, in my version, god wants me to run planes into buildings or well, in my version, god wants me to go kill infidels and take their land.

To be saved, a person must be saved from something. If you were drowning, and someone threw you a rope, you would say that he had saved you from drowning.

(tilts head to the side and stares at the strange analogy)

Sure. So, since there isn’t so much in the way of reasons to believe in hell, I’m not drowning and that rope could obviously be put to better uses.


Thanks K!

My Mixed Feelings about the Pope

I have mixed feelings about the pope. I disagree with so very much of what he says and does. His books make me cringe. His speeches leave me shaking my head. On the other hand, his religion has sent me many delightful varieties of disillusioned Catholics to date*. Somehow, Protestantism just doesn’t seem to promote disillusionment quite as effectively as Catholicism. What would my sex life have been like without the pope?

Regardless, Mr. Head-Disillusionment-Causing himself spoke recently on the topics of algebra, atheists, and humanitarian aid. Okay, so he switches the "responsibly" phrase to mean conversion rather than aid at the end of his paragraph-- but they're the same thing, right? Anyway, without further speculation (well, at least not for another 5 lines)... the pope and his concerns with secularism!

....something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe.”

Math!

So, a + v + m + g = u?

One important note: if g equals 0, as I believe it does, then subtracting it from the left will have no effect on the equation.

The pope did not make direct reference to the age-old controversy between evolution and creation but noted that “we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless.

FALSE DICHOTOMY AND STRAW MAN!

(I’ve always wanted to just type fallacies in capital letters and leave it at that. It’s never seemed very nice in actual discussions. However, I highly doubt the pope is reading this, so I feel no guilt.)

Today, when we have learned to recognize the pathologies and the life-threatening diseases associated with religion and reason...

I wanted to make some statement about how, with scientific knowledge, we no longer need a “god of the gaps” in areas such as “where did this plague come from?”. However, the pope's entire statement baffles me and I’m not sure I would be answering what he is saying. Are these pathologies and life-threatening diseases infecting religion and reason? Or, since they are merely associated, do they just see each other periodically among mutual acquaintances?

Only this can free us from being afraid of God - which is ultimately at the root of modern atheism. Only this God saves us from being afraid of the world and from anxiety before the emptiness of life.”

(SIGH)

I’m not scared of god. I just don’t believe in god. Atheism isn’t a tree we hide behind to avoid a father-figure coming after us with a lightening bolt. It’s more like standing in the middle of a field and stating calmly, “there isn't a deity to be afraid of.” As of yet, no lightening bolts have hit me while I’m standing in my field. (Then again, I go inside when it’s storming. I’m atheist, not a-lighting-bolt-hit-able.)

We are not meant to waste our lives, misuse them, or spend them selfishly. In the face of injustice we must not remain indifferent and thus end up as silent collaborators or outright accomplices. We need to recognize our mission in history and to strive to carry it out. What is needed is not fear, but responsibility - responsibility and concern for our own salvation, and for the salvation of the whole world.

Oooooh... you were doing so well! If you’d just take off that last appositive phrase, “responsibility and concern for our own salvation, and for the salvation of the whole world”, you’d have such a dandy, quotable paragraph.

At least in part, science has vainly sought to make God unnecessary in the universe and hence to man himself.

So, science makes god unnecessary, huh? Even though the rest of the speech seems rather silly to me, based on that one statement I fear I’m going to have to reconsider my previously supportive view of science. If science manages to make god unnecessary, will I eventually run out of disillusioned Catholics to prey (not pray) upon? The horror!



All of the above quotes are cherry picked from the Pope’s recent address explaining how science seeks vainly to make God unnecessary in the universe and our lives. If you want to be fair, you could go read the entire thing. However, it’s not that exciting, I promise.


* though, I most note, of all the types of dissilusioned Catholics I've encountered, my current variety of atheist-disillusioned-Catholic is certainly the best

Numerical Sin

The Cincinnati Enquirer
Without God, mayhem is possible
John F. Kippley

Without God, mayhem is possible. (nods)

Without God, ice cream is possible. (nods)

Without ice cream, art is possible (nods)

Without (almost any noun), (almost any noun) is possible (nods)

Possible is a pretty non-committal word, possibly?

Without logic, unwarranted conclusions are possible (double nod)

The discussion about the killings in Cincinnati does not seem to have raised the question, "What else should we expect?" That is, what is there in the education and upbringing of the murderers to cause them to think it is morally wrong to kill someone they don't like? Our public education system is one of practical atheism,

(blinks)

I'm pretty sure the schools, even with their bend toward 'practical atheism' (hah!) aren't teaching classes about the subjective nature of homicide. Perhaps I'm just not visiting the correct schools, however. I'm not above doing my duty, either way. In case any would-be murderers are reading this: it is morally wrong to kill someone you don't like (or even someone you do like). See? Now you don't have an excuse.

and as Dostoevsky had one of characters say, "If there is no God, I can do anything."

(ponders)

Really? I can't levitate.

Yes, I get it, got it, etc.... that's not what is being said. However... come on. Since I'm on a rewording kick, I shall reword the statement to read, "if I repent before I die, I can do anything."

Atheism doesn't give a free pass for immorality any more than religion automatically stops immorality. As an atheist, when I ponder whether or not to kill someone I don't like (or even someone I do like) the worry that I'll be struck by a lightening bolt (or end up in hell) doesn't even cross my mind. Yet I still don't kill the people! (I just torture small children- and only on weekdays)

This is aggravated by a widespread opinion that there is no punishment after death for unrepentant sinners. Some believe there is simply no life after death. Others believe that everyone goes to heaven no matter how many commandments he breaks or how unrepentant he is.

No matter how many? So I can break some? And it depends on my degree of repentance? I feel a function coming on!


f(x, y) where x = number of commandments broken and y = percent repentant.

f(x, y) = x - 8y + 3 while x <= 5

f(x, y) = x - 6y + 3 while 5 < x < 10

f(x, y) = No queston about it: you're going to hell! while x >= 10



If f(x, y) <= 5 you're going to heaven

If 5 < f(x, y) < 8 you're going to purgatory

If f(x,y) >= 8 you're going to hell



Let's say Johnny has broken 6 commandments and is 73% repentant. Since x (number of commandments broken) is between 5 and 10, we'll use the function f(x,y) = x - 4y + 3. The output of this function is found by starting with 6 (number of commandments broken), subtracting 6*.73 (adjustment for repentance) and adding 3 (original sin). This gives Johnny a sin function output of 4.62. Since 4.62 is less than five... he's going to heaven! (wild cheers)

Suzie on the other hand has been baaaaaad and doesn't really care. After deliberately misusing the name of god, not once, not twice, but niiiiiiine times and with a 10% repentance rating, Suzie is in trooouble. 9 - 6*.1 + 3 is a hefty score of 11.4. So, sorry Suzie, but you're going to HELL! (boo!!!)

See! Contrary to the opinion of most high school students, math IS relevant to every day life (death?). As noted here and here, however, god doesn't seem to be terribly good at math. He probably just uses the "heaven/hell" spinner Robertson gave him for Christmas a few years back. (waves hand dismissively) Oh well. I'd use a function. I'm definitely running in the next god-election.


*** *** *** ***

A quick note on the quoted article’s footnote:

John F. Kippley and his wife have spent 35 years promoting chaste natural family planning. The movement they founded and head, NFP International, is active throughout the United States and 20 other nations.

Natural family planning, eh? I've always seen natural family planning as the epitome of “traditional Catholic loop-hole"- a way to hold onto their DEEP SEATED CONVICTION that god abhors both latex and ortho-tri-cyclen and instead wants us to play Russian Roulette of the fertility variety (yet still have sex while attempting to avoid pregnancy). My oh-so-Catholic doctor is a very strong proponent of NFP. It’s not my kind of game though. Sorry, God. How about chess instead?

Peace, war, and therapy

I stumbled upon Grant Swank’s Atheist Attacks 'In God We Trust', an article that relies largely on phrases such as “on behalf of the power of darkness” and impossible transitions to make its points. Clearly, I was not his target audience.

However, potentially demonstrating a predilection towards cognitive masochism (which I shall now refer to as PtCM), I decided to check out Swank’s blog. It was pretty much what I expected; elegant illogic and superstition with a large dose of melodrama... banners denouncing the ACLU and Islam (and Google? Is Google ungodly?)... all to be expected and not really anything worth writing about. But then (drum-roll)... the quotes at the end of each of his blog posts grabbed my attention:

ALLAH: “Fight, slay Unbelievers wherever ye find them.Seize them, beleaguer them, lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an, Sura 9:5

CHRIST: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

- from Mr. Swank’s blog

(blinks)

Yes, Islam can be a terrible, violent religion. However, we are claiming that Christianity is a peaceful, loving one? Here, let me try again, but with some other quotes from those same books:

Surely (as for) those who believe and do good deeds for them will Allah bring about love.

Qur’an, Shakir, 019.096

You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

Deuteronomy 7:16

- obviously, not from Mr. Swank’s blog

I have a good friend who likes to insist everyone from Ann Coulter to Pat Robertson to George Bush (2) aren’t “real Christians” because of their tendencies towards meanness (and stupidity), intolerance (and stupidity), and warmongering (and stupidity). Real Christians, she insists, are nice and good and kind... as she is (and indeed she is). She insists these other sorts are misinterpreting Christianity. My response is that there is enough Bible for everyone to pick and chose his or her own favorite quotes to support pretty much whatever deed or misdeed he or she wishes to promote. While I have a higher degree of social tolerance for my friend’s variety of “nice” Christianity than I do Coulter’s brand of the same faith, declaring this is the “real” Christianity is ignoring 83.245%* of the Bible.

So, according to the Bible, what sort of creature is this Christian god?

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
- 1 Corinthians 14:33

Sounds nice. And organized. There are few things equal to a nice, organized deity.

The LORD is a warrior
- Exodus 15:3

Well, perhaps a little less peaceful, but I suppose he could be a peaceful warrior… right?

I will smash them one against the other, fathers and sons alike, declares the LORD. I will allow no pity or mercy or compassion to keep me from destroying them.'
- Jeremiah 13:14

(blinks)

Well, maybe not. That definitely does not sound peaceful.

The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
- James 5:11

The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.
- Psalm 145:9

(blinks again)

Wait! You said NO compassion and NO mercy above. I mean, it’s not that I want you to be violent... but aren’t you sending mixed signals here?

... you have kindled my anger, and it will burn forever.
- Jeremiah 17:4

For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime;
- Psalm 30:5

(shrugs) Well, perhaps to god, forever is only a moment.

(At this point, I stopped. I’d compile a list of all of the MULTITUDE of violent and/or contradictory quotes from the bible, but, hey, it’s already been done several times, and I’d rather spend the next few years of my life eating, sleeping, and breathing rather than constantly typing.)

Oh, whatever. So god is seemingly severely bipolar. What is this to me, an atheist who reveres the Bible less than her daily cup of coffee? Nothing, if it remains a private affair between the Christian, his or her god, and possibly god’s therapist. However, as soon as the Bible becomes the basis of any sort of law (i.e. as grounds to oppose same-sex marriage or promote public prayer in schools), I’d argue Christians need to consider all of the book they are holding up as the irrefutable word of god, rather than just the passages that make the prettiest footers on blog posts.

So, Christian majority, I respect that many (most?) of the Christians in this country practice a generally “nice” form of Christianity and are peaceful, compassionate people. I know and love many of these peaceful, compassionate Christians and have watched them do many peaceful, compassionate things. I just sometimes want to scream when you explain to me how you know your god disapproves of the “homosexual lifestyle” because of his clear stance on the issue in the Bible. This and other gems from this book are the grounds for your moral compass, while you entirely ignore so many other passages from the exact same book.

I suppose that’s your choice. You can interpret the Bible however you want and it’s really not my business. However, I still think it’s arbitrary. So, please, just don’t make me and the other “others” of this nation play by your rules. Your faith with your god becomes my issue only when you make it my issue, when edicts from this highly contradictory, often downright discriminatory book are pushed into my life in the form of public policy.

* Yes, yes, an entirely fabricated number. However, it was a lot more colorful than using the bland, half, three-quarters or whatever, right? Either way, but, 53.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. I’m just being trendy.

Praying is not planning

Each weekday on my drive home from work, I pass a billboard for an insurance company featuring the very valid phrase, hoping is not planning. I’d like to encourage the adoption of another version of that phrase: praying is not planning. The validity of that last statement stands even if you hold a conference to ask for divine intervention.

A five-day conference to call for divine intervention in the HIV/Aids pandemic in South Africa will be held next week, the Institute for Christian Leadership Development said on Friday.

"We are going to pray and extract biblical principles on how to counsel the society when dealing with the HIV/Aids pandemic," institute spokesperson Timothy Olusegun told the South African Press Association.

"As Christians, we cannot keep quiet as thousands of South Africans, young and old continue to die, ... as we see the suffering in our nation, week after week.

- Call for God's intervention in Aids crisis

The god of the Christian faith seems quite adamant in regard to his omniscience. Thus, shouldn’t he have already noticed the AIDS crisis in South Africa rather the relying on a five-day prayer-a-thon to jolt him out of his ignorance? Hell, even I know there’s an AIDS crisis in South Africa, and my omniscience is a bit short in the omni-department. Has god no access to google news?

Either way, the idea of “prayer leading to intervention” strikes me as inherently unfair. Hypothetically, let’s say rich, spoiled, twelve-year-old Johnny Smith, fond of harassing his elderly neighbors and strangling cute kittens, is in a car wreck. One day, while running away after shop-lifting from a local convenience store, Johnny is hit by a car and falls into a coma. However, he has many relatives who all pray for his recovery. In fact, his very, very rich father even sponsors a five-day conference to encourage others to pray for his recovery. In the face of all of this prayer, god notices (oops! Look! A sick boy!) and heals him.

Nearby, homeless, orphaned twelve-year-old Joseph Snarkles who is always polite to both the elderly and felines, is walking home when he is similarly struck by a car. Joseph, sadly, has no one to pray for him and therefore god either doesn’t notice or doesn’t care (take your pick) and Joseph dies.

I’m sure some will argue that I’m taking this too far to the extreme, and that god will only listen to prayers for the righteous. Fine. So, hypothetically, Joey Johnson and John Jetty lead identical, well-behaved lives, both are in car accidents, and end up in the hospital on the verge of death. Joey is rendered unconscious near his home and his relatives thus know of his injury and decide to pray for him (10 points for Joey!). John, on other hand, is hit away from his family, who don’t know of the danger he faces, and thus doesn’t pray for him (0 points for John). God notices Joey and heals him while god doesn’t notice John and he dies.

Is this still not close enough to reality?

How about, hypothetically*, there’s an AIDs crisis in Africa, leading to the death of around 6,000 people per day. God either doesn’t notice or doesn’t care (take your pick) until the Christian Leadership Development holds a five-day conference. Suddenly god notices/cares and cures AIDs (using another of his supposed omni-type powers). This sucks for the 6,000 people per day who died before the conference. However, the people after the conference feel pretty darn lucky. Apparently, to receive the benefits of god’s will, one just has to poke him in the side (via prayer) for a bit.

If a god did exist, and these were the rules he played by, I’d tell him to screw off. Prayers leading to any sort of influence of god’s actions to me feels like an antiquated popularity context, similar to paying the local priest for indulgences. It seems like the idealized version of divine influence (similar to the idealized version of politics) should be based on merit and need rather than prayer (or bribes).

Holding conferences to acquire divine influence is a waste of resources. It’s a waste of time. It’s a lack of planning. Praying, like hoping, is not planning. Teaching about safer sex is planning. Distributing condoms is planning. Funding medical research is planning. Praying is not planning; planning is planning.



* There is no HTML tag for sarcasm, so I had to resort to bold and italic

If life were like The Sims…

... I’d sell you these exciting, new, traditional-religious expansion packs:

(A quick note and semi-apology: yes, I was feeling particularly naughty and, yes, I agree that some of these are possibly outdated and certainly stereotypical things to write. Oh well. I do apologize. But I'm still going to post it.)


Catholic Version:
- New character: the Pope! (outfit options include a Nazi uniform)
- Birth control disabled
- A guilt meter! Keep your character’s guilt meter high enough or he’ll die!
- Historical feature: torture devices and large fires. Recreate your own Spanish Inquisition or declare your neighbors witches, burn them at the stake, and take their houses!
- Install this expansion pack with some Protestant expansion packs and your computer will crash

Protestant-Fundamentalist Version
- New character: Pat Robertson (specializes in wandering around the game, monitoring other characters’ sex lives and bragging about how many pounds he can bench press)
- Comes with a liquor store and a strip club, but characters have to ignore one another when they meet in either one
- Historical feature: gallows, used in a similar fashion as bonfires in Catholic version

Shaker Version:
- Sex disabled
- No one wants to play with you, due to feature one
- Only one character in the entire game, also due to feature one

Mormon Version:
- New character: Joseph Smith!
- Multiple wives feature, but only if you marry ‘em when they are 14 and don’t let them out of the house
- Historical feature: your characters will be regularly forced to flee whichever neighborhood they chose to inhabit

Zen Buddhist Version:
- Ships as an empty box. Don’t be alarmed or ask for your money back. Nothingness is the path to nirvana!

Jewish Version:
- Sports capabilities disabled
- All male characters must live with their mothers. Forever.
- Install this expansion with the Muslim expansion pack, and your computer will crash (Oy vey!)

Hindu Version:
- More gods than characters
- New object: a cow for every house
- Install this expansion with the Muslim expansion pack, and your computer will crash

Muslim Version:
- New Character: Mohamed (however, to avoid riots among other characters, this character is just a censored blob)
- Only one outfit/career option for women
- Install this expansion with the Hindu or Jewish expansion packs, and your computer will crash

Unitarian Universalist Version:
- Can’t decide which expansion pack to purchase? Buy all of the other expansion packs and be automatically upgraded to the UU version! We aim to please (everyone)!


Did I miss any?