In this Fox News article, valedictorian Roy Costner IV is quoted as saying he spoke the Lord's prayer at his high school graduation because "I want this to glorify God. I want to use this as a witnessing tool and I hope others will stand up for God in our nation."
Is a graduation really the appropriate place for a "witnessing tool"? I think this is the most annoying thing about this trend of insisting upon uttering public prayers everywhere-- "witnessing" takes away from the event itself. A graduation should be about, you know, graduation. It's a ceremony to celebrate young people's achievements, and to rejoice that they're moving on to adulthood. Why must prayers be inflicted on a captive audience that way? No one is telling anyone they can't pray before and afterward with their family-- I'm sure plenty of kids and their families do. But why force everyone to listen? It may not be unconstitutional (it probably isn't, if it's genuinely student-led), but it's rude.
People like this seem to have a hard time understanding just why it's rude, probably because Christianity is the dominant religion in America (and especially in small towns), and Christians tend to assume that everyone else is Christian too. But imagine a Wiccan valedictorian getting up in front of a large crowd and reciting the Long Rede, or a Muslim student quoting extensively from the Koran. It's hard to imagine there would be cheering, and it's easy enough to imagine that there might be a coldly disappproving silence punctuated with booing and hissing, and that some people might actually walk out. It's also easy to imagine that the school administrators wouldn't just quietly sit there and ignore the incident. Security could be called to escort the student off stage, and there might be repercussions afterward as well.
In this scenario, it's unlikely that students would be publicly praising the valedictorian for his or her courage, and parents and the school administration would probably be scrambling to make sure it never happened again. And I wouldn't blame them. A graduation isn't the place for proselytizing-- it makes the event all about the proselytizer, rather than the kids who are graduating. If you want to "glorify God," there are plenty of opportunities to do it on your own time. You don't need to take away from everyone else's moment (and coincidentally make a media star of yourself) to do it.
If only Christians could understand that people of other beliefs are just as uncomfortable about having Christian prayers shoved in their faces as Christians would be if forced to sit through Wiccan or Muslim prayers, America might be a better place. Let's hope that other kids won't be inspired to "stand up for God" in this fashion, and that most graduations continue to focus on the graduates, rather than on "glorifying" God.
Friday, June 7, 2013
I don't call that a "tussle"
On Fox News, I saw the following headline: RELIGIOUS TUSSLE: Atheist Display to Rival 10 Commandments at Court. I was immediately concerned that the agreement to display an atheist monument alongside the Ten Commandments monument in Bradford County, FL must have hit a snag.
But no, when I clicked on the link, it was just a rundown on the atheist monument that will be erected there, with this rather nice conclusion:
"The Community Men's Fellowship, the group that erected the Ten Commandments display, made a Facebook post in March that thanked those who supported the monument and stated, 'God worked this out...We want you all to remember that this issue was won on the basis of this being a free speech issue, so don't be alarmed when the American Atheists want to erect their own sign or monument. It's their right. As for us, we will continue to honor the Lord and that's what matters,' the post read."
There was, of course, a bit of a "tussle" in the past, but a reasonable solution has been reached (though I join a lot of atheists in preferring no monuments of a religious nature on public land rather than a clutter of varied religious/secular monuments), and the Community Men's Fellowship are being good sports about it. Good for them.
But no, when I clicked on the link, it was just a rundown on the atheist monument that will be erected there, with this rather nice conclusion:
"The Community Men's Fellowship, the group that erected the Ten Commandments display, made a Facebook post in March that thanked those who supported the monument and stated, 'God worked this out...We want you all to remember that this issue was won on the basis of this being a free speech issue, so don't be alarmed when the American Atheists want to erect their own sign or monument. It's their right. As for us, we will continue to honor the Lord and that's what matters,' the post read."
There was, of course, a bit of a "tussle" in the past, but a reasonable solution has been reached (though I join a lot of atheists in preferring no monuments of a religious nature on public land rather than a clutter of varied religious/secular monuments), and the Community Men's Fellowship are being good sports about it. Good for them.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
"Supporters of religious freedom"
Buried in this AP article on a same-sex couple suing a bakery which wouldn't sell them a wedding cake is this sentence:
As more states move to legalize same-sex marriage and civil unions, the case highlights a growing tension between gay rights advocates and supporters of religious freedom.
Um, that's kind of a loaded phrase there, isn't it? "Supporters of religious freedom" makes bigotry sound dignified, almost noble, as if the bakery is courageously standing up for a brave and just cause. Apparently these people aren't bigots; they're merely supporting religious freedom-- and who in America could possibly be against that? Furthermore, the whole sentence seems to suggest that "gay rights advocates" and "supporters of religious freedom" are two discrete and distinct groups, like two circles in a Venn diagram with no overlap. Is it impossible to want gay rights and religious freedom? Does supporting one require trashing the other? Or is there a false dichotomy being hinted at here?
Mark Silverstein of the ACLU points out the problem with this in the next paragraph: "We are all entitled to our religious beliefs and we fight for that. But someone's personal religious beliefs don't justify breaking the law by discriminating against others in the public sphere."
Exactly. If this bakery claimed their religion prohibited them from selling a wedding cake to an interracial couple, would the AP still characterize them as "supporters of religious freedom"? Somehow I doubt it. But in this case, the AP seems to have swallowed and regurgitated the phrase without analysis or thought, which is unfortunate.
Um, that's kind of a loaded phrase there, isn't it? "Supporters of religious freedom" makes bigotry sound dignified, almost noble, as if the bakery is courageously standing up for a brave and just cause. Apparently these people aren't bigots; they're merely supporting religious freedom-- and who in America could possibly be against that? Furthermore, the whole sentence seems to suggest that "gay rights advocates" and "supporters of religious freedom" are two discrete and distinct groups, like two circles in a Venn diagram with no overlap. Is it impossible to want gay rights and religious freedom? Does supporting one require trashing the other? Or is there a false dichotomy being hinted at here?
Mark Silverstein of the ACLU points out the problem with this in the next paragraph: "We are all entitled to our religious beliefs and we fight for that. But someone's personal religious beliefs don't justify breaking the law by discriminating against others in the public sphere."
Exactly. If this bakery claimed their religion prohibited them from selling a wedding cake to an interracial couple, would the AP still characterize them as "supporters of religious freedom"? Somehow I doubt it. But in this case, the AP seems to have swallowed and regurgitated the phrase without analysis or thought, which is unfortunate.
He has received his reward in full
Remember the South Carolina high school student who tore up his pre-approved speech and instead offered up the Lord's Prayer in his valedictory speech? Here's another article on him on CNN. He's quoted as saying, "I wanted to stand up for God. This is what God wanted me to do," and added, "Taking prayer out of schools is the worst thing we could do."
The FFRF disagrees, and calls what he did "unconstitutional" (highly debatable, in my opinion) as well as "aggressive" and "supremely rude" (no argument here). Students in his class (who are apparently mostly Christian) applauded him and said what he did "took a lot of courage."
The article is preceded by this note: The valedictorian's father, Roy Costner III, appears on "Piers Morgan Live" at 9 ET tonight. His son, Roy Costner IV, appears on CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin at 2 p.m. ET Friday on CNN. The article adds that the younger Costner was "bouncing between interviews and heading to New York for TV appearances." His "courage" has apparently made him famous.
I keep remembering Matthew 6:5 (which directly precedes the Lord's Prayer in the Bible), and chuckling over the irony of it: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full."
Is this really the reward Jesus had in mind?
The FFRF disagrees, and calls what he did "unconstitutional" (highly debatable, in my opinion) as well as "aggressive" and "supremely rude" (no argument here). Students in his class (who are apparently mostly Christian) applauded him and said what he did "took a lot of courage."
The article is preceded by this note: The valedictorian's father, Roy Costner III, appears on "Piers Morgan Live" at 9 ET tonight. His son, Roy Costner IV, appears on CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin at 2 p.m. ET Friday on CNN. The article adds that the younger Costner was "bouncing between interviews and heading to New York for TV appearances." His "courage" has apparently made him famous.
I keep remembering Matthew 6:5 (which directly precedes the Lord's Prayer in the Bible), and chuckling over the irony of it: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full."
Is this really the reward Jesus had in mind?
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Abortion and "personhood" legislation
According to this, the unfortunate woman from El Salvador who was forced to go through with her pregnancy despite life-threatening problems delivered the baby (which had no brain) by c-section today. She seems to be stable, though in intensive care, and hopefully she'll be all right. The baby, of course, died five hours after delivery.
Down in the article is buried a very good point that's relevant to the US, and those who seek to pass "personhood" legislation. The Health Minister in El Salvador said: "There are cases of girls that come with ectopic pregnancies and they are left to bleed to death because here it's not allowed to terminate the pregnancy."
An ectopic pregnancy involves the implantation of an embryo in the wrong place in the body, and that would certainly constitute a "person" under "fetal personhood" legislation, which seeks to put fertilized eggs and already-born humans on the same legal footing. According to Wikipedia, about one percent of pregnancies are ectopic (most of those implant in the Fallopian tubes). What is to be done about such pregnancies if the embryo is designated a "person" with independent rights? Will women just be forced to bleed to death? Wikipedia says that in developing countries, "ectopic pregnancies are a major cause of death among women of childbearing age." If we make it impossible for doctors to treat ectopic pregnancies, it seems inevitable that they'll become a major cause of death here, too.
Down in the article is buried a very good point that's relevant to the US, and those who seek to pass "personhood" legislation. The Health Minister in El Salvador said: "There are cases of girls that come with ectopic pregnancies and they are left to bleed to death because here it's not allowed to terminate the pregnancy."
An ectopic pregnancy involves the implantation of an embryo in the wrong place in the body, and that would certainly constitute a "person" under "fetal personhood" legislation, which seeks to put fertilized eggs and already-born humans on the same legal footing. According to Wikipedia, about one percent of pregnancies are ectopic (most of those implant in the Fallopian tubes). What is to be done about such pregnancies if the embryo is designated a "person" with independent rights? Will women just be forced to bleed to death? Wikipedia says that in developing countries, "ectopic pregnancies are a major cause of death among women of childbearing age." If we make it impossible for doctors to treat ectopic pregnancies, it seems inevitable that they'll become a major cause of death here, too.
The myth of the resurrection
Christianity is built around the concept of Jesus' resurrection. Jesus famously said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die".
You could, of course, argue that conservative Christianity is especially dependent on this concept. If Jesus' body were found tomorrow, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he'd never risen from the dead, liberal Christians (who don't worry too hard about the literal truth of the Bible anyway) would probably say, "Yes, but he lived a great life and taught us so many wonderful things!" But really, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, the whole religion crumbles and becomes meaningless, because Jesus' supposed sacrifice of death and his triumphant resurrection is at the heart of Christianity. As a Lutheran, I used to recite the Apostles' Creed every week, including these words (this is from the "green book," the LBW, which does not quite match the current version listed on the ELCA website):
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
How exactly does a "resurrection" happen? Well, the Bible tells us that Jesus was dead-- not in a coma, not in shock, but stone dead-- and yet when the tomb was opened days later, he was quite alive. Is this possible? Of course not. By that time, Jesus would have been well and truly brain dead. Wikipedia defines "brain death" thusly: the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation.
Notice the term "irreversible" in there. I'm no doctor, but if you don't breathe, your brain stops getting oxygen, the neurons stop functioning, and within four to six minutes your brain will no longer be of any use. After two days, fairly substantial decomposition of the body would have set in (don't follow the link if you don't want to know the gross details). In short, poisons build up inside you and your cells begin dissolving from the inside out, and after two days of death the rest of your body wouldn't be of much use to you either. The people of that time understood this clearly; when Jesus asks for the stone to be rolled away from Lazarus' tomb, his sister objects, "But, Lord, by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days."
So for Jesus to be resurrected, God would have to reverse the decay of the body, repairing all those cells that were already destroyed internally, and to restore functioning to long-dead neurons as well. How did he do this? How could he have done this? Saying "it was a miracle" is inadequate. It defies everything we know about medical science and the body. It simply can't be done. A two-day-old corpse is very, very dead, and can't be reanimated.
So why do we pretend this is a reasonable tenet of the Christian faith, when it's clearly absurd? Why do we even admit that it might be a possibility, when it is so clearly not? It's a myth, no more likely to be the truth that the birth of Athena from the splitting of Zeus' skull, and as such it doesn't really deserve to be danced around and given tacit acceptance as a reasonable idea. As Robert A. Heinlein rather unkindly put it: "'But you must respect another man's religious beliefs!' For Heaven's sake, why? Stupid is stupid--faith doesn't make it smart."
I will say I'm not quite as bluntly rude as Heinlein was. If people want to believe in silly things, that's their prerogative. I believed them myself for a while, and I know that reasonable people can believe unreasonable things. But when people come proselytizing to my door, or ridiculous beliefs become the basis for public policy, I don't have a problem with pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, and that Jesus cannot possibly have been resurrected from the dead. Why pretend it's a reasonable belief, when it's not?
You could, of course, argue that conservative Christianity is especially dependent on this concept. If Jesus' body were found tomorrow, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he'd never risen from the dead, liberal Christians (who don't worry too hard about the literal truth of the Bible anyway) would probably say, "Yes, but he lived a great life and taught us so many wonderful things!" But really, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, the whole religion crumbles and becomes meaningless, because Jesus' supposed sacrifice of death and his triumphant resurrection is at the heart of Christianity. As a Lutheran, I used to recite the Apostles' Creed every week, including these words (this is from the "green book," the LBW, which does not quite match the current version listed on the ELCA website):
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
How exactly does a "resurrection" happen? Well, the Bible tells us that Jesus was dead-- not in a coma, not in shock, but stone dead-- and yet when the tomb was opened days later, he was quite alive. Is this possible? Of course not. By that time, Jesus would have been well and truly brain dead. Wikipedia defines "brain death" thusly: the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation.
Notice the term "irreversible" in there. I'm no doctor, but if you don't breathe, your brain stops getting oxygen, the neurons stop functioning, and within four to six minutes your brain will no longer be of any use. After two days, fairly substantial decomposition of the body would have set in (don't follow the link if you don't want to know the gross details). In short, poisons build up inside you and your cells begin dissolving from the inside out, and after two days of death the rest of your body wouldn't be of much use to you either. The people of that time understood this clearly; when Jesus asks for the stone to be rolled away from Lazarus' tomb, his sister objects, "But, Lord, by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days."
So for Jesus to be resurrected, God would have to reverse the decay of the body, repairing all those cells that were already destroyed internally, and to restore functioning to long-dead neurons as well. How did he do this? How could he have done this? Saying "it was a miracle" is inadequate. It defies everything we know about medical science and the body. It simply can't be done. A two-day-old corpse is very, very dead, and can't be reanimated.
So why do we pretend this is a reasonable tenet of the Christian faith, when it's clearly absurd? Why do we even admit that it might be a possibility, when it is so clearly not? It's a myth, no more likely to be the truth that the birth of Athena from the splitting of Zeus' skull, and as such it doesn't really deserve to be danced around and given tacit acceptance as a reasonable idea. As Robert A. Heinlein rather unkindly put it: "'But you must respect another man's religious beliefs!' For Heaven's sake, why? Stupid is stupid--faith doesn't make it smart."
I will say I'm not quite as bluntly rude as Heinlein was. If people want to believe in silly things, that's their prerogative. I believed them myself for a while, and I know that reasonable people can believe unreasonable things. But when people come proselytizing to my door, or ridiculous beliefs become the basis for public policy, I don't have a problem with pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, and that Jesus cannot possibly have been resurrected from the dead. Why pretend it's a reasonable belief, when it's not?
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Religion, or insanity?
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Here's an article about a man who beat his two-year-old daughter to death (in a room littered with Bibles and "other religious literature"), supposedly in an effort to exorcise a demon he thought had entered her. He also stated that a "bad spirit" had entered him. The court apparently didn't accept either of these explanations, and sentenced him to over twenty years in prison, and deportation after he serves his time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)