Faith healing is murder

Here's an article on a couple who've been charged with third degree murder in the death of their baby, who died of pneumonia because they believed in "faith healing" rather than proper medical care. The kicker is that they were already on probation for a similar 2009 death of a child (the charge then was manslaughter). They are members of a church "teaches that healing comes from prayer and that reliance on medicine or doctors demonstrates a lack of faith in God."

The wife was released on bail, but the husband remains on jail, because the judge apparently bought the defense attorney's argument that the wife "was less culpable in her children's deaths because of church teachings that a wife must be 'submissive to her husband.'" Shouldn't law matter more than church doctrine? I think women should be held responsible for their misdeeds exactly as men should. Women are not children, and the law shouldn't treat them as such. Unless he was abusive, it's hard to justify this. But then again, we get into a sticky gray area, as I tend to think pretty much all religious belief that women should be "submissive to their husbands" equates to abuse-- emotional, if not physical.

The judge also justified his decision by saying that "I have to think about the welfare of these (seven remaining) children...These children have one mother and one father, and I don't think it's necessarily a good thing that for months, they have had virtually no contact with either parent."

Say what? I think it's a damn good thing, personally. These are people who are allowing their children to die. Calling it "faith healing" and trying to give it a glaze of respectability by labeling it religious doesn't justify it. The "welfare" of the children is best served by keeping the parents as far away from them as possible. If these people had allowed their children to die because they were busy watching a SyFy marathon of "Star Trek" and couldn't be bothered to take the kids to the doctor, would the judge have the same attitude? I suspect not. I doubt the mother would be out on jail, and I suspect (though I admit to not knowing anything about law) that the charges might have been tougher, too. I would certainly think letting a baby die should be more than "manslaughter."

We as a society need to stop letting this happen. I don't know how. At a minimum we need tougher penalties for parents, no second chances, and maybe some penalties for churches who teach this crap, too (could they be charged with fraud? could the pastor be charged as an accessory to murder?). At the very least, parents who've let a child die because of "faith healing" should not be allowed within a five-mile radius of their other children ever again.

A conservative Christian lexicon

A list of words and phrases co-opted by ultraconservatives that have happened to jump out at me lately. Snark warning. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, you keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean:

Marriage. Real marriage only involves one man and one woman. Gay "marriage" (notice the quotes) is, of course, not real marriage. The idea of gay "marriage" undercuts the true, God-given meaning of marriage and will eventually destroy our society and probably lead to the fiery destruction of the whole world as well.

Family. Two parents and as many children as God chooses to give them. Gay parents with children are very decidedly excluded from this definition. Any group with "family" in the title is properly outraged at depictions of sex in the media (though sexual content in the Bible is of course perfectly okay). It's not enough to shield your own children-- other people's kids need to be shielded as well, whether those kids' parents agree or not. (If those parents are okay with sexual content in books and on television, they're probably secular humanists, and their kids really need help anyway.)

Freedom of speech. The freedom (for conservatives) to say what one wants, without any limitations, and without pushback or argument from those who disagree. For example, Christians have the freedom (and indeed the obligation) to say gay sex is icky. No one else has the right to argue with them.

Religious freedom. The right to push one's religion on others, no matter the event or holiday. Since this is a Christian nation, this only applies to Christians (and of course only Bible-believing Christians count-- liberal Christians, Mormons, and other weirdos are not entitled to an opinion). Also, the right to freely discriminate against gays, interracial couples, or anyone who uses birth control. Again, no discussion or debate can be permitted, because any sort of argument unjustly undercuts this right. If I run a restaurant, for example, I have the unfettered freedom to deny service to gays because they're sinners, but no one has the right to boycott my restaurant to protest my actions. Summed up in the popular expression, "Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion," which means "I have the right to tell you about my religion, but you don't have the right to tell me about yours."

A life of rebellion. In which women go back to living as they did in the nineteenth century, eschew feminism, and accept that their best destiny is to stay home with the kids. Rebel, ladies, and do another load of laundry.

The homosexual agenda. Any acknowledgement that gay people exist. Articles that mention gay people, depictions of homosexuality in the media, and commercials that show happy, smiling gay people who don't appear to be going directly to Hell are all examples of this, and symptoms of the terrible decay of our society.

The liberal agenda. Similar to the above, except an acknowledgment that other yucky things exist as well-- for example, a Cheerios commercial depicting a happy interracial family. Also a symptom of cultural decay. Things were so much better in the fifties!

Purity. Accepting that once you have sex before marriage, you're like a filthy glass of water someone's spat into. Sex is dirty and bad and stomach-turning till your wedding night-- then you're going to love it. If you don't, tough.

Historical revisionism. The erroneous assertion that American history didn't revolve exclusively around Christians and Christianity, and that our Constitution is not based directly on the Ten Commandments. Also, an emphasis in historical studies on people of non-European descent-- people whom everyone knows had no real effect on our history whatsoever. And finally, also the deliberate attempt by liberals to recast Christian founding fathers as deists and Enlightenment thinkers, rather than Biblical literalists.

God and genocide

During the last week of school, my high schooler and middle schooler both had units on genocide. (I remember when the last week of school was mostly relaxing, watching videos, and having pizza parties. Studying genocide seems like an odd way to round off the year. But I digress.)  I asked them if genocide could ever be a good thing.

They both looked rather horrified at the question, and answered, "Of course not."

"So," I said, "did God ever commit genocide?"

This led into a discussion of genocide in the Bible-- the Flood came readily to their minds, but we touched on the Hebrews' trip to the Promised Land, too, and all the peoples they supposedly killed off along the way with God's blessing and encouragement. We talked about how bad God's supposed behavior was, and how a god worth worshipping couldn't possibly commit genocide.

Back when I was a Lutheran, I had to try to explain Biblical stories like the Flood and the Plagues to my kids. But I never managed to explain satisfactorily, to them or to myself, how a merciful and loving God could do such things. As a liberal Christian, I eventually concluded these stories probably weren't literally true, because those actions were so clearly not the actions of a good entity. I figured the people back in Old Testament times just didn't have a clear grasp on the nature of God, and thus attributed things to him that really weren't his fault. (You don't have to be a mythology expert to perceive that less scientifically sophisticated peoples tended to attribute every bad aspect of nature, from winter to floods to volcanoes, to the actions of deities.) I also had to assure myself no one could possibly actually go to hell, because an eternity of suffering as a punishment for a relatively very brief life didn't make any sense to me either.

The problem, as I've said before, is that once you throw out all the cruelty and horror from the Bible, there's really not much left to believe in. What really astounds me is that people can believe in the literal truth of the Bible-- from casting two virtually newborn people out into the harsh world, unarmed and helpless; to drowning almost the entire population; to God's "chosen people" moving across a land, murdering and raping anyone they come across; to God in his "love and mercy" throwing hapless souls into hell for an eternity of burning in agony-- and still somehow imagine that God is worthy of worship.

Texas' "Merry Christmas" law

This article states that Texas Governor Rick Perry just signed the "Merry Christmas" bill into law. The law "removes legal risks of saying 'Merry Christmas' in (public) schools while also protecting traditional holiday symbols, such as a menorah or nativity scene, so long as more than one religion and a secular symbol are also reflected." This article clarifies that the law says "a school district may educate students about the history of traditional winter celebrations, and allow students and district staff to offer traditional greetings regarding the celebrations, including 'Merry Christmas,' 'Happy Hanukkah,' and 'happy holidays.'" Perry was quoted as saying, "Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion," a popular conservative line that apparently means "religious freedom means we ought to be free to shove our religion down other people's throats as often as possible."

This seems to be yet another law that feeds the Christian persecution complex by "legalizing" stuff that isn't illegal anyway, as Friendly Atheist pointed out way back in December of last year, when the law was first proposed. As far as I know, school districts have always been able to teach kids about the "history of traditional winter celebrations." History is fine-- the real issue is proselytizing, and, the big problem is that this sort of history often emphasizes Christmas and its religious aspects at the expense of other celebrations. (I saw no mention of Yule or Kwanzaa in either article, though for all I know they could be mentioned in the law itself.) The fact that it's being called the "Merry Christmas" bill does not bode well for Texas' commitment to teaching about "traditional winter celebrations" other than Christmas. (Nor does the fact that the Kountze High School cheerleaders were invited to the signing, and Perry reportedly said the law was for believers like them.)

I'm not a fan of the idea that nativity scenes are okay on public property "so long as more than one religion and a secular symbol are also reflected," but it does seem to follow the current rulings laid out by the courts, and FFRF seems to be generally okay with displays along these lines, more as a compromise than as an ideal. But as Friendly Atheist pointed out, unless the law clearly states that these displays must be equal in size and prominence, then you could have a ten-foot Nativity scene with a tiny little two-inch menorah and a half-inch secular symbol, and that would presumably be okay under this law-- but not, I would think, under any sensible court's ruling.

And I haven't heard of teachers being sued for saying "Merry Christmas." I do wonder if they will be discouraged (subtly or otherwise) from saying "Happy Yule" or "Happy Kwanzaa," though. Alas, Texas is not generally known for its tolerance of other belief systems. Buried down in the Fox News article is this revealing tidbit about Texas lawmakers:

During the last Sunday of the legislative session on May 26, Rep. Donna Howard, an Austin Democrat, gave the Texas House's daily prayer. 

"We are fortunate to live in a country where we have the freedom to exercise the religion of our choosing while also being free from having any religion imposed upon us," said Howard, herself a Unitarian Universalist. 

Her words prompted some conservative lawmakers to hold their own, separate prayer session moments later.

If Texas lawmakers can't bear to even listen to a Unitarian prayer extolling religious freedom without holding another prayer session moments later, they're not exactly models of tolerance toward different religions, are they?

Southern Baptists and Scouting

The Southern Baptist convention meets this week, and is widely expected to present a resolution against supporting the Boy Scouts. Many Scout troops, of course, have been sponsored by Southern Baptist churches, so this will be a blow to the Scouts. One church in Georgia has already decided to stop sponsoring a troop it has sponsored for thirteen years, and its pastor explains that "that the problem with the new policy is not that it would allow gay Scouts, but that it would not allow Scout masters to counsel those Scouts to 'live a life of sexual purity according to Scripture.'" The new policy "'condones homosexuality as being consistent with the Scout oath of duty to God and moral uprightness.'"

Yeah, I can see the problem. No doubt these kids would be far better off being told they're immoral pondscum for being gay, and would benefit by having authority figures try to push them into a life of lonely abstinence. Sadly, they're being deprived of this wonderful and uplifting message, and are being told they're just fine the way they are instead. What a terrible thing to do to children *rolls eyes*.

Another valedictorian, another outcome

From Friendly Atheist. A valedictorian in Texas, probably inspired by Roy Costner, began to deviate from his preapproved speech and had his microphone turned off as a result. He apparently began to talk about "freedom of speech" as well as God, Jesus and his religious faith. The school says that the decision to cut off the mike had nothing to do with the religious content of his speech, as "other students were allowed to make religious comments which had been pre-approved." They were also all warned in advance that if they deviated from the pre-approved speech, the mic would be cut, as his was.

Judging from the things he said, this young man seems to feel that the pre-approval of speeches constitutes a violation of his right to freedom of speech. He said, "I worked hard to earn the right to address you all tonight as valedictorian and have the constitutional right, like any of you, to freely speak." But that's not really the case, is it? Valedictorians don't have a free and unlimited right to use their moment in the spotlight for anything they want to discuss, and never have. No reasonable person would support the right of a valedictorian to lecture for ten minutes on her theory that the Holocaust never happened, or to talk about how great he thought Fast and Furious 6 was, or to discuss the care and breeding of Australian Cattle Dogs. Nor would any reasonable person agree that a valedictorian should have the right to harangue the audience for three hours on any subject. The right to speech in this case is granted and limited by the school, and that's as it should be, or kids could get up on stage and derail the graduation ceremony with any craziness that came to mind.

So yes, of course this young man has a right to freedom of speech in general. He can go around praising Jesus all day long on the streets of his town, if he likes. But the school has a right, and in fact a responsibility, to limit the length and content of valedictory speeches and ensure that they are appropriate to the occasion. "Freedom of speech" isn't really the issue here, as it's not unreasonable for the school to ask its speakers to abide by certain rules, up to and including pre-approving the speech for length and content. If you want to talk at length about Jesus, or give a two-hour lecture on how to breed Australian Cattle Dogs, or whatever, you are free to do it on your own time.

In this case, as the school had no way of knowing what the young man would say, and as he'd been warned in advance that he needed to stick to his pre-approved speech, it was entirely reasonable of them to cut the microphone.

Challenges to remaining Christian, and why I didn't

Daylight Atheist lists the "biggest challenges to remaining Christian," as compiled by evangelical blogger Peter Enns. The points are listed here, in bold and italics, and my own thoughts follow. As I was a liberal Christian, not a fundamentalist one, some of these had more of an effect on my long, slow deconversion than others:

1.The Bible, namely inerrancy. This was less of a problem for me than it would have been for an evangelical, as I never believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. When I was a child, my Episcopalian mother, who had also been an English teacher at the local college, would often rant that the creation story was clearly intended as a metaphor, and would complain that fundamentalists "had no sense of poetry." When I became a Lutheran as an adult, believing in the literal truth of the Bible from beginning to end would have been way too much for me to swallow. Fortunately most ELCA Lutherans don't believe this anyway. I did have some issues, though-- as I've said elsewhere, the difficulties of trying to explain to my oldest child why I took some parts of the Bible as literal truth and not others eventually caused me to admit that there was no real logic in my position. In some ways it may be simpler to be a Biblical literalist-- "this is all the perfect, inerrant Word of God" may be an easier logical position to defend than, "Some of this is just stories told by unsophisticated Bronze Age nomads, but some of it is Absolute Truth." Either way, it can be a stumbling block for anyone who allows logic to override their faith.

2. The conflict between the biblical view of the world and scientific models. Again, never a huge issue for me, as I never took the Bible to be literal, and never believed in a 6000-year-old universe or a real worldwide flood or anything like that. I did find myself with a logical problem when it came to evolution, though. If evolution is really directed entirely by random natural selection, then God could have had nothing to do with the development of the world at all (save possibly to put it in motion, as deists believe). If God directed natural selection, on the other hand, then the evolutionary theory was in fact flat-out wrong, as it wasn't random at all. In short, I found it impossible to reconcile natural selection with the idea that God had designed this world, and humanity, deliberately. Also, it became more and more obvious to me that humans could have had very little to do with the world's existence, since we showed up many billions of years after it was created. This suggested that humans were not high on God's to-do list, if he even existed.

3. Where is God? A number of you, largely in emails, wrote of personal experiences that would tax to the breaking point anyone’s faith in a living God who is just, attentive, and loving. This was the big one for me. As my husband lay dying of cancer in the hospital, my pastor tried valiantly to explain to me why a decent, kind, gentle man with four small children would be stricken by cancer at a young age. "Original sin" and "the Garden of Eden" was the best he could do, none of which made any sense to me. First of all, no Lutheran I knew believed in the literal truth of the Garden of Eden. But assuming he was speaking metaphorically, and merely meant the general sinfulness humans are prone to, that still didn't explain why God would strike down this particular human. If it wasn't God's hand at work directly, then where was God? Why didn't he intervene? What had my good, hard-working, church-attending husband ever done to deserve a slow and painful death by cancer, any more than anyone else did? The obvious answer was that he didn't deserve it, and the realization that it was simply random chance eventually helped me make sense of it all, far more than belief in God's supposed plan for our lives did.

4. How Christians behave. It bothers me now, but it didn't bother me much then. I had a lovely church community that helped me through my husband's death, and they were all pretty nice people. I rolled my eyes at the fundamentalist ideas I read about, but thought of them as a small, radical fringe group without much real effect on politics. I am more aware of their influence on public policy now, and it worries me, but it had no particular effect on my own deconversion because I honestly wasn't paying enough attention.

5. The exclusivism of Christianity. As a liberal Christian, I worked my way around this one. I never wanted to think that nonbelievers were going to hell, nor did I like to imagine that the presumably merciful God of Christianity would allow it. I felt that the assurance that "with God all things are possible" meant that everyone would be saved in the end. After all, "for God so loved the world that he gave his only son..." so naturally if he loved the world that much, everyone had to wind up in Heaven in the end. Again my teenaged daughter came to the rescue by pointing out it was Jesus  himself who said those who didn't believe in him would go to hell (which he repeatedly describes as a place of fire and torment), and if I didn't take Jesus' words literally, what did I actually believe, anyway? I eventually concluded that the answer to that question was, "Not much."