The Curious Case of LH

I have a woman who emails me regularly, though I'm not sure if she realizes she's doing it. From what I can tell, she's kind of my antithesis. She's talked about vacations, stocks, and her home enough for me to guess she's in a higher tax bracket than me and she's mentioned some other things in her emails that has led me to think of her as an older woman, possibly someone whose use of the internet came late in life and really only deals with email and possibly recipe and craft sites, but certainly not work. I am making a few assumptions here, but I'm trying to paint a portrait of her for you without getting too personal, since like I said, I don't think she's aware that she keeps emailing me. One of the main reasons I assume she's not terribly familiar with using the internet is because she 1 - sends those awful chain emails that everyone in their right mind knows are annoying, a waste of time, and a source of aggravation for the majority of people out there and 2 - I keep telling her she's emailing me by mistake, but she never seems to understand how that might be or how to stop.

Someone in her life, presumably from what I've read her daughter, has almost the same name and email address as me except there's an 'a' instead of an 'e' in her last name. I've emailed LH as well as BL to let them both know that I keep getting emails meant for someone else, emails dripping with prayers and mentions of God and tea party politics, misinformation and snarky comments about Obama (which is especially annoying since there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be less than enchanted with our current president) and everything else one would expect from a typical middle to upper class religious American.

In one email, she perpetuated the idea that America ought to be run the way Wal Mart is run - after all, they have a ton of money and are really successful, right? In another email, she evidently agreed with the sentiments that illegal immigrants are the single worst issue in America - and that democrats would rather protect the rights of an illegal than the rights of a poor, defenseless fetus.

Riiiight. Pretty awesome stuff.

This latest email is a chain email, one of those 'send this to 12 people in 12 minutes or your tits will fall off' affairs, but instead of tits falling off, this was a chain letter to prove your love of God.

What? No! No self respecting religious person would trivialize their relationship with the Most Important Person In Existence by making Him/Her/It the focus of a lousy internet chain letter, would they? Oh you know they would.

Just 27 Words:

God our Father, walk through my house and take away all my worries and illnesses and please watch over and heal my family in Jesus name, Amen.

This prayer is so powerful. Pass this to 12 people including me. A blessing is coming to you in form of a new job, a house, marriage or financially. Do not break or ask questions.

This is a test. Does God come first in your life? If so, stop what you're doing & send it to 12 people now. Watch what he does!

My main concern through all of this is the fact that LH only sent this to 8 people. Looks like someone needs to find 4 more people to send this shit to so her god, who has evidently taken to testing people via internet memes these days, knows she puts him first in her life and she can get that sweet sweet blessing! Ching!

Also, I bet Job is pissed.

The National Day of Prayer

Today is the National Day of Prayer. Even though government endorsement of the NDOP was recently ruled unconstitutional, it is still being observed nationwide. If you're a New Yorker, you may have seen this lovely add in the New York Times from the FFRF which explains exactly why the NDOP is unconstitutional:

Religious people who dislike the non religiousness of non religious people seem to delight in the NDOP as a kind of 'suck it, atheists' badge of honor. I had a friend call my fiancée today to antagonistically wish him a Happy Day of Prayer today and I chuckled. I'm not humorless about it and I don't feel oppressed or offended by the whole NDOP thing, to be honest. However, I do think that the NDOP is unconstitutional and if it were abolished, I think it would be better for our nation as a whole, simply because once you start making allowances for any group's beliefs to be preferred over another within a government, you're playing a dangerous game that could potentially get out of hand rather quickly.

I don't FEEL oppressed, but it is a form of oppression for a government to recognize one belief over all others. I don't FEEL offended, but I understand people who do and I'm not about to say that they're being too sensitive or asking too much to be given the same recognition by the government as those who pray. In fact, the only time I do feel negatively in regard to the NDOP is when a religious person tells me I have no reason to be annoyed by it, that I should just shut up about it and am not entitled to an opinion regarding it, or that normal people pray (otherwise it wouldn't be a nationally recognized day, after all) and I'm somehow messed up because I don't.

Barring any of that specific stupidity being tossed my way, my personal reaction to the NDOP is that I hope all you theists in the USA appreciate your privilege. I hope you can at least recognize the fact that your beliefs are being respected a bit more than mine, that our government sees your belief as just a bit more worthy of recognition, and I hope in realizing this is the case, you'll see why the NDOP might mean little to nothing to you, but it means a whole lot more to those people who still pay taxes and are citizens of this nation, but don't pray. I hope you appreciate being regarded as a little more important while holding no distinction from me besides believing in a god who listens to you when you feel inclined to thank it, beg it for something, or whatever your prayers might contain.

Anyway, I do hope everyone who is inclined prayed to their hearts content today. Now tomorrow, why not go out and actually do something productive?

Jesus In Lodi, California

In Lodi, California there has been a controversy brewing ever since a secular minded individual questioned the council's prayer before the meeting began which specifically invoked Jesus. The council had a pre-existing policy which limits prayer to non-sectarian and non-denominational.

On Wednesday of this week the council voted to move the meeting regarding this issue back to September 30th but that didn't stop the protesters, the majority of which were Christian, from coming out of the woodwork to voice their concerns.

Out of about 400 people marching outside the council meeting, 300 - 350 were members of various christian faiths who had converged to voice their outrage at what they misguidedly cited as the reduction of christian freedoms in America:

While holding a sign quoting Colossians 3:17, Lodi resident Angela Lopez said she is tired of freedom being taken away from Christians.

Where do I start? The issue is about a pre-existing rule regarding prayer which was put in place to assure that no citizen was excluded - christian or otherwise. It would seem that these people feel that being fair to everyone is somehow taking away christian freedoms, but it's not. It's just being fair.

"It's becoming harder and harder for the Christians. ... It's only because we support God that our country is as blessed as it is," Lopez said.

Her son, Eddie, also held a sign and a Bible.

"I came just to support Jesus," Eddie Lopez said. "Just for him to know I was here to support him."

Ms. Lopez's statement is a common one among christians - we made this country great, we should be able to pray to Jesus no matter what. It's the 'you owe us' mentality but the problem is, it doesn't hold up. I would argue that the stregnth of the constitution - a secular document written in large by non christians - has had a large hand in why this country is as 'blessed' as it is. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, it should be noted that the 'god did it' position is based entirely on faith and factless belief while my position is entirely based on historical evidence, though I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that evidence isn't held in very high regard by these kinds of people.

Also in regard to Eddie, I have to ask - would your jesus really be so petty as to care about this issue? I don't think so, and a few local pastors in the area have been quoted as agreeing with me:

While standing between the two rallies, senior pastor Tim Stevenson of Horizon Community Church in Galt said he came to watch and listen.

"God's pretty big," he said. "I don't think he needs us to defend his name."

He wishes the energy spent by both groups at the rally could go toward bigger problems facing Lodi and the world, like the people standing in front of Salvation Army or the thousands of children who die daily from preventable diseases.

"There are too many things around the world that God told us to go out and do," Stevenson said. "We got our priorities in the wrong place."

Though in attendace as a minority, there were voices of reason at the rallies, people who came to point out the obvious to the christians who are evidently too concerned about their particular god getting first billing to do the christian thing and consider the position of others.

As the Lopez's gathered to sing prayer hymns, Lodi resident Steve Weiner said he wanted to make sure the council knew there were two sides to this issue.

"We have Muslims, Sikhs, atheists and people of various faiths, and they can feel excluded and intimidated at council meetings if there is a prayer to one God, Jesus," Weiner said.

And this is the whole issue isn't it? There is no such thing as a completely christian town and regardless of the size of the minority, the majority should never be given special privileges simply because they are a majority. The United States is not a democracy but rather a democratic republic - it is justice and representation for all, not just for the group with the most participants. When you have people who can't stand to hear a prayer without aggressively inserting their personal deity's name -

At the end, he said "Amen," which was followed by some members of the crowd yelling "in Jesus' name." During the Pledge of Allegiance, some members also shouted the words "one nation under God."

Then the question in my mind isn't why you can't say jesus in a prayer, but rather what about your faith is so weak that you have to force jesus into every prayer?

Why There Is No Excuse For Child Faith Healing Deaths

I have been closely following the slew of bizarre stories involving child deaths whose parents chose to leave their children's lives in the hands of faith healers and/or the healing power of a perceived god rather than seeking out medical attention for their dying offspring.

Let me start by saying: I have a lot of compassion for these people. It seems to me that they really feel that they are doing the right thing by leaving their kid's fate in the hands of their god. As a parent I can't imagine purposefully denying my child medical treatment even in the event of minor accidents and sicknesses, but I have never had faith either and so I feel that saying these people are completely horrible isn't fair. Maybe it is, I don't know them personally, but I feel like given that I don't know them personally and given what I've read about them, they seemed to love their children the best way they knew how. They seemed to sincerely believe that a physical life on earth was less important than an immortal afterlife and one of the ways they could assure their kids this afterlife was by being what they felt were true Christians.

This is where my compassion quickly sours and falls into rapid decay. You have to ask the question - when the choice to take the child to the doctor is in the parent's hands regardless, is the action of choosing faith in god over proven and accessible medical attention a selfless act for the sake of the child or a selfish act in regard to the parents? More and more I'm inclined to believe that these parents were far less concerned with their children's mortal OR immortal lives and far more focused on proving themselves pious and unquestioning followers to their god - even at the cost of their kid's life. It makes sense that the christian god would ask this of them, according to the bible he's done it before.

I also have to wonder if an action which results in the death of a child can in any way be considered excusable, even when you factor in intent. These parents didn't murder their kids with any malicious intent, but they did stand aside praying while they watched their kids die. I can't reconcile the difference enough in a way that would continue to honor the importance of the child's life.

This makes me feel angry, bitter, upset. Especially when you consider that the woman of one of the dead kids is already pregnant with another child. I find myself hoping for the child's sake that he or she isn't born with any kind of physical abnormality or ever happens to suffer from an ear infection or urinary tract infection. Thankfully in this case the judge has made a strict requirement of the parents that they provide evidence of medical treatment for the not yet born child, both routine and otherwise. I don't feel like that's good enough, but at the same time I don't know what a sensible alternative would be beyond throwing the lot of them in prison until the woman grows old and unable to bear children. This is an emotional response and not a logical or sensible solution - but nothing about these cases could really be considered logical or sensible from the choice of the parents to forgo medical treatment to the death of the child to the sentences rendered in the trials.

I feel compassion for these people because I don't think you can honestly claim that they are trying to hurt their children. My compassion is limited though, to their misguided and archaic opinions in regard to god and medicine. I'm not so compassionate as to argue that they should not have been held accountable for what they did, in fact I feel that the sentences in both recent cases were too lenient. There is no excuse for these child faith healing deaths because no one has the right to take advantage of their position of power and authority over someone else's life and choose death for that person. If that's what your god wants - for you to let your kids die rather than give them insulin, penicillin, or take them to the doctor when they can't breathe without your skilled intervention with a turkey baster, then your god is a sadistic evil being and you are the willing participants of its unspeakably cruel whimsy. That is nothing to feel righteous about.

No Specific Religious Figures Means No Jesus - Obviously?

PITTSBURGH — State House officials say they have been inundated with protests about a policy that barred a clergyman from using the word "Jesus" in a prayer that was to open one of the lawmakers' daily sessions.

The Rev. Gerry Stoltzfoos, of the Freedom Valley Worship Center in Gettysburg, had planned to end his recent prayer with "In Jesus' name, Amen." Under the policy then in effect, he was asked by House Speaker Keith McCall's office to submit the planned prayer in writing and to make sure it was nondenominational.

"They said my prayer was rejected because it contained an offensive word. Just once, in closing, I mentioned Jesus," he said. "I thought they were kidding. I had carefully crafted the prayer not to be offensive in any way."

He said he decided not to say the prayer at all rather than omit the name. The incident has sparked a controversy on the Internet including an online petition and denunciations of McCall.

Paul Parcells, McCall's chief of staff, said the situation has been blown out of proportion.

"We've had threats phoned in and a ton of angry e-mail," said Parcells, who called McCall "a devout Catholic" but said "he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve."

Guest chaplains are sent a letter asking them to use "an interfaith, non-denominational prayer" and to refrain from expressing views on legislative, political or governmental issues. House officials say use of "God" or "Father" is permissible, but they do not want mentions of specific religious figures such as Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha.

I don't understand what the confusion is here - the rules say no specific religious figures. It doesn't matter if the guy mentioned Jesus 'just once', just once breaks the rules. Rules which pre-existed the invitation to this man to speak.

Is there really this level of expected entitlement going on with religious groups to the point where only invoking a specific religion's deity once isn't seen as, well, invoking a specific deity? Just don't say Jesus. There. Super easy. No one is excluded and you still get to perpetuate your snake-oil brand of spiritualism. We all KNOW you mean the christian god when you say god anyway, you don't NEED to break the rules (or make fun of the rules or pretend you don't understand the rules in order to gain attention).

But he's not the issue here, the issues lies with the sentence which partially states, "...inundated with protests about a policy that barred a clergyman..." Really? Because it seems pretty cut and dry to me - guy receives an invitation to be a guest chaplain and he's told to keep it cool, no specifics, God and Father are OK but don't get too detailed with the deities. Then guy ignores that, and tries to slip in Jesus at the buzzer, as if just saying Jesus once at the end shouldn't be considered breaking the 'no specifics' rule.

'No specifics' is pretty clear. No Muhammad, no Buddha, no Jesus, no exclusionary speech. Well, unless you're one of those freaks who just doesn't believe in ANYTHING. :)