SECURITY BLANKET

"I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
--Richard Mourdock, Indiana State Treasurer





I'll be honest, I haven't really been following the story of the shootings in Connecticut today. But despite my usual obliviousness to the news, my Facebook feed has been overrun by links to articles about the number of victims, how many victims were children, gun-law reform, Second Amendment rights, the callousness of the media, general displeasure with the "main stream" media, how none of this would have happened if we hadn't removed God/prayer/"The 10 Commandments" from Schools or Public buildings and how who ever is responsible will burn in Hell for eternity (run-on sentences running wild). But mostly I have seen the picture below circulating like a troubled teenager up for adoption:

Now, I don't blame anyone seeking solace or comfort on a day like today, but I am forced to reflect as to why this particular picture has become so popular. The idea that the children who were mowed down at their school are now hugging Jesus no doubt provides some comfort to the bereaving Christian families of the victims. But what of the Muslim families? Or Hindus?

At times of grief, we look for whatever might ease our pain, but do we think about the truth of such ideas? In a time of crisis, do we even care about truth?

Let's explore the idea that children who are murdered go straight to heaven, as implied by the picture above and as many Christians believe. Does this not mean that those children will be spared the possibility of sinning and being damned? Will not all children who die before the age of accountability be saved in similar fashion?

If Christians really do believe this, as Andrea Yates did, then shouldn't they see the tragedy of today as a blessing that so many children were spared God's wrath? Shouldn't the murderer be praised for saving the eternal lives of so many innocent children?

For as long as people have been able to grieve, they have sought comfort from where ever they can find it. But for me, such horrible events are more easily explained by mental illness and bad people doing bad things, than the idea that god just lets us do bad things so as not to impede on one another's agency; or that the young victims of today's shootings are now with Jesus. I'm sorry, but even if I still believed in god, such a sentiment would not console me. Rather, I find it contemptible and opportunistic of religious people to exploit tragedy in this way.

What good is an idle god?



BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Republican talk-radio host Bryan Fischer on why god didn't intervene today:

PITY THE FOOL

"Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it doesn't make sense"
--Pastor Rick Warren





In my youth I was very skeptical of other religious belief systems. I viewed Pentecostals through the lens of Mormonism and saw their "miracles" as fraudulent parlor tricks used to "ooo and awe" full auditoriums. Very rarely (if ever) did I confront those who I perceived as victims of charlatans, and instead carried myself in smug satisfaction and self-righteous demeanour as one with "the truth". Although, ironically, I was not self-aware enough to apply this same scrutiny to my own ridiculous and unfounded beliefs.

As I have become more familiar with the "New Atheist" movement, I have found that many other people were in the same boat as I. It is quite easy to play the part of the part-time skeptic. But this leaves room for cognitive dissonance and logical inconsistencies, which for a true skeptic would make holding any unjustified belief a near impossibility. So, as I grew as a skeptic and began applying my skepticism to my own belief system, I had no choice (in a manner of speaking) but to give up such beliefs.

In another post I referred to the case of Andrea Yates, who sacrificed her own eternal salvation so that her 5 children (all below the age of reason) would not have the opportunity to sin, thereby damning themselves to eternal hellfire. According to the implications of Christianity, this is one of the greatest sacrifices a mother can make for her children (imagine the implications this could have on abortion...), as she explains:

"It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."

In her mind, drowning her children one by one in a bathtub was the only way to save them from "the fires of hell." According to Christian theology, Yates was successful. Yet, despite having a predominately Christian jury at her trial, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and sent to a high security mental hospital rather than being paraded as a theological hero.

I hope I am not alone in seeing the irony of the jury finding Andrea Yates insane for acting on her religious beliefs, and then themselves going to mass on Sunday to eat the literal body and blood of Christ, or speak in tongues to the beat of gospel music. Clearly the jury is applying skepticism to Yates's beliefs. But how about their own?

It is easy for mainstream Christians to dismiss the fringe belief of Christian Scientists that diseases and other physical ailments are actually spiritual in nature and do not require medical aid. In fact, the denial of medical care is a way for Christian Scientists to flex their faith muscles.

Mainstream Christians may equally dismiss Jehovah's Witnesses when they say they can't have a life-saving blood transfusion because the blood is where the soul resides and should not be shared with another person.

Would denying medical attention to a child for these reasons be on par with the murder of Andrea Yates's 5 young boys?

How are these things any different than believing pornography destroys the soul as viciously as it does families. Or that curse words have enough power scare off the Holy Ghost and thus warrant avoiding their use, lest you be tempted by the Devil?  How about burning witches and heretics. Or believing that if you die defending your faith you will be on the fast track to heaven. How about killing the infidel in the name of Allah?

Tell me, how exactly does the sacrifice of a god satisfy the proposed demands of sin?

As Richard Dawkins has said, "Half an eye is better than no eye at all"; so then is selective skepticism better than absolute gullibility. Progress is gradual and sometimes generational. Creating an entire population instilled with good skeptical practices and a refusal to just believe things on faith may take a while. But I am hopeful.

For the record, I still think Pentecostals are nuts, but I'm a lot less smug about it. As Mr. T says (repeatedly), "I pity the Fool."












BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Micheal Shermer (Editor in Chief of "Skeptic Magazine") on "Why people believe weird things":

Also, Andrea Yates wants to get court approval to go to church while incarcerated. And some opportunistic lawyers say it will be "therapeutic"...

TRUTH OR DARE

The story of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22:1-13) is often lauded by Christians as a story of god's love and a foreshadowing of the upcoming crucifixion of Christ. Perhaps in another post I will address the absurd and immoral prospect of vicarious redemption (i.e. "scapegoating"), as a means of absolving moral responsibility for one's actions. But for now, I wish to discuss the immorality of a god asking someone to do something absolutely repulsive--to kill their own child.

In the case of Abraham and Isaac, god is defended by apologists in that he stopped Abraham from actually finishing the deed at the last minute. It was a test. God wanted to see if Abraham had enough faith to follow his commands implicitly and without question. Some Mormons will even claim that this was Abraham's purification by fire and that we will all undergo a similar "trial of faith" in our lives, and our eternal reward hangs on the outcome of this test.

But how can one say this was harmless simply because god backed down? Abraham still had to go through the inner turmoil of being ordered to kill the heir to his name (a big deal for ancient Jews). And what about Isaac? Depending on who you ask, Isaac was either a willing participant in this filthy blood sacrifice, and made the decision to die simply because his father said god told him to do so; or he was unwillingly bound by his trembling father, again, because god told him to do so. How can god be the ultimate moral authority if there is nothing he won't ask of you to prove your resolve?

In the end, physical harm was avoided, at least for Isaac, as an angel provided a ram to be sacrificed in his stead. And Christians call this love? How can this be a "crisis averted" if the aversion happened only after much of the psychological distress had already occurred? How is this a test of moral character? Obedience is not morality; it is submission.

In the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 4: 5-18) we have a similar account of god asking someone to do something immoral. Before Lehi and his family can finally depart for the Americas, he sends his sons back to Jerusalem to get the Brass plates from an evil man named Laban. Nephi, Lehi's favorite and most loyal son, finds Laban drunk in a street and the spirit of god, without any explanation whatsoever, tells him to kill Laban (1 Nephi 4:10). Naturally, Nephi hesitates and the spirit of god elaborates: "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands." Again, no reason is given--just a command to obey god.

Well, in the following verses Nephi and the spirit of god discuss why Laban deserves to die. Allegedly, Laban had threatened to kill Nephi and his brothers, stole their property, and (here's the kicker) refused to obey god's commandments. Then we have one of the most immoral statements ever made in scripture. In verse 13, the spirit of god says, "Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief." (As an aside, please tell me why an all powerful god had to kill someone in the first place? Why didn't he allow for Nephi to simply steal the Brass plates and escape unharmed?)

Now, I know what you are saying: Nephi was operating under the assumption that god exists and is the ultimate moral authority and anything he says must necessarily be for the greater good. Here is the problem and why I say it is the most immoral thing in scripture. This sets a precedent for people who genuinely believe that god talks to them (i.e. any member of the Mormon Church), to do whatever god tells them, no matter how appalling it may seem on the surface. And anyone who believes this passage of scripture, forfeits the right to criticize those who do actually carry out these commands. Who are you to say they are mistaken?

Take the 2004 case of Deanna Laney. Claiming that god told her to kill two of her children, and acting on it--just like Nephi--she was sentenced to a maximum security asylum. That's right, according to the government, claiming that god told you do kill someone, regardless the reason, is a criminally insane action and is punished accordingly.

Even worse is the 2001 case of Andrea Yates, who not only claimed divine inspiration, but rationalized the murder of her five children as compassionate and morally justified. According to Yates, the children, still very young, were innocent in the eyes of god, and rather than risking the possibility of them sinning and becoming damned, killed them so they wouldn't go to hell--effectively sacrificing her own salvation for the eternal lives of her children (take that, Jesus). Based on her worldview, who can say this is immoral? To her this was the ultimate moral action.

These are extreme examples. But so are the stories of Abraham and Isaac, and Nephi and Laban. Not to mention the precedent they set for devout followers, who, to them, god is very real and can--and apparently will--ask anything of them. And anyone who claims faith in god, just as these women did, has no right to say they were mistaken, or that god would never ask someone to do such a thing (this would be like a person claiming to be Napoleon and saying all other Napoleons are crazy). According to your scriptures, it is entirely in god's nature to do so.

So, here is the question: Would you kill your own child if god asked you to?

BONUS MATERIAL:
 

Here is the Atheist Experience discussing this topic: