Another Death by Ministry case

As with yesterday's post, "Death by Faith," this is a case where the apparent need for God's ego stroke destroyed a child's life. Full Text Here.

Javon's food was stopped in December 2006 - when he was about 15 months old - partly because he refused to say 'amen' after dinner, investigators were told by two children who had been taken away from the cult by Philadelphia police.

Members viewed Javon as 'a demon', the children said.

No medical care was sought for the toddler when he stopped breathing, and he died in his mother's arms, according to court records of police interviews with the two children and another informant.

You know, I have kids. My kids are not perfect, and have done some stuff that makes me question whether they can properly think things through and make a decision without thinking about the ramifications. But what kind of person would it take to just assume that a toddler is evil? And worse yet, when a five year old does something repeatedly while being told not to do it, you get frustrated, sometimes to the point where you really want to teach them that you mean what you say (in my case it usually involves taking a toy away, or reneging on a promise to do something fun, not starvation). But there's a huge difference between my kids and this kid that died of starvation. This kid was a toddler. A toddler. Knowing the thought process of a toddler rather well, I can only assume that the adults freaked the fuck out every time he wouldn't say 'amen' and thereby were reinforcing his ability to control situations. It was probably little more than a game to him (at least the first couple of times it happened).

But apparently this cult decided that a sacrificed toddler would be a glory unto God. Not only did they sacrifice him, they put his remains in a suitcase.

Now I'm not going to compare this cult to Lutherans (the congregation that I grew up in), I have seen first hand their goal of showing compassion to all walks of life, believers or not. And I'm not going to compare this cult to Catholics, Jews, or any other religion. It is clear that this cult let this situation get way too far out of hand, and a toddler paid the ultimate price.

But really, can someone explain to me the difference between letting a child die by withholding food, and letting a child die by withholding medical attention? Why will someone in this cult pay for this child's death, when the couple from "Death by Faith" will likely get off without any punishment at all? They both believed that what they were doing was right because of their faith. I can see why they are not the same thing, but I see a stronger connection to their relation than I do their differences.

Now I'm not blaming this on G/god, the bible, or established religion in general. I'm not trying to make the case that belief in God is an inherent evil (as many atheists do). I'm saying that complete faith in God without a touch of reason, or intelligence (using that thing that God put in our heads) is the complete opposite of what every major established religion stands for.

At Least I think so...

Pat Condell is S-M-R-T...

You can use the little arrows underneath the video player to turn off the captions...sorry it's so big (that's what she said).

Two posts in one day, I'm spoiling you.

I've seen some of Pat's videos on the Internets before but this one really spoke to me (I know I sound like a stupid Yankee asshole, but I really want him to say "a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat"). This video makes a great point on the difference between Spirituality and Religion, a point I think is important and profound (a point I tried to make here).

Pat calls his work "Godless Comedy;" The first few videos I saw I thought to myself 'okay we get it you don't believe in God,' but the more I see of his work, the more I realize that he is an atheist that has great respect for faith (really he calls it spirituality, and I'll stick to my verbiage). What he doesn't like (as is made clear in the video) is Religion (the established pillar that preaches without Dogma there is nothing). Instead of seeing the church as a threat, he sees it as a hurdle that mankind must overcome in order to reach a higher plain.

Good stuff.

The Big Bang!

This great article about the big bang talks about physics, time, and the elements of universe formation.

I post this here because it is a good concise view of some leading physicists, but also because it bring up an important point.

People that have an unending faith in science as the end all and be all, can't agree on some of the fundamental foundations of the universe. This shouldn't surprise anyone, all we can do is observe from the crust of the Earth and make educated guesses about what these observations mean for the universe. Scientists come up with baffling theory after baffling theory, and it continues to blow away the layman.

This does have a point.

When I think of a possible intelligent hand that guided or introduced life to earth, I think that hand would not only be invisible to the eye, but would be so baffling that our minds couldn't comprehend that such a life form could exist. But I have a hard time believing that such a being is watching over us at all times counting how many times I lie, or think about sex. This "God" doesn't care if someone I love is a homosexual. This "God" doesn't oversee an ultra exclusive night-club in the sky while sending those that don't belong to a Sea of Fire.

But that's just me I guess.

Reason and Belief: Thoughts on communication practices

I am notoriously agnostic. Actually I am able to identify better with the atheist movement than anything else, but I do not call myself an atheist. As fellow Deacon and co-music director of the Church of What's Happening Now, Ian has noted: we share a natural disposition to be frustrated by wishy-washy people, but when it comes to the question of God we (at least I) find it almost noble. Now I suppose that raises the point of that making us wishy-washy, but that's another question better left for another post.

But one thing I notice by the fundamentalists of the atheist and the theist camps is that there is a tendency to use reason (or science) as a term that is the opposite of belief (or religion, or God). It's natural to think this way when we are confronted by it at all turns. Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life is my favorite example. Do you think that those that identify themselves as "Pro-Life" are constantly living their lives as though life is paramount to all things? Of course they don't all believe that. I point to the tired example of pro-life proponents that are advocates for the death penalty. This is one example of people using polarizing language and thought patterns but don't think about the consequences of the language they use.

Richard Dawkins, Bill O'Reilly, Ben Stein (stay-the fuck-tuned), Sam Hitchens, all of these men use this same communication habit, and when people attempt to engage in honest dialog about religion, they fall into the same trap. This isn't to say that faith or reason aren't real things with real qualities on both sides, just that they don't seem to be antonyms in my mind.

Do reason and faith intersect? I think it's clear that there are important people in each field that are being ignored to make way for the fundamentalists. There is no reason that these two fields cannot be related, or that one can have utter faith in one over the other. But the habit of saying faith vs. reason, or science vs. God, as though these two things are mutually exclusive is pathetic and unreasonable.

Look, I'm not trying to say that I have a better answer than anyone else, but living as though science doesn't exist is ignorant and wrong. And as Trey Parker (creator of South Park) put it (through Stan Marsh) "Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?" I'm not convinced, and I've read some of Dawkins' stuff
and haven't found anything that suggests the existence of God is completely out of the question. But again this is probably left for a different post.

Here's my point: these terms are not used to benefit either movement, they are just meant to tear the other one down. That is no way to construct positive communication, but that should surprise no one. Neither side seems to want to convince anyone that they are right, just that another side is wrong.