~This Blogger is raged!!!~

Okay, so this Amish lady, Rebbecca, goes to an airport to apply for a job as a flight attendant. Her resume is amazing. She can (and does quite frequently) cook for 80 people, she's really friendly, and is used to dealing with "the angry English."

"I have to warn you, the job is not easy, you have to know exactly what the needs of each passenger are at all times. Your job isn't being a flight attendant, really it's more like being an indentured servant," says the interviewer.

Rebbecca insists that she can handle it.

"Great" says the guy interviewing her, "we have a spot open for you, come by on Monday to start your training."

That Monday the Rebbecca shows up, and she breezes through the training -- twice as fast as anybody has ever done it. Even the simulations go great: she foils the fake would be terrorist, serves another cup of decaf, and gives little Johnny a pillow all while keeping her bonnet perfectly straight.

"Wow" says the trainer, we usually make everybody go through three weeks of training, but we all feel that you're ready. Show up tomorrow for your first flight."

"Flight? I can't fly, I'm morally opposed to airplanes and everything they stand for." says the Amish lady.

"So why did you apply for the job?" asks the trainer.

"Well I figured I could do all of the things the job requires me without getting on an airplane," Rebbecca says.

"Without getting on an airplane? But that's what the job is! It's even the title of the handbook, 'Being on the Plane: a guide to serving people on a plane!' How did you expect to do the job properly?" Says the trainer.

Rebbecca retorts "well you can't make me get on the plane. Where's my check?"

Okay we all see the problem here. We all like Rebbecca, she's talented, able to do her job, and has every intention of doing her job unless it interferes with her beliefs. But the story presented illustrates the problem with executive legislation pushed through by the lame-duck administration recently.

You see, a new rule grants medical professionals of faith to withhold medical attention if it interferes with their religious beliefs.

Says Mike Leavitt secretary of the Department Health and Human Services: Doctors and other health-care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience

You see the problem with that thinking is that no one is being forced to choose between violating their conscience and their professional standing. This isn't Stalinist Ireland (just go with it, it makes sense). Nobody is forced into a professional career, these people spend tens of thousands of dollars to go to school in order to get into the lucrative business of providing medical care.

The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.

If I had gone to my job interview with Beans n' Cream and said "I will do everything except help people who arrived by car because I have the belief that cars are evil, and are destroying the earth," I wouldn't have been employed -- and rightfully so.

It's not like this shit sneaks up on you. You know exactly what you're getting into, and if you don't it's up to you to fix it by finding new employment.

My biggest problem with this sort of faith based initiative is that it always assumes people are doing good when it comes to making decisions in good faith. We live in a society that tries to level the playing field as much as possible for those that are playing the faith card. But it's bullshit. If someone is unwilling to give care based on their religious views, they are unqualified to hold the job. It's that simple.

The Freakin' (pissed) Deacon

Morality and Belief

I had the great fortune of seeing one of America's funniest comedians on Saturday night. Emo Phillips put on a great show,despite attempts from idiots who don't know how to turn off cell phones and drunken bachelorettes to ruin the evening for everyone.

Emo told a great joke (actually he told it twice as he appeared to be a little befuddled by all the distracting idiots in the crowd). "I used to pray to God everynight for a bicycle, then I realized that God doesn't work in that way. So I stole one and prayed for forgiveness." This actually ties in rather well with the topic of this post.

I was listening to Christian hate radio the other day on the way to Baraboo (the FM transmitter wasn't working all that well, and I needed something to drown out the shit that goes on in my head). But before I tell you what I heard, I'd like to describe Christian hate radio (CHR). CHR is the type of good, Christian broadcast that exists not to celebrate God, but to destroy the thousands of other established religions in the world so that their church (invariably some small minded baptist church from middle Tennessee), stands alone as the paradigm of virtue in a world run by Satan.

On this particular broadcast, I heard the good reverend say the same tried and true line rationalists, agnostics, and atheists have heard countless times. "Atheists have no morals, science has no morals, they use their Atheism -- their belief that God doesn't exist as an excuse to unleash terrible acts on the world in the name of progress." Now I'm not going to get into whether theists or atheist are more moral than the other, that's ridiculous, obviously people of faith and people that have no faith live great virtuous lives and faith has little to do with it.

We can all agree that this line of thought is not the way all theists think, and I don't want people to assume that I'm picking on believers, that is most certainly not the case, and I also want to make it clear that I don't have a bone to pick with religion. I've made it clear that I have a deep reverence for those with faith.

But what does it say of someone that will claim Atheists will partake in all kinds of evil acts because they don't believe in God, and then turn right around and tell of a God that will forgive all sins if one just prays hard enough? What if Eva Braun killed Hitler just after he repented with all his heart and soul? Would then the murderer of 6 million Jews be instantly redeemed in the eyes of the Lord because he was no longer amoral? There is something inherently wrong with the line of logic pursued by the good Reverend quoted above, just as there is something inherently wrong with saying: what's to stop atheists from killing and raping kids (a question you'll come across if you engage in internet message boards about the question of God)? Well I don't know about them, but I don't kill and rape children because I have absolutely no desire to kill or rape children. I think it's wrong, deplorable, and I have absolutely no desire to engage in that sort of action.

All these stupid lines of thought that are spewed by either side do nothing to open up honest religious dialog, it only keeps people from wanting to engage in honest discourse, and if your goal is to get people to see the majesty of God, you are doing more harm than good to your cause.

The F.D.

Been too long

Hi All, The Freakin' Deacon back with you after an extended unplanned hiatus. Ever since school has started it has become harder and harder to find time to blog it out (not to mention work), but I have some ideas in my head, and will hopefully go three-for-three in the next couple of days.

Back at it...

I'd like to start today's Sermon by pointing out what a Creationist is. According to Answers.com (yeah like I'm going to Merriam Webster's for this one, HA!), it is one with "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." I'm sure we could come up with some other definitions, but this is my blog not yours. So with that definition we can separate Creationists from many, many Abrahamic Christian Sects. Even the Catholic Church, who is often the last one to the party, recognizes evolution as the way we humans got here.

Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally, saying it is an allegory for the way God created the world.

So with that we can clearly see that the antithesis of Creationism is not evolution, the antithesis of creationism is abiogenesis. The idea that conditions were right on Earth at one time to harbinger very basic cellular life.

I hate to sound like Bill O'Reilly, but there truly is an attack on reason. And I'm sorry to be the one to say it, but if you don't want your kid being taught about evolution, home school them or send them to private school. Just don't send them to a school that teaches science with the expectation that you will change the curriculum to suit your world view. Science, fact, and empiricism don't work that way. Your world view (as well as your child's)will be accepted and respected, but just as there is a place for religion, faith, and prayer -- the school is the place for fact, reason, and intelligence. Dozen's (or more) of major, established religions have accepted evolution as fact. This is because it is the theory that logic clearly supports. The theory of evolution does not mean there is no God, this is something I have been saying since I started blogging. I understand you have faith, but if your faith means evolution didn't happen, then your faith doesn't stand up to everyone else's logic.

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...

Death by faith...

There was an article in the 8-8-08 Isthmus about a family that opted to let Jesus handle the healing when their daughter was faced with ketoacidosis (in its simplest terms, it is an abundance of acid in the body as a result of, in this case, untreated diabetes). Full Text Here.

In the days, perhaps weeks, before their daughter died of diabetic ketoacidosis — an illness authorities contend could have been readily treated — Dale and Leilani Neumann refused to seek medical care. They did so despite the girl's worsening condition and despite the urging of family members and friends. Instead, they insisted her body was a battleground in a spiritual war between Jesus Christ and the forces of Hell. Only by resisting worldly medicine, they believed, could she be saved.

Go ahead and read that again. I'll wait. This eleven year old girl, that should have been worried about whether an awkward pre-teen boy liked her, was instead a pawn in a spiritual movement. All the while, relatives and friends alike were begging the family to seek medical attention for the poor child. And the parents will likely avoid prosecution because in Wisconsin (and many other states) there are provisions that say parents are free from charges of neglect and abuse if they are using faith as an alternative to medicine.

Now I realize there is nothing in the article about whether the little girl had asked her parents to seek medical help (we can only assume that she didn't), but what if the tables were reversed? What if her parents had insisted that they immediately go see a doctor, but she instead wanted to test the "holy waters?" The state would then, assuredly step in, or bring charges forth if death had occurred. Don't believe me? There's a case of a child being treated for leukemia in Canada in which a boy who refused medical attention was taken into custody by the state who was going to make sure the boy saw the treatment through to the end. Just in Canada? Not so much. If these children were seeking faith heeling as an alternative, would they still be brought into custody for their forced treatments? It astounds me that people can look at some of these cases and deem that children must undergo these treatments but will look the other way when it comes to faith healing.

These people believe that faith healing is sound, they have to believe it, I have no doubt. The seemingly dark-age ritual is only around in modern times because of the Christian Scientist movement, a movement that goes back to the late 1800s. I'm not saying that this powerful organization with lobbyists and lawyers galore (if your God is so powerful, why would he need lobbyists and lawyers?), doesn't believe in its objectives, I just feel that if these people can convince others to seek healing as an alternative to medicine (which is clearly the case) then these churches should be held responsible for the deaths of the people that seek divine intervention as opposed to medicine. How many deaths by faith would we see then?