This page continues some of my thoughts about religion, and links to other sites.
My writings are in black. Plagiarized text is in maroon, sometimes highlighted by me in red.
Go Home .
Go to Page contents near top of Page 10.
Articles by Wayne (continued)
Apologia: my apology for not having praised good deeds motivated by faith
I have an acquaintance -- a Professor of one of the hard sciences -- who became aware of my anti-religious views as posted on my Web site. He stated that he was quite involved with a church (of which I had not been previously aware), and in associated charitable works, despite his busy schedule at the University. The following is a copy (slightly modified) of an e-mail that I sent to him, which I have entitled Apologia. You might find the social issues involved to be of some interest, regardless of your religious point of view.
~~~~~~~~~~
Apologia. I have been pondering your recent message referring to my several recent messages with some regret -- not a regret about your having sent those words to me, but a regret that my thoughts on the Web about religion may have offended you.
I know that my remarks about religion must sound unforgiving of the effects of religious belief to most people, in that they are not balanced by appreciative words concerning the many good works that those of faith accomplish -- driven in large part by some of those beliefs, many (but not all) of which are very noble indeed. It sounds as if you are surely deserving of praise for the charitable works that you mention, and that you do not mention them to me out of a wish to be praised for them. I congratulate you and those of like faith for your kind deeds. Furthermore, I am very willing to admit that they are motivated by religious beliefs of high ethical values, even though I judge such values from a secular point of view rather than from a religious one. Why should not many of such values be similar?
I debated as to whether to make this a long memo or a short one. I decided on the latter course, but I did want to clearly apologize to you if my remarks have offended you. I know another person, also a scientist, who also took issue with my overall approach which is to be critical of the irrationality of religious belief. His reply, too, was that each has his own belief, implying that, for example, religious belief is, in some way, just as valid as scientific belief. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that approach. It seems to me that it leads to post-modernism, a phase which we are in now in which the post-modernists argue for the concept that scientific findings and theories are no more valid than religious belief or "spiritual knowledge". I could expand on that and the theory of the philosopher-theologian Planatagina, but will forbear for now. (There is a letter about him on my Web site.)
The other main import is that the opinions of religionists and secularists such as I may differ but that that is of no import on other aspects of their lives -- such as being scientists, for example. I differ profoundly from that point of view. Just as your beliefs, I assume, motivate you to perform kind deeds for others, the beliefs of many other Christians have been motivators of some of the cruelest deeds in history. One can mention a whole litany of the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Nazi holocaust, and some other activities and injustices that are proceeding even today. All of those activities, in which -- even apart from the Nazi holocaust -- more than one million people were murdered and tortured to death by Christians based overwhelmingly upon their Christian faith, were a direct consequence of their religious belief. Those murderous activities were supported by sincere religious belief, fully supported by the Bible of Christianity. One quotation, although not the cruelest one in the Bible, might suffice. Jesus says that those who do not believe in him are to be brought before him and murdered ("slay them before me"). The churches were a primary factor in opposing the abolition of slavery. The Bible clearly supports slavery, in both the Old and New Testaments.
The Nazi holocaust was a continuation of the concept of the Christian Crusades. That Christianity bears a very high degree of responsibility for the bringing about of the Nazi holocaust and the murder of six million people is not just my opinion. The evidence of four-hundred years of virulent anti-Semitic preaching by the Christian churches in Europe is plain to see. There is a detailed document on my Web site that presents and supports that conclusion, by a group of Catholic nuns based in Darmstadt and Jerusalem. The call for the leveling to the ground of all synagogues by Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, and the burning of all their books, again with Biblical support, has its counterpart today in the racist and religious discrimination -- ironically -- of the occupying state of Israel in the bulldozing of Palestinian homes of the relatives of suspected terrorists, without benefit of court proceedings, much less 'guilty' verdicts. This by the military occupying force of Israel, in contravention of UN resolutions and the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of civilians in occupied territories. On my site also are extracts from the present works of a Lutheran Seminary fully justifying, in its mind (not mine), the cruel statements of Martin Luther, based mainly on the argument that those statements were anti-Judaic (and therefore in accordance with the Bible), but not anti-Semitic! This is from a modern seminary of today -- not from 300 years ago. As for the Catholic Church, one of its Popes, in roughly the same era as Martin Luther, preached that all Jews should be 'buried alive'. Even Hitler did not go that far! That Pope would probably have admired Hitler.
It is ironical that we now have what I (and George Said, for example) consider to be a reverse form of religio-ethnic discrimination. The USA, strongly supported by the Religious Right and, understandably, Jewish interests, gives Israel foreign aid in the amount of more than $3,000 million per year, in contrast to the $75 million that it gives to the Palestinians.
So, although I am quite ready to praise the many good works carried out by those of faith, and that faith is an important motivator of those good works, it is not just my opinion, but a matter of historical record that the holocaust happened, and that the cruelty and harm arising from religious faith far outweigh the good works carried out in its name. The statistics on the number of people tortured, burnt alive, and murdered by Christianity (and other religions) is not "just a matter of belief", it is a matter of fact.
The harmful effects continue to this day. I cite only a few. Stockwell Day libels a defence lawyer for defending an accused child molester in court. That mentality, probably shared by another devout Christian, George Bush, hearkens back to the days of absolute dictatorship by the Church. Ontario, in violation of specific official notices by the United Nations, continues to violate the UN Declaration of Human Rights in the blatant state support of religious discrimination in the state subsidization of separate Catholic schools, which even further, practice religious discrimination in the hiring of staff. (See my letter on the Web.) I have not heard the Church object in the slightest to this 'injustice'. The word 'injustice' here is a secular term related to another secular term: 'democracy'. Those concepts are foreign to the religious ethics of the Church. From a logical point of view the Church, if it has the absolute truth, should (and historically always has) favor absolute dictatorship, not democracy. If one believes one has the absolute truth, it makes no sense to vote on its truth -- but, rather to dictate and impose it.
The flogging of a teenage girl in Nigeria with 100 lashes of a cane a few weeks ago in accordance with the Sharia law of the Koran, brought nary a sign of protest from the devout Moslems of the world and their Mullahs. Nor does the 'honor' murder of sisters and daughters.
George Bush plans now to enlarge faith-based charities by providing tax subsidies for churches to deliver goods and services to the poor. In my view this is a very harmful and regressive move, in contravention of the Constitution of the USA -- the one constitution in the world that comes closest to providing for freedom of religious belief, and for the freedom that the state should not impose religious belief on its citizens -- important features that the constitutions and practices of Canada, the UK, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, among others, fail to provide. There is a very good reason why this is so. The Constitution of the USA was drafted in a determined way to be not based on the morality of Christianity, but on secular principles of justice. It is noteworthy that the first six presidents of the USA were specifically not Christians (and in most cases were very anti-Christian) and were proud to admit it publicly. The Stockwell Days, Pat Robertsons, and George Bushs who hearken back to those "good" old days of Christian morality in state affairs know not what they are hearkening back to! Only 5% of the population of the USA at that time went to church. Many had fled Europe to escape the oppression of religious belief and its dictates.
I thought that this was to be a short memo! I had better sign off soon before I run out of electrons -- not to mention neurons!
The other thought that I had re your memo was that I may have been bombarding you with too many memos. That is why I have slacked off a bit lately. I know that your academic life, contrary to what some of the public might think, is a very busy one. I have two other professor friends who are always very busy too. I must admit that I do get a bit carried away at times.
I have enjoyed and value our correspondence very much and hope that it can continue.
In closing, I sincerely regret if I have caused any offence to you; it was not intended personally in any way.
DENVER, Feb. 20 — The deaths over the last two years of three Colorado children whose parents denied them medical treatment on religious grounds has fueled support for state legislation that would prevent parents from using their religion as a defense against prosecution.
The parents of all three children belong to the General Assembly and Church of the First Born, a small denomination that believes in prayer, rather than medical treatment, to cure illnesses and disabilities.
Largely as a result of intense lobbying by the Church of Christ, Scientist, which also favors prayer over medicine, Colorado and 45 other states have statutes that allow parents to use their religious beliefs as a defense against prosecution for withholding medical treatment from their children. The exceptions are Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nebraska and North Carolina. . . .
My comments:
That we in a secular society should tolerate religious beliefs is acceptable to me. That we should respect any or all of them is another question. It hinges largely upon what we mean by should and by respect. In my view, there should be no duty of anyone to respect any religion, other than to tolerate it in accordance with the laws of the state, and in accordance with a modicum of civility. Are there beliefs, the publishing and expression of which are to be positively disrespected? Yes. The publishing of certain forms of hate literature comes to mind. Although several religions advocate beliefs that border closely on hate literature (contra homosexuals, for example), and several, including the Roman Catholic (RC) Church and several Protestant ones, have teachings that allow for -- and in some cases advocate strongly for --- the imposition of capital punishment in a state in which that is illegal, society tolerates such beliefs. Why? I positively disrespect some of those beliefs. Why is it that the state allows some forms of expression that advocate illegal activity provided that those expressions are made by members of a religious group, but not a secular one?
Let us get more specific in relation to the present case of children dying through the belief on the part of their parents in the power of prayer to heal -- or the power of prayer to do anything, for that matter. In at least one of these deaths, the child died a slow and very painful death from diabetes -- a death that was easily preventable with some very basic medical care. It is a death that the coroner has termed a homidide. After all, how difficult is it to walk ten feet and phone 911, then wait for five minutes for care to arrive? But, you might say, in the instant case of the three deaths, the parents belong to the General Assembly and Church of the First Born, a small denomination that believes in prayer, rather than medical treatment, to cure illnesses and disabilities. That is "just" a minority religion, you might say. But the belief is not "just" a minority belief. All of the mainline religions believe in the power of prayer. Otherwise, why do they advocate prayer, unless they are being untruthfull, rather than just delusional? Some mainline ones (including RC and Anglican) go even further, and believe in the concept that people can be possessed by demons, and that prayers, holy water, and rites of exorcism are called for. Even more extreme is that the province of Ontario subsidizes the teaching of such beliefs in its separate (RC) schools. Such beliefs are mandatory in such schools. To its shame, our Parliament and many city councils employ prayer. The difficulty is that this superstitious belief in prayer is totally unsupported by any evidence in all of history -- as are the equally absurd stories of alien abductions and rapes, and Elvis sightings
I liken the case of these parents to the following. Let us consider that the father asks his child to stand in the corner. He takes a loaded pistol, closes his eyes, and asks someone to spin him around three times. He then aims the pistol at a point three feet high , prays to his god to protect his daughter from harm, then pulls the trigger. Surprise! The bullet hits her in the centre of the forehead! Time to pray some more -- mercy, mercy! Why should he not believe in the power of prayer to deflect the bullet? People who are seemingly more highly qualified than he is (theologians, archbishops, our parliamentarians, and other science-fiction afficionados) believe in the power of prayer -- otherwise, why would they support its rituals? I see no difference in all three scenarios: praying for a cure for diabetes here and now; praying that the bullet will be deflected by the power of a capricious, barbaric god; or, praying in church or parliament that "good things" will happen. It is all utter superstition. But the prayers in Parliament and churches are all just innocent kind thoughts, you might say? I say no. They are akin to the ravings of lunatics and only foster and encourage other people, such as those demented parents, to follow suit and also believe in the power of prayer.
It is the height of irony that no modern politician would want to be seen on the front steps of Parliament smoking a cigarrette for fear, among other things, that it would be seen by young people as setting a bad example. However, at the same time he-- especially if he belongs to the Alliance or Republican parties -- is proud to be seen mouthing once again his belief in prayer.
How should we treat those parents? Might I recommend a charge of second-degree murder, or at least manslaughter? How would I defend them as a defence lawyer? By arguing that the state endorses (and subsidizes) the power of prayer, through its use in Parliament and through forcing me to pay taxes to subsidize belief in prayer (and even weirder things, including demonic possession and exorcism) in our separate schools. Therefore, my clients, the poor berieved parents of good Christian faith, are only being serious about the widely accepted belief in prayer -- a belief that the state itself not only allows but which it positively endorses and subsidizes through taxes in having prayers in the legislatures and in some of our schools. That the state has positively endorsed belief in prayer makes it an exemplar of the validity of prayer, and therefore, indirectly, an endorser of the actions and beliefs of my clients. I ask for their complete pardon. That the state would argue that it does not believe in the power of prayer would be for the state to admit that, in having prayers in schools and legislatures, the state is positively endorsing either actions of the type taken by my clients or hypocrisy -- take your pick. Or could it be endorsing both at once?
The use of prayer in Parliament and the reference to a Supreme Being in our Charter seem to be such innocent and kindly things to most people. To me, they represent not only the state endorsement of the exclusion from respected circles of people who do not share a belief in gods, but the endorsement of the power of prayer to have some effect -- for example, to cure diabetes on the spot even before the 911 man arrives.
The only thing more obscene than the actions of those parents is the state endorsement and promotion of those same kinds of obviously false -- and potentially dangerous -- beliefs in the power of prayer. Should we tolerate that any of those beliefs be put into action? Absolutely not! I consider that in a truly secular and civilized state, it should be illegal for any politician to use any words or sentences in the performance of his public duties to say anything in support of religious beliefs of any kind, just as we now make it illegal to publicly publish hate literature. It should be illegal, for example, for a politician to stand up in public and say: "Let us pray that the economy will improve", or "Let us pray that those victims of the air disaster will be put back together again by God and walk among us once more, starting on Tuesday." Is one statement any more ridiculous than the other? Both constitute an official endorsement by the state of irrational superstition, with consequences that are sometimes dangerous, but that are never of any good whatsoever.
See also my previous letter re a situation in western Canada:
Deciding for the child re questionable "right" of parents and pastor to replace medical care by irrational religious rites.
Colorado debates religious exemption on child abuse: From American Atheist e-mail service, #888 ~~~~~ 2/21/01 21 Feb 01.
COLORADO DEBATES
RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION ON CHILD ABUSE
The Colorado legislature is expected to vote shortly on a
controversial bill which would eliminate a religious or
"faith-healing" exemption in the state's criminal
statutes. The measure, HB 1286, would abolish religious
immunity for parents who
refuse medical help for their critically ill children based on
sectarian teachings.
The contentious debate over the bill sponsored by Rep. Kay Alexander (R-Montrose) comes after the deaths of three children in the past three years, including a 13-year-old who was buried on Monday. The girl, Amanda Bates, "died a slow an agonizing death" according to a county coroner who examined her body and labeled the death a homicide. Bates reportedly died from complications from diabetes.
The parents of all the dead
youngsters are members of a small sect, the General Assembly and
Church of the First Born that rejects
conventional medical treatment in favor or prayer and miracle
healing. Mesa County Attorney Frank Daniels told lawmakers
yesterday that the legislation was needed to protect youngsters
in such religious households from a similar fate, and noted
"The members of the church actually feel it is a sign of
weakness to take their children to a doctor.
"They are sacrificing their children to their faith," Daniels added.
The Bates case remains under investigation, but Daniels' office filed charges against the parents of an 18-day-old infant who died. They pleaded guilty, and were ordered to serve 16 years probation and provide good medical care for their surviving child.
In another case, Daniels investigated the parents of a baby boy who survived only three days after a home birth last year. The infant suffered from congenital heart defects, and the parents -- avoiding conventional prenatal attention by doctors -- were unaware of the condition.
Strong support for Rep. Alexander's bill is coming from CHILD, Inc. (Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty), an Iowa-based group headed by Dr. Rita Swan. A former member of the Christian Science church, Swan has been active in the fight to expose the consequences of religion-based medical neglect of children. In an article in the prestigious journal "Pediatrics" (April, 1998), Swan and co-author Dr. Seth Asser reviewed the deaths of 172 children whose parents were active members of faith-healing religious sects, and found that 140 resulted from conditions for which survival rates with conventional medical care should have exceeded 90%.
CHILD has been particularly active in exposing the Christian Science denomination which operates various schools and "healing" facilities throughout the country. American Atheists, CHILD and other groups have also banded together in a lawsuit challenging federal Medicare payments to these Christian Science centers.
Swan's group also documented a slew of 35 disease-related deaths among children whose parents belonged to the Church of the First Born which is estimated to have between 6,000 and 20,000 members.
At yesterday's hearing in Colorado, members of the largest faith-healing sect, the Christian Science church, pleaded with lawmakers to kill the proposed measure. One church members insisted, "If this becomes law, I'd be afraid to practice my faith." Some lawmakers agreed. Rep. Lauri Clapp (R-Littleton) of the House Criminal Justice Committee said that she believed that one of her 11-year-old twins might not be alive today had she followed medical advice. The Rocky Mountain News, though, revealed that a 35-year-old woman "told a similar story, although hers did not have a happy outcome. Her son died."
A Religious Abuse Exemption?
A story in today's New York Times profiles the issue of a religious exemption for providing convention medical care to children in need, and notes the "intense lobbying" by the Church of Christ, Scientist "which favors prayer over medicine." It says that Colorado and 45 other states have laws which permit parents to use their religious beliefs as a legal shield against prosecution for withholding medical treatment from their children.
Swan's group, however, says that 31 states have a religious exemption in some area of their criminal codes, but that Colorado "is one of only seven states with a religious exemption to a manslaughter or negligent homicide charge."
The issue pits religious practice against both conventional medicine, and laws which require parents to maintain a certain standard of medical care for youngsters.
"I don't think freedom of religion should allow a child to die for not getting proper medical," State Sen. Robert Hagedorn told the Times.
Courts have debated the precarious balance between the religious beliefs of parents and the perceived welfare of their children. In PRINCE v. MASSACHUSETTS (1944), the Supreme Court declared that there is a realm of personal family life that the state may not burden without substantial justification. The justices noted that concerning religious beliefs which shunned the need for conventional medical care, parents "may be free to become martyrs themselves," but "it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children."
Congress seems to have either ignored the ruling or sought a way to create an entitlement for sectarian groups when in 1974 it required states which received federal money for child abuse prevention and related programs to carve out an exemption for parents who prefer "spiritual healing" over scientific medical care. States provided their own legal shields for religious groups, even after the federal requirement was lifted in 1983. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1996 then brought the Congress full circle, when it stated that there was no federal requirement that youngsters be given "any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian."
Representatives from
faith-healing sects, including the Christian Science
denomination, claim that there is abundant proof that
spiritual healing works, and that youngsters die when treated
with convention medicine. Most of the "proofs,"
though, are based on
anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous studies. An elder
in the General Assembly and Church of the First Born, Marvin
Peterson, told the story of a member falling off a ladder and
recovering after prayers were said and she was anointed with oil.
"I've seen people healed of cancer, seen it with my own eyes," Peterson insists. "We believe that if it's the Lord's will, you will rise up."
Critics like Swan and Asser, though, point to studies and other evidence where youngsters died from treatable maladies, all because conventional medical care was withheld. At last weekend's Regional Atheist Meet in Phoenix, AZ., Asser told the story of one youngster in a faith-healing sect who endured years of excruciating pain after his body suffered severe burns. Parents would not even authorize the use of pain killers.
Recently, some groups which embrace faith-healing have become more lenient in interpreting their religious code. Christian Scientists, for instance, may resort to conventional medical treatment for broken bones. Other groups, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, have moderated their prohibitions against blood transfusions. Still, say advocates like Rita Swan, the Colorado legislation is needed to protect youngsters still living in religious sects which call upon God, not the doctor, when physical injury occurs.
*
UPDATE ON THIS STORY...
Late this afternoon, Ms. Swan told AANEWS that the legislature will not be voting as expected today on HB 1286. Rep. Alexander reportedly needs all Democratic votes in the House, and at least six Republicans. There is still opposition to the measure, and supporters should contact CHILD, Inc. Visit http://www.childrenshealthcare.org for more information.
For more information on this story: http://www.atheists.org/church/xtianScience.html ("Mary 'Faker' Eddy and The Cult of Christian Science," by Frank R. Zindler
**
End of part 415 of 60 of Religion Page 415. More articles on Page 417.
Go Home. Go to Articles by Wayne near top of Page 10.
You can email me at waynerp@sympatico.ca