Sarah Palin: National Day of Prayer and US Law

In reaction to the dust up over the National Day of Prayer, Sarah Palin made the not-so-surprising claim that this was yet another conspiracy to turn the country away from it's spiritual roots.

Check it out:


So, let's talk about why Sarah Palin is stupid (as if a discussion is even necessary at this point).

1) The nation was founded at a time when the presence of God was an assumed reality.  However, the country was not founded on religious ideals.  It was founded on the ideals of freedom (which includes the freedom to choose a religion and freedom from forced religious observance).  Hence the use of God in the founding documents is not a statement of a national belief in God, so much as it is a statement of a historically assumed fact.  At the time most of the founding fathers owned slaves, and slavery was an accepted norm for the time.  Should we also return to that tradition?  certainly not, and Sarah would probably agree with us there.  What Sarah is really saying is that we should pick and choose which "founding assumed truths" we are going to return to, and that her choice is the only one that makes sense.  Sorry Sarah, that's not democracy, and no matter how large a majority you build around that ideal it is still unconstitutional.

2) Discussion of history?  I'm sure that most academics, and probably even more Americans in general would love to have a discussion about the historical significance of religion.  However, NDOP is NOT a discussion.  Nothing about it is intellectual in any way.  If we are going to have a discussion, lets have a discussion.  But let's not pretend that a national day of prayer amounts to a discussion of religion, rather it amounts to national observance and preference for religion.

3) The protest against day of prayer is some people attempting to impose their views on the rest of us?  Actually you've got that backwards.  A national day of prayer imposes a religious view on America that does not exist.  As much as 12% of the population has no religious conviction, and I would guess that a staggering majority hold only loose religious convictions. So really, a national day of prayer is YOU attempting to impose your religiosity on the rest of US.

4) Payer is NEVER equality.  One of the arguments made over and over in support of the NDOP is that no matter what faith you are, everyone can pray to whatever they believe in.  Well, Atheists and non-traditional deists don't pray, and they don't believe in a "higher power."  So, actually they are left out, and forced to watch their country recognize and impose preference for religion over non-religion.  That is STILL unconstitutional, because people have the right to believe NOTHING and to have the view respected and supported by their government.

Now lets get back to Sarah's belief that the law should be based on the bible.  This is actually a topic that was addressed by Richard Dawkins in his work, The God Delusion.  The vast majority of Christians believe, as Sarah Palin does, that US law should be based on the bible.  It never ceases to amaze me how people who demand religious freedom, can be so cavalier in depriving it from others.  The use of the bible as the foundation for US law would be a clear establishment of national religion, because it would prefer biblical (Judeo-Christian) religion over ALL other religions and non-religions.  This is such a clear violation of the constitution that it's almost embarrassing that I have to explain it.  It is borderline treasonous!  We have a large group of politicians lead by Sarah Palin actively working to subvert the constitution and over 200 years of U.S. law!!  Sorry Sarah, there is no conspiracy against religion here, but you certainly seem to be conspiring against the rest of us.

Common Sense

On Religion: Child Molestation and the Bible

Everyone is once again up in arms over the scandal of child molestation in the church.  Apparently, the past 2000 years of repression and violence by the religious across the world wasn't enough to get people angry, but maybe this will wake people up to the fact that religion is probably not a good idea.  I'm not holding my breath.  Being of a spiritual family I reiterate that I am referring to organized religious observation, not personal spirituality.  The former involves dogmatic in-groups, out-groups, and group think which inevitably leads to prejudice and violence.  The latter is personal, and entirely dependent on the will of the individual.

At any rate, let talk about child molestation.  I was reading this article about the how "hurting children" was handled in the bible.  They refer to a few various passages in Matthew.  Here is a sampling:

If you do not become like children, you'll never enter the kingdom of heaven ... Whoever humbles oneself like a child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ... Whoever welcomes a child in my name welcomes me ... " (Matt 18:3-5)

"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt 18:6)

One can, however, avoid this "eternal fire" by cutting off one's body parts that might damage a child (Matt 18:7-9)

Yikes!  The average reader will immediately imagine that God is particularly wrathful when it comes to the hurting of children (though many atheist authors from Dawkins to Hitchens have explained how the instinctual over-protection of children can also be explained biologically).  What the average reader will not know is that this language is not uncommon in the bible.  The bible is in fact a violent book full of maiming, killing, and genocide for various crimes (many of which have fallen out of favor even by the most ardently religious individuals).

What I find particularly stupid is how we immediately go to the bible for guidance, as though it is the definitive word on whether something is good or bad, and then having found something that mentions children, we immediately apply it's teachings.  How about just using some common sense?  Children, especially those who have not yet hit puberty (the biological point of sexual preparation), will not respond well to sexual encounters, especially those with individuals in a position of power over them.  Psychological research suggests that this can have life-long consequences, including depression and suicide.  Doesn't that sound like a better reason for thinking this is a bad idea?  Think about it, God tells me not to vs. you are HURTING the child and possibly destroying their life!  which sounds more convincing to you?

What is particularly disturbing is that we are ignoring the more pressing concern here.  We are happy to place 100% of the blame on the priest (who should really know better than to take advantage of the power and responsibility vested in them).  But what about the parents whose blind religious belief resulted in them vesting complete and total faith in these priests?  No other individual responsible for raising and protecting children is given that much blind faith.  From nanny cams to Parent-teacher associations, we seek to control all other individuals who have power over our children.  why not priests?  my contention is simple.  The parents of these children who trained their children to respect the authority of the church above all else are complicit in this form of child abuse.  They psychologically tied their children's hands, leaving them vulnerable to abuse, and then they believed (with no good reason) that the priests would not take advantage of that.  We need to spread the blame around a little bit more.  It's not just priests, it's ignorant "god-fearing" parents, who leave their children defenseless against a predatory priest.  There is plenty of blame for both!

Common Sense