|
Post by Christine on Mar 3, 2018 20:33:38 GMT -5
Or, say, conducting seances. Can you imagine if a politician sent a letter asking his constituents to call upon the spirits of the dead?
The "prayer call" is very popular 'round these parts, including with very close family members. I think many of these people are sincere in their thinking that they can "pray away" drought, or whatever. Their sincerity doesn't make them any less wrong.
But a "prayer call" from a politician? Not buying it. It's an easy out for them. I must suggest that in most cases they push prayer because they don't have any impetus to get off their asses and do what might actually help solve problems.
Whatshisname said something like, we have organized religion so the poor people don't kill the rich people. And that other whatshisname called religion the opiate of the masses. This is the same concept with a modern-day twist.
ANY politician promoting a belief in ANY god is wrong, IMO.
ETA: I'm actually quite done with "God Bless America." (Despise me if you must.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 20:59:14 GMT -5
It's an easy out for them. I must suggest that in most cases they push prayer because they don't have any impetus to get off their asses and do what might actually help solve problems. I think this is too often the case. I've no problems with sending thoughts and prayers to the Parkland victims and their families. I'm sending plenty of thoughts to them myself, including on Twitter (they need all the support they can get). But I do have a problem when the politician is pretty much turning to God as a substitute for, say, trying to enact background checks for AR-15s or regulations to curb pollution. And all too often, that's exactly what these politicians are doing. Which is why, like Christine, I'm running all out of patience.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 3, 2018 23:26:03 GMT -5
The guy was writing in his capacity as governor, not as an individual, on his official stationary. The United States is not a theocracy. As an individual, he can do rain dances if he wants. I couldn't care less. But asking, as a governor, for people to pray for rain? I think it's ridiculous and inappropriate. It would be equally ridiculous whatever his religion. Agreed. Genuflecting to religious leaders isn't appropriate behavior for any elected official. Although, whenever republican elected officials do it, I'm especially cynical of their motives because it drips with insincerity. It seems to me that they most likely do shit like this just to keep in the good graces of religious leaders with the hopes that those leaders will "put in a good word" for that candidate with their "flocks" come election season. One of many reasons politicians should never been in bed with religious leaders/organizations (figuratively and literally). As you said, if he'd done this just as a member of a church, then I wouldn't really have much of a problem with it. But he's using the power of his office and his position as an elected leader of the state to endorse superstition. He can believe whatever he wants on his own time. It needs to be separate from his role as an elected representative of the people. I think it might just be that there's a huge backlog of prayers and it takes God a while to get to them; sort of like a full email inbox. Hell, it took him 4 years to finally answer Rick Perry's public "rain prayer", and Texas's needs were much worse at the time than Utah's are now. Might be 2020 before he gets around to opening his Gmail ("G" for "God," of course) inbox and clicking on Utah's prayer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 11:06:51 GMT -5
To note, praying for the Parkland families was not the best comparison I could have made. I actually understand the point of thoughts and prayers for victims of terrible events that have occurred, provided the "thoughts and prayers" are not the only action a politician is taking when they could and should be taking others. It is akin to what people do at funerals -- it is a way of saying they care. (And as I've said numerous times on this board, from ordinary non-politician types who have no responsibility to do anything, "thoughts and prayers" are absolutely fine and a nice gesture. I only quibble when it comes from do-nothing politicians.) Similarly, I really don't care about politicians asking for a vague blessing on this country or whatever.
But the example in the OP is something else -- this is a governor asking people to ask God to fix things. It is more akin to his asking them to pray that no more school shootings (or hurricanes or whatever) happen. And that to me, is a whole different animal.
In another thread here somewhere, one or two of the religious folks here informed me that prayers were not about imploring God to do things for them. Well, seems to me that that's exactly what this particular letter is about. It isn't about asking God for peace for victims. It's about asking for an actual physical result here on earth.
And to my atheist citizen eyes, it's pretty ironic and worthy of an eyeroll if (as I think is often the case) the politicians asking God to fix things are in fact denying climate change (or refusing to do anything about gun control or neglecting to provide aid to Puerto Rico or whatever), and thus not doing what they could actually do to help the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 4, 2018 11:33:53 GMT -5
I have no problem at all laughing at science deniers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 11:40:29 GMT -5
I have no problem at all laughing at science deniers. And that's what we're dealing with here. kuer.org/post/utah-governor-calls-climate-science-little-debatablewww.deseretnews.com/article/705310718/Herbert-challenges-reality-of-global-climate-change.htmlinsideclimatenews.org/news/20090622/utah-newspaper-takes-future-governor-task-climate-changeETA: This is like setting fire to your own house, and then praying to God to put out the flames. This is like refusing to water your garden, instead praying for rain. This is like not mending your roof, instead asking God for good weather so it won't leak. This is like withholding medicine from a sick person, instead asking God to heal him. ETA: If it were harmless, I might shrug. If what we had were religious leaders fighting with all their might and main to do what they can to mitigate climate change, help Puerto Rico, help sick people get care, help poor people get fed, prevent maniacs from getting AR-15s... and also praying, that would be great. Pray on. But IMO that is not what we mostly have. We have religious politicians doing nothing, or worse than nothing, and then calling on God to fix it. It's not harmless.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 4, 2018 14:09:06 GMT -5
I guess my main question here is, "Who, the heck, does this letter hurt?" He is not promoting a specific religion. It doesn't matter if you substitute Muslim for Christian here, because that letter was in no way promoting Christianity. Did you all read the letter? There was nothing in the letter that promoted or indicated a specific religion. He communicated with "interfaith" religious leaders. He specifically mentioned synagogues, mosques, chapels, cathedrals, and homes. That's pretty inclusive. Religious people are his constituents too, are they not? Utah is over 60% Mormon. That doesn't even include other religions. I believe Catholics make up another 10% of the population. We're already at over 70% religious folks without even counting Muslims, Jewish people, and all the other Christian religions. It is those folks who elected him. IMO, he is allowed to address a certain group of constituents in ways that more closely align with those constituents. Governor Herbert's administration is not ignoring conservation or ignoring protecting the environment. As a matter of fact, it looks like he was addressing it several years ago: energy.utah.gov/download/reports/10year-strategic-energy.pdfHis administration has an active website with detailed efforts at water conservation. Really. Check it out. conservewater.utah.gov/why.htmlHis state is also working on alternative energy. Yes, they are trying to find a balance between cost-effectiveness and renewable energy, but they are making efforts. Now, of course you will say that this 8% is paltry. And it is, compared with, say, California which tops the nation. I agree. But I would surmise this is due more to the fact that Utah has many natural energy resources which are a huge part of the state’s economy and he does not want to disrupt that too much too soon, than it is because of his religion . I’m sure many on this board disagree with this approach, but some politicians put loyalty to their constituents’ livelihoods and the state’s economy at a premium, while working more slowly to convert everything possible to renewable sources. In any event, on this Sunday morning, I’m going to vehemently disagree with the mocking of people who earnestly practice their faith and don’t limit themselves only to what fallible men and women can see and test in a laboratory.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 4, 2018 20:51:30 GMT -5
I guess my main question here is, "Who, the heck, does this letter hurt?" I haven't seen anyone here, or elsewhere, claim that it's "hurting" anyone, i.e., other religions. That's not why politicians shouldn't invoke gods, or prayer, as a solution to problems. Angie brought up the parallel of invoking Muslim beliefs (Sharia law, anyone?) because some Americans tend to go batshit over the very suggestion that Islam might be promoted by government, while they have no problem with Christianity being promoted. Government "leaving out" other religions isn't the problem. Government promoting ANY religion(s) is the problem. It's fair to give him props for being inclusive, but this isn't a situation where inclusivity is applicable. Again: for me (and I think it's clear as being for everyone else who's objected here) it's about promoting religion, specifically prayer, to solve problems. Honest question, c.e., my friend: do you believe that praying can cause or deter meteorological events that would not / would otherwise have happened? Do you believe God controls the weather?* If so, then I can understand your support of the governor's prayer call. If not, then perhaps you can understand why other people feel frustrated with the governor's prayer call. *I know people, including family members, who firmly believe God can turn the path of a hurricane. There were a ton of "prayer calls" in my town when Irma was approaching. I guess that's why God let it annihilate Haiti and Puerto Rico instead of southeast Florida. Those other people just didn't pray hard enough. FFS, it pisses me off just to type that. Come ON.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 5, 2018 12:43:40 GMT -5
I guess my main question here is, "Who, the heck, does this letter hurt?" I haven't seen anyone here, or elsewhere, claim that it's "hurting" anyone, i.e., other religions. That's not why politicians shouldn't invoke gods, or prayer, as a solution to problems. Angie brought up the parallel of invoking Muslim beliefs (Sharia law, anyone?) because some Americans tend to go batshit over the very suggestion that Islam might be promoted by government, while they have no problem with Christianity being promoted. Government "leaving out" other religions isn't the problem. Government promoting ANY religion(s) is the problem. It's fair to give him props for being inclusive, but this isn't a situation where inclusivity is applicable. Again: for me (and I think it's clear as being for everyone else who's objected here) it's about promoting religion, specifically prayer, to solve problems. Honest question, c.e., my friend: do you believe that praying can cause or deter meteorological events that would not / would otherwise have happened? Do you believe God controls the weather?* If so, then I can understand your support of the governor's prayer call. If not, then perhaps you can understand why other people feel frustrated with the governor's prayer call. *I know people, including family members, who firmly believe God can turn the path of a hurricane. There were a ton of "prayer calls" in my town when Irma was approaching. I guess that's why God let it annihilate Haiti and Puerto Rico instead of southeast Florida. Those other people just didn't pray hard enough. FFS, it pisses me off just to type that. Come ON. I believe God CAN control the weather. I believe God created the universe with certain "rules" in place (like physics), and He allows those rules to play out, for the most part. Just as He created us with free will and allows us to make choices. But prayer is crucial to living life as a religious person. Christians have the example of Jesus who prayed frequently and greatly encouraged prayer. Other religions have their own prayer traditions and beliefs. I'm not closed off to prayer resulting in an occasional miracle. And again, I don't agree that the governor was promoting any certain religion, or religion in general. He was reaching out to other people of faith who already pray regularly and encouraging them to come together and pray for something of concern to the state. Would it be ok if a governor reached out separately to a specific group of people with certain issues unique to that group and asked them to do something he thought would be helpful to their specific situation? Or can a governor only communicate with everyone in more general terms? And I think the condescension displayed in this thread is a very simplistic view of what prayer is and what it means to the faithful. Is it a bad thing if joining together in that prayer allows a greater sense of community of those praying? Is it a bad thing if, while praying for snow, some people contemplate the ways in which man could be contributing to climate change? Is it a bad thing if, while praying for snow, some people's eyes are opened to the great gift of nature and ways in which they can be more responsible for and better stewards of the environment? Is it a bad thing that the stronger sense of community mentioned above results in steps toward an organized effort to play one's part in protecting our environment? Is it a bad thing that this act of prayer helps folks become closer to their God and derive strength and grace from that? Is it a bad thing that this act of prayer can transform individuals for the better in many ways? Last question - is there anything the governor can do right now as a politician that will bring more snow immediately? If not, then why don't secular people just butt out of the prayerful practices of those with religious faith? I highly doubt Governor Herbert forgoes modern medicine because God will heal, has no heating in his home because God will keep it warm, or waits for God to transport him wherever he needs to be. Of course he realizes the need for man to act and be a "cause" in this world of natural rules. The very fact that he's a politician tells me he values acts and prayer, not just the latter. But if prayer for snow as an adjunct or in addition to stewardship of the environment, is encouraged in an inclusive way in faith communities, then I say let them pray and save the outrage for something that deserves it. Note, if this letter were sent to all Utah citizens asking them to pray, then I would share your concern. But it wasn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 16:14:53 GMT -5
In any event, on this Sunday morning, I’m going to vehemently disagree with the mocking of people who earnestly practice their faith and don’t limit themselves only to what fallible men and women can see and test in a laboratory. If this was just about the religious right practicing religion in its churches and homes, I’d accord full deference. The thing is, the religious right has control of the wheel of government right now, and the power (which it is using) to impose its beliefs over the rest of us. Thus, I think it’s fair to take on the right on when their faith causes them to put people in power and impose policies that I (and many others) feel are damaging as hell to this country and its future. And I think totally it's fair to take on politicians' religious actions when they are done in that politician's official capacity, and their beliefs when they are guiding their policies. I think it's also fair to criticize and mock them for hypocrisy when their public prayers and actual policies conflict. You think the Utah Governor's lack of belief in climate change and his believe that prayer will fix the weather are unrelated to each other and to the fact that Utah has worse environmental policies than California? I don't. I'm fine with religious beliefs being a special, sacred, untouchable cow that none of us can critique as long as they remain purely private and religious. When they start guiding policy that applies to all of us, including the non-religious, they're up for criticism just as any other belief is, IMO. And thanks to the Christian right, that's where we are. Here are my problems: (1) The overall position of the faithful seems to be that believing in some all-powerful force that can neither be seen nor proven should take PRECEDENCE over what can be seen and tested in a laboratory. They want total deference from the rest of us for their faith in the unseen. But they grant a pfffft to actual evidence. E.g., the religious right, as a group, refuses to believe climate change is being caused (or at least made worse) by humans without definitive proof. Forget about the pretty much universal agreement among scientists all over the world that it is true. Forget about their dire warnings that we need to take big steps NOW if we are to prevent disastrous results. Forget that changes in weather patterns, melting of glaciars, flooding, etc. are demonstrating more evidence every day that the scientists are right. Similarly, as a group, the religious right feels in their gut that arming teachers will make their kids safer. They give a pffffft to all the actual evidence that shows otherwise. Mere overwhelming evidence of that stuff is not enough – the religious right wants PROOF! (what kind, I cannot say – I presume Jesus speaking out of the clouds). The rest of us, however, are expected to be fine with the religious right trying to implement policies against same sex-marriage or abortion, which are entirely based on the Christian right’s religious beliefs. (An aside -- Jesus and the bible never say a thing about abortion, which was known in those times. Causing a woman to lose her fetus involuntarily was regarded as property damage, not murder. I’ve just always wondered why it is Christians are willing to toss aside every single other value they have in voting just in hopes of securing anti-abortion politicians when Jesus talked an awful lot about feeding the poor and helping the sick, but not a bit about not aborting fetuses).
The fact is, the Christian right’s polices aren’t doing much to put a stop to abortion, but it is doing quite a bit to prevent women from getting birth control and pre-natal care. Some of their other policies are doing quite a bit towards making it harder for poor people to care for their children. So the net result is more unwanted pregnancies that would result in babies women can’t care for, which is, ironically, likely to result in more abortions, and almost certain to result in more children, women and families in need. But pffft on such evidence! Faith!)As a group, the religious right refuses to believe that the man they put in the Oval Office did and is doing anything wrong. Guilty pleas, indictments, flat-out obvious proven lies, clear evidence of dishonesty – no, that’s all Fake News, not evidence! If God shoots down a lightning bolt, maybe then they’ll believe something is hinky, but not otherwise! Again -- they're willing to go on faith that things are not that bad, all evidence to the contrary. (Because mere evidence is not enough to demonstrate anything -- except God, of course, for which no evidence is required.) And so the religious right supports and enables politicians of alleged faith (and yes, I’m sticking by that “alleged” -- Trump? Roy Moore? please) who act on their beliefs and give a pffft to actual evidence. As a result, the rest of us science-evidence types are stuck living with those beliefs instead of policies based on facts and evidence. I’ll tell you what – when people of faith start granting as much deference to facts and evidence and things that can be seen and proven in a laboratory (e.g., the effect humans have on climate change) as they do to their faith, I’ll shut up about them writing letters asking people to pray for rain. (2) The religious right, as a group, seems pretty happy to whistle and ignore stuff that offends (or should offend) their religious sensibilities when it otherwise suits them. That makes me a lot less willing than I used to be to bow my head and accord them all the deference they want for their beliefs.E.g., they’re perfectly happy to vote in and support Trump and Roy Moore, whose lives and behavior are pretty much a fucking textbook illustration of the seven deadly sins. They’ll whistle a happy tune at all Trump’s corruptions and lies because Gorsuch. They’ll say “well, Mary Mother of God was only 14…” and vote for Moore rather than vote for a moderate Democrat of good character. If the religious right wants more respect for their beliefs from the heathens among us, they could start by acting and voting consistently with those beliefs. If what they'd put in the oval office was Evan McMullin, I'd wouldn't be calling hypocrisy. (I'd also be a lot less angry and worried.) The religious could also stop scoffing at those of us who point at actual evidence of, oh, climate change, the dangers of guns in schools, and Trump's grifting, insisting that only absolute definitive PROOF of some undefined nature is necessary to grant any belief in those things -- while at the same time, demanding absolute deference for their own belief in the unseen and unprovable. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to have problems with the religious right praying for climate relief, Dreamers, refugees, the poor, the sick, victi ms of gun violence, those in disaster areas, etc., all the while voting in politicians and policies guaranteed to injure them. It is hypocrisy. It is Fake Virtue. And when politicians do it publicly, yet their policies don't back up their prayers, it is standing on the corners and temples showing off their religion so that all may see and vote for it. I believe God CAN control the weather. I believe God created the universe with certain "rules" in place (like physics), and He allows those rules to play out, for the most part. Just as He created us with free will and allows us to make choices. But prayer is crucial to living life as a religious person. Christians have the example of Jesus who prayed frequently and greatly encouraged prayer. Other religions have their own prayer traditions and beliefs. I'm not closed off to prayer resulting in an occasional miracle. Not that it matters particularly, but really, do you think God just doesn’t notice that some places are struggling with drought or floods or wildfires? Or that he does notice but doesn’t bother to do anything until a certain critical mass of the faithful ask him to do so? What of all the faithful in Puerto Rico – did they not pray hard enough when Irma barreled down? Why give a miracle to Utah and a pffft to the faithful of Puerto Rico? I'm with Christine -- I don't have a lot of patience with that. And seems to me if the problem is that bad, the faithful will already have noticed, and if they believe their prayers make a difference, they'll be praying already. It would take a letter from the governor to get them to do it? To me, the governor's letter seems like he's praying on the street corner so that all men may see him doing so (and of course, vote accordingly). Is it a bad thing if, while praying for snow, some people contemplate the ways in which man could be contributing to climate change? Is it a bad thing if, while praying for snow, some people's eyes are opened to the great gift of nature and ways in which they can be more responsible for and better stewards of the environment? Is it a bad thing that the stronger sense of community mentioned above results in steps toward an organized effort to play one's part in protecting our environment? ..... Last question - is there anything the governor can do right now as a politician that will bring more snow immediately? If not, then why don't secular people just butt out of the prayerful practices of those with religious faith? I highly doubt Governor Herbert forgoes modern medicine because God will heal, has no heating in his home because God will keep it warm, or waits for God to transport him wherever he needs to be. Of course he realizes the need for man to act and be a "cause" in this world of natural rules. The very fact that he's a politician tells me he values acts and prayer, not just the latter. But they are NOT doing all they can to stop climate change. The governor of Utah is a climate change denier. Overwhelmingly, politicians in red states, propped up by the religious right, refuse to believe humans are contributing to it, and they put in policies accordingly. This despite the fact that scientists are screaming that we need to do everything we can YESTERDAY and, oh, the lack/surplus of rain and other changes in weather patterns that the religious right are praying about make it evident that the scientists have a fucking point. ETA: Oh, and to one of your earlier points, I don't grant virtue points to politicians who prioritize temporary economy gains to a particular subsection of their constituency in their limited area over the long-term well-being of the earth and its living beings. (If the biblical Jesus were here in the U.S., I have a sneaking feeling he wouldn't either -- nor do I think he'd prioritize giving big tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations over feeding the poor, caring for the sick, helping refugees, etc..) Were it not for climate change deniers and short-term tragedy-of-the-commons type thinking, we could have been focusing on creating more new jobs in industries like solar power rather than drill-baby-drilling and coal mining. I wanted to punch a freaking wall when Trump promoted the dying coal mining industry and put tariffs on social solar panels.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 5, 2018 20:24:18 GMT -5
I wanted to punch a freaking wall when Trump promoted the dying coal mining industry and put tariffs on social panels. I'm fine with tariffs on social panels. But that's because I am very anti-social.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 21:03:28 GMT -5
I wanted to punch a freaking wall when Trump promoted the dying coal mining industry and put tariffs on social panels. I'm fine with tariffs on social panels. But that's because I am very anti-social. Damn auto-correct... (Obviously, that was supposed to be solar panels. I favor bans on social panels myself.)
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 6, 2018 12:25:03 GMT -5
That last post is chock full of so many awful generalizations (not fine) and political biases (perfectly fine), I don't know where to begin. Tuesday is usually my day off work but not today. I might be able to respond tomorrow morning (which is much later than your morning) but just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring you.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Mar 6, 2018 14:40:04 GMT -5
I'm fine with religious beliefs being a special, sacred, untouchable cow that none of us can critique as long as they remain purely private and religious. When they start guiding policy that applies to all of us, including the non-religious, they're up for criticism just as any other belief is, IMO. And thanks to the Christian right, that's where we are. I'm actually not fine with any belief, of any kind, being some special, sacred, untouchable cow. Beliefs do not have rights, and do not deserve respect in and of themselves. People do. The problem comes when people think a critique of a belief is the same as an attack on a person who holds that belief. As for the governor...if he had sent that letter on plain paper and mailed it himself with his own money, I would have zero problem with it, beyond (sorry) a minor eye-roll. But he sent the letter on government stationery, from his publicly-held office, and the postage was taxpayer-paid. That I am NOT fine with. As a non-religious person, I absolutely do not approve of my tax dollars being used for religious purposes. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Mar 7, 2018 9:23:43 GMT -5
Well let's hope Oprah doesn't run in 2020: Colbert noted that a lot of people want Winfrey to run for president, which she has ruled out. "I feel humbled and honored by that," she said. "It just isn't something I would. ... I am very much in touch with my inner GPS, I'm in touch with God, the voice of God." Colbert pointed out that she told People she would need a clear sign from God to run, and when Winfrey said she hadn't gotten even one sign from God, the Late Show God appeared. "Can I help you, Lord? I'm kind of in the middle of talking to somebody important," Colbert deadpanned. theweek.com/speedreads/759473/stephen-colbert-ropes-god-convince-oprah-winfrey-run-president
|
|