Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Remember last week when whacko Southern Baptist minister Wiley Drake called on his followers to pray for a curse on Barry Lynn and Americans United for Separation of Church and State? Well his rhetoric is getting even more shrill and repulsive, now he's saying that these prayers are for the death of AU officials. The LA Times reports:
Drake said Wednesday he was "simply doing what God told me to do" by targeting Americans United officials Joe Conn and Jeremy Leaming, whom he calls the "enemies of God.""God says to pray imprecatory prayer against people who attack God's church," he said. "The Bible says that if anybody attacks God's people, David said this is what will happen to them. . . . Children will become orphans and wives will become widows."
Imprecatory prayers are alternately defined as praying for someone's misfortune, or an appeal to God for justice.
"Let his days be few; and let another take his office," the prayer reads. "Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."
Very nice, Reverend; I'm sure that's just what Jesus would do. All of this began when he endorsed Mike Huckabee for President:
Drake said he endorsed Huckabee because of his religious qualifications."Mike Huckabee is a born-again Christian," Drake said, "And I believe in the final countdown for him, he will do what God told him to do. He is a God-fearing man and he'd fear God more than his constituents and more than the Constitution."
Given his actions since then, the Huckabee campaign appears to be less than pleased to have this nut's endorsement:
Huckabee was campaigning out of state Thursday. Alice Stewart, a campaign spokeswoman, said the campaign did not coordinate with Drake on any of the material he's distributed regarding the Americans United complaint."We certainly don't condone the evil comments he's made," she said.
Kudos for not mincing words.
Comments
Ever since Ted Haggard, turning the other cheek has been out of fashion. As for "Love thine enemies," I suspect Drake hates himself as well. God forbid he actually runs for President of the SBC, I'd have to attend the convention to vote against him.
Posted by: kehrsam | August 20, 2007 9:56 AM
"Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."
Wow. How's that for a commitment to family values.
Hey, if this guy actually thinks his prayer will have the desired affect and the guy coincidentally dies of a heart attack or something, shouldn't then Drake be tried for murder?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | August 20, 2007 10:40 AM
Hey, if this guy actually thinks his prayer will have the desired affect and the guy coincidentally dies of a heart attack or something, shouldn't then Drake be tried for murder?
Maybe he could be tried for attempted murder right now, under the same line of reasoning as unsuccessfully attempting to hire a hitman.
Posted by: BobApril | August 20, 2007 10:52 AM
Better yet, why doesn't he just pray imprecatorially for the deaths of our actual enemies like Al Qaeda and cut out the middle man? On the enemy-ranking scale, AU certainly falls lower than Al Qaeda even in Drake's fevered mind.
Posted by: Jim | August 20, 2007 11:14 AM
So... God told him to tell people to tell God to kill people? Why all the indirection? If there's really a god involved in all this, it seems it would be more efficient if he just took care of it all himself and left Drake out of it.
Posted by: Zek | August 20, 2007 11:30 AM
Mike Huckabee is by far the most likeable Republican candidate and is the least objectionable values candidate I've ever seen. He's still a complete nut.
Posted by: FishyFred | August 20, 2007 12:04 PM
Now hold it. According to Drake God is perfectly capable of telling Drake to make imprecatory prayers to have God punish those who insult his church, but God isn't capable of making up his mind to do so without prompting?
What's the point? If God wants those who attack his church to be punished, God can just bloody well do it himself. Why the heck does God need this intermediary blowhard as a middleman?
Posted by: Ahcuah | August 20, 2007 12:44 PM
So, God tells this guy to tell others to pray that God kill some guy. Is it just me or does it seem that God is involving two levels of highly unnecessary middle men in this. Apparently, Drake's God isn't omnipotent and really needs a shot of worship to boost up his power levels. "Must... have... five more... worship points... before... can smite... evil..." Pray harder, Drake! Quickly!
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | August 20, 2007 12:49 PM
Good point. Some people see prayer, not as a form of communion and reconnection with the wholeness of God, but as a form of word magic used to put themselves in control. This, of course, is contradictory to a belief in a God of completeness and integrity.
The notion that saying can make something happen shows up in a variety of forms, sometimes with the additional notion of a supernatural force (God, demon, etc.) to carry out the action, sometimes without that intermediate step. Think of people who won't prepare a will (I've known a few of them) because of the fear that talking about their own deaths might make it happen. Or people who quickly cut in with "Don't say that!" if someone expresses a danger or fear (for example: "They're very late arriving. I hope there hasn't been an accident.")
This superstitious belief in the power of words to change events is a very, very old one, much older than Christianity, and I think still quite widespread.
Posted by: JuliaL | August 20, 2007 1:19 PM
What Ahcuah said. The fundie God is such a needy feller, isn't he? It's not enough to smite the unbelievers, he wants believers to pray to him to smite them. It's remarkably similar to the way criminal gangs and irregular armies ensure loyalty by making recruits complicit in some crime/atrocity.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 20, 2007 1:22 PM
Julia wrote:
Or, as Drake likely does, they see it as petitioning God to influence earthly events in a way that they think would be beneficial to themselves and/or humanity.
Aside from Drake's repugnant assholery, it's not terribly different than what occurs probably millions (maybe billions!) of times daily all over the world. You can quibble about whether or not you think this is a suitable use of prayer, but it certainly wouldn't be an unusual one.
Posted by: Leni | August 20, 2007 1:39 PM
Mumbling to your imaginary friend doesn't bring any results other than showing your level of delusion.
Acting on orders from your imaginary friend adds another level of delusion.
Posted by: waldteufel | August 20, 2007 1:56 PM
One gets the image of a bodyguard who is willing to kick someone's ass, but demands that you beg him to do it first.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 20, 2007 1:57 PM
Leni,
Unusual? Why, no. I agree with you. In fact, that was my point: word magic in an attempt to bring the world into conformity with our own desires is a very old and very widespread behavior.
As for objecting to this morally corrosive belief/behavior, I don't think that's a mere quibble. Ed's objections to Drake's claims/behavior aren't just a quibble. Nurturing a belief in word magic can be, and in this case appears to be, a method of encouraging a personal desire to control others. Look how far it's gone here: an (ineffectual, to be sure) attempt to kill people that Drake doesn't like. It could possibly not be a big step in the minds of some who make such petitions to carrying out their own prayers in some actually effective manner.
Posted by: JuliaL | August 20, 2007 2:22 PM
"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."
--Jesus, author of Actually, What I Said Was and The Savior Speaks.
Posted by: Jim Anderson | August 20, 2007 2:49 PM
Actually, I get the image of a street-bully with a gang of sycophantic hangers-on, who comes on a likely victim:
BULLY: What's that I hear? Why I do believe this bo' has dissed me!
GANG: Yep! We heard him diss you Boss!
BULLY (smirking): Well, I guess someone needs to be taught a lesson then, right?
GANG: Yeah, you teach him but good, Boss!
BULLY (smirking more): So I should kick his ass real hard then, right?
GANG: You da man, Boss! Give him a good shit-kicking....
Some people's God is a sociopath.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 20, 2007 3:07 PM
Ah, a religion of love!
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | August 20, 2007 4:31 PM
"My wife's death was an act of God."
"Did you give God any kind of assistance at the time?"
Posted by: Alex, FCD | August 20, 2007 5:59 PM
I love you all.
And I'd also add this:
"He is a God-fearing man and he'd fear God more than his constituents and more than the Constitution."
I'd like to point out to Drake (and to Huckabee, if what Drake says is true) that the Constitution is the reason he can say this sort of thing, without fear of government reprisal. He should have a little respect.
Posted by: Greta Christina | August 20, 2007 8:01 PM
Julia wrote:
Sure, but you followed that with this inexplicable remark:
To which I responded (more or less) "says who?" Julia? LOL, sorry I mean that in a friendlier way than I'm sure it sounds, but I doubt Drake would agree with you. Nor would all the other people who pray for things they think would be good.
Second, we could all describe a form of belief that his actions are inconsistent with. It just isn't relevant. The problem is not that the content of his prayers are inconsistent with someone's ideal sort of prayer, but that they are repulsive, childishly amoral and reprehensible.
So the quibble I'm referring to isn't the content of the prayer, it's that you have inexplicably deemed it incompatible with a vague description of belief that you have for all intents purposes pulled out of a hat, despite the fact that millions, possibly billions, of praying people seem to think otherwise.
Posted by: Leni | August 20, 2007 8:46 PM
Let's say that God indeed answers the prayers of Drake. Doesn't that mean that God is a cold-blooded murderer? The funny thing is that I bet Drake is one of those who preaches to his congregation about supporting "the culture of life."
Posted by: daniel rotter | August 20, 2007 9:02 PM
Hmmmph. I don't think anyone's even trying to understand poor Mr. Drake. I'm not a fundamentalist myself, but I do think it's an interesting mental exercise to try to figure out what arguments they're making.
So: Start with the assumption that we live in a fallen world, and that horrible stuff will happen if the Laws of Nature function as expected. And assume that God responds to good manners the same way that humans do. If we want the world to be a better place, and we ask for that unselfishly and with all humility, then God will be inclined to reward our virtuousness by bending the Laws of Nature to our benefit.
Now: Assume that if Barry Lynn's family become widows and orphans, then the world would be a better plac...um. I think I'm stuck. Why can't we just pray for Barry Lynn to get the strength to expel the host of demons that we assume to be possessing him? I don't get it...
I'm still wondering what it must be like to be a fundamentalist. I bet it's like being on drugs, all the time.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | August 20, 2007 9:21 PM
Leni,
I appreciate your comments and don't assume they are unfriendly.
I don't, however, see it as inexplicable that attempting to get the world to be run (even to issues of who lives and dies) according to one's own personal desires should be incompatible with a view of God as wholeness, completeness, ultimate integrity: in other words, the opposite of one person's narrow viewpoint. I'm not sure what else to say about that, as the difference between the whole and the tiny, individual part seems to me to be entirely explicable; it's not some individual, indefensible, pulled-out-of-a-hat opinion of just mine that the whole may be larger and more complex than the part. Whether you label that wholeness God or just something like society, the universe, the everything, or whatever, an attempt by one person to determine who lives and who dies seems obviously to be a poor substitute for a more overarching view.
Or perhaps you are saying that Drake's attempt to use prayer to get a servant God to do whatever Drake says is the view of essentially all those who pray, making my objection inexplicable for any person who believes that God exists?
While it seems obvious that Drake wouldn't agree with me, it's not so that "all the other people who pray for things they think would be good" would disagree with me. Some would; many would not. Many religious people take the position that expressing their wishes isn't an attempt to manipulate God, but a form of honest communication, while they also ask that God's will determine what happens, with the assumption that God knows better than they do, no matter how strong their feelings. It's this assumption that Drake seems to lack.
Thanks. Sorry I misunderstood you.
Now I'm wondering if you misunderstood me. I mentioned prayer in reference to Drake's word magic because that's the context in which Drake was using it. I would have objected to it regardless of the context. My objection is that belief in word magic can become dangerous, as it bypasses the question of larger needs and issues and encourages the kind of arrogance that can under some conditions, in some people, lead to acting out the attempt to manipulate other people's behavior. It can also, as I mentioned, lead to self-damaging behavior such as the failure to make a will or perhaps sign a healthcare power of attorney.
I hope that you overestimate the number of people who use prayer primarily as word magic, but even if you underestimated it, I imagine you agree with me that the numbers of people who do it make no argument in its favor. I think word magic has almost nothing good about it, and much that is negative or even dangerous about it, whether it is done in the form of prayer or in some other form, and whether it is seriously engaged in by theists or atheists.
Posted by: JuliaL | August 20, 2007 10:46 PM
I remember how the faithful would pray back at RevTab (Revival Tabernacle, in Florida, some time ago, where I was found some gold and some dross). The faithful would frequently, but not always, begin by saying (arms uplifted and palms beseechingly exposed, confirming that they held no weapons that might frighten the host), "OhLord (one word), we just pray . . ."
"We just pray."
And a began to wonder; "just?"
Only? Merely? Knee-jerkingly? Like we know we aughta do? Like we meant it? As if we knew it was expected of us to do so and, well, everybody else does it here so I shall too? After the fashion of those who, like the recent Duct Tape Robber, assume that wishing really hard is the equivalent of actually doing something about reality?
Whew! Satisfying these and related questions occupied an embarrassingly long time. After long and sometimes difficult consideration I am confident in answering each question in the affirmative.
Adding only that life, considered broadly and fairly, is fundamentally the same whether one prays or not. That is, pretty cool. I like it a lot. Any more I take it straight up, no chaser. Bracing.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 21, 2007 12:31 AM
You know what that prayer reminds me of? A (pre-Christian) Roman prayer. When a Roman wanted divine intervention they would pray to the appropriate god for assitance, ususally offering a sacrifce if the prayer was answered.
This type of prayer makes perfect sense if your theology includes a spectrum of conflicting petty gods of limited power like the Roman pantheon, becuase you needed to persuade them to care about your problems. It doesn't make much snese in Christianity though, as several poster have pointed out above.
Hmm ... perhaps someone should ask Mr Drake if he has been consorting with pagan gods.
Posted by: James | August 21, 2007 1:58 AM
Completely off topic-
I noticed the email policy, but I didn't immediately notice the actual address or procedure for embarrassing myself before on and all by doing so.
I'm probably missing something obvious, but how would I go about doing so?
Posted by: uriel | August 21, 2007 4:57 AM
How long before Drake is caught with his pants down with young boys? Any bets?
Posted by: Chuck | August 21, 2007 12:18 PM
Julia wrote:
I'm glad because even though I do often intend to be a big jerk, I didn't just then. :)
You misunderstand what I said. More on that below, but for now: that you think the two (Drake vs wholeness/integrity) are incompatible is not what I find inexplicable.
It is inexplicable to me that you think it should matter. We aren't discussing fact, after all, we're discussing the subjective religious belief content of some believers. They aren't required to have reasons for thinking what they think and for all we know their beliefs are inconsistent with pretty much everything, including the version you happened to pick.
Unfortunately! I'm sure we'd both agree the world would be a better place if even the barest sliver of self checking occurred before some of these idiotic ideas were unceremoniously dumped on unsuspecting bystanders.
Something tells me you are taking a whole lot for granted here.
That's warmer. I'd rephrase it like this:
Drake's attempt to use prayer to get a servant God to do whatever Drake says is the view of essentially all those who pray for things to happen that they think would be good.
You, quoting me, said:
Oh I don't disagree. I just don't see what any of that has to do with a supposed inconsistency with a god (or thing) of "wholeness or integrity". For the simple fact that I am fairly certain Drake and countless millions of other believers would consider consider their god and worship "whole", and their acts an integral part of that whole.
I guess, what I'm trying to say here is that I find it ironic you consider his actions to be foremost inconsistent with your view of god/wholeness and not with common decency.
While I'm sure you don't doubt the latter (you certainly aren't some amoral cretin) nevertheless that isn't what you said. As an atheist, that strikes me as similar to declaring that child-raping as inconsistent with an esoteric belief in wholeness and integrity.
Well, yah. I suppose it is, lol. Unless you happen to believe something different about wholeness, integrity and prayer and child molestation than the rest of us do.
Posted by: Leni | August 21, 2007 8:25 PM
Leni,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll add just this one additional comment on the subject. I think I can be clearer if I respond to your statements a little out of order; I hope you don't mind.
I consider his actions to be foremost an example of word magic, which is not confined to prayer, to Christians, or even to theists. As I have explained, I think that beliefs in word magic, left over from what is probably a very early stage of modern human development, is sad and sometimes dangerous, in part precisely because it leads to such offenses against common decency. I did not intend my one-sentence comment on the non-universality (among religious people) of his view of God as my main point or as my reason for criticizing Drake's behavior. What was foremost in my mind was what I took two paragraphs to comment on: the controlling magic issue.
You are right in pointing out that I did not in my original comment explicitly say that wanting people dead and children left parentless is offensive to common decency. Nor did Ed, or most of the other commenters. I absolutely agree with you about it being such an offense, and I imagine that Ed and the other commenters probably also agree.
What they have to do with each other is this: Some people, including some atheists I've heard/read commenting on prayer, seem to believe that essentially all prayer is like Drake's. I added my comment that Drake's view of God as available for manipulation is very different from the view of many other religious people (not just Christians), who see God not as a separate discrete being who can be influenced to do this or that, but as the ground of all being, the essence of all that exists, a wholeness (that includes not just Drake but also the people Drake hates), and who is therefore not subject to manipulation by people who wish to impose their own personal rule on the world. My one-sentence comment was added in hopes that someone who considers all prayer to be like Drake's attempts at controlling might notice that many religious people have a view of God that precludes such efforts. I think I did not succeed. OK.
Actually, it matters very much, though not to Drake and though it isn't my reason for condemning Drake's attitudes. It matters because when nontheists think that every person who prays shares Drake's view of God, they are thinking something inaccurate. In my mind, establishing accuracy is in itself worth my offering one brief sentence pointing out that Drake's attitude toward prayer is incompatible with many religious people's view of the nature of God.
But beyond mere accuracy, I think it matters because when nontheists mistakenly think essentially all religious people believe that God is a discrete, invisible, magical being who can be coaxed into giving favors, then it can sometimes become much more difficult for theists and nontheists to have a sensible conversation on any subject at all. As one who believes that God exists, I would like to be able to be a part of further future sensible conversations with nontheists (a category which includes, I assume, yourself). So you see, it matters to me, not for establishing that Drake's attitudes are reprehensible, but because I would like to be able to carry on other reasonable conversations with you, among others.
Posted by: JuliaL | August 21, 2007 11:07 PM
uriel, at the top of the blog there's a row of links. The right-most one is "Contact", and takes you to a page that contains Ed's e-mail address.
Posted by: Skemono | August 22, 2007 12:40 AM