…and this is a 
Is incompetence an act of God?
Category: Stupidity
Posted on: August 11, 2006 11:30 AM, by PZ Myers
An Alabama church collapses on a Thursday night; fortunately no one was hurt. As we've come to expect, a god gets credit, never mind that maybe a truly beneficent god would have prevented the collapse in the first place.
"Thank God nobody was hurt," Pastor Jeff Carroll said. "He chose to let it come down on a Thursday evening when nobody was there."
This story has an additional twist, though. Why did the church collapse?
The congregation and volunteers designed and built the new church apparently without filing plans or gaining approval from local or state entities. Carroll, himself a homebuilder, said he was not aware of any requirements and remains unconvinced a government body should have a say in how a church is built. "If the state and the church are separate, I don't understand why they think they've got jurisdiction," he said.
It seems to me that houses built on faith lack any substantial means of support, as this little story illustrates. I'm a little bit sympathetic with Pastor Carroll's position, though: let's remove churches from all secular oversight and impose no demands or restrictions on their construction, except that in the spirit of fair warning we should require large signs be posted all around them, announcing the hazard but reassuring congregants that god himself is holding the building up. That'll drive everyone with a lick of sense away from them, and those consenting adults (we'll have a new reason to forbid the attendance of children!) who believe in ghosts propping up the bricks…well, they'll be removed from the population one way or another.
I wonder if any insurance companies in Alabama have been alerted to the construction standards of Jeff Carroll homes?
Comments
Physics has a well-known, liberal bias.
Posted by: Russell | August 11, 2006 11:41 AM
Posted by: quork | August 11, 2006 11:42 AM
yeah, goodluck getting insurance buddy,
Does he not follow the speed limit or ignore stop signs too?
What a demented fuckwit.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 11, 2006 11:45 AM
This is a classic example of 'Blessed if I do, blessed if I don't.' No matter how terrible an accident, god gets the credit for those that survive or are spared from mutilation. If noone is hurt, it's gods goodness and if nature stays the same, no accidents or terrible events, only the narual world in status quo as we know it, it's proof of gods great miracle.
Talk about prefered readings.
Posted by: Magnus | August 11, 2006 11:49 AM
"The congregation and volunteers designed and built the new church apparently without filing plans or gaining approval from local or state entities. Carroll, himself a homebuilder, said he was not aware of any requirements and remains unconvinced a government body should have a say in how a church is built. "If the state and the church are separate, I don't understand why they think they've got jurisdiction," he said."
I am amazed at the level of stupidity in this paragraph. The man builds houses and wasn't aware that he needed to follow gov't guidelines? Did he fail to get a building permit? He doesn't understand why the gov't would tell him the requirements for building a structure because church and state should be separate?
*headdesk*
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | August 11, 2006 11:57 AM
The congregation must have been punished for one of the lesser sins. You know, making the punishment fit the crime and all. Now, if it had been one of the biggies, it would have fallen down on a packed Sunday. I guess god was only a little pissed.
Posted by: Dale Austin | August 11, 2006 12:00 PM
If obviously God can't design a neighborhood church, how can we believe that He DID design all living things?
Posted by: Martín Pereyra | August 11, 2006 12:19 PM
Martin:
"If obviously God can't design a neighborhood church, how can we believe that He DID design all living things?"
Nicely pointed out. If this is an example of the best that "intelligent design" has to offer, clearly the fanatics are lost.
Obviously they "builded their house upon sand"...
Posted by: Warren | August 11, 2006 12:22 PM
Carroll must have taken out many building permits for his homebuilding business -- I believe that both the insurers and municipalities exercise a fair bit of oversight regarding property transfer and occupancy (At least they do around here. Even if you were to try building a house "under the table", you couldn't get connected to municipal water, sewer and power without showing the paperwork). So he could hardly be unaware that permits, engineering approvals, wiring inspections etc. are required for any and all construction, just as a safety matter. It appears that he is a follower of the Kent Hovind/John McCoy interpretation of the Establishment clause -- that religious buildings are exempt from such bureaucratic details.
Posted by: Steve Watson | August 11, 2006 12:29 PM
Yup.
Posted by: Evan Murdock | August 11, 2006 12:38 PM
How did they manage to build the thing without permits in the first place? Maybe because I live in an historic neighborhood with lots of funky zoning laws I'm misinformed, but I would have assumed any large scale, unauthorized building project would get noticed by someone.
Posted by: Theron | August 11, 2006 12:52 PM
"On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand"... Apparently that was go-ahead enough for them. Who needs surveyors and engineers when your faith is rock-solid??? I'm surprised they didn't try to build it on a lake.
Posted by: Jennifer | August 11, 2006 12:57 PM
Awesome.
Prof. Myers, just like your head nearly explodes when you read some of the inane non-sequiturs published by non-scientists writing about science, this one nearly made my lawyer head explode:
Just...awesome.
Posted by: redstripe | August 11, 2006 1:08 PM
I would have assumed any large scale, unauthorized building project would get noticed by someone
That's a bit of a puzzler. I would hazard a guess that there was previously a church building on the site (thus the service connections were already in place), and this was a rebuild/expansion project. I think that might let them fly under the Town Hall radar, as long as no official happened to actually drive by and look at the place (rural area, maybe?). However, this helps me understand why it is required (in Ontario) that one's building permit be displayed prominently so it can be seen from the street -- so that anyone from the city noticing work in progress can quickly verify that it was properly reviewed.
Posted by: Steve Watson | August 11, 2006 1:11 PM
Well, it's fortunate that God didn't want to kill or maim any members of the congregation. He just wanted to cost them a lot of money and subject them to prolonged inconvenience.
Actually, sounds like the Prince of Insufficient Light has darned them all to heck.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | August 11, 2006 1:21 PM
Jaaaasooonnn, oh, Jaaaasssooonnnn.....
We're waiting for you to blame the ACLU for this one, Jason.
Posted by: NJ | August 11, 2006 1:36 PM
"let's remove churches from all secular oversight and impose no demands or restrictions on their construction"
That sounds like an opportunity for evolution. ;-)
Posted by: Peter | August 11, 2006 1:37 PM
Being this stupid must really hurt you, PZ.
Posted by: Jason | August 11, 2006 1:45 PM
So they failed to follow the Biblical principle of giving unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and it came back and bit them in the butt. Good lesson to be learned.
Posted by: Jason | August 11, 2006 1:47 PM
The troll returneth.
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | August 11, 2006 1:54 PM
Nice trollie. *pats the rough, pointy sparsly tufted head*
Posted by: Steve_C | August 11, 2006 1:59 PM
"I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started, all I had was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle in the swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em! It sank into the swamp. So... I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up!"
Posted by: Stogoe | August 11, 2006 2:01 PM
Of course Jason never answers the question he just calls names.
Of course name calling is entirely biblical isn't it Jason? Your a tremendous rep for the faith.
Posted by: JimC | August 11, 2006 2:03 PM
Well, Jason is dishonest, evasive, stock piled with logical fallacies, insulting and ineffective in debate.
Sounds pretty representative of the faith(tm) to me.
;)
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | August 11, 2006 2:08 PM
Cheering on the deaths of Christians, PZ? And to think you berated Jerry Falwell for supposedly "cheering on the bloodshed in the Middle East." I guess when it comes to "fundies," it's okay to fantasize about them dying, eh?
Posted by: Jason | August 11, 2006 2:09 PM
Here's a multiple choice question for everyone to answer.
Q: Who is considered a troll on this blog?
1) Someone who offers a differing viewpoint.
2) Someone who points out your own illogic and stupidity.
3) Someone who points out your own prejudice and bigotry.
4) All of the above.
Posted by: Jason | August 11, 2006 2:16 PM
It makes me wonder what city or county officials are members of the congregation that they could build a huge church and noboby noticed.
Posted by: GISCindy | August 11, 2006 2:17 PM
If they would have prayed more the church would not have fallen. Everyone knows that prayer works. Just last night I prayed that today would be Friday and look at what happened.
Posted by: Ole Blue | August 11, 2006 2:21 PM
What would be the chances of suing God for malpractice or something if a church built by faith falls down on your head? Would it be a bit like that Billy Connolly movie The Man Who Sued God?
Posted by: Ian H Spedding | August 11, 2006 2:22 PM
Funny, Jason. I once gave a differing opinion here. They went after my opinion and even *gasp* called me a name or two. But they never called me a troll. Maybe because I was making reasoned arguments and backed them up.
Of course, the fact that you are allowed to post here at all without being moderated out shows that PZ is more open minded than you are.
Posted by: DiscordianStooge | August 11, 2006 2:26 PM
You, Jason.
Even a casual observer sees many viewpoints expressed on this blog daily. You don't express viewpoints unless you consider calling people stupid as such.
When have you done this? When have you even remotely showed someones logic to be incorrect? But you have shown plenty of illogical blather yourself.
You keep using bigotry and yet you would vote to stop 2 people who love each other from marrying. You would have no problem sending others to an eternal suffering and yet you come here and call others bigots for mere opinions that are not hurting anyone. How does ones world become so backward?
Posted by: JimC | August 11, 2006 2:32 PM
Jason:
"A person who enters unknown forums who bashes and insults forum members with unfounded arguments, or anyone that enters any sort of internet community for the sole purpose of harassing others is often referred to as a troll." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll#In_Internet_Forums )
Already in this short thread you fulfilled both criteria.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 11, 2006 2:35 PM
The only reason he comes here is because he doesn't like us or our viewpoints.
He really should stick to posting at Little Green Footballs or Powerline.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 11, 2006 2:39 PM
Jason, I couldn't really detect a point in your comment at all. Shouldn't you at least make a point before complaining that we're not listening to you?
Pastor Carroll should try reading The Art Of Construction by Mario Salvadori, an Italian engineer. It's a delightful book written as a beginning introduction to structural principles.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | August 11, 2006 2:51 PM
"The new church was insured and Carroll said he expects the collapse will be covered." - from the story
Do you think this will hold? I can't imagine that the insurance company will cover the loss now that they know that there were no building permits issued, unless they were supposed to have someone go over the paperwork and that person didn't do his or her job. Whose responsibility does that fall to?
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2006 3:08 PM
Just contact the County and do a records search for which company the Church was Insured and give them a call. I'm positive the adjuster would like to hear from you.
Posted by: Metalsmith | August 11, 2006 3:21 PM
As evidenced by this bunch of irrational crap, Jason, you are not only a troll, but a dishonest little weasel. If you had any background whatsoever in engineering of any kind, you would apalled by the arrogance of Pastor Carroll. His arrogance could very easily have killed people.
Irony is a material used in the creation of government policy, not construction.
Posted by: Grog | August 11, 2006 3:27 PM
Jason (that other one) is so sad. He comes here and freely makes stupid comments for everyone to read (and laugh at) while he moderates his own blog.
What a coward.
Kinda makes me think of a cartoon he has on his blog that shows a Palestinian soldier hiding behind a baby cartridge while shooting at an Israeli soldier who is defending a baby cartridge.
Jason is the Palestinian; his moderation is the baby cartridge.
Posted by: A Different Jason | August 11, 2006 3:34 PM
Of course, all those cartridges should be CARRIAGES. Was not careful enough with the spell checker...
Posted by: A Different Jason | August 11, 2006 3:37 PM
They're CARRIAGES? I'm disappointed. I was hoping that you were talking about the ammunition for some sort of cannon that fires babies. It'd be sort of like the stork, or finding 'em under cabbage leaves, but modernized.
Posted by: mjfgates | August 11, 2006 3:45 PM
It was a funny misspelling, at least..
Posted by: Stogoe | August 11, 2006 3:52 PM
I think the best response to Carroll's objection is the same as that given by Escamilla County Commisioner Mike Whitehead in response to a similar objection from Kent Hovind: "Scripture also says 'Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.' And right now, Caesar demands a building permit."
Posted by: Kenneth Fair | August 11, 2006 3:56 PM
Yeah, that was classic. :)
Posted by: Jason | August 11, 2006 4:34 PM
From Jason's anti-PZ blog:
Note that the quote is an out of context sentence fragment, lacking the appropriate editorial marks, and the full text (scroll up) has a somewhat different sense. Blatant quote-mine.
In context, PZ is simply illustrating the absurdity of what has been aptly called the Argument From Incomplete Devastation.
Posted by: Steve Watson | August 11, 2006 4:35 PM
Jason: Yes, your stupidity _does_ hurt us, but it's the good kind of pain; the pain that lets us know that we're not idiots. :-P
Posted by: The Implausible Michael Crichton | August 11, 2006 4:35 PM
I'm curious whether ol' Jason recognizes how illogical his arguments are. Take the present one:
How thick do you have to be to use that argument when the first line of this post is:
(emphasis added)I mean really... It is the first flippin' sentence!
So Jason, I challenge you to explain why a church collapsing due to the stupidity of the Pastor's - given that the event did not hurt anybody - isn't funny. I find it freakin' hilarious.
Jason simply has to be throwin' out that crap knowing it is moronic to get a reaction because he is unable to actually debate. Sometimes he is mildly amusing, but... wait... isn't that the definition of a troll?
Posted by: Edward | August 11, 2006 4:54 PM
Man, did you all check out the idiocy over at PZ Myers "exposed". Ol' Jason said:
WTF? If so, why didn't God move the Pastor's heart to get a permit and build the "house of the Lord" up to code? Wouldn't that be more efficient? Why didn't he move a building inspector to miraculously show up and tell the Pastor "Hey dude, this looks crappy."?
Does God work only in the most convoluted and inefficient ways possible? And in ways that can't be distinguished from the more parsimonious explanation? (In this case the most parsimonious explanation is - "Twit build church poorly. Church fall down.")
And if God only works inefficiently and indirectly, why should I worship him? After all, it sounds like he can only do stuff I could do myself. Worshipping oneself isn't really appropriate, so it seems worshippin' somebody less capable than oneself would be a really bad idea.
Posted by: Edward | August 11, 2006 5:16 PM
Jason:
Scott Hatfield here. I've been taken to task here more than once. That's OK with me; freedom of speech and all that. Strong, provocative language was used. That's also OK with me; I'm a big boy and I can take it.
No one here has ever referred to me as a troll, however. Perhaps this is due to the fact that I don't do any of the following:
1) Engage in harassment
2) Repeat arguments endlessly without offering factual support
3) Abuse others for not agreeing with my views
You need to look in the mirror, buddy. The problem is not that you're a believer or have views that differ with those of others. The problem is that the way troll expresses his or her view is corrosive to discourse. I'd much rather be read the Riot Act by critics of religion than do the same, or allow the same to go unchallenged.
So here's my challenge, Jason: just what purpose that you find personally ennobling could possibly be served by your conduct here? Explain. I'm all ears.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | August 11, 2006 5:24 PM
Wow someone actually read his blog. Impressive that brings his readership up to 2.
So God, not being forgiving, chooses to make a church collapse at the expense of a congregation who likely thought all the permits where filed. So in reality it doesn't punish the pastor but the poor old lady who gives money to the church and will undoubtably give more to build a new church.
Or simply shoddy workmanship caused the collapse.
But that is to reasonable for trolls, everything has to be done according to ideology.
Posted by: GH | August 11, 2006 5:28 PM
I'm reminded of a bit of hoo-ha that went on about some church building a "evolution very bad" exhibit (I won't soil the word museum here) but they hadn't filed a building permit. The leader of the chruch, as could be expected started jabbering about the seperation of chruch and state and opression (funny they cite they when they think it's to their advantage). The head of the local board was not impressed. He said "the bible says render unto ceaser what belongs to ceaser. And right now Ceaser wants a building permit."
sorry to go off topic there.
Posted by: bob3 | August 11, 2006 5:37 PM
In the spirit of critiquing one's own side to strengthen it -- an idea that liberals in general approve of, and rightly so -- I, as someone who likes PZ's writing and agree with much of it, find this disturbing:
I'm a little bit sympathetic with Pastor Carroll's position, though: let's remove churches from all secular oversight and impose no demands or restrictions on their construction, except that in the spirit of fair warning we should require large signs be posted all around them, announcing the hazard but reassuring congregants that god himself is holding the building up. That'll drive everyone with a lick of sense away from them, and those consenting adults (we'll have a new reason to forbid the attendance of children!) who believe in ghosts propping up the bricks...well, they'll be removed from the population one way or another.
Liberals generally don't believe in leaving people to their fate, even if that fate is self-chosen. PZ, of course, will say he's just joking -- he doesn't really mean this. And I believe him. But I still find it bothersome. Isn't that what Ann Coulter says when she jokes about killing people? Why is it cute or funny to joke about letting religious people die?
I say this in hopes that people here will not just take me for a troll. I agree with PZ about the merits of the beliefs of Pastor Carroll and his ilk. I just think we should be careful not to slide into the habits of the right -- wishing, even in jest, for the death of our (non-threatening) enemies.
Posted by: Stephen Frug | August 11, 2006 6:59 PM
Lya Kahlo wrote:
It's quite sweet, isn't it?
Like pavlova - hahaha!
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 11, 2006 7:04 PM
PROFANITY WARNING
Psst! Yeah, you, you demented fuckwit! What the 'ell is your name again? Jason!
Lemme 'splain something: people here are making fun of you! I mean, you come across as a complete dumbfuck asshole to everyone, posters and lurkers alike! Your so darn dumb you aren't even a troll. Imean, I actually pity you, in that "There-but-for-the-grace-of-Goddess-go-I" way. Unlike ANY other demented fuckwit I have come across, you sound like a tightassed, Xian version of Homer Simpson, except REALLY conceited and without any of his loveable qualities.
I thought someone should, like, let you know - even someone who thinks you are worthless crap and the perfect example of Twain definition of a "human being."
That's as kind a word as you deserve. Now, fuck off.
Posted by: goddogtired | August 11, 2006 7:05 PM
I think you're missing the point.
He's saying let the people that believe that god will save them from harm put their money where their faith is...
Those sitting on the fence might back away... very slowly... *did you hear a loud creak?*
Posted by: Steve_C | August 11, 2006 7:06 PM
What's truly funny about this whole thing is that these people don't really consider why those regulations are there for: to stop people from getting hurt in crappily made buildings! Geez, what a bunch of morons. Lucky morons, at that.
Posted by: Zbu | August 11, 2006 8:04 PM
Frug:
I suggest you read A Modest Proposal by Johnathan Swift. Hmmm, check that -- you should read about that book - it might go over your head. The technique of taking a point to its logical extreme in order to highlight the absurdity of same is a tried and true technique. Check out the latest from TDS for an example:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/10/the-daily-shows-new-correspondent/
Posted by: Theron | August 11, 2006 8:46 PM
Oh? And what do you think liberals typically do believe in?
Posted by: Caledonian | August 11, 2006 8:54 PM
Jason, just think how much fun you could have if you gave up that religion of yours and joined the enlightened set.
You know you want to! It's never too late.
Posted by: George | August 11, 2006 9:58 PM
hey Jason/Jinx!
Do you believe, word for word, in the literal accuracy of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments?
Yes or no.
Why have you been refusing to answer this question?
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 11, 2006 10:07 PM
Jason, you KNOW you're a troll. Quit the whiny indignation routine. It's boring.
So jinx, are you still not allowing comments at your PZ-stalking blog?
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 11, 2006 10:12 PM
Grog et al:
Thanks all for exposing Jason for being a lying crank behind the troll.
My cephalopod, an entire blog concerned with "exposing" PZ. Without commenting allowed... What mental or social defects can account for such oddness, one wonders. Sad!
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 11, 2006 10:25 PM
Theron: of course I've read "A Modest Proposal". (And thanks for keeping the discussion civil with that "over your head" comment. Shows a real commitment to reasoned discourse, it does.)
The difference is that Swift was discussing harm to people whom he actually was fighting for -- satirizing those who didn't care by taking it to the logical conclusion. (The same is true for the Daily Show.) It's an entirely different thing to joke about harming those people one dislikes, disrespects, and is struggling with. That's why Ann Coulter's jokes about killing liberals aren't funny. And that's why I find what PZ said disturbing, too.
Posted by: Stephen Frug | August 11, 2006 10:55 PM
PZ didn't suggest killing church goers. Read it again.
He suggested leaving them to their own devices. Very different.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 11, 2006 11:01 PM
PZ didn't suggest killing church goers. Read it again. He suggested leaving them to their own devices. Very different.
You're right. And that's why I said that it's disturbing to joke "about letting religious people die?" in my first comment; and why I talked about "leaving people to their fate".
Of course PZ isn't doing what Ann Coulter does, which is joke about actually killing people. But I think joking about leaving people to die -- which is what this seems to amount to ("well, they'll be removed from the population one way or another.") I think it's one of the duties of those fighting the good fight (as PZ clearly is) to hold themselves to a higher standard. And I think that it's one of those duties of those who support such people to point out when they're edging out of the territory of the acceptable and into the territory of the disturbing.
Look, anyone foolish enough to believe God will protect them in such a building is, well, foolish. But there are all sorts of reasons that people would skimp on building codes if they weren't there; that's why we have them. And people being foolish is not a reason to imagine their deaths with a giggle.
Posted by: Stephen Frug | August 11, 2006 11:10 PM
So what's the problem with letting people reap what they sow? That's how selection-feedback systems work. Why should we be concerned about intervening and preserving people who just can't cut it?
Posted by: Caledonian | August 11, 2006 11:17 PM
Perhaps in the long run a religion that dictates that buildings need not be made to be safe is not a religion we really want in charge.
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 11, 2006 11:24 PM
Stephen:
My apologies for calling you just "Frug." I mean, I know it's your name, but you signed your whole name, and I forgot that. I'm also sorry you think I was uncivil, but it did seem to me that you had missed PZ's point, that it went over your head. Does PZ not care about whether those people live or die? I doubt it, but I can't speak for him. But I read his comment as tongue in cheek. I don't know your background, but I do know mine. As a religious minority growing up in the deep South, I became accustomed to two things - 1) How absurd the fundies are and 2) How little they understand how absurd they are. They think they're put upon, the victims in everything. They can't see how heavy their hand is upon everyone else (at least in the South where I live). They can't see how privileged they are - they think if their faith is not endorsed by the government and society at large, then they are being persecuted! Where's my endorsement? And they get so upset when the religious minorities in their midst make rude jokes. "What did we do to deserve that?" they say, even as they talk about how everyone who doesn't agree with them is going to hell! Talk about elitism - sheesh. So spare me your concerns about PZ's homicidal tendencies and your "confusion" about his satire. I can do without.
Posted by: Theron | August 12, 2006 12:24 AM
Theron -
Um, I can't tell for sure, but you're either engaging a concern troll or someone Who Just Doesn't Get It. Funny how little space there is between the two. That he can't see the difference between one kind of joke (leaving people to their own devices to reap what they sow) with another (actively calling for the killing of certain people) cetainly stamps him as lame or willful.
Posted by: mndean | August 12, 2006 12:44 AM
"Look, anyone foolish enough to believe God will protect them in such a building is, well, foolish. "
It is much simpler than that. Anyone foolish enough to believe in god is, well, foolish. Building any sort of church is foolish and a waste of time and money.
Then again, with this god, if you build something correctly and it doesn't like it, it will collapse it for you. Look at the walls of Jericho.
Posted by: bernarda | August 12, 2006 3:24 AM
I'm surprised they didn't try to build it on a lake.
OOOHH! they had it easy. We used to dream of livin' in a lake. We used to live in a shoebox in the middle of the road...
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2006 3:25 AM
Scott Hatfield,
Your description of what a Troll really is seems spot on, to me.
Posted by: Numad | August 12, 2006 5:33 AM
Gee, Texas is pretty Baptist, but even here, almost all the churches are occupied on Thursdays. At our church we have a board meeting, or a Cub Scout Pack meeting, or other Scout meetings, or AA meetings, or women's club meetings, or something.
Is Thursday Bingo Night at the local Catholic church in that borough of Alabama?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | August 12, 2006 6:21 AM
You had a shoebox? Oh, we used to dream of having a shoebox. All we had was a 5 inch square of paper with a hole in the middle, 6 of us all crammed in there, we did...
Posted by: Carlie | August 12, 2006 7:22 AM
"Jason, just think how much fun you could have if you gave up that religion of yours and joined the enlightened set.
You know you want to! It's never too late. "
Are you absolutely sure you want him? He could change sides without changing personality you know....
Posted by: oldhippie | August 12, 2006 8:13 AM
Ah, sometimes I just feel like a good rant.
Posted by: Theron | August 12, 2006 8:49 AM
You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.
Posted by: Ukko | August 12, 2006 8:59 AM
Luxury! We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 12, 2006 9:06 AM
Here are some Christians you might have confidance in.
"Awards were presented in five home categories: affordable, custom, factory-built, production and innovative in three climate regions: hot, moderate, and cold. In 1999 there were eight gold winners, three being in the cold climate region. They were: Christian Builders in Minnesota (Custom Home), Ryan Homes in New York (Affordable Home), and Colorado Dream Homes in Colorado (Production Home). A panel of judges who evaluated applications on energy performance and the integration of energy efficiency into the design, construction, and marketing of new homes chose the winners."
http://www.christianbuilders.com/sitepages/pid46.php
However, christian in this case is family name of the owners of the company. Who says there aren't good Christians?
Here is a bit more on Elk River which I mentioned in another forum.
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=2045
"On-the-job evangelism extends far beyond Ripka's community. In 2001, Angie Tracey, an employee at the Centers for Disease Control, organized what she calls a ''comprehensive workplace ministry,'' among the first officially sanctioned employee religious groups within the federal government. She says that many colleagues have been ''saved'' at her group's Bible studies and other gatherings on government property, and she describes the federal agency's not-yet-saved employees as ''fertile ground.'' Her program has spread rapidly within the C.D.C., and employees at other divisions of the federal government -- the Census Bureau, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management -- have contacted her about bringing the Word into their workplaces, too."
As to the banker who established a xtian church, "So, the first thing to know about Chuck Ripka is that he says Jesus talks to him -- actually speaks to him, calling him ''Chuck.''" and
"He worked odd jobs after high school and was born again when he was 21, during an Amway meeting. Shortly after, Jesus began talking to him. ''I used to assume that all Christians heard God the way I do,'' he said. ''But I realized over time that a lot of people don't hear, or they don't recognize, his voice. They think, Are these my thoughts or God's?''"
Another case,
"Don Couchman, a dentist in Colorado who has made his dental practice a workplace ministry, related a story not long ago about how in the middle of performing a root canal, the Lord spoke to him and told him to go on a pilgrimage to Argentina. I interrupted to ask how he knew it was the Lord. ''The sheep know the shepherd's voice,'' he said. (Some workplace Bible-study groups, including those at the Riverview bank, feature training in how to distinguish between God's voice and random thoughts.)"
Now there is a useful training program.
Posted by: bernarda | August 12, 2006 10:01 AM
Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.
Posted by: Ukko | August 12, 2006 10:40 AM
Stephen:
"And that's why I said that it's disturbing to joke "about letting religious people die?" in my first comment; and why I talked about "leaving people to their fate"."
Are you saying that we should declare these people incompetent and act on that? It seems both patronising and difficult, especially considering the freedom of religion. (Of course, joking about them is patronising too. But not as offensive.)
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 12, 2006 10:55 AM
We don't need to 'declare' them anything. If they're incompetent, they are. Our labels mean nothing.
Posted by: Caledonian | August 12, 2006 11:01 AM
Right.
I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay the mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 12, 2006 11:01 AM
And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.
Posted by: Ukko | August 12, 2006 11:38 AM
They won't!
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 12, 2006 11:51 AM
This is silly. The joke is that I would loudly oppose any attempt to remove churches from regulation and oversight, and even think their tax-exempt status is criminal and damaging. The satirical part is the idea that I would propose our society allow a further erosion of common sense.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 12, 2006 11:54 AM
Jason, I'm openly religious and I comment here, once or twice about what I saw as an reductive discussion of people with religious faith.
I'm also on the sidebar.
Of course, I'm not contemptuous and abusive of our host and his readers. Think that might be it?
Posted by: julia | August 12, 2006 1:25 PM
I also seem to have approvingly linked to a post by Slacktivist the other day. I must be really confused if I think he is a fellow atheist.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 12, 2006 1:28 PM
The bit about Caesar wanting a building permit is a great sound bite, but this ain't really about Caesar (or his modern stand-ins). The building didn't fall down because they didn't have a permit, it fell down because the design, execution or both were faulty.
Skipping the permit process meant that they threw away an opportunity to have their work