I came across this article at the Worldnutdaily and I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around the concepts found there. The author, Jay Stapleton, is a pastor from Virginia who is urging his followers to pray for God to remove liberal justices from the Supreme Court because the window of opportunity for Bush to appoint "Godly" justices in their place is closing. But before getting to that, let me first debunk his first factual claim:
In Roberts and Alito, Bush got what he requested and conservatives got what they wanted: a crime-fighting duo of young, bright, originalist justices able to slap down the court jesters who've lampooned American jurisprudence the last 50 years.
I suspect that Mr. Stapleton just uses the term "originalist" here without having any idea what it means. Both Roberts and Alito emphatically denied being originalists during their confirmation hearings and neither has ever written anything endorsing originalism as the proper theory of constitutional interpretation. They are both conservatives, to be sure, but if they reach conservative results on the court it will not be because they are originalists. Now on to the real meat...
Here's my prayer list: Ginsburg - gone! Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy - gone! Installed in their place: God-fearing, Constitution-loving justices flanking Roberts on both right and left! There are four remaining liberal judges on the nation's high court. That equates to four justices who are anti-life (in the name of choice), pro-perversion (in the name of privacy) and anti-American (in the name of progress). May God banish them from the court.
Leaving aside the fact that this cartoonish rhetoric flies much better from behind the pulpit of his church (where most of the listeners have likely shut their brains off at the door), think for a moment about what this does to the concept of free will. The response to the problem of evil is always "free will" - bad things happen because humans have the freedom to make horrible choices that screw up the world and because, as sinful creatures by nature, we will inevitably make those choices. But think about this for a moment...
Those "liberal" justices want to continue to serve on the court; if they didn't want to, they would resign. That's an exercise of their free will, isn't it? Yet here Stapleton is praying that God will "banish them from the court" and the only way that can happen is for God to override the free will of these justices. So does God give us free will, as these people claim, or do we only have free will until people pray to God to take it away? To make matters worse, he justifies the need to pray about this by reference to the need to overcome God's will:
Politically, liberalism is retreating, and Christians should be pursuing in prayer. After all, who's to say the receding liberal tide isn't, in actuality, a tidal drawback before a coming tsunami of godless leftism? The truth is, God (not Karl Rove) holds the key to America's future â and He may, in His wisdom, allow liberals to return to power.
This strikes me as even more bizarre. Is Stapleton really saying that if Christians pray, they may succeed in changing what God, in His wisdom, would otherwise have done absent those prayers? Doesn't this put those praying in the position of being against the wisdom and will of God himself? Surely no "God-fearing" Christian would want to subsitute his own wisdom for that of the Almighty.
And this also compunds the free will problem I mentioned above. If liberals return to power in America, it will only be because a majority of the voters choose to vote for them. So by praying that liberals don't return to power, they are really asking God to deny the free will of millions of Americans. How would he do that? Would he change their minds for them, so if they were going to vote for a Democrat they would suddenly decide to vote Republican, but wouldn't know why? Or would he let them vote the way they want and then magically change the ballots to frustrate the exercise of their free will?
There's a basic conflict at the core here - if they would have voted for conservatives in the first place, then the prayer does nothing. And if the prayer works, it can only be because God takes away the free will of millions of people to conform to the wishes of those doing the praying. And what about all those liberal Christians on the other side praying that liberalism regains power? Do their prayers not get heard, or do they just count less? Or can we figure out which side prayed harder by looking at the outcome?
It's all quite absurd and it reduces God to being a genie in a bottle granting three wishes depending on who rubbed the bottle last, or rubbed it harder, or what have you. And it's made made more absurd by the fact that this man has a following, a group of people who listen to irrational nonsense like this from him and accept it without ever engaging their brains. It seems to me that a Christian would find this kind of thinking theologically dangerous.
- Log in to post comments
Ed,
You've really hit on something here that ,aside from the disgust I feel about his political statements, has always made me question religion. I feel all 'educated' religious arguments sort of miss the point. Religion is most silly when you can't get a decent answer to a simple question.
In this case prayer. If you are told God has a plan for you and you pray for something and he grants it, did he jsut change his mind? If he did what does that say about the plan and if he didn't why pray at all as the plan would happen anyway. Now I guess you can play for thanks but thats not what we are talking about here.
'anti-life (in the name of choice), pro-perversion (in the name of privacy) and anti-American (in the name of progress).'
So this guy feels those who prefer the government stay out of peoples private lives are unAmerican? I'll bet he thinks himself a conservative. But it's not like a conservative used to be.
'Politically, liberalism is retreating, and Christians should be pursuing in prayer'
This always pisses me off and I'm a pretty 'conservative' individual. Why is conservatism more 'Christian' than liberalism? It isn't and this mixing of politics and religion will be the end of this nation if it isn't squleched. I'm about sick of it.
Please excuse my numerous typos, I was banging away in a hurry.
"the only way that can happen is for God to override the free will of these justices."
Death is the answer. This clown is more circumspect than Ann Coulter, but basically he's asking God to put rat poisin in all 4 of their creme brulees.
I find it interesting that he thinks the window of opportunity is closing. I think it means he is worried the Senate is going to turn over in the next election (or the white house in '08).
BTW, fundamentalists don't really believe in free will. They have this concept of "the elect of God", who were elected by God at creation. They deny this is predestination, but then they also claim that ID (and YEC) is science.
Don't look too deeply into their reasoning. They don't. As Nietzsche said, "when you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss also stares into you."
I must only add this last comment. I have never found any argument for 'free will' remotely convincing if it also includes the concept of omnipotence.
I can't claim to speak for the author of the article, but indeed, the efficacy of prayer is a complicated topic.
First, we know that prayer does do *something*, since in James 5:16 it says "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."
Now what does it do? And here we get into the somewhat trite three answers to prayer:
God Says Yes: He intervenes in the physical world to cause the request to happen. (My son has free will, but it doesn't mean I won't override it for any number of reasons.
God Says No: The situation does not change, and the oppourtunity for God to act passes by (i.e., the sick loved one dies). In this situation, prayer is used the change *the petitioner* in order to accept the current state of things.
God says Wait: The situation does not change, but things could still change in the future.
I will leave aside the discussion as to how to determine which answer you got. 8^)
Of course, it all comes down to faith.
Very nice analysis here Ed.
How does Stapleton suggest that god remove the justices, by the way? If they are to have a change of heart and chose to retire, why not just pray that they become conservatives? And how else could god remove them? Death?
I'm also awaiting 10 years from now when Roberts and Alito will be considered "liberal justices" who arrogantly use their "activism" to deny the "will of the people." Just as the vast majority of justices today who were appointed by republican presidents are considered liberal.
Shargash said:
I believe Shargash is correct. Reading between the lines here, the minister is asking his god to strike four human beings dead. Oh, he might settle for a crippling disease rendering them unable to hold their position, or maybe smiting their loved one with something awful so they leave to take care of them, but it's much neater to just kill them all right off.
Chance said:
I couldn't agree more, and I have seen some stirrings over the last three year or so from liberal Christians, pointing out that Christ advocated care for the poor and casting away riches, turning the other cheek instead of violence, etc. I hope that continues, because the last time I checked Jesus wasn't registered with either party.
KeithB,
With all do respect your answer is baloney.
' can't claim to speak for the author of the article, but indeed, the efficacy of prayer is a complicated topic.'
No it's not. It's simple, it only seems to become complicated when people need to find justification for irrational ideas.
First, we know that prayer does do *something*, since in James 5:16 it says "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."
We don't KNOW that, some people believe that. A big difference. So your argument is a non starter.
'Now what does it do? And here we get into the somewhat trite three answers to prayer:'
They are trite to be sure.
God Says Yes: He intervenes in the physical world to cause the request to happen. (My son has free will, but it doesn't mean I won't override it for any number of reasons.'
Thats just silly. He didn't ask you to do so. And if he did and you overide it he is doing someting against his will.
'God Says No: The situation does not change, and the oppourtunity for God to act passes by (i.e., the sick loved one dies). In this situation, prayer is used the change *the petitioner* in order to accept the current state of things.'
God says Wait: The situation does not change, but things could still change in the future. '
These last two cannot illustrate further the sheer vacous nature of these types of discussions. Basically no matter what you pray for and no matter the outcome it all gets neatly placed into any preformed response.
'I will leave aside the discussion as to how to determine which answer you got. 8^)'
Of course whichever one you believe you got. And no amount of logic or evidence will ever dissuade you.
'Of course, it all comes down to faith.'
Of course. But this is BS. If it really worked and something really was quantifiable if wouldn't come down to faith at all.
I think a better strategy to stack the court would be for congress to expand the number of supreme court justices. With the Republicans controlling everything, I'm surprised that they haven't tried it.
I believe Shargash is correct. Reading between the lines here, the minister is asking his god to strike four human beings dead. Oh, he might settle for a crippling disease rendering them unable to hold their position, or maybe smiting their loved one with something awful so they leave to take care of them, but it's much neater to just kill them all right off.
Maybe he's just asking that their pool wins the Powerball lotto, and then they leave public service for a life of drinking and gambling at various Vegas whore-houses.
Oh wait...that's my plan.
I think a better strategy to stack the court would be for congress to expand the number of supreme court justices. With the Republicans controlling everything, I'm surprised that they haven't tried it.
Didn't F. D. Roosevelt try this one on?
So if these justices all suddenly die, who gets arrested for murder--Pastor Jay or God? If they don't die, doesn't that mean God considers Pastor Jay and his flock a bunch of horses'asses? What if a liberal congregation (does God allow such a thing?) prays for the good health and well-being of our justices; how many does it take to out-petition the death-prayers? Doesn't God use "instruments" to carry out his holy wishes? If so, perhaps Pastor Jay should stop talking about it and go do it, in essence carrying out his own fatwah.
folks, please use blockquote tags when answering the comments of others. I explained how to do so here.
Testing...
OK, will do.
From Chance:
I don't know about omnipotence being a problem since God could be all powerful but choose not to exercise that power in a way that violates free will, but omniscience on the other hand is definitely a problem.
If God has perfect knowledge of the future then the future (including your choices in it) is fixed and free will is an illusion.
Then of course there are Biblical references, God "hardening the heart" of Pharaoh in the Exodus story for example, which shows that God is not beyond tampering with free will from time to time, but that's more than I am going to get into right now.
From Troy Britain:
Maybe God has, Star Trek like, perfect knowledge of all the infinity of possible futures, and via free will we simply describe one of those paths?
Just speculatin'
Your correct, I am mentioned was typing quickly and used the wrong word. Thats for the correction.
"Says Yes: He intervenes in the physical world to cause the request to happen. (My son has free will, but it doesn't mean I won't override it for any number of reasons."
The difference being that you don't condemn your son to eternal damnation for disobeying you. How can a benevolent/merciful God both give people the freedom to sin and be condemned, and then override their free will? Do the beneficiaries and victims of successful prayers get automatic salvation?
Chance said:
I am often amused by people who think they say something new and original when they condemn religion because it is based on faith. Well, here is the news: IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SO. Religion makes sense only when it is based on faith. If you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to believe in anything. Especially God won't force you, because such "religiousness" would mean nothing to Him. To be a believing Christian requires an act of faith.
I don't know, really. I'm a physicist. I routinely apply reason in my work. I apply it in political discussions. It would seem to be natural for me to bash people who act in some matter according to faith, too, not only reason (religion needs reason, too!). But somehow this thing does not appeal to me. It smacks of intellectual onanism. It's a cheap shot. I'd even call it bigotry: you criticize people not for what they want, but because they choose a different method of achieving their goals, which does not harm anyone. Someone prays for good things (not for the death of liberal SC justice), like curing of his son from a terminal illness. You think it won't work. So what? He wants to do good in the way he thinks is good and may work. He has hope. And you have the hutzpah to attack him??? I would only criticize the man if he didn't do anything else besides prayer, since this would be foolish, also in the eyes of a practising Christian (people should not act as if God was their personal miracle producer).
I have a personal message to all people who go on again and again, calling faith BS: get a life. They've heard you and don't seem to change their minds. Remember what Winston Churchill said: "A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject".
Roman wrote:
The set of claims I criticized above are irrational and contradictory and make no sense at all. You seem to think that the mere invocation of the word "faith" magically transforms a false claim into an unassailable argument immune from criticism. Even worse, you seem to think that the moment someone invokes "faith", any criticism of the claims they make amounts to "bigotry". I'm sorry, Roman, but this idea is every bit as ridiculous as the one I criticize above. Bad ideas are bad ideas. False claims are false claims. There is nothing wrong, and certainly nothing bigoted, about debunking a false claim. The fact that the false claim may be religious rather than political or scientific does not make it immune from criticism. The word "faith" is not some magic force field to insulate false claims from analysis.
"I have a personal message to all people who go on again and again, calling faith BS: get a life. They've heard you and don't seem to change their minds. "
There's a world of difference between "calling faith BS" and demanding proof of the efficacy of intercessionary prayer from someone who says it works. If intercessionary prayer works, it will have a measurable impact. By definition. Nobody's saying that people shouldn't pray for comfort.
Roman said:
You know this is funny. No one condemned religion. I didn't. I said the discussion on prayer was irrational for the reasons above. I don't think there is anything new or original in the post.
This is funnier:
Thats even more humorous. Faith doesn't make something make more sense. It simply allows one to raise the blinders to the articles flaws and unlikelyhoods.
It is not a cheap shot to talk about the flaws in ones arguments. Basically your argument could be applied by a member of the nations in Ed's other post as well. That the oppression of women makes sense because of their faith and as such is beyond comment.
Actually what I said was:
I think it's perfectly fine to have faith and I'd defend your right to it. BUT if one has evidence for a claim one doesn't need faith anymore. It simply becomes unnecessary.
And to base arguments on it I find, typically, to be very unconvincing.
I don't think that is true at all.
You seem to think that the mere invocation of the word "faith" magically transforms a false claim into an unassailable argument immune from criticism.
I'm not asking for immunity for faith. I'm only saying that criticizing faith on the basis of logical analysis does not make sense, since faith per definition is something which doesn't subject itself to logical analysis. It's like trying to "prove" that Bach is better than Haendel just because you like Haendel more.
Even worse, you seem to think that the moment someone invokes "faith", any criticism of the claims they make amounts to "bigotry".
No. If they want to harm someone else, they are subject to criticism. But criticizing *prayer*?? What's the point?
I suspect that this coming Sunday just prior to 3pm EST, groups of Christian faithful will gather together to pray that their football team will be successful against that other football team. We do already know that one will win and one will lose. Thus some groups will believe that their prayers were answered with the victory, and some groups will look for all sorts of human based reasons why their team lost. Can we seriously accept that some god made some punt-returner drop the ball? Why will that guy who scores a touchdown thank his god for his success and not acknowledge that his same god defeated others who share that same faith and belief? Why doesn't the player who missed that game saving tackle look up at the sky and blame God for his failure, just as the player who scored the game-winning field goal thank his???
The very nature of the game however supports the notion that among the players, at any given moment, groups and individuals will focus their collective and individual consciousnesses to provide the best possible chance for a positive and successful outcome for each and every play. Yep it must be that genie in a bottle.
He wouldn't have even noticed such a completely illogical statement about liberals being elected as part of God's plan, but that's nothing unusual from the religious right. From what I've observed, it usually goes like the following: If the people they like are elected, it was God's will. If the people they don't like are elected, it's because of the encroaching evils of 'liberalism' and so they have to pray to God to change it. Then again, perhaps he meant God would let liberals be elected in order to 'punish' the country for not voting conservative. Hey, that's a 'punishment' I can live with. I'd give my left tit for a 'coming tsunami of godless leftism'.
[blockquote]"Reading between the lines here, the minister is asking his god to strike four human beings dead."[/blockquote]
Nothing unusual here. Ol' Reverend Pat was happily proclaiming Sharon's mind-destroying stroke to have been an act of God, and let's not forget Katrina and that old chestnut, 9-11. The God of the radical Christian right (not to be confused with moderate Christians) is a violent and hateful one that willingly dishes out death and misery to those that oppose the politics or beliefs of his followers. There was an article in the December 2005 Vanity Fair about that 'Left Behind' series and the evangelicals who follow that sort of stuff - very scary, very scary indeed.
[blockquote]The fact that the false claim may be religious rather than political or scientific does not make it immune from criticism.[/blockquote]
Yes, exactly! So many times I see genuine criticism of religion-based ideas decried as "Insert-religion-here bashing'. Oy. Just because it's derived from faith, it doesn't give you automatic immunity from feedback, be it positive or negative.
Roman wrote:
Absolute nonsense. If someone claims that prayer does something, i.e. has an effect on the real world, then that is an empirical claim, not at all comparable to matters of personal taste. Empirical claims are subject to logical analysis. If I claim that when I snap my fingers I can make it rain, that is an empirical statement that is entirely open to logical analysis. It doesn't change into a non-empirical claim immune to logical analysis if I utter the magic words "you must have faith".
I didn't criticize prayer in general. I criticized a specific type of prayer, a specific conception of how it operates. But yes, when people are encouraging others to pray for the death of supreme court justices and saying so in public, I think it deserves criticism. And it sure as hell isn't "bigotry" to criticize it, any more than it is bigotry to point out the utter absurdity of your arguments on this subject.
Not sure what the point is of the free will argument (things really do occur to us without our willing them -- like getting fired or dying), but as for the belief in this kind of efficacy of prayer, I think it illustrates the loss of humility endemic to the Christian Right. If you really want to throw up, try tuning in to TBN and witnessing the "Prosperity Gospel" -- the theology of God as a Ponzi scheme.
FYI, as a regular feature of the 700 Club for several months last year, Robertson held an on-camera prayer that various justices would retire or die.
Not to suggest you are over-analyzing the good Pastor's rant, Ed, but I read it mostly as a thinly-veiled suggestion from him to his followers to bump off a Justice or four. In God's name, of course.
Couldn't help but recall that ol' saw about a fanatic being "someone who is doing what God would do, if only God had all the facts."
Interestingly, in some recent game (I think it was the Steelers-Bengals wildcard game), the losing coach actually did say something that was remarkably close to "God didn't want us to win". I never thought I'd hear that. Though upon reflection it occurs to me that it's even more of a copout than thanking God for winning.
Did you see the first half of the Steelers-Colts game? Everything went Pittsburgh's way. Certainly made me think God was on one side. My guess is He had some money on the game.
Does free will place a limitation on Omniscience? If God knows all our motivations (be they rational, emotional or whatever) doesn't he know what the result of our free-willed decisions are going to be? The only alternative would appear to be for God to add a random factor into the decision (independent of our motivations) which he purposefully keeps hidden from himself. This would place a limit on Omniscience, but it is hard to argue that this random factor adds to free will - on the contrary I would argue that it tends to turn us into simply 'human dice' thrown by the Almighty.
I think you're getting (albeit unintentionally) to one of the core problems with the notion of free will. Let's say you're right, and God doesn't "peek" into the future and instead only perfectly extrapolates from our "motivations." If that's how God "knows" the "future," we're making the statement that our future decision are no more than the extrapolated sum of our influences, motivations, and experiences of our present and past. If we are slaves to our biology and our psychology, what space is left for free will?