Sean Needs Heart Surgery

A long time friend of mine has been dealing with numerous financial and health challenges with her family.  She's bravely faced each of them.  But, now she needs some help.   Her son, Sean, was born with a congenital heart defect.  Sean is now 13 and the doctors have decided it's time to repair his heart.  Unfortunately, this comes right after Debra and her husband Jon both got raises and Debra took a second job.  Why would this be unfortunate?  Because now the state of Washington has dropped Sean from the CHIPS insurance program. They make "too much money".  Debra and Jon are facing about $6,300 of out-of-pocket medical expenses.  They don't have $6,300!  Debra got the second job so they could afford to eat and stay in their rented house.  Don't get me started on a health care system that penalizes people for working two jobs to get ahead.

Please visit Sean's site.  You can read more details about Sean and send him and his family a message of encouragement.  If you can find it in your heart to donate $5, $10 or $25 to help cover their expenses for Sean's surgery, that would be tremendously helpful. Or, you can donate right now by clicking on the widget below.

How I Was Most Hurt By Organized Religion

Image by Bling$Bling via FlickrJim Palmer asked six very interesting questions his blog and said to choose one to answer for a conference he's attending. The questions are:

1. I left organized church because…
2. Is following Christ the same as being a “Christian”?
3. For me, religious detox has involved…
4. The main way I feel judged by or don’t feel like I fit with most “Christians” is…
5. What’s most important to me now about my relationship with God is…
6. How was I most hurt or wounded through my involvement with organized religion?

I thought these were great questions.  I chose number six to answer for Jim.  Here are my thoughts on it. I tried to limit myself to three paragraphs and no more than five minutes. These are my unedited thoughts.

I was raised Pentecostal.  I was taught that God was a great big man up in the sky who loved me.  But, he was very much like my father. His love was conditional. When I did the right things he was proud of me.  But, when I did the wrong things, he was there to punish me.  And, BTW, the best I could ever do was as "filthy rags".  So, he was never really proud of me.

I was taught that this God who loved me demanded perfection and nothing short of perfection could please him.  Since I could not be perfect, he would accept Jesus' perfection in my place.  Since I deserved to be killed and then eternally tortured, he'd take Jesus in my place for that, too.  He could only bear to look upon me if he saw me wrapped up in Jesus' bloody body.  I get the image of a wolf literally wrapped in a sheep's carcass when I think of those days. 

Serving this type of perfectionist and schizophrenic God made me fearful, demanding and judgmental myself.  I knew that even my love for him was a sham because how can you love a monster who creates a helpless, sinful creature then tortures it for being exactly what he created it to be?  How can you love in "free will" someone who says "Love me or I'll send you to hell for eternity."  How others around me could love this god made me feel inferior and evil.  I knew that even though I had done the right things, said the prayer, gotten baptized, even spoke in tongues that I hadn't really appeased him because I could never truly love him, only fear him.

That is how I was most hurt by organized religion.  Organized religion presented me with the picture of a schizophrenic, perfectionist, masochistic God and demanded that I love an unlovable tyrant.

There Is A God

I remember seeing the headlines in late 2004/early 2005.  One of the world's most famous atheists, Anthony Flew, had declared his belief in "a God". This was a major coup for the theists in the atheism versus theism battle.  So, when I saw the book "There Is No A God" had been published, I had to get it.  I had to see what new evidence had persuaded one of the most prominent philosophers of our time.  Anthony Flew was an atheist for more than 60 years.  He spent time debating Christian apologists (including presenting papers to C.S. Lewis.  You may know that C.S. Lewis was, at one time a pretty staunch atheist before he became of the best known apologists for Christianity.  I want to know what makes men like that tick; men who are willing to completely change their views on something as critical on whether or not there is a God based on reason and logic.

The subtitle of the book is "How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind". The book begins at the beginning- talking about Flew's youth, his days in school and what led him to being an atheist in the first place.  His father was a minister.   So, he did not start off as an atheist. But, in his teens he had already decided there was no God.   The book takes through his formation as an atheist and the reasoning that led him there.  Early on in life, he decided to "follow the evidence wherever it may lead", which is a Socratic principle.  When I made that commitment to myself a couple of decades ago, I didn't know it was a Socratic principle.  But, I decided that I would pursue truth above all else, even if it led me away from Christianity.  It's fascinating that the same commitment that led Flew away from being a theist over 60 years later brought him right back. He did not become an atheist out of personal preference nor did he return to theism out of personal preference.  He followed the evidence (as he interprets it of course).

The book is written in language a layperson can understand.  I've struggled to read some philosophers as they speak their own language and even seem to use their own logic.  However, Flew and his co-author Roy Varghese speak in language the common man can understand. Flew's "religion" would probably be called Deism. He is not a Christian, even though he has acknowledged that the Christian argument for revealed religion is probably stronger than any other.  Flew's religion is not "revealed" and is not based on either faith or personal experience.  He came to the conclusion that there is a God simply based on logic/reason/philosophy although recent scientific discoveries (including the Big Bang theory) certainly helped.  Actually, the core of Flew's argument, IMO is the fact that there is something rather than nothing.  He goes on to talk about the fact that there seems to be a goal or a design to life, talks about the rising of the living from the non-living and the intelligent from the supposedly non-intelligent.  In each case, he tells why materialism/atheism simply doesn't work to answer the questions that a simple acknowledgment of a Creator answers.  IMO just the fact that there is something rather than nothing means that there has always been something because every effect must have a cause.  Nothing exists completely independently of everything else.  Materialists choose to believe the universe has always existed and have come up with some fanciful and intellectually dishonest ways of explaining how something can come from "nothing" (like "nothing" is unstable and decays into "something") or the multiverse theory which attempts to explain the fine-tuning of the universe with the theory that there are an infinite or almost infinite number of universes.  I've actually come to the conclusion it takes a lot more faith to be a true atheist (as opposed to an agnostic) than it takes to be a "believer".  Some philosophers get themselves so twisted up that they begin to doubt the existence of their very selves and their own minds.  As one philosopher said to another in the book some of their theories don't really require refutation.  If they actually believe the stuff they say, they need (mental health) help.  If your philosophy causes you to doubt your own existence or the existence of your mind, it's time to put down the books and get back to the real world.

The description of Flew's journey from atheism to theism is followed by two appendices.  The first is a refutation of the "new atheism" which is really a rehashing of materialism or positivism and is nothing new.   The second is a defense of the divine relevation of Christianity.  I didn't find this defense to be particularly strong and I'm kind of surprised Flew does.  But, when it comes to believing in a Divine Mind, a Creator, a First Cause, I think Flew shows conclusively this is exactly where the evidence leads us. Whether one chooses to call this "God" or not is a matter of preference.  But, there is sufficient reason to believe that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being does indeed exist and to believe so doesn't require a great leap of "faith" or really any faith at all other than the faith to honestly follow the evidence where it leads.

Out of Touch Congressman

Image via Wikipedia

Shayna (my 8 year old) is very upset that kids can't vote. She was reading a comic strip several days ago. It mentioned writing your Congressman. Shayna composed a hand-written note and showed it to me. She asked if she could send it to her Congressman. To encourage her to get involved in the political process, I said "sure". The result has been "interesting".

First of all, it's easy enough to find your Congressmen and Senators on-line now. And, it's pretty easy to email them. However, I wanted them to get Shayna's hand-written letter. After several minutes of looking, I was finally able to find a physical address for our Representative John Boehner. But, the website discourages you from mailing anything saying it could take up to three weeks to reach him due to security issues. OK. I understand that. Three weeks for an 8 year old is an eternity. So, I decided to type her letter out for her. Here's what Shayna had to say:

Dear Congressman,

Why can't kids vote? It is so un-fair. Kids should have rights! We are just as american as adults are! I don't know about other kids, but I wouldn't be persuaded by candy. Me and my sister both think we should be able to vote. And lots of other kids we know think so to. We, as in all of us kids, care who is running OUR country. (Please pass this bill sooner than 2 years. But, if its longer thats okay to). Please take this into consideration. Tell me your answer as well.

From a loyal citizen,
Shayna
8 years old

I was very impressed with Shayna's letter. Much more so than with the Congressman's reply:

Dear Shayna:

Thank you for your recent communication in regard to lowering the voting age. It is always good to hear from my young constituents.

As you may know, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution "prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater to vote simply because of their age." In the summer of 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson asked the Congress to offer an amendment lowering the voting age to 18 years of age. In order to amend the U.S. Constitution, three-fourths of state legislatures must pass the proposed amendment. Senator Jennings Randolph introduced this amendment in 1971, and the necessary number of states approved this amendment within months. The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on July 1, 1971.

Before the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, each state determined the appropriate voting age for its citizens. This amendment was introduced and passed largely because of the presence of the Vietnam War. At that time, many supporters of this amendment argued that if individuals were old enough to be drafted into the military, they should be old enough to vote on the selection of the civilian government who would be determining if, when, and how military force would be used.

While this amendment provided voting privileges to those of age to protect our country by serving in the military, it also had its consequences. The passage of this amendment led to the lowering of the minimum age for other 'adult' rights. For example, by the end of the 1980s, all fifty states had lowered the age of consent of marriage and the age of signing contracts without parental consent to 18. Many other states lowered the drinking age to 18 throughout the 1970s and early 1980s until the National Drinking Age of 1984 compelled states to set a limit of 21 years of age for the purchase of alcoholic beverages by threatening cuts in federal highway construction money. In addition, the legal age of gambling and the purchase of tobacco products were also changed in some states.

I understand your belief that those under the age of 18 are affected by the issues that our country faces. Everyone - including children, teenagers, young adults, middle-aged adults, and senior citizens - is affected by these pressing issues. However, I do not believe the Federal Government should have a role in further lowering the age to vote. I believe 18 is an appropriate benchmark to measure the point at which most Americans begin to reach the intellectual maturity and are able to accept the civic responsibility that voting requires. In addition, a federal mandate lowering the voting age to 16 years of age would no doubt spark repeated controversies in each of the 50 states on what the appropriate age for 'adult' activities is. However, I do believe that this is an issue for state and local governments. If you would like to further pursue this matter, I suggest you contact your state legislators. Their contact information is below:

Rep. Diana Fessler
77 S. High St
13th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-8114

Senator Tom Roberts
Senate Building
Room #128, First Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone: (614) 466-6247

You may be interested to know that Ohio citizens who will be 18 years of age before the general election are permitted to vote in the primary election.

Thank you again for contacting me with your thoughts. Please don't hesitate to inform me of your concerns in the future. To sign up for email updates, I welcome you to visit my website at http://johnboehner.house.gov/Forms/Form/?ID=89.

Sincerely,
John A. Boehner

Dude, you're writing an 8 year old. I'm sure this is a canned reply. But, couldn't you have your secretary take the time to write an appropriate canned reply for an 8 year old kid who wants to be involved in the political process? I guess Shayna will be thrilled to get any reply.

Peace,
Brian