Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Prayers for the dying

Who hasn't said to themselves something like, "Please don't let me screw  this up" when going into a job interview?  But does that inchoate thought count as a prayer? I think the answer to that in part depends upon to whom we think the plea is made.

A few months ago, the Washington Post had an article about atheists praying.  One of the praying atheists interviewed for the piece says,
“If you say, ‘I ought to have more serenity about the things I can’t change,’ versus ‘Grant me serenity,’ there is a humility, a surrender, an openness. If you say, ‘grant me,’ you’re saying you can’t do it by yourself. Or you wouldn’t be there,” said Gold....
What I get from that is he has a yearning for the comfort of faith and a willingness to give himself up, even though his intellect can't quite go there.  The article goes on,
Atheists deny religion’s claim of a supernatural god but are starting to look more closely at the “very real effect” that practices such as going to church, prayer and observance of a Sabbath have on the lives of the religious, said Paul Fidalgo, a spokesman for the secular advocacy group the Center for Inquiry. “That’s a big hole in atheist life,” he said. “Some atheists are saying, ‘Let’s fill it.’ Others are saying, ‘Let’s not.’ ”
I'm not a praying sort of atheist, though I like the act of going to church and the rhythm of the ritual.   Regardless, I've got no problem with other people praying around me, or even for me.  The way I see it, if someone wants to pray for me, they are offering a gift. (The only exception is the butter-wouldn't-melt-in-the-mouth  sort who says "I'll PRAY for you" to the Godless homosexual--that's not a prayer as a gift, it's as a weapon.)

I know BP prays for me, and when she drops me at the airport to go off on a business trip, she always traces a cross on my forehead.  Jokingly, I told her if the cat gave me a dead mouse, that would be a gift in his world too... she hit me.  ;-)  But all joking aside, I very much appreciate that BP does this, and I am glad to be the recipient.  Since I am married to a Christian, if she DIDN'T pray for me, she either wouldn't be much of a Christian, or our marriage would be in real trouble.

Recently we talked about last rites. I told BP that if I were lying in a hospital at risk of death, and she wanted to call the priest to give me last rites, that would be fine.  Because it is meaningful to her.  After all, what does it matter to me?  At that point, it's not about me. I would want my wife to do whatever gives her the most comfort.  She was relieved, I think, to have that explicit permission.  I also assured her that if the situation were reversed, one of my very first calls would be to a priest, again, because it matters to her.  (It helps that one of our dearest friends is a priest!)

That conversation came back to us last night as we heard the tragic story of someone BP knew from work.  L. was in a terrible car accident with irrevocable brain damage, and a Roman Catholic priest had been summoned.  There was some discussion in the family that the victim "wouldn't want that".  But at this point, it's not about the victim.  She's already gone.  Maybe it gives comfort to the ones who do believe.  Maybe it's a way of admitting that she's gone.  Maybe it's closure.  It doesn't matter.

I know that many ex-Catholics-turned-atheist  have a visceral dislike of the idea of last rites, almost as if they believe that Holy Mother Church will be triumphant in the end and drag them to a heaven in which they don't believe.  But if you really DON'T  believe, then what's the  harm?  You're past caring.  But for someone in the family, maybe it's important.  Like funerals, these ritual acts are not just about the dead.  They are for the living.

Telling someone that you'll pray for them has an intention to it.  It's an act of generosity. To reject it is churlish.  So, for those so inclined, prayers for the crash victim L. and her family in this trying and difficult time.

Monday, September 16, 2013

The opposite of the #NALT Christians

We all know it's easy to point at the hellfire and brimstone snorting rabid right wing, that spews the most vicious lies about gay people and would like to kill us all.

But then there are the ones who also consider them "not like that", yet are implacably opposed to our rights as LGBT people.

They don't hate us, heavens no.  Why, they have gay friends/brothers/hairdressers whom they just LOVE!  And who love them back!  (yeah, I wonder).  It's just they don't think that we should have civil rights because, well, it's just not RIGHT.  And ICK.  But it's not personal.

Well, actually, it is.  yes.  Very personal.  And you are, functionally, no different that Charles Worley or Salvatore Cordileone or Maggie Gallagher or any of the most rabid, anti-gay opponents.

From Slacktivist
I read this self-serving attempt to be the “nice” bigot by Halee Gray Scott at Christianity Today’sher•meneutics blog, “I Am Not Charles Worley: The Plea of a Christian Who Opposes Gay Marriage.” 
Scott wants you to understand that she’s not at all like the infamous homophobic preacher Worley. She’s totally different. 
Worley wants to deny LGBT people their basic civil rights and legal equality because he hates them. Scott wants to deny LGBT people their basic civil rights and legal equality for other reasons. 
See? See how very different they are? Same result. Same vote. Same fundamental discrimination enshrined in law. But Worley is mean. Scott is nice. 
And Scott has had it up to here with people not recognizing the extreme importance of that distinction....
....
Look, here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely. ....
Scott wants to carve out a space in which she can be unfair, but still kind. Such a space does not exist and cannot exist.
While we're at it, from my Mac's dictionary:

THE RIGHT WORD
Bias is a predisposition either for or against something; one can have a bias against police officers or a bias for French food and wines.

Partiality, on the other hand, is a favorable bias (: the partiality of parents for their own children; the partiality of Americans for fast food), while prejudice implies a preconceived and usually negative judgment or opinion (: a decision motivated by racial prejudice).

Bigotry is an even stronger term, referring to an intense dislike and often violent hatred for the members of a particular race, religion, or ethnic group.

Narrow-mindedness also points to rigidly preconceived ideas, but implies that they are the result of lack of education or understanding, rather than outright hostility (: her parents' narrow-mindedness prevented her from meeting any boys her age).

Intolerance is a broad term used to describe the inability to put up with almost anything (: parents' intolerance of their children's misbehavior).

and

phobia |ˈfōbēə|
noun
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something : he had a phobia about being under water | a phobia of germs | a snake phobia.