Two-for-two

A couple of stories of people getting it right:

1. "Nun offers mercy, but robber gets jail"

Sister Muriel Curran faced the man who shoved her to the ground and ripped away her purse three years ago. She quoted Scripture. She thanked him for the guilty plea that spared her a trial. And she asked a Baltimore County judge not to send him to prison.

"There is possibility and hope -- I believe in it, it's what I'm about -- in rehabilitation and a future," the 78-year-old nun said yesterday, explaining that she has difficulty believing in a penal system that sometimes leaves criminals worse off than before they went to prison. ...

Asked after the hearing what had inspired her unusual approach to the man who left her with broken bones and deep bruises, unable to fully raise one arm and incapable of living on her own any longer, Sister Curran answered simply.

"The Gospel," she said. "You hear that cliche -- 'What would Jesus do?' -- but if you live it, you've got to believe it." ...

Yesterday, on the morning he was scheduled to go to trial, Dodson pleaded guilty to one count of robbery. The decision spared the nun the trip to the witness stand that she said she would have dreaded.

Reading from a card, Sister Curran quoted a letter in the Bible from the Prophet Jeremiah: "For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope."

Turning to face Dodson, she said, "That is my hope for you, Charles. I would like to give that to you."

2. You may have heard about the "virtual slavery" case of the John Nash Pickle company in Tulsa, Okla. Journalist John Bowe tells this story in his book Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy. I haven't read his book, but I just listened to a recounting of this story, including interviews with Bowe, on public radio's This American Life. This account, presented by host Ira Glass, also includes interviews with many of the 52 Indian steelworkers exploited by the company as well as with the man who first began to help them -- a lay minister at the local Pentecostal church named Mark Massey.

Once Massey realized how these men were being exploited, he provided a few of the men with housing to get them out of the miserable company barracks and he met with company managers to try to reclaim the mens' passports, which the company had confiscated. Massey quickly found himself in way over his head with little idea of what to do, but he didn't let that stop him. He hired the only lawyer he knew. He moved the rest of the Indian workers into his own house. He organized churches and the local Indian community to provide meals.

Here's what Massey told Ira Glass:

"Our churches have been good to help foreign missions, but when the foreign comes into our own district, our own comfort area, we're not always ready to accept. ... I know we can't help everybody but I think everybody's given a little portion that they can do. And I know we can't turn around and change the world tomorrow, but just what's put in our little field here, our little corner, I feel like we're responsible for, so I felt like that was put in my corner. ..."

The whole This American Life story is about half an hour. It's worth the time. It's not every day that you hear a story that includes among its heroes a lawyer, a Pentecostal minister and a government bureaucracy. Nor is it every day that you get to hear a story with 52 happy endings.

Comments

[Froborr]

Tonio: In this case, however, I think it likely that the nun was emphasizing the latter part of the quote, the part about hope and good fortune. In other words, I think it is probable that although she phrased it as "I hope God's plan for you is good," her intent was "I hope things work out well for you." It was her way of saying, in the language known to her, that she bore him no ill will.

As for the "virtual slaves", this is the first time I've heard of that many people being held at once, but what I'm curious about is why we're so horrified when this happens on American soil, but utterly blase about American corporations doing exactly the same thing in other countries. Do people not count as human until they're actually standing here?

[Froborr]

Sarah Jane: I'm not sure it's possible to generalize from a relationship between an adult and a child to a relationship between two adults. At least in theory, adults are fully capable of moral reasoning and therefore of making their own decisions. Children are, well, not.

It is treating adults like children that is objectionable. However, I think it requires a rather tortured reading of the nun's words to get them to do that.

[Sarah Jane]

Froborr, I teach at a university level. All of my students are over the age of 18; it's not uncommon for me to teach students who are older than I am. I try not to patronize them like children, but is my authority over the classroom (or a doctor's advice to a patient, or a supervisor's instructions to an employee) an inherent breach of their right to self-determination?

[Ursula L]

Frobarr, regarding the "virtual slaves" - yes, we are outraged when it happens elsewhere. But our potential agency in stopping the abuse is quite different when it happens elsewhere, versus when it happens in our own nation (for most values of "our own nation.") So the news becomes more pressing, and more relavent to our individual action, when it happens here.

Aside from boycotting compaines doing this elsewhere, there is not much I can do directly about abuses elsewhere. Better trade treaties would help, but there isn't much that can be done along those lines with the current administration. Within the US, however, responsible voting, contact with representatives, calls to local police, etc. are easily available, making it possible to intervene when abuse is known. Plus, we know the laws in the US forbid this behavior. When abuse happens in a place where the abuse is legal, it is expected. Horrifying, but not shocking. When it happens someplace where the laws and regulatory systme are supposed to be preventing it, it becomes a surprise and shock as well as a horror.

[Froborr]

Sarah Jane: Hmm, in that case, I'd say the difference is that they have voluntarily placed themselves under your authority, and have the right to remove themselves from that authority at any time. Still different from someone asserting their authority over a stranger who *hasn't* volunteered to be there (though, obviously, the criminal justice system must do exactly that in order to help control and avert far greater violations of rights).

Ursula: While I suppose that's true, I have almost the opposite reaction. Oklahoma feels much more alien to me than India; I have, after all, met more Indians than Oklahomans by far! There's also, I suppose, a certain degree of cynicism; I expect businesses to do evil whenever evil is more profitable than good, which is very nearly always. Plus, I already knew that there were slaves in America, having known a woman who was kept as a slave for several years by a wealthy Texan family.

Mostly, though, I'm sick of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people are actually pretty decent, yet somehow those few that aren't inevitably end up in charge and keep ruining it for everyone, in every time and every place, and we are utterly and entirely powerless to stop them.

[Tonio]

I try not to patronize them like children, but is my authority over the classroom (or a doctor's advice to a patient, or a supervisor's instructions to an employee) an inherent breach of their right to self-determination?

I would say no. It sounds like your role does not involve their life decisions. I can imagine that you offer advice all the time to your students about their futures. But I cannot imagine you, say, trying to convince them to choose careers that they do not want or that do not fit their skills. Would that be accurate?

Here's an example of what I mean by self-determination - another person's dating choices are generally not other people's business. The exception would be if the person dated someone who was abusive and controlling, and the person was in some sort of denial about that behavior.

[Kristy]

It was her way of saying, in the language known to her, that she bore him no ill will.

That was my point when I said "consider the source." Standing outside of Christianity, you and I can go back and forth all day about whether or not the idea of "God has a plan for your life" is a benign, hopeful statement or an arrogantly controlling one. And maybe that's an interesting discussion, but it's one that has, really, nothing to do with the example of the nun and the robber. Because we're speaking the language of secularism, and she's speaking the language of Christianity.

I have seen people use words like "God has a plan for you" and "I'll pray for you" as weapons, yes. But you have to take into account what the people saying these words actually do. If they use those words to try to force or shame you on a path that's bad for you, then they're being controlling. But that's not what this nun was doing.

She forgave the man who hurt her. She tried to spare him from a penal system that she honestly belives would do him ill rather than good. (She's arguably right about this, btw, but I don't know how to fix it.) Failing that, she gave him words of hope, in the only language she spoke - possibly words that have been a comfort and source of hope to her in the past. There was no attempt to control the man. Because for most people who speak the language of religion, those words don't mean an attempt to control. And I'll bet that even if Dodson doesn't speak that same language, he still found her words comforting, if only because they mean that someone cares enough about him to try and offer hope and comfort.

[Ms. Anon E. Mouse, Esq]

Tonio said:
The implication of the Jeremiah quote is that an individual's decisions and choices for his own life are not important.

I think that's where many of us are confused about what you're saying. I don't think that the nun is saying that at all. My understanding of the Jeremiah passage is, "Despite what you may believe, God desires good things for you (welfare), not horrible things (woe). Are you willing to walk in that direction?"

Just like a teacher might say, "Despite thinking that I'm just Mrs. Cranky McAngry, I've actually created this lesson plan and the year's outline of assignments with the hope of giving you a passion for this subject, and letting you reach the fulness of your intellectual potential. If you work alongside my plan, I'll work alongside you to achieve great things in your life. Are you willing to walk in that direction?"

I don't think the nun is trying to say that SHE knows what those good things are, I just think she's trying to say that she knows that they're good things.

P.S. I'm glad you like my name. I've been adapting it over time, and I think the added, Esq. makes it perfect.

[Tonio]

Sarah Jane, I agree with most of your post and I respect your expertise as an educator. The points I've been making really apply to personal life decisions, which as a matter of general principle are the concern only of the individual. The decisions you make as an educator regarding your students probably wouldn't fall into the category of personal life decisions. Would that be correct?

[Kristy]

Ms. Mouse - the "Esq." does indeed make it perfect.

[cjmr's husband]

Esqueak!

[Tonio]

I don't think that the nun is saying that at all.

I don't either. I'm taking about my own interpretation.

My understanding of the Jeremiah passage is, "Despite what you may believe, God desires good things for you (welfare), not horrible things (woe). Are you willing to walk in that direction?"

Dumb question - what direction would that be? If the source of the direction is another person, a believer or the person who wrote the scripture, then it's a question of trusting the judgment of either the believer or the writer. We cannot assume that either one is trying to deceive, but we also cannot assume that their judgment about the direction is correct. The only information I ever receive about gods or other supernatural beings comes from people who believe in them.

But you have to take into account what the people saying these words actually do. If they use those words to try to force or shame you on a path that's bad for you, then they're being controlling. But that's not what this nun was doing.

I agree. I was simply focusing on the words alone, separate from the nun's good intentions.

Failing that, she gave him words of hope, in the only language she spoke - possibly words that have been a comfort and source of hope to her in the past. There was no attempt to control the man. Because for most people who speak the language of religion, those words don't mean an attempt to control.

That makes sense. It relates to my point about intentions not always squaring with the effects of actions. She may not realize that others may have different emotional associations to the idea she was expressing.

[Kristy]

That makes sense. It relates to my point about intentions not always squaring with the effects of actions. She may not realize that others may have different emotional associations to the idea she was expressing.

Oh, right, of course! Nobody's omniscient; and maybe Dodson wasn't comforted. Maybe he's one of the New Atheists who can't stand religion, and her attempt to give hope this way just pissed him off. But even if so, she had no way of knowing that. I guess the point is just to recognize that sometimes even good intentions can go astray, and try to prevent that from happening, but that doesn't mean to stop acting on good intentions. Because what are the alternatives? Acting on bad intentions? Not acting at all and sitting in your room all day not interacting with people? I can't fault someone who acted with good intentions, even if they wound up inadvertantly doing harm. I might counsel them on ways to not screw up in the future, I might argue against some of the assumptions that fueled those good intentions, but I can't fault them.

[Froborr]

But, Tonio, she's not responsible for the emotional reactions of others! She is making a good-faith effort to provide comfort to someone who appears to her that needs it. That is admirable, in and of itself. Now, if she weren't making a good-faith effort, if she were going about bludgeoning people with her religion, that'd be different.

[Tonio]

But, Tonio, she's not responsible for the emotional reactions of others! She is making a good-faith effort to provide comfort to someone who appears to her that needs it. That is admirable, in and of itself.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel responsible for the emotional reactions of others. I feel guilty when someone feels sad as a result of my actions. And when someone feels angry as a result of my actions, my automatic emotional response is to expect something bad to happen to me.

[Froborr]

Well, I feel the same way, too, of course. But that's not a rational response, and I struggle constantly to remember that. Rationally speaking, human responses are insufficiently predictable for me to have responsibility for them; all I can take responsibility for is what I actually do, what I meant to achieve by it, and whether I succeeded. So, if I try and fail to help, I'm responsible for that failure, but as long as I'm doing my best and acting in good faith I'm *not* responsible for how other people feel about that failure (though of course I should pay attention, as it could indicate ways to make my best better next time).

[lonespark]

I am allergic to Bible quoting.

I have nothing against the Bible or my Christian upbringing. However, in my experience the sort of people who quote the Bible at you in all aspects of life, and plaster Bible quotes on their cars and places of business, are not very respectful of other people's faith.

I have known many people who are exceptions to this. This fact is not helped by the gift, from my FoF-loving fundie aunt to my pre-verbal son, of a small furry Bible. It's a furry book! Of course he loves it! I'm inclined to incinerate the damn thing, unless I can find accompanying furry copies of the Eddas, and maybe the Koran and Bhagavad-Gita and Tao Te Ching and...

[Kristy]

lonespark: valid point, and that's often true. In my experience, nuns tend to be an exception to this, but then my experience of nuns has been limited.

I'm going to use your "I'm allergic to Bible quoting" line as a springboard for another silly analogy, though.

Tonio, if I said to you, "These chocolate-chip cookies are really good! Here, have one!" And you said*, "How dare you? I'm allergic to chocolate AND I'm diabetic! What, are you trying to kill me by pushing your cookie-eating world view on me? Screw you and screw your non-diabetic-supremacist cookies!" and stormed off...

...I would not be responsible for your emotional reaction. I would have learned, the hard way, not to offer you cookies anymore, because A) you can't eat them, and B) you're a jerk and I don't want to share my cookies with you anymore anyway**... but I wouldn't be responsible for your reaction.

For the record, I think some parts of the Bible are beautiful and eminently quotable, even though I don't buy the religion. I don't go around quoting it at people, in part because I know most people have had similar experiences to lonespark's. But if I didn't know that, and quoted the Bible at her, and she got upset at me, I wouldn't be responsible for her reaction. (Although if I then did it again just to push her buttons, I might have to start taking on some responsibility.)

* I don't think you would ever say this, because you're not, well, insane... just me being silly
** You're not a jerk and you're welcome to my cookies anytime and dear lord that just sounded dirty and I'm gonna stop here...

[Kristy]

Y'know, I bet I could make a fuzzy version of the Devi Mahatmya...

A kid would probably dig it, too. Especially the middle part. "By your powers combined... I am the Goddess Durga!!"

[yagowe]

lonespark, my daughter was the victim recipient of a similar gift: the remarkably bad My Jesus pocketbook of Nursery Rhyme (that is the actual way the title is capitalized).

It includes such gems as:

Wee Willie Winkie runs through the town,
Upstairs and downstairs in his nightgown;
Peeping in the window: what does he see?
The children don't have time for Jesus; They're watching T.V.

and:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
Don't be like Humpty who fell and cracked-up [sic].
Let Jesus be your King as you grow up.

and:

Little Miss Muffet sat on a tuffet,
Eating her curds and whey.
She's afraid of a spider;
She needs Jesus inside her
To take all the fear away.

[Kristy]

yagowe: No. Way.

I kinda want that book now. It could go on display with my Jack Chick tracts. (Yes, I collect Jack Chick tracts. At least the really funny ones.)

[Lauren]

*speechless*

[lonespark]

Yagowe,
That's really indescribably awful. Except for the last bit, which can't avoid sounding perverted.

[Tonio]

I love the cookie analogy.

Although if I then did it again just to push her buttons, I might have to start taking on some responsibility.

Interestingly, I've heard of people who deny that food allergies even exist, at least when it comes to their own cooking.

My Jesus pocketbook of Nursery Rhyme

Those rhymes are real?????????

Except for the last bit, which can't avoid sounding perverted.

I can imagine Eric Cartman singing it.

[Kristy]

Interestingly, I've heard of people who deny that food allergies even exist, at least when it comes to their own cooking.

Admittedly, that might be the fault of people like me. I've claimed to be allergic to green peppers before to stop people who claim, "Oh, but in this dish you won't even notice them!" It's never true, and I've learned it's easier in the long run to just let people believe I'll swell up like a pufferfish if I eat one because that way they stop trying to win me over, but now that you point it out I could see it leading people to conclude that all food allergies are similarly fictional. *hangs head*

[Tonio]

but now that you point it out I could see it leading people to conclude that all food allergies are similarly fictional. *hangs head*

Please don't blame yourself - I was referring to people who seem to assume that a simple biological fact reflects badly on their cooking. Or perhaps they feel defensive that they didn't know about the allergy. Or both.

[Kristy]

*pokes* I was exaggerating for comic effect. I do that a lot. But thank you for the reassurance. (I understand that I may not, in fact, have been funny. I never claimed it was successful comic effect.)

[Iorwerth Thomas]

yagowe: lonespark, my daughter was the victim recipient of a similar gift: the remarkably bad My Jesus pocketbook of Nursery Rhyme (that is the actual way the title is capitalized).

My God. I've actually heard of that. I had assumed that the guy who mentioned it was exaggerating, though...

[MJ]

I thought the remarkable thing about the story on This American Life was that apparently Mark Massey's fellow pentecostals didn't see things the same way he did, and IIRC, he found himself ostracized from his church. I don't remember whether the rift was eventually healed or not.

[Amaryllis]

Tonio: I didn't mean to snap at you (on two threads yet) and then disappear. I should know better than to post at the start of a work day, where I don't have much Internet access.
So I'll just join with Kristy, hapax, Praline, Froborr et al., who've all said some things I'd like to have said, to wish you well. See you over on LB Friday. :)

[Amaryllis]

yagowe: I really wish I thought you were kidding.

And how, tell me how are these poor children ever going to enjoy an actual poem, if this is what they're hearing in their impressionable infancy?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...

[smgt]

Tonio,

How does the quote from the Jeremiah negate the importance of an individuals choices? Could it not mean that those choices are of deep importance as the only way to take part of in what is set up for the individual would be for that individual to make the right choices to get there?

[Raj]

And how, tell me how are these poor children ever going to enjoy an actual poem, if this is what they're hearing in their impressionable infancy?

Two of my UK-raised cousins told me this gem:

We three kings of Orient are
Selling knickers tuppence a pair
How fantastic, no elastic
Not very safe to wear

[Amaryllis]

Raj: that'll work.

I can't remember if you were brought up in the US - do you know the American version?

[Kristy]

Raj - that's a new one. My brothers and I (well, technically only one was my brother, but meh) liked the various "Deck the halls with gasoline" ones, though.

And actually, no, smgt, I think that would mean the opposite. What you're saying is that your choice is important, but only if you make the right one. (With, in many cases, the implied follow-up of "And me and/or my magic book know what the right choice is!")

Yes, I know I just switched sides. To clarify: I like nuns, in general, and I like this Sister Curran, from what I'm reading. She sounds like a sweet lady, and in this instance, I think she was being genuinely goodhearted with her Bible-verse reading. By and large, though, I do have to agree with Tonio in that the idea of someone else having a plan for my life kind of skeeves me.

[smgt]

Kristy,

Does it bother you that you grew physically because of the specifics of your DNA? Certainly there is plenty of room for variation because of circumstances and your own choices, but much of what you are was chemically set at the moment of you conception. Is that so terrible?

[Hawker Hurricane]

Food allergies:
I worked for a CPO who was allergic to seafood and Coke-Cola. He could tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi by smell. He would get into arguements with food servers about whether or not Coke and Pepsi 'were the same thing, and it doesn't matter!'. His response...
"When I drink Pepsi, I get my thirst quenched, a sugar buzz, and I feel energated. When I drink Coke, I flop around on the floor, someone calls the ambulance for me, and I spend the weekend in the hospital."

[Raj]

@Amaryllis: I was partially brought up in the US (I'm a naturalized US citizen). I'm not aware of an American naughty version of "We Three Kings" - how does it go?

[Jeff]

I've never met a LARP group that allowed Mages. "Too hard to GM, too powerful for the other characters" is what I always hear.

I'm not sure why. Damage to others could be handled the same as any other damage; enhancement spells would just be noted. The only difficulty I could see would be the "Summon" spells, which could be handled by using markers for the summoned entity.

=======================

You're not a jerk and you're welcome to my cookies anytime and dear lord that just sounded dirty and I'm gonna stop here...

Kristy's Cookies should definitely be the name of a band! Semi-dirty but not obscene lyrics a specialty!

[Amaryllis]

Raj: not smut, but violence:

"We Three Kings of Orient are,
smoking on a rubber cigar.
It was loaded, it exploded...
We two Kings of Orient are."

And maybe you could make something of the fact that the British kids were singing about underwear while the Americans were singing about bombs, but I don't quite know what.

[Ursula L]

Going back and reading the original story linked to about the nun - was I the only person disturbed by the influence of religion in the courts?

Particularly given that parole boards also consider religious conversion/belief in terms of "rehabilitation" for parole, the whole thing just seems like a bit too much establishment, to me.

[Tonio]

How does the quote from the Jeremiah negate the importance of an individuals choices? Could it not mean that those choices are of deep importance as the only way to take part of in what is set up for the individual would be for that individual to make the right choices to get there?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Would you explain?

My point is that certain personal choices should only be made by the individual, as a matter of general principle, as long as the choices do not adversely affect others. (For this discussion, I would like that last clause to be implicit.) What constitutes the "right" choices (the ones that provide the most benefit for the individual) differ from person to person. Obviously a person can accept advice from others, but ultimately the person must be the one to make those choices since the consequences affect him directly, precisely because those choices are of deep importance.

As I interpret the Jeremiah quote, it means that the individual has no right or ability to make those choices. The concept of "God's plan" would mean that the individual could only choose from those things that the god would decide to offer. It would reduce the individual to a rat in a maze, and it would be wrong to treat a person that way.

[Kristy]

smgt: *tilts head quizzically to the side* Does it bother me that genetics destines me to be short, liable to run to fat, and with a high likelihood of developing breast cancer sometime in the next decade or so? Well... yes, actually, thanks for asking. But I'm not sure I see the relevance.

Maybe it's just a question of perception, but I perceive free will in the choices I make regarding my life. I expect free will. To have someone tell me that my free will is an illusion - or to expect me to subvert my free will to their plan - bothers me. I neither perceive nor expect free will in the areas of my height, coloration, etc., and therefore while I might prefer something different, I'm not unduly shocked when science says no.

There's also the fact that DNA is, as far as we know, non-sentient, and therefore blameless for doing what it does. It's not its fault. The alleles just aligned that way. If I thought my genes were actively making decisions, though, we would have words about the fucking epilepsy, believe you me.

The idea of another sentient being actively deciding how MY life should go does, yes, bother me. And I say this as someone who does believe in a Supreme Being. (sort of. not getting into the specifics.) My Goddess might be better pleased if my life went in certain directions rather than others, but that's not the same as having a "plan" for me that I'm expected to follow. I may, at some point or another and for a brief or extended period of time, choose to trust someone else - mortal or Divine - to guide my life choices, but even so, it's my decision to trust them and my decision to stop doing so.

The breakdown goes like this: it is entirely possible, theoretically, that Deity, being omniscient, knows which way Kristy's life should go so as to maximize happiness. However, Kristy, not being omniscient, has no reason to believe that this is true until demonstrated. Further, any truly omniscient Deity would know that a large part of Kristy's happiness is dependent on Kristy being self-determined; ergo, if said Deity were to interfere with Kristy's life-plan, said Deity should probably try real hard to make sure Kristy never found out about it. I.e., not having His/Her/Its followers tell Kristy "God has a plan for you." Being told that, Kristy concludes that this God person either isn't omniscient enough to know that she doesn't want to follow someone else's path, or isn't omnibenevolent enough to care what she wants. Either way, this is not someone who deserves her respect or trust.

Jeff: well, imagine for a moment the havoc a Mage could wreak among a bunch of Vampires. An Obrimos Mage can summon the Sun. The fucking Sun. A Moros mage can make any dead body his bitch, thereby turning even the oldest and most powerful Vampire into a can-can dancing puppet for the Mage's amusement. Yeah.

But yes, regardless, we do have a Mage venue. Which is getting its own music video soon.

"Kristy's Cookies" should totally be a band name. We could do a cover of that Lords of Acid song "Pussy," where the lyrics might just possibly be about a cat... in theory...

[Kristy]

Ursula: actually, the courts didn't follow the nun's suggestion.

So it actually seemed like the ideal balance of religion and law. On a personal level, forgiveness happened; the nun forgave the robber, pleaded on his behalf, and the robber, for his part, responded by doing the very little he could (pleading guilty) to keep from doing any further harm to the nun, i.e. forcing her to take the stand, which she didn't want to do. From a religious point of view, we see mercy in action, which actively encourages more mercy in return. Religion wins.

On an official level, the courts heard the nun's plea, considered it, and denied it, because the courts can't take religion into account in determining appropriate punishment for a crime. According to the law, the appropriate punishment for violent robbery of this sort is prison time, which the thief got. So law wins too.

I'm not sure we could postulate a more cut-and-dried win-win situation if we tried, honestly.

[smgt]

Kristy,

So your claim is that God can be disproven because you dislike a statement attributed to God by another human a couple of thousand years ago?

Is there any way God could be good and have priorities other than providing you, just you and the other six billion of us, with exactly what you want?

My point about DNA is that there can be order in the universe, order than can direct free will(I'm guess you don't spend too much time staring at strobe lights). Certainly, God almighty isn't some small minded old white man, snooping into the lives of the folks living on his block. If you insist on that idea of God, well, it's pretty easy to disprove. What if God's plan are as strange and unknowable as he or she is?

If so, I suggest, the only thing an individual could would be to try to have faith that it's all for the best and try to figure out how to make it all toward the most positive out comes. But that's just me.

[malpollyon]

smgt meet Problem of Evil
Problem of Evil meet smgt

In short, no I can not "just have faith". Which is to imply nothing about people like our good host who can. I just *can't*

Similarly I can't believe in free will. Hell, I can't even get anyone to explain what they *mean* by the phrase in a way that makes sense to me.

[Kristy]

lol, no, I don't spend a whole lot of time staring into strobe lights. I prefer my brain to function rather than to go off into "whee-seizure" vacation-land. As it is occasionally wont to do.

smgt, you seem to be describing the same sort of non-dogmatic faith that I personally prefer. As such, I suspect our disagreement is less a difference of belief and more a difference of wording.

For the record, no: God cannot be disproven. By a thousand-year-old statement nor anything else. In fact, I actively believe in the existence of God; I just have a tendency to call Her Durga (or a host of other names) occasionally. I trust that if She minds this, She'll let me know.

I trust that God's plans are indeed strange and unknowable. Otherwise, what would be the fun? But in order to care about humanity on a macro basis, one has to care about humans on a micro basis too. If you tell me there's a god who cares about humanity's future but doesn't care if I suffer to make it come to pass, I have to wonder - why bother caring about the future, then? Isn't it just made up of humans? Like me? And if I'm allowed to suffer, why not them?

Ironically, I might not even mind being a martyr, if it were presented to me accurately. But for someone - even God - to tell me that I should be a martyr smacks of chutzpah.

In the meantime, yes - I try to have faith, and I try to work towards positive outcomes. I even believe that my Goddess sometimes gives me a hand (not too often; She doesn't want me to get soft) when I need it. I work towards the best outcomes, for me and for others. But that's not the same as saying that there's a path I should be following that God's set out for me. I am perfectly capable of finding my own path, thank you.

[Rosina]

Ursula: Going back and reading the original story linked to about the nun - was I the only person disturbed by the influence of religion in the courts?

If the accused had not wanted to have any religious input into his trial, perhaps he should not have assaulted a nun and robbed her. She wasn't there because she was an interfering old busybody with an evangelical compulsion - she was there because he had attacked her. She didn't forgive him as a random act, but because he was the person who had attacked her, an old woman, and left her physically disabled.

Kristy: On an official level, the courts heard the nun's plea, considered it, and denied it, because the courts can't take religion into account in determining appropriate punishment for a crime. According to the law, the appropriate punishment for violent robbery of this sort is prison time, which the thief got. So law wins too.

Is there a point in normal trials where the victim gets to make a plea for mercy or for stricter punishment? If so, would the law have been more inclined to listen to a plea for mercy coming from an atheist? In the UK these days the victim statements (or even worse, 'relatives of the dead' statements) have become so popular that the first thing people do on learning that their husband has been attacked is hire a speech writer (*/hyperbole*). But assuming that there is space for a victim statement, then it seems wrong that the court should reject it just because the victim was a nun.

On the other story, I am surprised that no one has pointed out the role played by churches in rescuing the 52 Indian steelworkers. This is controlling behaviour by the religious establishment of the worst kind, presuming to know what is good for these men, who are probably not even of the same faith as the churches. Why are Tonio and Ursula and others not outraged?

[Tonio]

There's also the fact that DNA is, as far as we know, non-sentient, and therefore blameless for doing what it does. It's not its fault. The alleles just aligned that way. If I thought my genes were actively making decisions, though, we would have words about the fucking epilepsy, believe you me...

Kristy, excellent post. Your point is the same as mine. I emphasize that the idea is not only personally bothersome, it also goes against a moral principle. I can object to the practice of arranged marriages without ever having been in such a marriage myself.

So your claim is that God can be disproven because you dislike a statement attributed to God by another human a couple of thousand years ago?

Speaking for myself, I see the factual accuracy of the concept and the morality of the concept as two different things. Whether or not the particular concept of god is correct, the moral problems in the concept remain the same.

Is there any way God could be good and have priorities other than providing you, just you and the other six billion of us, with exactly what you want?

The issue is not about humans getting exactly what they want. To state the issue that way is to miss the whole point of the discussion. Making choices about one's life isn't simply about pursuing what one wants. It's about balancing those wants with reality and with the effects on others of pursuing one's wants.

If you insist on that idea of God, well, it's pretty easy to disprove.

How so? I don't see how any idea about gods could be shown to be more factually accurate than any other. (That applies to the idea of one god versus the idea of many gods.) Would you explain?

If so, I suggest, the only thing an individual could would be to try to have faith that it's all for the best and try to figure out how to make it all toward the most positive out comes. But that's just me.

I would put it this way - we have no evidence for the idea that there is a plan behind any of the events in our lives, so we cannot assume that any particular event is for the best or for the worst. The only thing we can do is to make sure our life decisions are as informed and rational as possible.