This morning I had a fleeting thought about the concept of being a part of something bigger than yourself. It pertains to this because of the higher power thing that’s a part of the 12 step and AA programs. Many folks talk about this idea of thinking about god as being that something bigger, thinking beyond your own wants and needs in order to serve a higher power. But, not that I think this is a new thought or I’m a great thinker or whatever, simply by being human I am a part of something bigger, the human race, also a creature living on this Earth. What religion, specifically Christianity but also the other monotheistic religions, do is remove humans from the bigger something of the Earth. Making humans rule over the world, like Christianity says we are stewards and the Earth was made for us to use, we are no longer part of nature, giving an excuse to ignore the real impact we have on the world around us. We even see politicians expressing this idea as an excuse to not address climate change, either mentioning god or just that we couldn’t possibly do anything that affects the world.
Religion also creates tribes so that we don’t band together as human beings, we must separate into countries, races, religions, genders, etc. It shuts us down to learning and accepting others, and in the USA leads to this supposed rugged individualism that has become toxic in many ways.
I want to be a part of something bigger than myself, just as this is part of the human condition, but I want to be a part of humanity, a part of the world and nature, but I don’t need the magical sky daddy to do it, nor do I need it to be spiritual, I just need to acknowledge that we are all people, we all have value, what we do has consequences and benefits, and that even though I am an individual, most of my experiences are not completely unique.
The spiritual or religious aspects of the 12 step program seem counterintuitive to me as the religious have been fighting the concept of brotherhood forever. As they also fight the concept of taking personal responsibility for personal growth, which I didn’t mention but is a part of the thought I had this morning.
“Not going through the 6- to 12-month program results in a penalty that deems you more of a security threat.”
“That, American Atheists claimed, is a problem because the RSAT handbook is chock full of Christianity.”
“The people in charge said he had no choice but to go through the Christian program. As a result of his pushback, he was denied parole three separate times, with the board specifically citing the non-completion of the RSAT program as a significant reason he wasn’t allowed to go free.“
So essentially what West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation is saying is that atheists and non-Christians are inherently a security risk, or are bad. That’s funny because statistically people going to prison tend to be Christian more often than not, and even with the coercion naked into the system, the percentage of atheists in prison is scant, not even a percentage point of the prison population. And nowhere near the same representation of the population of the country.
Either they admit that they’re forcing their religion on people unconstitutionally or they admit that their religion has no effect on the morals or behaviors of people. Neither looks good on them.
I know they just ignore the facts. They only look at it in a way that makes them look good, but folks are waking up to reality and they might not be able to avoid it forever.
Right now, in too much of the United States, treatment programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and RSAT are the DEFAULT, in part because the people who make the laws haven't informed themselves of any alternatives and partly because they see religious programs as automatically good, WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THEM. They also fail to recognize that the programs they mandate might be meted out to people who aren't necessarily Christian. In the case of Andrew Miller, they ran up against an instance where the person in question had NO religious faith and rightfully objected to having religion foisted on him without his consent.
This is the brand of thoughtlessness which pervades too much of a government which is supposed to be secular and too often isn't. It is also why I strongly believe that people coming into government in any capacity need to have an orientation into what it is to have a truly secular government and all the implications that entails, with examples like that of Andrew Miller front and center.
"It is not up to Mr. Miller to decide whether or not he is to use his religious freedoms. In order for it to be a freedom, it uses must be mandatory. For if the state does not force Mr. Miller to exercise his religion freedom, then how can one say that the freedom even exists? So in order to preserve his religious freedom, this court orders he to free to attend the church of the court's choice. After all too much freedom is also bad. If there are no limitations on freedom, how would we even know what free is. " Clarence Thomas, soon.
Good on Miller. Submitting is such a christian trait, they're trained to submit, be like a flock of sheep and so forth. Atheists don't have such constraints. He has values and was willing to prolong his captivity for them. Guy's got some yuge nads, I tell you what!
If Christianity was worth a damn, then why do Christians make up the vast majority of the inmate population of US prisons? People like Miller represent essentially a tiny blip on that prisoner population.
Well, Christians often tell me that the obviously coercive threat of eternal hell is not meant to be a restriction on my free will by god. So I suppose the same concept applies here.
"We're not forcing anyone to do anything! We're just making it better for them if they do and worse for them if they don't!"
. . .
As a further note, how weak does your message have to be that you literally have to create a coercive program for someone who is literally already in prison to promote it. Talk about lacking faith!
I guess that the answers "Nothing at all" and "A big waste of time" to the questions “what God means to me” and “what prayer means to me.” are completely acceptable and will have no negative effect on the decisions of the parole board. /s
As the parole board denied his release for illegal reasons, can this be considered to be a case of unlawful detention? Can the members of the parole board be prosecuted for kidnapping?
It has long disturbed me that these programs, all to often endorsed by the government one way or another, push Christianity so very hard but don't seem to actually accomplish the goal in the end: actually making people's lives better. AA programs might produce Christians, but don't seem to help folks with their alcohol problem nearly as often. Why are we, as taxpayers, purchasing a product that doesn't seem to work from what amounts to a special interest group instead of looking for something that might be more successful in preventing recidivism and producing contributing members of society? I feel like for Christianity, this is just a way of getting money out of the government in the name of Jesus more than an actual effort at producing better people.
So yes, it bothers me that we allow this at all. Quite a bit. Good luck, Mr. Miller, I sincerely hope you turn your life around.
There's no evidence that explicitly Christian rehab programs have greater success than non-Christian rehab programs, so the only reason to force someone into one is because of your own personal biases.
The purpose of treating an addict is to get them better and functional, to help them deal with their trauma and the factors and choices that led them where they are. Cognitive behavioral therapy can help with that.
This was inexcusable.
"Some of the required homework involves telling the course leader “what God means to me” and “what prayer means to me.”"
I don't suppose saying that since the least of these are the ones Jesus reportedly identified with, then denying someone in need the help they require is spitting in the face of God would help his case with the religious bigots.
Prisoner: I have ethics!
Parole board: You're not Christian.
Prisoner: That's right but I have ethics!
Parole board: But if you are not Christian then you don't have ethics.
Prisoner: Do Christian ethics include not lying?
Parole board: Of course! It's right there in our ten commandments.
Prisoner: But if I say I'm Christian then I would be lying and that would go against my ethics and yours.
Parole board: It's okay to lie as long as you say you are Christian.
Prisoner: Then Christian ethics are inferior to my ethics.
Good. What kind of insanity was that attempt at denying him his rights to begin with anyway?
Try to force a Christian to embrace atheism and you'd hear PERSECUTION!!!
It would seem the prisoner has more integrity than the entire incarceration system in WV.
This morning I had a fleeting thought about the concept of being a part of something bigger than yourself. It pertains to this because of the higher power thing that’s a part of the 12 step and AA programs. Many folks talk about this idea of thinking about god as being that something bigger, thinking beyond your own wants and needs in order to serve a higher power. But, not that I think this is a new thought or I’m a great thinker or whatever, simply by being human I am a part of something bigger, the human race, also a creature living on this Earth. What religion, specifically Christianity but also the other monotheistic religions, do is remove humans from the bigger something of the Earth. Making humans rule over the world, like Christianity says we are stewards and the Earth was made for us to use, we are no longer part of nature, giving an excuse to ignore the real impact we have on the world around us. We even see politicians expressing this idea as an excuse to not address climate change, either mentioning god or just that we couldn’t possibly do anything that affects the world.
Religion also creates tribes so that we don’t band together as human beings, we must separate into countries, races, religions, genders, etc. It shuts us down to learning and accepting others, and in the USA leads to this supposed rugged individualism that has become toxic in many ways.
I want to be a part of something bigger than myself, just as this is part of the human condition, but I want to be a part of humanity, a part of the world and nature, but I don’t need the magical sky daddy to do it, nor do I need it to be spiritual, I just need to acknowledge that we are all people, we all have value, what we do has consequences and benefits, and that even though I am an individual, most of my experiences are not completely unique.
The spiritual or religious aspects of the 12 step program seem counterintuitive to me as the religious have been fighting the concept of brotherhood forever. As they also fight the concept of taking personal responsibility for personal growth, which I didn’t mention but is a part of the thought I had this morning.
“Not going through the 6- to 12-month program results in a penalty that deems you more of a security threat.”
“That, American Atheists claimed, is a problem because the RSAT handbook is chock full of Christianity.”
“The people in charge said he had no choice but to go through the Christian program. As a result of his pushback, he was denied parole three separate times, with the board specifically citing the non-completion of the RSAT program as a significant reason he wasn’t allowed to go free.“
So essentially what West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation is saying is that atheists and non-Christians are inherently a security risk, or are bad. That’s funny because statistically people going to prison tend to be Christian more often than not, and even with the coercion naked into the system, the percentage of atheists in prison is scant, not even a percentage point of the prison population. And nowhere near the same representation of the population of the country.
Either they admit that they’re forcing their religion on people unconstitutionally or they admit that their religion has no effect on the morals or behaviors of people. Neither looks good on them.
I know they just ignore the facts. They only look at it in a way that makes them look good, but folks are waking up to reality and they might not be able to avoid it forever.
Right now, in too much of the United States, treatment programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and RSAT are the DEFAULT, in part because the people who make the laws haven't informed themselves of any alternatives and partly because they see religious programs as automatically good, WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THEM. They also fail to recognize that the programs they mandate might be meted out to people who aren't necessarily Christian. In the case of Andrew Miller, they ran up against an instance where the person in question had NO religious faith and rightfully objected to having religion foisted on him without his consent.
This is the brand of thoughtlessness which pervades too much of a government which is supposed to be secular and too often isn't. It is also why I strongly believe that people coming into government in any capacity need to have an orientation into what it is to have a truly secular government and all the implications that entails, with examples like that of Andrew Miller front and center.
"It is not up to Mr. Miller to decide whether or not he is to use his religious freedoms. In order for it to be a freedom, it uses must be mandatory. For if the state does not force Mr. Miller to exercise his religion freedom, then how can one say that the freedom even exists? So in order to preserve his religious freedom, this court orders he to free to attend the church of the court's choice. After all too much freedom is also bad. If there are no limitations on freedom, how would we even know what free is. " Clarence Thomas, soon.
"What god and prayer mean to me..."
I'm an atheist. Neither means a damn thing to me.
Good on Miller. Submitting is such a christian trait, they're trained to submit, be like a flock of sheep and so forth. Atheists don't have such constraints. He has values and was willing to prolong his captivity for them. Guy's got some yuge nads, I tell you what!
"the courts have “unanimously” agreed the religious content of those programs violated the Constitution."
Clearly it hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court yet. Kavanaugh would put down the beer bong long enough to shout "you gotta Jeeezus!" I bet.
If Christianity was worth a damn, then why do Christians make up the vast majority of the inmate population of US prisons? People like Miller represent essentially a tiny blip on that prisoner population.
Well, Christians often tell me that the obviously coercive threat of eternal hell is not meant to be a restriction on my free will by god. So I suppose the same concept applies here.
"We're not forcing anyone to do anything! We're just making it better for them if they do and worse for them if they don't!"
. . .
As a further note, how weak does your message have to be that you literally have to create a coercive program for someone who is literally already in prison to promote it. Talk about lacking faith!
I guess that the answers "Nothing at all" and "A big waste of time" to the questions “what God means to me” and “what prayer means to me.” are completely acceptable and will have no negative effect on the decisions of the parole board. /s
As the parole board denied his release for illegal reasons, can this be considered to be a case of unlawful detention? Can the members of the parole board be prosecuted for kidnapping?
It has long disturbed me that these programs, all to often endorsed by the government one way or another, push Christianity so very hard but don't seem to actually accomplish the goal in the end: actually making people's lives better. AA programs might produce Christians, but don't seem to help folks with their alcohol problem nearly as often. Why are we, as taxpayers, purchasing a product that doesn't seem to work from what amounts to a special interest group instead of looking for something that might be more successful in preventing recidivism and producing contributing members of society? I feel like for Christianity, this is just a way of getting money out of the government in the name of Jesus more than an actual effort at producing better people.
So yes, it bothers me that we allow this at all. Quite a bit. Good luck, Mr. Miller, I sincerely hope you turn your life around.
There's no evidence that explicitly Christian rehab programs have greater success than non-Christian rehab programs, so the only reason to force someone into one is because of your own personal biases.
The purpose of treating an addict is to get them better and functional, to help them deal with their trauma and the factors and choices that led them where they are. Cognitive behavioral therapy can help with that.
This was inexcusable.
"Some of the required homework involves telling the course leader “what God means to me” and “what prayer means to me.”"
I don't suppose saying that since the least of these are the ones Jesus reportedly identified with, then denying someone in need the help they require is spitting in the face of God would help his case with the religious bigots.
Jesus himself plans to appeal the ruling in District court. Jesus is represented by the law firm of Goldberg, Goldman and Goldstein.