Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Monday, November 23, 2009

WTF?

Posted by on Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:13 AM

The government isn't going to cover abortion—or allow you to buy a plan that covers abortion—but it is going to pay for... prayer?

Leaders of the Church of Christ, Scientist, are pushing a proposal that would help patients pay someone like Lewis for prayer by having insurers reimburse the $20 to $40 cost.

The provision was stripped from the bill the House passed this month, and church leaders are trying to get it inserted into the Senate version. And the church has powerful allies there, including Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who represents the state where the church is based, and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who said the provision would "ensure that health-care reform law does not discriminate against any religion."

Faith healing. Deficit hawk Orrin Hatch and John Fucking Kerry (!) want health insurers to pay people to pray. Because not paying people to pray somehow amounts to religious discrimination? Jesus Christ, it's time to start a new religion that has just two sacraments: abortion and homosexual sodomy. It might be the only way to protect choice and secure gay rights in this lunatic asylum we call a country.

 

Comments (84) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Carollani 1
I wish the rapture would come take all those freaks to outer space, and leave us with our science and reason.
Posted by Carollani http://twitter.com/carollani on November 23, 2009 at 10:17 AM · Report this
2
If you start the religion, Dan, I'll join it.
Posted by sf gal on November 23, 2009 at 10:23 AM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 3
This is a Supreme Court case BEGGING to be filed.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on November 23, 2009 at 10:23 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 4
When I was back there in seminary school
There was a person there
Who put forth the proposition
That you can petition the Lord with prayer…
Petition the Lord with prayer…
Petition the Lord with prayer…
You cannot petition the Lord with prayer!
Posted by Max Solomon on November 23, 2009 at 10:24 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 5
It costs $20 to $40 for someone to pray for you to get better? Sheesh, we're all in the wrong business.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on November 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM · Report this
SecretBYUBottomBoy 6
If you are charging $ for your prayers, doesn't that kinda invalidate them? What was the going rate that Jesus charged?
Posted by SecretBYUBottomBoy on November 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 7
Yeah, I think that's in the Bible. Jesus was all about the "Praying for Dollars!" plan.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM · Report this
8
fuck NO. next they'll cover people praying for men to keep it up as an alternative for viagra.
Posted by shani on November 23, 2009 at 10:33 AM · Report this
9
This does kind of remind me of the part of the Bible where Jesus is busting up the money changers in the temple. Clearly someone didn't read that part or glossed over it.

P.S. Please add hetero sodomy.
Posted by Dire Mongoose on November 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM · Report this
Loveschild 10
Considering that most americans are religious and actively seek spirituality and that prayer has been shown to play an important role in individual wellness of those in ailment, then complementary prayer should be covered.

http://www.healingtherapies.info/prayer_…
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on November 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM · Report this
Lily Fluffbottom 11
The new religion will be named after you, Dan, right?
Posted by Lily Fluffbottom on November 23, 2009 at 10:39 AM · Report this
12
I'd want any insurance plan I was paying for to include coverage for prayer therapy, provided it was an alternative course of treatment. It doesn't prolong life at all. It never gives rise to expensive complications. It's a very cost effective item to cover. If someone is fool enough to opt for prayer over medicine, then I'm more than happy to support that decision, provided I'm on the hook for some portion of whatever option they do choose.
Posted by kinaidos on November 23, 2009 at 10:40 AM · Report this
13
Please, Rob (7), it's called "pay to pray." I think the phrase can also refer to the denial of sacraments for a person's voting history (see: Kennedy, Patrick).
Posted by Prince Leia on November 23, 2009 at 10:46 AM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 14
Provisions like this happen because most Americans still can't be bothered to get involved. Our constitution insists on a separation of Church and State regardless of what the masses might insist on. When citizens get involved in what happens in their country we call it "News from the Streets of Iran" (heads are busted people are killed because they care enough). When people care enough about their country they camp out in the rain and cold for months (Ukraine's recent past). When people care enough about their country they get off their butts and vote. Here in America the majority just don't care enough to do the simple painless thing called voting. And hence "Prayer" is part of the "Health Care" reforms.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on November 23, 2009 at 10:46 AM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 15
@12 - Good points. I guess it could end up saving a lot of money if someone chooses prayer over 3 months in the ICU...

On second thought -- could this end up somehow providing legal protection for those Christian Scientist parents you read about once in awhile, who let their children die rather than take them to a doctor?

@9 - there is no such thing as heterosexual sodomy. Everybody knows that.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on November 23, 2009 at 10:49 AM · Report this
Baconcat 16
This is a problem that solves itself.
Posted by Baconcat on November 23, 2009 at 10:52 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 17
There are days I wish someone would nuke the planet out of existence. After reading this; today is one of those sort of days.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on November 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 18
Loveschild, is there any make-believe you don't just buy lock stock and barrel if has Jesus' name attached?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM · Report this
19
Here is the question I would ask. Do any existing health insurance policies cover the type of faith healing Christian Scientists advocate? Many, if not most, do cover a chaplain's services during hospice care, but I don't know of any that would cover a Christian Scientist "healer."
Posted by Sheryl on November 23, 2009 at 10:58 AM · Report this
Beth in NJ 20
@10 -- Is it only okay to make the taxpayers pay for you to pray to Jesus, or is it okay if they have to pay for other people to pray to Vishnu or Gaia or Zeus, etc.?
Posted by Beth in NJ on November 23, 2009 at 11:01 AM · Report this
i'm pro-science and i vote 21
I wish somehow this became big news throughout the mainstream media. Because it's so ridiculous, maybe then those of us critical of religion can get a little more sympathy. Really, paying for prayer??
Posted by i'm pro-science and i vote http://www.prettyopenended.com on November 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM · Report this
22
christian science is the science of loons. they actually beleive that illness does not exist and that the christian science healer, cures AIDS, cancer, leukemia. all you have to do is "believe" in some loony victorian lady's lunatic theories.

hell, add in sci fi scientology CDs as healing therapies.
Posted by SeMe on November 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM · Report this
23
Really? What is going on in the Senate? I understand having some truly batshit Reps running around the house, but you two are fucking senators! And Kerry! You have just hit a new personal low in my esteem, and that's pretty impressive considering how little I thought of you before. I mean, c'mon! This is beyond ridiculous. It's as if the morons running the legislature believe that we're all becoming more conservative/religious when the opposite is true.
Posted by American Athiest on November 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM · Report this
Dingo 24
America is insane.
Posted by Dingo on November 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM · Report this
25
Anyone afraid yet? Anyone worried about us slowly becoming the United States of Church?!? We're becoming a theocracy right before our eyes and we're doing absolutely nothing about it. Catholic church bans or requests that Sen. Kennedy refrain from communion; catholic church requires ridiculousness such as the stupak amendment; catholic church and christian allies threaten to halt social services if equality is passed in DC. The church officially has too much of a strong hold on our Government. I wonder what the immigration process is in Canada....
Posted by ijustwanttolive on November 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM · Report this
hartiepie 26
@18 & 20--- you do know Loveschild isn't a real person, right? No conservative Christian Republican hack is going to hang out here constantly.

"She" is making comments over on another thread about the glory of Levi Johnston's ass. I don't see any comments from other conservatives about that. Hmmmmmm......
Posted by hartiepie on November 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM · Report this
SecretBYUBottomBoy 27
Well, i've always thought most christians were just in for the money.. glad to see that confirmed.
Posted by SecretBYUBottomBoy on November 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM · Report this
SecretBYUBottomBoy 28
oops. "in *IT* for the money".

Mr. Haggard, et. al. would surely approve. Think of the serious coin you will soon be able to get. $40/minute.
Posted by SecretBYUBottomBoy on November 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM · Report this
Dee 29
@10 - all the important numbers in there are over a decade old. Do you have anything up-to-date to cite?

Posted by Dee on November 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM · Report this
30
I wonder if that coverage would include a "tantric healer." I have a few conditions I would like a "tantrika" to pray on at taxpayer expense. How dare anybody try to discriminate against my religious desires.
Posted by Reg on November 23, 2009 at 11:19 AM · Report this
Loveschild 31
@10 All religions, even when the majority of americans are Christians, we have freedom of religion in this country. Freedom of association or not. Not to be confused with the freedom from religion exclusionist and eradicating mantra that atheist and extremist secularists like to interpret and have hopelessly tried to enshrine into law.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on November 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM · Report this
COMTE 32
So, if prayer is covered and it ends up NOT working, which is going to be the case, oh, probably 75% of the time ('cause randomly there's going to be a positive outcome no matter what), who gets sued for malpractice? God? The insurer? The Christian Scientist who did the praying?

Also, will the Senate bill include an opt-out provision so that sane people can refrain from subsidizing the health care expenses of these loons?
Posted by COMTE on November 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 33
The sooner all the religious freaks commit suicide and "rapture" themselves ... the better.

Plus, bonus points, it would save us tons for their health care.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM · Report this
Loveschild 34
@20 All religions, even when the majority of americans are Christians, we have freedom of religion in this country. Freedom of association or not. Not to be confused with the freedom from religion exclusionist and eradicating mantra that atheist and extremist secularists like to interpret and have hopelessly tried to enshrine into law.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on November 23, 2009 at 11:21 AM · Report this
Baconcat 35
@26: You're so presh.
Posted by Baconcat on November 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM · Report this
36
How are we calling our new faith? "Savaginism"?
Posted by I'm all for it on November 23, 2009 at 11:27 AM · Report this
mrbombit 37
Seems to me that this would create a law(or Bill) that would be "respecting an establishment of religion" , and as such is...drum roll.....unconstitutional.
Posted by mrbombit on November 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM · Report this
38
I don't think "prayer therapy" should be something we should be charged for. If someone wants another person to be brought in to pray for or over him, then bring in the hospital chaplain! They don't charge anything to come and talk to you. It's a free service. But, whatever. If a person requests "prayer therapy" (which is something I don't believe works, ftr), then go ahead and charge that person. Individually. So long as it isn't a charge that is allocated across the board to each patient, I don't care. But I certainly don't want someone forcing a priest or chaplain or anything on me.

When are people going to recognize that being "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion"? Why should people who don't feel abortion should be illegal being classified as "non-Christian", "non-Catholic" or whatever. If someone chooses to take Communion, who is the priest or pastor to deny that person based on political beliefs?

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-gen…
Posted by Nikki in MN on November 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM · Report this
39
no inflammtory christians hanging around here are bothered by the idea you have to pay to be prayed over? i'm all for alternative therapies, but i think its downright morally despicable, whether you are a secularist that doesnt beleive in it, or a christian who does, to pay for something that's supposed to be a spiritual gift of the heart

just sayin
Posted by sallybobally on November 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM · Report this
40
14
in America we call them TeaBaggers
Posted by AutoMatic For the People on November 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM · Report this
41
I just want a low-cost public option that covers talismans to protect me against the Evil Eye.
Posted by Proteus on November 23, 2009 at 11:55 AM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 42
I believe that Christian Science was started in Massachusetts, and still has a big presence there, hence Kerry's support.

Whatever happened to Christian infighting? I remember when Catholics were discriminated against. An old woman back in my hometown told me not long ago that her father made her break up with my dad because he was a Catholic.

Ah, the good old days. If we can only get them back to sniping at each other, maybe they will leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on November 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 43
@Loveschild

So you would honestly have no problem with the US Government paying for actual Satanist rituals along these lines? You would support your tax money going to pay for that, in the name of equality?
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://twitter.com/joeszi on November 23, 2009 at 12:15 PM · Report this
44
@ 10: "Considering that most americans are religious" True
"and actively seek spirituality"
Debatable, depending on how you define that
"and that prayer has been shown to play an important role in individual wellness of those in ailment,"
False. Controlled studies show just the opposite
"then complementary prayer should be covered."
Not only false, since one of you premises is wrong, but also not what this bill states. This is for xian science only.
Blatant violation of the establishment cause. Not even subtle.
Posted by Sean on November 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM · Report this
Simply Me 45
FYI the provision was dropped from the merged bill

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-E…

Thank God!
Posted by Simply Me on November 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM · Report this
Cory 46
This sounds, a little too creepily, indulgences. If a religious leader wants to get reimbursed for his services, he needs to head back to the Sunday money basket.
Posted by Cory on November 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM · Report this
SecretBYUBottomBoy 47
@45 thank god indeed. Sanity.

Though, if someone were willing to pay $40 for prayer *rather* than thousand dollar CT scans, I suppose I'd be fine with that.
Posted by SecretBYUBottomBoy on November 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM · Report this
mookie 48
The Church Of Euthanasia's Four Pillars:
suicide
abortion
cannibalism
sodomy

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
Posted by mookie http://sirmookie.com on November 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM · Report this
49
@ 10: if by saying "complementary prayer should be covered" you mean complentary as in "free," as I take it to mean, then sure, I don't care. As long as taxpayer dollars aren't spent on it, I don't care. No one here, I'm sure, would object to a patient getting their own priest, minister, family, or members of their congregation to pray for them if they wish. But I sincerely doubt any private insurance company in this country would PAY for that, and that therefore should be even more true for our SECULAR government. And truly, if prayers are to have any meaning, shouldn't they be heartfelt and genuine? Not a paid mercenary for prayer?
Posted by Grey on November 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM · Report this
50
Add one more sacrament to the Homo-abortionitarian Church. POT smoking. And, you get tax breaks!
Posted by art on November 23, 2009 at 12:44 PM · Report this
jezbian 51
having been raised christian scientist (i do NOT identify with ANY religion now), i want to just say a couple things:

1 - people who are CS do NOT believe in any kind of 'rapture' or other bullshit like so many of you are saying,

2 - i feel incredibly blessed to have been raised in a faith that is NOT based on guilt, where when we spoke about god it was "father-mother god" and the 7 synonyms for god were principle, mind, soul, spirit, life, truth, and love. when my brother and i experienced accidents or illnesses that were of an urgency where we needed to be seen by a medical professional, we were taken - the church does NOT condemn/excommunicate/etc. people who do go to medical providers. the families you hear about in the news are taking things to an extreme, and as we all know extremists of ANY religious belief/background are not exactly the smartest bunnies on the trail.

3 - i'm in no way weighing in on the pros/cons of covering CS practictioners (that's what they're called) by health insurance companies, but as some have pointed out, if people are sick and die sooner b/c they don't want medical treatment it just saves all the cost of the medical measures that would have been taken if they weren't asking for the $20-$40 for the practitioner (which is not a daily thing normally, as opposed to medical care.)
Posted by jezbian on November 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM · Report this
52
That's your Obama, Dan!
Posted by Pex on November 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM · Report this
53
52 - that provision has NOTHING to do with Obama, thankyouverymuch, and everything to do with lobbyists at the Senate and House of Reps.

Also, I don't see anything wrong with people who are dying of terminal diseases taking control of their destinies and going through with assisted suicide. Just like abortion, suicide will happen whether legal or not. Why shouldn't Grandma be able to end her life if she is dying of horribly agressive (not to mention painful) cancer just because some of her family isn't ready to let her go? My own great-grandmother was "ready to go home" to Jesus a good 10 years before her body finally gave out on her. Why shouldn't people like that be able to die with dignity and peace on their own terms? Why should they be forced to live trapped inside bodies that don't work anymore if they are ready to go? Was it hard to let go of Grandma? Yes, but it helped knowing she was ready and prepared and not scared to die. That's what faith can do for you.
Posted by Nikki in MN on November 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM · Report this
54
Suicide is a sin, but then again, so is just about everything else people do nowadays. Why should people be forced to go through with chemotherapy for cancer if they don't want it? Why should parents be forced to watch their child endure a horrible treatment in the off chance it might save their child? If a child at 13 is old enough to say which parent she wants to live with, why shouldn't she be able to take control of her medical care and say no to chemo or whatever horrible, barbaric treatment if she doesn't want it? I am by no means saying chemo is bad, but if people don't want it, why should it be forced upon them? How old does a person need to be before she can be involved with deciding on a treatment for herself?
Posted by Nikki in MN on November 23, 2009 at 1:08 PM · Report this
55
@49... complementary != complimentary.
Posted by anonypuss on November 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM · Report this
56
A $2.4 million dollar study done by Harvard Medical School and five other U.S. medical centers found that coronary-bypass patients who knew that people were praying for them fared significantly worse than people who got no prayers.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/he…
Posted by sue821 on November 23, 2009 at 1:14 PM · Report this
kim in portland 57
I found the idea of paying someone to pray obscene. Seriously. Prayer (as I've always understood it) is a gift, a conversation, a petition, and it comes from the heart not the pocket book. Prayer for me is about being outward focused towards others, and thankful.

That said, tell me you have a need, that you want prayer, and I'll pray for you. Why? Because I care about you and your heart. I want you to have peace.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on November 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 58
Can we also pay people to pray for the demise of others?
Posted by Urgutha Forka on November 23, 2009 at 1:26 PM · Report this
59
fuck it ill join that church, where do i sign up? can get tax exempt status and many percks as well as claim religious discrimination from the mormons when they raise money to veto our rights
Posted by Camus1 on November 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM · Report this
60
@20. I'm pretty sure right-wing christianity is the only religion in the states these days corrupt enough to accept money in exchange for prayer. i'm pretty sure any reprisentative of the other religions you named would be offended at the very thought (hope so, anyways)
Posted by bay_area on November 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM · Report this
61
@57- Time to bust out the William Blake:

"The vision of Christ that thou dost see
The Vision of Christ that thou dost see
Is my Vision’s Greatest Enemy.
Thine has a great hook nose like thine;
Mine has a snub nose like to mine.
Thine is the friend of All Mankind;
Mine speaks in parables to the Blind.
Thine loves the same world that mine hates;
Thy Heaven doors are my Hell Gates.
Socrates taught what Melitus
Loathd as a Nation’s bitterest Curse;
And Caiphas was in his own Mind
A benefactor to Mankind.
Both read the Bible day & night,
But thou readst black where I read white."

Religion, it's whatever you want it to be.
Posted by dwight moody on November 23, 2009 at 2:02 PM · Report this
kim in portland 62
Dwight @ 61,

I can't disagree.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on November 23, 2009 at 2:25 PM · Report this
63
Loveschild,
Nobody's stopping anyone from praying but my money should not be paying for someone to pray. Certainly if your money can't be used for something you don't believe in (abortion) then my money shouldn't be used to pay for something I don't believe in (prayer). You guys let insurance pay for abortion I bet everyone here would be more open to letting it pay for prayer.
Posted by Root on November 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM · Report this
64
What kind of a Christian would take money to pray for someone? And why would anybody pay somebody to pray for them? There's plenty of people who would be more than happy to do that for free so what makes those people so special? Are they somehow closer to God?
Posted by pointypartyhat on November 23, 2009 at 4:02 PM · Report this
65
@51- Thanks for providing some good input distinguishing Christian Science from the more common sorts of Christians affecting public policy.
Posted by dwight moody on November 23, 2009 at 4:52 PM · Report this
Kevin_BGFH 66
@55 - Damn, I read too fast. You're right, as in to fill out or complete. Well then, it certainly shouldn't be paid for. Not just because we have a secular government that should not be paying religious institutions to perform religious practices (as opposed to, for example, soup kitchens that serve everyone regardless of their faith). But also because just like most private insurers don't cover experimental treatments, neither should any sort of "public option" insurance (with the potential exception of experimental treatments that are well into human trials to scientifically test and prove their effectiveness). If it can't be scientifically tested and relies simply on "faith," no way.
Posted by Kevin_BGFH http://biggayfrathouse.typepad.com/blog/ on November 23, 2009 at 5:52 PM · Report this
67
what would jesus charge?
Posted by artlady on November 23, 2009 at 6:05 PM · Report this
persimmon 68
why would any Christian Scientist even have health insurance?
Posted by persimmon on November 24, 2009 at 3:33 AM · Report this
Mrs. Norris 69
Since presumably, physical proximity of the prayer and prayed for shouldn't matter, and language prayed in shouldn't matter, this could create a great opportunity for outsourcing. I live in a country where plenty of people love praying and many would be willing to do so for about $2 a day.
Posted by Mrs. Norris on November 24, 2009 at 3:50 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 70
43, Oh you went and asked the question that shreds Loveschild's silly, illogical argument. She's outta here.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on November 24, 2009 at 6:31 AM · Report this
71
How about we shoot Loveschild and see if prayer can heal the wound?
Posted by Tetchy Brit on November 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM · Report this
72
I’m a Christian Scientist. If the government is forcing everyone to pay for health insurance, which I wouldn’t buy otherwise, shouldn’t I be able to choose the form of healthcare that I want to rely on? Prayer has worked for my family for four generations, starting with a healing of needing to wear glasses; if it didn't work, we wouldn't use it.
Posted by AB on November 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM · Report this
73
@72- Except when it doesn't work, and the kid dies. Then it was just God's will.

Humanity stayed alive for thousands and thousands of years without modern medicine, the fact your family has lasted 4 generations doesn't prove anything.

The question is, are you better or worse off for your beliefs. The obvious answer to any impartial observer is "worse."
Posted by dwight moody on November 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM · Report this
74
@72- And another thing: You should be forced to pay for Universal Care because I personally don't want to pay for you to have roads to drive on (cause I don't believe in cars) but I pay anyway because I understand how we live in a community. But I wouldn't pay for you to pretend to drive on a road, so I don't think we should have to pay for you and your ilk to pretend to do something about illness.
Posted by dwight moody on November 24, 2009 at 11:20 AM · Report this
jezbian 75
@65 you're welcome. if you have any more inquiries about CS i'd be glad to (attempt to) answer them. again - i'm haven't identified w/CS for over 20 years, but i do have a lot more knowledge than the average person who only hears about the extreme cases in the news.

(speaking of news, i think it's interesting that the CS Monitor is one of the most highly esteemed national newspapers that is lauded and quoted by many people around the globe for its reporting, but i rarely see it referred to here in the SLOG)

@68 people in the CS faith go to get their eyes checked/get corrective tools like glasses or contacts and see dentists for services like everyone else.

and before everyone jumps on it YES I KNOW this sounds counterintuitive to the, for lack of a better term, 'let go and let god' aspect of metaphysical healing that CS believes in. i cannot answer to that.

i might be able to gather an answer about the above issue from a practitioner myself (or i'm sure anyone else could look up a CS practitioner and ask them - but please be kind and not on the offense. these people are good people and in their belief system are only following what christ jesus did - he prayed for people, he didn't prescribe 'take 2 of these and call me in the morning' - and again, YES I REALIZE it was a different time/world with different health/care issues back then,) but i'm sure if someone from the stranger/SLOG wanted they could (KINDLY) get in touch with someone who is more of an 'official' type person within the church who would give their best answer to that query.
Posted by jezbian on November 24, 2009 at 12:00 PM · Report this
76
I'm a strong believer in the power of prayer and the metaphysical. But this is bullshit.
Posted by laurelgardner http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5877570 on November 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM · Report this
D310 77
If prayer was so efficient in fighting off and/or healing illness and disease, why does anyone need health insurance to begin with???? Let alone "reform"
Posted by D310 on November 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM · Report this
78
Until there are good scientific studies that clearly show that "christian science prayer" works to heal the body, there should not be any public money spent on it. My grandmother died of breast cancer because her christian science church insisted that she pray her tumors away. The prayer didn't work and all her supposed friends in the church shunned her because they decided she was not really good since if she had been truly good then the prayers would have worked. The logic of these people defies reason, humanity, and Jesus' own teachings of compassion.
Posted by heartfelt on November 24, 2009 at 8:41 PM · Report this
79
First off, our constitution doesn't say a thing about the separation of church and state. re-read it. Second, i don't agree anyone should pay for prayer. But, if I was to choose, I'd rather pay someone to pray than pay for someone to kill a baby.
Posted by someone over here on November 25, 2009 at 2:33 AM · Report this
80
It's about the separation of charlatanism, buffoonery, plus rampant, sheer stupidity, and state.

Sorry, Mormons.
Posted by power on November 25, 2009 at 12:08 PM · Report this
81
It's about the separation of charlatanism, buffoonery, plus rampant, sheer stupidity, and state.

Sorry, Mormons.
Posted by power on November 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM · Report this
82
@79- What do you think the First Amendment means?
Posted by dwight moody on November 25, 2009 at 12:51 PM · Report this
83
@79
The Constitution does most definitely say something about the separation of church and state. It doesn't use that particular phrase, but the first amendment clearly talks about keeping the government out of the realm of religion. So it is a fair question to ask how to apply what the Constitution says about government and religion to the issue at hand. Would the government be "establishing a religion" if it compelled insurance companies to cover prayer? Would CSs be prohibited from the free exercise of their religion if the government didn't enact this provision? Is there another part of the law that might be relevant to this issue?

People's religious beliefs and values shape their views and their decisions. In that sense, you aren't going to keep religion out of government. Nor would you necessarily want to. (There are some pretty important ideas that we consider fundamental to our civil society whose basis is in religious teaching.) Similarly, any religious group should be free to advocate and promote its own issues and positions. If they use the democratic system and get the votes, there is nothing to argue about. That's how it's supposed to work. The "wall" comes into play by preventing a majority in the government from establishing their religion as the national religion and compelling all to the observance of that religion. It also prevents an unelected religious official from holding a government office from which he/she could influence policy and law.

So, though I don't agree with the provision, I guess I see nothing wrong in the Church of Christ trying to get this provision passed, and I see nothing wrong in two Senators supporting it. If it passes, and the voters don't like it, the political process provides us a way to challenge its Constitutionality and register our disapproval by voting these Senators out of office.
More...
Posted by duke d'uke on November 25, 2009 at 1:50 PM · Report this
84
I believe that church exists, Dan. There are other sacraments too, but abortion and sodomy are high up there. The Church of the Subgenius (Praise "Bob"!)

Of course, it one isn't recognized by the IRS, so therefore isn't a Constitutionally protected religion like Scientology.
Posted by SolCat on November 25, 2009 at 6:49 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy