Prayers for the Dead

I found an entertaining article about prayer at, of all places, Slate.com today. You’ll get an instant sense of the piece when you read the headline:

The author got off to a very bad start when she wrote,

Do Christians think praying can help a dead person get into heaven?

Not exactly. All Christians believe that only God can determine whether a person belongs in heaven or in hell.

BZZZZZZZ! The only belief I’ve ever found Christians agreeing about is that their god exists.* Some Christians hold the traditional Heaven-As-Bliss and Hell-As-Torment beliefs with which we’re familiar. Some Christians don’t believe in hell at all, although they hold out hope that, by hook or by crook, or god’s grace, they’ll end up in heaven. Other Christians believe that everyone will go to heaven. Other Christians believe that hell is a state of annihilation rather than a place. Given these varied beliefs about hell (and I’ve probably missed some), it’s silly to state that “all” Christians believe anything about it.

The author digs herself a deeper hole with this bit:

Entreaties on behalf of the deceased can’t sway God from what’s right, but post-mortem praying does have other uses. For one, Catholics, who unlike Protestants believe in purgatory, think prayer helps speed the transition from this celestial waiting room to heaven.* Furthermore, Christian doctrine teaches that all human beings, living and dead, are so closely connected that we can be described as “one body.” (Catholics refer to this idea as the “Communion of the Saints.” Protestant churches also subscribe to this concept, though in slightly varied form.) Under that logic, when a Christian prays for someone who has died, he is also praying for himself. He therefore brings himself closer to God and closer to salvation.

Apparently, if one is fortunate enough to be a dead Catholic, one’s sentence in purgatory can be reduced – not on account of one’s own good behavior – but because of the good behavior of the super-prayers whom one left behind. If one is unfortunate enough to be a dead Protestant, however, then it seems that one must serve one’s full purgatorial term before proceeding to Paradise. What I find hilarious, however, is the blunt statement that the real reason people pray for others is that they expect to derive some benefit from it for themselves – their own salvation.

How do Christians know whether a dearly beloved departed soul actually requires their prayers? How do they know whether Aunt Gladys is stuck in Purgatory for a period of time, or was whisked straight through the Pearly Gates of the Heavenly City? It seems like it would be a waste of time to pray for the soul of someone who has already arrived at the ultimate destination. That time would be better spent praying for those who need it – the poor sods stuck in Purgatory. If only one could know for sure who they are. Of course, if the real aim of prayers for the dead is to secure one’s own room in Heaven’s Hilton Hotel, then all of these prayers may be equally useful.

After assuring her readers that the prayers of all believers carry equal weight with god, the author warns that “even a selfless, saintly pope can’t persuade God to let a sinner out of hell.” Well, god damn. That sucks. Unless…if the Universalists are right, no one has anything to worry about.

The author continues digging her hole (she must have dug nearly to China by now) by adding Mormon beliefs to the mix:

Mormons teach that prayer can’t move God to change his mind about a dead person, but they endorse one very controversial post-mortem tactic. Living Mormons who have already been baptized can undergo the procedure again on behalf of someone who was not baptized into the Mormon religion during his lifetime. This practice does not automatically get a person into paradise, but it’s considered a prerequisite.

Prayer – which, it must be admitted, is a pretty passive activity – doesn’t prompt god to change his mind. But, voluntarily undergoing the rigors of surrogate baptism – a more active activity than prayer – may persuade him to release a sinner from Hell and, a bonus for god, perhaps piss off Satan too. Is there a limit to the number of surrogate baptisms one can undergo? Perhaps someone who desperately needs a job right now can consider becoming a professional baptism surrogate. It may be a good enough gig to tie one over until the economy improves.

Seemingly having nowhere else to go from this point, the author concludes her piece with a reference to some scientific prayer studies. Well, she mentions several, but only discusses one:

Christians, of course, don’t limit their prayers to the deceased—they also pray for the sick, and several recent studies have tested whether this practice contributes to recovery. The answer appears to be no. As part of a study published in the American Heart Journal in 2006, researchers asked Christian congregations to pray for two groups of cardiac patients—the first group knew the Christians were praying on their behalf, and the second thought they might be. As a control, researchers told a third group that Christians might pray for them, but the Christians did not do so. Mortality rates were comparable across the three groups, but the unprayed-for group experienced the fewest complications.

These studies have been the subject of much debate around the Internet. If anyone wants to plunge into those waters again, be my guest. I haven’t read any of the studies myself, so I can’t comment on their methodologies or conclusions. To be honest, though, I’m not particularly interested in them anyway; discussing the purported effects of prayers offered to deities whose existence has yet to be determined is as pointless as, well, praying.

* UPDATE: A reader over at Reddit.com pointed out that there are some Christians who don’t believe in god; they call themselves Christian Atheists. Learn something new every day…

the chaplain

 

Thoughts on Alcohol Bans in Publicly Funded Parks

After nearly a week of technological deprivation, I’m catching up on my blog reading. I was intrigued by this post from vjack, because it addresses a topic that has been on my mind recently: government restrictions on alcohol consumption.

My interest in this topic was initially sparked two years ago when the deacon and I drove our camper into a state park in Pennsylvania and were greeted by a huge, in-your-face sign declaring that alcohol is prohibited in the park. Smaller, but similar, signs were scattered throughout the park. Clearly, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was not kidding. This interest was re-ignited on Memorial Day weekend when we attended a family gathering at a county park in Virginia and spotted a sign prohibiting alcohol consumption in that park. A few weeks later, we pulled into a Maryland state park and saw yet another sign announcing the same policy. As in Pennsylvania, similar signs were scattered throughout the park to ensure that errant campers and day-trippers would have no excuses for not being aware of the policy. If you’re a day-tripper enjoying a barbecue at a state park beach or county park pavilion, forget about having a beer with your hot dog and potato salad. If you’re a camper grilling a steak over a fire in a Maryland or Virginia or Pennsylvania state park (and many others – more states prohibit alcohol consumption in their parks than allow it), don’t even think about whether to pair it with Cabernet or Merlot. If you’re caught drinking booze, you’ll be thrown out of the park and fined.

In contrast to these outright bans on alcohol consumption, the Ontario Provincial Park we visited last week simply restricted alcohol consumption to camp sites. Campers could consume alcohol at their sites, but could not carry open containers between camp sites. We didn’t have to hide inside our camper to sneak a few sips of wine, but, if we wanted to share our bounty with the campers in the next site, we had to bring them pristine, unopened bottles, corks intact. Weird, but certainly preferable to an outright ban. Day-trippers using the beach or other facilities were not allowed to carry or consume alcohol in the park at all. Interestingly, this park (along with many other provincial parks across Canada) had a full ban on alcohol in mid-May, during the period immediately prior to and including Victoria Day (the Canadian “first weekend of summer,” similar to the USA’s Memorial Day). Similar bans are sometimes in effect for other long weekends, such as Labor Day, too. Presumably, the purpose of these bans is to curb excessive drunken partying as Canadians emerge from their long, cold winter into summer, and again as they prepare to re-enter another long, cold winter. Apparently, once the initial excitement of summer’s arrival dissipates, Canadian provincial park campers (but not day-trippers) can be trusted to moderate their drinking, at least until they are on the verge of re-entering winter hibernation season. Is it coincidental that publicly funded campgrounds across Canada are often full or nearly so, while many similar American campgrounds are not? How much of this disparity is due to cultural differences between the two countries, and how much is due to policy differences? Perhaps most intriguing of all, what are the relationships between the policy differences and the cultural differences within and between the two countries? I don’t know, but I think these questions merit investigation.

One may argue that banning alcohol consumption by day-trippers is a good policy. After all, no one wants people to imbibe excessively at the park, then drive home and endanger themselves, their passengers, and other travelers on the roads. One may argue that. But then, one would also have to argue that alcohol should not be served in most public venues. Restaurants? People often drive to and from those establishments. Sporting events? Again, people often drive to and from those venues. Are the people who frequent privately owned and operated establishments more responsible consumers than those who frequent public parks? I doubt it. So, my question is, why are governments, particularly throughout the USA, banning or restricting alcohol consumption in public spaces that are paid for by funds collected from the public?

Another rationale that might be put forward is that alcohol bans and restrictions reduce the need for park rangers and other personnel to deal with alcohol-fueled crises – fights, boat crashes, etc. This applies to day-trippers as well as overnight campers. My response to this is, since most people who imbibe do so responsibly, and do not create crises for park rangers or anyone else, this seems to be a case of punishing the whole class in order to discipline a few class clowns. Beer is not banned in baseball stadiums because stadium security guards have to escort a handful of rowdy drinkers from the park during any given game. Most people at ballgames drink responsibly (admittedly, people sitting in the vicinity of a drunken loudmouth may find this hard to believe). Similarly, most people who frequent government parks do not create problems for anyone. They should not be inconvenienced because a few troublemakers may be in their midst.

Yet another rationale that might be proffered is that parks should be family-friendly – alcohol-free places are more appropriate for families than those in which alcohol is being consumed. My response to this rationale is, many restaurants that serve alcohol are family-friendly: they have high chairs, booster seats, crayons and coloring sheets, and special kids’ menus available for those who require such amenities. Similarly, sports teams market to families all the time: celebrate Junior’s birthday at the ballpark – bring a glove to catch a foul ball or two, buy him a cap (although, if you come on Cap Day, we’ll give him one for free) – and don’t forget to have Junior’s name emblazoned on our state-of-the-art Jumbotron! That doesn’t stop them from selling alcohol to adults through the seventh inning. Hell, even amusement parks – the quintessential American family-friendly venues – serve alcohol. Clearly, the presence, visibility and consumption of alcohol do not, in themselves, render places or events inappropriate for minors.

And yet another rationale that some put forward is that drinking is immoral and/or unhealthy and restricting or banning it is good for individuals (even if they don’t know it) and society. Some of these people would ban alcohol entirely, if they could. In fact, they tried that last century, and the results were less than spectacular, to say the least.

So, why do publicly funded parks in a secular society ban or restrict alcohol consumption? Are such bans knee-jerk reactions of elected officials in a country in which religious conservatives have disproportionate influence? Are they vestiges of a bygone Prohibitionist era (which was largely fueled by religion)? I honestly don’t know. What I do know is that campgrounds in many publicly funded American parks are underutilized. Is this due, in part, to oppressive alcohol policies? Again, I don’t know. But, I think these questions and policies should be examined – preferably while not under the influences of either alcohol or religion.

– the chaplain

 

Lost Chronicles

I spent some time this past week exploring pictographs that Algonquins (sometimes spelled Algonkins) painted on cliffs across Ontario several hundred years ago (the ones I saw were in Lake Mazinaw). The only way to get a good look at this set of pictographs is to take a boat over to the cliffs, pull up close, and look for them about three feet above the waterline. I can’t tell you what these paintings mean. Our tour guide told us some legends, but, I have no idea whether she knew what she was talking about, was just passing along received traditions, or was simply telling exciting stories. It didn’t really matter; viewing these paintings and having a (very) small connection with a culture several hundred years distant from mine was a worthwhile experience.

While I was admiring Algonquin artwork, someone else discovered a long lost bit of scripture that even Bart Ehrman hasn’t seen yet. That’s right! We have a world exclusive scoop right here at The Chapel. So, without any further ado, I proudly present to you a newly discovered, recently translated passage from The Chronicles of Eve, Part Two (chapter 3, verses 12-21):

12 And it came to pass that, one summer evening as Adam and I strolled hand-in-hand through the Garden, THE LORD came by to have a chat and some lemonade.
13 After I poured the lemonade and everyone was comfortably seated, THE LORD said, “My children, I have two gifts for you. Adam, I’ll let you choose which one you want, and Eve shall have the other.”
14 And Adam, always impatient, said, “What are the gifts, my LORD?”
15 THE LORD answered, “The first gift is the ability to pee standing up.”
16 And Adam immediately shouted, “Oooohhhhhh! Yes! I want that one! I want that one!”
17 THE LORD looked sternly at Adam and said, “Are you sure, my son? I haven’t yet told you what the second gift is.”
18 And Adam answered, “I don’t care! I’m sure it won’t be any better than this one. I want to pee standing up. I want to, I want to, I want to!”
19 And THE LORD answered, “Very well, my son. From this day forward, you shall pee standing up.”
20 Then I looked at THE LORD and said, “Adam got a good gift, as usual, and I’ll be getting his leftovers again. Anyway, what gift do you have for me, LORD?”
21 And verily, THE LORD grinned slyly at me and answered,

“Multiple orgasms.”

– the chaplain

 

Gone to Canada

– the chaplain

 

Salvo Sing-Along

If you’re not familiar with The Salvation Army Song, here’s a chance to have some fun and get cultured all at once.  This song, which has been around for decades, reminds me of the hundreds of Salvation Army Open Air meetings (outdoor evangelistic services) I participated in as a child and teenager.

If you want to sing along, here are the lyrics:

I was lyin’ in the gutter, all covered up with beer!
Pretzels in my eyebrow, I feared the end was near,
When along come The Salvation Army
and they saved me from the hearse.
Everybody bust a gut, sing the second verse:

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Throw a nickel on the drum, save another drunken bum!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Throw a nickel on the drum and you’ll be saved!
Oh, G-L-O-R-Y, I’m S-A-V-E-D!
I’m so H-A-P-P-Y to be F-R-double-E (hee-hee!)!
F-R-double-E from the ways of S-I-N!
Glory, glory, hallelujah, tra-la-la-l’-amen!

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Throw a nickel on the drum, save another drunken bum!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Throw a nickel on the drum and you’ll be saved!

If you enjoyed that one, be on the lookout for Champagne Charlie.

– the chaplain