Atheist group offended by Ag secretary's praying for rain

[rug]

Jul 19, 2012
By Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY

The Obama administration has offended some atheists.Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack talks about the drought during the press briefing at the White House on July 18.
CAPTIONBy Charles Dharapak, AP

One day after Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told reporters he gets on his knees every day and prays for rain, the Council for Secular Humanism -- a leading atheist group -- accused the Obama administration of sending the wrong message to farmers caught in one of the worst droughts in decades.

"It sends the wrong message to distraught farmers when the Agriculture secretary suggests that the best response is to pray," Tom Flynn, executive director of the council and editor of its journal Free Inquiry, said in a statement.

"For a Cabinet official to recommend prayer as a solution or call attention to his own devotions may violate the Constitution's prohibition against establishment of religion," Flynn said. "Most important, though, is that prayer doesn't work. But if you want to test the power of prayer yourself, consider this. Apparently Secretary Vilsack's been praying for rain every day; how's that working out?"

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/atheists-offended-by-ag-secretarys-praying-for-rain/1

[LiberalAndProud]

1. How is that working out?

Where there is no power there is prayer. I realize that people believe that prayer *is* power. For me, it would be as effective to throw a nickle in a wishing well. The wish might come true

or not.

One thing I'm sure of, prayer or no, the rains will eventually come. Most likely too late to save the crops, but I won't blame god for that.

[Odin2005]

2. The idiots have degenerated into tribals doing a rain dance.

[salvorhardin]

7. Except Vilsack's quote is taken out of context

If you look at the full transcript, you'll see that this response came at the very end of a long press conference, and was in answer to a question from a reporter representing a Christian news service.

QUESTION: I’m Dr. Harper, the Intermountain Christian News. And Governor Perry last year had this national day of prayer and fasting, and he was encouraging people to pray and fast in these national disasters. Do you have any figures on that?

VILSACK: Well, I can only speak for myself. I get on my knees every day and I’m saying an extra prayer now. If I had a rain prayer or rain dance I could do, I would do it. But honestly, right now the focus needs to be on working with Congress — they have the capacity to help these producers by creating greater flexibility to programs, providing us some direction in terms of whatever disaster assistance can be provided. Those are the kinds of things we’re focused on.

Source: http://farmpolicy.com/2012/07/18/agriculture-secretary-on-u-s-drought

[Shadowflash]

9. Sounds reasonable and certainly nothing to be upset about.

Geez. People should lighten up.

[salvorhardin]

10. Like I said below

Like I said below, I suspect Tom Flynn got the quote from the NY Times which reported it out of context too. I don't think Flynn was deliberately quote mining, just sloppy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/drought-puts-food-at-risk-us-warns.html

[Shadowflash]

3. As an Atheist

I see nothing wrong in praying for rain if it makes you feel better.

I would only have a problem with it if it were the one and only plan to deal with the issue.

[rug]

5. That's the rational response.

There is a problem only if that's the only thing Vilsack is doing.

[Shadowflash]

6. Thanks.

Don't get me wrong, though. I think praying is as useful as consulting your Ouija board, seeing a witch doctor or making and appointment with your local Psychic but, hey, whatever works for you.

Just as long as you're applying some, you know, ACTUAL solutions.

[rexcat]

14. I don't think there is much anyone can do about the drought...

Prayer is not going to help but if it makes the person feel better by all means do it. On the other hand nothing fails like prayer!

[skepticscott]

15. There's a problem with government officials

endorsing prayer as being a potential contributor to the solution of any physical problem like this, whether they're doing anything else or not. Prayer does not do anything to make it rain, any more than dancing and shaking rattles does. When you're someone who others may listen to or take seriously, encouraging or reinforcing the belief of stupid people that prayer can be effective in this case is grossly irresponsible. Real harm can result from people thinking prayer is effective.

If Vilsack wants to pray for rain every night, I frankly couldn't care less. Knock yourself out, Mr. Secretary, if it makes you feel better. But stick to reality when you're speaking in your official capacity.

[JNelson6563]

18. As an atheist I guess I'd say

Aside from willing it to rain during my every waking moment we are making plans to invade Michigan and pipe the water to where it's needed most.



Julie--problem solver

[humblebum]

19. I am willing to bet that there are more people upset at the protesting atheist

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2012, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

group, than there are atheists upset at the Secretary. And rightfully so.

[skepticscott]

22. And there are more people

who think that god created the world less than 10,000 years ago than think that biological evolution is unequivocally settled science. So you point would be what? That the majority must be right?

[humblebum]

24. I seriously doubt that. And the Secretary certainly has a right to freely express

his personal opinion. I wish more would follow his lead and not be afraid to do so.

[skepticscott]

25. You seriously doubt what?

The consistent results of Gallup polls on the subject for the last few decades?

And yes, a government official has the RIGHT to stand in front of a press conference and say all kinds of things that may be his personal opinion. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily appropriate to do so in every case.

[humblebum]

27. That there are more people who think that god created the world less than 10,000 years ago. And

yes he has a right to express his personal opinions on religion. He is certainly not the only one who does so.

[skepticscott]

29. Well, 46% believe the world was created 10,000 years ago

15% believe in purely biological evolution. The rest are too stupid to have an opinion or too cowardly to leave the invisible, magical sky daddy out of things completely.

And not surprisingly, your reading comprehension fails you. As clearly stated, it's not just about what he has the right to say, it's about what's appropriate for a public official to say.

[humblebum]

31. I find it hard to believe that Gallup polled the entire world, and

as far as what is appropriate for him to say, your speech clearly shows a lack of understanding on what is appropriate. And yes, it is about free individual speech.

You might also wish to show your sources in order to be taken seriously.

[skepticscott]

32. Fine, you want a link

Here it is: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx

I obviously made the mistake of assuming that you wouldn't pretend to be unaware of polls that have been mentioned and discussed in this group many times. And no, of course they didn't poll the whole world. What an idiotic straw man. This is about America, just like your post 19 was (unless you think people in Bulgaria and Madagascar give a rat's fuck what the US Secretary of agriculture does). And please don't make an even bigger fool of yourself by saying they didn't poll all 300 million Americans, and that the results of polls that have consistently, for the last 30 years, shown exactly what I said are all completely wrong.

In case you hadn't thought about it (duh), this can't be about both what he has the right to say AND what's appropriate. They aren't the same..not for him or for anybody else. When you take the job he has, it's no longer appropriate to say everything you have a right to say. In fact, that's pretty much true for anyone out of diapers.

[humblebum]

33. You are stumbling all over yourself. Your poll does not say what you claim it says.

1st of all it's not 46% of PEOPLE as you claimed, but only 46% Americans polled. And secondly, It doesn't address the question of what % thought the world was created less than 10000 years ago. However it does give the percentages for those who thought "HUMANS in their present form" have only been around for 10000 years - MAJOR difference.

"Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago."

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. Please consult the nearest mirror.

1st of all it's not 46% of PEOPLE as you claimed, but only 46% Americans polled.

Yes, that is how polls work.

Obviously, you are dubious of the poll's representativeness. Is there a reason for this? Was the sample size too small or non-representative of the general population? Please cite your sources.

It doesn't address the question of what % thought the world was created less than 10000 years ago. However it does give the percentages for those who thought "HUMANS in their present form" have only been around for 10000 years - MAJOR difference.

Straw man.

The poster's position is that the majority of Americans accept an origin story which is contrary to the findings of the scientific community. Whether they believe the Earth or simply mankind to be less than 10,000 years old is irrelevant, as both propositions are wrong.

[humblebum]

35. Your argument is vacuous buddy.

"Whether they believe the Earth or simply mankind to be less than 10,000 years old is irrelevant, as both propositions are wrong."

There is a clear difference and the straw man is yours.

And "Obviously, you are dubious of the poll's representativeness." I would say that you are "dubious of the poll's representativeness." It says what it says. Nothing more nothing less. And it certainly does not say what you claim it says.

You screwed up.

[skepticscott]

36. If you don't understand

what "10,000 years" means and where it comes from (the ONLY place it comes from), then there's no help for you. Sorry.

[humblebum]

37. Another spin job as usual.

You cited your poll as representing 46% of people, which was false. Instead it represented 46% of Americans. Big, big difference.

And you claimed that your poll said that 46% of those believed that the world was created 10000 years ago or so, which it obviously did not say such a thing. Instead it said that 46% of Americans believed that HUMANS in their present form have been around for 10000 years or so. That IS a major difference!

There's no wiggle room here. What you claimed it said, it did not say. End of story.

What ever other spin you put on it is useless drivel.

[Angry Dragon]

4. The new government safety net

[salvorhardin]

8. Vilsack's quote is taken out of context

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 10:23 AM - Edit history (1)

If you look at the full transcript, you'll see that this response came at the very end of a long press conference, and was in answer to a question from a reporter representing a Christian news service.

QUESTION: I’m Dr. Harper, the Intermountain Christian News. And Governor Perry last year had this national day of prayer and fasting, and he was encouraging people to pray and fast in these national disasters. Do you have any figures on that?

VILSACK: Well, I can only speak for myself. I get on my knees every day and I’m saying an extra prayer now. If I had a rain prayer or rain dance I could do, I would do it. But honestly, right now the focus needs to be on working with Congress — they have the capacity to help these producers by creating greater flexibility to programs, providing us some direction in terms of whatever disaster assistance can be provided. Those are the kinds of things we’re focused on.

Source: http://farmpolicy.com/2012/07/18/agriculture-secretary-on-u-s-drought

To be fair to Tom Flynn, he probably got the quote from the NY Times which also chopped it off. In other words, I don't think Flynn was quote mining, just being sloppy: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/drought-puts-food-at-risk-us-warns.html

[cbayer]

11. Thanks for that.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

12. As long as Vilsack isn't organizing government events to "pray for rain",

then I don't have a problem with it. I think it's silly, but if Vilsack thinks it's the right thing to do, and he's doing it in the privacy of his own home, I don't see where the problem comes in.

[skepticscott]

16. The problem

is in Vilsack seeming to endorse it publicly, in his official capacity. He's not confining this to the privacy of his own home.

[cleanhippie]

21. Yes, Tom is free to pray for rain day and night if he wants.

The Secretary of Agriculture, OTOH, should never even speak about it.

[dimbear]

13. Do something that works. Wash and wax your car, leave it outside. n/t

[MineralMan]

17. More silliness. If the Ag Secretary wants to pray for rain,

he can do so. It won't be of any use, but he's welcome to do so or to advise others to do so. Objecting to it is silly. This is why I'm not a member of any atheist organizations. I don't care if people believe, or pray, or do whatever they wish, as long as they don't insist that I do the same. It's irrelevant to anything.

[cleanhippie]

20. No, Tom Vilsak is free to pray for all the rain he wants. The Ag Secretary should be mum.

[cbayer]

26. He was asked a direct question and gave an honest answer. So what?

[skepticscott]

30. And if someone asked him

what the president's position was on something, and he answered, with total honesty "I think the president's position on this issue is idiotic and I'm not going to repeat it here", would you say "So what?" too? Would that be perfectly OK and appropriate, just as long as it was an honest answer to a direct question?

Are you getting this at all?