"Well, I guess it was her time to go. God called her home..."

sigh.

Or, it was just a tragic accident.

~Dan

Wow what a sad story. Outside my little town of Owosso Michigan almost three years ago, a home exploded killing six children, five were from the same family. This was a very devoutly Christian family who home schooled their children and put God above all else in their lives. I asked myself the same questions that ATF had posed after his article about the Chapman's tragedy.

Why is it that Christians just don't see life as it is, which is sometimes a random series of very unfair indiscriminate events that don't give a fuck whether or not you pray to Jesus or not.

They did an interview with the father of these children one year later in our local paper. He stated that he was upset with God at first but soon was mad at himself for even thinking such thoughts. He went on to say how much he trusted and loved his God despite what he had lost. He knew that it was all part of His plan.

I just don't get the mindset. When are these people going to wake the fuck up and realize there is no shroud of protection from Gawd for anyone.

Radio host and atheist Tom Leykis does a segment on his show called "Thank You Jesus," in which he reports on similar tragedies that happen to Christians who you would think would be protected. The last one he reported on was a two year old who was accidentally left in a church van and boiled to death in the sun. After he reads the story he says, "Thank You Jesus for doing such a great job. Thank you Jesus."



xrayman

I got an email forward from this delusional fundie woman I once knew that detailed the lyrics of a song by Stephen Curtis Chapman. The words of the song were about the loss of a loved one. Her subject line read; "The lyrics to a song God gave to Stephen Curtis Chapman even before this happenned!" Now I'm thinking... Man! gawd is so good to teach his children such valuable life lessons through such horrible circumstances. Trouble is, I'm having a hard time understanding what that lesson could possibly be.

Ya know, it's that damn book of Job.
When horrible things like this happen to Christians they find their peace and inspiration from this book.

This is a sad and horrible event. I wouldn't wish this on anyone. The son that hit the girl will be tormented for the rest of his life because of it. I couldn't imagine losing a child, especially at the hands of one of your own.

Some of will think I'm crazy but this is one of the things I miss about being spiritual. Not necessarily being a Christian but just believing in an afterlife. At least when you loose a loved one you have the assurance you will be with them again one day. I know there are holes in this logic, so please don't badger me. I don't believe this way but if I did it would make the sting hurt a little less.

Jackie,
I can understand your sentiment about wishing for an afterlife. One might say that this is the excuse for believing in a religion in the first place.

Nevertheless, I find it more comforting to face the cold, hard truth: when you're dead you're dead, and that's it.

Strangely enough, I find a terrible truth more comforting than a beautiful lie.

ATF: "Why would a loving god permit the 5 year old daughter of a well known Christian Music Star to not only be accidentally killed, but killed by that star's very own son (her brother)?"

Hypothetical perspective 1: The possibilities are limitless, and beyond the victim's family's understanding. The victim's family will believe that God has a Plan, that everything that happens is God's Will, and for a Higher Purpose. Being True Christians, they will come to accept it.

Hypothetical perspective 2: There is no invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent "God" watching over us. "God" does not exist, and thus, tragic things happen. They will get on with life, but this tragedy will haunt them as long as they all live.

ATF: "How much guilt will this dead girl's brother have to deal with for the rest of [his] life?"

Hypothetical perspective 1: There will be little to no guilt. The victim's family will continue to have faith that "God's Will is God's Will; it is unchangable, unchallengable, preordained, and everything that happens is for our own good. The fact that the driver of the vehicle is a God-fearing, bible-believing Christian, saves him from guilt, and gives him peace in his heart. He looks forward to being reunited with his sister in Heaven(provided he remains a faithful follower of Christ)

Hypothetical perspective 2: He will have a moderate to insurmountable amount of guilt. He will realize that people are human, and humans are imperfect by nature. He will realize that it is human nature to want a reason for everything, and to desire to understand everything, including why bad things happen, including "death". He will come to realize and accept that there is no "God"; there is no post-mortem life, and all he can do is cherish the small amount of time he knew his sister, while trying to forgive himself for making a grave mistake.

ATF: "Why would this Christian god punish an entire Christian family in such a manner?"

Hypothetical perspective 1: The possibilites are infinite, literally. Notwithstanding, the victim's family will believe, through faith, that it was part of God's plan, beyond their understanding, and they will not question it.

Hypothetical perspective 2) "God" does not exist, thus, no one is being "punished".

ATF: "Could it be that God just sat back and did nothing to stop this, while the Devil had some of his mean old fun with this God-loving Christian family?"

Hypothetical perspective 1: It could be for that reason; it may be another reason. They will never know, but that doesn't matter, because they will continue to trust God's Will.

Hypothetical perspective 2: There is no "God"; there is no "Devil". Bad things happen, and will continue to happen, to them, and every other human being.

*Notice that, while all of the # 1 hypotheticals might very well provide comfort to the victim's family, etc... they require excuse-making, and having to rationalize. Conversely, while none of the # 2 hypotheticals provide answers that necessarily bring comfort, there's no excuse-making necessary, nor having to ratonalize.

Bottom line is, if there is a god using suffering, in all it's, various, hideous, forms as a TOOL to teach us something, then that god is a vile, demented, PSYCHO-FUCK, only worthy of complete and utter contempt. A god that is all-good and all-knowing, and all-powerful, surely could of taught, what he wanted to teach us, with an infinite amount of possibilities, all of which, wouldn't include the egregious suffering of children.

--S.

A Christian friend of my was confused as to how I could live my life without an eternal purpose.

My response was along the lines that I don't need to find purpose in all the good and bad stuff that happens, such as this tragic accident. I don't need to twist my brain up in knots trying to understand some fictional god's purpose in all the random stuff that comes my way.

I can simply accept that good and bad things happen, and deal with each accordingly. When something awful like this happens, you pick up the pieces and move on, without adding any confusion and mental torment.

I agree with the antichristian who wrote "Strangely enough, I find a terrible truth more comforting than a beautiful lie."

- Lance

Terrible, it's just plain terrible. I feel for the guy. Although, I'm sure this tragedy will be the genesis of his next album and it will make him a lot of money.

Well I put a lot of the blame of this on the parents, I mean if you're willing to go to another country to adopt a child from irresponsible parents, the least you can do is see to it that they grow up safely to lead a normal reproductive lives until they are at least 18 years old.

But I'd be willing to say that there is more to the story than what is being told.

I would be willing to say that the fundy parents were inside praying, giving praise to Jesus for all the good blessings that he has bestowed to them, money and religious glorification, instead of keeping a constant head count of where their children were.

I can also imagine that the young brother was singing songs of praise to Jesus while he was being distracted in his brain by reciting repetitous songs of praise to his majesty king Jebus.

Isn't that really the purpose of religions, to distract people from reality? So they can blame whatever happens on either a god's divine will or satans divisive little scheme to disrupt god's holy plan.

I wonder how many people are killed each year because they are distracted trying to select a radio channel of religious praise or putting a religious cd in the car stereo?

I know for a fact that my mother and sister cannot put batteries in a flashlight properly because they cannot get those religious incantations to stop flowing long enough in their heads, to realize that a flashlight battery has a positive and negitive end that must be aligned up properly while inserting them into the flashlight.

I know many people (in my family esp.)whom will just throw out a mechanical devise simply because they just cannot concentrate long enough away from religious incantations and religious chants to maintain a mental focus away from Jebus long enough to figure out how to fix an otherwise very simple repair.

shit happens.....

theyre trying to convert the Chinese. My mind recoils in horror. The Buddhists did NOTHING to deserve such a thing. As for the chapman girl, she would have been corrupted by her father and his stupid religion. it would have been mental abuse, and very few people deconvert, those that do are the fortunate ones.

It's a sad story... Condolences to the Chapman family.

Muttmutt,

I am a teacher in China, and there are countless Christian missionaries (mostly from America) who come here in the guise of English teachers. I have been doing my best to get them deported, but you would be surprised at how lenient the Chinese government is with them.

Your may be surprised to know that private practice of religion in China is quite legal. Churches exist in the major cities, mostly attended by foreigners. However, prosyletizing and missionary work is illegal, so the missionaries are trained on what they can do and can't do.

These teachers generally don't use the classroom for spreading the gospel - they know that would be trouble, but they hold "parties" at their homes, where they can preach the gospel freely. Their Chinese students are quite happy to attend in order to get extra practice speaking English.

In my deportation attempts, I have contacted the police about this matter, and they say that as long as they preach in the privacy of their own homes, there is nothing they can do.

Nevertherless, we should feel satified that the Chinese people generally can tell a ruse when they see one. If you give them a clear cut synopsis of the Gospel (Jesus Christ, son of God, born of a virgin, performed miracles, was crucified and resurrected for your sins) they will laugh uncontrollably and wonder how anyone could ever believe such nonsense.

Most people in mainland China are not Buddhist. Communist education teaches people to rely on science and to avoid religion (hooray for the communists!) But in the countryside, where people are less educated, superstition still persists. Buddhism and the belief in ghosts is common.

I don't believe that Christianity will ever take a foothold in China. Nevertheless, I will keep trying to deport missionaries.

What a sad story. I feel uncomfortable making assumptions about what the family was doing when this happened, blaming them automatically. Accidents happen, and this could have happened in any of our families, religious or not. I feel most for the teenage boy. I doubt that his religion will provide real comfort here; perhaps on the surface it will, but I imagine almost any human would go through terrible guilt after this. I hope he gets the help he needs to handle this, not just a bunch of people laying hands and praying for him.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I feel like posting this article is inappropriate. I rarely criticize this website; I'm generally up for being unapologetic, calling out hypocritical pastors, etc. But I don't think we need to post this article here. The ONLY relevance it has to us is the whole tragedies/unnecessary-suffering-raise-valuable-questions-about-god thing, and while that is a very valuable topic, I think it's too soon and too much of a private tragedy to open to public discussion, some of which blames the parents without any evidence.

I feel very bad for this family, and we should remember that the kids and parents probably DO know how to use Google and could end up here. I've never had a personal tragedy end up in the news, but I have friends who have, and the unkind comments that strangers make can be heartbreaking. (Try having your brother and father murdered, then reading comments on the city paper's website like "See the street where this happened? Just two pieces of white trash we don't have to deal with anymore." That happened to my friend.) Those commenters made nasty, hurtful, unnecessary comments based on assumptions and prejudices, comments that anyone can read and the family very well could see. The same thing is happening here. Maybe the Chapmans are irresponsible parents due to their Christianity, but I'll give them the benefit of a doubt. I have rejected Christianity and I plan to raise any children I have as freethinkers, but I still know many excellent parents who are also Christians.

Yes, we have valid points about the errancy/inadequacy of Christianity, but need we apply them to this tragic recent situation? If nothing else, it's "too soon." Like I said, I rarely have a problem with the content posted here or the attitudes with which comments are made, but something about this situation really bothers me.

WhateverLolaWants wrote:
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I feel like posting this article is inappropriate.
----
Hi WhateverLolaWants,

While you do make some valuable points in your objection to seeing this story posted here, let me say this about it.

1. This story was in many newspapers across the country (which is how I found it), so the event itself wasn't some private family secret that was posted only here; for the family to discover using Google.

2. I feel this tragedy is most relevant to whether the god of Christianity not only exists, but whether such a living god would be providing 'care' for his devoted followers and their innocent children, above and beyond what sheer chance alone would account for.

If the xtian god fails to protect even this type of very devoted xtian family, from losing one child, and by the accidental 'hands' of a sibling child, then one has to wonder what benefit such a god would offer to just your run-of-the-mill xtian.

While some may feel that this tragedy may have been partly caused by a god 'worship' distraction, there is obviously no evidence to support that assertion.
Placing the blame in such a manner, really wasn't the point of my wanting to see this story posted here on our site, but rather, to once again point out to the reading xtians that their god does nothing to protect them over the rest of us non-xtians.


ATF (Who was hoping to see some xtians try and explain this event, but as always, they stay very silent with such post)

ATF":I feel this tragedy is most relevant to whether the god of Christianity not only exists, but whether such a living god would be providing 'care' for his devoted followers and their innocent children, above and beyond what sheer chance alone would account for."

I feel that tragedy in general is relevant to the issues you raise. However, I feel that this tragedy, specifically, is most relevant to the Chapman family.

I'm not sideing with whateverlolawants on this out of any overwhelming logical or philosophical necessity. It's mostly because she's a goodlooking redhead.


Stronger Now(who wonders about the moral implications of kicking the "crutches" out from under the psychologically crippled if reliance on the "crutches" is what has crippled them to begin with)

All,

IMO, other than the obvious sadness over the senseless loss of life, I think that the title of the article, "Daughter of Christian music star killed by car", would normally not draw any special attention in the media. After all, there are many genres of music..i.e..Country, Spiritual, Gospel, Bluegrass, etc....and these desciptive titles are simply meant to distinguish what style of music the artist plays, and help people identify with them. And again, yes, these types of accidents are tragic. My point is, since it was posted on this website, I believe that it is only then that it becomes suggestive, maybe even exploitive(to some).

Notwithstanding, I have to say that I see a bit of a double-standard, in that, if Christians and their affilitated figureheads can make National appearances and do such things as tell the victims of Hurricane Katrina that it was "God's way of showing His disgust for homosexuals", or, if they can tell all of America that the 911 incident was because of the "Devil", and/or, "apostates", and/or, "God's Wrath on sinners", blah, blah, etc, etc...then it should be fair game to counter such claims, even if it means posting an ocassional article like this. I'm not necessarily saying that "tat-for-tat" is alway a good argument; I'm only saying that, in this case, it shines a light on the insanely inhumane mentality of some Christians. It shows that, clearly, no one is exempt from tragedy, thus, there is no "favoritism", thus, there is no invisible deity in the sky.

'Best,

What is the optimal moment to engage a person wielding a psychosomatic crutch?

It depends on who answers the question; the person wielding the crutch will likely say never... for emotional reasons, but at times because they sell crutches.

Most people, with any sense of humanity would not kick the crutches out from under a handicapped individual, if in fact their self-imposed handicap only affected them.

However, for those who are in the business of selling crutches... when does it become inappropriate to question the morality of their vocation?

If a person, highly dependent on their crutches is "ever" questioned about the morality of their vocation; it will almost "always" be perceived by that individual as a challenge to their "self", as their self-identity is in part formed by their vocation; we are what we do.

If it were the position of this site, or a physical/mental therapist to "never" engage an individual exhibiting a defensive mechanism, then there would likely "never" be an appropriate time to approach them.

It is not accepted by many people, that crutch sales-people who exhibit defensive mechanisms, be given a perpetual free-ride from scrutiny; as they further impact society. Especially, if they "use" their circumstances, to further advocate their crutch business.

Defensive mechanisms don't have "shelf lives"... the loss of a family member, will be an event that can be pulled out as an element of a defense mechanism from the time the incident occurred, until the individual passes away themselves.

So, it appears the core issue becomes;

1-Is it ever appropriate to challenge someone wielding a crutch, or advocating crutches to society?

2-If there "is" a time limit, on challenging those who advocate the use of crutches, what is the "appropriate" method to use?

I think there is a “time” and “method” appropriate to address such individuals in our society. The amount of time to give a person, and the method to use, is akin to discussing the appropriate drinking age for citizens; deriving an answer is more an art than a science.

Thanks for the responses, everyone!

Dave8, you raise a lot of good questions, and I agree- it's more an art than a science. I also appreciate your extended analogy about crutches and how they affect all of us. I've already said my piece about not feeling now is the time to kick the crutches out from under the Chapmans (although I do think this story could help kick them out from under other Christians); however, if I knew them personally, I wouldn't polish or put any duct tape on their crutches either!

Stronger now, thanks for the compliment! If that's what it takes to get people to side with me... ;)

Boomslang, I like what you're saying about it being appropriate to mention tragedies, particularly since Christians love to excuse/credit God for all sorts of disasters (usually providing bizarre motives.) Like I said earlier, I don't think using this particular case right now is a very good way to do things, but I definitely see the value in doing so in many cases.

I agree with WhateverLolawants, and Bill, "I just don't get the mindset"
I have no further comment only because I have two small children and hearing about someone else's tragedy like this makes me sick. I will hug my kids today until they complain of my smothering them. Clair

I agree that this article was most appropriate for this setting for this tragic accident is public knowledge. I do like the angle in which ATF has approached this matter.

You know the thing about this God or Jesus or whomever the fuck is in control is the fact that he is real shitty at preventative measures. He always seems to come in and comfort after the fact doesn't he, but he doesn't prevent the tragedy in the first place.

Or with the alcoholics(like me) he doesn't prevent us from drinking and fucking our lives up real bad in the first place, but he helps us get sober and to pick up the pieces of our shattered lives.

5 steps from Grief to Grace is my advice to the Chapmans, and you – you may read here my new essay on the subject: http://frankahilario.blogspot.com/

Taken from the above-referenced blog:

The stages of "Good Grief!"

1 Receiving. ‘Lord, I accept.’
2 Absorbing. ‘Lord, I’m taking it all in.’
3 Giving in. ‘Lord, I surrender all.’
4 Rejoicing. ‘Lord, I shout with faith, hope, love, laughter!’
5 Growing with it. ‘Lord, I am new!’

How sad, and remarkably typical.

In other words, pretty much just as we discussed---the family should rationalize this tragic mishap as some sort of "miracle in disguise". They should "pray" to the very "Lord" who presumably could've just prevented this tragic accident in the first place. The final "stage", and ultimate goal, is to be able to "shout with faith, hope, love, laughter!", even if that means
deluding yourself with lies.

Only where religion is concerned is someone's "grief" actually seen as something "good". Notwithstanding, I still support people's right to adhere to such twisted philosophies, even if I don't agree with them.

Unfortunately, this "Good Grief" stuff seems to fly in the face of the Kübler-Ross model of grieving.

In fact, it resembles a parody of the model, and Frankenstein's blog does, in fact, make reference to Kübler-Ross.

But it seems rather poorly thought-out, in My opinion. Acceptance instead of disbelief and anger at the beginning of the process? (In fact, *is* anger permitted, at all?)

By short-circuiting the natural psychological experience of deep, life-altering sorrow -- In favour of happy-clappy "Good Christian" behaviour -- "Good Grief" has the potential to wreak long-term emotional damage on the very people it purports to help...

...Yes, the living. Thanks but no thanks, Frank.

Frank: "I have just been inspired to completely revise Kubler-Ross' version and come up with my version of the many stages of grief, which in this case I would like to differently call The Frankenstein 5 Stages of Good Grief!"

Frank is a Roman Catholic, who lacks mental health training and education; yet, he feels compelled to revise a professional mental health specialist's research.

Frank is likely a classically conditioned believer, trained to manipulate words to mean what he wants. If Frank can manipulate word meanings in a book of Holy Fiction, why wouldn't he think he could manipulate the professional work of a psychologist...

With friends like Frank, who needs... well, we all know how that ends.

Frank: "I dedicate it to all the big and small losers in the world, the very first ones being the Steven Curtis Chapman family."

Frank's wisdom to the Chapman family is to describe them as "losers".

Perhaps, it's just a grammatical oversight, showing an obvious lack of commitment and sensitivity that should have been placed in a caring article to a grieving family.

However, I'd wager that Frank does actually care for the Chapman family... but... lacks the education necessary to write effectively, or revise a professional psychologist's work.

Frank as a religious person just wants to contribute his "ignorance" to society and those people he cares for, as often as possible. Because... it's likely not the words or negative effect on society and people in general that counts most to him... what counts most, is that he had "good intentions".

Having "good intentions" is code for... never having to be responsible or say one is sorry, for their behavioral actions.

I guess Frank's next work will include rewriting medical journals, and posting them on his blog and offering them to third world nations - because it's all about "good intentions", who cares about the fall out, (perhaps, a pandemic), he's got God on his side, and with God, nothing else really matters - not even the people he purports to care for.