More on the Charter of Values

I've been thinking about this thing, and listening to what many people had to say on "Cross-Country Check-up" on CBC Radio.

I haven't changed my fundamental viewpoint, but I am more convinced than ever that this is something that the Government should'ntt be meddling in. Sure, when the question of Shira Law comes up, it should be squashed quickly and completely. The same with other threats to our way of life.  But, religious symbols in themselves, (or, more accurately, cultural symbols), don't do us any harm and trying to suppress them will merely cause bitterness and strengthen their resolve to uphold their faith.

Better to just ignore what doesn't interfere with us, and eventually, the human race will grow up and leave these myths called religions behind it.... at least I hope so, otherwise we are destined to forever live in the shadow of the cave.

Quebec's Charter of Values

The current debate in Quebec is interesting.   I suspect that it is a response to what is happening in many European countries, where Muslims are hijacking religious and cultural values in their adopted countries.

That certainly is a very valid concern. Islam, while not unique in this regard, is nevertheless one of the few religions that takes the view that if the religion is valid, then you cannot let it live only in the mosque, but must allow it to permeate your whole life.  Christians don’t take this view.  They seem to realize, whether they admit it or not, that their religion has no validity in the real world.

However, the Quebec response is a curtailment of civil rights for everyone,  exactly what they are afraid that Muslims would ultimately do.  It’s a natural response to bullies, hit back (not a bad idea actually), but in this case they are hitting back at everybody.

A better tactic, I think, would be to put in place laws and policies that make sure that each and every person can pursue their own beliefs but are prevented from imposing them in any way on others. That is, after all the real concern, and it is a valid one, concerning what is happening in England and other European countries, where Muslims have virtually taken over some districts and are verbally and physically attacking anyone that violates what they consider to be Muslim values.

In general, I don't agree with a general restriction of rights. The burka, however, is a more complicated issue. Total face covering provides anonymity, which fundamentally hides or conceals your identity or individuality. I suppose that, if that is your desire, the state should not deny you the right to do so, but, you must be ready to accept reasonable consequences of your actions, such as loss of some rights and services.

I think that shop owners, for example, should be allowed to deny service, or even access, to those wearing a burka, after all, how could you be sure it isn't a suicide bomber in duisgise?

Some services offered by the state simply cannot be provided anonymously, services such as passports, drivers licenses, etc., where identification is essential. Similarly, many of the rights individuals have in a court of law should also be denied.  In general, if you do not wish to interact with society as an individual, society should not have to treat you as one.

This approach would be more in keeping with Canadian values.  After all, our country is founded on freedom for everyone and we must make sure that neither religious fundamentalists nor fearful governments erode those values. So I find it incongruous that the Quebec Government should call this misguided legislation a "Charter of Values" when it so obviously is in opposition to Canada's values. But then, the current Quebec Government doesn't consider themselves to be part of Canada does it.

My "belief"

Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,^[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that he cannot even say whether he is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

From Wikipedia 

When is a religion a Hate Group?

I have often thought that one of the differences between Christianity and the Muslim faith is that Christians, by and large, are able to ignore the nastier bits of the bible whereas many Muslims are unable to ignore the nastier bits in the Koran, and, believe me, there are plenty of nasties in both books.

However, I'm beginning to think I was wrong, that Christians, at lest some of them, are quite willing to take the nasty bits to heart and actually act upon them.

The really sad part is that these people can avoid being labelled a "hate group" because its their "religion". Well it's religion to the fundamentalist Muslims too.

Here is a very disturbing article published in the Guardian.

• Katherine Stewart
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 May 2012 15.15 B

The Bible has thousands of passages that may serve as the basis for instruction and inspiration. Not all of them are appropriate in all circumstances.

The story of Saul and the Amalekites is a case in point. It's not a pretty story, and it is often used by people who don't intend to do pretty things. In the book of 1 Samuel (15:3), God said to Saul:

"Now go, attack the Amalekites, and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

Saul dutifully exterminated the women, the children, the babies and all of the men – but then he spared the king. He also saved some of the tastier looking calves and lambs. God was furious with him for his failure to finish the job.

The story of the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages. According to Pennsylvania State UniversityProfessor Philip Jenkins, a contributing editor for the American Conservative, the Puritans used this passage when they wanted to get rid of the Native American tribes. Catholics used it against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. "In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu preachers invoked King Saul's memory to justify the total slaughter of their Tutsi neighbors," writes Jenkins in his 2011 book, Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses (HarperCollins).

This fall, more than 100,000 American public school children, ranging in age from four to 12, are scheduled to receive instruction in the lessons of Saul and the Amalekites in the comfort of their own public school classrooms. The instruction, which features in the second week of a weekly "Bible study" course, will come from the Good News Club, an after-school program sponsored by a group called the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF). The aim of the CEF is to convert young children to a fundamentalist form of the Christian faith and recruit their peers to the club.

There are now over 3,200 clubs in public elementary schools, up more than sevenfold since the 2001 supreme court decision, Good News Club v Milford Central School, effectively required schools to include such clubs in their after-school programing.

The CEF has been teaching the story of the Amalekites at least since 1973. In its earlier curriculum materials, CEF was euphemistic about the bloodshed, saying simply that "the Amalekites were completely defeated." In the most recent version of the curriculum, however, the group is quite eager to drive the message home to its elementary school students. The first thing the curriculum makes clear is that if God gives instructions to kill a group of people, you must kill every last one:

"You are to go and completely destroy the Amalekites (AM-uh-leck-ites) – people, animals, every living thing. Nothing shall be left."

"That was pretty clear, wasn't it?" the manual tells the teachers to say to the kids.

Even more important, the Good News Club wants the children to know, the Amalakites were targeted for destruction on account of their religion, or lack of it. The instruction manual reads:

"The Amalekites had heard about Israel's true and living God many years before, but they refused to believe in him. The Amalekites refused to believe in God and God had promised punishment."

The instruction manual goes on to champion obedience in all things. In fact, pretty much every lesson that the Good News Club gives involves reminding children that they must, at all costs, obey. If God tells you to kill nonbelievers, he really wants you to kill them all. No questions asked, no exceptions allowed.

Asking if Saul would "pass the test" of obedience, the text points to Saul's failure to annihilate every last Amalekite, posing the rhetorical question:

"If you are asked to do something, how much of it do you need to do before you can say, 'I did it!'?"

"If only Saul had been willing to seek God for strength to obey!" the lesson concludes.

A review question in the textbook seeks to drive the point home further:

"How did King Saul only partly obey God when he attacked the Amalekites? (He did not completely destroy as God had commanded, he kept the king and some of the animals alive.)"

The CEF and the legal advocacy groups that have been responsible for its tremendous success over the past ten years are determined to "Knock down all doors, all the barriers, to all 65,000 public elementary schools in America and take the Gospel to this open mission field now! Not later, now!" in the words of a keynote speaker at the CEF's national convention in 2010. The CEF wants to operate in the public schools, rather than in churches, because they know that young children associate the public schools with authority and are unable to distinguish between activities that take place in a school and those that are sponsored by the school.

In the majority opinion that opened the door to Good News Clubs, supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas reasoned that the activities of the CEF were not really religious, after all. He said that they could be characterized, for legal purposes, "as the teaching of morals and character development from a particular viewpoint".

As Justices Souter and Stevens pointed out in their dissents, however, the claim is preposterous: the CEF plainly aims to teach religious doctrines and conduct services of worship. Thomas's claim is particularly ironic in view of the fact that the CEF makes quite clear its intent to teach that no amount of moral or ethical behavior (pdf) can spare a nonbeliever from an eternity in hell.

Good News Clubs should not be in America's public elementary schools. As I explain in my book, The Good News Club: The Christian Right's Stealth Assault on America's Children, the club exists mainly to give small children the false impression that their public school supports a particular creed. The clubs' presence has produced a paradoxical entanglement of church and state that has ripped apart communities, degraded public education, and undermined religious freedom.

The CEF's new emphasis on the genocide of nonbelievers makes a bad situation worse. Exterminist rhetoric has been on the rise among some segments of the far right, including some religious groups. At what point do we start taking talk of genocide seriously? How would we feel about a nonreligious group that instructs its students that if they should ever receive an order to commit genocide, they should fulfill it to the letter?

And finally, when does a religious group qualify as a "hate group"?

Snake bite anyone?

Here's one to brighten up your day:

A pastor in West Virginia who apparently takes (took) Mark 16:17-18 very seriously was bitten by a rattle snake and died. Not his first bite apparently, but the first that was fatal.

Now, these people, (apparently there are lots of them down there) believe that the bible mandates people to handle poisonous snakes to test their belief in God, and if they are bitten, God will heal them (see Mark 16:17-18 below)

One suspects that their numbers would be shrinking. 

Several facts make this incident really stand out however:

1. The pastor's father, who also was a paster, died the same way in 1983.

2. When this chap was bitten, no attempt was made to obtain snake bite antidote. (you would have thought that he would know whether or not he believed in God and therefore know whether or not he needed antidote.... apparently not)

3. Instead, when his followers realized he was actually dying they prayed to God to heal him...apparently not understanding  Mark 16: 17-18 at all (it says that if they were true believers, all they had to do was lay their hands upon him and he would have recovered... apparently no one touched him and he died).

You'd think that a bit of simple logic training would benefit people like this.  It really is quite simple... if you are not sure of your belief in God, stay away from snakes. And, if you do encounter one, make sure you are with a friend who does believe in God and is willing to lay his hands on you.....very simple survival rules.

Mark 16:17-18 :

“And these signs will follow those who believe: 

in My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 

they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, 

it will by no means hurt them; 

they will lay their hands on the sick, 

and they will recover.”-- 

The Washington Post article is at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/serpent-handling-pastor-profiled-earlier-in-washington-post-dies-from-rattlesnake-bite/2012/05/29/gJQAJef5zU_story.html 

Quote from a great Canadian

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here 
in good faith  becomes a Canadian and assimilates himself to us,
he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else,
for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man 
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet 
a Canadian, and nothing but a Canadian...
There can be no divided allegiance here.
Any man who says he is a Canadian, but something else also, 
isn't a Canadian at all.
We have room for but one flag, the Canadian flag...
And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is 
a loyalty to the Canadian people.'

Wilfrid Laurier 1907

To that I would my own version of the same sentiment:

This is my country.
It is a country that respects individual rights
It is country in which EVERYONE is equal, in rights and importance.
It is a country in which EVERYONE has the freedom to practice their beliefs.
It is also a place where EVERYONE has the right to freedom FROM religion and religious belief.
It means that I will respect your right to disagree with those values,
but not the right to change them.
This is the lifestyle we practice in my country,
and if you feel impelled to impose contrary religious, cultural or political values on my country, then, I invite you to go back to your home, for this is not it.
And to those citizens of my country who would, in the name of political correctness,
give away or compromise the rights and freedoms we have achieved, I invite you to go with them.

Hockey and religion

There are parallels between Religious extreamists and Hockey nuts. Notice I didn't say religious nuts.

They are similar in their adamant defence of their "beliefs" in the face of scientific evidence.  What brought this to mind lately, is the furor over the new Ontario school bullying bill and the way a Catholic fringe group called the bill an attack on Catholics and religious values etc etc. (The CBC again giving more air time to a fringe group than is warranted).

The religious fanatics' response is very much like the hockey nuts who keep saying that fighting and hard checking is part of hockey and critics should just butt-out. It's tradition and should be left alone etc.

You can of course, get away with calling the hockey people "nuts", you usually cannot get away with calling the religious fanatics "nuts", and therein, of course, is a major difference.

But it points out an obvious fact;  that it is not the hockey, or the religion, or whatever else, that is the problem, it's the way people settle into their little foxholes of belief feeling completely safe and refusing to leave, no matter what.

One, of course, always thinks that he is viewing others in their little foxholes of belief from the vantage point of level ground. It may be, however, that we do not understand those people in their little foxholes because we are so deep in our own that we only see their heads poking out.

"Political correctness" gone too far

Recently I was again made aware of the school Principal, Erik Millett, in Springfield, N.B., who bowed to pressure from “a couple of families” to ban the singing of the Canadian national anthem in the school.

I don’t know which is worse, those who objected to the anthem being sung, or the principal who bowed to their ridiculous demands.  This “political correctness” nonsense has gone far enough. I’m all for avoiding needless offence, as I believe most Canadians are, and for that very reason, I find it completely mystifying that someone would offend an entire nation in order to avoid what can hardly even be understood as an offence to “several families”.

I can only assume that these “several families” are immigrants, for what Canadian would demand such a ridiculous thing? And, if I am wrong, I apologise deeply to all immigrants.

However, I would say this to all immigrants:

I sincerely welcome you into my country. It is a country that respects individual rights.
It is country in which EVERYONE has equal rights and everyone is equally important.
It is a country where EVERYONE has the freedom to practice their beliefs.
Which means that EVERYONE also has the right to enjoy freedom FROM religion and religious belief.
It also means that I will respect your right to disagree with those values, but I will not grant you the right to change them. This is the lifestyle we practice in my country, and if you feel impelled to impose the religious, cultural or political values that you fled your homeland from, on my country, then, I invite you to go back to your home, for this is not it.
And to those in my country who would, in the name of political correctness, compromise those values, I invite you to go with them.

9/11 coverage

We’ve heard an awful lot about the terrible events of September 11, 2001 during the past week.  And it really was a terrible thing. An unprovoked, unnecessary, and unjustified attack on innocent civilians resulting in nearly 3,000 deaths. And for what? An ideal? To make a point? Or was it revenge?  Whatever the reason, it wasn’t enough to justify taking the lives, in so cruel a fashion, of people who could have had no part in affecting the lives of the murderers.

And the legacy of that action?   An unprovoked, unnecessary, and unjustified attack on Iraq resulting in over 100,000 innocent civilian deaths. Civilians who could have had no part in affecting the lives of their murderers. And for what? An ideal? To make a point? Or was it revenge?

It makes me wonder if all the coverage of what happened in New York was misguided. Maybe a lot more tears should be shed over the 100,000.  Maybe the real terrorists are on this side of the ocean, because, after all, isn’t any unprovoked attack on innocent civilians a terrorist attack? And can’t we measure the magnitude of the atrocity by the number of dead? 

If someone who murders 3,000 is a terrorist, then what do you call one who murders a 100,000?

Atheist Registry??

There's a chap in Florida who seems to think that there should be a national atheist registry.  Not so that normal, rational-minded people would be able to contact each other, etc. No, this registry would be so that the "right-thinking", gun-totin' people of the US, especially those in the south, I would think, can deal properly with atheists.

I have read people pointing out that many Christian groups around the world are, in fact, becoming more militant, more ignorant, more despicable, than the militant Islamists. I am begining to believe that they are right. I don't know whether it's due to our colder climate or what, but I am very grateful that we have far fewer of these lunatics up here in Canada.

If you'd like to know more, heres a link to follow: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/sep/04/1

Interesting ruling on Monday in a case in England:

"There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong. "

The complete article is at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html

It does seem to be a bit of a reach to tell people that they can't be foster parents because they think homosexuality is wrong.  I wonder if it makes any difference whether you are opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds or just on a mistaken understanding of human sexuality??

Not that I'm opposed to this ruling.... although they don't mention this angle in the article, I think that if you don't want Muslim beliefs to influence our lawmaking, you must also ensure that Christian beliefs don't either (although in this case they probably both believe the same thing).

The real problem is that you really cannot separate Church and State.  The Muslims understand this, and want to go all the way in using their faith to regulate their lives. Christians seem to want it both ways.

I think that it is a real test of your religion, in a way.  If it can't be used it to run every facet of life, then there is either something wrong with the religion or the lifestyle.  To say that separation of church and state is a workable arrangement is bunk.  Either change your religion, or change your state, one or the other....it is untenable to attempt to live by two sets of contrary rules.

Of course that's a bit simplistic... it assumes that everyone believes the same thing.... which they don't....You can't therefore, make everyone happy, so the only solution is to make everyone unhappy, which is exactly what most governments manage to do, and do very well.

I have trouble with labels

I have a lot of trouble with labels.  Personal labels that is. Oh, I know, they are important to our way of life, and there are some that I like to hang around my neck. It’s nice, for example, to be labeled a senior and get discounts at restaurants. Or to be labeled a grandfather, a retiree, or a fireman.  Lots of labels are nice to be able to wear.  Those are the ones that describe only one aspect of yourself, or maybe a condition that is only temporary.  However, labels that become more all-encompassing and attempt to pin down the basic you or what goes on in your head really give me trouble..

Labels dealing with faith or the lack of it are the most difficult. Even political labels are not so bad. I wouldn’t mind being called a liberal, for example.  But call me a Christian and I’m liable to get angry; or call me an atheist and I’m liable to say “now hold on a moment….”  The problem is, well, really there are two problems. First, many labels, especially those dealing with “faith” are too restrictive.  When you try to wear them, they begin to pinch like new shoes that are a size too small. They may describe a part of you, or a part of what they mean may fit you but not the rest, or other people may have a different understanding of what the label means.  The result is that the label does little to describe the real you and may, in fact be quite misleading.

Labels tend to be absolute, brokering no wiggle room.  As such they come in two opposite types: affirmative labels, like Christian, and denial labels like Atheist.  Denial labels do little to explain what you are, only what you are not. Affirmative labels have denial aspects too, since claiming to be a Christian, denies belief in many other things.

The problem really asserts itself when ideas are turned into labels. I applaud the concept of agnosticism, for example, but would balk at my spiritual understanding to be limited by such a label for I am also an ignostic (or a theological noncognitivist, if you prefer) because I believe that before you even approach the problem of proving that He exists, you first have to define the word “God”, and ignostics believe that is impossible.

While I can claim acceptance of any of these ideas, I cannot accept them as defining labels. In that respect, I think that denial labels are probably worse than affirmative labels since they  end to be more confining that affirmative labels and do very little to explain who or what you really are.

But even the affirmative labels have their limitations. In the past I have considered myself a Gnostic; have greatly admired Buddhists, and even considered myself a Christian at one time. I later leaned toward Pantheism and, finally, the Humanist way of thinking. 

The problem remains, however, that none of these labels really fit properly, although some come very close. Pantheists, Humanists and Buddhists, for example, deny the existence of God, in that respect they are all Atheistic and probably Agnostic and Ignostic as well. Buddhists however, accept the concept of consciousness surviving the death of the body, while Pantheists and Humanists tend to deny all spiritual concepts.  It really becomes impossible to find a label that perfect;y fits my personal view of reality. And therein lies the problem. Any label broad enough in scope to accommodate ones beliefs would be so fuzzy as to be useless.

The concept of god may be at the root of the problem, since most faith labels are referenced to God in some way, as if that were the basis of all religious thought. I disagree. While the idea of God is important to any discussion of religion, and will be tossed around for millennium to come, He is not the prime concept behind 99 out of 100 religions. The idea that consciousness can survive the death of the material body is death is, for if you don’t believe that your consciousness will still exist after your body returns to the earth, then all other religious discussion is meaningless. Nothing else matters and even God becomes impotent.  Perhaps, then, more “faith” labels should focus on that concept rather than on the existence or non-existence of God.

So… in the end, what label could I pin on myself? I don’t know. I guess I’ll have to make one up. But then, what use is that. Labels are meant to convey a description of yourself to others. If I pin a label on myself that only I know the definition of, what use can it be? I guess I’ll just have to be content with Humanist for the time being, after all, it does come closer than anything else.

The pope.... with a small p

So the pope has decided that its ok for male prostitutes to use condoms. Tell me; why in the name of all that is right, decent, sane and logical, does this ridiculous announcement rate national news.  Considering all the lives that have been lost and degraded by this man, I wonder how he is able to sleep nights. However, the blame is not totally his. A great deal of the blame has to be shouldered by those who believe it necessary to follow the vaticans' ridiculous edicts. Isn't it time the human race grew up and put this nonsense behind us??

Not only in Texas

Try searching "Texas school textbooks" on the Internet...    This is really hard to believe. 

The Texas school board, for the entire state, has just made something like 100 amendments to the school curriculum, mostly to history and biology.  They have, for example, removed the word "democrat" entirely from the curriculum (most of the board are republicans), they make sure that  people such as Newt Gingrich (Spelling?) are seen a heroes and anyone with book learnin' are vilified. It goes on and on like that.  They got in "experts" to help them make decisions on the history curriculum, experts such as a minister who's hobby is Texas history. One of the key people that I heard discussing it was a republican who believes in "intelligent design".

The thing is that Texas is one of the biggest textbook users in the US (California uses more but can't afford to buy any for  the next few years), and they actually sit down with the publishers to lay out what they want.... so you can imagine that negotiations go even beyond what the new curriculum will lay out.

Now, this shouldn't affect us, much.  But, we have Harper.  On CBC radio today they interviewed a woman who was born in the US, went to a lot of schools there, and is now a Canadian and somehow involved with education in Ontario.  She pointed out that (as others have) that since Texas uses so many books, the publishers tend to produce for them and use the same books for all of the US (this apparently isn't quite so much of an issue these days with digital publishing techniques).  As she pointed out, the christian right is moving more and more to the right in the US and getting bigger. The effect this has on us is that people who claim to be moderate conservatives (like Harper) can easily move more to the right and still claim to be moderate because they are not like "those crazies down south".  One other thing she pointed out is that school may not be the only, or even the major, influence influence on the youth. The media is also a big influence.... but, as she said, it is just as bad, or worse. But, she said that even as a 10 year old in school in the US, she remembers wondering where they got all the crazy ideas she found in the school textbooks.

Anyway, if you'd like to know more check out these sites, or just do a search..... scary stuff really.

Looks like we're in for it.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A prominent hard-line Iranian cleric who said promiscuity and immodest dress cause earthquakes says God may be holding off on natural disasters in the West in order to let people sin more and consign themselves to hell. Kazem Sedighi sparked widespread derision with his pronouncements in a prayer sermon last month linking earthquakes with women's dress. In a new sermon Friday, he has defended and elaborated on his claim.
Sedighi notes that some might ask why there aren't more earthquakes and storms striking Western nations that are "up to their necks" in immorality.
He says the answer is that God allows some of those who "provoke His wrath" to continue sinning "so that they (eventually) go to the bottom of Hell."

Its a mystery to me

Now this one has got to make you wonder.

"FORT WORTH — A North Texas family is racing to stop a hospital from amputating a patient's foot, saying the procedure violates their religious rights.

The situation is now so tense that Angela Wright's husband has been barred from the hospital where she is being treated.

Wright had her first heart attack two months ago. Her family immediately began calling prayer groups, asking fellow Christians to appeal to God.

They kept praying through five more heart attacks.

"It's everything," said Dwight Wright. "It's the reason my wife's still here, I believe."

Angela Wright remained at Baylor All Saints Medical Center Fort Worth Friday as the toes on her left foot blackened. Family members say doctors want to amputate, possibly going as far up as her knee.

That evaluation has led to a showdown. Family members say prayer needs more time to work, and an amputation would violate their religious rights; doctors say the amputation is medically necessary."

Now, let me get this straight.
She had a heart attack. 
They delayed treatment to give prayer time to work.
She's had 5 more heart attacks in the interval
Now her toes have blackened, presumably due to lack of circulation.
And the prayer is keeping her alive???????

Now, you might justifyably ask yourself why, if God gave her the heart attacks in the first place, they think that they can change his mind???

You might also ask if they really think that prayer is having any effect at all considering the 5 additional heart attacks.

You might also wonder a bit about the kind of sense of humour this God fellow has.