//Pelosi, Einstein, the Godless, and Prayer

Pelosi, Einstein, the Godless, and Prayer

From: Bad Eagle
by David Yeagley
February 28, 2011

Ann Coulter said liberals are godless. This is apparently the case, even among those who are deeply associated with religion, like former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the famous intellect, Albert Einstein.
Of course, being godless doesn’t mean the person is without all semblence of decency and civility, or even the mechanics of faith. It simply means that the person does not accept the Bible as truth, morality as decisive or absolute, and God as a person.
Nancy Pelosi presented herself, on August 25, 2008, as an authority on the history of the soul in Roman Catholic theology. She implied she understood the issue better than Pope Benedict XVI, even as the Pope rebuked her. Pelosi declared (in an MSNBC Meet The Press sound bite with Tom Brokaw):
I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose…This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God.

Now, this same Nancy Pelosi recently declared her belief in the power of prayer, as well as God. When in the hospital room of Gabrielle Giffords, who had been shot in the head in Tucson, Ariziona, Pelosi said, “We saw..the power of prayer.” That was January 12, 2011. Sounds religious, does it not? Sounds rather traditional, in fact, despite the feminist flair added. (At least Pelosi mentioned the word prayer in an ‘activist’ sort of way. The other Jewish women in the hospital room didn’t even say that.)

But, now, consider the words of Albert Einstein, whom many evangelicals love to cite as a believer in God. In 1954, Einstein wrote:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Clear enough? It is a perfectly Freudian statement, actually. Freud said that the religion instinct was merely a reaction to the mind’s confrontation (or contemplation) of something vast and overwhelming, like the sea, or the stars. A feeling of something unbaounded. See, Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents (rpt., 1930; Norton, 1961), pp. 11, 12.
In 1927, Einstein had written,

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.

My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God.
No more carefully articulated disbelief could even be expressed. There can be no doubt that Einstein did not believe in God.

Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

With all due respect, however, some limb verbal description of a human capacity or intution does not merit the status of faith. Simple statements of unbelief, even blasphemy, do not qualify as belief. They are not on a par with the testimony of faith. They reflect no personal experience of divine inflatus on the part of those who make them.
Many people say they believe in “the power of prayer,” but have no experience, or even working concept thereof, with the living God. New Age fantasizers, spiritualists, occultists, and numerous other pretenders claim all sorts of connections with the supernatural. My highschool ‘world studies’ teacher told our class that she did not believe in God, as most people did, but that she did believe in the power of prayer. That says it all. Prayer is just positive thinking, wishing, and has some unseen influence. Collectively, it has even more power, they say. “You’re in our thoughts and prayers,” is a common declaration of unbelievers, of those who pretend to be counted among the faithful. It is a standard phrase of political jargon, indeed.
To the unfaithful, prayer is akin to superstition. Why, it sort of works. All you have to do is think positive thoughts about some one, and the “energy” is transmitted to them.
This is no way represents anything of the Almighty God. This is the cheapest rip-off ever committed. People want the status of God, but without any relationship, commitment, or even serious association. It is a mere public verbal manoeuver.
Einstein is a bit more clear in his communication than Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi wants the traditional association with religion. Einstein is content with a public denial of what’s expected of him, as a Jew. In fact, he said,
Actually it is a very difficult thing to even define a Jew. The closest that I can come to describing it is to ask you to visualize a snail. A snail that you see at the ocean consists of the body that is snuggled inside of the house which it always carries around with it. But let’s picture what would happen if we lifted the shell off of the snail. Would we not still describe the unprotected body as a snail? In just the same way, a Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew.
(See, The Private Albert Einstein, Bucky & Weakland, 1993.) This, of course, is an affirmation of Jewish ethnicity, as differentiated from Jewish religion. Einstein is saying he has shed the religion, but is still a Jew.
And so we continue to witness shells, forms, and professions shuffled around by politicians and other public professors. The truth is the Bible tabulates every possible form of denial and unbelief ever devised and devisable by the human mind. For the Jew, belief is a moral responsibility. It is an act of the will. It is not the conclusion of research, experiment, or even study. Belief is not the verdict of logic. Belief is the command of self. Belief is the act of the will.
Beware the godless. They may be expert professors of godliness. Curious, perhaps, that it should be so.
Comments