Legend: In a dispute between a bar owner and churchgoers, a Texas judge makes a caustic comment about which party believes in prayer.
Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2008]
Strange isn't it!! How would you like to be the Judge?
TEXAS Bar Sues Church
In a small Texas town (Mt. Vernon), Drummond's Bar began construction on a new building to increase their business. The local Baptist church started a campaign to block the bar from opening with petitions and prayers.
Work progressed right up till the week before opening when lightning struck the bar and it burned to the ground. The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, until the bar owner sued the church on the grounds that the church was ultimately responsible for the demise of his building, either through direct or indirect actions or means. The church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise in its reply to the court.
As the case made its way into court, the judge looked over the paperwork. At the hearing he commented,
"I don't know how I'm going to decide this case. It appears that we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that does not."
Origins: Our earliest
sighting of the item comes from a July 2007 blog post, where the incident was presented as having happened in "a small, Midwestern conservative town" (rather than
Mt. Vernon, Texas) to a lightning-struck watering hole identified solely as "a new tavern" (rather than "Drummond's Bar"):
In a small, Midwestern town, owners of a new tavern started a building to open up their business. The local Baptist church started a campaign with petitions and prayers to block the bar from opening.
Work progressed, however, right up until the week before opening, when a lightning strike hit the bar and it burned to the ground.
The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, until the bar owner sued the church on the grounds that the church was ultimately responsible for the demise of his building, either through direct or indirect actions or means.
The church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise in its answer to the court.
As the case made its way into court, the judge looked over the pleadings at the hearing and commented, "I don't know how I'm going to decide this, but as it appears from the paperwork, we have a bar owner that believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that does not."
The story isn't supposed to be read as relating something that happened in real life; it's a modern day admonition to churchgoers not to allow transient secular
needs to get in the way of their faith. What a person believes or will stand up for shouldn't change because there's a monetary factor involved; otherwise, it's not true belief. As the fictional judge points out, there is something untoward about a congregation so willing to put worldly matters first that it denies it believes in prayer.
While the tale is an exaggeration of its underlying moral, that overstatement is a way of prompting folks to measure the contents of their hearts against those of the fictional congregation to see if they themselves aren't at times engaging in a bit of religious distancing. Do they set aside their faith, and their pride in it, when faith becomes inconvenient? Or do they stand up for their beliefs and proudly proclaim them, even when doing so is to their disadvantage, financial or otherwise?
Barbara "standing order" Mikkelson
Last updated: 12 November 2008
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2013 by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.
