Blog

So, on Wednesday Pope Francis congratulated the US Bishops here on his visit to the United States. Oh, those wonderful Bishops — who handled the child abuse scandal “without fear of self criticism and at the cost of mortification and great sacrifice,” as Pope Francis put it.

He went on to applaud the supposedly enormous efforts these US Bishops had performed to gain the trust of those under their care, and their commitment to healing. The tenor of his speech seemed to acknowledge that there was child abuse in the past — but the church has come a long way, and the bishops can be more trusted now as they are sacrificing themselves to contribute to a process of healing.

But who, exactly, is being sacrificed? These Bishops, or the abused children they are still eager to sweep under the rug?

It seems it’s the latter.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) supports this statement.  Its president, Barbara Blaine, was incredulous at this mention of sacrifice when she said:

What sacrifice? What bishops takes fewer vacations, drives a smaller car, does his own laundry or has been passed over for promotion because he’s shielding predators and endangering kids? None.

Only four US bishops (out of hundreds) have resigned because they hide and enabled horrific crimes, but only after staying in power for years and only after massive public, police, prosecutor and parishioner outrage. (Law, Finn, Piche and Neinstedt)

Virtually none of the other US clerics, (out of thousands) have ever been punished in the slightest for protecting predators, destroying evidence, stonewalling police, deceiving prosecutors, shunning victims or helping child molesting clerics get new jobs or flee overseas.

And no one in the entire US Catholic hierarchy, despite 30 years of horrific scandal and at least 100,000 US victims, has been defrocked, demoted, disciplined or even publicly denounced by a church colleague or supervisor, for covering up child sex crimes, no matter how clearly or often or egregiously he did so.

In carefully-crafted remarks, Francis claims church officials are working “to ensure that such crimes will never be repeated.” He knows, however, this is disingenuous. Such crimes are happening right now, all across the world. He refuses to admit this, however, preferring to conveniently imply that somehow, because of tiny, belated and grudging steps forced on bishops in a few Western nations, no priest, nun, seminarian or bishop anywhere is assaulting children today.

Fairly disturbing — the focus seems to be squarely on the poor, poor clergy. There doesn’t seem to be a strong focus on the way the church harmed children, but rather on the harm the scandals did to the church.

Francis repeated these sentiments today, according to CNN:

“I know that, as a presbyterate in the midst of God’s people, you suffered greatly in the not distant past by having to bear the shame of some of your brothers who harmed and scandalized the church in the most vulnerable of her members,” Francis said. “I accompany you at this time of pain and difficulty, and I thank God for your faithful service to his people.”

There is plenty of anger regarding these statements as well. SNAP complains that this is part of a consistent narrative — the focus is on the harm done to the church by the scandal, and the Pope (as well as the Catholic church in general) seems focused on the suffering the church has experienced as a result of the scandal, rather than on the hurt the institution has inflicted on those placed in its charge. This narrative’s goal is to protect the church and encourage trust and sympathy in it.

Erased is the possibility that perhaps the Catholic Church is a fundamentally bad idea — that saying individuals are ordained by God gives them a dangerous halo effect that is fundamentally unearned and inherently harmful.  No — to say that would possibly be the end of the Catholic Church. The scandal of trying to erase abuse instead of deal honestly with it, with a sense of empathy for the victims, continues to be perpetuated.

Put simply, the Catholic Church is using complex theology, high-sounding idealism, ostentatious uniforms, and intimidating architecture to absolve themselves of their crimes.  It wouldn’t be too far from the truth to say that the purpose of the Catholic Church is, as Louis CK satirizes, to create a halo effect that allows them to abuse children and while keeping that halo intact.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k[/youtube]

As SNAP states when reacting to the Pope’s most recent statement:

We’ve long sought better papal actions more than better papal words. We still do. But this degree of insensitivity is hurtful. It deters victims, witnesses and whistleblowers from reporting child sex crimes, known and suspected. When in 2015, even this pope minimizes and mischaracterizes this crisis – calling it “difficult moments” for instance – where’s even the hope, much less the evidence, of change? Why bother speaking up if even Francis sees the scandal only through the eyes of clerics?

SNAP is right. It seems it’s time for the house of cards to fall.

So, the Pope came and spoke in Congress yesterday. Among other things, he criticized same sex marriage when he said the following:

How essential the family has been to the building of this country! And how worthy it remains of our support and encouragement! Yet I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without. Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life.

This is not the first time he’s voiced these controversial views. In addition to his pro-life stance (which he alluded to in his speech to Congress), he has also indicated a discomfort with trans individuals, comparing their supposed destruction with that performed with nuclear warheads when he said:

Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings. Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation. With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator. The true custody of creation does not have anything to do with the ideologies that consider man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate. God has placed man and woman and the summit of creation and has entrusted them with the earth. ‘The design of the Creator is written in nature. If we fail in this responsibility, if we do not take care of our brothers and of all creation, destruction advances.

Yeah…and then there’s the fact that he hasn’t openly spoken against his church’s views advocating an avoidance of contraception, which has perpetuated diseases like AIDS. I mean, it’s 2015. Why doesn’t he at least come out and say, “We were wrong. It’s actually OK to use a condom”? Especially when the views of the Catholic church regarding this issue have caused and is causing so much pain…

And, to add insult to injury, yesterday he complimented bishops in the Catholic church for their supposedly healthy (?!) attitude towards the child sexual abuse scandal, in a move that angered victims and struck critics as “bizarre.”

Barbara Blaine, the president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) reacted with a statement that is worth quoting at length:

In a speech today [Wednesday, September 23rd] to U.S. bishops…Francis “does not specifically reference the pedophilia that has rocked the Roman Catholic Church.”

He does, however, speak of some alleged “great sacrifice” made by bishops because of the abuse and cover up crisis.

What sacrifice? What bishops takes fewer vacations, drives a smaller car, does his own laundry or has been passed over for promotion because he’s shielding predators and endangering kids? None.

Only four US bishops (out of hundreds) have resigned because they hide and enabled horrific crimes, but only after staying in power for years and only after massive public, police, prosecutor and parishioner outrage. 

Virtually none of the other US clerics, (out of thousands) have ever been punished in the slightest for protecting predators, destroying evidence, stonewalling police, deceiving prosecutors, shunning victims or helping child molesting clerics get new jobs or flee overseas.

And no one in the entire US Catholic hierarchy, despite 30 years of horrific scandal and at least 100,000 US victims, has been defrocked, demoted, disciplined or even publicly denounced by a church colleague or supervisor, for covering up child sex crimes, no matter how clearly or often or egregiously he did so.

In carefully-crafted remarks, Francis claims church officials are working “to ensure that such crimes will never be repeated.” He knows, however, this is disingenuous. Such crimes are happening right now, all across the world. He refuses to admit this, however, preferring to conveniently imply that somehow, because of tiny, belated and grudging steps forced on bishops in a few Western nations, no priest, nun, seminarian or bishop anywhere is assaulting children today.

Finally, Francis says he has “no wish” to tell US bishop “what to do, because we all know what it is that the Lord asks of us.” He’s half right – bishops do indeed know precisely how to protect kids. But they refuse, like Francis himself does, to take the simple, proven steps to do this.

Despicable, to put it mildly. And the empty, arrogant, child-abuse-protecting self-back-patting speech SNAP describes here  took place on US soil.

But still, in commemoration of the Pope’s visit, with all due respect to my Catholic friends, I’d like to place a song here that will hopefully convey the sentiments we can all hold in common regarding our attitude towards his stay.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTIorwtJbhE[/youtube]

Thank you for your time.

And now, this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k[/youtube]

[Cover image courtesy of Chloe Chaplin under CCL 2.0]

You might remember Douglas Wilson — he’s that preacher Christopher Hitchens toured with and debated a couple years ago.  To jog the memory, here’s the trailer for the documentary of that tour:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLbVhAS5KFs[/youtube]

Now, to be clear, Christopher Hitchens was accused of sexism for saying that female comedians aren’t funny and that no women he is in a relationship with will work.

But he doesn’t hold a candle to what Douglas Wilson blogged three days ago:

I travel a good bit, spending time in airports and the like, and I have also done hard time at Christian conferences. Having been in this place, I am in a good position to state that there is a marked difference between Christian women and women in the general population. Christian women are a lot prettier.

Yes, he actually said that.

Now, there are a lot of very attractive atheist women. One doesn’t have to go far to see them. But I’m not going to put examples here, because…who the fuck cares? Why is it relevant which side of the debate has more physically attractive women? I mean, seriously?

How is this remotely relevant to the conversation?

Wilson seems to assume that it is, for later, when speculating why these Christian women are supposedly prettier, he states (seriously, I can’t make this up):

Here is my explanation for this [larger proportion of pretty women among predominantly Christian populations]. The phenomenon is grounded in the order of creation, and in the purpose of redemption. What are men and women made out of? The first man was made from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7), and he was made to be the image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7). But the raw material that went into the creation of Adam was dirt. The first woman was made from the rib of the first man, not from dirt (Gen. 2:22). This means that man was made into the image and glory of God out of dirt, and woman was made out of the image and glory of God to be the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:7).

Wat?

I mean, I admit my eyes kinda glazed over from the nonsense, until the last phrase. Women are made to be the glory of men? Is he saying that women are just here to make the men look good, which is why Christian women are prettier? It seems that way, cause later he says:

Because man was created before the woman, the apostle tells us that he is the head, he is the authority (1 Tim. 2:11-14). Man surpasses woman in authority. But the order of creation tells us something else as well. If we are talking about glory, and not authority, woman surpasses man.

So you Christian women are prettier because you’re glorious. That’s what you get, you well behaved, submissive Christian women. Glory. For us men, your masters.

He then talks about how both Christian women and non-Christian women might adorn themselves with makeup, nice clothes, and the like. But Christian women are different. To be sure, he doesn’t say exactly how, except to say that Christian women follow 1 Peter 3:3-5, which states:

“Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands.” (ESV)

Right. That’s why Christian women are more beautiful. Because they have gentle, quiet, submissive spirits before the men in their lives.

This is in contrast to “unbelieving women.” In Wilson’s words:

 Unbelieving women either compete for the attention of men through outlandish messages that communicate some variation of “easy lay,” or in the grip of resentment they give up the endeavor entirely, which is how we get lumberjack dykes. The former is an avid reader of Cosmopolitan and thinks she knows 15K ways to please a man in bed. The latter is just plain surly about the fact that there even are any men.

This is awkward, cause it’s doubly wrong. First, it’s slut shaming at the same time that it’s shaming women who actually think independently and fight for women’s rights. And second, it’s telling Christian women that if they want to be “pretty” according to Wilson’s standards, they have to be submissive, and they can’t fight for more rights — they should submit to the man’s authority, lest they be like those awful “unbelieving women” and become less attractive to the likes of Douglas Wilson (who, with all due respect and then some, isn’t exactly impressive to look at himself).

But wait!  His next sentence is:

Let me anticipate a basic objection.

Oh good. Maybe he’ll explain why he seems so wrong.

But no. Instead, he hammers in the stereotypes of the weary stay-at-home wife, and states that even if the man loses his job, the woman shouldn’t work:

When I posted that sketch of a godly wife, one of the reactions was to point out that some women are not in a position to “have it all together.” They have really sick kids, they are hampered by sickness themselves, life is tough, they might not have the money for a nice dress and perfume, and so on. But this immediate retreat to the hard cases is simply a technique for refusing to let the Scriptures speak to us. If I were to say, as I do say, that husbands ought to work hard and provide for their families (1 Tim. 5:8), how is it on point to start yelling about a man you know who was laid off at the factory, broke both his legs the next day, and cannot begin to look for work for another couple months yet? The standard is set for us by God, and we work toward that standard as best we can. When obstacles and trials come, as they inevitably do, we are to carry our own burdens (Gal. 6:5), but we are also to make sure we help one another in the process (Gal. 6:2).

But it is no help at all to declare war on the standard itself. That is a false comfort, a lying trick, and a snare for keeping perpetual victims in bondage. It is an empathy that kills. It is therapeutic Ophrah-speak, and all the prisoners in the penitentiary are being trained to talk that way.

Wat?

Christian women are prettier because they stay at home and take care of sick kids, and forego things that they want and could get if they got a job. And if they get sick of boredom — tough luck. Don’t complain like those who listen to Oprah. Follow God (the one of Douglas Wilson, specifically).

And what if the Christian women start disliking the standard?  This happens:

This is another way of saying that some Christian women are sadly in the process of being deprived of their glory. They are listening to the serpent again, and they have falsely muddled the serpent’s faux-sympathy with Christian compassion.

Wow.

But maybe he’s talking about some philosophical beauty — not physical. Which would be bad and insulting, but at least he’s not reducing these women to their appearance.

No such luck. The next sentence says:

And the fact they are [listening to the serpent] registers in their faces. They are taking, to use my wife’s pithy expression, ugly pills.

He then goes on to compliment the Christian women who are actually acting right, and says that this good spirit is “why Christian women are as gracious and as lovely and as glorious as they are.”

Why I Give A Shit

So, why does this matter?

Well, rarely is the attitude stated as strongly as it was by Douglas Wilson here, but it seems Wilson is not the only one to believe what he’s stating. The Bible is full of misogyny, and its words cultivate the kind of attitude Wilson discusses — as seen from these and several other Bible passages.

And also…I have known many women who think that this submissive attitude is the way to make themselves attractive to men — and that being the “glory” of a man should be the purpose of their lives, since God says so.

But is that really the case? If that’s the standard…it seems convenient for men, doesn’t it? Men who want subservient, hard-working women at their side would write the same thing “God” supposedly said regarding submissiveness in the Bible.

What’s more likely — that God created women with desires that ran contrary to his supposed plans for their lives?

Or that men were trying to control women by telling them that submissive, subservient behavior would make women more attractive (and that this attractiveness should be their goal in life)?

To me, it seems clear that it’s the latter. It’s not God. It’s a view written by power hunger, misogynistic men.

To put it mildly, they don’t know what they’re talking about. They didn’t know then; they don’t know now.

So, there’s this Newsroom clip that I see pop up on my feed about once every couple weeks or so. I hate it. Oh, I hate it. With a passion. And I think it needs to be killed with fire.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw[/youtube]

View on YouTube

It’s the opening of the pilot for the now-renowned television series, and it starts out with a smug newsman answering the question, “Why is America the greatest country in the world?” on a live television show. The question is asked by a young woman. There are two other guests on the show with said newsman. One says that the reason we are the greatest country in the world is freedom. Another is championing the NEA and says it’s because of diversity. And then Mr. Smug Newsman answers:

Sharon, the NEA is a loser. Yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paycheck, but he gets to hit you with it anytime he wants. It doesn’t cost money. It costs votes. It costs airtime. And column inches. You know why people don’t like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin’ smart then how come they lose so goddamn always?

Wait a second — liberals lose all the time? It’s not that simple. We’re winning. I mean, it’s gradual, but if you look at the trajectory of American history, the conservatives are ultimately losing. The liberals got rid of slavery, of segregation, of voting discrimination, of a hell of a lot of things. We’ve set up social security, and a forty hour workweek, and we actually have somewhat of a union system, and there’s a minimum wage, and gay marriage is legal, and our President is black…no, we’re not where we need to be. But I’m sick and tired of this hopeless thinking that liberals can’t win. This defeatist attitude that we can’t win, the attitude that discourages so many young people from going to the polls — it’s bullshit. People died for the rights we have today — not just abroad, but here in America, on our streets and in our factories and in our cities.

Liberals have plenty of backbone. And we’re scratching and clawing and stretching for every fucking inch we can. And like it or not, we’re winning. We don’t “lose always.” The conservatives are the ones losing. We’re winning the battle. Now is not the time to be discouraged, but to be encouraged and fucking fight harder. This defeatist attitude has the danger  of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy and it really gets on my goddamn nerves.

Ugh.

But against my better judgment, I’m gonna press “play” and keep watching this nonsense.

And with a straight face, you’re gonna sit there and tell students that America is so star-spangled awesome that we’re the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom. Japan has freedom. The U.K. France. Italy. Germany. Spain. Australia. BELGIUM has freedom. Two hundred and seven sovereign states in the world, like, a hundred and eighty of them have freedom.

Whew. Finally something I agree with. And here, I begin to calm down. It’s healthy to realize that other countries have “freedom.” We could use some of that humility and learn about other countrys’ attitudes as we combat classism, racism, sexism…

…And you, Sorority Girl, just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day…

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK. OK. Give me a sec.

*deep breaths*

You know why America is not the greatest country in the world?

It’s because a TV pilot can become a fucking blockbuster hit because it chooses — out of all the options in the world — to showcase a young woman being shamed, first and foremost, not for being wrong but for being young, and being a woman (in contrast to an older man).

I mean, this isn’t nonfiction. The writers aren’t just reporting what actually happened — they CHOSE this setup. And this isn’t a random moment either — this is at the very beginning of the make-or-break pilot of a major HBO series. This is the place where you use the focus groups and do the studies and see what the heck is going to catch. And the fact that what was chosen, out of all the available options, was a young woman being bullied by an older white male in one of the most cliche-ly, sexist setups in TV history…the fact that this was what was chosen because the makers thought it would make America cheer, and the fact that America DID cheer — THAT is a leading reason why America is not the greatest country in the world.

I mean, before we even get to the meat of the question it’s supposedly a-ok to insult a young woman who asks an innocent question and think that’s fashionable — and not only insult her, but think that the fact that she’s of the age where she might be in a sorority and the fact that she’s a “girl” should be a self-evident insult.

I used to be skeptical about sorority members, too, before I got to know some sorority members who slaughtered those ignorant stereotypes. Now, I’ve never been in a fraternity or sorority, but that experience came from interacting with plenty of young women who have, in teaching college courses and in serving as a writing tutor. And I have become thoroughly convinced that, contrary to the stereotype, most “sorority girls” are outstanding leaders who take their connections to their friends and to their community extremely seriously. Many of them are some of the most diligent, disciplined, conscientious students (and leaders) on campus.

It’s already not fashionable for young people to vote, and many of these sorority girls are more likely to vote, it seems to me, than the average Joe their age — simply because they are so community-minded. The fact that the makers of the show can have this newsman take it for granted that this woman will not vote and can think that people will nod unthinkingly in agreement is a big problem. And the fact that he implies that her voting would be unintentional is outrageous — it encroaches on the notion that perhaps they shouldn’t vote.  That stereotype of young college-aged women being supposedly so naive that if they go to a voting booth it’s going to be an “accident” — no. Just no. They are citizens of this country and should be treated as such.

Let’s criticize opinions, not an entire group of people who we imply are unfit to vote because of their gender and age.

Moving on.

…there’s some things you should know. One of them is there’s absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we’re the greatest country in the world. We’re seventh in literacy. Twenty-seventh in math. Twenty-second in science. Forty-ninth in life expectancy. A hundred and seventy-eighth in infant mortality. Third in median household income. Number four in labor force and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies.

Whew. Agreement again. Maybe there is a redeeming quality to this.  But then he says…

Now none of this is the fault of a twenty-year-old college student, but you nonetheless are without a doubt a member of the worst, period, generation, period, ever, period. So when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I dunno what the fuck you’re talkin’ about. Yosemite?

But it sure used to be. We stood up for what was right. We fought for moral reasons. We passed laws, struck down laws, for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed. We cared about our neighbors. We put our money where our mouths were.

And we never beat our chest.

We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and we cultivated the world’s greatest artists and the world’s greatest economy. We reached for the stars. Acted like men.We aspired to intelligence. We didn’t belittle it, it didn’t make us feel inferior.

We didn’t identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn’t, oh, we didn’t scare so easy.

I’m lost. Completely and totally lost.

When the goddamn fuck was this magical moment? I mean, I’m the first in line to say we aren’t the greatest country in the world. But I absolutely think we are not the member of the “worst, period, generation, period, ever, period.” This sexist asshole thinks that this generation is inferior?  That it stood up for was right and fought for moral reasons? When? When have we done this?

Was it back in the 90s, when our incarceration rates skyrocketed due to a war on drugs, and when racism against poor blacks was much worse than it is today? Was it in the 80s, when racism fueled the first war on drugs and quickly made us the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world, punishing marijuana possession as a crime worse than manslaughter? Was it during the years of Nixon’s corruption, when under-the-radar racism got you elected in this country? Was it before the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Before women could vote? Before slavery was outlawed? Before we had unions or forty-hour workweeks? When was this magic moment?

When have we NOT waged war on poor people in this country?

And “never beat our chest” — excuse me, but we’ve been beating our goddamn chests ever since a bunch of rich people held the Boston Tea Party that set off a series of riots that, in turn, made us a country. I’m sorry. What time in our past of being “proud to be an American” do you want to go back to as the seminal moment of our supposed long-lost humility?

And “acted like men” — I’m sorry, what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Right after the “sorority girl” insult, you put “acting like men” on a pedestal? I feel like I should be more angry about that, but I don’t really even know what that means. What the hell is wrong with acting like a woman? I don’t get it. This is stupid.

And “aspiring to intelligence” — news flash: America’s anti-intellectual streak is deep and stretches to the beginning of this country. We have, since we became a nation, been suspicious of “intelligence.” As Isaac Asimov put it in 1980, “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

And when the fucking hell did we not identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election? I mean, we’re still patting our forefathers on the back for unanimously voting in George Washington.

And not scaring so easy? Heck, we became a nation because rich people were afraid of taxes. And America has been afraid of minorities — native Americans, blacks, mexican immigrants, women — since, like, forever.

When was this magical moment when we were the greatest country in the world?

Because I’m telling you right now, as a black man living in America, if I had a single-use time machine to go to any moment in America’s past and live there, I wouldn’t use it. Fuck that shit. I don’t want to be brutalized by police, segregated against, slaved, barred from office, discriminated against in the job market anymore than I already am…I’ll stay right here where I am, thank you very much.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyQTAIiCa4Y[/youtube]

And then, to add insult to injury:

We were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men. Men who were revered. First step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. America is not the greatest country in the world anymore. Enough?

No, no, no, no, no. The men of yesterday, who thought that minorities and women were inferior, and who had even less respect for science than we do today, were not “informed.” And I don’t want to go back to some magical moment when yesterday’s “informed men” were at the helm of this country. No. Let’s have scientists, regardless of sex, inform us. Let’s have experts in various fields, with the information we have at our disposal due to amazing technological and field-specific advances, inform us. I’ve had enough of “informed men” defining what makes us the greatest country in the world.

Unlike most who cheer at that clip, I don’t want to go back to 1776 or any moment up to the present time. My patriotism, insofar as it relates to the founding fathers and some magical yesterday, died when it hit me that yesterday’s America woulda been hell for me. And this makes a big difference — most Americans I know are desperately trying to get back to the America that “used to be.” I don’t want that. I think that America was shit. And I’m not saying that to be ultra-social-justicey. I really think it was shit.

I mean…what if someone said to you, “By the way, Thomas Jefferson had a few white slaves while he was preaching about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and he described them as if they were primitive animals. They happened to be your ancestors.” Would you think the same about Jefferson? No, you wouldn’t, probably. You’d probably think he was a goddamn hypocrite.

I am not trying to get to some kind of pure America defined by yesterday or “make America great again.”

The cold, hard truth is that America was never the greatest country in the world.

And no, I’m not saying that because it’s controversial. I’m saying that because I think it’s true. Killing or enslaving millions of innocent people because we want to bully the Japanese or Native Americans or blacks into submission does not, in any sense of the word, make us a great nation. Neither does hundreds of years of stealing lives through slavery and segregation. Powerful? Yes. Great? No.

This does not, of course, mean that I disrespect our nation. I do respect the people of our nation — insofar as they relate to a different patriotism. Not the patriotism of the founding fathers. But the patriotism that sees each individual as of great and profound value, the kind of patriotism that wants the best for all of those in this country, as opposed to patriotism for some bullshit idea created by the founding fathers.

I do not respect a soldier who fights for an America that represents bullshit ideals at the expense of marginalized people. Your service for this country does not give you a right to shit on the struggling people within it.

I DO respect a soldier who fights for the individuals within America, for them to have better lives, for them to be equal, for them to create a more loving world. That’s worth respect.

This is the way I think of policemen, too. I do not respect, at all, a policeman who even remotely thinks his job is to keep certain classes or colors of people in their place, or who thinks he is in a position of authority more than he is in a position of service.

I DO have the utmost respect for a policeman whose interest is in keeping the citizens under his responsibility safe, who serves humbly instead of having his billy-club at the ready to hammer down his authority, who will make damn sure he nor anyone else covers up for a racist or classist asshole cop. 

So I’m a patriot — but my patriotism is the same as that felt by the tired slave working another long day on Jefferson’s plantation — the warmth in his heart after seeing those he struggles with, and the determination to fight for a better tomorrow. That passion, that comaraderie, that desire for a sense of national justice and respect for all those with the nation’s borders — that’s the patriotism that stirs my spirit.

Because that’s the only form of patriotism that got me where I am today. And the other kind, the kind looking back to some ideal of America that supposedly is great instead of realizing the flaws and transgressions within America and admitting, openly, that the greatness of America depends on the concern and welfare of those within its borders, forcing us to look forward for the fulfillment of justice and equality…the kind that denies this for some fabled vision of beauty for a few overprivileged white men, in a form that many of us have never seen…that patriotism, I have absolutely no respect for.

America is not the greatest country in the world. And I’m not sure that should even be our goal.  Maybe, as fellow human beings, we should concentrate on making the whole world a better place instead of making an elite “American” class a utopia that has earned the right to shit on the rest of the world and rub in our superiority like a spoiled, taunting four-year old.

Goddamn.

*sigh*

Enough?

[Featured image courtesy of Dominick D. under CCL 2.0]

Hi Patheos. I’m Dori Mooneyham, a trans-feminist butch lesbian writer, a queer youth counselor, and an infrequent public speaker on queer rights issues.

When I was first approached to write a guest article I wanted to do something light. A brief introduction of who I am interspersed with some Trans 101 stuff. Maybe I would write about the Wrong Body Narrative the media creates about trans women and explain why it’s so over-simplified it’s wrong. Maybe I would describe the relationship tropes surrounding trans women and our romantic/sexual partners. Maybe something about how trans women’s socialization as children is an entirely different beast from cis boys’ or cis girls’ socialization.

And there’s still a good chance I will write those articles. Maybe even publish them here. I have half-finished drafts and once I get a bug to write something it will usually get finished. But to be perfectly honest, before we can have any of those discussions I’m going to need to focus completely on the introduction first. Because in order to speak on issues as a trans woman in any sort of official capacity, I first need you to understand the process of how I got here.

Transitions are kind of a Big Deal for trans women. When we come out, almost everyone is shocked and doesn’t know what to do. We turn into new people and experience new things and get excited about how we’re finally being our True Selves in the world for the first time.

And then we do it again. Or, at least I did. Multiple times. That’s the funny thing no one really warns you about when you first transition. It’s a never-ending process of self-discovery and re-inventing who you are as you figure things out over time. And that sounds great, but the truth is it’s actually kind of exhausting.

I’ve identified as a straight boy, a queer boy, a trans girl, a straight woman, a poly bisexual woman, and a kinky butch lesbian at various points in my life. I’ve hit every major letter of the queer alphabet and every time after a Big Dramatic Coming Out, I said to myself “This time it’s real. This time I finally know who I am and what I’m about,” as I rise from my own ashes like a Phoenix.

But the truth is that I’ve been wrong every time. I couldn’t even attempt to have sex as a “straight boy.” As a “gay boy” I was too focused on being fabulously femme to realize I was nothing like any gay man I knew. When I first came out as trans I lied and hyper-performed femininity and said I was a straight woman, because that seemed easiest and expected of me. My first boyfriend made me feel comfortable enough with myself for me to admit I liked women, so I figured I was bisexual. He made me so comfortable that I slept with women for the first time while also getting engaged and planning a life with him. Then he helped me get The Surgery, and I suddenly realized how much my dysphoria had been controlling my identity and behavior once it finally went away. He was such a mensch he even ended up pulling me out of the Lesbian Closet, despite it destroying our comfortable planned lives. And once that happened I realized I actually liked being seen as a masculine woman, which was a shock as someone who had been running as far from masculinity as possible.

But there was no denying I was a tomboy. A butch. A bull dyke. A full-on flannel-flying-and-combat-boots-wearing Lesbian. This latest transition of mine has been going on for a little over a year, and even though every time I change my labels I get closer to The Truth, I’m still scared sometimes something else will come along and knock my narrative out of orbit again. Because transitions are difficult and exhausting. Not just for us, but for our loved ones as well. Because they have to transition with us or lose us. Which is why each successive transition comes with its own casualties. People become impatient and tired of the Big Dramatic Coming Outs and eventually start to get exasperated rather than excited. And the secret you’re not supposed to admit to yourself is even you kind of roll your eyes after awhile. “Again?” you think, “Really?“

I say all of this is part of being a queer trans woman because I have no idea what it’s like to be a straight cis woman or man or anything else for that matter. Do they have their own versions of Big Dramatic Coming Out moments? Do they reveal The Truth to themselves time and time again, only to realize they have to revise and retry? I don’t know. My instincts say they probably do, but it’s also probably entirely different. The closest non-queer analogy I have would be my transitions from Christian to Atheist.

As a child, church was always a part of my life but mostly an inconvenience that involved uncomfortable clothes and sitting still for too long. When I got older and internalized all the toxic messages about queer people and trans women, I externalized that through Conservative Christianity and nearly destroyed myself in the process by conceptualizing self-hating rituals and thoughts in a socially acceptable way. As a high school student I ended up being exposed to a couple rabbis who helped me get rid of the concepts of afterlife, including Hell, which had always terrified me. Once that was out the door, I dabbled in paganism and the other major religions for a while, but never really believed any of it was real and stopped caring for a while.

Then I came out and went to college. And I was suddenly filled with rage at the messages I’d absorbed in church. So angry I wanted to smash religion apart and steal all the power it holds in this country. So I joined the Secular Student Alliance, which quickly became my backdoor into queer activism wrapped up as atheist activism. I went to rallies, spoke at conventions, produced a podcast, met a lot of cool people and also a lot of gross people. Eventually I got tired of trying to separate the two and kind of fell away from the Atheist Movement. Now I call myself a Godless Witch half the time because rituals are how I cope with a lot of things and it’s also fun to freak people out who take me seriously.

Figuring out who I was felt like being handed a bag of random puzzle pieces from a garage sale without a box, and trying to figure out what the hell you’re putting together as you go along. You start out with the edge pieces and slowly work your way to the middle while trying to deduce whether all of these pieces even go to the same puzzle. Except you never know if you’re finished or not. You don’t actually wind up with a completed puzzle you can see and verify because there’s always missing pieces and odd pieces that fit, but not exactly right.

Like all quests for The Truth, be they religious or philosophical or personal, there probably is no final destination. Only the journey. Sometimes you love it. Sometimes you hate it. Sometimes you just get tired of it. But it persistently demands to be known. So what do you say we sit down at a card table and try to figure out this puzzle together? Just don’t get angry if it turns out we have to start over again.

Call me irrational, but if I could meet one person in history, it would be Jesus, even though I’m an atheist — perhaps because I followed his myth for most of my life.

Don’t get it twisted: I don’t mean that I want to meet a Jesus who is fully God and fully man. And I definitely don’t want to meet some picture of human perfection incarnate. I think Jesus was just some guy* who lived at a certain time and place, and I’d like to meet that guy.

I mean, it’s not the craziest thought in the world.  The only two things separating us are geography and time. Different time, different place, it could’ve happened. I’d like to think that we’d meet on a bridge across a steadily moving stream. Not talking at first. Just staring out onto the water in mutual contemplation. There’s me, and there’s Jesus.

Jesus probably has a beard and middle eastern features (the modern picture of Jesus is actually of a guy named Cesare Borgia). He’s looking out at the steadily moving stream in silence, and so am I, until I sigh, turn towards him, and say, “Jesus, you wanna talk?”  And he says, “OK.” And I tell him about all the wars, the colonization, the hypocrisy, the tyranny, the bigotry that has happened in his name.

I really describe it, y’know? I mean, I use words that escape me now, but they cause him to cry the tears I have cried and to shudder the way I have shuddered. Because this Jesus is no God, no larger-than-life being. He’s just some guy, standing on a bridge, looking at the stream passing under, contemplating life. Like me.

Sure, Jesus and I would have our differences. But, however irrationally, I think that one thing I have in common with every other breathing thing on earth is existence.  And there’s something in this raw fact of an existence we share that gives me a sense of comfort and understanding.

Yes, we may disagree about a lot in life. And some of the disagreements cannot be ignored. But we’re breathing the same air. We know what it is to feel pain and pleasure. We both know what it’s like to cry, and what it’s like to laugh. And that, in a way, gives me an understanding even when we don’t agree.

So we’re standing there, on this bridge, and as I’m talking, Jesus eventually gets it. Maybe he asks some questions, is confused a bit, and gets angry in places, but after awhile I finally break through, and everything I’ve been trying to explain about how Jesus made the world go wrong hits him at once. And Jesus starts crying. Not bawling, but just immense sadness in his face, with silent tears.  Past the point of protest; just a sorrowful resignation.  And I cry, too. And then we stare at the steadily moving stream through misty eyes, trying to brush away a tear now and then, but they keep coming.

And then he turns to me, sighs, and says that what he really wanted to do was give people a break. Like, he saw the Pharisees and Sadducees and Teachers of the Law as  giving people a hard time, making people feel inferior because of a bunch of bullshit rules.  He looks back into the stream and says that he was misguided, but he didn’t know it. It’s just…he wanted to make a nicer world for people, and he was doing it in the best way he knew how. And he tells me that he was wrong, that he’s sorry he was wrong, and that he’s sorry I gave my life to him for so long because I thought he was someone he wasn’t. He says he didn’t know. He says he was naïve. And we’re quiet for a long time again, both of us staring out at the stream, on the bridge, watching the stream run steadily underneath us.

Then, after a long time, we both turn, look at each other, and give each other a sad smile. But there’s a deep joy in it. Not joy in what happened, but the feeling you get when someone else understands you, and you understand them, even if what you understand is the most terrible reality either of you know.

And then we nod at each other in acknowledgement of the mutual understanding we’ve discovered. He looks in my eyes, with sincere gratitude, and says, “Thank you.” And I know that he’s grateful that I helped him understand. There’s nothing more to say. It is what it is. And then we both turn, and walk back to our separate sides of the bridge – him on his side, in his time, behind the veil of the Gospel myth. And me back here, in 2015, typing this on my computer.

People ask me why I talk to Christians about Christianity so much. I used to want to deconvert them. But I know that doesn’t often happen. I think, fundamentally looking at it, what I want is mutual understanding. I think what I’m kinda after is that resolution that so seldom comes for so many atheists who have devout family members and friends. We may be on different sides of this issue. We may have different lives, beliefs, goals. But even so, we share an existence together, as members of humanity, and somehow that makes me believe the understanding might be possible.

And so here we stand, on our spot of time-spanning existence, watching the steady movement of life pass us by…both of us here, for a little while, to try again.

So…let’s talk.

_________________________

*I hate for this to take away from the meat of the piece, but I have to address this preemptively. I know a lot of atheists think Jesus did not exist. The evidence is not conclusive, and they may be right, but I have not researched it enough to change my mind and decide Jesus definitely did not exist. I’m unprepared to say, definitively, that he did not — especially as it is such a minority position. Most scholars think that he probably did, and I don’t think the question of whether he did or not really makes a difference to my rejection of Christianity, one way or the other.

This story is mostly about my wish to meet Jesus (Jesus as just some guy, not as a perfect teacher or a godman). It doesn’t have to be yours. But I think it would be helpful somehow, and that it explains to Christians why I want to talk to them, as well.

If something was God’s plan and God’s creation, it is God’s fault. Clearly.

Seems like pretty straightforward logic to me. If God made everything with a divine plan in mind — that included man sinning — then the sin is God’s fault.  God is guilty of the sin.

Which is pretty goddamn upsetting, because all these people are running around trying to say that we’re sinners when it’s ultimately, in their myth, the God they worship who is responsible for all the sin in the first place.

We’re not second-class citizens of the universe who have to say we’re morally inferior to God. Wherever this universe “came from” (whatever that means — there are indications that this question is nonsense), we are part of it, not inferior to it. My hand is not inferior to me — it is part of me. If someone kills a guy with a knife, they can’t excuse themselves by saying that their hand did it, not them. No, it’s their hand, their plan — so it’s fundamentally their fault.

A lot of Christians don’t see it that way. Last night, when discussing the question with a few Christians, the following counterarguments came up:

1. God’s ultimate plan was for something better, so what God did wasn’t sin.

Response: There are two problems with that. The first is the obvious objection that some things are really, really terrible, and it seems somewhat insensitive to think that’s OK because there will be a happily ever after sometime.  Christopher Hitchens stated this well when he said:

“What about Fraulein Freissel in Austria…whose father-unwilling to get out of the way-kept her in a dungeon where she didn’t see daylight for 24 years and came down most nights to rape and sodomize her, often in front of the children who were the victims of the previous attacks and offenses?  Imagine how she must have begged him? Imagine how she must have pleaded. Imagine for how long. Imagine how she must have prayed every day, how she must have beseeched heaven.

“Imagine, for 24 years, and no answer at all…nothing, NOTHING! Now, you say, that’s all right that she went through that because she’ll get a better deal in another life. I have to ask you, if you can be morally or ethically serious and postulate such a question.  No, THAT had to happen and heaven did watch it with indifference, because it knows that that score will later on be settled, so it was well worth the going through it, she’ll have a better time next time.

“I don’t see how you can look anyone…anyone in the face, or live with yourself and say anything so hideously, wickedly immoral as that or even imply it.”

The second is that, even if God’s ultimate plan was for something better, God still orchestrated the sin. Ultimately, the sin is all his fault — we’re completely made by him, the world we are in is completely made by him, and the plan is completely his engineering. So he’s still guilty for the sin even if it somehow leads to something better.

2. God is higher up on the hierarchy, so he can’t sin.

Response: So…God is higher on the hierarchy on what basis? His power?  Then you’re saying “might makes right” — which is bad logic here. The mere fact that God is powerful does not make the sin he crafted and planned out not his fault. Power does not exempt one from hypocrisy.

3.  Even though your logic makes sense (yes, a couple of them actually admitted this), we should just trust that God knows more than we do.  The potter knows more than the clay.

Response: This is a cop-out. And it wouldn’t bother me if people didn’t use this “just trust God” logic to let God off the hook and put other people on it.  This is the height of hypocrisy — you can’t expect me to believe that God is not hypocritical “just because.”

I think the logic is clear here. And I think Christians are making this whole deal way more complicated than it needs to be to circumvent the obvious logic that if God created everything, and had a plan, and man’s sin in that plan, then, at the bottom of it, it’s God’s fault.

4. Is a son’s sin a parent’s fault? No, right? So our sin isn’t God’s fault.

Response: We’ll look at a specific case to make the cause more clear. Last night, one of the Christians asked me if it’s a parent’s fault that their son becomes a serial killer, thinking that God, like the parent, would be left off the hook.

I said they were missing a few details in the story. The parent would have had to intentionally created the child with the full knowledge the child would be serial killer. More than that, the parent would have to manipulate the child’s genetics and plan out the circumstances of his life in a way that would cause the child to wind up a serial killer. In other words, the parent would have had to plan out every part of the child’s life and body in such a way that the child would become this criminal.

Now, I think it’s clear that that parent would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, at the very least, because the orchestration is the parents’ fault, from start to finish.

5. You’re just trying to avoid being accountable to God.

Response: A few times in the discussion, I was accused of just trying to avoid being accountable to God.

I responded by saying I was Guilty as charged. I don’t want to be accountable to a nonexistent God but, more than that, I don’t want anyone to feel they are being held accountable to this God.  I love them too much to have them follow a nonexistent hypocrite, feeling inferior and unworthy of His love their entire lives because The Myth said they were guilty for something that He is, ultimately, guilty for.

6. Why is this important? Are you just trying to score a cheap theological point?

Response: Because an important truth is that we are, all of us, part of this universe. We belong here. We aren’t all sinners in need of grace. We’re humans, and our basic existence belongs in the universe without apology.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PN5JJDh78I[/youtube]

Which is why a nonexistent God who says otherwise doesn’t make sense and needs to go. I mean, according to the myth, He committed the biggest sin of all by creating the circumstances and putting the plan in place for all sins, and then he decided to blame it on the humanity I love.

Christendom has had its share of hypocrisy these days, but this one really takes the cake.

It’s time for the hypocrite God to go, and it’s time to stop thinking we need the grace of a superior guy in the sky to justify our existence.

Maybe we should join hands with our neighbors without thinking that a nonexistent God knows more about them than they do.  Just sayin’.

Thanks for reading.

I haven’t always been a fan of atheist movements, as such.

The main reason I was against atheist movements is that I didn’t want to go back to church.  Church tyrannized my way of feeling and thinking about the world around me, and I thought that atheism would be a repeat of that.  I didn’t want my atheism messed up with politics.

But over time I’ve found that I need a community of people, especially here in Bible Belt Texas.  I’m not the only one, either. Many of us need a break from people who believe in fairy tales to hang out with people who actually will empathize with us and forward our thinking about ourselves and the world around us.

As I’ve become more invested with this community of people, I’ve noticed an undeniable truth. We are different people, and our atheism isn’t enough to keep us together in community. It just isn’t. As someone I was talking to yesterday said, it’s a bit depressing for some of us to be hit with the rude realization that the only thing bringing us together is something in our heads – a lack of belief in God. Atheism in and of itself is just a position. It doesn’t do anything. It doesn’t accomplish anything, it has no goals, it has no empathy, it doesn’t give a shit about a goddamn thing because it’s just the position that there is no god.

And yet…I still need community. Badly. I need community when my friends and family reject me based on what, to me, are clearly fairy tales. And I know that’s a vulnerable thing to say, but I also knowI am not the only one.  Believe it or not, there are atheists of many different backgrounds who struggle a lot with their atheism, and it’s not because they secretly think God exists. It’s because there are circumstances beyond that mere lack of belief that make that lack of belief really hard.

I want to repeat that: There are atheists of many different backgrounds who struggle a lot with their atheism, and it’s not because they secretly think God exists. It’s because there are circumstances beyond that mere lack of belief that make that lack of belief really hard.

I think that’s a really important point. I feel very passionately about it. I have too much empathy and have heard too many tear-jerking stories to think otherwise. I am one of those members of humanity who has the arguably unfortunate inability to Not Give A Shit. I care about the people who are struggling with their atheism, and I want to help them.

Because that’s what community is for, right? Communities aren’t here so that we can sit around with the silent thought in our heads that God doesn’t exist. I can do that at home. Communities are about people coming together from their various backgrounds and supporting each other.

And here’s the cold, hard truth that is extremely undeniable to me at this point:

You do not have to care about more than atheism if you are an atheist. But if you want to be part of a supportive community of atheists, it helps a lot to give support. Being in a community requires mutual support, and that’s not going to happen if you pull out the “that has nothing to do with atheism” card when the person you’re talking to is discussing how, say, the unique aspects of African American Christianity is making their atheism more difficult, or how the predominantly white demographic of atheists is alienating them from their families. It just is not fair for you to disrespect that context, that experience, and then turn around and expect support when you want your city council to stop praying. That’s not how community works. This is a two way street, and, like it or not, more than one culture is involved.

I know many atheists tend to go absolutely crazy when people say that “atheism is about more than a lack of belief in God or gods” because they are supposedly afraid that paying attention to issues outside of a lack of belief in God or gods will ruin the movement.

So…this might turn a lot of readers off, but I think it’s true and needs to be said:

A strict, stern, watchdog “ATHEISM IS ONLY ABOUT A LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD OR GODS” attitude is ALREADY splintering atheist communities. I mean – holy shit. I can understand if you’re truly an outsider and don’t really know much about the atheist movement’s history – OK, you get a pass. But how the hell can you honestly say that while knowing about The Slymepit? Elevatorgate? The Bria Crutchfield outburst? The sexual harassment complaints from conferences? The Ted Nugent Atheist Ireland saga? The Ophelia Benson drama? The atheism + discussion? The Thunderf00t controversy? And so on, and so on, and so on…

I mean, even in my small local corner of atheism, refusal to consider these concerns have created epic, serious divisions among my own circle of friends.

Before you skip to conclusions, please hold on; hear me out:

I’m not saying you HAVE to give a shit about any of that. I’m not. I’m really not. It’s a free country.

But what I am saying is that these stories (and there are a lot more, trust me) is evidence that, for a whole lot of atheists, atheism is about a hell of a lot more than a lack of belief in God or gods. It’s also about the struggles and practical implications that go with that lack of belief, and that varies in different atheists’ contexts.  Insisting that it does not in order to have your own concerns catered to while not giving a shit about how others are affected by identifying as atheists will and is dividing the atheist community. I mean, you can keep shouting, “Atheism is only about a lack of belief in God or gods” at the top of your lungs all you want; that’s clearly not helping things. The evidence is overwhelming that it’s making things worse. Not to say that atheism isn’t the center of an atheist community; of course it is. But so is the way our expressions of atheism affect our actual, practical, rubber-meets-the-road lives in our often very different cultures and backgrounds.

I mean, think about it: all “atheism is just about a lack of belief in God or gods” is, is a thought in our heads.

That’s it.

It does not give a shit about you, or me, or even separation of church of state or any other issue. It’s just a thought. So when the rubber meets the road and I have to worry about how my saying I’m an atheist is going to affect me as a woman, as a minority, as member of the lgbtq community, as someone in poverty, etc. – if you don’t give a shit about my situation, my circumstances, my struggle in being an atheist, who the fuck cares that we happen to agree on a belief that exists in our heads?

I don’t need you.

I mean, honestly — why the fuck should I care about an atheist movement that is ONLY about a lack of belief in God or gods? I can sit at home and do that. I don’t need a movement for that. I don’t need community for that. I need a community for support, and I need a movement to make atheism easier for myself and those like me. I need a community for figuring out what the hell we are going to DO about the fact that there is no deity in a world full of people who believe in it, and how I’m going to connect to people and develop relationships.

Otherwise, atheist communities are really a waste of time for me, in the long run. Oh sure, at first I may kinda like the “Sweet – other people don’t believe in God, either” honeymoon phase, but sooner or later my beliefs are going to impact my circumstances, and when you refuse to care about my circumstances and I realize you don’t give a shit about me I will stop giving a shit about you and your bullshit “community” and go elsewhere.

And here’s the thing – if you only care about one issue that you label “true” atheism – like, say, making sure that prayer doesn’t happen at a council meeting – you are alienating everyone else who cares a lot more about how their atheism is causing them oppression in other contexts. You can do that, but just know that many people are going to splinter off and find people who give a shit elsewhere. Because, like, it’s already happening (see the long hyperlinked list before).

Community isn’t JUST “pay attention to my pet issue.” Community is not just, “we happen to have the same thought about one thing in our heads.” Community is giving a shit about each other’s lives – what we’re going through, what our concerns are, what our desires are, and how we’re struggling with atheism in our specific contexts.

And yeah, it gets complicated because PEOPLE are complicated. One could argue that’s a positive, not a negative, aspect of community.

I’m not saying there aren’t people who recognize this – there certainly are. But a lot of people don’t. And you don’t have to. Understand, I’m not trying to force you to do anything, so much as I’m stating a simple fact:

If you want to foster a community, you have to give a shit about the lives in the community, and mere thoughts sitting in heads doesn’t do the trick. Atheist communities, if they really want to foster community and not an exclusive club of atheists with a high turnover rate, have to give a shit about the lives and struggles of atheists within them, especially when they occur in contexts different than their own, and especially when the rest of culture is saying (as with most marginalized groups) that their opinions are more irrelevant.

There’s more I could say about how this might work, but I think you may get the general gist of what I’m trying to say well enough for now.

Thanks for reading.

I don’t have a problem with people breaking the law for the right reasons.

I would have helped Harriet Tubman on the underground railroad, sat in protest at a whites-only counter, harbored Jews, etc. And if I were a higher-up in Nazi Germany, I think I’d try to undermine the system before resigning my post, especially if I thought I had an opportunity to do so.

I hate what Kim Davis is doing. I really do. But what I hate more than that is the reason most people seem to be disparaging what she is doing. The problem is NOT that Kim Davis is engaging in civil disobedience. The problem is the issue Kim Davis is engaging in civil disobedience with. Because I’ll be flat, dead honest with you – if the ruling came down 5-4 the other way, and a renegade County Clerk said, “Fuck that shit, I’m handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples anyway,” I’ll tell you straight up – I’d give her a standing ovation.

I am all for civil disobedience if it is a serious issue and I disagree with the law. Which is why I try to focus my attacks on the fact that Kim Davis is morally wrong, not that she is breaking the law.

Because if I focus on the fact that she is breaking the law, and say, “The law trumps personal beliefs 100% of the time,” then there goes my defense of much of the Civil Rights movement that broke down segregation for me (as a black man) today.

And more than that – saying, “You should follow the law!” also gives conservatives the impression that they have license, via the law, to continue to discriminate (I mean, in most places in the United States, you can still legally fire someone or kick them out of your rental just for being lgbtq). The law is still pretty goddamn terrible when it comes to lgbtq rights.

And if a judge threw someone who fired someone else for being gay in jail – regardless of what the law said, I’d say that’s justice.

I have a lot more respect for justice than for the law. This is no small point for me.

The problem is not that Kim Davis broke the law, but what laws she broke.

The problem is that Kim Davis is not on the side of justice. The problem is that Kim Davis is following an antiquated book written by bigots. The problem is that same-sex marriage is beautiful and Kim Davis is totally wrong on this one. The problem is that the lgbtq community has been hurt, and continues to be hurt, far too much when it comes to this issue, and it’s time for it to end. The problem is that the laws still support discrimination against the lgbtq population in most areas of the United States.

I think it’s important to keep the heat on that point so that we don’t make a still-unjust law code any stronger and set in stone than it already is.

And that book Kim Davis supports – I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – it needs to go. That the majority of this country follows a book that contains verses (like Leviticus 18:22) saying that homosexuals should be stoned to death is thoroughly shameful. Even if they don’t believe that applies now – the fact that they even think about worshipping a God who once commanded it does not speak highly of our culture.

It’s time to move on and quit that bullshit. The book needs to go.

Thanks for reading.

I’m an atheist and a liberal, and I feel somewhat sorry for Kim Davis.

I know what she’s going through, more or less, because I was once a fundamentalist who actually read his Bible and took it seriously.

I saw that it said homosexuality is a sin so terrible God once told people to stone homosexuals to death. I saw that it clearly defined marriage as between men and women. And I saw that if I believed in the God of the Bible, I had to follow His morality. This was very clear to me. Still is fairly clear to me.

I did not have the luxury, as a fundamentalist who believed in the God of the Bible, to manipulate the text to suit my own feelings on what seemed to be right or wrong. God was beyond all that, and He was not to be questioned. Doing the Right Thing required following God, regardless of the sacrifice it took. If it meant going to jail, then it meant going to jail. If it meant death, it meant death.

It was hard, sometimes. I remember crying sometimes. I remember sleepless nights. I remember, at times, even hurting myself physically from the pain of following a God who got in the way of my love for other. I remember periods of deep depression. I remember loving people, a lot, and wanting to support them…and then reading the Bible, and seeing it clearly show me I couldn’t support things that clearly seemed so beautiful.

A lot of times, a Progressive Christian will say, “Don’t you hate how those Fundamentalist Christians don’t care about people?”

Or a Fundamentalist Christian will say, “Don’t you hate that Progressive Christians don’t stay true to the book they supposedly follow?”

To be honest, my response to both of these is that they’re missing the point. The problem is not Fundamentalist Christians or Progressive Christians.

The problem is that you worship a God who comes from a book that said gay people deserved to be stoned to death. That’s the problem. And Kim Davis, more than anything, is proof that this book needs to go. She is evidence that a book that says gay people should be stoned to death should have no place in our society.

I know some will disagree with me, but I’ve been there and am fully convinced that the Bible has a major role in the fight against same-sex marriages. It did for me and for many of my friends and family.

It’s not the Christians I have a problem with so much as the despicable God they follow as it is described in the Bible.

I have no idea why anyone would be surprised at Kim Davis’ actions when we are living in a country with millions of people who worship a God who said homosexuality was an abomination, who said those who practice homosexuality did not deserve heaven, who said homosexuality deserved to be penalized, who commanded that homosexuals be stoned to death, who said those who practiced homosexuality were doing what is contrary to sound doctrine, who strongly encouraged heterosexuality as the marriage definition….

Why is it any surprise that, when millions are encouraged to follow this bigot God who doesn’t even exist — when this bigot God is taking over the minds and and pocketbooks and lives of millions — why is it any surprise that a Kim Davis exists?

I know what it’s like to be bossed around by an idiot bigot God. It’s not fun. That guy needs to go, get out of the way of love, and stopped being endorsed and followed. And anyone who — however wishy-washy their rhetoric – supports such a despicable being is being part of the problem. Why make the God Kim Davis feels motivated to follow any stronger?

I know this: The moment I left Christianity – within the minute – I became an advocate of lgbtq rights. Because that was the only thing standing in the way. And I know this is the case for millions of Christians across this country who would leave their positions in a heartbeat if they knew the Bible were not true. I mean, this is blatantly true. Look at a Gallup poll – the Bible is, by far, the most prominent reason people in the United States against same-sex marriage.

I say let’s take their word for it. People like Kim Davis do not exist because they are evil, bigoted people by nature. I don’t think I was. They’re trapped in a cruel religion with a cruel God, and it’s time to stop allowing their viewpoint to be endorsed. It’s time to call that despicable imaginary friend out for the bigoted outdated creation it is.

Let me say it one more time: all these other things are side issues. The fact that she’s been married four times, the fact that she looks like Kathy Bates, the fact that she had the support of the Christian right – side issues.

The real problem is that book. She is a victim of that cruel book that has wreaked so much unspeakable havoc over the last thousands of years, as are all of her supporters.

This is why I’m an antitheist.

That God of that book –  THAT’S the problem.

And it needs to stop incarcerating the minds of millions.

Thanks for reading.