They must be from Mars.

I was reading a recent Pandagon post about the hubbub over the fact that a Maine middle school is going to allow its school nurse dispense birth control pills to middle school girls without their parents' consent.

Predictably, there was a lot of outrage. Do these people seriously want a thirteen year old girls to actually have a baby? Because it sounds very much like that.

There are some things to consider about this program, of course.

A middle school girl who is having sex is most likely not in the position to ask her partner to use a condom. While a condom is ideal (for STD prevention), the pill is something a girl can take without telling her partner. Someone having sex with a middle school girl is just as likely to be much older and have power over her, and there are numerous abusers that try as best they can to get their girlfriends pregnant so that he has someone to tie him to her and keep her from leaving. Giving her a way to protect herself from at least pregnancy (and I'm sure the nurse would tell her about side effects, one would hope) is better than nothing.

The Pill doesn't seem to have an effect on growing girls, and the side effects that can result are far and away less harmful than having a child at that age.

Participation in the program isn't mandatory.

A wingnut appeared in the Pandagon article and stunned me. Not because he was a father who raised "good girls" and was against the program, but that he was too oblivious to his own privilege to be involved in this debate.

To be honest, there is a part of me that hates the word privilege, but I cannot deny that I myself have quite a bit. My parents could be considered upper middle class, I've never wanted for anything, and I'm currently going to graduate school at a prestigious public university. With the education and skills that I have, my future family isn't going to want for anything either. I've never been in a true abusive situation, and the idea of not having something like affordable, reliable health insurance is, admittedly, so foreign to me that I didn't realize fully how horrible the state of health care was in this country until after I was married and no longer covered by my parents' health plan.

There are many families that not only are rather privileged in having rather easy lives, but their children are also more or less guaranteed the same. Their neighbors are likely in the same boat, and so, the world appears to be easy and happy.

Someone rebutted his "parents should guide their children and have full authority" argument with the fact that some children, especially most likely the ones this program is aimed at, don't have healthy home lives. If the guidance you receive is "shut up when I'm watching TV and drinking" or if one of your parents abuses you, someone needs to step in and help you or else you are statistically screwed into a substandard American life. There are girls that are in dangerous situations and need this, and they might need it without their parents' knowledge.

His response was something along the lines of "well, it doesn't have to be that way. It's just that culture is so darned destructive."

I remain floored by this type of ignorance and poor logic. This may make sense inside thine suburban ivory tower, but outside of that its just absurd. Especially as the "culture" this man likely aspires to only makes the poor poorer, outlaws contraceptives and abortion, and forces God on everyone. Yes, it's true, it doesn't have to be like this, but popular culture isn't the cause of this. Poverty and low education are.

To be honest, the conservative culture is more damaging than the kind that allows at-risk girls contraceptive power. Outlawing contraception means more pregnancies. Outlawing abortion means more unwanted babies (at a very high percentage with illegal contraceptives), and while this still remains controversial, less abortions likely means higher crime rates and higher poor populations.

Pink versus Blue

What saddens me most about this is that when I first read it, the ingrained culture part of my gut wanted to nod along a bit. I know that's wrong, but I wonder how many people would be able to see it the same way.

The bottom line is that some South Carolina schools have set up intricate sex segregated classrooms. These classrooms go along with standard gender role nonsense about boys being rambunctious and girls being quiet and social in defining their teaching styles.

I'm not even going to touch schools teaching the boys "to be heroes."

If we were going to be logical about this, it makes more sense to tailor education to learning styles, not separate genders. For example, make a class of visual learners, a class of aural learners, a class of verbal learners, etc. You'll find members of each of these types of learners in a class of one gender. Paring it down to boys learn differently than girls is ridiculous. Of course, it's even better to have the classes as inclusive as possible (boys, girls, visual learners, aural learners, etc all in the same class) so that children grow up dealing with different people and different learning styles, something they will have to do all their lives.

The figures seem to point to women doing better in education than men, and more women are going to college and other forms of secondary education. This must be bad, as we all know men are better, so now, and only now, is there a problem that we need to fix now that women have the opportunity to compete directly with men in just about any field if they so choose.

It isn't the women are catching up in academics, really, it's that schools teach in a way that's easier for women to do well in than it is for men. So, let's separate them so they never have urges in high school and will have little experience dealing with women in formal situations like school. This will put more boys in college, so that college-educated women will have someone to marry!*

Of course, we all only start to care about academic reform when it's girls outperforming boys. The prescribed norm is that boys do better and get to go to college, go into hard, difficult fields, like chemistry, physics, business, engineering and math, while girls go into easy MRS degrees like English, psychology, and biology.**

I cannot think of a solid explanation of why girls are currently doing better in academics than boys, but I doubt that it is because current schools are tailored towards girls in how teachers teach.

The program in South Carolina is a farce, plain and simple. It oversimplifies learning styles in order to force children very heavily into their societal gender roles by giving them no other options. It's even more saddening that it is being federally funded, and it will likely be implemented elsewhere. The system is currently broken, as proven by the US, richest nation on Earth, being outperformed by its industrialized fellows, but England, Finland, China, and Japan seem to be thriving with their co-ed classrooms. One may even dare to suggest that its because their people and government place a higher value on educational quality, and that culturally education is more highly valued.

*I actually read this in an article on the fact that there are 2% more women in colleges than men. The author seriously asked "Who will these women marry?" Apparently it is permissible for men to marry women with less education, so that their wives can be taken out of the workforce and left with no way to survive economically after a divorce, but a woman cannot marry after college, or marry someone with less education. (Personally, I married a college dropout I met while he was still attending my college). I mean, if she does this, then she'll push the marriage to divorce because she earns more.

Never mind that women who are well-educated with careers tend to have more stable marriages, when they do marry later in life. Women now have more choices available to them in how they live their lives, and, for some strange reason, they seem to be happier for it.

**My husband, who is naturally more mathematically inclined, hates it when people call biology a soft science. Physics is very easy for him, but biology has so much memorization, as well as describing very complex systems, that it gives him trouble. He considers it one of the most difficult sciences. The truth is that biology, like psychology and English, has gained this label from some because it has a heavy female presence. Whenever a field gains a lot of women in its ranks, it apparently loses some measure of credibility and perception of difficulty. This is why English, which involves a lot of reading, writing, and heavy analysis is perceived as easy and a waste of time, while history doesn't seem to get the same sort of treatment exactly.

I mean, if a girl can do it, it can't be that bad, right?

Of course, the higher percentage of women in these fields isn't really good evidence that women are more inclined towards the liberal arts. I cannot currently find the study, but I do remember hearing that in elementary school, an equal number of boys and girls are interested and capable in math, science, and English, but it is in middle school that the genders shift to have girls more interested in English, and the boys in math and science. Natural ability isn't tied to gender, but the path our lives take seems to depend on said gender and its expectations.

And the selfish shall inherit...

I've been reading Jabberwocky's dissection/mocking of Chick Tracts in my free time recently, and something that he points out repeatedly and continues to strike me is the fact that Chick's beliefs come across as so horribly selfish.

Take, for example, this tract on how good works do not get one entry into heaven. The missionaries in question may come across as pretty annoyingly smug, but they still spent the majority of their lives improving the lives of thousands in the name of their religion.

However, they are denied entry into heaven because they didn't believe correctly.

Granted, I don't quite understand this idea of proper belief. Fundamentalism seems to have at its core that a strong belief in Jesus and being saved is what you need to go to heaven. I would assume that a pair of Christian missionaries would both believe in God, and welcome him into their hearts. So, what are they doing wrong? Why is their belief insufficient?

Gah, and I also hate that Chick attempts to portray these people as assholes who constantly think about the fact that their works are giving them a free ride to heaven. While there are certainly some smug asses in the world that think about how awesome the afterlife is going to be, I would assume that people who spend fifty years in Africa are doing it out of some genuine goodness in their heart.

Still, why is their belief, which I am sure they have, insufficient? Wouldn't all the work they've done just be extra brownie points?

And, God must be an asshole to send Christian charities workers to Hell.

But, what has spawned this post is perhaps the blatant misuse of scripture that I see in that tract. This idea that works are not enough, and you must have belief (whatever that means), is a perversion of Matthew 7:21-27, which if you actually read and comprehend, means that people who do works that Jesus wanted them to and believe go to heaven, and those that just claim to have done good works will not.

So, why the perversion?

The simple answer appears to be that this branch of Christianity is rather selfish. They already possess a lot of smug people who like to lord the fact that they are saved over others, but beyond that, a big reason to become saved that is cited in Chick tracts is to get a mansion and riches in the afterlife. Well, that and to avoid Hell.

It appears to be an appeal to both the human fear of suffering and our inherent greed. God's great, and when I die, I'm going to get all this stuff! And all I need to do is say this sentence and be a sanctimonious prick full of faith in Jesus.

Because, as far as I can tell, all you have to do is have a specifically worded kind of faith and prayer practice to go to heaven in these tracts. You don't need to give to charities or anything hard or expensive like that, you just need to believe. No wonder this appeals to conservatives (hello cheap shot), as this excuses doing unchristian things such as cutting welfare and social programs. It really isn't part of being Christian to help those in need, as works don't mean anything to this asshole God we worship, because he's going to give us riches when we die just for believing. It's a rationalization of greed and not doing charity even if you have the funds.

I will never argue that Chick's brand of Christianity is a harmful to society bunch of filth, where the rich can keep what they have, and the poor can fuck themselves. I'd be rather curious to see what the fundie rate of giving to charity and volunteer work is if this portion of doctrine is common in fundie churches. It really just boils down to being all about the individual without needing to give anything to anyone but "witnessing." If there is a God, and this is what he wants, he can go fuck himself. At least I'll have great company in Hell.

PSA

Dear Atheist Community,

Calling religious people names, being condescending, and using derisive terms like "sky daddy" pisses them off. When they are pissed off, they really don't want to listen to your arguments, it just validates their stereotypes about non-Christians. Bravo.

I understand that that is how you may want to talk amongst yourselves, and that sometimes debating a fundie is like debating a brick wall, but, well, I don't find "sky daddy" that funny =/ It doesn't pass my humor test, and just serves to show how much you don't care about religious beliefs because you are, in fact, that edgy and awesome. It ranks as pointlessly situationally offensive.

Granted, the bloggers that use these terms within the community are doing it for the atheist audience, and I have seen some of them debate with respect, but so many people dogpile with "Idiot" in a debate, which is, again, pointlessly offensive.

Apparently, as a strong atheist, I'm supposed to believe that all religion should be eradicated, and we should all live godless lives in harmony. I'm supposed to be confronting belief in God, and not try to "pass" as anything but an atheist.

Well, I think that's a bunch of crap.

If you're going to argue, you need to be respectful in these cases. It's the same as when a fundie calls you names and is irrational: you know it's safe to ignore them. If you want respect as an atheist, it is only fair to give it in return. Besides, in matters of faith, it isn't so simple as a logical argument. In a lot of cases, you either have it or you don't, or you used to have it, but the way your life and education took you means you don't have it anymore. It's not a light switch. I really don't think it's a rational part of humanity.

This is why these arguments (religious v. non-religious) rarely go anywhere beyond mutual respect. It's not an argument to be won, it's an argument to be felt.

Religion truly becomes a problem when it is not compatible with modern life and has a heavy role in government and society (I wouldn't mind living in a true Buddhist nation, not that Buddhist countries are doing too well at the moment, but that's not Buddhism's fault). It very much has this place in America, which is why the nation of my birth is one of the worst industrialized, rich nations on the planet in terms of women's rights and social welfare.

When religion is relegated completely to the private, to the community, I don't really think it's that bad. People need different things to remain whole, and some people like religion. When they use that religion to interfere with society, to bully, to try and stop science and reproductive rights, that is when religion is a harmful force. But then, any ideology can do that. It's not a magical property of just religion.

But, the idea of the world being better if we were all atheists is one I'm not sold on. True, there would be little opposition to evolution and certain types of scientific research, but people who tout the idea that life would be better if it were wholly secular are operating under the false assumption that the world would embrace secular humanism in its godlessness.

This is a pretty unlikely scenario.

There are plenty of secular theories that are just as harmful as religion, or, at least, still engender some of the same social problems, like the subjugation of women (Confucius touted this, and last I checked Confucianism isn't a religion).

"Atheistic" China still has all the markings of Confucian thought, down to the fully internalized way of ordering family members: father, mother, older brother, younger brother, older sister, younger sister, self. Is secular China a home of freedom, happiness, and scientific advancement? Perhaps the answer is "yes" to science, but in other social areas, it is having a hard time. My Mandarin teachers always sarcastically state "men are always first in China." And they manage to be first without God. This is not a socially stable and happy nation.

You could say that it is because Chinese culture is holding on to antiquated notions, just like the religious, but Chinese culture isn't static. It has been changing for years, including years of "gender equality" during the Cultural Revolution. It didn't stick after Mao's death. The 70s and 80s saw a full scale revival of "proper" gender roles, with little resistance. There was a revival of traditional values. I personally think it's natural for people to gravitate back towards older ways of doing things, even if they aren't necessarily the best in their situation.

In the end, people weren't convinced by gender equality, so they went back to what they knew and believed in.

Human beings like to create in-groups and out-groups. As we globalize, this is becoming harder and harder to maintain. Some people now categorize by nation, by language, by profession, by region of birth, by interest, by religion, but we all do it to an extent. People who are like us and are awesome and people who aren't like us (and therefore suck).

The same people who do and believe harmful things as fundies would likely find some sort of bullshit secular theory to keep up their unequal societies. There are also religious groups, such as the Quakers, who strongly believe in the separation of Church and State, and who I think are a wonderful example of how religion can be had without it being harmful to society.

But, seriously, the belief that we would all be better off without religion is rather misguided as some secular ideologies can be harmful. What that statement really means is, "we'd all be better off if we all believed more or less what I do," which sounds a lot like fundies, doesn't it?

It's an oversimplification of the underlying issues of society, a naive solution put out by people that like to poke members of their out-group (the religious) with sticks for amusement. Militant atheists are just as bad as militant anything else.

DISCLAIMER: I still believe in protesting religion in schools and the government, and coming down hard on people who want to erase the line between Church and State, and on people who use religion as an excuse to be horrible to people or to deny them rights. Debate creationists until doomsday to keep them out of schools, please. Just don't attack or think less of people because of religious beliefs. That's being childish, and yet, I hear atheists telling people that's what they should be doing.

The problem with fundamentalism (aside from the obvious)

It's been awhile nonexistent readership, huh?

It's been a busy time, what with the starting grad school and all that. The following is a post that I started writing up awhile ago, but never finished. Figured it was about time that I started doing something again.

Fundamentalism is rather silly, to be honest. To literally interpret something that is an amalgamation of sources that was applicable over two thousand years ago is, well, silly.

The problem that interpreting the Bible literally, as I'm sure many know, is that it was written in a different time and place than what most of us live in today. The snide remark is that Bible-based homeschooling gives a child the skill set necessary for first century Jerusalem, not our twenty-first century society.

It was written for a smaller world, also. When the first tales began to circulate, I'm quite sure that people were more isolated and didn't have a clear idea of how large the world really is. Let us use, for an example, a fertile river valley. The surrounding area is either not as useful, or filled with mountains, but you and your village have it pretty good.

To a group of people such as this, a story about a worldwide flood would encompass their known universe: the river valley. If the river valley floods heavily, it is possible everyone could die. "All the animals in the world" amounts to perhaps a few oxen, some dogs, birds, and whatever wild animals are in the area. It doesn't mean the entire globe was flooded, and that animals came from everywhere from the North Pole to Australia. One wise man who built a boat would live and be able to start anew.

The story of Noah suddenly makes a lot more sense.

The Bible makes sense when you look at it from these viewpoints. Not eating shellfish? Possibly a lifesaver in a pre-fridge era. Circumcision? Keeps the sand out. Lots of God-driven warfare? Well, we all need land! (Okay, maybe that last one stands the test of time unfortunately).

I've been an anthropology nut (and amateur anthropologist, that one class in high school notwithstanding) for just about my whole life. It's all rather common sense, when you look at it. If you put on your "Ancient Jewish Sheepherder" hat, the Bible is actually a pretty good tool.

But, it just doesn't stand up to modern life. There are so many things in our society that lack any sort of precedent in the Bible.

Abortion isn't in it. Period. Likely because it deals with a woman's issue, something women have been dealing with in their own communities since near the dawn of time. People have had access to ways to stop pregnancies or terminate them for quite awhile. In fact, I doubt that people during Biblical times had a real concrete concept on how pregnancies worked outside that they were a consequence of lots of sex. I'm sure there were even higher rates of miscarriage due to nutritional issues as well as environmental ones.

Of course, there is also nothing related to technology, to advanced governments, anything that we've intellectually gained since then, ideas that form the basis of our society. At least half of our daily lives likely have no clear outline in the Bible. To believe that nothing has changed in the way humans deal with one another, in how we form philosophical opinions, to believe that the older, more savage (especially the virgin-raping Old Testament) way of thinking is somehow better is laughable. It's purposely turning one's back on information.

Why hasn't God inspired someone else to write more ideas since the world has changed so? Are we supposed to believe that after years of heavy interaction with His people that He has just washed His hands and is just sitting back? Does He think the old way, where people tended to die younger, and the world seemed to have been a bit more brutal, was better? His true plan?

What kind of loving God wants to go back to a time where more people appear to have suffered needlessly?

Of course, many in this world still suffer, but those of us lucky enough to have picked our parents well enjoy a higher standard of living than our Biblical forebears. Is this something God dislikes? Is this omnipotent being stupid enough to think that the old Bible is good enough to guide us well in this day and age?

Or has He and said people have been ignored? To be truthful, I am just covering my bases here, I truly believe the Bible is yet another mythos created by men to serve their own needs within the community, to order it, and rightly so. Granted, the Bible as it stands is a translator's nightmare, with pieces randomly chosen, with texts being translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English to God Knows What, and with certain translators adding in their own psychological views. I have heard it argued that the line in one of Paul's epistles entreating women to be submissive bears stronger ideological similarities with Classical Greek thinking rather than the Hebraic, and the passage itself doesn't really seem to fit in with the surrounding ones. It seems to point towards a Greek translator taking liberties with the texts.

Who's to say the whole thing hasn't been tampered with?

I've heard the argument that I just haven't read the Bible, and that in an open-minded reading, I will suddenly convert and love it, and it will make perfect sense. But, to be honest, it doesn't work that way. I just have more questions, the most burning of which is why God stopped being so active in the lives of his believers. It's rather out of character.

One group of people who trot out the Biblical lifestyle are Quiverfullers, the most infamous of which are the Duggers of Arkansas. Quiverfullers point to a passage is Psalms (Psalms 127:3-5) that is apparently God telling them to never use any sort of family planning, which naturally often results in huge families.

There is a problem with this exact methodology, however. It's the same problem that keeps the Bible from having clear opinions on abortion and democracy.

The world has changed a lot in the past two thousand plus years. Larger families were aimed for because of higher rates of infant mortality, and the numbers were also likely mitigated further by longer breastfeeding. These days, born infants have a much higher chance of reaching adulthood, and mothers no longer breastfeed their babies for four or so years (except in certain areas of the world). There's no need to breed haphazardly to make sure at least a few of your children make it to adulthood.

Even beyond that, our societies have changed as well. If you are a group of nomadic herders, or even farmers, a larger family was a great resource as the children could help with all the work involved in these professions.

Now, with children being allowed more time to play, and with their only job is school and perhaps a few chores, it makes much more sense to have smaller families. It saves money, forms closer families, and from a cost-benefit perspective, likely works out the same as the "have a bunch and hope some live" model.

Also, how many Biblical heroes have a lot of children? John the Baptist was an only child. There's debate as to whether or not Jesus was an only child. Noah had three sons. These are not huge families. In reality, these extremely large families are only possible because of modern medicine. I cannot imagine the toll on these women's bodies.

I once heard an argument that creationists and fundamentalists that attack evolution, a cornerstone of biological science, should not use any of the benefits of said science, like modern medicine. I think it is rather hypocritical to use something you fight to stagnate and undermine (ID is against the very nature of science, which is to question and find out an answer. "God did it" is not a good enough answer for science), but I'm not going to wish a poorer quality of life upon another person just because of ideological differences.

Truly, if Quiverfullers didn't use doctors, I doubt their children would be so numerous. They're trying to use an old adaptive strategy (having lots of babies) in a world where said strategy is rather maladaptive.

I'm not going to touch resource management problems, as they are very complex (much more complex than I feel most people give them credit for), and I don't think my opinions are necessarily popular. But, even from a practical standpoint, children are expensive. They need clothes, food, and education. How many of these Quiverfull children are going to necessarily going to have the opportunity to go to college?

To be honest, the Duggars are very lucky. The Discovery Channel pretty much finished and furnished their new home, they likely get paid handsomely for their specials, and they are popular enough to have many people donating cash to them in the event of a true family emergency (baby #15 needing heart surgery or something). The Lord will provide, indeed.

Besides, my main complaint with people such as the Duggars is that it seems as though they are accumulating children as a status symbol, as a possession, more than children. See the seemingly endless TV specials, the J names set, the fact that mom likely just has a thing for babies, as she's mostly hands-off afterward, for evidence that this family, while I am sure it is loving, has its own problems. I can't imagine having a very close relationship with my children in such a family.

What kind of futures do these children have?

Is it going to be the same kind of future anyone who is maladaptive has?

Fundamentalism is, in actuality, a stagnant, maladaptive reading of Christianity. Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, as they recognize that faith is more than what is literally on the page, and that to deny the science was just stupid (if only they'd let missionaries distribute condoms in Africa). The Bible is great as a starting point, but you need to be able to appreciate its poetry and metaphor for what it is: a book designed to give explanations of the world and meaning to the lives of premodern, barely educated shepherds.

And we're better than that now.

Paved With Good Intentions

While I really like the idea of Richard Dawkins's OUT campaign, I have to admit that I am not too happy with the symbol he has chosen for it. Yes, I understand, it's the scarlet letter, and in a lot of ways, being an public atheist can lead to similar pariah treatment as being adulterous Hester Prynne.

I understand that's likely what is being got at. However, I don't like the scarlet letter as the galvanizing symbol for atheism. First and foremost, it is Puritan adultery punishment to me. And beyond that, it's the symbol for an immoral action, and the ignorant already associate atheism with immorality, no need to help that link along, especially when most atheists are highly ethical people who already fight the opinion that morality is impossible without religion. Not to mention that the shirts aren't clear on the meaning of said scarlet letter. It's just the letter and the generic "OUT campaign" website, which somewhat paints the picture of some immoral GLBT swingers club (I must admit that the phrase out campaign brings to mind GLBT issues in my mind).

So basically, it's a confusing shirt with a hateful symbol of immorality on it. Not exactly great press. Dawkins can appropriate it and twist it all he likes, but that's not going to change what most people are going to think when they see a scarlet letter and the word OUT campaign (adultery + gay). Yes, literarily it really stands for, and is used in speech as, a term for becoming a pariah, but it always has that seedy undertone. I don't want that further incorrectly associated with atheism.

If you really wanted to have a true OUT campaign wherein we all stood up and said, "we don't believe in God," lets at least get a shirt that communicates the idea that we are atheist/agnostic and we are just normal people, none of this flashy, literary, *wink*wink* appropriating of an immoral symbol, unclear bullshit. You don't get respect or standing by making secret codes. I can't exactly think of something better, but you need something clear, humanizing, and noncombative. In my opinion, these shirts and the symbol don't fit any of these requirements. It personally strikes me as a bit smug, which is not a big friend winner. It also feels hollow to me for some reason, akin to a publicity stunt.

I like the idea, I really do, but I hate the symbol chosen. I refuse to support something so careless as to not really take into account what that symbol is going to mean to a lot of people when they see it.

I'm also annoyed by all the bloggers complaining that the campaign isn't getting as much support as it should, that if all atheists would stand up and speak out, things would change for the better as we all stood in solidarity. This whole thing is so slapdash and pushy that I personally don't care for it. There are also people who have their own reasons to want to pass, as they are likely living in an area where they could legitimately become a pariah or lose job opportunities, or something silly. Coming out in this manner is highly personal, and I support a person doing it when they feel safe and ready. Perhaps they'd like to come out without the aid of a shirt, on their own terms. We don't need to start attacking one another's personal choices.

ETA: I found the opinion on the campaign here also very interesting. My own non-belief isn't something I dwell on, all the blogging and blog-reading notwithstanding. It's just a part of me. I think the campaign is trying to do a lot more things, like present atheist as humans too, and try to move forward from there... it just isn't doing it very well.

See, I knew that saying was bunk.

Of course I can't find the article at the moment, but I have read through a trusted outlet that the number of fundamentalist Christians in the military is increasing. Now, this really doesn't surprise me on a basic level. A lot of people who join the military, especially enlisted men, are undereducated, often poor, with few other prospects, which is a classic background for fundamentalism. Especially ones that are joining now, wishing to participate in freeing Iraq or whatever else it is that keeps them signing up.

On top of that, the military is traditionally very conservative, which, again, has links to fundamentalist Christian beliefs. So far, few surprises.

Now, we're hearing about fundies evangelizing the troops in hopes of conversion, which also explains the new numbers of fundies in the military (I severely doubt it's all the pro-war fundies that have been told to join up to support what they want to do). And, of course, the icing on the cake, a superior officer disrupting an atheist meeting and using his rank to bully his non-fundamentalist Christian brothers in arms.

Now, the way the chain of command works, this was a rather frightening experience, especially with all the threats and accusation this fundie meeting crasher supposedly spouted. Life for an elisted man kinda sucks, especially with a war going on. The military is a harsh place that hammers in chain of command as best it can, and isn't really always nice about it. This is the same chain of command that keeps command rape and sexual abuse of female soldiers operating. Even when such an abuse is reported, the offender, who is generally of higher rank, receives a slap on the wrist, which is what is likely to occur here (not that sex crimes and religious harrassment are equitable).

Even if the exact veracity of the story is in doubt, there are points that mean that there is need for a further investigation, namely that the officer attended willingly a meeting that he was an outsider of, and lied to do so, then used his power in conduct unbecoming of an officer. Now, whether he went for debate and got a bit overheated, or whether he did so with purely antagonistic purposes in mind is what an investigation is for.

While America has plenty of freedom of religion written into that old Constitution, the military's view seems to be more like freedom to choose your personal branch of Christianity. I've heard of enlisted men being bullied by their drill sergeant if they don't go to Church on Sunday, and who are forced to participate in group prayer as part of a mandatory exercise. Only recently were Wiccans able to have pentagrams put on their graves when buried in Arlington National Cemetary, and there were plenty of asses willing to have tantrums over it.

On some level, I am rather concerned by this. If fundies succeed in cementing their hold on the military, it just takes a few kooks to push it to a new, frightening level. But, beyond that, they seem to be sending the message that their men have guns and are combat trained.

How funny, that we have fundamentalist extremists fighting other fundamentalist extremists. If only the powers that be could see the irony.

EDIT: Oh, wait, there's more!

Freedom Packages, eh? I wasn't aware that we called care packages "French Packages." There really isn't much freedom in the packages, just shoving a doctrine down one's throat.

But, seriously, this is all rather sick and heavy handed, and, sadly, will have an impact among some kids who have nothing else, and are in an environment that makes them rather emotionally vulnerable and unstable. The idea of evangelizing to the Muslim community... surely SOMEONE had to realize that's more harm than good, right? Right? Anyone?

Ex-gay where it shouldn't belong (IE anywhere)

You know, Virginia, I stood up for you last post, and you have to go and do this on me.

I've heard lots of complaints in my time about religious conservatives who want us to "think of the children," who don't want to have to explain to their children why Adam and Steve are kissing. You know, let children be children and not touch any idea of sex that isn't just something scary only married people do to have seventeen babies. And it makes God cry otherwise.

In a lot of ways, they wanted to keep sex off of the table, it seemed. I have never agreed, but it makes them uncomfortable, and these are their children, their business.

But, now, as is the way with sex-obsessed fundies, people whose sexual mores seem to warrant billboards telling them not to commit adultery, they are being delightfully hypocritical.

These are the people that fight books with gays in them from hitting public bookshelves. They don't want to cross that bridge with little Jimmy and Suzie. But now that it's on their terms, painting gays as abominations unto God, it's alright. I suppose you can cross that bridge with the little ones as long as there's hate on the other side, not something to humanize a minority.

Not to mention the idea of handing these ex-gay fliers to elementary and middle school students. Now, this is only a ploy to reach impressionable minds, and, as always, it makes me ill. Not to mention that elementary school children don't have the most concrete ideas about their own sexuality, and that middle school kids are having a tough enough time, especially if they are coming to terms with being gay (no small task in today's world) that they don't need this shit to make them feel worse, or do some severe psychological damage to themselves for the sake of fitting in.

It's sick, and it's very harmful to these kids' psyches. The Arlington County Court should be ashamed of itself. The school board made the correct call, not to mention the simple fact that, in actuality, public schools have few civil rights protections within their doors (we were reminded of this quite frequently in high school).

They complain that they have the right to freely organize as an extracurricular type group. To come to schools as a counterbalance to those pesky Gay-Straight Alliances. Well, you see, we have this separation of Church and State thing here, and it does apply to schools, as they are government run. I'll accept religious groups the moment they are doing something constructive (other than teaching gay children how horrid how they were born is), and the moment they stop having a hissy fit over things like the Atheist Club and Pagan Student Alliances. It's a two way street, kids.

To be honest, I'm a bit wigged that Arlington County is where this occured. For non-Virginia natives, this is a county in the northeastern part of the state, where a lot of people settle in order to work in DC. It's a hodge-podge of many different sorts of people, not exactly the best fundie material, really. But then, we look at the Liberty University hiring, god spouting administration, and I suppose it's changing.

Though, I still have a hard time conceptualizing it.

It's a shadow of what they'd love to do: block all other viewpoints to force theirs upon others (nothing pro-gay, all must be full of hate and shame regarding those damned homosexuals). We can't just have parents individually choose whatever they would like to teach their children regarding morality, can't have them having many viewpoints to choose from (I believe this is because when all the viewpoints are placed upon the table, the fundie one tends to lose). They can claim that it's to open up conversation, but I doubt that'll be the case, knowing the fundie track record for discussing things like homosexuality and the Bible.

A true trip to Fundieland.

Though I am in the middle of a move to California, I was born and spent the next twenty-two years in Virginia. I am not horribly fond of my conservative home state, but it does have the special place in my heart as I have found many friends, my husband, and have had plenty of good experiences there. I read a few months ago about someone's trip to Virginia, to Williamsburg especially, and was informed, much to my surprise, that Virginia is, in fact, a fundie heartland.

Now, most of my life was spent in the Northern, suburb of D.C., portion of the state, but I did go to college in an area just 20-30 miles east of Williamsburg. I feel as though I know the area decently well, and I have never felt such undertones there. We had a lot of missionaries come to the house my now-husband and I rented with some friends, but I attributed this to the fact that we were living in the middle of a poorer community, which tends towards more religious feelings and more missions taking advantage of said poverty.

Now, the main point of the article was the religious-based revisionist history going on in Williamsburg and Mount Vernon, wherein the Deist, not very religious, Founders are being painted as devout Christians so as to misinform the public about America's Christian heritage (and excuse their refusal to acknowledge the importance of the idea of the separation of Church and State). And that, I agree, is very alarming and bad. However, I'm sure that it would likely take place no matter where the founding of the US occurred.

If not at the site, at least in some history books, and I'm sure that it would be glossed over. Even in areas that tend towards liberal, many people are Christian, and in a lot of cases, people don't like history that mentions moral Europeans that aren't Christian. This doesn't make things right, by any means, but I doubt that location truly matters, especially when the caretakers of such places tend towards older families, especially on the East Coast.

I'm about to go to college in a very liberal area of California, but the first non-departmental email I received was a ministry for international graduate students. There is nothing wrong with this, but to assume that highly religious people do not live in liberal places, that they do not find ways to have influence, is rather presumptuous.

In Virginia, religion is handled much the same way it is in many states: you're assumed Christian, a few Churches are very active, especially in poorer communities, but it's a background sort of thing. It's the normal state of things in many states. Virginia is conservative, and I am sure there are some parts that are very religious as well, but the state isn't a fundie haven.

I know, because I just spent the past two days driving through true fundieland states. My drive to New Mexico (not horribly efficient, but it was free lodging with the in-laws that have helped us move out this far) had a rather Bible Belt heavy drive. We spent two days going through Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

I had always known in the back of my mind that these places were part of a different cultural heritage than my own, a place full of Southern feeling and lots of religious fervor. However, I had expected to not really notice it as someone just driving through the states. Perhaps I'd overhear a few conversations at dinner, but whatever, that's what makes them happy; if it is a big part of your life, by all means chat with your friends.

I did not expect the billboards.

Well, to be fair, one of the first things I witnessed over the Arkansas border was a gigantic cross stationed in front of a large, nearly featureless, Church. I wonder how much the parishioners paid for that pointless symbol? Would not the money have been better spent on items such as caring for the poor or other forms of charity? It just seemed so superfluous.

As soon as I crossed from Tennessee to Arkansas (an armpit of a state, but that's another story), I began to see advertisements for Churches, religious stores, simple reminders of doctrine. My favorite one in Arkansas read simply "thou shalt not commit adultery." It seemed such an odd statement to put on a billboard, a sad statement to how well Evangelical morality is doing in good old Arkansas. Or perhaps, it is simply a way for them to feel smug? A way to bring up sex simply in a shameful context, to cement the idea that adultry = bad and sex outside of marriage = adultery? It felt both strange and skeezy to me.

I have never really seen such billboards in any area of Virginia that I visited, not even when going through the poorer, rural Southwestern portion of Virginia, not even one of those ones that preach and are simply signed "-God." All I've ever seen are the normal, small signs out in front of Churches. God wasn't part of a larger ad campaign there, it just was, existing in the place where it belonged: in people's homes, hearts, and Churches.

In Texas, we passed by the "largest cross in the Western Hemisphere," the sign for which informed me that it would be quite the spiritual experience for me. All my husband could think of was that there was obviously a larger cross in the Eastern Hemisphere, and how strange that seemed when considering the general religious make-up of Asia and a good portion of said Hemisphere (where is it, Australia? New Zealand?).

Said cross, which we could see from the highway thanks to the wondrous plains of the Midwest, looked to be made of the exact same materials as the giant cross in Arkansas, without the excuse of a Church in front.

It's almost like in this area, everyone comes at religion like it is a war to be one, like they are trying to outdo one another in shows of Godliness. It's rather strange, and very different from any form of religion that I was brought up around.

When we stopped for dinner at a vaguely famous (and very delicious) Texas steakhouse, a youth group stopped by for a big deal of an outing. They were called "God's Army," (my cheap potshot is that it sounds like a combination Bible study and gun club) and again, this raised Catholic atheist was floored by the attitude attached to Christianity here, making religion a battle to be won, a land to be conquered under God, a place where loud and proud is apparently more important than actual works of charity and support. I can easily see how fundie attitudes of fighting against this atheistic nation and pushing God down everyone's throat develop and flourish here. In fact, it seems to fit with what I saw of how religion is practiced in some areas: outdo each other, make the strongest outward appearance of godliness. It's rather chilling.

To use an old cliche, it was like visiting another country. I have never felt so out of place in this country. Even in Japan, I knew where I stood and felt that I had more in common with my Japanese friends than I likely did with the prevailing attitudes in the Bible Belt. It was likely the first time in a lifetime of overseas travel that I have fully experienced culture shock. I could only sit there, amazed, as I read each sign to my husband, a mix of amused and shocked that it was all serious.

No, I know that Virginia has many fundie values ("ew gays and women," for an example), and that religion is rather matter-of-fact, but I would not paint it as "Fundieland." To do so only makes the greater movement taking place in the Bible Belt look a bit more harmless to those that live in Conservative Virginia. If they are like Virginia, it can't be that bad, eh?

That old fundie work ethic.

What is it with fundies and their absolute refusals to do their jobs?

First we had pharmacists refusing to do their goddamn job and fill birth control and EC prescriptions because being so complicit in the death of a fetus or even the prevention of conception (plus the bull that it can be an abortifacient) is against their morals.

Now, we have doctors refusing to treat women in a number of reproductive senses. No emergency contraceptives for rape victims. No IVF for lesbians. No physicals for adoptions for unmarried women. No birth control. No abortion referrals. The list continues. It's extremely disgusting and, frankly, evil.

I would ask why someone would take a job that interferes with their beliefs, why they refuse to refer patients to a doctor who will do their job completely, why they aren't upfront with their limitations so that women needing these services can make other arrangements without being completely humiliated, but I know the answer.

They want to humiliate these sinning whores. They want to save babies they refuse to prevent or take care of, their mothers be damned. They live in a false sense of reality where refusing to provide these services mean that these women go back, find Jesus, and never get the medical procedure they came in for.

Now, in the medical field, when you can't complete a procedure, you send the patient to a doctor who can. Why not apply the same thing here rather than being a smug fundie asshole about the whole thing? Why do they delight so much in other's unhappiness? Doesn't seem godly, but we knew that.

I'm personally of the opinion that you have the obligation to your patient first, and that just providing an abortion referral or HBC doesn't make you complicit in their action. You were completing the perfectly legal action that is part of your job (nazi comparisons don't apply here). Don't like it, change jobs, or specialties (I'm pretty sure that urologists don't have this issue!).

While I think it's rather asshole-ish to refuse a service that you are supposed to provide (in a lot of ways, these uber-religious gyns refuse to do about half of their job while treating some of their patients poorly), but I can understand not wanting to be complicit in a sinful action. But, you still have the obligation to refer them somewhere else, rather than be a prat and just leave. Especially when the patient paid money to see you and have a service provided. Without any other warning, I'd half say that that is fraud.

It's rather upsetting that it's only now becoming a real issue. That we're the only developed nation on Earth that is slipping backward in terms of women's rights. True, only a small percentage of women likely ever face this, but that's enough for me, and this number is likely to only grow as fundies push their children to go into medicine and law just so they can force their beliefs down the public's throat.

Plus, if the only gynocologist in your area is a fundamentalist, you're stuck with him unless you have money and the ability to drive hours to the next doctor, hoping that the fundie trend doesn't continue. It crosses a line into my rights, my beliefs, and the quality of my care, which is sacrificed so some fundie can make a statement. Gah.

And, lastly, we have the kicker: a Massachusetts law student who failed the state's bar exam by one question. He's suing the state because this question had to do with the state's gay marriage and adoption laws. Being, the good little bigot that he is, his Christian morals couldn't allow him to support this immorality, and therefore could not answer the question.

Now, this is obviously both an entitlement temper tantrum and a fish for a Supreme Court case that can strike down Massachusetts's gay marriage laws.

Granted, that question isn't really the reason he failed. He failed because he got that question AND a bunch of other questions wrong (he missed something like 130 points out of 400!). You cannot single out one specific question and claim that that question was the one that made you fail, not the others you missed.

While the doctor morality debate is a somewhat squiggy gray area, this debate flat isn't. A lawyer's job is to know the law, whether he agrees with it or not. Even though there are laws you may disagree with, they are still laws, and while a lawyer can decline cases based upon his morals, but it doesn't make the laws go away. You can't make it go away. Your personal beliefs do not grant you the ability to ignore laws you do not like. So, this case should likely go nowhere, because he chose to not even learn about something he knew would be on the test. Sounds like his fault to me!

Granted, this is a fundie that didn't get the passing grade he felt entitled to, and had a little tantrum because it was obviously the fault of the gays, not that he just didn't learn enough material to pick and choose his questions. You can't just close your eyes and demand that the rest of the world be shielded from you because you don't like it or believe it to be immoral. Life is give and take, especially in our society, you can't remold it to your wishes, and people that claim persecution because life doesn't work to their wants is very aggravating, especially as a member of a minority religious group that is continually badmouthed.

Though, I really want to say that things I'm bad at are against my religion and that persecuting me for refusing to answer questions on the said topics is me remaining faithful to my religion. Those algebra problems are against my religion, so I refuse to answer them. Wait, why can't I get my math degree? Please stop oppressing me!

Worst. Con. EVER.

There's a decent, overly frightening, article over at alternet, about Christian Reconstructionists and a nice little convention they just had. These are the kooks that want to rewrite the Constitution and make their little strict Bible theocracy. Same scary crazy, different verse, quite similar to the first.

"We need a new American vision," said Cass, former head of TV preacher D. James Kennedy's now-defunct Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, "because we've lost our biblical heritage, our Christian birthright, which has been given to us by our founders, we have squandered for a poisonous bowl of atheistic humanism and political correctness.

Oh, how the revisionism hurts. As we all know, the Founders were fuzzy Deists by all appearances. Basically, they more or less believed that God touched Earth, got it started, and walked away. God was not involved in human life, and the supernatural and divine revelation was bullocks to them. These were not religious men for the most part.

Not to mention that they missed the point of the separation of Church and State. It was written in to prevent the abuses the Founders had seen when there is a state religion, the flat persecution and over-control. Granted, this is what they want, so I suppose they just make faces at that part of the Bill of Rights and are working with Liberty University to see how best to rewrite it.

And, yes, they mention rewriting history when they make their theocracy. As that is already happening in Williamsburg and at Mount Vernon, I'm not sure what they wish to really change, other than just insert "God," "Jesus," and "homosexuality is an abomination" a bunch of times in Founders' speeches.

Their blatant hypocrisy is always so striking to me, even when they complain about the hypocrisy of others. For example:

"Genocide being the ultimate expression," Cass declared, "the deliberate, systematic extermination of a group of people." Kind of like what is happening in Sudan's Darfur region, he added.

This quote is mainly a slippery-slope scare tactic. Maintaining a secular government doesn't mean that religion will be persecuted. We have a nice little document called the Bill of Rights that has this bit called the First Amendment which protects their right to practice their religion without the state stepping in and saying otherwise.

But, this claim is scary to the religious. So very scary, and it cultivates a wonderous feeling of an in-group that wants to protect. Yeah, we're struggling, but we have each other and we're going to hang in there! We're better than all those infidels, we're so strong and not tempted! They are truly masters of mob psychology and fear tactics. I'm not going to even touch the sickening comparison to Darfur.

But, earlier in the text, you see that these same people support forms of genocide:

Reconstructionists seek to impose the criminal code of the Old Testament, applying the death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, witches, incorrigible juvenile delinquents and those who spread false religions.

This alone would put homosexuals, pagans, and most other religions at risk for the death penalty... which sounds a lot like they would like some systematic genocide themselves. So, genocide is okay, as long as it is people they do not like, as long as it is their genocide. Not exactly the highest form of morality, I would think.

Of course, looking at this screed, anyone who has ever had premarital sex, or couldn't prove that they hadn't when their friend slept over that one time, could be killed. Any teenager that has a bit more attitude than normal that day. I'm sure they'd even swing it to kill those who hold unpopular opinions or like Harry Potter. A nice little purge to get rid of anyone with even the smallest disagreements. A fundie paradise, if I properly understand their tantrums and claims of oppression whenever they are confronted with people with different opinions and life choices. Finally, they will be free! And it will only be at the cost of millions of lives. Sounds a lot like the Old Testament, if I'm allowed my one cheap shot for the day.

I wonder if they would just cut their losses and nuke San Francisco? I mean, I'm sure there's enough fundies in North Dakota to get access to our nuclear weapon stores up there. I also wonder where the stoning line is. When do they just send them to fundie reprogramming camp?

[North] has argued that stoning is the preferred means of capital punishment, noting that it is a communal activity and "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost."

Well, it would save valuable dollars in the prison system. Though, I think the image of a man encouraging a bunch of people to get together and gleefully murder someone in cold blood (communal activity, indeed) speaks for itself.

If we are to maintain a death penalty, debate about it aside, it needs to be done with as little emotion as possible, with as few participants as possible, by people who are psychologically able to handle taking someone's life.

I don't think a Church congregation with a bunch of rocks fits that bill. Though, I suppose that the potluck afterward would be rather nice.

Folger said gays want to use hate-crimes legislation to "do away" with terms applied to homosexuality such as "abomination," which she noted is a word from Leviticus. The gays want to ban the Bible, according to Folger.

Their lack of empathy is saddening to me. Personally, I do not think anyone likes to be called an "abomination," especially for an inborn trait. Certainly if Christians faced that everyday, they would be raising hell.

What about not judging others? While I hate to hear that old patronizing line of "hate the sin, love the sinner," it's certainly preferable to constant reminders of being an affront to God and being told how horrible you are for accepting a part of yourself. It's not like coming out as gay is difficult for many people, or anything.

Of course, as has been pointed out many times before, this isn't going to ban the Bible or other hate speech, it just puts a harsher penalty on violent crimes motivated by hate. Now, you would think that they would be all for preventing violence. And, hey, they could even be protected if someone attacks a fundie for being a fundie. While it would suck for a minister to be tried for giving a speech that encouraged a mob, maybe they should also talk a lot more about loving the sinner, and that murder and assault are always sins, no matter the target.

Granted, they will never really admit it, but I'm sure the most vocal opponents of this bill don't really care about violence against gays. I'm sure there are some that feel smug and satisfied when they hear about a hate crime. They would never hurt a gay person, but those sinners finally got what they deserved.

And, again, to trot out the tired argument, just replace "gay" with "black" and see just how wonderful it all sounds. Same thing goes for "gay marriage" and "interracial marriage." Granted, there are plenty of racist fundies, so I suppose it only goes so far.

Ventrella bemoaned the secularization of society, claimed Christian children from coast to coast face harassment from public school teachers and officials and that the legal system must be used to fight back.

This is such utter tripe. Most teachers, being part of a Christian majority, are likely Christian. While they cannot generally talk about their faith in school or be very obvious about it, they certainly aren't going to persecute members of their own religion. My high school had a Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which sounds pretty religious to me, though students could not start a pagan group. I have heard of a girl who wrote an essay, and was taken aside and told that "she couldn't be an atheist because her 'ability to care for others feelings isn't an atheist trait.' and that her 'attitude was very Christian.'" In a society where Christian is the status quo, and people believe you to be so unless you say otherwise, I severely doubt these children face much true persecution. Not being allowed to run amuck and force your beliefs on others isn't persecution.

But then, picking out their inconsistencies is like shooting fish in a barrel. Which we've all done many a time. They talk large, and frighteningly, but it's not going to go that far. And, if it does, I expect some migration and a nice brain drain to Canada and other English-speaking nations.

Indoctrination makes me sad.

I have a much young sister, who just turned eight. My parents are raising her Catholic, as is to be expected, complete with CCD. As she is so young, my parents have asked me not to say that I am atheist, or talk about what the means, as not only is she young (and immature for her age), she also has OCD tendencies that would make this a bit harder for her to bear, as she is high strung to the point that anything outside of her status quo highly upsets her. As they are her parents, as well as mine, I have been more than happy to respect their wishes. I do not really talk about my "faith" to others very often as it is, it's a private thing and so on.

However, my sister has recently been making this harder to do. Ever highly observant, she has realized that I never go to Church when I am in town. I sit at home, sometimes claiming that I am ill, sometimes just glossing it over and staying out of sight before they leave. My parents assist in these ruses by either collaborating that I am ill or that I need to stay home to do some important task or another.

While I do not like the idea of lying to a child, this instance I can somewhat excuse, as I do not think she could understand why I do not attend Church. I don't know if she could even understand the idea of "not believing in God." She is also impressionable, so there is also the point that my parents want her to be impressed in the direction of their beliefs, which is their right as her parents. My parents' brand of Catholicism is not horrible, even if it didn't satisfy me, so there are worse faiths for her to be indoctrinated into.

This whole long screed is to give some background into an incident that happened this past weekend.

We were eating out, having a decent dinner, when my sister turned to me, and said, "Sister, do you go to Church?"

I paused, unsure of exactly what to say. I knew that my sister was too young to understand my reasons, too young to separate religion, belief, and going to Church, and that it certainly wasn't the time and place to try to explain things to her. So, I said, "occasionally," which isn't as large a lie as just saying, "yes."

My sister then repeated a long speech, obviously something she had been told rather than something she had thought up herself, where she informed me that if I didn't go to Church, I hated God. Since I only went sometimes, it simply meant that I disliked God, or that it was okay but I should go more often (she wasn't too clear on this point, making it more obvious that she was repeating some nonsense someone else had taught her, as whenever she repeats herself and gets sentences confused, she's trying to reproduce someone else's thoughts).

As you might imagine, this was rather uncomfortable. My parents had this blank look on their faces, and I knew this wasn't their style, so it was almost obvious where she had picked this up. At her religious education class.

This hating God nonsense was a form of emotional blackmail her teachers presented my sister with. I was appalled. I understand where it came from, as it was an easy way to rationalize with children why they should go to Church, as children being raised as believers naturally channel some of that blind, sweet love they give to those they care for into God. They are taught to believe in and love God, and many of them likely do it wholeheartedly. My sister is very big on loving people she cares about (she says "I love you" to her family quite often, and writes it on every picture and card she gives as gifts), so she likely is more than happy to love God, too. As she loves God, she goes to Church.

While it's an easy way to guilt children into going to Church and sitting through it, it is still horrible beyond its face value. There are plenty of people who do not attend Church, and I doubt many of them do it because they hate God and want to spite him. But, beyond the obvious logical flaws and horrible squick factor of that statement, it also teaches children some harmful untruths about nonbelievers. Anyone who isn't Christian, who doesn't attend Church faithfully, who doesn't believe in God does it because they hate God, not because of any rational decision. That idea of willfully turning one's back on God, rather that just not believing, is born from this "hating God" crap. It undermines the decisions of people who choose a different path or just do not believe in God. By this logic, I hate God. I don't, obviously, because I believe He doesn't exist.

I had always wondered, somewhat, where these ideas used to discredit me, pity me, and dodge my points (poor baby, hating God, he loves you! Why do you hate him?) came from. I always thought it came from only fundies, who obviously exchanged notes and came to these silly conclusions. I was just sad to see it in the Catholic Church, being spread to children, especially when it was obviously something my parents didn't endorse.

I was too shocked at the time to say anything (and I knew it was useless to reason with her on this), but I really hope my parents have some sort of talk with her. I just don't want her faith to grow along those lines. I don't need a fundie little sister, thanks, especially as in a few years, my husband and I will end up being her legal guardians in the event of an accident involving the deaths of our parents.

It's just saddens me to see what some people do with the impressionable, naturally loving, minds of children.

A bit of background.

Something very interesting about this atheist, I feel, is that in a roleplaying environment, I tend to gravitate towards clerics and paladins, and other healer characters, especially spiritual ones. You know, religious people. My favorite latex sword in the world, is that of the Templar.

And yet, in real life, I am firmly an atheist, and have been for over seven years, a full third of my short life.

It seems rather paradoxical, does it not? Some people may even say that my gravitational pull towards these sorts of characters could be taken as a sign that I really am religious and believe in a god, but refuse to admit it consciously.

Of course, I heartily disagree. For one, in these systems, clerics and paladins have solid proof that their deity exists. He or She grants them powers, appears to the strongest of them, and is easily observable in certain aspects of the universe. These people feel the presence of their gods. They can occasionally converse with them. The gods also do not necessarily create the world or do anything more proactive than grant powers to their very devout. But people know they are there.

This may be a good time to branch off a bit into my own history.

As a child growing up Roman Catholic, I never, ever, felt the presence of the God I was supposed to be worshiping. It all felt so hollow and unfulfilling, even as a pre-teen, like it was just a boring one hour show we had to sit through just because we were told that was the correct way of things. It was never a big deal to me, and in middle school, I tried very, very hard to be a good Catholic to see if the shortcoming was on my end rather than on Catholicism's. There were even times I convinced myself I was "lucky" that I had been born into a Catholic family and could then follow the "correct religion."

But, I can remember back to times that even as a child, Catholicism had shortcomings for me. Shortcomings I had to fill in myself. Evolution and science, for example. In middle school, we had a talk with a priest about evolution and how it related to God. I piped up with the badly phrased idea, "What if God just made a mistake and molded humans from apes to correct it?" The priest, of course, simply answered, "God never makes mistakes."

I hadn't quite expressed things properly, but I had come to the conclusion I hear from many Christians that have thought about the world's origins seriously, "No one knows how long a 'day' is to God. Nor do we know how a world is created. God could simply have guided creation through the process of evolution." The exceptionally thoughtful simply express that Genesis and the entire Bible are full of allegory that was meant to make sense to people over 2,000 years ago. Of course some oversimplification of the world's origins would need to be in order. The most important part of the tale is that God created the world, or at least had a heavy hand in its creation.

The other thing that had always bothered me about my faith as a child can be summed up in the phrase "Gandhi went to hell because he wasn't Christian." This was, of course, always followed up with, "but, it is a very mild level because he was a good person."

This had always seemed very, very unfair to me as a child. Though my parents were, and still are, Catholics that go to Church every Sunday and holy day and send my young sister to CCD, they always encouraged me to think for myself and never tried to force any ideas upon me. They wanted me to be an independent thinker, and in many ways they have succeeded, to an extent that must displease my mother on occasion. They tried their best to give me the most honest answers they could. In a lot of respects, they are pragmatic, even liberal, Catholics (my mother is pro-choice and strongly feminist, which surprised me when I found out a month ago).

But, I came up with the thought that "if you lead a good life, and follow your native religion well, God will let you into heaven." Already, at the age of eleven, I had come up with a more fair god than that of most fundamentalists. I could not concept an angry, spiteful God. I also had the thought in the back in my mind that we had no assurance that the Christian god was necessarily the correct one, and occasionally I believed that every religion was worshiping the same God in different, culturally appropriate manners. This is the crux of the other, dare I say it, intelligent, thoughtful believer's conditions: "you are held accountable for what you know."

It always seemed rather conceited to be so sure that our way was necessarily the correct, and only way to salvation. We have no real way to know, after all. The fact that anyone that thinks long and hard enough about the faith has to come up with these hedges is rather telling to me. And the fact that these hedges are often rejected by more fundamental believers is troubling.

I know there are many contradictions, double standards, and evidence of an unfair, petty OT God in the Bible, but those are things I did not find out or fully explore until I was solidly an atheist. The main thing that pushed me towards atheism was a lack of feeling in what I was professing. I swallowed the indoctrination wholeheartedly, as I have always been a people pleaser, but even that eroded away as I thought more and more about what I was taught and how it just did not feel correct for me or make sense in the world I saw before my eyes.

In many ways, I officially became an atheist because of a very horrible reason: peer pressure. My brand-new best friend in high school was an atheist, and we had a discussion about it. I ended up fully realizing that I really wasn't Catholic after all, and that I didn't feel a God in Church because he wasn't there. And that it only made sense that humanity came up with various religions to explain the unexplainable, give their lives a purpose, and feel better about death by creating an afterlife. I also felt that it wasn't fair that I went to Church, because my presence as someone who didn't believe, couldn't believe (because I had tried so hard) seemed unfair to the faithful.

Well, to be fair to my integrity, it is arguable whether or not she really influenced me that much. I have always been an open-minded individual, something I like about myself, but I also feel is problematic because I can feel very inconsistent as my opinion can change completely after hearing a good argument. I would make a horrible politician, as I could easily be called out as a "weeble-wobbler" on some issues. In a lot of ways, that conversation with Meg simply called attention to my lack of belief and made me confront it directly with good arguments. As I have continued along in life, that conviction has only become stronger.

An anthropology class my Junior year of high school validated me in my own mind, as well. We talked about religion, and how it is something created by society to deal with death, misfortune, and the unexplainable. It was nice to hear something I had thought of to partially justify myself pointed out as social science fact. Why can we, as a culture, discount an older religion as a comforting fantasy, but accept Christianity as viable and true? Would it not make more sense to lump all religions like this? Or that all religions were different ways of exploring the same truth? For sure, an older one must have a much larger claim to fact, if God was a constant in the universe. It seemed a vital logical flaw to me.

I have no issues with faith, however. There are always people that need it, so to speak, have been raised to need it. We have a part in our brain that houses our spiritual side. People with strong convictions have respect from me. In many cases, religion also provides guidance to people. It houses philosophies and ideas that can sometimes be used to live a better life. Buddhism is a great example of this.

I do pity my poor parents during this period. I came out to them, so to speak, in a very snotty manner when I was fourteen. I was talking with my mother, and said "well, I have something to tell you when I turn eighteen," as I had full knowledge of the house rules. I was a smug little thing, too, it is a wonder she put up with me. I eventually told her, I think she hit me, then went off to her room to cry. Enter a few years of religious tracts on my bed, forced Church attendance, and attempts to send me to high school CCD that I ended up skipping with an old friend from middle school. When I reached eighteen, Church stopped, as did any attempt to convert me.

Later, my mother told me she was disappointed (gah!), but it was really the way I had told her that upset her so much. I really can sympathize with that, as I was a gigantic brat at the time!

My parents are currently simply proud of me, and likely hope that I turn back to the Church at some point (my father's opinion on the matter was that my mother and he shifted Churches before they settled on Catholicism. I am simply going on my other spiritual odyssey before settling on something). While that unvoiced hope that I'll convert, the background worry for my soul, and the like are not things I appreciate, they have accepted things as much as they can, and we do not discuss these things in the house. I know that I am very lucky to have parents that will let it lie and love me very much regardless.

The most I ever heard from relatives about the topic was my grandmother sending me a book about spirituality, obviously geared towards Christianity, and that was it. I do not think my paternal grandfather knows, and I don't know how much of my family really knows. However, I do not really think the majority of them would mind that much. I have a family of partially lapsed Christians, liberals, and unconditional love. I'm very happy that I am lucky enough to not have a fundie in my immediate family.

After meeting my fiancé, and talking with him, I came to the realization that spirituality was possible in my godless existence, and was, in fact, something I wanted to explore. This is a part of my life that I have been neglecting, but I am of the firm belief that there are parts of the universe we don't understand yet, but can understand someday. Humans are a curious species, and I have no doubt that eventually we'll get all of this down.

Not believing in a god does not preclude spirituality. I can still have a "spiritual experience" when I see the pure beauty of the world that we live upon. Nara's Temple Complex. The Appalachian Mountains. The Eagle Nebula. All have spurred within me feelings of awe and appreciation. There are many things we can't explain yet with science. If I explore those, through meditation or what have you, I'm feeding my curious, spiritual side.

I do not make leaps of faith. I am not equipped to have blind faith; I do not believe in anything I cannot experience or observe. But, I am spiritual in my own way, and willing to accept that there are things we have yet to learn the answers to and that there are other ways to explore existence. Just not through "God." Above all, I am not a follower of any organized religion. Spiritual needs are unique from person to person, and the best spiritual journeys are the ones you make yourself at your own pace, whatever the conclusions. Organized religion usually breeds trouble eventually, as well as hampers spiritual growth in many individuals as most organized religions do not like their believers to ask questions or explore past the party line of set beliefs.

There is a fantastic discussion on spirituality here by Kadath on Livejournal. This is very close to how I feel, but my methodology is a little different, as I stubbornly explore some of the supernatural bits in a vaguely supernatural way as I know they have a rational explanation somewhere. To completely discount something because it is supernatural in nature is somewhat silly to me. After all, before we understand an idea it can appear much like magic or the supernatural. The most popular examples of this involve exposing great thinkers of the past to modern technology. While technology is man made, there is a lot of thought that much of the natural world and natural phenomenon were, in the past, explained by divine or supernatural origins (hence religion and folk belief). It is what humanity instinctively jumps to in the face of incomprehension. While a lot of "supernatural experiences" are bunk, I'm not going to discount all of them without research. But, that is neither here nor there.

Now, obviously, I do not believe in a higher power that mets out a purpose to us all. An afterlife is most likely a fantasy we invent because we are afraid of death and its unknowns. We have to make our purpose for ourselves as we scramble through existence. To believe otherwise, or that God lets us make scientific discoveries, or gives us a talent, belittles our existence. The fact that we are out here on our own and that we have achieved so much is one of the great wonders of our universe.

As Discworld's Death said, "Humans make life interesting. After all, in the face of all of the wonders of the universe, they invented boredom."

To return to the Templar/religious character discussion, these characters are strong moral people who are honestly doing good and service in their deity's name. A Templar was also regarded as a defender of the faith (though originally they were just a religious military unit in the Crusades).

I am a person high moral integrity. I do not service the community as much as I should, but I do what I do for the benefit of others as well as myself. I often think of others before myself. I have never embodied the "immoral atheist" stereotype. In fact, I believe that the thought process that God is necessary to the functionality of humanity is rather insulting to humanity! (It is also a lesser form of morality than creating and following laws for the good of society, but this is not the place to discuss this).

I love characters of high integrity and faith. In a setting where the gods are known to exist, I would of course be a believer. I would have no issues serving a real, present god. It's just that these fantasy worlds are the only place gods are real. And the gods never stand in the way of progress, learning or anything else unless they are evil. It is a place where good is good, neutral is neutral, and evil is evil. Evil gods do not masquerade as good entities. These are deities that I could see following, as they are upfront and honest in their classification.

The deity keeps worship of it more regulated, so to speak. While tenants do have the tendency to be warped, there is more interaction between deity and believer/the establishment, so there is a higher tendency towards quality control and consistency. Good gods do not commit atrocities in their name, unlike the OT version of God, nor do they tend towards some sort of irrational dictatorship style of religion. While a nonbeliever does not receive powers from a deity, if a person lives a good life, his or her lack of belief does not rob them of a good afterlife when they die. Evil is punished uniformly if repentance is neither sought nor genuine.There is far less, if any, contradiction.

And lastly, the gods in these environments are consistent. They do not personally interfere in matters unless the problem is a large one, and is something that they would normally find a reason to be proactive about. Otherwise, they stay hands off for the most part. This is not a world where God heals a sore throat, but ignores the prayers of people suffering in wars and poverty.

To me, clerics and paladins mesh best with the great, stubborn strength, goodness, and service that I want to play on occasion. The Greater Good, and all of that. You could even say that I endeavor to serve the Greater Good in my actual existence, and am saddened that few people do so in our leadership. I like to explore things that I feasibly cannot experience in my life, as well. I am not saddened by my lack of faith, in fact my beliefs make me very contented, but it is fun to explore how it affects a character. I know that people do not need religion to be strong, good, or strong, but I like the interplay... and the spells involved.

I'm drawn to the strong conviction of these characters, something I feel in many parts of my life.

Now, I refuse to go as far to say I'm a defender of science and my lack of faith. I am rather outspoken when pushed, and make no apologies for what I believe (or for my lack of belief). However, I'm not militant, unless my rights are in danger and people make some horrible assumptions. I'm really just eternally curious and wishing for fair play. I'm not sure where I am going with the end of this incredibly long spiel, so let's just go with I fell in love with a sword and a character style because the realm of fantasy is the only place they are viable. :)

I predict a mess.

I have five million of these things laying around on differing sites. I find that each blog site has a different feel to it. Livejournal, for example, feels like a fandom place where my posts tend to be prosaic, numerous at times, silly, and generally lacking in real substance. It just seems like a less serious, more community-oriented, and, dare I say it, juvenile place. I have no idea why, but I seem to attribute those sorts of feelings to it, and it certainly reflects itself in my writings.

Journalfen, on the other hand, feels like a more adult version of Livejournal, which makes sense as it is an over-eighteen site. It's the more creative place, in a way, but more in a fandom sense, and it is definitely a small place that is very related to Fandom Wank, which I love but have a hard time participating in.

Which brings me to Blogger. Blogger was actually my first blogging site. Then, my friends and I used publishing software on our own domains and livejournals. But, even though I cannot remember the URL to save my life, I know that Blogger was where I started. It seems to have a much more adult, articulate population. And so, it ends up feeling as such.

I have determined that I wish to work on my writing, and have decided to do so here.

Where you write has a huge impact on what you produce, I feel. What word processing program you use, if you use one, what paper, where you sit, if you use a laptop: all of these things have always made a very large difference to me regarding the ease of the writing experience and the quality of the finished product. While I can do creative things on other sites, my actual sense of personal expression seems to suffer. Even sitting here in front of the text window, the thoughts that came to my mind were more succinct and, well, adult.

And hopefully, I can actually work on that style teachers told me had potential in middle school, and make it into something enjoyable. I also need to get out more in the sense of the issues I like to talk about. I need to find more things online to read so as to keep updated and interesting. Hah.

Wish me luck!