Since I'm An Atheist, Does That Mean I Don't Count????

I received an email yesterday about how politicians have invoked the name of God more and more over the last forty years.  In this email, the author said that it is politically advantageous for politicians to get their constituents to believe that God is somehow on their side, regardless if this God is the hard line authoritative God found in the Old Testament, or the softer, more compassionate God found in the New.  Both Gods have their benefits and their drawbacks, and both are dangerous when tossed into the political mix.

There is a mistaken notion that we were founded as a "Christian" nation; frankly, that's bullshit.  First of all, not all of the Founding Fathers were Christian; some, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were deists (and Benjamin Franklin was in a class all his own).  And of those that were Christian, most believed firmly in the Separation of Church and State.  In fact, in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams in 1797, it clearly states that the United States was founded in no way on the Christian religion.  Of course, when I point that out to someone, the first words I almost always hear is: "Then why does it say 'In God We Trust' on our money, and why do we say 'One Nation Under God' in our pledge?"  This is usually followed by a smug look of "I showed you" satisfaction, until I tell this person he or she obviously needs a history lesson, or 20, for that matter.  (Neither phrase is original to the Founding Fathers; "In God We Trust" didn't appear on our currency until 1865, and "Under God" didn't show up in our pledge until 1954.)  And even the phrase "endowed by their creator" found in the Declaration of Independence is not a declaration of God or Christianity, but simply a statement that each person has the right to believe in the creator of his or her choice.  (And if I really want to start a fight, I point out that John Adams was vehemently anti-Catholic; he absolutely hated the Catholic Church.)

Religion has a long and nasty history, and its influence on our nation's legacy is no different; it has been used as justification for slavery and the denial of equal rights for women, among other things.  And it isn't the fault of the religion, but the people claiming it.  So why is the push on again to force it down our throats?  The answer, at least for me, is fairly simple...Religion is a great leash; when someone starts to question, the best answer is: "Because God Said So!", even if God didn't say it at all.  And if a person believes God said it, then he or she is going to look to the candidate who agrees that God said it, even if what God supposedly said is against that person's best interest.  This often leads me to wonder if even half of these politicians believe what they spout from their soapboxes, or if they are just claiming "God" to get elected.

Not only that, but by pandering only to those who "believe" the same way they do, our "elected" officials are discounting entire groups of people; not everyone in this country are of the Christian persuasion.  However, it's like we don't matter (especially the atheists). Oh sure...they will take our donations and they will love our votes, but other than that, they would just assume we didn't exist.  Why?  Because we can't be led around by the "God" ring in the nose.

It's stupid, really; it these people actually thought about it, they would find that atheists are who they want in their corners.  Why? Because we believe what we believe based on our own knowledge, research and ethics, and we don't need a book that can't even keep its own stories straight to justify our stances.  This isn't a conservative or liberal issue, either; we are found on both sides of the political spectrum.  However, if they do cater to us, then we are going to hold them accountable for their platforms, and that's a hard position to be in when you can't just blame God.

Furthermore, by incorporating "God" into your politics, you are leaving yourself open to attack by someone whose definition of God is different than your own.  They may all go by the same name, but they are far from the same entity, and when you start screaming: "God says I'm right!", you are really going to piss off the person who God has told you are full of shit.  History is rife with examples of the dangers of mixing politics and religion, but somehow, we still haven't learned.

Personally, if one of our modern day politicians stood up and said, "I'm an atheist, and proud of it!", I would vote for that person regardless of his or her political leaning.  Why?  Because to do that would take honesty, integrity, and, most importantly, balls, and there is very little, if any, of that left in Washington, or anywhere else.

I Am So Not a "Girl"...

Today a friend and I were talking about shopping for bras; it is an act I detest, but because of a rather sizable weight loss, I am needing to do just that.  Now, I know women who can spend hours in a lingerie store looking and feeling and making sure everything is "just right", and who don't mind having a stranger wrap a tape measure around their boobs so they can be fitted properly, but hey...I'm just not one of them.

I was raised by men (and one very strong willed woman), and somewhere along the line, my "girl" gene got squished.  I really can change a tire, fix the plumbing, change out a battery and build a fence, but I couldn't tell you shit from shinola about how to pick the right shoe, and my style etiquette is nonexistent.  Hell, I don't even wear make up, and I've forgotten how to put on eyeliner (so I just have it tattooed on; makes life so much easier).  I would rather watch football than Sex in the City (that has to be the stupidest, most asinine show ever created), and romantic comedies irritate me to no end; give me a good dose of American Pie any day of the week.  I like to laugh out loud, and the words "meek" and "mild" just aren't in my vocabulary.

I'm not totally out of the loop; I do cook and bake and crochet (which led one friend to quip, "My, that's awfully domestic of you!"), but beyond that, it just doesn't happen.  I am far more impressed with my ability to hook up and back up a trailer, than my ability (ha!) to accessorize.  I love being outdoors, and I don't mind getting dirty (I can shoot, too).

It's funny how this lack of "girlness" can put some guys off; I had one guy I dated actually break up with me because I wasn't "feminine" enough; by the time he got done describing what he wanted in a woman, I decided he wanted a porcelain doll instead (and he married a woman who pretty much fit that bill).  Now, I'm not knocking women who are soft and pretty and feminine, nor the men who want them; but it just cracked me up when one woman, upon finding out I had pulled and replaced a toilet in my rental, asked me why I was doing a "man's" work.  Short answer?  Because I can.  Of course, I know women who could, and would, never do something like that, but I also know men who I wouldn't let near my power tools.

One of the funniest stories I remember had to do with my horse trailer; it was a summer day, and it was hot and miserable and the kids were getting cranky.  As I was pulling out of a parking lot, the damn thing popped the hitch.  So here I am, pretty much blocking traffic, with the tongue of the horse trailer sitting on the ground.  Needless to say, I was not happy. 

Well, across the street from where I was stood a whole group of men; they had seen it happen, but not one of them offered to come give me a hand...instead, they just watched me, waiting for me to come and ask (not gonna happen...sorry to disappoint; my ego is far bigger than yours).  I was standing there deciding what to do to fix the problem when this older lady walked over, pointed at the group of men, who were starting to puff up, and said, "You need to go ask some of those big, strong men to help you."

In hindsight, I know she meant well, and I could have been nicer, but since I was already pissed, and that only served to piss me off more, I reached down, grabbed the trailer tongue, lifted it straight off the ground and slammed it on the hitch.  Then I looked her dead in the eye and said, "The fuck I do."  After that, I proceeded to flip the now deflated group of men off.  She looked at me, and without another word, turned and walked off.  (I know...and yes, my back was a little sore the next day, but it was worth it.)

Sometimes I do wish I had a little more of the girl gene so I could wear make up right, and look "pretty", especially now that I have two girls who are both very girlie (especially the older one; she already has boys calling her and chasing her, and I already have the shotgun ready), but the thought is fleeting.  I don't really want to be that way.  I was always taught not to let a man do for me what I can do for myself, and I won't.  I also figure that if someone is going to like me, it's going to be for who I am, not for who I'm pretending to be.

So hand me the hammer and the nails; I have a fence to build.

One of These Days I Will Learn

To just keep my damn mouth shut.

It is an inevitable discussion with fundamentalists, and even just some Christians in general, and that is your stand on abortion.  With most, it is a black or white issue; you are either for it, or against it, and there are absolutely no shades of gray.  So, of course, when they start cornering me on the issue, I give them a gray area, and 9 times out of 10, it blows up in my face.

I was born before abortion became legal, but I am pretty sure if it had been legal at that time, I would not be here; when I point that out, it leads to the inevitable question:  "Well, since you weren't aborted, and you are here now, aren't you glad abortion wasn't legal?"  After being asked this yesterday for the 100th time, I finally popped off that it sure is a hell of a lot easier being an aborted fetus than an unwanted child.

Which is exactly the wrong tact to take, but this question is one that has no answer, because if I had been aborted, I would have never known.  I'm sure I would have felt something, but it is nothing I would have remembered, obviously, and in reality, the world would have barely been any different had I not been born at all.  This isn't some self pitying declaration; it is just a fact.  There are millions of people in this world who will never care if I exist or not, and the cemeteries are full of people who never impacted my life one way or the other.

On the flip side, being an unwanted child is hell.  I had it tough, but it was nothing in comparison to what I've seen happen to other children, and when I see any child put through that kind of pain, it just kills me.  A child should never have to go hungry, or be hurt by the person or people who are suppose to love and cherish them, and to bring a child into this world, only to inflict that kind of misery on something so innocent...

Of course, when I say that, then I'm just using one excuse to justify this horror known as abortion.  It's fine when they flip it around on me, but I can't do it to them.  Go figure.

Truth be known, I am actually against it.  I could never do it, and have never done it.  Do I want it made illegal? No.  First of all, as I've said before, I don't know anyone else's situation, and I am in no position to judge another's choice.  There are things we don't know and reasons we aren't privy to, and I have no place in that decision, especially when you are dealing with cases of rape and incest.  Besides, women have been finding ways to terminate unwanted pregnancies for centuries; overturning Roe v. Wade isn't going to change that; it's just going to make it a lot more dangerous for the woman.

(Of course, if we weren't such prudes about discussing contraception and safe sex practices, there would be far fewer unwanted and unplanned pregnancies.)

This is a topic in which there is no easy answer, and if I was smart, I'd avoid discussing it with them at all; yet something about the way they crusade it as being against God, when the argument they make isn't even Biblical, then I have a hard time keeping quiet.  It is a case where they've twisted and co-opted the Bible to make it say what they want it to say, when in fact, it doesn't say that at all.

However, this topic just happens to be a little more painful for me than most.

The Difference Between a Father and a Dad

It takes not one hint of talent to spawn; all it takes is the right connection at the right time, and the result pops out somewhere around 9 months later.  This has been proven by the numerous people, both male and female, who have elevated spawning to a level only known in professional athletics.  They hop around from bed to bed without one ounce of concern for what they may be creating.

My own mother was a prime example of this; she spawned me, but had no intentions, and no real ability, to be a mother.  However, unlike many kids in my situation, I was fortunate enough to have someone...

I am adopted, but our connection runs far beyond the point where this man made what had always really been into a legal fact.  He was the first person to hold me after I was born (my mother was higher than Jupiter when she went into labor; I'm lucky I wasn't born in the bathtub), and the one person who has stuck with me through 38 years of ups and downs and twists and turns. 

I am not knocking what my grandparents did for me, either; they had me for a good portion of my young life, and they were the ones who took care of me after one particularly nasty and vicious attempt at parenthood by my mother.  But age takes its toll, and my grandfather was getting very sick.  He wasn't an old man, but a 2 pack a day habit and a job working as a ship welder had destroyed his lungs.  If you throw in a very volatile teenager who was going through hell with her own life, you can see where this could be a devastating combination, and my grandmother was past the point of being able to care for two children.  (My grandfather's one dream was to see me graduate from high school, which he did; but he was dead in less than a year.)  To top it off, my mother had somehow, despite being high, drunk and broke, found her way back, and she was leaving mess after mess for my grandparents to clean up.  (She went through 5 cars in a year and a half.  Amazingly, she even survived driving one off a cliff.)

So my uncle showed up, packed me up, and took me to live with him. 

Now, it wasn't like he already had a wife and kids, and I was joining an established family; he is gay, and at the time, there was no one in his life.  He was also a very high powered businessman who was use to running on the jet set, so to say he was making a sacrifice is a major understatement.  But he did it, and he was good at it.  He made sure I was in a good school, he showed up to every parent/teacher conference, he walked me through algebra (which I have never used once since high school), harassed the boys I dated, survived the first car wreck, and the resulting insurance premiums.  He fed me, clothed me and supported me, and, most importantly, when others had turned their backs, sure I would be nothing but a mirror image of my mother, he never lost faith in me.  And no one yelled louder when I graduated from high school, and did so on the honor roll.  Without him, there is no telling where I'd be now.  Even now, I'm closer to no one else; he is the most important person in my life, and he's helped me become a better parent to my own children.

Dads, and especially the good ones, get shortchanged in our society.  I have gotten to the point where I won't watch a lot of television sitcoms and where I ignore most of the commercials, because it almost always seems like the mother is the strong, organized one who runs everything and keeps the family going, while dad is nothing more than comedy relief...and that's not fair.  (We won't get into the court systems; that's a whole different topic.)  Even if the parents are not together, they are both equally important to a kid, and that fact needs to be recognized and encouraged.  I know men who have given up their lives and moved across the country just so they could be a part of their childrens' lives.  I also know men who are also the better nurturer and caregiver than the mothers, and there is nothing wrong with that.  (Despite the bullshit from the Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood Society, we are not all hardwired to behave a certain way.)

There is nothing more rewarding, and more miserable, than being a parent, and there is no shame in the pride you should feel when this thing that started out as a primal act of nature becomes a healthy, vibrant human being, with, hopefully, all of your best traits, plus a few of his or her own.  (Though there is something to be said for the ego deflation when your kid towers over you by a good six inches, which is what is going to happen to me; my 11 year old is already a full inch taller than I am, and she is nowhere near done growing yet.)  Kids need their moms, and kids need their dads, so they can get the best from both, and if that's not possible for whatever reason, then the parent available had better be ready to step up.

I think we need to take a closer look at just how we treat fathers, because they are so important (and moms are, too; I am not saying anything to the contrary!).  Any creature with testicles can mate and spawn, but it takes a hell of a man to be a dad.

"I'll Pray For You"

The other day, I was having a rather heated discussion with a conservative Christian counterpart, and he popped off at me:

"I'll pray for you, and pray that you at least get an interview to the next $7.25 an hour job you apply for."

I told him to please not bother, because his God had given up on me a long time ago, and while there are plenty of people who need those $7.25 an hour jobs, I happened to not be one of them.

Obviously, his "offer" to pray for me was malicious, but I have been told that before.

"I'll pray for you."

And they do pray for me, or they pay Benny Hinn to do it for them.  They pray that I'll be saved, that I'll see God's light and come back to his truth.  They pray for my soul, my heart, my salvation, and they pray for whatever else they can think of, but I wonder if I ever actually needed any of them to stand up and loan me a dollar, if any of them would.

Someone once said that prayer is the best way to feel like you are doing something, when you are actually doing nothing, and I feel the truest example of this is when someone says he's going to pray for me.  For one, it's a complete waste of time, and for another, if you really want to pray for someone or something, there is enough misery in this world he could devote his prayers to.

So after the sniping was done, I asked my counterpart why he would bother to pray for me at all?  Why not pray for the people in Haiti, who are now fighting Cholera?  Is it because Pat Robertson said they brought this on themselves because they made a pact with the devil in the 1700's to get rid of the French?  What about Zahra Baker, or Caylee Anthony, and the other innocent children who have had their lives cut short by people who were suppose to love and cherish them?  What about the millions dying in Africa from starvation and AIDS?  What about the people in our own towns who can't find work, or a place to live, or a meal?  Why waste a perfectly good ritual on me, when these people need all the help they can get?

I pretty much knew the answer before he said it, but I also knew the truth, or at least my opinion of it.  His answer was the stock one: because everyone needs to be prayed for.  However, I really believe there is another reason they all like to pray for me, and for people like me.

We're safe.  It is easy to project all of the evil in the world onto an atheist or an agnostic, and we are the one time it is good not to get a return on your investment.  If a "Christian" prays for an end to the suffering in Haiti, and nothing happens, it doesn't look or feel too good (although they do pray for the suffering to end, but only in large groups during a television power hour), but if one prays for me, and nothing happens, then he can just chalk it up to the hardening of my heart, the loss of my soul, and so and so forth, and, gosh darnit! He tried!

Don't get me wrong; there are plenty of good people, religious or otherwise, who do far more than pray.  They know they can't fix everything, but they do what they can.  They volunteer at a shelter, they donate to charity, they offer a family a meal.  But people like my counterpart don't strike me as this type.  Instead, they tell you they will pray for you so you know what good Christians they are; they make it a point to let you know they are morally superior to you, but hey...God loves you anyway.  It is this hypocrisy that drove me away from religion in the first place.

If you want to pray for me, fine.  Knock yourself out.  I don't care, because your prayers aren't going to affect me one way or the other; however, if you want me to know what a good person you are, then there's a soup kitchen where you are welcome to join me in the serving line.

Can You Choose Your Family?

I received a phone call the other night which still has me wondering, and maybe a little more than confused.  It was from my Dad, and it was one of those calls that sticks with you, questioning where, exactly, you should go from here.

I've had a very interesting life, to say the least.  While not nearly as twisted as some, my past can still hold its own among the skeletons and ghost stories that seem to haunt so many's lives.

I am the child of a drug addicted alcoholic who had every intention of being everything she could...except a mother; that particular responsibility she left to my grandparents and my uncle.  While it does not shock too many now, in the seventies and early eighties, and especially in the small, conservative town where I grew up, an illegitimate child was pretty much branded one with a giant "B" (for bastard) right in the middle of her forehead.  Add in the drug addicted alcoholic part, and, well, you pretty much get the picture of my childhood.  My grandparents did my best to shield me from it, but the stories were known, and the shadows crept in...

I will never the time when I was in fourth grade when a music teacher made the announcement that my parents were never married; you could hear the silence and feel the stares when she asked me, "Well, where's your dad?"  I said, in all the innocence of a 9 year old who had already been to hell and back, twice, and had the tickets and broken bones to prove it, "I don't know."

And it was the truth, because I didn't.  At that time in my life, I didn't know where he was; I just knew he wasn't really part of my existence.  There had been a man I called "Dad", but I had only met him once, and there was no real bond other than the title; he wasn't even on my birth certificate (and still isn't; that line is blank).  Even as I grew up, we never grew close.  I saw him only a few times over the years; even when I lived in California, only a half hour from his front door, I only think I visited him twice.  By that time, I was nearly 16, my mother had relinquished any and all parental rights, and I had been adopted by my uncle, who, despite the lack of formal address, I consider my father.

When I was in my twenties, certain biological factors came into play which made me question the validity of the paternity at all.  I confronted my mother, who swore at the time he was "the one"; however, later she told me she had also been a prostitute at the time, and there had been five other pregnancies, all which had been terminated by one means or another.  By this point, she was sick, and her addictions had taken their toll; death would find her just two years after she finally confessed everything that I already knew.

So fast forward to the here and now...

This last year has been hell on him; he lost a brother and his mother in a devastating car accident, and a brother-in-law to a sudden illness.  When you throw in the demise of a long standing relationship...well, you get the picture.  He never married, and has no other kids besides me.  He wants, and needs a relationship with me, for whatever it may be, and I think I need it with him.  Don't get me wrong; it isn't guilt, but that need for a connection.  While he will never replace the father I have in my uncle, he is really the only person I've ever called "Dad".

But there is a part that worries me...if I reach out, and if I let the connection build, what happens if he disappears again?  Is it worth the chance?  My friend tells me to take it for what it is; I have become the rock, so to speak - the one others grab onto for stability when their worlds seem to be spinning out of control, and that's what he needs.  But I don't know if I want my stability shaken by letting him closer than the arm's length we've kept each other at all of our lives.  But at the same time, I really do want him to know me and know my kids, because, for whatever it's worth, they are his grandkids.

I've been working this over and worrying it my mind since I talked to him, but perhaps I am putting far too much into it than need be.  Maybe I should take my friend's advice, and let it go wherever it is going to go.  Who knows?  Maybe this time, the relationship is really there, and maybe, just maybe, we can finally be family.

It's All About the Sex!

I like sex; it's fun.  In fact, I love sex, and have been known to get a little kinky on occasion when the mood strikes.  However, my perverted comments on Facebook not withstanding, my sex life, and my reasons for engaging in the practice, are my business.

So why are so many conservative Christians obsessed with it?  Not just mine, but with the sex lives of almost everyone else in this country?  I guess if it feels good, it must be bad.

Sex has long been a "bone" of contention for the fundamentalist sects, although admittedly, it has gone from being strictly about procreation to the union of one husband and one wife in a "spiritual" sense, as long as they leave each and every union open to the "possibility" of conception.  Catholics and Mormons both teach this, and there is a very small, but very vocal faction known as Quiverfulls, who not only support this, but believe it is a woman's duty to submit to the will of her husband and have as many children as God is willing to give them so they can bring forth His holy army.  (Psalm 127: 3-5)

Wait...you've never heard of the Quiverfulls?  Ever heard of the show 19 Kids and Counting?  I hate this show, and all shows like it.  If a woman really wants to be nothing more than a uterus, that's her right, but I am opposed to glorifying this as if it is some blessed way to live.  Childbirth is extremely hard on a woman's body; the more kids you have, the more damage your body sustains.  (A Catholic friend of mine just had her seventh child.  She has been having kidney issues and bladder control issues and a few other pregnancy related problems, so she and her husband as their priest if they could stop having children.  He said God may forgive them for not wanting more, since it was affecting her health.  Really??!!)  And the more children a woman has, the more likely she will need to be dependent on someone else for her support and the support of her children; they are a great way to keep a woman subservient.  In many of the fundamentalist polygamist sects, where women really are nothing more than brood mares, most of the families rely on you and me for their support. 

The churches, and some in particular, have always been obsessed with sex.  As I pointed out once before, there are some 200+ proscriptions in the Bible regarding heterosexual sex, and that's nothing compared to the numerous edicts and declarations regarding this particular pleasure which have come down from religious leaders through the centuries.  For the most part, anything that had to do with sex that didn't also involve conception was just...plain...WRONG...  (Side note - the term "original sin" is not anywhere in the Bible; you can thank St. Augustine of Hippo for that one; while not dealing with the act itself, original sin deals with the fall of man, which introduced death to the human race.  Therefore, the reasoning that we are all conceived in sin does not come from the act of sex, which Augustine, who engaged in it freely and recklessly before his celestial conversion, thought was sinful, but because the fall of man elevated the want for sex, as is hinted at in Genesis 1:28 (be fruitful and multiply) to the need for sex, as if there was no need for it for the thousands of years before the Bible was written.)

Even today, sex is such a point of interest for so many.  Birth control has become a major issue of contention for some; certain religions think birth control is wrong, and therefore, think they should have the right to refuse to sell the pill or condoms, or to provide sterilization services as part of a reproductive health care program.  My answer to this is if you own your own pharmacy or your own health care clinic, fine.  You are under no obligation to provide any of the above, and I will take my business elsewhere.  However, if you are in a publicly funded hospital or clinic, or if you work for a pharmacy that routinely sells these items, you get no such protection.  Besides, why you would want to prevent someone from not bringing another unwanted child into this world is beyond me.  (Although I will make an exception for this on abortion; while I believe it should remain legal, it is not an option I would have ever chosen.  Thankfully, I was never put in that position.)

Another one that cracks me up is masturbation; I cannot believe how many people I hear talk about how "bad" it is.  While we have progressed beyond the blindness/hair on palms prognosis, it is still considered by more than a few to be naughty.  Christine O'Donnell has become a source of great entertainment to many for her stance that masturbation is the same as adultery, because adultery can be committed simply by having lust in your heart, and you have to have that lust in order to masturbate.  (You would be amazed by how many people share this view.)  So for this, I only have one question:  just who, exactly, is the 15 year old boy cheating on when he's in the shower smacking it against the wall?  (There are no concrete proscriptions against masturbation in the Bible, either; the story of Onan doesn't count, and no one knows for sure what the exact translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 is suppose to be.)

I guess I just find it amazing how something so biological and so natural can be such a source of consternation; I understand the problems with teen pregnancy, unwanted kids (I was one) and STDs, but these things can be addressed, and there is no need to drag "God" into it.  Ignorance is not bliss (although a really good dose of sex is), and we are doing ourselves no favors by pretending otherwise.

I honestly think the reality is the people who are so concerned about everyone else's sex life are the ones who just have a major guilt complex, so here's my thought:  get over it.  You are not going to stop me, nor anyone else, from enjoying it, so do yourself a favor...get in your car, go to the nearest adult store and pick up some lingerie, some handcuffs, some body oils, and maybe even some edible undies (wait - scratch the edible undies; those things taste like shit), and then go home and GET LAID.

Would the "Real" Christian in the Room Please Stand Up?

Last night, a good friend had the unfortunate experience of trying to get a straight answer out of me after I'd partaken a healthy dose of Excedrin PM; this poor person learned I can still manage to ramble, even if only half my brain is awake, and last night, I wouldn't have given the awake part of my brain that much credit.

The question had to do with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, and if he and band of batshit crazies should have the right to do what they are doing.  My poor amigo ended up with the whole constitutional slippery slope argument, and whether Phelps' right to the freedoms of religion, speech and assembly could be considered an infringement on a grieving family's legal right to privacy, and if his actions could be considered a means to incite violence.  Wasn't really what was asked, but that was the answer given.

So here's the straight answer - I don't think he should be protected.  I think he and the rest of that group should be run out of the country, but I'm not sure I want to give up any of my freedoms to shut that asshole up.

But this leads me to another question.

I have had more than a few discussions with my more fundamentalist counterparts about Fred Phelps; inevitably, I get the same answer:  Well, Fred Phelps isn't a real Christian. 

I hear this same statement about other people/groups as well; Mormons aren't real Christians, Catholics aren't real Christians, Protestants aren't real Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't real Christians...

So who, exactly, is the real Christian?

That's the problem with Christianity, and most religion as a whole; everyone thinks his version is the real version and the only version everyone else should be adhering to.  That's the problem when you base your beliefs on a book that is full of myths, contradictions and half-truths; anyone and everyone can find something to justify his personal belief as God's absolute truth, and that includes Phelps.  All Fred Phelps had to do was pull  6 verses out of the Bible, and he had the entire platform for his ministry.  That's right; there are only 6 verses in the entire Bible about homosexuality (as opposed to 200+ regarding heterosexuality, so obviously we need much more supervision), and he has taken those 6 verses and created a crusade of hate, which he has paraded back and forth across the country.

I get very tired of hearing, "Well, God says...", because if you read five pages more, you'll find God said something entirely different.  Even the first two chapters of Genesis are nothing more than absolute contradictions.  Take the theory of Sodom and Gomorrah, which has long been the trumpeting point against gay people, is contradicted in a passage in Eze 16:49-50, which states very clearly that these two cities were destroyed because they lacked hospitality and were haughty, caring more for themselves than for others.  While the Bible says thou shalt not kill, that rule doesn't apply to everyone.  You shalt not commit adultery, but without adultery, we would have only had 6 tribes of Israel, instead of 12.  The truth of the matter is that the Bible itself does not practice what it preaches, if you can figure out what it is really preaching at all.

The reason for this is that the Bible wasn't written in one time frame by one person; it was written over centuries by many different authors who each had his own agenda and belief system, and many of its stories are borrowed myths from even more ancient civilizations.  Genesis doesn't agree, the gospels don't agree, the story of Lot is beyond description...even the final version we have today was created by men who had a specific idea of what they wanted Christianity to be (which is why we have the trinity).  Even the Bibles used in the varying areas of faith are different, because everything in it is subject to interpretation, but that doesn't stop people from grabbing it, holding it aloft, and declaring they know without a doubt they are God's chosen spokespeople.

And that is how we ended up with Fred Phelps.

Nothing Like a Good Dose of Morality

I almost didn't have a blog today, but I was somehow graced with two completely different, yet somehow so much alike, news stories, both of which just begged comment.

The first concerned the addition of a high school Bible class in the Chino Valley School District in CA.  The class is suppose to be an elective in which the Bible is discussed as literature, but when you see who lobbied for the class, you know damn good and well literature is going to have very little to do with what is taught in this venue.  In fact, members of the mega-church Calvary Chapel of Chino Hills were delighted that a Bible course was going to be offered.  One member said that the Bible is where we get our laws and where we get our difference between good and evil.

Riiight...

But that wasn't my favorite part of the story; instead, this quote by Pastor Jack Hibbs, wins that award:

"Where the Bible is and wherever people are introduced to the concept of God, morality increases."

Keep that quote in mind, because it plays so nicely into the rest of today's rant, since someone obviously forgot to impart that particular morality lesson on the good Christian writers at World Net Daily.

It seems in Michigan, a woman put an advertisement on her church bulletin board seeking a "Christian" roommate.  As it turns out, that kind of wording, even in an ad for a private dwelling, may violate federal anti-discrimination laws, and the woman was cited by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.  While I agree that this is a little ridiculous on the outset (it is her private home, after all, and not a rental or separate unit), in my mind, that's the end of it.

But not according to World Net Daily reporter Bob Unruh, who immediately jumped on the story as an example of the persecution of a decent Christian woman by the government for simply wanting a roommate who shared her good, religious values; this, in turn, has been picked up by conservative Christian bloggers all over the internet.  In the blogs, and the subsequent comments, the name Tyra Khan (with a last name like Khan, you know it's gonna be good) appears repeatedly; why?  Because she was the person, acting as the agent for the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, who signed the citation.

The blogs are replete with comments like:

"What was this Tyra Khan doing snooping around a church bulletin board anyway?"

And then accusing her of looking for reasons to issue citations.  There are also plenty of remarks about how we are losing our basic Christian rights, and so on and so forth and so on and so forth.

But there is just one slight problem...this isn't how it happened.  To be fair, if you read the entire World Net Daily article, you will find that Tyra Khan didn't actually file the complaint, and that there was another agency involved (The Fair Housing Center of West Michigan), and that the identity of the actual complainant (and that part's even funnier, but we'll get there in a minute) is being kept secret.  But none of the Christian bloggers, including the one who passed it on to me with the note: "And you're telling me there is no war on Christianity..." bothered to go that far.  Instead, they read this:

A single, 31-year-old woman in Michigan who posted a note on her church bulletin board seeking a "Christian roommate" to share her residence has been cited by the state for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against those of other faiths.
The complaint signed by Tyra Khan, a "Civil Rights Representative" of the state of Michigan Department of Civil Rights, surfaced when the Alliance Defense Fund announced today it was representing the woman.
ADF spokesman Joel Oster confirmed the organization sent a letter to the state explaining that such housing rules don't apply to people living in their own homes and wanting to share their resources.
"[Tricia] is a single lady looking for a roommate. She is not a landlord. She does not own a management company. She does not run an apartment complex. She is a single person seeking to have a roommate live with her in her house," the letter said.
"She is not prohibited by either federal law or state law from seeking a Christian roommate. Neither Title VII of the US Fair Housing Civil Rights Act of 1968 nor the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act No. 453 prevents a woman like [her] from seeking a Christian roommate."
The letter asked for an immediate dismissal of the case, but Oster confirmed to WND today that he had not received a response.
WND contacted the agency's spokesman, Harold Core, who said the case had been determined to be legitimate and the investigation was continuing.


And specifically this:

A single, 31-year-old woman in Michigan who posted a note on her church bulletin board seeking a "Christian roommate" to share her residence has been cited by the state for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against those of other faiths.

The complaint signed by Tyra Khan, a "Civil Rights Representative" of the state of Michigan Department of Civil Rights, surfaced when the Alliance Defense Fund announced today it was representing the woman.

And have posted it over and over and over, along with the cries of "Christian persecution", and in the process, cast doubt on the reputation, professionalism and integrity of the person who was only acting under the guidelines and regulations of her employer.

So, tell me...how moral is that?  But I'm not done, because there is still more to this story - and the last bit is the real mindblower, and which was conveniently overlooked by WND.

The complainant was a Christian.  That's right.  A Christian.  And not only was the complainant a Christian, but a member of this woman's congregation.  As it turns out, this member of the congregation found the ad offensive and discriminatory (which makes me wonder what the ad actually said, since no one has published that), and filed a complaint with the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.  The Fair Housing Center of West Michigan decided the complaint was indeed valid, and, in turn, forwarded the complaint to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, where it was reviewed, and, again, found to be valid.  That is when a citation, signed by the Tyra Khan who has been accused of snooping around church bulletin boards, was issued to the woman who placed the ad.  Furthermore, what the WND story doesn't mention - anywhere - is that the citation issued was administrative in nature, not criminal.  All they were doing was letting this woman know what she could, and could not, say when advertising for a roommate.

While WND did manage to toss most of the facts in their story, they managed to bury the real truth of what had happened far enough in that most people who read it, if they bothered to read beyond the first few paragraphs before their "war on Christianity!!!!" radar when into full zing, didn't really understand the progression of events.

And they've even managed to drag a government employee through a little mud to boot. 

How cool is that?

Which brings me back to the quote from Pastor Jack Hibbs regarding the Bible, the concept of God and morality, because WND's actions, and specifically the actions of author Bob Unruh, really bring into play just how subjective morality can be.  There was no reason to mention Tyra Khan by name; she was an employee doing her job.  However, not only did her name get mentioned, it was done so in the second paragraph of the story, and done so in a way that pretty much led people to believe she had filed the complaint.  (I can just imagine if the tables had been turned, and it was an atheist advertising for an atheist roommate.)  The story was obviously skewed and very misleading, but WND had no problem publishing it; so I guess it is morally acceptable to pretty much make up shit as you go along, even if it means dragging down another person in the process, as long as it "proves" your Christian stance about some made up war against some made up concept.

Well, Pastor Hibbs and Mr. Unruh, if that's your definition of "Christianity", and your lesson of "morality", I hate to disappoint you boys, but I think I'll pass.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=218349

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michigan/No-Christian-roommate-for-churchgoer

(Read the comments below the story - they are a hoot!  And if you are wondering what I think?  Let her have her Christian roommate; doesn't bother me one way or the other, as long as I don't have to live with her.)

Why Does Life seem to Bite Some in the Ass?

It is often asked why bad things happen to good people, and it does seem to be true; there are some people, who, no matter what, just cannot seem to get ahead.  I'm not talking about the person who gets lost in a fight with drugs and alcohol, or the one who is just plain stupid with his or her time or money; nor am I talking about the 41 year old who gets nailed with lung cancer out of the blue (which is the reason for the often talked about benefit afghan).  I'm talking about the person who gets up every day, goes to work, does his or her very best, and still gets kicked repeatedly in the ass.

On the flip side, there are those who life never seems to touch.

Doesn't it ever make you wonder why?  One of my friends said it is because God knows who the strong are, and God will never give you more than you can handle.  While I respect her opinion, I don't think this is the case at all. 

One thing I have noticed about those who never seem to get ahead of life is that they seem to be the people with the biggest hearts, and the ones who show the most concern for others.  Without fail, they are the people who make sure everyone around them is taken care of first, whether it be a spouse, a child, a friend, or sometimes a stranger on the street; meanwhile, they neglect to care for themselves.  They are so concerned with meeting the needs of others, they forget their own needs right up until they get blindsided with something they probably should have paid attention to long before it hit.  It could be something as simple as an unpaid bill, or as major as a health crisis.

I know people who will be so strapped they are wondering how they are going to make their mortgage payments, but if they have a dollar in their pockets, and they know you are hungry, they will spend that dollar to buy you a hot dog and a something to drink.  Or they will give that dollar to the man standing on the street corner with his cardboard sign, telling themselves that no matter how bad they have it, there is always someone who has it worse, even if, in reality, their lives can't get much worse.  I don't think they do it to get some sort of reward, or to collect gold coins in Heaven; I honestly believe it just makes them feel good to be a good person.  Not only that, but they refuse to be a "burden"; they bottle it, they hide it, and they tell you everything is fine; and they won't ask for help even if you offer it.  They just hope (and often pray) that good luck will somehow find them again.

There there are those on the other side of the ring who are just the opposite; they never put themselves at risk or go out on a limb for someone else.  They will be your friend, as long as it isn't going to cost them anything, and if they do put themselves out, they are going to expect some sort of return for their investment.  To put it succinctly, everything must somehow be about them, for them, and somehow must benefit them, or it isn't worth their time; everything concerning anyone else is always kept at a safe enough distance as to not affect their lives all too much.  They never give anything, other than a few dollars in a collection plate or Salvation Army bucket, so they never have anything to lose.  Words are actions, and actions are words; they can tell you they are your friend and will be there for you, and that is suppose to suffice without them ever actually having to be there for you.  (However, I have also noticed that if drama does hit someone like this, the world must come to a screeching halt immediately, and all activity must cease and desist until such drama has fully played itself out.  Your heart may be breaking, but it is nothing compared to the emotional devastation this person is going though!  There is just no comparison!)

Obviously, these are vast generalizations, and not everyone falls into these two extremes.  There are plenty of people who have managed to reach the happy medium - they can be a friend, loan a few dollars here and there, and cry and get shitfaced with you over the loss of a true love, but they also know when to say no, and they know that sometimes they have to come first, because if they don't take care of themselves, they aren't going to be any good for anyone else.  They are just selfish enough, and they are just selfless enough, and they know when to ask for help, and when to take it if it's offered.  And when life kick's these people in the ass, it just leaves a bruise, instead of a broken bone.

How does one reach this balance?  It's hard to say. I have a hard time letting life take its course if I know there is a way I can help; even with my mother, who many said I should have just written off, I (along with my uncle) made sure she was warm, fed and taken care of for the last years of her life.  If the roles had been reversed and I would have needed to be cared for, I doubt she would have done it for me, because she never had before.  But it wasn't in my heart to let her suffer; she was sick and she was dying, and I could not find it in myself to walk away.  If I had to do it again, nothing would change; the guilt would kill me.  Whatever she was - drug addict, alcoholic - she was still my mother.  And I am just as protective of the people I truly consider my friends.

(Before you ask, this is addressed in the Bible, but guess what - the Bible is just as ambiguous about the right way to do things as this thread.  Nothing solid.  Nothing concrete.  Nothing to see here, so just move along.)

So I guess I don't know what the answer is, or where the line is drawn, or how to reach that happy medium.  All I know is that if life keeps kicking you in the ass, perhaps it's time to take control of it and give it a good, swift kick back.

And if you are one of those people who life never seems to kick, well, consider yourself fortunate.  But just remember, when it does, and it will, someone like me will most likely be around to pick you up and dust you off.  If nothing else, at least remember to say thank you.

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin

I am often asked why I am so anti-Christianity; truth be known, I'm not, nor am I anti-religion.  I know that may be surprising to some, but it really shouldn't be.  See, the fact is, Christianity in of itself is nothing more than an ideology, much like Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism.  And, as with any other ideology, Christianity has its good points.

My problem is with the people who say they follow that ideology, yet their actions provide an entirely different show.  The above phrase is one prime example of this; I have heard it repeated over and over.  Oh, you can love the sinner and still hate the sin!  And, while some say it reminds them that we are all "sinners", most often I hear it used with the clipped tone and that judgmental smile which lets me know right off the bat that this person thinks he or she is a whole hell of a lot better than I am.

That's one thing I have no use for.

First of all, who gets to define "sin"?  There are those things which we all know are ethically wrong - lying, stealing, murder - and which coincide with Biblical teachings (again, though, they must be looked at in the context of the biblical application, because plenty of lying, stealing and murder took place all throughout the Old Testament).  However, there are other things which are not so concrete.  I love asking people who enjoy quoting Leviticus if they like shrimp, lobster and pork chops; all three are proscribed against in that same book.  Usually I will get the comment that the New Testament gave us permission to eat those things, to which I respond, well, if the New Testament is more important, then why are you quoting Leviticus?  Then I point out that the New Testament didn't give women permission to wear pants or cut their hair, but that doesn't seem to stopping a whole lot of people...at which point the conversation is usually done.  (Admittedly, my favorite response to this point is that we have to look at the time period in which the Bible was written.  Really?  Well, have fun with THAT merry-go-round.)

I haven't always been an atheist; I do know some who have never believed, but it was a struggle for me to reach this point.  Even after the misery I endured because of more than a few so-called "Christians", I still wanted to believe that there was a supreme being, a life force, a spirit out there to protect me.  However, as I grew older, and started studying the Bible for myself, I began to realize that a lot of what was taught to be good and holy was nothing more than man's excuse to impose his own hatreds, ignorances and prejudices on those who didn't adhere to his system of beliefs, a practice far from exclusive to Christianity.

I often hear about the "War on Christianity"; first of all, this is absurd - you can't have a war on a concept.  Secondly, if you really look and really listen, many of these so called Christians have declared war on everyone else.  if you are gay, you're bad.  If you are a strong, independent woman, you're bad (unless, of course, you're Sarah Palin).  If you are a single mother, well, you aren't quite as bad, but you'd better be on your knees praying every night for forgiveness.  If you have had an abortion, God help your soul.  And if you're an atheist...well, you are beyond help.  They have a mold, and you'd better be ready to be squeezed into it. 

I'm not saying all Christians are this way; I have good friends who are LDS, Christian and Catholic, and I understand they believe what they believe, and I say more power to them.  They know I am not a believer, and I know they believe, and I respect them and their beliefs. 

However, when someone like Pat Robertson, or James Dobson, or the late, but definitely not great, Jerry Falwell  (along with how many others who have gotten very rich off the very weak) insist that they alone are the true faces of the Christianity, that they alone define what Christianity is, and what it should be, and when they say God speaks through them (and he will speak to you, too, if you send a generous donation), then I have issues.  If God wants to talk to me, he can damn well show up on my doorstep and do it himself.  He'd better not send one of these pompous, greasy haired, oil dipped Joel Osteen wannabes to do his speaking for him.  (To me, it's akin to having your mother break up with your boyfriend for you on Facebook.  If you want something done, have the balls to do it yourself.)  Then, when these people end up with a backlash because they've said something stupid (again), they cry that we've declared war on them and God.  (And to help them fight this war, send another generous donation.  God will appreciate you providing his soldiers with an armor-plated Mercedes Benz.)

And they claim that only they are qualified through God to tell me what the Bible says.  Sorry, but I am not illiterate, and am perfectly capable of reading the Bible myself, and, like most atheists, it something I have done several times, and probably more times than they have. 

Sometimes, I think that's the part that scares a lot of so called Christian leaders, too; we are not suppose to be educated in the Bible - we are just suppose to believe everything we're told. I remember reading the comments when the Texas Board of Education decided to emphasize our nation's "Christian" history by having textbooks rewritten to reflect such.  I would easily estimate that 80% of the posts in favor of the decision were written by people who couldn't spell their own names.  The writing was atrocious, the grammar was atrocious, and the spelling was just beyond description.  The more I read, the more I wondered if these pastors and reverends and religious leaders don't bank on that fact; the reason they get to define what the Bible says is because their congregations can't, or won't, read what is actually written for themselves.  People don't want to take the responsibility to learn what this book actually says, and so they let people like Dobson and Robertson and Osteen and Rick Warren do the thinking for them, and all they have to do is parrot what they've been led to believe is true.  Then they call it sin, because they've been told it's sin. 

But, by God, they still love you anyhow.

Can People Be "Good" Without God?

Can a person be "good" without "God"?  This argument has been going back and forth now for several weeks on the forum I belong to, and among the "Christians" on the board, the consensus has been pretty much the same: you cannot be "good" without God, because if you don't have God in your life, you cannot lead a "moral" life.

Excuse me?

Of course, when you ask what moralities they are referring to, the inevitable answer is the ones found in God's holy word, the Bible, which often leads me to wonder if these people have ever actually read it, because if they had, they would know there is a whole lot of immorality found within its pages.  Regardless of that, however, I find their definition of morality questionable at times, and downright laughable at others, in the respect that they want someone like me to butt out of their Christianity, but they want to use their Christianity to define how I live my life (why are they so obsessed with my sex life, anyway?).  Something about that trade off just doesn't seem fair.

One of the biggest arguments we have is about sex education.  Of course, they are all for abstinence only education, with no focus on birth control or safe sex practices; we should all remain abstinent until marriage, and even then, we should be enjoying sex within the context of procreation - that every sexual union should be open to conceiving a child.  This is all well and good with one minor problem...it doesn't work, and it has been proven repeatedly that it doesn't work.  First of all, teenagers are naturally curious about sex, and it is stupid to think they aren't going to experiment.  I went to two different high schools growing up, and in both, at least 75% of the graduating classes were sexually active, and of the 25% who said they weren't, half of them were probably lying because they were afraid their bishops would tell their parents.

The other problem with abstinence only education is that it fails to define "sexual activity" as anything beyond good, old fashioned, missionary position intercourse, and it leaves teens ignorant to the fact that while you can't get pregnant by giving a blow job, you can pretty much get anything else.  So now, instead of kids showing up to the clinic pregnant, they are showing up to the clinic wearing their purity rings and chastity bracelets with chlamydia of the mouth (as well as another, more southern, region).

It is interesting to note as well that of all the industrialized nations, the United States has the highest rate of teen pregnancy.  In most European countries, sex is discussed openly and honestly, and birth control is readily available.  There is no pretense about sex being some religious, spiritual union between a husband and wife; sex is treated as what it is...a biological act that feels good and is nothing to be ashamed of, and while it does carry risks and consequences, good information, good education, and good prevention reduces these risks and consequences considerably.  It is also interesting to note that in the United States, the South, which is by far the most religious area of the country, also has the highest rate of teen pregnancy (as well as the highest rates of divorce, drop outs, obesity, and illiteracy).

So you tell me...which is more "immoral", giving our kids the information they need to make informed decisions about sex, or keeping them ignorant and stupid, because the Bible tells me so?

Another great area of contention is abortion.  I love the way my Christian friends adamantly declare abortion as being against the teachings of God (thou shalt not murder, Cain and Able, knitting in the womb, blah blah blah), when in fact, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible regarding abortion.  To the contrary; life is defined in the Old Testament (Genesis 2:7 to be exact) as beginning at birth, not at conception.  One verse that has been thrown at me to "prove" that life begins at conception is Exodus 21:22:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit departs from her, yet no mischief follow, he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay a fine as the judges determine."

What's funny about this is that, without fail, they haven't bothered to read the next 3 verses:

"And if any mischief follow (meaning, the woman dies), then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, stripe for stripe."

Get it?  The fetus isn't considered a life, so it is only worth a fine.  The woman, who is a living, breathing creature (property that she is), is a different story.

Anyone who has read the Bible, objectively, knows that killing is commonplace throughout the Old Testament.  Women are raped, babies are cut from their bellies, babies are killed, sons are killed, she bears are sicked on children because they make fun of a bald guy, and so on and so forth.  The reality is that there is no concern for the sanctity of life, unless you are talking about the sanctity of a Hebrew life, and even then there were so many terms and conditions it is any wonder any of them survived at all.

So where does the anti-abortion stance come from?  A codex written approximately 100 years after Jesus' death. 

Yet the protests continue, along with the marches and the chants, which is their right.  But ask them how many unwanted children they have adopted (to be fair, some have).  Ask them how many drug addicted babies they have cared for.  These same people who are so opposed to abortion are the same ones who don't want to deal with the aftermath in the form of the unwanted child.  Every day, there is a new story about a little one who has been abused, beaten, or found buried somewhere because her parents didn't want her, or because she was a burden.  Foster homes are overrun with these kids, and some foster homes are worse than what the child was pulled from.

And these people who say abortion should be illegal in all cases, including rape and incest?  Get fucking serious.  How Christian is it to force a woman, or a girl, to not only carry this reminder for 9 months, but also give birth to it?  In both Brazil and Mexico, families and doctors were excommunicated from the Catholic Church for performing abortions on girls who had been raped by their stepfathers; the nine year old girl in Brazil was carrying twins.  The Church, in both cases, stated that to terminate the pregnancies was going against God, and the families (mothers, specifically) and the doctors, despite the severe health risks (including death) to both girls, needed to be punished.  What happened to the stepfathers?  Nothing worth mentioning; neither of them was excommunicated.

Please tell me what, exactly, is moral about that?  Especially coming from a Church which cannot keep its own priests' sexual appetites for young children in check.

The fact is it is entirely possible to be good without God.  In fact, I'd venture to say that most atheists, myself included, actually hold themselves to a higher standard of ethics than a lot of Christians do for one simple fact...we have no one to blame for our actions but ourselves.  If we do something wrong, or commit a heinous act, we know that we, and we alone, are completely accountable for our actions, and we have no God to justify them.

My question then becomes is it possible to be "good" with God?

Another winter...

This morning on my way home from dropping the girls off at school, I saw what had to be a hundred geese flying overhead.  This, along with the sight of my breath on the air, diminished any hopes I had of summer sticking around just a little longer.

I don't like winter.  Now, it has nothing to do with the changing of the seasons hinting at another year of my life coming to an end, or that everything seems to die.  Nah...none of that. 

I just don't like being cold.  I know, I know - I live in the wrong part of the country for not liking 10 degree temps, but don't kid yourself...every year about this time, I start threatening to move back to Southern California or Arizona; however, springtime always finds me parked in the same home where I have spent the last 20 years, waiting for the summer to hit.  I am a summer person, and am so at my best when it's 90 degrees outside and I'm in the middle of it.

My children think I'm crazy because I start becoming very moody when the leaves start to really change, and get absolutely cranky about December...after all...who could not love Halloween, Thanksgiving, and, most of all, CHRISTMAS??!!  Well, call me Scrooge, call me the Grinch, call me whatever, because you are looking at her.  Halloween, I can enjoy.  Thanksgiving is cool.  But Christmas?  It just leaves me thinking, Oh, God...not again (and it doesn't help that the Christmas shit starts showing up in the stores in July).

It isn't the whole religious, put the Christ back in Christmas  thing that does it to me (which is a joke, since December 25 was originally a pagan holiday, and if Christ was real, he was more than likely born in the spring), or the countless nativity scenes (nativity scenes with snow in them really crack me up; again, if Christ was real, he was most likely born in the spring, and even if he was born in the winter, how often does it snow in Israel and Egypt?  But I am getting off on a whole separate blog topic here).

What bugs me the most is that Christmas really tends to bring out the stupid in people, as if everyday life doesn't do that enough.  It's kind of like dumb drivers; you have your standard idiots behind the wheel every day, but it takes a good, icy road to really bring out the moron.

Now, my grandmother, if she were still alive, would completely disagree with me.  She loved the winters.  While I was trying to snuggle as close to the fireplace as I could, she would be outside putzering around do whatever she could find to do.  Christmas, too, brought her a special, simple joy, despite the countless that were ruined by my mother.  She loved the lights and the carols (just a few Christmas carols will leave me wanting to find the loudest hard rock possible and bang it into my ears for at least 24 hours straight), and she loved having her family, regardless of how dysfunctional it might be that given year, around.  She was one of those rare people who could find a simple pleasure in the most complex of situations - a trait I have never been able to emulate.

Maybe that's part of why I don't like the winter - it just isn't right without her.

And I'm just not ready to freeze my ass off again.

The Power of a Purse??!!

Yesterday morning on CNN, there was a story about a woman who collected new or gently used purses to give to women in poverty.  While I am not knocking her efforts in the least, something she said in the story really caught my attention:

“A woman carries her life in her purse, it's her home away from home.” Tara Brettholtz of Clifton Park said.

Now, I am probably one of 10 women in this world who doesn't carry a purse (nor will I ever), so I, admittedly, don't get the concept of why anyone would want to carry her entire life in a bag attached to her body by a strap of fabric or a thin piece of leather.  It goes along with that whole group trip to the bathroom thing...if I am making a trip to the restroom, it is to accomplish a certain task, not to catch up on the latest gossip.  I want to get in, get done, and get out.

I have been teased by my women friends about my adamant refusal to carry one, only to hear them bitch in the next breath about getting stuck behind the little old lady in the Walmart check out line who insists on digging two cents out of the bottom of her purse, so she doesn't have to get $.98 in change, which will end up in the bottom of that very same bottomless purse.  (I, too, have been witness to this phenomenon; it is amazing just how many used kleenex and half sticks of gum can emerge from one of those things.)  

They also tell me that they have to carry one because they need to carry so many things for their families, and their husbands insist they have this and that in case they need it.  First of all, I do not walk on four legs, nor do I bray for my dinner, and I am not going to haul around 20 pounds of shit simply because I "might" need it.  I manage to carry all the essentials - driver's license, insurance cards and credit card - in a wallet that fits neatly in one pocket; and that has been my creed for the last 38 years...if it doesn't fit in a pocket, I don't need it.  Besides, I tell them, his hands aren't broken, and if he thinks he "might" need it, let him pack it.  Seriously...if purses are such a great creation, then why don't all men carry one?

I have to admit, though, women and their purses are an endless source of entertainment to me.  Just watch them in the grocery store; they either clutch them to their bodies like a small child (which, in retrospect, could be the issue, since many of them are big enough to encase a small child), or they heave them into their shopping carts like Atlas unloading the earth from his shoulders.  I mean, what on earth could they possibly have in those things to make them weigh that much?  Oh, yeah...used kleenex and half sticks of gum. 

The other part of this story that caught me was when I heard that purses empower women by giving them financial independence.  Really??!!!  How??!!!  Half of the women I know have to swim through their purses' black holes just to find their checkbooks.  And how is it really empowering when everything in your life sits in a bag that some doucheball is just waiting to rip off your shoulder or grab from your shopping cart?  I don't find that empowering at all; in fact, I see it as just the opposite.  I don't know how many times I have seen women walking through a parking lot, digging through their purses, looking for their keys, completely oblivious to what is going on around them.  As far as I am concerned, they may as well just paint a bullseye on their backs.  Personally, if someone is going to come after me, I want two free hands to knock the fucker on his ass, not just one.

Several years ago, we had a spate of purse snatchings in our area, and they all happened the same way:  A woman left her purse in the child seat of the shopping cart, turned around to put her groceries in the car, turned back around to grab her purse, only to find it had already been grabbed.  Every woman said the same thing: 'I feel so victimized!"  While I truly felt bad for these women, I still had to wonder why anyone would leave something so valuable sitting in a shopping cart in the first place.  It didn't make sense to me, and it still doesn't. 

Furthermore, when I hear "power" or "empowerment" related to an inanimate object, such as a purse, or a Bible, or anything along that line (weapons are different stories, and all I'll say is if you are carrying one, know how to fucking use it, so it isn't taken from you and used against you), it leaves me asking why we have to project power onto something that really isn't going to to do a damn thing for us?  These things are just things; they have no feelings, they aren't going to defend us or comfort us or boost our self confidence; no...these are things we have to develop within ourselves.  We have to be our own source of power, and our own source of empowerment.  And while I agree 100% that women and girls need to learn financial independence, money management, and, above all, self confidence and self worth, giving them purses, even ones with designer labels and attitude, is not the way to do it.  Honestly, I would rather spend $30 a month on a good self defense course than lose that same $30 in the form of loose change somewhere in a 20 pound bottomless pit.

I am going through this battle with my oldest; she wants to carry one.  I told her fine, but only if I could sign her up for a martial arts class, and then when she gets older, I get to teach her how to shoot a gun.  So far, no martial arts class, and no purse. 

The hardest part about living without apology

My oldest daughter has had to learn a very difficult thing about her mother, and that is that I don't fit in with most people where we live.  I have friends, of course, but I'm never going to be the head of the P.T.A.  I had applied for a job with her school, and had been volunteering in the area where the job was available.  I didn't need it, but she was excited to have me possibly working there, so I did it for my kids.

I wasn't even interviewed for the position.

When my oldest found out, she was upset and angry and telling me how it wasn't fair and all the kids wanted me.  I just smiled and let it go until she calmed down, and then we had the talk about forcing yourself to fit in where you don't really belong. 

Now, I don't wear a shirt emblazoned with "Liberal Atheist Vegetarian" around town, but I also don't make any bones about my beliefs, and I don't apologize for it.  If that means I lose out on a few $7.25 an hour jobs (for only 20 hours a week, by the way), so be it; it doesn't hurt me any.  However, for my daughter, who is in the middle of that crazy time in life where not fitting in is the be all-end all of her world, it is hard for her to grasp this concept of not wanting to be just like everyone else.  (She has informed me she wants to move to Seattle, where no one would give someone like me a second glance.  She has a point.)

To be fair, my refusal to play along with the whole conservative religious thing has cost me; at one job, I had literature from my boss on my desk every morning telling me how God could make me a better person; and at another, I was let go for refusing to join his church, and for telling his partner, who was a minister, that words like fag, queer, a gook, were just a tad offensive (seriously...I swear).  But going to church isn't going to change who I am; it will just make me a liar, and I find it far more important to be honest, than to fake who I am just so people will like me.  It just isn't going to happen.  And if someone likes a fake me, but not the real me, then that person was never truly a friend to begin with.

And that's exactly what I told her.

What is it about Bullies?

With the recent spate of suicides, bullying is once again receiving an incredible amount of attention, as it should.  Bullying has been around forever, but it seems in the cyber age, it is becoming more vicious and far more intense (and this has been documented in several recent articles).  Bullies are no longer confined to teasing and taunting in the hallways and attacking in the bathrooms; now they can employ Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and text messaging to really inflict some major damage.  But my issue is not the how, but the why; why do some kids feel the need to target another?

I posted this very question on a forum I belong to, and got a real eye opener at the answers I received.  Not to dog on people of faith, but the responses between the religious on this forum and the non-religious was vastly different and the absolute opposite of what one would think.  With little exception, the non-religious said the issue needed to be dealt with; that a child should not feel threatened or intimidated simply because he or she was gay, from another country, or whatever; however, the more religious members of the forum stated bullying has always been around, nothing has changed, and the kids just need to learn to deal with it, and if we, as a society, didn't devalue life so much, then these kids wouldn't be turning to suicide. 

Really...

The one quote that really caught my attention, though, was this one:

We can change ourselves.  Through prayer (i.e. communing with God) we can alter the fabric of our identity.  It is better to concentrate on one or two things, than to try and fix everything all at once. 

So...what this guy is saying is that if the bullied child prays enough, he or she can become less gay, less Croatian, less disabled, and, therefore, less of a target.  Someone please tell me just what I am missing here?   Another poster said that Christian children aren't taught to hate gay people, they are taught that homosexuality is wrong; but while we can hate the sin, we can still love the "sinner".  My question is, just how many kids  have the common sense to differentiate the two?  And that still doesn't explain why a girl from Croatia was taunted so badly that she tied one end of a rope to her bedpost, the other end to her neck, and then jumped out the window where her sister found her body hanging over their front lawn. 

She wasn't gay...she was just different.

The other interesting aspect of all of the suicides is that the school staff were ignorant of what was happening, even when the parents of the children confronted the staff about what was happening to their kids.  I have seen repeatedly where those who are suppose to be in charge said they didn't realize there was a problem.  Doesn't it make you wonder why?  Why don't they see the problem, even when confronted by the parents after their son has been pushed down a flight of stairs?  Or their daughter is getting text messages calling her Slutty Jina Vagina during school hours?  Why are they missing it?  Are they really, or do they just not want to see it?

And what happens to the bullies when they accomplish their mission, and the child is no longer in their school, or in this world, for that matter?  There have been investigations, but I have often seen the same conclusion drawn: "there was no real evidence of criminal activity."  So...there was no stalking, no harassment, no assault and battery...which means these kids are never dealt with, so they are able to go on and find another target.  Another person smaller or weaker or gay or disabled or different, and the cycle starts all over again.

I have dealt with the issue of bullying with my own two children, and they know it will not be tolerated, whether they are the victims or the perpetrators (and some spirit help them if they ever are the perpetrator, because they will find out hell is very real, and they will be living in it).  I have taught them from the time they were little that every person deserves to be treated with respect, and that bullying is wrong.  I have also taught them that defending themselves against a bully is perfectly acceptable, and if they are ever physically attacked, they have my permission to knock that person on his or her ass, and I will deal with any consequences.  They are never to pick a fight, but if a fight is picked with them...

But teaching children to defend themselves is only one part of the equation; there is the other part, which is why some kids think it's alright to bully another child.  I often wonder what the parents are teaching their children, and if the Golden Rule somehow only applies in certain situations.  We have all been taught at some point to do unto others as we would have done unto us, but I seriously doubt these bullies would want that rule applied.

Sladjana Vidovic couldn't even find peace after death; at her funeral, some of the girls who had taunted her and harassed her walked up to her casket and continued to mock her and laugh at her in front of her grieving family.

That level of cruelty just cannot be explained.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101008/ap_on_re_us/us_bullying_one_town

This blog was written in memory of Sladjana Vidvovic, Asher Brown, Seth Walsh, Tyler Clementi, and Billy Lucas.  Although I knew none of you personally, my heart goes out to you and your families.  May you all, finally, rest in peace.

A final note:

Should you be interested in reading the forum thread in which one said that they should have prayed more, here's the link:


http://www.chron.com/commons/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3a3a6ace78-9ae1-4169-a425-36d95040c25fForum%3a9e383437-9616-4b1a-9b1c-cbb81452bc51Discussion%3a1b6a8021-1cc3-43c9-a37e-dd794ce9d789&plckCurrentPage=0

I am Dellabonna on this forum, since they wouldn't let me have Belladonna.  Either way, it's poisonous, and it fits.

How do you teach about religion without being religious?

The other day, my daughter came home with a Social Studies assignment that ended up being more than just an assignment.  What should have been a benign, read the questions and find the answers in your text book, endeavor has turned into a three day conversation about religion, beliefs, and my views on both.  It's my fault, really; if I had simply helped her find the answers, the whole thing would have been done and over with.  However, in a moment of frustration, I popped off about something in the text, and it has been all downhill from there.

The textbook she is studying describes the exodus as a literal historical event, and considers Moses an actual person, despite the fact that there is very little, if any, historical evidence to back anything written in the book of Exodus, and I have a problem with that.  What started our conversation, though, was the almost imperceptible mention of the Code of Hammurabi, and how that code helped establish many of the laws in not only ancient Babylonian civilization, but other ancient civilizations as well.  While similar laws existed in all the ancient civilizations, the Code of Hammurabi was the first to solidify the laws in written form; a codex, if you will.  Her textbook not only downplayed the importance of the Code of Hammurabi, but also failed to acknowledge that it predates the Torah by at least a 1,000 years, if not more, and mentions only in passing that the 10 Commandments, given a great deal of print time, "may" have been based, in part, on the Code of Hammurabi (I also had to point out that more than a few of the stories in the Bible were "borrowed" from other legends).

By the time I was done ranting about this, my daughter was looking at me like I was from another planet.

But what really, really got the whole conversation going was the discussion of the 10 Commandments and their effect on moral law.  Her textbook talks about Moses going to Mount Sinai and getting the commandments directly from God (this is where I really should have just kept my mouth shut, but didn't), and then delivering them to his people.  While she's reading this to me, I'm just shaking my head.  When she was done, I told her I had just explained what the basis for the 10 Commandments was, and then she said the magic words: "I don't get it.  This says the 10 Commandments came from God."  

Of course, I could not let that go.  

Now, I've never hid my beliefs, or lack thereof, from my daughter, but I also don't normally make a big deal about them, nor try to interject them into our every day lives.  However, this time, I couldn't let it go.  So I stopped what I was doing and squared it off with her.  I told her that the 10 Commandments came from man, not from God; God was just getting the credit whether he/she/it wanted it or not.  I then told her the main difference between the Torah, and specifically the 10 Commandments, and the Code of Hammurabi, was that the former was the first to establish a monotheist, as opposed to a polytheistic, society.  Then, continuing my little tirade, I pointed out that the "moral" aspects of the 10 Commandments were far different in that time period than they are now.  I picked "thou shall not commit adultery" to make my point (good one, I know).  I said that had nothing to do with moral law, and everything to do with property law, because in that day and age, women weren't people...they were property.


I told her to go read her Bible; men often had more than one wife, as well as concubines (and I had to stop and explain concubines), and in fact, if it had been one man-one woman, we would have only had the 6 tribes of Israel, instead of 12 (had to explain that one, too).  But the reason this law was so important was because it established property ownership and inheritance lines; women could not own property (since they were property); therefore, they had to depend on the men in their family to care for them - first their fathers, then their brothers, then their husbands, then their sons - and it was imperative that the familial lines remain pure, so there was a clear knowledge of who a child's, especially a son's, father was.  If there was any doubt at all, then not only did a son lose his birthright, but the woman lost her protection and support.


And I should have just kept my mouth shut, because by that time...well, I'm sure you get the idea.


So she asked me if I believed in the 10 Commandments, I told her they had their place, but we needed to remember the context of their origins.  She was quiet for a while, we finished the assignment, and I thought that was the end of it.


But the questions started coming:  "Mom, are you proud to be an atheist?"; "Mom, if I want to be a Christian, are you going to be mad?"; "Mom, can I read the Bible?"; and so on and so on and so on.  After three days of this, I decided I had better just hit the issue head on.

I told her first and foremost, I loved her dearly.  I then told her that religion was much more than a choice; it was a journey each person had to take for him or herself, and while I could help her navigate it, I couldn't determine the outcome for her.  I told her if she chose Christianity, I would respect her decision without question, and that the only thing I expected from her was to realize that there were other religions and other faiths in this world, and she needed to understand and respect those who had a faith different from hers, or no faith at all.  She seemed cool with that...for now; however, I am sure this conversation is far from over.


The reason I say that is because as I looked through her textbook, I saw discussions of David and Solomon and a few other Biblical notables and events.  I'm just glad I didn't see any discussions about Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira (better known as Sodom and Gomorrah; by the way, did you know there was actually four cities destroyed, and not just two?)...I'd have a hell of a time explaining that.

Living The Unapologetic Life

It is a rare thing to meet an atheist in Idaho, or at least someone who will admit to it.  Our world here often focuses on two things:  agriculture and religion.  This area is known for its conservative (and that's putting it conservatively) outlook; it is naturally assumed that you will go to church on Sunday (preferably the LDS Church, but any church will do in a pinch) and will vote Republican.  When you are all done, you will sit down to a nice steak and baked potato for dinner.

 I just don't fit that mold.

As I have pointed out, I am an atheist, and will not step foot inside of a church for fear of implosion; however, that is not the only thing which makes me an anomaly here, for I am also an old school liberal and I don't eat meat.  At all.  EVER.  To say I don't quite fit in here is like saying one just figured out the earth really is round.

Well, no shit.

Now, I don't hide any of the above facts from any of my friends, nor my acquaintances; I am who I am, and if they don't like it, it simply is not my problem.  I use to apologize for my beliefs, but no longer...if I am willing to compromise who I am and what I believe to fit into a society unable to recognize my worth simply because I am not what, nor who, it expects me to be, then what am I teaching my children?  That conformity is the best road to take?  That it is alright to lessen your standards and sacrifice your sense of self simply to "fit in"?

And what am I doing for myself?  Nothing; I am doing nothing for my own esteem.

So I've stopped apologizing, and I now I'm proud to say I'm proud of who I am.  Does it make life easy for me here?  No.  But am I going to stop being me?  Not a chance in hell.

But, even the most outspoken of people need an outlet to vent about the rather interesting things I encounter day in and out, being who I am and where I'm at.  So as I go through the days, I will vent and bitch and moan and just shake my head in word after word.

Hope you all enjoy the ride...and if you don't, don't read it.