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.