Religion kits for sale

Atheism is not a religion.  I’ve been spending a lot of my “social media” time on twitter lately and remain amazed at the number of religious folks who still can’t seem to grasp the idea that there are people in this world – albeit still a minority – who do not let religion define their world view.  Perhaps it’s simply the inability of an indoctrinated mind, to comprehend how a mind cannot be indoctrinated; but for me it seems a simple concept.  Clearly it’s not for many. So I’m going to try explaining this again by way of a new metaphor. Let’s go shopping!

Imagine religion as a nice, neat, printer-paper sized box of stuff. Or better yet, not just a box, but a complete kit. In this kit are the “things” that make the religion.  There’s usually an important book, some traditions (which probably change over time), some special ways of dressing perhaps, some key rituals, certainly some behavioral control devices (threats, rewards, etc.; likely derived from the book), and a pre-packaged set of ideas about how the universe works (what happens when we die is one of the first answers we look for in this part of the kit).  This is a religion kit.  And, not to worry, there are many religion kits from which to choose.

Most people in the world are given their kit by their parents, and their parents are given their kit by their parents before them, and so on.  Sometimes a couple will fall in love but will each have their own kit, so they usually compromise and one member of the pair agrees to return his or her kit. Sometimes the couple will try to live with both kits under one roof; but that can get dicey.

It’s important to note that many of the “smarter” kits have built in rituals that start indoctrination at or near childbirth. For example, circumcision is a ritual for baby Jewish boys.  Baptism is a ritual for baby Catholic children.  Baby’s heads are shaved in Islam.  In other words, for many people in the world, their religion kit is so family-centered and culturally pervasive, they may start unpacking and using some of the stuff in their kit, without even realizing they have a kit in the first place!

Now imagine you weren’t given your religion kit by your parents, but are going to go buy one on your own. Let’s head to the religion store to browse some of these kits.  As we enter the religion store, we notice that it has one long wall and on that wall is one long shelf.  The kits are sitting on that shelf, stacked next to each other spanning the length of the wall. We notice that these kits are located underneath big sign markers: CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, HINDUISM, etc. Let’s make our way over to the Christianity section.

The first thing we notice is the sheer number of kits in the Christianity section of the shelf. There must be dozens if not scores! There’s a Catholic kit, an Eastern Orthodox kit, and a boat load of Protestant kits. A sampling of each reveals that there is a bible in each one, but when we start to examine the kits more closely, we see that the bibles quite curiously don’t all have the same books in them.  There also appears to be a very wide range of rituals and traditions in the different boxes.  We pick up that the basic idea is the same – that is that Jesus Christ is God, who came to Earth as the son of God, with the intention of cleansing man of something called “sin” by way of his execution, and finally to provide a path to heaven for those who choose to believe this – but there is a lot of variation from kit to kit on what it means to live one’s “daily” life based on the stuff in each kit.  It’s almost funny, but we notice the Mormon kit has an additional book in it that none of the others have.  We close them all back up and put them back on the shelf.

As we continue to walk the length of the shelf, we notice that there is also a sizable Islam section, with many different kits there as well. There’s a Sunni kit, a Shia kit, an Ahmadiyya kit, and others. And like the kits in the Christianity section, each share a book, the Qur’an, but there is considerable variation in the interpretation of the book, the rituals, and the ideas that define what it means to live one’s “daily” life based on the stuff in each kit.  We put those kits back on the shelf.

We take a step back. Looking left and right we see that the full length of the shelf is stocked. There’s a kit for Judaism. There are several kits for Hinduism as well as for Buddhism.  There are scores of “pagan” and “aboriginal” kits.  There is even a large section of “retired” kits under a section heading called “MYTHOLOGY.”

In each kit are that particular religion’s answers to the “big” questions. Why are we here? What happens when we die? Why is there evil in the world?  There are also lots of answers to some big, but not cosmically big questions.  How should we treat gay people?  What is the role of women in society? What is the punishment for apostasy?  And then there are tons of answers to some downright trivial questions.  How should I wear my hair? Should I cover my head when I pray? What kind of food can I eat?

Clearly if we are going to buy one of these kits off the shelf, we have a lot to choose from. We also notice with some amusement, that each kit on the shelf, from end to end, has a very prominently displayed sticker on the outside. It reads, “THE CONTENTS OF THIS KIT, AND ONLY THIS KIT, ARE TRUE.”

Here is atheism. We leave all the kits on the shelf, we turn around, and we walk out the front door free to explore the world on our own.

Scientific Consensus and Global Warming

Some of the most bizarre debates I have with people are not about religion, or even creationism, but of all things, global warming!  Although I must confess that most of the global warming deniers I debate are also highly religious creationists (speaks to the general lack of critical thinking that goes with the territory).

In one recent twitter argument, the global warming deniers accused me of defending global warming without proof, to which I responded that I have the overwhelming consensus of the entire scientific community on my side. On their side they have Fox News, right wing talk radio, and Glenn Beck (and in fairness, I very small handful of scientific contrarians).

Losing patience with their willful ignorance, I asked my debaters to name a single scientific body of national or international standing that does not endorse the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

To which they responded with the Fraser Institute, Slovakia’s president Vaclav Klaus, and something called Weather Canada.

Clearly these people have no idea what constitutes a national or international scientific body, so allow me a few moments to document my position more succinctly and hopefully the term “scientific consensus” will begin to make more sense.

Let’s start with general science, physics, and chemistry.

American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society….The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years.”

American Geophysical Union: “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”

American Chemical Society: “Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles.”

American Institute of Physics: “The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council:”

Now what about scientific organizations in Europe?

The European Physical Society: “The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming.

European Science Foundation: There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change.”

What about folks down under?

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies: “Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years.”

How about the people who just last year launched a 1-ton mobile laboratory on a 352 million mile journey only to top it off by flawlessly landing it via a jet-propelled sky crane with pin point accuracy? You may know them as:

NASA:  ”The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane to higher levels than at any point during the last 650,000 years. Scientists agree it is very likely that most of the global average warming since the mid-20th century is due to the human-induced increases in greenhouse gases, rather than to natural causes.”

How about meteorologists and oceanographers?

American Meteorological Society: “Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases.”

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society: “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable … It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950.”

And finally, what about our friends in Paleoclimatology?

American Quaternary Association: “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.”

Each of these organizations are comprised of hundreds if not thousands of leaders in each their respective fields; men and women who have spent decades refining their expertise through constant study, experimentation, and analysis.  These are people who publish their findings as often as practicable, just so that their counterparts can tear it down if at all possible.  These are scientists.

That is what we mean when we say the scientific consensus is clear.

Six Things Christians Should Just Stop Saying (unless they’re in the GOP)

Steve McSawin’s list of the six things Christians should just stop saying also seems to double nicely as the set of things currently required to be elected as a Republican in Congress.

The original Huffington Post piece is here but I’ll highlight the six statements below for your amusement:

1. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God
2. We just believe the Bible
3. Jesus is the only way to heaven
4. The rapture of Jesus is imminent
5. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and it is a sin against God
6. The earth is less than 10,000 years old

As I read through the list, I couldn’t help but picture US Representative Paul Broun, standing in front of all of those deer carcasses last year, telling his Liberty Baptist Church audience that

“God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”

Paul Broun wasn’t explicit about Jesus being the correct savior, but I think we are safe in assuming that’s the savior he was referencing, so it would seem that Broun satisfies McSwain’s statements 1,2,3,4 and 6.

He didn’t attack homosexuality directly that I’m aware of in front of his Liberty Baptist Church fans, but Broun did introduce an amendment to the US Constitution that would constitutionally define marriage in the United States as consisting of only the union of a man and a woman. I think that satisfies McSwain’s number 5.

Guess who is now running for the United States Senate.

Debunking the “Homosexuality Isn’t Natural” Argument

First, a disclaimer. I am not a scientist. But I would like to think that I’m scientifically literate and probably more interested in science than your average “Joe.” Given that, this essay is simply a look at one of the most common “common sense” arguments used to relegate homosexual behavior and by extension, homosexual people, to the bottom rungs of the social acceptance ladder.

The argument goes something like this, “homosexuality just, well, it ain’t natural.”

Aside from my facetious use of the word “ain’t,” on its face it’s an interesting declarative statement. Why? Because it’s a claim to knowledge of what makes something, in this case sexual attraction, natural versus unnatural. Typically such a statement is offered with no supporting evidence behind it, so when uttered in a crowd of other anti-gay people, it merely results in affirmative nods. “Homosexual behavior just isn’t natural.” Of course it isn’t. End of discussion.

Fortunately for us, this is not the end of discussion. In fact, precisely because this kind of statement claims to know something about the natural world, we Homo sapiens have developed over the last several centuries, a nice little tool with which to tackle such claims to knowledge about the natural world. Science.

Yes, the question of the “naturalness” of homosexuality versus heterosexuality is actually a scientific question. This means that after defining the terms, we should be able to look at the question objectively, form a hypothesis, collect some evidence, test our findings, and make forward progress toward a greater understanding of homosexual behaviors (and heterosexual behaviors, and asexual behaviors, and etc.)

Of course the average anti-gay person does not state their claim to the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality as a means to kick start an honest scientific inquiry. When an anti-gay fundamentalist makes a claim toward the “naturalness” of heterosexual behavior or the “unnaturalness” of homosexual behavior in order to promote the former and demote the latter, they are really trying call on their rudimentary understanding of the natural world in a way that reinforces their homophobia. Their holy book says that homosexuality is sinful, so gay people become an easy target for their sanctimony and hate. They then couple their homophobia with the following natural observation:

• Sex between same sex partners does not result in procreation, therefore it’s unnatural

There you have it. Then they look around the room for the affirmative nods.  Thinking about the preceding statement scientifically, let’s be honest, the anti-gay bigot is correct up to a point. The fact is that for most of the animal kingdom, if one (incorrectly as we’ll discuss later on) limits the definition of natural sexual attraction to that which leads to the ability of animals to procreate, then it is true that same sex attraction will likely not lead to procreation.

But right out of the gate that definition stumbles. Because ours is an awesome animal kingdom and even in that what might seem axiomatic proposition, there are some exceptions in nature. Take for example the female whiptail lizard. She reproduces asexually after engaging in sexual behavior with other female whiptails in a fascinating process known as parthenogenesis.¹ No one bothered to tell this naturally lesbian lizard that she can’t procreate!

But again, the anti-gay religious fundamentalist isn’t really interested in the scientific question. They are interested in using the natural argument as an anti-gay “one / two punch.”  In other words, in addition to their observation on how things should work in nature, they also bring a healthy dose of anti-gay doctrine (usually from the Bible or the Quran). The anti-gay religious fundamentalist then feels bolstered to charge ahead with their social ideas; which as we know often manifest in the form of dehumanizing anti-gay bigotry.  They extend the argument to say, “not only is it (gay behavior) wrong, but it’s also unnatural.”  It goes against God (jab) and nature (cross).

They now feel doubly fortified in their homophobic social and political positions. They are passionately anti-gay. And the bigotry flows. Gays are ruining our country. Gays will invite God’s vengeance upon us. No gays in the military, no gays should get married, no gays in the Boy Scouts, no gays in my church, no gays on the football field, gays deserve what they get, AIDs is God’s punishment for gays, and the nauseating list goes on, and gets worse.

Unfortunately science can’t remove anti-gay doctrine from religion. It will never be able to redact the anti-gay messages from the Bible for example. Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, the warnings against “porneia” in the synoptic gospels, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, and others are there for all to read. Perhaps new “translations” or some creative humanistic hermeneutics will dampen the messages. Perhaps the maltreatment of real people will weigh heavier than the fear of some cosmic vengeance from an omnipotent being interested in who people love (and further, interested in how people love). On the other hand, perhaps adherents to certain religions will always beat the anti-gay drum; irrespective of our large social march toward love and acceptance.

We must set religiously inspired anti-gay bigotry aside for a moment and get back to the question that we can answer. Science can certainly and rightfully tackle the claim to homosexual “unnaturalness.”  Let’s look briefly at that claim with the hopes of if not completely removing that particular arrow from the anti-gay cultural quiver, making it far too flimsy to fly.

Let’s start from the top. What does it mean for something to be natural? Webster says that something natural is said to be in accordance with or determined by nature. In the context of homosexuality, the claimant then is saying that homosexual behavior does not occur as simply a matter of course. In other words, that there is something naturally aberrant about it; it doesn’t fit the “order” of things.  The parts don’t fit in a way that serves a function. To quote Christian evangelist Franklin Graham, “If you just think biologically how God made us, our plumbing is completely different.”  Two men can’t have babies. Two women can’t have babies.

Did you notice what happened there? Somehow the definition of what constitutes natural slipped to encompass only that which is functional, not that which is “naturally occurring.” We are back to “sex between same sex partners does not result in procreation, therefore it’s unnatural.” But that’s fine; the claimant is wrong on both counts. Homosexuality is both naturally occurring and sex is often not functionally procreative. There are a multiple angles we can take with this.

1. Biological utility.  Must everything in nature serve a function? Absolutely not. The animal kingdom is replete with examples of traits which no longer serve a function. The term in biology is called vestigiality. This is to say that traits are present in nature all the time and across multiple species, which don’t by necessity appear to serve a direct function in the survival of a given species.  Having a same sex desire need not “solve” some evolutionary problem.  In fact interestingly enough, there is quite a sociobiological debate around the altruistic “utility” of a certain percentage of homosexuals² within human population groups. All that said, of course I’m not suggesting that homosexuality is a vestigial feature of any ancient evolutionary step; I’m just pointing out that life is full of characteristics which are not necessary for successful genetic transfer to subsequent generations. The question of homosexual procreative utility seems practically irrelevant. And by the way, there is absolutely nothing about a gay person’s biology or anatomy (or plumbing to borrow from Franklin Graham’s vocational vocabulary), which precludes neither he nor she from having children.
2. Evolution by natural selection. Because homosexuality does actually exist among Homo sapiens, clearly the selective pressures never existed in our ancestral evolution to the degree required to keep homosexuality from being present.  Procreative selective pressures were clearly not, nor do they clearly continue to be (as Homo sapiens reaches seven billion) threatened by homosexual sex drives. Q.E.D.
3. Commonness. According to a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl³, homosexual behavior has been observed in almost 1,500 species of animals. Homo sapiens are but one of those animals in which homosexual behavior “naturally” occurs.  Regardless of motive (acceptance, dominance, pleasure, etc.), homosexuality in nature is abundant and this one primate species, regardless of sentience, is no exception.
4. Human pleasure. (Feel free to read this one with an air of heavy sarcasm.) Believe it or not, humans enjoy all kinds of sex – irrespective of one’s heterosexuality or homosexuality – in which procreation is not the goal. I know there are many religious fundamentalists out there who publically don’t want to acknowledge this one, but it’s true…even men and women (and presidents, interns, preachers, and congregations) have sex that will biologically never result in a child.
5. Common sense. Is it unnatural for two people beyond child bearing years to have sex? Is it unnatural for a man with a vasectomy to have sex (I certainly hope not!), or a woman with a hysterectomy to have sex? Of course it isn’t. Notice it didn’t matter what the sex of the sex partner was. The notion that people who can’t have children shouldn’t have sex flies against common sense.  No matter how often they try, their sex will never result in babies. Bye bye function.

Where are we then?  These are facts. Homosexuality occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom. Homosexuality exists; therefore selective pressures to keep it from existing were minimal. People have sex all the time without wanting children. People who can’t have children, have sex.

Obviously what I have written here is not a scientific paper. It’s merely a scientifically literate look at the arguments against the naturalness of homosexuality. So if I’ve misrepresented the science in any way, I look forward to any corrections from the scientific community to what I’ve stated. Neuroscience, biology, genetics, chemistry, anthropology, among other scientific disciplines, will all continue to make forward progress toward understanding sexuality (not just homosexuality).

Hopefully the functional/procreation argument of what makes for “natural” sex is looking a bit like Swiss cheese by now. Again, that’s not to say that sexuality is completely understood by any stretch of the imagination. Science, unlike religion, doesn’t make that claim. But nowhere in the scientific literature will you find science placing a value judgment on the person as a result of his or her sexual preference.

The religious anti-gay bigot then is left with but one arrow in their quiver; their holy book. We can only hope that treating each other better in the real world, will trump bigotry no matter the source.

¹Halliday, Tim R.; Kraig Adler (eds.) (1986). Reptiles & Amphibians. Torstar Books. p. 101. ISBN 0-920269-81-8.

²Weinrich, James D.; A new sociobiological theory of homosexuality applicable to societies with universal marriage. Ethology & Sociobiology, Vol 8(1), 1987, 37-47. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(87)90056-2

³Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin’s Press, 1999; ISBN 0-312-19239-8

Atheism is a very strange word

Atheism is a very strange word. The word only exists because of the sheer pervasiveness of religion throughout the world’s cultures. It’s a tidy word that very quickly identifies one as not believing in gods.  Tidy, but odd that such a word even exists.  In other words, language doesn’t follow the same pattern with the other innumerable concepts with which we don’t believe.

There is no tidy word for non-belief in UFOs or non-belief in dragons or non-belief in chupacabras or non-belief in mermaids or non-belief in vampires or non-belief in fairies or non-belief in Santa Claus or…I think you get my point.  Yet there is this word for non-belief in gods.

To extend the illustration, I could perform the same exercise to illustrate that for many if not most religious believers, they too are atheists but for one exception. What do we call someone who rejects as mythology, a belief in Thor, Ra, Odin, Zeus, Pele, or Inti, but who accepts without question, a belief in Yahweh? Well, we would call that person religious in spite of their atheism with regards to the rest of those old, powerful, and storied gods.  Keep in mind, the historical or scientific documentation for their veracity is exactly the same. There is none.

Where does that leave us then with this word – atheism? For me, atheism is merely a conclusion or an output of a reality based world-view, nothing more. There is nothing about non-belief that follows the same thought process as belief.  The atheist is not expected to accept anything on insufficient evidence. The atheist is not expected to perform any rituals to “prove” their non-belief. The atheist has no allegiance to a mythical being. The atheist has no dogma, canon, scripture, liturgies, creeds, organizations, miracles, or claims to knowledge that she cannot prove.

All the atheist does is take an intellectually honest look at the world around her and say, “I’ll go with reality.” And without getting in to too much of an epistemological debate, I’ll define reality as that which is actual, measurable, and falsifiable.

To help make my concept of reality work for you, I’ll borrow from jurisprudence.  Think of reality in terms of the evidence presented at a court trial where you’re an innocent defendant charged with a capital offense. How do you want the jury that is deciding whether or not you get the electric chair to define reality? Are you OK with a theistic version of reality where the empirical evidence is ignored or where evidence is invented in an arbitrary and subjective way such that each juror has their own version of truth? Or would you rather reality be the evidence that is based on what rational people accept as real? Measurements, logic, physics, chemistry, verifiable witnesses, alibis, etc.

You, as the defendant, will most certainly want to define reality as the latter, particularly for example, when the evidence shows that it was physically impossible for you to be in two places at the same time or that your DNA doesn’t match any of the DNA at the crime scene. In fact, our entire legal system is built on a rational understanding of reality. No defense attorney will argue before a jury, “he’s innocent but you don’t need proof, just have faith.”  No judge will instruct a jury, “just ignore the evidence presented here and go with what feels right.”

That’s not to say our legal system is flawless. Innocent people get convicted on bad evidence and guilty people get released on insufficient evidence. But notice that when someone is wrongly convicted of a crime, what is produced that overturns the conviction?  Is it a change of heart? Is it an impassioned plea? Is it a miraculous feeling? No. It’s new actual, measurable, and falsifiable evidence. It’s reality.

So the next time you hear someone suggest that atheism is a “belief system” just like religion, or the next time you hear someone use the the term “atheist” has a pejorative epithet, I’d like you to ask yourself the question, who do you want sitting on your jury?

Happy Darwin Day!

“As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.”

- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

That folks, from Darwin’s pen, is evolution by natural selection. It’s simple, logical, and supported by volumes of evidence. And with that, so began the great accelerated thawing of human minds from the frozen catacombs of religious dogma.

With an explanation for how biological variation happens, the fifth and sixth days of Biblical creation took their rightful place alongside the Hopi’s Hurúing Wuhti, the Iroquois’ Sky People, and the Norsemen’s Ginnungagap. All stories for people with vivid imaginations, who wanted to explain the things around them, but who did not yet have the tools required to provide the real, incredible story.

Happy Darwin Day.

“Salvation” by Langston Hughes

A wonderful short story that hits very close to home for any young, clear-headed preteen being immersed in a religion. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

*************************************************************************************************

I was saved from sin when I was going on thirteen. But not really saved. It happened like this. There was a big revival at my Auntie Reed’s church. Every night for weeks there had been much preaching, singing, praying, and shouting, and some very hardened sinners had been brought to Christ, and the membership of the church had grown by leaps and bounds. Then just before the revival ended, they held a special meeting for children, “to bring the young lambs to the fold.” My aunt spoke of it for days ahead. That night I was escorted to the front row and placed on the mourners’ bench with all the other young sinners, who had not yet been brought to Jesus.

My aunt told me that when you were saved you saw a light, and something happened to you inside! And Jesus came into your life! And God was with you from then on! She said you could see and hear and feel Jesus in your soul. I believed her. I had heard a great many old people say the same thing and it seemed to me they ought to know. So I sat there calmly in the hot, crowded church, waiting for Jesus to come to me.

The preacher preached a wonderful rhythmical sermon, all moans and shouts and lonely cries and dire pictures of hell, and then he sang a song about the ninety and nine safe in the fold, but one little lamb was left out in the cold. Then he said: “Won’t you come? Won’t you come to Jesus? Young lambs, won’t you come?” And he held out his arms to all us young sinners there on the mourners’ bench. And the little girls cried. And some of them jumped up and went to Jesus right away. But most of us just sat there.

A great many old people came and knelt around us and prayed, old women with jet-black faces and braided hair, old men with work-gnarled hands. And the church sang a song about the lower lights are burning, some poor sinners to be saved. And the whole building rocked with prayer and song.

Still I kept waiting to see Jesus.

Finally all the young people had gone to the altar and were saved, but one boy and me. He was a rounder’s son named Westley. Westley and I were surrounded by sisters and deacons praying. It was very hot in the church, and getting late now. Finally Westley said to me in a whisper: “God damn! I’m tired o’ sitting here. Let’s get up and be saved.” So he got up and was saved.

Then I was left all alone on the mourners’ bench. My aunt came and knelt at my knees and cried, while prayers and song swirled all around me in the little church. The whole congregation prayed for me alone, in a mighty wail of moans and voices. And I kept waiting serenely for Jesus, waiting, waiting – but he didn’t come. I wanted to see him, but nothing happened to me. Nothing! I wanted something to happen to me, but nothing happened.

I heard the songs and the minister saying: “Why don’t you come? My dear child, why don’t you come to Jesus? Jesus is waiting for you. He wants you. Why don’t you come? Sister Reed, what is this child’s name?”

“Langston,” my aunt sobbed.

“Langston, why don’t you come? Why don’t you come and be saved? Oh, Lamb of God! Why don’t you come?”

Now it was really getting late. I began to be ashamed of myself, holding everything up so long. I began to wonder what God thought about Westley, who certainly hadn’t seen Jesus either, but who was now sitting proudly on the platform, swinging his knickerbockered legs and grinning down at me, surrounded by deacons and old women on their knees praying. God had not struck Westley dead for taking his name in vain or for lying in the temple. So I decided that maybe to save further trouble, I’d better lie, too, and say that Jesus had come, and get up and be saved.

So I got up.

Suddenly the whole room broke into a sea of shouting, as they saw me rise. Waves of rejoicing swept the place. Women leaped in the air. My aunt threw her arms around me. The minister took me by the hand and led me to the platform.

When things quieted down, in a hushed silence, punctuated by a few ecstatic “Amens,” all the new young lambs were blessed in the name of God. Then joyous singing filled the room.

That night, for the first time in my life but one for I was a big boy twelve years old – I cried. I cried, in bed alone, and couldn’t stop. I buried my head under the quilts, but my aunt heard me. She woke up and told my uncle I was crying because the Holy Ghost had come into my life, and because I had seen Jesus. But I was really crying because I couldn’t bear to tell her that I had lied, that I had deceived everybody in the church, that I hadn’t seen Jesus, and that now I didn’t believe there was a Jesus anymore, since he didn’t come to help me.

A “Satanic” book in public school

Sandro Botticelli’s The Abyss of Hell

One evening, while waiting for my daughter to finish cheer practice at our local club, I was reading (or at least attempting to read) in the “quiet” room of our very busy, very loud, gymnasium; when two moms sitting across from me (and obviously not interested in following the quite room rules), struck up a, shall we say, not so quiet conversation.

They started off casually talking about their high-school aged girls and how each were doing in cheer, and then moved the conversation forward to how each were doing in school. I picked up fairly quickly that one of the moms was an actual high school teacher, and that she had found herself somewhat flummoxed if not downright alarmed, by her daughter’s recent reading assignment.

The teacher mom said to the other mom that her daughter had just been assigned a book to read that she felt, at least on initial inspection, was most probably Satanic. Excitedly, my ears perked up. What was originally unavoidable (and annoyed) eavesdropping on my part, turned quickly to heightened anticipation. Had a brave high school literature teacher assigned The Satanic Verses perhaps?  Or maybe this was one of “those” moms. You know, the One Million Moms type, who believed in her heart of hearts that reading Harry Potter was tantamount to occult worship.

The other mother was legitimately aghast at the notion.

The teacher mom continued with the gravest of tones. She described how her daughter had, almost without care, shared with her how this book goes in to very precise detail on the construction of Hell, very explicit punishments for certain types of sins and where those punishments take place, and even on the Devil himself!

Mom two was near apoplectic at this point. “You can’t be teaching no Devil worship in school!” she exclaimed. By now, I was a very active spectator in their conversation; as each had begun to look at me, expecting if not my verbal approval of their outrage, then certainly expecting to see some serious eyebrow raising and complicit head nodding from me.

Teacher mom had now grown almost forlorn at her impotence to stop the assignment. It seemed every student had been assigned the book and to teacher mom’s dismay, no other parents spoke up; no one else cared!  There would be no pitchfork attack of the school. The God-fearing parents among them were just going to have to exorcise the school induced demons from their poor angelic children after the assignment was finished.

By this point in their conversation I was barely able to conceal my laughter, and alas, I couldn’t stand the ignorance any longer. I butted in to what in my mind, was a sort of superhero sound track (maybe Mighty Mouse). Here I come to save the day! Composure now. Ahem.

“Do you happen to know the author?” I managed to inquire with an actor’s feigned concern.

They both looked at me hopefully, I’m sure thinking, “ah-ha, finally another concerned parent. Perhaps now we can rally the pitchforks for our noble cause and rid the public school system of this evil volume!”

Teacher mom said, “I think the name begins with a ‘D’.”

I questioned gently, “Hmmm, does “Dante” sound familiar?”

Light bulb. “Yes! That’s it!” She exclaimed, obviously excited that I was already aware of this Satanic text.

Slowly, methodically, I began to unwind their outrage. “Ok, well, your daughter is reading what we would call ‘a classic.’ Dante’s Inferno is one of three parts of his 13th century epic poem called Divine Comedy.”  I picked up some steam. “In Inferno, Dante was describing his vision of Hell based roughly on his knowledge and interpretation of Italian Christian theology at the time, but well beyond the beauty of the poem itself, the work is a cornerstone piece of Western literature; which incidentally, I too read in both high school and college and which I highly recommend you read as well.”

They both looked at me like I was speaking Dante’s Italian.

I clarified. “It’s OK. The book is old, famous, and not Satanic.” They gave me a somewhat patronizing, “oh…ok then,” and changed the subject.

I’m happy to report that the last time I checked the American Library Association’s list of banned and challenged classics, Dante’s Inferno was still not on the list, so maybe my explanation stuck after all.

Columnist suggests “gay lobby” success is due to redefinition of terms

For an example of the type of anti-gay “logic” that is happening in local newspapers, I would like to submit the following piece from Marietta Daily Journal columnist Roger Hines.

The Marietta Daily Journal – Gay lobby staying busy redefining terms.

Mr. Hines starts right out of the gate asserting the existence of a “gay lobby” (the supporters of which he reckons are “silver-tongued” devils no less). He writes,

“No silver-tongued devil will ever convince me that the majority of Americans favors the victories that the gay lobby has recently garnered, even though the number of those victories is impressive.”

Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name. I must admit the idea of a “gay lobby” sounds fantastic. I’m stereotyping of course, but I imagine it would be the most fit, well-dressed, and handsome lobby ever to tread their Berluti’s on the Capitol’s steps; subtly distinguished by the rainbow roses in their lapels!  But far from a small cadre of briefcase-totting lobbyists, I think it’s actually more likely to resemble millions of people from all walks of life, who are secure in their sexuality (hetero or homo) and who want to see their brothers and sisters have equal access to all of America’s great social institutions.

So now that Mr. Hines has created for as the gay lobby straw man, he proceeds to attack it as expected. And at least he does us the courtesy of not obfuscating his anti-gay bigotry. He continues,

“To my mind, it isn’t “rights” only that the gay lobby is pushing. It is pushing homosexuality. But why is the word “homosexuality” so seldom used by gay lobbyists? Because in spite of what corporate boards are doing, the word still causes most Americans to recoil.”

Recoil? really? How strangers express love and affection to each other causes other Americans to recoil? I’m pretty sure that gay people were busy being their homosexual selves all day yesterday and not once did I find myself suddenly recoiling at the notion. Nor did I recoil the day before that, or that, or that. In fact, I can’t remember a time when a stranger’s “gayness” (or “hetero-ness” for that matter) has factored in to my daily life.

At the risk of being painfully obvious, it would seem that outside of the gay community, the only group more obsessed with the love lives of gay people, are those religiously-inspired individuals who want to control the love lives of gay people!

It would appear that Mr. Hines’ main beef is that the gay community has mustered the audacity to start speaking in terms of “equality” and “rights” and that they are somehow being duplicitous by downplaying the word “homosexuality”…by substituting the word “gay.”  Careful you don’t hurt yourself with the face-palm that this mind-numbingly bizarre conclusion probably elicited. Yes, that surely that must be it.

Mr. Hines finally concludes his anti-gay analysis, by stumbling in to a defense of marriage as being little more than a vessel for procreation. One man and one woman in marriage is the only reasonable mechanism for sustaining the human race (and any chance we have for morality).  He contends that he is simply courageously protecting the one man/one woman construct that the Bible did such an awful job of describing in the first place.

Sure he cites his King James version of Genesis 1:27, but he neglected to include Genesis 16, where Abraham gets to knock up with his wife’s slave, Hagar, the one man/one wife/one slave construct. Or on to Genesis 19, where Lot’s family line is continued courtesy of his recoil-worthy incestuous relationship with his two daughters. The one father/two daughters construct (I think I just threw up a little).  Oh those family values.

Comment on the pastor who stiffed her server

Sometimes nothing short of an essay will do, but other times, a few words is all it takes.

No doubt by now you’ve heard the story of “Pastor” Alois Bell. She’s the customer who didn’t just stiff her sever at a St. Louis area Applebees, she explained “why” she stiffed her, by pointing out the disparate donation rates between pastoring and waiting tables.

A few days after I saw the story on reddit.com/r/atheism, I ran across an article on the Smoking Gun where the pastor apologized for the rude message she left on the receipt.

I jotted down my two cents on the piece’s Facebook comments section and moved on; little did I know that my gut reaction would get as of the time I hit publish on this post, just shy of 3000 likes! (Now if only I could figure out how to get that many blog and twitter followers…ahhh, the elusive voodoo that is social media).

Oh yes, here’s my comment – hope you like it too