tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12669850402902426632024-03-17T04:00:32.397-04:00ExChristian.NetEncouraging doubting, de-converting, deconstructing and former ChristiansDave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-16859084041205299382020-11-26T12:05:00.001-05:002020-11-26T12:05:37.930-05:00When Evidence Creates a Crisis of Faith<i>By Carl S ~ </i>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLhDH8CVdbwbR6Riz69IpkfXEdGO1ZZUr8-8WmLUykqss0RTiM-RFKQUsy660XXIDUb9nzc6KUG2xRKreaHbXguO44jAg7uq6SVymshM1FMmtU4DmODKYdLE4amYd40AZ55uKWZOA3lHk/s0/Cross-Flag-300x225.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLhDH8CVdbwbR6Riz69IpkfXEdGO1ZZUr8-8WmLUykqss0RTiM-RFKQUsy660XXIDUb9nzc6KUG2xRKreaHbXguO44jAg7uq6SVymshM1FMmtU4DmODKYdLE4amYd40AZ55uKWZOA3lHk/s0/Cross-Flag-300x225.jpg"/></a></div>
<span class="dropcap">G</span>ot some emails from a Fundamentalist Christian woman recently. They were products of fundy organizations. I couldn't download them, and told her so, adding: “If you voted for a man who ordered children must be torn from their parents arms and imprisoned, then shame on you.” Her response told me I had no business talking about voting for compassion (as I said in a letter to the editor),when I voted for a man who okayed “252 babies torn from their mothers wombs at birth, and having their limbs torn off.” I asked her to show me evidence for that, adding, “Don't send me any more b.s.” She answered, We are through; don't bother her any more. I responded, again, asking for evidence, and added, “666 children. Shame.” I understand she's another victim of a lie her president kept repeating. It's a shame she's suffering because of bullshit. She's very vulnerable because she's high-strung, and Christian media makes a hell of a lot of money by keeping its followers anxious. You ask yourself how do loving parents come across as indifferent to the sufferings of 666 traumatized imprisoned children? But what can you say to someone who worships a god who punishes children for the infractions of their parents, a god who commits genocide which includes drowning infants, children, and pregnant women? Her evangelical propaganda media exists to keep believers entertained, agitated and anxious. This “salvation” supplies a steady supply of uppers and downers.
<br /><br />
Only too many Christians and Catholics feel no shame about the evils they inflict. She is among the millions of already indoctrinated Americans who sincerely believe the b.s. her president repeatedly tells. It's preferable to believe in him than looking for the evidence, which, easily found, contradicts him. This is understandable. The Christian propaganda she unquestionably accepts is “repeating the lie so many times until it becomes the truth.” Blind addiction to lies is a habit called “faith.” Accepting evidence often creates a crisis of faith not only to unexamined beliefs, but to trust in that liar. She, and other true believers, won't go there.
<br /><br />
Now, what of Christians and their alleged loyalty to Jesus? I've debated both with myself and my friend, about why they believe things obviously not true. We have just about concluded: Because they want to. Facts can't move them. We're dealing with an intransigent tradition with millions of people rejecting facts and preferring to believe lies. Is Trump more popular than Jesus to them? Their actions support him, ignore his evils, and contradict their savior's teachings of mercy, compassion, and tolerance. They've sold their conscience to men who have none, and to one man who feeds hatred and is condemned by the Jesus of their gospels. He doesn't even need to conquer death, feed thousands, or raise the dead. He reminds me of Gore Vidal’s “Messiah,” the fictional John Cave, who inadvertently creates a new religion that replaces Christianity in the USA.
<br /><br />
<span class="pullquote"> The Christian propaganda she unquestionably accepts is “repeating the lie so many times until it becomes the truth.” Blind addiction to lies is a habit called “faith.”</span>
It's no surprise true believers throw their allegiance behind a man who preaches alternative realities, for Trump is just as familiar as a clergy member, priest, imam. and pope. What is the difference between his constantly repeating lies, making up shit without any evidence, and the patterns of religion? What are the differences between “Obama was not born in the USA, Moslems were dancing in the streets after 9/11, the election was rigged, Biden sanctioned newborns ripped out of the wombs of their mothers,” etc. and “born of a virgin, he rose from the dead, those who were buried came out of their graves, were seen walking by many, or that there were 500 witnesses of the risen Christ?” Do you see the pattern here? Irrationality became sacred. All of his ramblings and rantings, like those of religions, are claims to truths without an atom of evidence. And the believers are unaware: It's the same con. They're being exploited, think they're privy to special revelations, while following like sheep to the slaughter, even as they love being used.
<br /><br />
Religions are where the power of imagination triumphs over evidence. The most ardent believers insist the only important truth is in how the believer feels. The feelings of others who disagree, or who are of different opinions, are ignored, insulted, and where possible, suppressed. Evidence is destructive of faith and superstition and creates disruptive crises of faith those without faith can't understand. And we see the same reactions whenever evidence contradicts or challenges the faith this president's many followers exhibit, immersed as they are in his alternative reality, his unrelenting-tsunami-of-lies cult. This cult is the result of one more charismatic individual raised to adoration by an audience that can't get enough of him.
<br /><br />
The Trump Cult addiction will be with us for a long time for the same reasons Christianity survives. Will it, like the cults of Christ, Paul, Stalin, Koresh, etc, lead to violence? There are likely millions of people afraid of change, fearful of giving up their fantasies for constantly discovered real information about what is true and not. Will Christian Supremacists seek more power? When evidence creates a crisis of faith, faith rejects it. And we'll have to hold it to account by constantly pushing back with reality checks. Lots of luck. This also is reality.
Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-23012390001810984392019-01-24T11:17:00.000-05:002019-04-01T19:18:49.279-04:00The Righteousness and the Woke - Why Evangelicals and Social Justice Warriors Trigger Me in the Same Way<i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/cult-praying-.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="573" data-original-width="800" height="229" src="https://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/cult-praying-.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span class="dropcap">I</span> was Born Again until nearly the end of graduate school, a sincere Evangelical who went to church on Sunday and Wednesday with my family and to Thursday Bible study on my own. I dialed for converts during the “I Found It” evangelism campaign, served as a counselor at Camp Good News, and graduated from Wheaton College, Billy Graham’s alma mater. I know what it is to be an earnest believer among believers.<br />
<br />
I also know what it is to experience those same dynamics from the outside. Since my fall from grace, I’ve written a book, <em><a href="https://valerietarico.com/trusting-doubt/">Trusting Doubt</a></em>, and <a href="https://valerietarico.com/trusting-doubt/">several hundred articles</a> exposing harms from Evangelicalism—not just the content of beliefs but also <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2017/04/27/can-bacteria-help-us-understand-religion-part-1-the-brain-changing-power-of-religious-belief/">how they spread</a> and shape the <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2013/03/26/religious-trauma-syndrome-is-it-real/">psychology</a> of individuals and behavior of communities, doing damage in particular to women, <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2013/10/21/why-bible-believers-have-such-a-hard-time-getting-child-protection-right/">children</a>, and religious minorities.<br />
<br />
It occurred to me recently that my time in Evangelicalism and subsequent journey out have a lot to do with why I find myself reactive to the spread of Woke culture among colleagues, political soulmates, and friends. Christianity takes many forms, with Evangelicalism being one of the more single-minded, dogmatic, groupish and enthusiastic among them. The Woke—meaning progressives who have “awoken” to the idea that oppression is <em>the key concept</em> explaining the structure of society, the flow of history, and virtually all of humanity’s woes—share these qualities.<br />
<br />
To a former Evangelical, something feels too familiar—or better said, a bunch of somethings feel too familiar.<br />
<br />
<strong>Righteous and infidels—</strong>There are two kinds of people in the world: Saved and damned or Woke and bigots, and anyone who isn’t with you is against you*. Through the lens of dichotomizing ideologies, each of us is seen—first and foremost—not as a complicated individual, but as a member of a group, with moral weight attached to our status as an insider or outsider. (*exceptions made for potential converts)<br />
<br />
<strong>Insider jargon—</strong>Like many other groups, the saved and the Woke signal insider status by using special language. An Evangelical immediately recognizes a fellow tribe-member when he or she hears phrases like <em>Praise the Lord, born again, backsliding, stumbling block, give a testimony, a harvest of souls, </em>or <em>It’s not a religion; it’s a relationship. </em>The Woke signal their wokeness with words like <em>intersectionality, cultural appropriation, trigger warning, microaggression, privilege, fragility, problematic, </em>or<em> decolonization. </em>Jargon isn’t merely a tool for efficient or precise communication as it is in many professions, it is a sign of belonging and moral virtue.<br />
<br />
<strong>Born that way—</strong>Although theoretically anyone is welcome in either group, the social hierarchies in both Evangelical culture and Woke culture are defined largely by accidents of birth. The Bible lists privileged blood lines—the Chosen People—and teaches that men (more so than women) were made in the image of God. In Woke culture, hierarchy is determined by membership in traditionally oppressed tribes, again based largely on blood lines and chromosomes. Note that this is not about individual experience of oppression or privilege, hardship or ease. Rather, generic average oppression scores get assigned to each tribe and then to each person based on intersecting tribal identities. Thus, a queer female East Indian Harvard grad with a Ph.D. and E.D. position is considered more oppressed than the unemployed third son of a white Appalachian coal miner.<br />
<br />
<strong>Original sin—</strong>In both systems, one consequence of birth is inherited guilt. People are guilty of the sins of their fathers. In the case of Evangelicalism, we all are born sinful, deserving of eternal torture because of Eve’s folly—eating from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. In Woke culture, white and male people are born with blood guilt, a product of how dominant white and male people have treated other people over the ages, (which—it must be said—often has been <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2015/02/13/christianitys-painfully-mixed-track-record-on-slavery/">genuinely</a> <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2013/07/01/mysogynistquoteschurchfathers/">horrible</a><u>)</u>. Again, though, individual guilt isn’t about individual choices. A person born with original sin or blood guilt can behave badly and make things worse, but they cannot erase the inborn stain. (Note that this <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2018/03/30/political-narrative-ii-why-some-progressives-are-tearing-each-other-apart/">contradicts</a> core tenets of liberal, humanist, and traditional progressive thought.)<br />
<br />
<strong>Orthodoxies—</strong><em>The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Jesus died for your sins. Hell awaits sinners. Salvation comes through accepting Jesus as your savior. </em>If you are an Evangelical, doctrines like these must not be questioned. <em>Trust and obey for there’s no other way. </em>Anyone who questions core dogmas commits heresy, and anyone who preaches against them should be de-platformed or silenced. The Woke also have tenets of faith that must not be questioned. <em>Most if not all ills flow from racism or sexism</em>. <em>Only males can be sexist; only white people can be racist.</em> <em>Gender is culturally constructed and independent of sex. Immigration is an economic boon for everyone. Elevating the most oppressed person will solve problems all around. </em>Did my challenging that list make you think you might be reading an article by a conservative? If so, that’s exactly what I’m trying to illustrate.<br />
<br />
<strong>Denial as proof—</strong>In Evangelicalism, thinking you don’t need to accept Jesus as your savior is proof that you do. Your denial simply reveals the depth of your sin and hardness of heart. In Woke culture, any pushback is perceived as a sign of white fragility or worse, a sign that one is a racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, xenophobe, or transphobe. <em>You say that you voted for Barack Obama and your kids are biracial so your problem with BLM isn’t racism? LOL, that’s just what a racist would say. </em>In both cultures, the most charitable interpretation that an insider can offer a skeptic is something along these lines, <em>You seem like a decent, kind person. I’m sure that you just don’t understand. </em>Since Evangelical and Woke dogmas don’t allow for <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2019/01/i-stand-with-liberalism-against-the-critical-theory-domination-of-the-social-justice-movement/?fbclid=IwAR178vH56NEDTc3jGo6ZypnzKO2ufIP2b-LpTvbZUP9w1NIhd3Mt9rUC5vk">honest, ethical disagreement</a>, the only alternative hypothesis is that the skeptic must be an evildoer or bigot.<br />
<br />
<strong>Black and white thinking—</strong><em>If you are not for us, you’re against us. </em>In the Evangelical worldview we are all caught up in a spiritual war between the forces of God and Satan, which is playing out on the celestial plane. <em>Who is on the Lord’s side? </em>one hymn asks, because anyone else is on the other. Even mainline Christians—and especially Catholics—may be seen by Evangelicals as part of the enemy force. For many of the Woke, the equivalent of mainline Christians are <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2018/03/30/political-narrative-ii-why-some-progressives-are-tearing-each-other-apart/">old school social liberals</a>, like women who wear <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/01/10/pink-pussyhats-feminists-hats-womens-march/1013630001/">pink pussy hats</a>. Working for colorblindness, for example, is not just considered a suboptimal way of addressing racism (which is a position that people can make arguments for). Rather, it is itself a symptom of racism. And there’s no such thing as a moderate conservative. Both Evangelicals and the Woke argue that tolerance is bad. One shouldn’t tolerate evil or fascism, they say, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance">most people would agree</a>. The problem is that so many outsiders are considered either evil sinners or racist fascists. In this view, pragmatism and compromise are signs of moral taint.<br />
<br />
<strong>Shaming and shunning—</strong>The Woke don’t tar, feather and banish sinners, nor do they determine guilt by throwing bound people into bodies of water to see if they float like bad eggs (guilty) or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunking">sink</a><u> like good people should</u>. Neither—mercifully—do Christian puritans anymore. But public shaming and trial by ordeal <em>are </em>used by both clans to keep people in line. Some Christian leaders pressure members into ritual public confession. After all, as theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Nothing can be more cruel than the leniency which abandons others to their sin.” Shaming and shunning have ancient roots as tools of social control, and they elevate the status of the person or group doing the shaming. Maoist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session">struggle sessions</a> (forced public confessions) and Soviet <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism#Communist_states">self-criticism</a> are examples of extreme shaming in social-critical movements seeking to upend traditional power structures. So, it should be no surprise that some of the Woke show little hesitation when call-out opportunities present themselves—nor that they remain <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/opinion/call-out-social-justice.html">unrelentingly righteous</a> even when those call-outs leave a life or a family in ruins.<br />
<br />
<strong>Selective science denial—</strong>Disinterest in inconvenient truths—or worse, denial of inconvenient truths, is generally a sign that ideology is at play. Most of us on the left can rattle off a list of truths that Evangelicals find inconvenient. <em>The Bible is <a href="https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/08/19/an-incredible-interactive-chart-of-biblical-contradictions/">full of contradictions</a>. Teens are going to keep having sex. Species evolve. The Earth is four and a half billion years old. Climate change is caused by humans</em> (which suggests that God doesn’t have his hand on the wheel). <em>Prayer works, at best, at the margins of statistical significance. </em>But evidence and facts can be just as inconvenient for the Woke. <em>Gender dimorphism affects how we think, not just how we look.</em> <em>Personal responsibility has real world benefits, even for people who have the odds stacked against them. Lived experience is simply anecdotal evidence. Skin color is often a poor proxy for privilege. Organic foods won’t feed 11 billion. </em><br />
<br />
<strong>Evangelism—</strong>As infectious ideologies, Evangelicalism and Woke culture rely on both paid evangelists and enthusiastic converts to spread the word. Cru (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ) and related organizations tens of millions annually seeking converts on college campuses. But many outreach activities are led by earnest student believers. Critical Oppression Theory on campus has its epicenter in gender and race studies but has become a mainstay in schools of public health and law as well as the liberal arts. Once this becomes the dominant lens for human interactions, students police themselves—and each other. Nobody wants to be the ignoramus who deadnames a transgender peer or microaggresses against a foreign student by asking about their culture.<br />
<br />
<strong>Hypocrisy—</strong>Christianity bills itself as a religion centered in humility, but countervailing dogmas promote the opposite. It is hard to imagine a set of beliefs more arrogant than the following: <em>The universe was designed for humans. We uniquely are made in the image of God. All other creatures are ours to consume. Among thousands of religions, I happened to be born into the one that’s correct. The creator of the universe wants a personal relationship with me. </em>Where Evangelicalism traffics in hubris cloaked as humility, Woke culture traffics in racial and gendered discrimination cloaked as inclusion. Race- and gender-based hiring practices, social hierarchies, affinity groups, and funding flow. . .. Some of the Woke measure people by race and gender to a degree matched in the West only by MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) and white supremacists. The intent is to rectify old wrongs and current inequities, but the net result is disinterest in suffering that doesn’t derive from one tribe oppressing another.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">Ideology has an awe-inspiring power to forge identity and community, direct energy, channel rage and determination, love and hate.</span><strong>Gloating about the fate of the wicked—</strong>One of humanity’s uglier traits is that we like it when our enemies suffer. Some of the great Christian leaders and great justice warriors of history have inspired people to rise higher (think Desmond Tutu, Eli Wiesel, Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela). But neither Evangelicalism nor Woke culture consistently inspires members to transcend tribal vindictiveness because neither, at heart, calls members into our shared humanity. Some Christian leaders have actually <a href="https://www.bartleby.com/400/prose/293.html">proclaimed</a> that the suffering of the damned in hell heightens the joy of the saved in heaven. Some of the Woke curse those they see as fascists to burn in the very same Christian hell, metaphorically if not literally. They dream of restorative justice for criminal offenses but <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/opinion/call-out-social-justice.html">lifelong, ruinous retribution</a> for political sinners: Those hateful, racist Trump voters deserve whatever <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/">destitution</a> or illness may come their way. Unemployed young men in middle America are turning to Heroin? Too bad. Nobody did anything about the crack epidemic. Oil town’s on fire? Burn baby burn.<br />
<br />
I know how compelling those frustrated, vengeful thoughts can be, because I’ve had them. But I think that progressives can do better.<br />
<br />
Ideology has an awe-inspiring power to forge identity and community, direct energy, channel rage and determination, love and hate. It has been one of the most transformative forces in human history. But too often ideology in the hands of a social movement simply rebrands and redirects old self-centering impulses while justifying the sense that this particular fight is uniquely holy.<br />
<br />
Even so, social movements and religions—including those that are misguided—usually emerge from an impulse that is deeply good, the desire to create wellbeing in world that is more kind and just, one that brings us closer to humanity’s multi-millennial dream of broad enduring peace and bounty. This, too, is something that the Righteous and the Woke have in common. Both genuinely aspire to societal justice—small s, small j—meaning not the brand but the real deal. Given that they often see themselves at opposite ends of the spectrum, perhaps that is grounds for a little hope.<br />
<br />
<em>I would like to thank Dan Fincke for his input on this article, and Marian Wiggins for her generous editorial time. </em><br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: #333333;">Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of</span></i><em><a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937">Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</a> and <a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas">Deas and Other Imaginings</a>, and the founder of <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/">www.WisdomCommons.org</a>. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including The Huffington Post, Salon, The Independent, Free Inquiry, The Humanist, AlterNet, Raw Story, Grist, Jezebel, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Subscribe at <a href="https://awaypoint.wordpress.com/">ValerieTarico.com</a>.</em> Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-48964887597613079162018-07-20T12:24:00.003-04:002018-09-08T19:09:01.724-04:00Yahweh takes over fertility… and women’s rights<i>By Karen Garst, PhD ~ </i><br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmIE8PMhvHFHDsAQqnpHfF_tKQd1en19ZRPKyhJ3TLCBnouFiCDZsWFfbwwzMyfoYOS4ik9HdlyuzHRVO90fUTQFL2rTrtO5RaWE6HOZmZg83PK_MIWMJzZt0Hxmo-To2ry1eg4FdEs7I/s1600/AdobeStock_25230405.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1511" data-original-width="1600" height="302" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmIE8PMhvHFHDsAQqnpHfF_tKQd1en19ZRPKyhJ3TLCBnouFiCDZsWFfbwwzMyfoYOS4ik9HdlyuzHRVO90fUTQFL2rTrtO5RaWE6HOZmZg83PK_MIWMJzZt0Hxmo-To2ry1eg4FdEs7I/s320/AdobeStock_25230405.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="dropcap">C</span>lay figurines from 50,000 years ago may be our earliest example of the human understanding of the importance of childbearing. If the clan or tribe didn’t reproduce itself, it would not survive. Most of these clay figurines are of women. The ones with large bellies or breasts might have been made to resemble pregnant or breastfeeding women. How they were used in the life of the tribe will never be fully known, but it is not far-fetched to say they in some way show the awe and mystery about human life.</span></span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-1daf3dbb-b880-8743-e554-1bb8626342a3" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Fast forward to 10,000 years ago to the development of agriculture. Fertility of the earth becomes as important of the fertility of the tribe. If the crops don’t grow, people die. Similar female figurines continue to be found in the earliest settlements where agriculture was practiced. Eventually, a pantheon of gods becomes the norm and it is usual the female deity that assume the role of fertility. The Greek goddess Demeter is known as the grain goddess for her role in propitiating the harvest. Ceres fulfills the same role in Roman mythology. Juno is the Roman goddess of marriage and childbirth equivalent to the Greek goddess Hera. And the list goes on.</span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">However, when monotheism is developed by the Israelites in Canaan, a curious switch begins to occur. Because the Israelite god, Yahweh, is portrayed as a male and the only god to be worshipped, the goddesses disappear. Human mythmaking up to this point had always acknowledged the role of the female as vitally important. It is she who gives birth. But there are several instances in the Torah, or Old Testament as it is known in Christianity, where the male god takes over this role by making barren women give birth. Both Sarah and Abraham were elderly and had no children. In this instance, god “intervened” and caused Sarah to bear a child who was Isaac. Isaac’s wife was also barren. After twenty years of marriage, god again intervened and twins were born to Rebekkah, one of which god loved and the other he hated. The New Testament repeats this theme when Elizabeth bore John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit comes to Mary and lets her know she too will bear a child without the intervention of a human male.</span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">While the theme of god’s intervention in childbirth is used to foretell a story of great leaders of the Israelites in the Old Testament, it also is used to show that there is no need for a female deity for this purpose, the male god can handle it. But what is the impact of these stories? Not only are female goddesses eliminated, but the male god even usurps the women’s role in bringing forth new life. This is a far cry from the revered role played by women in other myths. Does this impact women? Of course it does. Does it further reinforce the patriarchy which dominates the Judeo-Christian tradition? Of course it does. </span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Just look at how this mythology influences our politics today. This is just a sample from this week’s news:</span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/15/jeff-sessions-bible-immigration-debate-over-romans-13-sparked-fort-wayne-indy-area-experts-react/704400002/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: blue; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Attorney Jeff Sessions</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> used Romans 13 to justify the separation of children from their parents who cross the border with Mexico illegally.</span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Christian Right wants to get rid of the </span><a href="https://newrepublic.com/minutes/146311/christian-right-facing-rare-trump-era-setback" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: blue; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Johnson amendment</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> that prohibits clergy from using their pulpits to endorse political candidates. </span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is a continuous debate whether the United States is a </span><a href="https://collegevilleinstitute.org/bearings/america-christian-nation/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: blue; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Christian Nation.”</span></a></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/06/focus-on-the-family-former-employees-are-outraged-that-the-evangelical-nonprofit-isnt-focusing-on-families-at-the-border.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: blue; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Focus on the Family</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> characterizes Planned Parenthood with the following: “The Most Dangerous Place for a Child to Be Is Inside the Womb of a Woman Inside a Planned Parenthood Clinic” while others focus on the ripping of children from immigrant parents.</span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://canadafreepress.com/article/two-christian-universities-win-suit-against-obama-abortion-mandate" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: blue; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Two universities</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> win suit against Obama abortion mandate in the Affordable Care Act.</span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I often state that religion is the last cultural barrier to gender equality. If you want some facts to back up that claim, just look at the United States’ standing in relation to issues like pay equity. Iceland, one of the world’s least religious country, has one of the best records on pay equity between men and women. </span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What can you do about it? Are you an atheist? Does your family know? Do you talk about the mythology of all religions with friends? If we want to change the focus of the United States away from religion, we are all going to have to do our part. Join me in this effort.</span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Karen L. Garst</span></span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">June 23, 2018</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><br />
</span></div>
Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-36888867853784607722018-07-20T12:21:00.001-04:002018-08-05T13:10:05.587-04:00Women v. Religion: The Case Against Faith – and for Freedom – Biology – Abby Hafer<i>By Karen Garst, PhD ~ </i><br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVjJpXwOJMGO0YtDjKhh3gtzpQHMltrtnys5jWEwCe94We9PEXADOC8QwVIATRuW9wCKYg5wo5dAsHV4Ik2Ve94a8xtS5UH9_vIkGtuY1Keoh50NVCiLkyRARC-sDq2_3MehgquZLudpI/s1600/AdobeStock_72266052+%25281%2529.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVjJpXwOJMGO0YtDjKhh3gtzpQHMltrtnys5jWEwCe94We9PEXADOC8QwVIATRuW9wCKYg5wo5dAsHV4Ik2Ve94a8xtS5UH9_vIkGtuY1Keoh50NVCiLkyRARC-sDq2_3MehgquZLudpI/s320/AdobeStock_72266052+%25281%2529.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="dropcap">H</span>ad I been a more adventurous young woman or born at a later time, I am sure that I would have pursued biology as my field of study. I remember learning about evolution in my ninth grade science class in the 60s. I was hooked. I wrote a paper about early man – Australopithecus erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis, etc. that I held on to into late adulthood. As I was still a practicing Lutheran at the time, I rationalized that god probably breathed the substance of life into Neanderthal or maybe Cro Magnon. To this day, my husband and I watch many documentaries about the rise of mankind and I enjoy them thoroughly. </span></span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-c4ab31bd-b87d-9e6f-0580-b5e8a5e7a66c" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Abby Hafer followed up on her passion for biology and became a university professor. She is also an atheist and writes an intriguing (and quite humorous) essay for my new anthology – </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Women v. Religion: The Case Against Faith – and for Freedom</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. I don’t want to reveal too much about what she wrote but the first section completely dispels the belief that the first creature was a male. And if you think the animal kingdom is composed of only binary sexes of male and female, you are sorely mistaken. There is one creature that comes in seven sexes. Thus, one type can mate with the other six. Let’s hear it for a free for all! Uffda, as we used to say in North Dakota.</span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The points Abby makes in her essay about women’s bodies are spot on. As you well know, many Christians believe in an “Intelligent Designer.” Vice-President Mike Pence is quoted as one of these believers.</span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; padding: 0pt 0pt 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I believe that God created the known universe, the earth and everything in it, including man, and I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rational explanation for the known universe.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The truth of the matter, is quite the opposite, however. As Abby explains, evolution has only one concern – perpetuating a species. Virtually every change that occurs from one generation to the next is random and only the changes that improve survival are the ones that are likely to survive. In the case of women, there were a number of conundrums. As early man started to walk upright, the pelvis became narrower. I guess it’s hard to walk on two feet with big hips. Who knew? They also developed a larger brain case. Other animal species can wean their offspring in a short amount of time, but for humans, that just wasn’t possible. Why? Because as the pelvis became narrower and the brain case larger, women adapted to giving birth to less mature infants so that she could actually give birth to them. So if you remember having pain during childbirth and having to diaper your child for two years, this is why. Even today, giving birth is not a walk in the park. Abby points out the number of women, even here in the United States, that used to die in childbirth. In the early 1900s, six to nine women died for every thousand live births.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In undeveloped countries such as Afghanistan today, it is much higher – a woman had a one in thirty-four chance of dying as a result of pregnancy over the course of her life in 2010.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But there are other flaws as well. You may have heard of the word fistula. It refers to a rupture in the tissue in the birth canal that occurs during prolonged childbirth. Unfortunately, the digestive system and urinary system are nearby which can results in leaks into the vagina. With the advent of modern medicine, a caesarean section is often performed when labor lasts a long time in order to avoid a fistula. However, where it is not, the condition can lead to death or incontinence, shaming, and sometimes even banishment of the woman. Fortunately, there are clinics set up by charitable organizations in some countries that can correct the damage done and restore a decent life to these women. Abby would say that an Intelligent Designer has some explaining to do to these women.</span></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></b> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Abby also explores the issue of abortion. Conservative religious people are opposed to all forms of abortion, but they don’t often pause to realize how often “god” causes abortions. It is not uncommon at all for an egg that is fertilized not to implant on the uterine wall or for an implanted embryo to detach early on from the wall. And as most women already know, miscarriages are all too common. If you have heard that god is the biggest abortionist, you’ll learn why in this essay.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span> <br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Abby discusses many other issues related to the ones listed above. I hope that you will have a chance to read the full essay in </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Women-v-Religion-Against-Faith_and/dp/1634311701/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0563c1; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Women v. Religion: The Case Against Faith – and for Freedom</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></span></div>
Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-82889152209247446732018-06-03T12:30:00.003-04:002018-06-24T17:35:41.743-04:00What if Trump went to your church?<i>By John Draper ~ </i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNj7aylPpDXqwm2gbtDbTTS_MU4wHodlOCzUrrkBk-a73FW8PlruZPMrtov1nQ0upVVfTl2fzdlGUZt4Nasif0JNhOcEMh3Azkf31KpsSZnYnsVvYJUqd_mvOscMw_mNp1zurO7R5E5IE/s1600/trump-with-snakes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="489" data-original-width="1000" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNj7aylPpDXqwm2gbtDbTTS_MU4wHodlOCzUrrkBk-a73FW8PlruZPMrtov1nQ0upVVfTl2fzdlGUZt4Nasif0JNhOcEMh3Azkf31KpsSZnYnsVvYJUqd_mvOscMw_mNp1zurO7R5E5IE/s320/trump-with-snakes.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span class="dropcap">M</span>y ex-brother-in-law is a Trump supporter. Other than that, he’s a great guy. I helped “lead him to the Lord” about 40 years ago. He was zealous then and he’s zealous now, deacon at his church and all. He loves the Lord.<br />
<br />
However, he also loves Trump. To give you a little context, he also loves Benny Hinn.<br />
<br />
Anyway, since he’s my ex-brother-in-law, I don’t have to endure holiday gatherings listening to him say Trump is the greatest thing since Benny Hinn.<br />
<br />
But there’s no way of drowning out the evangelical clamor for Trump in the media. They won’t shut up about him. I can’t help but wonder:<br />
<br />
What would they do if Trump was a member of their church—right over there, sitting in the front pew? See? Right there. See the bald spot?<br />
<br />
I know what they’d do, and I know because I was a zealous Christian for 35 years. I know what they would do—because I know what I would have done.<br />
<br />
Long story short: They wouldn’t put up with his nonsense.<br />
<br />
New Christians—and supposedly Trump converted to Christianity right around the time he undertook his quest for the White House—are treated in a very specific way by longtime believers. Taken under the wing.<br />
<br />
They would explain to him that as a Christian, he is a disciple of Jesus Christ and, as such, his calling is to live like Jesus did. What Would Jesus Do? as the wristbands say.<br />
<br />
And when Trump would start acting like a heathen—blaming others for his mistakes, exaggerating his importance and his accomplishments, not just criticizing people who criticized him but sticking in the knife and twisting it a good turn or two—Trump’s discipler would take Trump aside and lovingly explain that a disciple must follow the advice of scripture:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. Philippians 2:3-4</blockquote>
<br />
They would cut Trump a lot of slack, sure. They’d know that “the flesh is willing but the spirit is weak.” They’d tell themselves that they’re not ones to judge. But for the grace of God, I could be the most powerful man in the world. Imagine the pressures he’s under!<br />
<br />
But if Trump kept acting like an unbeliever, at a certain point they would start getting tough. If Trump wouldn’t change, they’d jettison him. After all:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 1 Cor. 5:11</blockquote>
<br />
Specifically, they’d whip out the Matthew 18 Process, so called because it comes from this verse:<br />
<br />
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Matthew 18:16-17.<br />
<br />
I’ve actually seen the Matthew 18 Process done. At a church I attended about 30 years ago, an assistant pastor was “caught in an adulterous affair.” The head pastor went to him, but he wouldn’t budge. So they took two people and confronted him. Nothing. So they called a special nighttime meeting of the entire church. At the meeting, the pastor called out this guy by name and commanded him to repent. I was actually sitting right next to him. When the pastor issued his ultimatum, the adulterer stuck his finger in his ear, wiggled it around, and then pulled it out to see what he got. He walked out unrepentant, and so we would have nothing more to do with him. If we were walking down the aisle at the grocery and saw him coming our way, we’d turn around and walk away—or turn our backs and pretend we were busying ourselves choosing a breakfast cereal. Hmmm, can’t do Count Chocula. He looks too much like Satan.<br />
<br />
That’s it! That’s what evangelicals should do. Shun Trump. Hard medicine, yes, but in the best interests of his soul.<br />
<br />
Not likely. To them, he’s not just the president. He’s God’s anointed.<br />
<br />
Jesus must be turning over in his grave.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://johndraperauthor.com/">http://johndraperauthor.com/</a>Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-66805853131228359892018-01-01T12:00:00.000-05:002018-02-03T13:50:00.226-05:00No, Birth Control Isn't Dangerous--But Guess Who Wants You to Think It Is?<i>By Valerie Tarico ~</i><br />
<br />
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="240" src="https://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/birth-control-options.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="320" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Headlines and hype can leave women wondering<br />
what’s real and how best to take care of their health.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<span class="dropcap">L</span>ast week, several news outlets including <em>The New York Times</em> ran <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F12%2F06%2Fhealth%2Fbirth-control-breast-cancer-hormones.html%3F_r%3D0&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3ea268e3c2f5460d8de708d53d981c68%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636482645869553142&sdata=qYhgJg6Lp16G1Zi4Ws0u3%2FpvKFQRllSCDA254BlfG6o%3D&reserved=0">articles</a> about a Danish <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nejm.org%2Fdoi%2Ffull%2F10.1056%2FNEJMoa1700732&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3ea268e3c2f5460d8de708d53d981c68%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636482645869553142&sdata=F4TQZdJyPGK%2FgMmTEsyiQ8IMHxQHE03EuBiMQSys2XI%3D&reserved=0">study</a> examining birth control and breast cancer. The headlines were alarming, but the actual level of risk was less so: After examining millions of bits of data, the researchers found one extra case of cancer for every <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fhealth%2Fhealth-news%2Feven-modern-birth-control-pills-raise-breast-cancer-risk-n827086&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3ea268e3c2f5460d8de708d53d981c68%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636482645869553142&sdata=YU%2BGuynrRKuFz%2Fem2UlUljiASiqwQIVvuYDoBsRyLYI%3D&reserved=0">7690</a> women using the Pill for a year. Not terribly newsworthy. That represented an increase of 20 percent but, as Mia Gaudet, an epidemiologist with the American Cancer Society told <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Fsections%2Fhealth-shots%2F2017%2F12%2F06%2F568836583%2Feven-low-dose-contraceptives-slightly-increase-breast-cancer-risk-study-finds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3ea268e3c2f5460d8de708d53d981c68%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636482645869553142&sdata=fQTDV9L3yhMDSbZwiz3FPuSIY99dZYsqDKn%2FKkDGySA%3D&reserved=0">NPR</a>, “A 20 percent increase of a very small number is still a very small number.”<br />
<br />
Is the link real? Probably. Doctors have long noted a detectable association between breast cancer and reproductive hormones including estrogen and progestins. Should you stop taking your pills or swap out your hormonal IUD for a hormone-free copper one? Probably not—not if you want to be as healthy as possible and save parenthood for when you feel ready.<br />
<br />
According to Dr. Daniel Grossman at the University of California, “The breast cancer risk is only part of the story. We also know that hormonal contraception protects against several other cancers, while also sharply reducing the risk of dying during pregnancy. Studies that have looked at all causes of death find lower mortality among pill users compared to other women.”<br />
<br />
Which birth control is best for you depends on a bunch of factors because each contraceptive has its own profile of pros and cons, likelihood of actually working as birth control, potential side effects, and—for some methods—<a href="https://valerietarico.com/2014/12/12/robert-hatcher-ten-bonus-health-benefits-of-birth-control/">bonus health benefits</a>.<br />
<br />
Here are a few facts that might help you decide which birth control method is for you:<br />
<ul>
<li><strong>Contraceptives differ wildly in terms of how well they work for real world couples. </strong>Unless you are a perfect person, forget what you’ve heard about the Pill being 98 percent effective or the rhythm method being just as good when either is used perfectly. In other words, skip the “perfect use” statistics and look instead at how well different methods work for normal people. In the real world, "natural" methods based on episodic abstinence are at the bottom of the reliability pyramid; about a quarter of couples using these methods get pregnant each year. (Yes, that’s <a href="http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CTFailureTable.pdf">1 in 4</a>, and despite what teachers may have told you in middle school, pledging full-on abstinence works even less well.) <img alt="Bedsider-Birth-Control-Effectiveness-Poster" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4683" height="476" src="https://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/bedsider-birth-control-effectiveness-poster.jpg" width="640" /><br />
At the top of the reliability pyramid are the “get it and forget it methods” – IUDs and implants that have an annual pregnancy rate of less than <a href="http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CTFailureTable.pdf">1 in 500</a>.<br />
<br />
In between abstinence and implants lie hormonal methods like the Pill, patch and ring; and below them on the reliability scale lie barriers like condoms and diaphragms. Most couples find it hard to use an everyday or every-time contraceptive method perfectly, so couples relying on the pill or barrier methods end up facing a surprise pregnancy with surprising frequency: 1 in 11 each year on the pill; 1 in 6 with condoms. If you’d strongly prefer not having to choose between an unexpected abortion and an unexpected kid, which method you choose is a big deal.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><strong>Only condoms and female condoms protect against sexually transmitted infections.</strong> Because of how they work—by getting your body to seal off the opening to the uterus—hormonal IUDs may offer some protection against pelvic infections. Intermittent abstinence methods like the rhythm method reduce opportunities for transmitting infections. And a ring that protects against HIV and other viruses is in clinical trials. But condoms are the only thing that provides substantial protection against most STIs. So, even if you choose something that works, say, 100 times better for pregnancy prevention, it’s still smart to “double Dutch” with condoms whenever STIs might be a risk.</li>
<li><strong>Net-net, hormonal birth control methods give some protection against cancers.</strong> The same methods that appear to slightly increase breast cancer risk also appear to slightly decrease the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers and possibly cancer of the gastro-intestinal tract. In other words, if your method of choice is the pill, patch, ring, or hormonal IUDs, your total cancer risk is likely lower than it would have been with a non-hormonal birth control method or none at all. A list of other bonus health benefits including cancer protection by method can be found <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2014/12/12/robert-hatcher-ten-bonus-health-benefits-of-birth-control/">here</a>.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><strong>No one method is right for all women. </strong>Women with a history of breast cancer should actually not use hormonal birth control methods; in fact post-chemo medications like Tamoxifen work by suppressing related hormones below their natural level. Other health conditions like diabetes or heart disease can also rule out some methods for some women. And lastly, no medication is 100 percent risk free; there are people among us who have intense reactions to milk or peanut butter. The same is true for synthetic hormones. Even when that is not the case, nuisance side effects can be miserable, and it’s not possible to know who will get hit with what except by trial and error.<br />
<br />
Individual differences also dictate which bonus health benefits a woman might select. My daughters love their hormonal IUDs because they like having lighter, less frequent periods, but because of migraines I use a copper IUD. A friend with severe monthly cramps and bleeding found that the implant worked best to reduce her symptoms even though hormonal IUDs are most often prescribed for this purpose. Women who want the bonus benefit of reducing acne often choose pills containing estrogen; women with endometriosis often choose a method that suppresses menstrual cycling.<br />
<br />
You don’t have to remember all of this. Good teamwork between your healthcare provider and you means that he or she brings to the table medical expertise, including expertise about how different birth control methods work. You bring expertise on your priorities and what has and hasn’t worked for you in the past. Never forget: It’s your body and your life and your provider is your paid consultant.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><strong>Not contracepting or using less effective methods carries a different set of health and mental health risks. </strong>Having a baby-capable reproductive system is complicated, and it carries a package of inherent risks. In the United States, about 800 women each year die from complications of pregnancy and childbearing (that is one pregnant woman in 5780), and tens of thousands are left with short-term or permanent health impacts.<br />
<br />
Mental health can be affected by the pregnancy process itself or the subsequent challenges of raising kids under adverse circumstances. For a woman who wants a child, these risks are well worth it; but about half of pregnancies, including those that created health problems, were unsought. Being able to delay or limit pregnancy and bring kids into the world with a parenthood partner you love when you feel ready has huge health benefits.</li>
</ul>
Birth control isn’t perfect, and hopefully the options available to our daughters (and sons!) will be better than those available today. But we have options that our mothers and grandmothers could only have dreamed of. An array of reliable methods means that there’s at least one excellent choice for most women.<br />
<br />
So, why must we deal with repeated cycles of media-driven panic that leave us doubting ourselves and our birth control choices, or worse—anxiously avoiding the topic until we face a pregnancy scare? Unfortunately, drug companies have burned trust by trivializing or denying medication problems when they do occur. That can leave us all feeling vigilant and primed to suspect greed-driven cover-ups. In the case of contraception, they also burned trust by testing early, high-dose contraceptives on poor women, many of them Black, which created a deep wariness that persists to this day. But even when pharma and regulatory agencies are doing their jobs well and serving the public interest, several other groups have reason to exploit that mistrust—and in particular to hype any side effect or risk that might be associated with birth control.<br />
<br />
Top of the list, of course are anti-contraception bishops, Protestant fundamentalists, and other cultural conservatives who would rather see women in more traditional roles with less sexual autonomy. These folks have now rolled out a <a href="https://psmag.com/magazine/new-war-on-birth-control">massive anti-family-planning campaign in Africa</a> to scare women away from birth control, a campaign framed around anti-colonialism and purported health risks. (At the very worst are priests who have told African parishioners that condoms cause HIV.) This campaign spills over in the U.S. because it was founded, honed and funded in religious organizations here.<br />
<br />
Then there is a whole <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2014/11/19/how-americas-obsession-with-bad-birth-control-hurts-and-even-kills-women/">legal sector</a> whose revenues depend on “bad birth control” class action suits. This sector, which came into being in the 1970s has more advertising options and dollars than do public health advocates who are trying to get out solid, unbiased information about family planning options. Their scary ads dominate the airwaves in some areas of the country and for some women are the primary source of information about birth control.<br />
<br />
Alternative medicine advocates go out of their way to tout the upsides of natural products and the downsides of mainstream evidence-based medicine, including contraceptives. Most of the time this advocacy is benign, even if the alternative approach doesn’t rely on controlled research. But when it comes to sexual health that isn’t necessarily the case. Our bodies are optimized to produce the maximum number of surviving offspring who live to reproduce, not to maximize our own health and longevity—or even theirs. Nature’s way, as celebrity cases like the <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2015/01/09/who-aborts-the-most-fertilized-eggs-families-like-the-duggars/">Duggars</a> remind us, means lots of babies—with women’s lives structured around them.<br />
<br />
But what about <em>The New York Times</em>? Because of how media traffic works, opinion writers and even trained journalists are under constant pressure to find the most provocative angles on any given topic. With competition for ad revenues driving competition for click count, that pressure is only growing. Social media increasingly operate as “outrage generators,” and traditional news outlets often compete by printing what’s most alarming rather than stories that land in the solid center of what’s real. <em>The New York Times</em> has experienced a surge in paid subscriptions from people who would prefer a different set of journalistic priorities, but that doesn’t make them--especially the headline writers--immune from these pressures. Until the consuming public at large wearies of hype, we all need to be mindful of the ways that these dynamics are pulling us off balance.<br />
<br />
The centering point of reproductive health is this: Women, children, and even men do best when people are able to decide whether, when, and with whom to bring a child into the world—when parents are able to build resources like education and financial stability and then form families with co-parents of their choosing when the time feels right. Modern contraceptives can help them do this, and when freely chosen by each person according to their needs and goals, can pay dividends in health and wellbeing. That is awe inspiring if you think about it; and someday, when we all regain our equilibrium, it may again be newsworthy.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<i>Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of </i><a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937"><em>Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas"><em>Deas and Other Imaginings</em></a><em>, and the founder of </em><a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/"><em>www.WisdomCommons.org</em></a><em>. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including AlterNet, Salon, the Huffington Post, Grist, and Jezebel. Subscribe at </em><a href="https://awaypoint.wordpress.com/"><em>ValerieTarico.com</em></a><em>.</em> <span class="pullquote"></span>Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-16940068818972100032017-12-10T15:08:00.002-05:002018-01-01T12:02:33.473-05:00VOTE BIBLE?<i>By Steven Dustcircle ~ </i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG8NtLni9Dmug_hF2lJhrrNwiZKi9CzkYMQN-R13ev-wNpkt3v77KF2UK9o1-cTozmpshxq9jRKr-gLzkJ_lpMqSHEYOW_GP44fr_WsRla7vlbLweOm5fVlK8liGxfa1_5dj1MKIYXXSg/s1600/votejesus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="450" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG8NtLni9Dmug_hF2lJhrrNwiZKi9CzkYMQN-R13ev-wNpkt3v77KF2UK9o1-cTozmpshxq9jRKr-gLzkJ_lpMqSHEYOW_GP44fr_WsRla7vlbLweOm5fVlK8liGxfa1_5dj1MKIYXXSg/s320/votejesus.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span class="dropcap">O</span>n the way to the gym, I drive by this house that has a weird display.<br />
<br />
For years, this rickety, little house has a weathering paint job, rusty vintage vehicles, and a roughly constructed wooden cross shoved into a hole in the ground. Across the crossbeam are crudely-painted, blue capital letters reading, VOTE BIBLE.<br />
<br />
Perhaps—like myself—you've already mentally pictured the type of person that would do this. You've drawn him or her, or a couple and their kids, in your head. Like me, maybe you've put together their theology or how they would debate you considering religious matters. Maybe you've put together their voting patterns and maybe what kind of work they do, or what kind of health they are in.<br />
<br />
I mean, really, what kind of person puts a homemade Etsy reject in the front of their property, to face a fairly busy street of traffic for everyone to see.<br />
<br />
VOTE BIBLE<br />
<br />
What does that even mean? Any theologian—and layman—would tell you that the Bible has varying degrees of different views and stances. This isn't only because of the mistakes and inconsistencies, but also because the Bible cover to cover isn't constructed as a guide for behavior (or how to vote!).<br />
<br />
Most of the Bible is a collection of stories set in a supposed historical context. While some of the book is a collection of poetry, genealogies and letters, most of it is about people in one part of the world (in a period of 4000 years) behaving badly, claiming to be People of God. Within the Bible are sadly many instances of murder, incest, rape, child abuse, plural marriage, drunkenness and more. These tales, true or not, are passed off as how the forefathers of Judaism and eventually Christianity acted in history. Yes, the People of God.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">What does that mean, to VOTE BIBLE?</span>So, let's get back to that painted cross in my city. What does that mean, to VOTE BIBLE?<br />
<br />
Vote for murder? Vote for child rape? Vote for slavery? Vote for pillaging foreigners' lands?<br />
<br />
I doubt that this is the intent of the crafters at this particular residence. They probably mean to vote for “morality.” Vote for convictions. Vote for whichever candidate that claims to be the more robust Christian.<br />
<br />
I assume that this is what they mean, but I am still quite embarrassed for them.<br />
<br />
While I kind of see where they are coming from, the ignorance that they are displaying for the whole city to read is rather numbing. To try and show off how spiritual they are—how godly they are—they are instead making themselves look foolish.<br />
<br />
Sure they think they might look like a beacon of light to those who don't know any better, but for those of us who have read and studied the actual Bible cover to cover—over long periods of time (and with other scholars)—they are showing nothing in boldness but their bare asses.<br />
Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-57540955130046229062017-12-10T14:47:00.005-05:002018-01-01T12:04:45.576-05:00Alabama Conservatives are Right: Roy Moore’s Behavior is Perfectly Biblical<i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_izlheb5svHqq4U9NU5jSXn2sYJ3Sq8QiSlMQRo4bAm7VLB2BxW8TaV3w8i7mi6KlqGal8MdFrx3bAq27dpiF_lrkoA2gkOY3vIQgCTZE3PoHRMDC4maAy0uhXapgV8iQXpFdQnjDJrQ/s1600/roymoore.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="401" data-original-width="534" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_izlheb5svHqq4U9NU5jSXn2sYJ3Sq8QiSlMQRo4bAm7VLB2BxW8TaV3w8i7mi6KlqGal8MdFrx3bAq27dpiF_lrkoA2gkOY3vIQgCTZE3PoHRMDC4maAy0uhXapgV8iQXpFdQnjDJrQ/s320/roymoore.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span class="dropcap">C</span>onservative Christians often proclaim that the Quran encourages marriage and molestation of girls who are too young for consent. But it’s rare that they take to the airwaves proclaiming that the Bible does the same. By citing the Bible and Christian tradition in defense of Roy Moore, that is exactly what they have done. And their arguments have merit.<br />
<br />
Moore is a former Alabama judge, now senate candidate, who believes emphatically that the Bible should take precedence over the U.S. constitution and American tradition of jurisprudence. He fought long and hard to keep his preferred version of the Ten Commandments—carved in stone—on display in the state supreme court. Moore boldly proclaims his allegiance to the Bible, citing verses at will. So, when he was accused recently of making unwanted sexual advances toward several young teens while a lawyer in his 30s, people accused him of hypocrisy. But if Moore’s only transgression was exploiting his greater age and status to seek sex or intimacy from teenagers, the accusation is unfair. Such behavior is perfectly biblical.<br />
<br />
<strong>1. In the Bible, females are created for the benefit of males. </strong>A man’s right to expect that females will serve his needs and desires is established on literally Page 2 of the Bible, in the <a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Genesis+2">second creation story</a> in the book of Genesis. In this version of creation, Eve is made from Adam’s rib to be his “helpmeet” because none of the other animals is a suitable companion and helper for him. The next chapter, the well-known serpent-and-“apple” story, reveals even more about how the writers and their culture view women. After Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God punishes Eve with a curse, saying: “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A16&version=NRSV">Genesis 3:16</a>)<br />
<br />
This brief passage distills three core components of Judeo-Christian attitudes toward women that persisted down through <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2012/03/09/15-bible-texts-reveal-why-gods-own-party-is-at-war-with-women/">the rest of the Bible</a> and through <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2013/07/01/mysogynistquoteschurchfathers/">the words of Church fathers</a>, and into many modern day pulpits: 1. Discomfort or pain women feel around sexuality and childbearing are inevitable, even morally proper. 2. Regardless, women really want it. 3. Men are in charge.<br />
<br />
<strong>2. In the Bible, female consent is not a thing. </strong>The Bible talks about a lot of sexual couplings and marriages, and it gives a lot of <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2012/03/29/captive-virgins-polygamy-sex-slaves-what-marriage-would-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/">options</a> for the form that these relations can take—a man and a slave, a man and his brother’s wife, one man and two sisters, a man and hundreds of female concubines. Most of these can be found only in the Old Testament—the Bible shows clear evidence of cultural evolution over the centuries in which its texts were written—but nowhere in either the Old Testament or the New does a Bible writer communicate that a woman’s consent is needed before sex. (The Virgin Birth story itself <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2014/12/16/its-not-rape-if-hes-a-god/">reflects this moral-cultural nexus</a>.)<br />
<br />
On the contrary. <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2015/03/24/children-as-chattel-what-religious-child-abuse-and-the-pro-life-movement-have-in-common/">Like livestock, children, and slaves</a>, reproductive-age women are legal chattel—property of their male owners, who also own their reproductive capacity and the “fruits of their womb.” The sexual consent required is that of the male owner: Young women are given by their fathers in marriage; sold, when necessary, into slavery; and taken as war booty. The New Testament accommodates evolving social mores, but it never condemns or reverses this arrangement, and wives, like slaves, are encouraged to submit to those God has rightfully placed in positions of power over them.<strong> </strong><br />
<br />
<strong>3. Unwanted sexual contact in the Bible is a violation not against a woman but against her male owner. </strong>Under Levitical law <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2014/12/14/the-slut-shaming-sex-negative-message-in-the-christmas-story-its-worth-a-family-conversation/">virginity is prized</a> because when men know who has had sex with which females, they also know who fathered any offspring. Kin groups and family obligations are clear. By contrast, female fertility that isn’t regulated muddies things. A virgin who voluntarily has sex with a man, thus reducing her value as an economic asset, can be stoned. If she is raped against her will, her rapist can be forced to buy and keep the damaged goods as happens today under some forms of Sharia. In this worldview, Roy Moore may have come precariously close to violating the rights of the fathers of the young women he pursued, but that is not the accusation made against him, nor a question that his defenders have taken up.<br />
<br />
<strong>4. In the Bible, young women are commonly given to older men. </strong>Modern Westerners decry child marriage, for very good reasons. We recognize children as autonomous beings with human rights of their own, but we also recognize that cognitive and emotional capacities develop gradually over years and with them, the capacity to provide full and free consent. Caregivers (and our legal system) try to give young people choices in keeping with their capabilities but we also protect them, knowing they are easily pressured or manipulated by people who are older and more powerful.<br />
<br />
None of these concepts—human rights of children, cognitive development, full and free sexual consent—existed in the conceptual world of the Bible writers, rooted as they were in the Iron Age cultures of the Ancient Near East. Ignorance of child development, the legal status of women and children as chattel, and the view of female fertility as a family economic asset each incline families to swap female children for other goods as soon as they are sexually mature (or sometimes before).<br />
<br />
The Bible story of the Midianite virgins, suggests that even pre-pubescent children could become sexual property. In a battle with the Midianites, Israelite warriors are commanded to kill all the male adults and children among their defeated enemies, and all the women “who have been with a man.” But God’s anointed messenger tells them to <a href="https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/14/bible-does-numbers-3118-sanction-pre-pubescent-marriages-child-marriage-2/">keep the virgin females</a> for themselves and gives them instructions on how to ritually purify the girls before having sex with them. Presumably most of these girls would have been pre-pubescent (or they wouldn’t have been unmarried virgins.)<br />
<br />
Even apart from this awful story, Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler pointed out that many biblical pairings are between older men and younger females:<br />
<blockquote>
He’s clean as a hound’s tooth. Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist. . . . Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.</blockquote>
<strong>5. Christian tradition has long assumed that Mary was a young teen. </strong>The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing customs at the time, says that the Mary of the Virgin Birth story would have been as young as 13. <a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm">Jewish tradition</a> allows betrothal at the age of 12 and consummation at sexual maturity. Outside of sacramental mythology, a story about an uneducated human girl getting impregnated by a powerful alien being would disturb many people. That Zeigler saw <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2014/12/16/its-not-rape-if-hes-a-god/">this rapey story</a> as a defense of Moore’s behavior, says something about the extraordinary moral and ethical exceptions our society makes for religion.<br />
<br />
<strong>6. The Abrahamic sacred texts--the Quran and the Bible--largely agree on a God-given male-dominated gender hierarchy in which men can negotiate bodily rights to pubescent and prepubescent girls. </strong>Those Christians who find themselves appalled by Islam’s stories about the Prophet marrying multiple wives, one of whom is six years old at the time he acquires her—and those who are appalled more broadly by Islam’s subordination of women or the penchant of fundamentalist believers toward forcing young girls into marriage and killing females who transgress—would do well to remember this: The Quran contains little that is original. It derives from the same tribal shepherding culture that produced Judaism and Christianity, and much of it is explicitly derivative of the Bible itself.<br />
<br />
You might be surprised by how hard it can be to tell the two books apart. (<a href="https://valerietarico.com/2014/10/24/bible-vs-quran-test-your-knowledge-of-who-deserves-death-in-which-religion/">Try it here</a>.) The differences may be real and consequential, but so are the similarities. All Abrahamic texts, taken literally, <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2015/06/11/uncoupling-why-the-right-feels-violated-by-consent-queers-contraceptives-and-child-protection/">anchor believers to the Iron Age</a>—a time when men alone were created in the image of a god, and women were vessels and helpmeets, and God favored patriarchs who he blessed with lots of male offspring born to not only their wives but also concubines and <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2017/05/04/the-bible-story-and-ancient-sexual-script-behind-the-handmaids-tale/">handmaids</a>.<br />
<br />
The Bible contains fragments that are uplifting and beautiful—verses that record timeless wisdom and elevate humanity’s shared moral core. But that’s not all it contains. When it comes to relationships between woman and men, the contents of the Bible confront modern Jews and Christians with a difficult choice. Believers can treat the “Good Book” as the literal and perfect word of God or they can embrace an egalitarian view of men and women, one in which sexual intimacy is rooted in shared desire and consent. These two options are mutually exclusive, and people who say otherwise are engaged in a desperate attempt to protect the Bible from itself. Roy Moore has made his choice. You can call him disgusting, even vile, but don’t use the word hypocrite. Moore is living the script.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">None of these concepts—human rights of children, cognitive development, full and free sexual consent—existed in the conceptual world of the Bible writers, rooted as they were in the Iron Age cultures of the Ancient Near East.</span>Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-89639174105787364292016-06-26T14:33:00.001-04:002016-07-24T06:32:33.094-04:00Why Many Evangelicals Find Donald Trump Simply Irresistible<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/god-trump.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/god-trump.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<em>Is it Trump's god-complex or God's Trump-complex? Either way Trump and Jehovah have an awful lot in common.</em><br />
<br />
<span class="dropcap">P</span>eople have been scratching their heads about how so many “family values” American voters who claim to love Jesus can follow Donald Trump. What ever happened to <em>love thy neighbor, </em>and <em>if you have two coats give one to the poor, </em>and <em>turn the other cheek, </em>and <em>feed my lambs, </em>and <em>the meek shall inherit the Earth? </em>Some horrified Christian leaders have gone so far as to <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160229-pieper-and-henderson-10-reasons-you-cant-be-a-christian-and-vote-for-donald-trump.ece">say</a> a person can’t be a Christian and a Trump supporter.<br />
<br />
Of course times are hard and, in fairness, fear and downward mobility do weird things to people, including Christians. And some folks, whether Christian or not, are congenitally horrid. But shouldn’t Bible belief inoculate earnest believers against someone who seems like the polar opposite of Jesus?<br />
<br />
Perhaps the problem is that Trump is a lot like a different Bible character—one who also is the polar opposite of Jesus in many ways, but who young believers are nevertheless taught to worship and praise. I’m talking about the character of Jehovah; Yahweh as some people call him; The Great I Am; the LORD God of the Old Testament who makes it into the New Testament as both the father of Jesus and his alter-ego, and later into the <a href="https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100531214313AAvlZUn">Quran</a>.<br />
<br />
One way that biblical literalism screws with people’s heads is this: Children are taught from a young age that God is perfect—the essence of Love and Truth. But when you look a little closer at the stories in the Bible, it turns out that he’s an awful lot like Trump.<br />
<br />
<strong>He is powerful, and He wants us all to know it. </strong> <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45&version=NRSV">Isaiah 45</a> is just one of many egomaniacal diatribes about God’s unparalleled power and contempt for humanity, as if the force that created the DNA code and supernovas would need to brag and posture and lord it over lowly bipedal primates. It contains the word “I” 22 times, as in:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no god. I arm you, though you do not know me, so that they may know—from the rising of the sun and from the west—that there is no one besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things . . . To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. . . ” (Isaiah 45:5-7 KJV).</blockquote>
<br />
Me, me, me, I, I, I, I, I.<br />
<br />
<strong>He’s an insatiable attention seeker. </strong>From Genesis through Revelation, the Bible lays out precisely how people should grovel and sing God’s praises and otherwise kiss up. God wants his adoring followers to beg for things that he already knows they need. He loves the smell of burnt offerings and dictates just what should be burnt and when. He demands proof of loyalty, like cutting off the cover of your penis, or whacking relatives who don’t think he’s awesome, or <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22&version=NRSV">being willing to turn your child into a human sacrifice</a>.<br />
<br />
And he doesn’t like it <em>at all</em> if anyone pays attention to competing deities. “Thou shalt worship no other god!” <a href="http://biblehub.com/exodus/34-14.htm">he roars</a>, “For the LORD, whose name <em>is</em> Jealous, <em>is</em> a jealous God!”<br />
<br />
He issues <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2014/06/19/ten-commandments-that-would-have-changed-the-world/">two sets of 10 Commandments</a>, one of which contains nothing but details of how to pay him homage. The other, better known, set includes some basic, universal ethical principles—but even there, four out of ten are about giving the Big Man the kind of exclusive adoration he wants. That’s why there was no room for <em>Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom</em>. Or <em>Don’t have sex with anyone who doesn’t want to</em>. Or <em>Treat other living beings like they want to be treated</em>. Or <em>Thou shalt not own other human beings</em>. Imagine our world if Jehovah had been a little less concerned with attention and a little more concerned with compassion and sanitation.<br />
<br />
<strong>He’s mean.</strong> The internet abounds with articles, sermons and videos assuring us that the Bible-god isn’t really the embodiment of <em>mean people suck</em>. But what exactly would <em>you</em> call sending a bear to tear apart 42 boys who tease a prophet? Or how about slaughtering a son in each Egyptian peasant family then and blaming the mass murder on their unelected ruler who is actually your puppet: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Pharaoh will not listen to you, in order that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.’<sup> </sup>Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+7+-+11&version=NRSV">Exodus 11:9</a>).<br />
<br />
Or let’s go back to the very first Bible story. What would you call putting a tantalizing fruit tree in front of two naïve and inexperienced creatures you’ve just made out of dirt and then punishing them brutally when they eat from it? (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2+-+3&version=NRSV">Genesis 2-3</a>). Not long ago, an Alabama pastor wanted to teach a lesson about Christian obedience so he <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/05/11/christian-pastor-starves-dog-for-two-days-to-teach-lesson-about-biblical-obedience/">starved his chained-up dog</a> for two days and then put food in reach but told the dog not to eat.<br />
<br />
Yeah, sadistic. Sometimes Christians reveal a little more than intended about the deity they worship.<br />
<br />
<strong>He’s racist and ablest.</strong> God may claim credit for making us all, but that doesn’t prevent him from picking favorites or finding some people repugnant simply by accident of birth. The Old Testament narratives are about favored blood lines, whites—I mean Hebrews—who get the right to claim land already occupied by other ethnic groups. According to God’s rules, even <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2015/02/13/christianitys-painfully-mixed-track-record-on-slavery/">slaves must be treated better</a> if they are <em>Hebrew</em> slaves.<br />
<br />
But being Hebrew won’t help if you’re handicapped. Jehovah, like Trump thinks that <a href="http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-makes-fun-of-disabled-reporter-serge-kovaleski">arthrogryposis</a> is just gross. Stay away! “No one of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or one who has a broken foot or a broken hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a blemish in his eyes or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+21&version=NRSV">Leviticus 21:17-21</a>)<br />
<br />
<strong>He demeans women. </strong>If a guy with crushed balls might contaminate Jehovah’s inner sanctum, a menstruating woman would be far worse. Whatever you do, <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/menstruation.html">don’t let Megyn Kelly sit on the furniture</a>! And by the way, a woman who gives birth to a girl baby is nasty for <a href="https://rarebible.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/women-defiled-by-childbirth-baby-girls-twice-as-dirty-as-baby-boys/">twice as long</a> as one who gives birth to a boy. But don’t get too insulted. Women can be <a href="http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/2-15.htm">saved through childbearing</a>.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump may treat women like trophies, but Jehovah literally defines women as economic assets belonging to men—just like slaves, children, and cattle, which is where the word chattel comes from. He actually sets up formal guidelines for sexual slavery. As chattel, a female who voluntarily gives up her virginity (thus reducing her economic value) <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A13-30&version=NRSV">can be stoned</a>, but a rapist <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A28-29&version=NRSV">must simply buy the damaged goods</a>. If a man suspects his wife of infidelity (again reducing her ability to produce purebred offspring of known origin), he can <a href="https://robertcargill.com/2015/08/19/on-god-ordained-abortion-inducing-magic-potions-and-jealous-husbands-shaming-their-wives-in-the-bible/">forcibly give her an abortion potion</a>. Never say Jehovah is anything less than a bro. (See also <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2012/03/09/15-bible-texts-reveal-why-gods-own-party-is-at-war-with-women/">Fifteen Bible Texts Reveal Why God’s Own Party Keeps Degrading Women</a>. Or, don’t take it from me, take it from Christian leaders themselves: <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2013/07/01/mysogynistquoteschurchfathers/">Twenty Vile Quotes Against Women By Church Leaders from St. Augustine to Pat Robertson</a>.)<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">He’s wildly rich, and he promises to make you rich too if you follow him.</span><strong>He’s bellicose and vindictive. </strong>Lists of Jehovah’s enemies and stories about how he ruins their lives or plans to ruin their afterlife occupy much of the Bible. First there’s Satan and all of those uppity angels who have apparently gotten tired of acting like everlasting groupies. Then come <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6-8&version=MSG">giants</a> and people who build the Tower of Babel, which threatens to break through to God’s home above the sky.<br />
<br />
Then comes everybody but Noah and his ark-building sons, and then the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Midianites and Amalekites and the Philistines (other Semitic tribes), and the Assyrians and Babylonians, and a long litany of foreign kings and queens like Nebuchadnezzar and Jezebel. And let’s not forget all of the traitors among his Chosen People, who—despite constant displays of divine temper and butchery—never seem to grasp how badly Jehovah will burn them if they fall down on sucking up. Unable to threaten lawsuits like Trump can now, Jehovah instead threatens all who displease him with eternal torture.<br />
<br />
<strong>His statements contradict facts and each other</strong>. Unless the Bible writers got things garbled, Jehovah’s claims are wildly contradictory. Jehovah says he created evil, and also says he can’t look on it. He shows up, then says no-one has ever seen him (Exodus 33:11/John 1:18). He tempts people to do bad things, then denies having ever done so. (Genesis 22:1/James 1:13). He declares himself unchanging but changes his mind at will (Exodus 32:14/Psalm 105:25-27). He apparently can’t remember if he created animals before humans or vice versa so boldly tells the story both ways (Genesis 1 & 2).<br />
<br />
Add to the contradictions a surreal layer of ignorance.<br />
<br />
Jehovah’s official biography is full of scientific hogwash. He creates day and night before the sun. He makes the sun stand still as a favor to some Iron Age fans—meaning he somehow stops the earth’s rotation without everything flying off the planet. He covers Mt. Everest in a flood that then dries up. He assumes that <em>pi</em> equals three. He predicts that a star will fall to earth. He warns against eating four-legged insects (which don’t exist). In sum, despite his claim to have created the world, he doesn’t have a freaking clue how it works.<br />
<br />
But that’s ok, because all that really matters is . . .<br />
<br />
<strong>He’s wildly rich, and he promises to make you rich too if you follow him. </strong>Jehovah’s version of heaven, <a href="https://valerietarico.com/2015/01/29/10-reasons-popular-versions-of-christian-heaven-would-be-hell/">which sounds rather hellish if you actually think about it for more than five seconds</a>, perfectly sums up Jehovah as the protagonist of his own story. It’s a place of conspicuous opulence with streets of gold and gem encrusted walls where everyone gets their own mansion. But these trappings of wealth are on offer only to those who are willing to spend a literal eternity standing around singing about what an awesome god he is. This, according to many Christians, is the pinnacle of human existence. And if you don’t find that appealing—it’s outer darkness for you, Baby. Wailing and gnashing of teeth.<br />
<br />
You can see why someone primed on Jehovah might admire a bully with an almost limitless sense of his own importance, one who demands constant admiration, has an enemy list a mile long, and shows a perverse lack of empathy for those he perceives as lesser beings. These classic characteristics of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/too-sick-to-lead-the-leth_b_10086768.html">narcissistic personality disorder</a>, are the reason we often refer to a narcissist as someone with a god-complex. Most of humanity’s gods are assholes, and the Bible-god is no exception.<br />
<br />
Biologist Richard Dawkins once summed up Jehovah in a sentence: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”<br />
<br />
Christianity may make the head-spinning claim that Jehovah is a stand-up guy, goodness incarnate, and worthy to be worshiped by all of humanity, but he makes Donald Trump look morally intact. To the best of my knowledge Trump has no history of infanticide, genocide, filicide, or ethnic cleansing. Despite his God complex, Trump is a pale shadow of the Great I Am.<br />
<br />
Even so, from an electoral standpoint, Trump’s likeness to Jehovah may be as valuable as his celebrity name. If Trump manages to get himself elected by Evangelicals looking for streets of gold and by old white males who think they are the Chosen People, we may all be grateful that the worst he can do is build a big wall or nuke the Middle East rather than drowning the entire planet in a flood that covers Everest.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<em>Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of </em><a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937"><em>Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas"><em>Deas and Other Imaginings</em></a><em>, and the founder of </em><a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/"><em>www.WisdomCommons.org</em></a><em>. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including AlterNet, Salon, the Huffington Post, Grist, and Jezebel. Subscribe at</em> <a href="http://valerietarico.com/"><em> ValerieTarico.com</em></a><br />
<br />Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-78413506317773279242016-03-13T15:58:00.000-04:002016-04-02T09:13:33.242-04:00Evangelical Christianity’s Brand Is Used Up<i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<i><br />
</i> <em> </em><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<em><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC2Nz_Jv30xPiIzDFKf7M78XMGnpHqTkCXnDHM9NdMtul6iHpxxgdIsKj5NxWja2eKxLcKy6bpyS8FhalcYgwJGLDJmILVGRSF7ZZpM65usiqYuIv6MTL7dcJEoMDb4X2sVEQvNqjWOio/s1600/rebrandingjesus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC2Nz_Jv30xPiIzDFKf7M78XMGnpHqTkCXnDHM9NdMtul6iHpxxgdIsKj5NxWja2eKxLcKy6bpyS8FhalcYgwJGLDJmILVGRSF7ZZpM65usiqYuIv6MTL7dcJEoMDb4X2sVEQvNqjWOio/s320/rebrandingjesus.jpg" width="320" /></a></em></div>
<em>The Evangelical “brand” has gone from being an asset to a liability, and it is helpful to understand the transition in precisely those terms."</em><br />
<br />
<span class="dropcap">B</span>ack before 9/11 indelibly linked Islam with terrorism, back before the top association to “Catholic priest” was “pedophile,” most Americans—even nonreligious Americans—thought of religion as benign. <em>I’m not religious myself</em>, people would say, <em>but what’s the harm if it gives someone else a little comfort or pleasure.</em><br />
<br />
Back then, people associated Christianity with kindness and said things like, “That’s not very Christian of him,” when a person acted stingy or mean; and nobody except <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Evangelicalism">Evangelical Christians</a> knew the difference between Evangelicalism and more open, inquiring forms of Christianity.<br />
<br />
Those days are over. Islam will be forever tainted by Islamist brutalities, by images of bombings, beheadings, and burkas. The collar and cassock will forever evoke the image of bishops turning their backs while priests rub themselves on altar boys. And thanks to the fact that American Evangelical leaders sold their congregations to the Republican Party in exchange for political power, Evangelical Christianity is now distinctive—and widely despised.<br />
<br />
Another way to put this is that the Evangelical “brand” has gone from being an asset to a liability, and it is helpful to understand the transition in precisely those terms.<br />
<br />
<strong>How Brand Assets Get Depleted</strong><br />
<br />
In the business world, a corporation sometimes buys or licenses a premium brand in order to either upgrade their own brand desirability or to sell a lower quality product. Coca-Cola acquired Odwalla for example. Dean Foods acquired Silk soy milk. Target and Walmart license various designer labels for their made-in-China housewares and clothes. <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Donald Trump">Donald Trump</a> sells his name to real estate developers who use it to set an expectation of quality.<br />
<br />
Once a premium brand or label is acquired, the parent company often uses the premium label to sell an inferior product. Alternately, if they acquired the whole company rather than just the name, they may gradually change the product, ratcheting down input costs (and quality) to the point that the premium brand becomes just another commodity. The profit advantage comes from the fact that it takes people a while to notice and change their brand perceptions. Also, being creatures of habit, a person may stick with a familiar brand even though the quality of the product itself has changed. In this way, a corporation can draw down the value of a brand the way that a person might draw down a bank account.<br />
<br />
<strong>Republican Acquisition of the Evangelical “Brand”</strong><br />
<br />
A generation ago, the Republican Party realized that Evangelical Christianity could be a valuable acquisition. “Evangelical” had righteous, “family values” brand associations, the unassailable name of Jesus, the authority of the Bible, and the organizing infrastructure and social capital of Evangelical churches. Republican operatives courted Evangelical leaders and promised them power and money—the power to turn back the clock on equal rights for women and queers, and the glitter of government subsidies for church enterprises including religious education, real estate speculation, and marketing campaigns that pair social services with evangelism.<br />
<br />
As in any story about selling your soul, Evangelical leaders largely got what they bargained for, but at a price that only the devil fully understood in advance. Internally, Evangelical communities can be wonderfully kind, generous and mutually supportive. But today, few people other than Evangelical Christians themselves associate the term “Evangelical” with words like generous and kind. In fact, a secular person is likely to see a kind, generous Evangelical neighbor as a decent person <em>in spite of </em>their Christian beliefs, not because of them.<br />
<br />
The Evangelical brand is so depleted and tainted at this point that Russell Moore, a prominent leader of the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Southern Baptist Convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a> recently <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865648998/Evangelical-leader-rejects-evangelical-label-due-to-election-coverage.html?pg=all">said</a> that he will no longer call himself an “Evangelical Christian,” thanks—he implied—to association between Evangelicals and Trump. Instead he is using the term “Gospel Christian”—at least till the 2016 election is over. While Trump has received endorsements from Evangelical icons including <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell%2C_Jr." rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Jerry Falwell, Jr.">Jerry Falwell, Jr.</a> and Pat Robertson, other Evangelical leaders (e.g. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/opinion/campaign-stops/what-wouldnt-jesus-do.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0">here</a>, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271300-liberty-university-board-member-knocks-falwells-trump">here</a>) have <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/opinion/campaign-stops/what-wouldnt-jesus-do.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0">joined Moore in lamenting</a> the deep and wide Evangelical attraction to Trump, which they say is antithetical to their values.<br />
<br />
But how much, really, is the Trump brand antithetical to the Evangelical brand? <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/templeofthefuture/2016/03/trump-is-evangelical-christianity/#sthash.4hhyxOeO.dpuf">Humanist commentator James Croft</a> argues that Trump <em>is </em>what Evangelicalism, in the hands of the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Christian right">Religious Right</a>, has become:<br />
<blockquote>
“The religious right in America has always been a political philosophy based on bullying, pandering, projecting strength to hide fear and weakness, and proud, aggressive ignorance. That’s what it’s been about from the beginning. Trump has merely distilled those elements into a decoction so deadly that even some evangelicals are starting to recognize the venom they have injected into American culture.”</blockquote>
<br />
Croft says that Pastors like Joel Osteen and Rick Warren use Jesus as a fig leaf “to drape over social views that would otherwise be revealed as nakedly evil.”<br />
<br />
As a former Evangelical, I have to side with Croft: the Evangelical brand problem is much bigger than Trump and his candidacy or the morally-bankrupt priorities and theocratic aspirations of fellow Republican candidates Cruz and Rubio. Evangelicals may use the name of Jesus for cover, but even Jesus is too small a fig leaf to hide the fact outsiders looking at Evangelical Christianity see more prick than heart.<br />
<br />
Here is what the Evangelical brand looks like from the outside:<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">As in any story about selling your soul, Evangelical leaders largely got what they bargained for, but at a price that only the devil fully understood in advance.</span><strong>Evangelical means obsessed with sex.</strong> Evangelicals are so desperate to fend off their own complicated sexual desires and self-loathing that they would rather watch queer teens commit suicide than deal with their homophobia. They abhor youth sexuality and female sexual pleasure to the point that they have driven <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2012/01/22/righteous-abortion-how-christianity-promotes-abortion/">an epidemic of teen pregnancy, unintended pregnancy and abortion</a>—all because accurate information and contraceptive access might let the wrong kind of people (young unmarried and female people) have sex for the wrong reasons (pleasure and intimacy) <em>without suffering for it. </em><br />
<br />
<strong>Evangelical means arrogant. </strong>Wheaton College put Evangelical arrogance on national display when administrators decided to suspend and then fire a professor who dared to suggest that Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship the same God.<br />
<br />
<strong>Evangelical means fearful and bigoted. </strong>While more secular Europeans and Canadians offer aid to Syrian refugees, Evangelical Christians have instead sought to exclude Muslims. They have used their vast empire of telecommunications channels to inspire not charity but fear of imminent Sharia in the U.S. and of refugees more broadly. They have urged that Latin American refugees be sent home so that we can build a wall across the southern border before they come back.<br />
<br />
<strong>Evangelical means indifferent to truth. </strong>Evangelicals refuse to acknowledge what is <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2015/05/21/in-defense-of-cherry-picking-the-bible/">obvious to everyone</a> else, including most other Christians—that the Bible is <a href="http://www.bartdehrman.com/books-published/">a human document</a> woven through with moral and factual imperfections. Treating the Bible like the literally perfect word of God has forced Bible believers to make a high art out of self-deception, which they then apply to other inconvenient truths. They rewrite American History, embrace faux news, defend in court the right of “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2015/02/18/the-junk-science-and-bad-faith-behind-colorados-iud-controversy/">to lie</a>, and <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2016/03/01/meet-amy-hagstrom-miller-the-texas-abortion-provider-who-refuses-to-lie-back-and-take-it-full-interview/">force doctors</a> to do the same. The end justifies the means.<br />
<br />
<strong>Evangelical means gullible and greedy. </strong>From televangelists and Prosperity Gospel to adulation of Ronald Reagan and Ayn Rand, Evangelicalism faces the world as a religion of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg">exploiters and exploited</a>—both of which are hoping to make a quick buck.<br />
<br />
<strong>Evangelical means ignorant. </strong>The only way to protect creationism is to keep people from understanding how science works and what scientists have discovered. As evidence accumulates related to evolutionary biology, insulating children requires a <a href="http://ncse.com/">constant battle</a> to keep accurate information out of textbooks. Insulating adults requires cultivating a deep suspicion of science and scholarship, an anti-intellectualism that diffuses out from this center and defines Evangelical culture at large.<br />
<br />
<strong>Evangelical means predatory. </strong>Evangelical missionaries prey on the young and ignorant. They have fought all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure they can <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2014/06/28/good-news-club-targets-children-across-u-s-for-summer-salvation-portland-fights-back/">proselytize children in public grade schools.</a> Having failed to block marriage equality in the States, they <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2011/05/10/evangelical-homophobia-planting-in-uganda-a-tough-seed-with-poisonous-fruit/">export Bible based gay-hate</a> to Central Africa, where gays are more vulnerable. Since Americans lost interest in tent revivals, evangelists now cast out demons, heal the sick and raise the dead among uneducated low-information people in developing countries.<br />
<br />
<strong>Evangelical means mean. </strong>Opposing anti-poverty programs, shaming and stigmatizing queers, making it harder for poor women to prevent pregnancy, blaming rape victims, <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2010/02/08/sad-about-haiti-give-to-our-megachurch/">diverting aid dollars</a> into church coffers, <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2011/02/04/our-public-schools-their-mission-field/">threatening little kids</a> with eternal torture, supporting war, denying the rights of other species, . . . need I go on?<br />
<br />
Laid out like this—sex-obsessed, arrogant, bigoted, lying, greedy, ignorant, predatory and mean—one understands why a commentator like Croft might say that Trump <em>is </em>Evangelicalism. But reading closer, it becomes clear that Trump and Cruz and Rubio are not the problem.<br />
<br />
Despite the best efforts of reformers like <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2015/05/08/can-evangelical-christianity-be-saved-from-itself-an-interview-with-rachel-held-evans/">Rachel Held Evans</a>, the Evangelical brand is toxic because of the stagnant priorities and behaviors of Evangelicals themselves. Desperate to safeguard an archaic set of social and theological agreements, Evangelical leaders bet that if they could secure political power they could force a halt to moral and spiritual evolution. They themselves wouldn’t have to grow and change.<br />
<br />
They also believed that they could get something for nothing, that they could sell their brand and keep it too. They couldn’t have been more wrong.<br />
<br />
<em>Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of </em><a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937"><em>Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas"><em>Deas and Other Imaginings</em></a><em>, and the founder of </em><a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/"><em>www.WisdomCommons.org</em></a><em>. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including AlterNet, Salon, the Huffington Post, Grist, and Jezebel. Subscribe at </em><a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/"><em>ValerieTarico.com</em></a><em>. </em> Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-17533761546949567642015-12-04T15:20:00.002-05:002015-12-13T16:55:19.838-05:00How Christianist Republicans Systematically Incited Stochastic Terrorism in Colorado<i>By Valerie Tarico ~ <br />
<br />
</i><em style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Planned Parenthood Colorado assault" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-3336" height="212" src="https://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/planned-parenthood-colorado-assault.jpg?w=300" width="300" /></em><span style="color: black; font-family: "calibri";"><em>After months of verbal assault against Planned Parenthood and against women more broadly, Republican Christianists have gotten what they were asking for—bloodshed</em>. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="dropcap">O</span>n November 27, a mass shooting left three dead and nine wounded at a Planned Parenthood clinic just miles from the headquarters of the Religious Right flagship, Focus on the Family. Was the shooting exactly what conservative Christian presidential candidates and members of congress wanted? Maybe, maybe not. <em>But it is what they asked for.</em> Republican members of the Religious Right incited violence as predictably as if they had issued a call for Christian abortion foes to take up arms. Inciting violence this way is called <a href="http://stochasticterrorism.blogspot.ca/">stochastic terrorism</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<em>“</em>Stochastic terrorism<em> is the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In short, remote-control murder by lone wolf.”</em></blockquote>
In an incident of stochastic terrorism, the person who pulls the trigger gets the blame. He—I use the male pronoun deliberately because the triggerman is almost always male—may go to jail or even be killed during his act of violence. Meanwhile, the person or persons who have triggered the triggerman, in other words, the <em>actual stochastic terrorists, </em>often go free, protected by plausible deniability. The formula is perversely brilliant:<br />
<ol>
<li>A public figure with access to the airwaves or pulpit demonizes a person or group of persons.</li>
<li>With repetition, the targeted person or group is gradually dehumanized, depicted as loathsome and dangerous—arousing a combustible combination of fear and moral disgust.</li>
<li>Violent images and metaphors, jokes about violence, analogies to past “purges” against reviled groups, use of righteous religious language—all of these typically stop just short of an explicit call to arms.</li>
<li>When violence erupts, the public figures who have incited the violence condemn it—claiming no one could possibly have foreseen the “tragedy.”</li>
</ol>
Stochastic terrorism is not a fringe concept. It is a terrorist modality that has been described at length by analysts. It produces <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/planned-parenthood-colorado-springs-fbi-warned-of-threats-months-ago/">terrorism patterns that should be known</a> to any member of Congress or any presidential candidate who has ever thought deeply about national or domestic security issues, which one might hope, is all of them.<br />
<br />
We can be confident that from the time of the standoff, communications teams for Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum and others were scrambling to figure out the nuances of plausible deniability—weighing how best to distance themselves from the violence that killed a police officer and two others without making their protestations of surprised dismay sound as hollow as they actually are—without actually denouncing the disgust and dehumanization of women who have abortions and those who provide them. In fact, since the slaughter, several have <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/261497-gop-chair-defends-probe-after-planned-parenthood-shooting">doubled down</a> on <a href="http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/5-awful-gop-responses-planned-parenthood-shooting">victim blaming</a> and anti-Planned Parenthood rhetoric.<br />
<br />
For months, Republican presidential candidates and conservative Christian members of Congress have been <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/17_things_gop_candidates_have_said_recently_that_helped_incite_domestic_terror_against_planned_parenthood/">following this script </a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/planned-parenthood-shooting-republicans_565c8534e4b072e9d1c27ba3">for political gain</a>. Elected Republicans in the states have sought to intimidate women and providers by demanding the release (and even publication) of identifying information and addresses—essentially a target list for perpetrators. They know exactly what they are doing. Since abortion was legalized in the United States, providers and clinics have been the target of 41 bombings and 173 arson attacks. Since the 1990’s, eleven providers, clinic staff or defenders have been murdered, including the three in Colorado:<br />
<ul>
<li><strong>March 10, 1993:</strong> Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was shot and killed after being depicted in “Wanted Posters” by Operation Rescue.</li>
<li><strong>July 29, 1994:</strong> Dr. John Britton and a clinic escort, James Barrett, were both shot to death outside another Florida clinic, which has been bombed twice including in 2012.</li>
<li><strong>December 30, 1994:</strong> Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were shot and killed in Brookline, Massachusetts by an abortion foe who had previously attempted murder in Virginia.</li>
<li><strong>January 29, 1998:</strong> Robert Sanderson, a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, died when the clinic was bombed.</li>
<li><strong>October 23, 1998:</strong> Dr. Barnett Slepian was killed at his home in Amherst, New York, by a shooter with a high-powered rifle.</li>
<li><strong> May 31, 2009: </strong>Dr. George Tiller, who provided late term abortions, was shot and killed in the lobby of his church, where he was serving as an usher.</li>
<li><strong>November 27, 2015:</strong> Two civilians and a police officer died during a five hour siege in which a “lone wolf” assaulted patients and providers at a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Colorado Springs.</li>
</ul>
Since David Daleiden launched his <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2015/08/31/42-splices-and-counting-nine-facts-you-should-know-about-the-planned-parenthood-smear-campaign/">baby parts hoax</a> aimed at <a href="http://valerietarico.com/2015/07/24/the-yuck-factor-what-planned-parenthood-smears-homophobia-and-juvenile-jokes-have-in-common/">triggering the yuck factor</a> and fueling outrage among gullible abortion foes, and since Republicans in high places decided that assaulting Cecile Richards (and all of the women she represents) was good electoral fodder, Planned Parenthood clinics in Washington and California have been set on fire. Righteous Christian abortion foes have made death threats against providers and clinics across the country. By November 27, law enforcement had documented nine serious criminal incidents or attempts. Now, finally, we have a mass shooting by a <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/planned-parenthood-shooting-suspect-made-comment-about-no-more-baby-n470706">deranged sounding </a>shooter who muttered something about "no more baby parts."<br />
<br />
The triggerman is in custody. But the real perpetrators likely will continue to have access to pulpits, radio stations, town halls, and television, where they will express carefully crafted dismay about the carnage, hoping we all won’t notice that the hands clutching the podium are covered in blood.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<em>Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of </em><a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937"><em>Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas"><em>Deas and Other Imaginings</em></a><em>, and the founder of </em><a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/"><em>www.WisdomCommons.org</em></a><em>. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including AlterNet, Salon, the Huffington Post, Grist, and Jezebel. Subscribe at </em><a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/"><em>ValerieTarico.com</em></a><em>. </em> <span class="pullquote">Inciting violence this way is called stochastic terrorism.</span>Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-16927677079773177712015-06-30T19:37:00.001-04:002015-07-08T19:19:12.062-04:00Marriage Equality <i>By Ronna Russell ~ </i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp7DaVvzfxZpsUQBwm7k6nDApf1Gbb16T4krcC6xrtwQEOaaU-YYqcaWhJVyxCUuTq7H5guUPyCoSj6b2-BiRzarklB_BaSKUDug8isjgk1a1SqNpGPDqNo7mjTZL-QGfhQWfXfJwQZ8E/s1600/SCOTUS-Gay-Marriage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp7DaVvzfxZpsUQBwm7k6nDApf1Gbb16T4krcC6xrtwQEOaaU-YYqcaWhJVyxCUuTq7H5guUPyCoSj6b2-BiRzarklB_BaSKUDug8isjgk1a1SqNpGPDqNo7mjTZL-QGfhQWfXfJwQZ8E/s320/SCOTUS-Gay-Marriage.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span class="dropcap">W</span>hile most folks are breathing a sigh of relief at the better-late-than-never decision of<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Fsections%2Fthetwo-way%2F2015%2F06%2F26%2F417717613%2Fsupreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages&ei=lieTVdq2JIH9yQSQ3oCQDg&usg=AFQjCNGLNEEmItDO_ZWMpGG7JiF4Rs1X3g&sig2=QL9APvHBKoho2cnBNz2EbA&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cGU" target="_blank"> SCOTUS regarding marriage equality</a>, the reaction of some reminds me with the force of a punch in the gut of what it really means to be fundamentalist christian. I am reminded why I fled so many years ago, to escape the suffocating judgement and infuriating self-righteousness.<br />
<br />
It is impossible for me to comprehend the mental gymnastics required to put oneself in a position of authority over other humans simply because one has swallowed a “belief” about who they are. There is a lot of talk about god’s wrath and <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Last Judgment">judgement day</a>, akin to a mother telling a misbehaving child “just wait until your father gets home.” Covert <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Fundamentalism">fundamentalists</a> aren’t much better, with their judgement–lite attitude of love the sinner, hate the sin. It is still a position of false superiority; willful ignorance of what it means to be gay. <br />
<br />
If you are not gay, you do not understand and have no right to impose your conjured criteria on anyone. When belief and dogma come before the rights and well-being of actual people, there is no love involved. Judgement and love, like oil and water, cannot exist in the same space. Remember <a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Story-Ruby-Bridges-Robert-Coles/dp/0590572814%3FSubscriptionId%3D0G81C5DAZ03ZR9WH9X82%26tag%3Dexchrisnetenc-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0590572814" rel="amazon" target="_blank" title="The Story Of Ruby Bridges">the story of Ruby Bridges</a>, the little girl that <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="United States Marshals Service">federal marshals</a> escorted into her newly integrated elementary school in New Orleans? The furious, slathering white horde screamed at her as she walked their gauntlet. <br />
<br />
Fundamentalists are the new face of that hateful crowd. They are threatened and angry and they have lost this fight just like the racists lost that one. There is no judgement day coming for gay people. It already came and they are free.Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-28538477620319873052015-03-30T05:14:00.000-04:002015-06-06T10:24:03.019-04:00 Land of the free? <i>By Klym ~ </i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYsh0rYoByRWbs_fQITL4hU-zbVAknimzXg979Xj8214jmg5s_6KLTXL9KyZkR0YgmmBQ63rKxMY0wIqEN5gjyp2YBKgegxVnLa1n1XSah-HTLkqnObpPuSz2hW7u0WaHTNm_BOmzTYPw/s1600/billbusiness.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYsh0rYoByRWbs_fQITL4hU-zbVAknimzXg979Xj8214jmg5s_6KLTXL9KyZkR0YgmmBQ63rKxMY0wIqEN5gjyp2YBKgegxVnLa1n1XSah-HTLkqnObpPuSz2hW7u0WaHTNm_BOmzTYPw/s1600/billbusiness.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<span class="dropcap">I</span> just now read that the <a href="http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/">governor of Indiana signed a bill to give religious people the right to turn away anyone from their business because of their religious beliefs</a>. So, does this mean that if a woman is trying to buy tampons or minipads the business owner will have the right to ask her if she is menstruating? If she answers yes, and the owner is a Bible believer, he can then tell her to get out of his store? Of course, I guess he could encourage her to buy some soap instead, because she is obviously unclean. (I'm using the pronoun "he" to indicate the business owner, but that person could also be a "she".)<br />
<br />
What a can of worms this opens for everyone. When and where will the insanity stop? Now, more than at any time in U.S. history, it is imperative that "believers" in human rights take a stand. <br />
<br />
What if someone who does not have the same religious beliefs as you is in the life saving business? Will this give them the right to say, "I'm not treating you, because my religious beliefs say I don't have to save your life"?<br />
<br />
Our forefathers must be turning over in their graves. I don't think this is what they had in mind when they established our constitution.<br />
<br />
What about us atheists who have no beliefs in a god at all? Are we going to be turned away from every business for our nonbelief? This is scary stuff, and it's happening right here in America---<a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="The Star-Spangled Banner">land of the free and the home of the brave</a>? Maybe we need to change those lyrics to "land of the oppressed and home of the bigoted." Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-3951067909226351922014-07-27T06:10:00.001-04:002014-08-19T04:53:35.304-04:00Thomas Jefferson, the First Amendment, and Why We Can't Stop Fighting About Religous Freedom<i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/thomas-jefferson.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Thomas Jefferson" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2366" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/thomas-jefferson.jpg?w=249" height="300" width="249" /></a><span class="dropcap">I</span>n 1878, the Supreme Court of the United States wrestled with a religious freedom case focused on Mormons and polygamy. In <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html">the written decision</a>, Chief Justice <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_Waite" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Morrison Waite">Morrison Waite</a> explained the court’s attempt to discern the intent of the First Amendment. He turned to someone who had been in the room when the Amendment was written—<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions58.html">Thomas Jefferson</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that <b>the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions</b>,—I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Separation of church and state">separation between church and State</a>. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, <b>convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties</b>." <i>(emphasis mine).</i></blockquote>
<br />
Waite took Jefferson’s words to be definitive: “Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”<br />
<br />
In other words, the Constitution guarantees a right to religious opinion, not behavior, and specifically not behavior that violates civic responsibilities. Lest we think freedom of thought is too trivial to have been the concern of America’s founders, we need only look at how Muslim theocracies are attempting today to insert <a href="http://blog.humanrightsforaas.org/blasphemy-laws-war-on-free-thought-part-1/">anti-blasphemy laws</a> into the United Nations or how sanctions against blasphemers have recently been strengthened in places ranging from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10620893/More-than-200-leading-authors-protest-against-Russias-anti-gay-and-blasphemy-laws.html">Russia</a> to <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/pakistan-blasphemy-law-2014523184543404502.html">Pakistan</a> to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law">Ireland</a>.<br />
<br />
Based on this understanding of the U.S. Constitution, the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Waite_Court" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Waite Court">Waite Court</a> ruled that civil authorities had the right to regulate marriage, and that religious conscience claims offered no exemption. Twelve years later, bowing to legal and cultural pressures, the Latter Day Saints Church reversed its support for polygamy. But in the long run, neither Waite nor Jefferson himself has provided a satisfactory solution to American battles over religion in public life.<br />
<br />
That is because the line between freedom of opinion and freedom of action is not nearly as clear as it sounds. As a psychologist, I would argue that belief dictates behavior, and strong belief is a strong dictator. If you step through my front door, how I respond depends on why I think you are there. If you come as a friend, I’m likely to be friendly. But if I believe strongly that you are there to rape and kill my daughter, I am likely to shoot you.<br />
<br />
A sense of divine mission, if anything, lowers barriers between belief and behavior. Religious belief can be humble and hopeful, but often it is instead backed by righteous certitude that can trump social norms and even humanity’s deepest ethical intuitions.<br />
<br />
I once wrote an article entitled, “<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/how-the-fundamentalist-mind-compels-conservative-christians-to-force-their-beliefs-on-you/">Why Good Christians Do Bad Things to Win Converts</a>.” The short answer to the title question is that religious beliefs can co-opt and redirect moral intuitions even in otherwise decent people. For example, earnest volunteer missionaries in <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/good-news-club-targets-children-across-u-s-for-summer-salvation-portland-fights-back/">Child Evangelism Fellowship</a> feel driven to save kids from hell, and if this requires telling kindergartners they were born bad and deserve eternal torture, so be it. Hell-belief creates an imperative in which the end (salvation from torture) justifies <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/do-evangelical-kids-clubs-deserve-freedom-of-speech-in-public-schools/273942/">deception</a>, manipulation and <a href="http://www.goodnewsclubs.info/">fear induction</a>. If I myself believed kindergarteners were slated for torture, I too might be willing to risk causing <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/religious-trauma-syndrome-is-it-real/">religious trauma syndrome</a>.<br />
<br />
Belief dictates behavior. It is impossible to disentangle creed and deed.<br />
<br />
And so we are left with a tangle.<br />
<br />
The dividing line drawn in the U.S. Constitution, clarified by Jefferson and reiterated by Waite, may allow civil law and religious pluralism to coexist, but it is inherently unsatisfying. It offers only the most abstract outline for addressing questions about religious freedom: <i>yes</i> to the right of individuals to formulate God and goodness according to the dictates of their own minds; <i>yes</i> to the right of the collective to constrain individual behavior for the sake of coherent civil society and the common good. From day one, lawmakers, the priesthood, corporate bodies, and individual citizens have been wrestling with how to make this work. And despite over 200 years of effort, we have failed to reach agreement on how to balance these competing demands.<br />
<br />
The problem—Americans hate to admit this—is that we cannot have it all.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">Pretending that we can grant deference to “sincerely held” religious belief while still sustaining a thriving pluralistic democracy—is an exercise in self-deception.</span>By their very nature religions make truth claims and behavioral demands that are at odds with the goals and methods of civil society. Religion seeks to optimize wellbeing in some afterlife; civil society seeks to optimize wellbeing here on earth. Those two goals don’t always align. Religion asserts rules for living based on appeals to authority. Ideally, social science proposes rules for living based in <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/11/21/the-liberal-republic-of-science-part-4-a-new-political-scien.html">evidence and reason</a>.<br />
<br />
To further complicate the matter, the truth claims and behavioral demands of many religions are mutually exclusive. Christianity alone has fragmented into <a href="http://www.numberof.net/number-of-christian-denominations/">over 34,000</a> different denominations and non-denominations because <i>Christians disagree emphatically about God’s priorities and experience these differences as irreconcilable. </i>And though Christianity in one form or another may be the majority spiritual worldview in America, it certainly isn’t the only one.<br />
<br />
Our religious and spiritual differences put us at odds about the most sacred aspects of our lives: whether we bring a child into the world, how we view the moral standing of other species, who we are willing to kill, and how we die. Furthermore, sincerely held religious belief can oblige believers to control other people and religious institutions to control outsiders. When religious believers are prevented from acting on these obligations, they feel violated, even persecuted.<br />
<br />
By definition, <a href="http://limaohio.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=LI&date=20140317&category=news&lopenr=303179996&Ref=AR">religious orthodoxy seeks conformity</a>. This means that increasing one person’s religious freedom decreases the religious freedom of another. Giving religious rights to institutions limits the rights of individuals and vice versa.<br />
<br />
Secular rules and responsibilities, including basic criminal codes and <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/why-bible-believers-have-such-a-hard-time-getting-child-protection-right/">child protections</a>, not infrequently countermand religious rules and responsibilities as understood by individual believers. American Evangelicals and conservative Catholics keep telling us this, loud and clear, and we should listen to them. Religion is whatever the believer says it is, and no secular or ecclesiastical authority has the power to say otherwise. Enabling a woman to prevent pregnancy, complying with anti-discrimination laws, stopping parents from whipping their children, allowing a cancer patient to manage his own dying process—these really do violate some people’s religions.<br />
<br />
Pretending that this isn’t the case—pretending that we can grant deference to “sincerely held” religious belief while still sustaining a thriving pluralistic democracy—is an exercise in self-deception.<br />
<br />
The best we can do is struggle to find balance points that respect individual autonomy while limiting the religious freedom to do harm to either America’s democracy or citizens. The First Amendment, as interpreted by Jefferson, grants our government broad latitude to promote the general welfare in cases where religion might dictate otherwise. The 1993 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</a>, basis for the recent Hobby Lobby case, reverses the order of priority, granting sincere believers exemption from otherwise universal responsibilities and rules. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a church-state watchdog, is calling for legislation that would <a href="http://ffrf.org/news/action/item/20865-ask-congress-to-counter-supreme-court-s-hobby-lobby-ruling">overturn RFRA</a> altogether and revert to earlier standards, which are summarized in Ruth Ginsberg’s <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/231968582/Burwell-v-Hobby-Lobby">Hobby Lobby dissent</a>. Constitutional scholars Marci Hamilton and Leslie Griffin instead propose congress should adopt <a href="http://hamilton-griffin.com/the-top-ten-exemptions-to-rfra-congress-should-consider-now/">10 exemptions</a> from the blanket privilege RFRA grants to believers. As they put it, “There are some actions no law should permit even if the person says he was acting out of religious motivation.” Their list includes child sex trafficking, terrorist acts, gender discrimination, housing discrimination, illegal drug use, endangering species at risk, and financial fraud but sidesteps current controversies like female genital mutilation and the right of religiously motivated parents to <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/biblical-literalism-puts-children-at-risk/">beat children</a> or <a href="http://homeedmag.com/newscomm/virginia_homeschooling_in_the_news_continued/">deny them education</a>. Senators Mark Udall and Patty Murray <a href="http://www.coloradoindependent.com/148213/udall-talks-not-my-bosss-business-act">introduced</a> even narrower legislation to stop employers from interfering in an employee’s family planning decisions.<br />
<br />
Regardless of how broad or narrow the constraints on religion may be—no matter how compelling the evidence that limiting a given religious behavior promotes public health, child wellbeing, human rights, tax fairness, broad sustainable prosperity, or global relations—lawmakers can be assured that some people of faith will resist. Their sincerely held beliefs <i>oblige them to do so</i>. Religions cannot self-regulate any more than corporations can. That is why it is up to those on the outside to make our own best judgments about what is real and right and to set limits that honor <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/virtues/152-universal-ethics">universal ethical principles </a>and wellbeing.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<i>Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of </i><a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937"><i>Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</i></a><i> and </i><a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas"><i>Deas and Other Imaginings</i></a><i>, and the founder of </i><a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/"><i>www.WisdomCommons.org</i></a><i>. Subscribe to her articles at </i><a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/"><i>Awaypoint.Wordpress.com</i></a>. <br />
Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-43696891821055857672014-06-29T09:23:00.003-04:002014-07-15T04:37:18.228-04:00Good News Club Targets Children for Summer Salvation; One City Fights Back<i>By Valerie Tarico ~ <br />
<br />
</i><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="https://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cef-pied-piper.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="CEF Pied Piper" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2338" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cef-pied-piper.jpg?w=215" height="300" width="215" /></a><span class="dropcap">I</span>n past summers, Child Evangelism Fellowship <a href="http://www.cefonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=779&Itemid=100307">has targeted</a> children in Boston, Denver, Chicago, Little Rock, Salt Lake City, and the Twin Cities for conversion to their brand of biblical fundamentalism. This summer they chose Portland, Oregon. It may have been a mistake.<br />
<br />
Some child advocates argue that proselytizing children for religious conversion is immoral. By contrast, Child Evangelism Fellowship <a href="http://cefnashville.com/Mission_Statement.html">boldly proclaims</a> what they see as a God-given mission:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Child Evangelism Fellowship® is a Bible-centered worldwide organization composed of born-again believers whose purpose is to evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and to establish (disciple) them in the Word of God and in a local church for Christian living.</blockquote>
<br />
One of their key tools is an after-school program called the Good News Club, which takes place in public grade schools across the country. Good News Clubs mix snacks, games, art projects and stories with upbeat moral lessons and the theology of blood sacrifice. In a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court, Child Evangelism Fellowship argued that they were entitled to operate in public schools because they are running a social and moral enrichment program akin to Scouting.<br />
<br />
Much to the dismay of church-state watchdogs, a majority of the court agreed, but to call Good News Clubs moral enrichment by secular standards or to liken it to Scouting, is a stretch. Despite Evangelical influences in the Boy Scouts, scouting programs to a large degree <a href="http://www.boyscouttrail.com/webelos/webelos-virtues.asp">emphasize virtues</a> that are <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/">prized across both secular and religious wisdom traditions</a>. Good News Clubs teach dark, divisive and <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/tag/religious-trauma-syndrome/">potentially traumatic</a> doctrines that are unique to fundamentalist forms of Christianity.<br />
<br />
Attorney Eric Cernyar participated in Good News Club as a child. He now monitors Child Evangelism Fellowship activities and <a href="http://www.goodnewsclubs.info/index.htm">documents</a><a href="http://www.intrinsicdignity.com/goodnewsclub.htm">club practices</a> such as deceptive marketing, authoritarian conditioning, diminishing nonbelievers, shame indoctrination, fear indoctrination, attacks on science education, and the cult technique of “mind control.”<br />
<br />
<a href="https://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cef-child-evangelizing-child.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="CEF Child evangelizing child" class="alignright size-full wp-image-2339" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cef-child-evangelizing-child.jpg" height="199" width="300" /></a>The Good News Club curriculum is filled with over 5000 references to sin and thousands more to obedience, punishment, and Hell. It stresses Old Testament narratives of a retributive God who must punish sin, warns children that they will suffer an eternity in Hell if they refuse to believe, and stresses complete obedience as the supreme value. Good News Club tells children as young as preschoolers that they have “dark” and “sinful” hearts, were born that way, and “deserve to die” and “go to Hell.”<br />
<br />
One Good News teaching tool is the “<a href="http://www.goodnewsclubs.info/wordlessbook.htm">wordless book</a>” in which colored pages represent key doctrines of atonement theology. The black page represents sin, seen as evil born into every human that keeps a person from getting to heaven (represented by a gold page). Red is the blood of Christ, whose death was necessary payment for sin. White represents the pure righteousness of Jesus and people who are saved by his atoning sacrifice. It’s as simple as “A,B,C”—<b>A</b>dmit your sin, <b>B</b>elieve Jesus can save you, and <b>C</b>hoose Jesus as your savior. Green, the color of growth, represents the newly-saved child’s life as a budding Christian.<br />
<br />
Each summer since 2008, Child Evangelism Fellowship has run a saturation blitz called <a href="http://www.cefonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=152&Itemid=100289">Good News Across America</a> in which “hundreds of volunteers” descend on a targeted city to run Bible schools “in community centers, parks, apartment complexes, playgrounds, boys and girls clubs – anywhere children gather.” Child Evangelism Fellowship boasts of reaching 2700 Denver children through these five-day “evangelistic clubs” and swelling attendance at one church from 75 to 235, almost half of whom were children.<br />
<br />
This summer over 100 missionaries will set up shop in Portland from July 14-26 when they will partner with 32 local churches to recruit children as young as five years old to summer day camps. If all goes according to plan, come fall these churches will institute Good News Clubs in Portland public schools. But some locals aren’t so keen on the idea. They point to <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/our-public-schools-their-mission-field/">the experience</a> of Seattle parent, John Lederer, after a local church “planted” a Good News Club in his daughter’s grade school. Lederer was troubled by the treats used to entice children and the way volunteers blurred the line between school and club. But he also hated the effect on the community. “Before we were all Loyal Heights parents together. Now we’re divided into groups and labels: you’re a Christian, you’re the wrong kind of Christian, you’re a Jew, you’re an atheist.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">Good News Club tells children as young as preschoolers that they have “dark” and “sinful” hearts, were born that way, and “deserve to die” and “go to Hell.”<br />
<br />
</span>For perhaps the first time, this summer Good News Across America will face organized opposition. As volunteers step up preparations for the Portland blitz, a coalition called Protect Portland Children is stepping up outreach to local media, parents, child advocates, and school administrators. Protect Portland Children says they mean no disrespect for local churches and volunteers. Rather, they hope to “spread the word that the Good News Club’s extreme teachings can be psychologically harmful to children” and that Child Evangelism Fellowship “is now targeting Portland with a major recruiting campaign.” “One of our goals is to help the next city they target and to make this a national conversation,” says member Kaye Schmitt.<br />
<br />
Protect Portland Children points to the investigative expose by journalist Katherine Stewart, author of <a href="http://www.thegoodnewsclub.com/"><i>The Good News Club</i></a><i>,</i>. Like Seattle's Lederer, Stewart dug deeper after witnessing Child Evangelism in action at her daughter’s school. And they are taking tips from Cernyar, whose website <a href="http://www.intrinsicdignity.com/policy.htm">Intrinsic Dignity</a> examines legal precedents related to use of public facilities, providing guidelines and models for parents and administrators who oppose religious bullying in public schools. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Cernyar urges parents and district administrators to push back: “It <i>is</i> possible for a school district to regulate its forum to protect its students from psychologically and emotionally harmful after-class activities.”<br />
<br />
Child Evangelism brings to the fight the clout of a national organization with <a href="http://www.cefonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=32&Itemid=100324">over 700</a> paid staff in the U.S. and Canada alone and a seasoned legal team. They face a loose-knit group of volunteers. To speak in biblical archetypes, it’s a story of David against Goliath. But in one regard the opposing sides may well be evenly matched: their sense of righteous mission. On the Intrinsic Dignity site, Cernyar puts it this way:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Children have a right to develop in conditions of freedom, open inquiry, and empathy, and in respect of their inherent dignity and equality. Our mission is to challenge practices—beginning with private organizations infiltrating our nation’s public elementary schools—that shame and terrify children and assault their self-esteem.</blockquote>
<br />
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus sends his disciples out into the world with these words, “be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” It’s a shame that some Bible believers seem to have missed the second half of the sentence.<br />
<br />
<i>To follow this issue or lend your support, Protect Portland Children requests that you "like" their </i><a data-mce-href="https://www.facebook.com/ProtectPortlandChildren" href="https://www.facebook.com/ProtectPortlandChildren"><i>Facebook page</i></a><i>.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937">Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</a> and <a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas">Deas and Other Imaginings</a>, and the founder of <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/">www.WisdomCommons.org</a>. Subscribe to her articles at <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/">Awaypoint.Wordpress.com</a>. </i><br />
<br />
<b>Related:</b><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/our-public-schools-their-mission-field/" rel="bookmark">Our Public Schools Their Mission Field</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/dont-want-pro-genocide-bible-lessons-in-your-public-school-fight-back-heres-how/" rel="bookmark">Don’t Want Pro-Genocide Bible Lessons in Your Public School? Fight Back! Here’s How.</a></b></div>
Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-32200684516469382442014-05-22T04:51:00.002-04:002014-06-08T07:53:14.408-04:00Changing the Abortion Conversation--A Biblical Aikido Strategy <i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/akido-self-defense.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Akido Self Defense" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2282" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/akido-self-defense.jpg?w=300" height="186" width="300" /></a><span class="dropcap">P</span>icture this: A group of abortion opponents stand outside a women’s clinic holding pictures of fetal remains. As they stand there, calling and offering pamphlets to people entering the clinic, a trickle of pro-choice activists also arrive. Instead of lining up on the opposite side of the sidewalk, they position themselves beside the first group in silence, holding posters of their own.<br />
<br />
The signs have words—not their own words but words from texts that inspire the anti-choice movement. Some quotes are from modern church leaders or ancient patriarchs. Others are from the Bible itself. <a class="ext-link" href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/mysogynistquoteschurchfathers/" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">They read</a>:<br />
<ul><li>I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children. –Saint Augustine</li>
<li>In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee. –Genesis 3:16</li>
<li>Women will be saved through childbearing. –1 Timothy 2:15</li>
<li>The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes. –<a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Martin Luther">Martin Luther</a></li>
<li>If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her only die from bearing; she is there to do it. –Martin Luther</li>
<li>If no proof of the bride’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. –Deuteronomy 22:20-21</li>
<li>Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good. –<a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Albertus Magnus">Saint Albertus Magnus</a></li>
<li>When life begins with that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen. –Senate candidate <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mourdock" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Richard Mourdock">Richard Mourdock</a></li>
<li>Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them. –Pastor Mark Driscoll, <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Hill_Church" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Mars Hill Church">Mars Hill Church</a>, Seattle</li>
</ul>The anti-abortion protesters are confused—Are these new people on our team or not? They lean and shuffle so that they can read the signs more clearly. A couple even ask, “Who are you?<i>” </i>But the sign bearers just smile politely and decline to engage. Patients, staff, and passersby who read the words are offended. In fact, they are even more offended by the quotes than they are by the dead fetus pictures. And that is the point.<br />
<br />
Aikido is a <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_martial_arts" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Japanese martial arts">Japanese martial art</a> that makes use of the attacker’s own momentum as a defensive strategy. Rather than trying to oppose force head-on, an Aikido pra<span style="background-color: white;">ctitioner<del></del>—who may be small and weak<del></del>—leverag</span>es her opponent’s own strength and energy, nudging the attacker’s move in one direction or another, or exaggerating it slightly, rendering the assault harmless.<br />
<br />
The above scenario describing a clinic protest is an Aikido move. The abortion opponents hold up signs of fetal remains in an attempt to elicit disgust; the counter-protesters simply take that <a class="ext-link" href="http://goprapeadvisorychart.com/" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">disgust</a> and in a non-confrontational, nonviolent way, amplify and redirect it.<br />
<br />
Why do words from the Bible and Christian authorities have Aikido potential? Because they are the driving force behind the dead fetus signs that have plagued patients and providers for two generations, and they are morally repugnant. Abortion opponents may talk about babies and medical science; they may say falsely that abortion causes cancer or induces a psychological trauma syndro<span style="background-color: white;">me, and tha</span>t contraceptives render women infertile or that birth control pills turn your blood serum green.<br />
<br />
They may fight in court using legalese or pose as medical caregivers themselves, but behind and beneath it all lies the relentless drive of Bible belief and powerful religious traditions that lend the weight of absolute divine authority to gendered scripts.<br />
<br />
As futurist <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Tappan_Doolittle_Robinson" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Sara Tappan Doolittle Robinson">Sara Robinson</a> has <a class="ext-link" href="http://www.alternet.org/story/154144/why_patriarchal_men_are_utterly_petrified_of_birth_control_--_and_why_we" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">said</a>, in a century that included both the first automobile and the first man on the moon, the pill may well have been the most disruptive technology of them all. Every prior cultural or religious system, including Judeo-Christianity was scripted around one immutable biological fact: Women had no control over their fertility. This was the defining reality around which whole civilizations structured roles and obligations. It is why early legal codes, like that in the Bible, treated women as chattel—literally, the property of men. In cultures obsessed with patriarchal inheritance and sacred bloodlines, the only way to get around “mama’s baby, papa’s maybe” was for men to control the sexual behavior of their daughters, wives, and slaves.<br />
<br />
One of the functions of religion is to elevate the status of cultural scripts, making them more durable, less subject to question and revision. “Why?” asks the curious or frustrated child. “Because I said so!” answers her parent, as if that settled the question. Later in life, faced with contradictions, frustrations, suffering, or self-doubt, the child (now grown) calls upon an introjected parent of divine proportions, and the answer echoe<span style="background-color: white;">s, “Becaus</span>e God said so!”<br />
<br />
Many abortion protesters, though deeply religious, honestly believe that they are saving babies. They honestly believe that family planning hurts women. They have no idea they have been manipulated and are spending their days on the picket line in the service of an archaic script that served our Iron Age ancestors. Such is the power of rationalization.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">Many protestors have no idea they have been manipulated and are spending their days on the picket line in the service of an archaic script that served our Iron Age ancestors.</span>Some do know that the secular arguments against abortion are philosophically tenuous or that family planning has tremendous power to <a class="ext-link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/reproductive-health-economy_b_1953266.html" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">lift families out of poverty</a>. They know that the fight really is all about theology, but they would still prefer to make their case in universal terms. “Because my God said so” has less and less weight in modern society.<br />
<br />
Globally, secularism is on the rise thanks in part to the Internet, and the United States is experiencing an unparalleled shift toward secularism. The <em>New Scientist </em>magazine <a class="ext-link" href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229670.600-losing-our-religion-your-guide-to-a-godless-future.html" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">recently took stock</a> of the trend lines:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>A decade ago, more than three-quarters of the world’s population identified themselves as religious. Today, less than 60 per cent do, and in about a quarter of countries the nones are now a majority. … <a class="ext-link" href="http://www.pewforum.org/" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">Even in the US</a> – a deeply Christian country – the number of people expressing “no religious affiliation” has risen from 5 per cent in 1972 to 20 per cent today; among people under 30, that number is closer to a third.</blockquote><br />
In Christian-dominant cultures, the <a class="ext-link" href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/if-the-bible-were-law-would-you-qualify-for-the-death-penalty/" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">violent</a> and contradictory passages of the Bible are becoming more known, as are the <a class="ext-link" href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/polytheism-and-human-sacrifice-in-early-israelite-religion/" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">roots of Abrahamic religion</a> in the <a class="ext-link" href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/ancient-sumerian-origins-of-the-easter-story/" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">earlier cultures</a> of the Ancient Near East. Exposed to sunlight, ancient idols crumble, both literally and metaphorically, especially when they are held aloft by religious fanatics who are seen as judgmental and out of touch. Each of these is a trend-line that provides reproductive rights advocates with an Aikido opportunity.<br />
<br />
Recently deceased Baptist pastor Fred Phelps was master of what I now call “The Phelps Effect,” in which a person makes his own position so repugnant that he moves public opinion in the opposite direction. Caught in the tangle of biblical literalism, Phelps quoted chapter and verse to back up his conviction that “God hates fags.” He became the face of homophobia, and he helped to make it repulsive. In doing so, he also undermined the authority of the particularly noxious scriptures he claimed as his own.<br />
<br />
Like Phelps, most abortion opponents perceive themselves to be on a divinely appointed mission. Unlike Phelps, they may seek to downplay the biblical imperative that drives them, to deflect the debate onto topics like <a href="http://rhrealitycheck.org/tag/life-at-conception/" target="_blank">when life begins</a> or fetal pain. They may use prenatal photography selectively to activate our protective instinct toward anything that looks big-eyed or remotely human. They may labor to blur the distinction between a fertilized egg and a baby or child. What they try to avoid is exposing the deep seated misogyny of their worldview. This year, the Republican Party has <a class="ext-link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/27/republican-candidates-women_n_4675979.html" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">held trainings</a> for national candidates on how to talk about women. Their goal is to try and avoid a repeat of the “<a class="ext-link" href="http://goprapeadvisorychart.com/" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">rape Tourette’s</a>” phenomenon that plagued the party two years ago. <i>You can think horrible things about women, but just don’t say them</i>.<br />
<br />
This is where Aikido comes in.<br />
<br />
Abortion opponents, on their own, may not go far enough to trigger the Phelps Effect. But we can. The clinic scenario that opens this article is one hypothetical example, but the opportunity is broader. I recently wrote about <a class="ext-link" href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/missing-fred-phelps-five-top-contenders-for-christian-hater-of-the-year/" rel="external" target="_blank" title="(Open in new tab) ">five religious leaders</a> who are prone to saying awful things about women and<span style="background-color: white;"> LGBTQ people.</span> I could have written about 50, each of whom provides ample opportunity to expose the long legacy of misogyny behind the man.<br />
<br />
When we spotlight what drives the anti-choice movement, we expose a set of archaic imperatives that demand female submission and tell young women they will be saved though childbearing. And ordinary Americans don’t like what they see.<br />
<br />
<hr><br />
Published at RH Reality Check under the title "<a href="http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/05/16/using-aikido-change-abortion-conversation/">Using Akido to Change the Abortion Conversation</a>" May 16, 2014.<br />
<br />
<strong>Related:</strong><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/the-difference-between-a-dying-fetus-and-a-dying-woman/">The Difference Between a Dying Fetus and a Dying Woman</a><br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/abortion-as-a-sacred-value/">Abortion as a Blessing, Grace, or Gift–Changing the Conversation About Reproductive Rights and Moral Values</a><br />
<del></del><del></del><del></del><br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/my-abortion-baby/" target="_blank">My Abortion Baby</a><br />
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><img alt="" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=c7dac803-2996-480b-9fa1-192f08d0bf47" style="border: none; float: right;" /></div>Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-35431507274169661182014-03-19T07:21:00.003-04:002014-03-29T07:34:17.449-04:00Conscience Creep: How "Religious Freedom" Spiraled Out of Control <i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gay.net/opinion/2014/03/08/license-discriminate-bills-will-keep-coming" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Sorry Mary - Straights Only" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2137" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/religous-freedom-sorry-mary.jpg?w=300" height="225" width="300" /></a><span class="dropcap">S</span>ecular Americans and many liberal people of faith have been horrified by the Right’s most recent ploy: <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/02/26/kansas_arizona_and_the_gops_new_jim_crow_partner/">“religious freedom” claims</a> that would give conservative business owners license to discriminate. Until Arizona <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/crosby-burns/arizona-businesses-license-to-discriminate-lgbt-people_b_4867077.html">made the national spotlight</a>, the need for lunch counter sit-ins had seemed like a thing of the past. But in reality, <a href="http://www.thomasmore.org/">advocates</a> for religious privileges have been circling toward this point for some time.<br />
<br />
As a legal and political tactic, Tea Party politicians and conservative Church leaders have high hopes for their “religious freedom” push. What they want broadly is a set of legal agreements that elevate religious beliefs above human rights laws and civic obligations. They hope that securing absolute religious rights will let them roll back rights for queers and women. They further hope that playing the “religious freedom” card will guarantee them access to government contracts and will let them continue to <a href="http://www.bimi.org/content/miMilitary.php">proselytize on the public dime</a>. Here’s the thing: for decades now, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/10/is_there_a_principled_way_to_respond_to_the_proliferation_of_conscience.html"><i>this strategy has been working</i></a><i>. </i><br />
<br />
To understand what’s going on requires a detour through American history.<br />
<br />
From the days of the pilgrims onward, the American colonies wrestled with tensions between religious freedom and the responsibilities of civil society. Finding the right balance has never been easy.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/Quakers.htm" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Purtitan Persecution of Quakers" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-2138" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/purtitan-persecution-of-quakers.jpg?w=300" height="176" width="300" /></a>America’s founding fathers were deeply aware of the human temptation to impose our beliefs on others. Puritans fled to America because the Anglican Church leadership said, essentially, <i>Our way or the highway</i>. But then the Puritans turned around and did the same thing to religious minorities. <a href="http://www.worldspirituality.org/persecution-quakers.html">Puritan persecution of Quakers</a> was familiar history when the Constitution was written. Thomas Paine said, “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”<br />
<br />
After immigrating to get away from this sort of persecution, many colonists sought to live according to the dictates of their own conscience or that of their own religious sect. And yet, America’s founding fathers were aware that the young nation could not function without broad agreements that to some extent acted as limits on individual freedom, including the free exercise of religion.<br />
<br />
Religious freedom questions are complicated in the way tolerance is complicated: How tolerant should we be of intolerance? What if one person’s religion dictates that he should impose his beliefs on others who may have conflicting spiritual priorities? What if religious claims or entitlements undermine public safety, public health, or national security? Religious freedom had to be balanced against other parts of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It also has to be balanced against the demands of a coherent civil society.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Universal Declaration of Human Rights" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2139" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.jpg?w=300" height="200" width="300" /></a>During the past two hundred and fifty years of American history, this balancing act has become more and more complex. Americans are more multicultural than ever, including religious diversity. The concept of <a href="http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml">universal human rights</a> has emerged in direct contradiction of <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/15-bible-texts-reveal-why-gods-own-party-is-at-war-with-women/">traditional Christian teachings</a> that give women, <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/why-bible-believers-have-such-a-hard-time-getting-child-protection-right/">children</a>, and non-believers <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/mysogynistquoteschurchfathers/">second class status</a>. The question of who is fully a person with equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, has expanded from white male landowners to include the indentured poor, slaves, Indians, women, children, foreigners, and gays.<br />
<br />
Since religious individuals and groups have long been excused from some regulations and public duties, as culture and law evolve believers sometimes seek religious exemptions from the changing demands of civil society. This is true even when those demands are rooted in universal spiritual values like compassion and justice. Dogma may dictate a set of social priorities or it may provide a righteous excuse, but either way, religious doctrines and conscience claims often find their way into the debate about social change.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/slavery-and-the-bible.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Slavery and the Bible" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-2140" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/slavery-and-the-bible.jpg?w=291" height="300" width="291" /></a>For example, in the lead-up to the Civil War, as pressure mounted to end the slave trade, American Christians found themselves deeply divided on the issue. Some argued for emancipation. Others argued for slavery. The arguments <i>against</i> slavery seem obvious to us now, but more surprising are the sincere Christian arguments <i>for</i> slavery. Here are a few, drawn from a longer list at <a href="http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1992/issue33/3324.html">Christianity Today</a>:<br />
<br />
<ul><li><em>Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Gen. 21:9–10).</em></li>
<li><em>The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it (Ex. 20:10, 17).</em></li>
<li><em>Slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it.</em></li>
<li><em>The apostle Paul specifically commanded slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5–8).</em></li>
<li><em>Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philem. 12).</em></li>
<li><em>Just as women are called to play a subordinate role (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 2:11–15), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.</em></li>
<li><em>Those who support abolition are, in James H. Thornwell’s words, “atheists, socialists, communists [and] red republicans.” </em></li>
</ul>In the minds of people who made these arguments, it wasn’t just that slave holding was morally permissible. Many saw it as a pro-active Christian virtue. Slavery rescued people from cultures in which they practiced devil worship and witchcraft. It brought them to a place where they were taught the gospel and the trappings of civilization. Such arguments may be wildly offensive to us now, but in the end, the secular authority of the American government had to decide whether universal human rights or these deeply held religious beliefs would take precedence.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://patmaginnis.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/uterus_war.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Uterus tug of war" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2141" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/uterus-tug-of-war.jpg?w=300" height="129" width="300" /></a>Jump ahead a century to the 1970’s. Christians once again are torn, this time by questions about women and pregnancy. Some clergy favor thoughtful, responsible childbearing <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/when-god-was-pro-choice-and-why-he-changed-his-mind/">empowered by contraception and safe abortion</a>. Others <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/abortion-an-ecumenical-study-document-autumn-1978/">emphasize humility and compassion</a>, saying that a woman herself must decide when to bring a child into the world. Still others believe sincerely that if God wants women to have fewer babies he will make that decision himself. In this view contraception is an act of spiritual defiance and abortion ejects a human soul.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">From the days of the pilgrims onward, the American colonies wrestled with tensions between religious freedom and the responsibilities of civil society. Finding the right balance has never been easy.</span>In 1973, shortly after Roe v. Wade, a piece of legislation called <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/ConscienceProtect/42usc300a7.pdf">the Church amendment</a>, gave medical institutions the right to opt out of providing abortions and sterilizations—while still competing on even footing for public health funds. Since the 1970’s states and the federal government have enacted a <a href="http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RS2142801142005.pdf">series of laws</a> that let health professionals <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080307.html">refuse to participate</a> in procedures they find morally offensive. With the rise of the Religious Right and the anti-abortion movement, religious claims have blossomed.<br />
<br />
Two landmark pieces of federal legislation expanded religious exemption and entitlement claims. The 1993 <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/rfra1.htm"><i>Religious Freedom Restoration Act</i></a> (RFRA) broadly restricted government entities from limiting religious freedom even when a law applied uniformly to all people and the intent was not discriminatory. The 2000 <i>Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act</i> (RLUIPA) limited the right of government to constrain religious land use through zoning, historic preservation laws, and so forth. RFRA ultimately was declared unconstitutional because of the impact on state’s rights. Also Justice John Paul Stevens <a href="http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-2074.cpanel.html">argued</a> that it created a privileged status for religion over irreligion. Nevertheless, it has spawned an array of similar laws in the states.<br />
<br />
Religious privileges typically fall into two categories:<br />
<br />
Individual religious believers and groups want to be exempt from laws and responsibilities that otherwise apply to everyone. Here are some recent examples.<br />
<ul><li>A religious pharmacist <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17537102#.UxfDtleYbIU">refuses</a> to fill <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/16/485092/kansas-pharmacists-block-birth-control/">offending prescriptions</a>.</li>
<li>An Evangelical florist <a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020743969_floristlawsuitxml.html">refuses</a> to fill an order for wedding flowers when she realizes they are for a gay wedding.</li>
<li>Catholic colleges <a href="http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/union-organizing-efforts-advance-catholic-university-adjunct-faculty">claim</a> employees shouldn’t be allowed to join unions.</li>
<li>A Methodist church <a href="http://www.historicseattle.org/advocacy/fum.aspx">fights for exemption</a> from land use laws.</li>
<li>A Christian prison guard <a href="http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/06/29/conscience-clause-gone-amuck-rape-victim-denied-morning-after-pill-by-prison-guar/">denies Plan B</a> to a raped prisoner, claiming that to give the prescribed medication violates her own religion.</li>
<li>Christian-owned but publically subsidized adoption agencies win the right to <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-07/local/35443355_1_adoption-laws-adoptive-parents-private-adoption-agencies">shun gay prospective parents</a>.</li>
<li>Catholic medical staff <a href="http://www.medicaldaily.com/catholic-hospital-refuses-treat-miscarrying-woman-aclu-sues-catholic-bishops-over-reproductive">deny care and information</a> to a woman who is miscarrying.</li>
</ul>Religious groups demand access to public contracts, services, and facilities, even if they use those public assets to advance religious teachings or priorities. Again, here are some recent examples:<br />
<ul><li>Christian groups lobby for <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/dangerous-wave-school-voucher-tsunami-threatens-to-swamp-public-education">voucher programs</a> that divert public funds into parochial education.</li>
<li>An Evangelical missionary organization sues and wins the right to hold religious recruiting activities called “<a href="http://www.cefonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1305:school-is-starting-so-are-good-news-clubs&catid=1:news&Itemid=100275">Good News Clubs</a>” on public grade school campuses.</li>
<li>Evangelical and Pentecostal “endorsing agencies” use military chaplaincies as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-sharlet/christianity-in-the-milit_b_747585.html">paid public missionaries</a>.</li>
<li>A multi-national organization with an Evangelical Mission, World Vision, <a href="http://www.worldvision.org/about-us/who-we-are">simultaneously obtains aid contracts and exemption</a> from employment antidiscrimination laws.</li>
<li>Catholic healthcare corporations <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/how-the-catholic-bishops-outsmarted-washington-voters/">impose Bishop rules</a> against, abortion and aid-in-dying in publically licensed and tax subsidized facilities under their administration.</li>
<li>Religious advocates in the U.S. Senate propose FEMA <a href="http://www.becketfund.org/becket-outlines-femas-discrimination-against-religious-organizations-as-unconstitutional-on-brink-of-congressional-vote/">disaster funding to rebuild houses of worship</a>, even though religious institutions do not pay into the insurance fund.</li>
<li>A Jewish yeshiva seeks millions in higher education <a href="http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/06/24/aclu-sues-new-jersey-over-funding-for-religious-schools/">grants to pay for male only Talmudic studies</a>.</li>
</ul>The next couple of months may see conscience creep hit a whole new level, depending on the outcome of two Supreme Court cases that mix religious freedom with corporate personhood. The cases before the court, <i>Conestoga</i> and <i>Hobby Lobby</i>, were brought by for-profit corporations with religious owners who want to be exempt from obligations of the Affordable Care Act. They claim that any health insurance that lets a woman choose pregnancy prevention violates the religious freedom of the owners <i>and the company itself, </i>even if it costs them nothing. On the other side of the equation, the health and economic consequences of contraception are <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/9-clues-that-reproductive-policy-is-economy-policy/">so enormous</a> that the United Nations <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-calls-contraception-access-a-universal-human-right/">has declared</a> access to family planning a universal human right. In other words, the cases before the Supreme Court pit religious freedom against human rights in no uncertain terms.<br />
<br />
Can a business use religious freedom claims to get out of laws and civic responsibilities that otherwise apply to everyone? Better yet, as analyst Tom Goldstein asked it, “Do companies, not just people and churches, <i>have</i> religious freedom?” The <a href="http://theusconstitution.org/"><i>Constitutional Accountability Center</i></a><i> and</i> <a href="http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/"><i>Free Speech for People</i></a> have <a href="http://theusconstitution.org/think-tank/issue-brief/can-corporations-pray-affordable-care-act-contraception-mandate-and-free-1">weighed in</a> with amicus briefs against the fusion of corporate and religious privilege, but the outcome is far from clear. A decision that sides with the business owners would echo the Citizens United decision, expanding corporate personhood. It would also bring new energy and opportunity to the Right’s religious freedom strategy.<br />
<br />
In Arizona’s recent battle, equality prevailed largely because corporations got involved on the side of civil rights. In Washington D.C, the money will be on the other side of the equation. So will the religious make-up of the Court itself, which is majority Catholic and conservative. Even so, the justices may return to the <a href="http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-2074.cpanel.html">arguments</a> made by Justice Anthony Kennedy (supported by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas), when the court overturned RFRA back in 1997:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Its sweeping coverage ensures its intrusion at every level of government, displacing laws and prohibiting official actions of almost every description and regardless of subject matter. . . . Any law is subject to challenge at any time by any individual who claims a substantial burden on his or her free exercise of religion. Such a claim will often be difficult to contest....All told, RFRA is a considerable congressional intrusion into the States' traditional prerogatives and general authority to regulate for the health and welfare of their citizens.</blockquote><br />
In this view, if religious freedom is the trump card proponents hope it to be, it may become a threat not only to the health and welfare of America’s citizens but to our democracy itself. Let’s hope that members of the Court will remember their own words of warning.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<i>Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937">Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</a> and <a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas">Deas and Other Imaginings</a>, and the founder of <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/">www.WisdomCommons.org</a>. Subscribe to her articles at <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/">Awaypoint.Wordpress.com</a></i><br />
<br />
<strong>Related:</strong><br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/religious-freedom-laws-still-kicking-in-missouri-ohio-washington-and-more/">Religious “Freedom” Laws Still Kicking in Missouri, Ohio, Washington and More</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/contraceptive-exemptions-where-christian-privilege-meets-corporate-personhood/">Contraceptive Exemptions: Where Christian Privilege Meets Corporate Personhood</a><br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/do-catholic-restrictions-on-healthcare-force-doctors-to-commit-medical-malpractice/">Do Religious Restrictions Force Doctors to Commit Malpractice?</a></strong> </strong>Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-48908129164062288892014-03-02T14:09:00.002-05:002014-03-12T12:02:33.652-04:00Fallacy of Motivated ReasoningBy <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/MattMcCormick1781?feature=watch">Matt McCormick</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnVEisd52RrxkR2CcBJrqwRH_EVro9HrsM6qGCMyiNby5q69bGP5Yq8f7C2VSvEIB12kl1d0DejXUhMT7cqmnBjD24vxTWmAQZtoRMKHudUg7NS8qsQetvreGKGXt-D_9wZYn0A3e6_xY/s1600/moitivatedreasoning.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnVEisd52RrxkR2CcBJrqwRH_EVro9HrsM6qGCMyiNby5q69bGP5Yq8f7C2VSvEIB12kl1d0DejXUhMT7cqmnBjD24vxTWmAQZtoRMKHudUg7NS8qsQetvreGKGXt-D_9wZYn0A3e6_xY/s1600/moitivatedreasoning.jpg" height="111" width="200" /></a></div>
Prof. Matt McCormick discusses the cognitive fallacy of motivated reasoning (MR). It is contrasted to actively open minded thinking. We consider common examples of MR, the evolutionary function of MR, the research on correcting it, and how to emulate actively open minded thinking, particularly in religious, political, and moral cases.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/47T-y9HzGLQ?rel=0" width="560"></iframe>Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-47055680122331825722013-12-09T20:22:00.000-05:002013-12-22T04:10:55.290-05:00Hobby Lobby v. ACA and Contraceptives<i>By David Rosman ~ </i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFBX2Io3TsvONIiOnXt2pdBnZ4H7H1TdO06OwXAphkTzgrgyrEKjRVUBIweTVmwhuhV-mG8Ow13z5sFqiNhipw8lLV0Z3NPtR46pBLl1LAaVGMKGruOHegBk9A6D_vS8bh5X5ZrRNnUZw/s1600/hobby+lobby.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFBX2Io3TsvONIiOnXt2pdBnZ4H7H1TdO06OwXAphkTzgrgyrEKjRVUBIweTVmwhuhV-mG8Ow13z5sFqiNhipw8lLV0Z3NPtR46pBLl1LAaVGMKGruOHegBk9A6D_vS8bh5X5ZrRNnUZw/s320/hobby+lobby.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span class="dropcap">A</span>t issue: Whether the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Religious Freedom Restoration Act">Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993</a> (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.<br />
<br />
We are well aware of the coming <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court</a> arguments concerning <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Hobby Lobby">Hobby Lobby</a> and the Affordable Care Act. The question is seemingly simple in its statement but complicated in its answer. Can an owner of a company enforce his or her religious beliefs on its employees by denying benefits required by statute?<br />
<br />
We know the owners of Hobby Lobby are Christians. They run advertisements on Easter reminding us to “know” Jesus of Nazareth. They are closed on <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_year" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Liturgical year">Christian holidays</a> while other stares remain open. I have no argument over the owner’s beliefs or business practices. I do argue that the ACA is not meant to protect a business, but to provide <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Health insurance">health insurance</a> for the individual and not all employees of Hobby Lobby agree with its owners as it concerns birth control.<br />
<br />
I cannot claim to understand the intricacies of the anti-birth control issue. I can see the argument for the anti-abortion stance, though I am still out to find anyone believing in Freedom of Choice who is “pro-abortion.” I can understand where the use of the “morning after” contraceptives would be contrary to one’s religious beliefs, but to force that same belief on others is, or at least should be part of the discussion.<br />
<br />
The deeper question is whether a corporation has the same rights as an individual as it concerns religious beliefs? <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission">Citizens United</a> laid the ground work here by declaring that corporations “are people” and 1) can claim <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution">First Amendment rights</a> concerning political free speech and 2) monetary donations are a form of speech. Citizens United really concerned the regulatory oversight of the government and a corporation’s interest in these regulations.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/conestoga-wood-specialties-corp-v-sebelius/" target="_blank">Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius</a> are taking a similar stance. The difference here is that the companies are denying health benefits mandated by law to those who may not share the same religious opinions. Should a privately held corporation be considered a “person” and have the same rights as an individual under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act?<br />
<br />
The greater question is can a corporation have a religion? This is different than a 501(c)(3) church, synagogue or temple that is devoted to a religious dogma. Here we are speaking of a for-profit organization that does not lend itself to just religious materials as a Christian book store would. Even then the book stare cannot discriminate because of one’s faith - or lack thereof.<br />
<br />
It is difficult to tell where the Court will come down on these cases. Siding with the corporation will anger a portion of the population, the pro-choicers, the atheists and <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Secular humanism">secular Humanists</a> and other secular groups. Siding against the company will light the ire of the conservative Christian movement. Who they piss-off should be of no concern to the Court. It must make its decision based on law, not popular sentiment.<br />
<br />
In both cases, the corporations are privately held. Would there be a difference if the corporation were public, sold stock and has shareholders? What if were a majority of the shareholders who call decide that they will not comply with certain portions of the law because of religious beliefs of the majority?<br />
<br />
I believe that both Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are wrong, that the law was written to be all inclusive, that the ACA, deemed constitutional by the same Court, was meant for the individual person and in this case personhood and a dogma cannot be bestowed on a corporation.<br />
<br />
Website: <a href="http://inkandvoice.com/" target="_blank">http://inkandvoice.com</a><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;">
<img alt="" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=eb89b9ff-7c5b-45de-bebd-313f578793e5" style="border: none; float: right;" /></div>
Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-60258839683032263942013-10-28T04:21:00.002-04:002013-11-09T06:36:14.937-05:00Why Bible Believers Have Such a Hard Time Getting Child Protection Right<i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/abraham-sacrificing-isaac.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Abraham sacrificing Isaac" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-1858" height="241" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/abraham-sacrificing-isaac.jpg?w=300" width="300" /></a><span class="dropcap">F</span>ar too often, the news cycle includes a tragic story about a child dying because his or her parents applied religious teachings with too much vigor. The most recent victim, <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/biblical-literalism-puts-children-at-risk/">Hana Williams</a>, was adopted from Ethiopia by Evangelical parents who believed that parenting required “breaking her will.” <a href="http://religiouschildmaltreatment.com/category/blog/">Stories</a> like Hana's provoke rounds of collective soul-searching: How did we miss the signs? What can we do differently to protect children better? But some people find those questions more threatening than the abuse itself.<br />
<br />
Mark Meadows is the congressman and Sunday school teacher from North Carolina who rallied the Tea Party to shut down government operations this month. His passion for blocking contraceptive access has been on national display. Less known is the fact that Meadows also leads a fight against rights and protections for children. He is the sponsor of a “<a href="http://www.parentalrights.org/">parental rights amendment</a>” that has 64 signers in congress.<br />
<br />
Or consider Scott Lively, the anti-gay preacher who recently announced that he is running for governor of Massachusetts. Mr.Lively is known internationally for <a href="http://ccrjustice.org/LGBTUganda/">fanning</a> the <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/evangelical-homophobia-planting-in-uganda-a-tough-seed-with-poisonous-fruit/">sometimes lethal</a> flames of homophobia in Uganda. But his admirers see him as more than a single-issue candidate. According to Tea Party enthusiast Brian Camenker, "He is principled, pro-family, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-2nd-amendment, pro-religion, pro-parents’ rights, and utterly fearless.”<br />
<br />
Conservatives Christians like Meadows and Lively oppose both national and international protections for children—including compulsory education--which they see as government overreach. Thanks to their advocacy, the United States is one of two nations (out of 193) that has failed to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (We stand with Somalia!) They <a href="http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7b5518816F-CE05-4294-8F90-C41AD67C94D2%7d">also oppose</a> the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because it “replaces parental rights with the ‘best interest of the child’ standard.”<br />
<br />
How did parent rights make it onto the Tea Party list along with God, guns, gays and gyne-politics? The kinds of fears expressed by parental rights advocates offer a clue. Among the horrors <a href="http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7b7AB3D60F-DC91-4464-9E90-B8BAE6A7E700%7d&DE=">threatened</a> should the U.N. treaty pass:<br />
<ul>
<li>“Parents could no longer spank their children.</li>
<li>Children would have the legal right to choose their own religion. Parents would be permitted only to give advice.</li>
<li>America would be under a binding legal obligation to massively increase its federal spending on children’s programs.”</li>
</ul>
But underneath these fears lies a sense of parent entitlement. Parents have <i>rights </i>dammit, and children don’t. And to understand the roots of that attitude, one needs to look no farther than the Bible. Futurist Sara Robinson has <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/154144/why_patriarchal_men_are_utterly_petrified_of_birth_control_--_and_why_we%27ll_still_be_fighting_about_it_100_years_from_now">pointed out</a> that women in the Bible are actually possessions of men, protected (when they are) by property laws rather than civil rights laws. In this regard, women of the Iron Age fall into the same category with slaves, livestock--and children.<br />
<br />
Modern Christians like to depict children as the little lambs of Jesus, who is their Good Shepherd. Sunday school teachers sing, “Red and yellow, black and white/They are precious in his sight.” Preachers quote a verse from the book of Matthew which says, <i>“If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”</i> (Matthew 18:6NIV).<br />
<br />
But the broader theme of scripture is that a man’s children are his possessions, to be <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/biblical-literalism-puts-children-at-risk/">trained</a>, traded and treated as he sees fit, even if it kills them. This concept of the child emerges in the Hebrew Tanakh, beginning with the book of Genesis, and continues into the Christian New Testament. Stories, commandments, legal codes, and theology are built on this premise and make sense only when we understand fatherhood to mean ownership.<br />
<br />
<b>Sacrifice your son. </b>Abraham is considered the father of the Great Middle Eastern religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. According to the story, God promises Abraham a son whose offspring will be as numerous as the stars. The boy, Isaac, is born to Abraham and his wife Sarah in their old age, and they treasure him to the point that they even drive off Sarah’s slave, Hagar, who had been used to produce an interim heir. But then God tests Abraham.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you. (Genesis 22:1-12nasv)</blockquote>
<br />
Abraham complies. He lies to his wife, saying he and Isaac will return. Then he deceives Isaac, who has carried the wood for the sacrifice, and then ties him up. At the last minute an angel intervenes. Although Isaac is old enough to hike with enough firewood on his back to consume a human body, at no point does the story suggest that he is an independent person with a right to life or even that his preference matters.<br />
<br />
<b>Take my daughters. </b>Lot is a righteous man, apparently the only righteous man living in the evil city Sodom. When two beautiful angels come to stay as his guests, the men of the city surround the house, demanding rape rights. To fulfill his obligations as a host, Lot offers them an alternative: <i>“Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”</i> (Gen 19:8nrsv). As in the story of Isaac, the girls themselves have no say in the matter. Their father has absolute authority over their bodies. (Mind you, in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A30-38&version=NIV">another story</a> they subvert his twisted priorities by getting him drunk and taking turns with him. Lack of consent is the <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/the-bible-says-yes-to-legitimate-rape-and-rape-babies/">Biblical norm</a> when it comes to sex, but that is another topic.)<br />
<br />
<b>Keep this one and you can have the other one too. </b>Abraham’s grandson<b> </b>Jacob falls in love with a girl named Rachel. But as in so many <a href="http://talesoffaerie.blogspot.com/2011/09/jealous-sisters.html">folk </a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twa_Sisters">and</a> <a href="http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/grimm/bl-grimm-cinderella.htm">fairy</a> tales, the sweet and desirable young beauty has an elder sister who is less appealing. In this ancient Hebrew version, Rachel’s father Laban says that Jacob can have Rachel if he tends Laban’s flocks seven years, which he does. Alas, Jacob wakes up the night after the wedding and realizes he has bedded the wrong sister, Leah. He is furious. Laban then says that if Jacob goes through with the week-long ritual of union to Leah, he can have Rachel as well. It’s a deal, if not between gentlemen, at least between men, and Jacob takes it (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2029:%2015-30&version=NRSV">Genesis 29:15-30nrsv</a>).<br />
<br />
<b>Thanks for the slaughter.</b> Jephthah is an impetuous guy. The son of a prostitute, he is driven off by his father’s legitimate sons and heads a band of outlaws until his once high and mighty relatives come groveling. They beg him to lead an army against their enemies, the Ammonites. Jephthah can’t resist pointing out the reversal of fortunes, but then accepts the role. In the words of the Bible writer, “the spirit of the Lord comes upon him.” He wins his battles, and in gratitude, Jephthah vows to sacrifice the first being that greets him when he returned home. The unlucky greeter happens to be his only child. Faced with imminent death, she asks for a month in the wilderness to mourn her virginity, and on her return Jephthah follows through with his vow. His filicide is “counted as righteousness” on his part. Note that the assumption in this story is that <i>any</i> living being which might greet him upon his return to the house—wife, servant, child, or sheep—is his to offer up if he sees fit (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011:29-40&version=NRSV">Judges 11:29-40nrsv</a>).<br />
<br />
<b>A daughter to the victor. </b>Daughters in the Bible rarely are threatened with human sacrifice, but they routinely are given in marriage as their fathers see fit, often in order to cement diplomatic ties or to reward military exploits. In the book of Judges, for example, the chieftain Caleb promises his daughter to any man who manages to conquer the city of Hebron (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%201:8-13&version=NRSV">Judges 1:12-13</a>). As she is handed off, the cagey daughter negotiates some real estate in the deal.<br />
<br />
In the Hebrew Bible, premarital sex is regulated legally within a property framework. A used female is damaged goods, and consequently a rapist can be forced to buy the girl he has violated, from her owner—her father. (See, “<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/the-bible-says-yes-to-legitimate-rape-and-rape-babies/">What the Bible Says about Rape and Rape Babies</a>.”) An unmarried female who voluntarily becomes “impure” can be put down, and a married woman who is suspected of adultery can be forced to drink poison. The Bible records an intense focus on bloodlines and genealogies in the cultures from which it emerged, not unlike the elaborate records that modern ranchers keep about the breeding of stock. In this context a fertile female is a specific kind of wealth. That said, females aren’t the only children treated as paternal assets.<br />
<br />
<b>Pox on your firstborn. </b>Many cultures of the Ancient Near East practiced <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firstborn_(Judaism)">primogeniture</a>, meaning that firstborn sons had a unique right to inherit the wealth of their fathers. No surprise, then that firstborns were highly valued. In the Exodus story, God sends a series of plagues on the Egyptians, each time hardening Pharaoh’s heart so that he won’t let the Israelite slaves leave. Locusts strip crops, frogs invade houses and rivers turn to blood--all building toward the ultimate plague: The Egyptians wake up one morning to find that the firstborn in each house is dead. As in the other Bible stories I’ve described, these dead children are a means to an end. The moral questions turn not on their own actions or right to life but on a cosmic game being played out between God and adults. The power of God’s chess move lies in what their death costs their parents, including the Pharaoh himself (<a href="http://www.blogger.com/Users/Valerie/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/Exodus%2011">Exodus 11</a>).<br />
<br />
<b>All’s well that ends well.</b> In the story of Job, Satan and God play out another epic contest. God says, <i>Job is my man</i>. Satan says, <i>If I strip him bare, he will curse you.</i> God says, <i>Go for it</i>. There’s a lot to go for; Job has been blessed with seven sons and three daughters, “seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred donkeys, and very many servants.” As the contest proceeds, Job’s vast wealth gets decimated, and a strong wind collapses the roof, crushing his sons and daughters while they party together (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201&version=NRSV">Job 1</a>). But all is ok in the end, because God replaces them with seven new sons and three new daughters to go with his new livestock and other riches. (Job 42: 12-13).<br />
<br />
<b>Beware the iniquity of grandparents. </b>The Ten Commandments are thought of by Bible believers as the ultimate moral code. Most don’t know that the Bible contains several versions, for example <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034&version=NIV">here</a> and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=NIV">here</a>. The most familiar version of the Ten Commandments opens and closes with verses that ensconce children and women, respectively, as extensions of men. In Commandment 10, women get included in a property list (don’t covet your neighbor’s ox or ass or wife . . .), while in Commandment 1 children are proxies through which God can punish anyone who doesn’t give Jehovah his due:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. <sup>5 </sup>You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=NRSV">Exodus 20</a>:5)</blockquote>
<br />
<b>Baby bashing is sweet payback. </b>If God himself is thought to punish children for the sins of their fathers, it should come as no surprise that his followers do the same and fantasize about harming children when they want revenge. After the occupation of Jerusalem, the Psalmist relishes one such fantasy:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
O daughter Babylon, you devastator!<br />
<br />
Happy shall they be who pay you back<br />
<br />
what you have done to us!<br />
<br />
Happy shall they be who take your little ones<br />
<br />
and dash them against the rock! (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20137&version=NRSV">Psalms 137</a>:9)</blockquote>
<br />
In an ethics class, a passage like this might open a conversation about punishment by proxy--about, say, blood feuds or terrorism or the vengeance instinct itself. In the Bible, though, it simply stands as an expression of anguish penned during a time when collective punishment was so normal that it was essentially invisible. They say a fish has no concept of water because it knows nothing else. So it is with the Bible writers, who seem to have no concept of an alternate world in which women and children have rights of their own to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a world in which parents nurture their children but <a href="http://www.katsandogz.com/onchildren.html">don’t own them</a>, in which the personhood and autonomy (and ethical responsibilities) of a child correspond to what that child is able to think, feel and do.<br />
<br />
Christian fundamentalists swim in an Iron Age sea. Believing the Bible to be the literally perfect word of God, they sanctify fragments of culture from a time when our ancestors had yet to discover the spinning wheel or the simple lifesaving power of hand washing. When people make the Bible into a Golden Calf—a practice that some call bibliolatry—they lose their ability to think outside the book. Parents—meaning fathers--get elevated to the top of an ancient hierarchy in which position is power and might makes right.<br />
<br />
<b>Oh Jesus. </b>No single Bible story has done more to ensconce this degraded concept of childhood than the story of Jesus himself. The Christ stories draw elements from earlier narratives all the way back to that first image of Isaac on the altar. As understood by many American Christians, Jesus is the ultimate filial sacrifice, the ultimate lamb without blemish, the ultimate target of proxy punishment in a world where two wrongs somehow make a right. <i>“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son”</i> (John 3:16).<br />
<br />
God gave his child. <i>He gave his.</i> Just like Abraham and Laban and Jephtheh and Lot and Caleb.<br />
<br />
The Bible is an imperfect record of our imperfect ancestors struggling to understand what is real and right and how to live in moral community with each other. Until Christians are able to take the Book off its pedestal they will continue to get child protection wrong, and wounded children will continue to pay the price.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<i>Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937">Trusting Doubt:A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</a> and <a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas">Deas and Other Imaginings</a>, and the founder of <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/">www.WisdomCommons.org</a>. Her articles can be found at <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/">Awaypoint.Wordpress.com</a></i><br />
<br />
<b>Related:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/biblical-literalism-puts-children-at-risk/">The Sick Biblical Literalism That Puts Children at Risk of Abuse and Even Death</a></b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/child-friendly-faith/"><b>Child-Friendly Faith Project</b></a><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/the-fragile-boundary-between-religion-and-child-abuse/">The Fragile Boundary Between Religion and Child Abuse</a></b><br />
<br />
<b><a awaypoint.wordpress.com="" bb="" bfeight-ugly-sins-the-catholic-bishops-hope-lay-members-and-others-wont-notice="" ef="" href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/imagine-no-religion-on-facebook/%3EImagine%20No%20Religion.%20On%20Facebook.%3C/a%3E%3C/strong%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cstrong%3E%3Ca%20href=">Eight Ugly Sins the Catholic Bishops Hope Lay Members and Others Won’t Notice</a> </b> </div>
Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-29618313182574882742013-10-03T18:11:00.001-04:002015-06-06T10:25:08.229-04:00Religion and its oppressive conditioning of the African-American<i>By blacksunETHER ~ </i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8r3pmhDi1-lusPhBs1vMcGbexQ6veogfL5255hKkDk8jZjzH3R3oS1fBDIoIGm4x_gM0dEA-n0YOsZzvjXzlzZ390okKgMe3PosEMAXnHZDsNNUfMalvD3WeNPAvoRtLS-LQN8HOP88U/s1600/black2bchurch2bmembers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8r3pmhDi1-lusPhBs1vMcGbexQ6veogfL5255hKkDk8jZjzH3R3oS1fBDIoIGm4x_gM0dEA-n0YOsZzvjXzlzZ390okKgMe3PosEMAXnHZDsNNUfMalvD3WeNPAvoRtLS-LQN8HOP88U/s320/black2bchurch2bmembers.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote>
Yes Massa, We’s serve yo’ God</blockquote>
<br />
<b>PRELUDE:</b><br />
<br />
<span class="dropcap">M</span>y people! We were kings and queens. Keen observers of the sky. Masters of alchemy. Warriors of of valor. Teachers of great wisdom. Masterful craftsmen of rock and sand. Respecters of nature. Honorable guardians of the ever so delicate balance of life. Let nothing deny this heritage!<br />
<br />
Shackles! The brute force of oppression cemented the fate of many Africans crossing the treacherous waters of the Atlantic. The seaman upon these foul stench vessels would not have for-seen their hand in one of the most destructive holocausts known to man. Nor would they have for-seen the vestiges of slavery, in the shapes of proverbial shackles encapsulating the mind of the modern Negro.<br />
<br />
<b>ORATORIO:</b><br />
<br />
<b>Part I</b><br />
<br />
Growing up in church is ubiquitous in the American Black experience. The church has served as the beacon and cornerstone of many black communities. Emotionally induced songs, call and response, thunderous shouts of joyous pain and the oratorical exhortations of the preacher, gives shape to this unique experience. While our people bled every ounce of dignity and pride in the hellish conditions of slavery/Jim Crow, the church was the only place where we can feel and be treated as human beings. Being cut off from the spiritual traditions of their ancestors, Christianity became the perfect vehicle for escapism. Therein laid the alluring taste of hope and freedom, which our people so desperately desired.<br />
<br />
It has also served as a social catalyst in movements for black freedom, independence and self-determination. A benchmark of such social change is the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Civil rights movement">Civil Rights movement</a>, spearheaded by America’s most noted orator and leader <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King%2C_Jr." rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Martin Luther King, Jr.">Martin Luther King Jr.</a> As pivotal the church has served my people – steeped in tradition and pride – it is the very institution that continues to rely on old ideas while the rest of world adapts to revolutionary thought and process. There is no convincing a person who believes, without any shadow of doubt, that life began at the “garden of Eden”, of any other accepted scientific theories of biological processes.<br />
<br />
Religion is allergic to change. The mindset alone is affixed to tenets, creeds and beliefs that are preached every Sunday. For 28 years, the church was my life. Bible study, choir practice, prayer meetings, church-cleanup – you name it – I was part of it. As I grew older, the more passionate I became for god, jesus and everything associated with Christianity. Fear is a common companion amongst dogmatic followers of the faith. This is the type of fear that literally determines the long list of “do’s and dont’s”. Don’t have sex before marriage! Don’t smoke! Don’t curse! Don’t look at women with lust! The list is as long one’s conviction permits. In the Christian world, its like walking on ice. Tread softly as to not incite the wrath of god. A Christian’s worldview is incredibly myopic; the world is “fallen” and we must be saved by god from his enemy, Satan. The crux of the faith is the belief that Jesus will come back and save humanity. Cue Superman. Jesus said he’s coming back soon; yet 2,000 plus years has gone by and no sign of a man in a robe and sandals cracking the sky. You will see how its not only funny – but has crossed the line of ridiculous a millennia ago.<br />
<br />
<b>Part II</b><br />
<br />
My journey from a Jesus-freak to a free bird (no religious affiliation) has been a roller-coaster ride. Its an arduous process of unpacking religious dogma, superstition and fear. Learning new concepts of spirituality and consciousness was met with trepidation. Nevertheless it has sparked new questions and opened doors of the mind I previously was unaware of. The more this house of glass began to crack and shatter, the more ridiculous religion became. The players of this metaphysical melodrama, a wrathful god, a hippie named Jesus and the sly devil, has lost its luster. All types of questions have found residence in my renewed mind. Is god of the bible the creation of man? Is the bible infallible? Is Jesus real? Is Christianity as unique as we are led to believe? Why did god allow my people to be enslaved by “his” people, Christians? These questions needed answers.<br />
<br />
Voraciously reading anything about christian origins, the rabbit hole did not lead me to rabbits – unfortunately – but it did lead me to understanding that Christianity is not the creation from divine wisdom. Instead, Christianity is the culmination of oratory and literary traditions, stemming from the spiritualism of our ancestors in ancient Kemet (Egypt)[George James <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_James_%28writer%29" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="George James (writer)">Stolen Legacy</a>].<br />
<br />
There have been spiritual traditions in practice well before the “manifest destiny” invasion of European missionaries and profiteers [<a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_W._Smith" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Edwin W. Smith">Edwin W. Smith</a> The New Stool]. Nature and all of its splendor served as the context in which our ancestors viewed the world and survived in it. Concepts such as immaculate conception, resurrection, a savior, and miracles can be found in many ancient drawings and texts predating Christianity by thousands of years (check out the myth of Horus and Osiris). Rest assure, knowledge such as the ones aforementioned are hardly belted from the pulpits in black churches. Don’t get it twisted, church is a business. Those who are not willing to risk losing their platform and status, will do everything in the power to maintain the "status quo." <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Pearson" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Carlton Pearson">Bishop Carlton Pearson</a>, at one time the most revered Pentecostal leader, left his church for philosophies more inclusive. You can imagine his rejection of traditional theology was met with accusations of heresy within his church and clergy.<br />
<br />
<b>Part III</b><br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">Our people have an ardent desire for a savior. With a black president in office, the religious indoctrination shows no sign of abating. </span>If the origin of Christianity shows little or no traces of divine agency – other than the hands of mere men – then it is sufficient to say we all have been bamboozled. Religion is a powerful tool, especially in the hands of men who desire to control and submit all subjects to a particular ideology. Often the ideology promoted the “master” with divine providence over the “savages of the earth” . Such concepts has served as the soil in which slavery, institutionalized racism and oppression blossomed.<br />
<br />
How do you break the dignity, self-worth and mental fortitude of a people? Divorce them from their culture and familial relationships. Break down every ounce of self-respect with every lash of the whip (cracker). Once the mind and soul is broken into nothingness, its liken unto clay, to be shaped by whatsoever its maker wills. Our people couldn’t speak our languages, dance to our songs, worship our god[s]. We were literally force-fed the religion of our masters. This was divine? To steal a people from their homeland to work slavishly for the profits of booming industries in the West? In this particular holocaust, our people suffered their own “Stockholm syndrome”; falling in love with the apparatus that enslaved and destroyed them.<br />
<br />
Nothing is more telling of minds so conditioned to enslavement than the proliferation of churches and so-called ministries in our ghettos and resource-deprived neighborhoods. Preachers will more likely preach about tithing and serving the “kingdom of god” than being aware of the institutional injustices against our people. War on Drugs campaign, racial profiling, voting suppression, privatization of prisons are just some of the systematic injustices in place.<br />
<br />
With a savior complex so fervently believed, provoking social change is not a priority at all. Jesus will save us! God is in control! We have become sheepish and are being led to slaughter by ravenous wolves. This type of thinking is not only adverse to change, it will also feed the oppression.<br />
<br />
<b>Part IV</b><br />
<br />
Our people have an ardent desire for a savior. With a black president in office, the religious indoctrination shows no sign of abating. Who fits the archetype better than a well-dressed, articulate and intelligent black man? Quite naturally, blacks became fiercely protective of President Obama against the incessant arrows of insults and vitriol from the narrow-minded throngs of conservatives. Yet, this adoration for a black man in the highest office of the land, blinds many from seeing the policies of this current administration that promote the same racist system. Orwellian surveillance state, relentless war on terror, drone attacks, allegiances with big banks/corporations are sure signs of a president in bed with those in power. How indifferent can one be about the plight of blacks, to candidly speak of smoking marijuana – in his memoir – while complicit in the same apparatus that incarcerates many blacks for the same “crime”? The same man in which many blacks have falsely placed their hope, has yet to stand up for us.<br />
<br />
Echoing the racial deference of Booker T. Washington, President Obama tip toes the same racial line; not appearing “too black” for white sensibilities while keeping his “blackness” card handy – you know the “sing-a-song, shoot a basketball, listen to Jay Z” president. Any critique of the president’s decisions are met with knee-jerk apologists, who will label anyone critical as “crabs in a barrel”. Why are crabs in the barrel in the first place? Who put them there?<br />
<br />
Blind allegiance to anything is dangerous. We are holding so tightly to Jesus, the cross and anyone who can “save” us. What has this Jesus ever done for us? Nothing. Yet we continue to serve this god without any inquiry or consideration, if our religious fervor is for nought. How many prayers have we cried on the floors of our churches that remain unanswered? How many Africans on that ill-fated journey to the Americas prayed for mercy, refuge, anything that would wipe the reality of cold steel chains? We are better off praying to the wall because the answer will be a deafening silence. Here is the blunt truth; NOBODY IS COMING TO SAVE US. NO ONE.<br />
<br />
NO ONE.<br />
<br />
<b>OUTRO:</b><br />
<br />
We are a proud people. With broken spirits and bodies we have overcome much adversity while attempting to scrap as much dignity as possible. Who is willing to channel the fighting spirit of Harriet Tubman, James Baldwin, Mary McLeod Bethune, Martin Luther King Jr? Can we heave the carcass of religion off our backs and stand freely? Can we critique and probe long held traditions in quest for more liberating ideas and philosophies?<br />
<br />
Real and substantial progress will be made until we reject the religion and sheepish mentality of our oppressors. We can only free ourselves! No more looking above. Look within the richness of our heritage, the bountiful examples of black creativity, ingenuity and leadership. The time is now!<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
“For the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line” – W.E.B. Dubois</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
“A religion true to its nature must also be concerned about man’s social conditions... Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion.” – Martin Luther King Jr.</blockquote>
<br />
Additional books worth reading:<br />
<br />
W.E.B. DuBois Souls of Black Folk<br />
<br />
Michelle Alexander The New Jim Crow<br />
<br />
Website: <a href="http://http//blacksunether.wordpress.com/">http://http://blacksunether.wordpress.com/<br />
</a><br />
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;">
<img alt="" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=31b63cf1-f3c6-4185-ae20-bb787a81f9b1" style="border: none; float: right;" /></div>
Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-12833041945387435382013-05-25T19:33:00.000-04:002013-06-09T08:09:56.910-04:00How the Catholic Bishops Outsmarted Washington Voters<i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/pope-hat.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Pope hat" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1676" height="250" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/pope-hat.jpg" width="300" /></a><span class="dropcap">W</span>hen it comes to matters of individual conscience, Washington State voters have a don’t-mess-with-us attitude that makes Texans look like cattle—and it goes way back.<br />
<br />
In 2012 Washington voters flexed their muscle by legalizing recreational marijuana use and marriage for same-sex couples. In 2008, <a href="http://www.deathwithdignity.org/in-washington">death with dignity</a> passed some counties by as much as seventy-five percent. In 2006, Washington lawmakers outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In 1991 a <a href="http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/120.htm">citizen initiative</a> established that “every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse birth control” and “every woman has the fundamental right to choose or refuse abortion.” It also guaranteed an absolute right to privacy around mental health and reproductive issues for teens aged 13 and up. Washington State’s constitution includes an Equal Rights Amendment and (from the get-go) a stronger wall of separation between church and state than the U.S. Constitution.<br />
<br />
These measures have broad support from Washington citizens of all stripes including most religious people. That includes most Catholics, who, in the words of one Seattle parishioner, think that the bishops "need to get over it."<br />
<br />
In other words, west of Moscow, Idaho, and north of Portland, any bishops who want to control what they think of as <i>their</i> <i>sacramental</i> <i>turf</i> --birth, coming of age, sex, marriage, trippy transcendent experiences, and death—haven’t got a chance in hell at the ballot box. Washington even has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/opinion/more-time-for-justice.html">extended statutes of limitations</a> on child sex abuse—something Archbishop <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/anti-contraception-cardinal-paid-pedophiles-to-disappear/">Timothy Dolan</a> successfully fended off in New York and Pennsylvania. The Archdiocese of Spokane <a href="http://www.bishop-accountability.org/bankruptcy.htm">declared bankruptcy</a>.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">Rather than care being dictated by medical science and patient preference, a set of religious doctrines place restrictions on what treatment options can be offered to (or even discussed with) patients.</span>But the Vatican hasn’t survived for fifteen hundred years by being stupid. And as my devout family members like to say, “Where God closes a door, he opens a window.” The window the Bishops found open in Washington takes the form of independent hospitals with financial problems.<br />
<br />
Thanks to changes in health care delivery, more and more independent hospitals are being forced to merge with large health care corporations. The pressures include expensive equipment, complex electronic record keeping technologies, and an Obamacare-driven push for greater administrative efficiency. Rather like mom-and-pop hardware stores that survived by becoming Ace franchisees with standardized, streamlined supply and distribution systems, independent health facilities are surviving through acquisitions and mergers with other hospitals and health care corporations.<br />
<br />
Of the largest health care corporations in the country, five of six are administered by the Catholic Church including the famously conservative Catholic Health Initiatives which operates the Franciscan brand and has $15 billion in assets. By the end of 2013, if all proposed mergers go through, 45 percent of Washington hospital beds will be religiously affiliated. In ten counties, 100 percent of hospital facilities will be accountable to religious corporations, which are rapidly buying up outpatient clinics, laboratories, and <a href="http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-physician-relationships/providence-health-care-acquires-26-physician-group-in-washington.html">physician practices</a> as well.<br />
<br />
In the <a href="http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf">words of the U.S. Conference of Bishops</a>, Catholic hospitals and health care corporations are “<a href="http://www.mission4health.com/About-Us/Our-Mission/Catholic-Healthcare-Ministry.aspx">health care ministries</a>” and “opportunities:”<br />
<br />
<i>New partnerships can be viewed as opportunities for Catholic health-care institutions and services to witness to their religious and ethical commitments and so influence the healing profession,” . . . </i><i>“For example, new partnerships can help to implement the Church’s social teaching.” </i><br />
<br />
Here is the diabolical stroke of genius. In any merger between a secular and Catholic care system, fiscal health comes with a poison pill. One condition of the merger is that the whole system becomes subject to a set of theological agreements call the “<a href="http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/ethical-and-religious-directives/">Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services</a>” or ERDs. Rather than care being dictated by medical science and patient preference, a set of religious doctrines place restrictions on what treatment options can be offered to (or even discussed with) patients.<br />
<br />
Under these agreements, the patient-doctor relationship becomes a <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/will-the-catholic-bishops-decide-how-you-die-2/">patient-doctor-church relationship</a>: <b><i>“</i></b><i>The Church’s moral teaching on healthcare nurtures a truly interpersonal professional-patient relationship. This professional-patient relationship is never separated, then, from the Catholic identity of the health care institution.”</i> Furthermore providers who work in these systems are required to sign binding contractual agreements to adhere to the religious directives, whether or not they are Catholic: <i>“Catholic health care services must adopt these Directives as policy, require adherence to them within the institution as a condition for medical privileges and employment, and provide appropriate instruction regarding the Directives . . . .”</i><br />
<br />
The ERDs in full are readily available to the public, but here are some key samples and implications:<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Fertility Treatment:</b> <i>“Reproductive technologies that substitute for the marriage act are not consistent with human dignity.”</i> This provision excludes in vitro fertilization and related treatments. It especially affects same sex couples, who may rely on surrogacy or insemination for childbearing, but it also affects the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/fertile.htm">10 percent</a> of American couples who have fertility problems.</li>
<li><b>Contraception:</b> <i>“Catholic health institutions may not promote or condone contraceptive practices.” . . . “Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution.”</i> While we don’t typically associate contraception with hospitals, state-of-the-art long acting methods like IUD’s increasingly are provided at the time of delivery, because post partum insertion <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/repeatbirths.html">improves</a> health outcomes. Under ERD guidelines, a woman who delivers a baby at a Catholic hospital and wants and IUD or to have her tubes tied has to have a second, separate procedure at a secular facility—if they can find one.</li>
<li><b>Abnormal Pregnancies:</b> <i>“In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.”</i> Catholic practice encourages the removal of the entire fallopian tube to end an ectopic pregnancy, rather than the standard practice which simply ablates the developing fetus. That is because the standard treatment is considered abortion, while in the invasive and fertility-destroying surgery, death of the embryo is simply a side effect. More broadly, Catholic “ethics” forbid abortion even to save the life of a mother carrying a nonviable fetus. The <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/el_salvador_court_delays_ruling_on_abortion_case_while_womans_life_hangs_in_the_balance/">battle to save a young woman</a> named Beatriz in El Salvador exemplifies this very situation.</li>
<li><b>Advance Directives</b> - <i>“a Catholic health care institution . . . will not honor an advance directive that is contrary to Catholic teaching.”</i> Where patient directives and bishop directives conflict, the directives of the bishops take precedence regardless of a patient’s own religious or conscience obligations.</li>
<li><b>DNR</b> - <i>“The free and informed judgment made by a competent adult patient concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures should always be respected and normally complied with, unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.”</i> Since this battle heated up, <a href="http://truth-out.org/news/item/16391-will-the-catholic-bishops-decide-how-you-die-or-whether-you-live">stories are emerging </a>in which Catholic hospitals have force fed incapacitated patients whose advance directives specifically stipulated that this not happen.</li>
<li><b>Death with Dignity</b> – <i>“Catholic health care institutions may never condone or participate in [Death With Dignity] in any way.”</i> Physicians are prohibited even from discussing options that exist in other institutions or making referrals.</li>
</ul>
To many non-Catholics, the most shocking statement in the ERDs is the suggested alternative to death with dignity: <i>“Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering.”</i> Redemptive suffering is a theological notion that derives from the crucifixion story—the idea that the blood sacrifice of a perfect being could redeem harm done. (Theories about how this works <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm">have varied</a> over the course of Christian history.) By extension, suffering itself has redemptive value, which is why Mother Teresa’s order, for example, <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/self-flagellation-and-the-kiss-of-jesus-mother-teresas-attraction-to-pain/">practiced self-flagellation and glorified suffering</a> of the poor, ill and dying.<br />
<br />
Given the clash between Washington State’s independence streak and the top-down approach of the Catholic bishops, Washington citizens are pushing back. After Catholic Peace Health got an exclusive contract near her home in the San Juan Islands, advocate Monica Harrington created a website, <a href="http://catholicwatch.org/">Catholicwatch.org</a> to complement the efforts of the national <a href="http://www.mergerwatch.org/">Merger Watch</a>. Merger Watch has been fighting the religious takeover of secular systems across the country for over a decade, and <a href="http://www.mergerwatch.org/recent-cases/">sometimes winning</a>, but describes a recent surge that overwhelms their resources. The ACLU of Washington is ramping up and aggregating funds to fight for a state-wide solution, the first in the country, and is <a href="http://www.aclu-wa.org/myhealthcare">soliciting stories</a> (confidentiality protected) from patients and providers anywhere in the U.S. who have experienced religious interference in medical decisions.<br />
<br />
Even so, on May 20, the Seattle Times <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2021024295_uwpeacehealthxml.html">announced</a> an affiliation agreement between the University of Washington system and Peace Health. Within Catholic-controlled hospitals, <a href="http://atheists.org/content/question-atheists-hospitals">less than five percent</a> of revenues come from the Catholic Church. Most are taxpayer funds in the form of Medicaid, Medicare and capital grants for public services—or insurance reimbursement. So, the thought of the bishops influencing a public owned and funded institution adds insult to injury. In response, Columnist Danny Westneat, of the Times, <a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021029685_westneat22xml.html">framed a pointed question</a>. “Most of us aren’t Catholic, so I’m guessing we’d never go along with letting the creeds of that one faith run something as universal as education [even if ‘the Catholics have a good record of running quality schools’]. So why are we allowing it with health care?”<br />
<br />
Why indeed.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<b>Related:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/%ef%bb%bfeight-ugly-sins-the-catholic-bishops-hope-lay-members-and-others-wont-notice/">Eight Ugly Sins the Catholic Bishops Hope Lay People and Others Won't Notice</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/the-difference-between-a-dying-fetus-and-a-dying-woman/">The Difference Between a Dying Fetus and a Dying Woman</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/catholic-hierarchy-demands-corporate-personhood/">Catholic Hierarchy Lobbies to Suppress Religious Freedom</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://wp.me/p15FwO-pp">Self-Flagellation and the Kiss of Jesus–Mother Teresa’s Attraction to Pain</a><b></b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-freedom-to-die-in-peace/">The Freedom to Die in Peace</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/anti-contraception-cardinal-paid-pedophiles-to-disappear/">Anti-Contraception Cardinal Paid Pedofiles to Disappear</a></b><br />
<br />
<i>Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937">Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</a> and <a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas">Deas and Other Imaginings</a>, and the founder of <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/">www.WisdomCommons.org</a>. Subscribe at <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/">Awaypoint.Wordpress.com</a>. </i> Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-9988665821959180212013-05-21T14:05:00.003-04:002013-05-31T08:18:23.967-04:00Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die? <i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/science_religion_070703_ms.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="science_religion_070703_ms" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-1609" height="225" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/science_religion_070703_ms.jpg?w=300" width="300" /></a><i><span class="dropcap">W</span>hat happens when religious institutions get to manage public funds, absorb secular hospitals, and put theology above medical science and individual patient conscience? </i><br />
<br />
In 2010, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, an elderly woman <a href="http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/24/Catholic-directive-may-thwart-end-of-life-wishes.aspx">was rushed</a> to a local hospital called St. John. She had suffered a massive stroke and could no longer eat, drink or speak. Mercifully, she was one of the growing percent of Americans who have prepared for such an eventuality by writing an <a href="http://www.agingwithdignity.org/five-wishes.php">end of life directive</a>. Hers said that said she did not want artificial hydration or nutrition if she wasn’t going to recover. Unfortunately, St. John is a facility where the <a href="http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1282">directives of the Catholic bishops</a> take precedence over the directives of individual patients, and one such directive orders hospitals to feed and hydrate end of life patients whether they want it or not.<br />
<br />
Americans would do well to consider what happens when theology dictates health care.<br />
<br />
In the <a href="http://www.chausa.org/Mission/">official language</a> of the Bishops, St. John is a “<a href="http://www.mission4health.com/About-Us/Our-Mission/Catholic-Healthcare-Ministry.aspx">Catholic health care ministry</a>,” their term for all Church affiliated hospitals and clinics. Catholic health care ministries are publically licensed institutions intended to serve the general public. They are highly <a href="http://www.mergerwatch.org/storage/pdf-files/bp_no_strings.pdf">subsidized by public dollars</a>. To fund them the Church uses a variety of public revenue streams including Medicare, Medicaid, county appropriations, federal dollar allocated through the 1946 Hospital Survey and Construction Act, and tax exempt government bonds. As with any hospital, additional revenues come from insurance payments and investments, with the end result that the Catholic Church contributes <a href="http://atheists.org/content/question-atheists-hospitals">less than</a> five percent of the funds flowing through their hospitals and clinics. And yet the Bishops place theological restrictions on care for all patients and sometimes forbid providers from telling patients that treatment options exist elsewhere.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://www.mergerwatch.org/about/">MergerWatch</a>, Catholic control of health dollars and hospital facilities is on the rise across the U.S. In Washington State, for example, if all currently <a href="http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/mar/24/ACLU-faith-based-hospitals-jeopardize-care/">proposed mergers</a> go through, almost half of hospital beds will lie in the hands of religious institutions by the end of 2013. Across the U.S., as Catholic systems such as Peace Health and Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI) <a href="http://catholicwatch.org/2013/03/providence-acquisition-of-swedish-medical-one-year-later/">quietly absorb</a> secular hospitals, the Bishops are fighting in court for the <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/catholic-hierarchy-demands-corporate-personhood/">religious equivalent</a> of corporate personhood, claiming that the constitution gives them institutional conscience rights that trump patient choice. Meanwhile, Catholic owned pharmacies are suing for the <a href="http://www.nwlc.org/resource/pharmacy-refusals-state-laws-regulations-and-policies">right to deny services</a>; and other Catholic owned business are demanding (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/seneca-lumber-obamacare_n_3139302.html?utm_hp_ref=tw">and winning</a>) religious exemptions from health insurance obligations.<br />
<br />
In an effort to standardize the rules of Catholic institutions and the advice that priests give lay people, the Bishops have created what they call “<a href="http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf">Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care</a>," called ERDs for short. When secular and religious institutions merge, the Bishops’ directives often restrict services in both. Patients may not realize that a once secular institution named <a href="http://catholicwatch.org/2013/03/providence-acquisition-of-swedish-medical-one-year-later/">Swedish</a> or <a href="http://catholicwatch.org/2013/02/how-does-catholic-health-initiatives-enforce-the-bishops-policies/">Highline</a> is now subject to theology and could impose religious beliefs at odds with those of the patient. Following mergers, changes often are gradual, occurring slowly as staff leave and are replaced with believers, which makes the shift even harder for patients to detect. (Religious hospitals are exempt from non-discriminatory employment practices, somewhat remarkable given that so <a href="http://womensenews.org/story/health/010305/public-funds-religious-hospitals-raise-questions">much</a> of their funding is public.) Hospital administrators may state that they do not interfere in the doctor-patient relationship, while at the same time advertising for staff who are “deeply familiar” with the Bishops directives.<br />
<br />
From a consumer standpoint, one problem with putting religion rather than science in charge of healthcare is that patients may not know they are being denied the full range of medically appropriate options. They may have no idea when institutional rules <a href="http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/24/Catholic-directive-may-thwart-end-of-life-wishes.aspx">prevent</a> doctors and nurses from honoring <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-freedom-to-die-in-peace/">end-of-life wishes</a> or discussing services that are available in secular settings, services like contraception, abortion, tubal ligation, vasectomy, fertility treatment, or death with dignity. For example, one woman <a href="http://catholicwatch.org/2013/04/the-world-watches-as-women-die/">tells</a> of being diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy at a religious hospital. She was advised that she needed to have her fallopian tube removed. Fortunately, she consulted her smart phone and realized that elsewhere she could simply obtain a medication to end her nonviable pregnancy. The medication is safer and leaves fertility intact, but the Catholic directives treat this as a direct abortion, while the surgery (which damages long term fertility) kills the fetus indirectly and so is acceptable.<br />
<br />
Other countries where Catholic theology limits health options offer a dire warning of what might happen here if the Church had an equal hold on the levers of power. In El Salvador, <a href="http://catholicwatch.org/2013/03/the-bishops-guide-to-letting-a-woman-die/">Catholic theology</a> was written into law in 1998, banning all abortions, even those intended to save the mother. As a consequence, a twenty two year old mother named <a href="http://voiceselsalvador.wordpress.com/tag/beatriz/">Beatriz</a>, who carries a nonviable fetus, lies in a hospital bed with her kidneys failing, hoping to be granted an exception by El Salvador’s Supreme Court. She has been waiting for over a month. In Catholic Ireland last October, a young dentist, Savita Halappanavar, <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/the-difference-between-a-dying-fetus-and-a-dying-woman/">died</a> after being refused an abortion.<br />
<br />
In an ironic twist, the extremity of Catholic directives leads many people to believe that they couldn’t possibly be implemented here. Consider the case of Beatriz. She is the mother of a young child. Her fetus is anencephalic, meaning it has no brain and never will be a person under any circumstance. (Note: Somewhere between sixty and eighty percent of human fertilized eggs <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm">self-destruct naturally</a> before a full-term gestation, most before a woman knows she is pregnant, and many because they are defective.) In other words, the Salvadorian anti-abortion law risks the life of a young mother for an incomplete fetus that is a <i>normal failed reproductive product</i> rather than a potential child. For someone who thinks that <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/heaven-hell-and-sam-harris/">morality is about wellbeing</a>, this just sounds crazy. Of course this could never happen in the US, right? You may be astounded to learn that a Phoenix nun was <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072">excommunicated</a> and her hospital was forcibly <a href="http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/phoenix-bishop-hospital-remains-non-catholic-despite-collaboration-with-cat/">disaffiliated</a> from the Catholic Church for allowing an abortion under similarly hopeless circumstances.<br />
<br />
In Ireland, after Savita’s unnecessary death, thousands of men and women <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/19/savita-abortion-widower-barbaric-hospital">demanded</a> medical services based on scientific evidence and individual conscience. Savita became the tragic face of an international movement. Even so, given the power of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22204377">religious institutions</a> and traditions, legal change in Ireland is likely to be minimal. The largely Catholic Irish Medical Association has <a href="http://www.indiatimes.com/news/europe/savita-halappanavar-case-irish-doctors-rejects-motion-on-regulation-of-abortion-70549.html">declined</a> to request abortion rights even in cases of incest, rape and nonviable fetal anomalies. Currently Irish law allows abortion only when a mother’s life is threatened, which is not good enough for a case like Savita’s. A leading obstetrician <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22260866">testified</a> that Savita probably would have survived if she had gotten an abortion during the first three days of her hospital stay. But at that time, there was not a “real and substantial threat to her life.” By the time she met the legal criteria, it was too late.<br />
<br />
Patients count on their doctors to know and suggest their <i>best options</i> to protect health and wellbeing. But as medical options increase, especially at the beginning and end of life, the range of services excluded for theological reasons also increases. Catholic “ethicists” <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Progress-Bioethics-Science-Policy-Politics/dp/0262134888">devote millions</a> of dollars to analyzing biomedical technologies in the pipeline and then advocating policy based on theological priorities. They block certain lines of research and prevent affiliated hospitals from participating in clinical studies that require participants to be on contraception, for example a cancer treatment that might cause fetal defects. Procedures opposed by the theologians are likely to be absent altogether from patient-doctor conversations.<br />
<br />
Some patient advocates say that mandatory disclosure is part of the solution: Pharmacies that refuse to fill some prescriptions should post the fact that they are not full-service. Church-run abortion diversion centers known as crisis pregnancy centers, should post that they are not medical providers. Treatment consent forms should list the scientifically and medically accepted practices that a doctor or hospital refuses to provide so that patients know that these services are available elsewhere. Conversely, providers who sign onto a “Patients’ Bill of Rights” promising to base care only on medical science and patient conscience could get the equivalent of a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">Catholic theology sees pain as having positive soul-purifying benefits.</span>But disclosure alone won’t ensure state-of-the-art health care for many Americans, especially those living in small towns or rural settings. Sometimes one clinic or pharmacy serves a wide area, or all nearby services are managed by the same religious institution. In these cases, a woman with a painful and life-threatening ectopic pregnancy might not be able just to get in her car and drive to another clinic. Denial of service hits low income communities hardest because members often have less flexible time off work, transportation, and childcare. The right of religious doctors and institutions to deny services obstructs the right of patients to receive timely care that meets normal medical practice standards, which are designed to maximize wellbeing.<br />
<br />
That is because Catholic theology isn’t necessarily about wellbeing; it is about submitting to the perceived will of God. Sometimes these two align, and sometimes they don’t. To serve God’s will, Catholic theologians attempt to derive moral principles that are about the inherent goodness or evil of certain beliefs and behaviors, regardless of their consequences. In this way of thinking, contraceptives or abortions should not be provided because they are “intrinsically evil,” even when contraception or abortion may save a woman's life.<br />
<br />
To make matters worse, Catholic theology values passive submission to harm when it is believed to serve Catholic practice or faith. Saints are heralded for their commitment to theological principle even in the face of outrageous and foreseeable outcomes, including martyrdom. In fact, Catholic theology sees pain as having positive soul-purifying benefits. This is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemptive_suffering">redemptive suffering</a>. In the ERDs, it is offered up as an alternative for patients whose unbearable pain leads them to seek death with dignity:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dying patients who request euthanasia should receive loving care, psychological and spiritual support, and appropriate remedies for pain and other symptoms so that they can live with dignity until the time of natural death. . . . Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering.</blockquote><br />
Former nun Mary Johnson (author of <a href="http://www.maryjohnson.co/an-unquenchable-thirst/"><i>An Unquenchable Thirst</i></a>) spent twenty years working with Mother Teresa’s organization, the Missionaries of Charity, who have been accused of providing substandard treatment and pain management. She <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/self-flagellation-and-the-kiss-of-jesus-mother-teresas-attraction-to-pain/">explains</a> the <a href="http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem-news/news/20130301-mother-teresa-anything-but-a-saint.html">sometimes abysmal</a> conditions in their facilities thus:<br />
<br />
Most people today would say that we help the poor by helping them out of poverty. That was never Mother Teresa’s intention. Mother Teresa often told us that as Missionaries of Charity we did not serve the poor to improve their lot, but because we were serving Jesus, who said that whenever service was rendered to one of the least, it was rendered to him. Jesus promised eternal life to those who fed the hungry and clothed the naked.<br />
<br />
The point, in other words, is not necessarily to solve the problem but simply to perform service. Ultimately, it isn’t about real world outcomes for the person on the receiving end but about eternal outcomes for the person on the giving end. The difference is important. And although Johnson doesn’t mention it, the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-40&version=NIV">passage</a> she quotes mentions the ill as well as the hungry and naked. The Jesus of the gospel writer promises eternal life to those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit prisoners, and care for the ill. When religion and healing are at odds, the way to get to heaven is to offer theologically principled care, even when more compassionate options are available.<br />
<br />
This difference in objectives seems like reason enough to separate religion from medicine. Thanks to science, fertility treatment has come a long way from the <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/mandrakes-and-dove-blood-biblical-health-care-anyone/">mandrakes and dove blood</a> prescribed in the Bible. Victims of sexual assault now have options other than being <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/the-bible-says-yes-to-legitimate-rape-and-rape-babies/">forced to bear rape babies</a> (also the Biblical solution). As we face death, we have <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-freedom-to-die-in-peace/">alternatives</a> to convincing ourselves that suffering is redemptive. Do really we want theology at the helm of our biggest hospital and clinic systems?<br />
<br />
If not, it may be time for ordinary men and women to speak our minds. In <a href="http://www.wsha.org/chronology.cfm">Washington State</a>, where the battle over Catholic hospital mergers is heating up, the state constitution specifically prohibits the use of public funds to support religious institutions. Despite that prohibition, one district actually <a href="http://www.sanjuanislander.com/island-newshome/more/peacehealth-peace-island-medical-center/5653-attorney-general-asked-for-opinion-about-restrictions-on-healthcare-at-pimc">has a line-item</a> in the property tax code to subsidize a <a href="http://www.sanjuanislander.com/island-newshome/more/peacehealth-peace-island-medical-center/5254-religious-affiliated-hospitals-only-choice-for-many">Peace Health facility</a>, leaving the local community with no secular alternative. With the Peace Health clinic newly open the local bishop has <a href="http://www.sanjuanjournal.com/news/160777285.html">already tried</a> to block the now Catholic system from providing lab work for Planned Parenthood, as was done in the past. Legal challenges may play out in court thanks to a patients’ rights <a href="http://aclu-wa.org/myhealthcare">campaign by the ACLU</a> and <a href="http://www.healthcare-freedom.net/">grassroots groups</a>, but the broader question is this:<br />
<br />
When it comes to medical options, whose beliefs count, the Bishop’s or the patient’s? Who gets to say whether one woman is forced to incubate a pregnancy gone wrong or another is force fed at the end of life? Whose version of god gets to dictate how you live and how we die?<br />
<br />
<hr><br />
<i>If you have had medical interference from a religious institution, please share your story with the ACLU of Washington, whether you live in Washington or not: http://www.aclu-wa.org/myhealthcare . <br />
<br />
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937">Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</a> and <a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas">Deas and Other Imaginings</a>, and the founder of <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/">www.WisdomCommons.org</a>. Subscribe to her articles at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com. </i><br />
<br />
<em>This article first published at Truthout: <a href="http://truth-out.org/news/item/16391-will-the-catholic-bishops-decide-how-you-die-or-whether-you-live">http://truth-out.org/news/item/16391-will-the-catholic-bishops-decide-how-you-die-or-whether-you-live</a> </em><br />
<br />
<strong>Related:</strong><br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2006/05/14/on-loving-life-and-leaving-it/">On Loving Life and Leaving It</a></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/%ef%bb%bfeight-ugly-sins-the-catholic-bishops-hope-lay-members-and-others-wont-notice/">Eight Ugly Sins the Catholic Bishops Hope Lay Members and Others Won’t Notice</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/the-difference-between-a-dying-fetus-and-a-dying-woman/">The Difference Between a Dying Fetus and a Dying Woman</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/catholic-hierarchy-demands-corporate-personhood/">Catholic Hierarchy Lobbies to Suppress Religious Freedom</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://wp.me/p15FwO-pp">Self-Flagellation and the Kiss of Jesus--Mother Teresa's Attraction to Pain</a><strong></strong><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/anti-contraception-cardinal-paid-pedophiles-to-disappear/">Anti-Contraception Cardinal Paid Pedofiles to Disappear</a></strong>Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-87839107048969001252013-01-12T14:59:00.000-05:002013-01-22T20:44:32.792-05:00Abortion As a Blessing, Grace, or Gift–--Reclaiming The Conversation about Reproductive Rights and Moral Values<i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<br />
<i>This article is part of a broader conversation exploring how all of us, including freethinkers, can reclaim the language of morality and spirituality that the priesthood has asserted as their own exclusive right.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/abortion-paths-diverging-in-woods1.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img height="133" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/abortion-paths-diverging-in-woods1.jpg" width="200" /></a><span class="dropcap">M</span>ost Americans think of childbearing as a deeply personal or even sacred decision. So do most reproductive rights advocates. That is why we don’t think anybody’s boss or any institution should have a say in it. But for almost three decades, those of us who hold this view have failed to create a resonant conversation about why, sometimes, it is morally or spiritually imperative that a woman can stop a pregnancy that is underway.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/abortion-toes-held.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img height="129" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/abortion-toes-held.jpg" width="200" /></a>My friend Patricia offers a single reason for her passionate defense of reproductive care that includes abortion: Every baby should have its toes kissed. If life is precious and helping our children to flourish is one of the most precious obligations we take on in life, then being able to stop an ill-conceived gestation is a sacred gift. Whether or not we are religious, deciding whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy is a process steeped in <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/">spiritual values</a>: responsibility, stewardship, love, honesty, compassion, freedom, balance, discernment. But how often do we hear words like these coming from pro-choice advocates?<br />
<br />
Our inability to talk in morally resonant terms about abortion has clouded the broader conversation about mindful childbearing. The cost in recent decades has been devastating. In developing countries millions of real women and children have died because abortion-obsessed American Christians banned <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_gates_let_s_put_birth_control_back_on_the_agenda.html">family planning conversations</a> as a part of HIV prevention efforts. Those lost lives reveal the callous immorality of the anti-choice movement.<br />
<br />
Back home, here in the U.S., our inability to claim the moral high ground about abortion has brought us one of the most regressive culture shifts of a generation. We are, incredibly, faced with “personhood rights” for fertilized eggs, pregnancies that begin legally before we even have sex, politicians with “<a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/the-bible-says-yes-to-legitimate-rape-and-rape-babies/">Rape Tourette’s</a>,” and a stunningly antagonistic debate about <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/picture-a-technology-revolution-in-contraception-its-here/">contraceptive technologies</a> that could make as many as ninety percent of unintended pregnancies along with consequent suffering and abortions simply obsolete.<br />
<br />
The voices that are strongest on reproductive rights often falter when it comes to the cultural dialogue. At least part of this absence is because so many of the pro-choice movement's leaders and funders are secular and civic in their orientation, awkwardly uncomfortable with the moral and spiritual dimension of the conversation, or, for that matter, even with words like <i>moral</i> and <i>spiritual</i>. From language that seems moderately wise--<i>Who decides?--</i>we fall back on “safe, legal and rare” (a <a href="http://www.ansirh.org/_documents/library/weitz_jwh10-2010.pdf">questionable</a> effort to please everyone) or even the legal jargon of the “right to privacy.”<br />
<br />
The other side talks about murdering teeny, weeny babies and then mind-melds images of ultrasounds and Gerber babies with faded photos of late term abortions. And we come back by talking about <i>privacy?? </i>Is that like the right to commit murder in the privacy of your own home or doctor’s office? Even apart from the dubious moral equivalence, let’s be real: In the age of Facebook and Twitter, is there a female under twenty-five in who gives a rat’s patooey about privacy, let alone thinks of it as a core value?<br />
<br />
The right to privacy may work in court. But it is a proxy for much deeper values at play. Privacy simply carves out space for individual men and women to wrestle with those values. In the court of public opinion, it is the underlying values that carry the conversation.<br />
<br />
Far too often those who care most about the lives of women and children and the fabric of life on this planet limit themselves to legal and policy fights. Fifty years ago, reproductive rights activists took the abortion fight to the courts and won, and they have kept that focus ever since. But the legal fight has drawn energy away from the broader conversation. And the emphasis on “privacy” has meant that even the most powerful stories that best illustrate our sacred values are too often kept quiet.<br />
<br />
Legal codes and cultural sensibilities are never independent of each other. Abortion rights were secured legally because of a culture shift that was aided by <a href="http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/120904women-who-died.html">anguished stories</a> and <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/when-god-was-pro-choice-and-why-he-changed-his-mind/">statements</a> by compassion-driven Christian theologians during the 1960’s and 1970’s. The brutal deaths of American women every year, at a <a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-05-13/news/0405130131_1_abortion-facts-bad-old-days">peak</a> of thousands in the 1930’s, was, beyond question or doubt, a profound immorality that many Americans were desperate to stop. Protestant leaders across the theological spectrum took a moral stand in support of legal abortion. In contrast to the Vatican, they had long agreed that thoughtful decision-making about whether to bring a child into the world serves compassion and wellbeing—the very heart of humanity’s shared moral core.<br />
<br />
At this point it should be clear that the tide has turned. Opponents, having lost in court, instead took their fight to conservative churches, where they have been refining their appeals for forty years. The last few years have seen a <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html">systematic erosion</a> of legal rights driven by a culture shift that had been building long before. It has also seen a complete reversal of the once-stalwart moral support for reproductive rights among American Protestants, which in the 1950s was seen as a moral good by almost every denomination from the most liberal to the most conservative. Unless this shift is challenged and stopped, there is every reason to fear that abortion will once again become inaccessible for most women in the U.S.<br />
<br />
Can pro-choice advocates reclaim the moral and spiritual high ground? Yes. But to do so will require a challenge to the status quo on two fronts. Rather than ignoring the right's moral claims, we must confront their arguments. We must also express our pro-choice position in clear, resonant moral and spiritual terms. In other words, in combination, we must show why ours is the <i>more moral, more spiritual </i>position.<br />
<br />
This isn’t as hard as it sounds. Most “pro-life” positions <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html">aren’t really pro-life</a>; they are no-choice. They are <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/154144/why_patriarchal_men_are_utterly_petrified_of_birth_control_--_and_why_we%27ll_still_be_fighting_about_it_100_years_from_now">designed to protect</a> traditional gender roles and patriarchal institutions and, specifically, institutional religion. The Catholic Bishops and Southern Baptist Convention—both leaders in the charge against reproductive rights-- represent traditions in which male “headship” and control of female fertility have long been tools of competition for money and power. They use moral language to advance goals that have little to do with the wellbeing of women or children or the sacred web of life that sustains us all.<br />
<br />
The arguments they make to attain these ends are powerful emotionally but not rationally. They appeal to <a href="http://humanfacesofgod.com/">antiquated and brittle</a> conceptions of God. They appeal to the <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156">crumbling illusion</a> of biblical and ecclesiastical perfection—and the crumbling authority of authority itself. They corrupt the civil rights tradition and turn religious freedom on its head. They play games with our protective instinct and cheapen <a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/tarico20121128">what it means</a> to be a person. They <a href="http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer">lie</a>.<br />
<br />
That adds up to a lot of vulnerability in what should be the stronghold of the priesthood: their claim to speak for what is good and right.<br />
<br />
Republican Strategist Karl Rove will go down in history for his strategy of attacking enemies on their perceived strength -- for example, by attacking John Kerry on his war record. In the recent election, we saw this strategy in play on both sides. Obama proved to be less vulnerable than his opponents hoped on his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act. But by the time the election was over, Romney’s strongest credential, his background in business, was seen by many as parasitic “vulture capitalism.” If we want Americans to understand and distance from the moral emptiness of the “pro-life” movement, we will have to challenge the patriarchs in on their home turf, in their position as moral guides.<br />
<br />
Here, for openers, are a few ways we might change the conversation:<br />
<br />
<b>1. Talk about the whole moral continuum. </b>A <a href="http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/ltw_wolf.pdf">moral continuum</a> ranges from actions that are forbidden, to those that are allowed, to those that are obligatory. When it comes to abortion, we talk only about one half of this continuum—Is it forbidden or is it allowed?—when, in actuality, a women faced with an ill-conceived pregnancy often experiences herself at the other end of the continuum, wrestling with a set of competing duties or obligations. <i>What is my responsibility to my other children? To society? To my partner?</i> <i>To myself?</i> (To cite a personal example, my husband and I <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/my-abortion-baby/">chose an abortion</a> under circumstances where it would have felt like a violation of our core values to do otherwise.) The current conversation doesn’t reflect the real quandaries women face, one in which moral imperatives can and do compete with other moral imperatives. Nor does it reflect the wide range of spiritual values and god concepts that enter into the decision making process.<br />
<ul>
<li>No-choice advocates say: Abortion is immoral. God hates abortion.</li>
<li>We can say:<b> </b>For me, bringing a child into the world under bad circumstances is immoral. It violates my moral and spiritual values. / Whose god decides?</li>
</ul>
<b>2. Challenge the personhood/fetus-as-baby concept both philosophically and visually. </b>The history of humanity’s evolving ethical consciousness has focused on the question of who counts as a person, and if the arc bends toward justice it is because it is an arc of inclusion. Non-land-owning men, slaves, women, poor workers, children—our ancestors have fought and won personhood rights for each of these, and abortion foes are smart to invoke this tradition. But their ploy involves a sleight of hand. The civil rights tradition is built on what a “person” can think and feel. By contrast, the anti-choice move is about DNA, and it seeks to trigger visual instincts that make us feel protective toward anything that looks remotely like a baby, even a stuffed animal. In reality, the tissue removed during most abortions is minute, a gestational sac the size of a dime or quarter, which is surprising to people who have been exposed to anti-abortion propaganda. It strikes almost no-one as being the substance of “personhood.”<br />
<ul>
<li>They say: Abortion is murder. Abortion kills little babies.</li>
<li>We can say: A person can think and feel. My cat can feel hungry or hurt or curious or content; an embryo cannot. / Thanks to better and better pregnancy tests, over 60 percent of abortions <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html">now occur</a> before 9 weeks of gestation. Want to see what they <a href="http://www.thisismyabortion.com/">actually look like</a>?</li>
</ul>
<b>3. Admit that the qualities of personhood begin to emerge during gestation. </b>Pregnancy is no longer the black box it was at the time of Roe v. Wade. Ultrasound and photography have made fetal development visible, and research is beginning to offer a glimpse into the developing nervous system, with the potential to answer an important question: What, if anything, is a fetus capable of experiencing at different stages of development? Although this isn’t the only question in the ethics of abortion, it <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/what-the-right-gets-right-about-abortion-and-the-left-doesnt-get/">undeniably relevant</a>. How we treat other living beings has long been guided by our knowledge of what they can experience and want. By implication, ethics change over the course of pregnancy. A fertilized egg may not be a person except by religious definitions, but by broad human agreement a healthy newborn is, and in between is a continuum of becoming. Most Americans understand this argument morally and emotionally. The Roe trimester framework also codified it legally. Ethical credibility requires that we acknowledge and address the ethical complexities at stake.<br />
<ul>
<li>They say: A fetus is a baby. A baby is a living soul from the moment of conception.</li>
<li>We can say: In nature, most fertilized eggs never become babies. A fetus <i>is</i> <i>becoming</i> a baby, <i>grows into </i>a baby, <i>is a potential </i>person<i>, </i>or <i>is becoming</i> a person.</li>
</ul>
<span class="pullquote">Our inability to talk in morally resonant terms about abortion has clouded the broader conversation about mindful childbearing. The cost in recent decades has been devastating.</span><b>4. Pin blame for high abortion rates </b><a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/righteous-abortion-how-christianity-promotes-abortion/"><b>where it belongs</b></a><b> – on those who oppose contraception—and call out the immorality of their position because it causes expense and suffering. </b>Unintended pregnancy is the main cause of abortion. Right now half of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended. For women under 30, that’s almost 70%. A third of those pregnancies end in abortion. The reality is that abortion is an expensive invasive medical procedure. For the price of one abortion, we can provide a woman with the best contraceptive protection available, something that will be over 99% effective for up to twelve years. If every woman had information and access to state-of-the-art long acting contraceptives, <a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/tarico20121109">half of abortions</a> could go away before Barack Obama gets out of office.<br />
<ul>
<li>They say: Liberals are to blame for abortion. Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill.</li>
<li>We can say: Obstructing contraceptive knowledge and access causes abortion and unwanted babies. That’s what’s immoral. We have the technology to prevent almost all of the suffering and expense caused by unintended pregnancy, but many women don’t have access to that information or technology because of the twisted moral priorities of religious and cultural conservatives. <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/6501/barack_obama,_pro-life_hero_/">Barack Obama</a> and Planned Parenthood have done more to <a href="http://www.ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/6754">prevent abortions</a> in America than all of the choice opponents combined. The no-choice position is anti-life. It <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_alley_abortion">kills women</a>. It puts faith over life.</li>
</ul>
<b>5. Acknowledge and address the powerful mixed feelings surrounding abortion. </b>The <a href="http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/L-abortiontrauma.htm">most common</a> emotional reaction to abortion is relief. That said, women react physically and emotionally in a <a href="http://www.prochoice.org/pregnant/after/emotions.html">variety of ways</a> to terminating a pregnancy. Sometimes, even those who are clear that they have made the best decision feel a surprising intensity of loss. Women should be given the support they need to process whatever their experience may be. We also need to understand that some abortion opponents actively induce guilt and trauma in women who have had abortions.<br />
<ul>
<li>They Say:<b> </b>Abortion is psychologically scarring. Women end up haunted by guilt and permanently traumatized after having an abortion. <b></b></li>
<li>We can say:<i> </i>No one should do something that violates her own values. Violating your values is wounding; that is why each woman should be supported in following her own moral, spiritual and life values when making decisions about pregnancy.</li>
</ul>
<b>6. OWN religious freedom. </b><a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/156033/how_corrupt_catholics_and_evangelicals_abuse_religious_freedom">Religious freedom</a> is for individuals, not institutions. If the women and men who work for religious institutions all perceived the will of God in the same way, their employers wouldn’t be trying to control them by controlling their benefits package. Religious institutions have always tried to override the spiritual freedom of individuals, and they use the arm of the law as a lever whenever they can, and <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/catholic-hierarchy-demands-corporate-personhood/">that is what they are doing now</a>. <b></b><br />
<ul>
<li>They say: Employers shouldn’t be forced to provide contraceptive or abortion coverage.</li>
<li>We Can Say: The freedom to choose how your employees spend their hard earned benefits and the freedom to choose whether to have a child are two very different things. No institution—and nobody’s boss--should have a say in one of the most personal and sacred decisions we can make: whether to have child. That is why all women, regardless of who they work for, should have access to the full range of contraceptives and reproductive care.</li>
</ul>
<b>7. Talk about children and parenting, not just women. </b>Responsible and loving parents do what they can to give their kids a good life. We take our kids to doctors, get them the best schooling we can afford, love them up, and pour years of our lives into helping them acquire the skills that will let them be happy, kind, generous, hard-working adults. But parenting starts before we even try to get pregnant. We consider our own education and finances and whether we have the kind of partnership or social support that would help a child to thrive. We may quit smoking or drinking to be as healthy as possible during pregnancy.<b> </b>More often than not, the decision to stop a given pregnancy is a part of this much bigger process of mindful, responsible parenting.<br />
<ul>
<li>They say: Abortion is selfish. Women just want to have sex without consequences.<b></b></li>
<li>We can say: A loving mother makes hard decisions to bring her kids the best life possible. A responsible woman takes care of herself. A caring father wants the best life possible for his children. Wise parents know their limits.</li>
</ul>
<b>8. Embrace abortion as a sacred gift or blessing. </b>For years we have talked as if abortion were a lesser evil, rather than a remarkable gift. In reality, no medical procedure is pleasant <i>and yet </i>the option to have the treatments and surgeries we need is an unmitigated good. The term “safe, legal and rare” confuses things because it implies that what should be rare is the treatment rather than the problem, unintended pregnancy. An abortion should be exactly as safe, legal and rare as a surgery to remove swollen tonsils or an infected appendix. If we think about abortion like we think about other medical services, then the attitude is one not of shame or ambivalence but of gratitude.<br />
<ul>
<li>They say: Abortion is bad. An abortion is regrettable.</li>
<li>We can say: An ill-conceived pregnancy is bad. An unintended pregnancy is regrettable. An abortion when needed is a blessing. It is a gift, a grace, a mercy, a cause for gratitude, a new lease on life. Being able to choose when and whether to bring a child into the world enables us and our children to flourish.</li>
</ul>
<b>9. Honor doctors who provide abortion services as we honor other healers. </b>The human body fends off most infections and cancers, but not all. It spontaneously heals most broken bones and closes many wounds but not all. Similarly, it spontaneously aborts most problem pregnancies, but not all. Nature tends to abort pregnancies where there are problems with cell division or fetal development, where there is little chance for a fetus to become a healthy, thriving person. Through medical or surgical abortion, as through every other medical procedure, doctors and healers extend the work of nature—of God, if you will—to promote health and wellbeing. By ending pregnancies that don’t have a good chance to turn into thriving children and adults, they are—literally or metaphorically--doing God’s work.<br />
<ul>
<li>They say: Abortionists are murderers.<b></b></li>
<li>We can say: God (or Nature) aborts most fertilized eggs. Abortion doctors are compassionate healers who devote their lives to helping women and men ensure that they have strong, well-planned, wanted families. Their work is as sacred as any in the field of medicine. <b></b></li>
</ul>
<b>10. Honor women who decide to terminate pregnancies just as we honor motherhood. </b>Sometimes the decision to end a problem pregnancy is clear and simple. Other times not. Either way, a woman often has to fight off a sense of <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/my-abortion-was-different-why-women-shame-and-blame-each-other/">shame and blame</a> that she has internalized from religious and social conservatives -- too often, including other women. She may feel bad even when her own values are clear and the decision has been thoughtful. How often do we affirm and honor the wisdom of women who make difficult childbearing choices (<a href="http://lilithsdaughters.net.au/reading-list/">abortion</a>, adoption, waiting) so as to best manage their lives and their parenting?<br />
<br />
Most women chose an abortion so that they can later choose a well-timed pregnancy; or so they can take good care of the kids they have, ensuring those kids have the best possible chance in life. Sometimes a woman ends a pregnancy because she is choosing to put her life energy elsewhere. Even then, she is accepting that to embrace life fully she must choose among the kinds of good available to her and take responsibility for avoiding harm. She may or may not put it in these terms, but those are moral and spiritual questions, the kind that religion has long sought to guide. That is why many religious traditions support a woman or couple in weighing their own deepest values when it comes to reproductive decisions.<br />
<br />
As individual <a href="http://1in3campaign.org/">stories show</a>, the decision to end a pregnancy may be based in humility, responsibility, nurturing, prudence, forethought, vision, aspiration, stewardship, love, courage. . . . or some combination of these qualities. Mere tolerance fails to affirm the many strengths that go into reproductive decisions including the decision to end a pregnancy. These are virtues worthy of honor.<br />
<ul>
<li>They say: An abortion is shameful. An abortion should be kept secret. An abortion needs to be forgiven by God.</li>
<li>We can say: Choosing abortion can be wise and brave. It can be loving and generous. It can be responsible and self-sacrificing.</li>
</ul>
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/abortion-toe-kissing.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/abortion-toe-kissing.jpg" width="150" /></a>In the end the real morality of our position lies in the right of babies to be truly loved and wanted and in the right of parents to bring babies into this world when they're fully ready to welcome them with open arms. As my friend Patricia said, every baby should have its toes kissed. Her simple message speaks volumes. Parents who get to plan and choose are more likely to eagerly await that toe kissing. They are more likely to have the emotional energy that makes those little toes irresistible even after sleepless nights and days of work. They are more likely to have a supporting community that can kiss toes when they are busy. They are more likely to have what it takes when a baby turns into a kid, and toe kissing turns into play dates and homework and I-think-we-need-to-talk. And they are more likely to still be kissing when they have to stand on their own toes to plant a peck on the cheek of a kid who’s on the way out the door with the car keys.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/abortion-exhuberant-parenting.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img height="133" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/abortion-exhuberant-parenting.jpg" width="200" /></a>Toe kissing is a small, spontaneous celebration of love and life, the same values that are at the heart of our spiritual traditions. They are the values that no-choice, anti-abortion leaders claim to represent, but represent so poorly. We would do well to say so.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<i>Thank you to Brian Arbogast and Sara Robinson for their input on early drafts of this article.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/exchrisnetenc-20/detail/0977392937">Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light</a> and <a href="http://www.theoracleinstitute.org/deas">Deas and Other Imaginings</a>, and the founder of <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/">www.WisdomCommons.org</a>. Her articles can be found at <a href="http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/">Awaypoint.Wordpress.com</a></i> Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1266985040290242663.post-76104445701680741552012-12-09T10:22:00.000-05:002012-12-18T06:19:55.318-05:00Why a Young Humanist Cadet Walked Away from West Point<i>By Valerie Tarico ~ </i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/blake-page-west-point.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Blake Page - West Point" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-1013" height="211" src="http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/blake-page-west-point.jpg?w=300" width="300" /></a><span class="dropcap">S</span>ometimes courage means quitting. Blake Page, a 24 year old cadet in his 4<sup>th</sup> year at <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Academy" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="United States Military Academy">West Point</a>, created a storm on November 19 when he announced he was leaving in protest over religious discrimination and church state boundary violations. In his letter of resignation he stated, “I do not wish to be in any way associated with an institution which willfully disregards the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="United States Constitution">Constitution of the United States of America</a> by enforcing policies which run counter to the same.” In an <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-page/west-point-religious-freedom_b_2232279.html">op ed</a> published at the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="The Huffington Post">Huffington Post</a> on Monday, Page minced no words: “Countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution . . . through unconstitutional proselytism, discrimination against the non-religious and establishing formal policies to reward, encourage and even at times <a href="http://militaryatheists.org/news/2012/04/army-chief-of-chaplains-approves-sectarian-prayer-at-mandatory-events/">require sectarian religious participation</a>.”<br />
<br />
Page is a <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humanist_Association" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="American Humanist Association">Humanist</a> and president of West Point’s <a href="http://www.secularstudents.org/">Secular Student Alliance</a>. He served as an <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlisted_rank" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Enlisted rank">enlisted soldier</a> in <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Korea">Korea</a> for two years before his commanding officer recommended him for West Point. His story shines a spotlight into a military culture that, despite repeated exposes and lawsuits, continues to suffer from the Evangelical zeal that ran amok under devout officers like <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2012/11/13/hey-general-petraeus-hows-that-spiritual-fitness-stuff-working-for-you/">General David Petraeus</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-sharlet/christianity-in-the-milit_b_747585.html">fundamentalist chaplains</a> like <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/gordon-klingenschmitt">Gordon Klingenschmitt </a> (who attempted exorcism on a lesbian service member who requested his help after being raped).<br />
<br />
<b>Tell us the story. How did you end up being the guy at the center of the storm?<br />
<br />
</b>Page: You know, when I was an enlisted soldier I didn’t really think much about this stuff. It was there from the beginning, but I just went along with it. In basic training I said I wasn’t going to church but I found out quickly that if you didn’t you were severely punished: You scrubbed floors for four hours or went on rock flipping detail so the rocks could get an even tan or you mowed the dirt…basically whatever they could find to keep you busy. At the time I was young and I just thought that was the way it is. So, I just went to a different church each week. I remember feeling a bit disrespectful because I was going into these organizations knowing I didn’t believe what they did. It felt intrusive.<br />
<br />
Later on there were a handful of mandatory prayers, but it wasn’t a big deal.The only real frustration was dealing with the officers on a personal basis. One time during my tour in Korea, I had a problem with my family and had to fly home. When I notified my chain of command, they said I had to talk to chaplain. I thought it was maybe just a formality, but it went right away to <i>you need to believe in God, you need to pray with me, God will guide you through hard times</i>. There was no chaplain for non-theists, and with many chaplains, their personal mission was to encourage you to be religious. That personal mission often overcame the professional mission.<br />
<br />
<b>You say there were no Humanist chaplains?<br />
<br />
</b>Page: There <i>are</i> no Humanist chaplains. The army officially refuses to recognize Humanist chaplains and refuses to allow us to put Humanist on our dog tags. I have atheist on my dog tags even though atheism doesn’t mean anything to me. It’s not a philosophy. Humanism means something: We should be good for the sake of being good; we should care about other human beings. That means something, but I’m not allowed to say that on my tags, and we don’t have chaplains out there representing our worldview. But, that said, when I was a soldier I was focusing on what I could accomplish as a soldier and those things were peripheral.<br />
<br />
<b>West Point was different for you?<br />
<br />
</b>Page: West Point is different, true. Mandatory prayers are more common. The <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Chaplain">Chaplains</a>’ interactions are much more common. In Cadet <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Basic_Military_Training" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="United States Air Force Basic Military Training">Basic Training</a> they’ll come up to you in formation, “Hey, who wants a Bible?” Or during training events they’ll walk around in the field and say, “Does anyone want to come pray with me?” I understand that there are people who need those things, but many of us need something else. The lack of Humanist support throughout the military can be disappointing at times, but it was my experience setting up the Secular Student Alliance that really changed my attitude.<br />
<br />
<b>What exactly is the Secular Student Alliance?<br />
<br />
</b>Page:It’s a campus club.The biggest thing we do is weekly meetings. It gives cadets who are likeminded a place to meet. Also we organize nontheist chapel time. During basic training you have almost no free time except church, so, we just made an alternative to church. During summer training, one of the professors gets a room, brings in food, and mostly it’s just a time to connect and relax. During the academic year our weekly meeting is about <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_development" rel="wikipedia" target="_blank" title="Personal development">personal development</a>. We have topical discussions about things like the viability of marriage, ethics, how we define what is good.<br />
<br />
When I heard of the Secular Student Alliance here I started going to meetings, not because it was revolutionary but because it was fun to meet people like me and have a good time. But finding out how much organizational resistance there was to that club existing--<i>that</i> was what did it. How much trouble we had getting recognized! How much trouble we had getting funded! That was it!<br />
<br />
<b>What kind of trouble did you have?<br />
<br />
</b>Page: West Point is a place where authority and formalities have a lot of power. You have to be an approved part of the system to get trips authorized or organize any significant event. By not being recognized we could not exercise the privileges afforded to the thirteen religious clubs that already existed. The former Director of Cadet Activities admitted that he didn’t want a place for atheists here. We went through two or three appeals.<br />
<br />
After being recognized, I thought that all of our problems would be solved. But from Day One they have been awful toward us. At West Point we have officers assigned to clubs. Ours was the only “Officer In Charge” not given an invitation to the briefing about club operations at the start of the semester. Then there is a night when all of the clubs go to a large theater and set up tables for recruiting. This year was the first time we were official and could participate! But when we arrived the organizer said, “Sorry, never heard of you.” I explained that we were recognized and had every right to be there. She said, “I don’t know . . . " and walked away. We set up anyways, and eventually she came around and said we were okay to stay.<br />
<br />
<span class="pullquote">You scrubbed floors for four hours or went on rock flipping detail so the rocks could get an even tan or you mowed the dirt</span>Next we found out we had no budget. Some clubs, like athletic clubs, have tens of thousands of dollars. We sent up a request for a budget to support things like trips, guest speakers, and hopefully a conference, but got no response. Much later we learned that we were getting $1500, but nobody told us. It appeared that our request was misplaced. Was it a problem with disorganization or discrimination?<br />
<br />
Another problem was the website. We weren’t listed as a recognized club. We had a meeting with one of the representatives. The guy in charge of the website said, “No problem.” Then I told him the name of our club and what we are. Right after I said the word “atheist” he became visibly upset and started grumbling. We’re still not listed. They refused to acknowledge us publicly.<br />
<br />
<b>What was the straw that broke the camel’s back? Why did you decide to make the big break rather than staying and working inside the system? </b><br />
<br />
Page: It was just an accumulation, a realization. I realized that I didn’t have a lot of time left here and that there was still a big problem here. I wanted to start a conversation in a big way.<br />
<br />
One factor is that I found out a while back that I’m not commissionable because of some health issues, so even if I stayed till graduation I would just be a West Point grad moving out into the civilian workforce. Some people have asked why I didn’t stay and work for change within the military. I would have preferred that. I didn’t come to West Point for the ring or reputation; I wanted to be in the military. But as it is, I would be a civilian in the end either way. I could stay and get a degree and be debt free, that is true. But then I realized that I had a now-or-never chance to effect change.<br />
<br />
<b>How have people at the academy responded since you broke the news?<br />
<br />
</b>Page:It’s mixed. I had one cadet pound on my door and demand to talk with me. She is a convicted Catholic, very strong in her beliefs. At the end of thirty minutes she had completely turned around and was asking how she could support me. Some other cadets have been disrespectful on Facebook, leading personal attacks. I have also gotten threatening comments and slurs from both cadets and officers along the lines of <i>you are a waste of human flesh</i>. Not surprisingly, there are many online comments to this effect.<br />
<br />
Then again, I also have friends who have been very supportive of me.<br />
<br />
I have gotten incredible supportive emails from officers: I got an email from a major who was an instructor here. It was very supportive and talked about his own experiences as a cadet. I got another from one who was surprised to hear that these things were still going on. The number of supportive messages I’ve received is easily in the hundreds.<br />
<br />
<b>How hopeful are you about real change?</b><br />
<br />
Page: It takes patience and persistence. Most of the time people enter a conflict angry and not thinking. I wait until they are done yelling and then ask if they would like to have a conversation. “I’d be happy to talk with you if you’d be polite and calm.” Most people are willing to do that. If you talk to someone about these things and you get them to think about it in a calm manner they come around.<br />
<br />
This summer during Cadet Leader Development Training we were given the opportunity to go to church (there is no non-theist chaplains time for any training events outside of basic yet). It’s not legal for them to assign work details to those who decline to go to church. I found out we were going to be put on a work detail if we didn’t go to church. I went up to those in charge and explained that having personal time to reflect is important to everyone, not just people who belong to an organized religion. They said quit complaining. But I said, you’re giving someone who is religious a break while taking it away from someone else. I told them it was illegal and where they could look up the regulations. At first it didn’t work. That day I ended up guarding an arms room for a few hours while several others went off to celebrate their beliefs and community. But at the next opportunity for religious services the chain of command gave a public acknowledgement and said that nobody would be put on work detail for declining chapel. I know the apology didn’t happen in other companies where I wasn’t there to advocate. All around the summer training camp people were having the same issue but it wasn’t being corrected. But the point is, change can happen without a lawsuit if people are willing.<br />
<br />
Traditionally, it’s been accepted to push the needs of the non-religious to the side. Not anymore. The SSA has some great folks who will carry forward the mission that myself and others before me have started. From the talent pool we have, and the motivation I’ve seen in each of them, I am absolutely certain that the leaders left behind will fill my role and continue to develop the club and community it supports in a meaningful way.<br />
<br />
<b>Do you plan to stay involved?<br />
<br />
</b>Page:Yes, I will stay in contact through the Secular Student Alliance Facebook group. I hope to provide guidance to cadets here, perhaps as a representative of the <a href="http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/">Military Religious Freedom Foundation</a>, helping them communicate with command if they don’t know how to go about it effectively. I thought the things that happened to me were irritating. But the things that happen to other people are heartbreaking. Cadets have told me, “The chain of command doesn’t want me to go to SSA meetings because being an atheist is bad for you.” A group member quit a project because he said, “I can’t work with an atheist.” Cadets are being shown that they are not good enough. I think that is bullshit and I plan to continue to do whatever I can to see it resolved on a cultural level.<br />
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;">
<img alt="" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/pixy.gif?x-id=b5a5baf3-022d-41f7-a7ff-b32bac950486" style="border: none; float: right;" /></div>
Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.com0