Small Potatoes Unite!

Atheists Send a Message, on 800 British Buses

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:56:00 +0000

Published: January 6, 2009

LONDON — The advertisement on the bus was fairly mild, just a passage from the Bible and the address of a Christian Web site. But when Ariane Sherine, a comedy writer, looked on the Web site in June, she was startled to learn that she and her nonbelieving friends were headed straight to hell, to “spend all eternity in torment.”

Akira Suemori/Associated Press

This message — except the “probably” — has been approved by Richard Dawkins, scientist and author of “The God Delusion.”

That’s a bit extreme, she thought, as well as hard to prove. “If I wanted to run a bus ad saying ‘Beware — there is a giant lion from London Zoo on the loose!’ or ‘The “bits” in orange juice aren’t orange but plastic — don’t drink them or you’ll die!’ I think I might be asked to show my working and back up my claims,” Ms. Sherine wrote in a commentary on the Web site of The Guardian.

And then she thought, how about putting some atheist messages on the bus, as a corrective to the religious ones?

And so were planted the seeds of the Atheist Bus Campaign, an effort to disseminate a godless message to the greater public. When the organizers announced the effort in October, they said they hoped to raise a modest $8,000 or so.

But something seized people’s imagination. Supported by the scientist and author Richard Dawkins, the philosopher A. C. Grayling and the British Humanist Association, among others, the campaign raised nearly $150,000 in four days. Now it has more than $200,000, and on Tuesday it unveiled its advertisements on 800 buses across Britain.

“There’s probably no God,” the advertisements say. “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Spotting one of the buses on display at a news conference in Kensington, passers-by were struck by the unusual message.

Not always positively. “I think it’s dreadful,” said Sandra Lafaire, 76, a tourist from Los Angeles, who said she believed in God and still enjoyed her life, thank you very much. “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don’t like it in my face.”

But Sarah Hall, 28, a visitor from Australia, said she was happy to see such a robust example of freedom of speech. “Whatever floats your boat,” she said.

Inspired by the London campaign, the American Humanist Association started running bus advertisements in Washington in November, with a more muted message. “Why believe in a god?” the ads read, over a picture of a man in a Santa suit. “Just be good for goodness’ sake.”

Although Australian atheists were refused permission to place advertisements on buses saying, “Atheism: Sleep in on Sunday mornings,” the British effort has been striking in the lack of outrage it has generated. The Methodist Church, for instance, said it welcomed the campaign as a way to get people to talk about God.

Although Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Church of England, Britain is a deeply secular country with a dwindling number of regular churchgoers, and with politicians who seem to go out of their way to play down their religious beliefs.

In 2003, when an interviewer asked Tony Blair, then the prime minister, about religion, his spokesman, Alastair Campbell, interjected, snapping, “We don’t do God.” After leaving office, Mr. Blair became a Roman Catholic.

More recently, Nick Clegg, a member of Parliament and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, announced that he was an atheist. (He later downgraded himself to agnostic.)

David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, alluded to a popular radio station when he joked that his religious belief was like “the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes.”

Still, since Sept. 11, 2001, religion has played an ever more important role in public discussions, said Mr. Dawkins, the best-selling author of “The God Delusion,” with the government increasingly seeking religious viewpoints and Anglican bishops still having the automatic right to sit in the House of Lords.

“Across Britain, we are used to being bombarded by religious interests,” he said, “not just Christians, but other religions as well, who seem to think that they have got a God-given right to propagandize.”

Next week, the Atheist Bus Campaign plans to place 1,000 advertisements in the subway system, featuring enthusiastic quotations from Emily Dickinson, Albert Einstein, Douglas Adams and Katharine Hepburn.

An interesting element of the bus slogan is the word “probably,” which would seem to be more suited to an Agnostic Bus Campaign than to an atheist one. Mr. Dawkins, for one, argued that the word should not be there at all.

But the element of doubt was necessary to meet British advertising guidelines, said Tim Bleakley, managing director for sales and marketing at CBS Outdoor in London, which handles advertising for the bus system.

For religious people, advertisements saying there is no God “would have been misleading,” Mr. Bleakley said.

“So as not to fall foul of the code, you have to acknowledge that there is a gray area,” he said.

He said that potential ads were rejected all the time. “We wouldn’t, for example, run an ad for an action movie where the gun was pointing toward the commuter,” he said.

But Mr. Bleakley said he had no problem with the atheist bus ads. “We do have religious organizations that promote themselves,” he said. “If somebody doesn’t believe in religion, why wouldn’t we carry an ad that promotes the opposite view? To coin a phrase, it’s not for us to play God.”

Face, Meet Palm

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:10:00 +0000

Apparently, Senator Obama used a well-known phrase––"lipstick on a pig"––to describe John McCain's sudden claim that he's the candidate of change.

The Republicans decided it was a sexist attack on Sarah Palin.

...

Um, what?

Look, I would describe myself as hyper-aware to incidents of sexism in media, popular culture, and the world at large. This blog's subtitle, after all, is "Fighting Misogyny and Religious Dogmas."

But this wasn't sexism. The phrase, itself, might be a little questionable, but it's also well-known and widely-used. So widely-used, in fact, that as the article points out, McCain used it himself last year.

It would be funny if it weren't so depressing. I saw a clip of Senator Obama speaking on the news the other night––he said, "They [the Republicans] think you're stupid." I'm starting to think he's right. Because how anyone could claim that the Republican Party actually cares about the lives of women is beyond me. The party that wants to claim sexism in every criticism of Governor Palin, that wants to blame the Obama campaign for even a mention of Bristol Palin's pregnancy in the news is the same party who spent eight years making jokes about a teenaged Chelsea Clinton being ugly.

They think it's fine for health insurance companies to cover Viagra but not birth control.

They want to demonize desperate women and label them baby-killers while simultaneously limiting access to social programs that might actually help raise those children they're so intent on seeing born.

They choose whole segments of the American population and make them second-class citizens through their racist, homophobic, and sexist laws and policies.

I'm going to stop now, because this is going to turn into something kind of seething––or maybe it already has.

When McCain announced Sarah Palin as his VP pick, she said:

...Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

I would humbly suggest that, with an anti-woman candidate like Sarah Palin, I'm more than happy for that glass ceiling to stay intact another 4-8 years.

The Origin of Love

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:07:00 +0000

So, this song (excellent as it is) is also a faithful retelling of Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium. Now, I'm not much of a believer in Zeus, and Aristophanes spouts a fair bit of anti-woman rhetoric, but I still find this story kind of enchanting, all by itself, and the video's illustration of it is really lovely.

It helps that the song's so damn catchy.

I am OUT of the beauty game!

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:15:00 +0000

This post is probably going to make me sound like a very crunchy hippie, but here goes...

So, I was thinking yesterday about how my hair's been looking very nice of late (at least the last few months). This is owing, in part, to the FIERCE haircuts I get from a good friend of mine. But I've also noticed that my hair usually looks really healthy and shiny, and even has a hint of volume (which never used to happen with my very fine hair). I was thinking about all this, and trying to figure out what the cause might be. And then, quite by chance, I stumbled across a feminist blog where the conversation had turned to the effect of heat damage on hair. Aha!

Ready for this? I haven't so much as blow-dried my hair in nearly a year. The only product I use is shampoo about every other day. Hell, I don't even brush my hair all that much (just finger-comb it occasionally).

There was a time (mostly in high school) when I put all sorts of goops and serums in my hair, not to mention shampooing with a revolving variety of "volumizing" shampoos, all in an effort to give some "oomph" to what I thought was unattractive, limp hair. I used round brushes, hairspray, flipped my head upside down for blow-drying––you name it. At some point, I just stopped. I realized that my hair (which really doesn't hold a style, even now) was going to look the same, no matter what I did. But I still blow-dried my hair pretty regularly.

Soon, even that stopped. I valued my sleep too much to spend an extra 10 minutes every morning blow-drying my hair. I realized that, by and large, I really don't care anymore how my hair looks. I make sure it's clean when I go out and about, and I keep it tidy (basically, finger-combing it). Aside from that––eh. I've got more important things to do than obsess about something that's not really under my control anyway.

And, really, the same goes for my face. I've never really used makeup, except for certain, special occasions (I find this to be kind of common with us Pacific Northwest women). But there was a time when I got sucked into buying product after product for my skin. Acne skin cleansers (even though I haven't had acne since I was 12), pads and toners, scrubs, pore strips, etc. I have sensitive skin, so all this did was torture my face. Around a year ago, though, I got really crunchy, and ditched a lot of the chemical products I'd been using. Now, I use Cetaphil cleanser once a day, (real) witch hazel on occasion, and a fragrance-free moisturizer. And that's it. I always get a pimple or two right before my period, but I usually let them ride their course, and they go away pretty quickly. (Note: I do realize I am very, very lucky to have the blemish-free skin I do.)

Another aspect of this is a skin condition I've had since I was very young, keratosis pilaris. It took me a long time to not feel self-conscious about my always-rosy cheeks, or the bumps on my arms and thighs. In middle school, I went through a period where I wore thick foundation to cover up the redness on my face. I tried the doctor-prescribed Retin A and lac-hydrin creams to get rid of it, but realized that going through prolonged bouts of twice-daily ointment application was not how I wanted to spend my life. So I made peace. As I've gotten older, the skin on my face has gotten less red (I think stopping the constant irritation from harsh products has helped, too), though the skin on my arms and legs is the same, and might be for the rest of my life. Frankly, I just decided to be cool with it, to accept myself as-is. Actually, 'accept' isn't the right word––it's more like 'love.' Loving my inner self led me to learn to love my outer self. Occasional glances in the mirror no longer provoke a critical "Ugh, I look terrible", but a "Wow, my hair looks really nice," or, "My skin's looking good."

Whew. This is really long. I'll just say this, in closing:

I am by no means saying that everyone and their mother should adopt my (lack of a) beauty routine. I'm merely saying that, in my opinion, I think we'd all be better off if we ignored the advertising and social pressures about what products we should use and what we should look like, and find something that makes us happy. For me, it was realizing that no amount of primping, grooming, creams, makeup, or products were going to make me into the "ideal" I was striving for. I chose to change my ideal to fit myself, and it's made me pretty happy. I'm not some bastion of self-esteem, mind you, but I can honestly say that most of the time, I'm happy with the outer me.

Sometimes, Books Make Me Cry

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:19:00 +0000

...but usually in a good way. I'm reading Daniel Radosh's Rapture Ready!, which is a pretty entertaining, in-depth, and remarkably unbiased look at Christian pop culture. The author approaches it from an "outsider's perspective", although I often find myself rolling my eyes or snickering at some of the kookier people he interviews. But then I just read this:

I nodded, and Jon went on. "Some things we just have to struggle with, you know? Look at gay marriage. I know what the Bible says, but I have gay friends who adopted a child, and now this little girl that nobody else wanted has a loving..." He shrugged.

That's what made me cry. When you start taking a long, hard look at the conservative, evangelical brand of Christianity, it's easy to get bogged down in the hate speech that seems front and center to modern American Christianity (Pat Robertson, I'm looking at you). And, truth be told, gay rights were a major influence on me turning away from religion. The more I thought about it, the more I thought about the gay people I knew, the more I realized that to say they were sinning just by loving who they loved made no sense, that to be a moral person, I actually had to reject many of the beliefs I'd been taught made up Christian 'morality'.

Things like the simple little quote above actually give me an eensy bit of hope for humanity. That one Christian can look at people he knows and respects, and realize that maybe the Bible doesn't always apply tells me that maybe there's more common ground out there than I thought.

Plus, I'm glad that a little girl nobody else wanted has a loving family.

No evidence of evolution, you say?

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:48:00 +0000

This should give you something to think about!

Overheard...

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:42:00 +0000

"Mom!" the little girl said, "Can we stop and look at the makeup?"

"No," her mother replied, "You're too young to wear makeup."

"But, Mom," came the small voice again, "Barbie is sooo beautiful."

At this point, I turned to look at the pair heading towards me up the aisle. The little girl was, I'm guessing, about 4 or 5 years old. I smiled politely at her mom, who smiled back.

"Honey," the mom said, "You're beautiful just the way you are."

"But not like Barbie, Mom," I heard the little girl say, just before they were out of earshot.

***

As I drove home from the store earlier this week, thinking about the little mother-daughter exchange I'd just witnessed, I became a bit depressed at the influence of the media. Here's a little girl whose mother says, "You're beautiful just the way you are," a little girl who is getting all the right messages from people who love her.

And she doesn't believe them, because in her world, Barbie's prettier.

I'm at the stage in my life where I think about what kind of parent I'll be, about how I'll handle all the challenges and difficulties that come with raising a person. So I'm left with this question: how do we raise girls who are secure enough in themselves to resist when society tells them they should use a frickin' doll as their standard of beauty?

This kind of thing is why it makes me crazy when people try and suggest that sexism doesn't exist, or that the standard of beauty applied to women (and young girls) isn't unreasonable, unfair (and ultimately) unattainable.

After all, I can't imagine a 5-year-old boy begging his dad for a can of protein powder so he can have muscles like G.I. Joe.

Being Poor is a GOOD thing!

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:10:00 +0000

While searching for what Jesus says about helping the poor, I came across this:

Monika Hellwig lists several advantages to being poor:

as quoted in The Jesus I Never Knew by Philip Yancey, p. 115

1. The poor know they are in urgent need of redemption.
2. The poor know not only their dependence on God and on powerful people, but also their interdependence with one another.
3. The poor rest their security not on things but on people.
4. The poor have no exaggerated sense of their own importance, and no exaggerated need of privacy.
5. The poor expect little from competition and much from cooperation.
6. The poor can distinguish between necessities and luxuries.
7. The poor can wait, because they have acquired a kind of dogged patience born of acknowledged dependence.
8. The fears of the poor are more realistic and less exaggerated, because they already know that one can survive great suffering and want.
9. When the poor have the Gospel preached to them, it sounds like good news and not like a threat or a scolding.
10. The poor can respond to the call of the Gospel with a certain abandonment and uncomplicated totality because they have so little to lose and are ready for anything.

Right. I can just see a poor person saying, 'Yeah, I'm poor, but HEY! I can distinguish between necessities and luxuries, so I'm way better off than you rich people... who have necessities and luxuries...'

This is truly disturbing, and telling.

The Bible: a txt msg from God?

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Fri, 30 May 2008 00:37:00 +0000

I agreed to go to church with my Dad last weekend, and thankfully Cody agreed to endure it with me. Here is a summary of the sermon, and quotes with commentary.

The pre-sermon began with a series of video-interviews. The interviewer asked people on the street, “Do you read the Bible?” Most of the people said they did not, and the interviewer asked, “Why not?” and most of the people replied by admitting, “I don’t know.” The point here was, apparently, that the people who do not read the Bible don’t have a good reason for why they don’t read it. Not sure what the point of this was, unless maybe it was to make the people who don't read the Bible for no apparent reason seem a little... stupid?

After the interviews came a skit. General cynicism aside, the skit was extremely obnoxious. Three people sat in a row on stools, a man in the middle and a woman on either side of him, and they quoted this verse (each saying a couple of words at a time):

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16

One of the women began asking how ALL parts of the Bible could be considered useful to modern people. She told the man to open his Bible to Leviticus 7, which reads:

The guilt offering is to be slaughtered in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, and its blood is to be sprinkled against the altar on all sides. All its fat shall be offered: the fat tail and the fat that covers the inner parts, both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which is to be removed with the kidneys.

The woman asked how this could be useful to her, and… I’m sorry to say… the question was never answered. The other man and woman went on in their excited speech about something else, and it was only moments later that I realised no answer was given to the question. (Cody thinks they said something about covering it next week)

So finally Pastor Bob came up and began the sermon. Here is how it went (anything in quotes is what Pastor Bob actually said):

The BIG question: Can the Bible be trusted?

The answer, of course, is YES, and here are the reasons:

Part I:

The Bible says about itself that it is trustworthy.
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Peter 1:16
This made me think of a Sam Harris quote: How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because our books themselves say so.

“The Bible is the most influential book ever written.”
This is, simply, a totally subjective statement, and subjectivity is exempt from being considered valid.

“No other book comes close [to the] magnitude [and the] mystery [of the Bible].”
Again, this is entirely subjective.

The Bible is a collection of 66 books -
It took 1500 years to write, was written by 40 authors, and is a single story.
I'm not sure what the point here is...

The Bible has been in circulation for a long time and has lasted for a long time.
Yes it has, along with many other texts of different religions...

Part II:

There are 24000 manuscripts of the New Testament and these were written within 25-85 years of the events they discuss.
The point here was that there are many many more copies of New Testament manuscripts than of many other documents, such as writings by Plato, Homer, etc. and we don't question the validity of those. Of course, what was glossed over entirely was that the Bible makes huge claims about the nature of the Universe which are inaccurate and unreasonable. It doesn't matter if what Plato or Homer wrote was altered because people are not basing their lives off of their writings.

After 2000 years, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
Sweet! And this discovery somehow proves the Bible can be trusted?

“Make sure you know the manuscripts have been mistranslated [before assuming they have been].”
Shouldn’t we also request that those who assume the Bible has been translated correctly go find out for themselves that it has?

“The Hebrews memorized the words [before they were written down] and quizzed each other.”
I don’t even know what to say about this one. Anna, I hope you have something…

Part III:

“The Bible is totally consistent with archaeological findings.”
It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. – Archaeologist Nelson Gluek
I’m afraid that I’m missing something important here, because this just screams Bullshit! to me. What about the theory of evolution? Or the age of the Earth? I'm not sure why he said this.

Archaeology has, in fact, backed up stories from the Bible:
Ex. 1: The walls of Jericho – God told the people who blew the walls down not to take any of the food. When the site was discovered, it was evident that a lot of food had been left, which was unheard of when people ransacked a city.
Ex 2: For a long time there was no evidence that the Hittites ever really existed, but then a site was discovered that proved their existence.

Ending:

“What if this book really is God-written?”
What if the Koran is really God-written? What if the Bhagavad-Gita is really God-written? I don’t think this is a valid point unless we’re going to ask it about all other religious texts.

He ended the sermon with two similar questions:
1) Why would the Bible continue to exist if people had been persecuted for believing in and advocating it?
2) Why would people believe it if it’s not true?

Well, the answer to #1 could only be, Because it’s true!
And I’m not sure what the point with #2 is.
People are always believing things that may or may not be true, usually for comfort: My boyfriend cheats on me, but he loves me. The weather channel says it will be sunny on Thursday. I believe my pets have souls and go to Heaven.

I assume the point is to leave the *audience* concluding something like, Well, people never continue to believe things if they’re being persecuted, and, People never believe in things that aren’t true, so the Bible must be true (and all the other people in the world who have totally different beliefs… well, this doesn’t apply to them, they’re just deluded).

I was thinking I would return next week to hear more, but now I see on the handout thing that it says,

"Next week join us as we continue in part two of our series txt msg… It could change
your life.
(Changing your mind verse) “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than
any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and
marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12"

which looks to me like the first sermon of the series is all that is being offered in terms of evidence for Bible's trustworthiness. I am very disappointed, and will certainly not return if the focus is now going to be changing your mind. I haven't even been convinced of the Bible's accuracy! What would convince me to change my mind about accepting it as truth?

I'm also curious why he is giving this convincing type of sermon to people who already believe...

I kind of sort of love this...

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Mon, 26 May 2008 20:19:00 +0000

Is Barack Obama Muslim?

Boys Learn to Abuse (excerpts from The Macho Paradox)

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:42:00 +0000

(the title is a link to the book for purchase on Amazon)

I feel kind of lame always quoting stuff instead of writing my own ideas, but I feel like I'm still learning and forming my own opinions, and it helps to quote what really catches my attention, and will hopefully catch the attention of others. For now, I am gathering information in order to secure my own stance on specific issues.

"Everywhere you turn, you see manhood equated with power and control... They learn it on Saturday morning cartoons and trips to the toys store, where 'action heroes' with rippled muscles convey the powerful lesson that might makes right; on the playground, where recent research shows that bullies are not social misfits, but often the most popular kids; in the sports culture, where dominating one's opponent is seen as the height of athletic achievement; in NASCAR racing, whose most popular icon was nicknamed 'The Intimidator'; in hip-hop, where rich and famous rappers denigrate women and gays; in professional wrestling, where ritualized bullying, humiliation, and sexual harassment is normal behavior, and caricatured portrayals of brutish manhood are celebrated; in video games, where mastery of the joystick and the ability to 'kill' at will - and sometimes beat up prostitutes - is equated to manly competence; and in the larger adult world, where they see abuses of power by men in business and government.

At the same time that impressionable boys absorb these lessons about how to earn respect in the world of men, they get the complementary message that what is considered 'feminine' has less value than what is considered 'masculine.' It is a short step from there to the belief that women are supposed to be subordinate to men - and sexually available to them. ...our culture is saturated with stark visual evidence of women's continued subservience to men, especially in the sexual realm. The stylistic conventions of pornography have become decidedly mainstream. From advertising billboards to magazine covers, scantily-clad female bodies are ubiquitously on display as objects for men to use and discard. Pornography itself – the vast majority of which eroticizes male dominance and control – is a $10 billion-a-year industry. Major recording artists glamorize pimps, and radio shock jocks openly humiliate women – with little or no public outcry. In the context of this cultural environment, can we credibly profess to be surprised when boys and men verbally, physically, and sexually harass and abuse girls and women?"

This is why I'm an English major...

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:53:00 +0000

I keep up with a few different fundie blogs, and with Fundies Say the Darnedest Things!; through these sources, and my own investigation, I've learned quite a bit about the King-James-Only Movement. Basically, the KJVers believe that the original King James Version of the Bible is the only 'true' and 'perfect' version of God's Word. Yeah, I know. It makes me laugh, too.

But! Today, in my Shakespeare class, I learned that King James I, the guy who gets the credit for sparking this 'perfect' translation, whose very name is essentially the subtitle for their holy book, had a habit of falling in love with (and probably sexing up) men. Lots of men.

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:26:00 +0000

from Fun with Feminism

Creationism and Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:30:00 +0000

I was going to see a speaker tonight who is addressing the question of how Creationism and Evolution are compatible, but am unable to after all. The reason I wanted to go was not to hear how the two are compatible - of course they are if one doesn't take the Bible literally - but to see if the following issue is addressed:

How can a Christian decide to take the parts of the Bible that conflict with science NOT literally, but maintain that other parts (maybe that science has not yet contradicted) should still be taken literally? Of course it's fine to accept evolution if you think the creation account in Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, but WHY shouldn't it be taken literally? How do Christians determine what parts of the Bible are literal and which are not? As far as I'm aware, there is not guide at the beginning that says, Here, here, and here - these stories are not LITERAL, but here, here, and here - these stories really did happen exactly this way.
It's like people go through the Bible and say, Okay, obviously Jonah didn't actually live inside of a whale, so we're going to take that metaphorically. And the story of the ark? Millions of species couldn't have fit on a boat 450 feet long, so we'll take that metaphorically also. And that the world was created in six days, and the moon gives off its own light, and Adam actually NAMED all the species that have ever existed on the planet... But at what point are we obligated to question the literal interpretation of the plagues on Pharaoh, or the wall of Jericho, or the virgin birth? How do we determine which stories we take literally and which stories we don't?

I think my Dad is still going, so we'll see if this question gets addressed...

I'd Like My Standard Doubled, Please

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:17:00 +0000

This post is not about a particularly new topic, but at some point, a girl just can't take it anymore and has to rant a bit. So:

How is it, in the 21st century, that it can still be considered acceptable to critique a presidential candidate on their LOOKS?

Now, you were probably thinking that that was a rhetorical question, but because it's free gift with purchase day at Anna's House of Whatever, I'm going to answer that rhetorical question: Well, it's acceptable because she's a woman, of course! We can't have a bitch in the White House, can we?! My god! What if her female hormones go cuh-RAZY and she starts a war with some random country that doesn't even have WMD???

[crickets]

Okay, snark over, I promise. Here are some more rhetorical questions that I won't be answering, though:

1. Do you know how many pictures I've seen of Hillary Clinton making a strange face (like when the camera catches you unaware/off-guard) where something was said about her looks? Ha ha ha, Hillary Clinton's so ugly! Ha ha ha, aren't we funny!

2. Do I really have to care what color shirt a presidential candidate is wearing? And, what does that even have to do with how they'll do as president? "Ah, I see the President's wearing the blue shirt; important things will be done today!"

3. Why is it that no one's questioned whether Barack Obama, John McCain, or any other candidate in this election is 'too emotional' to lead a country? If one's gonads are on the outside, rather than the inside of one's body, does that bestow some sort of magical, country-leading power?

I haven't done a very good job of turning off the snark, have I? Alright.

I guess I get so worked up because I'm not even a Clinton supporter. There's a number of reasons why (after Dennis Kucinich dropped out, and I embarked on a rather long session of fence-sitting) I finally decided to support Barack Obama. I won't get into those reasons here, because this isn't a political blog, but I continue to find myself annoyed by the level of sexism present in much of the criticism leveled against Senator Clinton. I'm not saying she should be immune from criticism, just that her laugh or that blouse she was wearing that one time, or how 'old' she looks are not acceptable (nor are they particularly mature, for that matter). I'd love to see/hear/participate in dialogue about:

1. Whether a presidential candidate is intelligent (and willing to admit they're wrong, or to educate themselves on issues beyond the sound-byte level).

2. Whether they truly care about people who are poor, abused, enslaved, victimized by inequality, etc, throughout the whole world, and what they plan to do about it.

That question, the one everyone keeps asking, about if the United States is 'ready for a woman president'? It's offensive, and not just because of this. Every time I hear that question asked, or see it in print, I know that what it's really asking is, "Is a woman good enough to be President?", and we shouldn't need to ask that at all, not anymore. Maybe we should be asking, "What the hell is wrong with all these people who think only a white, straight male is capable of holding our nation's highest office?"

It's true, there are indeed...

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:54:00 +0000

On the presidential elections

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:18:00 +0000

"Like every candidate, Obama must appeal to millions of voters who believe that without religion, most of us would spend our days raping and killing our neighbors and stealing their pornography. Examples of well-behaved and comparatively atheistic societies like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark--which surpass us in terrestrial virtues like education, health, public generosity, per capita aid to the developing world, and low rates of violent crime and infant mortality--are of no interest to our electorate whatsoever.
Can we care for one another without believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is now listening to our thoughts?

Yes we can. "

Sam Harris, 21 March 2008

My Feminist Affirmation

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:46:00 +0000

I refuse to submit to the stereotype that women are less carnal than men, that women's needs are not as intense as men's, and that men can satisfy their sexual needs – and are excused from social criticism – while women must be modest by not acknowledging or acting on their own, equally potent, desires.

That's all. I just refuse.

I Love This!

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:34:00 +0000

More hilarious comics at Married to the Sea.

Doesn't make sense to me...

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:54:00 +0000

Deuteronomy 5:17 – Thou shalt not kill
Deuteronomy 20:10 - And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword

More evidence that God is a monster

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:46:00 +0000

from Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth:

"For that had always been his [God's] idea of fair dealing. If he had had a motto, it would have read, "Let no innocent person escape." You remember what he did in the time of the flood. There were multitudes and multitudes of tiny little children, and he knew they had never done him any harm; but their relations had, and that was enough for him; he saw the waters rise toward their screaming lips, he saw the wild terror in their eyes, he saw that agony of appeal in the mothers' faces which would have touched any heart but his, but he was after the guiltless particularly, and he drowned those poor little chaps."

"Their naked privacies were probed, to make sure that they still possessed the hymen unruptured; after this humiliation they were sent away from the land that had been their home, to be sold into slavery; the worst of slaveries and the shamefulest, the slavery of prostitution; bed-slavery, to excite lust, and satisfy it with their bodies; slavery to any buyer, be he gentleman or be he a coarse and filthy ruffian.
It was the Father that inflicted this ferocious and undeserved punishment upon those bereaved and friendless virgins, whose parents and kindred he had slaughtered before their eyes. And were they praying to him for pity and rescue, meantime? Without a doubt of it."

This is sick.

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:55:00 +0000

I read about this on Feministing yesterday. I've watched it a couple of times now, and I just want to cry. Now, I'm pro-choice; in case anyone needs clarification on this, though, hitting a woman in the stomach to force her to miscarry is not an abortion. It's assault.

This happens to women. In real life. In case you don't want to watch the video (and I don't blame you if you don't), AbortionMan is called in to "save the day" by the woman's boyfriend (without her knowledge). He punches, then knees her in the stomach, then stomps on her once she's on the ground (though this last part happens off-screen). The video's creators posted the following comment today:

This video is not pro- or anti- abortion, and it's not supporting violence, especially against women. What it is doing is finding humor in a dark situation. Would you rather see a woman dumping a baby in a trashcan? No. We understand there are limits, however, we don't let limits scare us from providing something that the world needs more of- humor. So we invite you to experience our comedy, but don't force you to participate in it.

Live. Love. Laugh.

I appreciate dark humor. I appreciate satire.

This is not funny.

response to "A Thought"

noreply@blogger.com (chelsea) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:58:00 +0000

First, I will say that my opinion of Jesus differs from Anna's in that, when I think of his messages, loving others is not what first comes to mind. I realise that many moderate Christians like to focus on this one, but if we were to rate the messages from great religious leaders throughout history, I don't think Jesus would win in the 'loving others' category.

However, given that we are are surrounded by Christians who like to focus on this particular message, I, too, will focus on the message of love when giving my opinion of Christian behaviour.

Like Anna, I am also astonished at how people, who claim to model their lives after Jesus, actually behave. The WWJD fad was a fantastic idea, and I wish it was as popular now as it was a few years ago. I enjoy asking questions about what Jesus would do in certain situations: Who would Jesus bomb? - probably no one. Would Jesus support the death penalty? - probably not. Would Jesus buy a big house and a boat and a new car and go on vacation to Hawaii? - I doubt it.

Also, just to be clear, I am not expressing an opinion about people buying new things or taking vacations. My point is that, if we are to look at how Jesus suggested people live if they really want to follow him, I don't think we would find that buying new things and taking vacations were part of Jesus's instruction.

Here are a couple of verses that come to mind - and I will admit that I am purposely picking out the weird/negative ones - and these are chosen simply because they are (to me) just as valid as the good ones that Christians really like to quote (and they are all from Matthew because I am too lazy to look up more in other books):

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Matthew 10:37)

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:23)

"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." (Matthew 19:29)

So I guess I'm wondering what makes these less valid than the other commandments?

I would now like to comment on this quote of Anna's:

"There's no kindness, no attempt at understanding, not even a hint of that 'grace' they're always going on about."

This is another thing that I find very interesting. I would think that if God was such a magnificent thing in Christians' lives, we would notice it more. Wouldn't we be able to tell that they 'have God' by simply observing how they behave in normal situations? Wouldn't the miraculous grace and compassion given to them by their saviour be evident in every waking moment of their lives? Christians talk about how finding God saved them, how they were so lost and miserable and wicked, and now they are free and happy and good people. The problem I have with this is simply that (among the ordinary Christians I am with every day) there is no difference to behold between Christian and non-Christian behaviour.

I don't feel the need to explain this any further as I'm sure we are all aware that, aside from praying before a meal or going to church, there are not too many ways to tell a Christian from an Atheist.

A Bit of Hope...

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:31:00 +0000

When I get some time, I'll try and work on a longer post detailing my thoughts about the raid on the YFZ compound (associated with the FLDS Church). For now, I will simply say that I am relieved that these women and girls are safe. I first became aware of the FLDS Church when I read Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven. Further research presented me with haunting stories of teenage girls forcibly married to (and then raped by) old men, of children having children, and of nobody being allowed to speak up for their own rights as a human being. The stories of the so-called "lost boys" of polygamy are equally depressing. At the risk of this turning into a long, not well-thought-out rant when I really should be going to bed, I'll stop for now.

Except to say this: That girl, the 16-year-old who blew the whistle? She's my hero.

A Thought

noreply@blogger.com (Anna) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:52:00 +0000

So tonight, I was checking up with one of the "fundie blogs" I read (semi)regularly. I really don't understand fundamentalists; even when I thought I was a Christian, I was a liberal Christian, so these people's beliefs are very foreign to me. Still, I find it interesting to see what they have to say. (Not 'good' interesting, mind you. More like 'facepalm' interesting.) Anyway. I was reading the comments of an entry, and sort of shocked, once again, at the viciousness with which these purported 'Christ-followers' treat one another. There's no kindness, no attempt at understanding, not even a hint of that 'grace' they're always going on about. They read something they disagree with, and their first reaction is to launch personal attacks against the person they disagree with.

Chelsea and I have had many phone conversations about this sort of thing, and hopefully she'll post her own take on it at some point (hint hint!). I will say, however, that tonight it sort of dawned on me that this sort of behavior, this rush to be petty and mean, is rather childish. And I think that a lot of Christianity is about returning people to a child-like state, inasmuch as they are discouraged from thinking for themselves. I wonder, then, if this irrationality when it comes to disagreements stems from the fact that they simply can't confront that which threatens their beliefs without becoming childish.

I don't know. Mostly, I'm just astonished that people who say they model their lives after Jesus can exhibit behavior that is so antithetical to the Jesus of the Bible. Too long ago, I promised Chelsea I would work on a post about the fact that, by and large, I rather like Jesus. His divinity isn't something I'd say I believe in, but then, I'm wary of the concept of divinity in general. Still, the idea of Jesus as a man advocating that simple idea that to be a good person is to love others like yourself and treat them accordingly is something that holds enormous appeal to me. At the risk of sounding a bit wide-eyed, I've often thought that the world would be much better off if we all just put this idea into practice.

To love someone like you love yourself is to love without judgment. It makes their issues and their well-being just as important (if not more so) than your own. And it brings with it a certain amount of peace. I've been going through a rough time for the past few weeks––too much stress, too much drama, not enough sleep. But the thing is, no matter how bad things get, or how anxious I feel, my outlook on life is generally positive. I start each day with the idea that 'life is good,' even when it's hard, and that the bad things that crop up are only temporary.

I don't get this outlook from the belief that one day I'll die and go to Heaven, because I don't believe in an afterlife. Instead, I get this outlook from the simple idea that it's not all about me. I can have a bad day now and again, sure, but my job as a member of the human race is to love others, and to love myself. When you fill a day with love and good intentions, the petty annoyances tend to fall away. I think we find what we seek: if I'm determined to have a bad day, I will. Approaching life as an opportunity to help and love others brings peace and satisfaction.

This is sounding terribly philosophical, I know, and I'm not sure it's really a good fit for this blog, but it's something that's been on my mind lately. I guess what I would say, is that approaching my life from a positive, peaceful mindset has liberated me from the stress and worry that used to plague my life, and that obtaining that mindset, I've found, becomes relatively easy when you focus on loving others. That's why, in general, I like Jesus.