Of course. . .

"The Catholic Church on Thursday revised its in-house rules on sex abuse cases, extending the statute of limitations for such crimes from 10 to 20 years past the victim's 18th birthday and speeding up the excommunication process for pedophile priests. But, curiously, the amended set of ecclesiastical laws also declares that any priest caught ordaining women will be designated as having committed a "grave crime," the same phrase used to describe the abuse of children." ~Teunis Bates, AolNews

It would be nice if there were more NEWS articles that addressed the issue of women and the church. The church is a stalwart bastion of patriarchal power. It will always be so and women should reject it.

Sadly they won't.

Say it succinctly---

Nothing says it like a bumper sticker...

A friend has this one on his car and he definitely gets a rise out of people! But it makes me smile whenever I see it.

 A couple more that I have seen floating about town... 

And here’s one for those of you who are compensating… for a little something.  

This one speaks to my heart! 

http://www.ephemera-inc.com/pilot.asp

god

Perhaps it is the fundamentalist in me that screams: "You just make god up as you go along" Yet, is it not true that people perceive god to have the same "values" they have- view the same issues (i.e. gay rights or fetus "rights" or women's rights)with the same fervor and regard as they do? god never reveals something to them that goes counter to their cultural values... well, nothing important anyway.

In this same vein, it was ingenious for the church to move away from the priestly "this is who god is" to a personal god- one with whom you can have a personal relationship with. Without conceding that they no longer define who god is (and of course their sermons certainly wouldn't reflect that), people are given the idea that god speaks to them directly, personally. It's better than having a red line to the president! gives people a special feeling of importance!

Strong words

If I wrote down all the abuses of my childhood, you, dear reader would say something like: "I'm so sorry that happened to you. What a terrible thing! I guess I was lucky." Well, you were. But that aside, my story is just one in a million. Perhaps one in a billion. There are many, MANY other women who were and are being raised in homes where religious fundamentalism is the way that life is ordered. Many of them would read my blog and become angry- defend their upbringing and their faith. Some of them would try and cajole me into believing that they are happy and their faith gives them a better life. I am not going to argue with someone who has been fed lies by the people that a woman loves and trusts the most and I have no animosity toward such a person.

But I would and do argue with those that have chosen to hold their faith more lightly, to have it be a peripheral part of their existence all the while ignoring the abuses that occur in the guise of god's love. Let's not talk about the actual documented abuses of the church: priests who bugger boys, pastors who have affairs with women they are counseling, church leaders who rile their congregation up to such an extent that they will vote against the actual human rights of another. Those issues we all look at and shake our heads, a little confused by the extremes and helpless to know how to change it.

No, I am talking about the more subtle, personal abuses that occur in the guise of trying to live according to a book that originated two thousand years ago and has been modified by thousands of theologians to try and keep it relevant so that they can maintain their religious structures. What this produces on an individual level-- on a family to family to family basis, is a delicate system of maltreatment that goes on without so much as a pause by onlookers. To please god, missionaries will move to rugged and dangerous parts of the world, and then put their children in boarding schools, thus abdicating their responsibilities as parents and is plainly and simply neglect. To fulfill the mission for "love" and "forgiveness", people will leave their children among family members who are abusive-- sometimes physically but even sexually. So that they can be righteous, they will follow the co-called moral "guidelines" of the church and turn their back on their own children if they are gay. Or worse they'll put them in a program to "fix" them. In the name of religious purity and piety, honor killings occur at a frightening rate.

And these are still the more overt and obvious abuses that occur--. And once again, you can shake your head at the extremities, feeling a bit helpless and concerned. But here's the reality: these extremists are protected-- shielded by their less zealous counterparts.

But we have not even begun to talk about how all mainstream religions maintain a patriarchal system that destroys even the most cherished of daughters. When god is a man (and god is always a man), there is simply no way to keep from raising your little girls without a sense of alienation and strangeness. Before the little one even begins to form Personhood, she is given an innate sense of her own devaluation. And boys... well, what are they not entitled to having been made in god's own image? And if, as a boy, you don't meet the standard of the cultural code for what god expects you to be... (i.e. gay) then you really are not worth much more than a woman. And let's not even talk about lesbians!

I don't care how well intentioned you are. When you look the other way at the kind of abuse that is committed in the name of religion ( and it doesn't matter what religion you are talking about), you are part of that system. And whatever small amount of good you receive from your occasional spiritual massage, you are getting it with blood on your hands as surely as the extremists who commit the actual act.

Our lord and savior

So I've thoroughly debunked the O.T.-- (well, okay maybe I have sketched it...) shown how the stories of Abraham and Isaac were concocted to give the hill people the deed to the land they were inhabiting. I have revealed that there is no evidence for King David or Solomon-- that they are never mentioned in ancient documents and the first king of Israel who is actually documented is King Omri-- the father of Ahab. And the fact is that if David and Solomon were as important as the bible claims they were, they would be mentioned by someone of that period.

So, no King David? Then no Davidic lineage for the spiritual guru who supposedly entered the scene during the reign of Caesar Augustus in 3 b.c.e... ish. But if there was such a man, it can be confidently assumed that he wasn't the same man the pastor speaks about on easter morning.

The documents that exist seem to point to a Teacher who was either a part of or part of a sub group of the Zealots-- a rebel group that came to a bad end when the rebellion did finally catch Rome's attention in 70 A.D. And that is what most scholars think the evidence points to.

The stories in the N.T.? Well, once again, man meets myth.

Joseph Campbell has done the most comprehensive and impressive work on the Monomyth: stories that are universal and timeless-- the hero's journey. In them a "A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man." The name of the hero is unimportant. What is significant is the need to recall the hero in different stories that are told in different cultures and at different times for essentially the same purpose. So Jesus... Dionysus... Buddha... Mohammed... Moses... all essentially the same character with a new name, new setting and different details to the story. What is perhaps most significant is that the stories are predated to Egyptian mythology, once again, and one can see connections with the Jesus myth in the story of Osiris who was also raised from the dead.But what happens when we change myth into history? Joseph Campbell said "Wherever the poetry of myth is interpreted as biography, history, or science, it is killed. The living images become only remote facts of a distant time or sky. Furthermore, it is never difficult to demonstrate that as science and history mythology is absurd. When a civilization begins to reinterpret its mythology in this way, the life goes out of it, temples become museums, and the link between the two perspectives becomes dissolved." ("The Hero With a Thousand Faces", Joseph Campbell, p. 249, Fontana, 1993)

Which brings us to those who completely agree with me that the bible is myth and is significant only in it's metaphor...

Why are they so disgruntled about my lack of belief in god? Why do so many "liberal" christians (or even New Agers) want to make an issue out of what an atheist believes or, in fact, doesn't believe? Why do so many liberal authors feel the need to write books like "The case for god" and "The evolution of god"? Having come from a fundamentalist faith and moved to a more liberal faith and then finally releasing the need to believe in any deity, I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that my life is lived more in accord with what liberal theology purports to offer than it did when I was a bible thumper. And having witnessed the ethic most atheists live by, I can, with some degree of confidence, say that they do too. Christian mythology would try to convince everyone that Atheists are nihilists when in fact most are humanists and they try to better the world in some way. They are most often pacifists (although there is a spectrum on the issue of war), conservationists and they stand up against human rights violations.

This, supposedly, is what most liberal indoctinates believe they are supposed to be doing. Supposedly they are not terribly concerned with whether Jesus was born of a virgin or whether he died on the cross for sin. That is all metaphor... From my perspective, atheists and "liberal" christians are only centimeters apart in what they believe to be their role in the world (and most fundamentalists would agree with me whole heartedly by the way!). The bottom line seems to be about belief in god...

So maybe the fundamentalists are right-- that it's all about what you believe.

But if they're right about how important it is what you believe then they are probably right about all the other little issues that you think aren't important! And as such, you had better get your doctrine straightened out!!!

Aren't you worried??

(Fortunately I am not plagued with such fears).

Why this is important

At the risk of sounding redundant, it is important to understand the inaccuracies of the holy books because there are too many people who live their lives according to said scripture in a public and political way. An obvious example (although I say obvious and yet it seems to be oddly obscure) would be the Jews claim to Israel. If the old testament is mytholgical then jews have no innate right to the land which they are currently fighting for. And it was wrong for the western powers to give them the land in the first place, let alone defend their right to take more property. So religious belief is not just personal and private. It affects public policy all over the world. And to ignore this is to condone the human rights violations that occur all over the world. And anything with that kind of influence on society has to be scrutinized closely.

Which truth is truth

Several comments I read this morning on gocomics.com commented on the bible. One in particular made the comment that christians cherry pick just what they want to believe is true in the bible or not. I think this is well worth noting as I continue down my path.

Fundamentalists believe that the "ten commandments" should be posted and followed as though they were the most profound writings of humankind's history. They don't want evolution taught because it contradicts the creationist stories. They believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, had a short-lived ministry on earth, died and rose again so that each individual who believe in him can go to heaven after they die. Now if you said, "but the Jewish people were never in Egypt and never escaped to the desert and Moses was probably not even a real person" why doesn't that present a problem for the ten commandments? And if you point out that the earth is not 6000 years old and people did not appear on this planet looking like they do now-- well, you get the point. And Jesus is supposedly god's son but apparently only some of what he says is meaningful. The parts that make people feel good about the potential to go to heaven.

You can't cherry pick it. It is either god's word or it's not. And if it is, then there are questions that need to be answered. And if it is not, then what is the point of it? What morality can be derived from it?

Jesus had some interesting things to say about money and the poor--- but not even bible thumpers take those words seriously. And frankly Jesus might have been radical in a Roman world, but he's less radical than the hippies of the 70s. And if you really want to read radical stuff, then read some Karl Marx. Or just dip your toes in some Naomi Klein or Susan Jacoby! Now talk about radical!

I digress

But the Adam and Eve story is just a such a small part of the minutiea, I don't want to get too caught up in talking about that. So many believers don't really care if that particular story is literal or not...

So, moving on.

When I was attending Denver Seminary, I took Old Testament Archeology & Theology. I was sitting in class the first day with several large books in front of me which we were told we were going to have to read over the course of the first half of the course (about 6 weeks). Actually there were two sets of two and one large book, all on the theology of the O.T.

"I am going to assign segments of each of these books to you to read and your assignment will be to read and assemble a report that gives your fellow students some understanding of the portion you have read. In this way, rather than having each of you trying to digest the entirety of the books in front of you, we will have an understanding of the theology within the OT as it has developed in the last hundred years or so."

The man who stood before me looked as though he could be cast in Hollywood to play the classic intellectual. Small in stature, thick round glasses, it was clear that he had spent many hours hunched over old books that were generally regarded as incomprehensible to the average reader. He was, well as far as I know he still is, highly regarded among biblical scholars... at least conservative scholars. He has published several books and is frequently asked to speaking engagements where his knowledge of the Old Testament is unsurpassed. You can google him and find all the titles he has either authored or co-authored are.(Now having said that, I should point out that many christians regard the O.T. as the "old covenant" and generally don't understand why anyone bothers with it at all. So while he is highly regarded, he is not given the degree of respect that his cohort Craig Blomberg, Professor of New Testament at D.S., is given)

As he spoke about the massive tomes we were about to read, he said, "Since we have learned so much about biblical theology in the past hundred years, it is important to give you an overview of how theology has changed. The first author you will read (Gerhard Van Rad) wrote his book about 50 years ago and has some interesting things to say about the O.T. but since he was working on the assumption that the Old Testament is historically accurate, he is generally not used as a source for really understanding the theology of he Old Testament. The second author (Walther Eichrodt) wrote his a bit later and less determined to view the text from and historical perspective with one overarching theme, he nevertheless still clings to some historical context which makes his theological development interesting but difficult to hold on to without the historical aspect. Over the next 20-30 years after Eichrodt wrote his text, Old Testament studies were in disarray because we were learning more about the region and that the stories of the Old Testament could not be actual events that took place at the time they are proposed to have taken place. Many scholars moved away from Old Testament studies altogether and studied strictly the New Testament. However, the problem with that is that so much of the New Testament is bedrocked on the Old Testament and if you ignore it or diminish it's importance, then you fail to see the whole picture of the New Testament. In 2005 Walter Brueggemann, a professor of Old Testament studies at Columbia (he's since retired apparently) has done the most complete work on the Old Testament and the themes within it, but as you will see, he is fairly liberal in his doctrine and in fact, does not even seem to answer the question about whether god is even in the O.T. In other words, he speaks a lot about what the people of the O.T. believed about god but does not answer the question as to what god is saying in the Old Testament. It can be rather unsatisfactory but nevertheless, it really is the best work on the Old Testament in the past twenty years or so."

Well! Quite an introduction! I was stunned. I hadn't given the historical nature of the bible much thought-- beyond the average, you know... "well, when did dinosaurs exist?" and I guess I had been content with the answer, "Seven days didn't mean literally 7 days. God did it over time. You know, maybe a day there is like it is in other parts, a day is like a thousand years..." Sounded good to me!

So onward we pushed- wading through the difficult english translations of german authors who were attempting to connect the Old Testament with the New. (and I might add this was important! Jesus uses the O.T. throughout his ministry and the other N.T. writers use events in the O.T. to show how god had planned sending his son to save the world all along.) So a first little web of thought was spun "what if..."

Indeed, what if...

Reason again?

A recent commenter on my post "Reason" stated "God is a meaning larger than ourselves that creates a framework for the randomness that is life and death." I do not disagree with the comment, after all, death is the great unknown, the darkness that is beyond what we know, yet a fundamental fact of life (and for ancient people who died at the age of 45 or so it was even more so). And it is this fear of death that causes so many to cling to the hope of something or Someone in the BEYOND.

I was raised a Christian-- with the devil and hell as deeply ingrained upon my psyche as the idea of god. There was no doubt in my mind for most of my life, including adulthood, that some people would go to hell. But the more I pondered upon who exactly it was that was going to hell, the more ridiculous the afterlife seemed to be. After all, if christians are right (and they sincerely believe they are!) most of us who do not BELIEVE (and note that I am not saying that you have to be good or anything-- you simply have to believe) that jesus is the son of god, that he died for our sins, and will come again some day to save us all, then we, the ones who don't believe that exact line about Jesus, are ALL going to hell. And it is this fundamental fear that still streaks through most Americans, in particular, whether they actually go to a christian church or not. And it is this same fear that the church, as stated in the article I quoted from the Telegraph in my post "Reason" that church leaders hope to capitalize on.

And as far as "the randomness of life" well, I will say that on the most fundamental level-- the quantum level life is random and that is difficult to understand. In fact it is the very randomness of life that seems to keep life on any kind of stable ground. For example: if electrons spun around the nucleus the way they should according to classical physics, the atom would not exist. It would collapse. But because the orbit of the electron is random, the atom is sable. And the atom is the fundamental building block of all life. Even Einstein struggled with the randomness that quantum physics revealed yet his belief did not change the facts of quantum physics. He was a genius, yet he was wrong fundamentally about the randomness of the universe.

Finally, to the idea that believing in god makes people better or gives them meaning that might give them a greater purpose as seemed to be implied in that statement (although if it was not implied by the commenter it does not take away from the importance of making this point)... most people who believe in god do not adhere to a higher standard of living or behavior because there is a god, and in fact too many of them behave abominably and can because they BELIEVE the right thing. They don't have to ACT in any certain way. god forgives them after all and they are going to heaven! (i.e George Bush or Mohammad Atta although these are not even very good examples since both had the very dangerous attitude that they were working on god's behalf. Perhaps Dick Cheney would be a better example of what I am trying to illustrate.)

In actuality, those people that do have a high standard of behavior or have a sense of a higher purpose may attribute it to god but if they gave some in depth thought to their standards they would most likely find that they would behave they way they do with or without god. It simply makes life better and they are able to hold their heads up in dignity. And after all, the life we have today is what we know and what we do actually have. It's worth doing well.

Atheist quote of the day:
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart." ~~ H.L. Menken

Reason

One of the "reasons" (and I use that word carefully as it generally has nothing at all to do with Reason) why many people, who perhaps do not believe or care whether the Adam and Eve stories are historical or not, hold on to the idea that there must be a god behind creation is twofold. One is stated most clearly by the alarm the catholic church recently stated in an article in Telegraph.co.uk "Cardinal George says... he, and the whole of the American Church, must be praying that the certainty of unbelief wears off as the “new atheists” have children and face the prospect
of mortality." In other words, their hope is that people will get scared(by him) of going to hell and will give up the "new atheism".

The other reason is a bit more nebulous and difficult to understand. It is simply a belief that somehow ancient people knew more about god than we do and were more in touch with spiritual matters. There are plenty of monetary reasons why new age and eastern religions perpetuate this idea...I mean, after all, would you really buy a bunch of crystals for gas if you hadn't been told by one of these ancient "wise" spiritual leaders how helpful they were? But the question one has to ask oneself is just WHY we believe that a bunch of spiritual leaders today, who got their "information" from ANCIENT witch doctors and fortune tellers who knew next to nothing about the earth or the body or the universe, would somehow know everything there is to know about god? Of course the easy, no brainer answer for those who wish to keep this belief is to say that science and technology get in our way of knowing god. Yet, if these wise spirit guides had a direct line to god, then why didn't god tell them more about how the body, for example, really worked? Even just a smidgeon more??? (If you think at all about what doctors in the past did in the name of science and discovery, it might increase your own questions about god's lack of communication skills on these matters)

And more particularly, in the case of the bible, why didn't god just communicate the real stories of ancient people that he helped along the way? Why make up stories that could never be verified? After all, god being god would know that god was telling fibs and that we would find that out one day.

Just sayin'

This is your brain on god...

In an article for Newsweek, Lisa Miller (http://www.newsweek.com/id/216551)reports on a study which Sam Harris and his colleagues have been conducting on the brain-- specifically looking to see if people who believe in god are wired differently than people who do not believe in god. Interestingly, the results of the study show that religious beliefs are carried in the same part of the brain as the part that contains empirical fact. So-- there is no difference in how a child learns about math or science than how they learn and understand god. The authors go on to point out that people who believe in god are just as emphatic about the reality of god as a mathematician would be about the speed of light. (The difference I would point out would be that people who are in mathematical or scientific studies DO modify their beliefs about math and what it tells them when the evidence demands a reevaluation while believers... well, you know) At any rate, at the end of the article, she says, "While the brains of believers and nonbelievers do not differentiate between beliefs about God and about mathematics, the believers themselves do, a little. Participants retrieved their religious beliefs and their historical facts from the same place and in the same way, but they showed less certainty when thinking about the religious statements. It took them a little longer to push the button, and a part of the brain having to do with uncertainty, or cognitive dissonance, lit up. If even the strongest believers are a little unsure about God, and the strongest atheists are a teeny bit anxious that they might be wrong, there’s room, perhaps, for one person to begin to try to imagine the world view of another, no matter what the brain sees as true."

My response to this statement is: understanding why atheists believe what they do and a believer's willingness to admit her or she also has doubts will hardly end the debate. And atheists do not need to understand why believers believe what they do to understand that they are adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 10. And, point in fact, many of them do understand why believers believe. The argument is not about one group not understanding another. When someone erroneously believes something and then tries to get others to believe this inaccuracy, a problem is being created which needs to be addressed.

And furthermore, the ongoing argument is not simply about god or no god. The argument is really about issues like: teaching evolution in schools (without adding myths about gods creating the earth-- and by the way- why does the christian creation story hold more weight than say the Native American stories?), allowing women to choose what is best for themselves (i.e. abortion and birth control), allowing research on stem cells...

I can go on and on about the damage that is done in the name of belief in god, but you get the point.

There is simply no middle ground.

My Heroes!

How do Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens do it? They are criticized and maligned from all sides- even their own "kind" (fellow atheists). Sam Harris has a feed on his site that shows articles that appear from multiple sources that mentions the "new atheists" (which generally means they are targeting one of the three if not all). They are referred to quite often -and nearly always it is an attack for their criticism of religion. The far right of course sees the Atheistic trio as a threat-- and rightly! But the liberal christians- those that believe the bible is not an historical book and should not be consider as such and it's value is in the metaphor (particularly the life of Jesus) are also consistently attacking them, apparently angry that these men are ultimately fighting for reason in the public discourse. It seems to me that the liberal left should heed the criticism of the three men. They are far closer in their view of life in many cases than they are to the right. The liberal left continually defends their conservative counterparts which is interesting when one considers that fundamentalists and evangelicals typically view the left as far more dangerous and wrongheaded than the bantam population of atheists.

Ultimately, however, what is amazing is how these men continue on in spite of pressure, even from their fellow atheists, to not be so vocal in their criticism of religion. What critics fail to understand, however, is that they are fighting for the people who are subordinated and controlled by the mechanisms of religion. Women and children (and they often hit the church very hard on their indoctrination of children) are always the easy targets in the oppressive regimes of religion. They are kept in subordination so that the leaders can continue to loot and plunder the flock on the pretense that an eternal reward lies on the other side of this life.

It is appropriate to note this ongoing war between Reason and faith and the attempts to silence these warriors during banned book week. I personally find the current attempts to stifle the conversation akin to the banning of books. There is a war on ideas in this country. There are too many important issues in the course of the every day that are off limits because of the fear of stepping on someone's toes- most particularly the sizeable toes of the faithful.

As Americans we speak about free speech in an ignorant way-- as though each person's opinion or experience carries the same weight as a fact. The ALA states on their website (and I quote them because I have worked in libraries for the past six years now) "The ALA actively advocates in defense of the rights of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment. A publicly supported library provides free and equal access to information for all people of that community. We enjoy this basic right in our democratic society. It is a core value of the library profession."

We need to allow ideas to flourish- we need to encourage reason and civil discourse. We need it as surely as we need the air that we breathe! So fight on Mr. Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris!

Speaking to the imagination

Einstein is often misquoted and misrepresented by believers who want to claim him as one of their own. But he was quoted as saying "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.* While reading his biography, the author mentions his re-embracement of his jewish heritage. While this may or may not be true (Judaism is not terribly concerned with the actual belief in god...), he also notes that Einstein's most innovative and powerful discoveries came during the period in which he totally rejected religion and all it represented. Einstein was also quoted as saying about his childlike faith "Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me."* It was freedom from the religious structures that allowed his mind to flourish and it was this self-same freedom which found him imagining himself riding alongside a lightbeam.

"The great discoveries were not made by those agog at the wonders of the divine, but by those intrigued by the wonders of the mundane." --Michael Coulter*

*http://atheistempire.com/

not wild, but pets...

From a little different angle, I might compare my life as a christian and daughter of christian parents to that of a dog. I was raised to serve a master- to be at his beck-and-call. Life was limited to the back yard-- watching the birds fly overhead or watching the squirrels dance in the treetops, just out of reach. Occasionally I got out for walks but I was often overwhelmed by it and became terribly afraid of the great outdoors, preferring to nap in a sunny spot inside.

Doesn't sound too bad you say?

Yet unlike the dog, my master was not real. There was no one feeding me. Like the wild animals I still had to find sustenance. I was not able to stay indoors all the time, bathed and cared for by the kind hands of a smarter being.

No, for those who serve Christ, or for that matter follow Buddha or Allah-- whatever heavenly deity they believe in order to keep their world tidy and safe-- life is lived with the same chores and burdens that the wild animals have in order to survive. They don't understand this. They delude themselves into thinking they are the free ones, but in fact they are more like Lions in the zoo or a dog in the back yard-- safe from nothing really other than the fears in their mind.

They will never experience the freedom of bounding over boulders or chasing small game.

Cody realizes that following his bliss does not come without the burden of survival but he is committed to following his bliss-- to being a lion in his heart.

That was then, This is now

Last night we were watching our favorite television show, (can you guess?) 'Key West'. For the twenty or thirty-something time we sat and watched Seamus stand in stunned amazement at winning the lottery while babes in skimpy swimsuits jump up and down around him. He jumps in his auto and heads south to the place he's always dreamed of going- Key West, one of the homes of Hemingway and Tennessee Williams. In a moment of symbolic portent, he drives his car to the end of the world and into the water at the end of Highway 1 (Highway 1 does not really end at the ocean's edge but it's great for effect). Not content with the possibility that the car may have survived the attempted drowning, he takes a revolver out of his jacket and shoots his car, assuring himself of his intent to stay.

Seaumus's introduction to the island moves quickly from here. Jo Jo, a Rastafarian immigrant, takes him to the newspaper where Seamus meets Cole, the newspaper editor, and gets his first assignment. Then off to Gumbo's, the end of the world bar and cafe where he finds an enraged barkeep threatening his island tour agent (Gumbo and Jo Jo have a slight disagreement over the girls in the bar). And we meet Savannah, the personification of the sexual soul of the island. Savannah (played with finesse and gentility by Jennifer Tilly) meets Seamus and gives him a taste of what he is really encountering by coming to Key West- it's not just a tropical vacation land, as she says, it's "magic here. There are Angels in the Spray, Wizards in the Palm Trees, and Elves in the Sea Shells..." Later, she meets a client, a young boy whose father has hired her for his defloweration. Her words to him? "Today, you're gonna learn everything you're ever gonna need to know about women. I'm gonna teach you. And when you walk outta here tonight you're gonna have a Ph.D. in me. And your stock is gonna soar. And your self-confidence is gonna go through the roof." In yet another scene she goes to the home of a woman who was injured in a car accident to be the woman's body for her husband. It is positively electric to see her sensuality working it's own magic on the inhabitants of the little island.

I first watched this show in July of 2005 with Maurice. There was a moment that seemed faintly familiar but the newness of the show overshadowed the vague familiarity and I let the moment flutter past, a memory butterfly heading for the next shaft of sunlight. At a later date, however, the moment was so poignant that I nearly caught my breath, recalling a night years earlier (it would have been January, 19 of '93 although I could not have told you the date when the sensation occurred) when I had flipped the channel to the new little station, Fox, to see what they were airing from lack of anything better to watch. Initially I was probably intrigued by the woman sitting in the wheelchair, informing the beautiful raven haired vision that she had been in an accident and she wanted her (Savannah) to be her body. But the scene was so overtly sexual that my own, then suppressed and stifled, sexuality was immediately offended by the implications of what the woman was suggesting.

I do not feel that I can adequately explain to you what I mean by "suppressed". Being raised in a fundamentalist christian home is one thing but there was background that clearly influenced my upbringing-- background that I did not fully understand of at the time and some I just didn't know.

Christianity itself is afraid of sexuality. At all points in the history of the church-- and even earlier among the Jews-- the followers of Yahweh have demonized women and marginalized them almost beyond recognition. The historical background of this is delineated by Sue Monk Kidd in her book Dance of the Dissident Daughter in far more detail than I have time to do here, but suffice it to say that the male-god images in Christianity were a powerful metaphor for the domination of the male in the home, the church and in politics (which was integrally connected to the church). It is not insignificant that the church remains one of the final institutions where women are simply not allowed to hold certain positions of leadership. It is this very connection to the godhead that gives christian men an authority that moves beyond humanity and places any woman in an automatic role of subordination. What little girls quickly learn is that momma has no power, momma is a lesser species and DADDY is like god. When, like in my case, daddy could care less that there is a little girl underfoot and the mother is too young to know anything about raising children- who was still a child herself- the implications to her personage are profound.

Add to this, my parent's sinful start... Having been nabbed by the church in their indiscretion and then having to face the judgment of people who, if truth be told were undoubtedly engaged in far uglier behavior than a youthful moment of passion, and you begin to see why I was a less than welcome presence for a man who was trapped into marriage. (The implications of living life "in community" where you are put in the position of living up to the expectations of the people of the church is yet another topic for another day- but it is appalling to envision the young couple weeping and begging forgiveness from people that had no business being involved in the situation in the first place.)

On top of that, recent revelations revealed that my mother was sexually molested by her brothers. It is obvious that her fear of men and their passions (and possibly her own) helped shape the opinions she spouted in regard to men and marriage to me. Having never dealt with the reality of the molestation, (to this day her relationship with her brothers remains outwardly like anyone else's. In the name of "forgiveness" my mother pretended it never happened and thus exposed other women, including myself, in the family to the same abuses. While understandable considering the fifties were a suppressed age that finally gave way to the "free love" generation, her insistence today that she was noble for forgiving them, is somewhat appalling), she married a man who had been raised by parents who were smothered with fear of sexual sin and had raised a son who was sexually repressed. (I don't know if there are more secrets concerning this particular emphasis. Most likely there was more abuse.) At any rate, there were many prejudices that were passed on to me and I was handed this information without full disclosure-- even into adulthood. (Had I known the background of my mother's abuse, some of the hysteria she imposed on me might have been diminished).

At any rate, all of these influences lent themselves to shaping my identity and I developed a sense of repugnance for my own sexuality.

Unfortunately, sexual urges are not like alcoholism or drug addiction-- they are an appetite that is more akin to the need for nutrition to the body. And it really is with great effort that you subordinate it-- especially to the extent that I controlled it. I was determined that I would not be controlled in any way by sexual urges. And in order to do so, I had to eradicate any visual or even musical stimulation-- even books that were sexually suggestive were taboo with the intent of keeping my "thoughtlife" pure. Sexually suggestive jokes were forbidden and even a friend's sexual disclosures caused a rosiness on my cheeks that exposed my discomfort. I worked very hard to be as pious as a priest in terms of my sexuality. The fact that I even had sex with my X is really evidence of further control by the church-- having been reprimanded at some point that it is a wifely responsibility not to withhold sex, I felt it was a... "necessary evil" so to speak.

It was at this point in my life that I watched the woman speaking to her husband about the passion they had once shared and saw Savannah's hand brush the man's cheek (he was blindfolded). The scene then switched to a darkened room with a black woman hovering around candles humming, working her voodoo.

Voodoo-- demons-- devil--

That was enough.

I changed the station away from the sinful scene, afraid to expose myself to the intensely carnal scene (nothing illicit is actually shown- the implication was enough) and the hint of black magic, I never darkened the doors of the Fox channel on Tuesday at 8 p.m. again.

That was then...

Since that time, having watched the show so many times now, I have gained an understanding of the connection that Savannah has to the island. And in addition to that I have also reconciled myself to myself. I have learned that my own sexuality is not something to be ashamed or afraid of and I can watch that scene with genuine appreciation. In fact it is remarkable to see a woman in such an intensely sexual manner without the usual focus of a cheap slut who is there to titillate and tie viewers to the screen with the tawdriness of it. While it is difficult to understand the nuances for many, Savannah's sexuality is intentionally oppositional to the mainstream T&A we see on television. Her mocking attitude toward the prince and his "staying power" and the speech she gives the "cherry" is a role reversal. Her intention to teach the young man about women is a distinctly different role than the one the prostitute generally plays-- one of sex toy to a man who has no interest in the woman he is with let alone pleasing her! This is a sexuality where the goal is to "know" women and to have them follow the boy around because he treats them well. It's revolutionary-- even 16 years after it was first aired. (After all, sexuality on American television remains very juvenile)

As I watch today I watch the scene with sincere admiration. It is, in fact, one of my favorite scenes. I now understand that my own sensuality is as much a part of who I am as the birthmark on my leg... as much a part of who I am as the course, curly ash-blond hair on top of my head. And celebrating the sexual soul is celebrating life and humanity!

Celebrating me!

This is now!

god

Isn't it ironic-- or perhaps it would be better to say convenient-- how much like us god is? I mean, if we think homosexuality is disgusting, then god hates homosexuality. If we think war is wrong, then god hates war. It doesn't really matter what your personal belief system is, liberal or conservative, muslim or christian, god always hates the things you hate, loves the things you love or forgives the things your okay with. And unfortunately the god people design for themselves rarely makes them better people. (Although, they try to claim they'd be murderers or an abominable human being if it were not for god but that is just BS they say to try and prove how god has changed them-- doesn't prove anything, except perhaps they are weak or desperate to see god where god is not)

"letter to the editor"

Does religion lead to relativism? An almighty hand that can reach down to slap you for wrongdoing makes morality/doing good things a necessity. Thus the opposite would be true for those who NEED to believe there is a god. Absent of the heavenly discipliner, there is no need to do good, no higher purpose to attain to.

On the other hand, those who do not believe in an active creator god who is going to take us to the pearly gates after our spin on this mortal coil are completed, we believe it is our responsibility to care for each other. And this higher purpose is often what leads us to reject a "guiding hand" in the universe. We believe in the dignity and worth of all people. Life's cruelties seem out of sync and even contrary to the love of an almighty creator who has the power to at least alleviate the suffering of, at the very least, the weakest. It is not enough to say "it is sinful nature" or "it is free will" and in fact it is an incredible copout on the part of the people of the book to not spend their lives on their knees asking their god to intervene since they believe that god answers prayer. It is a stunning hypocrisy (and arrogance and any other number of negative human characteristics) that allows believers to think that they are somehow blessed by god while others, and generally the most helpless and defenseless, SUFFER due to their actions.

Indeed suffering is often the result of "sin"-- human suffering is so frequently the result of "man's inhumanity to man" that it is even more egregious to blame god for humanity's greed and violence. To say that human suffering is a result of sin and claim that humans are helpless to their sinful nature is to absolve humanity of it's responsibility in the world and to each other.

So does religion lead to relativism? Does a belief in god give one a shrug-of-the-shoulders view of the world, that it doesn't really matter since it's all "temporal" and "one day we'll be in heaven away from the pain and suffering of the world" attitude?

I believe it does.

On writing

Writing makes us vulnerable. When we write, we don't just flippantly put pencil to page and ramble off a litany of verbiage- we are sharing a part of ourselves. And if what we put down in writing offends, then we may lose people we care about.

I was raised in a household where every thought, every word, every deed, was a reflection on god. It's not that we were threatened with hell or god was going to strike us down but if we failed to show god's power in our lives then god had no power. We were to be "salt and light","beacons on a hill" "WITNESSES". No flaw was acceptable-- from flatulence to anger. But there was no threatening, no condemnation-- simply an acknowledgment that you weren't measuring up. You were forgiven but clearly, you needed to work on that flaw because we all had to give our "utmost for his highest." My childhood was not fun and play and dreaming-- it was Preparation for God's Work . Imagination was accepted because it kept children busy- out from under foot. I was instilled with a true passion for living life as the bible taught me to. I do not condemn my parents, nor am I bitter about my "different" childhood. I was raised the way a child should be raised if god is who believers think god is.

My faith was real. As I grew, I tested my faith and tested my beliefs. I never just passively sat and let others tell me about god. I was never a pew sitter or one who had doubts about god's work in my life... My faith was not a fraud which I cast aside one day at sunrise because I wanted to live a wanton lifestyle. The change occurred little by little- first centimeter by centimeter, then inch by inch, and gradually step by step (with no little help from my friends David and Jeanne) until my earnest childlike faith matured. I did understand and was willing to accept that god was not who I had been raised to believe god was. I allowed god to be who god was- quite separate from the bible and eventually in opposition to who the bible and the church said god was. Until one day it occurred to me that the whole idea that god cared whether I actually believed in god was silly, if god was who god is-. Belief, then, is meaningless. (and by the way, there is precedent from the bible for this as there are many texts that indicate the bible's authors were not terribly sure about who was in and who was out - that it seems to be more about behavior in the world rather than belief. Matt. 25:31-46)

And maybe, in light of how the people of faith behave, it is important to accept a new label, that of atheist. After all, if I say I believe in god, they assume they know what I mean, when they could not possibly. And atheism became a really appropriate label because, stripped from all the dogma and religion and the fraudulently conceived "experiences", there was no indication that there even is a god. It seemed better and even right to say to the world, "you don't know, I don't know, and we should not act as if we know. We are better off aligning ourselves with the "I Don't Know" or the "Don't believe" group so that we are not presuming we know things we don't. And behave rightly on this planet because all we truly have is each other."

If there were a god, I believe that is what god would want anyway.

Some might be able to move on in their life, and their family would not know or care what they believe. My family is not that way. They are always watching, measuring. They have been preoccupied with my "sinful life" but they know that that is a mere indicator of the change in my belief system. So one loss...

I expect more.

But it's just as well that they have let that be their evidence because if they were ever to read what I write- they would know then. That is, if I have the courage to write what I feel and think from my heart- and that is really the only way to write.

So, I write. I write my heart.

On religion

Religulous gives us all things to think about-- most particularly, I think, what role religion plays in our society. I think it is worth evaluating if a belief in god does really make one a better person or make the world a better place...

It all begins with: there is a god, god created all things, god is the giver of good; you must believe in god. It doesn't sound like a big deal! Just accept that there is a deity who set the world in motion (and some think god oversaw evolution- doesn't require rejecting science altogether).

But then that begs the question: which one should we accept?

It is ultimately our expectations of god that inform our decision about which god to choose. Do I want everlasting life or the promised land? Do I want to come back as a king or experience Nirvana? Any christian who claims to an atheist that they have blamed god and are angry because they did not "get what they want from god" is not being truthful because if the idea of heaven were taken away from the offerings of christianity, I believe we would see a mass exodus of faithful followers. But of course, that only leads to more questions because IF you have certain expectations of god and, for instance, do expect heaven-- then HOW do you get that?

Addendum: Not all people believe in god because they are afraid of god. Some are afraid of themselves-- they don't think they can negotiate life without the aid of god. Others (liberals, those who do not believe a literal interpretation of the bible) find... hope? in a deity who is leading us toward a better world. Some are seeking internal peace and think seeking god will lead them there. Some are simply afraid of being human and want to believe they have god within them-- this gives them... what? a sense of worth? It doesn't really matter what you believe about god-- but the reasons for believing in god generally surround your expectations of what god should do in you or in the world.

There is one rogue group: Some believe a community of faith is really about the community- having others to work through life stuff with. They are not concerned with god much at all. The problem is that this group has a false sense of community. If they were really honest about what they believe, they would find that their community would turn on them. And it still seems to rest on the idea that the community of faith is somehow more moral than the rest of the world. There is no logic surrounding this argument, it is simply a bias that slips in behind the rest of the brainwashing that comes with religion--the superiority factor: my club is better than your club.

Nevertheless- whatever you decide about which god you want to worship- there is then a series of things to believe. Does the bible teach me what I want/need to know about god? The koran? The torah? Just which book should I follow to learn about god? (More to follow)

Question of the week

Does belief in god encourage a culture of moral relativism?

It seems to be a recurrent theme among believers-- we are able and want to do good because of god... and if there is no god, then there is no reason to be good