Writing this makes me feel sick to my stomach, but new years mean new beginnings. Early this month, Pdad served me with divorce papers less than twenty-four hours before I had to be in court. He made early attempts to have the kids removed from my care with an emergency hearing. As far as I could see, his only reasoning was that my illness prevents me from being a good mom. He didn't win that hearing. Right now, we're splitting custody and trying to find new normals. I won't pretend to know why he's doing this and why he chose to do it at Christmas. I'm sure I'm not a perfect wife. I'm sure the last few years have been disappointing for him (dealing with the limitations of an illness, four kids, and the pressures of life). I've sat on this for weeks because I'm not proud of it and I know some will take pleasure in reading this. My kids had to be and will continue to be the first priority. Pdad did mention this blog (by the "Atheist in a Mini-Van" title) in papers with the negative intent. I need to use care with what is said here. If your comment doesn't make it through, please accept and respect that.
The possums are adjusting. Staying two days away is hardest for the little possums. Christmas was difficult, but we tried keeping our traditions as close to normal as possible. They had a good Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. :) A person I used to respect would always say, "take it a day at a time". That's what we'll do. This is going to suck, but it will make us all stronger people. There's no alternative.
I appreciated the e-mails asking if we were okay. I wasn't sure how to respond.
Here's to new years and friends.
Author Archive for possum_momma
I hear you guys! Everything isn't okay, but it will be down the road. For the time being, I can't post much. I only want to wish you all a great holiday season! Have a holly jolly one!
It won. The pineapple that is.
When I was small, I loved pineapple and ate a lot of it. My mom was the queen of the upside-down cake. During Owen's pregnancy, I realized that pineapple made me itch. Over the last four years, my reaction to it has become worse than annoying. I know enough to know that allergies like this can get worse over time.
Pdaddy took the kids to Elephant Bar last night. I called him and asked him to bring me a plate of grilled shrimp. I also told him to ask about the ingredients to make sure there was no pineapple. I knew that they had some dishes where they used pineapple, but the menu said nothing about it for that dish. PDad asked and the waiter went away, came back, and said "no worries". Hubby brings it home, I eat about three shrimp and start on the veggies below. My mouth immediately tingled. Then I felt like it was blistering. Guess what was in the vegetables? Pineapple. Four large chunks and some yellowish juice. I took three Benedryl tabs and waited to see what was going to happen. In five minutes, I had a rash on my face and chest. My throat hurt really bad, too. I chugged children's Benedryl because it's liquid and hits the bloodstream faster (not to mention hitting my mouth directly). It seems to slow the reaction down and I planned to just watch it. I must've fallen asleep. At three, I found that I couldn't breathe at all. My throat was swollen bad. Moving air was getting difficult. I carry an epi pen for a bee allergy and I hate the pen. I stumbled to my purse and found it, jammed it in my leg, and sat on my floor waiting for it to work. It eventually kicked in enough for me to catch my breath and walk to where Mike had fallen asleep. Had to go to the ER to get checked out and they gave me IV meds. That doctor said I need to take my efforts to avoid pineapple farther.
Anyway, I know it's hard to be a waiter, but this isn't funny. Lazy is one thing. Putting a life in jeopardy is another. Elephant Bar is going to compensate us for our ER copay, thank Buddha! The corporate office is going to insist the franchsie go through extra training. That's more than I thought they'd do so I'm giving them a thumbs up for being responsible. The question I have is what's next? I had to be given a sedative last night because all I could think of was how often pineapple is on the menu in this town. If you have a food allergy, what do you do?
When I was small, I loved pineapple and ate a lot of it. My mom was the queen of the upside-down cake. During Owen's pregnancy, I realized that pineapple made me itch. Over the last four years, my reaction to it has become worse than annoying. I know enough to know that allergies like this can get worse over time.
Pdaddy took the kids to Elephant Bar last night. I called him and asked him to bring me a plate of grilled shrimp. I also told him to ask about the ingredients to make sure there was no pineapple. I knew that they had some dishes where they used pineapple, but the menu said nothing about it for that dish. PDad asked and the waiter went away, came back, and said "no worries". Hubby brings it home, I eat about three shrimp and start on the veggies below. My mouth immediately tingled. Then I felt like it was blistering. Guess what was in the vegetables? Pineapple. Four large chunks and some yellowish juice. I took three Benedryl tabs and waited to see what was going to happen. In five minutes, I had a rash on my face and chest. My throat hurt really bad, too. I chugged children's Benedryl because it's liquid and hits the bloodstream faster (not to mention hitting my mouth directly). It seems to slow the reaction down and I planned to just watch it. I must've fallen asleep. At three, I found that I couldn't breathe at all. My throat was swollen bad. Moving air was getting difficult. I carry an epi pen for a bee allergy and I hate the pen. I stumbled to my purse and found it, jammed it in my leg, and sat on my floor waiting for it to work. It eventually kicked in enough for me to catch my breath and walk to where Mike had fallen asleep. Had to go to the ER to get checked out and they gave me IV meds. That doctor said I need to take my efforts to avoid pineapple farther.
Anyway, I know it's hard to be a waiter, but this isn't funny. Lazy is one thing. Putting a life in jeopardy is another. Elephant Bar is going to compensate us for our ER copay, thank Buddha! The corporate office is going to insist the franchsie go through extra training. That's more than I thought they'd do so I'm giving them a thumbs up for being responsible. The question I have is what's next? I had to be given a sedative last night because all I could think of was how often pineapple is on the menu in this town. If you have a food allergy, what do you do?
Jeebus, I've been pissing and moaning way too much here lately. You'd think that psychotic family members and rude friends were the only noteworthy things in my life. LOL Therefore...I deem this post a happy post. I'm starting a meme - What makes you happy? The rules are simple: list ten things you're happy about or thankful for. Tag ten people who you're happy to call friend at the end of the meme.
1. I'm excited about Christmas. P4 is very into it this year and his eyes gleam with excitement. He's figured out where I hide the gifts and since it took his sibs years to figure that out... I'm kind of impressed by his observation skills. :)
2. I finished an amazing book. It's called "A Blistered Kind of Love". The book is a journal kept by a husband and wife who hiked the Pacific Crest Trail. I love books that take me to another place and get my mind out of the house.
3. The re-arranging of the craft area is almost finished and the family room is ready for the tree to be put up.
4. My friend Vamp is back from Hawaii. I missed her. I'm happy she's home and had a nice vacay.
5. P3's garden is beautiful. Here it is, almost winter, and she still has amazing flowers. She's got a green thumb. I can see her garden from my computer and the huge clumps of white (baby's breath), purple (pansies), flaming pink (azaleas), and huge gerber daisies of all colors look like her canvas. I'll try to take a picture in the morning.
6. I found a great Christmas gift for Pdaddy. He's really hard to shop for so this, strangely, makes me ecstatic.
7. I watched the Great Escape yesterday. It's free on demand if you have AMC (American Movie Classics). If you don't', I would rent it. It's set in WWII: the story of POWs who tunnel out of a German camp. It's not a sad-free movie but I love seeing a young James Garner. If I were seventy, I'd hit that.
8. I'm grateful for the cold weather and early sunsets. Dark is good! Cold means busting out our sweaters and thick bedding. There's nothing better than lying in a cold room with only your nose sticking out from under the covers. The air just seems fresher on those nights. (Yeah. I realize how strange that sounds.)
9. I'm grateful for my fingerless gloves.
10. The smell of cinnamon and nutmeg make me happy.
Your turn.
I am tagging Vamp, Russell, Sean, Berlie, Calladus, Poodles, P1, P2, Anthro Amy, the Chaplain (from Apostate's Chapel). If you don't see your name, I still tap you.
1. I'm excited about Christmas. P4 is very into it this year and his eyes gleam with excitement. He's figured out where I hide the gifts and since it took his sibs years to figure that out... I'm kind of impressed by his observation skills. :)
2. I finished an amazing book. It's called "A Blistered Kind of Love". The book is a journal kept by a husband and wife who hiked the Pacific Crest Trail. I love books that take me to another place and get my mind out of the house.
3. The re-arranging of the craft area is almost finished and the family room is ready for the tree to be put up.
4. My friend Vamp is back from Hawaii. I missed her. I'm happy she's home and had a nice vacay.
5. P3's garden is beautiful. Here it is, almost winter, and she still has amazing flowers. She's got a green thumb. I can see her garden from my computer and the huge clumps of white (baby's breath), purple (pansies), flaming pink (azaleas), and huge gerber daisies of all colors look like her canvas. I'll try to take a picture in the morning.
6. I found a great Christmas gift for Pdaddy. He's really hard to shop for so this, strangely, makes me ecstatic.
7. I watched the Great Escape yesterday. It's free on demand if you have AMC (American Movie Classics). If you don't', I would rent it. It's set in WWII: the story of POWs who tunnel out of a German camp. It's not a sad-free movie but I love seeing a young James Garner. If I were seventy, I'd hit that.
8. I'm grateful for the cold weather and early sunsets. Dark is good! Cold means busting out our sweaters and thick bedding. There's nothing better than lying in a cold room with only your nose sticking out from under the covers. The air just seems fresher on those nights. (Yeah. I realize how strange that sounds.)
9. I'm grateful for my fingerless gloves.
10. The smell of cinnamon and nutmeg make me happy.
Your turn.
I am tagging Vamp, Russell, Sean, Berlie, Calladus, Poodles, P1, P2, Anthro Amy, the Chaplain (from Apostate's Chapel). If you don't see your name, I still tap you.
I heard back from Christmas Card friend. She's not getting it and I'm at a loss for words. Through a series of emails, we've gone around-and-around the mulberry bush. One accusation she leveled at me was that I had changed for the worst since "deciding to be an atheist". I don't know if that's true or not but since she's not the first person to say it, I take it seriously. I'm confused, however. You see, none of these people who claim I've changed "for the worst" can verbalize how I've changed. The closest any of the three people got was to say that I stopped participating in my other blog and didn't give some old friends as much time as I had before starting this blog. I can understand feeling left out. What I can't understand is how that would be related to only atheism? I've had good friends take jobs that make greater demands on their time - they change how they participate online and with me. Babies, marriages, and a number of decisions/opportunities have changed the way my friends interact with me. There was never a point when I thought, "Gee. I think they should ditch the baby and quit their job because they've changed." Moreover, I think there's some truth in saying that I didn't change as much as other people changed their perception of me after I "came out". I'd always been snarky and sarcastic, but my Christmas Card friend is upset because I'm "snarky and sarcastic". This is the same person, mind you, who used to like scrapbooking with me because we'd put a movie on and snark through it while we were scrapbooking. She says "that's different". I asked how it was different. The answer she gave was (paraphrased): "You weren't snarky about religion." Actually I was! The difference between now-and-then isn't the snark, it's my belief in the validity of what I'm snarking about. Catholics make Catholic jokes. But, when it's two Catholics telling jokes, it's ha-ha funny and inside joking. As an atheist, the jokes are now perceived as "attacks" on Catholicism. Why?
She is reading this. Let's just get this out of the way.
Have I changed? Sure I have...who hasn't changed in fifteen years? I've changed in more ways than just a philosophy or religious change. I don't know one person who is the same person they were a year ago! I don't ditch friendships when my protestant friends become Catholic. That would be petty. Sadly, that same understanding and tolerance isn't afforded to people who go from religious to atheist. It disappoints me that you've decided I'm too different to maintain a friendship with. Your response was to tell me that I could fix it by "stopping the atheist blog rhetoric".
I'm sorry, I can't do that. I don't think this blog is rhetoric and I don't think it's fair to ask someone to change privately while you rave about how tolerant you are publicly. You're not tolerant. A tolerant person or friend would say that we can agree to disagree and maintain the parts of our friendship that don't have anything to do with religion. Why can't we just craft together? How did my atheism change crafting? I hate to say it...but I was never comfortable with the way that all scrapbooking or crafting nights inevitably featured a proselytizing speech about how faithful you are. I didn't say anything about it because I cared more about you than being momentarily offended or put off. That's why I'm so angry about the card.
I didn't tell you about my atheism because after listening to your monologues on how the "faithless are fruitless", I was afraid it would come to this. Pdaddy and I talked about it when I first started doing my homework on what it is I really believed. You were a large part of our lives and I didn't want to hurt you. I see now that I can't be true to myself without, at least in part, disappointing you. I'm sorry our friendship deteriorated but I won't apologize for who I am. I don't expect an apology from you for who you are. I kind of wanted an apology for your slapdash testimony in a yearly greeting that's supposed to be joyous and loving. When did it become socially acceptable for the Christmas card sender to use the card to tell people how much they suck? Emily Post is River Dancing in her grave, I'm sure! I'll always love you/care for you but you have to decide what this friendship means to you. Your perceptions aren't mine to change.
/end trans
If you're not the Christmas Card friend and you've read this far - you deserve a cookie. I'm sorry I had to put this here for everyone to read. Since the CCFriend isn't returning my calls or e-mails... this was a last resort to try to get my point out there. I don't want to play the persecuted atheist card because persecution isn't a word I would use lightly. I'm just sad that I am not the only one who's had to deal with a "friend" like this because of a lack of belief in a deity.
She is reading this. Let's just get this out of the way.
Have I changed? Sure I have...who hasn't changed in fifteen years? I've changed in more ways than just a philosophy or religious change. I don't know one person who is the same person they were a year ago! I don't ditch friendships when my protestant friends become Catholic. That would be petty. Sadly, that same understanding and tolerance isn't afforded to people who go from religious to atheist. It disappoints me that you've decided I'm too different to maintain a friendship with. Your response was to tell me that I could fix it by "stopping the atheist blog rhetoric".
I'm sorry, I can't do that. I don't think this blog is rhetoric and I don't think it's fair to ask someone to change privately while you rave about how tolerant you are publicly. You're not tolerant. A tolerant person or friend would say that we can agree to disagree and maintain the parts of our friendship that don't have anything to do with religion. Why can't we just craft together? How did my atheism change crafting? I hate to say it...but I was never comfortable with the way that all scrapbooking or crafting nights inevitably featured a proselytizing speech about how faithful you are. I didn't say anything about it because I cared more about you than being momentarily offended or put off. That's why I'm so angry about the card.
I didn't tell you about my atheism because after listening to your monologues on how the "faithless are fruitless", I was afraid it would come to this. Pdaddy and I talked about it when I first started doing my homework on what it is I really believed. You were a large part of our lives and I didn't want to hurt you. I see now that I can't be true to myself without, at least in part, disappointing you. I'm sorry our friendship deteriorated but I won't apologize for who I am. I don't expect an apology from you for who you are. I kind of wanted an apology for your slapdash testimony in a yearly greeting that's supposed to be joyous and loving. When did it become socially acceptable for the Christmas card sender to use the card to tell people how much they suck? Emily Post is River Dancing in her grave, I'm sure! I'll always love you/care for you but you have to decide what this friendship means to you. Your perceptions aren't mine to change.
/end trans
If you're not the Christmas Card friend and you've read this far - you deserve a cookie. I'm sorry I had to put this here for everyone to read. Since the CCFriend isn't returning my calls or e-mails... this was a last resort to try to get my point out there. I don't want to play the persecuted atheist card because persecution isn't a word I would use lightly. I'm just sad that I am not the only one who's had to deal with a "friend" like this because of a lack of belief in a deity.
This is a continuation post (of sorts).
Let's talk about Armageddon/"Doomsday". According to most Christian websites, Armageddon will be the final battle between God and Satan - a theological Smack Down! Different religions and different holy books have varied accounts of what will happen when this battle begins, but they all seem to agree that during the war between God and an anti-Christ, there will be disease, suffering, fires, earthquakes, your "horsemen", and the scariest possible circumstances that the world would ever face. Fear, desolation, and epic terror will, allegedly, rule the day and the only thing that will save your butt is fighting on God's side (or doing one of any number of devotionals/pledges/statements of allegiance to a deity).
This scenario brings several questions to the surface.
* If God is all knowing, then Satan is an idiot. Would you go into a battle knowing that all of your moves will be known through your enemy's omniscience? Satan is said to know the nature of God. In some religions, Satan is said to be Jesus' brother (LDS). If you always lose, why fight the war at all?
* If God is all-powerful, why does he need thugs? Why does he need the horsemen? Which leads me to my next question...
*God must be a tyrannical arsehole. If he's all powerful and he's disappointed in humanity, then couldn't he just blink it out of existence? No muss, no fuss. If he created it all then he can un-create it all. But, no! Instead of exercising his power in this manner, he chooses to draw arbitrary lines in the sand and let chaos, death, disaster, and (if you believe the Bible) the most intense human suffering possible. Claiming that your God is a benevolent wonder while claiming that you believe in the end times is one of the biggest hypocrisies I can think of. These actions are not those of the most powerful energy in the universe. No. It's more like giving a two year old a collection of nuclear weapons and a biological arsenal and saying, "If these people don't choose to put you on a pedestal,...have fun!"
*I'm sure some people are reading this and thinking, "But...it's not that God wants people to suffer. Satan and man's sin will be responsible for the suffering." Ok. Then your God isn't the most powerful being because he can't snuff out Satan. Your God is also a royal jerk. "Eve" bites the apple and your all powerful deity decides that, because of this indiscretion, he will hold billions of people responsible? You'd think he would've created a poisonous apple if it's such a big fucking deal. If you eat the apple, then you die. Again,...no muss, no fuss.
*"But God wouldn't do that...he's giving everyone a chance." No! He's not! If he's all knowing, then he knows who is going to help his enemies or deny him. He's holding a terrorist threat over the heads of humanity and saying, "Choose me or subject yourself to eternal torture." That's not a choice. That's manipulative terrorism. Why not just say "If you don't choose me, you will be denied my presence. You'll just cease to be - no heaven for you." Why hell? Why would the all-knowing, all-powerful master of the universe need to create hell? This also brings up the issue of predestination. Did God allow certain people to be born only to suffer?
* Why would a perfectly just God allow infinite suffering for finite crimes?
* Why are the punishments and scenarios limited to only things that ancient writers would've been able to conceive of? Notice that it's the four "horsemen" and not the four guys driving hybrid cars. There's no mention of pilots vanishing from the cockpit of planes (ala Kirk Cameron's style of "the rapture"). There's no talk of AIDS. No mention of nuclear weapons or biological warfare. There's not even the mention of massive global warming or ferocious blizzards. Why? Because none of these events would've happened, or been foreseeable, to the writers of the Bible! If the Bible had spoke of four, evil mortgage lenders or evolutionists on Segways riding across the skies, then I'd give the Christian God a bit more credibility for being the all-knowing, all-seeing, prophetic master of the universe.
The concept of Doomsday/End Times/Armageddon is a purely human concept. It's about power. You take the people you want to control and scare them into behaving the way you want them to (need them to). That's all this is. Most people don't' want to die and/or suffer. It's that fear that can be the greatest motivator in human experience. Using that fear to gain followers is a joke.
I know I'm not the first person to ask these questions (and I won't be the last).
Let's talk about Armageddon/"Doomsday". According to most Christian websites, Armageddon will be the final battle between God and Satan - a theological Smack Down! Different religions and different holy books have varied accounts of what will happen when this battle begins, but they all seem to agree that during the war between God and an anti-Christ, there will be disease, suffering, fires, earthquakes, your "horsemen", and the scariest possible circumstances that the world would ever face. Fear, desolation, and epic terror will, allegedly, rule the day and the only thing that will save your butt is fighting on God's side (or doing one of any number of devotionals/pledges/statements of allegiance to a deity).
This scenario brings several questions to the surface.
* If God is all knowing, then Satan is an idiot. Would you go into a battle knowing that all of your moves will be known through your enemy's omniscience? Satan is said to know the nature of God. In some religions, Satan is said to be Jesus' brother (LDS). If you always lose, why fight the war at all?
* If God is all-powerful, why does he need thugs? Why does he need the horsemen? Which leads me to my next question...
*God must be a tyrannical arsehole. If he's all powerful and he's disappointed in humanity, then couldn't he just blink it out of existence? No muss, no fuss. If he created it all then he can un-create it all. But, no! Instead of exercising his power in this manner, he chooses to draw arbitrary lines in the sand and let chaos, death, disaster, and (if you believe the Bible) the most intense human suffering possible. Claiming that your God is a benevolent wonder while claiming that you believe in the end times is one of the biggest hypocrisies I can think of. These actions are not those of the most powerful energy in the universe. No. It's more like giving a two year old a collection of nuclear weapons and a biological arsenal and saying, "If these people don't choose to put you on a pedestal,...have fun!"
*I'm sure some people are reading this and thinking, "But...it's not that God wants people to suffer. Satan and man's sin will be responsible for the suffering." Ok. Then your God isn't the most powerful being because he can't snuff out Satan. Your God is also a royal jerk. "Eve" bites the apple and your all powerful deity decides that, because of this indiscretion, he will hold billions of people responsible? You'd think he would've created a poisonous apple if it's such a big fucking deal. If you eat the apple, then you die. Again,...no muss, no fuss.
*"But God wouldn't do that...he's giving everyone a chance." No! He's not! If he's all knowing, then he knows who is going to help his enemies or deny him. He's holding a terrorist threat over the heads of humanity and saying, "Choose me or subject yourself to eternal torture." That's not a choice. That's manipulative terrorism. Why not just say "If you don't choose me, you will be denied my presence. You'll just cease to be - no heaven for you." Why hell? Why would the all-knowing, all-powerful master of the universe need to create hell? This also brings up the issue of predestination. Did God allow certain people to be born only to suffer?
* Why would a perfectly just God allow infinite suffering for finite crimes?
* Why are the punishments and scenarios limited to only things that ancient writers would've been able to conceive of? Notice that it's the four "horsemen" and not the four guys driving hybrid cars. There's no mention of pilots vanishing from the cockpit of planes (ala Kirk Cameron's style of "the rapture"). There's no talk of AIDS. No mention of nuclear weapons or biological warfare. There's not even the mention of massive global warming or ferocious blizzards. Why? Because none of these events would've happened, or been foreseeable, to the writers of the Bible! If the Bible had spoke of four, evil mortgage lenders or evolutionists on Segways riding across the skies, then I'd give the Christian God a bit more credibility for being the all-knowing, all-seeing, prophetic master of the universe.
The concept of Doomsday/End Times/Armageddon is a purely human concept. It's about power. You take the people you want to control and scare them into behaving the way you want them to (need them to). That's all this is. Most people don't' want to die and/or suffer. It's that fear that can be the greatest motivator in human experience. Using that fear to gain followers is a joke.
I know I'm not the first person to ask these questions (and I won't be the last).
"Without celebrating Jesus, what is the reason for your celebration of the season?" - first Christmas card of the year note.
I got this card today from an old friend. She's known me for about ten years but only recently figured out I'm an atheist. When she found out, she didn't talk to me for a year. I understood her feelings when I told her, but I can't understand the fact that she can't accept it still. Actually, that's what she's said in her card, "I can't accept that you are an atheist..."
Here's the truth - I'm not asking her to accept it. Accept it or don't. Sending me snippy cards isn't going to change my feelings.
What's our reason for celebrating Christmas without Jesus? Easy. As I said last year, until a reputable authority shows me that the Christian Christ was actually born on December 25, this holiday isn't a celebration of the birth of Christ. If you say it's a symbolic celebration of his birth, then why is the date special? Why December 25th? I celebrate the fact that this time of year brings out the best in people (usually). I love it when I know every person in this house is busy planning little ways to make others feel good and loved. I love it when there's a holiday allowing my kids and I to sit down and paint ornaments for our tree or use clay to craft a keepsake for others. I don't need the holiday excuse, but it doesn't hurt. I celebrate the magic of the holiday as my children see it. P4 ran outside tonight and saw that a neighbor had put up lights on their house. He was so excited. P3 whispered in my ear, last night, that she couldn't wait to make puppy chow. The season is special because it's full of family traditions and rituals that we don't have at other times of the year. My reason for celebrating Christmas is purely selfish- I know my children will grow up and leave my side one day. Christmas gives me an excuse to pull them close and impart upon them all of the wonderful traditions and memories we've made. I get to spoil them with society's blessing. I also get to teach them about how special and privileged they are. I get to see their humanitarian sides grow with the understanding that not everyone has what they have. I celebrate Christmas for the construction paper chains, the time baking sweets with the kids, and the scene set before me on Christmas Eve when all of my babies are sleeping together in the living room in perfect peace with sweet dreams. The lights from the tree make the room glow in pinkish-orange softness, which reflects off their sleeping faces. All is right with the world in that ten minutes when Pdaddy and I watch them sleep. I celebrate their childhood and the child within Pdaddy and I. It's about love. Love is the reason for the season. Even if you're a Christian, your celebration of Christmas is a profession of the love you have for your savior. I love my family every bit as much as you love your savior and that's reason enough to drop the petty concerns of normal life and focus on the love around me.
I got this card today from an old friend. She's known me for about ten years but only recently figured out I'm an atheist. When she found out, she didn't talk to me for a year. I understood her feelings when I told her, but I can't understand the fact that she can't accept it still. Actually, that's what she's said in her card, "I can't accept that you are an atheist..."
Here's the truth - I'm not asking her to accept it. Accept it or don't. Sending me snippy cards isn't going to change my feelings.
What's our reason for celebrating Christmas without Jesus? Easy. As I said last year, until a reputable authority shows me that the Christian Christ was actually born on December 25, this holiday isn't a celebration of the birth of Christ. If you say it's a symbolic celebration of his birth, then why is the date special? Why December 25th? I celebrate the fact that this time of year brings out the best in people (usually). I love it when I know every person in this house is busy planning little ways to make others feel good and loved. I love it when there's a holiday allowing my kids and I to sit down and paint ornaments for our tree or use clay to craft a keepsake for others. I don't need the holiday excuse, but it doesn't hurt. I celebrate the magic of the holiday as my children see it. P4 ran outside tonight and saw that a neighbor had put up lights on their house. He was so excited. P3 whispered in my ear, last night, that she couldn't wait to make puppy chow. The season is special because it's full of family traditions and rituals that we don't have at other times of the year. My reason for celebrating Christmas is purely selfish- I know my children will grow up and leave my side one day. Christmas gives me an excuse to pull them close and impart upon them all of the wonderful traditions and memories we've made. I get to spoil them with society's blessing. I also get to teach them about how special and privileged they are. I get to see their humanitarian sides grow with the understanding that not everyone has what they have. I celebrate Christmas for the construction paper chains, the time baking sweets with the kids, and the scene set before me on Christmas Eve when all of my babies are sleeping together in the living room in perfect peace with sweet dreams. The lights from the tree make the room glow in pinkish-orange softness, which reflects off their sleeping faces. All is right with the world in that ten minutes when Pdaddy and I watch them sleep. I celebrate their childhood and the child within Pdaddy and I. It's about love. Love is the reason for the season. Even if you're a Christian, your celebration of Christmas is a profession of the love you have for your savior. I love my family every bit as much as you love your savior and that's reason enough to drop the petty concerns of normal life and focus on the love around me.
For anyone who would ask "What harm does religion do?", I would like to give a few names. It's not important that you know who they are immediately. Just put them in the back of your head for later.
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Aum Shinrikyo
James Warren Jones
Elizabeth Clare Wolff
Vernon Wayne Howell
Evril LeBaron
Warren Jeffs
Chen Tao
Marshall Applewhite
Wayne Bent
This is just a short list, but it will be sufficient for the purposes of this article. What do all of the above people have in common?
They started out as merely religious folk who were born to a man and woman in the normal fashion. Their childhoods may have had a few trials and pockmarks, but whose doesn't? Most of them started out in mainstream churches. They all believed that their god was the true god.
Arguably, they all have very charismatic personalities. However, there are many, many people who are just as charismatic and inspirational who don't end up causing the world any harm at all. In fact, many of them add to the world and change it for the better. No...what's separates these people from the majority is that somewhere along the line, they became so convinced in their own version of God was correct that they, in some cases, believed they became a Messiah in their own rite. They talked other people into their fantasy. They made other people believe just as thousands of priests, ministers, youth pastors, and other religious leaders do on a daily basis. What happened then? What made these people do such horrible things? If you haven't guessed by now (or did a quick google search), the names I listed are the names of some of the most notorious and deadly cults in the world's history.
People don't join cults because they're crazy. They join because they're looking for something; a connection to the divine; a fix to their problems; fear; love; an empty spot that needs filling. It's safe to say that they were more devoted then your average pew filler on a Sunday morning. These people are so devoted that they'll give up their possessions, leave their families, take on new names, and swear their lives to a leader. They take vows of poverty, chastity, and charity. They agree to put the good of the group above personal gain. Before you start saying that's odd, think about the fact that Catholic nuns and priests do exactly the same things.
Control. Power. Self-serving leaders. These can be found in all churches. If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to name one mainstream church that doesn't ask it's followers to abide by certain rules that dictate things like; what you eat; who you marry; what sex is "normal sex"; or what's appropriate appearance wise. Name one church that doesn't make demands on a person's time. Now I challenge you to name one church that doesn't try to control your free income. As for self-serving leaders, look no further than the Catholic Church or the LDS Church. Do you think those priests and prophets (or people in the quorum) are spending your tithes in entirely charitable ways? Both churches are some of the wealthiest "non-prophet" organizations on the planet with vast real estate holdings and business ventures. Both churches have spent tithes on legal defense funds, malls, lavish vacations for high ranking officials, and any number of questionable expenditures. It is all about control and power. The cult leaders above have done no different.
In addition, almost every church sets out penalties for dis-fellowship or rule breaking. Until very recently, the penalty for some "crimes" in the LDS Church involved blood atonement (death). Almost every other religion considers apostasy an unforgivable sin. They will threaten you with ostracism from your community and family. Some will go so far as to tell your family not to contact you. Leaving home to live lives of service and poverty are also the foray of mainstream religions who participate in missionary work. Yet some people don't realize that this is also the hallmark of the cults I've mentioned.
Surely, there is a point where the doomsday cults cross a line. Mass suicide isn't a doctrine in many churches. But, what about sexual crimes against minors? What about covering up those crimes? Adding to that, anyone who has hung out with a Pentecostal or Seventh Day Adventist can tell you they think the end of the world is upon us (just like the doomsday cults).
My point is that there are more similarities than differences.
I've seen too many instances where "mainstream" theists decry the horrors of "cults". Do they have that high ground? I don't think so. Devotion to irrational and controlling principles occurs in every major world religion. Don't tell me your church is "not like those churches" and "we'd never be asked to do something like those cults". That's a lie. Do you think the cults I listed started out telling members that they were going to be required to commit suicide or give up their ten year old girls to sleep with a self-proclaimed Messiah? They weren't. Most adherents came to accept those requirements for the same reason mainstream theists end up justifying some of the things they do - they fear being kicked out of the group and lose the ability to be objective towards their own religious leaders. The group mentality kicks in. So...to the theists: the next time you point a finger at the cults, take a look at your own religion.
I've had several comments point me to the woman featured on the Atheist Experience this Sunday. I have avoided making a post about it until I had time to really sit down and consider the story before me. I've done that.
As is my usual MO, I'll break this down into chunks.
Thursday, 30 October 2008
The date originally made me wonder if we were dealing with a hoax. I thought that, surely, this had to be a POE. The account you're about to read is so extreme that I was hesitant to believe anyone, even a fundamental Christian, could believe such horrible things about a child. I hoped that this was a blown out story to provoke discussion about the evils of letting children trick-or-treat. Sadly, it's not.
This post will contain profanity. If that bothers you, I suggest you stop reading or get over it.
A four year old who knows she needs a saviour!
O wretched little girl she is, who will deliver her from her body of death.
As Richard Dawkins has pointed out repeatedly, young children do not know this. Four year olds know precious little, if you're defining "know" as a definitive knowledge of concepts. Setting that aside, the real quandary isn't whether they can know that they need a savior, but a case of whether they should know, even if it were true, that they were evil incarnate, needing the sacrifice of another human to have salvation.
Let's pull this out of the context of religion. Let's assume that there's a four year old child whose mother died while giving birth to the child. Let's say that the situation came down to a choice: save the mother or save the infant. Let's further assume that the mother instructed the medical personnel to save her gestating infant, knowing it would kill her. This is the ultimate sacrifice a mom can make for her child. Would you tell the four year old child that they are responsible for the death of their mother and, as such, owe her complete devotion? Would you tell them that the fact that the sacrifice was necessary means they are sinful? Of course not! Any rational individual would quickly point out the fact that children are not responsible for their existence. Similarly, I didn't ask to be born into a Christian family and I certainly didn't ask Jesus to die on a cross for me (let alone for sins I couldn't possibly commit for two thousand years after). There is no way a child owes a debt for their existence.
First thing in the morning my 4 year old daughter normally says to me, "I am going to be a good girl today mummy". When she says this she really means it, and I can see how she longs to finish even just one day in her life without doing anything wrong.
The implication is that the girl has been perpetually unsuccessful because humans are prone to trial and error. Why would any parent lead their child to believe that perfection was possible, let alone a goal? To deny a child the ability to screw up (in the safety of love and family) is to deny them the ability to learn. What message does it send to this little girl when mommy says, "You can try as hard as you want...you will never measure up." Furthermore, what is "a good girl"? The yardstick for "good" is highly subjective. If mom is telling the truth, I fail to see the noteworthy aspect of having a child who wakes up thinking that they are inherently sinful. That's fucked up beyond all reason!
"She means it." Yeah. My four year old son means it when he tells me that he is trying to abide by the rules of the house. He does this because he wants to please the people who love him, feed him, and provide for him. He wants positive reinforcement! All children fear abandonment. They do so because four year olds do not have the skills to blossom and survive on their own. I am 100% sure that this little girl doesn't give two shits about God's requirements. Her focus is a undeniably focused on her mother's love and acceptance. By holding the threat of eternal damnation about a four year old, this mother is acting as a terrorist. She is using the child's natural desire to please and be loved to manipulate her emotions.
However my daughter knows as well as I do that within at the least an hour of saying she is going to be good, that promise will be broken.
She's proud of the fact that she's setting her child up for failure?
Sometimes during the day or before bed, she always asks me if she has been good, and I always try to be as honest as I can with her, and I will tell her what she has done wrong if I can remember. If she has been better than usual I will praise her and tell her.
I'm speechless. Can you imagine climbing into bed for a snuggle from mom who tells you exactly how you've failed Jesus? Who sends a child to bed with a re-cap of all the mistakes they've made during the day and how they will never be good enough? This is officially bad parenting. This woman has tossed her child's mental health and sense of importance under the bus to appear more devotional. What the fuck, Chuck?
I have never said to her she has been a perfect little girl who has done nothing wrong all day, If I say that to her then I am a liar and I will be doing her more harm than good.
What a crock of self-serving bullshit! Lady! It's not about telling a child they're perfect. In some ways, that's just as bad as telling them that they're entirely sinful. There is a happy medium that you have fucking failed to comprehend. You are staking your child's self-worth and happiness on a two-thousand year old book and a fictional character. Let's pretend that Jesus and God are real. What part of the Bible tells you to be a nasty ass, mentally abusive bitch? Where does Jesus say that scaring your daughter into behavior that you will never consider "good enough" is admirable? I'm amazed you can sleep at night.
I do not believe in teaching children self esteem or that they should feel good about themselves, because they should not.
Why did you have children? I would really like to know your answer. If children are sinful and can never live up to the unrealistic expectations of you or a deity, why did you have her? Saying children don't need self-esteem is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard. You're saying she doesn't deserve to have confidence in herself or feel like she's worth anything. If she's not worth anything, then why did you have her. If children have no self-worth or esteem, then you should have no fucking problem with abortions or with children who do sin. Self-esteem isn't sinful. Could your Jesus have had any convictions or purpose if he didn't believe he was important? How the fuck do you justify your thoughts and opinions while simultaneously telling you child she's nothing special and doesn't deserve to feel good about herself? You keep a blog where you get off on telling people how pious you are. You're not pious. You're a fucking coward who's terrified that her daughter may find herself valuable and happy. You've made unhappiness a virtue and, thereby, created your own version of what is good. You can't do that unless you believe yourself to be a paragon of virtue and that my dear requires a shit load of egotistical "self-esteem".
My daughter is a normal 4 year old who loves to play with her dolls and dress up, but everyday she finds that she is doing things that are wrong like doing something to upset her baby brother or not doing what she is told by her mum.
Making mistakes is normal. Normal children can expect unconditional love from their mommy/mommies. Normal children don't go to bed accepting the fact that they're the definition of sin and selfishness. She is not responsible for your happiness, Jesus' happiness, or the happiness of her little brother. If you had a brain, you'd realize that. She's not normal because you've made it impossible for her to be normal to serve your power trip.
So we have a problem, and this is an everyday battle. The problem is sin. I never taught my daughter to sin.
You do have a problem. The problem is that you're a joyless fuckwit who's created a virtual field of landmines where your daughter can't possibly win. It's interesting that you don't assign her brother the same low-esteem doctrine. You are a sick woman who should've never had a child. You don't love- you judge. You're exactly like an abusive husband who beats his wife while convincing her that you're doing it for "her own good". Mind fucking your child is bullshit. Mind fucking your child while simultaneously playing the pious mom is insanity. You don't deserve your daughter. It is you who has sinned to an unforgivable level. Children learn what they live. Isn't it sinful to deny the wonder of childhood as God's creation? Doesn't your Christ tell you to love and leave the judging to someone else? You have sinned against humanity and the bond between a mother and child.
This is because she, and as well as the rest of the human race have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. From the moment we are conceived we are sinners, Pslam 57:5. We are born with a desire to sin. We are all born God hating and evil.
No!! Absolutely not true! That's your perverted understanding of life. It's convenient because you can justify any awful, horrible act by saying your sin is out of your control.
However this morning my daughter shocked and amazed me. As usual first thing when she woke up today she said, " I am going to be a good girl today mummy" , and I nodded and said, "OK". She was quiet for a while as if in deep thought then she said, " But mummy, everyday I try and I want to be a good girl, but I can't do it. I can't be a good girl". I didn't know what to say to her at this point so I asked her why she could not do it.
She parroted what you've told her. You're surprised she thinks she can't be good despite your constant negative messages to her that she'll never be good? Are you stupid? Why you take pride in this is beyond me. Congratulations. You've taken "a gift" and made "the gift" or "blessing" feel like a pile of shit who will never be more than a pile of shit in your eyes.
" Because there is only one person who can ever help me to be good", she said.
If this is true, then you should've admitted your lack of power or influence in the situation. If God is the only one who can make her good, why does she need you? You're so full of it that it's over-flowing the bucket.
So not knowing where this was going and a little confused by what my daughter was saying, I asked her who it is who would help her to be a good girl, thinking maybe she was going to say me, she said- Jesus.
Don't insult the intelligence of everyone who reads this. You knew exactly where this was going because you fucking created it. You've probably waited for this moment since she was born. Don't feign confusing when your daughter comes to you and admits that you've broken her spirit and feeling of self-worth. You primed her for it. You told her she was unworthy of God's love and could never be perfectly good or good enough. It would've been more unexpected if she'd come to you and told you, rightfully so, that you're not worthy of her and she's happy with who she is.
Yes my four year old daughter told me that the only person who would ever help her to be a good girl was Jesus Christ, because she could not do it on her own.
Oh goodie! Maybe one day she'll too make a completely self-serving post congratulating herself on raising a mentally unhealthy child who has no self-esteem and has taught her daughter that love is conditional.
I have never told her this.
What? Then you're a lying sack of shit because you said you have taught her exactly this. Which is it? Aren't you the devout Christian who's taught her daughter that her self-worth means nothing and she'll never be perfect in God's eyes?
I would have thought this is too deep for a four year old to understand. That she was a sinner, she could not control her sinful nature. She wanted to be good but she could not, instead she did things that where wrong no matter how she tried to be good. Her theology is far deeper than that of many preachers today. I mean she gets it.
The only thing she gets is that she desperately wants to please you and make you happy with her. You've reached a new level of mental manipulation by claiming victory in making your daughter believe she's worthless without a being who clearly doesn't give two shits about her happiness or health. If you believe this is what your God and Jesus would approve of, you have justified why I don't believe your God/Jesus is worthy of worship.
It is only by the finished work of Christ on the cross that we can be delivered from sin. The righteousness of God is imputed to us when we forsake our sins and believe, 2 Corinthians 5:21. It is Christ who works in us enabling us to do good when we are saved, otherwise all our good works are like filthy rugs before God. She sounded like Paul in Romans 7, " O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? And she understood the answer, that it is only through Christ that we can be delivered and freed from the bondage of sin. I was so amazed by God's power that I wanted to cry. I have never shared this with her, so how did she know?
Stop. Seriously. Just cut the shit.
It can only be the work of the Holy Spirit.
...or a mother who believes children have no right to feel valued and good.
For a little girl to know that she can not be good on her own, that there is only one who can help her, that is Jesus is beyond my comprehension.
...all evidence to the contrary. She internalized the hateful gospel you taught her.
When she said that all I said to her was that she was right.
You're not a mother. You're a user. You are using your daughter to make yourself feel better about being a mentally abusive parent.
I did not say anything more as I was in shock and I did not want to ruin what the Lord was doing in her heart. I am not saying she got saved, she is only four.
She can't be saved at four, but she can take on the guilt and sin of the world?
But one thing I know God is definitely working in my little girl's life. It encouraged me to pray for her even more. She is a wretched little girl, who knows she is a wretched sinner who needs only a good saviour to help her. Glory belongs to God!
Posted by Jean at 09:35
Your daughter is not "wretched". You are. I don't know how you got to where you are, but I'm torn between hating you (despite not knowing you) and pitying the state in which you live. You need help. Not from God. You need help from a licensed psychiatrist.
As is my usual MO, I'll break this down into chunks.
Thursday, 30 October 2008
The date originally made me wonder if we were dealing with a hoax. I thought that, surely, this had to be a POE. The account you're about to read is so extreme that I was hesitant to believe anyone, even a fundamental Christian, could believe such horrible things about a child. I hoped that this was a blown out story to provoke discussion about the evils of letting children trick-or-treat. Sadly, it's not.
This post will contain profanity. If that bothers you, I suggest you stop reading or get over it.
A four year old who knows she needs a saviour!
O wretched little girl she is, who will deliver her from her body of death.
As Richard Dawkins has pointed out repeatedly, young children do not know this. Four year olds know precious little, if you're defining "know" as a definitive knowledge of concepts. Setting that aside, the real quandary isn't whether they can know that they need a savior, but a case of whether they should know, even if it were true, that they were evil incarnate, needing the sacrifice of another human to have salvation.
Let's pull this out of the context of religion. Let's assume that there's a four year old child whose mother died while giving birth to the child. Let's say that the situation came down to a choice: save the mother or save the infant. Let's further assume that the mother instructed the medical personnel to save her gestating infant, knowing it would kill her. This is the ultimate sacrifice a mom can make for her child. Would you tell the four year old child that they are responsible for the death of their mother and, as such, owe her complete devotion? Would you tell them that the fact that the sacrifice was necessary means they are sinful? Of course not! Any rational individual would quickly point out the fact that children are not responsible for their existence. Similarly, I didn't ask to be born into a Christian family and I certainly didn't ask Jesus to die on a cross for me (let alone for sins I couldn't possibly commit for two thousand years after). There is no way a child owes a debt for their existence.
First thing in the morning my 4 year old daughter normally says to me, "I am going to be a good girl today mummy". When she says this she really means it, and I can see how she longs to finish even just one day in her life without doing anything wrong.
The implication is that the girl has been perpetually unsuccessful because humans are prone to trial and error. Why would any parent lead their child to believe that perfection was possible, let alone a goal? To deny a child the ability to screw up (in the safety of love and family) is to deny them the ability to learn. What message does it send to this little girl when mommy says, "You can try as hard as you want...you will never measure up." Furthermore, what is "a good girl"? The yardstick for "good" is highly subjective. If mom is telling the truth, I fail to see the noteworthy aspect of having a child who wakes up thinking that they are inherently sinful. That's fucked up beyond all reason!
"She means it." Yeah. My four year old son means it when he tells me that he is trying to abide by the rules of the house. He does this because he wants to please the people who love him, feed him, and provide for him. He wants positive reinforcement! All children fear abandonment. They do so because four year olds do not have the skills to blossom and survive on their own. I am 100% sure that this little girl doesn't give two shits about God's requirements. Her focus is a undeniably focused on her mother's love and acceptance. By holding the threat of eternal damnation about a four year old, this mother is acting as a terrorist. She is using the child's natural desire to please and be loved to manipulate her emotions.
However my daughter knows as well as I do that within at the least an hour of saying she is going to be good, that promise will be broken.
She's proud of the fact that she's setting her child up for failure?
Sometimes during the day or before bed, she always asks me if she has been good, and I always try to be as honest as I can with her, and I will tell her what she has done wrong if I can remember. If she has been better than usual I will praise her and tell her.
I'm speechless. Can you imagine climbing into bed for a snuggle from mom who tells you exactly how you've failed Jesus? Who sends a child to bed with a re-cap of all the mistakes they've made during the day and how they will never be good enough? This is officially bad parenting. This woman has tossed her child's mental health and sense of importance under the bus to appear more devotional. What the fuck, Chuck?
I have never said to her she has been a perfect little girl who has done nothing wrong all day, If I say that to her then I am a liar and I will be doing her more harm than good.
What a crock of self-serving bullshit! Lady! It's not about telling a child they're perfect. In some ways, that's just as bad as telling them that they're entirely sinful. There is a happy medium that you have fucking failed to comprehend. You are staking your child's self-worth and happiness on a two-thousand year old book and a fictional character. Let's pretend that Jesus and God are real. What part of the Bible tells you to be a nasty ass, mentally abusive bitch? Where does Jesus say that scaring your daughter into behavior that you will never consider "good enough" is admirable? I'm amazed you can sleep at night.
I do not believe in teaching children self esteem or that they should feel good about themselves, because they should not.
Why did you have children? I would really like to know your answer. If children are sinful and can never live up to the unrealistic expectations of you or a deity, why did you have her? Saying children don't need self-esteem is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard. You're saying she doesn't deserve to have confidence in herself or feel like she's worth anything. If she's not worth anything, then why did you have her. If children have no self-worth or esteem, then you should have no fucking problem with abortions or with children who do sin. Self-esteem isn't sinful. Could your Jesus have had any convictions or purpose if he didn't believe he was important? How the fuck do you justify your thoughts and opinions while simultaneously telling you child she's nothing special and doesn't deserve to feel good about herself? You keep a blog where you get off on telling people how pious you are. You're not pious. You're a fucking coward who's terrified that her daughter may find herself valuable and happy. You've made unhappiness a virtue and, thereby, created your own version of what is good. You can't do that unless you believe yourself to be a paragon of virtue and that my dear requires a shit load of egotistical "self-esteem".
My daughter is a normal 4 year old who loves to play with her dolls and dress up, but everyday she finds that she is doing things that are wrong like doing something to upset her baby brother or not doing what she is told by her mum.
Making mistakes is normal. Normal children can expect unconditional love from their mommy/mommies. Normal children don't go to bed accepting the fact that they're the definition of sin and selfishness. She is not responsible for your happiness, Jesus' happiness, or the happiness of her little brother. If you had a brain, you'd realize that. She's not normal because you've made it impossible for her to be normal to serve your power trip.
So we have a problem, and this is an everyday battle. The problem is sin. I never taught my daughter to sin.
You do have a problem. The problem is that you're a joyless fuckwit who's created a virtual field of landmines where your daughter can't possibly win. It's interesting that you don't assign her brother the same low-esteem doctrine. You are a sick woman who should've never had a child. You don't love- you judge. You're exactly like an abusive husband who beats his wife while convincing her that you're doing it for "her own good". Mind fucking your child is bullshit. Mind fucking your child while simultaneously playing the pious mom is insanity. You don't deserve your daughter. It is you who has sinned to an unforgivable level. Children learn what they live. Isn't it sinful to deny the wonder of childhood as God's creation? Doesn't your Christ tell you to love and leave the judging to someone else? You have sinned against humanity and the bond between a mother and child.
This is because she, and as well as the rest of the human race have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. From the moment we are conceived we are sinners, Pslam 57:5. We are born with a desire to sin. We are all born God hating and evil.
No!! Absolutely not true! That's your perverted understanding of life. It's convenient because you can justify any awful, horrible act by saying your sin is out of your control.
However this morning my daughter shocked and amazed me. As usual first thing when she woke up today she said, " I am going to be a good girl today mummy" , and I nodded and said, "OK". She was quiet for a while as if in deep thought then she said, " But mummy, everyday I try and I want to be a good girl, but I can't do it. I can't be a good girl". I didn't know what to say to her at this point so I asked her why she could not do it.
She parroted what you've told her. You're surprised she thinks she can't be good despite your constant negative messages to her that she'll never be good? Are you stupid? Why you take pride in this is beyond me. Congratulations. You've taken "a gift" and made "the gift" or "blessing" feel like a pile of shit who will never be more than a pile of shit in your eyes.
" Because there is only one person who can ever help me to be good", she said.
If this is true, then you should've admitted your lack of power or influence in the situation. If God is the only one who can make her good, why does she need you? You're so full of it that it's over-flowing the bucket.
So not knowing where this was going and a little confused by what my daughter was saying, I asked her who it is who would help her to be a good girl, thinking maybe she was going to say me, she said- Jesus.
Don't insult the intelligence of everyone who reads this. You knew exactly where this was going because you fucking created it. You've probably waited for this moment since she was born. Don't feign confusing when your daughter comes to you and admits that you've broken her spirit and feeling of self-worth. You primed her for it. You told her she was unworthy of God's love and could never be perfectly good or good enough. It would've been more unexpected if she'd come to you and told you, rightfully so, that you're not worthy of her and she's happy with who she is.
Yes my four year old daughter told me that the only person who would ever help her to be a good girl was Jesus Christ, because she could not do it on her own.
Oh goodie! Maybe one day she'll too make a completely self-serving post congratulating herself on raising a mentally unhealthy child who has no self-esteem and has taught her daughter that love is conditional.
I have never told her this.
What? Then you're a lying sack of shit because you said you have taught her exactly this. Which is it? Aren't you the devout Christian who's taught her daughter that her self-worth means nothing and she'll never be perfect in God's eyes?
I would have thought this is too deep for a four year old to understand. That she was a sinner, she could not control her sinful nature. She wanted to be good but she could not, instead she did things that where wrong no matter how she tried to be good. Her theology is far deeper than that of many preachers today. I mean she gets it.
The only thing she gets is that she desperately wants to please you and make you happy with her. You've reached a new level of mental manipulation by claiming victory in making your daughter believe she's worthless without a being who clearly doesn't give two shits about her happiness or health. If you believe this is what your God and Jesus would approve of, you have justified why I don't believe your God/Jesus is worthy of worship.
It is only by the finished work of Christ on the cross that we can be delivered from sin. The righteousness of God is imputed to us when we forsake our sins and believe, 2 Corinthians 5:21. It is Christ who works in us enabling us to do good when we are saved, otherwise all our good works are like filthy rugs before God. She sounded like Paul in Romans 7, " O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? And she understood the answer, that it is only through Christ that we can be delivered and freed from the bondage of sin. I was so amazed by God's power that I wanted to cry. I have never shared this with her, so how did she know?
Stop. Seriously. Just cut the shit.
It can only be the work of the Holy Spirit.
...or a mother who believes children have no right to feel valued and good.
For a little girl to know that she can not be good on her own, that there is only one who can help her, that is Jesus is beyond my comprehension.
...all evidence to the contrary. She internalized the hateful gospel you taught her.
When she said that all I said to her was that she was right.
You're not a mother. You're a user. You are using your daughter to make yourself feel better about being a mentally abusive parent.
I did not say anything more as I was in shock and I did not want to ruin what the Lord was doing in her heart. I am not saying she got saved, she is only four.
She can't be saved at four, but she can take on the guilt and sin of the world?
But one thing I know God is definitely working in my little girl's life. It encouraged me to pray for her even more. She is a wretched little girl, who knows she is a wretched sinner who needs only a good saviour to help her. Glory belongs to God!
Posted by Jean at 09:35
Your daughter is not "wretched". You are. I don't know how you got to where you are, but I'm torn between hating you (despite not knowing you) and pitying the state in which you live. You need help. Not from God. You need help from a licensed psychiatrist.
Did anyone else listen to the Nightline report on the "new KKK"? If you haven't, you may want to go check it out. The discussion is about the resurgence of white supremacy groups in America. I couldn't believe what I heard.
He goes on to list a number of organizations or sections of societies that they "include".
Excuse me? What the hell! I'm not kidding: listen to the interview. This putz actually said the above, word for word, with what is at best irresponsible indifference and at worse an attempt to link atheism to Nazi's and white supremacists. Over the course of the podcast, this reporter repeats the "atheist connection" two or three times. They gloss over the history of the KKK, which was exclusively Christian (not partly or almost...exclusively) from it's beginnings. The Wizard says that they're going out of their way to break that stereotype and appeal to "more of society". Oh yes. A kinder, gentler clan. ((Rolls eyes)) There's a very brief and weak attempt to link evolution with white supremacy and a quip about Obama being a successful black man because "he has some white in him".
I support free speech. I don't support hate speech disguised as investigative journalism. This crap has got to stop.
KKK Guy- "We work with the whole community, which is all white power groups."
He goes on to list a number of organizations or sections of societies that they "include".
Reporter - "The best evidence of Imperial Wizard Eric's decision to break
from the old clan, that claimed to be a strictly Christian
organization, are all the atheist skin head groups and Nazi's who
attend a yearly concert: Nordic Fest...this is the new clan."
Excuse me? What the hell! I'm not kidding: listen to the interview. This putz actually said the above, word for word, with what is at best irresponsible indifference and at worse an attempt to link atheism to Nazi's and white supremacists. Over the course of the podcast, this reporter repeats the "atheist connection" two or three times. They gloss over the history of the KKK, which was exclusively Christian (not partly or almost...exclusively) from it's beginnings. The Wizard says that they're going out of their way to break that stereotype and appeal to "more of society". Oh yes. A kinder, gentler clan. ((Rolls eyes)) There's a very brief and weak attempt to link evolution with white supremacy and a quip about Obama being a successful black man because "he has some white in him".
I support free speech. I don't support hate speech disguised as investigative journalism. This crap has got to stop.
P2 was telling me about a discussion in his social studies class. They were discussing the impact of global warming on farmers, especially in historically agrarian cultures. The teacher was sharing that ocean levels in India had risen and the global temperature change had resulted in changes to the cycle of cyclones (or something). I guess this boy put his hand up to argue that global warming wasn't real. The teacher, allegedly, told him that there were people who would agree with the boy's theory, but that he would like to know why the boy felt global warming was nonfactual. P2 says the boy said, the ocean rose because the "Christmas Tsunami" in 2004 pulled so much debris into the water that it was "like dumping boulders in your pool and blaming the spill over on global warming".
*I'll pause while you consider this.
The teacher tried explaining the size of the ocean and the flaws in the boys theory. Boy got angry with teacher. Teacher said that he would like to see where the boy got this information/idea from so that he can read-up on it. Boy tells him that people in Noah's time thought their flood was from global warming, too...or so says the boy's minister.
This is why rational people don't take creation science seriously.
Dear Friend,
You know who you are. For reasons unknown, you have been given this seemingly impassible mountain of pain and anguish. If it were in my power to change it for you, I would. What I need you to know is that you can get through this. You can get through it because you've sewn joy all of your life. Now it's time to try to seek out joy and take it in return. I can't say that I know what you're going through ---I don't and few will. What I can say with absolute certainty is that parents want their children to keep going. In a journal I keep for the kids, I wrote this one night...
*Names removed*
You know who you are. For reasons unknown, you have been given this seemingly impassible mountain of pain and anguish. If it were in my power to change it for you, I would. What I need you to know is that you can get through this. You can get through it because you've sewn joy all of your life. Now it's time to try to seek out joy and take it in return. I can't say that I know what you're going through ---I don't and few will. What I can say with absolute certainty is that parents want their children to keep going. In a journal I keep for the kids, I wrote this one night...
This is possibly more painful than anything else you will experience.You'll be in my heart, friend.
You need to know that you will be okay. You have to be. You only
think you lost me, but I'm here. I'm wherever you are. *P1, P2, P3,
P4 - I see parts of myself in all of you. Look to each other and you'll
find me. Look to each other and remember that you've all been in the
sacred spaces of my heart and womb. That's where the treasure of love
lies. There's a chain of immortality and you're in it. Link
yourselves to each other and stand united in the face of fear and
uncertainty.
Have hope, my little ones. There will be a day when the days get
brighter. Refuse to let fear keep you in one place. It may feel safe
where you've been, but where you've not yet been may have something greater in
store for you and you don't want to miss it. Forget worrying about the far
future. Start living one breath at a time. When you can do
that, start living one minute at a time. Follow the progression and I
promise you will be okay. However, "OK" isn't what I want from
you. I want you to really live. Take risks, walk off the
beaded path and explore your own. Be patient to the process of life.
Be open to the ideas and opportunities that come before you. Give your
heart and will to this journey and you will overcome it a happier person.
The beauty will come if you open yourself up to see it. Don't get stuck in
the process of grieving - use it! Use it to embolden your spirit and blaze
other trails. We can never know what our ultimate destination is going to
be, so give your heart to the journey and the rest will materialize.
*Names removed*
On another website I'm a member of, there's a lady who posted about the recent kerfuffle in the Castro. According to the reports, a fundamentalist, evangelical church decided to get a group together to go sing and tell the homosexuals how displeasing they are to the fundamentalist version of god. Of course, they claim, they didn't go to get into any trouble. They just wanted to go to the highest density, homosexual community west of the Mississippi and sing about Jesus. Right. Dry that out and you can fertilize the lawn of the church!
I'm not offended by the church members singing in the Castro. Hey! More power to em'. If that's how they want to spend an evening, then fantastic! What offends me is their actions seem to suggest that their version of Christianity is better than the Christianity of a homosexual family who wanted to enjoy an evening out. I would be willing to place a nice sum of money on the chance that most of the people they were "saving" have already been "saved". I know a fair number of secular homosexuals, but I also know a fair number of religious homosexuals. So what was the point? The group doing the singing claimed that they were just trying to share Christ's love. They claim that they never expected the reaction they got. What was the reaction they got? Well, it seems a few of the homosexuals in the Castro (and heterosexuals friends and family who may possibly want to dine with their homosexual friends/family) decided to join the church group in a round of Amazing Grace. This set off a ruckus. The Christians were engaged by a few Castro denizens. This started a shit storm of Christian vitriol the likes of which can be seen anytime a gay person claims to worship a loving Christ/God. A group of Castro peeps started singing "We Shall Overcome". Hey! If the protesters can go sing in the Castro, then why should the people who live or hang out there refrain?
I'm sure there are bad eggs on both sides. I'm sure it's possible that both sides got out of hand. I've heard that one of the business owners brought out a tarp and tried covering one of the Christ-bombers signs because, he claims, it was offensive to the children who were present. After all, the Castro isn't solely made up of gay bars and nightclubs. It has family friendly dining establishments where families (not just gay families, even) take their kids for a nice dinner. Perhaps this man with the tarp didn't handle the situation in the best way. Who knows? What I do know is that I may have done the same thing out of raw emotion.
Of course, we are now being told that the Christians were persecuted by the people in the Castro. Poor little Christians.
Here's the thing - I have yet to hear of or see a group of homosexuals take a bunch of signs with words like "faggot", "fag", "Jesus loves sinners", and shouts of "sinner", "abomination", "evil", "reject Satan" to the vestibule or lawn of a fundamentalist, evangelical church. I've never heard of a bunch of gay people standing on the lawn of a church singing YMCA or show tunes (Yes! I'm being intentionally stereotypical to prove the idiocy of the "they're trying to make our children gay" theme.). As far as I know, there's never been a reported case of throngs of gay people standing outside a conservative church telling children that their conservative parents are an abomination. Until that happens, you don't get to play the persecution card! If a gay person walks into a hetero household and tells you you can't be with your spouse, then you can call foul. If they tell your kid that homosexuality is the only sexuality, then you can piss and moan yourself into a frenzy. Until then, STFU. Here's a tip: If homosexuality bothers you that much, don't go to the Castro to obsess about them.
@Rho - don't bother.
I'm not offended by the church members singing in the Castro. Hey! More power to em'. If that's how they want to spend an evening, then fantastic! What offends me is their actions seem to suggest that their version of Christianity is better than the Christianity of a homosexual family who wanted to enjoy an evening out. I would be willing to place a nice sum of money on the chance that most of the people they were "saving" have already been "saved". I know a fair number of secular homosexuals, but I also know a fair number of religious homosexuals. So what was the point? The group doing the singing claimed that they were just trying to share Christ's love. They claim that they never expected the reaction they got. What was the reaction they got? Well, it seems a few of the homosexuals in the Castro (and heterosexuals friends and family who may possibly want to dine with their homosexual friends/family) decided to join the church group in a round of Amazing Grace. This set off a ruckus. The Christians were engaged by a few Castro denizens. This started a shit storm of Christian vitriol the likes of which can be seen anytime a gay person claims to worship a loving Christ/God. A group of Castro peeps started singing "We Shall Overcome". Hey! If the protesters can go sing in the Castro, then why should the people who live or hang out there refrain?
I'm sure there are bad eggs on both sides. I'm sure it's possible that both sides got out of hand. I've heard that one of the business owners brought out a tarp and tried covering one of the Christ-bombers signs because, he claims, it was offensive to the children who were present. After all, the Castro isn't solely made up of gay bars and nightclubs. It has family friendly dining establishments where families (not just gay families, even) take their kids for a nice dinner. Perhaps this man with the tarp didn't handle the situation in the best way. Who knows? What I do know is that I may have done the same thing out of raw emotion.
Of course, we are now being told that the Christians were persecuted by the people in the Castro. Poor little Christians.
Here's the thing - I have yet to hear of or see a group of homosexuals take a bunch of signs with words like "faggot", "fag", "Jesus loves sinners", and shouts of "sinner", "abomination", "evil", "reject Satan" to the vestibule or lawn of a fundamentalist, evangelical church. I've never heard of a bunch of gay people standing on the lawn of a church singing YMCA or show tunes (Yes! I'm being intentionally stereotypical to prove the idiocy of the "they're trying to make our children gay" theme.). As far as I know, there's never been a reported case of throngs of gay people standing outside a conservative church telling children that their conservative parents are an abomination. Until that happens, you don't get to play the persecution card! If a gay person walks into a hetero household and tells you you can't be with your spouse, then you can call foul. If they tell your kid that homosexuality is the only sexuality, then you can piss and moan yourself into a frenzy. Until then, STFU. Here's a tip: If homosexuality bothers you that much, don't go to the Castro to obsess about them.
@Rho - don't bother.
With the weather turning cool and the sun going down early, I'm able to get out and around my house a little more. This evening, I drove to the high school to pick P1 up at a football game. While P2 and I were sitting in the car waiting, I saw two things that made me uncomfortable. That discomfort may very well make me a hypocrite and that bothers me.
Sight 1 was a freshman girl wearing shorts so small that you could see her camel toe in the front and the thong hanging over the back. Her top was no better. It was a sports bra. The two inch heels added to the total effect of making this child look like "a common flathrag on payday." (Beldar Conehead reference). Today wasn't warm, either. I'm pretty ashamed of myself for having the reaction I did. She should be allowed to dress how she wants, I suppose. I just don't see why she'd feel that was necessary. My feelings of hypocrisy come from the fact that my first thought was to assume she was promiscuous. I'm not proud of myself. But who lets a child (A CHILD!!!!!!!!) dress that way? I don't subscribe to the belief that girls can "ask for it" with their clothing. We all know rape is more about power and opportunity than a woman's clothing. But if my first thought was that she was looking to capitalize off her body...what are the opportunists thinking?
Sight 2 was the lady who was carrying a sign that said "KILL EM', CRUSH EM. GO *insert mascot here*." She had a Jesus fish on her car. Which book in the Bible commands Christ's disciples to advocate the violent, public injury of a minor child who happens to be wearing the wrong team colors? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? It's very possible. It was just one of those moments where I had to chuckle at the absurdity of the scene before me.
Sight 1 was a freshman girl wearing shorts so small that you could see her camel toe in the front and the thong hanging over the back. Her top was no better. It was a sports bra. The two inch heels added to the total effect of making this child look like "a common flathrag on payday." (Beldar Conehead reference). Today wasn't warm, either. I'm pretty ashamed of myself for having the reaction I did. She should be allowed to dress how she wants, I suppose. I just don't see why she'd feel that was necessary. My feelings of hypocrisy come from the fact that my first thought was to assume she was promiscuous. I'm not proud of myself. But who lets a child (A CHILD!!!!!!!!) dress that way? I don't subscribe to the belief that girls can "ask for it" with their clothing. We all know rape is more about power and opportunity than a woman's clothing. But if my first thought was that she was looking to capitalize off her body...what are the opportunists thinking?
Sight 2 was the lady who was carrying a sign that said "KILL EM', CRUSH EM. GO *insert mascot here*." She had a Jesus fish on her car. Which book in the Bible commands Christ's disciples to advocate the violent, public injury of a minor child who happens to be wearing the wrong team colors? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? It's very possible. It was just one of those moments where I had to chuckle at the absurdity of the scene before me.
500 posts! I can't believe it. There are times when it seems like I'm still new at this. I'm amazed by the support I have received in keeping this blog active. Even after a break, my readership is in the range of 4,000 unique readers per day and that just seems impossible to me. Thank you for sticking with me.
This blog has been a mixed blessing. I have made wonderful friends who I wouldn't have known otherwise. I have a voice in a community of people I respect and admire. If I can give back to that community in any way, I am happy to do it. The negative consequences have been dwarfed by the positives. I think of some of you like family. Talking on the phone and growing friendships outside of the blog has been so much fun.
I want to thank you for being here through good times and bad times.
This blog has been a mixed blessing. I have made wonderful friends who I wouldn't have known otherwise. I have a voice in a community of people I respect and admire. If I can give back to that community in any way, I am happy to do it. The negative consequences have been dwarfed by the positives. I think of some of you like family. Talking on the phone and growing friendships outside of the blog has been so much fun.
I want to thank you for being here through good times and bad times.
In my last post about Proposition 8, a man named Ian wrote in. You can read his comment here. My response follows in that thread. Ian writes again.
Ian said...
Should've been clearer I think - I am totally,
and utterly against any restrictions on marriage between two people of the same
gender. The comment about pushing buttons was on the incest thing, which it
seems like you follow.The sex as a reason to disallow sibling marriage doesn't
wash totally for me... there are plenty of pairs of parents with deletarious
gene combinations or nasty diseases. We're okay them having sex (trusting
they'll take genetic counselling in the first place, or use adequate protection
in the second).Logically it seems to me that we've left the 'sex is about
procreation' thing in the 60s, but haven't adjusted to all the implications.I've
got the gut reaction thing on incest: eww. But like your post, it is always good
to try to confront 'gut reactions' I think, and work out why...
Ian and I agree that restrictions on same sex marriage are, to put it succinctly, wrong. Still I'd like to touch on some things he's said.
The comment about pushing buttons was on the incest thing, which it seems like
you follow.
I'm follow you, but maybe I can explain a few things or provide you a few new things to consider?
The sex as a reason to disallow sibling marriage doesn't wash totally for me...
there are plenty of pairs of parents with deleterious gene combinations or nasty
diseases.
I can see your point. I, due to my work with polygamy, have had a larger experience than most dealing with incest and forced marriage.
Sure...there are random couplings which, by seemingly random means, pair two people with genes which cause genetic illnesses. However, it's possible that those pairings are not as random as we believe (in terms of genetic similarity). The "high school sweetheart" thing is a good example. It is not unlikely for one geographic area to have populations in which there are many related individuals. While not immediately related, you'd be surprised how true the six degrees of separation theory is. My family is a good example. My mom had eight sisters. Her mom had a dozen. On my maternal side, I have a shit load of cousins. Most of them grew up within forty miles of one another. In the area my maternal lineage stems from, there are small towns with parishes of people who are born, live, marry, take sacraments, and die as part of the community. It's not hard to believe that distantly related people may, in those cases, have a higher chance of coming together in a sexual manner. High school sweethearts who were born and raised in the same town may be distantly related. Unfortunately, that raises the chance that they share a common ancestor and carry similar genetic codes (including codes for recessive diseases). This bears out scientifically as we see pockets of certain genetic illnesses in open and closed communities. Thus, while you're correct in genetic defects occurring in non-incestuous relationships (technically), I would argue that there could be issues where couples may have a common genetic link that's so far back they don't know they share a common ancestor. Siblings, however, would know that there's a link and their chances of hitting the genetic Whammy are higher than a randomly matched couple. Most of the genetic malformations we carry code for can lay dominant for multiple generations. In fact, that's why they happen. People don't, in normal circumstances, enter into a relationship knowing that both of them carry a bad gene. Nasty diseases happen, but by allowing a stagnant gene pool, you raise the odds considerably and that's reason enough to limit incestuous marriages. Wouldn't you agree?
I do admit that there's a potential problem saying that. If we limit incestuous marriages based on this risk, then it could be argued that we should limit people with, say, the same sort of dwarfism from marrying (as their risk is higher). The Roloff Family, on TLC's "Little People Big World" may be a good example (although, they have different types of dwarfism). They knew going in that their children had a 25% chance of getting the father's dwarfism and a (I think) 50% chance of getting mom's form. I don't know if that's morally defensible to enter a relationship knowing that you've put your child in that risk group. On the other hand, it could be argued that living with another little person is a good pairing because you understand the challenges your spouse is dealing with and there's a kinship in mutual obstacles. That's possibly the undoing of my position and I'll admit that. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite.
We're okay them having sex (trusting they'll take genetic counselling in the first place, or use adequate protection in the second).
Maybe or maybe not. My aversion to siblings having sex isn't just related to the genetic problems that would be more likely. I think it's also dangerous to live such a removed and cloistered life. There are different sorts of love. I don't know that a marriage could be emotionally viable if you married someone for whom you'd shared a sibling bond with and love as a sibling. I'm sure there are examples that prove my theory wrong, though. I just know that I love my brother different than I love my husband. I think it's healthy for people to experience different sorts of emotional bonds. There are the bonds we're born with and the bonds we choose. Part of courtship and marriage is getting to know your spouse and working on empathy and sympathy for other experiences/perspectives. Sibs who share a childhood may share too many things to have a mentally health marriage. Does that stand logically or am I off?
I just don't think you can compare incest and homosexuality.
Those opposing gay marriage normally do so because they cling to a biblical passage about a man and woman leaving their homes to become one (even though that's a questionable translation). They'll also oppose it because they see sex as purely reproductive. Both are problematic.
Terra said...
PMomma,I'd be interested to hear your story about understanding gay rights. I had always thought myself pretty tolerant or accepting or whatever you want to call it and then had a powerful experience of my own that showed me that I not only needed to be accepting but that I also needed to stand up at every opportunity. It sounds like you've had a similar story and I'd love to hear it, if you think it'd be interesting to your readers and if you feel comfortable sharing.
I'm comfortable sharing so long as people understand that this is a reflection on past feelings and I've come a long way.
Growing up Catholic, I was taught that homosexuality was an abomination. In high school, I had friends who bounced back-and-forth between gay and straight. In hindsight, I wonder if they were bi-sexual or conflicted about their sexuality. In any case, those early experiences left me with the belief that homosexuality was a choice (instead of a innate).
Like most people, the older I got, the broader my experience got. In college, I became very good friends with a lesbian. She was very "out". Unfortunately, she wasn't a very nice person. I hate to admit it, but I was prejudice and measured every future gay person I met by her for years. That was wrong of me. She could have been straight and would've been just as big of a bitch.
About six years ago, a series of events collided in my life that gave me a new perspective. The first being an old and dear friend (Nate) who came out. In getting to know him as a gay person, I realized that his life was full of dangers and problems that I didn't face. He worried about things I never thought to worry about. Then, I met Amy. Amy was very young but very wise. She's an old soul. In a livejournal conversation, the topic of gay marriage came up and I said that I wasn't sure it was something I agreed with. Over the course of the discussion, I realized that I was pretty ignorant about the issue and had formed an opinion for no good reason. I was basing my opinion on the old Catholic belief that marriage was sacred and, in short, I'd never challenged myself on that notion because no one had ever asked me to. When Amy asked me why I thought a hetero marriage was more sanctified than a homosexual marriage, I couldn't answer her. It just "was". As I thought about it, I realized that was a stupid justification. I started thinking about my Catholic, hetero marriage that failed. Certainly, getting married in the Church hadn't made my marriage impervious or stronger than any other marriage.
About six months later, Nate found his soul mate. A year after that, Nate's love was injured in a car accident. When Nate got to the hospital, he was denied access by his sig. other's family. It was horrible. He was distraught. Anyone with a heart could see how devastating it was for him to be left out of the loop regarding this person that he loved so deeply and completely. Luckily, his SO recovered and they've since formalized their union. Still,...knowing that the doctor was willing to tell the SO's female friend everything, while banishing Nate from the room and withholding information, highlighted just how unfair the situation was.
The topic came up again and I asked Amy to help me figure out what I really thought about it. She did. She was very good at getting down to the marrow of my issue and helping me see it in a more logical fashion. She and her wife have shown me that they're every bit as "married" as Mike and I. They have the similar problems and goals. There's really no difference. It occurred to me that removing the sexuality from the issue was critical to understanding it. Marriages aren't based on sex. That's part of it, of course, but not nearly the biggest part of it. Marriage is about compassion, love, a balance of selflessness and healthy selfishness, understanding...all these things that have nothing to do with what's between someones legs. The people opposing gay marriage are concentrating on the wrong issue (in my opinion). Instead of concentrating on how strong the relationship is, they're busy worrying about the sex organs and sex life of two people. Why? How is that right?
Two people who decide to make a life together (raise a family, plan a future, be a team) should be allowed to attempt it. As long as no one has undue power or influence, why should we stop love? As long as we're dealing with adults, then who are we to prevent the basic right to love? We need to take sex and gender out of it.
In addition, P1 pointed out that a huge percentage of African Americans in our county voted YES on Prop 8. I was kind of lost as to what her point was for a moment. She clarified it by telling me she thought it was ironic that the same people who were rooting for change, and the societal acceptance of a black president, and progression were likely checking a box that took freedoms from someone else who has been marginalized in this society. Any doubts I've had about her maturity and intelligence are now put to rest. She gets it. She's right. Patting ourselves on the back for voting in Obama ("look how progressive we are!") looks hypocritical when we couldn't progress in securing rights for another minority.
PMomma,I'd be interested to hear your story about understanding gay rights. I had always thought myself pretty tolerant or accepting or whatever you want to call it and then had a powerful experience of my own that showed me that I not only needed to be accepting but that I also needed to stand up at every opportunity. It sounds like you've had a similar story and I'd love to hear it, if you think it'd be interesting to your readers and if you feel comfortable sharing.
I'm comfortable sharing so long as people understand that this is a reflection on past feelings and I've come a long way.
Growing up Catholic, I was taught that homosexuality was an abomination. In high school, I had friends who bounced back-and-forth between gay and straight. In hindsight, I wonder if they were bi-sexual or conflicted about their sexuality. In any case, those early experiences left me with the belief that homosexuality was a choice (instead of a innate).
Like most people, the older I got, the broader my experience got. In college, I became very good friends with a lesbian. She was very "out". Unfortunately, she wasn't a very nice person. I hate to admit it, but I was prejudice and measured every future gay person I met by her for years. That was wrong of me. She could have been straight and would've been just as big of a bitch.
About six years ago, a series of events collided in my life that gave me a new perspective. The first being an old and dear friend (Nate) who came out. In getting to know him as a gay person, I realized that his life was full of dangers and problems that I didn't face. He worried about things I never thought to worry about. Then, I met Amy. Amy was very young but very wise. She's an old soul. In a livejournal conversation, the topic of gay marriage came up and I said that I wasn't sure it was something I agreed with. Over the course of the discussion, I realized that I was pretty ignorant about the issue and had formed an opinion for no good reason. I was basing my opinion on the old Catholic belief that marriage was sacred and, in short, I'd never challenged myself on that notion because no one had ever asked me to. When Amy asked me why I thought a hetero marriage was more sanctified than a homosexual marriage, I couldn't answer her. It just "was". As I thought about it, I realized that was a stupid justification. I started thinking about my Catholic, hetero marriage that failed. Certainly, getting married in the Church hadn't made my marriage impervious or stronger than any other marriage.
About six months later, Nate found his soul mate. A year after that, Nate's love was injured in a car accident. When Nate got to the hospital, he was denied access by his sig. other's family. It was horrible. He was distraught. Anyone with a heart could see how devastating it was for him to be left out of the loop regarding this person that he loved so deeply and completely. Luckily, his SO recovered and they've since formalized their union. Still,...knowing that the doctor was willing to tell the SO's female friend everything, while banishing Nate from the room and withholding information, highlighted just how unfair the situation was.
The topic came up again and I asked Amy to help me figure out what I really thought about it. She did. She was very good at getting down to the marrow of my issue and helping me see it in a more logical fashion. She and her wife have shown me that they're every bit as "married" as Mike and I. They have the similar problems and goals. There's really no difference. It occurred to me that removing the sexuality from the issue was critical to understanding it. Marriages aren't based on sex. That's part of it, of course, but not nearly the biggest part of it. Marriage is about compassion, love, a balance of selflessness and healthy selfishness, understanding...all these things that have nothing to do with what's between someones legs. The people opposing gay marriage are concentrating on the wrong issue (in my opinion). Instead of concentrating on how strong the relationship is, they're busy worrying about the sex organs and sex life of two people. Why? How is that right?
Two people who decide to make a life together (raise a family, plan a future, be a team) should be allowed to attempt it. As long as no one has undue power or influence, why should we stop love? As long as we're dealing with adults, then who are we to prevent the basic right to love? We need to take sex and gender out of it.
In addition, P1 pointed out that a huge percentage of African Americans in our county voted YES on Prop 8. I was kind of lost as to what her point was for a moment. She clarified it by telling me she thought it was ironic that the same people who were rooting for change, and the societal acceptance of a black president, and progression were likely checking a box that took freedoms from someone else who has been marginalized in this society. Any doubts I've had about her maturity and intelligence are now put to rest. She gets it. She's right. Patting ourselves on the back for voting in Obama ("look how progressive we are!") looks hypocritical when we couldn't progress in securing rights for another minority.
I'm excited about Obama's win. There were times, last night, when my heart would flutter and I'd get chills up my spine. When I was five or six, I remember going to vote with my dad. I asked him if women could be president and he told me that they "could" but that no one would vote for them. It pissed me off then and pisses me off now. But, he was wrong. I truly believe we're past that sort of crap and Obama's nomination is evidence of this forward movement. It's not trite saying any longer - anyone can be president!
I was disappointed about Prop 8. I used to be on the fence about gay marriage. My friend, Amy, can testify to my confusion about the issue. She was very patient with me and helped me understand what I previously didn't understand and I'm grateful for her presence in my life. I didn't think Prop 8 would pass. I was hoping it wouldn't. When I learned that it passed, I felt terrible about it. Today, though, I have a bit of hope. The vote was almost fifty-fifty. It was so close. I think it was 52 Yes to 48 No. That's a good sign. Almost half of the people in this state (who voted) were okay with letting people love who they love. I'm sad it passed, but I have hope that the next generation will make this a non-issue. P1 wrote "NO on H8" on her hand with a Sharpee on Tuesday. She said she got some flack for it. I had to remind her where we live. LOL I'm proud of her for having the courage to do that despite our environment.
I want to thank everyone for their support over the last month. Without a few of you, and you know who you are, I don't know if I would've come back to blog. It took me a while to realize that it didn't matter if other blogs or people on the net told lies about me and my family - what matters is that I know the truth. I know that people who have taken the time to get to know me in real life know who I am and what my motivations have been. Thank you for understanding.
I'm not going to say more than that. As far as I'm concerned, most of the accusations lobbed at me don't deserve responses. I plan to get back to my regular posting topics. I will be moderating comments for the foreseeable future. I'll be sending an e-mail to Berlie and Sean explaining the guidelines. I would love to hear how everyone is doing! I have missed you all.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription